So are we supposed to be cringing at you?
lol weapons are so cringe
real men strut around like peacocks and cringe at weapons
>>31522197
No weapon signs make me cringe.
>>31522219
FPBP
>>31522351
What is the tab on the back do other than block the sights?
>>31522351
what
>>31522351
if it looks stupid, but it works, it's not stupid.
>>31522362
Allows yee of tender hands to engage the safety
>>31522362
>>31522388
It's a peep sight you retards, and it would never work reliably
>>31522373
And when it's stupid and doesn't work it's idiotic
>>31522351
I think it could work!
>>31522388
Thank you
>>31522415
Fuck you prick
>>31524076
Statistically speaking your kids are an order of magnitude more likley to hurt by the teachers than a school shooter.
>>31524393
Well they're also around teachers way more often.
Kinda like how dogs kill way more people than sharks, but you wouldn't say a dog is more dangerous than a shark.
>>31522491
God damnit Nick, no it fucking wouldn't. It's not friday, go back to stuffing fucking Carrots.
God damn.
>>31522197
I cringe at CTR shills that post outside of /pol/.
>>31524596
By that very definition dogs are objectivley more dangerous than sharks.
Just like how cars, tobbacco, and alchohol are all each more deadly than guns.
And how parents are a bigger threat to their own kids than a shooting.
Its all about whats flashier on the news.
The fact teachers, parents, and family pets will combined fatally or severeley injure thousands of kids this year will go totally over looked.
Like the fact that 3,500 kids will drown in bathtubs this year and 200 will be shot in negligent discharges or gun accidents.
Using logic one would suggest that if we really cared about children we would be more concerned with bathtubs, but its not flashy and scary like a gun accident for the PSA artists.
>>31524596
No shit dogs are more dangerous than sharks. Jesus what a terrible metaphor.
>>31525472
I love to pet my shark he's so nice.
>>31526751
>Confusing the maximum damage with most dangerous
Yes, a shark is more capable of causing damage, but is quite literally exponentially less likley to ever do so.
A dog, whilst not being a 30 foot predator capable of disembowling you in one strike, is still capable of causing death, and exponentially far more likley to do so.
Its like saying lightning bolts are more dangerous than bee stings. Technically true in the sense of sheer devastating damage resulting in a direct lightning strike, however dying from an allergic reaction to a bee sting is astronomically more likley than being struck by lightning.
Therefore an insect that weighs 5 grams is by definition, more dangerous than a billion volt lightning strike.
TL;DR max damage does not equal max danger. Max PROBABILITY equals max danger.
>>31522197
How is this cringe? Because all i see is a sensible way to protect children on the right, and a way to get them killed on the left
this entire NRA publication was packed to the brim with cringe
>>31522351
That weld on the bolt looks like shit. I take it you did it?
>ITT
>We misuse the word cringe
My my, it's the weekend already.
>>31530256
Illegal aliens built the pyramids, then Trumphotep II kicked them out, and they became the original African Hebrew Israelites.
>>31525027
>By that very definition dogs are objectivley more dangerous than sharks.
No, they're not, you fucking retard. Would you rather be in a room with a dog or swim with a shark? Do you not understand statistics at all? Do you know so little that you can't figure out why such things as risks are evaluated as percentages, not absolutes?
>>31528961
More people survive bee stings without serious consequence than survive lightning strikes without serious consequence.