Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 153
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted

Just highlights how F....d Up the gun laws are in the USA.

The fact that you can gift somebody a firearm is beyond any logical reasoning.

It’s easy to buy a weapon in Texas

After providing the background information required by Federal law for licensed gun dealers, he asked the salesperson if they needed to have Armstrong’s information, too. “No,” he was told. “In the state of Texas, you can gift someone a gun.”

 

 

Posted
10 hours ago, Fred van Vlaanderen said:

I hate it when people do this…

D5B4C947-8271-4935-B1EB-DF9FCFB904BB.jpeg.2fe1623e16b7a2ab5d8845dec7c33db5.jpeg

They are not intended to cause additional harm inside the body. They are intended to limit the possible injury to unintended targets. A bit of sensationalism.

Huh ? can you elaborate I thought they worked the same as a hollow point 

Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, madmarc said:

Huh ? can you elaborate I thought they worked the same as a hollow point 

They are hollow points essentially.  

A hollow point is designed to expand on impact to slow down the trajectory of the bullet. In doing so, they travel through intended objects less often than other ammunition. Making them safer in self defense situations. And that is the reason people who intend to use firearms carry hollow point bullets. Not to cause more bodily harm. (the fact that they do is a byproduct of the attempt to make them safer) 

As I mentioned, it is a probably a petty criticism, but I get irritated when people take this kind of view to emphasize the intention to kill or to hurt someone. i.e. the writer creates the view that Armstrong and Strickland purchased the bullets because of their ability to cause additional body harm. If you buy a firearm and intend to use it, then you intend to kill. I doubt that they chose those bullets because they cause more damage. People choose hollow points because they are safer to use.

Edited by Fred van Vlaanderen
Added part in brackets
Posted (edited)
56 minutes ago, FondTF2 said:

Just highlights how F....d Up the gun laws are in the USA.

The fact that you can gift somebody a firearm is beyond any logical reasoning.

It’s easy to buy a weapon in Texas

After providing the background information required by Federal law for licensed gun dealers, he asked the salesperson if they needed to have Armstrong’s information, too. “No,” he was told. “In the state of Texas, you can gift someone a gun.”

 

 

Gun laws in America are ridiculous beyond comprehension.

Edited by Fred van Vlaanderen
Fixed it for Jewbacca :)
Posted
28 minutes ago, Fred van Vlaanderen said:

Gun laws in America ARE ridiculous beyond comprehension.

If we are being petty.... 😝

I think this is a case of chicken egg... Sometimes the by-product becomes the product. 

While you're not wrong, we don't actually know why they bought those. The reason you state or the reason the journo states.

Neither are 'incorrect'. 

We just don't know. id the salesman sell them as safer? Did he sell them as more brutal? Did they buy them after the fact for either of the above?

Do gun salesmen in America even know that they are safer? 

 

Posted
2 minutes ago, Jewbacca said:

If we are being petty.... 😝

I think this is a case of chicken egg... Sometimes the by-product becomes the product. 

While you're not wrong, we don't actually know why they bought those. The reason you state or the reason the journo states.

Neither are 'incorrect'. 

We just don't know. id the salesman sell them as safer? Did he sell them as more brutal? Did they buy them after the fact for either of the above?

Do gun salesmen in America even know that they are safer? 

 

Valid points.

Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Danger Dassie said:

Pure trash. Can only imagine how friends and family feel having everything dredged up again. 
And JAG rounds are absolutely intended to cause more damage to the body, by default an increase in stopping power. 

Are you referring to the article as trash? I must admit I felt all the talk of fireflies at dusk and water dripping off thick brown hair made it read a bit more like "The bridges of Madison county" than anything that resembled journalism.

Edited by NickGM
typo
Posted

The article is trash, I agree. It's not journalism, but a very one-sided "tragi-porn" puff piece by someone clearly trying to put his buddy in a better light and absolve him of some of the guilt. By many other accounts, Strickland seems to be a callous serial heart-breaker who has left many angry women in his wake. 

Posted
53 minutes ago, J Wakefield said:

For me this is a terrible article. But Outside level of quality has been on a downward slope as of recent so not to surprising.

Outside owns Cyclingtips which also ran this piece. They fired most of the senior staff there and most of the the rest have left too, so the site is decimated. The founder of Cyclingtips, Wade Wallace, distanced himself from the Mo Wilson piece on Twitter saying that an article like this would never have been run on his watch. Very sad what Outside is doing to cycling journalism. 

But there is a Phoenix rising from the ashes :) - the ex Editor in chief of Cycling tips, Caley Fretz is starting a new publication together with Wade Wallace. Caley has a new podcast "The Placeholder" which is well worth listening to. 

Posted
3 minutes ago, openmind said:

Outside owns Cyclingtips which also ran this piece. They fired most of the senior staff there and most of the the rest have left too, so the site is decimated. The founder of Cyclingtips, Wade Wallace, distanced himself from the Mo Wilson piece on Twitter saying that an article like this would never have been run on his watch. Very sad what Outside is doing to cycling journalism. 

But there is a Phoenix rising from the ashes :) - the ex Editor in chief of Cycling tips, Caley Fretz is starting a new publication together with Wade Wallace. Caley has a new podcast "The Placeholder" which is well worth listening to. 

Thanks for the info, this makes a lot of sense seeing the downward trajectory of the site and quality. I agree that this piece should never of been run, for me its anything but quality and a load of total ****. 

But that's me. 

Posted
10 minutes ago, openmind said:

The article is trash, I agree. It's not journalism, but a very one-sided "tragi-porn" puff piece by someone clearly trying to put his buddy in a better light and absolve him of some of the guilt. By many other accounts, Strickland seems to be a callous serial heart-breaker who has left many angry women in his wake. 

Sometimes the whole "hippy" outside persona is simply that - a persona. You hear from people who have validity in this, that what you see is not actually what is real in terms of personalities here. 

Bottom line is it was a senseless murder that should never of happened. Hope they throw the key away and everyone is taken to task while they take this article down. 

Posted
23 minutes ago, openmind said:

The article is trash, I agree. It's not journalism, but a very one-sided "tragi-porn" puff piece by someone clearly trying to put his buddy in a better light and absolve him of some of the guilt. By many other accounts, Strickland seems to be a callous serial heart-breaker who has left many angry women in his wake. 

Perfectly put.  
This is what I wanted to say about the jibirish they wrote but my boertjie English was not up to the task.

Well said.

Posted
35 minutes ago, openmind said:

Outside owns Cyclingtips which also ran this piece. They fired most of the senior staff there and most of the the rest have left too, so the site is decimated. The founder of Cyclingtips, Wade Wallace, distanced himself from the Mo Wilson piece on Twitter saying that an article like this would never have been run on his watch. Very sad what Outside is doing to cycling journalism. 

But there is a Phoenix rising from the ashes :) - the ex Editor in chief of Cycling tips, Caley Fretz is starting a new publication together with Wade Wallace. Caley has a new podcast "The Placeholder" which is well worth listening to. 

I am following their new trajectory with interest.

Posted

Interesting, I thought it was quite well written. Perhaps the audience here might not be Outside's readership (which is sort of a compliment). But given Outside's readership, I though the author included the type of information and style which they would enjoy reading. To me it had the hallmarks of a short story crime novel.

Wouldn't be surprised to see it on Netflix after the trial. 

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Settings My Forum Content My Followed Content Forum Settings Ad Messages My Ads My Favourites My Saved Alerts My Pay Deals Help Logout