What gun did he use, Jow Forums?

wtf is "orbit"

a term self-centricists use to reaffirm their belief that the universe revolves around them. Note its high usage on social media sites that allow users to show their daily meals and to voice every single opinion they have ever had in their mind.

>thot thinking anyone would orbit her
imagine being so attention deprived you make it look like a shooter was into you

God Bless this man.

Attached: 1407740002481.gif (269x287, 878K)

>Jow Forums actually did operation backlash
Holy shit

Same use as in the phrase "beta orbiter".

Are you sure this is the same guy? He used his real name on the only accounts I've seen of him so far.

Man who interacts with a woman he isn't in the same league with. Women picks up on why he keeps trying to latch on to her socially and she calls him an "orbiter". Most hot chicks have tons of orbiters, usually classified under "male friends" or "male associates".

Attached: gay best friend who isn't gay.jpg (480x389, 50K)

Are you pretending he wasn't? He wanted that pussy baaaaaaaaaaaaaad.

10/10. I guess this was inevitable, anime autists getting political.

Why is a 48 year old man speaking like this?

The power of the internet.

>self-centrists
What? I don't think "beta orbiter" was coined by women. It was created to insult bitchbois that orbit women, and it has nothing to do with the universe revolving around them.

Attached: 906de39e99962fc5f8979b3335fbecdf.png (903x952, 315K)

35 to 40 year old men are in a state where they desperately want to try and blend in with the youth culture that they aren't a part of. They do this by following youth social media accounts in the hopes they can adopt the lingo and blend in. Its a nationwide phenomena.

Attached: urban male.png (432x385, 296K)

It's surreal. This timeline is crazy.

LOL incel. Fucking cope.

>8 dead in random building in 3rd largest country in the world.
>omg so crazy

You are easily fascinated.

>screw your optics I'm going in.

>zero clue about context and nuance
Ok NPC.

Look at Phil on here

He still uses emotes in his forties like a fucking teenager because he never learned how to make friends with his own peer group.

Women get men trying to gravitate and rotate their entire life around her. They're not a real part of her life like a boyfriend or husband but they still stick around providing for them often in the hopes they'll get his turn to date her eventually.

>TFW 37 year old male who learns lingo from rap lyrics

Actual boomers in your midst

Attached: man with bright pants in hopes of getting attention.jpg (426x640, 46K)

Vast majority of "mass" shootings involve gang violence and the cheap handguns gangbangers favor. Try again.

>kike media says there's like 20 mass shootings a week
>Jow Forums says this isn't the case because drug dealers shooting eachother shouldn't count as a "mass shooting" just because it resulted in 3 injuries
>someone says ARs are used in most mass shootings
>suddenly drug dealers in Chicago count as mass shooters again
Dat cognitive dissonance tho.

You call those bright pants? Get fucking real.

Attached: BRIGHT.jpg (387x451, 24K)

why does he look so weird? is it his hips being wide as fuck?

dude was a fucking boomer Jow Forumsack who overdosed on redpills and took memes way too seriously.

>everybody is the same person

It's the cut, although I don't know why anyone would wear it.

Attached: image-15.jpg (1024x1024, 50K)

So everyone on Jow Forums then?

Go count how many murders involve niggers shooting other niggers and get back to me.

Attached: homicides by race 2014.png (951x921, 84K)

And he still can't shoot a magnum handgun or rifle.

Yes or no question: Do you believe that every shooting with 4 or more injuries qualifies as a mass shooting?
shootingtracker.com/

If that's how you define it, then that's what it means. The definition is arbitrary. It could just as well be defined as 3 or more, or 5 or more.

>if i can make them define mass shootings as what i want, they'll suddenly want guns banned!
Leftism is a mental illness.

You didn't answer the question.

>frequent Jow Forums and Jow Forums user was a weeb lolicon
who woulda thunkit

Attached: 6278477.gif (336x244, 61K)

GSG or jury rigged garage made mp40.

I did answer the question. If you define "mass shooting" to be three or more injured, then that's what it means. I don't have an issue with that.

Consider my answer "yes", now let's proceed with the discussion. Presumably you're about to ask me if a Chicago gang-banger shooting three or more people is also a mass shooting.

Implying there is a difference.

You're the only that mental here. I don't want to ban shit. I just get pissed off when Jow Forumsommandos use retarded debate tactics. Everyone here needs to learn how to hold their own in an argument without resorting to insults, otherwise you'll get steamrolled the first time you encounter a halfway intelligent gungrabber IRL.
What I'm demonstrating here is that you can't have things both ways. If you insist that the most common "mass shooting" weapon is a cheap 9mm then you are conceding that mass shootings are very common events in the US. You simply paint yourself into a corner and wind up looking like a twit.

>If you define "mass shooting" to be three or more injured, then that's what it means.
This is an incredibly foolish line of thinking. The person that controls the language used in a discussion has a great degree of control over the discussion itself. Why do you think that grabbers constantly try to push their own definitions and terms like "assault weapon" and other bullshit like that?

>Presumably you're about to ask me if a Chicago gang-banger shooting three or more people is also a mass shooting.
I don't need to ask that question because your concession is a defacto agreement that Chicago has mass shootings on a regular basis.
See why definitions are important?

>This is an incredibly foolish line of thinking.
It's correct though.

If you define "assault weapon" to mean any gun you think is scary, that's what it means.

>It's correct though
No it isn't. People do not get to create new definitions on the fly, and you will consistently lose arguments if you allow them to do so.

My compliance is not necessary for the term to be defined however gungrabbers want it to be defined. I can rage against their definition futile, or I can choose to make an actual argument:

Not all murders are equally harmful to society. When gangbangers murder other gangbangers, that is not as serious a problem as when somebody murders innocent people. Instead of arguing about arbitrary definitions, you should be questioning the basic moral premises upon which their arguments are based. Chicago gangbanger "mass shootings", regardless of your preferred terminology or definitions, are not adequate reason to infringe on the 2A.

There is no mental gymnastics in the above argument. I don't sometimes argue that gangbangers shooting each other are mass shootings and in other contexts argue the opposite. I argue that no matter what you call it, I don't care that it happens.

(And the practical fact of the matter is that according to mainstream anti-gun definitions of "mass shooting", most mass shootings do not involve rifles.)

>If you insist that the most common "mass shooting" weapon is a cheap 9mm then you are conceding that mass shootings are very common events in the US.

Total non-sequiteur

his back being smaller than his hips is whats bothering you.

Wow great explanation retard

>If you insist that the most common "mass shooting" weapon is a cheap 9mm then you are conceding that mass shootings are very common events in the US.
So? The murder rate in America is what it is. Most of the people getting shot at are people I don't care about, and neither should you. Most "mass shootings" are ghetto thug drug deals gone wrong, and that's why I don't care how many "mass shootings" America has.

You're never going to convince anti-gunners that the murder rate in America is lower than it is. So you should take the intellectually honest approach of explaining to them why the murder rate doesn't matter.

You don't know what "beta orbiter" means?

>rage against their definition
Stating that you do not accept their definition because of X, Y, and Z is not "raging" and failing to make that statement only makes your position look weaker.

>the rest
I agree with you for the most part. My problem is with the people that try to change things on the fly as it suits them.

Please try to keep up with the discussion.

If you tell them that you reject their definition of "mass shooting", then what alternate definition do you propose?

>"it's only a mass shooting if the victims aren't criminals"
something like that?

>My problem is with the people that try to change things on the fly as it suits them.
As explained, nobody here is changing anything on the fly. You were raging against a straw man of your own construction.

>then what alternate definition do you propose?
That would be entirely up to you.

>You were raging against a straw man of your own construction.
No. I was arguing with who was doing exactly what I said. He was trying to have his cake and eat it too.

>OP's question still not answered

Statistics can be refuted you know; studies are peer reviewed for a reason an you are allowed object to the methodology with which the study was conducted. If a mass shooting study includes gangland shootouts one can argue that it is a disingenuous figure for debating the mainstream narrative of what constitutes a "mass shooting".

>That would be entirely up to you.
And then they respond that they think the "three or more injured" definition is fine. What do you say then?

>No. I was arguing with (You)
I never changed the definition of mass shooting to suite my own needs. You asserted that pro-gun people change the definition depending on the context, redefining it to exclude or include chicago gangbangers depending on what the conversation is about. I never did that, and I have never done that. If the definition is three or more injured, then "mass shooting count" isn't a statistic I care about because I don't give a shit if Chicago gangbangers shoot each other.

Attached: Screen Shot 2018-10-27 at 4.32.59 PM.png (266x114, 27K)

SCREW

probably a 5 shot mossman or remshit since no one is bringing up "ebil fully semi-automatics"

Attached: 1537472954319.gif (382x554, 2.57M)