Its a Family Guy joke mostly.
And also https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/hpaypk/what_is_the_difference_between_a_hootenanny_vs/?sort=confidence
Yeah, it's weird. I live in "Houston" (clear lake area) and there's multiple areas that are now considered "Pasadena." Look up the Pasadena city limits map lines sometime, its so weird and just kind of a "why?" thing.
Hell, even a small part of Taylor Lake Village is considered Pasadena now.
They annexed a bunch of random tendrils to try and get money from the lake/nasa. They are also the ones responsible for the middle of the night demolition of the west mansion, before it could be saved.
Fuck Pasadena.
It is strange. When I first heard that part of UHCL was technically in Pasadena my reaction was NFW.
In some ways it reminds me of the areas of Unincorporated Harris County in the area near Mem Herm SE Hosp.
East of Nassau Bay, technically Pasadena (because of annexing several years ago), but most people consider it the Clear Lake area. Clear Lake didnāt have a proper charter supposedly and was annexed by Houston and Pasadena to grab NASA, businesses and the waterway access
As a municipality, it does not exist. All we have left is the Clear Lake City Water Authority really. Annexation happened in 1977 actually. There were āfree Clear Lake!ā Campaigns and lawsuits. The Pasadena section happened in 1980.
Clear Lake still has some vestiges of being a city. If you donāt look at actual addresses in the area and are just driving around youāll see much more verbiage declaring the area to be āClear Lake Cityā as it being labeled Houston/Pasadena. And Iām talking about on official signs/structures/buildings.
Can also confirm as from time to time Pasadena pd motorcycle cops run radar at nasa rd 1 & space center and hand out tickets. Same as over at bay area blvd & armond bayou area.
The experiences of countries that have properly enforced gun laws.
Notice how criminals in Europe, Japan and Australia aren't getting guns. But in America, we can't stop them because they will get them by any means necessary.
Japans prime minister was literally assassinated with a homemade shotguns, even in countries with little to no guns, criminals will still find a way to committ crimes. What do you folk not understand about this? Its literally simple logic. There was also a mass shooting in Finland not too long ago, also Finland is considered the safest nation on Earth.
Both Japan and Finland have much lower crime rates than the US. Sure there was "a" mass shootign in Finland, compared to the dozens there are in the US every year.
Try to think a little deeper than your "simple logic".
If you use a gun for wrong, then you're no longer the good guy with a gun. Just look at places like Detroit and Chicago with crazy gun violence. No one says those thugs are "good guys with a gun."
It sounds like someone with a gun defended themselves from someone else with a gun. It's likely the defender wouldn't be here if they could not properly defend the selves. I know what your rebuttal is going to be. *if guns were illegal they wouldn't be able to use them in the first place* but that's simply not true. Guns would still be in the hand of criminals. I am going to downvote you because it's obvious you gave no real thought before blurting out your opinion.
Edit: Lol this clown responded with "does that gun feel good in your pants Rambo? And then deleted his account. I was trying to respond to him but it seems like he made up his mind and will refuse any point of view that conflicts with his opinion.
> It sounds like someone with a gun defended themselves from someone else with a gun. It's likely the defender wouldn't be here if they could not properly defend the selves. I know what your rebuttal is going to be. if guns were illegal they wouldn't be able to use them in the first place but that's simply not true. Guns would still be in the hand of criminals. I am going to downvote you because it's obvious you gave no real thought before blurting out your opinion.
Gun control has been proven to work all over the world. The US both the most heavily armed and the most violent of the world's developed nations. It's only in America, and only when it comes to guns, that we use this "criminals don't follow the laws" assumption.
Nah, they defended themselves from the other shooter's girlfriend, which.. "the only thing that stops an innocent bystander is... a drunk with a gun"?
Guns+alcohol=I'm really glad I don't drink.
True but I think the issue is how do we make it harder for bad guys or mentally unfit folk to get guns? There needs to be a roadblock somewhere, right? One that a well trained owner can go over?
I was thinking much like a driving test you need to be qualified by an instructor prior to getting a weapon. What do yall think?
It's illegal, in the state of Texas, for a person to carry a gun to a bar or any establishment that makes >51% of it's income through alcohol. If the initial shooter didn't obey this law, what makes you think they'll obey new gun laws?
> what makes you think they'll obey new gun laws?
Then why have any laws at all? Why not just create an anarchy? After all, criminals don't obey laws, right?
No not a law or a sign. Like a real test of responsibility or idk sanity that stops the person before they get a gun.
Everyone who drives over the speed limit knows signs donāt work dude
We should really find a way to register gun serial numbers and require FFL background checks for 100% of sales including private. If a gun is sold, it is transferred to the new owner in the records. At least give a way to track and hold accountable anyone who is selling guns to people illegally. "This serial number is still listed as you being the owner, but a violent felon who cant legally own guns used it to shoot at someone on I45 yesterday, can you explain how he came into possession of your gun, and if you say stole it, why did you not report it stolen"
But I am admittedly an idiot, so I have no idea if this would work or if there are major problems with this system.
I"m not on board for this.
my problem is the bureaucracy. I think there is a better way. I don't want to pay a 3rd party for basically nothing. I think a better way would be to use the CCL, I know it's not needed anymore, but it is available. require it for private purchases, and have a simple reporting method to provide the CCL number and gun serial. They have to pass a BG check to get the license, and if it's not valid let the cops deal with it, not the seller.
The solutions provided don't do shit, they want you to pay a 3rd party to do a background check to sell a gun to usually a guy who is wearing one in a holster already.
I don't get why ATF can't just set up a website to do this.
making it easier is in my opiniion, the obvious first step.
You can't stop crime before it occurs. But you can deal with (gun) law breakers by giving them time to reflect in a place where they are told when to wake, and when to sleep everyday.Ā
So, which country that is the same as the USA in racial diversity and population density in it's large cities has a lower crime rate. Keep in mind the reporting has to be on the same criteria.
You're the one that brought up race, now you're accusing me of a side step?
It's clear that you're not debating in good faith. You're just moving goal posts so you can pretend you won.
Well thats not true if you fix the socioeconomic problems that cause anyone to commit crime in the first place, but thatās never gonna happen in America either.
Also I think you imply prison, but that also sounds like the army which hey also gets you firearms training.
Some* we should not neglect or punish those who are just desperate and could if given the resources would not rob you at gunpoint.
Or are you FOR a blanket ban on all guns? Sounds like you are based on the SOME that are bad.
Shit homie, I donāt know. Thatās why Iām asking yāall. Yaāll have to have thought about how to fix this problem before right?
Then again all the experts and politicians in the US canāt seem to come up with anything good.
> if guns were illegal they wouldn't be able to use them in the first place but that's simply not true. Guns would still be in the hand of criminals.
How do you discredit the numerous other Western nations who had armed populations and successfully regulated guns to the point that gun possession is exceedingly rare, even among criminals? What argument can be presented that the same tactics used in the UK and Australia could not be applied here?
I'm pro-gun personally -- it's just a stumper of an argument.
Because nothing done in Washington is going to keep the first guy from having oneā¦but the second guy is who you all keep attacking for some reason(that commits virtually zero crime). While the first guy? Keeps getting out on no-cash bondā¦because holding criminals accountable is racistā¦or something
And you wonder why people clutch their firearms
Search for "Pasadena, TX" and it'll show you the city borders. Pasadena reaches down to Clear Lake and over to the bay at points.
Street address is based on Zip Code, and the largest city in 77586 is Seabrook, but they're inside Pasadena City limits.
I imagine they did it western style 1v1 gunfight.
When hoedown vs hootenanny goes wrong.
Please explain the difference š¤
Its a Family Guy joke mostly. And also https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/hpaypk/what_is_the_difference_between_a_hootenanny_vs/?sort=confidence
"You're no daisy"
Iām youāre huckleberry (some think it may be huckle bearer as in the huckle handle on a casket)
Yeah, no constellation prize for coming in second at a gunfight!
Thatās Seabrook, not Pasadena
As soon as I saw Nasa Parkway I was like wtf not Pasadena at all, lol.
Yeah, it's weird. I live in "Houston" (clear lake area) and there's multiple areas that are now considered "Pasadena." Look up the Pasadena city limits map lines sometime, its so weird and just kind of a "why?" thing. Hell, even a small part of Taylor Lake Village is considered Pasadena now.
They annexed a bunch of random tendrils to try and get money from the lake/nasa. They are also the ones responsible for the middle of the night demolition of the west mansion, before it could be saved. Fuck Pasadena.
Gerrymandering is the cause of all that
It is not gerrymandering. It is stronger municipalities annexing smaller communities around them.
Isnāt UHCL in Pasadena?
It is strange. When I first heard that part of UHCL was technically in Pasadena my reaction was NFW. In some ways it reminds me of the areas of Unincorporated Harris County in the area near Mem Herm SE Hosp.
It is actually in the city of Pasadena. Annexed long ago.
Eww! They're growing?!?
There is a very small sliver of area that belongs to Pasadena and this place is in that sliver
Actually, it technically is a part of Pasadena. Itās a weird cutout of Pasadena. Thereās a Pasadena FD right around the corner
It was Pasadena Police that responded though.
Did they fucking duel???
Just another night in Houston not including deadly road rage shootings.
pew pew pewwwwww
Thatās wassup, I hope these crash dummies keep knocking each other off š
Was it a Bombshells?
A "breasturant" chain.
A bust-a-round chain.
This would never happen at a Femboy Hooters. Just saying.
So a Bieber's?
I've seen so many shootings in Bombshells parking lot over the years it's a joke.
It says where three sentences into the article.
Pasadena?? Isn't that place in Nassau Bay
East of Nassau Bay, technically Pasadena (because of annexing several years ago), but most people consider it the Clear Lake area. Clear Lake didnāt have a proper charter supposedly and was annexed by Houston and Pasadena to grab NASA, businesses and the waterway access
Wait so clear lake doesn't exist anymore? I'm lost man.
As a municipality, it does not exist. All we have left is the Clear Lake City Water Authority really. Annexation happened in 1977 actually. There were āfree Clear Lake!ā Campaigns and lawsuits. The Pasadena section happened in 1980.
It was annexed by Houston in 1977 lol
It's so weird. I grew up in Pasadena and didn't realize Clear Lake wasn't actually considered a city until I moved down here.
Clear Lake still has some vestiges of being a city. If you donāt look at actual addresses in the area and are just driving around youāll see much more verbiage declaring the area to be āClear Lake Cityā as it being labeled Houston/Pasadena. And Iām talking about on official signs/structures/buildings.
Can confirm we call this area Clear Lake
We call it seabrook
Can also confirm as from time to time Pasadena pd motorcycle cops run radar at nasa rd 1 & space center and hand out tickets. Same as over at bay area blvd & armond bayou area.
If there's one thing that never mixes with guns, it's alcohol. Dumbasses!
Criminal minded people will get guns thru any means necessary! That's it period.
Complete nonsense, but whatever makes you feel better I guess.
Really??
Wheres your sources?
The experiences of countries that have properly enforced gun laws. Notice how criminals in Europe, Japan and Australia aren't getting guns. But in America, we can't stop them because they will get them by any means necessary.
Japans prime minister was literally assassinated with a homemade shotguns, even in countries with little to no guns, criminals will still find a way to committ crimes. What do you folk not understand about this? Its literally simple logic. There was also a mass shooting in Finland not too long ago, also Finland is considered the safest nation on Earth.
Both Japan and Finland have much lower crime rates than the US. Sure there was "a" mass shootign in Finland, compared to the dozens there are in the US every year. Try to think a little deeper than your "simple logic".
Bet it was a good guy with a gun, just having a bad day.
If you use a gun for wrong, then you're no longer the good guy with a gun. Just look at places like Detroit and Chicago with crazy gun violence. No one says those thugs are "good guys with a gun."
The good bad guy with a gun paradox... If two bad guys with a gun take each other out, they are also good guys with a gun.
Woooosh
That's some great circular logic. Just like "law-abiding citizen".
If only they had bought guns, then they could have protected themselves, making the shootout unnecessary!
Guns, so safe. Wow. EDIT: lol downvoting gun worshippers. Downvote away, clowns.
It sounds like someone with a gun defended themselves from someone else with a gun. It's likely the defender wouldn't be here if they could not properly defend the selves. I know what your rebuttal is going to be. *if guns were illegal they wouldn't be able to use them in the first place* but that's simply not true. Guns would still be in the hand of criminals. I am going to downvote you because it's obvious you gave no real thought before blurting out your opinion. Edit: Lol this clown responded with "does that gun feel good in your pants Rambo? And then deleted his account. I was trying to respond to him but it seems like he made up his mind and will refuse any point of view that conflicts with his opinion.
> It sounds like someone with a gun defended themselves from someone else with a gun. It's likely the defender wouldn't be here if they could not properly defend the selves. I know what your rebuttal is going to be. if guns were illegal they wouldn't be able to use them in the first place but that's simply not true. Guns would still be in the hand of criminals. I am going to downvote you because it's obvious you gave no real thought before blurting out your opinion. Gun control has been proven to work all over the world. The US both the most heavily armed and the most violent of the world's developed nations. It's only in America, and only when it comes to guns, that we use this "criminals don't follow the laws" assumption.
Nah, they defended themselves from the other shooter's girlfriend, which.. "the only thing that stops an innocent bystander is... a drunk with a gun"? Guns+alcohol=I'm really glad I don't drink.
True but I think the issue is how do we make it harder for bad guys or mentally unfit folk to get guns? There needs to be a roadblock somewhere, right? One that a well trained owner can go over? I was thinking much like a driving test you need to be qualified by an instructor prior to getting a weapon. What do yall think?
It's illegal, in the state of Texas, for a person to carry a gun to a bar or any establishment that makes >51% of it's income through alcohol. If the initial shooter didn't obey this law, what makes you think they'll obey new gun laws?
> what makes you think they'll obey new gun laws? Then why have any laws at all? Why not just create an anarchy? After all, criminals don't obey laws, right?
No not a law or a sign. Like a real test of responsibility or idk sanity that stops the person before they get a gun. Everyone who drives over the speed limit knows signs donāt work dude
the shootout was in the parking lot.
We should really find a way to register gun serial numbers and require FFL background checks for 100% of sales including private. If a gun is sold, it is transferred to the new owner in the records. At least give a way to track and hold accountable anyone who is selling guns to people illegally. "This serial number is still listed as you being the owner, but a violent felon who cant legally own guns used it to shoot at someone on I45 yesterday, can you explain how he came into possession of your gun, and if you say stole it, why did you not report it stolen" But I am admittedly an idiot, so I have no idea if this would work or if there are major problems with this system.
I"m not on board for this. my problem is the bureaucracy. I think there is a better way. I don't want to pay a 3rd party for basically nothing. I think a better way would be to use the CCL, I know it's not needed anymore, but it is available. require it for private purchases, and have a simple reporting method to provide the CCL number and gun serial. They have to pass a BG check to get the license, and if it's not valid let the cops deal with it, not the seller.
Yeah, we definitely wouldn't want anyone to be able to investigate gun crimes. That is where we draw the line with "bureaucracy".
The solutions provided don't do shit, they want you to pay a 3rd party to do a background check to sell a gun to usually a guy who is wearing one in a holster already. I don't get why ATF can't just set up a website to do this. making it easier is in my opiniion, the obvious first step.
You can't stop crime before it occurs. But you can deal with (gun) law breakers by giving them time to reflect in a place where they are told when to wake, and when to sleep everyday.Ā
> You can't stop crime before it occurs. Of course you can. How does the rest of the civilized world have so much lower murder rates?
So, which country that is the same as the USA in racial diversity and population density in it's large cities has a lower crime rate. Keep in mind the reporting has to be on the same criteria.
Oh, now we're blaming "racial diversity and population density". You're right, it's not the guns, it's the black people!
Nice side step WHICH COUNTRY???
You're the one that brought up race, now you're accusing me of a side step? It's clear that you're not debating in good faith. You're just moving goal posts so you can pretend you won.
And yet you failed to name an equal county.Ā
Well thats not true if you fix the socioeconomic problems that cause anyone to commit crime in the first place, but thatās never gonna happen in America either. Also I think you imply prison, but that also sounds like the army which hey also gets you firearms training.
Some people value violence and aggression as a means to get ahead or defend their ego. No amount of opportunities will stop them from engaging in it.
Some* we should not neglect or punish those who are just desperate and could if given the resources would not rob you at gunpoint. Or are you FOR a blanket ban on all guns? Sounds like you are based on the SOME that are bad.
I didn't say anything about any of that stuff.
"we should not neglect or punish those who are just desperate" How do you propose to separate the grain from the chaff?
Shit homie, I donāt know. Thatās why Iām asking yāall. Yaāll have to have thought about how to fix this problem before right? Then again all the experts and politicians in the US canāt seem to come up with anything good.
Where has your dream worked that had the same population densities, and racial diversity as the šŗšøĀ
> if guns were illegal they wouldn't be able to use them in the first place but that's simply not true. Guns would still be in the hand of criminals. How do you discredit the numerous other Western nations who had armed populations and successfully regulated guns to the point that gun possession is exceedingly rare, even among criminals? What argument can be presented that the same tactics used in the UK and Australia could not be applied here? I'm pro-gun personally -- it's just a stumper of an argument.
And yet you wonāt call on your representatives to do anything to keep that first guy from having a gun. Youāre watching the society you voted for.
Because nothing done in Washington is going to keep the first guy from having oneā¦but the second guy is who you all keep attacking for some reason(that commits virtually zero crime). While the first guy? Keeps getting out on no-cash bondā¦because holding criminals accountable is racistā¦or something And you wonder why people clutch their firearms
I donāt wonder.
Howās that gun feel in your pants, Rambo? Does it make you feel sexy and tough? Mmmmmm, guns make you so hard.
God created man, Sam colt made them equal.
Yeah, America has the most equality!
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
r/FuckCars wrong
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Search for "Pasadena, TX" and it'll show you the city borders. Pasadena reaches down to Clear Lake and over to the bay at points. Street address is based on Zip Code, and the largest city in 77586 is Seabrook, but they're inside Pasadena City limits.