Yet another Gun Free Zone shooting. Didn't he see the fucking signs?!
Oh wow, I guess we don't have a problem if all those 3rd world shitholes also have mass homicides.
Even if it is a mental health issue, most of the guns used in these shootings are obtained legally, and it is stupidly easy to purchase a gun. Other developed countries don't face this problem at the amount we do and they have tighter gun control. Its clear as day. Its too easy for a pycho to purchase a gun and go on a rampage.
It's not even a gun issue.
This is not a uniquely American issue, thought it does seem like we get the worst of it.
But if you go look at areas of extreme poverty where people can't even afford bullets, let alone a gun to fire them, we still have mass killings.
In Africa rebels have slaughtered entire villages with little more than machetes.
In the middle east they use homemade explosives.
In china there have been multiple accounts of grown adults going on Stabbing Sprees at elementary and highschool within the country.
In other places we have people using vehicles to charge into crowds of people.
but you guys should really stop letting everyone have a gun,
Like I said... You have Mexico (a developed country)Huehuehue
I BLAME VIDEO GAMES!If only more people played more crpg we would have mass sword slaughter in school, way more fun!! :o
Lol where do you think Mexico's illegal guns come from.
And I fail to see the correlation between another school shooting massacre and gun control xDdddD
I never felt the need to own a gun, even though place where I live could require it at times.
Let me write one sentence. Now let me write one that contradicts my first sentence.
FTFY
I said could, not that it is necessary. Even if it was I am not the gun person. When I see people like Clockwork or AntiBlitz posting their arsenal online, I feel the need to leave such thread and never come back. Just like I would do if I met similar psychos irl. Truly believe that people who don't need guns but still collect them are nothing but psychos.
If only clockwork were there to teach that guy a lesson... he'd show him what's up with his trusty blackpowder revolver.
I actually would've used my blowgun, darts coverd in cat feces.
Silent, biological warfare. The most efficient tool to use, obviously
Edit: for those of you that think we need guns for our freedom, this just in, the military has more advanced weaponry than you do...they also have a litany of vehicles and drones that'll just blow you the fuck up before you even organize your rebellious militia. It's not 1780 anymore, everyone is not armed with muskets only. You dumb fucking titty suckling man baby.
Hajis and the Vietcong would like a word with you
Edit: for those of you that think we need guns for our freedom, this just in, the military has more advanced weaponry than you do...they also have a litany of vehicles and drones that'll just blow you the fuck up before you even organize your rebellious militia. It's not 1780 anymore, everyone is not armed with muskets only. You dumb fucking titty suckling man baby.You don't understand how these things work, do you? No one would say "ok government, we arrange our forces in neat lines on this field here, while you arrange yours on the opposite field, then we count to three, then we fight." Drones and tanks don't do much if you don't know what your target is. And that's disregarding the fact that any uprising in the US large scale enough would also have a considerable amount of military and LE people "defecting."
And the US has a lot of jungles to hide in obviously.
And the US has a lot of jungles to hide in obviously.
Large cities are better than jungles...
come to think of it, that is even worse.It would be the same problem as the US has in Iraq and Afghanistan, only multiplied by a thousand. They get attacked, then the attackers melt into the local populace, and the US can't just kill everyone there because it'd be bad press. They wouldn't even be able to cause any damage to New York, because how do you explain killing hundreds of thousands of your "loyal citizens" to your other loyal supporters? That's how civil wars are lost.
all the damage and confusion. on a new york level for an example, well fuck
he mentioned the vietcong, though, thats why.
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
Just a bunch of crazy ass people.....amirite??
Most gun violence takes place in ghetto areas, usually involving gangs.
You want to lower gun violence? Lower poverty
The bottom line, that most of you won't understand until you actually have kids, is that a parent shouldn't have to worry about their child attending a public school or college and getting shot to death. Is this the kind of world you want to live in? How about going on a date night at the movies and ready to eat some popcorn, when some guy with a gun decides, fuck it, I'm shooting the shit out of this place and the people in it. It's fucked up and, yes, GUNS are the problem.
Golly gee, with that mindset don't even bother going outside!
Also you sound like one of those people who browse motherjones.com and gobble up all the shit they spew
What an argument, way to deflect the words I typed with an unintelligent quip.
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
visitors can't see pics , please register or loginMoney spend on fighting terrorism: billions
Just a bunch of crazy ass people.....amirite??
"Lolz, use the dank memes to try and my point because I'm stupid to think up a good reply myself"
The bottom line, that most of you won't understand until you actually have kids, is that a parent shouldn't have to worry about their child attending a public school or college and getting shot to death. Is this the kind of world you want to live in? How about going on a date night at the movies and ready to eat some popcorn, when some guy with a gun decides, fuck it, I'm shooting the shit out of this place and the people in it. It's fucked up and, yes, GUNS are the problem. Unless there is serious regulation or stricter laws, there is nothing to prevent this kind of shit in the future. There have been 142 mass shootings from 2012 to 2014. ONE HUNDRED AND FORTY TWO just in the good ol' US of A. Something has to be done and if you don't agree, then I feel bad for you and your lack of human compassion. As I stated in my previous post, it's a lot harder to kill a group of people with any other weapon than a gun. Guns are designed to kill quickly and efficiently and that's exactly what they do. They are a tool for killing. You can argue that they're in the wrong hands or whatever, but the fact of the matter is, there is nothing stopping them from finding said hands in the first place.
Edit: Point with the graph is to show you how many people are killed each year on our soil, by our own people, with our own guns. Thought that was obvious. Also to squash the "but crazy people are doing the shooting" argument.
Its good to see most of the Americans here in nationalistic denial and blaming "kids these days" and "we're not doing enough for the mentally ill". My favorite was the poverty one, seeing as most of these school shooters come from middle class and higher backgrounds.
As if this was an argument, the first half you say how your too scared to go outside, the second half you just cry about "evil scary guns". I'm not arguing your point because no point is being made
And for the graph, well nobody is arguing that foreigners are doin the shooting. Most of those killings are, like said, GANGs. Using stolen guns to commit gang warfare and shoot up ghettos. GANGs, not law-abiding citizen john
Restrict guns to current and former military and LE, problem solved, call it a day, go home.
Quoting yourself? You didn't even reply to my last post other than trying to insult me. Thank you for showing us all that you are, in fact, unable to argue a point.Dats Y he needz a gun :P
*glug*
When people die because some idiots drive too fast, you control the speed limit. If some areas are particularly prone to accidents and deaths you control the speed limit further there. Arguably it's not the fault of cars being in circulation that can drive at that speed, nor is it the fault of the 99% of drivers that are safe and sensible. But the 99% have the abide by the same rules as the 1% who fuck it up for everyone, since the nobody ever believes they're in that 1% till they fuck up
*glug*
When people die because some idiots drive too fast, you control the speed limit. If some areas are particularly prone to accidents and deaths you control the speed limit further there. Arguably it's not the fault of cars being in circulation that can drive at that speed, nor is it the fault of the 99% of drivers that are safe and sensible. But the 99% have the abide by the same rules as the 1% who fuck it up for everyone, since the nobody ever believes they're in that 1% till they fuck up
so what is the proposition? Take away all the cars because of the 1%? that is the typical opinion when these threads pop up. Oh, so you dont want to do that, you just want them that much more regulated, and what is the plan for that? There is honestly only so much you can do, you can put up a billion fucking road signs, ads on television about extra patrols, heavier policing, etc. Without a true statistic, im going to just assume people still sped regardless. Might it had lowered it? sure, but did it neutralize the overall issue of people speeding? no, and because it didnt, a few months from now, Gay ass Berenger will be stroking himself off in another one of these threads with all the euros trying to be all witty over the topic of "Americans and their guns".
You defeated yourself.....the point is to lower gun violence, you don't get to zero by counting higher numbers....More regulation means less people have access to unnecessary firearms and the ones that do have to go through a registration process which would not come without a price.
Out of a newspaper this morning:
- 45 school shootings this year up to now
- 294 "mass shootings"... in 274 days
- 2/3 of the school shootings happen outside of "weapon free zones"
- 2015 first year when more young citizens (below 26) die by being shot than by car accident
Clearly, weapons are not the issue here.(click to show/hide)
I didnt defeat myself at all, stop searching for an answer to be witty. If we have one hundred shootings, or one hundred and twenty mass shootings, it doesnt matter when it comes to making the populace feel safe. Sure we lowered the greater outcome, but we never resolved the issue of the large amount of mass shootings occurring. Its like you just want to put a band aid on a bleeding wound. So now we have put in place your stricter regulations, and our newest shooter passes all the regulations put in place and shoots up a school, what now? The media is in yet another "gun debate" frenzy, the issue still not resolved. Ideas? oh, stricter gun regulations lol.
Did you read that Oregon had just overhauled their gun regulations anyways, im not sure to what degree, but would it have caught this person? I dont know, maybe, but im going to just assume not.
There wouldn't be a large effect immediately if we completely outlaw guns tomorrow, no. I imagine it'd take a generation or two before gun crime reached the levels of our counterparts in the developed world.
so what is the proposition? Take away all the cars because of the 1%? that is the typical opinion when these threads pop up. Oh, so you dont want to do that, you just want them that much more regulated, and what is the plan for that? There is honestly only so much you can do, you can put up a billion fucking road signs, ads on television about extra patrols, heavier policing, etc. Without a true statistic, im going to just assume people still sped regardless. Might it had lowered it? sure, but did it neutralize the overall issue of people speeding? no, and because it didnt, a few months from now, Gay ass Berenger will be stroking himself off in another one of these threads with all the euros trying to be all witty over the topic of "Americans and their guns". And of course the media will be in a goddamn fury to make sure every person in the country is hotly debating "gun control", id go as far as to assume they are probably paid by lobbyists to continue the discussion to fuel an agenda. Either way you arent going to stop gun violence in the US with some miracle regulation.
I don't know much about this one guy, but I'm fairly certain that it is a "mental Health" issue. There people usually have little to no friends and no social interaction because our society only helps those who either 1. already have friends or 2. are attractive. Having friends allows one t o meet others and expand their social group, and attractive people are just welcome by everyone as long as they aren't complete autists. This man most likely worked some shit job he hated because he did not have the skills or motivation to do anything else, and he probably went home everyday to nothing for several years, and probably since high school. DO anyone of you know whats it like to say to yourself, Wow I said nothing today, or to get home and then sit on a computer trying to hide that no one else is going to visit you? With the way our society is if you are socially apt you get thrown out, and thats where all these shooting are coming from. I don't know why there are happening, (maybe all our military propaganda makes people think guns can fix things) but they still are. The US probably has just as many disenfranchised young men as Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, but all of ours don't have anything to motivate them so they just sit around until they die, or kill themselves.(click to show/hide)
Yeah sure, not many would really vouch for requiring breathalyzers in every car, however once again, there is an inherent difference between a car and a gun. Some people NEED cars to go about their daily lives, while owning a car makes plenty of others' lives much easier, even if it isn't necessarily a requirement. No one (save for cops and military, I suppose) really NEEDS a gun. If you're hunting for a living or some shit, then yeah, apply for a license and get certified to own one. Cars only cause deaths when they are misused... guns cause deaths when they are used as intended, lol.
True and if you live in a shithole city like Chicago you probably deserve to get shot by some crack smoking thug for failing to get a real job. It's natural selection.
I dunno, these people seem mostly harmless. Cocaine, though...
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
Yeah sure, not many would really vouch for requiring breathalyzers in every car, however once again, there is an inherent difference between a car and a gun. Some people NEED cars to go about their daily lives, while owning a car makes plenty of others' lives much easier, even if it isn't necessarily a requirement. No one (save for cops and military, I suppose) really NEEDS a gun. If you're hunting for a living or some shit, then yeah, apply for a license and get certified to own one. Cars only cause deaths when they are misused... guns cause deaths when they are used as intended, lol.
(If Bronto's chart is correct, why then do we only see a major mass shooting in the news now and not any of the ones for the past month?)
I'm not trying to be witty, I'm trying to speak in layman's terms so you idiots can understand. There has to be some form of regulation or these statistics are going to keep increasing. I'd rather put a band aide on it, then make the cut larger.
Sure it's the media, but it's also people that believe that guns aren't the problem, people are. That's just completely ass backwards. As I said before, how many mass stranglings do you hear of? None you say....why is that...oh because you can't strangle a large group of people from 30' away no matter how crazy you are...give that guy a gun though and well you get the point.
The proposition is to keep things the way they are with cars where everyone abides by the same speed limits and restrictions because of the 1% who fuck it up, even if you're REALLY REALLY SURE that you're not in that 1% and can decide for yourself what is a safe speed. That's the restriction you have right now.
Well the main issue with this logic is that cars are designed to transport people and objects from place to place as their first priority. Yes, they can also be misused and therefore lead to injury and death. Same with plenty of other tools, be it an electric drill, saw, woodchipper, lawnmower, etc etc. Chainsaws are made to cut wood. Can they also be used by mass murderers going on a rampage? Yes, although not very effectively. Guns however are made primarily to kill things, people and/or animals. Target shooting and such are merely games/practice that developed to further people's proficiency with these weapons. A car can be a weapon. A chainsaw and a lawnmower too. But they aren't designed to be weapons, while guns are. Regulating cars and other tools in the same manner as firearms is literally retarded.
If you're hunting for a living or some shit, then yeah, apply for a license and get certified to own one. Cars only cause deaths when they are misused... guns cause deaths when they are used as intended, lol.thats what the laws in place already do, you apply for the gun because you want to use it for defense or hunting. Obviously laws differ from state to state, but that is already the intended feature. So you arent thinking of some new idea, just restating the already intended purpose of the laws.
But the point is, you're arguing the wrong facts. What needs to be argued is not "lol, guns kill" but instead limiting the discussion to facts of mental health, proper licensing and a general attitude similar to drunk driving.
Fact: Many people NEED cars, yet they still drive drunk and complain when then get busted.
Also, if Europe can get by with mass public transportation, why don't we, in America sell all our cars? I mean Europe is similar and all, so they if they can, why can't we?
We can't selectively use arguments like that on 1 item but then defend them on another item that is similar enough in death rate, need and abundance.
But the point is, you're arguing the wrong facts. What needs to be argued is not "lol, guns kill" but instead limiting the discussion to facts of mental health, proper licensing and a general attitude similar to drunk driving.
Fact: Many people NEED cars, yet they still drive drunk and complain when then get busted.
Also, if Europe can get by with mass public transportation, why don't we, in America sell all our cars? I mean Europe is similar and all, so they if they can, why can't we?
We can't selectively use arguments like that on 1 item but then defend them on another item that is similar enough in death rate, need and abundance.
No Comments on this anyone?
Nones going to drive a car or a lawn mower into a school to kill 20 people.
Sigh,
Never should have bothered.
"lol, he said used cars as an example"
And why would someone want to kill 20 people to begin with? This is the heart of the debate, and what I was trying to show with the car example. After analyzing the data, the police came up with the best option to stop it: Community involvement, Heavy punishment, better tools to stop it, more active enforcement.
As far as guns go, we ignore all four of those and go straight to "NO GUNS" rather than a better, gradual 20+ year cycle like they did with Drunk driving.
oh okay, so let me speak to you in laymans terms so an idiot like yourself can understand. HEIGHTENING REGULATIONS WOULDNT HAVE STOPPED THE FUCKING GUY, PULL YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR ASS. now that the generalization is done, we can continue. Stings a bit when people name call dont it. There is no way you can regulate a population of 7 billion people and expect a reasonable amount of them who are likely fucking looney to not get the firearm they needed to mass murder people, if they are going to commit an atrocity, then they are. I just cant think of a way other then to just outright ban them that would create the deficit in shootings that you expect. I simply asked you for a proposition, you failed to deliver, you insult me, and then give an extreme like strangling to continue pushing some glorious staunch anti-gun debate. Like i said, there isnt a whimsical law that we can add to the already twenty thousand gun laws that will keep stupid from being stupid.
But that's the exact point. Why the fuck do you need a semiautomatic anything if you're only using it for hunting? To that I say perhaps you should remove the head from your ass and like I give a shit if you name call me. Doesn't sting one bit. What does, is that guns can be more strictly regulated and you fail to see it.
(If Bronto's chart is correct, why then do we only see a major mass shooting in the news now and not any of the ones for the past month?)(click to show/hide)
No Comments on this anyone?
No Comments on this anyone?
Oh god anders, just quote it and click the link the picture came from. It was a news article. I'm sure you'll all claim it's incredibly biased since it isn't fox news and put another feather in your caps.
Not all of these other death statistics are INTENTIONAL. Guns are made for one purpose, killing. And these happen to be NEEDLESS killings. There is a mental problem along with liberal cultural problems, but guns ALLOW these people to be easily EFFECTIVE at mass killings. Compromises need to be made, noones going to lose their guns, but tighter restrictions and harsher laws need to be put in place, as well as a drift away from these liberal ideas that raising a generation on rap music, drug abuse and violence glorification and self-entitlement is a good idea. If you threaten to shoot someone to their face you go to jail, if you do it in a rap song you make millions of dollars, see a problem here?
I know where you're coming from, dude, but
Drinking and driving and firearm related homicide might lead to similar outcomes I guess, people die, but its nowhere near the same thing. People don't go out and purchase a car and then go drinking with their friends so they can kill tons of people and people don't buy a gun so they can get to and from the bar. Like you can't just combat intentional gun violence by running ads about how uncool shooting schools is, adding school shooting checkpoints, harsher penalties for school shooters and having a school shooting awareness program in school.
The point:
Lots of mass shootings > very little media coverage
Lots of media coverage for 1 mass shooting > Why not all?
Media Bias trying to sell to us their viewpoint rather than actively engaging in the truth of fighting against it. Shock value versus real value.
(Also, clever. Calling me a Fox supporter because your argument doesn't stand up when called into question. Clever strawman)
Yes, I do. I'm all for a Proper, minimum gun standards law. Most people ignore the moderate(and probably minority in this argument) approach to all of this.
(See, for example, Bronto and Antiblitz, to opposite coins who argue their side, rather than find a proper middle ground that really does do a good job. Course, if any of us really had a good idea, we'd be politicians already :wink:)
But that's the exact point. Why the fuck do you need a semiautomatic anything if you're only using it for hunting? To that I say perhaps you should remove the head from your ass and like I give a shit if you name call me. Doesn't sting one bit. What does, is that guns can be more strictly regulated and you fail to see it.
i guess youve never seen people hunt bore or varmint before, again, pull your head out of your ass. This can go back and forth pretty easily. Maybe try and learn a thing or two while your at it. The laws can easily be manipulated, i dont have to tell them when i write down why i want the shotgun that i want to use it to kill Brontos, just that i want to use it to hunt ducks, even though its a short barreled pump action with a folding stock. Its not as if they are going to hold their hand over mine as we squeeze the trigger together.
(click to show/hide)
Easy guy, telling someone you want to kill them is taking it a bit to the extreme.
Not sure what type of varmint you're speaking of but I grew up on 400 acre farm and have shot many ground hogs in my day with a long rifle. No semiautomatic was needed. Even bagged a rabbit or two and never had to use anything where I needed 3+ bullets in rapid succession to take out.
The point of you registering and obtaining a permit for that shotgun would be so they have a record of who owns it, where it was bought, and what you bought along with it. Also, if you are required to get a permit before the purchase a more extensive background check can be facilitated and at that point an amount of money can be associated with it, so if you really want it, you better have the funds for it. This could be one solution. If you're buying that shotgun and 5 boxes of shells, chances are you're either a doomsday prepper, or going to do something not quite so innocent with it.
And Anders, the media has manipulated our views since it's existence. Politicians are nothing but bought and paid for by lobbying groups and corporations. It's the American way.(click to show/hide)
The point of you registering and obtaining a permit for that shotgun would be so they have a record of who owns it, where it was bought, and what you bought along with it. Also, if you are required to get a permit before the purchase a more extensive background check can be facilitated and at that point an amount of money can be associated with it, so if you really want it, you better have the funds for it.
But that's the exact point. Why the fuck do you need a semiautomatic anything if you're only using it for hunting? To that I say perhaps you should remove the head from your ass and like I give a shit if you name call me. Doesn't sting one bit. What does, is that guns can be more strictly regulated and you fail to see it.
Good luck man. Looks like it'll be a sweet pad once you're done with it.
It's not even a gun issue.
It's about mental health and the causes and effects our society has on the mental health of its citizens... This is not a uniquely American issue, thought it does seem like we get the worst of it.
i don't understand why some people are so ingrained with the notion that gun control is the only answer.
Its good to see most of the Americans here in nationalistic denial and blaming "kids these days" and "we're not doing enough for the mentally ill". My favorite was the poverty one, seeing as most of these school shooters come from middle class and higher backgrounds.
The bottom line, that most of you won't understand until you actually have kids, is that a parent shouldn't have to worry about their child attending a public school or college and getting shot to death.
The 4chan beta male thing is too good to be true. Let us all bask in this glorious speech from BuzzCutPsyho:
In defense of some of these, isn't it true that you also don't do enough for the mentally ill?
My belief on the matter is that when a child is born, most of the brainpower of the parents is somehow transmitted to the kid and the parents become that much dumber. How else do you explain intelligent young adults who love freedom becoming literal nazis overnight?
Why do we need stricter gun control? Cuz it's a joke atm. I've got two unregistered firearms rotting in my basement because after my grandpa/uncle passed away not a single person came asking "and who owns these weapons now?" If I were some gang banger, that'd be two more weapons on the street that no one is looking for.
BCP in this thread? well brings back memories.
Made a character on Mattherson back in the day and I got into a unit where he was talking.
200% douche
Correlation may not mean causation, but removing lethal weapons from a civilian / peaceful environment will undoubtedly reduce homicide rates.No doubt it would reduce homicide rates, but by how much? By disarming law-abiding citizens you take away their ability to defend themselves from these mass shooters. There are so many firearms in circulation it's more or less too late for the U.S.
This was worth reading, I never tought they were so many guns homicide in Switzerland. Before seing this graph, I was thinking that guns homicide in US was the result of a mix between violent culture, poverty and laxist gun laws.(click to show/hide)
Also all of the countries which are in the top 5 of rampage shooting fatalities per capita have much more restrictive gun laws than the U.S.No they have not more restrictive gun laws, all of them are countries with great landscape and wildlife (so lots of hunting guns). Gunlaws in switzerland are very lax and I assume it's the same for nothern countries. Sweden and norway are ranked 9th and 10th in gun per capita, not a bad score, israel and slovakia are more or less at war...
But of course, stricter gun laws will solve all our problems and is the only issue we should be focusing on. Because people don't kill other people, guns kill people. mmmmmhmmmmmm.(click to show/hide)
Maybe it's due to the gang shooting, that people got used to and don't care cause it's only blacks shooting blacks so it doesnt make the news.
No Comments on this anyone?
Liberals have a point, gun laws need to be strengthened to cater to the failing youth generation that was raised on rap music, drug culture and self gratification, ALL liberal ideas.Also worth reading, never knew gangsta rap was invented by "liberals". Should we ban music?
No doubt it would reduce homicide rates, but by how much? By disarming law-abiding citizens you take away their ability to defend themselves from these mass shooters. There are so many firearms in circulation it's more or less too late for the U.S.If possessing weapons becomes a crime, you better hand out your guns. But surely, it will take time before US becomes safer. And the argument if everyone had a gun everything would be alright is just bs
treating health problem will not be enough as in Switzerland, you can get treated by therapist for free without trouble
If possessing weapons becomes a crime, you better hand out your guns. But surely, it will take time before US becomes safer. And the argument if everyone had a gun everything would be alright is just bsIt isn't about everything being alright if everyone has a gun, but knowing how many guns there are in circulation and how many fucked up people there are, and the amount of mass shootings in the US, I sure would want to go everywhere armed myself.
Love starting threads like these. Wish i had started Meanwhile in Ukraine and the Názi thread about Refugees too. Cuz i got the powers 2 lock it anytime. Ayy lmao
Love starting threads like these. Wish i had started Meanwhile in Ukraine and the Názi thread about Refugees too. Cuz i got the powers 2 lock it anytime. Ayy lmao
Lock it in the heat of discussion and piss everyone off
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
The focus needs to be on the cause of these mental health problems which result in people going postal, not on treating individuals who have mental health issues.
The biggest nonsense is to turn any discussion about this sort of tragedy into a general "pro gun" or "anti gun" argument (with the very foreseeable outcome of everyone being reinforced in their limited view of the world).The perception and the reality is two different things. Germany is low in this graph (the only way to be lower is to be killed by wildlife before being killed by guns), Switzerland is neighbouring US, it's just a difference of media coverage maybe.
I have lived in a country, where every lengthy knife or xbow poses a problem (Germany), every legal firearm is required to be kept in a security safe/box, and most sheeplings willingly accept that nobody except police, military and criminals is supposed to have guns. And I still knew enough people there who had access to guns - legally or otherwise.
I have worked in a country (Switzerland) where almost everyone has access to military-grade weapons in their homes - and nothing much ever happens.
I currently live in a country (Paraguay) where the law allows basically everyone to own a gun, and where a lot of people even carry guns outside their property or have them in their cars, because the police usually looks away - and while ofc the occasional shooting happens, there is not much to worry about and I have never heard about a teenager running amok with a gun here - (while they would have plenty of reason).
Putting reasonable gun ownership restrictions in place is one thing and should be discussed with a cool head - not linked to some tragedy that is exploited for the obvious agenda to disarm the people.
Thinking about the real reasons behind that level of hate in a young person, the disrespect for their own and other lives, the frustration, the lack of perspective etc.etc. might be less convenient than shouting "ban the gunz" (because it might involve questioning our current lifestyle/society/values/education/economy/...), but it might actually lead to something.
Just removing guns from the game won't help shit.
P.S.: oh, and I'm a Iota Male. The type you don't find in the psych books. Stands for independant. Fuck the wrongly interpreted wolf analogies.
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
The biggest nonsense is to turn any discussion about this sort of tragedy into a general "pro gun" or "anti gun" argument (with the very foreseeable outcome of everyone being reinforced in their limited view of the world).
I have lived in a country, where every lengthy knife or xbow poses a problem (Germany), every legal firearm is required to be kept in a security safe/box, and most sheeplings willingly accept that nobody except police, military and criminals is supposed to have guns. And I still knew enough people there who had access to guns - legally or otherwise.
I have worked in a country (Switzerland) where almost everyone has access to military-grade weapons in their homes - and nothing much ever happens.
I currently live in a country (Paraguay) where the law allows basically everyone to own a gun, and where a lot of people even carry guns outside their property or have them in their cars, because the police usually looks away - and while ofc the occasional shooting happens, there is not much to worry about and I have never heard about a teenager running amok with a gun here - (while they would have plenty of reason).
Putting reasonable gun ownership restrictions in place is one thing and should be discussed with a cool head - not linked to some tragedy that is exploited for the obvious agenda to disarm the people.
Thinking about the real reasons behind that level of hate in a young person, the disrespect for their own and other lives, the frustration, the lack of perspective etc.etc. might be less convenient than shouting "ban the gunz" (because it might involve questioning our current lifestyle/society/values/education/economy/...), but it might actually lead to something.
Just removing guns from the game won't help shit.
P.S.: oh, and I'm a Iota Male. The type you don't find in the psych books. Stands for independant. Fuck the wrongly interpreted wolf analogies.
The perception and the reality is two different things. Germany is low in this graph (the only way to be lower is to be killed by wildlife before being killed by guns), Switzerland is neighbouring US, it's just a difference of media coverage maybe.
Industrialised world stress is not gonna be fixed so soon, so you better find a solution to guns in the meantime.
[...]No need to change anything. As far as I am concerned, you're doing fine on the shitposting counter...
anyway, at this point, might as well shitpost at this point. So, ugh, what should i say to fan the flames?
And if they have enough insight to keep their feelings and intentions covert?
I'm American and it's definitely a gun problem. Fucking idiot self entitled titty suckling man babies shoot the fuck out of innocent people because someone said they didn't like then or feel like this will teach them to respect my authority. It's disgusting and pathetic. Every time this shit happens it makes me ashamed to be American, ashamed we don't have stricter gunlaws, and ashamed that there are fucking self entitled titty suckling man babies that still don't think guns are the problem. Fact is, guns are designed to kill things quickly and efficiently. At least with a stabbing rampage or, the often feared wild strangler, you have a chance to defend yourself and not instantly die by a bullet ripping through your chest from 30' away. Fucking sheeple open up your goddamn eyes. It's a gun problem. How many times does this have to happen before you wake the fuck up.
Edit: for those of you that think we need guns for our freedom, this just in, the military has more advanced weaponry than you do...they also have a litany of vehicles and drones that'll just blow you the fuck up before you even organize your rebellious militia. It's not 1780 anymore, everyone is not armed with muskets only. You dumb fucking titty suckling man baby.
what in the fuck is your infatuation with me?
Clockwork posted three pics, a shotgun, an sks, and a fucking smoke grenade launcher, truly an arsenal worthy of praise.
the majority, of all my firearms are for hunting in some form or fashion. I mean, i do have a family, and they can come hunt with me, so having multiple rifles for the family makes sense.http://forum.melee.org/general-off-topic/guns-guns-and-more-guns-hosted-by-inbred-redneck-antiblitz-ameritrash/msg867890/#msg867890(click to show/hide)
I dont see how collecting something makes you a psycho, regardless of what the items are.
The bottom line, that most of you won't understand until you actually have kids, is that a parent shouldn't have to worry about their child attending a public school or college and getting shot to death. Is this the kind of world you want to live in? How about going on a date night at the movies and ready to eat some popcorn, when some guy with a gun decides, fuck it, I'm shooting the shit out of this place and the people in it. It's fucked up and, yes, GUNS are the problem. Unless there is serious regulation or stricter laws, there is nothing to prevent this kind of shit in the future. There have been 142 mass shootings from 2012 to 2014. ONE HUNDRED AND FORTY TWO just in the good ol' US of A. Something has to be done and if you don't agree, then I feel bad for you and your lack of human compassion. As I stated in my previous post, it's a lot harder to kill a group of people with any other weapon than a gun. Guns are designed to kill quickly and efficiently and that's exactly what they do. They are a tool for killing. You can argue that they're in the wrong hands or whatever, but the fact of the matter is, there is nothing stopping them from finding said hands in the first place.
Edit: Point with the graph is to show you how many people are killed each year on our soil, by our own people, with our own guns. Thought that was obvious. Also to squash the "but crazy people are doing the shooting" argument.
Ban Rap music first and see if crime goes down. As long as people openly glorify gun violence as a means of self expression I'll keep a loaded 12 gauge in my truck.
Christ sake, gun debates....
And if they have enough insight to keep their feelings and intentions covert?
Jesus christ, the Mental argument is not a fucking argument!
There are crazy people all over the world, and they don't have as many mass shootings or killing, because:
They just don't have as easy access to guns!
How on earth can it be controversial to make it so that you need to pass some test to use a gun, to show that you can use it? Be registered and health checked? Anyone who loves guns can still get them, they just have to work a bit to earn their right.
The other murdermachine, the car, would you like to remove drivers licences too? Remove the eye sight test?
Please let the people who want guns get whatever gun they want, just make it so there's progressively more demands made to them the more deadly they can be. If you want to own a collection of ARs they should be properly locked up and you should have a special collectors permit.
etc etc.. Gun regulations are not the end of your hobby, necessarily.
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
If only the pro-gun Americans looked further than their centuries old, poorly worded sacred books for arguments maybe this issue could progress towards sanity. Creationists refer to the Bible, Clockwork to the 2nd Amendment. Coincidence?
mexicans eat mexican food, and Kafein makes stupid references, coincidence????
Hastily written poorly worded two centuries old political pamphlet versus long form two thousand years old random compilation of words. Neither is relevant to present day lawmaking.
"Durr, it's outdated. When in truth I'm just a mad Europoor who wishes he had the same level of freedom Americans have"
Most of the American Constitution is in fact not outdated, if you look at the big picture anyway. The thing that you don't seem to grasp is that an argument about the Constitution only ever goes that way. You can't argue that something is wrong because the Constitution says it's wrong. If the Constitution says it's wrong then there must be a good fundamental reason why that is present in the Constitution at all. If there's not then what you're doing is just a pitiful appeal to authority.
"The right to bear arms shall not be infringed" how is that a good thing? Not infringed, does that mean I have the right to build a dirty bomb in my garage? That's obviously insane. There needs to be some form of gun control with variable repressiveness depending on how civilized a state is. It doesn't make sense to even allow handguns in big cities, but I can understand assault rifles in rural/deserted areas.
"The right to bear arms shall not be infringed" how is that a good thing? Not infringed, does that mean I have the right to build a dirty bomb in my garage? That's obviously insane. There needs to be some form of gun control with variable repressiveness depending on how civilized a state is. It doesn't make sense to even allow handguns in big cities, but I can understand assault rifles in rural/deserted areas.
So, if you live in a big city, you are not allowed to effectively defend yourself.
Deny people natural rights based on where they live.
Perfect
You can own a gun anywhere in the United States, you might not be able to buy one in some cities though..
So, if you live in a big city, you are not allowed to effectively defend yourself.
Deny people natural rights based on where they live.
Perfect.
Also yes, you should be allowed to build/create whatever you want.
Having shells of metal come out of your hand at several hundred meters per second is not a natural right. In any case, this wouldn't be the first natural right to be dropped in favor of sanity. Consider that you would be prosecuted if you killed or raped someone, things our ancestors living "naturally" could and would do.
Not just dead southern soldiers, but most Americans after the Civil War up til about the 1960s.
America has sure been good to the blacks
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsa_race_riot
have you even told the black kids about jesus and abstinence lol
If you call 86 people getting shot over a holiday weekend harmless, i'd hate to live wherever you are, must be all the malt liquor..
It was more in reference to "liberals are trying to blame on white privilege and dead Southern soldiers" as if we should ignore one side of the problem when talking about it.
You are a horrible human being clockwork.
do you have a racist bowlcut under the gasmask clockwork?
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
I'm hyped, you think this Oregon shooter will make an appearance? Maybe he could be the minor character ally to the expendables
Any of you went to school where shooting occurred during your studies?
visitors can't see pics , please register or loginWho's the black guy in the bottom right corner?
I'm hyped, you think this Oregon shooter will make an appearance? Maybe he could be the minor character ally to the expendables
Who's the black guy in the bottom right corner?
In 2002, while training for the Navy Reserve at Vance Air Force Base, Dorner and a classmate found a bag containing nearly $8,000 that belonged to the nearby Enid Korean Church of Grace in Enid, Oklahoma. They turned it in to the police. When asked their motive, Dorner said "it's an integrity thing." "The military stresses integrity," Dorner said. "There was a couple of thousand dollars, and if people are willing to give that to a church, it must be pretty important to them." Dorner said his mother taught him honesty and integrity
The Police Department never returned the money to the church stating that it could not find the individual who owned the money. They ended up spending it on krispy kreme donuts and hookers.
Any of you went to school where shooting occurred during your studies?
I was at work when a shooting happened right out the front door, about twenty feet in front of me.
Two shitheads had gotten into an argument about who would pick up the tab and were asked to leave.
They were yelling at each other outside when six shots went off.
Turned out one of the guys got angry, so he pulled out his revolver and fired six times at the other guy's feet.
He was carrying legally and owned the gun legally as well (IIRC), and was willing to shoot at his friend for not paying the tab on a chicken fried steak and a Coke.
Amazingly, no one was injured, but it was definitely scary.
This incident freaked me out for awhile and made me feel like concealed carry was too dangerous.
Of course, it is dangerous. Anyone with a gun is potentially dangerous.
That said, I don't believe disallowing people to legally carry in self defense is a good thing.
It's tricky, because I'd prefer to live in a country where people don't need to defend themselves from random violence, armed robberies, or whatever, but that simply is not the case.
Sandy is probably correct in saying it's a standstill.
I'd also hate to live in a country where everyone is carrying a firearm, concealed or open.
It'd feel threatening, and I also believe the number of accidental casualties from "friendly fire" in an active shooter event would be devastating.
I seriously doubt the majority of people would carry even if they could, though, just as Kalam mentioned in his post.
(thanks va).Dude, there's a reason you were classified "mentally unstable."
I think that's unfortunately true.
Edit: Wait, no that's retarded. Its not true at all. Or is it. Someone do research because I'm going crosseyed looking at statistics.
Dude, there's a reason you were classified "mentally unstable."
From the wording, you have to look at more than one country's percentage of white people, then their crime rate, then compare them. This gives me nothing.
I guess flaming wooden crosses arent as efficient as an automatic weapon...
Wait, what am i saying? Guns dont kill people. People kill people, regardless of the tools you give them. Of course, how could i have been so stupid. Give 20 mentally disturbed individuals a gameboy colour each in a room together and they'll kill each other just as surely as another room where 20 mentally disturbed individuals have loaded guns. Cos it's NOT a gun problem, mentally ill people just commit mass-murder whatever you do. (have you ever tried *not* giving them guns? ...Oh, wait, you havent tried that yet?)
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
So now oberyn, tell me how the american society is so much more homogenous than EU society when blacks and whites that have lived there "together" for so long still don't have the same habits, don't live in the same places and in the same conditions....QED
If a chart was made on the correlation between poverty and gun violence I'm sure it would be even more correlated, as for the correlation between poverty and black skin...
So you think those high diploma with good income africans immigrants will go shoot others in the street to ruin their career and their life?
I think being poor is not an excuse to shoot people but it is a without a doubt an important factor, as you have less to lose.
All the opportunities are there to get a job and move, it's a cultural problem not a poverty or education problem.I am not really sure about my opinion on this topic. On one hand, high education costs a lot in US and unqualified job have very low wage, which makes it hard to leave your social class. But on the other hand, asians managed successfully to get out of the poor working class and immigrants seems to be able to do better than black americans. Maybe, the system is not pushing them toward success and they're not willing enough to overcome the barriers (or they didn't find the right way to overcome them), but I don't know enough about their situation to be able to judge properly.
If it's about white/black crime, then pull the stats on what % of school shootings are carried out by white males and what % are carried out by black.School shootings is quite irelevant compared to the total number of guns homicide, even tho the tread title is not Shooting in Murrica.
Oh wait, that likely wouldn't suit your agenda and would be too relevant to this particular thread.
But on the other hand, asians managed successfully to get out of the poor working class and immigrants seems to be able to do better than black americans.or Asians have a higher IQ than black Americans? :o
or Asians have a higher IQ than black Americans? :oWhat would you know about high IQ, mongolspawn?
What would you know about high IQ, mongolspawn?This goodies not for you nigga
This goodies not for you nigga
Here is a beautifull graph comparing american death by terrorism VS american death by firearms.
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/10/02/us/oregon-shooting-terrorism-gun-violence/index.html?sr=tw100215gun%20terrorism%20graph1007AMVODtop&linkId=17541596&sr=tw100215obamaguns1050AMVODtop&linkId=17542133 (http://edition.cnn.com/2015/10/02/us/oregon-shooting-terrorism-gun-violence/index.html?sr=tw100215gun%20terrorism%20graph1007AMVODtop&linkId=17541596&sr=tw100215obamaguns1050AMVODtop&linkId=17542133)
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
I think being poor is not an excuse to shoot people but it is a without a doubt an important factor, as you have less to lose.
(click to show/hide)
My liberal friends are now invited to tell me exactly what else you'd like us to do if you're not willing to take these vary basic steps toward correcting the actual problem which you seem so concerned over.
SF is currently looking to double the number of walls that "spray back pee." (http://www.mynews4.com/news/story/San-Francisco-to-double-number-of-walls-that/xkSEeNVGYUa-ZF2oN_tP9g.cspx)This shit is mindblowing. Yeah, let's spend tons of money on walls that spray back pee, so that instead of people urinating on the walls they'll make big urine puddles on the street next to the wall.
So we're down to 8,583 intentional killings using guns. That's still one heck of a lot of bodies, and surely enough to justify new background checks and other restrictions on legal gun purchases, right? Again... not even close. The Justice Department has been studying the question of legal vs. illegal sources of guns used in crimes for decades, going back to this study issued in the early nineties. They admit that the numbers are simply too hard to track for us to pin down exact figures, but the trends are steady over the years. The vast majority of guns used in crimes were gotten through illegal means outside the legal purchase regimen followed by law abiding gun owners. Roughly one quarter of inmates convicted of gun crimes admitted to having stolen a gun in that study. For the ones that weren't stolen directly, another 2004 study showed that 40% of convicts bought their guns on the black market and another 37% got them through the "gray market" in various illegal methods.
We need to be enforcing the laws we already have. Get more resources on the job to find and confiscate illegal weapons from criminals. Stop hampering the police with politically correct restrictions and let them get back to the broken windows, stop and frisk, see something say something approach which finds guns in the hands of common criminals before they are used in a murder. We have laws on the books against all these things. We're just not enforcing them.
Dude, there's a reason you were classified "mentally unstable."
Interesting post but rather ruined but this paragraph. Hard numbers for everything but then it simply quotes a 'study' that says 40% of convicts used illegal guns. That's like pulling statistic out of my arse without anything to back it up. So ignoring that, you've still got 8583 intentional killings with guns.
"Criminals don't follow gun laws" is such a ridiculous statement anyway. So they just walk around with unregistered machineguns and when the police wants their license they just go "nope sir I'm a criminal you can't arrest me!"?In the US it is difficult to get machine guns (fully automatic weapons). The ATF (federal) gives out class 3 licences if you fill out their paperwork, and im fairly certain they need fingerprints, drivers licences, address and such. Also not having registered weapons varies by state. Virginia does not require any firearm purhased in private sales, usually referred to as the gun show loophole, so none my my unregistered fire arms are illegal, and in my state you can purchase any non-machinegun weapon at 18 in private sales. Since federal law overrides state in a non private sale you have to be 21 to buy a handgun, and it is difficult to find anyone that will sell you a handgun under 21 even in a private sale
You say 'if the fucking statistics weren't enough', please direct me to the statistics in your post.
That's all I want, pure unadulterated statistics. You can even give me a pie chart done by skin-tone (oooo, that'd actually be a great one), or a binary white/black %, and you can even choose which years to focus on. You haven't given me any stats, just a link to a page where it lists school shootings in the US (lol, it's a long list), sadly it doesn't give me a colour-chart next to each incident* so where are the stats?
You're mocking my 'sources' but you haven't given me any stats. I never claimed there are no black shooters, but presumably you've brought race into this because you think the 'poor brown people' are more prone to violence than other groups. Bringing this on-topic I want to see some lovely stats on how your world-view relates to school shootings. I personally think it's bullshit to bring race into the matter, but since you insist let's find out which group has a higher natural tendency in the US towards the mass shooting of children, go on, which demographic group in the US loves to butcher kids in school more than anyone else?(click to show/hide)
*almost as if that isn't important for some reason... (or most likely because the majority of culprits regarding school shootings are white therefore nobody bothered to bring ethnicity into it).
Current population of the US is ~320 million
8583/320,000,000 is 0.00002
According the CDC there are around 4m children born each year in the US
Now im not saying that 8583 death is insignificant, but im just trying to put it in perspective
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_ethnicity_in_the_United_States
'White Americans are the racial majority, with a 77.7% share of the U.S. population'
Largest group? Yes.
Accounts for 90% of the population? Nope
Even conceding the obvious numerical imbalance, those white devils sure are pulling their weight when it comes to mass shootings of kids. And because we can extrapolate this one single statistic to apply to an entire ethnic group for some strange reason, we need to tackle this issue at its cause and stop letting white people into the US.[/sarcasm]
"Criminals don't follow gun laws" is such a ridiculous statement anyway. So they just walk around with unregistered machineguns and when the police wants their license they just go "nope sir I'm a criminal you can't arrest me!"?
Back on the rapping for realzies?
Well on that note, if there's no cultural white-person-specific glorification of school shootings then that makes it even worse. Rather than some insane musical indoctrination, if there's no social pressure/glorification maybe white people are just born naturally more hungry for the blood of kiddies? Maybe it's *entirely* genetic after all!
Or maybe in both instances it's 100% to do with class and social pressures, and race is just a big ol' Red Herring considering class still loosely follows racial bands. School shootings are frequently middle class honour students, gang crime is frequently people from impoverished backgrounds. And unfortunately at the moment in the US if you're a middle class honours student you're likely white, and if you're from an impoverished background you're likely black. Just a thought.
No it's more like,
"Background check that I can't pass? No matter, I'll just buy that hi-point handgun off Jamal down the street for $60"
But where do the illegal guns come from? Presumably stolen from people who 'legitimately' bought guns, bar for those movie style gangs that have Russians bring them from yachts. So cut off the legitimate supply and you starve the illegal supply.
But fuck no that's too scary because those evil criminals will still have a gun once the legitimate ones are gone.
I wonder how many criminals with guns are killed by law abiding citizens with guns. I have a suspicion it wouldn't be very many except for a few crazy bastards with no sense of self preservation in the first place.
assault rifles and other large weapons are almost never used in crimes because how the fuck are you supposed hide an ak or even hold one without every motherucker calling the cops on you.
You know you can use an AK rifle with a shorter barrel and/or no stock, right ?
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
Something like this would be extremely easy to conceal, and can still be called an assault rifle in my opinion.
On my side, I'm happy to know that there is a little chance for me to get shot down at uni or anywhere outside the dangerous zones like Marseille, simply because it's illegal to own an assault rifle, and there are heavy restrictions on owning a weapon like a 9mm pistol.
You know you can use an AK rifle with a shorter barrel and/or no stock, right ?
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
Something like this would be extremely easy to conceal, and can still be called an assault rifle in my opinion.
On my side, I'm happy to know that there is a little chance for me to get shot down at uni or anywhere outside the dangerous zones like Marseille, simply because it's illegal to own an assault rifle, and there are heavy restrictions on owning a weapon like a 9mm pistol.
If that was the case then Texas should be the most dangerous state to live in, which it is not. It's absolutely hilarious how the bastards who want to reform gun laws live in the most dangerous district in the entire country, Washington DC, that has 4x the gun murder rate of Texas, explain that one.
Cities tend to have higher crime rates than rural areas. Texas is a pretty fing big state.
I'm just going to leave this link here for a few of you.
https://www.stormfront.org/forum/
Since the race card failed it's time to pull out the Nazzi card. Who is trying to turn the US into a national socialist nation? That would be the liberals. Neo-Nazzis would have been the first people Albert sent to concentration camps with all their dumb haircuts and prison tattoos.
Stormfront isn't only neo-názis. Lots of nationalist cunts there 2. Pretty funny to troll them though. They take the bait harder than Islamists.
I'm just going to leave this link here for a few of you.
https://www.stormfront.org/forum/
I do encourage you to read some of it before getting defensive, you seem to share some of the same views on race.
Straight from the CDC where most of the media is drawing their numbers (while not as good of a source as the FBI or the Justice Department) we can find out that of those 32,352 gun deaths, 21,175 of them were suicides. That leaves us with 11,177 deaths to account for. But as it turns out, the FBI records that 8,583 deaths were murders of various sorts involving guns of all types. The remaining roughly 2,500 were accounted for by accidents and unintentional injuries. These include hunting accidents, toddlers getting hold of unsecured weapons and shooting somebody or just plain idiots who proved Darwin right.
So we're down to 8,583 intentional killings using guns. That's still one heck of a lot of bodies, and surely enough to justify new background checks and other restrictions on legal gun purchases, right? Again... not even close. The Justice Department has been studying the question of legal vs. illegal sources of guns used in crimes for decades, going back to this study issued in the early nineties. They admit that the numbers are simply too hard to track for us to pin down exact figures, but the trends are steady over the years. The vast majority of guns used in crimes were gotten through illegal means outside the legal purchase regimen followed by law abiding gun owners. Roughly one quarter of inmates convicted of gun crimes admitted to having stolen a gun in that study. For the ones that weren't stolen directly, another 2004 study showed that 40% of convicts bought their guns on the black market and another 37% got them through the "gray market" in various illegal methods.
There you have it. Problem explained and solutions offered. My liberal friends are now invited to tell me exactly what else you'd like us to do if you're not willing to take these vary basic steps toward correcting the actual problem which you seem so concerned over. Unless, of course, you don't actually care about the problem and are only looking for an excuse to flush the Second Amendment down the social justice drain.
visitors can't see pics , please register or loginKilled me
Oberyn in every off topic thread.
Dumb bundle of sticks who didn't read the thread goes for the race card and white guilt at the first opportunity, wow much surprise. Yeah I'm sure stormfront are absolutely adamant that it is a cultural problem and not a racial one, you idiotic piece of shit. Keep doing this sort of shit man, every time you pretend completely legitimate criticism is obviously due only to vicious racial hatred one more dumb bundle of sticks will open his eyes and realize this shit arguement for what it is. Hey I'm going to post a completely irrelevant website now!Not irrelevant according to grytviken
http://www.worldstarhiphop.com/videos/
So like I said, you're a dumb bundle of sticks who didn't read the thread. Who made it about race? Before I posted there was zero mention of race in this thread? Oh are those facts inconvenient again?
But like you said the main victim of guns are suicidal people and I lost the statistic now, but one country that had implemented gun regulation saw its sucide rate drop by 60% or smth.
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
"Criminals don't follow gun laws" is such a ridiculous statement anyway. So they just walk around with unregistered machineguns and when the police wants their license they just go "nope sir I'm a criminal you can't arrest me!"?
Are you being purposely dense?
No, are you?
If firearms became illegal overnight, do you think criminals would just keep on acting as before? No, obviously not. Around here if I see a person carrying any firearm and who doesn't look like a cop or soldier I'm calling the police.
No, are you?
If firearms became illegal overnight, do you think criminals would just keep on acting as before? No, obviously not. Around here if I see a person carrying any firearm and who doesn't look like a cop or soldier I'm calling the police.
Jesus Christ you are retarded.Now, is that nice? Guy was crucified already, do you need to call him a retard too?
Jesus Christ you are retarded.
You know you can use an AK rifle with a shorter barrel and/or no stock, right ?
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
Something like this would be extremely easy to conceal, and can still be called an assault rifle in my opinion.
On my side, I'm happy to know that there is a little chance for me to get shot down at uni or anywhere outside the dangerous zones like Marseille, simply because it's illegal to own an assault rifle, and there are heavy restrictions on owning a weapon like a 9mm pistol.
Because it's not legit to call the freaking police when a man is walking near of a crowded place with a loaded firearm, right ? I'm starting to get why there are so many shootings now, it's not the fault of firearms indeed, but simply americans I guess.
No, are you?
If firearms became illegal overnight, do you think criminals would just keep on acting as before? No, obviously not. Around here if I see a person carrying any firearm and who doesn't look like a cop or soldier I'm calling the police.
Because it's not legit to call the freaking police when a man is walking near of a crowded place with a loaded firearm, right ? I'm starting to get why there are so many shootings now, it's not the fault of firearms indeed, but simply americans I guess.
Guns are not the problem.
United States' homicide rate per 100,000 inhabitants is 4,7. Russia's is 10,2, even though handguns are completely prohibited and long guns are strongly restricted.
4,7 is a high number compared to European countries: it is, however, an average gotten from 50 states with wildly varying homicide rates. Hawaii has 0,5 (half of Western Europe's average) and Louisiana has 10,54 (slightly higher than Russia) - and the average is gotten from these and the other 48 less extreme states.
Hawaii does not have a problem with violence, Louisiana does. To get relevant numbers, one mustn't look at the United States on the whole, but as it is: an union of different states, cultures and people.
Switzerland has one of the most liberal gun policies of Western Europe, and yet one of the smallest homicide rates: 0,7. In the United Kingdom, all handguns and semi-automatic rifles are illegal, but its rate (1,2) is distinctly bigger.
United States has 89 firearms per one hundred citizens, and 3,2 homicides per 100,000 inhabitants are committed with those. Mexico has 15 firearms per hundred citizens, but 22,7 homicides per 100,000 inhabitants are committed with those.
The facts are that the presence of firearms does not have an effect on the amount of homicides, only on how they are committed.
The homicide rates per state are as follows:(click to show/hide)
The north-east and west are the most peaceful, the mid-west a bit more restless, and the south the most violent by a good margin. 43,6% of murders were committed in the south (15 states).
Out of 17-29 year-olds, there are twice more black victims than white.
Now, is there a correlation between gun laws and homicides?
In Alaska, Arizona, Vermont and Wyoming, you can carry a loaded gun both openly and concealed without a permit. These states receive six stars (******).
After those come states in which open carry is unrestricted, but concealed carry requires a permit that officials have to issue: Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, Montana, South Dakota, Kentucky, Virginia, Colorado, Washington, Oregon, Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri, Louisiana, Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Maine, North Carolina. They receive five stars (*****).
Third, states where you need a permit for open carry, and concealed carry is "shall-issue." (A Shall-Issue jurisdiction is one that requires a permit to carry a concealed handgun, but where the granting of such permits is subject only to meeting determinate criteria laid out in the law; the granting authority has no discretion in the awarding of the permits, and there is no requirement of the applicant to demonstrate "good cause".): Utah, North Dakota, Minnesota, Oklahoma, Mississippi, Tennessee, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Connecticut and Delaware. These receive four stars (****).
Fourth, states where open carry requires a permit, and concealed carry is "may-issue": Massachusetts and Rhode Island. These receive three stars. (***).
Texas, Arkansas, South Carolina and Florida are "shall-issue" states where open carry is not permitted. They receive two stars. (**).
California and New York are "may-issue" states that do not permit open carry. Hawaii, Maryland and New Jersey completely disallow concealed carry, but give permits for open carry. These receive one star. (*).
Illinois and District of Columbia completely ban both concealed and open carry, and do not receive a single star. States with an "assault weapon ban" also receive a minus (-).(click to show/hide)
As we can see, finding a clear correlation is difficult. Both the most peaceful state Hawaii and the murder capital Washington DC have harsh gun laws in effect.
In conclusion, gun laws do not seem to have any effect on homicide rates in the United States. The same correlation can be seen internationally.
Gun laws and bans only affect law respecting citizens, not criminals, who by definition, don't respect the law.
Gun problems? Nope we have a people problem right? RIGHT?
http://www.independent.ie/world-news/americas/boy-11-shoots-girl-8-dead-because-she-wouldnt-show-him-her-new-puppies-31585745.html
The same thing would've happened anywhere, even... no... *especially* without guns!
Gun problems? Nope we have a people problem right? RIGHT?
http://www.independent.ie/world-news/americas/boy-11-shoots-girl-8-dead-because-she-wouldnt-show-him-her-new-puppies-31585745.html
(click to show/hide)
Gun violence causes tighter gun laws, not the other way around.
That's what I'm arguing about. By the same logic, speed limits have no influence on bad drivers. It turns out they do because law enforcement is a thing that exists.
If your shotgun is kept locked in a safe with a trigger lock on and the ammunition stored separately, in what sense is your shotgun 'protecting' you from rogue murderers/assassins/whatever-the-fuck-americans-think-they-need-guns-to-protect-themselves-against?
'Dang! A thief in the night! Stay right there a moment, I need to unlock my safe and retrieve my ammunition from a secure location, but when I do you're in so much trouble!'
If you are a responsible gun owner, you're not 'defended' from all those criminals you apparently need protection from cos the gun's locked away.
If you aren't a responsible gun owner then I hope neither you, your kid or any guests you have round (invited or criminal) ever makes any mistakes, loses their temper, panics or otherwise does anything else stupid not already covered.
IKR! Those cowards who think that just because of all the mass shootings in the US, they foolishly imagine the same thing could happen to them! Pfff, what nervous nellys
That argument is far more relevant when it comes to carrying a firearm in your vehicle, as some states are going to require it stays in the trunk and locked up.How would a gun in the trunk have made any difference in his case? Or even a gun on himself?
Just this past year, a friend of mine was shot in the head downtown after a couple guys decided they wanted to jack his car.
His sister was in the back and they got in with her. My friend told them to get the fuck out, so the guy shot him point blank in the head and killed him.
Point being, people are unpredictable, and I'd rather have a chance at stopping the threat than no chance at stopping the threat.
Come on there must be some statistics somewhere on how many criminals, intruders ect are actually shot by 'law abiding' citizens (cba to google myself). As I said previously I suspect it may be a very low number. You'd have to have a very small sense of self preservation to turn a gun on an intruder (who also has a gun) with a 50-50 chance of coming out on top and expect to win. I suspect most gun owning law abiding citizens probably shit their pants and hide/let them take whatever/call the police rather than use a weapon.
How would a gun in the trunk have made any difference in his case? Or even a gun on himself?
Now think how it could've gone, if the criminals were somewhat less likely to have a gun themselves.
Well, yes, that would be a people problem over a gun problem.
If the shotgun were kept locked in a safe with a trigger lock on and the ammunition stored separately, this wouldn't have happened.
What would you say if the kid walked into the kitchen, grabbed a knife, and stabbed the girl to death?
Would we have a knife problem?
If your shotgun is kept locked in a safe with a trigger lock on and the ammunition stored separately, in what sense is your shotgun 'protecting' you from rogue murderers/assassins/whatever-the-fuck-americans-think-they-need-guns-to-protect-themselves-against?
'Dang! A thief in the night! Stay right there a moment, I need to unlock my safe and retrieve my ammunition from a secure location, but when I do you're in so much trouble!'
If you are a responsible gun owner, you're not 'defended' from all those criminals you apparently need protection from cos the gun's locked away.
If you aren't a responsible gun owner then I hope neither you, your kid or any guests you have round (invited or criminal) ever makes any mistakes, loses their temper, panics or otherwise does anything else stupid not already covered.
If your shotgun is kept locked in a safe with a trigger lock on and the ammunition stored separately, in what sense is your shotgun 'protecting' you from rogue murderers/assassins/whatever-the-fuck-americans-think-they-need-guns-to-protect-themselves-against?
'Dang! A thief in the night! Stay right there a moment, I need to unlock my safe and retrieve my ammunition from a secure location, but when I do you're in so much trouble!'
If you are a responsible gun owner, you're not 'defended' from all those criminals you apparently need protection from cos the gun's locked away.
If you aren't a responsible gun owner then I hope neither you, your kid or any guests you have round (invited or criminal) ever makes any mistakes, loses their temper, panics or otherwise does anything else stupid not already covered.
Come on there must be some statistics somewhere on how many criminals, intruders ect are actually shot by 'law abiding' citizens (cba to google myself). As I said previously I suspect it may be a very low number. You'd have to have a very small sense of self preservation to turn a gun on an intruder (who also has a gun) with a 50-50 chance of coming out on top and expect to win. I suspect most gun owning law abiding citizens probably shit their pants and hide/let them take whatever/call the police rather than use a weapon.Statistics aren't a shield. Who gives a fuck about what "most gun owners" do, whether they shit their pants or don't like the "50-50" chance of coming out on top? Then they were unprepared, so what? No one should be allowed to defend themselves because "some gun owners" are cowards?
As I said before if you cut off the legal supply you'll also eventually limit the illegal supply due to confiscations and lack of gun thefts to keep the supply chain going.
But hell no propaganda on how everyone needs a gun to protect themselves from those wild free roaming gun toating criminals is clearly the more sensible course.
Funnily enough the President is a high profile target. The average family, no one gives a shit about.
Exactly this. But people like Overdriven and Heskey would rather give the power to the criminal, let them decide what they want to do -- rape your wife in front of you? Well, no problem, I mean, after all, that was statistically rather improbable, have a good one, guys. Shoot her in the head after they're done? No biggie, no biggie, most gun owners would have been too scared to act anyway, just try to make it quick, alright? Kill you after that to leave no witnesses? Ah well, if y'all think that's necessary.
Point being, people are unpredictable, and I'd rather have a chance at stopping the threat than no chance at stopping the threat.
Nope, I gave 2 clear scenarios:
1. You have a loaded gun under your pillow, if someone randomly decides to enter your house at night and murder you for no reason as in your post you wake up and can shoot at any perpetrators 'BLAM BLAM BLAM i'm so cool!' The downside is... YOU HAVE A FUCKING LOADED GUN UNDER YOUR PILLOW, which is retarded. All those news stories of kids shooting themselves/their friends/their parents are a result of that level of irresponsibility. But hey, if someone wants to assassinate you for no reason, you're ready! Which is more likely?
2. You are a responsible gun owner, you have a gun 'for protection' but it's locked away in a place where you'd never have time to get it/load it if someone randomly decided to murder you in the night. In which case you wasted your money mate cos that gun's no fucking use. The upside is no accidental shootings, you only die if someone decides to assassinate you for no reason (hey, sometimes shit happens, but which is more likely?)
You seem to be obsessed with a scenario that's *never* going to happen, and in preparing for it you pose a far greater risk to your friends and family in the form of a scenario that's *probably* never going to happen. Statistically speaking it's unlikely that you'll have a domestic gun accident if you're reasonably responsible, but it's still far far far more likely that a wayward murderer deciding to break into your house and assassinate you for no reason.
P.S: move out of your town as soon as you can. Things aren't going to get better.
If he would've only had access to a knife it would have been a lot harder to stab that girl out the window as apposed to shooting her as he did. Especially if she took a step or two backwards.....What about if he charge out of the front door of his house you say!??!?!?!?!!!
If they're small-time crooks looking to steal your TV, in a world where guns are outlawed how are petty thieves going to get a gun easily? Not every junkie or petty thief has underworld connections, and if they had tons of cash they wouldn't need your TV/wallet. Sure, in a simplistic world where all crime is equal and every mugger is a kingpin then yeh the criminals will all still have guns. In a world where guns are restricted they become harder and more expensive to obtain, only criminals with money and certain connections can get them, that's more than your bog-standard home-invader's going to have.
And if the boy stabbed the girl instead? Would you propose banning kitchen knives?Im pretty sure youre sort of missing the point
Im pretty sure youre sort of missing the pointNope. You are.
Can a kitchen knife do anything other than kill or threaten to kill?What does this have to do with the 11 year old boy killing the 8 year old girl? Either argue that case or stop trying to use it as leverage to support your point of view. But we both know you're just using it as an appeal to emotion, knowing it's neither here nor there when it comes to the gun debate.
And can you easily kill someone accidentally with a kitchen knife, or without fully appreciating what it is you're doing at the time that you're doing it?
What does this have to do with the 11 year old boy killing the 8 year old girl? Either argue that case or stop trying to use it as leverage to support your point of view. But we both know you're just using it as an appeal to emotion, knowing it's neither here nor there when it comes to the gun debate.A knife is WAY less dangerous than a shotgun, isn't it?
A knife is WAY less dangerous than a shotgun, isn't it?No? And what does it have to do with anything? It's ok to kill 8 year old girls as long as you don't do it with a tool that is more dangerous than X?
Can a kitchen knife do anything other than kill or threaten to kill?
Most laws *are* based around the dumbest of fucks though, that's why the 2nd Amendment stands out to a lot of Europeans and a decent chunk of Americans as being outdated.
Yes. Knives can be utilized in many ways.
Can a bow and a few arrows do anything other than kill or threaten to kill?
Yes. They can be used recreationally: target shooting and hunting.
Can a gun and a few rounds do anything other than kill or threaten to kill?
Yes. They can be used recreationally: target shooting and hunting.
Nope, I gave 2 clear scenarios:
1. You have a loaded gun under your pillow, if someone randomly decides to enter your house at night and murder you for no reason as in your post you wake up and can shoot at any perpetrators 'BLAM BLAM BLAM i'm so cool!' The downside is... YOU HAVE A FUCKING LOADED GUN UNDER YOUR PILLOW, which is retarded. All those news stories of kids shooting themselves/their friends/their parents are a result of that level of irresponsibility. But hey, if someone wants to assassinate you for no reason, you're ready! Which is more likely?
2. You are a responsible gun owner, you have a gun 'for protection' but it's locked away in a place where you'd never have time to get it/load it if someone randomly decided to murder you in the night. In which case you wasted your money mate cos that gun's no fucking use. The upside is no accidental shootings, you only die if someone decides to assassinate you for no reason (hey, sometimes shit happens, but which is more likely?)
You seem to be obsessed with a scenario that's *never* going to happen, and in preparing for it you pose a far greater risk to your friends and family in the form of a scenario that's *probably* never going to happen. Statistically speaking it's unlikely that you'll have a domestic gun accident if you're reasonably responsible, but it's still far far far more likely that a wayward murderer deciding to break into your house and assassinate you for no reason.
The point I was making is that a shotgun is more dangerous than a knife. It's a pretty easy concept to grasp. I don't know why you all are making it harder than it has to be. It's much easier to run away from/survive a knife attack than it is if someone is shooting you point blank with a shotgun. If I turn my back to run away, chances are, that shotgun is still going to kill me. If I turn my back and run on a knife wielder, unless they are proficient at throwing them and get extremely lucky and actually hit somewhere that can kill me, I'll survive, with minimal injury.So now your argument against guns is that it's not as easy to run away from them?
A bullet shot from a gun travels at a much higher velocity than a knife thrown.
Also, you have this thing called reaction time, it's inherent, you've all flinched before. If you flinch when someone shoots you, or raise your hands, that bullet still gonna rip through your body. If you flinch and or raise your hands in a knife attack, knife still gonna cut you, but probably not as severely as a bullet being shot at you.
Yes. Knives can be utilized in many ways.Technically, hunting is killing. Just saying... :)
Can a bow and a few arrows do anything other than kill or threaten to kill?
Yes. They can be used recreationally: target shooting and hunting.
Can a gun and a few rounds do anything other than kill or threaten to kill?
Yes. They can be used recreationally: target shooting and hunting.
So now your argument against guns is that it's not as easy to run away from them?
Knives are, in fact, more dangerous point blank than guns. Ban knives.
LOL! I know you're trolling!Your irrational feelings of fear are irrelevant when it comes to a discussion about whether guns should be banned or not.
Pistols m8, what about the pistols! I'd be more scared of someone pulling a pistol on me, then a knife.
Also, what about hand axes?
"Blam, Blam I'm cool?" Are you ridiculing defending your life? Are you seriously saying that? I already elucidated for you how the weapon is handled. How did you assume it is under the pillow? That would be uncomfortable I imagine. You are constructing straw men with your first scenario. You are assuming that the risk of accidental discharge is high with your first scenario. It is not.Heskey is not talking about 'accidental discharge', hes talking about how easy it is for kids to gain access to guns that arent stored in a save place.
Less.
Heskey is not talking about 'accidental discharge', hes talking about how easy it is for kids to gain access to guns that arent stored in a save place.And why is it worse for a kid to shoot another kid to death than it is for them to stab another kid to death?
Knives are, in fact, more dangerous point blank than guns. Ban knives.
A knife is a valuable everyday tool. A gun is more of an everyday leisure item and an item that provides fake sense of security.Fake how?
A knife is a valuable everyday tool. A gun is more of an everyday leisure item and an item that provides fake sense of security.
One can yes, also claim that a car and a knife is also a murderweapon in the hands of the mad. But those items are useful as fuck for everything nonviolent. Wtf is a gun good for like 95% of the population in the civilized Western world, who dont hunt? Crushing nuts? Opening bottles? Scaring the neibhourhood kids writing graffity? And even to those 5% probably the 2% actually legimately have the need to use it. If your gun is safely tuckered in your safe, like majority of gunnuts claim they are, to keep safe from kids etc etc etc, how the hell do you protect your family with that? Its not like massmurderers call in advance(most of them dont). By the time you even reach your safe, if you even get the option to do that, someone in your family probably already died.
I edited my post. If that incredibly slim chance does arrive where you do legimately need to defend yourself or your family with a firearm, you probably dont have it in handy anyway. It seems idiotic to arm entire populations for those slim chances.
confirmed for not knowing anything about self defense or gun ownership. please, can you and heskey come back when you guys actually understand the things youre spewing bullshit about
B-b-but this stuff isnt supposed to happen! Guns are gone everyone is supposed to be safe now!!?!?!!!
http://www.mining.com/fifty-killed-in-a-knife-attack-at-a-chinese-colliery/ (http://www.mining.com/fifty-killed-in-a-knife-attack-at-a-chinese-colliery/)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Kunming_attack (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Kunming_attack)
I live in a poverty stricken city in Poland, and the only protection I have is my wooden katana :) Other people might have a baseball-bat. I know intruders will not walk in with fucking guns.
the US have 310 million firearms within its borders
if the US did not have 310 million firearms within its borders, banning guns would be an acceptable course of action.
Jesus fucking christ guys.
allah fucking ackbar guys :lol:
Don't you see what a fucked up society with such easy access to guns is? You have trigger-happy people everywhere, because everyone MIGHT carry a gun! Police shoot people on the slightest fear that they might have been reaching for something or not even that. There's this constant FEAR of getting killed or shot, making a lot of people want to own one which they are most likely to kill themselves/family with than protect themselves with anyway.
Except there isnt, most people arent afraid, I dont carry a gun, hell, these days i dont even carry a knife longer than 3inches(ok, most days i dont :wink:) I go to a local community college everyday, there is ZERO fear of getting shot
If you love guns, there are ways in which your passion can be fulfilled, even with heavy regulation. Most countries allow gun collection and collectors of all kinds of guns, but you better be sure you have a good reason and a doctors paper before you are allowed to have one. So that's no argument.
In those countries, Self defense. is not a valid reason, not even in your own home. Doctors papers, paperwork, yearly visits by the popo? you dont get treated like a law abiding citizen, you get treated like a fucking criminal. btw, in those countries. your "privilage" to own guns can be taken away at the drop of a hat, even by no mistake on your part.
And the insanity of letting people walk around on the street carrying guns?? Having one in your car?? Why the fuck do you want that? People are PEOPLE. Biological machines that can go wrong at any moment. Because, cant really defend yourself if you dont have it on you :wink:
If carry is disallowed, there's a much smaller chance criminals will walk around with them too, out of fear being caught carrying a gun. There's also much less need for them to carry one, as well as non-legal guns will gradually increase in price as the supply diminishes.
except, they are already carrying guns illegally, so their behavior wouldnt change at all. much less need you say? except for "Doh jamal and me are the only ones with guns, now we can push people around as much as we want!"
Other countries have done this folks. There you walk around without a thought of being shot. Ever.
Shootings still happen in such "Gun-free lands of peace and happiness."
I live in a poverty stricken city in Poland, and the only protection I have is my wooden katana :) Other people might have a baseball-bat. I know intruders will not walk in with fucking guns.
yea, but good luck with the wood katana, so when the criminals walk in with melee weapons of their own. you guys can have a real life swordfight! itll be just like in cRPG! but a bit more dangerous!
Ban all guns and have everyone learn krav maga 4 free. Plus if a criminal is seen carrying a gun give him the death sentence.
Win.
except, they are already carrying guns illegally, so their behavior wouldnt change at all. much less need you say? except for "Doh jamal and me are the only ones with guns, now we can push people around as much as we want!"
yea, but good luck with the wood katana, so when the criminals walk in with melee weapons of their own.
sounds cool but krav maga is a joke. im thinking keep it weapons based. give everyone blowguns. survival is determined by how good of a job you can blow. all losers slowly die off, world is jammed packed with horny sluts.
win
put more criminals in prison
The only thing the USA truly needs.
I don't know what you're talking about. Must be cool sending people to prison for minor drug offenses though.
They don't get sent unless they have stacks of other open cases or plea bargains from previous crimes. More or less if the fuck up again the previous charges get brought against them.
No, he's right here.
The US has real shitty drug laws.(IE DEA can arrest you in "Legal" Weed states because of ICC and "They can't know what isn't grown locally so it's all contraband")
No, he's right here.
The US has real shitty drug laws.(IE DEA can arrest you in "Legal" Weed states because of ICC and "They can't know what isn't grown locally so it's all contraband")
It's still against Federal law. It does not matter if the weed is local or not.
Jesus fucking christ guys.
Don't you see what a fucked up society with such easy access to guns is? You have trigger-happy people everywhere, because everyone MIGHT carry a gun! Police shoot people on the slightest fear that they might have been reaching for something or not even that. There's this constant FEAR of getting killed or shot, making a lot of people want to own one which they are most likely to kill themselves/family with than protect themselves with anyway.
If you love guns, there are ways in which your passion can be fulfilled, even with heavy regulation. Most countries allow gun collection and collectors of all kinds of guns, but you better be sure you have a good reason and a doctors paper before you are allowed to have one. So that's no argument.
And the insanity of letting people walk around on the street carrying guns?? Having one in your car?? Why the fuck do you want that? People are PEOPLE. Biological machines that can go wrong at any moment.
If carry is disallowed, there's a much smaller chance criminals will walk around with them too, out of fear being caught carrying a gun. There's also much less need for them to carry one, as well as non-legal guns will gradually increase in price as the supply diminishes.
Other countries have done this folks. There you walk around without a thought of being shot. Ever.
I live in a poverty stricken city in Poland, and the only protection I have is my wooden katana :) Other people might have a baseball-bat. I know intruders will not walk in with fucking guns.
all these jerkoff say to make guns illegal and send criminals tp jail. well we already do that for just about everything and look how well thats turning out. in america the right to defend yourself is greater than any threat one might feel amd that is why our laws are this way amd if you dont like it you have the freedom to move the fuck away
(click to show/hide)
all these jerkoff say to make guns illegal and send criminals tp jail. well we already do that for just about everything and look how well thats turning out. in america the right to defend yourself is greater than any threat one might feel amd that is why our laws are this way amd if you dont like it you have the freedom to move the fuck away
[...]I believe that this is the smartest statement in this thread yet!
Edit: Let me just say in bold that, if the US did not have 310 million firearms within its borders, banning guns would be an acceptable course of action.
[...]You're a joke.
sounds cool but krav maga is a joke.
all these jerkoff say to make guns illegal and send criminals tp jail. well we already do that for just about everything and look how well thats turning out. in america the right to defend yourself is greater than any threat one might feel amd that is why our laws are this way amd if you dont like it you have the freedom to move the fuck away
Funny that the only (pretty much the only)people in the developed world that feel the need to defend themselves with firearms are muricans to defend themselves against other muricans attacking with firearms. The claim that criminals get guns anyway is not a legit claim. Mentally twisted people acting violently in the heat of moment however definately will not get guns, if theres very few around. The state also has a lot easier time tracking people and firearms if there is very few around. Lessening the chance of violence.
You talk so much about weapons as a defense against an armed attack ... is there any statistics on successful self-defense ?? After the charlie hebdo someone tried to recreate the attack but with the condition that all journalists were armed. I can not say the exact result, but it was about the same with what happened. And out of mb 10 cases, only one was able to shoot one of the attackers.
Does Russia allow gun ownership? Russia has almost twice the homicide rate of the United States.nah we use axes and knifes.. guns for weak
Fuck you, man, I didn't say you could use that picture of me and the cheeseburger.
Yea there is information about the number of crimes deterred by private citizens with guns. The number of fatalities is actually quite low, but hundreds of thousands of crimes have been prevented.
http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/15/defensive-gun-use/
just a simple google got me this.
Perhaps, but the general outline of that article is the NRA are full of crap with the 2 million mark and the conclusion: As the V.P.C. paper states, “guns are rarely used to kill criminals or stop crimes.”
Yea there is information about the number of crimes deterred by private citizens with guns. The number of fatalities is actually quite low, but hundreds of thousands of crimes have been prevented.230 kills in self-defense and how many were shot dead while trying to self-defense?
http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/15/defensive-gun-use/
just a simple google got me this.
230 kills in self-defense and how many were shot dead while trying to self-defense?
Probably alot more because murder is random and theres no time to react in most of these situations, if someone sneaks up on you what are your chances if you have a gun or not? it's mostly hundreds of thousands of break ins where people saw the owner had a gun and ran away which deterred the crime.
But that's all conjecture. Perhaps a lot of those crimes wouldn't happen if criminals didn't feel emboldened because they have a gun?
Going by the statistics presented that's 230 justifiable homicides vs the remaining 8000 unjustifiable. Until the first number outweighs the second there's no argument to be had here.
Could go either way, maybe more crime if they knew there were no gun owners. Also even if you did ban guns they would still be smuggled into the US through South America and Canada leaving only the criminals with guns still.
You talk so much about weapons as a defense against an armed attack ... is there any statistics on successful self-defense ?? After the charlie hebdo someone tried to recreate the attack but with the condition that all journalists were armed. I can not say the exact result, but it was about the same with what happened.And out of mb 10 cases, only one was able to shoot one of the attackers.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESPr7PXmHFk
If someone puts a gun in your face you bend over or die, regardless of what's in your safe at home or one ill-advised arm movement away from you.Speak for yourself. All of us aren't scared little nerds.
Speak for yourself. Not all of us are a fictional action hero who can pull out a gun from nowhere and shoot the evil criminal scum all in the time it takes for them to pull the trigger.
Nobody knows how heroic you were if you act like a retard and die immediately cos you have Clint Eastwood/martial artist delusions.
Scared little nerds need a gun to feel safe, and plan their lives as if they live in the wild west or some post apocalyptic wasteland. Hug your gun closer, it'll protect you from those mean old criminals you run into every day.
If ''slavery = legal'' was in the constitution, I wonder if these pro constitution tinfoil hats would support that as much as they do the 2nd amendment.
Speak for yourself. Not all of us are a fictional action hero who can pull out a gun from nowhere and shoot the evil criminal scum all in the time it takes for them to pull the trigger.Newsflash, the people pulling guns aren't fictional villains either, and can't teleport in front of you with their gun drawn.
Nobody knows how heroic you were if you act like a retard and die immediately cos you have Clint Eastwood/martial artist delusions.
Scared little nerds need a gun to feel safe, and plan their lives as if they live in the wild west or some post apocalyptic wasteland. Hug your gun closer, it'll protect you from those mean old criminals you run into every day.
Yea the US is nothing like Europe.. we have 11+ million illegal immigrants (some say 30 now) and raging drug cartel wars going on in Mexico on the outskirts of our wide open boarder, and 347 million guns in circulation. Banning guns is never going to happen, it's not even an option our Constitution allows. Crime has always been a problem in the US because of the huge influx of immigrants and all the cultures they bring with them. Back in the day it was the Cosa Nostra Italian Mafia and that took 50 years to get rid of them, now it's lots of mafia imitation drug gangs and random psychopaths. Not much has really changed really, just the media can be everywhere now and cover and ignore what it choses to suit political agendas.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
Also look at the murder rates in all of these South American countries these people are fleeing from... it makes the Middle-East look like a sunday walk in the park. More people are killed in Venezuela, Honduras and El Salvador than Iraq.
Liberals proposing total banning of guns = suicidal and retarded.
Eventually confiscations ect will clear up the streets for the most parts.
If someone wants to straight-up murder you for no reason, owning a gun is extremely unlikely to help. If someone just wants your tv and you're at home then owning a gun makes it more likely that one of you will be shot, but whichever one of you gets shot at least your tv will probably be safe so that makes it all worthwhile.
I don't live in the US...
Oh, wassat, you live a normal life + 'take care of yourself' without needing a gun? I trust your superior world experience Xant (lol), so clearly people dont need a gun to defend themselves, as you yourself have proved. As I figured, you're just being obnoxious for the sake of it.
If ''slavery = legal'' was in the constitution, I wonder if these pro constitution tinfoil hats would support that as much as they do the 2nd amendment.
Heskey give up. It's in the constitution so untouchable. They must own guns and justify it with illogical reasoning because it tells them to do so. Even though it doesn't at all and it's horrendously miss-interpreted.
How are you going to form a well regulated militia without the right of the people to keep and bear arms? The original founders also thought the military should not be a permanently funded operation, and the government should be dependent on the states not the other way around.
A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have - Thomas Jefferson
Founding fathers? Their opinions might have been relevant in the colonial times, but its kinda irrelevant now. Suprise suprise, times have changed. I think if I lived back than aswell, id probably want to carry firearms and be supportive of all my fellow countrymen arming themselves. Its not so vital anymore.
And dont you think that states being entirely self-dependant is actually a bad thing, on a count that it kinda ununifies a nation as a whole and makes it easier to shatter by minor internal conflicts?
And how does your grandpas right to own assault rifles come into play with all that?
And how does your grandpas right to own assault rifles come into play with all that?
Well, first I'd ask you to define what an "assault rifle" is.
I used to be on the anti-assault rifle bandwagon, actually, but realized it was horseshit.
This right here is my hog hunting rifle:You may look at that and say "that's an assault rifle," but in reality, it's a semi-automatic rifle, just like every other non-bolt action hunting rifle.(click to show/hide)
If anything, it's even less of an "assault rifle" as it's notoriously difficult to mount anything on an AK reliably.
Now, the Constitution states we have the right to maintain a militia and bear arms, but I don't think that's entirely relevant today, either.
However, being invaded by foreign powers is a thing.
I doubt that'll happen with the US (any time soon, anyway), and it's more of an afterthought, but the privilege of being able to own firearms is a nice one.
All that said, rifles are rarely used in crimes except for these terrible massacres we see.
Pistols are, by and large, the issue we have with gun violence in the US.
Add a bayonet mount and you can get charged with a 25,000$ felony :lol:
However, being invaded by foreign powers is a thing.
I doubt that'll happen with the US (any time soon, anyway), and it's more of an afterthought, but the privilege of being able to own firearms is a nice one.
Than do it like the Šwiss. Put detonation charges on everything, give everybody some gun, but keep the ammo highly regulated. Arming the civilian population with real bullets and real guns is quite a bad idea. As we can clearly see from the current example.
You talk so much about weapons as a defense against an armed attack ... is there any statistics on successful self-defense ?? After the charlie hebdo someone tried to recreate the attack but with the condition that all journalists were armed. I can not say the exact result, but it was about the same with what happened.And out of mb 10 cases, only one was able to shoot one of the attackers.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESPr7PXmHFk
Than do it like the Šwiss. Put detonation charges on everything, give everybody some gun, but keep the ammo highly regulated. Arming the civilian population with real bullets and real guns is quite a bad idea. As we can clearly see from the current example.
There's all kind of horseshit on youtube Vovka, including videos that "prove" Russian missiles did not shoot down the Malaysian airliner.You have to be amazingly detached from reality anyway to think making a scenario like that proves a single fucking thing.
There was one "documentary" by a liberal source to prove that being armed would make no difference in a violent encounter. The participants were equipped with paintball guns and protective masks with the pistols under long shirts. They were in an auditorium full of unarmed participants. Two instructors playing assailants came in with paint ball pistols and threatened or actually did shoot the lecturer at the front of the auditorium.
The only catch was that it was a set up. The instructors knew exactly who the armed participants were and exactly where they were seated. My point is you can set any demonstration up to give the results you want.
You can't prove that a carpenter can't hit a nail with a hammer by giving a hammer to a newborn baby and telling it to hit a nail.
Something that bothered me with the Hebdo reenactment is that the YT's failed to understand that, in an active shooter situation, an armed civilian might die, but might also save others in the process or scare off the shooter.One of the things about concealed carry is that you don't have to draw your gun. You just have the option to do so; "warriors are the only ones who can choose pacifism, others are condemned to it." If you judge your odds better if you just submit, then you can do that even if you're armed. If, however, you're unarmed and judge your odds worse if you submit, i.e., the shooters are walking around the office executing everyone, you can't magic a gun out of thin air.
Granted, the smartest thing to do is run, but that may not always be a possibility.
If you do have the opportunity to fight back, you accept the consequences of attempting to do so.
It may work out, and it may not.
Certainly, "advancing on the threat" and running down a hallway guns blazing is a surefire way to get shot and killed.
I'd like to throw a thesis into the room and see how it pans out:Having both the training and a gun gives you even better odds.
I say that having extensive, reality-driven hand to hand combat training gives you a higher percentage on successfully protect yourself/your family/your property than simply owning a gun, going to a range sometimes/hunt with buddies 5 times a year.
Discuss :)
You have to be amazingly detached from reality anyway to think making a scenario like that proves a single fucking thing.Armed Civilian = can stop the shooter and therefore stop the killing
People who don't have experience with guns seem to think they're not objects like everything else, like a glass or a chair, no, guns are made out of magic, and when you touch one, everyone receives the same magical skills and abilities.
When in reality... how the fuck can a YouTube video prove anything? Guns don't make anyone an elite killer, neither the aggressor nor the defender. The outcome depends on who the aggressor is and who the defender is. Guns are just tools. You can't prove that a carpenter can't hit a nail with a hammer by giving a hammer to a newborn baby and telling it to hit a nail.
A thread with Jeade is always a pleasure.
I'd like to throw a thesis into the room and see how it pans out:
I say that having extensive, reality-driven hand to hand combat training gives you a higher percentage on successfully protect yourself/your family/your property than simply owning a gun, going to a range sometimes/hunt with buddies 5 times a year.
Discuss :)
I'd like to throw a thesis into the room and see how it pans out:
I say that having extensive, reality-driven hand to hand combat training gives you a higher percentage on successfully protect yourself/your family/your property than simply owning a gun, going to a range sometimes/hunt with buddies 5 times a year.
Discuss :)
A thread with Jeade is always a pleasure.
Liberal scum thinks alike huehuehue
No seriously, it is very refreshing to see active forumite from USA who isn't member of glorious Robertson family.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YyBtMxZgQs (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YyBtMxZgQs)
Depends.
How are you going to form a well regulated militia without the right of the people to keep and bear arms? The original founders also thought the military should not be a permanently funded operation, and the government should be dependent on the states not the other way around.
just lol @ all these shiteating yuro-peons saying "hurpa derpa just stop letting everyone have guns xD" as if you can just delete all guns by passing some law. fuckin rofl
No, but it sure fucking helps you dumbassWould it though?
The well regulated part explains that. That would suggest proper training, adequate storage of arms ect. Perhaps blame the founding fathers for not thinking it through properly but the term militia seems to have been grossly stretched beyond intent, and only at a stretch could it ever be interpreted as 'everyone have a gun in your draw'.
And if you chose to interpret it like that it still falls under the 10th Amendment and firearms would still be legal. And no it's not a gross stretch beyond intent, it was put there to protect the citizenry and their liberties. Liberal policies of gun control have already failed in many areas of the US with high minority populations, the most notorious being Washington D.C and Chicago. Outright banning firearms would not only be illegal but it would not be tolerated by an even larger majority who would simply refuse to comply.
That entirely depends on how much pressure the NRA ect would have on state legislature. Some states may enforce it, some wouldn't.
Sure it was. But as I stated, in no way is what the US has now, a well regulated militia. Arguing otherwise is just daft. So that part has blatantly been ignored.
If they refuse to comply they break the law. And if they break the law they are charged with whatever offences and dealt the punishment. But in no way would banning them, other than in controlled and regulated militias, be illegal.
The official controlled well-regulated Militia already exists. Every state has a National Guard at their disposal which is armed and funded by the home state and under the command of the state's government. It can also be mobilized and used by the Federal government when needed.
If they refused to comply who would enforce it? The majority of Law enforcement and Military personnel are pro 2nd Amendment, as well as a large majority of citizens.
A thread with Jeade is always a pleasure.Because of the avatars, right? :lol:
Well there you go. If that's the case there is 0 need for other citizens to own a gun.
If such a high profile law is passed I expect that law enforcement would have to enforce it. Unless law enforcers in the US are more unprofessional than most...
Since the Columbine High School shooting in 1999, there have been 31 school shootings in the United States and only 14 in the rest of the world combined.
http://o.canada.com/news/interactive-mass-shootings-around-the-world-since-1996
What is the answer to your problem?
Im sure there is a lot of things to consider, but surely the easy access to guns must at least be a factor on the subject even for those that say "dont touch our guns". I think, cant be arsed to look up, that more or less all European nations has some kind of regulation on guns, Im sure it differs from country to country but still some sort of regulation.
If owning a gun, and from I have read almost half of the households in USA do, prevents crime - howcome when looking at police recorded cases per 100000 population USA ends up looking pretty bad compared to countries with gun control?
Howcome homocide in USA is so high only Mexico and Estonia has a higher rate in the whole of OECD, and that comparing countries like Sweden/Spain/Germany with your homicide rates USA has a 5 times higher rate per 100000 pop?
Perhaps starting out by prohibiting guns that has a sole purpose of killing humans and not used for hunting would be start?
Due to the numbers in circulation already, guns will still exist. But saying 'criminals will still get them' seems simplistic as not all criminals are equal, and even if still 'available' the guns in circulation would rocket in price if made illegal. Some 'criminals' may potentially happen to have underworld connections and a large float of surplus cash sufficient to get a gun, but a lot of petty criminals (your bog-standard home invader or carjacker) wont. Getting shot less is a generally a good thing.
Americans always like to say they do things 'bigger' and 'better' than everyone else, so let them brag about clearing up a larger number of guns than anything the lame Europoors ever had to deal with, 'US so stronk we got rid of way more guns than u', that seems like the natural outcome.
Yes lets isolate the large majority of law abiding and responsible citizens by taking away their rights and voiding the one important thing they believe makes the United States unique and prosperous,
Yes lets isolate the large majority of law abiding and responsible citizens by taking away their rights and voiding the one important thing they believe makes the United States unique and prosperous, that one thing the entire Military and every Law enforcement agency upholds and protects by oath. That will go over well, just as well as it went over in jolly old England. Except in England there weren't 317 million guns in circulation, and your entire nation's history was not based and founded upon a Constitutional compact between the state's and the government.Proves my theory that only the idiot Brits/French/whoever-there-was ventured to the new land and those with a proper dosage of common sense stayed behind.
one important thing they believe makes the United States unique and prosperous,WWI and WWII? :D
Wait so guns make US unique and prosperous or what am I missing here?
No, the agreement that the Federal government can't override the checks and balance system in the Constitution to pass laws by itself without the authorization and representation of the states, essentially putting us back to square one where we were ruled by a King in London.
Proves my theory that only the idiot Brits/French/whoever-there-was ventured to the new land and those with a proper dosage of common sense stayed behind.
The 2nd amendment was an amendment of your constitution (specifically the 2nd one), it was not in the original when the nation was based and founded. And you pledge to uphold the constitution, this constitution is a legal document that is changed and revised (hence the multiple amendments) so what's the big deal? We're not saying tear the constitution in half and use it as toilet paper, just amend it like you always do.
'Right to Bear Arms' is vague and already limited beyond the purest interpretation of that clause (you cant privately own an atomic bomb or ICBM in the US, are these not technically 'Arms'?). Considering there is already a risk/value judgement on scale and types of 'Arms' that have been invented since the amendment was made, why not clarify it further? To make you die-hard constitution fans happy why not 'Right to Bear Arms, specified as the arms readily known and available at the time of this constitution's signing', you can all protect yourselves with muskets then as your precious founding fathers intended.
The 2nd amendment was an amendment of your constitution (specifically the 2nd one), it was not in the original when the nation was based and founded. And you pledge to uphold the constitution, this constitution is a legal document that is changed and revised (hence the multiple amendments) so what's the big deal? We're not saying tear the constitution in half and use it as toilet paper, just amend it like you always do.
'Right to Bear Arms' is vague and already limited beyond the purest interpretation of that clause (you cant privately own an atomic bomb or ICBM in the US, are these not technically 'Arms'?). Considering there is already a risk/value judgement on scale and types of 'Arms' that have been invented since the amendment was made, why not clarify it further? To make you die-hard constitution fans happy why not 'Right to Bear Arms, specified as the arms readily known and available at the time of this constitution's signing', you can all protect yourselves with muskets then as your precious founding fathers intended.
The Tenth Amendment (Amendment X) to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, was ratified on December 15, 1791.[1] It expresses the principle of federalism, which undergirds the entire plan of the original Constitution, by stating that the federal government possesses only those powers delegated to it by the Constitution. All remaining powers are reserved for the states or the people. In drafting this amendment, its framers had two purposes in mind: first, as a necessary rule of construction; and second, as a reaffirmation of the nature of the federal system.
LOL if you believe that common folk actually influence any type of decision our government makes! Like for real dude. The only time it matters what people think is when it's time for re-election. Then, they placate us by showing us numbers on heavily influenced media programs that our votes matter, etc, etc; but where is the fucking proof eh? It's still the electoral college (allegedly) that has the final say in the end. Furthermore, it's how much financial backing, by whom this backing comes from, and what lobbying groups they've catered too that determines any sort of outcome in everything our government does. It's all about the money guy, and keeping the American public ignorant and feeding us placebo so we don't question it. Just watch any late night tv show where they ask people random questions and see how dumb, on average, the American public is.
They say ignorance is bliss. Just keep believing that your vote actually matters because unless you've got 20 million dollars to donate, it doesn't. You just keep buying what they're selling you.
Not enough of us (citizens) can agree on anything or are even willing to secede any points we are trying to make. Take this thread for example, no one, that I've read, has taken a step back to try and view it from another's perspective or even propose some sort of solution. Except for myself, and I was quickly told by Antiblitz, that's that what he was trying to tell me, because he missed my point on the gun issue to begin with. At which point, I was too tired from working 12 hour shifts all week to try and argue further.
We need stricter laws on gun control and we need to seriously consider what is acceptable as far as firearm possession is concerned. The problem, 98% of gun owner's don't want to give up shit, instead blaming mental health of the shooter's. That's fine and stuff but you can't make progress unless a discussion can be established, and one can't. You've got each side holding strong to a position, no one trying to make a common ground for discussion. NRA saying more guns and "liberals", as ignorant fucks blanket umbrella anyone with a differing opinion call them, saying less guns more laws. So again I ask, what's the fucking point?
that's because you can't read and comprehend. It's ok.
You were all like no shit idiot that's what we do we register firearms. And I was like, no fucking shit and gave up, because that wasn't the point I was trying to make. I was telling you we needed stricter regulations and all you did was simplify it. That's how you missed the fucking point. But I'm not going to sit here and circle jerk another 4 pages with you so get fucked m8.
On another note, ive found the true reason to continue the possession of guns, its clearly so we can take photos of chicks with guns. We cannot afford to let go of firearms if they are nestled within the breastsisis of a beautiful woman. This will be my stance now, Pro-guns for women with guns.
As a form of our newly made peace treaty, I'll give you this, and we can both agree, guns used as props with hot chicks is acceptable:im glad we could come to an agreement.(click to show/hide)
the easiest way to explain our right to bear arms is to look at our law system. our law system is set up so that the chance of an innocent man going to nail is almost nil. everyime a man that has been wrongfully jailed appears it makes headlines. even at the risk of guilty men going free we have this system. it is the same with guns. even at the risk of armed crime we allows citizens to defend themselves
It's very much tied up by a series of 'what ifs' on both sides:
- 'What if someone tries to murder me and my family?'
- 'What if someone is mentally ill?'
- 'What if a kid gets their hands on a gun?'
- 'What if the government becomes tyrannical and the peasantry need to rise up?'
- 'What if the US experienced a land invasion from a foreign power and the US military couldn't cope?'
- 'What if all the petty criminals still had guns and the police didn't effectively restrict the supply?'
It becomes very abstract when every single one of these 'what ifs' are extremely unlikely in an individual person's day-to-day existence. But on a grander scale, certain occurrences are much more likely than others - (eg. A mentally ill person or a child getting their hands on a gun is likely to happen on a semi-regular basis in a large country with an abundance of firearms).
You can pull stats on successful defensive uses of firearms and try to crunch some numbers regarding people murdered by guns and whether owning a gun makes you more or less likely to die in a home invasion, again the stats may not mean much to an individual person as there are so many variables in any given confrontation (and everyone likes to imagine that they're special and would absolutely win a firefight no matter the context or statistical likelihood). But when setting laws or determining the level of control, stats absolutely matter.
But what is ultimately more subjective is the personal risk-taking. If someone points a gun at you do you think 'I'm dead already, YOLO!' and try to reach for your own gun? It could feasibly work out for you in individual cases. Or do you think 'I stand a better chance of surviving if i'm unarmed/they think i'm unarmed' in a given situation? Or are you never going to be in a situation where someone has their gun on you without first having your own gun out? In that case do you whip your gun out every time you see anyone approach you? How long would you live doing that?
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
There are no reliable stats. To my knowledge no one has scientifically tabulated the data necessary.
Don't you think that muggings, home invasions, spousal abuse/attempted murder also happen on a semi regular basis in a large country?
During a home invasion, street mugging, mass shooting, or other potentially violent encounter the unarmed person has placed his fate COMPLETELY in the hands of the perpetrator. Quite a few people are unwilling to place themselves in that situation.
Being armed in public requires an attitude that is difficult for many people to assume. Many people assume that once they are carrying a weapon they need fear no one and not have to take any shit. Quite the opposite is true. A person carrying a concealed weapon must be the most humble of persons. No rude hand gestures to other drivers, insults, which if unarmed would result in fisticuffs, must be ignored. Confrontation assiduously avoided. The use of a firearm to protect your life or that of your family is deadly serious and the threat to you must be deadly serious as well.
Heskey, you like to frame everything in black and white when in reality everything is situational. If you are in a public place such as a theater or mall and a madman is methodically shooting people, if you are armed you'd better either flee or open fire on him because it relatively clear what is going to happen. If you encounter a thug aiming a gun at you, I'd say you'd be better off trying to give him what he wants because your draw won't ever beat his trigger finger. Being armed is not a talisman that wards off all evil magically. It will not solve every possible encounter.
nah we use axes and knifes.. guns for weakIt may be a luxury but guns are also viewed as cowardly here, same with other weapons. Knives are frequently used but it's mostly an immigrant weapon, like being many against one in a fight. Many natives have an honor codex of fighting 1 vs 1 but immigrants generally attack in groups and see nothing wrong with it (and I speak from plenty of experience here not prejudice), much like I see certain segments of blacks doing in the US.
- 'What if the government becomes tyrannical and the peasantry need to rise up?'
(click to show/hide)
The fact of how retarded all of this is(exept the babes with guns) and you dont understand it, makes me worry a bit about your mental health. As I understand it, your main claim from these silly images is that you do not have enough guns to stop gun violence. You need more guns to fight the gun violence. Like the awnser to fighting drugs is making and selling more drugs. And the awnser to ending all wars is having more wars. Kinda would work, from a retarded one-sided viewpoint. Mostly would still do more harm than good.(click to show/hide)
The fact of how retarded all of this is(exept the babes with guns) and you dont understand it, makes me worry a bit about your mental health. As I understand it, your main claim from these silly images is that you do not have enough guns to stop gun violence. You need more guns to fight the gun violence. Like the awnser to fighting drugs is making and selling more drugs. And the awnser to ending all wars is having more wars. Kinda would work, from a retarded one-sided viewpoint. Mostly would still do more harm than good.(click to show/hide)
i have no idea when i said any of that, but hey, im the one with mental problems, okay, sure.
(click to show/hide)
Your points are quite solid Jeade. Pretty hard to argue. I quess in the US it makes sense to be armed. The problem is that the US got a little too late with disarming its civilian population. And now an entire culture has risen up about prasing firearms and industries making heavy profit. All countries have had a point where their civilians had the right to bear arms, but those laws were retracted once stability was regained. US however never retracted it. And now its too late. So much is in circulation that your criminals will be easly fully armed forever.
Well a countries stability also comes to play here. Which is kinda the reason why US gunviolence is so shocking. For a stable Western country its too much.Look at the statistics. The answer lies in demographics.
Well a countries stability also comes to play here. Which is kinda the reason why US gunviolence is so shocking. For a stable Western country its too much.
I can somehow accept the fact that its about survival. I dont however agree that its your freedom. Cause if thats the case I also have a freedom to snort cocaine and own nuclear warheads. Because why am I denied my right to get high and the neibhouring country next to mine is an agressive cunt who actually does have nukes aimed at me. I would like to defend myself. See. I can make a rather valid freedom statement aswell.
The subtitles never had a chance.Human beings also don't stand a chance. Most of the time it's entirely impossible to understand even a single word they are 'saying' except 'nigga' and 'ya kno' I'm sayin', and when you do understand a few consecutive words it's not really sentences but sequences of the same few words repeated over and over and over. I remember a study once done on the vocabulary of this type of hood friends, though I don't have it at hand, but it showed they possessed far below the average number of words of normal human beings, even small children if I remember correctly.
Human beings also don't stand a chance. Most of the time it's entirely impossible to understand even a single word they are 'saying' except 'nigga' and 'ya kno' I'm sayin', and when you do understand a few consecutive words it's not really sentences but sequences of the same few words repeated over and over and over. I remember a study once done on the vocabulary of this type of hood friends, though I don't have it at hand, but it showed they possessed far below the average number of words of normal human beings, even small children if I remember correctly.
Also notice how they swarm single opponents when they assault white people/'crackers'. Like vermin.
What I find most amazing about these videos is that they aren't KKK recruitment ads but actual videos made by the 'stars' themselves, a template for their cultural self-image.
I don't allow Mexican to cut my lawn because I don't trust him with sharp blades.(click to show/hide)
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
(click to show/hide)