https://www.reddit.com/r/watchpeopledie
Some interesting links there. I've never understood why people agree to being executed. It's not like they have anything to lose.
No Germans because Germany is a nanny state.
451 UnavailableI told you no Germans. Why didn't you listen?
This content is not available in your country.
I told you no Germans. Why didn't you listen?
But let's all take a moment off from our busy days to laugh at Germany and how it bans subreddits from its users because it judges they're too fragile. Nanny state at its finest!
I told you no Germans. Why didn't you listen?
But let's all take a moment off from our busy days to laugh at Germany and how it bans subreddits from its users because it judges they're too fragile. Nanny state at its finest!
I understand why Xant lives into fear... he watch so many horror videos, his brain is polluted.What you're too naïve and stupid to understand is that perceptions don't alter reality. You not being afraid won't stop your family from being killed by someone who wants to kill them. A gun would.
Poor ittle boy...
Pple with guns are weak.
Pple with guns are weak.
Pple with guns are weak.You utter hypocrite. You have zero arguments yourself and still have the nerve to attack other people for not arguing properly with you. You're worse than Tovi when it comes to dodging arguments that you can't engage because you only have emotions on your side.
Guns will be useless when cybernetic weapons are introduced and Mass Effect styled biotics powers are introduced. When Guns and oil are irrelevant the fun will begin.
Plus then the middle easterners can't whine about evil foreigners wanting to steal their oil.
Nah, unless there is am major breakthrough in storing electric energy, chemical reaction propelled projectiles will still be number one for personal weapons.
Nah, unless there is am major breakthrough in storing electric energy, chemical reaction propelled projectiles will still be number one for personal weapons.
Nah, unless there is am major breakthrough in storing electric energy, chemical reaction propelled projectiles will still be number one for personal weapons.Are you mad that you can't see r/watchpeopledie Paul? Does it make you angry? Upset? I can tell you're upset.
Somebody shoots themselves and everybody starts break dancing, what a magical place.
Nah, unless there is am major breakthrough in storing electric energy, chemical reaction propelled projectiles will still be number one for personal weapons.
Are you mad that you can't see r/watchpeopledie Paul? Does it make you angry? Upset? I can tell you're upset.
come on, it's not that hard to google the workaround.That's not the point, Bloody Nine, that's not the point at all.
Fun fact: I censor my own eyes. Most of the times I see a gif or video with people getting wrecked inbound, I just don't click it. I probably lack the healthy amount of sociopathic curiosity that made /rekt/ threads a thing. Nobody is perfect.
Gun will never replace a penis + brain comboBeing called pepejul is proof of weakness. Deal with it.
Deal with it.
99,9% of pple around you is not dangerous. Being armed only for the 0.1% who can attack you is proof of weakness. Stop watching videos of murders and assassination, it is damaging you weak child brain.
lasers are the future
Ah, i used to watch this kinda shit in my late teen years (curiosity and such).
Just recently, like a week ago, went on one of those weird internet serf-trips and ended up on a gore website (don't remember the name), mostly watched things that are going on in the Middle-East, especially Syria, right now. After watching that i can positively say that there is some PURE evil out there in this world that just needs to be exterminated asap. I mean, the beheadings are just a regular everyday kinda thing that these people do, even the child soldiers.
There are videos (filmed with GoPro or something similar, so it's HD-quality) of ISIS (and similar terrorist groups) prisoners being executed in the most diabolical ways a human mind can come up with, like burning people alive trapped inside a car, or locking several of prisoners inside a large cage and then lowering the cage into a pool, drowning them to death etc. There's no turning point for these people, then need to be put down.
There's a training/recruitement video of ISIS children age around 9 walking around some ruins and shooting prisoners. Not that gory, but still pretty sikthey spit on Western values and do not show respect for the LGBT community,
they spit on Western values and do not show respect for the LGBT community,
http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/gay-syrians-react-to-us-uk-and-france-launching-air-strikes-on-their-country/#gs.wS1aMX8
Gun will never replace a penis + brain combo
Deal with it.
99,9% of pple around you is not dangerous. Being armed only for the 0.1% who can attack you is proof of weakness. Stop watching videos of murders and assassination, it is damaging you weak child brain.
You are not in danger in streets... carrying a gun against hypotetical terrorist you meet is just like wearing pillow suit because some cars could hit you when you cross the road.
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
Someone wearing a pillow-suit in town is a stupid fearfull weak moron isn't it ?
guns are pillow-suit for frightened chickens
You are not in danger in streets... carrying a gun against hypotetical terrorist you meet is just like wearing pillow suit because some cars could hit you when you cross the road.The irony of course being the fact that you're the only fearful coward here, irrationally afraid of guns.
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
Someone wearing a pillow-suit in town is a stupid fearfull weak moron isn't it ?
guns are pillow-suit for frightened chickens
I m not afraid at all... becaus I know pple with guns are weak... :mrgreen:
Pple with guns are more dangerous than pple without gun. Increase pple with gun = increase danger.
It is simple.
I remind you I really LOVE guns, I love hunting, I love WWII weapons and new technological weaponry like lasers, intelligent miisiles..etc.
I just don't want pple with gun in my streets. Especially nervous frightened young morons who watch violence and fight videos everyninght and think everybody can be an enemy. Theses guys can fire on children if they think they are terrorist children.
Maybe this one could be usefull :
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
At least it kills only the stupid guy who hold it and not the children on the other side.
Just look at these numbers and explain me why they died ?
http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/reports/child-injured-killed
I m not afraid at all... becaus I know pple with guns are weak... :mrgreen:So you admit you're weak and afraid of guns. Ok. It's fine to be a coward.
Pple with guns are more dangerous than pple without gun. Increase pple with gun = increase danger.
It is simple.
I remind you I really LOVE guns, I love hunting, I love WWII weapons and new technological weaponry like lasers, intelligent miisiles..etc.
I just don't want pple with gun in my streets. Especially nervous frightened young morons who watch violence and fight videos everyninght and think everybody can be an enemy. Theses guys can fire on children if they think they are terrorist children.
Maybe this one could be usefull :
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
At least it kills only the stupid guy who hold it and not the children on the other side.
Just look at these numbers and explain me why they died ?
http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/reports/child-injured-killed
Reminder that if you don't like guns you are mentally ill, female, undeveloped, and should not reproduce
I don't see any pple with gun (except police) in my streets cause in my Country (France) we are stronk and proud, we don't need guns. We just drink wine and look the gentle pple peacfully walking in our streets...No pepe, you're weak, see how the terrorists shot 130 French dead and wounded hundreds.
This life is better than your fearfull weaponery fear.
Pepe logic: gun are weak! More gun more danger! gun is evil
But pepe, here are facts and knowledge to prove otherwise.
Pepe: no, gun evil! Gun is dangerous! Gun are weak pple! I am right! You are wrong!
What exactly were those facts? The main FACT here is that in the US you do need a gun to defend yourself against other people with guns.No, the main fact here is that in the US you have the option to have a gun on you to even the odds. Criminals can get guns in every country.
In other decent countries, you dont.False.
Which is why I dont really understand why Xant is so pro-gun.
or is he just so personally paranoid that he's to scared to sleep at night without a firearm?That's called psychological projection. You're afraid so you're projecting your fear on me. Sorry, I'm not scared or paranoid -- the opposite, in fact. Since guns are such an emotionally charged and scary subject for you that you can't think clearly, here's an analogy: if Joe says "let's not ban kitchen knives" and Bob says "no, no, let's ban kitchen knives!" which one is scared? Joe or Bob? Hard question, I know.
Trust me man, if the slight chance of you ending up at gunpoint happens once in 10 years, you wont even have that piece on you. :lol:Why would I trust you? What a retarded assumption. Why wouldn't I have a gun on me "when I need it"?
(click to show/hide)
You can stop being afraid now pepe... Chances are you will die by something else, even if u visit merica.
And the "assault by a firearm" goes down by a whole lot if you're not a young black male living in a ghetto...
No, the main fact here is that in the US you have the option to have a gun on you to even the odds. Criminals can get guns in every country.How many criminals with guns have you seen in Finland?
False.Not really.
Because I'm not afraid of guns and I'm not pro-nanny state.Lets arm everyone with nuclear weapons. Lets have proper non-nanny freedom state.
That's called psychological projection. You're afraid so you're projecting your fear on me. Sorry, I'm not scared or paranoid -- the opposite, in fact. Since guns are such an emotionally charged and scary subject for you that you can't think clearly, here's an analogy: if Joe says "let's not ban kitchen knives" and Bob says "no, no, let's ban kitchen knives!" which one is scared? Joe or Bob? Hard question, I know.
Why would I trust you? What a retarded assumption. Why wouldn't I have a gun on me "when I need it"?
How many criminals with guns have you seen in Finland?Five or so.
Not really.Prove it.
Lets arm everyone with nuclear weapons. Lets have proper non-nanny freedom state.https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope
Well. Yeah. Ofcourse im scared.And there we have it.
Long distance murder weapons that really serve no other purpose to society but to "protect an individual and his family when neccessary".Plenty other purposes as well, like collecting and target shooting and hunting. Not that the right to protect yourself isn't enough.
And its really not a projection if you are scared too.Yes. Except I'm not; and you, self-admittedly, are. Therefore it is a projection.
You clearly claimed that you are scared that criminals might outgun you.Nope.
You dont have any factual backing of that. Which makes it nothing more than a fear. In Finland people punch eachother and stab.Factual backing for something I never said? By golly, you're right. I should make sure to have factual backing for everyone else's imaginary scenarios from now on.
Why would you? Do you claim that whenever you go out you will arm yourself always? The other point is that if an agressive tard suddenly does pull a gun on you specifically on the street, you would be lucky as fuck to even reach your gun and aim it back at him before getting shot in the face yourself. The big problem with "defending" yourself with a gun against a gunman is that you can never see the fucker coming.If I had a CCW permit, yes, why wouldn't I arm myself always? And again, stop projecting. You wouldn't see it coming. You wouldn't have time to reach for your gun before getting shot in the face.
I could debate with you endlessly. But I suppose you seeing someone elses viewpoint other than his own, is just asking too much. Which makes basically every attempt futile.That makes literally no sense considering what you've said previously. You haven't been offering "your viewpoint", you've been claiming I'm scared and paranoid and that I wouldn't have my gun with me, etc., i.e., just making shit up.
Honestly, you made no fcking sense either.Amazing, that has all the information value of a "no u" or perhaps a "omg ur dumb." Perhaps you should join a debate team.
So I decided to not bother.I can see why you'd feel that way when you realized you had no leg to stand on.
And what else is a claim that "criminals get guns anyway, I need one too", than fear and paranoia?https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman
You arent worthy of anything more than "no u".You mean you aren't capable of anything more than a "no u." Your desperate attempts to rationalize your way out of a losing argument are rather pitiful, Tibe. You already made long posts to me, then suddenly, when I call you on your made up crap, you can't say anything more than "no u"? Uh-huh, do tell us more.
I had a leg. Why bother to stand with it, while you are the type of person who just quickly tapes one randomly together and tries desperately to stand with it.Citation needed. Show us some examples. What's that? You can't?
But that really wasnt a strawman and you didnt awnser it.Yes it was. Show me where I said that.
What else is a claim that "criminals get guns anyway, I need one too", than fear and paranoia?Show me where I said that.
Dude. For fucks sake. You tape more legs together. Even if I kick a few down you just keep going.Newsflash: just because you say something doesn't make it so. I asked you to provide an example. You failed. Instead you repeat the same claim. Are you trying to collect all logical fallacies?
Id rather lose an argument than spend all day making 50 long posts with a guy who desperately crawls his way to be on top of an argument. I think ive proven more than enough that im willing to lose an argument if it is a solid one. Ive done so in the past and claimed im in the wrong.Three sentences where you're trying to justify your inability to provide coherent, logical arguments with irrelevant accusations and details.
You just throw some absolutely agressive gibberish towards the poster than the actual point. And you didnt really awnser to anything I asked. Which made me just quit on early. You may now proceed to slander me and claim I was full of shit. Im done replying.How can I answer your questions when you're claiming I've said things I haven't said? I asked you twice to show me where I said what you claimed I said. Again, you failed to do so. Want to know why? Because you can't show something that doesn't exist. And the most hilarious thing is that you can't see how retarded your claims are. It's like me saying
You just throw some absolutely agressive gibberish towards the poster than the actual point. And you didnt really awnser to anything I asked. Which made me just quit on early. You may now proceed to slander me and claim I was full of shit. Im done replying.
Congratulations, you now receive the "I've tried debating with Xant once" certificate :PYeah, maybe you could start a "buttraped by Xant in an argument" club or something. It's hilarious that you upvote his posts when he literally fucked up by claiming in 4-5 posts I said something I didn't, and that was his main debating point the whole time. But don't let the facts get in the way of rape victim solidarity, brother!
As a note: as soon as he uses a https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/xxx, its better bailing out.
Imagine this : you are in street and your car doesn't work anymore. You go outside and you cross the grass in little garden of a pretty house with flowers to get some help (phone or gasoline or just to see someone coonforting you).
Suddenly behind the window you see a fearfull scared stupid fuking moron with a gun, he fires on you shouting " GO AWAY TERRORIST ! IT IS MY HOME ! DON'T COME TO CUT OUR THROAT AND RAPE OUR GIRLZ FUCKING MUSLIM !" (yes the guy behind the window has plenty of firearms and watch all the day violent videos about murders and crimes).
You can't hear him cause you got a bullet in your head. end of story.
I don't want that for my country. We have unarmed morons..they are less dangerous behid their windows.
And in guncountries there are more accidents with guns at home than assaults by criminals... you can't denie that.
Imagine this : you are in street and your car doesn't work anymore. You go outside and you cross the grass in little garden of a pretty house with flowers to get some help (phone or gasoline or just to see someone coonforting you).Imagine this: you're minding your own business, suddenly, BAM, a fire truck lands on your head. Ban fire trucks.
Suddenly behind the window you see a fearfull scared stupid fuking moron with a gun, he fires on you shouting " GO AWAY TERRORIST ! IT IS MY HOME ! DON'T COME TO CUT OUR THROAT AND RAPE OUR GIRLZ FUCKING MUSLIM !" (yes the guy behind the window has plenty of firearms and watch all the day violent videos about murders and crimes).
You can't hear him cause you got a bullet in your head. end of story.
I don't want that for my country. We have unarmed morons..they are less dangerous behid their windows.
And in guncountries there are more accidents with guns at home than assaults by criminals... you can't denie that.
Jeez pepe stop it, you make me ashamed of being against private firearms.
I don't see any pple with gun (except police) in my streets cause in my Country (France) we are stronk and proud, we don't need guns. We just drink wine and look the gentle pple peacfully walking in our streets...
This life is better than your fearfull weaponery fear.
Jeez pepe stop it, you make me ashamed of being against private firearms.
Imagine this : you are in street and your car doesn't work anymore. You go outside and you cross the grass in little garden of a pretty house with flowers to get some help (phone or gasoline or just to see someone coonforting you).
Suddenly behind the window you see a fearfull scared stupid fuking moron with a gun, he fires on you shouting " GO AWAY TERRORIST ! IT IS MY HOME ! DON'T COME TO CUT OUR THROAT AND RAPE OUR GIRLZ FUCKING MUSLIM !" (yes the guy behind the window has plenty of firearms and watch all the day violent videos about murders and crimes).
You can't hear him cause you got a bullet in your head. end of story.
I don't want that for my country. We have unarmed morons..they are less dangerous behid their windows.
And in guncountries there are more accidents with guns at home than assaults by criminals... you can't denie that.
I don't understand why youre still trying to debate, the facts are more people defend themselves with firearms than murders with firearms everyyear. That's really the only fucking proof you need
I notice that : nobody talk about my words "there are more deaths because of firearms in house than from murders" but everybody talks about me and shame...visitors can't see pics , please register or login
I m not there to convince you. I just try to show the other way. You seem all ok to say "I m safer with guns at home", I just diagree. No matter for me you are 4 or 5 saying I m stupid.
I keep singing my song : "you don't need a gun if you are a man, guns are for pussies". Deal with it.
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
I m not there to convince you. I just try to show the other way. You seem all ok to say "I m safer with guns at home", I just diagree. No matter for me you are 4 or 5 saying I m stupid.
I notice that : nobody talk about my words "there are more deaths because of firearms in house than from murders" but everybody talks about me and shame...White trash not knowing how to keep their guns at their homes safely has no bearing on any semi-intelligent being's safety. But yes, it's probably good for you that you don't own guns.
I m not there to convince you. I just try to show the other way. You seem all ok to say "I m safer with guns at home", I just diagree. No matter for me you are 4 or 5 saying I m stupid.
I keep singing my song : "you don't need a gun if you are a man, guns are for pussies". Deal with it.I keep singing my song: "you need guns if you are a man, gunless people are pussies." Deal with it.
One fact is not a reason to stop top debating.
Fact is also that there are multiple times of gun related homicides in US than in any other developed country. Or other facts are that US
States with tighter gun control laws have fewer gun-related deaths or the states with the most guns report the most suicides. I say my facts are more important than yours, but as with most discussions there are arguments and facts for both sides so the crucial thing is to interpret and weigh those and based on that form an opinion.
I keep singing my song : "you don't need a gun if you are a man, guns are for pussies".
True, it only makes sense that there are more gun related homicides, but in states with loose gun laws, there is less total crime and homicides than states with strict laws. Remember, there are other forms of violent crime than just murder with a gun.
True, it only makes sense that there are more gun related homicides, but in states with loose gun laws, there is less total crime and homicides than states with strict laws. Remember, there are other forms of violent crime than just murder with a gun.The fun that can be had with statistics, right?
[...]
I notice that : nobody talk about my words "there are more deaths because of firearms in house than from murders" but everybody talks about me and shame...
I m not there to convince you. I just try to show the other way. You seem all ok to say "I m safer with guns at home", I just diagree. No matter for me you are 4 or 5 saying I m stupid.
I keep singing my song : "you don't need a gun if you are a man, guns are for pussies". Deal with it.
What I don't understand is how the pepes of the world can live with themselves, knowing they're unable to defend their family. I guess it's the same thing religious people do when faced with all the evidence: bury your head in the sand and try to ignore everything bad/everything that goes against your worldview.
So how does it feel, Pepejul, knowing that any man is free to rape, murder, assault, harass every member of your family, and you are powerless to do anything about it? What kind of lies do you tell yourself to be able to live with that fact? If you're as loudly obnoxious in real life, that's even worse because you're as defenseless as a newborn baby.
The police can do nothing to stop crimes in progress, they only count the points afterwards.
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I TRY TO SAY !!!
GUNS ARE FOR NAZEIZ !!!
My country is country of law. Pple can't make justice by themself. My familly can die more surely from car accident or stone fall from a roof... I keep driving and I still walk intostreets with them.
The danger of an armed man who want to kill or rape them IS ANECDOTIC ! How many chances that it happens (sorry frenchglish) ? Near to zero !
You want me holding a gun when I walk with them in steets ? And shot every man with strange attitude because I think he's a murderer ?
You want me to keep a gun at home in case of attack ? (how many pple are attacked at home per year ? millions ? no...it is so rare !) and if my gun is at home... how can it help me in street ?
I trust police to make the law respected, I trust judges to make justice, I m a citizen, I love other pple, I trust humanity and NO I DON'T FEAR PPLE WITH GUN BECAUSE REAL MEN HAVE NONE !
I M STRONGER THAN YOU, if you drop your weapon you are nothing... you turn to weak scared pussy. Me not !
C'mon, c'mon... fite me...fite me pussy :rolleyes:
My country is country of law. Pple can't make justice by themself. My familly can die more surely from car accident or stone fall from a roof... I keep driving and I still walk intostreets with them.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/10673482/Paris-police-wiped-16000-crimes-off-books.html
The danger of an armed man who want to kill or rape them IS ANECDOTIC ! How many chances that it happens (sorry frenchglish) ? Near to zero !
You want me holding a gun when I walk with them in steets ? And shot every man with strange attitude because I think he's a murderer ?
You want me to keep a gun at home in case of attack ? (how many pple are attacked at home per year ? millions ? no...it is so rare !) and if my gun is at home... how can it help me in street ?
I trust police to make the law respected, I trust judges to make justice, I m a citizen, I love other pple, I trust humanity and NO I DON'T FEAR PPLE WITH GUN BECAUSE REAL MEN HAVE NONE !
I M STRONGER THAN YOU, if you drop your weapon you are nothing... you turn to weak scared pussy. Me not !
C'mon, c'mon... fite me...fite me pussy :rolleyes:
In 1971, the rape rate stood at 2.0 per 100,000 people.[2] In 1995, it was 12.5.[3] In 2009, it stood at 16.2.[4]
According to a 2012 report, about 75,000 rapes take place each year.[5] In 2012, there were 1,293 reported rapes in a population of 66 million,[6] and 1,188 rapes in 2013 in a population of 66 million.[7]
According to a 2014 report, about 5,000 to 7,000 of the rapes are gang rapes.[8] In the culture of the banlieues, gang-rapes are referred to as tournantes, or "pass-arounds").[9][10] One of the first people to bring public attention to the culture of gang rape was Samira Bellil, who published a book called Dans l'enfer des tournantes ("In Gang Rape Hell").[9][10]
In October 2012, two girls in Fontenay-sous-Bois on the outskirts of Paris reported experiencing daily gang rapes in the high-rise tower blocks, sometimes by scores of boys. One witness described 50 boys "queuing" to rape her.[11]
The book discusses the violence she and other young women endured in the predominantly Muslim immigrant outskirts of Paris, where she was repeatedly gang-raped as a teenager by gangs led by people she knew
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I TRY TO SAY !!!
GUNS ARE FOR NAZEIZ !!!
The man who hold gun IS the danger on this picture. The proguns who use this picture to defend their ideas are just stupid !
Look.. he has the gun, he feels stronk, he feels superior, he's a chocolate chip cookie...(click to show/hide)
The man who hold gun IS the danger on this picture. The proguns who use this picture to defend their ideas are just stupid !Yes, in France lots of civilians died because guns are illegal there, so only the terrorists had guns.
Look.. he has the gun, he feels stronk, he feels superior, he's a chocolate chip cookie...
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
PPle on barricade were REALLY in danger, it was civile war... only fearfull dumbs think we are in war in our streets nowdays.Could you repeat your questions in English?
You didn't answer my questions about : when have guns ? At home or in streets ?
- You want me holding a gun when I walk with my family in streets ? And shot every man with strange attitude because I think he's a murderer ?
or
- You want me to keep a gun only at home in case of attack ? (how many pple are attacked at home per year ? millions ? no...it is so rare !) and if my gun is at home... how can it help me in street ?
And if it is locked in safety place, how can I use it fast in case of attack ?
And if it is in easy access place, how can I protect my children from shoting themselves ?
Please enlight me....
The most guys that outed themselves as gun owners in this forum are idiots.
Kinda sad to share an opinion with someone that is limited to the dialog options of a low int Fallout 1&2 char, but yes, I like living in a society that restricts gun ownership. The most people I know that would like to own a gun are idiots. The most guys that outed themselves as gun owners in this forum are idiots. You'd have to establish a culture that makes normal people see it as their duty to own and carry a gun as well as regulary train(best in coordination with the police) with it to reduce terrorists threats on a bigger scale. Until then multiple party shootout would be a nightmare for the law enforcement. I'd rather have more and more heavily armed police presence in the streets than a clockworkkiller with an ar15 on his back and a dog mask on his head who, although he forgot to take his medication today, is still is out there patrolling for the sake of the neighborhood.
I'd rather have more and more heavily armed police presence in the streets than a clockworkkiller with an ar15 on his back and a dog mask on his head who, although he forgot to take his medication today, is still is out there patrolling for the sake of the neighborhood.
PPle on barricade were REALLY in danger, it was civile war... only fearfull dumbs think we are in war in our streets nowdays.
You didn't answer my questions about : when have guns ? At home or in streets ?
...
(click to show/hide)
[...]I claim humongous bullshit on this specific statement :lol:
An armed society is a polite one.
[...]
You need to be very confident that you (and the people you want to protect) will come out ontop in any and all violent altercations that take place. I know that *you* are very confident that this is the case. Not knowing you IRL I cant judge if your faith is well placed or not.That is why most people need guns to be able to defend themselves... even if the attacker doesn't have one. They're the equalizer (them, and Denzel Washington). An average family man isn't going to be able to fight off a couple of drugged up home invaders whether they're armed with guns, knives, or nothing. If that family man has access to a gun himself, and is on the defensive, his odds increase substantially -- especially if the opposition doesn't have firearms. A small girl/woman has little chance against most rapists; add a gun into the equation (and some training), and it's a different situation. And so on. Without guns, the violent thugs hold all the cards. It's the world of the strong and the ruthless. And criminals tend to be ruthless, if nothing else.
But for the rest of us mortals who cannot guarantee we'll shoot first and best 100% of the time, we are safer if it's harder for the people who mean us deliberate harm (or are likely to fuck up) to get their hands on a lethal weapon (yes I know, a salad fork can be a lethal weapon too, but one that requires at least some effort on the part of the assailant).
But selling guns like you'd sell anything else is retarded. And I love when someone says " BUT THEY'RE SEMI AUTO VARIANTS BRUH !1!!111!". Cos a 5.56x45 cartrigess is less lethal when fired in semi automatic mode, right ? If anything, civilian guns should be limited to low caliber pistols, anyone who wants one has to be traced and pass tests/provide medical evidence to prove they aren't mentally fucked up, and they should have to pass regular tests about their aim. I just facepalm quite hard when people say that gun control in America is fine atm, since civilians can even buy .50 rifles in some states, like why the hell not ? Being more armed than the police sounds good when it comes to defending MURICA, right ? No one would use these guns to kill people, right ?
Guns are fascinating, but they should be owned ONLY by the military when it comes to any caliber higher than 9mm (or 12G for hunting), no matter what.
There is a very important lesson about being tough to be taken from shooting sprees. And that is a shooting spree - where someone comes in and shoots many people - ONLY happens when one side has the guns. Everyone remembers the Columbine High School tragedy. What few people remember is a year after I graduated from my high school, four guys came on campus drew guns and opened fire. The campus police, members of the faculty and even some students drew their guns and returned fire. The four original shooters turned and ran. Total body count....zero.
Yea, because good lord all the crimes committed with 50 cals and assault rifles, shit is rampant on the streets
If I was a fucked up terrorist, I'd use an assault rifle. Why do American mass killers don't use assault rifles like AK-47s, I mean, this is common for any kind of drug dealer/terrorist to have an AK47. It's retarded to bring an SMG or a pistol when you have access to weapons ranging from SMGs to Miniguns.Because contrary to the common misconception, firearms don't have power levels á la roleplaying games. If you're not engaging targets to hundreds of meters, why do you need an assault rifle? A Texas traffic cop took out two AK-47 and bodyarmor equipped terrorists who attacked a cartoon seminar. With "nothing but" a pistol.
Because contrary to the common misconception, firearms don't have power levels á la roleplaying games. If you're not engaging targets to hundreds of meters, why do you need an assault rifle? A Texas traffic cop took out two AK-47 and bodyarmor equipped terrorists who attacked a cartoon seminar. With "nothing but" a pistol.
A 9mm bullet has less stopping power than a 7.62mm obviously. You may survive while being shot directly with one 9mm bullet, but the odds for survival go down with anything higher. That's why I'm saying that, it's REALLY obvious that if someone goes full retard with a pistol, and if another goes full retard with a shotgun or an AK47/M4, it may end up worse for the second case.
Plus you may forget that a 9mm bullet doesn't really penetrate heavily armored SWAT/policemen. An armor-piercing 7.62 may actually penetrate their heavy armors. If civilians have access to high caliber weapons, it's obvious they're going to end up in wrong hands, no matter what. And these wrong hands will have better weapons than the cops, stuck with their little semi auto, low caliber pistols.
And these wrong hands will have better weapons than the cops, stuck with their little semi auto, low caliber pistols.
Seeing how easily mexico smuggles drugs across the border, one can assume that if we made assault rifles illegal to own in the U.S. and even assuming that somehow we managed to remove ALL assault rifles out of civilians hands... Mexican cartels would just smuggle assault rifles back over the border a long with drugs if the price was high enough.
A 9mm bullet has less stopping power than a 7.62mm obviously. You may survive while being shot directly with one 9mm bullet, but the odds for survival go down with anything higher. That's why I'm saying that, it's REALLY obvious that if someone goes full retard with a pistol, and if another goes full retard with a shotgun or an AK47/M4, it may end up worse for the second case.
Plus you may forget that a 9mm bullet doesn't really penetrate heavily armored SWAT/policemen. An armor-piercing 7.62 may actually penetrate their heavy armors. If civilians have access to high caliber weapons, it's obvious they're going to end up in wrong hands, no matter what. And these wrong hands will have better weapons than the cops, stuck with their little semi auto, low caliber pistols.
FYI, the 7.62 has better power in part due to the fact that it has far more powder to propel it. A single .22 to the head can kill any human, as it has enough power and force to go right through the skull.
In california squad cars are equipped with assault rifles. Usually they have shotgun in the trunk as well.
In hawaii I don't think they do, but there aren't very many gun related murders here compared to california... Not very many places to run and hide when u on an island.(click to show/hide)
The argument that taking away legal capacity for civilians to own a certain type of firearm prevents criminals from obtaining said firearm is fairly insubstantial imo.
Mexico it's basically illegal for any civilian to own a firearm, Yet look at what their cartel is armed with...(click to show/hide)
Seeing how easily mexico smuggles drugs across the border, one can assume that if we made assault rifles illegal to own in the U.S. and even assuming that somehow we managed to remove ALL assault rifles out of civilians hands... Mexican cartels would just smuggle assault rifles back over the border a long with drugs if the price was high enough.
Even if it removes certain physical elements from the encounter you're also increasing the likelihood that the assailant is armed. That significantly improves the chance that average joe facing the assailant is going to die even if there's a better-than-average chance that he'll shoot first. It turns a shitty situation into a genuine life-or-death situation.But you don't know what kind of a situation it will be if AJ has no gun.
And maybe i prefer the police being more armed than most threats to society. I dont want family-man defending his home, the local village rapist (favourite crpg meme 2015), the police, and the pasty nerd who got diddled by his uncle to all have equal firepower and pose an equal threat. Or the possibility of a miniature 'arms-race' as not all firearms are born equal.Sure. My preferred option would be that you have be an upstanding member of society (former police, military, politician, Ph.D... i.e., something that takes more dedication than 99.99% of random shooters have), have no criminal record or mental illnesses, and have to go through an annual firearms training course (~20 hours) to keep your carry permit active. I'm also OK with US style "no limitations" carry, but I slightly prefer Europe's "no one can carry" policy.
1. You and your assailant both have guns
2. You have a gun and he doesnt
3. You dont have a gun, but he does.
4. Neither of you have a gun
Armed with a gun (G), armed with a knife (K), unarmed (U).
G=G>K>U
U=U<K<G
In Scenario 1, even if you give yourself a better-than-odds chance of winning that encounter it still poses a high risk of death to you and anyone with you at that time if you're a normal human being.Not necessarily a high risk of death. There is some risk, yes, but like I said before you can significantly skew the odds in your favor with training, forethought and certain security measures. If you know an assailant is coming, and you know from where, you're almost certainly going to come out on top.
Scenario 2, sweet, he can back the fuck away, stay where he is till the police show up, or die as a result of 'self defense' (c'mon, nobody will ever prove it wasnt).OK, so you're not just talking about home invasions? I thought you were since you used "Average Joe" in your example before, like I did when talking about home invasions. That's almost better, though -- because you have the option to not draw. That's why CONCEALED carry is smart and open carry is dumb. And again, if you have no gun and you can't beat the dude in hand-to-hand, then you leave your fate in his hands (and the fate of whoever's with you.)
That is, if he makes his motives clear to you before he's close enough to grab your arm. If not you are basically fucked if you lose the grappling match cos he'll know you were going to pull that gun on him and there goes any chance for mercy.
Scenario 3, depends what they want since you're unarmed. What's more important to you, your wallet or your life? Genuine question, each can make up their own mind and take their chance, pride or life? Of course he may want to rape you and that'll change the way you balance that decision, or if the gods of chance hate you they may just be a serial killer. This one depends most on what they want and what you as the unarmed party choose to do. Whilst being the most at their mercy of all 4 scenarios, your actions have the most say in whether you die or not.Most likely you'll just lose your valuables, yes, but again, leaving your fate in the hands of an unstable person whose motivations you have no idea about. And being armed doesn't mean you can't give up your valuables... only thing that changes is that you get the option to try to draw if it looks like you're going to eat a bullet after you hand over your wallet.
Scenario 4, do they have a knife? Will they genuinely try and kill you? Can they kill you? If you dont fancy your chances physically then it's the same as Scenario 3, except it'll be much more effort on their part to kill you.They don't even have to want to kill you. An untrained person getting punched in the head and falling on asphalt is a dangerous combination.
Yes, but it actually requires you to aim, and I don't think there are many automatic .22 guns that let you spray in the crowd out there (I may be wrong, but whatever). And then, try to pierce a kevlar vest with a .22, and try again with a 5.56, guess which one is gonna actually do the job. I'd not be so mad about the fact firearms are sold to civilians if the calibers remained small and actually required careful aiming to kill someone.The whole "kevlar piercing" discussion is 100% pointless. Who cares if they can pierce body armor or not? Their victims don't wear body armor and if 100 cops can't handle some loon shooter they've got bigger problems than armor-piercing rounds.
Because selling them directly to citizens doesn't make things easier for bandits and drug dealers to get a lot of them legally, right ?
Yes, but it actually requires you to aim, and I don't think there are many automatic .22 guns that let you spray in the crowd out there (I may be wrong, but whatever). And then, try to pierce a kevlar vest with a .22, and try again with a 5.56, guess which one is gonna actually do the job. I'd not be so mad about the fact firearms are sold to civilians if the calibers remained small and actually required careful aiming to kill someone.You still have to aim a semi automatic rifle like an AR 15 or even a fully automatic rifle like an AK. Full auto is difficult to control. The chief advantage of those weapons over hand guns is range, penetrating power and capacity.
I claim humongous bullshit on this specific statement :lol:
The whole "kevlar piercing" discussion is 100% pointless. Who cares if they can pierce body armor or not? Their victims don't wear body armor and if 100 cops can't handle some loon shooter they've got bigger problems than armor-piercing rounds.
Cos... It's both dangerous for civilians AND cops/soldiers ? I'd rather give away my rights to own a (big) gun and to have more cops with better weapons, which make them able to kill terrorists/gangsters with less civilians casualties rather selling them openly like in USA and have daily disasters.Guns don't have power levels. Training>caliber/bullet/fire rate. There are no "better weapons." Real life isn't a RPG where you switch to a masterworked german greatsword at level 18 after you reach 15 str.
As you said, U<G, but if there are some guys around with bigger guns, armor, and superior training, it's more efficient than a lot of fat guys with pistols/carabines or whatever.
A traffic officer working after-hours as security for the event and armed only with a service pistol killed both men, who were wearing body armor and carrying assault rifles, Garland Police Department spokesman Joe Harn told reporters Monday.
Cos... It's both dangerous for civilians AND cops/soldiers ? I'd rather give away my rights to own a (big) gun and to have more cops with better weapons, which make them able to kill terrorists/gangsters with less civilians casualties rather selling them openly like in USA and have daily disasters.
As you said, U<G, but if there are some guys around with bigger guns, armor, and superior training, it's more efficient than a lot of fat guys with pistols/carabines or whatever.
But you don't know what kind of a situation it will be if AJ has no gun.
Some AJ unarmed scenarios:
1) Just end up losing some valuables and insurance covers for them... ok, not too bad, certainly better than dying in attempt to defend the sanctity of your home.
2) Wife/daughter gets raped, everyone lives. Depends on your POV if this is a better outcome than "X chance of dying while shooting the would-be rapist." But you can adjust the probability in your favor with things like training and layered home security until it becomes acceptable.
3) Robber kills everyone in the house.
4) Robber kills someone in the house.
5) Some combination of rape/murder/torture/humiliation/kidnapping...
Now, 1) might be statistically more likely to happen than the rest put together, but I'd rather not leave the lives of my family and myself in the hands of a random person who's desperate enough to go invading homes -- or worse, not desperate, but invading for the thrill of raping/murdering.
Sure. My preferred option would be that you have be an upstanding member of society (former police, military, politician, Ph.D... i.e., something that takes more dedication than 99.99% of random shooters have), have no criminal record or mental illnesses, and have to go through an annual firearms training course (~20 hours) to keep your carry permit active. I'm also OK with US style "no limitations" carry, but I slightly prefer Europe's "no one can carry" policy.
Game theory wise, having a gun is always superior to not having a gun.
Not necessarily a high risk of death. There is some risk, yes, but like I said before you can significantly skew the odds in your favor with training, forethought and certain security measures. If you know an assailant is coming, and you know from where, you're almost certainly going to come out on top.
OK, so you're not just talking about home invasions? I thought you were since you used "Average Joe" in your example before, like I did when talking about home invasions. That's almost better, though -- because you have the option to not draw. That's why CONCEALED carry is smart and open carry is dumb. And again, if you have no gun and you can't beat the dude in hand-to-hand, then you leave your fate in his hands (and the fate of whoever's with you.)
Most likely you'll just lose your valuables, yes, but again, leaving your fate in the hands of an unstable person whose motivations you have no idea about. And being armed doesn't mean you can't give up your valuables... only thing that changes is that you get the option to try to draw if it looks like you're going to eat a bullet after you hand over your wallet.
They don't even have to want to kill you. An untrained person getting punched in the head and falling on asphalt is a dangerous combination.
The whole "kevlar piercing" discussion is 100% pointless. Who cares if they can pierce body armor or not? Their victims don't wear body armor and if 100 cops can't handle some loon shooter they've got bigger problems than armor-piercing rounds.
Older stats, but(US only)...
*An estimated 3.7 million burglaries occurred each year on
average from 2003 to 2007.
*A household member was present in roughly 1 million burglaries
and became victims of violent crimes in 266,560 burglaries.
*Simple assault (15%) was the most common form of violence when
a resident was home and violence occurred. Robbery (7%) and
rape (3%) were less likely to occur when a household member was
present and violence occurred.
*Offenders were known to their victims in 65% of violent
burglaries; offenders were strangers in 28%.
*Overall, 61% of offenders were unarmed when violence occurred
during a burglary while a resident was present. About 12% of
all households violently burglarized while someone was home
faced an offender armed with a firearm.
A traffic officer working after-hours as security for the event and armed only with a service pistol killed both men, who were wearing body armor and carrying assault rifles, Garland Police Department spokesman Joe Harn told reporters Monday.
You show how little you know. Combat shooting is extremely hard. Most people can't hit the side of a barn with a shotgun, from inside the barn, because of the mix of fear and adrenaline.
There are no "better weapons." A pistol is many times preferable to a rifle in a city. Especially in LE duties where you have to clear rooms.
Your rhetoric is extremely confused in any case; if anyone was able to operate any gun effectively "in a crowd," then guns would matter even less - just 360 noscope everyone in the head with an air gun. And "firearms have a role in these deaths", no shit, so what? How many of them are because "he had a level 76 assault rifle and I only had a level 12 pistol"?
The stats don't show the exact circumstances of the death, so what ? I fail to see how can a compact (easy to carry/conceal), medium-high caliber weapon (->high stopping power), with automatic fire on, operated by a trained,fearless and completely insane terrorist (doesn't suffer from the "I can't hit the side of a barn" syndrom you described), be less effective than the regular cop with a pistol when it comes at killing people. Oh and,Yes, exactly, the stats don't show the circumstances of their death, hence you're doing something called making shit up. Why are you linking to statistics that have nothing to do with what you were saying? "Look, I told you ice cream is responsible for all these deaths! *links to how many people die in the US every year*"
"Most people can't hit the side of a barn with a shotgun, from inside the barn, because of the mix of fear and adrenaline. "
Good to know we're allowing civilians to buy guns in US then ! Must be useful when a terrorist who doesn't fear to shoot or to be shot pops up right in front of you, knowing you won't kill him anyway no matter what. Damnit, PEPE must be true when he says that a large part of the gun users are just fearful guys, scared to pull the trigger.
Let's face it, auto-defense groups or whatever you want to call them are a joke. There has been a link posted some time ago that clearly showed that the amount of terrorists killed by civilians and the amount of terrorists killed by cops are kinda different, but whatever.
Good to know we're allowing civilians to buy guns in US then ! Must be useful when a terrorist who doesn't fear to shoot or to be shot pops up right in front of you, knowing you won't kill him anyway no matter what. Damnit, PEPE must be true when he says that a large part of the gun users are just fearful guys, scared to pull the trigger.Because terrorists aren't people? Idiot.
Let's face it, auto-defense groups or whatever you want to call them are a joke.What the fuck are auto-defense groups?
There has been a link posted some time ago that clearly showed that the amount of terrorists killed by civilians and the amount of terrorists killed by cops are kinda different, but whatever.... And? I think EVERY mass shooting in the last dozen or so years has taken place in a Gun Free Zone.
I don't think you understand how the Mexico-USA border trafficking works.
Works like this:
USA smuggles firearms into mexico because they sell for much higher than they do in the U.S. because of mexico's strict gun laws which drives up demand.
Game theory wise, having a gun is always superior to not having a gun.There are examples of fucked up nash-equilibria. This is one of it. Individually it might be reasonable to carry a gun to have an edge in most situations but on a grander scale(society-wise) the less weapons people run around with every day the better. This is in my opinion at least true in reasonably safe societies where the occational robber just wants your money and not just to murder you.* Central Europe is still relatively safe after all even with the terror threat. The threat that would come from arguments turning into shootouts instead of brawls or club entrance rejects pulling a gun is still bigger in my eyes.
There are examples of fucked up nash-equilibria. This is one of it
Yes, exactly, the stats don't show the circumstances of their death, hence you're doing something called making shit up. Why are you linking to statistics that have nothing to do with what you were saying? "Look, I told you ice cream is responsible for all these deaths! *links to how many people die in the US every year*"
I guess I can't be arsed to look for hours for the exact causes of death. Sorry about that. And yet it does prove my point, since firearms aren't a danger only for civilians, but armored cops as well, since they are wearing ballistic vests : some of these weapons were probably bought legally, and were powerful enough to kill policemen in duty.
I have no doubt you "fail to see that" since you've probably never even seen a firearm. Especially since you think "automatic fire on" is somehow a positive when it comes to killing people.
I'm sure of some things, because it's theorically true. Prove me that careful trigger discipline with automatic fire on isn't deadlier than a gun locked in semi auto.
Because terrorists aren't people?
They are people who want to kill other people, and do not give a shit or two about dying. Proves my point that they won't fear to pull the trigger.
Idiot.
Ad hominem as hell.
What the fuck are auto-defense groups? Don't know how to call these associations of patriots proudly "defending" their country with guns, claiming they're the real "thing" when it comes to safety. Cops and the military will ALWAYS be superior to random fat rednecks with shotguns.
... And? I think EVERY mass shooting in the last dozen or so years has taken place in a Gun Free Zone.
My point, since the beginning, is that terrorists and murderers can PURCHASE military-grade weapons as long as they've got the money for it, it's like if France was handing directly AKs to Paris attackers.
Yup, basic prisoner's dilemma situation.And the rational way to act in prisoner's dilemma is that both defect, meaning both carry a gun..
Xant, pls.http://forum.melee.org/general-off-topic/ad-hominem-you-3-things-you'll-be-perplexed-and-amazed-by-on-a-forum/msg1174601/#msg1174601
And the rational way to act in prisoner's dilemma is that both defect, meaning both carry a gun..
Well, it's generally held up as an example of when applying classical rationality to the problem does not result in the good outcome.No, it's not "held up as an example" of that. It's simple logic. And on top of that, it even holds up when taking human nature into consideration. It only supports my argument, so it makes no sense for you to go "yup, basic prisoner's dilemma situation" if you understood PD.
And the game is completely different when it's not a one-off, which would mean that the people play the game once and absolutely never meet or interact again, making it somewhat different from our usual existence with other humans.So let me get this straight: you introduce prisoner's dilemma into the conversation saying it's a "basic prisoner's dilemma situation", then backpedal as fast as you can to make it have nothing to do with the conversation at all and adding all kinds of additional rules that have nothing to do with the basic prisoner's dilemma? Ok.
No, it's not "held up as an example" of that. It's simple logic. And on top of that, it even holds up when taking human nature into consideration. It only supports my argument, so it makes no sense for you to go "yup, basic prisoner's dilemma situation" if you understood PD.
So let me get this straight: you introduce prisoner's dilemma into the conversation saying it's a "basic prisoner's dilemma situation", then backpedal as fast as you can to make it have nothing to do with the conversation at all and adding all kinds of additional rules that have nothing to do with the basic prisoner's dilemma? Ok.
Basic as in how hard it is to recognize as a prisoner's dilemma type situation. It would be quite mad to claim that most people out there will never meet someone twice.How do you think the reciprocity, reputation, and "meeting someone later" aspects of non-basic PDs translate into gun ownership? The basic form of PD is the most accurate analogy. When you add "gang affiliations" and "meeting someone again" (lol) it makes zero sense when you're talking about gun ownership...
The problem in game theory is but a model, and models and reality never quite fully meet, but if we want to gain useful solutions that we can gainfully apply in real life, we should try to at least come close.
The real world is complex and messy, not simple, pretty and clean like a game.
But you're probably the first one I've met to celebrate the classical self-interest outcome of prisoner's dilemma. That's something.
If you think about it, it's the state's responsibility to move the nash equilibrium away being armed. Harsh penalties for owning, carrying or even using a gun is the way to go. Combined with effective controls it will make it a high risk to bring a gun into the game that at some point outweights the advantages it gives in certain situations.Pretty sure this is already the case everywhere. Many burglars DON'T bring a firearm with them in the US because if they get caught with one they'll get much harsher sentences.
Non-murder crimes involving firearms should be penaltized much harsher than without. This will hopefully make a burglar, mugger or rapists not bring one to work, effectively reducing the lethality rate. A knife kills you just as dead as a gun but at least you can try to run.
I think everything I wrote is already done so by the more sensible governments.
How do you think the reciprocity, reputation, and "meeting someone later" aspects of non-basic PDs translate into gun ownership? The basic form of PD is the most accurate analogy. When you add "gang affiliations" and "meeting someone again" (lol) it makes zero sense when you're talking about gun ownership...
How would social interactions work in real life with regard to guns? Is that a hard question?What are you talking about? I bet you don't even know yourself anymore.
Anyhow, the "basic" one-off prisoner's dilemma would basically be the equivalent of meeting a stranger in a dark alley in a foreign city.
Actually living in a society would be closer to hundreds or more of repeating games.
And repeating games are not exotic in game theory.
What are you talking about? I bet you don't even know yourself anymore.
You think everyone should get a gun, and it's only rational.Do I? Well, I guess that's what I think, since you said so.
I think the model woefully insufficient to map all relevant factors, especially as a one-off game.Obviously. It being a one-off game has nothing to do with anything, however. Joe Average isn't going to run into hundreds of encounters.
Also, even in the one off game of prisoner's dilemma, both defecting (getting a gun) results in the non-optimal result. A society that does that would be scored as less fit than one that plays optimally, it's right there in the definition.Yes, and? If A tries to cooperate and B defects, B gets the best possible outcome. Therefore there will be defectors, therefore cooperation in vanilla PD is stupid. Humans don't think about "fitness of the society as a whole" when deciding their course of action.
If guns are below a certain threshold, you might get the double benefits of individual and societal fitness.And defectors get quadruple the benefits, then. Evolutionary psychology deals with the subject a lot from the perspective of both game theory and biology. The checks and balances in place to stop everyone from defecting all the time are nowhere to be seen in a "gun prisoner's dilemma." And even with all those checks and balances in nature, there are whole species devoted to defecting.
That's what these simulations repeating games of prisoner's dilemma say about it, anyhow.No, it's not. Show me these multiple simulations of gun-prisoner's-dilemma.
Do I? Well, I guess that's what I think, since you said so.
And the rational way to act in prisoner's dilemma is that both defect, meaning both carry a gun..
No, it's not "held up as an example" of that. It's simple logic. And on top of that, it even holds up when taking human nature into consideration. It only supports my argument, so it makes no sense for you to go "yup, basic prisoner's dilemma situation" if you understood PD.
Obviously. It being a one-off game has nothing to do with anything, however. Joe Average isn't going to run into hundreds of encounters.
Yes, and? If A tries to cooperate and B defects, B gets the best possible outcome. Therefore there will be defectors, therefore cooperation in vanilla PD is stupid.
Humans don't think about "fitness of the society as a whole" when deciding their course of action.
And defectors get quadruple the benefits, then.
Evolutionary psychology deals with the subject a lot from the perspective of both game theory and biology.
The checks and balances in place to stop everyone from defecting all the time are nowhere to be seen in a "gun prisoner's dilemma."
And even with all those checks and balances in nature, there are whole species devoted to defecting.
No, it's not. Show me these multiple simulations of gun-prisoner's-dilemma.
What are you talking about? I bet you don't even know yourself anymore.
I do and find you outsmarted. Are you an idiot?A retard's view on intelligence is VERY important to me.
number of shooting in schools in our noguns countries : 0Try at least 1 in France :
Just remember that when the next univerity college mass murder occurs in a gunlikers land...
number of shooting in schools in our noguns countries : 0
Just remember that when the next univerity college mass murder occurs in a gunlikers land...
Asheram. Mohamed merah is good exemple. What is you advice to stop the next one ? Give weapons to school children ? Guns to teachers ? Tell me...
There is a very important lesson about being tough to be taken from shooting sprees. And that is a shooting spree - where someone comes in and shoots many people - ONLY happens when one side has the guns. Everyone remembers the Columbine High School tragedy. What few people remember is a year after I graduated from my high school, four guys came on campus drew guns and opened fire. The campus police, members of the faculty and even some students drew their guns and returned fire. The four original shooters turned and ran. Total body count....zero.
Asheram. Mohamed merah is good exemple. What is you advice to stop the next one ? Give weapons to school children ? Guns to teachers ? Tell me...You said 0 it wasn't zero. And yes maybe some of the teachers should be required to train and carry firearms. You come off as self righteous and wanting to argue a topic that wont be solved in this forum so I am stopping here.
Xant, stop wasting your time, these idiots are so far gone there is zero hope for them, let them go about blindly in their lives and as such, suffer the consequences
Genious ! Give them guns !
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/dec/14/french-teacher-stabbed-isis-sympathizer-fab/
And pay for training with new taxes !
GENIOUS !!!!
XANT PRESIDENT !!!! :rolleyes:
you didnt even read what the fuck you posted did you? Pepe, im surprised youve gone this long in this thread without receiving an official stfu, so here it is from me.
PepeJul, please shut the fuck up, youre an idiot, it was probably you who stabbed yourself you "cuck".
Genious ! Give them guns !
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/dec/14/french-teacher-stabbed-isis-sympathizer-fab/
And pay for training with new taxes !
GENIOUS !!!!
XANT PRESIDENT !!!! :rolleyes:
thank you for good argumentation ; just insulting pple. So smart. So brave. So usefull in debate. You wins.no, fuck off, youve been brain dead for like 10 pages, youve made zero conscious effort to put together an argument, or maybe you have and i just cant tell. The only insulting posts that have been made have been every post youve made in this thread.
The teacher stabbed himself with cutter and cisal. Imagine if he got a gun instead ? Give guns to pple = give guns to some mad, crazy, psychos,etc... It is more dangerous !
Genious ! Give them guns !What does that have to do with guns?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/dec/14/french-teacher-stabbed-isis-sympathizer-fab/
And pay for training with new taxes !
GENIOUS !!!!
XANT PRESIDENT !!!! :rolleyes:
inb4 his kids start crying over you being mean to him and it's all your fault.Yes, let's not forget Pepe is the retard who shows his kid minus votes on his posts to make him cry, then blames the cRPG forums for it.
Does anyone have any data on the benefits of civilian-owned guns? I am genuinely curious, I just rarely seem to read headlines like "Upstanding CCW citizens kill terrorists". Even smaller scale like robbery or home-invasion, is there any data on armed victims affecting the outcome in a positive way?http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control-myths/concealed-carry/
gunfacts.info
Hei Tibe. Why exactly are the democrats superior? Gimme some logical unbiased neutral info about it?
Notes:
An examination of the effects of concealed weapons laws and assault weapons bans on state-level murder rates, Applied Economics Letters, Vol 21, No. 4 ↩
Florida Department of Justice, 1998 ↩
Shall issue: the new wave of concealed handgun permit laws, Cramer C and Kopel D. Golden CO: Independence Institute Issue Paper. October 17, 1994 ↩
Some criminologist believe measuring first year change is shortsighted as it takes more than a year for permits to be issued, reach critical quantities, and for the criminally minded to recognize the new situation and avoid violent confrontations. ↩
Bureau of Justice Statistics, online database, reviewing Texas and U.S. violent crime from 1995-2001. ↩
Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns, Lott, John R., and Mustard, David B. J. of Legal Studies, vol.26, n.1, pp.1-68 (Jan. 1997): This study involved county level crime statistics from all 3,054 counties in the U.S., from 1977 through 1992. During this time ten states adopted right-to-carry laws. It is estimated that if all states had adopted right-to-carry laws, in 1992 the US would have avoided 1,400 murders, 4,200 rapes, 12,000 robberies, 60,000 aggravated assaults – and saved over $5,000,000,000 in victim expenses. ↩
FBI, Uniform Crime Reports, 2004 – excludes Hawaii and Rhode Island – small populations and geographic isolation create other determinants to violent crime. ↩
Federal legislation created a national “gun-free schools” policy, effective in 1996. Some criminologists maintain this created a new dynamic, encouraging mass murder on campus. Thus, after 1995 it is increasingly difficult to make comparisons based on the effects of CCWs and mass shootings. ↩
Multiple Victim Public Shootings, Bombings, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handgun Laws: Contrasting Private and Public Law Enforcement, John Lott and William Landes, Law School of the University of Chicago, Law & Economics Working Paper No. 73 ↩
Law Enforcement Officers Killed by Concealed Handgun Permit Holders, VPC, December 13, 2009 ↩
Reports were as received. No selection or filtering process was used. ↩
Violent crime rates are from inception of “shall issue” CCW through 2006, the most recent period available through the Bureau of Justice Statistics online database. ↩
October 1987 through Jan 2008 ↩
1995 – no follow-up data available at time of collection ↩
1994 through 2007 ↩
1995 through 2004 ↩
2002 through 2006 ↩
In 2005 and 2006, Minnesota had an abnormal spike in robbery and aggravated assaults. The first three years of CCW in Minnesota saw violent crime rates being roughly stable and the problem has somewhat abated since then. ↩
2001 through 2007 ↩
Texas Department of Public Safety and the U.S. Census Bureau, reported in San Antonio Express-News, September, 2000 ↩
An Analysis of the Arrest Rate of Texas Concealed Carry Handgun License Holders as Compared to the Arrest Rate of the Entire Texas Population, William E. Sturdevant, PE, September 11, 1999 ↩
Nina Butts, Texans Against Gun Violence, Dallas Morning News, August 10, 2000 ↩
John Holmes, Harris County [Houston, TX] District Attorney, In Session: Handgun Law’s First Year Belies Fears of ‘Blood in the Streets,” Texas Lawyer, December 9, 1996 ↩
Concealed Weapons/Firearms License Statistical Report, Florida Department of State, 1998 – Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, December 1998 ↩
Gun Crimes Drop at Virginia Bars And Restaurants, Richmond Times-Dispatch, August 14, 2011, reporting data from the Virginia State Police ↩
Basis For Revocation Or Suspension Of Texas Concealed, Texas Department of Public Safety, December 1, 1998 ↩
Texas Department of Corrections data, 1996-2000, compiled by the Texas State Rifle Association, www.tsra.com ↩
These are year 2000 records. As of 2014, the number of Texas concealed carry license holders was 825,957. ↩
An Analysis Of The Arrest Rate Of Texas Concealed Handgun License Holders As Compared To The Arrest Rate Of The Entire Texas Population, William E. Sturdevant, PE, September 11, 1999 ↩
Glenn White, President of the Dallas Police Association, Dallas Morning News, December 23, 1997 ↩
Colonel James Wilson, Director Texas Department of Public Safety, Dallas Morning News, June 11, 1996 ↩
Multiple Victim Public Shootings, Bombings, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handgun Laws: Contrasting Private and Public Law Enforcement, Lott John R., Landes William M.; University of Chicago — Covers years 1977 to 1995 ↩
Gun Policy & Law Enforcement, PoliceOne, arch 2013 ↩
Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun, by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, in The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law, Volume 86, Number 1, Fall, 1995 ↩
Criminal Victimization in the United States, U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1993 ↩
Kleck and Gertz, National Self Defense Survey, 1995 ↩
Majority Say More Concealed Weapons Would Make U.S. Safer, Gallup Poll, October, 2015 ↩
Gun Policy & Law Enforcement, PoliceOne, arch 2013 ↩
National Association of Chiefs of Police, 17th Annual National Survey of Police Chiefs & Sheriffs, 2005 ↩
Glenn White, president, Dallas Police Association, Dallas Morning News, December 23, 1997 ↩
John B. Holmes, Harris County Texas district attorney, Dallas Morning News, December 23, 1997 ↩
Jerry Kilgore, Virginia Public Safety Secretary, Fredricksburg Freelance Star, February 2, 1996 ↩
Chief Dennis Nowicki, Charlotte-Mecklenburg North Carolina Police, News and Observer, November 24, 1997 ↩
Lt. William Burgess of the Calhoun County (Michigan) Sheriff Department, Battle Creek Enquirer, January 28, 2005 ↩
Detroit Police Chief James Craig, Detroit police chief: Legal gun owners can deter crime, The Detroit News, January 3, 2014 ↩
What made you think I claimed they were the same? It was just an example. Diehard supporters of basically whatever can also claim whatever they like. And with the right tone you can just about make everything sound logical and factdriven. Even the hollow earth conspiracy. That was my point. Nothing really political party related. Im pretty sure you realised that yourself, but took the shot to discredit anyway, if you didnt you are beond help.Because the example is retarded seeing as they have nothing in common?
For example, the poll I talked about. Didnt really state where were these police officers stationed. The boring villagetowns next to Canada or the fucking Detroit? The difference is massive as hell.
Does anyone have any data on the benefits of civilian-owned guns? I am genuinely curious, I just rarely seem to read headlines like "Upstanding CCW citizens kill terrorists". Even smaller scale like robbery or home-invasion, is there any data on armed victims affecting the outcome in a positive way?
I think I gave the reason why that fact is important well enough. Wasnt even desperation. Just common sense. And calm down son. You are typing so fast your exclamation mark got stuck.
Well, you reached your max of 2(or 3)posts, didnt really count, to convince me. Seeing as you continue to be an arrogant cunt once more towards the poster itself instead of the post, I think we should once again be done for a while. You cant really say im a shit loser who just out of desperation spews bullshit(sometimes rarely, mostly not), cause I have legit admitted when im wrong or when another poster has convinced me. When have you ever in all these years claimed that you have been in the wrong? Cant even bring up 1 case in those 10k amount worth of posts? Oh how sad. Whose the shit loser now? Who are you even trying to convince Xant? :D We all know your shit, we arent new to this forum anymore.
PoliceOne’s Gun Policy & Law Enforcement survey was conducted between March 4 and
March 13, 2013. More than 15,000 officers completed the survey, which was promoted
by PoliceOne exclusively to its 400,000 registered members, comprised of verified law
enforcement professionals. Only current, former or retired law enforcement personnel
were eligible to participate in the survey. The survey sample size was broadly distributed
by geography and rank in proportion to the U.S. law enforcement community at
large. Respondents comprised a variety of ranks from departments of all sizes, with the
majority representing departments of greater than 500 officers. Of those that took the
survey, 80 percent were current law enforcement officers and 20 percent were
former/retired law enforcement.
But of course it's easier for dumbasses to make up reasons why something "might" not be legitimate than to actually look into it themselves.
More like there exists bunch of people and an undeniable fact that I can admit that im wrong.So there's undeniable proof you're wrong a lot. This makes you more credible how?
Arguing with you isnt really even a proper argumentation anymore. You lose your shit so easly and just start shitting on the poster rather than what he/she has to say.Only when the other party acts retarded first.
Starting an argument with you is technically "pls roast me" request, not a request for dialog. Nobody even expects you to say anything convincing anymore. We just expect you to throw shit.I wasn't aware you were elected the spokesperson of everyone on the cRPG forums. Or was there a survey that I'm unaware of? I sure hope the survey states where the cRPG forum dwellers are stationed. The boring villagetowns next to Canada or the fucking Detroit? The difference is massive as hell.
Now theres something remotely convincing. But I read that myself. It was at the end of the pdf. Didnt really convince me.lmao
So there's undeniable proof you're wrong a lot. This makes you more credible how?
Theres also proof that you are unable to comprehend the fact that you are wrong.Wow! There's like, real life proof of that? Well, I'll be. Surely, then, you won't have any difficulties procuring said proof? I await with bated breath.
That you are someone who considers himself to be never wrong.Nope, I'm just smart enough not to run my mouth about things I know nothing about, or if I do, I use the magic words: "I think", "I guess", "IMO."
Whats the point in arguing with a person like you any further?You tell me, you're doing it.
Nope, I'm just smart enough not to run my mouth about things I know nothing about, or if I do, I use the magic words: "I think", "I guess", "IMO."
And yet your posts are in just about every subject in this forum. Are you trying to tell me you know everything? Are you an american? Or a guncollector? If not than how can you know so much about this current subject? Like almost everything.Yep, one of the boons of my great intelligence is that I know a lot of things.
thats because the media is very much liberal controlled here, for instance how news of cops shooting lil dindu nuffins go national, while no one reports the black on black violence
dont trust any of the america news media, not even so called "entertainment" media as that is nothing but left wing brainwashing, just look at the acts on comedy central
http://controversialtimes.com/issues/constitutional-rights/12-times-mass-shootings-were-stopped-by-good-guys-with-guns/ (http://controversialtimes.com/issues/constitutional-rights/12-times-mass-shootings-were-stopped-by-good-guys-with-guns/)
And yet your posts are in just about every subject in this forum. Are you trying to tell me you know everything? Are you an american? Or a guncollector? If not than how can you know so much about this current subject? Like almost everything.
Xant can't be wrong... xant has gun uhe uhe uhe uhe uheXant doesn't have any guns.
Gun always right ! Gun is stronk ! uhe uhe uhe uhe uhe
the jews killed dumbledorewith a gun I bet!
Xant doesn't have any guns.Sad to hear. You must feel very frightened and insecure. like everybody could just come and have his way with you.
Xant can't be wrong... xant has gun uhe uhe uhe uhe uhe
Gun always right ! Gun is stronk ! uhe uhe uhe uhe uhe
with a gun I bet!
no it was with a star wars spoiler
with a gun I bet!
If not than how can you know so much about this current subject? Like almost everything.
And yet, always right.*cough*
And yet, always right.
And yet, always right.