The Flat Earth Society
Other Discussion Boards => Philosophy, Religion & Society => Topic started by: FlatAssembler on February 09, 2022, 01:40:29 AM
-
An issue I have been thinking a lot about lately is gun control. Should Croatia, the country where I live, pass stricter gun control laws? I was wondering what you guys here think about it. While I am quite sure prisons are not a sensible policy, I am not so sure about gun control. I can think of some rather compelling arguments both for and against gun control, from the purely consequentialist perspective (so, not appealing to rights and similar concepts).
AGAINST:
1) How could it work given what gun control laws actually say? Gun control laws in most countries make automatic and semi-automatic weapons illegal, while leaving non-automatic weapons legal. But automatic and semi-automatic weapons are precisely those weapons that can come useful in self-defence, when every second counts. Criminals generally do not use automatic or semi-automatic weapons. Why would they? An attacker has all the time in the world to set up his or her weapon for the attack. It is the defender that needs to respond immediately, for whom automatic weapons may come useful. How could such gun control laws be anything but counter-productive?
CONTRA: This is argument from incredulity.
2) Self-defense use of guns seems to greatly outnumber the number of deaths caused by guns. It is hard to tell how often self-defense using guns happens, but it can be anywhere between 100'000 times per year to more than a million times per year. For comparisons, guns only cause around 50'000 deaths per year.
CONTRA: Many of those self-defense uses of guns would not be necessary if there were no guns to begin with.
FOR:
1) There appears to be a really strong consensus among social scientists that gun control helps.
CONTRA: That consensus may be based on political bias, since social scientists tend to be very left-wing.
2) There seems to be a strong correlation between gun ownership and violent crime within the US.
CONTRA: There does not seem to be such a strong correlation elsewhere, such as in Europe. The UK has among the lowest gun ownership rates in Europe, yet it is the highest in violent crime. Croatia and Serbia have the highest gun ownership rate in Europe, yet they are very low in violent crime.
Like I have said, I was wondering what you think.
-
Someone once said that guns dont exist. SO not sure why you need a control on a non existent gun
-
If you look at overall murder rates per million the UK is not too bad, number 157 on the list at around 12/M, Croatia is 152 @14 with the poster boy/girl for owning death machines the US 99th with 42/m.
The gun lobby plays on a fear that in civilised countries is extremely rare, that is someone breaking into your house who will kill you, if they break in at all they usually do so to steal and will usually flee if disturbed.
There are quite a few studies that show that an armed person is more liable to get killed than an unarmed one, partly due to people feeling overconfident going places they would stay out of if they were unarmed or confronting bad guys waving a gun that they hardly know how to use, also accidents (people are stupid) go up, suicides are easier, and spur of the moment red mist events are so much more deadly.
Bottom line, do you want a killing machine in your house so you can periodically pose in the mirror and shoot the odd can on the absolute outside chance a bad man comes all at the expense of ending up like the US?
-
So, what do you guys here think, is it reasonable to believe that guns exist? I am not sure. People around me are telling me guns exist, but that I cannot get one myself to check that because the police in Croatia, where I live, somehow prevents the civilians from owning guns, for some reason that escapes me. So, there is either a conspiracy of American movie-makers making people thing guns exist, or there is a conspiracy of the police somehow preventing people from getting guns to see for themselves that they exist. What do you think is more likely?
-
Control your guns!
-
No shirt sleeves are capable of keeping these guns under control.
-
Use a holster?
-
Can't holster these.
💪
-
If I decide to kill someone I could use a knife. I could use a vehicle. If I decide to do stupid things I could run a truck into a crowd, which kills more than using a pistol.
-
If I decide to kill someone I could use a knife. I could use a vehicle. If I decide to do stupid things I could run a truck into a crowd, which kills more than using a pistol.
This tired old chestnut again ::) sure mate, go nuts then
-
If I decide to kill someone I could use a knife. I could use a vehicle. If I decide to do stupid things I could run a truck into a crowd, which kills more than using a pistol.
Pistol? What about an AR-15 with a 60-Round magazine?
-
I will let you borrow mine.
-
Gun control
Lets make 'smart guns' - where the gun can recognise whether it's being aimed at a person or car or anything else we don't want guns to hit and prevent it from firing in such situations.
The dickhead who shot up a bunch of kindergarteners would have been unable to shoot at them. But if he was using his guns to hunt feral pigs and rabbits, no problem.
Of course, law enforcement may need to use it against people from time to time. So they can have those features turned off.
Pretty sure such a thing won't go down well with the 2nd amendment crowd 8)
-
(https://i.chzbgr.com/full/5130681856/h9691D181/gun-control)
-
It's worth re-watching "Bowling for Columbine" to recognise that the US has a violent gun sub-culture that has complex origins and runs very deep.
Not something that you'd ever change overnight. Not saying there aren't common sense things that could be done to try and get guns out of the hands of the nutters.
-
If I decide to kill someone I could use a knife. I could use a vehicle. If I decide to do stupid things I could run a truck into a crowd, which kills more than using a pistol.
Pistol? What about an AR-15 with a 60-Round magazine?
In which country is that allowed?
-
If I decide to kill someone I could use a knife. I could use a vehicle. If I decide to do stupid things I could run a truck into a crowd, which kills more than using a pistol.
Pistol? What about an AR-15 with a 60-Round magazine?
In which country is that allowed?
The United State of 'Merica. With the exception of 9 States and DC:
Magazine Capacity Laws by State 2022 (https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/magazine-capacity-laws-by-state)
(https://i.imgur.com/K4zpn6J.png)
The federal ban on large-capacity magazines has ended (Expired 2004). However, nine states and the District of Columbia have enacted laws banning large-capacity magazines.
These states are:
California
Colorado
Connecticut
District of Columbia
Hawaii
Maryland
Massachusetts
New Jersey
New York
Vermont
For all the other States, load as many as you got. In other words, it's perfectly legal for SCG to brandish her AR-15 with a 60-Round mag.
-
Then it should be banned. There is no reason for anyone to use a automatic gun other than in military. Automatic guns are only for mass murder. It has no more use than pistols in terms of self defence.
-
"automatic"
careful
ted cruz and NRA nuts will mansplain you.
-
Then it should be banned. There is no reason for anyone to use a automatic gun other than in military. Automatic guns are only for mass murder. It has no more use than pistols in terms of self defence.
Do you mean automatic or semi-automatic?
-
Don't worry, my AR is too heavy for me to hold it long enough to mow down more than 5 or 6 people.
-
We need lightweight AR-15s with unicorns stenciled on the side!
It's time to close the gender mass murder gap!
#ladyguns
-
To the original question. I don't know a lot about Croatia. About all I can tell you is some of the mistakes America made when it comes to guns so hopefully you can avoid them.
Our biggest problem is the second amendment which has been contorted from its original intent.
The way it's interpreted now makes gun ownership a right as opposed to a privilege.
If I decide to kill someone I could use a knife. I could use a vehicle. If I decide to do stupid things I could run a truck into a crowd, which kills more than using a pistol.
This person is probably trolling but it illustrates my point. A motor vehicle is a very dangerous piece of equipment. We're explicitly told that operating one is a privilege and not a right. If the state determined that you can't or won't operate a vehicle safely then you'll be denied this privilege. If you drive drunk or have some serious vision problem or have serious mental illness problems they'll take your license away and throw you in jail if they catch you driving.
Guns on the other hand, we can't even take away guns from known terrorists in this country.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/iMa0xWG.jpg)
-
(https://i.imgur.com/iMa0xWG.jpg)
We really need a heart emoji.
-
Ask and you shall receive...
(https://i.imgur.com/vZqiKJi.jpg)
-
To the original question. I don't know a lot about Croatia. About all I can tell you is some of the mistakes America made when it comes to guns so hopefully you can avoid them.
Our biggest problem is the second amendment which has been contorted from its original intent.
The way it's interpreted now makes gun ownership a right as opposed to a privilege.
If I decide to kill someone I could use a knife. I could use a vehicle. If I decide to do stupid things I could run a truck into a crowd, which kills more than using a pistol.
This person is probably trolling but it illustrates my point. A motor vehicle is a very dangerous piece of equipment. We're explicitly told that operating one is a privilege and not a right. If the state determined that you can't or won't operate a vehicle safely then you'll be denied this privilege. If you drive drunk or have some serious vision problem or have serious mental illness problems they'll take your license away and throw you in jail if they catch you driving.
Guns on the other hand, we can't even take away guns from known terrorists in this country.
in most cases there are curbs, barriers, and other vehicles.
the ability mow down people are far a few.
christmas santaclaus parade in wisconsin.
toronto incel POS.
that truck thing in france.
and the weapon is not the most maunuverable if the victim is paying a attention.
knifing relies on the reach of the person's arm.
japan's killer took out a bunch of kids so not a real good example.
the guy in britain didn't get too far before some mma guys took him - i'm possibly mixing up my stories by now
vs large mag weapons on a super stable shooting platform makes it easy to spraying a concert, packed school, packed festival, drive bys, etc, etc, etc
-
Ask and you shall receive...
(https://i.imgur.com/vZqiKJi.jpg)
They should hire you to design all the lady guns.
-
The bleeding hearts are stickers. You put one on every time you've successfully defended your lime trees from marauders.
-
What if the marauders come bearing coconuts to enjoy with the limes?
-
What if the marauders come bearing coconuts to enjoy with the limes?
Throw in some tequila and perhaps it would be a peaceful and joyous encounter. However, too many coconut margaritas, gunplay may ensue.
-
Too many coconut margaritas and they'll be too busy on the toilet with the squits for gunplay.
-
I have never had a coconut margarita, it sound delicious. Now I'm gonna need some palm tree stickers for people trying to take my margarita.
-
Don't worry, my AR is too heavy for me to hold it long enough to mow down more than 5 or 6 people.
That's why you spring for the bipod.
-
It would seem that the reason we do not need beautifully decorated firearms in the UK is that we do not have cocktail trees that need defending, the answer to America’s gun problem may lie in this direction.
A sane methodology would be cocktail trees for all, but as this smacks of socialism I doubt it would fly.
I do have a hazelnut tree, but not being a cocktail expert am unaware of any that contain hazelnuts, in any case the bastard squirrels eat them all before they are ripe, an AR15 would sort that I suppose but there is a children’s football pitch at the back that may collect the overspill and the young parents around here can be sooo precious over their little ones, having complained vociferously about my current anti-squirrel system of colourful invective and thrown rocks.
I am sure the bastard squirrels time their raids to coincide with half time oranges in order to garner allies and make me appear irrational, I may have to rustle a Pine-Martin.
-
Perhaps there are cocktails that contain hazelnut spread.
OH, there is such a thing as a Nutella martini!
-
nut drink.
too far?
-
It would seem that the reason we do not need beautifully decorated firearms in the UK is that we do not have cocktail trees that need defending, the answer to America’s gun problem may lie in this direction.
A sane methodology would be cocktail trees for all, but as this smacks of socialism I doubt it would fly.
I do have a hazelnut tree, but not being a cocktail expert am unaware of any that contain hazelnuts, in any case the bastard squirrels eat them all before they are ripe, an AR15 would sort that I suppose but there is a children’s football pitch at the back that may collect the overspill and the young parents around here can be sooo precious over their little ones, having complained vociferously about my current anti-squirrel system of colourful invective and thrown rocks.
I am sure the bastard squirrels time their raids to coincide with half time oranges in order to garner allies and make me appear irrational, I may have to rustle a Pine-Martin.
Frangelico is made from hazelnuts.
Have you considered buttering your tree?
-
So, what do you guys here think, is it reasonable to believe that guns exist? I am not sure. People around me are telling me guns exist, but that I cannot get one myself to check that because the police in Croatia, where I live, somehow prevents the civilians from owning guns, for some reason that escapes me. So, there is either a conspiracy of American movie-makers making people thing guns exist, or there is a conspiracy of the police somehow preventing people from getting guns to see for themselves that they exist. What do you think is more likely?
Well, I changed my mind on a lot of things since then.
-
Then it should be banned. There is no reason for anyone to use a automatic gun other than in military. Automatic guns are only for mass murder. It has no more use than pistols in terms of self defence.
Have you read the opening post? I have written this at the beginning of the opening post:
But automatic and semi-automatic weapons are precisely those weapons that can come useful in self-defence, when every second counts. Criminals generally do not use automatic or semi-automatic weapons. Why would they? An attacker has all the time in the world to set up his or her weapon for the attack. It is the defender that needs to respond immediately, for whom automatic weapons may come useful.
-
The speed of the 2nd shot doesnt matter if you dont live to get out the 1st.
And as an innocent, you have to added onus to not shoot bystanders with your spray and pray.
Also
How much slower do you think firing a semi is vs an auto?
Accuracy?
If youre afraid of ambush - get a bullet proof vest, not an automatic weapon.
-
The speed of the 2nd shot doesnt matter if you dont live to get out the 1st.
And as an innocent, you have to added onus to not shoot bystanders with your spray and pray.
Also
How much slower do you think firing a semi is vs an auto?
Accuracy?
If youre afraid of ambush - get a bullet proof vest, not an automatic weapon.
If you're afraid of ambush, maybe you need to call the police. Or hire a private security force.
I'm pretty sure that if I was afraid some group was trying to 'ambush' and murder me, I wouldn't be trying decide between a new vest or a new gun on Amazon.
-
you address to me?
-
If you're afraid of ambush, maybe you need to call the police. Or hire a private security force.
I'm pretty sure that if I was afraid some group was trying to 'ambush' and murder me, I wouldn't be trying decide between a new vest or a new gun on Amazon.
To be fair, the narrative is America is incredibly violent and dangerous. You can get blown away at any time on account of some bored teenagers
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-08-19/australian-man-shot-dead-in-oklahoma/4895152?nw=0&r=HtmlFragment
Aussie guy going for a jog. A bunch of random thugs, bored and looking for something to do, decide to shoot him in the back for fun
Christopher Lane, 22, was jogging in the small town of Duncan on Friday when he was shot in the back in a drive-by.
Police have arrested three teenagers aged 15, 16 and 17.
They will be charged with first-degree murder and could potentially face the death penalty.
Lane was on a baseball scholarship at East Central University and was reportedly two weeks away from celebrating his 23rd birthday.
He had just returned to the US from a trip back to Australia with his girlfriend Sarah, and was believed to have only been staying at her residence for about three days before the incident.
Duncan Police Chief Danny Ford said the shooting appears to have been a random, unprovoked attack and he had not seen anything like it in 30 years of law enforcement.
"He apparently was jogging, he went by a residence where these three boys were, they picked him as a target, they went out and got in a vehicle and followed him," Chief Ford told the ABC's AM program.
"[They] came up from behind and basically shot him in the back with a small calibre weapon. Then sped away."
Welcome to America!
-
If you're afraid of ambush, maybe you need to call the police. Or hire a private security force.
I'm pretty sure that if I was afraid some group was trying to 'ambush' and murder me, I wouldn't be trying decide between a new vest or a new gun on Amazon.
To be fair, the narrative is America is incredibly violent and dangerous. You can get blown away at any time on account of some bored teenagers
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-08-19/australian-man-shot-dead-in-oklahoma/4895152?nw=0&r=HtmlFragment
Aussie guy going for a jog. A bunch of random thugs, bored and looking for something to do, decide to shoot him in the back for fun
Christopher Lane, 22, was jogging in the small town of Duncan on Friday when he was shot in the back in a drive-by.
Police have arrested three teenagers aged 15, 16 and 17.
They will be charged with first-degree murder and could potentially face the death penalty.
Lane was on a baseball scholarship at East Central University and was reportedly two weeks away from celebrating his 23rd birthday.
He had just returned to the US from a trip back to Australia with his girlfriend Sarah, and was believed to have only been staying at her residence for about three days before the incident.
Duncan Police Chief Danny Ford said the shooting appears to have been a random, unprovoked attack and he had not seen anything like it in 30 years of law enforcement.
"He apparently was jogging, he went by a residence where these three boys were, they picked him as a target, they went out and got in a vehicle and followed him," Chief Ford told the ABC's AM program.
"[They] came up from behind and basically shot him in the back with a small calibre weapon. Then sped away."
Welcome to America!
At least I don't have to worry about dingos eating my baby.
And unlike in America I don't think the dingos were ever caught and arrested. Where is your sense of justice?
-
If you're afraid of ambush, maybe you need to call the police. Or hire a private security force.
I'm pretty sure that if I was afraid some group was trying to 'ambush' and murder me, I wouldn't be trying decide between a new vest or a new gun on Amazon.
To be fair, the narrative is America is incredibly violent and dangerous. You can get blown away at any time on account of some bored teenagers
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-08-19/australian-man-shot-dead-in-oklahoma/4895152?nw=0&r=HtmlFragment
Aussie guy going for a jog. A bunch of random thugs, bored and looking for something to do, decide to shoot him in the back for fun
Christopher Lane, 22, was jogging in the small town of Duncan on Friday when he was shot in the back in a drive-by.
Police have arrested three teenagers aged 15, 16 and 17.
They will be charged with first-degree murder and could potentially face the death penalty.
Lane was on a baseball scholarship at East Central University and was reportedly two weeks away from celebrating his 23rd birthday.
He had just returned to the US from a trip back to Australia with his girlfriend Sarah, and was believed to have only been staying at her residence for about three days before the incident.
Duncan Police Chief Danny Ford said the shooting appears to have been a random, unprovoked attack and he had not seen anything like it in 30 years of law enforcement.
"He apparently was jogging, he went by a residence where these three boys were, they picked him as a target, they went out and got in a vehicle and followed him," Chief Ford told the ABC's AM program.
"[They] came up from behind and basically shot him in the back with a small calibre weapon. Then sped away."
Welcome to America!
At least I don't have to worry about dingos eating my baby.
And unlike in America I don't think the dingos were ever caught and arrested. Where is your sense of justice?
Who the fuck is worried about Dingoes eating babies? The real problem is family pet dogs and babies/children. Anywhere in the world. One of the worst offenders, the AMERICAN Pit Bull. Who the fuck has one of those around a kid?!? ???
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_dog_attacks_in_the_United_States
Fatal dog attacks in the United States cause the deaths of about 30 to 50 people in the US each year,[1] and the number of deaths from dog attacks appears to be increasing.[2] Around 4.5 million Americans are bitten by dogs every year, resulting in the hospitalization of 6,000 to 13,000 people each year in the United States (2005).
America has wolves, Australia has Dingoes. Same canidae family shit, different colour
99.9% of Australias population will probably never even see a Dingo in their life time
But try to minimise again the very real and disgusting gun violence and culture your country has. When a bunch of bored teenagers shoot some random person in the back minding his own business for a bit of fun, you know your society is all fucked up
-
If you're afraid of ambush, maybe you need to call the police. Or hire a private security force.
I'm pretty sure that if I was afraid some group was trying to 'ambush' and murder me, I wouldn't be trying decide between a new vest or a new gun on Amazon.
To be fair, the narrative is America is incredibly violent and dangerous. You can get blown away at any time on account of some bored teenagers
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-08-19/australian-man-shot-dead-in-oklahoma/4895152?nw=0&r=HtmlFragment
Aussie guy going for a jog. A bunch of random thugs, bored and looking for something to do, decide to shoot him in the back for fun
Christopher Lane, 22, was jogging in the small town of Duncan on Friday when he was shot in the back in a drive-by.
Police have arrested three teenagers aged 15, 16 and 17.
They will be charged with first-degree murder and could potentially face the death penalty.
Lane was on a baseball scholarship at East Central University and was reportedly two weeks away from celebrating his 23rd birthday.
He had just returned to the US from a trip back to Australia with his girlfriend Sarah, and was believed to have only been staying at her residence for about three days before the incident.
Duncan Police Chief Danny Ford said the shooting appears to have been a random, unprovoked attack and he had not seen anything like it in 30 years of law enforcement.
"He apparently was jogging, he went by a residence where these three boys were, they picked him as a target, they went out and got in a vehicle and followed him," Chief Ford told the ABC's AM program.
"[They] came up from behind and basically shot him in the back with a small calibre weapon. Then sped away."
Welcome to America!
At least I don't have to worry about dingos eating my baby.
And unlike in America I don't think the dingos were ever caught and arrested. Where is your sense of justice?
Who the fuck is worried about Dingoes eating babies? The real problem is family pet dogs and babies/children. Anywhere in the world. One of the worst offenders, the AMERICAN Pit Bull. Who the fuck has one of those around a kid?!? ???
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_dog_attacks_in_the_United_States
Fatal dog attacks in the United States cause the deaths of about 30 to 50 people in the US each year,[1] and the number of deaths from dog attacks appears to be increasing.[2] Around 4.5 million Americans are bitten by dogs every year, resulting in the hospitalization of 6,000 to 13,000 people each year in the United States (2005).
America has wolves, Australia has Dingoes. Same canidae family shit, different colour
99.9% of Australias population will probably never even see a Dingo in their life time
But try to minimise again the very real and disgusting gun violence and culture your country has. When a bunch of bored teenagers shoot some random person in the back minding his own business for a bit of fun, you know your society is all fucked up
The officer said he never saw anything like it in 30 years.
Compare that to the "98 dangerous dingo attacks" that have been recorded since 2002.
I'm concerned if Australia doesn't get a handle on these dangerous dingoes, they might swim over here and get me.
I should buy a gun. Lots of guns.
-
You do that. If you get bored you can always shoot some random in the back for laughs
-
You do that. If you get bored you can always shoot some random in the back for laughs
Only once every 30 years.
-
You do that. If you get bored you can always shoot some random in the back for laughs
Only once every 30 years.
Hundreds of homicides every week. You could shoot someone every day and it wouldn't make a blip on gun related murders let alone total murders
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/sep/27/us-murder-rate-increase-2020
The US has experienced its largest-ever recorded annual increase in murders, according to new statistics from the FBI, with the national murder rate rising nearly 30% in 2020 – the biggest jump in six decades.
You really want to continue this line of discussion? Go nuts. You're American. You'll lose every time
-
You do that. If you get bored you can always shoot some random in the back for laughs
Only once every 30 years.
Hundreds of homicides every week. You could shoot someone every day and it wouldn't make a blip on gun related murders let alone total murders
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/sep/27/us-murder-rate-increase-2020
The US has experienced its largest-ever recorded annual increase in murders, according to new statistics from the FBI, with the national murder rate rising nearly 30% in 2020 – the biggest jump in six decades.
You really want to continue this line of discussion? Go nuts. You're American. You'll lose every time
Dingoes aren't eating AMERICAN babies. Bring it on.
(https://i.redd.it/51n1dj6iefh81.jpg)
-
You do that. If you get bored you can always shoot some random in the back for laughs
Only once every 30 years.
Hundreds of homicides every week. You could shoot someone every day and it wouldn't make a blip on gun related murders let alone total murders
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/sep/27/us-murder-rate-increase-2020
The US has experienced its largest-ever recorded annual increase in murders, according to new statistics from the FBI, with the national murder rate rising nearly 30% in 2020 – the biggest jump in six decades.
You really want to continue this line of discussion? Go nuts. You're American. You'll lose every time
Dingoes aren't eating AMERICAN babies. Bring it on.
(https://i.redd.it/51n1dj6iefh81.jpg)
1 reported case ever. Somehow you making light of a mother losing her baby to an animal attack is your form of entertainment. Repugnant but must be American humour I guess. At least your not shooting up random people for shits and giggles. Well not yet anyway
You're clearly not in favour of any kind of gun control or reform. According to you, dingoes are the bigger threat. Even half a world away. Ameritard logic ::)
-
Calm down, we know evil poison spiders are more likely to eat your babies.
-
You do that. If you get bored you can always shoot some random in the back for laughs
Only once every 30 years.
Hundreds of homicides every week. You could shoot someone every day and it wouldn't make a blip on gun related murders let alone total murders
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/sep/27/us-murder-rate-increase-2020
The US has experienced its largest-ever recorded annual increase in murders, according to new statistics from the FBI, with the national murder rate rising nearly 30% in 2020 – the biggest jump in six decades.
You really want to continue this line of discussion? Go nuts. You're American. You'll lose every time
Dingoes aren't eating AMERICAN babies. Bring it on.
(https://i.redd.it/51n1dj6iefh81.jpg)
1 reported case ever. Somehow you making light of a mother losing her baby to an animal attack is your form of entertainment. Repugnant but must be American humour I guess. At least your not shooting up random people for shits and giggles. Well not yet anyway
You're clearly not in favour of any kind of gun control or reform. According to you, dingoes are the bigger threat. Even half a world away. Ameritard logic ::)
Everyone in America was running around yelling "A dingo ate mah ba-bah!" and laughing for months after that happened. So yes, that's certainly an example of our humor, I won't deny it.
If you think posting a picture with a gun stuck in a baby's diapers is my attempt to seriously articulate my views on gun control then I don't know what to tell you. :P
-
Finally, a gun for nerds.
-
I almost posted that the other day.
It's very quiet. It would be nice for a relaxed round of target practice.
-
Finally, a gun for nerds.
Aaahaha
Youtube gave that to me 2days ago.
Our algorithms are merging.
Dont tell my wife
-
The speed of the 2nd shot doesnt matter if you dont live to get out the 1st.
And as an innocent, you have to added onus to not shoot bystanders with your spray and pray.
Also
How much slower do you think firing a semi is vs an auto?
Accuracy?
If youre afraid of ambush - get a bullet proof vest, not an automatic weapon.
There is no such thing as a bullet-proof vest. There are only bullet-resistant vests, and they are a hell to wear for longer periods of time (heavy and hot). Even if there were bullet-proof vests, and you are wearing one in a mass shooting, a bullet-proof vest can at best help you, whereas shooting the shooter with a gun can also save people around you.
-
In context, that reply was to a comment regarding automatic weappn as a good self defesne weapon.
Semantics.
Fine.
Bullet resistant vest.
Having a gun but not surviving the ambush will not get shots on target.
-
There is no such thing as a bullet-proof vest. There are only bullet-resistant vests, and they are a hell to wear for longer periods of time (heavy and hot). Even if there were bullet-proof vests, and you are wearing one in a mass shooting, a bullet-proof vest can at best help you, whereas shooting the shooter with a gun can also save people around you.
A bullet proof vest will give you some protection, and harm nobody else.
You running around with a gun during a mass shooting might help if you hit the right person, or you might just kill more people by missing and hitting others. Or worse, you might run into a situation with people being shot, and shoot another person with a gun who was also looking for the real shooter.
Even trained police officers miss most of their shots and cause a lot of collateral damage. A bunch of untrained civilians in a confused situation with guns? No thanks.
https://www.cnn.com/2012/08/25/justice/new-york-empire-state-shooting/index.html
https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/02/police-officers-who-shot-two-innocent-women-103-times-wont-be-fired/357771/
-
FlatAss! I think you are watching too much Hollywood and being infected by American paranoia and stranger danger, unless things are different than the rest of Europe, none of this semi or full auto, flak jacket, ceramic spiderweb, hollow point, quick draw gun masturbation will be of any use to you.
Unless the Russians come, in which case you will be toasted by some remote drone driven by an outsourced 6-year-old in Pakistan before you know what is going on.
Spend the money on coke and hookers.
-
Or worse, you might run into a situation with people being shot, and shoot another person with a gun who was also looking for the real shooter.
Even trained police officers miss most of their shots and cause a lot of collateral damage. A bunch of untrained civilians in a confused situation with guns? No thanks.
https://www.cnn.com/2012/08/25/justice/new-york-empire-state-shooting/index.html
https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/02/police-officers-who-shot-two-innocent-women-103-times-wont-be-fired/357771/
There was that time a black security officer was killed by police because he had a gun and pinned down a real gunman
Guns suck arse!
-
Finally, a gun for nerds.
Aaahaha
Youtube gave that to me 2days ago.
Our algorithms are merging.
Dont tell my wife
Start wearing camo, and buy an AR!
-
Finally, a gun for nerds.
Aaahaha
Youtube gave that to me 2days ago.
Our algorithms are merging.
Dont tell my wife
Start wearing camo, and buy an AR!
It's because I subscribed to him 6 months back, as he likes a lot of old English guns and he isn't a nutter like many, and as I am an influencer (I think that's what she called me) you have been drawn into my orbit, Growling sidewinder and weld porn next.
-
Finally, a gun for nerds.
Aaahaha
Youtube gave that to me 2days ago.
Our algorithms are merging.
Dont tell my wife
Start wearing camo, and buy an AR!
It's because I subscribed to him 6 months back, as he likes a lot of old English guns and he isn't a nutter like many, and as I am an influencer (I think that's what she called me) you have been drawn into my orbit, Growling sidewinder and weld porn next.
Just wait until you discover This Old Tony!
-
The ATF has it under control https://twitter.com/ATFHQ/status/1493208813670965248?s=20&t=T25bGMheSbt9-pIvhWOJcw
-
Finally, a gun for nerds.
Aaahaha
Youtube gave that to me 2days ago.
Our algorithms are merging.
Dont tell my wife
Start wearing camo, and buy an AR!
It's because I subscribed to him 6 months back, as he likes a lot of old English guns and he isn't a nutter like many, and as I am an influencer (I think that's what she called me) you have been drawn into my orbit, Growling sidewinder and weld porn next.
Just wait until you discover This Old Tony!
or Rick Beato
-
FlatAss! I think you are watching too much Hollywood and being infected by American paranoia and stranger danger, unless things are different than the rest of Europe, none of this semi or full auto, flak jacket, ceramic spiderweb, hollow point, quick draw gun masturbation will be of any use to you.
Unless the Russians come, in which case you will be toasted by some remote drone driven by an outsourced 6-year-old in Pakistan before you know what is going on.
Spend the money on coke and hookers.
The vast majority of people would not die or get seriously ill from COVID. That does not mean one should not get vaccinated against it. Similarly, the vast majority of people will never find themselves in a situation in which a gun would help, but that does not mean one should not get one as a precaution.
-
There is no such thing as a bullet-proof vest. There are only bullet-resistant vests, and they are a hell to wear for longer periods of time (heavy and hot). Even if there were bullet-proof vests, and you are wearing one in a mass shooting, a bullet-proof vest can at best help you, whereas shooting the shooter with a gun can also save people around you.
A bullet proof vest will give you some protection, and harm nobody else.
You running around with a gun during a mass shooting might help if you hit the right person, or you might just kill more people by missing and hitting others. Or worse, you might run into a situation with people being shot, and shoot another person with a gun who was also looking for the real shooter.
Even trained police officers miss most of their shots and cause a lot of collateral damage. A bunch of untrained civilians in a confused situation with guns? No thanks.
https://www.cnn.com/2012/08/25/justice/new-york-empire-state-shooting/index.html
https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/02/police-officers-who-shot-two-innocent-women-103-times-wont-be-fired/357771/
So, you agree with me that the police should not exist?
-
The ATF has it under control https://twitter.com/ATFHQ/status/1493208813670965248?s=20&t=T25bGMheSbt9-pIvhWOJcw
possibly... just POSSIBLY states need to fix gun sales loopholes.
-
So, you agree with me that the police should not exist?
How'd you get there? Is the only thing police do is shoot their guns?
-
FlatAss! I think you are watching too much Hollywood and being infected by American paranoia and stranger danger, unless things are different than the rest of Europe, none of this semi or full auto, flak jacket, ceramic spiderweb, hollow point, quick draw gun masturbation will be of any use to you.
Unless the Russians come, in which case you will be toasted by some remote drone driven by an outsourced 6-year-old in Pakistan before you know what is going on.
Spend the money on coke and hookers.
The vast majority of people would not die or get seriously ill from COVID. That does not mean one should not get vaccinated against it. Similarly, the vast majority of people will never find themselves in a situation in which a gun would help, but that does not mean one should not get one as a precaution.
Yeah, it’s not quite the same thing. Vaccines are not actually designed to kill people, a madman running around with a vaccine is not going to bother me much, a proliferation of vaccine toting people doesn’t traditionally result in an upsurge in deaths.
-
The vast majority of people would not die or get seriously ill from COVID. That does not mean one should not get vaccinated against it. Similarly, the vast majority of people will never find themselves in a situation in which a gun would help, but that does not mean one should not get one as a precaution.
get one
before you get one - pass a pyschology test, safety test, licensing, insurance and registration etcetcetc
-
So, you agree with me that the police should not exist?
How'd you get there? Is the only thing police do is shoot their guns?
that was some serious extrapolation there.
side note
as quoted from a police in some youtube channel "don't call me unless you want me to use my gun".
-
The vast majority of people would not die or get seriously ill from COVID. That does not mean one should not get vaccinated against it. Similarly, the vast majority of people will never find themselves in a situation in which a gun would help, but that does not mean one should not get one as a precaution.
get one
before you get one - pass a pyschology test, safety test, licensing, insurance and registration etcetcetc
And do you take responsibility if somebody is murdered because they cannot defend themselves because they failed the psychological test? It is not a stretch to imagine that happens. A marijuana user will probably not pass the psychological test, but they may very well need a gun for self-defence, for example.
-
So, you agree with me that the police should not exist?
How'd you get there? Is the only thing police do is shoot their guns?
Right, Derek Chauvin killed a person without using a gun at all.
-
I would hate to be this scared of life that all I could think about was needing something that could end it to be able to feel safe. Which you won’t do, guns are little prophecies wanting to come true, and you will need it close, you will hear things in the night, so sleep will evade you and you will become addled until one day you will shoot one of your family going to the bathroom.
Incidentally, Chauvin had the threat of a gun, so did his compatriots who continually reached for them when the bystanders tried to get the fucker to release the pressure as he killed him.
-
There is no such thing as a bullet-proof vest. There are only bullet-resistant vests, and they are a hell to wear for longer periods of time (heavy and hot). Even if there were bullet-proof vests, and you are wearing one in a mass shooting, a bullet-proof vest can at best help you, whereas shooting the shooter with a gun can also save people around you.
A bullet proof vest will give you some protection, and harm nobody else.
You running around with a gun during a mass shooting might help if you hit the right person, or you might just kill more people by missing and hitting others. Or worse, you might run into a situation with people being shot, and shoot another person with a gun who was also looking for the real shooter.
Even trained police officers miss most of their shots and cause a lot of collateral damage. A bunch of untrained civilians in a confused situation with guns? No thanks.
https://www.cnn.com/2012/08/25/justice/new-york-empire-state-shooting/index.html
https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/02/police-officers-who-shot-two-innocent-women-103-times-wont-be-fired/357771/
So, you agree with me that the police should not exist?
No. I think the police need to be better trained and have more accountability and drop the whole "war on crime" garbage and go back to protecting and serving instead of playing solider with camo vests and tanks.
The whole police system needs a massive overhaul, but in the end we still need someone to keep law and order. Just not abuse it.
-
Just taking the dog for a walk
https://www.ketk.com/news/crime-public-safety/police-texas-15-year-old-girl-shot-22-times-while-walking-family-dog/
9 year old minding her own business during a drive
https://www.ksat.com/news/2022/02/15/girl-9-dies-after-mistakenly-shot-by-robbery-victim/
Welcome to America! Land a the free ::)
-
Just taking the dog for a walk
https://www.ketk.com/news/crime-public-safety/police-texas-15-year-old-girl-shot-22-times-while-walking-family-dog/
9 year old minding her own business during a drive
https://www.ksat.com/news/2022/02/15/girl-9-dies-after-mistakenly-shot-by-robbery-victim/
Welcome to America! Land a the free ::)
We have way too many guns, way to many people killed by them. Over 45,000 last year.
-
The vast majority of people would not die or get seriously ill from COVID. That does not mean one should not get vaccinated against it. Similarly, the vast majority of people will never find themselves in a situation in which a gun would help, but that does not mean one should not get one as a precaution.
get one
before you get one - pass a pyschology test, safety test, licensing, insurance and registration etcetcetc
And do you take responsibility if somebody is murdered because they cannot defend themselves because they failed the psychological test? It is not a stretch to imagine that happens. A marijuana user will probably not pass the psychological test, but they may very well need a gun for self-defence, for example.
Wow
Youre really flexible.
You must be a gymnist.
-
9 year old minding her own business during a drive
https://www.ksat.com/news/2022/02/15/girl-9-dies-after-mistakenly-shot-by-robbery-victim/
Welcome to America! Land a the free ::)
Nothing like a good guy with a gun.
-
Just taking the dog for a walk
https://www.ketk.com/news/crime-public-safety/police-texas-15-year-old-girl-shot-22-times-while-walking-family-dog/
9 year old minding her own business during a drive
https://www.ksat.com/news/2022/02/15/girl-9-dies-after-mistakenly-shot-by-robbery-victim/
Welcome to America! Land a the free ::)
We have way too many guns, way to many people killed by them. Over 45,000 last year.
And the number of deaths guns prevent is so large it is hard to even estimate, and it is almost certainly multiple times more than 45'000.
-
There is no such thing as a bullet-proof vest. There are only bullet-resistant vests, and they are a hell to wear for longer periods of time (heavy and hot). Even if there were bullet-proof vests, and you are wearing one in a mass shooting, a bullet-proof vest can at best help you, whereas shooting the shooter with a gun can also save people around you.
A bullet proof vest will give you some protection, and harm nobody else.
You running around with a gun during a mass shooting might help if you hit the right person, or you might just kill more people by missing and hitting others. Or worse, you might run into a situation with people being shot, and shoot another person with a gun who was also looking for the real shooter.
Even trained police officers miss most of their shots and cause a lot of collateral damage. A bunch of untrained civilians in a confused situation with guns? No thanks.
https://www.cnn.com/2012/08/25/justice/new-york-empire-state-shooting/index.html
https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/02/police-officers-who-shot-two-innocent-women-103-times-wont-be-fired/357771/
So, you agree with me that the police should not exist?
No. I think the police need to be better trained and have more accountability and drop the whole "war on crime" garbage and go back to protecting and serving instead of playing solider with camo vests and tanks.
The whole police system needs a massive overhaul, but in the end we still need someone to keep law and order. Just not abuse it.
What is "law and order"? Whatever the aristocracy wants it to be, right?
-
The vast majority of people would not die or get seriously ill from COVID. That does not mean one should not get vaccinated against it. Similarly, the vast majority of people will never find themselves in a situation in which a gun would help, but that does not mean one should not get one as a precaution.
get one
before you get one - pass a pyschology test, safety test, licensing, insurance and registration etcetcetc
And do you take responsibility if somebody is murdered because they cannot defend themselves because they failed the psychological test? It is not a stretch to imagine that happens. A marijuana user will probably not pass the psychological test, but they may very well need a gun for self-defence, for example.
Wow
Youre really flexible.
You must be a gymnist.
I take it to mean you have no answer to that. As somebody who has suffered from mental illnesses my whole life, I find the suggestion that I have no right to self-defense just because of that very offensive.
-
Just taking the dog for a walk
https://www.ketk.com/news/crime-public-safety/police-texas-15-year-old-girl-shot-22-times-while-walking-family-dog/
9 year old minding her own business during a drive
https://www.ksat.com/news/2022/02/15/girl-9-dies-after-mistakenly-shot-by-robbery-victim/
Welcome to America! Land a the free ::)
We have way too many guns, way to many people killed by them. Over 45,000 last year.
And the number of deaths guns prevent is so large it is hard to even estimate, and it is almost certainly multiple times more than 45'000.
That is utter bullshit.
And refusal on mental health grounds should be done on a case by case basis, but should always be done, for the sake of the gun owner (depressives) and those around them.
-
FlatAss! I think you are watching too much Hollywood and being infected by American paranoia and stranger danger, unless things are different than the rest of Europe, none of this semi or full auto, flak jacket, ceramic spiderweb, hollow point, quick draw gun masturbation will be of any use to you.
Unless the Russians come, in which case you will be toasted by some remote drone driven by an outsourced 6-year-old in Pakistan before you know what is going on.
Spend the money on coke and hookers.
The vast majority of people would not die or get seriously ill from COVID. That does not mean one should not get vaccinated against it. Similarly, the vast majority of people will never find themselves in a situation in which a gun would help, but that does not mean one should not get one as a precaution.
Yeah, it’s not quite the same thing. Vaccines are not actually designed to kill people, a madman running around with a vaccine is not going to bother me much, a proliferation of vaccine toting people doesn’t traditionally result in an upsurge in deaths.
What if they put the vaccine in the nerd gun and went out shooting the anti vaxxers?!!
-
Just taking the dog for a walk
https://www.ketk.com/news/crime-public-safety/police-texas-15-year-old-girl-shot-22-times-while-walking-family-dog/
9 year old minding her own business during a drive
https://www.ksat.com/news/2022/02/15/girl-9-dies-after-mistakenly-shot-by-robbery-victim/
Welcome to America! Land a the free ::)
We have way too many guns, way to many people killed by them. Over 45,000 last year.
And the number of deaths guns prevent is so large it is hard to even estimate, and it is almost certainly multiple times more than 45'000.
That is utter bullshit.
Saying around 3 million deaths per year are prevented by guns is probably bullshit. But saying it is less than 45'000 is also bullshit.
EDIT: The first source I found by Googling estimates that to be around 500'000: https://americangunfacts.com/guns-used-in-self-defense-stats/
-
Just taking the dog for a walk
https://www.ketk.com/news/crime-public-safety/police-texas-15-year-old-girl-shot-22-times-while-walking-family-dog/
9 year old minding her own business during a drive
https://www.ksat.com/news/2022/02/15/girl-9-dies-after-mistakenly-shot-by-robbery-victim/
Welcome to America! Land a the free ::)
We have way too many guns, way to many people killed by them. Over 45,000 last year.
And the number of deaths guns prevent is so large it is hard to even estimate, and it is almost certainly multiple times more than 45'000.
You have a source for this?
What lives are being saved, from who?
Look at countries with low numbers of guns, like Sweden. I don't see large numbers of violent deaths happening there, and nobody keeps guns in their homes. They average about 40 people a year who are shot to death. Total number of murders is about 100 a year. Seems like guns are not needed to prevent deaths after all.
-
Just taking the dog for a walk
https://www.ketk.com/news/crime-public-safety/police-texas-15-year-old-girl-shot-22-times-while-walking-family-dog/
9 year old minding her own business during a drive
https://www.ksat.com/news/2022/02/15/girl-9-dies-after-mistakenly-shot-by-robbery-victim/
Welcome to America! Land a the free ::)
We have way too many guns, way to many people killed by them. Over 45,000 last year.
And the number of deaths guns prevent is so large it is hard to even estimate, and it is almost certainly multiple times more than 45'000.
That is utter bullshit.
Saying around 3 million deaths per year are prevented by guns is probably bullshit. But saying it is less than 45'000 is also bullshit.
EDIT: The first source I found by Googling estimates that to be around 500'000: https://americangunfacts.com/guns-used-in-self-defense-stats/
Mmm, The US has 120guns per 100 people, the UK has 4.6.
Death by guns in the US = 12.21 per 100K, the UK = 0.2
Murder rate per 100K US = 5.3 the UK = 1.2
On first glance that doesn't seem to make sense, but those gun deaths are also accidents and suicide
How come the poorly armed British do so well?
-
And do you take responsibility if somebody is murdered because they cannot defend themselves because they failed the psychological test? It is not a stretch to imagine that happens. A marijuana user will probably not pass the psychological test, but they may very well need a gun for self-defence, for example.
[...]
I take it to mean you have no answer to that. As somebody who has suffered from mental illnesses my whole life, I find the suggestion that I have no right to self-defense just because of that very offensive.
no
there is no answer for such a stupid request.
if you want one i can piece something together
you have right to defend yourself.
you got 2 arms 2 legs.
does the mayor take personal responsibility if you personally get attacked?
not unless crime is so rampant in your neighbourhood.
feel free to sue the mayor.
but for the 100s of people you meet everyday, do they have the right to safety?
can we trust the gov't has done everything reasonable in their power to ensure to know that you, a possibly mentally disturbed person, does not have a gun?
why does a mental person need a gun for the off chance they're attacked?
are you so paranoid that someone's out to get you?
you believe the earth is flat and there's gov't conspiracy against you?
ya... no sorry i'm pretty sure the risk to others outweighs the risk to you.
-
Just taking the dog for a walk
https://www.ketk.com/news/crime-public-safety/police-texas-15-year-old-girl-shot-22-times-while-walking-family-dog/
9 year old minding her own business during a drive
https://www.ksat.com/news/2022/02/15/girl-9-dies-after-mistakenly-shot-by-robbery-victim/
Welcome to America! Land a the free ::)
We have way too many guns, way to many people killed by them. Over 45,000 last year.
And the number of deaths guns prevent is so large it is hard to even estimate, and it is almost certainly multiple times more than 45'000.
That is utter bullshit.
Saying around 3 million deaths per year are prevented by guns is probably bullshit. But saying it is less than 45'000 is also bullshit.
EDIT: The first source I found by Googling estimates that to be around 500'000: https://americangunfacts.com/guns-used-in-self-defense-stats/
what a nonsense article
Guns used in self defense stats often try to measure the duck that didn’t quack. In other words, there may not be a police report or any other record when no crime was committed or reported. Most of the time a gun is used to prevent a crime, there is no record.
As a result, data on defensive use of force and averted crimes due to the presence of a defensive gun are controversial, contentious, and range widely. Defensive gun use (DGU) statistics generally rely on self-reporting, interviews, police, and media reports which are then extrapolated to the national population using a variety of statistical methods which produce contradictory and often wildly inconsistent estimates.1
[...]
Over 20 other similar surveys have been undertaken over the years and also support high numbers of DGUs – even surveys from the CDC itself. In 1996, 1997, and 1998, the Center for Disease Control conducted surveys to gather information on defensive gun uses by American citizens. The results were never published. In 2020, the criminologist Gary Kleck analyzed the raw data from these studies and found that the CDC data resulted in an average of 1,109,825 defensive gun uses each year surveyed.4
funny teh gun lobby tries soooo hard to ban studying guns yet at the same time puts this crap together.
how nice of the author to post the disclaimer waaaaay at the end of the article.
31.1% of all gun owners who took the survey said that they had used their firearm in self defense at least once “even if it was not fired or displayed”
how?
how is that even a use of self defense if it was not used to deter a situation?
could it be an open ended question where the person felt safer because they had a gun?
No shots were fired in 81.9% of those defensive use cases. 50.9% of the time, displaying the firearm was sufficient to scare off the attacker; 31% of the time, simply telling someone they were armed prevented the attack from taking place. Only 18.1% of the time was firing the gun required to defend their life.
math
of the people who own a gun, 1/3 of that claimed self defense, and of that 50%-displayed and 30%-verbal prevented the supposed attack.
there
go buy a replica.
you don't need an actual gun.
The Second Amendment to the US Constitution specifically permits, in fact defines as a natural right inherent to all people, the freedom to keep and bear arms. As subsequent Supreme Courts have defined the Second Amendment, they have concluded that the right is limited by behaviors such as committing a violent crime, limited by mental health status, and limited geographically (gun free school zones and prohibitions on some federal property such as courthouses).
oh look - mental health.
also, when artcile promotes self defense, then cites the 2ndA and completely misquotes it, well how much can you trust this author?
- A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed
Often cited by pro-gun advocates is the work of Gary Kleck, a Florida State criminologist who, in 1992, determined based on his research that defensive gun use occurred roughly 500,000 – 3 million times each year in the United States.
quick google
https://www.vacps.org/public-policy/the-contradictions-of-kleck
-
And do you take responsibility if somebody is murdered because they cannot defend themselves because they failed the psychological test? It is not a stretch to imagine that happens. A marijuana user will probably not pass the psychological test, but they may very well need a gun for self-defence, for example.
[...]
I take it to mean you have no answer to that. As somebody who has suffered from mental illnesses my whole life, I find the suggestion that I have no right to self-defense just because of that very offensive.
no
there is no answer for such a stupid request.
if you want one i can piece something together
you have right to defend yourself.
you got 2 arms 2 legs.
does the mayor take personal responsibility if you personally get attacked?
not unless crime is so rampant in your neighbourhood.
feel free to sue the mayor.
but for the 100s of people you meet everyday, do they have the right to safety?
can we trust the gov't has done everything reasonable in their power to ensure to know that you, a possibly mentally disturbed person, does not have a gun?
why does a mental person need a gun for the off chance they're attacked?
are you so paranoid that someone's out to get you?
you believe the earth is flat and there's gov't conspiracy against you?
ya... no sorry i'm pretty sure the risk to others outweighs the risk to you.
No, I am not a Flat-Earther, nor do I think there is a massive conspiracy against me. I simply think laws that prevent the prevention of a crime are bad laws and that people who want such laws are partly responsible for the crimes they cause, if I was not clear enough. Laws that require psychological tests for somebody to own a gun can easily prevent the prevention of a violent crime, since mentally ill people are often victims of violent crime. They are taking away guns from those who are more likely to be victims of violent crime. If passing such a law is not irresponsible, I do not know what is.
-
Just taking the dog for a walk
https://www.ketk.com/news/crime-public-safety/police-texas-15-year-old-girl-shot-22-times-while-walking-family-dog/
9 year old minding her own business during a drive
https://www.ksat.com/news/2022/02/15/girl-9-dies-after-mistakenly-shot-by-robbery-victim/
Welcome to America! Land a the free ::)
We have way too many guns, way to many people killed by them. Over 45,000 last year.
And the number of deaths guns prevent is so large it is hard to even estimate, and it is almost certainly multiple times more than 45'000.
That is utter bullshit.
Saying around 3 million deaths per year are prevented by guns is probably bullshit. But saying it is less than 45'000 is also bullshit.
EDIT: The first source I found by Googling estimates that to be around 500'000: https://americangunfacts.com/guns-used-in-self-defense-stats/
what a nonsense article
Guns used in self defense stats often try to measure the duck that didn’t quack. In other words, there may not be a police report or any other record when no crime was committed or reported. Most of the time a gun is used to prevent a crime, there is no record.
As a result, data on defensive use of force and averted crimes due to the presence of a defensive gun are controversial, contentious, and range widely. Defensive gun use (DGU) statistics generally rely on self-reporting, interviews, police, and media reports which are then extrapolated to the national population using a variety of statistical methods which produce contradictory and often wildly inconsistent estimates.1
[...]
Over 20 other similar surveys have been undertaken over the years and also support high numbers of DGUs – even surveys from the CDC itself. In 1996, 1997, and 1998, the Center for Disease Control conducted surveys to gather information on defensive gun uses by American citizens. The results were never published. In 2020, the criminologist Gary Kleck analyzed the raw data from these studies and found that the CDC data resulted in an average of 1,109,825 defensive gun uses each year surveyed.4
funny teh gun lobby tries soooo hard to ban studying guns yet at the same time puts this crap together.
how nice of the author to post the disclaimer waaaaay at the end of the article.
31.1% of all gun owners who took the survey said that they had used their firearm in self defense at least once “even if it was not fired or displayed”
how?
how is that even a use of self defense if it was not used to deter a situation?
could it be an open ended question where the person felt safer because they had a gun?
No shots were fired in 81.9% of those defensive use cases. 50.9% of the time, displaying the firearm was sufficient to scare off the attacker; 31% of the time, simply telling someone they were armed prevented the attack from taking place. Only 18.1% of the time was firing the gun required to defend their life.
math
of the people who own a gun, 1/3 of that claimed self defense, and of that 50%-displayed and 30%-verbal prevented the supposed attack.
there
go buy a replica.
you don't need an actual gun.
The Second Amendment to the US Constitution specifically permits, in fact defines as a natural right inherent to all people, the freedom to keep and bear arms. As subsequent Supreme Courts have defined the Second Amendment, they have concluded that the right is limited by behaviors such as committing a violent crime, limited by mental health status, and limited geographically (gun free school zones and prohibitions on some federal property such as courthouses).
oh look - mental health.
also, when artcile promotes self defense, then cites the 2ndA and completely misquotes it, well how much can you trust this author?
- A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed
Often cited by pro-gun advocates is the work of Gary Kleck, a Florida State criminologist who, in 1992, determined based on his research that defensive gun use occurred roughly 500,000 – 3 million times each year in the United States.
quick google
https://www.vacps.org/public-policy/the-contradictions-of-kleck
I am still waiting for your source that suggests less than 48'000 lives per year are saved by guns. You do realize 18.1% of 500'000 is still almost twice as large as 48'000 is?
-
As you seem to have missed this then.
Mmm, The US has 120guns per 100 people, the UK has 4.6.
Death by guns in the US = 12.21 per 100K, the UK = 0.2
Murder rate per 100K US = 5.3 the UK = 1.2
Where in those numbers is there any proof that guns save lives?
-
I simply think laws that prevent the prevention of a crime are bad laws and that people who want such laws are partly responsible for the crimes they cause, if I was not clear enough.
Not clear at all. What laws are there that prevent the prevention of crime?
-
No, I am not a Flat-Earther, nor do I think there is a massive conspiracy against me. I simply think laws that prevent the prevention of a crime are bad laws and that people who want such laws are partly responsible for the crimes they cause, if I was not clear enough. Laws that require psychological tests for somebody to own a gun can easily prevent the prevention of a violent crime, since mentally ill people are often victims of violent crime. They are taking away guns from those who are more likely to be victims of violent crime. If passing such a law is not irresponsible, I do not know what is.
The kids at sandyhook would disagree with you.
If you dont have the emotional capacity to pass a test, you shouldnt get a gun.
That would be a law that prevents a crime.
Mentally ill people are often victims of police brutality.
Thats a crime, but not one solved with a gun.
There is nothing preventing you from other forms of self defense.
You have no argument.
You dont know anything.
Thanks for admitting such.
-
I simply think laws that prevent the prevention of a crime are bad laws and that people who want such laws are partly responsible for the crimes they cause, if I was not clear enough.
Not clear at all. What laws are there that prevent the prevention of crime?
Gun sales loophole, blockades to gun study and regulation blockade laws prevent the prevention...
Aaaahh
-
No, I am not a Flat-Earther, nor do I think there is a massive conspiracy against me. I simply think laws that prevent the prevention of a crime are bad laws and that people who want such laws are partly responsible for the crimes they cause, if I was not clear enough. Laws that require psychological tests for somebody to own a gun can easily prevent the prevention of a violent crime, since mentally ill people are often victims of violent crime. They are taking away guns from those who are more likely to be victims of violent crime. If passing such a law is not irresponsible, I do not know what is.
The kids at sandyhook would disagree with you.
If you dont have the emotional capacity to pass a test, you shouldnt get a gun.
That would be a law that prevents a crime.
Mentally ill people are often victims of police brutality.
Thats a crime, but not one solved with a gun.
There is nothing preventing you from other forms of self defense.
You have no argument.
You dont know anything.
Thanks for admitting such.
He used to say that guns dont even exist. He's just another boring troll that comes up with mindbogglingly stupid crap. Apparently according to him, the Tienanmen Square massacre never happened either because why would a government do bad things?
He's either a troll or mentally disabled with a mind that lives in a different reality to the one his body is occupied in
-
I am still waiting for your source that suggests less than 48'000 lives per year are saved by guns. You do realize 18.1% of 500'000 is still almost twice as large as 48'000 is?
I didnt suggest anything other than 500,000-3,000,0000 is a made up number.
But i can have a go.
One number from this brady study says 115,000people are shot each year in usa.
Cdc gives an estimate 24,000 gun suicide.
So 115 - 24 = 91,000.
Statista says 105,000 armed store robberies in 2020.
I compare armed store robberies because many convenince stores and shops owners carry for self defense.
So at best ill give you 105,000-196,000 gun incidents where the bottom range is the robbery and the top is assuming zero overlap between cop shootings and the mentioned robberies.
I reject your numbers by reason their extrapolation is baseless self reported survey with an extreme statistical range giving itself no credibilty.
https://www.bradyunited.org/key-statistics
https://www.statista.com/statistics/251914/number-of-robberies-in-the-us-by-weapon/
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/suicide.htm
-
Who sys guns dont exist?
What?
-
Who sys guns dont exist?
What?
FlatAss
So, what do you guys here think, is it reasonable to believe that guns exist? I am not sure. People around me are telling me guns exist, but that I cannot get one myself to check that because the police in Croatia, where I live, somehow prevents the civilians from owning guns, for some reason that escapes me. So, there is either a conspiracy of American movie-makers making people thing guns exist, or there is a conspiracy of the police somehow preventing people from getting guns to see for themselves that they exist. What do you think is more likely?
-
"For some reason that escapes" him. -
- Sounds like hes disturbed so they wont give him a gun.
The fact he cant comprehend further goes to show lack of mental capacity.
"Do guns exist" -
- Sounds like tat was a bad joke since he seen cops carry guns.
-
So, you agree with me that the police should not exist?
Absolutely. In fact I'll go further and say nothing should exist.
-
So, you agree with me that the police should not exist?
Absolutely. In fact I'll go further and say nothing should exist.
No Crabby!
Your nihilism makes you unattractive, which in turn leads to your abandonment issues, embrace something that will give your life meaning (get permission first).
For me that would be sarcasm, whisky, books and perversion.
Things that do not help include religion (other than ones that include all the above), joining a club of any description especially if it contains people and none of the above and juggling (add attacking jugglers to my list).
-
No, I am not a Flat-Earther, nor do I think there is a massive conspiracy against me. I simply think laws that prevent the prevention of a crime are bad laws and that people who want such laws are partly responsible for the crimes they cause, if I was not clear enough. Laws that require psychological tests for somebody to own a gun can easily prevent the prevention of a violent crime, since mentally ill people are often victims of violent crime. They are taking away guns from those who are more likely to be victims of violent crime. If passing such a law is not irresponsible, I do not know what is.
The kids at sandyhook would disagree with you.
If you dont have the emotional capacity to pass a test, you shouldnt get a gun.
That would be a law that prevents a crime.
Mentally ill people are often victims of police brutality.
Thats a crime, but not one solved with a gun.
There is nothing preventing you from other forms of self defense.
You have no argument.
You dont know anything.
Thanks for admitting such.
He used to say that guns dont even exist. He's just another boring troll that comes up with mindbogglingly stupid crap. Apparently according to him, the Tienanmen Square massacre never happened either because why would a government do bad things?
He's either a troll or mentally disabled with a mind that lives in a different reality to the one his body is occupied in
Well, I am capable of changing my mind. Yes, Tiananmen Square Massacre happened, and the Chinese government probably would not get as repressive as it was back then if there were more guns in China. The primary purpose of the Second Ammendment of the US constitution was to ensure the government does not get too repressive, and the Founding Fathers thought private gun ownership would prevent an overly oppressive government. And there is certainly some truth to that. They do not do miracles, but they almost certainly help a bit. The countries with the highest gun ownership rate in Europe are Serbia, Finland and Switzerland. Of those, Finland and Switzerland managed to stay neutral in World War 2.
-
I am still waiting for your source that suggests less than 48'000 lives per year are saved by guns. You do realize 18.1% of 500'000 is still almost twice as large as 48'000 is?
I didnt suggest anything other than 500,000-3,000,0000 is a made up number.
But i can have a go.
One number from this brady study says 115,000people are shot each year in usa.
Cdc gives an estimate 24,000 gun suicide.
So 115 - 24 = 91,000.
Statista says 105,000 armed store robberies in 2020.
I compare armed store robberies because many convenince stores and shops owners carry for self defense.
So at best ill give you 105,000-196,000 gun incidents where the bottom range is the robbery and the top is assuming zero overlap between cop shootings and the mentioned robberies.
I reject your numbers by reason their extrapolation is baseless self reported survey with an extreme statistical range giving itself no credibilty.
https://www.bradyunited.org/key-statistics
https://www.statista.com/statistics/251914/number-of-robberies-in-the-us-by-weapon/
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/suicide.htm
What is your point? That the estimates that guns cause around 50'000 deaths per year in the US are significant underestimates? Well, I haven't looked too much into the topic.
-
Of those, Finland and Switzerland managed to stay neutral in World War 2.
Finland definitely wasn't neutral and was continuously invaded. It allied with the nazis, until switching to the soviets when the Germans were on the retreat. It also lost 10% of it's land.
And the Swiss didn't maintain it's neutrality because people kept a handgun at home.
-
The primary purpose of the Second Ammendment of the US constitution was to ensure the government does not get too repressive, and the Founding Fathers thought private gun ownership would prevent an overly oppressive government. And there is certainly some truth to that. They do not do miracles, but they almost certainly help a bit. The countries with the highest gun ownership rate in Europe are Serbia, Finland and Switzerland. Of those, Finland and Switzerland managed to stay neutral in World War 2.
And yet, the biggest gun nuts in America are quite prepared to vote for a literal dictator who trashes the democratic institution. Fantastic
Also, the government is not scared of people with guns. They have drones
You dont bring a knife to a gun fight. Likewise, you dont bring a gun to a drone fight
Also the yankees have allowed their government to collect all the data they have about everyone and everything. Some of them even volunteer it! (social media). Others unwittingly have everything made known about them through the government spying on its own people. It is weird that the American public wasn't more angry with what Edward Snowden released. - And he is branded a traitor
Do you really think an American government that wants to go full dictator is perturbed by the public owning guns? Hell no! Between weapons the public could never have and all the information they have on everyone - They dont give 2 shits how many rounds of ammo or assault weapons you have. They'll just snipe you from orbit
Also, as Trump proves - the public are dumb enough to try elect such a government. They'll even go full insurrection and to hell with democracy to get what they want. The 2nd Amendment is moot
-
Of those, Finland and Switzerland managed to stay neutral in World War 2.
Finland definitely wasn't neutral and was continuously invaded. It allied with the nazis, until switching to the soviets when the Germans were on the retreat. It also lost 10% of it's land.
And the Swiss didn't maintain it's neutrality because people kept a handgun at home.
So, what do you think is the reason Finland and Switzerland fared relatively well compared to other European countries during World Wars? Obviously, there are many factors, but I think private weapon ownership is a big one.
-
The primary purpose of the Second Ammendment of the US constitution was to ensure the government does not get too repressive, and the Founding Fathers thought private gun ownership would prevent an overly oppressive government. And there is certainly some truth to that. They do not do miracles, but they almost certainly help a bit. The countries with the highest gun ownership rate in Europe are Serbia, Finland and Switzerland. Of those, Finland and Switzerland managed to stay neutral in World War 2.
And yet, the biggest gun nuts in America are quite prepared to vote for a literal dictator who trashes the democratic institution. Fantastic
Also, the government is not scared of people with guns. They have drones
You dont bring a knife to a gun fight. Likewise, you dont bring a gun to a drone fight
Also the yankees have allowed their government to collect all the data they have about everyone and everything. Some of them even volunteer it! (social media). Others unwittingly have everything made known about them through the government spying on its own people. It is weird that the American public wasn't more angry with what Edward Snowden released. - And he is branded a traitor
Do you really think an American government that wants to go full dictator is perturbed by the public owning guns? Hell no! Between weapons the public could never have and all the information they have on everyone - They dont give 2 shits how many rounds of ammo or assault weapons you have. They'll just snipe you from orbit
Also, as Trump proves - the public are dumb enough to try elect such a government. They'll even go full insurrection and to hell with democracy to get what they want. The 2nd Amendment is moot
Maybe you are right. Since ever, people have been giving up their weapons in order to feel safe, without understanding how the system can be used against them. In the end of the 20th and the beginning of the 21st century, the same goes for privacy: people give it up for the sake of convenience and safety, without understanding how the system can be used against them.
-
The primary purpose of the Second Ammendment of the US constitution was to ensure the government does not get too repressive, and the Founding Fathers thought private gun ownership would prevent an overly oppressive government. And there is certainly some truth to that. They do not do miracles, but they almost certainly help a bit. The countries with the highest gun ownership rate in Europe are Serbia, Finland and Switzerland. Of those, Finland and Switzerland managed to stay neutral in World War 2.
And yet, the biggest gun nuts in America are quite prepared to vote for a literal dictator who trashes the democratic institution. Fantastic
Also, the government is not scared of people with guns. They have drones
You dont bring a knife to a gun fight. Likewise, you dont bring a gun to a drone fight
Also the yankees have allowed their government to collect all the data they have about everyone and everything. Some of them even volunteer it! (social media). Others unwittingly have everything made known about them through the government spying on its own people. It is weird that the American public wasn't more angry with what Edward Snowden released. - And he is branded a traitor
Do you really think an American government that wants to go full dictator is perturbed by the public owning guns? Hell no! Between weapons the public could never have and all the information they have on everyone - They dont give 2 shits how many rounds of ammo or assault weapons you have. They'll just snipe you from orbit
Also, as Trump proves - the public are dumb enough to try elect such a government. They'll even go full insurrection and to hell with democracy to get what they want. The 2nd Amendment is moot
Maybe you are right. Since ever, people have been giving up their weapons in order to feel safe, without understanding how the system can be used against them. In the end of the 20th and the beginning of the 21st century, the same goes for privacy: people give it up for the sake of convenience and safety, without understanding how the system can be used against them.
People in America aren't giving up their guns though. But they seem to have no problem voting for a government where the very reason they had this 2nd amendment was written in the first place.
And if their 'team' doesn't win? You watch in a few years as the public uses those weapons to ensure such a dictator gets installed.
We dont have much private gun ownership in Australia and there is no threat of our government going full dictator arsehole on us. Of course you get the whingers who sook when their guy doesn't get voted in and overblows their misery. I'm just happy they have no guns to have a sook with. Guns dont make society safer. I can only imagine if the blood boiling red necked 'freedumb' protestors in Australia were armed to the teeth. No thanks
We'll leave that dumb experiment to America. Gun ownership there certainly isn't preventing the repugnicans from trashing democracy - in fact their biggest fans are the gun nuts
-
Of those, Finland and Switzerland managed to stay neutral in World War 2.
Finland definitely wasn't neutral and was continuously invaded. It allied with the nazis, until switching to the soviets when the Germans were on the retreat. It also lost 10% of it's land.
And the Swiss didn't maintain it's neutrality because people kept a handgun at home.
So, what do you think is the reason Finland and Switzerland fared relatively well compared to other European countries during World Wars? Obviously, there are many factors, but I think private weapon ownership is a big one.
Going out on a limb here and going to say Switzerland being an easily defended mountainous region that Germany had the option of going around probably helped them compared to say Poland.
I can't imagine private ownership of guns would have helped Polish civilians stop tanks.
-
I am still waiting for your source that suggests less than 48'000 lives per year are saved by guns. You do realize 18.1% of 500'000 is still almost twice as large as 48'000 is?
I didnt suggest anything other than 500,000-3,000,0000 is a made up number.
But i can have a go.
One number from this brady study says 115,000people are shot each year in usa.
Cdc gives an estimate 24,000 gun suicide.
So 115 - 24 = 91,000.
Statista says 105,000 armed store robberies in 2020.
I compare armed store robberies because many convenince stores and shops owners carry for self defense.
So at best ill give you 105,000-196,000 gun incidents where the bottom range is the robbery and the top is assuming zero overlap between cop shootings and the mentioned robberies.
I reject your numbers by reason their extrapolation is baseless self reported survey with an extreme statistical range giving itself no credibilty.
https://www.bradyunited.org/key-statistics
https://www.statista.com/statistics/251914/number-of-robberies-in-the-us-by-weapon/
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/suicide.htm
What is your point? That the estimates that guns cause around 50'000 deaths per year in the US are significant underestimates? Well, I haven't looked too much into the topic.
what's the point?
the point is very obvious as it stated it.
you presented a number and asked me about some other random number.
i refute.
that's the point.
maybe you should look into the topic some more since your point was that a mentally disturbed person wasn't able to access guns for a percieved need for self defense.
- how many times have you been mugged?
-
The primary purpose of the Second Ammendment of the US constitution was to ensure the government does not get too repressive, and the Founding Fathers thought private gun ownership would prevent an overly oppressive government. And there is certainly some truth to that. They do not do miracles, but they almost certainly help a bit. The countries with the highest gun ownership rate in Europe are Serbia, Finland and Switzerland. Of those, Finland and Switzerland managed to stay neutral in World War 2.
And yet, the biggest gun nuts in America are quite prepared to vote for a literal dictator who trashes the democratic institution. Fantastic
Also, the government is not scared of people with guns. They have drones
You dont bring a knife to a gun fight. Likewise, you dont bring a gun to a drone fight
Also the yankees have allowed their government to collect all the data they have about everyone and everything. Some of them even volunteer it! (social media). Others unwittingly have everything made known about them through the government spying on its own people. It is weird that the American public wasn't more angry with what Edward Snowden released. - And he is branded a traitor
Do you really think an American government that wants to go full dictator is perturbed by the public owning guns? Hell no! Between weapons the public could never have and all the information they have on everyone - They dont give 2 shits how many rounds of ammo or assault weapons you have. They'll just snipe you from orbit
Also, as Trump proves - the public are dumb enough to try elect such a government. They'll even go full insurrection and to hell with democracy to get what they want. The 2nd Amendment is moot
aaahaha
i just had it out with some guy on youtube about this.
the maga hats are really confident they can hold back the US army, US militarized police, and the many many points of invasion of privacy monitoring.
-
Of those, Finland and Switzerland managed to stay neutral in World War 2.
Finland definitely wasn't neutral and was continuously invaded. It allied with the nazis, until switching to the soviets when the Germans were on the retreat. It also lost 10% of it's land.
And the Swiss didn't maintain it's neutrality because people kept a handgun at home.
So, what do you think is the reason Finland and Switzerland fared relatively well compared to other European countries during World Wars?
Finland did well to grind the soviets into a treaty early on, but then it survived by allying with whomever was winning. The Nazis first then the Soviets. If it hadn't become a side show by 1944 with the Russians in a race to Berlin it would have been ground to dust by the Red Army.
It also lost 2.6% of it's population, compared with 0.9% in the UK and 1.4% in France. Oh, and it was forced to hand over 10% of it's land. So I'm really not sure how you think it "fared well".
Obviously, there are many factors, but I think private weapon ownership is a big one.
You don't even know what the extent of private gun ownership in those states was in 1939.
-
In case no one saw this yet:
-
imagine if such a basic feature were regulation required.
'merica!
side note, why in youtubes and such they always have a mag in the gun?
isn't that a basic handling practice?
some of the "safety first" shows the guy has a cleared chamber orange tag, keeps the mags out, visually checks the chamber etc etc.
i dunno
who's a gun person here?
you keep a mag in the gun?
-
The primary purpose of the Second Ammendment of the US constitution was to ensure the government does not get too repressive, and the Founding Fathers thought private gun ownership would prevent an overly oppressive government. And there is certainly some truth to that. They do not do miracles, but they almost certainly help a bit. The countries with the highest gun ownership rate in Europe are Serbia, Finland and Switzerland. Of those, Finland and Switzerland managed to stay neutral in World War 2.
And yet, the biggest gun nuts in America are quite prepared to vote for a literal dictator who trashes the democratic institution. Fantastic
Also, the government is not scared of people with guns. They have drones
You dont bring a knife to a gun fight. Likewise, you dont bring a gun to a drone fight
Also the yankees have allowed their government to collect all the data they have about everyone and everything. Some of them even volunteer it! (social media). Others unwittingly have everything made known about them through the government spying on its own people. It is weird that the American public wasn't more angry with what Edward Snowden released. - And he is branded a traitor
Do you really think an American government that wants to go full dictator is perturbed by the public owning guns? Hell no! Between weapons the public could never have and all the information they have on everyone - They dont give 2 shits how many rounds of ammo or assault weapons you have. They'll just snipe you from orbit
Also, as Trump proves - the public are dumb enough to try elect such a government. They'll even go full insurrection and to hell with democracy to get what they want. The 2nd Amendment is moot
Maybe you are right. Since ever, people have been giving up their weapons in order to feel safe, without understanding how the system can be used against them. In the end of the 20th and the beginning of the 21st century, the same goes for privacy: people give it up for the sake of convenience and safety, without understanding how the system can be used against them.
People in America aren't giving up their guns though. But they seem to have no problem voting for a government where the very reason they had this 2nd amendment was written in the first place.
And if their 'team' doesn't win? You watch in a few years as the public uses those weapons to ensure such a dictator gets installed.
We dont have much private gun ownership in Australia and there is no threat of our government going full dictator arsehole on us. Of course you get the whingers who sook when their guy doesn't get voted in and overblows their misery. I'm just happy they have no guns to have a sook with. Guns dont make society safer. I can only imagine if the blood boiling red necked 'freedumb' protestors in Australia were armed to the teeth. No thanks
We'll leave that dumb experiment to America. Gun ownership there certainly isn't preventing the repugnicans from trashing democracy - in fact their biggest fans are the gun nuts
Australian government also got rather tyrranical in recent years with its "pandemic management" policies.
-
Of those, Finland and Switzerland managed to stay neutral in World War 2.
Finland definitely wasn't neutral and was continuously invaded. It allied with the nazis, until switching to the soviets when the Germans were on the retreat. It also lost 10% of it's land.
And the Swiss didn't maintain it's neutrality because people kept a handgun at home.
So, what do you think is the reason Finland and Switzerland fared relatively well compared to other European countries during World Wars? Obviously, there are many factors, but I think private weapon ownership is a big one.
Going out on a limb here and going to say Switzerland being an easily defended mountainous region that Germany had the option of going around probably helped them compared to say Poland.
I can't imagine private ownership of guns would have helped Polish civilians stop tanks.
How many guns are needed to destroy a tank? I haven't studied it that much, but I assume not many.
-
I am still waiting for your source that suggests less than 48'000 lives per year are saved by guns. You do realize 18.1% of 500'000 is still almost twice as large as 48'000 is?
I didnt suggest anything other than 500,000-3,000,0000 is a made up number.
But i can have a go.
One number from this brady study says 115,000people are shot each year in usa.
Cdc gives an estimate 24,000 gun suicide.
So 115 - 24 = 91,000.
Statista says 105,000 armed store robberies in 2020.
I compare armed store robberies because many convenince stores and shops owners carry for self defense.
So at best ill give you 105,000-196,000 gun incidents where the bottom range is the robbery and the top is assuming zero overlap between cop shootings and the mentioned robberies.
I reject your numbers by reason their extrapolation is baseless self reported survey with an extreme statistical range giving itself no credibilty.
https://www.bradyunited.org/key-statistics
https://www.statista.com/statistics/251914/number-of-robberies-in-the-us-by-weapon/
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/suicide.htm
What is your point? That the estimates that guns cause around 50'000 deaths per year in the US are significant underestimates? Well, I haven't looked too much into the topic.
what's the point?
the point is very obvious as it stated it.
you presented a number and asked me about some other random number.
i refute.
that's the point.
maybe you should look into the topic some more since your point was that a mentally disturbed person wasn't able to access guns for a percieved need for self defense.
- how many times have you been mugged?
The fact remains that estimates of how many lives are saved by guns tend to be far bigger (by around an order of magnitude) than the estimates about how many people are killed by guns. You calling them baseless does not make them so, especially when they come up with similar results with various methods.
-
As you seem to have missed this then.
Mmm, The US has 120guns per 100 people, the UK has 4.6.
Death by guns in the US = 12.21 per 100K, the UK = 0.2
Murder rate per 100K US = 5.3 the UK = 1.2
Where in those numbers is there any proof that guns save lives?
I hope you are not applying that kind of logic to everything. The fact is, the correlation between violent crime and gun ownership is not high. The UK is relatively high in violent crime, yet it has relatively few guns, compared to other European countries.
-
I simply think laws that prevent the prevention of a crime are bad laws and that people who want such laws are partly responsible for the crimes they cause, if I was not clear enough.
Not clear at all. What laws are there that prevent the prevention of crime?
Laws that discourage self-defense by preventing people from getting guns, obviously.
-
I would question your logic first. Considering, though you've changed your mind, you at one point thought guns didn't exist. To even have that notion to begin with is rather telling as to your logistical assessment capabilities.
-
I would question your logic first. Considering, though you've changed your mind, you at one point thought guns didn't exist. To even have that notion to begin with is rather telling as to your logistical assessment capabilities.
Sorry, what do you mean by "logistical"? Can you elaborate on that?
-
I simply think laws that prevent the prevention of a crime are bad laws and that people who want such laws are partly responsible for the crimes they cause, if I was not clear enough.
Not clear at all. What laws are there that prevent the prevention of crime?
Laws that discourage self-defense by preventing people from getting guns, obviously.
Like what laws ar you referring to? Define, "discouraging self-defense".
If there is a law that says I can't legally possess a firearm because I am a convicted felon because of an act I committed using a firearm should I still be legally allowed to posses a firearm? Because I want it it for self defense?
-
I would question your logic first. Considering, though you've changed your mind, you at one point thought guns didn't exist. To even have that notion to begin with is rather telling as to your logistical assessment capabilities.
Sorry, what do you mean by "logistical"? Can you elaborate on that?
Logic. Yours. What sort of logical manipulations could someone possibly make in their mind that would lead them to believe guns don't exist? Do you realize how warped that would be? And just how far out of reality that would be? How far out of logic?
-
I simply think laws that prevent the prevention of a crime are bad laws and that people who want such laws are partly responsible for the crimes they cause, if I was not clear enough.
Not clear at all. What laws are there that prevent the prevention of crime?
Laws that discourage self-defense by preventing people from getting guns, obviously.
Like what laws ar you referring to? Define, "discouraging self-defense".
If there is a law that says I can't legally possess a firearm because I am a convicted felon because of an act I committed using a firearm should I still be legally allowed to posses a firearm? Because I want it it for self defense?
Yes, as most felons are not actually violent. Most felons are minor criminals such as drug users.
-
I would question your logic first. Considering, though you've changed your mind, you at one point thought guns didn't exist. To even have that notion to begin with is rather telling as to your logistical assessment capabilities.
Sorry, what do you mean by "logistical"? Can you elaborate on that?
Logic. Yours. What sort of logical manipulations could someone possibly make in their mind that would lead them to believe guns don't exist? Do you realize how warped that would be? And just how far out of reality that would be? How far out of logic?
Well, I explained how I came up with that belief: I thought "Guns exist, but you cannot test that because the police is not letting the civilians own guns." is a typical conspiracy theory.
-
Australian government also got rather tyrranical in recent years with its "pandemic management" policies.
Not even close to tyranny. Don't get your news feed from whining antivaxxer morons who have no concept 9f civil freedom. I actually live here and I know what a good society entails. That includes civil freedoms at the expense of some personal ones. Thank God for those
I shudder how you think putting a gun in everyone's hand could make society a safer or better place. Why don't we give everyone a grenade too? The military get those - us plebs are missing out!
-
I shudder how you think putting a gun in everyone's hand could make society a safer or better place.
Chihuahuas also shudder.
-
I am still waiting for your source that suggests less than 48'000 lives per year are saved by guns. You do realize 18.1% of 500'000 is still almost twice as large as 48'000 is?
I didnt suggest anything other than 500,000-3,000,0000 is a made up number.
But i can have a go.
One number from this brady study says 115,000people are shot each year in usa.
Cdc gives an estimate 24,000 gun suicide.
So 115 - 24 = 91,000.
Statista says 105,000 armed store robberies in 2020.
I compare armed store robberies because many convenince stores and shops owners carry for self defense.
So at best ill give you 105,000-196,000 gun incidents where the bottom range is the robbery and the top is assuming zero overlap between cop shootings and the mentioned robberies.
I reject your numbers by reason their extrapolation is baseless self reported survey with an extreme statistical range giving itself no credibilty.
https://www.bradyunited.org/key-statistics
https://www.statista.com/statistics/251914/number-of-robberies-in-the-us-by-weapon/
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/suicide.htm
What is your point? That the estimates that guns cause around 50'000 deaths per year in the US are significant underestimates? Well, I haven't looked too much into the topic.
what's the point?
the point is very obvious as it stated it.
you presented a number and asked me about some other random number.
i refute.
that's the point.
maybe you should look into the topic some more since your point was that a mentally disturbed person wasn't able to access guns for a percieved need for self defense.
- how many times have you been mugged?
The fact remains that estimates of how many lives are saved by guns tend to be far bigger (by around an order of magnitude) than the estimates about how many people are killed by guns. You calling them baseless does not make them so, especially when they come up with similar results with various methods.
Incorrect.
Killed, shot at, maimed is within the en par to saved vs attacked as per links and comment.
The 500,000-3M also still baseless as per comments.
How is a generous 196,000 of the same magnitude as 3M?
-
As you seem to have missed this then.
Mmm, The US has 120guns per 100 people, the UK has 4.6.
Death by guns in the US = 12.21 per 100K, the UK = 0.2
Murder rate per 100K US = 5.3 the UK = 1.2
Where in those numbers is there any proof that guns save lives?
I hope you are not applying that kind of logic to everything. The fact is, the correlation between violent crime and gun ownership is not high. The UK is relatively high in violent crime, yet it has relatively few guns, compared to other European countries.
"Fact is" dossnt make it any much a fact...
Violence per capita is violence considering certain socio ecomonical stats.
His stats are gun related between cpuntries.
No one was comparing violence per capita.
Quick google search "violent crime in [country]"
Uk 1.7M
Usa 1.3M (en par)
Uk 67M pop
Usa 340M pop (5x)
So on the sirface ya it looks that way.
Strange.
So more digging
- classification of "violent crime"
Uk classifoes violeny crime difderently than usa.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violent_crime
-
How many guns are needed to destroy a tank? I haven't studied it that much, but I assume not many.
Eh? Do you actually know what a tank is?
-
The fact remains that estimates of how many lives are saved by guns tend to be far bigger (by around an order of magnitude) than the estimates about how many people are killed by guns. You calling them baseless does not make them so, especially when they come up with similar results with various methods.
People are calling your statistics baseless because they are. All of the numbers you have produced were nearly pure guesswork.
Those numbers are clearly garbage as countries with almost no guns have way lower rates of murder than countries where there are more guns than people.
Here is a good question for you. Who are these supposed lives saved being saved from? Are millions of people protecting themselves from home invaders armed with what... let me guess, guns?
So guns save lives because people can shoot other people with guns trying to kill them with guns.
-
How many guns are needed to destroy a tank? I haven't studied it that much, but I assume not many.
Eh? Do you actually know what a tank is?
Well, a tank is something like a car, just armoured, right?
-
The fact remains that estimates of how many lives are saved by guns tend to be far bigger (by around an order of magnitude) than the estimates about how many people are killed by guns. You calling them baseless does not make them so, especially when they come up with similar results with various methods.
People are calling your statistics baseless because they are. All of the numbers you have produced were nearly pure guesswork.
Those numbers are clearly garbage as countries with almost no guns have way lower rates of murder than countries where there are more guns than people.
Here is a good question for you. Who are these supposed lives saved being saved from? Are millions of people protecting themselves from home invaders armed with what... let me guess, guns?
So guns save lives because people can shoot other people with guns trying to kill them with guns.
Of course it is a lot of guesswork, we are trying to estimate the number of ducks that didn't quack. Defensive gun use usually leaves no evidence. Unlike guns killing people, which leaves evidence and is easier to estimate.
And you think criminals will stop having guns if guns are outlawed? Criminals are already mostly acquiring their guns illegally, and will continue to do so. It's the law-abiding citizens which would be disarmed by laws preventing people from getting guns, not the criminals.
-
The fact remains that estimates of how many lives are saved by guns tend to be far bigger (by around an order of magnitude) than the estimates about how many people are killed by guns. You calling them baseless does not make them so, especially when they come up with similar results with various methods.
People are calling your statistics baseless because they are. All of the numbers you have produced were nearly pure guesswork.
Those numbers are clearly garbage as countries with almost no guns have way lower rates of murder than countries where there are more guns than people.
Here is a good question for you. Who are these supposed lives saved being saved from? Are millions of people protecting themselves from home invaders armed with what... let me guess, guns?
So guns save lives because people can shoot other people with guns trying to kill them with guns.
Of course it is a lot of guesswork, we are trying to estimate the number of ducks that didn't quack. Defensive gun use usually leaves no evidence. Unlike guns killing people, which leaves evidence and is easier to estimate.
And you think criminals will stop having guns if guns are outlawed? Criminals are already mostly acquiring their guns illegally, and will continue to do so. It's the law-abiding citizens which would be disarmed by laws preventing people from getting guns, not the criminals.
Actually I do think exactly that. Countries like Japan and others ban handguns entirely and severely restrict shotguns and rifles. Yet somehow they have some of the lowest gun deaths of anywhere.
If guns prevent violence, how come there is so little in countries and states with very few guns? The data shows pretty clearly, more gun ownership correlates with more gun deaths. If I wanted to be safest, I wouldn't live where there are more guns, but where there are less.
(https://assets.weforum.org/editor/large_dXnnmi03w6LbE-qWZI6weXR80_U3v3tq-XryJPUDgaQ.png)
-
If guns prevent violence, how come there is so little in countries and states with very few guns? The data shows pretty clearly, more gun ownership correlates with more gun deaths. If I wanted to be safest, I wouldn't live where there are more guns, but where there are less.
Come on down under 8)
-
As you seem to have missed this then.
Mmm, The US has 120guns per 100 people, the UK has 4.6.
Death by guns in the US = 12.21 per 100K, the UK = 0.2
Murder rate per 100K US = 5.3 the UK = 1.2
Where in those numbers is there any proof that guns save lives?
I hope you are not applying that kind of logic to everything. The fact is, the correlation between violent crime and gun ownership is not high. The UK is relatively high in violent crime, yet it has relatively few guns, compared to other European countries.
"Fact is" dossnt make it any much a fact...
Violence per capita is violence considering certain socio ecomonical stats.
His stats are gun related between cpuntries.
No one was comparing violence per capita.
Quick google search "violent crime in [country]"
Uk 1.7M
Usa 1.3M (en par)
Uk 67M pop
Usa 340M pop (5x)
So on the sirface ya it looks that way.
Strange.
So more digging
- classification of "violent crime"
Uk classifoes violeny crime difderently than usa.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violent_crime
Look, fine, nobody is denying USA is a horrible country to live in. It is high in violent crime and has a repressive and corrupt government. The question is whether guns are contributing to the bad situation, or whether they are making the situation slightly better.
-
The fact remains that estimates of how many lives are saved by guns tend to be far bigger (by around an order of magnitude) than the estimates about how many people are killed by guns. You calling them baseless does not make them so, especially when they come up with similar results with various methods.
People are calling your statistics baseless because they are. All of the numbers you have produced were nearly pure guesswork.
Those numbers are clearly garbage as countries with almost no guns have way lower rates of murder than countries where there are more guns than people.
Here is a good question for you. Who are these supposed lives saved being saved from? Are millions of people protecting themselves from home invaders armed with what... let me guess, guns?
So guns save lives because people can shoot other people with guns trying to kill them with guns.
Of course it is a lot of guesswork, we are trying to estimate the number of ducks that didn't quack. Defensive gun use usually leaves no evidence. Unlike guns killing people, which leaves evidence and is easier to estimate.
And you think criminals will stop having guns if guns are outlawed? Criminals are already mostly acquiring their guns illegally, and will continue to do so. It's the law-abiding citizens which would be disarmed by laws preventing people from getting guns, not the criminals.
Actually I do think exactly that. Countries like Japan and others ban handguns entirely and severely restrict shotguns and rifles. Yet somehow they have some of the lowest gun deaths of anywhere.
If guns prevent violence, how come there is so little in countries and states with very few guns? The data shows pretty clearly, more gun ownership correlates with more gun deaths. If I wanted to be safest, I wouldn't live where there are more guns, but where there are less.
(https://assets.weforum.org/editor/large_dXnnmi03w6LbE-qWZI6weXR80_U3v3tq-XryJPUDgaQ.png)
I am quite sure that correlation does not exist in Europe. Switzerland, Serbia and Finland are all countries with high gun ownership, yet are relatively low in violent crime. The UK has very low gun ownership, yet it is very high in violent crime (not as much as the US, but still very high compared to the rest of Europe).
-
If guns prevent violence, how come there is so little in countries and states with very few guns? The data shows pretty clearly, more gun ownership correlates with more gun deaths. If I wanted to be safest, I wouldn't live where there are more guns, but where there are less.
Come on down under 8)
It's on my list of places I would love to visit.
-
I am quite sure that correlation does not exist in Europe. Switzerland, Serbia and Finland are all countries with high gun ownership, yet are relatively low in violent crime. The UK has very low gun ownership, yet it is very high in violent crime (not as much as the US, but still very high compared to the rest of Europe).
And giving everyone a tool designed to kill other people will make things more safe?
If guns prevent violence, how come there is so little in countries and states with very few guns? The data shows pretty clearly, more gun ownership correlates with more gun deaths. If I wanted to be safest, I wouldn't live where there are more guns, but where there are less.
Come on down under 8)
It's on my list of places I would love to visit.
It's OK if you like the outback adventure. The cities and beaches are meh
-
So on the surface ya it looks that way.
Strange.
So more digging
- classification of "violent crime"
Uk classifies violent crime differently than usa.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violent_crime
Look, fine, nobody is denying USA is a horrible country to live in. It is high in violent crime and has a repressive and corrupt government. The question is whether guns are contributing to the bad situation, or whether they are making the situation slightly better.
amazingly immediately followed by...
If guns prevent violence, how come there is so little in countries and states with very few guns? The data shows pretty clearly, more gun ownership correlates with more gun deaths. If I wanted to be safest, I wouldn't live where there are more guns, but where there are less.
(https://assets.weforum.org/editor/large_dXnnmi03w6LbE-qWZI6weXR80_U3v3tq-XryJPUDgaQ.png)
I am quite sure that correlation does not exist in Europe. Switzerland, Serbia and Finland are all countries with high gun ownership, yet are relatively low in violent crime. The UK has very low gun ownership, yet it is very high in violent crime (not as much as the US, but still very high compared to the rest of Europe).
THEY DEFINE VIOLENT CRIME DIFFERENTLY
AND YES
CRIMINALS HAVE ACCESS TO GUNS TOO
-
And giving everyone a tool designed to kill other people will make things more safe?
Guns are not designed with killing people in mind, they are designed to have the capacity to kill somebody, which is sometimes necessary and often useful for self-defense. Guns are designed for self-defense and hunting.
-
And giving everyone a tool designed to kill other people will make things more safe?
Guns are not designed with killing people in mind, they are designed to have the capacity to kill somebody, which is sometimes necessary and often useful for self-defense. Guns are designed for self-defense and hunting.
So close. They are designed for killing, plain and simple.
-
Guns are not designed with killing people in mind
Killing living things is literally their only purpose.
-
Guns are not designed with killing people in mind
Killing living things is literally their only purpose.
They are also for making people afraid. They do not need to be fired to be used in self-defence. Often times, it is enough to make the attacker aware you have a gun.
-
Guns are not designed with killing people in mind
Killing living things is literally their only purpose.
They are also for making people afraid. They do not need to be fired to be used in self-defence. Often times, it is enough to make the attacker aware you have a gun.
These are the ten cardinal rules of firearm safety:
- Treat every gun as if it were loaded.
- Make sure that any gun is ALWAYS pointed in a safe direction.
- Never point a gun at anything you do not intend to destroy.
- Be aware of your target, and what lies beyond it.
- When shooting targets, be sure that there is a backstop behind the target high enough and solid enough to stop the projectiles. The backstop should be free of hard objects to avoid ricochets.
- Always ensure your gun is open and unloaded before handing it to anyone.
- While hunting, always open and unload your gun before climbing under or over a fence, log, or stream.
- While hunting, always be able to identify your game before you pull the trigger.
- Never shoot at or over open water with anything other than a shotgun loaded with birdshot. Bullets will glance off water and fly wildly.
- Alcohol and firearms do not mix.
See number 3.
-
Guns are not designed with killing people in mind
Killing living things is literally their only purpose.
Speed shooting is an american sport.
But yes
Everyone but flatass generally agree - killing is the purpose.
-
As you seem to have missed this then.
Mmm, The US has 120guns per 100 people, the UK has 4.6.
Death by guns in the US = 12.21 per 100K, the UK = 0.2
Murder rate per 100K US = 5.3 the UK = 1.2
Where in those numbers is there any proof that guns save lives?
I hope you are not applying that kind of logic to everything. The fact is, the correlation between violent crime and gun ownership is not high. The UK is relatively high in violent crime, yet it has relatively few guns, compared to other European countries.
You proposed that guns save lives, the fact that the deaths caused by guns in a country that lauds gun ownership is 12 times the total murder rate of a country that you say is a violent society, proves otherwise.
And the fact that gun deaths in that country is over twice the murder rate shows that they are a very bad idea for the saving of lives.
-
How many guns are needed to destroy a tank? I haven't studied it that much, but I assume not many.
Eh? Do you actually know what a tank is?
Well, a tank is something like a car, just armoured, right?
You don't know what a tank is? Are you locked in a box?
Yep, just like a car...
(https://i.imgur.com/8TGT5PT.gif)
-
Cars aren't real.
-
As you seem to have missed this then.
Mmm, The US has 120guns per 100 people, the UK has 4.6.
Death by guns in the US = 12.21 per 100K, the UK = 0.2
Murder rate per 100K US = 5.3 the UK = 1.2
Where in those numbers is there any proof that guns save lives?
I hope you are not applying that kind of logic to everything. The fact is, the correlation between violent crime and gun ownership is not high. The UK is relatively high in violent crime, yet it has relatively few guns, compared to other European countries.
You proposed that guns save lives, the fact that the deaths caused by guns in a country that lauds gun ownership is 12 times the total murder rate of a country that you say is a violent society, proves otherwise.
And the fact that gun deaths in that country is over twice the murder rate shows that they are a very bad idea for the saving of lives.
Sometimes guns do save lives. That should not be controversial. Now, the question is how often that happens. My guess, based on the data I have seen, would be that it happens around 300'000 times per year in the US. And I am quite certain it is more than 50'000 times per year, which is how often guns kill people.
-
As you seem to have missed this then.
Mmm, The US has 120guns per 100 people, the UK has 4.6.
Death by guns in the US = 12.21 per 100K, the UK = 0.2
Murder rate per 100K US = 5.3 the UK = 1.2
Where in those numbers is there any proof that guns save lives?
I hope you are not applying that kind of logic to everything. The fact is, the correlation between violent crime and gun ownership is not high. The UK is relatively high in violent crime, yet it has relatively few guns, compared to other European countries.
You proposed that guns save lives, the fact that the deaths caused by guns in a country that lauds gun ownership is 12 times the total murder rate of a country that you say is a violent society, proves otherwise.
And the fact that gun deaths in that country is over twice the murder rate shows that they are a very bad idea for the saving of lives.
Sometimes guns do save lives. That should not be controversial. Now, the question is how often that happens. My guess, based on the data I have seen, would be that it happens around 300'000 times per year in the US. And I am quite certain it is more than 50'000 times per year, which is how often guns kill people.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. What a joke man.
300K people a year SAVED because of guns..... You are an idiot.
Tell you what. If a burglar breaks into your home, would it not be safer to lob a few grenades their way? Guns can be very imprecise, especially if it's dark. Actually the threat that a home owner is armed with grenades might prevent the criminal from breaking into the house in the first place! Dont you think? Lets arm everyone with grenades too. It will save lives according to your logic
-
As you seem to have missed this then.
Mmm, The US has 120guns per 100 people, the UK has 4.6.
Death by guns in the US = 12.21 per 100K, the UK = 0.2
Murder rate per 100K US = 5.3 the UK = 1.2
Where in those numbers is there any proof that guns save lives?
I hope you are not applying that kind of logic to everything. The fact is, the correlation between violent crime and gun ownership is not high. The UK is relatively high in violent crime, yet it has relatively few guns, compared to other European countries.
You proposed that guns save lives, the fact that the deaths caused by guns in a country that lauds gun ownership is 12 times the total murder rate of a country that you say is a violent society, proves otherwise.
And the fact that gun deaths in that country is over twice the murder rate shows that they are a very bad idea for the saving of lives.
Sometimes guns do save lives. That should not be controversial. Now, the question is how often that happens. My guess, based on the data I have seen, would be that it happens around 300'000 times per year in the US. And I am quite certain it is more than 50'000 times per year, which is how often guns kill people.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. What a joke man.
300K people a year SAVED because of guns..... You are an idiot.
Tell you what. If a burglar breaks into your home, would it not be safer to lob a few grenades their way? Guns can be very imprecise, especially if it's dark. Actually the threat that a home owner is armed with grenades might prevent the criminal from breaking into the house in the first place! Dont you think? Lets arm everyone with grenades too. It will save lives according to your logic
So, you think guns never save lives?
What makes you think guns are imprecise? Do you have any actual experience with guns?
Grenades, just like bullet-resistant vests, are far less convenient than guns are. Guns are useful in self-defense partly because they are not vastly inconvenient.
-
As you seem to have missed this then.
Mmm, The US has 120guns per 100 people, the UK has 4.6.
Death by guns in the US = 12.21 per 100K, the UK = 0.2
Murder rate per 100K US = 5.3 the UK = 1.2
Where in those numbers is there any proof that guns save lives?
I hope you are not applying that kind of logic to everything. The fact is, the correlation between violent crime and gun ownership is not high. The UK is relatively high in violent crime, yet it has relatively few guns, compared to other European countries.
You proposed that guns save lives, the fact that the deaths caused by guns in a country that lauds gun ownership is 12 times the total murder rate of a country that you say is a violent society, proves otherwise.
And the fact that gun deaths in that country is over twice the murder rate shows that they are a very bad idea for the saving of lives.
Sometimes guns do save lives. That should not be controversial. Now, the question is how often that happens. My guess, based on the data I have seen, would be that it happens around 300'000 times per year in the US. And I am quite certain it is more than 50'000 times per year, which is how often guns kill people.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. What a joke man.
300K people a year SAVED because of guns..... You are an idiot.
Tell you what. If a burglar breaks into your home, would it not be safer to lob a few grenades their way? Guns can be very imprecise, especially if it's dark. Actually the threat that a home owner is armed with grenades might prevent the criminal from breaking into the house in the first place! Dont you think? Lets arm everyone with grenades too. It will save lives according to your logic
So, you think guns never save lives?
What makes you think guns are imprecise? Do you have any actual experience with guns?
Grenades, just like bullet-resistant vests, are far less convenient than guns are. Guns are useful in self-defense partly because they are not vastly inconvenient.
Guns overall are a net negative if you want to talk about whether they save lives. Even when the police shoot dead a criminal - that is a life lost. More enlightened police know how to de-escalate a situation and talk down a criminal. Some 'bad guys' are really just people brought to breaking point and crying out for help
Imagine this scenerio in America lol
About the only scenerio where they may save lives is if there was an alien invasion and everyone could shoot the little green fuckers until they fled or were dead
Guns are imprecise because if its dark and your hostile intruder is 20m away the chances of scoring a direct hit is a lot lower. Lob a grenade and you dont have to be accurate. Just pull the pin and throw it in their general direction. You can even take out several bad guys at once.
Why cant everyone have a grenade? If the argument for everyone having a gun (initial 2nd amendment was that people could have 'well regulated militias' - not every individual) was to prevent a government from becoming tyrannical - if the government gets drones, tanks, fighter planes, missiles, explosives, fully automatic guns etc as well as in control of peoples utilities like electricity, gas and water and the poor pleb just has a few guns - how is that fair?? Why would the government be scared to go too far when that is their competition?
Give everyone some grenades, RPGs and their own weaponised drones at the very least.
-
So, you think guns never save lives?
Question for you. Of the 300,000 lives you just guess are saved every year, how many of those involve being threatened with a gun?
I'm going to guess, most of them?
The main reason you need a gun to protect yourself is because the other guy is pointing one at you.
-
Where you get the 300,000 from?
Show your work.
-
Ax
Ax
Ax
Sword.
https://www.denverpost.com/2013/11/05/how-an-ax-expert-stopped-a-robbery-and-other-odd-crimes/
-
As you seem to have missed this then.
Mmm, The US has 120guns per 100 people, the UK has 4.6.
Death by guns in the US = 12.21 per 100K, the UK = 0.2
Murder rate per 100K US = 5.3 the UK = 1.2
Where in those numbers is there any proof that guns save lives?
I hope you are not applying that kind of logic to everything. The fact is, the correlation between violent crime and gun ownership is not high. The UK is relatively high in violent crime, yet it has relatively few guns, compared to other European countries.
You proposed that guns save lives, the fact that the deaths caused by guns in a country that lauds gun ownership is 12 times the total murder rate of a country that you say is a violent society, proves otherwise.
And the fact that gun deaths in that country is over twice the murder rate shows that they are a very bad idea for the saving of lives.
Sometimes guns do save lives. That should not be controversial. Now, the question is how often that happens. My guess, based on the data I have seen, would be that it happens around 300'000 times per year in the US. And I am quite certain it is more than 50'000 times per year, which is how often guns kill people.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. What a joke man.
300K people a year SAVED because of guns..... You are an idiot.
Tell you what. If a burglar breaks into your home, would it not be safer to lob a few grenades their way? Guns can be very imprecise, especially if it's dark. Actually the threat that a home owner is armed with grenades might prevent the criminal from breaking into the house in the first place! Dont you think? Lets arm everyone with grenades too. It will save lives according to your logic
So, you think guns never save lives?
What makes you think guns are imprecise? Do you have any actual experience with guns?
Grenades, just like bullet-resistant vests, are far less convenient than guns are. Guns are useful in self-defense partly because they are not vastly inconvenient.
Google robbery usa
How many have guns.
So guns save but guns started...
You know what 1 minus 1 equals?
-
Guns are not designed with killing people in mind
Killing living things is literally their only purpose.
They are also for making people afraid.
Yes, afraid of being killed. ::)
-
As you seem to have missed this then.
Mmm, The US has 120guns per 100 people, the UK has 4.6.
Death by guns in the US = 12.21 per 100K, the UK = 0.2
Murder rate per 100K US = 5.3 the UK = 1.2
Where in those numbers is there any proof that guns save lives?
I hope you are not applying that kind of logic to everything. The fact is, the correlation between violent crime and gun ownership is not high. The UK is relatively high in violent crime, yet it has relatively few guns, compared to other European countries.
You proposed that guns save lives, the fact that the deaths caused by guns in a country that lauds gun ownership is 12 times the total murder rate of a country that you say is a violent society, proves otherwise.
And the fact that gun deaths in that country is over twice the murder rate shows that they are a very bad idea for the saving of lives.
Sometimes guns do save lives. That should not be controversial. Now, the question is how often that happens. My guess, based on the data I have seen, would be that it happens around 300'000 times per year in the US. And I am quite certain it is more than 50'000 times per year, which is how often guns kill people.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. What a joke man.
300K people a year SAVED because of guns..... You are an idiot.
Tell you what. If a burglar breaks into your home, would it not be safer to lob a few grenades their way? Guns can be very imprecise, especially if it's dark. Actually the threat that a home owner is armed with grenades might prevent the criminal from breaking into the house in the first place! Dont you think? Lets arm everyone with grenades too. It will save lives according to your logic
So, you think guns never save lives?
What makes you think guns are imprecise? Do you have any actual experience with guns?
Grenades, just like bullet-resistant vests, are far less convenient than guns are. Guns are useful in self-defense partly because they are not vastly inconvenient.
Guns overall are a net negative if you want to talk about whether they save lives. Even when the police shoot dead a criminal - that is a life lost. More enlightened police know how to de-escalate a situation and talk down a criminal. Some 'bad guys' are really just people brought to breaking point and crying out for help
Imagine this scenerio in America lol
About the only scenerio where they may save lives is if there was an alien invasion and everyone could shoot the little green fuckers until they fled or were dead
Guns are imprecise because if its dark and your hostile intruder is 20m away the chances of scoring a direct hit is a lot lower. Lob a grenade and you dont have to be accurate. Just pull the pin and throw it in their general direction. You can even take out several bad guys at once.
Why cant everyone have a grenade? If the argument for everyone having a gun (initial 2nd amendment was that people could have 'well regulated militias' - not every individual) was to prevent a government from becoming tyrannical - if the government gets drones, tanks, fighter planes, missiles, explosives, fully automatic guns etc as well as in control of peoples utilities like electricity, gas and water and the poor pleb just has a few guns - how is that fair?? Why would the government be scared to go too far when that is their competition?
Give everyone some grenades, RPGs and their own weaponised drones at the very least.
Look, the fact that more people are saved by guns each year than killed by guns each year seems to be a pretty established science. I am not going to doubt it just because of personal incredulity of somebody who has probably never handled a gun. Banning all guns is a policy that would never pass any kind of cost-benefit analysis. Let's do a crude cost-benefit analysis with the data from CDC:
Estimates of defensive gun use vary depending on the questions asked, populations studied, timeframe, and other factors related to the design of studies. The report Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violenceexternal icon indicates a range of 60,000 to 2.5 million defensive gun uses each year.
Let's be very generous and say that the very lowest estimate, that guns save 60'000 people per year, is correct.
In 2019, there were 39,707 firearm-related deaths in the United States
That's relatively easy to estimate, so that estimate is probably close to correct.
So, banning all guns would have a cost-benefit ratio of 60'000:39'707=1.5:1.
OK, some of those defensive gun uses would not have happened if there were no guns to begin with, that is, that gun would not be necessary if the criminal had no gun. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that 95% of those defensive gun uses would not have happened if all guns were banned (a ridiculous assertion). Then the cost-benefit ratio is 39'707+(60'000-39'707)*5%:39'707=1.025:1. It will never get below 1, no matter how much you try to twist the numbers.
And the other policies you are advocating for are even more ridiculous. Like, requiring all gun owners to be mentally healthy. Are you kidding me? Don't you think all it will do is make people afraid of getting psychiatric help? Or banning only automatic and semi-automatic weapons. Are you kidding me? What problem would banning precisely those weapons that are most useful in self-defence solve?
I don't think I will participate in this debate any more, as it gets very frustrating and boring. It was interesting at the beginning, but now that you repeatedly deny the science of defensive gun use based on nothing but personal incredulity of somebody who has never handled a gun.
-
As you seem to have missed this then.
Mmm, The US has 120guns per 100 people, the UK has 4.6.
Death by guns in the US = 12.21 per 100K, the UK = 0.2
Murder rate per 100K US = 5.3 the UK = 1.2
Where in those numbers is there any proof that guns save lives?
I hope you are not applying that kind of logic to everything. The fact is, the correlation between violent crime and gun ownership is not high. The UK is relatively high in violent crime, yet it has relatively few guns, compared to other European countries.
You proposed that guns save lives, the fact that the deaths caused by guns in a country that lauds gun ownership is 12 times the total murder rate of a country that you say is a violent society, proves otherwise.
And the fact that gun deaths in that country is over twice the murder rate shows that they are a very bad idea for the saving of lives.
Sometimes guns do save lives. That should not be controversial. Now, the question is how often that happens. My guess, based on the data I have seen, would be that it happens around 300'000 times per year in the US. And I am quite certain it is more than 50'000 times per year, which is how often guns kill people.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. What a joke man.
300K people a year SAVED because of guns..... You are an idiot.
Tell you what. If a burglar breaks into your home, would it not be safer to lob a few grenades their way? Guns can be very imprecise, especially if it's dark. Actually the threat that a home owner is armed with grenades might prevent the criminal from breaking into the house in the first place! Dont you think? Lets arm everyone with grenades too. It will save lives according to your logic
So, you think guns never save lives?
What makes you think guns are imprecise? Do you have any actual experience with guns?
Grenades, just like bullet-resistant vests, are far less convenient than guns are. Guns are useful in self-defense partly because they are not vastly inconvenient.
Google robbery usa
How many have guns.
So guns save but guns started...
You know what 1 minus 1 equals?
Robberies mostly happen while nobody is at home, so I do not understand what your point is.
-
Your data says the guns were used defensively, not that they saved any lives. Those statements are not the same.
-
I don't think I will participate in this debate any more, as it gets very frustrating and boring. It was interesting at the beginning, but now that you repeatedly deny the science of defensive gun use based on nothing but personal incredulity of somebody who has never handled a gun.
You need to be less black & white about things and more gray. For one, defensive gun use (DGU) is a very complex, if not highly controversial issue. In the States, you've got the 2nd Amendment advocates leaning heavily into the 3m number and gun control advocates leaning heavily into the 60k number. There are lots of issues around methodologies, criteria, demographics, location, definitions, etc. used in all of these studies.
There is nothing settled about the "science" of it because there is no hard and fast, black and white, "science" to it. Where you're immediately tripped up in your numbers is conflating firearm-related incidents, deaths, 39k, with DGU's, injury or death. A DGU might be someone simply tapping their vest pocket to indicate they have a concealed pistol in a holster (whether they have one or not) as an intimidating gesture all the way up to someone killing another with an AR-15 at point blank range (Think Rittenhouse). So DGU #'s, by various definitions, criteria, are all over the place.
-
As you seem to have missed this then.
Mmm, The US has 120guns per 100 people, the UK has 4.6.
Death by guns in the US = 12.21 per 100K, the UK = 0.2
Murder rate per 100K US = 5.3 the UK = 1.2
Where in those numbers is there any proof that guns save lives?
I hope you are not applying that kind of logic to everything. The fact is, the correlation between violent crime and gun ownership is not high. The UK is relatively high in violent crime, yet it has relatively few guns, compared to other European countries.
You proposed that guns save lives, the fact that the deaths caused by guns in a country that lauds gun ownership is 12 times the total murder rate of a country that you say is a violent society, proves otherwise.
And the fact that gun deaths in that country is over twice the murder rate shows that they are a very bad idea for the saving of lives.
Sometimes guns do save lives. That should not be controversial. Now, the question is how often that happens. My guess, based on the data I have seen, would be that it happens around 300'000 times per year in the US. And I am quite certain it is more than 50'000 times per year, which is how often guns kill people.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. What a joke man.
300K people a year SAVED because of guns..... You are an idiot.
Tell you what. If a burglar breaks into your home, would it not be safer to lob a few grenades their way? Guns can be very imprecise, especially if it's dark. Actually the threat that a home owner is armed with grenades might prevent the criminal from breaking into the house in the first place! Dont you think? Lets arm everyone with grenades too. It will save lives according to your logic
So, you think guns never save lives?
What makes you think guns are imprecise? Do you have any actual experience with guns?
Grenades, just like bullet-resistant vests, are far less convenient than guns are. Guns are useful in self-defense partly because they are not vastly inconvenient.
Guns overall are a net negative if you want to talk about whether they save lives. Even when the police shoot dead a criminal - that is a life lost. More enlightened police know how to de-escalate a situation and talk down a criminal. Some 'bad guys' are really just people brought to breaking point and crying out for help
Imagine this scenerio in America lol
About the only scenerio where they may save lives is if there was an alien invasion and everyone could shoot the little green fuckers until they fled or were dead
Guns are imprecise because if its dark and your hostile intruder is 20m away the chances of scoring a direct hit is a lot lower. Lob a grenade and you dont have to be accurate. Just pull the pin and throw it in their general direction. You can even take out several bad guys at once.
Why cant everyone have a grenade? If the argument for everyone having a gun (initial 2nd amendment was that people could have 'well regulated militias' - not every individual) was to prevent a government from becoming tyrannical - if the government gets drones, tanks, fighter planes, missiles, explosives, fully automatic guns etc as well as in control of peoples utilities like electricity, gas and water and the poor pleb just has a few guns - how is that fair?? Why would the government be scared to go too far when that is their competition?
Give everyone some grenades, RPGs and their own weaponised drones at the very least.
Look, the fact that more people are saved by guns each year than killed by guns each year seems to be a pretty established science. I am not going to doubt it just because of personal incredulity of somebody who has probably never handled a gun. Banning all guns is a policy that would never pass any kind of cost-benefit analysis. Let's do a crude cost-benefit analysis with the data from CDC:
Estimates of defensive gun use vary depending on the questions asked, populations studied, timeframe, and other factors related to the design of studies. The report Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violenceexternal icon indicates a range of 60,000 to 2.5 million defensive gun uses each year.
Let's be very generous and say that the very lowest estimate, that guns save 60'000 people per year, is correct.
In 2019, there were 39,707 firearm-related deaths in the United States
That's relatively easy to estimate, so that estimate is probably close to correct.
So, banning all guns would have a cost-benefit ratio of 60'000:39'707=1.5:1.
OK, some of those defensive gun uses would not have happened if there were no guns to begin with, that is, that gun would not be necessary if the criminal had no gun. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that 95% of those defensive gun uses would not have happened if all guns were banned (a ridiculous assertion). Then the cost-benefit ratio is 39'707+(60'000-39'707)*5%:39'707=1.025:1. It will never get below 1, no matter how much you try to twist the numbers.
And the other policies you are advocating for are even more ridiculous. Like, requiring all gun owners to be mentally healthy. Are you kidding me? Don't you think all it will do is make people afraid of getting psychiatric help? Or banning only automatic and semi-automatic weapons. Are you kidding me? What problem would banning precisely those weapons that are most useful in self-defence solve?
I don't think I will participate in this debate any more, as it gets very frustrating and boring. It was interesting at the beginning, but now that you repeatedly deny the science of defensive gun use based on nothing but personal incredulity of somebody who has never handled a gun.
Amazing science.
Yet your data range is 60,000-2.5M is even more crazy than the 500,000-3M
If the sicenec was so undeniable it would be very full of factual numbers.
Cdc has been banned from studying gun related information.
Gun death alone should not be taken out of context from gun injury.
The use of a gun to rob someone (robbery is different from burglary - which i found out while researching "violent crime") may not result in a gun death or injury.
So the statistic of gun harm in your comparison need to be included.
Your stats are bad.
Yes
People with bad mental health should not have guns.
The risk of being able to mass murder or suicide more outweighs your fear of potentially being robbed.
Carry a fake wallet with 2$ in it if you fear being robbed.
-
Dunno why cdc has data when they were barred from collecting...
Either way
By state, florida and texas (very pro gun and not poor) are middle.
And if you take the estimates of injury, basically doubles the number.
So lets give them a rough 25 per 100,000.
Texas at 29M = 7,250 gun incidents
Florida at 21M = 5,250 gun incidents.
Texas violent crime 130,000 in 2020.
Florida 81,000 in 2018
Shiuld we expect more shootings?
Less shoottings?
California with more poor more crime tougher gun control rougher police at 7 death -> budget 14incidents per 100,000.
Cali pop 39M = 5,460gun incidents
167,000violent crimes
Is the 37,000difference between cali vs texas becuase of guns? More population? Larger poorer population? More gangs?
If thw science is so sciency we should be able to referwnce a paper.
Nra has lots pf money, why are they hiding it?
Should we trust them like we trust big oil or big tobacco or big sugar?
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/firearm_mortality/firearm.htm
https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/firearm-injury.html
https://www.texomashomepage.com/news/local-news/where-does-your-city-rank-violent-crimes-increase-in-texas-for-2020/
https://www.fdle.state.fl.us/FSAC/Crime-Trends/Violent-Crime
https://www.ppic.org/publication/crime-trends-in-california/
-
Amazing science.
Yet your data range is 60,000-2.5M is even more crazy than the 500,000-3M
If the sicenec was so undeniable it would be very full of factual numbers.
Are you being serious here? Of course one should expect large confidence intervals here, rather than precise numbers. First of all, this is a social science, and large confidence intervals are common in social sciences. Second, what the hell do you expect when dealing with counter-factuals such as what would have happened if one did not have a gun? Estimating counter-factual deaths cannot be precise. If somebody claimed to have a precise number, that would be way more alarming than somebody claiming to have a large confidence interval. Lack of p-values and confidence intervals is what is alarming in science, not when they are present. But you seem to be just as clueless about social science as you are about guns.
See the summary of a social science paper I have written:
What will the language we speak now look like in the future? To a large extent, that question is impossible to answer. The vocabulary of our language will gain, but also forget (How many young people today know what a floppy disk is, yet alone what a fiacre is?), words related to technology, the development of which is impossible to predict. The vocabulary of our language will also receive words from languages that will be used in international communication, which is dependent on politics, and it is also impossible to predict long-term. Morphology and syntax follow some scientific laws (analytic languages evolve into agglutinative ones, agglutinative ones evolve into fusional languages, and fusional languages evolve into analytic ones.), but those laws are difficult to model computationally and probably full of exceptions (Armenian language, for example, is an agglutinative language that evolved from the fusional Indo-European proto-language, but there is no reason to think there was a time when it was an analytic language.). Morphology and syntax are also probably somewhat influenced by politics (It seems as though languages with many adult learners, such as English or Late Latin, tend to have simpler morphology but more complicated syntax. Similarly, some syntactic structures that recently appeared in the Croatian language are probably an influence of the English language.). Nevertheless, is it possible to predict how the phonology of a language will develop? Here, I have researched exactly that, I have tried to make a computer model of the phonological evolution of languages. Although I was not particularly successful at that, I believe my work can come helpful to others, at least not to repeat the mistakes I have made, because, as far as I know, nobody has done anything like that. I have also researched whether computer models can be used in toponomastics, and, related to that, what effect do different parts of the grammar have on the entropy of human languages. I came to the conclusion that, in the Croatian language, phonology takes away at least 1.62 bits per symbol of collision entropy of consonant pairs, that syntax takes away 0.21 bits per symbol (that is the most certain result of those four entropy measurements), and that morphology takes away at most 1.57 bits per symbol. Only 5.99 bits per symbol of entropy of pairs of consonants is semantics. The probability of the pattern of the first two consonants in names of rivers in Croatia being k and r appearing accidentally is between 1/300 and 1/17.
The confidence interval here is between 1/300 and 1/17. If you don't like that, sorry, that is how science works. Or do you think science works somehow differently, and that what I was doing there is somehow not science?
-
If a good guy with a gun shoots dead a bad guy with a gun, that is not a life saved. Someone is dead.
Again, someone might be a POS today, but shooting them dead with a gun doesn't give them a 2nd chance to make amends or do their time.
A civilised society has a judicial system. A court, trial, judge and sometimes jury. Putting a gun in peoples hands, regardless of the circumstance, overrides that and places the power of a judge, jury and executioner in the hands of an ordinary citizen
Of course, the guns exist and there are hundreds of millions of them. You cant wave your hand and whisk them out of existence. But it is clear that they do much more harm in society for the fact they exist then if there were no guns.
Guns dont save lives. They take lives. Families have been destroyed because a gun they thought would protect them ended up killing their own. Whether some sleepy husband is startled in the middle of the night to his wife coming home late and entering the bedroom to get shot as an 'intruder' or the kids getting their hands on it and playing with it etc. The disgusting amount of homicides and mass shootings that happen every week. Who is the gun saving?
Guns are the ultimate in escalating a conflict. If a robber goes to a bank with a gun and demands cash, just give him the cash. A 'good guy' rising to the occasion with a gun of his own will only end up with someone dying or getting hurt.
Do you think the guys who go to school with a gun to shoot as many people as they can would have the guts if they only had a knife? How about that fuckhead in New Zealand who killed over 50 people in a mosque... Do you think if he had a knife he could have pulled that off? Or that Breivik fuckwit from Norway... How successful would he have been if he had a knife?
We get that you troll here with stupid shit. But at least base your trolling on something that is even remotely believable.
Guns do not save lives. They take them. That is their design.
You will not convince anyone of your BS just like you failed to have us ponder whether guns even existed just because you didn't think they did. Everything you come up with is just so bizarre and just nonsense that no sane person would ever entertain. So either you're a troll, off the meds or in need of meds.
Now you should probably do what you suggested in your last post and leave this 'debate'
I don't think I will participate in this debate any more, as it gets very frustrating and boring.
Boring is the word that's for sure.
-
Look, the fact that more people are saved by guns each year than killed by guns each year seems to be a pretty established science.
That's relatively easy to estimate, so that estimate is probably close to correct.
so your super established science gives you a range of 60,000-2,500,000?
= ME TO SAY NO. IT IS NOT A VERY GOOD SCIENCE.
Considering that data collection is squashed by the nra.
-
And the other policies you are advocating for are even more ridiculous. Like, requiring all gun owners to be mentally healthy. Are you kidding me? Don't you think all it will do is make people afraid of getting psychiatric help? Or banning only automatic and semi-automatic weapons. Are you kidding me? What problem would banning precisely those weapons that are most useful in self-defence solve?
I don't think I will participate in this debate any more, as it gets very frustrating and boring. It was interesting at the beginning, but now that you repeatedly deny the science of defensive gun use based on nothing but personal incredulity of somebody who has never handled a gun.
And i didnt notice it before but automatic weapons are NOT good self defense weapons.
Autmotic is for continuous heavy supressing fire on a trenched enemy and for very quickly clearing a room of the living occupants.
You plan to walk around with an ak?
What if everyone walked around with an ak?
Whos the mugger and whos just carrying for self defense?
How will the cops know?
How will the othrr pedestrians feel when you empty you +30round mag in sec of contious fire?
And mental health is dwfinitely cause for most mass shootings
Mentally stable people dont commit mass murder or suicide.
Half or all usa suicides were wih a gun.
So if they had no gun - suicide minimized to a more treatable method of death.
(24,000 out of 45,000 from cdc)
Glick's team studied 35 mass shooting cases that occurred in the United States between 1982 and 2019 and involved shooters who survived and were brought to trial.
Analysis of various sources of medical evidence on the mass shooters showed that 28 had mental illness diagnoses. Eighteen had schizophrenia and 10 had other diagnoses including bipolar disorder, delusional disorder, personality disorders and substance-related disorders.
https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2021-06-15/many-us-mass-shooters-had-untreated-mental-illness-study
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/suicide.htm
-
A civilised society has a judicial system. A court, trial, judge and sometimes jury.
And I am quite sure they don't do a good job, that they have put my mother in jail innocent. And, also, sometimes, as in self-defense, it is important to do things faster than what they can decide what to do. You know, when seconds count.
Putting a gun in peoples hands, regardless of the circumstance, overrides that and places the power of a judge, jury and executioner in the hands of an ordinary citizen
Which may or may not be the right thing to do. But it is certainly sometimes necessary, as courts are useless when the seconds count.
But it is clear that they do much more harm in society for the fact they exist then if there were no guns.
No, it is not clear. As far as I know, literally all the studies about defensive gun use show us otherwise. Like, literally all of them.
Guns dont save lives. They take lives. Families have been destroyed because a gun they thought would protect them ended up killing their own. Whether some sleepy husband is startled in the middle of the night to his wife coming home late and entering the bedroom to get shot as an 'intruder' or the kids getting their hands on it and playing with it etc. The disgusting amount of homicides and mass shootings that happen every week. Who is the gun saving?
Once again, I trust people who have actually made the studies about defensive gun use more than your guesses. If you think you know better than all of them, you are similar to a Flat-Earther or Alan Savory or other pseudoscientists.
So either you're a troll, off the meds or in need of meds.
Well, as a matter of fact, I have been taking the antipsychotic Risperidone for the last 7 months, and I will soon stop taking it.
-
Name 3 studies.
The fact you think a fully auto gun is a good self defense weapon leads me to beleive you have no idea whats going on.
- Name your gun of choice that you reasonably feel you will buy if given the chance.
- what scenario will you be planning on using it?
-
And you seem to want to ignore all the numbers that clearly prove than gun ownership causes more deaths, it’s unequivocal whereas your wishful thinking figures based on hearsay have no concrete basis.
As for someone such as yourself being allowed a gun, I do not know your circumstances, but as risperidone is given for schizophrenia, bi-polar and aggressive mania and does not cure, just treat the symptoms, and as I personally think that gun ownership should have more control than it does, then no.
-
Well, as a matter of fact, I have been taking the antipsychotic Risperidone for the last 7 months, and I will soon stop taking it.
It's a good thing your country isn't stupid enough to say owning a gun is your divine right!
-
And i didnt notice it before but automatic weapons are NOT good self defense weapons.
Autmotic is for continuous heavy supressing fire on a trenched enemy and for very quickly clearing a room of the living occupants.
Let's say you are attacked, you shoot at your attacker and you miss him. If you don't have an automatic, by the time you are able to fire your gun again, it is probably too late.
-
Look, the fact that more people are saved by guns each year than killed by guns each year seems to be a pretty established science.
That's relatively easy to estimate, so that estimate is probably close to correct.
so your super established science gives you a range of 60,000-2,500,000?
= ME TO SAY NO. IT IS NOT A VERY GOOD SCIENCE.
Considering that data collection is squashed by the nra.
So? You don't get to claim the opposite of what the science says just because science admits uncertainty. Similarly, just because the science is not certain whether Big Bang happened 12 billion years ago or 27 billion years ago (Hubble time) does not mean you can claim it is 10'000 years old. Ever heard of the "Appeal to uncertainty" informal logical fallacy?
-
Well, as a matter of fact, I have been taking the antipsychotic Risperidone for the last 7 months, and I will soon stop taking it.
It's a good thing your country isn't stupid enough to say owning a gun is your divine right!
Why? What makes you think I am more likely to attack somebody than to be attacked?
-
Well, as a matter of fact, I have been taking the antipsychotic Risperidone for the last 7 months, and I will soon stop taking it.
It's a good thing your country isn't stupid enough to say owning a gun is your divine right!
Why? What makes you think I am more likely to attack somebody than to be attacked?
You are mentality disturbed.
-
And i didnt notice it before but automatic weapons are NOT good self defense weapons.
Autmotic is for continuous heavy supressing fire on a trenched enemy and for very quickly clearing a room of the living occupants.
Let's say you are attacked, you shoot at your attacker and you miss him. If you don't have an automatic, by the time you are able to fire your gun again, it is probably too late.
And too late for whatever innocent took the bullet instead.
Much better to have an automatic so you can spray into a crowd and kill a few dozen people by accident.
You really have no idea how guns work, but since you only discovered they were real a short while ago I suppose that is to be expected.
Maybe go talk to someone who has actually held one and do some research before debating on a subject you are ignorant of.
-
Look, the fact that more people are saved by guns each year than killed by guns each year seems to be a pretty established science.
That's relatively easy to estimate, so that estimate is probably close to correct.
so your super established science gives you a range of 60,000-2,500,000?
= ME TO SAY NO. IT IS NOT A VERY GOOD SCIENCE.
Considering that data collection is squashed by the nra.
So? You don't get to claim the opposite of what the science says just because science admits uncertainty. Similarly, just because the science is not certain whether Big Bang happened 12 billion years ago or 27 billion years ago (Hubble time) does not mean you can claim it is 10'000 years old. Ever heard of the "Appeal to uncertainty" informal logical fallacy?
Maybe until you think about the scale of it.
In the span of the earth 1B years is being off 1M a big deal?
Woth the age of the universe, are we basing whether getting a gun is definitive?
What are the repercussions of decision making of being wrong?
Your logical fallacy of choice in this case is a false equivalency.
-
And i didnt notice it before but automatic weapons are NOT good self defense weapons.
Autmotic is for continuous heavy supressing fire on a trenched enemy and for very quickly clearing a room of the living occupants.
Let's say you are attacked, you shoot at your attacker and you miss him. If you don't have an automatic, by the time you are able to fire your gun again, it is probably too late.
And too late for whatever innocent took the bullet instead.
Much better to have an automatic so you can spray into a crowd and kill a few dozen people by accident.
You really have no idea how guns work, but since you only discovered they were real a short while ago I suppose that is to be expected.
Maybe go talk to someone who has actually held one and do some research before debating on a subject you are ignorant of.
Cop shoots girl hiding in dressing room.
His high powered carbine when through the perp (possibly) through a door and killed the girl.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/family-14-year-fatally-shot-los-angeles-police/story?id=81971514
-
And i didnt notice it before but automatic weapons are NOT good self defense weapons.
Autmotic is for continuous heavy supressing fire on a trenched enemy and for very quickly clearing a room of the living occupants.
Let's say you are attacked, you shoot at your attacker and you miss him. If you don't have an automatic, by the time you are able to fire your gun again, it is probably too late.
Shots on target.
Shots on draw.
Time to draw.
When to draw.
Google the youtube mr john correia at active self protection.
Also
Lets discuss if you plan to be walking around with a gun or in home?
-
https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/mom-daughter-mistaken-intruder-father-fatally-shot-82002999
Maybe think twice before stocking up on guns for home defense.
"COLUMBUS, Ohio -- A man fatally shot his 16-year-old daughter in the family's Columbus home after he mistook her for an intruder, according to what the girl's mother told police.
The mother called 911 after the shooting around 4:30 a.m. Wednesday and said the father had shot at someone he thought was breaking into the house after the security system was activated, authorities said.
In a recording of the 911 call, the father asks his daughter what she was doing, and both parents beg for the girl, Janae Hairston, to wake up.
The daughter was taken to a hospital and was pronounced dead a short time later, authorities said."
-
Well, as a matter of fact, I have been taking the antipsychotic Risperidone for the last 7 months, and I will soon stop taking it.
It's a good thing your country isn't stupid enough to say owning a gun is your divine right!
Why? What makes you think I am more likely to attack somebody than to be attacked?
Someone suggested youre schizo.
Nonreal voices in head usually not good trait for access to deadly weapons.
-
And i didnt notice it before but automatic weapons are NOT good self defense weapons.
Autmotic is for continuous heavy supressing fire on a trenched enemy and for very quickly clearing a room of the living occupants.
Let's say you are attacked, you shoot at your attacker and you miss him. If you don't have an automatic, by the time you are able to fire your gun again, it is probably too late.
What makes you think you’ll get a chance to get any shots off?
In a heavily armed society, an attacker has to assume the victim will be armed, so they’ll likely go into any situation both armed and ready to use it. As a victim, chances are you’ll be caught unaware, and fumbling for your weapon is probably a fantastic way to get shot.
I guess that can be mitigated by spending your whole life gun out, commando rolling and doing a breach and clear every time you enter a room. Personally, I prefer the strict gun control version, where it’s very unlikely I’ll be attacked by anyone with a gun, and even if I am, my threat level is low so they can just wave it around til I hand over my phone or whatever with little risk of getting killed over it.
-
Well like i said
Get a fake wallet and your point, add a fake phone.
Robbery is grab and dahs so the cost is minimal to you.
Note
He still hasnt defined his fear.
Has he been mugged?
Is he carrying on the streets or for the hone?
Is croatia like brazil?
South africa?
In his head?
-
Well, as a matter of fact, I have been taking the antipsychotic Risperidone for the last 7 months, and I will soon stop taking it.
It's a good thing your country isn't stupid enough to say owning a gun is your divine right!
Why? What makes you think I am more likely to attack somebody than to be attacked?
You are mentality disturbed.
And, as such, I am a relatively easy target for an attack, right?
-
Well, as a matter of fact, I have been taking the antipsychotic Risperidone for the last 7 months, and I will soon stop taking it.
It's a good thing your country isn't stupid enough to say owning a gun is your divine right!
Why? What makes you think I am more likely to attack somebody than to be attacked?
You are mentality disturbed.
And, as such, I am a relatively easy target for an attack, right?
If someone wants to mug you and you are 'defenceless', even if they have a gun, they probably just want to steal your shit
But if you yourself have a gun, that escalates the situation to 11 and you'll probably be shot because your offender will fear for their safety.
If someone steals your wallet or phone, police don't give a fuck. If someone shoots you, the police won't rest. Muggers generally wouldn't want the attention and a murder charge. Most home invaders just want to steal valuables. Your life is worthless to them. Pointing a gun at them only ensures your risk of death increases many fold.
And if someone really is looking to kill you - they will kill you. Whether you have a gun or not.
It's probably safer not to have a gun. Just give them your stuff. Or instead of a gun, learn self defence. Most assaults are close range. And if it's long range, well you're already sniped at when your guard is down
But you miss the point. Whether a good guy or bad guy is killed with a gun, it's a life lost to gun violence. Guns don't save lives - at least in an urban setting.
If your hunting feral pigs, it's probably better to take a gun and not try and fight them with your fists
Stick with the meds.
-
And i didnt notice it before but automatic weapons are NOT good self defense weapons.
Autmotic is for continuous heavy supressing fire on a trenched enemy and for very quickly clearing a room of the living occupants.
Let's say you are attacked, you shoot at your attacker and you miss him. If you don't have an automatic, by the time you are able to fire your gun again, it is probably too late.
And too late for whatever innocent took the bullet instead.
Much better to have an automatic so you can spray into a crowd and kill a few dozen people by accident.
You really have no idea how guns work, but since you only discovered they were real a short while ago I suppose that is to be expected.
Maybe go talk to someone who has actually held one and do some research before debating on a subject you are ignorant of.
Cop shoots girl hiding in dressing room.
His high powered carbine when through the perp (possibly) through a door and killed the girl.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/family-14-year-fatally-shot-los-angeles-police/story?id=81971514
Yes, it is so uncommon that it makes the news when it happens. A gun saving a life is common enough to usually not make it into the news when it happens.
-
TO FLATASS:
Have you been mugged?
are you carrying on the streets or for the hone?
Is croatia like brazil?
South africa?
-
And i didnt notice it before but automatic weapons are NOT good self defense weapons.
Autmotic is for continuous heavy supressing fire on a trenched enemy and for very quickly clearing a room of the living occupants.
Let's say you are attacked, you shoot at your attacker and you miss him. If you don't have an automatic, by the time you are able to fire your gun again, it is probably too late.
And too late for whatever innocent took the bullet instead.
Much better to have an automatic so you can spray into a crowd and kill a few dozen people by accident.
You really have no idea how guns work, but since you only discovered they were real a short while ago I suppose that is to be expected.
Maybe go talk to someone who has actually held one and do some research before debating on a subject you are ignorant of.
Cop shoots girl hiding in dressing room.
His high powered carbine when through the perp (possibly) through a door and killed the girl.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/family-14-year-fatally-shot-los-angeles-police/story?id=81971514
Yes, it is so uncommon that it makes the news when it happens. A gun saving a life is common enough to usually not make it into the news when it happens.
you want an automatic weapon as your self defesne gun.
the point of that girl dying was to illustrate to you the repercussions of fire a 30round automatic weapon with no understanding of the backstop (or who's behind what you're shooting at).
that is the point.
30rounds can go in a second.
i just googled scorpion.
19rounds per second.
-
2021 figures for US gun violence
• Total Number of GV Deaths - ALL Causes4 44,912
• Homicide/Murder/Unintentional/DGU1 20,822
• Suicide3 24,090
• Total Number of Injuries1 40,537
• Mass Shootings2 693
• Mass Murders2 28
• Number of Children (age 0-11)1 Killed 311 Injured 750
• Number of Teens (age 12-17)1 Killed 1,241
• Injured 3,379
• Officer Involved Incident1 Killed 68
• Officer Killed or Injured Injured 371
• Officer Involved Incident1 Killed 1,327
• Subject-Suspect Killed or Injured Injured 894
• Defensive Use2 1,252
• Unintentional Shooting2 2,007
• Murder/Suicides Incidents2 592
From the Gun violence archive for 2021, again your version is lacking in veracity, over 1,000 children under 11 injured or killed, defensive use 1,252!!
https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/past-tolls
-
More applicable
Croatia pop 4M GDP 14k$, poverty 2.4% (2018)
Usa pop 345M gdp 20T$, ppvrrty 11% (2018)
Guns per 100 residents
Croatia 21.7
Ranked 25th.
Usa 88.8
Ranked 1st. 4 times
Problem violent crimes including assault and armed robbery
Croatia 24.14
Ranked 70th.
Usa 75.54
Ranked 10th. 3 times
Worries about being mugged or robbed
Croatia 20.61
Ranked 83th.
Usa 45.01
Ranked 47th. 2 times
Crime levels
Croatia 21.12
Ranked 85th.
Usa 55.84
Ranked 30th. 3 times
https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Croatia/United-States/Crime
-
Look, the fact that more people are saved by guns each year than killed by guns each year seems to be a pretty established science.
That's relatively easy to estimate, so that estimate is probably close to correct.
so your super established science gives you a range of 60,000-2,500,000?
= ME TO SAY NO. IT IS NOT A VERY GOOD SCIENCE.
Considering that data collection is squashed by the nra.
So? You don't get to claim the opposite of what the science says just because science admits uncertainty. Similarly, just because the science is not certain whether Big Bang happened 12 billion years ago or 27 billion years ago (Hubble time) does not mean you can claim it is 10'000 years old. Ever heard of the "Appeal to uncertainty" informal logical fallacy?
Maybe until you think about the scale of it.
In the span of the earth 1B years is being off 1M a big deal?
Woth the age of the universe, are we basing whether getting a gun is definitive?
What are the repercussions of decision making of being wrong?
Your logical fallacy of choice in this case is a false equivalency.
I don't quite understand what you mean. The estimates for how old the universe is (Hubble Time) range from around 12 billion to around 27 billion. That is more than 2 times a difference (27 billion minus 12 billion is 15 billion years, which is greater than 12 billion years). That, however, does not mean it is possible that it is less than 10'000 years old, as many creationists claim. Claiming that it is possible just because of that uncertainty is an Appeal to Uncertainty fallacy. And I think that you are committing that same fallacy when you reject the estimates of how often guns save lives.
-
TO FLATASS:
Have you been mugged?
are you carrying on the streets or for the hone?
Is croatia like brazil?
South africa?
Well, yes, I have been mugged, my mobile phone has been stolen while I was in primary school. I do not know what you mean by "like Brazil" or "like South Africa".
-
And i didnt notice it before but automatic weapons are NOT good self defense weapons.
Autmotic is for continuous heavy supressing fire on a trenched enemy and for very quickly clearing a room of the living occupants.
Let's say you are attacked, you shoot at your attacker and you miss him. If you don't have an automatic, by the time you are able to fire your gun again, it is probably too late.
And too late for whatever innocent took the bullet instead.
Much better to have an automatic so you can spray into a crowd and kill a few dozen people by accident.
You really have no idea how guns work, but since you only discovered they were real a short while ago I suppose that is to be expected.
Maybe go talk to someone who has actually held one and do some research before debating on a subject you are ignorant of.
Cop shoots girl hiding in dressing room.
His high powered carbine when through the perp (possibly) through a door and killed the girl.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/family-14-year-fatally-shot-los-angeles-police/story?id=81971514
And how is gun control supposed to prevent such cases? Police will still have guns, right?
-
And i didnt notice it before but automatic weapons are NOT good self defense weapons.
Autmotic is for continuous heavy supressing fire on a trenched enemy and for very quickly clearing a room of the living occupants.
Let's say you are attacked, you shoot at your attacker and you miss him. If you don't have an automatic, by the time you are able to fire your gun again, it is probably too late.
What makes you think you’ll get a chance to get any shots off?
In a heavily armed society, an attacker has to assume the victim will be armed, so they’ll likely go into any situation both armed and ready to use it. As a victim, chances are you’ll be caught unaware, and fumbling for your weapon is probably a fantastic way to get shot.
I guess that can be mitigated by spending your whole life gun out, commando rolling and doing a breach and clear every time you enter a room. Personally, I prefer the strict gun control version, where it’s very unlikely I’ll be attacked by anyone with a gun, and even if I am, my threat level is low so they can just wave it around til I hand over my phone or whatever with little risk of getting killed over it.
Some crimes are more common in countries with fewer guns per capita, most notably hot burglaries (that happen while somebody is at home, as opposed to cold burglaries which happen while nobody is at home). The UK, for example, is a place high in hot burglaries, most burglaries there being hot burglaries (as opposed to less than 5% in the US). As for other crimes, correlation is not so high. But I do not think there is a situation in which having a gun hurts.
-
Look, the fact that more people are saved by guns each year than killed by guns each year seems to be a pretty established science.
That's relatively easy to estimate, so that estimate is probably close to correct.
so your super established science gives you a range of 60,000-2,500,000?
= ME TO SAY NO. IT IS NOT A VERY GOOD SCIENCE.
Considering that data collection is squashed by the nra.
So? You don't get to claim the opposite of what the science says just because science admits uncertainty. Similarly, just because the science is not certain whether Big Bang happened 12 billion years ago or 27 billion years ago (Hubble time) does not mean you can claim it is 10'000 years old. Ever heard of the "Appeal to uncertainty" informal logical fallacy?
Maybe until you think about the scale of it.
In the span of the earth 1B years is being off 1M a big deal?
Woth the age of the universe, are we basing whether getting a gun is definitive?
What are the repercussions of decision making of being wrong?
Your logical fallacy of choice in this case is a false equivalency.
I don't quite understand what you mean. The estimates for how old the universe is (Hubble Time) range from around 12 billion to around 27 billion. That is more than 2 times a difference (27 billion minus 12 billion is 15 billion years, which is greater than 12 billion years). That, however, does not mean it is possible that it is less than 10'000 years old, as many creationists claim. Claiming that it is possible just because of that uncertainty is an Appeal to Uncertainty fallacy. And I think that you are committing that same fallacy when you reject the estimates of how often guns save lives.
This is what i mean -
No one is basing any decision making on the age of the universe!
-
TO FLATASS:
Have you been mugged?
are you carrying on the streets or for the hone?
Is croatia like brazil?
South africa?
Well, yes, I have been mugged, my mobile phone has been stolen while I was in primary school. I do not know what you mean by "like Brazil" or "like South Africa".
Brazil and south africa have lots of guns and lots of crime.
Croatia appears to not have lots of guns nor lots of crime.
In middle school, if you were of sound mind, would be legally allowed to carry a gun?
What method of intimidation did they use to take your phone? +2guys? Punches? Knife? Gun?
And how old are you now?
Been mugged since?
Parents been mugged?
Friends?
What gun do you plan on carrying?
-
There is enough supplies at Home Depot, pipe, pool chemicals and nuts and bolts, to construct a firearm.
What we need to do is get rid of the internet.
-
And i didnt notice it before but automatic weapons are NOT good self defense weapons. [/U]
Autmotic is for continuous heavy supressing fire on a trenched enemy and for very quickly clearing a room of the living occupants.
Let's say you are attacked, you shoot at your attacker and you miss him. If you don't have an automatic, by the time you are able to fire your gun again, it is probably too late.
And too late for whatever innocent took the bullet instead.
Much better to have an automatic so you can spray into a crowd and kill a few dozen people by accident.
You really have no idea how guns work, but since you only discovered they were real a short while ago I suppose that is to be expected.
Maybe go talk to someone who has actually held one and do some research before debating on a subject you are ignorant of.
Cop shoots girl hiding in dressing room.
His high powered carbine when through the perp (possibly) through a door and killed the girl.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/family-14-year-fatally-shot-los-angeles-police/story?id=81971514
And how is gun control supposed to prevent such cases? Police will still have guns, right?
FFS
This, in context, is that even good guys who train, will miss, and potentially shoot someone who's just standing around.
Therefore, ergo, the first statement in this quoted portion of thread, your desire for an AUTOMATIC WEAPON is ridiculous.
Your inability to comprehend words is amazing.
Gun control will mean idiots like you wont be walking around with automatic weapons unloading 30rounds in less than 2seconds because the voices in their head told them to.
-
When seconds matter Police are just minutes away.
-
And i didnt notice it before but automatic weapons are NOT good self defense weapons.
Autmotic is for continuous heavy supressing fire on a trenched enemy and for very quickly clearing a room of the living occupants.
Let's say you are attacked, you shoot at your attacker and you miss him. If you don't have an automatic, by the time you are able to fire your gun again, it is probably too late.
What makes you think you’ll get a chance to get any shots off?
In a heavily armed society, an attacker has to assume the victim will be armed, so they’ll likely go into any situation both armed and ready to use it. As a victim, chances are you’ll be caught unaware, and fumbling for your weapon is probably a fantastic way to get shot.
I guess that can be mitigated by spending your whole life gun out, commando rolling and doing a breach and clear every time you enter a room. Personally, I prefer the strict gun control version, where it’s very unlikely I’ll be attacked by anyone with a gun, and even if I am, my threat level is low so they can just wave it around til I hand over my phone or whatever with little risk of getting killed over it.
Some crimes are more common in countries with fewer guns per capita, most notably hot burglaries (that happen while somebody is at home, as opposed to cold burglaries which happen while nobody is at home). The UK, for example, is a place high in hot burglaries, most burglaries there being hot burglaries (as opposed to less than 5% in the US). As for other crimes, correlation is not so high. But I do not think there is a situation in which having a gun hurts.
Correlation causation
So you think more hot burglaries happen because people arent afraid of getting shot?
Youre comparing % of hot vs cold.
How about volume and type in general?
Uk 2018 at 66M pop
Robbery 79,000
Burglary 432,000
Usa 2018 at 340M pop
Robbery 282,000
Burglary 2,500,000
Ill give you there are more robberies per capita.
But that could be a possibilty of definiton?
Usa Black people dont necessarily report all to police.
burglary - well the TOTAL is on par so maybe in UK there's always someone home?
it's unclear if there's any gun in the house correlation to hot vs cold and can attribute to work-life style differences.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/bulletins/crimeinenglandandwales/yearendingjune2018
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2018/crime-in-the-u.s.-2018/topic-pages/robbery
https://www.thezebra.com/resources/research/burglary-statistics/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States
-
When seconds matter Police are just minutes away.
So is a gun, unless you keep it loaded in your pants 24/7 and take it into the shower and sleep with it.
No gun is going to save you from someone shooting you from behind without warning.
-
No gun is going to save you from someone shooting you from behind without warning.
Ummm, WTF? ;)
-
No gun is going to save you from someone shooting you from behind without warning.
Ummm, WTF? ;)
Wot?
-
huh?
-
?
-
Correlation causation
So you think more hot burglaries happen because people arent afraid of getting shot?
Youre comparing % of hot vs cold.
How about volume and type in general?
Uk 2018 at 66M pop
Robbery 79,000
Burglary 432,000
Usa 2018 at 340M pop
Robbery 282,000
Burglary 2,500,000
Ill give you there are more robberies per capita.
But that could be a possibilty of definiton?
Usa Black people dont necessarily report all to police.
burglary - well the TOTAL is on par so maybe in UK there's always someone home?
it's unclear if there's any gun in the house correlation to hot vs cold and can attribute to work-life style differences.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/bulletins/crimeinenglandandwales/yearendingjune2018
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2018/crime-in-the-u.s.-2018/topic-pages/robbery
https://www.thezebra.com/resources/research/burglary-statistics/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States
I’ve heard the ratio of burglaries where someone is home compared to when the place is empty has shot up over the last couple of years. Does this mean criminals are getting bolder and more willing to risk confrontation? Or maybe because we’ve hardly been going out?
Anyway, in the UK yeah, some kid sneaking in your home and nicking your shit while you sleep is quite common. But “home invasion” where the perps intend to use or threaten violence is very rare. It’s not something people worry about.
As for other crimes, correlation is not so high. But I do not think there is a situation in which having a gun hurts.
There’s plenty, even on an individual level. But slack gun controls doesn’t just mean you get to have a gun, it means everyone does too. If lots of the public have guns, all the criminals will carry guns. Why would that be safer?
-
yes i agree.
that was in the news about covid burglaries and porch pirates going up.
crime is all funny last two years so i've been looking at 2018 2019 stats to factor out covid and BLM.
(i wonder if the USA 2.5M includes porch pirates?)
either way
so far flatass hasn't justified/ quantified his need for a gun in croatia nor shown any understanding of how guns do the gunning.
-
When seconds matter Police are just minutes away.
Once you think about it, it is amazing that people insist that police prevents crime. Police almost always comes only after a psychopath has already murdered somebody. And then they put him in a place (prison or jail) not where he will rehabilitate, but from which he will return with even more psychological problems. Once you think about it, it seems that police is overwhelmingly likely to be counter-productive, rather than helping us, right?
-
Look, the fact that more people are saved by guns each year than killed by guns each year seems to be a pretty established science.
That's relatively easy to estimate, so that estimate is probably close to correct.
so your super established science gives you a range of 60,000-2,500,000?
= ME TO SAY NO. IT IS NOT A VERY GOOD SCIENCE.
Considering that data collection is squashed by the nra.
So? You don't get to claim the opposite of what the science says just because science admits uncertainty. Similarly, just because the science is not certain whether Big Bang happened 12 billion years ago or 27 billion years ago (Hubble time) does not mean you can claim it is 10'000 years old. Ever heard of the "Appeal to uncertainty" informal logical fallacy?
Maybe until you think about the scale of it.
In the span of the earth 1B years is being off 1M a big deal?
Woth the age of the universe, are we basing whether getting a gun is definitive?
What are the repercussions of decision making of being wrong?
Your logical fallacy of choice in this case is a false equivalency.
I don't quite understand what you mean. The estimates for how old the universe is (Hubble Time) range from around 12 billion to around 27 billion. That is more than 2 times a difference (27 billion minus 12 billion is 15 billion years, which is greater than 12 billion years). That, however, does not mean it is possible that it is less than 10'000 years old, as many creationists claim. Claiming that it is possible just because of that uncertainty is an Appeal to Uncertainty fallacy. And I think that you are committing that same fallacy when you reject the estimates of how often guns save lives.
This is what i mean -
No one is basing any decision making on the age of the universe!
How is that relevant? Do you understand what an analogy is?
-
When seconds matter Police are just minutes away.
So is a gun, unless you keep it loaded in your pants 24/7 and take it into the shower and sleep with it.
No gun is going to save you from someone shooting you from behind without warning.
If you are a victim of a burglary, would you rather have a gun in your house, or a telephone in your house?
-
Look, the fact that more people are saved by guns each year than killed by guns each year seems to be a pretty established science.
That's relatively easy to estimate, so that estimate is probably close to correct.
so your super established science gives you a range of 60,000-2,500,000?
= ME TO SAY NO. IT IS NOT A VERY GOOD SCIENCE.
Considering that data collection is squashed by the nra.
So? You don't get to claim the opposite of what the science says just because science admits uncertainty. Similarly, just because the science is not certain whether Big Bang happened 12 billion years ago or 27 billion years ago (Hubble time) does not mean you can claim it is 10'000 years old. Ever heard of the "Appeal to uncertainty" informal logical fallacy?
Maybe until you think about the scale of it.
In the span of the earth 1B years is being off 1M a big deal?
Woth the age of the universe, are we basing whether getting a gun is definitive?
What are the repercussions of decision making of being wrong?
Your logical fallacy of choice in this case is a false equivalency.
I don't quite understand what you mean. The estimates for how old the universe is (Hubble Time) range from around 12 billion to around 27 billion. That is more than 2 times a difference (27 billion minus 12 billion is 15 billion years, which is greater than 12 billion years). That, however, does not mean it is possible that it is less than 10'000 years old, as many creationists claim. Claiming that it is possible just because of that uncertainty is an Appeal to Uncertainty fallacy. And I think that you are committing that same fallacy when you reject the estimates of how often guns save lives.
This is what i mean -
No one is basing any decision making on the age of the universe!
How is that relevant? Do you understand what an analogy is?
it's relevant in that your number is irrelevant.
do you understand that your analogy is a FALSE EQUIVALENCY since NO ONE IS making decisions of life and death based on a wild-ass guess.
-
When seconds matter Police are just minutes away.
So is a gun, unless you keep it loaded in your pants 24/7 and take it into the shower and sleep with it.
No gun is going to save you from someone shooting you from behind without warning.
If you are a victim of a burglary, would you rather have a gun in your house, or a telephone in your house?
how many people live in your house?
you live in a town house with neighbours?
take a guess how well drywall does at stopping bullets.
do you feel it's reasonable to have a full automatic weapon to shoot indoors?
-
When seconds matter Police are just minutes away.
So is a gun, unless you keep it loaded in your pants 24/7 and take it into the shower and sleep with it.
No gun is going to save you from someone shooting you from behind without warning.
If you are a victim of a burglary, would you rather have a gun in your house, or a telephone in your house?
To JJA's point, one would mostly likely need some element of surprise in order to gather a gun, possibly have to load it, then confront said burglar. As well, it's a complicated legal issue as to whether you can take up arms if the situation is questionable regarding personal safety.
Some States in the US will send you to jail if you shoot a burglar if the burglar has not threatened you in-kind. About half the States.
Even in these "Stand Your Ground" States, they have certain restrictions when it comes to using force in self-defense. For example, they may require that the threat of perceived harm is objectively reasonable and that the force used be proportional to the threat. Stand your ground laws may also require that the person using self-defense be at the location lawfully (no trespassing, for example) and not be the initial aggressor in the altercation.
There are some nuances to the laws as some apply to the home. Some apply to a place of business. Few apply to public space. Some apply to only when a felony is being committed, etc.
I'd definitely call 911 with the phone that's always within reach first before I'd go rummaging for my gun.
-
911 not gonna help you.
Deal with the threat first or at most have spouse kids call.
The intention of the burglar is unknown especially if youre female and he happens to be a rapist not a burglar.
And no one needs a license to have a knife bat shield spear mace dog (oh...ya maybe dog).
Also hes apparently in croatia.
Put into context for him.
And put in context - wtf you need a gun for, buddy?
For the streets?
For home?
Both?
What gun you want?
Its been 2pg of thread now ive been asking.
-
Look, the fact that more people are saved by guns each year than killed by guns each year seems to be a pretty established science.
That's relatively easy to estimate, so that estimate is probably close to correct.
so your super established science gives you a range of 60,000-2,500,000?
= ME TO SAY NO. IT IS NOT A VERY GOOD SCIENCE.
Considering that data collection is squashed by the nra.
So? You don't get to claim the opposite of what the science says just because science admits uncertainty. Similarly, just because the science is not certain whether Big Bang happened 12 billion years ago or 27 billion years ago (Hubble time) does not mean you can claim it is 10'000 years old. Ever heard of the "Appeal to uncertainty" informal logical fallacy?
Maybe until you think about the scale of it.
In the span of the earth 1B years is being off 1M a big deal?
Woth the age of the universe, are we basing whether getting a gun is definitive?
What are the repercussions of decision making of being wrong?
Your logical fallacy of choice in this case is a false equivalency.
I don't quite understand what you mean. The estimates for how old the universe is (Hubble Time) range from around 12 billion to around 27 billion. That is more than 2 times a difference (27 billion minus 12 billion is 15 billion years, which is greater than 12 billion years). That, however, does not mean it is possible that it is less than 10'000 years old, as many creationists claim. Claiming that it is possible just because of that uncertainty is an Appeal to Uncertainty fallacy. And I think that you are committing that same fallacy when you reject the estimates of how often guns save lives.
This is what i mean -
No one is basing any decision making on the age of the universe!
How is that relevant? Do you understand what an analogy is?
it's relevant in that your number is irrelevant.
do you understand that your analogy is a FALSE EQUIVALENCY since NO ONE IS making decisions of life and death based on a wild-ass guess.
Sorry, but if those guesses are the only relevant data we have, then we ought to make decisions that might cost us life based on that. Better that than basing oneself on no data whatsoever.
-
And put in context - wtf you need a gun for, buddy?
For the streets?
For home?
Both?
What gun you want?
Its been 2pg of thread now ive been asking.
Well, like I have said, I do not think I am likely to need a gun. I want one for the same reason I took the COVID vaccine: I do not think I am likely to get seriously ill from COVID, but getting a vaccine provides you with significant protection while causing little or no inconvenience. Similarly, carrying a gun everywhere you go provides you with significant protection while causing little or no inconvenience. Any gun is probably better than no gun.
-
When seconds matter Police are just minutes away.
So is a gun, unless you keep it loaded in your pants 24/7 and take it into the shower and sleep with it.
No gun is going to save you from someone shooting you from behind without warning.
If you are a victim of a burglary, would you rather have a gun in your house, or a telephone in your house?
I'd choose to live somewhere where it's rare for burglars to have guns, then I won't need one. Japan would be nice.
So I'll pick a telephone.
"I've called 911, the police are on their way" will likely make them leave.
If they have a gun and I have a gun and we start shooting, they are going to be in a life and death situation and want to kill me to save themselves. No thanks.
-
And put in context - wtf you need a gun for, buddy?
For the streets?
For home?
Both?
What gun you want?
Its been 2pg of thread now ive been asking.
Well, like I have said, I do not think I am likely to need a gun. I want one for the same reason I took the COVID vaccine: I do not think I am likely to get seriously ill from COVID, but getting a vaccine provides you with significant protection while causing little or no inconvenience. Similarly, carrying a gun everywhere you go provides you with significant protection while causing little or no inconvenience. Any gun is probably better than no gun.
Owning and carrying a gun around has many big inconveniences.
Do you remember the article I linked where a father shot and killed his daughter by accident thinking she was a burglar? That's not a little inconvenience.
-
And put in context - wtf you need a gun for, buddy?
For the streets?
For home?
Both?
What gun you want?
Its been 2pg of thread now ive been asking.
Well, like I have said, I do not think I am likely to need a gun. I want one for the same reason I took the COVID vaccine: I do not think I am likely to get seriously ill from COVID, but getting a vaccine provides you with significant protection while causing little or no inconvenience. Similarly, carrying a gun everywhere you go provides you with significant protection while causing little or no inconvenience. Any gun is probably better than no gun.
Owning and carrying a gun around has many big inconveniences.
Do you remember the article I linked where a father shot and killed his daughter by accident thinking she was a burglar? That's not a little inconvenience.
Such things are uncommon enough to make it into the news when they do happen. Much like heart inflammations caused by COVID-19 vaccines are. The vast majority of deaths caused by guns are actually suicides. Homicides are relatively rare, and accidents are exceedingly rare.
-
it's relevant in that your number is irrelevant.
do you understand that your analogy is a FALSE EQUIVALENCY since NO ONE IS making decisions of life and death based on a wild-ass guess.
Sorry, but if those guesses are the only relevant data we have, then we ought to make decisions that might cost us life based on that. Better that than basing oneself on no data whatsoever.
You were given much better data.
You chose to ignore it because you want a gun.
-
And put in context - wtf you need a gun for, buddy?
For the streets?
For home?
Both?
What gun you want?
Its been 2pg of thread now ive been asking.
Well, like I have said, I do not think I am likely to need a gun. I want one for the same reason I took the COVID vaccine: I do not think I am likely to get seriously ill from COVID, but getting a vaccine provides you with significant protection while causing little or no inconvenience. Similarly, carrying a gun everywhere you go provides you with significant protection while causing little or no inconvenience.
Any gun is probably better than no gun.
Good
Then in your case any gun is worse as you have no justification for it, and the communiy has manymany justification against it.
Any gun better than no gun?
And there we go again.
Showing no concept or undeestanding of your want for use function = you owning is bad.
-
The vast majority of deaths caused by guns are actually
suicides.
Homicides
accidents
So you being off your meds and having no understanding of how guns gun, you fall into all categories of potential disaster.
Great.
Application denied.
The system works.
-
And put in context - wtf you need a gun for, buddy?
For the streets?
For home?
Both?
What gun you want?
Its been 2pg of thread now ive been asking.
Well, like I have said, I do not think I am likely to need a gun. I want one for the same reason I took the COVID vaccine: I do not think I am likely to get seriously ill from COVID, but getting a vaccine provides you with significant protection while causing little or no inconvenience. Similarly, carrying a gun everywhere you go provides you with significant protection while causing little or no inconvenience. Any gun is probably better than no gun.
Owning and carrying a gun around has many big inconveniences.
Do you remember the article I linked where a father shot and killed his daughter by accident thinking she was a burglar? That's not a little inconvenience.
Such things are uncommon enough to make it into the news when they do happen. Much like heart inflammations caused by COVID-19 vaccines are. The vast majority of deaths caused by guns are actually suicides. Homicides are relatively rare, and accidents are exceedingly rare.
No, your stats are wrong. About half of gun deaths are homicides and about half are suicides. The 'vast majority' are not suicides.
Homicides are not relatively rare, they are half the deaths!
If you think having a loaded gun you don't really need around you 24/7 is safe, you really shouldn't have one.
-
The vast majority of deaths caused by guns are actually
suicides.
Homicides
accidents
So you being off your meds and having no understanding of how guns gun, you fall into all categories of potential disaster.
Great.
Application denied.
The system works.
Yes, Doctor Kabool I concur, the patient shows a rapidly increasing ability to discount all evidence that contradicts his inbuilt world view, no matter how strong, and this is before he comes of his medication.
My recommendation is that under no circumstance should he be allowed a firearm and I would review the decision to end his treatment too.
-
Weasels get crushed in the internal reclining bars of a layZboy.
-
it's relevant in that your number is irrelevant.
do you understand that your analogy is a FALSE EQUIVALENCY since NO ONE IS making decisions of life and death based on a wild-ass guess.
Sorry, but if those guesses are the only relevant data we have, then we ought to make decisions that might cost us life based on that. Better that than basing oneself on no data whatsoever.
You were given much better data.
You chose to ignore it because you want a gun.
The data you are giving me is a lot harder to interpret. Perhaps countries with higher gun ownership do indeed tend to have higher violent crime (although I doubt it is true, as UK has very few guns and has a lot more violent crime than most countries in Europe), but there are countless other factors (education...). The data about how many lives guns save per year versus how many they take is a lot easier to interpret.
-
And put in context - wtf you need a gun for, buddy?
For the streets?
For home?
Both?
What gun you want?
Its been 2pg of thread now ive been asking.
Well, like I have said, I do not think I am likely to need a gun. I want one for the same reason I took the COVID vaccine: I do not think I am likely to get seriously ill from COVID, but getting a vaccine provides you with significant protection while causing little or no inconvenience. Similarly, carrying a gun everywhere you go provides you with significant protection while causing little or no inconvenience. Any gun is probably better than no gun.
Owning and carrying a gun around has many big inconveniences.
Do you remember the article I linked where a father shot and killed his daughter by accident thinking she was a burglar? That's not a little inconvenience.
Such things are uncommon enough to make it into the news when they do happen. Much like heart inflammations caused by COVID-19 vaccines are. The vast majority of deaths caused by guns are actually suicides. Homicides are relatively rare, and accidents are exceedingly rare.
No, your stats are wrong. About half of gun deaths are homicides and about half are suicides. The 'vast majority' are not suicides.
Homicides are not relatively rare, they are half the deaths!
If you think having a loaded gun you don't really need around you 24/7 is safe, you really shouldn't have one.
OK, anyway, accidental deaths due to guns are rare enough to make it into the news when they happen. They are not something to be afraid of more than being attacked by a physically stronger person that you need a gun to defend yourself from.
-
The vast majority of deaths caused by guns are actually
suicides.
Homicides
accidents
So you being off your meds and having no understanding of how guns gun, you fall into all categories of potential disaster.
Great.
Application denied.
The system works.
Yes, Doctor Kabool I concur, the patient shows a rapidly increasing ability to discount all evidence that contradicts his inbuilt world view, no matter how strong, and this is before he comes of his medication.
My recommendation is that under no circumstance should he be allowed a firearm and I would review the decision to end his treatment too.
And, what do you think about the theory that taking Risperidone for too long actually causes schizophrenia? If you think I should continue taking Risperidone, do you take responsibility if I get schizophrenia then?
-
The vast majority of deaths caused by guns are actually
suicides.
Homicides
accidents
So you being off your meds and having no understanding of how guns gun, you fall into all categories of potential disaster.
Great.
Application denied.
The system works.
Yes, Doctor Kabool I concur, the patient shows a rapidly increasing ability to discount all evidence that contradicts his inbuilt world view, no matter how strong, and this is before he comes of his medication.
My recommendation is that under no circumstance should he be allowed a firearm and I would review the decision to end his treatment too.
And, what do you think about the theory that taking Risperidone for too long actually causes schizophrenia? If you think I should continue taking Risperidone, do you take responsibility if I get schizophrenia then?
I'll take that responsibility
Keep taking it. Or some other meds. Their is something abnormal with your brain. Your posts clearly demonstrate this. In fact, just check yourself into an asylum. Your thinking is that deranged and divorced from reality
-
No gun is going to save you from someone shooting you from behind without warning.
OK, also, good luck surviving an Earth quake where you get smashed by 37 tones of bricks.
Pretend you can postulate beyond your feelings.
-
No, your stats are wrong. About half of gun deaths are homicides and about half are suicides. The 'vast majority' are not suicides.
Homicides are not relatively rare, they are half the deaths!
If you think having a loaded gun you don't really need around you 24/7 is safe, you really shouldn't have one.
OK, anyway, accidental deaths due to guns are rare enough to make it into the news when they happen. They are not something to be afraid of more than being attacked by a physically stronger person that you need a gun to defend yourself from.
[/quote]
I can count zero times in my life where pulling out a gun and shooting someone would have made the situation or outcome better.
If you want to live in constant fear of being attacked, go ahead. That gun is more likely to hurt you than protect you.
-
it's relevant in that your number is irrelevant.
do you understand that your analogy is a FALSE EQUIVALENCY since NO ONE IS making decisions of life and death based on a wild-ass guess.
Sorry, but if those guesses are the only relevant data we have, then we ought to make decisions that might cost us life based on that. Better that than basing oneself on no data whatsoever.
You were given much better data.
You chose to ignore it because you want a gun.
The data you are giving me is a lot harder to interpret. Perhaps countries with higher gun ownership do indeed tend to have higher violent crime (although I doubt it is true, as UK has very few guns and has a lot more violent crime than most countries in Europe), but there are countless other factors (education...). The data about how many lives guns save per year versus how many they take is a lot easier to interpret.
How is it easy?
Give us a very easy example of why a range of 50,000-2,500,000 is perfectly easy to interpret.
Lets start by easily listing all the wasy disclaimers into how the low and high numbers were generated.
-
No gun is going to save you from someone shooting you from behind without warning.
OK, also, good luck surviving an Earth quake where you get smashed by 37 tones of bricks.
Pretend you can postulate beyond your feelings.
I didnt say that.
But yes.
Those usa cowboys thinking theyll pull out their guns during a shoot out are wrong.
Cops wear vests for a reason.
Because an ambush is an ambush.
-
The vast majority of deaths caused by guns are actually
suicides.
Homicides
accidents
So you being off your meds and having no understanding of how guns gun, you fall into all categories of potential disaster.
Great.
Application denied.
The system works.
Yes, Doctor Kabool I concur, the patient shows a rapidly increasing ability to discount all evidence that contradicts his inbuilt world view, no matter how strong, and this is before he comes of his medication.
My recommendation is that under no circumstance should he be allowed a firearm and I would review the decision to end his treatment too.
And, what do you think about the theory that taking Risperidone for too long actually causes schizophrenia? If you think I should continue taking Risperidone, do you take responsibility if I get schizophrenia then?
I'll take that responsibility
Keep taking it. Or some other meds. Their is something abnormal with your brain. Your posts clearly demonstrate this. In fact, just check yourself into an asylum. Your thinking is that deranged and divorced from reality
What do you think that I should tell my psychiatrist? Should I tell her that I want a gun for personal protection? That is hardly a sign of mental illness, considering that a third of America does that. They cannot all be mentally ill.
-
The vast majority of deaths caused by guns are actually
suicides.
Homicides
accidents
So you being off your meds and having no understanding of how guns gun, you fall into all categories of potential disaster.
Great.
Application denied.
The system works.
Yes, Doctor Kabool I concur, the patient shows a rapidly increasing ability to discount all evidence that contradicts his inbuilt world view, no matter how strong, and this is before he comes of his medication.
My recommendation is that under no circumstance should he be allowed a firearm and I would review the decision to end his treatment too.
And, what do you think about the theory that taking Risperidone for too long actually causes schizophrenia? If you think I should continue taking Risperidone, do you take responsibility if I get schizophrenia then?
I'll take that responsibility
Keep taking it. Or some other meds. Their is something abnormal with your brain. Your posts clearly demonstrate this. In fact, just check yourself into an asylum. Your thinking is that deranged and divorced from reality
What do you think that I should tell my psychiatrist? Should I tell her that I want a gun for personal protection? That is hardly a sign of mental illness, considering that a third of America does that. They cannot all be mentally ill.
Americans aren't known for being very bright. Why copy their stupidity?
A gun wont make you safer. I'd be shit scared if a mentally disturbed person got a gun for their safety. God knows what the voices in your head are saying about people
-
A gun wont make you safer.
pussy
-
The vast majority of deaths caused by guns are actually
suicides.
Homicides
accidents
So you being off your meds and having no understanding of how guns gun, you fall into all categories of potential disaster.
Great.
Application denied.
The system works.
Yes, Doctor Kabool I concur, the patient shows a rapidly increasing ability to discount all evidence that contradicts his inbuilt world view, no matter how strong, and this is before he comes of his medication.
My recommendation is that under no circumstance should he be allowed a firearm and I would review the decision to end his treatment too.
And, what do you think about the theory that taking Risperidone for too long actually causes schizophrenia? If you think I should continue taking Risperidone, do you take responsibility if I get schizophrenia then?
I'll take that responsibility
Keep taking it. Or some other meds. Their is something abnormal with your brain. Your posts clearly demonstrate this. In fact, just check yourself into an asylum. Your thinking is that deranged and divorced from reality
What do you think that I should tell my psychiatrist? Should I tell her that I want a gun for personal protection? That is hardly a sign of mental illness, considering that a third of America does that. They cannot all be mentally ill.
Tell your psychiatrist that guns don't exist.
-
The vast majority of deaths caused by guns are actually
suicides.
Homicides
accidents
So you being off your meds and having no understanding of how guns gun, you fall into all categories of potential disaster.
Great.
Application denied.
The system works.
Yes, Doctor Kabool I concur, the patient shows a rapidly increasing ability to discount all evidence that contradicts his inbuilt world view, no matter how strong, and this is before he comes of his medication.
My recommendation is that under no circumstance should he be allowed a firearm and I would review the decision to end his treatment too.
And, what do you think about the theory that taking Risperidone for too long actually causes schizophrenia? If you think I should continue taking Risperidone, do you take responsibility if I get schizophrenia then?
I'll take that responsibility
Keep taking it. Or some other meds. Their is something abnormal with your brain. Your posts clearly demonstrate this. In fact, just check yourself into an asylum. Your thinking is that deranged and divorced from reality
What do you think that I should tell my psychiatrist? Should I tell her that I want a gun for personal protection? That is hardly a sign of mental illness, considering that a third of America does that. They cannot all be mentally ill.
Tell your psychiatrist that guns don't exist.
Well, I no longer believe that, since I have been taking Risperidone for a while.
-
The vast majority of deaths caused by guns are actually
suicides.
Homicides
accidents
So you being off your meds and having no understanding of how guns gun, you fall into all categories of potential disaster.
Great.
Application denied.
The system works.
Yes, Doctor Kabool I concur, the patient shows a rapidly increasing ability to discount all evidence that contradicts his inbuilt world view, no matter how strong, and this is before he comes of his medication.
My recommendation is that under no circumstance should he be allowed a firearm and I would review the decision to end his treatment too.
And, what do you think about the theory that taking Risperidone for too long actually causes schizophrenia? If you think I should continue taking Risperidone, do you take responsibility if I get schizophrenia then?
I'll take that responsibility
Keep taking it. Or some other meds. Their is something abnormal with your brain. Your posts clearly demonstrate this. In fact, just check yourself into an asylum. Your thinking is that deranged and divorced from reality
What do you think that I should tell my psychiatrist? Should I tell her that I want a gun for personal protection? That is hardly a sign of mental illness, considering that a third of America does that. They cannot all be mentally ill.
Qanon and maga cult have been labelled paranoid mass psychosis.
So yes.
They are mentally ill.
-
What do you think that I should tell my psychiatrist? Should I tell her that I want a gun for personal protection? That is hardly a sign of mental illness, considering that a third of America does that. They cannot all be mentally ill.
Ummm, yeah they can all be mentally ill. This is America.
-
The vast majority of deaths caused by guns are actually
suicides.
Homicides
accidents
So you being off your meds and having no understanding of how guns gun, you fall into all categories of potential disaster.
Great.
Application denied.
The system works.
Yes, Doctor Kabool I concur, the patient shows a rapidly increasing ability to discount all evidence that contradicts his inbuilt world view, no matter how strong, and this is before he comes of his medication.
My recommendation is that under no circumstance should he be allowed a firearm and I would review the decision to end his treatment too.
And, what do you think about the theory that taking Risperidone for too long actually causes schizophrenia? If you think I should continue taking Risperidone, do you take responsibility if I get schizophrenia then?
I'll take that responsibility
Keep taking it. Or some other meds. Their is something abnormal with your brain. Your posts clearly demonstrate this. In fact, just check yourself into an asylum. Your thinking is that deranged and divorced from reality
What do you think that I should tell my psychiatrist? Should I tell her that I want a gun for personal protection? That is hardly a sign of mental illness, considering that a third of America does that. They cannot all be mentally ill.
Qanon and maga cult have been labelled paranoid mass psychosis.
So yes.
They are mentally ill.
Mass psychosis is not a mental illness. Religion, for the same reason, is not considered a psychiatric delusion, even though it is quite similar to one (except that many people believe the same). Besides, opposing gun control laws has nothing to do with MAGA or Qanon, it dates back at least as far as the Second amendment.
-
2nd Amendment assures we can be as effective as Ukrainians.
-
LOL!
-
2nd Amendment assures we can be as effective as Ukrainians.
I am not sure what you mean.
-
The vast majority of deaths caused by guns are actually
suicides.
Homicides
accidents
So you being off your meds and having no understanding of how guns gun, you fall into all categories of potential disaster.
Great.
Application denied.
The system works.
Yes, Doctor Kabool I concur, the patient shows a rapidly increasing ability to discount all evidence that contradicts his inbuilt world view, no matter how strong, and this is before he comes of his medication.
My recommendation is that under no circumstance should he be allowed a firearm and I would review the decision to end his treatment too.
And, what do you think about the theory that taking Risperidone for too long actually causes schizophrenia? If you think I should continue taking Risperidone, do you take responsibility if I get schizophrenia then?
I'll take that responsibility
Keep taking it. Or some other meds. Their is something abnormal with your brain. Your posts clearly demonstrate this. In fact, just check yourself into an asylum. Your thinking is that deranged and divorced from reality
What do you think that I should tell my psychiatrist? Should I tell her that I want a gun for personal protection? That is hardly a sign of mental illness, considering that a third of America does that. They cannot all be mentally ill.
Qanon and maga cult have been labelled paranoid mass psychosis.
So yes.
They are mentally ill.
Mass psychosis is not a mental illness. Religion, for the same reason, is not considered a psychiatric delusion, even though it is quite similar to one (except that many people believe the same). Besides, opposing gun control laws has nothing to do with MAGA or Qanon, it dates back at least as far as the Second amendment.
You really like to change the discussion mid thought.
-
2nd Amendment assures we can be as effective as Ukrainians.
I am not sure what you mean.
I mean are you going to fight or run away?
Left wing pussies will scatter when confronted by force.
If you are a left winger willing to defend our country,
Raise Your Hand Now.
Otherwise just STFU.
-
this mofo wants it for personal defense yet can't articulate how or ability to use.
he can't even follow a train of thought...
does he not know about the war in ukraine?
i got no problem with the 2ndA.
i have a problem with gun nuts confusing 2ndA with personal/ home defense mishmashing into some sort of dumbass clusterfuck
the NRA was created to improve proficiency but has become some kind of golem.
-
side note
they've been internally fighting for many years now making them tough and famiiliar.
'merica have airsoft, speed gun ("board don't shoot back"), and gangsters.
not sure if USA would do as well as the yukes in the same situation.
-
side note
they've been internally fighting for many years now making them tough and famiiliar.
'merica have airsoft, speed gun ("board don't shoot back"), and gangsters.
not sure if USA would do as well as the yukes in the same situation.
Your opinion is the best opinion you feel like believing in?Will you lead, follow or run away?
-
me?
i'm just a guy on the internet yelling things.
so what will i do in war?
i'll probably be the Tom Howell/ Robert Morris yelling "woooolverines!"
-
me?
i'm just a guy on the internet yelling things.
so what will i do in war?
i'll probably be the Tom Howell/ Robert Morris yelling "woooolverines!"
I have no idea what you're talking about.
I'll hear you behind me.
(as I run away)
-
The vast majority of deaths caused by guns are actually
suicides.
Homicides
accidents
So you being off your meds and having no understanding of how guns gun, you fall into all categories of potential disaster.
Great.
Application denied.
The system works.
Yes, Doctor Kabool I concur, the patient shows a rapidly increasing ability to discount all evidence that contradicts his inbuilt world view, no matter how strong, and this is before he comes of his medication.
My recommendation is that under no circumstance should he be allowed a firearm and I would review the decision to end his treatment too.
And, what do you think about the theory that taking Risperidone for too long actually causes schizophrenia? If you think I should continue taking Risperidone, do you take responsibility if I get schizophrenia then?
I'll take that responsibility
Keep taking it. Or some other meds. Their is something abnormal with your brain. Your posts clearly demonstrate this. In fact, just check yourself into an asylum. Your thinking is that deranged and divorced from reality
What do you think that I should tell my psychiatrist? Should I tell her that I want a gun for personal protection? That is hardly a sign of mental illness, considering that a third of America does that. They cannot all be mentally ill.
Qanon and maga cult have been labelled paranoid mass psychosis.
So yes.
They are mentally ill.
Mass psychosis is not a mental illness. Religion, for the same reason, is not considered a psychiatric delusion, even though it is quite similar to one (except that many people believe the same). Besides, opposing gun control laws has nothing to do with MAGA or Qanon, it dates back at least as far as the Second amendment.
You really like to change the discussion mid thought.
You cannot say that a belief held by a third of the population is a sure sign of a mental illness. You can say it is a delusional belief, in the same sense religious beliefs may be considered delusional beliefs, but you cannot say they are psychiatric delusions. In fact, given that I can support my belief with citations from actual studies (and that is literally all the studies I am aware of that are done on the topic), you can hardly say my belief is delusional. You can claim it is wrong (comparing it to the beliefs that saturated fat does not lead to heart disease or similar - they can be based on poorly-done studies), but you cannot say it is delusional.
-
In fact, given that I can support my belief with citations from actual studies (and that is literally all the studies I am aware of that are done on the topic), you can hardly say my belief is delusional. You can claim it is wrong (comparing it to the beliefs that saturated fat does not lead to heart disease or similar - they can be based on poorly-done studies)
In fact? You keep using that phrase - insert princess bride meme.
Stud-ies?
Plural?
Ohhhhrealy?
Pretty sure youve only provided the one to which was countered to be grossly extrapolated handful of sht numbers he pulled out of his ass.
So you admit it is a poorly done study.
Great
Stop referencing it (not them) then
No, it is not clear. As far as I know, literally all the studies about defensive gun use show us otherwise. Like, literally all of them.
Name 3 studies.
-
What do you think that I should tell my psychiatrist? Should I tell her that I want a gun for personal protection? That is hardly a sign of mental illness, considering that a third of America does that. They cannot all be mentally ill.
You cannot say that a belief held by a third of the population is a sure sign of a mental illness. You can say it is a delusional belief, in the same sense religious beliefs may be considered delusional beliefs, but you cannot say they are psychiatric delusions.
In fact [...] you can hardly say my belief is delusional.
You can claim it is wrong [...] they can be based on poorly-done studies), but you cannot say it is delusional.
Yes, Religious zealots that go around killing people pver irrational fears is bad.
But to the "they cant all be mentally ill".
Yes
Yes they can
But ill give you that i exaggerated and no, no they arent.
a condition affecting a group of persons, characterized by excitement or anxiety, irrational behavior or beliefs, or inexplicable symptoms of illness. Also called epidemic hysteria .
What Are the Types of Psychotic Disorders?
Schizophrenia. The most common psychotic disorder is schizophrenia. ...
Schizoaffective Disorder. ...
Schizophreniform Disorder. ...
Brief Psychotic Disorder. ...
Delusional Disorder. ...
Substance-Induced Psychotic Disorder. ...
Psychotic Disorder Due to a Medical Condition. ...
Paraphrenia.
Psychosis is a symptom, not an illness, and it is more common than you may think. In the U.S., approximately 100,000 young people experience psychosis each year. As many as 3 in 100 people will have an episode at some point in their lives.
It's believed that groupthink increases as group cohesiveness increases, which may help explain the psychological phenomenon of mass hysteria.4 Also known as epidemic hysteria, mass psychogenic illness, and mass sociogenic illness, mass hysteria
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/mass-hysteria#:~:text=a%20condition%20affecting%20a%20group,Also%20called%20epidemic%20hysteria%20.
https://www.psychguides.com/psychotic-disorders/
https://www.nami.org/About-Mental-Illness/Mental-Health-Conditions/Psychosis
https://www.verywellmind.com/understanding-groupthink-2671595
-
Name 3 studies.
Are you kidding me? Wikipedia cites a whole bunch of them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_gun_use#Estimates_of_frequency
-
From your Wiki article;
A follow-up study in 1998 by Arthur Kellermann analyzed 626 shootings in three cities. The study found that "For every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides.
-
Name 3 studies.
Are you kidding me? Wikipedia cites a whole bunch of them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_gun_use#Estimates_of_frequency
Wow
So of the reports, only the kleck, which previoisly discussed spouts the 2.5-3M number, "supports" your view...
While many of reports give the more reasonable <100,000 and show the other reports as suffering from small sample and extrapolation.
Did you read the article or just provided it because it was a list of reports?
In context, the requeat was for you to provide the scientific abundant fact reports.
You have failsd to do so.
Try again.
Or
Lets put in context to your sitaution.
Let us all know how much gun crime you have in your part of croaita.
Are you better off learning how to knife or improving your cardio vascular?
Well Youve admitted you want one because you want one regardless of "facts".
What gun you want?
You have a gun club you plan to join?
-
From your Wiki article;
A follow-up study in 1998 by Arthur Kellermann analyzed 626 shootings in three cities. The study found that "For every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides.
Doesn't the methodology of that study kind of remind you of the methodology of the study cited by Luc Montagnier that supposedly showed COVID vaccine is around 50 times more dangerous than COVID to teenagers? That study was counting COVID-19 deaths as "deaths confirmed to be from COVID, rather than with COVID", while counting deaths from vaccine as "deaths within 2 weeks from the vaccine". Sorry, but, in order for a study to be valid, you need to apply about the same rigour when counting both deaths.
And the same applies here. You do not get to count "defensive gun use" as "one in which a person would probably be dead if they had no gun" while counting every gun suicide as gun suicide, even though there is no evidence the person would not do suicide otherwise (like in Japan which has even higher suicide rate than the US despite having almost no guns).
-
From your Wiki article;
A follow-up study in 1998 by Arthur Kellermann analyzed 626 shootings in three cities. The study found that "For every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides.
Doesn't the methodology of that study kind of remind you of the methodology of the study cited by Luc Montagnier that supposedly showed COVID vaccine is around 50 times more dangerous than COVID to teenagers? That study was counting COVID-19 deaths as "deaths confirmed to be from COVID, rather than with COVID", while counting deaths from vaccine as "deaths within 2 weeks from the vaccine". Sorry, but, in order for a study to be valid, you need to apply about the same rigour when counting both deaths.
And the same applies here. You do not get to count "defensive gun use" as "one in which a person would probably be dead if they had no gun" while counting every gun suicide as gun suicide, even though there is no evidence the person would not do suicide otherwise (like in Japan which has even higher suicide rate than the US despite having almost no guns).
FlatAss. There was this clip some suicidal dumbarse live streamed in America. He was getting really angry and before the cops burst into his room he blew his head off. It was pretty messy.
I can picture if you had a gun that that would be your fate. I mean, you dont exactly seem stable
Stay away from guns man. Or actually dont. You'll knock yourself off sooner or later than not bother us with your weirdo thoughts on here anymore.
But seriously, forget about guns. You dont need one. The fact that you would have a tool that could end yours or anyone else around you life at a moments time does not make you safer from guns. If someone wanted you dead, you're dead. Gun or not. In fact, the gun probably makes you more a target for violence.
-
Like i said
Get a knife if you want.
Nunchucks if its the cool factor you want.
Also
Looks like you have a birght future in gymnastics.
Hipe to see you at the next olympics.
-
Like i said
Get a knife if you want.
Nunchucks if its the cool factor you want.
Also
Looks like you have a birght future in gymnastics.
Hipe to see you at the next olympics.
Who is really doing more mental gymnastics here? I think it is you, who keeps asserting that tens of thousands (actually probably hundreds of thousands) of people who claim that having a gun saved them are lying or delusional.
-
Like i said
Get a knife if you want.
Nunchucks if its the cool factor you want.
Also
Looks like you have a birght future in gymnastics.
Hipe to see you at the next olympics.
Who is really doing more mental gymnastics here? I think it is you, who keeps asserting that tens of thousands (actually probably hundreds of thousands) of people who claim that having a gun saved them are lying or delusional.
I'm guessing more people have been killed by guns than saved by guns.
-
Like i said
Get a knife if you want.
Nunchucks if its the cool factor you want.
Also
Looks like you have a birght future in gymnastics.
Hipe to see you at the next olympics.
Who is really doing more mental gymnastics here? I think it is you, who keeps asserting that tens of thousands (actually probably hundreds of thousands) of people who claim that having a gun saved them are lying or delusional.
no
you're off by magnitude - that would be 2-3M - since you believe in the higher max ceiling number vs me the lower <100,000.
and no, they're not delusional - they don't exist - becuase the only study you've been able to produce is a grossly extrpolated kleck estimate based on a small sample size and vague questionaire.
but yes
those gun nuts are delusional.
ever talk to them?
they believe that in a shoot out, they'll be all pewpewpew "i'm no victim, good guy saves the day, 2ndA all the waaaay, 'merica".
they're the armchair quarterbackers or wanna be MMA coaches who jsut know what to do more than professional cops, fighters, or military.
either way
let's talk about something more fun.
what gun you want?!
-
Like i said
Get a knife if you want.
Nunchucks if its the cool factor you want.
Also
Looks like you have a birght future in gymnastics.
Hipe to see you at the next olympics.
Who is really doing more mental gymnastics here? I think it is you, who keeps asserting that tens of thousands (actually probably hundreds of thousands) of people who claim that having a gun saved them are lying or delusional.
I'm guessing more people have been killed by guns than saved by guns.
And why do the vast majority of studies show otherwise?
-
Like i said
Get a knife if you want.
Nunchucks if its the cool factor you want.
Also
Looks like you have a birght future in gymnastics.
Hipe to see you at the next olympics.
Who is really doing more mental gymnastics here? I think it is you, who keeps asserting that tens of thousands (actually probably hundreds of thousands) of people who claim that having a gun saved them are lying or delusional.
I'm guessing more people have been killed by guns than saved by guns.
And why do the vast majority of studies show otherwise?
Why are you called FlatAss when you really should be called DumbAss
Also I'm intrigued by the question of what gun you want too
-
Like i said
Get a knife if you want.
Nunchucks if its the cool factor you want.
Also
Looks like you have a birght future in gymnastics.
Hipe to see you at the next olympics.
Who is really doing more mental gymnastics here? I think it is you, who keeps asserting that tens of thousands (actually probably hundreds of thousands) of people who claim that having a gun saved them are lying or delusional.
I'm guessing more people have been killed by guns than saved by guns.
And why do the vast majority of studies show otherwise?
The studies are all over the place, using different definitions, sample sizes…some say 100k, some say 2.5m, etc. I mean what definition of DGU are you talking about? Lives saved? Bodily harm averted? Property crime averted? Just saying you’re armed, brandishing, patting, holstering, aiming, or actually firing?
It’s a really complex thing. There is no blanket yes or no answer. It very much depends.
I’ve got no problem with people having guns as long as there are very clear rules, regs, licensing requirements, registrations, & training. More than what we have today.
-
Like i said
Get a knife if you want.
Nunchucks if its the cool factor you want.
Also
Looks like you have a birght future in gymnastics.
Hipe to see you at the next olympics.
Who is really doing more mental gymnastics here? I think it is you, who keeps asserting that tens of thousands (actually probably hundreds of thousands) of people who claim that having a gun saved them are lying or delusional.
I'm guessing more people have been killed by guns than saved by guns.
And why do the vast majority of studies show otherwise?
The studies are all over the place, using different definitions, sample sizes…some say 100k, some say 2.5m, etc. I mean what definition of DGU are you talking about? Lives saved? Bodily harm averted? Property crime averted? Just saying you’re armed, brandishing, patting, holstering, aiming, or actually firing?
It’s a really complex thing. There is no blanket yes or no answer. It very much depends.
I’ve got no problem with people having guns as long as there are very clear rules, regs, licensing requirements, registrations, & training. More than what we have today.
But don't you think the regulations we have are often counter-productive. I mean, many regulations are about banning automated guns, that are precisely those guns that may come useful in self-defense when every second counts. And many regulations are about preventing mentally ill from getting a gun, whereas mentally ill people are more likely to be victims of violent crime and are thus more in need of guns for self-defense.
-
Like i said
Get a knife if you want.
Nunchucks if its the cool factor you want.
Also
Looks like you have a birght future in gymnastics.
Hipe to see you at the next olympics.
Who is really doing more mental gymnastics here? I think it is you, who keeps asserting that tens of thousands (actually probably hundreds of thousands) of people who claim that having a gun saved them are lying or delusional.
I'm guessing more people have been killed by guns than saved by guns.
And why do the vast majority of studies show otherwise?
The studies are all over the place, using different definitions, sample sizes…some say 100k, some say 2.5m, etc. I mean what definition of DGU are you talking about? Lives saved? Bodily harm averted? Property crime averted? Just saying you’re armed, brandishing, patting, holstering, aiming, or actually firing?
It’s a really complex thing. There is no blanket yes or no answer. It very much depends.
I’ve got no problem with people having guns as long as there are very clear rules, regs, licensing requirements, registrations, & training. More than what we have today.
But don't you think the regulations we have are often counter-productive. I mean, many regulations are about banning automated guns, that are precisely those guns that may come useful in self-defense when every second counts. And many regulations are about preventing mentally ill from getting a gun, whereas mentally ill people are more likely to be victims of violent crime and are thus more in need of guns for self-defense.
And mentally ill people are also found to be more likely perpetrators of violent crime. They also may be inhibited from judging right and wrong or even reality and non reality. And you want to put automatic guns in their hands? You really are mentally ill if you believe that
So it's clear you believe you should be in possession of a fully automatic gun. Nice.
In society we dont just have personal freedoms. We have civil freedoms. It's how society works. Your personal freedom as a mentally unstable man to own a gun and carry it around fully loaded just to make you feel safer is forfeit in favor of a civil freedom that allows everyone else around you to actually be safer for you and others like you not having a gun
Don't like it? Too bad, so sad. Maybe you can exile yourself from society
-
And mentally ill people are also found to be more likely perpetrators of violent crime.
People who read Communist Manifesto are also slightly more likely to be violent criminals and attempt to violently overthrow the government. Should people who read Communist Manifesto therefore also be prevented from owning guns?
Also...
Members of the public exaggerate both the strength of the association between mental illness and violence and their own personal risk. Finally, too little is known about the social contextual determinants of violence, but research supports the view the mentally ill are more often victims than perpetrators of violence.
It is hard to tell whether the link between schizophrenia and violent crime is real, but that link, if it even exists, is definitely exaggerated by the public. At best, you can put it in the same category as the link between reading Communist Manifesto and attempts to violently overthrow the government.
-
And mentally ill people are also found to be more likely perpetrators of violent crime.
People who read Communist Manifesto are also slightly more likely to be violent criminals and attempt to violently overthrow the government. Should people who read Communist Manifesto therefore also be prevented from owning guns?
Also...
Members of the public exaggerate both the strength of the association between mental illness and violence and their own personal risk. Finally, too little is known about the social contextual determinants of violence, but research supports the view the mentally ill are more often victims than perpetrators of violence.
It is hard to tell whether the link between schizophrenia and violent crime is real, but that link, if it even exists, is definitely exaggerated by the public. At best, you can put it in the same category as the link between reading Communist Manifesto and attempts to violently overthrow the government.
What kind of violent risk are they subjected to? Mugging? Or assault occasioning death.. If some dickhead punches you in the head and demands your wallet and phone do you think having a gun and using it is reasonable? Do you think having that gun makes you safer? Do you think perhaps having that gun could also make you a target?
If someone knows you have a gun, whats to stop them bullrushing you by surprise, taking that gun and using it on you? Or making sure when they hit you, it's to finish you off to prevent any chance you could threaten them with the gun?
I would also hazard a guess that the fact that everyone owns a gun in America makes police a lot more nervous and more likely to use them. Like that Aussie woman who called for the police to report a suspected assault and was shot dead as she approached the police car because the police got scared
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Justine_Damond
What a shitty society
-
Again with th autmoatic weappn as psw?
Uggh
Ok
What gun woukd you get, if you had your choice????
-
Like i said
Get a knife if you want.
Nunchucks if its the cool factor you want.
Also
Looks like you have a birght future in gymnastics.
Hipe to see you at the next olympics.
Who is really doing more mental gymnastics here? I think it is you, who keeps asserting that tens of thousands (actually probably hundreds of thousands) of people who claim that having a gun saved them are lying or delusional.
I'm guessing more people have been killed by guns than saved by guns.
And why do the vast majority of studies show otherwise?
The studies are all over the place, using different definitions, sample sizes…some say 100k, some say 2.5m, etc. I mean what definition of DGU are you talking about? Lives saved? Bodily harm averted? Property crime averted? Just saying you’re armed, brandishing, patting, holstering, aiming, or actually firing?
It’s a really complex thing. There is no blanket yes or no answer. It very much depends.
I’ve got no problem with people having guns as long as there are very clear rules, regs, licensing requirements, registrations, & training. More than what we have today.
But don't you think the regulations we have are often counter-productive. I mean, many regulations are about banning automated guns, that are precisely those guns that may come useful in self-defense when every second counts. And many regulations are about preventing mentally ill from getting a gun, whereas mentally ill people are more likely to be victims of violent crime and are thus more in need of guns for self-defense.
Automatic guns are primarily for suppression fire - a hail of bullets. In the hands of a highly trained, skilled individual, yes, discriminate targeting capabilities for sure.
Have you ever shot a gun of any sort? I suspect not considering you once thought guns didn't exist. I have. As a kid, I shot skeet. 20 and 12 gauge shotguns. I also shot an AK at a dude ranch in Northern California (Why and how they had an AK, I didn't ask), though in semi-automatic mode, not automatic. I'll tell you, considering I was untrained, I couldn't hit shit with any accuracy due to the kick. That thing was all over the place. An automatic is not for self defense especially in the hands of someone not extremely well trained to use one.
As for mental illness, I'm not worried about the mentally ill committing a crime with a gun, I'm concerned about their judgement when in possession of one. Take schizophrenia, symptoms: Delusions, Hallucinations, Disorganized thinking. I would be fearful of someone with that disorder, brandishing an automatic weapon, of all things, in a self-defense situation, having the required laser focus and judgement to make the right decisions whilst spraying a room with bullets.
-
Do you think perhaps having that gun could also make you a target?
How could it? This is like saying being physically stronger makes you a target, isn't it?If someone knows you have a gun, whats to stop them bullrushing you by surprise, taking that gun and using it on you?
Because... it is risky to try that?I would also hazard a guess that the fact that everyone owns a gun in America makes police a lot more nervous and more likely to use them.
Sorry, but you cannot use one big government policy (that is the police) to justify the another (that is gun control).
-
Do you think perhaps having that gun could also make you a target?
How could it? This is like saying being physically stronger makes you a target, isn't it?If someone knows you have a gun, whats to stop them bullrushing you by surprise, taking that gun and using it on you?
Because... it is risky to try that?I would also hazard a guess that the fact that everyone owns a gun in America makes police a lot more nervous and more likely to use them.
Sorry, but you cannot use one big government policy (that is the police) to justify the another (that is gun control).
Guns are valuable and useful to a criminal. So what if it's risky. Dimwits also try to take a policemans guns from their holster from time to time. Risky?
You clearly want a gun. In your mentally deranged state your risk assessment capacity might be on holiday and you might try to take a gun too
If someone doesn't have a gun, a common thug might not escalate a confrontation to murder. But if you have a gun, they might be a thug, they might be in the wrong, but all of a sudden, they now have a lawful reason to kill you in self defense.
Also again, if someone wants you dead - there's not much you can do except look over your shoulder all the time, never sleep and get someone else to start your car every day. You having a gun would just make them more careful
Also you still haven't answered what exactly gun you want? Do you think you even need to be trained? Exactly how far have you thought this through? Do you think putting guns in totally untrained hands is safe and reasonable?
-
Do you think perhaps having that gun could also make you a target?
How could it? This is like saying being physically stronger makes you a target, isn't it?If someone knows you have a gun, whats to stop them bullrushing you by surprise, taking that gun and using it on you?
Because... it is risky to try that?I would also hazard a guess that the fact that everyone owns a gun in America makes police a lot more nervous and more likely to use them.
Sorry, but you cannot use one big government policy (that is the police) to justify the another (that is gun control).
Rosenbaum thought he could take the gun from rittenhouse.
-
Do you think perhaps having that gun could also make you a target?
How could it? This is like saying being physically stronger makes you a target, isn't it?If someone knows you have a gun, whats to stop them bullrushing you by surprise, taking that gun and using it on you?
Because... it is risky to try that?I would also hazard a guess that the fact that everyone owns a gun in America makes police a lot more nervous and more likely to use them.
Sorry, but you cannot use one big government policy (that is the police) to justify the another (that is gun control).
Rosenbaum thought he could take the gun from rittenhouse.
Interesting that if Kyle was shot dead himself, the person who shot him could have got off on self defense of themself or others. But Kyle killed several people in 'self defense' himself even if he was an antagonist.
-
He was not the antagonist nor agressor.
He was avictom of fox news and alt right media.
But to this thread ritten was a littlle guy that rosen thought he could bully.
-
Ive been eyeballing the ruger pcc.
Solid stock for butting.
Takedown to prevent kiddos from getting it
Light for the wife
Cop mags for post apoc supply
Close-med range fire for urban use.
Reviews say reliable.
For the zombie apocolypse.
What gun you want flatass?
-
Do you think perhaps having that gun could also make you a target?
How could it? This is like saying being physically stronger makes you a target, isn't it?If someone knows you have a gun, whats to stop them bullrushing you by surprise, taking that gun and using it on you?
Because... it is risky to try that?I would also hazard a guess that the fact that everyone owns a gun in America makes police a lot more nervous and more likely to use them.
Sorry, but you cannot use one big government policy (that is the police) to justify the another (that is gun control).
Guns are valuable and useful to a criminal. So what if it's risky. Dimwits also try to take a policemans guns from their holster from time to time. Risky?
You clearly want a gun. In your mentally deranged state your risk assessment capacity might be on holiday and you might try to take a gun too
If someone doesn't have a gun, a common thug might not escalate a confrontation to murder. But if you have a gun, they might be a thug, they might be in the wrong, but all of a sudden, they now have a lawful reason to kill you in self defense.
Also again, if someone wants you dead - there's not much you can do except look over your shoulder all the time, never sleep and get someone else to start your car every day. You having a gun would just make them more careful
Also you still haven't answered what exactly gun you want? Do you think you even need to be trained? Exactly how far have you thought this through? Do you think putting guns in totally untrained hands is safe and reasonable?
So, do you think the police officers and security personell should not be carrying guns because it supposedly makes them a more likely target?
-
Do you think perhaps having that gun could also make you a target?
How could it? This is like saying being physically stronger makes you a target, isn't it?If someone knows you have a gun, whats to stop them bullrushing you by surprise, taking that gun and using it on you?
Because... it is risky to try that?I would also hazard a guess that the fact that everyone owns a gun in America makes police a lot more nervous and more likely to use them.
Sorry, but you cannot use one big government policy (that is the police) to justify the another (that is gun control).
Guns are valuable and useful to a criminal. So what if it's risky. Dimwits also try to take a policemans guns from their holster from time to time. Risky?
You clearly want a gun. In your mentally deranged state your risk assessment capacity might be on holiday and you might try to take a gun too
If someone doesn't have a gun, a common thug might not escalate a confrontation to murder. But if you have a gun, they might be a thug, they might be in the wrong, but all of a sudden, they now have a lawful reason to kill you in self defense.
Also again, if someone wants you dead - there's not much you can do except look over your shoulder all the time, never sleep and get someone else to start your car every day. You having a gun would just make them more careful
Also you still haven't answered what exactly gun you want? Do you think you even need to be trained? Exactly how far have you thought this through? Do you think putting guns in totally untrained hands is safe and reasonable?
So, do you think the police officers and security personell should not be carrying guns because it supposedly makes them a more likely target?
If you possessed more than a functioning brain cell you would know that that's not what I was getting at. You do you, I suppose
-
Do you think perhaps having that gun could also make you a target?
How could it? This is like saying being physically stronger makes you a target, isn't it?If someone knows you have a gun, whats to stop them bullrushing you by surprise, taking that gun and using it on you?
Because... it is risky to try that?I would also hazard a guess that the fact that everyone owns a gun in America makes police a lot more nervous and more likely to use them.
Sorry, but you cannot use one big government policy (that is the police) to justify the another (that is gun control).
Guns are valuable and useful to a criminal. So what if it's risky. Dimwits also try to take a policemans guns from their holster from time to time. Risky?
You clearly want a gun. In your mentally deranged state your risk assessment capacity might be on holiday and you might try to take a gun too
If someone doesn't have a gun, a common thug might not escalate a confrontation to murder. But if you have a gun, they might be a thug, they might be in the wrong, but all of a sudden, they now have a lawful reason to kill you in self defense.
Also again, if someone wants you dead - there's not much you can do except look over your shoulder all the time, never sleep and get someone else to start your car every day. You having a gun would just make them more careful
Also you still haven't answered what exactly gun you want? Do you think you even need to be trained? Exactly how far have you thought this through? Do you think putting guns in totally untrained hands is safe and reasonable?
So, do you think the police officers and security personell should not be carrying guns because it supposedly makes them a more likely target?
If you possessed more than a functioning brain cell you would know that that's not what I was getting at. You do you, I suppose
I know that's not what you are getting at, but that's what's implied. If you say gun might make people who carry them less safe, the implication is that police officers might also be less safe because of carrying a gun.
-
Do you think perhaps having that gun could also make you a target?
How could it? This is like saying being physically stronger makes you a target, isn't it?If someone knows you have a gun, whats to stop them bullrushing you by surprise, taking that gun and using it on you?
Because... it is risky to try that?I would also hazard a guess that the fact that everyone owns a gun in America makes police a lot more nervous and more likely to use them.
Sorry, but you cannot use one big government policy (that is the police) to justify the another (that is gun control).
Guns are valuable and useful to a criminal. So what if it's risky. Dimwits also try to take a policemans guns from their holster from time to time. Risky?
You clearly want a gun. In your mentally deranged state your risk assessment capacity might be on holiday and you might try to take a gun too
If someone doesn't have a gun, a common thug might not escalate a confrontation to murder. But if you have a gun, they might be a thug, they might be in the wrong, but all of a sudden, they now have a lawful reason to kill you in self defense.
Also again, if someone wants you dead - there's not much you can do except look over your shoulder all the time, never sleep and get someone else to start your car every day. You having a gun would just make them more careful
Also you still haven't answered what exactly gun you want? Do you think you even need to be trained? Exactly how far have you thought this through? Do you think putting guns in totally untrained hands is safe and reasonable?
So, do you think the police officers and security personell should not be carrying guns because it supposedly makes them a more likely target?
If you possessed more than a functioning brain cell you would know that that's not what I was getting at. You do you, I suppose
I know that's not what you are getting at, but that's what's implied. If you say gun might make people who carry them less safe, the implication is that police officers might also be less safe because of carrying a gun.
If teachers in schools all had a gun, for example, would the school be safer from guns?
Where I live, almost no one bar the police has a gun. The chances of me being a victim of gun violence is far lower than say if I was in America where most people do have a gun. I can go out for a jog and not have to worry some bored punk teenagers will shoot me in the back for a laugh
You still haven't told us what gun you want. So what gun do you want?
-
Yes, carrying a gun might make you less safe. Even police officers could have their guns taken and used against them, but they are supposed to be more trained than the average gun owner. It still happens sometimes. Acknowledging this doesn't mean they should or shouldn't be allowed to carry guns.
-
what gun you want?
-
An issue I have been thinking a lot about lately is gun control. Should Croatia, the country where I live, pass stricter gun control laws?
"Gun Control", or Self Defense restrictions?
Are you going to need to start killing Russians any time soon?
There are people who, right now, need specific tools to remain alive.
How dare you tell another man he has no right to defend his life and the lives of his family.
My favorite quote: "when seconds matter, police are only minutes away".
-
You need gun control if you have gun problems or very loud/ rich complainers...
Govt are usually reactive.
-
My favorite quote: "when seconds matter, police are only minutes away".
My favourite quote is: If at first you don't succeed, don't go skydiving. It has no relevance here but is probably a more interesting subject..
-
My favorite quote: "when seconds matter, police are only minutes away".
My favourite quote is: If at first you don't succeed, don't go skydiving. It has no relevance here but is probably a more interesting subject..
As is said, "It's not the fall, it's the sudden stop".
-
My favorite quote: "when seconds matter, police are only minutes away".
My favourite quote is: If at first you don't succeed, don't go skydiving. It has no relevance here but is probably a more interesting subject..
I've gone sky diving a few times. Fun. Totally recommend.
-
My favorite quote: "when seconds matter, police are only minutes away".
My favourite quote is: If at first you don't succeed, don't go skydiving. It has no relevance here but is probably a more interesting subject..
As is said, "It's not the fall, it's the sudden stop".
It's really part of you suddenly stopping while the rest of you keeps going (for a fraction of a second longer) that is the problem. If your entire body stopped all at once you would be fine.
Stupid physics.
-
My favourite quote is: If at first you don't succeed, don't go skydiving. It has no relevance here but is probably a more interesting subject..
My mother's one of VERY many boyfriends, Frank Gore, had a dick friend, Scott. He came to intrude on my home. Stayed for 7 days. Brought his blonde skanky ho with him. Susan.
He was a skydiver. Her, not so much So, wtf, I bought a 5,200 foot seat in a piper cub. Just to ride, not to jump.
There was no door. I was with my back against the firewall. My left leg dangling out the missing side of the plane.
I was 14. First time in an airplane. Safety reasons, I had to wear a para shoot.
Here's the awesome part . . . . . . .
We dumped the fall people and ran off for a bit.
Pilot tipped 90 degrees to port and fell 4000 feet
Weightless, my left leg wiggling in the dead fall wind.
Again, first time in an airplane.
-
Here's a graph that you couldn't replicate in any other western country.
Leading Causes of Death among Children and Adolescents in the United States, 1999 through 2020. from the CDC.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2201761
(https://www.nejm.org/na101/home/literatum/publisher/mms/journals/content/nejm/0/nejm.ahead-of-print/nejmc2201761/20220420/images/img_xlarge/nejmc2201761_f1.jpeg)
Click to enlarge.
From the office of national statistics (UK), "In 2020, the main causes of death among children aged 28 days to 15 years continued to be congenital malformations, deformations and chromosomal abnormalities."
Not being blown away, or blowing yourself away with a purpose built killing machine found laying around the house, go freedumb!
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/bulletins/childhoodinfantandperinatalmortalityinenglandandwales/2020
-
Here's a graph that you couldn't replicate in any other western country.
The graph proves nothing whatsoever about legal gun ownership.
Criminals, strangely, don't abide by the rule of law... and that includes gun control laws.
So, how does the graph you posted deal with sorting out gang violence using illegal guns?
https://safeatlast.co/blog/gang-violence-statistics/
Or guns that filtered in through the drug cartels running the Southern Border?
https://ips-dc.org/arms_trafficking_at_the_us-mexico_border/
Please note, the drug cartels are getting firearms from the US Government.... so, at least address that aspect.
Gun Violence from American citizens who are legal gun owners is practically zero.
-
all great NRA talking points.
say something new.
hwo about we move this conversation forward instead of starting from scratch.
you tell us who you are so we can start from any previous interactions.
-
Isn't the point discussed regarding gun control laws?
Legal or illegal, the death toll of children by guns is shocking and you cant just pretend it's a non issue just because the guns were illegally obtained/used. It's because of the shitty almost non existent gun control laws that has put guns in the hands of child gangs in the first place.
Gun control laws work
https://www.jcu.edu.au/news/releases/2018/october/tough-laws-prevent-gun-deaths
Although the case of America would be a tall order given it has embedded it so deeply in its culture. You get the damn things as Christmas presents lol
In Australia it is not impossible to own a gun. I could probably get access to one but I'd need a genuine reason (of which self defense is not one), training, a license and not be an ex crim or suffering mental illness
America glorifies that each private citizen can have many many guns and even more ammunition that could take on a small army. That isn't even what the 2nd Amendment was talking about but its been twisted and now you all think its your divine right lol
You dont bring a knife to a gun fight - you dont bring a gun to a drone fight. If you think all your guns could give your government pause to over step its authority well I say 2 things. 1. Drones that can fly higher than commercial aircraft and can just bomb your house from above. Your guns mean f&#k all. And 2, America is sliding into embracing authoritarianism as evidenced by tens of millions of people love of Trump and support of his insurrection attempt. A lot of you guys want a strongman dictator as a leader lol
-
buddy's badfaithed trolling
ignore this fool
-
Gun Violence from American citizens who are legal gun owners is practically zero.
I don't know about gun violence in general, but as far as mass shooting go, you are wrong...by a lot...as usual:
Number of mass shootings in the United States between 1982 and February 2022, by legality of shooter's weapons (https://www.statista.com/statistics/476461/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-legality-of-shooters-weapons/)
(https://i.imgur.com/9QEtiWJ.png)
-
I mean talk about blinkered, to reiterate, more children die by guns than from any other reason in your country.
That is appalling surely and purely down to your culture of gun ownership at any cost, and you still scrabble around trying to justify that cuture by blaming others.
-
Across states, more guns = more homicide (2)
Using survey data on rates of household gun ownership, we examined the association between gun availability and homicide across states, 2001-2003. We found that states with higher levels of household gun ownership had higher rates of firearm homicide and overall homicide. This relationship held for both genders and all age groups, after accounting for rates of aggravated assault, robbery, unemployment, urbanization, alcohol consumption, and resource deprivation (e.g., poverty). There was no association between gun prevalence and non-firearm homicide.
Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David. State-level homicide victimization rates in the U.S. in relation to survey measures of household firearm ownership, 2001-2003. Social Science and Medicine. 2007; 64:656-64.
A separate study, published by the American Academy of Pediatrics in 2021, linked a rise in gun ownership during the pandemic to higher rates of gun injuries among - and inflicted by - children.
-
I mean talk about blinkered, to reiterate, more children die by guns than from any other reason in your country.
That is appalling surely and purely down to your culture of gun ownership at any cost, and you still scrabble around trying to justify that cuture by blaming others.
Imagine missing the point by as much as they did while hand waving away children having their lives cut short by guns.
But it's the gangs! And the foreigners! Not good, decent, god-fearing sportsmen like myself that open carry our weapons into McDonald's and Walmart because it's muh right to do so. Why, if I had been around at the time, I'd have solved the problem with my good-guy-gun before those thugs even had a chance to do the bad thing.
-
I mean talk about blinkered, to reiterate, more children die by guns than from any other reason in your country.
That is appalling surely and purely down to your culture of gun ownership at any cost, and you still scrabble around trying to justify that cuture by blaming others.
Certainly, the rise in knife related crimes in the UK:
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-42749089
is due to both the UK culture of buying knives at any cost... The saddest part is that if concealed carry were universal, the knife violence would surely go down.
-
How many kids are dying because of knife violence in the UK?
-
How many kids are dying because of knife violence in the UK?
Don't know... but whatever number it may be, it's not due to knives being dangerous sharp things, but rather that they can cause great harm in the hand of criminals or a klutz.
-
so if by that logic you had a 17 high velocity hollow point throwing knives and could extend that reach to 25-50yards they could also cause great harm in the hand of criminals or a klutz?
oh wait...someone already posted a stat on kids shooting themselves, their moms, or their brothers in the face.
and you already mentioned criminals...
good one
good irrelevant point about conceal carry.
hwo about you show us where the amount of criminals who know the other criminal has a gun decreased the amount of crime.
FFS why you think starting at the beginning would be very productive.
guns and USA is not a new thing.
you're clearly not new here.
piss off.
what's next?
the one time something happened in japan a maniac hacking school children?
your line of talking pionts is very obvious.
be less obvious.
-
How many kids are dying because of knife violence in the UK?
Don't know... but whatever number it may be, it's not due to knives being dangerous sharp things, but rather that they can cause great harm in the hand of criminals or a klutz.
In 2021 it was 30
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-59916035
News flash - child stabbings also happen in America. How about you post some figures before anyone else does
-
buddy doesn't have enough time to show us in which 166pizer doc is his amazing 2week immune system vacation claim because he has "better things to do"
but has the time to be here trying to do something else.
piss off
-
what happened to the schizo guy who wanted to get a gun?
he's yet to say what gun he wants!
now that's interesting
-
I picked up a book at a charity store a few weeks back called Another day in the death of America, the story of the 23rd of November 2013 to be precise and the 10 children from 9 to 19 who were killed by guns in that 24 hours, none made the news, and yes there were gang killings, one of whom was probably a killer in his own right and the gun nuts will go yeah see, but he wasn't a smart kid, bought up in a neighbourhood where you didn't see many men over 25 cos they were either in prison or dead, their own fault right?
But one of the kids answered the door of his house and his step father shot him in the face, because he had decided to commit suicide by cop and the lads mother had thrown him out a few years back.
In another house two kids left alone by the father of one, found his rifle and accidentally shot his friend through the chest.
Another, two young teens on the periphery of gang culture were feeling threatened by an older kid and got a gun (that easily), They were horsing around with it, he'd taken out the mag to make it safe and his girlfriend put it to his chest and pulled the trigger, bam!
Now you can explain away with blame and finger pointing all of these, but the point was, the author (Gary Younge) picked the day at random he could have picked any day that year or any other year and done that book and it would have left me with the same sense of bleakness, and none of them made the news.
And the gun troll brings up the knife deaths in the UK, sigh.
There were 34 firearm homicides in the US per million of population in 2016, compared with 0.48 shooting-related murders in the UK.
Knife murders are also higher stateside: there were 4.96 homicides “due to knives or cutting instruments” in the US for every million of population in 2016.
In Britain there were 3.26 homicides involving a sharp instrument per million people in the year from April 2016 to March 2017
So you kill more with guns and knives.
And this actually proves the point we are making, people kill people, but guns demonstrably make it easier and more likely.
-
So you kill more with guns and knives.
"We’re going to win so much, you’re going to be so sick and tired of winning!"
I'm so tired of winning. So, so very tired.
-
https://thecrimereport.org/2022/01/13/can-americans-keep-their-guns-safe/
Apparently there's been something of a push lately to require gun owners to secure their guns. The fact that anyone would fight that legislation shows how deranged the discussion has gotten.
-
if parent's can't parent then they need to start teaching guns at school.
if a 5yo is shooting his feriend in the face
then they need to start teaching guns at school.
if you can have a fire drill and you can have a active shooter drill at school
then you can start teaching guns safety at school.
like many other things, parent's aren't parenting.
what's one more thing for taechers?
also
as personal safety weapon, that weapon better be on you at all times.
or else secure it.
in your hand bag is not secure.
that needs to be on your body.
-
It must be shit to only feel safe walking down the street if you’re packing a heavy lump of murder metal, just because anyone can.
Of course no one is safer when every arsehole has a gun and assumes everyone else does too.
A constant state of paranoia is great for gun sales though.
-
i
if you can have a fire drill and you can have a active shooter drill at school
then you can start teaching guns safety at school.
Or, and colour me crazy here, don’t have a fucking death machine in your house any where near a kid at all.
Stop believing in the bullshit the NRA is pumping about the millions of gangbangers lining up outside your house, because the arms makers that run it want to make another billion dollars and your children are just acceptable losses to set against their profits.
also
as personal safety weapon, that weapon better be on you at all times.
???? It had better be otherwise your paranoia won't let you out of the house?
-
Im just completing the thought for the thoughtless...
-
Or, and colour me crazy here, don’t have a fucking death machine in your house any where near a kid at all.
Hang on! I thought this thread was about gun safety and not automobiles:
https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/motor-vehicle/historical-fatality-trends/deaths-by-age-group/
-
So youre saying guns should have a licensing program, pass a competency test, sales of guns should be registered and transfer of ownership documented, safety requirements and recall standards, speed limits to curb unsafe usage, impounding for usafe usage, cops regularly patroling for fines, and locked up with access by a key.
My goodness.
Keep running through the talking points.
For you gun rights libeetarians you also seem to like having big govt enforce ugly expensive fences around your backyard swimming pools
-
So youre saying guns should have a licensing program, pass a competency test, sales of guns should be registered and transfer of ownership documented, safety requirements and recall standards, speed limits to curb unsafe usage, impounding for usafe usage, cops regularly patroling for fines, and locked up with access by a key.
But that already applies to both guns and cars.
So, if those things all work... Why are deaths from car accidents rising?
Again, criminals don't abide by the law. That goes for things such as drunk driving, not wearing seat belts, disconnecting the safety features in a car, and even murdering random children with knives, guns, baseball bats, pillows, plastic bags, belts, or even just hands and feet.
Why not just admit that humans are violent creatures... and that laws against violence with Never Prevent violence?
Laws and the entire legal system can only deal with events that actually occur, unless we're talking about pre-crime....
Hmmm.... There seems to be an echo in here...
-
No
That applies to cars
And in SOME states it also applies to guns.
But not all states and not all points.
Extending the ability to kill one at a time vs many at a time is the difference.
People are violent.
No ones arguing that.
Keep failing.
Since youre aparently timsiiesi - bad arguments is your MO?
Only echos are in your head telling you how great youre doing.
-
So youre saying guns should have a licensing program, pass a competency test, sales of guns should be registered and transfer of ownership documented, safety requirements and recall standards, speed limits to curb unsafe usage, impounding for usafe usage, cops regularly patroling for fines, and locked up with access by a key.
Why not just admit that humans are violent creatures... and that laws against violence with Never Prevent violence?
AS TMK says.
Nobody is doubting the propensity for humans to kill each other, which is why it makes sense to limit their access to items specifically designed to do that one thing.
-
Extending the ability to kill one at a time vs many at a time is the difference..
Driving into a crowded market has been used to kill plenty of people at one time.
Therefore... Save the children! Let's Ban Cars!
-
Is that your proposal? No, just another smoke screen, you don’t care enough about the children to want to mitigate the problem that although cars kill people all around the developed nations it is only in the US where guns kill more children than cars, and they (guns) are exclusively made to kill, whereas cars are not.
-
Oh, neat, a red herring. Color me shocked. You could at least try to post like a new character.
The purpose of firing a gun is to take life. The purpose of driving a car is to travel. They are not the same.
-
Extending the ability to kill one at a time vs many at a time is the difference..
Driving into a crowded market has been used to kill plenty of people at one time.
Therefore... Save the children! Let's Ban Cars!
road curbs, barriers, and people's ability to run laterally, limiting attacks to outdoors near a road.
kinda limits car terrorism.
lets see
1 in toronto by incel POS
1 in paris by jihdais
1 in NY by jihadis
1 in waukesha, wisconsin by POS
1 in charlottesville by KKK
spanning XXXyears
just enough for my 5 fingers.
2022 already has 5 big notable shootings in one country:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States#2022
List of mass shootings (21st century)
2022
For a more comprehensive list, see List of mass shootings in the United States in 2022.
Date Location Dead Injured Total Description
April 17, 2022 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 2 13[n 1] 15 2022 Pittsburgh shooting: An early morning shooting at a party held at an Airbnb rental property in the East Allegheny neighborhood killed two juveniles and wounded eight others. Five people sustained injuries such as broken bones and cuts when they jumped out windows to escape the gunfire.[9]
April 16, 2022 Columbia, South Carolina 0 14[n 2] 14 Columbiana Centre shooting: Nine people were injured by gunfire at the Columbiana Centre mall, while five more were injured in evacuation accidents.[10]
April 12, 2022 New York City, New York 0 29[n 3] 29 2022 New York City Subway attack: Ten people were shot when a gunman opened fire on a New York City Subway train as it approached the 36th Street station in the Sunset Park neighborhood. Immediately before the attack, the assailant donned a gas mask and threw smoke bombs. The incident caused 19 others to be injured as they fled. The attacker fled the scene and was arrested after police received a tip-off after a 30-hour manhunt. He was identified as 62 year old Frank James.[11][12]
April 3, 2022 Sacramento, California 6 12 18 2022 Sacramento shooting: A shooting in downtown Sacramento killed six people and injured twelve others. The gunmen remain at large.[13]
February 19, 2022 Portland, Oregon 1 5[n 4] 6 Normandale Park shooting: During a racial justice protest, a man confronted a group of protestors and engaged in an argument with them, before pulling out a gun and opening fire, killing one and wounding four others. One of the people in the group returned fire and wounded the perpetrator.[14]
keep failing.
running through your BS talking points.
ban knives?
how about banning super cars, loud exhausts, other racing gear not suitable for regular roads.
ya looks like cars are heavily regulated.
doesn't help your non point.
-
doesn't help your non point.
You're right... the only safe owner of mass death machines should be the Government...
-
you jumping around a lot
it's almost as if you don't have an actual argument
yes
beucase war is pretty disruptive and destabilizes the general function of govt as seen in famines and refugees and such in those "shit countries".
how many nuclear gov'ts are there?
are we talking about guns or WMD?
-
how many nuclear gov'ts are there?
More every year.
are we talking about guns or WMD?
What's the difference? ... apparently.
-
how many nuclear gov'ts are there?
More every year.
are we talking about guns or WMD?
What's the difference? ... apparently.
How many people can you kill with a gun versus how many can you kill with an a-bomb?
And if you are going to correlate the two, guns versus WMD's, are you saying that I should be able to go to a gun show and purchase a nuclear weapon and maybe throw in for a bio-chemical barrel bomb?
-
So youre for UN sanctions to prevent more nukes?
Or criminals can be in office as evident and people are prone to violence... so theyll always find a way to get nukes?
Or that it takes a little more than 1 person to agree to launch.
Vs some jackass buying a gun bexause hes angry?
Your only example is the time it was used 80yrs ago?
Whats your point?
Make a point or piss off.
-
Continuing to derail this thread with whataboutisms is not going to be fruitful, TimApple. Stop.
-
Cars can be dangerous which is why he have laws regarding their use, and who can use them.
Kinda like... gun control laws. If you are going to equate the two, then you have to agree we need gun control laws too.
Or argue we should have no laws at all about cars. Remove all safety regulations, speed limits, age limits, licensing. That would be fun.
Also, apparently this is the thread for this.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e5/Gospers_glider_gun.gif)
-
Also, apparently this is the thread for this.
Well, the title asks what I think about gun control laws.
I read in this thread that guns are:
1. Dangerous
2. Used to kill a large number of people all at once.
3. Not at all useful in any way whatsoever to anyone except a child murderer and Governments for making war - therefore killing many more humans than any individual could possible kill with a consumer firearm.
However, what I don't read in this thread is that there are:
1. Millions upon millions of US citizens who legal own firearms and don't kill anyone at, ever.
2. Firearms, and the 2nd Amendment, are to ensure the people have some physical check on the Government.
3. Personal firearms actually have saved lives in many cases throughout the history of personally owned firearms.
One could argue that people get killed... even kids... yes.
But, can anyone name Any product that hasn't been used to kill someone?
Maybe we should ban matches and lighter too... accidental house fires kill plenty of kids.
Admit the positives of firearms, and then a debate can be made about some level of regulation - if necessary.
-
No one ever used a beanie baby to kill anyone.
-
1. Millions upon millions of US citizens who legal own firearms and don't kill anyone at, ever.
what's that got to do with the criminals?
that's not a point.
your point was criminals do the criminals.
what's your point?
make a point.
2. Firearms, and the 2nd Amendment, are to ensure the people have some physical check on the Government.
so's the right to vote, protest, and free press to check on the govt.
make a point.
you're just mkaing a statement.
i can do that too "ducks have wings."
make a point.
3. Personal firearms actually have saved lives in many cases throughout the history of personally owned firearms.
lokos like you didn't read this thread as you so called claimed you did.
One could argue that people get killed... even kids... yes.
no one but an idiot or disingenuos POS woudl argue that.
if you're both, i'd assume you're ted cruz's alt.
are you ted cruz?
But, can anyone name Any product that hasn't been used to kill someone?
Maybe we should ban matches and lighter too... accidental house fires kill plenty of kids.
wow great we've hit the "ban knives" talking piont i mentioned earlier.
Admit the positives of firearms, and then a debate can be made about some level of regulation - if necessary.
yes the guns are good at doing the effective killing of things.
that is a given, given the amount of killing they've been shown to do.
and as i've already mentioned, everyone else here is waaay ahead of you, try and keep up, as we're already on the "debate of some regulation - is necessary."
you, being a stupid person, decided to try and restart at the conversation at the begining
cehck in from 1960s/ more recently 2008 SCOTUS DC vs Heller.
https://www.americanprogress.org/article/guns-lies-fear/
-
Of course I didn't read the whole thread before posting to it.... Why would I do that? Someone else may have voiced what I wanted to write... and then what? No fun.
Gun control laws only make criminals out of innocent citizens and lock a couple of the bad ones away for a few years.
Other than that, they do nothing.
Planned murders will still happen. Emotional murders will still happen. The weapon used to commit the murder will change, but the rest will stay the same.
-
However, what I don't read in this thread is that there are:
Oh
Nice generic claim then.
Maybe dont make sweeping claims if youre going to join late to the party...
As already mentioned...
-
Of course I didn't read the whole thread before posting to it.... Why would I do that? Someone else may have voiced what I wanted to write... and then what? No fun.
Gun control laws only make criminals out of innocent citizens and lock a couple of the bad ones away for a few years.
Other than that, they do nothing.
Planned murders will still happen. Emotional murders will still happen. The weapon used to commit the murder will change, but the rest will stay the same.
"Punish" the law abiding... talking point.
Greeat.
How so?
Name a punishment.
Finish the thought.
They do nothing?
Just like covid mitigation.
For some reason mitigation is put in place, people ignore tjem, and we still have covid - gee why? Who knows...
Emotional murders rarely involve killing the girldriend her sister mother children and any other persons in range of said 17 high velocity hollow point knives.
Yes.
You have a handful of knife examples.
Good for you.
-
Maybe dont make sweeping claims if youre going to join late to the party...
Probably right about that one.
I'll be sure to do better next time.
-
Ukrainians should not have personal defense weapons.
Women and children could get hurt.
I don't understand who some folks believe will protect them when shit goes down.
-
When seconds matter, police are only minutes away.
-
One could argue that people get killed... even kids... yes.
Admit the positives of firearms, and then a debate can be made about some level of regulation - if necessary
Quotes above from the bad faith troll.
So, after being presented with the figures that show guns kill more kids than anything in the US, something that is unique to the US, the country that has more guns than people. Then trying to move it to knives and being owned on that because as well as shooting way more people than anywhere else they also manage to stab more than any other country (per capita), we get, “It could be argued!”.
Then he gets pawned on the car issue, because they are heavily regulated, you need to have training, have safety features built in and they must be sold with registration documents.
Troll says “some level of regulation - if necessary”.
Let’s look at that.
A Feb. 17, 2014 Washington Post article on Smart Guns used a 1997 survey showing 71 percent of Americans in favour of a Smart Gun and 59 percent of the 71 percent being gun owners. The National Shooting Sports Foundation and other Second Amendment activists found their surveys to report only 14 percent of American gun owners favouring Smart Guns. Funny that?
I have a smart phone with excellent thumbprint recognition, I have had it for 3 years and it has never failed, we have RFID proximity tech’ on our cars and probably all other crazy shit in the pipeline, but the NRA is vehemently opposed to smart guns, fuck the kids and all the other unnecessary deaths, they are worried it is the thin end of the wedge.
These people, your type of people, do not deserve to have a say, because all they want is to sell unregulated firearms to anyone and damn the individual or collective pain the gun death figures hide, but they do because they have the money.
And as for bringing in the Ukrainians! Jesus Christ, good luck standing in the street with your pop gun waving your second amendment, In the face of cruise missiles, I bet that keeps Putin awake at night.
-
Yeah, 1791 wasn’t it? We were still pledging allegiance to the king, women didn’t have the vote, move on, being wedded to outdated laws for a completely different set of circumstances makes you look a bit backward.
(This was in reply to Bully posting a bit of the 2nd amendment (shall not be infringed), but it had gone. I'll leave it here just in case he still thinks it has any relevance today.)
-
Yeah, 1791 wasn’t it? We were still pledging allegiance to the king, women didn’t have the vote, move on, being wedded to outdated laws for a completely different set of circumstances makes you look a bit backward.
Do you really think the 2nd Amendment is a law?
-
I have no fucking idea to be honest, it gets thrown about like a dead baby at a zombie convention whenever guns are mentioned to Americans, so I know they/you need it to continue living, I was just trying to put it in context to what else was retarded at the time it was written.
edit for kicks.
-
Yeah, 1791 wasn’t it? We were still pledging allegiance to the king, women didn’t have the vote, move on, being wedded to outdated laws for a completely different set of circumstances makes you look a bit backward.
(This was in reply to Bully posting a bit of the 2nd amendment (shall not be infringed), but it had gone. I'll leave it here just in case he still thinks it has any relevance today.)
the post was: . . . shall not be infringed.
It lacked a shit load of context.
Sorry, Jura, didn't mean to leave you stranded.
-
But it is infringed.
Prisoners can't have guns in prison. GUN CONTROL!!
-
Yeah, 1791 wasn’t it? We were still pledging allegiance to the king, women didn’t have the vote, move on, being wedded to outdated laws for a completely different set of circumstances makes you look a bit backward.
Do you really think the 2nd Amendment is a law?
Yes.
The Constitution and its Amendments are the Law of the Land.
---
Constitutional America will always have citizen owned firearms.
The current restrictions will be the maximum restrictions because that the way Constitutional America works. Those who aren't on board with that, get over it.
-
Well regulated militia
When SHTF you can get a gun from jimbob or rhe local armory.
You dont need one now.
You are a person, not the people.
The scotus was bought off.
Yss.
Legalized bribery.
Those-qho-dont-like-it learn to vote better.
Those-who-dont-like those-who-ddont like-it will learn wjat the 2ndA is rsally about.
Keep failing at making a coherent argument
-
The current restrictions will be the maximum restrictions because that the way Constitutional America works. Those who aren't on board with that, get over it.
Why?
The constitution says nothing about high capacity magazines, fully automatic weapons, SAMs, tanks, armed drones, attack helicopters, etc. because they didn’t exist at the time. Most normal people would agree at least some of those things shouldn’t be available to the general public, so it’s clearly up for debate what restrictions should apply to modern weapons in modern society.
Or just draw the line at flintlock muskets and pistols.
-
We got thhe 10commandments.
Why we need anything else?
We got leviticus.
Why we need anything else?
-
The current restrictions will be the maximum restrictions because that the way Constitutional America works. Those who aren't on board with that, get over it.
Why?
The constitution says nothing about high capacity magazines, fully automatic weapons, SAMs, tanks, armed drones, attack helicopters, etc. because they didn’t exist at the time. Most normal people would agree at least some of those things shouldn’t be available to the general public, so it’s clearly up for debate what restrictions should apply to modern weapons in modern society.
Or just draw the line at flintlock muskets and pistols.
Strangely...
Muskets and single shot pistols are highly restricted in some areas of the country.
On the specificity of the Constitutional Right to Bear Arms... look no further than the 10th Amendment.
https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/amendment/amendment-x
This necessarily means that the Federal Government has no authority to make laws regrading citizen Firearm ownership. That's up to individual States... and if the States decline that role, the People fill in those rules for themselves.
-
Fire is hot.
Make a point.
-
Fire is hot.
Make a point.
The point is the whole thread is like arguing whether or not grass is green.
Firearm ownership is legal in the USA, and will remain so for the foreseeable future. Federal restrictions are necessarily Unconstitutional. Eventually all such Federal restrictions will be lifted, as long as the USA remains a Constitutional Republic. The number of States instituting Constitutional Carry is growing rapidly. I think it's up to 22 States. At a certain point, the recognized right to carry a firearm will reach what Marijuana levels.... essentially overriding the Federal rules anyway.
And, no, it doesn't matter if "reasonable people agree to xyz thing" ... The Constitution along with the 2nd and 10th Amendments mean arguing over Gun Control Laws in the USA is a silly exercise... kind of like arguing against a Round Earth...
If people here, or even more ridiculous people from other countries, don't like that fact... oh well... Get Over It.
-
And as a moron you are happy with that, we get it, what we don’t get is why it is happening. Unless the US is populated totally by morons.
-
Data for gun control, taken from the Global Children’s Fund.
From 2009 to 2013, 60% of guns recovered in crimes in Chicago were originally purchased in states with fewer restrictions on gun ownership, according to police. (Madhani, 2015) This suggests that most of the guns used in crime are a result of lax gun laws. A different report by Mayors Against Illegal Guns turned up similar results, showing that in 2009 states with lax gun laws exported guns involved in crimes at significantly higher rates than states with strict regulations. Ten states with lax gun laws supplied 49% of the 43,000 guns linked to U.S. crime scenes. (Time, Oct. 11, 2010, p. 15)
Also, from their site on the notion that more guns will equal less crime, a particularly ludicrous argument pushed by gun lobbies and slavishly followed by morons.
On top of these issues, this myth can also be easily disproven. The U.S. has the highest gun ownership rate of all industrialized nations by far. It also leads in another statistical category: the highest crime rate of all industrialized nations. (Thompson & Hickey, 2006) If having more guns really did deter crime, we’d have the lowest crime rate as opposed to the highest. If anything, this suggests that more guns = more crime.
This correlation shows up in every data set you look at. A 2015 study by researchers at Boston Children’s Hospital and Harvard University examined data from both the FBI and the CDC. It was found that firearm assaults are 6.8 times more common in states with the most guns as compared to states with the least. (Wenner-Moyer, 2017) So if you live in a state with a high rate of gun ownership, you’re nearly 7-times more likely to die a violent death via gun violence than those living in states where there are less guns
https://keepyourchildsafe.org/guns/gun-control-effects/
-
...Unless the US is populated totally by morons.
Something about monkeys in separate cages laughing at the "one" in the cage....
-
Fire is hot.
Make a point.
The point is the whole thread is like arguing whether or not grass is green.
Firearm ownership is legal in the USA, and will remain so for the foreseeable future. Federal restrictions are necessarily Unconstitutional. Eventually all such Federal restrictions will be lifted, as long as the USA remains a Constitutional Republic. The number of States instituting Constitutional Carry is growing rapidly. I think it's up to 22 States. At a certain point, the recognized right to carry a firearm will reach what Marijuana levels.... essentially overriding the Federal rules anyway.
And, no, it doesn't matter if "reasonable people agree to xyz thing" ... The Constitution along with the 2nd and 10th Amendments mean arguing over Gun Control Laws in the USA is a silly exercise... kind of like arguing against a Round Earth...
If people here, or even more ridiculous people from other countries, don't like that fact... oh well... Get Over It.
finally
buddy decides to make a point and has somting to discuss.
no it's not
the thread is deciding if the current level of regulation is appropriate or not - not that firearm ownership is legal or not.
restrictions are NOT unconstitutional.
if the people have access to a gun, then it is NOT unconstitutional.
having a fed registry doesn't impede the right.
yes
states get to decide, not the feds.
that's the 2ndA.
the argument is what laws are appropriate.
if the people vote for the stupid laws, they get the stupid laws.
more to the fact, if people continue to support ted cruz, he wil continue to support the big gun lobby at the cost to his constiuents.
argueing roudn earth vs gun control laws is not the same.
govt make policy that affect the people.
if people don't like the policy being put on them, they vote them out.
what do you think gov't is supposed to do?
-
Guns kill.
Guns are supposed to kill.
Guns are scary when seen because they mean someone might wanna kill you.
Police (civillians with guns. *Hint hint* ) are basically scared all the damn time of being shot because anyone or everyone could have a gun and want them dead.
This is why police in America is a shit job, has shit training, and are trained to shoot first. Because hesitation means dying.
-
the thread is deciding if the current level of regulation is appropriate or not - not that firearm ownership is legal or not.
restrictions are NOT unconstitutional.
Federal Restrictions are Unconstitutional. That's not really debatable as the language is quite clear. "Experts" can be wrong... see other threads on that topic. So, the fact that any given SCOTUS has ruled on firearm restrictions in the past, makes no difference in the plain language Unconstitutional status of Federal firearm restrictions.
states get to decide, not the feds.
Partly true, but misleading. States _or_ The People. Don't blur reality. That happens way too much on this forum anyway...
that's the 2ndA.
No, that's the 10th Amendment.
---
The rest of your post is irrevelant due to discussing Federal legislative and such.
-
the thread is deciding if the current level of regulation is appropriate or not - not that firearm ownership is legal or not.
restrictions are NOT unconstitutional.
Federal Restrictions are Unconstitutional. That's not really debatable as the language is quite clear. "Experts" can be wrong... see other threads on that topic. So, the fact that any given SCOTUS has ruled on firearm restrictions in the past, makes no difference in the plain language Unconstitutional status of Federal firearm restrictions.
Know what the federal government can't do? Give gun licenses.
Know what they can do? Restrict what can or can't be sold. Including guns.
-
Eighty-five percent of the children in the world who are killed by guns are killed in the United States. (ABC World News, Jan. 8, 2013)
-
the thread is deciding if the current level of regulation is appropriate or not - not that firearm ownership is legal or not.
restrictions are NOT unconstitutional.
Federal Restrictions are Unconstitutional. That's not really debatable as the language is quite clear. "Experts" can be wrong... see other threads on that topic. So, the fact that any given SCOTUS has ruled on firearm restrictions in the past, makes no difference in the plain language Unconstitutional status of Federal firearm restrictions.
I hate to be the guy to bring this up in every second amendment debate but you're misunderstanding the purpose of this amendment. It was added as a way to appease the slave states by making a way to create a militia for the purpose of suppressing slave uprisings.
This whole safeguard against tyranny idea was made up later on. You can make an argument that 2a is good for that but that's not what it was written for.
-
the thread is deciding if the current level of regulation is appropriate or not - not that firearm ownership is legal or not.
restrictions are NOT unconstitutional.
Federal Restrictions are Unconstitutional. That's not really debatable as the language is quite clear. "Experts" can be wrong... see other threads on that topic. So, the fact that any given SCOTUS has ruled on firearm restrictions in the past, makes no difference in the plain language Unconstitutional status of Federal firearm restrictions.
states get to decide, not the feds.
Partly true, but misleading. States _or_ The People. Don't blur reality. That happens way too much on this forum anyway...
that's the 2ndA.
No, that's the 10th Amendment.
---
The rest of your post is irrevelant due to discussing Federal legislative and such.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
exegsisly and literally speaking
the people have the right to bear arms.
the people will also be regulated and part of a militia.
you, being a single person, must earn the right to qualify for the militia.
the scotus who deemed self defense was paid off by the NRA and should be impeached.
same with the ajckasses who made a corporation a person and whatever other stupid decisions in recent history that fked over the country.
necessary for free state - meaning the regulated state militia/ guard should have access to military grade and heavy artillery because... you can't go against the fed army if all you got are pewpews.
restrictions are not infringements.
let's take it by level:
1 in self defense terms - if i gave you a derringer, it classifies as arms, you aren't infringed.
2 however a derringer will not keep the state free from military forces so then it is infringement.
3 unless there's a well regulated milita (state guard) that has access to big boy guns. looks like there is. so it's not infrignement.
great
check mate, king me, uker, touchdown.
-
must earn the right to qualify for the militia.
Wrong.
The militia was, at the time of the 2nd Amendment, consisted of common citizens and was locally organized. It was not a Government run institution, federal or otherwise. And, it was very much BYOF ... Bring Your Own Firearm.
The Constitution and the 2nd Amendment, as written, literally means... "The Commoner's right to have a firearm that is as powerful as the Government's firearms... Shall not be infringed."
-
let's all take note you're cherry picking and "conveniently" omited some words to take the statement out of context.
what do you think a well regulated militia means?
probably didn't think before you chose the other word "literally".
the people.
not the person.
literally.
while we agree the WELL REGULATED militia gets to ahve big guns.
army and militia kick people out all the time for being unfit for service.
you, timissiess, must qualify you're not a liabilty to the others.
if you're going to be a liability, you get the practice wooden gun and a whistle.
-
what do you think a well regulated militia means?
Since the Constitution is the Law of the Land, and the 2nd Amendment was instituted pretty much directly after the Revolution which secured The People's freedom from what was termed a Tyrannical King George III... and the Constitution was written specifically as a list of Powers the People **granted to** the Government... not the other way around...
It's nonsensical to argue that the 2nd Amendment referred to a strong central Government licensing and regulating citizens. It's simply an absurd argument to try to make on your part.
But, hey! ... If Americans don't want the 2nd Amendment anymore... all that needs to happen is:
1. Congress needs to pass an Amendment rescinding the 2nd.
2. The new Amendment needs to be passed by 2/3 of the States.
Good luck with that, since almost 1/2 the States have already passed Constitutional Carry.
---
However, it's fun to have circular and nonsensical discussions on the Interwebs with arm chair opponents of various political proclivities and nationalities.
-
It's nonsensical to argue that the 2nd Amendment referred to a strong central Government licensing and regulating citizens. It's simply an absurd argument to try to make on your part.
regulation is not an infringement.
at what point is it an infringement?
keep repeating it doesn't further your attempt at a point.
it's only circular because i ask you a question to expand your thought, and you repeat the same 1st stupid thing.
state why it's an infringement.
break the loop.
the 2ndA didn't ref to a strong central gov't licensing.
ti dint' ref to
and it didn't ref against.
i never made the agrument it did.
i made an arugment that there should - adn that is different.
it is absurd you put words in my mouth for the sole purpsoe to call it absurd.
very tuckerC/ jWatters/ tactic of you.
state why it's an infringment.
you're right.
it's nonsensincal to exchange ideas with badfaith POS like yourself - what article said the immune ssystme would shutdown for 2wks?
however
in a society, as ideas exchange, repeated, explored, they like language become common knowledge.
then people will create a belief system based on those discussions.
20yrs ago smoking and drinking and driving weren't that bad.
30yrs ago it was not that bad to use Fggt and Nrggr
you're really not very good at this.
-
The current restrictions will be the maximum restrictions because that the way Constitutional America works. Those who aren't on board with that, get over it.
Why?
The constitution says nothing about high capacity magazines, fully automatic weapons, SAMs, tanks, armed drones, attack helicopters, etc. because they didn’t exist at the time. Most normal people would agree at least some of those things shouldn’t be available to the general public, so it’s clearly up for debate what restrictions should apply to modern weapons in modern society.
Or just draw the line at flintlock muskets and pistols.
Weapons at that time were state of the art and the founders knew that.
Don't pretend they were too tardid to know shit would advance further.
It's amazing some folks believe the second amendment is the one sentence they fucked up.
-
The current restrictions will be the maximum restrictions because that the way Constitutional America works. Those who aren't on board with that, get over it.
Why?
The constitution says nothing about high capacity magazines, fully automatic weapons, SAMs, tanks, armed drones, attack helicopters, etc. because they didn’t exist at the time. Most normal people would agree at least some of those things shouldn’t be available to the general public, so it’s clearly up for debate what restrictions should apply to modern weapons in modern society.
Or just draw the line at flintlock muskets and pistols.
Weapons at that time were state of the art and the founders knew that.
Don't pretend they were too tardid to know shit would advance further.
It's amazing some folks believe the second amendment is the one sentence they fucked up.
Right. So do you believe that members of the public should have access to the level of firepower your government has?
Assuming you’re not completely insane, I take it you believe there should be some restrictions. How do you decide what restrictions are appropriate? The constitution won’t help you make that decision.
-
"Tyranical" is iffy. They certainly hated the taxes without having a spot in parliament. And soldiers started being dicks/killing.
But they also were polarized so basically King George was hitler before hitler.
And while the founders knew arms would advance, they probably didn't imagine cruise missiles, talks, or atomic weapons. That shit is the power of GOD.
That being said, the local police force is technically a well regulated malitia. Its run by an elected official and employed by civillians and has access to alot of big guns and ensures a free state. (Free from slave uprisings)
But again, taken literally without checks, that means a prisoner has the right to bear arms in prison. And we all know thats a dumb argument.
-
If people here, or even more ridiculous people from other countries, don't like that fact... oh well... Get Over It.
Less ridiculous than suggesting open carry guns would reduce knife crime my country though.
I don’t really have anything to get over. It’s just fascinating to talk to Americans about the completely out of control gun problem you have, which most developed countries don’t.
Do you actually have any ideas on how to address it? Do you want it addressed? Or just pretend that it’s all fine because the constitution?
-
the thread is deciding if the current level of regulation is appropriate or not - not that firearm ownership is legal or not.
restrictions are NOT unconstitutional.
Federal Restrictions are Unconstitutional. That's not really debatable as the language is quite clear.
This particular federal restriction was not found to be unconstitutional:
Federal Assault Weapons Ban (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban)
The 10-year ban was passed by the US Congress on September 13, 1994, following a close 52–48 vote in the US Senate, and was signed into law by US President Bill Clinton on the same day. The ban applied only to weapons manufactured after the date of the ban's enactment. It expired on September 13, 2004, in accordance with its sunset provision. Several constitutional challenges were filed against provisions of the ban, but all were rejected by the courts. There were multiple attempts to renew the ban, but none succeeded.
"Experts" can be wrong... see other threads on that topic. So, the fact that any given SCOTUS has ruled on firearm restrictions in the past, makes no difference in the plain language Unconstitutional status of Federal firearm restrictions.
I guess the SCOTUS is irrelevant then? I mean, that's sort of their job, you know, ruling on constitutional matters - And they happen to be the last stop when it comes to such matters.
-
I should have my own nuclear arsenal. I promise I would be very responsible with it!
-
But again, taken literally without checks, that means a prisoner has the right to bear arms in prison. And we all know thats a dumb argument.
First time I've seen someone wack their own strawman. ;)
-
I should have my own nuclear arsenal. I promise I would be very responsible with it!
I would rather have you control the codes than any politician.
-
If people here, or even more ridiculous people from other countries, don't like that fact... oh well... Get Over It.
Less ridiculous than suggesting open carry guns would reduce knife crime my country though.
I don’t really have anything to get over. It’s just fascinating to talk to Americans about the completely out of control gun problem you have, which most developed countries don’t.
Do you actually have any ideas on how to address it? Do you want it addressed? Or just pretend that it’s all fine because the constitution?
This.
It isn't that I have any irons in this fire, it's just seeing a country or a good part of it ignore the fact that the more guns they buy the more of their own people die so, they buy more guns.
It's like in the name of my freedom I will continue to hit this wasp nest because back when they had buckles on their shoes it seemed like a good idea, the rest of the world has worked this out but you can't.
-
I should have my own nuclear arsenal. I promise I would be very responsible with it!
I would rather have you control the codes than any politician.
I vote to give SCG the football.
-
No one ever used a beanie baby to kill anyone.
I want to disagree out of pure spite but I can't find any evidence this is untrue.
-
If people here, or even more ridiculous people from other countries, don't like that fact... oh well... Get Over It.
Less ridiculous than suggesting open carry guns would reduce knife crime my country though.
I don’t really have anything to get over. It’s just fascinating to talk to Americans about the completely out of control gun problem you have, which most developed countries don’t.
Do you actually have any ideas on how to address it? Do you want it addressed? Or just pretend that it’s all fine because the constitution?
This.
It isn't that I have any irons in this fire, it's just seeing a country or a good part of it ignore the fact that the more guns they buy the more of their own people die so, they buy more guns.
It's like in the name of my freedom I will continue to hit this wasp nest because back when they had buckles on their shoes it seemed like a good idea, the rest of the world has worked this out but you can't.
sort of like they were groomed to say "i will die before i wear a mask or take a vaccine"
-
If people here, or even more ridiculous people from other countries, don't like that fact... oh well... Get Over It.
Less ridiculous than suggesting open carry guns would reduce knife crime my country though.
I don’t really have anything to get over. It’s just fascinating to talk to Americans about the completely out of control gun problem you have, which most developed countries don’t.
Do you actually have any ideas on how to address it? Do you want it addressed? Or just pretend that it’s all fine because the constitution?
Guns are illegal in Mexico. I live less than a mile from Tijuana.
I hear gunfire almost every night.
Laws don't solve anything. Prosecution does.
Plenty of laws, not much punishment.
So much for that argument.
I am safe in my neighborhood.
Seven miles North, Bario Logan, (less than two square miles),
couple of murders per week.
Why do you think that is.
(HINT: that's where the gangs live)
Remember when someone poisoned Tylenol?
Now there is a foil top on everything. Like a hypodermic needle couldn't shoot poison into a container through foil.
Also, take off your shoes so the plane doesn't explode.
Safety is an illusion.
-
I guess the SCOTUS is irrelevant then?
I didn't write that. You quoted my own words and then expanded on them to insert something I did not write nor imply.
Of course SCOTUS is relevant. But they have reversed themselves on some rather important issues in the past... which necessarily means that SCOTUS can be wrong and is _sometimes_ honest enough to admit it.
Therefore, placing any given SCOTUS ruling as "proof" of Constitutionality is not actually proof. The reality is: the plain language of the 2nd and 10th necessarily mean that Federal Congress has _no say_ in firearm restrictions in the USA. Eventually, a future SCOTUS will have the balls, or vaginal fortitude - as the case may be - to ensure that the Federal government gets out of the firearm regulation business... OR... the States will make that ruling OBE.
Note, I always capitalize States.... because that's the true nature of Constitutional America.
Note also, that I did not place any "goodness" or "badness" to the actual reality that the 2nd and 10th give citizens of the USA the literal right to Firearms that are comparable to the Government. That's simply the literal Constitutional guaranteed right as written _and_ intended by the writers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
If one is to have an honest discussion on this topic, one must include in the discussion Tyrannical Government and how a citizen lead militia would defend The People from that Tyranny.
-
i've obviously moved your quote around.
Therefore, placing any given SCOTUS ruling as "proof" of Constitutionality is not actually proof.
Eventually, a future SCOTUS will have the balls, or vaginal fortitude - as the case may be - to ensure that the Federal government gets out of the firearm regulation business... OR... the States will make that ruling OBE.
agreed
self defense is not a valid interpretation of the 2ndA
That's simply the literal Constitutional guaranteed right as written _and_ intended by the writers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
The reality is: the plain language of the 2nd and 10th necessarily mean that Federal Congress has _no say_ in firearm restrictions in the USA.
If one is to have an honest discussion on this topic, one must include in the discussion Tyrannical Government and how a citizen lead militia would defend The People from that Tyranny.
reality is you literally have no fkcingclue what literally means when you literally take it unilterally (i'm pretty sure i ralph wiggums that)
If one is to have an honest discussion on this topic, one must include in the discussion Tyrannical Government and how a citizen lead militia would defend The People from that Tyranny.
aside from "citizen lead" - no it just has to not necessarily be lead but more be made up of conscrip soldiers.... like the definition of militia.
ah there we go
that's what i've been saying.
THE PEOPLE
in a well REGULATED MILITIA.
aka the state guard.
thanks for agreeing with me.
-
Just to be clear, the Government does not give us rights.
Our rights exist independent of a government.
-
THE PEOPLE
in a well REGULATED MILITIA.
aka the state guard.
Nope.
You have it absolutely wrong.
This not about a State funded police unit. This is about The People... the actual humans called citizens doing something which is actually written in the Declaration of Independence...
[our citizen lead] duty to throw off that Government...
That's _literally_ what they did and what they included in their newly minted nation's Constitutional Bill of Rights.
-
THE PEOPLE in a well REGULATED MILITIA.
aka the state guard.
Regulated meant outfitted and militia was any male 18 years or older.
They could have inked "State Guard" if they wanted to. They did not.Those words were available to them, yet not chosen by them.
Is it that one sentence you hate, or the entire Constitution?
-
i'll have to disagree
Depending on the state, they may be variously named as state military, state military force, state guard, state militia, or state military reserve.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_defense_force
-
THE PEOPLE in a well REGULATED MILITIA.
aka the state guard.
Regulated meant outfitted and militia was any male 18 years or older.
They could have inked "State Guard" if they wanted to. They did not.Those words were available to them, yet not chosen by them.
Is it that one sentence you hate, or the entire Constitution?
they could've inked in that womena nd black pepople weren't full people... oh but they did.
and then we changed it to make it more modern.
nice
-
Just to be clear, the Government does not give us rights.
Our rights exist independent of a government.
if i came up and bitch slapped you
would you call upon your inherent rights or the gov't?
remember...police are only minutes away
hahaha
-
THE PEOPLE
in a well REGULATED MILITIA.
aka the state guard.
Nope.
You have it absolutely wrong.
This not about a State funded police unit. This is about The People... the actual humans called citizens doing something which is actually written in the Declaration of Independence...
[our citizen lead] duty to throw off that Government...
That's _literally_ what they did and what they included in their newly minted nation's Constitutional Bill of Rights.
man o man
police round up internally to uphold the rules of the land.
inward discourse.
i never said police.
i said militia.
a militia to defend against outward attack.
i have no agrument with states seceding.
like i say on the youtube - if you're against BLM but for 2ndA then your priorities are a little wacko.
if you want to get your guns for anti wokeness but not for big corp theft of your taxes, theft of your elective rights, theft of your enviromental health - then your priorites are a little wacko.
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness [...] But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
so in context.
you, being a single person, are not going to overthrow the govt.
so no, you shouldn't get ot have a high capacity round mag, and you should be registered in a data base so that when you post thuglife4life on the FB, the FBI can come a knocking.
if the FBI siezed your gun, then when SHTF, your fellow militia members will give you back your wooden practice gun.
-
I guess the SCOTUS is irrelevant then?
I didn't write that. You quoted my own words and then expanded on them to insert something I did not write nor imply.
Of course SCOTUS is relevant. But they have reversed themselves on some rather important issues in the past... which necessarily means that SCOTUS can be wrong and is _sometimes_ honest enough to admit it.
Therefore, placing any given SCOTUS ruling as "proof" of Constitutionality is not actually proof. The reality is: the plain language of the 2nd and 10th necessarily mean that Federal Congress has _no say_ in firearm restrictions in the USA. Eventually, a future SCOTUS will have the balls, or vaginal fortitude - as the case may be - to ensure that the Federal government gets out of the firearm regulation business... OR... the States will make that ruling OBE.
Note, I always capitalize States.... because that's the true nature of Constitutional America.
Note also, that I did not place any "goodness" or "badness" to the actual reality that the 2nd and 10th give citizens of the USA the literal right to Firearms that are comparable to the Government. That's simply the literal Constitutional guaranteed right as written _and_ intended by the writers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
If one is to have an honest discussion on this topic, one must include in the discussion Tyrannical Government and how a citizen lead militia would defend The People from that Tyranny.
I never said a SCOTUS ruling was "proof" on anything. SCOTUS essentially settles the law of the land, the constitutionality of something, at a given time. You could actually say the same thing about the Constitution itself - That it was the law of the land at a given time. Hence SCOTUS interpretations and amendments.
You're basically saying that the SCOTUS ruling on something is only as good as when they appeal to your interpretation of the constitution. At this given time, I think I will go with the courts not striking down the assault weapons ban when it was active rather than your interpretation of the constitution.
Guns are regulated to varying degrees by the Feds. Ex., The National Firearms Act (NFA), restricts the sale or possession of sawed-off shotguns, machine guns, and silencers. Is that unconstitutional?
It took us almost 80 years and a civil war to get the 3/5's compromise out the constitution. That clause was constitutionally literal for a long time. Apparently, the constitution can be wrong. Just look at the 9th amendment. It basically says that the rights mentioned in the Constitution are not the only ones people get. No one knows what to do with that thing.
And how am I to fight Tyranny if I can't legally purchase a shoulder mounted FGM-148 Javelin (or machine gun)? Should my State allow for such items to be legally purchased by the well regulated militia I just fired up? Because, as it stands, I'd be bringing a knife to a gun fight.
-
Apparently, the constitution can be wrong. Just look at the 9th amendment.
Absolutely... and there's a process for that... "Just look at the 9th Amendment"...
https://www.usconstitution.net/constamrat.html
If anyone has a problem with the 2nd and 10th Amendments... there's a process for that... and it's _Not_ to pass gun control laws to be signed by the President.
-
See you keep saying thingns without saying anything.
Complete the thought.
How are you, the person, infringed by restrictions?
How are you, the person, infringed by regulations?
-
How are you, the person, infringed by restrictions?
Reading comprehension and short term memory loss seems to a problem on these boards.
-
Damn straight
You never answered the question or responded to it.
Restrictions amd regulatioms are not infringements.
So how are you infringed if you can buy a single bolt action rifle or shotgun but cant buy a machine gun.
-
It's nonsensical to argue that the 2nd Amendment referred to a strong central Government licensing and regulating citizens. It's simply an absurd argument to try to make on your part.
regulation is not an infringement.
at what point is it an infringement?
keep repeating it doesn't further your attempt at a point.
it's only circular because i ask you a question to expand your thought, and you repeat the same 1st stupid thing.
state why it's an infringement.
break the loop.
the 2ndA didn't ref to a strong central gov't licensing.
ti dint' ref to
and it didn't ref against.
i never made the agrument it did.
i made an arugment that there should - adn that is different.
it is absurd you put words in my mouth for the sole purpsoe to call it absurd.
very tuckerC/ jWatters/ tactic of you.
state why it's an infringment.
you're right.
it's nonsensincal to exchange ideas with badfaith POS like yourself - what article said the immune ssystme would shutdown for 2wks?
however
in a society, as ideas exchange, repeated, explored, they like language become common knowledge.
then people will create a belief system based on those discussions.
20yrs ago smoking and drinking and driving weren't that bad.
30yrs ago it was not that bad to use Fggt and Nrggr
you're really not very good at this.
-
the thread is deciding if the current level of regulation is appropriate or not - not that firearm ownership is legal or not.
restrictions are NOT unconstitutional.
Federal Restrictions are Unconstitutional. That's not really debatable as the language is quite clear. "Experts" can be wrong... see other threads on that topic. So, the fact that any given SCOTUS has ruled on firearm restrictions in the past, makes no difference in the plain language Unconstitutional status of Federal firearm restrictions.
states get to decide, not the feds.
Partly true, but misleading. States _or_ The People. Don't blur reality. That happens way too much on this forum anyway...
that's the 2ndA.
No, that's the 10th Amendment.
---
The rest of your post is irrevelant due to discussing Federal legislative and such.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
exegsisly and literally speaking
the people have the right to bear arms.
the people will also be regulated and part of a militia.
you, being a single person, must earn the right to qualify for the militia.
the scotus who deemed self defense was paid off by the NRA and should be impeached.
same with the ajckasses who made a corporation a person and whatever other stupid decisions in recent history that fked over the country.
necessary for free state - meaning the regulated state militia/ guard should have access to military grade and heavy artillery because... you can't go against the fed army if all you got are pewpews.
restrictions are not infringements.
let's take it by level:
1 in self defense terms - if i gave you a derringer, it classifies as arms, you aren't infringed.
2 however a derringer will not keep the state free from military forces so then it is infringement.
3 unless there's a well regulated milita (state guard) that has access to big boy guns. looks like there is. so it's not infrignement.
great
check mate, king me, uker, touchdown.
This whole post and you chose to play semantics with one phrase.
Oh look
Funny
Statement regarsing the infringment still not addressed...
Keep complaining about memory loss.
No
Its called avoidance - jist like your BS in covid thread where you avoided the 2wk imune reference.
Answer the question.
How does regulation infringe on the ability to get access to a gun?
-
Apparently, the constitution can be wrong. Just look at the 9th amendment.
Absolutely... and there's a process for that... "Just look at the 9th Amendment"...
https://www.usconstitution.net/constamrat.html
If anyone has a problem with the 2nd and 10th Amendments... there's a process for that... and it's _Not_ to pass gun control laws to be signed by the President.
So the The National Firearms Act (NFA) is unconstitutional?
-
Restrictions amd regulatioms are not infringements.
Yes they are, by definition actually.
-
Restrictions amd regulatioms are not infringements.
Yes they are, by definition actually.
You can get a gun.
Therefore you are not infringed.
-
Apparently, the constitution can be wrong. Just look at the 9th amendment.
Absolutely... and there's a process for that... "Just look at the 9th Amendment"...
https://www.usconstitution.net/constamrat.html
If anyone has a problem with the 2nd and 10th Amendments... there's a process for that... and it's _Not_ to pass gun control laws to be signed by the President.
So the The National Firearms Act (NFA) is unconstitutional?
Because timiseies has an admitted problem with reading comprehension.
Laws are passed through house senate signed by potus.
Potus can make executive which are temporary to his term.
But arent law.
This nfa was signed up by all three.
Once agai he made a statement without actually making a point.
Worms are wriggly.
Fire is hot.
Some trees have leaves.
-
So the The National Firearms Act (NFA) is unconstitutional?
As originally passed, yes... and the Government knew it, and modified it later:
https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/national-firearms-act
It is Unconstitutional for the Federal Government to regulate citizen firearms.
That's a fact.
It may be currently accepted that certain regulations are in the public's best interest... but that doesn't make those regulations Constitutional.
There is currently no Amendment modifying the 2nd and 10th to accommodate Federal regulations of citizen firearms. The reason why there isn't one should be very clear to those paying attention. Eventually the regulations will be removed by a fair minded SCOTUS _or_ OBE through Constitutional Carry provisions along with State lead reciprocity. This may leave States like NY as sparsely spaced outliers to the rest of the nation.
-
I'd probably be more supportive of the 2nd amendment if I could have a railgun.
-
It is Unconstitutional for the Federal Government to regulate citizen firearms.
That's a fact.
Ok fact man
Why
Why is it?
How is it?
Been asking for an expansion of the thought.
Finish the thought.
Are you incapabale of conpleting a thought?
-
Why is it?
Because the sky is green on Saturday mornings when Sun wanders around the 6th corner of hexagonal firmament and shines through the ice wall at just the right angle to obtain a slight green due to the Electromagnetic Acceleration.
Of course.
---
EDIT:
Appletoast got a warning for going off topic...
I appeal the picture of Hiroshima, because it's actually relevant to the argument about citizen owned firearms vs. Government owned firearms... which is the very basis of the 2nd Amendment, without which... there would be no thread discussing it.
....
However, I will gladly accept a warning for my sarcasm in the above unedited post.
-
So the The National Firearms Act (NFA) is unconstitutional?
As originally passed, yes... and the Government knew it, and modified it later:
https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/national-firearms-act
It is Unconstitutional for the Federal Government to regulate citizen firearms.
That's a fact.
Apparently it’s not a fact. I still can’t saw off the barrel of my shotgun in any state in the land as it is federally illegal. What is constitutional is what is currently the law of the land until otherwise amended or reinterpreted by the SCOTUS. Now that’s a fact. Why you claim otherwise is bewildering.
It may be currently accepted that certain regulations are in the public's best interest... but that doesn't make those regulations Constitutional.
Like I said, what is constitutional is what is currently the law of the land until otherwise amended or reinterpreted by the SCOTUS. Now that’s a fact. Why you claim otherwise is bewildering and whether you think something is unconstitutional is neither here nor there. Because currently the NFA is constitutionally allowed, ergo, not unconstitutional.
-
However, I will gladly accept a warning for my sarcasm in the above unedited post.
Your warning linked to the post it was for, and it wasn't the one you're pretending. But have fun with your game. Are you asking for a second?
-
However, I will gladly accept a warning for my sarcasm in the above unedited post.
Your warning linked to the post it was for, and it wasn't the one you're pretending. But have fun with your game. Are you asking for a second?
I clicked on it, and up comes the bomb...
This is the link:
... forum/index.php?msg=2357157
Screenshot if you'd like.
For the most part, it's been an enjoyable group. I appreciate the banter. I truly don't mean to actually offend.
I'll make this my last post for few days....
-
Oops
Yes, precisely. It's the one you were warned for, and then lied about earlier when you suggested said warning was related to a different post. So... high five? Anyway, if you read the rules, there's a place to respond about moderation disputes. It's not here, so you're derailing again. I'll spare you the second warning for missing that. But maybe peruse those rules before you smash that post button again. Want to address the fact there can be gun restrictions without infringing 2nd Amendment rights? Or have you conceded that now?
-
Just to be clear, the Government does not give us rights.
Our rights exist independent of a government.
if i came up and bitch slapped you
would you call upon your inherent rights or the gov't?
remember...police are only minutes away
hahaha
Your family is going to miss you.
-
I'd probably be more supportive of the 2nd amendment if I could have a railgun.
Why can't you?
Lack of knowledge? Lack of finances? Lack of simple tools? Lack of gumption?
You realize it's just electromagnets, right?
-
Pretty basic. All you need is this stuff:
(https://i.imgur.com/XfowZvE.gif)
-
Just to be clear, the Government does not give us rights.
Our rights exist independent of a government.
if i came up and bitch slapped you
would you call upon your inherent rights or the gov't?
remember...police are only minutes away
hahaha
Your family is going to miss you.
Hahhahaah
-
However, I will gladly accept a warning for my sarcasm in the above unedited post.
Your warning linked to the post it was for, and it wasn't the one you're pretending. But have fun with your game. Are you asking for a second?
I clicked on it, and up comes the bomb...
This is the link:
... forum/index.php?msg=2357157
Screenshot if you'd like.
For the most part, it's been an enjoyable group. I appreciate the banter. I truly don't mean to actually offend.
I'll make this my last post for few days....
Answer the question
How are you infringed?
-
Why is it?
Because the sky is green on Saturday mornings when Sun wanders around the 6th corner of hexagonal firmament and shines through the ice wall at just the right angle to obtain a slight green due to the Electromagnetic Acceleration.
Of course.
---
EDIT:
Appletoast got a warning for going off topic...
I appeal the picture of Hiroshima, because it's actually relevant to the argument about citizen owned firearms vs. Government owned firearms... which is the very basis of the 2nd Amendment, without which... there would be no thread discussing it.
....
However, I will gladly accept a warning for my sarcasm in the above unedited post.
Non answer
Dodgymcdodgeface
-
I'd probably be more supportive of the 2nd amendment if I could have a railgun.
Why can't you?
Lack of knowledge? Lack of finances? Lack of simple tools? Lack of gumption?
You realize it's just electromagnets, right?
I should have been more clear.
I can't have a hand held railgun that can punch through tanks and rapid fire.
Now if the government was keeping me from having one of those I'd be mad.
But they aren't stopping me, science is the problem by being way to slow. Otherwise I could have one and 'test fire' it in town, right?
-
If people here, or even more ridiculous people from other countries, don't like that fact... oh well... Get Over It.
Less ridiculous than suggesting open carry guns would reduce knife crime my country though.
I don’t really have anything to get over. It’s just fascinating to talk to Americans about the completely out of control gun problem you have, which most developed countries don’t.
Do you actually have any ideas on how to address it? Do you want it addressed? Or just pretend that it’s all fine because the constitution?
Guns are illegal in Mexico. I live less than a mile from Tijuana.
I hear gunfire almost every night.
Laws don't solve anything. Prosecution does.
Plenty of laws, not much punishment.
So much for that argument.
I am safe in my neighborhood.
Seven miles North, Bario Logan, (less than two square miles),
couple of murders per week.
Why do you think that is.
(HINT: that's where the gangs live)
Remember when someone poisoned Tylenol?
Now there is a foil top on everything. Like a hypodermic needle couldn't shoot poison into a container through foil.
Also, take off your shoes so the plane doesn't explode.
Safety is an illusion.
I’m confused, are you safe or is safety an illusion?
And if you feel safe, why do you keep posting things like “when seconds matter, the police are minutes away”.
Do you think gun ownership is making you safer? Would you feel unsafe without it?
I used to live just off the murder mile in Hackney, London (before gentrification), one of the major hotspots of gang crime in the UK. But even gang members don’t regularly carry guns about. They are quietly stashed away and brought out for special occasions of doing evil gang shit on each other (which wasn’t really all that common).
I’ve never felt in danger of people with guns, I’ve never felt that I’d want one. Even when I was young, careless, drunk all the time and living in a rough as fuck area.
-
I've started a thread on r/latin about gun control: https://www.reddit.com/r/latin/comments/17yt18h/quid_censetis_de_prohibitione_sclopetorum/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3
-
Why?
Do you masturbate while driving?
-
Why?
Do you masturbate while driving?
Of course I do not masturbate while driving, that would be way too dangerous. Why do you ask that?
-
Well because, having this debate in a dead language is to add a layer of both complexity and not a small amount of hubris that is unnecessary, as would pleasuring yourself whilst driving, although perhaps not as dangerous or liable to run foul of law enforcement officers.
-
He also wears a fedora, 1800s smokers jacket and wont date any girl unless theyve read war and peace.
-
Do not knock the fedora Kabooly, it’s a premium way of blocking the sun and light rain and not every wearer is a prick, just saying.
But, the girl and the worthy tome, yes, a given, I think.
-
Masturbating while driving is perfectly safe as long as you don't drive stick. Indeed this was the original intent of the automatic transmission.
-
crash 1996
-
I dare you to go over to r/latin and say that.
-
Tell me what's latin for posy wanker and I'm gone.
-
As if we needed a reminder of the need for something that makes sense on this, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-67884584
Although I have little hope anything meaningful will be done, a few prayers, particularly effective in the past, buy a few more guns, rants about murights, while the children die.
-
I think these shootings at school are staged in attempt to get the dumb sheep public to willingly sympathize with anti-gun nutters and toss away their guns.
I also think you ought to take a look at Switzerland vs Chicago vs states where the government took away guns.
In big cities like Chicago, the criminals only have guns. There are record number of deaths because what exactly are people to fight back with if they have no weapons? Oh okay, I suppose they could call the police. Then evade the gun for five minutes while the police come.
In woke cities like Seattle, no such luck. Let's defund the police. Five minutes or whatever becomes fifty. You're long dead, and they can only investigate your death.
Now, let's talk about countries where groups of people deliberately disarmed the public. The Nazis took over when the public had no guns. The Jews could have fought them without that. In fact there are many stories of ethnic cleansing or totalitarian regimes taking over once the people are disarmed.
But I don't have to come up with one. Because the US has a story of its own. That Paul Revere story that kids are hopefully still taught? The British were coming alright (to take our weapons). The next step was total law.
-
That would be a very atypical result of a school shooting.
What always happens is that the gun nuts start buying guns and ammo like crazy.
-
I think these shootings at school are staged in attempt to get the dumb sheep public to willingly sympathize with anti-gun nutters and toss away their guns.
I also think you ought to take a look at Switzerland vs Chicago vs states where the government took away guns.
In big cities like Chicago, the criminals only have guns. There are record number of deaths because what exactly are people to fight back with if they have no weapons? Oh okay, I suppose they could call the police. Then evade the gun for five minutes while the police come.
In woke cities like Seattle, no such luck. Let's defund the police. Five minutes or whatever becomes fifty. You're long dead, and they can only investigate your death.
Now, let's talk about countries where groups of people deliberately disarmed the public. The Nazis took over when the public had no guns. The Jews could have fought them without that. In fact there are many stories of ethnic cleansing or totalitarian regimes taking over once the people are disarmed.
But I don't have to come up with one. Because the US has a story of its own. That Paul Revere story that kids are hopefully still taught? The British were coming alright (to take our weapons). The next step was total law.
That would be a very atypical result of a school shooting.
What always happens is that the gun nuts start buying guns and ammo like crazy.
What crouton said.
Gun sales always jump after a mass shooting. And its not limites to states with strict gun control. See Uvdal school shooting.
Fact is, chicago has guns comming in because Illinois allows them. Kinda like saying schools are gun free zones and expecting guns to not be able to enter. The point is to stop what you can stop.
And who benefits from removing guns? Is money flooding into the sword industry? Plus, in the 30+ years this has been in the headlines, no mass gun ban has ever been enacted. All we do is teach kids how to hide. We accept it like an unavoidable hurricane. "Its just the way it is and nothing will change it because no one can."
And the republicans don't want it solved.
Ban guns? No! Unconstitional. Only bad guys will have guns. Guns don't kill people, peope do etc.
Ban people from guns? No! Evil! How could you do that? Its unconstitutional!
Ok, mental health? NO! We will not give free help to people! If they can't help themselves, thats their problem.
The only valid answer from republicans seems to be 'give children guns so they can kill a gunman themselves.'
-
See, mu-rights straight from the NRA handbook for dumb-asses.
Can't see that every other western nation as worked out how not to kill it's own children in droves, still parrots the freedom angle for a country that has one of the lowest index for that, and to top it all the Nazis took over because of gun laws, Jesus! Check your history, the Nazis were voted in democratically by a populace who went for a right wing populist who played on their fears of “others”, sound familiar?
-
See, mu-rights straight from the NRA handbook for dumb-asses.
Can't see that every other western nation as worked out how not to kill it's own children in droves, still parrots the freedom angle for a country that has one of the lowest index for that, and to top it all the Nazis took over because of gun laws, Jesus! Check your history, the Nazis were voted in democratically by a populace who went for a right wing populist who played on their fears of “others”, sound familiar?
Plus, Hitler relaxed gun laws while also banning Jews from guns. Made it easier for average citizens to murder em in the streets.
-
Jew not havig guns isnt why jews got railroaded by the nazis
Brownshirts being allowed by the ruling party to harass and terrorize is why jews to be railroaded.
Just like when the law protected whitehoods.
If having a gun protected you then blm has nothing to fear.
Right?
Riiiight?
All those thugs and ganstaaas should have no problem.
-
What does blm have to fear? FEAR ITSELF? Srsly though, I am having trouble deciphering your post. All those thugs and gangsters are much more likely to shoot someone in blm than anyone else.
-
I would really like to see a law taxing sales of guns and ammo in order to fund armed security at schools.
-
Bilmvas arguing that an unarmed population leads themselves to being tyrannized by the govt.
And jist one ppst ealrier argued gun laws dont work because of chicago.
Im.combining the two thoughts....obviously not very well
Ha
-
Well because, having this debate in a dead language is to add a layer of both complexity and not a small amount of hubris that is unnecessary, as would pleasuring yourself whilst driving, although perhaps not as dangerous or liable to run foul of law enforcement officers.
Well, I am interested in what people who are actually educated in social sciences think about gun control. People in r/latin tend to be educated in social sciences, so that's why I was asking there. Besides, doing political debates in a dead language is a good way to make them look fresh and new.
-
Maybe you could ask disgraced former UK prime minister and lying self serving shithead Alexander "Boris" Johnson what he thinks? He likes a bit of Latin.
But Latin is not a social science, it's a language.
-
Pretencious if he uses latin.
Nerd if he uses klingon?
Sexy if he uses french or spanish?
-
Bilmvas arguing that an unarmed population leads themselves to being tyrannized by the govt.
And jist one ppst ealrier argued gun laws dont work because of chicago.
Im.combining the two thoughts....obviously not very well
Ha
You need to work on that. Compositing different ideas is an important skill in critical thinking.
An unarmed population leads to being tyrannized. Period.
In Chicago, this equals the criminals deciding to carry anyway. The population is tyrannized by criminals.
In Germany, the state managed to get the Jews to disarm themselves. The population was tyrannized by thugs who later became government.
-
-Singapore is on the verge of getting taken over by China, thanks to their silicon manufacturing. This is the other problem, tyranny by foreign power.
-Japan are good little robots with extremely high stress and perversion, who regularly off themselves over failed entrance exams. They are tyrannized by themselves. And yes, I know about the Meiji regime that led to their disarmament. For years, they fought against the no-sword rule. Then they become militarily aggressive against China and much of SE Asia. Then they got bombed and all became soyboys and crossdressers and tentacle fetishists. Not a good example? Also, Japan does have at least two forms of self-defense. Kendo and archery, if we're not counting martial arts. If one happens to own a real katana, most would-be criminals are like "fuck no, I'm not getting cut in half!"
-Bullshit. Australia is the home of Crocodile Dundee. I'm pretty sure gun control only extends to cities anyway, as much of the land is set aside for hunting and farming. Also...
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/apr/25/how-australias-global-gold-standard-on-gun-control-is-being-eroded
The failure of all states and territories to develop a fully integrated national registry that was part of the NFA is a main point of concern for Gun Control Australia but there is also no authority governing compliance, and there have been other “erosions” of laws in recent years. There is no mechanism for registration when an owner moves to a different jurisdiction, and a ban on silencers has been overturned in some states, including New South Wales.
Ammunition for restricted guns is also able to be purchased in some jurisdictions, while a 28-day cooling off-period for a second gun purchase has been dropped in NSW, Tasmania, Western Australia and other states.
Age limits for shooting at a range have decreased from 18 in some states, and there is no age limit at all in Western Australia, according to Gun Control Australia.
(You were saying?)
-The UK are cucks.
-Much of Germany is actively being taken over by immigrants, as is Sweden. They will eventually need guns to defend themselves, as their men are murdered, and women are raped.
Again.
An unarmed population leads to being tyrannized. Period.
-
-Singapore is on the verge of getting taken over by China, thanks to their silicon manufacturing.
That's Taiwan, which split from the rest of China in the civil war. Singapore is on the far side of SE Asia from China. They would have to go through Laos, Thailand and Malaysia to get to Singapore and have shown no interest in taking it over anyway.
Have you ever got a single fact right? Try it, write something that isn't demonstrably false just for a change.
-
BB, the gospel according to Fox. No country but the US is free.
Free to kill its children in greater numbers than any other OECD nation, the only country where more children die to guns than illness or car crashes. Free to have no mandatory holidays or maternity leave, free to be the only western nation that crowd funding to pay off medical debt is a thing.
There’s a whole tik-tok series called “Americans living abroad, when you realized (spelt wrongly) that America really messed you up.” It’s like watching people waking up from being in a cult, here’s an American watching it.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=americans+living+abroad%2C+what+was+the+thing+that+made+you+realize+&t=newext&atb=v326-1&iax=videos&ia=videos&iai=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DxHcM5oYwJ28
-
Bilmvas arguing that an unarmed population leads themselves to being tyrannized by the govt.
And jist one ppst ealrier argued gun laws dont work because of chicago.
Im.combining the two thoughts....obviously not very well
Ha
You need to work on that. Compositing different ideas is an important skill in critical thinking.
An unarmed population leads to being tyrannized. Period.
In Chicago, this equals the criminals deciding to carry anyway. The population is tyrannized by criminals.
In Germany, the state managed to get the Jews to disarm themselves. The population was tyrannized by thugs who later became government.
hurray
glad we agree that the rise of BLM is in the very spirit and intended use of the 1st and if only they had guns they could've used the 2ndA to their priviledge that other demographics used (in arguing about hair cuts and peacefuly entering the Caiptol...because "both sides" am i right?!)
yes...glad we agree.
-
"american's living abroad" hahahha what a hillarious series
and
"singapore not taiwan" AHAHAAHAHAHAH
-
I do not understand why you keep talking about BLM. I've tried to work it out, but idk. BLM is an organization, there's nothing stopping members of that org from owning guns.
-
Maga hats generally fear and do not like BLM.
So when they magahats argue for gun rights and afainst tyranny i like to say "glad we agree blm shouldve had more guns on them".
And then the hypocrisy gynmastics begin.
-
In a way, BLM is about Gun Control.
BLM is mainly about cops killing black people either in error or excessive force (or both). MOST of the deaths are via gunshot (gun control not being an idea) and more than a few are justified with "I thought he had a gun".
If we had proper gun control, the police wouldn't have that as an excuse. "I thought he was pulling out a gun!" "How would he have had a gun?" It would also (hopefully) decrease the stress of REAL cops who have to worry about being shot every time they go to work or stop to help someone.
-
BLM was about raising lots of money and buying mansions.
-
BLM was about raising lots of money and buying mansions.
Well... Yeah. Do you know how much the NRA got every time a protest was scheduled?
-
Nope, and Google doesn't seem to know either. Do you have some secret info that the media doesn't have? There were lots of mostly peaceful protests. The media knows that they cost about $2 billion in damages, but I can't find an article about the NRA making money off BLM protests.
-
Nope, and Google doesn't seem to know either. Do you have some secret info that the media doesn't have? There were lots of mostly peaceful protests. The media knows that they cost about $2 billion in damages, but I can't find an article about the NRA making money off BLM protests.
Guns.
Lots of guns.
Gun sales kickbacks.
And no, I don't know the answer either.
https://news.northwestern.edu/stories/2021/02/gun-sales-spiked-in-2020-amid-pandemic-social-justice-protests/
"Gun sales were especially high in March when the pandemic and lockdowns became widespread and in June at the peak of the Black Lives Matter protests."
The NRA was in financial trouble in 2019 and 2020. Then it suddenly turned around by the end of 2020?
Was it all the spending cuts?
Or did they get kickbacks from gun sales that helped keep them afloat?
*Note: this is like 75% speculation with only circumstantial evidence to back it up.
-
Power corrupts.
But the spirit of blm vs the ones who stole money are two dofferent things.
Ot would be more interesting if blm bought amansion for a scotus mom and then that scotus ruled that the tyrannical fed can overrule states rights on states roghts to enact their own security and freedom laws.
Also
In cops best interest it would be best to make blm look as bad as possible.
How easy to wear all black, carry an umbrella, and smash a bunch of windows.
Antifa niutnobs alrwady on the verge of vandalistic riot mode just need a push.
Ray epps was an fbi plant apparently, but noooooo, blm needed no help being deplorable on their own.
Nice cartwheel btw
Oh look
Gun people doing gun interviews on gun sponsored gun shows to talk about how they did the gun thing against the browns.
Alsoalso
The orogons of usa police function was to ensure the browns were rounded up and didnt have guns.
-
When the NRA was tanking they cut spending by eliminating training programs. They used to spend millions on police training and gun safety training for members. Now they spend lots of money on legal fees, and their membership is declining. Gun sales always spike during unrest, but the NRA's revenue declined during the pandemic and BLM protests. They are still in decline, because gun owners don't trust them anymore. LaPierre was spending the membership dues on himself, and everyone knows it. They tried to file for bankruptcy and Texas told them no! There are other gun lobby groups rising from the NRA's ashes, one of them has already been investigated for financial shenanigans, but I think NAGR is the one to watch. Their membership is growing as the NRA's declines.
-
Power corrupts.
But the spirit of blm vs the ones who stole money are two dofferent things.
Ot would be more interesting if blm bought amansion for a scotus mom and then that scotus ruled that the tyrannical fed can overrule states rights on states roghts to enact their own security and freedom laws.
Also
In cops best interest it would be best to make blm look as bad as possible.
How easy to wear all black, carry an umbrella, and smash a bunch of windows.
Antifa niutnobs alrwady on the verge of vandalistic riot mode just need a push.
Ray epps was an fbi plant apparently, but noooooo, blm needed no help being deplorable on their own.
Nice cartwheel btw
Oh look
Gun people doing gun interviews on gun sponsored gun shows to talk about how they did the gun thing against the browns.
Alsoalso
The orogons of usa police function was to ensure the browns were rounded up and didnt have guns.
The people who made BLM look bad were the dingbat middle class white people who pretended to be antifa so they could come out of the boring suburbs to riot and set shit on fire. Of course, this was before they made themselves look bad by spending all that money on themselves. Money does tend to corrupt people.
Also, the McCloskeys are weirdos. They should have stayed inside their house! I understand why they were afraid, the protests had already been taken over by the destructive element, but they are loons who shouldn't have guns.
And if Kyle Rittenhouse went to the protests to do gun things against the browns, it's very strange that the only people he shot were white. The media repeated over and over that he shot "pro BLM protesters" but the first one he shot had just got out of jail, was a violent sex offender, and turned up after dark to riot and burn shit. The other one was also a violent criminal who'd been convicted of domestic abuse. The one he injured, that's the only one (imo) who was there as an activist who cared about BLM, but even he was a violent criminal. I mean, he assaulted his grandma and he was a thief. Anyway, all three of them were white, but the media did everything it could to make them BLM heroes. None of this is to say that I think Rittenhouse should have been there defending a car dealership with a gun, it just annoys me that people still believe the dumb shit the media fed them.
-
Nra is a catch all like kleenex.
Arguing nras current present infleunce is irrelevant as much as arguing an assailt rifle is fully automatic or that usa is a republic.
Could very much just say "Big gun" and original point stands.
Symantics to deflect to nra current influence.
Agreed
Libertarian leftist antifas are always present in these things as they are souping paintings, and every g summit.
BUT
The point was not that.
The point was that just as easily the fbi could hide in a jan06 rally, so could hide much easier in a blm rally.
And its MORE in thebpolice interest to do so to sway public opinion against blm.
And mc and rittenhouse was the pointing out the chasing for interviews.
Those peoole became spokesmen and heros for the cause.
Rittenhouse picked his shots.
Ritrenhouse was responsible.
Rittenhosue fired in selfdefense.
BUT skateboard guy and pistol guy thought they were doing a citizens arrest.
Rittenhouse "fits a description" and all they knew was he was shotting poeple.
They attacked in self defense - just like the nra (winky face) says - nothing stops a bad guy with a gun like a good guy with a gun - hurray! Right?...
Nothing like chaos and untrained and unidentifiable lone shooters running around doing "common sense".
Baumface was a criminal psycho.
But ritten should NOT have brought a gun bwcause he had no backup amd made himself a target.
Jist like girls who wear slutty clothes get drunk and get raped.
Right?
Ooooooo....
No.
But yes.
But also no.
And all that is irrelelevant to point -
Nra (winky face) did sponsor and promote people to promote their cause.
$$$.
Just like blm heads bought mansions.
-
This.
I am going to learn Kabool! The language of the new millennium.
-
It's a bunch of weird gibberish, and usually if you decipher it, at least half is not true.
It's not semantics to discuss the NRA. lorddave brought them up, and I was telling him the facts. The NRA is in decline, they didn't make money off of BLM.
I have no doubt the FBI infiltrates every movement. That's how they keep an eye on things. Epps just got a years probation and $500 fine, so that conspiracy theory has just been given new life. I don't really follow that particular thing, but it is trending right now. I guess because his sentence was just handed down.
Rittenhouse did a pretty good job of only shooting the dudes who were trying to kill him. I don't know why you think drunk slutty girls should be raped, but you're Canadian and you guys are evil behind all that politeness.
-
true?
what?
it's opinion and it's my conveying of the opinion and my way of expressing the opinion that needs work.
i'm just on another intellectual level.
not my fault i'm most awesomer than you knuckleheads.
and no it IS nra semantics.
if we're discussing big-gun's influence on government and someone throws the term nra instead of big-gun, then arguing that nra is in decline IS semantics because SOMEone from big-gun is still influencing government.
rittenhouse was an example of sponsorship and propoganda.
i was not arguing his rightness or wrongness (yes i agree with you on his rightness).
i do not htink drunk slutty girls should get raped neither do i think baby faced gun totters should be attacked by middle aged roid heads.
but it happens/ed, and if the slutty drunk girls weren't drunk nor dressed slutty, they probably woulnd't get raped.
and if the baby faced teen wasn't holding a rifle he probably wouldn't've been chased.
but i'm also not victim blaming,
but i'm also AM victim blaming.
but i'm totally blaming the offending party (the raper and the bald POS).
but also arguing right of way with a semi truck, you can be right, and you can be dead.
so many things.
let's just say the world is grey.
kabooling for the win.
here's the same example of someone in their right to be armed in defense of something, just like rittenhouse, being mobbed by an unarmed crowd.
he was in full right to fire, didn't, and they felt the confidence of the mob to push forward and take his gun.
the same crowd who praises rittenhouse for shooting looters also condems the capitol police for shooting looters.
amazing!
triple pike flip with a full twist
and she sticks the landing!
-
In what way is replying to lorddave's assertions about the NRA making money off of BLM "semantics"? Also, when you try to make points using implications, and word games, it would help if you were able to make coherent sentences. I enjoy deciphering your posts, but you post like a crackhead.
Who sponsored Rittenhouse? Someone paid him to go to the riots? ENGLISH PLS.
If Rittenhouse didn't have a gun, maybe he would have tried to stop them from setting the gas station on fire with his fists. If the drunk slut was wearing a burka she'd get raped anyway. All kinds of women get raped, even 90yr old ladies.
I don't watch the videos you post in this thread, because rehashing January 6th is about as much fun as watching a yassooooooo video.
-
nra (winkyface i mean big gun) makes money off blm riots?
it is semantics to argue NRA is making money vs BIG GUN is making money.
see below graph.
and if BLM is buying houses off the efforts of the peons, ted cruz is going to cancun off the PAC money he gets from nra, i mean big gun, for running cover.
because ted cruz is "exceptional"! (skipto 1:56).
ritten got his defense paid off.
then a book deal.
then some other cameos on podcasts and such.
bringing a gun to a volatile sitaution with no backup to answer the vague call to arms from alt right MSM.
yes
glad we agree it was not the best idea but not his fault.
the two vids were of
the lone black cop being chased.
and babbit going through the window.
https://www.economist.com/sites/default/files/images/2021/01/articles/main/20210116_woc387.png
https://www.economist.com/sites/default/files/images/2021/01/articles/main/20210116_woc387.png
-
Back to the "half truths"
I now know why it irked me
To say halftruth means to half lie.
Lie with intent to decive.
I do not intend to decive.
"Innacurate fscts" (as opposed to alternateive facts)
-
Spacey, your brand of literalism is dazzled by Kabools stoat dance, he makes wonderful sense, his mind twists around a thorny problem and fashions a bouquet
In all this, the question that is never answered is why America? why can't the land of the brave be courageous enough to own this problem, unique to the US, and why won't they free their own children from this fear?
What I learnt from the “Americans living abroad” videos was that kindergarten kids there are given shooter drills. No other country I know of does this, indeed, has to do this.
-
[post deleted for being dense. We all make mistakes]
-
If kabool can make his weirdo posts, you can make your dense posts!
KABOOL, lorddave brought up the NRA and said they made money off of every BLM protest, I disagreed (I also looked it up). This has nothing to do with semantics! You are the one making cryptic posts, then expecting everyone to "winkyface" get what you are saying. Just try saying what you mean once you realize the person you're arguing with hasn't decoded your secret message.
Jura, plenty of Americans "own this problem". We just can't agree on the best solution. When one of us mentions that Americans just aren't going to give up their guns, you guys get offended. It's just the way it is. Humans are easily manipulated, and the gun loving portion of humanity are easily manipulated into thinking they need their guns to fight the govt (but only the pinko commie libs, obv).
-
The winky face is because i said nra and not big gun.
No otyer mind read required.
Big gun is not one thing.
Its many sellers conglomerating their powers into one lpbbying entity.
An entity so power it could change the literal constituion and mandella effect 170M gun totting mericans.
Showmeeeeeeee "slef defense" in the 2ndA!
Someone.
Anyone?
Meanwhile
How come someone NOT get rich with all those gun sales?
Greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didnt exist.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/5/25/what-is-the-united-states-gun-lobby-and-how-powerful-is-it
From 1998 to 2020, pro-gun groups paid $171.9m in lobbying to directly affect legislation, according to OpenSecrets, a non-profit that tracks spending in US politics. Since 1998, the NRA alone paid $63.8M in that category.
Only a 3rd!
So small...
So weak.
Suuuh smuuuull
-
How to solve usa gun problems.
Stop advertising politicians shooting their enemies.
Start psa alongside saynotodrugs, madd and such with antibullying and antishooting.
Start mental health checks and red flag laws amd wait times.
Stop gun shop loop holes and all transfer required to be performed by registered dealers.
Impeach the three scotus who were bought off who very incorrectly ruled on heller 2008.
Overrule heller and States Rights for the win!
Not that big a deal...
Oh wait.
Crinimals always find a way..
Especially when it sso easy.
-
You still don't understand. I wasn't talking to you about "big gun" I was replying to lorddave about the NRA making money off BLM protests.
Well... Yeah. Do you know how much the NRA got every time a protest was scheduled?
The NRA was in financial trouble in 2019 and 2020. Then it suddenly turned around by the end of 2020?
Was it all the spending cuts?
Or did they get kickbacks from gun sales that helped keep them afloat?
I forgot to quote him, but this is what I was replying to.
(I will try to decipher rest of your post tomorrow. lol)
-
But you do know what to do Spacey, unfortunately your method of government has strayed so far away from “by the people for the people” over to “by the rich for the rich” that you all know in your hearts that it is the lobbyists not citizens that choose policy, so you huff and puff as your children die.
This is not meant to be a personal attack on Muricans, as the seeds of this take over are evident here. It’s untrammelled capitalism, where the corporation is king, and profits trump lives, it leads to the erosion of worker rights, your airplanes falling apart in mid air and most bizarrely the piece of legislation that was supposed to limit tyrannical government being sold back to you by the clip load, as you kill yourselves far more effectively than the terrorists you have been conditioned to fear.
-
You still don't understand. I wasn't talking to you about "big gun" I was replying to lorddave about the NRA making money off BLM protests.
Well... Yeah. Do you know how much the NRA got every time a protest was scheduled?
The NRA was in financial trouble in 2019 and 2020. Then it suddenly turned around by the end of 2020?
Was it all the spending cuts?
Or did they get kickbacks from gun sales that helped keep them afloat?
I forgot to quote him, but this is what I was replying to.
Gun sales up as per graph.
Industry made money.
Nra is a catch-all big gun boogieman like kleenex.
Somebody made money - who? - Somebody.
Youre right.
Nra has no power.
Trump takes charge guy no one tells him what to do!
Nra doesnt have him by the nuts.
24hr spouts nra talking points.
"Nra" (winkyface).
Im sure he changed his tune because of facts and logic.
-
But you do know what to do Spacey, unfortunately your method of government has strayed so far away from “by the people for the people” over to “by the rich for the rich” that you all know in your hearts that it is the lobbyists not citizens that choose policy, so you huff and puff as your children die.
This is not meant to be a personal attack on Muricans, as the seeds of this take over are evident here. It’s untrammelled capitalism, where the corporation is king, and profits trump lives, it leads to the erosion of worker rights, your airplanes falling apart in mid air and most bizarrely the piece of legislation that was supposed to limit tyrannical government being sold back to you by the clip load, as you kill yourselves far more effectively than the terrorists you have been conditioned to fear.
What do you think we can do to crush our capitalist overlords? Most of you seem to think we can defeat them with our votes, but we have a two party system. Both parties are controlled by corporations, no matter who is in power, nothing much changes. Also, I find some of the policies our "left" promotes just as retarted as the shit the conservatives promote.
Your govt is also being taken over by corporate interests. Or maybe NGO interests and corporate. We're all doomed.
-
you can not defeat them with votes because the Stupid (cipolla) stand gaurd for the Bandits.
"don't blame me i voted for kodos" means the two also play cover.
proves why the dems can never seem to win the easy wins - because they don't want to.
false equivalency
leftist polics are silly but are they harm or are they just over complicating life?
right polices are harm.
Bandit hats for all those who burn books, kill women and children, and poison rivers and privatize social security vs too many pronouns for the over priveldged.
-
3rd party?
not the greens.
not the libertarians.
and defintely not the magahats.
what would be good if we had a progressive-comedians party (PC party. hahaaaa PC aka "policitcal correct" for those who don't think like me):
jon stewart
al franken
bill burr
titus
some of the mexican, british and canadian immigrants
(goat boy and rosane falls under magahat).
-
Yes, some of the Dem policies are actually harmful to women and children.
If we're going to vote for comedians, I nominate Dave Chappelle and the Hot Pockets guy.
-
Ha
Ya
DaveC can be in charge of urban housing because hes black ( ref trump ben cadson)
And hes also NIMBY (ref the radical left nonsese outraged at daves elitism)
Haha
I google "hot pockets guy"
Hotpockets = Jim sqeeky voice gaffigan?
-
Yeah, that's him! Dave can be president and he can be vp.
-
"make america hoooot pockeeeeets"
i'm jim g and i approve this message.
hahahah
we'd need a george carlin AI bot to replace someone with a cool job.
maybe sec of education or something
ahaha i just googled biden admin, they got a black person for housing.
but she got some estate and tax background so qualified?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcia_Fudge
-
Hhaha chapple is a conservatice and kabye is a progressive
https://youtube.com/shorts/W1lWczHWG_w?si=Pn0L9SWHTwt0j_WF
https://youtube.com/shorts/ZAhvSE9RAfE?si=4LK8rU3nY2_Kg1P3
-
But you do know what to do Spacey, unfortunately your method of government has strayed so far away from “by the people for the people” over to “by the rich for the rich” that you all know in your hearts that it is the lobbyists not citizens that choose policy, so you huff and puff as your children die.
This is not meant to be a personal attack on Muricans, as the seeds of this take over are evident here. It’s untrammelled capitalism, where the corporation is king, and profits trump lives, it leads to the erosion of worker rights, your airplanes falling apart in mid air and most bizarrely the piece of legislation that was supposed to limit tyrannical government being sold back to you by the clip load, as you kill yourselves far more effectively than the terrorists you have been conditioned to fear.
What do you think we can do to crush our capitalist overlords? Most of you seem to think we can defeat them with our votes, but we have a two party system. Both parties are controlled by corporations, no matter who is in power, nothing much changes. Also, I find some of the policies our "left" promotes just as retarted as the shit the conservatives promote.
Your govt is also being taken over by corporate interests. Or maybe NGO interests and corporate. We're all doomed.
Although the vote in your country and increasingly mine is the choice between different flavours of the same thing, it’s still important. What they wait for is a demographic to succumb to ennui and declare it’s not worth voting and they have you.
Even voting for the less rabid of the capitalists sends a message, especially as the mental guns/god & get off my lawn squad, have a orange frog faced narcissist ready and waiting to fundamentally alter everything in his favour, to usher in the Imperial dynasty of Trump.
Working through interest groups and online campaigners works sometimes, at least here, finally, (with the help of a TV series) and online outrage we are getting compensation for the Post-office scandal and our rivers may not be open sewers in a few years, just don’t turn away and say I can’t do anything on my own, because you are not, but they want you to believe you are.
-
I've been reading about your post office scandal.
How do I decide which capitalist is the least rabid? Trump is openly capitalist, and Biden makes his money quietly. Biden is worth about $10 million.
-
Trump's greatest legislative achievement was The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which was a massive tax give away to the corporations and the wealthy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Cuts_and_Jobs_Act
Biden's greatest legislative achievement was the Inflation Reduction Act. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_Reduction_Act This is sort of a grab bag of a lot of different things. One of them is a corporate AMT of 15%. Another is bolstering the IRS to go after rich tax cheats. Another is a renewable energy credit set to %30, my favorite, I just put up a solar power system because of this.
If you're judging Biden or Trump by what they actually did in office it's probably a good apples to apples comparison.
-
This^
Those that consistently vote against gun laws of any kind (seeing as that’s the thread), workers’ rights, universal health care, and environmental protection, and for tax breaks for the rich and more oil and coal use, here that would be an obvious vote against the conservatives.
The corporations obviously want free reign but they aren’t stupid, if there is push back from voters they will go with that.
-
Trump's greatest legislative achievement was The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which was a massive tax give away to the corporations and the wealthy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Cuts_and_Jobs_Act
Biden's greatest legislative achievement was the Inflation Reduction Act. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_Reduction_Act This is sort of a grab bag of a lot of different things. One of them is a corporate AMT of 15%. Another is bolstering the IRS to go after rich tax cheats. Another is a renewable energy credit set to %30, my favorite, I just put up a solar power system because of this.
If you're judging Biden or Trump by what they actually did in office it's probably a good apples to apples comparison.
Cant remeber qhere i saw it
But budens ifeastrcuture gives blanket checl deals to toll companies to own roads and bridges for 100yrs.
Instead of tax funded roads and bridges to use to get to work, you get to pay a predatory big corp to own a uitility you need to live.
Budne is boring politics.
Biden is cenger right.
Trump is exposing the swamp.
Trump is truly credited for maga IF the fever can reach boiling point.
People are fed up and the Let them eat cake is coming.
-
They're both swamp creatures!
-
Trump's greatest legislative achievement was The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which was a massive tax give away to the corporations and the wealthy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Cuts_and_Jobs_Act
Biden's greatest legislative achievement was the Inflation Reduction Act. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_Reduction_Act This is sort of a grab bag of a lot of different things. One of them is a corporate AMT of 15%. Another is bolstering the IRS to go after rich tax cheats. Another is a renewable energy credit set to %30, my favorite, I just put up a solar power system because of this.
If you're judging Biden or Trump by what they actually did in office it's probably a good apples to apples comparison.
Cant remeber qhere i saw it
But budens ifeastrcuture gives blanket checl deals to toll companies to own roads and bridges for 100yrs.
Instead of tax funded roads and bridges to use to get to work, you get to pay a predatory big corp to own a uitility you need to live.
Budne is boring politics.
Biden is cenger right.
Trump is exposing the swamp.
Trump is truly credited for maga IF the fever can reach boiling point.
People are fed up and the Let them eat cake is coming.
You might be thinking of Trump's infrastructure plan that never got passed.
https://www.cbpp.org/blog/trump-15-trillion-infrastructure-plan-is-a-mirage
-
no
the front and the back, working together
trump didn't care.
it wasn't his plan.
people feed him the shit and he signs it - except trump for some part didn't play ball.
the potus is a puppet to do the bidding (the "biden") of the shadow govt.
all turmp had to do was bush jr but he couldn't help himself to do the crimes, because he's a criminal.
starting back when it turned bad: biden, obama, bushII, clinton, bushI, reagan
maybe it even started back at kennedy assassination.
but definitely full swing at reagn.
the shadow govt owns both sides.
there is no surprise biden's plan is fundamentally bad and similar to a trump plan, due to the ability to buy politicicains.
-
The hell do you mean similar? Those two bills I linked were the exact opposite of each other.
-
I think gun control laws are proposed by two groups of assholes.
1. People who have never made a connection between being able to own a gun and being able to fight back when someone rapes, steals, or tries to kill you. These people idealistically think that laws that look good on paper actually work. No, sorry, Switzerland where everyone owns a gun is so peaceful that they actually hold world peace summits there. Chicago, where guns are banned from shipment by major companies and where the cops can arrest you for owning a gun in your own home, the criminals still can attack you in your own home with a gun. Criminals don't have to follow laws, in case you didn't get the memo. Oh and btw, if gun ownership actually stopped, people would still be able to kill each other. With no weapons at all, you can choke each other to death, and just beat someone up and throw them off a cliff.
#BanCliffs
2. The actual thugs who want everyone disarmed so they are easy pickings. This ranges from legit Muslim terrorists, to neo-Nazi types, to common thieves, and so on. That's right, criminals want you disarmed.
Either you think you will somehow be okay because you appeased them or you expect to do some robbing of your own. Also, Defund the Police?
The No. 1 cause of preventable death for young white men is accidents, like car accidents and drownings. The No. 1 reason for death, preventable or otherwise, for young black men, is homicide, almost always at the hands of another young black man.
In 2018, there were approximately 7,400 black homicide victims, more than half of the nation’s total number of homicides, out of a black population of 13%. Of that number, the police killed a little over 200 blacks, and nearly all of them had a weapon or violently resisted arrest.
But say you have a break-in. No weapon, and now no cops. Who ya gonna call?
-
But how would criminals get guns if no one has guns to steal from?
Also: please learn about switzerland gun laws. You know nothing, it seems.
-
You see this is an American, mired in the American nightmare.
Yeah, none of that rammel you wrote makes sense, I live in the UK, criminals here do get guns, they generally shoot other criminals. I as an unarmed citizen should be cowering in my home but I’m not, and guess what, I’m 6 times less likely to be murdered than an American.
We just had one of our worst multiple murder cases, a guy with a knife who slipped through the mental health system and went on a rampage killing three, guess which country I’m more liable to die in a mass killing?
The children in Europe do not have active shooter drills, at all, it isn’t a thing. Guess where it is.
And just in case you bring up your ability to oppose a government intent on tyranny, you also have one of the biggest and up to date militaries, if you haven’t noticed in the world at the moment, poorly armed foot troops are being massacred all over it by artillery, missiles, drones and airstrikes, you and your pop-gun do not survive.
-
But how would criminals get guns if no one has guns to steal from?
Also: please learn about switzerland gun laws. You know nothing, it seems.
good point
https://truckvault.com/post/gun-theft-america
GUN THEFT IN AMERICA
WRITTEN BY
MADDIE CAMPBELL
Thieves are increasingly targeting vehicles for firearms -- learn how to protect yourself and others.
Every day in the U.S., roughly 1 gun is stolen every 90 seconds. That amounts to around 380,000 stolen guns every year, many of which are later used to commit violent crimes. People buy guns to help protect themselves, but when they don’t protect them from being stolen, they’re putting themselves and their communities in danger.
-
Yeah, none of that rammel you wrote makes sense, I live in the UK, criminals here do get guns, they generally shoot other criminals.
They generally don't even do that. London last year had 103 murders, of which 8 were shootings.
Gun crime is incredibly rare and most involve converted starter pistols rather than assault rifles.
-
But say you have a break-in. No weapon, and now no cops. Who ya gonna call?
A lot said using nra talking points.
Cna go on forever but ill keep short to this point
Whats preventing you from buying a vest and some throwing knives and axes?
-
I will fight them with my fists.
-
I will fight them with my fists.
Fist them!
-
I will fight them with my fists.
Hahaha
-
I will fight them with my fists.
Fist them!
Ur next >:(
-
I think gun control laws are proposed by two groups of assholes.
1. People who have never made a connection between being able to own a gun and being able to fight back when someone rapes, steals, or tries to kill you. These people idealistically think that laws that look good on paper actually work. No, sorry, Switzerland where everyone owns a gun is so peaceful that they actually hold world peace summits there. Chicago, where guns are banned from shipment by major companies and where the cops can arrest you for owning a gun in your own home, the criminals still can attack you in your own home with a gun. Criminals don't have to follow laws, in case you didn't get the memo. Oh and btw, if gun ownership actually stopped, people would still be able to kill each other. With no weapons at all, you can choke each other to death, and just beat someone up and throw them off a cliff.
#BanCliffs
2. The actual thugs who want everyone disarmed so they are easy pickings. This ranges from legit Muslim terrorists, to neo-Nazi types, to common thieves, and so on. That's right, criminals want you disarmed.
Either you think you will somehow be okay because you appeased them or you expect to do some robbing of your own. Also, Defund the Police?
The No. 1 cause of preventable death for young white men is accidents, like car accidents and drownings. The No. 1 reason for death, preventable or otherwise, for young black men, is homicide, almost always at the hands of another young black man.
In 2018, there were approximately 7,400 black homicide victims, more than half of the nation’s total number of homicides, out of a black population of 13%. Of that number, the police killed a little over 200 blacks, and nearly all of them had a weapon or violently resisted arrest.
But say you have a break-in. No weapon, and now no cops. Who ya gonna call?
Switzerland has fewer guns per head of population than the US and tougher gun laws. They are about as peaceful as most of the rest of Europe who generally have much stricter laws. Switzerland has a lot guns because they have a civilian militia instead of a regular army and because sports shooting is big over there. Not for home or personal defence. Guns and ammunition have to securely locked away separately and you can't carry a gun around. No one has the "right" to own a gun, you need a permit.
The real connection between having guns for home defence and your chances of survival is you are far far more likely to be shot when you have a paranoid and heavily armed population.. American burglars are armed and prepared to shoot you because they expect the residents to do the same. In the rest of the developed world, it just doesn't happen or at least is so rare it's just not worth worrying about. They don't break in because they want to murder and rape you, they just want to sneak in a window, grab a laptop or something and get out without confrontation.
It's probably too late for you all. There's so many guns out there and gun culture is so heavily embedded, I can't see how it's going to change much.
The rest of world can clearly see how not to do it though. Have fun shooting each other, nutcases.
-
I'm sorry, burglars are afraid to be shot, so they carry guns?
What sort of drug are you smoking, and can I have some? It's obviously very good if it gave you such gems like that.
Okay, first of all, I daresay that first statistic is bogus. Switzerland has civilian militia. This means the population is required to be armed. Do they have a sensible policy of not letting people roam around waving guns at each other? Yes, this is Switzerland, not Mexico. Do they have shooting competitions, and a culture that encourages the public to have guns and know how to use them properly? Yes. Do they have less guns per head, really? No, because Switzerland has less heads, and we're probably not counting Swiss children.
Switzerland has about 8 million, versus 300(ish) million in America. 32% of Americans admit to owning guns while 44% say they live in a "gun household." Switzerland has about 2 million privately owned guns in a nation of 8.3 million people, meaning only 25%. Gasp! They must be less friendly on gun control. Except percentages lie, because in Switzerland, there is a gap of 6 million. If we are looking at a typical family of 3 (with the fourth as outliers), you could have most families with only one gun per house. Yes, guns are primarily used for home defense against thugs. This might even reflect the fact that 40% of the population is migrant/foreign, and that they don't fully trust outsiders.
On the other hand, in America, some families have gun racks, and collections of multiple weapons. But if we say even the high estimate of 40%, this is a short of 180,000,000 gun owners or an awful lot of houses that are easy pickings for criminals. A one-in-four chance that that an individual carries a gun? Or 180 million people without weapons? Even at 50/50, most criminals would take that chance. Especially since the houses that do have guns are mostly concentrated in Republican states, meaning "liberal" states have Republicans still living in them very scared. When on top of more than half of the populace not being armed, entire stretches of land actively work to prevent them from being armed, the average armed robber is not expecting to be shot.
And you worry about the burglars? ^-^
-
You are still missing the elephant in the room (as usual), that your gun laws have bought about the uniquely American problems of mass school shootings, mass shootings in general, and the unenviable statistic that the US alone is the country where children are more liable to die because of firearms than any other reason.
And I don't worry about burglars.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1384047/leading-causes-of-death-for-children-and-teens-us/
-
I'm sorry, burglars are afraid to be shot, so they carry guns?
What sort of drug are you smoking, and can I have some? It's obviously very good if it gave you such gems like that.
Okay, first of all, I daresay that first statistic is bogus. Switzerland has civilian militia. This means the population is required to be armed. Do they have a sensible policy of not letting people roam around waving guns at each other? Yes, this is Switzerland, not Mexico. Do they have shooting competitions, and a culture that encourages the public to have guns and know how to use them properly? Yes. Do they have less guns per head, really? No, because Switzerland has less heads, and we're probably not counting Swiss children.
Switzerland has about 8 million, versus 300(ish) million in America. 32% of Americans admit to owning guns while 44% say they live in a "gun household." Switzerland has about 2 million privately owned guns in a nation of 8.3 million people, meaning only 25%. Gasp! They must be less friendly on gun control. Except percentages lie, because in Switzerland, there is a gap of 6 million. If we are looking at a typical family of 3 (with the fourth as outliers), you could have most families with only one gun per house. Yes, guns are primarily used for home defense against thugs. This might even reflect the fact that 40% of the population is migrant/foreign, and that they don't fully trust outsiders.
On the other hand, in America, some families have gun racks, and collections of multiple weapons. But if we say even the high estimate of 40%, this is a short of 180,000,000 gun owners or an awful lot of houses that are easy pickings for criminals. A one-in-four chance that that an individual carries a gun? Or 180 million people without weapons? Even at 50/50, most criminals would take that chance. Especially since the houses that do have guns are mostly concentrated in Republican states, meaning "liberal" states have Republicans still living in them very scared. When on top of more than half of the populace not being armed, entire stretches of land actively work to prevent them from being armed, the average armed robber is not expecting to be shot.
And you worry about the burglars? ^-^
i'm gonna tangent you here...
becuase it's a great NRA talking point!
let's see how far we can go!
so criminals are less likely to rob someone if they feel that person may/ may not have a gun on them?
and simultaneously, it is expected that criminals have guns on them because they "always find a way", right?
so let's hold two thoughts, not in isolation, and talk about another NRA talking point - Chicago!
chicago where criminals with guns are rolling up on criminals with guns, criminals who are already on guard and watching.
yet...the gun doesn't deter.
and to the question you never answered (or maybe i missed it?) -
you're afraid of guns, can't get one yourself, but also do you walk around with a bullet proof vest?
if you were truly afraid, you'd be vested up.
you'd have a bag of throwing knives.
you'd be physically fit to dragon kick any attacker into the next life.
yes no?
-
You are still missing the elephant in the room (as usual), that your gun laws have bought about the uniquely American problems of mass school shootings, mass shootings in general, and the unenviable statistic that the US alone is the country where children are more liable to die because of firearms than any other reason.
And I don't worry about burglars.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1384047/leading-causes-of-death-for-children-and-teens-us/
no bulbma makes a good point -
%wise if 33% own a gun and most people live in a household then by population gun ownership is en par.
populationwise the more population, the more rich-poverty disparaty - the more the crime.
the more the crime, the more the violent crime.
there's magnitude of NUMBER of incidence and magnitude of % of incidence, and magntude OF THE incident.
all need context and neither number can be taken in isolation.
BUT
what fucktard doesn't take into account
the more the violent crime has access to levels the magnitude OF THE incident will be.
the more feartheminority, the shooteverything messaging of the media, the more the NUMBER of incidence will be.
the difference:
swiss have a gun culture of responsibility and high taxes.
USA has a gun culture of 2ndA all the way, shoot anything you don't like, shoot political oponents, soverign citizens and God given rights.
what happens when a population is starved to the point where 50%pop, 140M, earn pennies at 600-1 with no RADICAL socialist commmunity health care, and then compared to the swiss who's wealth gap is only 5-1 at 20%pop, 2M?
aaaah
https://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/en/home/statistics/economic-social-situation-population/economic-and-social-situation-of-the-population/inqualities-income-ditribution/income-distribution.html#:~:text=In%202021%2C%20the%20S80%2FS20,income%20of%20the%20poorest%2020%25.
What is the gap between rich and poor people in Switzerland?
In 2021, the S80/S20 ratio (without taking into account the imputed rent) shows that in Switzerland, the total income of the richest 20% is 4.9 times greater than the total income of the poorest 20%.
Income distribution | Federal Statistical Office - admin.ch
https://www.statista.com/statistics/203961/wealth-distribution-for-the-us/#:~:text=In%20the%20third%20quarter%20of,percent%20of%20the%20total%20wealth.
In the third quarter of 2023, 66.6 percent of the total wealth in the United States was owned by the top 10 percent of earners. In comparison, the lowest 50 percent of earners only owned 2.6 percent of the total wealth.Dec 20, 2023
U.S. wealth distribution Q3 2023 - Statista
https://www.hcamag.com/us/specialization/benefits/603-to-1-ceo-to-worker-pay-gap-at-low-wage-companies/457572#:~:text=The%20CEO%2Dto%2Dworker%20pay,Organizations%20(AFL%E2%80%93CIO).
The CEO-to-worker pay ratio was 603-to-1. That's almost double the average S&P 500 company's CEO-to-worker pay ratio of 324-to-1 in 2021, according to the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL–CIO).Aug 25, 2023
603 to 1: CEO-to-worker pay gap at low-wage companies
-
I'm sorry, burglars are afraid to be shot, so they carry guns?
What sort of drug are you smoking, and can I have some? It's obviously very good if it gave you such gems like that.
Okay, first of all, I daresay that first statistic is bogus. Switzerland has civilian militia. This means the population is required to be armed. Do they have a sensible policy of not letting people roam around waving guns at each other? Yes, this is Switzerland, not Mexico. Do they have shooting competitions, and a culture that encourages the public to have guns and know how to use them properly? Yes. Do they have less guns per head, really? No, because Switzerland has less heads, and we're probably not counting Swiss children.
Switzerland has about 8 million, versus 300(ish) million in America. 32% of Americans admit to owning guns while 44% say they live in a "gun household." Switzerland has about 2 million privately owned guns in a nation of 8.3 million people, meaning only 25%. Gasp! They must be less friendly on gun control. Except percentages lie, because in Switzerland, there is a gap of 6 million. If we are looking at a typical family of 3 (with the fourth as outliers), you could have most families with only one gun per house. Yes, guns are primarily used for home defense against thugs. This might even reflect the fact that 40% of the population is migrant/foreign, and that they don't fully trust outsiders.
On the other hand, in America, some families have gun racks, and collections of multiple weapons. But if we say even the high estimate of 40%, this is a short of 180,000,000 gun owners or an awful lot of houses that are easy pickings for criminals. A one-in-four chance that that an individual carries a gun? Or 180 million people without weapons? Even at 50/50, most criminals would take that chance. Especially since the houses that do have guns are mostly concentrated in Republican states, meaning "liberal" states have Republicans still living in them very scared. When on top of more than half of the populace not being armed, entire stretches of land actively work to prevent them from being armed, the average armed robber is not expecting to be shot.
And you worry about the burglars? ^-^
No, I don't worry about burglars. That's the whole point. People might worry that someone might break in, steal some stuff and they'd have to go through the hassle of claiming their shit back on insurance, but no one in Europe worries about being murdered in their beds, like so many Americans apparently do . Just like they don't worry that their kids are going to be massacred in school, or about being shot by police for doing nothing wrong.
Switzerland's service weapons are for national security, NOT for home defence. No one views them that way. Nor their guns for sports shootings. Normal people don't keep a loaded weapon next to their bed, and it would be against the law to do so.
-
Here's a thought, one that has crossed the minds of millions of Europeans, worried about people breaking in? I know, we get better locks, doors and windows!
Whereas, Since 2015, at least 47 Americans have shot friends, loved ones, roommates, or emergency responders they said they’d mistaken for home intruders, killing 15, according to an analysis of gun violence incidents by BuzzFeed News and The Trace.
-
Here's a thought, one that has crossed the minds of millions of Europeans, worried about people breaking in? I know, we get better locks, doors and windows!
Whereas, Since 2015, at least 47 Americans have shot friends, loved ones, roommates, or emergency responders they said they’d mistaken for home intruders, killing 15, according to an analysis of gun violence incidents by BuzzFeed News and The Trace.
That sounds oddly low.
-
That sounds oddly low.
Possibly because you have a hysterical idea that every two minutes gun violence happens.
https://www.floridamuseum.ufl.edu/shark-attacks/odds/compare-risk/death/
For reference, 47 is the yearly chance of being struck by lightning.
Could you get a grip about guns, already?
Here's a thought, one that has crossed the minds of millions of Europeans, worried about people breaking in? I know, we get better locks, doors and windows!
Blaming the victim. Lovely. So despite the fact that a burglar can smash most windows with a simple crowbar, your solution is to spend a small fortune on alarm systems, which btw, having lived in an apartment with one and having it go off because I mistyped a key, I refuse to get (calling the cops on myself? No thanks. Besides a burglar can just cut the power). Anyway, that costs about $2000 and if a burglar wants my life, without a weapon, I am dead before the cops arrive.
https://www.bankrate.com/homeownership/how-much-does-a-home-security-system-cost/
Then get reinforced steel doors, heavy duty locks, etc. Not including an alarm, I have to reinforce the windows or not have them (that screws with ventilation). Assuming the first, it order to have something sturdy enough to stand up to forced entry, you need a bullterproof window. A bulletproof door costs $5,000. Level 1 bulletproof glass costs starts at $50 per square foot, not including framing or installation fees. And that's per window. The cost that a small scale system runs about $7k-$10k.
https://www.tssbulletproof.com/blog/cost-bullet-resistant-glass-system
A handgun, by contrast costs about $500 and if struck with a metal object, it isn't automatically ruined.
https://www.fieldandstream.com/guns/how-much-does-a-handgun-cost/
So instead of just shooting a person who is trying to steal from me, rape me, or kill me, I should instead blame myself for not being rich enough to afford a security system, hmmm?
That's crazy talk. If I were too poor to afford a gun, I could still get a bow or a baseball bat. But gosh! That's violent! Instead I should be a victim, I suppose.
-
Well I never mentioned alarms, I don’t have one, good double glazing which is handy here is pretty good at stopping all but the most extreme burglar and you would be alerted by someone compromising them, the door is composite and we make our houses out of brick not plasterboard so the 150mm fixings sunk into them I trust, so yeah simple things in a modern world, but some Muricans are still in the past both with their laws and attitude.
But you see, I don’t worry about being burgled, no one I know has been robbed in their house, I mean I know it happens, but it is rarely violent here, obviously no guns so that’s good.
You and many like you seem to live in constant fear, it’s pumped at you by your divide and rule media. THEY are coming for you and your loved ones, it’s just not true.
And you never answered this.
You are still missing the elephant in the room (as usual), that your gun laws have bought about the uniquely American problems of mass school shootings, mass shootings in general, and the unenviable statistic that the US alone is the country where children are more liable to die because of firearms than any other reason.
-
That sounds oddly low.
Possibly because you have a hysterical idea that every two minutes gun violence happens.
https://www.floridamuseum.ufl.edu/shark-attacks/odds/compare-risk/death/
For reference, 47 is the yearly chance of being struck by lightning.
Could you get a grip about guns, already?
Here's a thought, one that has crossed the minds of millions of Europeans, worried about people breaking in? I know, we get better locks, doors and windows!
Blaming the victim. Lovely. So despite the fact that a burglar can smash most windows with a simple crowbar, your solution is to spend a small fortune on alarm systems, which btw, having lived in an apartment with one and having it go off because I mistyped a key, I refuse to get (calling the cops on myself? No thanks. Besides a burglar can just cut the power). Anyway, that costs about $2000 and if a burglar wants my life, without a weapon, I am dead before the cops arrive.
https://www.bankrate.com/homeownership/how-much-does-a-home-security-system-cost/
Then get reinforced steel doors, heavy duty locks, etc. Not including an alarm, I have to reinforce the windows or not have them (that screws with ventilation). Assuming the first, it order to have something sturdy enough to stand up to forced entry, you need a bullterproof window. A bulletproof door costs $5,000. Level 1 bulletproof glass costs starts at $50 per square foot, not including framing or installation fees. And that's per window. The cost that a small scale system runs about $7k-$10k.
https://www.tssbulletproof.com/blog/cost-bullet-resistant-glass-system
A handgun, by contrast costs about $500 and if struck with a metal object, it isn't automatically ruined.
https://www.fieldandstream.com/guns/how-much-does-a-handgun-cost/
So instead of just shooting a person who is trying to steal from me, rape me, or kill me, I should instead blame myself for not being rich enough to afford a security system, hmmm?
That's crazy talk. If I were too poor to afford a gun, I could still get a bow or a baseball bat. But gosh! That's violent! Instead I should be a victim, I suppose.
Ok, I understand where I went wrong. Those were all unintentional shootings. So good, only 47 people were unintentionally shot by non-police. How many were intentionally shot? Because thats the gun statistics you seem to be talking about with gun violence every 2 minutes.
As for protection:
Ok, 1- do you have any idea how hard it is to cut the power? Or how dangerous? No, you don't. Like most things you're clueless. The mains to your home is high up or in conduit underground. Were you to sever it, you'd probably die. At the very least the loud pop as the power arced would wake most people.
2. Most alarms triggger a flag if the signal is lost. So if the company fails to get a signal (no power) within the time (usually a few seconds) it calls you then the cops.
3. Criminals love to steal guns. And they aren't gonna do it when you're home. What, you think burglers sneak in at night while you sleep then kill you? No, only cops do that.
-
That sounds oddly low.
Possibly because you have a hysterical idea that every two minutes gun violence happens.
https://www.floridamuseum.ufl.edu/shark-attacks/odds/compare-risk/death/
For reference, 47 is the yearly chance of being struck by lightning.
Could you get a grip about guns, already?
Here's a thought, one that has crossed the minds of millions of Europeans, worried about people breaking in? I know, we get better locks, doors and windows!
Blaming the victim. Lovely. So despite the fact that a burglar can smash most windows with a simple crowbar, your solution is to spend a small fortune on alarm systems, which btw, having lived in an apartment with one and having it go off because I mistyped a key, I refuse to get (calling the cops on myself? No thanks. Besides a burglar can just cut the power). Anyway, that costs about $2000 and if a burglar wants my life, without a weapon, I am dead before the cops arrive.
https://www.bankrate.com/homeownership/how-much-does-a-home-security-system-cost/
Then get reinforced steel doors, heavy duty locks, etc. Not including an alarm, I have to reinforce the windows or not have them (that screws with ventilation). Assuming the first, it order to have something sturdy enough to stand up to forced entry, you need a bullterproof window. A bulletproof door costs $5,000. Level 1 bulletproof glass costs starts at $50 per square foot, not including framing or installation fees. And that's per window. The cost that a small scale system runs about $7k-$10k.
https://www.tssbulletproof.com/blog/cost-bullet-resistant-glass-system
A handgun, by contrast costs about $500 and if struck with a metal object, it isn't automatically ruined.
https://www.fieldandstream.com/guns/how-much-does-a-handgun-cost/
So instead of just shooting a person who is trying to steal from me, rape me, or kill me, I should instead blame myself for not being rich enough to afford a security system, hmmm?
That's crazy talk. If I were too poor to afford a gun, I could still get a bow or a baseball bat. But gosh! That's violent! Instead I should be a victim, I suppose.
You cant afford a knife?
A hammer?
Go buy that bat.
Cant learn to run?
The point is - if. IF. If you were truly worried about your safety you would get something.
Anything.
But you didnt.
You just want a gun.
Whos aruging about baseball bat violence?
Only you.
-
It’s more specific than that, it’s how many people had shot a loved one or flat mate/lodger thinking they were an intruder, so it’s lowish, but coming from somewhere where the answer is none at all, not that low.
-
15th February 24.
Kansas city 1 dead 9 kids wounded.
-
Anyway, I've made a YouTube video against gun control in Latin:
The script is linked in the comments: https://flatassembler.github.io/pro-gun.txt
-
15th February 24.
Kansas city 1 dead 9 kids wounded.
What is your point? There was recently a mass shooting in Daruvar: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daruvar_shooting
-
Anyway, I've made a YouTube video against gun control in Latin:
The script is linked in the comments: https://flatassembler.github.io/pro-gun.txt
Thanks FlatAssembler, that ought to do it. We have a large Latin only speaking population in the US that are really getting in the way of common sense gun control.
-
Anyway, I've made a YouTube video against gun control in Latin:
The script is linked in the comments: https://flatassembler.github.io/pro-gun.txt
Thanks FlatAssembler, that ought to do it. We have a large Latin only speaking population in the US that are really getting in the way of common sense gun control.
Like I've said in the video, I think Flat-Earthers must be against gun control, for the simple reason that guns appear to contradict the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. You cannot control something that doesn't exist.
-
Guns increase entropy
Unleashing stored energy
Stored blood
Panic stampedes
Chaos
-
Anyway, I've made a YouTube video against gun control in Latin:
The script is linked in the comments: https://flatassembler.github.io/pro-gun.txt
Thanks FlatAssembler, that ought to do it. We have a large Latin only speaking population in the US that are really getting in the way of common sense gun control.
Hahahhahaa
-
Just out of curiosity, has anyone figured out how to keep the guns out of the hands of people who have no business having guns while not trampling on the rights of responsible gun owners, or do we have to concede that the second amendment protect the rights of criminals to own firearms?
-
Yes! We put the message out in Latin.
Haven't you been paying attention?
-
Just out of curiosity, has anyone figured out how to keep the guns out of the hands of people who have no business having guns while not trampling on the rights of responsible gun owners, or do we have to concede that the second amendment protect the rights of criminals to own firearms?
Its all in the wording
"Gun restrictions do nothing but harm legal gun owners [ability to buy and resell with little to no regulation or oversight. Sellsellsell]"
Every gunloving texan needs to go find cruz and get him to sign your gun.
Show appreciation.
-
Just out of curiosity, has anyone figured out how to keep the guns out of the hands of people who have no business having guns while not trampling on the rights of responsible gun owners
That is presupposing people have a right to own a gun.
-
Yes! We put the message out in Latin.
Haven't you been paying attention?
Can you link me to it, please?
-
Just out of curiosity, has anyone figured out how to keep the guns out of the hands of people who have no business having guns while not trampling on the rights of responsible gun owners
That is presupposing people have a right to own a gun.
Of course they do, and this is an important right. Like Michael Huemer says, violating the right to own a gun is just as wrong as being an accomplice to a crime which could be prevented by a victim having a gun, if that accomplice hides the gun and the victim is stabbed to death.
-
Just out of curiosity, has anyone figured out how to keep the guns out of the hands of people who have no business having guns while not trampling on the rights of responsible gun owners
That is presupposing people have a right to own a gun.
Its true
A Ruling isnt a Right.
Roe and Heller.
-
It's not an important right it's a stupid throw back law that most of civilisation recognised as such, and curbed.
Which is why most of us go to bed not worried that our children might die tomorrow at school.
-
Individual armament is a right. The problem here arises if you are black and encounter the police. If you're not black or don't have problems with the police, it's fine. Additionally, the possibility of Big Mike becoming a candidate gives the public the opportunity to express the grievances of black people through Big Mike, and this weakens the security of black people. Uhm, subliminal.
-
why is individual armament a right?
-
I am individually armed. My left arm hurts a little bit rn.
-
why is individual armament a right?
The idea of individual armament as a right primarily stems from various legal and philosophical perspectives, especially in countries like the United States where the right to bear arms is enshrined in the Constitution. Here are some key reasons and arguments often cited:
Self-Defense: One of the primary reasons individuals argue for the right to armament is for self-defense. This includes defense against intruders, criminals, or potential threats where law enforcement might not be immediately available.
Historical and Cultural Context: In many societies, especially those with frontier histories or traditions of citizen militias, the right to bear arms has been culturally and historically significant. It's seen as a symbol of personal independence and protection against tyranny.
Deterrence Against Tyranny: Some argue that an armed populace serves as a deterrent against potential government oppression or tyranny, ensuring that the government remains accountable to the people.
Personal Liberty: Restricting access to firearms infringes on personal liberty and the ability to make choices about one's own safety and well-being.
Constitutional Rights: In United States, the right to bear arms is explicitly protected by the Constitution (Second Amendment)
-
Let’s look at some of this.
Self-defense, how bad is your country if you need to arm yourself against your fellow countrymen? Also, it becomes self-evident that where the police can be outgunned by their citizenry, a mutual distrust betwixt the parties means a breakdown of the contract, so you get incidences like the woman who called the police about a potential intruder (this week US) ends up being shot to death by a policeman for picking up a pan of water.
Historical, protection from tyranny.
The US right to bear arms was copied from the 1689 UK bill of rights where it stated, “Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law.” We were worried about the damn papists, but guess what, the world has moved on.
Not only have the Catholic church seemingly given up on usurping us heretics, but the differences between the standing army and a citizen’s militia have grown to such a degree that Billy-Bob with his pop gun versus strike aircraft and cruise missiles doesn’t conjure up the same outcome as his forebears musket armed against a cavalry charge.
But even if the right to bear arms wasn’t just a gun lobby selling ploy, is it worth the fact that in this push to feel safe and protect your rights, more Americans have died to domestic gunfire than in all the wars she’s been involved in?
-
^^^
Wants to remove the protection from tyranny.
>not a tyrant
The US lost two wars against people with "pop guns", Vietnam and Afghanistan.
(https://i.postimg.cc/C57WvSTF/article-611b64d6e64e88-30881397.jpg)
If you didn't think they were a threat to tyranny, you wouldn't be so against them.
I am absolutely exhausted.
-
There are those out there hunkered down clutching rifles with a month’s supply of water that imagine themselves sallying forth to fight tyranny, unaware of the AC-130 gunship that would turn them to burger meat the moment they did, or that their contact with Herohero88 is compromised, and the whole “underground” would be set against each other and left to internecine destruction, while people bet on the outcome of Hilbilly-Hive versus the Kingdom-come collective.
-
The US lost two wars against people with "pop guns", Vietnam and Afghanistan.
(https://i.postimg.cc/C57WvSTF/article-611b64d6e64e88-30881397.jpg)
If you didn't think guns were a threat to tyranny, you wouldn't be so against them.
-
As Pez pointed out, me & you are not Americans.
I notice you sidestepped the destruction US gun ownership has had on its own population, and the victors in those battles were fighting invaders, not the people that have the receipts and addresses of those considered potential insurgents.
-
Yeah but we got the tyranny.
If you didn't think guns were a threat to tyranny, you wouldn't be so against them.
-
I know you are wedded to the idea that this place, other than yourself is wall to wall five eyes, which in itself is a massive exercise in egotism, but that aside just imagine (the truth) that I’m not.
Looking at the gun lobby, its complete domination of the whole debate to the extent that it got any correlation of gun death statistics banned, that the chances of even getting those who are mentally unstable from being proscribed from a license is close to zero, that the death toll continues to rise and children in that country alone are the ones more liable to die from privately owned guns than from any other reason.
From an outside point of view which of the two of us is pushing the government’s position?
-
I answered your question.
Here.
From an outside point of view which of the two of us is pushing the regime position?
You.
Turn on the TV.
Jura.
If you didn't think guns were a threat to tyranny, you wouldn't be so against them.
(https://i.postimg.cc/q77ckvyf/1701760417193812.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/fb7MzYny/1690955814483700.png)
There's no need to use automatic weapons to tell unarmed citizens they aren't allowed to go outside. It just sends a message.
I worry that your ideal society is the Chinese model. Please reconsider your signature before you start lecturing people about how precious and meaningful human life is.
No one believes you believe that.
-
Seriously what's the argument?
U.S citizens only want the US government to have guns, and to take the citizens guns away but the US government won't listen and wants the citizens to have guns too?
Do you ever read your posts back to yourself?
Jura I've got a bridge to sell you.
>President Trump on Wednesday voiced support for confiscating guns from certain individuals deemed to be dangerous, even if it violates due process rights.
“I like taking the guns early, like in this crazy man’s case that just took place in Florida … to go to court would have taken a long time,” Trump said at a meeting with lawmakers on school safety and gun violence.
“Take the guns first, go through due process second,” Trump said.
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/376097-trump-take-the-guns-first-go-through-due-process-second/
Trump would take US citizens guns in a heartbeat to secure his own power if he believed for a second he could get away with it. Nearly every republican would. There's absolutely no reason they want an armed population.
It's just that for now the US is more or less a democracy and politicians have to respect the will of the people, for now. Obama didnt even try. They can't just use guns to tell unarmed citizens they aren't allowed to go outside, like they do in Australia.
-
Trump is a lifelong democrat who will unveil his true colors when he is re-elected.
-
What 2016-2020 wasn't enough for you?
I don't want to pile on but anyone saying
>Trump will drain the swamp but actually drain the swamp instead of hiring them this time!
Doesn't have your best interests at heart.
He's not a democrat, the difference between democrats and republicans is much, much smaller than anyone here would care (or is allowed) to admit.
-
No !
The government/industrial complex wants to sell guns and has no concern as to the obvious detrimental effects it is having on its own society and the deaths it entails.
To further this it pedals “But my rights” to those unable to see they are being gulled, that their rights to decent health care without bankruptcy, or decent wages are not rights, that’s communism, just the right to blow someone away who you have been taught to fear, especially those who see the carnage and want curbs, so the rift widens.
And all the while the basement dwelling groups who want this to continue pump the message out in the name of freedumb.
From an outside point of view which of the two of us is pushing the incumbent regime’s position?
-
No !
Yes.
From an outside point of view which of the two of us is pushing the regime’s position?
You, turn on the TV.
-
I answered your question.
Here.
From an outside point of view which of the two of us is pushing the regime position?
You.
Turn on the TV.
Jura.
If you didn't think guns were a threat to tyranny, you wouldn't be so against them.
(https://i.postimg.cc/q77ckvyf/1701760417193812.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/fb7MzYny/1690955814483700.png)
There's no need to use automatic weapons to tell unarmed citizens they aren't allowed to go outside. It just sends a message.
I worry that your ideal society is the Chinese model. Please reconsider your signature before you start lecturing people about how precious and meaningful human life is.
No one believes you believe that.
Whether guns help against tyranny is actually a complicated question. I'd say they mostly do, but that there are some strong exceptions. What would have happened in Mao's China if more people were armed? The answer seems obvious to me: more sparrows would end up being killed, the invasion of grasshoppers would be even worse, and the Great Chinese Famine would be even worse.
-
Gun control laws are useless. Prohibition of any sort is useless. Whatever any man truly wants to possess, that man will end up possessing.
-
Gun control laws are useless. Prohibition of any sort is useless. Whatever any man truly wants to possess, that man will end up possessing.
That's especially true if the man has all the time in the world. Mass shooters have all the time in the world to illegally buy a gun. But a victim some criminal threatens doesn't have all the time in the world, and is easily affected by mandatory waiting periods.
-
so don't have laws
criminals are going to crime so why bother.
is taht the answer?
stupid moron.
-
so don't have laws
criminals are going to crime so why bother.
is taht the answer?
stupid moron.
No, some laws are necessary. But not laws people usually think are necessary, such as laws against murder. Good laws are, for example, laws regulating the use of antibiotics in the egg industry, or laws against open DNS servers.
-
My cimment more directed at wish/lackless
Because hes a moron.
And in context, laws for criminal sctivity not just regulatory for general health safety.
-
Whether guns help against tyranny is actually a complicated question.
Nah, it's not complicated at all. Tyrants always have bigger guns. After all, that's how they got to be tyrants.
-
Whether guns help against tyranny is actually a complicated question.
Nah, it's not complicated at all. Tyrants always have bigger guns. After all, that's how they got to be tyrants.
You are completely ignoring what I said. My point was that sometimes the civilians being armed helps, but sometimes it makes things worse. Mao's Great Famine is an obvious example of a tyranny that would have been made worse by civilians being armed: in all likelihood, more sparrows would end up being killed, the invasion of the grasshoppers would be worse, and the famine would be worse.
-
My cimment more directed at wish/lackless
Because hes a moron.
And in context, laws for criminal sctivity not just regulatory for general health safety.
Sorry, I don't understand what you are saying.
-
Trump would take US citizens guns in a heartbeat to secure his own power if he believed for a second he could get away with it. Nearly every republican would. There's absolutely no reason they want an armed population.
I dunno about that. Republicans are far more likely to support the 2nd Amendment than Democrats. This is why Republican towns have guns while Democrat cities don't. Ironic then, that Democrat cities are plagued by crime.
Trump is an alt-right, meaning he shares many traits with the left. And yes, COVID was an absolute display of authoritarian regime.
Mao's Great Famine is an obvious example of a tyranny that would have been made worse by civilians being armed: in all likelihood, more sparrows would end up being killed, the invasion of the grasshoppers would be worse, and the famine would be worse.
That's alot of nonsense. I don't know about The Great Famine in particular, but it was likely blamed on grasshoppers when the actual problem, as in Russia, was the state policy. Watch the film Bitter Harvest (there are a few of them, and no, I do not know which year). It depicts Russian action I think against Ukraine's farmers. Basically, communist system claimed the farmers were rich (because they owned land for the feeding of the population), they raided even what the farmers had to live on, in some cases killing them for what they had. Hmmmm, what happens when you have nobody competent willing to grow crops? Oh right, a famine. Same thing happened in Zimbabwe. Black power (and socialism to some degree) hired unskilled blacks to farm, taking land from skilled whites. In bizarre irony, if any blacks were too good at farming, their land was taken too. I shit you not. Look up "Mugabe land reform".
-
I don't know about The Great Famine in particular
Then read up on it. I think one can learn a lot about tyranny from reading about the worst famine in human history (by the absolute number of people killed).
but it was likely blamed on grasshoppers when the actual problem, as in Russia, was the state policy
Well, communism and the flawed statistical system played a role. The communist government was stealing food from peasants because the statistical system was wrongly showing they had a lot of food. However, the Four Pests Campaign (among other things, killing the sparrows) arguably played a giant role. The food production decreased by around 40%, arguably mostly due to the Four Pests Campaign.
-
My cimment more directed at wish/lackless
Because hes a moron.
And in context, laws for criminal sctivity not just regulatory for general health safety.
Sorry, I don't understand what you are saying.
thats ok
the gist,
i wasn't talking to you
and your comment, while valid in itself, is out of context to this.
also
the gist gist
lackless is a moron.
-
You are completely ignoring what I said. My point was that sometimes the civilians being armed helps, but sometimes it makes things worse. Mao's Great Famine is an obvious example of a tyranny that would have been made worse by civilians being armed: in all likelihood, more sparrows would end up being killed, the invasion of the grasshoppers would be worse, and the famine would be worse.
People did have guns and they did shoot the sparrows. Among other things like destroying the nests and making loud noises.
-
lackless is a moron.
I am a moron with a gun.
I would recommend you buy one, but I cannot do so in good conscience.
-
I am a moron
-
What 2016-2020 wasn't enough for you?
I don't want to pile on but anyone saying
>Trump will drain the swamp but actually drain the swamp instead of hiring them this time!
Doesn't have your best interests at heart.
He's not a democrat, the difference between democrats and republicans is much, much smaller than anyone here would care (or is allowed) to admit.
In essence, the US is no longer a Constitutional Republic.
The country is actually being run by spooks who do not have the best interests of humanity at heart.
Right, breadcrumb?
-
lackless is a moron.
I am a moron with a gun.
I would recommend you buy one, but I cannot do so in good conscience.
i'll look for you on herrara's darwin awards videos.
take care.
to clarify
i have no issues with people owning guns
i have issue with self entitled morons or abusive partners or psychopaths having guns.
hurray to common sense.
-
In essence, there is US is no longer a Constitutional Republic.
The country is actually being run by spooks who do not have the best interests of humanity at heart.
wait
are we agreeing?
amazing
happy friday everyone
it's a festivus miracle!
-
The country is actually being run by spooks who do not have the best interests of humanity at heart.
Right, breadcrumb?
-
The country is actually being run by spooks who do not have the best interests of humanity at heart.
Right, breadcrumb?
I knew it was you.
I have trust issues too, I understand.
I think you know I'm not working on Croutons team. If you want to talk we can talk. There's a lot to say and not much time to say it.
-
Whether guns help against tyranny is actually a complicated question.
Nah, it's not complicated at all. Tyrants always have bigger guns. After all, that's how they got to be tyrants.
You are completely ignoring what I said. My point was that sometimes the civilians being armed helps, but sometimes it makes things worse. Mao's Great Famine is an obvious example of a tyranny that would have been made worse by civilians being armed: in all likelihood, more sparrows would end up being killed, the invasion of the grasshoppers would be worse, and the famine would be worse.
You understand this is an argument in favour of tyranny right? You're essentially saying it's better not to resist tyrants because there will be less bloodshed. This is a poigant quote.
>And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.
Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn , The Gulag Archipelago 1918–1956
There's something that lives in men's hearts, something that tells us to keep going even when it's hopeless, That its better to die free than live as a slave.
Sorry I just watched the movies again. There's a reason why Lord of the Rings was so popular. It tells a story about Heroism. A story about Sam, and Frodo.
-
Whether guns help against tyranny is actually a complicated question.
Nah, it's not complicated at all. Tyrants always have bigger guns. After all, that's how they got to be tyrants.
You are completely ignoring what I said. My point was that sometimes the civilians being armed helps, but sometimes it makes things worse. Mao's Great Famine is an obvious example of a tyranny that would have been made worse by civilians being armed: in all likelihood, more sparrows would end up being killed, the invasion of the grasshoppers would be worse, and the famine would be worse.
You understand this is an argument in favour of tyranny right? You're essentially saying it's better not to resist tyrants because there will be less bloodshed.
No, I am not saying that. Resisting tyranny in Mao's China would be refusing to kill sparrows and talking other people out of killing the sparrows. Sometimes guns are a solution to tyranny. Other times (as in the Mao's China), they make the problem worse.
-
I wouldn't use the argument that guns are useful to prevent tyranny. The evidence that guns are useful for self-defense is overwhelming: dozens of Gary-Kleck-like studies. The evidence that guns help against tyranny is conflicting anecdotes.
-
Self defense against tyranny?
-
I wouldn't use the argument that guns are useful to prevent tyranny. The evidence that guns are useful for self-defense is overwhelming: dozens of Gary-Kleck-like studies. The evidence that guns help against tyranny is conflicting anecdotes.
Kleck is thorughly debunked.
By the same methodology a large portion of males can fight and win afainst a grizzly, compete in the ufc, drive better, and coach the super bowl.
-
I wouldn't use the argument that guns are useful to prevent tyranny. The evidence that guns are useful for self-defense is overwhelming: dozens of Gary-Kleck-like studies. The evidence that guns help against tyranny is conflicting anecdotes.
Kleck is thorughly debunked.
By the same methodology a large portion of males can fight and win afainst a grizzly, compete in the ufc, drive better, and coach the super bowl.
And what do you think is happening in the Gary-Kleck-like studies?
Do you think that it's massive telescoping, that people are misremembering events that occurred eight years ago as if they occurred less than a year ago? Gary Kleck responds to that objection in his study by citing a study showing that people on average tend to remember events that occurred 14 months ago as if they occurred less than a year ago, not events that occurred 8 years ago. Now, you might argue that defensive gun uses are very stressful events so that telescoping would be much greater, but to say it would increase the number by 8 times (which would be if the NCVS study is right)... That's just a weird assertion, not to mention obviously ad-hoc.
Do you think that people are dreaming that they are using guns in self-defense and are mistaking those dreams for reality? That seems rather implausible to me. To me, it usually happens the other way around: I sometimes remember real events as if they were dreams. Is it different when you don't have a psychotic disorder?
-
Its all in the question.
Did you feel safer?
Vs
Ddi you draw your gun?
KleckQ1: do you have a gun?
SruveeA1: yes
KleckQ2: did you ever feel threatened?
SurveyeeA2: yes
KleckQ3: did you feel safer because you had a gun?
SurveyeeA3: yes
5000surveyed.
Extroplate to the number of guns x population mathmathmath = 2.5M self defense/y!
Mmmm ...
Amazing.
In a pervious talk here (with that mental guy from east euorpe qho wantesd a fully auto gun for self defense) i eyeballed it using convenience store hold ups because those would get the proper police reporting.
Concluaoon: Kleck study is grossly flawed with error bars ranging from 50,000-5M to the absurdity of having zero realiable conclusivity
-
https://globalnews.ca/news/10752243/colorado-teen-shot-in-face-brent-metz-town-councillor/
Tresspassed but left.
Then got shot in face
Brilliant
-
The teen “heard the driver say, ‘Oh s–t, my gun went off,’” according to the arrest report.
Rule number one of handling a gun: never point your gun at something (or someone) that you don't intend to shoot.
-
That’s rule 2.
Rule 1 is don’t buy a gun unless you intend to shoot something (or someone).
Well, that’s my rule. It’s not endorsed by the NRA or gun manufacturers.
In no other developed democracy do people feel they need to own a gun to be safe. It’s not just the gun laws that are a problem, it’s the gun culture. Particularly the paranoia peddled by the gun lobbyists that you’l be raped and murdered in your home if you don’t have one.
-
usa logic - better to shoot an innocent person by accident than to maybe let a bad person go.
-
USA logic should say all trump rallies now REQUIRE everyone to be packing
nothing safer than an angry mob of 100-200 (biggest crowds) who all have shooter-guns.
because when a lonewolf-fed-coerced-sniper takes 10min to climb a roof and get into position, the secret-service agents are 10min-08sec to return fire (play on police are only 2min away for those not paying attention).
maga hats should have a tedcruz gun signing party.
i wonder if he'll show up or be in mexico.
-
That’s rule 2.
Rule 1 is don’t buy a gun unless you intend to shoot something (or someone).
Ummm... No. You don't necessarily need to buy or own a gun to handle it.
-
Rule 1 is trwr all gun loaded
Rule 2 dont point it
-
Rule 1: CONTROL YOUR GUN
-
That’s rule 2.
Rule 1 is don’t buy a gun unless you intend to shoot something (or someone).
Ummm... No. You don't necessarily need to buy or own a gun to handle it.
Yeah, yeah. My point is about why so many Americans feel they need a gun in the first place.
-
I've made a new video against gun control:
-
Nonsense built on assumption.
-
Nonsense built on assumption.
I'm sorry, I don't know what you mean by that.
-
And here we go, after the mass stabbing at a primary school Prečko in Zagreb, media are blaming the mass stabbing on the fact that the attacker had schizophrenia. Most of the articles, as far as I can see, don't even mention the fact that the vast majority of mentally ill people aren't violent. Much less that violence is hardly explicable as a result of mental illness. I don't know how it is for the people who commit mass stabbings, but around 80% of people who commit mass shootings have no diagnozed mental illness. And of those 20% that do, the most common mental illness is mild anxiety disorder. The mere suggestion that the relationship is causal seems ridiculous. How can a mild anxiety disorder cause somebody to commit a mass shooting or a mass stabbing? The media are the reason there is so much discrimination against mentally ill people.
-
So you agree with redflag laws.
-
Nonsense built on assumption.
I'm sorry, I don't know what you mean by that.
Your conclusion of dgu is nonsenae because its based on assumptions.
Klecks study has error bars that exceed the study's practical range it is ridiculous to draw any conclusion from it.
It basically asserts:
If 1,000people feel safer with a gun, based on a guided survey with no clear or discernable factual or verifiable statments, then by logical extrapolation there were 5M dgu.
Hows that sound?
-
bloopbloop pewpew
-
What specific question did he ask to determine dgu?
Presumably he asked "Did you use a gun in self-defence in the past year?" and I know he asked "Have you actually seen the attacker, rather than merely having heard a suspicious noise?". And if the respondents say "yes" to those two questions, then he asked "Was the gun actually fired?" (to which around 20% of respondents said yes) and "Do you think you would have died if you didn't have a gun?" (to which around 16% of respondents said yes).
Why telescope up but not down?
Because that's how studies show telescoping works: people, on average, tend to remember events which occurred 14 months ago as if they occurred less than a year ago.
How reliable is a data pool of 5,000 and was that from a gun county or from a non gun county?
I am not sure what you mean. By dialing a random number on a telephone, you get people from all over the US.
-
What specific question did he ask to determine dgu?
Presumably he asked "Did you use a gun in self-defence in the past year?" and I know he asked "Have you actually seen the attacker, rather than merely having heard a suspicious noise?". And if the respondents say "yes" to those two questions, then he asked "Was the gun actually fired?" (to which around 20% of respondents said yes) and "Do you think you would have died if you didn't have a gun?" (to which around 16% of respondents said yes).
Why telescope up but not down?
Because that's how studies show telescoping works: people, on average, tend to remember events which occurred 14 months ago as if they occurred less than a year ago.
How reliable is a data pool of 5,000 and was that from a gun county or from a non gun county?
I am not sure what you mean. By dialing a random number on a telephone, you get people from all over the US.
what was asked?
you would presume.
and you would be wrong.
kleck pg13
what is a throat clearing question? - priming the bias of the responder and how they feel about cops and tough on crime (table 4).
and then followed up with did you [feel] you used your gun for self protection? - well obvious if they feel it was for protection then they feel they were protecting themselves.
kleckpg14: story relevance:
1 involved a human, not animal and the respondent was not in security/ service.
2 an actual person, not just a noise.
3 defender could state a specific crime.
4 gun was actually used in some way.
so without knowing the flow of the conversation, i assume the above was guided by table 3 guideline:
and we note B home and C rob-theft-burg-trespass-assault.
if i feel threatened i will assume they're going to rob me or assault me to rob me.
well similarly that is a valid feeling, but is in no way a valid claim.
plenty of people shot last few years for knocking on the wrong door.
and suspiciously E no threat nearly half the time.
i would give you 50% error bars.
like i said a few years ago here, a more realistic survey would be to rate convenience store robberies and successes of gun-no gun and magnitude-population.
telescoping, location and sample?
kleck pg13 we also oversampled within contacted households for males, who are more likely to own guns and to be victims of crimes in which victims might use guns defensivley. Data were later weighted for oversampling
so the calls weren't completely random...
so they've been "randomly" selected to be from, poorer neighbourhoods and male (cuts the population in half right there - did kleck include the females in his telescoping?).
so back table 4 64%respondants are <44,999$anual.
if the bottom 50% make up 50% of the population, we cut that 50 male/female by another 50 poor/mid-upper.
survey was also done by florida.
i would wager the interviewers were they biased.
kleck paper:
chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6853&context=jclc
the title says it all: extreme overestimates
chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6936&context=jclc
(https://www.stlouisfed.org/open-vault/2019/august/-/media/project/frbstl/stlouisfed/blog/2019/august/us_household_income_distribution.png)
-
What specific question did he ask to determine dgu?
Presumably he asked "Did you use a gun in self-defence in the past year?" and I know he asked "Have you actually seen the attacker, rather than merely having heard a suspicious noise?". And if the respondents say "yes" to those two questions, then he asked "Was the gun actually fired?" (to which around 20% of respondents said yes) and "Do you think you would have died if you didn't have a gun?" (to which around 16% of respondents said yes).
Why telescope up but not down?
Because that's how studies show telescoping works: people, on average, tend to remember events which occurred 14 months ago as if they occurred less than a year ago.
How reliable is a data pool of 5,000 and was that from a gun county or from a non gun county?
I am not sure what you mean. By dialing a random number on a telephone, you get people from all over the US.
what was asked?
you would presume.
and you would be wrong.
kleck pg13
what is a throat clearing question? - priming the bias of the responder and how they feel about cops and tough on crime (table 4).
and then followed up with did you [feel] you used your gun for self protection? - well obvious if they feel it was for protection then they feel they were protecting themselves.
kleckpg14: story relevance:
1 involved a human, not animal and the respondent was not in security/ service.
2 an actual person, not just a noise.
3 defender could state a specific crime.
4 gun was actually used in some way.
so without knowing the flow of the conversation, i assume the above was guided by table 3 guideline:
and we note B home and C rob-theft-burg-trespass-assault.
if i feel threatened i will assume they're going to rob me or assault me to rob me.
well similarly that is a valid feeling, but is in no way a valid claim.
plenty of people shot last few years for knocking on the wrong door.
and suspiciously E no threat nearly half the time.
i would give you 50% error bars.
like i said a few years ago here, a more realistic survey would be to rate convenience store robberies and successes of gun-no gun and magnitude-population.
telescoping, location and sample?
kleck pg13 we also oversampled within contacted households for males, who are more likely to own guns and to be victims of crimes in which victims might use guns defensivley. Data were later weighted for oversampling
so the calls weren't completely random...
so they've been "randomly" selected to be from, poorer neighbourhoods and male (cuts the population in half right there - did kleck include the females in his telescoping?).
so back table 4 64%respondants are <44,999$anual.
if the bottom 50% make up 50% of the population, we cut that 50 male/female by another 50 poor/mid-upper.
survey was also done by florida.
i would wager the interviewers were they biased.
kleck paper:
chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6853&context=jclc
the title says it all: extreme overestimates
chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6936&context=jclc
(https://www.stlouisfed.org/open-vault/2019/august/-/media/project/frbstl/stlouisfed/blog/2019/august/us_household_income_distribution.png)
My friend, are you implying that the NCVS study is telling the truth that there around 100'000 DGUs in the US per year? Then you will need to find an explanation as to how can Gary-Kleck-like studies suffer from an error of around 8 times. Oversampling and telescoping don't explain even an error of around 2 times, much less 8 times. Besides, what about the Gary-Kleck-like studies with slightly different methodology? It's difficult to see how they could all suffer from oversampling.
-
what?
selective sampling and extreme extrapoloation is nonsense!
100,000 is way LESS than 2,500,0000
like i said
the magnitude of the error bars is spectacularly hillarious that in no way yields any plausible result.
oh wait, i-the-not-smart-person didn't say it, the actual smart people like hemenway said it, in a published paper no less.
using kleck logic,
we got jack, me, unco, marko, flatass, data/ timisies vs johnD, wise, sceppy, turbo, bulma, tomB
one could telescope that 50-50% of the world population believes the world is flat given the active surveyed experienece here in this forum.
does that make sense?
and gthey feeeeeel the earht is flat because they felt threatened.
if a white person (of the 70%surveyed) were a white cop, how many do you think "i feared for my life" would be relevant?
-
what?
selective sampling and extreme extrapoloation is nonsense!
100,000 is way LESS than 2,500,0000
like i said
the magnitude of the error bars is spectacularly hillarious that in no way yields any plausible result.
oh wait, i-the-not-smart-person didn't say it, the actual smart people like hemenway said it, in a published paper no less.
using kleck logic,
we got jack, me, unco, marko, flatass, data/ timisies vs johnD, wise, sceppy, turbo, bulma, tomB
one could telescope that 50-50% of the world population believes the world is flat given the active surveyed experienece here in this forum.
does that make sense?
and gthey feeeeeel the earht is flat because they felt threatened.
if a white person (of the 70%surveyed) were a white cop, how many do you think "i feared for my life" would be relevant?
Look, if you are going to claim NCVS study is telling the truth and that Gary-Kleck-like studies are giant overestimates, then make up some seemingly-plausible explanation of how all Gary-Kleck-like studies are massive overestimates. The problem of oversampling might explain away the Gary Kleck's 1995 study, but it doesn't explain away more than a dozen of Gary-Kleck-like studies with slightly different methodologies. The idea that the Gary-Kleck-like studies all suffer from massive telescoping is way more plausible than saying that they all suffer from massive oversampling.
-
How oh how could all the studies be weog?
How?
Its not like theres a billion dollar industry capable of influencing the scotus and literally changing meanings of words.
Mmmm
How?
How did sugar, tobaco and big oil all manage to make papers and sway public opinion?
-
How oh how could all the studies be weog?
How?
Its not like theres a billion dollar industry capable of influencing the scotus and literally changing meanings of words.
Mmmm
How?
How did sugar, tobaco and big oil all manage to make papers and sway public opinion?
I must admit I don't see the connection here.
Big sugar and big dairy are rejecting everything we know about physiology with arguments such as "Here are some dubious statistics which suggest that the sugar intake in the US reached its peak somewhere in the 1990s and has been falling ever since, while the type-2-diabetes rates continue to rise." or "Here are some dubious statistics which suggest that the saturated fat intake in the US reached its peak somewhere in the 1970s and has been falling ever since, while the heart disease rates continue to rise.". They are trying to use epidemiology to contradict much harder sciences. Pro-gun people aren't doing anything like that. If anything, it's the anti-gun people who are doing that when they are doing cross-country comparisons in spite of there being much better studies.
Big oil generally claims that global warming is somehow natural, but they never provide a mathematical model explaining how it could work. They are making ad-hoc hypotheses. Just like anti-gun people when they are claiming Gary-Kleck-like studies all suffer from massive oversampling or telescoping.
I am not familiar with the arguments that the big tobacco is making.
-
Surely the main statistic is that countries with low gun deaths are those with low gun ownership and strict control (The UK, Japan), whereas those with high gun ownership and laxer rules have the higher death rates (The US, Brazil).
-
Shirley, you cant be Joking.
How and Why does one convince a SCOTUS to rewrite the constitution?
Hi, Joking.
Im Dad.
-
It’s just a bit depressing seeing the US and gun-babies in general, flexing in front of the mirror, in their camo and facepaint, and when it all came down to the wire at the capitol building, or in just about any war they’re involved in, it all goes tits up.
Meanwhile the death-rate for civilians and children rises, fuck-wits!
-
Ok so lets think of how accurate self reported "polling" is on this survey (ignoring previous mentions of guided questions, selective respondents, and bad extrapolation) - and compare such predictive polling for Hclinton and KHarris wins for potus.
-
What do you guys think about the protests in Podgorica, after the recent mass shooting in near-by Cetinje? I am not sure what those protesters want. What could have the Montenegrian government done to prevent the mass shooting? The gun control laws in Montenegro are already draconic, aren't they?
By the way, guys, what do you think the name "Cetinje" means? I advocate the theory that Cetinje and Cetina and similar toponyms come from the Illyrian word for horse, *kent.
And what do you think, what does Birziminium, the ancient name for Podgorica, mean? Mainstream linguistics thinks that it comes from *bhergjh (hill), but, if my theories about the Illyrian language are correct (and Illyrian is a centum language), then that etymology is impossible.
-
Whats your point to change subject?
-
Whats your point to change subject?
Because this whole discussion is getting ridiculous. You guys aren't giving me a good explanation as to how can all the Gary-Kleck-like studies give results that are of the wrong order of magnitude. A good explanation would be something along the lines of: "Here is a study that shows that telescoping can increase the apparent incidence of stressful events, such as DGUs, by 800%.". What you are giving me is so far from that, that it's not even worth discussing.
And, similarly, a good explanation of how my paper Etimologija Karašica can be wrong would be something along the lines of: "Here is a study showing that nouns in the Croatian language have a significantly lower collision entropy than the rest of the words in the Aspell word-list.", not the word-salads people usually give.
-
the title says it all: extreme overestimates
chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6936&context=jclc
[
Maybe you missed it.
This guy gives you the why in detail.
You being very flatearthy here in msgically wsving away dixvussion you dont want to address.
Simply , and for the 3rd time now- as per survey guideline - they cherry picked respindents from lower economic areas and males that were more biased towards tough on crime (aka batman mentality).
And you somehow dont think the big gun is immune to big corp practices is luaghable.
They who gave us great lines like
- harden schools
- good guys
- hammers kill more peiole
- blocking of studies
- and trump within 24hrs of srating nra isnt in his pokcet, flips.
Youre right
At this point youve shown youreself to be completely dishonest incapable of discusssion.
The only thing left to do is insult your intelligence openly and loudly.
-
the title says it all: extreme overestimates
chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6936&context=jclc
[
Maybe you missed it.
This guy gives you the why in detail.
You being very flatearthy here in msgically wsving away dixvussion you dont want to address.
Simply , and for the 3rd time now- as per survey guideline - they cherry picked respindents from lower economic areas and males that were more biased towards tough on crime (aka batman mentality).
And you somehow dont think the big gun is immune to big corp practices is luaghable.
They who gave us great lines like
- harden schools
- good guys
- hammers kill more peiole
- blocking of studies
- and trump within 24hrs of srating nra isnt in his pokcet, flips.
Youre right
At this point youve shown youreself to be completely dishonest incapable of discusssion.
The only thing left to do is insult your intelligence openly and loudly.
From my perspective, you sound like creationists when they point to some cases where fraud in the fossils was discovered or like global warming deniers when they point to some cases where temperature measuring station turned out to be low-quality.
Maybe you can dismiss the Gary Kleck study with the evidence of intentional oversampling (I don't think you can, but let's say you can.), you don't get to dismiss the dozens of other Gary-Kleck-like studies that use a slightly different methodology with that evidence.
-
spectacular
i am definitely NOT doing that.
this isn't some cases, it's the entire method of finding a sample.
why do you think the concern about sampling method, as mentioned 4th time now, is not wrong.
1 call only poor people.
2 talk to mostly men.
3 talk to those who show propensity to react with a firearm without dicerning warrant for reaction or overreaction ("i feared for my life").
so why wouldn't all klecks or surveys that follow such a formula generate the same results?
are you stupid?
you sound stupid.
say another stupid thing.
(https://despair.com/cdn/shop/products/consistencydemotivator.jpeg?v=1414004030)
-
Oh look
Kleck surveyee filmed in action.
Take note the comment section
https://youtube.com/shorts/Yp28G3sHdbg?si=Nz68G1l3lloxiJme
-
1. A civil society without excess numbers of guns is better than one with, all things being equal.
2. Guns generally last a reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeally long time, 100 years is well possible.
3. The US is a special case, many unusual factors come together.
3a. The US is already flooded with both legally and illegally owned guns.
3b. The US is a multicultural and thus low-trust society.
3c. The US is founded on the principle of suspicion of government, unlike e.g. Europe where the corresponding principle is arguably obedience to government. Therefore the public feel they need guns to protect themselves from gov, and gov remains corrupt bc it is almost in the title.
3d. The casual use of guns in US crime is already a well-established principle, including in home invasions.
3e. The mentally ill are 'kept' on the street in the US as opposed to in institutions. A generalization, fight me.
4. Effective gun confiscation in the US is an impossibility. The best that could be hoped for is to take away all legally owned guns, leaving criminals with all the guns and law abiding citizens defenceless. Not a satisfactory outcome.
5. Tightening gun legislation in the US is mostly pointless bc as it is, any malcontent who wants a gun is going to be able to get a gun, laws or no laws.
Am I missing something?
Some problems are without solution.
-
old NRA talking points taste best when shat out by young podcasters.
you are missing things.
a lot of things.
1. A civil society without excess numbers of guns is better than one with, all things being equal.
2. Guns generally last a reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeally long time, 100 years is well possible.
bullets.
BULLETS.
guns without bullets aren't very useful.
just like a mind without critical thinking skills...
3. The US is a special case, many unusual factors come together.
3a. The US is already flooded with both legally and illegally owned guns.
flooded by who?
who makes the guns?
who makes the guns and who makes the loopholes?
are you stupid? - yes. yes you are.
3b. The US is a multicultural and thus low-trust society.
that lowtrust perpetuated by fearstoked media and leadership.
3c. The US is founded on the principle of suspicion of government, unlike e.g. Europe where the corresponding principle is arguably obedience to government. Therefore the public feel they need guns to protect themselves from gov, and gov remains corrupt bc it is almost in the title.
it IS in the "title"
"security of the State" against the Fed.
not the 2008 version.
3d. The casual use of guns in US crime is already a well-established principle, including in home invasions.
that is irrelevant.
if you want to plead for real stats, use grocery store hold ups
3e. The mentally ill are 'kept' on the street in the US as opposed to in institutions. A generalization, fight me.
that is irrelevant to guns unless you need a gun to shoot the mentally ill.
what is relevant is why it's not on the gun application.
and has been kept off the application.
and redflag are being fought against.
and vouching is not on the application.
so you're wrong - twice.
congrats on making a double wrong statement.
4. Effective gun confiscation in the US is an impossibility. The best that could be hoped for is to take away all legally owned guns, leaving criminals with all the guns and law abiding citizens defenceless. Not a satisfactory outcome.
kirk could've had 2guns on each hip.
without a plated vest it does nothing.
you walk around vested?
also, BULLLETS.
alos also, the outcome is only in your opinion.
if the State wants you to have defense, it's the State's rights, not the Fed.
5. Tightening gun legislation in the US is mostly pointless bc as it is, any malcontent who wants a gun is going to be able to get a gun, laws or no laws.
this is just repetition of #2, #3abcde, #4.
"it's pointless so do nothing."
so's abortion.
so's illegal immigration.
so's drug use.
so's speech.
so's transwashroom.
so's pedo's.
so's trump grabbing pussy.
-
spectacular
i am definitely NOT doing that.
this isn't some cases, it's the entire method of finding a sample.
why do you think the concern about sampling method, as mentioned 4th time now, is not wrong.
1 call only poor people.
2 talk to mostly men.
3 talk to those who show propensity to react with a firearm without dicerning warrant for reaction or overreaction ("i feared for my life").
so why wouldn't all klecks or surveys that follow such a formula generate the same results?
are you stupid?
you sound stupid.
say another stupid thing.
(https://despair.com/cdn/shop/products/consistencydemotivator.jpeg?v=1414004030)
oh look
kleck-method-dumb was ignored.
how convenient.
pos.