The Flat Earth Society
Other Discussion Boards => Philosophy, Religion & Society => Topic started by: Luke 22:35-38 on December 14, 2015, 09:46:52 PM
-
I'm for them as a right under the second amendment.
-
Why are you assaulting people?
-
Why are you assaulting people?
Good one ;)
Actually anything can be used for assault. Knives, bats, chairs, etc.
-
You'd have to be some bad assed ninja to take out a room of people with a chair tho'.
I'd love an assault rifle, fortunately we have sane laws in this country, so just because I want one isn't a good enough reason, and therefore there aren't a bunch of unstable nutters with chips on their shoulders hoarding dangerous weapons.
We also haven't had 350 odd mass killings this year, what price freedom eh?
-
You'd have to be some bad assed ninja to take out a room of people with a chair tho'.
I'd love an assault rifle, fortunately we have sane laws in this country, so just because I want one isn't a good enough reason, and therefore there aren't a bunch of unstable nutters with chips on their shoulders hoarding dangerous weapons.
We also haven't had 350 odd mass killings this year, what price freedom eh?
I noticed that every mass shooting happened at a gun free zone.
-
god bless 'Murica!
Only there would that sentence be mistaken for a point.
-
god bless 'Murica!
Only there would that sentence be mistaken for a point.
Think about it, why all mass shootings happen at gun free zones?
-
Well even a cursory check proves this a lie, both Columbine and Virginia tech had armed guards.
-
Well even a cursory check proves this a lie, both Columbine and Virginia tech had armed guards.
And where were they when the shootings happened? Besides, did not both of them had a no gun policy?
-
god bless 'Murica!
Only there would that sentence be mistaken for a point.
Think about it, why all mass shootings happen at gun free zones?
They don't. That's a myth:
http://www.thetrace.org/2015/06/gun-rights-advocates-say-that-places-that-ban-guns-attract-mass-shooters-the-data-says-theyre-wrong/
-
god bless 'Murica!
Only there would that sentence be mistaken for a point.
Think about it, why all mass shootings happen at gun free zones?
They don't. That's a myth:
http://www.thetrace.org/2015/06/gun-rights-advocates-say-that-places-that-ban-guns-attract-mass-shooters-the-data-says-theyre-wrong/
Maybe I should've made myself clear, I don't think they target gun free zones (though the aurora shooter did) I'm saying that gun free zones allow for mass shootings. For example intersections are the most likely place for crashes.
-
Maybe I should've made myself clear, I don't think they target gun free zones (though the aurora shooter did) I'm saying that gun free zones allow for mass shootings. For example intersections are the most likely place for crashes.
This does not make sense. If you wanted to apply your logic to car crashes, you would say that most car crashes happen in car-free zones, not places of high traffic.
Anyway, Canada also has a large number of guns and no mass shootings, so the availability of guns is almost certainly not the most prevalent factor contributing to next to no mass shootings.
-
Mass shootings typically happen in locations with lots of people. You can't actually have a mass shooting where there are very few people.
So if we correlate that with gun free zones then we can conclude that gun-allowed zones don't have a lot of people. Possibly because guns are allowed.
As for assault weapons: sure. But lethal bullets are taxed 50000%.
-
It doesn’t matter that you are wrong about this gun free zone business, what surely is the point, is the fact that more people have been killed in your country over the last ten years by their own "neighbours" than the imagined hordes of terrorists you are presumably arming yourselves against.
I know you all want to play Rambo or imagine that you’re Jesse James, and you live in a broken society and all, but hasn’t it even sunk in a little bit that giving the unstable, poorly educated and paranoid assault weapons is just a teeny bit, fucking stupid?
-
There already is a gun/weapon thread. You could discuss this there.
http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=1332.0
-
There already is a gun/weapon thread. You could discuss this there.
http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=1332.0
You could also stop memberating.
-
What does that even mean
-
What does that even mean
It means member moderating, and is frowned upon. The thread you linked is a totally separate discussion. That would be like saying every discussion about video games should be contained to one thread, regardless of the game it's about or the discussion taking place.
-
Mass shootings typically happen in locations with lots of people. You can't actually have a mass shooting where there are very few people.
So if we correlate that with gun free zones then we can conclude that gun-allowed zones don't have a lot of people. Possibly because guns are allowed.
As for assault weapons: sure. But lethal bullets are taxed 50000%.
My point is that gun free zones are not neccesarally targeted for there gun freeness (I think I made a new word), what I'm saying is that gun free zones allow for more carnage.
-
In case anyone hasn't noticed, the amount of mass shootings we see today is relatively new compared to how long guns owned by citizens since even before America became a country. So the problem is not the guns otherwise we would've had this amount of mass shootings LONG ago, the problem is something else.
-
i don't totally get the fixation on mass shootings. i get that they're viscerally more frightening, but statistically they make up only a tiny fraction of 30,000+ firearms deaths in america each year.
-
i don't totally get the fixation on mass shootings. i get that they're viscerally more frightening, but statistically they make up only a tiny fraction of 30,000+ firearms deaths in america each year.
Mass shootings are simple and easy to know the entirety of the situation because there are few of them and the details are widely broadcasted. If we start talking about general firearm deaths, we'll end up talking about why, which will end up talking about race. People that like gun control tend to also be the same people who don't like talking about race, so therefore they avoid the subject entirely and concentrate on the easy mass shooting dilemma instead.
-
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
56 million defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control.
During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED!
It should be noted that I do not 100% oppose gun control of any kind. I believe that the solution to the vast majority of probelems lies between extremes and this is no exeption. I do believe that things like a minimum age to own guns and requiring at least 3 steps to fire a concealed gun are good laws, but it shouldn't be taken too far.
-
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
56 million defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control.
During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED!
It should be noted that I do not 100% oppose gun control of any kind. I believe that the solution to the vast majority of probelems lies between extremes and this is no exeption. I do believe that things like a minimum age to own guns and requiring at least 3 steps to fire a concealed gun are good laws, but it shouldn't be taken too far.
Thank you. It's nice to meet a fellow round earther from the other site, hiya.
-
What a complete and utter load of garbage!
Where to start?
Well China, Russia and Cambodia to begin, all of these revolutions started with an uprising against an incumbent state with an army, at the end of which these places were awash with weapons, so if a regular army with tanks and planes couldn't stop say Mao, you expect me to believe that what was left of the population could have done it with a few hunting rifles? Please?
This ridiculous myth that good old cotton eyed Joe with his second amendment is all that stands between you and anarchy/genocide is fantasy. Grow up.
-
What a complete and utter load of garbage!
Where to start?
Well China, Russia and Cambodia to begin, all of these revolutions started with an uprising against an incumbent state with an army, at the end of which these places were awash with weapons, so if a regular army with tanks and planes couldn't stop say Mao, you expect me to believe that what was left of the population could have done it with a few hunting rifles? Please?
This ridiculous myth that good old cotton eyed Joe with his second amendment is all that stands between you and anarchy/genocide is fantasy. Grow up.
All I see is one poster that has presented evidence of gun control leading to bad events and another poster that responds with "ur dum grow up lol"
-
What a complete and utter load of garbage!
Where to start?
Well China, Russia and Cambodia to begin, all of these revolutions started with an uprising against an incumbent state with an army, at the end of which these places were awash with weapons, so if a regular army with tanks and planes couldn't stop say Mao, you expect me to believe that what was left of the population could have done it with a few hunting rifles? Please?
This ridiculous myth that good old cotton eyed Joe with his second amendment is all that stands between you and anarchy/genocide is fantasy. Grow up.
All I see is one poster that has presented evidence of gun control leading to bad events and another poster that responds with "ur dum grow up lol"
All I hear is some blinkered good old boy who didn't read the whole post
-
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
56 million defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control.
During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED!
It should be noted that I do not 100% oppose gun control of any kind. I believe that the solution to the vast majority of probelems lies between extremes and this is no exeption. I do believe that things like a minimum age to own guns and requiring at least 3 steps to fire a concealed gun are good laws, but it shouldn't be taken too far.
Say...did got this from Don Boys because I heard this from Kent Hovind who quoted him.
-
What a complete and utter load of garbage!
Where to start?
Well China, Russia and Cambodia to begin, all of these revolutions started with an uprising against an incumbent state with an army, at the end of which these places were awash with weapons, so if a regular army with tanks and planes couldn't stop say Mao, you expect me to believe that what was left of the population could have done it with a few hunting rifles? Please?
This ridiculous myth that good old cotton eyed Joe with his second amendment is all that stands between you and anarchy/genocide is fantasy. Grow up.
All I see is one poster that has presented evidence of gun control leading to bad events and another poster that responds with "ur dum grow up lol"
All I hear is some blinkered good old boy who didn't read the whole post
Um, the point was that millions died because of gun control, not that a civilian army will always win.
-
All I hear is some blinkered good old boy who didn't read the whole post
Is it common in your country to respond to evidence with speculation?
-
All I hear is some blinkered good old boy who didn't read the whole post
Is it common in your country to respond to evidence with speculation?
I don't see any evidence, and the speculation is all on the side of the “milkman”, gun control didn't kill those millions, tyrants with their followers did, no causal relation exists between the two.
Take Hitler, despite the gun control put in by the Versailles treaty he managed the Beer Hall Putsch but I am expected to believe that the 1% of Germany's population (the Jews) could have fought off the Nazi's, both sides would have been able to get arms if they became widely available and they would have still been massively outnumbered.
As far as Stalin is concerned armed civilians were the problem in the first place, that is what the Bolsheviks were.
-
A lot of those factoids are too broad to draw such conclusions.
For example, gun control in nazi germany actually decreased over time. Also, Jews didn't know they were going to die early on. So defend from what?
-
Take Hitler, despite the gun control put in by the Versailles treaty he managed the Beer Hall Putsch but I am expected to believe that the 1% of Germany's population (the Jews) could have fought off the Nazi's, both sides would have been able to get arms if they became widely available and they would have still been massively outnumbered.
What you're telling me is that gun control allowed a small minority political party to gain control and push the country into WWII.
As far as Stalin is concerned armed civilians were the problem in the first place, that is what the Bolsheviks were.
As far as Stalin is concerned everyone was a problem which could be solved by killing them.
gun control in nazi germany actually decreased over time
As time progressed, most people that vocally disagreed with the Nazis were either dead, dying, or in jail.
-
the carthaginians at cannae: no guns.
anglo-saxons at hastings: no guns.
cumans at kalka river: no guns.
america, on the other hand, has lots of guns and has never been invaded by romans, normans, or mongols. not even once. checkmate, liberals.
-
the carthaginians at cannae: no guns.
anglo-saxons at hastings: no guns.
cumans at kalka river: no guns.
america, on the other hand, has lots of guns and has never been invaded by romans, normans, or mongols. not even once. checkmate, liberals.
Vikings invaded America before Columbus existed. And they had no guns, just axes.
Check mate conservatives.
-
the carthaginians at cannae: no guns.
anglo-saxons at hastings: no guns.
cumans at kalka river: no guns.
america, on the other hand, has lots of guns and has never been invaded by romans, normans, or mongols. not even once. checkmate, liberals.
Vikings invaded America before Columbus existed. And they had no guns, just axes.
Check mate conservatives.
Don't call checkmate so quickly. Sure, in ancient time they didn't had guns but that I think what garygreen was saying is that in those examples they didn't had arms.
-
fwiw i was being sarcastic. cherrypicking a few historical examples and taking them wildly out of context is a silly method of evaluating the net benefits of private gun ownership.
the carthaginians at cannae: no guns.
anglo-saxons at hastings: no guns.
cumans at kalka river: no guns.
america, on the other hand, has lots of guns and has never been invaded by romans, normans, or mongols. not even once. checkmate, liberals.
Vikings invaded America before Columbus existed. And they had no guns, just axes.
Check mate conservatives.
yeah, and how many vikings have invaded america since the second amendment was passed? DOUBLE CHECKMATE, LIBERALS. KING ME.
-
fwiw i was being sarcastic. cherrypicking a few historical examples and taking them wildly out of context is a silly method of evaluating the net benefits of private gun ownership.
the carthaginians at cannae: no guns.
anglo-saxons at hastings: no guns.
cumans at kalka river: no guns.
america, on the other hand, has lots of guns and has never been invaded by romans, normans, or mongols. not even once. checkmate, liberals.
Vikings invaded America before Columbus existed. And they had no guns, just axes.
Check mate conservatives.
yeah, and how many vikings have invaded america since the second amendment was passed? DOUBLE CHECKMATE, LIBERALS. KING ME.
I think you mixed chess and checkers together.
-
The idea that the Japanese decided not to invade continental America because of the armed civilian population is a myth (as is the "every blade of glass" quote), and like a couple of people pointed out, boiling those genocides down to "ermahgerd gun control did this!!!1" is absurd.
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/gun-control-in-australia/
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/misquoting-yamamoto/
-
Would it be harder to capture and hold a nation in which a lot of the population owned guns, or one in which none of the population owned guns?
-
even if no american citizens in 1941 owned any guns, the difference would have been negligible from japan's perspective. america was too large, too populated, and too far away to be conquered by the imperial army. conquering america wasn't an objective of the imperial army in ww2.
-
Which is why nearly all military studies consider the attack on Pearl Harbor to be one of the dumbest strategic moves ever committed by a modern nation.
-
[hindsight]even that might be putting it lightly. it really can't be any worse than the second-worst military decision made in the 20th century. the wehrmacht's invasion of the ussr takes first place for me, but it's probably a toss-up.[/hindsight]
-
No, the Nazis invading the Soviet Union is definitely #1. Probably of all time even.
-
One of the great deceptions of the official line on history: it was the USSR which invaded Germany and not the other way around.
The extraordinary account, in the one of the great classics of 20th century, ICEBREAKER: Who Started World War II:
V. Suvorov - Icebreaker
Suvorov challenges the widely-accepted view that Adolf Hitler and the Nazi regime attacked an unsuspecting USSR on June 22, 1941 with a much superior and better prepared force. Instead, Suvorov argues that the Soviet Union was poised to invade Nazi-controlled territories in July 1941.
Stalin planned to attack Nazi Germany from the rear in July 1941, only a few weeks after the date on which the Axis invasion of the Soviet Union took place. According to Suvorov, the Red Army had been already redeployed from a defensive to an offensive position. As described in Suvorov's books, Stalin had made no major defensive preparations. On the contrary, the Stalin line fortifications through Belarus-Ukraine were dismantled, and the new Molotov line was all but finished by the time of Nazi invasion.
From the classic "Red Symphony" document (time of writing, January 1938)
G. - Exactly. Have you thought of the practical plan of realization?
R. - I had had more than enough time for that at the Lubianka. I considered. So look: if there were difficulties in finding mutually shared points between us and all else took its normal course, then the problems comes down to again trying to establish that in which there is similarity between Hitler and Stalin.
G. - Yes, but admit that all this is problematical.
R. - But not insoluble, as you think. In reality problems are insoluble only when they include dialectical subjective contradictions; and even in that case we always consider possible and essential a synthesis, overcoming the "morally-impossible" of Christian metaphysicians.
G. - Again you begin to theorize.
R. - As the result of my intellecutal discipline - this is essential for me. People of a big culture prefer to approach the concrete through a generalization, and not the other way round. With Hitler and with Stalin one can find common ground, as, being very different people, they have the same roots; if Hitler is sentimental to a pathological degree, but Stalin is normal, yet both of them are egoists: neither one of them is an idealist, and for that reason both of them are bonapartists, i.e. classical Imperialists. And if just that is the position, then it is already not difficult to find common ground betveen them. Why not, if it proved possible between one Tsarina and one Prussian King ...
G. - Rakovsky, you are incorrigible ...
R. - You do not guess? If Poland was the point of union between Catherine and Frederick - the Tsarina of Russia and the King of Germany at that time, then why cannot Poland serve as a reason for the finding of common ground between Hitler and Stalin? In Poland the persons of Hitler and Stalin can coincide. and also the historical Tsarist Bolshevik and Nazi lines. Our line, "Their' line - also, as Poland is a Christian State and, what makes the matter even more complex, a Catholic one.
G. - And what follows from the fact of such a treble coincidence?
R. - If there is common ground then there is a possibility of agreement.
G. - Between Hitler and Stalin? ... Absurd! Impossible.
R. - In politics there are neither absurdities, nor the impossible.
G. - Let us imagine, as an hypothesis: Hitler and Stalin advance on Poland.
R. - Permit me to interrupt you; an attack can be called forth only by the following alternative: war or peace. You must admit it.
G. - Well, and so what?
R. - Do you consider that England and France, with their worse
armies and aviation, in comparison with Hitler's, can attack the united Hitler and Stalin?
G. - Yes, that seems to me to be very difficult ... unless America ...
R. - Let us leave the United States aside for the moment. Will you agree with me that as the result of the attack of Hitler and Stalin on Poland there can be no European war?
G. - You argue logically; it would seem impossible.
R. - In that case an attack or war would be useless. It would not call forth the mutual destruction of the bourgeois States: the Hitlerist threat to the USSR would continue in being after the division of Poland since theoretically both Germany and the USSR would have been strengthened to the same extent. In practice Hitler to a greater extent since the USSR does not need more land and raw materials for its strengthening, but Hitler does need them.
G. - This is a correct view ..., but I can see no other solution.
R. - No, there is a solution.
G. - Which?
R. - That the democracies should attack and not attack the aggressor.
G. - What are you saying, what hallucination! Simultaneously to attack and not to attack ... That is something absolutely impossible.
R. - You think so? Calm down ... Are there not two aggressors? Did we not agree that there will be no advance just because there are two? Well ... What prevents the attack on one of them?
G. - What do you want to say by that?
R. - Simply that the democracies will declare war only on one aggressor, and that will be Hitler.
G. - Yes, but that is an unfounded hypothesis.
R. - An hypothesis, but having a foundation. Consider: each State which will have to fight with a coalition of enemy States has as its main strategical objective to destroy them separately one after another. This rule is so well known that proofs are superfluous. So, agree with me that there are no obstacles to the creation of such conditions. I think that the question that Stalin will not consider himself aggrieved in case of an attack on Hitler is already settled. Is that not so? In addition geography imposes this attitude, and for that reason strategy also. However stupid France and England may be in preparing to fight simultaneously against two countries, one of which wants to preserve its neutrality, while the other, even being alone, represents for them a serious opponent, from where and from which side could they carry out an attack on the USSR? They have not got a common border; unless they were to advance over the Himalayas ... Yes, there remains the air front, but with what forces and from where could they invade Russia? In comparison with Hitler they are weaker in the air. All the arguments I have mentioned are no secret and are well known. As you see, all is simplified to a considerable extent.
G.- Yes, your arguments seem to be logical in the case if the conflict will be limited to four countries; but there are not four, but more, and neutrality is not a simple matter in a war on the given scale.
R. - Undoubtedly, but the possible participation of many countries does not change the power relationships. Weigh this in your mind and you will see how the balance will continue, even if others or even all European States come in. In addition, and this is very important, not one of those States, which will enter the war at the side of England and France will be able to deprive them of leadership; as a result the reasons which will prevent their attack on the USSR will retain their significance.
Outwardly everything seemed equitable, a part of Poland for Hitler and a part for Stalin. However, just one week after the signing of the Pact, Stalin played his first dirty trick. Hitler began the war against Poland, while Stalin stated that his troops were not yet ready. He could have told Ribbentrop that before the Pact was signed, but he did not do so. Hitler began the war and found himself on his own. The result? He, and he alone, was branded the perpetrator of the Second World War.
In the end, however, Poland, for whose liberty the West had gone to war, ended up with none at all. On the contrary, she was handed over to Stalin, along with the whole of Eastern Europe, including a part of Germany. Even so, there are some people in the West who continue to believe that the West won the Second World War.
History states [wrote Stalin] that when one country wants to go to war with another, even one which is not a neighbour, then it begins to seek frontiers across which it would be able to reach the frontiers of the countries it wishes to attack. (Pravda, 5 March 1936)
-
Oh! sweet mother of god, I'm out.
-
The date for Operation Thunderstorm (invasion of Germany) was set for July 6, 1941; it was only at the last moment that the Wehrmacht decided to strike back, knowing full well that a war on two fronts could not be won.
As we have seen from the Red Symphony document, the Western leaders wanted a war against Hitler, using Stalin; they did not understand that Stalin had a hidden plan of his own: to swiftly attack Europe in 1941 and take over the entire continent very fast.
At the news of the battle of Kursk, where the Germans and Soviets were annihilating each other, the leaders of the West must have been laughing their bellies off: Germany and the USSR should have been fighting standing back to back and not face to face (Germany to have the time to attack Britain, and the USSR to attack Japan and Asia).
Realizing this fact, Stalin began another set of secret operations in 1945: in less than ten years, to invade both Europe and Alaska, and from there Britain, Canada, and western part of the United States.
Stalin, however, did not understand one basic fact: that the secret societies which ruled the Vatican, London and New York could have taken him out at any time, no matter how many purges were going on in the former USSR.
I fully believe that if Stalin had not made this unfortunate remark to Churchill, he might have been given some five more years to live.
“How many divisions does the Pope of Rome have?” Stalin asked, suddenly interrupting Churchill’s line of reasoning.
The response from Pius XII was this:
"You can tell my son Joseph that he will meet my divisions in heaven”.
Stalin did not understand that once you mess with the Italians, something terrible will happen, and the Jesuits showed Stalin just what kind of divisions they had at their disposal: they took both Stalin and Beria out.
Let us turn our attention to a gun culture that works: Switzerland.
Switzerland trails behind only the U.S, Yemen and Serbia in the number of guns per capita; between 2.3 million and 4.5 million military and private firearms are estimated to be in circulation in a country of only 8 million people. Yet, despite the prevalence of guns, the violent-crime rate is low: government figures show about 0.5 gun homicides per 100,000 inhabitants in 2010. By comparison, the U.S rate in the same year was about 5 firearm killings per 100,000 people, according to a 2011 U.N. report.
One of the reasons the crime rate in Switzerland is low despite the prevalence of weapons — and also why the Swiss mentality can’t be transposed to the current American reality — is the culture of responsibility and safety that is anchored in society and passed from generation to generation. Kids as young as 12 belong to gun groups in their local communities, where they learn sharpshooting. The Swiss Shooting Sports Association runs about 3,000 clubs and has 150,000 members, including a youth section. Many members keep their guns and ammunition at home, while others choose to leave them at the club. And yet, despite such easy access to pistols and rifles, “no members have ever used their guns for criminal purposes,” says Max Flueckiger, the association’s spokesperson.
“Social conditions are fundamental in deterring crime,” says Peter Squires, professor of criminology and public policy at the University of Brighton in Great Britain, who has studied gun violence in different countries and concluded that a “culture of support” rather than focus on individualism, can deter mass killings.
“If people have a responsible, disciplined and organized introduction into an activity like shooting, there will be less risk of gun violence,” he tells TIME.
That sense of social and civic responsibility is one of the reasons the Swiss have never allowed their guns to come under fire.
-
(http://i.imgur.com/kkUP6Ti.png)
i know you are wrong because of the Ultimate Red Truth File (1941). this document is undeniable. in it, stalin has a secret conversation with churchill and roosevelt in which he explains:
Dudes, I would seriously love to take down some fascists for my bros. You know that. But we got some issues over here tryin'a get our shit tight, nawmsayin? Can't be stealin' on sucka emcees til we get that shit locked down for real.
that's straight out of stalin's mouth, and it's more recent, so it trumps whatever that advisor was talking about in your document. stalin actually later addresses that interview in his secret meeting, as revealed in the red truth file (pp. 36-37):
S: What, that Rakovsky dude? Shit, he's just a corner kid, doesn't know a damn thing. We pump all the corner kids with disinfo in case the 5-0 start bangin' heads.
C: Nice, dude. Nice.
S: Fuckin' SWICK is what it is, bro. Pound it.
-
You should go back to troll school for a refresher course.
-
Actually, garygreen should go back to junior high school: he doesn't know d*ck about science.
It isn't 'powered' by anything. The core of a giant ball of gas doesn't have to burn fuel to be hot. See: gas giants. This is what I was getting at with the Jupiter example on the first page. This is all perfectly consistent with how modern science describes all the gas giants.
Jupiter's core is very hot. Jupiter's surface is very cold. Convection is happening in between.
When you take a break from weed and baseball, you might want to read about Jupiter's anomalous IR radiation.
Deathride is the only one of the five that I wouldn't recommend reading. The author's argument is that it's nothing short of a miracle that the Wehrmacht was defeated by the Red Army, that Hitler's strategic assessment of the Eastern Front was entirely rational, and that the war didn't begin to turn against Germany until the 6th Army's surrender at Stalingrad. His argument would be compelling if it didn't omit the most salient argument against Barbarossa: logistics. He focuses far too much on raw casualty figures and fails to recognize the complete inability of the Wehrmacht to sustain those operations in Soviet territory. Operation Barbarossa makes a much, much more compelling argument that Barbarossa was always a total fantasy.
Operation Barbarossa was a consequence of Operation Thunderstorm, the subject of my previous messages: obviously you didn't know d*ck about this either.
I haven't done an IQ-test, and I do not think I want to.
My life has been lonely, but it is when with other people that I tend to feel at my loneliest. Part for that is to blame for me, as I tend to non-conform. More, if I do not agree with something I might refuse or try to get out of it.
You got it wrong. Non-conformity is not necessarily your problem. You are desperately trying to look much smarter than you actually are, and it doesn't work out at all.
-
of those three quotes, one of them is on an entirely different subject, and one is by an entirely different person.
the fact that i've been confused for thork is giving me some serious pause. whoopsy, i thought that IQs quote came from thork, but i just realized that it's copypasta i posted in complete nonsense. same difference, i guess.
thank you for the awesome revisionist history lesson, but what does any of this have to do with private firearm use?
-
Which is why nearly all military studies consider the attack on Pearl Harbor to be one of the dumbest strategic moves ever committed by a modern nation.
They were kind of forced into doing it. Japan had few options left at that stage.
-
We kinda got off topic.
-
Look, these gun threads never go anywhere. You end up with a bunch of eurocucks claiming guns are bad and then some guy from Britain will come in and brag about their gun control, completely forgetting they live on an island. After that, the USA brigade quotes the second amendment and reminds everyone that repealing an amendment is borderline impossible. The end.
-
Look, these gun threads never go anywhere. You end up with a bunch of eurocucks claiming guns are bad and then some guy from Britain will come in and brag about their gun control, completely forgetting they live on an island. After that, the USA brigade quotes the second amendment and reminds everyone that repealing an amendment is borderline impossible. The end.
But if we didn't bitch about topics that go nowhere, we wouldn't exist as a forum.
-
After that, the USA brigade quotes the second amendment and reminds everyone that repealing an amendment is borderline impossible.
That shouldn't really matter in this discussion, though. If the question is 'are guns bad and should we get rid of them?' the fact that passing the law to do it would be difficult is irrelevant.
Similarly, in a discussion about whether it would be better to get rid of the monarchy or not, arguing that the majority of MPs would never vote to do so is an irrelevant distraction.
-
Look, these gun threads never go anywhere. You end up with a bunch of eurocucks claiming guns are bad and then some guy from Britain will come in and brag about their gun control, completely forgetting they live on an island. After that, the USA brigade quotes the second amendment and reminds everyone that repealing an amendment is borderline impossible. The end.
So all your 4,600 odd posts have turned you into scrooge!
We aren’t allowed to work ourselves into a mood of questionable moral superiority and you don’t want to get that red mist where the only possible out is to put on your dungarees and machine-gun Wall-mart? Your Pappy will be turnin’ in his grave, have yourself some moonshine boy.
-
After that, the USA brigade quotes the second amendment and reminds everyone that repealing an amendment is borderline impossible.
That shouldn't really matter in this discussion, though. If the question is 'are guns bad and should we get rid of them?' the fact that passing the law to do it would be difficult is irrelevant.
Similarly, in a discussion about whether it would be better to get rid of the monarchy or not, arguing that the majority of MPs would never vote to do so is an irrelevant distraction.
Why would quoting a document defining gun ownership as a basic human right not be part of the discussion about guns? It doesn't really matter if you or anyone else thinks guns are bad.
-
After that, the USA brigade quotes the second amendment and reminds everyone that repealing an amendment is borderline impossible.
That shouldn't really matter in this discussion, though. If the question is 'are guns bad and should we get rid of them?' the fact that passing the law to do it would be difficult is irrelevant.
Similarly, in a discussion about whether it would be better to get rid of the monarchy or not, arguing that the majority of MPs would never vote to do so is an irrelevant distraction.
Even if the 2nd amendment was repealed tomorrow, gun buybacks were enacted and heavy restrictions legislated, there are simply far too many weapons in the US to ever see any drastic improvement in gun deaths. As if it needs to be said, most gun violence is not performed by legal owners.
Gun legislation worked well for Australia because we only had very few weapons to begin with, and no 'right to bear arms' embedded in the national ego. People with SLR's and AR-15's thought "yeah maybe I don't need weapons like these" and happily handed them over to the government. That would never happen in the US.
I don't know what the best action is for the US, but it's not hard to see that strict regulation and buybacks are folly. The latest shooting itself was performed with legally obtained AR-15's wasn't it?
-
After that, the USA brigade quotes the second amendment and reminds everyone that repealing an amendment is borderline impossible.
That shouldn't really matter in this discussion, though. If the question is 'are guns bad and should we get rid of them?' the fact that passing the law to do it would be difficult is irrelevant.
Similarly, in a discussion about whether it would be better to get rid of the monarchy or not, arguing that the majority of MPs would never vote to do so is an irrelevant distraction.
Why would quoting a document defining gun ownership as a basic human right not be part of the discussion about guns? It doesn't really matter if you or anyone else thinks guns are bad.
Because we're talking about whether tightening or repealing that amendment would be a good thing or not.
It's like trying to close down the discussion about drug legalisation by saying "well it doesn't matter whether you or anyone else thinks drugs are good. We have a law banning them."
-
Because we're talking about whether tightening or repealing that amendment would be a good thing or not.
It's like trying to close down the discussion about drug legalisation by saying "well it doesn't matter whether you or anyone else thinks drugs are good. We have a law banning them."
This isn't just any law, this is a part of a specific document that bequeaths what we consider modern rights to an entire country. Forgive me if I don't seriously entertain the thought of stripping rights from people.
-
I once got to try out my uncle's M4 variant rifle. It had a scope and a foregrip. I'm not going to lie, it felt really damn awesome just holding it. They must have spent a shit ton of money designing those, because it felt like an extension of my own arm.
-
"Assault" weapon/rifle is a term the left-wingers love to use. It makes the rifles sound scarier. Unless one has gone through the procedures and has the finances to get an actual class 3 'automatic' rifle, that person has a semi-auto rifle, which is just a cosmetic clone of the real military rifle that fires the same ammo.
-
Do you really need an assault weapon? I mean do you really need that much power? What about your own tank? Or an armed tactical fighter jet? An apache helicopter complete with hellfire missiles? Why not be able to buy a nuke?
At some point you need to be able to draw the line. I don't think anyone would consider it ok to allow a private citizen to buy a nuclear weapon just because they applied for a license to own and operate it. No one is trusted with that kind of power. So dial it back. How much power should be allowed? A rail gun? Should you be able to buy semtex? Is an RPG ok? A minigun? An assault rifle?
How much destructive power can you risk giving any sane and licensed person and hope that they never use it on other people? I'd argue a gun that can kill everything in a classroom in under 4 seconds is probably too much power.
-
Do you really need an assault weapon? I mean do you really need that much power? What about your own tank? Or an armed tactical fighter jet? An apache helicopter complete with hellfire missiles? Why not be able to buy a nuke?
At some point you need to be able to draw the line. I don't think anyone would consider it ok to allow a private citizen to buy a nuclear weapon just because they applied for a license to own and operate it. No one is trusted with that kind of power. So dial it back. How much power should be allowed? A rail gun? Should you be able to buy semtex? Is an RPG ok? A minigun? An assault rifle?
How much destructive power can you risk giving any sane and licensed person and hope that they never use it on other people? I'd argue a gun that can kill everything in a classroom in under 4 seconds is probably too much power.
All of the things you listed are legal to own privately. Due to the nature of the second amendment, any true "this weapon is illegal" law would be rendered unconstitutional, so all the US can do is hide weapons under red tape. A type 11 Federal Firearms License has no restrictions on what type of weapons you can own or import (however 'developing' or 'using' a nuclear weapon is illegal). Theoretically one could own a nuclear weapon. Kodak privately owned a nuclear reactor in their lab for many decades and it produced extremely small quantities of weaponized uranium as a byproduct. To skirt this, federal law refers to the "use" of a nuclear weapon being illegal, not the ownership. It's a pretty big gray area, but it'd generally be a bad idea to try to make one.
There are firing ranges across the midwest specifically built for tank and artillery owners to fire their weapons. Also, from what I remember, the dealer that supplies FPSRussia his weapons to show on YouTube was a type 9 FFL. Someone ended up murdering the guy in his house.
https://youtu.be/4dhSYDZy2Yc?t=1m40s
Fires the tank at ~1:40
-
American's always have this thing about their constitution being like a religious text. It can't be challenged, anything in there is gospel, it's absolutely perfect and only straying from the constitution causes problems. There is of course a small chance anything written by man, especially hundreds of years ago contains a large amount of bollocks in it. Your constitution included.
The statistics don't lie. The more guns a nation has, the more likely people will shoot each other with them. So if you give them more powerful guns, they'll do more damage with them. Is the reward of putting a smile on a hillbilly's face when he blows up a melon in the dessert, worth horror on a mother's face when she discovers her child was shot dead by a guy with a mental illness whilst at school?
Just because you can have these things, doesn't mean its a good idea.
-
The police in the United States are constantly having to deal with supercriminals attacking cities with their tank and fighter jet forces.
-
American's always have this thing about their constitution being like a religious text. It can't be challenged, anything in there is gospel, it's absolutely perfect and only straying from the constitution causes problems. There is of course a small chance anything written by man, especially hundreds of years ago contains a large amount of bollocks in it. Your constitution included.
But the second amendment has not been revoked, and as long as that's the case Americans will have the right to bear arms. All this gun control people are fighting for is unconstitutional and if they are willing to disobey the constitution then what's stopping them from taking away our freedom of speech or right to not be slaves? The constitution can indeed be amended but the vast majority of states must agree to change it and we know that such a thing is never going to happen, and and because the constitution still contains the second amendment any politician trying to take away guns is breaking the oath they swore when they were put into office which is basically treason.
The statistics don't lie. The more guns a nation has, the more likely people will shoot each other with them. So if you give them more powerful guns, they'll do more damage with them. Is the reward of putting a smile on a hillbilly's face when he blows up a melon in the dessert, worth horror on a mother's face when she discovers her child was shot dead by a guy with a mental illness whilst at school?
Just because you can have these things, doesn't mean its a good idea.
Indeed, statistics don't lie. You should look up which states have the most crime and which states have the strictest gun control. You will find that the two lists look remarkably similar. The states that have high gun control like Callifornia drive up the national average. I've been to California and let me tell you, I'd prefer being in my home state Utah with low gun control any day. Just compare the crime rates of those states and you will see what I mean.
Internationally the correlation is much less noticeable simply because all nations are very different in many ways and crime rates are effected my more then the number of guns available. If you want some examples: Mexico has strict gun control and high crime while Switzerland has very high gun ownership and very low crime. Individual states make for a more accurite controlled comparison because that are more simelar.
-
You could buy a tank or a jet, but good fucking luck getting the insane chain of maintenance that vehicles like that require.
-
But the second amendment has not been revoked, and as long as that's the case Americans will have the right to bear arms. All this gun control people are fighting for is unconstitutional and if they are willing to disobey the constitution then what's stopping them from taking away our freedom of speech or right to not be slaves?
They already removed your right to free speech. You say something homophobic, or racist, or anything that the liberal left disapproves of and they will arrest you on crimes of 'hate speech' and allow vigilante justice to prevail as your job and future income is forcibly removed.
They also made you a slave. When you were born, you were issued with a birth certificate. If you were the child of a multi-millionaire your birth certificate went to the Federal Reserve and was placed in the pile for 'preferred stock'. If you are anyone else your were packaged as 'common stock'. Your birth certificate (which reads like a shipping document) was then sold by the federal reserve to the highest bidder as 'bonds'. The clue is in the name. Your future labour will pay back those bonds as interest for the rest of your life via income tax ... in other words someone out there has a stake in your future income and gets that money! If that isn't slavery, I don't know what is. If you were ever to get your own birth certificate back, you'd see a list of banks on the back, all of which who had OWNED you before selling you on to the next.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1sxPWwEZ2g
Bit about both certificates starts at 2:30 but the entire video is interesting and I picked this video as it is a good explanation.
So now you know nothing in your constitution means anything anyway, can we move on from "But its my constitutional right to bear arms", please?
-
Oh no, not that redemption/strawman/sovereign citizen/freeman on the land bullshit. From a financial, legal, historical, or logical viewpoint, none of it makes any sense whatsoever.
I don't know what else to say about this. It's so detached from reality, so completely nuts, that I'm not even sure where to begin in tearing it down. Bonds aren't sold to the highest bidder, for one thing. Anyone can buy bonds, and anyone who has can confirm that they have absolutely nothing to do with birth certificates, and that they aren't paid anyone's income taxes as interest. How would that even work for immigrants, anyway? They have to pay income tax too, but the government couldn't be claiming the birth certificates of people being born in different countries. And what about all the people (http://www.cnbc.com/2015/10/09/775-million-households-are-not-paying-federal-income-taxes.html) who don't pay federal income taxes?
Also, hate speech isn't a crime in America.
-
Indeed, statistics don't lie. ... crime rates are effected my[sic] more then the number of guns available.
You realize how you are completely defeating your own point?
-
But the second amendment has not been revoked, and as long as that's the case Americans will have the right to bear arms. All this gun control people are fighting for is unconstitutional and if they are willing to disobey the constitution then what's stopping them from taking away our freedom of speech or right to not be slaves?
They already removed your right to free speech. You say something homophobic, or racist, or anything that the liberal left disapproves of and they will arrest you on crimes of 'hate speech' and allow vigilante justice to prevail as your job and future income is forcibly removed.
They also made you a slave. When you were born, you were issued with a birth certificate. If you were the child of a multi-millionaire your birth certificate went to the Federal Reserve and was placed in the pile for 'preferred stock'. If you are anyone else your were packaged as 'common stock'. Your birth certificate (which reads like a shipping document) was then sold by the federal reserve to the highest bidder as 'bonds'. The clue is in the name. Your future labour will pay back those bonds as interest for the rest of your life via income tax ... in other words someone out there has a stake in your future income and gets that money! If that isn't slavery, I don't know what is. If you were ever to get your own birth certificate back, you'd see a list of banks on the back, all of which who had OWNED you before selling you on to the next.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1sxPWwEZ2g
Bit about both certificates starts at 2:30 but the entire video is interesting and I picked this video as it is a good explanation.
So now you know nothing in your constitution means anything anyway, can we move on from "But its my constitutional right to bear arms", please?
And do you agree with our constitutional rights being violated? The constitution is there to protect the people from the government and it's the supreme law of the land that even the givernment is under. There are systems in place to change it if the need arises and if the vast majority of people agree that the change is needed. I know that the constitution was written by mistake making human beings, but if we are OK with the government defying the constitution then we revoke the rights it guarantees us and opens the doors for a dictatorship, monarchy, socialism, and stuff like that. If the government has too much power then power is taken away from the people and it ceases to become a democracy. I know you don't agree with the second amendment, but do you see why the constitution must be upheld?