|
On June 09 2013 18:28 Monsen wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2013 17:44 theodorus12 wrote:On June 09 2013 17:41 Monsen wrote:On June 09 2013 17:00 theodorus12 wrote:On June 09 2013 16:41 Monsen wrote:On June 09 2013 14:42 Djzapz wrote:On June 09 2013 14:35 Acritter wrote:On June 09 2013 13:58 Djzapz wrote:On June 09 2013 13:54 Kaitlin wrote:On June 09 2013 02:02 Larkin wrote: More people have died from gun violence in the US since Sandy Hook than military personnel in the Middle East since 2001.
You really have to stop thinking that it won't change a thing if stricter gun laws were implemented. Much of the gun violence is occurring in places where the strictest gun control laws are already in place. Chicago, California, etc, so one can hardly be convincing that gun control is the answer. Perhaps it's because the governments of places where gun violence is low don't feel the need to have stricter gun control laws. Gun control laws turn up in REACTION to gun violence, and fail to be effective. Many people like to pretend that gun control leads to violence which is hilarious. Either way, this debate is getting old and dumb. Let's not pretend like the US can be fixed by removing legal guns from it. The US is eternally crippled by social inequality which is the actual source of criminality. Illegal guns being all over the place doesn't help but they're just tools. It sounds a bit simplistic of me to say that the US is fucked but I don't see any drive to help the lower class in the US. So expect shootings and all-around high gun violence. That said, don't worry people: your odds of being hurt or killed in a shooting are so low that you shouldn't spend so much time and effort being worried for yourself and your family. If you feel the need to waste your money on protection, say you have a loose $800, get your brakes checked and buy elbow pads, it'll serve you better than a gun ever will. I was about to type things in, but then I read your post and now I feel useless. That was never my intention, good sir! But it's good to know that I was thorough enough. I broadly agree, the US is fucked (talking about guns here, obviously) and there is very little really to be done about it. The only thing driving me nuts in these topics are a) people pretending that the hundreds of millions of guns in the country aren't a problem. Yes, guns are just tools. But they're tools specifically invented, developed and optimized for killing. And b) the delusion that "the guns are needed because we might have to rise up against the government". Yeah that's a likely scenario. The evil "government" that is totally after the money/guns/religion/rights (this one is the funniest because, uh, patriot act) of Joe from the trailer park absolutely needs physical violence to get them because it's not like a fucking TV campaign will do the job, right? No. They would have to use force, and so- when they think of their highly trained and equipped soldiers, tanks and air force going up against those fat dudes with their rifles, they cover in fear. Because governments never turn evil and tyrannical right? As a German you should know better. Maybe you should stop throwing insults around and read some history books. Btw Hitler also was a big fan of the disarming of the minorities he didn't like. And it would never be US military vs American people, because.. the military is made from normal people, most very freedom loving, many would turn around when ordered to fire at Americans on US soil. Besides from that, insurgencies etc are not fought with tanks and bombers, but by people going house to house enforcing the new laws etc. and those ARE afraid of guns. Yeah, Hitler controlled the Germans due to the lack of guns, not with mass propaganda or anything. Shit I need to go learn some history, them Americans are really fucking educated. Also if the Gestapo would have needed it, they obviously could have gotten any kind of weaponry they required. Duh. Please at least try to think for yourself. You can't compare the times and the propaganda. It was aimed towards minorities, this will not be the case in America. And all the weapons wouldn't change anything for the gestapo, since you can't use tanks or planes for what they had to do... Sweet. Ok, let me break it down for you, Mr.Thinksforhimself: As shown in the very example you so eloquently brought up, you don't control a populace with the force of arms (which is why guns are useless against this) but with propaganda, diversion and corrupting the political system. Mechanisms which, funnily enough, are all already at work in the US to some degree or another. It doesn't matter if the sheep have shepherds staffs in their hands (hoofs), they are controlled by authority, sheepdogs and most importantly their herd instinct.
This is true if you want to go after a minority like Hitler did. However it's not the same if you want to establish a general police state. And also today it's much, much easier for the average person to get other information than that from the government and to see trough such plans.
All I wanted to show is that every tyrannical government tried hard to disarm the group of people it wanted to go against.
|
I would really like to see stats on violent crime per capita of nations with mandatory military service vs non mandatory service. I feel like that would be an intresting read.
Glad the cops handed out the correct sentence to this nut on site rather then waste money and time with courts.
RIP to the innocent
|
On June 08 2013 23:52 theking1 wrote: I can probably give you 10000 euros cash and you wouldn't be able to find a place to buy an illegal gun in Europe.let alone a semiautomatic necesarry for mass murders.Carrying an illegal gun automatically adds at least 10 more years to anything you commit and the fact they aren't available makes criminals search for other ways of violence.
Sorry, doesn't take for long in Finland which is Europe.
I don't really want to elaborate. So, I'm going to use an investigative journalist as an example. Without any criminal contacts, he was able to buy an illegal semi-automatic handgun in 4 days of time. One police officer whom heard the story actually laughed "what an amateur, shouldn't really take more than a day, even without contacts".
The arsenal includes semi-automatic/automatic pistols, shotguns and sub machine guns. SMG's are probably more common for the criminals than pistols.
There was Gangland shooting using submachine gun couple of months ago.
So yeah, can't imagine rest of the europe that safe either because it is really easy to move small amount of guns. And I figure criminals always have them, even if they don't use them.
|
On June 09 2013 18:35 theodorus12 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2013 18:28 Monsen wrote:On June 09 2013 17:44 theodorus12 wrote:On June 09 2013 17:41 Monsen wrote:On June 09 2013 17:00 theodorus12 wrote:On June 09 2013 16:41 Monsen wrote:On June 09 2013 14:42 Djzapz wrote:On June 09 2013 14:35 Acritter wrote:On June 09 2013 13:58 Djzapz wrote:On June 09 2013 13:54 Kaitlin wrote: [quote]
Much of the gun violence is occurring in places where the strictest gun control laws are already in place. Chicago, California, etc, so one can hardly be convincing that gun control is the answer. Perhaps it's because the governments of places where gun violence is low don't feel the need to have stricter gun control laws. Gun control laws turn up in REACTION to gun violence, and fail to be effective. Many people like to pretend that gun control leads to violence which is hilarious. Either way, this debate is getting old and dumb. Let's not pretend like the US can be fixed by removing legal guns from it. The US is eternally crippled by social inequality which is the actual source of criminality. Illegal guns being all over the place doesn't help but they're just tools. It sounds a bit simplistic of me to say that the US is fucked but I don't see any drive to help the lower class in the US. So expect shootings and all-around high gun violence. That said, don't worry people: your odds of being hurt or killed in a shooting are so low that you shouldn't spend so much time and effort being worried for yourself and your family. If you feel the need to waste your money on protection, say you have a loose $800, get your brakes checked and buy elbow pads, it'll serve you better than a gun ever will. I was about to type things in, but then I read your post and now I feel useless. That was never my intention, good sir! But it's good to know that I was thorough enough. I broadly agree, the US is fucked (talking about guns here, obviously) and there is very little really to be done about it. The only thing driving me nuts in these topics are a) people pretending that the hundreds of millions of guns in the country aren't a problem. Yes, guns are just tools. But they're tools specifically invented, developed and optimized for killing. And b) the delusion that "the guns are needed because we might have to rise up against the government". Yeah that's a likely scenario. The evil "government" that is totally after the money/guns/religion/rights (this one is the funniest because, uh, patriot act) of Joe from the trailer park absolutely needs physical violence to get them because it's not like a fucking TV campaign will do the job, right? No. They would have to use force, and so- when they think of their highly trained and equipped soldiers, tanks and air force going up against those fat dudes with their rifles, they cover in fear. Because governments never turn evil and tyrannical right? As a German you should know better. Maybe you should stop throwing insults around and read some history books. Btw Hitler also was a big fan of the disarming of the minorities he didn't like. And it would never be US military vs American people, because.. the military is made from normal people, most very freedom loving, many would turn around when ordered to fire at Americans on US soil. Besides from that, insurgencies etc are not fought with tanks and bombers, but by people going house to house enforcing the new laws etc. and those ARE afraid of guns. Yeah, Hitler controlled the Germans due to the lack of guns, not with mass propaganda or anything. Shit I need to go learn some history, them Americans are really fucking educated. Also if the Gestapo would have needed it, they obviously could have gotten any kind of weaponry they required. Duh. Please at least try to think for yourself. You can't compare the times and the propaganda. It was aimed towards minorities, this will not be the case in America. And all the weapons wouldn't change anything for the gestapo, since you can't use tanks or planes for what they had to do... Sweet. Ok, let me break it down for you, Mr.Thinksforhimself: As shown in the very example you so eloquently brought up, you don't control a populace with the force of arms (which is why guns are useless against this) but with propaganda, diversion and corrupting the political system. Mechanisms which, funnily enough, are all already at work in the US to some degree or another. It doesn't matter if the sheep have shepherds staffs in their hands (hoofs), they are controlled by authority, sheepdogs and most importantly their herd instinct. This is true if you want to go after a minority like Hitler did. However it's not the same if you want to establish a general police state. And also today it's much, much easier for the average person to get other information than that from the government and to see trough such plans. All I wanted to show is that every tyrannical government tried hard to disarm the group of people it wanted to go against.
Bothersome minorities can be dealt with using violence (see the number of genocides in the history of humanity).
Tyrannic government controlling its entire population in a police state can only happen successfully if they use powerful propaganda machines pulling the strings on basic human emotions (fear, hatred...). The US citizens have already surrendered quite a lot of personal freedoms in the name of safety, and it's been done without a single shot fired.
So no, guns won't protect you from an evil government slowly chipping away at your freedom, they might protect you if you are a targeted minority but then again, in that case you would fight against an army and, most likely, the rest of your countrymen forming the majority.
|
Two issues that need clarification on from the last two pages.
1: A pistol for self-defense will run anywhere from 150 to 2000+ dollars. If you're planning on using it for target shooting, you'll have to spend on ammo as well. Ammo costs vary for different calibers and types.
2: Individualistic gun rights and gun control both originate from "bothersome minorities" in America; that particular issue is not theoretical in the slightest. What gun rights and gun control are now is, of course, debatable.
Link.
|
How much of a simpleton do you have to be, to be able to blame people losing it, on guns ? Every single time lol.
|
On June 09 2013 21:53 HeatEXTEND wrote: How much of a simpleton do you have to be, to be able to blame people losing it, on guns ? Every single time lol.
Well, how much of a simpleton do you have to be to not be able to see that no one is blaming the gun for that guy going apeshit, but the outcome?
|
Is the outcome really what people should be focusing on concerning events like this ? A lot of people get killed by guns every single day, all over the place. Nothing out of the ordinary there, really.
|
|
On June 09 2013 21:53 HeatEXTEND wrote: How much of a simpleton do you have to be, to be able to blame people losing it, on guns ? Every single time lol.
More guns around and lax standards = more nuts going on excursions more often. That's simple. There's a strong correlation between having a fuck ton of something and a particular specific usage of that something. You can't deny that. Shifting the argument to things like 'aspirin killz more!' or "mental health is the issue!' is just avoiding the appropriate comparison which would be a country with less guns/more stringent standards on gun purchasing and a country with more guns/lax standards.
This is not to say there is an easy solution, of if there is any at all. With so many guns already in the States hardened thugs will always get them-except that hardened thugs aren't the ones shooting up college campuses and in some cases obtain the weapons very casually and legally despite clear psychological problems (like no facebook which basically is a red flag for socioapathy).
You can say they can just make bombs, but at least that takes a bit of effort whereas you go pick up some sweet weapons in 30 minutes as it is.
You can say they can just dualwield pistols and their kill potential will be just as awesome, except that is inherently more difficult than just spraying and praying with a semi-automatic weapon.
|
Not using facebook is a red flag for pschyological problems? It's actually startling that anyone would actually be stupid enough to believe such a thing.
|
I was struggling to determine if that facebook statement was sarcasm or something.
|
On June 10 2013 11:34 heliusx wrote: Not using facebook is a red flag for pschyological problems? It's actually startling that anyone would actually be stupid enough to believe such a thing.
Nowadays yes it kinda is. There's obvious other times when it doesn't apply. No internet, no computer, very super strict upbrining like an Amish person etc. But if you aren't in one of those groups and you have all the means and you aren't connected at least somewhat online socially with people then yes you are part of a very small minority and you might be a little "weird".
|
On June 10 2013 11:41 Zooper31 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2013 11:34 heliusx wrote: Not using facebook is a red flag for pschyological problems? It's actually startling that anyone would actually be stupid enough to believe such a thing. Nowadays yes it kinda is. There's obvious other times when it doesn't apply. No internet, no computer, very super strict upbrining like an Amish person etc. But if you aren't in one of those groups and you have all the means and you aren't connected at least somewhat online socially with people then yes you are part of a very small minority and you might be a little "weird". I'm on facebook because people have forced my hand but I have to say that it's those so called "normal" people who are weird and not necessarily people like myself who don't care for online interaction with people that I know in real life.
There's this one girl that I knew from elementary school, she added me through what's likely to be a bunch of layers of non-mutual acquaintances and she recognized my name. She looked like a fat man with long hair and I got to see 4-5 posts a day about her progress toward being healthy: articles about working out, photos of her (countless photos of her), photos of her food, photos of her belly and legs (including that very disturbing line of hair that she rocks below her bellybutton). If I wasn't exposed to that kind of horror, I probably wouldn't be so cranky all the time.
On the other hand, I have a cousin who's very much a people person, he's extremely outgoing and whatnot - and he's not on facebook because for the most part, it's just a place to learn more about people's asinine BS. That's his take and I agree. I'll also add that once in a while, you'll read someone's dumbass opinion and lose all respect for them. There's this funny thing on the interwebs - people seem to think that just because people won't respond, they don't care or don't know. Turns out some members of my family are incredibly racist... :/
There are plenty of reasons NOT to be on facebook, at the risk of being viewed by yourself as "not cool". Bro.
|
|
People who use facebook to get their social dose over RL interaction or even skype etc are the weird ones. Facebook has its uses but if this is your main connection to people then sorry you are either damaged or socially inept.
|
On June 10 2013 13:38 dronebabo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2013 11:41 Zooper31 wrote:On June 10 2013 11:34 heliusx wrote: Not using facebook is a red flag for pschyological problems? It's actually startling that anyone would actually be stupid enough to believe such a thing. Nowadays yes it kinda is. There's obvious other times when it doesn't apply. No internet, no computer, very super strict upbrining like an Amish person etc. But if you aren't in one of those groups and you have all the means and you aren't connected at least somewhat online socially with people then yes you are part of a very small minority and you might be a little "weird". rofl typical hs mentality
Sorry if that bothers you but it's how things are sadly. And I graduated from highschool 5yrs ago and am far more mature and advanced in my life than 80% of my class. Who is still spamming my god damn facebook with those stupid meme images and quotes by god every 10sec.
Knew that post was going to anger a lot of people but I feel that's how our culture is nowadays and is going to continue going in that direction even more. I'm not saying you have to use all the sites and constantly spam things about your life, but everyone at least has an account. On their own accord or not. To not have one is out of the norm.
|
|
|
|