Gun Control

Discussion in 'General Discussion Forum' started by Throatpunch, Jul 25, 2016.

  1. BigGuyCIA

    BigGuyCIA Vault Dweller

    Oct 26, 2016
    Uh no. We've been over this like 10 times now. Gun control is the same thing as drug control - a failure before it even begins. You increase the standard of living:

    - Reduce the spending that goes into the U.S. military so that you can
    - Invest in mental healthcare research, advocacy, and social work.
    - Increase spending in the education sector so teachers have the resources and financial incentive to perform better.
    - Produce more outreach programs (similar to those in inner cities where police work with communities to create recreational sports programs.

    What you end up with is a reduction (not a cessation) to not only inner city violence but also mass-shooting incidents such as those seen in schools. The added benefit is a more intelligent workforce thanks to previous investments and in turn a stronger service-based economy.

    Your "moar gun controls nao" is a bullshit band-aid for virtue signalling morons that just want to gather and collect brownie points in the form of twitter followers. Just so the next time they make a smart-ass tweet they can feel vindicated by a horde of people liking/retweeting their nonsense without having really done anything to make impactful changes. Just look at how many gun reform laws there are and please think about how it's actually done anything of value to reduce violence.

    And before you mention it, it's not because of gun reform laws that the crime-wave of the 90's spiralled down and has continued to trend down ever since. That has everything to do with the emergence of an increasingly educated workforce.
  2. Urban Predator

    Urban Predator First time out of the vault

    Jan 9, 2018
    Actually there WAS no japanese ninja sword culture. The Shinobi would not use the fine swords which took great effort and time to make, the katana, wakizashi, tanto of the traditional samurai was very different in the way it was viewed. To a samurai, their blades were close to sacred, to a ninja (Shinobi, essentially the first spooks, they were terrorist/dissenters/saboteurs/assassins and intelligence agents for hire), the ninja wouldn't have such attachment to his weapons, and ninja-to blades would be essentially fit for purpose, but something that could rapidly be discarded if needs be. Early japanese equivalent of stamped sheet metal parts and rapid manufacture turnover, akin to say, the more modern sten gun.

    I know, I own one (there was a ban on samurai swords here, or rather curved blades over a certain length. The fact that my ninja-to ends in a shallow acute angle sidesteps said ban. True katana are only legal here in the cases of swords having great historical value, and those used in martial arts practices, but anyone can go and get themselves a ninja-to and as said, go turn a shopping mall into an abattoir if they happen to be a psycho fuck, the curve vs acute angle doesn't make any difference in what happens to something hit by a long blade like that, where its solely at the very tip, no extra leverage produced that one curved in the middle and shaped like a machete etc. would provide)

    As for criminals and guns..if you take away all capacity to get guns, its ONLY the law abiding who are affected, those who wouldn't go on a murder spree in the first place. The criminal underworld doesn't have any regard for such laws to begin with and they already get their hands on illegal, untrackable guns. The ones not affected by the bans are limited to the ones who would already think nothing of shooting up an orphanage.

    Edit to reply to bigguycia-

    Excellent analogy to prohibition. What happened when the US began prohibition? it created a massive market for mobsters to muscle in on the alcohol trade. Also things happened that were truly tragic, such as the drinking of ginger extract (an ethanolic extract), that was very strong in alcohol content, up to about 70%, and was required by tax/customs dept. to have a minimum ginger content that would make it unpalatable to drink. As a result, various adulterants were used to trick customs, eventually, a particularly bad one, tri-(ortho)-cresyl phosphate, which proved to cause a demyelinating polyneuropathy particularly affecting the extremities, hands and in particular lower legs and feet, causing a distinctive walk due to the paralysis of certain muscle groups, known as jake leg, in those who were not killed or paralyzed to an extent they could not function. 50 thousand casualties, mostly the poor and the downtrodden, who recieved little or no help from the govt. afterwards.

    Prohibition just made more and worse criminals and brought all the nasties to come sliming their way out of the woodwork. It not only didn't succeed, it could not. Just the same with the awful 'war on drugs' (in reality a war on drug users, waged with armed troops against the civilian populace of countries who did not wish to engage in warfare to begin with, on citizens of the same countries as send their armed thugs to assault, kidnap and sometimes kill them)

    With alcohol, its happened in several countries, ireland, US, poland, alcohol prohibition led to a switch too, where those who would formerly drink alcohol would drink diethyl ether instead, a fairly common lab solvent, although it isn't toxic, and actually, IMO, is better for you than alcohol. I drink it from time to time, as I'm not a big alcohol fan, and ether doesn't cause those filthy hangovers due to acetaldehyde formation as a metabolite of alcohol. Make quite a good cocktail with it actually, something I call a 'manhattan project' as a bit of tongue in cheek humor based on the manhattan cocktail and the US nuke program.

    There has been a demand for intoxicants dating from time before measure, ancient prehistory. Even gorillas have been observed to dig up certain roots in parts of tropical africa which they get shitfaced on. Dolphins will use (and even pass around and share, as if they were people passing the bong :D) puffer fish, that produce tetrodotoxin, the infamous 'fugu' japanese sushi paralytic poison, molesting the fish but not eating or killing it, just to make it release low levels of TTX, and seem to get hammered on it.

    People have used various seeds, tree bark, tree resins, roots, plants, fruits, certain animals, to become inebriated, for shamanic and for social reasons, and purely recreationally since before people had cuneiform inscriptions on stone tablets. The demand is there, it will not go away, something that deep rooted can't just be pulled up like a weed and thrown away. Nor, IMO should it. Regulation is the answer. Quality control overseen, prices would drop, the virulent murdering, butchering cartels would be put out of business overnight and reduced to penury. The illegal market would evaporate, and instead people could buy known pure, safer compounds from dispensaries, pick up their MDMA, LSD, the safer synthetic cannabinoids, their opiates, amphetamines from pharmacies. And receive health advice from qualified pharmacists, if things weren't illegal, things like heroin habits driving people into destitution wouldn't exist. And things like ibogaine therapy for treating addictions would be available and advertised by the clinics rather than this wonder-drug for addiction treatment having to go via covert underground channels.

    Fighting such a 'war on drugs' can't win, because there is no centralization. There is no bin laden, no head of the snake to lop off. Traffickers are concerned with their own links in the chain, manufacturers are concerned with synthing the produce and getting it to their connection. Remove one and ten more will spring up to fill the vacuum. Thus, this phony, barbarous war on drug users, it failed before ever pen was put to paper to draft a bill of law.
    And the only option is to legalize and regulate and provide safely. Or to keep murdering and butchering and incarcerating those who have never employed violence, never stolen, but simply possessed a substance or plant for their consumption.

    The habits of addictive drugs, if the prices, after legalization and regulation, reflected the actual cost of production and distribution plus some profit of course for the people making, selling and transporting, the things that go for £20 a couple of hundred mg and require unreliable, shady fucks to deal with, would cost a few pounds, and be there when one would need them, addicts could self-taper, if they did become addicts in the first place.

    Things like medical practitioners being afraid to script opiates to pain patients in agony (something I know too much about. I've got injuries that won't heal, that leave me in constant, severe pain that is often disabling, and while I've now got painkillers, even now, I get looked at like a damn criminal, like a dirty undesirable just for asking for something, like, say, if I become injured and require pain relief, just voicing the question will make most doctors react as if I'd just told them I was going to rape their children and burn the family cat alive, or as if I'd just thrown a poisonous snake into their lap. Just BEING on pain meds is these days as near to being vermin and a criminal as it can get without actually being convicted of an offense. And just needing more for a week or two because of a wound the meds one is already taking are insufficient to allow one to walk far enough to piss or get food. This happened to me only weeks ago, after badly hurting my foot, leaving me stuck on the couch, immobilized and pissing in a bottle. Yet now I'm being looked at by all but one doctor at the surgery, as if I'm dirt, just for needing to be able to roll over and urinate in said bottle without being in so much pain I couldn't manage to do so)
    Last edited: Apr 1, 2018
  3. DarkCorp

    DarkCorp Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!

    Oct 27, 2003

    Thing is, I am sure kids everywhere play with toy guns and have associated guns with masculinity. Hell, most cultures around the world have compared warfare and weapons with masculinity.

    Many gun owners are FOR common sense legislation, as I have repeatedly pointed out.
  4. Urban Predator

    Urban Predator First time out of the vault

    Jan 9, 2018
    As am I, never mind my being in the UK where they are illegal for the most part.

    I'd have no issue building, possessing and firing a railgun or gauss rifle/pistol. Obviously not as powerful (a railgun maybe but not a gauss rifle or pistol) as the fallout versions, sadly I haven't got any microfusion power cells lying around. Wish I did though. Nor things like light gas guns, electrothermal-chemical guns etc. same.

    But I wouldn't shoot anybody. Wouldn't even kill an animal with it unless in a situation such as a vicious pit-bull or other dangerous dog entering the vicinity where I was firing the weapon, in which case to protect myself, or others I would indeed blow it away. Or, the one other reason, would be a mercy killing for an animal critically injured. That I've had to do before, at a train station of all the places. Found a sewer-rat, poisoned quite obviously and suffering horribly, shaking and squeaking in pain, quietly and obviously tortured and weak. I had to look around all shady like, make sure I couldn't be observed, before taking the pistol out of my trenchcoat pocket and putting a hollowpoint round double-tap into the poor thing, with my pistol gently touched to the rat's forehead, so as not to cause it more pain, before I pulled the trigger, once, twice, shredding the rat's brain and body to pulp, and, as bad as I felt for having no other choice, I was glad in my heart for taking the rat out, putting it out of suffering rather than walking on by and leaving it to suffer, bleeding out internally for days and days.

    Yes, what was done was illegal. Possessing the pistol, being armed in a public place, and firing it in a train station like that, could have done time if I'd not been under the age of criminal responsibility, and if I'd been caught, I'd have done time, possibly, if I remember the law, although I don't know when it was implemented relative to the time of ending the rat's torment, its what I have been told anyhow, that I could have done ten years for every round in the magazine and fired, and any spares carried.

    But it doesn't mean, that I don't want SENSIBLE gun laws. So the citizens are not left deliberately defenseless from tyranny, and also, not by desire I'm sure, but from terrorism. In the US, a terrorist might well be shot dead by a civilian before response troops can get there and kill the offending allahsite. Here, even if one DID, they'd get locked up just for owning and for packing the weapon. Anything more than a 3-inch non-locking. and which does fold, pocket knife and its enough to, even if no violence was done or intended, just to have it on the street, even a little old lady who forgot a cooking knife with a fixed blade, even if shorter than 3 inch would be tried, found guilty and possibly, even in that hypothetical barely able pensioner in a wheelchair even, they could be jailed.

    I myself was once caught playing as a kid in an abandoned building, and I'd found a small knife, an antique from the look of it, a little tiny sheet metal handled folding knife with a blade maybe 3/4'' long. It had, it turns out, a little hidden lock catch I was unaware of. I was still sent to court, found guilty and punished. Just because that tiny blade locked, despite being unaware of it.

    And again, once, I found someone walking down the street armed with a baseball bat, smashing things at random, like car windows. I took the guy down and removed the bat from his possession, warned him if he attempted to try anything, the next thing to be smashed would be his skull.

    I got the pigs called, someone saw it being stashed in my coat so as not to alarm anyone, snitched me up. And even though taking temporary possession of an illegal item in order to prevent a criminal act taking place is legal, still arrested and charged with possession of an offensive weapon and punished. Yet again, for possession of (legal to own, just not to carry in public) a set of nunchaku. I was AT HOME, where they were perfectly legal to have and carry about my own property. I had friends coming, and they were new. I came to show them the new chucks, a set of really nicely balanced, perfectly weighted ones with ideal chain length for my build. I was snitched up by cocksucking grasses unknown, and whilst the nunchaku itself NEVER left the boundary of my property, I committed the heinous crime of standing with one foot on the front lawn fence, with a shoe perhaps an inch, maybe two, over the end of the stone.

    Again, kidnapped by the pigs, who must have been close by to show up so fast, while I talked with my friends. For not one second, did the nunchaku even leave the perimeter of the lawn, not even to the boundary of the soil border for plants past the lawn, and yet that was apparently 'in public' Again, subjected to wrongful punishment and conviction.

    Justice? fuck no. Weapon laws here are way over the top, wrong, and fucked up. There is little justice in this country. I've even heard a cop say, verbatim when I made a comment, when they'd tried to get to the lab and been denied, 'you are are a police officer, you know and follow police procedures, you are not a chemist, you do not know chemistry, I am not a police officer, I am a chemist. I know chemistry and what is and is not safe, I am not a police officer and I do not have an intimate familiarity with arrest and booking and detention procedures, et. cetera.'

    To which the porcine piece of filth in question replied, and I quote word for word 'neither do we (with respect to arrest/booking procedures etc.), most of the time we just make it up as we go along'
  5. Crni Vuk

    Crni Vuk M4A3 Oldfag oTO Orderite

    Nov 25, 2008
    Why do people always think guns alone protect them or the number of weapons would be equal with the amount of liberty/rights you have ...
    (relevant part starts at 2:00 for those which are impatient)
    Last edited: Apr 3, 2018
  6. GonZo_626

    GonZo_626 Well Shit!

    Jul 29, 2016

    Alright Crin, time to debunk bad ideas.

    Prayer..... Bad and wont work, yeah I get this
    Arming Teachers....... Bad and wont work, and yeah I get this

    So that's what I got from that video. As far as ideas that wont work from the other side

    Banning AR's......... Bad and won't work, nothing will change
    Banning semi auto's.......... Bad and wont work, nothing will change (sure bring up Australia again, I will just point to there neighbor new Zealand where semi's are still allowed)

    Lets talk about some things that might actually work

    1. Have firearms laws that are the same for all regions of the US

    As every state and sometimes even municipalities have different laws surrounding firearms purchases, and different requirements making a system that actually is the same every where may actually have an impact, if as they say firearms in Chicago are just purchased in the surrounding state.

    2. Have all states actually contribute to the criminal record checks.

    The way background checks are done right now in the US it leaves a lot to be desired, an expanded check system is not needed as they already look for lots of relevant data but as each state reports things differently and some choose to maintain there own completely separate system its a mishmash of good info that is used horrible.

    3. Have armed security guards at schools

    "Blah Blah parkland had one", yeah but he was a coward to close to retirement to actually do anything. There was another school shooting like a week after and the kid pulling the trigger only shot 2 people before he was engaged by the armed school officer and shot dead. One victim died due to there injuries. So this has a chance of working.

    As you have said it is about reducing the chances that this happens. Now to get to your talk about the gun culture. You claim to be of the left, which to my understanding is a group happy about multiculturalism and being inclusive of all cultures. Now please remember that most of the people in the "gun culture" have never committed a crime and have gone through criminal record checks quite often (even in the US), so what you are doing is blaming an entire culture for what the 0.05% (made up number) do.

    I mean what if we on the right did that to cultures where even 10% of the people are behind some real terrorist attacks that have killed thousands of people worldwide and has started some pretty big wars we would be looked at like complete fascists and racists and what else have I been called?????? All this just for some expanded background checks and banning certain people from some activities? So must we continue to blame those that have done nothing wrong due to an extremely small minority of that said culture?
  7. Urban Predator

    Urban Predator First time out of the vault

    Jan 9, 2018
    10% would not be an extremely small minority. It would be technically a minority. But one that means that ONE IN TEN of those muslims is ready and willing to strap on a vest loaded with plastique and bags of ball bearings, rusty nails and other shrapnel, walk into a nightclub, and in wiping themselves out in the name of getting their 72 virgins and their chance to meet the psychopathic fuck they slobber over, kissing the dirt because they know its the closest thing they can come across in this world to said piece of shit responsible for starting the religion which has as its primary 'prophet', a child-abusing, dirty little nonce who fucks 9yo little kids.

    Or to enter a sports stadium, and exterminate men, women and even babies.

    Or who, have already proven themselves to either trick or force both young spawn of their own kind, and the disabled, into becoming suicide bombers because they even lack the fucking balls to pull the trigger when its them themselves wearing the bomb vests.

    1 in 10. Thats hardly even a minority when the group is a division between 'mass murderer of men women and children' and 'not currently mass murderer of men women and children'

    Personally I think we should actually be offering muslims terrorist training camps. Ones with a mandatory graduation or dropping out exercise consisting of practice with a suicide vest. Not a dummy with inert explosive either. Out in the middle of an open field, or else right in the middle of the camps. Problem? problem solved :P

    And Crni-guns don't solve everything, no. But they do provide that IMO vital guarantee of liberty being respected. If a population is disarmed, like we in the UK have forcibly been, on a knee jerk to one vile tragedy, or for other reasons, then there isn't that safety-net that makes a psychotic dictator think twice before sending in death squads; such as say, that piece of shit in the phillipines, Duterte has done, slaughtering drug 'offenders', be they users, dealers, chemists.

    If you think it couldn't happen in the US, or something like it, think twice. Because that fat turd Trump has been heard to praise this murdering madman and suggesting that in the US, that they too should start emulating him. For example, not just dealers, but anyone 'caught with 1g> of fentanyl, a highly potent and other than in precise medically prepared formulations, very dangerous synthetic opioid at least 100x the potency of morphine (and there are many analogs of it that are hundreds of thousands of times more potent than fentanyl in some cases), that is short acting and which produces both profound tachyphylaxis in addition to an extreme conventional tolerance, that leaves it very, very difficult for an addict to get detox help that works because the likes of methadone would just never be given, or even be dangerous through other reasons such as interactions with antitargets such as hERG channels (which would be pro-arrhythmogenic) and their withdrawals incredibly to relieve, and thus making it much more severe when they do and much more likely for someone to end up killing themselves; according to Trump deserves to face the death penalty.

    1g you might say? when a gram of fentanyl is equal to over a thousand doses by a pretty significant margin? don]t forget that no street dealer is selling pure, undiluted fentanyl; its so potent it HAS to be diluted in an inert carrier (and is sometimes, often in fact, used to render more potent otherwise shitty and weak heroin) or it would simply kill everybody exposed to it, likely as not a lot of those who never even knew it was present such as EMTs, family members, pets, hopefully lots of cops, but it would kill many such people.

    And the US criminal 'justice' system does not take this into account with any 'illegal' drug. They up the figures and make it appear in court, and for sentencing purposes, as though an individual has possessed and/or sold much more than they have in truth, by counting the weight of any diluent. Thus nanogram per kg, a ridiculously low, and utterly inactive figure even for this potent drug, would count for a thousand death sentences if if parcelled out into 1g units, the rest being merely table sugar.

    If one has a pile of sheets of acid, weighing so much as a gram, despite the fact each blotter might contain anywhere from 1/20th-1/10th of a milligram, they count the paper, too, as if it were pure needlepoint white fluff LSD crystal, and impurities too are ignored. Not unlikely a life sentence.

    Which IMO is absolutely sickening, deceitful and crooked to the core, just so they can incarcerate more people longer. Or for the rest of their lives, potentially without parole, due to sick shit for the crime of being caught. Justice? my furry autistic arse. Its not justice to punish people for possession or distribution of psychoactives at all in my view, but opinions on that may well differ among people here.

    I'm sure all would agree though that increasing a sentence, or gaining a conviction because of a quantity of powdered sugar, or the weight of the inert magnesium stearate, microcrystalline cellulose, anticaking agents and other tablet pressing excipients, or the weight of sheets of paper impregnated with at most a couple of hundred ug per blotter in the case of something like acid, or taking even the weight of a gelatin capsule into account and calling it DOM, when the capsule contains 1-3 thousandths of a gram, diluted so people could control doses more finely with say, 100mg lactose monohydrate, the capsule shell counts towards mandatory minimum and so does the totally inert milk sugar.

    With injustices like that already flying then its a good cunting job that the US is not deprived of the capability to defend itself against govt-backed murder.
  8. Crni Vuk

    Crni Vuk M4A3 Oldfag oTO Orderite

    Nov 25, 2008
    Seriously, let us not get muslims and islam into this discussion, because I do not believe religious topics are in favour of your argument, as an atheist religious matters, most of the time christianity is showed down our throats since we're children.

    We can see plenty of situations in the US, where the government and corporations in particular screw over the public, yet no one takes up his arms to do anything. This idea that weapons protect you in an era where it is about technological dangers rather than how much fire power you have and where the click of a button can destroy lives, like who's controlling your data, is laughable.

    The US is an Oligarchy, it's not an democracy anymore. I don't see the gun activists going against that ... no, they demand even less state and a smaller government, which means even less possibility to actually secure their rights against intelligence agencies and corporations.

    Let us see, if that's what I have said:

    The idea of masculinity in conjuction with weapons for example.

    Bear in mind, that I am not saying how much it contributes to a mass shooting and how much of a problem it is. Not every schmock on Youtube presenting his guns like the love of his live, is now in danger of becoming a school shooter or mass shooter and not every mass shooter probably saw weapons as an extension of his 'manlyness' - However the overwhelming majority of mass shooters are males, I am not sure what the conclussion of that should be, but it's something that's really not much talked about usually. It is a very complex problems after all.

    But no other object represents power, strength and control like weapons do, particularly firearms. Anything of that, of course isn't for it self negative, hell people can love guns and be productive members of their society, that's not the point. Again, weapons don't make mass shooters, but I don't think that it's illogical for someone with a frail personality or insecure manhood for what ever reason, because he's bullied or girls think of him as a weirdo, try to look for substitutes. For some people, it's the muscle car, for others the gym, and some look out for firearms that make them a 'bad ass' fantasying about it how powerfull it makes them. With no clue 99% of the people this is more self-destructive if they take it to the extreme. But then you have those few that take it out on others, because they don't blame themself like most people do when they run in to issues, but those few that are crazy if you so will, they actually want to get out there and punish everyone and thus look for something that is relatively easily accessible and lets them kill as many people as possible. Not every mass shooter is the same of course.

    Just so you don't missunderstand me, I am not saying the culture breeds those people, I am just saying the current gun culture in the US worsens an already exist disposition in some people if you compare the US gun culture for example with the one in Switzerland or Canada. It's like the missuse of alcohol if you want so, where alcohol for it self isn't making wife beaters, but it sure isn't helping the situation if a wife beater is also a heavy drinker.

    And the way how a society accepts and treats certain behaviours simply is a part of the problem.

    Here is the really important part:

    Just so you don't missunderstand me, I am not saying the culture breeds those people, I am just saying the current gun culture in the US worsens an already exist disposition in some people if you compare the US gun culture for example with the one in Switzerland or Canada. It's like the missuse of alcohol if you want so, where alcohol for it self isn't making wife beaters, but it sure isn't helping the situation if a wife beater is also a heavy drinker.

    Is there something unclear? Feel free to ask!

    This isn't about right or wrong, or good or bad. I never said 'Gun culture is evil and it has to go!'. That would be beyond stupidity, even for me as a leftist - I know some people think like that, but there are also nazi-conservatives, doesn't mean every conservative is a retard nazi or that every conservative and right winger even, is for mass genocide.

    But it shouldn't require some extensive brain power to agree that things taken to the extreme can cause issues. For example take my political side. Correct me if I am wrong, but I think it's fair to assume that you disagree with a lot of things from the left? This might surprise you, but I actually reject a lot of stuff there as well, because I absolutely detest extremism in all its forms. I am not obvlivious to the retardness that can come from some extreme progressives and leftists these days, ever vigilantly pushing for completely moronic narratives like the PC and SJW culture and a couple of other things. And don't get me even started on people, which grew up with all kinds of priviliges, and don't get me even started on those priviliged collegue students thinking racism and sexism behind everything and everyone they encounter ...

    What I believe about cultures though is a bit more complex and I do not want to derail this topic even furture.
    Last edited: Apr 4, 2018
    • [Like] [Like] x 1
  9. Arnust

    Arnust Maybe you've seen it, maybe, in a dream...

    Feb 2, 2016
    I'm going to calmly sit and wait for the comments on the YouTube HQ shooting.
  10. Urban Predator

    Urban Predator First time out of the vault

    Jan 9, 2018
    My point was rather, that, whilst all three of the Abrahamic religion branches (the primary ones, counting their sects as members of the same, be it catholic/protestant/gnostic/baptist, lumping them all under the heading of 'christian', etc., likewise sunni, shite, ismaili under the heading 'islamite' and orthodox, ashkenazi, and old sadducee, pharisee as 'jew') have been responsible for various abominations and atrocities over the years and is not now the christians who are at it.

    And jewish terrorism is confined to israel vs palestine. At least now, ignoring the first three sects, the Pharisees, Sadducees and Essenes, there were also the Zealots, a fourth jewish sect which got up to a few nasty things in its time, IIRC, hence the cognate words 'zealot' 'zealous' 'zeal' and 'zealotry'. Kind of ironic, in the case of say, ISIS or al-qaeda (who apparently despise ISIS for being too extreme, and more or less, for being a humongous bunch of bastards. And when al-qaeda thinks a muslim group is a bunch of cunts because they go too far and because they commit atrocities too foul to tolerate...that is saying something!) If bin-laden himself would have probably had the leaders of the group assassinated, thats saying 'this particular bunch of cunts has the biggest pack of the cheesiest, yeastiest, slack-flapped cavern-cunts in existence' :D.

    Worldwide, the majority of terrorism is of one undeniable origin. Muslim. No, that is not racist. Muslim is not a race it is a religion; and its followers are responsible for the overwhelming majority of terrorist acts committed in this day and age. While xtianity was capable of evolving to take on a form which was able to assimilate, the tenets of the new testament (although most certainly not the old) are compatible with its being permitted to continue to exist and to evolve, whilst islam states in the koran that innovation is a damnable sin [innovation in this sense meaning not technological, medical etc. but innovation in religious matters, to diversify their damnable scripture, and change such things as the misogynistic brutality [the koran even provides for such things as instructions on how to beat your wife/wives for example] as well as how to go about murdering homos, or wage jihad. The only good thing that can ever be said with respect to islam is a person speaking in abjuration and condemnation. It is a backwards, foul creed which historically and in modern times both has been spread at the point of the sword, or the barrel of a gun. ]

    The way their disgusting creed is written provides for no possibility of change from the foulest of things it encompasses, and as such has stagnated and can never be dragged into this century, or the next and anything positive come of it, save for should where it is to be dragged be atop a pyre. Its adherents may claim it is a religion of peace. But I'm sure a puff adder would just as soon make the claim of being vegetarian were a ten thousand strong army of mice to decent upon it having had enough. Would it be telling the truth, though, or seeking only to slime its way out of being wiped out. Same goes for islam. One only has to make it extinct for the world to benefit.

    And when one hears on the news 'terrorist atrocity comitted by...' almost invariably the next word, will be 'muslim'', yes others exist and from time to time, one pops up in the news. But its the allahsites who are state-funded and backed, its they the US at one point decided were friends, and armed to fight against the soviets only to have them turn the surface to air missiles the US gave them right back at the givers, its the muslim terrorists who commit the worst atrocities too. Can you even IMAGINE, say, the IRA, tricking a Down's syndrome kid, or any kid, a CHILD into strapping a bomb to themselves, or to get a pregnant woman to do the same just because they will get closest to a checkpoint? or their soldiers, engaging in catholic/protestant rape to dehumanize them, and then bringing the kid up as a child soldier after slaughtering it's mother after being born?

    I don't see it happening, not in a group who does of course have an ideology as all terrorists, political groups, government and govt. terrorists must, but who will also do things like send in coded bomb threats to get civilian noncombatants out of the area (and possibly draw the enemy in at the same time).

    Like it or not, these days, terrorist and muslim might as well be synonymous, in the current political climate.
  11. Crni Vuk

    Crni Vuk M4A3 Oldfag oTO Orderite

    Nov 25, 2008
    Only if you're an ignorant. But people often fall for the easy answers.

    Yes I can, why? Because it happend in a different time and with a non-muslim culture. Read a few stories what the Japanese did during WW2. Or the Germans for that matter. And particularly with the Germans, it was a purely 'christian' culture remember? Not to mention quite a few saw it as their christian duty to comitt all those attrocities. Or if I just think about what the serbians did in the Yugoslavian civil war, my parents are Serbians by the way.

    To believe that only 'one' group of people is capable of comitting the worst of attrocities is laughable. Every society can fall back in to barbarism, given the right conditions.

    Is Islamic motivated religious fundamentalism a huge problem today? Absolutely. I couldn't agree more. And I reject islam as a religion and there are witihout a doubt a lot of religious nutjobs there, but I also meet my fare share of crasy christians. But It is a we bit more complicated than just Muslim = Terrorist. It would be just as ridiculous like saying, Gun Owner = School Shooter. Particularly when you consider that everything has a reason, people don't stand up one day in the morning, take the Quaran and decide this is a good day to behead some infidels or to blow them self up. And then things become very interesting, when you look at who trained islamic fundamentalists, who's backing them, and who's actually allied with those supporters ... may I remind you that the whole war in Iraq was build on a hoax? What was the consequence of that? Nothing, absolutely nothing has happend.
    No one went to jail for it, hell no one even answered for it. But you have possibily 100.000 of dead people, we have not even started to really grasp the historical impact of what US foreign policy has done to the middle east in the last 30 years and it will probably take schoolars a few generations to completely analyse that one. Taking like 60 years of history and ignoring all that and just coming to the conclussoin that Islam is synonymus with terrorism, is not only intellectually wrong but it is actually dangerous because this kind of thinking is what got the US and Europe in this situation in the first place.

    Imagine if the United States lost like 1 million people in the last decade and they had someting like 9/11 every second day or every week, what do you think, what would something like that do to the US society?
    Last edited: Apr 4, 2018
  12. Arnust

    Arnust Maybe you've seen it, maybe, in a dream...

    Feb 2, 2016

    Maybe this:
  13. Urban Predator

    Urban Predator First time out of the vault

    Jan 9, 2018
    I wasn't for a moment trying to imply that muslim=terrorist. Only that with a few individual exceptions, usually involving single individuals with some sort of grievance/psychosis or both, the terrorists have been islamic.

    Saying 'most current muslims are terrorists' is an awful lot different than 'most current terrorists are muslims'

    Plenty muslims, the majority, who aren't terrorists and aren't going to be, but majority of current terrorists, and certainly the vast majority of countries whos governments bankroll, encourage or simply foster terrorism by allowing it to fester without stamping on it are middle eastern, and possibly some african countries with high rates of islam compared to other african countries, are responsible, and the majority of current terrorists are of the islamic variety.

    I wouldn't deny for a moment your point about the iraq war. That was never really about terrorism though was it? I doubt many, govts included would have labelled Saddam as a terrorist/funder of terrorists. Just somebody they wanted to topple and install (if they even tried to think that far ahead, which they most certainly seem not to have done) a puppet regime in place of.

    Saddam was a bastard certainly, a real nasty piece of work. BUT, although a muslim, iraq under saddam was a largely secular country as I understand things. And Saddam was pretty responsible for keeping all the maggots from sliming out of the woodwork and didn't tolerate the likes of islamic fundies operating in his country whilst in power. Its too damn bad that Bush and his filthy little ass-sniffer Tony Bliar (spelling quite intentional) decided to concoct a reason to get rid of a ruler (albeit a thoroughly unpleasant one) who was in essence acting as a keystone of secular authority, and stopping exactly the sort of mess-o-potamia the world has on it's collective hands as a result of his no longer being there to enforce stability and crush the islamic fundamentalist fruitcakes when they get out of hand. Like him or loathe him, he was a stabilizing influence in the middle east region (and I don't think there were very many who liked him, all the same and I can't say as I blame people for it either. But at least he led a secular country, and there have certainly been far worse by way of nutballs around acting as a thorn in the side of civilization. Just take kim jong all-of-them for example. Now thats a barrel of bad applies if ever I saw one)

    And we have a really bad habit of that kind of thing too ('we' being the govts. of the US and UK), when it suits us, sending over shipments of surface to air missiles and other weapons systems, when one of the overseas warring factions happens to be the one we are backing in our latest dirty little proxy war, we just haven't seemed to get it into our thick skulls that today's fundie mujahideen doing our killing and our dying for us so that our own citizenry don't have to be wasted on the conflict, only for yesterday's set of useful idiots to turn into today's set of rabid (and now, thanks to govt. supplies, heavily armed) insurgents.
  14. Crni Vuk

    Crni Vuk M4A3 Oldfag oTO Orderite

    Nov 25, 2008
    That might be true, I don't have any numbers right now. But it really depends on your definition of terrorism which isn't always that clear. Yesterdays 'freedomfighters' are todays 'terrorists' for example - remember this movie? Quite a lot of politicans sung a very different tune when it came to 'Islam' during the 1980s*, but then the biggest danger were the Soviets. In such a Situation you could even get the Israelis, working together with Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, who did't even recognize the existance of Israel at that time, in financing Islamic fighters in Afghanistan ... And then you have the Bush administration together with Tony Blair starting a whole war against Iraq on fabricated information. Who knows exactly how many civilians died due to that decision.

    This fact alone makes me alsways question the let us say, political views on complex geopolitical topics.

    *When you think about it this goes even as far back till WW1 when the UK used Arabic fighters to take up weapons against the Ottomans, promising them their own nation, I mean Lawrence of Arabia? Remember that one. In the end they got nothing, despite the promises by the western powers like France and the UK. There is a very long history in the middle east of foreign powers playing with all the nations, groups and different religious 'sects' down there. When you consider all that, it isn't really surprisng that many absolutely hate us based on historic events alone. - Not that I approve of anything, but I am just saying the actions of our political leaders have simply consequences and sometimes they can be seen for generations.
    Last edited: Apr 5, 2018
  15. MutantScalper

    MutantScalper Dark side in da houssah

    Nov 22, 2009
    No, this isn't from the Onion. :D

    "Dog shoots man; still good boy

    An Iowa man had a "ruff" day Wednesday after being accidentally shot by his dog, Balew, a pit bull-Labrador mix.

    Richard Remme, 51, of Fort Dodge, Iowa, was injured when the gun he was carrying in his waistband was discharged while he was playing with his dog, the Fort Dodge Messenger reported.

    "I carry. It's a Ruger 9 mm, and it's got a safety on it," Remme told the Messenger. "I was lying on the couch, and we were horsing around, me and the dog. And I was tossing him off my lap, and he was jumping back on my lap.

    "And I carry in a belly band, under my bib overalls. And apparently he bumped the safety one time, and when he bounded back over one of his toes went right down into the trigger guard.""

    In the past five years, at least six Americans have been shot by dogs
  16. R.Graves

    R.Graves Confirmed Retard

    Apr 21, 2016
    We need to outlaw dogs then
  17. The Golden Mask

    The Golden Mask First time out of the vault

    Oct 12, 2017
    I'll be honest I have a more right leaning way of looking at things but i'm at an odd area with gun control.

    While I do defend the second amendment I think we do need to get a better hand on who owns a gun like maybe a person with a history of mental issues probably shouldn't
    own a fire arm or maybe someone with a large criminal history.

    I don't know though I'm far from an expert in this area but I think some of what I said may be at least a possibility.
  18. R.Graves

    R.Graves Confirmed Retard

    Apr 21, 2016
    Both of these are already a thing.
  19. The Golden Mask

    The Golden Mask First time out of the vault

    Oct 12, 2017
    Well like I said I'm far from some gun expert thought I'd give it a shot
  20. SilverStarApple/Epsilon7

    SilverStarApple/Epsilon7 It Wandered In From the Wastes

    Oct 27, 2017
    The problem with the Gun Control debate is that the "Ban Guns" side think they're the good guys, and if they've believed this for this long, they're probably never going to grow up and realize they're not.

    Every year, good men and women with guns stop robberies and murders and other crimes, every year, good people with guns save lives. If you're willing to ignore that fact, you aren't willing to have an honest discussion. You're propagandized, radicalized, and willing to ignore important facts that go against your worldview.

    If there were more guns in the pockets of the gay men that were massacred by a lone islamist with a gun in Pulse, a gay club in America, that islamist would have been shot before he killed more than a few people. That's just basic logic. Good people with guns can save you from bad people with guns, or avenge you while saving people the bad people haven't shot yet. Making life harder on non-criminals by banning guns and making them an illegal thing only criminals can get isn't going to save or help anyone. "Stronger" (More tyrannical) gun laws wouldn't have stopped that Muslim from getting an illegal gun from the muslim brotherhood.

    And if banning guns prevented crime, we wouldn't see so many fuckloads of rapes, murders, and acid attacks in London. Guns are pretty much already banned over in the shitty liberal/islamized parts of the UK, so Knives are the new scapegoat "Evil weapon of doom", with PSA posters saying things like "If you carry a knife, you're more likely to get stabbed!" without a hint of irony or self-awareness.
    • [Like] [Like] x 2