Gun Control

[Throatpunch]

Considering there are 310 million firearms in circulation in the USA, spree shootings are not common.
Mass shootings account for a tiny 4% of criminal gun deaths in the USA, and this includes gang related violence.

Which is enough to convince me assault rifles and semi assault rifles need banning.

 

[NotAcasul]

First thing: The Holocaust was bloody real. It was a machinery operating all over Europe - sending people from freshly occupied countries to the gas chambers of Poland and seizing their wealth. There is no way these documents could have been forged. They are massive and beyond challenge in their sheer volume and internal complexity. You’d need huge computers to compose an archival situation like. You would need a massive global conspiracy to fake biographies, personal memories, and the terrifying and partly macabre remains of all this.

Anyone who tells you it is “not real” (because he has found something to support his doubt) is manipulating you with a political agenda.

Now, we do have similar phenomena of denial in other fields - Flat Earthers who tell you that the planet is not a globe, Creationists who tell you that Earth has been created only 6000 years ago… all this is relative fun. These people will tell you that science is lying and that NASA is cheating you with manipulated photographs of the globe - all this is fun because it discredits people who can shake their heads about all this nonsense. Iit is disturbing where it manipulates children - but even that is not necessarily of any consequence.

Holocaust denial is different. It is telling you that all the historical victims are actually cheating the public. It denies families the right to mourn the loss of grandmothers and grandfathers, mothers and fathers, friends and loved ones. It is an attempt to deny Jews the right to remember their collective history - and usually the right to have a Jewish state as a consequence of this, their history.
here we as societies must intervene and I will tell you why this is in your own interest:

If you lose you parents in a traffic accident and if anyone appears and tells you and your social environment that you are making this up - you will demand the same protection, a protection against defamation, your personal protection against this defamation of your character who sadly knows what has happened. I would say: This is your right. You must be able to silence anyone who claims that you are forging your family history, especially if you have lost your family under terrible circumstances. It is unfair if anyone discredits you personally with the simple claim that you are lying. It is even more unfair if he discredits you personally with a motif to discredit “the rest” of your nation and your wider cultural background. You must not become a personal target in a political vendetta - this is a protection you can demand as a human being and I’d say: we should be ready to protect you against any such slander in any future in which you will no longer be able to defend your personal knowledge of the truth.
[/SPOILER]

I'm pretty sure if I lose my parents in a traffic accident I won't really care what anyone says. By all accounts, they do have the right to say whatever they choose. At least in America, anyhow.

These Holocaust-deniers are just like the flat-earthers. Not one of them actually care about the holocaust, they simply do to be edgy and "Fight the man!"

And the slander, by which is an all-encompassing term that covers any statement that hurts someone's reputation, is not necessarily aimed at Holocaust victims. If someone said " 9/11 was an inside job! " 9/11 survivors couldn't sue him, firstly because it's also a meme now, but more importantly it isn't a *personal* attack.

Again, there has been, in Germany always solely one and only one type of group that denied the Holocaust alltogether:

Spoiler: Context matters

Not certain about that, because /pol/ believes it and those people are *never* seen in public.

 

[Crni Vuk]

I'm pretty sure if I lose my parents in a traffic accident I won't really care what anyone says. By all accounts, they do have the right to say whatever they choose. At least in America, anyhow.

So people can also make false accusations about you? I understand that the US has a different stance on free speech compared to Germany, or most of Europe. But I am pretty sure you're not allowed everywhere to say what ever you want. Free Speech has limitations. Or ... maybe you could put that to a test.

Go to a large convention, the more people the better, throw an empty backback in a crowd and yell loudly 'Allahu Akbar'. This might have a greater effect if you're also dressed in a white tunic and with a black bleard and dark glasses.
Alternatively you could also visit a full movie theater, stand up in the midle of the movie point at the exit, and yell frantically and very loudly, 'THE GUY OVER THERE HAS AN ASSAULT RIFLE! RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!'

And if someone files a charge against you, just say free speech. And Look what happens.

I know this is very very hyperbolic. But, I am trying to make a point here. In Germany, people have a right to their dignity, and considering the immence historical importance of the Holocaust and that Holocaust deniers always follow a political agenda, it is really not hard to understand why those nations that saw the Holocaust happen on their soil, have laws against Holocaust denial, which are not specifically made because of denying the Holocaust - at least in Germany, but to be used against hate spech. And Buxies video also shows why it is important to take those rhetoric as warning.

These Holocaust-deniers are just like the flat-earthers. Not one of them actually care about the holocaust, they simply do to be edgy and "Fight the man!"

Of course they don't care about it. That's why they deny it. But that's not the point anyway. Neo-Nazis don't just do it to be edgy, man. Maybe if you wan't to be edgy you run around naked at a football game. But you're not shaving your head and dressing in boots and with shirts about white supremacy and chanting as a crowd "we want to exterminate all niggers and jews!" just to be edgy.

How much experiences with Neo-Nazis do you actually have?

Not certain about that, because /pol/ believes it and those people are *never* seen in public.

Not sure what you mean, those people certainly ARE seen sometimes in the public. I certainly have seen them, at least twice. No, now that I am thinking about it I even saw 4 times Neo-Nazis. And once my Mother and I had to fear for our lives even.

Yeah, all nice and dandy I guess. Unless you're the one sitting on the other side I assume. But scaring people also doesn't happen I guess.

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rostock-Lichtenhagen_riots)

Holocaust deniers don't "disagree with us", they argue against historical facts. It's a deliberate attempt to belittle the victims and survivors.
Again, no different from other laws.

Mob chanting at bus of refugees in Germany shames politicians
One of the protesters threatened the group inside the bus with a cut-throat gesture, a witness told Freie Presse newspaper. “It’s a disgrace, this hatred people feel towards people they know nothing about,” an anonymous witness said. Saxony police spokesman Rafael Scholz said police are investigating verbal threats of violence but that there were no arrests.

But words don't matter I guess.
Rwandan media played a key role in fomenting ethnic divisions and sowing the seeds of mass slaughter in the years leading up to - and the 100 days of - the 1994 genocide.
(source: International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda archives)

 

[NotAcasul]

So people can also make false accusations about you? I understand that the US has a different stance on free speech compared to Germany, or most of Europe. But I am pretty sure you're not allowed everywhere to say what ever you want. Free Speech has limitations. Or ... maybe you could put that to a test.

Go to a large convention, the more people the better, throw an empty backback in a crowd and yell loudly 'Allahu Akbar'. This might have a greater effect if you're also dressed in a white tunic and with a black bleard and dark glasses.
Alternatively you could also visit a full movie theater, stand up in the midle of the movie point at the exit, and yell frantically and very loudly, 'THE GUY OVER THERE HAS AN ASSAULT RIFLE! RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!'

And if someone files a charge against you, just say free speech. And Look what happens.

I know this is very very hyperbolic. But, I am trying to make a point here. In Germany, people have a right to their dignity, and considering the immence historical importance of the Holocaust and that Holocaust deniers always follow a political agenda, it is really not hard to understand why those nations that saw the Holocaust happen on their soil, have laws against Holocaust denial, which are not specifically made because of denying the Holocaust - at least in Germany, but to be used against hate speech. And Buxies video also shows why it is important to take those rhetoric as warning.


Of course they don't care about it. That's why they deny it. But that's not the point anyway. Neo-Nazis don't just do it to be edgy, man. Maybe if you wan't to be edgy you run around naked at a football game. But you're not shaving your head and dressing in boots and with shirts about white supremacy and chanting as a crowd "we want to exterminate all niggers and jews!" just to be edgy.

How much experiences with Neo-Nazis do you actually have?


Not sure what you mean, those people certainly ARE seen sometimes in the public. I certainly have seen them, at least twice. No, now that I am thinking about it I even saw 4 times Neo-Nazis. And once my Mother and I had to fear for our lives even.

Yeah, all nice and dandy I guess. Unless you're the one sitting on the other side I assume. But scaring people also doesn't happen I guess.




Mob chanting at bus of refugees in Germany shames politicians
One of the protesters threatened the group inside the bus with a cut-throat gesture, a witness told Freie Presse newspaper. “It’s a disgrace, this hatred people feel towards people they know nothing about,” an anonymous witness said. Saxony police spokesman Rafael Scholz said police are investigating verbal threats of violence but that there were no arrests.

But words don't matter I guess.
Rwandan media played a key role in fomenting ethnic divisions and sowing the seeds of mass slaughter in the years leading up to - and the 100 days of - the 1994 genocide.
(source: International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda archives)

Saying "You want to kill a niggers and jews" isn't like saying "This nigger raped this person!" And I do agree there are certain things that aren't okay to say. Saying you want to kill the president in an aggressive way will probably get you arrested. Saying you want to kill all jews will probably get you laughed at or punched in the stomach if you're in a certain crowd, but they are allowed to get punched in the stomach. The whole faking a bomb thing is different when you have a backpack. If you have something physical, the whole situation gets a lot more serious.

As much as I don't like them, they do have rights as citizens.

You've got some good points, but hate speech should be legal in Germany.

What if the Neo-Nazi's win World War 3 or whatever, and they make it so that anyone who voices there "Dangerous and threatening" opinions about how Jews are people just like you and I, could end up fined and imprisoned?

I gotta go, but I'll follow up on more probably later.

 

[Crni Vuk]

As much as I don't like them, they do have rights as citizens.

And they have responsibilities as well.

One of them would be to respect the rights of others. And human dignity is one of those. Your rights end, where the rights of others is infringed. What ever if I like Neo Nazis or not, doesn't even play a role in this. Again, what happens when you completely ignore the rhetoric, speeches and other warning signs, can be seen in Rostock 1991. It's not like the authorities here make those laws just for fun. They are based on experiences. Some of them based on history and othes on more recent examples. Those Neo-Nazi groups exist, and you need tools to combat them.

You've got some good points, but hate speech should be legal in Germany.

Why? What could we possibily gain if we allow people to deny the Holocaust in a political speech?

Mind you, there is no law that says that you have to love minorities, hell you can even run around and yell that they should leave Germany. It doesn't make you popular, but you can have that opinion. The thing that you can't do is, advocate genocide.

What if the Neo-Nazi's win World War 3 or whatever, and they make it so that anyone who voices there "Dangerous and threatening" opinions about how Jews are people just like you and I, could end up fined and imprisoned?

I would probably do nothing, because as someone with a Serbian heritage I would end up in a concentration camp most likely. I am not sure what you're trying to say with this. Because what you describe is exactly what happend more or less in Nazi Germany between 1933 and 45. This Article, which aims to protect the dignity of people, is exactly in place BECAUSE Nazis have been roaming the streets, offending Jews and other minorities, bullying them, frightening them, and causing all sort of mayhem. What could this possibly have to do with free speech?

We just don't want people to run around and propagate genocide, which is I think, reasonable.

You know deep down in my heart I am following libertarianism, I love the philosophy of it, freedom of choice, for example I deeply recent the idea of bans and regulations. People should be free to make their own choices based on their own judgment. But I am also realistic. I also value stability in a society, because this is what protects people and their property. Because when we talk about lifes here, the stakes are kinda pretty high.

 

[SuAside]

I am not sure where you're getting this 'trough the roof' from.

There are more countries in the world than just germany, you know.

Besides, as you say, a lot of countries tend to evade the issue by not publishing any statistics since they are normal citizens at that point. However, talk to any social worker in any large city and what he tells you will be obvious.
Again, I'm not saying this for racist motives. I'm saying this because somewhere we're going wrong with how we follow up on immigrants and how we integrate them into our society.

Now you're creating a hyperbole

Everything I said is entirely factually correct. Sure reads like a hyperbole, but this is what the law says. The only thing I should add which is hilarious, is that if the break in happens at night, I am somehow entitled to use violence. If it happens by day, I am not allowed to do anything.

Because the usual citizens neither has the education nor the expertise to act like the police authority or even on their behalf.

Yes, but as long as people cannot carry a cop in their back pocket, one should at least be able to discuss what ways one should have to adequately protect himself from crime.

Because they (German authorities) have decided that the right to free-speech must be balanced against the right not to be subjected to racism, xenophobia, anti-Semitism and a potential revival of Nazism.

I admit it's a difficult thing to draw the line, but I'd posit that this type of thing should be dealt with through education and debate, not law.
Yes, some people will get their feelings hurt. But censorship is more dangerous in the long run in my eyes.

Which is enough to convince me assault rifles and semi assault rifles need banning.

How many more times do I have to repeat this: the use of assault rifles and semi automatic sporting rifles in shooting deaths is only a small fraction of firearms related crime (for the reason that it's quite annoying to carry around and you can't as easily conceal a rifle as you can a pistol).
Your ban would have very little impact while disproportionately affect legal gun owners. How is that fair?

Also, could you at least use REAL names for what you're trying to ban. WTF is a semi assault rifles for fucks sake? A semi assault rifle would just be a semi automatic rifle...

Go to a large convention, the more people the better, throw an empty backback in a crowd and yell loudly 'Allahu Akbar'. This might have a greater effect if you're also dressed in a white tunic and with a black bleard and dark glasses.
Alternatively you could also visit a full movie theater, stand up in the midle of the movie point at the exit, and yell frantically and very loudly, 'THE GUY OVER THERE HAS AN ASSAULT RIFLE! RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!'
And if someone files a charge against you, just say free speech. And Look what happens.

That's civil disturbance and reckless endangerment. That's already illegal, friend.

Mob chanting at bus of refugees in Germany shames politicians

Again, might as well be handled with civil disturbance laws with added racism context.
The threats add another criminal element to it.
So you really don't need those additional censorship laws to combat this bullshit?

Rwandan media played a key role in fomenting ethnic divisions and sowing the seeds of mass slaughter in the years leading up to - and the 100 days of - the 1994 genocide.

I am well aware of the Rwandan genocide. We lost 10 paracommandos there. But yes, media played a great role in riling people up, but again, does that mean we need censorship? No, civil disturbance and anti-riot laws already have that covered. Inciting a riot is always illegal.
Let's also not forget our own involvement in not giving the UN peacekeepers a workable mandate and rules of engagement.
I'd suggest you read Romeo Dallaire's book on it, it's an interesting read (though fairly onesided).

 

[Izak]

Again, might as well be handled with civil disturbance laws with added racism context.

But yes, media played a great role in riling people up, but again, does that mean we need censorship? No, civil disturbance and anti-riot laws already have that covered.

What's the difference in having censorship ship laws prohibiting hate speech and having civil disturbance laws prohibiting hate speech? Do the semantics of the law really matter if they have the same effect?

 

[TheGM]

Looks like we are headed for another split topic about how Free Speech is Wrong.

One of them would be to respect the rights of others. And human dignity is one of those. Your rights end, where the rights of others is infringed.

Maybe it's one of those lost in translation things but some people dignified enough that no being can do or say anything about it and others don't have any dignity at all, like people who go on daytime talk shows or furries.

It's like when people talk about the right to not be offended, well not everybody gets offended by the same thing.

 

[SuAside]

What's the difference in having censorship ship laws prohibiting hate speech and having civil disturbance laws prohibiting hate speech? Do the semantics of the law really matter if they have the same effect?

Debating something like the holocaust is not causing a civil disturbance.
Calling to arm yourself to chop up a rival ethnicity certainly is inciting a riot.

But yeah, let's leave the discussion about free speech and return to gun control.

 

[NotAcasul]

And they have responsibilities as well.

One of them would be to respect the rights of others. And human dignity is one of those. Your rights end, where the rights of others is infringed. What ever if I like Neo Nazis or not, doesn't even play a role in this. Again, what happens when you completely ignore the rhetoric, speeches and other warning signs, can be seen in Rostock 1991. It's not like the authorities here make those laws just for fun. They are based on experiences. Some of them based on history and othes on more recent examples. Those Neo-Nazi groups exist, and you need tools to combat them.


Why? What could we possibily gain if we allow people to deny the Holocaust in a political speech?

Mind you, there is no law that says that you have to love minorities, hell you can even run around and yell that they should leave Germany. It doesn't make you popular, but you can have that opinion. The thing that you can't do is, advocate genocide.


I would probably do nothing, because as someone with a Serbian heritage I would end up in a concentration camp most likely. I am not sure what you're trying to say with this. Because what you describe is exactly what happend more or less in Nazi Germany between 1933 and 45. This Article, which aims to protect the dignity of people, is exactly in place BECAUSE Nazis have been roaming the streets, offending Jews and other minorities, bullying them, frightening them, and causing all sort of mayhem. What could this possibly have to do with free speech?

We just don't want people to run around and propagate genocide, which is I think, reasonable.

You know deep down in my heart I am following libertarianism, I love the philosophy of it, freedom of choice, for example I deeply recent the idea of bans and regulations. People should be free to make their own choices based on their own judgment. But I am also realistic. I also value stability in a society, because this is what protects people and their property. Because when we talk about lifes here, the stakes are kinda pretty high.

Back, sorry for being gone so long.

-That's not necessarily accurate based on what you mean. It really depends on what type of disrespect the assailant perpetrated and why they did it. Also, I'm arguing that my rights don't infringe the rights of others, because if it truly infringed their rights to privacy or safety, I would be constantly attacking them at all times, or stalking them.

-We gain the right to do so. You have as much right to hate Germany as you do for the Jews.

-You can actually advocate genocide so long as you remember to keep a calm head and not bring any threatening, act threateningly, or threaten a specific person. Disturbing the peace, however, is illegal, but is not appropriate to protesters with picket signs. Protesters with picket signs blocking traffic is illegal.

Waiting for your response.

 

[Dr Fallout]

Can someone get statistics that prove, without doubt that states which have tighter gun laws have more gun related crime?

 

[GonZo_626]

Well here are the statistics

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_in_the_United_States_by_state

I have not looked into which way they go. But a quick glance shows some things, D.C. has a high gun death rate (16.5 per 100000) and tough gun control, Louisiana is next highest with 7.7 and Missouri with 5.4.

And as for the free speech thing, people need to understand that with free speech come the fact that some people are going to be insulted and offended. In fact if I have not been offended twice in one day I begin to wonder what went wrong, its just the people who offend me are the ones who say that they are trying to be less offensive and racist (see SJW).

 

[Dr Fallout]

Well here are the statistics

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_in_the_United_States_by_state

I have not looked into which way they go. But a quick glance shows some things, D.C. has a high gun death rate (16.5 per 100000) and tough gun control, Louisiana is next highest with 7.7 and Missouri with 5.4.

And as for the free speech thing, people need to understand that with free speech come the fact that some people are going to be insulted and offended. In fact if I have not been offended twice in one day I begin to wonder what went wrong, its just the people who offend me are the ones who say that they are trying to be less offensive and racist (see SJW).

A lot of these areas have higher populations, and there are other factors that need to be looked into.

 

[MutantScalper]

These Holocaust-deniers are just like the flat-earthers. Not one of them actually care about the holocaust, they simply do to be edgy and "Fight the man!"

You know who were the first people to deny the Holocaust (of not just Jews but of all ethnicities) by the Nazis? It was the original Nazis themselves. It was among the main 'last orders' of the falling Nazi regime. The aim of the disinformation campaign is to create pro-Nazi propaganda and over time (decades, maybe even centuries) to soften up the image of the Third Reich. The ultimate aim of the campaign is to re-instate the Nazis in power.

You compare the Holocaust deniers to 9/11 truthers or to a traffic accident and flat earthers? Are you sure those are good comparisons? When I compare things to the Nazis I get a chorus of "Godwin's Law! You lose the argument!1".

Also, one thing I wonder often, Brits and Americans who deny the Holocaust and Nazi-genocide. Are you really looking forward to 'round 2' (or round 3 if we count WW 1) in places like Omaha beach, Utah beach, etc.? Really?

Anyhoo, probably badly off topic by now etc.

Considering there are 310 million firearms in circulation in the USA, spree shootings are not common.
Mass shootings account for a tiny 4% of criminal gun deaths in the USA, and this includes gang related violence.
If you include all firearms related deaths, mass shootings represent 1.5% of all gun deaths in the USA.

"Common" means widespread or commonplace. I don't know what kind of odds you usually bet on, but the odds above are pretty fucking tiny.

http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/reports/mass-shooting

I don't know man. You can click the previous pages. And it's only 2016. To me that looks like the worst time in Iraq war, or something. Those numbers are comprised of real humans.

Can someone get statistics that prove, without doubt that states which have tighter gun laws have more gun related crime?

I think the real question you need to ask is do tighter gun laws work. If a US state with presently loose gun laws like for example Vermont would get a steep increase in gun violence, would they go for more strict gun legislation? I'm pretty sure they would. So what the gun nuts are asking to see are all the gun deaths and gun violence that were prevented by the gun laws. The cops are stopping potential mass shootings all the time in US. Many are in the very last stages of planning and could have very well resulted in huge death tolls. You want a list of all these cases? That would be one way to prove that at least some gun legislations are working.

 

[Draitex]

I say the same as Jim Jefferies.
'The only viable argument for guns is this ''Fuck off, I like guns'' '

I think guns are cool, but the US needs better gun laws, that's clear as day

 

[GonZo_626]

I say the same as Jim Jefferies.
'The only viable argument for guns is this ''Fuck off, I like guns'' '

I think guns are cool, but the US needs better gun laws, that's clear as day

Typical Urban attitude, there are many people who need guns (pretty much every farmer should have one for livestock protection). I have carried a shotgun for work purposes when getting ditched by a helicopter in the middle of nowhere for animal defense (blah, blah, blah, bearspray, blah, blah, but until you have a grizzly 10ft from you on one side and cups 10ft the other you want something more than "piss off bear spray"). And the US could maybe use some better laws, but it would be better if the actual laws in place where enforced. A lot of background checks don't get completed in 3 days do to law enforcement agencies not getting to it. Licensing without registration of all firearms would pretty much negate that though as in Canada anyway my license ensures I have had my background check done.

 

[Draitex]

Typical Urban attitude, there are many people who need guns (pretty much every farmer should have one for livestock protection). I have carried a shotgun for work purposes when getting ditched by a helicopter in the middle of nowhere for animal defense (blah, blah, blah, bearspray, blah, blah, but until you have a grizzly 10ft from you on one side and cups 10ft the other you want something more than "piss off bear spray"). And the US could maybe use some better laws, but it would be better if the actual laws in place where enforced. A lot of background checks don't get completed in 3 days do to law enforcement agencies not getting to it. Licensing without registration of all firearms would pretty much negate that though as in Canada anyway my license ensures I have had my background check done.

I never fuckin said remove guns, but your current gun laws, I should've been cleare that in that context I said it he was reffering to your current laws.

me I live in sweden, most people I know have a Hunting Shotgun or a Hunting Rifle at home, to be used if fucking wolves come cause wolves are shit animals and anyone who says otherwise have never met a wolf.

Bears are easier to avoid than wolves but I know many who carries their rifles just incase bear or wolf come.

The fuck is bearspray? sounds stupid.

In sweden out gun laws are strict as fuck, but you can have rifles and weaponry provided you have the right license for it, which you only get through proper training, like hunting license etc.

I never said guns should be removed, but the American gun laws are not tha best, I personally enjoy guns and have shot with Millitary and hunting weaponry just cause it's fun.

 

[GonZo_626]

I never fuckin said remove guns, but your current gun laws, I should've been cleare that in that context I said it he was reffering to your current laws.

me I live in sweden, most people I know have a Hunting Shotgun or a Hunting Rifle at home, to be used if fucking wolves come cause wolves are shit animals and anyone who says otherwise have never met a wolf.

Bears are easier to avoid than wolves but I know many who carries their rifles just incase bear or wolf come.

The fuck is bearspray? sounds stupid.

In sweden out gun laws are strict as fuck, but you can have rifles and weaponry provided you have the right license for it, which you only get through proper training, like hunting license etc.

I never said guns should be removed, but the American gun laws are not tha best, I personally enjoy guns and have shot with Millitary and hunting weaponry just cause it's fun.

Well since you want to fucking talk like this I can fucking talk like this too instead of conversing in a clear and concise way. An I was responding to your quote:

I say the same as Jim Jefferies.
'The only viable argument for guns is this ''Fuck off, I like guns'' '

from that douchbag Jim Jefferies who only says the bullshit to get laughs. So it seems to me you actually fucking think people need guns, that's right need. Meanwhile you fucking quote some bullshit about how their is "no viable argument". Pull you head out buddy and think about what the fuck you are saying all I did is respond with "A VIABLE ARGUMENTS FOR NEEDING GUNS.

And Sweden the socialists delight huh, no wonder you got offended by me quoting and arguing with your own quote, typical social justice bullshit.

And yes bear spray is fucking stupid.

And the current American gun laws are barely enforced. Maybe they should enforce their current laws before they go around making up new laws. I still don't even understand the need for new laws. It is already illegal to murder someone, don't know what more you would need. "Can I shoot someone with this rifle?" well no its illegal to shoot someone what more fucking laws do you need. Guy stabs, shoots, runs someone down what the fuck does it matter what he used? No matter what, what they did is fucking illegal the choice of tool for implementing it doesn't matter. I can walk into a U-Haul and rent a 35ft truck and cause a ton of damage, I can go to a hardware store and make chemical weapons and explosives. Everyday fucking items can be used to kill banning something cause its a little easier to kill with it over something else is retarded cause its already illegal to kill.

 

[Operation Wignut]

I never said guns should be removed, but the American gun laws are not tha best, I personally enjoy guns and have shot with Millitary and hunting weaponry just cause it's fun.

Since you're at least COMMONLY versed in US gun legislation (or at least, to the casual observer, that's how it seems), what gun laws would you propose we change? Should we only change gun laws at the state level? At the city level? Or should we cast a blanket of laws that apply to everyone from the 18 y/o living in Harlem to the 45 y/o Appalachian hunter to the 60 y/o war veteran in Florida?

 

[Draitex]

Well since you want to fucking talk like this I can fucking talk like this too instead of conversing in a clear and concise way. An I was responding to your quote:

I say the same as Jim Jefferies.
'The only viable argument for guns is this ''Fuck off, I like guns'' '

from that douchbag Jim Jefferies who only says the bullshit to get laughs. So it seems to me you actually fucking think people need guns, that's right need. Meanwhile you fucking quote some bullshit about how their is "no viable argument". Pull you head out buddy and think about what the fuck you are saying all I did is respond with "A VIABLE ARGUMENTS FOR NEEDING GUNS.

And Sweden the socialists delight huh, no wonder you got offended by me quoting and arguing with your own quote, typical social justice bullshit.

And yes bear spray is fucking stupid.

And the current American gun laws are barely enforced. Maybe they should enforce their current laws before they go around making up new laws. I still don't even understand the need for new laws. It is already illegal to murder someone, don't know what more you would need. "Can I shoot someone with this rifle?" well no its illegal to shoot someone what more fucking laws do you need. Guy stabs, shoots, runs someone down what the fuck does it matter what he used? No matter what, what they did is fucking illegal the choice of tool for implementing it doesn't matter. I can walk into a U-Haul and rent a 35ft truck and cause a ton of damage, I can go to a hardware store and make chemical weapons and explosives. Everyday fucking items can be used to kill banning something cause its a little easier to kill with it over something else is retarded cause its already illegal to kill.

I swore once to you, did not mean to come across like a dick.

Listen. I explained i should have been clearer about the context he used it in, when it comes to your gun laws, not guns in general, I said so in my second post for that I aplogize, but you bashed me twice for it even though i explained what i meant.

I never said we don't need guns, but you Americans have Assault Rifles and guns that should absolutley not be allowed for personal ownership in my opinion, I think handguns even is overdoing it, Hunting rifles and hunting weaponry is enough, and you should have the proper license for it if you want to have one at home.

I am not a socialist, I don't even vote cause i think voting is an illusion of choice and it looks boring, And i am not right or left, I think left are bigger idiots than rights tbh more often than not. and don't shit talk my country, I did not shittalk america, only the gun laws.

The fuck is bear spray? some kind of pepperspray for bears?, If a bear gets close enough for you to use it you'll be ripped to shredds if the bear is out to kill you.

If the current laws are not enforced that means there is not enough control wouldn't you say?
It's not about the guns themselves, but rather the ''firepower'' of some of the guns and the easy access to it.

what I say you should do is that you would take away all the assault rifles, I personally think guns are fun to use, but Assault rifles and stuff like that, well that's a bit too much to be available in gun stores, hunting rifles etc, I totally get that.

I have used millitary weaponry inside the millitary, and I have used hunting weapons, And I do own a compound bow(Archery is great fun!)

I believe, that Swedish gun laws are too strict, cause I want to have a crossbow but cant, And I believe americas gunlaws are too loose cause of the weaponry avaliable and the easy accessing to said guns.