Awfully convenient though to suddenly shift the subject to guns.
forum
ITT 2: We post shit that is neither funny nor interesting 2j1py
posted
Total Posts
57,524
In my opinion, I don't have anything against owning guns, but under SERIOUSLY HEAVY regulations, or if not heavy, just extremely annoying to deal with.
I would love to use Serbia as an example of that, where you actually need to go through fifty thousand loops, sign a shitton of documents, a shooting range and go through actual training, get 3 licences and a psycho test to get a gun (and no random stores to buy military-grade guns either, those have to be bought with yet more paper g and other shit).
I would love to use Serbia as an example of that, where you actually need to go through fifty thousand loops, sign a shitton of documents, a shooting range and go through actual training, get 3 licences and a psycho test to get a gun (and no random stores to buy military-grade guns either, those have to be bought with yet more paper g and other shit).
Sounds good to me, too. I'm pretty libertarian to some extent; I think freedom should be a decent priority. I don't see why Americans seem to think that freedom to buy and use guns should extent to any fucking lunatic though; restrictions that try to ensure that they're in the hands of good people are just common sense, from my perspective.Aurani wrote: k3n52
In my opinion, I don't have anything against owning guns, but under SERIOUSLY HEAVY regulations, or if not heavy, just extremely annoying to deal with.
I would love to use Serbia as an example of that, where you actually need to go through fifty thousand loops, sign a shitton of documents, a shooting range and go through actual training, get 3 licences and a psycho test to get a gun (and no random stores to buy military-grade guns either, those have to be bought with yet more paper g and other shit).
America's violence problem isn't due to lack of gun restrictions, It's due to a multitude of factors, like the drug war, gang and ethnic violence as I've pointed out before. The mantra of "guns don't kill people, people kill people" applies because there are heaps of countries with high gun ownership that don't have the problems America does.
Serbia actually has one of the highest rates of firearm ownership in the world, and has a lower homicide rate than many other European nations.
Serbia actually has one of the highest rates of firearm ownership in the world, and has a lower homicide rate than many other European nations.
B1rd wrote: 4w393k
It's due to a multitude of factors, like
...lack of gun restrictions?
Why are you arguing with a strawman, B1rd? I don't think I've seen anyone- EVER- argue that gun violence is solely caused by a lack of gun restrictions. Think before you start rattling off propaganda talking points for once, would you.
That's why you create restriction to filter out people like these from having guns. Drug addict? No gun for you. Engaged in ethnic violence? No gun for you. Part of a gang? No gun for you. And so on.B1rd wrote: 4w393k
America's violence problem isn't due to lack of gun restrictions, It's due to a multitude of factors, like the drug war, gang and ethnic violence as I've pointed out before
Are you using the new forum? Traitor.
Did you spontaneously drop 20 IQ points? Because that's a really bad interpretation of my post. Violence doesn't originate in guns, it originates in people. And you see this in my point about all the countries that have loose gun restrictions but have low homicide. As I've pointed out, gun availability has little effect on homicide rates, and you're a lot better off targeting the root causes rather than going on a crusade to violate people's rights. Since gun control has never proven effective at lowering violence. Like in Australia, where the gun buyback did pretty much nothing (except for spiking up the burglary rate by a fuckton), and New Zealand which didn't institute the same measures has the same decline in homicide that was already happening before the gun restriction.
Did you spontaneously drop 20 IQ points? Because that's a really bad interpretation of my post. Violence doesn't originate in guns, it originates in people. And you see this in my point about all the countries that have loose gun restrictions but have low homicide. As I've pointed out, gun availability has little effect on homicide rates, and you're a lot better off targeting the root causes rather than going on a crusade to violate people's rights. Since gun control has never proven effective at lowering violence. Like in Australia, where the gun buyback did pretty much nothing (except for spiking up the burglary rate by a fuckton), and New Zealand which didn't institute the same measures has the same decline in homicide that was already happening before the gun restriction.
I don't have a problem with restricting firearms from irresponsible people, problem is it's a really bad idea to give that decision making power of who is "responsible" to the state. I'd rather than responsibility be upon the community and firearm distributors. Although in current society it's basically illegal to deny service to anyone so there's your problem.abraker wrote: 6cx2d
That's why you create restriction to filter out people like these from having guns. Drug addict? No gun for you. Engaged in ethnic violence? No gun for you. Part of a gang? No gun for you. And so on.
I switch to the new forum to edit posts and then switch back, lol.
The point of my response is that lack of restrictions on guns is ONE of the contributing factors to America's problem with gun violence. You can't just hand-wave it away while listing off other loosely-connected factors; you're revealing a bias when you do so.
The gun restrictions newly put into place in Australia were followed by a sharp drop in gun violence, but it's unclear as to what extent those restrictions and buybacks were responsible for changing crime rates, since non-gun-related violence also dropped (by an even larger extent, apparently). I won't rule out there being absolutely no correlation though: in America, gun ownership and gun homicide rates are very closely related, with each 1% of gun ownership ing for 0.9% of gun homicides. (source: http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/ab ... 013.301409 )
Why would firearm distributors limit sales? They're private companies, they'll sell to anyone who wants to pay them. That's why we have state regulations in the first place, lol. Profit-driven isn't necessarily best for of society, although somehow I doubt you'll agree there, considering how much pro-free market propaganda you seem to have swallowed...
The point of my response is that lack of restrictions on guns is ONE of the contributing factors to America's problem with gun violence. You can't just hand-wave it away while listing off other loosely-connected factors; you're revealing a bias when you do so.
The gun restrictions newly put into place in Australia were followed by a sharp drop in gun violence, but it's unclear as to what extent those restrictions and buybacks were responsible for changing crime rates, since non-gun-related violence also dropped (by an even larger extent, apparently). I won't rule out there being absolutely no correlation though: in America, gun ownership and gun homicide rates are very closely related, with each 1% of gun ownership ing for 0.9% of gun homicides. (source: http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/ab ... 013.301409 )
Why would firearm distributors limit sales? They're private companies, they'll sell to anyone who wants to pay them. That's why we have state regulations in the first place, lol. Profit-driven isn't necessarily best for of society, although somehow I doubt you'll agree there, considering how much pro-free market propaganda you seem to have swallowed...
Firearm distributors cam deny someone service, can they? I know they may get a bed rep from it, but I am not aware of any law making it illegal.B1rd wrote: 4w393k
I'd rather than responsibility be upon the community and firearm distributors. Although in current society it's basically illegal to deny service to anyone so there's your problem.
That's not true. Firstly, gun-related violence is irrelevant, total homicide is what matters. Secondly, non-gun homicide did actually increase, or rather, it didn't decrease in line with overall homicide. Knife murder barely decreased at all, being 110 a year in 1997, being 86 now. Hands/feet and "other" homicide spiked somewhat after the 1996 buyback, gradually decreasing from then on. http://www.crimestats.aic.gov.au/NHMP/1_trends/DaddyCoolVipper wrote: 4p47
I switch to the new forum to edit posts and then switch back, lol.
The point of my response is that lack of restrictions on guns is ONE of the contributing factors to America's problem with gun violence. You can't just hand-wave it away while listing off other loosely-connected factors; you're revealing a bias when you do so.
The gun restrictions newly put into place in Australia were followed by a sharp drop in gun violence, but it's unclear as to what extent those restrictions and buybacks were responsible for changing crime rates, since non-gun-related violence also dropped (by an even larger extent, apparently). I won't rule out there being absolutely no correlation though: in America, gun ownership and gun homicide rates are very closely related, with each 1% of gun ownership ing for 0.9% of gun homicides. (source: http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/ab ... 013.301409 )
Why would firearm distributors limit sales? They're private companies, they'll sell to anyone who wants to pay them. That's why we have state regulations in the first place, lol. Profit-driven isn't necessarily best for of society, although somehow I doubt you'll agree there, considering how much pro-free market propaganda you seem to have swallowed...
Burglary also spiked after the buyback https://web.archive.org/web/20180120172 ... crime.html
But even if it did increase homicide, Australia never had a problem with homicide. I absolutely reject the notion that people's rights be infringed upon for marginal benefits at best.
And as for private means of gun control, private companies do seek generally to maximise profits, that's why it's a good idea to be discriminating in who sell your guns to. It's bad PR to have a gun you sold be an instrument in a mass shooting. Just change the federal FBI checks and change it with some private licensure scheme, and I can bet you that most vendors would adopt that as a requirement for purchase.
Well it actually seems that gun stores can deny service, which is good. But generally, private property owners aren't allowed to discriminate. https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/20 ... -they-wantabraker wrote: 6cx2d
Firearm distributors cam deny someone service, can they? I know they may get a bed rep from it, but I am not aware of any law making it illegal.B1rd wrote: 4w393k
I'd rather than responsibility be upon the community and firearm distributors. Although in current society it's basically illegal to deny service to anyone so there's your problem.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/f ... le/2530362
"There was a more rapid decline in firearm deaths between 1997 and 2013 compared with before 1997 but also a decline in total nonfirearm suicide and homicide deaths of a greater magnitude."
I will say, though, that gun restrictions have absolutely proven effective in combating mass shootings.
"From 1979-1996 (before gun law reforms), 13 fatal mass shootings occurred in Australia, whereas from 1997 through May 2016 (after gun law reforms), no fatal mass shootings occurred."
"There was a more rapid decline in firearm deaths between 1997 and 2013 compared with before 1997 but also a decline in total nonfirearm suicide and homicide deaths of a greater magnitude."
I will say, though, that gun restrictions have absolutely proven effective in combating mass shootings.
"From 1979-1996 (before gun law reforms), 13 fatal mass shootings occurred in Australia, whereas from 1997 through May 2016 (after gun law reforms), no fatal mass shootings occurred."
B1rd wrote: 4w393k
And as for private means of gun control, private companies do seek generally to maximise profits, that's why it's a good idea to be discriminating in who sell your guns to. It's bad PR to have a gun you sold be an instrument in a mass shooting.
I don't think this has ever been relevant; seems more like fantasy on your end. Hell, you can even argue that companies benefit from mass shootings. The massacre in Las Vegas proved that the bump stock is pretty effective, right? And let's not forget that "bulletproof backpacks" sold out (https://www.abcactionnews.com/news/regi ... in-florida) in Florida after a school shooting.
Now the government's spending a ton of money giving teachers firearms and training. Companies are making a lot of money from mass shootings.
As for Bird's point for Serbia having one of the highest gun ownership scores in the world with low homicide rates, I can't really explain it. Yes, it's true, almost every 10th household has a full auto left over from the wars in the 20th century (it's even worse in Bosnia where it's every 5th household) yet I'm guessing the shootings don't happen because... poverty? I don't see how we're any different than the chaps in Hungary or Poland for that matter - we don't have racial wars because Asians aren't into violence and we don't have that many negros, and we aren't multicultural either apart from the local cultures mixing (Hungarians, Romanians, Bosniaks, Croats etc) and the only place where violence IS prevalent is on Kosovo due to the blight known as Albanians being actual cancer and burning homes and whatnot.
So yeah, idk how else I can explain why we have it as we do.
So yeah, idk how else I can explain why we have it as we do.
Bump stocks are just gimmicks, sure they let you fire fast but also make your fire super inaccurate. Banning them is just stupid, any guy with a workbench in his shed can make a bumpstock, and you don't even need one to bump fire.
That's the second time this week I've heard the claim that "there's been no mass shootings in Australia", which isn't even correct, which you can see with just a Google search. Shows more than anything some studies are quite biased and probably defined mass shooting in some super arbitrary way. with controversial issues like this, it's best not to bother on reports by other people and just examine the data yourself.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_m ... _Australia
There's been mass shootings, maybe you can argue that there hasn't been as many, but you could also argue that there's been more arson and vehicle attacks. Gun control may decrease mas shootings, but mass shootings are a tiny proportion of gun violence anyway. Even in the US where mass shootings seem to be a regular occurrence, they are empirically quite uncommon - the US is quite a populous country, mass shootings are over sensationalised by the media and made out to be an epidemic, when they're really not. In the USA, more people die in car accidents per day than people are killed by mass shootings every year.
Even if gun availability increases the rate of mass shootings, I don't believe it's right to restrict the rights of the majority just because a tiny, tiny proportion of people do the wrong thing. And if you think it's okay to infringe upon people's rights to save lives, then your first target should be sugar and cigarettes.
That's the second time this week I've heard the claim that "there's been no mass shootings in Australia", which isn't even correct, which you can see with just a Google search. Shows more than anything some studies are quite biased and probably defined mass shooting in some super arbitrary way. with controversial issues like this, it's best not to bother on reports by other people and just examine the data yourself.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_m ... _Australia
There's been mass shootings, maybe you can argue that there hasn't been as many, but you could also argue that there's been more arson and vehicle attacks. Gun control may decrease mas shootings, but mass shootings are a tiny proportion of gun violence anyway. Even in the US where mass shootings seem to be a regular occurrence, they are empirically quite uncommon - the US is quite a populous country, mass shootings are over sensationalised by the media and made out to be an epidemic, when they're really not. In the USA, more people die in car accidents per day than people are killed by mass shootings every year.
Even if gun availability increases the rate of mass shootings, I don't believe it's right to restrict the rights of the majority just because a tiny, tiny proportion of people do the wrong thing. And if you think it's okay to infringe upon people's rights to save lives, then your first target should be sugar and cigarettes.
Well, I think that goes along with what I've been saying, it's not people owning guns that automatically causes violence, but societal instability and ethnic conflict being causes, with guns just being a means.Aurani wrote: k3n52
As for Bird's point for Serbia having one of the highest gun ownership scores in the world with low homicide rates, I can't really explain it. Yes, it's true, almost every 10th household has a full auto left over from the wars in the 20th century (it's even worse in Bosnia where it's every 5th household) yet I'm guessing the shootings don't happen because... poverty? I don't see how we're any different than the chaps in Hungary or Poland for that matter - we don't have racial wars because Asians aren't into violence and we don't have that many negros, and we aren't multicultural either apart from the local cultures mixing (Hungarians, Romanians, Bosniaks, Croats etc) and the only place where violence IS prevalent is on Kosovo due to the blight known as Albanians being actual cancer and burning homes and whatnot.
So yeah, idk how else I can explain why we have it as we do.
So does everything I say prompt this from you?DJ Enetro wrote: 6t4y1n
Am I really the toxic shit of OT, or are you letting me get to your heads?
And is satisfying the majority really superior to self-gratification?
It might be obvious for you guys, but not for me...
I'm kidding, but now it seems like you're starting to pick up the idea of self-gratification because I mentioned it once in a different thread.
I don't know what you're even trying to do, really. By the way, I never really thought you were the toxic shit of OT, if that's what you thought. If not, then I don't know why you're even asking.
"Satisfying the majority" being "superior to self-gratification", hmm. Is there some sort of complex going on here or...? Like, do you actually feel like people just want you to post something that satisfies their needs? How does that relate to you with "self-gratification", other than that it's the sort of tone your posts have?
From what I'm seeing, i'd say the problem isn't "noone understands me", neither is it "apparently i dont understand anyone", but more of "i cant seem convey my ideas properly".
I wouldn't be able to answer your questions since I never had an opinion on it in the first place, but anyhow, I'm just wondering what prompts all of this, as if you're feeling "intellectually isolated" or something.
I mean the way you sound, it's as if sometime in the future, you'd make a post worthy of being in /r/iamverysmart.
Previously I had this preconception about Lauren Southern that people just liked her because she was a female conservative. But watching her videos I've found I like her a lot, she's quite smart and has interesting opinions and doesn't just parrot partisan talking points. I've respect for her journalism on the plight of White South African Farmers and her fight against the UK and it's totalitarian laws.
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/micros ... 36742.html
Just what we need: now Skype will be monitoring your private conversations for non-PC language.
Just what we need: now Skype will be monitoring your private conversations for non-PC language.
B1rd wrote: 4w393k
mfw I just turned 14 and learnt how to be intellectual by criticising capitalism
What are you talking about? Facebook took advantage of a gap in the market for financial gains. It's the consumers fault for not realizing it sooner. If you think companies should strive for good experiences why do you criticise Microsoft for making Skype and Xbox live a more amicable service?
Did I complain? Trusting any large institution with your personal information, or trusting it to have power over you life in any other matter, is extremely foolish. That's why I commented on my own course of action instead of complaining uselessly about how Google or Facebook or the Government are bad and should act more morally.
Don't know what your point is or what point you think you're responding to.Green Platinum wrote: 3k2u48
What are you talking about? Facebook took advantage of a gap in the market for financial gains. It's the consumers fault for not realizing it sooner. If you think companies should strive for good experiences why do you criticise Microsoft for making Skype and Xbox live a more amicable service?B1rd wrote: 4w393k
mfw I just turned 14 and learnt how to be intellectual by criticising capitalism
DaddyCoolVipper wrote: 4p47
I don't even know if I want to even watch the entire video, but this showcases that our country is fucking dumb.
First of all, the city wanted to remove the statue of Robert E. Lee, which is a historical figure in American History, especially during the Civil War. He was a well-known general during his time, and even though the Confederates lost, he was still a very respected general. Why a city would remove something like this that is implanted in history textbooks, not teaching our future kids about the importance of the Civil War, and who sacrificed their life in it. Besides, I saw that statue a while back on a field trip, was really fun to view it and a few other museums nearby.
What's going to happen in 10, 20 years? Are kids going to have to look back and learn why our generation was just so fucking bad because we couldn't control ourselves and had to make up "alt-right" to tell that nobody should have equal rights? Just imagine if we have segregated schools again, separating not only the gender, but race and religion aswell. It just makes no sense, our country has gone from the era of post-war standoffs, to the era gas prices rising high, to the era of "racism is an okay thing".
Of course the police have to come in there and break up unnecessary fights and remove protesters breaking the law, it's their fucking job to do that. So what's the fucking point of alt-right people saying that they're not the violent ones, because punching a man in the face for yelling at them face-to-face, a woman, and pulling out a gun. People trying to make them a victim is just.. it's obvious these guys want attention, given the fact that they hold rallies there to "neo-nazism". Why does the Nazi flag/symbol have to exist? It's not something we should be throwing around.
How stupid is this country again? I'm starting to lose track because even my school tried to go all 'alt-right' for a little bit before shutting down any student doing stupid actions involving in politics. Whoever thinks murdering young children who are part of a minority that you don't like are have completely lost their mind, and it's even worse for others to think THEY are the heroes...
edit: Misunderstood a lot of the video and fixed my mistakes, and I couldn't edit my original post for whatever fucking reason
B1rd wrote: 4w393k
These are some high-grade memes.
https://www.facebook.com/16374907039435 ... 297948350/
goodnight Nasime-chan
Here's an interesting bit of trivia: I was playing a game on my hard drive which centered around a protagonist who was repeatedly and brutally raped as a child and made infertile, and then took revenge by killing her ab(s) with a kitchen knife. Then I went downstairs and read a book (not particularly risque either, just a novel by Dean Koontz) and the exact same thing happened in that plot as well.
Town bicycle of the osu! community.Milkshake wrote: 1v5s1i
I visited Aurani for a week and now I'm back home on a free day from army, returning tomorrow to the so called "normal routine". I want to die. I don't know how I'm supposed to return to it so quickly, I feel like lying down and dying in bed for days.
I.. don't see what ippe has to do with any of this, maybe take it up with him personally if you have an issue with something he's said instead of applying his name to someone in a place where he can't replyAurani wrote: k3n52
Are you okay there?B1rd wrote: 4w393k
Town bicycle of the osu! community.
I hope to God that you didn't become IppE 2.0 and called her what I think you did.
that said, jealous much, bird? I bet you wouldn't need to complain about other people having normal relationships if you moved out of the basement and learned how to socialise
This post is amazing. It starts out as a comfy nostalgia post ("I summer days on my friend's farm") but then it turns into a post that is darker in nature ("watching demonstrations of sheep being slaughtered and gutted"). Lastly it ends up with a hint of acceptance for the world, along with a personal opinion on the subject ("Gross but interesting"). This is a 10/10 post! Good job.Green Platinum wrote: 3k2u48
I summer days on my friend's farm watching demonstrations of sheep being slaughtered and gutted. Gross but interesting.
