Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)S
帖子
0
评论
149
加入于
2 yr. ago

  • So you're end goal is a total ban. Good luck finding people who want to go door to door removing firearms from people...and the criminals will still keep theirs.

    Please please wise one, tell me how you plan on enforcing your ban on a country with 450+ million firearms in circulation

    I am literally responding to the question you proposed. But yes, a total ban seems most prudent.

    12k~ people a year are killed by drunk drivers. https://www.nhtsa.gov/risky-driving/drunk-driving

    The key difference, as I already said, is intent. People aren't setting out with the intention to get drunk, drive and kill someone. So yes, we should do more to prevent drunk driving. There is a lot more that can be done. Why do we have to pick between reducing drunk driving and reducing murder. As you already said, we're never going to eliminate murder,bit we can make it harder.

    And you think that it was the guns fault? Not that an abusive piece of shit did this... ;Are you suggesting that a 110lb woman would be able to defend against a 200lb man if he didn't have a gun? Firearms are literally the greatest equalizer.

    If he didn't gave access to a gun, he wouldn't have shot her. Anything beyond that is speculation. But in my opinion, whilst abusive men best their partners to death with depressing frequency, the majority stop somewhere short of actual murder. Whereas when they grab a gun, it tends to end in death. Guns are th great equaliser? So like I said before, this woman should have been sitting on the sofa with a loaded gun at Christmas? Just in case? Guns used in self defence are a myth, the overwhelming majority are used by an aggressor.

    It absolutely does matter. Crimes of passion are very few, most are from as you stated between two people who know each other and done spur of the moment.

    Exactly, spur of the moment. And when that moment passes, people change their mind. Relatively few murders are actually planned, and when the 'passion' fades so does the desire to kill.

    Do you think that most murders happen at a large distance? Do you even know how many people are killed each year via knives alone? I'll give you a hint, it's 4xs higher than all rifles.

    What the fuck are you even trying say with your cherry picked statistic here? From your own statistics page, undisclosed firearms make up more deaths than every other non forearm category combined. All firearm combined make up 15x the combination of every non firearms category.

    Do you really think that someone who's stabbing someone stops and thinks "I shouldn't do this"...

    Yes. Extensive research into the knife crime 'epidemic' in London has shown this happens in about 75% of cases where one person had an knife and intended to stab another.

    There is no comparable country. That's the problem.

    Ah American exceptionalism. To go with your personal exceptionalism. The beliefbthst you are special, and deserve to keep you guns, no matter the cost to society as a whole.

    Yep, and it's mostly gang violence, not random, but no one gives a shit about that.

    He says, whilst dismissing it. I care about it. Hence including it in my statistics.

    Yes because I remember now that we defeated Nazis with thoughts and prayers.

    Moving the goalposts. You were talking about how you need a gun to protect yourself from the fascists in power. Well, they're still in power. And getting more power everyday. And the only ones using their guns are..... The fascists.

  • Where did I say that?

    You think there aren't laws designed for people like this not to acquire firearms?

    Please please wise one, tell me how you plan on enforcing your ban on a country with 450+ million firearms in circulation

    Well, funny, I thought we had whole body's of professional lawmakers to handle the details like that, didn't realise I had to do it personally. But OK. A staged approach over 5 or 10 years, with increasing severe penalties for possession, starting with amnesty and buyback, ending with life sentences.

    Considering that (I'll point this out ....again) alcohol kills more people...yep you're damn right I'm not giving my firearms up until you can magically fix the issues in this country starting with the fascist fucks who are in power.

    How does alcohol kill more? Are you talking health effects or drunk people killing people? Number of firearms used to prevent the fascist takeover which is currently in progress in the country: 0. Number of firearms used to kill a mother and cause life changing injuries to a teenager on Christmas eve: 1 (at least. Let's face, there were probably more)

    So...again. You don't care how they die just that guns were the cause. Knives and hands/feet kill more people a year combined than all rifles do...but like I said above you'd be for another AWB.

    Guns are the most common murder weapon in the US. Combining several categories to obtain a higher rate is disingenuous. Stating that other weapons are also used in murders does not detract from the fact that guns are overwhelmingly the murder weapon of choice.

    So...again. You don't care how they're killed, just that guns did it, so they're bad.

    Your comprehensiom skills need some work. A swimming pool is not the go too murder weapon in the majority of cases. If it were, we could and should discuss how to deal with that. But it's not.

    Just swerve into civs...one more dead person...just grab the kitchen knife...one more dead person.

    Most murders are perpetrated against a specific victim with whom the murder has some sort of grievance. Not random acts of violence. Even so, if cars were being used to murder people at the rates guns were, I'd expect action.

    Everything you're listing has one thing in common that you can't seem to focus on. Why they did it in the first place. Your bandaid solution is "ban all guns" (because let's be honest, criminals don't follow laws, so making more restrictions matters zilch to them, they'll get one from the black market).

    It doesn't really matter why though. A decision is to kill, and the means to do so, against which the victim is completely defenseless, is instantly available. Moreso than any other weapon. Even if you decide to stab your girlfriend to death, you still have to at least get close enough to do it. A gun is just instant murder. Which means there is no time for second thoughts or changes of heart. The US has a higher murder rate than any comparible country precisely because murder in the US is so easy

  • So your argument is 'the law is ineffective, so we best just give up. Maybe focus on some tangental issues, but don't do anything to solve the actual problem, which is the ease of obtaining a firearm, legal or otherwise." Because all of the homicides by firearm are a n acceptable statistic for you as long as you get to keep your guns.

    And the difference, by the way, between pool deaths and road deaths and all the others you cite, and guns: intent. The number of people who just snap one day and decide 'I'm gonna drown my entire family on the pool' or 'I'm gonna drive my car through that bitches house and kill her' is so statistically insignificant that there is no cause to protect society from it. Whereas guns allow such easy access to death that the homicide can be perpetrated before there is any time for rational thoughts. Just pick up a gun, bam, one more dead person.

  • So what, this woman and her 13 Yr old should have been strapped? Whilst chilling on the sofa on Christmas eve? Then this never would have happened!

  • End of the day, you believe that a few hundred shooting deaths per year are a price worth paying for your gun fetish. Just out and say it "I don't care how many people die, I like guns".

  • I had them break into my vacant house, which I was selling, because of an unpaid electricity bill. They claimed they had made every reasonable effort to contact me (which the law requires). Which apparently did not extend to phoning the estate agents number on the 'for sale' board they walked past to serve notice, and again to actually break in. After I threatened them with the ombudsman, Shell Energy agreed to replace the PAYG meter they illigally installed, paid to repair the damage and wrote off the £45 debt that prompted the action.

  • True day!

  • My guess is a 'turncoat' in the DoJ 'accidentally' let this one, and other similar ones, slip through. Or they're all just fucking incompetent. Take your pick.

  • Not that I pay particular attention, but I have a high-school age daughter and from I've noticed, there seems to be an even split.

  • It's not like I pay special attention, but I have a high-school age daughter. I'd say from what I've noticed there is an even split.

  • What? Share prices keep going up, it's working exactly as intended.

  • I'm pressing you for one reply, to justify or defend the position you have argued yourself into. But you can't, can you because you know you're wrong. Or you like looking at pictures of schoolgirls.....

  • The only information you have given me is that 1) you think I'm a peado and 2) you like looking at pictures of schoolgirls.

    The one thing I have actually asked you: why do the newspapers so so many images of one particular type? And you refuse to answer. Whilst defending the practice.

  • 😂. So you've finally understood my point. You could just say 'oh, yeah, that is weird!' but you got too invested in implying I'm a peado didn't you? So now your pride won't allow you to do anything but slink away. Bye!

  • What I am saying is, "isn't it weird how, out of all the children wearing clothes, the newspapers decided to predominantly show one subset". Why is that? Can you explain?

  • Now you are moving the goal posts. "pictures of boys and girls wearing their school uniforms." I've been quite clear that that's not what I'm referring to. Can you explain why there is not an even distrubtion of boys/girls; long/short/trousers, as I described in my previous post?

  • Well first, it wasn't me who mentioned about musicians or adults in school girl clothing.

    I have comment because, if a random selection of schoolchildren were photographed, I would expect an even distribion of boys and girls; and for girls short skirts, long skirts and trousers. But we we don't see that in the pictures which are selected. We overwhelmingly see girls, in short skirts. In my opinion that is weird. It gives creepy uncle vibes.

  • I noticed the girls and their clothing as a continuation of the trend. I trend which I have noticed over several years of such stories. Why does this trend exist? Can you explain?

    And as I have said repeatedly, but I will stress once again, I am not commenting on peoples choice to wear whatever they want, regardless of age or gender. I am commenting on the choice, by the photographers to always photograph one gender, of a particular age, wearing particular clothes. Or perhaps the editors to always chose images which meet those criteria, as I'm sure the photographers take many many photos. Or are they simply stock images, and there is a limited pool to choose from? I don't know, I'm not a journalist. But nonetheless, this trend exists, and I think it's a bit weird.

    Also you say I immediately commented.... Well, when should I have commented?

  • You're trying to imply that I'm some sort 9f peado for noticing a weird trend of displaying young girls, whilst defending that trend as perfectly normal. I am just pointing out that this trend exists. In this case, in an article about boys and boys behaviour what purpose is the picture of some girls?

  • And again, I am not commenting on the cloths the girls are wearing, insofar as it is their choice. I am commenting that it's a bit wierd that images like this are always selected for these stories. They rarely chose images of schoolboys, or girls wearing trousers. Why is that?

    You're trying to imply that I'm some sort of peado for noticing a weird trend in displaying young girls, whilst also defending that trend as perfectly normal.