|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
posted September 16, 2020 05:27 PM |
|
|
That’s just hot air.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
Kipshasz
Undefeatable Hero
Elvin's Darkside
|
|
posted September 16, 2020 05:28 PM |
|
|
Is it really though?
____________
"Kip is the Gavin McInnes of HC" - Salamandre
"Ashan to the Trashcan", "I got PTSD from H7. " - LizardWarrior
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 16, 2020 06:27 PM |
|
|
60 percent in americans polled? funny, i never saw that poll despite being in the center of what was supposedly polled. neither did anyone in my family take such a poll. where did this poll take place? facebook? these the same pollsters that said hillary was gonna win? are you really quoting leftist(gloabalist) sources? lol.
the statistics support my points on this; not some erroneous "poll". besides, i don't need a poll to tell me the truth, anyway. i know who's shooting who statistically, in the greatest numbers(by a wide margin, too); and with what.
you leftists are straight-up detached from reality, because the msm feeds you utter bs and you NEVER bothered questioning it.
|
|
Kipshasz
Undefeatable Hero
Elvin's Darkside
|
|
posted September 16, 2020 06:44 PM |
|
|
You live in Commiefornia Fredmuffin?
____________
"Kip is the Gavin McInnes of HC" - Salamandre
"Ashan to the Trashcan", "I got PTSD from H7. " - LizardWarrior
|
|
PandaTar
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Celestial Heavens Mascot
|
|
posted September 16, 2020 07:54 PM |
|
|
This subject is discussed a lot in my country. Population is roughly divided 50/50. Legally, people cannot simply buy guns. They need to attend some minimal requirements to prove the necessity to have guns at home/work.
The law classifies two situations: people owning guns and people carrying guns. Gun owners can, as for now, have them at home or at work (if the estabilishment belongs to them), if these places have high criminal rates. Basically for self-protection, but they cannot carry those guns around. Those who can carry guns around are rigidly restricted to those who need them to work, mostly, such as police officers, security details, etc.
President Bolsonaro is in favor to let people arm themselves (at home and at work, not carry guns around) to protect family and property. Brazil has a very high rate of lethal crimes by fire arms, thus he is very criticized by his stance regarding his political approach (which he emphasized during his election campaign) by opposition and part of the population. One of the numbers that worries the most is that 30-40% of aprehended weapons in hands of criminals came from legal sources, which were then sold or stolen. It begs the question of responsibility of the owner (who sold), or lack of skill, emotional control or underestimating their own reality (stolen).
I personally think that his approach that allows part of the population have access to fire arms to defend themselves at home/work, when proven necessary, is ok. At least they have an option (here, scolding criminals usually doesn't work). Criminals often pop up with top-notch military equipment too, so it's not only population that is victim or responsible for providing criminals new tools, and if they don't get here, they get somewhere else (like it's been happening for years now). However, I assume people need to have skill and brains to actually have enough rational capacity for such responsibility. And this part I am not sure if it's being taken into account.
Still, right when the presidential addedum was enacted, there was a historical drop in homicides in the whole country, something so absurd it seemed fake. But lately, numbers of deaths by fire arms have been increasing. However, it was never very clear if one thing led to the other, or if the initial drop was criminals less sure on how to attack; or people who were not ready to have a gun, or had for the wrong reasons, are running amok. That's why, in my understanding, gun owners need to be assessed whether they really have capacity fur such responsibility, or not, similar to people taking a car license. For me, "Because I want to" is too feeble of an argument. But if you really want (or need), then prove you can handle it with responsibility. If you can handle it, then you have it. Not difficult. Clear.
The coronavirus outbreak also helped sparking this subject again because there was a huge boost on crimes at home (dunno the right English term for that), domestic crimes? Especially crimes against women. And angry people at home with guns was never a good combination. Still, the majority of crimes are fights, sexual assaults and other nuances unrelated to fire arms (but here, if it happens once, so it happens everywhere, it becomes general rule in a snap of fingers). Some cases of children mishandling fire arms, even with parents at home, so, responsibility?
Most of my friends support Bolsonaro's decree. I support as long as people are being responsible and not only to polish their ego, or to become a menace to their community because they are not ready to handle it (emotionally, physically, etc.).
In Brazil, either criminals or population are not really educated to evolve through education, but most of the time, through punishment. We have criminals under 18 yo that keep killing, robbering, who stated clearly that they'd continue, because they couldn't be arrested (prison) because they were underage. Voting here is compulsory and you can start voting from 16 yo. So, why can't a 16 or 17 yo criminal go to jail? They say that they don't know yet what they are doing, but really? They can decide who governs the country, but they don't know what a crime is? If they were punished, surely they wouldn't be commiting crimes so casually. The same for other criminals who know the population cannot protect themselves, they feel like they won't be punished. When people start arming themselves at home, it makes criminals unsure of the outcome.
Of course, the best scenario would be that no arms were necessary anywhere, things designed to kill each other basically, nothing good comes from it. But I cannot see as a good alternative, especially here in my country, to have people unarmed while criminals grow bolder by the minute or wait our failed justice system mitigate fire arms from criminals because there would be less potential arms to be stolen, less sources. Crimes only increased and number of weapons didn't drop, if not increased all these years. So, something in that strategy was not working.
Another thing is the differences of crime rate between regions. The places where crimes by fire arms peaked was the Northeast, the poorest region, and strangely, the region that was mostly leftist (70% approval for the former president's rule). And right now, due many reasons, it's the region Bolsonaro's approval is rising the fastest.
Still, the president's intereference in the armaments law is being analyzed for voting yet (to undo it), because legally, he doesn't have power to change a law, only to trime it or make amends, corrections. Instead, he changed how the thing actually worked. And the media loves to point out things that he might've done wrong. Which is kind of ironic: most things he said would be problems when covid started earned him titles like Genocidal, maniac, fascist, etc. And now, those things turned out to be trued. Yet, nobody wants to say they were wrong, you see. This situation might also end up being one of these cases.
____________
"Okay. Look. We both said a lot of things that you're going to regret. But I think we can put our differences behind us. For science. You monster."
GlaDOS – Portal 2
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 16, 2020 08:19 PM |
|
|
@ kip: no. i live on the east coast.
@ panda: as far as skill and responsibility, i am behind that 100 percent. i think it is the duty of every law-abiding citizen to be armed, and not only that, but trained proficiently, as well.
no, i don't want restrictive gun laws. what i want, are civilians trained and responsible; and i think each law-abiding citizen, based on their location, should be part of a militia. even if you are physically unable to be a ground soldier, you could still be an organizer, responsible for intel, or anything not field-based.
the way i think things should be, is what our forefathers originally intended; and for clear-cut logical and moral reasons, as someone living in the U.S. that should be part and parcel of having permission to even LIVE in this country.
|
|
blob2
Undefeatable Hero
Blob-Ohmos the Second
|
|
posted September 16, 2020 09:23 PM |
|
|
|
PandaTar
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Celestial Heavens Mascot
|
|
posted September 16, 2020 09:26 PM |
|
Edited by PandaTar at 21:32, 16 Sep 2020.
|
I particularly think that today, that would not be possible in your country. The greatest majority would have to agree with that (if they did, I think we wouldn't be having this discussion), they would also have to be adequated for that, prepared, responsible, trained, educated, aware and, above all, striving for peace, but prepared for tough times altogether. Only agreeing, but not being capable of following suit would not cut it, especially because it's a 'freedom' cause without actually freedom; not as much as many would judge. You are still bound to rules and discipline and social communities, and if you have people in charge, there's another layer of control. People who abide by laws, as you said, would be ok with that. The problem is with the others that would see that as restrictions.
Watching news about these escalating conflicts happening hither and thither in USA also gives the impression that people are on the edge already (not very different from here, actually). Details can doom one or another. For that ideal of yours to work, such things needed to be already past, overcome and defeated. And I don't see that happening on this generation, such as I don't see some things changing in my country so soon either. A lot of people are not reliable at present state of affairs.
But it could work someday or be a disaster? I really don't have an answer for that. Considering USA has enemies, some actions will produce certain reactions; say in a similar fashion of Cold War, but instead of nuclear weaponry, it would be population. So, that's one thing to consider. You could ask yourself, how USAians would react today if they learned that an enemy country or rival started having their population turned in militias, learning base tactics – the things you want USAians to learn. How would that reflect on you? A threat? A simple way to control domestic violence? Which motivation would that be? And then, how would everyone else react, based on speculations, doubts, hatred, admiration? In the case of USA, mostly everyone else would react in a way. The way I figure, you can protect yourself, but you have also responsibilities depending on how your actions affect everyone around you. For example, if a country is at war with another, and they have an ally which is at the borders of your enemy, although they don't directly clash with each other, if you start building a situation from afar and your enemy learns that, they'll probably react in your wake. That poses a directly threat to your ally, which is then forced to follow, regardless their situation or capacity; or you would have to help directly your ally, which could be proven complicated, expensive, impractical. Still, they'll remain vulnerable.
USA's actions reflect a lot everywhere and affect a lot of other countries as well in many different levels. A fundamental change like you would want to have in your country, because it would involve all population, would cause a cascade, I think, which could go both ways. I can be wrong, because there are many other factors to consider and I won't pretend I know them all. I'm am simply saying what I feel from the perspective of an allied country. It feels like something that never balances itself in the end. Something that doesn't work, because it cannot be really contained or controlled. If it is controlled, it ceases to be freedom, than there's this loop. One way or another, someone will be left behind.
____________
"Okay. Look. We both said a lot of things that you're going to regret. But I think we can put our differences behind us. For science. You monster."
GlaDOS – Portal 2
|
|
Kipshasz
Undefeatable Hero
Elvin's Darkside
|
|
posted September 16, 2020 09:31 PM |
|
|
blob2 said:
Maybe this is what your forefathers wanted?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jZz9LPLGTk
This is hilarious 
____________
"Kip is the Gavin McInnes of HC" - Salamandre
"Ashan to the Trashcan", "I got PTSD from H7. " - LizardWarrior
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 17, 2020 04:57 AM |
|
|
PandaTar said:
The places where crimes by fire arms peaked was the Northeast, the poorest region, and strangely, the region that was mostly leftist (70% approval for the former president's rule). And right now, due many reasons, it's the region Bolsonaro's approval is rising the fastest.
that's the experience anywhere. look at any society that has access to guns, and you will see that despite gun laws against people who OBEY LAWS, criminals still shoot people at an overwhelming rate.
this is what the anti-gun nuts will never get, and something i have explained endlessly: criminals DON'T OBEY LAWS. ARMED criminals, less so.
meanwhile? you have a populace that has been restricted to the point of being disarmed. do they feel safe? absolutely not. ARE they safe? absolutely not.
you made the point yourself: there's nowhere near enough police to keep everyone safe. THAT is why guns in LAW-ABIDING HANDS, keep criminals at bay. the police, for nearly all of it, are the legal clean-up crew for crimes. they don't really prevent jack snow. an armed POPULACE? the places with the most LAX gun laws? compare the gun murder rates in THOSE cities, to liberal leftist cities.
that's where you'll find your answer as to WHY gun laws don't work: because gun LAWS don't WORK on CRIMINALS who are just going to arm themselves illegally anyway. the threat of being shot by ARMED CITIZENS, does.
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 17, 2020 05:22 AM |
|
|
PandaTar said:
For that ideal of yours to work, such things needed to be already past, overcome and defeated. And I don't see that happening on this generation, such as I don't see some things changing in my country so soon either. A lot of people are not reliable at present state of affairs.
the mass media here is directly responsible for the state of things here in the states. they have been vying for massive divided upset and violence for years now.
i myself see only one outcome in the coming months. and i have been preparing for it. i asked my mother yesterday, if she remembered nearly 10 years ago, when i had just got out of the army, and had told her that we, as a nation, have only around 10 years left until chaos will ensue that will set us on an entirely new path as a nation.
i think that time has finally come, or is right around the corner. we are at a precipice now as a nation; on the verge of implosion or explosion. we are almost at the same state of being now, that we were as a nation when the Revolutionary War was in sight; it is the same vibe. what the msm is desperately trying to do is avoid THAT kind of war, which would be a class war, and instead turn it into a CIVIL war. they have been working non-stop since Trump got elected, to push this. and we are seeing the fruit of their labor this year. something they have been laying the groundwork for for over 2 DECADES, is about to kick off. the only way to prevent war, is if they calm people down(not going to happen), stop making everything about race(not going to happen), and allow Trump his 4 more years(which are certain, but again, they're not going to let that just HAPPEN).
the whole point of taking guns out of law-abiding citizen's hands(or restricting them to an equal measure), is so the criminals will feel free to run amok, so that they(the state) will have to "step in" as a militarized police force, and enforce the POLICE STATE they have been wanting for so long. all of this snow, EVERYTHING WRONG WITH THIS NATION, is going according to THEIR(the globalists) plan.
PandaTar said:
USA's actions reflect a lot everywhere and affect a lot of other countries as well in many different levels. A fundamental change like you would want to have in your country, because it would involve all population, would cause a cascade, I think, which could go both ways. I can be wrong, because there are many other factors to consider and I won't pretend I know them all. I'm am simply saying what I feel from the perspective of an allied country. It feels like something that never balances itself in the end. Something that doesn't work, because it cannot be really contained or controlled. If it is controlled, it ceases to be freedom, than there's this loop. One way or another, someone will be left behind.
our nation worked the way our forefathers designed, once; in the days of our Revolutionary War. it can again. it is possible, i think, to avoid Civil war, and aim our rage where it SHOULD be aimed.
but we'll see. i always prepare for the worst, regardless. and after what happened to me last year, i am much more seasoned, in that regard.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 17, 2020 08:36 AM |
|
|
fred79 said:
that's the experience anywhere. look at any society that has access to guns, and you will see that despite gun laws against people who OBEY LAWS, criminals still shoot people at an overwhelming rate.
And that's where you are already wrong. Because people are not shot at an overwhelming rate in countries with no free access to guns. It's pretty simple, actually. If there is an overwhelming chance that your intended victim isn't armed, whatever your criminal interest, killing won't be necessary (except when killing is the actual goal, which, in "civilized" countries, doesn't happen that often). Which, in case you get caught, is pretty helpful.
Arming the good law-abiding citizen doesn't help one iota. This is so because
1) The hard-boiled criminal in the US generally comes from a bad neighborhood and has probably a gang history. They are used to toting guns from being juveniles (at least) and have an all-or-nothing mentality because they are used to living on the edge from early on.
They will act on instinct, if "threatened" (by a law-abiding citizen, defending themselves with a gun - or a cop), whereas the law-abiding citizen will be panicky, has probably wife and children to think of and absolutely doesn't want to be where they are right now. End result: law-abiding citizen ends up dead most of the time.
2) Criminals are not stupid. If their "prey" is toughening up, they will be to - they will simply form more and bigger gangs and gang up on their victims.
Before you start again, yes, you know that which is why you suggest training for law-abiding citizens. But that won't work, because training is always just that. The only law-abiding citizens able to face criminals on equal terms are cops and soldiers, having already fought for their life and survived, without PTSD.
What you fail to do is asking yourself the logical question - how come the US are such a rich country and have so many criminals? How come so many people are imprisoned in the US?
EDIT: In case you mean, that once you have allowed free access to firearms, it doesn't make sense to restrict the access to in any way - this is a really silly idea. In this case not only the criminals (that is, the not-so-law-abiding citizens) will kill people, the nutjobs will as well. The eager will kill people - oh look, a mugging; time to test my new full-auto -, the cops can't see the difference between criminals and law-abiding citizens, and the radical left will shoot cops, while the radical right will shoot PERCEIVED criminals, like leftists, potential child abusers and anyone with a suspect face.
|
|
Kipshasz
Undefeatable Hero
Elvin's Darkside
|
|
posted September 17, 2020 09:20 AM |
|
Edited by Kipshasz at 10:29, 17 Sep 2020.
|
Google "Biden crime bill 1994" Jollysoy.
here it is explained by a reliable source you won't dispute. oh who am I kidding, ofc you will.
Also, while we're kind of on the same track... Someone played stupid games, and has won a stupid prize.
____________
"Kip is the Gavin McInnes of HC" - Salamandre
"Ashan to the Trashcan", "I got PTSD from H7. " - LizardWarrior
|
|
blob2
Undefeatable Hero
Blob-Ohmos the Second
|
|
posted September 17, 2020 10:37 AM |
|
|
Oh my, you can't eat a cookie and have a cookie at the same time 
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 17, 2020 11:32 AM |
|
|
|
I don't see any connection, sorry. How does Biden's crime bill relate to what fred or I said?
|
|
Kipshasz
Undefeatable Hero
Elvin's Darkside
|
|
posted September 17, 2020 11:37 AM |
|
|
you whined about muh mass incarcerations. Biden's bill is one of the reasons why.
____________
"Kip is the Gavin McInnes of HC" - Salamandre
"Ashan to the Trashcan", "I got PTSD from H7. " - LizardWarrior
|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted September 17, 2020 11:58 AM |
|
|
|
Wait, I thought the whole talking point was that Biden is gonna abolish the police?
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 17, 2020 12:20 PM |
|
|
I didn't "whine". I asked a question, which probably is something only leftists do. The right solves problem by shooting them to pulp, right?
And if Biden's law would be the reason for criminals being put into jail - shouldn't you all wave flags and roll out the red carpet for him?
|
|
Kipshasz
Undefeatable Hero
Elvin's Darkside
|
|
posted September 17, 2020 12:20 PM |
|
|
It's actually this, if you look into the history of stuff done by the two.
they're saying for defunding to get all the BLM and soys to vote for them, since Sanders screwed them over again.
____________
"Kip is the Gavin McInnes of HC" - Salamandre
"Ashan to the Trashcan", "I got PTSD from H7. " - LizardWarrior
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 17, 2020 12:36 PM |
|
|
|
That's just propaganda. Manipulating statistics. If you want to make an actual point, you have to show that the actual law is phrased in a way that is to the disadvantage of minorities.
|
| |
|
|
This Popular Thread is pages long: 
