Someone took action against that Twitter account I mentioned
When being an ass goes wrong…
Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2
It should be clarified that people hate the U.S. government and not necessarily U.S. people. Although U.S. people are easy to hate; like Quebec.
Because we live in a globalized economy. While you may not be subjected to it on a daily basis, our trading partners across the globe are kept happy with political actions like aid. Essentially, it’s just for the sake of it.
Also something to note, not 100% of every country that dislikes us actually hates us. We’re divided down the middle in this country too. Do you think ALL Egyptians hate us? There are a few that like us and need our help as well.
No one with a history of mental illness or who is taking anti-depressants should be allowed to own a gun. Hell, I don’t think anyone LIVING with someone with a history of mental illness or taking anti-depressants should be allowed to own one. So no, she shouldn’t have been allowed to own a gun.
When you have a country where a HUGE part of the population is on anti=depressants and/or have some form of mental illness, you have to be more careful about these kinds of things.
That was my thinking on my post stating if you are in the home with others they should be subjected to a check add will when you buy a gun.
There is more screening involved in receiving government help than there is in getting a gun.
Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2
A lot of countries hate us, so not too far fetched that some would help. It’d be interesting to see which side china would join. OTOH they have a vested interest in getting their money back, OTOH with the USA out of the picture, they are the #1 superpower.
Shootings still happen even with armed police officers. People are not psychic. It’s going to happen, be real.
Now you’re generalising, by stating that no armed citizen is trained or has received training.
Stop spinning my words. If you accept the Kleck data, or at least cut it in half, there are about a million incidents per year at least, where guns are used defensively in the United States (excluding police and other law enforcement etc), which is more than the total of suicides or gun murders combined.
Nope.
Link fixed. Nowhere did I ever state that a gun ban CAUSED an increase in rape. The two are not related - the point is that a gun ban does not reduce crime.
10 years after the ban, yes. Not five years. Not immediately. And gun club membership/ownership is on the INCREASE in this country thanks to the new generation, who didn’t grow up through the gun bans and haven’t been brainwashed. The decline in homicides is not related to gun restrictions.
People will get guns if they are so desperate to do so. They have, and they are, and they will, in spite of however many laws are brought in.
It’s at the point where it’s no longer trading but the US straight up getting exploited. Other countries on this planet are like athletes at a party and the US is like a drunk college girl.
Yea, but not 100% of every country makes the critical decisions. That’s nice that other countries need our help, but guess what, our own country should not be neglected. This isn’t just my opinion, actual people that were involved in the construction projects in Afghanistan themselves were saying why the hell are we building schools here only for them to be destroyed when we can be doing it back home.
As long as the US government will continue to neglect the needs of the American people and to punish innocent hard working Americans, cases such as this shooting will continue to occur.
With the way the economy is currently declining, the government seeking to further increase control and suspicion of its citizens, and the continued glorification of this incident by the media pretty much guaranfuckintees that we’re going to be seeing a lot more of this in the near future.
Again, you admitting that the gun-carrying civilians are having no effect? That’s what I thought.
It’s a simple fact that the average citizen is not trained to do what the police do. I don’t see why this is even in question.
You’re damn right I don’t accept it. Millions? Where is he getting such an arbitrary number?
Again, stricter gun control laws would do one better by keeping the guns out of the hands of the perpetrators. Funny how France, England, and Japan don’t need the heroics of gun-carrying civilians to combat the criminals who would just get the guns anyway. Maybe it’s because they aren’t getting the guns anyway.
Even with these heroics, there is still huge a disparity in the number of gun-related homicides when we look at the US and compare it the countries with stricter gun control laws.
That’s neither here nor there, nor is that the point that I was making. We have already established that gun-related homicides decreased which was the point of the ban to begin with, so it served its purpose. For good measure, even though it may not be related to the gun laws, other crimes are down as well. Case closed.
Again: We have already established that gun-related homicides decreased which was the point of the ban to begin with, so it served its purpose. For good measure, even though it may not be related to the gun laws, other crimes are down as well. Case closed.
Why aren’t they getting them and committing the same crimes and having their way with the unarmed masses in the countries with stricter gun control laws? Why isn’t this happening in France or England or Japan? It’s really a simple question.
When you look at all the mass killings like the one that just happened, how many were committed with knives, bricks, or bats and how many were committed with weapons that were specifically designed to kill as many people as possible as quickly as possible? Which method is responsible for more deaths?
You can go on and on and continue to tell the tales of the Charles Bronsons of the world whose heroic efforts have saved people millions of times. You can continue to rant and rave about how people will just get guns anyway even when they are illegal. You can go on and on about how people will just find other ways to kill people and make up for the difference when guns are taken away. None of this changes the fact that when we look at reality, this simply isn’t true. It doesn’t add up.
How would they help? None of these countries have the naval power to even get supplies to the coast of the US much less to the rebels. They wouldn’t be able to go through Canada or Mexico because the US basically owns them.
Yes, because Europe and Japan are constantly ravaged by PVC pipe and staple gun killings that far exceed gun-related homicides in the US.
Oh wait? You mean that’s not the case? It’s actually the opposite?
Your avatar picture is awesome
It was more like the British attitude was 'there’s no way we’re going to win what in essence has become a war against France and Spain that we have to fight on too many fronts." No way would the colonists have lasted had it not been for the help that they received.
Surely, you jest. Here’s what you have to go through to get a license in NJ. Here’s the process to obtain one in Connecticut. The mother met these requirements, but her son STOLE the guns. You can argue about her negligence to properly secure these guns for anyone to steal, but you can’t say there were no checks for this. I’ve seen people get food stamps just by claiming they have looked for work but found none without any proof. Those are SRK members, too.
Perhaps the guns wouldn’t have been there to steal had the law prevented the mother from having them in the first place.
A navy requires infrastructure and logistics in order to exist. Given the large geographical area of the united states, how long would the government be able to maintain the navy if it lost most of its tax revenue? How long could they maintain the navy if some rebels decided to attack our inefficient power grid system?
If the government loses power, its suddenly that much more difficult to maintain its supply lines, and then all of a sudden a bunch of hillbillies with guns are vastly more powerful.
I’m not condoning it, I’m just explaining to you why. We need shipping lanes and all that shit to get our Chinese made stuff onto our backs.
This is the “have all or nothing” attitude that prevents civil discussions when it comes to legislation. Those guns are VERY underpowered when compared to their true assault rifle cousins, but no one ever mentions that because they will look like gun nuts or criminal sympathizers. It may look like something you see in Call of Duty, but won’t work the same way. Those true assault weapons, if my memory serves me correctly, are still illegal to own in most states in the U.S.
“Gamer Calling for Online Ceasefire”
I haven’t played any shooters in a while, but I would definitely be up for something like this.
That’s silly on many levels