Okay this is the dumbest question I have ever heard. Without guns how do people hunt or protect themselves? ALSO HOW CAN YOU SHOOT SOMEONE WITHOUT A GUN. Sorry from the south get mad at crap like this.
Science also has proven that criminals will not obey the law, hence the term criminal. For the law to be effective it has to be obeyed. Nice try though
Many people in America are not worried about “gun violence”, we’re worried about violence in general, and gun control makes us victims to all sorts of violence with little to protect ourselves.
You can also stop tyrannies by standing up by the millions to protest unreasonable laws. Like the protests that broke up the USSR in the 1990s. What you don't get is a small minority of people with guns dictating what everyone else should be doing in bed.
@goaded: That's isn't what happens, but thanks for making it clear that your sole concern is going after your political opponents.
And telling people that all they have to do is protest is pure gaslighting, and you know it. The elites don't care and may well find ways to criminalize you if they don't want your protests heard.
@Avicenna WTF are you on about? Do you think governments should be allowed to decide to do things that massive majorities of their country disagree with?
Of course you do. You think that marriage equality and the right of a woman to decide whether to bring her pregnancy to term should be decided by a quarter of the population.
@goaded; Of course I don't, but that is what in fact happens all the time. You probably don't notice because you support a lot of those elite-dictated policies that governments do all the time such as open borders. And you're mistaken about the amount of opposition to abortion (I assume you're also talking about same-sex marriage but I haven't seen polls on that in a long time).
And it should be mentioned that as a European living in Europe, your opinion about what goes on in the US needs to be taken with a grain of salt, especially since you live in a country with stricter abortion laws than those in the US.
@goaded: Abortion illegal or legal in all cases is a false binary choice- you're arguing a strawman. Illegal in all cases also prohibits abortion in cases of rape or incest and legal in all cases means up to birth. Both are extreme positions (and it's not clear that the polling actually spelled that out to the people they polled).
So is your claim that 25% of the population in the US is "dictating same-sex marriage"), which your own source says isn't accurate.
Open borders is the de facto US and German immigration policy pushed by elites against the wishes of most of the populations of both countries. But thanks for confirming that you support open borders.
Of course it's a false binary choice, but even Fox News finds the majority don't want Roe overturned.
"Open borders is the de facto US and German immigration policy" Only if you define "open borders" as accepting genuine refugees, which is what the German constitution requires. Would you prefer Germany stopped following its laws? It didn't work out well last time.
@goaded: Everyone knows the vast majority of people claiming asylum are not genuine refugees and there is a lot more illegal entry, as the vast numbers of those in the country and "tolerated" indicates. It's also the case that when caught, illegals file a false asylum claim to prevent deportation.
You live in a country that doesn't do public referendums, by the way.
And a sample size of one poll doesn't do justice to the issue. And that's assuming the results aren't distorted by the way the questions were asked and who was polled.
@goaded: Immigration policies in general are one of the most important and primary ways governments ignore the will of the people. Here's an example from Germany from before Merkel's unilateral and undemocratic opening of the EU's entire borders:
@Avicenna Does the US do public referendums on your consitiution?
Everyone knows that "Everyone knows..." is the start of a lie.
Only Rasmussen (who also are consistently about 10% off everyone else's polls) say less than a majority support Roe.
a Gallup poll found that 58% of people say the Supreme Court should "not overturn" Roe v. Wade, and 32% support overturning it (June 2021) a Pew Research poll found that 70% did not want the decision overturned, and 28% did (August 2021) an ABC-The Washington Post poll found that 54% said the court should "uphold" the decision, 28% said they should "overturn" it and 18% indicated they had "no opinion" (April 2022) a Rasmussen poll found that 45% of likely voters "disapprove of overturning" the decision and 48% "approve" (May 2022) an Economist-YouGov poll found that 45% of Americans "would not like to see Roe v. Wade overturned," while 32% "would like to see" it and 23% said they were "not sure" (May 2022) a Monmouth University poll found 62% wanted the court to "leave" it "as is," 31% said the court should "revisit" it and 7% said "don't know" (September 2021)
@goaded; these are black swan events. Try as you might, you can't prevent all of them. Bollards can and should be used where possible, I'm just saying they can't prevent all attacks.
@Avicenna "Immigration policies..." That was evenly divided 46 to 48%, well within the margin of error, and Merkel's party was the only major one for limiting immigration, and that was by only 51 - 45%. But here's the thing: allowing refugees in is the law. As I understand it, it's in the constitution.
The AfD is your Tea Party/QAnon party, popular in areas that soak up huge amounts of taxpayer funds then cry about paying taxes. At least in Germany they get their own party that nobody has to work with, they don't get to take over one of the major parties and take advantage of the lies that major party has been using for decades.
In the debate on free weapons in the US there are very strong cultural factors that are not easily countered. It would be a bit like banning the British from fried food, which as known is very bad.
I mean, ideally, a society without guns would be ideal. However, in the case of the United States of America, that ship has sailed. There are so many guns in America that if you don't have one, you're fucked.
Only good people respect the Law. Forbidden or not, criminals will always have guns and you just creat a new type of traffic. Things aren't that simple.
I tend to be nicer to people when my brain isn't working right, that way I don't ever have to think of a good comeback. I try to be nice to everyone, but I will enjoy a good laugh at anyone that thinks calling me names on social media will have a negative effect on me 😂
And Nice. We can and have adapted, and concrete blocks or a few well placed diggers have reduced the threat. What has the US done to reduce the threat of another Las Vegas shooting?
Unfortunately, the FBI and other law enforcement organizations don't exactly publicize the steps they take to prevent crime. I'm not aware of any report on the Las Vegas massacre ever being released. Has there been any discovery for any civil suits? The threat of similar style attack also exists in Europe and many other places.
You can't even imagine a defence against a nutter with dozens of guns, and you're using the tests to find the most effective ways of stopping trucks as evidence that they can't be stopped?
@goaded; So you say. But, yes, it's not possible to reduce the number of attacks to zero, yet that is what proponents of disarming law-abiding firearms owners in the US insist would happen if firearms ownership were banned. A complete ban would put everyone at the mercy of violent criminals who would know that their targets are not armed and can't defend themselves against the criminals. It would also create complacency.
To prevent a relatively small number of attacks, taking firearms away from law-abiding people is not the solution. Nor would it even reduce the number of attacks. The best course of action, and it's not foolproof (nothing is) is to keep firearms away from the mentally ill, those making threats and those with a proven history of violence.
Well, yeah, nobody every said you can reduce risk to zero, and like I said to @Slingblade1126 I'm not in favour of taking away all firearms, I just think people need a good reason other than "I'm scared of all the people with guns" to own one. That, and be evaluated for their sanity. (Someone once said: "all you have to do to buy a gun in America is to lie about your sanity".)
by the way, the article was written in 2018. How many more truck attacks have there been since then? (And the London Bridge attack was hampered because they couldn't hire a bigger vehicle.)
What Girls & Guys Said
Opinion
79Opinion
Okay this is the dumbest question I have ever heard. Without guns how do people hunt or protect themselves? ALSO HOW CAN YOU SHOOT SOMEONE WITHOUT A GUN. Sorry from the south get mad at crap like this.
Why i need gun? Cus goverment will come after someones shot dead, and i dont want to be the one on the floor i rather do the shooting. Simple enough?
Science also has proven that criminals will not obey the law, hence the term criminal. For the law to be effective it has to be obeyed. Nice try though
Many people in America are not worried about “gun violence”, we’re worried about violence in general, and gun control makes us victims to all sorts of violence with little to protect ourselves.
Why are you concerned with U. S. regulations?
We already have plenty of regulations.
The hype about firearm violence in the U. S. is contrived.
Enjoy your tyranny. Tyrannies have wonderfully low crime rates too! (So long as you don't think of or dare call state tyranny as a crime, of course)
You can also stop tyrannies by standing up by the millions to protest unreasonable laws. Like the protests that broke up the USSR in the 1990s. What you don't get is a small minority of people with guns dictating what everyone else should be doing in bed.
@goaded: That's isn't what happens, but thanks for making it clear that your sole concern is going after your political opponents.
And telling people that all they have to do is protest is pure gaslighting, and you know it. The elites don't care and may well find ways to criminalize you if they don't want your protests heard.
@Avicenna WTF are you on about? Do you think governments should be allowed to decide to do things that massive majorities of their country disagree with?
Of course you do. You think that marriage equality and the right of a woman to decide whether to bring her pregnancy to term should be decided by a quarter of the population.
@goaded; Of course I don't, but that is what in fact happens all the time. You probably don't notice because you support a lot of those elite-dictated policies that governments do all the time such as open borders. And you're mistaken about the amount of opposition to abortion (I assume you're also talking about same-sex marriage but I haven't seen polls on that in a long time).
And it should be mentioned that as a European living in Europe, your opinion about what goes on in the US needs to be taken with a grain of salt, especially since you live in a country with stricter abortion laws than those in the US.
@Avicenna Open borders were a 1970's Reagan policy; have workers come in for harvest time and go home afterwards: win-win.
"Record-High 70% in U. S. Support Same-Sex Marriage"
news.gallup.com/.../...port-same-sex-marriage.aspx
For abortion, llegal in all cases never beats 20%.
news.gallup.com/.../abortion-trends-party.aspx
@goaded: Abortion illegal or legal in all cases is a false binary choice- you're arguing a strawman. Illegal in all cases also prohibits abortion in cases of rape or incest and legal in all cases means up to birth. Both are extreme positions (and it's not clear that the polling actually spelled that out to the people they polled).
https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx
So is your claim that 25% of the population in the US is "dictating same-sex marriage"), which your own source says isn't accurate.
Open borders is the de facto US and German immigration policy pushed by elites against the wishes of most of the populations of both countries. But thanks for confirming that you support open borders.
@Avicenna Bullshit, of course.
Of course it's a false binary choice, but even Fox News finds the majority don't want Roe overturned.
"Open borders is the de facto US and German immigration policy"
Only if you define "open borders" as accepting genuine refugees, which is what the German constitution requires. Would you prefer Germany stopped following its laws? It didn't work out well last time.
@goaded: Everyone knows the vast majority of people claiming asylum are not genuine refugees and there is a lot more illegal entry, as the vast numbers of those in the country and "tolerated" indicates. It's also the case that when caught, illegals file a false asylum claim to prevent deportation.
You live in a country that doesn't do public referendums, by the way.
And a sample size of one poll doesn't do justice to the issue. And that's assuming the results aren't distorted by the way the questions were asked and who was polled.
www.wusa9.com/.../65-5c24a2d7-3f9b-4b3f-ab49-e15e590ee62c
@goaded: Immigration policies in general are one of the most important and primary ways governments ignore the will of the people. Here's an example from Germany from before Merkel's unilateral and undemocratic opening of the EU's entire borders:
de.statista.com/.../
@Avicenna Does the US do public referendums on your consitiution?
Everyone knows that "Everyone knows..." is the start of a lie.
Only Rasmussen (who also are consistently about 10% off everyone else's polls) say less than a majority support Roe.
a Gallup poll found that 58% of people say the Supreme Court should "not overturn" Roe v. Wade, and 32% support overturning it (June 2021)
a Pew Research poll found that 70% did not want the decision overturned, and 28% did (August 2021)
an ABC-The Washington Post poll found that 54% said the court should "uphold" the decision, 28% said they should "overturn" it and 18% indicated they had "no opinion" (April 2022)
a Rasmussen poll found that 45% of likely voters "disapprove of overturning" the decision and 48% "approve" (May 2022)
an Economist-YouGov poll found that 45% of Americans "would not like to see Roe v. Wade overturned," while 32% "would like to see" it and 23% said they were "not sure" (May 2022)
a Monmouth University poll found 62% wanted the court to "leave" it "as is," 31% said the court should "revisit" it and 7% said "don't know" (September 2021)
@goaded; these are black swan events. Try as you might, you can't prevent all of them. Bollards can and should be used where possible, I'm just saying they can't prevent all attacks.
@Avicenna "Immigration policies..."
That was evenly divided 46 to 48%, well within the margin of error, and Merkel's party was the only major one for limiting immigration, and that was by only 51 - 45%. But here's the thing: allowing refugees in is the law. As I understand it, it's in the constitution.
The AfD is your Tea Party/QAnon party, popular in areas that soak up huge amounts of taxpayer funds then cry about paying taxes. At least in Germany they get their own party that nobody has to work with, they don't get to take over one of the major parties and take advantage of the lies that major party has been using for decades.
In the debate on free weapons in the US there are very strong cultural factors that are not easily countered. It would be a bit like banning the British from fried food, which as known is very bad.
Argue about it is useless.
I mean, ideally, a society without guns would be ideal. However, in the case of the United States of America, that ship has sailed. There are so many guns in America that if you don't have one, you're fucked.
Science also proves that guns without people don;t shoot people.
People can get illegal guns this happens all the time. black market weapons are sold all over the world including in the states
They use knives and whatever else they can find instead.
The arguments of the gun grabbers are contrary to reality and imbecilic.
Only good people respect the Law.
Forbidden or not, criminals will always have guns and you just creat a new type of traffic.
Things aren't that simple.
Two words: Thank you!
At long last some comes along with this 😎
science also says that people without guns can't defend against people with guns. that would be the NRA argument.
Sure they never use bows or crossbows. What a complete twat. Go hang yourself retard.
They turn to other weapons of choice.
Autos, airplanes. Knives, fertilizer and diesel fuel, chemicals...
Where there's a will there's a way.
Yeah but it doesn't stop the people still with guns shooting them.
America has an obesity problem and Japan doesn't. Would taking away all the forks and making everyone use chopsticks cure Americas obesity issue?
WTF Are you freaking talking about? Bye The Way time to Order Chinese Lol
I thought I would add to this since we are blaming inanimate objects for people's actions with them.
You're a freaking idiot savant
That isn't what my psychological evaluation said 😂
Don't listen to him TJW you raise a good point! 😂💯💯💯💯 you really do!
I'm glad you understood the point. I thought it was pretty simple to understand, but I guess I was mistaken 😂
Lol lets go easy on Iso here may be he's having a mental connection problem it happens to me too lol! but he's rude so nah I take it back!
I tend to be nicer to people when my brain isn't working right, that way I don't ever have to think of a good comeback. I try to be nice to everyone, but I will enjoy a good laugh at anyone that thinks calling me names on social media will have a negative effect on me 😂
😂😂😂😂🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🥂
Was Israel or Switzerland included in this bogus study?
Well, using vehicles to kill lots of people has, unfortunately, proven to be an effective tactic.
Countered by a few well-placed concrete blocks.
@goaded: The people of Waukesha and Berlin, among other places, would beg to differ. But you knew that already, right?
www.dw.com/.../a-43300057
And that assumes they aren't able to build a truck bomb.
And Nice. We can and have adapted, and concrete blocks or a few well placed diggers have reduced the threat. What has the US done to reduce the threat of another Las Vegas shooting?
@goaded; LOL, that's NOT what the article said.
Unfortunately, the FBI and other law enforcement organizations don't exactly publicize the steps they take to prevent crime. I'm not aware of any report on the Las Vegas massacre ever being released. Has there been any discovery for any civil suits? The threat of similar style attack also exists in Europe and many other places.
You can't even imagine a defence against a nutter with dozens of guns, and you're using the tests to find the most effective ways of stopping trucks as evidence that they can't be stopped?
@goaded : Is your goal to prevent attacks altogether or just make them more difficult (which hopefully reduces them)?
Only the latter is possible. The American approach seems to be to try to make them more likely.
@goaded; So you say. But, yes, it's not possible to reduce the number of attacks to zero, yet that is what proponents of disarming law-abiding firearms owners in the US insist would happen if firearms ownership were banned. A complete ban would put everyone at the mercy of violent criminals who would know that their targets are not armed and can't defend themselves against the criminals. It would also create complacency.
To prevent a relatively small number of attacks, taking firearms away from law-abiding people is not the solution. Nor would it even reduce the number of attacks. The best course of action, and it's not foolproof (nothing is) is to keep firearms away from the mentally ill, those making threats and those with a proven history of violence.
Well, yeah, nobody every said you can reduce risk to zero, and like I said to @Slingblade1126 I'm not in favour of taking away all firearms, I just think people need a good reason other than "I'm scared of all the people with guns" to own one. That, and be evaluated for their sanity. (Someone once said: "all you have to do to buy a gun in America is to lie about your sanity".)
by the way, the article was written in 2018. How many more truck attacks have there been since then? (And the London Bridge attack was hampered because they couldn't hire a bigger vehicle.)