The News Thread

B1rd · ^

Obama is shitting out executive orders left and right to try and get everyone's guns. Why are most people stupid enough to not realise that the government having a monopoly on power isn't a good thing?

Granger · ^

Id say the other thing, why are people stupid enough to not realize the common folk having guns is a bad idea?
I mean just look at those school shootings you US guys have relatively regulary. None of that here.

And making guns readily available for criminals is a horrible idea too. I mean i understand criminals are likely gonna have guns either way, but those are the "big time" criminals who made crime and shit their career. Small fishes not having guns is already a huge boon. And then theres always this one guy who isnt actually a criminal but has serious anger management issues when stressed/drunk, and he suddenly becomes a murderer by having access to a gun at the wrong time...

Its better when killing people is hard as possible for common folk as it means less deaths. And if you think they are powerless without guns you're a fool. By having the right to vote you already have power over the goverment as you are able to shape it and boot people who do it badly out of it.

Unless you think a violent revolt is needed, why would guns give more power over the gov exactly anyway? And should it come to that, i dont think laws that forbid guns are gonna be any effective...

Last edited by Granger (2015-12-13 21:42:51)

B1rd · ^

Granger wrote:

Id say the other thing, why are people stupid enough to not realize the common folk having guns is a bad idea?
I mean just look at those school shootings you US guys have relatively regulary. None of that here.
And making guns readily available for criminals is a horrible idea too. I mean i understand criminals are likely gonna have guns either way, but those are the "big time" criminals who made crime and shit their career. Small fishes not having guns is already a huge boon. And then theres always this one guy who isnt actually a criminal but has serious anger management issues when stressed/drunk, and he suddenly becomes a murderer by having access to a gun at the wrong time...
Its better when killing people is hard as possible for common folk as it means less deaths. And if you think they are powerless without guns you're a fool. By having the right to vote you already have power over the goverment as you are able to shape it and boot people who do it badly out of it.
Unless you think a violent revolt is needed, why would guns give more power over the gov exactly anyway? And should it come to that, i dont think laws that forbid guns are gonna be any effective...

>actually thinking democracy works
You're the fool.

Here is a question: how many people do you think have died from civilian shooting, vs the number of people that have died from guns wielded by the state?

You thinking people shouldn't be allowed a weapon to defend themselves? Then you're against freedom. You don't think people are responsible enough to have that amount of power and need to be controlled by the state.

And yes guns give people power over the government. How is a violent revolt gonna happen if no one has guns?

Granger · ^

But it does work? You and me are living in republics, while not democracies they have similarity in that the common folk forms and shapes the goverment. Now i dont know exactly how the proccess works in the US but here you vote for parties and those parties need to form "Koalitions" (somewhat like, alliances) to gain the absolute mayority. And only then they get to form the gov. So say one party who focuses on economics and nature preservation and one who wants to boot out the immigrants get a lot of votes they need to form the gov together. So you get a bit of both, both parties need to make compromises how they deal with governing. How exactly is this not working?
Granted one party here almost always gets the lions share of votes (the SPD) but they always, always have to form an koalition with one or more smaller parties. (And i suspect by the next voting they'll have a lot less votes... their we take everyone in policy isnt exactly popular.)

Well, the thing is, the cops here dont point their gun at civilians. Cause the civilians are generally not armed. Consequently this also means people shot by the gov is also a small number. And even if theres a armed mob, guns dont get used, instead its time for water throwers and teargas-grenades.

You dont need something this lethal to defend yourself if no one has guns. A stick, fork or what not will do. Or even your bare fist if you're fit enough. Its just that simple. And everyone having guns puts a large advantage to the attacker who obviously draws their gun first and then is able to blow your brain out if you try to draw your own. Tell me, how is this a good situation for self defense?!
If neither has a gun the defender has a lot more options and someone dieing is far less likely.

Let me tell a thing, my mother was assaulted by an jealous lunatic sometime ago, she (the assaulter) was armed with a piece of piping and intented to kill my mother. Would you think my mother would live now if she had guns? NO. She'd be dead by the moment the assaulter opened her door. Mom got away with an broken arm, help arrived before something worse could've happened, with guns its literally bang and all help comes too late.

And please, do you really think people will abide by the law when they (try to) overthrow their goverment? They'll get guns. Its not like guns dont exist here. Break into an police office, some hunters house or idk and there you go, guns!

Last edited by Granger (2015-12-14 09:22:46)

B1rd · ^

Democracy is a sham. No politician acts in the interest of the people, only themselves and rich coorporations.

And still thinking that criminals can't get guns? I live in Australia and I can easily get guns. And if I went on a shooting spree everyone would be fucked because noone has any guns to defend themselves and I'd have the time of day until the police showed up. Why do you think all of the shootings happen in 'gun free zones'?

And you're wrong, guns give the advantage to the defender. Firstly, most crimes are not murders, they're rapes, muggeries and thefts. If these criminals knew that a portion of the population was armed that wouldn't risk these crimes, even if they had guns themselves. Another point: the difference between the attack and defender is that the attack can premediate the attack. Without guns, the attacker will always win because they can ensure they outnumber the defender. With guns though, one person can kill half a dozen.

Your mother would have been able to defend herself had she been armed. And if someone wants to kill you, they can kill you with or without a gun. At least if you have a gun you have a chance to defend yourself. If this woman had really wanted to kill your mother, she could just have used a knife, or many other means, and your mother would be dead.

And so, these people will just walk into a police station (full of armed police) and bust through all the safes and steal their guns? That's just silly. There is no way to get enough guns to arm an army if they are not already armed. In Germany I heard that people get their house raided for making anti-immigration posts on Facebook. Guns are the only thing stopping the tyrannical government.

Last edited by B1rd (2015-12-14 09:56:44)

Brian OA · ^

In the US you basically vote for a dude that will vote for a dude that could become president. Your vote technically counts but then not really as it's basically condensed into just one regional vote. They usually speak of a "popular vote" which is where they count each individual's vote, but that has no bearing on the actual election. It's just statistics. Your vote really only matters if you live in a swing state so uh

Yeah it's not a whole lot of power to go around. Having a different opinion than the majority in Texas, for example, isn't like 1 against 1000 but more like 0 against 1. They just round off the little man, which means he doesn't even make the slightest difference. I'm afraid your vote doesn't count.

Regarding gun control: It's a case-by-case basis. I'd guarantee gun control would be magnificent in a place with an orderly infrastructure full of well-educated and law-abiding citizens. So the opposite of Detroit.

While I'd agree that just having the smallest obstacle for an emotionally unstable would-be-killer means having another chance for them to hesitate, rethink their actions, and stop what they're doing, I can't deny that arming common folk with firearms has saved lives many a time. Deterrence and obstacles are efficient combined as they not only prevent the crime, but they provide a feasible option should things get nasty.

I mean yeah, they're potentially dangerous, but that's why you leave them in the hands of responsible people. Like uh, take a look at cars! Cars are potentially very dangerous. They used to be called "coffins on wheels," and we let millions upon millions use them on a day-to-day basis because our systems, trying to be as meticulous as they can afford to be, deem these people responsible.

And we're okay with that.

Can't see why we can't have both at some reasonable degree.

Granger · ^

B1rd wrote:

Democracy is a sham. No politician acts in the interest of the people, only themselves and rich coorporations.
And still thinking that criminals can't get guns? I live in Australia and I can easily get guns. And if I went on a shooting spree everyone would be fucked because noone has any guns to defend themselves and I'd have the time of day until the police showed up. Why do you think all of the shootings happen in 'gun free zones'?

I said criminals are gonna have guns. The big ones. The small, by opportunity criminals wont - they dont put work into being as dangerous as possible. They just steal, break in, vandalize when they see a chance. Like, "Unattended bag there? Its mine now.", not ill kill/threaten this person shitless untill they give me what i want.
Why do i think those shootings in US's gun free zones happen? Because getting guns and bringing them anywhere is so riddiculously easy. Here you need to have a specific job to even be maybe, possibly be considered to be allowed to carry guns. Not even cops get their gun just like that.
I agree, in the off chance that someone crazy with a gun goes into a school here would be terrible, but it doesnt happen unless that person is crazy and a big time criminal. And organized criminals have better targets than schools, why kill an bunch of kids if you could attempt to raid an bank (and kill an bunch of people there if you like that, you monster.)?

And you're wrong, guns give the advantage to the defender. Firstly, most crimes are not murders, they're rapes, muggeries and thefts. If these criminals knew that a portion of the population was armed that wouldn't risk these crimes, even if they had guns themselves. Another point: the difference between the attack and defender is that the attack can premediate the attack. Without guns, the attacker will always win because they can ensure they outnumber the defender. With guns though, one person can kill half a dozen.

Ever heard of deescalation? Both defender and attacker having guns and having them drawn is the polar opposite of that - someone is inevitably gonna shoot and you better be the first one who shoots and kills/maims the other, after all why would you want to risk being killed/maimed? Its, like, the most basic rule of combat, if you can incapicate your opponent before he retailates - do so, that pervents the risk of injury for yourself. Thats where the issue with guns stems from, they give you just that, they literally kill in one bang. The attackers advantage here comes from the fact they act first and often have surprise on their side too.
Without guns the attackers always "win", sure but to do any damage takes time without guns, in which help can arrive and stop the attacker before any serious damage is being done.

Your mother would have been able to defend herself had she been armed. And if someone wants to kill you, they can kill you with or without a gun. At least if you have a gun you have a chance to defend yourself. If this woman had really wanted to kill your mother, she could just have used a knife, or many other means, and your mother would be dead.

Oh would she? I dont think you get the situation, you go somewhere not expecting an attack, suddenly a door a few meters further flies open and someone rushes out to kill you, weapon already drawn. Thats exactly what happened here btw.
Lets give it 2 scencarios...
1. Both you and attacker have a small hand gun. The attackers is drawn and pointed at you, yours is in your holster, strapped secure and with safety lock on. What happens? You move your hand to your holster and immedantively get shot. Or you dont and still get shot. A moment later help arrives, guns drawn, to find you bleeding to death or already dead on the floor and shots down the attacker. A while later police & ambulance arrive and takes note of 2 dead bodies.

2. Your attacker has a pipe, held above their head, ready to strike. You are unarmed. The attacker runs the few meters over to you while you raise your arm over your head. The attacker hits your arm, breaking it and you retailate with an punch from the other arm into the enemies belly. Just a moment later help arrives, also unarmed, and beats down the attacker. You have an broken arm and probably are traumatized but you aint lethally wounded. A while later police & ambulance arrive, the attacker is arrested and you get driven into an hospital.

How does that fucking look? You tell me. In both scencarios the help are three neighbours alerted by the fighting noise and take the same time to arrive.

And so, these people will just walk into a police station (full of armed police) and bust through all the safes and steal their guns? That's just silly. There is no way to get enough guns to arm an army if they are not already armed. In Germany I heard that people get their house raided for making anti-immigration posts on Facebook. Guns are the only thing stopping the tyrannical government.

Ok, that IS pretty silly but again and like you say the revolters are gonna prepare and they wont listen to the law. In essence, treat them like the big fish criminals. Possibly getting the weapons from said criminals in the first place. You dont need an army for an revolt. All it takes is a armed mob at the right place while everywhere else police is busy trying to stop masses of angry people from doing damage.

RedPanda · ^

Around 1,000 mudslimes take advantage of New Year's Eve fireworks and sexually assault dozens of women near a train station in central Cologne.
Police and media trying to cover up that the event ever happened. Any post to reddit is deleted or removed from the front page by liberal mods. And of course, Merkel will disregard this and accept more migrants.

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/01 … years-eve/

B1rd · ^

Granger wrote:

B1rd wrote:
Democracy is a sham. No politician acts in the interest of the people, only themselves and rich coorporations.
And still thinking that criminals can't get guns? I live in Australia and I can easily get guns. And if I went on a shooting spree everyone would be fucked because noone has any guns to defend themselves and I'd have the time of day until the police showed up. Why do you think all of the shootings happen in 'gun free zones'?
I said criminals are gonna have guns. The big ones. The small, by opportunity criminals wont - they dont put work into being as dangerous as possible. They just steal, break in, vandalize when they see a chance. Like, "Unattended bag there? Its mine now.", not ill kill/threaten this person shitless untill they give me what i want.
Why do i think those shootings in US's gun free zones happen? Because getting guns and bringing them anywhere is so riddiculously easy. Here you need to have a specific job to even be maybe, possibly be considered to be allowed to carry guns. Not even cops get their gun just like that.
I agree, in the off chance that someone crazy with a gun goes into a school here would be terrible, but it doesnt happen unless that person is crazy and a big time criminal. And organized criminals have better targets than schools, why kill an bunch of kids if you could attempt to raid an bank (and kill an bunch of people there if you like that, you monster.)?

Granger wrote:

B1rd wrote:
And you're wrong, guns give the advantage to the defender. Firstly, most crimes are not murders, they're rapes, muggeries and thefts. If these criminals knew that a portion of the population was armed that wouldn't risk these crimes, even if they had guns themselves. Another point: the difference between the attack and defender is that the attack can premediate the attack. Without guns, the attacker will always win because they can ensure they outnumber the defender. With guns though, one person can kill half a dozen.
Ever heard of deescalation? Both defender and attacker having guns and having them drawn is the polar opposite of that - someone is inevitably gonna shoot and you better be the first one who shoots and kills/maims the other, after all why would you want to risk being killed/maimed? Its, like, the most basic rule of combat, if you can incapicate your opponent before he retailates - do so, that pervents the risk of injury for yourself. Thats where the issue with guns stems from, they give you just that, they literally kill in one bang. The attackers advantage here comes from the fact they act first and often have surprise on their side too.
Without guns the attackers always "win", sure but to do any damage takes time without guns, in which help can arrive and stop the attacker before any serious damage is being done.

Why did you ignore what I said that most crimes are not murders? Guns reduce all other crimes. And you said that it's a good thing that small-time criminals don't have access to guns. Why? If they just want to steal someones handbag or burgal a house, they don't need or want a gun. They don't want to kill someone or get killed. When people have guns, there will be less small time criminals because they don't want to risk getting shot breaking into someone's house. Small time criminals don't want guns anyway.

It doesn't take much time to kill someone without a gun with the advantage of suprise. Just stab someone in the right place. Walk past someone with a baseball bat and when you're behind them bash them in the head multiple times. Dead.

And yes I have heard of de-escalation. Have you heard of the Cold War? Do you know why neither country engaged in a full-scale War? Because neither country wanted to enter a Nuclear war in which they'd both be harmed. And it de-escalated for the same reason. If neither country had Nuclear weapons, the chance of a full scale war in which millions of people die would increase a lot. Nuclear weapons for countries are the same as guns for people. They are a equaliser. With them, a small country can be safe from a larger country, and women can be safe from gangs of men.

Granger wrote:

B1rd wrote:
And you're wrong
Your mother would have been able to defend herself had she been armed. And if someone wants to kill you, they can kill you with or without a gun. At least if you have a gun you have a chance to defend yourself. If this woman had really wanted to kill your mother, she could just have used a knife, or many other means, and your mother would be dead.
Oh would she? I dont think you get the situation, you go somewhere not expecting an attack, suddenly a door a few meters further flies open and someone rushes out to kill you, weapon already drawn. Thats exactly what happened here btw.
Lets give it 2 scencarios...
1. Both you and attacker have a small hand gun. The attackers is drawn and pointed at you, yours is in your holster, strapped secure and with safety lock on. What happens? You move your hand to your holster and immedantively get shot. Or you dont and still get shot. A moment later help arrives, guns drawn, to find you bleeding to death or already dead on the floor and shots down the attacker. A while later police & ambulance arrive and takes note of 2 dead bodies.
2. Your attacker has a pipe, held above their head, ready to strike. You are unarmed. The attacker runs the few meters over to you while you raise your arm over your head. The attacker hits your arm, breaking it and you retailate with an punch from the other arm into the enemies belly. Just a moment later help arrives, also unarmed, and beats down the attacker. You have an broken arm and probably are traumatized but you aint lethally wounded. A while later police & ambulance arrive, the attacker is arrested and you get driven into an hospital.
How does that fucking look? You tell me. In both scencarios the help are three neighbours alerted by the fighting noise and take the same time to arrive.

Well firstly, if they both had guns, you don't know that the women would still attack her with a gun. She might have just wanted to beat her up, and she might not want to risk her life shooting someone.

And gun fights aren't like you think. Hand gun bullets aren't as lethal as you think they are. People can be shot many, many times and still survive if they aren't hit in the right place. If your mother hand trained with a gun, had situational awareness, she could draw the gun and put down the attacker quickly without having that much harm done to her with accurate headshots. The other women if she was like you described probably wouldn't aim accurately, so it's unlikely that she would land many lethal shots.

And I admit that this scenario is better without guns. But one example doesn't matter, on the whole it's better with guns. Murder rates stem from crime mental illness and a disorganised society. The only situation in which the society in with guns are worse off are in the case of mentally ill people. Small-time criminals don't want to kill people. If you want to murder someone in cold blood you can do that through many other means, just as effective as guns. Mentally-ill people are prone to go on shooting sprees when they have easy access to guns, but if more people were armed and there weren't 'gun free zones', then the shooter could be brought down with minimal casualties.

Granger wrote:

B1rd wrote:
And so, these people will just walk into a police station (full of armed police) and bust through all the safes and steal their guns? That's just silly. There is no way to get enough guns to arm an army if they are not already armed. In Germany I heard that people get their house raided for making anti-immigration posts on Facebook. Guns are the only thing stopping the tyrannical government.
Ok, that IS pretty silly but again and like you say the revolters are gonna prepare and they wont listen to the law. In essence, treat them like the big fish criminals. Possibly getting the weapons from said criminals in the first place. You dont need an army for an revolt. All it takes is a armed mob at the right place while everywhere else police is busy trying to stop masses of angry people from doing damage.

Granger wrote:

Well, the thing is, the cops here dont point their gun at civilians. Cause the civilians are generally not armed. Consequently this also means people shot by the gov is also a small number.

'Less people die getting shot by Police because people don't have guns'. Way to be a statist cuckold. People in Germany got their house raided because of FB posts, and they can do that because the police don't need to worry about people with guns defending themselves. You are inventing scenarios like civil disorder in which people could revolt against the government without an armed society, but the simple fact is that people will never have as much power against the government without an armed society. The strong will always control the weak, you have no rights unless you can assert them with force.

The is why I hate statist democrats (and women are more often Democrats) because they believe that the state needs to control everything because the average person isn't responsible enough the govern themselves.

Zhepyr Valentine · ^

This happened 5 days ago

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-16/j … es/7093458

Yesterday this happened

http://www.news.com.au/world/pacific/te … 465bd14343

Pictures of the threat letter was circulating on social media yesterday. I've read the letter and I can post picture of it if any of you is interested. It's in Indonesian and has not so okay grammar.

I live in one of the two cities mentioned in the threat letter. If I disappear from the internet for a long time then I probably got killed. Or my internet dies

abraker · ^

Be carefull...

Plakkis · ^

http://therundownlive.com/breaking-news … -movement/

EDIT: Basically Aliens

Last edited by Plakkis (2016-01-30 08:18:22)

B1rd · ^

https://web.archive.org/web/20160131012 … -throwing/

ayy lmao

Plakkis · ^

http://uk.businessinsider.com/github-th … ory-2016-2

Just fuck my company up

Zhepyr Valentine · ^

"LGBT is a disease, not a human right" - http://qz.com/617445/lgbt-is-a-disease- … ay-rights/

They're taking away my yuri emoji
http://nymag.com/thecut/2016/02/indones … emoji.html

^ #91 2015-12-13 13:55:11

Re: The News Thread

^ #92 2015-12-13 21:41:48

Re: The News Thread

^ #93 2015-12-14 06:26:00

Re: The News Thread

^ #94 2015-12-14 09:13:55

Re: The News Thread

^ #95 2015-12-14 09:45:23

Re: The News Thread

^ #96 2015-12-14 09:59:43

Re: The News Thread

^ #97 2015-12-14 11:45:13

Re: The News Thread

^ #98 2016-01-04 23:47:37

Re: The News Thread

^ #99 2016-01-05 10:08:40

Re: The News Thread

^ #100 2016-01-19 05:13:48

Re: The News Thread

^ #101 2016-01-19 06:49:07

Re: The News Thread

^ #102 2016-01-30 08:18:10

Re: The News Thread

^ #103 2016-02-01 21:11:00

Re: The News Thread

^ #104 2016-02-07 18:06:04

Re: The News Thread

^ #105 2016-02-17 00:46:20

Re: The News Thread

Board footer