1. Hello and welcome to the brand new home for PlayDota!
    Please read through our Welcome thread to see what's new!
    Dismiss Notice

Politics of the United States - Aftermath of 2016 Election

Discussion in 'World News & Debate' started by HHHNNNGGG, Oct 8, 2016.

  1. kamukag3e

    kamukag3e Member

    3,781
    443
    83
    Jun 11, 2009
    @r0xo:
    Let me tell you something about guns, I have plenty of experience with them.
    1) If they are easily accessible in your home - mean you are irresponsible owner and prone to incidents;
    2) If they are not easily accessible (in a locker, safe or w/e) - mean you will have problem when someone enter with a gun.

    Another thing is 'having some training', you are right - but in the USA training is not required and guess what - a lot of people are not having it.
    I have training with all kind of firearms and would tell you that, if someone catches me on the street and have a handgun (or a pistol). If he is not careful or don't have practice and is too close - he will be screwed. If he is careful and put some distance between us - I can easily run away. Despite what people thing pistol's short range is completely manageable with a fast sprint and that's why in Europe they are called 'weapons for protection', you can protect yourself in close distance and are not a real threat to people away from you. On the other hand in the US they sell all kind of weapons 'for protection'.

    An important part is - killing a person (even while defending your home) can be a devastating thing for a lot of people.

    I won't even gonna bother arguing with Blarrg, loony USA citizen defending their gun rights are as bad as the SJW and BLM.

    @HHHNNNGGG:
    About the immigration. Let me tell you an advice coming from the experience of a lot of people.
    While I'm born in Europe and have easy time accessing developed country and their market, my country was not rich, a lot of people immigrate or at least go for few years to work abroad.

    The thing which a young man can do are countless, even if he wish to improve his whole family standards.

    They money/salary you can gain in developed country is usually on completely different level then in some undeveloped/currently developing one, and saving a lot of money is easy. The rest can be send to your family to ensure their standard of living is increased by a lot and they move to the better parts of the country/city etc.

    So despite your close relationship with your family, you can do a lot sacrificing few years working abroad for their sake.
    Studying/working in Germany/Holland is easily achievable for a lot of people and apply for visas is not as hard as people think. Then getting a good salary (depending on the sector you wish to work in) is also easy, 1,500 euro to 2,500 euro is nothing unheard of when you are working high-payed job or stuff with high 'risk' or 'problems' like welder for example (which is really straining for the eyes). Then you can easily live (sharing rent, cooking for yourself and eating at home) with no more than 600-700 euro each month, so you can save all the rest and send/bring them to your family. After few months or an year you can see how much cash you can bring and what difference they can make for all of you.
     
  2. HHHNNNGGG

    HHHNNNGGG Member

    17,857
    463
    83
    Sep 21, 2010
    @kamukag3e

    It is not like I am not familiar with working abroad. I have been living in France for a while for my study and I also spent quite a time working.

    To be honest, the prospect of living in France with €1,500-2,500 gross is quite... struggling. You can live by with just under €1,000 and send the rest home, but the living standard will not be really comfortable and it is very hard to keep my motivation high with just selflessness. From the experiences of my compatriots, foreigners actually have troubles getting pay raise in Europe, and most of them can't even dream to own a house.

    On the other hand, currently I'm running my own family business in my home country and my personal income (not counting the revenue of the business) is around €2,000 which is very high for the standard here. The market is still thriving despite horrible economy policies from the government that aims at robbing money from business owners. Basically I can earn the same income in my home country as in France. There is pretty much no reason for me to live abroad.

    As for an average worker, they don't know the language and from my acquaintances in France many don't even speak French. Most of them work as unregistered workers, and they obtain Schengen visa via Czech visa. Getting high-paid jobs would be impossible for them. Now the immigrant policy is tightened so it is even harder for your average guys to enter Europe. They don't want foreign students to stay after their study, and certainly they don't even want some unknown workers to stay as well.

    It is going quite off-topic. The public order here sure isn't good but frankly with enough cautions we can just live by without issues. I believe that the chance for me getting killed by some nutjobs in my home country is the same as the chance getting trucked by a random terrorist in Europe.
     
    Last edited: Mar 13, 2018
    kamukag3e likes this.
  3. Nezekan

    Nezekan Moderator Staff Member

    5,240
    483
    83
    Jan 17, 2011
    But you will have to accept the consequences of that action. I'm going to quote some articles among my own arguments to make it clear. Its pretty selfish, in a sense that you trade temporary wealth with long term prosperity of your country.

    The employers have to pay for the healthcare of their employees if there is no universal healthcare, so this system puts a strangehold on small business, the lifeblood of all innovation and ingenuity. How many would-be entrepreneurs decide not to start up a new business because of concerns about health care expenses? How many existing small businesses are not hiring more workers because of concerns about health care expenses? Universal healthcare is actually pro-business, as its very apparent in comparisons. Small companies in European countries with Universal healthcare are in a far, far better condition than their American counterparts.

    Universal healthcare is simply none discriminatory, fair and creates a sense of protection which relates to what was being discussed. You are more likely a to support a flag that supports you. This is specially true about medical conditions people are born with. I don’t see how denying medical coverage because of a congenital heart condition is any different than denying medical coverage because someone is black.

    You'd think Doctors in Germany would make less, right? Since there is a Universal healthcare system? That is where you'd be wrong, its the opposite. In America monthly premiums, co-payments, and deductibles are skyrocketing, which is bad for both individuals and their employers, who in some combination pay the bills. High student loans, ever higher malpractice insurance premiums, and the monopolistic "reasonable and customary" rules imposed by insurance companies mean that providers, too, are suffering. So if the patients are paying more, and the doctors are making less, where is all the money going? To the insurance companies. So there is the problem.

    For-profit health insurers seek to cover only the relatively healthy, to minimize risk (ask Melanie); keep “reasonable and customary” costs as low as possible, to maximize profits; and require byzantine rules and regulations, to make collecting money—whether you’re a patient or provider—so frustrating that you give up. You can run a health insurance company to generate as much profit as possible, or you can run a health insurance company to provide the best care possible, for the most people, at the lowest cost. What you can’t do is both. Even if you say so on your prospectus.

    This inherent contradiction, incidentally, is unique to health insurance. Life insurance companies never have more than one claim per person, and the only way to beat the system—that is, to get the biggest payoff from the least investment—is to die immediately: not what you or the company want. Homeowners and automotive insurance are different; you can choose not to own a home or drive a car. But everybody gets sick sometimes. So the current American healthcare system (Before and after Obamacare) is simply conflict of interests.

    The only force big enough to combat the juggernaut that is the health insurance companies is the federal government. Period. In this fight, you’re either with the government (that is, the people) or the corporations.

    The countries of Europe and Canada have given us plenty of models for universal health care. There is no doubt that Universal healthcare is good in every aspect and its even pro-business. So the question is why the GOP, that is proud to be a pro-business organization, does not support healthcare? Because currently, corporations are filling it's pockets with money so its more pro-business for it to argue against Universal healthcare, even at the expense of American lives.

    So long as the GOP continues its horrendous policies, there will be no real solution to the problem. Obamacare was a step in the right direction, but with its own flaws. But leagues better than the alternatives. Both sides would need to come up with a better solution, or it simply will not work.

    However, I will repeat that Universal healthcare is proven to be one of pinnacles of social advancement. You simply cannot argue against it. If nothing else, the lack of Universal Healthcare will stain America's "greatest nation on earth" in a very clear way. What sort of great country lets you either die or go bankrupt if you are diagnosed with cancer? More importantly, what sort of people stand idle while all this happens?
     
  4. Blarrg

    Blarrg Member

    10,832
    597
    113
    Jun 12, 2009
    This literally never happens.

    First of all a robber is looking to rob, not to kill. They are armed for self defense and intimidation. Second, if the robber was looking to kill someone, why would they choose a random person's house as opposed to literally anybody on the street? And lastly, if you can manage to knock a door down or smash a window without waking someone up I'd be impressed.

    We should all agree to ignore @Leadblast, he's really shitting up the entire place as he does everywhere else on the forum.

    Ya check out this CRAZY Blarrg guy defending gun rights. Jesus. If you haven't read the entire conversation then you probably should. If you think being against BANNING GUNS is "loony" then you're a moron, sorry.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 13, 2018
  5. kamukag3e

    kamukag3e Member

    3,781
    443
    83
    Jun 11, 2009
    @Blarrg:
    But if you actually read my posts, you would be able to read that I'm not against the rights to own a gun.
    Nor that I think that in the US will ever ban or restrict guns, they need them (to be available on the market) so they can sustain their economy.

    And they need the topic to be in the mouths of people (pro/against guns) so that they divert the attention from important matters.

    I can easily buy gun in my country or in any European country, because I have solid background and would pass any checks. The thing is most US citizens wouldn't be able to pass such checks even in their country. But they would still be able to acquire gun in there - because they don't have good checks - and if there is a state which is a bit stricter on it - they can easily travel to another where they can bypass it.

    I also do not think that anyone be it against or for banning guns is loony or crazy, I just think that your arguments are beyond bad. Your imagination is stronger than your common sense in that specific topic.

    Good, now in most European countries both parties will be unarmed ... once again on equal footing, but without being a nerve thick away from becoming a murder scene (from both sides).

    I don't know how sure you are for your safety after having a gun, but if anyone can easily access firearm weapons - it's actually worse.
    Even worse if you face a group instead of a not having guns. I can run away from unarmed group as good as from a single guy and can physically try to resist to some extend, but trying to do that against an armed group would be near impossible even if I have a gun.

    So you see, your stupid arguments are only viable in your imaginary world where people are there to get you and only your gun is there to save you.

    Also - I don't have a problem opening a door without much of a sound, nor breaking a window, actually professional robbers make a bit of research and would never meet the owners of the place they are robbing. But idiots with guns can do anything, because if they are stupid enough to force a weapon entry to somewhere they are stupid enough to do anything.

    On the other side, crime rates in Europe are far lower then those in the States, because no matter how worthless our politicians are - they are still doing much better job than their US counterparts. They are treating the source (poverty) and not the cause (criminals with aggressive behavior).

    Your argument about incarceration of criminals ... good job. Very sensible coming out from US citizen.
    But before spewing stupid things, did you know the rate of people behind the bars in US and in other developed countries (and their chances of being being send there again after their release) ? This argument is even more dense than Leadblast's dota opinion.

    So you there in the States have more guns, more crimes, more criminals and less accessible health care and educational opportunities and still don't understand that your methods are wrong.

    The thing is - USA can be great again and really really easily, just see the world without being stupid or biased - see which things are improving a society and copy/adjust the model to be suitable for your country.
    But no-o, universal health care is bad, social benefits are bad, having strict gun-control laws are bad, more control on the food quality is bad.
    GIMME MY GUN I LIKE MY GUN FUCK YOU PEW PEW is what it's all about as an argument. Oh, and "THEY WILL TAKE MY MONEY FOR OTHER PEOPLE'S HEALTH FUCK YOU".
    Guess what, paying insurance is the same thing but it's hilarious for me to see increase of the cost because US citizen on average have really low understanding of basic economy.

    Do you know what European 'mobsters' are usually working after becoming legal. Insurance ! The easiest way to gain money without doing anything, you just make one group of people pay the other group (all of them are your clients, you don't invest any money, just reap the benefits) and pay the government to make them mandatory.
     
    Last edited: Mar 13, 2018
  6. Eli_Green

    Eli_Green Member

    8,363
    2,350
    113
    Oct 29, 2013
  7. Blarrg

    Blarrg Member

    10,832
    597
    113
    Jun 12, 2009
    I never said anything about you. You're assuming that about me based on two posts where I'm replying to someone who is for banning guns completely. Therefore my argument was structured around his assumption of not having a gun versus having a gun.

    Yes they would. Most people can easily pass a background check because most people aren't ex-criminals and most people don't have mental health issues.

    Since you decided to skip over my last post... Criminals aren't getting their guns legally. What percentage of criminals do you think bought their guns legally? I'll give you a hint. Its not a majority.

    My imagination? You mean the completely reasonable assumption that the person in their own home knows their home better and has a vast advantage due to being able to stay put? This isn't some crazy wonderland I'm making up in my head. This isn't a cartoon, people who break into homes don't run around like lunatics shooting things and grabbing everything they can. They sneak in, they are as quiet as possible hoping they don't get caught.

    Its completely unrealistic to assume that an armed robber has an advantage over the armed homeowner.

    >B-b-b-but muh Europe

    Reminder:



    Is this one of those imagined scenarios again? xd

    You literally have no point. Your whole argument for gun control simply doesn't apply because criminals don't follow the law and they get their guns elsewhere. Its a proven fact.

    So, once again in the real world. You add more strict gun control laws and the following happens:

    1. You've decreased the likelihood of the victim owning a gun to defend themselves
    2. You've done nothing to decrease the likelihood of a criminal owning a gun to harm people

    Thats a net loss.

    You're the one who just created the imaginary world where criminals follow laws...

    You think you can break through a door without much sound? Or break a window without much sound? Go ahead man. Measure the decibel level of you breaking into a locked thick wooden door and breaking a window.

    >Muh Europe

    Once again, irrelevant. America has a very different history with guns. Your Europe argument is worthless because you're ignoring the important context that differentiates America from Europe.

    It is sensible. You argue for gun control and I'm arguing that criminals don't get their guns legally. You argue about hypotheticals that are based on an assumption that a criminal can't get a gun because you put in legislation that criminals don't even follow. I'm simply being realistic and sensible, you're just making up garbage with no statistics to back it up.

    Sorry that you're incapable of critical thinking. These are all several topics that are much more nuanced than "LUL BAN GUNS" or "LUL JUST MAKE THE HEALTHCARE FREE." There is an entire economy and culture behind all of these things and trying to label one single thing as a problem is hilariously naive and ignorant.

    I'm very aware of the problems that the US faces, but people like you who think the solution is as simple as passing basic legislation are beyond help. Your oversimplification of an extremely complicated situation does not make you look smart or superior in any way. So you may as well cut the shit.

    Its almost like people have different opinions on how things should work and passing half-assed legislation only worsens the problem. Both sides of the coin are doing nothing to help the situation. Both sides try to treat the symptom instead of the problem. It doesn't work and it won't ever work.

    Nobody here thinks universal health care as a concept is bad. Once again, this is you oversimplifying people's viewpoints because you think you know more than they do. You don't. Applying universal healthcare to our current system would completely destroy us and make healthcare premiums ridiculous. It has nothing to do with people saying "that disabled person doesn't deserve healthcare." There are other more significant problems that need to be addressed in our health industry before universal health care can become a thing.

    Strict gun control laws don't do anything. States with the highest gun homicide rates are all blue states with the most gun control laws.

    You honestly just sound like a typical stuck up Euro. You don't know as much as you think you do.

    You've convinced me now!

    Ah yes, very basic economy. Applying universal healthcare means everything is fixed! Certainly nothing bad can happen at all. There is no way that there would be massive increases in taxation that could cause people to not be able to afford their home any longer. It certainly wouldn't drive the quality of health care down because now institutes have to deal with more people.

    Ya none of these other factors matter at all. In my brain, its very easy. Just change one thing and everything fixed!

    You mean like Medicaid and Medicare? The things that already fucking exist?

    You're simply naive. There isn't much more to it than that.
     
  8. Leadblast

    Leadblast Member

    5,024
    62
    48
    May 31, 2010
    I don't really consider Israel and Palestine to be a case. Those two have been continually at war with each other since Old Testament times. Yeah, maybe they aren't allowed to own guns, doesn't mean they won't use one when given the chance. Also I won't believe those cars they rammed onto buildings were NOT filled with explosives too at some point. It's just obvious. Car-bombs came from THERE. "Carbombya" is a parody/reference of/to THAT.

    From an innocent victim's point of view, bombs are better in some aspects compared to guns, but for the most part, they are WORSE. Duh.

    1) those other countries are FAR FAR more strict (than the USA) about "gun control". I can also tell you G1 Megatron toys have been also banned from certain countries because of their resemblance with a real gun. Though like I said, in the end, from a pure philosophical standpoint, guns aren't necessary. And if they are, well then only police/armed forces need to use them.

    2) the continuation of point 1). Who needs guns? Only two groups of people. People who want to do evil things, criminals, and people whose specific job is to protect others from the first group. If you aren't part of either of those, you don't need guns.
     
    Last edited: Mar 13, 2018
  9. kamukag3e

    kamukag3e Member

    3,781
    443
    83
    Jun 11, 2009
    @Blarrg:
    Sorry, your arguments are still bad. Will answer tomorrow (perhaps).
    But if you think criminals don't abide the laws, you are gravely mistaken.
    1) they abide most of the laws or they will be caught out far before they manage to possess a gun;
    2) they follow the laws of physics and market laws;

    If guns are not easily accessible - their market price rises (black market even more).
    What's the price of a pistol in the states, because a Makarov (pretty common pistol in former eastern block countries) can cost up to 500 euro, when it's price on the market is around 150-200 euro.

    Also, US citizen may pass basic background checks and medicine check, but you should do a little research what are the requirements in other countries before answering so boldly that most people will be able to get it.
     
  10. enrico.swagolo

    enrico.swagolo Member

    4,712
    226
    63
    Mar 23, 2014
  11. enrico.swagolo

    enrico.swagolo Member

    4,712
    226
    63
    Mar 23, 2014
    So Rex Tillerson got kicked out, and he found out about it through a tweet. :cat: Interestingly enough, this announcement comes a day after Rex Tillerson implied that Russia poisoned its double agent (in case you didn't know, Russian spy: Highly likely Moscow behind attack, says Theresa May, UK police identify over 200 witnesses in Salisbury nerve agent attack). There is also this: Russian exile Nikolai Glushkov found dead at his London home. But now that Tillerson is gone, we get Pompeo, who secretly met with Patrushev, Naryshkin, and Bortnikov in January.

    Some more Russia news from recently:
    However, the investigation has been officially closed, right after this announcement came out: Qataris opted not to give info on Kushner, secret meetings to Mueller.

    There is also this video of Vladimir Putin (in Russian), where he talks about new nuclear and chemical weapons and says something along the lines of "if the world doesn't want Russia in it, then Russia doesn't want a world without Russia."

    Everything is fine. :cat:
     
  12. Blarrg

    Blarrg Member

    10,832
    597
    113
    Jun 12, 2009
    ?

    Can I put this on a plaque somewhere? Did you read this sentence to yourself? You should.

    90% of criminals did not obtain their firearms legally. 30% of firearms used by criminals are stolen. Why didn't they get caught? Can you explain?

    All of your posts are just ridiculous claims with no backup. We already have statistics on all this shit that is pretty easy to find. You're literally just wrong.
     
    Last edited: Mar 13, 2018
  13. kamukag3e

    kamukag3e Member

    3,781
    443
    83
    Jun 11, 2009
    @Blarrg:
    Statistics are in my favor, Europe has bigger population, less (number wise, not only percentage) crimes - especially gun related, then we have less mass shootings or mentally ill people going on a rampage.

    About the 'criminals' obeying laws, well they do, otherwise they would be caught stealing food, you know - they need to eat despite being criminals, they also pay some bills and most of them have drivings license or at least follow the rules of the road, otherwise they will be stopped immediately by traffic policeman.
    Not understanding that is ... I don't know, I don't wish to insult you more then you insult yourself.
    They do break SOME laws not all of them.

    Now, tell me how can they acquire money to get weapons if black market prices are high and they can't steal them - because they are heavily restricted and only few people are enthusiastic enough to get them for personal usage and the others are a bit more secure plus heavily investigated if missing.
    Even a stolen weapon would be thoroughly investigated by the police here - I can easily imagine how the police react if a weapon is stolen in the US 'who cares, just buy a new one'.

    One more question - if 90% of the weapons are illegal, and only 30% are stolen, how the other 60% are acquired - 3D printer ?
    Also even 10% of the weapons are legal in the hands of criminals ... what the fuck ?!

    Everyone who is not USA pro-fire-arm voter can easily find the sense in my logic and arguments, would ask some of the forum members to just commend if they do that because I'm starting to doubt my English skills - am I just writing gibberish or are you the dull one in this case.
     
  14. Blarrg

    Blarrg Member

    10,832
    597
    113
    Jun 12, 2009
    Europe is a different country, different upbringing, different history, different socio-economic relations.

    Compare higher gun control laws within the states and you see nothing positive.

    Uh ya, no shit. And stricter gun control laws aren't going to stop people who already plan on breaking that law. Lmfao. You literally make no sense.

    You're really missing some key points that were brought up in the past. No amount of legislation will make gun magically disappear. The guns already exist, they are already in circulation.

    Lmfao... I can only shake my head at the massive amount of bias you exhibit.

    Given illegally by an acquaintance, purchased on the black market, etc. Things you can easily look up.

    No, dumbass. 10% of guns purchased by a criminal were legal purchases. Meaning the criminal who used the gun had a clean record when he purchased it. Its obviously illegal for an ex-criminal to own a gun.

    Literally just read. That is all you have to do. So much for your European education. You can barely comprehend simple ass sentences.

    Ya all the sense in your arguments like "criminals follow laws" and "US police laugh at stolen gun reports and tell them to just go get a new one."

    European gun control laws must not be that strict if someone as stupid as you can get one.
     
  15. Blarrg

    Blarrg Member

    10,832
    597
    113
    Jun 12, 2009
    Also a very interesting fact. 85% of gun dealerships have never had their guns traced back to them, but the worst 1% of gun dealerships sold guns that were part of 60% of the crimes committed with guns.
     
  16. enrico.swagolo

    enrico.swagolo Member

    4,712
    226
    63
    Mar 23, 2014
    By the way, on the topic of Russia's poisoning people.. this isn't the first time. For those who are interested, you can check out poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko (2006) and Yushchenko poisoned by most harmful dioxin (2004).

    The whole Yushchenko situation happened during the pro-European movement and revolution in Ukraine, when people went out in the streets to protest for almost 2 years against the pro-Russian puppets in their government, and Yushchenko was a clear pro-EU candidate which emerged out of that. While he did not die, his skin was completely ruined and now looks like this:

    [​IMG]
     
  17. Tolsimir

    Tolsimir Member

    990
    12
    18
    Jul 15, 2012
    I usually stay away from threads like these because it's impossible to change opinions, but I really feel like I need to say something on gun control.

    Americans really just don't understand how hard it is for the average person to get a gun in Europe. There's just no way that in a developed EU country a random 15-18 year old kid will get access to a gun. Meanwhile the Florida shooter just casually kept one in his locker, wtf?? If a kid would get discovered to have a random gun lying in his room it would be massive news here. In Europe there is no need to have a gun ''to protect yourself'', because chances are that when you go for a walk nobody else has a gun either. You don't need a gun to protect your own property, because people actually trust the police to do that.

    @Blarrg says that comparisons between Europe and the USA are irrelevant, though I am not exactly sure why. The only argument he provides is that the USA has a different historic and cultural background from EU, which is true. But it is not a valid argument. Things shouldn't change because they are a part of a nation's history and culture? What about slavery and racism? Does Blarrg support sharia law in Saudi Arabia because ''It's just a different cultural and historical background to ours.''?

    I hope I'm not wrong on this, because I didn't read every single wall of text, but the argument is that gun crimes are not related to gun laws, but a person's upbringing and mental state, right? OK. Now imagine for a moment that a kid has bad parents and is getting bullied in school. One day he decides he's fed up and wants to fuck everything up. What does he do in the US? He gets a gun and starts shooting people. What does he do in the EU? He maybe gets a knife or something and if people are lucky he gets stopped before mortally wounding anyone. So even if gun control doesn't stop people from attacking other people, wouldn't you rather have someone attacking with a knife than a rifle? Oh no, but it's fine. Because there's probably a person with a gun nearby and he can surely stop the kid, thank god for guns! Too bad 14 people are already dead by now.

    The only argument that makes sense to me is that America is way too deep down the rabbit hole and banning guns would cause more harm than good. The black market would flourish and people would riot on the streets. I can definitely see that happening, but even then. That's just such a defeatist way of thinking. ''We are too screwed anyway so lets just not do anything''. I thought America was the greatest, a country of winners?


    And on a sidenote, something that happened in class just two weeks ago. There was a discussion on America and guns, and it got to Trump's proposal to fund arms training for teachers. And one guy said (in an obviously sarcastic tone): ''I think that's a great idea. I think every teacher should have a gun so that they'll be able to protect themselves. And then there's only one logical next step. Every kid should also get a gun, so that they will be able to protect themselves against the teachers. This way everyone will be safe! Isn't that the logic?''

    Maybe it's just me, but I thought this was pretty funny.
     
    Leadblast likes this.
  18. Blarrg

    Blarrg Member

    10,832
    597
    113
    Jun 12, 2009
    It isn't hard. There is very little difference, you can look it up yourself. Unless EU countries have more sophisticated background checks then the same people in the US who can purchase a weapon could purchase one in the EU fairly easily. Everything else are things that anyone can do (ie. having a safe, having a reason, etc). It simply isn't as high demand as in the US.

    15-17 year olds cannot legally own weapons in the US either. So once again, people just make things up. In many states, you have to be 21 to purchase most firearms, you can be 18 for very specific things. Since you referenced the Florida shooter, he was actually 19 years old, and here are the requirements to purchase a firearm in Florida.

    http://www.fdle.state.fl.us/FPP/FAQs2.aspx

    It would be in the US as well, but he wasn't a kid, he was 19 years old. The shooter legally owned his gun before the attack, and even kept it in a locked cabinet in his house. The problem is he was able to legally purchase these guns despite having a history of being unstable, but he was never given real psychological attention for his behavior. People are too lazy to send their kids to a doctor or fix their behavior.

    And in the US there is a need to have a gun to protect yourself. Not only are there more rural areas that are far away from law enforcement protection, there are inner cities littered with gang members who are illegally carrying weapons. Of course, you shouldn't read that last sentence as if everyone has a gun. Very few people actually conceal and carry let alone open carry. A very large majority of those who own guns have them recreationally or keep them in their own homes for protection.

    As of July 2016, there are 14.5 million issued concealed carry permits in the USA. With a population of 345 million people, thats about 0.3% of the population who is allowed to legally conceal carry. Thats one of every 300 people. And that is simply owning the permit, not everyone who owns a conceal and carry permit actually conceals and carries. Pretty different than the warzone that Europeans like to compare to, isn't it?

    I also trust the police to defend me.... If they get here in time. If your life is threatened by someone do you want to be defenseless for 10 minutes until a police force arrives or do you want to be able to defend yourself?

    Why ARE they relevant? Most criminals got their guns illegally, and with so many guns in circulation already how do these laws stop those criminals from getting guns? As I've said thousands of times already. There is already research and statistics that show high gun control laws do not affect gun homicide rate.

    It very much is a valid argument. I've brought up why several times.

    That is not what I'm saying, lol.

    "Gun legislation will magically make guns disappear and make criminals unable to ever get access to a gun."

    How many times do I have to bring up that these people don't get their guns legally? Its hard to get an illegally obtained gun in the EU because there are simply less guns per person. But that isn't the case in the US, because of our HISTORY, CULTURE, and SOCIO-ECONOMIC DIFFERENCES.

    Its not defeatist. This is realism. Have you ever been in a US ghetto? There literally are people getting shot and killed on streets because of gang violence, these weapons are not obtained legally. If gun legislation has not been proven to stop gun homicide rates then you go to the more logical way of addressing the problem... mental health.

    In general, its stupid. But there are areas in the US where a teacher can have a gun in the classroom. However, these teachers need to have very special and thorough training. In fact, the training they go through is more in depth than what our police go through. Keep in mind the moment their weapons come into sight, they are no longer conceal carrying and is a misdemeanor to brandish a weapon in any school. So this would only be used in emergency scenarios.
     
  19. HHHNNNGGG

    HHHNNNGGG Member

    17,857
    463
    83
    Sep 21, 2010
    AFAIK Marseilles is pretty much fucked up as well. From times to times I read a shoot out there, even with an AK.