You only joined the war because you had something to gain from it, i'm laughing if you think you saved anyone. After Germany would have taken over europe you would have been next and you would have lost hard. America only looks out for itself. If they didnt join the war japan would probably own the US now.
How many more teenager must steal their fathers gun and kill 30 people before America understands that u can't let everyone buy a gun.
… more
What does buying a gun have to do with children stealing a gun.
Are all Europeans this edgy
You are noticing this now? Its always been like this, Europeans think they're better than us. It is so easy to attack america, but when you need us to save you from yourselves , IE WW2, you come running.
What? The US have had 17 school shooting this year alone. How do you think these kids got the guns? They found their dads gun and decided now I'm gonna act on my feeling and kill a bunch of people. In Europe the kids doesn't get this chance because we don't think guns are toys.
And besides the murder rate is so much higher in the US because weapons are so much easier to get. You can buy a gun when you're 18 but you can't drink before you're 21 what Is the logic behind that?
But the teenager stole the gun, so that means he can't buy a gun when he didn't?
This isn't even for a major gun promoter. I'm more leaned into gun control. But that doesn't really make sense.
Thanks, we love you too. Are all Europeans this edgy?
Also, organized crimes is a part of most cultures. It's an inevitable result of t… morehe public and private sector's inability or unwillingness to provide legal means of obtaining certain goods and services.
You only joined the war because you had something to gain from it, i'm laughing if you think you saved anyone. After Germany would have take… moren over europe you would have been next and you would have lost hard. America only looks out for itself. If they didnt join the war japan would probably own the US now.
Yeah, that one. The plan where America spent billions upon billions rebuilding Western Europe's infrastructure after WWII. Given, it wasn't entirely humanitarian in motivation, but it was certainly better than what the Soviet satellite states received.
Yeah, that one. The plan where America spent billions upon billions rebuilding Western Europe's infrastructure after WWII. Given, it wasn't… more entirely humanitarian in motivation, but it was certainly better than what the Soviet satellite states received.
Dude Germany was screwed the moment they left the European mainland. They might have eventually taken the UK but they were already overextended, it was stupid. They were never going to conquer Russia, trying to take and hold Africa and the middle east was a pipe dream. Where the hell do you imagine they were going to get the manpower to hold all this land they would have theoretically conquered AND send an army large enough to take the US across the Atlantic? Seriously, they didn't even get into the UK and you think they would have rolled all over the states?
You only joined the war because you had something to gain from it, i'm laughing if you think you saved anyone. After Germany would have take… moren over europe you would have been next and you would have lost hard. America only looks out for itself. If they didnt join the war japan would probably own the US now.
I don't know, I feel really safe living where there are no guns.
Except for the most militarized border in the world... but hey.
Though for all the people going on about 'guns don't kill people, people kill people.' Yes, this is true, on in an individual level. But when you're planning public policy you don't plan for the idea situation you plan for the realistic one. Just because it's illegal and a bad idea to speed in a school zone, doesn't mean putting speed bumps is irrational. It's a level of balance. The question is, what valid purpose do guns have? And don't tell me the Constitution - rights needs to have a reason behind their enactment. If you've ever read John Stuart Mill's On Liberty , even freedom of speech, which we consider was one of the most basic, obvious freedoms, is argued for rationally. Honestly, I can buy the tyranny argument - but most gun people don't understand what that entails (and I'm not advocating for it). They imagine one day Obama is coming to come out with a Hitler mustache, the American flags are going to be taken out for a hammer and sickle, and he'll enforce it all with his secret Black Panther Army. No. If you're talking about violent revolution, it means Americans are going to be killing other Americans, American police officers, American soldiers. Gordon Liddy said 'ATF is going to be wear a vest, so aim for the head,' and everybody jumped on his back for it. But everybody who talks about protecting their rights with guns - the whole 'The Second Amendment is the most important because it protects all the others' crowd, doesn't really seem to understand the gravity of what their saying; they don't realize it, but they're saying the exact same thing, they just don't want to own up to it. As for guns with person protection, what are you using a gun to protect yourself from? Chances are its other guns. So what's they problem? Guns, what's the solution - more guns? No, you get rid of the guns. People will say 'criminals will find guns anyway.' Well, where do they get them? A. Loopholes, B. Theft of legal guns. C. Lax gun regulations. D. Gun smuggling. D first. A lot of guns going to criminals in Mexico are manufactured by and brought in from the US. As to the rest, increased regulation and confiscating guns (not people will ever let you), will really bring that number down a lot. Every 1000 mile journey, as they say... Let's pretend for a second that violent crime isn't at a low in the US - half of this doesn't even going to some of the root questions of crime - poverty, unemployment, urban decay... But hey, you might have to pay more taxes, so fuck it I guess. Maybe if they worked harder the manufacturing sector of the US economy wouldn't have de-industrialized in the 70's, Imma right?
Then people go 'well, people will stab each other!" Yes. Yes they will. But it's pretty hard to mass stab people isn't it. People like to point to a mass stabbing of 8 people or something like that in China. It's China. Have you ever been to Beijing? It's packed. I accidently stabbed 8 people when I peeling carrots. With one stroke. But in all serious, yes, people can still people with whatever. You can take a rock and beat somebody over the head with it if you really want to. But if you get into an argument with somebody and it gets violent, they might go home with a bloody nose, not a bullet wound, and you can't take as many people out in one go. This is what I mean about preparing society for realism, not the ideal.
Not to mention it affects the culture. Not only are we talking about the distrust of our neighbors and mistrust of the police, but even the way politicians act. If you've seen Obama's mass speeches, he's in a case of bulletproof glass. Because it's a country with 300,000,000 and it only takes one nut with a gun. In France, very few guns, Sarkozy was actually shaking hands with citizens (and not at some community hall where everybody is screened and there are snipers on every roof), and yes, once somebody grabbed him and pulled him down, and they were arrested immediately. Where I live somebody slashed the US Ambassador with a knife (again, arrested immediately - ambassador survived with a few stitches) and even the President got slashed (before she was President) and I'm pretty sure she still goes among the people, and this is despite the fact both of her parents were assassinated (by guns).
You only joined the war because you had something to gain from it, i'm laughing if you think you saved anyone. After Germany would have take… moren over europe you would have been next and you would have lost hard. America only looks out for itself. If they didnt join the war japan would probably own the US now.
I don't know, I feel really safe living where there are no guns.
Except for the most militarized border in the world... but hey.
Thoug… moreh for all the people going on about 'guns don't kill people, people kill people.' Yes, this is true, on in an individual level. But when you're planning public policy you don't plan for the idea situation you plan for the realistic one. Just because it's illegal and a bad idea to speed in a school zone, doesn't mean putting speed bumps is irrational. It's a level of balance. The question is, what valid purpose do guns have? And don't tell me the Constitution - rights needs to have a reason behind their enactment. If you've ever read John Stuart Mill's On Liberty , even freedom of speech, which we consider was one of the most basic, obvious freedoms, is argued for rationally. Honestly, I can buy the tyranny argument - but most gun people don't understand what that entails (and I'm not advocating for it). T… [view original content]
Comments
You only joined the war because you had something to gain from it, i'm laughing if you think you saved anyone. After Germany would have taken over europe you would have been next and you would have lost hard. America only looks out for itself. If they didnt join the war japan would probably own the US now.
What? The US have had 17 school shooting this year alone. How do you think these kids got the guns? They found their dads gun and decided now I'm gonna act on my feeling and kill a bunch of people. In Europe the kids doesn't get this chance because we don't think guns are toys.
And besides the murder rate is so much higher in the US because weapons are so much easier to get. You can buy a gun when you're 18 but you can't drink before you're 21 what Is the logic behind that?
Most cultures in europe have organized crime? That's a new one. Hahaahahah
What about the Italian or Russian mob? Anywhere there is poverty and lack of economic opportunity, there will be organized crime.
But I can see you're busy being a derisive twit, so I'll leave you to it.
You've never heard of the Marshall Plan, have you?
You mean Marshal Law, right?
He's talking about the Marshal Plan 100%.
Yeah, that one. The plan where America spent billions upon billions rebuilding Western Europe's infrastructure after WWII. Given, it wasn't entirely humanitarian in motivation, but it was certainly better than what the Soviet satellite states received.
EUropean EDGYNESS IS SO COOL.
Dude Germany was screwed the moment they left the European mainland. They might have eventually taken the UK but they were already overextended, it was stupid. They were never going to conquer Russia, trying to take and hold Africa and the middle east was a pipe dream. Where the hell do you imagine they were going to get the manpower to hold all this land they would have theoretically conquered AND send an army large enough to take the US across the Atlantic? Seriously, they didn't even get into the UK and you think they would have rolled all over the states?
I don't know, I feel really safe living where there are no guns.
Except for the most militarized border in the world... but hey.
Though for all the people going on about 'guns don't kill people, people kill people.' Yes, this is true, on in an individual level. But when you're planning public policy you don't plan for the idea situation you plan for the realistic one. Just because it's illegal and a bad idea to speed in a school zone, doesn't mean putting speed bumps is irrational. It's a level of balance. The question is, what valid purpose do guns have? And don't tell me the Constitution - rights needs to have a reason behind their enactment. If you've ever read John Stuart Mill's On Liberty , even freedom of speech, which we consider was one of the most basic, obvious freedoms, is argued for rationally. Honestly, I can buy the tyranny argument - but most gun people don't understand what that entails (and I'm not advocating for it). They imagine one day Obama is coming to come out with a Hitler mustache, the American flags are going to be taken out for a hammer and sickle, and he'll enforce it all with his secret Black Panther Army. No. If you're talking about violent revolution, it means Americans are going to be killing other Americans, American police officers, American soldiers. Gordon Liddy said 'ATF is going to be wear a vest, so aim for the head,' and everybody jumped on his back for it. But everybody who talks about protecting their rights with guns - the whole 'The Second Amendment is the most important because it protects all the others' crowd, doesn't really seem to understand the gravity of what their saying; they don't realize it, but they're saying the exact same thing, they just don't want to own up to it. As for guns with person protection, what are you using a gun to protect yourself from? Chances are its other guns. So what's they problem? Guns, what's the solution - more guns? No, you get rid of the guns. People will say 'criminals will find guns anyway.' Well, where do they get them? A. Loopholes, B. Theft of legal guns. C. Lax gun regulations. D. Gun smuggling. D first. A lot of guns going to criminals in Mexico are manufactured by and brought in from the US. As to the rest, increased regulation and confiscating guns (not people will ever let you), will really bring that number down a lot. Every 1000 mile journey, as they say... Let's pretend for a second that violent crime isn't at a low in the US - half of this doesn't even going to some of the root questions of crime - poverty, unemployment, urban decay... But hey, you might have to pay more taxes, so fuck it I guess. Maybe if they worked harder the manufacturing sector of the US economy wouldn't have de-industrialized in the 70's, Imma right?
Then people go 'well, people will stab each other!" Yes. Yes they will. But it's pretty hard to mass stab people isn't it. People like to point to a mass stabbing of 8 people or something like that in China. It's China. Have you ever been to Beijing? It's packed. I accidently stabbed 8 people when I peeling carrots. With one stroke. But in all serious, yes, people can still people with whatever. You can take a rock and beat somebody over the head with it if you really want to. But if you get into an argument with somebody and it gets violent, they might go home with a bloody nose, not a bullet wound, and you can't take as many people out in one go. This is what I mean about preparing society for realism, not the ideal.
Not to mention it affects the culture. Not only are we talking about the distrust of our neighbors and mistrust of the police, but even the way politicians act. If you've seen Obama's mass speeches, he's in a case of bulletproof glass. Because it's a country with 300,000,000 and it only takes one nut with a gun. In France, very few guns, Sarkozy was actually shaking hands with citizens (and not at some community hall where everybody is screened and there are snipers on every roof), and yes, once somebody grabbed him and pulled him down, and they were arrested immediately. Where I live somebody slashed the US Ambassador with a knife (again, arrested immediately - ambassador survived with a few stitches) and even the President got slashed (before she was President) and I'm pretty sure she still goes among the people, and this is despite the fact both of her parents were assassinated (by guns).
Germany declared war on the United States.
Beat me to it.
Unrelated, but I am guessing from your final paragraph that you are Korean?