Florida armed bystander stops gunman at crowded back-to-school event at park

Slander appears to be your staple contribution to the subject of integration and definition of "ghetto". But it does reveal your need to sideline a couple of your original statements about Sweden and Europe in general.

You haven't even established the point of "poor people", never mind the correlation to "high crime". I keep telling you that we have no ghettos in Sweden and we have no "poor people" either. You see, your idea of "poverty" is built around the American model where so much of the population is living beneath your "minimum wage". And let's be honest here, the American "minimum" (with regards standard of living/cost of living) is far below Sweden's. Sweden's minimum income is sustainable while the US is barely that. Most importantly is the fact that the Swedish population is guaranteed our minimum while in the US there are people who are actually employed who receive less than the minimum ....... not to mention the plight of the unemployed which is far, far, worse!

Your superlatives ('COMPLETE inability') is a clear sign that your argument is crumbling. We've never had a race riot ever in Sweden. How about you? Tell me again about "assimilation" because I think you might be under a misconception.

Again with the slander already?

Once again you side-step one or two of the most important ingredients. First of all, it really wouldn't matter what "everyone" thinks ... the definition is the definition .... and I am sure that not "everyone" agrees with you, even if you do claim that "everyone" does. Secondly, you haven't yet understood what "low income" really means. By American standards, I might agree that it spells poverty but by our standard, it means nothing at all to us because minimum is the lowest one can get and believe you me our minimum is more than adequate. You fail to grasp the facts and tenaciously refuse to improve your knowledge.

The lack of argumentative logic is bringing out the best in you.

Yes, and yet you do not understand what those words mean. You are just spinning them to fit your disinformative non-point.

I see. So he's using the definition of words to define them? How terrible! It's much more colourful to make up words such as irregardless and garnish them with catchphrases such as "awesome" and "basically". Not forgetting the personal insults such as >>>>>>>>>

THE BOTTOM LINE:
You are living in an inferior social system that is primitive by European standards but you are applying your inferior standards to describe a superior system. So, you are just punching at shadows in the dark and you are unwilling to switch the light on.

 

Why would I reference the CIA or the award-winning biggest Bonzo of the year, Robert DeNiro? We've already established that I am not American. That alone puts me well above anything (and any source) that you have at your disposal.

 

Try what? Don't you think that someone who's psychopathic enough to do it once will do it again, possibly being a bit more intent on succeeding next time? I don't know about yours, but our prisons are full of recidivists.

 

I posted multiple sources including academic studies specifically mentioning "Sweden's ghettos" Let something get through that thick skull of yours. What you say and what you believe is completely ****ing irrelevant. There are Swedish ghettos consisting of large populations of immigrants with low income and high violence. Your denying that they exist doesn't make them disappear. Your own ****ing government even finally acknowledged the problem. Notice how the ****ing links ALL ****ING SAY GHETTO IN THEM.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...en-ghettoes-gangs-varvadersligan-klas-friberg

http://www.parallelozero.com/reportage/sweden-stockholm-rinkeby-district-448-0

And there are tons of others if you bothered to get off your lazy ass and do some quick google searches.

I am sick and tired of head in the sand deniers like yourself that pretend that only the US is racist and everything is just dandy in Europe when that is demonstrably false. Google Swedish racism and Swedish race relations and Swedish immigration and then say that "nothing wrong in my country" with a straight face. Your denying reality does not make it go away. The US is far and way significantly better at assimilating immigrants than Europe is and every single ****ing academic study done on the subject agrees with me and disagrees with your asinine make believe world.

If you can't be bothered to do some basic research on your own instead of constantly trying to deflect like you just did then **** off. "It doesn't matter what everyone says it only matters what the definition is" What the **** kind of nonsense is that? For **** sake.

No wonder everyone thinks Europeans are arrogant snobs. You run around thinking your **** doesn't smell and that everyone else is worse than you but the opposite is the case. Your continent is falling apart in shambles and lefty nimrods are literally inviting the enemy (yes Muslim fundamentalists are the enemy) into your countries and letting them destroy everything. Your growing old and weak and no one cares about your sad asses anymore. The new power players are the US and Asia.

I can't wait till the Italian banks collapse and watch the entire ****ing idiotic EU collapse on itself. You can only bail them out so many times and they already had a massive bailout last year which barely saved them then.

 

You have NOT proved that Sweden has any 'ghettos'. Of course, it would be impossible to prove it because we have none. Your back is against the wall simply because you lack knowledge. You think ...

>>> "low income" means "poor/poverty"
and
>>> racial riots are indications of "integration"

Just one look at your own words and it is clear that your honesty is on vacation. If I knew as little as you I would stay off the forum for a few weeks and hope that everyone forgets the ridiculous comments you have made to this thread.

 

Robert DNiro likes to diss America too. You have more in common with him and his resources then any true American. Hope you are far across the pond. D'niro should come live with you.

 

Not everyone. Just you who apparently either can't read, or deliberatly missreads because you can't debate what was actually said.

 

"Likes"?

Who told you that I "like to diss America"? And what resources are you referring to? My only resources are the truth and personal experience. What that has to do with DeNiro I have no idea at all.

First of all, I am not American .... didn't you read what I wrote? Secondly, are you trying to say that anyone who criticizes the US is not "a true American"? Where do you get your stupid ideas from?

What the hell are you talking about? You must be very, very, very, very, very young or .

 

What do you mean "if"? lol
You deny the firearm restrictions in the US is a joke compared to Europe / Australia?

I already noted that plenty of guns are sold in Australia.


You're ignorantly mixing up firearm restriction laws, with nobody being able to buy guns.

I already sourced here that firearm related crimes is a heck of a lot higher than in other western countries.

 

There were plenty of nazi's in Charlottesville in 2017. Yes... "regional pride" is one way of describing the culture of these white racist indoctrinated thugs.

 

Show how they actually amount to such.

All of which is irrelevant. The united state supreme court stated, in absolute and unambiguous terms, that government cannot prohibit the legal ownership of one common type of firearm, while allowing for the ownership of other common types of firearms. Handguns cannot be prohibited while shotguns and rifles are allowed. Then there is the matter of the confiscation of legally owned firearms. Therefore the firearm-related restrictions implemented in the nation of Australia would never pass constitutional muster in the united states.

Which is nothing more than the causation/correlation substitution fallacy, attempting to claim the two are directly related to one another, when in fact there is no actual evidence of such. There is no evidence that the firearm-related restrictions of various other countries are responsible for their levels of firearm-related incidents, as opposed to it being exclusively due to the social makeup and attitude of the public. Unlike most other countries, the united states is a nation filled with violence, and ingrained violent behavior. Even if firearms were drastically restricted, the levels of violence would continue unabated.

 

Says the court:
The Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

 

I already sourced here that firearm related crimes is a heck of a lot higher than in other western countries.

I fail to see what on earth this has to do with gun legislation laws. As I showed,.. gun sales are up in Australia even with their gun laws in place. There is simply zero correlation between buying a gun and strict gun control.

That is just utterly plain stupid. The entire reason for strict gun control laws, is people like Michael Drejka who has been waving his gun around before, deliberately caused car accidents, would be ruled unfit to own a gun. And instead of that, the US just let him have a gun so he eventually ends up killing a person who was backing off. Stuff like this makes it so, that the US has FAR more gun related deaths than the other western countries.

Were semi automatic weapons common when they wrote that?
Why are full automatic weapons banned when made after 86? They can be just as common.

 

It has been claimed by yourself, not actually cited. There is no evidence that has been presented on the part of yourself, none whatsoever, that any firearm-related restrictions implemented in these other countries was directly related to such. Nor is there evidence that without such restrictions, that the number of firearm-related incidents would be higher than they are in the united states.

Thus ignoring the raised point entirely. Simply because a few types of firearms were left legal for ownership means nothing. Even now the nation of Australia is looking into how to reduce the number of firearms that are legal for ownership, meaning they are seeking to prohibit even more types.

Drejka is not relevant to the discussion. Do not try and change the subject to an unrelated matter simply because it is not possible for yourself to actually defend the points that were raised by yourself.

Repeating firearms were very well known of at the time. Even if they were not, the united state supreme court ruled that such holds no bearing to the discussion, for the same reason modern cellphones enjoy first and fourth amendment protection.

Spite. Pure, simple, vindictive, unjustified, politically motivated spite. It was done in response to the shifting politics at the time, and those in power resenting that they were losing their hold as support for firearm freedoms was growing greater than public support for firearm-related restrictions. So in response they engaged in vindictiveness.

 

Negative. I sourced and quoted that it is so previously.

It means there is no correlation between gun ownership and gun laws. I haven't seen you source otherwise.

The relation is that the US has a FAR higher amount of gun related killings. And this is an example how with stricter gun laws, a persons life could have been protected. You asked for evidence how this works out... I gave you it!

I dont care. It was not protected under the 2nd amendment. dunno why semi automatic weapons should be covered under this as well. It's not as if them guns were around when they wrote the 2nd amendment.

 

You're not wrong, though I would have done the math differently. But this does point out why this standard isn't so good for small towns. A variation of just a single additional (or less) homicide affects the rates dramatically. However, it does not therefore follow that the absolute number is a good comparative rate. You can't look at how many homicides there were in, say, Spokane, WA, and then compare that to, say, LA and have any meaningful data because of the vast population difference.

 

The so-called "source" makes the claim, but does nothing to demonstrate the factual accuracy of the claim.

Thus demonstrating an inability to understand basic concepts.

Was there ever a point in the history of these yet-to-be named countries, where such was not the case? Can it be demonstrated precisely when any particular country which currently has strict firearm-related restrictions, has actually had more firearm-related incidents than the united states?

A question was asked, an answer was provided. Whether or not the answer is actually cared about by yourself is completely irrelevant.

Repeating firearms capable of firing multiple shots before ever needing reloading did indeed exist at the time of the ratification of the second amendment. Repeating firearms actually predate the ratification of the second amendment by at least a century, making them in common use even at that point in history. They were expensive, but they were well known.

For those present that are ignorant of the development of firearms technology, the repeating firearm pictured below utilizes a matchlock method of operation, which was rendered obsolete long before the founding of the united states in favor of the flintlock.



There is no reason to believe the founding fathers of the united states would have ever objected to the private ownership of semi-automatic firearms, as they were already deploying superior weaponry against the soldiers of the nation of Britain when fighting the war for independence.

 

Except that with the disparity in place, the murder rates are still higher in LA.

Fewer murders would make Spokane look more dangerous, but the 8 murders in Spokane gives it a 3.7 per 100k murder rate vs the much larger (and less per murder impact) of LA at 260 murders and a 6.7 homicide rate.

The larger cities actually have the advantage, but still have higher homicide rates.

 

Since you previously denied I cited a source, you have to do better to discredit the source.

That's just your opinion that I dismiss.

Any western nation will do.

If you have a point, than you go prove it.

Indeed. It was called... a revolver.
It has nothing to do with a semi-automatic.

 

I like to think of myself as young....and unindoctrinated. I know those qualities do not seem to appeal to you.

 

And like so many liberals, do you classify everyone south of the Mason Dixon, whose ancestors fought for the Stars and Bars as "white racist indoctrinated thugs"??? Or perhaps ANTIFA and BLACK LIVES MATTER is a brand of racism that appeals to you. Just asking.

 

Since it is yourself who is claiming the united states needs to change their firearm-related restrictions to mirror those of the nation of Australia, the burden of proof is on yourself to demonstrate precisely why the claim is factually correct. The blathering that has been demonstrated on the part of yourself up to this point pertaining to recorded figures is not sufficient enough to amount to evidence.

The argument being presented on the part of yourself ignores clearly established precedents set by the united state supreme court. That is a matter of fact, not opinion. Everything being claimed by yourself has already been addressed by the courts, and thoroughly rejected as being wrong. Nothing will ever change that, thus making your points non-issues unfit to be discussed even hypothetically.

Do try to keep up.

The point is as follows. Be sure to pay close attention:

Without so much as one single exception, every country that is cited by yourself has always demonstrated far lower levels of recorded firearm-related incidents, than the united states has ever had. No matter the nation, no matter the country, no matter the time frame from which the citation is drawn, no other country has ever experienced more than a fraction the number of incidents, even when they had no firearm-related restrictions in place. The nation of Australia, the nation of Japan, the nation of Britain, or any other nation that may be presented by yourself, even when they had no firearm-related restrictions of any sort, their recorded numbers of firearm-related incidents were still drastically lower than anything experienced by the united states.

Then it is being acknowledged on the part of yourself that the founding fathers did indeed have knowledge of repeating firearms, that could be discharged multiple times before ever needing to be reloaded.

Only in the fact the united state supreme court stated that modern firearms did not have to exist at the time of the ratification in order to receive constitutional recognition and protection for private ownership and use. Otherwise it has everything to do with semi-automatic firearms.

 

Just the people who honor the peeps who went off to fight to keep black people enslaved for being black.

 

Slavery is wrong......slavery based on race is wrong. Why don't you specifically spell out where slavery, racist or otherwise is practiced in America......or are you just beating the drum of"identity politics"? It seems the only hope of Democrats winning anything. Remember, it was the racist Lyndon Johnson that said after beginning his "War on Poverty", "The Democrat Party will have the n(**&r vote for the next 200 years. Before 1960, Black families were on a par with white families as far as stability,income etc. It was after LBJ's strategy of a "war on poverty" and government housing" that black families begin to fall into poverty and began breaking up. Even to day there are those that live on the government plantation in spite of the fact black unemployment is up. SO that is the only race based slavery I know of in existence today.

 

I sourced that the US has a heck of a lot more people % who get killed by firearms compared to other western countries.
And the US has very lenient gun laws compared to other western nations.
Seems utterly childish to deny the link between gun violence and about anybody able to have a gun.

That is reply has to do with that there is no correlation between gun ownership and gun laws
Keep up.

As far as I know, the US always had a joke of a gun restriction laws.
If you have a point about this, you go prove this.

They still basically put a ban on full automatic weapons. I wouldn't know why it shouldn't count for semi as well.