If you weren't so marginalized you might understand how society works. But you are marginalized so you don't.
Tell that to the tens of thousands of people who are alive today because they had one of the above and knew how to use it. None of you ever want to talk about that.
The above statement does not change the established fact. What is being supported on the part of yourself, and advocated for, is nothing more than the mentality of revenge. Is society based around the concept of revenge, and hurting others for no reason?
Mindless drivel and ineffable twaddle. You are the only "Marginalized" poster here, you've seized on that one word and keep repeating it ad naseum.
The whole has been paying for the actions of a few since time immemorial. Most of us understand that that's the way it is, like it or not.
No my loquacious friend, you are the poster of mendacious and specious items of no interest to anyone but your good self.
Seemed to do a bang up job for the mosque goer who took a weapon from the gunman and chased him the **** off, halting the slaughter. Imagine if he'd been armed from the jump and could've just turned around and shot the ****er several times.
You are simply editing my response, People can read and notice your constant violation of etiquette and forum policy.
Imagine when he entered the building, if someone whacked him over then head with a pan and knocked him out. We could imagine an awful lot. Imagine gun control had been up to Australian and UK standard in New Zealand, then it had a low to zero chance happening.
Uh dude had made IEDs and said he chose guns over that and other methods because he wanted to instill social unrest in the US over it. You're literally doing what he wanted. So if he hadn't been able to get a gun, he would've bombed and truck attacked places, which methods tend to lead to higher body counts. So there's that. All I'm pointing out is that if you disarm the law abiding, criminals still get firearms and have alternative methods anyway (bombs, vehicles etc). Aussie has a problem with biker gangs making their own submachine guns ffs.. Whereas if you do not disarm the law abiding, the law abiding can still get firearms which puts them on a more even footing, since the criminals are not appreciably stopped by gun laws anyway. Guns can be made in a hardware store just wandering around. Give me a garage with hand tools and you can make pretty much most modern small arms. The patterns are freely available on the internet. Google "LUTY" ffs. You can't put genie back in the bottle, all you're doing is further endangering your citizenry.
If you are American, it's a difficult subject. The American answer is to flood society with dangerous weapons in order to protect people from said dangerous weapons by using said dangerous weapons. That's kinda something you do on the battlefield.
Again: He had bombs and vehicles and chose guns because he wanted to make a particular political statement and have a particular political effect. You're helping him accomplish that goal. How does that make you feel? You seem to be under the impression that you're perfectly safe because a law was passed. Nothing could be further from the truth. At any time someone could plow into a crowd with the ton and a half missile they operate daily. At any time someone could go to a liquor store or a gas station and get the raw materials for a whole brace of molotovs that they could likewise then throw into crowds of people. At any time someone could take a smuggled, or formerly legal, or currently legal but restricted, stolen, or manufactured firearm and start shooting. Firearms are simple machines that can LITERALLY be produced walking around a hardware store. A nail, a cap, and two lengths of pipe gauge depending on ammo you're going to end up using. Maybe a rubber band if you're feeling super fancy. If you want to actually use tools you can produce just about anything. And your gangbangers do: https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2014/06/16/australian-police-10-firearms-seized-homemade/ https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2014/04/04/australian-motorcycle-gang-diy-firearms-surface/ https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2013/11/19/home-built-m11-submachine-guns-seized-australia/ https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog...-weaponized-stapler-engineering-developments/ You comfort yourself with the illusion of safety, like a warm blanket you've wrapped around yourself to protect you from the monsters under the bed, as if they couldn't shred through it like the gauzy cotton it is if they had a mind to. I understand that I cannot be 100% safe from malice of others, or even close to that, and therefore I have taken some steps to mitigate that if/when it occurs by arming myself and training myself (and paying for others to train me) to respond appropriately. The same things can happen to both of us, at any time, for no reason. I've taken steps to ensure I can respond, you've taken steps to ensure that you cannot. I prefer my position. I think yours is foolish. However, you're welcome to your own laws on your little penal colony island.
And for countless centuries, it was perfectly legal and even acceptable to own people as slaves, until that was eventually changed. If revenge is the way the world works, then it is a problem in need of being changed, not continued.
Gun violence is a much worse punishment than sacrificing a little convenience to follow a few gun laws. Try to put things into perspective.
Yes he had bombs. The Boston bombers had bombs, who shot them? The IRA make and send bombs, should we arm up with hand guns because of bombs in the post????? If guns are that safe and your police are so well trained, then no cops get killed? If you're walking a long and unbeknownst to you, someone had a bomb, would you shoot him?
Way to entirely miss the point. Seriously, take a bow, that's impressive. The FBI after they hunted them down since they weren't hanging out at the site of the bombing still killing people nor just before did they give any indication they were mad bombers out to murder people indiscriminately. Bombs are placed and then walked away from, most of the time. As in Boston. If not they are strapped to a person and the person detonates them. My point being that you should thank your lucky stars he decided on firearms rather than a bomb and truck attack which would've left more casualties and couldn't have been fended off by someone physically charging the shooter and taking his weapon, the same way people should thank their lucky stars that vegas ****ass used a bump stock because it made him hideously inaccurate. If they'd had the gun laws you want, ie a total ban, he'd have used the IEDs he made and a vehicle or two. More people would be dead, and the slaughter at one location would not have been ended before the scumbag had intended to end it. That sound like a net gain to you? Because its not adding up on my side.
A prohibition on the purchase and ownership of an entire class of firearms, as well as the deprivation of privately owned property, is not simply "a little convenience" as it being claimed. Nor does such actually serve to prevent the loss of even a single life from occurring. Therefore any such proposal is nothing more than revenge and victimization committed against those who have done nothing wrong.
Where's Bug's Bunny when you need him. As for your second paragraph, I imagine that's the last thing the people sitting at their desks at Charlie Hebdo thought.
