>>5696637 Because its usually unexpected and done by a group of people. Or a person in authority. It's never fair. You can't fight back. Its always something like four against one. If you fight back it might just cost you your life. >In my experience of course
>>5696637 When i was in school i carried a bat around after the niggas started to beat me up and stuff for being a 'faggot" teachers always asked me what it was for i told them I play baseball after school.
Now i don"t need a bat I'm big guy and a fast runner.
>>5696637 how do you expect them to? there are 6 straight guys to every gay guy. and like 16 of them of every bi-sexual. if your gay and your worried about this, get a gun. shoot the mother fuckers who try to assault you. and if your worried about them also having guns, make respectable straight friends. there are plenty of straight men and women who will fight with you, you just have to find them. and your on lgbtchan. don't use fag against a gay, bi or transgender, use proper terms like gayfag, bifag, and transfag. we use fag for everything here.
>>5696637 >>5696648 >>5696726 First time I was attacked it was by 4 guys with baseball bats. Second time I have no idea how many but they killed two of us and put two of us in the hospital. No memories and no witnesses.
>>5699908 >a pair of gaybashers appear >they seem to be unarmed >I can take them... >pull out knife >Ha, that'll show you! >one of them draws a gun >get shot >Yeah this guy came up and threatened me with a knife and demanded my wallet so I shot him Bravo!
I just know how to fight dirty, and use my cycling legs to great effect. At the minimum a kick knocks the wind out of the attacker, or my heal embeds it's self deep in the chest. Yes, I've practiced fighting while in 2" through 4" heals. One mugger got his foot stabbed with my roughly inch square heal, then his chest perforated. He then wasn't in any shape to chase when I ran. I had a knife and gun on me and didn't use either.
>>5699992 Wait for them to make the first escalation move. Then it is clearer who started it.
>>5696637 When I got beat up he sucker punched as I walked down the sidewalk. I didn't see it coming. It hit the ground and it was game over.
The problem with a lot of hate crimes is that the violent bigot is already worked up into an excited frenzy when they commit their violent acts. They are ready and eager to inflict their violence. Whereas most of us are just doing our normal life thing and not really getting ourselves psyched up for violence.
>What is lgbt doing to prevent attacks I moved to the gayest place on Earth.
>do you guys arm yourselves? Yes, I keep guns in my house, and when I leave I carry a knife. Also been thinking of getting my CHL, should probably get on that.
>>5696637 Because this happens: http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/luke-odonovan-gay-hate-crime-_n_5683215.html This guy is a friend of a friend of mine, got in a fight because he was kissing a guy at a bar, he fought back against multiple assailants and won and now he is in jail. Most of the places where they bash gays are so hostile they aren't worth living in.
Growing up white trash in the inner city made me able to avoid scum, and also exposed me to scum frequently, allowing me to cut my teeth.
Pretty much everybody knows that in the inner city the ones you don't fuck with are the crazy delinquent white boys. They are the ones who feel most threatened, alienated and out of place, act most like cornered animals, are most likely to be high on meth, and will have no second thoughts when it comes to carnage. I'm not to say that to sound "all masc and shit breh"
When I was at my worst and got into the most fights I was closeted, so I feel I had the exposure to violence that is critical for developing a skill for dealing with it, which is when you are maybe 16-20 and hopped up on testosterone and kind of enjoy it. So me being gay during this period didn't prevent me from getting into trouble.
Now I'm wiser and have no taste for that kind of nonsense, and certainly am not one to tempt fate.
One thing many gay guys lack is street smarts, and those are what you need to help you steer clear of bashings/fights. You need to be able to read people from a mile away.
It's fucked up, but what can you do but hope you luck out and don't have it happen to you? All I know is if anyone ever tries it with my, I'm hurting at least one of them.
One of my Professors at Uni is a pretty flamboyant gay guy who was gay bashed once. It was a group attack in which, even if he did fight back, it was a losing battle. And it was in a poor area in Chicago, which must have been a factor. I'm far more interested in the mindset of a group of guys who beat up lgbt people? Are they really so offended by it? Is it just a weak justification to beat someone up for fun?
>>5696637 When gays fight back they usually do with extreme prejudice.
>Rosenkrantz was 18 years old, closeted, and had just graduated high school in June 1985. >He was celebrating by having sex with a male companion in his parents’ beach house, when his younger brother Joey and a friend, Steven Redman, a classmate of Rosenkrantz, who suspected he was gay, arrived to spy on him. >Redman, carrying a flashlight, kicked in the door of the beach house, yelled, “Get the fuck out of here you faggots,” and struck Rosenkrantz with the flashlight, breaking his nose. >At the same time, Joey, who had a stun gun, burned his brother’s hand. Rosenkrantz ran out to his car and retrieved a BB gun and used it to try to prevent Redman and Joey from leaving the beach house, but they phoned Rosenkrantz’s father and, when he showed up, told him they had seen Rosenkrantz with another man who had his pants down. >Rosenkrantz insisted to his father he was not gay and that the two were mistaken, but his father, angry, threw him out of the house. >The youth spent the next few days living in his car, brooding about his situation, and then obtained an Uzi machine gun, did some target practice, and went to confront Redman and demand that he recant what he had told Rosenkrantz’s father. >“Redman refused and continued to taunt and ridicule petitioner,” wrote the federal magistrate. >Press accounts report that Redman again called Rosenkrantz a “faggot.” >Enraged, Rosenkrantz pumped ten rounds into Redman, killing him, then fled for a month before finally surrendering to police.
>>5702628 Im both a gun enthusiast and I agree. Cant tell you free to breathe i actually felt when abroad. I instill fiber optics on navy vessels as a civilians. Have spent months in germany, portugal, 2yrs in japan and korea.
>>5700227 Euro faggot or britt/swede cuck detected. No wonder this continent is burning. We should appropriate the first and second amendments of the US constitution and write it within the Lisbon treaty.
>>5699795 Well for me once was in high school, never told anyone about it because it was degrading to get your ass kicked because everyone found out you love everyones dream girl. And another time by cops. It was weird, the one cop did it wile looking at his boss for approval that what he was doing was right. Sgt seemed to be pleased by his subordinates behavior.
Bullying feels good. It's like candy. It's not likely to be deeply, richly fulfilling but it does feel good. And if you also íntuitively KNOW that you are living decently while the other person is behaving in an offensively wrong way that they could obviously give up if they wanted to, then you also know that *they cast the first stone*. So to speak.
Like imagine if somebody walks up to you and spits on the ground right next to you with what looked like a disgusted sneer on their face. It's not too hard to imagine being offended by that right? Even though they didn't hurt you in the slightest. When somebody lets on in public that they're gay, somebody else can feel like that has been done to them, or like they've just watched it being done to some other decent-looking person. So they may feel that they now *owe* some kind of reprisal to the offending party. If they're in a macho group and they feel like they owe a reprisal to somebody, then they are probably also going to feel obliged to demonstrate it, because to do otherwise is to lose face, in the macho world.
It only takes one or two to get such a thing started for the whole group to become committed--because the members of the bullying group are still weak individuals themselves, and they are under the group's power as much as the gayfag is. They probably don't much want to tone down the mocking or violence or whatever, but if they do then they'll also feel pressured to be restrained about it because standing up for a gay without putting some really careful spin on your action is just going to make the group turn on YOU.
So the roots of it are: the perception that public gayfaggotry is inherently as rude as most people would consider public defecation to be; and machismo-driven peer pressure.
I was lucky not being beat up for being gay, more like being a bitch, but those wimps had it coming when I beat them. In my experience, don't beat gypsies, no matter how they hit you. If you do, they will call their family and make up lies. Sigh...
Sadly in Portugal, if you try to defend yourself, you will get fined our jailed. In some populated gay bars you can see skin head wearing all black and shouting why are you gay or lesbian, and if you reply, you will get beat up by them. So, even if you want to defend yourself, you will get jailed and much worst than the person who beated you...
>>5703185 Nope, can't say I've seem'em. So i can't make that kind of a call. Mind you that's not to say i don't believe in their cause. An yeah there is ONE person out there that i am willing to pay for their srs. But. That's because she is indistinguishable from a cis woman.
>>5703180 >What got them the name "Melon Heads" was when Dr. Crow injected chemicals into their brains, which caused their craniums to grotesquely grow. Because of the abnormal growth, they developed hydrocephalus, which caused them to become mentally retarded and insane.
>>5696637 mtf nobody ever gave me shit because I destroyed my soul instead being a popular jock I beat up a few kids here and there that picked on people i never got shit honestly for being feminine because I always hid it I did used to get shit for "being a white skinned hispanic" at an all hispanic school
when I worked at this gas station between two trailer parks on the "drug and prostitute" street, I had my head shaved and spiked into a mohawk and wore leather constantly cause id be in the cooler. I also used to self harm a lot so id have bruises all over my body and my knuckles would be all torn up cause id punch brick walls a lot. People still rob you. I probably got robbed at least 30 times while working there for the two years or so. I also would before work go outside and grab some dirt and rub it on my uniform and my face and hands and shit just for appearances.
Im really weak and frail now though. Im mostly trying to concentrate on passing. At home I have my Smith & Wesson .38 S&W special CTG pistol. I drew once on a guy who broke into my house to rape my gf at the time. I could easily kill someone. If anything on HRT now, I feel the need to escalate tings quickly and end them immediately if im in danger because of how weak and helpless I am now. I cant even open water bottles anymore by hand. I have to use my shirt.
>>5703029 >It's not too hard to imagine being offended by that right? Actually it is, he didn't spit on me so why would I care? It's amazing how all the wrong thing made by both the left and the right are based on "muh feels".
>>5706093 Getting a firearm for self defence has always been a thought of mine, but I worry about repercussions of actually shooting something. If I shot someone in self defence as a trans woman, would I be lucky enough to get at the most a slap on the wrist?
>>5700809 Hahahaha that's fuckin rich man. It's a past time in some slums. The boys are all together, drunk and bored on a Friday night and what do you know? Some fag decided to walk past. Wrong place wrong time fucker.
>>5706541 unless you live in some god awful communist shit hole state/city combination. You will not be punished in anyway. So long as you say "i was afraid for me life" and the physical evidence matches what you said.
>>5706070 >using military tactics against other citizens isn't degenerate
>>5706288 >that way any attempt to disarm the people would be met with "HOW DARE YOU DISARM GAYS YOU BIGOT" Except that's basically an appeal to emotion and those should have no place in politics. And pretty much any gun law will affect gays and the anti-gay crowd more or less equally, so there's no real advantage one way or the other. Unless we're considering a gun control law that only applies to cishets.
>>5709392 Neglecting to report something isn't the same as "covering it up". The news doesn't have time to report on anything. Unless an attack is unusual or significant for some reason, it's not likely to be reported outside of local news unless it's a really slow news day
>>5710306 Was it all in a single attack? Hundreds of murders occurring in separate towns across the country isn't really newsworthy unless they're all connected somehow.
>>5710556 There's a difference between being scared of guns and realizing that giving almost every citizen the ability to easily and reliably kill from a distance is something that shouldn't be taken lightly.
>>5710657 Yes several women were sexually assaulted by immigrates at a music festival that gets tons of coverage and the police still deny it as a cover up
The amount of bullshit coming out the cops mouth is funny tho
Don't even get me started on the attacks in Germany where the group of immigrant men was reported at a thousand and over 300 hundred women reported being assaulted some sources say about 1000 women where assaulted
>>5710723 >Yes several women were sexually assaulted by immigrates at a music festival that gets tons of coverage and the police still deny it as a cover up The original context was using "cover up" to refer to the media not talking about it. If something gets "tons of coverage" but the police deny it to preserve their own reputation, it's not a coverup in the sense they were talking about. And whenever you have a situation where "some sources say about 1000 women" were assaulted but others just say 300 hundred were assaulted, usually that means the big number is exaggered or based on very shaky evidence, like a witness saying 1000 as a very rough estimate.
>>5710756 25 meters is over 80 feet. That's still a considerable distance - not by battlefield standards of course, but most civilian gun use doesn't occur in battlefield conditions. I know I certainly don't pay much attention to people 80 feet away from me. It's certainly greater than the range someone can threaten you from someone with a knife - I believe the "21 foot rule" refers to the distance someone can cover in the time it takes to draw and fire a handgun. And even at a few meters' range, a gun is still far more deadly than a knife.
>>5710764 Not only did they try to cover up a child prostitution ring, they're also trying to ban people from being publicly angry about it because racists are also angry http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/exclusive-police-and-council-move-to-ban-rotherham-abuse-protests-1-7275252
>>5710827 No, but I think giving everyone the ability to easily kill isn't really a solution. For one, having a gun to defend yourself doesn't do you any good if the attacker draws first (since that means he can shoot you if you try anything), so you'd have to be constantly watching in all directions. Additionally, if the average person is armed, it's likely that anyone planning on attacking someone would also arm themselves, so there's no real relative advantage to having a gun, just makes it likely that people will die before help can arrive. And if we're treating gun ownership as a neccessary condition to live safely in a society, it basically means underage people won't be able to go anywhere safely on their own unless you decide you're okay with kids owning guns. The pro-gun crowd often uses the "what if a rapist is 50 feet from your daughter and the police are ten minutes away", but what if the daughter is under 18? Are we just supposed to accept leaving teenage girls with no defense against rapists? Better would be to solve the rape problems in other ways, better police forces, harsher punishments for rape, so that being armed is no longer neccessary to be safe. And really, it shouldn't be a necessity, not in any society that purports to be civilized. What's the point of paying taxes to fund our military fighting wars overseas if I can't walk down the street without by life being threatened. Also, some disabled people are disabled to the point where they cannot use a gun without assistance. They'd be in the same category as teenagers in that regard - that they couldn't go anywhere unaccompanied without having to fear for their life. Such people, if they lived in a society where every individual must be armed for their own safety, would be denied much of the independence they have in a properly safe society.
>>5710890 They're banning the protests because the PROTESTS are highly disruptive to the surrounding area. What they're protesting about is irrelevant (the article notes they're banning both protests and counter-protests, so it's not like they're taking sides), what matters is the behavior of the protesters.
>For one, having a gun to defend yourself doesn't do you any good if the attacker draws first (since that means he can shoot you if you try anything), so you'd have to be constantly watching in all directions.
that's how life is without guns too, dumbass- that's why you have to be aware of your surroundings; it doesn't take a gun for someone to come up from behind and conk you on the head, leaving you defenseless
>The pro-gun crowd often uses the "what if a rapist is 50 feet from your daughter and the police are ten minutes away", but what if the daughter is under 18? Are we just supposed to accept leaving teenage girls with no defense against rapists? Do you really think I wasn't taught how to use a gun and where it was located in the house? My father specifically taught me it was to defend myself if someone dangerous is trying to come into the house.
This is how I can tell you never grew up with guns, and see them like some unholy abomination.
And holy shit, learn how to format your paragraphs instead of having a wall of text.
>>5710940 So nobody is allowed to protest the cover up of this insanely terrible event because some asshole skinheads we're acting out and using it to push their hateful agenda? If it helps stop racism I guess it's ok to stay silent on this
>>5710960 >that's how life is without guns too, dumbass- that's why you have to be aware of your surroundings; it doesn't take a gun for someone to come up from behind and conk you on the head, leaving you defenseless It's a lot easier to do with a gun though. And being shot is much more likely to kill me than being knocked out is. People aren't anti-gun because they think they would rather be unarmed when faced with an armed criminal, they're anti-gun because they'd like to do whatever is possible to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.
>Do you really think I wasn't taught how to use a gun and where it was located in the house? My father specifically taught me it was to defend myself if someone dangerous is trying to come into the house. Okay, so a 16 year old girl is walking home from school and approached by a rapist. What's she supposed to do?
>>5710969 At this point, the cover up is known, the protests are doing nothing but expressing anger, nothing useful can come of it. And as I specifically pointed out, the protests aren't being banned because the protesters are racist (if that was the case, counter-protests would be allowed) but because the protesters are disruptive to the community.
>>5711066 Then why have any laws at all? Since, by definition, anyone who violates the law is a criminal, and according to you, criminals don't follow the law, it follows that laws have absolutely zero effect on criminal behavior and are just a waste of time.
Criminals may not choose, out of their own free will to follow the law, but that's why we have law enforcement. One is less likely to engage in a behavior if they know it is likely to result in consequences they do not desire.
>>5711041 >People aren't anti-gun because they think they would rather be unarmed when faced with an armed criminal, they're anti-gun because they'd like to do whatever is possible to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.
oh boy, another retard that believes Obama when he says how easy it is to get guns. You gonna tell me about the evil "assault weapons" too?
>Okay, so a 16 year old girl is walking home from school and approached by a rapist.
ok, that right there proves how stupid you are- most rapes are initiated by someone the person knows- the best defense against rape is to watch your drink at a party, not be paranoid of every old man you see while walking down the street.
>>5711108 >oh boy, another retard that believes Obama when he says how easy it is to get guns. You gonna tell me about the evil "assault weapons" too? "Assault weapons" as I understand it is a meaningless category that doesn't really have anything to do with a weapon's function or lethality. Though I do find it hard to believe a fully automatic gun or one with more than 15 rounds is really necessary for self defense.
>ok, that right there proves how stupid you are- most rapes are initiated by someone the person knows- the best defense against rape is to watch your drink at a party, not be paranoid of every old man you see while walking down the street. Then that refutes the "anyone who supports gun control is pro-rape" argument just as much as it refutes my own argument.
>>5711116 >hmmm, like having a gun pulled on you while trying to mug a person? Yes, that's an example, but again, relying on that as our primary form of deterrent leaves teenagers and the severely disabled at unneccessary risk. The individual citizen should not be concerned with personally enforcing the law, the whole point of living in a civilized society is to be able to go about your day without having to worry about that.
>>5711245 >I'm just pro-self defense, and the easiest way to do that is to get a gun I'm not opposed to self-defense. What I am opposed to is people using the retarded "criminals don't follow laws" to argue that any form of gun control will only hurt legal gun owners while not affecting criminals (rather than explaining what the specific loopholes in a given law are and how they can be eliminated) and the idea that people in a civilized society should be expected to worry about defending themselves while going about ordinary everyday activities.
>and guess what faggot, magazine limits have nothing to do with stopping crime, because most shootings happen with... you guessed it, less than 15 rounds Yeah, and I don't think magazine limits are really an effective way to prevent gun crime. My point is just that the self-defense argument shouldn't be used to defend high capacity magazines.
>>5711253 I'm saying that the ability of legal gun owners to shoot criminals should not be the primary deterrent against crime. The existence of an armed populace should not be used as an excuse for an inadequate police force.
>>5711382 The whole point is that a civilized society requires a GOOD police force. The people who complain about police being racist don't think that all police are inevitably racist, rather they think there should be reforms to prevent things like police brutality and needless killings. Thinking something needs to be reformed isn't the same as saying it's inherently evil.
>tell me what loopholes these are, and please don't just say "gunshow loophole" I'm asking the anti-gun control crowd to explain what the loopholes are, what is specifically flawed about the law in question, rather than just going "hurr durr criminals don't follow laws so gun control laws won't do anything."
>>5711697 >most criminals don't have a gun in the first place Welcome to America I guess? If the hypothetical criminal doesn't have or need a gun then why the fuck do I need one?
>get up real close and knock the gun away Why are they letting me waddle up close in the first place? I mean sure if you're at "grab the gun" range you have some options but is any realistic option better than trying to survive?
>>5711748 >Welcome to America I guess? exactly fuckface, your average petty thief isn't going to be carrying a gun, so yes, welcome to some of the safest places on earth as long as you avoid cities infested with black and mexican gang members
>why the fuck do I need one? gee, maybe some people go hunting, or shooting for fun not to mention the whole purpose of the 2nd amendment is to have armed citizens to resist tyrannical governments (don't worry, I'll wait for the obligatory "you and your rifle won't stop the government" comment)
>>5711895 >(don't worry, I'll wait for the obligatory "you and your rifle won't stop the government" comment) Do you actually have a refutation of that? I mean sure, there have been cases of people effectively resisting an oppressive government with nothing more than rifles, but honestly, if that's the justification in the second amendment, it should allow heavier weapons to be owned by militias independent of the government. Otherwise it's basically being inconsistent.
>>5712729 I'd rather be unarmed if it increased the chances of my attacker being unarmed. At least that way there would be a better chance of surviving long enough for help to arrive.
>>5713078 >it should allow heavier weapons to be owned by militias independent of the government. Otherwise it's basically being inconsistent.
winner winner, chicken dinner This is what was allowed in the time of the founding fathers, yet liberals are trying to change the meaning of the second amendment to mean it's for hunting or self-defense.
You should be able to own artillery and the like if you can afford it.
>Do you actually have a refutation of that? pic related
>>5713859 >>5713853 And if you're looking for a more explicit/obvious argument: the downsides of allowing random fucks to own ordinance and nukes and shit is way worse than restricting "good citizens" from having them.
Good citizens would have absolutely no reason to ever use heavy weapons unless we lived in some retarded ancap libertopia.
>>5713853 In my experience it's usually the anti-gun liberals who support the militia argument, using it to say that the 2nd amendment does not protect PRIVATE gun ownership outside of a militia, while it's the pro-gun crowd that uses the self-defense argument.
can "every dumb fuck" afford a nuke? no does "the right to be armed" mean the government is going to GIVE YOU weapons? no just because you have the right to own something doesn't mean the government is going to give it to you- but that's probably what you want, given that you're a pussy ass socialist that wants the government to give you everything without working for it.
>>5713875 look up the definition of "unorganized militia", every US citizen falls under it because of a later amendment. I'll give you a hint, it was also used by the SCOTUS to extend gay marriage to all states.
>>5713875 >Good citizens would have absolutely no reason to ever use heavy weapons >Good governments would have absolutely no reason to ever use nukes well gee, I guess we're evil for owning nukes
>>5713878 So, if a citizen had the wealth to buy their own nuclear weapons, should that be legal?
>>5713897 >well gee, I guess we're evil for owning nukes Yeah, I'd say we are. I think we'd all be better off without ANY nukes; we all know better than to actually use them (because of MAD), however all it takes is one terrorist group or misunderstood communication to start WWIII. The reason we haven't disarmed is that the first country to do would no longer have a deterrant and would allow the countries that have NOT yet disarmed to threaten them. The only way we can get rid of nuclear weapons is if we do it all at once.
>>5713922 I'm not even sure what you're talking about here. We have agencies to keep track of weapons-related laws and crimes, but if any person should be able to own a nuke or artillery if they can afford it, so what? What would that agency be able to accomplish if it isn't illegal to own the weapons? >in b4 moving goalposts
>>5713944 >>5713942 it should be legal to own nukes but I would say any destructive device that can't be classified as "small arms" should have more thorough background checks and safety classes, as well as a registry, similar to how fully automatic weapons were treated before manufacturing was stopped for those.
>>5713976 citizens should be free to own whatever conventional weapons their military uses. You'll have to forgive me for thinking that nukes, Hellfire missiles, etc require a bit more safety checks than typical rifles and machine guns
>>5711245 >I'm just pro-self defense, and the easiest way to do that is to get a gun LOL delusional. many people who have a weapon get it used on themselves because they don't know how to use it, or don't have the guts to use it. To use a gun properly, you must practice with it often. get a can of mace or bear spray. At least it won't kill you if the perp gets it from you.
>>5714010 I was being sarcastic. The same assumptions that lead to believing the average joe should be allowed to own nukes also lead to believing they should not have any background checks or requirements.
After all, the only thing imposing regulations on the government's ownership or use of weapons is the government itself. So why shouldn't the average citizen be the only thing to impose such regulations on themself as well?
Being a deontologist might feel nice and proper and orderly but you need to compare your conclusions with reality.
>>5714185 oh, I dunno... maybe the way they include suicides to inflate statistics? or how they ignore how often guns are used to defend vs murder... or how "assault weapons" are responsible for the majority of gun crime
>>5714272 not cost-effective when you can own a 12.7mm one that performs just as well
this is also what I'm talking about, where cost also acts as a barrier to entry- every retard isn't going to be running around with artillery because they can't afford it. Not to mention everyone I know who owns a .50 caliber Barett (that's 12.7mm by the way) is squeaky-clean in terms of criminal backgrounds
turns out having a lot of money to buy weapons means you're usually not going to use them to commit crime
Gun ownership is on the rise in the US; this past Black Friday was record-breaking in terms of firearms sales. Not to mention more and more lgbt people are waking up and realizing how it's better to be armed. But sure, continue your crusade to ban the evil guns :^)
>>5714283 I don't see how that is a refutation. Pointing out that liberals don't have a unanimous view on legalizing marijuana does not demonstrate how "criminals don't follow laws" is a meaningful argument.
>>5714320 >gun ownership is on the rise, therefore gun ownership is a good thing Islam is also on the rise. Does that mean Islam is a good thing?
>>5714466 yeah, just imagine the difference in the Paris attacks if French people were carrying guns
see, Muslims are much more likely to kill you for being not being a muslim, where gun owners will just laugh at you with your impotent liberal rage (which seems to be the only weapon you have besides thought police and hating free speech)
>>5714479 In both cases, something being on the rise does not prove that it's good, and pointing out that gun ownership is on the rise should not be used to argue that it's a good thing.
>>5714492 >yeah, just imagine the difference in the Paris attacks if French people were carrying guns It's questionable whether it really would have made much of a difference. A gun won't do you any gun if the other guy is already aiming at you and ready to pull the trigger as soon as you try something.
>>5714516 >A gun won't do you any gun if the other guy is already aiming at you and ready to pull the trigger as soon as you try something. yeah, they would be completely aware of their surroundings, there's no chance someone could get the drop on them from 20 meters away
>>5714530 >yeah, they would be completely aware of their surroundings, there's no chance someone could get the drop on them from 20 meters away If you're 20 meters away, it's kind of doubtful you could shoot reliably, depending on the circumstances. And weren't there several attackers? Even if you killed one or two, the rest would still survive to kill you. You'd pretty much just be guaranteeing your own death, and it likely wouldn't even be a heroic sacrifice either - it may just drive the attackers to start killing indiscriminately out of the concern someone else might try doing the same thing. The only time it would really be worthwhile is if you could do it to create a distraction while the others escaped.
Luke Woodham fatally stabbed his mother at home before opening fire at his high school, killing two students and injuring seven others. The attack was stopped when Assistant Principal Joel Myrick retrieved his .45 caliber handgun from his truck and confronted Woodham, detaining him until authorities could arrive.
Myrick’s action stopped Woodham from going across the street to the middle school as he had planned.
New Life Church Dec. 9, 2007
2 parishioners were killed and 3 wounded when a gunman toting a Bushmaster AR-15 opened fire at New Hope Church. Hearing the rifle fire, Jeanne Assam grabbed her personal concealed carry firearm and confronted the gunman from a distance of 20 yards.
Here are just two examples of someone stopping a shooter with just pistols... but don't take my word for it, read about it yourself!
>>5714616 That would still require the multiple people fighting back to be coordinated and basically take out all the attackers at once. That means they would have to communicate. Finding other people with guns, and communicating with them without getting caught, doesn't sound like something that would be practical to pull off.
>>5714644 No, what I would be in favor of is: 1) Require anyone entering the country by any means to pass reasonable background checks. 2) Pass and enforce gun laws that allow legal gun ownership for those who pass a reasonable background check, while taking strong action to penalize the buying and selling of guns on the black market. 3) Make an effort to avoid offending those of different cultures, but hold them to the same legal and ethical standards as anyone else
>>5714674 >Pass and enforce gun laws that allow legal gun ownership for those who pass a reasonable background check, while taking strong action to penalize the buying and selling of guns on the black market. Those laws already exist in the US, retard. have you ever been inside a gun store?
>3) Make an effort to avoid offending those of different cultures, but hold them to the same legal and ethical standards as anyone else Fuck free speech, am I right? Or at least when it applies to white people and christians...
I mean no Christians were killing people over the "Piss Jesus" fiasco, but you show Mohammed in a cartoon and suddenly you're getting people shot down in the street
>>5714697 >Fuck free speech, am I right? Or at least when it applies to white people and christians... I said "make an effort", not "INSTANT DEATH TO ANYONE WHO MISSPEAKS". Part of living in civilized society is that we try to get along with our neighbors. If we can't be bothered to make the effort, why should they?
"A violent felon can buy the exact same weapon over the Internet with no background check, no questions asked."
Violent felons aren't allowed to buy guns, period. when you buy a gun online, it's shipped to a FFL (federal firearms license) dealer to be held. Once it arrives, you go in to pick it up, and guess what? You still have to complete a background check.
>>5714715 >If we can't be bothered to make the effort, why should they? oh please, look at how Muslims are treated in majority Christian countries compared to how Christians are treated in majority Muslim countries.
Saudi Arabia will NEVER allow Christian refugees to flood their country and commit crimes the way muslim refugees have been doing, and then try to justify it with some bulshit excuse
>Part of living in civilized society is that we try to get along with our neighbors. Then how about you shut the fuck up and stop trying to berate me for owning guns when I've never shot a person?
>>5714740 >Then how about you shut the fuck up and stop trying to berate me for owning guns when I've never shot a person? I'm merely arguing that it's doubtful that the people being armed would make a major difference in the Paris attacks. There's no need to take disagreement as a personal attack.
>>5714772 >unfortunately we'll never know because you think it's "enlightened" to be defenseless, so you probably think it's a good thing those people died in the name of Allah https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman
>Paris attacks Not to throw oil onto the fire but it's safe to assume that if guns were available to the victims then that means guns were available to the killers too. And in that case there would have been much more killers.
>>5714845 The clip/magazine confusion is very common, not limited to the anti-gun crowd. And we're not talking about Obama saying something about the technical details of guns, we're talking about him knowing what his own laws are. It seems FAR more likely that he was talking about illegal online sales.
>>5714860 That implies the solution is to devote more resources to stopping black market gun purchases.
>>5714910 1. in this hypothetical scenario they're simply using guns to defend themselves from Muslim extremists, not to fight the government (so you already need some lessons in reading comprehension)
2. what's wrong with the threat of a civil war? The government should listen to the needs of the people, and if they don't the people are justified in taking up arms against the government.
>>5714906 It's pretty obvious they meant 30-round magazines, which are pretty common in assault rifles.
>>5714915 You do realize that black market gun sales aren't protected by the 2nd amendment, right? Black market gun sales are ILLEGAL, as in against the law, you do know that, right? The problem is they're not being adequately enforced, so it's still profitable for people to sell guns illegally on the black market.
>>5714931 >in this hypothetical scenario they're simply using guns to defend themselves from Muslim extremists, not to fight the government There's quite a lot of extremists, and quite a lot of radicalised people who are essentially ticking time bombs. If a battle would happen between the french and muslim extremists these radicals would join the extremists. The government has to step in to stop the bloodshed, which the extremists will use as evidence of muslims being oppressed (along with radical right wing extremist attacks on innocent muslims) to draw even more radicalised people to their cause.
Since the extremists and the radicals are in most cases legal french citizens too, it's a war between the government and (part of) her people.
>what's wrong with the threat of a civil war? In a case like this it'd be the chemo curing France, but in usual cases the government is inclined to respond with an iron fist, meaning shit is going to hit the fan. Now if that has to happen then so be it, but I'd rather avoid a civil war.
>>5714594 Sorry, the Paris attackers would've just shot the gun wielder. Their goal was death and carnage until stopped. Now, in that concert hall, likely a dozen or more people would have been armed, and could have fired back. It's hard to get them all. Also if that concert had security like the stadium did, then the shooters would have been turned away and never got in.
my boyfriend and i were mugged and he was beaten breaking his jaw in 7 places and i still have flashbacks. he had to have his jaw wired shut for 6 months and he never looked the same afterwards and i still hate asians (this was in honolulu and we're white) because of it.
it happened about 2am and the streets were full of people and we were standing in front of a gay bar but nobody did anything. the police came and told us they couldn't do anything even though 20 or 30 people saw the whole thing. i took him to the emergency and they said that because of his insurance we had to drive 10 miles to kaiser in aiea and so we did and by the time he got there he had bled all over the inside of the car and was choking on blood clots and they put him under observation for two hours while he cried and moaned and threw up blood into a trash can and i had to yell at the doctors and threaten to start breaking shit if they didn't do something and give him pain medication, (which he had been asking for the whole time) before they did anything and then they kicked me out of the hospital and i had a nervous breakdown the next day in front of the neighbors - we were living there at the time - thank god they helped him get home from the hospital after his surgery because i was literally crazy with grief for about a week after that just crying all day and screaming at people for no reason - i wasn't working at the time.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at [email protected] with the post's information.