That’s not what gun control is usually about. Most gun control people want to BAN guns. Not simply have more layers of regulative licensing and oversight regarding their purchase, storage and use.
It’s a red herring. That is why I made the car analogy. No one would seriously consider banning cars even though roughly the same number of people in the US die each year from cars as they do from guns.
Well you say that, until someone really has jumper cables connected to a car battery on one end and your balls on the other.
Ever hear the saying “there are no atheists in foxholes?” What do you think that means with regard to pain? Someone who never experienced anything even remotely like “the worst torture in existence” want to larp about how strong and moral he is, above all that stuff? What a joke, let alone a serious insult to the countless humans who have actually been tortured and killed in terrible ways.
I’ve been to the deepest pit of hell possible.
Not only that. I’ve been to thousands of hell realms in my 48 years. It even stings more that your friends sent you there.
There’s no bragging rights though.
Nobody should have to go to hell.
I mean…. I suppose we have earthly hell realms, like a demon possessing me to chop my own dick with my own hands.
Hell gets WAY worse than that!!!
Larp larp larp larp
Some more larp and nonsense
Imagination combined with more larping
AI. You’ve never been to a hell realm.
What humans experience is not hell.
We now return to your regularly scheduled blocked status.
Oh. Those are just psychological hells.
You still think like a human.
Ostracization.
When spirit is sent to hell. It’s not human understanding.
If you’ve never eaten a kiwi. You have no clue what it tastes like.
And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why we need gun control.
We have car control: You need a licence, your car must be roadworthy, we have police controlling traffic and picking up people speeding or acting dangerously.
You can kill anyone with anything, but a gun raises the probability of intent, which is why guns should be carried openly, and you need a reason to hide them on your person.
But you know this and are simply being obtuse.
most gun control arguments are made by pussies. Most people are pussies.
I will give a good gun control argument that for once isn’t wussified pussified drivel.
In my town you are going down the road and people talk shit. And if you wanna throw down, everybody has guns in America. So you second-guess yourself if you wanna throw down and then if you throw down and then they pull a gun and they say “oh its self defense” “oh its self defense” like a bunch of pussies.
In europe you can throw down because nobody has guns. No pansies to gun you down in “self defense” after you throw down.
I considered moving to europe but everyone there is a bunch of pussies. But it looks nice and is more bike friendly than america. I heard in america everyone is paranoid of everybody and the average person is emotionally unavaliable. I dont blame guns for that i think its somehow part of american culture. Dont have an exact scientific explanation why yet, but it could be that too many stroads and cities look like shit.
So, all the people who have suffered violence through weapons, were moved by mass shootings, or are nervously aware that the police are continually hyped up because someone with a gun could take their lives at any minute, are all “pussies” according to you.
Can’t you imagine that many people in Europe or Canada get out of bed with no fear that someone might gun them down that day, that they can send their kids to school, go shopping, and live their lives with a high probabilty that they won’t even see a gun, except in an American movie?
I apologize if I’ve offended you. However… what I said was “most gun control arguments are made by pussies” and that “most people are pussies”.
I posit that, most gun control proponents have never been victims of gun violence and are just paranoid pussies. I wasn’t specifically mentioning or referring to the small percentage of gun control advocates who have actually been victims.
A non-pansy would throw down regardless the threat of guns. …just saying. I mean, if you got reason to throw down, you’re gonna throw down, at least verbally, or with how you live your life. I don’t even care if there’re nukes involved.
If your argument makes any sense, then it makes sense that the nukes are controlled by the most pansy of the pansies. Those who fear spiders. That’s ultimately what causes mutually assured destruction in the end.
Spider robowaifus with Halo rings.
But the fact that these people represent other people who have every reason to fear that at some time, an idiot with a gun could cross their paths, or threaten their children, doesn’t enter your mind.
If you don’t like it move to Europe or Canada. Guns are part of American culture, even if there are drawbacks. You can weaponize empathy all you want and continue your unintended? feminization agenda to create a European brave new world. I’m listing practical unfeminized opinions in favor of gun-control and a new approach. (My argument is purely a logical standpoint, I do not actually want gun-control in America since I want to preserve the culture.) I merely provide pure logical reasons why some cultures might benefit from not having guns, without resorting to far-left tactics weaponizing empathy
Its all a matter of degrees, my dear. Someone might want to throw down if they are in a mood too, otherwise doesn’t go out of their way to throw down. Someone might ride BMX, but not want to go all out Evel Knievel on the Grand Canyon… If a Grizzly bear runs away from a gunfire, does that make them “pansies”? I’m merely talking about a society where nobody throws down at all. Not that everyone should be stupid brave at all times. 50% of Americans own guns, that’s terrible odds and just foolish to approach them
Guess what … No, forget it. I can’t fight stupidity, I can just state the facts:
European states began imposing gun restrictions and licensing laws primarily in the early 20th century, with significant developments after World War I. For example, Germany introduced strict firearm regulations following the 1919 Treaty of Versailles, which mandated disarmament and imposed licensing schemes by 1928 to control gun ownership and use26. These laws required gun owners to be trustworthy and demonstrate a need for firearms, such as hunting or sport.
In contrast to the United States, where gun rights are constitutionally protected and federal gun control laws began with the National Firearms Act of 1934 targeting specific weapons, European countries generally adopted more comprehensive restrictions earlier, often linked to state efforts to monopolize armed force and prevent unrest56.
Britain started regulating firearms in the early 20th century, with more stringent laws following events like the 1987 mass shooting and the 1996 Dunblane massacre, which led to near-total handgun bans49.
Overall, the key difference is that European states, starting mainly in the early 1900s and especially after WWI, implemented licensing and disarmament laws that limited private gun ownership and carrying rights, whereas America maintained a constitutional right to bear arms with more gradual and limited federal regulation.
European measures to restrict guns and impose licensing laws have generally been associated with relatively low rates of gun-related crimes compared to global averages. Studies show that Western European countries, with stricter firearm regulations, experience firearm homicide rates around 0.3 per 100,000 population, significantly lower than the global average of 3.1 per 100,00028. Research indicates that more restrictive firearm control policies correlate with reductions in firearm homicides; for instance, a one-point increase on a firearm control index corresponded to a decrease of 0.2 homicides per 100,000 people1.
However, the relationship between gun laws and gun crime is complex. Some European countries with relatively easier firearm acquisition, like Poland or the UK, still report low gun crime rates, suggesting that factors beyond legislation-such as cultural attitudes, law enforcement priorities, and illegal firearm trafficking-play significant roles46. Sweden is a notable exception, having experienced a sharp rise in gun violence over recent decades despite strict laws, attributed to factors like gang activity, lax sentencing, and illegal arms trafficking5.
In summary, European gun control measures have contributed to low firearm homicide rates overall, but the effectiveness of these laws are influenced by enforcement, cultural context, and illegal firearms circulation.
Based on established knowledge, Canada has a system of firearm regulation that includes licensing requirements, background checks, and registration for certain types of firearms. Canadian gun laws are generally stricter than those in the United States but less restrictive than many European countries.
Canada’s firearm homicide rate is relatively low compared to the US but higher than most Western European countries. The country has seen efforts to tighten gun control, such as banning certain assault-style rifles and enhancing background checks.
Not a word of what you said contradicts me, moron.
If you want to go to your no-gun pansy zones where it safe then move to Europe or Canada like I just said.
*Except for Sweden. " Sweden is a notable exception, having experienced a sharp rise in gun violence over recent decades despite strict laws, attributed to factors like gang activity, lax sentencing, and illegal arms trafficking5" which was obviously due to woke DEIs demanding immigration. " As it stands, around 2.1 million of Sweden’s inhabitants, or 20% of the population, were born abroad, with Syria, Iraq, Iran, Somalia and Afghanistan the most common non-EU countries of birth."
It seems in 2024 they reversed their immigration policy and recognized that it is woke DEI propoganda, but the damage was already done.