Yes it's impossible to imagine that someone with millions of dollars and supreme power could get a few Doctors on board to start abusing that law. Is critical thinking even a thing these days? Try and reasonably look at counter arguments to your own point before you click post
Today's mass shooting in the US
- Thread starter Rroff
- Start date
Yes it's impossible to imagine that someone with millions of dollars and supreme power could get a few Doctors on board to start abusing that law. Is critical thinking even a thing these days? Try and reasonably look at counter arguments to your own point before you click post
Because if there's one thing immune from politics it's the US medical and pharma system.
If you think it's easy getting guns, it's even easier getting legal drugs. Opiods, benzos, amphetamine, marijuana, testosterone, SSRIs.
They give 12 year olds literal meth pills, desoxyn.
10 minute chat with a doctor or even an NP and you have a mental health diagnosis and prescription.
If you think it's easy getting guns, it's even easier getting legal drugs. Opiods, benzos, amphetamine, marijuana, testosterone, SSRIs.
They give 12 year olds literal meth pills, desoxyn.
10 minute chat with a doctor or even an NP and you have a mental health diagnosis and prescription.
Caporegime
You call they reasonable argument? I see tin foil hat non sense.
Lay off those drugs, if that’s true they would have shove a doctor in Trump’s face long ago and use that Art 25!
If that’s a viable tactic, how come there are any opposing party at all in government? Why aren’t them all locked up in mental hospitals? Huh?
Explain that!
Critical thinking? More like crazy talk.
I'm telling you why Americans won't allow it, I'm not saying I think it will realistically happen. Jesus Christ. The 2nd amendment is there to protect the citizens against a tyrannical government, do you get that? If you can bypass it by getting a Doctor to sign a note that allows you to remove someone's firearms then the 2nd amendment doesn't work as a safeguard like it's supposed to. You cannot fundamentally undermine a principle safeguard of the American constitution. You keep asking me if I'm on drugs yet I'm having to explain absolute basic common sense things that you would know if you spent anytime reading counter arguments to these repetitive points.
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2012
- Posts
- 8,333
yes because effective firearm legislation has always led to tyrannical dictatorships in every country that's tried it. always. without fail 
Personally I think everyone should be issued an automatic assault rifle when they turn 18 and their bodyweight in ammo. And then we should just close off the USA with a 25ft wall and come back in a hundred years time and see what's happened.
Caporegime
I am telling you that you need to stop taking drugs because you make no sense.
You just changed the goal post from stopping criminals and crazies access to guns to over throwing government!
Why don’t you admit it, you rather see your children dead than to see crazy people not have guns.
Uh huh, ok. Arizona, the state next door requires no permit, no registration, no license and no background checks with no restrictions past the federal level on what you can purchase.
But I have no idea what I'm talking about.
Edit: Oh and by the way, of the top 20 US states for deaths involving guns 19 don't have any restrictions on guns and one does on hand guns only, California is not one of these states.
Last edited:
Associate
Why are you trying to reason with fanatics?!?!?
No wonder you have 58,000 posts when the level of content is what you'd expect from the average Facebook comment on Ladbible
Who is going to pay for this wall?
Caporegime
So you have given up debating to talk about my post count.
I see what you are doing, when you can’t debate, change the subject.
Back on topic about keeping guns from mentally unstable people and criminals and not your average Americans shall we?
Caporegime
Stopping criminals and crazies access to guns doesn't stop the criminals and crazies.
The overthrowing government point is valid IMO.
I don't believe that proves that things can become "safer" if I may say so.
Your premise is assuming that there are people out there who want to commit massacres right now, but they are only halted because of the restrictions around weapons.
It certainly is a good thing if such people are being hindered, by any means possible, from acquiring assault weapons, but then isn't it just a matter of time before said person finds a weapon he's happy with?
I mean your premise must adhere to very strict set of requirements here, it requires that the killer wants a specific weapon and will not do any harm until he gets hold of that particular weapon and thus you feel safe, but you are still among that person, he just doesn't have a gun. We can react to this by relinquishing physical items which attackers may want, we could even ban every single thing we could possibly ban, we will end up relinquishing every single liberty we once held dear, just to end our fears. But such bans will never be able to stop the true cause of theses atrocities. I'm not saying you said we should rely solely on restrictions, but this is why we cannot rely on restrictions alone: we will all be confined to chicken coops before we can end evil with simple bannage.
I think it's too late now and that is where society is headed, a complete police state with zero freedoms and 100% solitary-electronic-work and socialisation, because this sort of constant threat has become ingrained into society, and thus into people's psyches, and that is the only way society will finally feel safe if we continue on our current heading.
Personally, I would not feel safe if I had to believe that the UK doesn't have psycho massacres just because guns are illegal. I believe the UK doesn't have psycho massacres because no psycho in this country has rationalised a train of thought to such an atrocity, yet. And that is a big yet. The way things are going with psychological associations in the media, everyone is being fed way too much propaganda and things like associative thoughts, and such a train of thought has the possibility of falling in place for maybe just a few people out there.
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2012
- Posts
- 8,333
if we all pitch in and donate the proceeds to mexico/canada, don't really need one on the sea.
because i'm bored and trying to procrastinate
Caporegime
Because it’s fun to prod them now and again with reality and facts. Not that it goes anywhere.
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2012
- Posts
- 8,333
of course it is, a maniac with a knife is going to be much easier to stop than a maniac with an ar15 and a bunch of mags. that's not a debate-worthy outcome even by internet standards.
there are mental health problems in the uk- the suicide rates attest to that, but we don't get bi-weekly shootings as a result.
Not just that, it's a lot more difficult to stab someone than to shoot someone from a psychological point of view. You can't stab multiple people from hundreds of feet away and disassociate yourself from the consequences of your actions.
You gave up debating because you couldn't actually think of any counter argument so you just ignored my post completely and then asked if I wanted to see dead children, like some pathetic appeal to emotion that you'd expect on mums net or some ****
Caporegime
So your argument is given up before even trying. Our childen’s Lives are not even worth having a go.
That’s what you are saying.
The over throwing government crap is an illusion made up by the NRA, if that’s really true then no country would give up guns in the first place. Besides that is not what people asking so could people stop sprouting that rubbish, you can keep your god damn guns, you can stock pile them and start a revolution and invade the pentagon on your own but us normal people want to see something done to stop crazy getting guns, or take steps to.
Unless you think their lives are not worth it so no bother trying.