Meh. It’s a popularity contest.
I was talking about legislation, which I mentioned. This was in my prior post. I said if you are talking about attitude then you’re right. You seem unable to accept that compromise.
I also mentioned that people calling Obama a Muslim does not have the force of law. If you are not reading my posts, I’ll stop replying.
You are simply incorrect factually on the subject of legislation, and you are ignoring the fact that people were tried under the now-defunct (finally) Blasphemy Laws, you are ignoring my twice prior mentioned French ban on religious clothing, the bans on films and speech, good grief if you can’t be arsed to do more than Google, go to Wikipedia or something. Unless you are arguing attitude versus legislation, the onus is on you to provide the cites that the actual legislation in the US is more restrictive overall than that in your list of countries (above) with respect to religion, press, and speech.
I mean, denial of the facts is one of the other things which scares the pro-gun side on here. Reasonable people can agree that there’s a difference between attitude and legislation in this debate, but instead of just admitting that you were talking about something else, you’re doubling down and trying to claim you’re right on both counts. And you have not provided a single citation when challenged on the legislation front.
The onus is on you. You made the initial claims.
Your education is severely lacking.
Sand Creek, Pound Ridge, Gnadenhutten, Great Swamp, Fox Indian, Fort Neoheroka, Camp Grant, Wounded Knee, the Trail of Tears…these and countless other such events were all “bound to happen”?
Fuck me sideways, tell me I’m being whooshed. Tell me you aren’t actually completely ignorant of the massacres, the displacement of entire tribes from their lands via death march, the attempts to wipe out the entire ethnic group through assimilation policies. Please tell me this.
Yours is biased. The United States has not been legally admonished by the international community for genocidal acts against its indigenous population. Some acts are considered atrocities, yes, but only a few argue there was any real organized attempts at genocide.
There’s a difference between a single atrocity and the planned deliberate acts which constitute genocide.
Comparing gun control to regulating births might be a first for you. I find such high regard for an inanimate object…disturbing.
The low regard you have for other lives shows when you describe the deliberate taking of a life as “criminally stupid”. Stealing a police car is criminally stupid. Senselessly ending a human life for no good reason is tragic. But no, the system works because killers are “presumed to have moral and legal responsibility”, just like petty thieves. Gun murders could jump a thousand percent and still all would be well as long as killers have to answer to the law, right?
Also, notice how one side of your mouth claims the legal system is the “solution” to gun violence, and the other side of your mouth continually tells us that government is a potential enemy that you must guard against, and that the police are quasi-military Keystone Kops. Which is it, Mr. Inconsistent?
Are you conceding that restricting guns would have some drawbacks? If so I’d like to hear it.
Guns don’t interest me. I click this thread just to test my hypothesis that those stupid about guns are stupid in general. Sure enough.
This is DrDolt defending his claim that Europeans have been killing millions for thousands of years, while Americans sprang from the soil as sinless virgins in 1776.
Elvis, Gary et al beat me to it. But it was still amusing to see DrDeth double-down on his stupidity, by writing “single atrocity” in response to a long list of atrocities.
I didn’t think my opinion of gun nuts could fall any further. DrDolt proved me wrong.
Nice try, but:
-
We were talking about responsibility for human life. The grave responsibility of owning or using a gun you indicated was beyond the capacity of persons you described as “fucktards”. Let me put it this way, if they’re that g*****m dangerous to themselves and others, do you think they should be allowed to raise children?
-
Again, we were talking about the “fucktards” who you indicated could not be trusted with guns because of their irresponsible incompetency. So I presumed we were talking about accidents and thoughtless use, not malevolent acts. I’ll stand by “criminally stupid” to describe that.
-
What other system are you proposing? Competency tests for everyone, with the people who can’t pass them being considered permanent minors? Preventive detention for those who will “probably” re-offend? If killers aren’t presumed to have moral and legal responsibility, why do we bother with trials?
-
I support the right of potential victims to be armed for their defense precisely because prosecution after the fact can only do so much. And yes government misconduct must be guarded against, because unfortunately tyranny and despotism are things that government IS very good at.
Other than the cites I’ve already provided that rate the US on those aspects, you mean?
You know - freedom of press ranking: https://index.rsf.org/#!/
Freedom of religion ranking: http://theweeklynumber.com/1/post/2015/04/brazil-leads-the-world-in-religious-freedom-finds-pew-study.html
Still looking for one that does freedom of speech, but then again you’ve not provided any cites at all so far, so reckon I’m not doing too bad.
Septicemia makes his usual fact based argument.
You mean like the list of planned deliberate acts I’ve given you there? Out of interest how many atrocities do you need before you’ll acknowledge a trend?
But they don’t rate comparatively based solely on legislation. Look, I feel this is not productive here. I looked at the cites. They don’t rate purely on the case law and legislative framework. And I granted your point provided you were talking about social attitude. So no, those cited do not address my point. This is very strange that we are not communicating here. I apologize if I am not being clear. 
My apologies too. Perhaps we’re talking at cross purposes, or I’m being obtuse. The latter is more likely.
I understand and appreciate your position. I don’t think we really have a disagreement. Or I’m the one being obtuse. 
It’s not like the British didn’t consider it.
(bolding mine)
While there is no definitive evidence that the Indians were given blankets riddled with smallpox, there was indeed a smallpox outbreak amongst the local Indians shortly thereafter.
But I guess, like school shootings, it was just “bound to happen”.
Man shoots himself to death while working on his car:
Maybe he should have defended himself with the car in his waistband.
Fucking bloody hell. Thanks for the link.