Which is the most valuable to protect?
- Thread starter ActionianJacksonian
- Start date
PopAndSonGrows
Well-Known Member
What is "most valuable to protect" is completely subjective per household. We dont have kids, so that doesn't apply to me? Or do you mean like all the children of the world?. .. if so, why would i give a shit about all the Jewelry of the world as one of the other options? Makes no sense.
So, we have no kids. .. we don't possess enough jewelry to "protect" but it's insured anyway. ... my money is "safe" from a modern standpoint. .. and i give zero fucks about any politician's safety but I 100% wish none any harm, even the kooky wacknuts they don't deserve death threats.
So, we have no kids. .. we don't possess enough jewelry to "protect" but it's insured anyway. ... my money is "safe" from a modern standpoint. .. and i give zero fucks about any politician's safety but I 100% wish none any harm, even the kooky wacknuts they don't deserve death threats.
Lucky Luke
Well-Known Member
The Environment.
Once we destroy our habitat we destroy ourselves.
Once we destroy our habitat we destroy ourselves.
Lucky Luke
Well-Known Member
School shooting by country
Jan 2009-May 2018
worldpopulationreview.com
School shootings are considered by many to be an epidemic in the United States, as is gun violence in general. According to data from Everytown Research, the United States averaged just over 87 school shootings each year from 2013 to 2021, resulting in an annual average of 28.4 dead and 59.6 wounded. A 2018 CNN feature used slightly tighter criteria and tallied a comparatively lower 288 school shootings in the United States between 2009 and 2018—however, the country with the second-most school shootings during that period, Mexico, experienced only eight shootings during that same time period.
It's really a no brainer isn't it? If people are using guns to shoot kids then we need to stop these people having access to guns, especially guns that shoot a lot of people. That's done by making having a gun a privilege and not a right. By trying to stop unstable and violent people from obtaining guns. Same kind of idea as a driving licence and a vehicle.
And as Aust proved it can be done very, very quick.
Jan 2009-May 2018
| Country | School Shootings |
|---|---|
| United States | 288 |
| Mexico | 8 |
| South Africa | 6 |
| India | 5 |
| Pakistan | 4 |
| Nigeria | 4 |
| Afghanistan | 3 |
| Brazil | 2 |
| France | 2 |
| Canada | 2 |
| China | 1 |
| Russia | 1 |
| Turkey | 1 |
| Germany | 1 |
| Kenya | 1 |
| Greece | 1 |
| Azerbaijan | 1 |
| Hungary | 1 |
| Estonia | 1 |
| Japan | 0 |
| United Kingdom | 0 |
| Italy | 0 |
| Spain | 0 |
| Argentina | 0 |
| Australia | 0 |
| Netherlands | 0 |
| Switzerland | 0 |
School Shootings by Country 2024
School shootings are considered by many to be an epidemic in the United States, as is gun violence in general. According to data from Everytown Research, the United States averaged just over 87 school shootings each year from 2013 to 2021, resulting in an annual average of 28.4 dead and 59.6 wounded. A 2018 CNN feature used slightly tighter criteria and tallied a comparatively lower 288 school shootings in the United States between 2009 and 2018—however, the country with the second-most school shootings during that period, Mexico, experienced only eight shootings during that same time period.
It's really a no brainer isn't it? If people are using guns to shoot kids then we need to stop these people having access to guns, especially guns that shoot a lot of people. That's done by making having a gun a privilege and not a right. By trying to stop unstable and violent people from obtaining guns. Same kind of idea as a driving licence and a vehicle.
And as Aust proved it can be done very, very quick.
Last edited:
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Wikileaks reports it and Julian Assange is held prisoner for exposing the corruption, lies and murdering of the people who want to be the only ones that have weapons?
...not to mention My Lai massacre.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Democide is the word you might consider. Empire and collateral damage are other words to consider.
When you turn a "right" into a privilege, it necessarily involves government enforcers using guns or threatening the use of guns (offensively, not defensively) against otherwise peaceful people. How would you solve that problem?
Lucky Luke
Well-Known Member
True,The war on Free press is a problem in America at the moment. Let's hope the country has a true democracy where the vast majority not only votes but find it incredibly easy to do so.
Amazing that My Lai is under reported. Nothing to do with Gov controlling the media and the school curriculum of cause..War crimes right there.
Last edited:
Lucky Luke
Well-Known Member
Lots of ifs and buts there as you are well aware.
What are the government enforces using and waving their guns around for? Do they have good old paperwork to fill out if they upholster their weapon?
Do not the police just hang out when there are shootings and wait til its safe for them?
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
My Lai was the one we hear about. Friends from years ago in Cambodia had their parents executed in front of them for the "crime" of being educated. The instability the USA sowed in VietNam / IndoChina helped that to occur.
I think USA imperialism and wars of aggression have alot to do with the indoctrination of government schools and media control.
Without that indoctrination, and media manipulation the soldiers would (should) know that murder is murder and there is no such thing as "collateral damage". It's just murder dressed up in a rationalization.
I'm glad you seem to be against war and senseless murder. That's one reason I don't want governments being the deciding entity on guns, they've been throughout history the most heinous abusers of weapons.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
I am no fan of Police, since gun use or the threat of gun use in an offensive manner is how Police are funded. Without that threat, security would be funded by customers who aren't captives and willingly pay for a service from a host of security providers. That's a peaceful solution.
Fuck the Police.
Lucky Luke
Well-Known Member
I think religions hold that one but yes its very easy for a gov to become the opposite of what it once was.
Lucky Luke
Well-Known Member
id rather police like majority of services to be public owned. Public owned, public funded, public safeguards. Its also usually cheaper than privatisation and employs more people.
Fk the Poo Poo. Tax collectors for The Man.
bam0813
Well-Known Member
Explain how a law prevents anyone at anytime losing their shit? They cant they dont. Try enforcing laws we have. How come after every one its the same thing,”the signs were there but missed or ignored or DAs letting people out time and time again to reoffend. Seems alot of people, citizens or not think its the same everywhere. Try buying one in Massachusetts.
Bagginski
Well-Known Member
Face it, neither of us knows any details about how guns were purchased 100 years ago…and being fixated on how different it was 100 years ago isn’t doing your ‘argument’ any good at all: that was during Prohibition, when we had Al Capone, Lucky Luciano, and Murder, Inc. - that is, the rise of the Mafia & “organized crime”, and killing sprees that are *still* shocking. Getting guns during THAT doesn’t seem to have been much different then now…just, probably NOT thru the mail.
I’ll agree that YOUR take on it (the ‘unavailability’ of firearms) is subjective - you’re still stuck on that 100-years-ago idea. There’s an INSANE level of weaponry in public hands today, with there being significantly more than one gun per gun owner, RIGHT NOW, to start with.
Your notion that shootings are going UP be cause weapons are going DOWN makes no sense: shootings are increasing as the number of weapons ON THE STREET increases. Recent SCROTUS rulings have vastly increased the number of places people can carry concealed without license or permit - people who don’t NEED to*get* guns, because they *HAVE* guns. And then there’s OPEN carry - which, like it or not, does not and *has not* reduced violence ANYWHERE. The recent NRA convention in Houston WOULD NOT ALLOW MEMBERS TO OPEN-CARRY on the convention floor. That’s some stone-cold irony right there.
A different view is that more guns in more hands in more situations results in more shootings, more menacing/brandishing charges, more *bodies* - and more general alarm at the prevalence of weapons & the frequency with which they’re used.
It’s really pretty simple: all gun-owners are *law-abiding* gun-owners until they break the law. People who do NOT go armed rarely shoot people…pretty obvious to me, but then, I’m not pining for the fjords of yesteryear, when organized gang violence was BIG NEWS.
If you have any data supporting your idea that ‘as guns get scarce, there are more shootings’, I’d love to see it. I’m sure a lot of people would love to see it.
Last edited:
Bagginski
Well-Known Member
…so…your plan is to pay every armed person a “don’t kill any kids” retainer, in hopes that they’ll take the money instead of killing kids? That’s gonna blow a huge hole in every budget…and do you have ANYTHING to point at that makes you believe that surrounding ourselves with weapon-carriers would mean anything in terms of crime & deaths by shooting?
What about all the weapon-carriers who *aren’t* on retainer? Shall we rely on “Christian charity”?
Last edited:
ActionianJacksonian
Well-Known Member
Ah, right on. I opted for private school, no fences and whatnot. What's gun amnesty?
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
I don't think "public owned" is the right word to use, it's the word "they" want people to use, but most government entities are not really owned by the public. For instance, if "we" own the military, how come you or I can't say, "stop killing people half way around the world, and until you do, I ain't paying you" ?
When police or any other government "service" provides a service, they don't get real consumer feedback, since the customer is captive and can't escape paying for a "service" at least some of the individuals in the public never asked for or wanted.
That feature, a captive customer base, doesn't provide the market feedback mechanism that a private service provider gets. If consumers have choices and could walk away from a lousy government service provider, like they can with private business which must compete for your business, the service provider is incentivized to improve or go out of business.
In that sense, the public has more choice and the business arrangements are voluntary versus held together by threats of force...with guns. (which is how so called "public services are paid for).
Glad we agree, on fuck the police though! Useless cowardly parasites enforcing laws, many (most) of which have nothing to do with actual justice.
Last edited:
Grandpapy
Well-Known Member
You can look up the labor party and see where they place their values, time off for family, wages that provide comfort and stability.
Or just spend a few years there.
Lucky Luke
Well-Known Member
I was a Private school boy.
Private or public should have no fencers not sure what fees should have to do with fencers and metal detectors and armed guards.
We have a perminate gun amnesty in my state. Other states have gun amnesty's a couple times a year. Its for people who come across a gun or have a gun that they no longer want. It may be registered or it may not be. The handing in person may have a gun licence or not. They can contact their local police or fire arms dealer and take it in no questions asked.
Lucky Luke
Well-Known Member
People can still lose their shit- but if said person has a violent history then they are not allowed a weapon nor a licence. A real life example: A person i know lost his shit and got violent and the police were involved. The very first thing the police did was confiscate his weapons and suspended his gun license.
People get fined for driving over the speed limit. We don't just remove speed limits because we catch people speeding. We punish them and may even remove their licence and vehicle.
Last edited: