Rank #764 on ContentLevel 313 Comments: Wizard
OnlineSend mail to mcmanybucks Block mcmanybucks Invite mcmanybucks to be your friend
|Last status update:|| |
|Date Signed Up:||6/13/2011|
|FunnyJunk Career Stats|
|Highest Content Rank:||#235|
|Highest Comment Rank:||#472|
|Content Thumbs:||19255 total, 22028 , 2773|
|Comment Thumbs:||17155 total, 21144 , 3989|
|Content Level Progress:|| 3.2% (32/1000) |
Level 216 Content: Comedic Genius → Level 217 Content: Comedic Genius
|Comment Level Progress:|| 69.19% (692/1000) |
Level 313 Comments: Wizard → Level 314 Comments: Wizard
|Times Content Favorited:||1574 times|
|Total Comments Made:||5842|
|Favorite Tags:||FO4 (2) | Muffin (2) | overwatch (2)|
Fuck this site, im going to reddi-..SHIT
latest user's comments
|#15 - >Beer >Budlight Ahahahah||07/30/2016 on American Pride||+4|
|#64 - <3||07/29/2016 on Petition||+9|
|#41 - I used to like Doctor Who but annoying tumblrettes and "N…||07/28/2016 on I'm THE Doctor||0|
|#67 - Before any of you buy this overprized ****** chair, ******* DO…||07/28/2016 on Old habits die hard||0|
|#118 - You know what would happen to france if they had open carry? … [+] (16 new replies)||07/27/2016 on america||-4|
#208 - anon (07/27/2016) [-]
Sure, in the slight chance of terror attack (on foot without explosives) there is a better chance to kill terrorist quickly. But on the down side, armed crime stats go thru the roof, everybody is scared always and police is eager to shoot first, because everybody has a gun. And of course there comes a shitloads of gun related accidents with kids and every school have to have armed security & metal detectors.
So Muricans can have their toys, i don't want them here.
#210 - tremblingkiwi (07/27/2016) [-]
Look at the other comments, friend, I've admitted I didn't know they were no gun zones and thanked people for informing me. Sorry I'm not entirely up to date on all the small details of every gun case and law in the US, I do try and stay as informed as possible but I'm not American or living in the US, so the news here doesn't include every detail of these cases, such as whether they took place in gun free zones or not.
#211 - elvoz (07/27/2016) [-]
Ah, it's all gucci fam. I didn't see them before.
Despite what international media may lead you to believe, there are many areas in the US that have heavy gun restrictions. San Bernandino, being in California, was subject to some of the strictest laws in the country. Open carry and concealed carry are both pretty much illegal in California, on top of other gun laws that would make self-defense in an active shooter situation nigh impossible. The Orlando shooting, on the other hand, had much more lax gun laws in place. Only the establishment it happened at enforced a no-gun zone and had no armed security.
You may have already been informed of that by now, but I'm just being sure because there are lots of idiots on this site that could've given you the wrong information.
#213 - tremblingkiwi (07/27/2016) [-]
Fair, thank you for the info. As a Brit gun owner, a relatively rare thing in itself, I'm absolutely not arguing against the right to gun ownership, I just don't think that carry weapons would be of a huge amount of use in the types of attacks that we've seen to date. I'm not going to go on a long embarrassing rant about it again, as I've already done that in one of the comments below, but if you want to chat more about it I'd be more than happy, I'm always up for learning new stuff.
#214 - elvoz (07/27/2016) [-]
Well, according to statistics gathered by the FBI and interpreted by Harvard, mass shootings (being 4 or more casualties) had significantly lower casualty rates when a civilian in the area was armed and/or dispatched the shooter before police could arrive. The rate of shooter death remained about the same, though a bit higher, but victim death is drastically reduced when potential victims were armed or fought back, more so when they were armed.
It makes sense, if you think about it. Guy goes into coffee shop, whips out a gun and starts shooting people. If nobody can stop him then everyone in the shop dies long before police arrive to kill the shooter. But instead a few of the patrons have guns and return fire, stopping the rampage short.
I'm not gonna say that it will prevent shootings because that's plain impossible. But reducing the bodycount significantly is nothing to shake a stick at.
#215 - tremblingkiwi (07/27/2016) [-]
Very true, fair play, I did agree that potentially lessening the death toll of these attacks is nothing to dismiss out of hand. I'm just slightly dubious about the original point in the first comment I replied to which seemed to imply that carry permits in France or anywhere else would stop the threat of attacks altogether. ISIS are too fanatical to be worried about potentially losing their attackers sooner than planned, or sending them on suicide missions.
#189 - anon (07/27/2016) [-]
Both gun free zones, but you don't mention garland texas.
#196 - tremblingkiwi (07/27/2016) [-]
>> to 146, Fair enough, I didn't know that they were both gun free, and I must admit I was stating attacks from memory and had temporarily forgotten about the attack in Garland. Please forgive my ignorance in some of these matters, I'm English currently living in Australia, so the news here doesn't always provide full details of attacks such as if they were carried out in gun free zones. Please refer to my below comment if you want to see any of my further arguments.
#209 - anon (07/27/2016) [-]
Does San Bernardido has strict border control also? Or is everybody free to just come in? Regional strict gun-laws does not mean shit, if there is neighboring state/country without gun-control and the borders are "free to pass".
#198 - tremblingkiwi (07/27/2016) [-]
Thank you for the information, as a Brit gun owner I'm not entirely clued in on all nuances of American gun law, but I try and keep up to date. As you pointed out and I've said in my reply below, I'm not arguing against the right or the merit of carry permits, I'm giving my opinion on why I don't think that armed civilians would be effective against the types of attacks we've unfortunately been seeing so many of.
#195 - tremblingkiwi (07/27/2016) [-]
I never mentioned getting rid of the guns, I'm absolutely not in favour of getting rid of the guns. As one of the rare (in comparison to the number per population of the US) UK gun owners I'm absolutely not saying get rid of the guns. There's nothing wrong with responsibile gun owners.
I am, however, arguing whether your point that more safety, particularly from terrorist attacks, is indicative of more guns.
Again, the zealot pricks who carry out these sorts of atrocities are fed ideals from an early age that revere violent men who die for their religion, particularly in combat. They don't care if people have guns, death, injury and their own physical safety is not something that these lunatics particularly care about.
Yes, possibly if there are armed civilians in the areas that are attacked, attackers may potentially be neutralised quicker than they are currently, thus saving a few more lives that would have been lost, and I do see the merit in that, believe me I do. However, armed civilians are very unlikely to be able to guard against a bomb attack, where the enemy is often extremely difficult to spot and identify as a threat, or he has already planted his bomb/bombs and has left the scene.
The other attack scenario which is becoming disgustingly common is attackers shooting into crowds of people, almost always with rifles of some kind, usually in groups of attackers, almost never alone. How many armed civilians are going to have the courage and mental fortitude to go on the offensive against a group that outnumbers and outguns him/her and, of that probably small percentage, how many are going to prove effective enough against the attackers to stop or slow the attack? Probably even fewer.
The other types of attack, which are (and I can't believe I'm talking like this about terrorist attacks) less common are those which use either melee weapons, usually machetes or axes, such as the recent ones in Germany, or vehicles, such as the horrific attack in Nice on bastille day. Again, how many armed civilians are going to have the courage to turn and attack back against the terrorists and, of that number, how many will be able to hold an accurate enough aim, through a running, shoving, panicked, screaming crowd, to prove effective against the attacker/attackers, particularly if the attacker is mounted in a large, heavy, high seated vehicle, such as the truck in Nice? I am sorry but I don't believe many people would be able to be of much use in that scenario.
I didn't say guns are bad or to get rid of them, I just doubt their effectiveness in the hands of civilians in the hands of civilians in the types of attacks we've seen.
#224 - endorphinsrage (07/27/2016) [-]
Just the way you worded your statement of, " Yeah, because carry permits worked so well in Orlando and Dan Bernardino."
It made me and probably many think that you meant that gun permits/guns wouldn't have and didn't work with the situation. Which it didn't as you know because it's not like everyone in there is a carrier. But it's sort of like, a percentage of people are actually going to do the crazy crimes and kill people; the same people who are taught that like you said from an early age. Now as an 18 year old who intends on owning a gun soon in a family that's completely against firearms. I would probably be little to no help even if I had a regular let's say a .45 acp pistol. But as for the small percentage of people such as my uncle who is 55 and has been in the military since the beginning of the gulf war. Who still practices his shooting every month, he may have a little bit of a better chance than me.
But over all what I am trying to say is, in that situation of say the concert attacks. There would have been a scared crowd running in every which way to get away. The attackers kept firing and mowed down tons of people. Against rifles there's an obvious drop off of ability of being able to fight. So it would make permits useless but it still gives the person there the power to fight back even if it's futile. As there are 5 attackers lets say, in a room of 500 people. Maybe 3 out of the crowd may actually be carrying a weapon for defense. Say if one of them isn't shot immediately, they would assess their situation hopefully if they have practiced defense before. And do what they believe is correct, which is most likely run away too. Not many will have the courage to fight when their life is on the line. I think only when absolutely forced to 1/3 people would actually fire back if they were near.
If there's one thing that's clear, I believe everyone should be taught at some point to protect ourselves either it's running away efficiently to cover or to have a mob mentality like some used to in the past. But most likely the whole mob attack thing will never happen because humans just run when there is danger mostly unless taught other wise. I watch bee's all circle and encase their aggressor in their own bodies and slowly heat up their enemies until they die, some cool shit. But evolution is fun, yeah a buncha stuff. I am tired, it's 8 am and I havn't slept yet. I'll write again when i am not going off tangents and all this nonsense.
|#57 - I found this map of major locations from Pirates of Carribean.… [+] (2 new replies)||07/27/2016 on /pol/ is really asking the...||+3|
|#146 - Jord, as earth. also means dirt, soil, ground..||07/26/2016 on Random Facts to Eat||+1|
|#138 - The word for earth in my language is jord. our word f… [+] (6 new replies)||07/26/2016 on Random Facts to Eat||+1|
|#105 - Different cultures call the earth something different..Gaia, T… [+] (13 new replies)||07/26/2016 on Random Facts to Eat||+2|
#121 - anon (07/26/2016) [-]
I've quite commonly seen and heard it being referred to as earth.
|#19 - Who ever chose their uniforms needs a firm slap across the face..||07/26/2016 on Invasive species captured||0|