Upload
Login or register

jeej

Last status update:
-
Gender: female
Age: 23
Date Signed Up:2/03/2011
Last Login:7/27/2016
Location:Sweden
FunnyJunk Career Stats
Content Ranking:#1890
Comment Ranking:#5081
Highest Content Rank:#371
Highest Comment Rank:#1130
Content Thumbs: 22931 total,  25673 ,  2742
Comment Thumbs: 11361 total,  13710 ,  2349
Content Level Progress: 5.09% (51/1000)
Level 220 Content: Mind Blower → Level 221 Content: Mind Blower
Comment Level Progress: 22% (22/100)
Level 304 Comments: Lord Of Laughs → Level 305 Comments: Lord Of Laughs
Subscribers:5
Content Views:883141
Times Content Favorited:2171 times
Total Comments Made:2817
FJ Points:30565
Favorite Tags: League of Legend (3) | is (2)

latest user's comments

#82 - The redneck trailer part was a joke, not an argument. And …  [+] (4 new replies) 07/02/2016 on /pol/ on Sweden's "don't... -1
User avatar
#100 - thewhitezombie (07/02/2016) [-]
after they have already had their way with a woman or two is a bit late. "WHOOOPS! Looks like another got through. Oh well, he only raped three women but we can deport him now."

Seriously, rape is a lasting trauma that will effect the victim for their entire lives. And I'm not talking about regretting drunken sex, but real rape here. Rather than experiencing an entire lifetime of trauma, any person should be allowed to defend themselves.

And finally, women are weaker. It's a fact. How is a woman supposed to fend off a rapist without a weapon? even if she has a knife, or a taser, many of these instances have been gang rapes. Sure, a taser is great when theres only one person involved, and a knife is great as long as you actually know how to use it and the person attacking you doesn't have one, and if again, there is only one person attacking you.

After someone has been raped is too late to fix the problem, and you should be able to defend yourself from rape with lethal force.
#104 - jeej (07/02/2016) [-]
I have no idea why you are explaining rape to me as if I would have no experience with sexual assault, and no, I'm not talking about catcalling or getting complimented on bodyparts.
As I've said further down, I wouldn't protest if the Swedish people wanted guns in their homes legally. I'm just speaking from my personal viewpoint.
User avatar
#105 - thewhitezombie (07/02/2016) [-]
And I'm explaining why your point is retarded. You said guns shouldn't be allowed, and I'm explaining that as long as sweedish government is enabling rapists and encouraging it with no signs of stopping, people deserve the right to protect themselves. It's the government's job to protect its people, but if they fail people must take care of themselves.
#107 - jeej (07/02/2016) [-]
Wow, you're explaining to me why my point is retarded? I LIVE HERE. In Sweden.
If you don't care for my arguments then why are you even joining the discussion?
My opinion has just as much worth as yours, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not.
I honestly don't think that guns would help. I really don't. I don't think that Sweden has to become more of a mini-murica than it already is.
We have uncivilized people living here, yes. But we are sorting them out one way or another. We also have people who want to be here and actually make a living for themselves. If the people want guns, I'm sure they will make the politicians aware and have a vote on the matter. So far I haven't heard a single noise of anyone wanting guns.
Mostly, we try to protect eachother. And when law doesn't get their job done, social media does, making people aware and forcing the government to take action.
If you don't respect my views, then please don't discuss it with me further.
I'm sure you can find someone on this thread that feels the way you do.
#81 - I'm not against tasers, I just used them in the same sentence.…  [+] (13 new replies) 07/02/2016 on /pol/ on Sweden's "don't... 0
User avatar
#85 - marinepenguin (07/02/2016) [-]
Just because guns are banned, doesn't mean people won't get firearms. Gun laws will only be followed by the law abiding citizens, a rapist with a gun to your head isn't any more worried about violating that law forbidding firearms than he is about violating your personal rights. Relying on police, where in many cases they cannot respond in time to end a crime so much as pick up after its over, is a good way to get hurt. Why not take responsibility of your own safety? Why not guarantee your own self preservation?

I've never understood the idea of placing the ability to defend myself in the hands of the government. And I say that as a member of the military police
#93 - jeej (07/02/2016) [-]
Hence why I said "I don't think it should get any easier to obtain them."
Guns are certainly not damage control, in many cases they will make more harm than they will prevent. Even if I had a gun, I wouldn't want to kill a person and have that on my conscience, despite how much the event might mess me up.
There will always be sick people who hurts others, but I don't wanna hurt anyone. You can call me naive and say something autistic here like "well then you deserve to get raped", it's fine. But I'm not really for the whole defeat violence with violence thinking.
I'm also not saying that we should just accept and allow it, they should have heavier punishments.
User avatar
#98 - marinepenguin (07/02/2016) [-]
I cannot understand having a thought process like that. I have weapons, if someone was breaking into my house or threatening me I would use the amount of force necessary to guarantee my safety and the safety of others. Most people are going to be scared off simply by the presence of a firearm.

And there are sensible gun laws that have been pushed by the right that have worked in states on their own like west Virginia's harsh punishment for illegally carrying a firearm without a licence.

I can totally respect that you personally do not wish to own a firearm. Just don't advocate to take that right away from other individuals.
#101 - jeej (07/02/2016) [-]
I wouldn't protest if the Swedish people wanted to own firearms legally.
#103 - marinepenguin (07/02/2016) [-]
I can't imagine why.
#108 - jeej (07/02/2016) [-]
Not sure I trust cut out statistics.
User avatar
#109 - marinepenguin (07/02/2016) [-]
It's from the Uniform Crime Reporting Statistics

www.ucrdatatool.gov
#110 - jeej (07/02/2016) [-]
Not sure how to work that website. Looks pretty weird in my browser.
Either way, is that from 2016 then?

I've found two websites that counts up to 2014 and a report from 2015.
www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Sweden/United-States/Crime
www.osac.gov/pages/ContentReportDetails.aspx?cid=17421
User avatar
#112 - marinepenguin (07/02/2016) [-]
It counts up to 2010, but it's over a long period of time.

Both your sources showed an increase in violent crime as well btw.
#119 - jeej (07/03/2016) [-]
Okay, but here's the thing. You think that guns will solve this.
A lot of swedes are like me. If guns would become legal, I still wouldn't get one.
Bigger chances are that the bad people would make sure to get one before doing a bad thing.
The thought of this would create even more fear, and those who would obtain the weapons wouldn't be interested in learning properly about it, just enough to carry it.
Wasn't usa the place where someone had a bank that handed out guns if you opened up a bank account? Do we want more school shootings? Do we want kids that accidentally finds their parents gun and blows it off? Do we want people to get to choose between another human beings life or death by the click of a trigger?
You're really stuck on the idea of it only being used in self defense.
If I ever felt like there was a possibility of me getting raped, I would be able to bring a weapon whether or not it's legal, and then have the jury settle it in court.
But I don't.
User avatar
#120 - marinepenguin (07/03/2016) [-]
No, I'm stuck on the idea of having the right to self preservation. That includes firearms.

Obviously now we're seeing higher rates of violent crime in Sweden than the US, but without the guns. Guns themselves statistically have no correlation with rates of violent crime. In fact, the best correlation you can find with rates of violent crime in the US, is the number of black people living in an area.

Also, more people drown in the US every gear than are killed by firearms.
#123 - jeej (07/04/2016) [-]
Rape is included in violent crimes, right? At 2005 we changed our law, making each separate case of rape count as 1. If we have a rapist, that rapes his wife 15 times, that counts as 15 cases of rape, 15 violent crimes, instead of just 1.
That is why our rate significantly increased from that year forward and why our score might shock you. I don't think any other country counts it like this.
Also, rape is just not rape in Sweden. It's different kinds of sexual assaults.
User avatar
#125 - marinepenguin (07/04/2016) [-]
Violent crime would include rape, but broadening the spectrum of rape wouldn't increase the violent crime numbers. It would create a jump in rape numbers that leveled off and began to increase or decrease based off previous trends. But increasing the spectrum of rape, that's simply a subsection of the larger group of violent crime, won't increase the perceived rate of violent crime. Now if we were talking purely about rape, you'd have a point as the numbers would be slightly inflated.

But let's say that it even did matter. The the rate of violent crime is increasing at a fairly stable rate from 2002 onward, so the decision to broaden the spectrum of rape in 2005 had essentially zero effect on the overall average increase in violent crime.
#77 - You can take any kind of knife you want with you and go to tow…  [+] (1 new reply) 07/02/2016 on /pol/ on Sweden's "don't... 0
#83 - anon (07/02/2016) [-]
>We are still a real country
You're Sweden.
#63 - No, and I'd rather keep it that way.  [+] (17 new replies) 07/02/2016 on /pol/ on Sweden's "don't... 0
#78 - anon (07/02/2016) [-]
Well aren't you high-and-mighty.
#84 - jeej (07/02/2016) [-]
No, damnit. It's just different opinions, different views. I've grown up in a society where only officers of the law were to carry guns, and it has been a safe place for me.
Granted, new people with new cultures seem to really fuck the safe part up for us but I'm sure we can get back on our feet. Then we will be able to learn from this experience and make a real law about what is required out of people that want to live here, that they have to behave etc. Grow a backbone. I have hope.
User avatar
#64 - marinepenguin (07/02/2016) [-]
I assumed as much.

Of all the people I've met personally who was against the use of firearms, 100% completely changed their minds about them when taught proper usage at a course and actually given a chance to fire them at the range. A lot of people have assumptions or precognitions about firearms that are greatly exaggerated from reality or completely false.

A lot of Europeans especially seem to have this mindset.

Also I'm surprised you oppose tazers, even more surprised you compare them to firearms. I've been tazed, and I'm certified to use them, tazers are a less than lethal that in 99% of situations has zero side effects from usage.
#81 - jeej (07/02/2016) [-]
I'm not against tasers, I just used them in the same sentence. Hell, I'm not even against guns I just don't think that the population should get their hands on them, I think guns are for the police. It would certainly not ease the suffering for me to get raped with a gun pointing at my head as well. You must understand where I'm coming from, if the good guys get guns, then the bad ones will surely do as well.
I don't think it should get any easier to obtain them. It's just my opinion and I understand if you disagree.
User avatar
#85 - marinepenguin (07/02/2016) [-]
Just because guns are banned, doesn't mean people won't get firearms. Gun laws will only be followed by the law abiding citizens, a rapist with a gun to your head isn't any more worried about violating that law forbidding firearms than he is about violating your personal rights. Relying on police, where in many cases they cannot respond in time to end a crime so much as pick up after its over, is a good way to get hurt. Why not take responsibility of your own safety? Why not guarantee your own self preservation?

I've never understood the idea of placing the ability to defend myself in the hands of the government. And I say that as a member of the military police
#93 - jeej (07/02/2016) [-]
Hence why I said "I don't think it should get any easier to obtain them."
Guns are certainly not damage control, in many cases they will make more harm than they will prevent. Even if I had a gun, I wouldn't want to kill a person and have that on my conscience, despite how much the event might mess me up.
There will always be sick people who hurts others, but I don't wanna hurt anyone. You can call me naive and say something autistic here like "well then you deserve to get raped", it's fine. But I'm not really for the whole defeat violence with violence thinking.
I'm also not saying that we should just accept and allow it, they should have heavier punishments.
User avatar
#98 - marinepenguin (07/02/2016) [-]
I cannot understand having a thought process like that. I have weapons, if someone was breaking into my house or threatening me I would use the amount of force necessary to guarantee my safety and the safety of others. Most people are going to be scared off simply by the presence of a firearm.

And there are sensible gun laws that have been pushed by the right that have worked in states on their own like west Virginia's harsh punishment for illegally carrying a firearm without a licence.

I can totally respect that you personally do not wish to own a firearm. Just don't advocate to take that right away from other individuals.
#101 - jeej (07/02/2016) [-]
I wouldn't protest if the Swedish people wanted to own firearms legally.
#103 - marinepenguin (07/02/2016) [-]
I can't imagine why.
#108 - jeej (07/02/2016) [-]
Not sure I trust cut out statistics.
User avatar
#109 - marinepenguin (07/02/2016) [-]
It's from the Uniform Crime Reporting Statistics

www.ucrdatatool.gov
#110 - jeej (07/02/2016) [-]
Not sure how to work that website. Looks pretty weird in my browser.
Either way, is that from 2016 then?

I've found two websites that counts up to 2014 and a report from 2015.
www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Sweden/United-States/Crime
www.osac.gov/pages/ContentReportDetails.aspx?cid=17421
User avatar
#112 - marinepenguin (07/02/2016) [-]
It counts up to 2010, but it's over a long period of time.

Both your sources showed an increase in violent crime as well btw.
#119 - jeej (07/03/2016) [-]
Okay, but here's the thing. You think that guns will solve this.
A lot of swedes are like me. If guns would become legal, I still wouldn't get one.
Bigger chances are that the bad people would make sure to get one before doing a bad thing.
The thought of this would create even more fear, and those who would obtain the weapons wouldn't be interested in learning properly about it, just enough to carry it.
Wasn't usa the place where someone had a bank that handed out guns if you opened up a bank account? Do we want more school shootings? Do we want kids that accidentally finds their parents gun and blows it off? Do we want people to get to choose between another human beings life or death by the click of a trigger?
You're really stuck on the idea of it only being used in self defense.
If I ever felt like there was a possibility of me getting raped, I would be able to bring a weapon whether or not it's legal, and then have the jury settle it in court.
But I don't.
User avatar
#120 - marinepenguin (07/03/2016) [-]
No, I'm stuck on the idea of having the right to self preservation. That includes firearms.

Obviously now we're seeing higher rates of violent crime in Sweden than the US, but without the guns. Guns themselves statistically have no correlation with rates of violent crime. In fact, the best correlation you can find with rates of violent crime in the US, is the number of black people living in an area.

Also, more people drown in the US every gear than are killed by firearms.
#123 - jeej (07/04/2016) [-]
Rape is included in violent crimes, right? At 2005 we changed our law, making each separate case of rape count as 1. If we have a rapist, that rapes his wife 15 times, that counts as 15 cases of rape, 15 violent crimes, instead of just 1.
That is why our rate significantly increased from that year forward and why our score might shock you. I don't think any other country counts it like this.
Also, rape is just not rape in Sweden. It's different kinds of sexual assaults.
User avatar
#125 - marinepenguin (07/04/2016) [-]
Violent crime would include rape, but broadening the spectrum of rape wouldn't increase the violent crime numbers. It would create a jump in rape numbers that leveled off and began to increase or decrease based off previous trends. But increasing the spectrum of rape, that's simply a subsection of the larger group of violent crime, won't increase the perceived rate of violent crime. Now if we were talking purely about rape, you'd have a point as the numbers would be slightly inflated.

But let's say that it even did matter. The the rate of violent crime is increasing at a fairly stable rate from 2002 onward, so the decision to broaden the spectrum of rape in 2005 had essentially zero effect on the overall average increase in violent crime.
#59 - Have a pocketknife on you, stab a key into their eyesockets, p…  [+] (23 new replies) 07/02/2016 on /pol/ on Sweden's "don't... 0
#68 - anon (07/02/2016) [-]
Okay, let's just imagine a woman is going to be clear minded and ready to act while the rapist is attacking her. It still doesn't change the fact that on average men are stronger than women and the human body is hard to break to the point of death without tools. Seriously, try to break a struggling person's arm or leg when they weigh almost twice your weight, doesn't usually happen. Also broken noses, punctured eyes, blown ear drums, etc. only work if you can get away quickly. If he/she catches up rape will be the least the victim should worry about.
User avatar
#67 - sinery (07/02/2016) [-]
Pocket knife is illegal, regardless of how small.
The best "legal" solution is to have a small large ones pass under the same law as the knife strobe flashlight with a bunch of keys attached to it.

Makes for a nice blinding flail.
#77 - jeej (07/02/2016) [-]
You can take any kind of knife you want with you and go to town, as long as you have a proper reason for having it and not thinking about using it in a crime.
Easiest thing is if you have a profession in which you may need a knife, lets say electrician, woodworker, etc.
I work with elderly, so we change a bunch of bandages and such. If I were to carry a small scissor in my pocket, telling the police that it's for my work, then that's fine.
We are still a real country, it's certainly not a crime to carry tools here.
#83 - anon (07/02/2016) [-]
>We are still a real country
You're Sweden.
User avatar
#62 - marinepenguin (07/02/2016) [-]
Have you ever used a firearm?
#63 - jeej (07/02/2016) [-]
No, and I'd rather keep it that way.
#78 - anon (07/02/2016) [-]
Well aren't you high-and-mighty.
#84 - jeej (07/02/2016) [-]
No, damnit. It's just different opinions, different views. I've grown up in a society where only officers of the law were to carry guns, and it has been a safe place for me.
Granted, new people with new cultures seem to really fuck the safe part up for us but I'm sure we can get back on our feet. Then we will be able to learn from this experience and make a real law about what is required out of people that want to live here, that they have to behave etc. Grow a backbone. I have hope.
User avatar
#64 - marinepenguin (07/02/2016) [-]
I assumed as much.

Of all the people I've met personally who was against the use of firearms, 100% completely changed their minds about them when taught proper usage at a course and actually given a chance to fire them at the range. A lot of people have assumptions or precognitions about firearms that are greatly exaggerated from reality or completely false.

A lot of Europeans especially seem to have this mindset.

Also I'm surprised you oppose tazers, even more surprised you compare them to firearms. I've been tazed, and I'm certified to use them, tazers are a less than lethal that in 99% of situations has zero side effects from usage.
#81 - jeej (07/02/2016) [-]
I'm not against tasers, I just used them in the same sentence. Hell, I'm not even against guns I just don't think that the population should get their hands on them, I think guns are for the police. It would certainly not ease the suffering for me to get raped with a gun pointing at my head as well. You must understand where I'm coming from, if the good guys get guns, then the bad ones will surely do as well.
I don't think it should get any easier to obtain them. It's just my opinion and I understand if you disagree.
User avatar
#85 - marinepenguin (07/02/2016) [-]
Just because guns are banned, doesn't mean people won't get firearms. Gun laws will only be followed by the law abiding citizens, a rapist with a gun to your head isn't any more worried about violating that law forbidding firearms than he is about violating your personal rights. Relying on police, where in many cases they cannot respond in time to end a crime so much as pick up after its over, is a good way to get hurt. Why not take responsibility of your own safety? Why not guarantee your own self preservation?

I've never understood the idea of placing the ability to defend myself in the hands of the government. And I say that as a member of the military police
#93 - jeej (07/02/2016) [-]
Hence why I said "I don't think it should get any easier to obtain them."
Guns are certainly not damage control, in many cases they will make more harm than they will prevent. Even if I had a gun, I wouldn't want to kill a person and have that on my conscience, despite how much the event might mess me up.
There will always be sick people who hurts others, but I don't wanna hurt anyone. You can call me naive and say something autistic here like "well then you deserve to get raped", it's fine. But I'm not really for the whole defeat violence with violence thinking.
I'm also not saying that we should just accept and allow it, they should have heavier punishments.
User avatar
#98 - marinepenguin (07/02/2016) [-]
I cannot understand having a thought process like that. I have weapons, if someone was breaking into my house or threatening me I would use the amount of force necessary to guarantee my safety and the safety of others. Most people are going to be scared off simply by the presence of a firearm.

And there are sensible gun laws that have been pushed by the right that have worked in states on their own like west Virginia's harsh punishment for illegally carrying a firearm without a licence.

I can totally respect that you personally do not wish to own a firearm. Just don't advocate to take that right away from other individuals.
#101 - jeej (07/02/2016) [-]
I wouldn't protest if the Swedish people wanted to own firearms legally.
#103 - marinepenguin (07/02/2016) [-]
I can't imagine why.
#108 - jeej (07/02/2016) [-]
Not sure I trust cut out statistics.
User avatar
#109 - marinepenguin (07/02/2016) [-]
It's from the Uniform Crime Reporting Statistics

www.ucrdatatool.gov
#110 - jeej (07/02/2016) [-]
Not sure how to work that website. Looks pretty weird in my browser.
Either way, is that from 2016 then?

I've found two websites that counts up to 2014 and a report from 2015.
www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Sweden/United-States/Crime
www.osac.gov/pages/ContentReportDetails.aspx?cid=17421
User avatar
#112 - marinepenguin (07/02/2016) [-]
It counts up to 2010, but it's over a long period of time.

Both your sources showed an increase in violent crime as well btw.
#119 - jeej (07/03/2016) [-]
Okay, but here's the thing. You think that guns will solve this.
A lot of swedes are like me. If guns would become legal, I still wouldn't get one.
Bigger chances are that the bad people would make sure to get one before doing a bad thing.
The thought of this would create even more fear, and those who would obtain the weapons wouldn't be interested in learning properly about it, just enough to carry it.
Wasn't usa the place where someone had a bank that handed out guns if you opened up a bank account? Do we want more school shootings? Do we want kids that accidentally finds their parents gun and blows it off? Do we want people to get to choose between another human beings life or death by the click of a trigger?
You're really stuck on the idea of it only being used in self defense.
If I ever felt like there was a possibility of me getting raped, I would be able to bring a weapon whether or not it's legal, and then have the jury settle it in court.
But I don't.
User avatar
#120 - marinepenguin (07/03/2016) [-]
No, I'm stuck on the idea of having the right to self preservation. That includes firearms.

Obviously now we're seeing higher rates of violent crime in Sweden than the US, but without the guns. Guns themselves statistically have no correlation with rates of violent crime. In fact, the best correlation you can find with rates of violent crime in the US, is the number of black people living in an area.

Also, more people drown in the US every gear than are killed by firearms.
#123 - jeej (07/04/2016) [-]
Rape is included in violent crimes, right? At 2005 we changed our law, making each separate case of rape count as 1. If we have a rapist, that rapes his wife 15 times, that counts as 15 cases of rape, 15 violent crimes, instead of just 1.
That is why our rate significantly increased from that year forward and why our score might shock you. I don't think any other country counts it like this.
Also, rape is just not rape in Sweden. It's different kinds of sexual assaults.
User avatar
#125 - marinepenguin (07/04/2016) [-]
Violent crime would include rape, but broadening the spectrum of rape wouldn't increase the violent crime numbers. It would create a jump in rape numbers that leveled off and began to increase or decrease based off previous trends. But increasing the spectrum of rape, that's simply a subsection of the larger group of violent crime, won't increase the perceived rate of violent crime. Now if we were talking purely about rape, you'd have a point as the numbers would be slightly inflated.

But let's say that it even did matter. The the rate of violent crime is increasing at a fairly stable rate from 2002 onward, so the decision to broaden the spectrum of rape in 2005 had essentially zero effect on the overall average increase in violent crime.
#53 - Well, it is. You're allowed to fight back and even kill the ot…  [+] (35 new replies) 07/02/2016 on /pol/ on Sweden's "don't... -4
#76 - anon (07/02/2016) [-]
Yes, you're civilized people.

Which is why you should have guns to defend yourself.

What a shit argument against guns "lol ur jus rednecks, let them overpower and rape you instead"
#82 - jeej (07/02/2016) [-]
The redneck trailer part was a joke, not an argument.
And I don't think anyone should be allowed to rape or hurt anyone, I think they should be sent out of the country if they do. But I'm not the one making those decisions.
User avatar
#100 - thewhitezombie (07/02/2016) [-]
after they have already had their way with a woman or two is a bit late. "WHOOOPS! Looks like another got through. Oh well, he only raped three women but we can deport him now."

Seriously, rape is a lasting trauma that will effect the victim for their entire lives. And I'm not talking about regretting drunken sex, but real rape here. Rather than experiencing an entire lifetime of trauma, any person should be allowed to defend themselves.

And finally, women are weaker. It's a fact. How is a woman supposed to fend off a rapist without a weapon? even if she has a knife, or a taser, many of these instances have been gang rapes. Sure, a taser is great when theres only one person involved, and a knife is great as long as you actually know how to use it and the person attacking you doesn't have one, and if again, there is only one person attacking you.

After someone has been raped is too late to fix the problem, and you should be able to defend yourself from rape with lethal force.
#104 - jeej (07/02/2016) [-]
I have no idea why you are explaining rape to me as if I would have no experience with sexual assault, and no, I'm not talking about catcalling or getting complimented on bodyparts.
As I've said further down, I wouldn't protest if the Swedish people wanted guns in their homes legally. I'm just speaking from my personal viewpoint.
User avatar
#105 - thewhitezombie (07/02/2016) [-]
And I'm explaining why your point is retarded. You said guns shouldn't be allowed, and I'm explaining that as long as sweedish government is enabling rapists and encouraging it with no signs of stopping, people deserve the right to protect themselves. It's the government's job to protect its people, but if they fail people must take care of themselves.
#107 - jeej (07/02/2016) [-]
Wow, you're explaining to me why my point is retarded? I LIVE HERE. In Sweden.
If you don't care for my arguments then why are you even joining the discussion?
My opinion has just as much worth as yours, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not.
I honestly don't think that guns would help. I really don't. I don't think that Sweden has to become more of a mini-murica than it already is.
We have uncivilized people living here, yes. But we are sorting them out one way or another. We also have people who want to be here and actually make a living for themselves. If the people want guns, I'm sure they will make the politicians aware and have a vote on the matter. So far I haven't heard a single noise of anyone wanting guns.
Mostly, we try to protect eachother. And when law doesn't get their job done, social media does, making people aware and forcing the government to take action.
If you don't respect my views, then please don't discuss it with me further.
I'm sure you can find someone on this thread that feels the way you do.
User avatar
#56 - sinery (07/02/2016) [-]
You're not allowed to carry anything for the use of self defense.
No knives, tasters, sprays, batons, etc.

Makes it real easy for criminals.
User avatar
#70 - toensix (07/02/2016) [-]
What place are we talking about?
User avatar
#92 - sinery (07/02/2016) [-]
Sweden, seeing that's what the post was about.
User avatar
#96 - toensix (07/02/2016) [-]
How much do you know about Swedish law?
User avatar
#102 - sinery (07/02/2016) [-]
Flashback a lot.
#59 - jeej (07/02/2016) [-]
Have a pocketknife on you, stab a key into their eyesockets, push your fingers in there, break their nose with your fist, grab a bottle and break that.. I mean, there's plenty of ways to hurt a human being even without a freaking taser or a gun.
A lot of women wear high heels, can use that to hurt them.
But a lot of the fear in the moment of getting abused you can't really react as you should, so a gun wouldn't help. At least, in my personal experience.
#68 - anon (07/02/2016) [-]
Okay, let's just imagine a woman is going to be clear minded and ready to act while the rapist is attacking her. It still doesn't change the fact that on average men are stronger than women and the human body is hard to break to the point of death without tools. Seriously, try to break a struggling person's arm or leg when they weigh almost twice your weight, doesn't usually happen. Also broken noses, punctured eyes, blown ear drums, etc. only work if you can get away quickly. If he/she catches up rape will be the least the victim should worry about.
User avatar
#67 - sinery (07/02/2016) [-]
Pocket knife is illegal, regardless of how small.
The best "legal" solution is to have a small large ones pass under the same law as the knife strobe flashlight with a bunch of keys attached to it.

Makes for a nice blinding flail.
#77 - jeej (07/02/2016) [-]
You can take any kind of knife you want with you and go to town, as long as you have a proper reason for having it and not thinking about using it in a crime.
Easiest thing is if you have a profession in which you may need a knife, lets say electrician, woodworker, etc.
I work with elderly, so we change a bunch of bandages and such. If I were to carry a small scissor in my pocket, telling the police that it's for my work, then that's fine.
We are still a real country, it's certainly not a crime to carry tools here.
#83 - anon (07/02/2016) [-]
>We are still a real country
You're Sweden.
User avatar
#62 - marinepenguin (07/02/2016) [-]
Have you ever used a firearm?
#63 - jeej (07/02/2016) [-]
No, and I'd rather keep it that way.
#78 - anon (07/02/2016) [-]
Well aren't you high-and-mighty.
#84 - jeej (07/02/2016) [-]
No, damnit. It's just different opinions, different views. I've grown up in a society where only officers of the law were to carry guns, and it has been a safe place for me.
Granted, new people with new cultures seem to really fuck the safe part up for us but I'm sure we can get back on our feet. Then we will be able to learn from this experience and make a real law about what is required out of people that want to live here, that they have to behave etc. Grow a backbone. I have hope.
User avatar
#64 - marinepenguin (07/02/2016) [-]
I assumed as much.

Of all the people I've met personally who was against the use of firearms, 100% completely changed their minds about them when taught proper usage at a course and actually given a chance to fire them at the range. A lot of people have assumptions or precognitions about firearms that are greatly exaggerated from reality or completely false.

A lot of Europeans especially seem to have this mindset.

Also I'm surprised you oppose tazers, even more surprised you compare them to firearms. I've been tazed, and I'm certified to use them, tazers are a less than lethal that in 99% of situations has zero side effects from usage.
#81 - jeej (07/02/2016) [-]
I'm not against tasers, I just used them in the same sentence. Hell, I'm not even against guns I just don't think that the population should get their hands on them, I think guns are for the police. It would certainly not ease the suffering for me to get raped with a gun pointing at my head as well. You must understand where I'm coming from, if the good guys get guns, then the bad ones will surely do as well.
I don't think it should get any easier to obtain them. It's just my opinion and I understand if you disagree.
User avatar
#85 - marinepenguin (07/02/2016) [-]
Just because guns are banned, doesn't mean people won't get firearms. Gun laws will only be followed by the law abiding citizens, a rapist with a gun to your head isn't any more worried about violating that law forbidding firearms than he is about violating your personal rights. Relying on police, where in many cases they cannot respond in time to end a crime so much as pick up after its over, is a good way to get hurt. Why not take responsibility of your own safety? Why not guarantee your own self preservation?

I've never understood the idea of placing the ability to defend myself in the hands of the government. And I say that as a member of the military police
#93 - jeej (07/02/2016) [-]
Hence why I said "I don't think it should get any easier to obtain them."
Guns are certainly not damage control, in many cases they will make more harm than they will prevent. Even if I had a gun, I wouldn't want to kill a person and have that on my conscience, despite how much the event might mess me up.
There will always be sick people who hurts others, but I don't wanna hurt anyone. You can call me naive and say something autistic here like "well then you deserve to get raped", it's fine. But I'm not really for the whole defeat violence with violence thinking.
I'm also not saying that we should just accept and allow it, they should have heavier punishments.
User avatar
#98 - marinepenguin (07/02/2016) [-]
I cannot understand having a thought process like that. I have weapons, if someone was breaking into my house or threatening me I would use the amount of force necessary to guarantee my safety and the safety of others. Most people are going to be scared off simply by the presence of a firearm.

And there are sensible gun laws that have been pushed by the right that have worked in states on their own like west Virginia's harsh punishment for illegally carrying a firearm without a licence.

I can totally respect that you personally do not wish to own a firearm. Just don't advocate to take that right away from other individuals.
#101 - jeej (07/02/2016) [-]
I wouldn't protest if the Swedish people wanted to own firearms legally.
#103 - marinepenguin (07/02/2016) [-]
I can't imagine why.
#108 - jeej (07/02/2016) [-]
Not sure I trust cut out statistics.
User avatar
#109 - marinepenguin (07/02/2016) [-]
It's from the Uniform Crime Reporting Statistics

www.ucrdatatool.gov
#110 - jeej (07/02/2016) [-]
Not sure how to work that website. Looks pretty weird in my browser.
Either way, is that from 2016 then?

I've found two websites that counts up to 2014 and a report from 2015.
www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Sweden/United-States/Crime
www.osac.gov/pages/ContentReportDetails.aspx?cid=17421
User avatar
#112 - marinepenguin (07/02/2016) [-]
It counts up to 2010, but it's over a long period of time.

Both your sources showed an increase in violent crime as well btw.
#119 - jeej (07/03/2016) [-]
Okay, but here's the thing. You think that guns will solve this.
A lot of swedes are like me. If guns would become legal, I still wouldn't get one.
Bigger chances are that the bad people would make sure to get one before doing a bad thing.
The thought of this would create even more fear, and those who would obtain the weapons wouldn't be interested in learning properly about it, just enough to carry it.
Wasn't usa the place where someone had a bank that handed out guns if you opened up a bank account? Do we want more school shootings? Do we want kids that accidentally finds their parents gun and blows it off? Do we want people to get to choose between another human beings life or death by the click of a trigger?
You're really stuck on the idea of it only being used in self defense.
If I ever felt like there was a possibility of me getting raped, I would be able to bring a weapon whether or not it's legal, and then have the jury settle it in court.
But I don't.
User avatar
#120 - marinepenguin (07/03/2016) [-]
No, I'm stuck on the idea of having the right to self preservation. That includes firearms.

Obviously now we're seeing higher rates of violent crime in Sweden than the US, but without the guns. Guns themselves statistically have no correlation with rates of violent crime. In fact, the best correlation you can find with rates of violent crime in the US, is the number of black people living in an area.

Also, more people drown in the US every gear than are killed by firearms.
#123 - jeej (07/04/2016) [-]
Rape is included in violent crimes, right? At 2005 we changed our law, making each separate case of rape count as 1. If we have a rapist, that rapes his wife 15 times, that counts as 15 cases of rape, 15 violent crimes, instead of just 1.
That is why our rate significantly increased from that year forward and why our score might shock you. I don't think any other country counts it like this.
Also, rape is just not rape in Sweden. It's different kinds of sexual assaults.
User avatar
#125 - marinepenguin (07/04/2016) [-]
Violent crime would include rape, but broadening the spectrum of rape wouldn't increase the violent crime numbers. It would create a jump in rape numbers that leveled off and began to increase or decrease based off previous trends. But increasing the spectrum of rape, that's simply a subsection of the larger group of violent crime, won't increase the perceived rate of violent crime. Now if we were talking purely about rape, you'd have a point as the numbers would be slightly inflated.

But let's say that it even did matter. The the rate of violent crime is increasing at a fairly stable rate from 2002 onward, so the decision to broaden the spectrum of rape in 2005 had essentially zero effect on the overall average increase in violent crime.
#127 - Uhh... Do you think that they just started to exist recently?  [+] (1 new reply) 07/01/2016 on Welp, it came true. 0
User avatar
#128 - grimfuck (07/01/2016) [-]
my mind is narrow,
my arguments are weak
#95 - You're comparing a building where kids, not babies, get their …  [+] (1 new reply) 06/29/2016 on i just wanna be with you :( 0
#124 - megpoidgumibear (06/30/2016) [-]
the webm
#44 - Alright, I hope it is. 06/29/2016 on i just wanna be with you :( 0
#40 - This **** is super sad. How can people keep animals locked up …  [+] (6 new replies) 06/29/2016 on i just wanna be with you :( 0
User avatar
#75 - shunkahawolf (06/29/2016) [-]
obviously its doing its job if it makes you that upset. i adopted two of my cats because they were locked up in cages at petsmart and looked sadorable. plus, where else are hey supposed to keep them?
#47 - anon (06/29/2016) [-]
Yea babies are only all put behind in one room where people can look into a giant window is joke not actual example that comes next

Orphanages the word is orphanages that are filled with easily 20+ kids in a single house and going into actual slums and lower class cities/towns well ha even more kids to an orphanage and they'll be lucky to even be adopted
#95 - jeej (06/29/2016) [-]
You're comparing a building where kids, not babies, get their own beds etc and the option to roam freely around with pets in aquarium shaped boxes.
#124 - megpoidgumibear (06/30/2016) [-]
the webm
User avatar
#43 - hargleblarg (06/29/2016) [-]
Actually looking at the reflection I'd hazard a guess that it's a vet or something similar. I don't know for sure though, but it would make more sense to me.
User avatar
#44 - jeej (06/29/2016) [-]
Alright, I hope it is.