To assume all Southerners are prejudiced is simply another form of prejudice.

My bad, man. I see so much political and philosophical bullshit on here that sometimes I forget that it's also a comedy website. I'm representing Columbus, MS over here. If I ever have to move to an urban area, BHM would be my first choice

Damnnn I always forget about TN. If I lived there, I would want to be in the mountains. Like around Chattanooga or something

Its ok, twitter told me too.

Really? I actually like that form of the name too. Frank, Francis and Franklin, all are pretty cool in my opinion And the origin is pretty much the same

because you seemed to be on the fence about the issue, similar to how the interviewees in the episode were. Maybe I was just tired and read it in the voice of one of the interviewees in my head.

peace

I actually kind of like that name, my friends usually call me Frank or Frankie, which I like more than Frantisek. I don't know if you ever researched that name, so I apologize if I come off as a captain obvious. The name is Italian in origin, comes from the word Francesco, which means "the Frenchman", though that itself comes from the word Frank, which can mean "free man"... so yeah, I guess it's not bad, being a free man and all

Really? I actually like that form of the name too. Frank, Francis and Franklin, all are pretty cool in my opinion And the origin is pretty much the same

I was just thinking of the South Park episode where Chef wants to change the South Park flag (a picture of a bunch of white guys hanging a black guy). The town is split up on the subject, because while it is somewhat racist, it is still part of history. It's just funny how all the interviews go. The episode is called "Chef Goes Nanners". I can't find it online at the moment, but it's highly relevant to this debate.

because you seemed to be on the fence about the issue, similar to how the interviewees in the episode were. Maybe I was just tired and read it in the voice of one of the interviewees in my head.

peace

Poland was effectively wiped as a nation, the camps build in poland was build by germany, poland had no say in the matter.
Hell they had a massive uprising later in the war (The Warsaw uprising), poland was not compliant at all.

*secede
and all the mother fucking second amendment says is: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

the interpretation of the law is for the judicial system to decide. Until now, nobody has been on trial for "owning a gun" or "keeping a well-regulated militia". I'm only saying that while not infringing on the right to "bear an arm", we can (and should) have laws regulating who can and cannot purchase/own a firearm or broad sword or anthrax. I mean, chemical warfare all but didn't exist in 1791, so of course there's no legislature against it. But wouldn't such things actually count as "weapons"? ...as "arms"? If the second amendment were written today, would it include the right for citizens to own tanks and jets and bombs and shit`?

All I'm saying is it's time to re-think this issue since it is CLEARLY a problem in the US (see my detailed report here: www.miketheburns.com/wiki-stats/us-vs-europe/ ) and it is simply bad form for us to forego healthy discussion/debate just because "the second amendment tells me so".

In any case, peace and love, my friend.

What you're saying is where there's more firearms there's more firearm related deaths. Well how about other types of crime? Do guns cause violent crime to increase or decrease? See attached video.

Also, the point of the second amendment is not so people can own an ar-15, it's so the people of our country can overthrow a tyrannical government if the need ever arises. And it's been used in that context before: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_%281946%29

THEY FUCKING CAN'T!!!! THE US HAS TANKS, ICBMs, A FIFTH OF THE MALE POPULATION AGES 18-30 ON CALL (active duty, reserves).

If you really think any group of people with guns can go in and shoot up the White House and take over the capitol building, then you have a surprise waiting for you.

You know what? I'm out! The people arguing with me are law-abiding gun-owners and just don't get that there are bad people out there who don't need guns. I'm sorry if you don't want to submit to an IQ or personality test every 2 years so you can own your guns to protect yourself from a potentially tyrannical government or go hunting, but if it keeps even one fucking gun out of the hands of a psycho who could potentially shoot up a school/movie theater/restaurant, then isn't it worth it? Nothing will change for the law-abiding cititzens!

I'm out. Peace and love win wars, discussion turns to policy, and guns only breed fear and violence (I'm generalising here, but you get the idea).

Peace and love, bra!

If you have any proof that criminals (who by definition, break the law) would abide by new more stringent background check systems (also known as LAWS), then I would love to see it.

it's not about background checks, my friend. It's about limiting circulation, heavy fines/jail-time for having a gun without proper permitting and essentially making it so hard to get a gun you practically HAVE to be a fine, upstanding citizen.

I always wonder about these gangster types. They pretty much sell drugs for a living, and somehow can go to car dealerships and gun shops and buy expensive items in cash, and nobody bats an eye. I know its their right to purchase things with their own money, but I mean, come on: to purchase an automobile you should have an address, a vehicle history check (to make sure you're not some crazy wacko who has killed many in accidents), and that you're not purchasing the automobile for nefarious purposes (terrorism, robbery). We should also have similar checks in place for purchasing a weapon.

Probably the problem is the gun industry who would rather make an extra buck and sell weapons to obviously nefarious characters. Yet if they get caught doing so, it's like a slap on the wrist and a 1500$ fine - which they make back in profit when they sell their next illegal gun lot.

Anyway, we can discuss till the cows come home. I moved to Europe years ago and except for Brejvik haven't had to deal with or hear about people killing each other with guns in the last 8 years. Just last Christmas, three people were murdered on separate occasions in rural Maine where I grew up. Crazy shit. One guy was a crazy old man who clearly wasn't mentally fit to own a gun. Hell, he even had his license taken away from him, but not his gun. The other two were some burglars who killed anyone who woke up during their heist. As far as I can remember, they bought their handguns at the local Wal*Mart. But if it would be, for example, required to have a steady income and a high-school degree to purchase weapons, then they would never have gotten their hands on them.

Whatever. Peace and love.

Cite your sources please.

at my website (see >>#47) I've cited the statistic sources. As far as the shootings in Maine:

sorry, it was 2012 (my how time flies):
www.wcsh6.com/story/news/local/biddeford-saco/2014/06/10/james-pak-biddeford-double-murder/10286771/

and this one was 2014, and a double-murder, not two occasions:
www.pressherald.com/2014/07/18/maine-police-seek-new-york-man-in-biddeford-double-slaying/

but you see? the first guy: clearly insane and should not have had a gun. The second guy has a long criminal history and should not have had a gun. He should have a parole officer check his house for guns at every visit and such.

I just was talking with my girlfriend and she said the law here in Germany is so: you can't purchase a weapon unless you are a) part of a "Schutzverein" (shooting club) b) a hunter or c) a police officer. In most cases, you're not even allowed to bring your gun home. You have to leave your gun at the police station for police officers, at the shooting club for club members, and at the hunting office for hunters. When you want to go hunting, you go to the hunting office, grab your gun (at this point they can make sure you're not intoxicated or super angry or anything) and that you have a hunting permit for the place you intend to hunt.

sauce: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_legislation_in_Germany

Probably wouldn't fly at the moment in the US, because gun enthusiasts would be like, "hey, if I live on an acre of my own land and I want to go out at 4am with my boys and go hunting, then I will!" But actually people who live out in the country CAN get such permits in Germany. But of course they are periodically checked up on. Nobody wants some drunk redneck leaving his guns out so his kids or anyone who walks into his backyard to grab his guns and run amok.

Like I said, it's not an easy issue for Americans, but it's one worth at least looking at through progressive eyes - especially if we want the murder rate to sink down to that of Europe.

So what you're saying is that we should just treat all people as if they're about to commit a crime and then we won't have a problem? Okay then chairman Mao.

And what i'm saying is that the murder rate in europe is lower, but the violent crime rate is way higher than the US. I posted the video in comment >>#69 that brings light to several important points of statistics that don't get covered in the gun debate. Maybe you should watch it this time.

I watched it. Here are my thoughts:

- the drop in violent crime/murder is a good thing! The war on drugs/gangs/guns in the '90s paid off!

- I agree with the dude that you can't compare the US with any one country. That's why my site aims to compare the US with different forms of Europe. The US has places like Kansas, which is only comparable to maybe the netherregions of Poland, because West Europe is very densely settled. Also, the mentality of the French is VASTLY different than that of the Italians, similarly to the Northeast and the Southwest in the US.

- I'd like to go further and see what is defined as violent crime in the UK/Europe and the US. My experience in the UK (lived there for 6 months and have visited many times) is that there are many "gangs" of "hoodlums" who verbally abuse, fight, punch, and steal from tourists, passers-by, and many looters/rioters (because of football matches). I'd also like to see statistics in the UK/Europe from 1992, because in the recent 5 years the UK has had a growing problem of rioters, and perhaps this is the reason "violent crime" is so high.

- lastly, perhaps I do have an agenda. Violent crime can hurt people emotionally and financially, but murder kills the man and ruins families for life. I'd like to see those numbers come down in the US. It's not about "feeling safe" (as long as you avoid the crime hotspots in the US, you're safe as fuck), but it's about not destroying innocent lives.

I really hope my graphs show that there is at least a nominal correlation to gun-culture and homicide. If we want a lower homicide rate in the US, then this is, for me, a viable path to explore. And like the dude asked, "why aren't we doing anything in the problem areas?" And I think that is exactly what we need to do: if you have a gun in one of these problem areas, you need to not have a criminal record, not have a substance abuse or anger problem, not part of a gang, and so on.

I was talking with my girlfriend just now and she said that it is illegal to have an organisation/gang that doesn't support democratic themes (racist, drug-related and the like: think Hell's Angels or KKK). I know this one is hard for Americans to accept, because we have the right to make whatever group we want. But if that group/gang is all about gathering guns, selling drugs and settling scores, then do we as a society really want them as part of ours?

In Germany a police officer can stop you on the street because you're acting funny or look nefarious (happened to me just 2 days ago). They ask you, "we need to see your identification, and is it OK if we search you for drugs and weapons?" If I say "no", then they technically must stop, but they can also say "that's reason enough to take you downtown and get a warrant". It depends on how nice you talk to them. That shit don't fly in the US. If you're wearing a known gang symbol and they can see the outline of a gun in your pocket, they STILL can't stop you unless you actually do something wrong.

Now, I don't know if that's the right way to handle things, but maybe in these problem areas with known criminal organisations it would be OK. I know it scares Americans to think that the police can just do whatever they want, and it borders on socialism, and I guess that's OK. It's your (formerly my) democracy and if the majority want it like that, then so be it.

I'm just giving my two cents.

Good convo so far, bra.

There really isn't a correlation between guns and homicide. There's a correlation between guns and gun crime. Removing the guns removes the gun crime, but it doesn't necessarily remove the crime itself, it just makes people commit it in other ways.

The US has the highest rate of gun ownership in the world, and we're ranked 111 in homicide rate. Serbia is number 2 and they're ranked at 184. Yemen is number 3 and they're ranked at 109. Here's the full lists:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country

Presumption of innocence is a very important part of our justice system. It was specifically put in place because assuming someone is guilty until they prove their innocence is a really good way to make sure a bunch of innocent people end up in jail because they can't provide an alibi. It's actually becoming a very serious social issue in america right now, particularly involving rape or other crimes against women, where people who are accused of crimes are essentially burned at the stake even if they're completely acquitted or exonerated of those crimes.

If they can see your gun printing in your pocket, they sure as hell can stop you to check if you have a legal concealed carry permit. If you don't it's at least a misdemeanor and in some states a felony. Either way you're getting detained for some amount of time and they'll run your name for warrants etc.

The first effective step we could take to solve the problem would be to start a federal database of mental illness and add that to the federal background check system to guarantee that mentally ill people who are a danger to themselves or others couldn't get a weapon. That part of the universal background check legislation made sense and a lot of people support it, but of course it was covered in a bunch of bullshit that essentially banned loaning a rifle to a hunting buddy for the weekend or stopping a grandfather from passing on a shotgun to his grandson without subjection to a background check.

I understand that what you're really getting at is the decrease of violent crime and murder, and I'm with you on that, i'm just attempting to make sure you're informed on all of the facts before supporting legislation that would essentially be a feel-good law as opposed to an effective way to solve the problem.

*roll South Park*

"I do think the flag is racist, but it is part of our history." Read >>#8 and >>#9 for more details, bra.

I was just thinking of the South Park episode where Chef wants to change the South Park flag (a picture of a bunch of white guys hanging a black guy). The town is split up on the subject, because while it is somewhat racist, it is still part of history. It's just funny how all the interviews go. The episode is called "Chef Goes Nanners". I can't find it online at the moment, but it's highly relevant to this debate.

because you seemed to be on the fence about the issue, similar to how the interviewees in the episode were. Maybe I was just tired and read it in the voice of one of the interviewees in my head.

peace

in any sociological system, the rules, laws and norms SHOULD change over time to accoomodate things like population, demographics, domestic and foreighn economic climate, ecological impact and even a society's perception of itself. The Jewish law texts had laws like "if your husband dies without giving you a child, then the husbands brother or father is responsible for giving you a child." Also, "men can have more than one wife" These rules were of course made for a time where women dying during childbirth and infant mortality rates were high, and preserving family lineage were important.

Fast-forward 200 years: medicine is better, population is stable and the family lines are already super mixed and now family lines are used for political purposes, so these laws were abolished or changed.

Same goes for the US: there were laws like, "you are required one bath a year consisting of 20% lye soap" due to hygienic problems. There were also laws about owning slaves and higher taxes on imported goods to promote domestic economy. Fast-forward 200 years and the US is VERY stable on its GDP so it lifts tariffs on certain imports. We also realized as a society that slavery is wrong so it was abolished. The same goes in some states for things like medicinal drug use, abortion and the death penalty.

The second amendment was put in place to allow a fledgling country the ability to protect itself from British tyranny (who were still stationed in the US after the constitution was written) as well as give a sense of personal ownership of this new country and not create the same tyrannical empire that they left.

Fast-forward 200 years: the US government is FUCKING HUGE, and there's really nothing any militia could do about it unless they got tanks and shit, but then they'd be like some 3rd world country. Hunting and agriculture are no longer the main sources of food, the nation is densely populated on both coasts and sporadically in the middle, and we as a civilization have matured beyond belief. White-collar crime exists now, we are globally connected and can learn to speak nearly every language with ease, and in the first world there are NO tyrannical governments (all are democracy lobbying and corporate sponsership is another lecture )

Personally I believe the right to bear arms (doesn't say "own" necessarily: just to hold them) should be amended to allow for certain provisions. For instance:

- mentally ill/unstable should not be allowed to purchase/use firearms
- yearly or every-four-year mental tests and gun safety tests (like with cars)
- people with a history of firearm violence should be hard-pressed to get a gun
- there should be a limit of guns in circulation
- all guns in circulation should be accounted for at all times
- it should be legal to make your own weapon, but you must register it
- firearms for "protection" (especially in densely-populated areas) should be more heavily regulated than for hunting purposes out in backwoods Montana
- concealed carry licenses should only go to upstanding citizens with zero history of drug/alcohol abuse, domestic abuse, crime (even stealing). Do you really want an un-calculable hot-headed drunk carrying a weapon into McDonald's? He might freak out that his burger is undercooked and shoot people up

I don't think these are unreasonable, and 99.9% of conservative pro-gunners will STILL be able to have their concealed-carry licenses and go hunting and even collect guns. What laws like these will prevent, however, is the wrong people from having a gun, thus preventing any unwanted incidents.

Of course most firearm-related homicide is from ghetto-gang-bangers, and that's a whole other issue that is socio-economic as well as political as well as moral. It has to do with the firearm industry lobbying hard to push as many guns into circulation as possible (enough for 9 out of every 10 people in the US to own - man, woman, child, retard, invalid, senior citizen)

*secede
and all the mother fucking second amendment says is: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

the interpretation of the law is for the judicial system to decide. Until now, nobody has been on trial for "owning a gun" or "keeping a well-regulated militia". I'm only saying that while not infringing on the right to "bear an arm", we can (and should) have laws regulating who can and cannot purchase/own a firearm or broad sword or anthrax. I mean, chemical warfare all but didn't exist in 1791, so of course there's no legislature against it. But wouldn't such things actually count as "weapons"? ...as "arms"? If the second amendment were written today, would it include the right for citizens to own tanks and jets and bombs and shit`?

All I'm saying is it's time to re-think this issue since it is CLEARLY a problem in the US (see my detailed report here: www.miketheburns.com/wiki-stats/us-vs-europe/ ) and it is simply bad form for us to forego healthy discussion/debate just because "the second amendment tells me so".

In any case, peace and love, my friend.

What you're saying is where there's more firearms there's more firearm related deaths. Well how about other types of crime? Do guns cause violent crime to increase or decrease? See attached video.

Also, the point of the second amendment is not so people can own an ar-15, it's so the people of our country can overthrow a tyrannical government if the need ever arises. And it's been used in that context before: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_%281946%29

THEY FUCKING CAN'T!!!! THE US HAS TANKS, ICBMs, A FIFTH OF THE MALE POPULATION AGES 18-30 ON CALL (active duty, reserves).

If you really think any group of people with guns can go in and shoot up the White House and take over the capitol building, then you have a surprise waiting for you.

You know what? I'm out! The people arguing with me are law-abiding gun-owners and just don't get that there are bad people out there who don't need guns. I'm sorry if you don't want to submit to an IQ or personality test every 2 years so you can own your guns to protect yourself from a potentially tyrannical government or go hunting, but if it keeps even one fucking gun out of the hands of a psycho who could potentially shoot up a school/movie theater/restaurant, then isn't it worth it? Nothing will change for the law-abiding cititzens!

I'm out. Peace and love win wars, discussion turns to policy, and guns only breed fear and violence (I'm generalising here, but you get the idea).

Peace and love, bra!

If you have any proof that criminals (who by definition, break the law) would abide by new more stringent background check systems (also known as LAWS), then I would love to see it.

it's not about background checks, my friend. It's about limiting circulation, heavy fines/jail-time for having a gun without proper permitting and essentially making it so hard to get a gun you practically HAVE to be a fine, upstanding citizen.

I always wonder about these gangster types. They pretty much sell drugs for a living, and somehow can go to car dealerships and gun shops and buy expensive items in cash, and nobody bats an eye. I know its their right to purchase things with their own money, but I mean, come on: to purchase an automobile you should have an address, a vehicle history check (to make sure you're not some crazy wacko who has killed many in accidents), and that you're not purchasing the automobile for nefarious purposes (terrorism, robbery). We should also have similar checks in place for purchasing a weapon.

Probably the problem is the gun industry who would rather make an extra buck and sell weapons to obviously nefarious characters. Yet if they get caught doing so, it's like a slap on the wrist and a 1500$ fine - which they make back in profit when they sell their next illegal gun lot.

Anyway, we can discuss till the cows come home. I moved to Europe years ago and except for Brejvik haven't had to deal with or hear about people killing each other with guns in the last 8 years. Just last Christmas, three people were murdered on separate occasions in rural Maine where I grew up. Crazy shit. One guy was a crazy old man who clearly wasn't mentally fit to own a gun. Hell, he even had his license taken away from him, but not his gun. The other two were some burglars who killed anyone who woke up during their heist. As far as I can remember, they bought their handguns at the local Wal*Mart. But if it would be, for example, required to have a steady income and a high-school degree to purchase weapons, then they would never have gotten their hands on them.

Whatever. Peace and love.

Cite your sources please.

at my website (see >>#47) I've cited the statistic sources. As far as the shootings in Maine:

sorry, it was 2012 (my how time flies):
www.wcsh6.com/story/news/local/biddeford-saco/2014/06/10/james-pak-biddeford-double-murder/10286771/

and this one was 2014, and a double-murder, not two occasions:
www.pressherald.com/2014/07/18/maine-police-seek-new-york-man-in-biddeford-double-slaying/

but you see? the first guy: clearly insane and should not have had a gun. The second guy has a long criminal history and should not have had a gun. He should have a parole officer check his house for guns at every visit and such.

I just was talking with my girlfriend and she said the law here in Germany is so: you can't purchase a weapon unless you are a) part of a "Schutzverein" (shooting club) b) a hunter or c) a police officer. In most cases, you're not even allowed to bring your gun home. You have to leave your gun at the police station for police officers, at the shooting club for club members, and at the hunting office for hunters. When you want to go hunting, you go to the hunting office, grab your gun (at this point they can make sure you're not intoxicated or super angry or anything) and that you have a hunting permit for the place you intend to hunt.

sauce: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_legislation_in_Germany

Probably wouldn't fly at the moment in the US, because gun enthusiasts would be like, "hey, if I live on an acre of my own land and I want to go out at 4am with my boys and go hunting, then I will!" But actually people who live out in the country CAN get such permits in Germany. But of course they are periodically checked up on. Nobody wants some drunk redneck leaving his guns out so his kids or anyone who walks into his backyard to grab his guns and run amok.

Like I said, it's not an easy issue for Americans, but it's one worth at least looking at through progressive eyes - especially if we want the murder rate to sink down to that of Europe.

So what you're saying is that we should just treat all people as if they're about to commit a crime and then we won't have a problem? Okay then chairman Mao.

And what i'm saying is that the murder rate in europe is lower, but the violent crime rate is way higher than the US. I posted the video in comment >>#69 that brings light to several important points of statistics that don't get covered in the gun debate. Maybe you should watch it this time.

I watched it. Here are my thoughts:

- the drop in violent crime/murder is a good thing! The war on drugs/gangs/guns in the '90s paid off!

- I agree with the dude that you can't compare the US with any one country. That's why my site aims to compare the US with different forms of Europe. The US has places like Kansas, which is only comparable to maybe the netherregions of Poland, because West Europe is very densely settled. Also, the mentality of the French is VASTLY different than that of the Italians, similarly to the Northeast and the Southwest in the US.

- I'd like to go further and see what is defined as violent crime in the UK/Europe and the US. My experience in the UK (lived there for 6 months and have visited many times) is that there are many "gangs" of "hoodlums" who verbally abuse, fight, punch, and steal from tourists, passers-by, and many looters/rioters (because of football matches). I'd also like to see statistics in the UK/Europe from 1992, because in the recent 5 years the UK has had a growing problem of rioters, and perhaps this is the reason "violent crime" is so high.

- lastly, perhaps I do have an agenda. Violent crime can hurt people emotionally and financially, but murder kills the man and ruins families for life. I'd like to see those numbers come down in the US. It's not about "feeling safe" (as long as you avoid the crime hotspots in the US, you're safe as fuck), but it's about not destroying innocent lives.

I really hope my graphs show that there is at least a nominal correlation to gun-culture and homicide. If we want a lower homicide rate in the US, then this is, for me, a viable path to explore. And like the dude asked, "why aren't we doing anything in the problem areas?" And I think that is exactly what we need to do: if you have a gun in one of these problem areas, you need to not have a criminal record, not have a substance abuse or anger problem, not part of a gang, and so on.

I was talking with my girlfriend just now and she said that it is illegal to have an organisation/gang that doesn't support democratic themes (racist, drug-related and the like: think Hell's Angels or KKK). I know this one is hard for Americans to accept, because we have the right to make whatever group we want. But if that group/gang is all about gathering guns, selling drugs and settling scores, then do we as a society really want them as part of ours?

In Germany a police officer can stop you on the street because you're acting funny or look nefarious (happened to me just 2 days ago). They ask you, "we need to see your identification, and is it OK if we search you for drugs and weapons?" If I say "no", then they technically must stop, but they can also say "that's reason enough to take you downtown and get a warrant". It depends on how nice you talk to them. That shit don't fly in the US. If you're wearing a known gang symbol and they can see the outline of a gun in your pocket, they STILL can't stop you unless you actually do something wrong.

Now, I don't know if that's the right way to handle things, but maybe in these problem areas with known criminal organisations it would be OK. I know it scares Americans to think that the police can just do whatever they want, and it borders on socialism, and I guess that's OK. It's your (formerly my) democracy and if the majority want it like that, then so be it.

I'm just giving my two cents.

Good convo so far, bra.

There really isn't a correlation between guns and homicide. There's a correlation between guns and gun crime. Removing the guns removes the gun crime, but it doesn't necessarily remove the crime itself, it just makes people commit it in other ways.

The US has the highest rate of gun ownership in the world, and we're ranked 111 in homicide rate. Serbia is number 2 and they're ranked at 184. Yemen is number 3 and they're ranked at 109. Here's the full lists:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country

Presumption of innocence is a very important part of our justice system. It was specifically put in place because assuming someone is guilty until they prove their innocence is a really good way to make sure a bunch of innocent people end up in jail because they can't provide an alibi. It's actually becoming a very serious social issue in america right now, particularly involving rape or other crimes against women, where people who are accused of crimes are essentially burned at the stake even if they're completely acquitted or exonerated of those crimes.

If they can see your gun printing in your pocket, they sure as hell can stop you to check if you have a legal concealed carry permit. If you don't it's at least a misdemeanor and in some states a felony. Either way you're getting detained for some amount of time and they'll run your name for warrants etc.

The first effective step we could take to solve the problem would be to start a federal database of mental illness and add that to the federal background check system to guarantee that mentally ill people who are a danger to themselves or others couldn't get a weapon. That part of the universal background check legislation made sense and a lot of people support it, but of course it was covered in a bunch of bullshit that essentially banned loaning a rifle to a hunting buddy for the weekend or stopping a grandfather from passing on a shotgun to his grandson without subjection to a background check.

I understand that what you're really getting at is the decrease of violent crime and murder, and I'm with you on that, i'm just attempting to make sure you're informed on all of the facts before supporting legislation that would essentially be a feel-good law as opposed to an effective way to solve the problem.

rocketpropelledtit (contd.)

This means very few people own a SHIT-TON of guns. And I imagine every hunting family has a few shotguns, a few black-powder rifles and a few handguns maybe. Enough for everyone in the family to have 2 guns. But they live in rural areas and take hunter safety courses and live so far out in the woods that you need a car to actually get out to their house and break in.

Then we have these gangs with guns in their posession since the '80s, and they just keep getting passed down through the generations. Somebody sells some shitty coke, the gangbangers are super unstable people, and they kill the drug-dealer. The cops don't have enough evidence because drug dealers don't keep records of their clients and nobody in this world squeals on his buddy. Plus all the gun barrels are modified so ballistics evidence is difficult to trace unless you have the exact same gun. So basically this goes on and on and on and on. Add to that all the psycho hillbilly folks who kill each other over shit like "you ate the last turkey leg" or "my team is better than your team" or "you slept with my sister", and you have a fucking firearm epidemic on your hands.

And this is a problem ONLY in the US! Even Russia doesn't have as much firearm-related homicide as the US. I did some research and made a little website to explain: www.miketheburns.com/wiki-stats/us-vs-europe/

There are simply too many guns in the US, too few gun laws and people just love their guns! And they pissed off all the time and kill each other!

I know it's hard to stop this shit, but the whole "it's the second amendment, we can't do shit" excuse is a poor one.

František (it is read Frantishek, I don't really know how to write the proper pronounciation of the "ti"), shorter versions include Franta, Fanda and others. And it's in Czech.

I actually kind of like that name, my friends usually call me Frank or Frankie, which I like more than Frantisek. I don't know if you ever researched that name, so I apologize if I come off as a captain obvious. The name is Italian in origin, comes from the word Francesco, which means "the Frenchman", though that itself comes from the word Frank, which can mean "free man"... so yeah, I guess it's not bad, being a free man and all

Really? I actually like that form of the name too. Frank, Francis and Franklin, all are pretty cool in my opinion And the origin is pretty much the same

We had shipped out jews to sweden months before the invasion jsut to make sure, but we were compliant to the german occupiers mostly.
We only had a single concentration camp Been ther myself which wasnt that bad compared ot the other ones in say, poland.

Poland was effectively wiped as a nation, the camps build in poland was build by germany, poland had no say in the matter.
Hell they had a massive uprising later in the war (The Warsaw uprising), poland was not compliant at all.

Feel you brah. My name is the equivalent of Frank in our language

František (it is read Frantishek, I don't really know how to write the proper pronounciation of the "ti"), shorter versions include Franta, Fanda and others. And it's in Czech.

I actually kind of like that name, my friends usually call me Frank or Frankie, which I like more than Frantisek. I don't know if you ever researched that name, so I apologize if I come off as a captain obvious. The name is Italian in origin, comes from the word Francesco, which means "the Frenchman", though that itself comes from the word Frank, which can mean "free man"... so yeah, I guess it's not bad, being a free man and all

Really? I actually like that form of the name too. Frank, Francis and Franklin, all are pretty cool in my opinion And the origin is pretty much the same