Upload
Login or register

throneinc

Last status update:
-
Age: 28
Date Signed Up:1/21/2011
Last Login:12/02/2016
Stats
Comment Ranking:#16047
Highest Comment Rank:#3713
Comment Thumbs: 398 total,  621 ,  223
Content Level Progress: 6.77% (4/59)
Level 0 Content: Untouched account → Level 1 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress: 0% (0/10)
Level 142 Comments: Faptastic → Level 143 Comments: Faptastic
Subscribers:0
Total Comments Made:138
FJ Points:334

latest user's comments

#362 - yes and how many times you've seen an american citizen take up…  [+] (1 reply) 11/30/2016 on STABBINGS ARE WHY WE NEED... -1
#382 - thenelly (11/30/2016) [-]
Well considering Mexico has strict gun control yea you wouldn't see citizens taking up arms against cartels. But if you are referring to America then you don't know laws. Cant just go around shooting gang/cartel members and if you did the last thing you need to worry about is the goverment laws as the cartels will torture and kill your entire family.

and thank you for showing you know nothing about what is required to purchase a firearm in the United States.
#304 - So are you telling me the UK has no gang activity ? y…  [+] (3 replies) 11/30/2016 on STABBINGS ARE WHY WE NEED... 0
#348 - thenelly (11/30/2016) [-]
I shall refer you back to my comment you just replied to.
Island Vs a Country with land borders.
#362 - throneinc (11/30/2016) [-]
yes and how many times you've seen an american citizen take up arms against the cartels. Noh

The massive amount of guns in the streets are legally owned, they're sold freely and unregulated, none would be assed off to smuggle a gun he can get from a random shop. you're just evading the real problem and making excuses, there is no reason a criminal should buy a gun legally yet the conservative right just assures everyone that either owning a gun is a human right bullshit, or that its just too hard so we're not even gonna try excuse < said every corrupt politician.

and the border should be secured, iam not some fucking BLM faggot.
#382 - thenelly (11/30/2016) [-]
Well considering Mexico has strict gun control yea you wouldn't see citizens taking up arms against cartels. But if you are referring to America then you don't know laws. Cant just go around shooting gang/cartel members and if you did the last thing you need to worry about is the goverment laws as the cartels will torture and kill your entire family.

and thank you for showing you know nothing about what is required to purchase a firearm in the United States.
#292 - You jumped to the conclusion of "Either one extreme or th…  [+] (1 reply) 11/30/2016 on STABBINGS ARE WHY WE NEED... 0
User avatar
#337 - willgum (11/30/2016) [-]
I jumped to the conclusion because I think that is they only way gun control works like that's just what I believe based on the evidence given.

If the we don't know who or why we can be put on the no fly list than the goverment can put anyone on it for any reason which is an awful lot of power.

I don't mind some people not getting guns as long as theirs a reason for it which is why I didn't disagree with the background checks, the majority of criminals and mentally ill people shouldn't own a gun (which is why I pointed out that the National rifle association IE the ones against the background checks now support them).

No it's not unfounded because you might notice that the places with the strictest gun control have the highest crime rate plus the vast majority of gun control laws simply don't work they do nothing to stop crime and everything to disarm regular citizens.

The united states of America is not in any way compatible to Australia other than we're both white and western. The US is a ridiculously patriotic country we are taught that the right to bear arms and self preservation are fundamental to our liberties. and remember that most of the gun owners in the US would rather start a civil war than give up their guns, and that's not hyperbole we have state militias for a reason. Our constitution was built so that we could have an armed rebellion whenever we needed because a goverment should fear it's people not the other way around.
#85 - The conservatives blocked every effort for any common sense re…  [+] (4 replies) 11/29/2016 on STABBINGS ARE WHY WE NEED... 0
User avatar
#111 - willgum (11/29/2016) [-]
*I am gonna use this comment to reply to both of yours my dawg*

I am going to ask you what you think "common sense" gun control is exactly because the term is used to win people to the anti-gun side based solely of the name. As for me "common sense" gun control means implementing a stop and search method where in police can stop people randomly and charge them if they have a gun illegally. I support this method because it doesn't impede on the right's of gun owners just the right's of criminals. sounds like common sense I'm sure we would both agree however when this method was implemented in New York it was very effective but because more minorities were being arrested based on the law leftists claimed it was being used to target minorities and now it's not a law.

Yes conservatives were against a few things like background checks (which the NRA later endorsed btw) but a lot of the other things conservatives were against were not so "common sense" like the "no fly list" bans, this was to stop people who are on the no fly list for whatever reason from getting a gun. theoretically it targets terrorists but the problem with that is you can end up on the no fly list for no actual reason a few senators are on the no fly list, that would give the goverment WAY too much power.

as for your previous comment: In my honest opinion "gun control" can only work in 2 possible ways either a full on gun ban like the UK or little to know laws on the control.
Both can work but both have their flaws.
with a full on ban you are removing your citizens rights to self preservation. with this method you also have to trust your goverment won't turn on it's citizens and won't abuse it's power.
little to no control can work too but more people will die from gun violence (obviously) and if implemented properly that should be the only downside.
The problem is the US doesn't fully accept it's little to no laws policy instead we try to implement retarded gun control laws that do nothing but impede on the citizens rights like waiting periods or magazine caps neither of which affect the criminal who gets his guns surprise surprise illegally. Or my personal favorite "gun free zones" the most fucking stupid method to stop gun violence since bugs bunny first stuck his finger in Elmer's gun which would actually be more effective mind you. A gun free zone is where the state says "you can't bring guns on school property" now remember when I said criminals do things illegally? well shockingly enough the criminal doesn't respect the gun free zone and instead brings guns into gun free zones and then Columbine happens.

Now you may be asking "why doesn't the US implement a full on gun ban?"
I don't want to make you read another wall of text so here is a short video that you can play while you scale some walls.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnoFKskvSq4&list=FLbulOiRb4f_kFucSJsu-Fpw
#292 - throneinc (11/30/2016) [-]
You jumped to the conclusion of "Either one extreme or the other" out of no where, a complete fallacy.
the so called leftiest dubbed it Common sense because in my honest opinion make sense.
I'm pretty sure no fly list doesn't give the government "WAY too much power", as i'm also pretty sure that the law can be woven in a way to filter out senators for whatever reason, still i don't think some people not getting guns is the end of the world.

And what about background checks ? there is no reason to allow a criminal or a mentally disturbed person be allowed to buy and own a dangerous weapon. THAT's common sense.

There is a place to have guns and regulate it, the either or conclusion is completely unfounded.

As for your last video, Australia, and it worked for them, yes the situation is more complicated in the US thanks to the level of corruption and money in the government.

Me dawg
User avatar
#337 - willgum (11/30/2016) [-]
I jumped to the conclusion because I think that is they only way gun control works like that's just what I believe based on the evidence given.

If the we don't know who or why we can be put on the no fly list than the goverment can put anyone on it for any reason which is an awful lot of power.

I don't mind some people not getting guns as long as theirs a reason for it which is why I didn't disagree with the background checks, the majority of criminals and mentally ill people shouldn't own a gun (which is why I pointed out that the National rifle association IE the ones against the background checks now support them).

No it's not unfounded because you might notice that the places with the strictest gun control have the highest crime rate plus the vast majority of gun control laws simply don't work they do nothing to stop crime and everything to disarm regular citizens.

The united states of America is not in any way compatible to Australia other than we're both white and western. The US is a ridiculously patriotic country we are taught that the right to bear arms and self preservation are fundamental to our liberties. and remember that most of the gun owners in the US would rather start a civil war than give up their guns, and that's not hyperbole we have state militias for a reason. Our constitution was built so that we could have an armed rebellion whenever we needed because a goverment should fear it's people not the other way around.
#87 - throneinc (11/29/2016) [-]
Talking about the US ^
#83 - not working for the US very much is it ? Considering UK had li…  [+] (7 replies) 11/29/2016 on STABBINGS ARE WHY WE NEED... -1
#165 - thenelly (11/29/2016) [-]
How many of thoes "mass shootings" were gang related? How many of thoes "mass shootings" were legal gun owners?
The thing the left always tends to forget when they compare us to Brittan with their gun control is that we are not an island were the only way to get weapons into the country is by boat. We have a very unsecured southern boarder that has massive cartels (that no one wants to secure for some reason) and also we have a higher population than any of the euro countries (besides russia)
#304 - throneinc (11/30/2016) [-]
So are you telling me the UK has no gang activity ?

your question is invalid, Cartels/organized crime or not, there is too many guns on the streets completely unchecked and unaccounted for.
#348 - thenelly (11/30/2016) [-]
I shall refer you back to my comment you just replied to.
Island Vs a Country with land borders.
#362 - throneinc (11/30/2016) [-]
yes and how many times you've seen an american citizen take up arms against the cartels. Noh

The massive amount of guns in the streets are legally owned, they're sold freely and unregulated, none would be assed off to smuggle a gun he can get from a random shop. you're just evading the real problem and making excuses, there is no reason a criminal should buy a gun legally yet the conservative right just assures everyone that either owning a gun is a human right bullshit, or that its just too hard so we're not even gonna try excuse < said every corrupt politician.

and the border should be secured, iam not some fucking BLM faggot.
#382 - thenelly (11/30/2016) [-]
Well considering Mexico has strict gun control yea you wouldn't see citizens taking up arms against cartels. But if you are referring to America then you don't know laws. Cant just go around shooting gang/cartel members and if you did the last thing you need to worry about is the goverment laws as the cartels will torture and kill your entire family.

and thank you for showing you know nothing about what is required to purchase a firearm in the United States.
#239 - imbehindu (11/29/2016) [-]
But the vast majority of Mexican cartel weapons are from the US? Also US has ~double the population of Russia
#349 - thenelly (11/30/2016) [-]
yes we know about fast and furious. But we are not the only country that manufactures weapons. Thoes pesky gun runners with the Chinese and Russian aks, Israeli tecs, etc.
#74 - and how many bad guys would have a gun also ?  [+] (27 replies) 11/29/2016 on STABBINGS ARE WHY WE NEED... +11
User avatar
#78 - willgum (11/29/2016) [-]
that question becomes mostly irrelevant when you consider that if guns become a fundamental right for British citizens than you can assume that roughly half of the criminals get guns but you can also assume roughly half of the regular citizens would get guns, which means that every time a criminal considers attacking someone their is a 50/50 chance the good guy has a gun. Which makes guns a fabulous deterrent
#236 - imbehindu (11/29/2016) [-]
It's more to do with escalation than anything else. Consider the Cold war, the Soviets wouldn't have also had nukes or pumped quite so much money into developing nukes if their competition hadn't been doing it better and for longer. It's much the same with criminals (at least in organised crime). If the police their shooting at suddenly have machine guns and armor, then they're going to buy bigger machine guns and armor piercing rounds if they can. In response, the government will better arm the police rather than have to explain themselves to some poor bastards family, and then the criminals will obviously be outmatched and will upgrade again. Obviously this doesn't happen very quickly, but it's easier to avoid it entirely in the UK because they've established that less unarmed people will die in a knife attack in the 15 minutes it would take an armed response unit to show up and blow their brains all over the wall than would die in the couple of minutes it would take for some hero to blow the head off some scumbag with a machine gun.

Problem with escalation is that it is very very very difficult to undo. It's obviously difficult to disarm the criminals - if it were easy then they clearly would be easy to stop in criminal careers in the first place. But, if you remove the guns you can, you're removing them from the general population, hence the criminals would have the upper hand in terms of armament and thus would have the ability to profit off being more violent with impunity and thus would become more violent.

The only solution for the USA I can offer is the long term one - limit the more advanced weaponry to law enforcement with proper training on how to handle it, and only to them. This would be incredibly difficult and expensive. This then keeps the criminals and civilians in their current equilibrium position, hence not causing the massive spike in crime that would follow disarmament of civilians, but the increasing advantages that law enforcement would have over the criminals would be a gradually increasing deterrent. Given a few decades, it would be possible to forcibly take whatever illicit weaponry was left with little bloodshed - nobody is going to be particularly enthusiastic about war with cops with weapons from 2050 if you've a semi automatic from 1990. After this, to restrict weapons entirely, it would make sense to restrict civilian gun ownership also, thus preventing any armed civilians turning to armed criminals. Obviously this doesn't take into account the massive point of the American culture regarding civilians having enough arms to form a militia and overthrow the government, but I suppose you would just have to get people to accept that while it's obviously more difficult in the armed case and there would be a certain pride and honour in the fight, the US military already have the capability to crush any civilian militia that popped out of the ground anyways.

But basically yeah, escalation is why arming civilians isn't a good idea in the UK.
User avatar
#260 - thegamepixel (11/30/2016) [-]
First of all the UK is more densely populated, so police response times are much quicker.

Secondly, if it is a 1-on-1 confrontation, criminal vs civilian, guns are an equalizer. Guns allow a weak woman to fend herself off against a much stronger attacker, whilst with a knife or any other self-defense tool, she could not.

Thirdly, we cannot outright ban firearms. I doubt a gun buyback program would not have over 50% compliance and would likely start a rebellion. There are more guns in the US than people. Even if we were to somehow get these guns to go away, criminals would still get guns. This doesn't happen in the UK since you're an island, meanwhile we border Mexico. You can easily see this with Chicago having the strictest gun control, but the most violent crime and shootings.

Fourthly, and most importantly, guns are for more than self-defense. Hunting is a big industry and hobby in the US. An armed insurrection, as you mentioned is also a reason. I don't think you're giving Americans enough credit. In a citizens vs government battle, civilians have the advantage of the lay of the land, defectors in the government, as well as the US government knowing they can't feasibly fight their citizens as it would kill large swathes of their civilians at best, and give way for a foreign invasion at worst. If we had no guns, we couldn't do this, not only because of the lack of stopping power, but because of the lack of confidence. No one would dream of threatening the government with knives, but the government needs to stay on it's toes if we have guns.

In the UK, you have marginally lower violent crime, and if you give the US similar racial demographics, we have less violent crime.
#275 - imbehindu (11/30/2016) [-]
Please read my post - I explained why escalation meant that the UK and the US were completely different cases, it also covers why the US police take longer to respond - it's not to do with geography, much more to do with the fact that US police have a lot more shit on their plate to deal with. I explained why escalation meant that introducing guns into the UK was a dumb idea - granted weak women would have a higher chance of being raped/stabbed which is fucking awful, but they'd also have a higher chance of being murdered, as would the rest of the population. The latter far outweighs the former.

I also included why suddenly removing guns from the US was a dumb fucking idea put forward by a shower of idealistic retards who have no idea how the world actually works. If it were to happen it would need to be incredibly slow - as I said decades - over which time, with the gun crime rate dropping exponentially, people would obviously become happier to give up their guns. I said that the civilians could be disarmed AFTER and only AFTER all of the criminals had been. The massive period could be used to educate people as to why - while you as an individual may feel safer with a gun at your hip - having a gun would do damage to society as a whole if criminals didn't also have guns.

Also, most of the guns in Mexico are American; you're forgetting that the US is the only country that actually makes guns that fucking work; I know you can get Russian/Chinese pieces of crap that still do damage, but cartels etc. that smuggle them over the border would exactly be able to fight off the state of the art military weaponry that could be used against them. Basically, it means US law enforcement would have the upper hand.

Guns are obviously used for hunting, I'm Irish (I know, British flag but I've lived here for only a few months) and pretty much anyone at all with legitimate reasons can purchase a rifle or shotgun, which is all hunting really requires. The logic is that while those guns can be used for hunting, they're not really effective for criminal purpose - an armed response unit would show up well before serious damage could be done and they have real machine guns; also if hunting is the only real reason to own a gun, it's pretty fucking obvious if someone has a rifle/shotgun with them in the centre of a town that they're up to bad shit.

I do give the American gun ownership credit, it would make foreign occupation completely impossible, but while you may be able to launch the greatest guerrilla campaign in history, you need food/water etc., and biological warfare which can only be deployed by the US govt. could destroy those provisions with ease. Congresss know they could wipe the civilian population the fuck out if they wanted to, but why bother?

The UK has quite significantly lower violent crime - the murder rate in the US is 18 times higher than in the UK www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/United-Kingdom/United-States/Crime

Also on the point of Chicago having strict gun laws but higher homicide rates:
(a) Read where I said that disarming US citizens in the current situation would get them killed
(b) Chicago has stricter gun laws BECAUSE they have a high homicide rate, not the other way around
#218 - anon (11/29/2016) [-]
What if a criminal decides to attack me but I'm a bad guy myself?
User avatar
#245 - severepwner (11/30/2016) [-]
Gang crime.
User avatar
#219 - willgum (11/29/2016) [-]
then problem solved
#220 - anon (11/29/2016) [-]
I'd like to have a gun please.
User avatar
#221 - willgum (11/29/2016) [-]
Well to my understanding you are allowed to own a gun if you own a farm since you need to be able to deal with varmints. I am pretty sure their are other special circumstances where legal ownership is possible but I don't know of them because why would I. However since you claim to also be a bad guy I suggest going through less than legal means to acquire one.
User avatar
#225 - strongerection (11/29/2016) [-]
I'm not a bad guy; I would consider becoming one if all other means of providing for myself and my hypothetical family failed. I also want to make it to the US one day and follow my American Dream which involves (but is not limited to) owning a gun. I also need to stop forgetting to uncheck the "Post as anonymous" box.
User avatar
#227 - willgum (11/29/2016) [-]
a noble dream and reason for becoming a bad guy.
#184 - anon (11/29/2016) [-]
Why the fuck would you assume 50% of people in two different categories of people would decide to get guns? That's a terrible assumption and has no standing to any argument. You should feel ashamed.
User avatar
#193 - willgum (11/29/2016) [-]
well fine then I would assume the majority would purchase a firearm since most people in Brittan would think "since guns are legal criminals will have them, so I should get one to protect myself" otherwise no one would get one but criminals which would defeat the purpose of the law in the first place, but I think the UK people if suddenly given the ability to protect themselves would do so.
#83 - throneinc (11/29/2016) [-]
not working for the US very much is it ? Considering UK had little to no gun violence while the US gets an average of one mass shooting a day.

www.gunviolencearchive.org/reports/mass-shooting
#165 - thenelly (11/29/2016) [-]
How many of thoes "mass shootings" were gang related? How many of thoes "mass shootings" were legal gun owners?
The thing the left always tends to forget when they compare us to Brittan with their gun control is that we are not an island were the only way to get weapons into the country is by boat. We have a very unsecured southern boarder that has massive cartels (that no one wants to secure for some reason) and also we have a higher population than any of the euro countries (besides russia)
#304 - throneinc (11/30/2016) [-]
So are you telling me the UK has no gang activity ?

your question is invalid, Cartels/organized crime or not, there is too many guns on the streets completely unchecked and unaccounted for.
#348 - thenelly (11/30/2016) [-]
I shall refer you back to my comment you just replied to.
Island Vs a Country with land borders.
#362 - throneinc (11/30/2016) [-]
yes and how many times you've seen an american citizen take up arms against the cartels. Noh

The massive amount of guns in the streets are legally owned, they're sold freely and unregulated, none would be assed off to smuggle a gun he can get from a random shop. you're just evading the real problem and making excuses, there is no reason a criminal should buy a gun legally yet the conservative right just assures everyone that either owning a gun is a human right bullshit, or that its just too hard so we're not even gonna try excuse < said every corrupt politician.

and the border should be secured, iam not some fucking BLM faggot.
#382 - thenelly (11/30/2016) [-]
Well considering Mexico has strict gun control yea you wouldn't see citizens taking up arms against cartels. But if you are referring to America then you don't know laws. Cant just go around shooting gang/cartel members and if you did the last thing you need to worry about is the goverment laws as the cartels will torture and kill your entire family.

and thank you for showing you know nothing about what is required to purchase a firearm in the United States.
#239 - imbehindu (11/29/2016) [-]
But the vast majority of Mexican cartel weapons are from the US? Also US has ~double the population of Russia
#349 - thenelly (11/30/2016) [-]
yes we know about fast and furious. But we are not the only country that manufactures weapons. Thoes pesky gun runners with the Chinese and Russian aks, Israeli tecs, etc.
User avatar
#79 - willgum (11/29/2016) [-]
this is also without considering the actually useful gun control laws that we should have but don't because leftists think they're "racist" that the UK would implement.
#85 - throneinc (11/29/2016) [-]
The conservatives blocked every effort for any common sense regulations on guns, including simple background checks, You're blaming the wrong side on this one
User avatar
#111 - willgum (11/29/2016) [-]
*I am gonna use this comment to reply to both of yours my dawg*

I am going to ask you what you think "common sense" gun control is exactly because the term is used to win people to the anti-gun side based solely of the name. As for me "common sense" gun control means implementing a stop and search method where in police can stop people randomly and charge them if they have a gun illegally. I support this method because it doesn't impede on the right's of gun owners just the right's of criminals. sounds like common sense I'm sure we would both agree however when this method was implemented in New York it was very effective but because more minorities were being arrested based on the law leftists claimed it was being used to target minorities and now it's not a law.

Yes conservatives were against a few things like background checks (which the NRA later endorsed btw) but a lot of the other things conservatives were against were not so "common sense" like the "no fly list" bans, this was to stop people who are on the no fly list for whatever reason from getting a gun. theoretically it targets terrorists but the problem with that is you can end up on the no fly list for no actual reason a few senators are on the no fly list, that would give the goverment WAY too much power.

as for your previous comment: In my honest opinion "gun control" can only work in 2 possible ways either a full on gun ban like the UK or little to know laws on the control.
Both can work but both have their flaws.
with a full on ban you are removing your citizens rights to self preservation. with this method you also have to trust your goverment won't turn on it's citizens and won't abuse it's power.
little to no control can work too but more people will die from gun violence (obviously) and if implemented properly that should be the only downside.
The problem is the US doesn't fully accept it's little to no laws policy instead we try to implement retarded gun control laws that do nothing but impede on the citizens rights like waiting periods or magazine caps neither of which affect the criminal who gets his guns surprise surprise illegally. Or my personal favorite "gun free zones" the most fucking stupid method to stop gun violence since bugs bunny first stuck his finger in Elmer's gun which would actually be more effective mind you. A gun free zone is where the state says "you can't bring guns on school property" now remember when I said criminals do things illegally? well shockingly enough the criminal doesn't respect the gun free zone and instead brings guns into gun free zones and then Columbine happens.

Now you may be asking "why doesn't the US implement a full on gun ban?"
I don't want to make you read another wall of text so here is a short video that you can play while you scale some walls.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnoFKskvSq4&list=FLbulOiRb4f_kFucSJsu-Fpw
#292 - throneinc (11/30/2016) [-]
You jumped to the conclusion of "Either one extreme or the other" out of no where, a complete fallacy.
the so called leftiest dubbed it Common sense because in my honest opinion make sense.
I'm pretty sure no fly list doesn't give the government "WAY too much power", as i'm also pretty sure that the law can be woven in a way to filter out senators for whatever reason, still i don't think some people not getting guns is the end of the world.

And what about background checks ? there is no reason to allow a criminal or a mentally disturbed person be allowed to buy and own a dangerous weapon. THAT's common sense.

There is a place to have guns and regulate it, the either or conclusion is completely unfounded.

As for your last video, Australia, and it worked for them, yes the situation is more complicated in the US thanks to the level of corruption and money in the government.

Me dawg
User avatar
#337 - willgum (11/30/2016) [-]
I jumped to the conclusion because I think that is they only way gun control works like that's just what I believe based on the evidence given.

If the we don't know who or why we can be put on the no fly list than the goverment can put anyone on it for any reason which is an awful lot of power.

I don't mind some people not getting guns as long as theirs a reason for it which is why I didn't disagree with the background checks, the majority of criminals and mentally ill people shouldn't own a gun (which is why I pointed out that the National rifle association IE the ones against the background checks now support them).

No it's not unfounded because you might notice that the places with the strictest gun control have the highest crime rate plus the vast majority of gun control laws simply don't work they do nothing to stop crime and everything to disarm regular citizens.

The united states of America is not in any way compatible to Australia other than we're both white and western. The US is a ridiculously patriotic country we are taught that the right to bear arms and self preservation are fundamental to our liberties. and remember that most of the gun owners in the US would rather start a civil war than give up their guns, and that's not hyperbole we have state militias for a reason. Our constitution was built so that we could have an armed rebellion whenever we needed because a goverment should fear it's people not the other way around.
#87 - throneinc (11/29/2016) [-]
Talking about the US ^
#74 - Ya as it has been clearly demonstrated, They have no idea what…  [+] (2 replies) 11/20/2016 on TWITTER VERIFIED THE... 0
User avatar
#96 - optimussum (11/21/2016) [-]
ok muhammed
#123 - throneinc (11/22/2016) [-]
thanks for the great argument.

Its fareed btw.
[ 137 Total ]