@delta/rip-off

You are missing the point. Obviously the majority of the death rate in any country is health related as the statistics I provided state. I am very aware of this. But will you refuse to agree that guns, based on the facts, are the least compelling reason to take up an anti-cause? Homicide numbers, regardless of the involvement of guns, is not a tangible metric when the impact of guns themselves is so minimal. To extinguish the way of life that created America because guns are attributed to less than 1% of deaths in the US?

Well, that wins the prize for stupidest thing I've read today, and I read a Trump speech earlier...

So let me get this straight, banning guns won't cure death, so fuck all the people killed by them? I don't even know where to start with that....

Well, guns do make for less than 1% of deaths! I don't see you campaigning for banning heart diseases, you hypocrite!

The fallacy in XYZ-regulation or prohibition is that it makes the assumption "you are all idiots, I must decide for your good", and it needlessly punishes the group of people.

Take alcohol in the US during the first half of the last century. There is nothing wrong with having a beer, or some wine, or even some booze. Who thinks that they have the right to tell you that you can't have a drink. Now... drinking and beating your wife is a different story. Having 6-8 drinks and driving (possibly killing someone) is a different thing as well. But it is entirely unrelated to... how do you best call it, conscious drinking? In EU, responsible drinking and driving is virtually impossible. Despite all evidence, socialists have lowered the threshold ever lower and lower. At the present threshold (partial guilt of any accident at 0.2 and felony at 0.5). That's despite it being well-documented that most alcohol-related accidents (and almost all heavy or lethal accidents) are not made by that guy who has two beers. They're made by that guy with 2.8 permil.
However, the law fails to deliver. It punishes the "good guy" and lets the "vicious drinker" walk free under premise of being certifiably insane under the influence. What the fuck.

Drugs. Illegal, great plan. So instead of buying them legally, from a controlled manufacturer, people are buying them on the black market. Dunno how to enter the black market? Well, just go to the main station and talk to the next maghreb-looking guy.
And again, the law fails to deliver. I'm not into drugs of any kind, never even tried "weed" for curiosity. But: If someone wants to smoke weed, why not. All I'd ask is they do it in their home, not in a public place, and not near children. And they'd best have to wait an hour before driving a car again. But otherwise, who am I that I think I have a right of telling them not to?
On the other hands, there are some seriously harmful drugs which should be illegal by all means because they totally destroy people in short time, and virtually no chance to escape. But again, failure to deliver.
It is for example well-known that virtually all meth in Germany comes from well-known shops run by Vietnamnese on the Szech border. Do you think police raids these well-known shops? Also, if you're a drug addict (on an illegal drug), guess what happens if you commit a crime. Right, nothing happens. Because, hey, you didn't commit two[/] crimes, but you are not actionable because you need the money for drugs.

Weapons... same thing. None of the amok runners or muslim shooters that I remember during the last decade owned a weapon legally. They all bought their weapons out of a car trunk, car coming from Balkan. But when you are caught bootlegging a car trunk full of forbidden weapons, are you getting the chair or something the like? No, of course not. It's a miracle if you go to prison for 2 sears.

And that's just the problem... forbid all you want, but as long as there is no consequence to the really hardcore bad guys, it's all in vain.

I mean the data does say otherwise. Guns not being legal does seem to prevent gun related deaths. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

The US is at about 10.53 while other countries, like the UK, Australia, etc. are below 1. Even Germany is at 1.01. I mean clearly there's a gap there?

The fallacy in XYZ-regulation or prohibition is that it makes the assumption "you are all idiots, I must decide for your good", and it needlessly punishes the group of people.

Take alcohol in the US during the first half of the last century. There is nothing wrong with having a beer, or some wine, or even some booze. Who thinks that they have the right to tell you that you can't have a drink. Now... drinking and beating your wife is a different story. Having 6-8 drinks and driving (possibly killing someone) is a different thing as well. But it is entirely unrelated to... how do you best call it, conscious drinking? In EU, responsible drinking and driving is virtually impossible. Despite all evidence, socialists have lowered the threshold ever lower and lower. At the present threshold (partial guilt of any accident at 0.2 and felony at 0.5). That's despite it being well-documented that most alcohol-related accidents (and almost all heavy or lethal accidents) are not made by that guy who has two beers. They're made by that guy with 2.8 permil.
However, the law fails to deliver. It punishes the "good guy" and lets the "vicious drinker" walk free under premise of being certifiably insane under the influence. What the fuck.

Drugs. Illegal, great plan. So instead of buying them legally, from a controlled manufacturer, people are buying them on the black market. Dunno how to enter the black market? Well, just go to the main station and talk to the next maghreb-looking guy.
And again, the law fails to deliver. I'm not into drugs of any kind, never even tried "weed" for curiosity. But: If someone wants to smoke weed, why not. All I'd ask is they do it in their home, not in a public place, and not near children. And they'd best have to wait an hour before driving a car again. But otherwise, who am I that I think I have a right of telling them not to?
On the other hands, there are some seriously harmful drugs which should be illegal by all means because they totally destroy people in short time, and virtually no chance to escape. But again, failure to deliver.
It is for example well-known that virtually all meth in Germany comes from well-known shops run by Vietnamnese on the Szech border. Do you think police raids these well-known shops? Also, if you're a drug addict (on an illegal drug), guess what happens if you commit a crime. Right, nothing happens. Because, hey, you didn't commit two[/] crimes, but you are not actionable because you need the money for drugs.

Weapons... same thing. None of the amok runners or muslim shooters that I remember during the last decade owned a weapon legally. They all bought their weapons out of a car trunk, car coming from Balkan. But when you are caught bootlegging a car trunk full of forbidden weapons, are you getting the chair or something the like? No, of course not. It's a miracle if you go to prison for 2 sears.

And that's just the problem... forbid all you want, but as long as there is no consequence to the really hardcore bad guys, it's all in vain.

I mean the data does say otherwise. Guns not being legal does seem to prevent gun related deaths. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

The US is at about 10.53 while other countries, like the UK, Australia, etc. are below 1. Even Germany is at 1.01. I mean clearly there's a gap there?

He brings up a good point about prohibition and drug use.

Restrictions don't do anything (and in fact are actually harmful) when they run contrary to the popular will. The US is not the UK, Australia, or Germany. The people here live by a different culture. Someone else brought up an interesting point about policemen in the UK actively resisting attempts to arm them. That would never happen here. People here want guns, and when people want something, legality isn't terribly effective at stopping it, only at making it harder to track.

The fallacy in XYZ-regulation or prohibition is that it makes the assumption "you are all idiots, I must decide for your good", and it needlessly punishes the group of people.

Take alcohol in the US during the first half of the last century. There is nothing wrong with having a beer, or some wine, or even some booze. Who thinks that they have the right to tell you that you can't have a drink. Now... drinking and beating your wife is a different story. Having 6-8 drinks and driving (possibly killing someone) is a different thing as well. But it is entirely unrelated to... how do you best call it, conscious drinking? In EU, responsible drinking and driving is virtually impossible. Despite all evidence, socialists have lowered the threshold ever lower and lower. At the present threshold (partial guilt of any accident at 0.2 and felony at 0.5). That's despite it being well-documented that most alcohol-related accidents (and almost all heavy or lethal accidents) are not made by that guy who has two beers. They're made by that guy with 2.8 permil.
However, the law fails to deliver. It punishes the "good guy" and lets the "vicious drinker" walk free under premise of being certifiably insane under the influence. What the fuck.

Drugs. Illegal, great plan. So instead of buying them legally, from a controlled manufacturer, people are buying them on the black market. Dunno how to enter the black market? Well, just go to the main station and talk to the next maghreb-looking guy.
And again, the law fails to deliver. I'm not into drugs of any kind, never even tried "weed" for curiosity. But: If someone wants to smoke weed, why not. All I'd ask is they do it in their home, not in a public place, and not near children. And they'd best have to wait an hour before driving a car again. But otherwise, who am I that I think I have a right of telling them not to?
On the other hands, there are some seriously harmful drugs which should be illegal by all means because they totally destroy people in short time, and virtually no chance to escape. But again, failure to deliver.
It is for example well-known that virtually all meth in Germany comes from well-known shops run by Vietnamnese on the Szech border. Do you think police raids these well-known shops? Also, if you're a drug addict (on an illegal drug), guess what happens if you commit a crime. Right, nothing happens. Because, hey, you didn't commit two[/] crimes, but you are not actionable because you need the money for drugs.

Weapons... same thing. None of the amok runners or muslim shooters that I remember during the last decade owned a weapon legally. They all bought their weapons out of a car trunk, car coming from Balkan. But when you are caught bootlegging a car trunk full of forbidden weapons, are you getting the chair or something the like? No, of course not. It's a miracle if you go to prison for 2 sears.

And that's just the problem... forbid all you want, but as long as there is no consequence to the really hardcore bad guys, it's all in vain.

I mean the data does say otherwise. Guns not being legal does seem to prevent gun related deaths. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

The US is at about 10.53 while other countries, like the UK, Australia, etc. are below 1. Even Germany is at 1.01. I mean clearly there's a gap there?

He brings up a good point about prohibition and drug use.

Restrictions don't do anything (and in fact are actually harmful) when they run contrary to the popular will. The US is not the UK, Australia, or Germany. The people here live by a different culture. Someone else brought up an interesting point about policemen in the UK actively resisting attempts to arm them. That would never happen here. People here want guns, and when people want something, legality isn't terribly effective at stopping it, only at making it harder to track.

I agree. Implementing illegality would be terribly difficult for all sorts of reasons, the biggest one being that there are more guns in the US than there are citizens. It's almost impossible to get rid of that many guns. Then there's that cultural thing that people have a sort of gun fetish around here (if that's your thing then that's your thing).

Back on topic, his major credentials (as he claims) is his successful business empire, but if Trump runs his country like he does is business... his country is fucked, Just my opinion from skimming through New York Times' Article Trump's Empire: A maze of debts and opaque ties

But an investigation by The New York Times into the financial maze of Mr. Trump’s real estate holdings in the United States reveals that companies he owns have at least $650 million in debt — twice the amount than can be gleaned from public filings he has made as part of his bid for the White House....

.... Yet The Times’s examination underscored how much of Mr. Trump’s business remains shrouded in mystery. He has declined to disclose his tax returns or allow an independent valuation of his assets.

Back on topic, his major credentials (as he claims) is his successful business empire, but if Trump runs his country like he does is business... his country is fucked, Just my opinion from skimming through New York Times' Article Trump's Empire: A maze of debts and opaque ties

But an investigation by The New York Times into the financial maze of Mr. Trump’s real estate holdings in the United States reveals that companies he owns have at least $650 million in debt — twice the amount than can be gleaned from public filings he has made as part of his bid for the White House....

.... Yet The Times’s examination underscored how much of Mr. Trump’s business remains shrouded in mystery. He has declined to disclose his tax returns or allow an independent valuation of his assets.

I mean, in general, a business and a country are two very different things. Doing well in one doesn't necessarily translate to doing well in the other.

However I'm not sure that a history of shady business dealings for ones on profit are really a great indicator of a leader society can trust.

Based on his business history the only thing I would trust Trump to do with regards to economic issues would be to twist things around for his own profit.

In all the US had produced a stunningly bad crop of potential leaders this time around.

Could someone please explain to me why Hillarious C is such a bad counter part for this presidental race? I never could know myself, but I am already massaged so well, that I believe she is just a little little bit less of an evil? Why? Where from am I? (I already am)

@delta/rip-off

You are missing the point. Obviously the majority of the death rate in any country is health related as the statistics I provided state. I am very aware of this. But will you refuse to agree that guns, based on the facts, are the least compelling reason to take up an anti-cause? Homicide numbers, regardless of the involvement of guns, is not a tangible metric when the impact of guns themselves is so minimal. To extinguish the way of life that created America because guns are attributed to less than 1% of deaths in the US?

Well, that wins the prize for stupidest thing I've read today, and I read a Trump speech earlier...

So let me get this straight, banning guns won't cure death, so fuck all the people killed by them? I don't even know where to start with that....

It is real easy to talk tough over the internet I suppose. So much for an intelligent conversation when the other party involved resorts to childish, trite remarks. According to your train of thought, why don't you condemn or ban fast food? Heart disease is the number one killer in the US. Fuck all the people killed by fast food yeah?

You don't know where to start because you don't have an argument. You have feelings and emotion, attempting to take some superior, moral high-ground. What about smoking? Smoking can be attributed to 17x the amount of deaths compared to guns. Please ban cigarettes.