Discussion Americans Are Lucky

[Kat!]

this is the dumbest fucking thing i have ever read in my entire life

is this copy/pasted from a pol thread

No, it's the truth.

 

[why_be]

Ah here we go again.

Buddy, an AR-15 is not an assault rifle. And if we are going by the term "assault rifle" which was made up during a drafted bill, it still wouldn't be one.

An "assault rifle" is a rifle that can switch between 3 or 2 firing modes, 4 or 3 in total (including safe).

Safe, Semi, and Full-Auto. Or, Safe, Semi, Full-Auto, Two or Three Round Burst.

The AR-15 (as by civilian models) can only have Semi and Safe, making it a civilian model Semi-Automatic rifle.

A gun is a tool, you can use it for a wide range of things, it's not up to the manufacturer to find out what you intend to use it for.


As for ; "How many times have you had to fight off the armed government in your lifetime?"

I suggest you read about Waco or Ruby Ridge, or the Philadelphia fire and shooting.

3 groups of law-abiding people fucked over by the government, and thus murdered.
In Waco's case it was a false gun modification charge.
In Ruby Ridge's case, the Government feared that Randy Weaver was a going to start an insurrection against the government, so they shot his son, dog, and wife.

The better question to ask yourself is, would you want to be ready when the day comes? Or do you want to be ill-prepared, and defenseless?

 

[Kat!]

View attachment 58559

Ah yeah, reddit, the most credible source of information.

 

[UselessMF]

Not only guns but much easier to get SN and other pharmaceuticals without a prescription for CTB.

People on here who have never owned/shot a gun often dreamily wish for one to use for CTB. However overcoming the SI to shoot yourself is much harder than people imagine. Particularly when you've felt the recoil and heard how loud they are. I put it up there with jumping in terms of difficulty.

Agree with you on the SI aspect of shooting yourself. After reading here for a couple of months a lot of people here are looking for a non-gory, peacefull, accidental look methods and firearm dont meet all those criterias.

I have a 12 and 20 gauge with slugs close to me everyday. Had them loaded ready to fire with the barrel in my mouth so many times just couldnt pull the trigger.

 

[Awayout]

Guns are solely designed to kill as fast and efficiently as possible. "People" can take a fuckin' knife and go to their school, they will NEVER kill as many people as they would have with an automatic rifle.
I can't believe I actually have to explain this.

First off, nobody is taking an automatic rifle to school because they were banned years ago. The majority of automatic firearms in the USA were converted into semi-automatic.

Second, no guns are not "solely designed to kill as fast and efficiently as possible". There is no round table meeting where firearm companies executives are sitting there brainstorming ideas on how to make a firearm kill quicker. If you knew anything about firearms you'd know that every single gun does the exact same thing, regardless of the brand or model. You pull the trigger, firing pin releases, primer ignites gun powder, bullet leaves gun, period.

And lastly, obviously it's easier to kill more people with a gun but don't act like they're the only weapon used to kill people. In the US alone there has been more deaths and injuries by stabbing a in school than there was gun deaths.

I genuinely want to understand—what do you think should be done then? Are you for stricter gun laws and regulations? Mental health reform? I'd rather have my 2nd Amendment rights curbed than give "a few rotten eggs" opportunities to kill hundreds of people with their access to guns. I just want SOMETHING to be done in attempt to decrease gun violence. Japan has almost no gun violence, so why not try something, and if it doesn't work, you can have your precious 2nd amendment back.


What good would our guns be against government drones, tanks, nuclear bombs? The "we have a right to defend ourselves" point never made sense to me in modern times. No matter what rights we have, the government will always have the upper hand. Having the right to bear arms is nothing compared to what the government has.

However, having the right to a single non-automatic firearm for self-defense against criminals is sufficient in my opinion.

You do realize that if something as wild as that ever happened that the US is not going to nuke or drone strike their own land, right? Also you'd have to also factor in the fact that the majority of their own military would up and leave as they're not going to be okay with killing their own people. The government would 100% lose in a situation like that.

Also, when it comes to using firearms as self defence, nobody is duel wielding two fully automatic .50 BMG with a flame thrower on their back and C4 charges strapped and ready to go. 99% of the time as soon as the victim brandishes a firearm the criminal runs and there is a few inaccurate shoot taken by both parties.

In the US there is upwards to 3 million lives saved a year because of the 2A and firearms.

A few years ago, there was an attack on a school in my country where the perpetrator killed three people and then suicided-by-cop. His weapon of choice? A sword. Another few years back, a man packs a suitcase full of guns and ammo, and murders 67 kids on an island. Both countries have comparable gun laws, in that permit for a purpose is required. Had he been armed with a sword, do you think 67 kids would have died that day? Or how about in Las Vegas? Could the perpetrator have killed 60 people by firing arrows from a crossbow blindly at 1200 feet away? Even as a marksman, it would have been quite the feat to hit that many targets with fatal precision from that range and angle with that kind of lighting.

I could go on and on. Christchurch, Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook, Columbine. Guns vastly amplify the destructive capabilities of a person with intent, and unlike individual murderousness they can be controlled. I'm not of the opinion that gun ownership necessarily needs to be completely outlawed. But it should be a privilege, not a right. When the founding fathers wrote the Second Amendment, they must have either underestimated our ability to craft so much more effective weaponry, or simply assumed that people would adapt to the times. But we're struggling to do that. There are for example no legitimate reasons for an individual to possess an assault rifle, wouldn't you say?

"Assault Rifles" don't exist, it's a made up term for guns that look scary to people that are already afraid of guns. But anyway, of course there is reasons to own one. They may not be reasons you like, and would say "it's not a necessity" but that can be said about most things. Sport shooting, self defence and hunting are all valid reasons to have an "assault rifle".

There is jobs that require them when working deep in the forests. When I was surveying we carried "assault rifles" in the spring to protect ourselves as a last resort to cougars and waking bears. Our company had on average 15 bear attacks a season. You're not going to take a bear down with a pistol caliber hand gun or carbine.

And yes I understand that there is lots of times mentally ill people have murdered multiple people with guns but in the US alone there is 3 million+ people a year that are saved because of guns and 2A rights.

 

[woknows]

Wow? How do firearms save 3 million Americans per year?

 

[Awayout]

Wow? How do firearms save 3 million Americans per year?

Many ways, but mostly by being prepared if a break-in happens or even by carrying in states that allow open and/or concealed carry. 60% of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they knew the victim was armed, 40% admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they thought the victim might be armed. Felons report that they avoid entering houses where people are at home because they fear being shot. Fewer than 1 percent of firearms are used in the commission of a crime.

Center for Disease Control, in a report ordered by President Obama in 2012 following the Sandy Hook Massacre, estimated that the number of crimes prevented by guns is 8,200 a day and could be even higher. You can find multiple sources showing that defensive gun use is more common and effective than anti-gun fanatics. Also, people who use a gun for defense rarely harm (much less kill) criminals. This is because criminals often back off when they discover their targets are armed.

There is also data from economists and criminologists that found that "gun-free zones" are more likely to attract criminals than they are to deter them.

Lots of people are killed by guns everyday in the US and we're currently going through an anti-gun wave but uneducated people turn a blind eye to the true facts surrounding guns because they're having "all guns bad, they kill babies" shoved down their throats. The reason the left politicians want to ban them is because paint a false narrative that if they're all banned, murders will not exist, which is extremely appealing to their uneducated voters. It's the exact same thing that just happened in Canada last year. Big boy black face Justin Trudeau used the mass shooting in Nova Scotia to ban thousands of firearms from legal gun owners. The man who did the shooting didn't use a single legal firearm other than the one he stole off of the cop he murdered. The liberals turned around and used the pandemic to quickly pass the ban so that it couldn't be fought because they knew that the truth would come out. Luckily for Canadians with now illegal non-restricted firearms, they're not registered and 99% of them will not comply and with it and likely just hide them until the Conservatives get back in and reverse his ridiculous ban and actually work towards doing something about illegal gun crime in Canada.

 

[Amumu]

 

[woknows]

Many ways, but mostly by being prepared if a break-in happens or even by carrying in states that allow open and/or concealed carry. 60% of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they knew the victim was armed, 40% admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they thought the victim might be armed. Felons report that they avoid entering houses where people are at home because they fear being shot. Fewer than 1 percent of firearms are used in the commission of a crime.

Center for Disease Control, in a report ordered by President Obama in 2012 following the Sandy Hook Massacre, estimated that the number of crimes prevented by guns is 8,200 a day and could be even higher. You can find multiple sources showing that defensive gun use is more common and effective than anti-gun fanatics. Also, people who use a gun for defense rarely harm (much less kill) criminals. This is because criminals often back off when they discover their targets are armed.

There is also data from economists and criminologists that found that "gun-free zones" are more likely to attract criminals than they are to deter them.

Lots of people are killed by guns everyday in the US and we're currently going through an anti-gun wave but uneducated people turn a blind eye to the true facts surrounding guns because they're having "all guns bad, they kill babies" shoved down their throats. The reason the left politicians want to ban them is because paint a false narrative that if they're all banned, murders will not exist, which is extremely appealing to their uneducated voters. It's the exact same thing that just happened in Canada last year. Big boy black face Justin Trudeau used the mass shooting in Nova Scotia to ban thousands of firearms from legal gun owners. The man who did the shooting didn't use a single legal firearm other than the one he stole off of the cop he murdered. The liberals turned around and used the pandemic to quickly pass the ban so that it couldn't be fought because they knew that the truth would come out. Luckily for Canadians with now illegal non-restricted firearms, they're not registered and 99% of them will not comply and with it and likely just hide them until the Conservatives get back in and reverse his ridiculous ban and actually work towards doing something about illegal gun crime in Canada.

Do you really believe that 1 in 100 Americans would have been killed each year if there were no guns around? That is ridiculous.

 

[Awayout]

Do you really believe that 1 in 100 Americans would have been killed each year if there were no guns around? That is ridiculous.

No, and I've never said that. Not every attack or break-in ends up a murder but yes, the numbers of murders will be vastly higher. You may choose to ignore that, but it's a fact.

 

[Predestinated]

Americans are truly privileged when it comes to ctb. Imagine ctb buy just pressing a button. (=pulling the trigger). While we have to drink disgusting liquid (SN).

I hate paternalism.

 

[woknows]

No, and I've never said that. Not every attack or break-in ends up a murder but yes, the numbers of murders will be vastly higher. You may choose to ignore that, but it's a fact.

That is not a fact. Your country has one of the highest murder rates per capita in the world! That is a fact. Seems there is something wrong there.

You said guns save 3 million American lives per year. So, yes, that is basically what you said.

 

[Awayout]

That is not a fact. Your country has one of the highest murder rates per capita in the world! That is a fact. Seems there is something wrong there.

You said guns save 3 million American lives per year. So, yes, that is basically what you said.

Brain dead, neat.

 

[woknows]

Brain dead, neat.

Yes. You need to be brain dead to post crap as you do.

 

[Good4Nothing]

View attachment 58694

How many of the guns used in those homocides do you think were legally owned and registered? Do you think criminals buy guns legally and register them? Those statistics speak more to a gang problem than a gun problem, imo.

 

[Awayout]

Yes. You need to be brain dead to post crap as you do.

You're clearly an idiot if you pick and choose what facts to believe. Low IQ level living done right lol

How many of the guns used in those homocides do you think were legally owned and registered? Do you think criminals buy guns legally and register them? Those statistics speak more to a gang problem than a gun problem, imo.

Gang and criminal problems are gun problems. If you choose to assault or murder someone that makes you a criminal.

 

[Good4Nothing]

Gang and criminal problems are gun problems. If you choose to assault or murder someone that makes you a criminal.

Guns don't make people criminals. I've owned and shot guns for 40 years and never killed anyone. I grew up with people who owned and shot guns and never killed anyone. Most of the people I've known in my 48 years have been shooters, and outside of some soldiers and Marines I've never known anyone who has shot a human being.
Do you think every gun owner in America is salivating to kill someone?

 

[Awayout]

Guns don't make people criminals. I've owned and shot guns for 40 years and never killed anyone. I grew up with people who owned and shot guns and never killed anyone. Most of the people I've known in my 48 years have been shooters, and outside of some soldiers and Marines I've never known anyone who has shot a human being.
Do you think every gun owner in America is salivating to kill someone?

What?, I'm pretty sure you've misunderstood me. I am very pro-gun and own 17 myself. I far from think gun owners are criminals.

 

[woknows]

You're clearly an idiot if you pick and choose what facts to believe. Low IQ level living done right lol

Gang and criminal problems are gun problems. If you choose to assault or murder someone that makes you a criminal.

You are right. YOU must have a very low IQ. Too stupid to realize the facts and posting stupidity beyond belief. Not worth even the effort.

 

[SuicidallyCurious]

Guns and criminals are bad ... but there's an even more dangerous combination...

guns and a certain religion that was invented after Judaism and Christianity but in the same general area.

 

[heliumornitrogen]

The 2nd amendment exists so American citizens can protect themselves from a tyrannical government, as well as from criminals. If the government and criminals are armed with assault rifles, then so should we be. We have the rght to defend ourselves.

I understand your point regarding "tyrannical governments", and todays world proves we may not be as safe in the West as we might like to think in that regard. However, overall, I think we are safer in a gun free society. So many intentional and accidental gun related incidents occur in the US carried out by trigger happy people on both sides of the law. It only takes an unstable person having a bad week and it can escalate into tragedy, especially if drugs and alcohol are involved. While if they were using their fists, they may regret their actions the next day but at least their actions are not irreversible. In terms of criminals and guns, it seems that argument is a vicious circle.

when I visited the UK also wondered that, they carry only handcuffs. They sure are brave, and the ones I needed help with locations were all super friendly.

There are armed response units here that can arrive at the scene pretty damn quick if needed, and some police carry tasers, but the UK police tend to pride themselves on their ability to use non aggressive tactics.

How many of the guns used in those homocides do you think were legally owned and registered? Do you think criminals buy guns legally and register them? Those statistics speak more to a gang problem than a gun problem, imo.

That´s because there are so many guns in circulation in the US, it´s much easier for criminals to obtain them illegally. It is much harder for a criminal to purchase an illegal gun in countries that have strict gun control as their are simply far less guns in circulation.

 

[fixitinpost]

Ah here we go again.

Buddy, an AR-15 is not an assault rifle. And if we are going by the term "assault rifle" which was made up during a drafted bill, it still wouldn't be one.

An "assault rifle" is a rifle that can switch between 3 or 2 firing modes, 4 or 3 in total (including safe).

Safe, Semi, and Full-Auto. Or, Safe, Semi, Full-Auto, Two or Three Round Burst.

The AR-15 (as by civilian models) can only have Semi and Safe, making it a civilian model Semi-Automatic rifle.

A gun is a tool, you can use it for a wide range of things, it's not up to the manufacturer to find out what you intend to use it for.

I appreciate that your knowledge about guns seems to be far greater than mine, but the terminology is besides the point I was trying to make. I'm questioning why anyone would ever need to own any kind of rapid-firing weapon. I think removing said weapons from the hands of potential mass shooters would severely limit the death counts while staying within the Constitution. The technology didn't even exist when the Constitution was penned.

As for ; "How many times have you had to fight off the armed government in your lifetime?"

I suggest you read about Waco or Ruby Ridge, or the Philadelphia fire and shooting.

3 groups of law-abiding people fucked over by the government, and thus murdered.
In Waco's case it was a false gun modification charge.
In Ruby Ridge's case, the Government feared that Randy Weaver was a going to start an insurrection against the government, so they shot his son, dog, and wife.

I know those events and what they spawned. To me, they primarily represent individual fuckups that have since been under self-scrutiny - something I wouldn't associate with a "tyrannical government". In fact, Waco and Ruby Ridge involved a lot of the same key personnel.

The better question to ask yourself is, would you want to be ready when the day comes?

No. I don't fear my government. They're not organized enough to pull something off even if their lives depended on it. The police reports itself to the police over a Christmas party getting out of hand. But I can definitely see why Americans have their reasons to be less trustful. And to be clear, I'm mostly referring to people of color being subject to police racism and brutality, and those who protest it being met with military response. But the masses didn't take to arms, because it turns out that violence undermines anything you have to say.

Honestly, the Trump administration is probably the closest resemblance of a "tyrannical government" I can think of in modern American history, and hopefully it will remain that way. But if anything, I hope it gives people a bit more faith in the system. Because it has proven that you can elect a complete fuckwit dictator-wannabe president and the checks and balances will still prevent the democracy from burning to the ground.

 

[Angst Filled Fuck Up]

I like the little extendable police batons that the British cops have. They look so gentlemanly. Like "behave yourself or you'll get a jolly good finger-lashing, you vermin."

 

[Awayout]

You are right. YOU must have a very low IQ. Too stupid to realize the facts and posting stupidity beyond belief. Not worth even the effort.

Good god, you fucking retard. The statistics and fact are widely available online, if you choose not to look into it or believe it, that's your mentally challenged choice.

 

[fixitinpost]

"Assault Rifles" don't exist, it's a made up term for guns that look scary to people that are already afraid of guns. But anyway, of course there is reasons to own one. They may not be reasons you like, and would say "it's not a necessity" but that can be said about most things. Sport shooting, self defence and hunting are all valid reasons to have an "assault rifle".

I guess I'm just not seeing what any kind of rapid-fire weapon can do for self-defense that a pistol or shotgun already can't do. It certainly doesn't seem even a usable solution for home defense, where I think something low-caliber and precise in CQC (like a .22 or even a BB gun) would be much more effective. As for sports shooting, there are systems like Norway where I believe the guns have to remain at the range (which makes sense, since you can still practice the sport). I'm not a hunter, but ever since the restrictions were lifted I've yet to talk to one who prefers the characteristics of rapid-fire over shotguns and bolt-action rifles. But hunting specifically requires a permit, and I believe that's the case in parts of the US as well.

There is jobs that require them when working deep in the forests. When I was surveying we carried "assault rifles" in the spring to protect ourselves as a last resort to cougars and waking bears. Our company had on average 15 bear attacks a season. You're not going to take a bear down with a pistol caliber hand gun or carbine.

But those were company-owned guns, right? And they were kept locked and accounted for, and you all received training, right? I'm really not arguing against that at all. Rapid-fire weapons have reasons to exist. I'm just not seeing why anyone would ever need to own one for themselves, and thus why they should be available for purchase - given how effective and popular they are in indiscriminate mass-killings of people. No system is going to be perfect. Even in Norway, a country where not even police officers are allowed to carry guns (or fire the one in their car without permit), a guy was able to legally acquire weapons by registering as a hunter and then go kill 67 kids. But that dude was highly motivated and organized in his preparation, spending years building an ammo cache, setting up fake identities and companies to buy parts for his ANFO bomb, etc. It'll be hard to stop someone who is that determined. But I think there's a lot that CAN be stopped by making it much harder to acquire certain types of guns.

And yes I understand that there is lots of times mentally ill people have murdered multiple people with guns but in the US alone there is 3 million+ people a year that are saved because of guns and 2A rights.

I'd be interested in reading more about these statistics. I was actually trying to find something like that in my own research. Care to link me?

 

[Kat!]

I genuinely want to understand—what do you think should be done then? Are you for stricter gun laws and regulations? Mental health reform? I'd rather have my 2nd Amendment rights curbed than give "a few rotten eggs" opportunities to kill hundreds of people with their access to guns. I just want SOMETHING to be done in attempt to decrease gun violence. Japan has almost no gun violence, so why not try something, and if it doesn't work, you can have your precious 2nd amendment back.


What good would our guns be against government drones, tanks, nuclear bombs? The "we have a right to defend ourselves" point never made sense to me in modern times. No matter what rights we have, the government will always have the upper hand. Having the right to bear arms is nothing compared to what the government has.

However, having the right to a single non-automatic firearm for self-defense against criminals is sufficient in my opinion.

Okay I'll try to break this argument down.

Stricter gun laws? No. They're already strict enough, it's that the FBI has been super incompetent on their own end, failing to deliver on what they are supposed to do.
A main example being Omar Mateen, who bought one of his weapons for the Orlando Nightclub Shooting while he was under investigation regarding terrorism / extremist links.

More people die in suicides than homicide by firearm globally, this is an undeniable statistic, and more people die in isolated incidences rather than mass shootings. Murder, robbery gone wrong, that sort of deal.

We have been "trying" things, for DECADES. The second amendment is not some precious fairy tail law that is cute and can be messed around with, it is a serious basic law that I think everyone should have access to, the right to defend yourself or others from harm.

Okay, on this whole "we couldn't defeat the military", that's pretty untruthful. 66% of Americans own more than one gun, 29% have five or more, and 62% of all of these gun owners own a rifle.
Civilian grade weapons are just better than the military's, in general. The American people outnumber the military some 70 to 1, 72 million own a gun, and we have about 1.3 million active service members.

Would nuclear "bombs" be used? Very unlikely. At the least, nuclear demolitionary munitions could suffice. Back during the 80's, the major bridges along the River Rhein were boobytrapped with nuclear explosives, so that when the Russians took their 7 days to the River, they'd be vaporized. This same principle could be applied, since the military would be seriously outnumbered.
Drones? Just wear a thermal blanket, Al Qaeda did it. Tanks? I'm sure people will propose solutions if that comes around.

Something to note is that, when a soldier is enlisted, he states the oath " all threats, foreign and domestic. "

Would the troops slaughter their own brothers? I don't know, but it's no doubt that they are allowed to if it comes down to it.

Guns and criminals are bad ... but there's an even more dangerous combination...

guns and a certain religion that was invented after Judaism and Christianity but in the same general area.

Based. Arabpilled.

 

[woknows]

Good god, you fucking retard. The statistics and fact are widely available online, if you choose not to look into it or believe it, that's your mentally challenged choice.

You lost me at the stupidity of claiming guns save up to 3 million American lives per year. If you believe lies like that, you are bound to believe all other sorts of crap.

 

[Awayout]

I guess I'm just not seeing what any kind of rapid-fire weapon can do for self-defense that a pistol or shotgun already can't do. It certainly doesn't seem even a usable solution for home defense, where I think something low-caliber and precise in CQC (like a .22 or even a BB gun) would be much more effective. As for sports shooting, there are systems like Norway where I believe the guns have to remain at the range (which makes sense, since you can still practice the sport). I'm not a hunter, but ever since the restrictions were lifted I've yet to talk to one who prefers the characteristics of rapid-fire over shotguns and bolt-action rifles. But hunting specifically requires a permit, and I believe that's the case in parts of the US as well.



But those were company-owned guns, right? And they were kept locked and accounted for, and you all received training, right? I'm really not arguing against that at all. Rapid-fire weapons have reasons to exist. I'm just not seeing why anyone would ever need to own one for themselves, and thus why they should be available for purchase - given how effective and popular they are in indiscriminate mass-killings of people. No system is going to be perfect. Even in Norway, a country where not even police officers are allowed to carry guns (or fire the one in their car without permit), a guy was able to legally acquire weapons by registering as a hunter and then go kill 67 kids. But that dude was highly motivated and organized in his preparation, spending years building an ammo cache, setting up fake identities and companies to buy parts for his ANFO bomb, etc. It'll be hard to stop someone who is that determined. But I think there's a lot that CAN be stopped by making it much harder to acquire certain types of guns.



I'd be interested in reading more about these statistics. I was actually trying to find something like that in my own research. Care to link me?

Long read but worth it https://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/3 also I'll try and find two more reports I've read as well, they cited more information and sources.

I'm not sure why you refer to Rifles as rapid-fire but not pistols and shotguns. I own 7 shotguns and 9 handguns and I can drop 30+ rounds within 5 seconds with any of them. All semi-automatic firearms can be fired at a high rate.

As for caliber size for home defence.. using a .22 or a BB (lmfaoooo) for home defence is just asking to get murdered haha. In a situation like that, both the intruder and victims are being flooded with adrenaline and unless one of the people get shot in the head which is very unlikely with all the commotion, either one could take multiple rounds to their person and not even realize they were hit until the aftermath. Using a shotgun does a lot more damage than a rifle, not sure why you're questioning a rifle for home defence but suggesting something even more violent and damaging.

And for sport shooting, yes, you can get yourself a really nice and accurate 22 caliber gun for shooting but it they don't shoot very far, especially if you're into long distance shooting. You're not going to hit a target at 1000+ yards with a .22.

At work, no. We used our own firearms. When in company vehicles, we just made sure there was nothing in the chamber and that the safety was on.

I hear people say they are not anti-gun or 2A but that they think handguns are okay and rifles should be banned quite often because when people hear about a shooting, they automatically assume it was done with an AR15 or a similar type of rifle, when in fact almost 70% of shootings are done with handguns.

You lost me at the stupidity of claiming guns save up to 3 million American lives per year. If you believe lies like that, you are bound to believe all other sorts of crap.

https://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/3#13 fucking retarded cuck

 

[*Hope*]

Kinda against US gun laws, but being able to end it peacefully in an instant is probably the only positive thing

 

[Good4Nothing]

Kinda against US gun laws, but being able to end it peacefully in an instant is probably the only positive thing

The only positive thing?
Are you sure?