Guess I can't grasp all this enthusiasm cuz I'm European

I enjoyed it! Title's a bit fucked tho, don't really consider Anaconda part of hip hop history, let alone fucking Harlem Shake haha

can't be bothered (don't think anyone on here can) to go through all those pages of statistics, but something seems off about the way you compared the data of England and Wales to the US. Wouldn't it be more productive to compare the murder rate per 100k citizens (cuz it's more about murder in this case than it is about crime in general really) in a major English city like London and the murder rate per 100k citizens in New York or another major city in the USA? This is just a hunch (I won't deny I don't know much about statistics so reject everything I said if you please), but isn't the fact that the US is a relatively less urbanised country than England something that should be taken into account when comparing stats?

Still though, what defines a gun is that it renders a person the ability to shoot (and destroy) things. A gun that doesn't shoot bullets isn't a gun. A gun is a weapon, regardless of the way you choose to use it. When you hunt for sport, you kill animals. When you shoot targets, you destroy targets. When you collect guns, you collect them because their ability to destroy, the power that resonates from the weapon is something that attracts you. That's my point of view on it anyways. (even if you use your gun in a "peaceful" way, i.e. trying to scare a criminal away, the reason why you're effective is still because you're suggesting violence and the possibility to murder, which in my books is equally bad)

Thing is a dick is used for other purposes than harming people. A gun is solely designed for murdering. So yes, your analogy is wrong

It's not about whether you're able to obtain a murdering machine or not, it's about how easy it is to obtain. Sure you can go about driving around in a massive truck and trying to run over people, but that's far more difficult than just mowing people down with a rifle. It's evident that there's a pretty big cultural difference between myself and the people arguing against me and it's nearly impossible to change someones beliefs, which besides I'm not trying to do at all. The point I was trying to make is that by making guns easier to obtain for a teenager, you allow things like this to happen on a more regular basis. I'm not saying that it would prevent crime or school shootings, but it would make potential murders think twice about their actions, as it would be way harder to obtain the required means for their crimes. You would create a very large hurdle for these people to get over first, as I belief getting in touch with an arms dealer (if, of course the ban on the possession of arms would be imposed properly - and that's a big if, I'm aware of that, but you invest so much money in your intelligence service etc I don't think it should be that big of an issue, I might be wrong though) isn't that simple, especially, whether you're a sociopath or not.

Apart from that, and I'm aware of the irony in this statement and the amount of shit I might take for it, your notion of freedom (i.e. the possibility to defend yourself with a gun if needed) differs from mine. Is it still freedom if it represses other people? Sure, you're free to own a gun, but because you have a gun, you put a limit on the freedom of other people, in a sense. Because anyone can get a gun, I'd better by a gun myself etc etc. You create a society riddled with paranoia, where literally everyone (I know this isn't 100 procent accurate, but I use this phrasing for the sake of the argument) has the possibility to murder someone in seconds.This to me, doesn't seem like a society where freedom reigns.

I know I'm exaggerating and I probably don't grasp what the loss of the ability to own guns would mean to an American citizen, because I'm not American myself and I have been raised in a country where guns aren't a part of everyday life. The point I was trying to make is that it's not about whether guns are to blame for the shootings, they aren't, a gun is an object, it's a human being that pulls the trigger, but that the availability of guns creates a society in which these things happen way easier.

why though, I mean I know it's in the constitution and it has a lot to do with the fact that your country was founded by the use of arms (settlers having to defend themselves against native Americans etc), but it's hard not to notice a correlation between the amount of school shootings etc and the fact that a large amount of your population is in the possession of something that is essentially a machine designed for murder.

maybe, just maybe, you shouldn't allow people to buy guns, America?

no it wouldn't

what do you study? I'm curious as I study history myself and I tend to agree with most of the things you post.

did anyone ask for this

Molesto is probably one of the greatest names ever

come to think of it, if you swap a few players around on the tony's tigers roster you can easily get a European super team, although it sort off already is anyways.

Knoxxx on med, tek on pocket, zebbo and "tony the tiger" on scout, mike on roamer and numlocked or ryb on demo.

but hey, who am I

much love to you, kind sir

"The item you've requested is not currently available in the Belgian Store, but it is available in the U.S. Store. Click Change Store to view this item."

fucking broke my spirits this morning.

any alternative site I can cop it?