Just shows what kind of pathetic golem /slaves our people have become.
In the past every peasant would associate not being allowed to own weaponry with his lord not trusting him.
And yet these buffoons can't see that their government does not want them to have firearms. In Europe nearly every man is terrified at the idea of a person owning any type of firearm without jumping through a million hoops to make sure that he is fine by government.
The argument is that guns would severely increase murder rates which isn't true. A violent society is responsible for violence no matter the tool and the more violent society the easier it should be for a person to own and carry a weapon to defend themselves.
A wast majority of murders are personal or gang related not mass slayings of random people that require firearms.
Those murders just change to stabbings in countries with small amount of firearms like Australia and UK. There are even statistics which show that for one year the murders increased in Australia two years after the ban of semi automatic firearms and that murder rates were on decline for decades before that.
A white civilized country only has 1-2 murders per 100.000 people regardless of firearms laws which only equates to a few hundred murders in a country that has a population of 10 million. In fact Switzerland probably has less murders than UK even with all the guns.
>be me
>live in low population, overwhelmingly white US state near USA-Canada border
>most types of firearms (including handguns) do not require permit to buy, there's no background check or waiting period, and the majority of gun sales aren't centrally registered or tracked
>gun ownership stats almost certainly underestimated; possibly more guns per capita than anywhere in the world
>open carry of handguns requires no permit and is guaranteed by state law even in cities
>concealed carry permits not required outside city limits, keeping guns a viable option for farmers, ranch hands, and those exploring the backcountry
>redskins account for just 7% of state population, with ~64% of that total holed up in reservations.
>redskins account for a disproportionate percentage of domestic abuse, suicides, and murder in the state
>state authorities will admit this much but generally reluctant to release actual numbers, probably to avoid race war
>even with redskins skewing annual estimates, gun crime in the state remains quite low both in both relative and absolute terms
>gun crime numbers still often faked by national media, with suicides typically used to pad the numbers to lead the impression that gun crime is far more prevalent than it is (suicide is admittedly on the high side)
in the end, gun crime here is connected to non-whiteness and poverty. it really is this simple.
>>2630 >Just shows what kind of pathetic golem /slaves our people have become.
In the past every peasant would associate not being allowed to own weaponry with his lord not trusting him.
Historically only free men (that is males) were allowed to carry weapons, free men don’t have a lord but God or his earthly representatives, king and pope. It was, is still obligatory to carry his weapon (sword) as a legitimation for participation in, debates, votes, elections of traditional democratic Swiss Landsgemeinde, just like their Germanic ancestors did.
Slaves, Unfree, Serfs were not allowed to carry a weapon.
Interesting is that in “feudal”, monarchic, pre-democratic times, access to weapons was significant less restrictive in Europe, than latter in the “freedom” of “democracy”. Another observation is that the ruler had less “security” than the “representatives of the people” today that do roll around in camouflaged as cars, wheeled tanks, are surrounded by armed to the teeth thugs and snipers.
>>2840 >Interesting is that in “feudal”, monarchic, pre-democratic times, access to weapons was significant less restrictive in Europe, than latter in the “freedom” of “democracy”.
Perhaps because then it was necessary to rely on civilians for the defense of the state (guess), while now with institutionalised armed forces under contract an extra/separate force becomes a liability for those in power (observation)?
>>2847 >>2840 >Interesting is that in “feudal”, monarchic, pre-democratic times, access to weapons was significant less restrictive in Europe, than latter in the “freedom” of “democracy”.
>Perhaps because then it was necessary to rely on civilians for the defense of the state (guess),
They had the draft, similar to today, or the socialist regimes of the former East-Block
Interesting is, the more a regime claims to represent the people, in contrast to elitists like monarchies, the more restrictive this regimes seems to be.
It isn’t because the monarchs of the 19th century were so chummy with the ordinary people. There were large socialist/communist movements that open declared their wish to overturn the then current regime.
But it were the socialist that cracked down hard on the peoples access to weapons.
> while now with institutionalised armed forces under contract an extra/separate force becomes a liability for those in power (observation)?
We live in a time of renovated Feudalism. You are a designated serf.
Of course weapon tech is connected with political systems.
Elitist knights replaced common spear and axe men. It was followed again with mass armies, but that were mercenaries with expensive, exclusive equipment, not accessible for common people. To expensive for general mobilisation. So it was still feudal, but with mercs as henchmen of the ruling class. That stayed this way until it became economic viable to arm a large part of the population with rifles. That was the military innovation of the French Revolution, the serf had become canon fodder of the revolution. It introduced the draft as a general principle, that existed before only as a kind of military slavery that some smaller feudal lords forced on their subjects (Hessians).
The consequences for ordinary people were the same, fight for the regimes coffer or get killed immediately.
The feudal regimes had to follow that example or get swept away by that revolutionary “Mongolian horde” tactic. In addition the mostly deposed feudal regimes depended on their subjects in the restoration of their regime against the foreign invader. Nationalism as a political principle was reborn, because commoner were needed as a fighting force.
In addition general mobilization was in need of industrialization, to provide the masses of weapons to distribute to the masses in case of warfare, to build massive complicated machinery like battle ships that needed the collaboration of large number of people. The skill set needed for that was found among the bourgeoisie, leading to their political raise. To make that compatible with the feudal regime, many of the leading bourgeois were ennobled to integrate them into the existing system.
So despite quite a lot of conflict points within the societies, it still wasn’t felt the need to crack down on the access to weapons.
After a wave of anarchist terror attacks, access to explosives would become restrictive, that could be bought in hardware shops before. Regulation of guns stayed loose, what was mostly prohibited were camouflaged weapons.
Anarchist are the original terrorists (propaganda of the deed), that have proven the uselessness of individualist terrorism (as an early sample of acceleration theory). Something that was heavily criticized by the early socialist/communist that proved that their subversion and clandestine organization tactic as successful in gaining power.
The monarchic system were not brought down by popular unrest manufactured by subversion, it took the first World War for that. Before that industrialization and access to cheap energy allowed an unprecedented rise in living standard not only for the ruling and upper class but for common people too.
Today we see a reversal of the benefits of industrialization for the common people, restrictions in consumption of energy, food, travel etc. are proposed and in part enacted.
Today’s military tech doesn’t need the collaboration of the masses, as it did until the end of the cold war. It is good at crowd control and insurgency suppression, as the recent colonial wars in the middle east did prove.
The tendency in military is towards robots and remote control, benefiting an elitist regime.
In fact, I think the “Free West” is as democratic now as North Korea. The difference is only in the facade, while our regime pretends to be “democratic”, the Norks pretend to be “socialist”.
Shutting down of the internet in NZ, long time incarceration for non-violent wrong think in most of the West is a sign they regime doesn’t see no longer a need to be credible “free and democratic”.
Most funny artifact of this situation are all that NPC that claim to be “rebels” and “showing it the man” while promoting and demonstrating for the regime’s agenda, like the bipeds assembling around the Swedish retard.
Just shows what kind of pathetic golem /slaves our people have become.
In the past every peasant would associate not being allowed to own weaponry with his lord not trusting him.
And yet these buffoons can't see that their government does not want them to have firearms. In Europe nearly every man is terrified at the idea of a person owning any type of firearm without jumping through a million hoops to make sure that he is fine by government.
The argument is that guns would severely increase murder rates which isn't true. A violent society is responsible for violence no matter the tool and the more violent society the easier it should be for a person to own and carry a weapon to defend themselves.