US life expectancy is at its lowest in 25 years - BBC NEWS

[gambit]

Lmao you wouldn't post this if the places were switched around. So much copium lol

So cope with this since you are sooo desperate...

 

[Drexluddin Khan Spiveyzai]

Well, Yanks have a culture that actually glorifies hard drugs and gun ownership so what can you expect?

Over 18,000 Americans have died so far due to gun violence since the start of this year with a staggering 270 mass shootings.

Yet they expect the world to honor their NWO while their society is going down the sh!tter with substance abuse, mental illness, and gun totting pupils shooting-up their class fellows.

Ssshh. Or @Hamartia Antidote 's feelings will be hurt and then he'll have to google some bad facts about your 3rd world country to feel better.

 

[Hamartia Antidote]

Ssshh. Or @Hamartia Antidote 's feelings will be hurt and then he'll have to google some bad facts about your 3rd world country to feel better.

Well no need to google any third world countries as we can see the people in the US most hurt by gun violence. Something that hasn't changed in decades.

https://www.americanprogress.org/article/gun-violence-disproportionately-and-overwhelmingly-hurts-communities-of-color/

Gun Violence Disproportionately and Overwhelmingly Hurts Communities of Color​

Notably, gun violence has a disproportionate impact on racial and ethnic minorities and is highly concentrated in a relatively small number of neighborhoods that have historically been underresourced and racially segregated. This is due to a combination of weak gun laws; systemic racial inequities, including unequal access to safe housing and adequate educational and employment opportunities; and a history of disinvestment in public infrastructure and services in the communities of color most affected by gun violence.

 

[beijingwalker]

Well no need to google any third world countries as we can see the people most hurt by gun violence. Something that hasn't changed in decades.

https://www.americanprogress.org/article/gun-violence-disproportionately-and-overwhelmingly-hurts-communities-of-color/

Gun Violence Disproportionately and Overwhelmingly Hurts Communities of Color​

I always know deep down you are just utterly a racist.

 

[Hamartia Antidote]

I always know deep down you are just utterly a racist.

Gun violence's biggest problem (not only problem) is in poor inner-city areas. Unfortunately nobody is interested in truly solving it. No jobs being created, no stressing education, just a hands-off and hoping it will just magically all go away if some type of gun is banned and metal detectors added at school entrances.

Why Gun Control Won't Fix Inner City Violence​

 

[Fish]

Notably, gun violence has a disproportionate impact on racial and ethnic minorities and is highly concentrated in a relatively small number of neighborhoods that have historically been underresourced and racially segregated. This is due to a combination of weak gun laws; systemic racial inequities, including unequal access to safe housing and adequate educational and employment opportunities; and a history of disinvestment in public infrastructure and services in the communities of color most affected by gun violence.

So, it's just Blacks and Latinos going crazy or am I missing something here?!

That still doesn't explain why it's almost always a white kid that shoots-up the school or a shopping mall.

Surely there's more to it than mere 'mental illness?'

metal detectors added at school entrances.

You've freaking metal detectors at schools now?!

Yeesh.

And what happens when the detector goes 'beep?' For your society's sake, I hope the little kids don't get "frisked" by adults...

Something that hasn't changed in decades.

I think your politicians are a bunch of idiots, be it Republicans or Democrats.

Okay, sure, they can't repeal the Second Amendment and bar people from gun ownership. I get it. But what they can do is enforce an exorbitant amount of tax on weapons and ammunition on a federal level.

Now, it will definitely kick-start weapons smuggling - given America's emotional attachment to 'assault weapons' - but at least you'll have some leverage in taking the arms away from citizens, especially poorer ones.

And those are the kind of people you've been blaming for the mass shootings, haven't you?!

How many people, do you think, will keep their AR15s if they're forced to pay $250 a year for each registered gun, or at least an "assault-type weapon," and a 75% "federal excise duty" or whatever is enforced on each weapon purchase?

As for the NRA... Well, you can do to NRA what we did to PTI! Crush it from within. Sometimes, you've to do some questionable things for the greater good. And NRA is a cancer to your society.

And that's why I don't believe in democracy. Sometimes, you've to step in and save people from themselves. Not saying I prefer monarchies or dictatorships but... Well, let's just say that people can be easily manipulated by silver-tongued politicians so what do they know?!

 

[gambit]

So, it's just Blacks and Latinos going crazy or am I missing something here?!

Yeah...You are missing the true picture.

That still doesn't explain why it's almost always a white kid that shoots-up the school or a shopping mall.

Surely there's more to it than mere 'mental illness?'

Pales in comparison to gang violence in the blacks and Latino communities. And yes, each of those white kids that shoots up schools and malls do have mental health issues.

I think your politicians are a bunch of idiots, be it Republicans or Democrats.

You in Pakistan is criticizing American pols?

Okay, sure, they can't repeal the Second Amendment and bar people from gun ownership. I get it. But what they can do is enforce an exorbitant amount of tax on weapons and ammunition on a federal level.

You clearly do not understand how the American federal government and our system of rights works.

If you tax ammunition, then what good is it for the guns? This issue have been debated before and nothing came out of it. Namely, without ammo the Second Amendment is useless.

Now, it will definitely kick-start weapons smuggling - given America's emotional attachment to 'assault weapons' - but at least you'll have some leverage in taking the arms away from citizens, especially poorer ones.

As if you can define what is an 'assault weapons' in the first place.

And that's why I don't believe in democracy. Sometimes, you've to step in and save people from themselves. Not saying I prefer monarchies or dictatorships but... Well, let's just say that people can be easily manipulated by silver-tongued politicians so what do they know?!

If not democracy, then it is either monarchy or dictatorship. You can try to cover yourself by feebly saying you do not 'prefer', but what else are there?

 

[Fish]

You in Pakistan is criticizing American pols?

I'm not a fan of politicians and lawyers, regardless of their 'country of origin.'

If you tax ammunition, then what good is it for the guns? This issue have been debated before and nothing came out of it. Namely, without ammo the Second Amendment is useless.

Not technically:

Says nothing about ammunition, heh! On a more serious note, I'm merely talking about taxation.

As if you can define what is an 'assault weapons' in the first place.

If you ask me, all semi-auto guns are "assault weapons."

A civilian has no business lugging around an 'almost' military grade assault rifle with drum mags, laser sights, and bump stocks.

If not democracy, then it is either monarchy or dictatorship. You can try to cover yourself by feebly saying you do not 'prefer', but what else are there?

The "right" way...

 

[gambit]

I'm not a fan of politicians and lawyers, regardless of their 'country of origin.'

If you value the 'rule of law', then you MUST support the concept of the politician and the lawyer.

Says nothing about ammunition, heh! On a more serious note, I'm merely talking about taxation.

Of course, on a serious note, you would have no arguments at all.

If you ask me, all semi-auto guns are "assault weapons."

The Second Amendment does not restrict 'arms' to blunderbuss and flintlocks.

The "right" way...

Such as...???

 

[Fish]

The Second Amendment does not restrict 'arms' to blunderbuss and flintlocks.

Then how come American civilians can't own surface-to-air missile systems and fighter jets... let alone nukes?

That's a clear violation of 2A!

After all, you can't stop a charging Russian T-90 or shoot down an SU-30 with an AR-15, now can you?!

...

2A is obsolete, bruv. Plain and simple. Your mileage may vary.

 

[gambit]

Then how come American civilians can't own surface-to-air missile systems and fighter jets... let alone nukes?

Am ex USAF. F-111 (Cold War) then F-16 (Desert Storm). Sure, let civilians owns the F-111. See how long someone can keep it flying.

 

[Fish]

Am ex USAF. F-111 (Cold War) then F-16 (Desert Storm). Sure, let civilians owns the F-111. See how long someone can keep it flying.

I dunno man, add cup holders or something?!

 

[gambit]

I dunno man, add cup holders or something?!

You really do not 'get it'? Or are you truly dense about this issue? And am asking nicely.

Let us say that we allow civilians to own jet fighters. How many people do you think in the world could afford to buy it in the first place? Then have the infrastructure to support the flights? Then have access to parts and maintainers?.

Actor John Travolta is no longer an A-list celebrity, but when he was A-list...

John Travolta's Passion for Flying Extends to a $77 Million Boeing 707 and $32 Bombardier Challenger 601

Whether it's acting, singing in films like Grease, or dancing, everyone's known for years that John Travolta is a multitalented threat.

www.cheatsheet.com

...reported that the jet is worth around $77 million – $57 million as a base price with an additional $20 million in interior design and installation costs.​

A-list Tom Cruise is another celebrity with the money to afford the hobby of flying.

Tom Cruise's Passion for Flying Extends to a $4 Million WWII Fighter and $20 Million Private Jet

Tom Cruise is not the first celebrity to own an airplane, but the types of airplanes that he does have proves that sometimes, he feels the need for speed.

www.cheatsheet.com

His most luxurious aircraft is his Gulfstream IV G4 jet. The Gulfstream IV cost around $20 million and is capable of hauling up to 19 passengers.​

The F-16 cost twice as much as the Gulfstream IV.

Here is the first civilian owned F-16...

Watch the First Privately Owned F-16 Fighter Jet Soar Across the Skies of Arizona

Top Aces launched its first F-16 in the skies of Arizona. The jet is one of 29 Vipers that will be used to train the US Air Force.

robbreport.com

The lightning-fast aircraft in question is the property of Top Aces. The private adversary support firm took delivery of four F-16A/B “Netz” fighters back in January as part of a training contract with the US Air Force. On Wednesday, the first second-hand F-16 earned FAA certification and completed its maiden flight for Top Aces.​

And those F-16s were owned by a company.

The point here is that the more complex the weapon, the less likely it is to be owned by a civilian by sheer virtue of its complexity and costs of maintenance. This is not what the Second Amendment intended to be, even if at the theoretical level, the F-16 seems to be allowed. Can Jeff Bezos or Elon Musk contract Lockheed to make them personal jet fighters, minus the actual missiles and guns? Sure, they can. But would they? No, they would not. For all their billions, they know better. It would bankrupt BOTH of them. Who would they hire to maintain their jets? Retired military, of course. And once those guys got the news for their service, you can bet your next yr's salary that the maintenance contract would be premium.

So for the argument that the Second Amendment must allows jet fighters, missiles, or even tanks, we are looking at a handful of uber wealthy people and they would not want to use those weapons to fight against the US government by simple fact that they are too few to matter in real combat.

 

[Fish]

You really do not 'get it'? Or are you truly dense about this issue? And am asking nicely.

Let us say that we allow civilians to own jet fighters. How many people do you think in the world could afford to buy it in the first place? Then have the infrastructure to support the flights? Then have access to parts and maintainers?.

Actor John Travolta is no longer an A-list celebrity, but when he was A-list...

John Travolta's Passion for Flying Extends to a $77 Million Boeing 707 and $32 Bombardier Challenger 601

Whether it's acting, singing in films like Grease, or dancing, everyone's known for years that John Travolta is a multitalented threat.

www.cheatsheet.com

...reported that the jet is worth around $77 million – $57 million as a base price with an additional $20 million in interior design and installation costs.​

A-list Tom Cruise is another celebrity with the money to afford the hobby of flying.

Tom Cruise's Passion for Flying Extends to a $4 Million WWII Fighter and $20 Million Private Jet

Tom Cruise is not the first celebrity to own an airplane, but the types of airplanes that he does have proves that sometimes, he feels the need for speed.

www.cheatsheet.com

His most luxurious aircraft is his Gulfstream IV G4 jet. The Gulfstream IV cost around $20 million and is capable of hauling up to 19 passengers.​

The F-16 cost twice as much as the Gulfstream IV.

Here is the first civilian owned F-16...

Watch the First Privately Owned F-16 Fighter Jet Soar Across the Skies of Arizona

Top Aces launched its first F-16 in the skies of Arizona. The jet is one of 29 Vipers that will be used to train the US Air Force.

robbreport.com

The lightning-fast aircraft in question is the property of Top Aces. The private adversary support firm took delivery of four F-16A/B “Netz” fighters back in January as part of a training contract with the US Air Force. On Wednesday, the first second-hand F-16 earned FAA certification and completed its maiden flight for Top Aces.​

And those F-16s were owned by a company.

The point here is that the more complex the weapon, the less likely it is to be owned by a civilian by sheer virtue of its complexity and costs of maintenance. This is not what the Second Amendment intended to be, even if at the theoretical level, the F-16 seems to be allowed. Can Jeff Bezos or Elon Musk contract Lockheed to make them personal jet fighters, minus the actual missiles and guns? Sure, they can. But would they? No, they would not. For all their billions, they know better. It would bankrupt BOTH of them. Who would they hire to maintain their jets? Retired military, of course. And once those guys got the news for their service, you can bet your next yr's salary that the maintenance contract would be premium.

So for the argument that the Second Amendment must allows jet fighters, missiles, or even tanks, we are looking at a handful of uber wealthy people and they would not want to use those weapons to fight against the US government by simple fact that they are too few to matter in real combat.

You're looking at it too literally, Bob.

Fighter jets were just a metaphor + I was just joking. There are also battle tanks, APCs, RPGs, MPADS, artillery, frag grenades, you get the idea.

Plus, you'd be surprised how sharply prices drop once there's enough demand to warrant a mass production.

Long story short, your 2A is just a farce.

 

[gambit]

You're looking at it too literally, Bob.

Fighter jets were just a metaphor + I was just joking.

Lame joke. So stale I could use it for salad croutons.

There are also battle tanks, APCs, RPGs, MPADS, artillery, frag grenades, you get the idea.

Plus, you'd be surprised how sharply prices drop once there's enough demand to warrant a mass production.

Long story short, your 2A is just a farce.

You are not here to discuss the Second Amendment at any level above the juvenile. Frag grenades? I can make it myself with ingredients from the local hardware store. Where do you think Islamic suicide bombers shop and they do not need the Second Amendment to give them permission.