no it didnt

homicide rates are not affected by putting a simple waiting period on the sales of an object

exept when people cannot impulse buy a murder weapon

@chaz At best you are uninformed and parrotting. At worst you are trolling.

thing is, if someone buying a gun with the intent for murder, they arent gonna mass buy 3-6 guns, they're only going to buy one and quickly dispose of it after the deed us done

Ive read your posts. It looks more like trolling

@jerpeau you know I like Zilla, because he gives me good evidence and tells me, when I am wrong, why I am wrong. you on the other hand offer nothing productive to this conversation

Im offering you the chance to quit trolling. Kinda my job

> thing is, if someone buying a gun with the intent for murder, they arent gonna mass buy 3-6 guns, they're only going to buy one and quickly dispose of it after the deed us done
@Zilla or you know, get a hammer or knife

yeah

hell, more murders have been committed with people's bare hands then firearms

@jerpeau and I am not trolling, I am offering my honest and maluable and honest opinion. I am sorry if it offends you.

@ThiccSpicyGenderRevealParty that is true, but, waiting times lower the number of second degree gun homicides as it prevents someone form getting a gun quickly

@ThiccSpicyGenderRevealParty @Zilla heres a FBI stat "As a complete category in the FBI statistics, all firearms accounted for 10,265 of the 14,123 murders assessed for the year 2018." so how do those number work if more are killed by hammer and knifes. A common and valid argument is knives kill more than rifles, in which catagory is the AR-15, discrediting the idea that our problems would be fixed if the AR-15 was not sold anymore.

while yes you're not exactly wrong as the wait time stops the person from immediately getting a gun and therefore, gets them to stop and think for a second, for lack of a better term, if that person is angry enough or has a big enough problem with a person to want to kill them, the wait time will not help as they will try to kill them some other way, in fact, it will be detrimental considering if the person being targeted thinks their life is in danger, they'll also try to buy a firearm and because of the wait time, they might be dead or have been attacked by the time that period ends

Maybe you guys should move this convo to <#720484562400051201>. It's kinda off topic here

@ThiccSpicyGenderRevealParty It will not stop premeditated murder, but it will stop the person who has to think for a second. @Porcupioneer I will, I just don't like having gun disscusion there because that channel is too wholesome

> @ThiccSpicyGenderRevealParty It will not stop premeditated murder, but it will stop the person who has to think for a second. @Porcupioneer I will, I just don't like having gun disscusion there because that channel is too wholesome
@chaz The channel for guns is too wholesome for a discussion about guns?

@jerpeau it is a channel for the sharing and mutual love of a hobby, I do not want to discuss the legality of that hobby in that channel. it would be impolite

Well, the same logic could be applied to here. Except you're not talking history. And it is actually for all discussions concerning guns. It's a slightly more rare subject so it is frequently used to share images for the, as you put it, "mutual love of a hobby". It is also the channel where you will find many experts on the subject who have done their research as well. It is the best place to go in order to present a sound argument.

No more off topic discussion here please. This is <#763630830249181184>.

Lutzen is the worst defeat that two opposing armies ever achieved

Fun Fact of the Day: Pearl Harbor wasn't the only incident involving the Japanese on American Soil, The Aleutian Islands Campaign was series of military campaigns in the Aleutian Islands between the US and the Japanese, although the Japanese gave up on that, and left, leading to several friendly fire incidents between the US and Canadian Forces, who thought they were shooting at Japanese soldiers, due to the thick fog that covered the island

and they were building submersible aircraft carries at the end to take the war to us

These statistics and death toll are completely irrelevant because ultimately, a citizen has a *moral right* to keep and bear arms. There will always be a death toll one way or another because human nature is fallen, that's reality.

You don't get to solve that by offering more restrictions save a background check.

In postmodern society, gun violence is higher than knife violence, but in non modern society, the opposite would be true; both society's citizens have a moral right to keep and bear arms regardless of the death trends.

https://fee.org/articles/gun-rights-don-t-depend-on-statistics/
This article explains this better.

@Smash Boy this is true, guns are an American right, but I come from a texan family of engineers and we have a saying, "it can always be better"

No it cannot "always be better". Read the article: The right to bear arms is a modal necessity from the right to life, you don't "better" rights by doing things that inevitably infringe upon it as a result.

You either respect and recognize them or not.

Rights are not an engineering issue like how we can make this building's basements better suited to x rooms.

You are conflating these problems through a category error fallacy.

guns are not just an american right, they are funamentally part of the human right to self defense

And what is better than a background check, really? That's the only legitimate check we have to ensure citizens can responsible and cogently handle a firearm and about 95% of the population are not psychotic looneys.

the right of self defense is not granted to you, it is born with you

We don't get to infringe upon 95% of a population simply because there happens to be a statistical outlier that is severely dangerous to them.

To say we have to "better" the issue of right to bear arms is essentially saying there is a way to "better" humanity, and you cannot better humanity through secular means. Mankind is fallen in nature, we need a feedback loop of externalized accountability in a society to weed out the possible crimes and deliver proper justice.

That feedback loop is, ironically, solved by granting the citizens a means and way to access firearms to protect themselves from evildoers. The government's job is simple: protect citizens' rights and maintain law&order. Beyond that, the government has no say.

There's a difference between being able to drive and being able to own firearms, one is a privileges granted by the state and the other is a guaranteed right

3v1 overruled, so no, not everything can "always be better"