We NEED background checks and a waiting period on gasoline. Pronto!!

We NEED background checks and a waiting period on gasoline. Pronto!!
>Investigators say Morton got into a fight with the suspect before he went to a nearby convenience story to buy the gasoline.
>“To methodically just douse her with gasoline and light her on fire, that’s as shocking as you can get,” Curry said.

Other urls found in this thread:

cbsnews.com/news/mother-of-7-on-fire-in-gasoline-attack-search-for-suspect/
losangeles.cbslocal.com/2016/08/04/mother-of-7-doused-in-gasoline-set-on-fire-in-broad-daylight/
thefreethoughtproject.com/concealed-carrier-stops-mass-shooting/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

You notice how the article gave no physical description of the perp? Can anyone guess the race of the cretin?

I'm guessing he was part of the Human race?

Niggers ain't human , retard.

No shit, where is it stated that he was a nigger? I was just guessing.

When race is omitted it means black or (ignorantly) moslem.
>I say ignorantly because moslem is not a race and therefore no criticism of islam can be considered racist.

>too retarded to maybe do something other than slap someone's shit around when you have a dispute
>too much of a pussy to fight a woman directly
>"need fire to kill her for me"
Whoever Morton is, he's a fucking faggot.

Snoop?? How could you??

cbsnews.com/news/mother-of-7-on-fire-in-gasoline-attack-search-for-suspect/

>Whoever Morton is, he's a fucking faggot.
Agreed, but if we had stronger "common sense gasoline laws" she would not be a burden to the health system with the years of therapy she'll need to recover from the senseless gasoline violence.

This comment is indecipherably retarded. Please rephrase.

>moslem

The media is trained to avoid mentioning the race of the criminal when the criminal is back, or moslem. The media also purposely positions islam as a race in order to shut down criticism of moslem ideology and hide the extraordinary violent behavior common to moslems.

Did you have a brain aneurysm or something?

Yes. A Muslim in Arabic means"one who gives himself to God," and is by definition, someone who adheres to Islam. By contrast, a Moslem in Arabic means"one who is evil and unjust" when the word is pronounced, as it is in English, Mozlem with a z.
>so moslem is a play on words that ironically is much closer to the truth.

gasoline saves lives

Except gasoline has a purpose other than killing things, sherlock

Are you being retarded on purpose?

Nope, lots of anecdotal evidence and actual studies bear this out. Even FBI crime statistics are skewed to push the false concept that whites commit as much crime as blacks.
Have a look at the journalists guide to islam and you'll see the obvious attempt to censor any factual criticism of islam.

It's ok for things to be used as weapons just so long as said things have a purpose other than killing.

Excellent, then I have the right to bear gasoline and lighters.

Kek that nigga looks like burned toast

I'm not criticizing his argument, just his typing.

We need to ban assault gasoline!

>gasoline has a purpose other than killing things
that does not negate the inherent danger to society from gasoline violence

When something has no purpose other than to kill, and its used to kill, there should be restrictions on who gets to use it. So yes, you're absolutely right

And by what authority do you get to make the decision that there should be restrictions on who gets to use it?

>not killing the aids spreading whore with fire
she fucked the most violent and disease ridden women beating part of the human race
bitch got what she deserved.
kill all disease spreading whores with fire i say.

Public Health & Safety, because you live in a free country where other people decide whats good for you.

Are you implying everyone should have a gun, no matter what?

Lord of Cinder has Fallen

MFW americans need to make a foundation in these situations so the could pay for hospital costs when in Europe it's all free. Fuck murica, ou certainly ain't 1st world country.

>there should be restrictions on who gets to use it.
When you guarantee everyone will abide by those restrictions at all times, I will agree with you.

Nobody NEEDS or should be allowed to have more than 500ml of fuel at any given time. If we could just make the vehicles more fuel efficient, this would not be a problem.

Nobody NEEDS any tools of fire-making. Do we not have electricity? Are we not more civilised now?

BAN fire-making tools.
BAN high capacity fuel containers.

Problem solved.

My suspicion is that her healthcare would be free.
>Emergency room - free. Single mother of 7 -free healthcare.

Well, gee thanks for your big, fat fucking opinion. Couldn't have lived without it. Oh great Internet sage can I suck your dick? Can I stick a finger up your asshole while I do it?
Fucking faggot.

And when we can't guarantee everyone will abide, do we throw the whole system out?

You all deserve to burn like in OPs image you hopeless degenerates.

Nigger confirmed,
Victim was also black.
losangeles.cbslocal.com/2016/08/04/mother-of-7-doused-in-gasoline-set-on-fire-in-broad-daylight/

...

It's a question regarding the delineation of authority.

What is authority, where does it come from, why would you--objectively--hold authority over another human being?

If Bill the senator wrote a law saying humans of class X can't use weapons, why does Bill the senator have any authority over those people?

au·thor·i·ty
əˈTHôrədē/
noun
1.
the power or right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience.
"he had absolute authority over his subordinates"
synonyms: power, jurisdiction, command, control, charge, dominance, rule, sovereignty, supremacy; More

Three people live in close proximity to one another: person A, person B, and person C.

Person A elects person B to be his ruler, i.e., person A is delegating is own authority to another human.

Does person B now hold authority over both person A and person C, if person C did not give his consent for person B to hold authority over him?

If, in the case person B does hold authority over person C, why does person A have the ability/right to decide who he wants to rule him, but person C cannot decide to not be ruled?

inb4 "might makes right." Yes, you can bully people into obeying, but might makes right is seen as de facto and people resent it. I am asking about de jure authority.

>durr hurr muh guns
>guns

faggot

>And when we can't guarantee everyone will abide, do we throw the whole system out?
No, we simply make everyone unable to defend themselves from those who don't abide by the law. Eventually all the those who commit gun violence will be incarcerated for their gun violence crimes and all of the guns will be captured. Many thousands will of course die, or be seriously injured, robbed, assaulted etc. but that's a perfectly acceptable side effect for reaching a much nobler society.

BAN MURDER AND ASSAULT

...

If more people had gasoline this could've been stopped by a good guy with gasoline.

People still do it so laws regarding it are pointless.

You mean, like this:

thefreethoughtproject.com/concealed-carrier-stops-mass-shooting/

IF ANOTHER MAN HAD GASOLINE HE WOULD SPILL GASOLINE ALL OVER HIS BALLS AND HE COULD NOT SPILL GASOLINE ALL OVER THAT POOR NIGGLES! ALL HAIL GASOLINE!

Kinda but with more gasoline.

...

/ϟϟ/ Sige Heil /卐/.

He is obviously not a native English speaker, dude. "Moslem" isn't how American English speakers spell it. Cut the guy some slack. He's right.

The reason they don't mention race is because once upon a time they used to, and obviously it was usually a nigger, so the big Nigger organizations like the NAACP started consistently threatening legal action whenever the race was mentioned, as they were claiming it was "racist" and had nothing to do with the news story except to highlight that he was black. Also, the jewish leadership in media tries to guide the zeitgeist into a movement to abolish all races except for the Jews by destroying them by falsely pushing the narrative that everyone is equal for the rest of the world while being fiercely racist against non-Jews back in Israel.

The truth is that niggers commit the vast majority of violent crimes despite being a minority, but that is an inconvenient truth for a country which tries to claim itself as the most tolerant and free country on the planet which is supposed to welcome all races and has a huge nigger population in addition to a black president.

How stupid are you?

Ban fire making tools, What if electricity goes out or something happens to the world wide grid.

>1st world retarded hipster

WE SHOULD BAN ALL MATERIALS IN THE WORLD SO NO ONE CAN MURDER AGAIN

Anyone who claims otherwise is lying: there are phenotypical differences between the races.

For instance, black males tend to produce more testosterone than white or asian males.

Higher testosterone production is associated with aggressive/territorial behavior and decreased intelligence.

>Hurr durr Impose background checks on gasoline because gasoline is dangerous too! Liberals tryin to take away muh guns!

If you're using this as a means to argue against firearm background checks, you realize guns are made as weapons for the express purpose of killing, and gasoline is a necessary commodity for transportation, production of heat/energy, commercial uses, etc. you absolute fucking brain-dead retard.

/thread

Yes, we've already established that it's Ok to kill people with resources which have other uses beyond just killing.

If liberals find the resource to be useful beyond killing, then it doesn't matter if said resource can be used as a weapon--it's usefulness is more important than the lives who were lost because it was used as a weapon.

>gasoline is a necessary commodity for transportation
Ever heard of electricity, compressed air, or bicycles, or sails, or steam trains, or solar? I'd say there are plenty of alternative methods of locomotion that invalidate your argument.

Like machetes or axes or knives, trucks, chemicals, pit bulls, etc..

By that logic I should be able to have my own nukes

>people break laws against murder so why even make it illegal
>people steal so why even give them any deterrence to do so
You're a complete fucking moron.

user has a point, the laws themselves don't act as a deterrent against crimes being committed. They simply give the executive branch the privilege to act *after* the fact, i.e., when a law has already been broken.

Laws do not keep us safer than we would be without them. To be arrested for murder, one has to commit murder, so the action has to actually take place.

Laws are not a problem-solving solution, they are a knee-jerk reaction made to look like a solution.

Who has the authority to tell you that you cannot?

At least background checks on weapons would make it harder for criminals to acquire their weapons legally. By nra logic gun crimes should only be committed by illegal firearms but the stats don't show that.

Because nukes are a great source of fiber?

A person doesn't lose their right to do X simply because they have committed a crime. If person A can dictate to person B that person B has lost right X, because person B committed a crime, then it can be deduced that right X was never a right--it was a privilege.

Ban gas cans now! Gas can control is necessary!

It's common fucking sense I shouldn't have nukes. You shouldn't have the right to own a weapon that can kill hundreds like that. You don't need a nuke to defend yourself. You don't need rip ammo to protect your home. You don't need a tank to go to work. And you don't need a semi auto to hunt.

this

>kiddie fuckers should be allowed to be around kids even though they've previously demonstrated that they molest them
I got caught with a slap gun and I can't cross the border now. I lost that right because I did something stupid and illegal. When you break the law you should be punished and the loss of certain rights is correct.

Owning and using are two different actions and you're conflating them.

You don't have the authority to tell others what they can or cannot own, unless you can objectively demonstrate said authority.

Being around children isn't a right, it's a privilege, you're making a false comparison.

Humans have the right of free association, a child doesn't understand what that means, so it is up to their caretakers to decide who is fit to associate with their child.

>America isn't 1st world because no free Healthcare
>America in fact does have free Healthcare - specifically for cases just like this.
>user says America isn't first world despite the fact that Europe is allowing Muslims to immigrate without restriction only to rape all European women
>In America, we're still allowed to own guns to ward off evil Muslim invaders.
>in Europe, if you use a knife to defend yourself against home invaders, you get in trouble and go to jail for 4 years
>Europe is the cuckold of the world.

What the fuck is the point of having a weapon and not use it?
All it is, is a bunch of guys comparing each others dick sizes completely forgetting that what they should be doing with their cocks is fucking people.

>treating children like property
Jesus you're fucked in the head. When you break the law, you disregard the very documents that state your rights in the first place. It only makes sense you should lose some of those rights since you have no respect for the laws that make those rights a reality.

> What you're saying: Guns, Gasoline, etc. do NOT kill people. People kill people. Gasoline is just as dangerous
> We should go about passing regulations to bar dangerous people from purchasing anything that could one could possibly use to hurt another human being. Like rope, kitchen knives, or even pillows. Heck. We should have everyone undergo a background check before purchasing water while we're at it, right?

I'm fully aware that you can't stop people from improvising weapons. Since when did anyone mention killing people with resources with other uses is okay?

The point is you can make it harder for people with criminal records/ past offenses to get their hands on weapons purposefully designed for killing, that wouldn't have a major impact on how things fundamentally work in society. You can systematically cut down on killings with guns, EASILY. It's not as simple with improvised weapons.

You can't impose such regulations on things 99.9% of people in the world need to run their businesses and go about their daily lives.

Not enough of the world runs on alternative energy. Do you expect people to be to able to transport goods overseas or across continents by bicycle or solely via steam trains/boats you moron?

You would rather have anarchy- a lawless society where people aren't punished for anything by an enforcing body. Alright m8.

Laws are absolutely a deterrent to crime. Don't pretend like they aren't.

Your argument also conflates law and morality, i.e., you imply that all laws are immoral and that anyone who breaks any law should be punished for doing so, but such is not the case.

Not only should immoral laws not exist, but they should be actively broken as a form of protest.

For instance, the legal slave trade in the United States. It was against the law to help slaves escape their slave masters, so you are positing that said "criminals" should have been stripped of their human rights.

So many fucking straw men in this thread. It's like Jr. high debate class.

>this wouldn't have happened if she had owned and carried a gun
or maybe if she didn't give him herpes, or fucked a violent asshole.. idk.

Humans have rights regardless of whether a document exists stating said rights.

Morality is virtually fictitious. It's all subjective. Muslims think stoning rape victims is moral. In Qatar serfdom is moral. The only thing you should rely on is empathy, and even then it can be misplaced.

>Laws are absolutely a deterrent to crime. Don't pretend like they aren't.

If they were, then there would be zero. If someone disregards the law and breaks it, then it didn't act as a deterrent.

Morality is objective and can be, and has been, deduced.

I don't wanna sound like one of those sjw faggots, but rights are a social construct. Do you think the slaves had rights? There's a reason people fight for their rights. Do you think other animals have a concept of what rights are?

Evidence? Oh that's right you don't have any because there is no such thing as objective morality.

>but rights are a social construct.

They are necessary behaviors for a species to flourish

>Do you think the slaves had rights?

Very much so

>There's a reason people fight for their rights.

Because it is the correct thing to do, we have free will and can choose.

>Do you think other animals have a concept of what rights are?

No, no more than they can conceptualize themselves as individuals or understand calculus.

Am I being baited?

Of course laws aren't a sufficient deterrent for every human being. There'll always be crazies who think they're above the law.

But are they effective for most sane people. Yes! The point is that one organized body dictates what's moral and the people agree to abide by them, and the people who don't get punished. Will it work for 100% of people 100% of the time? Of course not, no organized system will. And letting people do whatever they fucking want sure as well won't either.

Concepts themselves are a construct of the feeble human mind trying to justify its own existence.

Kek

So if I were to strip you of all your rights would you still believe humans inherently have rights? You don't seem to understand what inherency is.

I don't know calculus. Am I an animal?

You're the retard if you don't understand what he said. It's plain as day you fucking moron.

Gasoline doesn't kill people people do.

>Of course laws aren't a sufficient deterrent for every human being.

Either a law is a deterrent or it is not.

>There'll always be crazies who think they're above the law.

Laws are arbitrary, breaking the law cannot be said to mean that the law breaker is crazy. Particularly those laws which attempt to infantlize humans. In many examples throughout history, breaking the law was the *sane* decision for many people.

For instance, when Germany made it illegal to be Jewish in Germany, it would have been absolutely sane for the German Jews to--not only break the law-- but to violently resist capture.

>But are they effective for most sane people. Yes!

Not to be pedantic, but why would "sane" people become "insane" in the absence of any law? Literally, the only thing keeping "sane" people from killing all willy-nilly are the words written down by Bob in his office downtown?

>The point is that one organized body dictates what's moral and the people agree to abide by them, and the people who don't get punished. Will it work for 100% of people 100% of the time? Of course not, no organized system will. And letting people do whatever they fucking want sure as well won't either.

Then I should have the right to form my own society with like-minded individuals.

Is taking my life evidence that I did not have the right to life? Or evidence that we have free will and can choose to make the wrong decision?

Or is that a false dichotomy?

You have the capacity to learn it

Pedantically, yes you are an animal as we have classified ourselves as such.

Thanks for making the point that firearms are necessary for the safety of the individual.