I could buy a nice shotgun for 300 euros

>i could buy a nice shotgun for 300 euros
>i could enjoy a little of american freedom
>i cant because i have been diagnosed with a personality disorder
really makes me think

Other urls found in this thread:

alaska.net/jobs.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

move here

mentals should not be able to legally firearms because they're much much more likely to use one to off someone who doesn't deserve it, it's a very sensible rule and while it does not eliminate the risk it significantly reduces it. mentals shouldn't be allowed to reproduce to be honest.

t. britguns

where you diagnose with autism?

When I went to buy a guy they denied it based on my Sup Forums posts.

>mentally ill people are free to get lethal weapons

sad to hear you can't buy a guy these days, I wonder what happened to good old days when we shipped out hundreds of guys from africa?

good, the system works. eat shit jorge.

well i mean, that's a good thing
imma go get an SKS rifle for ~250 CAD in the summer, might have to wait a few days but im pretty hyped

What do you want then, outlawing them seems like pretty stupid move given that only criminals will be able to use them effectively.

>When I went to buy a guy they denied it based on my Sup Forums posts.
really?

I want mentally ill people not to be able to get them and ruin them for the rest of us by chimping out

...

how about - i dont know - not letting asylum candidates have them? doesnt seem too unreasonable to me

Nice that's very cheap I may get one too

Technically, it could be argued that i's very unethical to prevent mentally ill people from owning guns.

After all, mental illness isn't a crime. A mentally ill person hasn't necessarily done anything inherently wrong. If as a society we really want to act like we've moved passed the old paradigm of treating mental illness as something worthy of being treated as a literal subhuman, then we cannot treat mentally ill people as criminals, meaning that we cannot arbitrarily prevent them from having certain freedoms such as owning guns.

mentally ill people are not criminals but are not fully in control of themselves nor can sense reality as healthy people do, so there is a high risk of unpredictable behaviour from them. many times they cant even change clothes or prepare their food or shower correctly, why do you think they will handle weapons any better?
i dont want to seal them in jail, just prevent unecessary risks, there are plenty more hobbies for mad people

J-jorge... why do you want this weapon, you live in you parent's house?

Only healthy people have rights

>there are anons ITT who actually believe you

As it should be.

>mentally ill people are not criminals
So why should they be treated as such? Rights aren't some kind of pick & choose deal, either you're a free individual or you are not. The only people who should not be free individuals are criminals and children.

What is legal to hunt with a shotgun in Spain?

All I can think of here is deer and ducks

Catalans?

yes, it's legal

There is no such thing as total freedom in any country, not in USA, not even in Somalia. Disarming crazy people are done for pragmatic reasons.

>doctor asks me if I own any firearms
>"No."
But really what is mental """"""illness""""""?

soviet surplus rifles cost twice as much in the states due to sanctions or restrictions on importing firearms in the states, sorry about that
the SKS rifles are about 400 in amercan

how tf would you hold the rifle without cutting yourself? Why is there even a blade there?

extend bayonet in front of gun or take it off phamalam

your suppose to wear gloves when using the gun

living in society is, even if you deny it, giving up some freedoms for the benefits of society, that include you
we give up on being free of driving drunk because we risk to kill someone, if you do it anyway you will pay a price, you go to jail, license removed until you prove you not a drunkard anymore etc
you are free to eat what you want, but if a certain species is in danger of extinction you wont be allowed to, so it's another limitation (all random exemples)
those also means that you are protected from being victim of hit and run and anything else, that's how it works

>Disarming crazy people are done for pragmatic reasons.
Who gets to define crazy, doctors? Government? Family?
Fuck your slippery slope.

You need them to bayonet the mooses.

>living in society is, even if you deny it, giving up some freedoms for the benefits of society, that include you
How about we get to decide how we go about our business as long as we aren't actively infringing on someone else's rights.
>we give up on being free of driving drunk because we risk to kill someone, if you do it anyway you will pay a price, you go to jail, license removed until you prove you not a drunkard anymore etc
No, fuck you. Punish the people who can't drink and drive responsibly, not those who are 0.01% over the arbitrary line but make no mistakes in driving
>you are free to eat what you want, but if a certain species is in danger of extinction you wont be allowed to, so it's another limitation (all random exemples)
Fuck you, go buy the land and forbid hunting on it or build a zoo.
>those also means that you are protected from being victim of hit and run and anything else, that's how it works
Laws don't protect anyone, dumbass, they're just used to punish people who fuck up.

Get fucked, commie.

>how tf would you hold the rifle without cutting yourself?
>Why is there even a blade there?
Bayonets are only moderately sharp, and only on the tip. They're meant for stabbing with a lot of force behind the blow, therefore they don't need to be especially sharp to pierce clothing/tissue.

yes I understand that mental illness is something that can in a worst case scenario be difficult to define and it's a terrible experience for the patients who may not even realise that they are sick, but in order for your guns to be taken away you have to actually be in a pretty bad mental state and there must be some legit diagnosis behind it. It's not something that just happens on accident. And off course it's doctors that gives these sorts of diagnoses.

Owning a gun isn't a positive right, like healthcare or equality before the law. Same shit with cars and everything else that could harm others. Your freedom ends when mine begins.

*where

doctors do, they study illness and define some score that will consider all the patients that have been in a similar situation and be a reasonable prediction of what can happen in certain situations
they will then explain politicians how the laws regarding it should be done and there you are
>How about we get to decide how we go about our business as long as we aren't actively infringing on someone else's rights.
mh mh what do when something will obviously go wrong then?
>No, fuck you. Punish the people who can't drink and drive responsibly, not those who are 0.01% over the arbitrary line but make no mistakes in driving
you cant make a perfect line between who will do damage and who wont, people prefer to have wider restrictions if that will protect more people
>Fuck you, go buy the land and forbid hunting on it or build a zoo.
that's what happens desu, the country usually does it and creates an area where you arent free to go to, or to go armed
>Laws don't protect anyone, dumbass, they're just used to punish people who fuck up.
laws are there as a disincentive for wrong behaviours, from speed tickets up to death penalty

>Owning a gun isn't a positive right
Yes it is. My rights don't end where your feefees begin.

>Your freedom ends when mine begins

So your freedom not to feel threatened by your armed neighbor shouldn't infrige on his freedom to defend himself then.

You can twist this any way that is convenient for you really. The man who said this first was probably looking for an excuse to dominate and trample other people's rights.

You may want to Google the definition of positive right. Unless you believe that everyone should be given a gun
>Feefes
It's not about my feefes, it's about a functioning society. "Freedom so free that it becomes unlivable" is an unattainable ideal and worse than communism

Anyone who isn't downright asylum voice hearing pants pooping material should be allowed to buy a gun.

Period. Anything else is tyranny. And we live in a tyrannical world.

>doctors do, they study illness and define some score that will consider all the patients that have been in a similar situation and be a reasonable prediction of what can happen in certain situations
Doctors or anyone else for that matter should not have power over the rights of others. The only time when someone's rights should be limited is through lawful judgement of one's peers.
>mh mh what do when something will obviously go wrong then?
Nothing. What you think will go "wrong" may not happen, so fuck your thought crime.
>you cant make a perfect line between who will do damage and who wont, people prefer to have wider restrictions if that will protect more people
And those people are fucking commies who should be thoroughly ridiculed for their opinions.
>that's what happens desu, the country usually does it and creates an area where you arent free to go to, or to go armed
The country is not a private entity, any land owned by the government should be publicly accessible.
>laws are there as a disincentive for wrong behaviours, from speed tickets up to death penalty
And how many crimes happened despite them? Laws don't prevent crime, dumbass.

we are talking about mentally unstable people, not normal people

Doctors gained respect and accuracy thanks to the Germ theory developed about 300 hundred years ago, but psychologist being the kind of doctor that deals with illnesses not caused by them still rely mostly on guesswork and individual inclinations, they are the ones who can have a say about the state of you mind and they have had not a significant breakthrough like the the doctors who can now actually pinpoint diseases in an accurate way.

Anyone can be deemed mentally unstable under the right circumstances. It's too easy.

Shrinks replaced priests as a form of social control.

We were talking about giving guns to mentally ill and possibly dangerous persons, otherwise I agree.
>The man who said this first was probably looking for an excuse to dominate and trample other people's rights
Not really, it's basic civic norm to live in a civilized society. For example: you have the right to drive, but you don't have the right to drive in a way that could harm others.

I hope you are joking but if you aren't, the bayonets are dull, just pointed. They are for stabbing not cutting

>You may want to Google the definition of positive right. Unless you believe that everyone should be given a gun
No don't think everyone should be given a gun, but everyone should have a right to get a gun for themselves if they aren't imprisoned for criminal activity or children.

And who decides if you're dangerous/mentally unstable or not? You put too much faith in the system. It could happen to you. It could happen to anyone. The absolutely worst persons barring complete fucking retards will always find guns, or worst case scenario, other equally deadly ways to harm others.

>Not really

Yes really.

>Anything else is tyranny. And we live in a tyrannical world.
We do, all because of retards that defend the system.

>It's too easy
do you know what you are talking about? it takes some solid evidences to do it and it implies a lot of risk to do so if you are then proved wrong
we are talking about mentally ill people, that allucinate stuff and have delirious paranoid anxiety, not about someone with depression. while there are many shades of madness, those are pretty clear to pinpoint
>Doctors or anyone else for that matter should not have power over the rights of others. The only time when someone's rights should be limited is through lawful judgement of one's peers.
it's not like they say "yeah that guy is mad, lock him up" multiple people from different sectors are involved (here you need the permit of the major of town too to force treatment on someone) to prevent abuse
>Nothing. What you think will go "wrong" may not happen, so fuck your thought crime.
wew nothing bad ever happens from careless people?
>And those people are fucking commies who should be thoroughly ridiculed for their opinions.
you are free to ridicule them
>The country is not a private entity, any land owned by the government should be publicly accessible.
you can become a person responsible for it's protection, study and prove you know what is correct to be done to prevent any damage and you will have full access to it
>And how many crimes happened despite them? Laws don't prevent crime, dumbass.
of course it's not an ideal world, people still do crimes, what are you 5yo? try check how well lax law countries are doing

See? You agree with me, in a sense. "Everyone should be able to do X, unless there's certain conditions that make doing X dangerous/harmful"

You sound like you have some persecution complexes my friend.
>Yes really
What part of "exercise of rights should not come at the expense of the rights of others" sounds alien to you?

>Not really, it's basic civic norm to live in a civilized society. For example: you have the right to drive, but you don't have the right to drive in a way that could harm others.
First of all, driving on public roads isn't a right, it's a privilege. I think it should be a right, but it isn't, so get your facts straight first.

Second, driving by definition is activity that is dangerous to others, and the only divider between it being legal and illegal is some arbitrary line set by some bureaucrat for the lowest common denominator. It has nothing to do with driver ability or car characteristics, it's literally just an arbitrary line.

Fuck your arbitrary lines.

>See? You agree with me, in a sense. "Everyone should be able to do X, unless there's certain conditions that make doing X dangerous/harmful"
No I don't, don't you fucking put words in my mouth.

I know exactly what I'm talking about. I have been deemed to dangerous to own firearms myself, and I never harmed anyone who wasn't seriously fucking asking for it. Truth be told, only cowards who never stand their ground, the super-rich and complete nerds are allowed to own guns these days. That's exactly what the state wants.

In some cases a fucking car accident is enough to be deprived of all your rights these days.

It's not alien sounding, it's simply dishonest and ignores human nature completely. You should be respectful or your neighbors but not let them trample on your own soverignty as a free man.

>it's not like they say "yeah that guy is mad, lock him up" multiple people from different sectors are involved (here you need the permit of the major of town too to force treatment on someone) to prevent abuse
And so what? The individual still hasn't committed any crime against someone else's rights.
>wew nothing bad ever happens from careless people?
Of course it does, it happens all the time. So what?
>you are free to ridicule them
As are you to have your retarded opinions.
>you can become a person responsible for it's protection, study and prove you know what is correct to be done to prevent any damage and you will have full access to it
Freely accessible.
>of course it's not an ideal world, people still do crimes, what are you 5yo? try check how well lax law countries are doing
Pretty fucking well.

>I never harmed anyone who wasn't seriously fucking asking for it
of course i know nothing about your circumstances but i guess any assassin would say the same
also if that's the pool of people with guns, why do you wanna join them?

>No don't think everyone should be given a gun, but everyone should have a right to get a gun for themselves if they aren't imprisoned for criminal activity or children.
That's what you said.


>ignores human nature completely
Uh I didn't know the most basic civil law that has existed for as long as civilization has ignored human nature. The more you know.
>have been deemed to dangerous to own firearms myself
Ah, this explains a lot.

Are you seriously trying to brand all the gun enthusiast around the globe with the assasin label

I don't care for the majority of target shooters who treat their guns as nothing more than glorified toys and I never did.

Cops have guns, criminals have guns, victims and sheeps don't. It's that simple. I refuse to be a victim and I know better than to follow the herd blindly.

The other italianon is a fag LOL

>And so what? The individual still hasn't committed any crime against someone else's rights.
there is a high risk of something irreversible happening, so actions will be taken. if some school teacher is found to have pedo necro rape videos he will be forbidden to have any close contacts with kids, it's reasonable
>Of course it does, it happens all the time. So what?
so we learn what were the things where we were careless and fix them, we put safety norms for workers so they dont kill themselves or others during work, we put driving laws etc
>As are you to have your retarded opinions.
and so are you
>Freely accessible.
nope, sorry.
>Pretty fucking well.
move there then

Canada had the best gun laws in the world. This is an irrefutable fact.

>Uh I didn't know the most basic civil law that has existed for as long as civilization has ignored human nature

It does though. The law has always been a tool of control of the powerful and the corrupt over the weak and the pure.

>Ah, this explains a lot

It does, doesn't it? And yet, what makes you assume I'm wrong?

nope, im branding violent people as violent, he didnt even mention any guns to be used for harming, he might have just punched someone for what i know, dont know laws of france
gun enthusiasts are free to do whatever they want, people who shown aggressive behaviour and seriously put people's safety at risk are not

>want to buy a shotgun
>it's almost 3000$
Fuck.

>That's what you said.
And I meant every word.

Right, then tell me, how do you think one can enforce such limitations upon the aggressive ones if one is not willing to harness the latent hostility present on some individual and use it to gain relative peace?

What a strawman.
This thread is so full of bait.

i guess you did some mistake in the past if you got that right removed, im sorry but if you wanna play the game you gotta know the rules too
i got nothing of that, could you rephrase?

>this buttblasted mentally ill F*nn

Exactly. It amazes me how violence committed by people in uniform is not regarded by most citizens as violence, yet if a civilian takes matters into his own hands for some reason he's automatically considered a psychopath.

Men just can't be men anymore, except if they serve the right interests.

>there is a high risk of something irreversible happening, so actions will be taken.
How about no.
>if some school teacher is found to have pedo necro rape videos he will be forbidden to have any close contacts with kids, it's reasonable
No, it is not. Let people fap to what they want. Then again, institutions have a right to employ who they want, so if they want to fire said teacher, so be it.
>so we learn what were the things where we were careless and fix them, we put safety norms for workers so they dont kill themselves or others during work, we put driving laws etc
You can't fix human laziness or stupidity by putting more red tape on things. Besides, a free society has some risks involved, if you want total control and your needs taken care of, go live in a prison.
>nope, sorry.
Well fuck you then.
>move there then
I'm studying at the moment for a possibility to move to Alaska. It's not easy to get into America.

Oh I know the rules all right. As opposed to you.

>everyone who supports gay rights must be homo themselves
Lol xd

Nugget shotgun comrade!

I woul rather buy Vepr. Too bad that it looks like shit.

not him by it is proved that alcohol affects your reactions and it's extremely dangerous to drive while under the effect of it. Of course everyone is unique, meaning that someone with a high alcoholic tax in his blood may probably still be more lucid that someone with a low one, or even withouth any alcohol in his blood.

so what do we do? a test for every person alive (and every year since it may vary due to age), and then set particular standards to everyone due to his natural characteristics?
or how about we decide some appropriate (not really arbitrary) line and everyone stays under it?

to condense your post, you are basically saying "no no no no no no i dont want that"
you are a simple minded fool, i doubt you will ever solve the burocratic riddles and get to alaska, you will simply screech at the screen that you should be free to go there, why are papers necessary, right?
evidently wrong, since you lost your rights

>not him by it is proved that alcohol affects your reactions and it's extremely dangerous to drive while under the effect of it. Of course everyone is unique, meaning that someone with a high alcoholic tax in his blood may probably still be more lucid that someone with a low one, or even withouth any alcohol in his blood.
It is dangerous, and any reasonable person would refrain from driving after imbibing any amount of alcohol. No argument there.

>so what do we do? a test for every person alive (and every year since it may vary due to age), and then set particular standards to everyone due to his natural characteristics?
No, we assume that people are responsible enough to not drive if they feel they are doing something stupid and/or risky. Like with anything else. Like for example handling firearms when drunk.

>or how about we decide some appropriate (not really arbitrary) line and everyone stays under it?
Or how about no?

No, I'm just an individual who values personal liberty and responsibility that comes with the liberties. And you're a commie. Get fucked.

>evidently wrong, since you lost your rights

Evidently symptomatic of your simplistic thinking.

they may have deemed you too violent for gun use, mistakes are human and psychology isn't even an exact or pseudexact science

but the general rule that people with more violent or irrational traits shouldn't be given guns is more than appropriate. Sure it may be wrong, it may be an injustice, as someone which is deemed not appropriate lack of a right that others have, and he may be the most kind person though his whole life, without any violent episode, and meanwhile another person who had been deemed appropriate because he a good boy may do something violent.

This is society, this is the law, law is for the purpose of the whole society, and at times it may wrong the particular person in sacrifice of the whole. It is as it has always been.
If we were in an experimental setting, and you have
example 1: to give guns to all people (without criminal precedents)
example 2: to give guns to people that have certain attitudes (and without criminal precedents)
example 2 will always result more keen for any society, no matter what, the only problem is defining the right or "best" attitudes.
And yes that may lead to an injustice to some particular individual, that because of that is disarmed and maybe he dies because of it (can't defend himself in a fatal situation). It has always been like this.
And if you're not convinced, then why don't we let have ex convicts have guns? they paid their price in jail, and now they must have all the right, even them, to defend themselves.
Would you give a serial killer (even if he is diagnosed sane and he has paid the price), a gun? maybe yes, it's your decision now...

it is how society works, it makes a compromise between society and individual, and it may wrong the "individual freedom" in favour of society, look the last part of the other answer I gave to the french guy

alaska.net/jobs.html
i wish you luck anyway

not him again but personal responsibility is an great ideal, if it only had consequences to only the person acting. If that coinvolves other people, their bodies or their lives or whatever, it's not possible.

The same way a company doesn't give high important positions to everyone, but the qualified ones. Think of society as a company, and the people and the well functioning of this society as the money the company makes. Then you'll understand law, and that "socialism" (it's not really socialism) is inherently necessary

>Think of society as a company
Silvio pls

anyway this whole situation (depriving people of their "rights" in favour of society) is extremized in the movie "minority report" (in a fiction sci fi kind of way): really great movie imho.

>Would you give a serial killer (even if he is diagnosed sane and he has paid the price), a gun? maybe yes, it's your decision now...
100% yes. If the serial killer has done his time and is free, then he should be free in every sense of the word.

Rights are not pick and choose. He'll have his right to bear arms as he'll have his right to vote and freedom of speech.

it literally is though, think of ants and their society (they kill other ants if it benefits it), we are the same, just more evolved

I refuse to think in terms of the supposed higher interest of society that way, it's deceiving and has become completely unacceptable to me. If you can't understand that, too bad.

People who get out of jail should have guns, they already paid their debt. Lots of them do anyway, illegally. If people who have never been convicted are armed as well, I'd say it all balances out, UNLIKE the current situation which is about the most disgusting thing imaginable. Well I guess there's even worse, in North Korea....

Also, dude, I AM an ex-convict, even if I didn't go to prison and am not a professional criminal.

I agree with how it ended. A thousand guilty people free is better than one innocent person in jail.

How do you get diagnosed? Did you voluntarily see a doctor? Do you regret it?

was just bantz
ants dont do falso in bilancio or evasione fiscale tho
but they also dig their house in shit so yeah better this way

but i want the innocent one free and the thousand guilty in jail, what weird shit society are you hoping for

This is just not possible. And how many people are truly innocent?

This reminds me of an important point I forgot to bring up: making it illegal for mentally ill people to have guns may dissuade people from seeking help if they need it, making the mental health issue worse. If they already are in possession of guns, that is a real time bomb you have just artificially created.

I'd rather have a significant percentage of innocents not killed due to the fact that the guilty were set free, than having one innocent in jail.
Of course it that innocent is me I'm going to curse everyone to hell.
At this point it's just about personal preferences. No point discussing further, every individual has his own concept of (more) right and (more) wrong. Law is (or should be) a somewhat equidistributed deal between all different opinions.