God, why is liberal """humor""" so aweful?

Jon Stewart was pretty good

Obligatory
m.youtube.com/watch?v=tSMnYyAglwI

that whole comedy Central lineup was my shit fam…

Liberal humor is unfunny now for the same reason conservative humor has always been unfunny.

It's hard to do political humor when you're defending the status quo. Unlike in the Bush years, liberals these days don't seem to want to change anything and come across as shills trying to maintain the order of the former Obama administration.

At the time he w as a welcome respite from the media environment during the Bush years and the Iraq War. At the time, NYT, WaPo, CNN and the rest were all huge boosters for that insanity. Now that the entire US commetariat has become petulant, superior and snide, the appeal parts of his character have fallen away.

conservatives, being functional adults, don't need special "comedians" to feed them propaganda thinly disguised as humor, we just look at the left for our laughs

colbert was cool when he roasted bush at the correspondents dinner though, now that actually took some balls.

...

whats wrong with the guy in the middle? he seems ok tbh

conservatives, being functional adults, don't need special "comedians" to feed them propaganda thinly disguised as humor,
Fam don't be stupid
So many internet conservative or reactionary outlets beg to differ

...

...

idk i'd rather have a beer with him than say muke, neither preferably of course

Oh, I'm sorry
Your tribal affiliation doesn't make you a functional adult.

Moving goalposts.

You can have a beer with someone who isn't a "functional adult"

So are you calling whites inferior, equal, what?
I can post black crime statistics and millions of images of fat leftists with deviantart tier signs, but that won't make a difference, what's your point?

this qualifies as a debate to you?

This is just your way of saying that conservatives are too stupid to be funny.

stay salty fam, we punk rock nao

I'm aware there are weirdos on the left. The thing is, we don't pretend that our politics make us more moral or virtuous people.

It's kind of hilarious that conservatives have latched on to the term "virtue signaling" for the limited degree to which it exists in left liberal politics when conservative politics, at least the parts that aren't outrage and hysteria, are pure virtue signalling.

now this IS funny

Conservatism is punk in the same way The Jonas Brothers were.

You don't even know the history of punk rock then.

I know more than a conservative that thinks "punk" is about being a tryhard contrarian.

It exists to a limited extent among the libs, but not as much as it does among conservatives.

What's more common among libs and a good chunk of the Left is that holding certain politics makes others bad people, not that your own politics makes you a good and virtuous person.

That's an important distinction.

Nice backpedal nerd

Oh stop talking utter shit. You live under a rock or are under age.

Sort of. I choose to keep right-wingers at a distance. I use these partially to indicate that we're not friendly.

Nice projecting. Shouldn't you go to bed?

Most of us don't get our information about the outside world from dubious and sensationalist outrage articles and infographs.

Your only experience with the right is filtered through Holla Forums memes, is what you're telling me here?

too late now, but a nice cotton shirt with the hammer and sickle might have been a lighter touch.

I was referring specifically to Holla Forums, but I live in the American South, so I'm no stranger to right-wing politics.

They outright say that their politics make them more virtuous people. It isn't even abiguous, it's out in the open.

Really made your point there, user.

This thread should be nuked. Unsurprisingly devolved into nothing but shitposting.

Why are these faggots so obsessed with Russia? Do liberals think it's some evil white supremacist empire, or some shit?

American South on another planet perhaps, almost the entire left these days is built up of morally self-serving mushy personal branding, to the extent no principles are even discernible, it's what has been turning off so many as of late. Politics should be an extension of ethics, I don't know what is so distasteful to you about actual convictions, unless you admit you're only in it for yourself, in which case fuck you. It isn't about you.

he meant that neither is punk

No. They let the CIA/AIPAC do that for them.

The right functions like Kiwi Farms. They are so bad that they need someone inferior in order to make themselves look good.

The fact this had to be explained, mein gott.

is this a meme i missed out on?

Not really. Go to /cow/ here, see if that interests you, lmao. People killing time laughing at crazies.

Wew, this meme again.

In case you haven't noticed, we have convictions, fam. The cultural posturing is largely on the part of the liberals, not the Left.

However, simply having convictions doesn't make us believe that we've somehow had virtue magically conferred to us.

Also, top kek at a right-winger pretending to care about other people. You can't pretend to care for others while actively throwing your fellow workers under the bus and attacking anyone you perceive to be below you on the social ladder.

I'll let you in on a secret, everyone intelligent on the right knows this. It suits our propaganda purposes to lump you all in together, like saying "commie". It's effective, it sticks in people's minds, whereas several paragraphs explaining the historical and definitional difference bores people and they'll just tune out, no one's going to care, they're just going to remember all the SJW larpers with their commie shit. You've got to stop letting yourselves be so controlled by the enemy's use of words.

What's your purpose? Stop pretending to be any sort of intellectual.

Well I tried to help and it just went straight over your head so you default to your shitty snark that no one likes. Our purpose is destroying you, wiping you from history, everything you've ever worked for in ruins, forgotten or scorned for all time, associated with untold misery, spoken of with the same disgust and regret as institutional slavery. Have fun ;v)

Okay.

Also,
Pick only one.

I'm not the one you were replying to, dipshit.
Lmao, wow.

We all have dreams, I suppose.

rules are a spook

who cares, you're all more or less the same shit

not him, but politics is dirty because we all believe we have the morale high ground, and that the ends justify the means

That would be fucking next-level though and I'd go with it.

Making fun through satire of the people that are making fun of what his satire is making fun of
Like his jokes would be joking on liberals joking on conservatives.

It would also mean that if the conservatives get his liberal satire, they also enjoy his show, while the liberals enjoy the show for the obvious conservative satire. That'd mean that his should could fit any of the two major american ideologies, doubling his target audience and reaping the benefits. I'd give him props for that.

But his show's just a boring shitshow and basically a Trump circlejerk and has been since the beginning of the elections.

I don't even disagree. I'm just saying that if this is something you genuinely believe, you're in the wrong ideology buddy. Conservatives have always been massive rulecucks.

Nah I believe in a moral order, but as you don't, the aggressor defines the terms of the engagement.

liberals lack the introspection to satirize themselves
only lefties and conservatives can be self deprecating

The fuck are you even talking about?

Communists are almost always ideologically consistent. The same can't be said for conservatives. If your ideology is so great, why can't it lead you to victory on its internal logic?

Oh that's a good one. I seem to recall all of your states twisting around and justifying any and everything while your millions of dead-eyed followers rationalized it endlessly, and still do.

You think Communists do not engage in propaganda? Your societies were massive brainwashing factories that disallowed all dissent. Ridiculous. Read some history you illiterate.

so consistent

Wow, it's almost like there are multiple ideologies and tendencies on the left or something.

Can't even be consistent about being consistent. That's some real meta shit.

Wew.

But, yes, while the Warsaw Pact States got up to some fuckery, it was still consistent with their ideology.

We do, but we have no ideological qualms with propaganda. And our propaganda is rarely intentionally deceiving. Even in the former M-L states you were talking about, their programs, while questionable, were still ideologically consistent. There is no ideological consistency in believing in an inherent moral order to the world and intentionally deceiving the public.

My claim was that communists are consistent within their ideological framework, not that there was only one ideological framework.

No one buys this shitty tactic. One minute you're a unified monolith then in hte very next breath you're a loose grab bag of miscellaneous crap that can't cohere on anything. What exactly is it, essentially, then? Everything and nothing it seems.

Do you realise what you're saying here? If your ideology is "anything goes" then sure anything's consistent with that. Your entire reportiore of debate tactics is slithering out of any responsibility with these weak equivocations and backpedals and everyone with a functioning brain can see right through it. As an aside it's exactly the same cheap trick how postmodern type critique works as well, funnily enough.

Read a fucking book holy shit.

Evidently not, or there wouldn't have been Cambodia, or North Korea, or any of your other disasters that are always miraculously everyone else's fault but yours.

One more thing, you're this salty about the difference between "left" and "Left" being some kind of grand deception. Language is fluid and evolves and just is it's use. Nothing deceptive about that. Jesus, if you can't handle that wait until you get hit with real propaganda.

Those fuckers are still going to bitch about it on 2020, right?

The Left is, in fact, a large hodgepodge of different ideologies. There's just a few things we all hold in common.

And, no, their ideology wasn't "anything goes". One of the main aspects of old communist bloc was framing the Cold War East vs West as the front line of the greater class struggle. This, any action perceived to strengthen the Warsaw Pact against NATO was advancing the class struggle under this lens. While it has been hotly debated if this was ever the case, it can't be denied that it was ideologically consistent with the espoused ideology of the Warsaw Pact

lol no, they're your boys. North Korea is arguably the most prominent example of a far-right ethnostate today next to Israel.

youtu.be/1qPf-zZ4eKQ

You are the slipperiest motherfuckers on the planet. The smartest among you are so lost in abstraction you are disconnected from any real human needs and wants, the very thing you claim to by fighting to fulfill. The rest of you are little fags who haven't even read the history of the shit you've glommed onto like sad little barnacles, thinking Pravda was literally, more or less, the Truth. Thanks again, Holla Forums for reminding me the calibre of our opposition buahaha

It wasn't so long ago that you guys were blowing a gasket over being called fascists because you didn't follow the exact line of the Italian Fascist Party.

Buddy, if your morals go out the window the second they become inconvenient, then they're not really your morals at all. Even if the opposition was truly the agressors and knowingly lied constantly (which is hard to determine), how would this justify knowingly deceiving people?

Pol Pot and Kim Il Sung were always right wing. Pol Pot was a hardline reactionary that wanted to bring Cambodia back to a legendary agrarian feudal past and Kim Il Sung constructed his ideology almost entirely from Japanese imperialist ideology. Neither had read a word of Marx. They just realized that they could get a good measure of support from the USSR and PRC if they dressed up their radical nationalist revolutions in communist imagery and and sloganeering.

85% of you admit you are amoral, which is literally "anything goes", and anything over the top of that like "wah wah poor people" is a facade, by definition.

Let me break it down for you. If you kill someone, that's bad right? If someone's trying to kill you, and you kill them in self-defense, is that still bad? I guess seeing as you're mostly self admitted, entirely self-interested psychopaths, this level of nuance would be lost on you.

Good luck, you're sure as fuck going to need it.

...

So the two major Communist powers who supported them were easily duped fucking idiots then? Or just unprincipled opportunists as well?

every time I hear a leftist talking about their shoplifting habit I have an intense desire to gulag them

I never said said that.

Now that's what I call consistency!

Easily duped.

The "socialism in one country" meme meant that the CPSU and CPC were fairly aloof and pretty much anything would go provided you used the right buzzwords and sucked their dicks sufficiently enough.

Here's the thing:
The only actor here you can know for certain deceives willingly here is you, with the intention of the opposition being an assumption/unknown.
That means that in the very best scenario, you're only as bad as the people you think ought be opposed and stopped.
What you're talking about here is more akin to murdering someone preemptively to prevent them murdering you, while still claiming to be morally against murder.

I am sorry, but this strictly utilitarian approach to ethics, meaning you only have principles when they serve you, is amoralism per definition.

shoplifting is not a revolutionary action
you are stealing from porky, but you are also stealing from the workers, and from your fellow patrons

Lighten up Grandpa, I'm a conservative for the purposes of this thread, and even I don't give a shit if some kid steals from fucking Walmart.

You don't get it. It's acceptable to use propaganda when the other side uses it, and they will, always have. There's no pre-empting it. It's that simple. That's politics. Let me remind you that this is all over us not spelling out your fucking spergy definitions of a million fragmentary sects that you yourselves can't even stop fighting over. Why would we do that, rather than tarring you with the same brush, as spoiled first world degenerates, which is actually how we see you. Not doing your own job for you, just because you're too incompetent to manage, is not deception, nor is it our problem.

Agreed. This is one of my major issues with Communist and revolutionary Marxist ideology.

One of your problems with communist and Marxist ideology is that it isn't sufficiently internationalist enough?

Okay then.

If it was actually what it claimed to be then I'd absolutely consider still supporting it, yes. As it stands it's a trainwreck.

Are you talking about Chapo Trap House?

It is what it claims to be. The Stalinists aren't bashful about supporting socialism in one country policies.

It's almost what weird Twitter exclusively does. Which is the left now sadly.

So it's simple playground justice, is it? "Suzy broke my toy, so I broke hers"?
Clearly that marks a deep amoralism as you're not against deception itself, indeed you're fine with deceiving the people, as long as it's done to serve the right purpose, for the right side.

Some of the most wicked deeds here on earth have been carried out when people both believed the other side to be ill-intentioned and succumbed to moral utilitarianism. ISIS would be a good example.

So ethics and principles matter, and by lowering yourself to the standards of monsters you cannot know for certain are real, you have compromised your soul and your standing as an ethical being.

Why do libs hate Trump so much? Serious answers only please. Hilary and Bill put more black people in jail then anyone alive on the planet. She was clearly going to antagonize Russia, and keep Obamas foreign policy.

Other than Trumps attempt to dismantle Obamacare I can't find compelling material reasons libs should hate Trump. He's mean to gays… I mean that's not nothing but Obama didn't exactly embrace them until way later in his presidency.

The only thing Trump does different that is significant is that he overtly endorses white supremacy.

I get what you're saying and I want to agree with you, but you sound extremely naive. There's no highground in war, if the other side plays dirty then you have to as well, or you lose. You can pick up the pieces and build your just and principled society after. That's how the world works. Being able to stand as an exemplar to others through your deeds and principles without exception, works fine in an already ordered, peaceful, high trust society. When that order breaks down it's every man for themselves. I think you'll find even in history, those that are held up as great heros of principle often are presented like this and did so for the propaganda value, ironically, like Ghandi for example (nb5 leftist screeching about Ghandi).

...

The Obama administration presented these people with a massive problem: there were many good stories to be run on the failures of Obama, but journalists as a class knew that they shouldn't. This was the FIRST BLACK PREZNIT and it was incumbent on them as gatekeepers and opinion leaders to make him succeed. Everything else would be racist, or at least kind of gauche. There was no sympathy to be gained from exposing Obama.

But now, finally, they have what they see as a legitimate target again. A racist, sexist, homophobic, Russophilic, uneducated, incompetent stale pale male. Everything they've been holding back the last 8 years is breaking out all at once. Where Obama could do no wrong, Trump is wrong about everything, including his ice cream scoops and handshakes, yes even his hands themselves are wrong!

Journalists as a class see this as a liberating experience. They consider this newfound critical opposition to be a sign of professional revival and their blatant partisan antagonism to be a welcome change from their previous self-censorship. Everyone's a hero now. They truly believe that.

Because they were told to.

You are fucking retarded.

It's Trump's equivalent of the birth certificate Keynesian Kenyan Islamic Communist shit.

Shit on Colbert's liberalism but the real reasons he sucks now is coz talk show host is where comedians go to die

The real reason is liberals tipped their hand with Clinton. Were you under a rock for that period where every liberal celebrity and their dog endorsed her? Even after the shit where everyone knew the DNC shafted Barney Sandals, they were endorsing her. It's completely obvious that they're just a bunch of establishment shills now, and they're too self-conscious to play it off in any matter but a trainwreck.

Yeah, Colbert used to be okay. Samantha Bee, however, was never good and somehow manages to get even worse as time goes by.

You answered your own question.

Used to idolize the guy cause him ripping on Bush in his face was so damn ballsy. Dont know how he turned into such a liberal ass licker…I mean was money really it? Dude probably got paid pretty well as the host of Colbert report too? In either case, he gets the bullet now too.

...

I AM ANGRY. ANGRY ABOUT ICE CREAM

Colbert used to actually be funny. The Report was good comedy. It could be that Colbert just lacks something without his old character. But I don't even think that's it - honestly, his Late Show mostly just feels cheap. Like you think CBS is spending some money on this, but most of the writing is crap, the voiceovers are weirdly crap, the extras tend to suck, the animated features they occasionally include are never particularly impressive, and it honestly feels really cynically pieced together to accommodate a "sensitive" and slow audience. Like, the humor's dumber than on the Report, as though someone in an executive position thought The Report was a smart high brow show or something.

Honestly, I think America has a genuine problem with just pretending to be retarded because other people are supposed to be retarded. I mean, lots of Americans are stupid as fuck, but the country would be collectively smarter if we'd stop accommodating it.

This guy is an INSUFFERABLE authoritarian. The reason he is so disgusting is that he is using BAD HUMOR and very shitty jokes trying to convince people that authority figures and violence isnt bad and cool and hip. I think i just puked in my mouth thinking about him.

What's this, though?

Lmao, I was giving that the side-eye, too…
I understand he's trying to make the DNC/establishment seem "hip"(God help him & his retarded ass, he just loves those checks). Besides the fact that'll never work, these people quickly out themselves as bourgie liberals. They're so full of shit.
But people getting riled up & violent is a nice break from people not giving a shit, tbh. As long as it's against the right targets, though & not #Resist/#I'mwithHer bullshit.

This is what is disgusting about neo-libtard regressives. Hate speech laws are but one example of many. Colbert wants to violently enforce gun control as well and we all know that gun free zones are the most likely place to get shot. Im sure I could find more examples but authoritarianism goes hand in hand with violence and it makes real liberals want to throw up. If im not mistaken colbert was also supportive of overthrowing assad which will kill as many people as overthrowing saddam.

Does he?

Do we?

So does anti-authoritarianism, though. Not endorsing anything right off, here, but having a strong militia movement would be a good, good idea.

I'm not sure if I follow you completely. You think it's a bad thing to target oppressive establishments/people, or no?
Well, I used to live in the ghetto in the US & have had too many friends killed by guns. I actually recently moved to a very restrictive country(India) on guns & it's a nice change of pace not to have to worry all the time about some asshole getting upset & just shooting me or someone else. Although I am "pro"-gun, as far as being able to defend yourself if need be & as long as cops have guns it kinda evens out the playing field.
They're a shady bunch, tbh. Liberals are more than comfortable throwing their "principles" out the window to score cheap political points & silence the opposition.
I agree about Colbert & him supporting the attempted overthrow of Assad. Fucking Hillary supporters are the absolute worst because, again, they pretend to have principles(like not bombing countries), yet are so hawkish when it comes to their neoliberal heroes like Clinton.

How many mass shootings have taken place in theatres or schools? You think those gun free zone signs keep violent criminals from bringing guns there? Soon metal 3D printers will be cheap enough that criminals can make themself automatic weapons. At least if you are allowed to have a gun then you have a chance to protect yourself. Police are only called when there is a victim already. Places where weapons are not allowed need to have ADEQUATE security.

Instead of just giving your opinion after making that statement, you should just supply some citations so we could look at the actual stats & try to interpret it or find the reason behind it. Or even if there may be an agenda behind those whom are putting the stats forward or if there's bias, etc etc. (Usually there is, on both sides, tbh.)

I wasn't arguing for or against gun free zones, mate. Just wondering about that initial claim itself. Those regulations are put there in the first place to discourage it, of course. I used to go to a school where they made us walk through metal detectors, every day. That did actually help.

Like I said, I'm not anti-gun. And btw
After living in poor neighborhoods my entire life(until 2 years ago when I finally left the country), I don't rely on the cops for shit & never have. They usually complicate matters further, but that's an entirely different subject, altogether.

It's hard to live your life relying on different hypothetical situations or happenings. Usually shit just happens & you deal with it however you do in the moment. Sometimes there's no "only right way" to deal with them, by default. Just my thoughts.

Columbine, Virginia Tech, Aurora Theatre.. the list goes on and on. You dont even need stats but they are on google if you are interested but common sense tells us that a simple sign is not enough to stop a violent psychopath hellbent on mass murder. Metal Detectors like what they have on the airport help but not all lethal violence requires metal objects and there are gun designs that use plastic barrels and keep the metal content low enough to pass most metal detectors. And im sure since you said you have lived in the ghetto you have seen someone have their face kicked in by a group of violent people. If a private business or school wants to prohibit weapons or even a street or section of a city then they need to have trained and armed security guards to make sure that violence is protected against. Im surprised that the free market has not solved this problem because I think that people would rather be in places with adequate security where they know theyre safe. I think that once a couple of businesses start actually patting people down and havng security guards that it will cause a trend because more people will want to frequent those kind of places.

...

It's American humour in general. Jokes about Christianity still manage to be shocking there.

I've already thought about doing this, and I'm not a criminal. You can make your own guns cheaply and easily already, and I'd honestly rather do that than funnel more money to the NRA.

They're also called when there's no victim, a situation they are very good at fixing.

Gonna need stats to back that up.

No one is ever safe.

Because a "free market" is still sold to/governed by the highest bidder by default. Whomever has the most capital has the most influence.

Are you guys trolling me? Honestly it's hard to believe that it's self evident. Literally how many times have you heard of shootings occurring in schools or theatres? There is a reason that violent psychos choose those as the place for their crime. There is also something called a search engine.

crimeresearch.org/2014/09/more-misleading-information-from-bloombergs-everytown-for-gun-safety-on-guns-analysis-of-recent-mass-shootings/

It's logical to think that customers would like to not get shot so businesses with metal detectors, pat downs, and security gaurds might become more popular than businesses without them. My theory is that right now business owners are afraid to be the first one to implement this because they might not catch on right away but this could possibly be a good candidate for crowd funding or something similar.

Good.

We hear about those because they make headlines. They don't generally represent the average shooting. This applies to life as a rule - incidents you see in the news or in viral videos are generally not average.

>crimeresearch.org/2014/09/more-misleading-information-from-bloombergs-everytown-for-gun-safety-on-guns-analysis-of-recent-mass-shootings/

This only covers mass shootings - it doesn't suggest that anyone is "most likely to get shot" in a gun free zone. Also, crimeresearch.org is run by John Lott. Not saying that discounts these stats, but they aren't applicable to your initial claim and it's worth knowing that this site is run by a guy whose primary issue isn't crime but rather gun advocacy.

It's actually an awful idea from both a business and consumer perspective. It would be a fringe, and even then you'd probably end up having to cater it to people who just had a fetish for security guards.

Keep lying to yourself. Gun control simply does not work. When psychos dont have access to guns they use ACID or TRUCKS. The number of people that are killed in chicago roughly correlate to the number of people in london who have acid thrown in their face. 3D printers are getting better everyday and soon they will make gun control 100 percent useless even though its already like 90 percent ineffective. Authoritarianism is fragile and relying on it is futile. Decentralized solutions to societal problems are much more robust.

And yes I do admit that i made a small error saying that gun free zones are the most likely place to get shot but the fact that they are such popular targets for violent psychos should tell you that gun control laws are inneffective and just more likely to take a gun away from law abiding citizens who would probably help you in an emergency.

dailyherald.com/news/20170728/chicago-murder-toll-hits-400-for-2017

thesun.co.uk/news/4016850/acid-attacks-london-uk-figures-where-latest/

At least if the acid attackers got shot that would do something to persuade the attackers not to throw acid in people's face but cameras are not enough of a deterrence for psychos that are mentally retarded often. Also those acid attack numbers are in addition to regular muders and the string of terror attacks. GUN CONTROL IS BECOMING LESS EFFECTIVE EACH AND EVERY DAY.

I have a fetish for not getting shot or beat up. I fucking hate violence and having to worry about assholes. If youre not going to allow people to carry then security guards and metal dectors and pat downs should be the standard. When i go drinking sometimes I see people getting stomped out or worse and me wanting to return home safely has nothing to do with fetishism.

Those things are generally less effective and convenient.

Not sure about that. Your articles say that there were 431 total acid attacks in London in 2016, and there've been 400 murders in Chicago so far in July of 2017. Acid attacks are also generally classified as GBH, according to the article.

On the other hand, Chicago had 762 recorded murders in 2016:

abc7chicago.com/news/762-murdered-in-chicago-in-2016-cpd-releases-plan-to-curb-violence/1681356/

Secondly, I haven't advocated getting rid of guns once in this conversation. I've even said I've thought about building my own. I contested a claim you made, and you never backed it up and instead you're just resorting to more and more sensational claims.

You can already build guns at home with simple instructions and stuff you can get from a hardware store. Getting them on the black market isn't that hard, either. All moot points because neither of us is arguing gun control.

I'm not worried about it being fragile, I'm worried about it being strong. I don't rely on it, I oppose it. I oppose warrantless surveillance, I oppose complete gun bans, I oppose no-knock police searches, I oppose police militarization, I oppose undemocratic hostile invasions for corporate interests, I oppose government/corporate agreements which empower censorship of communications, I oppose The Patriot Act and its continued renewal, I oppose the campaign finance system which gives undue power to the rich, I oppose the war on drugs, I oppose the "war on terror" ruse, and on-and-on. I hope that clears up where I stand.

London had 118 homicides in 2015, when Chicago had 468 that year. Chicago, like London, also has GBH crimes - but it leads London in murders.

You will always have to worry about assholes. Understanding this is important.

Late reply; had stuff to do.
Not trolling, I was just genuinely interested in that claim's validity & it's lazy/never a good strategy to say that when you want to make your point.
It would seem many of these gun-free zones probably came about along with the Drug War regulations & "drug-free" zones as well. Although again, having schools be gun free zones just seems like common sense & a very good idea. Kids shouldn't have to be concerned with this issue at all.

Seems like this issue really does have many other things factor into it, obviously. Never as simple as "gun free zone or no".
It would help the US & its citizens - a lot - if we had access to medical care when needed. Physical, dental & mental. So many public freak outs & rampages would be avoided because those stress-inducing problems would actually be addressed before they get out of control. Plus how cold many people are towards each other doesn't help at all. I know liberals bring up this point a lot, but it really does have an influence on day to day life. So many people are one paycheck away from losing everything, no matter how little their material possessions, which can make someone snap & always be stressed.

I have to strongly agree, here. That's a great point to be made. The average 1 person on 1 person type shootings are far more prevalent than mass shootings, even though those routinely make the news because they're more shocking cases & more likely to get clicks/viewers. Our media is God awful with its "priorities". Their only priority is profit & that affects every issue they cover.
Also very much noteworthy. Usually these stats are biased for one side or the other. It's fucking maddening.

Jesus. Pearl clutching status: maxed out.

While you're worrying about issues that will most likely never happen to you, those in power are screwing you even more.

You're making so many generalizations & hypothetical statements in your posts. Try to calm down with the rampant speculation. Deal with the facts, only. You're going to drive yourself crazy, user. The world really isn't so scary - & this is coming from someone who's scared of many things. How much time do you spend daily watching reactionary Youtube channels? That's not good for anyone's psyche.

Worry about the things that affect you on a daily basis. What would those be?

...

The point is that when a psycho gets it through his mind he wants to take human life it's very easy without a weapon. One thing I forgot to mention is that it's possible to make explosives without even possessing high school level chemistry knowledge and it's arguably more dangerous if pscyhos do that instead of using firearms which can theoretically at least be defended against.

Okay but im just defending my logic and I think that you might have played devils advocate or something.

Well then you seem better than 99 percent of liberals because I've found most of them to be insufferable bootlickers. It's in EVERYONES self interest to work towards decentralizing power structures. Libertarianism isnt something that should happen over night but instead we should work to create alternative mechanisms for solving societal problems. A lot of people on the left now want to make refined sugar in the same category as tobacco and alcohol and sin taxxed to hell but everytime we have to rely on big daddy government to violently control people that is a failure of society in a moral sense and much less robust than educating people and creating communities that need less governance. Educating people about healthy choices and businesses offering tasty healthy options is what is going to be better for our communities overall.

That number is going to be higher in 2017 and there is little data about gbh in chicago but it could be less because people have access to firearms.

True but there is no reason why we shouldnt be trying to build stronger communities. Some of the safest communities in America are where people carry guns the most and have RICH firearm cultures. Promoting safe firearm ownership within a community has been shown to dramatically decrease the amount of violent crime, and crime in general.

google.fi/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=7&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjmk9C5y7LVAhVMYVAKHdo-A28QygQITDAG&url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennesaw,_Georgia#Crime_statistics&usg=AFQjCNFtxMUWlYXgVqP9wctfLDKCQQ2ltA

forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/05/14/disarming-realities-as-gun-sales-soar-gun-crimes-plummet/#29f2d50c3f7c

You can't watch this and tell me liberal humour isn't world class
youtube.com/watch?v=vwaiyjh1dGk

Yeah but what's a little ethno-nationalism between friends?

Trump more like DRUMPF LMAO

I know it's hard but try and put yourself into the mindset of a psycho hell bent on causing death. Where would you choose to commit a mass shooting? Would you rather open up in a crowd of people where someone may have a firearm concealed on their person or a place where law mandates everyone be disarmed?

I wholeheartedly agree and although no one I know has ever gone on a mass rampage I do know people that have killed themselves when they lost a job and became homeless. It is in everyone's self interest to provide support for the lowest class of people and emergency services for people who are struggling. One of the most notable things I noticed when I traveled in Europe was the absence of throngs of homeless people.

One way we could combat this in America would be to provide a voluntary crowd sourced crypto currency fund where people in need could withdraw from. This would also show that voluntary charity could replace taxation and violently enforced welfare. It's unethical to force people to give up so much of their personal wealth but I think that with proper marketing rich and middle class alike would voluntarily contribute to ending poverty and providing a landing pad for people in dire need. This would make america safer as well. Rich people hate being taxed because it is a form of bullying and a larger and stronger organization forcing their will upon them.

Imagine if someone asks you to borrow 20 bucks versus pointing a gun to your head and demanding everything in your wallet.. which one are you going to be happier about? It's not just an ego thing either it's unethical. And one of the ironies about left wingers is that they typically donate less to charity and there is an apathetic attitude that their small contributions dont mean anything compared to rich people but the thing is that rich people have more resources and often find ways to circumvent taxation laws and they should because taxes are simply too high.

Pic related is a very scholarly and somewhat liberal youtuber who makes a point about taxation.

youtube.com/watch?v=WtxTxzB3Q30

Source please? Premeditated murders might be more common but those can be carried out by a number of means such as poisoning or piano wire. From my understanding the liberal's propaganda of permit carriers getting into a verbal argument and then pulling guns on eachother is quite rare.

breitbart.com/big-government/2017/07/24/study-concealed-permit-holders-law-abiding-law-abiding/

Suicides are the most common kind of gun death and suicide can be done with a number of other methods and even a dem senator agrees that
“The focus largely is on gun murders and mass shootings because those are things you can’t control,” Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.)

huffingtonpost.com/entry/gun-control-suicide_us_57756cb0e4b0a629c1a91400

JUST USE COMMON SENSE JESUS FUCKING CHRIST? WHY ARE MASS SHOOTINGS CARRIED OUT IN GUN FREE ZONES???? ITS NOT FUCKING ROCKET SCIENCE OR SOME KIND OF RIGHT WING CONSPIRACY? ARE YOU REALLY TRYING TO ARGUE THAT YOURE SAFER IN A GUN FREE ZONE AND CRIMINALS CARE ABOUT A SIGN? IT'S A MYTH THAT CARRY HOLDERS LOSE THEIR TEMPERS OFTEN AND START SHOOTING EACHOTHER. KIDS AT SCHOOL STILL WOULDNT HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT PEOPLE CARRYING GUNS BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO BE 18 YEARS OLD OR ABOVE TO CARRY A WEAPON.

JESUS FUCKING CHRIST this is the worst argument so far. Just because something is unlikely does not mean its not a problem. Do you think they should have stopped striving to make airliners safer because at 1 accident in 10,000 flights was "safe enough?" Would you rather fly on an airline that has one accident in ten thousand flights or one accident in one million flights? And of course youre not likely to get shot if you live in a rural community and never leave your house, but if you walk around a city anywhere in the world you are likely to encounter violence at some point in your life. I personally have been mugged TWICE which is twice too many and also i have witnessed several people getting stomped on by a group of people and i found out those several people suffered brain damage and permanent disfigurement. It is ESPECIALLY maddening when you live in a city where the criminals can get weapons but youre not even allowed to carry pepper spray! In Europe they literally teach women to let men rape them if they threaten them instead of letting them carry pepper spray. NO ONE LIKES BEING CUCKED except liberals for some reason which is beyond me.

Be yurop get raped/cucked. stine, and Sudan.

Fuck i meant to say that the dem senator agrees that gun control DOES NOT PREVENT RANDOM PSYCHOS FROM GOING ON RAMPAGES.

“The focus largely is on gun murders and mass shootings because those are things you can’t control,” Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.)

huffingtonpost.com/entry/gun-control-suicide_us_57756cb0e4b0a629c1a91400

And it's fair to focus on those kind of crimes because gun control ACTUALLY MAKES THEM MORE LIKELY TO HAPPEN and cctv and whatnot does not provide enough of a deterrent.

Smug fucking cunt. I will be forever disappointed in Chump for not putting her in jail.

OH, WOE IS ME. WOE IS ME

This is a real tweat and one of the symptoms of psychopathy is a need to WIN all the time and they take great pride in gloating about their crimes while remaining untouchable. Like the Zodiac killer or BTK.

twitter.com/hillaryclinton/status/662070477737893888?lang=en

I found the answer: nostalgia. Back in the 2000's conservatives were so awful and took themselves so seriously so it was easy to make fun of them. Plus the John Stewart fake news (The original fake news) format was relatively new. Now it's just cheap as hell and it's been getting progressively more saturated with talking points at the expense of humor. Liberals are unable to distinguish humor and politics and they're all drones because they've had Stewart, Colbert, Oliver, etc. brainwashing them.

Too S

pizzagate is bullshit, stop please

All political humor is aweful. Unless it is actually making fun of a stance with identifying the part of it that is ridiculous then its just a large circlejerk based on what party you belong to.

The only psycho here is you, friend. Go back to wherever you came from & clutch your pearls there, liberal, thanks.

i dont like colbert but i do have to admit i watch last week and the daily show with trevor noah

Why did you bump this thread right before it died?

sorry didnt check the date