He all but said he was going to be a dictator. He repeatedly praised the old military dictatorship.
When someone shows you who they are, believe them.
They are never who your tricked brain hopes that they would be and people rarely change that much. Especially when there is already years of evidence of their true self.
This is true with Trump as well. With Trump there was plenty of evidence that he was a lying conman but people wanted to believe the image in their head.
Voters somehow convinced themselves that a thrice married guy who cheated on all his wives and obviously never read a Bible was a man of faith.
They believed that the Trump University scammer who even lied about the number of floors in his Trump Towers was a straight shooter.
They felt the guy who said on tape that he can get away with sexual assault and who ran a newspaper ad calling for the death penalty for men who were proven innocent was going to expertly navigate foreign policy.
They imagined the guy with seven bankruptcies who stiffed contractors all the time and managed to fail at running a Casino was a fiscal Conservative and was going to 'get the best deals'.
They thought the guy that inherited his wealth, lied to Fobes about how much money he had, and has a star on the Hollywood Wall of Fame was a champion of Joe Mainstreet.
People fool themselves with the help of a conman. Maybe they hoped he was 'only' a racist with their best interests at heart, despite all the evidence otherwise. But when someone shows you who they are you have to believe them.
He won the election. That's democracy at work. Supporters of The Democratic Party should be aware that people have the democratic option of voting in somebody in like Bolsonaro. He's not a dictator (at least not yet) he's their duly elected leader.
These raids were done 4 days ago. Before the elections. Bolsonaro wasn't even in power yet...
Hmmm so it was dated Oct 26 and talks about stuff within the last two days before that. So right before the 'election' then?
Bolsy has praised the old military dictatorship and slammed democracy. Likely see more of this sort of thing. The VZ update I believe was more current (about Columbia and Brazil being in agreement in principle to topple Venezuela govt.)
Just like Lindsey Graham promised, Republicans are actively trying to manufacture sexual assault claims, actually engaging in what they accused Democrats of doing:
So this Jack Burkman character, a GOP activist, is already trying to fabricate allegations, mere weeks after Lindsey Graham explicitly warned the Democratic party that their nominees were going to get false accusations of sexual assault. That's not a direct link, since Mueller is a Republican and Burkman might have no communications with Graham, but there's at least one GOP operative who is actively trying to manufacture sexual assault allegations against Trump's enemies. I had hoped that Graham's ominous warning to Democrats was just grumbling over the Kavanaugh hearings, but this is the first sign that this is becoming a GOP strategy.
I'm getting the feeling that this isn't going to be the last time this happens. I've never shown much skepticism about sexual assault allegations against prominent Democrats before, but now I have a concrete reason to suspect that future allegations might well be fabricated. It's already been attempted at least once.
“I’m a woman over 50 who, as of February 7th, has seven active pre-existing conditions. I’m not counting being female and a survivor of abuse. I purchase my individual policy on the health insurance exchange. If you force me into a high-risk pool, you will either bankrupt me or kill me. I take your threats of medical aggression personally and seriously and, I can assure you, I’m not the only Texan who does. My question is, ‘Will you pledge to submit to a DNA test to prove that you’re human?’”
Woman declaring 'I'm white and I'm hot' fired from job after harassing two black women in North Carolina parking lot
Or maybe because Cuba government is a soviet style oppressive government far worse than any right wing military dictatorship who will torture and kill dissidents and cubans are not overrepresented on criminal statistics?
The reason for Obama ending the special treatment was the desire for normalization of relations with Cuba, i.e. it was more of a pro-Cuba than anti-Cuba policy. Originally the US guaranteed special status for anyone leaving Cuba as part of a wide suite of policies intended to undermine and destabilize the Cuban government. With the normalization of relations (covering lots of things like travel, visas and diplomatic relations), the special treatment for refugees was no longer relevant and was brought into line with other countries.
Cuba is literally a North Korea style country who almost destroyed the world during the missile crisis. And Cuba was much better under Fulgencio Batista
Only one more thing. I never understood why so many Americans think that below Texas border, everyone and everything is the same but after i checked the numbers, i finally understood. Uruguayan Americans are just 66k ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uruguayan_Americans ) while Mexican Americans are 36,668,018 that means that for each Uruguayan American, there are 550 Mexican Americans and yes, the average Haitian, average Uruguayan and average Colombian are completely different.
Most Americans do not think about the average Uruguayan or Haitian at all. They think about Mexicans somewhat since there are a lot of people here who came from Mexico. If you speak Spanish, expect to get the police called on you in some places. Like these right wing people did:
When i was searching about information to decide to travel or not to Ushuaia, this was one of the top comments on a youtube video
Ushuaia is the closest city to south pole.
Penguins on Ushuaia are very common ( https://www.argentina4u.com/en/walk-with-penguins-on-martillo-island.html#.W9ite-JJbcs )... Not mention, discrimination based on culture and based on race are two different things. An blonde, blue eyed who grow up on Tibet for example and was raised as a Buddhist can face discrimination based on his religion/culture, but is very unlikely that will face discrimination based on race except in few countries.
Or maybe because Cuba government is a soviet style oppressive government far worse than any right wing military dictatorship who will torture and kill dissidents and cubans are not overrepresented on criminal statistics?
You can't be serious! Cuba have done it's fair share of human right abuses, for sure, but to place them as the WORST? Worse than say, Pinochets Chile? Or forget about Chile, fairly sure Saudi Arabias US supported colonial war in Yemen have killed more people than Castro have. Meanwhile, Cubans intervene to end US supported South Africa apartheid. Basically, stop romantisizing capitalism.
@ Japan: Their government policies are racist, for sure, but their people is just like everyone else. Some are racist, some aren't. That said, I am willing to not hold it against them seeing how they are fairly non-imperialist. I mean sure, they sent 5 guys to Iraq, but someone elsw started that war, and they sign every "free" trade agreement there is, but they didn't author them. They are passive. EU does not really start wars, but they sure do support them, and they instigate many trade deals. They are active... however, they also accept a shittonne of refuges, so they take their responsibility.
Now, on the other hand, USA, Israel and Saudi Arabia are the most active, but absolutely adamantily REFUSE to take ANY responsibility. So, yeah, I blame them, because they are the most guilty party. End of discussion.
The difference is that Pinochet voluntary democratized the country. Sure, he committed horrific things there are legal ways to deal with extremist terrorists, aka arresting then and giving a fair trial instead of trowing then for helicopters but at least the Chilean dictatorship never prohibited you to leave the country if you disagree with the government.
I feel more context is needed in regards to the manufactured allegations. This morning, pro-Trump social media personality Jacob Wohl (you will see his tweets directly below Trump's constantly) said that he has inside info about a damaging story about Mueller coming out tomorrow. Immediately afterwards, journalists started letting it be known that they have been getting tips about someone trying to initiate a payoff to come forward with allegations against Mueller for weeks. And then we learned the matter has been referred to the FBI itself.
It is one thing to be skeptical of sexual assault allegations. But when you literally have an AMOUNT that was apparently being offered in the form of a payoff, that skepticism becomes far, far more valid. What is so shocking about this is how blatantly amateurish it all is. Twitter figured out what was up within the hour. Here is an example:
Burkman and Wohl better hope to god they have their stories straight, because if not, they may end up charged with crimes.
Edit: if you want a good laugh, just look into this story more. Jacob Wohl demonstrated "Shattered Glass" levels of incompetence in covering his tracks. He basically left a trail of breadcrumbs right to his door. The perfect encapsulation of Trumpian syncopancy, grift, and incompetence.
Edit: if you want a good laugh, just look into this story more. Jacob Wohl demonstrated "Shattered Glass" levels of incompetence in covering his tracks. He basically left a trail of breadcrumbs right to his door. The perfect encapsulation of Trumpian syncopancy, grift, and incompetence.
"Wohl declined to comment on his involvement with Surefire Intelligence. However, his email is listed in the domain records for Surefire Intelligence's website and calls to a number listed on the Surefire Intelligence website went to a voicemail message which provided another phone number, listed in public records as belonging to Wohl's mother.
Wohl stopped responding to NBC News after being told Surefire's official phone number redirects to his mother's voicemail."
All fun and games until you get caught red-handed trying to derail a federal investigation. If they actually offered the money to the woman to pay off her credit card debt, we are looking at a bare minimum wire-fraud and obstruction of justice. I don't think this sociopathic little twit realizes just how much shit he is now in.
I'm sure laughing, and also because it makes the "Government Cover-up" Conspiracy theories look even more ridiculous. If they make such a hash of this, could anyone really believe the government is any more successful at covering up other things?
I'm sure laughing, and also because it makes the "Government Cover-up" Conspiracy theories look even more ridiculous. If they make such a hash of this, could anyone really believe the government is any more successful at covering up other things?
Yes, because Jacob Wohl isn't the government. He's just a two bit wannabe lowlife. He has nothing to do with the Trump administration.
He has the same connections to trump as the bomber did..
This attempt isn't even amateurish, it's pathetic.
This "statistics" comparing USA """gun violence""" with other countries not valide because : - Consider self defense as "gun violence" - Consider suicide as "gun violence" - Compare only violence from guns and ignores for eg the guy who killed dozens of people with a truck.
An woman who lives alone and someone breaks into his tome to rape her and she fires 2 shots as a advice and the invasor flee is considered "gun violence", but if she is disarmed and get victim, since no gun fired, is no "gun violence"... The fact is on Europe, Switzerland and Czech(high gun ownership) republic are much safer than UK or France(strict gun control), on Latin America, Uruguay(highest gun ownership) is much safer than Brazil(champion in murder rate) and Mexico(Narco State thanks to gun control)
I don't know what is worst. The left who keep trying gun control(failed in municipal level every time that was tried and failed on another countries) or the right who keep trying war on drugs and interventionism on middle east(both never worked and are a waste of tax money)
This "statistics" comparing USA """gun violence""" with other countries not valide because : - Consider self defense as "gun violence" - Consider suicide as "gun violence" - Compare only violence from guns and ignores for eg the guy who killed dozens of people with a truck.
An woman who lives alone and someone breaks into his tome to rape her and she fires 2 shots as a advice and the invasor flee is considered "gun violence", but if she is disarmed and get victim, since no gun fired, is no "gun violence"... The fact is on Europe, Switzerland and Czech(high gun ownership) republic are much safer than UK or France(strict gun control), on Latin America, Uruguay(highest gun ownership) is much safer than Brazil(champion in murder rate) and Mexico(Narco State thanks to gun control)
I don't know what is worst. The left who keep trying gun control(failed in municipal level every time that was tried and failed on another countries) or the right who keep trying war on drugs and interventionism on middle east(both never worked and are a waste of tax money)
#1... You quoted me twice.
#2 Did you even read the article in question? You don't seem to have, since nothing in that report talked about merely "gun violence".
It talked about violent gun deaths per 100K population, and Firearm homicide and suicides per 100K population, not "gun violence". It charted the number of guns produced over the last 20 years. If a woman shot into the air twice, it wouldn't count, because unless she killed someone, it isn't part of the statistic.
#3, it charted Outside political spending by pro-gun and gun-control groups, 2004-2018
#4 Charted Individual, PAC and soft-money contributions by pro-gun and gun-control groups, 1990-2018
#5 In short, it didn't track "Gun Violence" at all. Which is why I suspect you didn't read a single word of the article and just posted in a knee-jerk reaction.
This "statistics" comparing USA """gun violence""" with other countries not valide because : - Consider self defense as "gun violence" - Consider suicide as "gun violence" - Compare only violence from guns and ignores for eg the guy who killed dozens of people with a truck.
An woman who lives alone and someone breaks into his tome to rape her and she fires 2 shots as a advice and the invasor flee is considered "gun violence", but if she is disarmed and get victim, since no gun fired, is no "gun violence"... The fact is on Europe, Switzerland and Czech(high gun ownership) republic are much safer than UK or France(strict gun control), on Latin America, Uruguay(highest gun ownership) is much safer than Brazil(champion in murder rate) and Mexico(Narco State thanks to gun control)
I don't know what is worst. The left who keep trying gun control(failed in municipal level every time that was tried and failed on another countries) or the right who keep trying war on drugs and interventionism on middle east(both never worked and are a waste of tax money)
Didn't fail in Australia. Really, I have a heard time understanding why anyone could possibly believe that it is a superb idea to arm civilians suffering from paranoid delusions or something similar with military grade semi automatic weapons.
This "statistics" comparing USA """gun violence""" with other countries not valide because : - Consider self defense as "gun violence" - Consider suicide as "gun violence" - Compare only violence from guns and ignores for eg the guy who killed dozens of people with a truck.
An woman who lives alone and someone breaks into his tome to rape her and she fires 2 shots as a advice and the invasor flee is considered "gun violence", but if she is disarmed and get victim, since no gun fired, is no "gun violence"... The fact is on Europe, Switzerland and Czech(high gun ownership) republic are much safer than UK or France(strict gun control), on Latin America, Uruguay(highest gun ownership) is much safer than Brazil(champion in murder rate) and Mexico(Narco State thanks to gun control)
I don't know what is worst. The left who keep trying gun control(failed in municipal level every time that was tried and failed on another countries) or the right who keep trying war on drugs and interventionism on middle east(both never worked and are a waste of tax money)
Didn't fail in Australia. Really, I have a heard time understanding why anyone could possibly believe that it is a superb idea to arm civilians suffering from paranoid delusions or something similar with military grade semi automatic weapons.
Din't fail in Australia? Murders committed with guns increased by 19%. Home invasions increased by 21%. Assaults committed with guns increased by 28%. Armed robberies skyrocketed with an increase of 69%.
source : This chart is from Australia criminal statistics
Also, during the history, more people died from their own government than by civilians. Mainly on last century. Makes much more sense to disarm the government than disarm civilians. One more question. Do you fell more safe on Montevideo or on Mexico city?
This is the murder rate on the most pro gun country in latin america
And this is the result of gun control on Brazil. Anyone can make an homemade SMG and homemade suppressor
Despite owning a 9mm being a more serious crime than permanent blinding a man on Brazil(yes, a crime without victim is more severely punished than a crime who destroy a man's life), criminals have no problems getting weapons who can pierce police armored car like it was a paper, is just cross the border
No crimes without victim should be a crime. Everyone should have the right to make homemade 14.5x114mm rifles, homemade fully auto SMG's, etc and sell on internet without any background check or license required.
This "statistics" comparing USA """gun violence""" with other countries not valide because : - Consider self defense as "gun violence" - Consider suicide as "gun violence" - Compare only violence from guns and ignores for eg the guy who killed dozens of people with a truck.
An woman who lives alone and someone breaks into his tome to rape her and she fires 2 shots as a advice and the invasor flee is considered "gun violence", but if she is disarmed and get victim, since no gun fired, is no "gun violence"... The fact is on Europe, Switzerland and Czech(high gun ownership) republic are much safer than UK or France(strict gun control), on Latin America, Uruguay(highest gun ownership) is much safer than Brazil(champion in murder rate) and Mexico(Narco State thanks to gun control)
I don't know what is worst. The left who keep trying gun control(failed in municipal level every time that was tried and failed on another countries) or the right who keep trying war on drugs and interventionism on middle east(both never worked and are a waste of tax money)
Didn't fail in Australia. Really, I have a heard time understanding why anyone could possibly believe that it is a superb idea to arm civilians suffering from paranoid delusions or something similar with military grade semi automatic weapons.
Key point here is "military grade assault weapons". You hardly ever hear a PEEP about anyone planning or wanting to ban handguns, pistols, rifles or shotguns. The focus has always been on these machines of death that serve absolutely no other purpose than killing as many people as possible in the shortest amount of time. What else should we allow people?? Grenades, mini-rocket launchers, anti-aircraft guns??
This "statistics" comparing USA """gun violence""" with other countries not valide because : - Consider self defense as "gun violence" - Consider suicide as "gun violence" - Compare only violence from guns and ignores for eg the guy who killed dozens of people with a truck.
An woman who lives alone and someone breaks into his tome to rape her and she fires 2 shots as a advice and the invasor flee is considered "gun violence", but if she is disarmed and get victim, since no gun fired, is no "gun violence"... The fact is on Europe, Switzerland and Czech(high gun ownership) republic are much safer than UK or France(strict gun control), on Latin America, Uruguay(highest gun ownership) is much safer than Brazil(champion in murder rate) and Mexico(Narco State thanks to gun control)
I don't know what is worst. The left who keep trying gun control(failed in municipal level every time that was tried and failed on another countries) or the right who keep trying war on drugs and interventionism on middle east(both never worked and are a waste of tax money)
Didn't fail in Australia. Really, I have a heard time understanding why anyone could possibly believe that it is a superb idea to arm civilians suffering from paranoid delusions or something similar with military grade semi automatic weapons.
Din't fail in Australia? Murders committed with guns increased by 19%. Home invasions increased by 21%. Assaults committed with guns increased by 28%. Armed robberies skyrocketed with an increase of 69%.
source : This chart is from Australia criminal statistics
What is your source for the above figures? Not the chart, but the *figures*.
This "statistics" comparing USA """gun violence""" with other countries not valide because : - Consider self defense as "gun violence" - Consider suicide as "gun violence" - Compare only violence from guns and ignores for eg the guy who killed dozens of people with a truck.
An woman who lives alone and someone breaks into his tome to rape her and she fires 2 shots as a advice and the invasor flee is considered "gun violence", but if she is disarmed and get victim, since no gun fired, is no "gun violence"... The fact is on Europe, Switzerland and Czech(high gun ownership) republic are much safer than UK or France(strict gun control), on Latin America, Uruguay(highest gun ownership) is much safer than Brazil(champion in murder rate) and Mexico(Narco State thanks to gun control)
I don't know what is worst. The left who keep trying gun control(failed in municipal level every time that was tried and failed on another countries) or the right who keep trying war on drugs and interventionism on middle east(both never worked and are a waste of tax money)
Didn't fail in Australia. Really, I have a heard time understanding why anyone could possibly believe that it is a superb idea to arm civilians suffering from paranoid delusions or something similar with military grade semi automatic weapons.
Din't fail in Australia? Murders committed with guns increased by 19%. Home invasions increased by 21%. Assaults committed with guns increased by 28%. Armed robberies skyrocketed with an increase of 69%.
source : This chart is from Australia criminal statistics
What is your source for the above figures? Not the chart, but the *figures*.
I see it first appearing on a Blog, but there are no facts to support the assertions.
According to your own graphic, robbery grow up from around 85 to around 130 in 2001. So how gun control managed o reduce crime?
Anyway, gun control was attempted in many cities and in many states and failed every time. Even if it worked on Australia, is a EXCEPTION, not the rule and an exception in a completely different reality than USA.
------------------
Two questions for you.
1 - An woman who is threatened by her ex boyfriend, tried to call the police but police do nothing, she purchase an illegal 9mm to defend himself and when his ex tries to rape her, she defends. Are you in favor of punishing her? Gun control is a tyranny rule who will destroy innocents lives who defend themselves and will overload the prison system.
2 - Do you expect that the average redneck will give up his guns? That people will give up 300.000.000+ guns? How much blood and money will cost to enforce an federal gun ban?. Note that USA already tried an federal assault ban on 1994 and spoiler : Din't worked.
Also there is a huge controversy on gun control in Argentina, because there is 6 times more illegal unregistered weapons (even military grade) than the legal ones. So people don’t want to be disarmed in this times of wide insecurity were the state protects criminals and the people have to live behind bars in their own houses.https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-gun-laws-in-Argentina-like
Womb control and gun control are two awful ideas...
First of all, absolutely no politician in the United States is calling for a blanket federal gun ban. That is beyond a straw-man, it's an entire field of scarecrows. Second of all, you are flat-out wrong about the assault weapons ban. The period in which it was in effect CLEARLY shows a reduction in gun massacres and deaths for the decade it was in effect. It had at least a moderate reduction from how it was previous to the ban, and when it was lifted (by the Bush Administration), those incidents and deaths nearly TRIPLED:
There is a reason people want to do away with SPECIFICALLY assault weapons, and why the main topic when they are discussed is mass shootings. One is that they are nothing but instruments of killing. They serve absolutely no other purpose. The other is that almost EVERY mass shooter utilizes some sort of automatic or semi-automatic rifle. There is no defense against them, they simply bathe whatever area they are aimed at by the shooter with death and destruction, to the point where they literally rip the insides of the bodies of the victims apart. Having these specific type of weapons available to citizens is madness. These are not handguns some housewife is using for protection while her husband is in Japan on business, nor are they the kind of thing that hunters use to kill Bambi's mother every November. They are killing machines. They aren't just meant to kill one person, but DOZENS of people. Because they were designed for use in warfare. Which is where they should remain. And that chart doesn't even take into account the last 4 years, in which (especially considering Las Vegas) you can add over 200 more deaths and at least a dozen more shootings to the total from the end of 2014. Including 50 people at a nightclub, nearly 20 in a high school, two dozen in a church, over 50 people in Las Vegas, and another dozen last Saturday morning. All gunned down in minutes if not seconds.
First of all, absolutely no politician in the United States is calling for a blanket federal gun ban. That is beyond a straw-man, it's an entire field of scarecrows. Second of all, you are flat-out wrong about the assault weapons ban. The period in which it was in effect CLEARLY shows a reduction in gun massacres and deaths for the decade it was in effect. It had at least a moderate reduction from how it was previous to the ban, and when it was lifted (by the Bush Administration), those incidents and deaths nearly TRIPLED:
There is a reason people want to do away with SPECIFICALLY assault weapons, and why the main topic when they are discussed is mass shootings. One is that they are nothing but instruments of killing. They serve absolutely no other purpose. The other is that almost EVERY mass shooter utilizes some sort of automatic or semi-automatic rifle. There is no defense against them, they simply bathe whatever area they are aimed at by the shooter with death and destruction, to the point where they literally rip the insides of the bodies of the victims apart. Having these specific type of weapons available to citizens is madness. These are not handguns some housewife is using for protection while her husband is in Japan on business, nor are they the kind of thing that hunters use to kill Bambi's mother every November. They are killing machines. They aren't just meant to kill one person, but DOZENS of people. Because they were designed for use in warfare. Which is where they should remain. And that chart doesn't even take into account the last 4 years, in which (especially considering Las Vegas) you can add over 200 more deaths and at least a dozen more shootings to the total from the end of 2014. Including 50 people at a nightclub, nearly 20 in a high school, two dozen in a church, over 50 people in Las Vegas, and another dozen last Saturday morning. All gunned down in minutes if not seconds.
The definition of "massacre" changes with the time.
And again about other countries from Americas. Do you guys really think that gun control Worked on Brazil or on Mexico?
The country with lowest criminality on latin america(Uruguay) have the highest gun ownership and on Argentina, despite some stupid bureaucracy, almost every family owns a firearm ""There are hundreds of thousands of unregistered weapons in circulation. Almost every family has access to a weapon of some kind."(source https://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0422/p06s02-woam.html ) Both countries are far safer than Mexico, Honduras, Brazil, Colombia, etc
There are a reason to have drug lords commanding private criminal armies on Brazil and on Mexico but not on Argentina/Uruguay; an criminal can't rob without risk until he gains enough money to form his "criminal army". If an federal gun ban is approved, it will cost probably 50x more in lives and on money than war on drugs and the drug lords from Mexico will gain a lot of power and influence on USA.
Maybe the military can prevent the USA from becoming a narco-state maybe they will be corrupted. I don't know...
If an federal gun ban is approved, it will cost probably 50x more in lives and on money than war on drugs and the drug lords from Mexico will gain a lot of power and influence on USA.
First of all, absolutely no politician in the United States is calling for a blanket federal gun ban. That is beyond a straw-man, it's an entire field of scarecrows.
If an federal gun ban is approved, it will cost probably 50x more in lives and on money than war on drugs and the drug lords from Mexico will gain a lot of power and influence on USA.
First of all, absolutely no politician in the United States is calling for a blanket federal gun ban. That is beyond a straw-man, it's an entire field of scarecrows.
?
You are right, but i still posted FBI statistics showing that rifles are barely used on murder and on rifles category, you can count a single shot .22 LR to an semi auto .50 BMG anti materiel rifle and the hated """assault rifles""", if you really believe that the state can prevent criminals from owning firearms(spoiler : can't), restrict pistols/revolvers makes much more sense than restrict any type of rifle.
There are around 20x more crimes with handguns than rifles on the FBI statistics.
You are right, but i still posted FBI statistics showing that rifles are barely used on murder and on rifles category, you can count a single shot .22 LR to an semi auto .50 BMG anti materiel rifle and the hated """assault rifles""", if you really believe that the state can prevent criminals from owning firearms(spoiler : can't), restrict pistols/revolvers makes much more sense than restrict any type of rifle.
There are around 20x more crimes with handguns than rifles on the FBI statistics.
@SorcererV1ct0r I think you're arguing a different point to everyone else. None of the sorts of massacres with assault rifles carried out at schools, night clubs, churches etc are ordinary criminal acts carried out by career criminals. They are by people like disgruntled employees, disenchanted students, political-fringe activists and people with mental health problems.
Those categories of people exist in all countries, but in most countries even if they had the desire to carry out a large-scale massacre they are unlikely to succeed because the assault rifle weapon of choice for this purpose is not easily available. You quoted some dubious statistics about the success of gun control in Australia earlier. I did post about the Australian experience and gun control more generally in some detail a year or two ago and don't propose to duplicate that. However, whether or not you believe guns in general make people safer, I can't see that there's any reasonable case to be made that assault rifles make people safer.
In the run up to the Australian gun control legislation they were experiencing about 1 incident a year that they defined as a mass shooting (5 people killed not including the perpetrator). It was only a few months ago that the first such mass shooting occurred in Australia after the legislation in 1996. The potential benefits are thus clear, but I agree these have to be weighed up against the loss of personal liberty. For handguns and sporting rifles I can see why some people would find that a difficult judgment, though I don't personally. However, I do find it difficult to understand people who believe the loss of personal liberty associated with not being able to own specifically an assault rifle is important enough to weigh against hundreds of lives.
You are right, but i still posted FBI statistics showing that rifles are barely used on murder and on rifles category, you can count a single shot .22 LR to an semi auto .50 BMG anti materiel rifle and the hated """assault rifles""", if you really believe that the state can prevent criminals from owning firearms(spoiler : can't), restrict pistols/revolvers makes much more sense than restrict any type of rifle.
There are around 20x more crimes with handguns than rifles on the FBI statistics.
@SorcererV1ct0r I think you're arguing a different point to everyone else. None of the sorts of massacres with assault rifles carried out at schools, night clubs, churches etc are ordinary criminal acts carried out by career criminals. They are by people like disgruntled employees, disenchanted students, political-fringe activists and people with mental health problems.
Those categories of people exist in all countries, but in most countries even if they had the desire to carry out a large-scale massacre they are unlikely to succeed because the assault rifle weapon of choice for this purpose is not easily available. You quoted some dubious statistics about the success of gun control in Australia earlier. I did post about the Australian experience and gun control more generally in some detail a year or two ago and don't propose to duplicate that. However, whether or not you believe guns in general make people safer, I can't see that there's any reasonable case to be made that assault rifles make people safer.
In the run up to the Australian gun control legislation they were experiencing about 1 incident a year that they defined as a mass shooting (5 people killed not including the perpetrator). It was only a few months ago that the first such mass shooting occurred in Australia after the legislation in 1996. The potential benefits are thus clear, but I agree these have to be weighed up against the loss of personal liberty. For handguns and sporting rifles I can see why some people would find that a difficult judgment, though I don't personally. However, I do find it difficult to understand people who believe the loss of personal liberty associated with not being able to own specifically an assault rifle is important enough to weigh against hundreds of lives.
How many mass shooting did USA had before the NFA(national firearms act)? This is a mental health problem, not a gun problem. And even if the state can prevent mental ill people from owning guns, it can't prevent then from stealing a truck and doing a massacre like happened many times. Assault rifles are already very restricted. An civilian semi auto AR 15 have selective fire? No, so is a sporting rifle.
Assault rifle "An assault rifle is a selective-fire rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine. source ": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle
Anyone can make an homemade open bolt smg or change 3 pieces of a Glock 9mm to have an fully auto gun... Anyway, did the strict gun control on France prevented the Charlie Hebdo shooting with AK-47? No, anyone can look on internet how to make homemade firearms. I already posted a lot of sources about it. There are a case of a "mass destruction" with a homemade armored vehicle
The sate is not omnipresent. A lot of people will not give up their """"assault guns""""(in popular sense) and take it with force and trow this people in jail will cost a lot on money an lives.
------------------------------
Control weapons are just a way to control de population. Song dynasty on China was probably the first who tried to outlaw crossbows to maintain itself on power forever with no uprising risk. On medieval times, some countries outlawed crossbows too because the notion of a commoner being able to assassinate an noble in armor was terrifying to the status quo.
Anyone can make an homemade open bolt smg or change 3 pieces of a Glock 9mm to have an fully auto gun... Anyway, did the strict gun control on France prevented the Charlie Hebdo shooting with AK-47? No, anyone can look on internet how to make homemade firearms. I already posted a lot of sources about it. There are a case of a "mass destruction" with a homemade armored vehicle
The way the terrorists from the 2015 terror attacks in France got their weapons is actually pretty complicated. The reason they could get the guns was in fact because the gun control was not strict when it came to the illicit arms trafficking of for example deactivated guns from the old Balkan conflicts that are later reactivated. European authorities just didn't know about this way of procuring weapons until recently, or didn't know how to stop it. Things have changed since then, even though there is still a problem within the EU, especially since there are several member states that have weaker gun laws.
And while you can create a lot of havoc with things like trucks, it will always be easier to kill a lot of people with bombs or firearms. The truck attack in Nice is really the only exception I can think of.
Assault rifles are already very restricted. An civilian semi auto AR 15 have selective fire? No, so is a sporting rifle.
Assault rifle "An assault rifle is a selective-fire rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine. source ": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle
Anyone can make an homemade open bolt smg or change 3 pieces of a Glock 9mm to have an fully auto gun...
That's actually a load of shit. The AR-15 is an assault rifle, or Sturmgevähr, as the Nazi rifle the AR-15 is modeled after is called. The US military do not consider AR-15 assault rifles because they have standards of how they would like a gun to perform to be called this or that category. HOWEVER! The original meaning of Sturmgevähr is any rifle suitable to storm (hence the name Sturm) (or assault) a fortified position. The basic problem with rifles such as the M1 Grand is that running, stopping, and firing will yield inaccurate shots and slow rate of fire. That does not intimidate the entrenched enemy, so they will fire back, and, standing still and all, have a much more decent chance of hitting.
With Sturmgevährs, you have 3 guys or whatever take cover and lay down suppressive fire while 3 guys advance and if need be (the enemy pops up again from under their cover, taking aim) you can fire it while running and be intimidating. Once the tree running guys find good cover, the lay down suppressive fire and the 3 first guys can advance and so on an so forth.
An AR-15 would have been sufficiently intimidating in WWII to fit the bill, hence it is an assault rifle. And like you yourself point out, it takes only the slightest modification to turn into into an assault rifle also by the US military definition.
A homemade open bolt SMG or modified Glock 9 mm would not function as an assault "rifle" because they are way to inaccurate... ESPECIALLY if you plan to spray and pray with them.
But all of that none-with-standing, if the AR-15 did not have the lethal potential it has, the gun fetishists would be drooling over another weapon. But they do not. They all want the AR-15, because they KNOW it is a military grade weapon, and that is why they want it. Basically, if it was not an assault rifle, or near assault rifle by the US military definition, the gun nuts would not obsess over it and therefore could not care less if it was banned. The very fact that you argue that it should not be banned by comparing it to other, inferior, guns is thus evidence that it should be banned precisely because it IS so much deadlier than the other, inferior, guns that you like to pretend are equally good but in reality are not, which, again, you already know, which, again, is why you pretend that they are.
Edit: Ooops correction; I meant to say the PASSION with which it is argued it should not be banned. Like, a person can be principled and might object to any gun being banned, even obscure guns that are already out of production or whatever, but the arguments would never be as livid as is the debate surrounding the AR-15. Let me make a comparison; let's say Emily asks you to prom and you are like "Yeah, ok sure" thinking "well she IS pretty!" but then we load a savefile and Leah asks you out and your smile reaches your ears and you go "YES YES YES!!! I would love to!" and you are thinking "Oh man oh man, I am the luckiest man on earth!" then we can deduce which girl you would prefer if you could chose freely. Likewise, it is quite easy to deduce which gun the gun fetishists want.
Comments
Bolsy has praised the old military dictatorship and slammed democracy. Likely see more of this sort of thing. The VZ update I believe was more current (about Columbia and Brazil being in agreement in principle to topple Venezuela govt.)
I'm getting the feeling that this isn't going to be the last time this happens. I've never shown much skepticism about sexual assault allegations against prominent Democrats before, but now I have a concrete reason to suspect that future allegations might well be fabricated. It's already been attempted at least once.
Woman asks Ted Cruz for DNA test to ‘prove that you’re human’ at Austin campaign stop
https://www.statesman.com/news/20180405/woman-asks-ted-cruz-for-dna-test-toprove-that-youre-human-at-austin-campaign-stopThe woman approached Cruz and read the following from a piece of paper:
“I’m a woman over 50 who, as of February 7th, has seven active pre-existing conditions. I’m not counting being female and a survivor of abuse. I purchase my individual policy on the health insurance exchange. If you force me into a high-risk pool, you will either bankrupt me or kill me. I take your threats of medical aggression personally and seriously and, I can assure you, I’m not the only Texan who does. My question is, ‘Will you pledge to submit to a DNA test to prove that you’re human?’”
Woman declaring 'I'm white and I'm hot' fired from job after harassing two black women in North Carolina parking lot
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/woman-declaring-i-m-white-i-m-hot-fired-job-n926151?fbclid=IwAR0JG7pr6K7Ja96FBlFixLfaH5XIgkEiZcfaRZ5KCu-IXCwmFWdt7gKxeUEThe Nazi Werewolves Who Terrorized Allied Soldiers at the End of WWII
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/nazi-werewolves-who-terrorized-allied-soldiers-end-wwii-180970522/?fbclid=IwAR2hIDxZw78RxHiVSR5BkTYHk2TOCU-5fVjD5_knlEJ6QO3mIAv3s0C-FBEUshuaia is the closest city to south pole.
Penguins on Ushuaia are very common ( https://www.argentina4u.com/en/walk-with-penguins-on-martillo-island.html#.W9ite-JJbcs )... Not mention, discrimination based on culture and based on race are two different things. An blonde, blue eyed who grow up on Tibet for example and was raised as a Buddhist can face discrimination based on his religion/culture, but is very unlikely that will face discrimination based on race except in few countries. The difference is that Pinochet voluntary democratized the country. Sure, he committed horrific things there are legal ways to deal with extremist terrorists, aka arresting then and giving a fair trial instead of trowing then for helicopters but at least the Chilean dictatorship never prohibited you to leave the country if you disagree with the government.
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2018/sep/30/facts-guns-6-charts/
It is one thing to be skeptical of sexual assault allegations. But when you literally have an AMOUNT that was apparently being offered in the form of a payoff, that skepticism becomes far, far more valid. What is so shocking about this is how blatantly amateurish it all is. Twitter figured out what was up within the hour. Here is an example:
Burkman and Wohl better hope to god they have their stories straight, because if not, they may end up charged with crimes.
Edit: if you want a good laugh, just look into this story more. Jacob Wohl demonstrated "Shattered Glass" levels of incompetence in covering his tracks. He basically left a trail of breadcrumbs right to his door. The perfect encapsulation of Trumpian syncopancy, grift, and incompetence.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/mueller-refers-sex-assault-scheme-targeting-him-fbi-investigation-n926301
"Wohl declined to comment on his involvement with Surefire Intelligence. However, his email is listed in the domain records for Surefire Intelligence's website and calls to a number listed on the Surefire Intelligence website went to a voicemail message which provided another phone number, listed in public records as belonging to Wohl's mother.
Wohl stopped responding to NBC News after being told Surefire's official phone number redirects to his mother's voicemail."
Whoops.
He has the same connections to trump as the bomber did..
This attempt isn't even amateurish, it's pathetic.
- Consider self defense as "gun violence"
- Consider suicide as "gun violence"
- Compare only violence from guns and ignores for eg the guy who killed dozens of people with a truck.
An woman who lives alone and someone breaks into his tome to rape her and she fires 2 shots as a advice and the invasor flee is considered "gun violence", but if she is disarmed and get victim, since no gun fired, is no "gun violence"... The fact is on Europe, Switzerland and Czech(high gun ownership) republic are much safer than UK or France(strict gun control), on Latin America, Uruguay(highest gun ownership) is much safer than Brazil(champion in murder rate) and Mexico(Narco State thanks to gun control)
I don't know what is worst. The left who keep trying gun control(failed in municipal level every time that was tried and failed on another countries) or the right who keep trying war on drugs and interventionism on middle east(both never worked and are a waste of tax money)
#2 Did you even read the article in question? You don't seem to have, since nothing in that report talked about merely "gun violence".
It talked about violent gun deaths per 100K population, and Firearm homicide and suicides per 100K population, not "gun violence". It charted the number of guns produced over the last 20 years. If a woman shot into the air twice, it wouldn't count, because unless she killed someone, it isn't part of the statistic.
#3, it charted Outside political spending by pro-gun and gun-control groups, 2004-2018
#4 Charted Individual, PAC and soft-money contributions by pro-gun and gun-control groups, 1990-2018
#5 In short, it didn't track "Gun Violence" at all. Which is why I suspect you didn't read a single word of the article and just posted in a knee-jerk reaction.
Trump Shut Programs to Counter Violent Extremism
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/trump-shut-countering-violent-extremism-program/574237/?fbclid=IwAR1cLhoE833Q__FI4woInJ3usbNj3-fkYnEnOuPGXb9EaUxlfASFfu35n1AMedia silence as gang rape survivor from northern Iraq wins Nobel Peace Prize
https://www.worldtribune.com/media-silence-as-rape-survivor-from-northern-iraq-wins-nobel-peace-prize/?fbclid=IwAR1Ijrxlu7y-o7diEea9ZUrItwNlodYPXIWd-gzDg7y8-19FWyPKyavUJcYScientist in remote Antarctic outpost stabs colleague who told him endings of books he was reading
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/scientist-remote-antarctic-outpost-stabs-13490682?fbclid=IwAR1a5MqCLzs_I-E8-FBC_D9ZSnVMxx6-JKYQ1sIsqAzNP_vepEiwPBPT7pMGOP Senate candidate Martha McSally: ‘I’m getting my ass kicked’ because of vote to repeal Obamacare
https://www.rawstory.com/2018/10/gop-senate-candidate-martha-mcsally-im-getting-ass-kicked-vote-repeal-obamacare/?fbclid=IwAR1MIkFsicm1ISOLy1xpla1EbmBpPCbK_0o99CZXunLp0ulPemBNXt8wKTw#.W9jWnxYl7qY.facebookThis after saying that people in AZ didn't care about health care, they were more upset about the migrant caravan. Riiiiiight.
Murders committed with guns increased by 19%.
Home invasions increased by 21%.
Assaults committed with guns increased by 28%.
Armed robberies skyrocketed with an increase of 69%.
source : This chart is from Australia criminal statistics
Also, during the history, more people died from their own government than by civilians. Mainly on last century. Makes much more sense to disarm the government than disarm civilians. One more question. Do you fell more safe on Montevideo or on Mexico city?
This is the murder rate on the most pro gun country in latin america
And this is the result of gun control on Brazil. Anyone can make an homemade SMG and homemade suppressor
source : https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2014/01/22/common-illicitly-homemade-submachine-guns-brazil/
Despite owning a 9mm being a more serious crime than permanent blinding a man on Brazil(yes, a crime without victim is more severely punished than a crime who destroy a man's life), criminals have no problems getting weapons who can pierce police armored car like it was a paper, is just cross the border
https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2017/05/04/diy-ar-50-rides-brazil/
No crimes without victim should be a crime. Everyone should have the right to make homemade 14.5x114mm rifles, homemade fully auto SMG's, etc and sell on internet without any background check or license required.
Key point here is "military grade assault weapons". You hardly ever hear a PEEP about anyone planning or wanting to ban handguns, pistols, rifles or shotguns. The focus has always been on these machines of death that serve absolutely no other purpose than killing as many people as possible in the shortest amount of time. What else should we allow people?? Grenades, mini-rocket launchers, anti-aircraft guns??
As for charts, so is this one:
In fact, crimes rates fell and have continued to fall. You can also read this, here: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/australian-guns/
Here: How murder and suicide figures plummeted in Australia after gun control laws were introduced
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/australasia/las-vegas-shooting-australia-gun-laws-control-stephen-paddock-2nd-amendment-nevada-firearm-a7980671.html
And this site fact-checks those figures: https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/18788/did-violent-gun-crime-rates-rise-in-australia-after-the-1996-gun-control-laws
I see it first appearing on a Blog, but there are no facts to support the assertions.
Anyway, gun control was attempted in many cities and in many states and failed every time. Even if it worked on Australia, is a EXCEPTION, not the rule and an exception in a completely different reality than USA.
------------------
Two questions for you.
1 - An woman who is threatened by her ex boyfriend, tried to call the police but police do nothing, she purchase an illegal 9mm to defend himself and when his ex tries to rape her, she defends. Are you in favor of punishing her? Gun control is a tyranny rule who will destroy innocents lives who defend themselves and will overload the prison system.
2 - Do you expect that the average redneck will give up his guns? That people will give up 300.000.000+ guns? How much blood and money will cost to enforce an federal gun ban?. Note that USA already tried an federal assault ban on 1994 and spoiler : Din't worked.
Also there is a huge controversy on gun control in Argentina, because there is 6 times more illegal unregistered weapons (even military grade) than the legal ones. So people don’t want to be disarmed in this times of wide insecurity were the state protects criminals and the people have to live behind bars in their own houses. https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-gun-laws-in-Argentina-like
Womb control and gun control are two awful ideas...
There is a reason people want to do away with SPECIFICALLY assault weapons, and why the main topic when they are discussed is mass shootings. One is that they are nothing but instruments of killing. They serve absolutely no other purpose. The other is that almost EVERY mass shooter utilizes some sort of automatic or semi-automatic rifle. There is no defense against them, they simply bathe whatever area they are aimed at by the shooter with death and destruction, to the point where they literally rip the insides of the bodies of the victims apart. Having these specific type of weapons available to citizens is madness. These are not handguns some housewife is using for protection while her husband is in Japan on business, nor are they the kind of thing that hunters use to kill Bambi's mother every November. They are killing machines. They aren't just meant to kill one person, but DOZENS of people. Because they were designed for use in warfare. Which is where they should remain. And that chart doesn't even take into account the last 4 years, in which (especially considering Las Vegas) you can add over 200 more deaths and at least a dozen more shootings to the total from the end of 2014. Including 50 people at a nightclub, nearly 20 in a high school, two dozen in a church, over 50 people in Las Vegas, and another dozen last Saturday morning. All gunned down in minutes if not seconds.
About Ban "assault gun", check this FBI statistics : https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-4.xls
Short firearms like pistols/revolvers are far more used than rifles to commit murder. Note that there are almost 400,000,000 firearms on USA(civil + state) and on 2016 FBI only registred 11,004 homicides with firearms ( https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-4.xls ) that means that less than 0,001% of guns are used on murder.
And rifles are only used on 374 homicides while knifes are used on 1,604 cases.
I an not pro gun control, but according to FBI data, regulate short firearms makes more sense(but still awful)
Anyway, USA was much more peaceful on the past. I recommend the book The Not So Wild, Wild West https://mises.org/library/not-so-wild-wild-west
And again about other countries from Americas. Do you guys really think that gun control Worked on Brazil or on Mexico?
The country with lowest criminality on latin america(Uruguay) have the highest gun ownership and on Argentina, despite some stupid bureaucracy, almost every family owns a firearm ""There are hundreds of thousands of unregistered weapons in circulation. Almost every family has access to a weapon of some kind."(source https://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0422/p06s02-woam.html ) Both countries are far safer than Mexico, Honduras, Brazil, Colombia, etc
There are a reason to have drug lords commanding private criminal armies on Brazil and on Mexico but not on Argentina/Uruguay; an criminal can't rob without risk until he gains enough money to form his "criminal army". If an federal gun ban is approved, it will cost probably 50x more in lives and on money than war on drugs and the drug lords from Mexico will gain a lot of power and influence on USA.
Maybe the military can prevent the USA from becoming a narco-state maybe they will be corrupted. I don't know...
There are around 20x more crimes with handguns than rifles on the FBI statistics.
How many gun murders were in 2001? That's crime that got reduced.
Maybe the cops had so much free time they wanted to keep busy and reported more robberies.
Those categories of people exist in all countries, but in most countries even if they had the desire to carry out a large-scale massacre they are unlikely to succeed because the assault rifle weapon of choice for this purpose is not easily available. You quoted some dubious statistics about the success of gun control in Australia earlier. I did post about the Australian experience and gun control more generally in some detail a year or two ago and don't propose to duplicate that. However, whether or not you believe guns in general make people safer, I can't see that there's any reasonable case to be made that assault rifles make people safer.
In the run up to the Australian gun control legislation they were experiencing about 1 incident a year that they defined as a mass shooting (5 people killed not including the perpetrator). It was only a few months ago that the first such mass shooting occurred in Australia after the legislation in 1996. The potential benefits are thus clear, but I agree these have to be weighed up against the loss of personal liberty. For handguns and sporting rifles I can see why some people would find that a difficult judgment, though I don't personally. However, I do find it difficult to understand people who believe the loss of personal liberty associated with not being able to own specifically an assault rifle is important enough to weigh against hundreds of lives.
How many mass shooting did USA had before the NFA(national firearms act)? This is a mental health problem, not a gun problem. And even if the state can prevent mental ill people from owning guns, it can't prevent then from stealing a truck and doing a massacre like happened many times. Assault rifles are already very restricted. An civilian semi auto AR 15 have selective fire? No, so is a sporting rifle.
Assault rifle "An assault rifle is a selective-fire rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine. source ": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle
Anyone can make an homemade open bolt smg or change 3 pieces of a Glock 9mm to have an fully auto gun... Anyway, did the strict gun control on France prevented the Charlie Hebdo shooting with AK-47? No, anyone can look on internet how to make homemade firearms. I already posted a lot of sources about it. There are a case of a "mass destruction" with a homemade armored vehicle
The sate is not omnipresent. A lot of people will not give up their """"assault guns""""(in popular sense) and take it with force and trow this people in jail will cost a lot on money an lives.
------------------------------
Control weapons are just a way to control de population. Song dynasty on China was probably the first who tried to outlaw crossbows to maintain itself on power forever with no uprising risk. On medieval times, some countries outlawed crossbows too because the notion of a commoner being able to assassinate an noble in armor was terrifying to the status quo.
Here's a good article about it:
http://time.com/how-europes-terrorists-get-their-guns/
And while you can create a lot of havoc with things like trucks, it will always be easier to kill a lot of people with bombs or firearms. The truck attack in Nice is really the only exception I can think of.
With Sturmgevährs, you have 3 guys or whatever take cover and lay down suppressive fire while 3 guys advance and if need be (the enemy pops up again from under their cover, taking aim) you can fire it while running and be intimidating. Once the tree running guys find good cover, the lay down suppressive fire and the 3 first guys can advance and so on an so forth.
An AR-15 would have been sufficiently intimidating in WWII to fit the bill, hence it is an assault rifle. And like you yourself point out, it takes only the slightest modification to turn into into an assault rifle also by the US military definition.
A homemade open bolt SMG or modified Glock 9 mm would not function as an assault "rifle" because they are way to inaccurate... ESPECIALLY if you plan to spray and pray with them.
But all of that none-with-standing, if the AR-15 did not have the lethal potential it has, the gun fetishists would be drooling over another weapon. But they do not. They all want the AR-15, because they KNOW it is a military grade weapon, and that is why they want it. Basically, if it was not an assault rifle, or near assault rifle by the US military definition, the gun nuts would not obsess over it and therefore could not care less if it was banned. The very fact that you argue that it should not be banned by comparing it to other, inferior, guns is thus evidence that it should be banned precisely because it IS so much deadlier than the other, inferior, guns that you like to pretend are equally good but in reality are not, which, again, you already know, which, again, is why you pretend that they are.
Edit: Ooops correction; I meant to say the PASSION with which it is argued it should not be banned. Like, a person can be principled and might object to any gun being banned, even obscure guns that are already out of production or whatever, but the arguments would never be as livid as is the debate surrounding the AR-15. Let me make a comparison; let's say Emily asks you to prom and you are like "Yeah, ok sure" thinking "well she IS pretty!" but then we load a savefile and Leah asks you out and your smile reaches your ears and you go "YES YES YES!!! I would love to!" and you are thinking "Oh man oh man, I am the luckiest man on earth!" then we can deduce which girl you would prefer if you could chose freely. Likewise, it is quite easy to deduce which gun the gun fetishists want.