Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Hystery last won the day on April 4 2016

Hystery had the most liked content!

About Hystery

  • Rank
  • Birthday 07/09/1991

Profile Information

  • Country
  • Location
  • Interests
  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

14,892 profile views
  1. Paradise Papers

    I wouldn't call it a non-story. Just for France, it's been 20 billions euros that have been tax evaded. It's 20 billions lacking in the country's vaults, and 20 billions we have to pay for, which equals to roughly 307 euros per inhabitant. Dunno about you, but it feels pretty outraging that the most wealthy get their taxes paid by the poorest.
  2. Paradise Papers

    The joys of "tax optimization", as they so love to call it. The 1% evade, the 99% left pay for them. Sounds fair alright.
  3. I'll make a better showing when you will, pal.
  4. In your wrath of always trying to belittle people who disagree with you, you completely missed the point, which was: do you bring guns to politics? The answer is no. Guns and EU are completely unrelated matters that you somehow tried to put together in a vain hope to prove your point. Moving on. So taxes is theft? Because taxes are used to make your country run. To pay your police, army, firefighters, hospitals. Technically, taxes take money out of your pocket, to put it in the pocket of someone else. So, according to your logic, it's theft. The thing is, it isn't. Just like the socialism ideology isn't. Again, I'll just repeat what you told me before and you seem to really like to repeat as well: 1/ Educate yourself on the topic and 2/ learn Google.com Ah yes, what a critical thinker you seem to be, trying to belittle other people's arguments by acting superior and putting yourself not as AN interlocutor, but as THE interlocutor, the one who has answers to everything. Sorry, doesn't work that way, and I haven't been wrong on every single point you mentioned. I've adressed all your points everytime my schedule allowed me to, but hey, who am I to try and pop your bubble of desillusions. As for the rest, refer to the previous point about education and google. Maybe that way you'll realize that, somehow, somewhat, you could... wait for it... be wrong about something. I know, it sounds preposterous, right? It's nice and all. But it's missing my point. Decrease of gun ownership in one state while the neighbor state has laxist gun laws isn't going to decrease gun ownership, it'll just move the business somewhere else. Decrease of gun ownership on a country scale was the point, over all the 50 states of the US. Give me stats that would show that a decrease of gun ownership on the whole US scale would actually increase the crime rate. That's what I've been asking for. Because so far, almost every other part of the world where gun ownership is reduced or absent has shown a lower crime rate than the US, like in Australia, where the homicide rate dropped to records of low since the appliance of gun laws. Yeah yeah, different culture yabbiyabba. The point still stands. Would US citizens happen to be so savage that even without guns they'd still jump at each other's throats with nails and spoons? I tend to believe US citizens are just like any other human being and would learn to control themselves. Aha, mhm, indeed, what an absurd mental gymnastic to assume that a civilian with a gun in the middle of a mass shooting would most likely end harming himself or someone innocent rather than the actual real shooter because of the stress, fear and adrenaline. Absurd indeed, we shouldn't even ask ourselves this question, every person on earth is some kind of robocop that can cope with every situation they can face in life. Obviously. As for the "you have stopped beating your wife", I wouldn't answer yes or no indeed, because I'd simply answer "I didn't beat her to begin with". The magic of having complexity in our language with questions that don't necessarily need a yes or no answer. As for the National Review article... Seriously? Couldn't you find a more biased newspaper? Conservative to the core, obviously they will defend gun laws. That's not an evidence, that's propaganda. If we go that way, I could pull out this https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/19/gun-control-police-open-carry-law which actually claims even though sheriffs and small police departments don't mind actual gun control laws, police chiefs and larger police departments wouldn't mind more stringent gun control laws. As you can see, police isn't a hive-mind where everyone thinks the same way, so quoting police officers on that isn't a 100% reliable evidence, sorry. Read that article really, a very interesting take on it. Yes, yes, I, and many others, are too stupid to comprehend the greatness of your mind, thinking and arguments. Keep ignoring what people say, kudos. Yes, worthless critical thinking skills. We got it, you're awesome and everyone is beneath you. Now moving on to the background checks. Have you heard? The shooter of the church shouldn't actually have been able to buy a gun. But the Air Force, from which he got fired, didn't correctly transmit the info to the FBI. If the background check had been more thorough and people had been looking for the info in depth, maybe this wouldn't have happened. Tougher checks will already prevent a bunch of people from getting access to things they shouldn't have access to. And your statement relies on your ignorance that a RIGHT is not a NEED. You can have the right of something, doesn't mean you NEED to apply that right. If a right becomes a need, then it's a duty, and not a right. You've the right to bear a gun. Doesn't mean you NEED a gun. Spot the difference? Can my government limit how much water I have in my refregirator? No, because I'm not going to kill someone with a water bottle. However they can control how much water I use to water my garden plants when there's a drought, so I don't hurt people who'd dramatically need this water for something more important than my garden. Spot the difference? As for your government becoming too tyrannical, it's such a ridiculously dumb myth that has been debunked so many times I'm not even going to linger more on it. "You say I'm bad so I say you're bad". Grow up. I've been addressing all your points everytime I could, stop being such a childish smug person, it's tiring after a while. By the way, your ideology is the failed one. Hah, take that! Did you say that I was lesser or inferior? No. Does it sound like you imply it in every single one of your sentences when you're addressing someone? Yes, it does, 100%. Proof with the fact you consider your culture to be superior to others, which is not something shared by everyone else. I, personally, don't consider my culture to be superior to others. Why? Because I've respect for what's different, and enough humility to not consider myself or my culture to be superior to others. Respect and humility, two concepts you seem to be completely stranger with. As for the rest of your post, it is of the same taste: "I'm right, other people are wrong, that's how it is, and everyone trying to tell me I'm wrong is by definition in the wrong". Not even gonna bother addressing all that as it's just derailing the thread entirely, and I'm done dealing with your narcissistic persona. No wonder you actually wanted to pick that nickname when you created your account, I understand the choice fully now, perfectly fitting. I'll be there if you're actually willing to talk things out without considering yourself to be the person in the right all the time no matter what people say, even in PM if needed. I'm always open to discussion, when the discussion is actually enjoyable (meaning not talking to a wall with a superiority syndrom). In the mean time, I'll just lean back and watch unless I read something that irks me. Oooh, I can already see you typing on your keyboard "See, he's leaving, I told you I was right!" Ain't leaving though, I'm open to discussion as I said, I'm just done talking to you for now because you're rather toxic in your speech, and it's clearly not enjoyable.
  5. As far as I'm aware, the EU didn't come into my home to take my things yet. EU is politics. You go in politics with guns now? What if your state dictates a law, but the Supreme Court dictates otherwise and your state has to follow it? It's pretty much an equivalent of the EU, would you grab your guns and go slaughter the Supreme Court judges? Your arguments make less and less sense over the pages. No. No, it's not. It simply isn't. Plenty of countries in EU have a socialist government at the moment. France had one between 1981 and 1995, and between 2012 and 2017. Guess what? They didn't steal anything. And they were socialists, somewhat following the socialism ideology. But, gasp, we didn't get our houses robbed by the state! How preposterous, am I right? Unless, of course, you actually know what socialism is and means, in which case it makes perfect sense to not get robbed by a socialist. Your idea of socialism is not only biased, but wrong. Now, I don't say socialism is the best ideology in the world, from personal experience their politics kinda sucks, but it's absolutely not what you think it is or what you describe. So... Learn Google.com? The irony in this part is so thicc I could cut it with a knife. Or shoot it with a gun! Hah! Get it? Kinda funny you them tell me I've been wrong on everything about the 2nd amendment, and yet here you are trying to teach me a lesson about something (as in, socialism) I've experienced myself. What do they say? Don't do to other people what you wouldn't like them to do to you? Yeah, I think it's that. Someone arguing back with facts. Yet where are they? Because, as far as I know, your words aren't some kind of godlike speech that can't be disputed. What you say isn't worth more or less than what I say. So, I'll put the assumptions I said earlier, and I'll wait for you to provide FACTS to them, then we'll discuss, how about that? 1/ Decrease of civil gun ownership will not increase crime rate 2/ Increase of civil gun ownership will only make police work harder, because not only officers will have to deal with criminals, but also will need to figure out which person is a criminal, and which one is actually a civilian shooting back, or if it's not simply some kind of gang related violence, it will also only cause chaos in situations where dozens of people are involved (one guy starts spraying in the crowd, a civilian pulls out his gun to shoot back, another civilian sees that civilian shooting back and imagines it's the real shooter and shoots him, so on and on). It'll only lead to more dead people. 3/ The 2nd amendment is an outdated principle that was written in an entirely different political context. Your government will not overreach you now. And if it really wanted to do so, it'd use much smoother ways to do it. Funny how people talk about an overreaching government when all they do all day is posting pictures of themselves on social networks describing everything they do. 4/ Stricter and more thorough background checks are required for gun ownership to avoid anyone unstable or dangerous to get their hands on a weapon. I doubt your life depends on the couple more days you'd have to wait to get your new shiny killing machine toy. 5/ You don't need 3 handguns, 5 shotguns and 2 assault rifles to defend yourself. A limit of 1 or 2 handgun per household, with one or two clips each is more than enough to defend yourself. You're not going to war, you just want to defend yourself against someone. That's only a portion, but we'll see what FACTS you bring. And by facts, I mean hard evidence, not "I feel that" or "I say that". "Beyond your kin". What next, I'm lesser than you? I'm part of an inferior people? Listen to yourself for a second. No wonder I'm here fighting with you, do you even read what you type? Are you somewhat superior to others? Are you somewhat always right and others always wrong? Because everytime you reply to someone, that's exactly how it sounds and feels. Again, read what you type. So what, I should educate myself, but not you? Would you happen to somehow know everything about everything, a living encyclopedia? Please. You don't even know what socialism is, and you come and tell me, or well, not even tell me, the way it's written, you almost order me (hopefully not with a gun on my head, hah!) to educate myself. Do you feel that smug sentiment that radiates from you when you reply not only to me, but also others, in such a way? That feeling of haughtyness, superiority? It's toxic. Have you ever considered to talk to the person in front of you like an equal? That would surely make this discussion a lot less toxic. I'll wait and see if this happens.
  6. You mean, for example like in most of Europe? We aren't in dictatorial regimes as far as I'm aware. Why would it be any different in America? Do you really fear that much that the land of freedom and opportunity would turn into a third world regime? > says socialism is more evil than democracy > proceeds to then say people imagine things based on misconceptions of Hollywood and such Holy crap I didn't think I'd ever see such an ironical contradiction in one post on this website, but yep, here it is. You obviously have absolutely no idea of what socialism is, so I'd suggest you to not take people like they're dumber than you like you do since 3 pages if you really wish to tell such horrible inaccuracies. Look up at what socialism is as politics, it'll only help you. As for my assumptions, they're, as their names seem to indicate, only assumptions. I don't see why they would be any less valid than yours however, I doubt you hold the ultimate and indisputable proof on the topic, unless I missed the memo?
  7. I hear you when you say that. But in case of a terror attack, having a civilian starting to shoot at whoever he thinks is the threat is just going to cause more chaos and make the work of officers even more difficult, as they won't only have to try to figure out who's the actual shooter, but also which one of the others is also a shooter, or an innocent. And as for the case of breaking into your house... How many times do you hear about people breaking into someone's house while they're actually inside? Because, personally, when I hear 'people breaking into house', I see a burglary, and burglers are not so stupid as to pay a house a visit without making sure no one is inside. I simply don't see the point of having a gun in both those cases, at all.
  8. Bla bla bla, 2nd amendment, overreaching government, classical rethoric. Do you think an overreaching government would mean the little elected senators and all their clique would pull up their sleeves and come fight you to get you? No. An overreaching government would use the army. If you think that you can fight back a very trained army with the largest budget in the world, oh boy you're even more delusional than I thought.
  9. How silly of me to rely on LAW enforcement to protect me from people breaking the LAW. It's indeed so wrong, I'm glad you opened my eyes on that. Seriously, this is getting ridiculous by the minute.
  10. I'm sorry, you might feel this way, but I feel the other way around. You come in, claiming less guns = more crimes. I come in, claiming that in my country, no guns = less crimes than a country with guns (and I said my country, but I could have quoted many others as well) You come back, saying that this doesn't mean anything because countries are different, therefore dismissing any attempt at bringing numbers as hard evidences to you because of that. How is anyone supposed to show you that less guns = less crimes, if all you say back to that is "yes, but no"? If all you say is "My country is different therefore it won't be like that"? How can you even be sure of that, since you haven't even tried at all? Your argument is baseless and supported by nothing but "americans feel this way". As I said before, feelings aren't facts. What would it cost you to actually TRY to lower the numbers of guns in circulation, and see what happens? And if things get worse, you simply get back to your guns. But you don't even wish to try. If that's not being stubborn just for nothing, I don't know what is. More guns more guns more guns, that's the only solution that comes out from people supporting laxist gun laws. As if setting fire to more trees would put out the forest fire.
  11. Freedom of travel is a universal right for every human being. Wearing shoes is a universal must-have if you don't want to hurt your feet. Owning firearms is an absolutely non-necessary right that leads to literally nothing other than dead people, because that's what guns are made for: they are made to kill people in the most efficient way possible. Your argument is non-sensical, and your way to try and belittle other people's arguments doesn't help proving your own point. Shoving your head in the sand like an ostrisch about problems that are related to firearms isn't going to solve anything either.
  12. I've read something funny on Twitter. "It took only one shoe bombing, and now we all take off our shoes to take the plane. Meanwhile, how many mass shootings and we do nothing about it?" Sums up the whole thing to me.
  13. You know, I've already mentioned that in another thread before, but a Constitution can be changed. In France, our first Constitution was written in 1791. As of today, we are at the fifth version of it, and it is often discussed to look all over it again to modify it and make a sixth version of it. Through all those changes of version, things were modified to fit better the society in which that new version was written, to offer a stable political situation for citizens, as well as better, more fitting rights for them. Laws aren't engraved in marble. They can be modified. A constitution can be modified. Laws can be tweaked, updated, enhanced, erased depending on the context in which they are applied compared to the context in which they were written. Clinging to the constitution like this while automatically refusing to change anything about it is both stubborn and stupid. You (as in, american citizens) don't refuse it because it wouldn't make sense, you refuse it simply because you don't want it modified, even if it would make sense to do it. It's beyond me. Okay okay okay, hold on there. There's plenty of evidence that less legal gun owners equals more crime? Really? Are you sure about that? Because, if we want evidence, let's talk real, concrete situations and facts. Here are a few numbers I gathered by searching a bit on the internet. France: Murder: 1.2 case per 100,000 inhabitants Rape: 18 cases per 100,000 inhabitants Burglary: 373 cases per 100,000 inhabitants US: Murder: 4.88 cases per 100,000 inhabitants Rape: 38.6 cases per 100,000 inhabitants Burglary: 491 cases per 100,000 inhabitants I could have included robbery, vehicle theft, etc, but, as you can guess, results are of an identical caliber. So. France? Guns need a permit with people going through very thorough check, and said guns are allowed for only for those permit owners, and ONLY in their house. Carrying a gun in the streets is strictly prohibited. US? Very laxist guns laws and controls. And surprisingly enough, crime rates are inferior in France compared to the US. Incredible, right? Or maybe, not so much. You know, you actually remind me of what Trump often says. "Americans feel". Feel. That's the key word. But feels aren't facts. You can feel safe, even if you aren't, you can feel threatened, even if you aren't. You can feel like climate change isn't real, even if it actually is. Feels are subjective, on the opposite of objective, and therefore shouldn't ever be referred to when trying to solve a concrete issue. Feels, aren't facts. A president isn't elected to please the population, he's elected to try and make the country a better place for its citizens. If that means going against the opinion of the majority to actually accomplish something for their own good, then it should be done. And that includes hurting people's feelings now and then (something Trump usually is so prone to do).
  14. I wanted to go on my usual ramble of why having guns running rampant amongst the population will never, ever stop this kind of things from happening (and quite the opposite in fact), but other, more eloquent people did that for me, so I'll just stand back and read. That, and I'm also on my phone, in my bed, about to sleep, so I can't be arsed to go over this shit all over again.
  15. Death penalty is banned in NY. I took it just how it was said, as in they should just die no matter the trial (since the administration can override the death penalty ban of a state in some circumstances). If people don't want their words to be interpreted a different way than they meant it, they should be more accurate in what they're trying to say.