Supreme Court strikes down gun limits for stores, other public places

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2026/06/25/supreme-court-hawaii-gun-laws-concealed-weapon-store/88494117007/

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court on June 25 struck down a Hawaii law that required gun owners to get permission before bringing a firearm into a store or other private property that’s open to the public, delivering a setback for the gun control movement.

华盛顿——6月25日，最高法院推翻了一项夏威夷法律，该法律要求枪主在进入商店或其他对公众开放的私人财产前必须获得许可，这对枪支管控运动来说是一个挫折。

The 6-3 ruling from an ideologically divided court came four years after it dramatically expanded the Second Amendment right to bear arms outside the home.

在这家存在意识形态分歧的法院以6比3作出的裁决，距离四年前它大幅扩大持枪权（第二修正案）至家庭之外已有四年。

Hawaii and four other Democratic-led states − California, Maryland, New York and New Jersey − responded to that 2022 decision by limiting where in public guns can be carried as the nation remains divided over how to prevent mass shootings and other gun violence.

夏威夷和另外四个由民主党主导的州——加利福尼亚州、马里兰州、纽约州和新泽西州——对2022年的这一裁决做出反应，限制了枪支在公共场所的携带地点，而全国仍在争论如何防止大规模枪击事件和其他枪支暴力。

Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito said Hawaii's law imposes "severe restrictions" on the daily activities of gun owners who may be barred from entering many places people routinely visit, such as gas stations, convenience stores, restaurants, barber shops and laundromats.

多数派意见撰写人塞缪尔·阿利托大法官表示，夏威夷的法律对枪支持有者的日常活动施加了“严重限制”，这些人可能会被禁止进入人们经常光顾的许多地方，如加油站、便利店、餐馆、理发店和自助洗衣店。

"This regime hobbles what the Second Amendment protects: the right of Americans to carry arms for self-defense as they go about their daily lives," Alito wrote. "We hold that the law is unconstitutional."

阿利托写道：“这项制度束缚了宪法第二修正案所保护的权利：即美国人在日常生活中携带武器以自卫的权利。”“我们裁定该法律违宪。”

No word yet on whether this applies to airports and courthouses.

目前尚不清楚这一裁决是否适用于机场和法院。

>>1521441

>This regime

>这项制度

What a fucking joke.

真是个他妈的笑话。

>>1521442

It still doesn't apply to stores in Hawaii

这仍然不适用于夏威夷的商店。

Refusing service to some jackass carrying a gun onto my property will always be legal

拒绝某些带着枪上我场地的蠢货服务，将永远合法。

…How? It's private property, you abide by the rules of the owner when you come in. Just as they get to kick you out for being an annoying shit, they can kick you out for having a gun. It's been like this forever, you've been able to set rules on not having guns within your establishment since the founding of the nation. They've managed to be so pro-2A that they're infringing on property rights.

…怎么不？这是私人财产，你进来的时候就得遵守主人的规则。就像他们因为你烦人可以把你们赶走一样，他们也可以因为你带枪而把你赶走。一直以来都是如此，自建国以来，店主就有权在其场所内禁止携带枪支。他们如此拥护第二修正案，以至于侵犯了财产权。

The 2nd Amendment is the most hypocritical and worthless part of the Constitution. Supposedly it will help us reign in tyrannical despots but where are the tyrannical despots in those Hawaiian shops? Nowhere to be found.

第二修正案是宪法中最虚伪、最没用的部分。据称它能帮助我们遏制暴君和独裁者，但在那夏威夷的商店里，暴君和独裁者在哪里？根本找不到。

>>1521450

It's funny that we don't get the same protections for the 1st amendment even though this would solve so many problems with society and is by far a more important right than the 2nd, which is made to protect teh first.

有趣的是，我们并没有获得同样的第一修正案保护，尽管这将解决社会的许多问题，而且它远比第二修正案重要，而第二修正案正是为了保护第一修正案而设立的。

NOPE

GOTTA PROTECT THAT SECURITY BLANKET WHILE WE DESTROY THE REASON THE SECURITY BLANKET EXISTS

MORE PRIVATE CORPOS ACTING AS THE FEDS BLACKLIST, PLEASE

>>1521450

They struck down a law that said the default is no and you have to ask the owner for special permission even if the owner does not care or specifically approves of guns on their property. They can still tell people with guns to leave.

他们废除了一项法律，该法律规定默认禁止持枪，即使店主不在乎或明确允许持枪，你也必须获得特别许可。他们仍然可以要求带枪的人离开。

>>1521450

The law was written to mean you can only carry a gun inside of private property with the permission of the owner first. This made concealed carry impossible at gas stations, grocery stores etc and made it impossible to keep a firearm concealed.

该法律的制定意图是，只有在获得主人许可后，你才能在私人财产内携带枪支。这使得在加油站、杂货店等地隐藏携带枪支成为不可能，也使得隐藏携带枪支变得不可能。

>>1521459

Surely a person could just put up a sign saying 'guns allowed, come on in'. Also, it's fucking Hawaii. If you feel you need a concealed carry wherever you go in Hawaii, you have problems that concealed carry won't solve.

当然，某人可以挂个牌子说“允许持枪，欢迎进入”。而且，这可是夏威夷。如果你觉得在夏威夷的每个地方都需要隐藏携带枪支，那说明你有问题了，隐藏携带枪支解决不了这些问题。

>>1521451

Democrats politicians gotta shop somehwere.

民主党政治家也得去某个地方购物。

>>1521466

Would you accept such a standard when it comes to the first amendment?

在涉及第一修正案时，你会接受这样的标准吗？

Having to get permission from a business owner before being allowed to exercise your first amendment on their property

在私人财产上行使第一修正案权利之前，必须征得企业主的同意。

>>1521476

holy logical fallacy

天哪，逻辑谬误。

>>1521480

The law was written to mean you can only carry a gun inside of private property with the permission of the owner first. That would be suppressing your second amendments right to bare arms. I am asking if you would accept similar restrictions on the first amendment, requiring permission of the owner first.

该法律的制定意图是，只有在获得主人许可后，你才能在私人财产内携带枪支。那将是压制你根据第二修正案携带武器的权利。我问你是否会接受对第一修正案的类似限制，即必须先获得主人许可。

>>1521483

and i'm making fun of you because you don't deserve to be taken seriously

我在嘲笑你，因为你不值得被认真对待。

>>1521485

Universal standards are not a joke or a logical fallacy

普遍标准不是笑话，也不是逻辑谬误。

>>1521489

and your childlike understanding of the american constitution is apparently not a joke either

而你那幼稚的美国宪法理解显然也不是笑话。

>>1521466

>Also, it's fucking Hawaii. If you feel you need a concealed carry wherever you go in Hawaii, you have problems that concealed carry won't solve.

>另外，这可是他妈的夏威夷啊。如果你觉得在夏威夷的每个地方都需要隐蔽携枪，那你身上有些问题是用隐蔽携枪解决不了的。

Do you have the slightest idea how many meth-heads and homeless are in Hawaii?

你知道夏威夷有多少瘾君子（嗑甲基苯丙胺的）和无家可归者吗？

>>1521494

and letting them go wherever they want with guns is supposed to fix things?

然后你指望让他们带着枪到处乱逛就能解决问题了？

>>1521495

You do realize criminals don't get their guns from gun stores, right?

你难道没意识到罪犯的枪从来不是从枪店买来的吗？

>>1521496

i can't believe your shill farm wastes money on you

我真不敢相信你的水军农场居然在你身上浪费钱

>>1521466

>Surely a person could just put up a sign saying 'guns allowed, come on in'.

>肯定有人可以立个牌子写着“允许携枪，请进”。

Yeah, but it wouldn't just be one person, but literally every single owner of every private property you plan on visiting. And you would have a burden to prove that permission exists to the court, otherwise you could be held criminally liable for exercising your constitutional rights.

没错，但问题不在于某一个人，而是 literally 每一个你打算去拜访的私人房产的所有者。而且你还需要在法庭上证明你获得了许可，否则你可能会因为行使宪法权利而承担刑事责任。

>>1521497

I can't believe you have no rebuttal.

我真不敢相信你竟然没有反驳的理由。

To everyone else that isn't a shill, criminals don't follow the law (shocking, I know) and these meth-heads already have guns. Heaven forbid anyone else be allowed to protect themselves.

对其它不是水军的人说，罪犯是不守法的（真令人震惊，我知道），而这些嗑甲基苯丙胺的家伙们本来就有枪。谁敢阻止别人保护自己呢？

>>1521499

you're projecting again

你又在投射心理了

>>1521466

>need

>>1521499

Retarded ESL shill: Your store is probably full of criminals with guns and I need a gun to protect myself

脑子有病的水军：你的店可能到处都是持枪的罪犯，我需要一把枪来保护自己

Sane America: Okay, don't come then

正常人：那好吧，那你就别来了

Retarded ESL shill: NOOOOO YOU HAVE TO LET ME INTO YOUR CRIME RIDDEN METH HOLE NOOOOO

脑子有病的水军：NOOOOO 你得让我进你那充斥着犯罪的甲基苯丙胺垃圾堆 NOOOOO

do you ever get embarrassed? you'd think someone as stupid as you would just kill yourself

你难道不会觉得尴尬吗？像你这么蠢的人就该去死

>>1521483

>This law means you can't carry a gun on private property without the owner's permission. THIS IS SUPRESSING YOUR RIGHTS! MUH GUN RIGHTS!!!!! You wouldn't let the government limit your completely and totally unlimited free speech like some eurofag, would you!?!?

>这条法律意味着你不能在未经主人许可的情况下在私人财产上携带枪支。这是在压制你的权利！我的枪支权利啊！！！你不会让政府限制你那种完全、彻底的言论自由吧，像个欧洲白痴那样！？！？

Your free speech is already restricted.You can't commit libel or slander, can't yell fire in a crowded theater, can't scream slurs at your neighbors thru a megaphone at 3AM.

你的言论自由本来就有限制。你不能诽谤或中伤，不能在拥挤的剧场里喊“着火了”，不能凌晨3点用扩音器朝邻居喊种族侮辱的话。

So congrats for not only failing to make any coherent point on these gun laws, but for arguing for restricting speech on private property.

所以恭喜你，不仅没能就这些枪支法律提出任何连贯的观点，反而还在为限制私人财产上的言论自由辩护。

>>1521498

>You would have a burden to prove you had permission...

>你会被要求证明你有获得许可……

Yeah, because it's guilty until proven innocent... oh wait, it's the other way, so you're nakedly lying.

对，因为在未经证明有罪之前是有罪的……哦等等，不是这样的，所以你在公然撒谎。

>otherwise you'd be criminally liable for exercising your constitutional rights.

>否则你会因为行使宪法权利而承担刑事责任。

But... it's not your right to bear arms on steve's lawn specifically, it's your right to bear arms. limiting what you're allowed to do with a gun on someone else's property doesn't limit your right to gun ownership, the same way limiting what you're allowed to say in a crowded theater is not an attack on free speech.

但是……在史蒂夫的草坪上携带枪支并不是你的权利，而是你携带枪支的权利。在别人的财产上对枪支使用的限制并不会限制你持枪的权利，就像限制你在拥挤的剧场里说话并不是对言论自由的攻击一样。

How does this meaningfully effect you. How often to you wander into private property waving your gun around, how much of a fucking pussy are you that you constantly have to have a weapon on you? Do you like, legit think you're going to step over your neighbor's property line wearing a holster, and the second your foot touches their grass there's going to be a swat team tackling you? That's fucking retarded man.

这到底怎么影响到你了？你经常拿着枪在私人地盘上晃悠吗？你他妈有多怂，以至于必须随身带着武器？你真觉得自己会大摇大摆地跨过邻居的地界，结果脚刚沾到草地就有SWAT（特警队）把你扑倒？你真是脑子有病啊兄弟。

>>1521499

>criminals don't follow laws, gun restrictions don't work!

>罪犯可不管法律，枪支限制没用！

Yeah, and laws don't force people to wear seatbelts, so we shouldn't have them either. It's not like black market guns are like 10 times more expensive. It's not like sensible gun legislation has been proven to work in other countries. Guess we should give up and accept there's nothing we can do about being the only developed nation with these rates of gun violence. Let's just make back to school cloths bulletproof!/s

对，而且法律也没强制人们系安全带，所以咱们也不该有这规定呗。黑市枪支也没贵到十倍以上。也没什么证据表明合理的枪支立法在其他国家奏效。看来咱们还是认命吧，接受这个发达国家中枪支暴力率独高一等的现状。咱们还是把返校日服装改成防弹的吧！/s

>but I NEED to have access to enough firepower to kill a dozen people in the time it takes me to wipe my brow! There are rabid meth heads around every corner, waiting in every shadow!

>但是我需要随时有足够的火力在一分钟（擦汗的时间）内干掉一打坏人！每个转角都有狂躁的甲基苯丙胺瘾君子，藏在每个阴影里！

Funny, because I live in the heroine capital of the US and see strung out homeless people literally every day. And I've never felt unsafe walking around them, or like I needed to wear my gun to work.

真逗，我住在美国的海洛因之都，每天都见到那些瘾君子流浪汉。但我从没觉得在他们身边走路不安全，也没觉得需要带着枪去上班。

Then again, I guess I'm not a giant paranoid schizophrenic faggot bitch, so I don't live in a constant state of insecurity, terror, and barely restrained cocklust, to the point where I need a gun on me at all times to feel safe.

话说回来，我想我也不是个巨大、偏执的 schizophrenic（精神分裂症）gay逼，所以我不会生活在持续的不安全感、恐怖和极力压抑的性欲中，以至于觉得必须随时带枪才敢出门。

>>1521506

>you're nakedly lying

>你赤裸裸地在撒谎

This law already exists for state buildings at a national level retard.

对于州政府大楼来说，这法律在国家层面早就存在了，脑子有病。

>How does this meaningfully effect you.

>这到底怎么影响到你了。

It doesn't because its been overturned. You're still gay though. Sorry you have to suffer because of that.

影响不到，因为这事儿已经被推翻了你还是gay。真遗憾你得为这受罪。

>>1521506

You know what? You're wrong. The supreme court disagrees with you.

你知道吗？你错了。最高法院不这么认为。

It's another "L".

又是一个“L”（输家）。

And the core of your argument is based on criminal actions such as libel.

而你的论据核心是建立在诽谤之类的犯罪行为上。

Walking around with a firearm isn't illegal.

拿着枪到处走并不违法。

Libel and slander would be more like brandishing or firing a weapon without cause.

诽谤和口头毁谤更像是不加缘由地炫耀或开枪。

>>1521508

Being gay doesn't make me suffer. You probably assume that because it makes you suffer. You should ask your boyfriend to use more lube.

当gay逼并不会让我受苦。你大概是因为自己受罪了才这么假设吧。让你男朋友多用点润滑剂。

>>You're nakedly lying

>>你赤裸裸地在撒谎

>the law already exists at a st-

>这法律在州-早就存在了

Excuse me, what the fuck are you talking about? That line wasn't debating the existence of a law you monosyllabic moron. We are talking about the legal burden of proof.

不好意思，你他妈在扯什么？那行话可不是在争论法律存不存在，你这个只会发单音节的白痴。我们在讨论的是举证责任的法律问题。

Is it that your reading level never graduated from the third grade, or do you need a software update? Fuck you retard faggot.

是你的阅读水平连三年级都毕业不了，还是需要做个软件升级？去你妈的，脑子有病gay逼。

>>1521507

>It's not like sensible gun legislation has been proven to work in other countries.

>也没什么证据表明合理的枪支立法在其他国家奏效。

It has? When? To the best of my knowledge no country that banned firearms or drastically restricted them had any decrease in murder.

奏效了？什么时候？据我所知，没有哪个禁止枪支或大幅限制枪支的国家出现谋杀率下降。

In fact iirc the murder rate in UK continued to rise for nearly a decade after guns were banned.

事实上，如果我没记错的话，英国在禁止枪支后，谋杀率继续上升了近十年。

And before you go into the "shootings" routine, The base argument about guns and the need to restrict them is how easy they make killing.

在你开始“枪击案”那套陈词滥调之前，关于枪支和需要限制枪支的基本论点是：枪支让杀人变得太容易了。

So, if the murder rate hasn't decreased noticeably after gun bans, you've failed (you have, you are a nard).

所以，如果禁枪后谋杀率没有明显下降，那你就失败了（你确实失败了，你是个蠢货）。

>>1521508

Indeed. All liggerals are LGBTQ. It's not even even a joke any more.

确实。所有的“figgeral tiggerals”都是LGBTQ群体。这已经不再是个笑话了。

>>1521511

>Being gay doesn't make me suffer.

>同性恋没让我受苦。

You're obviously mentally ill so there's probably some suffering there.

你显然有精神疾病，所以肯定有些痛苦。

>>1521510

>the core of your argument is based on criminal actions such as libel.

>你的论证核心是基于诽谤等犯罪行为。

>walking around with a firearm isn't illegal.

>携带枪支上街并不违法。

Yeah, and talking isn't illegal either you fucking moron. Walking around with a gun is to talking as carrying a weapon on private property without permission is to slander.

对，说话也不违法，你这个混蛋。拿着枪到处走之于说话，就如同未经许可在私人财产上携带武器之于诽谤。

>>1521512

>When has sensible gun legislation been proven to work in other countries?

> sensible gun legislation 在其他国家什么时候被证明是有效的？

Australia introduced major firearms restrictions after the Port Arther Massacre, which lowered gun deaths substantially.

澳大利亚在亚瑟港大屠杀后引入了主要的枪支限制措施，这大大降低了枪支致死率。

>GUN deaths? if the murder rate hasn't noticeably decreased, no other outcomes are relevant.

>枪支致死率？如果谋杀率没有明显下降，其他结果都不相关。

Not true at all, there are plenty of other relevant outcomes. The effect on Australia's murder rate is arguable, it was declining anyway, but there was a dramatic reduction in mass shootings. Lower firearm access is also associated with lower suicide rates.

完全不对，还有很多其他相关的结果。澳大利亚谋杀率的影响尚有争议，它本来就在下降，但大规模枪击案显著减少。枪支获取渠道减少也与较低的自杀率有关。

Nice attempt to seize control of the narrative though, faggot.

虽然你试图掌控叙事，但你是个混蛋。

>All figgeral tiggerals are lgbtq

>所有的 figgeral tiggerals 都是 lgbtq

Oh, are they? You noticing more of them on grndr lately closet case?

噢，是吗？你最近是在Grindr上注意到更多了吗， closet case（双性恋/隐藏性取向者）？

>>1521513

>you're obviously mentally ill?

>你显然有精神疾病？

I'm not tormented by my sexuality like you are... so I'm mentally ill?

我不像你那样被自己的性取向所折磨……所以我就有精神疾病了？

So you think you're NOT mentally ill... and you think NOT BEING mentally ill... means being tortured about being gay?

所以你认为自己不是精神疾病……而你认为没有精神疾病……意味着被同性恋折磨？

You're like all the conservative christians who claim that it's a choice to be gay; who think it's a choice, because they chose to be straight.

你就像所有声称同性恋是选择的保守派基督徒一样；你认为这是选择，因为他们选择了做直男。

>If I don't comment about the fucking schizorant I went on about the law already existing at a state level, maybe he'll forget about it!

>如果我不提那个该死的 schizorant，只提法律在国家层面已经存在，也许他会忘掉这回事！

Sure didn't, faggot.

sure didn't（根本没忘），混蛋。

>>1521517

Wow. You suck.

哇。你真烂。

100% of chomos are LGBTQ.

100%的色魔都是LGBTQ。

>>1521517

>which lowered gun deaths substantially.

>大大降低了枪支致死率。

However did not lower the occurrence of mass casuality events.

然而并没有降低大规模伤亡事件的发生率。

You're disgusting and your posts reek of foulness.

你真恶心，你的帖子散发着恶臭。

>>1521519

>which lowered gun deaths substantially.

>大大降低了枪支致死率。

>However did not lower the occurrence of mass casuality events.

>然而并没有降低大规模伤亡事件的发生率。

Define “mass casualty event” and cite your dataset. Because under every standard academic definition, Australia had repeated high-fatality mass shootings before 1996 and none of comparable scale for decades after.

定义“大规模伤亡事件”并引用你的数据集。因为根据每个标准的学术定义，澳大利亚在1996年之前就发生过多次高致死率的大规模枪击案，而在之后几十年里都没有发生过规模相当的事件。

>You reek

>你一身恶臭

You're in a room with a computer alone. Go take a shower dumbass.

你独自一人在房间里对着电脑。去洗个澡吧，蠢货。

>>1521506

>“Because most owners do not post signs either allowing or forbidding guns – and because it is virtually impossible to go about publicly without setting foot on private property open to the public – Hawaii’s law functions as a near-total ban on public carry,” the Justice Department told the court in a filing.

>“由于大多数主人既不张贴允许也不张贴禁止携带枪支的标志——而且由于几乎不可能在不踏入向公众开放的私人财产的情况下外出——夏威夷的法律实际上构成了对公开携枪的近全面禁令，”司法部在提交给法院的文件中表示。

The justice department is right on this one. I have TDS more than anyone else I know, but the three liberal justices were brain dead in their ruling. We don't need signs saying masks allowed, knives allowed, boots allowed, etc. why treat guns differently? If you don't want them on your property, put up a fucking sign. Forcing businesses to buy a "guns allowed" sign so people can carry is ridiculous.

司法部在这件事上是对的。我比认识的任何人都更有“全面防御症状”(TDS)，但那三位自由派法官在裁决时简直脑死亡。我们不需要挂“允许戴口罩”、“允许带刀”、“允许穿靴子”之类的牌子，为什么要对枪支特殊对待？如果你不希望有人带枪进入你的地盘，就他妈挂个牌子。强迫商家花钱买“允许带枪”的牌子让人携带，真是荒谬透顶。

ESL shill wants to indulge their humiliation fetish, so of course they want to be told to leave instead of being afraid to enter a building because there's a sign that says they're not allowed

英语作为第二语言(ESL)的水军就想满足他们受虐的癖好，所以他们当然宁愿被告知离开，也不愿因为看到“禁止入内”的牌子而不敢走进大楼。

>>1521466

>Surely a person could just put up a sign saying 'guns allowed, come on in'.

>肯定有人可以立个牌子写着“允许携枪，请进”。

That's allowed everywhere in America but you can still go in with your concealed handgun, it only applies to open carry or if you were to tell the store owner you had a gun on you, at which point he'd tell you to leave and if you refused, you'd be charged with trespassing.

在美国任何地方这都被允许，但你仍然可以带着隐蔽携带的手枪进去。这只适用于公开携带，或者如果你告诉店主你身上有枪，这时他会让你离开，如果你拒绝，就会被以擅闯民宅罪起诉。

>>1521530

Wrong, the store owner can assume you're concealed carrying and still tell you to gtfo

错了，店主可以认定你是隐蔽携带，依然可以叫你滚蛋。

>>1521531

>the store owner can assume you're concealed carrying

>店主可以认定你是隐蔽携带

So... the store owner is refusing to let anybody in his store?

所以……店主是把任何人都拒之门外吗？

esl shill hits their esl limit in their esl understanding

英语作为第二语言(ESL)水军达到了他们英语理解能力的极限

>>1521507

>Yeah, and laws don't force people to wear seatbelts, so we shouldn't have them either.

>是的，而且法律也不强迫人们系安全带，所以我们也应该取消安全带。

Hasty generalization fallacy and/or strawman.

仓促概括谬误和/或稻草人谬误。

> It's not like black market guns are like 10 times more expensive.

> 黑市枪支并没有贵出十倍那么多。

[citation needed]

[需要引用来源]

>It's not like sensible gun legislation has been proven to work in other countries.

>也没什么证据表明合理的枪支立法在其他国家奏效。

1) those countries don't have 2A, and 2) I'd rather live in a country that has gun violence over a country like the UK where I have to sit back and watch as my 12 year old daughter gets whored out to Muslim rape gangs, or else I'll go to jail or get beheaded.

1）那些国家没有第二修正案(2A)，2）我宁愿生活在一个有枪支暴力的国家，也不愿生活在像英国那样的国家，在那里我不得不坐视我12岁的女儿被卖给穆斯林强奸团伙当妓女，否则我就要入狱或被斩首。

>Guess we should give up and accept there's nothing we can do about being the only developed nation with these rates of gun violence.

>看来我们应该放弃，接受我们作为唯一拥有如此枪支暴力率的发达国家这一现实。

Strawman.

>Let's just make back to school cloths bulletproof!/s

>咱们还是把返校节穿的衣服做成防弹的吧！/讽刺

Absurdity.

>but I NEED to have access to enough firepower to kill a dozen people in the time it takes me to wipe my brow! There are rabid meth heads around every corner, waiting in every shadow!

>但是我需要随时有足够的火力在一分钟（擦汗的时间）内干掉一打坏人！每个转角都有狂躁的甲基苯丙胺瘾君子，藏在每个阴影里！

Misquotation and strawman.

错误引用和稻草人谬误。

>Funny, because I live in the heroine capital of the US and see strung out homeless people literally every day. And I've never felt unsafe walking around them, or like I needed to wear my gun to work.

>好笑，因为我住在美国的海洛因之都，每天都能亲眼看到那些针头打多了、神情恍惚的流浪汉。但我从来走在他们中间没有感到不安全，也从来没觉得上班需要带枪。

Anecdotal fallacy.

轶事谬误。

>Then again, I guess I'm not a giant paranoid schizophrenic faggot bitch, so I don't live in a constant state of insecurity, terror, and barely restrained cocklust, to the point where I need a gun on me at all times to feel safe.

>再想想，我想我不是个巨大的偏执型精神分裂同性恋贱人，所以我不需要生活在持续的不安全感、恐惧和极力克制的性欲中，以至于时刻需要带枪才能感到安全。

Ad hom.

人身攻击。

When you calm down, please try to rationally explain why Hawaii shouldn't allow licensed concealed carriers to carry a compact pistol for protection.

等你冷静下来，请理性地解释为什么夏威夷不应该允许获准隐蔽携带的人携带紧凑型手枪用于自卫。

>>1521531

Easy discrimination lawsuit.

简单的歧视诉讼。

>I didn't let that man into my store because I assumed he had a gun

>我没让那个男人进我的店，因为我假定他带了枪

>why did you assume he had a gun?

>你为什么假定他带了枪？

>because of the way he looked

>看他的样子

Bam, you now owe that man a million dollars and your business is destroyed.

瞧，你现在欠那人一百万美元，你的生意也毁了。

esl shill remains confused and scared of discrimination

英语作为第二语言(ESL)水军依然困惑，且害怕被指控歧视

You were right this site is better if you filter ESL and shill it's like he is not even there. It's just the same board experience but better

你说得对，这帖子要是过滤掉ESL（非英语母语者）和托儿，效果就好多了，简直当这些人不存在一样。论坛体验还是一样，但好多了。

>>1521543

Lately when someone says "ESL shill" or something along those lines, someone often makes a post like this. I don't think you're actually filtering anything.

最近只要有人提“ESL托”之类的话，总有人发帖搞这种操作。我觉得你根本没过滤任何东西。

>>1521520

>Define

Why would I speak to anyone on this subject who doesn't know what the term means?

我要是跟不懂这词意思的人争论这话题，图啥？

stupid law.

这法真是蠢爆了。

a mass shooter isn't going to announce that they want permission to bring a gun into a populated area

大规模枪击案凶手不会提前宣布他想带着枪进人群密集区。

>>1521548

I do know what the terms mean you stupid faggot, YOU don't, you're using them wrong. Clarify what the fuck you're talking about, or shut the fuck up you dishonest dipshit.

我知道这词啥意思，你这个蠢货，你才是那个不懂的，你用法全错了。搞清楚你在扯什么，不然就他妈闭嘴，你这个撒谎的蠢货。

>>1521552

Cool. That makes sense, because the only factor that effects mass shootings is whether or not someone announces if they're going to do one. That's literally the only way to prevent one.

酷。有道理，因为唯一影响大规模枪击案的因素就是有人是否提前宣布要搞事。这他妈是唯一能阻止的办法。

Gun control wouldn't help, because the shooter having smaller magazines, meaning they have to stop to reload more, giving people more chances to escape and law enforcement more time to stop them, that doesn't matter. Them having smaller caliber bullets which can result in less severe injuries to victims doesn't matter either, a 9mm is exactly the same as a 5.56.

枪支管制没用，因为就算射手用的是小弹匣，得停下来换弹，给他人更多逃生机会，让执法部门更多时间制止，这也无所谓。就算子弹口径小点，造成受害者伤势没那么重，也无所谓，9mm和5.56的效果一模一样。

Mass shootings are also the only thing this law was designed to prevent. I mean sure, it'd keep belligerent drunks from being armed in communal spaces, and I'm sure I could find a bunch of other stats you'd just fucking ignore, but none of that matters, because it has no effect on gun deaths at all.

大规模枪击案也是这法唯一旨在预防的事。当然，这确实能防止醉醺醺的暴躁鬼在公共场合持枪，我也能找出不少你只会他妈视而不见的统计数据，但这都无所谓，因为这法对枪支致死率根本没啥影响。

Oh wait, yes it does, that's fucking bananas and so are you.

噢等等，其实确实有影响，真是荒谬透顶，你也是。

>>1521574

>I do know what the terms mean you stupid faggot, YOU don't, you're using them wrong. Clarify what the fuck you're talking about, or shut the fuck up you dishonest dipshit.

>我知道这词啥意思，你这个蠢货，你才是那个不懂的，你用法全错了。搞清楚你在扯什么，不然就他妈闭嘴，你这个撒谎的蠢货。

OK then you tell me what it means if I'm wrong, Hoss.

那你说说看，如果我有错，这词到底啥意思，Hoss。

>>1521537

>>let's just make back to school cloths bulletproof

>>咱们不如把开学用的衣服做成防弹的吧

>absurdity.

Gee, I was being totally serious you stupid faggot, but it's good to see right wing retards still don't understand satire or sarcasm. Thanks.

嘿，我刚才可是完全认真的，你这个蠢货，不过看到右翼傻瓜们还是不懂讽刺和幽默，真不错。谢了。

>you didn't quote me exactly, wah!

>你没一字不差地引用我，哇哦！

Yeah, I paraphrase, deal with it you stupid faggot.

对，我是意译了，爱咋咋地，你这个蠢货。

>I used a strawman literally, not figuratively, literally right before I called you out for using a strawman.

>我用了“稻草人谬误”，是字面意义上的，不是比喻，就在我要指出你用稻草人谬误之前。

I know, you're a disingenuous faggot.

我知道，你就是个不真诚的蠢货。

>you called me mean names, wah!

>你骂我，哇哦！

Do you know where you are right now, retard?

你知道你现在在哪儿吗，蠢货？

>rationally explain why Hawaii shouldn't allow licensed concealed carriers to carry a compact pistol for protection.

>理性地解释一下，为什么夏威夷不该允许持许可证的隐蔽携带者携带紧凑型手枪用于自卫。

I didn't argue that, and don't actually care one way or the other. I just like making fun of retarded right wing faggots who argue in bad faith. I never once argued for the ban, just against ridiculous shit you stupid bastards were saying. I'm a fucking gun owner and a centrist, but you stupid pieces of shit would push anyone to the left.

我可没这么争辩过，我也根本不在乎。我就是喜欢看那些不诚实的右翼蠢货扯皮，并嘲笑他们。我从未主张过禁令，只是反对你们这些蠢货说的那些蠢话。我是个他妈的持枪者，也是个中间派，但你们这些傻逼会把任何正常人推向左翼。

>>1521578

Tell you what a compound word you made up means?

你说说你编出来的那个复合词是啥意思？

No, go fuck yourself.

不，去你妈的。

The common definition of mass shooting is a shooting where 4+ people were injured.

大众枪击事件的常见定义是指造成4人及以上受伤的枪击事件。

Australia had those regularly before 1996, and didn't have any for decades after.

澳大利亚在1996年之前常有这类事件，之后几十年则再未发生。

You claimed mass shootings went down, but mass casualty events went up. You didn't define what a mass casualty event was and gave no evidence.

你声称大规模枪击事件减少了，但大规模伤亡事件却增加了。你既没有定义什么是大规模伤亡事件，也没有提供证据。

Explain what the fuck you are talking about, and show me where you're getting this data, or shut the fuck up.

把你他妈在说的是什么解释清楚，把数据来源给我看，不然就他妈闭嘴。

>>1521582

Once again, you don't understand what a mass casualty event is, so there's no need to debate you.

你又一次搞不懂什么是大规模伤亡事件，所以没必要跟你争辩。

It's a word for a "massacre". And there were many massacres in Australia before and after gun restrictions.

这就是“大屠杀”的代名词。而在枪支限制前后，澳大利亚都发生过许多大屠杀。

Gun restrictions did nothing.

枪支限制毫无作用。

>>1521584

>make claim with term

>提出包含某术语的主张

>won’t give evidence of claim

>不提供主张的证据

>won’t define term

>不定义该术语

NTA, but he’s kicking your ass.

你没错（NTA），但他把你按在地上摩擦。

>Gun restrictions did nothing.

>枪支限制毫无作用。

Sounds to me that gun restrictions reduced deaths by guns.

在我看来，枪支限制减少了枪支致死人数。

>>1521585

No he isn't. He's (You) is a fucktard probably using some AI shit to generate slimy sounding mental gymnastics.

他不是。他（你）是个傻逼，可能正用某种AI垃圾来生成那些油腻的诡辩。

You think I don't have evidence? Fuckfaces who use the "define it" method of liggeral-jewish argumentation deserve to be toyed with.

你以为我没证据吗？那些用“定义一下”这种伪逻辑犹太式诡辩的脑残活该被玩弄。

>>1521587

>No he’s not.

>他不是。

That isn’t your decision to make.

这可轮不到你说了算。

>He's (You) is a fucktard

>他（你）是个傻逼

Try again, anon.

重新来过吧，匿名者。

>>1521588

Fine then we have two liggeral retards at least.

好吧，那我们就有两个伪逻辑智障了。

Do you understand the faggot's argument at all?

你根本理解那个同性恋的论点吗？

>>1521584

>Once again, I am unable to answer a simple question. When asked to define my terms, I gave you a vague synonym, not a definition, because I'm fucking dumb.

>再次，我无法回答一个简单的问题。当被要求定义我的术语时，我给了你一个大致的同义词，而不是定义，因为我他妈是个笨蛋。

Did you just learn that word? Impressive.

你刚学会这个词吗？真了不起。

I understand the concept of a massacre, I didn't learn english in a classroom like you are. It needs some work, by the way. I'm asking you to tell me what you would define a mass casualty event as. Maybe that's mean of me, I know english is hard for you and numbers aren't your fucking strong suit, so maybe I'm asking too much.

我理解大屠杀的概念，我可不是像你那样在教室里学英语的。顺便说一句，你的英语水平还得练练。我问的是你会如何定义大规模伤亡事件。也许这样说我有点刻薄，我知道英语对你来说很难，数字也不是你的强项，所以也许我问得太过分了。

I would assume it would be an incident where 4+ people were harmed and a gun wasn't involved, because you're juxtaposing it to mass shootings, which would be the same thing but a gun is involved. But I'm not going to do your fucking job for you, if you want to be taken seriously in an argument, quick talking past me like a retarded faggot and define your terms.

我猜它指的是没有枪支涉及、但造成4人及以上伤害的事件，因为你是把它和大规模枪击事件作对比，后者则是涉及枪支的同类事件。但我不想替你他妈干活，如果你想在这争论中被认真对待，就别像傻逼同性恋一样顾左右而言他，把你的定义说清楚。

You won't even go that far, because you know there's no data to back up what you're saying, and the moment you actually define what you mean you lose the argument.

你连那一步都迈不出去，因为你知道没有数据支持你的说法，而且一旦你真正定义清楚自己的意思，你就输了。

Thanks for playing faggot.

谢谢你玩完，同性恋。

>>1521591

Here you go you fucking queer:

给你吧，你个他妈的变态：

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Australia

Looks like the primary method of killing mass groups of people in Australia is by arson.

看来澳大利亚大规模屠杀人群的主要手段是纵火。

So, why do you believe banning guns decreases violence?

那么，为什么你认为禁枪能减少暴力？

Or do you? The argument you're making hinges on "shootings" and "shooting deaths". But you an kill people with anything and be pretty successful.

或者你并没有这么认为？你的论点建立在“枪击”和“枪击死亡”之上。但用任何东西杀人并成功都很常见。

That's why I'm detecting slime running off your foul homosexual fingers are you type up a joke post that slips through the logical cracks in the liggeral mind as if you're intentionally intending to mislead stupid idiots like >>1521588 (You) who doesn't get the trick.

这就是我为什么觉得你那恶心的同性恋手指上沾满粘液，你打出的这段吐槽帖就像是从“字面思维”的逻辑漏洞里漏出来的，仿佛你故意要误导那些像>>1521588（你）这样没看懂梗的蠢货。

>>1521595

you always have to add your bizarre sex fantasies into everything, don't you

你非得把你的奇葩性幻想加到每件事里，是吗？

>>1521598

You get fucked in the ass and get your partner to call you ESL shill

让你被插菊花，然后让你的伴侣叫你英语二笔托儿

>>1521595

>Here you go, I'm fucking queer.

>给你，老子就是该死的同性恋。

Cool. Won't even question wikipedia as a source since I had to pull fucking inbred tooth to get it.

真酷。我连维基百科当资料来源都不会怀疑，毕竟为了搞到它我差点把牙都崩了。

So we look at the massacre in 1996 that killed 35 people. And we look at the most devastating arson after, that killed 15 people. So that's what we call a reduction in violence. It turns out, it's easier to kill people with a gun than a fire you fucking imbecile.

所以我们看看1996年那场造成35人死亡的大屠杀。再看看之后造成15人死亡的最具毁灭性的纵火案。所以这就叫暴力减少？事实证明，拿枪杀人比放火烧死人容易多了，你这个蠢货。

>So why do you believe banning guns decreases (gun) violence?

>那你为什么认为禁枪会减少（枪支）暴力？

Because the evidence shows firearm restrictions can reduce firearm deaths and firearm-specific harm. You keep proving my point. The reason we distinguish gun violence from other violence is because the method matters. A policy designed to reduce firearm deaths is evaluated by firearm deaths, not by whether humans have invented other ways to harm each other. “People can use arson” is not an argument against reducing shootings; it’s an admission that guns are a particularly effective tool for mass harm.

因为证据表明， firearm restrictions（枪支限制）能减少枪支死亡和枪支相关的伤害。你不断证明我的观点是对的。我们把枪支暴力和其他暴力区分开来，是因为方法很重要。一项旨在减少枪支死亡的政策，应该用枪支死亡数据来评估，而不是看人类是否发明了其他伤害彼此的方式。“人们可以放火烧人”并不是反对减少枪击案的论据；这恰恰承认了枪支是一种特别有效的造成大规模伤害的工具。

>The argument you're making hinges on shootings or gun deaths.

>你提出的论点依赖于枪击或枪击死亡。

Yeah. Laws about guns tend to reduce gun violence. When we pass laws to reduce gun violence, we usually want to measure GUN VIOLENCE to see what kind of effect they have.

没错。关于枪支的法律往往会减少枪支暴力。当我们通过法律来减少枪支暴力时，我们通常想要衡量的是枪支暴力，来看看它们到底有什么效果。

You went from claiming gun restrictions don’t reduce violence to showing that violence can happen without guns. Those are not the same claim.

你从声称枪支限制不能减少暴力，变成了展示没有枪支也会发生暴力。这两者根本不是同一个论点。

>I see slime on your homosexual fingers are you type up a joke post.

>我看到你那同性恋手指上沾满粘液，你这是在打什么梗帖。

Pointing out to other human users on the board this is not wording or sentence structure a native speaker uses.

指出给版面上的其他人类用户看，这种措辞和句子结构不是母语人士使用的。

Now stop imagining my fingers as gay and slimey, they aren't going in your ass you fucking creep.

现在别把我手指想象成gay又黏糊糊的了，它们不会进你屁股的，你这个变态。

>Intending to mislead

>故意误导

You mean what you're doing when you use violence interchangeably to describe the frequency and severity of attacks?

你是指你用“暴力”这个词来交替描述攻击的频率和严重程度，对吧？

>>1521574

>because it has no effect on gun deaths at all.

>因为它对枪支死亡根本没有影响。

>Oh wait, yes it does,

>哦等等，其实是有影响的，

Even if it did, the inalienable natural human right to keep and bear arms FAR outweighs the dangers.

即使真的有影响，人类保有和携带武器的天赋自然权利也远远超过那些危险。

will esl shill ever stop pretending to be american? it's unlikely

那个英语二笔托儿什么时候才能停止装美国人？这不太可能啊

>>1521614

OK so, let's shift and see if your argument holds water.

好吧，那我们换个角度，看看你的论点是否站得住脚。

Let's talk about the US specifically and relaxing gun laws, such as what happened in the OP post.

让我们专门谈谈美国，以及枪支法律的放宽，就像楼主帖子里发生的那样。

Over the past decade or so, liggerals and Democrats have been losing battle after battle with gun control.

在过去的十年里，“字面思维者”和民主党人在枪支管制问题上屡战屡败。

Since you are hyper focused on gun crimes instead of murders or assaults as a whole (which I find ridiculous since the entire idea is to reduce total death and violence, but hey, I guess some don't get the idea that you can still murder people quit easily with an adequately sized tree branch), has relaxing gun laws led to an increase in gun deaths or gun related violence?

既然你只盯着枪支犯罪，而不看整体的谋杀或暴力事件（我觉得这很荒谬，因为初衷是减少总死亡和暴力，不过好吧，估计有些人没明白即使不用枪，找个大小合适的树枝也照样能轻易把人弄死），那么放松枪支管制会导致枪支死亡或涉枪暴力增加吗？

If the answer is yes, gun laws are demonstrated to be ineffective

如果答案是肯定的，那就证明枪支管制无效。

If no, gun laws are effective.

如果是否定的，那就证明枪支管制有效。

What'll it be, slimeball?

你选哪个吧，贱人？

>>1521622

why do you think people care about your nonsense? all you ever do is get clowned

为什么有人在乎你的胡言乱语？你只会被人群嘲。

>>1521623

>No argument

>没论点

>Nocaps

Hi 'esl shill' shill. Of course your 40 IQ can't grasp anything that uses capitalization.

你好啊，“ESL水军”的水军。当然，你那40的智商根本搞不懂任何带大写字母的东西。

I'm fairly certain you're confused.

我敢肯定是你搞混了。

>>1521624

i'm not confused, and neither is your mother. we're just disappointed

我不懵，你妈也不懵，我们只是很失望。

>>1521622

>Let's shift and see if your argument holds water.

>让我们换个角度，看看你的论点是否站得住脚。

Oh, buddy. You're not gonna be smart enough to test that.

哦，兄弟。你根本没聪明到能经得起这种测试。

>Let's talk about the US specifically, and relaxing gun laws, such as what happened in OP post.

>咱们具体聊聊美国，以及放松枪支管制，就像OP帖里说的那样。

In the OP (saying O(riginal) P(ost) post is like saying A(utomated) T(eller) M(achine) machine, mouthbreather), gun laws were not relaxed. Relaxing gun laws would be removing existing laws, not a failure to add more. You're already being a dishonest dipshit and framing things incorrectly. I told you you weren't smart enough to test that.

在OP（说“OP”就像说“ATM机”或者“张嘴呼吸的白痴”一样多余）里，枪支管制并没有放松。放松枪支管制是指取消现有的法律，而不是未能增加更多法律。你已经在不诚实地装傻X并且错误地框定问题了。我早就告诉过你你没脑子做这种测试。

>let's talk about gun laws specifically.

>咱们专门聊聊枪支管制。

cool, I accept your concession.

酷，我接受你的让步。

>I don't understand that it's easier to kill someone with a gun than a tree branch, so we need to regulate guns, not tree branches. I'm a fucking dumbass.

>我不明白为什么用枪比用树枝更容易杀人，所以我们得管制枪而不是树枝。我是个他妈的智障。

I know buddy, you're real fucking dumb. You said we'd stick to guns and still tell me a fucking shaggy dog story.

我知道，兄弟，你他妈真蠢。你刚才说咱们就聊枪支，结果又给我扯了一堆他妈的无关风马牛的故事。

>If removing gun laws doesn't cause an increase in gun deaths, it proves they weren't effective. The same way if removing the seatbelt from my car doesn't cause me to immediately crash, it proves the seatbelt was ineffective.

>如果废除枪支管制不会导致枪支死亡增加，那就证明它们本来就没用。这就像如果我从车上拆掉安全带并没有让我立刻撞车，就证明安全带没用的道理一样。

No, if you remove protection and don't immediately don't have a massacre, that is not evidence the protection doesn't work. Your logic doesn't follow. Again, I told you you weren't smart enough for this.

不，如果你拆除了防护措施却没有立刻引发大屠杀，那并不能作为防护措施无效的证据。你的逻辑不通。再说一遍，我告诉过你你脑子不够用。

>>1521623

Hey, I care about his fucking nonsense, clowning him keeps me sharp.

嘿，我在乎他那些废话，群嘲他让我保持敏锐。

>>1521630

>No, if you remove protection and don't immediately don't have a massacre, that is not evidence the protection doesn't work. Your logic doesn't follow. Again, I told you you weren't smart enough for this.

>不，如果你拆除了防护措施却没有立刻引发大屠杀，那并不能作为防护措施无效的证据。你的逻辑不通。再说一遍，我告诉过你你脑子不够用。

Finally after line after line of bullshit we get your faggy non-answer.

在一长串废话之后，终于出现了你那娘炮般的避重就轻。

We have nearly a decade of crime stats to look at you dodgy little cunt.

我们有大把近十年的犯罪统计数据看着你这个游手好闲的小混蛋呢。

Is gun violence up or down over the past decade?

过去十年里，枪支暴力是升了还是降了？

Graph incoming:

图表来袭：

Guns banned in UK in 1996.

英国于1996年禁枪。

https://www.broadbentssolicitors.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/038069e1-1c02-4520-bb6a-3b5148f21735-1.png

Link

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_regulation_in_the_United_Kingdom#Gun_crime

Middle finger

[竖中指表情]

>n1m m1n

esl shill is getting pretty heated over heaters

ESL水军对加热器的反应越来越激动了

good thing you can kick gun owners off your property, its not discrimination

幸好你可以把持枪者踢出你的地盘，这不叫歧视

>>1521631

Gun violence rose sharply around 2020 and has declined since. Different states changed different policies in different directions, while dozens of other variables changed.

2020年左右，枪支暴力急剧上升，此后有所下降。各州实施了不同方向的政策变更，同时还有数十个其他变量也在发生变化。

I mean for fuck's sake, the thread we're arguing in is a discussion of state law you fucking dunce. National gun violence trends do not answer the questions you are pretending they do. But no, you're right, I'm the faggot and I'm the dishonest dipshit shill. That's why you keep trying to sneak shit like that by

我的意思是，他妈的，我们争论的这个帖子本身就是在讨论州法律，你这他妈的蠢货。全国性的枪支暴力趋势回答不了你假装它们能回答的问题。但行吧，你是对的，我是个同性恋傻逼，也是个不诚实的浑蛋托。这就是你总想偷偷塞进这种 shit 的原因。

I told you you weren't smart enough to test that. I'm tired of beating your ass here, give your boyfriend a turn. Sweet dreams, faggot

我早就告诉你你没聪明到能验证那个程度。我懒得在这继续揍你了，让你男朋友来试试吧。晚安，同性恋傻逼。

>>1521635

>Hypothesis: Gun laws reduce gun violence

>假设：枪支法律能减少枪支暴力

>All available data points to the hypothesis being wrong

>所有现有数据都表明该假设是错误的

>Baitposting continues

>钓鱼帖继续

Sigh. I'm tired. Can we just civil war already?

唉。我累了。我们干脆直接开打内战吧？

>>1521580

>I didn't argue that, and don't actually care one way or the other. I just like making fun of retarded right wing faggots who argue in bad faith. I never once argued for the ban, just against ridiculous shit you stupid bastards were saying.

>我没这么说，实际上我也不关心结果如何。我就是喜欢嘲讽那些带着恶意辩论的脑子有问题的右翼同性恋傻逼。我从来没支持过禁令，只是反对你们这些蠢货说的那些荒唐言论。

My stance has always been that people should be allowed to conceal carry and a ban on licensed carriers does not make us safer. Now do you agree or not, and if not why?

我的一贯立场是，人们应该被允许隐蔽携带枪支，而禁止有执照的持枪者并不会让我们更安全。现在你同意还是不同意？如果不同意，为什么？

>>1521637

>All available data points to the hypothesis being wrong

>所有现有数据都表明该假设是错误的

Arguments are easy when you just lie.

撒谎的时候辩论最容易。

>>1521642

Show me some data that disproves my "lie" then.

那你拿出数据来证明我的“谎言”呗。

We have several new open carry states in the US.

美国有几个新开放了公开携带枪支的州。

There should be something you can use to create a compelling argument that confirms your hypothesis that stronger gun laws mean fewer gun crimes. With so many states going open carry in recent years you should have plenty of available data to present.

你应该能找到一些素材，来构建一个有力的论点，以证实你“枪支法律越严，枪支犯罪越少”的假设。鉴于近年来这么多州都开放了公开携带，你手头应该有很多可用的数据可以展示。

>>1521637

>I'm a stupid faggot, and can't win an argument based on merit, so my only recourse is to have violent fantasies typical of a powerless, impotent loser.

>我是个愚蠢的同性恋傻逼，无法基于事实赢得辩论，所以我唯一的出路就是产生那种典型的力量弱小、无能废物的暴力幻想。

Sounds about right, words are hard for you, huh?

听起来挺对的，文字对你来说很难理解是吧？

>>1521641

>>I didn't argue that, and don't actually care one way or the other. I just like making fun of retarded right wing faggots who argue in bad faith. I never once argued for the ban, just against ridiculous shit you stupid bastards were saying.

>>我没这么说，实际上我也不关心结果如何。我就是喜欢嘲讽那些带着恶意辩论的脑子有问题的右翼同性恋傻逼。我从来没支持过禁令，只是反对你们这些蠢货说的那些荒唐言论。

>My stance has always been that people should be allowed to conceal carry and a ban on licensed carriers does not make us safer. Now do you agree or not, and if not why?

>我的一贯立场是，人们应该被允许隐蔽携带枪支，而禁止有执照的持枪者并不会让我们更安全。现在你同意还是不同意？如果不同意，为什么？

It's a stupid question, because the answer shouldn't be based on my opinion, my feelings on the matter are irrelevant, the answer should be based on data.

这是个蠢问题，因为答案不应该基于我的个人意见，我对这件事的感觉无关紧要，答案应该基于数据。

I don't care what your stance is, but the premise that a ban on licensed carries does not make us safer is fucking absurd, and you're doing exactly the same thing the retard I spent all night arguing with last night did; taking a very complex problem with many variables, and treating it like there is only one (guns/no guns).

我不关心你的立场是什么，但你认为“禁止有执照的持枪者并不会让我们更安全”这个前提简直荒谬透顶，而且你正在做的和昨晚我熬夜吵架的那个脑子有问题的蠢货一模一样；把一个有着众多变量的极其复杂的问题，简化处理成只有单一变量（有枪/没枪）的问题。

Typically I am in favor of banning high capacity magazines and semi-auto long guns, because data shows doing those things make mass shootings less deadly. That wouldn't affect your concealed carry unless you're walking around with a bazooka in your pants. Is that your gun, or are you just happy to see me?

我通常支持禁止高容量弹匣和半自动长枪，因为数据显示这样做能让大规模枪击案死伤更少。这不会影响你的隐蔽持枪权，除非你裤裆里塞着火箭筒。那是你的枪，还是你只是见到我很高兴？

>>1521643

>Stronger gun laws means fewer gun crimes.

>更强的枪支法律意味着更少的枪支犯罪。

Not my hypothesis. If you're going to schizo-rant at me, defend your own random bullshit. Now:

这可不是我的假设。你要是想神经兮兮地对我发牢骚，就先把你那些莫名其妙的胡扯自圆其说一下吧。现在：

>criminals don't follow laws, so gun laws don't matter.

>罪犯不守法，所以枪支法律没用。

This is objectively wrong, if that were true, making murder illegal would be pointless.

这在客观上是错的，要是真那样，禁止杀人岂不是多此一举。

>Sensible gun legislation hasn't been proven to work! It doesn't reduce violence! There are the same number of attacks with or without guns!

>合理的枪支立法从未被证明有效！它不能减少暴力！有枪没枪袭击次数都一样！

Yeah, and the attacks with guns are deadlier, and the attacks with long guns with high capacity magazines are deadlier still, which is why AU targeted them in their 1996 bans and didn't have a similar incident in decades.

没错，而且带有枪支的袭击伤亡更重，使用高容量弹匣的长枪袭击更是死伤惨重，这就是为什么澳大利亚在1996年的禁令中针对了这些，并且此后几十年再没发生过类似事件。

>fires are just as deadly! tree branches are just as deadly! There's the same number of attacks!

>火灾也照样致命！树枝也照样致命！袭击次数都一样！

Okay. The attacks are actually extremely infrequent if you actually look at the timeline, one every few years compared to our daily school shootings at home. Attacks happened at a similar rate now. The number of people killed and severity of injuries went down.

行吧。如果你真的去查查时间线，会发现袭击其实极其罕见，几年才一次，而我们国内每天都是校园枪击案。现在的袭击频率和以前差不多。但死亡人数和伤势严重程度都下降了。

>W-well, relaxing gun restrictions, doesn't make violence increase!

>那、那放宽枪支限制，暴力也没增加啊！

Okay, we're up to date. I Wanted to do a recap of all the arguments we've had in this chain. Look at all the times you walked back from your points and moved the goalpost. Wow, I kicked your ass man. Are you sore after all that?

好了，跟上节奏了。我想总结一下这串对话里我们所有的论点。看看你多少次撤回观点、移动靶子。哇哦，哥们，我把你揍得够惨吧。感觉爽吗？

Nah, you've got a humiliation fetish, don't you painslut? Cool.

没有，你倒是有一种受虐癖好吧，痛奴？真酷。

Stronger gun laws don't necessarily mean fewer gun crimes. To reduce gun crimes, you would need to address the root of the problem. What they actually do is reduce harm. That's why AU banned semi-auto long guns and extended magazines, because those are linked to reduced harm. So even though the number of incidents stayed relatively constant, as you pointed out earlier, the severity of them dropped dramatically., which means there was a reduction in violence, which is a point you never addressed.

更强的枪支法律并不必然意味着更少的枪支犯罪。要减少枪支犯罪，你得解决问题的根源。它们真正起到的作用是减少伤害。这就是为什么澳大利亚禁止半自动长枪和延长弹匣，因为这些与减少伤害有关。所以尽管正如你早些时候指出的，事件数量保持相对稳定，但严重性大幅下降。这意味着暴力减少了，而你从未回应过这一点。

You're arguing that seatbelts are useless because they don't prevent crashes. You're a fucking moron, painslut.

你在争论安全带没用，因为它们不能防止车祸。你这个混蛋，痛奴。

>>1521648

>Stronger gun laws don't necessarily mean fewer gun crimes. To reduce gun crimes, you would need to address the root of the problem

>更强的枪支法律并不必然意味着更少的枪支犯罪。要减少枪支犯罪，你得解决问题的根源

It seems like you are talking around what you really believe

感觉你好像在回避你真正相信的东西

>>1521451

Because theyre all on capitol hill

因为他们都国会山上

>>1521643

Doesn't Chicago have some of the strictest gun control in the country? That city might have the data you are looking for

芝加哥不是有着全国最严格的枪支管制吗？这座城市的数据也许正是你需要的

Anti-gun laws are just a way for liberals to avoid the cognitive dissonance they feel towards the fact that non whites represent 90% of all gun crimes. I am against all forms of gun control until someone starts proposing race based gun laws

反枪支法律只是自由派用来逃避认知失调的一种方式，因为他们不想面对非白人占所有枪支犯罪90%这一事实。在有人提出基于种族的枪支法律之前，我反对任何形式的枪支管制

>>1521655

It seems that way to you because you're a simpleton.

在你这种白痴眼里当然就是这样。

>>1521682

43%, actually.

实际上是43%。

>>1521451

The despots themselves may not be in the shop but the evil unleash upon us is all around. Moron.

暴君本人也许没在店里，但施加于我们的邪恶却无处不在。蠢货。

>>1521647

>the answer should be based on data.

>答案应该以数据为依据。

And all the data I've seen shows that crime goes down when people are allowed to carry. Licensed carriers are also 5 to 7 times less likely to commit a crime than the average US citizen, and in Florida they're less likely to commit a crime than the police. I'd argue having more of these people is a good thing.

而我看到的所有数据都表明，允许民众持枪时犯罪率会下降。持枪执照持有者犯法的概率比美国普通人低5到7倍，在佛罗里达州甚至更低，连警察都不如。我认为拥有更多这样的人是好事。

>but the premise that a ban on licensed carries does not make us safer is fucking absurd

>但认为“禁止合法持枪能让我们更安全”的前提简直荒唐得让人想骂人

Based on what? Places with strict gun laws usually have higher crime. Los Angeles, D.C., Chicago, NYC, etc.

依据什么？枪法管制严格的地方犯罪率通常反而更高。洛杉矶、华盛顿特区、芝加哥、纽约等等。

>Typically I am in favor of banning high capacity magazines and semi-auto long guns, because data shows doing those things make mass shootings less deadly.

>我通常支持禁止大容量弹匣和半自动长枪，因为数据表明这样做能让大规模枪击案不那么致命。

Which is ridiculous. California has the most mass shootings and school shootings of any state in the country, and the majority are carried out using pistols. Our worst school shooting was Virginia Tech, and Cho did that using a 9mm and .22 pistol. But whatever, to get back on the subject of concealed carry, 94% of your mass shootings occur inside gun free zones where concealed carriers are not allowed. We have at least five manifestos left by shooters that have said they've targeted these places because they're gun free zones or less defended than other locations they were considering.

这太荒谬了。加州是美国大规模枪击案和学校枪击案最多的州，而且大多数是用手枪实施的。我们最惨的学校枪击案是弗吉尼亚理工，赵承熙用的是9mm和.22口径的手枪。不过算了，回到隐蔽携带的话题，94%的大规模枪击案发生在禁枪区，而这些地方不允许隐蔽持枪。至少有五份枪手留下的宣言里说，他们选择这些地方是因为这里是禁枪区，或者其他地方的防御比这更强。

You really want to put a stop to mass shootings and make them less deadly? Then stop banning the guys who are 5 to 7 times less likely to commit a crime from these gun free zones. It's not guaranteed to stop every tragedy, but it will help reduce them. It's better than the alternative of waiting to die.

你真的想阻止大规模枪击案并降低其致命性吗？那就别让那些犯法概率比普通人低5到7倍的人再被禁止进入这些禁枪区。这不能保证阻止每一次悲剧，但会有所帮助。总比坐以待毙强。

>>1521647

Also before you say anything about per capita, make sure you're using stats for gun CRIME and not gun DEATHS. Why? Because suicide usually takes up 2/3rds of deaths. Which is why the counterargument usually includes places like Alaska, Montana (both high suicide states) and Wyoming (Slater, WY is supposedly more deadly than Chicago because it has a population of less than 100 people).

还有，在你拿人均数据说事之前，请确保你用的是枪支犯罪（CRIME）的统计，而不是枪支死亡（DEATHS）的统计。为什么？因为自杀通常占了死亡人数的三分之二。这就是为什么反面论点里通常会拿出阿拉斯加、蒙大拿（都是自杀率高的州）和怀俄明州（据说怀俄明州斯莱特市因人口不到100人，被认为比芝加哥更致命）来举例。

>>1521647

>data

The data says that semi-automatic rifles are very rarely used in murders and that the fear-mongering over them is just Democrats manipulating the ignorant children who vote for them.

数据显示，半自动步枪在谋杀案中极少被使用，对它们的恐惧炒作只是民主党在操纵那些投票支持他们的无知儿童。

AR15s are good protection against the mass mob violence that the Democratic party supports though. Out of curiosity, what's your position on Rittenhouse?

不过，AR15对于防范民主党支持的大规模暴乱来说是不错的防御工具。好奇问一下，你对里滕豪斯事件持什么立场？

>>1521648

>AU

You mean the tyrannical country where citizens no longer have freedom of speech because they no longer have the guns necessary to defend that freedom?

你是指那个公民因为不再拥有捍卫自由所需的枪支，从而失去言论自由的暴政国家吗？

btw Australia didn't exactly have a lot of mass shootings prior to then either lol

顺便说一句，澳洲在那之前大规模枪击案也没多少，哈哈。

>>1521632

How is freedom of speech doing in the UK?

英国的言论自由状况如何？

>>1521648

>To reduce gun crimes, you would need to address the root of the problem

>要减少枪支犯罪，你需要解决问题的根源

Anon please, don't be racist. And it's also misogynistic to say that feminism was wrong about single mothers.

匿名君，拜托别搞种族歧视。而且说“女性主义对单身母亲的看法是错的”也带有厌女色彩。

>>1521706

>licensed carries are 5-7 less likely to commit a crime. It's almost like criminals aren't going to use licensed guns that can be traced back to them to do crime.

>有持枪执照的人犯罪概率低5-7个百分点。这简直就像罪犯不会用能追溯到他们身上的持枪枪支去犯罪一样。

kek

>There's more crime in cities than rural areas. Is this because there's more people, in higher concentrations, with a wider range of economic backgrounds? Are there a million other variables we should consider? Nah, the only relevant link to gun violence is how strict their gun laws are.

>城市比农村犯罪更多。这是不是因为城市人口更多、密度更高、且经济背景更多样？难道不该考虑其他上百万种变量吗？不，唯一与枪支暴力相关的联系就是枪支法律有多严格。

Kek. With arguments like these, you don't even need me to hand you your ass anymore. Wonder when you'll pivot this time?

呵呵。就凭你这论点，你都不需要我动手揍你了。猜猜你这次又要怎么转移话题？

>Ridiculous, the majority of mass shootings are carried out with pistols.

>太可笑了，大部分大规模枪击案都是用左轮手枪实施的。

Yep.

>Let's move on.

>咱们接着往下说。

That was fast. Nope, no more pivoting faggot.

这么快就换话题了。不对，别他妈再转移话题了，贱人。

Virginia tech was our most deadly shooting. What made it the most deadly? It went on for a long time, and the shooter had multiple opportunities to reload.

弗吉尼亚理工大学枪击案是我们伤亡最惨重的一次。是什么让它造成最大伤亡？案件持续时间长，而且凶手多次有机会换弹。

So if the guns used had a higher muzzle velocity, magazine capacity, rate of fire, and fired larger bullets, do you think the massacre would have been more or less deadly?

那么，如果当时使用的枪支具有更高的枪口初速、更大的弹匣容量、更高的射速，并且发射更大尺寸的子弹，你觉得这场大屠杀会更惨还是不那么惨？

You just proved my point you fucking dumbass. The strawman you're arguing against is "if we ban all guns, then people won't have guns, and mass shootings won't happen."

你刚刚证明了我的观点，你这他妈的蠢货。你争论的那个稻草人论点是“如果我们禁止所有枪支，人们就不会有枪，大规模枪击案也不会发生。”

That's a fucking dumb position. That's why you want to argue against it, it's a pretty even match for you.

这他妈是个荒谬的立场。这也是你为什么想跟它杠的原因，因为这样对你来说比较公平。

The argument is actually, "If we ban things that make firearms more deadly, firearms will be less deadly."

实际的论点是：“如果我们禁止那些让枪支更具杀伤力的东西，枪支的杀伤力就会降低。”

No one says gun restrictions will stop mass shootings. Evidence says they will make them less severe. You can't have a good faith discussion about this, because you'd get your ass handed to you, which is why you have to draw all of these retarded inferences that don't even follow the logic you're trying to force and pretend there's no other perspective.

没人说枪支管制就能完全阻止大规模枪击案。证据表明它们能减轻其严重程度。你无法本着诚意进行讨论，因为你会被打得满地找牙，这也是为什么你必须得出这些愚蠢且不遵循你自己强加逻辑的推论，并假装没有其他观点。

>>1521720

I'm not a feminist you stupid faggot, I hate those obnoxious blue-haired screeches. I just also hate retarded pedophile enablers.

我不是什么女权主义者，你这蠢货。我讨厌那些烦人的蓝头发尖叫怪。我也同样讨厌那些愚蠢的恋童癖帮凶。

Congrats on being so obsessed with those annoying faggots you enable con men to nakedly grift you. Good job letting them live rent free in your head, pussy.

恭喜你对那些讨厌的贱人如此痴迷，以至于让你被那些骗子赤裸裸地忽悠。让他们在你脑子里白住，干得好，娘娘腔。

>>1521721

>>There's more crime in cities than rural areas. Is this because there's more people, in higher concentrations,

>>城市比农村犯罪更多。这是不是因为人口更多、密度更高，

Which is why I already brought up the per capita argument and how it doesn't remain higher even if you factor that. But I can see I'm wasting my time here. I've made my case for why we should allow people to conceal carry. You keep wanting to shift the focus to long guns. I'm not interested. Either argue why CCW laws are bad or concede that they're good and Hawaii should allow them.

这也是为什么我之前提出了人均数据的问题，以及即使考虑了人均因素，数据依然偏高。但我看出我是在浪费时间了。我已经讲明了为什么应该允许隐蔽携带枪支。你一直想把焦点转移到长枪上。我没兴趣。要么论证为什么隐蔽携带许可证法律不好，要么就承认它很好，并让夏威夷也允许。

>>1521723

>you fucking pussy faggot I'm a real tough alpha male which is why I want the government to tell me what to think. Also I'm obsessed with pedophiles and think that anybody who is not a spineless bootlicker is a pedo enabler. Also being a spineless bootlicker makes me a real alpha male, only pussy faggots don't lick the boot!

>你这个混蛋娘炮，我是个真正的硬汉阿尔法男，正因如此我才希望政府告诉我该想什么。还有我迷恋恋童癖，并且认为任何不是软骨头马屁精的人都是恋童癖的帮凶。还有，当软骨头马屁精让我感觉像个真正的阿尔法男，只有混蛋娘炮才不去舔靴子！

legit cringe

真的尴尬癌犯了

>>1521721

>The argument is actually, "If we ban things that make firearms more deadly, firearms will be less deadly."

>争论的实质其实是：“如果我们禁止那些让枪支更具杀伤力的东西，枪支的杀伤力就会降低。”

........ buuuuut more people die from handguns??? lol

........但是手枪致死的人数更多？？？哈哈哈

>>1521727

>More people die from handguns.

>更多的人死于手枪。

Correct.

>Ergo, handguns are more deadly.

>因此，手枪更具杀伤力。

Oh, cool, then why doesn't the military use handguns exclusively since they're more deadly?

哦，挺好，那既然手枪杀伤力更大，为什么军队只用手枪呢？

What's that? They aren't? Assault rifles are far more deadly at longer range and have higher rate of fire and magazine capacity? So they're more deadly?

你说什么？他们不是？在更远射程上，突击步枪杀伤力大得多，射速更快，弹匣容量更大？所以它们才更具杀伤力？

>No, handguns are more deadly.

>不，手枪更具杀伤力。

So you're defining deadly as 'statistically are used to commit more gun violence .'

所以你把“杀伤力”定义为“ statistically（统计学上）被用于实施更多枪支暴力”。

I'm defining deadly as 'able to do more harm, or able to kill more people more efficiently.

我把“杀伤力”定义为“能造成更大伤害，或能更高效地杀死更多人”。

So the air is clear and we aren't talking past each other.

好了，现在概念清晰了，我们不是在鸡同鸭讲。

Now here's the fun part. Do you think you could kill more people with a 9mm with a 12 round magazine and 5 spares, or with an assault rifle chambered in 5.56 with two 50 round drum magazines?

现在来点有趣的。你觉得你用9毫米口径、12发弹匣外加5个备弹的手枪，能杀死更多人，还是用5.56口径、配备两个50发弹鼓的突击步枪能杀死更多人？

Obviously the assault rifle? That's the point you fucking moron.

显然是突击步枪？这就是重点，你这个混蛋白痴。

>>1521741

>more people are dying from X

>更多人死于X

>I don't care! Ban Y.

>我不在乎！禁止Y。

>but people are still dying from X

>但人们还是死于X

>I still don't care! Keep banning Y!

>我依然不在乎！继续禁止Y！

>[people dying from X intensifies]

>[死于X的人数激增]

lmao

>>1521724

>I tried to pre empt your per capita argument by bringing it up. You saw this coming from a mile away, which is why you brought up other variables like income inequality and population density. I'm going to ignore that so I can strawman you.

>我提前提出了你的“人均”论点，好让你先闭嘴。你明明预料到了这一点，所以才扯出收入不平等和人口密度等其他变量。我选择无视那些，好对我进行稻草人攻击。

Cool, then yeah, you are wasting your time, painslut.

酷，那没错，你确实是在浪费时间，痛苦自虐狂。

>I've made my case for why we should allow people to conceal carry.

>我已经陈述了为什么我们应该允许人们隐蔽携带枪支的理由。

That's not the discussion we're having. I am a gun owner and conceal carry a pistol. Again, I don't actually care about this law, or whether you conceal carry. What I care about is when right wing retards make stupid claims.

这不是我们正在讨论的话题。我是个枪主，也隐蔽携带手枪。再说一遍，我其实并不关心这条法律，或者你是否隐蔽携带。我在意的是当右翼傻瓜做出愚蠢主张时（的情况）。

Also, no you didn't. First you argued gun regulations don't work because criminals don't obey the law. Then you argued regulation on firearms are pointless because other weapons exist. Then you argued that regulations being walked back causes gun violence to go down; without addressing the fact that different states implemented different regulations in different directions with different outcomes, making it literally impossible for you to draw that conclusion from that data. The whole time you've been using violence to mean severity of an attack OR frequency of attacks whenever it is convenient. When I brought up AU you asserted violence didn't decrease because the infrequent rate of attacks stayed consistent, even though the severity dropped; something you refuse to acknowledge, making your arguments objectively dishonest. You also like to pretend that the goal of gun regulation is to get rid of all guns and eliminate all gun violence; when the actual goal is to REGULATE firearms and reduce harm.

还有，不，你根本没说到点子上。你先是争辩说枪支管制没用，因为罪犯不守法。接着你又争辩说枪支管制毫无意义，因为还有其他武器存在。然后你又说，当法规被放宽时，枪支暴力反而下降了；但你却无视各州实施了不同方向、不同效果的管制措施，这使得你从这些数据中得出那个结论在 literally（字面意义上）是不可能的。你全程都在方便的时候把“暴力”等同于“攻击的严重程度”或“攻击的频率”。当我提到澳大利亚（AU）时，你断言暴力没有减少，因为攻击的低频率保持不变，尽管严重程度下降了；而你拒绝承认这一点，这使得你的论点在客观上是不诚实的。你还喜欢装傻，好像枪支管制的目标是消灭所有枪支、消除所有枪支暴力；而实际目标是规范枪支并减少伤害。

I never once said anything even resembling "we should ban handguns." You have a pattern of arguing against strawmen and pivoting though, so I guess that checks out.

我从未说过任何接近“我们应该禁用手枪”的话。但你有一种针对稻草人谬误进行反驳并转移话题的模式，所以我想这符合你的作风。

>>1521743

>more people are dying from X because Y is more tightly regulated.

>因为Y管制更严，所以死于X的人更多了。

>I'm literally proving your point, I'm just too retarded to realize it.

>我简直是在证明你的观点，只是我蠢到没意识到而已。

>I also don't think I realize I'm actively arguing to ban handguns.

>我也没意识到自己正在actively（积极）主张禁用手枪。

That's an extreme position. Instead of banning all guns, (or just handguns), I think civilians should have access to some guns for hunting and self defense. Want a bolt action or a handgun? Knock yourself out. Bolt action rifles are beautiful pieces of engineering. Want an assault rifle, a weapon designed to kill humans more efficiently, which can cause orders of magnitude more harm? I don't think you need that. Really, if you need more than six bullets, you're probably doing something you're not supposed to, and probably fucked anyway.

这是个极端立场。与其禁止所有枪支（或仅禁止手枪），我认为平民应该能够获取某些枪支用于狩猎和自卫。想要栓动步枪或手枪？随便你。栓动步枪是精美的工程艺术品。想要突击步枪？那是为了更高效地杀伤人类而设计的武器，能造成数量级更高的伤害？我不认为你需要那个。说真的，如果你需要超过6发子弹，那你可能在做不该做的事，而且大概率也是死路一条。

Why is this difficult for you?

为什么这对你来说这么难理解？

>>1521745

>more people are dying from X because Y is more tightly regulated.

>因为Y管制更严，所以死于X的人更多了。

>source: pulled from my ass

>来源：从我屁股里拽出来的

kek tell me more how a mini-14 is more regulated than a glock in nogunz states

哈哈，多跟我讲讲在那些禁枪州，Mini-14步枪怎么比格洛克手枪管制得更严吧。

also

>Really, if you need more than six bullets, you're probably doing something you're not supposed to, and probably fucked anyway.

>说真的，如果你需要超过6发子弹，那你可能在做不该做的事，而且大概率也是死路一条。

confirmed dipshit who knows nothing about guns XD

证实了，是个对枪一无所知的蠢货 XD

>>1521748

How bad is your aim?

你枪法有多烂？

>>1521442

>No word yet on whether this applies to airports and courthouses.

>目前还不清楚这是否适用于机场和法院。

It doesn't. The legal distinction is that private property open to the public is open to the public and the state can't force buisnesses to put a "firearms welcome" sign in order for the people to continue their default 2nd amendment right.

不适用。法律上的区别在于，对公众开放的私人场所就是向公众开放的，州政府不能强迫商家挂上“欢迎携枪”的标志，才能让人们继续享有他们默认的宪法第二修正案权利。

"No firearms" signs are like a "No talking" sign at the library. It is enforceable only in that you are asking people to leave, they still have the 1st amendment right to talk, they just don't have the right to remain at your place of business.

“禁止携带枪支”的标志就像图书馆里的“禁止喧哗”标志。它的可执行性仅在于你可以要求人们离开；他们仍然拥有第一修正案说话的权利，只是他们没有权利留在你的经营场所里。

A "Talking Permitted" sign is what the Hawaiian law required and Hawaii made it illegal to talk unless a "Talking Permitted" sign was in place. Obviously the law is unconstitutional.

“允许交谈”的标志是夏威夷法律所要求的，该法律规定，如果没有设置“允许交谈”的标志，说话就是违法的。显然，这项法律违宪。

>>1521480

>holy logical fallacy

>这真是逻辑谬误啊

That's the logic of the court's opinion.

这正是法院意见书里的逻辑。

>>1521747

Handguns kill more, therefore rifles shouldn't be regulated" is a brainlet argument.

“手枪杀人更多，所以步枪不应受到管制”这种观点真是脑子缺根弦。

Handguns kill more because there's way more of them and they're the preferred tool for everyday crime. A lower death count for a more restricted category doesn't prove the restriction failed, it can literally be the reason the numbers are lower.

手枪杀人更多，是因为市面上数量多得多，且它们是日常犯罪的首选工具。一个受限制更严的类别死亡人数较少，并不能证明该限制无效，这恰恰可能就是导致数字较低的原因。

You're arguing against your own premise.

你这是在反驳你自己的前提。

>>1521748

Literally a quote from the old man who taught me to shoot, but sure, pivot to a throwaway line instead of defending any actual substance.

这简直就是当年教我射击的那个老家伙的原话，但你偏要扯些无关紧要的话来避重就轻，而不是去捍卫任何实质性的论点。

>>1521775

>>1521745

Rittenhouse needed 7 bullets, and would have needed even more if the terrorists did not back down.

里滕豪斯用了7发子弹，如果那些恐怖分子没有退缩，他本可能需要更多。

ARs with standard-capacity magazines are a critical part of protecting ourselves from violent terrorists and tyrannical politicians, and the bootlickers like you who support them.

配备标准容量弹匣的AR步枪，是保护我们免受暴力恐怖分子和独裁政客侵害的关键，当然，也包括保护我们免受像你这这种支持他们的走狗侵害。

>>1521777

NTA, ackchyually Rittenhouse fired eight rounds. Other than that, based post, based digits, and based Kyle.

别理他（NTA），实际上里滕豪斯开了8枪。除此之外，这篇帖子立场坚定，数据准确，基尔（Kyle）也真男人。

>>1521775

>some fudd taught me everything I know about guns

>某个“老枪炮迷”（Fudd）教了我所有关于枪械的知识

lol yeah we know thats why your opinion = shit

哈哈是啊，我们知道这就是为什么你的观点一文不值

>>1521777

Using Rittenhouse as a justification for “we need standard capacity mags or we die” is doing a lot of work on a single edge case.

用里滕豪斯来为“我们需要标准容量弹匣，否则就会死”的论点辩护，是在一个极端的特例上做了过多的推演。

Self-defense incidents don’t prove a general rule about optimal civilian armament policy. They prove that armed self-defense is sometimes successful; not that there should be no constraints on weapon capability.

自卫案例并不能证明关于平民最优武装政策的普遍规律。它们只能证明武装自卫有时是有效的；并不能证明不应限制武器的杀伤能力。

Also “terrorists/tyranny” is just rhetorical inflation. You’re arguing policy off the most emotionally loaded framing possible.

此外，“恐怖分子/暴政”只是修辞上的夸大。你在使用最情绪化的框架来论证政策。

>>1521797

Cool, my instructor was a Fudd. You gonna address the argument, pain slut?

好吧，我的教官是个“老枪炮迷”（Fudd）。你打算正面回应论点吗，痛觉依赖症？

Pivot incoming in 3... 2...

转移话题来了：3... 2...

>>1521777

Rittenhouse was doing something he shouldn't have been.

里滕豪斯做了他不该做的事。

He inserted himself into an already volatile situation while openly armed, which escalated tension on the ground and raised the odds that any confrontation would turn lethal. Even if you argue legality or “self-defense in the moment,” that doesn’t change the fact that bringing a gun into a chaotic crowd environment predictably shortens everyone’s fuse and turns ambiguity into life-or-death outcomes.

他在一个已经充满火药味的局势中自行介入，并且公然持枪，这加剧了现场的紧张气氛，提高了任何冲突演变为致命事件的风险。即便你从法律角度或“当下自卫”的角度为其辩解，这也改变不了一个事实：将枪支带入混乱的人群环境，会可预测地缩短每个人的忍耐极限，将模棱两可的局面转化为生死攸关的结果。

That’s not an argument for “more rounds are necessary,” it’s an example of how armed escalation in unstable situations produces exactly the kind of outcome people then use to justify more escalation.

这并不是“需要更多子弹”的论点，而是一个例子，说明了在不稳定局势中的武装升级，恰恰会产生那种人们随后用来进一步合理化升级的行为结果。

>>1521799

There is nothing wrong with carrying a fire extinguisher in public. There is nothing wrong with putting out fires. Violent piece of shit leftists like you who believe that it's wrong to do so are exactly why I need my AR-15.

在公共场所携带灭火器没什么错，扑灭火灾也没错。像你这这种暴力的垃圾左派，认为这么做是错的，这正是我需要我的AR-15的原因。

>>1521798

Given the widespread support the terrorists received from the Democratic Party, it's reasonable to see much larger violence like that happening if we allow ourselves to be disarmed. 5 years ago Democrats said that they want terrorists to murder me and anybody else who doesn't subscribe to their fucked world view. So no, you can't have my guns.

考虑到恐怖分子从民主党那里获得了广泛支持，如果我们允许自己被解除武装，发生更大规模暴力的情况是完全合理的。五年前，民主党人就说过，他们想让恐怖分子杀死我和任何不接受他们那套操蛋世界观的人。所以，别想要我的枪。

>ummm actually you're being like emotional and stuff

>嗯嗯，实际上你太情绪化了之类的

Okay, then if you just want to be an obnoxious asshole who argues in bad faith because you can't justify the terrorism and tyranny you support. Explain why school shootings are bad without relying on "rhetorical inflation" or "emotionally loaded framing"

好吧，那如果你只是想当个讨厌的混蛋，为了无理取闹而争论，因为你无法为你支持的恐怖主义和暴政辩护的话。请解释为什么校园枪击案是错的，而且不要依赖“修辞性膨胀”或“充满情绪色彩的表述”。

>>1521799

>Rittenhouse was doing something he shouldn't have been.

>里滕豪斯做了他本不该做的事。

He had more of a right to be there than the rioters. In fact, he was there first, hanging out at a friend's house, before the riots started.

他比那些暴乱者更有权待在那里。事实上，在暴乱开始前，他就已经在那儿了，待在一个朋友家里闲逛。

>Even if you argue legality or “self-defense in the moment,” that doesn’t change the fact that bringing a gun into a chaotic crowd environment predictably shortens everyone’s fuse and turns ambiguity into life-or-death outcomes.

>就算你从合法性或“当下自卫”的角度去争辩，这也不改变一个事实：把枪带入混乱的人群环境中，会不可避免地缩短每个人的导火索，并将模棱两可的局面转化为生死攸关的结果。

You'd have a point, if Rosenbaum and the Ziminski's didn't already plan to kill Rittenhouse in retaliation for him putting out their dumpster fire. We know this because they set up an ambush when they saw Kyle alone, and Rosenbaum is recorded saying if he catches any of them alone he's going to 'cut their fucking heart out'.

如果罗森鲍姆和齐明斯基一家没有计划在对里滕豪斯放了他们的大火之后进行报复性谋杀，你还有点道理。我们知道这一点，因为当看到凯尔独自一人时，他们设下了埋伏，而罗森鲍姆被录音说如果抓到他们其中任何一个人独处，他要“把他妈的心脏挖出来”。

Leave it to an anti-gun piece of shit like you to blame the victim, though. Leftists still seething about this case six years later.

果然，像你这种反枪支的渣滓才会去指责受害者。左派即使在六年后的今天还对这起案件耿耿于怀。

>>1521801

>>1521804

Laws aren't made by asking "what happens in the most extreme scenario?" They're made by balancing risks and outcomes. Rittenhouse is an example of one chaotic situation escalating into lethal violence, not proof that every civilian needs maximum firepower.

法律不是通过问“在最极端的情况下会发生什么？”来制定的。它们是在权衡风险和结果后制定的。里滕豪斯案例是一个混乱局面升级为致命暴力的例子，而不是证明每个平民都需要最大火力的证据。

The fire extinguisher comparison doesn't work. A fire extinguisher's purpose is reducing an existing hazard. A firearm's purpose is applying lethal force, so its availability creates different risks around misuse, escalation, and accidents.

灭火器的类比不成立。灭火器的目的是减少现有的危害。枪支的目的是施加致命武力，因此它的可用带来了不同的风险，如误用、升级和事故。

And "school shootings are bad because children dying is bad" isn't rhetorical inflation. That's the moral premise behind wanting to prevent them. Calling political opponents "terrorists" and "tyrants" doesn't prove a policy argument; it just replaces evidence with fear and raises the emotional stakes so you don't have to defend the actual claim.

而“校园枪击案是坏的，因为儿童死亡是坏事”并不是修辞性膨胀。这是希望防止此类事件发生的道德前提。将政治对手称为“恐怖分子”和“暴君”并不能证明政策论点；它只是用恐惧取代证据，提高情感门槛，这样你就不用去辩护实际的主张了。

>>1521806

>The fire extinguisher comparison doesn't work.

>灭火器的类比不成立。

It wasn't a comparison you dumb twat. Rittenhouse was there putting out fires and giving medical aid to both sides. He was attacked because he put out fires - not because he was carrying an AR-15. Please hang yourself.

我并没把你当成傻瓜来做类比。里滕豪斯当时在那里灭火，并向双方提供医疗援助。他遭到攻击是因为他灭了火，而不是因为他携带了一把AR-15。请去自杀吧。

>>1521805

I'm not anti gun, I own guns, I'm pro sensible gun legislation. You can literally only argue against a strawman, huh?

我不是反枪支，我拥有枪支，我支持合理的枪支立法。你 literally（简直/真的）只能在反驳一个稻草人，是吧？

Didn't bring up Rittenhouse, you did. The receipts are above us, how short is your memory?

我没提起里滕豪斯，是你提起的。证据就在上面，你的记忆有多短？

>>1521809

>I'm not anti-gun, but...

>我不是反枪支，但是...

Shut the fuck up faggot. Nobody wants to hear your bullshit.

把嘴闭上，你这个同性恋废物。没人想听你扯淡。

>Didn't bring up Rittenhouse, you did.

>没提里滕豪斯，是你提的。

Uh, retard. This is you here >>1521799

呃，弱智。这里是你 >>1521799

>Rittenhouse was doing something he shouldn't have been.

>里滕豪斯做了他本不该做的事。

That's you. The anon you replied to said Rittenhouse fired 7 shots (it was actually 8). I'm replying to you being a massive faggot who needs to be slapped for saying Rittenhouse was doing something he shouldn't have been, as if you dirty subhuman leftists had more of a right to be there setting fires to everything than he did putting them out.

那是你。你回复的那位匿名网友说里滕豪斯开了7枪（其实是8枪）。我在回复你这个大混蛋，因为你说了里滕豪斯不该做那些事，就好像你们这些肮脏的低等生物左翼比他在救火时更有权利在那里到处放火一样。

>>1521810

>Shut the fuck u! I'm an emotional toddler

>把嘴闭上你！我是个情绪化的幼儿

Concession accepted.

承认失败。

>I'm nakedly lying right now.

>我现在赤裸裸地在撒谎。

I know, the post you referred to was >>1521799.

我知道，你引用的那篇帖子是 >>1521799。

>>1521777 Is when you brought up rittenhouse. Now I know numbers are really hard for you, but is that number larger or smaller than the one you linked?

>>1521777 是你提里滕豪斯的时候。现在我知道数字对你来说很难，但你链接的那个数字比这个大还是小？

Smaller? So it came first? So YOU brought up rittenhouse?

更小？所以它更早出现？所以是你提的里滕豪斯？

You tried to bring him up earlier too, I just ignored the pivot. See: >>1521715

你之前也试图提他，我只是无视了这种转移话题。看：>>1521715

You wanna lie about more easily disprovable shit and pivot even harder?

你想在更容易被揭穿的谎话上继续撒谎，并且更加用力地转移话题吗？

Cool, again, concession accepted.

好吧，再次，接受你的让步。

>>1521812

>Concession accepted.

>接受你的让步。

Suck my dick, anti-gun lefty.

吞我鸡巴吧，反枪左派。

>I'm nakedly lying right now.

>我现在赤裸裸地在撒谎。

What part did I say was a lie? Go ahead. Address it.

我说哪部分是谎言了？说吧。回应它。

>>1521777 Is when you brought up rittenhouse.

>>1521777 是你提里滕豪斯的时候。

Hey dumbass, notice there's no (You) there?

嘿，笨蛋，注意那里没有（You）？

>>1521777 isn't me. Dumb fuck.

>>1521777 不是我。你这个傻逼。

See: >>1521715

Also not me you fucking retard. Holy shit.

也不是你，你这个混蛋弱智。天哪。

>You wanna lie about more easily disprovable shit and pivot even harder?

>你想在更容易被揭穿的谎话上继续撒谎，并且更加用力地转移话题吗？

Let me know when you find a part where I lied. And then when you wear yourself out finding nothing, we'll get back to me beating the piss out of your monkey ass when it comes to the Rittenhouse case, and how victim-blaming faggots like you want to argue that he shouldn't have been there as you're being bussed in to cause more arsons that Rittenhouse was putting out. Which is why you animals tried to kill him.

等你找到我撒谎的部分告诉我。然后当你因为找不到而把自己累垮时，我们再回到我如何把你这只猴子按在地上摩擦的问题，关于里滕豪斯案，以及像你们这种受害者有罪论的同性恋废物，一边被大巴车运来制造更多里滕豪斯正在扑灭的纵火案，一边却争论他不该在那里。这就是你们这些畜生试图杀死他的原因。

>>1521814

>suck my dick

>吞我鸡巴吧

No, ask your boyfriend, faggot.

不，问你男朋友去吧，同性恋废物。

>Where was I lying

>我在哪里撒谎了

I mean, constantly throughout, but I'm literally referring to the next line, when you said I brought up rittenhouse.

意思是，贯穿始终，但我 literally（字面意思）指的是下一句，当你说我提里滕豪斯的时候。

(you) is a client side feature, dumbass.

（You）是客户端功能，笨蛋。

If that's not you, and instead it's you, (a generalization for the right wing retards I've been arguing with; again I know english is hard for you) I didn't bring up Rittenhouse, you did.

如果不是你，而是你（我一直在争论的那些右翼弱智的泛称；再说一次，我知道英语对你来说很难），我没提里滕豪斯，是你提的。

>You animals tried to kill him. "You" animals. I'm literally, not figuratively, literally doing the same thing I just tried to pivot and call you out on. Because every republican accusation is a confession.

>你们这些畜生试图杀死他。“你们”这些畜生。我 literally（字面意思）、非比喻义地正在做我刚试图转移话题并指出你们做的那件事。因为共和党的每一桩指控都是一次自白。

I didn't try to kill anyone you schizophrenic retard.

我没有试图杀死任何人，你这个精神分裂症弱智。

>>1521818

>No, ask your boyfriend, faggot.

>不，问你男朋友去吧，同性恋废物。

Keep being an anti-gun piece of shit, faggot.

继续做个反枪的垃圾吧，同性恋废物。

>I mean, constantly throughout,

>意思是，贯穿始终，

So constantly that you can't quote one fucking post of mine where I did, faggot.

这么贯穿始终，以至于你连我哪怕一条发过谎言的帖子都引用不出来，同性恋废物。

>(you) is a client side feature, dumbass.

>（You）是客户端功能，笨蛋。

And my client side didn't post any of those posts you misquoted as being me, dumb fuck.

我的客户端也没发布任何你误引成我发的帖子，你这个傻逼。

>If that's not you, and instead it's you, (a generalization for the right wing retards I've been arguing with; again I know english is hard for you) I didn't bring up Rittenhouse, you did.

>如果那不是你，而是你，（这是我对我一直在与之争论的右翼弱智们的一个泛指；再说一遍，我知道英语对你来说很难）我没提起里滕豪斯，是你先提的。

I love how you accuse me of being those anons, and then sneakily admit to being a retard and conceding those weren't my posts, to try and save whatever pathetic face your anti-gun monkey-ass thinks you have.

我喜欢你一边指控我是那些匿名喷子，一边又偷偷承认自己是弱智并承认那些帖子不是我发的，就为了挽救你那反枪猴子屁股所认为的可怜尊严。

>I didn't try to kill anyone you schizophrenic retard.

>我没试图杀任何人，你这精神分裂的弱智。

A generalization for the left-wing anti-gun retard I've been arguing with; again I know english is hard for you.

这也是个泛指，指的是我左边那个反枪弱智；再说一遍，我知道英语对你来说很难。

>>1521820

>>where was I lying

>>我在哪撒谎了

> literally referring to the next line, when you said I brought up rittenhouse.

> 字面上指的是下一句，当你说我提起里滕豪斯的时候。

>you can't quote one fucking post of mine where I did, faggot.

>你找不到任何一个我提起过的帖子的引用，你个傻逼。

>you can't do what you literally just did. I'm a fucking retard.

>你做不到你刚才明明做不到的事。我就是个傻逼。

>>1521822

>Didn't bring up Rittenhouse, you did.

>没提里滕豪斯，是你提的。

Uh, retard. This is you here >>1521799

呃，弱智。这里是你 >>1521799

>Rittenhouse was doing something he shouldn't have been.

>里滕豪斯做了他本不该做的事。

That's you. The anon you replied to said Rittenhouse fired 7 shots (it was actually 8). I'm replying to you being a massive faggot who needs to be slapped for saying Rittenhouse was doing something he shouldn't have been, as if you dirty subhuman leftists had more of a right to be there setting fires to everything than he did putting them out.

那是你。你回复的那位匿名网友说里滕豪斯开了7枪（其实是8枪）。我在回复你这个大混蛋，因为你说了里滕豪斯不该做那些事，就好像你们这些肮脏的低等生物左翼比他在救火时更有权利在那里到处放火一样。

Let me know when you're ready to get your ass beat some more on the Rittenhouse case.

等你们准备好再在里滕豪斯案上被我揍得更惨再来找我吧。

>>1521823

>The anon you replied to brought up rittenhouse.

>你回复的那个匿名者提起了里滕豪斯。

>that means you brought up rittenhouse.

>这意味着是你提起的里滕豪斯。

>Can't even finish a post without contradicting myself now, I'm a fucking retard.

>连写完一个帖子都不再自相矛盾了，我真是个傻逼。

>>1521448

Yup. Folks will see this ruling and then think, act according to the opposite because they lack reading comprehension

没错。大家看到判决后，会因为缺乏阅读理解能力而反向思考行动。

>>1521824

I notice how you don't want to talk about Rittenhouse anymore after getting called out for being an anti-gun victim-blaming piece of shit. It's okay, if I were you I wouldn't want to say anything else retarded about the Rittenhouse case either. Especially if I was a nogunz leftist who doesn't know shit about that case.

我注意到你在被揭穿是个反枪的受害者有罪论垃圾后，就不想再聊里滕豪斯了。没关系，如果我是你，我也不想再对里滕豪斯案发表什么蠢话了。尤其是作为一个对那案子一无所知的左翼无枪党人士。

>>1521835

Good thing you're not me, so you can keep saying retarded things about rittenhouse then.

幸好你不是我，这样你就可以继续对里滕豪斯发表蠢话了。

>>1521837

Retarded things like Rittenhouse was doing something he shouldn't have been? Like putting out the fires you chimps started?

诸如“里滕豪斯做了不该做的事”这种蠢话？比如去扑灭你们这群猩猩点燃的火灾？

>>1521838

>Right wing retard still seething about this case six years later. Rittenhouse totally wasn't a pivot, I definitely won.

>右翼弱智六年后还在为这案子愤愤不平。里滕豪斯绝对不是岔开话题，我绝对是赢了。

>>1521841

>waaaaah he shouldn't have even been there! He had no right to defend himself from us! Waaaahhh!

>哇哇呜，他甚至不该在那里！他没权利向我们自卫！哇哇呜！

>I'm not seething! You are!

>我没在愤愤不平！是你！

Well if nothing else, I got you to stop saying anymore stupid shit about the Rittenhouse case for now, because you know how underclassed you are on that topic.

至少我让你现在停止对里滕豪斯案说更多蠢话了，因为你知道自己在这话题上有多没地位。

>>1521841

I'm the anon who brought up Rittenhouse as a very relevant example in a thread about whether guns are necessary to protect against tyranny and mass terrorism.

我就是那个在关于“枪支是否有必要用于抵抗暴政和大规模恐怖主义”的帖子中，提起里滕豪斯作为非常相关例子的匿名者。

>still seething about this case six years later

>六年后还在为这案子愤愤不平

Why are you so eager for everybody to forget about that time the entire Democratic party said terrorists should mass murder everybody who opposes them? It was only six years ago. Less than 2 years ago you all voted for the VP who wanted terrorists to murder your opponents or even just anybody who doesn't support your tyranny.

你们为什么这么急着让大家忘记那段时间，当时整个民主党都说恐怖分子应该大规模屠杀所有反对他们的人？那才过去六年。不到两年前，你们还投票给了那个希望恐怖分子谋杀你们对手，或者仅仅是任何不支持你们暴政的人的副总统候选人。

>pivot

Are you ESL or just an idiot? In a thread about wanting to ban semi-automatic rifles because we never need to protect ourselves from mob violence or a tyrannical government, it is very relevant that just 6 years ago, a teenager needed an AR to defend himself from mob violence and the tyrannical party said that mob violence is good and conservatives should be killed by mob violence.

你是英语非母语者还是就是个傻子？在讨论因为“我们从来不需要用半自动步枪来防范暴民暴力或暴政政府”而想禁半自动步枪的帖子里，六年前一个少年曾用AR来防御暴民暴力，而那个暴政政党不仅说暴民暴力是好东西，还鼓吹保守派该被暴民打死，这点就非常有相关性了。

It's obvious that Democrats want a Cultural Revolution and it's obvious that our guns are the main obstacle preventing it. You seethe whenever people bring up Rittenhouse because you want everybody to forget it happened, since you know how badly that case BTFO tyrannical boot lickers like you.

民主党人显然想搞一场“文化大革命”，而我们的枪支正是阻止它的主要障碍。每当有人提起赖特豪斯案，你都咬牙切齿，因为你想让大家忘掉那件事，你心里清楚那案子把你们这些暴政奴才喷得体无完肤。

>>1521741

>>1521745

now why are you bringing up assault rifles? Those are already basically banned since the 80s. Technically they're legal but it's almost impossible to get one and they're never used in crimes. So why bring them up?

那你为什么非要扯上攻击型步枪？那些自80年代起就基本被禁了。严格来说合法，但根本买不到，而且也从不用于犯罪。那你提它们干嘛？

Wait I know why you brought them up... You're one of those gullible no-guns who let Democrats trick you into believing that AR-15 stands for Assault Rifle 15

等等，我知道你为什么提了……你也是那种容易上当的无枪党，被民主党人忽悠，以为AR-15是“15型突击步枪”的缩写。

>>1521865

I don't think the guy you are talking to can understand how second amendment and the right to bear arms ties into Black Lives Matter protestors, and police officers not responding to 911 calls or standing down officers who were being called by business owners and home owners who were having their property threatened with arson or vandalism by BLM crowds.

我觉得你对话的那个人理解不了，第二修正案和持枪权跟黑 Lives Matter（BLM）抗议者有什么关系，也理解不了警察为何不接911报警电话，或者在面对企业主和房主求救（他们的房产正被BLM人群以纵火或破坏相威胁）时为何选择按兵不动。