Anon learns about Material Conditions.
How come none of these nutcases ever go shoot a billionaire or two instead of random Innocents?
Update: someone has. Billionaire in question was Brian Thompson, the UHC CEO
“Guy with shit circumstances decides to buy a gun and decides to go somewhere with the gun and decides to shoot undeserving people with the gun, it’s society’s fault”
Way to blame the victim anon. No, this was his decision. I know folks who have life shitting all over them and it doesn’t make them want to kill children and families.
It’s both. Even terrible people with something to lose are less likely to throw it all away.
If this guy makes $35k a year at dollar general, he probably doesn’t go on a murder spree.
But you could also just not be an asshole. Why go after random people instead of someone who actually helps cause the bullshit?
You’re right, we should be targeting the bourgeois, aristocrats and ultra rich with our killing sprees. What we need are eco terrorists, not senseless killings.
Fuck that. We don’t need terrorists at all.
the guy wants “good” terrorist he advocates while wiping the doritos off his desk and washing down his everclear with sugar free juice.
Both apply. Yes, he ultimately chose to do it. However society shaped and funneled him into that position. It’s not a binary decision between individual and systematic, both can apply. In this case, social systems failed and put a large number of people in a bad situation with an apparent easy way out. Almost all then chose not to go on a killing spree. Unfortunately, “almost all” is “all”. Some will make the bad choice, when put in that position.
As a society, we can’t change individual choices. What we can do however is change the framework those choices are made in. If we aim to put fewer people in that position, then fewer will make the wrong choice, and we will all be safer for it.
society isnt you or i society is the general way things are and yes society is the cause of shootings. mental health is a direct measure of society.
society fights tooth and nail to have guns be super easy to get.
society also fights tooth and nail to keep (mental) healthcare behind an impossible wall.
so now we are generating mentally ill people that have easy access to guns. multiply that by the internal bias and bigotry you were raised with and many millions of potential offenders. boom you have a shooting every freaking day.
yes the shooter is shitty and should be killed or in jail but society is at fault for the shooting even ever coming close to occuring.
deleted by creator
The US can’t even do cheap healthcare. How the fuck is UBI ever going to happen?
In comparison to how complicated fixing our healthcare system will be, implementing a UBI will be dead simple. The only thing we need is the political will to do it.
I agree with UBI fully, but we ain’t got nothing on Mansa Musa
Mansa Musa was just the king. It’s like saying that everyone in America is rich because Jeff Bezos is rich.
Also, Mansa Musa’s wealth has been exaggerated a lot and the crashing economies while on pilgrimage thing is probably bunk.
Yup, I’m going to trust your source-less comment over my University professors
Did your professor teach you that “my professor disagrees!” is a compelling argument?
Syas the one rebuttling without any sources
I’m not even the same person. But more importantly, I’m not the one acting like asking for sources is a rebuttal when a) you haven’t brought any either, and b) this is an internet conversation, not an essay. If you really want to read up on what someone is saying, there are internet services that can be used to find more information to support or oppose what others say on the internet.
Mali only had an estimated 400 billion in treasury and it was a hereditary kingdom where only Mansa himself would have benefited directly. The United States treasury distributes 3 trillion across all federal agencies (some SUPPOSED to benefit citizens but y’know).
As for Ubi, there needs to be incentive to tie it to at least having a job or being on qualified unemployment or education. Know too many 18 year olds that would start cashing that just to stay at home and do nothing useful.
Im honestly tired of this argument.
Ive worked several jobs across my life time and if we paid people room and board to stay the fuck at home the world would be better for it.
Far from it but it’s your fantasy land, my dude. Antisocial freaks who don’t conceptualize the amount we need logistics and services can seethe on cope all day ig.
Automation and AI (it’s not true AI but it’s displacing workers all the same) and handling more and more logistics as time goes and the tech gets cheaper and better, there are less jobs that an 18 year old would qualify for.
Do you want someone doing that job that actually wants to work, or someone showing up and doing the bare minimum they can get away with to collect a check?
And the jobs that do actually have need of peiple? Well now they can do their part to attract those with the skill and knowledge to do them rather than rely on a revovling door of people just showing up because someone told them they had to.
You must never have worked in logistics. There are so many jobs that automation cannot do at this moment and won’t for a very long time.
I’m not sure what you’re talking about then because everything from truck drivers and trains to warehouse workers are being primed to be replaced by automated or AI networked machines. There are very few jobs in that sector not up to be replaced by a machine and most of those are things that require a masters degree in engineering or mathematics and statistics.
Pretty much everything that would be considered an entry level job someone with a high school diploma or GED would have a chance of getting isn’t going to be around 10-15 years from now, and those that are will have a high level of competition that anyone not overqualified simply doesn’t qualify against anyone else needing a job. What jobs can’t be entirely automated or done by a machine are going to have more potential applicants than the company could ever hope to employ, let alone need to.
So yeah, TL;DR if we started UBI now with no strings attached and let people without a desire to work, you’re not going to see a drop in productivity or services. The only places that might feel the hurt are the places that exploit that young adults without college degrees willing to work a job for 3-9 months before quitting and finding a new job.
It’s not “universal” if you start tying it to stuff. There are many cases where people cannot work (recessions, disabilities, need to care for family members, etc). The incentive to work would still naturally be there (to get more than “basic” income). Also, everyone wants a purpose, even if you may not see it as useful; it is a human need.
If people don’t have to worry with the stress of just surviving the month, they’ll want to do more with their life and get more. People will always want a bigger house, nicer car, faster PC, there’ll always be the motivation to find work, and when they have the freedom and ability to achive that, they’ll go do it. It’s one of the ways we can utilise our greedy nature in a positive way.
What UBI will do is make it so the average person isn’t at the mercy of minium wage jobs that will go nowhere, just to not die on the street. An effective slave.
The US government isn’t trillions in debt and just using money like it’s non existent? News to me
Do you not understand the concept that we don’t just pay our debt back immediately. https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/
Still debt. Still less than the 400 billion that Musa had
Also what you posted straight up said we’ve collected 4.4 trillion and spent 6.1 trillion
That’s… Not how anything works. I’m sure Bezos is far more in debt than you are and yet his spending capability dwarfs you.
What a shitty argument. Lol your so dumb
Dont glamourize mass murderers.Dont even publish their names, publish the names of the victims.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
…with ready access to guns.
So much commentary here focusing on societal ills, but even in other countries with lots of poverty and shit social services they don’t have individuals committing random mass murders like us because they don’t have a collection of high capacity personal arms. There’s plenty of people in other countries that have commonality with his life, yet they don’t commit mass murder. Yeah, shootings do happen elsewhere…but not like in the US, and the difference is access to firearms.
I hate the argument people make sometimes, “Anything can be a weapon, I could go around stabbing people with a pencil if I really wanted to. Even if you banned guns, it wouldn’t matter.” Yeah, except you can’t kill dozens of people within a few minutes with a pencil. We’ve got huge problems with economic disparity, a quiet epidemic of mental health disorders with little means to help the people that need it, coupled with ridiculously easy access to high-powered firearms in our country. There will never be enough “good people with guns” to protect the world. We need to reduce access to gun ownership to prevent mentally unbalanced people from having such powerful weapons at their disposal for when they eventually snap (since they’ll never have access to treatment), but that’s just a pipe dream at this point in time in America.
I had believed in the good guy with a gun idea until a citizen trying to stop a shooter by shooting back got himself shot by the police. Then I imagined myself in the position of the police in that scenario. It’s not neat and tidy. It gets worse as I imagine more people getting involved with their own firearms.
In a small space where everyone can see everyone, the aggressor is clear. I think of the guy who tried to rob a gun store. Everyone there hears what he said and sees how he’s acting. As soon as someone walks in without seeing the situation unfold, it becomes messy really fast.
deleted by creator
“Any is too many” - obviously we don’t want anyone murdered, but good luck doing anything to completely stop that. People kill for any number of reasons, it’s happened since the beginning of time. Someone says something under his breath and gets killed waiting in a fast food line by somebody they’ve never met before. A jealous ex-lover shows up at a party and stabs their ex to death. A calculating spouse poisons their SO to collect insurance money. A soldier sees someone wearing the enemy uniform and shoots. Someone goes off the deep end and shoots up a music festival and kills 58 people in a matter of minutes. A troubled teen goes into a school and kills dozens of kindergarteners in their classrooms. All those are tragedies and seemingly daily occurrences, but the low-hanging fruit here is quantity. Saving more people in less amount of time is better. Utopia can wait, people need helped now.
deleted by creator
One of the problems with arguments made by gun control opponents is that they concoct these ridiculous all-or-nothing scenarios. Like, we obviously can’t enact any sort of solution unless it’s a Magic Bullet that universally solves every problem ever that humanity has ever faced. If a solution doesn’t solve world hunger, prevent accidental overdoses, car accidents, acid showers, lightning strikes, or cure cancer, then obviously it’s doomed to failure.
Or even attempting to do ANYTHING at all about the problem is just the first step in jack-booted Government thugs kicking down you front door, dragging your grandmother out, raping her in the street and then shooting your kids and your dogs… for reasons. OR, we can’t talk about gun control solutions because obviously we’ll start illegalizing knives, acid (?), and cars next, just like they’ve done in all the countries of the world that have gun control, like those hellholes in Ireland, the Netherlands, Germany, and Canada. OR, if anybody anywhere dies from a shooting after enacting gun control legislation, then obviously it was a failure and a waste of time, why did we even bother?
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
In the UK knife crime is a big issue for those in poverty or those in struggling cities. Having access to weapons of course increases risks of people dying ot those weapons, but removing guns isn’t going to just convince everyone trying to lash out to just lie down and suffer in silence.
I don’t live in a contry with civilan access to guns, and I don’t live in a situation where I feel the need to protect myself with weapons, so I’m not gonna stake a claim in the gun control debate. But if you ban every weapon ever conceivable, without addressing why people are becoming violent to begin with, people will just result to using their own hands (or perhaps more realistically, going above the legal means. Like with Shinzo Abe’s assassination).
At least with a knife, you can’t mow down a room full of people. Here in the U.S. dozens of people can be killed in a short time by a single person due to guns. We give them out like candy.
Both access to guns (force multiplier) and the underlying issue (poverty, lack of social mobility, etc) need to be addressed.
Well, yeah. I’ll take your word on the issue of US gun control.
However, if we want to tackle both these issues it’s probably a bad habit to redirect the conversation to gun control when we are talking about the motivations a situations that are generating the violent outbursts to begin with, since gun control gets a hell of alot more talk anyway, while societal issues keep getting pushed away from the collective spotlight, and are usally coming from underprivileged postions that stuggle to get a word in to begin with.
I agree, which is why I usually bring up both when it makes sense to do so.
I wasn’t aware candy required going through a background check and being a legal adult.
ok, kill as many people as he did with a knife.
Right, let’s keep pretending it’s about the weapon over actual program solving.
It is about the weapon. If someone wanted to inflict a lot of damage, they would use bombs. That has happened several times in the past but doesn’t compare to the number of mass shootings. Why? Because guns are simply just plentiful and easy to get, and too many apologetics keep allowing them to be plentiful. It really is that simple. Yes it doesn’t fix society’s underlying issues but that is a MUCH harder problem to solve than simply getting rid of (as many) guns (as possible), or at least not just allow so mamy people to own them willy nilly.
The goal is to drastically reduce the number of innocent lives being taken ASAP, not to argue about weapons or social ills or all of this other nonsense.
Because guns are simply just plentiful and easy to get, and too many apologetics keep allowing them to be plentiful.
You seem to be close to a moment of understanding here but not quite getting it. You seem to recognize that there are other tools available to affect such disastrous outcomes we’d be doing nothing to address, but to also pretend that there’s no indication nor chance anyone would use any of these other tools.
You seem to recognize the futility of the whack-a-mole game while recognizing its existence.
Yes it doesn’t fix society’s underlying issues but that is a MUCH harder problem to solve than simply getting rid of (as many) guns (as possible), or at least not just allow so mamy people to own them willy nilly.
It really isn’t. How much effort do you believe will be required to bring about an amendment to the constitution of the United States?
How much less effort will be required to bring about simple legislative changes? By simple comparison of the two vectors of change, one of them is unquestionably easier than the other. Spoiler: It isn’t undoing the 2nd amendment.
Interestingly enough, you seem to double-down on the previous recognition the problem - pressures toward mass violence - would be left unaddressed but with the vast majority of options for mass harm still very much present and ignored.
The goal is to drastically reduce the number of innocent lives being taken ASAP, not to argue about weapons or social ills or all of this other nonsense.
Which is more effective: A change which is quite impossible to bring about, or a change which can be brought about with some difficulty and compromise?
Which is more effective: A change which removes one of unbounded options to bring about a given end, or a change which reduces the count of people seeking to bring about a given end with any tool available?
We both know you know the answer.
deleted by creator
Lol, gl with that. In the meantime other people are still allowed to set more reasonable and feasible goalposts.
Right, like bringing about constitutional amendments requiring a majority of states and Congresspeople instead of a change which simply requires a majority of Congresspeople.
So much more feasible.
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
If only there were other factors which could impact the highlighted systemic issues… perhaps Canada’s notable single-payer healthcare system, social safety nets, etc. impacting the desperation and providing help?
That not the point. Ideally we just wouldn’t have people doing this to begin with, right?
deleted by creator
He typed It poorly, but I think his point was: Try to kill 30 children in a school with a knife.
If the person wants to kill, they will kill, but a gun (a big gun even) will make this task, orders of magnitude easier.
deleted by creator
The point isn’t If it’s bad or not, of course it’s all bad.
But If I had to notify 30 families of their deceased parents over 1 family, the choice is obvious.
You are right the guns won’t shoot anyone by themselves, but they’re very much an easy access to whoever wants to mass kill people.
Trying to solve people’s heads is a long term effort, and taking away guns is a short term bandaid. The thing is people are dying Now, you need to save people now, while simultaneously trying to solve the root problem.
If you’re thinking only talking to people Now, will help anyone, we’re in for many more kill streaks
deleted by creator
try reading before commenting next time, i find it helps me not look like a fucktard
deleted by creator
what the fuck is this incoherent pile of sludge
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Yeah, you treat the symptom, but in an effective way. It’s called mass shooting, because so many people die, when guns are involved. You do not have this, if there is someone trying the same with a knife. Banning guns is a band aid during the time necessary to fix the underlying problem.
It’s also impossible given the state of partisan gridlock and the constitutional amendment necessary.
Fortunately, actually solving problems here is far simpler than asinine bans.
There will still be kids slipping through. They also say it themselves:
Too often in politics it becomes an either-or proposition. Gun control or mental health. Our research says that none of these solutions is perfect on its own. We have to do multiple things at one time and put them together as a comprehensive package. People have to be comfortable with complexity and that’s not always easy.
There will still be kids slipping through. They also say it themselves:
Indeed.
So, what’s more effective?
Reducing the scope of those seeking to commit such atrocities to a small fraction of those now, or hoping for improvement via symptom whack-a-mole?
If you want to ban guns you need to ban metals and CNCs, will buying a CNC require a gun license and a clear criminal record?
Always the extremes with you, trying to make everything zero sum or a binary choice. There’s no room for reason and moderation if your go-to is pounding the table with the nuclear option every time.
I’m saying, if you prohibit somebody from buying a gun, I’d they’re really dedicated they can easily build it themselves. Do you ban steel because 0.0001% of the population could bypass gun restrictions?
Keep trying bro. Again, the hyperbole. There is no perfect solution. No, you don’t enact absurd bans. But you don’t make perfect the enemy of good enough by saying an imperfect solution isn’t an acceptable solution.
But muh well regulated militia!
the child who is not embraced by its village will burn it down just to feel its warmth
And then you say tots and pears, and ignore the root cause.
Let’s not talk about the past.
We can’t have gun control - guns aren’t the problem - people are.
Oh good - you support the creation of strong social safety nets, and free access to mental health care, right?
…
You support the creation of strong social safety nets, and free access to mental health care, right?
There are also millions of people with intellectual challenges and horrid childhoods who do NOT go out and murder people.
100% this is such a bad strawman.
I mean yeah society has a role to play in this but there are millions of.people who are in or have gone through this same situation without murdering a bunch of people
If 1 in a million people will go on a killing spree, when driven to rock bottom, then you would expect to have a few, if you drive millions of people to that position.
Victorian England introduced various social safety nets not primarily out of goodness, but out of cost. It was actually cheaper to just feed the starving, rather than stopping them stealing for food, and punishing them afterwards. The fact it improved the lives of the downtrodden was just a convenient positive.
Assigning blame does nothing. It’d be great if potential murders would stop and think “hey maybe murder is wrong. Maybe other people have solver similar problems without murdering anyone!” But that’s not going to happen.
And yet those ppl are now dead. So advocating for any position other than the one which removes the possibility of people making the choice to kill others is to support those deaths. Which is to say to support the status quo in the USA is to support the deaths of these people.
Okay, let me try this.
- Mother smoked and did drugs when pregnant with me
- Born with autism, mild cerebral palsy, medical issues
- Mom heavily neglected and abused me
- Lived in many foster, adoptive homes, boarding schools, went to many schools and extreme right-wing churches
- In all of them, was either physically, emotionally, or sexually abused
- Abandoned as adult
- Joined USAF, medical discharge out of tech school when they realized their mistake
- Lived in homeless shelters and then adult foster care
- My name online is usually some form of the word “orphan”
So what am I doing? Well, I’m poor and on disability and I’ve struggled to manage my emotions, and I’ve had to grow like anybody. But I’m an ex-Christian theist, empathetic liberal, and have never done any crime. I spent a lot of years in social programs and with social workers. I live in an apartment now with two best friends. I’m writing a science fantasy novel I hope to change the world with, sharing a lot of what I experienced and what I learned. I wrote a symphonic rock and power ballad soundtrack for it.
“The Solemn Dream” Blurb:
After a very unhappy childhood, “Solemn” dies at 25 and wakes up in the space-age afterlife of Heleia, where everyone’s home planet is chosen by the seraphs— demigod social workers and keepers of the peace— based on that person’s emotional and ethical maturity. Here, Solemn chooses to become a young child again, hoping to heal and to finally find a loving family.
Jessi Vargas is a forever-19 bully who lives on Nemesis, the planet for those who don’t care that they’re harmful. Sick of being surrounded by terrible people, she prepares to leave the planet— even though she may not be worthy.
Lu Montsely is a kind and patient humanitarian who hides a terrible past. After a century of effort, she is almost ready to ascend to the utopian world of Themis to join her loving husband. Lu mentors Solemn and Jessi as her final test, and— along with their wise and humorous helper android Iota— they form a small family on Eleos.
But many do not believe that criminals deserve second chances. When the seraphs discover mass-produced weapons, they need the aid of Solemn’s new family to investigate. Solemn soon finds themselves the recipient of powerful abilities that give them a unique role in the growing conflict. And before long, Solemn and family are not only fighting to become happier, kinder, and greater— but also for the fate of the entire Helian afterlife.
…I don’t think that having lived through shit means you need to be a shit person. Sure, some misfortunate people are going to have personalities that push them towards being shit people, but… those people were likely going to be shit people anyway, unless people guided them a little more carefully.
That’s all nice but not everybody is you and I don’t think we can reasonably expect every single person to be you. This is actually pretty close to the “homeless people just need to pull themselves up by the bootstraps” mentality.
No it’s not? Not being a shithead is a completely different expectation from becoming financially stable?
Are you even thankful for the socialized support you got? Where do you think you would be right now without disability payments? Or your friends? Do you think you’d be equally mentally healthy right now?
…I wouldn’t have started doing crime, or shooting people?
You can absolutely reasonably expect people to not go on a murder spree, no matter their situation.
Reality disagrees.
Mixed feelings on this.
Yes, I think he was dealt a very bad hand and that undoubtedly played a factor in why he but what he did but At the end of the day Cruz still choose to do what he did. That’s why I don’t like the “100% society’s fault” no, a person still made a choice. We can recognise what kind of dysfunctional people society can create while also not absolving them either.
Just adding cause I know someone will misinterprete my comment if I don’t. Yes I think gun laws in the US are in dire need of being reformed and that the US desperately needs to improve its safety nets but at the end of the day we need to acknowledge personal agency in these situations as well.
Nooooo! We can’t help people who are in a shit situation in life, that’s communism …because rightwingers said so! And that’s baaaad …b-because it just is okay?
Tax money should only go towards private corporations that don’t make our lifes better! This person was a bad person, and I can’t stomach thinking my tax money could have gone towards getting them the help they needed and completely averting the horrible things they did! My tax is much better going to the military industrial complex so we can help bomb kids even better!
I for one think it’s billaint that western societies are set up to regularlly leave people behind with no way to escape their situation! And when these poeple act up instead of just sitting around to die a slow painful, but conveniently quiet death, we should act like their motivations are completely incompressible! Because we all know hte alternative is to change a society that we have thrived in, and then we might not thrive as much!
can we accept people are going to react to their shitty lives differently, and just because it doesn’t make you go on a murderous spree, it doesn’t mean that it is the case for everybody. the real solution isn’t to make these dumb arguments against shooters etc. which might be as correct as you want them to but it’s to make lives fucking dignifying in a situation where one may not be thinking rationally. if one doesn’t have the strength to not make a certain choice, calling them pathetic doesn’t fix shit. every single one of us is delusional.
It’s important though that people get more aware when they notice in themselves that they start to become hateful against groups of people or people in general. That’s the one big difference between people with problems and people with problems who start to commit atrocities.
Instead of focusing on the “woe is me” aspect there should be more investment into understanding why some people turn against others.
We always had lots of guns, why are mass shootings a modern phenomenon?
I think we should regulate them the way we do cars. But also there’s clearly some underlying issue. Maybe cultural where people see guns as a way to escape or see them as part of their personality.
Because old guns took 30 seconds to reload one bullet and were inaccurate past like 3 meters
You could walk into a gun store and buy a fully automatic submachinegun until 1986.
oh yeah? you could get that $200 tax stamp right there huh? National Firearms Act of 1934 was a thing in 1986 bro.
maybe you could get your ffl to arrange for it ahead of time, using the info from your previous stamp applications…
but the tax stamp still took time, stop acting like it was easy as picking up a cheeseburger. deliberately promoting the idea that fully automatic firearms were all over, it’s just the crazy people today that’s the problem, is facile bullshit.
I think they meant like 1970, not 1870.
I’m seeing a lot of shootings since the 80s. Guns get better and people get more fucked up mentally. America chooses to fix neither.
It’s almost as if mass shootings increase with the number of guns in circulation
they have no answer for it. turns out, the good guy with a gun is either a myth for morons, or, more guns ain’t making anything better.
huh.
are you dumb enough to believe there’s an equivalence or just shit posting because you don’t care?
They’re pointing out that correlation isn’t causation. For example, what if shootings are scaring people into buying more guns?
No, they’re just shit posting because they don’t want anyone to question their fetish. When you care about firearms more than dead children, it’s some kind of sick obsession and you need therapy.
I mean that is part of it. The NRA has people living in a collective delusion. This delusion appeals particularly to people who are dejected or vulnerable because it gives them something like an ego safety net. So when the inevitable happens, and some of these people “snap,” they have nearly ubiquitous tools available to make it everyone else’s problem.
Gun availability is a big part of the problem, but the even bigger issue is the culture of fear the NRA and Republican politicians have pushed to sell more guns, and how that intersects with other social ills in the US.
deleted by creator
I do agree that guns should be regulated like cars with mass shootings by social outcasts from my understanding are trying to get back at society and even if you straight up ban guns what’s stopping the outcast from doing a mas stabbing instead gun regulation is just a nesesary speed bump for people that want to hunt people same thing with gun bans as they are used by militarys and illegal sales and manufacturing will just skyrocket
It’s a hell of a lot harder to commit a mass stabbing compared to a mass shooting. And funnily enough, mass stabbings are rare in countries that have strict gun regulations. It’s almost like it’s a non-issue created by pro-gun advocates to distract from the weekly mass shootings in the US.
weekly mass shootings in the US.
We average more than 1 per day and have for a few years now.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States_in_2023
That’s just sad.
This just isn’t true. A knife is far more concealable, far more stealthy in the aftermath of a shank and move (look at prison shankings going unnoticed all the time), and far more likely to cause death. China literally has a mass stabbing problem. Generally targeted at elementary age children. One specifically killing 33 and injuring 130. You’re just falling for propaganda rhetoric.
In self defense knives increase the chance to injure or kill yourself over a gun or with just your hands, increase the fatality rate for any stabbed over being shot, and rarely lose against anything in close quarters (hence why you run from knives but try and redirect the barrel a gun when possible). Dirks and daggers are well known to be one of the most dangerous weapons created and were literally outlawed throughout history, in some places even currently.
UK acid throwers enter the chat.
Humans really expected one of the most boring and hopeless dystopians of all time and expected everybody to be cool with it?
So why do the wackos kill the rest of us? Go after the elites if they’re that upset.
Removed by mod
Source?
Bro, this is an impoverished child living in the ghetto, in states where you need to be 18 or older to buy a gun that cost a couple thousand dollars. Somebody is supplying these kids with arms
