Hey /b/. I wanted to bring up some things regarding the possible gun ban, and I'm going to attempt to debunk some of the things the Anti-gun people bring up frequently. Just to be clear I don't own guns, and have never even shot a gun in my life, but I still support the right to keep firearms. I think that without the right to possess firearms the US is headed straight for complete democide.
>Guns are tools made exclusively for killing
Why would this warrant a ban? Slaughter houses are made exclusively for killing, and they are not banned. Swords are made for killing, and again they are not banned. A tool should not be banned because of it's function.
>guns kill people
As I've said above, guns are tools. A hammer cannot build the frame for a house if set next to the materials; I will say that the tool makes it easier, which is undeniably true (tools are made to make tasks easier) People are the real problem. Instead of squawking about making the country safer by banning guns you should put more effort into raising a generation that isn't so violent, and seemingly lacks the ability to feel empathy towards other people.
>guns are no longer needed
I don't really see how this warrants a ban either. Just because something isn't needed doesn't mean we should get rid of it. Beside that point, I do think that guns still serve a purpose. Self defense in one of them. Another would be the passive effect of a well armed population as a deterrent against threats, both foreign and domestic, and the preservation of our rights as the people. Without means of defending ourselves, or standing up for our rights, what is stopping a corrupt leader later down the line from taking total control by force? Don't say it would never happen, because history has already proven you wrong.
>it makes for a dangerous society
While an excess of weapons can make for a dangerous society it can also make for a safer one. A lot of people who own guns are responsible, sane, and completely harmless.
> tfw I can buy machine pistols for 75$ unassembled
> tfw I can buy pretty much any gun unassembled, cheap and legally
Hi OP. What I tell antiguntards is that more personal freedom is better than less personal freedom. Being barred from buying guns means less personal freedom.
When they give me the "but people should be allowed to be able to buy nukes then?" shit, what do I do though?
Tell them that using an AR-15 in self defense is like using a nail gun instead of a hammer, but using a nuke would be like using one of these
which is a perfect example of why it is silly to go off-label with your tools. you wouldnt try and shave with an angle grinder either.
so back to guns.... they are just a tool. for
Guns are dangerous you republican scum, LOOK AT ALL THE SHOOTINGS THEY'VE CAUSED!! COLUMBINE, NORTH HOLLYWOOD, AURA, AND NOW CANADA!!
Big brother will protect us, we need to arm police more, give them more power and abolish the bill of rights. Its ancient and doesn't work anymore.
women need more power and equal rights are needed for LGBTs.
Also while i add it, you people have no taste.
The Aeroplane over the sea sucks, skyrim and naruto is only god tier game and anime, Argentina is white, and WE NEED MORE TROOPS TO SUPPORT ISRAEL. Also 9/11 was definitely not an inside job you conspiracy nut jobs, OS is the best, Linux sucks.
>your white male tears
They are a tool for killing; there's no denying that, but just because a tool has a function doesn't mean it should be banned. A tool still needs someone to use it. You don't have to build a house with a hammer; you could also build a shed.
Banning guns in the US would only drive the firearm market to the black market. Meaning only criminals would have guns. Do you want only criminals to have guns? Or would you rather decent people and criminals have guns?
>the possible gun ban
they can take my gun when they pry the tinfoil of my dead, cold fur.
We should outlaw dildos before we outlaw guns.
i would rather no one have guns, except perhaps the police. then no one would get shot.
idealistic maybe. but it should be the ambition... rather than the proliferation and indoctrinated bravado that is the norm.
You're looking past the issue. Instead of banning guns we need to make sure kids don't feel the need to shoot up a fucking school. Raise a better generation; don't disarm them.
If it was, shit happens. That's life. People die, and people are always going to be out to kill you. Grow the fuck up and start living in reality instead of being a sheltered little bitch who's scared of death, which usually doesn't even come by a bullet.
OP here. I disagree with this entirely. School shootings and death are a terrible thing. Shit like that should never EVER happen. When they do happen they, do not blame guns. guns are not the cause.
no actually you are looking past the issue. without a gun, little johnny is sorting shit out by swinging wildly at the person he dislikes. if that is your kid, maybe he deserves it. but if its not your kid at least he wont get shot in the face by crossfire.
kids will be kids. they get emotional and angry. you cant "raise a better generation" that is even more idealistic than my disarm the entire country stance.
If no one has guns. The police don't need guns nor do they need morals or drones.
Okay people. think about this. How would they enforce a gun ban in the first place? A turn in? Criminals won't go for that. then what? Searches? On what grounds would they get a warrant? Or maybe legislation would pass a law stating that law enforcement can search any house on the mere SUSPICION that the resident is in possession of a gun. There's your right to privacy gone as well.
There's much, much more at stake here than just the right to bear arms.
i never suggested it would work like that.
all im saying is that it should be the ambition to be 100% gun free. attitudes towards guns in this country are redneck wonderland fucked... kinda like yours.
That comes from your personal morality, which is based upon emotion, not reality. It would be nice to end all wars, or stop slavwey, but is it ever realistically going to happen? No. Death isn't terrible either, it's part of life. Life has to end for other life to continue. I don't blame guns for anything, but we definitely over estimate human intellect, we're not as logical and reasonable as we make ourselves out to be.
>i would rather no one have guns, except perhaps the police. then no one would get shot.
Right... because that worked perfectly in Nazi Germany, and Soviet Russia. Read a fucking book you moron.
Believe it or not, I'm a liberal that loves and owns several guns. I just love the way they destroy watermelons and other inanimate objects, but I believe the premise that we would use them to defend ourselves against tyrannical government is very flawed. How would we hypothetical revolutionaries defend ourselves against tanks, air superiority, and the most powerful military this planet has ever seen?
I got into fist fights when I was a kid; I'm pretty sure we all got into fights with other kids. Never did I ever think about killing one of my fellow classmates; that kind of behavior is not natural. Raising a better generation is a much more plausible and logical solution than just taking away firearms. What i'm saying is that you don't take an aspirin for a brain tumor. By taking away firearms all you're doing is treating the symptom instead of solving the problem.
The point is that it's a deterrent. It's much easier to attack an unarmed target. there's a reason cats make themselves look as big as possible before they actually fight eachother; they're trying to get the other cat to back the fuck off, so that they can avoid a fight. A well armed society is much less likely to get taken over than an unarmed society.
>solving the problem
the problem of mentally unstable people shooting strangers to appease their demons or achieve vengeance?
you think curing the mental instability is the easy & enduring solution, or simply removing the gun?
I'm just gonna leave this here
tl;dr Russians think the only good thing about our country is the right to firearms
Not even treating the symptoms. If the kid is willing to steal a gun from his parents, or fake being an adult to buy one, do you honestly think that he wouldn't have the resolve to buy one on the blackmarket? I agree with what your saying as far as raising a more understanding, compassionate, and empathetic generation, but the person your arguing with doesn't really accept the reality of the world.
And you think that they won't find another way? Most famous serial killers didn't use guns at all. They used things like piano wire, knives, rope, etc. Take one tool away and they will find another. You think that if Elliot Rodgers killed all those people because it was easy with guns? The first part of his plan was to kill as many people who could silently, and he did, and he used a knife. The mind behind the killer is the most dangerous weapon. You need to fix the problem, not treat it.
The same way that a nation full of uneducated child soldiers living in buildings made of dried mud use their homemade explosives to fend off our trillion-dollar army in the middle east.
>hurr ban da gunz
>yfw arson exists
>yfw arson holds the record for deadliest mass killing by a margin of 3-5x compared to the deadliest of mass shootings
>mass stabbings totes don't happen either
where there is a will there is a way, and guess fucking what. the mentally ill have that will. I'd rather have the ability to fucking shoot the person attempting to kill me instead of die cowering behind my desk like a journalist at charlie Hebdo
It's not that. He's not taking what I'm saying to heart; he's only thinking about debunking what i'm saying. This is true for almost everyone on the internet who gets into an "argument".
I'm just talking to him, and seeing if eventually he'll consider what I'm saying.
nukes are legal to own. US corporations build, service, and store them all the time.
in short, when they ask "HURR DO U WANT TO OWN A ______" laugh and tell them you can legally. then ask them why there isn't a scourge of ____________ violence if you can buy _________.
bonus points for mentioning that 2 of the 3 crimes committed with legal machineguns were committed by a 1 current and 1 ex police officer.
While I agree that guns are obviously not to blame, as you correctly pointed out they are simply tools. Problem is, why would we empower the wielders of these tools with such an efficient and effective way of harming people? If we break down violence crudely into premeditated and instinctual violence, would you not agree that the level of harm down in instinctual circumstances be greatly reduced if neither parties had access to a gun in the heat of the moment?
We wouldn't stand a fucking chance against the military, you and I both know that. Even if we're armed, we'd get obliterated. Our little AR-15s aren't going to deter tanks, missiles, A-10 warthogs,etc. The list is really endless in terms of advantages they would have over us.
>inb4 bu...bu...bu...those two poor upstanding young men just wanted her tv gunz r bad ;_;
>you totes shouldn't be able to protecting yourself and your 3 month child
I know that. Everyone knows that. Drones, tanks, warships, motherfucking stealth bombers. They would destroy us.
But not without a fight.
One man once said "give me liberty, or give me death".
That quote inspires me to speak alone in my town while everyone looks at me like a loon. It's a bad feeling to be alone like that speaking out for what you believe in, but I just remember those words, and I keep going.
The guns are really nothing but a deterrent. Kind of like how the chameleon will puff up to make itself look bigger when a predator approaches, or like how certain butterflies have special markings on their wings to ward off predators. Guns in this country are a deterrent against tyranny and democide. That is why we cannot get rid of them.
It's quite painful you know nothing about warfare. Ever heard of this little think called Vietnam? Yeah like most of the imbeciles on here tonight go read a book you ignorant prick.
>Do not be fooled by a belief that progressives, leftists hate guns. Oh, no, they do not. What they hate is guns in the hands of those who are not marching in lock step of their ideology. They hate guns in the hands of those who think for themselves and do not obey without question. They hate guns in those whom they have slated for a barrel to the back of the ear
After Florida became a Shall issue carry state, the government decided to tally the number crimes committed by CCers to compare to the general population. After 20 years of having a statistically insignificant number of crimes being committed by CCers, they pulled funding for the useless monitoring.
in short, "violence in da streets" does not happen when you allow LAW ABIDING CITIZENS to defend themselves.
After the Clinton Assault weapon ban lapsed, the crime rate in the US has fallen every year. The CDC did a study on the effects of the AWB and found that it had not had any affect on the US crime rate. And the Clinton Assault weapon ban sure as shit didn't stop columbine.
>yfw jay and silent bob just bought weapons illegally and violated the NFA and AWB
>yfw you still don't get that criminals don't follow fucking laws
there have actually been 2 ever since the NFA was signed. one was a police officer.
>In 1995 there were over 240,000 machine guns registered with the BATF. (Zawitz, Marianne,Bureau of Justice Statistics, Guns Used in Crime [PDF].) About half are owned by civilians and the other half by police departments and other governmental agencies (Gary Kleck, Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control, Walter de Gruyter, Inc., New York, 1997.)
>Since 1934, there appear to have been at least two homicides committed with legally owned automatic weapons. One was a murder committed by a law enforcement officer (as opposed to a civilian). On September 15th, 1988, a 13-year veteran of the Dayton, Ohio police department, Patrolman Roger Waller, then 32, used his fully automatic MAC-11 .380 caliber submachine gun to kill a police informant, 52-year-old Lawrence Hileman. Patrolman Waller pleaded guilty in 1990, and he and an accomplice were sentenced to 18 years in prison. The 1986 'ban' on sales of new machine guns does not apply to purchases by law enforcement or government agencies.
Alright, OP, as someone who respectfully disagrees with you, here it goes:
>Why would this warrant a ban? Slaughter houses are made exclusively for killing, and they are not banned. Swords are made for killing, and again they are not banned. A tool should not be banned because of it's function.
>Guns are an extremely effective manner at killing people. By this logic, we should be able to buy nuclear weapons, tanks, war planes, etc. They would be banned on the pretense that they are built to effectively kill large groups of people very quickly.
>As I've said above, guns are tools. A hammer cannot build the frame for a house if set next to the materials; I will say that the tool makes it easier, which is undeniably true (tools are made to make tasks easier) People are the real problem. Instead of squawking about making the country safer by banning guns you should put more effort into raising a generation that isn't so violent, and seemingly lacks the ability to feel empathy towards other people.
This is a ridiculous argument. To say that we need to tell people to stop killing is the same mentality as saying we need to stop rapists from raping. We'd all be safer if we had less guns. Period.
>>guns are no longer needed
Again, unnecessarily dangerous. And no, guns won't protect you from your own government or an invading force.
>>it makes for a dangerous society
It is unreasonable to expect all members of a society to behave in a sane and responsible manner. This is why we have speed limits, this is why he have drunk driving laws. The same idea stands with guns
Also, the take guns away from the people then only criminals will be armed argument doesn't work. In Australia, an M4A1 costs $25,000 on the black market. If someone had $25,000, would they really be committing crime? No.
I'm ready for your counter-arguments
>This is a ridiculous argument. To say that we need to tell people to stop killing is the same mentality as saying we need to stop rapists from raping. We'd all be safer if we had less guns. Period.
We do need to stop people from killing, and we need to stop people from raping. what the fuck is your point?
>m4 costs ___ made up number!
so they build luty submachineguns out of square pipe and lock washers in a basement shop
or... get this... illegally import them through the same avenues they import millions of dollars of drugs every year
island nations like britain and australia can't stop illegal firearms from getting past thier shores, yet you think big brother can do it in the US?
>hurr like telling rapists to stop raping
>so the solution to rape is to cut off everyones penis, then no one can rape!
>guns aren't needed
so you just want 250k (NIJ stat) more rapes, robberies, muggings, and murders to happen every year? And that is low balling it. What about a million? 2 million?
>bu..bu...bu...gunz R bad
>I support rape if it means the rapist is traumatized by being confronted with an evil gun ;_;
First of all I'd like to say that your first point I don't really understand.
Secondly, I've said numerous times in this thread that instead of getting rid of guns we need to start raising a better generation. Rapists will rape if they do not feel empathy, and if they do not feel empathy then it is most likely due to being raised in a way where empathy wasn't a top priority, it's the same with killers. Taking away guns is only a temporary solution to the problem, like taking an aspirin for a headache when you know that a tumor is the cause. It would be difficult, but if people really want a better world, then raising a better generation is the only way to go.
As I've said before in the thread, guns are not meant to be used in an all out slugging match with the US government; they are used as a deterrent, ever so slight as it may be, it is still a deterrent, and don't forget that the US lost the Vietnam war despite having the entire country backing the military providing food, water, medical aid, reinforcements, etc. so assuming that a well armed country could not at least put up a fight against the US government is outrageous, and I don't think the US would engage in all out civil war.
Guns are always going to be dangerous when in the hands of an unstable person; it's the same with a car. Raising a SMARTER generation will be taking a huge step towards fixing the problem; banning firearms is just a temporary solution that will certainly lead to bigger problems further down the road.
I'll be lurking and waiting for your response.
The US nuclear weapons Laboratories were privatized by the US government
^ one of them, run by Los Alamos National Security LLC
The point in making them illegal is making them unnecessarily expensive so that your average person can't buy it. Obviously we couldn't stop all people from getting them. There are less gun deaths in countries with stricter gun laws. The proof is in the pudding.
>so the solution to rape is to cut off everyones penis, then no one can rape!
Another slippery slope fallacy.
People are going to continue to be evil, so we should give them less resources to commit evil. If you equate taking people's firearms with bodily mutilation, you should get your head examined.
He's quoting the fact that you want to take away guns to stop people from killing, then you bring up rape, so using your logic, cutting off the penis (the tool used to commit the act) would stop rape (which to some extent is true, until the rapist picks up a 4 foot long metal pipe and uses that instead like in india)
First of all, the vietcong were funded and armed by the military. They had Mig jets shooting down our F4 Phantoms. We also only conceded in Vietnam because the public lost the will for it.
Secondly, the whole "raise a smarter, better generation" idea is ridiculous. That's a nebulous, impossible answer to real question. Should we allow everyone to have guns, even as their effectiveness at killing has only increased? When the 2nd amendment was written, they were discussing muskets, and in a manner that meant defending themselves from war with other people with muskets. Now, we have 30 round magazines, semi-automatic weapons, hollow point rounds, sniper rifles, etc. All legal (depending on the state). Surely this isn't what the founding fathers envisioned.
>like how certain butterflies have special markings on their wings to ward off predators
Gun owners confirmed for 'special butterflies'.
>stating a fallacy is the same as debunking a fallacy
>implying it is a fallacy
the australian weapons ban in the wake of port arthur had a 10% compliance rate
in an island nation, weapons are imported illegally and produced domestically for use by criminal enterprise. An island nation with no shared borders; the US has 2 of the largest borders in the world.
>so the average person can't buy it
>implying the "average person" is a criminal
>implying the "average person" does not have a fundamental human right to defense
>implying criminals follow laws
congratulations, you now know how to make a submachinegun. making guns is that fucking easy. walk you local hardware store and have at it.
>but i'm not mechanically minded SO NO ONE COULD MAKE GUNZ THEY ARE ELDRICH SPACE MAGIC
pic related. filipino guerrillas used them to fight the japanese occupation forces.
100% correct. we may not see it in our lifetime, but we can at least strive to offer our grandchildren a gun free society. this should be the ambition.
stop making them, they slowly rust away.
100 years time, peace.
You've yet to make any rational argument. Limiting guns to the black market will inevitably make prices go up. In turn, less criminal people (especially the poor, who have the highest propensity to commit crime) will own guns
I realize that. I'm stating that it's simply not the same thing. That's why it's a slipper slope fallacy, dumbass
That'd be like saying, if you don't like guns, make pencils illegal because you can kill with them too! Same stupid fucking argument
um, so far everyone has seen fit to look past where this argument is born. you're all talking too far down the line. in essence what we're trying to figure out is how to stop people from killing people. on one side we have people saying that taking away all guns would hinder people from killing people, and on the other side we have people saying that allowing guns to stay and attempting to treat the true cause of the problem instead of covering up the symptoms will stop people from killing people. well then, what is the true problem? the real problem is when in the mentality of the criminal. the real problem is in the instant that somebody thinks they can go on a killing spree AND SURVIVE. no matter how people kill they do so with the belief that they can
B) get away with it (or suicide)
There's obviously many ways to kill and it is not just by guns, so it comes down to whether they think they can get away with it. how do we stop that? we allow any member of the population to own a gun. in this way you really end up stopping a majority of the problem before it even happens. And if we take away all guns? killing goes up, because the criminals believe even more so that they can get away with it.
These arguments truly boggle my mind, why can't people just use their heads for a few minutes and be logical?
Like I've already stated, countries with stricter gun laws have less gun deaths. It's a fact. Maybe people who are killing aren't sitting around thinking, man I'd like to kill a bunch of people. Maybe they just get pissed off and OH LOOK, A GUN. I'm gunna kill that person very easily.
Like I said, stricter gun laws, less gun deaths
Have a look at Switzerland, please.
Then have a look at my country, Finland. Strict gun laws yet quite alot of killings around here. Could have something to do with the next-to-eternal-darkness though.
Im late to the party but im going to adress these points. The tl;dr is basicly points 1-3 are gross oversimplifcations of gun control. Point 4 is kinda meh but easily refuted.
1. This point doesnt need to be defended cause youre right. It is a silly argument and anyone who ises that to defend gun control is a retard. Lets ban swords and the electric chair cause theyre designed to kill.
2. Again this is essentially point 1. However i do need to point out that its REALLY easy to kill someone with a gun. Ever tried killing 30 people with only a knife and a 2x4 with a nail? Pretty fucking hard. Ever shot something? Easy as 1-2-dead. The point of gun control isnt to make gun illegal. Its to scrutanize who can have them.
3. When peope say this its not in the context of "society doesnt need it cause we've evolved" its more that the notion of the populace defending itself with guns from the government is stupid now. Think your shotgun is going to stop people with tanks, HUMV's, or an army with m4's? You should reconsider your evaluation then. If they are meaning this more literally then have fun tearing them apart.
4. This last one. Probably the obly valid point. Look at the deaths by shooting per capita in canada vs the US. We beat them by a fucking mile. Compare any 1st world country to the US and you a stark difference in our death rates vs that of other post revolution countries. Its laughibly easy to get a gun. And all it takes is a light pull of a finger to snuff out life. The ease of killing someone with the weapon is really why its important to control guns better.
I'm unfamiliar with the statistics in America, so it is interesting to hear of these cases. I just tend to notice the prevalence of violence in countries that have legalised and even made gun ownership common place. I would have to dig to look at the stats, but I can tell you for sure that the difference in population between our two countries does not accurately correlate to the greater crime rates. We might be a smaller nation, but even if you break down crimes committed per capita, you've got to acknowledge that somewhere along the road America has goofed.
In order to ban firearms you'll need to change...
I never said everyone should have guns, no. Some people should not, and that is why we have background checks, age restrictions, safety courses, etc.The people should be able to defend themselves.
And why is the "raise a smart, better generation" idea so ridiculous? Is it any more ridiculous than creating a source of clean, renewable energy?
People say that the country will be a better place without guns, but the truth is that Tsarist Russia was a better place, and every citizen was armed to the teeth. Now look at Russia; it's a shithole.
Look at the bigger picture as well. Maybe the ban on guns is good in the short term, and the government has good intentions, but serial killers will still strangle, stab, burn, and beat people to death because they are not mentally stable
What happens when 30 years from now someone decides to enforce martial law on the US citizens, and they have no way of detesting it?
"Absolute power corrupts absolutely"
Banning guns will do little good at all. People will always find ways to kill other people; guns are just one of those ways. Before guns it was swords, spears, and arrows. Before that it was clubs, and before that it was our bare hands.
Changing people is the only way to prevent violence. That is the truth.
>There are less gun deaths in countries with stricter gun laws.
>the type of death matters
the british home office says the gun bans have led to an increase in firearm crime.
>hurr slippery slope !
that isn't a slippery slope. you need to read the /pol/ sticky again.
also learn what a simile is. you want to stop ______ by removing what is used to commit _______ but only used to commit ___________ by a very small subset of the population who will commit ______________ regardless of having access to it.
gun bans do not lower crime
gun bans do not lower gun crime
the brits know it
the cdc knows it (the clinton awb didn't do jack shit. but guess what, the last 20 years of declining crime coincide nicely with the wave of shall issue CC states)
and now you know it, but will continue to ignore fact in favor of reactionist emotionally driven "solutions" to the problem proven time and time again to harm society as a whole.
after the australian gun ban
>murder went up 20%
>home invasions increased by 20%
>assault with firearms increased by 30%
>armed robberies increased by 70%
What are contained bursts?
I don't even support gun control, but if you're spraying with 7.62x51, you ought to have any and all of your weapons taken away from you..
That's not what he was saying. you're saying that Guns are the tools directly responsible because they are used the most. He was saying that dicks are directly responsible for rape because they are the tools used the most. you want to remove guns (the most responsible tool) and he said to remove penises (the most responsible tool).
It is not a fallacy. you're belief that removing guns will lower crime rates is a fallacy.
>implying the whole world will stop producing guns
>implying we can all live together in peace and harmony, holding hands and showering each other with flowers
grow up, guns will never go away, and you certainly cannot take them away from everyone. they're here to stay whether it's legal or not.
file name related
you are literally wrong at every level. bury your head in the sand all you want, but it doesn't change facts.
gun ownership does not correlate with homicide rates
gun ownership doesn't even correlate with the useless statistic of "gun deaths"
>Changing people is the only way to prevent violence
This is what I'm talking about. You're right. People will still kill each other, guns or no guns. Guns just make it way too easy.
Off the cuff quotes about "absolute power corrupting"... like, what are you even talking about. Frankly, when the second amendment was passed, the government didn't have any reasonable method of protecting its people. Now we have the FBI, the US military industrial complex, State and local police, ATF, DHS, etc... The world has changed. We do not require an armed population for protection.
Honestly, you don't seem like a very thoughtful person. I've had much better debates about this. You should rethink what you're talking about. There are good reasons to allow people to have guns, you just haven't made any.
OP, I'm European and yesterday someone killed 8 people in a restaurant few kilometers away from where I live before shoting himself.
The criminals will always find a way to get guns even in countries where it isn't allowed. So yeah, I would agree with you. People should be able to deffend themselves.
Ok so after a quick google, I've found that the American "violent crime rate" is at just over 57 times the Australian Crime rate. Now even supposing that those crimes would have happened regardless of the criminals holding guns or not, why would any nation empower criminals with proven intent to hurt but giving citizens access to guns? I understand the use in protection, but it is a hell of a lot easier for the regulatory bodies such as police to prevent harm to citizens when only these highly trained professionals have that sort of access to firepower.
in the czech republic you can legally purchase select fire weapons and citizens/permanent residents can conceal carry firearms.
they have a murder rate of 1 per 100k. lower than england, france, finland, etc. countries in western europe. let alone compared to their neighbors in eastern europe.
>I just tend to notice...
no, you assert. you assert that guns=crime/murder. you are factually incorrect in this assertion.
like i said, the tool doesn't matter, and you're right, people will continue to kill each other. but what criminal is going to try and rob a bank if he knows any random person in the bank could have a gun? what criminal would try to kill another person if they knew that any person in the area could stop and kill them just as easily as they're killing others.
it's the air of anonymity that keeps thousands of murders from happening. this is why the gun ban is ridiculous.
You're defending a homicidal need to own something capable of ending lives for no rational point, hurr hurr grow up. Give me a rational, probable need for your average citizen to own a gun and, provided it makes sense, we would agree with you.
True, but knife stabbings have exploded in result, look at whales. Also, are you blind? Look at Chicago, has the strictest gun control in the country and yet is one of the most violent cities involving gun related violence.
Why do you think your messiah Obama sent Rahm Emanuel to be mayor? I'am sure it had nothing to do with keeping the bodies buried. >right, im sure any normal person would resign as chief of staff of the president to become a mayor
Fidel Castro took away the guns
Hitler took away the guns
Stalin took away the guns
Hugo Chavez took away the guns
Mao took away the guns
Have you not seen the military weaponry that police now possess? Their more armed than the military in Iraq 3.0.
People will always kill people, regardless if they have guns or not. You ban guns & the law abiding citizens will get massacred by the criminals that have the means of getting them
Wake up zombie
Not only is the murder rate per capita higher in the US than other developed nations, the murders by guns is higher too. You can post all the infographs you want, it's an undeniable fact. I don't know from which site you're getting your information, but you should read the snopes page on the Australian gun ban.
guns are a problem because they are enablers for psychos and assholes who just want to shoot people. I have been personally affected by this losing a close friend who was murdered because some piece of shit was able to easily purchase a semi automatic pistol and an uzi who then went around popping everything and everyone just because he felt like he should do it. the whole gun debate boils down to this.. there are nutjobs with guns, then there are people who hoard guns like toys who are paranoid of the nutjobs. think of this.. most of the world has already banned guns, there arent shootouts in england why? because there are no guns manufactured or sold there or allowed to be carried without getting tossed in jail and having them taken away. This is just like the fucking Meiji era of japan when swords were banned. too many dipshits were running around killing people with these killing tools and so they took the right to have them away, its that simple. why aren't swords banned? they can be purchased but you cant fucking carry them around on you. also.. most people cant use a sword to mow down 30 people in a few seconds but with a gun, the danger posed is by far greater, any dipshit can walk around point click and destroy people, granted there is some skill involved here, I am just saying it involves a very very easy method to kill people.. and when you slap semi automatics with 30+ rounds and automatics into the equation any fool can walk up whip one out and clear a room.. the same with grenades and other shit that just arent allowed, if you want to argue about everything being tools, then look forward to everyone owning their own nuclear missiles fucking retard.
if i end up as one of the 250k-2.5mil people every year in the continental united states who uses a firearm to prevent a violent crime committed against myself or others.
but I guess you just want 250,000 more women to get raped, robbed, beaten, or murdered. as long as the criminal just rapes them and beats them without a legally aquired gun, right?
another dumb argument. The average person killed by a gun isn't killed by a bank robber. They're killed by someone they know who they pissed off. Also, the bank should have some fucking security. It's the 21st century...
and like guns, anyone with a middle school education can make them
hell, not even a middle school education.
well if ur too much of a pussy to stomp his ass and for some reason you are ALONE with a rapist and someone.. tough luck dipshit if you want hypothetical situations what if there are 20 armed gunmen and they are raping or beating or robbing people? you gonna be a hero then fuckhead? i thought not.
Yeah, because the means isn't there to use guns to kill. Then have a look at deaths by other means, and they have drastically increased instead. Generally, a well-armed populations leads to less deaths.
I can cherry pluck examples too. Gun crime in NY pretty much fell off as a result of high penalties for carrying.
Hurr Canada took away guns
Australia took away guns
The sad fact of the matter is that at the end of the day
COUNTRIES WITH STRICTER GUN LAWS HAVE ON AVERAGE LESS GUN DEATHS.
Your response looks like some retarded facebook shit I've seen posted. Comparing any country that makes guns illegal to Hitler, Stalin, Mao, you've already fucking lost, idiot
read his post you dumb nigger, I am not the paranoid one. hes the one saying he carries because hes some kind of fucking hero stopping crime and without his gun wed all be doomed.
so you support a college girl walking home from class late at night being beaten, robbed, raped, and killed because it's her fault for not "stomping his ass"
never thought I'd meet a pro rape liberal
nice way to try and twist words but you know what, plenty of people are raped and robbed every day and guns arent stopping it now.. why would taking them away change that at all mr smart guy? And if your gonna be walking alone in the dark and noone else is going to be there except some rapist, shit happens, that is life, if you cant defend yourself and they overpower you it happens with or without guns, hurr durr if you have a gun guess what they prob have one too, they are intending to overpower you, maybe they come up behind you and taser you, what then? you gonna go for your gun while you are tased? stupid fuck
banning firearms has no effect on the crime rate compared to prevailing crime trends.
the only effect it has on crime is a massive spike post ban that trails off to following the prevailing trend after years of increased violence.
or in cases like england, a constant increase in crime every year >>600436863
Let me just inject a little science into this.
You should definitely read this:
Also, a very compelling article by researchers who sought to answer many of the questions you all are asking, as to *why* people use guns to kill people.
Anecdotal evidence and rhetoric gets us nowhere. Facts are the only thing that matters. The truth is that the US is right behind Mexico in gun-releated deaths per capita.
I don't want to point to the irony that most gun-related deaths in the US also correlate to counties that McCain won, I'm far more interested in the fact the relationship between poverty and gun violence. People who have something to lose are less likely to kill each other.
America has a massive poverty problem that many other Western nations don't have. Our pre-industrial infrastructure ran on slavery. Our post-industrial infrastructure runs on minimum wage jobs. Racism and homophobia and other hatreds are normalized. We've got deep, historical social problems.
We have 5-10 times as many deaths by guns as other first world countries. We have the most guns per capita of any country in the world. Before you go into a debate arguing either side, consult the facts and address the reality.
Well no shit bro. but as we have been discussing, guns sure as fuck make it easy to kill people and thats the problem, same reason you cant have high explosives for self defense or whatever
>I am retarded
>Los Alamos National Security, LLC (LANS LLC) is a private limited liability company (LLC) formed by the University of California, Bechtel, Babcock & Wilcox Technical Services, and URS Energy and Construction. It currently operates Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) for the Department of Energy and the National Nuclear Security Administration.
>literally presented, on a platter, data from the australian government regarding crime trends showing that the gun buyback and restrictions had no effect on the long term murder rate
>hurr u lie
>your government sources of concrete facts and statistics don't support my special snowflake world view. stop it! LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA I DON'T HEAR YOU
Did i say the bank robber was trying to kill people? didn't think so. i was referring to the millions of other gun related crimes that happen.
but let's get back to the criminals that kill. do you really think that taking away guns would stop the pissed off person from killing who they're pissed at? it wouldn't. it takes quite a good deal of anger to consider killing someone, and even more so to do it. if the person is bent enough to kill with a gun, that person is bent enough to kill with anything else too. why not just beat them to death? why not just cut em up? or any other means of killing. taking away guns doesn't make the person less angry. it only robs the law abiding civilians of a means to protect themselves.
and along those lines the government can't just wave a magic wand and make the guns go away, the killers will still have guns, legal or not. and the law abiding citizens will not.
Sounds like your issue if firstly with an incompetent police force. If your country relies on armed civilians to prevent 250,000 rapes, robberies, beating and murders then quid pro quo your law making system is fucked up. But if your country requires is a band of trained firearm owners, with the express permission to protect the 250,000 citizens across each city I agree that you need to own guns. Now, what would those people with guns be called? oh yeah, silly me, here we call them the police. Deal with your crime rates like the rest of the civilised world, and that its not with armed citizen avengers being fucking batman with the responsibility of protecting the other citizens.
No listen fucktard, first off you cant carry around poison that shit IS illegal, good luck carrying around arsenic unless you kill rats or some shit. Also you arent able to carry an axe around for self defense or whatever. And you know what I have said time and agin its not just easy its very fucking easy you stupid cunt read my fucking words and think for once in your life you dumb motherfucker. one pissed off dipshit with an axe/bottle/forks whatever you said.. isnt going to take down 10+ people in just a few moments.. its just not gonna happen.. think about trying to take down 20 people with a fork then try it with a pistol you piece of fucking shit thats what I am talking about are you seriously this fucking stupid? is THIS why people dont understand gun control shit? because you are all fucking stupid!? I believe it.
Man, if you're seriously trying to argue that the public need guns to protect them from your police force, I can't imagine the sort of society you live it. Have you ever stopped to think that, if citizens should have the right to deal out potentially lethal doses of their own strain of "justice", how many more cases of murder and assault would happen over night? No? Stop being an idiot and implying that your police aren't doing their job and you need a gun because of it.
I saw a guy get stabbed in the chest once. His friends beat up the guy who did that. The guy also lived. Now if the knife-wielder had had a gun, what do you think would have happened?
My argument stands. Guns simply make it far too easy for people to kill each other. It's much harder to kill someone with a knife than a gun
can i kill thousands of people with ricin? without even making a scene? im sure firing a weapon will get you noticed by police. i can poison thousands of people by putting ricin in food in a fast food restaurant. wont hear a thing until they die 3 days later
>a police offer will stop someone from breaking into your home
A. police have no duty to protect. read yourself some fucking supreme court rulings nigger
>i don't understand how easy it is to isolate and purify chemicals from common products
so you failed chemistry as well as math then
Open carry of an axe is legal in most states, as well as CC of said axe depending on state law; some require a concealed carry weapons permit. your mind must be blown right now.
>HURR something something only guns can kill
Lol. If you're a foreigner and disagree with guns, mind your own business. If you're American, GET OUT!!! What a fucking retard waste of space you are. You MUST live in a flyover state
learn self defense then you dumb shit. Don't walk around at night alone by yourself, tell friends/family where you are going and when you will be places if you are that paranoid.. Don't have friends? well thats your own goddamn fault for being a dumb bitch, get out there and talk to people they are not all trying to rape you for fucks sake.. just dont be retarded and meetup with people in abandoned meat slaughtering factories in the middle of the night or take drinks and shit from people that could have put shit in it and you should be alright.
Guns, easy to conceal, pull one trigger and will result in immediate significant injury. Meanwhile i can totally see how you rationally equate that, to a fucking fork. The point is the ease of which guns allow people to harm people. If you are seriously trying to rationalise your argument by stating every other possible thing that could additionally cause harm other than guns, bring me the statistics of how many robberies where committed with the aid of a fucking glass bottle and then the same figure but with the aid of a gun.
No, I know that you can poison people with common household things, but as I said.. its not legal to carry such shit you ignorant wop. Just like you can make explosives and weapons from anything.. its not legal to have.. you are so fucking stupid.
> if the knife-wielder had had a gun, what do you think would have happened?
the same thing dumbass. facts exist outside your shell of comforting assertions
>Survival Rates Similar for Gunshot, Stabbing Victims Whether Brought to the Hospital by Police or EMS, Penn Medicine Study Finds
haha, A) i can literally buy rat poison or any of the many deadly chemicals by going to the fuckin store.
B) the type of killing you're talking about is the looney fucktard that goes nuts and tries to kill a bunch of people. which for one, compared to the average gun death is ridiculously rare, and two, they could just be an arsonist or use explosives. i can literally look up how to make a decent explosive on fuckin youtube.
most gun deaths are one person trying to kill another, or several one by one. not going apeshit and kamikaze.
Are you retarded? You're in a thread, full of people debating that guns should be taken out of the hands of people because of their more violent tendencies. How do you go about arguing against that point? But giving another perfect example of why a psychopathic fuck, not dissimilar to you, should have a means of harming people taken away. Bravo
I'm so glad I live in a state where I can go to a Wal-Mart and buy military weapons.
sucks to be the rest of you
>The point is the ease of which guns allow people to harm people
and even mentally detach from the shooting. its easy (even wimpy) to point a gun at someone and pull the trigger then turn and walk away. its an emotional upheaval to stab someone to death with a fork, or even with a knife or sword or any of the other strawmen being raised here.
I don't know what sort of fucked world you live in, but in no country will any legitimate police officer not prevent a serious crime being under carried in front of them. You do know the motto "To protect and serve"
it isn't legal to carry a gun in England but they still have 11,000 firearm crimes a year
criminals don't follow laws, in case you haven't noticed.
law abiding citizens do and it is they who are impacted by arbitrary restrictions on self defense.
besides the whole point of your argument was.. if someone bans guns they should ban all weapons.. all I am trying to get through your skull is the fact that some of the shit you listed is in-fact banned.. *no it wasn't the pens or forks* AND the fact that those things in no way compare to the ease of killing people that comes with guns and the fact that people are NOT running around with homemade poisons and axes killing people, they are using guns.. and you know what, if people are gonna try running around with axes and pens and forks and shit, fine. Id rather deal with that then fucking handguns and automatics any day.
Exactly what >>600441918 said, im not arguing that every gun owner is a murderer. Im just pointing out that by owning a gun, they have a hell of an easier way to exercise a thought to go out and kill someone.
as long as you can see whatever is coming for it and you are able to draw it before you go down, guns only work on things you know are coming and are right infront of you at your best range which is too far away to get to you and too close to get away and you are ready for them.
The point that your not seeing is that even if guns were banned, they would still end up in criminal hands. Look at drugs, for example. They are illegal, yet everyone has them. Automatic weapons are already banned, yet you still see crimes being committed with them anyway. Why take the right away from people to protect themselves legally when the criminal will still be able to get their hands on guns anyway?
there are thousands of ways to kill people easily, knives are just one. and you think a gunshot means instakill? people survive gunshots too. if he was truly bent on killing it would have happened. if the guy that got stabbed had a gun, how do you think it would have gone? my point stands
I understand your point, naturally it would be pretty much impossible to maintain an efficient 100% prohibition against firearms, but you're going to tell me that there would be anywhere near as many guns in the US all sourced illegally? The answer is not "last line of defence" civilian justice, the answer is more effective lawmaking and policing.
if black people disappeared from the planet, the USA's crime rate would drop down to that of Luxembourg.
So you think disallowing manufacture/sale/carry of guns wouldn't decrease criminals getting their hands on them? makes perfect sense, lets all throw a gun party were we all get guns because were all gonna be victims if we dont
That's why we have the police, redneck. You'll never be in a situation where you're going to get in a gunfight with someone. This is real life. Do you want to live in a more dangerous world just because you're scared?
If you're accepting your death, and are just after a quick end like you've just stated, then why the fuck are you arguing self protection. You'd honestly prefer to be killed immediately, and effectively, than to be injured and have a significant chance of survival?
Okay, so, everybody who's actually engaging in this stupid fucking debate for some reason... winning a debate doesn't mean you're right, it just means you've won a debate against your immediate audience. You might be the smartest person in the room, but that usually means that you need to get out more and expose yourself to more people.
Everything in this discussion is impossibly simplified and therefore autistic.
>it's late at night
>you've tucked the kids into bed
>you hear a crash down stairs
>steps are heard coming up the stairs
>the door is kicked open
>a man in a ski mask comes towards you
>but then judge dredd teleports behind him and shoots him with a criminal safe Fergusson brand pain complaince tool from the front of his issued handgun
>all is well thanks to our magical teleporting police force that does no wrong and knows where all crime is happening at any given time and is there to stop it.
~1000 hammers were used to commit homicide in the US in 2012
>under 300 rifles were used to commit homicide in the same period
>ban all weapons!
so you think it is legal for a chinese man to bring a knife into a subway and stab 30 people? or for chavs to carry guns and commit 11,000 crimes with them? or for chavs to carry pen knifes and other assorted goodies to warrant britain's insanely high violent crime rate?
as long as man has hands to build with and a mind to think with, he will have a capacity for violence. Your solution is to lobotomize and amputate every person for "safety" whereas a thinking individual accepts reality for what it is and takes responsibility for his own defense.
Not to kill someone, but theres currently a legal way of planning and preparing to kill someone. It's illegal once you pull the trigger, but your current laws say everything up to then is fine? Fuck I'm never going back to the US
Dude , these people don't want FACTs - they want Guns.
Reasoning is alien to them ; it's somebody ELSES child that is gonna die in a school massacre . . . .
Their children KNOW how to fire guns and when that Eight-year-old wrestles that 9mm away from the Baddy then the massacre will be reversed.
- and other Gun fantasies.
Fact : the fools who want guns think they can protect themselves ; and they NEVER NEVER EVER Consider the weak , they don't consider the dying eight-year-olds caught in a school or just plain cross-fire at McDonalds.
arson and poison are just a few.and yes guns are a very prevalent and easy way to kill people, my point isn't to say anything else is just as easy, it's to say if someone is angry enough to kill it'll happen. if there's a will there's a way.
good thing all threats to you are apparent and visible at all times and you get a display ping on your HUD, fucking fatass retard. if someone is gonna mug your ass they arent gonna yell at you AND GO HEY GIMMIE YOUR MONEY unless they already have a gun dawn themselves or have you in a position you cant move out of, go for your gun then, hope you are the fastest draw in the world, also, you paranoid fuck when have you ever even used it for self defense? prob never unless you are a gangbanging nigger.
Hur hur, guns ar good an' protect people. Pic very related.
I laughed at your story, not at the story itself but the mongaloid rational you're trying to prove. Find me how many american child deaths like your story details were at the hand or home invaders, then look at the statistics for how many gun accident deaths. Even just on accidents, guns should scare you more than an home invader in a ski mask.
never used a gun in self defense, ive pulled it out once, and deterred a car thief (trying to steal my car) and besides, if i am blindsided oh well, my fault for not being prepared.
firearms are one of the easiest machines to build.
the 3rd world can crank them out by the millions with files and scrap metal, yet you think in a first world nation where I can go to a harbor freight and buy a metal shop on a paycheck that people won't be able to make firearms?
look at the ukraine conflict
>protip, the ukrainian government bans everything but licensed hunting weapons.
All the guns are already here, and when "more effective lawmaking and policing" comes into effect, all the gun owners are simply going to hide the guns and there are still going to be stories of gun violence on the news. Even in a perfect world with no guns, people would still be finding ways to kill each other, as one guy said by poisoning a shit ton of fast food with ricin. Guns are just one of the many tools that can be used for violence. They are here to stay, just look at how well Alcohol Prohibition worked out
>Hur hur, guns ar good an' protect people. Pic very related.
I don't understand why you need guns? Is it a matter of principle? In a peaceful society I don't see where guns come in. In England we have no guns; police nor civilians. Am I right in believing that Americans have the right to bear arms in case of corrupt governments, its a way of self protection right?
Why do people need guns? If they are a tool for killing people what is the necessity?
WELL everyone its been fun debating why you need your pussy paranoid guns to protect you from the world that wants to rape and rob you all day long. I am going to go play with my landmine collection and drive my tank around. cya!
Hide all the guns? Are you seriously saying that your country allows the sale and ownership of guns without tracking or noting down ownership/permits? And look, I understand your point about alcohol prohibition being ineffective, but really you really think that 1920's failure is a precedent for how a highly technologically savvy and capable government would act in 2015. I'm not going to sit here and list the flaws inherent in the alcoholic prohibition, but I can assure you that your government would be a lot more competent now, especially with a substance that isn't A) extremely easy to conceal and B) beloved by the mass of the population.
well if we take australia as an example
>90%+ noncompliance to a ban/registration
as was seen in connecticut
>2 borders we can't police for immigrants, let alone drugs and currently smuggled firearms
>first world access to internet, technology, tools, training, etc.
so as a baseline you'd be looking at 260 odd million illegal firearms buried all around the US and stuffed in attics
then you have firearms smuggled in from mexico
then you have firearms smuggled in from canada (norinco would make a killing)
then you have ocean going trade, of which a miniscule percentage of it is inspected and searched by customs
Oh, and I forgot to mention the massive civil war happening in the midst of it. because murrika and the one time the US marines did a survey asking whether soldiers would fire on/enforce a gun ban/other unconstitutional law those surveyed en masse stood true to their oath to fight all enemies foreign and domestic and refuse such orders. there was a big shitfit because of it, so they never dared ask the question again.
>Why do people need guns?
extensive cultural indoctrination and gun industry propaganda.
people will reply hurr durr conspiritard with tinfoil hat, but its really true. people genuinely justify it using every gun industry cliche. the defence in this debate is like listening to people recite guns & ammo magazine.
I normally weigh-in to these threads - but then I realised that the opening arguments by OP were so weak that I think they are deliberate - i.e. trolling.
But lets 'bother' anyway in-case there is someone so dumb they can't see through OPs deliberately weak arguments :
tools made exclusively for Killing - why Ban :
yes slaughterhouses ARE exclisively for that but you can't keep a slaughterhouse in your glove-box or TAKE a slaughterhouse to a school. Swords are difficult to wield for most people and they can't kill at a distance.
Guns are Tools :
- well a hammer CAN be used to kill but it is much better and more essential for construction
- a Gun can only kill , or at best be a VERY Bad inaccurate , noisy dangerous DRILL.
Guns are no-longer needed :
- Horses are no longer needed and you are not allowed to have one on a suburban block
- Heroin is no-longer available over the counter
- Lobotomies are almost never performed anymore
Bad things from the past are banned for a reason.
Dangerous society :
- correct , true.
- "a lot" of gun-people are 'good'
- "a lot" of Russian Nuclear weapon commanders are 'good' : but it is VERY Sensible to dis-trust Both.
I'm against the banning of guns for the same reason I'm for the legalization of drugs. They can kill people and aren't strictly necessary in modern society, but that's up to the individual to make that choice.
I don't own guns or do drugs, but I don't see why that should mean I'm against them. The whole thing with freedom is; they don't work if you only defend your own and don't stand up for others'.
2 muslims behead a UK off duty soldier. It takes 20 minutes for the police to bring up an armed response unit.
meanwhile no british citizens attempt to stop the rampaging muslims because they're unarmed.
care to elaborate?
considering the staging at sandy hook may have been motivated by a desire to increase gun restrictions, i'm starting to think americans should hold on to their guns, because some government people don't want them to
very small rocks
mixing prescription drugs
20 hits of ecstasy
or a fucking car, which kill 6 times as many people per year compared to firearm homicide
hell yeah, thats what makes people rich as fuck, and causes power imbalance, if guns were banned, dont you think a black market would appear, and make millionaires out of some stupid niggers
Their idiots. They don't understand that the NRA isn't there to "protect their rights", but is simply there to (a) push and support right-wing policies that hasn't shit to do with guns, and (b) ensure an excuse exists for their continued existence.
They don't understand that it is not in the NRA's interest to win.
I had some high ass bitch at 3am try to jack my car at a gas station, bitch had something in her front hoodie pockets but I kept her talking and was ready to gas that whore in the face and beat the shit out of her.. no gun involved no violence of any kind took place, I had a conversation with them like I was helping to take them somewhere in my car and then told them to have a good night and they said you too and walked off staring at the ceiling of the gas station, granted she could have pulled a gun, from her position though I had a shit ton of cover and time to gas her ass, sure I coulda blown it all up, but fuck it I could get shot.. if that bitch DID have a gun.. but you see, if she didn't and heres the key part.. if guns weren't involved.. since they weren't nothing happened. no crime took place. everyone got back to doing whatever they were doing.. see?
I own four guns, and I don't have a single scrap of ownership/permit papers on any of them. If the police came knocking for confiscation, I know exactly where I would hide them.
and besides, cops need more than just a carjacking to draw, not all gun owners are criminals, most are just looking out for their own skin and property, I never want to shoot anyone, but i will if i have to.
Let me debunk rumours about the proposed gun ban. There is no proposed gun ban. Has not been talked about in Congress or by the President. Where did you get this Idea that some one was considering this?
of course, but gun prices would still rise, plus all the otherwise law abiding murderers wouldn't have such an easy tool to kill someone with anymore when they got super pissed off or in a bar fight
>and besides, cops need more than just a carjacking to draw
Not really, in my state we had a cop shoot a black gun in the head who was running away, he dropped his wallet and was picking it up as he ran and of course the cop fired about half a dozen shots from his glock for no real reason, killing him instantly.
I could go on and provide an in-depth appraisal of the effectiveness of prohibition, but thats not my point. If your government was motivated to remove guns, they had the means. Their biggest mistake was allowing a dangerous segregation of citizens fall in love with the power-boner holding a polished lump of metal gives them. You have the single most terrifyingly voyeuristic government ever, it is well within their power and means to expunge guns from civilian hands. Take the UK for example, you cant honestly tell me they don't have any of the things other than 2 borders. The model works there, surely you proud American's aren't willing to accept that maybe the English are beating you at this?
>right to bear arms in case of corrupt governments
That [bad] argument was Addressed by the Stand-up comedy of Jim Jefferies : the Government now has DRONES ; the Gun people are bringing guns to a Drone Fight.
- Imagine if WACO occured now : IR heat-signatures to see the maniacs through the walls so they could be Shot by a computer . . .
There would a lot less innocents dead in "A Waco" now ; sure the guys with Guns would be even more dead ; but the children and the weak-minded women would have lived to a greater degree.
NOW : the government wins.
guns are so much easier to smuggle around than drugs right? because they are powder and plants and shit right? not big pieces of FUCKING HEAVY ASS METAL. Not to mention the materials and people and machinery required to make them are much harder to come by than a fucking grow lamp and some dirt or chemicals.
considering gun crime goes up when you ban firearms?
>inb4 the british home office and the australian government both are liars ;_;
ban privately owned pools. they kill literally fucking thousands of kids every year via drowning. if a few dozen children rustle your jammies that much, the column right next to it in the CDCs yearly death statistics must make you fall to your knees and curse the heavens.
>bu...bu...bu...muh child gun deaths. if it'll save one life... as long as that one life is taken by guns and not by something far more pressing, common, or dangerous.
>Let me debunk rumours about the proposed gun ban. There is no proposed gun ban. Has not been talked about in Congress or by the President. Where did you get this Idea that some one was considering this?
The BATFE just banned M855 ammo arbitrarily, without any sort of permission from congress, the president. These incremental bans are part of a larger plan to take things away little by little.
Most Americans haven't seen Reservoir Dogs - they can't learn from one of their greatest film-makers - Tarantino.
The end of Reservoir dogs looks like that cartoon ; All the people with Guns pointing them at all the other people with guns ; and everybody ignores the guy who has no gun ; he's no threat right?
they all shoot each other , and the gun without a gun just ducks ; and lives.
But using an AR-16 or even a M-4 on a range is still my right as a law abiding person. Faggots that talk self defence have some kind of fucked up life to need to protect them selves from.
and that's great, but honestly if he had of stolen your car the dumb nigger would have just went to jail anyway since you obviously weren't in any position to kick his ass or drive off/over him, if he hadof had a gun, he could have shot you in the face long before you drew and just took your damn car.
A pool was not manufactured to harm people. If we had the means to look at the statistics for every person who had ever been in a pool, Hell can you imagine the tiny fraction of the sample that were injured because of it? Meanwhile, what if we had a way at looking at the number of people who were at the receiving point of a gun barrel. Intend use is a huge difference, and believe in all the marketing and bullshit you hear, guns are not designed to protect people. They might have an auxiliary bonus in some cases of deterring people from causing harm, but they are at a fundamental level designed to hurt humans.
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
If the government turns tyrannical, the US soldier will stand by it's oath to support the constitution. If the government decides to go against the constitution and it's people, the US soldier has the duty and the means to fight it.
I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."
I would suppose you're probably talking about cold war era Russia? Explain to me how any other government at any stage of history had the means to watch their own citizens more than you do right now. You can argue about motivation, but not about the technology your Government has watching people like you right now.
Look at all the kids killed by school buses every year. More than are killed by guns, Fucking School buses are dangerous.They need to be outlawed. And those fucking bicycles? DOn't get me started.
The government likes gun bans because they have seen Ukraine and what happens when a population doesn't want to knuckle under to a coup government. They fight back...with guns.
needless to say the usa funded coup is failing badly in kiev, they're now having to use conscripts who are trying to go into hiding rather than fight for a bunch of unelected nobodies.
American jews in congress know they can't complete their takeover of the USA unless the public is disarmed.