You have 10 seconds to explain why the lgbt community is against guns when they could be used to defend themselves.
I'm not against guns. I don't see the point of having one though because my country is relatively peaceful..
>>5334127
we're not.
>>5334127
you should have one to kill urself !
>>5334127
I'm not, Carrying G19 right now senpai.
>>5334127
yeah well, i am so physically weak i can't pick up anything heavier than 11 pounds so i did think about getting a gun but i am scared of having a gun because my reflexes are shit and any abuser could probably easily take it from me and shoot me dead
but i am not against guns in theory. it seems more reasonable to have a gun than some fitboy having muscles because your muscles won't stop the bullet
I'm mtf and I was toying with the idea of getting a concealed carry license so I don't get murdered but I'd rather not shoot anyone desu
>>5334127
>You have 10 seconds to explain why the lgbt community is against guns
They're run by militant liberals.
I don't own one because I'm Europoor and you know the drill.
>>5334195
Guns are surprising easy to use even if you are physically weak. Just get some proper training. If you carry everyday it is a bit of a lifestyle choice you will have to change something like the shirts you wear or handbags you carry. If you are like you describe and already weak you lose with out the gun for sure. So something to think about.
>>5334195
I would not want to shoot anyone either, but I also don;t want to be dead if attacked. I always say the minorities and the vulnerable should be the first to get armed precisely because you are targets for violence. If every LGBT person were armed and bashed faced death every time they tried to harm someone I bet it stops very quickly.
I guess this is more of an American thing.
Here the thought of civilians carrying guns is simply ridiculous, because the crime rates are so low that there's really no need for a gun.
But I'd probably wouldn't be against guns if I lived somewhere where the risk to being attacked is higher. As long as there's a requirement to get training in order to avoid producing trigger-happy retards (idk if that's the case in the US)
>>5334272
Not the case in the US. Any meme lord or lady could buy one in about 10 minutes after a quick background check.
>>5334127
Because, if guns are easy for LGBT people to get, that would mean it's also easy for homophobic and transphobic people to get them, unless the government passes some kind of Tumblr law where you can't buy guns if your privilege level is too high. So if guns are more easily available, it doesn't really change the balance of power, just makes it more likely that people are going to get killed.
>>5334127
I'm not against self defense. People who've never met me or talked to me or are likely to give a shit about me claim to speak for me.
It make you wonder why nobody has gotten a cushy pundit job claiming to speak for gay disabled ghosts of color. Nobody thinks of the ghosts! It's political theater, pal. We're only here to fill seats.
>>5334127
I have nothing against guns. However I'm trans and had suicidal thoughts for a while. That was not a mental state I wanted to have as a firearm owner.
So for a long time I just rented and borrowed guns so I could learn about them (and stop flinching every time someone shoots off something larger than a .45).
Lately I've been a lot more comfortable in my own skin, so I bought myself a P226. Take it to the range every weekend to blat gat.
It is a mighty fine machine, let me tell you.
>>5334317
So you're saying in a gun fight you would choose not to have a gun?
Primus inter pares, friend.
>>5334369
Way to be smart about it when you knew you were not ready. Also the P226 is a very fine gat, I like your tastes.
>>5334127
MtF here, I got my G19. Dont want to have to use it but there's a lot of hate towards us in the USA
>>5334373
I would choose not to have a gun if it meant the other person didn't have a gun either. I'd prefer us both be unarmed rather than both be armed. The attacker generally has the advantage, they could sneak up on me and shoot before I could draw my own gun. Whereas, if both of us were unarmed, I might be badly outmatched if the attacker was stronger than me but I would be more likely to survive long enough for others to stop the attacker (I'm generally assuming there would be plenty of other people around, I know better than to go into strange places alone).
The ideal scenario is one where I have a gun and my attacker does not. However, my point is that kind of scenario is hopelessly contrived unless ridiculously complicated gun laws are in place. For the most part, the options for gun laws are a spectrum of how easy it is to get a gun, which applies to everyone about equally.
>>5334309
What state do you live in where people can buy a handgun in ten minutes and legally walk around without licensing? I know some states allow this with hunting rifles and the like. You will not be welcomed most places with a rifle over your shoulder.
>>5334448
In Wisconsin: I walked out with my first ever pistol, along with a case of 500 rounds in about 30 minutes.
Open Carry is most definitely legal in my state without your CCW. So long as it's holstered you can't be arrested for brandishing. Without a CCW you can't have it "readily accessible" while transporting in a vehicle though. (e.g: locked in the trunk, stored disassembled, or completely unloaded w/ no ammunition anywhere in the car.)
I was under the impression that many midwestern states were like this, because freedom.
>>5334127
I'm pretty pro guns and I'm mtf. But I'm in Canada.
>>5334195
>Is that a gun or are you just happy to see me?
>>5334654
>>5334448
Pretty much any state in the south. That's how I got this qt under 10 minutes :3
>>5334435
But that's dumb desu. The only way to guarantee for the other person not to have a gun is to live in an alternate reality where guns were never created in the first place.
Also, Just ask the lgbt people in Dallas if they were where they shouldn't have been when they were attacked in the middle of the street.
http://crimeblog.dallasnews.com/2015/11/oak-lawn-bartender-attacked-while-walking-to-a-friends-house-late-thursday.html/
>>5334127
>Implying
I fucking love guns.
>>5334860
That image implies that laws have zero effect on criminal's behavior. By that logic, we shouldn't have any laws at all, since the only people who would violate them are criminals who don't follow laws anyway. It's a uselessly simplistic view that assumes law enforcement doesn't exist.
>>5334902
But it doesn't for guns. It would be the same as banning alcohol or marijuana because there would be so many loopholes that anyone who wanted one could get it by just asking a few people.
>>5334915
That implies the solution is to fix those loopholes. For example, gun transfers like you're talking about could be reduced by treating the legal owner of the gun as an accomplice to the crime. That way law-abiding gun owners would be less likely to let people borrow their guns unless they completely trust them.
>>5334127
It's because I'm a bleeding heart liberal.
>>5334902
Not to mention it's almost the opposite of the way it works from a practical standpoint. Violent crimes perpetrated with the use of a gun disappear almost completely, almost immediately, when a country bans guns. As it turns out, A.) Most criminals who use guns for violent crimes steal those guns from neighbors, friends or family; if their neighbors, friends and family have no guns to steal, that doesn't work B.) Most criminals are notoriously lazy. Yeah, he could just go to the local alleyway and wait to get approached by a dealer selling illegal firearms, but he'd rather just sit on his ass all day, or doesn't have the patience to go somewhere and wait and will just pick up a knife and attack someone rather then wait the whole 5 minutes for the chance to buy a gun; and besides, criminals hate buying something honestly, even if it's an illegal gun, and stealing from people who sell illegal guns is probably ineffective.
If law abiding citizens are so dumb that they will just give up their guns to Big Brother, you can bet criminals are so dumb that when they run out of, break or lose their guns, they'll just shove their thumb up their ass and not go out and get another one. Criminals are even more dumb then law abiding citizens.
About the only way a criminal has a gun in a country like that is if they're some big organized mob, something that's going out of style fast (gangs are smaller and less sophisticated these days, Hezbollah-like so they're harder to track, but less organized), or if they're Muslim terrorists.
Think about this. James Holmes bought his guns legally, he didn't know anybody that sold illegal firearms. Same with Anders Breivik, that Cho shooter, the Columbine shooters, these recent Muslim shooters in California, pretty much all of them. Do any of those wimps like they'd last 3 seconds around real criminals, long enough to buy a gun?
Ok, maybe Cho looked like he could have done it, but the rest would be dog food.
>Have over 20 guns.
-Shoot competitively.
-Card carrying member of multiple pro gun orgs.
-Always carry a rifle or shotgun when in the woods.
-Would CC if Canada allowed it.
-Afraid to come out as mtf and seek therapy because I <3 my guns so damn much.
>>5334127
because if I owned a gun I'd blow my brains out with it
>>5335027
>>5335027
>more dumb then
retard alert
opinion discarded
>>5335027
.
>>5335374
They were specifically referring to violent crimes committed with guns. Even if overall violent crimes rise after the gun ban, that doesn't mean GUN CRIME increased. And the whole point being discussed was the claim that gun control has literally no effect on gun crime.
>>5335397
>car deaths go down with removal of cars
>WE SHOULD BAN ALL CARS!
>>5334127
I'm a lesbian and I like guns and use them (hurh /out/ hunting dyke) but they def ought be more regulated. And safety is just not put on pressure enough for the casual asshole.
Also open carry just goes against everything about de-escalation. I'm not really against it legally but it's some retarded shit to do.
>>5335430
No, because cars serve a useful purpose that justifies the risk of injury or death. The only comparably useful purpose guns serve is for self-defense, and that need would be largely eliminated if we could effectively keep guns out of the hands of criminals.
>>5335430
We regulate the fuck out of cars though. Age limits. Can't use one drunk or it'll ruin your life. Throughout the life of a car every sale is put through extensive paperwork that has to be kept up. Mandatory insurance. Extensive lessons required (at least in my state). And your license is taken away over minor infractions or just fucking up paperwork. Plus with the exception of some hons most peoples lives are ruined by vehicular manslaughter (even if it was an accident) instead of given book deals by nra.
I really wouldn't mind guns if they were regulated like cars.
>>5335442
Guns serve a useful purpose too. What if someone wants to feed my family without spending thousands of dollars on meat over a year? What if a home invader comes into a house and tries to rape a 10 year old girl?
There is no other equalizer to a self defense situation like a gun. Women are too small, too slow, and not as strong as men. Pepper spray would be a good second but it takes a few seconds before it kicks in once it's sprayed on someone's face.
liberal brainwashing
>>5335027
You're discounting organized crime totally and the idea that avg gun criminals are lazy is amusing. They are often poor, but not lazy. You should google the improvised and hacked together firearms criminals use. They don't even need a whole weapon. They'll duct tape and weld up what they need. I hear they teach shop skills in prison.
>>5335442
So the homicide rates don't go down after banning guns, but you're claiming guns aren't useful for self defense? I will tell my granny she should get a baseball bat and get ready for the zero change in homicides in her hood.
I don't even own guns any more and you're making me facepalm.
>>5335442
yes. car accidents are good for industry, oil dependency keeps us docile, social degradation encourages classism, etc.
>>5335481
That sort of home invasion situation is incredibly rare, you're probably more likely to shoot yourself while cleaning your gun than ever be in that situation. And if it's easy to get guns for self-defense, then it's also easy to get guns for committing crimes. And in that situation, you're no better off, unless you hear them coming in advance and are able to get into a good position. Otherwise, the only result is it's more likely that your family is going to get killed in the crossfire.
>>5335492
>So the homicide rates don't go down after banning guns, but you're claiming guns aren't useful for self defense? I will tell my granny she should get a baseball bat and get ready for the zero change in homicides in her hood.
The specific claim that I was addressing there was that "criminals don't follow laws" and that a gun ban would have no effect on GUN violence. And overall, you're generally safer if no one is armed than if everyone is armed.
MTF trans here.
Totally gun-friend, own 10/22 for plinking and squirrel hunting, a .40 cal. handgun for home defense, and a bolt-action .30-06 for the theoretical hunting that I'll probably never end up doing.
But then I grew up in the southern USA, so that's to be expected.
Pic related, what I want to get next.
>>5335519
>home invasions are the only time when self defense is necessary
>it's extremely rare even though your chart says it happens more than 5 times the odds of a firearm incident/crime
>guns magically go off when they're disassembled and being cleaned
>it's better to just hope and pray that the criminals won't go too far than to try and protect yourself the best way possible
>gun bans would have no effect on violence so it's best to have no guns since it won't actually do anything anyway
>>5335549
>>home invasions are the only time when self defense is necessary
It's the only time a gun is really practical for self-defense. If you hear someone bashing down your door you can hide around a corner and wait until he walks by so you can shoot him. Out on the street or something, if someone pulls a gun on you, you're screwed regardless of whether you're armed.
>>it's extremely rare even though your chart says it happens more than 5 times the odds of a firearm incident/crime
Which chart are you referring to?
>>guns magically go off when they're disassembled and being cleaned
No, but accidents happen. Nothing "magical" about it.
>>it's better to just hope and pray that the criminals won't go too far than to try and protect yourself the best way possible
Because, "protecting yourself the best way possible" entails also making guns more available to criminals.
>>gun bans would have no effect on violence so it's best to have no guns since it won't actually do anything anyway
Yes, because violence committed without a gun is easier to defend yourself against. As mentioned before, if your attacker draws their gun first, you're pretty much screwed whether you have a gun or not. But if all the attacker has is a knife, at least there's a chance to push him away. Even if he's stronger than you, if there's multiple people around they will be able to overpower him. Whereas, if the attacker had a gun, he could kill you easily with no way to stop it, and even if there were several bystanders they wouldn't be able to do much about it.
>>5334127
Im not against guns what so ever.
I like dem...
Totally pro-gun
Never used one myself but I'd like to try.
I'm in favor of background checks obviously.
>>5335705
i love guns more than i even love cock
Pure coincidence
>>5335720
>>5335722
So unwanted kids are more likely to be violent? That's hardly surprising.
>>5335720
So it's preferable to loosen gun control so that your rapist can rape you and then shoot you so you don't tell anyone? Remember that some rape victims are too young to legally own guns, and if the rapist draws his gun first, having a gun won't do you any good.
>>5334168
My ex-bf used to be like that, super fem guy.
Terrified of guns, eventual got him to the range to shoot.
Now he carries just about every day.
Daily reminder that in the US gun violence has been dropping and gun ownership has been rising every year for 20 years.
Daily reminder there is nothing to back up the claim that stricter gun control laws reduce gun violence.
Daily reminder that more people are killed by people armed with knives than people armed with guns, in the US.
Daily reminder that every time something considered dangerous gets banned or heavily regulated the problems caused by those somethings increase.
>>5335739
>Daily reminder that every time something considered dangerous gets banned or heavily regulated the problems caused by those somethings increase.
So eliminating the license requirements for automobiles would improve road safety?
>>5335746
That seems to be the pattern.
>>5335760
And I'm saying that doesn't seem to be a reasonable conclusion. Do you think applying the same logic to things like airplanes and nuclear power plants would improve safety as well?
>>5334947
No he's >IMPLYING you need to acknowledge the fact that you can't prevent criminals from having black market weapons trades where guns will always be obtainable.
>>5335768
Considering that it wouldn't change the fact that the average person cannot afford airplanes or nuclear power plants, why would it make an impact?
Because political classes of the western world hold legbutts hostage. Either vote in the anti gun shits or be turned on. Making you slaves, just like they did to the blacks.
>>5335772
But you can always take action to reduce criminals' ability to get guns on the black market. Say, anyone caught buying or selling guns illegally automatically gets life in prison without parole, and all their personal assets get taken by the government. That's a bit of an extreme example, but it will make it harder to get guns through the black market because people decide it's not worth the risk - especially if the seized assets are used to fund the police to increase the risk of being caught.
>>5335796
But couldn't you do that without further gun regulations?
>>5335774
Well, it would mean that the people who own airplanes and nuclear plants could save a lot of money by hiring unqualified people. And private airplane ownership isn't THAT uncommon.
>>5335807
You could, however it's claimed that most criminals don't get their guns on the black market. They either buy them legally (because they have no prior criminal record, or because of loopholes in background checks if they do have a criminal record) or get them as informal transfers from the legal owner. The latter SHOULD be made illegal if the new owner doesn't have the legal licensing to own a firearm.
>>5335796
Through attempts at reduction a frustratingly large percentage of people would still do what we don't want.
>>5335820
Not if you made it uneconomical to trade on the black market. It's all about cost vs benefit, economic incentive. People are only going to commit crimes if they think it's going to overall benefit them.
>>5335808
>Well, it would mean that the people who own airplanes and nuclear plants could save a lot of money by hiring unqualified people.
If the unqualified people made things less safe then that airline would get a bad rep and lose business. It's also unrealistic to think that a nuclear power plant would cut corners. Nobody trusts them and they're constantly under investigation by regular joes trying to find some thing to use against them.
>>5335819
>however it's claimed that most criminals don't get their guns on the black market
It's also claimed that the earth was created only 6000 years ago. Stop posting what people claim and post some sauced stats
>>5335633
>implying that every potential criminal will threaten you with a gun.
I've had to draw my CCW three times in my life none of the three threatened me with a fire arm.
A knife?
yes
A bottle ?
yes
With more than one person?
yes
Just because you draw does not mean the other guy has a gun.
>>5335845
Okay, then can I see some stats that most criminals buy their guns on the black market?
>>5335868
Why are you asking me for that? I didn't claim they did. You're the one making a claim on where they get their guns from. If you're going say something then back it up
>>5335863
>Just because you draw does not mean the other guy has a gun.
Correct, but if gun ownership was totally unrestricted there would be no reason for criminals to NOT have guns. What you're describing is how you've actually benefited from gun control.
>>5335832
There you have it. The answer as I have recently realized. Socialism doesn't have the same criminal profile as capitalism.
>>5335904
>that poster didn't even claim that most criminals buy their guns from the black market
No, but referring to the black market in that way implies that they think that is a common way for criminals to obtain weapons. If it wasn't, the existence of a black market wouldn't be a problem worth discussing.
>>5335917
That is a good point and if that poster is indeed implying that then they should provide sauce to back it up. Agreed? If you do agree then do you also agree that you should provide sauce to back up your claim that most criminals buy their guns legally?
>>5335933
>Agreed?
Yes.
>If you do agree then do you also agree that you should provide sauce to back up your claim that most criminals buy their guns legally?
Yes. I don't have a source for it, however another anon made that claim earlier in the thread and it seemed that everyone agreed with it.
>>5335944
>it seemed that everyone agreed with it
There are 0 posts responding with agreement
>>5335950
At the time I saw it there didn't seem to be anyone questioning that claim either.
>>5335882
Then how come the American cities with the loosest gun laws have the lowest homicide rate?
>>5335960
There are a lot of trolls on this site and and a of /pol/tards on this board. They could have thought the post was bait and ignored it. Either way not actively disagreeing with it does not mean agreeing with it. Nobody else seems to be questioning the two of us right now. Does this mean everyone agrees with both of us?
>>5335970
Because cities without excessive crime will not feel a need to institute gun control.
>>5335982
But if gun control worked then wouldn't those cities with excessive crime rate see a drop after passing those laws?
>>5335996
You should (or at least GUN violence should drop and be replaced by less deadly forms of violence), assuming the laws are effectively enforced.
>>5336007
Has there any proof so far that it gun violence has dropped or been replaced with something less deadly in areas that have tried enforcing stricter gun control laws?
>>5334127
Against guns...
>>5336029
I'm not aware of any off the top of my head, but it would be interesting to see studies on it. To be accurate there would need to be a way of measuring how effective the laws are being enforced, and it would have to be over a long enough period of time to rule out other causes (i.e., if increasing poverty causes increased gun violence, which in turn leads to the institution of gun control, if poverty continues to worsen it may cause gun violence to increase in spite of gun control.) The problem with studying these issues is that it's very difficult to set up a controlled experiment, and many make the mistake of interpreting case studies as such.
>>5336058
It's already been done friendo. No correlation.
>>5334127
>Sig P238 Rainbow
Muh nigga. One day this will be my third Sig.
>You have 10 seconds to explain why the lgbt community is against guns
You have 10 seconds to explain why you think the lgbt community has a homogenous (lel) class consciousness that is against guns.
>>5334127
Here's the problem, being for some gun control and safety measures is not being anti gun. It's not an all or nothing issue. People who think in terms of black and white is what caused homosexuality to be first demonized.
Thats also the stupidity in the gun debate is either you want it all legalized with no restrictions or you're someone who wants all guns banned it's insane, and that logic is bought and paid for by the gun lobby. It's essentially like the passage of the patriotic act.
>Hurr if you oppose the patriot act you must not be a patriot.
It's the same line of thinking of you're with us or against us.
I'm not anti gun, I'm anti letting guns into the hands of criminals, the mentally unstable, and people who are deemed to dangerous to fly on an airplane.
Stop with the bullshit of if you support any gun restrictions you're anti gun. I happen to be happy to live in a house with a gun as I feel safer, but I also feel safer not letting irresponsible people or the criminally insane own firearms.
>>5334127
Can we also post gun youtubers who are hot?
AREGULARGUY is my husbando.
>>5334127
because gay people tend to be more intelligent than straights and only retards carry guns
>no country gf
>>5337504
Do you really want to live in a country where it's only retards that have the power to kill?
>>5335442
>if we could effectively keep guns out of the hands of criminals.
But you can't.
I love guns, but there were 48,000 cases of gun violence in the us this year and only 2000 of them were from self defense. Its also more likely you'll have your gun used against you then you will use it to protect yourself, and then there are the two kids that will accidentally kill themselves with a gun every day, or the 8 other kids each day who will be wounded and killed by one.
When I started using this as my go to argument, only 2000 kids a year were killed by guns in the us, this year its over 3550 with a month to go.
>>5337526
>Do you really want to live in a country where it's only retards that have the power to kill?
>he asked the retard
>>5337582
That's funny because I thought this was America. The land of the FREE and home of the BRAVE. I though American was a country of laws that respected the individuals rights. What is so hard to understand about this? An individuals rights cannot be taken with out due process, legislation is not due process. I have never hurt anyone or committed any crime with a gun. I will not be held accountable for the crimes and actions of others. Not only are you stats wrong, but the stats don't fucking matter. Until you have a constitutional convention and manage to repeal 2A. Literally all gun control is illegal.
Glad that you like guns but don't be stupid about the law and your natural rights.
>>5337576
Theoretically we can. Plenty of countries manage to have a reasonably low rate of gun crime.
>>5337648
>but the stats don't fucking matter.
So, you would say the right to bear arms would still be justified if there were 1,000,000 gun murders per day and only 1 defensive gun use per century? The stats DO matter, because that's how we would determine if the right to bear arms does more good than harm.
>Until you have a constitutional convention and manage to repeal 2A.
While I agree that the right to bear arms should exist, the original intent of the second amendment was to support the existence of a private militia. The founding fathers would not want to see America become a country full of madmen running around and shooting each other.
>Literally all gun control is illegal.
By this kind of hyper-literalist interpretation, intellectual property rights and forbidding military personnel from releasing classified data to the public would be illegal under the first amendment due to violating the right of freedom of speech.
Gun owners are far more likely to accidentally shoot themselves or another, or use it to kill themselves than fight off some imaginary possible-attack like they're some sort of armed superhero. Considering the hate society sends their way and the self-doubt many go through, having an instant way-out in the house is probably a bad idea.
Again constitutional convention. Have one or fuck off. Our courts have BTFO of the militia shit you guys keep parroting.
Also yeah does not matter if a million people are killed by guns (pro tip world wide they are). Am I pulling the trigger? No so fuck you, my rights will not be on the chopping block because of our lowest common denominator.
>By this kind of hyper-literalist interpretation, intellectual property rights and forbidding military personnel from releasing classified data to the public would be illegal under the first amendment due to violating the right of freedom of speech.
Uh, 1A does not say you cannot have intellectual property rights. It also does not prevent you from signing that right away when you join the military.
>>5337913
Go stereotype somewhere else. Maybe you have fantasies about killing people. Maybe you would shoot yourself, but I have been handling guns since I was 4 and guess what? Never shot myself or some one else on accident or otherwise.
Go project somewhere else.
>>5337945
>Our courts have BTFO of the militia shit you guys keep parroting.
Here you're actually acknowledging that you wouldn't even need to change the constitution. You'd just need to get the courts to change their interpretation.
>Also yeah does not matter if a million people are killed by guns (pro tip world wide they are).
You're ignoring the ratio though. If the ratio was literally 36.5 billion gun murders per defensive gun use, there's no way gun ownership could be justified as something that does more good than harm.
>Uh, 1A does not say you cannot have intellectual property rights.
Intellectual property rights forbid the sharing of information, and as such are in violation of freedom of speech.
>It also does not prevent you from signing that right away when you join the military.
So then I suppose you wouldn't have a problem with a law where you can sign away the right to bear arms in exchange for a tax break? You earlier said that ALL gun control is illegal, why then are some restrictions on free speech legal?
>>5337995
>Here you're actually acknowledging that you wouldn't even need to change the constitution. You'd just need to get the courts to change their interpretation.
No because our courts are interpreting it correctly. There are tons of info graphics that explain exactly why the courts interpretations are correct. If A court decided differently they would be wrong.
>You're ignoring the ratio though. If the ratio was literally 36.5 billion gun murders per defensive gun use, there's no way gun ownership could be justified as something that does more good than harm.
This is not the case though there are far more defensive gun uses per year than murders. There is plenty of information on this. You just have to look it up.
>Intellectual property rights forbid the sharing of information, and as such are in violation of freedom of speech.
Do they? So say you write a book and you publishing it. People can freely talk about it even discussing the plot and giving spoilers. IP protects people from others claiming they wrote it and or publishing it and selling it for their profit.
>So then I suppose you wouldn't have a problem with a law where you can sign away the right to bear arms in exchange for a tax break? You earlier said that ALL gun control is illegal, why then are some restrictions on free speech legal?
This depends on what you think the purpose of govt is. Military is a very special circumstance where it's legitimate operations require you to surrender your rights, it is also very clear that you do this when you join. In civilian life the govt should not be in the business of buying your rights from you.
>>5338090
>No because our courts are interpreting it correctly. There are tons of info graphics that explain exactly why the courts interpretations are correct. If A court decided differently they would be wrong.
There is no "correct" interpretation. Whatever the court decides is correct?
>This is not the case though there are far more defensive gun uses per year than murders. There is plenty of information on this. You just have to look it up.
I'm aware of that, but earlier you said the stats don't matter. Are you abandoning that claim?
>Do they? So say you write a book and you publishing it. People can freely talk about it even discussing the plot and giving spoilers. IP protects people from others claiming they wrote it and or publishing it and selling it for their profit.
IP rights have been used to forbid people from publishing books that are even COINCIDENTALLY similar. And for example, with rulebooks for RPGs and tabletop games, it's forbidden to duplicate the entire rules, even if in a totally different format than the original text. That disproves the claim that IP only applies to the text and not to the ideas within.
>This depends on what you think the purpose of govt is. Military is a very special circumstance where it's legitimate operations require you to surrender your rights, it is also very clear that you do this when you join. In civilian life the govt should not be in the business of buying your rights from you.
Okay, suppose I'm just sitting in my backyard one day and a top secret Air Force plane crashes 100 yards away. Can the government demand that I, as a civilian, make no mention of this to anyone?
This image sums up how I feel about govt in general you can gather from this how I'll answer this stuff.
I cannot spend all day trying to come up with solutions to every scenario you can through at me no matter how unlikely.
A person owns him/her self completely, They own their work and the products of that work. They have the right to defend their life and their property from anyone or anything that threats either. You decide from that how I'll answer anything farther.
>>5338236
How far would that extend though? Would that imply that a person has the right to own a tank or anti-aircraft weapons if they feel that's what's necessary to defend their property?
And how would you define property? Is it just based on possession? If I steal my neighbor's car, do I have the right to use deadly force to prevent him from taking it back?
>>5338236
>an image making fun of tea partyers, equating them to autistic, is how I feel about government
... uh
>>5338331
It's a meme dude. The post explains more.
Are you ready for another meme. You didn't make an argument.
>>5338284
Why do people bring this up, you can already own those thing if can afford them.
I did explain it. Property is the product of your work. This includes purchases and so on.
>>5338392
>you can already own those thing if can afford them.
It's currently not legal to own tanks unless they've been demilitarized.
>Property is the product of your work. This includes purchases and so on.
And who's to say that theft doesn't count as work? More to the point, what are you actually supposed to do if your neighbor steals your car and is using deadly force to prevent you from taking it back? Are you supposed to use deadly force yourself and hope you can shoot him before he shoots you?
>>5337582
See >>5335481
The mind of a progressive
-when muslims hate gays it is ok, because brown people.
-when christians hate gays it is wrong, because white people
>>5338600
No...? I'm progressive, and that's sjw bullshit. Nice strawman, bro.
>>5334127
>implying the entire lgbt community is against guns
Guns aren't inherently bad, but having laws for who can and can't purchase/own a deadly weapon is just common sense, plus some method of tracking ownership. Think registration laws for cars.
Nice pic tho
>>5334127
>implying being a faggot automatically gives you preset political opinions
fuck off
also, SIG is shit
>>5335492
>You're discounting organized crime totally and the idea that avg gun criminals are lazy is amusing
Ordinary citizens don't defend themselves against organized crime. They die against organized crime. Part of the value of self defense using guns is if it's, y'know, effective. It's not effective against organized crime, that's one reason to discount the "muh gun ownership" argument against organized crime. Another is that organized crime is easier for law enforcement to tackle then, say, your local 5 person gang. In Chicago there are literally hundreds and hundreds of gangs, but the average gang has less then 10 people in it, that's not what I mean by "organized" crime and that IS very difficult for law enforcement to deal with. And even when it comes to those mini-gangs, self defense using guns is still pretty ineffective, because even if you shoot and kill one attacker, the other nine are going to shoot you in revenge. Self defense using guns is mostly effective against single, delusional gunmen who are either mugging you for their crack money or going crazy like a school shooter. That sort of gunman disappears with better gun control, along with all of the mini-gangs as well, only humongous gangs are resistant to gun control. And once again, police are actually quite good at dealing with large gangs. The only difficult they have is when they're bribed, and that's a problem with cop corruption, not gun control.
And criminals are extremely lazy. Seriously. Have you even ever met a criminal? For every criminal using a hand-made gun (which are notoriously ineffective, by the way, they'd be lucky if it doesn't blow up in their hand), 50,000 would rather just pick up a knife and try their luck that way. It's so much easier and faster, it doesn't take 24 hours of hard work or 30 bucks worth of material.
>>5338740
>yes, cause you know theres no mass shootings in California
ever
wait, whats this on the news?
>>5335492
One of the symptoms used to diagnose someone with antisocial personality disorder is a marked (read: severe) lack of goal-oriented planning or pursuit. That means that criminals hardly ever think, prepare, or work. And this is one of the more important symptoms of antisocial behavior, if this isn't present in someone then it's some other diagnoses that's probably more accurate to describe them.
Just because all of your favorite movie and ancient history criminals worked their asses off doesn't mean that's the norm, it's so vanishingly rare that we're always amazed when we find out they worked hard. It makes for a good story, the unusual criminal that works hard. An ordinary person working hard is hardly news, on the other hand.
>>5338762
What does that have to do with my post? I'll tell you what, absolutely nothing.
>>5338775
>delusional gunmen who are either mugging you for their crack money or going crazy like a school shooter. That sort of gunman disappears with better gun control
gungrabbers
confirmed retards
>>5338791
3 random words doesn't disprove anything I said, anon. Or hurt my feelings, if that's what you trying to do. I'm guessing you were trying to do one or the other.
Y'all need to chill.
Maybe once the research ban is lifted we can have a mature adult conversation about this using actual verified data, but until then it's like listening to butthurt supernerds arguing about starwars trivia.
>>5334220
>PING
Anyway most folks whom feel vulnerable should probz carry
especially black trannies.
>>5338803
>gun control "dissapears" active shootings and armed robbery
CA a state with "sensible gun control"
from 2 days ago
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/12/san-bernardino-california-mass-shooting-151203050149707.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Isla_Vista_killings
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Santa_Monica_shooting
>>5338827
>"Everybody's wrong, nobody is right!"
>"Look, this random claim that isn't true and doesn't have anything to do with the discussion proves it!"
>"They'll never figure out that I'm actually one of the shitheads that is against gun control!"
>>5338827
there is already verifiable empirical statistics
there is no confirmable link between gun control and gun crime, or that less or more gun control effects gun crime in anyway what so ever
I wonder when petty tyrants are going to stop including suicides in gun violence statistics.
Since 2/3 of gun death is suicides.
>>5337800
But that is not what the USA is. If you take out gang members shooting other gang members and suicides there is very little gun death relative to the size of the population.
>>5338840
Your first link leads to a story about a Muslim doing Muslim things. Earlier in the thread I pointed out that those don't count. Muslim terrorist organizations, which had been in contact with him or his wife or both, are highly organized and well funded, they can sneak guns into any country, and with their fear-mongering religion they can make ordinary people who have jobs and are sane commit terrible suicidal atrocities. Nothing will stop that except killing Muslims.
Otherwise, A.) One state having good gun laws will only help so much when it borders states with poor gun laws. It's not as if they stop everyone at the border and search their vehicle and do a background check, something they at least try to do when crossing from one country into another. B.) California's gun laws are a lot worse then, say, Britain's gun laws, I wouldn't exactly call California's gun laws "good." C.) Gun deaths in the U.S. are much lower per capita then they were 50 years ago, and particularly in states that have had some semblance of gun laws. But you'll never get rid of all gun deaths, and most gun laws are so new in the U.S. that they haven't been in force long enough to give us a lot of data on their effects, you have to go to other countries where strong gun laws have been in effect for decades.
>>5338879
>I wonder when petty tyrants are going to stop including suicides in gun violence statistics.
>Since 2/3 of gun death is suicides.
Since suicide "doesn't count", should we just go ahead and legalize it?
>>5338847
>no federal gun research in 20 years
>verifiable empirical statistics
>kek
>>5338839
>ping indeed
Honestly guns and private ownership of them, protects all minorities and I recommend any people who are vulnerable to get a gun get training, and be safe.
If I lived around more LGBT people I would be taking them out and teach them myself.
>>5338847
>there is no confirmable link between gun control and gun crime, or that less or more gun control effects gun crime in anyway what so ever
That is literally the most illogical sentence I've read all week, congratulations.
I don't care about guns, it's not like they're gonna legalize them in my country ever.
>>5338892
Muzzy cunts have not come to do anything like this in my state ever. we are the most armed per capita in the US. I wonder why they have never put us on their lists. hmmmmm
>>5338924
I know of at least one case of Muzzys doing something like this in my state, and in every state that borders my state. If you think it's NEVER happened in your state, you probably just haven't watched the news much.
>>5338914
I still don't get how it really makes anyone safer, unless homophobes/transphobes are literally too dumb to get guns as well.
>>5338934
I would have been everywhere if they tried anything here. A screw driver being found on main street has made the paper. I would have seen something about a terrorist attack.
Or maybe the screw driver was a terrorist attack @_@.
>>5338941
hmm I could not win a fight with someone in hand to hand. With the gun I have a chance even if they do. With out I have none. I'll take my chances with the gun.
>>5338952
I suppose, but it would really depend on circumstances. I mean if it was a verbal argument that escalated you had a chance, but if someone decided instead to kill you later they could just shoot you in the back of the head and it's over immediately. Even if you're surrounded by dozens of people they won't be able to do anything.
>>5338964
Yeah true, but that does not happen very often. Mostly you will be getting robbed or attacked outright. Also situational awareness it important. Carrying is not for everyone I don't expect everyone to do it and by no means do I think it is a 100% guaranteed to save me, but it does add to the effectiveness of defense for someone of my stature. If you do decide to carry ever it is a huge responsibility and needs to be taken very seriously and thoughtfully.
>>5338892
>criminal organizations having firearms available to them while the populace is unarmed is irrelevant to my points about instituting strict gun control to prevent criminals from having guns
>gunlaws only work if in effect nation wide and for "a long time"
Mexico's gun homicide rate is 10 per 100,000
>>5338916
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hyQDQPEsrs
>>5338894
Of course it doesn't count, the only reason anti-gun people include it at all is to pad the numbers and make the level of gun violence seem three times higher than it is.
>>5339177
someone should stuff the brady campaign with ads against tall bridges and highway overpasses like when they went after hunting rifles
>>5334127
because curving the bullet is hard
>>5338736
>sig is shit
You're shit.
>>5339177
If you don't consider suicide to be a problem, why aren't you in favor of legalizing it?
>>5339495
its destruction of government property
>>5339495
I am actually
>>5339037
mexico's HOMOCIDE rate, (aka the thing that matters) is 20 per 100,000, 5 times higher than the united states
>>5339517
youre just adding to my point
>>5339495
My point is its not really relevant to the gun control debate beyond its use to inflate statistics.
And its not illegal in the US generally speaking.
>>5339508
This.
When I inevitably end up conquering the world and ruling it as a supreme god king I will making commiting suicide punishable by death.
>>5334130
This. I know how to use various types of guns, and I have no problem with responsible ownership. I don't need a gun anymore at this point in my life.
>>5334127
I don't live in the US :)
I wouldn't mind owning one for a hobby but I much rather live in a place where I never ever have to fear getting shot than where I get to play around with a rifle in my back yard. I can still fire guns at a gun range so it's not a big loss for me.
>>5334127
I'm pro-gun but I live in Australia so it's kind of moot.
Nothing would make me sleep sounder than having an SLR by my bed every night.
>>5345736
>moot
triggered.
