And I'm not so pussified I need a gun, unlike you redneck faggots

>>690030746
So defending yourself is being a pussy? Nigga what the fuck

>>690031012
Defense from who? The government?

>>690031012
Protecting from what?

>>690030393
I love you for trying

but 4chan is too edgy for common sense topics

>there is no hope here

>>690030746
>I don't need a gun
>my safety is not my responsibility

>>690031943
I guess you're scared of big brother then. Fuck off

>>690030393
>definitely not bait

>implying shooter was bullet proof

>implying it would have to
>implying the goatfuckers aren't doing just that

>>690030746
>implying anyone cares what you think
>implying target shooting and hunting aren't a thing
>implying you have to need a thing to own it

>>690033518
Obviously since there has literally been 900 shootings since sandy hook there's a reason civilians shouldn't own guns

Listen, I just want guns to hunt and shoot squirrels getting in my bird feeder, leave me alone

>>690034252
Others want them to shoot up schools.

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

>>690034358
>criminals will follow the law

>>690033995
>implying that matters at all

People kill people. You gunna take knives and bats and cars?

People using a thing for bad doesn't mean you can take it from everyone else. You can't take something because someone might do something bad with it.

Get off your high horse, you're going to kill the thing riding it that hard.

>>690034443
Yeah but it'll reduce the amount of weapons that can be stolen from legal owners.

And Australia

>>690034358
Then something should be done about these mentally ill people. They were suppose to be doing research on it but it was blocked by congress or something.

>>690030393
If guns can't end a shooting rampage, why call the police then?

>>690030393
seems to work for the taliban and vietcong

File: the-armed-citizen-first-responder-vik-battaile-politics-1356918216.jpg (162 KB, 640x634) Image search: [Google]

162 KB, 640x634

>>690030393

The element of surprise counts for a lot when one bullet kills.

>>690034564
Yea, it'll also drive the market for illegal weapons into a frenzy and encourage smuggling.

>>690030393
Everybody shooting is called a "black nightclub".

>ITT more 12 year olds complaining about guns r bad
Guns don't kill people billy, people do.

File: LL.jpg (314 KB, 1500x1141) Image search: [Google]

314 KB, 1500x1141

>>690034564
Criminals will get them anyway so let's impede the legal owners.

>>690034667
But there are instances where someone shooting the shooter creates mass confusion which ends in more people dead

File: jefferson - Governments must fear the people.png (105 KB, 403x221) Image search: [Google]

105 KB, 403x221

>>690030393

>And it's retarded to think your mall ninja ar can take down a drone, or a tank

There are 100 million gun owners with 300 million guns. They may not work against drones or tanks; but they work real well against CEOs, lobbyists and bankers.

>>690035237
That does nothing to erase the fact that the average death toll is lower. Stop.

>>690035237

Name one example where the shooter getting shot was a bad thing.

>>690035331
Don't engage in that side of the argument. It takes away from the meat of it. You don't even need to need the guns to have enough justification to own them. That sentence is always present in gun control arguments, and it's bait. It detracts from the real conversation.

>>690035331
Yeah but the tanks will be brought in and will be unstoppable

>>690031296
From a Threat? Do you know what a Threat is or do I need to give you a link to Websters?

File: image:13974.png (2 MB, 1200x913) Image search: [Google]

2 MB, 1200x913

>>690035196
If we go buy more kike guns, kikes win.

If we let perfidy bolsheviks take away gun rights, kikes win.

If we get scared and use guns in irresponsible ways and have to hire lawyers, kikes win.

As planned.

>>690031324
Whatever might be Threatening your life or someone in your proximity. It's a tool for a job. Can't figure out if your trolling or have the IQ of my 4 year old sister.

>>690035632
Remember the goatfuckers are doing just fine. Faggot. Not to mention military might will be diminished in the event of an uprising because a portion of the grunts will defect if it comes to killing their citizens (especially the ones who agree with them - since many military members are pro gun)

File: Tianamen Square 1989.jpg (208 KB, 990x654) Image search: [Google]

208 KB, 990x654

>>690035632

Really?

So you think American soldiers are prepared to start slaughtering their own people in the streets?

If that happens then the defections start coming fast and heavy and civil unrest turns into a civil war.

>>690035770
If we use guns responsibly, like civil human fucking beings, everybody wins.

>>690033995
So you really think if we outlawed guns all of the sudden the US would just transform into some utopia full of unicorns and liberals riding rainbows. Yea... Outlawing stuff works really well. It doesn't promote underground black market criminal enterprise or anything. Please I urge you to consider suicide.

File: Screenshot_2016-06-13-22-35-26.jpg (641 KB, 1440x2560) Image search: [Google]

641 KB, 1440x2560

>>690035770
Dubs

>>690031324
>>690031296
Wild animals eating my livestock.

File: Based Brody.png (1 MB, 782x824) Image search: [Google]

1 MB, 782x824

>He hasn't been paying attention to all the insurgencies the United States military has fought and lost in the last fifty years

>>690035017
All hope is not lost

/Thread

>>690030393
I think for Paris, armed civilians would have meant less bloodshed. Orlando could have been handled by 1-2 well trained armed security.

As for fighting armies, you would be better off learning chemistry and biology and applying that knowledge than running around with a gun like a headless chicken.

I sure would love someone to produce some stats on how much of the gun crime happens with legally owned guns in the first place.

It'd be nice to see a list of all the times mentally ill dave smith, ex con tyrone and tali fuckboi bin shittin in the streets whos on a watchlist somehow get through the background check portion of the gun app. That seems a bit fishy to me.

>>690035237
How the fuck does that make sense? If he kills him then guess what, NO MORE SHOOTING, people might be confused but just being confused is better than being full of holes.

>>690036587
Anon. He is literally making the argument that lawful gun owners would hear a shot, and immediately begin also peppering the room in a panic.

How he is making that argument while also sucking a fat cock and licking the windows in his room, I'll never know.

libtards: why do you need guns?

law abiding citizens: protection from tyrannical government

libtards: AS IF YOU PARANOID FUCKS

law abiding citizens: well what do you think about trump?

libtards: he's basically the next hitler

>>690030746
With you brah. All these gun toting fucks are so fucking scared all the time. I live in a big city and have for a long time, supposedly one with high crime rates. I stay out of the bad parts, sure. But I have never needed a gun, have never been in a situation where a gun wouldve made me safer. And all my friends and family, no one has ever been the victim of a violent crime (maybe some bar brawls.) But I do know a guy that almost died from a gun accident as a kid, permanently scarred him in the face.

Orlando fag here, yes I'm a dirty rican. I live on the nicer side (East Orlando) but even in my nice neighborhood we have break ins. I have a cw permit 9mm glock, a shitty ar15, and a .45 glock. Not that I am waiting for someone to come in and try to break in, but I am ready. I do agree with OP. But that closet faggot chose an easy target. Gay dudes are not going to confront or try to stop shit from hapening. Guaranteed if thag sissy would have picked a different spot, he would have been stopped a lot faster.

>>690035928
Don't shit yourself. Mass civil uprising/revolution/Civil War II WILL happen in this country. We might be old men, or even long dead, but if not our children then our grandchildren will DEFINITELY live to see it.

> Pro-gun Anon reporting in

>>690036051
Gentile dogs are less than human beings, according to a talmudic kike named Jesus.

And for 2000 years the kike plan has been to rape, infitrate and undermine all gentile populations... through perfidy, usury and well poisoning lethe... now most gentiles are jobless and living in trailer park ghettos, mimicing spic machismo and kike "stop snitching" mobster culture of repression and denial... now we are gonna make sure everyone gets "strapped" with more kike guns before they go to the club to chest thump and drink alcohol...

sounds like uberkike levels of bad suggestion theater and emotional manipulation self destructive propaganda

>>690036830
>once again implying that you have to need a thing to own it.
Protection is not the only reason faggot. Put down the starbucks, take off your suspenders, grab some bleach and start chugging.

>>690036830
>I live in a big city
It's a different way of living in the boonies, bud

>>690036952
>implying everyone who wants a gun is poor and macho
>implying responsible owners can't exist

That's the whole argument? Honestly? I'm a passive middle income dude with a steady job. Don't drink. I target shoot for fun.

If no responsible owners existed, everyone would be fucking dead. There are millions of guns in the hands of citizens.

File: 1463761871722.png (40 KB, 750x700) Image search: [Google]

40 KB, 750x700

>>690030393
>liberal mindset as in you

>>690037260
Yea and everyone who bet on that war lost their shirts.

>>690037260
Around 1,000,000 Viet Cong died. Perhaps you mean a few hundred were left.

>>690036830
>Being prepared is inherently bad because it means you're scared
I guess im also a pussy for wearing a seatbelt in my car, huh? Or wearing safety glasses when im working with cars? I guess people at nuclear power plants are pussies because they wear hazmat suits.

>>690036830
Hipster sissy detected

>>690037217
So your guns have actually protected you, have actually been useful for your safety? I posed this question in /pol/ the other day and it was fucking crickets in there. No one could give me an actual example of when they used their gun to stop a crime or protect themself. One dude had some videos of civilians shooting armed robbers but nothing first hand

>>690037387
I already covered the concept of not giving up our guns or rights to bolshevik kike perfidy.

This thread was about people having guns at a club, so I was obviously speaking about that.

Too bad you want to twist my words instead of reading them...

>>690037525
The levels of mental gymnastics I'm seeing on the left, especially in universities, is incredible. No matter how many conflicting ideas they simultaneously hold, there's no way to get them to realize it and reevaluate because the buzzword police just tell you it's hate speech to disagree then cry bully your argument out of the area.

https://youtu.be/ZT4pGp1mQqE
Laughingwhores.jpg

>>690030393
Terrorist will always have a gun. If an equal number of trained gun owners had guns they could attempt to kill those muslim cunts

>>690037725
I personally have never used a gun in self defense, no.
I've also never set my house on fire.
But you're just downright fucking stupid if you think I'm gonna get rid of my fire extinguisher and wait for the proper authorities to show up in the event i may need it.

>>690037725
This is the 1,000,000th time some faggot has missed the fact that you don't have to need a thing, or even use it to be able to own it. On top of that, this is still the anti preparedness shit. Just because you haven't to use it yet, doesn't mean you won't in the future.

This is an invalid argument. It means less than nothing.

>>690037725
No, I mean when you live in the boonies there's hunting, target shooting, skeet shooting, protecting chickens from foxes and people's hunting dogs that they just let roam around (assholes). But I've heard stories on the news about people shooting burglars.

>>690037725
What's your issue? Does it really bother you that people own guns?

>>690030393
http://gunsjmzh2btr7lpy.onion/

>>690037775
I got lost in the verbose post and forgot you were that anon. My bad. My point's that a made against the argument you weren't making still stand - while it's unfortunate that a subsection of the population is gunretarded, it's no justification to take them from others who aren't.

>>690030393
>drones
>hackable, FLIR can be hidden from throughly $5 thermal blankets, anti material/AP rounds, and not effective in middle east

>>690037614
A gun is not a safety tool. Its a killing tool. Guns dont stop bullets anon, they fire bullets. A kevlar vest would be the more accurate comparison

>>690030393
>gun owners are pussies
>*fears people owning guns*

File: image:13990.jpg (1 MB, 2508x1504) Image search: [Google]

1 MB, 2508x1504

>>690037909
neoliberals have zero shame, never admit fault and deny you ever made a decent point... if they are disagreeing they are ignoring to try to silence your point like "mokosatsu"

these hypocritical techniques are taught at "birthright" classes and refered to as hasbara... the self justification used is the obvious inbred supremacism of the bignosed trAshkeNazi zionazis who "awww soooo smawwwwt"

>>690039026
Holy shit you're either:
A) Retarded
B) A Troll
C) Both A & B

>>690038724
agreed

>>690039026
Oh, so you're saying police don't need guns either in case someone's trying to fucking kill them? The Kevlar vest will make them invincible from a violent criminal aiming for the head or face right? So you're saying deal with the problem instead of get rid of it? Mmkay.

>>690039026
No, but guns stop other guns from firing bullets.

>>690039026
Are you retarded? What are you going to do if the gun is pointed at your face. Or the kevalr fails because you've been hit multiple times. Get out.

And once again, the killing tool argument is crap. You can do more than kill people with a gun - evidence? the millions of people that don't kill people with their guns. Get out.

>>690030393
I'd like to have a fighting chance
If you want to lie down and die at the first sign of trouble sure but don't force others to take that route as well by banning viable options for self defense

I'd rather die knowing I tried something rather then being unable to do anything

Even if the difference would've been just one extra survivor it would've been worth it imo

>>690039492
Arguing with sissies is pointless. Guns are not going anywhere, and ar15 sales will continue to soar. Let them cry all they want. At then end of the day, I do not wish to find myself in a situation were I have to use any of my guns, but if I am in a situation that requires it? I'll be ready.

>>690038541
It bothers me that its so fucking easy to buy a gun that has no other purpose than mass slaughter. Not talking shot guns or hunting equipment. I'm talking the semi automatic shit. But even a hint of some talk of the slightest tightening of gun laws and people fucking freak out about it. And it annoys me that people think they re so much safer carrying a concealed gun. Fucking half retarded people can walk around with loaded consealed weapons. It doesnt make our society safer. It makes it more dangerous.

>>690040065
I don't even have mine for defense. I target shoot for fun.

Incredibly tired of faggots with Swiss cheese reasoning complaining.

>>690035237
>what are strawmans
>implying that's ever happened

>>690039492
If you have a gun pointed at your face, having a gun in your holster doesnt do a whole lot except make the other guy more likely to unload on your face.

>>690037606
yea and the country is STILL a commie shithole

we got the bigger bodycount but it clearly didn't change anything

>>690040197
>implying a shitload of hunting weapons aren't semi automatic.
>implying it is easy to get automatic slaughter weapons legally
>implying it makes it more dangerous without an ounce of proof.
>implying again that target shooting isn't a thing

Come on. Are you faggots serious? Do some research for gods sake. At the very minimum only pay attention to the states with lax laws. Not this over reaching 'it's easy everywhere' crap. Holy shit.

>>690030393
>>690036830
>>690030746
>>690030393
I don't care if you don't like guns. I really don't care. It makes no difference to me. You can sit around and be scared of guns, or hate them, or try and belittle gun owners all you want. It doesn't make a difference to me.

Maybe your country doesn't allow it. Maybe you cannot own a gun. Maybe you think you can fight someone that has a knife with another knife, or run away, or call 911. I don't care. It's up to you.

TL;DR you're an idiot.

>>690030393

Why do you liberal cucktards think us pro-common sensers want everyone walking round like thebwild west?

Just some security guards would have greatly reduced casualties.

Why can you not make the link between cops being needed (they sure as fuck didnt get him to stop by asking nicely) and sensible precautions against a people who have been hell bent on killing us for the last 20 years?

>>690040456
>missing the point fucking again.
The argument is that others in the area are also armed fuckface. He shoots me in the face, then someone else gets him before he turns around to slaughter a crowd. You are wrong, and you are stupid.

>>690035237
What instances were those? Mass shootings occur in "gun free zones" (100%)

>>690040456
at that point you better pray your friend has a gun ready to shoot that guy in the back

>>690040456
Not having a gun allows you to shit yourself before he unloads on your face. It's a viable option, anon.

>>690036766
>protection from tyrannical government
the government has tanks, attack helis, jets, drones, warships... good luck

>>690034516

>equating the range and lethality of a firearm to that of a knife
>gun nuts think this is a good argument
>these are the best arguments gun nuts have

>>690041617
Would you read the fucking thread before you post?

>Abandons. Mudslimes did fine against them. Vietcong did fine against them.
Those things are good against enemies that also have those things. Not gunna be super effective in urban centers and hidey holes.

>>690041617

All the more reason to be prepared if they go off the rails.

First of all, the military would defect and join a legit rebellion. Usually when some prick orders them to say, open fire on protestos.

Furthermore. All that tech doesn't seem to help much in asymmetric warfare. The West has been lead on a merry dance for over 10 years by goat fucking farmers with AKs and RPGs....

>>690041742
>implying mass stabbings don't also happen.
Did you read the arguments about owning them for other things? Which happens to be the main argument I make in the first place. bet you didn't because you're a faggot.

>>690041617
>13 colonies defeat the most powerful nation in the world
>Russia pushed out of Afghanistan
>US fails to conquer all of Korea
>US withdraws from Vietnam

File: 1460666298319.jpg (17 KB, 460x455) Image search: [Google]

17 KB, 460x455

>>690041998

Yeah knives and bats are just as deadly as guns, which is why all of our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan fought with knives as their primary weapons

I think the last I checked, car deaths are just as numerous as deaths caused by guns.

Here's a fact that seemingly has been overlooked in all this post-Orlando shooting rhetoric: the underlying cause (well, ONE underlying cause, to be fair) of this event in particular is... RELIGION. For the record, I'm no atheist, but neither am I religious. A person can be spiritual, and have whatever faith and/or spiritual path they choose WITHOUT a dogmatic, Byzantine power-structure religion.

> Pro-gun Anon reporting in.

>>690042186
>Just as numerous
More like several times more frequent

>>690042184
>implying the streets of New York are the same as a war zone

>>690031296
The impending zombie apocalypse? Alien invasion? You're going to be fucked

when are you americans going to stop with all your fucking drama and drown in the ocean?

>>690042184
Again. Nice strawman. The deadliness is irrelevant to the arguments made to take them away. A knife is deadlier than a spoon, but that's no reason to take knives.

also
>implying war is the same as a gay club setting
God damn you're an idiot.

>>690041965

If you support private gun ownership to overthrow a tyrant, you must also support the private ownership of nuclear weapons since a tyrant would not hesitate to use them on a rebel force. Private nukes would be the only deterrent.

So do you support the private ownership of nuclear weapons?

>>690042488
When you non americans stop posting bait on our image boards and we are inter-race bread out of existence by the blacks and forget how to swim.

>>690042570
Wait, wut? lmao

>>690042488
Why does the rest of the world give so much of a fuck?
I'm not even American, I just can't understand why eurofags are so obsessed with shittalking the US like their own countries don't fucking suck as well?

>>690042530

>The deadliness is irrelevant to the arguments made to take them away

No, it's the exact argument to take them away, you just have literally nothing to counter it.

If the deadliness of a weapon doesn't matter then you must support civilian ownership of nuclear weapons right?

>>690030393
nah.people would have to stay sober.

>>690042570
There's the 'no gun control? well you must want nukes and chemical weapons!' argument.

A tyrant wouldn't launch nukes on it's nation. This is the most retarded thing I've read in a long time. Idiot. And lobbying for guns is nowhere near lobbying for nukes.

Knives kill 10s, guns kill 100s. - Barely comparable

Guns kill 100s, nukes kill 1,000,000s and are not consumer goods. - autist tier comparison

>>690042684

Your argument is that guns are a deterrent to a tyrant, but they aren't.

A tyrant would just use nuclear weapons on any rebellion because guns wouldn't make a difference when you get vaporized.

The only effective deterrent to a tyrant is for civilians to have nuclear weapons as well. If you disagree then you are logically inconsistent.

The military won't kill their friends and family because the government tells you so dumbass.

If someone was in the gaybar with a gun far less people would have died assuming the man with the gun has competent aim.

>>690042736
I've already countered it multiple times you aspie. You can't take something from someone because they might use it to hurt people. That's retarded. And it ignores the fact that they can be used for other purposes.

>>690042934

But I always hear from pro gun people that guns are the same as knives. If you're going to make that argument you have to follow through to more deadly weapons as well, or you're a hypocrite.

>>690043034
I cannot even believe you are this stupid.

>>690043139

Exactly why nuclear weapons should be legal. Only the bad guys would misuse nukes, so why punish the majority of good people because only a few would misuse them?

>>690043221
Not at all. 5 compared to 50 is a comparable thing. 50 compared to 1million is not.

>>690043221
While I see the point you're trying to make, I must say that the comparison IS absurd. Which I'm guessing is the exact reason you use it.

File: der fuhrer.jpg (32 KB, 341x450) Image search: [Google]

32 KB, 341x450

>>690043034
lol nuke your own country so you can rule your new raidoactive wasteland

Just as its retarded tho think that banning guns will make ISIS magically stop being cunts. Fuck off with your b8 bullshit.

>>690043034
I didn't mention any "tyrant", must of been someone else. I just don't see how you managed to make that much of a leap. I mean, a nuclear weapon would take out a shit load of innocent people. A gun just takes out the individual baddies.

>>690043365
That argument does not apply to things where 1 person could use it to end the human race. Not comparable.

>>690043221
That is completely different though, you are talking about a completely indiscriminate weapon versus a directed, much less deadly one that serves a multitude of practical, legal purposes.
Also, there isn't really anything specific that would ban an American from owning a nuke. They're just basically impossible to acquire

>>690043544
>a nuclear weapon would take out a shit load of innocent people


And guns don't also take out a shit load of innocent people?
Besides I thought it didn't matter because only the bad people would misuse nuclear weapons, the good people wouldn't so it's unfair to ban everyone from having them.

>>690043221
You're retarded if you think you can't obtain a gun when it's banned. If someone wants to kill people they will go to whatever extremes they can to do it. And worst off when guns are bought illegally they can't be tracked so there will be no warning for the FBI.

If you don't believe it's easy to get guns on the black market I would suggest researching this for yourself on the dark net.

>>690043034
No government would nuke their own infrastructures and citizens.
Please tell me you are not this fucking retarded.

>>690043741
This reminds me of an amusing conversation I had with an Indian coworker: guns are, by and large, not possible to get back in India. But where he comes from, most people have guns in their houses. They just build that shit themselves.
Kinda like the Aussie criminal workshops that build submachineguns for gangs that police find all the time

>>690043710
But your argument is for regular citizens owning a gun to defend themselves when there's a bad guy, right? Who is going to stop that person from taking out all those innocent people?

>>690043475
Why is the comparison absurd? A gun is potentially many times more deadly than a knife. A bomb is potentially many times more deadly than a gun.

If knife is okay => gun is okay, then gun is okay => bomb is okay by the transitive property.

Otherwise, we ARE taking into account quantitatively what is an appropriate level of firepower. From which many guns could reasonably be said to be too powerful for reasonable use.

>>690043741

An AR 15 on the black market in Europe goes for $30,000. An AR 15 in walmart is like $1000.

the people who have used them recently for mass shooting wouldn't have been able to afford them on the black market, and they would also run the risk of buying from an undercover agent or some other sting operation as opposed to buying it easily and cheaply from walmart.

>>690043034
The government isn't retarded enough to nuke it's self and the military would never go along with killing their friends and family. It would result in an instant military coup.

>>690043462

So where is the cutoff then? Give me an exact number.

>>690044037
When did bombs become available on the market? Where's the bomb show? Sounds cool

>>690044078
they don't...that's why they use $200 ak in paris...

>>690044078
I wonder how the Paris attacks happened then?
Also you can't buy AR-15s at Walmart like the retarded picture leftists float around and masterbate to.

>>690043569

So how many people have to be threatened by the weapon before its ok to ban it?

Give me an exact number because after we are dealing with Constitutional law here so the exact number is important.

>>690040892
Because mass shooters were "common sensers" until they decided to just go on a rampage. I can't figure out why you guys never get that just because someone calls themselves something stupid like a "common senser" that they can't turn around and do something horrible.

>>690044247
They're not. They're illegal. How many bombings have you heard of, in comparison to shootings? From this, what can we infer about the illegality of potentially deadly items?

>>690043694

Firing into a crowd of people with a military rifle isn't indiscriminate?

And to your other point, nuclear weapons have legitimate uses as well or we wouldn't have them.

>>690044315
How many people have to be killed by drunk drivers for prohibition to return?

>>690044471
That's not the point.
A firearm harms whatever its user points it at.
A nuke annihilates every fucking person around it in a massive radius
There is no comparison

File: Timothy_McVeigh.jpg (19 KB, 400x559) Image search: [Google]

19 KB, 400x559

>>690044247
They are illegal but easy to make with common household chemicals if you know how. All of these recipes for bombs can be found on the darknet, I've even seen recipes posted here.

Also bombers have killed far more people than a single lone gunman. pic related

>>690031651
Confirmed.

>>690044037
OK... on paper that is actually (and I can't believe I'm saying this) a fair, and decently thought out assessment. But logically, I feel it fails to consider numerous OTHER variables that, when factored in to your equation, would THEN render it moot. Still yet, you're simply never gonna sway my opinion that we, as citizens of a free society, should ABSOLUTELY have the RIGHT to defend ourselves and families from deadly force by any means necessary. And that INCLUDES equally deadly force. What is the most efficient way to deliver deadly force? WITH A GUN.

>>690044164
When you're killing more than a hundred in a single button press, it becomes incomparable.

>>690044307

Because they were well-financed. Banning guns and thereby making them many times more expensive means only those with a well financed operation can afford them. Well financed operations are easier to track/counter/prevent than deranged lone wolves. Many terrorist plans are foiled by authorities but few lone wolves are.

>>690044315
Once again, a gun is not a tool that can take out >1000 people in one go. This is why bombs aren't sold, and why the constitution doesn't mention them. Just stop.

>>690031651
>Common sense
The minute I hear the term, I instantly disregard whatever come next. Conservatives are guilty too, but whenever I hear a leftist refer to something as "common sense" it is invariably followed by the dumbest shit possible, garbage that can only be considered "common sense" to people who know nothing about the topic
I mean, fuck, Liberals' idea of "common sense" is background check laws that cannot possibly be enforced and banning cosmetic features of firearms, the purpose of which they don't even have the slightest idea

>>690044370
That's not the argument. They've done nothing wrong until they have. You can't take something because they might use it wrong. Plenty of people, the majority even, are responsible owners.

>>690035196
The number of shootings in a country that has less wepons available (e.g. Germany) compared to those where everyone can buy weapons (eg. .USA) is even smaller than the ratio of weapons per person in both countries.

And Orlando shows, that even in countries where people may own weapons, most people don't always carry their weapon.

BTW: The difference in people killed in cases where the police stopped the shooting can either be interpreted as "The police are called only to cases where many people have already been killed" or, again, as: "There are too many idiots wearing weapons!"

>>690045168
Timothy McVeigh was poor as shit and killed 168 people and injured over 600 with a bomb that he made. That is far more than any mass shooter has ever done.

>>690044435
Quite a few considering the market isn't already flooded with that particular illegal weapon. Step down off faggot mountain and have a proper, factually based conversation with the rest of us.

>>690044776

>There is no comparison

If there's no comparison between nuclear weapons and guns that means there is no comparison between guns and knives.

But you're avoiding the main question -- How deadly does a weapon have to be before it's okay to ban it?

>>690045168
>well financed ak47
you DO realize the only reason a ar15 is expensive is because it's an ar15 right?

>>690034564
Australia has a smaller population than california and is an island gtfo

>>690044471
Name the other uses. There aren't any. You aren't competitive target nuking. You aren't defending your farm against animals with a nuke. this shitpost is getting real tired real fast

>>690044435
see
>>690044842

>>690045511

Having a bomb is already illegal. You aren't making a point here.

http://www.ijreview.com/2016/06/627943-heres-what-you-need-to-know-about-assault-rifles-and-the-ar-15/

>>690045777
And anything illegal the FBI can't track, if guns become illegal you will have a black market full of untraceable weapons.

>>690044037
That's not how the transitive property works. No one is arguing for bombs. Jesus.

guns are many times more deadly that knives. Bombs range from many times more deadly (with no other applications but landscaping) to 100s of thousands of times more deadly. This comparison is shit.

But I like guns.

>>690034584
there were half a million people in psych wards that were closed in the 80's now only about 25 thousand are in them

>>690030393
Statistically speaking whenever here is a "good guy with a gun" at one of these events the toll of people hurt is dramatically lower. It really helps to have good people armed.

>>690045480
Strangely, I cannot think of a single example of when any of those other countries passed strict firearms laws, and it actually did something. Off the top of my head:
In Aus, all sorts of retarded gun laws were passed in the 90's, including banning semi-auto rifles. The rates of homicide, and other violent crimes, did not respond in any way. The criminals that didn't use guns just used knives and shit instead
When the UK banned handguns and such, basically the same thing happened. In fact the amount of crime with guns, specifically handguns, shot of dramatically after they were banned. A few years after the ban, the number of crimes with handguns was many times what it had ever been before
I'm Canadian, and when we were all fucked with bullshit gun laws by libshits in the 90's? Same story, did not accomplish a single goddamn thing

>>690045311

>a gun is not a tool that can take out >1000 people in one go

But your number is completely arbitrary. For you it's 1000 people, for me its 50 fags in a nightclub or 20 kids in a school.

>>690045480
It was in a no guns allowed zone anon. He chose the target area specifically because it had his intended victims, and they were all unarmed. You can interpret that image any way you want. The objective truth is unmarred by your opinion on the matter.

>>690036097
Sure, in a country where weapons of all kind are already abundant, you would drive all of the NRA and their followers into underground business - they wouldn't turn in their weapons.
Just look at the already known market for illegally modified weapons and those unregistered weapons used for criminal purposes.

But otoh if police can safely assume that any weapon they see is illegal if not carried by someone obviously (policemen, security personell, militäry) legally doing so, weapon control will quite quickly reduce the amount of weapons available.

>>690045480
because of so called "gun free zones" which is common in high crime liberal cities

>>690045677
>other uses
MAD

>You aren't competitive target nuking
If it's ok to shoot cans in your backyard why isn't it ok for me to do competitive target nuking? Stop trying to limit my freedom.

I have guns. Quite a few actually; many more than any one I know personally, and of all different types. I have handguns, shottys, and riffles, both bolt action and semi-auto. I have TWO of the 'dreaded AR 15s', and the prize of my collection a PS-90. All this talk about 'banning guns' doesn't really affect me in the slightest; I say LET 'EM BAN GUNS. Of course, when and if they DO and they come to confiscate mine... whoever is unlucky enough to be picked for THAT job is gonna have a Bad Time.

>>690045109
As citizens of a free society, we have entered in a social contract, part of which guarantees personal safety. In the case of the US, we have stipulated that as part of that, we are allowed to take part in our own defense.

How exactly is that working out for us, realistically? Our social guarantee of safety is effectively being made null by a part of our own social guarantee of safety.

>>690046146
There is a cap to the arbitrary number. The upper potential for a gun is not so high that one person with it threatens to destroy a city with no one able to stop him. I'm arguing for guns, against bombs.

Guess what? I know plenty of felons that aren't legally allowed to own guns. They still have them. Prohibition doesn't work.

>>690045631
>$800.00
>expensive