Your country
Do you want protected gun rights?
>>61143770
I want americans protected from gunfire
SHALL
>be american
>get shot
no, only fags are obsessed by guns
>>61143795
NOT
>>61143818
>be French faggot
>go to gay club
>get mowed down by ISIS
>>61143770
Restricting guns for civilians and mainly let the authorities be the ones to handle them is the best bet. It's how it's like over here and it's working out well, since we know that whoever owns a gun is a threat, which makes it easy to track.
>>61143770
No , it's easier to take down some1 with a knife than with a gun
I can't understand why Americans still allow gun possession in spite of rampancy of shooting incidents.
>>61143976
Banning guns won't stop criminals from obtaining them.
>>61143976
because it's not that simple
we can't just magically get all of the guns off the streets, if we outlaw gun possession there will still be millions of guns in circulation
>>61143924
you can use that logic in defense of gun rights too
it's easier for a criminal to take down a man who has a knife than a man who has a gun
>>61144138
OP asked
>your country
My country has had gun laws for a veeery long amount of time...even with our crap police guns are extremely hard to get illegally and they cost a lot ...also since they're so rare (legal ones) i wouldn't be surprised if most of the police goes on a shoot first ask questions later when it comes to guns...
I've never seen a gun in 24 years and people have tried to rob me 3 times in my life
(obviously there's exceptions but that's regarding luck and does not invalidate the rule)
In the US there are already guns on the street , there are already a significant amount of guns that no1 knows about(are not recorded anywhere) ...and also ... we don't have a huge crime syndicate that specializes in smuggling stuff on the other side of our border
>>61144058
I see. It may be a difference of history and culture.
In Japan, ordinary people will never see guns except for ones hung on police officer's waist.
I suppose that a gun is a kind of symbol of America's history and culture.
>>61144031
But wouldn't it make it harder for them?
>>61144058
I don't know shit about guns but don't gun sellers usually keep track of which firearm they sell to which person by linking their name to the gun's serial number?
>>61143923
>Restricting guns for civilians and mainly let the authorities be the ones to handle them is the best bet. It's how it's like over here and it's working out well.
No it's not like that. Canada's gun control is much less restrictive than Chicago's or California's. It's really only about registration, which has been loosened over time.
Despite this we have the 12th most guns per hundred people in the world, and still a very low homicide rate. Who would have guessed.
>we know that whoever owns a gun is a threat
Just like every person who follows the Quran is a threat, right?
>>61144347
I don't really know anything about guns either, but even if that were true they still couldn't get all of the guns away from the people
a lot of us believe it is our god given right to own guns and some would rather die than give them up
personally if there was an effective way of getting guns off the streets I would be all for it, but there really isn't a way to do that in America
>>61144347
>But wouldn't it make it harder for them?
For somewhere like Australia or the UK? Sure. But America is an end node for illegal drug and arms trade from South and Central America. It's much easier to get a gun illegally there than in an island nation.
>>61144330
it really is
the whole reason our forefathers wanted us to have guns is so if the government turned corrupt, we would have a way to defend ourselves
>>61144347
Worst night club attack in American history killed 72 people.
The killer used about $6 worth of gasoline.
If we want to be safe, we need to address the problems that lead to violent attacks. Banning the means of attack is just putting a plaster over a gangrene toe.
>>61143976
Getting rid of guns has never lowered the rate of murder or violence.
In every instance of guns being banned murder stays the same or increases, and total violent crimes always increase.
If banning something doesn't make us safer, and in fact makes us less safe, why do it? Because it's nicer to be stabbed to death instead of shot to death or something?
>>61143770
For the proletarians
Let me tell you why there's no such thing as "Common Sense Gun Control"
About 60,000 regular citizens each year use a gun to drive off an attacker in the US, whether by gun fight or simple intimidation. By and large, these people identify as conservatives, they stand for what the rest of the world would call "Liberal Gun Rights". In the same vein, around 30,000 people each year use a gun in the commission of a crime. The vast majority of these people are people who do not own guns legally. They typically are under some sort of direct government assistance, and they live primarily in cities like Baltimore which are considered politically safe "liberal (meaning US Democrat)" bastions, and if they vote, they vote for the party that stands for largess for the poor from the pockets of the upper middle class (because the truly wealthy will find some way to avoid the tax increase, they always do). They don't stand for their victims owning guns, no siree.
Similarly, the mass shooters who live to make political statements or have researchable political speech in the form of manifestos or social media posts are principally democrat voters or further left. For example, when Cathy Giffords was shot by Adam Lanza, his manifesto claimed he was doing it because Cathy had not supported Nancy Pelosi's political program stringently enough.
So Republican Voters see guns as a force for good, which allow them to defend themselves from Democrat voters, who see guns as a source of evil, but don't stint using said evil against their fellow man.
Thus there can be no common sense gun control, the party that wants it mostly want to disarm people who use their guns for lawful purposes, and represent the very threats that the people who want guns for lawful purposes need to defend themselves against.
My apologies to the creater of Dilbert, I've paraphrased his blog here.
>>61143770
Germany
We've been doing splendid without them
>>61143923
but I thought police were evil racists who only exist to kill innocent black babies.
>>61143770
>Do you want protected gun rights?
Yes, but it is unlikely though
