POL BTFO
>>57354807
Anyone know what Great Britain, Japan, Australia, Finland, Spain, Germany, and Canada all have in common?
>>57354807
>BTFO
nothing like putting a retard badge on your post
>>57354807
>>57354807
>poo peeland
criminals will still get guns regardless of their legal status
i want to see an answer to that
>>57354881
Attacks every da-
-er, i mean a progressive society that shows gun control works!
>>57354881
Insanely high knife related violent crimes?
>>57354881
No second amendment.
>>57354807
but is there any good reason to get rid of guns?
A cheat sheet for every anti-gun argument by our Supreme Court from DC vs Heller (2008)
> (1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
> (a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.
> (b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved
> (c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment.
> (d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms.
> (e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion.
>>57354881
>CANADA, BRITAIN, JAPAN, AUSTRALIA, FINLAND, SPAIN, GERMANY, AND CANADA ALL HAVE LESS GUN DEATHS!
>"B-but they have far more violent crimes per year due to use of other common household items like bats, knives, forks, hammers and others.
>Y-YEAH BUT L-LESS GUN DEATHS!!!! STOP CHANGING THE SUBJECT YOU FACIST NAZI PIG REEEEEEEEEEEEE!
Literally every time.
SHALL
>>57354807
>So was slavery
Slavery wasn't in the constitution, the 3/5ths clause was put in the limit the political clout of slave owners, so they couldn't count every slave as a single vote.
A number of founders wanted slavery outlawed from the start, like Ben Franklin.
>>57354807
slavery was not in the constitution
>>57354881
They lack a border with Mexico?
>>57354881
northern finland has like 800 guns per 1000 citizens
pretty sure the retard who threw us in there has no idea how popular hunting here is
>>57354975
>>57354996
>>57355029
>>57355142
Well that and there's no barely any niggers
Did the tightened gun laws actually reduce gun violence here? Has gun violence ever even been a thing worth noting here?
>how to blow out every single gun grabber argument
Shall not be infringed
>>57355236
Uh-oh, bad, can't do that. Bringing up race into any argument with a liberal is like flicking their off switch. They just don't have any comprehension of a reality where someone who believes that now, in this year of 20's and 15thousand, that someone could ever find a correlation between race and any sort of crime whatsoever.
Fucking be ashamed CIShet fucking pig.
>>57354881
We got guns in Canada. but you need to get licensed which costs like $300 for the safety test and application. If you want to get restricted guns, they run a criminal record check on you every day.
>>57354807
I don't even know where to start. Every single statement is incorrect.
>>57354968
>by that logic we should not have laws against murder
>>57354881
Suicides and low birth rates.
>>57355262
theres like 1 finn for every 100 miles
you're too far apart to kill enough of you to make a story
>>57355282
>amendment
Can always be changed if the people will it
But arsenic and the atomic bomb ARE legal for private US citizens to own.
>>57355401
is a dui really a felony in canada?
>>57355236
m80 we got abos which are basically the same, straight from the ghetto living on da welfare my nig.
They complained about the government taking their lands away from them, so they gave most of it back. They then said they could live off the land so they had all these settlements out in Western Australia. the government said "Okay no problem, guess you don't need welfare anymore". The uproar that caused. "Forced closure of Western Abo Settlements!". Fukken boong cunts need to learn that they can't be dependent forever or else they'll get left behind.
>>57354807
>so was slavery
typical clapper education
>>57355635
You have no fucking clue how hard it is amend the constitution, do you?
God I wish I could live in Canada where the populace is literally retarded, ignorance is bliss as they say.
>anti gun cheat sheet
>no statistics
Wonder why
>>57355635
3/4ths majority to pull that off
>>57355199
we found the real reason behind the shootings now
>>57355262
no to both
30% of the population owns a firearm and 15% of homicides are done with a gun. no idea how many of those 15% are legal guns
>>57354807
Slavery was never in the Constitution. Fuck you OP.
I only have one answer for this entire "cheat sheet"
BILL OF RIGHTS
>>57354948
>poorious
>>57355664
Yes
>>57355500
that doesn't make any sense though
>>57354807
>OhMyGodICantFinishMySentenceYouAreFuckingInsane
Great argument
/pol/ BTFO
So are they arguing because people who have committed shootings owned guns people shouldn't be allowed to own them at all?
So by that logic because of the shit in the middle east and Paris we should deny refugees because of some bad apples right?
>>57354807
>by that logic, arsenic and the atomic bomb should be legal too.
Is this retard seriously implying arsenic is illegal
>>57355992
why?
ive gotten 2 duis and theyve both been misdemeanors and i can own a gun and have a concealed carry
>>57355943
Slavery was. They were to be designated as 3/5ths a person.
>>57354807
>atom bombs should be illegal
but then why do the liberals want to give iran nukes?
>>57356116
That was not in the bill of rights.
>laws shape society, not the other way around
Nice freedom you got there, America.
>>57355943
Slavery was mentioned in the constitution in a few occassions, they just didn't use the word "slaves"
Example from Article 1, Sec. 9
The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
>>57355645
Nukes are strictly illegal for civilian ownership. You're right about arsenic though.
>>57356116
That's not about slavery, about about a slave's worth.
>>57354881
Chronic diarrhea?
>>57356283
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
They are not explicitly granting the right to slave trade. They are acknowledging that it was not in the governments right or ability to stop.
>>57356116
You dumb fucking nigger.
>south has low population
>north has large population
>south doesn't want to laws against its interest railroaded down its throat
>Need reps in congress to keep this from happening
>"m-muh niggers count towards reps!"
>oh really? are they full citizens?
>"NO! We can't have that!"
Deal was that 3/5ths of all slaves count towards representation in government.
They werent 3/5ths a person. I doubt very seriously if anyone believed that. You are either a human being or you arent
>>57354807
>so was slavery
And it was removed by amendment. Be honest and try removing the right to bear arms, then.
>>57356574
Now you're nitpicking, you made the bold claim that slavery was never once mentioned and it was mentioned, on several occasions.
>>57354807
>comparing fucking nukes to guns
>commercial cars drive over 75 have absolutely no purpose other than to break the law. Guns have other purposes besides killing including hunting, range shooting, and implied intimidation
>those countries don't have niggers like we do, and generally higher rates of violent crime despite it
>"logic"
>wat
>kek
>in an all out war between the people and the government, the people would win. The government simply doesn't have the manpower despite their tech
>it's a right
>slavery wasn't stated nor was it considered a constitutional right
>racism is an idea, an assault rifle isn't
>>57354881
few niggers
The amendment banning slavery is literally in the fucking constitution.
If we can get rid of the second amendment, then we should be able to get rid of women's suffrage as well.
How much of a kek must you be to demand that your government restricts your rights?
>>57356684
>in the bill of rights
Which is what that guy said.
>>57354807
>But it's in the constitution
>so was slavery
SO MAKE ANOTHER AMENDMENT AND TAKE AWAY OUR GUNS
UNTIL THEN, FUCKING KILL YOURSELF
>nukes
Nukes are not "arms". This term means the weapons that can be borne and operated by the common soldier: namely tactical rifles and handguns, and similar weapons.
>>57356684
Also
>most of the points require a person arguing for gun control to do so in bad faith
This is just sad.
>>57356768
The bill of rights is higher than the administrative amendments that came later. No one, even the people themselves, have the authority to repeal the right to self-defense. It is a natural right.
>>57355159
You never read the amendment "thall shall be allowed to own a nigger?"
>>57356344
Yeah? Is there a law against private nuke ownership?
Protip: most nuke plants in the US are privately owned. Who's going to stop them from building a bomb?
>>57357397
The same people intelligent enough to know the difference between uranium fit for civilian power and uranium fit for filling a bomb.
>>57354807
The only valid argument references the kukest nations on the planet
>>57354807
>Atomic bombs AREN'T legal. Even if they were, the political backlash both at home and from overseas from destroy the user.
>Guns also have a purpose, they serve as sport just like archery and fencing.
>All those countries have had annual increases in violent crimes.
>No one says that.
>Ad hom. But it would be good to have armed security guards in every gun-free zones.
>Agreed.
>In the event of a revolt, the government would be incapable of using either air force or tanks against its people. It would only be able to utilize soldiers to police people, and the citizens would be able to fight back with handguns and rifles.
>Arming the populace has saved more lives than caused deaths.
>Slavery wasn't in the Bill of Rights, and it certainly didn't have the "shall not be infringed" clause.
>False equivalence fallacy.
Add on if you guys think I got anything wrong or missed anything.
>>57355500
The laws against murder aren't there to tell people "Don't commit murder." If tomorrow the government suddenly announced it's not illegal to murder someone, most non-niggers will not kill somebody. The laws are there to spell out the due process and the punishments.
12,217 deaths by gun violence in America
4.023 a police officer was involved
1,125 were in self defense
1,748 accidental shootings
in 2014 that's with a population of 320 million
oh btw those super handy dandy multiuse extremely essential constitutional cigarettes account for about 480,000 deaths a year
I'm too tired to respond to every point in the op but I'm sure anyone who isn't a braindead gun-grabbing liberal can clearly see the fault in his arguments.
>>57354807
>By this logic, arsenic and the atomic bomb should be legal too
Yeah, they should.
That is actually a counterargument.
Do liberals not know why nukes aren't used frivolously? Because they kill a lot of people very easily?
No, it's because they can kill a lot of people easily and -others- have them too.
Which is why despite every country having some, no one has ever used them besides the US in the very beginning where the US was the only one with the nuclear option.
All I'm seeing is justifying why everyone should own a gun.
>>57354807
Was slavery in the constitution? I mean, I definitely remember an amendment outlawing slavery, but is actual slavery in the constitution?
I swear to god if you touch my fucking video games...
This must be how gun owners feel. I finally get it.
Seriously, stay the fuck away from video game censorship. There's literally no connection between gun violence in games and doing the real thing.
>>57354807
guns are for self-defense
and you don't have teh votes
cry more, retard
sage
>>57357944
Nope. The SJWs are after everything. You defend your video games. We will defend our games. And when we have free time, we'll defend each other.
>>57356270
The Bill of Rights is not the entire constitution boyo
>>57357944
First they came for the anime.
But I did not speak up, for I was not a lolicon.
>>57354807
#1 strawman. besides, guns are legal so we can protect ourselves. you do not engage in self defense with arsenic
#2 yes they do. guns are used in hunting, and in sport.
#3 now how about a list of nations with strict gun control laws or outright bans that have higher violent crime rates per 100,000 people? oh, hey! the UK makes that list!
#4 never heard anyone make that argument. that argument also has nothing to do with guns. I have heard "if you ban abortions people will get them anyways!" though, which, if you think about it, is a call to legalize murder, because, hey, it'll happen anyways
#5 there are schools where teachers are armed. they haven't killed anyone.
#6 video games are a bullshit cop out. no serious study shows they have any impact. mental health is a legitimate issue: violent crazies are dangerous and need help. And not only is this not changing the subject, it is also a gun control advocate talking point.
#7 your argument is "you are too small and the government can kill you effortlessly if they want to, so fighting to keep a right to protect yourself if petty and outdated." And you are right. My pistol will not stop a drone's hellfire missile. you're missing the fucking point. i still have the RIGHT to defend myself.
#8 a "cure" for gun violence is not "confiscate all guns and ban ownership!" just like a cure for breast cancer is not "chop off all the tits!" Most tits won't get cancer, most gun owners won't kill people
#9 Show me the amendment in the bill of rights that said "a person may own another person"
#10 the federal government can't even keep drugs out of their own prisons. why should i trust them to magically make gun violence a thing of the past?
>>57355142>>57355236
Yep, not teeming with niggers like you Freedom Friends.
And the ones we do have are mostly black. From other places too.
But im getting me a beautiful Beretta 92A as soon as take my gun course and lisence.
Im literally dreaming of it.
>>57358059
I bet they're doing that just to force guys to stop fapping and start fucking.
>>57358009
Video games are the major scapegoat for the NRA right after mental illness. I don't know if an alliance would work.
>>57358274
It would. NRA has been predominantly older white men, but now the younger generation that grew up with videogames AND likes guns are slowly coming into the political scene. If we give up either front, the other front will fall soon enough. Porn is the other front, but no amount of SJW whining will topple the sex industry, because they don't need a good public image.
>>57355679
>where the populace is literally retarded
This. Can't confirm this enough. Our police are reputable for being amongst the most corrupt globally, our populace is content with ever tightening gun laws, carbon tax is fucking our economy, and the only political discussion I EVER hear is about DUDE LMAO. Oh, and a vast majority ignorantly voted for an inexperienced kuk dumbass for all the aforementioned reasons. We deserve all the hate we get on /pol/. Hopefully we become like sweden and get made fun of consistently internationally so our population begins to wake up, but that's likely asking a lot.
>>57358385
If only the gaming industry had the same ability to lobby. Maybe the Call of Duty people. They probably have a shit load of money.
>>57354807
>OhMyGodICantFinishMySentenceYouAreFuckingInsane
Well here's one example.
>>57358610
At least you guys have based Japan to fall back on. Japan literally gives no fucks. Us gun owners are literally the last line of self-defense for the entire world. America:Gun :: Japan:Videogames.
>>57354807
And another.
>>57357226
The ability to amend the constitution came before the bill of rights. Nothing is above being amended out.
Caleb the kek's twitter https://twitter.com/CalebGarling
>>57355142
>EVERYTIME I ARGUE WITH SOMEONE AND SAY NIGGERS ARE STUPID THEY STOP PAYING ATTENTION TO ME. FUCKING LIBERALS THE LOT OF THEM
The reason /pol/ has zero credibility is because of the nigger hating.
Race has nothing to do with anything. We can see this via the vast amount of exceptions to the "niggers are dumb" argument.
There are rural, white communities that are inbred to all hell and social aid as well as nigger ghettos where people rely on social aid.
>>57359388
>Race has nothing to do with anything.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__Vj3DXwOBI
>>57359388
>There are rural, white communities that are inbred to all hell
Where?
>>57359388
There was a statistical study that showed ~30% correlation between poverty and crime. It showed 81% correlation between being black and crime.
>>57359388
Listen Rajdeep, you wondered into the wrong neighborhood. Come back when you look up some stats at the connections between intelligence, aggression and race that have nothing to do with the socioeconomic myth, nigger.
>>57359597
I agree with all the points the man argues in this video.
I find it's more so a cultural thing than a racial thing. Just generations and generations of shitty fucking upbringings.
>>57359689
i believe you, but for the sake of being thorough, i have to ask: does that take into account black poverty rates?
>>57359689
I understand, I'm just saying that I believe it's a cultural problem rather than a racial problem.
>>57359388
niggers do not commit crime because of genetic disposition. they are not, inherently, subhuman. They do it because the thug/nigger/gangster culture glorifies the violence.
so blaming niggers isn't racist. that would be implying they could not help but to be scum. I'm blaming their culture, not their skin color.
>>57359609
https://kentuckybluepeople.wordpress.com/inbreeding-in-eastern-kentucky-christine-voll/
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/367903/white-ghetto-kevin-d-williamson
These aren't racial issues, they're socio-economic/cultural issues.
>>57359929
Truedeau pls go
>>57354807
>POL BTFO
Stop making these threads lad. I get stressed every time.
>>57359815
Have you ever taken a statistics course? "Black Poverty rates" is two factors. The point of statistics is to isolate each factor and examine how much of an effect it has. In this study, it showed race had a far greater effect on crime than poverty did.
>>57359882
Absolutely, I agree. Even if we somehow prove blacks have lower IQ, it'd be a far fetch to say they have a "crime" gene. It's in their ghetto culture. Growing up in NYC, I have seen it with my own eyes. Many black people have admitted this themselves. But I get called racist and those respectable black folk get called Uncle Toms.
>>57359929
every city you visit in america there are thousands of niggers walled off in a ghetto
you are posting hick towns with LESS THAN 100 people living in them, no shit they arent well off
>>57358082
>#1 strawman. besides, guns are legal so we can protect ourselves. you do not engage in self defense with arsenic
yeah, it's sure been working super well for ya'll down there! if this had any semblance of truth, the USA would have the lowest crime rates ever.
>>57354807
>arsenic
what's her explanation for rat poison or cockroach spray being legal?
>>57358257
Thank-you for this info. This must be why murica has such low crime rates!
.... lol errrr ... wait a minute ...
>>57354807
>They have in Britain
No they haven't though, in fact it's gotten worse.
>For the sake of argument, the average is 4 per 100,000
>Guns are banned
>Number jumps from 4 to 12
>Then to 20
>Now it's 14
>"Guys the gun ban is totally working, we've came down from 20 per year to 14, if that's not progress I don't know what is!"
>>57358694
mmk, so, we're at 1 vs. ... what? just HOW many mass shootings? not even just school shootings alone, I'm being generous. why do you have so much crime if guns prevent crime and protect people? are you all really this fucking retarded?
>>57360051
well, less than a third of the population owns a weapon, and many who do own one do not actively carry it on them. a gun can only stop a crime if its owner has it on him when he is attacked, or witnesses an attack.
but let's assume you have a valid point. all legal gun owners, wishing to reduce crime and be good, law abiding people, turn in their guns. we are now a safe nation!
how do we protect ourselves from the criminals who do not turn in their guns? in fact, have you EVER even considered the criminals perspective? almost every criminal asked about it says that if they suspect someone has a gun, they target someone else. if they think a home might have a weapon, they look for a different place to rob. their biggest fear is that their target has a weapon of their own.
do you think it is an accident almost every mass shooting happens in gun free zones? the theater shooting in Colorado? Guy drove very far out of his way, and past other theaters, to find the one that was gun free before he did his attack. do you think it was because he was worried a legal owner might kill him and save lives? or do you think he was just afraid some civilian jackass with a gun would try to be a hero and just make the intended bloodbath worse?
>>57360029
>every city you visit in america there are thousands of niggers walled off in a ghetto
The key word there is walled off. This means that they aren't able to seek insight from many people whom are educated and intelligent, law-abiding, successful and well-mannered.
As soon as they wall themselves off with a bad narrative and:
1. Are encouraged not to follow civilized standards
2. Are encouraged to dismiss any authority because they're taught that it's "racist"
3. Are encouraged to commit crime
4. Nothing is done to stop the cycle and assimilate a growing demographic
then yes, the problem becomes worse and worse.
But saying "I want to kill the niggers because they're stupid fucking animals" or "I want to deport the niggers." wont get you anywhere, because it lacks any moral decency and as I've said previously, you completely lose credibility in the eyes of a society founded on a strong moral compass.
there were more shootings than days of the year this year
>>57360728
That's why you can compare a community that's isolated geographically with a community that's socially isolated.
It really comes down to the same thing. However, I will admit that helping a socially isolated community would be much easer than helping one that's geographically isolated.
>>57360316
"man pulls out gun, kills 7" is a bigger news story than "man subdued by legal gun owner, no lives lost"
you can not prove a negative. a mass shooting is only a mass shooting if 3 or more people are killed, i believe is the standard. so if a guy with a legal weapon stops a rampage before it begins, or before 3 people die, then there never was a mass shooting, statistically.
and you are making 2 more horrific assumptions. first, you assume that high crime rates are a national problem. they are not. it is a big city problem. the vast majority of suburbs have low crime, and rural places have low crime. and in rural especially, high gun ownership rates. remove detroit, chicago, and baltimore from the statistics, and you see our violent crime rate PLUMMET. When 3 cities are so bad that their rates alone influence the nation as a whole, that means there is a culture problem in the cities, not a nation wide crime epidemic.
secondly, as i already said, most deranged people who plan a shooting spree pick specific targets, and one quality they universally look for is gun free zones. a legal gun owner CAN NOT stop a gun crime in a gun free zone because, BEING A LAW ABIDING CITIZEN, he has not brought his gun with him.
PROTIP: WHEN ARGUING WITH LIBERALS
Or basically anyone who's not form /pol/
>America has a nigger problem.
>America has a ghetto culture problem.
There. Repackage things into an easier to digest but still objectively correct manner.
>>57358247
They're doing it because "blame otaku" is a popular political tactic in Japan. It's much easier to blame a niche audience of strange media than to fix a stagnant economy, severe overcrowding, corrupt leadership, and a horrifying work culture bolstered by piss poor labor regulation.
>>57356732
great britain has tons a niggas. thus they got the knife crimez
>>57360788
what's Chiang Kai-Shek up to these days?
>By this logic, arsenic and the atomic bomb should be legal too.
(1) Guns can be used for self-defense and are pretty safe for the person trying to defend themselves. Arsenic and atomic bombs are not safe for the person trying to defend or innocent people within a certain radius.
(2) Remove one kind of gun, they will use others.
(3) Trying to remove all guns doesn't take them out of hands of hardened criminals. It primarily takes them out of the kind of well-meaning citizens that were never the problem.
(4) Taking one group's guns away makes them vulnerable to another. For example, look at Paris. The whole country has gun control, but over a hundred people got were killed with ak-47s. Gun control didn’t just fail them, it killed them.
(5) By taking away people's defense, you are morally guilty of those innocents who died because they were unable to defend themselves. Yes, that means you.
>Cars, knives, and baseball bats have other purposes than killing. Guns don't.
They sure do: self-defense and hunting.
>They have in Great Britain, Japan, Australia, Finland, Spain, Germany and Canada. Let's take a chance.
(1) Gun control is causing serious issues in those countries. 1400 children and young women were abused in Rotherham and the police did nothing to stop it in the name of political correctness. The victims didn't have the means to protect themselves. You can't even buy pepper spray, or even teaspoons in the UK unless you've got a valid ID. This leaves the victims
>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2580317/College-student-16-ordered-ID-Tesco-staff-tried-buy-TEASPOONS.html
(2) These kinds of studies are very inconclusive. In some respects, the US has less violence. For example, it has fewer home invasions than England. There is also extremely little reflection upon how many lives guns save.
>>57361534
(3) Americans seem to be more violent which pumps up their crime statistics, and will persist despite changes in gun control. In respects like "murder by youths," America has 60x that of the UK. Consider on the other than that Switzerland has very few gun restrictions yet low gun related crime. There's a strong relationship between the culture and the crime stats, which inflate our stats. We have some cultural problems that will cause violence and murder regardless.
>By that logic we should not have laws against murder
Bad comparison:
(1) Drugs primarily affect the individual taking them, so they are largely crimes against oneself. This makes it a pretty low priority compared to other national issues.
(2) People still do drugs despite being illegal because of a lack of enforcement and a high likelihood of getting away with the crime.
(3) There seems to be public confusion over the morality or immorality of drugs. It's unwise to enforce a law whose backing is not rock solid in the public arena.
(4) Consider trying this logic on another example: "Jaywalking is illegal and people still jaywalk, therefore we should not have laws against murder." Clearly we care more about enforcing more serious crimes.
>This only treats a symptom of the-OhMyGodICantFinishMySentenceYouAreFuckingInsane
(1) Don't straw man gun rights by saying those for gun rights want teachers to be armed. Not many do.
>>57361569
(2) It's a radically different idea to you, so understandably you want to reject it outright. But there is a missing statement here: "Just arm the teachers (so they have a means to defend against those who are already armed)." Try this person's argument in place: "Don't give the teachers guns (so they DON'T have a means to defend against those who are already armed)". It's a hard reality, it's not a nice or pretty thing, and ideally this wouldn't even be an issue. But you should be ashamed of endangering lives unnecessarily by not facing the realities, preparing for the unexpected, and doing everything to ensure our children are as protected as can be. There are probably better alternatives, but your disinclination to even consider it is the kind of thinking that gets people killed by being unprepared.
>Agreed. But that's called changing the subject
There's an implicit following to the argument: that fixing the mental health problems would fix the gun violence and that not fixing the mental health while restricting certain weapons will leave them to commit the same or similar crimes with different means.
>The Pentagon spent 654.84 billion dollars in 2011. But seriously, tell me about your assault rifles.
(1) Want me to compare the wealth of the British vs the early American colonists?
>>57361602
(2) Substantial amounts of the military budget are impractical, overpriced, maintenance, and foreign spending.
(3) Guerrilla tactics are primarily employed by those leading a revolution, which are much more cost efficient
(4) Do you seriously think that revolutions happen when the people of a nation have a bigger budget than a tyrannical government? The complete opposite scenario is usually the starting point of revolutions, in fact.
>So is breast cancer. Should we stop searching for a cure?
The cost of enforcing gun control may be high enough relative to the change in gun crime that spending our effort on something like preventing breast cancer or heart disease would be more cost efficient and therefore save more lives.
>So was slavery
(1) So if it's in the constitution it's bad? Clearly being in the constitution gives a law a good status before a bad status.
(2) Do you think it's a good idea to simply drop a law from the constitution without the right due process or debate? That there is no regard for the fact that it's a law in the first place? More thought went into passing each law in the constitution than you are singularly capable of.
>...maybe in another 50, after effective gun legislation, we go 12 months without a school shooting
Maybe? Maybe not. So you want to make a monumental legal shift, suddenly pass gun control, and then expect a nation to wait 50+ years against any disconfirming evidence? Experiments are not performed in the “Repeat and persist until favorable data is collected” style. Your good intentions do not change the fact that you are trying to take peoples’ rights and means to defense, and neither do they absolve you of the guilt when gun control kills people by making them defenseless.
>>57355236
>there's no barely any niggers
yeah, about that...
>>57355210
Same with Canada desu, our gun laws aren't even that bad either.
>>57355500
People still murder though.
>you can't deport 11 million illegal immigrants
>you CAN however confiscate hundreds of millions of guns
don't pussies use guns?
use your fists bruv
>>57360987
The way I, and many others on this board, define the word "Nigger" is: A person of African descent who follows (as you've said) a form of ghetto culture.
>>57357581
>>In the event of a revolt, the government would be incapable of using either air force or tanks against its people.
Le why?
>>57360788
>niggers in chicago shoot each other at a stupid rate
omg look how many shootings, take guns away from every law abiding
taiwan go away please
>>57361534
>>57361569
>>57361602
>>57361628
I thought that was pretty well thought out, good job.
>>57362723
Thanks anon.
>>57360147
>>57358769
>Princripal
>>57364336
>Canada is 22.7% more white
>That's why our homicide rate is 3x higher
>>57360235
Nothing to do with guns but immigrants.
