Considering the rising mass shootings in the US, is the laissez-faire gun policy the correct one to preserve liberalism and freedom of choice. Consider:
>the more people carry weaponry the bigger the risk of an armed conflict
>the bigger the risk of an armed conflict the bigger the pressure to carry for the sake of personal safety
>the amount of people who carry increases, with the cycle returning to point 1
All in all, carrying is becoming a more of a necessity for personal safety than a freedom of choice, thus undermining the very basis of liberalism. Thoughts?
What rising mass shootings?
>>71824100
2015 saw a rise from 320ish mass shootings a year from 2014 to 370ish. That's more than one mass shooting per day.
>>71824885
Oh. Making shit up again.
All these """"deaths""" via gun are due to niggers. Remove them and the statistic is way better.
Unfortunately you cucked yourselves, Scandanavia, but it's not too late. Adopt a system identical to America's, but with one caveat.
YOU MUST HAVE AT LEAST A DECADE OF RESIDENCY IN ORDER TO OWN A FIREARM
That's it. Do not waver on this, as the cucks will try to change it. "b-b-but anon, what about the refugees!?"
Fuck them, they're lucky they aren't rounded up and shot like the animals they are, fuck giving them a weapon.
You do this and you'll be fine long enough for the Day of the Rope to arrive.
>>71825075
>making shit up again
Still won't sweep your national problem under the rug. If you could come with actual arguments without calling everything set against you counterfeit and false, you might actually be convincing. Regardless, my argument works even if people only THINK that mass shootings are on the rise.
>>71823811
doesn't solve the underlying problem in the US so no people would still die but then we would be vulnerable to totalitarianism
>>71824885
mass shootings aren't really a big deal imo, they're just one of the many expressions of murder (especially murder-suicide), popularized intensely by the media because people eat it up.
once you consider it just another expression of murder, and that rate has been going down for many years now, it's just not a huge deal. the way i see it, forensic science caught up with the general serial-killer. when someone prone to anti-social behavior has a choice of "kill slowly, get caught anyway, die or rot in jail" or "kill many, go out in blaze of glory, get televised" i think the matter is simple to make up.
hell i'm not even a huge gun advocate, but people prone to murder very much like to follow popular trends. the trends can be affected by state law, of course, but the end result is always murder, and the focus of law should be in generals, not specifics.
just look at Britain. sure they got rid of a lot of guns in circulation, but all the criminals just went to knives, and the knife assault rate ended up matching the earlier gun assault rate. Australia is still having mass shootings (any event where 4+ people are killed or injured). and the fact that the vast majority of mass shootings here are gang related, idk.
i guess my point is, it's not a necessity. the US, outside of gang zones, of which there aren't many and they're always shrinking, is a very safe place to live. the murder rate gets lower every year.
>>71825313
Look faggot. We're not going to disarm ourselves because black and hispanic gang bangers like to kill each other for sport, even if you call them mass shootings.
There is literally no problem. In a nation of 350 million people, well under 10,000 people are killed by guns each year. The vast majority of those are gang related.
You literally have a zero percent chance of being killed by a gun in the US.
>>71825407
>knife assault rate
While the relation is evident, the amount of victims in knife assault cases is drasticly smaller than in firearm assault cases, making direct comparison unwise.
>>71823811
>Considering the rising mass shootings in the US
Opinion discarded for perpetuating lies
>>71824885
>320to 370
Case and point
>>71825313
>Still won't sweep your national problem under the rug.
No you're quite literally making shit up.
The 350+ number is an outright lie so bad the extremely antigun leftist website motherjones had to debunk it.
According to the FBI there was around 6 last year
I don't care how many niggers get shot, it could be a billion of them, I'm not surrendering my firearms.
Move along, Mongol.
>>71825568
The point isn't disarming the civilians, moreso stopping the civilian arms race. And as a possible solution, limiting the number of firearms entering circulation.
>>71824885
Niggers.
>>71825763
Why are women such dumb whores? Did she really needs to lift her shirt up to her neck and suck her gut in to show she had a gun?
>>71825826
That's fucking asinine.
>>71825763
There's absolutely nothing wrong with carrying in 2016. Then again, you shouldn't feel necessity to carry either.
>>71826122
Care to articulate?
>>71825826
>The point isn't disarming the civilians,
>limiting the number of firearms entering circulation.
You don't get one without the other.
Fuck off you useless fucking yuro.
Extremely few people carry in public even in states where it's allowed. Even in states that don't require a license! If more people bit the bullet (so to speak), it's a good thing.
Additionally, there has been no rise in mass shootings. The trend is negative over the last few decades just like murder overall. But mostly importantly most "mass shootings" are gang violence, and not representative of the level of danger a normal civilian faces from day to day.
>>71823811
The views of a non-American would never understand the history of our second amendment.
If you look at stat after stat...poll after poll even right after mass shootings, Americans overwhelmingly do not blame/shun the firearm. We understand the necessity of maintaining this right, no matter how much media, foreigners and progressives shill otherwise.
>>71826352
>limiting weapons available = the same as taking guns away from their rightful owners
I'm not saying it's stupid, but it is.
>>71826493
Disarming the future civilians rather than the current ones is just being patient.
>>71826493
So explain it, you useless cunt.
How do you limit the number of firearms in circulation without passing laws that disarm civilians?
>>71823811
I hope you realize that the military counts in this super simple model you've made. Since the state monopolizes violence, the citizenry must have some form of weaponry that can at least act as a deterrent to abuse
>>71826570
Say, a limit on automatic weaponry.
Anything semi-automatic should be more than enough for any civilian firearm use - full automatic weaponry is only useful for spraying and praying into crowds or unloading a hail of unaccurate shots into a sand wall which some people consider "fun". From a purely pragmatic standpoint, there is absolutely no reason to uphold the circulation of such weaponry and they should be put under a sales ban. This, however, would not contain disarmament, but the relative decrease of fully automatic weaponry.
>>71826902
If automatic weapons are only good for spray and pray, why are they in the military?
Remember, the 2A is for civilians to defend against foreign invasion and/or an abusive government, not for hunger, sport, personal protection
>>71826824
This of course means that the government isn't responsible to the people like the liberal democracy the US is not?
>>71827127
>hunger
Meant hunting
>>71826824
>deterrent to abuse
>the US is the most cucked country in the world
Ok
>>71826902
You are literally a fucking halfwit.
Fully automatic weapons have been heavily regulated in the US since 1934.
Seriously, fuck off. You have nothing of value to offer this conversation or the world in general.
How does one continent produce so many useless human beings?
>>71826102
If she was carrying it properly that would be the only way that you could see she had it.
>>71827163
Given that every nation over time has shown tendencies, the 2A is a pretty nice failsafe in the event liberal democracy breaks down. I don't have the screencap but one /k/ broke down the logistics of an internal insurgency and it always ends with the US Government losing to its civilians
Oppression can only form and persist when those that are oppressed have no way of fighting back
>libs want gun control
>suddenly the reports of shooting become higher in number without the amount actually changing
>people believe guns are becoming a worse problem and need to be controlled
Even if there were more shooting happening don't you think it'd be odd that they only coincidentally started happening more often recently rather than earlier?
We've always had access to firearms so why hasn't it always been bad if guns are the problem?
>>71826902
Fully automatic weapons have been basically banned for a couple decades now. Only ones made before the ban in 1986 are legal to own, and even then only by jumping through government hoops and being willing to pay like 10 thousand dollars for the damned thing
That being said, fully automatic weapons were never really a problem in america. I guess tommy guns in the 20s, but that was an organized crime thing, not as a weapon of random slaughter.
>>71827127
>why are they in the military?
Because full automatic fire is essential for covering fire, something you don't need in the average civilian situation.
Also when you don't trust your liberal democratic government (which should be secured constitutionally) or your national army to keep your populace safe from foreign invasion, there's a much larger underlying problem that can't be simply solved by arming the populace.
>>71823811
Except violent crime goes down the looser the gun laws are as criminals don't want to victimize someone who might be strapped.
>>71827440
Why the fuck do you assume humans will always follow a scrap of paper? Are you so idealistic that you genuinely believe there will never ever be an oppressive regime post-2A? It's not a case of "bigger problem", it's a case of " every human with control over the armed forces of a country has statistically tried to exert control over a populous "
>>71827440
Good thing none of our founders were finnish cuckolds then.
>>71827440
Furthermore you answered our question, because the government has need of it to fight, so too do we to potentially fight against it
Also fin guy, just so you know, less than 10% of murders using a gun in america involve a rifle of any sort. The "arms war" you're suggesting doesn't really exist: concealability and being light weight are much more important in terms of day to day usage, both in terms of criminal intent and self defense.
>>71827920
It's more like 2.5%.
>>71828044
I was being generous because of the large percentage of firearm murders in which the type of weapon is unspecified. But yes, in all likelihood its actually much less than 10%
>>71827657
>>71827672
Right, so the american need for guns is not actually the fear of government per se (since the government is controlled by democracy), but the threat of a military takeover of said government due to the former not being exactly a democratic body? After all, if the US army is trustworthy and loyal to the people, the government is going to get fucked like in Egypt.
So the real question is how to secure legimacy of the US army with it's people. Or something along the lines?
>>71828434
Essentially the point, is to ensure that the government is not holding us hostage. At least by point. Or at least, that's the point in relation to firearm rights as they relate to the government. Personal self defense is more important to me, personally.
>>71825633
not once you add up the numbers. people that assault people with knifes often do so more than once, over a longer period of time, stacking up victims. mass shooters do this very quickly, and are almost always taken out just as quickly.
when you have a justice system that releases these murders, things get even worse. (repeat offender, multiple murders over decades, etc.)
at the end of the day tho, the murder rate is what really counts. if laws don't make a dent in that, then they're ineffective. i don't feel like looking up the population of the UK and US, then the amount of deaths related to murder, and what, of those, are knife related and gun related. but i'd wager that the numbers are fairly similar.
personally, i'd rather see more money going towards fighting crime, rather than legislating more laws that criminals won't follow anyway.
also, guns are cool and exist anyway. making a law doesn't make guns not exist. the way i see it, people have a right to defend themselves equally against that threat, existential or not.
>>71828802
At least by *force
>>71823811
There is no gun problem in the US. There is a black problem. Northern New England is one of the whitest areas of the country, has almost no gun laws, and is extremely safe. Why? No blacks.
>>71825647
hahahahahaha, fucking Norway. once incident made them a statistic outlier and i love bringing that up in these arguments. glad you posted that
>>71828434
First and foremost, an authoritarian command structure is always going to be more efficient than a democratic one, which means you're going to be making the armed forces significantly less effective in securing interests abroad if you were to further politicize it's structure. Secondly, you can't discount the possibility of a civilian government abusing the people. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus and FDR interned many Japanese-Americans during WW2. Even without a military crack down, it's possible for abuses to emerge. In the former case, they were literally already in a civil war, and in the latter, they had no protections and any armed conflict would likely be assumed a treasonous on the part of the whole community.
>>71823811
Liberalism is retarded and gun rights have never been about personal safety, but about tyranny insurance faggot.
>>71829093
Do you seriously think the US government is going to be stopped by some random idiots with guns? They have drones. They can do whatever they want.
The main use of guns is self-defense from blacks and recreational shooting.
>>71829093
>tyranny insurance
Guns aren't waterproof insurance for tyranny, check out democratic tyranny and tyranny of the masses. After all, you can have governmental power abuse with the concent of the majority.
How can you be such a faggot with the proud history of Sako firearms behind you.
Heres the deal: No.
We're not stopping gun sales. We're not limiting ownership. We're not limiting ammo. We're not limiting circulation. Period.
Its a right here, not a priviledge.
Its our 2nd amendment right
Just like my 1st amendment right to tell you to fuck yourself to death.
>>71829093
Gun rights is literally a classically liberal ideology fucknuts, the modern liberal is different from what was classically liberal
>>71829208
You are ignorant. We have people inside our government that are not controlled faggot. Bloody? yes. We eventually win? yes.
>>71829208
Kek.
>golden hour is actually a real thing
>hour during sunrise/set, ISR capability turns to shit on all models of drone (reaper/globalhawk/predator)
>>71829489
Dont confuse the cucks with such logic bro. People on here are not as redpilled as you think.
>>71829208
you're a fool. we lost in Vietnam because the only option become "we either glass the whole place, or leave" and that was SPECIFICALLY because every single damn one of them was armed to the teeth.
unless the government somehow became willing to glass most important cities, and the largest swath of fertile land in the world, all of which they depend on to exist, i'm gonne think yeah, the armed civilians are gonna fucking win, like they always do.
armed civilians make every battle a battle of attrition. and there's always more of us than them, at any given moment.
hell, even Syria can't deal with it's own armed insurgents, and that's with the help of Russia bombing them too.
not that being able to protect yourself from criminals isn't important, mind you. but you're a fool if you think the military can take on it's own country without destroying themselves too.
>>71829302
Well you pretty much summed the counterarguments there, champ.
>>71829208
>Do you seriously think the US government is going to be stopped by some random idiots with guns? They have drones. They can do whatever they want
hooooly shit is this literally your first day here? someone please fucking post the pasta or link him to a >>>/k/ thread
>>71829300
I'd argue its the primary filter for any successful democracy hoping to operate an armed forces as powerful as the United States has
>>71829208
>They have drones.
Every
Thread
>>71829300
Utopia isnt possible. Guns are simply another tool one can can use to fight tyranny. Self sacrifice is another. But I sure as hell want as many tools in my bag as possible
>>71823811
>>the more people carry weaponry the bigger the risk of an armed conflict
False.
>>71826902
Our supreme court has stated that "the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding." - Caetano v. Massachusetts. Also bin scary black salt rifles are not the major killer in the United states when it comes to deaths by firearms. Rifles as a whole only make up about 300 or so deaths, with those salt weapons with mega salt clips a small fraction of that 300. You'd be changing nothing.
>>71829300
>Guns aren't waterproof insurance for tyranny
that is true, but it is proof of mutually assured destruction.
a lot of tyranny seems to begin with disarming civilians tho. i wonder why?
>>71829208
Drones can't search my house for contraband. Drones can't enforce no public meeting laws. Drones can't find people meeting in private who have views against the government. To have a police states you need POLICE OFFICERS.
>>71829625
So why is this a argument from the leftists then?
How the fuck do you dumbasses argue against a right?
Everytime someone says we should change the rights of people, i'll immediately respond we should remove the 19th and 13th, because fuck women and niggers. They dont need rights either.
>>71829208
>Drones
>Drones cannot be shot down
>Drones
>Reliant on massive scale land combat. Or Hit and run /Gorilla/ warfare
Oh lawdy hes a mong
>>71826352
why do wymens always lean back when aiming a gun sempai? :3
>>71830205
Lack of upper body strength.
> democracy
That word does not mean what you think it does.
We live in a Constitutional Republic. ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
This thread was great. I now have alot of arguments for my thesis which will constitute of power relations between state, military and populace. I will never fully understand the US point of view, but now I can figure out a graph regarding guns versus populace versus crimerates which is far from a straight line. I can work with this.
>>71830205
I don't know, Had to teach my wife how to gunz and she kept doing it for the longest time.
Eventually give them a high enough caliber and they realize when they get knocked on their ass that they are holding it wrong.
>>71830797
>I will never fully understand the US point of view
Pic
>but now I can figure out a graph regarding guns versus populace versus crimerates which is far from a straight line. I can work with this.
You're a retard.
There is endless non biased information on this and it all says that there is absolutely zero correlation between Firearm ownership how restrictive the laws are and crime
>>71830655
moldy labia, brother
>>71830797
Factor in niggers you'll find your line.
>>71830933
I'm moreso talking about the theoretical point at which point armed conflicts start to drop due to people fearing the opposing party will pull one on them.
>>71829605
>you're a fool. we lost in Vietnam because the only option become "we either glass the whole place, or leave" and that was SPECIFICALLY because every single damn one of them was armed to the teeth.
Agreed. Raises some interesting questions about modern warfare. Regarding dronefag >>71829208, isn't a drone way less effective in the Vietnamese jungle than in the desert? I don't know, I'm interested.
>>71830205
No idea. Here's a hot Çhịñćķ for you.
>>71831187
>theoretical point at which point armed conflicts start to drop due to people fearing the opposing party will pull one on them.
It isn't theory
>>71831434
>>71831187
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-12-27/how-often-do-we-use-guns-in-self-defense
>Hemenway finds more reliable an annual federal government research project, called the National Crime Victimization Survey, which yields estimates in the neighborhood of 100,000 defensive gun uses per year. Making various reasonable-sounding adjustments, other social scientists have suggested that perhaps a figure somewhere between 250,000 and 370,000 might be more accurate.
http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/clics2012a/commsumm.nsf/b4a3962433b52fa787256e5f00670a71/5de089825c00843e872579b80079912d/$FILE/SenState0305AttachB.pdf
>Upon interviewing convicted felons, these researchers found that
>74% indicated that burglars avoided occupied dwellings, due to fears of being shot
>57% said that most criminals feared armed citizens more than the police
>40% of the felons had been deterred from committing a particular crime, because they believed that the potential victim was armed
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf
http://www.hoplofobia.info/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Armed-Resistance-to-Crime.pdf
http://libertyfirearmstraining.com/blog/2013/05/16/criminals-fear-armed-citizens-more-than-they-do-the-police/
>>71831434
The actual location of the point is the theoretical part since it's most likely in flux and differs from state to state.
