Alright guys. Let's just face the facts, no we do not need to ban all guns. Yes, most gun owners are not criminals. But, it has simply been to easy for unstable individuals to get these guns. This last incident is clear proof that someone who should obviously have had no access to this weapon could easily get one.
Things which are not a good counter argument:
>Its not a gun problem its a radical islam problem
That is a problem, but it doesnt mean we dont also have a gun problem. If any of the shooters from James Holmes to this last guy had pistols things would have been much less bloody.
>If you take away guns from the many law abiding owners only criminals are left with guns.
Nobody uses an ar-15 for self defense. For recreation and killing massive amounts of individuals. And the latter combined with little restrictions on who can purchase guns makes it dangerous.
Lastly, the most classic shitpost in the US
>SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
Taking easy access to an extremely lethal weapon until better restrictions for gun purchasers are put into place does not infringe your right to bear arms. There are many other weapons which you can buy and use to defend yourself or use for recreation.
> The ar-15 isnt even automatic and it doesnt even have that large of a caliber.
It is the most lethal weapon available. Dont tell me about the fact that very little assault rifles are used in murders. IMost people dont plan on a massacres and pistols generally od a better job. Thats why theyre used. But people choose these for massacres for a reason.
Tell me why im wrongg
>>77033976
>Comes on /pol/ and actually types all this
I mean I have seen some newfag posting but this shit takes the cake. Kill yourself
I think it's reasonable to have basic laws like background checks, a mandatory waiting period, and maybe you have to be part of a club and register the firearm, but literally whatever.
I don't care if clappyshoots want to shoot each other up.
>>77034193
This.
SHALL
>>77033976
You realize that long rifles in general are responsible for a very low number of gun deaths, don't you? Why would we ban something that is responsible for like 2% of gun deaths? Fucking retarded.
>>77034838
NOT
>>77034193
>>77034643
2 nra members down. Second amendment lovers better get in here quick to save these guys.
>>77034861
I responded to that in my original post. but ill respond again Just because black people shoot eachother in the hood everyday with pistols driving the pistol murder rate through the roof, doesnt mean that this gun isnt the most lethal gun on the market, and can be used to obliterate in a single instance the most number of people.
Here's 4 more reasons:
Sandy hook
Aurora theatre
san bernadino
pulse night club
>>77034838
>>77034886
Responded to this in the original post also. This is a classic shitpost.
You right to bear arms isnt being infringed, you know why? Because you can still bear many other arms if you'd like.
Thats like saying you should be able to buy a fighter jet or a tank cause in an sense they are just large guns(armaments). Why not bazookas? Gatling guns? Turrets? Grenades? These are all armamanets(arms) Yet u cant own those.
Go fuck urself
You don't need to ban guns , you need to educate people.
For example , look at Switzerland people there have guns but there's no mass shootings
And look at murica , when you give weapons to savages mass shootings becomes a daily routine
>>77033976
>Nobody uses an ar-15 for self defense.
Wrong. When you premise your arguments on such ignorance do not expect to be taken seriously.
>>77035973
I agree. I think that ar-15s could be re implemented n the future, AFTER stores can do a reasonable background check and if that never hapens, they never need to come back. They really serve very little purpose except recreation.
>>77035718
It's complete bullshit I can't buy a tank and shoot old cars with it on my uncles farm or cut a washing machine in half with a light machine gun on the weekends.
>>77036242
>recreation
>mowing people down
>>77035281
Do you realize how easy it is for people to get autos off the black market? Ban it all you want, but if someone has an agenda to kill, they're going to kill.
Because every citizen aged is part of the militia.
Because its a god given, natural right.
Because being able to defend myself against all enemies, foreign and domestic, is my duty.
Because it's not the bill of needs.
Because the military and police don't exist to defend my life.
First, the AR-15 is not even close to the most lethal firearm. And any basic knowledge of firearms and ballistics can confirm that.
Secondly he could very easily have killed that many people with a handgun. Infact the Virginia Tech shooter killed approximately 45 people with three handguns.
Their not regulated as hard as pistols because they're not concealable. And if we instilled a culture of self reliance/defense then people commiting mass shootings would never have a chance.
But because faggot liberals like you preach that a person can't/shouldn't/won't defend themselves, people will crumple into a ball and surrender to death instead of fight. Just like in Paris.
Faggot liberals like you are forcibly taking the survival instincts away from people and turning us into domestic cattle.
So go ahead and take my weapons, but guess what? You're gonna have to fight to take them. I hope you're prepared for that.
>>77033976
First of all, is just a few of the gays would have had a CC weapon that guy would have been in serious troubble before he could harm that many people. He probably wouldn't even had attacked in the first place if it wasnt a "gun-free" zone. Now please post this thread on /k/.
>Nobody uses an ar-15 for self defense.
Its infact very popular for HD.
>It is the most lethal weapon available.
Well now I know you are full of shit. An AK clone or any other SA rifle that can accept large magazines is just as good for killing people.
In 95% of Islamic terrorist attacks on bars and restaurants they use bombs not guns.
Taking away everyone's guns wouldn't guarantee this wouldn't happen. He would have just found another way.
>>77033976
Omar had no criminal record
Nothing added to gun background check that he was under FBI suspicion
Government screws up and blames legal gun owners and guns themselves than the person carrying it out.
>>77033976
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
if you don't understand why we have guns, and why we have such lax rules surround them, I encourage you to take a look at all of history
>>77036141
Very few may, find me a source of people actually using these gun to defend themselves. Cause everytime i see a self defense homicide a pistol is almost always used and occasionally a shotgun. So Im just gonna assume that most people would prefer those. Its much easier to keep a pistol loaded near ur bed then an ar-15.
>>77035973
We used to teach gun safety and marksmanship in our schools. The liberals put an end to it.
>>77033976
what the fuck makes an AR 15 "more deadly" than a pistol? ALL FUCKING GUNS ARE DEADLY WEAPONS. just claiming that its scary and looks like what the military uses is like saying red cars should be banned because they look like they go faster. kill yourself
Holy shit, a remotely sane American?
Fuck i thought all had receded into some sort of neo-Aztecs fond of the pointless spilling of their own blood.
Though honestly from what i know from your countrymen you'll need more than a little bit of luck, dense as diamond that lot.
>>77036707
Pressure cookers and nails have shown to be effective at killing and maiming people too.
>>77036575
I would imagine its pretty hard. Not impossible but fairly hard to a semo automatic off the black market ive been buying drugs since i was 12 and never once hve been offered a black market gun. secondly. I trust our police to infiltate black market guns, and they can always be traced back to the source. However, what I cant live with is us freely handing over guns to people who do such things.
tl;dr: Ill take my chances with the black market. Because I know thats at least harder than a guy handing a gun over to someone at the local gun shop.
>>77034193
True
I forgot that /pol/ is just a perpetual shitposting machine.
>>77036794
You don't actually have idea whatsoever what you're talking about. And this is why you people are never ever taken seriously by gun owners. We just roll our eyes and dismiss you. Don't want that reaction? Then educate yourself.
The AR platform is a fine platform for self-defense. The cartridge is ideal for residential neighborhoods because of its ballistics. The platform is exceptionally modable because of an enormous aftermarket, allowing users to build weapons to fit their specific needs. The weapon is easily controllable, with minimal recoil and 1 MOA accuracy. It's a great self-defense weapon and millions of Americans keep one for this purpose.
Again, you do not know what you are talking about, and therefore the rest of us are not intellectually obliged to take your shit arguments seriously.
>>77036790
....and he was a fucking security guard.
WTF they want?
Unarmed security guards at the courthouse?
Their argument about banning guns works about as well as banning guns after the fort Hood shooting.
>>77033976
What is black market for 200? Nice try OP, but your degeneracy isn't fooling anyone.
>>77036937
Banning guns in the US would be retarded.
Making guns easier to get in the EU would also be retarded.
Why? Because there are 350 000 000 guns in the US right now and they wouldn't magically go away if someone would ban them. Its insanly easy to get an illegal gun in the US. Its comparably hard to get on in Europe.
>>77036791
So ur argument is either this right.
We need ar-15s because they are extremely lethal weapons and if our government tries to fight us we'll only have our shotguns and pistols.
But why cant use have a tank? THat is a form of arms http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/armament
Theres the definition in case u wanna say its not.
So u admit that u dont have access to all arms. Yet this 1 specific 1 which is extremely easy to get and extremely lethal you're okay with? Why dont u attack the government right now then? Theyre infringing ur rights, theyre coming down on u this is why u have ur guns isnt it?
good argument. URE A BITCH, IF OBAMA RAPED UR MOM U WULDNT DO SHIT. NO GUN IS GONNA FIX THAT NO MATTER HOW BIG OR HOW STRONG>
>>77033976
Correlate gun murders to gun ownership. (Hint: you can't)
You make some good points
The gun is not the problem
>>1966
>>university of Texas clock tower sniper
>>18 killed 31 injured
>> weapon of choice
>>pump action shotgun
>>BOLT ACTION RIFLE
>>77037763
>But why cant use have a tank?
You can. Google "private tank ownership."
Once again, a gun grabber that doesn't know what he's talking about. Surprise surprise.
>>77037133
>Pressure cookers and nails have shown to be effective at killing and maiming people too.
Yeah, thats probably why they are so popular in the military.
>>77033976
please no.
We'll be SOL when zombie apocalypse happens.
Handguns and shotguns just won't cut it.
>>77033976
>AKs used in mass shootings
>0
OP BTFO
>>77033976
>came up with this shit out of nowhere
your problem is you have absolutely no experience with gun rights activism as it currently stands today. so allow me to inform you on what our dictum is for this scenario.
if you cannot be trusted with a gun, you cannot be trusted without a custodian.
>access to weapons
>unstable
put them in prisons and mental hospitals. that's where they belong. they don't come out until they're trustworthy with a firearm.
>>77037898
this
>>77037763
You can buy RPGs, Grenades, Mortars, all that shit as long as you pay an NFA tax stamp
Gun control fag BTFO Again!
>>77037298
and thats fine americans can use it for self defense.
AFter the proper back ground checks are put into place that stop psychopaths from getting ahold of them.
This isnt an issue with this specific gun. Its an issue with the fact that this specific gun is far to easy to get. So argueing based on the logistics of the gun is flatout stupid. ITs not about the gun. Its about expecting that people who can obtain this gun are properly vetted.
The gun is not the problem
>> 1966
>> university of Texas clock tower sniper
>> 18 killed 31 injured
>> weapon of choice
>> pump action shotgun
>> BOLT ACTION RIFLE
>>77033976
You clearly don't understand the purpose of the second Amendment. If the governing body outguns the entire population, how can you say that the People consent to be governed and aren't just being coerced into it out of fear of death?
>>77033976
Let's face the facts here, if the term shall not be infringed means nothing to you then your probably don't understand freedom and should either kys or gtfo as soon as possible.
>>77038078
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejD1Gml-ZGc
don't be an uninformed pleb.
>>77037763
>You can have a tank. Hell, you can even have a working AT gun if you want. You just need to register it as a DD.
Anything above 37mm IIRC is however expensive as shit as each round needs to be registered as DD with a 200$ tax stamp.
>>77037659
It might be easy for people in the hood to get guns. But I assure u, I have only met 1 person in my entire life who had an illegal gun. And people who get these guns have to have it in with gangs generally. Even gangs dont just sell there illegal guns to anybody, you know why? Because theyre rare so even if htat was the case theyre the people commiting these mass shootings arent going to be getting these guns.
>>77038175
We have background checks. What exactly more do you want from the NICS? The shooter today went through NICS. He was cleared. What specifically do you think would have made him not clearable?
>>77033976
Guns don't kill people, people with access to guns use them in order to kill people much more easily than they would have without access to guns
>>77033976
Not reading all that, but the solution is simple: don't allow mudskins to carry firearms anymore.
>>77038175
Pipe bombs are also far too easy to assemble from household items. Should we start banning nails because they have the potential for gross misuse?
>oh no muh tactical screw nail is scary
>>77038175
By the government huh? The system we have now is disgusting and infringes on the 2nd amendment of all United States citizens. More regulation and legislation will only serve to erode the constitution more.
>>77038454
restrictions on access fail 100% of the time. if any of the hundreds that already exist worked, there would not have been any mass shootings for the past two or three decades.
Yes Yes OP this is good work your doing it's perfect!
Agree with taking guns = full cucked
>>77037920
I misunderstood your previous post then. I though you were talking about killing people in general as a terrorist act, not fighting a war.
In that case, pressure cookers at a crowded marathon finish line in Boston is a terrible way to injure and kill people and would never happen.
>>77038701
Explain australia then
>>77038390
>I have only met 1 person in my entire life who had an illegal gun.
Are you litterally retarded? Anyone who has an illegal firearm will not tell you that they do if they to arent retarded. Its not that hard to get and anyone with the intent to kill 50 people can get one in the US. Most people die from illegal guns, not from legal ones.
#NotAllGunOwners
>>77039038
No niggers.
>>77033976
Debating trolls is boring. Can someone make a huge macro with
>Gun control cake .png
>Violent crimes by race.png
>Gun control vs the ABCs.png
>US, UK, AUS violent crime graph indicating a steady decrease since the 70s and gun control in the latter two riding the wave of that decrease
>Murders being picked up in those latter two easily by other weapons
>'Mass shootings' even after Obama's justice dept conflated them with gang crime (at least 4 people shot including minor injuries in a single event) are statistically anomalous
Further more on matters of policy
You are not going to confiscate the most popular rifle in the US en masse
You are not going to repeal the 2A or SCOTUS your way around it.
It is viable for home defense, farm defense and store defense (though handguns would be obviously better for close quarters).
It is an excellent rifle for hunting, especially depending on the build.
>>77033976
OP is proof that sociopaths are a problem in this country. They speak with a certain distinguished manner to push a point across that's only part-true to convince you the other 3/4 of their bullshit is true.
People can still get black market guns, with no age or background check. There's a fucking open border at the south. Do you not remember Operation Fast & Furious? Our own government was giving guns to the enemy. Yet you propose that we trust them to "temporarily" ban them the same way we propose to temporarily ban muslims? Fuck off. We have laws providing the right to ban muslims, the 2nd amendment says "shall not be infringed" (saying this is a shitpost doesn't make it a shitpost, faggot) so let me repeat this for you.
SHALL
NOT
FUCKING
BE
INFRINGED
sage
>>77033976
DC v. Heller, 554 US 570 (2008)
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html
McDonald v. Chicago, 561 US 742 (2010)
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/08-1521
Doesn't matter. Banning an entire class of arms is unconstitutional. Functional bans are the same as outright bans.
Caetano v. Massachussetts, 577 US ___ (2016)
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/14-10078
2A applies to more than just guns.
Now please go die in a fire.
>>77038390
If you can find the connections to buy weed, then you can find the connections to buy a gun. Just because you only have one friend does not mean non retards can't find illegal weapons
My connection is a bit wonky so hopefully this isn't a repost
>>77038417
He mentioned
>psychopaths
So he is obviously alluding to psychological background checks.
Never mind that putting the government in charge of who is sane and insane is a disastrous premise, that this is not needed based on pure statistics, that the new psychology textbooks are conflating "homophobia" and "transphobia" with agoraphobia and the like, and that psychologists, psychology departments, psychology boards, and psychology standards between nations are in troubling disagreement on key issues- namely Depression, disorders with a depressive component, and required treatment.
Enjoy losing your gun for being in a blue rut.
>>77037894
Can other guns kill people ? Yes. But on average a shooting involving a bolt action rifle will be much less deadly than 1 using an ar. Like I said, it is possible to kill 50 people with a a knife, but it is much much less likely.
So the whole idea that other gns have killed as many people is a really bad argument and i hope u now see why.
Tl;dr: Anything CAN kill an equal amount to ar-15, but it is much less likely to occur.
>>77037898
>>77038130
Except that all those are much much harder to get arent they? Yeah they really are. Next argument that one is stupid is fuck and u sound stupid when u use it.
Corroboration to said statement:
>>77038361
>>77039044
Please see this post by me to why that is a shit argument.
>>77035281
And lets not forget the fact that its also hard to get ar-15s on the black market.
>>77037193
Maybe for your faggot ass it is, but for most it's easier to get one off the black market then to get one legally.
>>77036794
>>77036794
https://youtu.be/COZm7uCCjHM
https://youtu.be/lMH2BRkcCyU
https://mic.com/articles/64663/5-people-who-used-an-ar-15-to-defend-themselves-and-it-probably-saved-their-lives
>>77033976
you focus on the object, not the mindset of the tool-using mammal.
if not a gun, then a bomb.
if not a bomb, then a car, or an airplane, or a boat.
or sticks, or rocks, for that matter.
you simply cannot prevent violence by passing laws, especially those which disarm the people who obey them.
>>77033976
Let me break this down for people who have never fired a gun before.
Commercial AR's are semiautomatic. That means it only fires one bullet every time you pull the trigger.
It also only fires a .22 caliber bullet.
The only functional difference between an AR and the average hunting rifle is that the AR has a gas powered chambering mechanism, which means the next round is chambered automatically after you fire.
A proficient shooter could have killed just as many people with a couple pistols, as we saw at VTech. In close quarters like that you'd actually probably be able to hit more people with pistols.
>>77038806
Does anyone have this gif? >>77038823
>>77035281
This is the same argument against plane travel.
>Aviation results in the least amount of deaths per mile traveled
>>Haha but my car doesn't drop 20k feet when my engine fails.
>>Furthermoe when a plane does crash it results in more people killed per instance
>But that's already controlled for in the stats. You're just using an emotional appeal.
>>You are just heartless about deaths
>No I am just saying that the benefits car outweigh the risks
>>Not accepted you lose checkmate atheists
>>77039679
I dont mean psychological background checks. I personally disagree with that. But a more comprehensive background check system does have to be put into place.
>>77039259
Ur right to bear arms shall not be infringed not ur right to have whatever armaments u want to have. U can not jst have tanks, jets, any military grade equipment u want so stfu and stop acting like u already cant own certains weapons.
>>77033976
>ban AR-15s!
Less than 15% of gun murders are done by rifles.
>muh, muh US has the most gun deaths!
60% of US gun deaths are suicides; and it's the same relative amount of suicide as other countries like the UK and Japan, they just kill themselves in more gruesome ways because they can't get guns.
The US is also 111th in murder-per-capita. Countries like Mexico, Venezuela, and Brazil with strict-as-fuck gun laws still have higher murder rates. The reason we have lots of murders is because of shitskins; which leftists want to import more of for some reason.
The major city in the US with the lowest murder rate is Plano, Texas - where lots of people are gun owners, and the gun laws are lax.
>we can take ur guns away if we want, you don't need big magazines, etc.
The Supreme Court case of Heller v. Disctrict of Columbia already ruled that owning a semi-automatic gun is a Constitutional right:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
From a philosophical/Constitutional perspective, gun ownership should be a right. The Preamble to the Constitution states that people have a right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". If citizens have a right to life, that means that they should have a right to defend their life by adequate means. Women, old people, and the disabled can't defeat a gang of dindus in melee combat - thus, guns are necessary.
>b-b, but, you don't need guns because you have cops!
The Supreme Court Case Warren v District of Columbia ruled that the police do not have a duty to risk their life to protect you:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia
Also, aren't you lefty types always shitting on the cops? I thought if a cop gets anywhere near you, it would trigger you.
>Stefan Molyneux shits on gun control:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hyQDQPEsrs
>Bill Whittle shits on gun control:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pELwCqz2JfE
>>77033976
Omar was investigated by the FBI for connections to radical islamic terrorism twice, but that doesn't show up in a background check.
If the system in place to restrict guns was actually reformed to clear loopholes like that, then crimes like this wouldn't occur.
There isn't a gun problem, it's an administrative problem that lets the mentally ill and literal terrorists obtain weapons. The second amendment in itself is not at fault for that. In fact Omar would've probably just have gotten an unregistered AR-15 from one of his ISIS connections if he was denied the ability to purchase his weapons, not dissimilar to how acts of terror like this were committed throughout Europe.
>>77033976
Never thought I'd see americans on this board go full goy
Sad day
>>77034925
>muh NRA
You realize that anti-gun leftist groups and Federal agencies like the ATF have way more power, right? Frankly, it's a miracle the NRA gets anything done at all.
>>77040081
No its not. People benefit from flying in planes and thy make those decisions themselves.. When people are are forced to be surrounded by others(of unkown stability) who have potentially lethal weapons they do not gain any benefits, only negatives and also they had no say in the matter u cant force someone on a plane legally.
>>77035718
No, you go fuck yourself. Why shouldn't that guy be able to own any of those things? Why is he/she/it not allowed to be trusted with higher end weaponry? On a side note, you totally can buy tanks and fighter jets. Why is an armed populace so threatening to people like you? You shot yourself in the foot on your intentions from the get go. You ignore rates for hand guns and claim an AR is the most lethal option on the market. What becomes the most lethal option once you get your precious "assault weapons" ban through? Will you go after the runner up? Then the "3rd" most lethal firearm? After all, we never run out of "most lethal" options until all guns are banned. One type of rifle will never be enough for you people. You will come for everything one arm at a time while screeching the same drivel as you did for all the other arms you wanted banned. Guns are nothing more than tools devoid of any moral standing. Their use is a symptom and the people using them in these horrid disgusting acts are the disease. Yet you want to advance you political agenda using the trojan horse of a failed human condition to fool people into thinking you want anything more than to control each and every aspect of their lives. 1/10 rustled my jimmies
>>77033976
>Nobody uses an ar-15 for self defense.
The AR-15 is just about the best home defense gun you can own. Lots of people use it.
>extremely lethal weapon
The 2nd amendment is not for self defense or hunting. It is for protection from government tyranny. If anything, gun laws are already too strict for this purpose.
>It is the most lethal weapon available.
Bombs are much more lethal than an AR-15.
>>77040235
I agree with you and can't see a reason why people can't buy 23mm autocannons or TOWs
>>77040415
What happens when he dies when no one expects it?
>>77040235
already responded 10 times to the less than 15% of gun murders are done by rifles.
Thats cause niggers are mostly killing eachother with pistols. Theyre concealable, easier to steal and mch cheaper. That is why theyre used for planned hits on specific targets. Ar-15s are used ofr mass murders.
Also u cant ban pistols, that is THE number 1 self defense weapon. Go fuck urself
>>77037534
The left want the citizens to not have guns but still want the police and security to have them. Would Hillary or Bernie disavow having armed guards? No.
>>77039687
>Tl;dr: Anything CAN kill an equal amount to ar-15, but it is much less likely to occur.
"much less" is an in an overstatement.
The main reason rifles developed higher capacity was because in military situations, people miss around 90% of all shots fired; look it up. High-capacity rifles were also needed to provide "suppressing fire" to keep enemies pinned in a position so that other soldiers could flank them.
In a civilian situation, there's no real difference; because you aren't firing at armed people behind cover (especially if it's gay liberals, kek). So a bolt-action rifle with a big magazine; or even with 2-3 small magazines like a Lee Enfield that was developed before WWI can be just as deadly.
However, most criminals don't use rifles - they use pistols because they're easier to hide and carry around. So basically all you're doing is taking a long-range rifle option away from the honest citizens; who'd use it to defend themselves in various situations, such as in rural areas, and to act as a buffer against government oppression.
>>77035281
Not an argument
>>77037534
>>77040998
if i had no credible arguments against banning this specific rifle or putting into place stricter background checks id also shit post and act like i siad all guns to make me seem like more of an extremist. But sadly no ones gonna buy that, cause thats not what i said.
>>77033976
no ban works on items that will still be mass produced in the place they are banned.
there is nothing special or deadly about AR models. its a rifle. there are many like it.
until we stop producing millions of rifles per year for police/military use (and for export to literally anyone who wants them including cartel and terrorist backed third world governments) no ban will ever be effective. make them completely illegal and they will start falling off trucks in record numbers while on their way for export or delivery to the military. ban manufacturing of them in the states and U.S. companies will move to central America and then cartels will have a new thing to smuggle in through Mexico and Canada.
ban 30 round magazines and people who want 30 round magazines will learn to make them. ban specific intermediate calibers and everyone will go back to shooting full power hunting rounds. ban hunting rounds and everyone will start using hot loaded pistol calibers out of long barrel carbines.
deal with it, bans don't work.
>>77040629
We should be able to own tachyon lances and antimatter missiles also.
>>77041221
>So basically all youre doing is taking a long range rifle option away from the honest citizens
Except the 4 mass murders ho werent honest citizens also wouldnt hve them. none of which were trained marksman and yet still managed to cause massive damage due to the lethality of these guns. Also when ure in a packed night club or movie theatre its pretty hard to miss so dont tell me a bolt action is gonna be just ass effective when all ur shots are gonna hit the more shots the better. simple math.
>>77039687
Most Murders and manslaughter are due to violent crime activity.
Violent crime is committed disproportionately by Blacks and Hispanics, and disproportionately via gang activity.
Gangs prefer cheap, easily obtainable, easily maintained, easily concealed and easily disposable close-quarters weapons
Semi automatic rifles are arguably nine of those.
Fists, clubs, bricks, bats, knives and handguns however do fit the bill.
However, being that the gang member is versatile in these weapons, to them they are all potentially interchanable.
That is why the expected drop in total violent crime and specifically total murders in the UK and Australia that was expected to happen post gun bans
>Mind you violent crime was already steadily declining
Was simply picked up by other weapons, and almost immediately. They didn't need a transition period.
What's interesting is that handguns are potentially a greater force multiplier than knives and melee weapons. So that means of if hangs killed the same amount of people before and after the gun bans, they are more proficient than in murdering others with those weapons than the general population is defending themselves with bats knives and clubs.
On its face this makes more sense, since the general civilian population doesn't hone knife fighting, close combat and skill bashing skills for a living. They can hone shooting skills at the range, but this too is now restricted from law abiding citizens.
>Where am I going with this ?
For gangs it seems firearms provide marginal returns to no return as a force multiplier compared to other weapons
For the general population however, firearms act much better as a force multiplier.
>>77041229
Of theres many like it and there isnt anything special or deadly about it why was it used in many recent major mass shootings so effectively? Somethings up with that specific rifle. Unless u claim it was merely coincidence but im not buying that and i dont think u are either.
>>77041517
When you're in a packed nightclub a 17-round Glock pistol is easier to wield and kill with anyway; and you were being defensive of pistols earlier.
Also, there is a massive push for open-carry currently, and many states have approved it; so people carrying AR-15s will become more common.
>>77041517
Also, you don't understand that there are bolt-actions with magazine wells also.
Typical nogunz.
>>77041784
U have no proof that a 17 round glock is easier to wield nad kill with then a ar-15 rifle. Absolutely none thats complete bullshit speculation from nowhere.
If it was so much easier then why was an ar-15 chosen? Whatever that reason is, thats why they need to be banned and there IS a reason.
shit argument.
>>77039863
notice how he didn't respond to your post
>>77042021
I understand that bolt actions have "Clips" I know that they can be fired fairly quickly. But they can NOT be fired as quickly as an ar-15 can but the GENERAL UNTRAIN PERSONS. Which is exactly what all the people were who used the ar-15 so effectively to massacre people. When normal people become killing machines due ot the lethality of a weapon, this concerns me.
>>77033976
We already tried the Assault Weapons Ban in the 90s and it did ABSOLUTELY FUCKING NOTHING. Gun crime continues to trend downwards despite these spergs running around going for high scores, and rifles are very rarely used for the mundane gun crime that drives murder stats.
fuck off and neck yourself statist bootlicker
>>77040998
But Omar was a security guard.
So even if the NoGuns liberals had their way, this shooting would have still happened because Omar would have access to firearms.
>>77042263
>Security guard
>General untrained person
kek
>>77040235
Great post, burger. I was looking for something like this
>>77042810
> james holmes
> sandy hook
.>SAN BERNADINO
>all security guards
>trained with firearms.
No...
>>77033976
Is banning guns anything like banning drugs?
Cuz I'm sittin pretty on 20 grams of a-pvp and 10 grams of fishscale and apparently those are banned under state and federal laws.
>>77042078
>U have no proof that a 17 round glock is easier to wield nad kill with then a ar-15 rifle
Anybody with even a modicum of gun experience knows that this is true.
Followed by
>Duhhhh You're probably right but I don't want to admit it so I'm going to refer to some vague reason that I admit to not knowing and I'm going to shift the burden of proof onto you because I have no Idea what I'm talking about
4/10 jimmies slightly rustled
>>77040534
>No its not
>Personal defensive gun uses
>Home and business defense
>Hunting/vermin control
(This may not seem that big of a deal to you, but deer kill many a driver, rabies from racoons and other animals is no joke, and having a bear, gator, or wild boar around your child is incredibly dangerous.)
> When people are are forced to be surrounded by others(of unkown stability) who have potentially lethal weapons they do not gain any benefits,
This implies that gun control works, and while gun control states have no better correlation to a lower murder rate than does a state's position in alphabetical sequence.
This also implies that guns per capita are the great driver of violent crime, when blacks per capita : murder per capita is the best correlation, followed by other factors such as income et al.
This also implies that the unarmed living in an armed city or state doesn't benefit from the 'herd immunity' from the scant gang presence there, that sometimes may want to wander off from their outskirts and into the suburbs and commerce centers.
This also implies that my living in Houston, where everyone and their dog is armed, or visiting the suburbs of Vegas (where my friends live) where almost everyone I see OCs puts me in a greater danger than visiting 'gunless' Manchester at night.
This also implies that I am put at an unnecessarily great danger by being around millions of people who own and operate automobiles
>Which are bigger killers than guns in the US
Which can practically kill me just by my crossing the street.
I don't know if you're a troll or if you think gun owners are fundie tier in argumentation
>>77042380
How many mass urders were there in the 1990s?
http://timelines.latimes.com/deadliest-shooting-rampages/
crazy how so many of the worst mass shooting hve happened recently.
>>77033976
>Nobody uses an ar-15 for self defense.
So? lack of need is not a reason to ban it
>for recreation and killing massive amounts of individuals
you just made this up to shoe horn your baseless point
>little restrictions
the NICS check isn't sufficient?
>>77039038
significantly smaller, no niggers and 92% white, an island
>>77043102
W-w-what Anon? Those are illegal how did you ever get them? They wrote laws against that.
>>77042078
>U have no proof that a 17 round glock is easier to wield nad kill with then a ar-15 rifle. Absolutely none thats complete bullshit speculation from nowhere.
Andy yours is? Maybe Ahmed just likes rifles.
A pistol is easier to wield and conceal; so it would be easier to sneak in and aim it in packed, tight-corners conditions.
Also, you can go basically anywhere else on Earth if you want to live in a place where semi-auto rifles are cucked. I want America to preserve its rights because I don't want that experience of owning them to completely vanish from humanity. Got to Brazil and live in a favela where guns are banned, but you get stabbed every day; or go to a big blue state like California or New York where guns are slowly being cucked out of existence. Don't force your shit with a Federal mandate on white and safe states like Kansas, etc.
>>77042263
>clips
Kill yourself for that.
Also, the difference is highly-negligible; and regular people need to have the ability to defend themselves.
You're basically just virtue-signaling with your autistic devotion to banning guns; and it's likely that your dad was a limp-wristed liberal cuck that never taught you a thing about them. Why do you want to eliminate a solid method for people to defend themselves from the coming dindu/spic race riots? Why do you still care when the "mass-murders" are insignificant to our overall population. You already called them niggers, so which is it? Stop being a cuck.
>>77040549
You know op is trolling when he doesn't answer posts like these.
>>77033976
>It is the most lethal weapon available.
Are you fucking stupid? the AR-10 takes a whole size caliber larger
the difference between a .308 in an AR-10 vs a .223 in an AR-15 is fucking huge
>Dont tell me about the fact that very little assault rifles are used in murders.
why not? because that defeats your narrative? an AR-15 still isn't an Assault Rifle no matter how many times you scream it.
> IMost people dont plan on a massacres and pistols generally od a better job.
Pistols kill more than rifles by almost 100 times IIRC
>>77043416
Magic, niqqa. Apparently.
I don't know, there seems to be this idea that if something is banned it goes away, or becomes hard to get.
In reality, all that changes is you don't have to pay taxes for black-market goods.
Tax-free ammunition sounds lovely.
>>77043430
maybe ahmed likes rifles.
maybe holmes like rifles
maybe san bernadino liked rifles
maybe sandy hooked like rifles
maybe ure right. But me thinks their might be a better reason.
>>77033976
It's not guns that need banned. It's Muslims.
>>77043797
Rifles kill less than 400 people a year
you're crying over a non-issue
you're more likely to die because of food poisoning than be involved and killed in a mass shooting
>>77043797
Still irrelevant.
>>77043742
the number of gun crimes has lowered cause gang activity and membership is lower. But this issue and mass murders have no correlation. Mass murders ARE in fact happening more frequently and could be reduced through better gun control legislatio.
>>77034443
>i think
abo intellectual
>>77043996
>Mass murders ARE in fact happening more frequently
No they aren't, they're statistically irrelevant and because of that its a huge red herring
> Crime and homicide is falling
> No correlation between firearm ownership and homicide/suicide
> Hundreds of thousands of defensive gun uses each year
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf
http://news.yahoo.com/no-rise-mass-killings-impact-huge-185700637.html
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/07/gun-homicide-rate-down-49-since-1993-peak-public-unaware
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=18319&page=R1
http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20110209-mexicos-gun-supply-and-90-percent-myth
http://ivn.us/2012/07/23/doj-study-fails-show-1994-assault-weapons-ban-worked/
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_7_murder_types_of_weapons_used_percent_distribution_by_region_2012.xls
>>77043971
we have checks in place though to make sure i dont die of food poisoning though. The people who make my food are many times licensed individuals, who have been vetted in some way or another all the way down to chefs and wiatresses who at least go through a hireing process. They dont ust walk into a shop and buy a lethal weapon wth very little background checks.
>>77033976
>comes to /pol/
> tries to start a rational discussion about guns
Good on ya' for trying, OP. Keep fighting the good fight.
Personally, I gave up on /pol/ a couple years ago. Most of the people here are too mentally ill to be near firearms, and they are fully aware of that. That's exactly why they're sperging out over any rational discussion or actions .... they know they are at the top of any no-buy list that would ever be put in place. They can't even comprehend that their own mental illness and behavior is exactly why we need better gun and weapons laws.
I'd estimate that 50% of /pol/ posters are too insane to be let onto the Internet, with or without their mommy. But if you have the energy to attempt it ... keep it up.
>>77033976
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
>>77044277
>we have checks in place though to make sure i dont die of food poisoning though
but they still do, en masse, 6 times more often than mass shooting deaths.
>the people who make my food are many times licensed
irrelevant, all that legislation isn't even zero-ing out the deaths
your argument is based on red herrings, statistically irrelevant events, media hype and emotional non-arguments
>>77034443
We all know what that leads to.
>you can only own bolt-action rifles and it has to be kept in a locked case seperate from the ammo; and government agents come to your house to inspect it once a month
>you can't even get a gun unless to join some club or give a specific reason; and the judge can deny your request anyway if they feel like it
That's literally the law in Australia and many European countries. At this rate, you'll all be obedient sheep when the globalist bakers decide to blanda you upp with nignogs and make serfs out of everyone.
>>77044396
Not an argument.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hyQDQPEsrs
>>77041741
>mass produced
it's in the paragraph you just read m80
>>77044411
You can have whatever gun u want, as long as ur properly vetted. ANd im fine with the restrictions we have in place now as far as background checks go, as long as we remove ar-15's. But if people want to keep buying them restrictions on them have to be tighter.
with that im going to sleep.
We need tighter background checks or ar-15s need to go. Theyre too lethal for ANYBODY to be able to own.
![guns_per_person_vs._gun_homicide_rate_1993_to_2013_0[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/zg7qcoj.jpg "guns_per_person_vs._gun_homicide_rate_1993_to_2013_0[1].jpg")
>>77043314
Mass shootings are a red herring used my large media interests to increase revenue and pursue political goals. The more insidious part of the current state of reporting is that the constant coverage of each event influences copy cats looking for their 15 minutes of notoriety.
The odds of the average person being in a mass shooting are so infinitesimal that using these outliers to push further legislation is questionable at best.
>>77033976
>But, it has simply been to easy for unstable individuals to get these guns
He passed a background check to buy them legally
>Nobody uses an ar-15 for self defense. For recreation and killing massive amounts of individuals.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzMx3Z5EbQQ
>>77044715
A legal class system of who gets what rights is no way to run a country.
If these people can't be trusted with the full set of American rights, then they should not be allowed to roam free in our country.
>>77033976
>Tell me why im wrongg
Nope, I can't be bothered to have this argument again.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHeSC_Ws5Ic
>>77041741
100m+ gun owners and theres like a small handful of retards who commit mass shootings on a scale thats statistically irrelevant
so 100m+ gun owners have to pay for the sins of a handful of mass shooters?
>>77044715
Good. Leave. Fuck off retard. Run away.
![284EC05F00000578-3066779-image-a-73_1430765229039[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/3B7Q2Xn.jpg "284EC05F00000578-3066779-image-a-73_1430765229039[1].jpg")
>>77044715
Nah we need more of them in the hands of noncucked individuals doing volunteer civil patrols.
Here's a wonderful example of what happened when some proto-Omars attacked a hard target.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_Culwell_Center_attack
>>77044715
>as long as we remove ar-15's
What about M-14s?
What about M1A1s?
What about AR-10s?
What about 30.06s with 10-round magazines?
What about AK-47s?
What about SCAR-17s?
Glad we get to keep all those if you became Supreme Faggot.
>>77044715
>as long as we remove ar-15's
So... remove AR-15's but not AR-10's or AR-20's or AR-16's
not Mini-14's or any of those other 5.56 rifles either?
For the anon(s) advocating more stringent background checks: it's a bullshit half measure and it will do little to nothing to reduce firearm deaths. If you commit a felony crime or are adjudicated mentally unfit, you will fail an NICS test. What else would you have beyond this?
Psychological examinations by a psychologist before you can buy a firearm? Not good enough. Mental illness could develop years after the examination to buy the rifle.
Yearly tests in order to maintain a firearms license? Great, you just limited the ability to own a weapon to the middle-to-upper socioeconomic classes who can afford multiple examinations. Probably getting struck down in court.
Checking for animosity for certain protected classes of citizens like those people that died in Orlando? Congratulations, you just wholesale disenfranchised nearly every Muslim in the country. Enjoy your SCOTUS decision reversing your legislation.
Background checks aren't going to do shit. If you don't want large number of people dying from gun shots, you have 1 option only: go full Australia and ban all firearms that take a detachable magazine. This AR-15 hate is a red herring. The worst shooting in US history until this weekend was Virginia Tech, one guy with 2 pistols, one of which was a .22. If you're ready to stop regurgitating CNN and take legislative action to reduce gun violence, your only way forward is a complete ban on magazine fed weapons.
Keep in mind, you're most likely going to set off a pseudo-civil war due to an already staggering distrust of the Federal government out west, poor implementation from local and state law enforcement agencies that will outright refuse to implement Washington's lead, imports of fully automatic firearms from Mexico (due to the iron law of prohibited substances) on the same scale we see with other illegal substances, and a spiking murder rate that's going to be somewhere between 1920's prohibition era and Northern Ireland in the 1970's.
>>77045156
Brazil in a nutshell, amirite?
>>77044199
A based Aussie with facts who's not shitposting?
Holy fuck
Assault rifles with military bullets actually really suck at killing, they tend to wound.
It's why you can't use them to hunt deer, it's inhumane to wound and maim them for them to die hours later.
Most people who died were probably hit with the handgun.
2nd amendment provides right of civilians to train and possess means of defending the *STATE*, which means primary-issue infantry weapons.
I have no problem banning handguns, hunting rifles, bows, shotguns, and any non-FMJ bullets.
Want to ban assault rifles? Repeal the second amendment. Tired of the 0.1% of gun deaths caused by assault rifles? Fix society.
The large capacity magazine or "Assault weapon" ban didn't effect the rate of gun related homicides. If a mugger or criminal is going to murder another they don't need a 16 round magazine to do it.
A 2004 review of the gun ban legislation by the National Research Council didn't find any significant correlation between the ban and decrease in gun related violence.
Similarly was a study by the Assault Weapons Ban committee which corroborated that there was no correlation between the ban and rates of gun violence.
>>77033976
I wanna know who the fuck hired his ass as a security guard. jfc.
what if the us had functioning police forces instead and patrols with duty to respond to public threats instead of relying solely on over funded swat teams with hour-long response times
for all the "le only ting DAT defeats a bad guy w a guy is le gud guy w a gun :^)" there seems to be a large unwillingness to make beat cops not just another roving pack of gangbangers in the US
>>77036825
well funny thing there was some "doctor" on US TV claiming when you get hit by a "salty riffle" bullet you are dead, but you have a chance when you get hit by a pistole bullet.
I really want to see his face when someone gets hit by a .223 in the leg and the other by a .45acp in the head.
Guess who lives and who dies.
Fact is the violent crime and murder rate in Australia didn't drop for 8 years after Port Arthur only when they realised they had a rape epidemic, and they realised you can't just BLAME GUNS! and had to start actually effective programs that take time and effort (such as police training, helplines, harsher sentencing etc). Only then did their murder rate (along side their rape rate, go down. They rape rate went down over 70% and their murder rate went down substantially as well but between enacting those programs and banning guns it stayed pretty much the exact same.
Why? Because when someone wants to kill another person, they'll find a way. It just isn't true that guns cause all these spur of the moment murders where people just pull out their glock and blow a cunt away. Sure, mass murders are very hard without a gun and bombings are always called terrorism so the mas murder rate tends to go down but the actual number of innocent lives lost does not. So explain to me, other than MUH FEELINGS cause you see mass murders differently, why should we ban guns if it saves 0 lives?
Also in England when Port Arthur and Dunblane happened the country literally came gun grabbing. English mass murder rate since the 80s has pretty much stayed the same, they enacted harsher control in the 90s, still had 2 maniacs running round killing people since then, in fact they have had rising gun crime since the second gun control buff (in the 90s) because it's not the fucking laws it's the people, and when you start importing a bunch of romanian/polish/arab subhumans you start to get more crime.
>>77045483
>Assault rifles with military bullets actually really suck at killing, they tend to wound
No, this a myth perpetuated by gun illiterate people. They kill just fine, as evidenced by Orlando today
>It's why you can't use them to hunt deer
You can, but some states don't allow .223 for dear because it's on the lower end of the power scale for animals (not humans) and you have to get a really clean shot for a kill
>Most people who died were probably hit with the handgun
Handguns suck even more than rifles for killing, you have it backwards
>I have no problem banning handguns, hunting rifles, bows, shotguns, and any non-FMJ bullets
Get fucked commie
>wants to ban everything but "assault rifles"
Man, your just the opposite of everybody aren't you?
>>77033976
You have no idea how our second amendment works. In some states, you need permits to own an assult rifle, but it in Florida you don't have those restrictions. The thing is that minimum you can posses a pistol and a rifle, and the police can't do shit about it. Then, the jurisdiction goes to the states to decide to give more rights to gun owners or not
>>77045696
it was a fucking juvenile prison lol
seriously why are there so many broken, useless people in america let into positions of authority
just stop doing that
>>77040534
>People benefit from flying in planes and thy make those decisions themselves
Forgot to mention: this 'rebuttal' to my analogy falls apart because you fail to take into consideration those on the ground, in high buildings, or in the air who similarly have no choice and are vulnerable to misuse of aircraft (via hijacking, mechanical failure, pilot action etc.), just as people are vulnerable to misuse of firearms.
Someone using your logic may propose that each city could make a referendum about planes using their airspace, to reduce the risk of a 9/11 occurring.
>>77033976
As bad as Orlando massacre is, it is not the most deadly in American history. On December 29, 1890, the US Calvary massacred nearly 200 Lakota Indians many of them women and children. On a January day in 1863, the massacre of 253 Shoshone Indians, many women and children, took place at Bear River. I suppose Orlando might be the biggest massacre by a lone gunman or the biggest in modern times, but not the biggest in the entire US history.
>>77045732
>what if the us had functioning police forces instead and patrols with duty to respond to public threats instead of relying solely on over funded swat teams with hour-long response times
the US is way too large for something like that
I find it astonishing that you think taking away the tool diminishes the will. This is how I know you're a sheltered fuck. If I want to kill a load of people, I'll do it one way or another. In London they still have gun crime as well as other areas in the UK like Manchester.
Criminals by definition do not follow the law and will always be armed, where is the logic in disarming the entire population to target those who disregard the law in the first place? Its a very simple concept but you retards can't seem to get your head around it.
>>77045292
There are at least a few Aussies left that feel like they got a raw fucking deal in the wake of the Port Arthur massacre.
The best part is the alleged perp may not have had the mental faculties to pull of the massacre in the first place.
>Descriptions of Bryant's behaviour as an adolescent show that he continued to be disturbed and outlined the possibility of an intellectual disability. He was revealed to have extremely low intelligence, with an I.Q. of 66, equivalent to an 11-year-old. Further testing following his arrest indicated a verbal I.Q. of 64 and non-verbal reasoning and cognitive functioning of 68, giving a full scale I.Q. of 66, an age equivalent of 11 years in the 10th percentile (90% of 11-year-olds would score higher).
>On leaving school Bryant was assessed for a disability pension by a psychiatrist who wrote: "Cannot read or write. Does a bit of gardening and watches TV... Only his parents' efforts prevent further deterioration. Could be schizophrenic and parents face a bleak future with him." Bryant received a disability pension, though he also worked as a handyman and gardener.
>>77033976
>SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
>implying the 2nd Amendment is a shitpost
Kindly fuck off.
>>77033976
>It is the most lethal weapon available.
Not even close
>>77046034
the us constitution and us law in general seems really bad. in that it seems to mostly not work because of loopholes or states rights
like you could ignore federal law entirely and it'd just make life EASIER to do so
Alright guys. It has simply been tko easy for unstable individuals to get into this country. This last incident is clear proof that someone who should obviously have had no access to this country could easily get in.
It's not a gun problem, it's an Islam problem.
If you take away guns from the many law abiding owners only criminals are left with guns. Criminals are far less likely to open fire on armed individuals. A citizen carrying an ar-15 acts as a deterrent to would-be killers and can use the weapon as an effective means of self-defense if the need does arise.
Lastly, the US Constitution is not a shitpost, you fucking mong.
>SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
Taking easy access to an extremely lethal weapon until better restrictions for gun purchasers are put into place does infringe your right to bear arms.
The ar-15 isnt even automatic and it doesnt even have that large of a caliber. But people choose these for massacres for a reason. Namely, dangerous gun control measures and fear mongering which over time have led to an increased chance of crazies getting to fire on an unarmed populace.
FIXED THAT FOR YOU
You're fucking welcome.
>>77046101
>US Cavalry
military action is a little different from a nutty gunman raiding a club
stop forcing your meme it is a bad meme.
While I agree that such weapons shouldn't be so readily gotten, I have to suggest the idea that if these weapons weren't readily available, those who plot terror acts would just use explosives, instead.
>>77046398
>like you could ignore federal law entirely and it'd just make life EASIER to do so
The original Articles of Confederation allowed for the states to secede whenever they wanted. If we would just bring that back; then libs could have their pozzed and cucked paradises; and red states do their own thing. However, many leftists are Federal autists, and simply won't allow it.
>>77040115
>1.
'Comprehensive' meaning what?
>2.
What exactly will keep guns out of unauthorized hands?
> U can not jst have tanks,
Wrong
> jets
Wrong
> any military grade equipment
Depending on the item in question, also wrong.
>In fact, for some of the things I own, 'military grade'=downgrade
>>77046272
That poor bloke has my pity.
>>77036937
Fuck off toothpaste
>>77033976
>SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
Rights are more important than safety. If you disagree, fuck you.
>>77037920
Just as popular as AR-15s.
The military doesn't use those either.
>>77033976
>Nobody uses an ar-15 for self defense
Rifles are used in less than 5% of all shootings. Why ban something that makes up such a small percent? "But they're the scariest!" Still only used in less than 5% of shootings...
Coincidentally, I was very glad that I had my AR-15 with me after Hurricane Katrina. Never actually fired upon anyone, but New Orleans was going to hell pretty quickly and it took the National Guard a good bit of time to get here and then fix the idiot problem. If I had needed it, it would have been a good firearm to have by my side.
>>77033976
gb2 reddit you miserable faggot.
You're not even trying.
0/10
>>77034193
>he thinks any of these kikepaid shills write their own material
Kek...
Go ahead and ban the guns fucks. I'll just become another one of the outlaws who illegally obtains them.
>>77046023
>dear
>your
>gun 'illiterate'
Right ballistic gel tests of FMJ .223 and 7.62x39 barely leaving a wound cavity as they pass clean through and 9mm++ HP blasting chunks out of of it is clearly faulty evidence. Assault rifles are only more effective when shouldered past 30 yds, irrelevant in most mass shootings.
I didn't say states ban assault rifles for hunting, they ban FMJ ball ammunition, period. Even where hunting with .223 soft tips is legal, hunting with .338 Lapua FMJ is banned.
>>77036242
>I think that Muslim immigration could be re implemented n the future, AFTER the FBI can do a reasonable background check and if that never hapens, they never need to come back.
>>77033976
>>77047892
P.S.:
>It is the most lethal weapon available.
No. It's 5.56x45mm, that's a pretty shit round. You can get a semi-auto 7.62x51mm if you really want to do some damage. Or 6.8SPC, if you want to be that guy.
>>77035718
You actually can own all those things, you do realize? They're just extremely cost prohibitive.
>>77036242
You have to be autistic if you think banning a single type of rifle will solve any of this shit. It's no different than any other semi auto rifle out there. Ban the ar15, retarded fuck heads pick another cheap, semiauto rifle.
>>77035718
There's a guy in my town that owns many private tanks, and rich people own fighter jets, there's a guy in England who does
>>77033976
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
>>77033976
>Taking easy access to an extremely lethal weapon until better restrictions for gun purchasers are put into place does not infringe your right to bear arms. There are many other weapons which you can buy and use to defend yourself or use for recreation.
>were not infringing your right to bear arms, were just telling you what weapon you can and can't use based on our fee fees
Literally kys right now.
Inb4 "not an argument" I don't argue with my dog when he shits on the rug, I shove his nose in it and throw him outside.
>>77033976
Here's a fact for ya OPfag.
I don't give a hairy rat's ASS what kinda weapons some supposed terrorist can get their hands on. There are already too many laws and compromises and bans and feel good leftist bullshit on the books. Murder is already illegal and can get you a date with the hangman. If that's not deterrent enough, move your faggy ass to Japan or the UK where sharp objects are illegal too!
![4212874291_6774d9c7cc[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/DvA7g6M.jpg "4212874291_6774d9c7cc[1].jpg")
>>77048155
>Right ballistic gel tests of FMJ .223 and 7.62x39 barely leaving a wound cavity as they pass clean through
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hJZdtPcVdE
7.62x39 is a pretty shit round, but M193 ball fragments fairly reliably post impact and leaves very nasty permanent cavities. 9mm +P+ is not even in the same ballpark in terms of wounding potential.
>>77033976
>FALSE FLAGS
Reminder: the terrorist who shot up the gay nightclub acquired the gun ILLEGALLY. He was mentally ill and had no way of purchasing one through the current process and would have had to get one through Mexican smugglers.
>>77049191
Actually he purchased them legally and passed a background check
http://abcnews.go.com/US/orlando-shooter-bought-guns-previous-flags-fbi/story?id=39799861
>>77048898
>Implies banning one gun means it's not infringement because you can get a different one
>Autistic enough to think that the next shooter can't get the gun that isn't banned
Don't reproduce. Too much piss in the gene pool already.
>>77040620
>Government tyranny
I don't know why people laugh at that reason. It's precisely what the 2nd Amendment is for, and we don't have to be ashamed of it
mmm, muh 5,45 tumbling posion bullet!!
>>77049631
You talking to me or OP, newfag?
>>77049862
Shit. Reply meant for OP.
>>77033976
>optics on carry handle
>fucking ever
It's 2000+ (4^2). Even slav shit has rails
>>77049740
7N6 does tumble like a motherfucker.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Oq3ZEZ7YFw
>>77039687
>Anything CAN kill an equal amount to ar-15, but it is much less likely to occu
I don't think so Tim.
In total or per-incident, a car crash is far more likely to kill more people.
If you consider a car 'ammunition' just as a bullet is a projectile, then car pileups should invalidate private ownership of motor vehicles.
>>77050733
>In total or per-incident, a car crash is far more likely to kill more people.
But cars have a direct value for society.
99,999% of all guns will never be used for self defense let alone overthrowing the government.
If there were zero weapons in private hands your society might be different, but still a society.
Without cars America would be fucked.
>>77042078
http://honors.usf.edu/documents/thesis/u82488180.pdf
Longer barrels are better for long range shooting, but they're heavy
Shorter barrels are better for close range shooting because they don't need to reach as far
Pistols are fantastic close-quarters options because they're extremely light and easily maneuvered in tight, compact spaces
>>77044396
Have you not read through the thread? Pro-gun posters are the only ones citing facts and providing sources on almost each statement they make.
It's easier to just call them insane sperglords instead of reading though
>>77033976
Came back just to post this:
Can't believe u guys are still so mad u have literally no arguments against what ive said and this is why the same bs arguments have been regurgitated over and over again, that is also why this s the top post, u have to defend the needless ownership of this gun(HUR DUR ITS A RIGHT) because its simply not logical to own.
inb4 and after
>shall not be infringed
>Other things also can kill people
> pistols kill more people than ar-15s do
>ar-15s arent that deadly
>ar 15s are actually really good defence weapons
>>These last 2 things were contradictory statements and 3 of them are essentially the same argument spun in a different way
> take away peoples guns and only criminals will have guns
All these in this thread have been proven false.They are all completely shit arguments and by browsing this thread and ignoring the epic amounts of shitposting upset idiots the only logical conclusion you could make is:
ar-15s are currently far to easy to get for how lethal they are. Some greater form of gun control must be employed to limit certain peoples possesions of these guns. If people who plan to die can easily buy a gun, they dont care if it's legal.
if u disagree with this, you are an idiot.
>>77033976
Rifles, all of them combined, kill less than 300 people a year.
Stop being a little faggot bitch.
>>77044586
If u need to talk for 25 minutes to tell me the truth about control, its not actually the truth about gun control and u just htink about long speech = more knowledge = more correctness
>inb4 uve beeen here for x hours.
Ive just been regurgitating the same shit that long, any logical person would've been nodding yes by the end of the first post.
>>77051452
Yeah up until the wide spread easy attainability of ar-15s mass murders had generally significantly less casualties.
>>77051369
>But cars have a direct value for society.
>1.
This implies that cars have an unalienable value to society.
However it can be argued that all vehicles for personal use can be criminalized and highways converted to High Speed Rail.
Commercial truck/lorry fleets under this system could be incentivized to turn over to rail.
As a safety concern this is especially true for long-haul shipments of flammable materials.
>2.
This implies that regular use of firearms doesn't provide direct value.
As force multipliers for civilians and tools for vermin control they are excellent.
See >>77043300
>3.
This implies that the indirect benefits of firearms are invalid.
It's the same principle behind insurance policies and having an electricity generator: access to firearms and being proficient in their usage is helpful for the rare times one may have to use them, and a mass of law-abiding armed and well-trained civilians can serve as an excellent deterrent, aiding the unarmed law-abiding civilian.
See 'herd immunity' >>77043300
>99,999% of all guns will never be used for self defense let alone overthrowing the government.
Discounting driving to/from work and the market (which itself can be taken up by rail), and commercial vehicles, almost all the miles driven are for non-essential or recreational purposes.
>>77051369
There are about a quarter million cars in the US.
There are more than half a billion guns.
Cars still kill more people.
Stop being a little bitch.
>>77052633
If you agree with something the moment you see it, you aren't checking it for credibility and looking at other arguments and information. Everybody against gun control here's been making sure we've read and have information to back up what we're saying.
All you've done is mouth off and call us stupid.
If you aren't going to read, going to look at the facts, then you actually aren't worth the time. And that's really sad and upsetting
>>77052618
But I bet if u divided the number killed by the number of the incidences where someone was at least wounded its probably much higher, and what I mean by that is this. In incidences where pistol bullets actually injure at least 1 person that person + many others are much less likely to do than when at least one person is injured by an assault rifle
Secondly, it's not always just about kill count. When terrorism, especially when its combined with a hate crime leads to a massacre generally an ar-15 has been used(at least for hte past few years) and these crimes are obviously more heinous, violent, radical and unpredictable compared to the clearly predictable pistol murder rate of inner cities. The least we could do is stop these people from being able to easily obtain the gun which will best do the job.
>>77053215
>You can just go buy a car anywhere and driveaway in that day without being properly licensed and tested.
no.
>can buy a ar-15 capable of allowing 1 man to wound 100 people without military training in a matter of minutes
yes
tell me how you're argument is logical
>>77053492
Your post makes absolutely no sense, whatsoever. Every class of rifle combined kills less than 300 people in the entire nation.
300 people in a nation with tens upon tens of millions of rifles and 350 million people.
You may be the most pathetic person ever to post on 4chan.
>>77053875
>You can just go buy a car anywhere and driveaway in that day without being properly licensed and tested.
>no.
But that's wrong, you dumb fucking cunt.
We really need to start thinking about involuntary commitment for liberals. They are clearly not fit to exist in this reality.
>>77040115
Unless you have been barred by a court of law to own firearms, there is no legitimate cause for the government to forbid an otherwise valid sale to you.
![e56Jq[1].png](https://i.imgur.com/xhdEqwD.png "e56Jq[1].png")
>>77054091
Then stop engaging him holy fuck.
Saged, reported, called the NRA told them I was a good goy today.
>>77053492
If you take nothing else from this experience, learn to post with sources and information
>>77054564
No seriously, you guys are like those little conservative faggots who want to ban pit bulls because they kill a dozen people a year.
It's comical watching pansies piss themselves over an issue when they can't even grasp the numbers involved.
![KEsa0ud[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/VRBnQhC.jpg "KEsa0ud[1].jpg")
>>77054845
I'm agreeing with you faggot. This retard OP returned after ignoring 100 posts and went "LMAO GUNTURDS BTFO ONLY IDIOTS DISAGREE."
Ignore him this thread fucking sucks.
>>77055063
>just let us post our gun control nonsense unopposed
>we can't claim everyone wants more gun control if you keep crushing our retarded arguments
>>77055063
>>77054564
u love this thread because u finally feel the greatest uncuckening which is the 2nd amendment cuck where u think anybody should be able to own anything that can kill people immediately because no one would legally buy something they were gonna kill some1 with illegally.
>>77053875
>You can just go buy a car anywhere and driveaway in that day without being properly licensed and tested.
Yes, or steal a car or use a friend's. Whether or not police by chance catch me is subject to probability.
Whether or not I care about laws and licensing is invalidated if my ultimate goal in this scenario is killing multiple people (game over any way it's sliced.)
![rkmtrEA[1].gif](https://i.imgur.com/9alo1L2.gif "rkmtrEA[1].gif")
>>77055351
There is nothing more pathetic than being reduced to a quivering wreck by an inanimate object.
I can't wait until the NFA is repealed and we can go back to having mail order ordnance and crew served weapons.
