Say all guns were banned in the US, what would be the potential consequences?
Criminals would still have access to guns but there would be an immense rise in the cost of a gun on the black market. After a certain amount of time it is likely that only the more wealthy of criminals would be able to afford guns. So the real question is how does the government plan to disarm illegal gun owners, can they? What would it look like if the only gun owners for a certain amount of time were solely criminals?
What are some other potential consequences?
What are the Benefits other than, a decrease in mass shootings?
Maybe Europeans would consider immigrating.
>>77271247
>no trigger discipline
reeeeeee
Fake gun or not.
>>77271247
Is this your homework assignment?
Plz rate my pic
>>77271247
probably a civil war would be the consequences
>Can't stop 12 million illegal immigrants
>US government gives guns to cartels
>gun control works guise
>>77271456
No just curious on other people's opinions but I doubt you will believe me
>>77271425
No thanks. You have fucked your continent up beyond repair. Don't need you chucks doing it to ours.
They can come take my guns out of my cold dead hands. I'm not even big on coverups and the gov is here to kill us bs. though take away the populations guns you leave them defenseless against a bad government. Nope keeping mine.
>>77271653
but Clinton is going to win??
>>77271671
I did always think we need guns to protect us from the government was kind of funny. You really think your gun will protect you against the full might of the government (drones, jets, tanks, and all of the stuff we spend so much money on)
>>77271990
>(drones, jets, tanks, and all of the stuff we spend so much money on)
>there are people this retarded
>>77271247
Repossesing the guns alone would throw the country into civil war.
>>77271990
>>77271780
Trump will smoke that bitch.
>>77271990
Now that I think of it the Vietnamese and muslims did survive against it, so it probably would not hurt
>>77271501
1 in 200 is A LOT more than I thought it would be. That really don't help your case. Saying "you're 100 times more likely to die of heart disease instead of guns" is extremely weak. Everyone knows they're going to die eventually, they don't want to be reasonably afraid of dying to something like gun violence. 1 in 200 is a reasonable fear.
>>77271247
jim jeffries has an interesting take on the subject, but it's kinda blueish. he's about 3/4ths of the way to this board agreeing with his stance.
>>77271990
It worked for the Viet cong fucktard.
>>77271247
The only thing the liberals are good at is calling whoever doesn't agree with them racist. Once they take your guns you will lose your last line of defence when free speech is taken and your freedom is stripped from you. I advise you buy a gun and be willing to die to defend it anon.
The Founding Fathers were very clear about what we should do if the government tries to disarm the people. I would hope that we'd remember their words.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNKFt4z6zio
Consequences
>>77272121
>there are people that think their ragtag group of high school dropouts with guns can fight against the US military
top kek my friend
>what would be the potential consequences?
All the leftist politicians will be killed and the federal government will be gone for a short time.
>>77271501
make it longer and factor in niggers and then it will be perfect
>>77271247
>what would be the potential consequences?
Red Army + Communism
>>77271247
How in the fuck do you plan on taking all 300 million guns in america? How do you even know where the guns are or where to find them?
>>77271247
>Say all guns were banned in the US, what would be the potential consequences?
Immediate armed revolution from both the military and populace
>>77272242
Is it really? Even if you eradicated all gun crime and homicide you'd still be left with 99.5% of deaths, Reducing your chance of death by 1 in 200 is not significant in any way
>>77271247
>what is 3d printing
>>77271247
Cartels take over parts of the south more brazeningly.
>>77271247
>>77271247
>What are the Benefits other than, a decrease in mass shootings?
I am curious why you seem to think there is a benefit to folks dying in a mass bombing instead of a mass shooting.
Pic related, 168 dead.
>>77271990
you're an idiot
>>77271247
>>77272169
Argentina is right yet again
It's really weird, i actually haven't seen any Argentinian shitpost in a while
>>77272531
>implying it will even be a contest
>implying Amerifats won't get stomped immediately
>>77271247
>So the real question is how does the government plan to disarm illegal gun owners, can they?
We can make them faster than they can confiscate them from us
>>77272691
bait?
>>77271247
You remember what happened with prohibition back in the day? Didn't work out so well and that was just alcohol.
>>77271247
The black market would explode. There are more guns than fucking people in this country, and there floating around everywhere.
I can get you a AK-47 off the street in Southern Louisiana for 150 dollars with the serial numbers filed off. I've seen illegal AR's go fo 400 dollars, and I've seen glocks go down to as cheap as 100.
There would be absolutely no way to take them all back. There are simply too many of them. If they "banned" the AR-15, NOTHING would happen. You know how many AR's there are in the entire country?
It would just make the black market explode. No ones going to listen to a fucking "court decision" over gun laws.
It's better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.
Or when your done with your dirty work wipe off your prints and throw it in a storm drain.
>>77272631
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster
Worst school attack in US history in terms of casualties -- not guns involved.
>>77272805
I'm serious
I haven't seen an Argentinian shitpost for a while
>>77272475
I want it normie friendly. Talking about how apish and brutal niggers are by saying how much they kill wil just repulse them
>>77271990
That has been refuted sufficiently on /pol/. that I have to conclude you are a troll. Even if you do not agree with their thinking, you know full well by now what the counter-argument is.
>>77272742
360 million guns in the US, guns currently out number people. The government couldn't deport 10million illegals they sure as hell aren't going to confiscate 360 million guns
>>77271247
somebody with a high caliber rifle will take out the powergrid and start the insurrection
What no one seems to understand is that all these new "tighter" gun control laws only stop people from carrying who actually give a fuck about the laws.
My dad can't carry legally in CA, and he's never committed a crime in his life, and doesn't want to fuck with getting charged with one.
On the other hand, Daquan has many guns. Daquan is a also a criminal. Daquan carries these guns with the intent of using them, either to rob, or murder. Daquan knows he is a robber and murderer, so Daquan isn't very concerned about the ticket he might receive if he is caught with a gun. In fact, Daquan is probably already wanted by police, so he has more of a reason to carry a gun.
Why is it that people think that making something illegal is going to stop people who are already criminals from doing it? The only thing gun control does is keep LAW ABIDING citizens from having guns.
>>77272599
It would honestly be better to machine most of the parts yourself using steel and aluminum. ABS plastic isn't really the best material for anything that gets hot or is subjected to stress. Besides have you ever used one, they are terrible at printing curved surfaces and they don't have the best accuracy when printing a part. A cnc machine would be better still not perfect but more accurate.
>>77273026
Can /pol/ designate this guy an honorary white guy?
>>77273086
Is this an Australian proxy?
>pic related
>>77271247
Price of illegal guns skyrockets due to low supply and huge demand.
More and more gun owners killed to have their weapons taken and sold.
Basically what happened when the drug war began, but the item being trafficked can be used to kill.
Death everywhere, police can't cope and demand increased powers in order to suppress the chaos government policy has created.
>this ain't yo daddy's police state, boy
>>77271247
first thing, we'd all have "assault rifles."
everybody who could, would buy an 80% lower, and manufacture a true assault rifle with it. they would make extras, and sell them.
everybody who could, would manufacture a handful of drop-in auto sear devices, and modify existing semiautos which operate with them. additionally, many people with the almost-there variants would switch their buffers and carriers so that a DIAS would function in their rifle. they would make extras of these, too, and sell them.
second thing, ammunition would no longer be scarce.
everybody who could, would produce lots more of it. there's no telling how much you'll need in the civil war that ensues after a ban on private sales, a ban on semi-autos, or any other new gun control law we find repugnant. when there's no telling how much you'll need, you make a lot. extra. and sell it.
third. law enforcement would be cucked first. local and then federal.
see "red dawn" for an idea of what happens to police chiefs, sheriffs and mayors (the tune "stuck in the middle with you" comes to mind). only, in that movie, the invader is a known foreign country. in this scenario, the elements of treason to the republic are not all out in the open, they are mixed together in government, (((news media))), and some (((entertainment))).
then there's the uncontrollable violence.
ambushes would be a daily occurrence for both sides. a number of prominent public figures would be assassinated. we have all been keeping tabs on who has enabled gun controllers to believe they can get away with their plans, whether they are all talk, or actually back it up with some action. but now, because we know who's who at the outset -- and that gives us strategic advantage to compliment our tactical advantage of assault rifles, IEDs, improvised RPGs, improvised rifle grenades, plus some sweet-ass vehicles -- we only need to stay in the know. enter the intelligence network.
>>77273255
Now, Anon, if that sort of thinking was true, you'd expect all these mass shootings to be carried out ion gun-free zones like schools and nightclubs in Florida and the like.
>>77271247
>http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2016/06/14/orlando-shooting-officers-may-have-shot-club-patrons/85860178/
Yeah because only the wealthiest of criminals can afford weed, heroin, methamphetamine, etc...
You'll just create (even more) of a black market for them, but now you will see a missive increase in untraceable homemade weapons.
None of the criminals care about homemeade guns now, because we can jsut buy them, buit when taht changes they wilkl have to get them somehow...
>>77271780
Just wait Ahmed. Also, stay the fuck out of our country. I don't need you mudslime loving bull prepers to ruin our country too.
>>77273294
>>77273026
He did a good job resisting the urge to point it at the camera or hold it sideways. Not bad.
>>77271990
>>77271646
>>77271247
OP is a faggot, nothing to see here. Sage and move along.
>>77271247
Over 300000000 guns are in private hands. How many gun owners will fire sale their weapons if no money is offered in compensation? Australia's buyback costed them $500 million for roughly only 650000 guns....think about it.
>>77272508
liberals dont think it through. Htey jsut assume the police will "go get the guns".
I think the fact that this means literally a search of every single property in america jsut completely glosses by them.
>>77271247
SAUCE ON PIC?
If they banned all guns and tried to seize them from current owners it would be a civil war.
>>77273262
its a fuck ton easier for the average nigger though
>>77272691
Did you reply to me by mistake?
>>77273445
This sort of sums up what happened the last time the Government tried prohibition. Well, the last several times, I guess, counting drugs and the war there-on.
An overnight gun grab would cause a civil war. Being that that is a given, it would probably be attempted under a manufactured martial law type situation, to try to limit the violence.
As for the aftermath, if the Gov't pulls it off things will become like Britain with petty crime going up, and gun violence in the inner cities would continue because of black market firearms (that would slowly taper off assuming gun-crime laws get insane penalties).
>>77271990
Go say that on K to get educated.
The US government doesn't have a chance. They dont have the manpower, and the enemy would be invisible and any infrastructure destroyed would only hurt the governments cause. Tanks, jets, and bombs cant win a standard asymmetrical war for shit, let alone one on home ground.
Imagine the "war of being tremendous faggots". You dont attack tanks, you attack power plants. You dont attack jets, you burn fuel refineries, you dont attack the enemy, you attack their reputation to succeed, and you attack their supporters comfort.
>>77273445
let me make a quick diversion for those sweet-ass vehicles. command vans, MRAPs, APCs, etc. -- we have them already, you just don't know it. they're in the hands of local law enforcement thanks to the drug war. only problem is you think that local law enforcement owes you allegiance and that they're likely to offer it after a gun ban, ha.
nope.
now as i was saying, the movement grows. it almost outgrows itself. it gets so large that people all need to know what's happening and who's who as the battlefield give-and-take rewrites the political map. so now what you see is new media, a new establishment. its inevitable.
and why would all this happen. because if the consequences we have now for illegally owning an assault rifle, machine gun, RPG, etc. are made to be equal with the consequences proposed for owning just a handgun or rifle, then there is no reason to commit the small "crime" when you could just commit the big one. in either case, what you have is a firearm. it's not a bowl of eggs, faggot. it defends itself when the tyrants come knocking.
eat these.
>>77271247
Also....
>>77273492
>None of the criminals care about homemeade guns now, because we can jsut buy them
Are Saturday Night Specials not still a thing?
Brazil has nasty laws to prevent people to buy guns. In fact, only people who work in the security area or cops can buy guns. It turns out criminals don't follow the law. The fucking government was surprised to see criminals didn't turn over their guns as it was planned.
Brazil, 200kk people, strict gun control: 70 000 murders per year
USA: 318kk people, 12 000 murders per year.
Every eyar the number in brazil is getting higher and higher, the real number is hidden from the population.
Dont give up your guns
Pic related: what happens when the government ban guns from normal citizen
>>77273803
exactly. even beer was outlawed, so everybody made 180 proof moonshine. and they made extra and sold it.
>>77273567
>I think the fact that this means literally a search of every single property in america jsut completely glosses by them.
Which, by the way, they will scram about the loudest. Not that it would not be worthy of some screaming...
>>77271247
fucking babes with guns, powertools or on bikes turns me on. Damn I want her number
>>77273584
I have been on 6chan too long, when I almost replied to you to mock you for spelling "band" wrong.
Why the fuck is this dumb bitch's finger on the trigger? I hope she accidentally shoots herself.
>>77271247
U.S would be dead, it would have to rename itself.
>>77272242
Car crashes.
You forgot car crashes.
Just look at how well prohibition went.
>>77274322
Hey /k/ showed up.
>>77272242
>That really don't help your case
>here's my totally broken math to show why
firearms save 2 million lives a year
>kleck, gary
kill yourself my man
>>77271430
>>>/k/ill your self
>>77274322
Things that are fake on this pic:
- gun
- tits
- hair color
- expression
I guess the sky is real
>>77273584
I'm not even particularly pro gun control (as many people have pointed out, as horrifying and shocking as mass shootings are, they're responsible for just a tiny fraction of the preventable deaths in this country) but you fuckers do realize that many -- maybe even most -- gun control advocates only want to make it *harder* for people to legally obtain guns (hopefully weeding out some of the people who really shouldn't be allowed to have them), and limit *what* guns you can legally obtain? Even if some people do want a blanket ban on all guns, that's never going to happen in this country, not now and not ever. Mentally stable law-abiding citizens will always be able to acquire guns legally, and so creating a false choice between "banning all guns" and "never tightening gun laws at all" just makes you look paranoid and stupid, degrades the conversation and makes it very unlikely that any kind of mutually-acceptable compromise will be reached. And like it or not, both sides often have to compromise in a democracy.
>>77273851
With alcohol, they gave everybody a nice long run-up to get in a legal private stock of booze (any that you owned prior to the amendment kicking in was legal to keep and use) and there were numerous interesting exceptions in the enacting legislation (the Voldstead Act) -- for example, home-brewed cider was legal, sacrimental wines were legal but there was no legal definition of who was allowed to partake or how frequently (some "synagogues" around the country went from zero members to three or four hundred) and of course after the law kicked in, smuggling was intense.
Based on that, I'd expect a huge run on guns and ammo if it looked like a law was about to be passed, and a huge and very violent black-market there-after.
BLUNT OBJECTS KILLS MORE PEOPLE THAN SEMI-AUTOMATIC RIFLES IN THE UNITED STATES EVERY YEAR
WHY AREN'T BLUNT OBJECTS BANNED?
Also shall not be infringed you unamerican fucks
>>77272403
>implying the US military wouldn't facture if it ever came to the point it's fighting citizens
you're an idiot
>>77273294
Im sure liberals will, or uncle tom
>Say all guns were banned in the US, what would be the potential consequences?
No mass shootings
No more small dicked guys
Have to get in shape if you want to be tough shit
>>77274796
Don't try to compensate your lack of education and powerlessness with guns.
>>77274103
But at the same time you could make your own wine legally, causing a huge increase in grape consumption and the rise of a hearty grape that could handle being shipped by rail from California to Chicago or New York (though it made a lousy wine.)
It was an odd time...
>>77274687
We can use NY as an example of taking rights through slow erosion. Of course nobody wants to outright take guns, they know they cant, and they would fail. Every time the people agree to losing a part of their rights, the next piece is just around the corner.
Gun control has NEVER in the history of the US been a compromise. It has always been a take.
This has been repeated numerous times throughout history, not only in relation to weapons.
>>77271425
No thanks achmed, were full
>>77271247
There would be a multi-billion dollar black-market for guns,
cartels would rise and wage war against eachother, most likely with innocent civilian casualties.
>>77274687
>And like it or not, both sides often have to compromise in a democracy.
Though the side with the most guns has to compromise less, if it comes to that.
>>77274961
>>have to get in shape if you want to be tough shit (able to defend yourself)
>>Be an 80 year old man vs 2 20 somethings
k
It would erode American's confidence in the Constitution, separation of powers, and the Supreme Court. You may not like it (and frankly I don't have much opinion about it strictly as a matter of gun control), but the words are there: "shall not be infringed." Attempting to solve this problem by any means other than a constitutional amendment would open the gates for any matter of undermining any constitutional right which is inconvenient or unpopular.
It wouldn't be quite so bad if the Supreme Court did it (there are a few means they could, theoretically), but public faith in the Supreme Court is already pretty low since they made the radical decision to constitutionalize gay marriage and they should really avoid making sweeping controversial decisions to let the people remember that they should be and for the most part ARE impartial, rational interpreters of the laws and not figures of politics.
>>77275131
>>77274687
My rights do not have to be compromised.
>>77274687
SHALL
>>77274356
My oath would be null and void.
>>77274560
The 2 million number was from a bullshit study with no legit support. highest number done by a study that was actually soundly done was about 750000 percent year
>>77275452
>comparing guns to food
You know how a nuclear bomb is like a Pringles can?
>>77275703
750000 per year is a fuckload
>>77271247
Illegal guns would still keep killing people.
Now the majority of people are defenseless.
>>77271247
I was looking for these pics yesterday!
>>77273579
Penny Mathis
>>77271247
SAUCE ON GIRL IS PENNY MATHIS
>>77271990
>drones, jets, tanks, and all of the stuff we spend so much money on
Drones are only effective against the sand niggers because they have zero air defense and cant strike the control center for drones with an ak and homemade explosive. But with all the muslims obama pushed intonthe military. Lol wouldnt surprise me of it goes boom soon
Tanks require space to operate. Arent very stealthy. Cant take much of an IED. Easy to delay or immobilize them with some carefully laid terrain dug outs.
Jets would not want to bomb everywhere indiscriminately. Plus would have trouble landing with 100 rednecks shooting at the airfield.
Ultimately the war would be won through supply controls. Gov cuts off power and water, stops food shipments to the area. We see this in every communist socialist country.
Regardless the goal is to stop all gun sales in the usa and ramp up production for muslim moderate forces. The gov is pissed colt etc arent cranking out a million guns to hand over to isis. They dont like the german provided firearms.
Once Obama bans guns. He will ban idolatry. Any offense to muslims will be a federal hate crime. Practically already spelled that out during san bernadino. Orlando was just another copy paste operation. Real people die. Fake actors dominate the news interviews.
>>77275703
it's not a bullshit study, it's not a bullshit number, and i even gave you the citation so you can go see for yourself
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Kleck
>>77271247
>can they?
No, but they can certainly try.
>Criminals would still have access to guns
why do we assume that all criminals have connections that can get them black market guns? if you're some dude off his meds who wants to shoot up a school, you probably don't know anyone who can sell you one.
>>77271990
Your argument is so tired and worthless that it almost makes Hillary look like she's not a stroke victim.
>>77272403
Why would the US military fight its own civilians? That's treason.
>>77271501
Be sure to exclude chimps. Chimp-on-Chimp shootings are designed population control measures.
>>77276543
Because criminals converse with criminals.
Even a dipshit like you could find some weed or heroin im sure.
>>77274771
why a hammer is so popular doe?
>>77276717
We're talking about how owners that would refuse to surrender their guns if a legislation passed would fight back against the US military.
It would be the gun owners committing treason since they would be defying the law that the people passed democratically and attacking the government personnel trying to confiscate their weapons.
>>77271247
Everyone that currently owns a gun and refuses to turn it in becomes a criminal and a lot of cops and innocents die in the fighting when they try to raid places to take them
>>77271430
Fuck of /k/ike
>>77277018
The US military doesn't enforce domestic laws. Local/state police and ATF/FBI would do that, but they would still be committing treason.
The Second Amendment clearly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Good luck getting a constitutional convention together to agree on tearing up the Bill of Rights.
>>77271780
huAHHHHHHHHHH
>>77271247
Victim disarmament emboldens criminals.
If firearm prohibition is effective (big if, usually isn't) then you'll see more murders committed with machetes, lead pipes, or by simple beating people to death.
Not seeing any upside to it, realistically, none at all. If it comes down to it I'd rather have my head shot off than chopped off.
>>77271247
GAHHHHHHHHHHH
>>77277231
The Tree of Liberty must be watered from time to time with the blood of tyrants and patriots.
>>77277316
They've been doing it for years
Every censorship law, every gun control law, most laws touch on the bill of rights and take a bit away
>>77271247
>what would be the potential consequences?
We finish what we started 204 years ago burger.
>>77271990
>irregular warfare doesn't drain the resources and squander political capital
t. someone who's never heard of the Vietnam war, the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, the US occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan.
>>77277316
The bill of rights can be amended. Remember when beer was prohibited and it was changed? Or when black people got the right to vote?
Amendments are exactly what they mean. Changes, additions to the constitution.
When segregation of black people was deemed illegal, the President upheld that ruling and sent in the military to protect black students as they attended a desegregated public school.
>>77277901
Justin Trudeau wouldn't let us win by killing us though.
>>77273567
>police search every home for guns
>hundreds of black males get shot by the cops
>liberals blame the cops
>>77277018
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,
>>77271247
All out war, assuming your talking about all guns.
You can't bring about change like that,
you have to bring the water to a boil.
>>77275121
le swastika of death
>>77278125
>Right of the People to alter or to abolish it
That's right, we have the power to alter or abolish parts of our government we don't like. Including laws.
>>77272242
After accounting for all the gun deaths from suicide and then fun deaths from gang violence. Its drops incredibly. Turns into something like 1 out of 1200 deaths are the result from guns non sucide/gang. If the actually cared about preventing deaths, there are many better and effective ways than fucking with the Constitution. Such as increasing the driving test requirements to get a license.
>>77271247
>Say all guns were banned in the US, what would be the potential consequences?
the hells angles in straya are gonna jump on tor and send a file over so that their ameribros can begin CNCing guns nigga, google Australia and diy guns
It will be bootlegging for guns, and just like narcotics, the trade will boom
>>77277231
my blood will spill for my rights.
>>77280398
It wouldn't even need to get to that point
No matter how effective the government tries to seem, they wouldn't be able to shut down every gunsmith in the country
They'd be making guns out of spite
>>77280760
>300 million guns held my hundreds of millions
statistically you're going to get millions revolting, and millions occupying your territory is the end of the government, you can't enforce laws or authority on unionized millions of soldiers.
>>77280962
>hand over your guns
Fathers died for less oppression.
>>77271247
>What are some other potential consequences?
A cold day in Hell, for starters.
>>77280777
>They'd be making guns out of spite
this is why I love you guys, it's too bad my government only seems to let the degenerate niggers get visas...
>>77271247
the guaranteed consequences are civil war.
except civil war where the people who are armed and 90% of the military are on one side, and a bunch of cucks and animals on the other.
>>77271247
There are more guns than people in the US, with many citizen having huge caches of firearms. I know little old men who have more than 3000. There would be no way these people would accept any attempt to take them. If you figure half of America owns at least one, and if even .5% violently resisted (I think that is at least an order of magnitude conservative) there wouldn't be enough Enforcers to do the job. The Western half of the country would break off immediately. The lack of enforcers would invite various well organized and armed groups to take over.
You'd have Deseret Mormons controlling everything from Missouri to California, they would merge with their complimentary bodies in Mexico and Canada, and you would have a theocratic super-republic. The Mormons have been planning to do this for a hundred years.
Pragmatically, it would be easier to start your gun free Utopia on the Moon, and just not let any go into space, with the likelihood that you would probably be attacked by gun wielding Space pirates as soon as you had any success.
This is what ISIS does to people once they have had their guns taken away.
Without armed citizens a few fucks like ISIS can exterminate the people at their pleasure.
>>77276765
Know your audience friend, to normies naming the nog is as bad as naming the jew and they will just stop listening.
>>77272396
in 2014 there were:
>7 poison
>71 fire
>89 strangle
wtf am i supposed to be reading
>>77271247
there would be a civil war.
>>77271425
We don't need more mudshits.
>>77272403
The US military is made up of mostly highschool dropouts.
>>77282997
Who then go through training and classes.
>>77282349
BAN GUNS
>>77282997
Wrong you shithead...
>>77283484
>muh G.E.D.
>>77275197
Not historically name one time the anti gun faggots gave up anything. Humanity and it's altruism will be the death of modern first world civilisation.
>>77272242
The only reason gun deaths are so high is because of niggers. Detroit alone has 50x more gun death than any other non-nigger city in the country
>>77283484
>officers
>>77283840
>The only reason gun deaths are so high is because of niggers.
True. Very true...
>>77272242
Medical malpractice is more likely to get you killed than gun violence. Nobody fears that.
>>77274687
This is wise and well put. Thanks. It's not about absolute polarities. Obviously something is a bit out of alignment at the moment, so we need to make some small policy changes around who can access what kinds of guns. Let's change things so that anyone who has been on an FBI terrorist watch list can't buy a high-capacity assault rifle without years of appeals. Doesn't seem too crazy, right?
Simply, magically, taking guns away from black people will not prevent much murder. The real magic trick would be to get ride of the black people all together.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzlU0Xypur4
>>77287222
Or to get rid of massively butthurt spergs who post on imageboards. Then the world would be improved and the gene pool cleansed.
>>77271247
Trigger discipline burns us...
>>77275717
>Missing the point this hard
It has never been a compromise, there has never been a compromise.
>>77275703
>God, why can't you gun nuts understand that for every person killed with a gun ONLY 75 people defend themselves with one, geez.
