Why is /pol/ so adamantly against gun control? Seriously, not bait, I want to have an intelligent conversation about it. Here are some common arguments I hear from conservatives, stop me if I'm misrepresenting or oversimplifying or something
>There's no evidence that proves gun control would work
Well that's because you've literally blocked any potential research into the subject. The Dickey Amendment literally prohibits research into gun control. You guys have actually obstructed any ways for us to support our argument or prove you wrong.
>Assault weapons are already banned
Well that is obviously not enough now is it?
>Shall not be infringed, retard
We've made many amendments to the Constitution and Bill of Rights, there is literally no reason that we can't do it again.
>Criminals aren't just gonna hand in their weapons, and they'll get them illegally.
That's not what gun control is. It stops the flow from legal to illegal. Gun/gun parts need to be bough legally at one point before they go to the illegal market. The idea is that tighter restrictions can stop the flow from legal to illegal. Maybe we could try something like follow up appointments to ensure that the firearm is still in the original buyer's hands?
>Gun control has already failed in places like Chicago or even Cali
Well when you can buy guns in the neighboring city/state and bring them back it doesn't really prove anything.
>We don't ban cars
A car's main function lies in transportation, not killing
>Does a gun death make you more dead?
No, but it is certainly more preventable
Now some of my points.
The USA leads the developed world in gun violence, and I understand that a lot of it is black people, but that is not an excuse when we can prevent it.
Republicans are all about not providing constitutional rights to suspected terrorists, so why can they so easily buy guns? At least that's why I think...
People on the no fly list, and suspected terrorist list should not be able to buy weapons. They just shouldn't, that's common sense.
Radical Islam is certainly an issue, but it becomes more of an issue when we arm them.
Also Paul Ryan's behavior right now is unacceptable, calling this a stunt when the GOP voted ~40 times to repeal Obamacare
Well, what do you think /pol/
>>78231083
I also think this is part of a broader problem, where neither the GOP nor the Democrats want to give an inch on any issue anymore. Especially when they aren't doing what the American people want, or even addressing the issue. Its inexcusable that the House won't recognize this vote here when the American people clearly want to see this issue discussed and voted upon.
>>78231083
The reason gun control is being rejected by conservative politicians is because gun manufacturers are financing their campaigns. The reason gun control is being rejected by conservatives is because they don't want pussy effeminate liberals telling them they can't have fully automatic killing machines, because that makes them less free.
Both pretty valid reasons desu.
>>78231083
>Well that's because you've literally blocked any potential research into the subject
Good thing the rest of the world has done it for us. Violent crime stays the same.
>Well that is obviously not enough now is it?
It never will be enough until all guns are banned. Then knives and forks, and even pencils will be heavily regulated, looking at Britain.
>We've made many amendments to the Constitution and Bill of Rights, there is literally no reason that we can't do it again.
That's not an argument. That's like saying you can change the Freedom of Speech because it doesn't suit you. Plus, you haven't made a compelling argument to change it.
>That's not what gun control is. It stops the flow from legal to illegal.
How's that working out in, say, Australia, where people make their own guns? How did that work in Paris last December? How would you stop someone from ordering a gun that isn't complete, and completing it themselves (bullets are easy to make, by the way)?
>Well when you can buy guns in the neighboring city/state and bring them back it doesn't really prove anything.
You can't do that, actually. This shows how little you know about gun laws.
>A car's main function lies in transportation, not killing?
So what?
>No, but it is certainly more preventable
More preventable? What about the 120lb woman going up against the 300lb man in a dark alley? What about the 12 year old who is watching her little brother, home alone, when two would-be thieves kick in the front door? What about the gays that would be bashed? They should just have no real means to defend themselves, right?
SHALL
NOT
BE
>>78231083
>Gun/gun parts need to be bough legally at one point before they go to the illegal market.
What?
Because every piece of evidence points to no correlation between lower rates of violent crime and gun control.
Look at Chicago. Extremely strict gun control laws, but still high violence.
Then look at countries with gun control. Lots of them have even higher rates of violent crime than america, only the weapon used ends up being a knife or bat.
What are we gonna do then? Ban knives?
nvm UK already done did that....
And guess what? It didn't help at all.
>>78232011
A CAR
>>78231083
>We've made many amendments to the Constitution and Bill of Rights, there is literally no reason that we can't do it again.
Then do it.
>>78231083
i dont want gun control and i dont even own a gun
i think it will just hurt law abiding gun owners
we see what happens in places like europe who have gun control the criminals still get guns illegally
i think things should stay the same
i live in texas and people open carry all the time since they allowed it and it doesnt bother me a bit
as long as nobody is in public drawing their gun its ok with me
>>78231418
The GOP put forth their own proposals, and the Dems wouldn't accept it. This is because the Dems don't give an inch, not because the GOP isn't willing to.
Furthermore, compromise implies that both sides give something up. That NEVER happens with gun control debates. Here's what happens:
>D: Give us everything we want
>R: No.
>D: Give us SOME of what we want
>R: No.
>D: Well, you're just unreasonable and unwilling to compromise.
Now, here's an example of a compromise:
>D: Give us everything we want
>R: No.
>D: Well, what if you give us some of what we want, and in turn, we will give you something you want, like a phase-out of Cash-in-hand Welfare?
>R: I'm listening.
>D: In return for that, the FBI gives the ATF a list of every name they are watching, and if a background check comes through, the FBI can temporarily block the sale, which can be appealed via the court, at the FBI's own expense.
>R: And in return, Cash-in-hand Welfare is phased out?
>D: Correct.
>R: Well, how many years would it take?
There's a compromise.
>>78231083
I proposed this as a rule ages ago and now propose it again.
Do not open your ridiculously ignorant mouth about gun control until after you have watched the free YouTube video In Search Of The Second Amendmemt and can distinguish your gun control proposals from a straightforward attack on negative rights. Don't understand what negative rights are? Then you have no opinions wirth hearing regarding gun control.
You honestly sound like Charlie on Always Sunny attempting to hold forth on bird law. No wonder you think we're stupid, you honestly have no idea what any of this is about.
Shall not be infringed you Fucking faggot. I know you liberals have a skewed view of rights but your continual push to erode them will have you cunts labelled as traitors soon enough.
>>78231083
shall not be infringed.
>>78232525
no debate, you try to take our guns we kill you.
>>78231083
>>There's no evidence that proves gun control would work
>Well that's because you've literally blocked any potential research into the subject.
Research? How about you research Mexico? Gun control paradise. In fact why don't you go there, it's is your Utopia, all guns are banned, or "heavily restricted"
>>78231083
>We've made many amendments to the Constitution and Bill of Rights, there is literally no reason that we can't do it again.
No problem with this. Laws have been proposed, and they have not passed. If the case can be made to garner 50% a proposal by 2/3rds of both the house and the senate AND then ratified by 3/4ths of the states. Then obviously it would be "what the majority of people want"
>>78231083
We want to preserve our right to keep and bear arms and you want to end it. It's really that simple.
>>78231156
>The USA leads the developed world in gun violence
>Brazil
>Russia
>Mexico
>South Africa
Nigger, compared to countries which are actually dangerous, we are not even on the chart. See when you start with gigantic lies, why would you expect us to ever listen to you, or believe you?
Nobody cares faggot. Compliance rates with registration schemes after Connecticut's 2013 legislation and the NY Safe act were around 20-40%. And local sheriffs around the country have no desire to enforce. The people have guns and they won't give them up without coercive force.
>>78232695
The most dangerous demographic is also the least for citizens gun ownership, aka blacks/hispanics.
>>78231083
Here's your research, gun control doesn't work
>>78232695
this
in alot of us cities and the frequent gun violence is contained to a few neighborhoods in every city and most of those guns are illegally bought or stolen
There's already thousands of laws on the books for guns and democrats never quit asking for more. That's why gun rights groups have just stopped meeting in the middle altogether. Democrats will never be satisfied until all guns are removed from the hands of law abiding citizens. Oddly enough they don't seem to mind that they'll still need guns to remove guns. As long as someone has guns criminals will find a way to steal them and that just leaves the law abiding citizens defenseless.
>>78232551
i look at this and all i see are less border hoppers
>>78231083
Listen dude.
The point of matter is that the second amendment exists to guarantee our natural, innate right to not just self defense, the ability to defend ourselves, our homes, and our families and friends, but it also guarantees our right to agency and self determination.
And because of that, there is no argument agaisnt firearms that will convince me to infring on that right.
they specifically put "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" at the end of 2nd amendment. don't like it? the liberal paradise of europe awaits you. besides, until the day america is at least 97% white, guns will always be necessary
>>78231156
>but that is not an excuse when we can prevent it
You won't prevent shit. Black people will still kill themselves at the same rate and I won't have my rights, White America has the same gun homicide rate as Holland, I don't care if a bunch of niggers kill each other.
>People on the no fly list, and suspected terrorist list should not be able to buy weapons.
The republicans put out legislation that would prevent that, dems shot it down. You know why? Because it had recourse. Dems want a list that they can arbitrarily say that anyone they don't like can't own guns. They want a short ho[ to registry and confiscation.
>Well when you can buy guns in the neighboring city/state and bring them back it doesn't really prove anything.
Give me data that says they're bought in neighboring states. Oh right, they aren't.
tl;dr It's all brown people. They make society sick, and I'm not giving up my right to defend myself when it all goes to shit because liberals got soft on farm equipment and then on a lark decided to pass the law that allowed the largest mass migration of people into a country history has ever seen and then even defend the illegals that come and kill each other in this land when they couldn't even get in under those ridiculously loose immigration laws. I don't give a shit if brown people kill each other.
>>78231083
>We've made many amendments to the Constitution and Bill of Rights, there is literally no reason that we can't do it again.
Except the people who want more gun control aren't trying to amend the constitution in the constitutionally prescribed manner, they're trying to bypass it (basically because they know they don't have the votes to get it done constitutionally).
That aside, my opinion is when people talk about "intelligent conversations" about gun control and then immediately demonstrate nearly complete ignorance on that which they wish to ban, or "common sense" gun control measures and then try to ban civilian ownership of "assault" rifles, despite the fact that twice as many people are being killed with bare hands and feet than any type of rifle every year, it kind of makes me want to ignore their stupid uneducated opinions.
>>78232937
Race is the real elephant in the room
>>78231083
Because in America, we have a right to keep and bear arms. Anything involving any form of gun control is infringement.
We, as human beans have a right to self defense, and to disarm/disbar the use of guns is a moral and ethical wrong.
>>78232937
>>78231788
but violent crime doesn't stay the same.
the rest of the world proves mass shootings don't occur as much in countries without automatic weapons available
>>78233061
Pretty sure they were talking about muskets, not modern assault weapons.
>>78231083
It will do nothing because nogs gonna nogs.
>>78231083
>Well that's because you've literally blocked any potential research into the subject.
This may or may not have been a mistake. Depends on how honest the research would be.
>Assault weapons are already banned
>Well that is obviously not enough now is it?
The assault weapons ban expired a long time ago. If this confuses you google the difference between the legal definition of assault weapon and the historical definition of assault rifle. Totally different things.
>We've made many amendments to the Constitution and Bill of Rights, there is literally no reason that we can't do it again.
Not politically feasible in the near future. Also gun control is waning in popularity.
>That's not what gun control is.
At least this frames gun "control" as an ideal goal instead of feel good legislation that may or may not do a god damn fucking thing. People get actual results and good intentions confused.
>It stops the flow from legal to illegal. Gun/gun parts need to be bough legally at one point before they go to the illegal market. The idea is that tighter restrictions can stop the flow from legal to illegal.
The argument from the right is that this is highly,highly,highly unlikely to happen. It's like drug control. There is no control, only "the war on".
>Maybe we could try something like follow up appointments to ensure that the firearm is still in the original buyer's hands?
Are we going to grow these inspectors on trees? Do you know how much time and how many employees you're talking about here? What about the guns currently existing that you have to confiscate? There are more guns than americans.
>Well when you can buy guns in the neighboring city/state and bring them back it doesn't really prove anything.
Guess you'll have to wait on full confiscation then.
>A car's main function lies in transportation, not killing
Stigma has nothing to do with societal effects
>No, but it is certainly more preventable
Self defense is preventable, asshole
>>78231083
>I want to have an intelligent conversation about it.
Translated from libspeak to English, this phrase roughly means "Shut the fuck up and respect my pronouns, Shitlord!!!!!!!"
>>78231083
Read the recent Popehat post on the subject
"I support the argument that the United States should enact a total ban on civilians owning firearms.
Oh, I don't support the ban. I support the argument.
I support the argument because it's honest and specific. It doesn't hide the ball, it doesn't refuse to define terms, it doesn't tell rely on telling people they are paranoid or stupid in their concerns about the scope of the ban. The argument proposes a particular solution and will require the advocate to defend it openly.
That elevates it above most gun control dialogue."
https://popehat.com/2016/06/16/in-support-of-a-total-ban-on-civilians-owning-firearms/
>>78233515
Were they also talking about mass communication via print, video, and audio recording when writing the first amendment as well?
>>78231788
>Good thing the rest of the world has done it for us. Violent crime stays the same.
I mean, no because the US has the most gun related problems of any developed country
It never will be enough until all guns are banned. Then knives and forks, and even pencils will be heavily regulated, looking at Britain.
>Don't wanna take your guns, and also slippery slope is a logical fallacy
>That's not an argument. That's like saying you can change the Freedom of Speech because it doesn't suit you. Plus, you haven't made a compelling argument to change it.
It is an arguement, because people say "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" when we could literally just change it. Also the 1st amendment has been modified plenty of times, and has been interpreted all different ways.
>How's that working out in, say, Australia, where people make their own guns? How did that work in Paris last December? How would you stop someone from ordering a gun that isn't complete, and completing it themselves (bullets are easy to make, by the way)?
Well why don't we try something. Because otherwise, mass shootings are going to happen every other week, but the GOP seems content with literally doing nothing.
>You can't do that, actually. This shows how little you know about gun laws.
It's really fairly easy to do.
>So what?
You realize that I was refuting some arguments in my original post right? Pay attention.
>More preventable? What about the 120lb woman going up against the 300lb man in a dark alley? What about the 12 year old who is watching her little brother, home alone, when two would-be thieves kick in the front door? What about the gays that would be bashed? They should just have no real means to defend themselves, right?
Do you seriously think that the 12 year old girl can operate a gun? The Good Guys with Guns theory has been disproved so many times it's actually ridiculous. People don't know how to operate guns and defend themselves, they're scared. Arming everyone is not the answer.
>>78232032
To get a gun, a person must buy it. Then after they buy it they typically sell it for a profit illegally to another person, who perpetrates the crime.
>>78233416
mass shootings are statistically PISS IN THE WIND compared to all violence. An extremely rare and heinous act is a useless metric, no matter how embarrassing.
>>78231824
>>78231954
>>78232011
>>78232118
What did they mean by this?
>>78233416
I won't relinquish my civil rights just because some crazy people abuse theirs.
>>78233648
No, they weren't.
False equivalency.
Next.
>>78233515
pretty sure they were talking about "arms"
because you know, thats what the amednment says
>>78231083
>Seriously, not bait
>>78233684
>do you seriously think a 12 year old girl can handle a gun
Yes
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3f8VmJRuBFY
>>78231083
> (Liberal Here)
Already knew it was trash before I read a word beyond that, thanks for saving me the time.
>>78232076
I could literally go to Chicago right now with my guns, avoiding all the laws and shit.
And we wouldn't ban guns entirely, and certainly not knives. You realize a person cannot kill 49 others with a knife. Especially not if there was an off duty cop that DID have a gun.
>>78232173
If only the GOP would stop being whiny babies
>>78233790
How, it's the same exact thing?
>>78233790
>False equivalency
how so?
>>78233790
>literally true equivalency
>calls it false
>>78233684
>Do you seriously think that the 12 year old girl can operate a gun?
Damn look at that liberal sexism at work. 12 year old girls can handle guns than any liberal.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZE-EDGw2vo
>>78232338
It really is both sides. The GOP voted ~40 times on Obamacare, but won't even yield a vote on this issue. Soooooo you should fix that hypothetical dialogue.
>>78233732
No not really, the vast majority of illegally owned guns on the street are stolen.
>>78232384
Ah you got me there
>>78233829
Well done.
Arms at the time consisted of muskets.
>>78233896
>>78233918
>>78233925
The detrimental effects of more effective mass communication pale in comparison to more effective arms.
>>78233684
>Do you seriously think that the 12 year old girl can operate a gun?
Dude, kids far younger than that work ARs all the time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=glQ5-0lO-1M
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8AQSt2KXMM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1QI7ONinAn0
>>78232571
Not really, because the Republicans and Democrats are certainly not representing what the people want right now.
>>78231083
Every time we cave in to more regulations they never settle down. This is because of a segment of society that believes no civilized person should have a firearm EVER. Usually women and people who don't trust themselves with guns.
>>78232635
It really isn't, we don't want to take your guns.
>>78232695
Boy I said developed. First world.
>>78234061
I doubt that very much, I mean someone has obviously convinced (You) that your civil rights need to be revoked.
>>78234061
>Arms at the time consisted of muskets.
no they didn't.
do some research or blow your brains out
it was all arms available to the military at the time
this including repeaters and cannons
>>78233855
Yea but in Chiraq you can't even carry a decent knife. I visited there once and check the laws. The longest your knife can be is 2 1/2" and when I tried to visit the Sears tower they won't even let you in the building with it. So don't push more of your outright lies and bullshit.
>>78234061
A computer in the right hands is 1,000X deadlier than some single mother raised autist who shoots up a school.
>>78231083
SHALL NOT BE INFRIGED
>>78231083
>Well when you can buy guns in the neighboring city/state and bring them back it doesn't really prove anything.
Sounds to me like police are not enforcing pre existing laws
>>78234061
>Arms at the time consisted of muskets.
The writers of the Federalist papers mention having a cannon for every 20 homes or so.
>>78232937
There are literally more fire arm homicides in more lenient states.
>>78234061
And muskets were? MILITARY ASSAULT WEAPONS!
And the cannons used in the revolution?
Most of them were privately owned. Hell we had no navy only PRIVATE naval vessels armed with the same MILITARY grade weaponry as the government
>>78233790
Yes they were.
You're a faggot.
Reddit --->
>trying to talk about gun control, but failing to address two of the largest meta-analyses available on the subject
http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10881/firearms-and-violence-a-critical-review
http://www.coventry.ac.uk/Global/08%20New%20Research%20Section/FINAL%20EFFECT%20PROJECT%20REPORT.pdf
>>78231083
Shall not be infringed faggot. Do you not know what infringed means? Leave my country if you don't like the constitution. You are free to leave at anytime, that's a right of yours.
The republicans put forth actual common sense gun control laws today that would make it so anyone on a terrorist watch list wouldn't be able to buy a gun legally but it would also expedite the process for removing people put on the list unjustly. The dems don't care about real justice, they just want to be able to add anyone they want onto a terrorist watch list.
>>78233052
I mean, that's kind of fair I guess. But sometimes we need to make sacrifices.
>>78233606
This is why "honest dialogue" pisses me off
The left wants full confiscation, but they will never say it because the right will circle the wagons and nope the fuck out of any gun control forever and ever. Yet the right is being "dishonest" despite actually spouting their real opinion instead of underhanded bullshit.
>>78234464
Then you can sacrifice all you want. I will keep my liberty.
>>78234464
>. But sometimes we need to make sacrifices.
literally not an argument
>>78234354
lol, you're fucking retarded, nevermind
>>78233119
People dying with bare hands and feet are unrelated to firearm deaths lol.
>>78234112
Such a transparent lie.
>>78231418
Democrats have already TAKEN more than they should have gotten away with.
How is anything that liberals want a compromise when WE are the only ones being asked to give up our liberty.
>>78234112
>We don't want to take your guns
Explain the confiscation attempts of high cap magazines and ban on the transfer, even bequest of so called 'assault weapons'? Why does Clinton want Heller v DC reversed, when it explicitly allows for 'reasonable regulation'?
>>78234172
Yet I'm not dead.
>>78234184
Please enlighten us and lurkers abound instead of having an online temper tantrum to make yourself look cool in front of your friends.
>>78234249
If you can point me to an instance of mass communication directly killing someone (your soundwaves over a smartphone creating a brain aneurysm or something) feel free to do so.
>>78234331
I'm sure Omar would've done very well with a cannon at Pulse.
>>78234403
Ah right, 1776 assault weapons equal 2016 assault weapons. Of course, silly me.
>>78234423
No, they weren't. Please read the conversation.
>>78234464
>we need to make sacrifices
I do not, and you do not speak for me
>>78234354
No. More firearms DEATHS, thanks to suicides, but not more homicides.
Vermont, Arizona, and Alaska aren't exactly known for being dangerous. None of them require a permit to carry.
L.A, Chicago, Detroit, all heavy-gun control areas? Regularly have 50+ shooting weekends.
>>78233593
Please no, tumblr does NOT represent all liberals
>>78234464
No one is forcing you to own a gun or exercise you legal rights, the only things you're willing to sacrifice are the legals rights of others. the rights to defend themselves.
>The idea is that tighter restrictions can stop the flow from legal to illegal.
fucking really? maybe if we had more drug control laws drugs wouldn't get into prison and schools.
Everything you want WILL result in a black market.
>Well when you can buy guns in the neighboring city/state and bring them back it doesn't really prove anything.
already illegal, maybe if we have more laws that wouldn't happen. right?
>>78231083
We have guns to prevent the government from becoming tyrannical. To take back the US from the hands of filthy marxists if we need to. And it looks like we're going to need to pretty soon. The second amendment was written to prevent us from becoming like the UK, Germany, and all their cuck buddies across the pond have become - self destructing communist states. It has little to do with self defense from fellow citizens. We have guns to protect our freedom.
>>78234061
Jesus Christ, read the federalist papers, anon
you're brainwashed
America has never had a gun problem but have always had a nigger problem. One of the cornerstones of liberal religion is that they're anti-science and reason and constantly push that "everyone is equal" when they are absolutely provably different.
Dindus are always going to dindu. And a forcible disarmament means that the US turns into South Africa literally overnight and crime will FUCKING EXPLODE when white gunowers follow the law and are disarmed and dindus with no regard for the rule of law will be free to indulge their true nature.
Also when leftist governments forcibly disarm their populace massive government sanctioned murders tend to happen to the tune of hundreds of millions.
I'd rather die in a rebellion then die in a fucking liberal gulag or get raped to death by a pack of wild niggers.
The 2nd amendment is literally the survival of America as a nation.
>>78234747
>I'm sure Omar would've done very well with a cannon at Pulse.
Not an argument. Not even a point. Just a snide remark about...something.
What's your point here, again?
Just the (you)s?
>>78234747
I think your brain might be dead. You're arguing nonsense. You're arguing that mass media has less power to affect peoples' lives than firearms. "The pen is mightier than the sword." Remember that one?
>>78234751
Ok, keep letting more shootings happen. Give me liberty, or give me the death or someone else, right?
>>78234463
wasn't the dem argument that the mechanism in the proposed legislation was unworkable to the point that it would be impossible to respond to every purchase within the prescribed 72 hour deadline?
Effectively, someone on the watch list would just wait 72 hours, if the feds didn't deny the purchase they would then get the gun. Pretty much the same loophole that allowed Dylan Roof to get the gun he used in Charlotte.
>>78234873
>Gun laws won't work, more legislation won't work
>We need more laws for abortion and gay marriage and transgender bathrooms!!!!
>>78234613
fair enough
>>78233855
>You realize a person cannot kill 49 others with a knife.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/01/world/asia/china-railway-attack/
http://freebeacon.com/issues/now-bureaucrats-guns-u-s-marines/
There Are Now More Bureaucrats With Guns Than U.S. Marines
Report: Non-military federal agencies spend $1.48 billion on guns and ammo since 2006
IRS agents with AR-15s, EPA employees wearing camouflage
Other armed agencies: Small Business Administration, NOAA, and the Department of Education
>beginning to see the pattern?
>>78234112
Then what the fuck do you think "control" means if not someone with authority determining who is allowed to own armaments and what kind of armaments people are allowed to buy?
This is the biggest bullshit lie perpetuated by liberals.
>>78235005
These race graphs prove nothing. Obviously it's black people, we already know that, but it's irrelevant to the subject.
>>78233684
This had better be bait. I know plenty of 12 year olds that can operate a firearm.
>>78235101
>I want to base policy on a statistical anomaly like Orlando
Faggot. If you really cared about reducing gun murders you'd ban and confiscate all handguns you can find ASAP, not worry about ARs.
>>78234112
LIAR
>>78235101
The only people that would willingly give up their guns are people who would probably not use them illegally in the first place. Criminals certainly aren't going to be turning up to a police station in person and handing them off.
>>78235101
You have a shitty strategy against violent crime.You just obsess over the instruments of violent crime and not the factors that actually contribute to criminal behavior.
>>78231788
>You can't do that, actually. This shows how little you know about gun laws
you also "can't" kill people according to laws yet people do it. Whether or not it's legal to bring guns across city or state borders does not mean it cant happen. What kind of argument is that lmao
>>78234783
Waiting for your rebuttal >>78234720
oh wait, you can't
>>78235295
>http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/01/world/asia/china-railway-attack/
Ok now can you list all the mass killings with guns and I'll list all the mass killings with knives and we'll see who has the longer list, ok?
>>78233873
OP just killed his own thread by not keeping this debate, intelligent and mature.
A liberal seldom controls themselves.
>>78235322
Maybe it isn't the best term for it then, but the idea lives and dies with gun sales
>>78231083
>The USA leads the developed world in gun violence, and I understand that a lot of it is black people, but that is not an excuse when we can prevent it.
Gun violence vs other homicide? People who want to kill are going to find a way, with or without guns. Think the Romans killed people with guns? No. Since getting killed is the thing that we want to avoid, you can look at the decline in homicide rates over the past few years and the absolute explosion in the number of privately held firearms. The two are incongruent with each other. More guns does not equal more homicide. You may say "but correlation does not necessarily equal causation," however, causation sure as hell equals correlation. (A implies B does not mean that B implies A is what is going on here.) No correlation, no causation, and there is no correlation.
>Republicans are all about not providing constitutional rights to suspected terrorists, so why can they so easily buy guns? At least that's why I think...
Do you know what is far more frightening than a bunch of sandniggers on Jihad with AKs? A government that does not have due process. Sniveling bureaucrats can put people on lists for just about anything. Being on a terrorist watch list is not due process, and you would be amazed at whom DHS considers potential terrorists.
>People on the no fly list, and suspected terrorist list should not be able to buy weapons. They just shouldn't, that's common sense.
Due fucking process. Common sense sucks. Give me the protocols for putting a person on those lists. You can't, because the government keeps it secret. If somebody doesn't like you and puts you on the list, there is currently little recourse that you have.
>Radical Islam is certainly an issue, but it becomes more of an issue when we arm them.
Yes, the CIA and the DOD should quit arming fucking Syrian rebels. Nobody is arguing against that.
>>78235420
Well guns facilitate the process, so...>>78235438
You're right, that's a very well constructed argument. I guess maybe some people do want to take them then, IDK what to tell you there.
>>78235456
>goal post shifting
>>78231083
>The Dickey Amendment literally prohibits research into gun control
Have you been ignoring the last several years?
Do you know why the CDC was prohibited from doing such research?
It was because they published blatantly false and misleading statistics, and even admitted to coming to a conclusion before getting the facts.
All you liberals were rubbing your hands with glee when the ban was lifted a few years back.
Then, once the CDC conducted their new study, silence. Not another word.
http://www.gunsandammo.com/politics/cdc-gun-research-backfires-on-obama/
The link to the actual research paper is in there, that article has the key points.
Obama and liberals got BTFO by the CDC and their new research, so it was never mentioned again.
>>78235469
Please, go through the thread and you'll see all the things they've called me and liberals lol
>>78235456
In 2014, a Chinese man went into a school with a knife and killed 33 people while injuring over 100. And before you say they were all kids...there are many adults on a school staff.
>>78231083
>Well that's because you've literally blocked any potential research into the subject. The Dickey Amendment literally prohibits research into gun control. You guys have actually obstructed any ways for us to support our argument or prove you wrong.
Isn't the Dickey Amendment concerning stem cell research? Regardless, we still have the numbers from other countries that have taken steps far more extreme than you're proposing and still getting dismal results.
>Well that is obviously not enough now is it?
Yes, it is. The most dangerous weapons are hunting weapons and shotguns. Cheap, high-power (double/triple the energy of the oh-so-scary "assault" .223), and reliable. If you wanted to give shooters effective weapons, you would ban all automatics and semi-automatics, forcing them to use proper tools like hunting rifles, shotguns, etc. Don't forget that Charles Whitman went hard in the paint with a Remington 700 hunting rifle. Don't forget that the Columbine shooter with the shotgun and smaller magazines discharged more rounds.
>We've made many amendments to the Constitution and Bill of Rights, there is literally no reason that we can't do it again.
People have to want to do it, and that seems to be the part you don't understand.
>>78233684
>Don't wanna take your guns, and also slippery slope is a logical fallacy
Slippery slope is the rule in politics.
>Also the 1st amendment has been modified plenty of times, and has been interpreted all different ways.
It's never been modified. Interpretation has limits no matter how retarded the judge is. The point to to research the intent of the law. The first amendment is obviously about protecting opinions, especially dissenting opinions. It's absurd to say it was shouting fire or bomb in a theater.
It's not absurd to say the 2nd amendment protects modern and common weapons, no matter how scary you think they are.
>Well why don't we try something. Because otherwise, mass shootings are going to happen every other week, but the GOP seems content with literally doing nothing.
Because no matter how shitty is is, sometimes doing something is worse than doing nothing at all. The law effects everyone, not just the handful of mass shooters that will be known in the future.
>It's really fairly easy to do.
Yes, circumventing gun laws is easy to do.
>Do you seriously think that the 12 year old girl can operate a gun?
Yes, better than I can operate my dick
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZE-EDGw2vo
>The Good Guys with Guns theory has been disproved so many times it's actually ridiculous.
There are a shitload of defensive gun uses every day in the US. Most aren't reported because no shot was fired. Even the conservative estimate from liberals are significant.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_gun_use
>People don't know how to operate guns and defend themselves, they're scared. Arming everyone is not the answer.
Every citizen in a rural area or ghetto is squealing with laughter
>>78231083
>>78234886
Instead of shitposting on /pol/ - and I'm sure it's your first time here since you put the subject in the name field, do some research. Study the values that build this nation. Decide if they are something worth defending. Many defended these values with their lives. As the great Stefan says, we do not have the right to squander the freedoms that our ancestors fought so valiantly for. If you decide that these values and ideologies that have been the foundation of western civilization, a civilization that is arguably the greatest, are not to your liking, then get the fuck out. Go somewhere that embraces the values that you hold (if you even have any).
>>78235341
>These race graphs prove nothing. Obviously it's black people, we already know that, but it's irrelevant to the subject.
These graphs prove that a blanket banning of guns displays a fundamental misunderstanding of the issue.
All the white gun owners are doing just fine responsibly owning their guns. Banning guns just means you have deemed them as criminals and those other big chunks of the graph that don't care about following existing laws will continue to do just that.
And there's already a MASSIVE existing illegal arms market in the US. If you stepped out of your rich white liberal area you'd see that taking away the right to defend against niggers with access to illegal firearms means there's going to be rivers of fucking blood.
For god's sake step out of the rich liberal echo chamber.
>>78235539
Due process is all well and good, but I would still much rather have people that are suspected terrorists not have the ability to get guns.
>>78235456
Why focus on mass killings when total knife violence kills more than total gun violence?
>>78235715
Way to avoid my point on your reneging on an intelligent conversation. Typical liberal.
>>78235207
>I'll take 'red herring' for 500, Alex.
Either disprove his counterpoint or fuck off, kiddo.
Because "Shall not be infringed" means "fuck your gun control"
>>78235643
So, if I understand you correctly, guns create crimes?
>>78234354
again lie. I can own virtually anything i want and and the murder rate with a firearm is less than 1 per 100k.
>>78235101
Freedom is a scary thing.
>>78235207
Go ahead and create a war on guns and throw a trillion dollars at it like the war on drugs and war on poverty and i guarantee you mass shooting will still happen.
>>78235844
I wouldn't. Look at most places these Muslim shooters will target...places that some like you would frequent.
>>78231083
>>78235751
>That's not what gun control is. It stops the flow from legal to illegal. Gun/gun parts need to be bough legally at one point before they go to the illegal market. The idea is that tighter restrictions can stop the flow from legal to illegal. Maybe we could try something like follow up appointments to ensure that the firearm is still in the original buyer's hands?
Holy shit, you've gone full retard. No weapon needs to be legal before it is illegal. It is exceedingly easy to make a gun. I'm guessing you grew up in a city/suburb where you didn't learn anything practical, but me and my buddies used to build .22s and pipe shotguns from shit we found around the barn when we were 13. With the advent of 3D printers and cheap CNC machines, making a gun is babby's first project.
>Well when you can buy guns in the neighboring city/state and bring them back it doesn't really prove anything.
See above point.
>A car's main function lies in transportation, not killing
Beside the point that licensing and mandatory training still does not stop people from doing stupid shit. Not having the license or training doesn't stop you from driving the car, either.
>No, but it is certainly more preventable
Not at all. Under most circumstances, a knife wound is much, much worse than a gunshot wound. Look in to German outrage over American trench knives (and shotgun usage, while you're at it) during WWI.
>>78234944
Wow, that really made me think. Nice work, anon.
>>78235050
Sorry for misinterpreting your vague factoid.
>what's your point here
Trying to equate interpreting the first amendment by 2016 standards to the same as the 2nd amendment.
>>78235051
You're putting words in my mouth. Mass media has always been far more effective on people's lives than weapons I agree, but if someone sent you a letter through mail telling you to kill someone would the mail carrier be held responsible? Would the Internet be held responsible if someone told you to kill someone via an online forum?
You can say "well, would the assault rifle be held responsible?"
Simply put, there's a more direct relationship between you and someone else's life in an assault rifle as opposed to mass communication whether it be the Internet, a smartphone, mail, you name it. Equating the two is a false equivalency.
>>78235887
what does "well regulated militia" mean?
>>78233855
>You realize a person cannot kill 49 others with a knife.
You can with the guns you didn't ban.
>Especially not if there was an off duty cop that DID have a gun.
Why does it have to be a cop? They are statistically worse shots than civilian shooters. Not sure if there's a scenario bias there though.
>>78231083
end your fucking life traitor
>>78235751
>If you wanted to give shooters effective weapons, you would ban all automatics and semi-automatics, forcing them to use proper tools like hunting rifles, shotguns, etc.
Pretty much this. It would be incredibly easy to perpetrate Beltway Sniper type shootings for months without getting caught. A $500 Remington 700 SPS with a 10x scope is deadly out to 800m with minimal training. Find an area with a lot of noise pollution and you could wreak havoc.
>>78235786
I did that to promote this thread in other threads. But also, this is 2016 now, and cultures and economies are beginning to globalize and progress. You make a fair point, but I'd rather fight for change here.
>>78235715
You set the rules and you can't even follow them yourself. That's pathetic. Just because someone else called you a name doesn't mean you should go against your own code of ethics and call them names too. I thought liberals love to think they're on the moral highground?
>>78235844
Then if there is probable cause, the suspected terrorist should be arrested.
>>78236070
Well maintained and supplied.
Gun control has been proven not to work in any way, shape, or form. Murder rates are still roughly similar in the UK post-gun ban/control (After a huge spike after the laws were put in place), Ireland saw a rise, and Australia saw a small decrease.
There is no statistic that proves the amount of gun ownership in a country is in any way related to the murder rate. If anything, statistics show more guns = less crime, but that isn't a point I'm going to argue here.
At the end of the day, people will find a way to murder other people. The best we can do is continue to improve upon background checks and maybe increase waiting periods nationwide to satisfy Liberals, but after decades of the GOP making small agreements to satisfy the liberals, the left keeps coming for more. I know the slippery slope argument is a weak one, but I think it's been proven with how the left continues to erode gun ownership in the US when it doesn't work.
Also, this ban on "Assault Weapons" (Which has a very loose definition and can be worked around very easily) is nothing but a feel good attempt from the left that limits law abiding citizens from owning firearms. If Liberals actually cared about gun violence, they would go after handguns, not rifles and shotguns. Unfortunately, they're just scared of muh big bad assault weapons.
Murders will still happen. Crime will still occur. Criminals will still get guns (Extremely easy to grow black market due to issues along Mexican border), and nothing will change but Law Abiding Citizens not owning what has been a right for over 200 years now.
All of that previous shit is still ignoring the fact that maybe people want to keep there weapons on the off chance we need to rebel against a corrupt government that erodes peoples freedoms for any number of reasons. I hope that day never comes, but it may, and we will need to fight back.
>LOL YOU CANT FIGHT TANKS AND DRONES RETARD
Yeah, and we never had problems in Vietnam either, right?
>>78235940
theyll still happen sure, but less frequently, which is key
>>78236013
Ok not every gun, but a good chunk of it happens like that.
>>78236070
Learn your fucking history you dumb fuck. They scrapped the state militia system after the civil war because they realized that it gave the states teeth if they wanted to secede.
Your interpretations of the constitution with absolutely zero context are laughably ignorant. Take the Marxist brainwashing bullshit out of your ears for fuck's sake.
>>78233046
kek
>>78236070
Every person in the US is considered a part of the militia. Well regulated in this context means well armed/equipped.
>>78236070
What does the right of the people mean?
>>78234083
We live in a republic. What you say isn't how a republic works. A republic doesn't care about "what the people want right now."
>>78234747
>Please enlighten us and lurkers abound instead of having an online temper tantrum to make yourself look cool in front of your friends.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girandoni_air_rifle
Thomas jefferson outfitted lewis and clark with this rifle
Austrian army used it for decades
30 shots, magazine fed with 20 shots that were quickly detachable. Fires as fast as a bolt action.
There were predecessors to the revolver and Gatling guns too.
Guns improved immensely in the time the framers were alive, they had no problem with it. They knew shit would only get faster.
>>78234464
>i suppose you might be right
>but let me hit you with this
>you have to give up your guns for an unidentified, unquantifiable benefit
>because stuff
>>78235151
Uhh no the waiting period has nothing to do with the background check. It is a mechanism put forth to try and deter someone buying a gun on an impulse with the intention to kill someone. They think with a few days people will be rational and realize that killing someone is wrong. I live in south Florida and there's a 5 business day wait for rifles, in Orlando and further north there's no wait. It's just window dressing.
It has been fun friends, I hope maybe I got to someone maybe? Sorry I didn't get to everyone, and my replies were probably shitty quality (I've been up for days) but I must go now and get some sleep.
Later.
>>78231156
>gun violence
Why is gun violence worse than regular violence? because we can prevent it by tighter gun control? Violent crime as a whole is on a downward trend in the states and is comparable to many highly developed euro nations. Countries without guns still have violent crime.
>People on the no fly list, and suspected terrorist list should not be able to buy weapons. They just shouldn't, that's common sense.
Motherfucking 12,000 assholes were on that list at one point, with no warning or court decision or any due process. Even more people are on the list today. If you believe someone of being a terrorist, arrest them and present evidence in court like any other criminal case.
>>78236039
>Simply put, there's a more direct relationship between you and someone else's life in an assault rifle
This seems to be an incomplete thought. Care to elaborate? I'm not really sure that your statement has established a proposition.
>>78231083
how about this:
if you try and take my guns i'll fucking shoot you, you goddamn communist
>>78231156
>People on the no fly list, and suspected terrorist list should not be able to buy weapons. They just shouldn't, that's common sense.
You absolute fucking IMBECILE!
Do you have no understanding of the law you piece of shit? Do you understand how dangerous your incompetence is?
Constitutional rights can not be stripped without due process in a court of law!
Where is the due process on this "no fly list"?!
We need guns to protect our birth rights from absolute scum such as OP.
>>78236145
>2016 now
don't
>and cultures and economies are beginning to globalize and progress
do you not see the clear and present danger western civilization is in, in large part due to globalization and """""""""""""""progressive"""""""""""""""""" policies?
>>78234167
>I understand that a lot of it is black people, but that is not an excuse when we can prevent it.
>Boy I said developed. First world.
So it seems that you even agree that the type of people in possession of the firearm are the main root of the problem than the firearm itself. Why should responsible citizen's rights be curtailed for people with third world mentalities? Should we ban cars because some people are more irresponsible with them than others? You don't really need a car, we could have trained professionals that you call to take you places, or take a bus.
>But a car's purpose isn't to kill!
Many people use their guns for target practice and sport shooting, than they do to kill anything. Just like how some people use their cars for potentially dangerous street races or for mowing people down that they're passed at.
OP you can't have a debate with brain dead retards that frequent this board so don't try.
>>78236299
More of it will happen like that when you reward people who do it.
>>78234747
1700s assault weapons were pretty wild. The Giradoni was on the hardcore side; something like a 30 round magazine, air powered (quiet and no muzzle flash), and they were almost .50 cal. Soldiers that were caught with them were usually executed because using it was "cowardly".
>>78236529
>Arguments aren't getting through to anyone
>Proven wrong at literally every turn
>Realizes that they can't back up anything with fact
>"I-I gotta go sleep! Bye!"
What a faggot
>>78233684
>Do you seriously think that the 12 year old girl can operate a gun?
Dude, you just wrecked your entire argument right there. Youtube is a fucking treasure trove of children of gun enthusiasts whose parents have handed down that skill.
You were doing pretty well up to here.
There are plenty of 12 year olds out there who could blast a heart pattern in your chest from 100 yds, then field-strip the weapon while singing the latest Taylor Swift song.
>>78235844
History has shown that governments that ignore due process become very bad for the people who they said they were going to protect by taking their due process. Your chances of getting killed by a terrorist are extremely low. Your chances of having your government take rights that you might someday appreciate because of a terrorist attack are not extremely low.
Again, what does it take to get onto a terrorist watch list? What are the protocols? Don't know? Neither does anybody else outside of the government.
In the end, it doesn't matter though. We're not going to put up with anymore gun control, and we have enough firearms to arm every single soldier, reservist and mercenary on the planet 5 times over.
So, understand that, if you sue the government for not saving you from harm from a non-state actor, you are going to lose, grab your sack, go out, purchase a firearm, learn how to use it, when to use it and carry it with you.
>>78231083
I don't support gun control policies such as bans and things like that. It doesn't solve anything. Other violent crime rates will go up, such as stabbings.
I think that we should have universal background checks, and gun safety/training courses should be heavily encouraged.
The idea of the US banning guns will never happen. Gun ownership is so ingrained in our culture and national identity that we would never implement something like what the UK or Australia have. It works for them, but it wouldn't work for us.
>>78236776
I grew up in the middle of nowhere and every kid in my class knew how to shoot guns before the age of 12. Just like anything in life, the best time to learn something is when you're young.
>>78236868
>says history has shown
>doesn't give one example of a country similar to the US that has done this
Typical /pol/ community college grad
>>78235810
>And there's already a MASSIVE existing illegal arms market in the US.
Not to mention banning guns would flood the black market and prices would plummet.
>>78236751
Ok one last thing, it's kinda hard when you're the only liberal in a conservative circlejerk. NOW I shall be taking my leave.
>>78231083
Because guns are fucking awesome.
>>78236516
>>78233416
We don't have automatic weapons freely available, I don't know why people continue to say this. The AR- 15's everyone is passing themselves over are no different than other semi-automatique rifles, they're just black and have a pistol grip. The amount of disnformation and scare tactics should tell you guys how much nefarious bullshit this is.
>>78235844
Where my blowjob that I would much rather have?
>>78237084
Are you really stupid? Do you know how economics works?
Yes I'm sure prices drop when gun manufacturers can no longer sell their wares so supply falls off a cliff.
>>78237037
Stalin, Mao Zedong, Hitler, Pol Pot, and pretty much any other tinpot dictator who ever roamed the earth. Some of them even took power legally. They hated due process. You do not want sniveling bureaucrats deciding what your rights are with no transparency, no way to defend yourself and no recourse.
>>78233732
Right. And banning guns generally doesn't have an effect on the rates of those sales.
The reason we have gun violence is because guns are the most convenient way of killing someone. We could have knife attacks instead, if you want, but it seems pretty counter-intuitive to rewrite the second amendment in the bill of rights just to change the means by which the majority of our murders happen.
>But mass stabbings don't happen lol
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-26402367
130 wounded in a mass-stabbing attack. 30 killed. What does that attack have in common with the Orlando shooting? Well, as it turns out (obviously by some complete random coincidence because Islam is a religion of peace and if you disagree you're a racist), both were perpetrated by goatfuckers from the Middle East.
>>78236250
based on what evidence?
>>78237092
We're not conservatives, we're fascists/libertarians.
>>78236443
That's actually very interesting, thank you for sharing.
>>78236594
You can influence people more effectively than ever before, but you alone still have to make the decision to kill someone.
1st Amendment
Person>Internet>person>gun>kills person
2nd Amendment
Person>Gun>kills person
There is a more direct line between you and killing someone in regards to the 2nd Amendment, making the equating modern day interpretations of the 1st and 2nd Amendment a false equivalency.
>>78236715
I did see the Giradoni, thanks for sharing.
>>78235844
>Due process is all well and good, but I would still much rather have people that are suspected terrorists not have the ability to get guns.
Oh my kek almighty.
Oh my kek almighty!
This is how totalitarian governments begin.
My dear traps & autists, this is leftism in America. There are millions more like OP.
If this doesn't make your skin crawl you simply don't understand the gravity of the situation.
We need a biblical cleansing.
>>78237092
And your so worried about your anonymous reputation that you have to have the last word. None of your arguments were based in fact and were mostly feel good responses, which is what the left's stance on gun control is all about. If you came in here with actual facts and constructed a solid argument and the only responses were memes and shitposts, that's a sign that you won. But the fact is all your arguments were weak, based in almost entirely feeling, and severely misinformed. To say you're the only liberal on /pol/ or that this is a "Conservative Circle jerk" when it's made up much more by fascists and libertarians is absurd. You're in a "I want to have fucking freedom" circlejerk and I'm sorry your dream world of a massive authoritarian government that limits people's rights in what you deem is correct won't come to fruition, but being an asshat with your responses and failing to argue well won't get you anywhere. Atleast the Hitler lovers can manipulate statistics in their favor well enough to put up good arguments and the Libertarians have a good enough argument that most responses are circlejerks. Come back when you can actually debate.
>>78231083
Because statistically, white men have a vast majority of the guns and represent a small fraction of total homicides. If you want lower homicide rates, ban black men from buying guns.
>>78237241
Name dropping random dictators who operated in vastly different regimes with incomparably different levels of development and history of individual rights is the height of stupidity and does nothing to advance your argument.
Can't you fucking morons ever make a decent argument without resorting to the absurd?
I swear this board is full of GED holding inbreds who make less than 30k a year.
>>78236070
Disciplined and/or in working order
The first half of the amendment isn't even a clause, it's a present participle. It just outlines the intent of the operative clause.
It doesn't say there's a collective right of the militia, or that the right is dependent on militia service. It says the right of the people. The right is pre-existing. The usage is consistent with the first and fourth ammendments, where no one argues what "right of the people" means for SOME STRANGE REASON, LIKE HONESTY
>>78233001
THIS.
>>78237571
>This is how totalitarian governments begin.
Give one example of a country with a history and level of development similar to that of the US that turned into a totalitarian state.
I'll wait.
Fucking fearmongering idiot.
I think what we actually need is gun education in schools. Students need to learn to respect them and proper handling of them to prevent accidental discharges. Obviously don't give them anything loaded or capable of firing though, give them something that has been thoroughly disabled
At the end of the day, I'm okay with slightly more strangers dying in order for the right to defend myself and my family.
>>78237092
>implying I'm a cuckservative
>>78231083
>There's no evidence that proves gun control would work
>pic related
>>Assault weapons are already banned
>Well that is obviously not enough now is it?
>Banning guns didn't work. Let's ban more guns, then. I is a genius.
>>Shall not be infringed
>We've made many amendments to the Constitution and Bill of Rights, there is literally no reason that we can't do it again.
The second amendment is the most important one because it garentees all the others. If the people don't have the weapons then the government won't be for the people.
>>Criminals aren't just gonna hand in their weapons, and they'll get them illegally.
>That's not what gun control is. It stops the flow from legal to illegal. Gun/gun parts need to be bough legally at one point before they go to the illegal market. The idea is that tighter restrictions can stop the flow from legal to illegal. Maybe we could try something like follow up appointments to ensure that the firearm is still in the original buyer's hands?
This is speaking of the short term consequences. Every time guns are taken away from the public there is a huge spike in crime (if only for a while).
>>Gun control has already failed in places like Chicago or even Cali
>Well when you can buy guns in the neighboring city/state and bring them back it doesn't really prove anything.
Guns are flowing in from Mexico. Guns can still be bought illegally from there. By your logic, gun control will never work.
>>We don't ban cars
>A car's main function lies in transportation, not killing
there are safer ways to transport people and as already stated, guns protect freedoms.
>>Does a gun death make you more dead?
>No, but it is certainly more preventable
If I was gonna kill someone and I didn't have a gun, I'd use a knife.
>pic related
>>78231083
Alcohol or tobacco, kill more Americans each year.
Banning either one would save twice as many lives. Banning both, would save five times as many lives as banning guns. You don't care about human lives, you only care about removing rights.
>>78237942
If you had a brain you'd realize every statistic in existence points to your ownership of a gun putting your family at greater risk of death.
You fucking idiots never learn. Always believe you're the exception.
This is the problem with modern society. Idiots who ignore all available evidence with any preconceived notion.
Why we own guns
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bsAMSQ13bY
>>78237659
Ignoring the fact that Hitler legally took power in what was a democratic form of government and that everything that he did was legal after that means that your knowledge of history is lacking.
The fact that you have resorted to ad hominims means that you lack any real argument.
But go ahead and pick this fight IRL and see how it turns out for you. You will lose.
>>78238110
>If you had a brain you'd realize every statistic in existence points to your ownership of a gun putting your family at greater risk of death.
As Sam Harris says, we have the ability to recognize as rational actors that we don't suffer from mental illness, to which this applies.
In any case, an actual defense of your family is irrelevant. It's an extremely unlikely scenario.
What I meant to say is that I'm okay with random strangers dying for the securing of the masculinity that comes with the ability to defend yourself and your family to the death. I think that's vastly more important than the obviously extremely unlikely scenario of self-defense.
>>78238110
Regardless of death statistics the argument for freedom and political power stands
"Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun"
-Mao
How can you expect to maintain a democracy without the people having political power?
>>78237792
>IT'LL BE DIFFERENT THIS TIEM I SWEAR
Fucking imbecile.
Anyways, Germany is close enough.
>>78238282
I'm with you.
>>78238109
My consumption of beer doesn't kill you.
Innocent lives taken by drunk drivers are far fewer than those taken by gun homicides.
Fuck off with your shit comparisons retard.
>>78238110
>ownership of a gun putting your family at greater risk of death
So does owning pools, fast cars, ladders, etc.
>>78238432
Again, go ahead and pick this fight IRL. You will lose.
>>78237227
Supply on the black market increases because previously legal guns are now illegal
Yes in the long term prices would rise, but it's going to take a long time to wear out the gun supply. Until then it's the candy store for criminals
>>78231083
>Assault weapons are already banned
>Well that is obviously not enough now is it?
This is exactly the problem right here. What would be "enough" for you? Because I guarantee, you could make a list of things you would change right now, and we could enact every single thing on that list, and there will still be mass shootings. And when the next one happens, will you then say "no, we have enough gun control"?
What is your criteria for "enough" and is it reasonable?
>We don't ban cars
>A car's main function lies in transportation, not killing
And a gun's main function lies in killing, not murder. What's your point?
>>78238110
Owning knives puts you and your family at a greater risk of death
driving/riding a car,bicycle,motorcycle etc. put you and your family at a greater risk of death. Every new car has giant warning labels stating essentially you may die driving this car.
i can go on and on and on. Its called life everything you do has a risk of dying.
>>78238350
Germany is not even close dumbass. I suggest you go back and read some literature on post WWI Germany.
>>78238432
>he thinks banning guns keeps them out of criminal's hands
>>78238593
Moving the goalposts.
Now then, go ahead and pick this fight. Lets get it over with. You'll see how political power and violence are actually wielded, and you won't like it one bit.
>>78238432
>Innocent lives taken by drunk drivers are far fewer than those taken by gun homicides.
Source, fucktard.
Until then I call bullshit.
>>78231083
You talk like a faggot and your shit is all retarded
>>78235424
you cannot purchase a gun in a neighboring state legally is the point he's trying to make since OP said you could
>>78231156
>The USA leads the developed world in gun violence
we also lead in Defensive Gun Use
in fact the lowest estimate for DGUs in america is DOUBLE the number of gun deaths
to regulate guns would be to make victims out of all those that are composing the DGU stats
>>78237535
>There is a more direct line between you and killing someone in regards to the 2nd Amendment, making the equating modern day interpretations of the 1st and 2nd Amendment a false equivalency.
What? There was a "more direct line between you killing someone" in regards to the 2nd amendment in the 18th century. The relationship is the same today.
This sounds like a really, really stupid way of trying to say one person can easily kill more people than previously possible.
>>78231418
>they aren't doing what the American people want (in regards to guns)
source?
>>78231083
>Well that's because you've literally blocked any potential research into the subject. The Dickey Amendment literally prohibits research into gun control. You guys have actually obstructed any ways for us to support our argument or prove you wrong.
We have the crime statistics from when we already tried an assault weapon ban from 1994-2004. No statistical change in gun violence.
>Well that is obviously not enough now is it?
What do you suggest?
>We've made many amendments to the Constitution and Bill of Rights, there is literally no reason that we can't do it again.
I agree. No one is perfect, including founding fathers.
>That's not what gun control is. It stops the flow from legal to illegal. Gun/gun parts need to be bough legally at one point before they go to the illegal market.
Not really. Heroin is illegal, yet somehow it gets into maximum security prisons. You can't stop the black market, and creating a black market not only fails to eliminate the product, but ensures that it may only be obtained in the most dangerous way possible and gives money and power to criminals.
>Well when you can buy guns in the neighboring city/state and bring them back it doesn't really prove anything.
What's to stop you from extrapolate that to outside the country? Guns will always be manufactured *somewhere*. Look at France. Total ban on guns, yet that didn't stop last year's massacre, did it?
>A car's main function lies in transportation, not killing
I agree, stupid analogy
>No, but it is certainly more preventable
More preventable than what? More people are killed with hammers than assault rifles, but you can't just ban fucking hammers.
>>78233684
>mass shootings are going to happen every other week
and 2 will be STOPPED every week
>>78237792
If you think the US can't be on its knees one day like italy or germany, you're wrong
>>78238593
They were in an economic crisis, which is a very real possibility for the United States, and they surrendered personal rights out to radicals out of desperation.
>>78238652
>he thinks banning legal use of guns wouldn't cut off new supply from major manufacturers and ultimately lead to fewer deaths by gun in the long run
I can't stand this board.
Are you really so stupid to believe that raising the difficulty to accomplish something (obtain a weapon) doesn't affect people on the margin?
>>78235456
so you don't even care about the number of deaths in our actual reality, but rather how quickly they theoretically could happen
have you heard of sociopathy
>>78237792
Is this a version of the 'that could never happen in America!' argument? Why could certain things not happen, that have happened in other nations? Because we have a divine right? Anything bad could happen here, many things that people thought wouldn't, already have.
You're also ignoring all of the other nations throughout time that have had different histories and different levels of development from each other that still turned into totalitarian states. If anything, your point and that fact hurts your argument.
>>78231083
>Gun/gun parts need to be bough legally at one point before they go to the illegal market.
As a Chilean, Living in a country there the left and the right wing have the common wet dream of left the people without any kind of weapon, I can say that is totally bullshit.
Criminals get their weapons from the military, contraband or even resort to the fabrication.
And we can't have a gun and the same time learn to use it.
>>78237942
>I'm okay with slightly more strangers dying in order for the right to defend myself and my family.
You and your family are strangers in statistics
Mass shooting victims are not the only people at the mercy of crime
>>78239194
Do you have any understanding of the number of firearms in this country?
>>78238432
Ok buddy look at this.
https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/alcohol-health/overview-alcohol-consumption/alcohol-facts-and-statistics
And Google gives this as gun deaths.
>According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in 2013, firearms were used in 84,258 nonfatal injuries (26.65 per 100,000 U.S. citizens) and 11,208 deaths by homicide (3.5 per 100,000), 21,175 by suicide with a firearm, 505 deaths due to accidental discharge of a firearm, and 281 deaths due to firearms- .
So eight times the people, each year, for from alcohol, as firearms.
Yet guns are a problem?
My gun never killed anyone either. My gun is under control. Your alcoholic lifestyle is eight times more likely to kill people than my guns, but let's not let logic and facts get in the way of YOUR rights, amiright?
>>78238719
Gun homicides are 11k
Drunk driving deaths are 15k. 30% of those deaths are innocents and the remaining 70% are the drunk individual.
Now please fuck off or do you want me to teach you to multiply too?
>>78231083
I hope your stabbed to death.
>>78238593
How about post WWII East Germany 1945-1989, with the STASI. Neighbors turning in neighbors, people disappearing, im sure secret lists were created in collaboration with the kgb/nkvd to liquidate people. etc.
>>78239369
Your gun? My friend, you need to expand your horizons. I don't even know how many I have, yet I'm building another one. "I have too much ammo" said no one ever.
>>78238110
>If you had a brain you'd realize every statistic in existence points to your ownership of a gun putting your family at greater risk of death.
That was a fucktarded study that's been debunked for fucktarded methodology.
The study's headline suggested that these families were killed by their own guns by accident. When in reality, they didn't throw out gun deaths from attackers with external guns.
It looks like this
You live in a dangerous neighborhood
You own a gun to protect your family
You get shot in the dangerous neighborhood because its dangerous
The study suggests owning a gun contributed to the likelyhood of your death
Classic correlation = causation failure
>>78238877
>in fact the lowest estimate for DGUs in america is DOUBLE the number of gun deaths
You realize DGUs are compiled via shit surveys right?
90% are literally women who see creepy looking men and then flash their gun and claim that they would've been raped but for their gun.
>>78239517
Not an argument.
Do you always ramble when proven so full of shit?
>>78239436
What about deaths cause by alcohol that aren't drunk driving deaths?
>>78231083
Chiming in just to tell you that you're a faggot and should kill yourself.
There's no debate.
Has anyone given us an idea on how to stop the Cartels from stepping into the market and filling the void in the market to arm the gangs with their pistols, and muslims with rifles?
They operate a 20 billion dollar drug smuggling operation. Trump has a wall but if Hillary wins, then what? She safes the border has never been safer as we are ravaged by heroin.
We act as if we dont have open borders next to a narco state.
>>78239029
I can build a hammer.
I can't easily build a gun.
And for the record you can ban hammers. It's just that we live in a democracy and society values their utility enough to outweigh their potential for harm. Same with cars. So your argument is shit.
>>78239194
Yeah, imbeciles have a hard time facing reality.
I do not value the lives of the few non gang/nigger firearm homicides more than my birth rights.
I've had someone I knew murdered with a gun. Did I blame the tool? NO! I blamed the bastard that used it.
>>78238282
>In any case, an actual defense of your family is irrelevant. It's an extremely unlikely scenario.
80% of the population is the victim of a violent crime at least one in their lifetime
How many of those scenarios require a gun, I don't know, but it's not unlikely
>>78231083
>Why is /pol/ so adamantly against gun control?
Because guns are already sufficiently "controlled". How about we start controlling your right to free speech?
>>78239643
Uh, what? All I'm saying is that you need more guns and ammo. If "my gun" was some sort of allegory for "my fucking arsenal," you still need more.
>>78239104
Fearmongering bullshit that demonstrates a marked misunderstand of the evolution of history and society.
Not an argument, btw.
>>78239770
>And for the record you can ban hammers. It's just that we live in a democracy and society values their utility enough to outweigh their potential for harm. Same with cars.
And with guns.
>>78239770
>I can't easily build a gun.
Maybe incompetent fucks like you can't, but others can.
$10 and a trip to the Home Depo
>>78239357
You understand the concept of depreciation right? How many guns from 1600 still work today? Rome wasn't built in a day.
Literally this board is full of fucking sub 1400 SAT scoring morons.
>>78239631
>You realize DGUs are compiled via shit surveys right?
Yes
>90% are literally women who see creepy looking men and then flash their gun and claim that they would've been raped but for their gun.
Better than statistics out of your ass
>>78239802
Great, you drunk idiot.
Stfu. You've made no sense in anything you've posted.
>>78239770
>I can't easily build a gun.
you can't buy two pipes, an end cap and a nail?
>>78232695
NRA kike detected
>>78239853
>demonstrates a marked misunderstand of the evolution of history and society.
Shitlibs and irony, why do they go together so well?
>>78238877
>in fact the lowest estimate for DGUs in america is DOUBLE the number of gun deaths
Don't even compare to gun deaths, compare to gun homicides. Most gun deaths are suicide and irrelevant to violence.
>>78239770
That settles it. Shitskins are superior.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdHIUOlIE6g
