Why do liberals want to ban assault rifles

When school shooters who use pistols typically have a higher kill count than those using long firearms?

Attached: 5364543F-DBE5-44D4-8B91-C927F444B709.jpg (705x580, 465K)

Because white men use rifles and niggers use handguns.

they dont care. they want guns gone and "assault rifles" are the easiest target. you can show them all the statistics you can find that proves that rifles are insignificant to overall firearm deaths and it wont matter because "a civilian shouldnt have something like that".

"Assault rifles" to the left is like punishing criminals to the right. It's a low-hanging fruit that every latches into

Because people who plan to attack you, with assault rifles, want to take away your assault rifles. It reduces their own risks of being killed. The people most eager to disarm you are those who plan to attack you.

This.
They just wanna disarm you.

We use English on this board
Learn it

because they are juden, and want to enslave all non-juden. while having fun pitting whites against eachother, cause the blood makes them giggle
tee-hee.. tee-hee.


prove me wrong. you can't.

>When school shooters who use pistols typically have a higher kill count than those using long firearms?

bullshit

I guarentee you liberals think this because they are brainwashed and most have never even held a gun. Or a sword. Or a hammer. Or a drill. They are confident enough that their fragile worlds will continue without SHTF.

They want to ban all guns and the best way is to start with the scary black ones.

Assault rifle sounds more threatening than semi-automatic pistol
They don't care about the guns or the kids, they just want to virtue signal/make money.

Is that piece of garbage yours?

Attached: 1547478970731.png (225x225, 20K)

If you have a gun you can defend against pack of niggers if not good luck......These piece of shit people want to see you and your family hacked to fucking pieces by bunch of niggers,

Kek

>rifles are insignificant to overall firearm deaths
More people are beaten to death with bludgeoning objects than are killed with rifles every single year. This is ALL rifles including semi-automatic sporting rifles AND automatic "assault" rifles.

Anyone can purchase flammable liquids, walk into a classroom, splash a container of the flammable liquid on the students, and use a cigarette lighter to light them on fire. A classroom of 50+ students can all be burned to death and the build could end up burning down completely. No need for a firearm, flammable liquids are available everywhere in the form of gasoline, grill lighter fluid, household chemicals, and so on. If someone wants to do harm then harm can and will be done.

When are you goddamn morons going to realize the anti-gun crowd only wants to end the 2nd Amendment? How many more goddamn decades will it take for you to catch up?

Attached: 5697106194084.jpg (900x598, 134K)

Its all about baby steps.

I cannot
You’re right

what kind of glock is that?
is that the glock .40?
is that your problem solver?

because you could use your rifle, when they come for your handguns
hence this is the right order of gun grab - rifles first, then handguns

Attached: murder-by-gun-2016.jpg (552x451, 53K)

That glock is a Tec9

I’ve tried to figure this out for a while.

Partly ignorance. I worked on a campaign and spoke to a lot of voters in the immediate wake of the Florida shooting. Many claimed that we need to ban “machine guns,” which have been illegal since the 1970s.

People who have never handled a gun in their lives and live in a culture (e.g., cosmopolitan suburbs) where gun ownership is an aberration don’t understand that the presence of a pistol grip and a retractable stock (see: cosmetic features) don’t make the gun more dangerous, nor do they really care to. They’ve already decided gun owners are rednecks and don’t particularly care about their traditions, way of life, or right to defend themselves.

Partially, this is because people’s ignorance is exploited by well-meaning pundits. There was an article I saw a little while ago that claimed, under the guise of dispassionate analysis, that banning “military-style” “assault” weapons is a critical component of stopping gun violence. The reason being that they’re the common thread between most mass shootings. The real reason is that the AR-15 happens to be the most popular gun in America, but that’s besides the point.

The bottom line is that the left has once again weaponized shame in this case and made this a nonsensical moral issue. They don’t particularly care about debating gun policy anymore, they think semi-automatic rifles with a pistol grip and a retractable stock are things Trumptards are clinging to in a world that would be better off without them, and they are content to blame the 3 million members of the NRA for crimes that they have nothing to do with. And it’s deeply uncomfortable for any public figure or politician to point out that 32 people were killed at Virginia Tech with handguns in this atmosphere.

I just think people don’t spend too much time thinking about it. Muh “weapons of war.”

ive always wanted to shoot one FA, but theres no place around me to do that

Not only arson, but also bombs
Ban fertilizer

Because in order to pacify a population you have to remove their capability to resist. An effective resistance movement against an overwhelming force always requires guerilla tactics. You can’t plan assaults and raids without long range firefight capability against a modern military

Who cares start lobbying to get AT rockets.

As if liberals form their own opinions. The elites want guns gone because they are afraid of people getting angry enough at them to shoot them. They push the media, that they fully control, to whip up the general population (on the left anyway) to disarm themselves in the name of public safety. They want to ban all guns, but they'll publicly focus on the ones they think the public might agree to ban.

they should be banned

>all legal guns confiscated
>illegal firearm crime rises

>My argument is unable to be proved wrong, so I'm right

And the fact that handguns are all but useless against these people. They’re afraid of a revolution, which loses a lot of prospect when the population you’ve got a stronghold on is vastly outgunned

Because the slight threat of us actually using our rifles against them is the only reason we're still allowed to remain alive.

probably because they're all false flags

Attached: loughner.jpg (635x546, 38K)

depending on what you mean by liberal you may be lumping in people that shouldnt be.
generally the goal is to do a similar thing Game Devs do when they Nerf players. You try to reduce the players effectiveness. Increasing the time to kill, reducing a person's ability to kill multiple players. making weapons fine for personal defense against 1 or 2 people, but ineffective for mass slaughter. removing "long firearms" reduces a person's ability to kill at range with higher caliber ammunition. forcing a close up confrontation may dissuade someone from trying, making them more easily identified and retaliated against while using less lethal rounds.
the other way to accomplish this would be to increase the difficulty of obtaining long range, high fire rate, high caliber weapons. instead of making the weapons as a whole weaker, you put them behind an achievement barrier.

because guns are more powerful than people
and it bothers them if something is more powerful than themselves

>what is Virginia Tech

This, also those that want to ban guns know the police who show up to take them will have these same rifles, you can fight against the military and police much better with a long gun than you can with a pistol.