New ASWB

>implying burner guns aren’t resold, and there isn’t a market for mass manufactured automatic weapons made in Jamal’s garage
This kind of shit already happens with biker gangs in Australia, which just had a mass shooting btw. What makes you think it wouldn’t happen here with our 3rd world tier rural areas, and crime ridden inner cities?

It's not though. It prevents the government from infringing upon our natural rights. Everyone has a right to use force, guns equalize the ability to use force between persons with disparate physical strength.

>I want a contrarian opinion on the fact that Americans have this crazy gun market
Define crazy. Because I think the ammount of firearms in the American market is perfectly reasonable. Other than the fact I have to pay some government agency run by inept bureaucrats money to buy a can or a fully automatic weapon.

>What are the best arguments?
Not everything is certain and you should take every means you can to defend yourself. I also like my nation and belive in the concept of the citizen soldier. That means that you should be armed and willing to defend your homeland in at anytime. Not flee like a 23 year old afghani man looking for handouts and German boy to diddle.

>Why do you own a gun, why should I own a gun?
See above. Because you can and you have a right to defend yourself.

>That's a legal parameter that allows you to own a gun, it does not compel you to own a gun.
>its permission
>he thinks the constitution gives people rights instead of affirming that they already had them
Faggot.

Attached: 1524250111883.jpg (2000x3071, 311K)

Attached: 1525788645058.jpg (660x534, 158K)

Oh ok...

The gun is civilization.

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gangbanger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we’d be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger’s potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat–it has no validity when most of a mugger’s potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that’s the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

(1/2)

> Would you say 'Fuck you nigger?' Or 'Fuck you, I'll kul you?'

Fuck you nigger? Come and take them.

Since yuropeons don't really value liberty, the best argument against gun control is that it doesn't work. People will point to the fact that the US has a high homicide rate, and most yuropoor countries have a lower homicide rate, and claim that this is because of gun control. However, this is a correlation =/= causation fallacy. Actually it's worse than that because there isn't even a correlation. The Czech Republic has very lax gun laws by yuro standards, and yet they have a lower homicide rate than France, which has extremely strict gun control. Or Russia, which similarly has strict gun control, yet has 11 times the homicide rate of the Czech Republic. Now you might cry foul on that last one, and say it's because Russia is corrupt and has massive drug problems and is run by the mafia, but that's exactly my point. Crime is a complex beast which is influenced by literally hundreds of factors.

Let's examine the US homicide rate more closely. One tends to look at statistics like this and just assume that they're evenly distributed. However this is not the case. The US is a massive country, both in landmass and population. And the overwhelming majority of homicides in the US are localized to a few specific neighborhoods in a few specific major cities. In one year, Chicago alone accounted for 10% of the firearm homicides in the entire US. And that's in a state with rather strict gun control by American standards. Meanwhile, states like Vermont and Wyoming have very few gun laws, and yet have extremely low homicide rates. The US *does* have a problem with violent crime, but it's driven by poor policing, poor schools, an abysmal prison system that creates more criminals than it reforms, and blighted urban shitholes filled with violent criminal gangs fueled by a draconian drug policy.

1/3

The vast majority of civil gun owners live in rural areas, which have very low crime and homicide rates. Why should rural people, who are clearly able to use guns responsibly, have their freedom restricted just because urbanites are too stupid and violent to stop killing eachother?

If you look at these countries which have strict gun control and low homicide rates, what you consistently find is that they already had proportionately lower homicide rates vs the US before instituting gun control. Australia is the classic example of this. Homicides in Australia were already vastly lower than the US before 1996, they were already declining (as homicide rates have all been declining throughout the developed world for the last 20-ish years), and they continued to decline after 1996 at the same rate, albeit with a couple of brief spikes just after the bans were instituted. The evidence is clear: there is no consistent correlation between civilian gun ownership and homicide rates.

Correlation alone is insufficient to establish causation, but a lack of correlation does prove a lack of causation.

2/3

(1) Cops arrive after the crime in most cases. It takes a few seconds to kill someone with a knife or club. The weak, elderly, impaired, and law abiding should have the right to defend themselves from criminals. The best way to do that is with a gun.

(2) The 20th century was the most violent in human history, with the majority of that violence perpetrated by Governments against their own citizens. An armed citizenry is the best defense against murderous Governments.

(3) Barring the overwhelming majority of citizens from the right to self defense because criminals abuse weapons is nonsensical. What next, ban gyms and martial arts? Ban forks for making people fat? Ban cars because some people will not drive responsibly? You're attempting to nanny your entire populace, a fools errand. Only the law abiding will heed you. Criminals will not.

(4) Europe for decades enjoyed peace and claimed strict gun control was a large factor. Recent spikes in crime demonstrate that to be false. Your laws have not changed, yet your crime rates have gone up. All you've done is ensure that your own citizens are defenseless. Your demographic shift is the cause, and as Europe's homogeneity wanes expect your crime rates to continue to rise and your countries to be more violent in general.

(5) The rule for human history is brutality destruction. The 20th century demonstrated that human nature has not changed. Those who give up their weapons will serve those who do not. I am no man's inferior, and to no man will I kneel.

(6) Americans have more guns than the rest of the world. If guns cause crime we should be the most dangerous country in the world. This is not the case, and when compared to other countries with mixed populations (Brazil, for example, which has strict gun control) the US is far more peaceful. Additionally, most of the crime in the US comes from Democratic megacities with stringent gun control. Remove those from the stats and we are extremely safe/peaceful.

Now that I've hopefully established that gun control is ineffective, we get into the subjective philosophical piece. I would put to you that there are two kinds of crimes:

>crimes that are crimes in and of themselves
>crimes that are created to prevent crimes from the first category

Crimes in and of themselves are pretty obvious: rape, theft, murder, vandalism, etc. Crimes where a person is physically or economically harmed via a direct action of the perpetrator.

The second category are things like speed limits, drug laws, money laundering, and of course gun laws. Speeding is not a crime in and of itself. But we prohibit it because in theory it reduces vehicular injuries which are crimes in and of themselves. The same is true of money laundering. It's not inherently a crime because nobody is harmed, but it facilitates the commission of actual crimes by criminal organizations.

The first category should be illegal regardless of efficacy, because there is actual inherent harm. But the second category should face stricter scrutiny, for which I propose a 3-part test:

1. Is the law effective at preventing the crime it is designed to prevent?
2. Does the law restrict the freedom of people who are not criminals?
3. Does the harm reduced by the law outweigh the restriction of freedom it imposes? (speeding is an example of this: yes there is a restriction of freedom, but it's a relatively insignificant restriction since you can still own and drive whatever car you want, and speed limits are actually effective at reducing collisions)

If these laws are not effective in preventing actual crimes, and they infringe on the freedom of law-abiding citizens, then they are pointless, and have no right to exist. We don't even need to get to the third step of the test, because if it fails the first step, then it's already dead in the water.

3/3

(1) Cops arrive after the crime in most cases. It takes a few seconds to kill someone with a knife or club. The weak, elderly, impaired, and law abiding should have the right to defend themselves. The best way to do that is with a gun.

(2) The 20th century was the most violent in human history, with the majority of that violence perpetrated by Governments against their own citizens. An armed citizenry is the best defense against murderous Governments.

(3) Barring the overwhelming majority of citizens from the right to self defense because criminals abuse weapons is nonsensical. What next, ban gyms and martial arts? Ban forks for making people fat? Ban cars because some people will not drive responsibly? You are attempting to nanny your entire populace, a fools errand. Only the law abiding will heed you. Criminals will not.

(4) Europe for decades enjoyed peace and claimed strict gun control was a large factor. Recent spikes in crime demonstrate that to be false. Your laws have not changed, yet your crime rates have gone up. All you've done is ensure that your own citizens are defenseless. Your demographic shift is the cause, and as Europe's homogeneity wanes expect your crime rates to continue to rise and your countries to be more violent in general.

(5) The rule for human history is brutality and destruction. The 20th century demonstrated that human nature has not changed. Those who give up their weapons will serve those who do not. I am no man's inferior and to no man will I kneel.

(6) Americans have more guns than the rest of the world. If guns cause crime we should be the most dangerous country in the world. This is not the case, and when compared to other countries with similar populations (Brazil, for example, which has strict gun control) the US is far more peaceful. Additionally, most of the crime in the US comes from Democrat run megacities with stringent gun control. Remove those from the stats and we are extremely safe/peaceful.

Attached: 1517883230733.png (500x562, 107K)

I could argue, the criminal us of guns creates more harm than the use of guns for self-defense I can say that a knife, or pepper or a stun gun can allow a '100lb' old lady to defend herself against any larger attacker.

The second amendment justifies the ownership of firearms as weapons of war, not as means of protecting one's self-agency or whatever the hell.

If the government is a democracy like in the USA, than the government is representative of the ability to use force between persons, and absolves the responsibility of that from the individual. They do not require every Amerikkkan to be a soldier or police, correct? Than why is this instrument allowed to persons with no responsibility?

Then, if they ban guns, it's no harm as if they banned skiing, which is also just done for fun and it's dangerous, too. Why permit skiing? For fun? What balance is there?

>Biker gangs in Australia

Lol, yeah sure, dude! So scary! You wish they had more access to guns instead or do you wish more access to guns to fight off this crazy gang of Aussie bikers???

In the bill of rights the 2nd Amendment is what founded and created our country. To infringe upon that is infringing upon our country, our rights, and what makes the U.S.A the "USA". Look at Norway's constitution, they almost gave Finland a mountain but couldn't because of their constitution they live by which “clearly prohibits the surrender by the state of any part of Norwegian territory to another power”. If they just gave that mountain to finland and violated their own constitution there probably would have been infighting and back lash against what they all live by. So with that said take away the gun rights and the other parts of the constitution and we may as well be u.k. 2.0.

>>In 20-30 years, anyone illegally having a gun would have used it and would be in prison and the gun is history. Worst case, a lot of people get shot by guns, then the guns are destroyed, instead of a lot of people get shot then the guns are sold at auction.
Yes, theoretically you could lower gun crime. However you will not lower crime overall and you will simply leave law abiding citizens defenseless. This is why London is more dangerous than NYC, and both those cities are more dangerous than cities in the rest of the US that allow concealed carry of firearms for self defense.

>>If guns are restricted or better yet banned all the sudden, crime might increase, but not for very long.
If this were the case then the UK's crime rate should have had a brief spike after the ban and been falling nonstop ever since. This is not the case.

>>What are you afraid of anyways? America is the best and safest, richest country!!!!!
*America is the best, freest, and richest country, and it remains so because of the rights we enjoy. We're not giving up any of them.
To borrow the colloquialism, "From my cold, dead hands."

Attached: 1523568993233.jpg (667x538, 134K)

I figure I should post this here.

Attached: 1516255049980.png (800x862, 560K)

It would presumably work, eventually. Criminals and firearms all have finite lifespans, eventually, all would be eliminated from a hypothetical pool of threats within a generation or so.

Why shouldn't they have their rights restricted? If their freedom creates problems for urban dwellers, should'nt that be addressed? What if it were farmers spraying their fields with nerve gas that rinsed away into city reservoirs? OR the the reverse? City pollution that ruins soil and ground water in the countryside?

Is there a justification that rural farmers need allowance to a device that can be easily stolen, sold off, ect?

What if farmers could use VX nerve gas to pesticide fields, would it be okay to sell that product to a high school student in whatever town you live in? You'd be okay with that? Little Billy with a canister of VX nerve agent? It's justified because it has some use in a farm field?

Subjects can never understand what it’s like to be a citizen. Why should I explain it to you? Have you ever felt the need to explain string theory to an ant? It’s essentially the same thing.

Attached: 03978300-331E-4D72-A077-95F1E6B8434E.gif (330x260, 1.98M)

It was civilian owned artillery that got the red coats to ultimately fuck off.

The CDC study done on firearm use in self defense put the number of defensive firearm uses at about 2.5 million per year. That.s almost 4 times as many as criminal gun usage.
I should clarify that they do not imply the firearm has to be fired for it to be considered used. For both defensive and criminal use, simple brandishing was considered a use.

Also, the Second Amendment guarantees our right to bear arms, as individuals, regardless to their use in war. It does not specify we may only own them for martial purposes, it says we have a right to own them and it cannot be taken away. That right exists at a level above that of government. It's a right that no matter the laws we as humans still have. The Constitution does not grant us our rights, that's what most people outside the US get wrong. Our Constitution exists to prevent the government from restricting our natural rights.

All humans have an inalienable right to defend themselves. In the past, physical might or social standing were the methods of self defense, but many people were left powerless and subject to others will wether it be just or not.
The fire arm is the great equalizer. God made man, and Samuel Colt made them equal.

There is no argument that justifies taking away every person's ability to stand up for themselves that doesn't come predicated upon a belief that we don't want or deserve the responsibility for our own safety

>I could argue, the criminal us of guns creates more harm than the use of guns for self-defense
And you would be wrong. There are over a million cases of armed self defense annually in the US. There are only around 10,000 homicides with a firearm on average. 95% of armed self defense involves no shots fired, as the mere presence of the weapon is sufficient to deter an attacker.

>a knife
A knife is one of the worst defensive weapons you can possibly have. There is no such thing as a winner in a knife fight, there is only the person who gets stabbed less. You WILL be stabbed. And if your opponent is bigger and stronger than you, you will be stabbed more.

>or pepper
Also abysmal. If the criminal is upwind of you, then you will end up macing yourself as well. And a hardened criminal has a lot higher tolerance for mace than you do. In fact, many criminals, especially those who have spent a lot of time in prison, are completely immune to pepper spray. It's a useful tool in the hands of police, who are trained to employ it properly and have other weapons at their disposal in case it fails, but should not be relied upon as your only means of defense as an untrained civilian. A handgun is actually far easier to use safely, as you have infinitely more control over where the projectile goes, and when it goes off.

>a stun gun
Also terrible for similar reasons. In addition to the fact that it's useless if the opponent has his hand on you, because then you'll just electrocute yourself as well. There's a reason police don't use tasers at grabbing distance and resort to batons instead.

Also all of these weapons rely on being within punching distance of the opponent. This defeats the entire purpose.

>If the government is a democracy like in the USA
>implying democracy is infallible and can never be corrupt

>Why permit skiing? For fun? What balance is there?
By this logic you would have the government lock us all in padded cells from cradle to grave.

Then there’s the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don’t constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weightlifter. It simply wouldn’t work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn’t both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation…and that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act.
(2/2)
-----

Now, do some critical thinking about gun control.
Gun control is racist, classist, and traditionally has been used to disenfranchise those who would use more peaceful forms redress.
Gun control is what allows a small regime to fearfully control a greater number and make civil disobedience a massacre.
Gun control advocates believe that guns are evil unless they are used to protect them.
Gun control advocates that you dying violently is acceptable as long as you were denied the tools to save yourself.

If you believe that lies shouldn't be foundation to your personal safety, buy a gun.

Firearms have an extremely long lifespan. I have a rifle that has been with my family for five generations and it is still functional. Firearms are not some spooky unobtainable thing, they're a machine. Very simple machines at that. Operating on very simple chemistry. Your argument that firearms will disappear in a generation is completely false. Wherever there is a need, someone will be building them.

The cucked OP doesn't have any arguments other than it's smug ignorance and malice.

OP eats shitskin boogers from the dick hole of a nigger

More like this argument, but what are the mechanics of this? Why is it correlated in some places but not others?

What if homicides included deaths from war?

'when you shoot the 30 round clip its gone forever and useless. there is a limited number of them and if we ban them now they will run out.' - Some retard

Not really sure why you came to Jow Forums of all places to play your 'holier than thou' game.

>What if homicides included deaths from war?
What

>>the criminal use of guns creates more harm than the use of guns for self-defense
Guns are used for self defense in the US between 2.2 and 2.5 million times per year. This study by Gary Kleck was confirmed by the CDC, who buried their findings since it wasn't the answer they wanted. With only 30k or so gun deaths in the US per year, the number of defensive uses GREATLY outweighs the deaths.
>>I can say that a knife, or pepper or a stun gun can allow a '100lb' old lady to defend herself against any larger attacker.
The Brit's are jailing people for the possession of butterknives and potato peelers, as well as the possession of any implement for the purpose of self defense. Your argument is invalid.
>>The second amendment justifies the ownership of firearms as weapons of war
Incorrect. The 2nd justifies keeping and bearing arms for personal defense from criminals and a tyrannical state AS WELL AS for use in the defense of the State. A literal reading of the second amendment bears this out, as well as reading any literature from the founders where they explicitly state this. Hell, Aaron Burr and Hamilton fought a motherfucking duel with pistols, legally. Don't tell me they didn't think citizens couldn't carry weapons for self defense.
>>if they ban guns, it's no harm as if they banned skiing, which is also just done for fun and it's dangerous, too
The harm comes to the victims who are unable to defend themselves. Skiing is a recreational sport. Guns can be used for recreational sport as well as defense of the individual and the state in time of war.

>>You wish they had more access to guns instead or do you wish more access to guns to fight off this crazy gang of Aussie bikers?
Loosely translated: Do you want criminals to be better armed if you yourself can be armed?
Yes. Unequivocally. I should be as well armed as the criminal. Pic related.

Attached: Second-Amendment-gun-in-Texas-stopped-church-shooting-1024x1024.jpg (1004x1004, 195K)

Not to mention that firearms can be stolen from the police/military, obtained from those sources by bribes & other corruption, and smuggled in from other countries. Look at how China was smuggling in guns to Californian gangs in the 1990's, or at how many guns the Mexican police/army lose track of every year.

You are a dumb motherfucker.
>I could argue, the criminal us of guns creates more harm than the use of guns for self-defense...

That's it, blame the victims you filthy piece of shit.

>If the government is a democracy like in the USA, than the government is representative of the ability to use force between persons, and absolves the responsibility of that from the individual

Wrong fuck boy. There is no right to police protection and this is well covered case law in the supreme court.

>Lol, yeah sure, dude! So scary! You wish they had more access to guns instead or do you wish more access to guns to fight off this crazy gang of Aussie bikers???

Yes, because Karl Kangaroo herder doesn't deserve to be shot, stabbed, or burned out because his methed out bikey neighbors thought he gave them the stink eye. Bikey fucks are already making full auto open bolt machine pistols, why not let them have things that are actually safer for others and allow the innocent to defend themselves.

>More like this argument,
>let me select what valid arguments I will accept, because thats how discourse works in my warped sense of reality

>but what are the mechanics of this?
Criminals are less likely to fuck with people when they run the risk of getting shot by their intended victim.

>Why is it correlated in some places but not others?
Think about what kind of shitholes Mexico, Brazil, and most of Africa are and the various factors that play into that.

>What if homicides included deaths from war?
You cannot possibly be this retarded.

Well if you banned guns you'd be infringing. The government should just lay off and abide by the NAP

>It would presumably work, eventually. Criminals and firearms all have finite lifespans
This misses the point completely. You're assuming that the gun is inherently going to create more crime, which is simply not true. Criminals will just either make their own, as they do in Brazil, Chechnya and Australia, or they'll use other weapons.

Also the lifespan of a firearm is literally centuries. And new criminals are born every day you absolute mongoloid.

>Why shouldn't they have their rights restricted?
Because they've done nothing wrong, the restrictions aren't effective, and they shouldn't be punished for things they didn't do.

>If their freedom creates problems for urban dwellers, should'nt that be addressed?
The people who are responsible for the problems should be held accountable for the problems they cause. Typical yuropoor, always looking to pass the buck.
>What if it were farmers spraying their fields with nerve gas
This is the stupidest fucking argument I think I've ever heard.

Nerve gas is an indiscriminate weapon. Same as landmines. It's uncontrollable and kills regardless of intent. A gun is a completely different thing. They don't have minds of their own. They rely on an individual making a decision to point it and pull the trigger. Also, the nerve gas would kill plenty of people in the rural area to, which defeats the entire point of your argument.

>Is there a justification that rural farmers need allowance to a device that can be easily stolen, sold off, ect?
>need
Here we go again with the need. Do you need alcohol? Do you need TV or music or movies? If the fact that you don't "need" something and it could potentially be harmful if abused is all the justification required to ban it, then we might as well all live in giant human hamster cages.

You have COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY FAILED to refute my numerous points on why gun control is ineffective. Since you didn't respond, I'm going to assume you have conceded that argument.

Who the fuck cares what Europeans think?

I own a gun cause God wanted me to.

>Why shouldn't they have their rights restricted? If their freedom creates problems for urban dwellers, should'nt that be addressed? What if it were farmers spraying their fields with nerve gas that rinsed away into city reservoirs? OR the the reverse? City pollution that ruins soil and ground water in the countryside?
>Is there a justification that rural farmers need allowance to a device that can be easily stolen, sold off, ect?
>What if farmers could use VX nerve gas to pesticide fields, would it be okay to sell that product to a high school student in whatever town you live in? You'd be okay with that? Little Billy with a canister of VX nerve agent? It's justified because it has some use in a farm field?

Ag fag here. We don't use anything remotely as toxic as vx when applying pesticide and herbicides. Re-entry periods are less than a day because the compounds degrade in a matter of hours, vx stays toxic for decades.

Also, I wish we could go back to lynching fuckers when we catch them stealing shit. Would drop agricultural theft down to 0 instead of the millions annually that occur Nationwide.

Was the purpose of this thread to bait a bunch of people or to produce lots of material to use against anti gunner faggots like europoor subjects?

>also look at my guns op
>they aren't going anywhere
>even my 3 year old son is laughing at you right now with all the freedom he's enjoying
>murika

Attached: 20180224_182457.jpg (4032x3024, 3.62M)

>>Bikeys
Stop, I really can't stop giggling reading all this. Why is British English so much goofy sounding than American or lingua franca used?

It's not that inane an argument. This claim that a gun is just an usual necessary rural appliance is faulty. You don't hear '13 HIGH SCHOOLERS DEAD IN PESTICIDE ATTACK or anything like "54 DEAD IN COMBINE HARVESTER MASSACRE". Those rural or industrial tools are dangerous but not used to kill like guns do. It's just a argumentative comparison which you've failed to recognize.

Probably without alcohol, TV, music, drugs, movies, people would realize their life has no real meaning, perhaps, that might cause violence. The absence of those things would be ruinous. I'm not sure guns have the same effect.

The USA has to be the only country where the mentality is something like 'I need a gun to protect myself against other assholes with guns!' and no other product or object has the same dynamic. A massacre with a combine harvester or nerve gas attack, or home-made flamethrower would polarize people about those things.

So clearly, guns are not about mass murders, rural productivity, or self-defense or recreation or any of that, so what are they about?

Well, assume you could. If you had access to a legitimate device for your trade but it got stolen and used to kill people. They legislate toxins and things that farmers have access to, even nitrate fertilizers because they can be used for bombs, even in the USA, but it doesn't apply to what is effectively the same rifle their military uses to kill people. The farmer might use an AR-15 to shoot rabbits, or rural thieves, or whatever, productively, but it was designed to kill people. Like the reverse of what any other implement you can buy in the USA is like.

>(Don't say obvious racist stuff like immigrants!)

Defense against niggers and spics is literally the prime reason I own guns.

America is not a democracy, fuckwit.

Underrated post

Unfortunately a big part of the problem is the media. Which means we have to worry about the 1st Amendment as well as the 2nd.

The AR-15 has been on the civilian market since the early '60s. As have similar rifles. And before '68 you could order one in the mail with no background check and no ID. Yet mass shootings didn't become even remotely prevalent until the '90s. Why? Because the '90s was when 24/7 TV news really took off. Since these incidents are really good at getting eyeballs on TV screens (or clicks on webpages) news outlets covered the everloving shit out of them when they did occur. This led to mass shooters becoming infamous and glamorized the practice. Unfortunately I think the cat is out of the bag on that one, there's no getting it back in.

Gun control obviously won't help, since they'll just resort to bombs like Timmy McVeigh did, which are actually far more deadly and are impossible to control because you can make a bomb out of pretty much anything with plans easily available on the internet.

Arming teachers is dumb. For one thing, it sounds stupid to normies (because the concept usually is explained very poorly). For another, the vast majority of teachers aren't going to carry. More armed police officers in schools would be a better idea.

But really the main solution IMHO is to fix our schools.
>american education
is a meme for a reason. Mostly yurotrash just shitpost, but they do actually have a point on that one. Our school system is abysmal. It's designed around quantitative results (test scores and the lowest common denominator) when in reality we should be focusing on qualitative results. It's also miserable and dehumanizing. The only different between school and jail in the US is that you get to go home at the end of the day and you're slightly less likely to be shanked. Slightly. Of course it's going to produce miserable, twitchy lunatics who hate everything associated with school and want to destroy it.

LMAO at his teeth

I really don't understand what the fuck is wrong with people. Who cares if most teachers aren't going to carry? Let the ones who do carry continue to do so. It's not that hard.

>This claim that a gun is just an usual necessary rural appliance is faulty
Except that's not the claim you complete brainlet.

The claim is that gun control does not reduce homicides. Once again, you have completely failed to refute that claim.

>muh designed to kill
>muh need
are all irrelevant. If the policy you want categorically does not fucking work, then there's no justification for implementing it. And "muh need, muh designed to kill" is literally your only argument, you've conceded every other point by omission.

>Those rural or industrial tools are dangerous but not used to kill like guns do
More people are killed with hammers than AR-15s. Checkmate yuropeon.

>So clearly
Why do I sense you're about to assert something without actually proving it?

>guns are not about mass murders
bombs and vehicles are just as if not more capable of accomplishing those. Gun control does not stop them. See the Paris attacks, or the OK City Bombing, or the Nice Truck Attack, all three of which resulted in more deaths than any mass shooting in US history.

>rural productivity
Farmers need to control varmints. Poison is problematic for the exact fucking reason you yourself pointed out.

>or self-defense
A gun is the single most effective means of self defense you can have, it puts a weak victim on par with a strong assailant. Another thing you have totally failed to address, let alone refute.

>so what are they about?
For me? Recreation and historical interest, mainly. Action shooting sports are a ton of fun, I like the mechanics of guns, and I like collecting historical guns. But if I'm going into an urban shithole, you bet your ass I'm going to carry a pisto. Is the chance extremely remote? Yes. But it's better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it

They hear "arm teachers" and assume it means issuing handguns to every teacher. Sadly lot of people on our side are really bad at communicating and don't get what good optics means.

You should own a gun, because there is no reason why as a law abiding and responsible citizen your government should mistrust you. It’s a question of trust between you and the government.

Gun ownership prevents violent revolution by allowing citizens on the extreme end of the patriotism bell curve to remove politicians on the extreme end of the stupid bell curve.

That's why they should exist. Imagine merkel straight faced telling you you're going to accept migrants into your country, wives, and daughters if she had to worry about some Otto von Bismarck
fan PSG-1ing her prefrontal cortex all over the marble veneer she always barks in front of.

As far your point on the media goes, we could use the anti-copycat guidelines we already have for suicides couldnt we?

You know Europe isn’t one giant hive mind and actually it has some of the oldest and biggest gun makers.

The problem I think is that it's too late for that. If we had implemented such a thing right after Columbine it might have worked, but that ship has sailed a long time ago.

UK banned most guns in 1997 and people still find live firing weapons in weakly basis. Guns are illegally imported from Eastern Europe. When they are used they are handed in another prison to use. The average illegal handgun is used in about 10 different crimes.

Why would it be too late? The precedent has been set with suicide already, the only people who would be angry about it would be the media themselves. Also unrelated, but you might be interested in a website called thepathforwardonguns.com You point on media reminded me of them.

>Gun ownership prevents violent revolution by allowing citizens on the extreme end of the patriotism bell curve to remove politicians on the extreme end of the stupid bell curve.

Finally a response that gets to the point of the matter. This is what is fascinating to me, since this is exactly what the US constitution implies with it's laws for the 2nd Amendment, tell me more about this point of view.

Amerilards go on and go about arguments in favor of gun ownership, but it's turned into arguments about hunting, skeet shooting, self-defense, coyote control, idiotic stuff that is easily discredited.

That's all just a smoke screen for something more critical right? Americans would not flip the fuck aboutt if this were anything else besides guns.

The rest of the west doesnt believe the government would ever turn on them. They cant possibly imagine a scenario where the lights going out and never coming back on, while soldiers march through their town square. So we have to make it about things like hunting or home defense, because the real reason sounds absurd to them. If we tell them they say
>lol stupid amerifats will just get bombed by a drone you'd never win anyways
Completely ignoring the past 17 years in the middle east where dumb inbred farmers with rusted out pick up trucks and small arms held off, and continue to hold off, the might of the US military.

>Guns are not about self-defense
>Guns do not increase rural productivity
>Sport shooting isn't popular
Stop being a fucking mong and use your brain.
>Guns help level the force disparity between a criminal and a smaller person.
>Guns are used all the time to deal with pests.
>Guns are frequently used in recreation, even a fair bit in Europe.

And that's not the core claim. The core claim is a bit difficult for enslaved people who are used to everything being controlled by the state.
If an item has no effect on violent crime, why ban it and prevent law abiding people from using it? In the case of crime guns do nothing for the desire of soon to be criminals to commit it.

If you want to talk about that, think of it as a symbol of self-sufficiency. Instead of running to the government for every problem, you have the ability to handle it yourself. Even if the government is the problem.
It's less now than it was, but almost everyone on Jow Forums like that self-sufficiency.

Because freedom is hard for peasants to understand.

You are a subject.

Americans have the rights of a citizen, enshrined in the Constitution and bill of rights to protect the natural rights of man.
One of which is the right to bear arms
>and to not be arrested for tweeting the truth about Muslim terror attacks.

You euroserfs don't even have the right to free speech or protection from unlawful search and seisure.

Attached: 1510383640821.png (493x334, 144K)

Hilarious considering Europe can’t go a decade without a genocide

>tell me more about this point of view

The people are the ones that put the government in power, in order to keep them in check we need the most effective means necessary to ensure they don't overstep their bounds.
Problem here is that most people don't think this would ever need to happen, the idea of fighting back against a government turned tyrannical is a completely alien concept to them so they mock that as some conspiracy theory, this is why I think you see the hunting or skeet shooting arguments, they're more palatable to a lot of people. And make no mistake those uses are totally valid uses for a gun, but they aren't the reason the inherent right to bear arms has legal protection.

Oftentimes the people that mock the idea of fighting off the US government conveniently ignore all the groups that are armed with small arms that continue in spite of constant action by the US. These are the people that are also likely to condemn things like the trail of tears or the internment of japanese americans but then turn around and say there's no way the government could go bad.

>don't get what good optics means
Shut the fuck up with this gay term.

Oh, so you’re a nihilist as well. Wonderful.

fuck yea.

Attached: Bill-and-Ted.jpg (1024x626, 90K)

This is conflicting for me. I enjoy rights as an american, but I absolutely hate niggers and anyone who isn't white as snow and don't think they belong here. I miss u hitler.

Americanized Asians are wonderful people. They just vote the wrong way.

>I'm a faggot who wants daddy government to get rid of all the scary
wahhahooo you should kill yourself.

Daddy gov't is who fucked us in the first place you nigger licking kike. Get lost.

>End welfare
>End no fault divorce
>Deport all illegal immigrants
>Institute strict merit based immigration
After the great gibs war of 2020, within a generation or two remaining spics would be Americanized and niggers would be wearing suits again in their own communities. Pretty much reverse every flagship policy plan Democrats have penned to create their plantation and America looks like America again.

Fuck you with a side of:
justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

Oh, and we already tried an AWB. It didn't do shit to our crime rates and sure as fuck didn't stop the columbine shooters.

Natural selection is alive and well. Being in the wrong place at the wrong time is all just a part of living or dying.

You can find racists of every color, race, ethnicity and nationality. Americans are actually quite open to new immigrants. The only people who don't belong here are those who can't grasp the concepts of freedom, responsibility, and hard work. If you don't agree with the ENTIRE bill of rights, YOU HAVE TO GO BACK. Americans who value America dislike the importation of anyone with a slave mentality.

Not sure if you're being ironic or are just dumb and being dishonest

Hi 333 here again.

The second amendment in its current state has been, well, deluded, like most things it's been ultimately tied to consumerism, however its original purpose is literally to secure the experiment that is American freedom.
The problem is that so many American values have been deluded that politicians generally only get shot by crazy people, even Reagan, who thoroughly deserved some copper was shot by some maladaptive daydreaming pedo not by some survivalist. However I will argue that a lot of why this works is because the failure of American culture to not enforce integration well enough. No one who has migrated here in the last 120 years has the necessary American spirit ingrained in theme to act as the mechanism of balance they need to be because the piss poor attempt at post civil war integration made white Americans, actual white British Americans not just pale skinned citizens from Eurasia, lower their standards and accept whites from more backward cultures like Italians, Mexicans, and the ((())) to get away with not completely integrating so long as they opposed blacks, Indians, and multiethnic peoples. This inevitably leads to more peasanty psychology to seep in. It's actually rather funny if you think about it, why would someone fleeing from their homeland, fight for yours any harder. We allowed cowards to infiltrate our gene pool and now the cowardly chicken is coming home to roost.

Allowing citizens to own weapons in the US was originally intended as a covenant of sorts between the citizens and the government. If we don't start an insurgency they won't rule with tyranny, and if they don't rule like tyrants we won't start an insurrection. This makes perfect sense considering the US was birthed from a seven year insurgency. They just wanted to make sure it didn't happen again.

>If the government is a democracy like in the USA,

Point of fact: the US is a representative constitutional republic not a democracy. A pure democracy would be a nightmare to live in as the majority would completely oppress the minority in the political sense. Our system if government allows for checks and balances of the majority while providing protection to the minority.

>In 20-30 years anyone illegally having drugs would be in prison and the substance would be history
>In a few years all the moonshiners will be in prison and alcohol will be history
Stop being retarded please.

Why do Europoors think they have a valid opinion on our politics and rights, both things they know nothing about?

Eurocunts are such maliciously dishonest retards. Everyday I slowly grow in support of your failing socities.

>Get shot at by blacks
>Stormtrooper aim
>Shoot back before they get lucky
>Going to the range once in my fucking life gave me superior skills, kill assailants
>fuck, I'm in a blue state
>Go to prison for murder
>Get ventilated by a shiv made of toilet paper
>It's okay, they banned all guns because I was an evil white supremacist
>My wife's son will never have to deal with gun violence in his life
>Too bad someone caved his skull in with a hammer for talking white

Attached: 1523536486535.jpg (565x1024, 74K)

I would even argue that force is another form of reason, you pointing a gun at me, I have the option, to run at you. It is my reasonable decision to bow to your force. And therefore firearms are a necessity because it’s an extension of reason. I have always believed an arm society is a polite society. If the government gave everyone a 1911 at they’re 18th birthday, gangbangers would be a lot less confident in pulling a gun on grandma or David the dentist because they could rationalize, “I am probably not be the only gun in this discussion” and I think our crime numbers show that in comparison to Europe. And in the society. The number one thing I hear when traveling abroad is that Americans are “uncomfortably friendly” and it makes sense. You don’t know if Tim on the bus has a gun, you’d better say hello.

This posts tells me you don’t want a conversation or anything. You just want to get a few anons to act like a stereotype so you can feel all smug and superior for doing absolutely nothing productive.
Fuck off and get open minded about the world faggot

Attached: 823821F5-DE4F-404D-A1F5-1EA35F6C7C7C.gif (500x279, 1.6M)

Saved

Lets imagine for a moment that Cletus the town heroin junkie kicks down my door in the middle of the night. At 6'3" and 200lbs I'd like to imagine I could take him in a fight.
Now lets imagine he breaks into my sisters house, my sister is 5'2" and about 100lbs soaking wet. If Cletus breaks into her house she is physically incapable of defending herself from him.

If you want to ban guns you're saying you're perfectly fine with depriving my sister, the elderly, and the physically handicapped with the right to defend themselves against attackers.
And thats pretty despicable tbqh famalam

my 10 year old is smarter than you

>hi, fuck you I want your guns
First post was right. Fuck off, euronigger. Shall not be infringed

No kidding, these dumb fucking neutered pathetic excuses of a human being(Europeans) come here prancing all high and mighty, wanting to bring us freemen down to their level.
Fuck Europe. I’m glad I escaped that utopian socialist and over protective shit hole and found my piece of happiness in the glorious USA. I won’t let European cancer spread to my new mother land

So cry some more crocodile tears because nobody cares

Goddamn guys sage this euro bait. He obviously just wants (you)s

Attached: 9E93836A-1386-486E-B26F-3CC9A1C2FC4A.png (600x600, 98K)

>Why is it correlated in some places but not others?
REEEEEE WHY ISNT THE WORLD SIMPLE AND ONE DIMENSIONAL WHY DO SO MANY JOBS REQUIRE A HIGH SCHOOL DIPLOME WHY DOES EVERYONE CALL ME RETARD

1: Humans have an inalienable right to bear arms, this isn't magically given by the 2A, it's protected by the 2A
2: Banning guns wouldn't save lives. Banning guns in straya didn't have a long term impact on murder, if you look at their rate starting sufficiently back, it has been steadily dropping and the ban didn't do shit. Additionally, gun control hasn't made a bit of difference in the states where it has been enacted.
3: 2A is last line of defence against gov tyranny. You see the steady increase in govt involvement in civilian's lives all over yurop. You especially see this horse shit in Britain. People getting thrown in jail for hate speech. 2A protects all the rest.
4: Police response time. Police do not protect you, and they are not legally obligated to do so.
5: Muh mass shootings contribute a statistically insignificant amount of deaths to the overall murder rate.

Benefits of guns in America are outweighed by the harms, and the harms are vastly over exaggerated, facts are often cherry picked. Please feel free to argue against my points, I'm not gonna troll you.

Attached: 061vq9g8sarz.jpg (639x645, 40K)