I need some gun knowledge in case I'm ever in a debate with one of these "Repeal the 2nd" people...

>The European ban model doesn't work. The Australian model does not work.
Could you explain these?

If the police will protect your life why do you not use public transportation to get everywhere? Surely if you trust them with your life you will trust them to get you to work on time.

Not the person you are replying to, but I can tackle Australia.

Many like to claim that Australian gun control schemes would solve problems here in the US, led on by misinformation. The facts of the matter however support the opposite. Australian gun control would not only be blatantly unconstitutional but also ineffective based on the lack of success they had abroad. The common assertion is that their incredibly strict laws stopped mass shootings and reduced violence, but according to a Melbourne Institute paper analyzing the trends before and after, "The results of these tests suggest that the NFA did not have any large effects on reducing firearm homicide or suicide rates." and a piece published in the Justice Policy Journal "[...]does not find support for the hypothesis that Australia’s prohibition of certain types of firearms has prevented mass shootings, with New Zealand not experiencing a mass shooting since 1997 despite the availability in that country of firearms banned in Australia."
It may be hard for some to understand why, but in short Australia was a safe place long before their increased regulation, and gun crime was decreasing long before the bans were implemented, and did not decrease at a more rapid rate afterwards. The reductions in firearm violence was not accelerated or significantly impacted by their stricter laws, so really they lost freedoms to no benefit. Saying that the low gun violence rate in Australia is due to those stricter laws is like saying that Donald Trump is responsible for our currently low rate of unemployment. The trends were set long before the gun laws were implemented, and before Donald took office. It does not make sense to give either of them credit.

Common misconception: race is a skin color

Attached: 1508124579972.png (597x441, 24K)

Common misconception #1: Jow Forums is for politics.
Answer: read sticky, gtfo, shitpost

That gun ownership makes you any less likely to suffer a violent death

>bring gun to school
>during debate, pull out gun
>fire rounds into the ceiling
>ask if they wish they had a gun now
>?????
>profit

For the statistics
>Suicides get counted and are 1/2-2/3 of the total
>Gang violence makes up 1/2 of the remaining
>15-17 year olds are counted as “children”
>Acces to guns and number of crimes aren’t linked; Mexico has stricter laws and more crime while Switzerland has looser laws and less
>Buybacks would cost billions; $20 a gun would cost 7.8 billion since there 390 million guns in the US and most would not do it for less than $50
>Confiscation wouldn’t work; many jurisdictions wouldn’t comply due to either disagreeing with the law or the risk and it would be easy as hell to hide them since looking through the paperwork would take decades
>Cars kill proportionally more people, 32000 deaths/260 million cars vs. 35000/390 million

And if you really want to make their heads spin then bring in the minorities
>Guns allow a woman a fighting chance against a physically larger man
>Guns allow gays to defend themselves from getting bashed
>Trannies should be allowed guns because it’s not a mental illness and it’s bigoted to say so(bonus points, more dead trannies)
>Blacks and Mexicans need guns to fight off the racist cops(bonus points, more dead cops, blacks, and Mexicans)
>The poor need guns to overthrow the fascist government(most working poor hate commies so more dead commies)
>The Nazis took gun rights from Jews so they wouldn’t be able to defend themselves and fight back

Dude, what's going on with the Asians?

Combo of being from cultures that value hard work and shun criminals as well as being smart enough to hide being criminals.

The European gun control as it appears in places such as Britain and and the like, strict bans on anything that goes pew pew, has only lead to other means of violence. It hasn't gotten rid of it and now the British police for example makes a fool of themselves regularly when they do a "weapons sweep" and confiscate bike wheels and potato peelers.

grammar, my dude.

Attached: 1506952134448.gif (827x628, 44K)

don't "debate" those fucks
they'll devolve into ad hominem and strawman and other shit before resorting to metaphorical shit flinging because they aren't interested in civil discussion and they'll never fucking change their mind

just don't fucking bother with them. there is nothing to be gained by interacting non-violently with people who want to take away your right to defend yourself

>debate

Is just another word for master baiting. Dont do it, you can only change minds threw indoctrination of the mentally sick anti gunner. The charismatic individual who does convince someone to change there mind in debate only does so at great mental cost to themselves and they only succeed one times out of ten thousand.

Be a good gun owner, support gun rights, and make gun positive content. But don’t debate! just say, to the nogun “hey fair enough.” and watch them seethe with anger at the fact that they are totally dissatmed and cant use the same hack statistics an fantasys of “owning” you that they have been saving for just this moment.

Attached: 1891F568-9861-4BAC-B091-72F84C4B7069.png (697x1393, 861K)

>White (Hispanic)

Attached: 1509678458227.png (7400x6413, 3.99M)

Dude there are Spanish white Mexicans who considered themselves white like Louis ck despite there dad being Mexican and there mom being jewish

>Hispanic (White Mixed)

Attached: jewdar2.gif (240x270, 245K)

Your arguments should not end in a question.

If you don't know why you should hold an opinion, maybe you shouldn't hold it.

DYOR nigger.

A few of the grabbers I've met like being choked.

Hispanics have a complex internal racial caste system that boils down to original spanish > white/native mix >>>>> native south american.

No. They should. They force the opponent to come up with YOUR answer. Then it seems like it's their answer subconsciously.

Teaching morals 101 faggot. Learn it.

Attached: 1538089438391.gif (500x269, 497K)

well first they dont want a repeal of guns they tend to want what they feel is more regulation so it depends on how you feel about jumping through more hoops to get a gun that some crook could easily gain illegally

most european countries don't ban guns, they just force you to be registered and outlaw carrying them outside your property.
Brits are just bonkers, but that's not new.

Nice argument, but why didn't you tack on a question, bitch?
...wait now I'm confused who won here.

Attached: 1518820271255.jpg (3012x1728, 1.06M)

whites commit gun violence in the US at around the same rates as even the most anti gun countries in europe. american gun violence only skyrockets statistically when you add in the millions of niggers and mexicans

Attached: Guns_race.png (834x469, 12K)

that's the CDC's data classification and terms

you can also look at race across the states with gun homicide

Attached: fhr-vs-race-16.png (597x441, 36K)

Just ask them why they want to be disarmed by a fascist like Drumpf. That usually fucks with their heads.

Attached: 1531692693641.jpg (689x720, 67K)

"Five niggers break into your home with baseball bats, what do you do?"

Most of Mexico is varying grades of Mestizo though. I've encountered Mexicans as white as me (fair pasty skin, green eyes, black hair) in Mexico city and some as brown as coffee beans in the north that all considered themselves Mestizo.

Here you go senpai, The Pro-Gun Guide. Counterarguments to most of the gun control arguments you'll hear.

docs.google.com/document/d/1mBrxjLcuygRlG9Tgdw2CiHtV9g1kgUwZGRnieYBpwSo/edit#

in this case its more important to get your opponent to think because most of the time they arent actually thinking about the issue just regurgitating talking points.

gunfacts.info/

There are already too many guns out there, banning guns would just take them out of civilian hands, good luck getting all the unregistered/stolen or made guns out there.

>Stolen handguns account for almost all gun crime
>Rifles kill around 300-500 people per year
>Hepatitis kills 2,000
>The AR15 is not particularly powerful
>5.56 isn't a particularly high velocity round
>A skilled person with a pump/lever action can attain the same aimed shot rate as a one with a semi automatic
>Hollow points are safer to use because they stop inside the intended target instead of overpenetrating
>FMJ is not armor piercing, instead it prevents lead fouling of the barrel, and has been standard ammunition for nearly a hundred years

Sorry bro just to be safe you’re not white. Same goes for brazil your the reason the 56% meme exists. Just put “biological miscreation” on any official documents from now on pls.

Attached: A1D5E584-A239-4DC2-AD7C-616C0B6CA593.jpg (446x299, 120K)

That's a pretty comprehensive list you've got there. Wish it was around a decade earlier

Europoor here.

Point out that the Czech Republic and Austria have some of the lowest homicide rates in the EU despite having the most liberal gun laws, and that the Czechs' crime rates have halved ever since they implemented it in the 90s. Their crime rates are on par with Poland, despite it having some of the harshest gun laws on the continent.

It's nonwhites that commit crime, white Americans commit gun violence at the same rate as Norwegians

I would mention the lenient gun laws of Maine and New Hampshire which allow for conceal carry without permits. Vermont used to have quite lenient gun laws until their Republican governor cucked out.

Also, the Czech Republic allows private and personal ownership of handguns and allows conceal carry without additional gun permits yet the Czech Republic is safer than the UK and Germany. New Zealand allows owneship and personal storage of semi-auto "military-style" rifles like the AR15 yet it is a safer country than Australia.

>No. They should.
They should end in a rhetorical question, which neither of them are.

>Then in what meaninnful sense is your life valuable?
"Meaningful sense" is subjective and easily contextual on personal experience alone, therefore debatable.

>If you aren't even allowed to protect your own life, then how can someone else have that responsibility?
>how can someone else have that responsibility?
That's easily answerable, not non-debatable, and not rhetorical. An easy answer that comes to mind is "by holding that person responsible for others' lives, and acocuntable for any mistakes that are made", which is what divisions like Internal Affairs are for."

That shitty infographic has a couple of about the most retarded, unviable "arguments" for gun control I've ever seen. Just say "Come and take them" like your retarded inner hick wants to say and stop trying to sound smart. The only reason guns haven't been taken away is that they are a profitable industry, and one that keeps funneling money into politicians' pockets. No one is going to come and Takeyerguns™ as long as the civilian firearm industry provide business from either end users or the way the current prison system is profiteering off the criminals stupid enough to fuck up with their funs.

I see you don't know how negotiation works

that's because they get off on being a slave and being slapped around
that's why they want to ban guns

Just say, "Yeah, fuck the Bill of Rights, repeal that shit." See what they say. Tards probably don't know first ten amendments are the Bill of Rights.

>Well what about this hypothetical situation where you would have to defend your family from feral chimps? You'd have to be mentally defective to not want guns!
user, I've got some bad news for you....

Attached: 1540156870875.jpg (720x687, 49K)

wrongaboutguns.com/
free ebook by tom woods
his other ebooks are good also

bring a homemade gun and tell them that no amount of gun control could stop a serious criminal

[email protected]

point your gun at them and pull the trigger.

watch...
youtube.com/watch?v=pC_HdbSt5PA
youtube.com/watch?v=RgoWvM8OueQ
youtube.com/watch?v=7Ca2SQTk8Us
youtube.com/watch?v=4Cp32avMRaU
youtube.com/watch?v=UMhKueSoIYo
youtube.com/watch?v=LCCL9W9gwu0

and you are good to go

Attached: 120px-Assault_carbine_icon.png (120x118, 10K)

this is a really good graph

>die with a clean conscience if they kill me.
And his loved ones. And anyone else who the madman wants dead.

These people are disgustingly weak. Can't really say you love them if you aren't willing to do what you need to in order to protect them.

>Intense flashbacks to middle-school english class
I never wanted to see another sentence diagram in my life.

>"MUH AUSTRALIA AND ENGLAND"
>A quick google search of homicide rates for each country through the years proves that even if GUN murders may have been decreased after bans and restrictions the overall murder rate remained largely unaffected
>Turns out people fucking hate each other and are more than happy to stab, bludgeon, or strangle each other to death if a gun isn't available
>people still tout this as an end-all-be-all victory for gun control arguments

Have you ever heard of the Marine Corps?

>Yeah, fuck the Bill of Rights, repeal that shit
That is exactly what they want

Attached: ce9188e92884c3aaae14fc9de6e093cc.jpg (384x328, 35K)

Andrew here wouldn't mind if his girlfriend and her boyfriend would die, after all he'd already be dead.

They don't like it if you point it out though. "Oh no, no, we're not trying to take away your rights! You can still have guns and say what you want, play what you want and do what you want as long as it's not a scary assault rifle full auto babykiller or otherwise offensive!"

>I would rather have myself, my wife, and my children be murdered than stop someone from murdering them and myself.
1 millon dollars to the person who can decipher this logic.

Arguments should always end in questions, just never show your hand, they'll trip themselves up eventually.

Less repeal and more "muh milita" but.
>Hey so the constitution lays out what the founding fathers would have wanted right?
>Right
>And that means that if they ever spoke about what an amendment meant that should be used to help intupret it right?
>Right...
>So all the times they reaffirmed the right of anyone and everyone to own what ever gun they wanted too in private and public letters?
easy peasy "convinces people on the fence but not grabbers" squesy