Post the least salient arguments for gun control you've seen
>Muh Muskets
>"Gun show loophole"
>Generalization of the success of gun control in a foreign country or cherry-picked examples of foreign enactment of gun control
>MUH JAPAN
>MUH AUSTRALIA
>Posts link to """""""comedy""""""" routine
>If guns were banned self-defense wouldn't be necessary
Other urls found in this thread:
youtu.be
youtube.com
twitter.com
wHy dO yOu nEeD tHat?
>you don't need a gun, the police will protect you
>Also, the police are racist murders
> BUT WHAT IF SOMEONE STEALS YOUR GUN!!???!?!11171717711
I'll just leave this here.
>You do not need 30 rounds!
>what gives you the right to take another life, even if it's a criminal
>muh white terrorism (links graph proven wrong months ago)
to be honest fun control works, but the graphs they show you also show that ultra-violent crime doubles.
they also blatantly ignore it which amuses me.
>>If guns were banned self-defense wouldn't be necessary
Kinda the case in China and Japan. Not even mafias have guns. Still shit governments
The fudd is worse than I thought, women is as expected. There's a few more conclusions I can draw.
HE WAS JUST TRYING TO GET SCHOOL SUPPLIES
What is the "gun show loophole" anyway? I hear it but nobody ever explains it
mUh aUstrAlia
As far as I know it’s the stupid idea that if you purchase a firearm at a gun show you don’t have to do a background check. Which is technically true in the cases of private sales at gunshows however they think it applies to ANY gun.
>hispanics want AWB even less than whites
Huh. Maybe they are alright...
>be Australian
>go to America
>buying coffee one day
>overhear "we should just like get rid of guns like Australia" from stupid bitch in front of me
>tell her "yeah nah miss we have heaps of guns"
>"um, I wasn't talking to you, I already know the US has heaps of guns"
>tell her I'm Australian
>laughs and says "no you're not" then walks off
what the fuck
>he thinks Chinese and Japanese criminals can't get guns
This. The only reason the yakuza isnt shooting rivals on a regular basis is becauas white collar crime is more profitable.
>Kinda the case in China and Japan. Not even mafias have guns
They do , they just don't like using them because it brings heavy scrutiny onto them and their connections. The Yakuza are damn near a government institution by this point and don't like to rock the boat too much. Remember there's masses of missing commie milsurp Tokarevs that they're absolutely willing to use if push comes to shove.
I hear that all the time. I just give them this speech because I don't feel like dealing with them. youtu.be
>tHe oNLy rEaSon wE dOnT hAVe CoMmON SeNse GUn ConTRoL is bEcAusE tHe eViL NrA
considering she walked off after saying that i ASSUME that she realized that she was in a losing argument and tried to "look cool" by saying a line then leaving. I dont think she actually didn't believe you.
>but dey wil just nook u :DD
They very much do have access to weapons, but to them it is much better (and profitable) in the long run to just stick to more white collar stuff than going around blasting people Al Capone style. Keeps them more under the radar too.
If you can't legally own guns, criminals won't have them either.
>they would never even think of owning then illegally would they?
>A criminal will just take your (insert weapon here) and use it against you
or she just got her almond milk matcha latte with five sugars and wandered off to her job, presumably with the brady campaign
DAMN LOOK AT THOSE TITTIES!
The yakuza has a shit ton of guns. It's their biggest import after drugs and people.
In most states, you can buy guns from private individuals without a background check. You can find a lot of private individuals selling guns without background checks at gun shows. Hence, "gun show loophole".
In reality, it's a "private individual loophole", since you can find private individuals selling guns literally anywhere. There are even websites like armslist to help you find them. People used to openly sell guns on Facebook, before Facebook cracked down on that (people still do it, though).
The reason you're not required to background check someone when you're selling a gun to them as a private individual is because, well, how could you possibly enforce a background check? Two people meeting in a private residence and exchanging money and guns is not exactly something that the government can track. The ATF actually audits gun stores for inventory. Nobody's going to audit your house.
In other words, when someone talks about "gun show loopholes" they're either A) ignorant and don't understand that the lack of a background check has nothing to do with gunshows and that in most states anyone can buy a gun from anyone, anywhere without a background check anyway, perfectly legally, because it would be impossible to make illegal anyhow, or B) in favor of requiring that everyone everywhere submit to a background check, even though it would obviously be impossible to enforce this, or C) in favor of requiring private sellers at gun shows to require background checks, which is a thing in some states and actually vaguely possible to enforce if done correctly
>or C) in favor of requiring private sellers at gun shows to require background checks, which is a thing in some states and actually vaguely possible to enforce if done correctly
although it doesn't actually stop anyone from just buying a gun without a check anywhere that isn't a gunshow
regardless of what the law says, criminals (being criminals) do not follow the law and either buy guns (without a background check, natch) from other criminals, have someone else buy them legally on their behalf, steal them, etc.
First, they drive 60 MPH in the fast lane when the speed limit is 70 MPH. Next, they try to take the guns. Der Boomer.
"Hispanic" is a vague, ambiguous category - not something I like because it could mean anything from Blancos, to Mestizos, to Indios. And California isn't a bastion of the 2nd Amendment, neither is most of Latin America. But respondents who stated that they were Hispanic were less likely to support banning "semi-automatic weapons," so you gotta give credit where credit's due.
>he was on his way to church when he robbed that corner store and assaulted that cop. why did the police have to shoot him after he unloaded two and a half mags into that crowd of innocent bystanders? this guy who ha already served 15 years in prison for beating up women, stabbing his kid, dealing crack, and blowing dogs was a good boy! he didn't do nothing!
>the highest percentage is Jews
oy vey
Fucking boomers.
"If u kant do eet in (Insert:cap.val) yer fukt anyhao"
Ive pretty much given up on trying to talk with people about this shit because most of the time they dont even acknowledge what youve said. Example, one time my boss brought up the Jim Jefferies thing as an example of how weapons wont be helpful in a home invasion.
>Look he had his home invaded and thinks guns are bad, he must be right!
>Yeah it is likely having a gun wouldnt have helped in that one specific scenario, but it was an extremely specific one and home invasions arent all exactly like that.
>Okay but (repeats first point again)
He dosent believe that anyone should be allowed to have guns in the house because its too dangerous, while admitting to getting angry and throwing shit around the house on occasion.
My ex gf had depression and was terrified of guns because "of what she would do to herself with them" yet she drives like a maniac every day in a small car that would get squashed like a bug in any kind of road accident, without thinking twice.
Not really an argument, but a guy ive known for years whos a bit of a basedboy admits to being scared when he sees armed police. He also refuses to believe that im into shooting sports, he just dosent think its a possibility at all.
Ive heard all the usual suspects like unironically too many times. Kill me.
"If we don't roll over and let them ban X, they'll ban everything!"
>bUt WhY dO yOu ***NeEd*** ThAt?!
Similar to this ive also started to hear Aussie antis say that if we make one more thing legal, then they'll eventually make everything legal!
>Gun owners are violent
so
>lets start killing them
.
>Assault guns are too deadly for cops to protect themselves from
>You cant fight the govornment with just your rifle
>what if you have a bad day and start indiscriminately shooting innocents?
Sorry I'm not an unstable sociopath like you, little brother
>In reality, it's a "private individual loophole"
I don't mean to sound like a pretentious faggot, but it's not a loophole at all, it's a specific written exemption, and it only applies when selling face-to-face.
If you don't sell face-to-face, the gun you're selling must go through an FFL.
Liberals will never comprehend it.
>"real men don't need guns, we use our fists"- seething yurofags
The absolute worst
>You can't fight the government, they have drones and tanks
>YOU'LL CHANGE YOUR MIND AFTER SOMEONE YOU KNOW GETS KILLED BY A GUN!
-some old cunt while walking back from pro gun rally.
And exempting private sales from background checks was specifically written into the brady act.
So the NRA & fudds?
The ironic thing is that more people are converted to pro-gun positions after being confronted with one
When living with others
>ok but what if one day you decide to kill me?
Because most people just snap one day and decide to murder whoever is standing within their vicinity, you know, totally normal behavior. Honestly to be expected. Even if you know that person for, oh I don't know, your entire life, yeah, sure, they're totally a murderer, it's a miracle you lived this long, honest.
Oh my Lord, the "hehe guns are just compensation for a small dick, just learn Brazilian ju-jitsu bro" argument is EASILY the most infuriating
>Tell them I practice martial arts too
>WhY dO YoU NeEEEeeD a GuN ThEn?
Know-nothings don't realize that Dojos are expensive to run. Most or all instructors are black belt or higher, and are thus skilled workers, and you can't pay them min wage. That combined with a bunch of other factors means that monthly dues for training are expensive, and some people simply can't afford that investment.
Also, student willingness plays a factor. I've seen plenty of people quit because they can't meet standards. You also have size disparity, which you can only do so much to close with skill.
And honestly, if you're going up against an armed aggressor, especially someone with a sharp object or a gun, you're ALWAYS at a disadvantage. Anyone experience with martial arts knows their limitations, and the people who say "JUST LEARN LE-JISTUU" are either MMAfags with inflated egos or people with no experience in martial arts at all.
>But all muh traning is useless because people have guns
No retard, all your training is useless beyond like a yard
>I don't mean to sound like a pretentious faggot, but it's not a loophole at all
Yeah, we know that. They don't.
The best thing about this one is that it's almost always stated by a guy who has toothpick arms and yelps like a girl if any dog approaches him too quickly.
As someone who took a martial art for four years, I'd rather keep my distance. There's literally no reason to risk harm to your body if you can subdue someone from 10 feet away.
I had a roommate that tried this one on me. I went around the house pointing at everything I could use to kill them. I got through the living room and halfway through the kitchen before they conceded that maybe I didn't actually need a gun to kill them. They also very reluctantly admitted that I had never killed anyone before and it was very unlikely that they were going to be the first.
I also had an ex who used to tell me that she was afraid I was going to shoot her. Then one time during a fight she grabbed one of my guns and threatened to shoot me and then herself. Good times.
This.
Did 2 years of mixed martial arts myself too with a teacher that knew his shit. He would always say that the best way to confront someone with a knife or with a gun was to fucking run away. Martial artists are even more aware that they are almost always defenseless against someone with a gun that normal basedboys
virginity
I haven't lurked Jow Forums in a long time
I haven't posted here at all that I can remember
I just put 'control' in the catalog so I wouldn't kill a thread for my bullshit
I'm a bit of virtual gun nut myself and understand a lot of the tech that goes into them
since gun control is inevitable wouldn't it be nice if the honorable denizens of Jow Forums had some input on what it's all about?
frankly I've thought about and a system of rated lethality where weapon systems are regulated by the most lethal aspect of the weapon and an aggregated sum of all deadliness.
at and above a rating of 4 lethality (xxxx), there is a necessary qualifier. otherwise they're fairly arbitrary and subjective but inclusive of a description.
let us take for instance a nuke
rate of fire: (x) low
area of effect: (xxxxXX) 8 kilometers+ military grade+
destructive force: (xxxxXXX) 4180 terajoules+
because it has such high max destructive force and area of effect, it would be outlawed for private ownership, militias, and even a lot of national armies.
now take a handgun let's say an unmodified colt 1911
rate of fire: (xxx) semi automatic
area of effect: (xx) single target
destructive force: (xxx) lethal in most instances where aim is true on unassuming target
concealability: (xx) slim profile, but detectable
stopping power: (xxxx)* .45 ACP round designed so inflicted individual knows they've been shot even when determined to kill and high on ungodly amounts of stimulants
trigger weight: (x) the trigger weight is high enough to require deliberation on each round discharged
magazine capacity: (xxx) 7, enough to be used on multiple targets or to compensate for lack of aim
weight, unloaded: (x) 1100 grams, more than certain bicycle frames, doubles as blunt weapon
range: (xx) moderate to long ranges
recoil: (x) a fair amount of recoil, offset by weight perhaps, but lining up shots in quick succession is difficult at distance
*maximum allowed rating for civilian usage in a secondary characteristic.
Based zoomers? This is epic.
How about SHALL
>gun control is inevitable
Gun control is increasingly unpopular.
I know people will say "but the demographics". You know what demographic likes guns, specifically scary assault weapons, the most? Millennials. The youth are very pro-gun.
is this a Jow Forums meme?
I caught cancer from the first paragraph, I don't dare go on.
meh
the dems are pretty much hellbent on implementing something and you know it'll happen during a blue presidency (or when they have more power elsewhere)
((someone)) even goes as far as orchestrating school shootings
cancer isn't contagious
this kind of legislature could even serve as a guide to consumers
different municipalities could have different regulations on firearms with a rating of 3-4 lethality based on the preference of their population
Jow Forumsville would be able to get some low end military stuff for the militia and yuppies could have their walled gardens.
military grade firearms shouldn't be available to the public at large but militias, sure.
there should be all kinds of laws defining and deregulating militias and people should join them if they like.
youtube.com
this is my favorite gun video
it could be distributed by law and shoved down normies' throats so they appreciate how severe firefights can be and :^)
Do you have a source for that
>ass
NOT
righteous
>you need to think of the kids getting killed in schools
>you're so insecure, you'll never be in a situation that requires you using it
>why would you want a """MACHINE GUN"""?
>you're more likely to use it on yourself or family members than an intruder!
At least for Japan it's insanely difficult because border security is so tight. Almost all guns floating around have been there for at least 40+ years
What’s goin on in this thre-
>mfw
Lol no. Same way they bring in drugs, they bring in guns. Theres been stories of them obtaining 'lost' military guns. They also own many businesses that manufacture guns for them. The yaks are probably one of the most well organized gangs ever, they're practically their own government.
how about the opposite, pro gun arguments that are meaningless
>SHALL NOT INFRINGE*
*not counting a handful of major exceptions
**and that it being an amendment can literally be...amended
stop saying that shit. from my cold dead hands makes a lot more sense, even if that dosent make a lot of sense either.
is this actually wrong
Nice one user
Saved
Younger generations (00s fag here this includes my generation and newer) are expected to be extremely progun and in my experience I can confirm this. I went to a school of 5,000 students almost everyone there shot guns, had guns or, liked guns in classrooms averaging 30 students or so maybe 1 or 2 at most would be anti gun and would get shit on for it, my senior year during that school walkout shit to "protest" school shooting they gave us the option for it and the whole student body unanimously agreed it was fucking stupid and a group of 5 students almost got the shit beat out of them for trying to start an antigun protest in the cafeteria during said walkout
The border security issue is a good one - I like point out to grabbers that even if the US completely banned guns, the cartels would bring them across the border and they would be no more difficult to buy than drugs are now. So unless they want massively improved border security, like say a well manned physical barrier, they don't actually support gun control. It is hilarious when the cognitive dissonance kicks in.
poole?
I am guessing a lot of that is simply natural selection; liberals (especially white ones) simply stopped having many kids a few decades back. That is why they are so desperate to increase immigration; ask yourself what the most recently elections would have looked like if the US had the same percentage of Hispanics that it did in 1990. Their ideology is simply fundamentally flawed in how it doesn't encourage replacement level birthrates.
/thead
Well shit now I've got a good response.
>Why do you want to kill someone? Can't you just incapacitate them, or shoot them in the legs?
>Why can't you just use a knife, it's more likely they'll survive.
I've met people convinced the government will nuke itself just to kill it's civilians.
>only through 2012
I can guarantee that the numbers spiked massively after sandy vag
...
i'm not sure how much mileage it would have, since it was probably included just to get the legislation passed
I have never felt such disgust in my life reading something like that. Its like they've taken every single biological urge and decided that its barbaric and doesn't serve a purpose.
How can the swedish men even be respected by their women? What the fuck bizzaro world are they living in?
I have so many questions and I'm so confused that this society could come from the genetic lineage that raped and pillaged the coasts of Europe for hundreds of years.
>use a knife
Oh yeah lets get in close with someone and hope they don't wrestle the knife away from me and use it on me instead.
God I fuckign hate retards.
>it's easier to kill people with guns
lol no it isn't, killing people with your bare hands is just as easy
This is both irrelevant and inaccurate
>argue with dad over guns
>brings up the "your peashooter wont do anything against the goverment" arguement
>respond with "the goverment cant bomb a uprising down"
>responds with "you should watch handwives tale. They bomb the cities in that."
He also thinks all trump voters should be hanged for treason and that christiananity should be banned. We got along just fine before 2016 but since than he is becoming more and more radical. I dont know what to do.
(citation needed)