Why do you need x gun

that doesn't do anything to dismantle the argument.

>shit weak comparison
>can be dismantled by a fiesty 7th grader

Ill wait your your response.

Well the first and most blistering hole is that the objective fact of the matter is cars are overwhelmingly more regulated as a rule than firearms are in this nation. No one with a shred of intellectual honesty or objectivity can deny this. Yeah sure you can skirt around by saying you don't need license and registration to own and operate on your property, but ultimately that's really cherry picking at the comparison.

There's also the notion; which is probably more correct than it's not, that cars are a necessity for function in a modern American society. Like it or not, that's just not true of guns for 99.999999% of the population. The number of people that require, as a requisite of society and life, a gun is far less than the number of people that require cars. Again, sure you can drag this out to absurdity but it really doesn't hold water; especially with less objective types that have trouble with the "You don't NEED a gun!" thing.

Capacity for abuse is another aspect. Cars can absolutely be used as weapons. So can guns. In both instances it's an inanimate object with no sentience being abused by an individual. Problem is, one of these categories is arguably much more concerned with deliberate function as a weapon. Cry all you want about intent, but the fact of the matter is guns are designed; or at a minimum put a lot of investment, into being deliberately and specifically good at killing things. We as gun owners should acknowledge this, especially when it comes to military style weapons. Your functional clone of an M-16 or Kalash was designed to be a military weapon used to kill other people and it's engineering emphasizes that. That's not an argument against the right to own them, simply acknowledging fact. Cars don't suffer from that as they're not intended to be weapons from jump.

(Cont...)

>God given right

Is this the "critical thinking" you've been referring to? Better luck next time.

Why are you whining and acting all offended on a site in heavy favour of gun ownership? you need some attention little bitch?

>overwhelmingly more regulated as a rule than firearms are in this nation
absolutely false, not even close to being true.

You're brain damaged.

nah dude you are

just state by state regulations on guns outnumber all state and federal vehicle laws, without even including federal gun laws in the tally. you're fucking stupid.

gun made to kill
car made to transport
spoon made to eat ice cream

all can be used to kill yet only one was made to make killing widely accesible and easy, only underage retards and autistic manchildren disagree

nah u r

A human right?
The right to travel freely?
Cars are a mode of transportation.

for real though, the largest health epidemic in the country is complex carb over-intake (sugars), leading to metabolic diseases. Spoons literally kill more people than cars or guns.

You want to draw a good comparison that really frustrated and forces gun banners into intellectual purgatory, talk about banning alcohol. Why?

1. Alcohol follows a lot of the same logic that grabbers use to assign danger to guns. It's highly and cripplingly addictive, readily available, frequently subject to circumvention of extensive laws and followed by...

2. Abusers of it exert unfathomably tremendous and completely disproportionate social cost on the US. DUIs, court processing, injuries, chronic illness, work time lost, people killed... It's responsible for thousands of self inflicted deaths every year and nearly as many vehicular homicides, not to mention what it does in aggravating lesser crimes of violence like assaults.

3. It's a popular item/activity with a few people that shit it up for everyone else, just like guns.

It's far more apt and it really drives home the "You're not concerned about social safety and well being, you just don't like guns; or more specifically the people that use them."

Thats a retarded comparsion.

I can walk into a gun store right now, buy a gun and carry it in public or even operate it on public land. I need two tests, registration, and insurance to do the same with a car. Don't be a fucking dishonest dweeb.

Who said you needed to have a vehicle?

you don't not need a license to operate a vehicle on private property, you need a license to operate both a car and a gun on public property. The only exception is constitutional carry states, and they still ban ownership by violent felons, restrict mufflers, and require NICS checks on all interstate sales none of which is required for cars.

The regulations are different, but there are many more regulations applied to guns.

It's significantly easier to argue the need for a vehicle than it is the need for a gun, and I say that as someone who hasn't owned a car in 4 years.

HI leftypol

This is a multi paragraph long tangent about bullshit nobody gives a fuck about. The real answer is because of the thousands of videos violent crime on websites like WorldStarHiphop, or liveleak, or even YouTube. That’s why 90% of everybody here who isn’t a boomer bought their shit. Like you should be physically fucking terrified if you live around niggers.

Literally the only reason you need to give for owning x gun is because you have a right to do so. The Founding Fathers recognized the right to keep and bear arms as an inalienable, God given Right and thus made sure it was protected in our nation's founding documents. No amount of crying, or screaming, or protesting will change that. Most importantly it cannot be legislated away, because it is not a right gifted by the government, it is one you are born with.

Attached: IMG_20190802_020131.jpg (1024x563, 66K)

>you need a license to operate both a car and a gun on public property.

No... I don't need a license to operate a gun on public property and I live in a decidedly mid-tier state for gun laws. Have you never been to a public range, or a state owned one?

It's also like you didn't even read my first post, or are just too stupid to comprehend it.

>why do gun idiots always make the car comparison
2 reasons
1) anti-gun idiots always bring the legislation of vehicles up as examples of successful legislation
2) terrorists have taken it upon themselves to just use big moving pieces of metal as weapons of terror in the US and Europe. So there are examples of it being weaponized to great affect

tl;dr
why do you NEED free speech?
why do you NEED a jury?
why do you NEED to keep the police out of your home without a warrant?
god it's like you want domestic white terrorists to win.

>cars are overwhelmingly more regulated as a rule than firearms are in this nation
>No one with a shred of intellectual honesty or objectivity can deny this
The equivalent of driving in public with a car is walking around with your gun pointed forward and light pressure on the trigger. Too much pressure and someone directly in front of you dies. I don't see how it is dishonest to make a distinction between how cars are regulated while operating in public roads and inside private property.
>that cars are a necessity for function in a modern American society
"We live in a society" isn't an excuse to have 30,000 people die on the road every year. We have cars because of personal freedom. If it wasn't for individual rights there would be no excuse to maintain a society where so many deaths are required to keep things functioning as they are.
>guns are designed; or at a minimum put a lot of investment, into being deliberately and specifically good at killing things
1. And yet they barely surpass cars in terms of total fatalities every year
2. To the victim/families it doesn't fucking matter what it killed them, do you honestly think people say "oh at least my baby was killed by a car and not something designed to kill!" in relief? No.
>We as gun owners should acknowledge this, especially when it comes to military style weapons
You mean like muskets, revolvers, bolt-action rifles and lever action rifles? Every fucking type of gun ever invented was issued or at least considered for military issue. "Military style" doesn't mean anything, if the OICW-type weapons were not heavy and bulky they would have become the standard issue and they would be the "military style" while ARs and AKs would be "grandpa's rifle". Military style, in context, only means whatever is the latest in firearms technology. Fuck yeah a 1911 is a "military style" gun compared to the .25 mouse guns carried in vest pockets.

>you need a license to operate a gun on public property
not at the federal level.

He already responded and BTFO a lot of peopel he's got some points.

yeah, I literally cover that in the next sentence.

But you don't need a license to operate a gun on public property...

he said a bunch of shit that was factually wrong, or pure conjecture and didn't actually BTFO anything.

...

And yet here you are doing nothing but crying bitter bitch tears instead of addressing why it's wrong... Fucking Reddit tier.

>"Your functional clone of an M-16 or Kalash was designed to be a military weapon used to kill other people and it's engineering emphasizes that"
Literally every type of gun was designed to kill other people and its engineering emphasized that.

>gun made to kill
>car made to transport
And do you honestly believe that when parents lose a child to a traffic accident they sigh in relief for their baby was not killed by something designed to kill?
Design doesn't matter for shit, a death is a death is a death.
The electronic computer was designed to calculate firing tables and crack military code, essentially made to kill people. Before the internet was built by researchers in universities it was a concept to ensure that military communications wouldn't be wiped out in a nuclear strike, essentially to make sure the military could kill people.
Yet you're using the descendants of those things for benign shitposting. Design hardly matters, it's what you do with it.

in many states you do, unless you live in a constitutional carry state. which is what i specifically said.

what you said simply isn't true. the laws aren't about firearm operation, they're about USE. everything else is at the state level and below.
im not saying guns aren't regulated or anything, just that the laws aren't about the operation of firearms. you aren't breaking the law by shooting a mugger in certain states. which is using a firearm.

people are going to assume blanket stuff you say is meant for fed laws, not state laws. cuz no one talks about state laws.

>I don't need a license to operate a gun on public property
>But you don't need a license to operate a gun on public property...
You guys try to discharge a firearm outside of a self-defense scenario and then tell me it's perfectly legal to operate guns in public

the ways he is wrong has already been pointed out by multiple people. keep crying bitch niger

you're out of your fucking mind dude. Everyone knows that CHLs and Permitted Carry exists.

>You guys try to discharge a firearm outside of a self-defense scenario and then tell me it's perfectly legal to operate guns in public
i think the issue with that is destruction of property and disturbing the peace.

im not aware of any federal law that says you can't do it. i am aware of county laws that say how far away from various things you need to be to discharge firearms for recreation or hunting due to the noise.

what don't you get about fed vs state laws?
go quote the law saying you can't use a firearm in public that congress wrote.

>And do you honestly believe that when parents lose a child to a traffic accident they sigh in relief for their baby was not killed by something designed to kill?

No but the grief is greater when the kid gets killed by something designed to kill rather than a necesary trannsportation tool.
Why? I dont know, probably because death by gun would be somewhat avoidable by banning guns.
Sure you could also ban cars but that would completely fuck up society whereas banning guns would only upset larpers and future mass shooters.

at no point in this thread were we specifically discussing only federal laws you simp. But you keep on movin' them goalposts, you will win in your own mind.

i just now got here and i already acknowledged that when you make blanket statements everyone is going to assume you're referring to federal laws and regs

you're the one getting huffy puffy that literally everyone else went "um akshually" because no such federal law exists on the matter and for any state you find that backs up what you say, an user can bring up a state that is different.

>I don't see how it is dishonest [...]

Because at basal state you're talking about the notion of licenceure and competency testing to prevent such incidents. Automobile licencure requirements are a joke in the United States but there are still nominally requirements. It's not hard to extrapolate the concept of a drivers test to a firearms skills test.

>"We live in a society" isn't [...]

But again, this doesn't hold water or circumvent with respect to cars arguably being a greater necessity. It's got nothing to do with personal freedom, that's a straw man you constructed. It's got everything to do with widespread proliferation of cars being necessary for society unless you want to shovel 95% of the population into urban centers.

>1. And yet they [...]

Don't see how that's relevant, especially when the necessity of the casualty is what's really in question.

>To the victim/families it doesn't fucking matter [...]

I both don't see the point of this, and disagree with it as a socitial level. Almost no one gives a shit about handgun violence society. Rifle homicides are big deals and news. This brings me to your next point because it ties in directly

>You mean like muskets, revolvers, bolt-action rifles and lever action rifles[...]

You're bringing your personal bias into this. Most people don't have the background to understand an argument like that but they follow "military weapon" logic quite well. It also doesn't address the fact that there are models of firearm that are without question designed to kill more efficiently than others. We would have debates about what to use for HD if there weren't true.

No, you really fucking don't you ignorant fucking cunt.Most states don't ask for a gun license of some sort to shoot on public land, especially not a state operated range you fuckign tard.

The dude linearly won't acknowledge the existence of state run ranges... He's more concerned with being right than being correct.

Seems to be holding up pretty well to me. The alcohol thing is a good point.

>the grief is greater when the kid gets killed by something designed to kill rather than a necesary trannsportation tool.
It literally fucking isn't. One time I met a guy who was vehemently pro-cuck car and hated SUVs. After a few minutes of debating about cars he eventually revealed that the reason he was for shittier electric cars (this was before tesla and whatnot) was because his highschool sweetheart was killed by a rich kid who was speeding in a SUV who didn't get jail time because his parents were rich and friends of the mayor. The grief gets to you and you don't get any relief from the attenuating circumstances.
>death by gun would be somewhat avoidable by banning guns
Not really considering how gun deaths don't correlate to gun laws.
>that would completely fuck up society
Again, "we live in a society" isn't an excuse. People also said the same about slavery, you can't end it or else we can't sustain society as it stands. I'm sure someone also said we couldn't live outside of a monarchy or whatever. People will always resent change (gun owners included).
We have private ownership of cars because of individual rights. Especially nowadays, without private human drivers there could be AI driven Ubers, you call the little cuck car to come pick you up and nobody dies. We trade individual freedom for the 30k lives we'd save. The reason we don't do it isn't because it would "fuck up society" - we don't do it because people like to feel in control.
>banning guns would only upset larpers and future mass shooters
this is about individual rights vs "society", it doesn't matter that the amount of people pissed off is small if individual rights are violated
the point here is that people are willing to be defensive of their rights while eager to take rights away from others, and I don't think people should be able to defend their individual right to own a car while advocating for others to lose their individual rights to own something else

>It literally fucking isn't.

It literally fucking is. Knowing your kids death could easily have been avoided if society stopped giving a fuck about larpers fee fees is much more painful and frustrating.

>Because at basal state you're talking about the notion of licenceure and competency testing to prevent such incidents
But the competency test is only relevant so you can drive your car and constantly "miss" every single object and person on your way in public. It is not relevant for the concept of ownership of a car, or its operation in a private setting.
>cars arguably being a greater necessity
Not really, humanity managed to live for thousands of years without them.
>It's got nothing to do with personal freedom
Yes, it is all about personal freedom. It's the same exact reason nobody thinks twice about getting into a car but people fear plane crashes. Privately owned cars make you feel in control, and if you were asked to give up that control for the sake of saving 30k people you'd never agree to that.
>Don't see how that's relevant
The fact that something NOT designed to kill manages to rack up a body count comparable to something designed to kill speaks volumes about their danger.
>Most people don't have the background to understand an argument like that
Appealing to the average person's ignorance to invalidate an argument is completely the opposite of what you were trying to do here. You can't say "the average person can easily defeat that argument" and then when asked to prove it your reasoning is that the average person is too fucking stupid to understand how guns work.
>It also doesn't address the fact that there are models of firearm that are without question designed to kill more efficiently than others
The point is that anyone who seriously thinks they have the individual right to own a car when people die on the road but doesn't agree with the right to keep and bear arms because it gets people killed is fucking stupid. It literally doesn't matter which guns are more efficient at killing because in the car vs gun debate I can easily bring up the fact that cars deemed too dangerous can be driven in private.

>Knowing your kids death could easily have been avoided
You can't avoid death. Not even by gun. Even if you count uninvent the gun and make mankind forget about the concept, someone would invent it in 5 minutes.

The Chinese...

>I can walk into a gun store right now, buy a gun

Only if it's a pistol, rifle, or shotgun. Anything else requires years of red tape and waiting. And machineguns you can't buy period. Meanwhile, provided I have the cash, I can go to the nearest dodge dealership and walk out with the fastest 0-60 production car ever made, with no government red tape of any kind. Also there is no constitutional right to keep and bear mechanized transportation, so take your false analogy and shove it up your gun grabbing ass.

>its okay if i murder you you would have died anyway

Gun nuts are beyond any reasoning it seems

is dat da bitch from lazy town?

she went from lazy town to nagger town lol

>point out that you cannot end gun deaths because guns will always exist
>"reeeee you said [something retarded I never said]"
Blow it out your ass

Reddit. Kys.

Why are there suddenly so many antis on Jow Forums? Psyop? Redditard raid?

Attached: 1546713776856.gif (720x800, 127K)

I believe there's people on "our side" who legitimately get a kick out of riling people up.

there are always people who make decent bait threads and people who actively try to sow dissidence around here nowadays. more than ever, actually.
with any event you'll get a slew of threads and they're often indistinguishable