Are there any good arguments that are pro gun?

are there any good arguments that are pro gun?

Other urls found in this thread:

theage.com.au/interactive/2016/gun-city/day1.html
cnn.com/2014/03/01/world/asia/china-railway-attack/
wikileaks.org/hbgary-emails/emailid/1112
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

yes

/thread

>good argument
>pro-gun

Pick one.

yes

Right to defend yourself. Criminals have guns after all. Otherwise it all comes down to physical strength, which women, old people and children lack.

"When seconds count, the police are only minutes away"

Certainly for "flyover states" in the heartland. When response time can be up to an hour I'd rather be able to scare off or kill an intruder in minute or less.

Niggers, Spics, and Sand nigger scum

"I'll shoot you if you try to take my guns"

People kill people

The same number of murders will happen no matter what the firearm laws are

An attacker armed with a knife can close a distance of at least 21 feet, perhaps more, before a defender armed with a firearm can react, draw, fire and stop them. This is true of the average person armed with a knife, not a trained martial artist.

Like how the feds are the antichrist and the consitituion specifically calls for guns and well armed militia, no standing army?

You are fucking idiot OP. DUMBASS MOTHERFUCKER

Yes, OC there is.

There are no good arguments for being anti-gun desu. There are good arguments against CRIMINALS and criminal behavior; guns are just inanimate objects.

First they take your guns, then your freedoms.

so far none of these responses are arguments

yea in china there are many knife killings because its hard to get guns

It's been proven true in countries flying the union jack. Firearm bans lead to a drop in gun crimes but a proportional spike in assaults and murders with knives and blunt instruments.
You can change the means but banning firearms does not change human nature.

SHALL

You are free to not defend your life when it is in danger, I will defend mine.

How about "A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the RIGHT of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"

NOT

BE

SHALL

see now thats an argument. got any sources?

INFRINGED

fbpb

When the founding fathers created the second amendments both the Citizens and Government were using relatively the same type of weapons.
Typically muskets and early rifle prototypes.

Today the government uses highly advanced technology while the average joe would have to use guerrilla warfare to even hat a shot at changing anything.

Now the founding fathers were not idiots and they knew that weapons technology would advance.

So I propose, in order to keep the government equal to its citizens, that the U.S, government open up advanced combat technology markets to citizens.
Assault rifles are not enough, we need heat seeking missiles and tanks as well.
Perhaps citizen nukes will be available as well in the future.

Because socialism and leftism is shit.

Good enough for me.

OPs post was not an argument either. You ask a dumbass question, you should expect to be responded to as if you are a dumbass.

I think this is what he's talking about.

Not to mention when your countries politicians want to sell your entire nation down the river for shekels you actually get a say in the matter.

Yes. The government is the servant of the people. We are supreme, and we grant the government certain rights in order for it to carry out its duties. The servant does not have the right to tell the master whether or not he may own weapons. There is no counter argument.

without the second amendment, the first ceases to exist

It is a fairly good deterrent to assault or rob random people in open carry and concealed carry areas. Especially if the state has little sympathy for the criminals and loves a little justice in their news papers.

It's my right to keep and bear arms. I don't need to make an argument for rights.

Gun control does nothing measurable while costing money, putting people in prison and occasionally killing innocent people.

Not quite the same thing, but gun crime in Australia is on the rise, despite banning guns
theage.com.au/interactive/2016/gun-city/day1.html

And compared to America, I imagine its even more difficult to smuggle guns into australia, being an island that doesn't share a loose border with Mexico

There are zero logical arguments for any restrictions on small arms. Only statists, slaves, and oppressors would disarm another person. All gun laws are infringements and therefore are a violation of your basic human rights.

But how many people can a guy with a knife kill in a few seconds?

yea this is why

cnn.com/2014/03/01/world/asia/china-railway-attack/

Knife-wielding attackers kill 29, injure 130 at China train station

depends on how many people are around

there's no reason to ban anything just because some lunatic shows up every once in a while

and this
wikileaks.org/hbgary-emails/emailid/1112

INFRINGE

NOT

Taking away guns doesn't solve jack shit, it treats a symptom.

Legal gun owners are generally educated on firearm safety and passionate about it. They generally use their guns for hunting, sport, etc.

You've got these nutcases running around the inner city killing each other, generally with illegally-acquired guns. Even if you somehow shut that down, they'd just find new ways to kill each other.

Sure, you get the occasional nutcase who slips through the cracks in the system to legally purchase a gun and then go on a rampage, but that's relatively isolated and can be solved with better mental health care and maybe light background check laws.

>80% of gun murders in the US are gang related - a socioeconomic problem
>at least 700,000 crimes and possibly up to 2 million are stopped each year because of the presence of guns owned by civilians

Guns save lives and measurably improve society by teaching more people about personal responsibility. The only problem is shit like low income and inner-cities where criminals can freely proliferate arms despite city-wide "gun bans" being in effect. (see: chiraq)

Except that is a group of muslim men in a crowded train station. A ten year old with a gun could kill just as many without even trying.

A couple of those Chinese psychos did a pretty high number on schoolchildren. And that Islamic attack - what was it - 30+ killed at that train station?

You're an idiot.

That is what I'm talking about, thanks.

>shall not be infringed

Hmm really makes ya think

Dune coon with a truck did a number in France. Beat all American shooters.

And if that group of muslims had guns instead of knives the death toll would be much higher.

"Humans are sentient sovereign beings"

How's that OP?

why don't we just ban assault trucks? theres no reason to hold down the trigger and have it automatically go to 60--much too high for a civilian, why would they need to go that fast?

it depends on the person and who they are attacking

What's the context of this? What group is being discussed?

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!

It's my fucking right, you cuck.

Trucks are used for more than just killing things, or practicing to kill things.

...

well, for example you can shoot people who attack you.

in confined spaces where ppl are very close to each other, someone with a knife or tomahawk type axe could do more damage than with a gun.

we already have them, fuck off.

There are only a few mass murders in US history that killed more than 20 people. This isn't something a ten year old is likely to do however with a few chains, padlocks and some eggwhite napalm a person could kill hundreds of people.

I've yet to hear a compelling argument against firearm ownership that doesn't rely on a "think about the children" line of emotional appeal.

Guns are fun.

As much as I hate communism, you have to admit Stalin was a brilliant man

This basically. It's one of our rights.

Because what any law-abiding person buys, owns or does is absolutely nobody's business but theirs.

Boil it down like this, OP. Let's say I am a regular, sane guy, who has absolutely no intention of ever harming another person without good reason, why on earth shouldn't I be allowed to own a firearm? What legitimate reason is there to stop me from spending my money how I see fit?

>implying those qualities are a pre-requisite

Git out

...

...

Woah now, I agree with you, but for the sake of argument, let's keep the prerequisites just so OP will concede that there is no argument against the common man owning whatever guns he wants.

How many deaths to violent crime is there with & without guns? The point of banning guns is to reduce the lethality of violent crime, so it doesn't matter how much violent crime goes up as long as less people die from it.

Clearly you've never been to D.C.