Why Sup Forums?

Of all the things that Sup Forums belives gun rights has seemed the most weirdest to be. Why on earth would anyone need a gun?! Have you been watching too much home alone?

Other urls found in this thread:

crimeresearch.org/2013/12/murder-and-homicide-rates-before-and-after-gun-bans/
youtube.com/watch?v=-TC2xTCb_GU
theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/07/a-land-without-guns-how-japan-has-virtually-eliminated-shooting-deaths/260189/
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

british cuck talking about shit he cant have. feels guud to watch you cry, subject.

>Why on earth would anyone need a gun
In a world full of white people this would be a great question.

Nice famas

This isn't how a debate works. The person arguing for the positive action (gun regulation) has to prove it's case.

Now tell me. Why should I be arrested and thrown in jail for owning a gun?

How else would you overthrow the bourgeoisie and build a glorious worker's state?

Workers of the world unite!

I'm not a commie cuckoo!

if we can't have them why does the government and cops need them? Surely if there are no evil people out there for me to need one, the police don't either.

Multiple reasons as to why it should be illegal one is with easy access to guns will lead to more gang related shootings this is has been seen in American with its easy gun access laws.

Also it raises suicide rates, let me explain. Most people who commite suicide and fail never go on to do it again, notice how I said most not all, this tells us that perhaps people who commute suicide do so due to spur of the moment thought like oh I just lost my job I'm gonna kill myself or Cindy just broke up with me so I'm gonna kill myself. But where guns are illegal and it is easier to off yourself this isn't the case this more suicides

That is only some of the reasons. Also could you say your case since I was only asking a question not stating my view so the burden of proof lies on you.

Because those people are more likely to be in situations where their lives are at risk. A man living in the suburds is much more safe than a Mexican living in the slums.

>Multiple reasons as to why it should be illegal one is with easy access to guns will lead to more gang related shootings this is has been seen in American with its easy gun access laws.

And do you think banning handguns would stop criminals from using them. Take a look at this graph, these are violent crime rates in your country after the 1997 Firearms Amendment Act was implemented. I don't want this happening in my country, Jamal is not going to give up his weapon.

>Also it raises suicide rates, let me explain. Most people who commite suicide and fail never go on to do it again, notice how I said most not all, this tells us that perhaps people who commute suicide do so due to spur of the moment thought like oh I just lost my job I'm gonna kill myself or Cindy just broke up with me so I'm gonna kill myself. But where guns are illegal and it is easier to off yourself this isn't the case this more suicides

People committing suicide is no reason to throw gun owners in jail. Ultimately those people are taking their own lives and while it's a tragedy, should not lead to a restriction in my rights.

Again, when you pass laws like this you will have to use violence to confiscate guns from law abiding people while leaving weapons on the black market for criminals to use. It doesn't make the world a safer place.

Criminals will forever obtain guns illegally and break the law, simply because they're criminals. Criminals have no regard for the law. By limiting access to guns, all you'd do is make it harder for the law abiding citizen to own a firearm. It won't change anything for the gun toting criminals, especially here.

This, see the submaching gun in the pic? It can be made out of pot metal in an automotive machine shop. It just needs to be able to cycle through one or two magazines and boom, you've got a "mass killing" device that can kill 20+ people. Meanwhile when shit goes down, Cletus who used to conceal carry isn't there to protect you because he had to turn in his pistol.

nice serial number i am etching that into my automatic xd rifle as we speak

Jamaica and Ireland's murder rates before and after bans. What does it take to convince you britcucks?

go outside right now and find the nearest muslim. Try eating pork and drinking a beer in front of him. I'm sure you'll be just fine.

I mean if anything does go wrong, the cops will be there shortly to help you, right?

Have you even checked the source on that pic clearly the website is a pro gun and biases site

I think you have been watching too much home alone and live in a world where people are breaking into houses but in reality criminals only Rob houses when the owners are not home due to too much trouble and also that scenario is hypothetical and most shootings happen in lower economically developed areas and unless you live there there is no need to own a gun

Source please

SHALL

Yes I will and I have done this omg what world are you living in!

I own guns because its fun to shoot them.

The only honest answer really.

What part of
>THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
Do you not understand, Muhammad?

the graph lists a governmental source. Are you fucking retarded leftover redditor or are you b8ing me super hard?

>need
There's that word again.
Why do you NEED to deny people their right to own a gun? Compensating for your microdick?

gay

Never reply to me or one of my post again you communist faggot

springfield MA baby!

>I think you have been watching too much home alone and live in a world where people are breaking into houses but in reality criminals only Rob houses when the owners are not home due to too much trouble and also that scenario is hypothetical and most shootings happen in lower economically developed areas and unless you live there there is no need to own a gun

That is a single run-on sentence that you didn't even bother to punctuate. Are you literally retarded?

I disagree with it. Just because some people living in the 1700 said so, with their limited knowledge, doesn't mean we should follow they are out dated

If you can't think of any reasons why anyone would need a gun, you're never going to get it.

? to prevent/stop violent criminal acts against person and property

cross that line, you forgo the right to live; all you have to do is abstain from crossing that line, it's civilization which has to be defended with deadly force

also guns are fun, rewarding, both a good investment and a valued heirloom

They had gatling guns at the time and the second amendment didn't mention it. Why can't I have a fully auto rifle?

Didn't even answer it. I know I didn't punctuate it I'm on my phone and typing fast but don't use that as an excuse to ignore my argument

>Why do you NEED to deny people their right to own a gun? Compensating for your microdick?

Thank you Britfriend, people who need to control other with violence are pathetic.

crimeresearch.org/2013/12/murder-and-homicide-rates-before-and-after-gun-bans/

UK is done with home office stats.

crimeresearch.org/2013/12/murder-and-homicide-rates-before-and-after-gun-bans/

Stop violence well did you know it also provides increases suicides and saying its fun is just pure hedonism and the sign of an understanding developed mind

not arguments because:
- suicides can be done in many ways, guns tend to be pretty final at that whilst the vast majority of suicidal acts are for the express purpose of attention whoring
- whatever they (who?) say holds no more weight than what I have to say; thank god my funs laws aren't as cucked as UK's (excluding norn iron)

>mfw achmed cries about things he is powerless to change on the internet

But that's completely wrong. In the last twenty years we've made it easier to own and carry guns while doubling the number in circulation. Crime is nearing record lows.

What lol no it doesn't

Argue? I'm asking a question and seeking to understand the other sides views my bad if I didn't make that clear enough.

Most people who commit suicide and fail never go on to do it a gain which might indicate that it is a spur of the moment emotional response to a tragic event but with a gun there's not much room for error and for all we know they could of had a change of heart.

You're the OP, it's your task to support this thread, not mine. If you want someone to write a thoughtful and meaningful response then you should post a well thought out and poised question. Instead you post something that would have garnered you a failing grade in a middle school social studies class.

No one is going to surrender their rights because you're a bleeding heart faggot who thinks people's lives don't belong to them.

Because in a state with POC´s you need to go ancap and own a gun.

youtube.com/watch?v=-TC2xTCb_GU
Here's a video that really explains it all.

>people who need to control other with violence are pathetic.
>No reason to use violence, ever
>Gust do whatever they say
>UK was founded on flowers and love
Britcuck, just go

Alright fair enough now answer the question!

Beautiful.

a responsible law-abiding firearms owner is very well aware of the effects of supersonic lead on human tissue; in my cunt we have to undergo a bunch of shit and jump through hoops like good little doggies including medical/psychological eval, cert of no violent convictions, a firearms safety course (1st aid, firearms legislation, knowledge of small arms and munitions, practical test) in order to qualify for a permit and anyone who does that makes damn sure to keep that permit and their precious/expensive collection (like keeping it away from suicidal or emotional mental children)

more people die on the road, playing sports et cetera; can't ban one thing after another just to keep a small fraction of the population """safe""", can they?

keep in mind that illegal or unregistered firearms have always been around (criminals, gypsies, preppers...), cant legislate that away, can they? unless you wish a police state to everyone since you're already living in it

In the words of Hunter S. Thompson, in a democracy you have to be a player. I don't believe in bourgeois democracy, but that's not the point. Interpersonal activity, from the political to economic, is based on mutual recognition of humanity. If someone else can enact their will on you, can coerce you into working against your own will, you are not a human being to them. Both parties realize this. The threat of retaliation is important for both parties in such exchanges, the alternative is barbarism.

Since Brits have no weapons to defend themselves with I say we load for bear and colonize their little island. Once their military was dealt with the Brits would be at our mercy. We could use them for slave labour and sell their wives and daughters into slavery for a tidy profit.

Are you trying to say your are like the founders of great britain; you must be really living in a home alone type movie.

It isn't about the odds that Tyrone will break into your home or Achmed will start shooting at the mall you're in. It is that it is a possibility at all. I demand the ability to defend myself. Period.

If someone comes at me with murderous intent I have .40 S&W waiting for them.

>violence magically stopped being a relevant political force in 1945

IU consider any attempt to disarm me as murderous intent. There is one reason and one reason only to take away a man's ability to defend himself. Period.

I fully understand why a government would need guns like for war and stuff but I'm talking about the common man like you or I why would we need guns?

You seem to really like that movie.

NOT

To defend yourself.

It's not a need it's a right. Google the 2nd amendment.

Gun control = less people committing suicide

Japan has some of the strictest gun laws in the developed world
>Japanese law, however, starts with the 1958 act stating that “No person shall possess a firearm or firearms or a sword or swords,”
theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/07/a-land-without-guns-how-japan-has-virtually-eliminated-shooting-deaths/260189/

and yet Japan has a suicide rate 60% higher than the global average, pretty much same story in South Korea. Taking guns away from people will not have a meaningful impact on the number of suicides.

Though by your logic, shouldn't we ban people from buying rope? I mean, most people have no reason to own a length of rope in this day and age, and having a rope in the home puts them at much greater risk of death by hanging. We should pass a law for stricter rope control.

I've said it before and I'll say it again the chances of a robber comming into your house at night are very low most robbers com during the day when the home owners are out due to there being too much trouble you are living in a home alone movie world if you think criminals are just breaking in your home.

Nah not really just a example I'm using to both make a point and add some humor into the mix.

Even if the chance is 0.000001%, why should I not be allowed to have the most effective tool to defend myself? I don't plan on crashing my car, but I wear my seatbelt anyways.

Read

>Of all the things that Sup Forums belives gun rights has seemed the most weirdest to be. Why on earth would anyone need a gun?!
Because humanity. There will always be good citizens and bad people. And good people should always have means to protect their life in the moment of peril, which is ALWAYS more valuable than the criminal life.

>Have you been watching too much home alone?

No, that's a shitty movie desu

pic related. tools need some skill to be used.

Your odds of a robber breaking into your house are significantly more likely than being randomly murdered by someone wielding a gun.

You're not very good at this.

WTF is the "common man" you silly cuck? Only the royalty deserve to have the means of self defence? What an ackward, fucked up point of view you have.

I feel like they are out dated and need to be improved.

We should ban automobiles as there are countless fatalities every year. We should especially trucks due to their sheer size and ability to plow through crowds, no man should own that kind of power.

It is called American Culture. Imagine having the queen, tea, and soccer illegal.


It is like that but with guns. That and the Battle of Lexington and Concord happened because the brits were going to sieze our cannons and guns. Gun control literally was the spark to lead to the American Revolution.

>home defense
>defense of country
>defending yourself from a tyrannical government

reminder that gloks r shet

You "feel".

Well I feel that when Achmed decides it is time to behead you with his illegal machete I'll laugh when I watch it on th eliveleak video. You fucking sheep deserve what you are getting.

>chances of x are very low
=there are 100 apples, some of which are poisoned; pick one, it's not likely you'll eat the one that kills you

I choose not be the victim in case there is someone trying to violate me or people around me but I do hope there are more of your kind in the world to become easier and voluntary victims, for example to recently arrived muds from africa and asia

Why do you think its ok for a few incompetent morons called government agents to say the rest can't have any gun they want? What are these agents afraid of?

I think the high suicide rates in Japan are due to over working and stress but my point was when guns are introduced and due to it being a done deal if you use that method to off yourself than its final reread what I said.

Well I feel they're fine, and I can vote. Sorry you can't pick another country's laws for them :(

you of all people should know why we have these laws

Why shouldn't people who attempt suicide die?

The gun argument basically just hinges on how tolerant you are of an increased frequency of mass shootings.

The prevalence of firearms has little bearing on the murder rate (only a fraction of which are you mass school shooting style massacre), as that's socio-economic. Or Niggers in Sup Forums parlance.

The prevalence of firearms does increase the suicide rate, but who cares? When people are jumping off a bridge, you build a fence not take away the bridge.

The prevalence of firearms has no impact on the violent crime rate.

The "revolt against tyranny" argument is just a silly fantasy.

Personally as mass shootings are exceedingly rare, I tend to be rather liberal on gun ownership, have one if you want just jump through a few approval hoops first.

>I have a shotgun licence to own a musket

Ok let's use this logic you are more likely to be killed by a toaster than a terrorist lets ban all toasters it may be unlikely but even if there is a 0.000000001% chance you can never be too safe.

And while your at it driving is a huge killer in the world lets ban that too and forget about space travel too risky .

I think it's fine, our founding fathers worded the 2nd amendment in such a way that it's essentially timeless. When the 2nd amendment was made, there were already weapons that were way more destructive than the common musket.

Higher chances of violence since they're more likely to be in life threatening situations than you are.

What part of "the odds don't matter" did you not understand. People in every country die every year in situations that could have been different if they had a gun. It won't be me. I have something for anyone trying to kill me.

The only life threatening situation they'll be in is when they try to take our guns.

The statistics don't back up your fantasies.

Because like I said it could a a spur of the moment decision that if they thought through they would reconsider most failed suicide attempts are never repeated.

You don't get it, do you. Banning things is *very bad*, because it reduces freedom. You should only ban things if they are absolutely no good for anyone ever. Examples of things that are banned and should stay banned: murder, arson, theft. You don't ban things just because someone died once, twice, or even 100,000 times. Freedom > safety.

the point just flew right over your head, the fact there is a possibility justifies the precautions taken. ie (CCW, Pepper Spray, tasers)

Right, but why should that kind of person be encouraged to live? I think making suicide easier would have a eugenic effect on mental health in the long run, since the crazy people would pop themselves off at the first sign of trouble. The people left would tend to be more emotionally resilient.

So are you admitting to being a dangerous gun owners? Wow American will let anyone own a gun!

Post em

the attempt was noted but rehashing it makes it lose its intended effect.

amen to that, brother

Ideally, America is a country full of dangerous gun owners. That's literally how we got started.

>Why on earth would anyone need a gun?!
because guns are an accessible equalizer of force between individuals.
Allowing intellectuals to access the force of a brute, is beneficial to society.

No gun grabber in the history of gun control has ever bothered to look at them. You've made it quite clear in this thread that it's all about your feelings. Reality isn't going to have any bearing on that.

Could you not use the same argument to end the FDA?

Yes.