I'm trying to redpill my English teacher on firearms. He's not stupid, but he's very much drunk the kool-aid on guns.
"Why would anyone need to own a military-style firearm?" "Why not?" "Why would you?" "What's the harm? Vast majority of crimes are committed with handguns, the majority of those committed with revolvers so they don't have to police their brass." "That may be, but why do you NEED it?"
Pic related is what I've got so far for my counter-argument. Any points you could add would be great.
Thanks, bud. I'll be sure to keep it in mind if he brings that up.
Aiden Flores
You write like a bag of ass. >average rounds fired in defense is 8.
are you even white?
Blake Morales
>You write like a bag of ass Good one.
>are you even white I guess.
Jason Turner
Tell this innuerate red that we live in the most industrialized country in the world. if moms demand some action got their wish and all the guns would magically dissapear.
how long do you think it would take people to make new ones? A week, maybe too.
gun control is an insult to the intelligence of real Americans.
another thing. to consolidate power stalin had kirov murdered in 1934. commie party members were issued sidearms. in 1934 they took them all away. by 1939 hardly any old bolshevik was left alive.
Cooper Brooks
Tell him guns are needed because blacks need to protect themselves from cops. Or, to be more subtle, say POCs don't have the privilege of proper police protection that whites enjoy.
Joseph Diaz
>Why would anyone need... Bill of Rights, not Bill of Needs. Your dumbass teacher's question is faulty on the face of it.
Michael Rogers
Reminds me of that PDW truckers are buying in Europe, some shadow company shit. I think it was called the R9.
To him, "rights" aren't really "rights." He questions the "need" because he thinks freedom is negotiable or a slider, that you can be "sort of free" when in reality it's a great many binaries and the many ways in which someone can be fucking it up.
Thomas Howard
wtf is a military style firearm?
Hunter Sanchez
He didn't say, so I assume it's "black rifles with spooky aesthetics."
Jackson Gray
>To him rights aren't really rights Teacher needs to get his head out of his ass. Until he can comprehend the basics of what rights are then there is no hope for bringing him around. His entire argument is equating rights and needs which is idiotic in every measurable way. For all practical purposes I need money to survive but I don't have a right to it.
Before you try to convince him about our right to bear arms you need to bring him up to speed on what rights actually are or else you will make no progress.
Luis Thompson
Then it's up to him to define what makes a spooky rifle more deadly than a non-spooky rifle.
Jacob Adams
In my opinion desu senpai, when you're in a fight for your life (and you can never determine in situ whether an attacker is trying to kill you or not, so you always must assume your life is in danger and fight like it) you NEED the most effective tool (i.e. weapon) available. Guns are a very effective tool, so you do need it in that sense; and the things like semi-automatic function and lots of rounds and quick changeable magazines make it more effective, so you do need those as well. The need is validated by the severity of the situation--the point is to survive, and so you need the best thing to accomplish that goal.
It's the definition of "need" that these people try to dupe you with, they are asking a loaded question. They say it like they're asking "is it biologically necessary to possess that"--in that case no, but no one's arguing that it's THAT kind of need. Additionally, their implied definition of need seems to have a sense of immediacy--that is, they ask "do you need it right now". Technically no, but then again a gun is like seatbelts or health insurance--you don't strictly need either of those when you're not colliding with another car or being sick respectively, but those are things you have to PREVENT or RESPOND to situations. And in those situations, it IS a literal immediate survival NEED.
In an greater sense, you don't "need to need" a gun, in order to justifiably possess it--you are by nature an independent human and do not have to answer to other people for actions that do not directly involve them. If they are pearl-clutching self-important numbskulls who object to your survival instinct as part of your natural function, then that is THEIR problem, not yours. This is just my opinion, but hopefully it gets the noggin joggin.
Zachary Cox
Honestly I don't think he has any criteria, he just scoffs at the idea of owning them.
Yeah, man. That's a quality post, rings true.
Connor Robinson
Current version.
Blake Thomas
But a fighter jet can remove all your doors at any hour of the day
Carson Thomas
glad to help, I waste way too much of my productive time autistically debating SJW and gun-control arguments in my mind, until my autism decides it's sufficiently refuted all points. hopefully someone can get some use out of it lol.
Evan Fisher
No, I appreciate it man. This actually sparked because I'm writing a report on the validity of constitutional carry, advocating for research on the matter and for appropriate action to be taken upon finding the result.
Jaxson Reed
Here's the yuropeen mystery PDW I mentioned, by the way.
They're all from the same source, but I think that's because no mainstream places want to report on it, and this site collects the most stories I've found on the topic.
Nolan Hernandez
Nice, that's awesome. Stuff like that is really interesting.
Pic related is a new segment. During the conference earlier, he'd said that Trump had overturned a bill which will allow "severely mentally ill people to buy guns"
Fantastic, haha.
Justin Russell
BUT WHY DO YOU "NEED" A BASEBALL BAT? TO PLAY BASEBALL? YOU DON'T NEED TO PLAY BASEBALL DIPSHIT. ALL YOU NEED IS A SHIT BUCKET AND AN OZ OF BREAD. NOW SIT IN YOUR CELL AND SHUT THE FUCK UP.
Nicholas Morgan
Funny thing is, just the other day I was on here talking about a "federal licensing system" which included mental health evaluations and got schooled on the inevitability of it being abused. The teacher's bluepilling is redpilling me harder.
Landon Collins
Ask him what a "military-style firearm" is. Most no-gunz have no clue what they're talking about. In 1986, a bill called the firearm owner's protection act was passed, and at the last minute, an amendment was made to it that made it illegal for non-LEOs and non-gov employees to own a full auto that was manufactured after 1986. A legal full auto can cost tens of thousands of dollars because of this.
You can also tell him that I drew three hunts this year, deer, oryx and elk, and I will be using an AR-10 for all three hunts.
You can also point out that the security of a FREE state can be threatened by the government, and thus, the people ought to have the physical ability to remove it via force.
>Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun. ~Chairman Mao
>Power to the people. ~Me
You want an armed populace, user.
David Torres
Mmhmm, I'm reminded of a revolution in some town, I think in Texas, in which civilians engaged police which were holed up with corrupt politicians inside of the police station trying to rig an election by "counting" secretly. The people won.
The Battle of Athens (sometimes called the McMinn County War) was a rebellion led by citizens in Athens and Etowah, Tennessee, United States, against the local government in August 1946. The citizens, including some World War II veterans, accused the local officials of predatory policing, police brutality, political corruption and voter intimidation. The event is sometimes cited by firearms ownership advocates as an example of the value of the Second Amendment in combating tyranny.
Aiden Perez
Athens Tennessee.
>Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who don't.
An armed populace is a free populace.
Ask your prof where most of the homicides occur in the us, since people are ostensibly duped into gun control because they're scared of homicides.
Jackson Harris
I tried that, and he kept saying "yeah but is that the only factor? I can show lots of studies about there being less lead in the environment."
I kept trying to bring it back to guns, saying that if guns were truly the cause of violence then the massive proliferation recently of firearms, permitted carries, and states adopting constitutional carry would've seen increases in violent crime when in reality it dipped severely every time. I kept trying to say that the dips in crime, if lead were to be the cause, would've happened when the lead decreased and not just when the policy changed but he kept bringing it up like he got me good.
William Green
Just explain to him that the vast majority of gun crime is committed with illegal guns. While some mass shootings, though certainly not all are committed with lawfully purchased firearms, they are tragic anecdotes in a larger story of gun violence in this country. The guy who walks into a public store, talks to people, pays with check or cash or credit, and submits to a federal and state background check usually isn't the guy you have to watch out for.
Also, take the "mechanical" route of argument. Simply, again, tell the truth that an AR-15 is mechanically no different than many other magazine fed semi-automatic firearms on the market and that "military-style" is nothing more than an aesthetic choice that usually has no bearing on the mechanical operation of the firearm. If he wants to debate magazine capacity, that's fine. But the pistol grip, collapsible stock, etc...isn't relevant to the firearm itself.
You're going down a good road of mentioning the vast majority of gun crime is committed with handguns, btw. Just remember how the facts are on our side.
Samuel Barnes
>illegal guns used Tried that, he wasn't impressed. He conceded the point, but it didn't matter to him.
>mechanical aspect Did that, too. Mentioned my Mini-14 and its flash hider; 5, 20, 30, 50 round magazines; M14 sights; and the fact that it's a derivative of the M14 both of which have been used by military and police for many years and yet it's the very definition of a "ranch rifle" to the point where it's literally in its name. Despite this it fires the same round out of the same length barrel. His response to this was "then why do you need the AR15?" to which I countered "What is gained by the restriction? The issue is arbitrary reduction of freedom. It solves no real issue except to take something away for the sake of doing so" and then he talked about lead more.
Austin Hernandez
Thanks, btw.
Here's the current situation with the email. I think it's about as strong as it's gonna get.
Lucas Jackson
doing god's work bro
Levi King
Thanks, bud.
Jaxson Wood
Point out that gun sales have shot up.
Brody White
I did, but that's an important factor of the report I'm writing for constitutional carry. Thank you.
Jace Lopez
And homicide rates have gone down.
Implying that guns don't cause homicide.
Parker Gutierrez
Man, it's almost too easy. >Reply: Why do you NEED a house? Houses should be banned.
I thought you said your teacher was smart.
Brandon King
Can the statistics, this dude's an English teacher.
Your argument is in favor of self-control and personal responsibility. He's preaching the gospel of what Foucault would have referred to as "disciplinary society" wherein external pressures (like governmental ones) are used to police the behavior of individuals (who, in this judgment, are infantilized or like animals,incapable of self-control).
There is a trajectory to this style of thinking, and the endgame is totalitarian state control of individual behavior and (ultimately) thought (especially now, as the social is becoming increasingly virtualized). Your teacher needs to understand that this is what he's implicitly advocating for. Foucault certainly never would have wanted it.
Also, stop writing in the first person
Anthony Watson
Next stop owning nukes... Why not? >Implies cucking everyone at once...
Lincoln Johnson
Yeah. Some people just can't be convinced. Remember in these debates to always take the high road. You gain the moral high ground by being, or at least pretending to be, more reasonable than your opponent. I think you've got your basis covered.
There's an often quoted statistic of more than 90% of the public supporting a background check. This is an impressive statistic. You can't get 90% of people to agree on pizza toppings. Show him that 93% of guns used in crimes are obtained illegally. This statistic should be equally impressive to him. Demonstrate that you want to be proactive in public policy making and that you'd like to start with the 93% of gun crime committed with illegal guns and then worry about the additional 7%.
Cameron Hughes
Put this in.
----------
Simply put, if I say that the Mini-14, itself the ubiquitous "ranch rifle (so much that the model I own is literally branded so)" accomplishes the same task mechanically as the "scary black rifle" the AR15 which somehow is a "military style assault weapon" whereas the Mini-14 is not (despite both having the capability of using pistol grips, flash hiders, detachable box magazines, collapsible stocks, suppressors, the exact same ammunition, on and on and on in addition to both being used by civilians, police, military, and special forces units with the Mini-14 itself being a derivative of the M14 which needs no further explanation beyond the fact that it is literally a "battle rifle") and they ask "then why have the AR15?" then my response is "why take it away?" It is the arbitrary reduction of freedom for the sake of doing so, taking it away because they simply feel that we shouldn't have it because they don't like it and ignoring all real-world data especially violent crime which they claim as the cornerstone of their policies, that is the epitome of nonsensical and is why advocates of such policies are frequently referred to as "gun grabbers" and not "violence reducers." They have no idea whatsoever they are talking about, relying on the complacency and reliance of their listeners on feelings in order to pass their legislation.
---------
Regarding stopping writing in first person, it's personal correspondence pertaining to a conversation we'd had earlier. Is it not appropriate even then? When is it ever?
Bentley Jones
btw this is OP saying that I have put that in, not someone telling OP (me) to do so.
Thanks man.
Adrian Cook
You'll not get anywhere with this if you just smack him with it, but demographics is the number one predictor of homicide and violent crime on a state by state basis. He'll say "but muh poverty!" if you bring it up, and poverty can be considered a demographic factor, but you can include only race/ethnicity and predict violent crime and homicide rates just as well as you can when you include poverty. Throwing in gun ownership rates does fuckall as well.
It is important to understand this when arguing about gun control. It ain't the guns, it's the culture, and the US has multiple cultures within its borders.
Samuel Howard
The correlation between %black and homicide by state for 2014 was something like .789. You actually have to throw whites into the picture to get bigger, because inner city black gangs are so fucking murderous, white non-Hispinacs have such a lower homicide rate that the correlation between whites and homicide is a weak, but real NEGATIVE .41 for 2014.
Matthew Ward
Finally, user, if you own an AR or an AK, offer to take him out shooting. Really, this does wonders.
Juan Perez
Something I often consider, is that it's unrealistic to only consider the abuse of a technology, and guns are a technology. If gun-control advocates only consider times when guns are used badly, then of course it would seem like that's all they can do. But this assumption is mistaken for a few reasons: 1) not all firearms are inevitably used badly, nor are they incapable of being used for good purposes. 2) when a firearm is abused, it is only the fault of the user. It makes no sense in principle to "blame" and "punish" a technology for being used badly, because if you removed the guns then there would still be bad people. It's the bad people, armed or otherwise, that are the problem, and if you remove firearms from general use, then the net result is that you've removed a means (moreover, the most effective means) for individual citizens to "solve" the problem of bad people (including and especially organizations) trying to harm them in any way, via firearm or otherwise.
Joshua Carter
continued: 3) this may sound like a kinda silly point, but it's not the fault of firearms that people die; it's peoples' mortal condition. Firearms, if you see them as a technology, are there to help you defend your life against various types of antagonists. Technologies in general, including firearms, will never go away in principle because they are permitted by the laws of physics, the laws of nature--and no artificial law can veto or overwrite natural law. Thus, you cannot truly outlaw firearms. So you are left with the choice to use the technologies available to you to maintain and secure your survival; this is a kind of universal common theme in human behavior, that is, using tools to survive and thrive. So, firearms are there whether you (kind of speaking to gun-grabber) like it or not, and if you choose not to use this technology--if you are too reluctant or mentally feeble to take whatever action reasonably effective to secure your life--then you are bound to die, sooner or later, by firearm or not. Because you are fundamentally weak, and natural selection hates weakness.
Oliver Allen
>I guess Nigger detected
Christian Brown
My tone got rather harsh in this segment. What do you guys think?
Isaiah Murphy
...
Joshua Smith
That last bit, the "more regulations != more freedom" bit, that's something I had drilled into me a couple days ago on this board and /k/. I was trying to come up with a system to allow sidestepping individual states' bullshit legislation. Mostly it was guys yelling SHALL NOT and GO BACK TO EUROPE but there were a few guys that showed me the error of my ways and set me on a good path.
Isaac King
>I'm trying to redpill my English teacher on firearms
Wew
Ian Wood
nobody's gonna read that shit bud.
Evan Robinson
Never know, man. He does his research, it's just that when something conforms to his worldview that's where his research ends. He doesn't question stuff enough, thinks he already has it all figured out and that the truth would of course support this.
I'm confident that he's "one of the good ones." He at least has the balls to stand by what he says and engages in honest debate openly. If I thought he was a dipshit, I wouldn't even bother.
I don't blame you for deciding not to. It's something like 9000 characters so far, no tired-ass meme intended, but I'm lucky enough that a few people have so far and they were great helps.
Honestly, any time I need help getting to the bottom of something, this is the place to go to. Yeah, half of the reply posts are like "IT'S THE JEWISH NIGGER ILLUMINATI" or whatever, but still.
Lucas Morris
Use the liberal tactic:
Under the emperor, Germany had a single law restricting weapons: You may not use "trick-weapons" that hide their function, like switchblades or a sword cane, as they would only be useful for criminals.
When Hitler came to power he made a single restriction: No weapons for jews. Had the jews not complied and actually armed themselves, the Holocaust might have not only been prevented, but WW2 as well.
BTW it makes little difference what weapons are allowed to a populace regarding crime. If the populace is highly criminal, they will continue to commit crime with whatever they have at hand. Similarily handing weapons to a law abiding populace does not increase crime.
For example: After WW2 the new german government restricted most firearms from civilian posession, with support of the police. After a year the police concluded that the new gun law had absolutely no effect on crime and it should be revoked, which the government never did. Today germany has more guns, yet less crime than britain, which restricts even cutlery.
Safest way to brutally kill a person in todays world? Pick up a decent sized rock and walk up behind your victim while it is walking alone. After the first hit to the head your victim will be incapacitated and a few more strikes will end its life. The rock can't be traced, makes no loud sound and is literally dirt cheap (no money trail, no trader to rat you out). I hope I don't need to remind you that this is even below caveman technology (they had spears).
Christopher Harris
All-inclusive, the total character count of the email is 19,983
Ayden Collins
I'll need to find statistics on that to prove it to him, but the email I think is becoming overly long. Already it's now the length of a report.
Angel Davis
Lol just put it into word. Without works cited or title page, if I were to double space it it would be 12 pages.
Cooper Nelson
woah good work, that's more than I write in like a year at my college lol >t. physicist
Nolan Rodriguez
thanks, haha. It's the first time I've ever used the word "lambaste" as well. I forgot I knew that word until I was proofreading it and saw that I'd typed it.
James Carter
>Need
You don't require a justification for needing to exercise of your first amendment rights, why should you have to justify your need to exercise the second?
In a free society we have to place responsibility for bad actions on the people that commit them and not bargain away our freedoms trying to prevent all evil because that's a hole with no bottom.
Owen Gutierrez
Why should you outlaw everything you don't "need" then?
Blake Parker
I feel like Bush is watching us from somewhere. Smiling.
"Heh."
He's not dead, he's just the kind of guy that would do that.
Hunter Martin
The primary purpose of the Second Amendment is to enable the common American to fight against state soldiers. Pretty fucking simple: >A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State
Sebastian Jackson
Since when do you need to justify your need to own something. It should be the other way around. In canuckistan people just accept that the government decides what you can own, eat, do etc. It's not freedumb.
Nathan Powell
government is given its power by consent of the people how do the people take their power back when they no longer consent?
see venezuela now.
Hudson Bell
Defend against AntiFa and blacks.
Andrew Thompson
Ask him if he really NEEDS any of this consumerist lifestyle, and why he won't go innawoods like proenneke.
Jeremiah Perez
A Canadian I used to work with thought that owning a gun makes you a dangerous liability and that firearms should be heavily regulated.
I tried to discuss it with him, but he kept proclaiming his moral highground (so he thought at least) and saying that "we can just agree to disagree," so after a couple of times of that I basically never spoke to him again.
The second Canadian I worked with is a bro for life.
I, uh- I can't put that in.
He would probably say "my consumerist lifestyle doesn't cause _____"
Mason Taylor
I'm sorry mate; not to sound like a meme, but not all Canadians are gun-grabbers I'm a fan of guns myself, and our gun laws are pretty good when compared to many European nations
Grayson Martinez
Yeah, I saw you guys can get some stuff we can't. I think you can get Norinco stuff for example, and some Russian stuff we can't as well. Pretty cool. I may remember incorrectly, though. I remember seeing a video of a Canadian on a snowmobile getting charged by a moose and the guy laid into the moose with a glock.
OP I'm not gonna read that unnecessary wall of text.
Just tell her it's the bill of rights not bill of needs
Wyatt Lopez
It's a male actually. Funny that you assumed it was a female, usually people assume an unknown person is the same gender as themselves in their head and we all know there's no women here.
Ethan Thompson
>He would probably say "my consumerist lifestyle doesn't cause _____" Then tell him to get culturally enriched in Detroit if he doesn't like freedom.
Angel Moore
this is exactly the reason throughout history every massive government atrocity has been preceeded by the seizing of citizen weaponry. Gun-grabbers want to trade freedom for security, but they don't realize they're making a poisoned trade that ultimately /always/ ends up with them slaving to death in a gulag
school shootings are worth it
Tyler Wilson
my wife lived in long beach at the time of the 92 riots. I personally saw people defending themselves and their properties from rooftops.
Tell me again why we should not have capable weapons (military grade if necessary) to protect ourselves?
Thomas Wood
Blacks/Democrats commit the majority of violent crime. You need guns to defend yourself from them and you need full retard niggerkillers with high-capacity clipazines in case you need to defensively spray hundreds of bullets into a flash mob of working-class Democrats at the mall.
Owning a gun makes me happy Isn't it what life is about?
Use their retarded logic against them.
Grayson Nelson
here's an argument that should appeal to lefties
Guns create equality.
They are the great equalizer. They ameliorate the difference in physical power that is naturally distributed among humans. With a gun in his/her hand and a couple months of training, any gunowner has a fair shot at taking down any would-be attacker, regardless of the arms that the attacker might bring to bear.
Angel Williams
Turn it around. Why do you need gay sex? Isn't it pointless? Why do you need tyrannies going into whatever bathroom? Can't they just pee in single booths? Why do you need abortion? Can't you use birth control?
Michael Harris
why do people need expensive sports cars with 500 hp ?
why do people need expensive houses that cost $3million ?
why do people need $10 starfuck coffee ?
who do people need to pay $300 for fancy restaurant food ?
all these examples are freedom of choice
otherwise good luck with that fuckwit prof
Camden Phillips
I finally finished. It ended up 7.5 pages long single-spaced 11-point font, 22,732 characters. It's pretty fucking thorough.
Gavin Richardson
Woman here--a newb though.
Gavin Butler
Woman here--a newb though.
Matthew Moore
Using "newb" instead of "noob" is a good start. Haven't seen that in a while.
Benjamin White
Now that I've sent my autistic wall of text, I have become nervous about its receipt.
