Gun control

Options/arguments for and against gun control.

Other urls found in this thread:

dailymotion.com/video/x63wlqb
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

SHALL

We need more of it, nobody needs an AR-47 to protect their family.

...

It’s a right garuanteed by the constitution I don’t need an argument. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED isn’t a meme.
The vast majority of gun related homicides in the US are gang-related. Removes gangs and you’ll fix 90% of the problem. Mass shootings account for less than 1% of gun related deaths.

...

We need guns to literally kill traitors/enemies.

Not

It’s actully more like 48 percent from a 2011 report from the FBI, but yes, fixing the gang problem would help with our “firearm problem”

this guy gets it...you don't need something that can shoot 6540 rounds per minute to hunt deer

Here's the only pro that you need:

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

the proletariat need guns if they are to overthrow the bourgoise.

Oh the irony...

Well it depends on how you define infringe. This can vary from banning, all the way to any restrictions at all. I don’t know the exact definition at the time of writing the second amendment, but that would probably clarify.

Depends on how you measure what a mass shooting is. Kills>4, not gang related, not domestic violence brings it to about 1%. No it’s not cherry picking, randy stair and Paddock gunning down random people is a different problem than bloods and crips blasting each other.
One of the main problems is that no one agrees on what the definition of a mass shooting should be. Libs want it to be the broadest definition and conservatives want the narrowest.

I'm lazy and wish there were a pastebin of these responses.

Bill of Rights not Bill of Needs, faggot.

80% are drug related nigger, because the government shouldn't tell me what I can put in my body

This is implying the the “bourgoise” needs to be overthrown. They arent doing much to harm you.

>THE RIGHT OF OLD WHITE DUDES TO BRUTALLY KILL 59 PEOPLE AND INJURE 400 WITH A MILITARY GRADE MACHINE RIFLE SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

Kill yourself

NOT

...

I’ve seen that being thrown around a lot and I never get a source, could you link one for future debate?

Oh you meant the gang thing, my bad.

Oh man those are some digits but that's some bai.

The bourgeoisie literally take the surplus value of my labor from me and if I try to take it back they use state violence on me. So yes, they are harming me in the worst way possible

Pretty sure killing 59 is not a right and is not guaranteed under any amendment.

Also
> Not an argument

Bro we beat your country hundreds of years ago, fuck off.

Also, standing on the graves of dead people is not the best way to push your shitty political agenda.

Sadly it's impossible to do what Australia did, american is too deep in.

Guns clearly make killling people easier. A snap decision, a break down, mental health issues - You can't stop those, but you can help reduce the damage inflicted.

Something to stop supply needs to be done. It's only getting worse.

>hehe im so smart I can use the word irony

Marx was against gun control, there is no irony in that. Stalin, Mao etc misappropriated his words and disarmed the proletariat

>using the modern definition of a word for interpreting the constitution
Stop.
I know this might come as a surprise ahmed but not everyone wants to live in a police state like you limey brits.

If the population it's not properly armed, what is going to deter the government from taking our other rights? If the population is defenseless it can't defend their interests if the government ever goes tyrannical.

And how about the police? Their reaction response is too slow to be really effective in home invasions. When seconds matter, the police is minutes away, so it's fair that you have the means to hold your ground and defend your own well being and your property

It's also important to note that guns level the field in a combat situation. How is going a elder lady fight against a younger criminal with more energy and strength? A gun is necessary for the crippled, sick, old and incapacitated people to defend themselves and secure that their right to self defense can be applicated.

How is going the government to hoard the almost 300 millions guns that exists in USA from both the criminals and law abiding citizens? And if they can't find all the illegal inmmigrants, how are they going to find guns if they are easier to hide and conceal?

It's an inalienable right to be able to defend yourself and is in your rights to be able to get the best tools of self defense to be able to fight back against any possible menace. Only a tyrannical government hates the tools that can stop it, only people that hate freedom don't want the people to be armed and able to defend their liberty.

Gun control only affects law abiding citizens, criminals will keep getting their weaponry from the black market and other illegal sources, while the population it's unable to arm itself, thus, giving to the criminals a bigger edge against the citizens in case of a violent and armed crime

or you can just drive a truck into a crowded street

Enjoy, chart from CDC data.

When do you want to discuss gun control? When its swept under the rug? Every time there's a disaster, people discuss how it can be prevented. London apartment building fire? Fire safety investigated

> PART AND PARCEL

Allow them. The ones who are actually dangerous (like school shooters or terrorists) will get those guys anyways, normal people should be able to protect themselves somehow aswell.
For example would you rob or rape someone on the street who obviously carries a gun compared to someone who is unarmed? I doubt it.

Okay. Well please tell us what "shall not be infringed" meant in 1776. Because I guarantee it didn't mean "able to be restricted" I can promise you that.

...

Your labor has no inherent surplus value. You could spend all day flipping hamburgers in your backyard and generate no wealth for anyone. It's the framework provided by the restaurant chain you work at that creates the surplus value of your labor.

Change specifics as necessary to accommodate your personal job, although I'm pretty sure I nailed it for you on the first try.

There’s a difference between using dead people as leverage for your political ideology and talking about the tragedy in a political way right after it happened.

For example, “Don’t you want to enforce more gun control laws that would have stopped someone from killing a bunch of kids in sandy hook? Do you want to not be a monster?”

When the 2nd Amendment was written in 1789, the US was almost entirely rural and guns could only fire 1 bullet a minute. Today a gun can fire 600 bullets a minute. The 2nd amendment protects muskets, but not AK-15s.

You’re retarded and have no understanding of your own country if you think taking away guns magically solved your problems. Crime in Australia was already in decline when the ban was instituted.

I don't want to be like Australia.

It's a right, not a need. All the government is doing is trying to chip away at what freedom Americans have left.

Banning certain firearms or making them really hard to obtain legally will just effect law abiding citizens. Criminals will obtain them illegally, especially if they are trying to plan something big like a mass shooting. They don't give a fuck about breaking a gun law if they are planning on committing murder! ROFL!

Fuck off, I like guns

I think he was being sarcastic.

Only law biding Citizens should be allow to own any firearm the Government has.

Also, should (wrongly) convicted felons should be allow to own guns in the USA? The point of a sentence is to do your time. Once you're out you should have your rights returned, or else you didn't truly serve your time.

Absolutely untrue.

> What is the Kentucky Long Rifle?
> What is the Girandoni Air Rifle?
> What is a fucking cannon?

It depends on the crime imo, if it was for say, murder then no.

False, early semi-automatic weapons were in small use when that document was penned. In 1804 Lewis and Clark would take them on their expedition.
The founding fathers weren’t idiots, they knew weaponry would advance and evolve. Further more the people need to be able to fight tyranny and that can only be achieved by having similar weaponry to the military.

for the price of a dozen or so AR-15s or high quality pistols, I can buy the machines used to make these guns, and some steel.
It would all fit in a garage.
Fancy guns may have special finishes and slightly better alloys, etc., but good, functional guns that can fire 1000's of rounds with decent precision can be made relatively easily by anyone with motivation and an income stream, cash, or credit cards.
Oh, and there are already about 1.5 guns per person in the United States.
Australia, YEARS after banning guns, just collected 50,000 more guns from those willing to give them up.
But how many are unwilling.
I've met Australians. They're not all pussies.
Banning guns to reduce crime is utterly futile.
Banning guns is a joke - on those who surrender their guns!

Also, a big amount of mass shootings happens in two kind of areas, neighborhoods controlled by gangs and gun free zones, the Las Vegas shooter was in a gun free zone and other mainstream shootings happened in schools, which are also gun free zones. The shootings that matter and goes to the statistics come from gang related crimes of black and Hispanic population in the USA.

Also, like it was noted in image with the tank pepe, the biggest reason of gun deaths are suicides and only 4 cities hold the 25 of gun crime, if you take away he guns then people will find other ways to kill themselves.

How come minorities think that guns just for white people?

>THE RIGHT TO A MILITARY GRADE MACHINE RIFLE SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
I fixed it for ya.

Can this board not understand the concept of sarcasm?

Canons are not protected by the second Amendment.

Oh my fucking god! We should ban trucks!!

>1804

>1789

Which year came first?

What should be the rational limit for firearm ownership? Should citizenry be allowed to own automatic weaponry? What about machine guns? what about autocannon turrets? Where should the line be drawn in your opinion?

Pretty hard to convey tone through text friend. Plus there are plenty of people who legitimately believe that

AKCHUALLY A ship asked to have cannons on their ship after the constitution was signed, and was allowed to, because it was part of the purpose of the amendment.

The state must assume its citizens are responsible for their own safety and that of others, until they demonstrate otherwise.

Any object can be used as a deadly instrument in creative hands. Guns are just easy demonize because they make a loud noise and are efficient for what criminals use them to accomplish.

I consider them a symbol of mercy; not aggression, murder, or death.

mfw they are building racist AI robot cops

No and they typically aren't. There are only minute exceptions to the rule.

>It depends on the crime imo

How how about white collar crimes?

So are states that don't allow me to buy cannons in violation of the 2nd amendment?

Yes they are, the 2nd amendment was supposed to make the population have the same weaponry as the army so it was able defend itself. "The right of the population to bear arms", a cannon is an arm, therefore it's accepted in the 2nd amendment. Read your constitution, illiterate faggot.

The rifle was designed is 1779 you massive fucking faggot.
It gained fame thanks to Lewis and Clark, in other words this shit was widely known just a few years later.

Sup Forums is 99 percent right wing, and only leftists who know absolutely nothing about anything use terms like “AK-15”.

Private merchant ships owned and used cannons as early as 1791. Cannons were most definitely protected by 2nd amendment at the time it was written.

No, every state is allow to amend the laws anyway they seem fit granted they do not do so drastically.

And the First protects the flatbed press, not radio, TV, internet etc.

KYS Faggot

So than whats the problem with banning assault rifles?

> Hurrrr Durr I was only pretending to be retarded.
Kys.

If it is backed by violent history or intent of harm, no firearms, although all this stuff can very from situation to situation.

Define assault rifle.

Does anybody have the actual source of the statistics listed in this?

dailymotion.com/video/x63wlqb

Pretty much.

There is literally no rational argument for gun control.

You are literally retarded.

It's a drastic change to the law that can't be proved by a shadow of a doubt to improve anything. It was more or less done during Clinton and did absolutely nothing. The problem is "assault" is too loose of a general term. Now you have to define it in legal terms. Clinton tried, it didn't change anything.

Lol how.

Fully automatic rifles are already banned. Also, assault weapons isn't really a thing.

It takes away your ability to deter the government from going against the citizen rights. If you have an assault rifle, the government will be cautious about sending their people to confiscate your things or violate your liberties.
And also makes you more vulnerable to criminals, but of course someone sheltered like you doesn't understand that.

OP posted the sources later in that thread, sadly I didn't managed to save them, just look around in the criminal statistics sites like the ones from the FBI and such, you may find something.

They aren’t banned, but restricted up the asshole.

But that's different, communication is communication. Someone talking to you on the phone is still just talking to you, and for the record those things are monitored. Guns are different because guns are tools that can kill people. And before you gone on about how ideas can kill people to, just know that the founding fathers owned slaves, smelled bad and actually weren't that smart.

Why are you strongly against someone who is convicted of murder? (first offense)

Isn't the point of prison to rehabilitate inmates into society?

No they are banned. All production and imports of machine guns (is the term you're looking for) is totally banned. Only productive and grandfathered cases are allowed.

If you start having gun control you'll be one step closer to us leafs.

you need to be a licensed dealer to get them. they are effectively banned as far as the average person is concerned.

>when your argument against the second amendment is that the founding fathers smelled bad

>Someone talking to you on the phone is still just talking to you

>Someone shooting, you with a pistol is still just shooting you

Can anyone give me a actual reason as to why you won't close the loopholes in obtaining guns?

Or why things like bump stocks should be legal?

No the point of prison is to generate money and cheap labor, we just claim otherwise.

They're not explicitly banned but for the average consumer, they're not really obtainable.

There is no gun show loophole, it's a fucking meme.

That image makes your argument invalid.

Because most of those loopholes don’t exist. I bought a Hi-Point carbine at a gun show and they checked to see if I had a criminal record on the spot.
The other type of loop hole is just one private owner selling to another which is incredibly hard to regulate without a gun registry and regular checks to see if it is up to date. Which no one in their right mind would agree to.