It is plainly obvious to me that gun control cannot work in America, especially after the Texas shooting...

It is plainly obvious to me that gun control cannot work in America, especially after the Texas shooting. There are too many guns currently in circulation to have any effect. The only thing that firearm regulations will do is open up a black market.

The real question is, since gun control is unfeasible, how do we prevent gun violence in America? Trump has said that the Texas shooting was a mental health issue, and not a gun control issue. Does this mean we need to make larger strides in making America's mental health system more capable of handling crazies? Or do we need to start arming schoolteachers and pastors?

Other urls found in this thread:

independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?a=803
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Shoot back.

It was a direct effect of military service and social media.

enforcer mandatory carry laws and make gun safety a state requirement in our shit public schools.

>if we increase gun violence, that will decrease gun violence
Lolwut

Is the method of homicide more important than the homicide itself? I don't believe so, so lets break down the numbers that actually matter and put this to bed one way or the other.
Pic related is the research I've just done into the homicide rates based upon population size and total number of murders. I included at the bottom the USA with only whites and the murders committed by whites.
All of this is for 2016 and is based upon 2016 statistics, which can be found via Google and the FBI crime statistics

As you can see, the USA doesn't have a homicide problem per se, it has a nigger problem. If we remove the minorities from the USA, then all of a sudden we have a proportionally equivalent, and in some cases LOWER murder rate than those of countries with strict/comprehensive gun control
Check mate you gun grabbing autistic retards.

>if we all have guns, nobody will get shot
I will never understand this logic. Let's just make everything the wild west, that will fix everything!

You're a fucking idiot.

>As you can see, the USA doesn't have a homicide problem per se, it has a nigger problem. If we remove the minorities from the USA
Stopped reading here. How do you suggest we "remove minorities"?

>you're going to pull a gun on someone you know has a gun
defend your stance.

>The real question is, since gun control is unfeasible, how do we prevent gun violence in America?

Remove the uncivilized americans then reopen it to new European settlers. Finally right a wrong.

Genocide, expulsion, or secession. Expulsion is preferred, but secession is most likely.

>somebody shoots, you shoot back, then another man shoots him, then he gets shot by someone else
>ad infinitum

That's not how it works you fucking retard. You shoot first you die.

That has literally never happened you mentally ill cunt.

We really need to start institutionalizing you chimps.

Did the wild west have less crime? Everyone had guns then, it must have been a perfectly peaceful society.

>uncivilized Americans
Meaning... who exactly?

>Everyone had guns then
defend your claims.

Yes, actually.

Most of the violence supposedly endemic to the "Wild West" is more myth and legend than anything else. You had killings, sure. But everyday wasn't a "showdown at high noon".

>You shoot first you die.
If you shoot first I'm pretty sure the other guy dies. And he's not shooting back with a bullet in his brain.
Almost all mass shooters are killed by the police anyway, they aren't really concerned for their lives.

Gun control and mental health are the left/right politicized scapegoats because your society isn't ready for a politician who will admit the culture is what's causing it.

>secession
So basically whites will recede into the Midwest, and expel the small number of minorities living there?

So basically your plan is to abandon every single economic center in favor of an agrarian wasteland? And this is your favored plan? This sounds like an awful idea.

(You)

>you shoot first you die
No, you shoot first you kill first. Do you not know how guns work?

This happened in Texas just a few days ago you faggot. The shooter was killed by an armed citizen, but only after 27 people died.

>this idea that I came up with based upon what you said sounds horrible!!
My plan is Liberia 2.0, electric jewgaloo. The optimal solution is total expulsion, which is a lot more possible than you think considering the vast success the Nazis saw in expelling jews from Germany prior to WWII. We are also seeing expulsion work en masse against illegals. Imagine how much easier it would be to just kick out niggers, who can't even hide behind forged documentation like spics can.
However, if expulsion doesn't work, then we can delegate to them a portion of land proportional to their population size and expel them to there, similar to a reservation. This would be much cheaper than expelling them to Africa or a receptive other country (who would be receptive to a bunch of violent apes?)

Maybe user has a habit of looking down the barrel to make sure it's clear an unobstructed.

That doesn't resemble what you said in the slightest you half-witted chimp.

>the entire wild west was a myth
>nobody killed each other over food
>cannibals didn't exist
>there weren't copious amounts of serial killers and mass shooters
Ok lad.

This
In the Wild West, other people were the least of threats to your survival. People had to be nice each other and team up against their enviornment

Doesn't this violate the NAP though???

Nation wide open carry, we live in a dangerous world, arm yourself and protect yourself. Not too fond of the government determining who is and who is not mentally ill, you see how bat shit insane it's getting with all the anti-white garbage, they'll probably say it's mental illness to be slightly right wing on any issue.

There wasn't dipshit. Link evidence right now. The violent portrayal of the wild west is greatly exaggerated.


independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?a=803

Anywhere in the wild west was much safer than modern Chicago ir Baltimore.

>who would be receptive to a bunch of violent apes
Sweden

>I want to expel all niggers and spics
I find it ironic how an ancap supports huge government expulsion programs. Shouldn't an ancap be against gigantic government plots like this? Shouldn't you advocate genocide instead?

At that point, isn't commiting genocide to prevent future violence somewhat hypocritical?

Are yo saying that every churchgoer should have been armed?

>>who would be receptive to a bunch of violent apes
>Sweden
No, no. Sweden like their *violent rapes* not violent apes!

The Donner Party had nothing to do with the image of cowboys with six shooters having fast draw showdowns, over-glamorized personalities, and the idea that there were shootouts between gangs of outlaws and sheriff's posses every day of the week.

Most of the stories in the Wild West are a product of east coast yellow journalists and fiction writers looking to sell dime novels.


Exactly. You were more apt to get killed by a rattler or thrown from a horse than in a gunfight.

The only way not to violate the NAP would be to allow every individual to have total freedom of association. This would cause natural segregation to occur and these populations would be expelled from white society gradually. You can find out a shitload about this process from the book Democracy The God that Failed

No I'm saying that you are a mentally ill chimp who belongs in a rubber room.

Thats an interesting article.

The ethical process of expulsion would be a voluntary and natural one as described
I have neither the energy nor the time to explain how physical removal works in a voluntary society, but I suppose I can just ask the premise:
Would you live next to, work with, or sell shit to someone that was actively destroying your way of life or society, if you could instead live next to those that do not?

Body armor

Not if they commit an offense first. I think instead of Liberia 2.0 we should have an Australia 2.0. If they commit a crime/violate the NAP, sentence them to exile instead of prison. This gets rid of offenders by physically removing them so to speak, and it doesn't violate the NAP/anybody's rights.

Interesting read. It seems as though I carried false misconceptions about the American West in the 1800s. Thanks for the info.

I am still unsure as to how more guns will lead to a safer society. Chicago gas lots of guns, are they safe?

Haha true

Great argument. You really convinced me.

Most of those guns are in the hands of the criminal element, who are not inclined to obey the law (including Chicago's tight gun laws) in the first place.

There is an old saying around here: "Laws are for honest people".

Chicago has a black and gun problem together. If it was just white people and guns it would be safe.

>everything would be better if we had freedom of association
False. Justice cannot exist in an ancap society. Who decides what violates the NAP and what doesn't? What if two people disagree about what the NAP covers?

What is going to convince someone who believes that people defending themselves is going to turn into a chain reaction of people getting shot? Something that has literally never happened.

You are legitimately mentally ill.

>If they commit a crime/violate the NAP
Who decides whether or not an individual has violated the NAP? Who carries out the sentencing? How can anyone be assured that the sentencing was just?

Try reading any introductory book to ancap and your question will be answered within 20 pages easily.
Justice exists in ancap the same way Common Law, Maritime Law, and Mercantile Law all existed without State sanction. They had private courts as well as their own enforcers to a degree, though the various monarchies did usually act as enforcer of those private laws.
Enforcer services, much like law services, would be provided by the market just like they already are, except the only 'legitimate' enforcer service is the public one- which acts as a monopoly on the enforcer services market

I already admitted in the OP that gun control wpuld do nothing except create a black market. Try to keep up.

So just murder all the black people?

Genocide in the name of public safety?

That was an extreme example. This is more likely
>somebody shoots you, even though everyone has a gun
>the person who shot you is shot in return
>At least you get to die with the knowledge that somebody else avenged your death

One great idea is to increase the cost of bullets. If you have to pay $10/bullet you may not be able to afford your mass shooting.

I thought an ancap society wasn't supposed to have a government, hence the "Anarcho"

So the public enforcer would be
>funded by the people
>the only legitimate enforcer of the NAP
What stops the wealthiest individuals from corrupting this system?

Your extreme example has literally never happened.

Yeah, gun nuts would LOVE this

It literally happened a couple days ago.

At least the 27 churchgoers who died can rest assured that their deaths were avenged by an armed civilian.

Or since you're going to die anyway you just max out all your credit cards and buy the ammo anyway.

We honestly need to start institutionalizing you retards. Society is clearly to difficult for you.

No, it literally did not happen a couple days ago.

An armed citizen stopped a mass shooting and then no one shot him.

You have some serious comprehension issues.

>armed citizen stopped a mass shooting
27 kills too late.

You're right. It would have been way better if he had just killed more people.

Rookie mistake. Anarcho refers simply to the State apparatus, which is that organization in society which operates a functional monopoly upon the legitimized use of violence in some given area.
A government which does not operate using that functional monopoly upon legitimized violence would be entirely acceptable in an anarcho capitalist society, however that would entail that said government be voluntary. All people will be held to the same law, including the government officials

I don't remember the shooter shooting one person who then got shot by someone else who then got shot by someone else who then got shot by someone else who then...I think you get the picture...

Nothing. The few gun deaths a year are the insurance price we pay to prevent a tyrannical government from coming to power. When the communists came to power in China and the Soviet Union, about 7% of their populations were killed. If that happened today in the US we'd see 24M deaths. It would take over 600 years for incidental gun deaths to reach that number.

Ban guns in everyone who is depressed or any other mental disease (including eating disorders).
Then also ban them from voting, who needs 'crazy' votes?
Also ban them from having kids, who needs more of their shit children?