Far right logic:
The horrendous level of gun violence in the U.S has nothing to do with 18th-century gun laws.
The fact that a person who had killed almost 30 people was eventually shot by someone else with a gun justifies the original shooter being able to kill dozens of people.
A tyrannical government can be derailed by drunken farmers with pea shooters.
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
guncite.com
twitter.com
Normally the criminal’s gun are illegal, that’s the difference.
bite damn you
>18th-century gun laws
Your premise is flawed. Automatic, high capacity, rapid fire weapons existed then.
were they available en masse as part of a well-regulated militia?
What horrendous level of gun violence?
Since OP is a Eurocuck I bet he wishes he had guns to stop the Moslem invasion....
>the mick sat alone, his potato-skinner cradling the first-gen smartphone that had finally made its way across the bogs
>today
>today I will remind them
>feverishly, he crafted his masterwork, a screed of screeching impotency
>choosing a random picture from his Butterfaces with Tits folder, he posted
>and waited
>and waited
>why won't they answer?!?
>don't they know I'm going to pass out soon?
>muttering to himself in an autistic fashion, the half-remembered words of a forced, desperate class as Gaeilge, he barely noticed when his other wife-beater drifted down to the band of his breeks
>they'll notice me now, he thought
>they'll notice me now
Sure, they were cheaper then too.
If you could afford it yes, that rifle was used on the Lewis and Clark expedition.
>A tyrannical government can be derailed by drunken farmers with pea shooters.
We got our asses handed to us by a few thousand illiterate goat fuckers in Afghanistan... you really sure about that Ireland?
With the troubles you really should know better...
"The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it."
Your bait sucks
Gun aren’t the only effective way to kill people. If we give up our guns there will still be “successful” mass killings, and we will have given up an immense liberty for no more garuntee of safety. Pic related killed more than any individual mass shooting.
potato is not gudbait
Also, it would take a little as 0.5% of the US population to break down military infrastructure. Power, water, food. You can't police community meetings with tanks and drones.
They let civilians own fucking cannons.
80% of all shootings are gang criminals shooting eachother, so the statistics are kinda stupid.
More people are drowning in their own pool each yeah, more people are chocking to death on food each year, WAAAAAAY more people are dying in traffic accidents.
Gonna ban Water, Food, Transportation infrastructure, Veichles, Roads?
What society need is not gun control, but society need Vagina and Titties control
...
...
Kek
how many people are killed a year by an intentional truck attack?
Idk but are you trying to compare a specific means of mass killing with all gun murders? They’d be more aptly compared between a category of mass targeting of civilians
(You)
why did trump make it legal for people with severe mental illness' to purchase firearms?
I'm fine with people owning guns in general but there should at least be background checks.
pew research suggests the majority of Americans support this and it works well in other countries, and dont tell me there are too many guns in America already, you assholes put a man on the moon in the 60's , its not impossible to lower gun crime if you really want to
Background checks are the ultimate in feel good nonsense. You have to be literally retarded to support them.
>"Looking only to official criminal records, data over the past thirty years consistently show that the mythology of murderers as ordinary citizens does not hold true. Studies have found that approximately 75% of murderers have adult criminal records, and that murderers average a prior adult criminal career of six years, including four major adult felony arrests. These studies also found that when the murder occurred "[a]bout 11% of murder arrestees [were] actually on pre-trial release"--that is, they were awaiting trial for another offense."
>"The fact that only 75% of murderers have adult crime records should not be misunderstood as implying that the remaining 25% of murderers are non-criminals. The reason over half of those 25% of murderers don't have adult records is that they are juveniles. Thus, by definition they cannot have an adult criminal record."
>implying criminals care if guns are illegal
>implying law abiding citizens having access to firearms doesn't reduce crime
>implying it isn't an uppity nigger problem
If you removed niggers from the statistics US gun crime drops to something like Switzerland or Luxembourg.
If you only take statistics from places where there are no unconstitutional open and conceal carry license restrictions, gun crime rates resemble that of JAPAN.
The problem is niggers on welfare having shit childhoods and having low IQ. White mass shooters have fucked up childhoods, largely from living under welfare and single mothers.
Shhhh lefties won't hear that shit. They are what you call megatards
anyone can be diagnosed with a mental illness. It'd be very easy for doctors to prescribe bullshit mental illnesses to millions based on some ideological crusade against gun rights. Have you ever been to a pill pusher? They'd diagnose John Wayne if they had the chance. Docs would do the exact same shit.
@148411269
>The fact that a person who had killed almost 30 people
Your example fails you.
Legally speaking, Texas shooter should not have been sold any firearm due to his violent offender status. Air force fucked up in adding his name to the federal database of "no guns allowed" list.
Pick a better target, as Texas shooter is such a loser, he may have been too scared to go through the illegal channels to get a gun.
Plus, the EU has just as many mass shootings in its borders as the USA. So what's your excuse for gun deaths? How is it that in the enlightened EU with its superior gun control laws and methods that it still has the same rate of mass shootings and as many deaths by shooter?
Fuck off shill.
The reality of the goat fuckers in Afghanistan is.... An occupying force without the will to murder everybody and everything, will ultimately end up in a quagmire. There is no way to sort good from bad, and a single incorrect slaying spurns dozens of new fighters to the cause.
This situation would be the same here. There is ZERO will from our own military to occupy with ruthless force. And presumably the higher up's still want to conserve America for after the purge. The fighting would be endless, intractable, and unwinnable. Insurgency would last until the bullets ran out and my bet is their resolve remains shorter than that.
sage
I'm failing to see your argument here. I own a number of guns and I'm in commiefornia. I think background checks are a reasonable approach to shut gun grabbers up, and make sure the most egregious offenders don't get their hands on weapons legally.
Surely, they can obtain them illegally, etc but the number of illegal guns is somewhat limited by comparison and requires appropriate contacts. Something not every potentially murderous criminal has access too.
On its face, if what you quoted is correct, the suggestion that 75% of murderers have backgrounds of a serious criminal nature would seem to suggest that background checks make sense. How are you using this quote, but saying then that background checks are nonsense. No one is expecting 100% of anything and the premise that its ALL or NOTHING is absurd on its face.
In medicine we use a statistic called NNT, number needed to treat, in order to avoid a particular outcome. Risk against Reward. The outcome here is potentially death.
I'll analogize with aspirin for heart attacks. The outcome is potentially death and expensive healthcare. Taking aspirin has zero risk and is very cheap. Therefore even though it takes 1000 people treated to avoid one heart attack, its worth it.
Murder is expensive on resources and corrosive to societal order. In this case, if background checks caught even 10% it might be a reasonable measure. Maybe that number would have to be higher to justify the cost of enforcement, but I think you get the point.
I also see the flipside which is... he who controls the ballot box is more important than the voter. Background checks could become grounds for across the board rejection over time.
Smug Euro Librul logic:
>'There are no shootings in Europe because we can't get guns like silly Yanks, amirite, EL EM AY OH?'
>'Thank god we don't have Kalashnikovs on our streets like in America...'
>How come it's so easy to get a gun in the US? Why aren't they more like us?
>'Thankfully these things don't happen here...'
The gun grabbers will never shut up. Trying to appease someone who wants to destroy you is suicide.
There are half a billion unregistered guns in the US. It is literally impossible to prevent someone in America from arming themselves.
Criminals don't bother with background checks, they only hassle the law abiding.
>if background checks caught even 10%
They don't, which I already showed you. Libtards really do live in their own delusional world.
>california
Fucking figures.
If politicians cared about saving lives and improving the safety of their constituents, wouldn't they want their efforts to yield the greatest gain?
Start with the largest numbers. Coincidentally, BATFE also happens to the order in which items should be regulated. Start with alcohol and tobacco. Add cell phones and narcotics.
It'll take a while before true firearm violence is the largest slice of the pie.
If you aren't against tobacco and alcohol, you can fuck right off about "saving lives."
>Why do you NEEEEED guns?
This mini-dump was brought to you, in part, by the Former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Daily reminder that guns don't kill people, Americans do!
Suggest you state your argument more clearly then friend. You did a poor job representing this particular point of view. I'm just asking you what you meant and explaining the thought process behind a background check.
Like I said, criminals surely don't care about laws, but access and contacts are required for them to get what they want. It's not as easy as you think to get a high quality weapon on the black market.
One would say, we dont need new laws, just make the ones that we have work. I would agree. In fact we need less and they need to work as intended or be abolished.
If it comes to philosophy: I think potential gun violence is well worth the freedom to be armed. You not carrying a weapon is your own choice. Gun violence in my eyes is not even on par with drunken driving so I could care less until those two come on par, then maybe there is a discussion to be had, maybe.
Thinking that California has anything to do with anything is... a very lazy non-argument. There are 2 cities with a majority of faggots and retards in them, the rest of the state is fine albeit with the laws dictated by those same retards. Suggest you fuck yourself with a stick of rebar to reorient your thought process into something more cohesive :)
>airsoft with led pellets
>It's not as easy as you think to get a high quality weapon on the black market.
There are ads in the fucking newspaper for people selling guns you retarded chimp.
The far right prefers gun violence to the shit that happens where guns are outlawed.
i want to bite those tits if you get my meaning
...
That's not the black market though, to be very honest..
Obviously.
Did you have a point?
Maybe in your backwater ;)
Without a standardized practice, obviously the practice falls apart. You cannot have one municipality enforcing differently than another in that regard.
If someone can sell a private weapon without an FFL intermediary in one state it clearly defeats the purpose of the practice.
So the question becomes: Would a universal background check work? Criminal records are federal, so in essence, yes it would probably prevent a lot of the more mundane, common criminals from getting weapons.
Would a universal background check keep weapons out of the hands of EVERY criminal? No it wouldn't. Anyone that was very determined will most likely be able to procure anything they want given enough time and money. But that would then be an outlier.
You seem very agitated and completely close minded, but that probably has something to do with your inbred nature. Also side note: only a complete faggot finds it impossible to play with ideas without feeling personally attacked. You are as bad as the SJW scum you purportedly hate, so, politely fuck yourself :)
How are you going to enforce it you literal retard?
There are half a billion unregistered guns currently in circulation in the United States.
Could you at least try to think how your retarded proposals are going to work before babbling like a moron?
a.) You have to start somewhere, from then on it is "that way"
b.) Your argument earlier was law abiding people don't break the law. So, if the law is "you dont sell weapons without a license" then, I guess that answers your question then doesnt it dipshit.
That getting high quality weapons from newspaper ads in a free state =/= getting them on the black market.
>The horrendous level of gun violence in the U.S has nothing to do with 18th-century gun laws.
Firearms violence has been in steady decline since the 1970's with brief bump in the early 1990's. The Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791, but the National Firearms Act was signed in 1934, the Gun Control Act in 1968, and the Firearms Owner's Protection Act (with Hughes Amendment banning machine guns) was signed in 1986.
>The fact that a person who had killed almost 30 people was eventually shot by someone else with a gun justifies the original shooter being able to kill dozens of people.
The fact that murder is illegal does not prohibit a person from defending himself with lethal force, nor do we punish citizens for crimes that others commit and are solely responsible for (due process).
>A tyrannical government can be derailed by drunken farmers with pea shooters
Forgetting the Volunteers and Cumann na mBan in 1916 and Flying Columns in 1919-1921, are we now?
Since you are clearly retarded, I will spell this out for you in the simplest terms possible.
The entire point is that you don't need some nebulous, supposedly hard to access black market to arm yourself.
Ask Washington how well those laws work.
They haven't prosecuted a single person under their version of it. The police came and outright stated publicly that it was completely unenforceable.
There was a background check on the recent one, the enforcement of the law had a break in the chain. His bullshit wasn't reported so the thing that should've flagged him didn't go off- another failure by the typical thought process of a liberal or democrap to even implement anything they invent.
Here's a fun thing with gun laws, you liberal shitheads-
>you aren't enforcing the ones you have properly
>even if you do, the ones that are doing the shootings are doing this shit without concern for the laws anyway
>the people shot were obeying a gun law (you aren't allowed to carry in a church in TX)
This is outright a perfect example of gun control failures. No doubt the place was specifically targeted at that time because because the people there were all law abiding citizens, and the shooter was aware of the law.
If at what you assholes stereotype as a "violent god fearing racist redneck" had actually been that in the church, that guy would been shot from 5 different angles.
So which is it, violent rednecks don't exist, gun control failure, or enforcement failure?
Lefty logic: punish people for the actions of other people
And I'm getting fucking tired of it.
That shirt needs to be lower or those tits need to be higher to match the stars.
I would blame it on gangta rap.
Uh.... Euros seem obsessed with America's gun laws. Whenever I'm abroad and talk with Brits/French they tend to bring it up.
What is going is is that you see American TV and all our media so you think that people are just running all over the place with machine guns on their hip or something.
At some point you will just have to accept that we have guns and you don't. Yes, sometimes crazy people get a gun, that is true. We know that. But, we didn't become the most powerful empire in the history of the world without accepting some danger and risk.
Add to this, any attempt to limit or restrict 2nd Amendment rights is an attempt to restrict a right already held and enjoyed by millions of citizens.
No American gun owner is going to allow a bunch of hoplophobes and smug Marxists to infringe on their rights, ever.
Instead, the constant attacks have created what did not exist before 1994 - a gun CULTURE. Gun owners no longer consider themselves to be defending simple civic rights - we are defending our CULTURE from outside assault. Whatever legal victories gained will be temporary because ultimately it is the culture of gun ownership that will spread and prevail.
The patty is a shitposting faggot.
There perhaps, it seems to perfectly enforceable in California. We have all sorts of stupid ass rules regarding guns. No one is selling weapons in our newspapers ;) So its clearly enforcable. Like anything else, all it requires is resources and a will.
I would say that you are probably making a mistake in extrapolating one failure into every situation. I have seen what the WA sheriffs had to say. My assessment was they have a greater respect for gun ownership than CA does, and they don't see the resource expenditure as reasonable. I would agree, its fucking stupid and a waste of money. However, not impossible and there are working examples of it.
Does that stop shooting sprees? Nope. Does it stop "normal follks" like Paddock? Nope. Does that stop stolen guns from being used? Nope.
Again, my stance is free gun ownership, but I can also understand the call for universal background checks. As far as priorities go, I would rather solve the opioid crisis, the homeless problem and reduce immigration to near zero before I would put a second of thought into gun control.
AR-15 is deadly! Too much for plebes!
AR-15 is a peashooter
It's as unenforceable in california as it is everywhere else you deluded monkey.
>The horrendous level of gun violence in the U.S
we had this thing go down in the 1980s in Miami, they called it the cocaine war,
there were like hundreds of bodies turning up every weekend, and nobody sought to control guns, in fact they started hiring police even if they were on drugs
Tha massacre took place because, as usual, Governmnet failed at its job.
>oops, AF didn't report him
>whoops, he escaped from mental institution, no one filed paperwork
>rats, someone didn't take notice of his animal abuse
>dangnabbit, he broke his babies head, i wish someone filed something, but I guess it was 4:53pm, so it's quittin' time
You cannot depend on the Gov to save you. You have to be able to manage your own shit.
>I can also understand the call for universal background checks
who should pay for them? regulation costs more than this industry should have to pay
stop peppering her tits and go back to redtit
Just noticed you were Irish.
I've been to your shithole country. All you do is whine about how the English beat you up and "raped" your wives*
>muh orangemen
>muh londonderry
>no it's just derry
>muh crossbow will fight for freedom
How in the fuck can you even defend not owning guns when you have literally been the most shit upon people on the face of earth**
I bet your great grandmother was happy that an englishman popped her cherry because her husband was to whiskey dicked to do it anyway.
*by raped, I mean Maura O'babyshitter happily dropped to her knees for that sweet Briton cock. It was the best source of protein she could get!
**white people to be clear.
These are the people who let their children be used as human shields. How big of a fucking faggot do you have to be to voluntarily disarm yourself when something like this is within a generation of memory?
>why did trump make it legal for people with severe mental illness' to purchase firearms?
It's called respecting due process, and a conquered slave like you couldn't even begin to understand the idea that you have rights.
BTW, all the smart Irish bailed on your shithole 100 years ago and came to America. Only the dumbest and most broken stayed in Ireland.
Costs are always passed onto the end user. I think I paid 150 total for my FFL to transfer, I don't find that particularly onerous.
Bud you are so myopic its painful, but I guess thats why I come here. Gives me some insight into the workings of a plebe. When I point out the flaws in your argument you just make another equally flawed argument that is easily refuted
Regarding California, It is enforceable here, and it is being enforced. If its not, lets see a source proving otherwise. Crime will always occur, and the justification for a law is that it removes some level of that crime occurring. Whether that level is high enough to warrant the additional hassle must be weighed through an objective lens which clearly you do not have.
for real.
Best of the Irish came to the US, only leaving the dregs behind. It's like the exact opposite of england/australia, where the garbage was shipped away.