Well /k/, help me out. I need the best bits of information to redpill my friends who think gun control is the answer to stopping more shootings.
What are your best arguments/infographics against more gun laws/control?
Please no emotional responses, I'm trying to debate logically here.
Other urls found in this thread:
docs.google.com
paladin-press.com
crimeresearch.org
mobile.abc.net.au
crimeresearch.org
youtube.com
cdc.gov
ucr.fbi.gov
bjs.gov
twitter.com
Chicago has the strictest gun control and the most gun deaths. 95% of guns used in chicago were straw purchases (somebody did research on this recently, should be an easy google). Most gun deaths are suicides yet the US is fairly middle of the road in terms of suicide numbers, many developed countries ahead of us. Most gun deaths are inner city crime related with handguns, very few with scary salt rifles.
I'm not doing your homework for you. Fuck off
Your friend is right, evidenced by the fact that you are so bootyblastered that you have to ask for strangers on the internet for arguments to apply.
Less guns = less chance of someone getting a gun to commit a crime with it.
inb4 "ahhh well criminals dont obey laws, they will just go and get a gun anyway" meme. if that is your logic then might as well just remove all laws, what's the point of them if criminals will ignore them anyway.
SSRIs are a dangerous drug that cause homicidal idealisation in 6% of users.
Banning guns will not solve a thing as they will turn to using trucks, chemicals, homemade bobs and arson.
The cure to spree killings is much tighter controls on prescribing SSRIs and much better monitoring of those that take them.
If you want to stop spree killings you need to tackle the cause which is not guns.
SSRIs are the key factor in orlando, columbine etc etc (see ssristories) not guns
I have heard of your kind. The insidious "faggotus Semiticus."
the texas shooter was a prohibited person who could not buy guns under our current law BUT THE AIRFORCE FUCKED UP AND DIDN'T TELL NICS
the texas shooter got fucking shot and lost his rifle in an altercation with some random armed texan, who proceeded to find another random texan with a truck and chase him the fuck down well before the police showed up
Ahh the insults when presented with a logical argument your mind can't wrap itself around.
>I'm trying to debate logically here
Yeah, you aren't. Get fucked now.
not me cunt
how do I disprove his point that he doesn't seem to let go of:
>guns are only easy to acccess illegally because there are so many of them
>any limitation at all would have positive consequences on the overall amount of guns that are currently in the system of demand
meaning
>less guns go to people
>less guns go to bad people
>less guns = less crime
okay, now tell me a way to get rid of 300 million guns all at once, possibly more
Just shoot them, QED.
>less gunz kill less people goyim
>paris truck attack literally has the high score
>beat out brevik with his bomb and guns by 9 fucking deaths
why do you want ~87,000 to 1.5 million more people raped, robbed, and murdered every year? Why are you anti defense? why are you pro rape?
This. If you want to cure your depression take some Infowars CAVEMAN Bone Broth™. See why Alex Jones and the Infowars Crew take this powerful CAVEMAN bone broth drink mix to perform at their best every day. With CAVEMAN True Paleo Formula from Alex Jones and Infowars Life, you can see your potential in one convienient supplemental powder.
Who are you quoting there?
Who is talking about trucks?
Is this literal autism?
You're missing the point dude, you cant just say "have less guns" because they already exist. that's just how it is in America, you cant ignore facts.
no matter what kind of bullshit beaurocratic laws you force on innocent people, they will find a way to get them, breaking you're laws and creating more criminals. I mean just look at alcohol prohibition
>see ssristories
This shit right here is scary. The amount of people they push that shit on and a statistical amount have homicidal reactions. It's insane. Don't fuck with the brain's chemistry unless absolutely necessary and well supervised.
Lawful confiscation, with extremely high penalties for those who fail or refuse to comply.
Or alternatively leave guns as they are but tax the shit out of them and tax the shit out of ammo, bumping their prices five times up at least. Nignogs can't shoot you if they can't afford to.
>t. big pharma rep
A forum I'm a part of made an entire google document that breaks down all the arguments they try against us so all you have to do is click which one they use and it gives you an entire fact based argument you can copy and paste.
docs.google.com
>why do you want ~87,000 to 1.5 million more people raped, robbed, and murdered every year?
You realize you are the same as those soccer moms who want guns taken away, right?
>make gunz more expensive
oh no now Tyrone will have to sell five times as many drugs
>stop fucking up my narrative with your facts!
the nice truck attack killed 87 people
if you aren't for the banning of much more ubiquitous and easily accessed trucks that are objectively more deadly than firearms when used as weapons then you just want to ban guns, not save lives.
Guns are used for defense hundreds of thousands of times a year in nonfatal altercations. you literally want more women to get raped. how progressive
Ummm... Sorry sweetie, but that won't fly. Can I speak to your manager?
Well user if its that easy then you do the same and there, money ain't an issue for you either. Because its apparently that easy huh.
What facts? OP made a thread about guns, not about trucks. Make a thread about trucks and someone might discuss it with you. This way you are just putting words into someone else's mouth and talking about shit that is completely off topic.
you want to trade 300 deaths a year for the victimization of hundreds of thousands, but will just result in 300 people being murdered by fire, bombs, and trucks WHILE hundreds of thousands of people are victimized by criminals raping, robbing, or murdering them.
you have no moral high ground, you're either ignorant or willfully pro rape.
I understand that, my friend doesn't. I say to him what you just said, and then he goes "But any removal of guns is better than no removal".
>the nice truck attack killed 87 people
ssris.....
none of that changes the fact that homicidal idealisation and suicidal idealisation are a side effect of ssris. Further these side effects figure in perfectly mentally health control groups when they are tested with SSRIs and that there is an incredibly correlation between spree killers and ssri users. People have been covering the links between ssris and spree killers for a long time before inforwars ran that story
>stop ruining the narrative ;_;
if you don't know or don't care that mass shooting deaths are literally rarer than being struck by lightning, then you are a useful fucking idiot at best or a piece of fucking shit using a tragedy to further your political goal of disarming the populace.
why do you want people to get raped so badly?
Maybe show them how well brazil is doing with their gun control. Nobody can legally get guns so all the criminals just make blowback SMGs in their garages (even the fucking children do it).
>literally rarer than being struck by lightning
I believe statistically, you're still more likely to be killed by bees or peanuts.
>Or by a shark while being struck by lightning
Some copy-pasta for you
1/3
There are 30,000 gun related deaths per year by firearms, and this number is not disputed. U.S. population 324,059,091 as of Wednesday, June 22, 2016. Do the math: 0.000000925% of the population dies from gun related actions each year. Statistically speaking, this is insignificant! What is never told, however, is a breakdown of those 30,000 deaths, to put them in perspective as compared to other causes of death:
• 65% of those deaths are by suicide which would never be prevented by gun laws
• 15% are by law enforcement in the line of duty and justified
• 17% are through criminal activity, gang and drug related or mentally ill persons – gun violence
• 3% are accidental discharge deaths
So technically, "gun violence" is not 30,000 annually, but drops to 5,100. Still too many? Well, first, how are those deaths spanned across the nation?
• 480 homicides (9.4%) were in Chicago
• 344 homicides (6.7%) were in Baltimore
• 333 homicides (6.5%) were in Detroit
• 119 homicides (2.3%) were in Washington D.C. (a 54% increase over prior years)
2/3
So basically, 25% of all gun crime happens in just 4 cities. All 4 of those cities have strict gun laws, so it is not the lack of law that is the root cause.
This basically leaves 3,825 for the entire rest of the nation, or about 75 deaths per state. That is an average because some States have much higher rates than others. For example, California had 1,169 and Alabama had 1.
Now, who has the strictest gun laws by far? California, of course, but understand, so it is not guns causing this. It is a crime rate spawned by the number of criminal persons residing in those cities and states. So if all cities and states are not created equally, then there must be something other than the tool causing the gun deaths.
Are 5,100 deaths per year horrific? How about in comparison to other deaths? All death is sad and especially so when it is in the commission of a crime but that is the nature of crime. Robbery, death, rape, assault all is done by criminals and thinking that criminals will obey laws is ludicrous. That's why they are criminals.
But what about other deaths each year?
• 40,000+ die from a drug overdose–THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR THAT!
• 36,000 people die per year from the flu, far exceeding the criminal gun deaths
• 34,000 people die per year in traffic fatalities(exceeding gun deaths even if you include suicide)
teach me your ways senpai
3/3
Now it gets good:
•200,000+ people die each year (and growing) from preventable medical errors. You are safer in Chicago than when you are in a hospital!
•710,000 people die per year from heart disease. It’s time to stop the double cheeseburgers! So what is the point? If Obama and the anti-gun movement focused their attention on heart disease, even a 10% decrease in cardiac deaths would save twice the number of lives annually of all gun-related deaths (including suicide, law enforcement, etc.). A 10% reduction in medical errors would be 66% of the total gun deaths or 4 times the number of criminal homicides.Simple, easily preventable 10% reductions!
So you have to ask yourself, in the grand scheme of things, why the focus on guns? It's pretty simple.:
Taking away guns gives control to governments.
The founders of this nation knew that regardless of the form of government, those in power may become corrupt and seek to rule as the British did by trying to disarm the populace of the colonies. It is not difficult to understand that a disarmed populace is a controlled populace.
Thus, the second amendment was proudly and boldly included in the U.S. Constitution. It must be preserved at all costs.
So the next time someone tries to tell you that gun control is about saving lives, look at these facts and remember these words from Noah Webster: "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole body of the people are armed and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force at the command of Congress can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power."
Remember, when it comes to "gun control," the important word is “control," not “gun."
Lemme summarize that for you. Pic related.
If you are wanting to learn how to make hundreds of SMGs then you've got the wrong guy. I didn't mean to imply I have hundreds of SMGs, I just have hundreds of pictures of illegal Brazilian SMGs.
paladin-press.com
Going out of business sale. You're welcome.
It was a joke....
I have one piece of anecdotal experience that informs my opinion against further gun control. I've been attacked a couple times and had I not had guns there would've been nothing to deter the assailants from killing me or my girlfriend at the time. I called the cops as soon as I could but it took them about 10 minutes to respond in each case.
Police are not omnipresent they could not be there instantly to protect me. And aren't omnipresent anywhere. Violence doesn't wait for the police. Having a weapon on hand is a great defensive tool. Am I supposed to fight assailants off with a baseball bat? if there is more than one i'm probably going to lose. should I use pepper spray? I've been pepper sprayed, actually during one of the times I was attacked, It was painful and disorienting but i had enough faculties to function, probably due to adrenaline.
I don't see why limiting the rights of honest citizens to protect themselves is a good idea. If I hadn't had a gun I might be dead. what to do about public shootings? I believe there needs to be a PSA about disturbing signs of a potential shooter to look out for and the people surrounding these disturbed people need to report them. People are very dismissive of people who show violent mass murder fantasies.
Those are just the firearms that have been recorded as imported or manufactured in the us since like the 70s I believe.
So the number is most likely to be at least double that.
I think you're expecting far too much from the internet when you expect them to get a joke.
How to have lawful confiscation which goes against the bill of rights ?
Just hit them with the FBI statistics bud, and self defense is used more with gun ownership than not
>guns need to be banned
why?
>because mass shootings
Mass shootings are a statistic anomaly, you know what I'm afraid of right?
>what?
Dickheads running into me on the highway because they're not paying attention to the road.
don't be a cunt
Don't forget there are already more than 300 million guns in America, and before any ban, the gun industry will mass-produce the banned item (selling it for 10x its price).
>we need less guns. Less guns = less crime with guns.
The only option would be a massive and inconstitutional gun forfeiture.
Like what was done after the hurricanes (or by the Germans in Belgium).
Best way to start civil unrest/trigger a shitty civil war.
Even after that, real gangs and mafias would keep their illegal arsenal. Brazil 2.0.
Uhh, and what happens when the police refuse to execute a confiscation because they keep getting shot to death?
because on a per-capita basis we have the same rate of mass shootings as Europe. The reason the US just seems to get all of them is that the only country on Earth with a higher population than the United States is China.
>yfw Illinois is going to get rekt by all of their FFLs being run out of business thanks to the shooting propelling that legislation to pass through their Congress
>i=i=illinois isn't that bad for gunowners!!
lol get rekt
>implying they wouldn't use their nifty War on Drugs (re-purposed for the *new* War on Guns) APCs to just plow over your house.
Tyrone will just rob a pawn shop with his friends, and take the guns.
put handgun under the NFA like they wanted to originally lel
Okay. What do you do about the 75 million handguns already running around? I know you're ironic shitposting so I don't really care what you're going to answer, you're just a stupid annoying faggot.
door to door confiscation lol
see
1/4 This is as good as it get user. As you can see from these graphs, gun violence went down while all other types of violence increased to a near 100% replacement rate
2/4 Here I will break down the change in Mass Killings from 15 years before and 15 years after the confiscation.
The mass killing death toll AND frequency was only slightly higher, but that included the MASSIVE outlier in the Port Arthur Shooting. Even then, it was only a marginal difference. To argue that gun control was at all effective, you would have seen a bigger change
3/4 Here you can see the homicide rate from before AND after the confiscation. This is where most people think they have the AHHA moment of proof that it worked. They would be incorrect. To analyze the affect GC had, you need to study the TRENDS line ( linear regression line) which is showing the overall behavior of the homicide rate. As shown here, the homicide rate in AUS had been decreasing at a steady pace WELL before the GC. If GC did anything, again, you would see the rate of change in the trend line increasing. We dont, because nothing changed. When you remove a variable and the equation remains the same, the variable was not significant. i.e. guns aren't what was causing homicides and violent crime
4/4 This last one is the icing on the cake. Its the overall analysis on the numbers (conducted by AUS gov). Here we see violent crimes increased (some even by 40%) while the homicide rates deceased at the same amount as the U.S. homicide rate, while the U.S. retained their firearms. Gun Confiscation was an ABJECT FAILURE and for some reason liberals like to strut around talking about AUS as if it was proof of anything.
There will never be door to door confiscation. They will ban shit and then catch people as they can through other interactions with state actors. Within a generation the US will be britbongistan and people will be finding buried shit/shit hidden in walls for decades.
Overall, the number of firearms in the United States has increased over the past 10 years or more while violent crime rates have been trending downward since the 90s. If more guns = more crime, we would see an increase in violent crime.
Additionally, the number of guns in Australia has risen beyond pre-ban levels but their crime rate for firearms has continued to decline. mobile.abc.net.au
The presence of firearms does not affect total violent crime rates. Factors such as poverty, culture, education do. One final thing to look at is the fact that Homicides and Violent Crime increased after England's gun ban in 1996.
crimeresearch.org
Berry nice user
OP should visit the NRA ILA site if serious. GOA is good too.
You beat me to it
The last shooting was committed by a guy who shouldn't have owned a gun according to our present laws (he was convicted of domestic abuse).
The shooting could have been much worse if a law abiding citizen with an AR-15 hadn't engaged the criminal.
In all research, more guns = less crime
only 8,000-10,000 people are murdered by guns in the US per year. Most of those are gang related.
24,000 people die from the flu in the US every year
800,000 children are murdered by abortions every year
I keep it saved on my phone so I don't have to retype it every time someone asks. I didn't copy this from anyone
Though just wanted to get my best anti gun control argument established
Ask him if he smokes pot, or have ever smoked pot or taken adderall for an exam, or and kind of illegal drugs.
Illegality=/=no access.
I would argue making guns illegal would make it even EASIER to get them, It takes me 3 days to get a handgun in florida, but I can buy cocaine from my old roommate any day of the week.
if the government has them why shouldn't we? citizens who are disarmed are considered subjects, not citizens.
Nothing worse then fudds, and liberal
Pretending to be gun owners
LOL before I get flamed, I liked that first faggots comment by accident
>if that is your logic then might as well just remove all laws, what's the point of them if criminals will ignore them anyway.
Because laws are punitive, not preventative.
>no use except funsies at the range and killing
Funny, those two things are why I own my guns.
bunch of people responded to her by saying they'd buy her sons gun HAHA
Saw this on my fagbook the other day
PRETTY SURE THE STICKY SAYS TO BTFO WITH THESE KIND OF THREADS
But here you go
>800,000 children are murdered by abortions every year
Don't use this argument on liberals. You will sound like a crazy person to them and they will ignore your other points, and you will probably get dragged into a side argument on abortion instead of the main gun argument. Stick to things like suicides, drug ODs, car crashes, heart disease, medical accidents, etc.
The fall of western society has a face.
>guns themselves cause the violence
ive like NY Times and could get past some of the blatant propganda, but this man....
I guess correlation is causation
Intellectual disfranchisement
Gun control is not the answer. Now.
When basically any retard can buy a gun for over 100 years, banning them now would do nothing. There are just too many in system already.
>home made bobs
That killed me
You have to be thoroughly retarded to think a couple fucking unconscious cells is a person and that its murder. Also most abortions are spics and niggers, so no loss there. Why don't you go feed some niggers in Africa you worthless cuckservative and scream about how democrats are the real racists.
You do understand the meaning of the word "most" don't you?
Maybe you should add the word "many" to your vocabulary.
How many mass shooters have repeated their crime again later?
>pro tip...not to many.
Crime in this country is caused by repeat offenders. Start executing violent offenders and the crime rate will go down.
Thats where you are wrong kiddo
>How many mass shooters have repeated their crime again later?
>>pro tip...not to many.
>Crime in this country is caused by repeat offenders
Yet there are all these mass shootings.
it just makes crime even more violent
the criminal now knows that he's going all in every time he breaks the law
also, it makes leaving witnesses and loose ends a very risky liability which in turn increases the murder rate
>SSRIs are the key factor in orlando
Dude's dad was an imam who made videos about killing infidels and waging jihad. It was his religion and the family who indoctrinated him that made him do it.
...
Banning alcohol worked so well during Prohibition, right? Banning something people have a long-standing tradition that they have the right to possess and use is a fool's errand.
As for keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, the ban on illegal drugs has sure kept those from being available to criminals, right? Give any idiot $50 and an hour in any US city, and see how effective that's been.
Unlike drugs or alcohol, however, the human right to self defense is so basic that an attempt to ban it is in itself a tyrannical act that justifies the existence of the Second Amendment.
If you want to ban guns, you're going to have to take guns from their existing owners too. You want to see a SHITLOAD more shootings? Try taking away people's firearms. Unless they tried it very, very gradually (and smart of them, they are) there aren't enough willing police, military, or national guard combined to go knocking door to door to carry out gun seizures, and it's quite probable that number would dwindle rather rapidly.
...
...
...
Pools kill plenty of people. You can surely give up your right to own a pool. If you want to swim, go to a public pool that is maintained by codes and standards of the state and staffed with lifeguards.
Think of the children!
...
If you can't hear the blatant hypocrisies that your friends are spouting then how is us giving you an argument to repeat going to help you?
If your friends are the typical American then they aren't going to have much of an argument for either side anyway, they'll just repeat the easiest-to-spout buzzwords they can think of and all you'd have to do is call them out on that.
How often do you hear the phrase 'how paranoid do you have to be to carry a gun everywhere you go?' or some saying like it? All you need to do is bring up the recent shootings and stabbings and crime and if they're smart they'd shut up because you have a legitimate claim. If they keep hounding you with the same stuff then move on, they will never compromise with you or even see your opinion as anything more than an affront to their ideology.
...
If American, realistically your best argument against gun control is the second amendment; if you're dealing with someone who "interprets" the second amendment then they're gone.
I've no other arguments to give you, but here are some observations which can be used to break down some of their "arguments".
In 2014:
>64% of firearm deaths were suicides.[1]
>Firearm homicides decreased by 3%. Suicides unchanged.
>You're 4x more likely to die of a drug-induced death.[1](Decent for bringing up the War on Drugs and how the "control" of those substances went nowhere, but guns aren't drugs so use with caution)
>Twice as likely to die of an alcohol-induced death.[1]
>9,278 homicide victims were male, only 1,730 were female.[1]
End 2014
Switzerland and the Czech Republic have roughly 6% of the firearm homicides that the U.S. has per capita. This suggests that homicide-by-firearm rates don't linearly scale with firearm numbers. There's actually a massive gap, suggesting the primary variables are something else.
FBI homicide data released in 2010 showed 17 handgun homicides for every rifle homicide.[2]
Compared to the firearm homicide rate, the successful use of a firearm in defense is estimated to be much higher, at 83,000/yr.[3] Sadly there aren't any great studies for this. Source 3 is a 20-year-old DoJ brief.
>[1] "CDC NVSR, Vol. 65 No. 4" cdc.gov
>[2] ucr.fbi.gov
>[3] "Guns and Crime: Handgun Victimization, Firearm Self-Defense, and
Firearm Theft", bjs.gov
If you bring up the ability for the citizenry to hold tangible power against government then make sure that you mention local and regional examples, such as the Battle of Athens (1946). People will find it easier to believe than the concept of fighting the feds.
Not all laws affect morally correct citizens, user.
...