You anti-gun shills are doing nothing but wasting your time. We didn't change our minds after the last dozen mass shootings, what makes you think we will this time? Guns aren't for people who acquiesce when asked nicely to give up their rights, and no amount of crying, complaining or witty insults is gonna change that. You can try and take them by force, but if we didn't intend to fight back, why would we want guns in the first place? And guess what else; those same modern military weapons that you think make guns obsolete; drones, barrel bombs and all, are the very reason why civilian casualties are ubiquitous in modern warfare. Google some pictures of bombed towns in Syria if you don't believe me. Even if you win you'll cause enough innocent deaths to make any school shooting look like a tea party. If that's what you want, go right ahead.
You anti-gun shills are doing nothing but wasting your time...
Other urls found in this thread:
theatlantic.com
law.harvard.edu
newrepublic.com
nytimes.com
congress.gov
books.google.com
twitter.com
this
they can go back to the reddit safehaven
>Gun nuts responding with emotions instead of facts.
States with more gun control have fewer gun crimes.
Like this should be common sense: You can't stop every shooting, but more laws prevent it.
That HK looks Sexy
It's actually getting really old and redundant. "Give up your guns!" "No" "Now will you give up your guns?!" "No" "The military will drone you!" "No" "You can't win!!!" "We already have."
>Be a republicuck
>"mah guns" day in and day out
>always going on about your fucking guns
>Some kid takes said gun and shoots up a school because he can
>republicucks say "you'll never take mah guns," over and over
>Another school shooting happens
>Rinse and repeat
>Rinse and repeat
>Rense and repeat
>kids keep dying
>Republicucks keep saying mah gunz mah gunz always about the fucking guns
>"YOU'Ll NEVER TAKE MAH GUNZ"
why is it that republicans are so backwards that they can't understand the simple fact that guns are bad, and they need to be taken away. Only cops should have guns because cops are the only people doing any sort of policing. whens the last time you republicucks have gone out and used your guns for anything other than shooting at some disks? oh that's right never, because 2nd amendment protecting us from the government is a complete and utter meme, and yet you continusouly bring it up like it's actually a thing when it's actually not. foolish, foolish, foolish, thsoe are the only words i can say to you people because there's no other words to use. it must be nice living in ignorance ;)
UHHHHHHHHHHHHH CAN I GET A BLUBBA LUBBA GLUB GLUUUUUUUUUUUUB
Gun control is civil war.
Would you like us to go out and use our guns for something other than shooting disks? It's pretty hard to run from someone that's good enough to shoot tiny moving objects.
>being unable to respond without hyperbole,
No one is trying to ban guns entirely. It is just used to make sure wackjobs don't kill innocents.
>gun related deaths
Every. Time.
You people are absolutely pathetic.
I guess that explains the feral niggers who wipe each other out on a daily basis in Chicago, huh? Stupid cucked leaf.
We are talking about if guns kill innocents you idiot. Why would you not bring up less gun control=more deaths?
>No one is trying to ban guns entirely. It is just used to make sure wackjobs don't kill innocents.
Deets pleez.
Grand fucking fantasy wishes are nice for the feelz but without a step by step plan you're just another asshole talking nonsense.
Reminder that russiacucks play both sides of an argument, sometimes in the very same thread
Just make background/mental health checks longer and more thorough.
Well, for one thing, it's not even remotely true and since I'm not retarded or a liar I wouldn't bring it up.
When you have to include lawful self defense in your argument against guns, you've pretty much admitted defeat from the start.
Then why are Trump and the NRA both supporting expanded background checks all of a sudden? Even they can see some concessions need to be made, or it is going to be much worse later.
>Well, for one thing, it's not even remotely true and since I'm not retarded or a liar I wouldn't bring it up.
Okay have any sources on that?
You simply have to look at the last twenty years of America's crime and gun sale stats.
I'm sorry you're too retarded to think for yourself.
Civilian fat boys don't need guns.
>leave it to the men
Who else planning their next gun purchases after the small "panic buying" stops?
Probably AR number 6, this time a pistol or a .22lr AR. Got a couple lowers hanging around I need to do something with.
You must be the russian bot they are talking about. Hi russian bot
This
That doesn't change the fact gun control has actually helped all those states reduce gun deaths.
What does that accomplish?
Two of the most glaring issues is inaccuracies in records and the reality that quite often you don;t know somebody is a psycho killer until they start killing.
Not to mention there are other ways to come across a firearm than the gun shop including building one from scratch.
That was honestly cringed as fuck - and to be honest, you obvious Reddit faggot - the only people I ever see bring up the gubmint and fighting them with guns are leftists faggots.
Now only arming police? Wtf? Pick a side you confused faggot. I know you think your response was funny and clever or whatever, it's just reads like an uninformed 17 years wrote it. Cringe as fuck.
An armed society is a polite society.
What gun control? We've doubled the number of guns in circulation in the last twenty years, made it easier than ever to carry a gun, and halved the murder rate.
Do you seriously not understand that when you have to pretend that lawful self defense is a gun crime that you've essentially surrendered the argument before you even started?
WRONG!
>what makes you think we will this time?
Because the Jews are running a well-choreographed and moneyed agitprop campaign.
STOP BEING THICK! DO YOU NEED TO HAVE YOUR HEAD SMASHED IN WITH A BRICK TO PROVE IT DOESNT TAKE A GUN TO KILL YOU! VIOLENT CRIME AND GUN OWNERSHIP ARE NOT THE SAME THING!
fucking re
>Do you seriously not understand that when you have to pretend that lawful self defense is a gun crime that you've essentially surrendered the argument before you even started?
I never spoke out against self defense. I am speaking out against letting wackjobs buying weapons, which most of you seem keen to keep allowing.
>Gun-related deaths
This is a great litmus test
>reduce gun deaths
>every other type of death rises
Hmmm, aren't you trying to save lives?
Man i just pity people like you.....
...
>VIOLENT CRIME AND GUN OWNERSHIP ARE NOT THE SAME THING!
Except more violent crime is caused by having more guns you imbecile.
If you have any actually proof that shows otherwise instead of "muh feels" feel free to post it.
You're wrong. They are pissing me off and Im about ready for war. I already emailed all of my local government to let them know that if any more gun legislation passes I am declaring war on the US government and killing Jews.
dude you are so bad at this that it has become funny to us. you are not correct, you are not accurate, to us right now you are just a silly funny boy :)
>Except more violent crime is caused by having more guns you imbecile.
citation
oh its a leaf
carry on faggot
Most gun deaths are suicides. Others are lawful self-defense. Out of the remainder most are gang-related.
>Except more violent crime is caused by having more guns you imbecile.
hurr duurrrrr
>kids keep dying
People die every day faggot
Literally why the fuck should I care, and why does this give you the right to take away my property?
You referenced statistics that include murder, suicide, accidents, police shootings, and self defense in one mass of gun deaths.
Your argument is literally invalid.
> I am speaking out against letting wackjobs buying weapons, which most of you seem keen to keep allowing.
honestly? yeah. the 2a exists for all of us. That includes the wackjobs. Plan accordingly or give up your freedoms.
I actually renewed nra membership just to stick it to the media and those two kids
I opted out of the lame magazines this time
It's almost like there's already background checks.
It's almost like even with a background check, and even with prior warning, and even with police reports and reports to the FBI, the government is full of inept people who couldn't stop a shooting.
It's almost like placing faith in a system that has already failed and will continue to do so is a bad idea.
It's almost like people who kill will kill regardless of weapon.
It's almost like mass-shootings are a statistical anomaly that leftists and Jews regularly lie about and distort.
It's almost like people know all of this, which is why support for additional gun bans is the lowest it's been in decades.
But don't worry, Canada. You'll find something else to be your outrage porn soon enough: The DACA "kids" are going to be mailed back starting in three weeks. You'll forget you ever even cared about this shooting.
>Having an IQ so low that you can't interpret what I said
That's okay one day you'll learn able to be read
>Except more violent crime is caused by having more guns you imbecile.
Proof? You just made an extraordinary claim which isn't backed by any evidence. In fact, we have evidence to the contrary. How about a major Harvard study funded by Obama?
law.harvard.edu
>No one is trying to ban guns entirely.
Yes, lots of people are. To give you just one meager example, one time in college I asked my roommate on a whim, "What would you do if you were a dictator with absolute power?" He said, "I'd ban guns first of all".
So here is a serious question. Since the first mass shooting in the US (does anyone have a clue when/where?) What has been done to prevent it from happening again? other than blaming a weapon?
Nice anecdotal evidence that I'm sure you didn't just make up.
You are the one ignoring the facts.
Sept. 5, 1949: Camden, N.J.
Army veteran Howard Unruh gunned down 13 people while walking around his neighborhood. He was declared a paranoid schizophrenic and sent to a psychiatric hospital without a trial. He died in 2009 at a Trenton, N.J., nursing facility
What was done to prevent this happening again?
Aug. 1, 1966: University of Texas at Austin
Charles Whitman opened fire from the school's clock tower, killing 16 people and wounding 31 before officers killed him.
What was done to prevent the next?
OK you fucking nigger, here's someone who wrote an article about it:
>newrepublic.com
>USP in an infographic
I am moist.
July 18, 1984: San Ysidro, Calif.
James Oliver Huberty, an out-of-work security guard, killed 21 people in a McDonald’s restaurant. A police sharpshooter killed Huberty.
did anyone do anything to prevent the next?
Some nobodys:
>"A gun-control movement worthy of the name would insist that President Clinton move beyond his proposals for controls ... and immediately call on Congress to pass far-reaching industry regulation like the Firearms Safety and Consumer Protection Act ... [which] would give the Treasury Department health and safety authority over the gun industry, and any rational regulator with that authority would ban handguns."
- Josh Sugarmann (executive director of the Violence Policy Center)
>"If I could have banned them all - 'Mr. and Mrs. America turn in your guns' - I would have!"
- Diane Feinstein
>"My view of guns is simple. I hate guns and I cannot imagine why anyone would want to own one. If I had my way, guns for sport would be registered, and all other guns would be banned."
- Deborah Prothrow-Stith (Dean of Harvard School of Public Health)
>“I don’t believe people should to be able to own guns.”
- Barack Obama (during conversation with economist and author John Lott Jr. at the University of Chicago Law School in the 1990s)
>>Josh Sugarmann
He maintains a Class One Federal Firearms License in Washington, DC, which makes it legal for him to transfer and handle firearms
via wiki
I don't recognize that fake news clickbait as valid journalism.
I love guns. I can easily imagine why someone wouldn't want to own one, but only because I have no trouble imagining a retard.
Nice sources.
It doesn't matter if it's valid or not you coprophage, the very fact that someone wrote it means someone holds that opinion, which is my entire point.
>t. scared pussy
Probably just some gunfag false flagging. Nice try though.
Shut the fuck up and let them rally the conservative vote for the elections you goddamn sped.
We read History books, that's why. We give up our rifles and the next chapter doesn't play out too well for the rugged individualists of the herd.
flip the roles and it's literally the exact same liberal faggots do. in fact liberals are the agitator in the argument. therefore the ones who continously bitch the most. we all know these are false flags with actors that continously play on the news, and it's so obviously staged.
fuck off shill
I'll hold your hand fag:
Sugarmann
>nytimes.com
Feinstein
>congress.gov
Prothrow-Sith
>books.google.com
Obama
>Off record convo but his Congressional records shows it wouldn't be unlike him
In 1996, Obama supported a ban on handguns
In 1998, he supported a ban on the sale of all semi-automatic guns
In 2004, he advocated banning gun sales within five miles of a school or park, which would have shut down nearly all gun stores
Just as you be able to write a coherent post and not b8 one day leddit
The thing is that the Zionist elite who has been ruling your country and most of the world for over a century has their own private army, and a shitload of Monarch slaves. Do you really find it wise to give up the guns in this situation? Take down the murderous Zionist pedo cunts first, then and only then you should even begin considering any new gun laws.
>The Jew York Times
Funny how such publications suddenly become viable sources when they support your argument. Really made me think.
Meanwhile, right now, in the first White House first press briefing since the Parkland shooting, gun control (expanded background checks) are being pushed.
reading (((History))) books
ignoramous of the facts
here's a handy little chart. this is absolutely unacceptable for a first world nation to have so many deaths due to something that for all in tents and purposes is completely and utterly preventable.
It's an editorial written by him you choade. Not much spin they can put on that.
...