Arguments for guns don't make any sense

"The solution is more guns!" Yes, fire is bad so you add more fire to make it stop. That's how you sound.

Other urls found in this thread:

fs.usda.gov/detail/dbnf/home/?cid=stelprdb5281464
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

If there are guns maybe you will get shot, which is enough for me

You can literally fight fire with fire though.

When your house is on fire, you shoot it with a flamethrower to stop it, right?

No, but you could pre-burn trees in a more controlled manner farther away so that the fire won't be able to spread. Firefighters do stuff like that sometimes.
Anyway, the comparison between guns and fires would make more sense when you actually fire the guns, not when the guns are just there not shooting. In this case, yeah, guns are *excellent* at fighting against other guns.

This guy beat me to it.

Live in Southern Oregon near the forest fire hell hole. You literally fight fire with fire.

Analogies aren't arguments. A house being on fire and a man with a gun are qualitatively different things, you can't apply the same reasoning that you would with the house for a man with a gun. We can demonstrate this quite easily. Spraying a man with a gun with a fire extinguisher does little to stop him, thus we figured out that the two are actually separate things and not identical. You can't argue based on that principal. A man with a gun actually can be stopped by a man with a gun. In fact, every man with a gun IS stopped by a man with a gun. Every school shooter is apprehended by police, which are men with guns.

tinder is pushing interracial propaganda
time to attack
get in here faggots:
→
→
→
→
→

...

S

A

G

E

D

Back burns you fucking faggot. Learn something for once in your life.

Controlled burning is a thing. Literally fighting fire with fire.

fs.usda.gov/detail/dbnf/home/?cid=stelprdb5281464

or burn out all the oxygen to starve the fire

The solution is to get rid of public school. Gun violence is down overall, the problem is location-specific.

Guns are a tool. Guns allow you to impact a target from a distance. I want the best tool available for the job. Thus I want the gun that allows my to put the most impact on the most number of targets at the longest distance with the ability to be used under less demanding situations without issue.

At this point you will not be able to take the current supply of guns off the market or the guns already in private ownership. Attempting to "take the guns" will get you targeted. You will give gun owners a legitimate reason to use their tools.

The solution is stop going out in public where there can be no guarantees of safety. I mean this literally. All public property should be privatized and shares distributed to the taxpayers.

>Implying blaming the means which were used to commit a crime, instead of the person who committed the crime makes anymore sense

So there's a fire, banning bump stocks is water but banning all semi automatics would be like kerosene.

You dont need an arguement if you have guns tho

Do you have any idea what controlled burns are?
Forrest management involves setting wildfires to prevent wildfires. Your analogy is shit.

Guns aren't bad. People are bad. People who aren't bad who have guns have a better chance against bad people with guns.

here's an argument. i want a gun

bait thread