Who own most of the guns in the US?
White males
This is not about war on guns, this is a proxy war on white america. Everything points to destroying classical americana culture.
Red pill on gun control stats.
My niece has to write a paper on gun control and goes to a super liberal school in Southern California. Give me some stats that will trigger her teacher.
Other urls found in this thread:
amren.com
twitter.com
More people die by American gun owners than
All other countries combined
Source please.
Niggers killing each other are the majority of those deaths.
Tell her to research the correlation of gun deaths in cities with strict gun control laws compared with areas of lax gun control laws.
What would happen if the 2nd amendment was abolished and no one could have guns?
Demographics play a huge part in that dont you think?
If there were no black people in Chicago, the gun control might actually work.
amren.com
How did Nikolas Cruz get his gun?
Fucking nigger Obama subverting the law by "not discriminating" towards non-whites. The government actually gives money to schools for keeping non whites out of trouble.
Am I the only one bothered by the fact that the US could become a dystopian hell hole in only 1 more generation? Imagine all these fucking sheep being brainwashed in our high schools across the US, and these tide pod eating shit-for-brains are going to be able to vote soon? We need to abolish voting for women and raise the voting age to 25. I am prepping for the worst.
If there were no niggers in Chicago, Chicago wouldn't need any gun control.
>The government actually gives money to schools for keeping non whites out of trouble.
No they get money for not reporting crimes
You cant keep them out of trouble unless theyre dead
I don't have anything to add to this thread but a bump, so in response to your post: No shit.
Okay OP hold onto your pants.
Mass shootings only account for literally 1% of all gun homicides per year. 100 mass shootings compared to 12000 total firearm homicides. Funny thing is that the vast majority of those homicides are commited with a handgun. Statistically you are more likely to be killed with a hammer than you are an AR15. If we want to talk about serious gun homicide prevention, we need to address the nigger problem.
Our media has a tendancy to highlight mass shootings but skip over the majority of actual firearm homicides and who commits them. Out of the 33,000 deaths caused by firearms each year, only about 12000-13000 are homicide related, with the rest of the 20,000 deaths being mostly attributed to suicides. The 12,000-13,000 firearm homicides are mostly caused by blacks against other blacks.
/1
While this graph doesnt explicity show firearm homicides, it gives you an idea of how bad the black on black and black on white homicide rate is. You see the figure that details "Blacks killed by whites"? Thats what Black Lives Matters is protesting against. Really jogs the noggin doesn't it?
The media doesn't cover this topic because it is inherently racist and will promote hate speech. The Media does not want to lose control of the narrative, so they make excuses and blame these problems on other things. For instance, one popular argument that is pushed is "THe reason blacks murder so much is due to socioeconomic factors." This is false due to a few reasons.
The first is that Blacks murder at rates higher than white or other races despite having a higher income. As you can see, wealthier blacks commit twice the amount of homicides than poor whites. Another thing to take into consideration is that there are more whites in absolute numbers below the poverty line than blacks, yet whites are not overrepresented in homicide or crime rates.
If socioeconomic factors accounted for homicide rates, then surely whites would be overrepresented in those statistics. The argument against this line of reasoning is "White privilege ensures that whites hold a power structure over blacks therefore whites have more support than blacks despite being poor." Which does not hold up, since poor asians and other minorities also commit less homicide than wealthy blacks.
Finally, there is absolutely NO justification for murder outside of self defense (which i will get to). Being poor does not give you a free pass to take someone else's life. This leads me to the conclusion that so called "high power firearms" are not to blame for homicides, but the individuals themselves.
It's funny how you Americans are so easily distracted by gun control, while the 1% and big business continues to get away with tax cuts and blatant dishonesty.
You're literally being bled dry, and you somehow think your guns are whats at stake.
You really think your guns can do anything against the powers that be? Do you really think they're even threatened by them? They could literally drop a bomb on your house if they wanted to. You're fools being blinded and led into rags.
You can see the relationship between demographics and gun homicide by looking at different countries around the world. For instance, Honduras has the highest homicide rate in the entire world, yet has some of the most stringent gun control laws on the planet. Another good example is Mexico, which follows the same formula.
Now take a look at Switzerland and Finland. Despite these countries having near 50 guns per 100 residents, Switz and Finland have some of the lowest homicide rates in the world.
From this, we can conclude that more firearms does not neccesarily mean more homicide. No amount of gun control will stop blacks (or anyone for that matter) from killing other people. We can assume from the data that guns are not the issue, but the types of (sub)humans who use them for crime and murder.
He's not wrong. Weak people do need guns to defend themselves. Weak people like women, like the elderly, like the disabled. People who can't fight back with their fist and would be crushed in a physical confrontation. People who don't want to be at the mercy of the "strong".
I apologize for the shitty formatting. Please bare with it.
Take a look at some of these following figures I'm about to post. The first and second figures shows that the homicide rate and non-fatal firearm crimes have been going down over the years DESPITE more firearms going into the hands of citizens.
More firearms does not correlate to more firearm crime and homicide.
In fact, there is a positive relationship between justified firearm ownership and the prevention of crime. See the figure here.
This is a conservative figure of the usage of firearms in self defense. Some studies suggest there are more than 2,000,000 cases of defensive gun use every year in America. These figures do not factor in justifiable homicides. In fact, a study done by the US Department of Justice concluded that 3/5 felons WILL NOT COMMIT CRIMES AGAINST AN ARMED VICTIM. On top of this, total handgun supply has steadily risen and property crime rates have gone down.
I'm not saying that whites or other minorities do not participate in the act of murder by firearms. Everyone from every race has and will continue to murder using firearms. However, the vast majority of firearm homicide are committed by blacks.
This is a problem that the West will not address due to it being a sensitive topic. Instead of trying to find meaningful solutions to this very bad and very complicated problem, we plug our ears with our fingers and scream "WE NEED MORE GUN CONTROL." No amount of gun control will stop mass shootings or firearm homicides in general, PERIOD. People who want to kill DO NOT CARE if they have a gun or not. There are over 350,000,000 guns in America. Just because a certain model of gun becomes regulated or illegal does not mean criminals will obey those laws. As an example, please take a look at the war on drugs. Marijuana is illegal, yet millions of Americans still smoke it every year. There will always be a black market for guns. If I wanted to, I could take a 20 minute trip to the local Zoo and buy a highpoint handgun for 1/3 of the price of my (legal)handgun and get it in a fraction of the time it took me to go through the process to get a permit. Not only that, but when it comes down to it, firearms are relatively simply tools. Homemade pipe shotguns and MAC 10s are easily made in your garage. Instead of solely blaming "high powered firearms" for our woes, we should take a deeper look into why these murderers commit the acts that they do. We don't like at things like SSRI's or broken households.
>Red pill on gun control stats.
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)
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? Yes. How about in comparison to other deaths? Not really.
All death of course, 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)
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."
Screen cap now!
I'm sorry for the shitty format OP. I hope I've helped you at least put the problem into perspective. Obviously your daughter can't submit a racist paper and I wouldn't want you to do that to your daughter. I recommend you actually do more research yourself as there is alot of good information out there.
>tfw family is in the corporate/financial control level
Must suck to be a debt slave pleb
Well that was a red pill
Spasibo Boris for your insight and quality trolling with your sliding and larping.
>You really think your guns can do anything against the powers that be? Do you really think they're even threatened by them?
and yet the big city strongholds of the powers that be, are universally disarmed with the strongest gun control laws in the country. Funny how that works.
It's almost as if being able to drop bombs in people's heads doesn't prevent a tyrant from getting his head blown off when he goes out for a night on the town.....
We are the powers that be, you mongrel.
Way too many people believe in an inverted world where rights are revocable gifts bestowed by government, and tend to view this situation as evidence of that. That is a good jumping-off point for this.
Prior to the founding of these United States, convention held that 'rights' were bestowed upon the masses by those in power. The key founding principle of this nation is that we as human beings have rights by nature of our very existence, and that government should exist to protect those rights, not to bestow them.
Pay attention to the wording of the Preamble to the Declaration of Independence, and of the amendments which make up the Bill Of Rights. It's very clear by the wording that the assumption is that our rights are inherent, not conditional or granted.
The second amendment therefor does not grant us a right or allow us to do anything - it specifically prohibits the government from taking that inherent right away.
>can the government legally prohibit us from owning nuclear weapons?'
In my opinion, not without a modification of the second amendment, and here's why: At the time 2A was written, it was expected and assumed that individuals could and would have weapons equal to those which might be brought to bear against them.
Thank you for the perspective. Good write up!
Thanks anons, much appreciated
>screenshot 2-3 times
>open in paint/photoshop/illustrator/whatever you have
>crop
>stack on top of each other
>save as combined image
No problem buddy.
Anytime, good luck with those youngsters, they are going to need all the help they can get.