When can we finally have a reasonable discussion about common sense gun control?

When can we finally have a reasonable discussion about common sense gun control?

Attached: file.png (1200x1263, 1.61M)

Other urls found in this thread:

cnbc.com/2018/02/15/heres-how-everytowns-disputed-report-of-18-school-shootings-breaks-down.html
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Yes.
Animals in wild nature stay calm because of euqual power. So solution is simple. -Mandatory arm everyone with firearms.
/thread

Wake me up when the left learns how to meme.

Attached: 1520458784028.jpg (480x480, 31K)

Yes. Minorities shouldn't have guns. The public school system needs to be abolished. Any questions?

can we have a
>reasonable
>discussion
>common sense
>gun laws

Nothing we've heard is REASONABLE nor is any DISCUSSION allowed if it isn't "ban them all." You fags can't even say what is COMMON SENSE about your proposals. We already have lots of GUN LAWS

take your faggoty-ass buzzwords and shove them up your fagron cumslut boypussi

We can have a discussion about "common sense gun control" when it stops being a retarded lefty euphemism for "fuck the second amendment lol I want to use a boiling frog approach to ban civilian ownership of everything more dangerous than safety scissors"

>When can we finally have a reasonable discussion about common sense gun control?
Never because no amount of "gun control" is "common sense". Common sense is a weasel word used to push tyranny and total ban of guns. There's nothing common or sensible about an abuse of personal freedoms. I have the freedom to kill you. Like, sorry! it's illegal, but I am not going to ever sign off on a policy that puts me in a straitjacket just in case I decide to use that freedom.

>muh kumin senc guhn kuntroll
I hope you and your kind all die in a terrible accident and that your entire lineage is wiped out.
#ENOUGH IS ENOUGH
#nomorebans
#gunsforeveryone

Attached: 129859876943.png (750x3200, 213K)

replace mass shooting with muslim attack and gun control laws with immigration laws

two hands

Define your "common sense gun control" first. This phrase is thrown around as if it ought to be perfectly obvious to everyone what is meant by it, but when it comes to specifics they are either never mentioned or turn out to be things that are already on the books.

Attached: 1521830327852m.jpg (613x1024, 78K)

When the bodies of all communists, liberals, and social progressives are lying cold on the floor?

Is that Destiny?

yeah, here's your discussion. most gun crime stats include suicides with guns. those people would be killing themselves anyway, and having a gun doesn't change that. all rifles account for roughly 3% of homicides in the united states, which is only about 300 people a year. this means that because about 6 people per state are killed every year, you're willing to strip away a constitutional right.

you want to talk about the number of school shootings?
>cnbc.com/2018/02/15/heres-how-everytowns-disputed-report-of-18-school-shootings-breaks-down.html
"According to Everytown, "any time a firearm discharges a live round inside a school building or on a school campus or grounds," it counts as a school shooting, regardless of whether or not the shooting results in injury or death."
quit messing with the statistics and we might be able to have a discussion on that. everyone talks about "oh there were hundreds of school shootings" because people immediately think of columbine. In reality, you include incidents where nobody was hurt, or times when people kill themselves on school grounds.

By the way, about 300 people are killed every year with rifles, and the US population is over 300 million. that means you have a one in a million chance (or 0.0001% chance) to be killed with the assault rifles you're trying to ban. and that's still assuming that every rifle used to kill someone was an assault rifle. so why should we ban something that only kills roughly one millionth of the population every year.

it's funny that the people demanding more gun control actually opposed the clear backpacks rule. even better when they bitched about it being "a violation of our rights".

>mfw I wait rubbing my hands for school shootings in amerimutt land
>mfw when it happens I buy Gun Stocks because dumb red necks panic buy
>mfw I make 10-15% every time like clockwork
>mfw I'm litterally profiting off the murder of diabetes riddled creaturas
>mfw america is fucking cash cow

Attached: Happy-Jew.jpg (257x196, 11K)

how many days did CNN wait to have that town hall? we're all over here waiting to here new information on what happened and why, and they're already screaming ban guns before we knew shit about all the fuckups.

Right now.
You aren't getting any more gun control.
Discussion over.

3%. No sorry its far far lower than that. Firearms are responsible (as a method) for 30k deaths a year total, in a pop of 350mil, that is 0.003% meaning current gun violence would have to increase by 1000% in order to get to that 3%.
And even then, if you are not black, a cop, in a gang, or live around blacks, that 0.003% chance is even lower.

Police don't have a constitutional duty to protect you from harm.

Police are there to serve and protect the community, as they are trained to deal with the shit and the average citizen is not

>When can we finally have a reasonable discussion

Not when OP never sticks around beyond the first post.

Attached: slide.png (1500x1500, 926K)

What is common sense gun control

They still don't have to save you, and so well trained they kill innocent niggers without guns. Coward cops don't go in and save kids from getting killed in schools.

no i was talking specifically about rifles as a percentage of total homicides. in those statistics they're still only 3% of homicides.

Since when is Destiny that tall

fpbp

Just using rifles and not firearms altogether just makes it even less than 0.003% Practically zero

one sec, i had an excel file with the 2010-2014 fbi homicide stats on it. ill check that really quick

>libtards
>reasonable discussion
pick one

Attached: 862.png (591x587, 542K)

Eternal sleep it is.

Attached: 65874759.jpg (483x270, 63K)

i rechecked that file. there's about 12.5k murders every year, and the number of murders committed with rifles is about 300 people. so 300/12,500 is roughly 2.5% or 3%. so rifles account for about 3% of the total murders every year.

if you want to talk about the amount of the population killed by rifles every year, you would have to do about (300/300,000,000)*100=0.0001%. which means rifles kill about 0.0001% of the population every year.

Oh, memes? Sorry a bit busy changing the laws, and banning your guns right now....

Attached: F4D1FF04-0203-4680-A337-8B2763DE0256.jpg (990x549, 207K)

That is what I mean, the odds of getting killed by a firearm, pistol or rifle is so low, one has a better chance of dying crossing at a crosswalk with the right of way, if just a rifle? Idk spontanious combustion tier chance?

fpbp
It should be a criminal offence to NOT be armed.

and on top of that, firearm homicides account for about 12.5k deaths per year. so even the "firearm deaths" stat is misleading

yeah, your chances of being killed with a gun are less one in a million. and people are protesting the smallest fraction of that one in a million chance.

Alright Faggots. Lets see if anyone can break my arguments against gun control.

1. The right to bear arms isnt granted by the Bill of Rights, it is merely recognized and enumerated by it, as a human right. The right to bear arms exists in the same fashion now as it did then regardless of any law, bill, statute or code.

2. This human right has nothing to do with hunting, sport, or target shooting. It has to do with being able to use force on par with the government(which is coincidentally just OTHER PEOPLE. They dont know any more than you or I do about why we exist, and what lies beyond death) Why should the government decide how I defend myself and my family?

3. We need to deregulate automatic weapons, and supressors. Both have niche uses and dont make a weapon particularly more deadly. The current status of "allowed" weapons is disastrous, and absolutely counts as an infringement.

4. Force is the gold standard for humans all over the world. Anyone who tells you otherwise is either lying or ignorant. They ability to exercise force is a HUMAN RIGHT. And should not be held in the hands of the powers that be in the government.

Prove me wrong bitchlibs.

All those soon to be completely unarmed targets to kill!

Action : Whenever you see an article / tweet / post on normie media that makes you want to sperg out, but you can't act for fear of revealing your power level, simply reply with the following statement :

>"Thanks for pushing normal people even further to the right."

If they try to start an argument, simply keep repeating :
>"As I said, thanks for pushing normal people even further to the right."
to whatever arguments they try to make.
Whenever you see the comment, upvote / like it.

Goals :
- Demoralization. Make them realize that every action they take is counterproductive.
- Subtly imply to bystanders that 'ordinary' people are already right wing. Remember, the major social currency among normies is conformity. If they believe that everybody else is moving right, so will they.
- Point out that the rise of the right is a consequence of the actions & voices of the left.
- Show 'the left' and the normies that we are everywhere, and that we are watching. Again, this plays into the normie desire to 'fit in'.
- Embolden those who are already on the right but are kept silent by fear of social repercussions (see previous point).
- The comment is polite and violates no 'guidelines'. They can't shut it down.
- Short comments are more likely to be read, often more so than the actual article / post / story.
- Create an atmosphere that discourages leftists to post in the first place.

This is solid enough that you could even post it on real accounts. If you ever have to walk it back just say “I AM a leftist myself. It was sarcasm. I meant that stuff like that damages OUR cause.” Even then, the statement has value as a divide and conquer strategy (ie. “a real leftist doesn’t believe that stuff”).

It doesn't matter whether you believe any of the above or not - the purpose is to make *them* believe it.

Discuss.
Ignore divide & conquer shills and demoralization shills (anybody who ‘dismisses’ the plan without providing genuine criticism is a shill.)

When your side is capable of being reasonable.