>372 mass shootings in the US in 2015
>64 school shootings in 2015
>13,286 people killed in the US by firearms in 2015
>The number of gun murders per capita in the US in 2012 was nearly 30 times that in the UK, at 2.9 per 100,000 compared with just 0.1.
Of all the murders in the US in 2012, 60% were by firearm compared with 31% in Canada, 18.2% in Australia, and just 10% in the UK.
Australia banned guns and has had a mass shooting since they banned guns, so why hasn't the US banned guns yet?
Other urls found in this thread:
,286 people killed in the US by firearms in 2015
36 times that number died from tobacco related products in the United States.Why hasn't the US banned tobacco products? Why hasn't the focus been on that rather than a number less than 3% of that number?
what has been rooted in their society for a hundred years wont be removable within our lifetime....
>Australia banned guns and has had a mass shooting since they banned guns
New Zealand hasn't had a mass shooting since they haven't banned guns. This isn't even logic, this is just false allegory.
How many from nigs
This video will explain it for you.
people choose to smoke. people don't choose to be murdered by guns
Banning guns now is inefficient and impractical. The only way America can get rid of guns safely is with decades worth of reforms. Banning all guns tomorrow won't fix any problems.
Adjust these numbers by race, please.
we wont come for them with our cigarettes ,we will not drag the capitalist oppressors out of their homes in the night with our trans fats either,the teeming masses yearning to breath free will not throw the entire strata of incumbent society into the air with our swimming pools...all of these things kill more people then guns.the modern executive state is pep squad for the billionaires i wonder what reason the state could possible have for wanting to get rid of guns.
because tobacco related deaths are mostly self inflicted. Cunts aren't running around killing other cunts with cigarettes, if you put it in your own mouth you can die for all i care.
>We can fix the problem if we kick out all the blacks!
this.
also
whats wrong with people murdering each other.
survival of the fittest nigggaaaaaaaa
> so why hasn't the US banned guns yet?
Because it is a fundamental aspect of the US Constitution. There are three pillars of a fair democracy:
Freedom of speech
Right to bear arms
Right to due process
Without these three aspects, a democratic society cannot survive. Each serves the purpose of defending the other two.
>b-b-b-but user, look at all the other countries without the right to bear arms being successful
Sure, there are. There is a lot of problems the United States has, but you can be 100% certain that when the government no longer serves the people, and only lives to serve itself, the people of the US will dismantle the government down to it's foundation, and build again. Those of us not born within countries that ensure us those same rights, as securely as the US does to its own citizens, cannot be 100% certain that we will be able fight against a tyrannical government of our own.
>look at all the US gun deaths, explain those!
Like I said, the US has A LOT of problems. One of which is how it treats crime and punishment within. Too quickly are they to slap people with a prison sentence and overzealous punishments. Better treatment towards criminals and criminal behaviour would result in a SIGNIFICANT drop of gun related crimes within that country. This is only one aspect as well, we aren't even counting the other problems like a lack of public funding, proper central healthcare, focus on education, etc. All of these things contribute to a growing restless population, which usually results in a surge of crime.
tl;dr - There will always be a risk with how easy it is to acquire a weapon in the US, this is something that will always be concurrent. However, with changes to US social systems and general cultural attitude, these can be drastically reduced while still guaranteeing it's citizens the right to defend themselves against a foreign enemy and tyrannical government.
Don't be obtuse.
from the CDC:
Exposure to secondhand smoke causes an estimated 41,000 deaths each year among adults in the United States:1
Secondhand smoke causes 7,333 annual deaths from lung cancer.1
Secondhand smoke causes 33,951 annual deaths from heart disease.1
So still 3x die unwillingly from tobacco use, yet tobacco is still legal.
Now do assault and battery.
Less guns=less gun crimes, its not hard to understand but americans are retarded
Ofc you will always have gun crimes because of illegal guns, but mentally ill fags having guns will just make this number higher and higher
Also saying that we should ban trucks too, truck made for transport while guns made to kill, you can use a spoon to kill too but they are.not made for killing but guns are
But ofc retarded americans wont understand it so let them keep shooting each other because thats what they want
see
35,000 people in the US dies of speed-related deaths in 2015, yet vehicles are still manufactured that can drive twice the speed of any legal limit. Why haven't we stopped building these types of vehicles?
Less guns might lead to less gun crimes, but it doesn't lead to lower overall crime.
Many people wouldnt think about robbing stores when they domt have a gun or jack a car.
I'm an Australian and the American fire-arm situation has had me perplexed for as long as I have been old enough to understand it. Not one single day of my 25 year life have I ever needed to defend myself and by extension, no one that I know has either. It's so liberating, knowing that I can go out in public and not have to worry about being shot. I feel safe. The thought just never comes into my head so the idea of walking passed strangers carrying guns on the street and hoarding them in their homes is incredible to me! Like are you all seriously on edge 24/7 worried about having to protect yourself at the drop of a hat? Do you not think that maybe having a population saturated with deadly weapons might be the reason why you feel so unsafe and why you believe you need to have your own gun? Do you not realise that the fact you guys have numerous mass shootings a year and nothing ever changes is astounding? Children are being shot in schools. What the actual fuck! I have said to my wife on numerous occasions that if we lived in the U.S.A. I would be packing up and moving.
I think shooting a gun would be awesome and I'd love to try it. Do I as a normal, average citizen need to own/carry one? Hell no. I'd honestly feel less safe knowing their were more guns around.
Tell that to Brazil, who by the way, banned the public from owning weapons. Not to mention every other third world nation that did the same thing.
Crime and criminal behaviour is an extremely nuanced and complicated subject, that can't simply be defined as "whether a country has guns banned or not".
Number of homicides have been rising in UK since they banned guns.
So you rather have no guns if the chance of being beaten or stabbed to death would increase?
many people wouldn't think of robbing a store if they didn't have a gun too. it goes both ways
> Not one single day of my 25 year life have I ever needed to defend myself and by extension, no one that I know has either.
>It's so liberating, knowing that I can go out in public and not have to worry about being shot. I feel safe.
This is also the feeling for almost all Americans as well. Not everyone is a fucking psycho.
>Like are you all seriously on edge 24/7 worried about having to protect yourself at the drop of a hat?
You wear a seatbelt don't you? That doesn't mean you drive around always thinking you're getting into an accident, but you realize that accidents happen quickly, and not always within your control, so you do something to protect yourself consistently, even in situations that are seemingly the most safe.
I've explained the reason for why Americans are soaked in gun culture, and why the reason for owning a firearm is considered normal in America, almost a right of passage. I explained it here >inb4 dumb americunt
I'm not American, I just understand the American legal system and the history behind North America as a whole. I have a degree in History, and this kind of thing was taught to death. Many countries were not born in blood, and in their lifetime, have never faced a tyrannical government. The US has, and the reason why the right to bear arms is within the US constitution, is a legitimate reason.
>Without these three aspects, a democratic society cannot survive. Each serves the purpose of defending the other two.
free speech has never been defended using fire arms
>cannot be 100% certain that we will be able fight against a tyrannical government of our own.
>Implying that the public will be able to stand up against the government
That also includes self defense killings as more than half of those homicides and what about suicides are they also included?
Exactly
trying too hard to spin subject away from his precious gunz, you fucking american peasants are hilarious
>but you can be 100% certain that when the government no longer serves the people, and only lives to serve itself, the people of the US will dismantle the government down to it's foundation, and build again.
I'm sorry but why do you need guns to do this? Think of how small a government is compared to the population it serves? You're telling me that you think it couldn't be done without guns? Seriously?
>There will always be a risk with how easy it is to acquire a weapon in the US, this is something that will always be concurrent.
Huh? We have no real way to stop crazy people from acquiring weapons that can mow down a crowd of people in seconds so that's just something we're going to have to deal with. How are Americans so blasé about unnecessary deaths. Sure a mentally ill person could pull a knife and go on a stabbing frenzy but I like my chances of survival against a knife. A knife isn't going to kill a cinema full of people; it's an acceptable risk for something with many alternate, functioning purposes. A gun has only one purpose.
Fucking foreigners need to butt out of your fucking business
Its in american's nature to shoot each other. They need guns to shoot back and "defend themselves".
Broken ass "first world" society.
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun." - Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778
“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.” – Noah Webster
“I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.” – George Mason
Except brazil is full of guns
Would you get beaten or shot? Carrying a pepper spray can save you on those situations
As a Liberal, I'm kinda glad I have my guns right now.
Anyway, I see those homicides as a form of population control. Obviously abortion and contraception would be better, but Republicans are against this.
>Implying that the public will be able to stand up against the government
Why can't it? It has done it before within US history alone. The 13 colonies fought and defeated Britain. A much smaller and weaker force was able to defeat a larger and overshadowing government.
> free speech has never been defended using fire arms
Again, US history can be used as an example. Britain was extremely controlling, to the point that anyone who spoke ill of the crown was punished. This desire to be free from a tyrannical control over what is and isn't discussed and spoken out about, was defended by separating from Britain; using weapons.
A gun makes you feel powerful, it gives you the ability to kill another individual without any effort.
Try to take that away from a bunch of ignorant, scared peasants that are constantly being told the world is a big scary place
and you'll get this thread full of angry rednecks making excuses for their own low self esteem
>This is also the feeling for almost all Americans as well.
>I'm not American
Clearly they do have thoughts on protecting themselves if they own a gun and considering you're not American you don't really get to state how most Americans feel.
>You wear a seatbelt don't you?
Ever heard of the hierarchy of controls: Elimination, Substitution, Engineering, Administration PPE?
You cannot eliminate car accidents, you cannot substitute cars, so they have engineered seat belts as the next step. Guns can be eliminated as deminstrated by many other societies and substituted for less dangerous forms of personal protection.
>Would you get beaten or shot?
We're talking about homicide here.
The number of stabbings to death and beatings to death have increased more than the number of people shot to death have decreased.
To answer your question: I'd rather be shot to death than beaten/stabbed to death.
Just for information, the UK banned specific types of guns after the Dunblane School shootings, guy just walked in and started blasting at kids and others.
Shot himself of course, like most of them are cowards, their life is shit why not just kill innocent little kids then yourself so you are infamously remembered.
Since that ban, no other school shootings have happened in the UK.
But unfortunately it continues in the US.
However they don't need to ban guns, they just need tougher controls, but the US peeps are so brainwashed from an early age to bow down to the ethics of the US way of life, they think having guns is some divine right because an outdated 2nd Amendment allows it.
They are all defensive about sure, but I guarantee they would change their minds if a child in their family, their own or other sibling's, was shot by someone in a school, they would be first to cry about tougher controls or a ban.
They cry about gangs having illegal guns, but ignore the fact that because guns are legal and easy to buy with simple forms etc the cost of illegal guns is cheap.
Making guns illegal or tougher to get, would force the black market on weapons to soar, meaning it would be harder for criminals to get them so cheaply.
But hey... Americans gotta American. Gotta keep the guns as is even if some poor innocent kids die for that right.
Your misunderstanding about guns doesn't give you the right to project that sentiment onto others.
>50% of homicides committed by 12% of the population
>Against 12% of the population
>Caring that niggers kill each other.
are you well regulated though?
Do all gun owners regularly train and practice with their weapons?
Is the production and distribution of weapons well regulated?
Do you regulate who gets the weapons? because those laws were written in a time when women, gays, jews, crazy people, non whites were not even allowed to vote. so surely by that logic if they cant be trusted to vote then they cant be trusted to have a weapon.
If you take a closer look at homicide by firearms and split it into white perp and black perp you see that the gun violence caused by white population in the USA is about the same as in Belgium.
well, you can always use your gun to protect yourself from things like hurtful truths
oh wait.. you can't
Because only like 10 ppl live in NZ
Wow, some people years ago were smart enough to design the perfect system that could never be faulted by forever evolving societies and newly discovered technology. They did the best they could at the time with the information they had; but we have more info now and can make better informed decisions. Like do you honestly think they envisioned a society of thugs with automatic rifles?
People think the Bible is still 100% relevant too.
Hurtful truths like most legal guns never being used in a criminal way? Or maybe the fact that guns are not the big factor in crime and homicide, but blacks are?
As said the choice of weapons is very low now, the majority being hunting rifles and type of shotgun for obviously hunting reasons.
Another other weapons is no longer on the cards. It is tough.
The only way firearms such as automatics etc are bought is illegally, and even then in the UK that is extremely expensive.
Before the ban people had to pass courses to learn to shoot a gun etc before owning one. Since then the need is gone.
But again since the ban, firearm crime is very low.
Keep ignoring all the proof to the contrary but it just makes you look like a fool
“The Constitution shall never be construed… to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.” – Samuel Adams
“To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.” - Richard Henry Lee American Statesman, 1788
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." - Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776
>Like do you honestly think they envisioned a society of thugs with automatic rifles?
What would you do against a thug with an automatic rifle? Use your pepperspray on him? Legal gun ownership prevents bad people from being able to take over.
>I'm sorry but why do you need guns to do this? Think of how small a government is compared to the population it serves? You're telling me that you think it couldn't be done without guns? Seriously?
Who controls the tanks, and the jets, and stockpiles upon stockpiles of weapons? If even a small portion of the military and civilian population side with the tyrannical government, they will be at a tremendous advantage over the regular population in almost every single way. Are the civilians expected to just punch their way into the tanks and armoured soldiers?
The US fighting the British for independence is a perfect example of this. A small, but well armed forced can be devastating if given the right situation to flourish. You can bet for sure a tyrannical government will have support from the people within, and they will have access to government property and weapons. The oppressed civilian population will the ability to fight back. Weapons are one of the keys to this.
>How are Americans so blasé about unnecessary deaths.
They aren't. Most are just fully aware of the dangers that are posed with aspects of regular life. We are aware and prepared for a car crash, but we don't ban them; they serve a purpose.
>A gun has only one purpose.
That purpose is completely justified and reasonable. A government that extends its control too far, or a foreign enemy that invades the country, must be stopped. We aren't going to do it with knives and wishes.
> We have no real way to stop crazy people from acquiring weapons that can mow down a crowd of people in seconds so that's just something we're going to have to deal with.
You do. It's another weapon. You call the police for this very reason, but they aren't always going to be available or within reach. Regardless, the weapon in question isn't the solution or problem. Even without weapons, crime is commited. Look at places like Brazil. Weapons are banned nationally, but people still commit horrible crimes.
You should read it again.
It just says that a well regulated militia is necessary for a free state.
As such the government will not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms. Doing so would prevent a militia from forming.
America is not and will never be the UK.
"But if I have no room to escape, or if I run and am pursued to the wall or into a corner, where I cannot elude his fury, and have no other way to preserve my own Life from his violence but by taking his, there, I have an indisputable right to do it, and should be justified in warding thro' the blood of an whole army, if I had power to shed it and had no other way to make my escape." - John Adams, September 5, 1763
>Except brazil is full of guns
Held by criminals with negative intent. The only people there that suffer are the unarmed populace. That country is rife with police, but they can't stop any of it. Crime occurs in that country even without weapons. It happens regardless. The weapons aren't to blame, it's the corrupted government and horribly functioning social systems.
look everybody, i found batman!
you go fight crime on the streets you misunderstood benevolent vigilante!
Of course it won't, but that doesn't mean a tougher control on guns or a ban would save a lot more people especially vulnerable people like kids etc.
Wouldn't*
typo
Do you think criminals acquire guns legally? About how many of these deaths do think are related to gang violence? You're a fucking idiot, learn to analyze the whole issue, not drop a cancerous statistic and call it a day.
Govt. intervention is not the answer.
People rely on the govt. too goddamn much as it is.
Plus, prohibition of firearms will not reduce the rate of violent crimes linked to them.
If anything it enables them.
Literally every person I know (granted, I live in Southeast Kansas) owns a firearm.
Just last month, a hunter defused a situation where one drunken redneck had a knife to the throat of a slightly less drunk redneck because he thought redneck #2 was sleeping with his wife.
>Hunter points 10 gauge shotty at drunken redneck #1's temple and starts counting to 3.
>Redneck #1 drops knife, gets on ground
At least one person would have died if it weren't for the hunter and his shotgun. Likely more, and it wouldn't have required a single shell.
Now shut the fuck up and give me a reason to believe you've ever used a gun, much less killed something with one.
A conventional army such as the US one cannot win against its own armed populace. You cannot go shooting your own civilians because then you lose their support.
Besides, polls showed that a huge portion of the army would side with the people if the government told them to attack.
There's a screencap that better explains how a war between the government and the people would play out in the US. I'll see if I have it or maybe someone else can post it if they know which one I mean.
If England had had planes that can blow your asshole out through your ear from a mile away, the war would have ended in a week.
To think rednecks with shotguns could overthrow the US government by force is the height of insane thinking.
>Take away the rights of 300 million
>to stop
there's no comparison between today's US military and 1775 English army. America fought England during the revolution on a more even playing field, there's no way the public would be able to stand up to today's military and win a war. They could fight and probably sustain a war but no way could they win
Not an argument. I am finished talking with you.
2/10 troll
Begone, OP, your statistics have no power here -- we have anecdotes.
It's all black people getting killed so who cares? All those school shootings and what not are a drop in the bucket compared to blacks killing each other they just get more news coverage. Black people shoot each other so often it's not even news worthy anymore. It is impossible to overstate how insane predominately black urban areas are. You fags have no idea.
OP's argument:
Less guns means more crime so gun ban should be done
Counter argument:
Your statistics fail to address the increase in other crimes that outweigh the benefits of banning guns
because we became a militarized economy ever since World War One and having to bail everyone's arms industry out. If you think guns are so bad, maybe all the Eurofags shouldn't have gone to war so much.
Either way, I own seven firearms and am a firm believer in the right to bare arms.
Thanks, niggers
>This is also the feeling for almost all Americans as well.
>I'm not American
I'm Canadian. I live within spitting distance of Detroit. I can see the fucking skyline from here. I think I speak to some degree of what Americans do and do not think.
>Clearly they do have thoughts on protecting themselves
Like I said in the seatbelt argument. You have thoughts of protecting yourself, but it doesn't run your whole life. You spend 99.99% of your life not having to worry about your safety, but you still put on that seatbelt just incase. Just like people still buy and carry weapons.
>Guns can be eliminated as deminstrated by many other societies and substituted for less dangerous forms of personal protection.
Gun being eliminated isn't a positive thing. Nazi Germany did the same thing, as well as Stalin controlled USSR. It was branded as a way to make the society safer and more comforting. The people had no method of self defence against their own government. No one thought it would get as controlling as it did, but when it happened, they had nothing to defend themselves with, and because of that, died.
Everybody here talks big shit about protecting their stuff and freeduhms
but i haven't seen a single redneck blazing gunz and unleashing hell when a plane crashed in one of their buildings
i guess they were all too busy dialing 911
>People rely on the govt. too goddamn much as it is.
This.
Remember what Thomas Jefferson said about big government.
>To think rednecks with shotguns could overthrow the US government by force is the height of insane thinking.
Funny. You liberal fascists said the same thing about Trump being preisdent.
>Huah. To even think Trump has a chance of becoming president is the height of insane thinking!
Learning lessons is a challenge for your ideology, isn't it?
>inb4 im a centrist/libertarian
No you're not. You're a liberal of the cuckoldish variety. You just don't want to be associated with the crybaby insanity known as American liberalism.
>What would you do against a thug with an automatic rifle? Use your pepperspray on him? Legal gun ownership prevents bad people from being able to take over.
I would use whatever was at my disposal at the time. Apart from the fact that I am likely never to encounter this situation since I live in an intelligent society that prevents this being a regular story in the news: I am not afraid to defend myself without a gun. I feel safer living in a society were there are less guns because less guns equates to a lower chance of being at the end of a barrel.
>They aren't. Most are just fully aware of the dangers that are posed with aspects of regular life.
The are fully aware but never make any serious attempts at stopping the ludicracy.
If the situation was bad enough for civilians to even consider fighting against the government, they wouldn't have to worry about the military.
It would be more of Civilians vs police. Military wouldn't get involved.
I haven't seen the news reporting any mass shootings since Blaque Obama left.
Nigger, it's better to use accidental homicide statistics with car accidents.
to save a few thousand
wow man, illuminati confirmed!
And a lot of places have banned smoking in public places
You can have guns and decrease gun crime at the same time fairly easily with smart gun control legislation.
The trouble in the US that other counties don't have to deal with is the NRA. The NRA is simply organized crime with political pull. They want the most dangerous people to go guns, because when people are scared, gun sales skyrocket. When some loon shoots up a festival, rednecks go buy guns.
The NRA should be classified as a terrorist organization (they support people on terrorist watch lists having the right to buy guns) and put out of business. Then we could have sensible gun laws.
the modern era has rendered the whole militia standing up to a tyrannical government thing irrelevant has it not? kinda like old laws about video tape piracy. second amendment seems like its doing a lot more bad than good exisiting in an era it was not created for. your gov spends like 3x the amount any country in the world does on its military. if it goes to shit, do you think scores of people with guns will take down robots controlled from fucking space?
I like to bare arms on sunny days too mate.
Because the right to own firearms is a right protected by our constitution.
You think of the 13,000 killed by guns in homicides, a few thousand of them were innocent children?
Please.
Because this is the land of freedom, not the land of faggots.
Just like you did with Japan?
Just like you tried to do with Iraq?
Either way, it is simple.
Americans have to realise the 2nd Amendment is OLD, it was created back at a time when it was rare that people actually had guns, it was to protect farmers, etc against unknown attackers - Red Indians etc.
Since then weapons have evolved, there is more of them, and Red Indians don't do any attacking on horses anymore.
But the corrupt senate and congress have made it sound like it is such a great thing, why? Because they have shares in companies who produce the weapons... more sales = more profits.
Larger military budget = more profits.
Larger GDP tax rebate = more profits (GDP tax is 10.5% and over 9% is rebated back - close to 1.7 trillion dollars back in the pockets).
That is your America right now, corporate rules the country, and you are all bleating like sheep to their tunes of grandeur and propaganda.
Not all Americans are foolish though, and learn stuff about their country and how shit it actually is.
Being the richest nation = a lie. GDP is not America's wealth and never will be, it is profits of corporations based in the US.
Free Speech, Freedom, etc = a lie. You have never had these, on paper sure, but look at your country where is the free speech and freedom right now? I can tell you, it is where the government says it is.
Anyway, Americans need to learn to look deeper into their own country passed the propaganda to see what is actually going on.
Starting back in the late 70s in the Middle East and Reagan's administration that paid Saddam Hussein to fight Iran to dispose of the new ruler. Which caused Islamic Extremists to focus the west.
Because the government already overreaches their power in so many other ways
And this would be the pinnacle of intelligent response from Europeans.
For 1300 years they've been oppressed. Their history is one of tyranny and autocracy. They're comfortable not being able to defend themselves.
>Domesticated
>A conventional army such as the US one cannot win against its own armed populace.
I agree. This is exactly what I'm saying. Without being armed, they would be able to win.
>Besides, polls showed that a huge portion of the army would side with the people if the government told them to attack.
A poll doesn't mean anything in this situation because it isn't currently occurring. Countless people still follow the orders of a retarded store manager, what makes you think they won't follow the orders of a general? A general that tells them if they don't shoot the civilan populace, they will be killed themselves. The military is taught from day one to follow orders without question. The military is the exact force of people that would be the most questionable.
There are many examples within history of the military overtaking an unarmed populace (nazi germany, Stalin controlled USSR, etc).
So you think the majority of the 13,000 were what criminals?
No innocent civilians like adults also? Being robbed and resisting and being shot etc?
No?
Real life is not CoD kid
Real life is not the white&asian cul-de-sac you've clearly been living in your whole life.
Go walk the south-east streets of Stockton at night. 8/10 people you walk by are armed.
Oh, kill yourself for being a sheltered NEET.
>A much smaller and weaker force was able to defeat a larger and overshadowing government.
Endured. Not defeated. Majorly thanks to guerrilla tactics and militias.
Precisely the same tactics used in today's conflicts such as Afghanistan.
Britain was a superior force no doubt, but their armies were scattered around the world over the Empire, and mobilising such a vast army to relentlessly take back the Americas would be overly costly, not only in terms of economic loss but also in soldier's lives. And not to mention time consuming. Just sending reinforcements over the Atlantic took on average 7 weeks.
>To think rednecks with shotguns could overthrow the US government by force is the height of insane thinking.
They said the same thing about the US fighting Britain for independence. The US government can't nuke the whole population, you can't rule a smouldering pile of ash. The soldiers and politicians who control those planes have to sleep sometime. They live somewhere. Any enemy can be conquered, why ask for more deaths?
With your line of thinking, you might as well just let the government control everything now. Why have free speech if the government can just jail you and prevent you from breaking out or fighting back? Fuck it, right?
Of course the most reasonable answer here has no replies.
>thread
Yes the majority of those murders were criminals. 52% of those murders were black people shooting other black people. It is almost all gang violence.
SHALL
>They said the same thing about the US fighting Britain for independence.
This.
/thread