Oh guns aren't the problem!

>Oh guns aren't the problem!
>Suicides make our gun deaths inflated.
How much cognitive dissonance do you have to possess to think American gun laws, gun proliferation, or guns in general, are a good idea?

Other urls found in this thread:

ballinaadvocate.com.au/news/new-plan-unveil-tackle-out-of-control-gun-violence/1992835/
bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-39578500
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

>guns in general, are a good idea
the Swiss and Austrians have a bit better regulations.
But to be frank, you can order a gun on the dark web and get it in your mail box, same with drugs. Regulating guns won't change anything.

sucides dont exacerbate gun deaths, niggers do. white america has comparable metrics to most european countries. please stop shilling

its a millennial thing kid
boomers used to take their guns to school and no one ever got shot.
no millennials on shootings.
its that simple

It's a trade-off at a fundamental level.
If pro-gun people could magically stop illegal gun violence, they would.
However, that magic button does not exist. So decreasing gun crime will almost invariably come with restricting gun use for lawful citizens.
The debate is about what you value more: That absolutely no lives are lost to guns or that you stay armed in case of defending against a tyrannical government.
Putting priority on one of these is almost autimatically at the cost of the other point.

>b-but muh guns

THIS

America already has a tyrannical government, to be frank. Whether they want to admit it or not. Between shit like the 7 eyes group, mkultra and the fact that they aren't even a democracy, Americans have had a tyrannical government for decades at least

All the more reason then to keep the pulic armed then, isn't it?
If you actually believe that there is not only the possibility of a tyrannical government but that is already in place, then you would want the means to defend yourself, right?
Even if you think you'd have no chance against the tyrannical police or army, better to have something to defend yourself than nothing at all.

being this retarded

...

There is truth in this. It can be argued that guns should be banned, but recent shootings are not any reason for the banning. Let us say, for the sake of argument, that there were two shootings a decade prior to the 70s, and now there are 100 shootings a decade. You can argue that two shootings a decade (or maybe 3 or 4, adjusting for population increase) is too many and therefore guns should be banned. However, you cannot use the 100 shootings per decade as a basis for your argument, as clearly the significant boost in deaths is not a matter of guns being legal, considering that it is a recent phenomenon, and guns have always been legal.

you've never shot a gun have you boy.
pull the trigger once and feel the power.
shooting real or fake grenades from an m203 barrel is fun too.
fuck off

When you have the population of California spread over the area of the United States, no wonder there is no crime.

Also, no Mexicans and nigs

I mean, they still have the same number of homicides, but it wasn't with guns, and that's all that matters right?

Former Marine here and not anti 2nd amendment, as well, but that is a retarded argument, sir.

the chance of dying in a mass shooting in america is about the same as being killed by a dog, and nobody really wants to talk about normal gun murders because it's mostly urban blacks and wife-beating rednecks who become victims of those.

It would also be interesting to see how often there were mass shootings before 1996.

>Ban swimming pools! Nobody NEEDS a high-capacity assault pool!

>In fact, the most recent government report on crime trends in Australia says, “Homicide in Australia has declined over the last 25 years. The current homicide incidence rate is the lowest on record in the past 25 years.”

sure

>Listen, you can argue about how "swimming is fun" all you want, you sicko, but we all know these pools only have one purpose: to submerge human beings in an environment incompatible with breathing.

Help me figure out this article from 2013, then. This is 17 years after Australia took all the guns away, right?
ballinaadvocate.com.au/news/new-plan-unveil-tackle-out-of-control-gun-violence/1992835/

hmmm.. need more pools in the inner city

dont buy a house with a swimming pool, they're an assload of work to maintain, plus they get leaks or the liner gets ripped which is a couple thousand dollars to fix.

...

if you think for yourself guns are good

if someone is your dad guns are bad

I love how the americunts are killing each other

Do you people really don't get the reasoning behind no-gun zones?

Its not cognitive dissonance, its a fundamental difference in values. We could talk about numbers of defensive gun uses annually or about the IRA or the Taliban or ISIS or what have you, but the ultimate argument isn't "are guns a good idea" so much as "do you value self sufficiency and agency above public heath." I am willing to trade living in a society with mass shootings in order to be able to protect myself and my family, choose the time and manner of my death, and engage in violent direct action if I so choose.

i get the reasoning but its ineffective and stupid and puts everyone in danger

>Oh guns aren't the problem!
>Suicides make our gun deaths inflated.


the number of Americans who, when presented with the fact that there's about 9,000 firearms homicides per annum will claim "no, those are suicides" is astounding.

the reality is there's about 9,000 firearms homicides, AND 17-18,000 suicides by firearm every year.

Its not that people don't get the reasoning, its that most gun-free-zones have no means of enforcement and thus apply only to people who are following the law. A courthouse or an airport make sense, but you have physical security in those locations which is capable of both ensuring that nobody is armed and responding to threats. A school or public park, on the other hand, is pretty much just working on the honor system. If we don't feel a location is sensitive enough to require real security and screening, how can it possibly be sensitive enough to require everyone to be disarmed?

Just because you take them away doesn't mean people won't still do shit like that, a person that is determined enough will get a gun even if they have to make it, or they will resort to more basic but painful and inhumane methods to kill or commit suicide

Still in denial. Do self defense cases happen where people with guns prevent crimes. Maybe even against themselves or others? Sure, of course.

But in a realistic scenario where seconds is all it takes, even if armed to the teeth, you and those around you more than likely will perish

id like to die with the right to have tried to do something about it

Guns aren’t the problem. Niggers are ate problem.

Well that's why you practice my love, so you know how to react in those few seconds

Part of the problem there is that the gun control side of the argument has spent the last 30 years saying that theres 30,000+ "gun deaths" every year and gun owners are used to responding "most of those are suicides." The same problem exists when people talk about the number of "children" killed by gun violence and leave out that the lion's share of people killed using firearms are in the 15-24 bracket, meaning most of the "children killed by guns" in the US are over 18.

You can't have one side of a debate be actively deceitful for 30 years and then complain when the other side assumes that numbers are bullshit.

Well you're not being rational then. Let's be clear about that.
You're enamored with the illusion that you think you would be able to defend yourself.

Imagine you'd have a school for instance and someone saw how someone else with a gun walked to the main building. The first person would be able to tell the police that there's a person with a gun and they'd know to bring fucking everyone to kill a school shooter.
If that wasn't the case and the police was informed and said person hadn't stated shooting yet and noticed the police he could just claim that he just excercised his right to carry his gun(/s) because muh second amandment and would get away scott free.
If that doesn't sound like a huge pile of shit then i don't know what would.

well, niggers made USA rich with their slavery work, so now fuck you

It's not like the nig nog holding his glock sideways aiming it in his general direction will hit the first shot

The suicide point is actually not in your favor, though. Someone who commits suicide is typically extremely depressed and is finally driven to end their suffering. Do you think those 18k people, given the ban on guns, are net gains in terms of lives saved? I would submit that a suicidal person is not going to say "oh well, I guess I will just live" when they are unable to find a gun to shoot themselves with. You can argue that the numbers might be lower than 18k, but I doubt it would be much lower.

You're obviously someone without training. No amount of training can prepare you for death by guns.

Some scenarios ? Yes.
Most? No.

The thing is, you're imagining that most of these situations are people trying to stop mass shootings against trained, committed attackers. I've used a firearm defensively twice and, like most people who use a firearm defensively, never actually had to fire a shot. The first time I ever pointed a weapon at a human being was to stop a burglary. Like most people, the burglar wasn't interested in being shot, so he fled when he saw the weapon. Like most people. I'm not terribly interested in killing someone so I didn't shoot him once the threat was clearly over. The second time was someone losing their shit over traffic started making threats and pulled a tire iron out of their trunk. Again, mere presentation of a firearm ended the conflict without anyone being injured or police being called. Things like this happen hundred or thousands of times a day.

Life isn't an action movie.

Your fatalistic outlook is not shared by all, friend.

Well if I can get my gun an shot the person who broke into my home before he shoots me because I practiced this scenario before then I would say it helped

Fuck my Clumsy ass hands o this shitty keyboard

>if you just make guns illegal, murder will magically just go away!
>mfw: that's not the case, it's never been the case, and it is demonstrably false.
>Worse than false, it actually produces an opposing effect; fewer armed citizens = more violent crime, as demonstrable by comparing any area with strict gun control measures with neighboring and similar areas with far fewer gun control measures.
>then there's this: bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-39578500 :which shows gun crime in London is on the rise, by a fairly sharp amount.

But tell me again, OP, how guns are the only reason we have crime...

Where I stay it is ok for handguns and concealed carry but how can you hunt with an automatic? Armageddon style?

Umm, concealed carry? You're fucking retarded.

It's not even worth going through all the bullshit to get an automatic, I prefer semi anyways

>i want to kill myself and have a gun, so i blow my brains out

>take gun away

>suddenly i guess i just dont want to die anymore, thanks gun control!

imagine being this woke

Do you know what police response times look like? 911 was called within 40 seconds of Adam Lanza entering Sandy Hook. The first officers showed up on scene four minutes later, around the same time the last shot was fired, but didn't actually enter the building until about five minutes after that. That was a good response time and police presence was still utterly irrelevant. Compare that to the mass shooting in Chicago in 2015 which was stopped by a random Uber driver passing by who happened to be carrying or Mercy Fitzgerald Hospital shooting which was stopped by a psychiatrist who carried despite a ban.

>But in a realistic scenario where seconds is all it takes, even if armed to the teeth, you and those around you more than likely will perish


Tell me, exactly how many of these scenarios have you been a part of?

>mfw: it's zero and this user is talking out his ass.

No problem proud citizen

...

If I had a gun I'd an hero. It's the only way I trust. which is weird given the mortality rates for suicide with a gun are so poor.

Well what if someone saw a bit of a gun stick out of some backpack then? It's not an incredibly complex scenario.

I'll be dead in a ditch before some Jew or Nigger catches me without a pistol.

You keep your automatic ready just in case: Communists.

That's environmental sexism if I ever saw it

shut up Leaf

You're telling me if lightsabers were available for purchase you'd say no? Fuck outta here

You'd call the police and the shooting would be over before they entered the building.

There will always be guns. if it aint civs killing civs it will be police killing civs.

the only main reason governments ever wanted to make guns illegal, is because they want complete power over its citizens.

You still have to have the will when you shoot a gun. Drowning yourself is the only true way to commit a self-service suicide.

not understanding carry laws.
One day daddy might buy you a airsoft.

It's hilarious all these pro gun advocates never mention the US government is an oligarchy and their guns are useless against the most modernized army in the world.
Of course they'll deny this and pretend they live in a democracy.

What kind of a democracy gives you a Hillary v Trump election? I'll tell you . A phony one

We're arguing here with a lot of "what if's" which makes this discussion kinda pointless, but well. Yes, some shootings are stopped, some are not...

What about the scenario of some scholar noticing the gun and stealing it to off himself or someone else? Do you really think it's a good idea to bring guns into an environment of young and hormonally instable people?

Gotta love Republican logic, blame mass shooting on mental illness, then cut and slash funding for health insurance and public mental health facilities

Because every shooting ever was over within minutes.

you're a stupid fucking nigger, don't breed

>There will always be guns.
This. A discussion about a ban is wholly theoretical. There is no registry, no means of knowing who owns what or where it is. Outright confiscation would be enormously expensive and run afoul of a variety of constitutional rights aside from the Second Amendment. Gun owners are unlikely to comply or cooperate and we've already learned that we have the better lobbying game and can just wait out bans or restrictions.

Thats before we come to terms with the reality that gun owners have been consistently winning. Eight years ago handguns were banned, carry was a felony, and all firearms had to be registered in Chicago. Today theres no registry, no restrictions on handguns, and shall issue carry.

>guns are useless against the most modernized army in the world

Tell that to the Viet Cong or the Taliban.

LOL America is historically tyrannical and is STILL tyrannical
>largest prison population in world
>didn't grant its citizens many civil rights until the 60's
>didn't grant women the right to vote until decades into the 20th century
>uses brute military force to coerce foreign governments without consulting the legislative branch
>uses mass consumerism/media to homogenize the population
>broke treaties with Native Americans and stole their land
>testing biologics(drugs, vaccines, etc.) on its completely unaware population

The list goes on...
What is it gonna take to wake you people up?!?!?

If it weren't for shootings, what else would we be laughing at?

Can't formulate an argument? Oh, i forgot i'm arguing with drumpf voters.

Yeah well at least we don't have to live in England.

Most schools in America have police openly carrying firearms already and that scenario doesn't appear to be a problem. I can't see how a teacher or administrator legally carrying a concealed firearm makes your scenario any more likely than it already is.

Who shot Klebold and Harris, again?

gotta love commie logic, blame incredibly high gun deaths on legal arms whilst ignoring the fact that Chiraq has some of the nations most strict gun control laws and has an incredibly high murder rate because niggers can't coexist with even themselves, so the obvious solution is to make legal gun owning harder while doing nigh nothing to combat the illegal arms trade through routes like the deep web or buying one from your neighborhood nigger

>drumpf voter
>implying i voted for cheeto man
i don't need an argument for that fucking ridiculous, poorly worded scenario that looks like it was written by a toddler.

I'd assume a policeman is better trained to handle a gun then some teacher that decides to carry. I may be wrong though.

You're right, mostly useless.

>Today theres no registry, no restrictions on handguns, and shall issue carry.

Even so they don't have reciprocity with other states. Makes traveling though Illinois a pain in the ass. I'd love to see a Federal carry law rather than all this state level bullshit.

Lol the american gun owners wpuld desroy the military. 2m troops vs 100m gun owners.

Arguing that guns preventing violence is as logical as arguing that doughnuts combat obesity

What do you think causes mass shootings?

For me it's usually a nice cup of coffee.
As for the rest, every country has a laundry list of why it's a shithole.

You would be wrong in almost every jurisdiction in the country. Firearm training for police is laughable.

Explain the Bundys.

The lack of reciprocity sucks, but it was a sacrifice we were willing to make to get preemption. I'd be wary of any national carry law because that puts changes into the hands of one body rather than 50. The last thing we want to do is allow the other side to focus their resources.

mass gatherings of soft targets.

>you can order a gun on the dark web

That's a myth. Tor gun dealers are 100% fake. You will only get scammed out of your money.

The odds of being a victim of a mass-shooting in America are .000000001/1. The exact same odds of being struck by lightning while being attacked by a shark.

70% of all gun deaths are suicide
Most of the rest are legit self defense.
85% of all actual gun crimes (guns used to commit crimes) are from black people.
The remainder are accidental deaths.
Less then .000001% of gun deaths are mass-shootings.

You're assuming that most of the 2m troops would actually fight, that none of those who stayed would be saboteurs, that Fort Bragg wouldn't clear out and suddenly you'd see oddly efficient groups of irregulars shouting "de oppresso liber," that a serious resistance wouldn't be disruptive enough to the economy to make capitulation the right move...

Or arrested by the ATF...

Klebold and Harris...

Ding! Police are irrelevant in mass shootings the majority of the time.

That's not true. They're good for crying on camera after the fact.