Say all guns were banned in the US, what would be the potential consequences?

Say all guns were banned in the US, what would be the potential consequences?

Criminals would still have access to guns but there would be an immense rise in the cost of a gun on the black market. After a certain amount of time it is likely that only the more wealthy of criminals would be able to afford guns. So the real question is how does the government plan to disarm illegal gun owners, can they? What would it look like if the only gun owners for a certain amount of time were solely criminals?

What are some other potential consequences?

What are the Benefits other than, a decrease in mass shootings?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=lNKFt4z6zio
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster
usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2016/06/14/orlando-shooting-officers-may-have-shot-club-patrons/85860178/
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Maybe Europeans would consider immigrating.

>no trigger discipline

reeeeeee

Fake gun or not.

Is this your homework assignment?

Plz rate my pic

probably a civil war would be the consequences

>Can't stop 12 million illegal immigrants
>US government gives guns to cartels
>gun control works guise

No just curious on other people's opinions but I doubt you will believe me

No thanks. You have fucked your continent up beyond repair. Don't need you chucks doing it to ours.

They can come take my guns out of my cold dead hands. I'm not even big on coverups and the gov is here to kill us bs. though take away the populations guns you leave them defenseless against a bad government. Nope keeping mine.

but Clinton is going to win??

I did always think we need guns to protect us from the government was kind of funny. You really think your gun will protect you against the full might of the government (drones, jets, tanks, and all of the stuff we spend so much money on)

>(drones, jets, tanks, and all of the stuff we spend so much money on)

>there are people this retarded

Repossesing the guns alone would throw the country into civil war.

...

Trump will smoke that bitch.

Now that I think of it the Vietnamese and muslims did survive against it, so it probably would not hurt

1 in 200 is A LOT more than I thought it would be. That really don't help your case. Saying "you're 100 times more likely to die of heart disease instead of guns" is extremely weak. Everyone knows they're going to die eventually, they don't want to be reasonably afraid of dying to something like gun violence. 1 in 200 is a reasonable fear.

jim jeffries has an interesting take on the subject, but it's kinda blueish. he's about 3/4ths of the way to this board agreeing with his stance.

It worked for the Viet cong fucktard.

The only thing the liberals are good at is calling whoever doesn't agree with them racist. Once they take your guns you will lose your last line of defence when free speech is taken and your freedom is stripped from you. I advise you buy a gun and be willing to die to defend it user.

The Founding Fathers were very clear about what we should do if the government tries to disarm the people. I would hope that we'd remember their words.

youtube.com/watch?v=lNKFt4z6zio
Consequences

>there are people that think their ragtag group of high school dropouts with guns can fight against the US military

top kek my friend

>what would be the potential consequences?
All the leftist politicians will be killed and the federal government will be gone for a short time.

make it longer and factor in niggers and then it will be perfect

>what would be the potential consequences?

Red Army + Communism

How in the fuck do you plan on taking all 300 million guns in america? How do you even know where the guns are or where to find them?

>Say all guns were banned in the US, what would be the potential consequences?

Immediate armed revolution from both the military and populace

see

Is it really? Even if you eradicated all gun crime and homicide you'd still be left with 99.5% of deaths, Reducing your chance of death by 1 in 200 is not significant in any way

>what is 3d printing

Cartels take over parts of the south more brazeningly.

...

>What are the Benefits other than, a decrease in mass shootings?

I am curious why you seem to think there is a benefit to folks dying in a mass bombing instead of a mass shooting.

Pic related, 168 dead.

you're an idiot

...

Argentina is right yet again
It's really weird, i actually haven't seen any Argentinian shitpost in a while

>implying it will even be a contest
>implying Amerifats won't get stomped immediately

>So the real question is how does the government plan to disarm illegal gun owners, can they?
We can make them faster than they can confiscate them from us

bait?

You remember what happened with prohibition back in the day? Didn't work out so well and that was just alcohol.

...

The black market would explode. There are more guns than fucking people in this country, and there floating around everywhere.

I can get you a AK-47 off the street in Southern Louisiana for 150 dollars with the serial numbers filed off. I've seen illegal AR's go fo 400 dollars, and I've seen glocks go down to as cheap as 100.

There would be absolutely no way to take them all back. There are simply too many of them. If they "banned" the AR-15, NOTHING would happen. You know how many AR's there are in the entire country?

It would just make the black market explode. No ones going to listen to a fucking "court decision" over gun laws.

It's better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

Or when your done with your dirty work wipe off your prints and throw it in a storm drain.

...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster
Worst school attack in US history in terms of casualties -- not guns involved.

I'm serious
I haven't seen an Argentinian shitpost for a while

I want it normie friendly. Talking about how apish and brutal niggers are by saying how much they kill wil just repulse them

That has been refuted sufficiently on Sup Forums. that I have to conclude you are a troll. Even if you do not agree with their thinking, you know full well by now what the counter-argument is.

360 million guns in the US, guns currently out number people. The government couldn't deport 10million illegals they sure as hell aren't going to confiscate 360 million guns

somebody with a high caliber rifle will take out the powergrid and start the insurrection

What no one seems to understand is that all these new "tighter" gun control laws only stop people from carrying who actually give a fuck about the laws.

My dad can't carry legally in CA, and he's never committed a crime in his life, and doesn't want to fuck with getting charged with one.
On the other hand, Daquan has many guns. Daquan is a also a criminal. Daquan carries these guns with the intent of using them, either to rob, or murder. Daquan knows he is a robber and murderer, so Daquan isn't very concerned about the ticket he might receive if he is caught with a gun. In fact, Daquan is probably already wanted by police, so he has more of a reason to carry a gun.


Why is it that people think that making something illegal is going to stop people who are already criminals from doing it? The only thing gun control does is keep LAW ABIDING citizens from having guns.

It would honestly be better to machine most of the parts yourself using steel and aluminum. ABS plastic isn't really the best material for anything that gets hot or is subjected to stress. Besides have you ever used one, they are terrible at printing curved surfaces and they don't have the best accuracy when printing a part. A cnc machine would be better still not perfect but more accurate.

Can Sup Forums designate this guy an honorary white guy?

Is this an Australian proxy?

>pic related

Price of illegal guns skyrockets due to low supply and huge demand.

More and more gun owners killed to have their weapons taken and sold.

Basically what happened when the drug war began, but the item being trafficked can be used to kill.

Death everywhere, police can't cope and demand increased powers in order to suppress the chaos government policy has created.

>this ain't yo daddy's police state, boy

first thing, we'd all have "assault rifles."

everybody who could, would buy an 80% lower, and manufacture a true assault rifle with it. they would make extras, and sell them.

everybody who could, would manufacture a handful of drop-in auto sear devices, and modify existing semiautos which operate with them. additionally, many people with the almost-there variants would switch their buffers and carriers so that a DIAS would function in their rifle. they would make extras of these, too, and sell them.

second thing, ammunition would no longer be scarce.

everybody who could, would produce lots more of it. there's no telling how much you'll need in the civil war that ensues after a ban on private sales, a ban on semi-autos, or any other new gun control law we find repugnant. when there's no telling how much you'll need, you make a lot. extra. and sell it.

third. law enforcement would be cucked first. local and then federal.

see "red dawn" for an idea of what happens to police chiefs, sheriffs and mayors (the tune "stuck in the middle with you" comes to mind). only, in that movie, the invader is a known foreign country. in this scenario, the elements of treason to the republic are not all out in the open, they are mixed together in government, (((news media))), and some (((entertainment))).

then there's the uncontrollable violence.

ambushes would be a daily occurrence for both sides. a number of prominent public figures would be assassinated. we have all been keeping tabs on who has enabled gun controllers to believe they can get away with their plans, whether they are all talk, or actually back it up with some action. but now, because we know who's who at the outset -- and that gives us strategic advantage to compliment our tactical advantage of assault rifles, IEDs, improvised RPGs, improvised rifle grenades, plus some sweet-ass vehicles -- we only need to stay in the know. enter the intelligence network.

Now, user, if that sort of thinking was true, you'd expect all these mass shootings to be carried out ion gun-free zones like schools and nightclubs in Florida and the like.

>usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2016/06/14/orlando-shooting-officers-may-have-shot-club-patrons/85860178/


Yeah because only the wealthiest of criminals can afford weed, heroin, methamphetamine, etc...

You'll just create (even more) of a black market for them, but now you will see a missive increase in untraceable homemade weapons.

None of the criminals care about homemeade guns now, because we can jsut buy them, buit when taht changes they wilkl have to get them somehow...

Just wait Ahmed. Also, stay the fuck out of our country. I don't need you mudslime loving bull prepers to ruin our country too.

He did a good job resisting the urge to point it at the camera or hold it sideways. Not bad.

OP is a faggot, nothing to see here. Sage and move along.

Over 300000000 guns are in private hands. How many gun owners will fire sale their weapons if no money is offered in compensation? Australia's buyback costed them $500 million for roughly only 650000 guns....think about it.

liberals dont think it through. Htey jsut assume the police will "go get the guns".

I think the fact that this means literally a search of every single property in america jsut completely glosses by them.

SAUCE ON PIC?

If they banned all guns and tried to seize them from current owners it would be a civil war.

its a fuck ton easier for the average nigger though

Did you reply to me by mistake?

This sort of sums up what happened the last time the Government tried prohibition. Well, the last several times, I guess, counting drugs and the war there-on.

An overnight gun grab would cause a civil war. Being that that is a given, it would probably be attempted under a manufactured martial law type situation, to try to limit the violence.

As for the aftermath, if the Gov't pulls it off things will become like Britain with petty crime going up, and gun violence in the inner cities would continue because of black market firearms (that would slowly taper off assuming gun-crime laws get insane penalties).

Go say that on K to get educated.

The US government doesn't have a chance. They dont have the manpower, and the enemy would be invisible and any infrastructure destroyed would only hurt the governments cause. Tanks, jets, and bombs cant win a standard asymmetrical war for shit, let alone one on home ground.

Imagine the "war of being tremendous faggots". You dont attack tanks, you attack power plants. You dont attack jets, you burn fuel refineries, you dont attack the enemy, you attack their reputation to succeed, and you attack their supporters comfort.

let me make a quick diversion for those sweet-ass vehicles. command vans, MRAPs, APCs, etc. -- we have them already, you just don't know it. they're in the hands of local law enforcement thanks to the drug war. only problem is you think that local law enforcement owes you allegiance and that they're likely to offer it after a gun ban, ha.

nope.

now as i was saying, the movement grows. it almost outgrows itself. it gets so large that people all need to know what's happening and who's who as the battlefield give-and-take rewrites the political map. so now what you see is new media, a new establishment. its inevitable.

and why would all this happen. because if the consequences we have now for illegally owning an assault rifle, machine gun, RPG, etc. are made to be equal with the consequences proposed for owning just a handgun or rifle, then there is no reason to commit the small "crime" when you could just commit the big one. in either case, what you have is a firearm. it's not a bowl of eggs, faggot. it defends itself when the tyrants come knocking.

eat these.

Also....

>None of the criminals care about homemeade guns now, because we can jsut buy them

Are Saturday Night Specials not still a thing?

Brazil has nasty laws to prevent people to buy guns. In fact, only people who work in the security area or cops can buy guns. It turns out criminals don't follow the law. The fucking government was surprised to see criminals didn't turn over their guns as it was planned.

Brazil, 200kk people, strict gun control: 70 000 murders per year
USA: 318kk people, 12 000 murders per year.

Every eyar the number in brazil is getting higher and higher, the real number is hidden from the population.

Dont give up your guns

Pic related: what happens when the government ban guns from normal citizen

exactly. even beer was outlawed, so everybody made 180 proof moonshine. and they made extra and sold it.

>I think the fact that this means literally a search of every single property in america jsut completely glosses by them.

Which, by the way, they will scram about the loudest. Not that it would not be worthy of some screaming...

fucking babes with guns, powertools or on bikes turns me on. Damn I want her number

I have been on 6chan too long, when I almost replied to you to mock you for spelling "band" wrong.

Why the fuck is this dumb bitch's finger on the trigger? I hope she accidentally shoots herself.

U.S would be dead, it would have to rename itself.

Car crashes.
You forgot car crashes.

Just look at how well prohibition went.

Hey /k/ showed up.

>That really don't help your case
>here's my totally broken math to show why

firearms save 2 million lives a year
>kleck, gary
kill yourself my man

your self

Things that are fake on this pic:

- gun
- tits
- hair color
- expression

I guess the sky is real

I'm not even particularly pro gun control (as many people have pointed out, as horrifying and shocking as mass shootings are, they're responsible for just a tiny fraction of the preventable deaths in this country) but you fuckers do realize that many -- maybe even most -- gun control advocates only want to make it *harder* for people to legally obtain guns (hopefully weeding out some of the people who really shouldn't be allowed to have them), and limit *what* guns you can legally obtain? Even if some people do want a blanket ban on all guns, that's never going to happen in this country, not now and not ever. Mentally stable law-abiding citizens will always be able to acquire guns legally, and so creating a false choice between "banning all guns" and "never tightening gun laws at all" just makes you look paranoid and stupid, degrades the conversation and makes it very unlikely that any kind of mutually-acceptable compromise will be reached. And like it or not, both sides often have to compromise in a democracy.

With alcohol, they gave everybody a nice long run-up to get in a legal private stock of booze (any that you owned prior to the amendment kicking in was legal to keep and use) and there were numerous interesting exceptions in the enacting legislation (the Voldstead Act) -- for example, home-brewed cider was legal, sacrimental wines were legal but there was no legal definition of who was allowed to partake or how frequently (some "synagogues" around the country went from zero members to three or four hundred) and of course after the law kicked in, smuggling was intense.

Based on that, I'd expect a huge run on guns and ammo if it looked like a law was about to be passed, and a huge and very violent black-market there-after.

BLUNT OBJECTS KILLS MORE PEOPLE THAN SEMI-AUTOMATIC RIFLES IN THE UNITED STATES EVERY YEAR

WHY AREN'T BLUNT OBJECTS BANNED?

Also shall not be infringed you unamerican fucks

>implying the US military wouldn't facture if it ever came to the point it's fighting citizens

you're an idiot

Im sure liberals will, or uncle tom

...

>Say all guns were banned in the US, what would be the potential consequences?
No mass shootings
No more small dicked guys
Have to get in shape if you want to be tough shit

Don't try to compensate your lack of education and powerlessness with guns.

But at the same time you could make your own wine legally, causing a huge increase in grape consumption and the rise of a hearty grape that could handle being shipped by rail from California to Chicago or New York (though it made a lousy wine.)

It was an odd time...

...

We can use NY as an example of taking rights through slow erosion. Of course nobody wants to outright take guns, they know they cant, and they would fail. Every time the people agree to losing a part of their rights, the next piece is just around the corner.

Gun control has NEVER in the history of the US been a compromise. It has always been a take.

This has been repeated numerous times throughout history, not only in relation to weapons.

No thanks achmed, were full

There would be a multi-billion dollar black-market for guns,

cartels would rise and wage war against eachother, most likely with innocent civilian casualties.