Some of you guys seem pretty smart, is there any reasonable argument for gun control...

Some of you guys seem pretty smart, is there any reasonable argument for gun control? All I ever see is "guns aren't necessary" or "they're scary"

Other urls found in this thread:

massshootingtracker.org/data
youtube.com/watch?v=CquUBWHU2_s
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

>is there any reasonable argument for gun control?

Really, it comes down to ideological arguments such as "citizens ought to, and must, be weaker and subordinate to the state. Such is the nature of the relationship between citizen and state."
Other arguments could be "An armed revolution is only harmful in the wrong run, and one of the state's primary goals is to assure it's further existence."

Keep in mind, there's plenty of simple and stupid rhetoric on the side of pro-gun (although I am pro-gun), like "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"

SHALL

Honestly if you look back before we started doing gun regulations gun homicides were inconsequential, it only boomed due to prohibition, war on drugs and after bouts of 'common sense' gun control. I don't even believe a felon shouldn't be able to buy a gun, if you think they're too dangerous to have a gun why did you let them out of prison?

Need if for camping in North America, or you'll get butchered by a bear, mauled by a moose, hunted by a pack of wolves, or even eaten in your sleep by a pack of rabid beavers.

Without guns there is a bigger chance the gubberment can just role in with armed troops and take your house and family away
Today a piece of legislation was thrown aside that went up against the mass spying the NSA does.
American people cannot defend themselves on paper, they can't protest so guns are their only protection

addendum: gun violence has been on a downward trend the last 20 years despite gun laws becoming more lax overall with increases seemingly only occurring in areas with strict gun control.

>1 post z tym ID
Really makes you think

>butchered by a bear

>All I ever see is "guns aren't necessary" or "they're scary"
Fuck off, kid

BE

BE

INFRINGED

BY

how do you check this

THE

The Founding Fathers knew that fully automatic weapons were a thing.
They wanted people to have them, along with cannons, both of the direct fire and shrapnel producing high explosive kind.

Thats why they didn't specifically mention them in the text of the Constitution, because those all fall under the moniker of "arms."

STATE

The one on the left should read 'as defined by 21st century marxists who hate America and have never used a gun in their life'

No, any restrictions is too much, I don't care about 50 people dying due to criminals.

>le political cartoon
enough of these shits, 99% of them are I AM SILLY strawmen and the last 1%, like this comic, are simply painting a caricature and saying "YOU SEE! THIS HYPERBOLIC IMAGE I MADE IS REALITY"
It's bad enough political cartoonists feel the need to label absolutely everything because they think everyone is an idiot except for them and their latte sipping friends, but their cartoons just aren't poignant or funny. Even looking at older political cartoons from 50 years ago or even 100 years ago it all seems to revolve around "big stupid doodyhead I don't like poops in his mouth and plays with his tiny pee pee"
That's it, that's the extent of depth in a political cartoon.

SPICS

Nice argument / rebuttal you've got there

You can always return to your safe space away from here

NOT BE INFRINGED

Non. As long as gun exists gun control will be used to create disadvantage for those who won't be able to own them.

The government is not your enemy, the citizenry are, by definition, subservient to the state. Defending yourself on paper is the only lawful thing to do.

>is there any reasonable argument for gun control

Americans are retarded

>T. Gun Grabbers

LIBERALS!!!

>implying minuet men would not have used ar's if they were available

I support gun rights for other reasons than "lmao muh revolution :^)" and "lmao the plebes ought to have power :^)"

The law is the law, and you are a citizen of that law. If you rebel against that law, it's state, it's government, and it's nation, then you are no longer American and I have no sympathy for you.

>The government is not your enemy

You must be new here.

First amendment as defined by the founding fathers: printing press and local stump speeches.

First amendment as defined by the NRA: assault blogs and livestreaming with worldwide reach clips.

#Banthefirstamendment

Are you a citizen of the united states? If so, then it's not.
Fucking anarchists.

Guy on the right seems more operator though fampai

It is a losing argument, that is why liberals resort to
>You don't need that many guns
>Think of the children
>They are weapons of war
>Common sense regulation
etc. Literally every fact in the book is against gun regulation.

>I don't even believe a felon shouldn't be able to buy a gun, if you think they're too dangerous to have a gun why did you let them out of prison?

That's something I never considered. Thanks for bringing it up!

Hover over the colored ID tag

>Britbong

Buy a Sup Forums gold pass

The only arguments for gun control are emotional.

There is nothing fact based to support it.

Also, do not reply to this thread because it is a shill thread because of the single posting id of OP

Your friend wouldn't try to disarm you.
And when was the last time a friend snooped through you email or forced you to do something you didn't want to do under penalty of prosecution?

That's some friend you got there.

Holy shit that's brutal

UNINFRINGED

If you had nothing on you except clothes would you be able to kill 50 people in a very short time?

I never said they were my friend, only that they aren't my enemy.
Do you honestly believe that the citizen and the state have an equal relationship? The former is subordinate to the latter, and that is how it has been, is, should be, and always will be.
A friend doesn't force me to do things, a superior does.

>it comes down to ideological arguments such as "citizens ought to, and must, be weaker and subordinate to the state
I've literally never seen a gun control advocate say this.

>it only boomed due to prohibition
holy shit, a post that isn't completely fucking retarded!

Some things are too ignorant to bother arguing with. You should probably ask your social studies teacher about it, assuming you're not being homeschooled, which I get the feeling you might be...

"subservient" isn't the right word, but the government does have a duty to keep people safe, which includes preventing rebellions and such.

I mean, I haven't heard anyone arguing for the right to own nuclear weapons.

The only one I've seen was put forth in the dissent to DC v. Heller, which most gun grabbers have not read. It says not that there is no individual right to bear arms, but that the government is allowed to regulate it ("A well REGULATED militia...)

What do you make of this?

>would you be able to kill 50 people in a very short time?

Challenge accepted, aquafresh. Let me just get in my car and drive in a crowded area brb

>I support gun rights for other reasons than "lmao muh revolution :^)" and "lmao the plebes ought to have power :^)"

Then you don't support them even by lefty standards (George Orwell, socialist, believed in gun rights).

> If you rebel against that law, it's state, it's government, and it's nation, then you are no longer American and I have no sympathy for you.

What if the law is unconstitutional? The 2nd Amendment is the final check-and-balance.

The only reason for gun control is liberal cowardice. If they want to fix the problems in america make the punishments for murderers worse and the punishments fort violent offences worse. Start executing the shit stains who are ruining the nation and force people who are unemployed to do actual work for their benefits. As it stands the problem america has is a crime problem not a gun problem. Criminals should be punished without mercy and as swiftly as possible. There should only be three punishments, hard labor, corporal punishment, and death.

that the definition of mass shooting was changed recently to fit the liberal agenda?

no
fuck the kikes, they just want a monopoly on force
they help us though. everytime they push more awaken

>The Founding Fathers knew that fully automatic weapons were a thing.

get out of the US you eternal cuckold.

Look at the shooters names..

Build the wall, increase the Coast Guard and deport all the (non-white) Hispanics & African-Americans... and your "mass shootings drop 70% at least.


massshootingtracker.org/data

Not really.

Gun control is a purely feel good set of laws which are done to appease the useful idiots that want to live in "theme park" societies where everything that is dangerous is either strictly regulated or banned.

A good example of how stupid gun control is, can be seen with the UK.

The UK is touted as being the poster child for gun control, but the typical useful idiot tends to forget that the UK is a violent country with our without guns. It currently has a homicide rate of around 1.0 per 100k people which is way higher than most Western European countries that actually have higher gun ownership and laxer gun laws.

It's not about the set of laws, it's about the society and I sure as fuck would prefer to have the right to have guns than to live in a violent society without being able to defend myself.

>Increase background checks
>Require (actual) safety and training tests regularly
>Make it harder to get a gun
>Encourage everybody who is able to get a gun to be armed at all times
>Offer training in counter-terrorist shooting to concealed carry owners
>Fewer people to go on rampages, and more people to shoot them in their fucking face if they do

im gone for 4 days and miss a new meme.
great.
I might as well be years behind now.

hnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnng

it's stupid anyway like most memes on Sup Forums, don't worry

>1 post by this ID

I know what time travel is, but we can't time travel currently.

I'm not sure what you're implying.

> Some of you guys seem pretty smart, is there any reasonable argument for gun control?

Only on distant islands.

>subservient
Subordinate might be a better one, but the meaning is the same. The state is the superior, and the citizen is the inferior.

Who says I'm a lefty?

>What if the law is unconstitutional?
Then that falls under the purview of SCOTUS.

>The 2nd Amendment is the final check-and-balance.
When you are openly revolting against the state, you've already stepped outside of the law and civility. "The ultimate check-and-balance" is nothing more than empty rhetoric, a threat that both state and (rational) citizen hopes never comes to fruition.

>wahhh someone who actually understands and accepts the nature of how civilized nations operate doesn't buy into my "le """freedom""" rhetoric"
If I'm a cuck, then you're an anarchist.

No. It's basically all mentally ill liberals screeching about things they don't even understand.

>Some of you guys seem pretty smart, is there any reasonable argument for gun control?
Maybe suicides. People that really want to kill themselves will do it anyway, but there are impulsive suicides and without a gun they'll likely fail. Of course, that assumes having those people around is desirable to begin with.

youtube.com/watch?v=CquUBWHU2_s

The only real argument you need against gun control is 'SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED'. If they say anything else about them, continue to shut them down by saying that as many times as you need, because that's all you need.

If you prefer to fuck around with cucked liberals arguing about this shit, ask them how the war on drugs and the war on terror is going.

>reasonable arguments FOR gun control
In a perfect world, you wouldn't need guns. That's the only argument for gun control. Since we don't live in a perfect world, well, that should tell you everything you need to know.

If someone wants to know the path toward a perfect world, start by mentioning the abolition/minimizing theism.

Nothing wrong with removing yourself from the gene pool.

As a canuck, I think a reasonable argument for gun control is that you ensure that gun owners are educated and know what they're doing. I think Canada has some really dumb gun laws, but one of the things I absolutely agree with is the mandatory firearms course. It takes ONE day and it ensures that you're at least basically knowledgeable about gun safety.

I think the US needs that. The act of having to sign up for a course a month ahead of time and spend a full day doing it is enough to deter most retards/dindus/psychopaths

I see no difference between the two except the progression of time

Well you paki retard. I'm saying we know certain things exist, we just don't know how they work or what it will look like.

Try using your fucking brain for once

holy fuck, that's why black people do't go camping? No in all seriousness thats sad, I thought the "bear" issue in the lower 48 was overhyped though man shit, I assumed only browns were really dangerous and blacks scare easily/spray would be good. Maybe he got near cubs? Anyway note to self, buy a .357 b4 camping

Someone should paradrop a load of Sten submachine guns into the Abbo reserves of Australia.

Then we'll see how fast the Australian population demands self defense firearms.

>because that's all you need
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED is on the same tier as "NOT AN ARGUMENT"
It's an empty, idiotic rhetorical slogan that has no relation to the issues of gun control, for or against.

>let the government know who has guns so they know who to go to first should tyranny happen

Great idea, no way that could ever go wrong.

>make archaic safety tests that are either too stupid to have someone fail or too expensive for most people to do

Owning a gun is not like driving a car. You have no right to drive a car, but you do have the right arm yourself. Technically you shouldn't need any particular license to buy a firearm, just an ID to prove that you're over the age of 18.

>make it harder to get a gun

Yeah, legally, so that the illegal gun market flourishes?

>Encourage everybody who is able to get a gun to be armed at all times

Everybody smart or rich enough is armed already. Government restrictions and regulations only make firearms more expensive and time-consuming, meaning poor people can't access them as easily as the rich. It's a class war, not a race war.

>offer training to concealed carry

Why not just NOT have concealed carry permits at all, and let people carry their gun however they want? Why do I need some piece of paper to put MY firearm INSIDE my jacket?

>offer counter-terrorist classes

I'm pretty sure they already do.

>fewer people go on rampages

Rampages are already rare as it is, fampai.

>more people to shoot them

These rampages happen in "gun-free zones."

You have some nice-ish ideas if you're just beginning to think about guns, but you need some work to refine them.

>I'm saying we know certain things exist, we just don't know how they work or what it will look like.

ok and how is that relevant to me posting that image?

It would be easier to "use my fucking brain for once" if you made a coherent point, or is the mozlem semen soaking into your brain, Hans?

haha IMPLYLO REN

>IMPLYLO REN

Good argument but wouldn't it be easy to derail the debate into banning trains and bridges since they're also used for suicide? Suicidal people will always find a way.

>implying the phrase shall not be infringed is dumb

But those diabetes calves. Ew no. There's thick and then there's fat. She's fat.

Especially since so many DO NOT HAVE knowledgeable parents to show them the "ways of a firearm" at a young age.


Unfortunately for most, all the new firearm owners got their lessons from CoD on how guns work.


I swear to every deity out there, if I become a Premier of my Province, that shit is being added to the school curriculum under the guise of Social Sciences.

It can be turned around by saying that trains and bridges are absolutely vital parts of our infrastructure.
Likewise, you can turn it around by saying that you need guns to hunt (and self defense)
Likewise, they can turn it around by saying that hunting is pretty much only a leisure activity, and that no one "needs" to hunt for food or for sport.

...

In Stalin's time, whenever a new decree was passed, the newspapers were flooded with news people being arrested for breaking said law. When another decree was passed, these earlier "crimes" would suddenly stop being reported on in the news and people would apparently start breaking the latest decree en masse. There are interesting parallels in today's time with rape culture and mass shootings.

>t. Solzhenitsyn, A.I. (1973). The Gulag Archipelago (first edition, published by Harper & Row). p87

>The law is the law,
And orders are orders. So climb into this cattle car, there are showers waiting for you at the end of the trip.

>Some of you guys seem pretty smart, is there any reasonable argument for gun control?

Yeah. They're potentially dangerous, and should be kept out of the hands of children, felons and the mentally ill. At the very least without proper supervision. That said, you don't need to go full-Britain in terms of what people can own, and you don't need to go full-Euro in terms of what people can use them for. Protecting your own or other's property or security should be an accepted reason for law abiding, sane citizens to own firearms.

I'm not really sure what the statistics are on people that attempt suicide. I would guess most would just try it again later and eventually succeed anyway. In Asian countries that have no guns, people kill themselves at ridiculously have rates just fine.

I suppose guns disappearing would lower suicides for a while since more suicide attempts would initially fail, but it'd probably go back to equilibrium later.

And again it can be turned around again since hunters are needed to keep down the population of certain animals that no longer have predators in the wild because of human intervention in the first place.

Benjamin Franklin personally supplied a Girandoni to Lewis and Clarke

Thick++

I don't consider them "fat" unless the waist exceeds the breasts/hips.

ridiculously high rates*

>When you are openly revolting against the state, you've already stepped outside of the law and civility. "The ultimate check-and-balance" is nothing more than empty rhetoric, a threat that both state and (rational) citizen hopes never comes to fruition.


AHEM:

>"The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed—where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once. " - Justice Alex Kozinski, US 9th Circuit Court, 2003

If i had to play devils advocate, "blah blah blah keep them out of the hands of gangsters and domestic abusers" about half the homicides are comitted by blacks, although they make up aroung 15% of the population. studies show 80% of victims knew their offender, so its not likely a random stranger will murder you for your wallet. Usually it's blacks ghetto shit, stupid white feuds, and domestic murder, which can usually be avoided if you aren't a complete idiot. but yeah maybe do something again about strawman purchases/crack down on domestic people (with evidence please)

>Who says I'm a lefty?

I'm not calling you a lefty, I'm saying that leftists even had better views on firearm ownership and its purpose than you.

>Then that falls under the purview of SCOTUS.

And if the SCOTUS is disbanded, removed, or deliberately acts against the interests of the American people?

>
When you are openly revolting against the state, you've already stepped outside of the law and civility.

Yes, and this revolution has occurred because the state has already stepped outside of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

>"The ultimate check-and-balance" is nothing more than empty rhetoric

"It hasn't happened yet, ergo it never will" is not an argument.

>a threat that both state and (rational) citizen hopes never comes to fruition.

I don't want the revolution to happen either, the difference is that I am willing to fight it should the state become tyrannical.

Hardly anyone wants to die, pal. The difference is dying for your beliefs in freedom, and dying under the reign of a tyrannical state.

>If I'm a cuck, then you're an anarchist.

You don't, though. You only understand how Europeans see Daddy Government. The government does not exist to control the people, it exists to protect the rights of the people. The government is either EQUAL to the people, or LESSER than the people.

If you can't understand that premise, that the government exists to SERVE your needs (and not welfare needs, but the need to protect your rights from OTHER nations and criminals) then you should move out and live in the UK or something.

I'm mostly libertarian, so the anarchist name-calling isn't as effective as you probably thought.

i dont understand how you can make your argument
>when you are openly revolting against the state, you've already stepped outside the law and civility
then go back and say that a major clause in a very brief law of america's founding document and supreme law is insignificant

It really is; it's a dumb catch-phrase like "NOT AN ARGUMENT".
It has no bearing on the goods and bads of an issue, and is effectively saying "because this is written down, it's absolute and can never be changed"
It's the same as saying that because the first amendment exists, censorship is bad. While censorship IS bad, it's not because of the 1st amendment.
Likewise, gun control is most of its forms is bad, but NOT because the 2nd ammendment exists.

A state can be considered an enemy when it is actively, willfully, and directly harming the quality of life for its citizens.

That can also be turned around by saying that should only be done by state-employed parks-workers, conservationists, and the like.

And?