Why is Sup Forums so adamantly against gun control? Seriously, not bait...

Why is Sup Forums so adamantly against gun control? Seriously, not bait, I want to have an intelligent conversation about it. Here are some common arguments I hear from conservatives, stop me if I'm misrepresenting or oversimplifying or something

>There's no evidence that proves gun control would work
Well that's because you've literally blocked any potential research into the subject. The Dickey Amendment literally prohibits research into gun control. You guys have actually obstructed any ways for us to support our argument or prove you wrong.
>Assault weapons are already banned
Well that is obviously not enough now is it?
>Shall not be infringed, retard
We've made many amendments to the Constitution and Bill of Rights, there is literally no reason that we can't do it again.
>Criminals aren't just gonna hand in their weapons, and they'll get them illegally.
That's not what gun control is. It stops the flow from legal to illegal. Gun/gun parts need to be bough legally at one point before they go to the illegal market. The idea is that tighter restrictions can stop the flow from legal to illegal. Maybe we could try something like follow up appointments to ensure that the firearm is still in the original buyer's hands?
>Gun control has already failed in places like Chicago or even Cali
Well when you can buy guns in the neighboring city/state and bring them back it doesn't really prove anything.
>We don't ban cars
A car's main function lies in transportation, not killing
>Does a gun death make you more dead?
No, but it is certainly more preventable

Other urls found in this thread:

popehat.com/2016/06/16/in-support-of-a-total-ban-on-civilians-owning-firearms/
m.youtube.com/watch?v=3f8VmJRuBFY
youtube.com/watch?v=wZE-EDGw2vo
youtube.com/watch?v=glQ5-0lO-1M
youtube.com/watch?v=E8AQSt2KXMM
youtube.com/watch?v=1QI7ONinAn0
nap.edu/catalog/10881/firearms-and-violence-a-critical-review
coventry.ac.uk/Global/08 New Research Section/FINAL EFFECT PROJECT REPORT.pdf
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Now some of my points.

The USA leads the developed world in gun violence, and I understand that a lot of it is black people, but that is not an excuse when we can prevent it.
Republicans are all about not providing constitutional rights to suspected terrorists, so why can they so easily buy guns? At least that's why I think...
People on the no fly list, and suspected terrorist list should not be able to buy weapons. They just shouldn't, that's common sense.
Radical Islam is certainly an issue, but it becomes more of an issue when we arm them.
Also Paul Ryan's behavior right now is unacceptable, calling this a stunt when the GOP voted ~40 times to repeal Obamacare

Well, what do you think Sup Forums

I also think this is part of a broader problem, where neither the GOP nor the Democrats want to give an inch on any issue anymore. Especially when they aren't doing what the American people want, or even addressing the issue. Its inexcusable that the House won't recognize this vote here when the American people clearly want to see this issue discussed and voted upon.

The reason gun control is being rejected by conservative politicians is because gun manufacturers are financing their campaigns. The reason gun control is being rejected by conservatives is because they don't want pussy effeminate liberals telling them they can't have fully automatic killing machines, because that makes them less free.

Both pretty valid reasons desu.

>Well that's because you've literally blocked any potential research into the subject
Good thing the rest of the world has done it for us. Violent crime stays the same.

>Well that is obviously not enough now is it?
It never will be enough until all guns are banned. Then knives and forks, and even pencils will be heavily regulated, looking at Britain.

>We've made many amendments to the Constitution and Bill of Rights, there is literally no reason that we can't do it again.
That's not an argument. That's like saying you can change the Freedom of Speech because it doesn't suit you. Plus, you haven't made a compelling argument to change it.

>That's not what gun control is. It stops the flow from legal to illegal.
How's that working out in, say, Australia, where people make their own guns? How did that work in Paris last December? How would you stop someone from ordering a gun that isn't complete, and completing it themselves (bullets are easy to make, by the way)?

>Well when you can buy guns in the neighboring city/state and bring them back it doesn't really prove anything.
You can't do that, actually. This shows how little you know about gun laws.

>A car's main function lies in transportation, not killing?
So what?

>No, but it is certainly more preventable
More preventable? What about the 120lb woman going up against the 300lb man in a dark alley? What about the 12 year old who is watching her little brother, home alone, when two would-be thieves kick in the front door? What about the gays that would be bashed? They should just have no real means to defend themselves, right?

SHALL

NOT

BE

>Gun/gun parts need to be bough legally at one point before they go to the illegal market.

What?

Because every piece of evidence points to no correlation between lower rates of violent crime and gun control.

Look at Chicago. Extremely strict gun control laws, but still high violence.

Then look at countries with gun control. Lots of them have even higher rates of violent crime than america, only the weapon used ends up being a knife or bat.
What are we gonna do then? Ban knives?
nvm UK already done did that....
And guess what? It didn't help at all.

A CAR

>We've made many amendments to the Constitution and Bill of Rights, there is literally no reason that we can't do it again.
Then do it.

i dont want gun control and i dont even own a gun

i think it will just hurt law abiding gun owners

we see what happens in places like europe who have gun control the criminals still get guns illegally

i think things should stay the same

i live in texas and people open carry all the time since they allowed it and it doesnt bother me a bit

as long as nobody is in public drawing their gun its ok with me

The GOP put forth their own proposals, and the Dems wouldn't accept it. This is because the Dems don't give an inch, not because the GOP isn't willing to.

Furthermore, compromise implies that both sides give something up. That NEVER happens with gun control debates. Here's what happens:

>D: Give us everything we want
>R: No.
>D: Give us SOME of what we want
>R: No.
>D: Well, you're just unreasonable and unwilling to compromise.

Now, here's an example of a compromise:
>D: Give us everything we want
>R: No.
>D: Well, what if you give us some of what we want, and in turn, we will give you something you want, like a phase-out of Cash-in-hand Welfare?
>R: I'm listening.
>D: In return for that, the FBI gives the ATF a list of every name they are watching, and if a background check comes through, the FBI can temporarily block the sale, which can be appealed via the court, at the FBI's own expense.
>R: And in return, Cash-in-hand Welfare is phased out?
>D: Correct.
>R: Well, how many years would it take?

There's a compromise.

I proposed this as a rule ages ago and now propose it again.
Do not open your ridiculously ignorant mouth about gun control until after you have watched the free YouTube video In Search Of The Second Amendmemt and can distinguish your gun control proposals from a straightforward attack on negative rights. Don't understand what negative rights are? Then you have no opinions wirth hearing regarding gun control.
You honestly sound like Charlie on Always Sunny attempting to hold forth on bird law. No wonder you think we're stupid, you honestly have no idea what any of this is about.

Shall not be infringed you Fucking faggot. I know you liberals have a skewed view of rights but your continual push to erode them will have you cunts labelled as traitors soon enough.

shall not be infringed.

no debate, you try to take our guns we kill you.

>>There's no evidence that proves gun control would work
>Well that's because you've literally blocked any potential research into the subject.

Research? How about you research Mexico? Gun control paradise. In fact why don't you go there, it's is your Utopia, all guns are banned, or "heavily restricted"

>We've made many amendments to the Constitution and Bill of Rights, there is literally no reason that we can't do it again.

No problem with this. Laws have been proposed, and they have not passed. If the case can be made to garner 50% a proposal by 2/3rds of both the house and the senate AND then ratified by 3/4ths of the states. Then obviously it would be "what the majority of people want"

We want to preserve our right to keep and bear arms and you want to end it. It's really that simple.

>The USA leads the developed world in gun violence

>Brazil
>Russia
>Mexico
>South Africa

Nigger, compared to countries which are actually dangerous, we are not even on the chart. See when you start with gigantic lies, why would you expect us to ever listen to you, or believe you?

Nobody cares faggot. Compliance rates with registration schemes after Connecticut's 2013 legislation and the NY Safe act were around 20-40%. And local sheriffs around the country have no desire to enforce. The people have guns and they won't give them up without coercive force.

The most dangerous demographic is also the least for citizens gun ownership, aka blacks/hispanics.

Here's your research, gun control doesn't work

this

in alot of us cities and the frequent gun violence is contained to a few neighborhoods in every city and most of those guns are illegally bought or stolen

There's already thousands of laws on the books for guns and democrats never quit asking for more. That's why gun rights groups have just stopped meeting in the middle altogether. Democrats will never be satisfied until all guns are removed from the hands of law abiding citizens. Oddly enough they don't seem to mind that they'll still need guns to remove guns. As long as someone has guns criminals will find a way to steal them and that just leaves the law abiding citizens defenseless.

i look at this and all i see are less border hoppers

Listen dude.
The point of matter is that the second amendment exists to guarantee our natural, innate right to not just self defense, the ability to defend ourselves, our homes, and our families and friends, but it also guarantees our right to agency and self determination.
And because of that, there is no argument agaisnt firearms that will convince me to infring on that right.

they specifically put "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" at the end of 2nd amendment. don't like it? the liberal paradise of europe awaits you. besides, until the day america is at least 97% white, guns will always be necessary

>but that is not an excuse when we can prevent it
You won't prevent shit. Black people will still kill themselves at the same rate and I won't have my rights, White America has the same gun homicide rate as Holland, I don't care if a bunch of niggers kill each other.

>People on the no fly list, and suspected terrorist list should not be able to buy weapons.

The republicans put out legislation that would prevent that, dems shot it down. You know why? Because it had recourse. Dems want a list that they can arbitrarily say that anyone they don't like can't own guns. They want a short ho[ to registry and confiscation.

>Well when you can buy guns in the neighboring city/state and bring them back it doesn't really prove anything.
Give me data that says they're bought in neighboring states. Oh right, they aren't.

tl;dr It's all brown people. They make society sick, and I'm not giving up my right to defend myself when it all goes to shit because liberals got soft on farm equipment and then on a lark decided to pass the law that allowed the largest mass migration of people into a country history has ever seen and then even defend the illegals that come and kill each other in this land when they couldn't even get in under those ridiculously loose immigration laws. I don't give a shit if brown people kill each other.

>We've made many amendments to the Constitution and Bill of Rights, there is literally no reason that we can't do it again.
Except the people who want more gun control aren't trying to amend the constitution in the constitutionally prescribed manner, they're trying to bypass it (basically because they know they don't have the votes to get it done constitutionally).

That aside, my opinion is when people talk about "intelligent conversations" about gun control and then immediately demonstrate nearly complete ignorance on that which they wish to ban, or "common sense" gun control measures and then try to ban civilian ownership of "assault" rifles, despite the fact that twice as many people are being killed with bare hands and feet than any type of rifle every year, it kind of makes me want to ignore their stupid uneducated opinions.

...

Race is the real elephant in the room

Because in America, we have a right to keep and bear arms. Anything involving any form of gun control is infringement.

We, as human beans have a right to self defense, and to disarm/disbar the use of guns is a moral and ethical wrong.

...

but violent crime doesn't stay the same.

the rest of the world proves mass shootings don't occur as much in countries without automatic weapons available

Pretty sure they were talking about muskets, not modern assault weapons.

It will do nothing because nogs gonna nogs.

>Well that's because you've literally blocked any potential research into the subject.

This may or may not have been a mistake. Depends on how honest the research would be.

>Assault weapons are already banned
>Well that is obviously not enough now is it?

The assault weapons ban expired a long time ago. If this confuses you google the difference between the legal definition of assault weapon and the historical definition of assault rifle. Totally different things.

>We've made many amendments to the Constitution and Bill of Rights, there is literally no reason that we can't do it again.

Not politically feasible in the near future. Also gun control is waning in popularity.

>That's not what gun control is.

At least this frames gun "control" as an ideal goal instead of feel good legislation that may or may not do a god damn fucking thing. People get actual results and good intentions confused.

>It stops the flow from legal to illegal. Gun/gun parts need to be bough legally at one point before they go to the illegal market. The idea is that tighter restrictions can stop the flow from legal to illegal.

The argument from the right is that this is highly,highly,highly unlikely to happen. It's like drug control. There is no control, only "the war on".

>Maybe we could try something like follow up appointments to ensure that the firearm is still in the original buyer's hands?

Are we going to grow these inspectors on trees? Do you know how much time and how many employees you're talking about here? What about the guns currently existing that you have to confiscate? There are more guns than americans.

>Well when you can buy guns in the neighboring city/state and bring them back it doesn't really prove anything.

Guess you'll have to wait on full confiscation then.

>A car's main function lies in transportation, not killing

Stigma has nothing to do with societal effects

>No, but it is certainly more preventable

Self defense is preventable, asshole

>I want to have an intelligent conversation about it.

Translated from libspeak to English, this phrase roughly means "Shut the fuck up and respect my pronouns, Shitlord!!!!!!!"

Read the recent Popehat post on the subject

"I support the argument that the United States should enact a total ban on civilians owning firearms.

Oh, I don't support the ban. I support the argument.

I support the argument because it's honest and specific. It doesn't hide the ball, it doesn't refuse to define terms, it doesn't tell rely on telling people they are paranoid or stupid in their concerns about the scope of the ban. The argument proposes a particular solution and will require the advocate to defend it openly.

That elevates it above most gun control dialogue."

popehat.com/2016/06/16/in-support-of-a-total-ban-on-civilians-owning-firearms/

Were they also talking about mass communication via print, video, and audio recording when writing the first amendment as well?

>Good thing the rest of the world has done it for us. Violent crime stays the same.
I mean, no because the US has the most gun related problems of any developed country
It never will be enough until all guns are banned. Then knives and forks, and even pencils will be heavily regulated, looking at Britain.
>Don't wanna take your guns, and also slippery slope is a logical fallacy
>That's not an argument. That's like saying you can change the Freedom of Speech because it doesn't suit you. Plus, you haven't made a compelling argument to change it.
It is an arguement, because people say "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" when we could literally just change it. Also the 1st amendment has been modified plenty of times, and has been interpreted all different ways.
>How's that working out in, say, Australia, where people make their own guns? How did that work in Paris last December? How would you stop someone from ordering a gun that isn't complete, and completing it themselves (bullets are easy to make, by the way)?
Well why don't we try something. Because otherwise, mass shootings are going to happen every other week, but the GOP seems content with literally doing nothing.
>You can't do that, actually. This shows how little you know about gun laws.
It's really fairly easy to do.
>So what?
You realize that I was refuting some arguments in my original post right? Pay attention.
>More preventable? What about the 120lb woman going up against the 300lb man in a dark alley? What about the 12 year old who is watching her little brother, home alone, when two would-be thieves kick in the front door? What about the gays that would be bashed? They should just have no real means to defend themselves, right?
Do you seriously think that the 12 year old girl can operate a gun? The Good Guys with Guns theory has been disproved so many times it's actually ridiculous. People don't know how to operate guns and defend themselves, they're scared. Arming everyone is not the answer.

...

To get a gun, a person must buy it. Then after they buy it they typically sell it for a profit illegally to another person, who perpetrates the crime.

mass shootings are statistically PISS IN THE WIND compared to all violence. An extremely rare and heinous act is a useless metric, no matter how embarrassing.

What did they mean by this?

I won't relinquish my civil rights just because some crazy people abuse theirs.

No, they weren't.

False equivalency.

Next.

pretty sure they were talking about "arms"

because you know, thats what the amednment says

>Seriously, not bait

>do you seriously think a 12 year old girl can handle a gun
Yes
m.youtube.com/watch?v=3f8VmJRuBFY

> (Liberal Here)

Already knew it was trash before I read a word beyond that, thanks for saving me the time.

I could literally go to Chicago right now with my guns, avoiding all the laws and shit.
And we wouldn't ban guns entirely, and certainly not knives. You realize a person cannot kill 49 others with a knife. Especially not if there was an off duty cop that DID have a gun.

If only the GOP would stop being whiny babies

How, it's the same exact thing?

>False equivalency
how so?

>literally true equivalency
>calls it false

>Do you seriously think that the 12 year old girl can operate a gun?

Damn look at that liberal sexism at work. 12 year old girls can handle guns than any liberal.

youtube.com/watch?v=wZE-EDGw2vo

It really is both sides. The GOP voted ~40 times on Obamacare, but won't even yield a vote on this issue. Soooooo you should fix that hypothetical dialogue.

No not really, the vast majority of illegally owned guns on the street are stolen.

Ah you got me there

Well done.

Arms at the time consisted of muskets.

The detrimental effects of more effective mass communication pale in comparison to more effective arms.

>Do you seriously think that the 12 year old girl can operate a gun?
Dude, kids far younger than that work ARs all the time.
youtube.com/watch?v=glQ5-0lO-1M

youtube.com/watch?v=E8AQSt2KXMM

youtube.com/watch?v=1QI7ONinAn0

Not really, because the Republicans and Democrats are certainly not representing what the people want right now.

Every time we cave in to more regulations they never settle down. This is because of a segment of society that believes no civilized person should have a firearm EVER. Usually women and people who don't trust themselves with guns.

It really isn't, we don't want to take your guns.

Boy I said developed. First world.

I doubt that very much, I mean someone has obviously convinced (You) that your civil rights need to be revoked.

>Arms at the time consisted of muskets.

no they didn't.

do some research or blow your brains out

it was all arms available to the military at the time

this including repeaters and cannons

Yea but in Chiraq you can't even carry a decent knife. I visited there once and check the laws. The longest your knife can be is 2 1/2" and when I tried to visit the Sears tower they won't even let you in the building with it. So don't push more of your outright lies and bullshit.

A computer in the right hands is 1,000X deadlier than some single mother raised autist who shoots up a school.

SHALL NOT BE INFRIGED

>Well when you can buy guns in the neighboring city/state and bring them back it doesn't really prove anything.

Sounds to me like police are not enforcing pre existing laws

>Arms at the time consisted of muskets.
The writers of the Federalist papers mention having a cannon for every 20 homes or so.

There are literally more fire arm homicides in more lenient states.

And muskets were? MILITARY ASSAULT WEAPONS!

And the cannons used in the revolution?
Most of them were privately owned. Hell we had no navy only PRIVATE naval vessels armed with the same MILITARY grade weaponry as the government

Yes they were.

You're a faggot.

Reddit --->

>trying to talk about gun control, but failing to address two of the largest meta-analyses available on the subject

nap.edu/catalog/10881/firearms-and-violence-a-critical-review

coventry.ac.uk/Global/08 New Research Section/FINAL EFFECT PROJECT REPORT.pdf

Shall not be infringed faggot. Do you not know what infringed means? Leave my country if you don't like the constitution. You are free to leave at anytime, that's a right of yours.

The republicans put forth actual common sense gun control laws today that would make it so anyone on a terrorist watch list wouldn't be able to buy a gun legally but it would also expedite the process for removing people put on the list unjustly. The dems don't care about real justice, they just want to be able to add anyone they want onto a terrorist watch list.

I mean, that's kind of fair I guess. But sometimes we need to make sacrifices.

This is why "honest dialogue" pisses me off

The left wants full confiscation, but they will never say it because the right will circle the wagons and nope the fuck out of any gun control forever and ever. Yet the right is being "dishonest" despite actually spouting their real opinion instead of underhanded bullshit.

Then you can sacrifice all you want. I will keep my liberty.

>. But sometimes we need to make sacrifices.

literally not an argument

lol, you're fucking retarded, nevermind

People dying with bare hands and feet are unrelated to firearm deaths lol.

Such a transparent lie.

Democrats have already TAKEN more than they should have gotten away with.

How is anything that liberals want a compromise when WE are the only ones being asked to give up our liberty.

>We don't want to take your guns
Explain the confiscation attempts of high cap magazines and ban on the transfer, even bequest of so called 'assault weapons'? Why does Clinton want Heller v DC reversed, when it explicitly allows for 'reasonable regulation'?

Yet I'm not dead.
Please enlighten us and lurkers abound instead of having an online temper tantrum to make yourself look cool in front of your friends.
If you can point me to an instance of mass communication directly killing someone (your soundwaves over a smartphone creating a brain aneurysm or something) feel free to do so.
I'm sure Omar would've done very well with a cannon at Pulse.
Ah right, 1776 assault weapons equal 2016 assault weapons. Of course, silly me.
No, they weren't. Please read the conversation.

>we need to make sacrifices
I do not, and you do not speak for me

No. More firearms DEATHS, thanks to suicides, but not more homicides.
Vermont, Arizona, and Alaska aren't exactly known for being dangerous. None of them require a permit to carry.
L.A, Chicago, Detroit, all heavy-gun control areas? Regularly have 50+ shooting weekends.

Please no, tumblr does NOT represent all liberals

No one is forcing you to own a gun or exercise you legal rights, the only things you're willing to sacrifice are the legals rights of others. the rights to defend themselves.

>The idea is that tighter restrictions can stop the flow from legal to illegal.

fucking really? maybe if we had more drug control laws drugs wouldn't get into prison and schools.

Everything you want WILL result in a black market.

>Well when you can buy guns in the neighboring city/state and bring them back it doesn't really prove anything.

already illegal, maybe if we have more laws that wouldn't happen. right?

We have guns to prevent the government from becoming tyrannical. To take back the US from the hands of filthy marxists if we need to. And it looks like we're going to need to pretty soon. The second amendment was written to prevent us from becoming like the UK, Germany, and all their cuck buddies across the pond have become - self destructing communist states. It has little to do with self defense from fellow citizens. We have guns to protect our freedom.

Jesus Christ, read the federalist papers, user

you're brainwashed

America has never had a gun problem but have always had a nigger problem. One of the cornerstones of liberal religion is that they're anti-science and reason and constantly push that "everyone is equal" when they are absolutely provably different.

Dindus are always going to dindu. And a forcible disarmament means that the US turns into South Africa literally overnight and crime will FUCKING EXPLODE when white gunowers follow the law and are disarmed and dindus with no regard for the rule of law will be free to indulge their true nature.

Also when leftist governments forcibly disarm their populace massive government sanctioned murders tend to happen to the tune of hundreds of millions.

I'd rather die in a rebellion then die in a fucking liberal gulag or get raped to death by a pack of wild niggers.

The 2nd amendment is literally the survival of America as a nation.

>I'm sure Omar would've done very well with a cannon at Pulse.
Not an argument. Not even a point. Just a snide remark about...something.
What's your point here, again?
Just the (you)s?