What are your thoughts on the second amendment Sup Forums...

What are your thoughts on the second amendment Sup Forums? After tonight im starting to see why people want to be armed to protect themselves
>pic unrelated

Other urls found in this thread:

google.com/amp/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/36877388?client=safari#
youtube.com/watch?v=YEjeOUjgIu0
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate#By_country
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

SHALL

having guns is cool, now figure out how you only sell them to white people.

What the fuck is even going on in this gif?

its the best amendment

ISIS nigger placing the cutoff head of another sandnigger on his headless body

Legalization of guns leads to gun crime, more deaths, etc. Sure, if you had a peaceful population, guns wouldn't be an issue, but it's not. Kids are going autistic and shooting up schools, pranksters are being shot because of their pranks going wrong. Black kids shooting eachother. People get caught in crossfire, and a lot of damage is done.

>YYEEEEEEAHHHHH
>SCALP MUH BRAINSSS

Fuck you Canada, go suck a dick you wine sniffing commie douche. You can vote your own rights away but you can't take mine.

The expression of unequivocal indignation

Protect themselves from other gun owners. In Australia we only allow bolt actions and shotguns for sporting/hunting. I shoot Kangaroos with the old Lee-enfield myself. I honestly don't see the need for a semi-auto or a fucking assault rifle for sporting/hunting. Ye you could get better followup shots with one. Why do you actually need one though? Ever tried to do a mass shooting with a bolt action? Problem pretty much solved. People still get guns if they need them, but they cant efficiently go on mass shootings. Nothing wrong with a bolt action mate

uh huh.

>over 300 million guns in circulation

At this point the legality doesn't matter at all, everyone that wants guns has them and if they were made illegal it wouldn't be any more difficult to buy one than it is to buy weed.

I want to take your rights away too

I request more info on the OP gif/full video. I have seen all of ISIS vids, but this is new to me.

I don't give a shit what you think fuckhead, Australia is a country founded by fucking criminal scumbags and abbos. Who give a damn what some retarded dicksuck from down under says about my rights. Shove it asswipe.

These statistics always show gun bans. They don't show societies that literally have no guns.

The left/right paradigm was created by the French; the supporters of the king sat on the right, while the faggots and liberty supporters sat on the left. You're following the leftist dialectic of self-interest, the fucking cause of western destruction. Sure, I support guns and anarchy to overthrow the shit governments we have now, but objectively speaking, guns are a reason for a lot more deaths. That's undebateable.

Thanks bud
Now F. O. A. D.

People will always be violent with or without guns. The governments will always slowly fill up with more and more corruption and power hungry shitlords who want to fuck over the citizenry for more money and power. There is nothing more important than keeping guns in the hands of the average citizen, because in the end only you can defend yourself. Both from other people, and from the eventual iron boot of the government.

Says the person who lives in a country where white people can't get guns, but half-German-half-Iranian teenagers can. (and who can also get ammo and mags, then shoot up McDonalds)

Again, get fucked you authoritarian douchebag. You and I will never agree on this, and if you tried anything I'd waste you and feel okay about doing so.

fair enough, you have a point

>disarm yourselves because criminals might do crime!
I just don't understand why you would think that would be effective at reducing crime. I understand that you think that nobody but certain people should own guns. I disagree, but I understand why you might think that. What I don't understand is why you think making guns illegal will reduce crime. Please respond, leaf. I need help understanding you.

...

Jesus christ, what is up with the grimacing? For how long was he decapitated in that clip?

>Legalization of guns leads to gun crime, more deaths
Tell that to mexico. You can make all the gun laws you want but they mean sweet fuck all to criminals.

>Ever tried to do a mass shooting with a bolt action?
17 kills
32 injured

It's probably an involuntary muscle response to the stimuli of nerves at the base of the neck.

I cut the head off a copperhead snake, and even with no head (and no brain), the damn thing would turn around strike at you with its bloody stump if you poked the body with a stick. Like five minutes after it had been decapitated, it was still doing it.

>societies that literally have no guns.

This is both irrelevant and asinine to mention; a society bereft of a thing will obviously have no side effects of said thing.

>wow, societies without cars have zero deaths related to car crashes!

All that truth man.

All that fucking truth.

Crime Islander blown the fuck out.

Yeah, but how many more would he have killed with a semi? Followup shot mate
An American calling Australia "Crime Island", that's ironic. We are a nation founded by criminals but for fuck sake; check crime statistics. You have a problem with gun violence, we don't.

But it's making a facial expression

did you think you die instantly after you get beheaded? your brain is still intact when your head is cut off. death isnt instant

>What are you thoughts on this Sup Forums ?
>I don't give a fuck what you think

The point is that societies with guns have guncrime, while societies without guns don't have gun crime. The overall situation is different; one knife wound becomes a life threatening gun wound. One fistfight becomes one gun fight, and even more people could get killed in the crossfire. I'm just giving you the benefit of the doubt, that guns don't change crime rates.

It's funny how I get called a statist by libertarians and a fascist by liberals, yet one calls themselves "rightwing". You're a fucking joke.

It's not effective at reducing crime. It just changes the context of how crime is committed. Like I said to the other user, it might not change how many people commit crimes, and it might even make it better, but it kills more people overall, as opposed to a knife fight for example, or a fist fight. I'm pretty sure that if some sorry sack of shit caught his wife cheating, in a fit of rage he might grab the gun instead of the baseball bat, and there could be more casualties. Theoretically, he could have chosen not to buy a gun, and the guy who he went to fight might have brought a gun; likewise, he might have bought a gun, and the other guy didn't. And if you're going to tell people to buy more guns to alleviate the problem, then to me, that's like turning the AC on when the heater gets too hot. More guns isn't the answer to gun crime; I don't want to have to purchase a gun just because my crazy mentally handicapped neighbor gets the right to have one. I'm not a liberal; I'm about as rightwing as it gets; I just disagree on the whole gun issue. Guns are about self-interest, and self interest is what's destroying the west.

America... I think they updated their flag.

>After tonight

What happened?

I would assume the sudden lack of blood pressure to the brain would cause a blackout though. My guess is that the brain is still firing, but impulsively. After you get beheaded I doubt weather you are aware of whats happening. Like being black out passed out drunk. I doubt you feel anything after the loss of blood pressure

you're pretty retarded. The guy is diffidently dead it's just his muscle reflex in action. When there no blood support to your head your brain dies.

Oh yeah? I think you're a tribalist establishment climbing kike

Don't be a stupid cuck, once blacks and Hispanics are removed from crime stats we have the same voilent crime rate at as them.

It's purely an urban youth problem.

germans can get guns you retard
their gun laws are not too different from ours

why do retards always think germany has cucked gun laws?

It takes time, the French did a bunch of experience back when they were guillotining people left and right. It takes long enough for the brain to totally lose conscious that one could actually opened his eyes multiple times when a priest said his name after he was decapitated.

It's supposed to be a dreamlike, terrifying state, though. For one thing your brain is still telling you to try to breathe, but you can't even feel your body anymore, so it's like you're constantly suffocating... Which you are.

>I'm just giving you the benefit of the doubt, that guns don't change crime rates.
>all guns magically vanish
>gangs realize there is no effective means of stopping large numbers of people from taking whatever they want
>authorities are effectively powerless
>tyrone and his 4 friends decide they want everything inside your house
>rob you and leave you and your family dead
>at least you weren't shot with a gun

There is no logical argument in existence that will convince me to give up the right to defend myself to the best of my ability.

Oh buddy
google.com/amp/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/36877388?client=safari#

It's by far the most important part of the constitution. It boggles my mind how things have devolved to the point today where conservatives, who support the military, are those who believe in self defense as a pivotal virtue.

>Rights are guaranteed in the constitution to hopefully prevent tyranny of the majority
>The second amendment is the culmination of this as a tyrannical government now has to be aware of armed resistance
>The democratic party is literally a coalition of minorities working against their last line of resistance

I just don't get it.

Police would have guns.. Just call the police for christ's sake.

>tyrone and his 4 friends decide they want everything inside your house
Tyrone is more likely to have a gun anyway, so that only proves my point even more. Without a gun, he's just a black kid trying to bust in, and you could easily grab a kitchen knife and fuck him up. Your main assumption is that everyone has a gun.

Not everyone wants to buy a gun; that's mainly why people want to get rid of guns, because a lot of people can't even afford guns. Why turn the ac on when you could just turn the heater off and not waste everyone's goddamn time?

>Police would have guns.. Just call the police for christ's sake.

That's not the hypothetical that you set up. If the police have guns, all you have to do is kill a cop, and you have a gun, while nobody else does.

>Tyrone is more likely to have a gun anyway, so that only proves my point even more. Without a gun, he's just a black kid trying to bust in, and you could easily grab a kitchen knife and fuck him up. Your main assumption is that everyone has a gun.

But then you've just submitted yourself to tyranny of the strong. It's easy for you to say what self defense is enough for you, but can you recommend the same method to the feeble, the elderly, or the small?

>Not everyone wants to buy a gun; that's mainly why people want to get rid of guns, because a lot of people can't even afford guns.

Luke 22:36. Even then, to say others should not have because you cannot afford is just envy being disguised as humanitarianism.

Dude are you fucking kidding me? I despise you and your kind.
>dude just call the cops
>if we ban citizens from buying guns legally a black market totally won't meet that demand

You're a special kind of retard

>all guns magically vanish
>Police would have guns
>Tyrone is more likely to have a gun

Are you dumb, illiterate, or both?

>he's just a black kid trying to bust in
I'd love to see a fucking leaf try and take on 5 men with a kitchen knife.

This has always sounded like bullshit to me.

A properly applied choke will cause unconsciousness in just a few seconds. Such a choke would not cause the blood pressure in the victim's head to drop to zero, but it would drop low enough that the person loses counciousness. Now consider that opening a person's throat will cause that same pressure to drop to zero almost instantly and I don't see how consciousness could continue despite what some morbid quack frenchman said

youtube.com/watch?v=YEjeOUjgIu0

imbecile

yes
and those few second are the minimum you are awake after your head is disconnected

maybe because HORRENDOUS PAIN wakes you up?

It doesn't really matter, you're wrong either way

>all you have to do is kill a cop, and you have a gun, while nobody else does.
But the cop has a gun.. I thought the argument was that having a gun meant you could defend yourself easier. Besides, if ammo is controlled, then Tyrone runs out of bullets and has to use his hands.

>But then you've just submitted yourself to tyranny of the strong
> but can you recommend the same method to the feeble, the elderly, or the small?
I'm pretty sure if people decide not to get guns they're pretty much at the mercy of the"tyranny of the strong" just as much, except y'know, they'll probably just get shot instead of stabbed.

Black markets exist because there's already a demand, you fucking idiot. People around here have shotguns for hunting; if people didn't go hunting, there'd be no demand. The only reason people want to buy guns is to either do something illegal or to defend themselves from people doing something illegal. If guns are taken away from criminals, people feel less need of defending themselves, and the demand disappears. My dad when he was younger got really drunk and stumbled onto my uncles lawn, and my uncle shot at him, almost hitting him, thinking he was a thief. Now that we have an armed police force on the island, people literally have no demand for guns except for hunting guns. We don't feel the need to defend ourselves, because people aren't shooting eachother We have lots of gun regulations, and I feel safer.

>I'd love to see a fucking leaf try and take on 5 men with a kitchen knife.
I'd like to see a poorfag American who couldn't afford a gun try to take on 5 dindus with guns.

US has worst homicide rate than some of the worst shitholes on the planet, LOL

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate#By_country

>no blood left in your brain
>pain wakes you up

thank you, professor.

if gun-rights extremists keep pushing the 'shall not be infringed' crap as if that's all that fuckin matters, eventually some extremist on the opposite end of the spectrum will point out that the 2nd amendment does not actually say 'own' guns. i'm pretty liberal, but i like guns. trained, safe, responsible gun ownership, it's what the NRA used to stand for.

>no blood

good god you people are retarded

legalize drugs then

i read somewhere that you're only conscious for about 7-10 seconds after your head is separated from your body.


someone google this

>But the cop has a gun.. I thought the argument was that having a gun meant you could defend yourself easier
If you accept that argument, why do you need to ban guns?

>Besides, if ammo is controlled, then Tyrone runs out of bullets and has to use his hands.
The first dozen people (or more, if the cop has spare mags) wouldn't feel any better about the situation.

>I'm pretty sure if people decide not to get guns they're pretty much at the mercy of the"tyranny of the strong" just as much, except y'know, they'll probably just get shot instead of stabbed.
So why ban guns?

>Black markets exist because there's already a demand, you fucking idiot.

>The only reason people want to buy guns is to either do something illegal or to defend themselves from people doing something illegal
Uzis are banned nationwide. Nogs in Chicago still have them, presumably due to the black market.

What the fuck does "keep and bear" mean then?

You are a wealth of medical knowledge, and we are all blessed to have access to your invaluable insight.

frankly honey buns, it doesnt matter what it says, or any document
i will have and keep what firearms i wish and you can diaf

stay buttmad

>decapitation means no blood means instant death

>checkmate, physics

>"but you the medical dumb person"

yeah ok bud

>poorfag American who couldn't afford a gun try to take on 5 dindus with guns.

You can buy a new pump shotgun for less than $200, you can get used revolvers for less than $100; price is not a barrier to entry for firearm ownership and if you're that poor you have nothing to steal anyway.

Do you actually have any arguments or have you just resorted to backpeddling and shitposting?

It also doesn't say "guns", because "arms" includes all the necessary equipment for warfare, which is important to have since the Constitution doesn't allow the federal government to have a permanent army.

Read the Militia Act for fucks sake.

You're a very stupid person.

I never said "instant death".

I said that unconsciousness would occur just a few seconds after the knife opens the second jugular vein. At that point the blood pressure in their head is zero psi or close to it. A person with a wide-open can't be conscious for more than 2-5 seconds, the same amount of time that it takes someone to pass out from a firm choke.

I don't think you've ever choked anyone out, or been choked out. I've done both many times.

...

>If you accept that argument, why do you need to ban guns?
Because you don't need a gun to defend yourself against people without guns, especially if guns in an equal situation would statistically lead to more deaths.

>The first dozen people (or more, if the cop has spare mags) wouldn't feel any better about the situation.
That'd be assuming that guns actually cause more crime, which they don't, they just increase the death toll. Cutting back the amount of guns and gun-deaths we have today to the reasonable level, aside from the event that a dindu actually does get a hold of a gun, it'd be statistically be beneficial for everyone.

>So why ban guns?
Because guns statistically cause more deaths. If you shoot someone, then you're not only causing internal damage, but you could also break ribs, cause lead poisoning (if the shots used are lead), and it leaves idk a fucking bullet inside you. In the event of getting caught in a crossfire in a mall, or a theater that could not only be personal loss, but 10s of thousands of dollars of damage done to other people's property as well, such as tvs, cars, etc.

>Uzis are banned nationwide. Nogs in Chicago still have them, presumably due to the black market.
And why is this? It's because of the demand of crime and defense. In a normal place, there's literally no demand for any of this.

>Because you don't need a gun to defend yourself against people without guns, especially if guns in an equal situation would statistically lead to more deaths.

Who is "you"? Why do you want people who are less physically adept to be unable to defend themselves effectively?

>That'd be assuming that guns actually cause more crime, which they don't, they just increase the death toll.
What if they actually have a deterrent effect on crime?

>Because guns statistically cause more deaths.
Than what?

> In a normal place, there's literally no demand for any of this.
What is a normal place?

Like I said in an earlier post, what's the point of turning the ac on, when you could just turn the heat off?
The point is that I shouldn't have to buy a fucking gun just because some lunatic has one.
Just get rid of guns, then you'd have no need to buy guns to defend yourself. Call the cops, the response time is pretty quick, even here, living on a fucking island.

what do you think bear arms means exactly you dolt?

>Because you don't need a gun to defend yourself against people without guns, especially if guns in an equal situation would statistically lead to more deaths.
Except that you admitted that there are circumstances that you DO need a gun, which is why you aren't advocating for the police to be without them.

>That'd be assuming that guns actually cause more crime, which they don't, they just increase the death toll.
How would that make the people who are killed by the cop killer feel any better?

>Cutting back the amount of guns and gun-deaths we have today to the reasonable level, aside from the event that a dindu actually does get a hold of a gun, it'd be statistically be beneficial for everyone.
Except that we've already given instances where that would not be beneficial.

>Because guns statistically cause more deaths.
Not all of those deaths are acts of evil. The majority are not, but are actually a PREVENTION of evil.

>If you shoot someone, then you're not only causing internal damage, but you could also break ribs, cause lead poisoning (if the shots used are lead), and it leaves idk a fucking bullet inside you.
So the person who breaks in with 4 of his friends deserves better treatment than that until the Police arrive, at which point, the outcome will be the same, they will just have all the time in between the phone call (presuming you can make it when someone kicks your door in without warning) and the police arriving, which is an average of 12 minutes.

>And why is this? It's because of the demand of crime and defense. In a normal place, there's literally no demand for any of this.
Define "normal," because from what I can see, there seems to be more countries that have a demand for such weapons than countries that don't.

>The point is that I shouldn't have to buy a fucking gun just because some lunatic has one.
Then don't. Don't be surprised when other people disagree with you making choices for their safety.

Ok so even though there's a 20 minute buffer between calling police and them actually showing up where I live, I shouldn't own guns, because the police will save me. Hurr durr go drink more syrup fag

>so much reversal

>plus sermon to back it up

if you say so

>I don't think you've ever choked anyone out, or been choked out.

*holier than thou
*appeal to accomplishment

nice.

>Who is "you"? Why do you want people who are less physically adept to be unable to defend themselves effectively?
Again, WITH guns, the situation stays the fucking same. I shouldn't have to buy a gun just because someone else has one. Just because I didn't buy a gun, doesn't mean I should be statistically more likely to die in a fight.
And what about mentally handicapped people who can't even think to use a gun, or people without arms who can't even hold a gun? I could go on and on.
My argument stays the same; guns, in any situation, only leads to more deaths, regardless of crimerate.

>What if they actually have a deterrent effect on crime?
When any city in America is ranked one of the top 5 peaceful cities next to gunless Japan, i'd definitely reconsider everything I just said.

>What is a normal place?
Places without nogs
Places with an unreasonably high mentally ill population.

Stop talking shit Karl

"Gunless Japan"
Nice choice of words. You most certainly didn't say "Violent-crime-free Japan," because the only people with guns without the police are the Yakuza. And guess what? They are criminals with a lot more power in Japan than any mafia in the US.

lol u r gay fgt tho

For the record, a mass shooting with a bolt action is not hard.
It's called sniping, and it's been done many times.
You fucking desert brits are fucked in the head, get your guns back already.

Well, we have nogs. So I guess America isn't a normal place. Your argument fails.

The constitution makes it pretty clear that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. I don't see how anyone could argue any differently.

>Again, WITH guns, the situation stays the fucking same. I shouldn't have to buy a gun just because someone else has one. Just because I didn't buy a gun, doesn't mean I should be statistically more likely to die in a fight.

No, it really doesn't say the same. You're telling people what they need to defend themselves and getting assblasted when they feel they need guns.

>My argument stays the same; guns, in any situation, only leads to more deaths, regardless of crimerate.
What deaths are important? Is the death of a person who trespasses equal to the death of the person who would be at the mercy of the strong without a gun?

>When any city in America is ranked one of the top 5 peaceful cities next to gunless Japan, i'd definitely reconsider everything I just said.

What is peaceful? What is a city? Terms are extremely important, and I can definitely find "cities" with almost no crime that are heavily armed.

>Places without nogs. Places with an unreasonably high mentally ill population.

Leaf, there is no normal. If normal is simply what is most common, I would argue that you would definitely need a gun since the majority of the world is a shithole.

*ad hom

go on

>Except that you admitted that there are circumstances that you DO need a gun, which is why you aren't advocating for the police to be without them.
Yea, for hunters with permits. Rigorous gun laws and regulation meant to keep the peace.
Self defense, unless reasonably imminent, is no fucking excuse to get a gun.

>How would that make the people who are killed by the cop killer feel any better?
Assuming someone unarmed can kill an armed and trained cop.
Look, if someone killed a cop and took his gun, that's just bad luck; normally, the cop would have a gun to defend himself, to arrest the criminal and get back to defending you, so you don't have to buy a gun to defend yourself, because if you took matters into your own hands, assuming you're statistically average and are not trained how to properly use a gun, you could potentially kill more people.

>Except that we've already given instances where that would not be beneficial.
Again, if you're referring to the elderly or physically weak, then that's an issue that will still exist whether you have guns or not.

>Not all of those deaths are acts of evil. The majority are not, but are actually a PREVENTION of evil.
Well, we could rid the world today of all the evil people, by lining them up and shooting them in the head.
If your justification is "prevention of evil", then that's a weak argument.
We give the right to the police, because they are well trained and could carry out a more just action.

>they will just have all the time in between the phone call (presuming you can make it when someone kicks your door in without warning) and the police arriving, which is an average of 12 minutes.
I feel like you're not even reading.

>Define "normal,"
Well, without the drug trafficking, there's no demand for hard drugs around here.
Without mexican people, there's no demand for tacos.
Without sex, no demand for condoms.
Without guns, no need for more guns.

I wish we had lax gun laws here. Then I could peace out of the Trudeau regime

>babby takes babby's first rhetoric class
>babby brings vocabulary list to Sup Forums

but, of course, no TRUE faggot reply

The fact is that Meth Cook Mark is going to have a gun no matter what the government does about gun control. Because he's in the drug trade, he makes a majority of his money by making and selling meth and he protects his meth lab with that gun, he doesn't follow the law. The cartels down in Mexico have guns despite Mexican gun laws being much stricter than American gun laws. And when Mark comes to you and tells you to give him all your money, and decides to rape your wife, you're going to want the chance to put a bullet through his skull before the rape starts, because you know the cops are too busy at Dunkin Donuts to help you out.

Honestly, the main sources of gun death in America are suicide, gang-related, and accidents. Gangbangers are gonna have those guns no matter what and you'd be better off changing drug policy, allowing legitimate non-murderous businesses to get involved with drugs, to stop their money flow. Because accidents by definition are what isn't supposed to happen, and are way more common with cars than with guns anyway, the only thing that banning guns will really do is take away the most effective form of suicide, which will admittedly protect people that are in a bad place and decide after failing to kill themselves that they don't want to.

Oh, and about mass shootings, international and domestic terrorism? I do think the last few years' events in France have proved that terrorists can get their hands on guns just as much as gangs do, and that they don't even need a gun if they can get behind the wheel of a motorized vehicle.

>Yea, for hunters with permits. Rigorous gun laws and regulation meant to keep the peace.
Hunters who can be killed. Just like the police, which you omitted.

>Assuming someone unarmed can kill an armed and trained cop.
Anyone can be killed.

>Look, if someone killed a cop and took his gun, that's just bad luck
So telling the people that it was just bad luck that someone was killed with a gun obtained via cop killing would make them feel better?

>Again, if you're referring to the elderly or physically weak, then that's an issue that will still exist whether you have guns or not.
That's just one instance, and the weak owning the gun levels the playing field significantly.

>Well, we could rid the world today of all the evil people, by lining them up and shooting them in the head.
I would agree with that if you could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that people are evil before committing their first crime. And you can't.

>If your justification is "prevention of evil", then that's a weak argument.
It is literally the only argument anyone needs. Your opinion that it is "weak" is irrelevant.

>We give the right to the police, because they are well trained and could carry out a more just action.
What consequence would befall the police for failing to protect a citizen from any form of harm, including financial? If you're going to make that guarantee, you need to create harsh penalties for failure.

>I feel like you're not even reading.
I have the same feeling.

>Well, without the drug trafficking, there's no demand for hard drugs around here.
No demand? Not one person who is in jail for using hard drugs? Not one meth head? Not one crack head? I would like to ask for sources to that claim, because it is incredible.

>Without mexican people, there's no demand for tacos.
I'm not even 1% Hispanic, and I demand tacos. What does your "common sense" logic say to that?

>Without guns, no need for more guns.
Except for the reasons we already gave.

source plz

I thought the spouting off fallacy names as the content of a post fad was over.

What about all the people who choose not to buy guns? They're every bit at mercy of the gang members as you are without a gun; the only difference is that, in a gunless society, they're not going to shoot you. In fact, without guns, they might not even feel brave enough to show up.

Nevertheless, Japan, for the most part is peaceful and has a lot less guns. They have several cities rated as peaceful.

My argument is that demand doesn't exist in areas where nogs don't live. The fact that you have nogs doesn't mean anything. If you live in a white neighborhood, a white guy isn't going to want a gun if there are no people around with guns already.

>No, it really doesn't say the same. You're telling people what they need to defend themselves and getting assblasted when they feel they need guns.
My argument is that with guns, mentally handicapped people are going to be shot, amps are going to be shot, people who choose not to buy guns are going to be shot, etc. Without guns, the same except they're not going to be shot, they're going to be stabbed or beat up; I'm just saying, gun crime is statistically worse than knife crime.

>What deaths are important?
I've explained this over and over again.

>What is peaceful? What is a city?
"Your argument is a social construct"

>Leaf, there is no normal.
I know.. I'm just saying that guns cause more harm than without guns.

If we had gun laws like the US, we would somehow have to prevent "Germans" like the Munich Massacre murderer from legally getting some.

Without a drastic reformation of the laws concerning nationality and citizenship, I don't think we should make access to guns easier. We would just increase the murder rates by shitskins otherwise.

My argument is that demand doesn't exist in areas where nogs don't live. The fact that you have nogs doesn't mean anything. If you live in a white neighborhood, a white guy isn't going to want a gun if there are no people around with guns already.

To my knowledge, there isn't anybody around me that owns a gun. I still own two. Because I want both my wife and I to be armed at all times. I literally have a revolver in my pocket as we speak. My wife, who is at home, has a Smith and Wesson Shield holstered to her shoulder, filled with terminal shock bullets, which fragment inside the body of the shot, tearing whatever it hits to shreds, thus disabling whatever is hit, without collateral damage to exit wounds.

Your arguments are shit, and if you can't see that, then you are blind.

Like this guy said He is definitely dead in there. There's a notable difference when someone is being executed by guillotine and being beheaded by a knife.
Fuck there's a video where they shoot this guy in the head and he stood up into a sitting position eyes back and mouth wide open. You think he was "alive" at that point or what? Same thing here.