Why Burgers think that their guns are enhancing safety in the society?
They have ridiculously high crime rates so OBVIOUSLY their retardness is not working.
>inb4 hurr durr I can defend myself against the government with my hunting rifle
No you can't, fag.
All civilised nation are laughing at you, you know.
Other urls found in this thread:
roadsafetygb.org.uk
curbed.com
archive.4plebs.org
post-gazette.com
aic.gov.au
bjs.gov
twitter.com
because nobody is trying to take away cars because a few drunks kill some people
with that logic we should have laws for everything.
>all this gun crime from legal guns
...
>All civilised nation are laughing at you, you know.
try landing on the moon before you call yourself civilized, waffle twat
Simple. Urban democrats are shooting each other, thereby making the country safer.
It's funny, that leftist drug addicts use the same logic the other way round to justify the legalization of muh weed.
the US already has a law about gun regulation, it's called the Second Amendment faggot
Because gun regulations don't stop harmful people from obtaining weapons, they only stop law abiding citizens who just want to defend themselves from being able to do so. If someone really wants to kill people they can grab something sharp, go down to the inconvenience and buy simple bomb making supplies, go to a hardware store and make a gun (like that guy in England that just shot that lady politician) or drive a car into people. They're options are unlimited and there's no realistic way to limit them. Instead of trying to force people away from the offense, which can't be done, why don't we focus on defense?
Are you the same Bellhead that made the post saying the USA should take in more reffugees?
Eat shit, i own 3 guns and one of them isnt registered and will forever be handed down through my family regardlesa if the government comes for it.
Let people have been disarmed laugh. We have more rights.
>more
>more than you.
HE HAS NO STYLE
HE HAS NO GRACE
THS KONG HAS A FUNNY FACe
They arent for enhancing society, fuck society.
They are to allow every man, no matter the size of status, to have an equalizer. A measure of which anyone who should wish to impart their ideas onto that mans freedoms, no matter who the perpetrator, that man can defend his freedoms.
Furthermore, the purpose of laws is to punish those who break them, not punish everyone because a few people break them .
Weed should be legal if alcohol is legal, they're both mind altering drugs that can cause you to put yourself and others in life-threatening danger
>Why have traffic laws?
Without traffic laws, there world is a better place but governments stop making money
roadsafetygb.org.uk
>Why have any laws?
The government stop having money and control
Libertarian/ Anarchy works, just don't expect 'nice-ness'
curbed.com
There are two motivations behind gun control:
1. Reducing the availability of guns in society will reduce the number of guns in criminal hands.
Obviously criminals won't turn in their guns, but "criminal guns" have a high turnover. They break, they get lost, they get disposed of after being used in crimes, etc. etc. For criminals to have guns they need a steady supply of new guns. They get these guns through theft, straw purchases, and yes, manufacturing their own guns. Gun control laws can almost entirely eliminate the first two with mandatory safe laws and more exacting purchase controls, and weapons manufacture is only ever conducted by organised criminals. Jamal the ghetto gangbanger is not going to build a submachine gun in his garage; he doesn't have the tools or the intellect. There is also a small subset of crime that, while not statistically significant, has significant public interest - spree killing - that can be impacted by gun control.
2. Reduce the number of accidental gun deaths.
Again, it's a statistically spurious issue but public interest is as public interest does, and gun control can reduce the number of accidental gun deaths and - arguably - the suicide rate in general (but this is highly arguable: see the London gas suicide phenomenon for more info).
Should we have gun control? I don't know. I'd err on the side of no, or if we did, highly targeted policies with clear aims and statistical foundation. But to argue that gun control is "pointless" is just wrong. It has a point, it just might not be as valuable as what implementing it curtails.
If gun control is so good, then why do I live a shithole full of crime?
because no one ever speeds and having a broken tail light is comparable to illegally obtaining a pistol
Why compare laws with the regulations?
They are fundamentally different.
There are legal and illegal substances/drugs for example. Some of the legal substances/drugs are regulated.
Regulated substances/drugs are still legal provided that certain conditions are met i.e. you have a prescription.
The pooinloo in the OP is just using mental gymnastics to make an absurd and illogical argument.
that image, he means 'If the logic is, it's useless to ban guns' right? Because aren't guns already regulated?
If he does mean that then, here's the thing:
having guns can be good or bad
while
crimes like stealing can only be bad
It's easy to say the gun supply will dry up when you don't have 8,000 miles of easily crossed land border which experience burgeoning amounts of currently illegal gun trafficking as it is.
So if two things are mind altering drugs and one of them is legal then they should both be legal even if they both put lives in danger?
Then why don't you apply that to all things that have stuff in common? For example, if knives are used for self defence and they are legal then why shouldn't guns be legal even if they both put lives in danger?
I know you'll come back with some silly thing about "you know, guns aren't always used for self defence bro", well you know what? drugs aren't always used to alter your own mind either. Your own logic for allowing one thing and not the other doesn't work because they it can be used against you in more ways than one.
For example, you could make this argument with your own logic: "Heroine is a mind altering drug and it's legal therefore alcohol should be illegal since it's a mind altering drug". Do you disagree with that logic? Why? I doubt you'd agree with it but there's no reason for you to disagree with it with the logic you're using. It's perfectly logical to you. Yet for some reason you give greater weight to things that are already legal and use that to push for more things to be legal when it applies to drugs, but give greater weight to things that are already illegal and use that to push for more things to be illegal when it applies to guns.
Sounds like you need some kind of... fence?
isn't that a call of duty map?
It's not about safety in society though, it's about blowing the heads off government officials if they dare to take away our rights.
>Heroine is a mind altering drug and it's legal
illegal*
Is this person suggesting people only follow traffic laws because they're laws? All you're doing is hurting people who have no interest in gang-banging.
You said it, not me.
the sole purpose of a gun is to kill someone though. the sole purpose of a car is to get you to different places
if the logic is, it's useless to regulate immigration because people will still immigrate illegally
then why have borders?
why have any laws?
>All civilized nations
Compared to America, all other nations are uncivilized. You filthy ender.
I have shot guns my whole life and never killed anybody. Does that mean they're malfunctioning?
Your nation is no longer civilized, Mohammed.
>What are shooting sports?
>What is hunting?
>implying
But what does the purpose of a thing have to do with how it is used.
>Hey look a screwdriver, it was designed to screw screws and shit, I cant use this to do anything else
>all civilized nations are laughing at us for having more freedom
The average American (or Asian or Mexican or Canadian for that matter) couldn't even point your nation out on a map; it's not because we're ignorant, it's because you are so fucking irrelevant as far as world politics are concerned, no one cares about you or 90% of other European nations.
>it's because you are so fucking irrelevant as far as world politics are concerned
they've got the EU HQ, you are the ignorant one
>couldn't even point your nation out on a map
thats because its a non country
because your country is lawless. america has laws so gun control would be implimented properlly and actually result in less gun deaths... like exactly what went down in other 1st world countries
archive.4plebs.org
Did Belgium get Canada treatment?
The purpose of a lawful gun is protecting yourself for people with a illegal gun.
>I didn't refute any of your points but I'm going to drop a butthurt shit post, anyway
because our civilians have more guns than our military does. When youre the land of the free you make sacrifices for maintaining your freedom.
first time I've seen based brazil poster
> belgium
fuck off cuck
Your right better get the police and military to lead by example and hand there's in first.
>gun laws reduce gun violence like water laws reduce drowning and cigarette laws reduce cancer.
That's not the argument. And yes, the point of bearing arms is to keep government in check. It's why we're no longer British. How about a simple thank you for our sacrifice for otherwise you'd be shoving wiener schnitzel in your cunt instead waffles up your butt. Without America you wouldn't even be able to engage in your degenerate behaviors.
>you cant beat the army with air rifles
I refuted your point about Belgium not being relevant in global politics. When in fact most laws of the EU originate there. It's literally the MOST relevant place in Europe. I bet you backed Brexit, are you walking back on what you believed about Brussels bureaucrats?
For you to say that the average American can't point at Belgium is to admit mass ignorance about the most important place in Europe. That refutes your entire post, but I bet you'll say something like "not an argument" so you don't have to deal with being wrong.
you have no guns deutchcuck. and merkel just told you to stock supplies for ten days. you should shit your multiculti pants
and yet cars kill more people than guns. So either guns are not good at what they do (in which case, you don't need to bother banning them, because they aren't dangerous) or you should ban your teeth, because their sole purpose is to kill things, according to your buttfuck logic.
Funny how that works.
#BanCars
Your not any more civilized than shart in the Mart.
We shouldn't have any laws. We learned this year laws only apply to some people, but not all, so why have any laws?
>the sole purpose of a gun is to kill someone
You can't be THAT stupid.
The argument (only one among many, either practical or ideological) is that in the United States, a nation where firearms are absolutely ubiquitous, it is not efficient to heavily regulate firearm purchase, ownership, or manufacturing because criminals (with unavoidable access to firearms) will still break the law.
Funny enough, I'd have to concede at least a bit of ground if the subject nation where anywhere but the US; firearms being not nearly as commonplace.
>1. Reducing the availability of guns in society will reduce the number of guns in criminal hands.
This never works though. Because you can machine guns from scratch with the right tools or just build zip guns out of plumbing parts.
You can't use laws to make guns just disappear from a region. It's the same issue with prohibition of controlled substances that are so easily produced illicitly.
The better analogy would be:
>"People keep speeding and getting into car wrecks even though it's illegal to drive dangerously."
>"so now we need to ban all cars"
Our ridiculously high crime rates are due to black on black crime. They're killing each other in the ghetto, while us white folk are safe at home with outr guns
Crime rates mean shit. Ours is through the roof and we don't allow guns.
You can't possess traffic.
Restricting guns would be like restricting vehicles.
And from that logic, yes, criminals will still get hold of a car if they really want one.
In the end, although you may be cutting down the number of guns/cars obtained through or with criminal intent, all you're really doing is creating a hassle for those who would otherwise obtain them legally.
Its like really shitty invasive anti-pirating software that became popular in the mid/late 2000s. Hackers often enough break that shit within the span of a week or two, meanwhile the legal buyers have to jump through a bunch of hoops, log ins and credential filings.
Finish reading posts before replying to them.
OP, you just went full blown statist. Sure, we can sacrifice our individuality for "safety" under a nanny state, or we can grow the fuck up and take personal responsibility for ourselves in a voluntary society.
Because taking away the protective tool from an innocent person makes it easy to kill them, and leave them defenseless.
so youre a victim by choice. lol k
>I refuted your point about Belgium not being relevant in global politics. When in fact most laws of the EU originate there.
No one cares about the EU outside of the EU because it's an irrelevant entity. If you aren't China, Japan, Germany, or the USA, you might as well not exist.
>laws of the EU originate there lead by mommy Merkel
Who gives a shit? Germany is the big player as far as the EU is concerned.
a lil old lady or feminine woman cannot defend against a nigger when they can't get a gun.
>80% of guns involved in a crime were not legally owned
WEW
This guy has it right. If "saving lives" were the motive then we should outlaw sugar and processed foods. Obesity is the number one cause of death in America. I guess the right to stuff your mouth is more important than the right to self-defense.
did you?
But you're still lacking any consistent statistical support for any of the sub-claims in that post.
Australia is suffering from MASSIVE illegal importation of improvised sub-machine guns coming from Asia. Your stupid laws are adding a profit motive to the illicit production and smuggling of firearms.
Just as the prohibition of narcotics adds a profit source to organized crime.
You are providing another revenue stream to criminals.
It's not because we chose to, it's the government who did and we don't get a say in it.
wtf i hate guns now
>It's not about safety in society though, it's about blowing the heads off government officials if they dare to take away our right
Yeah, you'll take dem drones down with your little guns.
>make having a gun a 10 year penalty
>average citizen won't risk it
>violent nigger gets a gun because he's going to murder you anyway so what's another 10 years to him?
>violent nigger murders you as you can't defend yourself
>guns are legal
>you have a gun
>violent nigger also has a gun
>at least you now have a chance of defending yourself
>traffic laws in place
>violent nigger decides to break them because he'll get another dime in the hole if he gets caugh
>average citizen follows them and less people get hurt
>no traffic laws
>violent niggers and average citizens are now driving recklessly
>more people get hurt
I hate it when retarded sandniggers attempt to use analogies that don't have any application to the matter at hand. Really goes to show their faggot stupidity.
>They have ridiculously high crime rates
Only in Democrat-run cities full of niggers.
Everywhere else is doing just fine and violent crime continues to fall to record lows.
Hello foreigner who thinks he understands American politics more than Americans do.
>They have ridiculously high crime rates so OBVIOUSLY their retardness is not working.
As opposed to what? Have you looked at Mexico's crime rates? They are exponentially higher than that of America - but why? Mexico has gun control. Your connection is obviously flawed.
>inb4 hurr durr I can defend myself against the government with my hunting rifle
As opposed to hurr durr the American government is going to send an Apache or bomb after every American who DOESNT give up their guns?
You sound more delusional than the typical gun nut.
>No one cares about the EU outside of the EU because it's an irrelevant entity. If you aren't China, Japan, Germany, or the USA, you might as well not exist.
there you go again showing your ignorance. Other nations make trade deals with the EU, not with individual nations in it. For example you mentioned China, that nation makes all it's deals with the EU and will have to make a new deal with the UK since it left. Part of the arguments about Brexit was that people would not care about the UK as much because it is no longer part of the huge entity of the EU and that larger nations might take advantage of it. That applies to all the other nations you named as well. Once again, you're displaying your ignorance.
>Who gives a shit? Germany is the big player as far as the EU is concerned.
So you're claiming that Merkel's sole pathway to mass influence is irrelevant? By that logic you'd say that capitalism had nothing to do with Trump's success in America. Who cares if he was only able to acquire that much money because of our existing system, he was the big player after all. No, that's bullshit. You can't just give all credit to the "big player" without recognizing the system.
Another chart to make it even more obvious
Learn the difference between proactive and reactive.
Remember when you were able to walk through Molanbeek without feeling uneasy?
>it's useless to regulate buns because criminals will still break the law
That's not the argument. That's the argument for dumbfucks that walked in, 20 minutes into the conversation, heard the last thing said, and then piped off on it. The closest argument is "Bad guys will still have guns, and the problem is: They will be the ONLY ones with guns" which puts good guns in a very unsafe position -- like the Paris attacks.
>why have traffic laws?
To give order to the roads -- not to give the police reason to arrest anyone with a car. Without standard traffic laws, who would have the right of way at a given intersection?
>why have any laws?
To provide society with essential safeties against the perceived freedoms of "bad people" -- it's a compromise of liberties. It's the rules of living within a society and punishments assigned to breaking those rules.
The same reason why people SHOULD have guns -- it protects the safety of the average person against someone that seeks to do them unilateral harm.
As gun ownership in the US has skyrocketed in the last few decades, gun violence has dropped immensely. The truth speaks on the side of "Looser Gun Control = Safer Societies" so liberals and gun grabbers are forced to use "Smug Comedian giving a shrug" as their entire basis for argument, as the facts have completely refuted/deserted their thesis.
>3 posts by this id
Better luck next time.
>But you're still lacking any consistent statistical support for any of the sub-claims in that post.
I don't know why this needs to spelled out for you, but the reason that things cost more on the black market is because there is a reduced supply. When you ban alcohol it means that alcohol costs more and there's less of it. Everyone likes to meme about prohibition but if you look up the data all manner of alcohol-related health issues almost disappeared, or were reduced in prevalence by thirds. Banning things works.
>but there will still be guns!
Yes, there will be. There will always be guns, because you can put one together in your garage. The goal is for there to be less guns, something that gun control achieves. That "MASSIVE" illegal importation of improvised sub-machine guns problem that exists is actually exactly what I'm talking about - those guns cost vastly more than any low level nigger can afford, and you need to have connections to get them. They are an organised crime problem, not a street crime problem. Though the two overlap - organised crime causes street crime - organised criminals are not just street criminals. Bob the biker who is neck deep in drug money and standovers could probably get a hold on a high quality improvised weapon, but Jamal the nignog who breaks into houses during the week to fund his meth habit almost certainly can't. If Jamal can't just get his friend to buy him a gun, or buy one himself, or steal one, he won't be getting a gun.
And you can see this yourself in the following statistics. I used homicides because it's the only thing the statistics were available for that I could find, but it should hold true across all crime:
aic.gov.au
Homicides committed with firearms as a percentage of all homicides, Australia, 2003: 16%
bjs.gov
Homicides committed with firearms as a percentage of all homicides, America, 2011: 67%
>No one cares about the EU outside of the EU because it's an irrelevant entity
Hmm strange. The organ that controls directly the biggest market in the World is irrelevant.
I mean I know that people make fun about American education but that's just embarrassing.
And if you don't know where Belgium is you're just an uneducated meat head irrespective of the fact that Belgium is not a real country. That's like not knowing where is Tokyo.
And yet, far more people die because of cars each year.
Its almost as if "intended purpose" is irrelevant...
Because government is actually in bed with criminals and big business. Every bigger criminal owns a gun and has police on his payroll, sometimes even politicians. Also, his bodyguards are armed.
Even if he's a small scale drug-dealer, he still owns a handgun whereas you own NOTHING, and God forbid you waited for the police who are afraid of him or on his payroll.
That's why regular people need guns. It balances the scales. Criminals are afraid even to look you the wrong way whereas if they have a gun and you don't and there's no police around, they can make you do whatever they like.
lawyerfag here...
to reply to the meme in OP's post
the memis supposed to be satirical, but it could not be more on point.
there are two types of man-made laws
judicial and regulatory
judicial laws are really what the law is all about. think about when people were governed by kings and they brought their disputes to the king, this is how the legal system began. through time, the same type of disputes were brought to the king and he decided them in a similar fashion. this is what we know today as case law or judicial laws
the second is the bullshit law, regulatory law. created by congress and/or executive administrative orgs (both are regulatory laws)
basically "you cant do X"
in a more general context judicial laws say the same thing, but thats only because when a dispute arises, you would be in the wrong based on older, similar, cases.
but regulatory laws have no basis. "no drugs"
is a regulatory law and if you are charged with one who is the plaintiff? the state/gvt. you broke it's rule. it's a circular argument; there is no plaintiff (no other party who was injured) the state says its wrong, and it's wrong because the state says so.
1/2
no you autistic faggot, nothing has a sole purpose. The only purpose anything has is the purpose that the user gives it.
>They get these guns through theft, straw purchases, and yes, manufacturing their own guns. Gun control laws can almost entirely eliminate the first two with mandatory safe laws and more exacting purchase controls
Just as with drugs, once demand is high enough, no law will prevent supply from appearing. Most likely, if crime situation is bad enough for gun violence in the street to be a problem, it is bad enough for anti-gun laws to not work.
>There is also a small subset of crime that, while not statistically significant, has significant public interest - spree killing - that can be impacted by gun control.
But all of the biggest spree killings happened in countries with severe anti-gun laws and, consequently, unarmed population. You would prevent some shooting sprees by fucks too unstable to obtain a gun, but you would make the work of shooters who actually have brains and patience to prepare much easier.
2/3 (sorry for the confusion with the numbering)
in a case law setting, (contracts for example) if i give you two cows for 5 chickens, and i get 4 chickens, i would bring it to the king who would make you give me the other chicken. In this case ANOTHER PARTY is harmed. its wrong because i was harmed.
back to OPs meme. case law is good because it allows you to understand what you can and cant do when other people are ACTUALLY harmed in some way. it allows you to know how the courts/people adjudicating disputes will decide
conversely, regulatory laws serve no true purpose other than to attempt to control, as OP's meme points out.
>criminals break laws so why have them
its an excellent point; regulatory laws dont control people, and neither do judicial laws for that matter. the difference being judicial laws stem from someone actually being harmed
traffic laws are somewhat confusing because they are used to determine who is at fault in court (judicial) but they APPEAR to be regulatory (i.e. "dont do X, Y , or Z") but they really stem from case law, adjudicating the dispute of an accident. (there were no driving rules when cars were first being driven)
so to anwser OP's meme, it shows a lack of understanding of man made laws in general. it asks why have regulatory laws (which is right, they dont serve a useful purpose) and cites traffic laws as the basis for comparison (which is incorrect)
case law= good = rules that come about DIRECTLY from disputes (traffic, contract, fraud, violence, etc)
regulatory laws = bad = "its wrong because i say so" (gun laws, drug laws, etc.)
>but guns lead to violence
>drugs lead to violence
the flaw in that argument is that the result is too tenuous. VIOLENCE is wrong under any context besides self defense. lots of murders are over sex, but you dont want that banned, do you?
>the vast majority of drivers commit minor infractions
>this is overwhelmingly harmless behaviour in small doses, but in practice, it creates a culture that tolerates "small infractions" b/c they do not have an immediate aftermath 99.99% of the time
>occasionally these small infractions lead to bigger infractions and/or accidents
>these kill people
>thus, we have laws strictly enforced to encourage a culture of intolerance towards these small infractions, thus saving lives
>driving is considered a privilege
>it is extremely difficult to argue against the idea that all drivers ocassionally, if not daily, commit small crimes
VS
A GOD GIVEN RIGHT OF SELF-DEFENCE RECOGNIZED BY THE BILL OF RIGHTS
>Gun owners are overwhelmingly safe and obsessed with guns safety
>that is cross-cultural, as the gun club in Canada is OBSESSED with safety
>Gun owners OVERWHELMINGLY do not commit crime, smaller infractions nor felonies
>it is extremely difficult to argue that gun owners commit occasional, let alone daily, crimes
>by definition, criminals do not care about added punishment for crimes
THESE ARE NOT EQUIVALENT THINGS
3/3
>we need regulations to keep big biz from fucking us over hurr durr...
the biggest of the lies. of course the people who want power will promise to protect you. the corruption we see today is all about regulations for our "protection." example: in NJ they didnt want to have all electric cars like teslas because of the crony relationship with big oil. so they made a REGULATION that all cars have to be sold through a broker (to keep cost down teslas were sold direct from the manufacturer) so now teslas are like 25K more expensive in NJ. they said it was to protect against "unfair competition." but that's BULLSHIT. crony politics at its best.
I went ot Belgium once 11 years ago, Brussells to be precise. The mussels and chocolate was good. The little boy peeing fountain was interesting. What else? Oh yeah the headquarters of the EJew. So what are your thoughts on the police there Abdul?
You don't need guns, just take getting killed or raped and your family stolen and sold into sex slavery like a man! Real man don't need a means to protect those close to them, they just need to be willing to die so those close to them can be abused in peace.
see
>Homicides committed with firearms as a percentage of all homicides
Whoop-dee-shit. What was the TOTAL homicide rate? Is being killed by a knife better than being killed by a car or gun?
>The goal is for there to be less guns, something that gun control achieves.
This is obvious. The premise of the argument typically centers on there being an effort to reduce total deaths or total victims of crime.
But nobody has managed to prove that to be the outcome of gun control laws. You end up shifting the means of committing violence to other tools. Gun murders go down, knife murders go up. The sum total of homicides along the trendline remains the same.
Australia's efforts to reduce guns in society caused a huge spike in total homicides for 2 years until the trend line went back to where it would have been if they did nothing at all.
Get off Sup Forums this instant you fucking fedora fag.
>Urban democrats
I like it
More guns in public hand = less chance for rape and money from sex slaves, thus it is our duty to make sure we can help out the sex slave market by getting rid of these guns that stop much needed product from being gained.
When will euroslaves fucking learn that the instant anyone tries to ban guns in America is the day America as a nation ceases to exist. States will secede, civil war will erupt helped by foreign agents, and all kinds of other shit.
Get the fuck off of my Sup Forums. An unarmed man is a slave. Last time someone tried to take our guns away we destroyed an empire on which the sun never set.
Fucking try it.
So? That argument presupposes there's no legitimate homicide, or legitimate defensive use not resulting in homicide.
If no homicide is legitimate than the state shouldn't have gun either. It's really a stupid argument.