Guns should be banned.
The argument that guns shouldn't be given to rebels in Syria on the fear that it gets in the hands of terrorists like Al Nusra should also be applied to US population.
Guns should not be allowed to citizens on the fear that criminals (or soon to be criminals) gets their hands on them.
Best name I've heard for it yet
You just jelly that you can't get any funs cucklord.
Your image is inaccurate. The cyclic rate of fire of an AR-15 is nominally 800 rounds per minute.
Anyway, guns aren't "allowed to citizens." It is our inalienable right to own them.
Guns are allowed because government allows it (legislative, judiciary and executive).
Right now executive is trying to change some things about gun rights. If all branches of govt were for removal of gun rights, there wouldn't be guns. The constitution can be changed with a majority (2/3) vote.
Amendments are called amendments because they're changed. Your rights are not God-given, even Christians don't really believe that.
Well if they're insane, there are mental hospitals (or whatever you call them) where you can put those people there. There are also prisons if they committed crime.
Banning people is already an actual thing.
>it took 8 years for someone to do something bad with the most popular rifle in the country.
If you don't like guns then move out of america
your from pussyweenyland
Bullshit. I got the GOD given right to own guns and no slimy politician can tell me what to do.
Well Trump is proposing to ban all Muslims from coming into the US and plenty of posters in this board don't disagree.
And just because you propose something, doesn't mean you have to do the most extreme thing. Gasing people is far less worse than banning guns.
There are plenty of people without guns in Japan and Europe. They're living their life just fine. How is that any comparable to gasing people?
Maybe so. I wasn't arguing that it was going to happen anytime soon. The argument I challenge is that your gun rights are inalienable, which is a ridiculous statement.
Either given by God, or if yo prefer, Darwin. Rights exist, irrespective of your desires that they did not. Governments can only either respect and shepherd those rights, or else violate and abuse them. Even if you somehow managed to get the government to use its apparatus to abuse the rights of the citizens, it would not abolish the right to bear arms. That right would still exist, and would rapidly be reasserted by the citizenry.
Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 is passed in the Senate and signed by H.W. Bush, making it illegal for citizens to posess guns on school property.
Gun-Free Schools Act of 1994 is passed by congress and signed by Clinton, bringing a "zero tolerance" policy to schools.
Columbine High School massacre
What we actually need is a new Gun-Free School Zone act that is even bigger than the other ones! People need to REALLY know that it is illegal to carry guns on school campuses.
Fact of the matter is, guns do far more good than harm even in the US. They are used defensively, at minimum, 5 times more than they are used for murder. This number increases to 25 times more when you ignore gang murders.
Abnormal impusliveness is a sign of mental illness. Remember, it's mental illness when it's an extreme.
Everyone feels sad but when sadness becomes so potent it ruins your life and makes you suicidal, that sadness is seen as depression.
>implying it is not my god given right to defend myself, 'HUR DUR NEED PROOFS'
This is exactly why nobody takes Canada faggots seriously.
Fucking stupid. They went to that high school so obviously they would shoot it up. Just like any other school shooter.
They're also willing to die, so people having guns won't stop them
Do you have a reliable source on those statistics?
And even if what you say is true, the risks of death are far too high compared to other Western nations. It's not a risk worth taken.
The reason why guns are used defensively so much is because there are so many guns allowed to be sold legally in the US. You wouldn't have to use guns defensively so much if there wasn't so much sold to the general populace.
There's also a problem with police forces being so armed but that's another problem.
>so people having guns won't stop them
you just went full retard son
>04 nra lobbies to make assult rifles legal
The AWB had an automatic sunset of 10 years
It was also shown by multiple DoJ and FBI studies to have absolutely zero effect on crime.
No further discussion faggot
The glorious 90s, as compared to the savage 2000s.
I've been saying this forever. "Shall Not Be Infringed" is a meme because it can (and is) totally be infringed. See California or NYC. Instead of regurgitating dumb shit you see on the internet, you should be actively debating people where the topic exists so that they don't convince the majority to their side.
after the littleton colorado shooting, i would think every schoolteacher and school district would be ok with teachers CC
but NOOOOOO, big scary guns
>armored car full of money = two armed guards
>school bus full of children = unarmed
headcracker for sure
>And even if what you say is true
>There's also a problem with police forces being so armed but that's another problem
really thought this through, eh, hoser ?
How do you know it's given by God? Why is the source of information worth any credibility?
Darwin didn't say anything about gun rights. And even if he did, he's not some divine being.
Rights are defined by people and they can be redefined all the time.
They are the ones who come up with them. They can change them.
>That right would still exist
It wouldn't. The idea of those rights will continue to exist. But those rights wouldn't be rights anymore if they don't have any legal value as a result of some amendment change.
>would rapidly be reasserted by the citizenry.
There has been countries who have already restrained gun rights.
Gun-free zones should go further than schools for there to be real effects.
You say the risk of death is too high, so why are you wanting to increase it by prohibiting people from owning and using guns?
Are you saying that defending one's self with a gun is bad but defending one's self with a knife is good?
>Go to University
>Biology Professor says race isn't biological
hell yeah nigger, we got 100+ round mags as well,,, who needs em though when you can get a standard mag for ~$10, and it takes less than 5 seconds to switch mags nd drop bolt,, even quicker if you dont completely empty mag and replace..
You're not arguing that it's your god given right if you can't show where you got those rights from.
Maybe, it's forbidden by God to have guns. Jesus seemed like a pacifist, so the argument can be there.
There are intelligent people who have poor self control. You can have good analysis of the "good" and "bad" and still do the "bad" as a result of illness.
Still, I don't believe they shouldn't get prison. They're not insane (i.e people who don't even know what's right and wrong). Many of those criminals know exactly what's wrong but made the choice. Whether the choice is a result of nurture, nature or free will is irrelevant. Prisons should still be their new home. But I don't think you disagree on that point.
The AR-15 shoots .223, which is essentially a hot .22 round. A .22 caliber bullet is tough to kill with.
Sure the casing looks intimidating, but it's just there to push a minuscule amount of lead quite a bit faster.
>still implying that i need gods permission to defend myself
>Are you saying that defending one's self with a gun is bad but defending one's self with a knife is good?
yes mackenzie, wtf are you trying to say except 'HUR DUR BIG SCARY GUNS'
Cars can be used for crimes, phones can be used for crimes, feminists can be used for crimes, clothes can be used for crimes, shoes can be used for crimes, electricity can be used for crime, etc etc etc, should we ban all those also?
Guns are a small killer. Biggest killer are trans-fats, tobacco, alcohol and car accidents.
Gun deaths are so small its irrelevant. More people die by drowning in their own pool each year.
>Guns should be banned
Sorry anon, that's unconstitutional. Your argument stops there.
>Gun-free zones should go further than schools for there to be real effects.
>implying that "Don't do That!" zones would be effective against criminals anywhere.
Shit, the entire city of Chicago is a de facto gun-free zone and that doesn't seem to work too well for them.
>They are the ones who come up with them. They can change them.
See, there's your problem. In your atheism, you have made the government your god. If rights come from government, government will giveth as government taketh away. No wonder Canada is so cucked.
Which is hilarious, because your secular government worship is going to lead you all to conversion to islam. Your children will be screaming allah snackbar because of your perverse logic that leads you to believe there are no rights (except for your enemies).
>The idea of those rights will continue to exist. But those rights wouldn't be rights anymore if they don't have any legal value as a result of some amendment change.
That must be why criminals can't get guns anymore including while being in prison :^)
Of course it can be infringed but many people don't think they should be.
Could be infringed and should be infringed are different things. The people I'm arguing against believe those rights shouldn't be infringed because they're not supposed to. I'm arguing that those rights are inherently written to be infringed by a government with the right legal process.
>Maybe, it's forbidden by God to have guns
mebe you just dont like big scary guns ?
mebe you are having trouble wrapping ur head around the fact that the 2nd protects all the other freedoms ?
mebe you are a troll and this is a bait thread ?
mebe you mean well but are a chromed out turbo autist ?
>Maybe, it's forbidden by God to have guns. Jesus seemed like a pacifist, so the argument can be there.
Jesus told his followers to sell the clothes on their back to buy a sword for defense if they did not have one
of course not, we have strong hunting traditions. there was never any outcry for it either. we already have gun laws in place from before that happened, you need a hunting license (written test) to buy a hunting rifle/shotgun. or be a member of a shooting club to by a handgun. I believe both the handgun and the rifle he used was legal in norway, although i am not sure.
Why is that old man doing absolute territory with his calves? And why is Trudeau posing his feet like he's wearing high heels? What the fuck?
.22LR is more lethal than people give it credit for. a THR poster verified this, putting rounds of a reasonably good manufacture of .22LR clean through a frozen turkey at various ranges between 100 and 300 yards. he even repeated the experiment with soaked and windchill-frozen blue jeans wrapped around the turkey, sufficient penetration was still achieved in most cases.
but! it doesn't really take niggers out of the fight. with all those piddling little bullets that start with .2 you can be mortally wounded and just keep on going, which means you are still a threat to the owner of that poodle-shooter. if the .22LR is not underestimated, then the .223 is completely overrated.
I think he used a ruger mini-14 and a glock of some kind. They banned 30 round mags at least, right? Don't need that for hunting.
Not like it mattered, the Glock has a standard 17 round magazine depending on which model you get and the min-14 is 10 and 20 round standards and they even made 30 round magazines just fine
Took 8 years to happen, clearly not a widespread problem you fucking idiot. The problem isn't legal guns, it's niggers and spics and white trash buying illegal ones and shooting each other because they are uncivilised brutes.
.223/556 is going fast enough for hydrostatic shock to start affecting the body which is the true man stopper(outside of a direct CNS hit) when talking ballistics.
Of course 7n6 5.45 is superior in wounding capacity when talking little bullets
THE CONSTITUTION WASN'T MADE TO BE CHANGED.
YOU CAN'T CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION
THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS
YOU CAN CHANGE LAWS NOT THE CONSTITUTION
SHALL NOT INFRINGE
Jesus also rolled up to a Temple and after finding out how corrupt it was he whooped several peoples' asses to get them out. When necessary, violence is justified. Only a true faggot would deny that.
Not true. A real M16 or M4 has a auto sear which is a third trigger pin above the safety selector. Also real M4's have a 14.5 inch barrel compared with a 16 inch barrel on AR-15's.
Fuck off Weed Man. We have a right to defend ourselves and guns are a part of our culture. You will NEVER get rid of guns here. You wanna ban guns in your syrup slurping shithole, that's your dilemma.
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED, you communist faggot.
Get fucked you nogunz syrup nigger, go smoke a bowl with your hipster president.
Come and take zem
meant to use this pic.
well, it's like this. in norway you're allowed to have a maximum of three rounds in your magazine when hunting with a rifle, but it is legal to buy magazines with any capacity. so 30 round mags are legal to purchase. i believe the only restriction is for shotguns, where only 5 rounds is max for those types of magazines.
> Guns are allowed because government allows it
The government does NOT give us the right to defend ourselves. Whether or not you believe in a God, it is a natural right of people to defend themselves against lawlessness.
This is true around the world.
It just so happens that many governments are so afraid of their own citizens that they strip that right from them.
That is why wording was included in our Supreme Law of the Land that prevents our government from taking that right from us.
I only have two 30 round clips loaded at a time. One ready to go and the other close by. If I miss the intruder breaking in my home, I have 59 bullets left to try. If somehow those miss, I have a .40 in the night stans with 2 12 round clips. If I get coerced outside by the intruder I have a .45 in the console of my car with a 8 round clip ready to go and another 12 rounder.
It's almost like you want me to be a victim.
God bless Kentuckys gun laws.
I have 20 loaded pmags and 5000 rounds of extra ammo
also, here is a list of legal rifles for "practice and competitions"
and for hunting
then again, you are allowed to use those weapons for "other things" than competitions and hunting. they're sort of sneaking in self defense, which is never mentioned explicitly in the laws.
mfw liberals think banning guns will lower murder rate
If you think you'd get 2/3rds of the public to vote to disarm themselves, you'd have your head firmly up your ass to insulate yourself from the northern snows.
Even with every branch of government saying "NO GUNZ", they'd have to get it voted through by the public, and 1) you aren't getting that in state governments, because gun rights and 2) there's nearly a third of the US population that own guns, never mind people like me who don't have one but support gun rights.
The only way they'd get national gun removal is literally taking them from cold, dead hands, as if it got to the point of mass confiscations you'd see another American Civil War.
Nah. The truth is, politicians are not that smart. In fact, very few people could actually be considered smart.
So, by being against gun ownership, they somehow look like pure little angels who just want people all to hug each other and stop fighting. That's good PR, so they do that. It has become PROFITABLE to be anti-gun.
The government no longer needs to be afraid of the people when the people are all split into so many tiny groups that there is no cohesion whatsoever and they'd never succeed in doing anything against the government anyway.
I mean, just look at /pol/. People are divided through so many STUPID positions they hold that they'd never actually work together.
Sure, if they have weapons it'd be tough for the government to round them up and put them in camps, but since that would never be lucrative it's not like the government would ever do that, either.
That's impressive. I limit the amount I have because I can just go outside and target practice for the fun of it and that gets pretty expensive. I've been using "amend2" magazines. So far so good though. Everyone always recommends magpul, I may order one just to see what the hype is about.
So you don't really have any higher than thou authority you can appeal too. Hence, those rights are not god given.
So those rights are made by men, which means they can later be rewritten by men.
It's not an intelligent decision. It's an emotional one. A strong devotion of some holy idea that guns are the center of American values and freedom. People are devoted to guns because it's culture. But not all cultures are equal or and not all aspects of one culture should be free to not be criticized.
I don't hate Americans. The fact why I don't want them to have guns is the opposite. If I'd want more guns, that means I'd want to see more deaths.
This is a typical argument against Gun control in the US. What people don't realize is that the surrounding areas of Chicago and states have much more lax laws on gun control. So a lot of guns make their way into Chicago from outside.
If anything, it shows there should be a country wide serious gun control.
>In your atheism
I'm not atheist.
>you have made the government your god.
No. What humanist will argue is that there are rights (human rights as they will say) which are universal and should apply to everyone.
Where do they get those rights from? What authority do those rights have?
Well, this is where the idea that rights (as in law) and morals are the different becomes ridiculous stance to take if you're a secular humanist. Basically, the only way for their argument to make sense is to argue that morality is objective (deontology is an example of objective morality) and that laws are an application of morals. They can be change because humans aren't perfect and try to apply those mores as best as they can.
Can't go wrong with Magpuls, they are the industry standard. When they are on sale, you can get them for as cheap as USGI stanags.
>This is a typical argument against Gun control in the US. What people don't realize is that the surrounding areas of Chicago and states have much more lax laws on gun control. So a lot of guns make their way into Chicago from outside.
>If anything, it shows there should be a country wide serious gun control.
You realize that a study of gun crime in chicago found that 99% of all the guns gotten in gun crime were illegally acquired, not registered, nor legally purchased right?
You could go down to tyrones house, throw 100 dollars on some untraceable browning high power or a taurus shitter and go shoot some other nigger and throw it away.
Beating people as correction and killing people are different things. Pacifism often means an aversion to killing.
>He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.” The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.” “That’s enough!” he replied.
—Gospel of Luke 22:36-38, NIV
Jesus, according to the New Testatement, did this to fulfill a prophecy where he would be apprehended as a result
He didn't tell his disciples to get swords for self defense. Two swords aren't enough for that. They're enough for the authorities to brand him as the leader of brigands.
That was the prophecy.
I don't know why religious texts are always taken out of context. No wonder why there are so many misunderstandings.
It's true. There's a direct correlation between Latitude and shitposting, QED: Australia and Canada.
At first I suspected it was cold-based, but naturally based on Australia I have to rethink my hypothesis to something to do with distance from the equator.
I'm not certain yet how Brazil fits this equation. Further research is needed.
>it is a natural right of people to defend themselves against lawlessness.
Then why aren't citizens allowed to have tanks and other military hardware?
Why type of lawlessness should be fought against and who gets to decide?
Why is the right to defend yourself exchangeable with owning a gun and how is it a natural right?
>Then why aren't citizens allowed to have tanks and other military hardware?
haven't you seen all the people with those historical relics for tanks?
Theres a guy in colorado that has an M3 bradley out of the 80's
also pic related
anyone with sks how are the aftermarket stocks such as the archangel and what not do you guys like em or nah?
>If I'd want more guns, that means I'd want to see more deaths.
The best part of that statement is that there are more guns in American's hands than ever before but firearm murders are at the lowest they've been in decades.
That will probably be my next purchase
You need 2/3rds of counties in a state, you need 2/3rds of all state representatives, you need 2/3rds of all state senators, you need 2/3rds of all state governors, you need 2/3rds of all states
you need 2/3rds of all house of representatives, 2/3rds of all congress and the presidents signature
you do in fact need 2/3rds of all public so yea good luck
>Why is the right to defend yourself exchangeable with owning a gun and how is it a natural right?
All animals on the planet are entitled to use what they have to survive. Dogs have their teeth, tigers have their teeth and claws, scorpions have poison, we have our minds. And with our minds we have devised ways of defending ourselves far superior to teeth, claws, and poison, and therefore it is our right to use them to defend ourselves.
Of course they're illegally acquired since they go against Chicago's gun laws.
The point is that those guns, while being illegal in Chicago, where legally acquired at some point in time in other parts of the region ( a state next to Illinois or some parts of Illinois where gun laws are much more lax)
>So you don't really have any higher than thou authority you can appeal too. Hence, those rights are not god given
ok, you got me there
i have talked to god, he never answers me though
but i would guess that he would not want me to roll over and die without defending myself if faced with death
i dont need anyones permission to defend myself against deadly force with criminal intent anon, nor do you or anyone else
'god given right' is a buzzphrase to mean exactly this
let me flip it around weedman
god given right to eat
god given right to breath
god given right to reproduce
god given right to life and liberty
are you saying i have no right to these things ?
what about if i say you have no right to these things ?
>So those rights are made by men, which means they can later be rewritten by men
ok, i see what you are getting at, officially concerned now
there are some things that i am entitled to regardless of laws written by men
i have re read the thread and i misjudged you
NWO agent detected
>It's the fault of areas with low violence and no gun control that cities with harsh gun control have rampant violence
The mental gymnastics are incredible. Why should the areas around Chicago adopt gun control if they're doing fine without it?
>Of course they're illegally acquired since they go against Chicago's gun laws.
No thats not why, read it again
illegally acquired means they didn't go fill out a form in any way or shape or form. which means they did a private sale from an illegal seller. not registered in any neighboring state since they all need registration
illegally purchased means they didn't buy it from an FFL
> Why type of lawlessness should be fought against and who gets to decide?
The kind where someone is trying to kill you.
> Why is the right to defend yourself exchangeable with owning a gun and how is it a natural right?
What else would you use against a person trying to kill you WITH A GUN? You going to chuck bottles of syrup at him?
I just bought some of that federal ammo for shits and giggles. It's only $1 cheaper but man does it look rough. Walmart where I live has Remington .223 for $14 for 50. Not a bad price at all.
Sabagebu. It's about cute girls that play with guns.
How is grandpa supposed to survive a Tyrone attack?
You're right. Our rights aren't God given, THEY ARE FOUGHT FOR AND WON BY FREE MEN.
why don't we ban niggers instead? Then destroy political correctness and cultural marxism that is destroying our culture and leaving people mentally/emotionally crippled, driving them to suicide. After that, guns won't be too much of an issue.
But OP, history says that if the ban wasn't lifted, it could've been a lot worse.
Get that shit online. You can get .223 or 5.56 online for 30-35c shipped. Federal surplus ammo is designed for milspec. They don't clean the brass after loading, so they can save you and the military money. Dirty brass doesn't affect ballistics or reliablity.
You can have a tanks but without its respective ammunition. It's useless for most of its intended practical purpose of "self defense".
And it's not just tanks. You're not allowed to have military style choppers (as in armed) and fighter jets.
Well dogs and those other animals were born with those natural defense (or offence) mechanism. The same can't be said of guns.
They aren't as stated above.
The majority of people can disagree, which makes your inalienable rights not so inalienable after all.
You're not explaining what self defense is. It's an incredibly vague term. Some redneck can very well claim that shooting a cop is his god given right to defend himself even if he was going against the law because "self defence" is a higher right than obeying some law like the law against carjacking. He'd be wrong of course, but self defense doesn't mean much on its own.
This is not how maths work. 2/3 of those groups doesn't equate to 2/3 of the general populace or a state's populace.
>Canadian gun laws didn't change murder rates
>Most guns used in Canadian crimes were not legally owned or acquired at any point (97%)
>Even Australia can't get rid of guns
>There's no evidence to support gun control as being an effective reducer of violence
>You are more likely to not only survive, but escape unharmed when defending yourself with a gun
>All school shooters were on drugs which lead to their actions, not guns
>The same can't be said of guns.
We have our brains, our intelligence. That's our self defense mechanism, and we've used it to craft better and better tools to defend ourselves against things that would otherwise outmatch us.
lots of loopholes in how the laws go you can legally put an LAR-15 magazine in a AR-15 thats limited to 5 rounds and its deemed legal even if its 10 rounds because the laws are set around the magazine, not to mention all the mags are premade large capacity mags with a simple rivet drilled in. less then 30 seconds and its bag to its high capicity again.
You said tanks and other military hardware. People can own those things. There is also military hardware people aren't allow to own, which is bad. What's ultimately your point?
The people decide what the laws are, not what people's natural rights are.
Your inability to understand a simple concept does not mean the concept is ambiguous. It means you're an idiot.
Those guns were illegally acquired after they were legally acquired by someone.
If I buy a gun at a gun show in Indiana and I cross the border of Illonois, go to Chicago and sell it to someone (or give it for free), what I did in Chicago would be illegal. But buying the gun in Indiana at the gun show was legal.
Again, read what I previously stated. At some point in time, the purchase of many of those guns in Chicago were in fact legal. If gun rights of sales in Indiana, Iowa and all other states were not so lax, there wouldn't be as much guns in Chicago. Of course, because of the crime and gang culture, Chicago would still be the worst but it wouldn't be as bad.
No. Many of those guns they were bought legally in the US, transported illegally over to Canada and sold illegally (or given illegally) to people in Canada.
I've crossed the border many times and it's an incredibly easy thing to do.
>How do you know it's given by God? Why is the source of information worth any credibility?
The founders were excruciatingly clear when they said that they believed that we have natural rights given by God
have some copy pasta.
As the Supreme Court heard arguments for and against the Chicago, IL Gun Ban, this man offered you another stellar example of a letter (written by a Marine), that places the proper perspective on what a gun means to a civilized society.
Interesting take and one you don't hear much. Read this eloquent and profound letter and pay close attention to the last paragraph of the letter.
"The Gun Is Civilization" By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)
Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception.
Reason or force, that's it.
In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.
When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.
The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunken guys with baseball bats.
The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.
>people without guns want to take guns away from people who have them
Get the fuck out of my country you cuck, you're the reason we have to deal with 4 years of "weed lmao"
There are always different measures to take when one's life is in danger than using guns.
Albeit, I'd agree that some confrontations could warrant the use of guns for self defense (hence why cops are allowed to have guns) that doesn't mean everyone should have guns.
The argument of owning a gun if you live in the middle of nowhere could have some merit. But that doesn't mean it's the same realities for everyone.
Introducing guns in an area of the country just because of anomalies (like terrorist attacks) does more harm than good.
You don't burn a house down just because there are deadly spiders in there.
Gun rights in most cases of self defense are an extreme solution that creates more trouble than solves.
>What else would you use against a person trying to kill you WITH A GUN?
If someone already has you on their sights, you're as good as wounded or dead anyway.
You can claim movie scenarios or rare examples but that's all they are (rarities or fiction).
>Well dogs and those other animals were born with those natural defense (or offence) mechanism. The same can't be said of guns
so by this logic, we should walk to work, make all our clothes out of handwoven fibers, stop using anything that is powered by electricity, stop printing books, stop developing science and medicine
my nigga these toronto cucks really do give canada a bad rep
>Introducing guns in an area of the country just because of anomalies (like terrorist attacks) does more harm than good.
Murder rates are extremely low in rural white areas, and they tend to be loaded with guns.
How are the lives of non-cops worth so much less than the lives of cops that non-cops shouldn't be allowed to defend themselves?
How is allowing people to have access to guns bad when access to guns decreases the amount of violence?
They're not allowed to own armed tanks with ammunition.
The conversation is about self defense. An unarmed tank is useless in that regards.
You should read more about context. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Context_(language_use)
>What's ultimately your point?
I'm asking you why aren't people allowed to have those military hardware in the context of self defense.
You're avoiding the question because it shows an obvious flaw in your thinking but you're too idiotic to see.
It shows that your fanatic devotion to guns are not about self defense. If it was, why not own an armed tank or at the very least believe that citizens should be allowed to have.
The question ultilmately revels how insane your position is. You wouldn't mind an America where civilians (and as a result of realities criminals) can have armed tanks and jets.
You also failed to explain how those rights are inalienable.
>it's because it's natural rights
Why? Because it's natural rights of course. That's circular logic and considering your lack of intelligence, I'm not surprised you're going to continue to take that stance.
>Introducing guns in an area of the country just because of anomalies (like terrorist attacks) does more harm than good
>Gun rights in most cases of self defense are an extreme solution that creates more trouble than solves
>If someone already has you on their sights, you're as good as wounded or dead anyway
well mebe if they suspect i am armed they are less likely to make me wounded or dead ?
>You can claim movie scenarios or rare examples but that's all they are (rarities or fiction).
>There are always different measures to take when one's life is in danger than using guns.
Not really, the only thing that's guarenteed to stop somebody who's decided your life is forfeit is their death or maiming, and the only way to guarentee that in any circumstance is a gun.
>OP is still here
Hey I'll at least give him credit for not making his thread and then scurrying away like most of these threads.
If you're an old woman with wobbly hips and Tyrone breaks into your house to kill you, you're 9000x more likely to survive if you have a gun.
Let it sink, mang.
>mfw I work in a gun free.zone
>mfw I carry a pistol
>having a gun, eh you will die anyway
man the odds are in ur favor though
hey OP why is home invasion so much higher in boston ma than springfield va ?
>The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunken guys with baseball bats.
In a society where guns are allowed in the US, a criminal or wannabe criminal can have a gun too.
Which means a 100 pound women can't necessarily be on equal footing when her opponents also have guns.
What logic? I'm not the one claiming humans should have guns because dogs have sharp teeth. You're buddy is.
It's up to you to make your argument comprehensible and logically sound, not the one poking holes at it.
Or use it to hide smartly, sneak out smartly, negotiate smartly (when it's possible and reasonable of course), manipulate smartly, etc...
Or avoid a bad situation to begin with. They are plenty of ways to use one's brain. Unless you want to argue Americans are good at just using it for violence, which will explain the amount of deaths as a result of gun violence despite lax gun laws in comparison to other developed nations.
>But buying the gun in Indiana at the gun show was legal.
Buying a gun from.out ofnstate is illegal without an ffl or doing a nics check.
> Chicago would still be the worst but it wouldn't be as bad.
>anyone with sks how are the aftermarket stocks such as the archangel and what not do you guys like em or nah?
They're okay. If you're going to modify an SKS, at least in Canada, I'd recommend a magwell adapter that lets you load 10-round XCR pistol magazines. The final cost once you've got the adapter installed and everything will be around $5-600, but it still cheaper or the same as any other non-restricted semi auto centerfire on the Canadian market that can get 10 rounders.
>45 bullets per minute
Maybe if you're retarded. I could probably put twice that down range in a minute including the mag changes.
Also, the AWB didn't work according to internal investigations, and the only reason it passed in the first place was because the sunset clause was in it.
>In a society where guns are allowed in the US, a criminal or wannabe criminal can have a gun too.
>Which means a 100 pound women can't necessarily be on equal footing when her opponents also have guns.
IF they both have a gun they are literally on equal footing, you retard.
Being big doesn't make you a better shooter as much as it makes you a better fighter. A 6'0, 200lb man can do whatever he wants to a 120 lb woman if you remove weapons from the equation.
>Which means a 100 pound women can't necessarily be on equal footing when her opponents also have guns.
Then it comes down to numbers games. I'd still rather give her a gun so she can at least try to fight back.
>I can claim those rights are not given by God and my claim would be just as strong as theirs
You never answered
The reason the right to keep and bear arms was recognized is because it is an observable reality.
Man as a self owning sentient being by existing holds this right.
At most one can use the threat of force or the active use of force to give incentive to not exercise this right but it is impossible to remove said right.
As long as man exist the right to keep and bear arms Shall exist alongside with the right to free speech freedom of movement and other negative rights derived from.ones humanity.
>TFW there are Canadians who are this retarded
I'm sorry for burdening you with this idiocy Ameribros.
>What logic? I'm not the one claiming humans should have guns because dogs have sharp teeth. You're buddy is
yea i stand by what i posted, nice deflection
let me ask you this, benifit of the doubt and all :
should i only be allowed to defend myself with fists, feet, tooth and nail ?
>It's up to you to make your argument comprehensible and logically sound, not the one poking holes at it.
answer the question and we will see just how sound ur logic is anon
Honestly if we just nuked Ontario and Quebec there'd be a lot less Canadian shitposters
>The argument that guns should be given to rebels in Syria to oppose a government that does not represent them should also be applied to all populations.
BTW The Government gave Holmes the money for it.
Murder rates are low in rural areas because people are closer to others there. They're not as densely populated as urban areas, hence less crimes.
>inb4 but per capita!
Per capita doesn't take into account of the reality of density. The more densily populated an area is, the more strangers they are to others.
You're not seriously going to argue that an area where there are only 50 people living with 100 guns per person is less violent than others because they have more guns. They could have less guns, and they'd also be less violence. The reason why there's less violence in both cases is because people are closer to others there.
>How are the lives of non-cops worth so much less than the lives of cops that non-cops shouldn't be allowed to defend themselves?
I didn't claim their lives are worth less.
>How is allowing people to have access to guns bad when access to guns decreases the amount of violence?
It doesn't. America has higher deaths per capita as a result of violent crime than Britain and other Western nations.
>Not really, the only thing that's guarenteed to stop somebody who's decided your life is forfeit is their death or maiming, and the only way to guarentee that in any circumstance is a gun.
And if you kill them, someone will want to avenge them. Your life will always be endagered because you use violence.
Instead, this is why societies have law and order. So people don't have to take measures into their own hand. This reduces instances of revenge.
This notion was argued by ancient Greek philosophers and is a cornerstone of Western civilizations (and any other civilizations for that matter).
The attitude of taking things in your own hand is turning your country into chaos much more so than order. Of course, you're not a third world country so things aren't so bad. But if you were also a third world country, things would be much worse with those lax gun rights.
>Federal assault weapon ban made sale of new AR-15s illegals
People should actually know something about what they're making an infographic about before they make them.
>They're not allowed to own armed tanks with ammunition.
Why are you even attempting to discuss this issue you ignorant cuck? You aren't equipped for it.
>And if you kill them, someone will want to avenge them. Your life will always be endagered because you use violence.
>Instead, this is why societies have law and order. So people don't have to take measures into their own hand. This reduces instances of revenge.
>This notion was argued by ancient Greek philosophers and is a cornerstone of Western civilizations (and any other civilizations for that matter).
>The attitude of taking things in your own hand is turning your country into chaos much more so than order. Of course, you're not a third world country so things aren't so bad. But if you were also a third world country, things would be much worse with those lax gun rights.
Holy shit, all these retarded claims with nothing to back them up
Damn, I'll end up dying then, since I live in either one of those provinces depending on time of year.
>And if you kill them, someone will want to avenge them.
Yeah that's how that works, except not really, criminals are shot all the time and nobody cares. And literally every society has always said that self defense is a right.
I'm not the one arguing that one must kill and that's the only solution.
Just because someone is trying to kill you, doesn't mean they have to die (or at least right away).
Burglary is theft. And death isn't a fitting punishment for death.
What's with the American obsession that you have to kill someone if they commit any sort of crime on you?
Sure I can understand if they're about to kill you but the reasons you guys give like burglary or home invasion is just stupid.
In certain circumstances. But those are not the realities where laws are going to be written for.
Again, reality is much more grey than black and white. When you have a problem, sometimes the solutions (like lax gun laws) introduces more problems than solutions.
> And if you kill them, someone will want to avenge them. Your life will always be endagered because you use violence.
Who the hell do you imagine breaking into your house at 2 in the morning?
Stupidity is just oozing from you at this point
>I'm asking you why aren't people allowed to have those military hardware in the context of self defense
They are. As for the hardware they're not allowed to own, it's because our government is corrupt, which is yet another reason why we should be allowed.
>Just because someone is trying to kill you, doesn't mean they have to die (or at least right away).
>oh man, I'm dead, but at least I didn't kill someone
>It's not. Armed tanks aren't legal to own and operate
Yes they are
The 1994 AWB had a 10 year sunset clause written into it which is part of the reason it narrowly passed. If that clause wasn't in place it would have had even less support.The vote was 216 for, 214 against, and 3 abstained. That picture also conveniently doesn't mention that Columbine happened two years after the ban.
Fine, they're allowed to in some states.
I didn't restrict the argument to just
You shouldn't attempt to discuss if you're not educated in basic logic. Some military hardware are legal. Cool, but that's not what I was restricting the argument to.
What about armed jets and chopppers?
Yes you did claim their lives are less. You don't want non-cops to be able to defend themselves, so how can you consider those lives important?
We also have over 50% non-whites. Ignoring all other factors, if you removed non-whites from America, our incidences of violence would be fully in-line with Europe.
>Instead, this is why societies have law and order. So people don't have to take measures into their own hand.
>Hey there Mr. Criminal, can you take a break from beating my face in so you can steal my shit without a witness so we can go before a court and ensure this is all legal?
Or you shoot the guy.
You have literally no data to back that up and have never posted a single link in this thread. At best you have your own willful delusions. Everything I've seen says that a properly armed citizen provides far more benefits than not. Look at Switzerland, they have legal full autos available for the general populace in the majority of the country.
jesus told people who did not have a sword to sell their clothing to buy a sword, turning the other cheek doesn't mean don't defend yourself it means don't get revenge and to forgive
>The same reason why home invasions are higher in the US than France.
i have no info on france atm, way to dodge, again
are you implying there are moar nigras in boston than springfield ?
let me shed light on this = there are moar home invasions there because there are stricter gun laws
no guns = more home invasion
guns = less home invasion
thread is about to 404
OP, you are weak sause with this thread
you have dodged questions, moved goalposts, and had some pretty ignorant answers with no facts to back them up, just a shitty jewbook clickbait image macro
despite that, you have shown some reasoning skills and we would recommend moar research on ur part
i love a good arguement but urs has been anything but
2/10 points awarded for being bantzproof and not abandoning thread
educate yourself son
So you believe in an America where civilians can own and operate (in self defense which is a pretty vague thing to begin with).
If you don't realize how dangerous and downright destructive a country liike that could be, you're an idiot.
For one, the richer will have all the power outside outside of the government. Since they can own tanks, jets, choppers and other military hardware. Oh and since militias are beloved in America so much, why not add that in there as well. Short of traditionally defined weapons of mass destruction, they'll have lots. And government will have a harder time enforcing the law to protect the weak against the rich.
Congratulations. Also it's not just going to be rich corporations, criminal syndicates will have much more power now.
You barbarians are truly fanatics, reason is not something know to, you only a religious fervor for guns. The downsides are irrelevant to fanatics, because they beleive in some bullshit intrinsic aspects (that can't even be defended with argumentation).
Again, you can't even show why those rights are unalienable or why they're natural rights.
I'm pretty ok with guns but I'm not okay with bullshit flowcharts full of loaded questions
>so people having guns won't stop them
Do you know what guns do, anon?
Who keeps the government in check?
Sure, let's have a discussion about rights. We'll start from the beginning. Should people be allowed to protect themselves? If yes, why? If no, why?
what is bullshit about it ?
please elaborate b4 thread 404s
>I'm pretty ok with guns
tell you like i told OP, educate yourself
there is no riding the fence on this issue anon, you are either with me or against me
lurk moar if you are undecided
The kind of people that use guns to openly murder wont stop if you ban guns, there are lots of things that can kill people once you plan good enough, most serial killers can still slaughter lots of people with knives alone and never get arrested.
its one of those poorfag slickside uppers. the rest of the upper isnt that much better.
>16in barrel+huge muzzle break
>carbine length gas system
Well with that logic you'll need to outlaw alcohol, prescription painkillers, and motorvehicles.
Weapons are the means to liberty. Your freedoms are not secured by god, a document, or by the bravery of your forefathers. They are secured because your government knows, that should they try to take them from you, you will fight back with weapons.
Every nation that has "gun control" is also a hard-left nation where an act of free speech can land you in jail. This is why its impossible for far leftists to understand.. They WANT totalitarian government that is the master and decider of all things, and WANT a Marxist world where "social equality" is forced by government even if it means destroying real freedom.
Public safety has nothing to do with it at all; that's just what's painted onto the side of that trojan horse.
It's all about controls over the people and having people be controlled and regulated instead of free.
Because every leftist government in history 100% of the time ALWAYS disarmed the people as they exerted more control over them until total control is achieved.
..... all for "public safety" of course.
Quit while you're ahead, canuck
I've already asserted that they're not allowed.
You're doing a strawman fallacy. I never claimed non-cops lives are less.
Rather by claiming cops can have those guns, I can also claim that it is their duty to put their lives at risk constantly.
Their lives are essentially worth less, hence why they should have guns. They should be nothing more than the mercenaries of the law abiding citizens. You're supposed to be their bosses. They're your workers.
>our incidences of violence would be fully in-line with Europe.
No it wouldn't. Even if you just count offences comitte by whties, you still have a higher violent crime rate than Europe.
And you have to do the same to Europe by removing non-natives from the criminal statistics. You'll see that in places like France, the crime rate is far lower (which goes in line which /pol/'s claim that immigration in Europe is worse hence all the mockery).
Give people the tools to shoot down the "bad guy" and you'll have the "bad guys" use the same tools to shoot down the "good guys" because in their head the good guys are actually bad.
Again, you just end up creating more chaos. European societies are very peaceful and orderly with gun control.
Switzlerland is a country where its populace were intended to be armed so they can engage in guerrilla warfare if their country is invaded. It's consistent with their stance of neutrality and isolationism.
Further, conceal carry in Switzerland is very hard to get. Overall their gun laws (albeit more lax than their neighbors) are much more strict than in America.
You can't argue that the United States of America faces the same fear of being invaded like Switzerland does. Primarily, because there is no country that can mount a successful invasion of America.
Bullshit. You're a retard. Whites make over 70% of the population even when you don't take into account "White Hispanics".
>Their lives are essentially worth less, hence why they should have guns
So you want valuable things to go unprotected and non-valuable things to be protected
How did you get so fucked up?
>Give people the tools to shoot down the "bad guy" and you'll have the "bad guys" use the same tools to shoot down the "good guys" because in their head the good guys are actually bad.
>Again, you just end up creating more chaos. European societies are very peaceful and orderly with gun control.
Your entire argument is based on wishful thinking, and cuckoldry
>Whites make over 70% of the population
You know you just proved that anon's overall point even more correct, right? The minorities we have commit so much crime it dwarfs the white majority.
>Give people the tools to shoot down the "bad guy" and you'll have the "bad guys" use the same tools to shoot down the "good guys"
Again, Tyrone can kill grandma with a brick or his bare hands, but grandma has a chance of surviving if she has a gun.
Per capita crime really isn't that different between Europe and USA. Ignoring that Europe is made up of many countries, they tend to have higher rates of assault, home invasions, and the same rate of murders, just with different weapons than guns. Switzerland still allows people to buy semi and fully automatic guns fairly easily, as does Canada (semi auto anyways). Shooting the bad guy doesn't magically make more bad guys appear, it kills one of the ones who was most violent and likely to harm someone. Meanwhile Switzerland still have live guns and live ammo in almost every home in the country and doesn't have any issues, regardless of controls of sales or use, because any criminal won't be obeying laws regarding sales or use.
bullpup it or leave it alone. those drop in stocks are a joke that just scream "i should have gotten an AR". CBRS bullpup kits actually change the entire function of the gun and attempt to modernize it, not just slap some plastic on there.
the second row are all SKSs.
Mexico has stricter gun laws than Canada, so theorirtically it should be more of a peaceful paradise than downtown Toronto - but of course it isn't.
It's almost as if it's the citizenry and not the guns that are to blame.