/k/ here, shotguns are a meme weapon. They're popular, especially in America, because they were originally the choice weapons of the rural poor in the late 1800s due to the ease of reloading new shells. This resulted in the next generation of cops and gangsters using these readily available weapons, and the generation of film directors thereafter resorting to the weapons of their childhood memories.
It wasn't until modern ballistic science began to emerge in the 1980s (and matured in the early 00s) that the layman had access to the knowledge that shotguns are shit for fighting. Less range, less precision, less ammo, worse armor penetration, more weight, more recoil, and slower reloading.
That's because the alternatives were worse. Single stack semi auto Pistols like M1911 (7 rnds) or a revolver (6rnds). Or bolt action rifles. A pump action shotgun of the day like the M1917 (5 rnds of 12 ga. had a faster manual action than a bolt action rifle and could also utilize a bayonet.
>>44971220 As a former infantryman I would never choose a shotgun for CQB over a M4. Carbine. With a shotgun Individual rounds must be hand loaded one by one vs using a magazine. Shotgun Capacity is less than 1/3 of a 30 rnd magazine. Shotguns loaded with 00 buck pattern at roughly inch every meter. Useful up close but not in a dynamic evolving firefight. Switching to slugs which are superior vs. M855 5.56 NATO vs. cover but have a paltry 100 meter effective range
I hope you're not referring to the myth that a shotgun can supposedly shoot 700 yards, because that is a load of complete horseshit unless you're using a specialized weapon and projectile designed with the sole purpose of getting it to shoot that far.
Really the max effective range you're going to get out of a shotgun is about 100 yards, as after that your pellets are going to be too far spread out to reliably hit the target. As a general rule, 1yd = 1in when it comes to spread, so a 100yd shot will be realistically spread over 8-9 feet. Slugs are a different matter, but even they lose effectiveness by 150 yds or so. You can theoretically send it about 250yds, but good luck getting it to hit something at that distance, and you'll need to arc it.
Shotguns are great for closer-quarters engagements in urban areas, but not a wise choice as a standard-issue weapon outside of that area of operations.
>>44969037 Spear would be more like a automatic rifle; reliable and deadly with a long reach, the backbone of most armies.
A hand axe or dagger might be more like a shotgun; easy to maintain and readily available to commoners while still being decent in certain combat situations. Likely to be used a lot by hunters or other rural types.
An arming sword would be like a pistol; Not as deadly as a rifle but much easier to carry around making it a useful addition to any fighter's kit on or off the battlefield. Do to being carried so often by fighters they become a symbol of warrior-types. They are also the common weapon for use in duels or urban, criminal activities.
I think he's more rallying against video game/ media shotguns, which tend to murder anything within like ten meters instantly, then immediately drop off to the point where it'd be more effective to just bend over and break wind in enemy's direction.
>>44980898 ...are you trolling? The birds you actually hunt, like duck and dove, are hunted most effectively as they're either landing or taking off from water (duck) or perched flying in low to perch on a tree or pick at insects (dove). At most, you're going to shoot about 100yds (300ft) or you're not going to hit it reliably.
Any higher than that and there's a solid chance the pellets might not even actually penetrate the bird deep enough to kill it, as bird slows down pretty fast.
>>44980765 Matt Easton is tall, muscular and a good Christian. He even avoids the typical British pitfall of needlessly shitting on the French and actually defends them when it comes to longbow discussions.
>>44969037 I play GURPS. And I have to tell you that spears are one hell of a killing machine, no matter the time of the game. A pointy thing going through a person is terrifying and gruesome. It's a fucking class A killer. Spears. Every. Fucking. Time.
>>44970080 >The sling is the shotgun of the medieval age. As a guy who slings, let me just drop some of my experiences for you.
>most commonly used for hunting Not really, no. Historical accounts tell us slings were most commonly used for tossing rocks into flocks of birds in the vain hope probability will net you some lunch. There are stories of Apache hunters killing deer with slings, but Native American stories are notorious for, shall we say, embellishment.
>rarely adapted for military use Now this is just right out. Slingers were prolific in ancient militaries. Greek and Roman slingers were so feared and so prevalent physicians at the time developed calipers specifically for removing sling bullets from people's bodies. Even in modern times slings still see some use. They were used by Spaniards in both their Civil War and in a few of the African revolutions to toss grenades.
>even though it was a decent weapon that could kill someone at long range It depends very much on who's using it, anon. Slings lack what I call an "inherent firing plane" that other weapons succeeding it all possess. A bow, spear, crossbow, and gun are designed in such a way as to limit the possible latitudinal and longitudinal targets of their ammunition. More simply, you can only fire an arrow, bolt, or bullet in one direction at a time. This makes training someone in the use of these types of weapons far simpler because the ammunition can be relied upon to travel in the same general direction.
A sling's firing plane is a 360 degree oval. Sling ammunition can travel in any direction in that oval, which makes aiming difficult. There are absolutely historical records of fantastic slingers, such as those from the Balearic Isles, but the bow and javelin are more reliable in their accuracy and, more importantly, are easier to become proficient in.
>>44983894 >>44983900 Neat. I can see why it wasn't used a lot. Hitting yourself or a mate with your sling by accident with a bullet must suck, but with a sharp arrow that's just a hazard waiting to happen. You probably end up being as much as a danger to the enemy as to yourself and your friends.
>>44983058 >>44983909 I'll just butt in, but in my opinion everything related to home defense is simply a "just in case" solution. That shit may very well never happen, but what if it does?
Chances are I'll never get mortally wounded in my own house and never be involved in a housefire, yet I have both a first aid kit and a fire extinguisher within a minute's reach. I'll probably never need 'em, but it's always good to have them on hand in case you do.
I don't own a gun, but if I did I'd treat it the same way: I may never use it, but what if I need it? Better store it in a safe yet easy to reach place then.
>>44971456 >>44976190 >>44981835 Where the hell do you live? I mean home defense should only be a concern if you literally live in or right next to the ghetto.
I'm not American and for me it is pretty obvious that this whole argument was spread by the arms-industry in order to sell more weapons.
Now I totally get that someone who lives in the Bronx might want to get a weapon for self defense, but if you are living in the sub-urbs the chances of you heroically shooting and possibly killing a home intruder are very slim. Burglars operating in these areas aren't retards, they observe and choose their targets wisely and strike when noones home, because guess what? It's far more efficient that way. As a thought experiment, try to plan a burglary in your neighbourhood in your head. If you have an IQ in the triple digits you should be able to easily avoid gun-owners.
>>44984022 >I'm not American Clearly. You can't get a gun in the Bronx if you live in the ghetto. The wait lists are ridiculous and it's prohibitively expensive to be licensed at all. http://newyorkcityguns.com/getting-a-nyc-handgun-permit/
>for me it is pretty obvious that this whole argument was spread by the arms-industry in order to sell more weapons. Well you should examine your reasoning a bit further than you have.
>There's a very slim chance this will happen, so we should not prepare for it. So we shouldn't put lightning rods on skyscrapers, put lights on airplanes, have immigration checkpoints, or put giant locking doors in front of bank vaults because statistics say any of them won't likely be used?
This is childish reasoning. Safety measures aren't equivalent to paranoia.
The chances of a house fire are minuscule compared to the chances of an injury that might require a first aid kit, though, and the chances of a violent home invasion are infinitesimal.
The problem with having a gun in the house is that if it's not kept in a secure locker, the chances of an innocent or careless family member killing or wounding themselves vastly outweighs any slim chance of an armed robbery while the house is actually occupied (remember, any burglars that exist outside of action movies actually check to make sure everyone in the house has left), while if the gun IS kept in a secure locker, its application as a "home defense" weapon is essentially neutered, since it can't be accessed and loaded at a moment's notice.
There's really no argument for owning a gun in an urban or suburban household other than "I like guns". For the record, I have absolutely nothing against that - in fact, I like guns too. It's just that realistically, there's never a good reason to keep such a dangerous piece of kit within easy access around house.
>>44984086 A gun need not be locked away in a safe to prevent accidents, anon. You're making a false comparison here. Not all gun owners have children, for one, and a gun without ammunition is essentially an elaborate club. Your argument is so limited in scope it can't really be considered seriously.
The whole reason behind states pushing for guns to be secured in lockers is to make guns unusable, because guns = evil in the minds of the modern tax payer. A locked door and keeping ammunition out of your weapon are cheaper and more effective at preventing gun related accidents at the home.
>>44984067 Turns out shooting deaths are shockingly increased when there's a gun in the house. It's almost always a one family member shooting either another or themselves. An overwhelming percentage. I've got a gun, it's in a safe. If I were to have it out I am statistically more likely to shoot a loved one than I am to shoot an adversary.
>>44984067 >>44984068 I will elaborate I think I wasn't really clear enough. It depends where you live. I agree that if you actually do live in an area where there are many break ins a weapon is a good idea. But I think that many americans are over sensitive when it comes to these factors.
I live in Germany and about a month ago someone tried to break into our neighbours house when they where gone. Now what did we do as a reaction? We simply put down our roullage when we are gone (they are actually very heavy in Germany and make alot of noise when broken/lifted) and lock our door. This was the first time in like a decade someone tried to do this shit in our neighbourhood. But noone got scared and bought weapons here, because we know this was an isolated incident. We are realistic and know our neighbourhood. This is what I mean, I would never tell a person who lives in the poor part of our city to act as we did obviously. But as far as I can observe it from here there IS a lot of paranoia going on i the USA. So for me it seems like people become over sensitive when they are presented with news that focus heavily on these isolated incidents. Now if you want to buy a weapon do as you wish, if it makes you feel more scure. Just be realistic.
>>44984133 >Turns out shooting deaths are shockingly increased when there's a gun in the house. Due to suicide, not due to accidental discharges. But go ahead and make the argument guns cause depression. You've attributed similar mystical qualities to them in your other posts.
>If I were to have it out I am statistically more likely to shoot a loved one than I am to shoot an adversary. You aren't a statistic, anon. You're a rational, thinking human being. If you're a responsible gun owner you wouldn't have your gun out at all for anything but cleaning, and then it's unloaded.
I doubt from your arguments and your general tone you are a gun owner or that you "like" guns.
>>44984142 Don't get polite about it when you just shit all over anyone who disagreed with your limited experience and crap arguments. You meant what you said, it wasn't a matter of clarity.
>It depends on where you live. I agree. In areas where guns are strictly limited, like, say, Chicago, gun deaths and violent crimes are much more common than in places like West Virginia, where guns are more prevalent. Now if I were you, I'd stop here. But I won't, because I understand basic statistics.
Correlation does not equal causation, anon. The presence or absence of guns does not explain the entirety of a given situation.
>>44984124 Well in America it is very hard to keep track of guns. In Germany it is easy to see that having a gun in your house is actually also dangerous for you. Most of the school shooters here used their parents weapons. I remember a mother fatally shooting her family like a year ago, too. I would never want guns to become such a huge thing here, we are better of without them. In you country it is different because everyone already has weapons but to be honest you could try to change the law a bit. As far as I know gun-laws are state affairs. I don't get why, just make the scurity checks nation wide and you will definitely improve overall security a bit.
>>44984153 man I'm the gun owner and I posted that one post that you responded to. I merely agree with the other anon, I am not them. Look at the posters count if you do not believe me. Suicide is quite strongly represented, but accidental shootings do exist and to say that they are nonexistant is stupid as fuck yo. Where I live, a tiny irrelevant island nation, there are far more accidental gun deaths than there are gun homicides. A factor of ten, or so. >Statistics You are a statistic. Or, at least, you can use statistics to predict elements of your life. You might just be the one in a thousand, anon. I'll take steps to mitigate this, you can play the lottery if you fancy.
>>44984181 Where I live, guns are prevalent, highly so, but gun crime is extraordinarily low. We also have better (more 'free') gun laws than Australia. Why then are the gun crime statistics so low in my country, when we have the eleventh most guns per capita in the world?
>>44984181 That was my argument from the beginning. I find it unnesecarry to buy guns if you live in an area with low crime rates, you just increase the total number of weapons in your area and as I explained here: >>44984186 Having more guns increases the chance of accidents. Of course these incidents are also very rare, but if we keep talking about "bad things that probably won't but might happen" you have to take this into account aswell.
It seems like you aren't one of those gun crazy people but these are the people I feel bad about but there are many americans who buy into the paranoia and I for one don't think its good to live in fear.
>>44984193 >man I'm the gun owner and I posted that one post that you responded to. I seriously doubt it. You made the argument that "having your gun out" means you're more likely to harm someone living in your home. No gun owner just "has their gun out" for no fucking reason in the middle of the day. That you even made that assertion makes me doubt very much you own a gun.
>but accidental shootings do exist and to say that they are nonexistant is stupid as fuck yo Since you're obsessed with statistics, compare them. Accidental shootings are essentially nonexistent if you compare them to suicides. It's miniscule.
>>44984186 >In Germany it is easy to see that having a gun in your house is actually also dangerous for you.
You keep making this argument and I'm not sure why. A gun in your house is no more dangerous than a knife in your house. You behave as though a gun is some intelligent object capable of doing or influencing people. It isn't. You are just as capable of harming your family members with any number of household items. It all comes back to you, the individual. Placing the blame on the gun is just shifting the focus away from the person using it.
>>44984241 >Having more guns increases the chance of accidents. No it doesn't. That's like saying owning more kitchen knives increases the chance of meals. It's a non sequitur.
>I for one don't think its good to live in fear. Owning a gun is not living in fear. Locking your door at night before you go to bed is not living in fear. Writing yourself a note so you don't forget something is not living in fear. They're only precautions. Collating prevention with paranoia is just reaching on your part.
German culture is not awash with a glorification of criminality in the same way American culture is. Again, correlation is not causation. There's more to this than the guns, just like there's more to arson than matches and gasoline.
>>44984224 Because you have lower crime rates over all maybe? I'm just spit-balling I might be wrong, just my first thought. If you introduce weapons into a socially stable and safe society there won't be more gun-related deaths obviously. The american situation is a very complicated, there are just too many crime syndicates and areas that are pretty much fucked. This stems from decades of failed policies and goes back to the 1940's when Ghettos first showed up as a result of blacks moving from the rural south to the factories in the north. These areas are really fucked up today, high crime rates and almost no social mobility. I don't want to open that can of worms now, but I think if you want to decrease gun crimes "repairing" the social structure in Ghettos would be a good starting point.
>>44984242 >probability of shooting a loved one is greater than that of shooting a home invader mate are you fucking serious your idea of odds is fucked
>>44984253 >No gun owner just "has their gun out" >I keep my pistol in the bedside cabinet, says the proud American gun owner >I keep a Mossberg under the bed because I want to protect my family, says the prepared individual >I wear a pistol on my hip because I'm the Good Guy, says the obese man Believe I have a rifle or no, it is no sweat off my brow. >>44984275 I trust myself absolutely. I do not trust children, my dickhead mates, the drunk, the stoned and the plain inexperienced around firearms. If you think it's strange to keep my firearm locked up when otherwise they may come across one of the above you gotta fucken strange set of priorities bud.
>>44984300 If it helps, our domestic violence, rape, assault and child abuse rates are very high. They rival America in some areas, and the UK in others. It's just gun crime is surprisingly low. More murders are committed with the common or garden frying pan than with a firearm.
>>44984253 >>In Germany it is easy to see that having a gun in your house is actually also dangerous for you. >You keep making this argument and I'm not sure why. A gun in your house is no more dangerous than a knife in your house. You behave as though a gun is some intelligent object capable of doing or influencing people. It isn't. You are just as capable of harming your family members with any number of household items. It all comes back to you, the individual. Placing the blame on the gun is just shifting the focus away from the person using it.
No, that is exactly my point. I don't blame the guns, I just know that if you introduce guns into our social system the crazy people will be the problem. And there are always crazy people. That is why I talked about school shooters.
We don't have many guns here and we don't miss them. Why should we introduce them like the USA do, let alone advertise them? People who really want guns can get them in Germany and it works out well. The problem is that people really fucking love guns in America and seem to overlook that your laws are often very counter productive. You have some states that do it very well, but in other states it is atrocious. I am just for gun control, not taking them all away.
>>44984324 That is strange, maybe there aren't many illegal guns yet that make it impossible for the police to track down the owener? I mean I would also rather use a frying pan if it means I won't be found.
Yes, but not all accidents with firearms involve children. The chances of wounding or killing yourself while cleaning or tending to your weapon still outweigh the tiny chances of a violent home invasion by several orders of magnitude.
Unless you live in an active war zone, you should store your gun, unloaded, in a secure locker or safe. The less likely it is to go off unexpectedly, the better.
The only argument that's "limited in scope" here is the one that tries to insist that because there's a next-to-nil chance that some armed, crazed criminal might storm your home, you should keep a loaded firearm within easy reach of anyone who's actually been welcomed inside - be they your children, your nosy but untrained/drunk friends, or, worst of all, your friends' children.
Think of how many times you've entertained guests that you wouldn't trust within twenty feet of a loaded gun, then think of all the times crackheads have kicked down your door. Still seem like a "reasonable precaution"?
>>44984302 >Believe I have a rifle or no, it is no sweat off my brow. I don't. It seems to bother you more than it does me.
And only one of your examples is of someone having their gun "out". Again, your supposed ownership of a gun and your clear lack of basic gun safety measures make me doubt you own a weapon.
>>44984345 >People who really want guns can get them in Germany and it works out well. What makes you think this isn't the system in place in the United States? You've shown nothing but ignorance in this entire discussion.
>seem to overlook that your laws are often very counter productive. Then give me a single, specific example. Prove you aren't just talking out of your ass and parroting old and tired arguments.
>I am just for gun control, not taking them all away. Then why would you lead with "We don't have guns and we don't miss them"? Think for a few minutes before you type up your response.
>>44984253 this is >>44984193 again. I've been trying to look up precise statistics in my country for gun assisted suicides. Turns out they don't exist. My country doesn't strictly report suicides beyond a coroners note. I don't have the ability to research through the coroners notes because I'm not going to submit an information request and I can't be bothered spending twenty hours researching. I would have liked to have been able to give you information but the information is not available to me. >>44984359 Come on man, don't be a syntactical prick about this. I could possibly shoot a family member in the night with incorrect information. I could believe, falsely, there is a home invasion and shoot a family member as they get something from the fridge.
>>44984362 >The chances of wounding or killing yourself while cleaning or tending to your weapon still outweigh the tiny chances of a violent home invasion by several orders of magnitude.
There is a negative correlation, not a positive correlation, between the number of guns and probability of accidental deaths. This is probably a coincidence, but by gun control advocate logic it proves guns actually radiate a magical safety field, rather than a magical death field.
There is a positive correlation that if someone is killed by a gun owner, such as himself, it is likely to be by a gun instead of by, say, a knife. This should be of no surprise to anyone.
You need to switch to honest arguments instead of relying on pure chicanery.
>>44984362 >The chances of wounding or killing yourself while cleaning or tending to your weapon still outweigh the tiny chances of a violent home invasion by several orders of magnitude. No, they don't.
2010 Criminal Statistics, freely available from the FBI website. >Gun deaths by accident:600 >Deaths by violent home invasion: 780
That is not "several orders of magnitude." I would recommend educating yourself on the facts before making embarrassing comments like this.
>Unless you live in an active war zone, you should store your gun, unloaded, in a secure locker or safe. An unloaded gun on a living room table and an unloaded gun in a locked safe have the same probability of unexpectedly "going off." You really need to think about what you're saying before you put it out there for everyone to see.
>Think of how many times you've entertained guests that you wouldn't trust within twenty feet of a loaded gun Which is why I keep my guns and ammunition separate and in places where guests won't likely go.
>Still seem like a "reasonable precaution"? Let me answer your question with one of my own.
Think of how many times you've driven a motor vehicle without a seatbelt, then think of all the times you've been in a violent car accident. Still seem like a reasonable precaution?
>>44984385 Look I'm gonna tell you all about me now: I would like to shoot a gun some day. Seems like a fun thing to do, but it is not my sole hobby. I am also very happy I don't live in a neighbourhood with a million guns. My neighbours are crazy and I do think there is some domestic violence going on. It would be really dumb to give them weapons.
That is basically my whole argument. I know that I could own a gun and not be an idiot about it, but I am not so sure if other people can. "We don't miss them" because most Germans don't miss guns, simple as that. It is just not a topic here, because we don't care about guns (on average). The few who do want guns can get them, but only after a rather long beaurocratic process. Why is it long and beaurcratic? Because the state knows that there are a lot of crazy people in and those shouldn't have guns. So we are overly precautious, but that is not a problem because guns aren't a necessity here. See where my mindset comes from? Now as for "crazy gun laws" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_by_state Look at this. Many states don't even register weapons or require a state permit to own guns. Some don't even require background checks. Why? Of course this lengthens the process of owning guns but what is the big deal about controlling weapons that can be used for crime?
>>44984393 >I could possibly shoot a family member in the night with incorrect information Not unless you're walking around at night with a loaded gun and a head full of paranoid delusions.
The more you type the more I'm convinced it's better you don't own a gun. You're generally ignorant of basic safety measures, and you would likely be a danger to yourself and others with anything sharper than a ballpoint pen.
>>44984492 That is the only reason for me to get emotional about the whole thing. Some people (not even ITT but I've met some) treat guns like a religious thing. It is almost an obsession and I don't think that obsessing over weapons is really the way to go if it makes you blind to the negative aspects of weapons.
>>44984486 Thanks for the ad-hominem, bud. You're just threatened because there's someone like you who disagrees with you. You've got this ingrained idea that what you think is objective and true, and pure and righteous. The problem is your worldview is pretty biased, and you consider any disagreement to be a direct attack on yourself and your 'freedoms'. I believe in a 'liberalised' gun law system. I believe that the average person is going to be safe and clever about guns. However I believe that the change necessary to produce this outcome needs to start in the family and in the school. We need to educate our people, all of them, about guns if we think we're going to be able to handle people having them. I believe in many similar things to you. I just don't think America is doing a good job of it. Mine is doing an empirically better job. >smugfrog.png
>>44984484 >I would like to shoot a gun some day. Seems like a fun thing to do, but it is not my sole hobby. You've gone from "I'm glad we don't have guns" to "I hope to shoot a gun some day." You're changing your tone because you've been drawn out of your little rhetorical shell and you want me to ease up on my criticism. I'm not, so stop trying to form a rapport.
>I am also very happy I don't live in a neighbourhood with a million guns. No American does.
>I know that I could own a gun and not be an idiot about it, but I am not so sure if other people can. I could make the same argument about cars, which kill more people than guns in both your country and in mine.
>Many states don't even register weapons or require a state permit to own guns. Stop.
You just read the abstract of a Wikipedia article and parroted it because you're too lazy to read.
There are only eight US states that prohibit the registration of firearms. Eight. That is not "many." That is not even close to a "majority." And for the record, I agree with you on this point.
But you're so bad at arguing your points and researching even basic facts about guns, gun ownership, and gun safety you're pushing people who might be willing to agree with you away. You're acting like some person who's been told all their life guns are the Devil. You began this entire discussion with the claim Americans are sensitive about the topic of guns. I agree, and I think it's because of people like you talking a lot of shit about things they know nothing of.
>>44984538 It's just anecdotal evidence to make clear why I feel a certain way. They aren't emotionally stable and shouldn't on weapons. Last year a mother actually shot her children in Germany after an argument so it does happen.
>>44984534 No, I don't. I've just been posting facts and statistics and asking you to discuss things logically and you refuse. You want to have a discussion? Have one! But don't pout because I challenge your ideas.
>>44984568 >You've gone from "I'm glad we don't have guns" to "I hope to shoot a gun some day." You're changing your tone because you've been drawn out of your little rhetorical shell and you want me to ease up on my criticism. I'm not, so stop trying to form a rapport. Its the truth, I would like to shoot a gun, it doesn equate to I "need" to. That is my point. >I could make the same argument about cars, which kill more people than guns in both your country and in mine. Which is why there are driving licenses. >Many states don't even register weapons or require a state permit to own guns. It is right there on wikipedia. I don't need to read any further, it is literally right there. Im gonna take a bath now, see you later!
>>44984586 You aren't. You're picking at syntactical nonsense and being smug. You have made precious few hard premises to support what resembles an argument. My argument is >deaths either self inflicted or accidental are increased if there is a firearm in the house >this risk is greater than that of death from home invasion I'm not going to argue that suicides are increased by guns, because that's kinda chicken and egg. However, from what I've read, even just in the past hour, says that my argument is empirically provable.
>>44984558 Is this a whole thing of employers being able to cease giving you funds if you embarrass them->first amendment violation? Because even in a libertarian paradise, employers would be able to fire people for any reason or no reason at all...
In 2010, 606 accidental deaths - a low year. The average from 2005-2010 was 780 a year.
The "home invasion deaths" combines the deaths from burglary and robbery, meaning the true number is between 94-780... But most likely it is the 94 side because violent robbery is primarily businesses and individuals on the street.
So home invasions represented between 0.25-2% of all gun related deaths (assuming none were stabbings). Suicide were 62% of deaths in the same year.
While my employer has every reason to make it most probable that I do not lose my life, there are many jobs with an inherent risk. From logging to the military there is an implied risk of loss of life or limb. Therefore I am potentially signing away my right to live without threat of death for cash.
I do not think spending 8.5 plus hours on another's property allows for meaningful liberty. If I do not spend this time I am liable to lose my source of income.
I certainly am not infused with joy when my employer earns far more money from my labor than I see. In fact, my need to work to fulfill basic needs fills me with anxiety and with worry.
>>44984616 How is it retarded? Are you so authoritarian it never occurred to you that someone might object to their private property that is nobody else's business being on a database? Especially an item of private property huge numbers of people are irrationally afraid of and will judge you for having?
If governments were actually trustworthy, totally hands off and their systems were 100% infallibly secure you might have a point.
>>44984654 >I quit because reading is hard. Have a good bath.
>>44984672 I'm not picking at any syntax. I've posted facts and statistics. Any smugness you detect is misplaced on your part.
>However, from what I've read, even just in the past hour, says that my argument is empirically provable. Mine are, too. But because you haven't read what I've written (correlation != causation) you're still confused about what the discussion is actually about, leading to your misplaced accusations of smugness and aloofness.
>>44984708 I'm pretty sure they need to have a reason in theory, but in practice the only way you can contest it is by going to court, and involving the legal system when your opponent has much deeper pockets than you do is never a good idea, unless they literally wrote down "he's an enormous faggot" as their reason for firing you.
>>44984770 Personally, if I was burgling somebody's home and they started driving a go kart or motorcycle at me from the other end of a hallway, I'd get the fuck out of there.
>>44984848 780 is literally combing all robberies into "home invasions" to greatly pad the numbers. For any robbery to be a home invasion it would have to be on the property but not in the home, or possibly on the doorstep.
At least it doesn't do what a lot of gun advocates do and lump all rapes into home invasions too.
>>44984434 >You need to switch to honest arguments instead of relying on pure chicanery.
This is a gun control debate.
Half the people in here believe the end times are just around the corner and that they need guns to fight the government men/atheists/muslims/blacks/demons and that any attempt to take their guns away is a secret plot by their personal devil to disarm the army they will lead to victory against the forces of evil.
You can't talk to someone who isn't willing to state why they're really arguing with you.
you can kill people, much much easier, than someone without a gun can. It's not irrational.
The right to bear arms is explicitly listed for the express purpose of maintaining the safety and well-being of the people. The formation and maintenance of a militia is noted, but of course people need to defend themselves and feed themselves. And a great many still do today! Many people not only protect their families but FEED them via hunting even now.
No one (sane) is arguing that guns should be taken away, and that the gun and america is not inextricably linked. Europeans tell stories about men with swords, we tell stories about men with guns. We forged our nation with guns. Guns are a fun recreational device and when treated with respect, are as noble a tool as any other.
The problem is most chuckle fucks don't treat them with respect, and then we get fuckwads out in the boonies occupying federal buildings because they don't like a thing and don't trust their government and think the fact they have a gun gives them a right to shit all over the civilized system. The owning and operation of fire-arms should require a licence, proctored and issued by the state, meeting base guidelines set by the federal government. There is no reason for any private citizen to need to own an automatic weapon and these devices should be limited to licensed shooting ranges where they can be used safely in a recreational setting. Home defense and provision only warrants semi automatic weapons, bolt action rifles and shotguns.
The SAFE AND RESPONSIBLE use of weaponry USED to be the objective of the NRA, before it switched over to pure pro-fligation when they had a coup in their leadership council. Now the talking points are slippery slope muh rights gubmint comin ta getcha.
What ever you say pal. I won't comply with these laws and you are too much of a coward to enforce them yourself. so you are essentially Planning on using state sponsored violence to forceably disarm those who refuse to comply with your tyrannical and unconstitutional anti-personal freedom laws? The state should not and must not have a monopoly on the use of force. Freemen own weapons. Slaves don't.
They have no right to challenge the Federal government using their guns and they should be flattened like the bugs they are. Use tanks if necessary. It's time you stupid redneck NRA gun owning bigots got a taste of your own medicine. Live by the sword, die by the sword.
>>44985419 I'm pretty sure that gun control in the US is an implicitly racist idea, both in the past and currently. Black people in bad neighborhoods, like many black people, are at a higher risk of violence than white people who aren't living in similar circumstances. Poor black people are more likely to be affected by gun control activism, even down to gun trade in schemes, let alone pistol, wait list and licensing concerns.
>It's time you stupid redneck NRA gun owning bigots got a taste of your own medicine.
Ignoring the implications of the "you" there and the baitishness of this in general, the Federal Government IS giving them a taste of their own medicine, by leaving them the fuck alone, which is all they want.
The land has belonged to these people for 130 years, lets agree to not mess with people's ancestral homelands.
>>44985531 >I'm pretty sure that gun control in the US is an implicitly racist idea, both in the past and currently. Gun control was created in the US explicitly to keep minorities from gun ownership in response to the Black Panthers. By republicans of the day, Reagan, I think, was a principle supporter of them.
>>44984086 >the chances of an innocent or careless family You mean leaving a loaded, unsecured firearm around children who weren't taught any better? That's the homeowner's fault for either not educating them or not securing their stuff when company is over, so not really much of an argument.
>>44985559 >The land has belonged to these people for 130 years, lets agree to not mess with people's ancestral homelands. I was waiting until someone said this, because the Native Americans who live in the area want the sit in group to leave, and for the government to continue making sure the ranchers in the territory don't fuck the ecosystem up, like they did the first time the government had to forcibly take over stewardship. >claiming invaders have a right to territory they stole
I served the Republic in war and peace for 13 years as an Infantryman from 1998 to 2009. spilling blood, my own and my enemies in my service. I served my city as a police officer for 3 years before starting my own small business which employs 4 other American citizens. I am a law abiding and peaceful gun owner and hunter that has enjoyed guns recreationally since I was a boy. I have always obeyed the law, paid my taxes promptly and tried to help my fellow citizens.
Do not make me a criminal with the stroke of the pen with your arbitrary and capricious gun laws. I will not comply. I will actively encourage others to not comply. I am willing to go to prison. I am willing to die for my beliefs.
>>44985631 >claiming invaders have a right to territory they stole
If you want to decide that 130 years is an insufficient length of time for ancestral homeland claim, please submit proofs that said native americans conceived themselves as owning said land, and had occupied it, for a minimum of 131 years (or however long you think is appropriate) prior to the ranchers. Thanks!
>>44985650 And to earlier times, as brought up by >>44985561. Gun control was always used as a way for the gov't to control populations it feared. It's why the gov't has always had a vested interest in making sure blacks never accumulated power or organized as a political force. Amusingly, hispanics are NOT feared because they are, as a people, too fractured by lines of nationality to ever actually become a force. At the end, I will laugh that the people who scream about gun control NOW had no problem with it when it was a tool against minorities.
Likely because the majority of murders are crimes of passion. If his country requires strict control of how said guns can be stored/moved in public than it's unlikely that the people manage to go home and get the gun out of the safe and then go kill someone rather than just grab a large blunt object and start swinging.
>>44985708 Fortunately, the native american tribe of the area can, and has, done so already. Demanding I provide proof that a people have long since occupied an area when it has already been long verified is the height of internet NO U talk.
>>44985012 Indeed, the basic fact that guns are and should be treated as "cruise control for death" should not be understated.
Any number of household objects can be used to attack yourself or others. German frying pans, kitchen knives, drain cleaner, a bottle of medicine, an acetylene torch. All of those can kill you or someone that you've decided not to live anymore. But they are sloppy, messy, difficult. They require a very close range, there's plenty of time for your victim to make a run for it or for you to realize you're about to commit suicide and stop yourself, even if you suffer grievous injury or have to go to poison control you can still live.
A bullet in the head, chest, or a major artery...you or your spouse is proper fucked. No mulligans. As an offensive action against a spouse, you're probably as likely to kill them on the first shot as you are to kill them with the first frying pan hit. But you get to follow up with a fuckload of shots in short order. The deadliness...what is as deadly as a gun with as much perceived ease of use? Doesn't suicide become more appealing when you believe you can shoot your brain and go out painlessly?
I think for home death the type of gun is largely irrelevant. They are all that huge leap in lethality above other domestic implements of destruction. I don't have a good answer as to how to preserve the freedom to own and reconcile it with the benefits that would come when guns in homes are inconvenient to access. I think a gun safe and unloaded is the way to be, but I don't know how to regulate that. Home inspections would be interesting: sort of like how the fire department makes sure your local business has a good fire exit, or you get your car emissions tested. There's nothing stopping you from immediately changing your exhaust system after the test, but most people, the vast majority of gun owners, respect the law.
I just think anything to delay or make that lethality less available would save a lot of heartache
>>44985818 People are always occupying government property for various protests, see all the different Occupy XYZ movements. Additionally, its disturbingly normal for protesters to just plain stand in the middle of the street and block traffic etc. The response of the government is almost never to go berserk.
How many of those incidents were in the middle of bumfuck nowhere?
I'm not saying 'Don't arrest them'. Just wait them out then arrest them. Rather than trying to play into the narrative they want.
Which is the issue with using armed response against them. It's exactly what they want. They want cameras on them while the government brings down the hammer. They want to trade on the 'Brave rebels going up against the 1984-style government'.
By waiting them out, the story instead becomes a whole heap of tired, hungry, defeated people trudging back to civilization and getting arrested for doing something stupid without ever bringing in a single government gun.
It's not just a case of legality. It's PR and non-violent resistance to the demands of the group is much, much better for public image than playing into the narrative they are trying to sell.
Mind you, this goes out the window if they actually start shooting at people, which I'm a bit concerned about with the news that they've set up their own court system. Makes me a little concerned who they need to try/how they plan to punish them/enforce it.
The sad truth of this world that we live in is that there are people in need of receiving that level of lethality and denying people of the most effective means of defense is tantamount to a death sentence.
It puts a 60 year old woman on par with her two 220 lb male attackers. It puts a man in a wheelchair on the same level as Usain Bolt.
>>44985926 >Black Panthers pretty regularly protested while armed back in the civil rights era They did nothing illegal, as then, and today, it is not illegal to open carry in a fair number of states. Now if you want to risk that if your skin shade is something that skews towards brown, that's your choice.
>>44985323 >all those stupid fucks who think its even possible to get an automatic weapon legally in the US that isn't a ridiculously fuck off expensive pre-Huges Amendment piece of shit. >politicians lying to citizens about something that has been impossible to do for fourty fucking years. Disgusting cunts.
>>44985647 > tyrannical and unconstitutional anti-personal freedom laws >arbitrary and capricious gun laws
What the fuck is arbitrary and tyrannical about "hey you can have guns but we need to know you have a gun and we need to know whose selling guns also we need to know you aren't CRAZY or have a violent criminal record"?
Also, don't talk like you're sticking to THA MAN by owning guns. The man doesn't want to take your guns. Are you retarded? Do you know how much MONEY businesses make selling you guns, ammo, and tacticool accessories? Big Brother wants you exactly how you are - scared and buying.
>>44985926 The BP generally acted as armed troubleshooters during a lot of civil right's protests.
But then again, back then firebombing property, gang-style drive-by shootings and laying armed sieges on houses inhabited by blacks were something that was pretty normal for white people to engage in. The cops generally didn't even care.
>>44984484 >Many states don't even register weapons or require a state permit to own guns. Some don't even require background checks. Why? because youre in the middle of bumfuck nowhere and the state is lucky to have your tax dollars to exist, let alone pay for the overhead of gun registration laws
in those places people have guns because they regularly go hunting for food, not because they fetishize them
>>44985466 And for what purpose would a person need an AR-15, semi-auto or otherwise? I can't think of one besides recreation, which means limiting them to ranges and armory courses is pretty reasonable. Unless you're going out shooting your guns wildly into the air and laughing
>>44985967 >what is... arbitrary and tyrannical about.... we need to know you aren't CRAZY
"Crazy" is an arbitrary term, and as far as tyrannical, well, a "tyrannical law" is a literal contradiction in terms, obviously. But leaving it up to psychologists who should be disarmed means that you would not need to pass new laws beyond "if you're crazy you get disarmed," ergo could be deemed governance unchecked by laws.
So you answered your own question, disarming people for being "crazy" (which can mean anything, one of the first things you learn in psych is that anyone can be a theorist and that mental illness is a relative concept) is arbitrary and probably tyrannical.
THA MAN would be referring to the government figures who praise the Australian method of gun seizure, hence one could view gun ownership as sticking it to him. Or them.
>Big Brother wants you exactly how you are - scared and buying.
Proofs that Obama and friends in the surveillance state want an increase rather than decrease in gun ownership or GTFO.
>>44986017 >turns out that giving people the power to kill themselves and others on a whim increases the chance of them killing themselves and others on a whim But it doesn't, otherwise Sweden would be a warzone.
Repeating the same arguments over and over and over do not make them true. Guns are not magic. They don't project a One Ring-like aura of malevolence.
>>44985993 AR-15's are dirt cheap, the ammo is dirt cheap, and due to the sheer market size of them its way easier to have one AR-15 platform that you can buy drop-in parts for to change the type of ammo you use for whatever you're thinking about shooting. Its the swiss army knife of midwestern hunting, shoot squirrels with .22 one day, .223 for deer the next, and a healthy bunch of 5.56 for hogs the day after. Can even up to .50 beowulf if you want something meatier.
>>44986056 >Proofs that Obama and friends in the surveillance state want an increase rather than decrease in gun ownership or GTFO. Every time Obama breathed a word about gun control (that NEVER went anywhere at all), gun sales skyrocket for several months. I swear it was just a ploy to help out American arms businesses by handing them customers.
> Guns are capable of harmful and fatal consequences;and gun laws are quite stringent in Sweden. To be a gun owner requires a license, and this is tightly controlled by regulations. A potential gun owner needs to meet requirements to be granted a license. Various forms of self-defence weapons or deadly weapons such as pepper-spray to full-automatic machine guns are technically legal. However, most licenses for gun ownership are for hunters, as wild life hunting is highly in vogue in this country
> To apply and obtain a gun license, the perspective gun owner approaches the local police. The applicant must be in good standing and at least 18 years old. There may be exceptions for a younger aged applicant to be granted a license. The applicant must be a member of an approved shooting club for at least six months or have passed a hunting examination (jägarexamen). Being a member of a shooting club is the most utilized route to legally acquire pistols for sport shooting, while passing a hunting exam, is for hunting rifles. Note: a gun registered for sport shooting may not be used in hunting. However a licensed gun user is allowed to hunt without passing a hunting exam, if you are chaperoned (accompanied and guided) by someone that has passed that exam.
>It is illegal for a civilian in Sweden to carry a firearm, unless for a specific, legal purpose;such as hunting or attending shooting ranges. To transport firearms, there are rules to adhere to;the general regulations are that the gun must be unloaded, hidden and transported in a safe and secure way under supervision.
>Besides hunting, another common reason for gun ownership in Sweden is collecting. The gun collector must have a clearly stated interest and may begin another collection if he or she has collected for several years and has shown a great interest in gun history. A collection of guns that can be of criminal interest, such as pistols or submachine guns, will lead the police to insist on a very high safety level on the storing of such guns (including security windows and vault doors). Gun ownership may also be granted for reasons of sentimental value or as decoration. It is considered a privilege, rather than a right, to own a firearm in Sweden.
>>44986172 No autistic retard, what the rest of the world is saying your gun control laws are so ineffective as compared to any other nations with guns, you'd might as well get you, your loved ones, and your kids to wear body armor to go to work.
>>44986167 I refuse to believe this is an accident. The US government has people whose jobs it is consists of nothing but theorycrafting situations and responses. Do you think they don't know this happens? That Obama can literally call in favors with the arms industry by saying, hey, Imma fuck with these dumbasses and run them to you, gimme a discount on some shit later? He literally can grease palms and pay lip service at the same time. Why people assume the government is stupid, I don't know.
>>44986047 what, you thought that your average gunfag was in the middle of nowhere?
nah. NRA knows their market is. and their market's a bunch of pasty balding skinnyfats in suburbia.
y'see, the guys in the middle of nowhere don't have money. they have never seen a black person, they have never seen a jew, they have never seen a government worker besides the ones at the welfare office. the NRA's whole angle is wasted on them. sure, the bubba stereotype is with the NRA, because whoo culture war, but the NRA doesn't give a shit about bubba except for as a marketing tool.
no, the NRA's target market is scared white middle class assholes who, after being told their whole life they were special snowflakes, feel trapped and powerless in dead-end jobs and feel like they need to blame something else for it.
Bubba's got his shotgun and his deer hunting rifle. Bubba might think about getting an upgrade to either when they come out. Bubba is good for maybe one gun purchase every two years.
But Bob from Accounting? Bob has seen black people, and they make him afraid. and Bob has seen jewish people, and he blames them for his loan terms. and Bob has dealt with government regulation, and he blames it for the fact he is stuck in his dead end cubicle in accounting.
So Bob will buy everything you can put in front of him. All the accessories, all the gimmicky ammo, three different types of concealed holster and four types of gun rack. Bob isn't buying a gun, he's buying an idea: an idea that with every new gun he is making himself manlier.
Yeah well then comes the day Bob gets fired for creeping on an intern. Most of the time he just kills himself. But every once in a while he's too cowardly for even that, and he decides that if he's going down he's taking some of the rest of us with him.
The best part of the business model is that in the aftermath of Bob's rampage, all the other Bobs will compulsively buy guns. Gotta have something to defend yourself from Bob, after all.
>>44985983 Irresponsible dickwipes will find a way to be irresponsible dickwipes no matter what dangerous things are taken from them. The enjoyment of many people shouldn't be removed because of a small number of them are idiotic chucklefucks.
>Murder rate highest in the developed world >Right next to Uganda and Venezuela >Takes pride in that >Meanwhile any /k/ommando autist with mommy and daddy issues goes apeshit with guns on school campuses and kindergartens every month. >Pro2A says totally unavoidable, it's a mental health issue, we need more guns to give to good guys so they can shoot bad guys. >MFW NRA shuts down CDC study for gun violence
>>44986251 >Why people assume the government is stupid, I don't know. It's a big organization. Too big to generalize like that. People assume that it's stupid because many of the people and systems within it are phenomenally stupid, but at the same time some are also very good at doing their job.
>>44986039 >...so you won't condemn the "other half" with the same idiotic strawmen?
Well in many ways my first idiotic strawman condemned them for being so easily associated with dishonest crazy people, so if you absolutely have to find a way to filter my post through the Wikipedia page of logical fallacies, there you go. Sometimes you have to read between the lines to find stuff to invalidate people who say things you don't like.
>There are conspiracy nutters everywhere. What's that prove?
That arguing about gun control on the internet is shit.
you know that study that had the NRA pissing its pants so much they demanded the government never look into gun violence again? it wasn't about gun violence, it was about suicide.
people try all the different ways of committing suicide at about the same rate. guns are the only one with a 90%+ success rate.
as the Japanese have conveniently given us a giant data pool to study, the odds of someone successfully killing themselves drop the longer you have to stay committed to the idea to kill yourself. it is not hard to wriggle out of suicide netting under bridges. it is not hard to let yourself bleed out. it is not hard to sit around at home and let the pills you chugged take effect. but people don't.
they go to the hospital, they wriggle their way towards the ladder and not the edge, they reconsider and realize "you know what, that was scary as shit, I don't want to do this." seriously, one of the most potent anti-suicide measures the Japanese developed, measurable drop in suicides happened after this, was putting a phone booth near tunnels where people liked to get hit by trains, and a sign with the suicide hotline number.
but killing yourself with a gun is quick. it is simple. all you need is to be in the right frame of mind for long enough to pick it up, load it, and pull the trigger. and unlike every other method of attempted suicide, it is almost invariably fatal.
it's all pretty intuitive when you think about it for longer than fifteen seconds
>>44986425 it's important to realize that despite its political power, the NRA doesn't give a single shit about your politics. all it cares about is that you know the correct response to being afraid is to go out and buy another gun. otherwise the Bad Guys win.
the NRA does not care who your personal definition of the Bad Guys is; Obama, the Jews, the blacks, the UN, the mexicans, the Illuminati, even each other. the only thing that's important is that you fear, and that fear equals buy gun.
>>44986405 >>Murder rate highest in the developed world >>Right next to Uganda and Venezuela
Due largely to: Detroit, Michigan (47.5 gun homicides per 100,000) Baltimore, Maryland (29.5 gun homicides per 100,000) Oakland, California (27.3 gun homicides per 100,000) Memphis, Tennessee (19.8 gun homicides per 100,000) Cleveland, Ohio (18.7 gun homicides per 100,000) Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (18.5 gun homicides per 100,000) Kansas City, Missouri (19.3 gun homicides per 100,00) Chicago, Illinois (16.7 gun homicides per 100,000) Milwaukee, Wisconsin (11 gun homicides per 100,000)
There is nothing consistent about the gun homicide rates in these cities and the gun homicide rates in every other American city. These cities represent states that don't require permits or licensure and those that do, states that have comparatively low gun ownership rates when compared to the rest of the country, and states with a varied political landscape.
The gun cannot, therefore, be relied upon to be an accurate measurement for the gun homicide rates in any of these cities. If you remove these cities from America's overall gun homicide amounts, you'll see we're right in line with the rest of the developed world.
The average police office can barely control themselves in an armed shooter scenario. What on God's green earth makes you think the average gun owner, whose most stressful situation was probably forgetting about their wedding anniversary, be equipped to identify and correctly neutralize the threat? Add in several more gun owners, and how'd the fuck you differentiate the good guys from the bad guys?
It's really telling that legislators are very willing to sign anything that expands where guns are allowed onto legally (schools, hospitals, fucking bars, etc.), with one very tiny exception: where THEY work. They're more than happy to claim that more civilian guns in *your* workplace means more safety, but for some reason they're less enthusiastic about allowing more guns in *their* workplace.
>>44986384 You only need a license to drive cars, but you can operate them as a means of travel without a license as long as you don't create joinder with your strawman subsequent to your sending a Writ of Understanding and Intent to the corporation seeking to contract with you regarding driving your car.
If the police try to trick you, just demand to see their supervisor and let the record show that you do not consent to contract with them or stand under their authority.
>>44986619 part of the reason gun people think of themselves as diversely opinionated can be seen here.
you see, this guy's personal boogeymen are the Jews and the Gubmint. he is not into guns because he is scared of black people. he finds those people kind of embarassing and lame, but hey, you can't always pick your friends.
but he heard that once upon a time the Gubmint did a study that turned up a thing that wasn't nice about guns.
And that therefore, there must be a malevolent jew-gubmint conspiracy to come in and Take His Guns.
>>44986566 Eh, comic books don't tend to be very good murder weapons. Trust me, I've tried.
People die, mate. They die for stupid and shitty reasons already, making it so that people can keep guns without jumping through hundreds of hoops will not make that much of a difference. I don't even have a right to bear arms in my country, so I don't give a shit if I need a permit saying what guns I have. I just don't want to need to drag them out to a bunch of competitions to keep them from being taken away.
>>44986678 lets say you had a property of a couple thousand acres. you can buy a truck and drive it around without a license, after having five beers at nine in the morning, and nobody can stop you because its private property! scandalous, isnt it?
>>44986706 yes, and shooting targets rarely causes people to die either. who cares. the important thing is that because people enjoy comic books, we as comic-book-likers are now entitled to kill a bunch of people in the name of our enjoyment.
we've just been letting our Allowable Deaths In The Name Of A Hobby count linger at zero when, per that logic, we could have been killing people without consequence! our enjoyment renders the deaths of the innocent just! this is an excellent development!
>>44986760 People get shot in my country already, and our gun laws are draconian. I'm not saying everywhere should have the USA's laws, they're a special and often completely insane case. But nothing good comes from a nanny state that tries to ban everything that looks at it funny. Trust me, I live in one.
>>44986819 Probably some kind of rifle or possibly a light machine gun. Dunno, trying to find exact medieval analogues for modern weapons is a pretty pointless endeavor due to how much war has changed.
>>44986790 >Armed body guards You mean security forces, like cops and guards and other people employed specifically to, when necessary, use their firearm in the defense of others? Or do you just think civilians just walk up armed and decide to be a body guard for a day?
How fucking desperate do you have to be to try and compare hypocritically increasing civilian firearm proliferation everywhere but their own space with removal of established security forces? Just admit the politicians don't buy their own bullshit and don't feel safer with more civilian guns surrounding them. If they did, they'd allow them on Capitol Hill.
>>44986916 >Or do you just think civilians just walk up armed and decide to be a body guard for a day?
I mean security details for politicians, in whatever permutations are appropriate. Surely people like Clinton and Feinstein, who want to make gun manufacturers liable for crimes performed with their weapons (ie. using unlimited lawsuit works to ban guns instead of brute force) and to ban all guns in general respectively, would be okay without having bodyguards, or armed bodyguards, when they want to deprive citizens of the right to defend themselves as well?
>Just admit the politicians don't buy their own bullshit and don't feel safer with more civilian guns surrounding them.
Just admit the gun grabbers don't buy their own bullshit and don't feel safer with less armed security details surrounding them.
>>44987029 I'll say it again because you seem to be a little slow: armed forces, including military, police, and professional security, does not equal a heavily armed civilian population with nearly unrestricted access to firearms in every single location. Keeping personal guns out of bars and schools does not equal a forced disarmament of security forces. If politicians truly believed more guns in the hands of the random civilians surrounding you led to more safety, there's no reason they would not allow them in their workplace the same way they have allowed them elsewhere.
>>44987126 Growing up on stories of brave warriors making the ultimate sacrifice for a heroic cause will do that to a person if they grow up without similar causes to die for. We all want to be heroes, and that requires some sort of cause, so we end up grasping for causes to fight and die for.
>>44987193 The American people overwhelmingly want the right to defend ourselves. That's it. Even if we happen to be in a gun restricted profession like the military.
Politicians want the right to be defended by guns, too, if not a bit more luxuriously and professionally. Okay, whatever. But some not only want the right to be defended by guns, but they want peasants to be stripped of said rights. That's fine, but the Feinsteins of the world should also be deprived of guns.
>Keeping personal guns out of bars and schools does not equal a forced disarmament of security forces
Forced disarmament of civilians is more comparable to reallocation of security forces to something more important than protecting gun grabbers, like making sure people don't loiter in parks or let their dogs leave poop everywhere.
Also I find the gun grabber strategy of trying to increase the number of mass shootings by protecting gun free zones, so that you can pass more gun laws, so that you can create more mass shootings, so on and so forth to be pretty sick. Quit it.
>>44987376 >Also I find the gun grabber strategy of trying to increase the number of mass shootings by protecting gun free zones, so that you can pass more gun laws, so that you can create more mass shootings, so on and so forth to be pretty sick. Quit it. kek
>>44987376 >gun grabber That's a nice label, but I think you're using it incorrectly as you keep implying that not wanting guns in bars is the same as the GUBMINT breaking into your house and taking yer guns like in your martyrdom-fetishizing wet dreams. Every bar in the town I live I in is still disallowing firearms because they have more than two brain cells to rub together and they know a drunken punch is a hell of a lot better than a drunken shot.
>>44987570 In Virginia, in the first year where CCW holders were allowed to carry in bars, the number of violent crimes involving firearms at bars and restaurants statewide not only failed to increase, it dropped 5.2%.
>>44987434 >Out of interest: Has there actually been an example of armed civilians stopping a mass shooting?
Are you being purposefully cheeky? The news tends to not cover averted mass shootings for a number of reasons, the main one being that even a time traveler can't retain memory of an event that never transpired.
But yes, there have been plenty of civilian-averted attempted mass shootings, about 10-12 come to mind.
Since this has devolved into ignorant memes, I'll just leave a layman-tier cite compilation here and go about my day. >http://www.gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/7.0/gun-facts-7.0-print.pdf
>>44987683 It's been a major part of the American left's platform since the 1980s. Since the mid-00s, it's lost a lot of popularity due to the popularization of CCW disproving the "blood in the streets" meme, and the Supreme Court cases Heller vs DC and McDonald vs Chicago reconfirming that owning modern weapons for personal defense is a human right.
That said, there are still major events like the New York SAFE act going on. The left has shown so much bad faith so consistently that no matter how sincere any one leftist might be, no rational gun owner would believe them.
Gun rights is really the one single issue of the last 40 years where the American right has won a clear victory.
>>44988317 Correct, politics seemed much more dignified, serious, and sensible before then. Now its just some kind of ... popularity contest, where they use some sort of upvoting system, presumably inspired by social media, to decide who wins.
>>44986608 >a home defense gun owner isnt taking his gun outside to do grocery shopping. Living in a small town in central Texas, I can say that this is 100% false. They go fucking everywhere with them, always claiming its for self-defense in a town where the biggest crime-wave in recent memory was two highschoolers getting drunk and trying to break into a tourist trap gift shop some months back (they were caught by an old man walking his dog).
>>44989181 >Also, your argument falls apart in places with a police response time over 5 minutes. How does slow response time make it easier for civilians to differentiate "good guys" from "bad guys" in a life-or-death situation where everyone's brandishing a firearm with lethal intent ?
>>44988242 Uh, they already have? There are guns cops carry that are illegal for civilians to own. That means guns have been regulated in a meaningful way. The state is authorized to use forms of violence forbidden to its civilians, AGAINST its civilians.
>>44989594 I said they "took the liberal, freedom-oriented side" not "advocated for liberty and freedom"
A non-socialist government can ONLY be repressive. They obviously aren't doing it because they love our freedom. No matter what they say they're trying to get for us, they're always taking from us to get for themselves. That's what non-socialist government does.
Thread replies: 360 Thread images: 22
Thread DB ID: 474303
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with the post's information.