THERE ARE CURRENTLY 0 GUNS ON MARS
LETS START OVER WITH A MORE PEACEFUL VERSION OF MANKIND
AND THEN PUSH ON TO THE COSMOS
>you killed this man!
>no, I shot him. The fall killed him
>it's a "reddit tier meme scientist gives their political opinion" episode
what alien planet do you guys want to live on?
i've always thought virmire was really cool despite what happened there
>LETS START OVER WITH A MORE PEACEFUL VERSION OF MANKIND
You know this is not a bad idea, we just have to decide if we want to ship the blacks and Muslims to Mars or if we want to move to Mars and leave them here on earth.
>Bullets kill people.
So do cars. In far greater numbers than bullets.
I don't see anyone trying to ban those.
>Bill Nye is now a shill for the Warmer movement
>Niel deGrasse Tyson is a gun grabber
All my favorite fake scientists from my childhood are jumping the shark now it seems. What's next, is Beakman going to be a spokesman for Planned Parenthood?
That is where you went wrong mate.
The only place in the world where being an underground hipster is acceptable is science. Because a real scientist is doing research, not interviews.
Huh. Apparenty I can't read for shit without my glasses. Really need to get them fixed, sorry mate.
Still, maybe it's because Bill Nye type stuff was never a thing where I'm from, but it just seems weird as hell to have these "fake scientists".
I'll always prefer Maestro. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfnLa4B-Pbg
Oh hey /pol/ so what do you think about-
wait, this isn't /pol/, this is /tv. Where's the television and film? You people must be confused, this isn't the politics board. It's okay, people make mistakes, I'll ask the mods to delete your thread for you. Don't thank me, just making /tv/ a better place for everyone.
As a graduate physics student I always got the impression that Neil didn't really know what he was talking about. That average guy who watches Cosmos and comes into work the next day talking about scientific concepts he saw on tv, that's what Neil reminds me of.
>How many papers and books have you written?
And the shit that he published means jackshit, he is obviously knowledgeable about the science. But he is more of an educator than a scientist.
yes, and guns make it hillariously easy
And cars are STILL more dangerous than guns, because so many people use them everyday in proximity to other vehicles and pedestrians. The overwhelming percentage of firearms are operated in safe environments by sensible owners.
Comparing guns to cars is retarded for both parties, really.
>guns dont kill people
Guy was bludgeoned to death with revolutionary war musket replica in my neighborhood few years back.
Tell that to him.
Broomhandle mausers are a criminals weapon of choice. Look at that scary pistol grip and detachable stock!
i would like to ban cars in addition to banning guns
it's pretty clear people aren't capable of handling either
furthermore, cars encourage people to design the shittiest living environments that the world has ever seen
Retard. Just a complete and utter retard... You think cars were around forever? People can walk and ride bikes or horses. Sure fatsos like you might be boned, but normal somewhat healthy people would find a way to make it work. As for guns, we'd just go back to using swords and bows and violence would be way more brutal but still very prevalent.
You are now aware that a nationwide 25mph speed limit would save tens, if not, hundreds of thousands of lives.
If you care about the lives of children, you'll willingly let the government install a governor on your engine and submit to gps tracking for speed compliance.
Anything less is your personal moral failing and complicity in child death.
Yeah, I'm going to listen to "gun sense" from a guy who doesn't know what an assault rifle is.
I love how scientists think that because they understand one field of science, they are now authorities on ALL subjects. Fucking narcissistic cunts. And stupid, too.
Nigger, you feel the need to rant about shit on 4Chan, and who's to say you're educated in any field? Why nag on a guy who's educated and has a following giving his opinions about everything on social media like every other fuck out there?
And yet neither of you can tell me how I am wrong. Three sentences is apparently a rant, btw.
>If you care about the lives of children, you'll willingly let the government install a governor on your engine and submit to gps tracking for speed compliance.
literally nothing wrong with this.
>Why nag on a guy who's educated and has a following giving his opinions about everything on social media like every other fuck out there?
Because whole droves of fucktards look up to people like him but don't realise that PhDs can have shitty opinions too.
Food for thought: if guns were the problem with school shootings, how come school shootings only started long after people had guns?
Before Columbine, this stuff virtually never happened, despite the fact that people had the same amount of guns.
>gun stats, 99.9% of reported deaths are suicide, people who use these stats don't tell you about that little detail
>a gun won't protect you
what if you shoot back at said person trying to hurt you? That seems like a good way to save yourself
>no, just stand their and hope he misses a lot and goes home
>virtually never happened
what is the bath school bombing? and further note
people suck sometimes, you'll never make that stop and you'll never make something just vanish with laws. Welcome to the real world, people can kill you for any reason with anything if you end up on the business end of their bad day. If you cant handle that then stay inside and have your mom cook you hot pockets
>what is the bath school bombing?
It's a bombing. It's one event. School-shootings currently happen at the rate of one PER WEEK.
Count'em, nigga. The problem CLEARLY isn't about guns, it's mental health all the way.
Plenty of other countries have more guns than the US but they also have mental health.
about two thirds of gun deaths are suicide
Then why won't anyone vote for it?
You aren't willing to sacrifice comfort. Same with the whole "save the chillun!" line. More children drown in pools as are killing using guns. This is a fact. Yet no one is ever going to vote to ban "high capacity pools" where the water line must be 3' or lower.
369 children were killed by injury from firearms (of all types) in 2010 according to the CDC. This includes suicides and accidents.
390 kids drown in pools each year.
So anyone who says they want to ban your right to defend yourself to "save the children" is full of shit. Because he's happy to ban your right, but would never stand to have his luxury banned even though it kills about the same number of children.
Right about now is when some idiot will say "but guns are MADE for killing! Pools aren't!"
How is this an argument in FAVOR of your position? It works against you. Here we have guns, weapons that we have a constitutional right to because we have a right to defend ourselves (and resist tyranny, which was the original motive). And yet, your luxury kills more people than something that was "designed to kill". Sounds like you are being pretty fucking irresponsible.
Pools and guns kill about the same number of kids per year. Now, guns, in addition to being used for restoration, collection, historical reenactments, animal control/farming, hunting, target shooting, sporting clays, are used for defending your life. And the CDC recognizes that the use of the gun is the most effective way to protect yourself from harm against a criminal.
There is no correlation, world-wide, between guns and homicide rates. This is why places like Russia have a gun ownership rate of 8.9 per 100 people (compared to the US's 112.6), yet the homicide rate in Russia is four times as great as America's.
there was shooting that took place during the bombing, Andrew Kehoe used a rifle also
don't buy into the media hype friend, Im not saying its a gun problem either, im saying its a media problem. They hype it up to scare people and come close to outright lying to get people to watch them
>there are actually some heavily opinionated gun owners that want driving to be heavily regulated and controlled
Fucking hypocrites. The world isn't a safe place. You either ban everything unsafe or keep shit that's already here.
>Cars, designed solely for getting you from point A to point B kill more people annually than a device specifically used to "kill"
>mfw people would have no problem with a new line of toys that killed 369 children per year
>because "it wasn't designed to"
But he's right, I don't wanna sound like a gun hating liberal but what do guns actually do for us?
I mean sure there's some legitimate uses for them like hunting for sport or target shooting, but there's like a tiny % of gun owners who do that. The majority of gun owners own a gun primarily because they're gonna shoot someone with it if they feel their life is in danger. A lot of the reasons people cite for owning a gun boil down to "well what if that guy shoots me with his gun?" which is fair but if you just removed all those guns from the equation then a huge amount of people would no longer feel the need to own a gun.
I could go on all night but my point is this: Why not spend the money spent on guns and the military and defence on actual productive things like space travel? An eye for an eye is such a backwards retarded way for a species to carry on. Oh well, it's not like people will ever stop being selfish long enough to actually advance the species anyway.
No, it's not "wrong" it's just fucking stupid. you can't say that the construction and maintenance of a thing is a purpose of the thing. That's fucking backwards retard. Would you say that the purpose of a building is to employ construction workers? No, because that's fucking dumb. THe purpose of the building is whatever you do with it when it's finished.
>what do guns actually do for us?
Provide defense: for the weak, for the outnumbered, for the crippled.
Provide recreation: bullseye, action, 3 gun, trap, skeet, biathalon, long range, short range
Provide food: deer, elk, pig, birds
Protect livestock: coyote, wolf, feral dogs
You're clueless about firearms, just like Tyson.
>Provide defense: for the weak, for the outnumbered, for the crippled.
Defence from what? People with guns?
>Provide recreation: bullseye, action, 3 gun, trap, skeet, biathalon, long range, short range
So make a law saying you have to lock the guns up at the shooting range, you don't need to bring them home with you.
>Provide food: deer, elk, pig, birds
Supermarkets and butchers. The % of gun owners who hunt to live is really fucking small.
>Protect livestock: coyote, wolf, feral dogs
Again, only a tiny amount of gun owners do that.
>You're clueless about firearms, just like Tyson.
No, you just like guns and you don't wanna admit they're far more numerous than they have any need to be. How pigheaded can you be to choose spending money killing sandniggers for oil over exploring space? And yes, it is that simple a choice.
try living in a hostile hoodrat-infested environment and then tell me about how you wouldn't like to own a gun.
>le why can't we just spend on le science xdd
come back in 4 years when you're not 16
so, people like mechanics, contractors, electricians, or engineers don't matter? Even thought they are directly responsible for maintaining the upkeep of finished products? Im just curious because if you truly believe that im not going to bother this back and forth game with a dipshit
>Why not spend the money spent on guns and the military and defence on actual productive things like space travel?
Because other countries/people will see it as a perfect chance to fuck eachother over.
>nigger sees house unarmed
>can now fearlessly stage a home invasion
>Palestine sees Israel disarm
>proceeds to vengefully fuck it in to the ground
See what happens when the US tries to launch space program after dismantling its military. That several billion dollar launchpad and rocket are now prime targets for an airstrike that will make all that money spent meaningless.
People are shitty and need the means to protect themselves from shittier people. The word isn't this perfect utopia held back only by firearms.
>I mean sure there's some legitimate uses for them like hunting for sport or target shooting, but there's like a tiny % of gun owners who do that. The majority of gun owners own a gun primarily because they're gonna shoot someone with it if they feel their life is in danger. A lot of the reasons people cite for owning a gun boil down to "well what if that guy shoots me with his gun?" which is fair but if you just removed all those guns from the equation then a huge amount of people would no longer feel the need to own a gun.
This is bullshit. First of all, most gun are long-guns. This means rifles and shotguns. No one goes around carrying rifles and shotguns for everyday protection. So you argument is a lie from the start. Try looking up actual facts. I know you anti-gunners hate that, but the truth is important.
Also, defensive gun uses outnumber criminal uses. This is another fact.
Lastly, the idea that criminals will turn in their guns/not be able to get guns is hilarious. This country has the highest gun ownership rate in the world. There are more guns in this country than any other. You really think you can confiscate all those?
Second, guns get illegally imported. All the time. We can't stop HUMANS from getting smuggled across the border, but you think we stop guns from getting smuggled? Hilarious.
>I could go on all night but my point is this: Why not spend the money spent on guns and the military and defense on actual productive things like space travel? An eye for an eye is such a backwards retarded way for a species to carry on. Oh well, it's not like people will ever stop being selfish long enough to actually advance the species anyway.
And here we have it. People who don't understand reality, because they prefer to live in an ideological bubble of self-righteousness.
Yes, lets get rid of the military? What the hell did we ever need that for, anyway? Let's use tax dollars on space travel!
>durrrr hurrrr, but guns are MADE for le killing people!
What kind of argument is this? What the fuck does it matter what a device was made for?
Cars STILL murder more people than guns ever have. So much for things serving their purpose.
Do gun-grabbers really think this is an argument?
Because defense is not a right, but space exploration is an obligation! And by the way, if you're going to quote the Law Code of Hammurabi, at least get it right: "en eye for an eye" was a LIMIT to justice. Before then, people would escalate to WARS over shit like stealing cattle. An eye for an eye created order, because it ended escalation. And finally, do you REALLY think anyone is so fucking stupid as to fall for this? That an eye for an eye has ANYTHING to do with defense? You're talking about this like it's revenge. If someone is mugging me, you want me to give them what they want. And just HOPE that all they want is all my valuables. And what if someone is killing indiscriminantly as you anti-gunners like to pretend happens all the time? What then? Do you really think people own guns so that they can go HUNT people who have wronged them you fucking idiot? Guns are there to stop them from harming you in the first place. You think criminals have the right to mug us without having to fear death. Even though that means we know have to fear death from them. Not us. We think that when you threaten someone's life, that person has a right to protect their life. If you don't have the right to your own right, what the fuck do you have?
its not the purpose of it, but its still an offshoot of its intended purpose, which means employment for some people and the well being of other jobs. You asked what good a gun can do other than killing, I named off a few (the rest of which You haven't denied so we'll call that a win on my account)
And yet places like the UK where guns are banned don't have that problem. You don't get a mugger pulling a gun on you in the UK. Yes, some criminals manage to get their hands on one but they always go for big scores like jewelers not random people on the street and even then most of the time the guns are replicas that'd explode in their hand if they actually tried firing them.
Banning guns works, yeah some people will still die from criminals but it's way fucking less than the people who'd die if everyone had a gun.
I HAVE lived in a hoodrat infested environment and none of them ever carried guns. You use common sense:
>Don't go out alone late at night
>Don't go wandering alone into places you know gangs hang out
>Keep your head down and mind your own business
I never got any shit from anyone, for home defence you keep a baseball bat or a metal pipe beside your bed like everyone else does. Guns are a waste of fucking resources, it'd be way more productive to focus on science, medicine and other productive shit. This isn't being naive, this is just people who grew up with guns throwing their toys out of the pram when someone tries to take them away.
>Defence from what? People with guns?
People with guns, stronger people, multiple people, people with knives, bludgeons, or whatever.
Do you think we should take away the right to drive because some people drive recklessly, or drunk, and maim and kill people?
Then why do you blame guns?
>No, you just like guns...
I like driving, too, but I don't believe YOUR car should be taken from you just because some people drive like idiots.
My dream is that a hostile Muslim army invades the United States and the armed forces are rendered unable to mobilize due to some sneak terrorist attack, and then the invaders are all destroyed almost instantly by civilians with guns.
>a desire to rape and kills people
>leave them at the range
you don't NEED to take a care home, just leave it at the dealership
>supermarkets and butchers
overpriced and filled with chemicals, plenty of people kill and cook what they eat. Iid like some numbers on how many you think there are, and even then we should just make them change their life ways because yours scared on guns?
>only a few protect livestock
again, define a few. ranchers and farmers everywhere including laces that have shit gun laws like England need to protect their livelihood from predators. What the fuck makes you so high and mighty and can tell them no
Youre just a sheltered suburban brat that think your life is the only right way of living. Get outside once and a while and see how others live
>Because other countries/people will see it as a perfect chance to fuck eachother over.
Which is why they'd obviously have to agree to get rid of their guns too. We're all one species, fighting amongst ourselves for the next million years is a really retarded plan.
>Nigger see's house unarmed
>Gets clocked round the head by a baseball bat when he's stupid enough to try and break in
>Palestine sees Israel disarm
>They blow each other up and good fucking riddance
The world is half as shitty as it is because every generation inherits this archaic belief of "that tribe will kill us unless we show them we can kill them". It worked back when we actually lived in tribes but it's counterproductive now. We gain nothing from it.
Kek. America has already banned smoking in public, most "hard" drugs, unsafe driving habits, and a shit ton of other things. Basically if something looks dangerous it will be neutered. With guns it's only a matter of when it will happen, but it will probably happen soon.
Shit migga indidnt think you were in here trying to start world peace. You should screencap your rants and email them to politicians who give a fuck and are less likely to call you an unrealistic faggot.
>unsafe driving habits and hard drugs shouldn't be banned
where the fuck do you live? Zimbabwe?
>With guns it's only a matter of when it will happen, but it will probably happen soon.
On the contrary, actually.
I meant indoors, with maybe a few exceptions in the south. Of course it can still be done outside, but having to do it outside makes it hard on smokers.
Some states also fine people who do it outside like California.
But you know what is?
Fuel to transport all your expensive parts from point a to point b
The means to build a launchpad
The tools people will use to design and perfect a ship capable of conquering space
Good luck with space exploration when your astronauts starve because they had no means of keeping food.
No, it didn't.
Humans are the only species that actively goes out of their way to kill each other. Every other animal kills out of self defense or survival.
And no, bombing mudslimes armed with sticks isn't "self defence".
>Some states also fine people who do it outside like California.
That's just wrong, you moron. People get fined for flicking the butts on the ground, but that's it.
Also smoking indoors in public indoor places deserves to be banned. I shouldn't have to inhale your disgusting lung cancer smoke just because you can't wait until you're home.
>thinking that people on cocaine and heroin can't function normally
>people shouldn't be able to ingest whatever they want to into their bodies
>the drug war has killed a shit ton of people
>The world is half as shitty as it is because every generation inherits this archaic belief of "that tribe will kill us unless we show them we can kill them". It worked back when we actually lived in tribes but it's counterproductive now. We gain nothing from it.
So what do you propose to do about those among us that refuse to abide by the practices that benefit us all, fascist?
Are you going to sterilize all the men and women that produce more children than they can care for?
What about those people that pollute and exploit the environment?
How about those that would rather just take shit from other people rather than work for it themselves?
You are ignorant of human nature, and naive as fuck.
>putting cocaine and heroin in the same category
>doctors should be burdened by thousands of drug fiends that can't kick their habit
>the drug war (concerning marijuanna) is pretty much over
USA is probably one of the most lax 1st world countries when it comes to weed these days. People don't even realize it's still illegal the Netherlands.
I could've sworn there was a state/city/place in the U.S. that actually fined people for smoking outdoors, I'm pretty sure an area in California actually goes that far but I don't rember the name.
>thinking it can cause lung cancer in people who don't smoke
Why bother avoiding it when you have so many other chemicals and air pollutants to be worried about? Flame retardants are pretty much everywhere nowadays and are toxic.
>Read "Red Mars"
>first 100 colonists go to the red planet
>all scientists, engineers
>first 100 comprised of Americans, Russians, Europeans, Japanese
>through hard work and innovation, they overcome challenges and dangers of the hostile environment
>fast forward 10+ years
>Muslims riot on mars
No surprises there.
I get a sense that people really don't understand how culturally diverse and hostile this world is. Demilitarization and disarmament can make sense within a single culture where people agree on most of the same basic things, but people across the world and even in your home town approach can have such a massively different perspective and approach to life. People can be totally murderous, or absolute liars who encourage pacifism in order to weaken people they want to hurt. There are entire masses of culture in which the idea that a government should create safety and stability simply doesn't exist. There are nations out there where everyone unanimously agrees that every citizen should be sacrificing their lives forever in an unending war. There are people who think peace is a myth, there are people living in your country that literally never learned even what the laws are.
I'm not saying we should all be paranoid and violent, but it is in no way immoral to be prepared for war, on any level, including personal.
what i dont quite understand about the gun issue is the argument around stopping tyranny, which apparently is the prime reason for the 2nd amendment to exist. it seems to me a population with firearms will do next to nothing against a military that outguns all other armies on the planet together.
also, im pretty ignorant on history here, but how well armed were the civilian populations in the countries that saw the rise of fascism/communist regimes, before they came to power?
Global disarmament is pretty much indisputable as the solution to war. It's practically synonymous, but we are literally incapable of that at this point. It's so far away, and if it's attempted and even one small group of people don't comply then that's going to be a slaughter, and war will continue. People try it all the time, look at how World War 2 happened. It gets real bad when attempts at passivity fail.
At this point though it's pretty ridiculous to blame any individual or nation for being armed, in a way that implies they are an enemy to global disarmament for being armed.
This. Also I think it's funny how we still use the argument that owning a gun protects citizen's rights against a tyrannical government when there are places that ban assault weapons for the very reason that they make it easy to kill cops.
Eh, the idea goes something like this.
>government becomes tyrannical
>people get fed up and rebel
>sections of the army join
>civil war ensues which, thanks to citizens armed and trained, is eventually won by the people
It's bullshit but yeah that's the underlying reasoning.
i specifically said i dont know whether or not the people had guns. also, russia, china, cuba, germany, spain, italy, japan would be of interest, more so than the places you mentioned since their militaries were more advanced in comparison to their civilian populations.
but they would have to do that with and without an armed population, since one way or another there will be disobedience. once a tenth of the population has been wiped out within 3 days, the people with pistols and rifles will put them down and say "you know what, im not gonna die for a lost cause."
Its kind of a purely rhetorical argument. If guns are illegal, then only criminals have guns. So the law abiding citizen becomes entirely dependent upon the state for all protections, then if the state is corrupt, the law abiding citizen is completely helpless and has to make an enemy of the state in order to protect itself. So the only people who benefit in that situation are, colloquially, assholes.
The entire protection against tyranny thing goes back to the greeks as well. As once people other than the greek aristocracy were able to raise armies, they instantly started thinking "fuck the aristocracy" and started going all "might makes right." So the greek aristocracy invented democracy to maintain control out of necessity. Which taught everyone that if you don't give everyone the same rights, people will take their rights by force and take other people's rights.
>once a tenth of the population has been wiped out within 3 days, the people with pistols and rifles will put them down and say "you know what, im not gonna die for a lost
People don't really work like that. Someone who had their father or friend gunned down isn't just going to take it. Their neighbors won't just take it. If that were the case the shit that happened in the middle east would have been over in a week.
And then you have the soldiers themselves being asked to fire on the people they're sworn to protect. It's just not going to work.
Tontop it all off, it's expensive and retarded to blow up your own land that you're still in need of.
Shit. They didn't even have to kill us in Vietnam. A lot of times they'd opt to maim/injure over kill so that more money would be spent on evacuation/treatment.
People fail to realize how much money matters in war.
Another thing you're not considering is how there is no way to really order a nation's army to murder that nation's citizens. For every one person that accepts that order (because they're a total psychopath or moron) there will be at least one who realizes guns are being pointed at their friends/family and will desert.
There was also the whole bit about how the north vietnamese had complete knowledge of the US's tactics and rules of engagement, therefore was able to walk through all the loopholes with impunity.
Not to mention one of the basic truths of humanity is people fear disfiguring injuries more than death.
>putting cocaine and heroin in the same category
Is that a problem? They're both looked down upon (except for cocaine in Hollywood I guess)
>doctors should be burdened by thousands of drug fiends that can't kick their habit
They already have that problem and you could make the same argument for any unhealthy person
>the drug war (concerning marijuanna) is pretty much over
Yeah but the war on every other drug with a stigma attached to it still exists
well that statement >>64755656 was probably naive on my part; but considering the civil wars that tried to prevent the communists gaining power in china/blosheviks in russia - which were only necessary (and ultimately unsuccessful) because those guys had easy access to guns, and in china actually had the army fighting against the communists - the idea that the government is gonna turn around and become tyrannical for fun seems way more naive (and historically less well founded) than the fear that an armed populace is gonna cause mischief itself. even the nazis made use of gun laws that made guns more easily accessible for everyone but jews. its literally
>1938: gun laws loosened for everyone but jews, nazis had campaigned for this
>1939: world war 2 starts
the whole idea of
>the government might become tyrannical
is something i dont know a historical predecessor for in modern times. all im aware of is large portions of the population starting to subscribe to oppressive views, [starting rebellions, winning civil wars][coming to power technically by formal channels]. i dont even know the last time in history a government actually started oppressing the population from a position of power. again, theres lots i dont know, so id be interested in hearing significant examples.
>>putting cocaine and heroin in the same category
well to be fair, experts on addiction do consider cocaine less harmful than heroin. they also consider alcohol almost as harmful as heroin. the knee-jerk reaction to this info usually is that heroin cant be all that bad then; surprisingly, few people consider it cause to reconsider the validity of widespread acceptance of alcohol of being fun.
>I would rather be raped by a dozen sandniggers with knives and pipes because guns are useless
>Oh no a gang of sandnigger refugees with knives and clubs, best just to call the armed police and hope they arrive in the 2 minutes it will take them to cut out my kidneys
>Oh no,we passed laws so now the bobbies are only armed with single-shot tazers and stern warnings! Etc.
>Humans are the only species that actively goes out of their way to kill each other. Every other animal kills out of self defense or survival.
This is COMPLETELY fucking wrong.
You very clearly know nothing about nature.
see, i mentioned twice now that i know pretty little about this stuff. i thought the condescension was restricted to b and r9k; i mustve forgotten what place this is. would you care to expand without calling me a dumb twat?
so youre saying not knowing something and asking someone who claims to know about it for specifics is being dense? how is that kind of reply helpful to anyone, including yourself? youre just being venomous without saying anything, maybe try not being crude and explaining?
im aware, but saying
>you know nothing about eastern europe
isnt adding anything. i dont even know what parts of eastern europe he means; eastern europe as under control of the udssr? thats just the bolsheviks having won their civil war and extending their oppression to annexed countries. not sure what else he could mean.
>tfw no Utopian Mars without any niggers, muslims or jews
Me neither. I like having my AR-15 so I can shoot the wild boars that cause thousands of dollars of damage to my fields that cows need to graze on; and also to defend myself from the people who have robbed my irrigatators of their copper wire; and for the fact that there are generally a lot of sneaky Mexicans around who often get drunk and do criminal shit all the time.
I don't really care about all of that but it is pretty funny when some retard shoots people up again and the left gets up in arms and says something needs to change and the gun owners get up in arms and say nothing should change and then it dies down until some retard starts Amerishooting again. it's top comedy
>literally a term that pits all races against white people
Do the Jews count northeast Asians and themselves as POCs too?
Yeah exactly. This just bolsters my argument dummy. The very fact that the shit is "unnecessary" means it's sole purpose is to provide jobs. That's totally different than manufacturing an object for a private company that actually serves a function beyond employing people.
Good luck trying to shit on gunsmith labor unions as a leftist, though. It would be funny to see you people attacking one of your sacred cows.
Speaking of cows, a lot of people in rural areas use guns to defend their livestock and crops.
You mean like California? We call those places shitholes that are governed by Jewish women like Diane Feinstein.
Also, maybe they'd have less crime if they stopped importing the lowest-tier scum from Mexico constantly.
Works for Mexico, doesn't it?
Also, you can make guns out of spare plumbing materials.
Also, how are old grandmas supposed to defeat Tyrone in CQC?
>So what do you propose to do about those among us that refuse to abide by the practices that benefit us all, fascist?
Can you even define the word fascist or do you just throw it out whenever you get triggered?
>Are you going to sterilize all the men and women that produce more children than they can care for?
Education about only having as many kids as you can provide for comes first but as a last resort sure, why not? Would you really rather millions of children suffer for the sake of "muh freedom to make kids I can't take care of".
>What about those people that pollute and exploit the environment?
You'll have to be more specific.
>How about those that would rather just take shit from other people rather than work for it themselves?
Put them in prison like we do now.
>You are ignorant of human nature, and naive as fuck.
Nope, I know what I want will never happen because most human beings are selfish, short sighted retards who only care about eating, sleeping and fucking.
How's grandma supposed to defeat Tyrone?
>old people who live by themselves deserve to just get killed, lol
I suppose it's a form of eugenecism, but Tyrones would take advantage of it and do it constantly.
>How's grandma supposed to defeat Tyrone?
She's supposed to lock her doors and windows at night like a sensible person, that's how. Most houses have double glazed PVC windows these days, a burglar couldn't break through that without making enough noise for the neighbours to call the police.
As for mugging, grandma shouldn't be out by herself after dark if she knows it's a rough area.
Funny how leftists want equality in everything except capacity of aggression.
Guns have the ability of equalizing Tyrone and grandma in terms of power, like that anon said. Still can't believe there are people that want to infringe on a right so sacred.
I didn't say that though.
There isn't an epidemic of old people being killed by burglars in countries like the UK where guns are banned so what makes you think you can just make shit up?
Except "leftist" is too broad a term to lump people into.
I want guns to be reduced in numbers and availability yes but I also don't think gays should be allowed to adopt. I'm gay myself but I think children need a male and female role model growing up, two men or two women will fuck the child up mentally.
See how people can have views on opposite ends of the political spectrum?
>Guns have the ability of equalizing Tyrone and grandma in terms of power
And locking your windows and doors and not going out alone after dark in a rough area prevents any situation in which a gun would need to be used from even happening. It's like you WANT to kill someone, like you're just waiting for an excuse to do it.
>As for mugging, grandma shouldn't be out by herself after dark if she knows it's a rough area.
And yet I bet you get triggered when people tell women "stop dressing like a slut and passing out drunk at parties if you don't want to get raped".
>And locking your windows and doors and not going out alone after dark in a rough area prevents any situation in which a gun would need to be used from even happening.
>Houses with locks on them never get broken into.
>Muggings exclusively happen in "bad areas", and at specific hours of the day.
Holy fucking shit.
I didn't think it was this possible to be this fucking blatantly deluded AND stupid at the same time. And here we are.
No wonder Liberals are such a laughing-stock these days.
>People who own guns never get shot!
See how I can do that too?
Yes, houses with locks on them do get broken into but 99% of thievs will move on if they don't spot an open window or an unlocked door. Prevention is far better than deterrence or self defence. You prepare so that the threat never arises in the first place, then you don't need a gun.
Yes the odd burglary will still happen but far fewer people will die.
The UK is less culturally enriched than America.
>if the police don't get to your house in time, you're fucked lol
But anon, all you have to do is stay in a locked room all your life and you will be safe. They might even let you watch tv if you are a good citizen.
>There isn't an epidemic of old people being killed by burglars in countries like the UK where guns are banned
Yes there is.
London currently has more violent crime than fucking New York.
Did you not know this?
You also have an epidemic of Muslims raping little white children and getting away with it with police help, but I bet you were willfully ignorant of that as well.
If you're from the UK, I would think twice before lecturing any other nation about crime, you retarded shit-packer.
So you're essentially putting the blame on the victim. That's such a coward point of view: since the outside world is dangerous, we must succumb to evil criminals. Fuck that, the granny (or anybody) has the sacred right of going out wherever she wants, whenever she wants (as long as she doesn't interfere with the rights of others). And if she is attacked, she has the right to defend herself with guns.
i cant figure out all the assumptions that you seem to have in mind, and how you conciliate what seem to be a bunch of inconsistencies. seems like youre saying a people with rifles can beat a tyrannical government, who would be able to use their highly advanced killer robots to defeat their own military. did i understand that right?
>And yet I bet you get triggered when people tell women "stop dressing like a slut and passing out drunk at parties if you don't want to get raped".
Actually no I agree with that. If you don't wanna be raped then use common sense and don't get shitfaced around strangers in a place you don't know.
Do you have this mental disorder where you selectively choose what you see and don't see? Look at the UK, look at France, look at Germany. All countries where guns are banned and yet all haven't desceneded into all out chaos.
You don't need a gun to defend yourself from muggers, you need common sense. I've lived in the shittiest parts of london for 20 years and I've never come close to being mugged.
>I get to tell you what you need and what you do not need in a worst-case scenario.
The fact still remains: Houses get broken into by crazed criminals.
You can do all the mental-gymnastics all you want, but the fact still remains that in a home-invasion, you are better-off with a gun.
You're a retarded gun-grabber that's trying to twist logic around to fit your retarded narrative, and it's not working.
Oh yeah, this needs to be mentioned more.
The police covered it up.
>you don't need guns, you have police, lol
Pakis doing Paki shit.
>we need more Muslim immigrants, shitlord
> Look at the UK, look at France, look at Germany. All countries where guns are banned and yet all haven't desceneded into all out chaos.
>The UK is less culturally enriched than America
There's entire towns in London where foreigners have invaded. Luckily our nigger population remains spread out and sparse which I think is why America is in such a bad situation. I mean I'm all for giving people a chance but blacks are a lost cause. That whole slavery thing sort've blew up in your face and now you're infested with their descendants shitting up your country.
>Look at the UK, look at France, look at Germany. All countries where guns are banned and yet all haven't desceneded into all out chaos.
>look at France
>All countries where guns are banned and yet all haven't desceneded into all out chaos.
Holy shit, do you not read what you type before you post it?
>London currently has more violent crime than fucking New York.
Because in the UK the definition of violent crime is so broad that there are like 40 fucking different offences
In America it's 3 or 4
You can literally get sent down in the UK for a violent crime and do a 2 stretch in wandsworth if you slap someone, throw a bin at someone's car or shove someone into a urinal for some boss jokes, it's insane
>Yes, houses with locks on them do get broken into but 99% of thievs will move on if they don't spot an open window or an unlocked door.
This retard knows absolutely nothing about crime.
>if we ban guns murder will stop!
>"mature, intelligent, rational persons"
Easy to say with the world's strongest tribe protecting you. Move to a third world country and learn how the world is still very much one that deals in force.
I know, it's the current year after all
>Look at the UK, look at France, look at Germany. All countries where guns are banned and yet all haven't desceneded into all out chaos.
No, I'm encouraging people to use common sense to avoid becoming victims in the first place.
You get mugged walking home from the shop at 3pm? Catch the guy and lock him up.
You get mugged walking home piss drunk at 2am in a shitty part of town? Catch the guy, lock him up and get told off by the police for being a twat.
The world is dangerous because no one trusts anyone. That distrust breeds more distrusts and leads to an even more dangerous world. The majority of people out there are sane, rational human beings who just want to live their life in peace. The way people carry on though it's like they believe the majority of people are crazed psychopaths waiting for their chance to strike. Granny can go out at 1am if she likes, but Granny shouldn't expect any sympathy when she gets mugged.
>being stabbed isn't lethal
Then why do countless people get stabbed to death every year in the UK? Shouldn't they all still be walking around, by your logic?
>The fact still remains: Houses get broken into by crazed criminals.
And you'd rather risk getting shot in the head as you sleep instead of conked on the head with a baseball bat? Do you know what happens when you pull a gun on a burglar? He pulls his and starts shooting up the place without regard for you or your family.
It won't play out like it does in your fantasies, you won't get him to surrender peacefully and do a citizens arrest. You'll get shot at.
>Easy to say with the world's strongest tribe protecting you
Are you referring to America? The worlds biggest bully that only remains a superpower because it invades and leeches off shitholes? The only thing America protects is its fucking fridge, the whole world wants you wiped off the face of the earth.
even kids and the elderly blast away home invaders with ease
stop being a liberal pussy and buy a glock or two
Looks like common sense failed you since you cannot see something as basic as being able to defend yourself.
Common sense has also failed you since you'd rather depend on a public force that is costly, slow and bureaucratic; by the time the police has come, your throat has been slit and your wife raped and killed.
You'd also rather be sheltered than be free to go wherever you want, whenever you want. You don't deserve neither freedom nor security.
>Looks like common sense failed you since you cannot see something as basic as being able to defend yourself.
I'm not gonna repeat what I already said. Go back and read the part about "prevention".
>by the time the police has come, your throat has been slit and your wife raped and killed.
I fail to see how you owning a gun either deters people from breaking into your home or stops them from doing all that shit. If you locked your windows and doors you wouldn't have these people in your house in the first place. If you get broken into it's because you forgot to lock your fucking house up.
what i miss in this whole debate is weighing the societal costs against the individual benefits. its obvious anyone would prefer to be able to stop an intruder into their home from harming their family or themselves. but on what scale does that happen? on what scale would it happen if guns were out of the equation to the degree they are in similarly industrialized nations with a strict ban on guns? what scale of benefit could be expected from a gun ban? people just list what happens now, and depending on their leaning on the issue, some optimistic or nightmarish hypothetical of what a gun ban would bring about. but the is isn't actually weighed against the would-be in a realistic manner.
more importantly, it's never brought up what kind of evil your society is willing to tolerate. the status quo is: you keep guns that are used to kill tens of thousands of innocents with mass shootings almost every day, because you think the upshot of shooting robbers is worthwhile enough to tolerate those dead. what could be: you get almost no mass shootings to speak of and next to no accidental gun deaths, if any. for that, you might (and that's not really established) have to tolerate a rise in some sorts of crime - how serious that rise would be, if any, and what crimes would be increasing isn't all that clear. it's also not clear why that purported rise in criminality couldn't be better addressed in other ways. seems to me though that weighing a potential rise in possibly nonlethal harm to people against the status quo of tens of thousands of killings facilitated by guns is a worthwhile thought.
>tens of thousands of innocents with mass shootings almost every day
lol, where did you get these numbers?
All you leftists and niggers should just move to an island and test this theory for a few centuries.
>lol, where did you get these numbers?
if you dont like those numbers, why not put some on the issue yourself? but please make it a source with a semblance of integrity, not
Banning guns just creates a black market for guns. Happens with every regulation.
You think a law banning guns will prevent criminals who, BY DEFINITION, break laws? You will just prevent honest, law-abiding citizens from getting guns.
Minus the niggers part, but that's increasing thanks to your booming Muslim population.
Also, Germany has less strict gun laws than California in some cases. Not all of Europe is a nogunz paradise like North Korea.
i know that rhetoric. what it doesnt address is the empiric facts that gun ownership is next to zero in a number of countries comparable to the US that have strict gun legislation. so is the number of their crime incidents.
>tens of thousands a day = hundreds
Not my fault you can't math.
30,000 x 365, the US population would be wiped out if we take what you said literally.
>Also, Germany has less strict gun laws than California in some cases.
what germany also has is next to no guns among its population; also: next to no need for police to use firearms.
That's your best excuse?
First, the police will do their job and root out gun runners. Of course some will slip through but the point is making guns so hard to get that criminals are forced to resort to using other weapons which are far less dangerous. You're talking like every jungle bunny in detroit who wants to get his hands on a glock just has to go to his local gun salesman when in reality it's the guys pulling off bank jobs and shit like that who'd be the only ones who could afford illegal guns.
No, it won't happen overnight but if you get rid of guns and you keep the pressure up then eventually they will stop being so commonplace.
Nice picture retard but did you ever stop to think the reason the mass shooting stats for the rifle and assault rifle are so low BECAUSE they're so hard to get compared to handguns?
30 guns per 100 residents make it pretty high, at 15th.
That's after decades of demilitarization and Soviet occupation of the East also.
Vermont and Maine, who have lots of gun freedom. are more peaceful than Germany in a lot of cases too. Areas full of white people who share the same culture tend to be less violent.
Resources on earth won't last forever, water will become a precious commodity worth more than oil in the next few decades.
Oil will eventually run out as will other non-renewable resources. Our best chance for survival into the next millenium is space exploration and colonisation.
>30 guns per 100 residents make it pretty high, at 15th.
whered you get that number? what i could find was 5.5 million total guns owned by 1.5 million people, which makes it roughly 1 in 60 people owning guns; with the gun owners mostly being sports shooters and huntsmen.
Where are the places that rifles are harder to get, pray tell?
A handgun is the weapon of choice for Tyrone and Juan because it's easier to conceal and lug around.
This notion of black plastic rifles being more deadly is a meme, similar to how people think fully automatic = more deadly.
>Resources on earth won't last forever, water will become a precious commodity worth more than oil in the next few decades.
ive heard this before, and true or not, one thing is clear: thats the view of greed, not of need.