>372 mass shootings in the US in 2015 >64 school shootings

>>724553875
>>13,286 people killed in the US by firearms in 2015
36 times that number died from tobacco related products in the United States.Why hasn't the US banned tobacco products? Why hasn't the focus been on that rather than a number less than 3% of that number?

what has been rooted in their society for a hundred years wont be removable within our lifetime....

>>724553875
>Australia banned guns and has had a mass shooting since they banned guns
New Zealand hasn't had a mass shooting since they haven't banned guns. This isn't even logic, this is just false allegory.

How many from nigs

File: 7DACAFDE-6D95-46FD-86E4-DE2C571E9A46-16849-00003644AAF73AF5_tmp.jpg (40KB, 480x348px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 480x348px

>>724553875
This video will explain it for you.

https://youtu.be/MUBtj_OEpZE

>>724554135
people choose to smoke. people don't choose to be murdered by guns

>>724553875
Banning guns now is inefficient and impractical. The only way America can get rid of guns safely is with decades worth of reforms. Banning all guns tomorrow won't fix any problems.

>>724553875
Adjust these numbers by race, please.

>>724554135
we wont come for them with our cigarettes ,we will not drag the capitalist oppressors out of their homes in the night with our trans fats either,the teeming masses yearning to breath free will not throw the entire strata of incumbent society into the air with our swimming pools...all of these things kill more people then guns.the modern executive state is pep squad for the billionaires i wonder what reason the state could possible have for wanting to get rid of guns.

File: moot.jpg (536KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

536KB, 1920x1080px

>>724554135
because tobacco related deaths are mostly self inflicted. Cunts aren't running around killing other cunts with cigarettes, if you put it in your own mouth you can die for all i care.

>>724554343
>We can fix the problem if we kick out all the blacks!

>>724554343
this.

also

whats wrong with people murdering each other.
survival of the fittest nigggaaaaaaaa

>>724553875
> so why hasn't the US banned guns yet?

Because it is a fundamental aspect of the US Constitution. There are three pillars of a fair democracy:

Freedom of speech
Right to bear arms
Right to due process

Without these three aspects, a democratic society cannot survive. Each serves the purpose of defending the other two.

>b-b-b-but anon, look at all the other countries without the right to bear arms being successful

Sure, there are. There is a lot of problems the United States has, but you can be 100% certain that when the government no longer serves the people, and only lives to serve itself, the people of the US will dismantle the government down to it's foundation, and build again. Those of us not born within countries that ensure us those same rights, as securely as the US does to its own citizens, cannot be 100% certain that we will be able fight against a tyrannical government of our own.

>look at all the US gun deaths, explain those!

Like I said, the US has A LOT of problems. One of which is how it treats crime and punishment within. Too quickly are they to slap people with a prison sentence and overzealous punishments. Better treatment towards criminals and criminal behaviour would result in a SIGNIFICANT drop of gun related crimes within that country. This is only one aspect as well, we aren't even counting the other problems like a lack of public funding, proper central healthcare, focus on education, etc. All of these things contribute to a growing restless population, which usually results in a surge of crime.

tl;dr - There will always be a risk with how easy it is to acquire a weapon in the US, this is something that will always be concurrent. However, with changes to US social systems and general cultural attitude, these can be drastically reduced while still guaranteeing it's citizens the right to defend themselves against a foreign enemy and tyrannical government.

>>724554623
Don't be obtuse.

>>724554316
from the CDC:

Exposure to secondhand smoke causes an estimated 41,000 deaths each year among adults in the United States:1

Secondhand smoke causes 7,333 annual deaths from lung cancer.1
Secondhand smoke causes 33,951 annual deaths from heart disease.1

So still 3x die unwillingly from tobacco use, yet tobacco is still legal.

>>724553875
Now do assault and battery.

Less guns=less gun crimes, its not hard to understand but americans are retarded

Ofc you will always have gun crimes because of illegal guns, but mentally ill fags having guns will just make this number higher and higher

Also saying that we should ban trucks too, truck made for transport while guns made to kill, you can use a spoon to kill too but they are.not made for killing but guns are


But ofc retarded americans wont understand it so let them keep shooting each other because thats what they want

>>724554563
see >>724554950

35,000 people in the US dies of speed-related deaths in 2015, yet vehicles are still manufactured that can drive twice the speed of any legal limit. Why haven't we stopped building these types of vehicles?

>>724554982
Less guns might lead to less gun crimes, but it doesn't lead to lower overall crime.

>>724555200
Many people wouldnt think about robbing stores when they domt have a gun or jack a car.

I'm an Australian and the American fire-arm situation has had me perplexed for as long as I have been old enough to understand it. Not one single day of my 25 year life have I ever needed to defend myself and by extension, no one that I know has either. It's so liberating, knowing that I can go out in public and not have to worry about being shot. I feel safe. The thought just never comes into my head so the idea of walking passed strangers carrying guns on the street and hoarding them in their homes is incredible to me! Like are you all seriously on edge 24/7 worried about having to protect yourself at the drop of a hat? Do you not think that maybe having a population saturated with deadly weapons might be the reason why you feel so unsafe and why you believe you need to have your own gun? Do you not realise that the fact you guys have numerous mass shootings a year and nothing ever changes is astounding? Children are being shot in schools. What the actual fuck! I have said to my wife on numerous occasions that if we lived in the U.S.A. I would be packing up and moving.

I think shooting a gun would be awesome and I'd love to try it. Do I as a normal, average citizen need to own/carry one? Hell no. I'd honestly feel less safe knowing their were more guns around.

>>724555280
Tell that to Brazil, who by the way, banned the public from owning weapons. Not to mention every other third world nation that did the same thing.

Crime and criminal behaviour is an extremely nuanced and complicated subject, that can't simply be defined as "whether a country has guns banned or not".

>>724555280
Number of homicides have been rising in UK since they banned guns.

So you rather have no guns if the chance of being beaten or stabbed to death would increase?

>>724555280
many people wouldn't think of robbing a store if they didn't have a gun too. it goes both ways

>>724555450
> Not one single day of my 25 year life have I ever needed to defend myself and by extension, no one that I know has either.
>It's so liberating, knowing that I can go out in public and not have to worry about being shot. I feel safe.

This is also the feeling for almost all Americans as well. Not everyone is a fucking psycho.

>Like are you all seriously on edge 24/7 worried about having to protect yourself at the drop of a hat?

You wear a seatbelt don't you? That doesn't mean you drive around always thinking you're getting into an accident, but you realize that accidents happen quickly, and not always within your control, so you do something to protect yourself consistently, even in situations that are seemingly the most safe.

I've explained the reason for why Americans are soaked in gun culture, and why the reason for owning a firearm is considered normal in America, almost a right of passage. I explained it here >>724554757


>inb4 dumb americunt

I'm not American, I just understand the American legal system and the history behind North America as a whole. I have a degree in History, and this kind of thing was taught to death. Many countries were not born in blood, and in their lifetime, have never faced a tyrannical government. The US has, and the reason why the right to bear arms is within the US constitution, is a legitimate reason.

>>724554757
>Without these three aspects, a democratic society cannot survive. Each serves the purpose of defending the other two.

free speech has never been defended using fire arms

>cannot be 100% certain that we will be able fight against a tyrannical government of our own.

>Implying that the public will be able to stand up against the government

File: M1A.jpg (679KB, 2100x1092px) Image search: [Google]

679KB, 2100x1092px

>>724553875
That also includes self defense killings as more than half of those homicides and what about suicides are they also included?
>>724554757
Exactly

>>724554950
trying too hard to spin subject away from his precious gunz, you fucking american peasants are hilarious

>>724554757

>but you can be 100% certain that when the government no longer serves the people, and only lives to serve itself, the people of the US will dismantle the government down to it's foundation, and build again.

I'm sorry but why do you need guns to do this? Think of how small a government is compared to the population it serves? You're telling me that you think it couldn't be done without guns? Seriously?

>There will always be a risk with how easy it is to acquire a weapon in the US, this is something that will always be concurrent.

Huh? We have no real way to stop crazy people from acquiring weapons that can mow down a crowd of people in seconds so that's just something we're going to have to deal with. How are Americans so blasé about unnecessary deaths. Sure a mentally ill person could pull a knife and go on a stabbing frenzy but I like my chances of survival against a knife. A knife isn't going to kill a cinema full of people; it's an acceptable risk for something with many alternate, functioning purposes. A gun has only one purpose.

File: 1488725795287.jpg (42KB, 513x348px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 513x348px

>>724556174
Fucking foreigners need to butt out of your fucking business

>>724553875
Its in american's nature to shoot each other. They need guns to shoot back and "defend themselves".

Broken ass "first world" society.

File: 2ndAmendment.jpg (100KB, 440x239px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 440x239px

>>724556229
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun." - Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778

“The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States.” – Noah Webster

“I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.” – George Mason

>>724555486
Except brazil is full of guns

>>724555502
Would you get beaten or shot? Carrying a pepper spray can save you on those situations

>>724553875

As a Liberal, I'm kinda glad I have my guns right now.

Anyway, I see those homicides as a form of population control. Obviously abortion and contraception would be better, but Republicans are against this.

>>724556072
>Implying that the public will be able to stand up against the government

Why can't it? It has done it before within US history alone. The 13 colonies fought and defeated Britain. A much smaller and weaker force was able to defeat a larger and overshadowing government.

> free speech has never been defended using fire arms

Again, US history can be used as an example. Britain was extremely controlling, to the point that anyone who spoke ill of the crown was punished. This desire to be free from a tyrannical control over what is and isn't discussed and spoken out about, was defended by separating from Britain; using weapons.

File: 1474729728959.jpg (34KB, 750x750px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 750x750px

A gun makes you feel powerful, it gives you the ability to kill another individual without any effort.
Try to take that away from a bunch of ignorant, scared peasants that are constantly being told the world is a big scary place
and you'll get this thread full of angry rednecks making excuses for their own low self esteem

>>724555942

>This is also the feeling for almost all Americans as well.
>I'm not American

Clearly they do have thoughts on protecting themselves if they own a gun and considering you're not American you don't really get to state how most Americans feel.

>You wear a seatbelt don't you?

Ever heard of the hierarchy of controls: Elimination, Substitution, Engineering, Administration PPE?

You cannot eliminate car accidents, you cannot substitute cars, so they have engineered seat belts as the next step. Guns can be eliminated as deminstrated by many other societies and substituted for less dangerous forms of personal protection.

>>724556522
>Would you get beaten or shot?
We're talking about homicide here.
The number of stabbings to death and beatings to death have increased more than the number of people shot to death have decreased.

To answer your question: I'd rather be shot to death than beaten/stabbed to death.

Just for information, the UK banned specific types of guns after the Dunblane School shootings, guy just walked in and started blasting at kids and others.

Shot himself of course, like most of them are cowards, their life is shit why not just kill innocent little kids then yourself so you are infamously remembered.

Since that ban, no other school shootings have happened in the UK.

But unfortunately it continues in the US.

However they don't need to ban guns, they just need tougher controls, but the US peeps are so brainwashed from an early age to bow down to the ethics of the US way of life, they think having guns is some divine right because an outdated 2nd Amendment allows it.

They are all defensive about sure, but I guarantee they would change their minds if a child in their family, their own or other sibling's, was shot by someone in a school, they would be first to cry about tougher controls or a ban.

They cry about gangs having illegal guns, but ignore the fact that because guns are legal and easy to buy with simple forms etc the cost of illegal guns is cheap.

Making guns illegal or tougher to get, would force the black market on weapons to soar, meaning it would be harder for criminals to get them so cheaply.

But hey... Americans gotta American. Gotta keep the guns as is even if some poor innocent kids die for that right.

>>724556820
Your misunderstanding about guns doesn't give you the right to project that sentiment onto others.

>50% of homicides committed by 12% of the population
>Against 12% of the population
>Caring that niggers kill each other.

>>724556406
are you well regulated though?

Do all gun owners regularly train and practice with their weapons?

Is the production and distribution of weapons well regulated?

Do you regulate who gets the weapons? because those laws were written in a time when women, gays, jews, crazy people, non whites were not even allowed to vote. so surely by that logic if they cant be trusted to vote then they cant be trusted to have a weapon.

>>724556915
If you take a closer look at homicide by firearms and split it into white perp and black perp you see that the gun violence caused by white population in the USA is about the same as in Belgium.

>>724556961
well, you can always use your gun to protect yourself from things like hurtful truths

oh wait.. you can't

>>724554230
Because only like 10 ppl live in NZ

>>724556406

Wow, some people years ago were smart enough to design the perfect system that could never be faulted by forever evolving societies and newly discovered technology. They did the best they could at the time with the information they had; but we have more info now and can make better informed decisions. Like do you honestly think they envisioned a society of thugs with automatic rifles?

People think the Bible is still 100% relevant too.

>>724557119
Hurtful truths like most legal guns never being used in a criminal way? Or maybe the fact that guns are not the big factor in crime and homicide, but blacks are?

>>724557047

As said the choice of weapons is very low now, the majority being hunting rifles and type of shotgun for obviously hunting reasons.

Another other weapons is no longer on the cards. It is tough.

The only way firearms such as automatics etc are bought is illegally, and even then in the UK that is extremely expensive.

Before the ban people had to pass courses to learn to shoot a gun etc before owning one. Since then the need is gone.

But again since the ban, firearm crime is very low.

File: 1488279229075.jpg (28KB, 480x907px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 480x907px

>>724557047
Keep ignoring all the proof to the contrary but it just makes you look like a fool

“The Constitution shall never be construed… to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.” – Samuel Adams

“To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.” - Richard Henry Lee American Statesman, 1788

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." - Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776

>>724557202
>Like do you honestly think they envisioned a society of thugs with automatic rifles?

What would you do against a thug with an automatic rifle? Use your pepperspray on him? Legal gun ownership prevents bad people from being able to take over.

>>724556229
>I'm sorry but why do you need guns to do this? Think of how small a government is compared to the population it serves? You're telling me that you think it couldn't be done without guns? Seriously?

Who controls the tanks, and the jets, and stockpiles upon stockpiles of weapons? If even a small portion of the military and civilian population side with the tyrannical government, they will be at a tremendous advantage over the regular population in almost every single way. Are the civilians expected to just punch their way into the tanks and armoured soldiers?

The US fighting the British for independence is a perfect example of this. A small, but well armed forced can be devastating if given the right situation to flourish. You can bet for sure a tyrannical government will have support from the people within, and they will have access to government property and weapons. The oppressed civilian population will the ability to fight back. Weapons are one of the keys to this.

>How are Americans so blasé about unnecessary deaths.

They aren't. Most are just fully aware of the dangers that are posed with aspects of regular life. We are aware and prepared for a car crash, but we don't ban them; they serve a purpose.

>A gun has only one purpose.

That purpose is completely justified and reasonable. A government that extends its control too far, or a foreign enemy that invades the country, must be stopped. We aren't going to do it with knives and wishes.

> We have no real way to stop crazy people from acquiring weapons that can mow down a crowd of people in seconds so that's just something we're going to have to deal with.

You do. It's another weapon. You call the police for this very reason, but they aren't always going to be available or within reach. Regardless, the weapon in question isn't the solution or problem. Even without weapons, crime is commited. Look at places like Brazil. Weapons are banned nationally, but people still commit horrible crimes.

>>724557047
You should read it again.

It just says that a well regulated militia is necessary for a free state.

As such the government will not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms. Doing so would prevent a militia from forming.

File: 1488725326100.gif (1021KB, 702x388px) Image search: [Google]

1021KB, 702x388px

>>724557293
America is not and will never be the UK.

"But if I have no room to escape, or if I run and am pursued to the wall or into a corner, where I cannot elude his fury, and have no other way to preserve my own Life from his violence but by taking his, there, I have an indisputable right to do it, and should be justified in warding thro' the blood of an whole army, if I had power to shed it and had no other way to make my escape." - John Adams, September 5, 1763

>>724556522
>Except brazil is full of guns

Held by criminals with negative intent. The only people there that suffer are the unarmed populace. That country is rife with police, but they can't stop any of it. Crime occurs in that country even without weapons. It happens regardless. The weapons aren't to blame, it's the corrupted government and horribly functioning social systems.

>>724557337
look everybody, i found batman!

you go fight crime on the streets you misunderstood benevolent vigilante!

>>724557403

Of course it won't, but that doesn't mean a tougher control on guns or a ban would save a lot more people especially vulnerable people like kids etc.

>>724557515

Wouldn't*

typo

>>724553875
Do you think criminals acquire guns legally? About how many of these deaths do think are related to gang violence? You're a fucking idiot, learn to analyze the whole issue, not drop a cancerous statistic and call it a day.

>>724553875
Govt. intervention is not the answer.
People rely on the govt. too goddamn much as it is.
Plus, prohibition of firearms will not reduce the rate of violent crimes linked to them.
If anything it enables them.
Literally every person I know (granted, I live in Southeast Kansas) owns a firearm.
Just last month, a hunter defused a situation where one drunken redneck had a knife to the throat of a slightly less drunk redneck because he thought redneck #2 was sleeping with his wife.

>Hunter points 10 gauge shotty at drunken redneck #1's temple and starts counting to 3.
>Redneck #1 drops knife, gets on ground

At least one person would have died if it weren't for the hunter and his shotgun. Likely more, and it wouldn't have required a single shell.

Now shut the fuck up and give me a reason to believe you've ever used a gun, much less killed something with one.

>>724557358
A conventional army such as the US one cannot win against its own armed populace. You cannot go shooting your own civilians because then you lose their support.

Besides, polls showed that a huge portion of the army would side with the people if the government told them to attack.

There's a screencap that better explains how a war between the government and the people would play out in the US. I'll see if I have it or maybe someone else can post it if they know which one I mean.

>>724556744
If England had had planes that can blow your asshole out through your ear from a mile away, the war would have ended in a week.

To think rednecks with shotguns could overthrow the US government by force is the height of insane thinking.

>>724557515
>Take away the rights of 300 million
>to stop <500
Pass

>>724556744
there's no comparison between today's US military and 1775 English army. America fought England during the revolution on a more even playing field, there's no way the public would be able to stand up to today's military and win a war. They could fight and probably sustain a war but no way could they win

>>724557455
Not an argument. I am finished talking with you.
2/10 troll

Begone, OP, your statistics have no power here -- we have anecdotes.

>>724553875
It's all black people getting killed so who cares? All those school shootings and what not are a drop in the bucket compared to blacks killing each other they just get more news coverage. Black people shoot each other so often it's not even news worthy anymore. It is impossible to overstate how insane predominately black urban areas are. You fags have no idea.

>>724557675
OP's argument:
Less guns means more crime so gun ban should be done

Counter argument:
Your statistics fail to address the increase in other crimes that outweigh the benefits of banning guns

>>724553875
because we became a militarized economy ever since World War One and having to bail everyone's arms industry out. If you think guns are so bad, maybe all the Eurofags shouldn't have gone to war so much.

Either way, I own seven firearms and am a firm believer in the right to bare arms.

>>724553875
Thanks, niggers

>>724556835
>This is also the feeling for almost all Americans as well.
>I'm not American

I'm Canadian. I live within spitting distance of Detroit. I can see the fucking skyline from here. I think I speak to some degree of what Americans do and do not think.

>Clearly they do have thoughts on protecting themselves

Like I said in the seatbelt argument. You have thoughts of protecting yourself, but it doesn't run your whole life. You spend 99.99% of your life not having to worry about your safety, but you still put on that seatbelt just incase. Just like people still buy and carry weapons.

>Guns can be eliminated as deminstrated by many other societies and substituted for less dangerous forms of personal protection.

Gun being eliminated isn't a positive thing. Nazi Germany did the same thing, as well as Stalin controlled USSR. It was branded as a way to make the society safer and more comforting. The people had no method of self defence against their own government. No one thought it would get as controlling as it did, but when it happened, they had nothing to defend themselves with, and because of that, died.

Everybody here talks big shit about protecting their stuff and freeduhms
but i haven't seen a single redneck blazing gunz and unleashing hell when a plane crashed in one of their buildings
i guess they were all too busy dialing 911

>>724557576
>People rely on the govt. too goddamn much as it is.
This.
Remember what Thomas Jefferson said about big government.

>>724557615
>To think rednecks with shotguns could overthrow the US government by force is the height of insane thinking.
Funny. You liberal fascists said the same thing about Trump being preisdent.
>Huah. To even think Trump has a chance of becoming president is the height of insane thinking!

Learning lessons is a challenge for your ideology, isn't it?

>inb4 im a centrist/libertarian

No you're not. You're a liberal of the cuckoldish variety. You just don't want to be associated with the crybaby insanity known as American liberalism.

>>724557337

>What would you do against a thug with an automatic rifle? Use your pepperspray on him? Legal gun ownership prevents bad people from being able to take over.

I would use whatever was at my disposal at the time. Apart from the fact that I am likely never to encounter this situation since I live in an intelligent society that prevents this being a regular story in the news: I am not afraid to defend myself without a gun. I feel safer living in a society were there are less guns because less guns equates to a lower chance of being at the end of a barrel.

>They aren't. Most are just fully aware of the dangers that are posed with aspects of regular life.

The are fully aware but never make any serious attempts at stopping the ludicracy.

>>724557649
If the situation was bad enough for civilians to even consider fighting against the government, they wouldn't have to worry about the military.

It would be more of Civilians vs police. Military wouldn't get involved.

>>724553875
I haven't seen the news reporting any mass shootings since Blaque Obama left.

>>724554135
Nigger, it's better to use accidental homicide statistics with car accidents.

>>724557622
to save a few thousand

>>724557852
wow man, illuminati confirmed!

>>724554950

And a lot of places have banned smoking in public places

>>724553875
You can have guns and decrease gun crime at the same time fairly easily with smart gun control legislation.

The trouble in the US that other counties don't have to deal with is the NRA. The NRA is simply organized crime with political pull. They want the most dangerous people to go guns, because when people are scared, gun sales skyrocket. When some loon shoots up a festival, rednecks go buy guns.

The NRA should be classified as a terrorist organization (they support people on terrorist watch lists having the right to buy guns) and put out of business. Then we could have sensible gun laws.

the modern era has rendered the whole militia standing up to a tyrannical government thing irrelevant has it not? kinda like old laws about video tape piracy. second amendment seems like its doing a lot more bad than good exisiting in an era it was not created for. your gov spends like 3x the amount any country in the world does on its military. if it goes to shit, do you think scores of people with guns will take down robots controlled from fucking space?

>>724557790
I like to bare arms on sunny days too mate.

>>724553875
Because the right to own firearms is a right protected by our constitution.

>>724557901
You think of the 13,000 killed by guns in homicides, a few thousand of them were innocent children?

Please.

>>724553875
Because this is the land of freedom, not the land of faggots.

>>724557622

Just like you did with Japan?
Just like you tried to do with Iraq?

Either way, it is simple.

Americans have to realise the 2nd Amendment is OLD, it was created back at a time when it was rare that people actually had guns, it was to protect farmers, etc against unknown attackers - Red Indians etc.

Since then weapons have evolved, there is more of them, and Red Indians don't do any attacking on horses anymore.

But the corrupt senate and congress have made it sound like it is such a great thing, why? Because they have shares in companies who produce the weapons... more sales = more profits.

Larger military budget = more profits.

Larger GDP tax rebate = more profits (GDP tax is 10.5% and over 9% is rebated back - close to 1.7 trillion dollars back in the pockets).

That is your America right now, corporate rules the country, and you are all bleating like sheep to their tunes of grandeur and propaganda.

Not all Americans are foolish though, and learn stuff about their country and how shit it actually is.

Being the richest nation = a lie. GDP is not America's wealth and never will be, it is profits of corporations based in the US.

Free Speech, Freedom, etc = a lie. You have never had these, on paper sure, but look at your country where is the free speech and freedom right now? I can tell you, it is where the government says it is.

Anyway, Americans need to learn to look deeper into their own country passed the propaganda to see what is actually going on.

Starting back in the late 70s in the Middle East and Reagan's administration that paid Saddam Hussein to fight Iran to dispose of the new ruler. Which caused Islamic Extremists to focus the west.

>>724554135
Because the government already overreaches their power in so many other ways

>>724557964
And this would be the pinnacle of intelligent response from Europeans.
For 1300 years they've been oppressed. Their history is one of tyranny and autocracy. They're comfortable not being able to defend themselves.
>Domesticated

>>724557595
>A conventional army such as the US one cannot win against its own armed populace.

I agree. This is exactly what I'm saying. Without being armed, they would be able to win.

>Besides, polls showed that a huge portion of the army would side with the people if the government told them to attack.

A poll doesn't mean anything in this situation because it isn't currently occurring. Countless people still follow the orders of a retarded store manager, what makes you think they won't follow the orders of a general? A general that tells them if they don't shoot the civilan populace, they will be killed themselves. The military is taught from day one to follow orders without question. The military is the exact force of people that would be the most questionable.

There are many examples within history of the military overtaking an unarmed populace (nazi germany, Stalin controlled USSR, etc).

>>724557990

So you think the majority of the 13,000 were what criminals?

No innocent civilians like adults also? Being robbed and resisting and being shot etc?

No?

>>724557337
Real life is not CoD kid

>>724558192
Real life is not the white&asian cul-de-sac you've clearly been living in your whole life.
Go walk the south-east streets of Stockton at night. 8/10 people you walk by are armed.

Oh, kill yourself for being a sheltered NEET.

>>724556744
>A much smaller and weaker force was able to defeat a larger and overshadowing government.

Endured. Not defeated. Majorly thanks to guerrilla tactics and militias.

Precisely the same tactics used in today's conflicts such as Afghanistan.

Britain was a superior force no doubt, but their armies were scattered around the world over the Empire, and mobilising such a vast army to relentlessly take back the Americas would be overly costly, not only in terms of economic loss but also in soldier's lives. And not to mention time consuming. Just sending reinforcements over the Atlantic took on average 7 weeks.

>>724557615
>To think rednecks with shotguns could overthrow the US government by force is the height of insane thinking.

They said the same thing about the US fighting Britain for independence. The US government can't nuke the whole population, you can't rule a smouldering pile of ash. The soldiers and politicians who control those planes have to sleep sometime. They live somewhere. Any enemy can be conquered, why ask for more deaths?

With your line of thinking, you might as well just let the government control everything now. Why have free speech if the government can just jail you and prevent you from breaking out or fighting back? Fuck it, right?

>>724554187
Of course the most reasonable answer here has no replies.

>thread

>>724558174
Yes the majority of those murders were criminals. 52% of those murders were black people shooting other black people. It is almost all gang violence.

>>724553875
SHALL

>>724558361
>They said the same thing about the US fighting Britain for independence.
This.
/thread

>>724558295
Im not an amerifat retard, i can walk at night without the fear of being shot :)

>>724558415

Care to share those stats?

Or are we moving into the realm of "Black people's crime percentage versus their population means Blacks do more crime" Scenario.

Which is of course the war cry of the far right and utter pish logic.

>>724558449
Because you probably have way less blacks.

>>724558446
>>724558361
Britain did not have tanks, automatic guns, helicopters, machineguns drones or planes :)

>>724558449
>Im not an amerifat retard
The crux of intellectual European debate.
Right here, folks.

Have fun when the Russian Bear starts clawing at Europe again.

>>724557649
>there's no comparison between today's US military and 1775 English army.
> America fought England during the revolution on a more even playing field

Not even remotely close. US troops were heavily out numbered and lacking in every other single department. The weapons stockpiles were small, and there wasn't even enough ammunition to properly fight. Food was scarce as hell because British ships caught off all trade routes in the ocean. It was the worst odds for the American forces, and they managed to succeed.

Just the American people now. The government will be at an advantage, but that doesn't mean they can't lose. If anything the American people are at a better advantage compared to the American people of 1775.

>>724558361
did you ever think it is entirely possible to overthrow a government without violence?

>>724558545
>Britain did not have tanks, automatic guns, helicopters, machineguns drones or planes :)

Relevance?

Just stop posting.

>>724554257
We have aboriginals

>>724558531
Every country has its share of scum, but not every country lets them have AKs

>>724558523
>Black people's crime percentage versus their population means Blacks do more crime

not the guy you're replying to, but would you care to explain what you mean there?

>>724553875
Except all those numbers are wrong jackass.

>>724558582
Fuck you are retarded

>>724558579
>did you ever think it is entirely possible to overthrow a government without violence?
Demonstrate it.
Provide one example in history where no violence was used to enforce acute ideological shift in governance.

>>724558174
71% of gunshot victims have previous arrest records.

Of black victims (50% of the victims) ~90% have arrest records.

>>724558601
Legal guns are almost never used in crimes. So your point is?

>>724553875
Because guns kill mostly blacks and the poor. And as long as that happens... nobody cares.

>>724557847
There's no saying that the military wouldn't be involved in a situation like this.

Even so, the whole point of living in a democratic society is to prevent tyranny in the first place. So for a government to reach the point of tyranny, you have to assume that democracy has been abandoned at this point. This would mean the government could ban firearms despite public opinion, making the right to bare firearms moot.

File: reichstag-mickey-mouse-berlin-victory-germany-soviet-union-red-flag.jpg (340KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

340KB, 1920x1080px

>>724558550
I will welcome them with open arms

>>724557805
>but i haven't seen a single redneck blazing gunz and unleashing hell when a plane crashed in one of their buildings
>terrorists died in the plane crash itself
>have no one to shoot
>haha, dumb gun supporters, you don't even use your guns!
>owning a gun somehow means you don't advocate for the use of 911

Tell me this was fucking bait.

>>724558676
>government could ban firearms
See 2nd amendment

No they can't.

>>724558703
>Tell me this was fucking bait.
Bait or liberal rantings. Is there a difference anymore?

>>724553875
The graph is skewed. You need to look at firearm deaths in major cities. Canada has way less urban areas vs the United States, about 15x less urban areas. If you correlate the stats based on major urban areas they come out oddly similar. Correlate the the stats based that way and figure in population in major urban areas vs firearm deaths and the United States actually has less per capita in major cities. You can't take 15x more major urban areas and correlate that with 10x the US population vs Canada. Painting broad strokes makes a shittier picture.

>>724558653
More guns= more gun crimes
Whats so fucking hard to understand damn, i live in fucking EE where old russians guns are in the millions and we still dont have shootings daily

>>724558138
You mean you learnt something other than American history in school? well jokes on you mate, they should have told you we dont get sunny days in the UK.

Aside from the mass shootings involving innocent civilians it is important to look at the majority of victims killed by homocide as the majority of homocides are criminal kills criminal kind of things. If some stupid niggers want to shoot each other over some drug related issues or something like that i couldn't care less tbh.

>>724558770
your goverment already destroyed free speech

>>724558833
Until you or one of your familymember caught in the crossfire

>>724558295
you live in a shithole
i can walk around wherever i want in my country without being afraid of getting shot by some random retard

>>724558804
Why is it so important to you that it is a gun crime?
Legal gun ownership reduces the overall amount of homicides. If you don't count black gang violence, you have a lower chance of getting killed in a country with guns than one without.

>>724558523
You can Google it just like I did. You really have no fucking idea. Any black person here will tell you places like Detroit and Chicago are fucking warzones. They are slaughtering each other.

I live in KC the fifth highest murder rate in the country. Last year 66% of the victims were black males and 55% were the shooters.

>>724558361
>They said the same thing about the US fighting Britain for independence.
And now the rednecks are saying the same thing about liberals fighting them for social justice. If you're so sure you can take down the government with guns even though you're poor and uneducated, what makes you think we can't take you down with guns (which we do in fact have) even though we're spoiled pussies.

>>724558612

It is what anti-black peeps use as an excuse for crime figures, white people do more crime in the US, but they use the population % to make it seem like Blacks do more crimes.

But it doesn't.

If Blacks do say 35% of all crimes, it doesn't matter if the population % is higher or lower, blacks still did 35%, while whites did over 60%.

Nothing will ever change that, but the far right and anti-black peeps have to invent these weird stats and reasons to sound like they are not as bad as the stats show in the first place.

>>724558847
Give me a single example of that.

Eurofags don't get it and never will.

No point in arguing.

>>724558649

I would like to see the stats of that from a reliable source.

>>724558922
Blacks commit over 50% of the murders and over 50% of all violent crime.

>>724558898
Except it doesnt as every fucking fact proves it, more guns = more gun crimes

>>724558568
seriously go look at a non american history book, french, english, native american. guaranteed they will tell you that the founding fathers did not in fact win the war single handedly, pooping out hardened nuggets to fire in their muskets and refining their own piss into saltpeter for gunpowder. thats really not how it worked. You know how much help you had from the french as well.

>>724558958
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/crime/bs-md-ci-cops-killers-victims-20160107-story.html

Here is baltimore, milwaukee, new york, and chicago had results similar or higher.

>>724556915
>Think of the chilluns!

>>724558645
no, i was asking you a question. why do we default to force and violence as best way to change. why not change people and generations later have a government that has completely different interests to the violence hungry ones before. people never thought gandhi would accomplish what he did. he literally changed the system and india is different today directly due to him.

>>724558579
durr every election in democratic countries, where you have a choice of more than 2 identical candidates, in all but their appearance.

>>724558905

Ahhh the "You have no fucking idea" childish attack, to somehow think you are right.

I asked to show the stats, but you have failed to do so.

I could easily go look on the FBI site etc, but the fact remains what was said was bullshit.

Prove me wrong with facts from reliable sources. Not much to ask, especially if you can "google" it.

>>724558922
So imagine you live in a town with 500 people.
Of those people 450 wear blue shirts and 50 red shirts. What if 50% of the crimes were committed by blueshirts and 50% by redshirts. Would you feel safer among people wearing blue shirts or people wearing red ones?

If you really are too dumb to see it being valid that one group has a higher likelihood to cause you harm because of these numbers I would like to stop arguing with you.

>>724553875

Cool now put up the graphic that shows how many of the gunrelated deaths are black people commiting crimes

>>724558321
>Endured. Not defeated.

Defeated. Not endured.

Britain was crippling the 13 colonies at the time. All the while haemorrhaging money because of mercantilism, in an attempt to retain control over the 13 colonies. Britain was driven out of the land of the 13 colonies, and forced to contend with them because they lost. The only reason Canada exists today was because of an attempt to stop the US forces from pushing north and securing North America as a whole from the British. A fight of attrition doesn't include the invading country from being driven out. That is called a defeat.

>>724558770
Can you read?

The second amendment is just a piece of paper. The only thing which gives it any power is a democracy. If the government becomes tyrannical, democracy is abandoned, therefor they can ban firearms

>>724558996
You are a retard. You failed to understand my post.

>>724559173
nope you fail to understand one equation

>>724558977

Thats a lie, whites do the most assaults still.

Murders yes, blacks are more by a few %.

But not violent crime.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2015/crime-in-the-u.s.-2015/tables/table-43

Unless you want to call the FBI liars, or say it is a conspiracy because it doesn't fit in to your way of thinking.

>>724558545
>Britain did not have tanks, automatic guns, helicopters, machineguns drones or planes :)

But they did have complete control over the Atlantic ocean and the largest military and Navy of the world at that time. Cutting off supplies and food from the US, along with consistent reinforcements from sea and Canada (not canada at the time).

Please, stop with this shit.

>>724559203
Less guns = less GUN crime
Less guns =/= less HOMICIDES

>>724559105

Doesn't matter the percentage of actual crime is the real story.

Because otherwise if your theory was true, that would insinuate that everyone is a criminal, which they are not.

You can try and hide behind the "population %" excuse all you want.

White people still do the most crimes in the US. No matter what you think.

We are dealing with % of actual crimes, not % of population.

>>724558579
>did you ever think it is entirely possible to overthrow a government without violence?

No one let's a coup happen lightly. Overthrowing implies the government has gotten past a point of no return, where normal means of change are no longer possible. Is it possible to change a government before it reaches that point? Of course, that is what democracy is for. It is when that no longer works, that we need weapons. When the people in power no longer follow the rules is when we need to remove them; by force.

File: 1348404239055.jpg (496KB, 1280x1947px) Image search: [Google]

496KB, 1280x1947px

When you become an adult, you realise that some problems don't have a straightforward, right or wrong answer. Gun laws are one such situation.

The UK has effectively banned guns. Gun crime is a tiny percentage of that in the US. But, violent crime is, overall, about 3 times higher. The deterrent effect is very real. That, and due to various cultural reasons, defending yourself and your property with lethal force is generally seen as okay in the US, whilst it is very unacceptable in the UK.

So, the question becomes: Do we legalise guns, have a much lower crime rate overall, but inevitably some innocent people die? At what point do the numbers become acceptable or unacceptable?

>>724558922
You need to look at violent crime statistics not overall crime. White people are the majority so general crime is higher, if you look at violent crime correlated by race blacks are more likely to commit violent crimes. They account for over half of violent crimes in the US and are less than 13% of the population. Math isn't racist.

>>724559100
God damn you are lazy

http://kcmo.gov/police/homicide-3/crime-stats/#.WL14pdVMESY

That's from my local government.

Here is national for one year you can search other years as well

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_6_murder_race_and_sex_of_vicitm_by_race_and_sex_of_offender_2013.xls

>>724553875
niggers make up the most of these numbers

>>724559230

"Complete control over the Atlantic"

Yeahhhhhh I don't think you understood that at all...

Nobody had "Control" over the Atlantic. Spanish, French and Dutch ships still sailed in it, still had battles with everyone else in it.

>>724553875
That's because niggers and towelheads keep getting their hands on guns illegally. What we really need to ban are the niggers.

>>724558898
my contry has no guns, it also has no black gang violence. coincidence?

>>724559213
Yes, and FBI statistics don't consider spics as a race.

Reduce white numbers by amount of spics and whites are below blacks in pretty much every category and in summation of violent crime.

>>724559347
You are actually dumb as brick, I'm sorry.

It's basic calculation of probability.

What if we are talking about the number of crimes being evenly split over 10000 people and 10. Would you still not see that if you meet one of each group the LIKELIHOODS of them killing you would differ?

>>724559392

Try looking at the stats here instead

>>724559213

Also you are reading the FBI link wrong, you have just proved me right, man can't you read the data correctly?

>>724559230
Still, todays military is much much different that 1700s, you cant kill a tank with a shotgun or a semi ar 15, back then there was cav, artx and muskets, both side had those, also reinforments took a long time to arrive and americans could feed themself from the corps that grew in american soil you fag

>>724558914
If you at all think the situation of Britain controlling and oppressing the 13 colonies is anywhere near the same as some dumb rednecks yelling at the liberals for liking gays, you are a fucking idiot.

Also, just to speak about that situation which you somehow pried into this irrelevant discussion, maybe stop calling them all poor and uneducated when you tell them to stop calling all gays and blacks worthless. But hey, that's just a thought.

Just because I support the second amendment, doesn't mean I'm republican, or democratic, or even American.

>>724559385

No they don't.

Again have a look at https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2015/crime-in-the-u.s.-2015/tables/table-43

And show me where they are 50% of all violent crime again.

>>724554623
We need negative and positive. To keep the balance.

>>724559213
Blacks are 13% of the total population. Look at the numbers vs whites and let that sink in.

>>724559520

Probability has nothing to do with it, don't be fucking retarded.

It is based on actual crimes committed and whites do the most crime. No matter what you try to and pull out of your Safe Spot ass.

>>724559026
> seriously go look at a non american history book, french, english, native american.
>you know how much help you had from the french as well.

Again, I'm not American. As well, I have a degree in history, so I can assure you I have read textbooks and articles that are not from Americans. I never said America fought Britain singlehandedly, and I know the French helped, but it isn't anywhere near what every America hater likes to think. Fighting Britain was generally seen as the worst decision the US could of made at that time. They fought a war everyone believed they should have lost, and they didn't.

>>724558449
Enjoy your night walk getting beheaded by Mohammad and letting him fuck and kill your bitch.

>>724559583
Not the guy you replied to, but they are (vastly) overrepresented in everything except for drunk driving.

And they commit 51,1% of all murders/manslaughters

>>724559357
This anon understands it. The situation as a whole is very complex.

>>724558601
You think Tyrone buys his WASR from the LGS? No. He stole that and his Hi-Point, I can tell you that.

>>724559515

Provide actual figures of "spics" who committed crimes from the white amounts?

Oh wait you cannot right?

But I can..

If you scrolled down.

"Of arrestees for whom ethnicity was reported, 18.4 percent were Hispanic."

18.4% of 2015 crimes by whites which is 5,757,212 = 1,059,327

So 5,757,212 - 1,059,327 = 4,697,885 white crimes committed

4,697,885 vs 2,197,140 blacks =/= more blacks.

Try again.

>>724558361
A lot of the reason America won was that they used guerrilla warfare, especially in the swampy areas of the Carolinas.

They outsmarted the Brits. There wouldn't be such an advantage this time.

>>724559789

But not for all violent crime right? Which is what everyone has been thinking in here.

>>724559437
They effectively did. Mercantilism was the prime method of economics within Britain and the 13 colonies. The 13 colonies trying to trade with other countries, and vice versa, were stopped by British ships and punished.

Complete control as in no other ship was in the waters? No. Complete control over the affairs of Britain and the 13 colonies? Yessir.

File: 1483378983791.jpg (333KB, 1280x1707px) Image search: [Google]

333KB, 1280x1707px

>>724553875

https://youtu.be/H5iJisdpriY

>>724559105
Well, different anon here, but let's take a similar scenario. (I'm only changing the numbers to make them more convenient to do math with, it shouldn't change the rhetoric.)

Suppose you have 50 X responsible for 50% of crime in Z and 5 Y responsible for 50% of crime in Z. Then suppose, that in the entire world, there are 100 X and 100 Y. It's true, that IN Z, each Y is on average 10% responsible for crime, and each X is on average only 1% responsible for crime. This makes an arbitrary Y 10 times as likely to be a criminal as an arbitrary X -- IN Z.

HOWEVER, the 50 X who live in Z are 50% of all X IN THE WORLD. On the other hand, the 5 Y who live in Z are only 20% of all Y in the world. The 5 Y who are responsible for 50% of crime in Z are a much poorer representative sample of Y as a global demographic than the 50 X are of X. This poorly chosen representative sample is at least as apt an explanation of the disproportionate results as it would be to brazenly infer that Y in general are much more criminal than X on a global scale.

>>724560006

The Atlantic Ocean is not just off the east coast of North America. It is huge and runs to Europe also.

They did NOT have control over the Atlantic at all, they had control of most of the eastern seaboard of the US, but not the Carribean or around Canada.

File: Are you retarded FBI.jpg (278KB, 1680x1050px) Image search: [Google]

278KB, 1680x1050px

>>724559939
You should read the data better.

>>724558568
Got nothing against patriotism, and you are right to feel proud of your country, but Indep War did not really went that way.

French naval program launched after defeat at Les Cardinaux against brit navy resulted in 1760 by french navy being for once stronger than brit one.
Hence naval battle of Chesapeake Bay, blocus imposed to brit field forces (including not so motivated mercenaries from Hesse, german state) and easy landing for helping troops led by De Rochambeau (CO of La Fayette).

US indep is the result of a power switch in Europe, Fr being more than happy to fuck over Uk this once by opening a war theatre overseas and messing up with their colonies (like US did with... UK and FR colonies in the sixties).

Still, great and courageous move to go against UK from US people at the time, no doubt.

>>724560176

You are going to give the poor guy a haemorrhage

File: 0022.jpg (62KB, 612x459px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 612x459px

>>724554135
>be me
>start reading threat
>first post and a burger has already proven how fucking stupid they are
>mfw

>>724559699
This is my last attempt before I am done with your dumb ass.

Imagine you are on a prize show. There are two pots with little balls inside of them. A white one and a black one. You win a million dollars if you draw a golden ball. The host of the game show tells you the white pot has 1970 balls in total of which 46 are gold and the black pot has 370 balls in total of which 51 are gold. Which pot would you try to get a golden ball?

Too bad in real life the price is manslaugher/murder

>>724559544
You don't necessarily have to have a tank to destroy another tank. Kill the men around it, set it on fire, anything. Take control of it and it isn yours.

No one said the fight would be easy, or even fair. It was much the same for the 13 colonies against the British. They had cannons, ships, everything. All the 13 colonies had were some guns and horses.

> americans could feed themself from the corps that grew in american soil you fag

Wow I wonder why every nation that starved didn't just eat their crops. Maybe it's because the opposing force took them, or poisoned them, or took the seeds to plant them, the tills to grow them, or the very fact you can't grow an entire crop to feed an army every fucking time you move cities. Holy shit man, don't be fucking retarded.

>>724559140
You're forgetting the help France and Spain gave you.

>>724553875
test

>>724559442
Yeah, because no other country has those.

>>724559583
First and foremost I'm not relying on white crime being misrepresented by being lumped in with Hispanics. Second violent crime statistics from 2013 and back only included rape, murder, armed robbery and agrivated assault. Including a bunch of new crimes in the violent category has even further skewed the stats. Third even so, blacks account for 12.2% of the total population and still manage to kill more people than the rest of races combined. How thick is your skull? How can anybody say white people including hispanics are more violent than blacks with a straight face?

>>724559978
> They outsmarted the Brits. There wouldn't be such an advantage this time.

How would there not be? The US government isn't all knowing. Humans can still be flanked, and tricked, and killed. What are you talking about? Even the fucking arabs in the middle east are beating the US forces using those very same gorilla tactics.

>>724560176
If I follow your logic correctly your argument is that blacks in other places in the world might be committing less crime than whites, but only in the US it's the other way around?

>>724560334
International help didn't come immediately. Guerrilla warfare and endurance by American forces bought them a lot of time.

>>724560224

So let me get this straight, first you said the white numbers included "spics" now... they don't.

Now I want you to look at the table again...

Look at the total and notice the 2 symbol... scroll down

It says " The ethnicity totals are representative of those agencies that provided ethnicity breakdowns. Not all agencies provide ethnicity data; therefore, the race and ethnicity totals will not equal."

However at the very bottom of all the tables is this...


Arrests, by Race and Ethnicity, 2015
In 2015, 69.7 percent of all individuals arrested were White, 26.6 percent were Black or African American, and 3.6 percent were of other races.
Of arrestees for whom ethnicity was reported, 18.4 percent were Hispanic.
Of all juveniles (persons under the age of 18) arrested in 2015, 62.9 percent were White, 33.9 percent were Black or African American, and 3.1 percent were of other races.
Of juvenile arrestees for whom ethnicity was reported, 22.8 percent were Hispanic.
Of all adults arrested in 2015, 70.4 percent were White, 26.0 percent were Black or African American, and 3.7 percent were of other races.
Of adult arrestees for whom ethnicity was reported, 18.0 were Hispanic.
White individuals were arrested more often for violent crimes than individuals of any other race and accounted for 60.1 percent of those arrests.
Of adults arrested for murder, 50.4 percent were Black or African American, 46.5 percent were White, and 3.1 percent were of other races.
Black or African American juveniles comprised 50.8 percent of all juveniles arrested for violent crimes. White juveniles accounted for 59.1 percent of all juveniles arrested for property crimes.
Of juveniles arrested for drug abuse violations, 75.0 percent were White.
White juveniles comprised 55.7 percent of juveniles arrested for aggravated assault and 60.5 percent of juveniles arrested for larceny-theft.

That should give an idea.

Still doesn't mean Blacks do more crime.

Keep digging though.

>>724554230
Except Australia did have mass shootings prior to banning guns. Sounds like you're the one that tries to use an unrelated scenario as a counterargument, which is that people in NZ are more civilized.

>>724560177

>They did NOT have control over the Atlantic at all, they had control of most of the eastern seaboard of the US, but not the Carribean or around Canada.

Those are the places they had some of the most control.

The French couldn't protect shit on the Canadian coast, and were already being driven out by the British at that time.

The Caribbean was a large depot for goods of the 13 colonies and Britain. This triangle of mercantilism is exactly what gave them as much power as they accumulated.

>>724560426
Exactly, the mideast isn't the US's home turf.

The Brits knew almost nothing of guerrilla warfare in the 1770's.

There are a number of reasons the colonists win, but chief among them I'd the use of tactics innovated by Francis Marion and others in the Southern colonies. The Brits didn't believe the Americans were fighting fair.

Do you honestly believe the colonists would have won if the war had been fought in Britain?

And you're ignoring the fact that any such uprising in America wild be put down by air, not on the ground.

>>724560285

Doesn't matter crime is based on actual criminal events, not "probability".

"Oh yeah sarge today is going to be a doozy"

"Why is that super intendent?"

"Because probability says 50% of blacks going to be killing today."

"Oh shit son."

See how that sounds retarded.

Again, crime is measured by actual crimes committed, not what maybe will happen or could happen.

So I think your own dumb ass needs to sit down and look up some keywords

Statistical Data
Probability and Chance

And actually get the real meaning of each.

Because whatever sesame street education you have had is obviously wrong.

What's next, New Orleans Saints will win 25.3% Superbowls because probability?

>>724560407

Doesn't matter, again people think stupidly.

Crime stats are on actual crimes done, not what is possibly going to happen.

Now.. if the black population and white population were the same, then you could use that argument, but you can't. It is not proportionate.

Whites do more crimes, end of story. It is statistically shown on the FBI site. They do millions more. Simple as that.

>>724560298
you are simply dumb

>>724560679
Just stop.

You cannot argue that if 1 black and 1 white are in the same room as you, the black is more likely to kill you. Even if the chance of that is very low.

You are the one that is trying to make this about more than likelihood and act as if that is MY argument. Stop strawmanning and stop moving the goalposts.

>>724559753
lol we dont have isis here

>>724560251
> Got nothing against patriotism, and you are right to feel proud of your country, but Indep War did not really went that way.

Holy shit I wish /b/ still had fucking ID's to prevent everyone from looking like the same person. I'm not American, I'm Canadian. I just have a degree in history and understand American history.

> US indep is the result of a power switch in Europe, Fr being more than happy to fuck over Uk this once by opening a war theatre overseas and messing up with their colonies

I disagree with this. While the French were waging a war against Britain at the time, it is completely irrelevant from the independence war itself. Did France see it as a time where British forces were being split? Sure, but it wasn't the cause of the Indep War, just a happy coincidence. A bonus if you will. Tension was already high within Europe, and both wars occurred (unluckily) at once. The 13 colonies were being majorly fucked by mercantilism being instilled by the British. They couldn't trade with anyone, and were losing money fucking fast, not to mention the British preventing them from moving West past the Appalachian mountains, and the whole taxation shit.

>>724559350
how do we fix an ingrained culture of corruption amongst those with power? democracy gives our elected leaders power and some of those abuse it horribly. the obvious issue here is power, and while guns may seem like a solution, we need to deal with the fact the our current system is corruptible and harmful. i'm not saying get rid of democracy, its the best we have. but we need to get to the root of the problem and make prevention the goal and not focus on the cure.

>>724560904
>You cannot argue
You cannot argue against*

>>724559911
Yes and the gun he stole just materilazed from thin air

>>724560427
Close, but not quite. My argument is that the percent of crime which is black crime divided by the percent of people who are blacks may be lesser when examined on a global scale than when examined for the sole case of the US. Having it be less than 1 for all cases except that of the US just because it's greater than 1 in the case of the US would be sufficient grounds to demonstrate this hypothesis, but not necessary grounds. There are other ways it could be true.

>>724560491
63% of the country is white and whites accounted for 69% of arrests

17% of the country is Hispanic and Hispanic people accounted for 18% of arrests

12% of the country is black and blacks accounted for 33% of arrests.

One of these stats is not like the other, one of these stats doesn't belong. Can you guess which one?

>>724560334
> You're forgetting the help France and Spain gave you.

Spain barely did shit, more of a vote of confidence. France helped at the very ass end of the war, when the war was essentially already finished.

>>724553875
Because fuck you I love my guns and I'll part with them when I die. That's the only reason I goddamn have and need.

>>724560950
1: we do not have data that proves or falsifies your theory

2: we are talking about the US

>>724561021
>gets shot the next day

>>724560904

And what if the Black Guy is say Obama and the white guy is Manson.

Who is going to kill me?

Again it doesn't matter what the probability is for the population is.

Crimes committed is what is paramount, it is the actual amount, not maybes, ifs or what ifs.

Again you are clearly anti-black in your head, because nobody in their right minds would use your excuse, except for those trying to paint a different picture against blacks.

You know who you are copying?

The Nazis they used the exact same technique against Jews to stir hatred for them.

Grats, I am sure Adolf is proud of you son.

>>724561058
1. Indeed we don't. So let's not act like we have data that falsifies it. That was my main point, really.

2. Yeah but muh racism.

>>724560664
The people revolting against the US government also live there too. It's their home turf as well. They have an equal advantage, if not a large advantage. You can pose as a civilian, much like the arabs do in the middle east, and destroy from within.

> And you're ignoring the fact that any such uprising in America wild be put down by air, not on the ground.

I doubt it. It is their own land as well. Destroying itself with air strikes isn't going to be beneficial. Not to mention, you can bet it won't be a standard open affair like the US v Middle East, or US v Britain. It's going to be a war of car bombings, shootings, etc. The government would still have to put boots on the ground to occupy a space, that which leaves them vulnerable.

It wouldn't be easy, but it sure as shit would be impossible.

>>724560830
Adjust crimes per 100,000 people and tell me whites commit more crimes. Let's say every person in America is a pot smoker than we can say white people are the worst pot smokers because they account for 63% of all the pot smokers. They are obviously the worst of all the pot smokers even though everybody smokes pot. That's your logic.

>>724561226
Wouldn't*

File: everybody i don't like is hitler.jpg (44KB, 600x774px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 600x774px

>>724561139
>And what if the Black Guy is say Obama and the white guy is Manson.

You are -again- confused about the term likelihood.

>Again it doesn't matter what the probability is for the population is.

Yes it does

>Again you are clearly anti-black in your head, because nobody in their right minds would use your excuse, except for those trying to paint a different picture against blacks.

>You know who you are copying?

>The Nazis they used the exact same technique against Jews to stir hatred for them.

>Grats, I am sure Adolf is proud of you son.

You are a troll
7/10 for wasting my time

>>724560860
Coming from the anon that told me they wouldn't starve because they should just eat food. Can't believe no one thought of that.

>>724560981
Don't try to trick us with that amerimath.

>>724560981

Still 69% whites did the most crimes.

No matter how you try and cherry coat it.

It is right there in your own post.

69% of crimes were whites.

Also your maths is shit.

69+33 =/= 100

>>724561153
>1. Indeed we don't. So let's not act like we have data that falsifies it. That was my main point, really.

Then I guess we mostly agree.

If data would show that blacks are not more likely to commit crimes, I would be convinced. I hope such data would show up, believe me.

>>724561226
You're not going to destroy the US with a few tactical airstrikes.

Are you 5?

>>724561275

And you are confused again by the fact crime is reported by ACTUAL crimes committed, not probability or likelihood.

So again Probability means diddly squat.

In crimes actually committed, whites are on top. No if's but's or maybe's or "probability" or "likelihood"

Whites do more crimes, not blacks.

Figures show it, whites do more crimes. Millions more.

"But... if I use probability it will shift the blame away from whites to blacks because American logic and maths"

You sound like a retarded redneck.

Out of 8m crimes in 2015... over 60% were white. Not blacks, not hispanics, not asians, not muslims, not indians. But whites.

Simple as that.

>>724560926
> the obvious issue here is power, and while guns may seem like a solution

Guns aren't the solution; to this problem at least. You are confusing the two situations. I am saying guns are important for when the government has crossed a point of no return, where voting no longer matters and you need to rebuild the nation.

> how do we fix an ingrained culture of corruption amongst those with power?

This is the situation we need to fix to hopefully never reach the point where we need to use weapons. It begins by access to information. Education. Having an uneducated populace and lack of access to information results in a culture of corruption. We need to be serious about holding those in power responsible. Politician lied to us? Instead of just tweeting about it, we need to eject them from office, protest, etc. We too often just sit on our ass and yell at the tv screen. Will some of these changes come through violence? Maybe, let's hope not. But we will see in the future I suppose.

>but we need to get to the root of the problem and make prevention the goal and not focus on the cure.

I agree. Prevention should be the name of the game, but that doesn't mean I won't allow citizens to be prepared if that fails. Just like a workplace, you put as many safety barriers in place to prevent the worst, but sometimes they fail, whether that is by nature or by willful ignorance. When that moment comes, we need to be ready.

>>724561275

however you would be singing a different tune if someone to pick the crimes in a mostly black populace with whites coming out on top via likelihood. tell me would you blame whites then? or would you revert back to actual crime numbers?

>>724561559
This is quite possibly the most retarded logic I have ever heard in my whole time on this planet.

>>724561473
Great hyperbole. When the fuck did I imply that? I said air strikes destroy itself, as in the buildings that people occupy, or defend themselves in, are also owned by the government itself.

Every piece of property they destroy cripples themselves as well. This goes for both sides. I was simply explaining that air superiority isn't as simple or effective as you might think. We aren't bombing buildings in the middle east, they would be bombing their own schools and hospitals and such. This makes air control more difficult and nuanced.

>>724561789

Tell me in 2015 who did the most crimes out of all crimes committed?

Simple question.

>>724561349
So accountability by capita means shit? We are just looking at totals? Even though a black person is 3x more likely to commit a crime than a white person and almost 10x more likely to commit a violent crime vs a white person, Since the total number is higher than blacks that means blacks are safer than whites. You should move into the hood and test your maths.

>>724561559
You are completely right. I'm gonna scoop up some of that cheap south side Chicago real estate and move my family in ASAP. According to you it's statistically safer than the lily white suburbs.

>>724557358
and of course you are going to fight off bombers and aircraft carriers with a collection of hunting rifles.

>>724561932

Doesn't matter who is "likely" to do a crime. Actual crimes is what counts.

Anyone in the USA is capable of doing a crime no matter the race. But again we aren't dealing with ifs or maybes, we are dealing with actual acts of crime.

In 2015, whites did the most crime. Fact.
In 2014, whites did the most crime. Fact.
In 2013, whites did the most crime. Fact.
In 2012, whites did the most crime. Fact.
In 2011, whites did the most crime. Fact.
In 2010, whites did the most crime. Fact.

And so on and so on.

Blacks have never in the history of the USA did the most crime, unless that changes in the future when they do more actual crimes than whites.

Until then... whites have done the most crime.

>>724554563
60% of gun deaths in the us are from suicide.

>>724562144

Now you are being pedantic, if you move into a black gang controlled area you are likely to be attacked or robbed by a black person, yes.

But in the US.

From all crimes committed.

Whites are on top.

No matter what situational idea you have in your head.

>>724562174
I don't think you understand statistics or probability. I think the math courses they are teaching at "Black Lives Matter University" are not up to worldwide math standards. I can't figure out if you are trolling or just plain dull.

>>724562174
You mean white people who make up roughly %50 of the population did something more than %10 of the population?
Shocking.
How's community college/high school going?
White people ate more food than black people
Fact
White people have more clothes than black people
Fact
You're retarded and incapable of understanding crime rates
Fact

>>724559567
>If you at all think the situation of Britain controlling and oppressing the 13 colonies is anywhere near the same as some dumb rednecks yelling at the liberals for liking gays, you are a fucking idiot.
It may not be the same for me, but it's the same for the people I'm fighting with. In today's US culture, alt right ideals have a social influence comparable to the force of law -- and not just because of our new president. Government should be a social contract. When a de facto government body is established by force within a larger nation, that government is not a contract; it's just a ball of spit wrapped up in a lot of blank paper. It is of course the right and civil responsibility of my diverse supportees to metaphorically refuse to sign such a document.

>maybe stop calling them all poor and uneducated when you tell them to stop calling all gays and blacks worthless. But hey, that's just a thought.
But it's not an insult. It's not even something they chose. It's an artifact of economic oppression. Who honestly thinks people choose to be poor and uneducated? Oh, wait, poor and uneducated people do. I forgot they actually express that opinion quite vocally, usually about other people in their situation, not themselves. God, it's like when a girl is fat because she has binge eating disorder. "They have no right to treat you that way just because you're fat." "Oh my god you're RIGHT, I'm so FAT!! *sobs uncontrollably into cake while also eating it*" "That wasn't even my point. Besides, it's not your fault. You got this way from eating to cope with being raped, remember? Don't feel bad, you're still beautiful even at this size, this isn't the end of the world." "IT'S TOTALLY THE END OF THE WORLD *snorts icing like cocaine* I'M A HORRIBLE PERSON, THERE ARE CHILDREN STARVING IN AFRICA AND IT'S ALL BECAUSE OF ME *literally drinks cake seasoned with her own tears* GET ME A GUN I'LL EAT THAT TOO"

>>724562389

Here is the problem.

When I first posted in this thread I said.

"Whites do more crime than blacks"

And from that people jumped in with

Probability, likelihood etc
Spics are included in the white numbers
And a few more excuses

The anti-blacks and far right in this thread have tried sooooo hard to try and bring probability and situational ideas into the mix.

But the reality is I said Whites do more crimes than blacks. And that is statistically correct.

They do more crimes than blacks every single year.

Not once did I mention that Whites are more likely to commit crimes, nope. The others did. And tried to turn the argument from what I said to their way of thinking.

That is extremist in thought, and propagandist in nature.

So again I will say the simple truth.

Whites do more crimes than Blacks.

>>724562174
13% of the population commit half of the murders. Fact.

>>724562533
According to statistics white people eat mire fried chicken and watermelon in the United States each year....FACT!

>>724562656
Oh man you got us hurrdurr

>>724562161
I've already answered this. read the whole thread

File: Grand Fagus.jpg (62KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 600x450px

>>724562762

Not my fault, Americans jump to conclusions and assumptions without actually reading fully and correctly.

For the last 1hr and 30 mins people have cried like kids over the fact they couldn't read.

>>724553875
Most gun crime in the US is committed by people who acquired their guns illegally

File: 1488145631543.jpg (299KB, 2000x1333px) Image search: [Google]

299KB, 2000x1333px

>>724553875
After removing gun crimes committed by blacks and hispanics, the US has a gun crime rate lower than Belgium.

>>724562869
When you found out you were autistic how did it change your daily life?

>>724562637
I'm not kidding you, I actually couldn't understand what you wrote in the second part of your comment. If you're going to do that, structure it better. Goddamn.

> In today's US culture, alt right ideals have a social influence comparable to the force of law

Complete and utter hyperbole. I'm not saying this situation in current day US is not important, but it is no where comparable to the situation in 1775.

> Government should be a social contract. When a de facto government body is established by force within a larger nation, that government is not a contract; it's just a ball of spit wrapped up in a lot of blank paper.

I agree that it should be a social contract, and as far as I can see, it is. This government was not established by force, but rather by voting. Do I agree with the current vote? No, I too think this is not the correct direction for the US to take, but I'm definitely not going to say this government was established by force. I genuinely encourage people to debate and to arm themselves, demanding that the government change to the will of the people. Seriously you are being hyperbolic when you say this is comparable to 1775. I get you may feel somehow more personal about it, but be objective here. It's a bad situation the US is in, but the government still serves the people (for now, anyways), as opposed to when Britain did not.

Uk law says you get an extra year sentenced for each bullet, guys dont kill but they stab people in the face instead, which isnt lethal but sends a clear message