Hi /k/ Here's this thing. Http://www.politicalgarbagec

>>21894964
Didn't even read the article yet, but I personally would not invite a comparison to such things. Not only does bringing up cars bring up registration and licenses, bringing up drugs brings up the negative implication that it is a vice.

Treat everything as is and use logic, not metaphors to a different set of laws.

>>21894981
I live in Australia where both cars and guns have licences and registration so I feels it's a rough comparison.

Anyway, that article fucking dum. He uses the very tired argument of 'a gun is designed to kill people' rather than what it's actually used for.

Apparently by his logic he wouldn't want more restrictions on cars if people started using them as common murder tools running people down

>>21894981
You can make good comparisons to cars as long as you're not the one to bring it up.

>>21895017
*dumb.

Now I feel like a dunce

You are right, the difference for cars and drugs is they aren't a right

>>21895027
Cars are lumped in with freedom of movement.

>>21894964
>But a saw can’t be used to kill 28 people in less than an hour’s worth of time.
I feel like I could kill 28 people in an hour with a saw. I dunno, though. But I sure as shit could kill more than that in an hour with a gun.

>>21894981
I think the main point of pro gunners when bringing up the car comparison is needless deaths. If the gubment was concerned with stopping unnecessary deaths, they would do something about or deadly highways, and not focus so much on gun control. This suggests a hidden agenda.
The article clearly misses the point and like most anti gunners, attempt to discredit pro gunners by insulting our intelligence, etc...doesn't really matter

tl;dr:
But guns were designed to kill!
The second amendment was for national defense!
Drugs only cause problems when abused!
Seriously, guns have no purpose but to kill!
And killing bad guys is nigh irrelevant!
You can't beat the US military, but you can't own weapons that could beat the US military!

It's like a happy little compendium of all the arguments they use in all their logical fallacies.

>>21895068
Oh, that's right, >>21895055, I forgot one.

>Gun owners are STOOPID!

>>21895055
Comparing gun laws to cars also helps highlight the absurdities of gun laws.

>>21895080
They just love the ad homonium attacks, but hey, so do we.

I think we hit a nerve with the car thing. They wouldn't be getting so assblasted if we didn't.

>>21895098
Kek, you're probably right

>>21895086
Well, sure. But you won't see me writing an article claiming that they're all illogical mouth-breathing sycophants. I think many of them are just tall children that will eventually find the light with guidance.

File: Laughing.gif (2MB, 390x271px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 390x271px

>>21895098
I didn't even think about that. You're pretty spot on, though. Excellent. I know it unhinged an ex of mine when I mentioned that statistically she would kill more people with her Honda than I would with all my guns.

>>21895068
>But guns were designed to kill!
Yep, and it's my right to defend myself with lethal force if that proves necessary to save myself from great bodily harm or death - same reason Police Officers carry guns. Do you think cops carry guns only to murder people?
>The second amendment was for national defense!
Yep, so that all able bodied males could bring their rifles and be proficient with that rifle and basic infantry tactics as to defend the US from an invading force, or topple a corrupt government
>Drugs only cause problems when abused!
Yeah, that's why we needed the FDA to test out drugs before they're sold or prescribed.. because bad things with drugs don't happen from allergies, production flaws, or anything else like that.
>Seriously, guns have no purpose but to kill!
Yep, and it's your right and my right and every other lawful citizens' right to use lethal force to protect ourselves and our loved ones.
The police and the state have absolutely no legal obligation to protect you from harm. I am not willing to bet my life on a 911 call.
>And killing bad guys is nigh irrelevant!
It's pretty relevant when that bad guy is about to kill you or your family, or even a total stranger.
>You can't beat the US military, but you can't own weapons that could beat the US military!

Right, that's why illiterate goat herders with cell phones and 60+ year old AK's and no infantry or marksmanship skills whatsoever have kept the US and other coalition forces mired in serious bullshit in OIF and OEF for all of these years.

Factor in that a large number of gun owners are prior military, and that while US legal firearms are rarely full-auto, we've gotten pretty good at shooting accurately at long distances with much higher quality rifles.
Do YOU want to stand on a streetcorner as martial law is declared, and hope that someone with a good deer rifle doesn't think you're the most important dickhead on that corner?


I like being a compendium of good counter-points.

>>21895098
Okay so for making comparisons between guns and cars how should we do it? I'm thinking:

Gas tank=mag size
Fuel economy=caliber

But I'm not really sure where else to take it. How would thinks like collapsible stocks or cargo room work with an analogy.

>www.politicalgarbagechute.com
Sounds like a liberal news site.

>>21894964
>A gun has no benign purpose

What a surprise, this person doesn't know shit.

>>21895139

I've done it before. There was an old man that lost his mind at the wheel in Kali somewhere, drove through an open air market packed with people and seriously injured 50 or 60 people, and a few died.

Took him less than 20 seconds to hurt all those people with his Assault Buick with its fully automatic transmission and high capacity fuel tank.

>>21895139
you can bring in engine size too, who really NEEDZ a V8?

>>21895068
Guns aren't designed to kill. They're designed to throw a lump of lead at high speed.

>>21895151
Honestly you'll have to be more specific. People plowing through large gatherings with their car isn't exactly a rare event.

>>21895132
#REKT 2.0: the Postening

>>21895153
Why do you need a car that can go faster then 65mph?

Every car should have a governor that restricts speed (mag limits) no one needs 100mph to go shopping

> Guns don't equal drugs
> Guns equal slavery

>>21895155
Cars aren't designed to transport. They're designed to propel a mass of metal and plastic at high speed.

>>21895153
To operate a motor vehicle in California it has to have six cylinders or less, be restricted to no more than eight gallons of fuel at a time, said fuel can be no higher than 88 octane and must be at least 85% ethanol.

>>21895175
Well, most guns in the US are used against 2 liters, soda cans and paper. And steel gongs.

>>21895151
>fully automatic transmission
Oh fuck that's brilliant.
>Why do you need a fully automatic transmission, are you trying to drive somewhere fast? Are you trying to get away from someone?

I just have to say though, I can't argue against the "guns were designed to kill thing", but so what? That argument seems like the worst attempt at grasping for straws compared to most other arguments they make.

>>21895172
That's too much. Studies show that your risk of death increases dramatically in crashes over 40mph, ergo I propose that new cars be designed so that they cannot exceed this limit. Older cars will be permitted as long as limiters are installed to bring them in line.

>>21895190
If the government said "yes, we will be putting devices in your cars that prevent you from driving over X speed", there would be a massive blowback.
>at least, I hope so

>>21895198
Have you never heard the song, "Can't Drive 55?"

>You definitely should not give that much a shit about his opinions.

Says it all right there.

>>21895139
Vehicle size/weight is pretty related to stoppin powah.
Speed is related to rate of fire, because if we limited cars to 10 mph, most people would be able to escape after the first attack, much like the arguments against semi-auto and full retard.
Mufflers turn the cars into silent death machines that allow you to murder thousands before anyone hears, much like a silencer. Hybrids, too.
Of course, public transportation = cops and soldiers. You don't NEED to drive. Hire the professionals for that. And call an ambulance if you want to take a family member to the hospital. They always make it on time, no matter where you live.
Gas tank does work with assault clips, as you pointed out. If you have to refuel every few miles, you can't use your car to run over Obama without someone noticing you getting closer.
Adjustable stocks and pistol grips are power steering and adjustable seats. Purely for ease of use and comfort.
Shoulder things that go up are like seat belts. Only psychopathic spree killers planning to run into dozens of people would bother to use one, since they have no other purpose.
Flash hiders are windshield wipers.

>>21895200
Now I have lel.

>>21895139
>brush guards = the shoulder thing that goes up
>full auto = automatic transmission
>body kits = changing the stock

Gunz are ONLY MENT 2 KILL!!111!!one!. Allow me to show you this starting pistol or these beanbag rounds.

The question is , though , why do you NEED more than one car? You can only drive one at a time. Are you trying to compensate for your small penis?

Excuse me. What no one here seems to be addressing is the likelihood of an unlicensed user stealing your car and using it to kill people. All cars should be registered only to one person, and require retinal scanning throughout the journey to prevent the deathmobile operator from letting someone else use the car. What if they get carjacked? Without retinal scanners, bad guys are likely to break out the window, unlock the door, unbuckle the seat belt, put the car in park, drag the person out, get in the car, and run the person over.
Also, your car should be stored in a government approved facility, and GPS tracking needs to be required. Because all murderers with cars were once good guys with cars until they decided to kill. So GPS tracking would help cops find the criminal. And remote disabling is also necessary, so the police can stop a rampage in progress.

>>21895239

The question is, though, why do you NEED more than one Apple product? You can only use one at a time. Are you trying to compensate for your small processor?

>>21895239
Why do you talk about cars all the time? Are you planning on running over children at the playground!?!?
I've never driven in my life, but let me tell you all the things about cars you shouldn't be allowed to do because I would probably fuck up.

File: chrome harbinger.png (56KB, 821x401px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 821x401px

>>21895245
/o/ says hi.

>>21895239
I hear the same thing about people who drive large vehicles, so yeah I guess that is true lol.
I guess nobody is allowed to enjoy their respective hobby without being insulted in some way.

>>21895247
The question is, though , why do you need 93 octane? 93 octane is only for ASSAULT ENGINES and have no place near my children. Why do you need an engine that takes that much octane?

You must syphon all of your gas out of the tank and keep it in a locked garage that is attached to your domicile while it is not in use

>>21895261
I think it's ridiculous. If you want to have the Ford Z4000 V12 model then by all means... go get it. People just find reasons to throw insults since their jealous their car can't drive over buildings.

>>21895263
The question is, though, why do you NEED third row seating in an SUV? You can only drive to one soccer game at a time. Are you trying to compensate for your lack of kidnapped children?

>>21895239
If I get penis reduction surgery, does it come with a free monster truck? How small are we talking here?

>>21895277
The question is, though, why do you need off road tires when there are paved city streets everywhere? you don't need to go offroad. Are you planning on killing my children?

File: 1396342053128.jpg (23KB, 400x300px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 400x300px

This whole thread.

>>21895132
>>But guns were designed to kill!
>Yep, and it's my right to defend myself with lethal force if that proves necessary

Thank you. I hate it when our side shies away from that with idiot statements like, "No, it's designed to throw bits of lead at high speed in a straight line!" Killing is tragic, but not necessarily wrong.

>>21895295
The retard even says that in the article, but then kinda wanders off into pantaloons on cranium territory.

>>21895286
Yes you do. The smaller you go , the bigger the truck. so basically if you get your whole pee pee chopped off , you get a truck that you can drive on both sides of the road at the same time.

>>21895068
Bench rest F-Class aren't designed to kill
Goose and pheasant and deer and varmint and bear guns aren't designed to kill humans

Trap and clays guns aren't designed to kill

File: wtf am i reading.png (78KB, 250x238px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 250x238px

>>21894964
>But guns are not designed to do anything but kill, and barring a manufacturing or mechanical defect, that’s what they all do.

Funny; I can't recall the last time my gun killed anyone, and I thought it was in perfect working order. I'll have to take it in to the gun shop. Must have one of those mechanical defects.

File: 1404093744744.jpg (88KB, 640x427px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 640x427px

>>21895274
What it ultimately boils down to is that near everything that get's the "compensating" argument thrown at it has an odd habit of being a symbol of masculinity and success. Own guns, a luxury car/big truck/sports car, a big house, a boat, or even a really nice home theater system? You have a small dick, hahaha! Because otherwise it would just look like people being jealous assholes trying to tell others how to spend their money, and generally looking like spiteful little faggots. So in all of your wisdom, you take the intellectual high road by...using the muh dick argument. Yep. You sure showed us.

If they ask whether you're compensating for something with your guns, tell them you're compensating for a government that can't and won't protect you. Then cite police response times, and Warren vs DC and the other dozen or so cases that all uphold that police are not required to protect anyone in the course of their duties.

>>21894964

Knock on wood, but I keep wondering why none of these nutjobs going for the high score have tried renting an 18-wheeler and driving into a public gathering - a parade, protest, or something. You could do so much damage and nothing could stop you.

>>21895329

I miss Ted Kennedy. Used to be able to joke that his car has killed more people than my guns.

File: use-flare-gun-1.jpg (19KB, 360x240px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 360x240px

>b-but ALL guns are designed to kill!

>>21895335
I'm not sure if that was necessarily directed at me , but I was not insulting you and I agree with you completely. I would also like that gearshift knob.

File: gunCompensate.jpg (42KB, 640x570px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 640x570px

>>21895341

File: 014187181874.png (13KB, 202x184px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 202x184px

- It's much, much harder to outrun a bullet than it is a car.
- You can kill multiple targets MUCH easier with a gun, turning your body and acquiring sight picture vs. turning your car.
- You can't hit people from hundreds of yards away with a car.
- You can't easily take a car from room to room and run over everyone inside.
- You can't easily take a car up multiple floors.
- You can't conceal a car on your person
- You can't ambush people from a concealed position with a car
- It is easier to spot a car than a gunman
- etc

Please /k/, don't use this metaphor. Yes, a car is as deadly as a gun if you go by mass shooting standards, but we know better than that. A car ramming through a bunch of people is a drop in the ocean compared to car crashes from bad drivers. A gunman murdering a bunch of high school kids is a drop in the ocean compared to Chicago gun violence.

Guns ARE designed to kill, and they're one of the best tools for it, that's why people paid to kill use guns. If you want to stand by your guns, don't stand by them using cars as a metaphor. Say you own your guns to defend yourself from bad guys or something. Be real.

>>21895357
Haha my mom almost burned down our house with one of those a while ago.

>>21895357

why are you posting a single shot flare launcher which is not considered a firearm by the ATF

>people sad about all the school shootings and thousands of children killed by firearms every year
>BUT WHAT ABOUT A FLARE PISTOL

idiot

>>21895368
I was replying to your comment, but just using a hypothetical libtard as the argument counterpoint in my post.

>>21895375
Your post shows me you are a shitty driver

File: .50 cal jeep.jpg (84KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 640x480px

>>21895156
>>21895151
>>21895153
>>21895172
>>21895175

>(In an alternate America)

This is an epidemic in America! We need to have stronger restrictions and licensing tests to make sure these psychopaths can't get behind the wheel of a dangerous vehicle!

We should make it so driving anything larger and/or faster than a four door requires a psych evaluation and extra testing to ensure competency!

Making it so unless your job requires it you have to drive golf carts because those arent that powerful and won't hurt people since they're so small! Why would you need anything bigger unless you're compensating for something!

Only the military and government should have large vehicles with extended cabins, high capacity cargo space, scary chrome and black exteriors, and fully automatic transmissions because they protect us!

A normal citizen doesn't need that kind of horsepower and other unnecessary and ridiculous features!
Why does an average citizen need high efficiency engines and high capacity gas tanks?

>But muh freedom of movement!

Just use public transit or take a cab if it's too far! Maybe you could even walk and lose some weight you fat car-nut!

>But cars are inanimate objects!

Cars are dangerous 2 ton pieces of heavy machinery that should only be driven by qualified individuals like the police!

>But why am i being punished for what a small and disturbed minority, whom i don't support, does?

We have to do whats right for the chillins and women! We can't have some car-nut with a fetish of taking out his anger on innocent citizens be able to fulfill his sick and twisted nightmare!
(Did i leave anything out fellow MDA supporters? We must get these dangerous trucks and sports cars off our streets!)

>>21895404
Your post shows me you're a shit shot.

>>21895386
Someone seems buttblasted that his argument got shot down by a flare gun.

>>21895375
You realize nobody will suspect a car is preparing to kill people, versus a guy walking around with a rifle.
Seems easier to me.

>>21895375
>turning your car
Not needed in a tight area where people don't have alleys to duck down. Just drive straight and watch the bodies roll off/under your bumper.
>being far away
A car moves fast. Sure you can't start your rampage far from your victims, but you sure as hell can get away afterwards. And if they get away, they could go somewhere else and do it again.
>Inside
Lots of people are outside at any time of day, and you can quickly and easily take your car anywhere within 50 miles of you thanks to a wonderfully ubiquitous highway/road system
>Conceal a car
Not necessary. After all, it's not "scary"
>Can't ambush in a car
If you've got a good enough acceleration, you can. Also, you can turn corners and speed into people with enough force to drag them completely under the 2 ton+ weight of your vehicle.

>>21895423
You don't have to walk around with a rifle.

It's a fucking rifle.

>>21895375
People who are payed to kill use bureaucracy

>>21895375
The point was never to claim that cars are more effective for killing than guns. The point is to point out the illogic behind claiming that guns are evil because they kill people.

>>21895411
Epic comeback m8

>>21895433
So it floats magically along and appears when you want to use it? Are you slow?

>>21895371

she's not that much smaller

fat/10

File: 1377628966890.gif (1MB, 233x291px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 233x291px

>>21895433

>>21895418

yeah good post

next time someone brings up all the children killed using firearms every year you should post a glue gun or something

that will learn them good

>>21894964
deaths are deaths at the end of the day, if you want to ban guns because they kill people then why shouldn't you be opposed to a ban on cars as well? because you're not against deaths you're against guns, when people can admit that they only care about taking guns away and not about actually saving lives then i might listen

File: ar-15-field-stripped.jpg (547KB, 2180x1214px) Image search: [Google]

547KB, 2180x1214px

>>21895459
>Who would ever think of concealing their rifle in some sort of inconspicuous case?

>>21895469
Nice reaction image

>>21895258
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FAvQSkK8Z8U&feature=kp

>>21895460
But she is weaker. And that's the crux of the issue.
Plus, she's not all that fat. A bit big, sure. But compared to hambeasts, she's quite attractive.

>>21895375
>It's much, much harder to outrun a bullet than it is a car.
And a car does much, much more damage.
>- You can kill multiple targets MUCH easier with a gun, turning your body and acquiring sight picture vs. turning your car.
Don't really think so. Even great marksmen miss moving targets all the time. Plowing through a crowd in a truck seems easy enough.
>- You can't hit people from hundreds of yards away with a car.
True. Not sure it matters in the end.
>- You can't easily take a car from room to room and run over everyone inside.
You can, however, take one up and down the sidewalks on a crowded street.
>- You can't easily take a car up multiple floors.
True. Don't think it matters much, though.
>- You can't conceal a car on your person
But nobody freaks out when they see a car. Why conceal it?
>- You can't ambush people from a concealed position with a car
Crowd stealth - Assassin's Creed meets GTA. Driving along, no one looks at you, then peel off the road into a crowd. No one sees it coming.
>- It is easier to spot a car than a gunman
And again, no one sees a car and runs away.

I think it's a fair comparison. A car is the biggest and most lethal possession most people own. You can do incredible damage to whole groups of people by using it irresponsibly, never mind with murderous intent. People just don't think about it that way. The half-crazed crackhead who steals a car could plow into a crowd of schoolchildren. A disgruntled truck driver could drive through a family reunion at a park. Any ordinary person could negligently reach for their cellphone and kill four people in an instant. But people just don't think of it in those terms. They see a gun, and immediately worry about who might be killed - but if my gun is holstered, I can't kill anyone by texting.

>>21895433
Confirmed for retard. If you don't have it with you, you're not going to be very effective in using it.

>>21895485

she obviously would have a gut if naked

do not want

>>21895492
You missed my important point.

The most effective thing people can think of for killing in a car is "PLOW THROUGH THE CROWD, THEN DO IT AGAIN!". People disperse after they see a car ram through people. They run behind corners and walls and places cars can't get to.

A man with a gun can get to those places.

>>21895499
>>21895481

File: DHS-BombThreatChart-6-5-09.png (726KB, 3090x2058px) Image search: [Google]

726KB, 3090x2058px

Everyone is forgetting that cars can also be used to carry bombs.

>>21895505
And then the car can drive a few dozen yards to the next crowded area that doesn't know it's coming.
Police response time is going to be about 10 minutes, and it will probably take at least 2 or 3 police cars to stop a rampaging truck.

>you can't kill 28 people with a saw in 1 hour

Watch me

>>21895521
So ram people, then run from the police until you're out of gas or crashed? That's your plan?

Jeez man, you should go for the high score.

>>21895524
Is that a challenge I hear?

>>21895505
>drive to the next block and crush a family walking on the sidewalk

Why is the safety of people on the second floor more important than the people on the streets

>>21895529
Ram people, then run around a corner or two to a street full of unaware people, then ram them, then turn a corner or two for another street full of unaware people, then ram them. At this point, there may be a local police car giving chase. It won't be able to stop a truck on its own and probably won't even try. So until the second and third car shows up, you can just continue to drive down a few streets and find more and more unaware people who have no chance of ducking down an alley because they are unaware of what's happening. A gunman is restricted to a small area that can be evacuated or locked down.
A crazed driver can just go find a new area if his current one is evacuated or otherwise devoid of victims.

>>21895529
Nope park the car and walk away, no one will get a good description of you, and since dangerous cars are unregulated you can get another one without any trouble

Remember that guy from Vermont who used a tractor to crush all the police cars in his town?
Now imagine if that was a tank (They're legal to own), armored mac truck, or other massive-but-fast vehicle instead of a slow tractor and that the person was actually interested in killing other people.
It would have taken a looooong time to get a response that could actually stop him.

>>21895520
BUT THEY AREN'T DESIGNED TO KILL...e-except when you're purposefully designing them to.

>>21895597
Or the guy in Colorado who did the pretty much the same thing

In the FBI's annual police death reports, a shockingly low number are ambushed by vehicles.

I have a feeling that if anyone really did try for the high score in a vehicle, the leaderboards would quickly start to fill up with new names, if you catch my drift.
And if you don't catch my drift, I'm talking about the phenomena known as "copycats".

>>21895622
How many police die from cars each year@

>>21895622
An even tinier statistical blip than the number killed with "scary black rifles" you mean?

>>21895660
A pretty good number are actually killed with .223 if I remember

>>21895355
I grew up in New Hampshire, and was at a friend's party in Massachusetts just after he died, and there was a creepy reverential hush that fell over the room when someone mentioned him.

Fuck Ted Kennedy, and fuck the whole Kennedy family. We don't need them.

File: homicide data 2011.png (237KB, 961x926px) Image search: [Google]

237KB, 961x926px

>>21895668
You don't.

>>21895668
[Citation needed]

>>21895668
You remember wrong.
Provide actual stats or put your duncecap back on.

>>21895564

>cars are unregulated
>must file for the title with the goverment to own a car
>must take a test and have a photo ID to drive
>unregulated

File: full fuck.jpg (54KB, 677x594px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 677x594px

>>21895721

unlike guns cars can be bought from a dealership/store minus the title and a licence isn't needed on private property. If you're about to go on a rampage why would you have your licence on you and why would you use a registered car?

>mfw i just described what criminals do with guns

>>21895721
You don't need a license to drive a car, just to operate on public roads

>>21895796
>unlike guns cars can be bought from a dealership/store minus the title and a licence isn't needed on private property.

There are no titles or licenses needed to own most firearms in the usa

what the fuck are you talking about

>buy gun from private individual
>pay cash
>zero record of transaction anywhere, no background check, perfectly legal

>>21895796
>unlike guns cars can be bought from a dealership/store minus the title

please tell me more about the car dealerships that will sell you a car without transferring the title

>>21895803

oh great point, yes that is quite the rebuttal

After applying for the title with the government you could drive it in your basement all day without a license

>>21895817
Dealership/store =/= private sale

>>21895835
Or private property, of which there is a shit ton

>>21895837

you are an idiot

you can legally obtain a firearm in the usa with no license or title

even if you buy one from a gun store there is no license or title

>>21895853

Yes great point

when most people speak about driving a car what they mean is trailering it out private property and driving in circles, not using it for transportation

that way you just have to title the car in your name with the government and buy land and register that with the government so you can drive your car in circles

>>21895655

i wonder how many die of heart attacks?

i mean if police sometimes die from heart attacks or car crashes that means it's OK to shoot them and machine guns should be available to niggers

makes perfect sense

And what if I compare guns to pools?

>>21895835
>>21895865
>>21895892
>>21895935
>Getting this butt burned because you're anti freedom

Not even once, folks.

>>21895935
Why shouldn't niggers be allowed guns?

Slavery is over you racist piece of scummy shit

File: 1404842755529.jpg (757KB, 2988x5312px) Image search: [Google]

757KB, 2988x5312px

>>21896022
>>21895655
>How many police die from cars each year@
>>21895935
>i mean if police sometimes die from heart attacks or car crashes that means it's OK to shoot them and machine guns should be available to niggers

I am not anti gun but the idea that "if cops sometimes die in car accidents it follows that niggers should have guns because it's OK that they are killed by firearms too"

is moronic

>>21895865
>you are an idiot
>you can legally obtain a firearm in the usa with no license or title
>even if you buy one from a gun store there is no license or title
>>21895865

that's right though

>>21895086

Mostly we do that here on our "secret" clubhouse though.

>>21896058
>Why shouldn't niggers be allowed guns?

really?

because they all use them in crimes

>>21896095
Not everyone is a criminal Mr.Crow

Why are antigunners so adamant that minorities cant own firearms

>>21895817
I forgot to make the equivalence between the 4473 form and title, obviously its not exactly the same but it's still regulation. I was mostly talking about people using unregistered guns and cars for crimes though.

>>21896074
This thread isn't advocating shooting the police because they'd die anyways. That's the weakest strawman I've ever heard, and all my exes are antis.
So while you're trying to derail a thread that has predominately been about mocking inane ideas, I'll address you in order to mock yours.
The logical fallacy occurs when you pretend that all car deaths are murders, and that the overall murder rate is where it should be. I doubt you'd find a single person on even 4chan who agrees with that, so I'll dismiss your argument at bait, out of hand.
Similarly, your attempt at race baiting is pathetically transparent, even for a /pol/ idiot in day/k/amp.
In conclusion, I'd like to wish you a hearty, "Fuck off!", and may you step on a lego.

>>21896114
>Why are antigunners so adamant that minorities cant own firearms

i am pro guns but not for blacks

if you took guns away from just blacks and spics in the USA the gun crime rate would go down by like 89%

>>21896134
>This thread isn't advocating shooting the police because they'd die anyways. That's the weakest strawman I've ever heard, and all my exes are antis.
>So while you're trying to derail a thread that has predominately been about mocking inane ideas, I'll address you in order to mock yours.

people are saying (and frequently say):

oh well why don't the antis want to ban cars, cars kill people via accidents!

it's a retarded argument

>>21896161
Objectively wrong, guns can still easily be stolen or nigger rigged

>>21896095
Please get back to your containment board /pol/tard, adults are trying to discuss things here.

>>21896124
>I forgot to make the equivalence between the 4473 form and title, obviously its not exactly the same

it is in no way the same thing and can be avoided by purchasing the same firearm from an individual which is perfectly legal

You cannot legally buy a car from some individual without transferring the title with the government and if you actually want to use it for transportation you have to get a driver license

cars are far more regulated than rifles in the USA

>>21896177
Cars kill people through misuse and accidents, if there were tougher regulations there would be a lot less car related deaths

>>21896179

obviously but if you could theoretically stop niggers from owning guns it would solve a lot of problems

we don't have a gun problem in the USA we have a nigger problem

File: Disregard the author.png (24KB, 750x256px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 750x256px

Eh, this man is simply stating opinions, disregard him.

The end all argument to pro-gun ownership lies in the avocation of recreational shooting, hunting, and self defense. All legal activities that require gun ownership. None deserve to be infringed upon.

Criminals will commit crimes, whether firearms are legal or illegal.

/thread

>>21896161
>implying legally owned firearms are the problem.

>>21896190
There is no Constitutionally guaranteed right to own a car.

>>21895036
>Cars are lumped in with freedom of movement.
Which isn't a right.

>>21896192

you could ban guns in the USA and the country would not collapse, if you banned cars the whole US economy would literally collapse overnight and millions would starve to death in 2 weeks, literally

additionally cars are heavily regulated and their design tightly controlled and regulated by the government and safety requirements have been going up every year for decades and over the last 50 years the number of fatalities per distance driven has gone down dramatically and constantly over time as regulations have gotten tougher

so the argument is actually FOR super heavy euro style regulation as it worked great in cars

>>21894964
>implying you never need to kill somebody

>>21896219

lanza cho and holmes all possessed their firearms legally

>>21896161
Eh, but that's just the problem with gun control.

Making them illegal doesn't stop crime.

Even if you passed legislature that said "African Americans in America cannot bear or own firearms" they could still gain possession by way of rigged purchases or theft.

What would that accomplish?

Even though a large majority of gun crime is committed by poor minorities, you cant just solve the problem by making it illegal for them to own guns.

>>21895027
>>21895027
>You are right, the difference for cars and drugs is they aren't a right

i bet if cars had been around in the 1700s they would have been a right

you didn't need a license to drive a horse

File: 1403495156956.jpg (75KB, 878x775px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 878x775px

>>21896210
>Fedora
Why am I not surprised?

>>21896258
Killing your mom and stealing her guns is legal?
I'm no lawyer, but I'm pretty sure it's not.

Regardless, spree killers are another tiny blip in the murder statistics.

>>21896271
>Eh, but that's just the problem with gun control.
>Making them illegal doesn't stop crime.

it does though

if possessing a firearm were a felony it would be a fuckton harder to get them, Holmes tried to make pipe bombs to kill cops and could not make them work (despite them being easy to make)

there is no way he could have fabricated a semi auto rifle, same thing with Lanza and they were too socially retarded to meet gangsters importing illegal firearms

i am pro gun but i realize if they were banned less people would be shot in the USA

>>21896277

it's a trilby

>>21896282
>Killing your mom and stealing her guns is legal?

you are right about that, my mistake

she bought them and had them in the home and gave him access, Lanza being in possession and control of them (leaving out the murder) was legal though

>>21896190
You're forgetting my earlier post where i said the person was buying it to use on private property.

>>21896222
It's protected under freedom of movement, this was said earlier in the thread

>>21896224
It's covered under the section which says any unspoken rights or whatever are covered.

>>21896303
You must think the War On Drugs has been a fantastic success then.

Go be a Good German somewhere else.

>>21896303
Only if the ban actually magically worked somehow, which it wouldn't.
Even in AUS, estimates of actual compliance with the gun bans there are under 30%.
Here, it would be FAR less than that, and there are FAR more guns per capita.

>>21896354
>Only if the ban actually magically worked somehow, which it wouldn't.
>>21896345
>You must think the War On Drugs has been a fantastic success then.

you would not have to ban them in the sense of "nobody may own a firearm at all period"

they could regulate them to the point all you could get without a years worth of paperwork was bolt action rifles

if they regulated the fuck out of them I am sure the murder rate would go down some, I am still pro gun but reality is reality

Cho was not going to fabricate a GLOCK and would never have passed the most basic of psych tests, both cho and homes were turned away from gun stores for being fucking weird and learned to walk in to a new store, state what they wanted, pay, and walk out

and they could barely do that

Lanza had to literally get his idiot mother to buy the guns he had access to because of his assburgers

>>21896387
but thats wrong, you fucking retard.
Virtually every study on gun control shows that it either:
A) has no effect on crime rates or
B) increases crime rates

>>21896387
>murder rate would go down some
Well, with that dearth of evidence you've provided, you've totally convinced me. Come, friend, let's leave this den of iniquities and never visit it again.

>>21896387
The murder rate would go down for about 6 months and then would jump up to above pre-ban levels and escalate from there.
Look at the crime rates for every country that banned guns. It drops for a very short period of time and then skyrockets to above pre-ban levels (When the criminals set up their new supply lines, basically.)

>>21896464

but that is wrong you fucking retard

they have far less gun violence in heavily regulated countries

the idea that no regulation can help in any way is ignorant

i bet you think convicted violent felons should be able to legally own firearms if they get out of prison because "they are going to get them anyway"

>>21896466

>nothing can ever be done, no matter how many firearms are in the USA the rate of gun deaths will always remain constant no matter what

>>21896387
Your wonderful plan omits the fact that there are ~300 million guns already out there.

How do you plan to get them out of circulation without martial law?

Hell, even WITH martial law.

Don't be dense.

>>21896489
If they get out of prison, they've already served their time.
If they're still dangerous, then why did you let them out of prison? If they aren't still dangerous, then why prohibit them from guns?

>>21896489
>they have far less gun violence in heavily regulated countries
>gun violence
>relevant stat
Pick one
The murder rate doesnt change. I dont care whether Im murdered with a gun or a chainsaw. Hell, I'd actually prefer getting shot.

>i bet you think convicted violent felons should be able to legally own firearms if they get out of prison because "they are going to get them anyway"
Nice strawman, nigger

>>21896497
>Your wonderful plan omits the fact that there are ~300 million guns already out there.

this is nothing but an argument that we should have done it 50 years ago

in 50 years they will wish we had done it today

>>21896513
Why do you come to /k/? This is a board for people who like to discuss weapons, not for butthurt faggots who want to ban weapons.

>>21896513
It will not happen in either of our lifetimes, so please go sit in the corner and cry.

>>21896513
Go fuck yourself. My property, my privacy, and my birth rights are not negotiable. Go back to Reddit and stay there.

>>21896328

No it wasn't. He was actually barred from having guns. He tried to buy legally, and if the authorities actually did their jobs he would have been brought up on felony charges for that. The fucker needed to be committed anyways.

No she should not have kept guns in the same house, and she should not have allowed access. Either way, she paid the ultimate price, along with so many others. People like Lanza would have been committed back in the day. Mental Healthcare in our country is absolute shit right now. We aren't even devoting enough in research as to what causes head-cases like Lanza and Rodgers.

Ironically, the left is also somewhat to blame for this as well, as there was a movement to stop involuntary commitment of at risk individuals. You can't even force them to take their crazy pills anymore. My mother told me stories about how her brother had to disable my grandmas car to keep her from going out and hurting herself or others. They couldn't get her committed, there were times where she practically walked off and that would have nearly been the end of it if some cop hadn't found her.

I recall hearing of some shit-head lawyer that had ties with the ACLU, that was the cause of much consternation in this situation.

>>21894964

So in America there's around 310 million privately owned firearms compared to about 250 million privately owned automobiles. So 60 million MORE guns then cars.

Annually there are about 33,000 auto fatalities. While only about 800 firearms related accidental death plus less than 9,000 homicides annually. Even if you add in suicides, which make up for about 66% of all firearms related deaths, the total death from each are about even despite there being 60 million more firearms then autos.

Thus cars are statistically more dangerous then guns. At which point they'll say, "oh! But people use cars more often"! However all of this contradicts the concept that firearms are on their own intrinsically dangerous.

Sources: DOT, CDC, and FBI.

I know there are problems with the comparison of guns vs. cars and I try to avoid it. But I know one thing for sure. In the 28 years I've been alive I've lost count of the number of times I've almost been in an car accident by no fault of my own and I've also lost track of the number of times I've walked through a crosswalk and almost been splattered by some idiot who doesn't know or doesn't follow the shit he was supposed to know when he read the little state supplied Driver's Manual.

I've *never* been threatened by someone with a gun.

>>21896645
fucking rekt

>>21895258
I love it

Is /o/ /k/?

>>21896728
/o/ is kind of like our cousin. We've got a fair bit in common, but we don't really share all the same hobbies, and so we're cool not seeing each other for long periods of time. We have a grand time when we meet up, though.

>>21896728
>>21896741
as far as I'm concerned guns and cars go together like rama lama lama ka dinga da dinga dong

>>21895386
>ot considered a firearm by the ATF
Yeah because it would basically fuck boat owners and contradict the USCG rules on boat safety requiring visual distress signals, especially on large boats

But its a fucking gun that shoots shot shells loaded with pyro

>>21894964
>But a saw can’t be used to kill 28 people in less than an hour’s worth of time.

Must not be trying very hard.

>>21896817
Note the very specific number and timeframe. Dude totally tried and could only get 27.

>>21896636
>No it wasn't. He was actually barred from having guns. He tried to buy legally, and if the authorities actually did their jobs he would have been brought up on felony charges for that.

but regulation and banning people from having firearm never helps

had he been convicted of a felony for that and done time he would have gotten a machine gun in prison and killed 50 elementary school kids instead of 20

your big government liberal regs always make things worse

>>21896645
>plus less than 9,000 homicides annually.

wow that is such a small number lol

let's sell machine guns over the counter with no background check

yolo

>>21896645

see:

>>21896243


>deal with it

>>21896985
>let's sell machine guns over the counter with no background check
this nigga

File: gunsonlykill.jpg (194KB, 1224x516px) Image search: [Google]

194KB, 1224x516px

>>21895132
Screen Capped.

>>21896998

if you increase regulations (the NFA act of 1934) it just means only criminals will have new machine guns

the thousands of new machine guns used in crimes every single day in the USA shows that regulating something does not work, it just makes it worse

>>21895482
Dont forget the classic movie "The Last Chase" that goes with that song.

>>21896243
This is because you are on a highway/street with hundreds of other giant steel monsters at any given time, and the people operating with them may be complete fucktards whom you have no control over. With a gun that's been already tested for safety (see: SAAMI and CIP, and your own commen sense) and safe practice you don't have any problems.

Notice how most deaths due to cars are from idiot drivers? How do you regulate being a complete moron?

>>21897158
*common

>>21896243
>you could ban guns in the USA and the country would not collapse, if you banned cars the whole US economy would literally collapse overnight and millions would starve to death in 2 weeks, literally
Cars are inefficient and should be replaced by trains, yes.

>>21897158

the fact is intense government regulation has made cars far far safer per mile driven even with other idiots on the road over the last 40 years

machine guns have been intensely regulated since 1934 with huge success, regulation works. Even spree killers who would want nothing more than a machine gun can hardly ever get them

also while there are more guns than cars in the USA most people need to get in a car every day to go to work or school or transport food or whatever, probably less than 5% of people need to fuck with a firearm every day

>>21897220
Car registration regulates use, not ownership.

I can own a car without registering it so long as I don't intend to drive it on public roads.

>>21897220
>the fact is intense government regulation has made cars far far safer

Both seat belts and airbags were developed by private, for-profit corporations.

>machine guns have been intensely regulated since 1934 with huge success,

Get fucked, commie.

>>21897220

The reason that only a handful of spree killers have ever used machine guns is because full auto is pretty much useless for actually killing people.

>Situations where full-auto is useful for killing people:
>Trenches of WWI, going up against people armed with five foot rifles
>Shooting unarmed people in a phone booth.

>politicalgarbabechute
>garbagechute

Well, they got that pat right.

>You could ban guns in the USA and the country would not collapse, if you banned cars the whole US economy would literally collapse overnight and millions would starve to death in 2 weeks, literally

Minus our corrupt government taking advantage of a disarmed populace, along with criminals who get/make guns illegally.

Also it would be hurting gun dealers, their employees and gun manufacturers that have to compete for US defense contracting or a PMC/Private Security to buy their guns if civilians and private citizens cannot own any. Causing alot of people to be laid off, gun smiths to be put out of business, etc. etc.

Banning guns would be putting the US economy in jeopardy, and putting more people onto the streets because guns don't come out of a vacuum, there's a lot of jobs and careers centered around guns.

>>21897220
When using full auto, you generally don't aim to actually hit people, and in fact, would have a hard time doing so thanks to the recoil. You're just trying to keep them down so they can't hit anyone on your side. Even drive-bys with full auto mostly miss the people they are actually trying to shoot.
So if your goal is to actually kill people, as most murderers are, you don't want to use full auto. And if it's not full auto, it's not a "machine gun".

>hording

Stopped there.

>>21894964
>Buh-buh-but guns are designed to kill!
Well in case you haven't noticed, this ain't Care-a-lot.

>>21897186
>Cars are inefficient and should be replaced by trains, yes.

why do you liberals even come here

>>21897306
>The reason that only a handful of spree killers have ever used machine guns is because full auto is pretty much useless for actually killing people.

i am pretty sure mowing down a group of huddling students would be a job where a machine gun would be useful

it's because they are banned and these people just scrape by with what they can get

>>21897345

yeah before they were banned criminals never used machine guns with effective results in the 1920s (thus causing the public to want them banned)

idiot

>>21897551
Pretending to be police and executing people who are lined up against a wall isn't the same as firing at people who are moving.
And also, gang bangers still have full auto weapons anyway, in the form of cheap and nasty machine pistols and micro-SMGs, even though they're practically illegal.
So even though they're banned, criminals still have them. Doesn't help that you can make an effective full-auto smg with a $30 trip to any department store.

File: NEED FUR SPED.gif (1MB, 244x109px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 244x109px

>>21895351

File: a75Q8ZA_460sa_v1.gif (2MB, 374x312px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 374x312px

>>21894964
The articles argument is that a firearm is a "tool" like any other, but because its an effective tool at what it does, means it should be banned.

With that logic, we should ban cars because with the increasing effectiveness of MPG, the driver doesn't need to stop by a gas station as much. In turn the gas companies lose money, which requires them to get less employees to pay. The employees don't have the money to feed the children, therefore we should all drive a fucking hummer.

>>21897539

If they have no means of fighting back it makes no fucking difference.

Look at Sandy Hook. All of the kids were crowded into a closet. Adam Lanza could have used a belt fed machine gun or a pump action shotgun, it wouldn't have made a damn bit of difference.

If you think that machine guns = more bodies you need to lay off the action movies. That's not how reality works.

>>21897734

if semi autos were banned you would say the same thing about them and that using a pump shotgun is the best thing ever

sorry that bans work bro

>>21897551

The use of machine guns in crime was incredibly rare even prior to the NFA.

The myth of mobsters with Thompsons is exactly that, a myth. There were never more than a handful of documented situations of them using MG's.

Looks like you bought into the hollywood lies hook, line, and sinker.

>>21897578

so machine guns are useless and you support the ban for that reason

enjoy ur brainwashed

>>21897747

2/10

>>21897578
>So even though they're banned, criminals still have them

not really

they are hardly ever used

>>21897755
>The use of machine guns in crime was incredibly rare even prior to the NFA.
>The myth of mobsters with Thompsons is exactly that, a myth. There were never more than a handful of documented situations of them using MG's.

lol

>>21896243
>>21896996

>you could ban guns in the USA and the country would not collapse

Sure you could buddy. Try that shit tomorrow and watch the Nation instantly break apart.

>>21896985

Considering that hands and feet kill more then ALL LONG GUNS COMBINED annually I doubt it'd have much of an effect on the homicide rate. Not to mention you've proven once again anti fun s don't care about reason or even human lives. They just want other to stop liking what they don't.

>>21897772
I bet you think the "wild west" really was full of violence.
Well, it objectively had a lower murder rate than any era after it, and even those famous full-noon duels to the death have happened less than 5 times.

>>21897772
>lol

Is that the best you can do?

>>21895027
>not a right

That's debatable. The constitution enumerates certain basic rights. It doesn't grant them. It still might be a right, just not one enumerated by the constitution.

>>21895132
>...same reason Police Officers carry guns. Do you think cops carry guns only to murder people?

How do you counter the common point, "But cops are trained and work for the government meaning they can do no wrong with their guns."

>>21897820
This. The Ninth Amendment says it probably is a right.

File: falling-down-01-800-75.jpg (82KB, 800x1393px)

82KB, 800x1393px

>>21900769
That was addressed by a 2nd amendment guy on a West Virginia public TV interview.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uo9BbB6rBx0

He threw the same question back at the interviewer by saying if the police feel the need to carry AR-15s with 30 round magazines to counter threats than a citizen needs the same weapons to counter the same threats and in fact more so because they have to defend themselves until the police get there.

Lastly he amusedly pointed out that the SC has ruled the police have no duty to protect you.

>>21894964
>gun hording
>hording

Stopped reading there.

>>21901219
But as you can also see in the video, the argument is not useful in convincing them. They keep saying, "Well still, the police are trained and responsible. I don't want my neighbor taking one of those high powered weapons and going crazy."

>>21901479
That was not the idea behind his argument, regardless the police have no duty to protect you so you have to protect yourself and semi auto rifles are one of the means to do this. Maybe even from this mythical crazed neighbor with a "Ak-47"

>>21901606
So the idea behind the argument is not enough to convince someone otherwise. The gun grabber's logic is still, "I won't need to defend myself from the crazy AK neighbor with my own assault weapon if he doesn't have an AK in the first place. This means no citizen needs an assault weapon."

All I am saying is that there still is no argument that satisfies this point of view which disappoints me as it's were I find myself stuck most of the time.

>>21901677
So you can't answer a straw man. Who gives a fuck? You never want to get caught up in strawman argument in the first place like

WELL I GUESS EVRRONE HAS THE RIGHT TO A NUCLEAR BOMB , IS THAT WHAT YOU WANT!?

>>21901677
And what if your crazy neighbor gets his ak47 illegally, as so many other criminals do?
It doesn't even need to be stolen from someone else. The FBI alone "loses" over 500 guns per year, nevermind local police forces. And then factor in smugglers from Africa and Mexico, where AKs of all types are cheap, plentiful, and fully automatic. Banning guns won't reduce the supply of illegal weapons available. Even shitty ghetto pistols get passed around through back alley dealers, and many of them have been used by multiple people to murder others.