Interesting thread. So you basically want to discuss gun control after the vegas shooting, even though you dont see any reason to discuss gun control. thats pretty much as retarded as the reasons for playing down your issues with guns.

Would you have preferred that he put down pressure cookers and detonated them, or perhaps a truck filled with fertilizer, or just a truck moving at a high rate of speed?

So your argument is that someone who wants to kill somebody has plenty options for its execution. and still the first options are guns, because you have easy access, they are cheap and pretty reliable for that issue. Do you think that a well developed country like the USA leads the global statistics for murder, because you are such retarded and violent people or because you have stupid gun control? You even have way more guns than citizens. I mean thats pretty obvious.

However what are guns good for?

A chief reason is a right to life in the form of a right to self defense, whether from a tyrannical government or other causes of harm.

so you guys still live in the wild west and praise self justice? when did a gun safe someone from harm or murder? maybe a body armor does... or you guys are trained to shoot at bullets to deflect them? other than that guns are used for attacks and attacks only..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2pzOimT9so

Bump-Stocks are a poor technology. A rifle equipped with one, becomes so inaccurate that the user would have a hard time hitting the broad side of a barn. Bump-Stock equipped rifles are useless for hunting, unimpressive as a tool for self-defense, and vastly inferior as a military weapon. The U.S. military with its almost cult like adherence to the doctrine of accurate rifle fire would have nothing but scorn for these half-ass gadgets.

The best argument for not fighting a ban on these things is that it would help prevent the adoption of Australian style gun laws.

Every time one of these maniacal bastards go on a rampage it helps bring closer the day that nosy busybodies will be poking their obnoxious snouts into every aspect of your privacy in a world where you can not walk half a block without a camera recording each step you take, and the government can read your emails without warrant.

Edited 10/5/2017 21:09:49

The US does not lead global statistics on murder. Asinine, categorically false.

The number of guns per person in America has been increasing yet gun deaths are way down since the 90s.

Guns save people every fucking day. Guns deter criminals from violating property rights, guns deter criminals shooting random people. Why do you think mass shootings happen in gun free zones?

Self justice is best justice. Police response time is minutes, citizens response time is seconds. The government cannot be trusted with owning all the guns either.

When did a gun save someone from harm or murder?

When did a military ever prevent a country from being conquered?

Down in Texas a knife armed man tried to invade my Uncle's home. His wife was closest to their shotgun. When she racked the action, that man decided that he needed to be somewhere else fast.

And all involved lived to tell the story.

Same leftists that say only cops or the government should have guns always criticize cops and the government for killing black people and oppression.

Our government thinks terrorists in Syria should have guns. Yet we citizens CAN'T have guns? How wise is the US government, how moral are the types of people that get into power in this country? Those are the people who have all the firepower in a "gun free" country.

Edited 10/5/2017 21:17:12

I hate the argument about preventing tyrannical government from taking over the country, that could have been true a couple hundred years ago, but with modern warfare technology, the most advanced guns can't beat fully equiped conventional military armies, let alone mass-destruction weapons. What prevents a dictatorship from taking over the country is solid institutions and a strong democracy, which is something America already has (although you can make an entire argument about how weakened they are today and the threat it poses to liberty).

I'm not really pro or against guns, to me what matters is hard facts and elaborated arguments. And the truth is that at some point you guys have to ask the question of why do this kind of tragedy keep happening over and over again in America and not in other developed countries. Everyone talks about big tragedies, but don't forget that the Las Vegas incident is just one of the 341 mass shootings that happened in 2017 alone! (https://www.massshootingtracker.org/data)

You guys really need to stop praying for tragedies, and try fixing this huge problem. Get your shit together and put some kind of solution on the table.

Edited 10/5/2017 21:18:19

(((the government)))

>a frog
>criticizing others

''MUH DUMBOCRACY N SHIET!''

>get your shit together
>coming from a turd worlder

Edited 10/5/2017 21:20:51

The US Military could not feasibly take on a citizen army. Yes they have drones and tanks, but those need fuel and logistical support which could easily be targeted by citizens who already live in the area. But the more important issue is, would a military be willing to kill its own people? I'm sure many soldiers would desert when they realized they were fighting a war for tyranny against their own countrymen. The very idea of a shooting war between people and government alone is enough of a deterrent. Even the neolibs and neocons know such a scenario would be disastrous, that's why they want to disarm using the legal system rather than by force.

I'm sure the Left keeps hoping that if we have enough mass shootings we will eventually pass gun control. When you say "get your shit together" let's not kid a single fucking person for one second. You mean gun control and nothing short of it, and gun control is unacceptable. We will not have it.

Also attacks don't just happen in America. Do I really need to elaborate on why that retarded point is wrong? You frogs got mowed down by an "assault truck". The paris shootings and the Norwegian summer camp shooting with Breivik were even worse than Vegas, and those countries have tight gun laws.

There are also other factors in America that create violence. We are a more "diverse" country i.e. more low-IQ Black and Hispanic people. We have a huge border with a literal third world country (Mexico) that has a very high murder rate and extensive rule by organized criminal organizations. We also have the war on drugs.

@Teamguns, I provided two instances on why public should be armed. I'll repeat them for you here.

(1) Millions. Literally Millions of Jews were disarmed and turned into ashes by their government. This was not that long ago. Yes, this was 80 years ago and in Germany, but what makes you think we are different today?
(2) The US had laws prohibiting blacks to own guns (no right of self protection) and actively failed to prevent lynchings. Now that we have a 'racist president' content with letting Brown Puerto Ricans die, is it that far of a stretch that government wouldn't provide safety for a group of people?

If you think that armed insurgents can't provide effective resistance against the US military, I ask you why are we still in Afghanistan.

@Ranek, do you find that people aren't convinced by your logic IRL as well as on the forums?

Interesting thread. So you basically want to discuss gun control after the vegas shooting, even though you dont see any reason to discuss gun control. thats pretty much as retarded as the reasons for playing down your issues with guns.

No, Gun control is currently being discussed while people are emotional. This thread serves as a rebuttal to those conversations.

Further, I'm not playing down my issues with guns. I'm am stating that there is a reason to have guns.

As stupid as it sounds, guns don't kill people, people kill people with guns. If you take away the guns, there are countless other ways to commit these tragedies. Just look around and you will see many other ways that people have done it.

First, we have permitted the Federal government to govern us provided they respect our rights.

Second, the Second Amendment is one of our rights we have reserved for ourselves, regardless of the reason.

Third, even if the Second Amendment is repealed, for whatever reason or method permitted by the Constitution, you still have the practical effect of hundreds of millions of guns already in existence and utter failures to enact bans of illicit objects in the past.

Surely you can admit, at the very least, that America does have a gun problem? for all of us looking in from the outside, it's crystal clear you lot do have a gun problem.

@Wulfhere

You gotta read better what I wrote, assuming stuff I said out of nowhere is pretty chill.

For the military coup, like I said what prevents it from happening in America and not in let's say, the Philippines, is not because of guns, but because of your solid democratic bases, the military will never move on against the country, at least not now, because they don't see any reason to do that. You talked about human morality, not killing your fellow countryman, but that's exactly what every fucking civil war is about, most of the time things just get out of hand. I doubt the Syrian Rebels wanted so bad their freedom as to accept 500k people to die for nothing, or that Assad's soldiers wanted to kill Syrians left and right. It just escalated there.

I never said that attacks just happened in America, as a matter of fact I was pointing out that it happens over and over in America, while it's more of a punctual thing in Europe. Here we get shocked when someone starts shooting people on the streets. Go look at the list I posted, do you remember of shooting #218 of the year? A former doctor shoots doctors, killing 2 and wounding 6. Or #86 when a husband killed his wife and two girls. Those probably didn't even go in the news, look up that list, there's a lot like these. NO FUCKING WAY, and really, NO FUCKING WAY, something like that happens in France and we don't talk about it for months. That's the difference.

Also, you said I was retarded because I didn't consider the Paris shootings and the Nice truck attacks, as a matter of fact, you are so ignorant as to know that in both using guns against the terrorists didn't mean shiet. For the Paris shootings, the biggest kill count was in the Bataclan, a night club, where firearms (and any arms as a matter of fact) are prohibited, and even if they weren't, have you ever tried to shoot someone in a dark, loud, and full room? Chances are you're gonna kill more innocents than terrorists. For the Nice attack, we had plenty of soldiers and policemen shooting at the truck, that didn't matter because of how physics work (gotta study at some point), even if they killed him in the first second he started to run over people, momentum + weight in the accelerator would have lead out probably to the same effect.

Finally, you assumed I was talking about gun control as the solution for your problems, as a matter of fact I don't believe in magic wands that will solve the gun issue called gun control, that's as much stupid lobby populism as believing that the government will take over if americans aren't allowed to buy silencers. Really, Europe has tons of guns itself, the Swiss are the third most armed in the world, France doesn't lag too much behind and is 10-11ish, and it's not like there's mass shootings every day in either of these countries.

There is solutions for the gun violence problem in America, I won't claim to know the answer for it. But it really sounds like everytime there's a tragedy, members of congress pull out their ideologies all over the media, and just dodge the responsability of doing something that could make life safer for americans.

Edited 10/5/2017 22:49:30

>the holocaust
>real

@Pooh

(1) Like I said, that gun preventing government from taking over had some sense in the past when you had some sort of equality of force between the potentially repressive means of the state and the citizens, which is not the case anymore.

(2) People that say that Trump is a racist wanting to kill Puerto Ricans are fairly stupid in my opinion. Up to this point we've only seen demagogue rethoric from Trump which I believe is only targeted to appeal to his base. As far as I know, Trump was as liberal as one could be just a few years ago, he flip floped on this issue like many others. I fear more the actions motivated by his rethoric, as a president's word often has more weight than his actions as for say.

If you think that armed insurgents can't provide effective resistance against the US military, I ask you why are we still in Afghanistan.

Because you are fucking dumb! Obviously the objective of the American government has never been to clean out insurgents or to leave Afghanistan at any point, you should have never entered that shithole in the first place.

Armed insurgents don't provide effective resistance against the US military at all, as far as I know, if America wanted to wipe out Afghanistan tomorow it could with the push of a button, there goes your resistance. Ofc that would have some other very dire consequences, especially with public opinion and international relations, but it's not like the US military wouldn't be able to do it if they were ordered to do so.

As for gun control being discussed when people are emotional, you're absolutely right, it is, and it's not really a great thing to take actions in emotional moments (invasion of Afghanistan *cof cof*), but it's an issue that needs to be debated at some point. Personally I'd go with the idea of a big comission full of strict specialists (people with their heads in the right place, and sharp on the issue) that can take actions to fix the gun problem in America.

Edited 10/5/2017 23:06:10

If concern for civilian casualties is enough of a handicap to make the Iraq and Afghanistan conflict basically unwinnable, dragging on for years, (same with ISIS and Syria) then you would think, since empathy for one's own people is even greater, out of concern for AMERICAN civilian casualties the US military would fail absolutely at trying to subdue an armed population and take their guns. That is not even the option, there is no sane plan to ever execute an operation to disarm the whole US population by force.

Of course guns prevent coups. An army with guns isn't stopped because of "government by the people.. for the people" written on a fucking piece of paper, they stop because they'd get shot up by citizens if they tried to seize control. Realpolitik is the only politics that matter. Governments that take peoples' guns and freedom have, in recent times, been elected democratically. You elect your socialist demagogue, what's the difference? Same shitty policies. Democracy results in tyranny.

The doctor story you mentioned could have easily been executed with knives or a blunt force object like a hammer.

So if anything, trucks are worse than guns. Because soldiers and police can shoot down a gunman in the street, but a trucker??? See how this story isn't really an argument against guns.

Neither are the night club casualties in Paris. It actually requires a lot of bullets (excl. headshots) to kill a target, given the state of medicine today. If an armed defender was serious about shooting down a target, even in a packed room, he could go about it with minimal casualties. Also, don't people tend to run out of the way of shooters? You have to be dedicated to kill a moving target. A defensive shooter would not shoot fleeing people.

-

They're talking about banning "bump stocks" now. Bump stocks are very hard to use and require careful practice. Bump stocks cause terrible accuracy and are thus a waste of ammo. A mass shooter would be better off not using a bump stock anyway since it's just a waste of ammo.

Also you can make your own bump stock pretty easily.

Also laughable how politicians like Biden and Shillary that love waging proxy wars killing hundreds of thousands of people suddenly care about public safety via gun control.

@TeamGuns

You tell us, in your response:

I don't believe in magic wands that will solve the gun issue called gun control, that's as much stupid lobby populism as believing that the government will take over if americans aren't allowed to buy silencers. Really, Europe has tons of guns itself, the Swiss are the third most armed in the world, France doesn't lag too much behind and is 10-11ish, and it's not like there's mass shootings every day in either of these countries.

You make an excellent point. We need to take a long hard look at our society and come to grips with what accounts for the difference between a well armed nation such as the Swiss, and the U.S.

Robert VerBruggen writing at the National Review made this statement on Bump-Stocks.

There are plenty of the things already in circulation legally, which cannot and should not be confiscated ... But this is a device that serves no compelling civilian purpose and yet can drastically increase the body count of a mass shooting. We should not allow companies to perfect its design and sell it openly. Congress should give this product the same treatment it gave to true full autos three decades ago: Grandfather what already exists, but stop new ones from entering the market. If a compromise is in order, attaching this policy to the Hearing Protection Act, which would make it easier to buy sound suppressors, would be an ideal solution.

>it didn't drastically increase the body count

A truck with a machine gun on the back is one of the most potent weapons of war in the modern era, next to that are shoulder mounted anti tank weapons and barrels filled with TnT and shrapnel. High technology is usually answered by a low tech solution, or at least an easily attained solution of it's own making.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_War

and before you say France won the war, the most they did was bomb Libyan units south of the parallel, and with America gift arms to the Chadians. Aside from that, the Chadians worked alone north of the parallel.

>bongo jungle people with avg IQ scores of 50 get guns from the GOOD BOI US government

>