Gun debate thread

[Ballel]

but if they are allowing civilians to weild a gun, the rules should be stricter.

But that's an opinion

 

[NAMELESS]

It doesn't matter. I lied? You guys actually answer arguments with phrases, mockery and memes

and they conjure laws out of thin air too lol lmao these people...

 

[Ballel]

The world is a terrible place with an endless capacity for death and destruction. It's because of this that every man should place the responsibility upon themselves to be capable in some capacity to protect themselves and their family, and it's frankly embarrassing to abdicate yourself of that willingly, and hope and pray nothing bad will happen because you're European or whatever.

Tell me, how do you want to protect yourself against a bad guy with a gun whe's already pointing it at you and about to shoot?

 

[Luffydom56]

But that's an opinion

As someone who comes from a military family, do you know there are many cases of friendly fire within the military itself which are not even reported, and those m are trained soldiers. Giving firearms to anyone will cause more harm than good.

 

[NAMELESS]

No shit people too stupid to own guns shouldn't own them, the question is that should the rights of many be sacrificed for the sins of a few? Both pragmatically and philosophically, the answer is no. I mean, if you believe in democracy, and you can recognize the contradiction between most of the voting population being mouthbreathers and still being determinant to how we make our decisions, you should be able to follow my argument. I want every right afforded to me to own weapons, because me not owning them doesn't have impact on the capacity of lawbreakers to own them, or on the competence of the police who I must rely on to protect me. Fuck cops and criminals

Instead you've devolve to appealing to emotion about the blood of children. *Rolls eyes*.

Yes, it's terrible, but thankfully, the amount of children who die in mass shootings annually is comparable with the amount of children who die from lightning strikes and slipping and falling in the bathroom.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't seek to mitigate it, but it does mean we should treat such incidences the way society handles everything else it can't guarantee against - proportional consequence for the perpetrator. No amount of gun control is going to stop a motivated actor as long as the laws of physics and chemistry exist. Forget an AR-15, you can kill almost 100 people driving a truck into a crowded population.

The world is a terrible place with an endless capacity for death and destruction. It's because of this that every man should place the responsibility upon themselves to be capable in some capacity to protect themselves and their family, and it's frankly embarrassing to abdicate yourself of that willingly, and hope and pray nothing bad will happen because you're European or whatever.

Ohh look a real man around here.Great post.

 

[Ultra]

How are fat muricans gonna fight the state government police(who have bullet shields jackets and everything) even if they have a big ass arsenal, more chances of them killing another civilian accidentally. You will be butchered if the biggest military on the earth comes after you. That being said I have no opinions on this. but if they are allowing civilians to weild a gun, the rules should be stricter.

I'm going to play devil's advocate here - I'm not the redneck "take down da guvment" flavor of gun owner, but this point has been brought up a couple of times, I'd like to raise a few points to mull over.

The U.S. military has failed in almost all of its war efforts to control populations even more poorly armed than the domestic U.S. population. You can have all the military tech in the world but it proves very difficult to subjugate people who don't want to be subjugated without total annihilation. And the latter is, domestically, not a viable option.

Spoiler

 

[NAMELESS]

I'm going to play devil's advocate here - I'm not the redneck "take down da guvment" flavor of gun owner, but this point has been brought up a couple of times, I'd like to raise a few points to mull over.

The U.S. military has failed in almost all of its war efforts to control populations even more poorly armed than the domestic U.S. population. You can have all the military tech in the world but it proves very difficult to subjugate people who don't want to be subjugated without total annihilation. And the latter is, domestically, not a viable option.

Spoiler

Just look at Afghanistan,it failed badly.

 

[Ultra]

Tell me, how do you want to protect yourself against a bad guy with a gun whe's already pointing it at you and about to shoot?

I would have more options than without it? What are you driving at with this loaded question?

 

[Ballel]

I would have more options than without it? What are you driving at with this loaded question?

just answer.

 

[Luffydom56]

I'm going to play devil's advocate here - I'm not the redneck "take down da guvment" flavor of gun owner, but this point has been brought up a couple of times, I'd like to raise a few points to mull over.

The U.S. military has failed in almost all of its war efforts to control populations even more poorly armed than the domestic U.S. population. You can have all the military tech in the world but it proves very difficult to subjugate people who don't want to be subjugated without total annihilation. And the latter is, domestically, not a viable option.

Spoiler

It is different in the home ground tbh,


The government has more control. Also depends on who is the leader, military leaders are normally lethal unlike your run of the mill political ones.

 

[NAMELESS]

I would have more options than without it? What are you driving at with this loaded question?

Without a gun you might just die.Armed you have chance at winning or taking the bad dude to the after life with you.People should be able to choose by themselves,not the government.

 

[Ultra]

just answer.

Well, hypothetically, if I was caught in a position where I couldn't draw and fire without them shooting me, I'd comply and deescalate the situation as much as I could. I would look out for openings to turn the situation around but if I really couldn't manage to do that, there are situations where drawing a weapon would be a wrong move. But there are also situations where it is the correct one.

Really no point in going into specifics without having you identify the purpose of this question. If it's "hah having a gun doesn't help you all the time, gotem", you're not really proving anything.

 

[Nagasaki]

Tell me, how do you want to protect yourself against a bad guy with a gun whe's already pointing it at you and about to shoot?

It's not that simple. In reality, criminals are fearful, they look for easy victims.

So in countries with high crime rates, when civilians start to get guns, crime goes down. Do you know why? Because it's not easy to rob a store if you can have an employee with guns there, okay? Bandit points his gun at the cashier girl, another employee appears and points his gun at the bandit, the bandit is going to be fucked anyway in this situation. This makes it more risky to commit crimes.

Even harvard studied this shit

Anyway, I agree with regulatation. Have to go through a psychological exam, IMO even brain evaluation to prevent psychopaths having weapons.

 

[MarineHQ]

I'd rather get myself a sick ass Katana.

 

[Ballel]

I'd rather get myself a sick ass Katana.

black blade or nothing
Don't settle with anything low quality

 

[BleakAsh]

Dude someones retarded with knife can't kill as much as people with guns

Is that too hard for you to comprehend?!


And you actually have solid chance to resist knife attacks unlike guns

The harder it is to kill, the harder the murderous mentality to commit mass murders and thus it will be easily countered and significantly reduced


It's like saying "there's no use banning people from travelling with cars to XX dangerous areas because people will walk there anyway" well duhh ofc but extremely few will be willing to put effort and walk to there in KMs compared to just to go there by cars.

when on earth did i deny that, you quoted me saying the exact same shit bro, but that doesn't justify banning guns as a whole restricting them whilst dealing with those retards as a whole is more sensible.. even in Europe where gun availability is tight roped the "retarded" just resort to knives or more efficient melee... if you want retards to just have a tough time killing people by banning something that can be restricted and dealt with fundamentally as a whole than depriving the public of main crucial arms.

Restricting guns would just do the same thing you're claiming, it would dither mass availability of Fire arms while sustaining their possession amongst the public which is crucial and more adequate

and hell the analogy you provide is pretty simplistic... restrictions on cars would basically dither the "retards" which is the point but why not ban the the place itself hence there is no motivation for these "retards".. there is basically no point in banning cars there.

which again is the point.

plus there are holes in that analogy

- it doesn't account for motivation

- you can't compare a mile long destination which is comparatively more excruciating to basically a less efficient weapon which is still an easy alternative for the retards (again US would turn into they next Europe with most meele violence)

 

[Ballel]

it doesn't account for motivation

See kid, I don't really care about someone's motivation to kill dozens of children from a long distance as long as the weapons that are available are not capable of doing so.

Thoughts don't kill people. Weapons do.

 

[BleakAsh]

See kid, I don't really care about someone's motivation to kill dozens of children from a long distance as long as the weapons that are available are not capable of doing so.

Thoughts don't kill people. Weapons do.

ok wall-kun

 

[Ballel]

ok wall-kun

 

[NAMELESS]

It's not that simple. In reality, criminals are fearful, they look for easy victims.

So in countries with high crime rates, when civilians start to get guns, crime goes down. Do you know why? Because it's not easy to rob a store if you can have an employee with guns there, okay? Bandit points his gun at the cashier girl, another employee appears and points his gun at the bandit, the bandit is going to be fucked anyway in this situation. This makes it more risky to commit crimes.

Even harvard studied this shit

Anyway, I agree with regulatation. Have to go through a psychological exam, IMO even brain evaluation to prevent psychopaths having weapons.

Crimes are decreasing in Brazil thanks to the new gun laws.Gun aquisition increased over 450%.

Post automatically merged: Jun 29, 2022

when on earth did i deny that, you quoted me saying the exact same shit bro, but that doesn't justify banning guns as a whole restricting them whilst dealing with those retards as a whole is more sensible.. even in Europe where gun availability is tight roped the "retarded" just resort to knives or more efficient melee... if you want retards to just have a tough time killing people by banning something that can be restricted and dealt with fundamentally as a whole than depriving the public of main crucial arms.

Restricting guns would just do the same thing you're claiming, it would dither mass availability of Fire arms while sustaining their possession amongst the public which is crucial and more adequate

and hell the analogy you provide is pretty simplistic... restrictions on cars would basically dither the "retards" which is the point but why not ban the the place itself hence there is no motivation for these "retards".. there is basically no point in banning cars there.

which again is the point.

plus there are holes in that analogy

- it doesn't account for motivation

- you can't compare a mile long destination which is comparatively more excruciating to basically a less efficient weapon which is still an easy alternative for the retards (again US would turn into they next Europe with most meele violence)

Banning firearm solves nothing.Bandits will have an easier time,mass murderers will resort to illegal guns,knifes,bombs,cars,etc...Civillians will lose their best tools of defense.Dictators always disarm their populations.