I think even Yas Forums has to admit that it works. To deny this is to ignore reality. Let's face it, guns out of reach of the majority population would lead to those criminals resorting to other weapons.
>inb4 but muh knife crime, muh DUIs/car-rammimg rampages
Apples to oranges and red herring. On the one hand, cars and knives have many uses in our day-to-day lives. Guns don't. Unless you could ride a magic broomstick that's instead an Enfield or cut paper by shooting through it with precision, they're otherwise not the same thing. It's also a red herring because it's there to distract you from the fact of gun crime and other gun-related deaths that happen each year in the US. The US has a murder rate similar to that of backwater Eastern European shitholes. The UK's is significantly smaller. If a product kills 30,000 people each year, there would be a recall for it, not to mention lawsuits. So why shouldn't the same logic be approached to guns?
>inb4 the black market
Obviously, no one has ever said that gun control would eliminate all guns. It would just make it much more difficult for criminals to obtain (and stupidly expensive). So to point to these examples such as the 2016 Munich shooting (which, btw, the gun used by the shooter was a reactivated pistol used for theaters, which really shows you how hard it is for them to get even in the black market without making your own someway or another) is really a strawman claim.
>inb4 but they'll make their own guns themselves, like that Halle synagogue guy!
Pic related in the OP is a Luty 9mm SMG. It is a shitty, unreliable open bolt, smoothbore, jam-o-matic piece of shit that lacks any extractor or shoulder stock. In order to actually make something better than this (i.e. a Sten gun), it would require use of either a mill or a lathe. But if we rightly regulated that too to only licensed blacksmiths, then they would have to make all gun parts, down to the very bullets, casings and powder, by themselves from scratch. Not to mention that you wouldn't be able to testfire them in a civilized country without attracting attention from either neighbors or law enforcement agencies. That's also not to mention the amount of skill it would require to make one. Hence why he only killed two people. Other than that, you could also make a pipe shotgun, but then again it's only single shot, so what are your chances of somebody successfully going on a mass shooting with one? It's basically a musket.
>but what about the improvised guns in Palestine?
Those all come from spare gun parts. You wouldn't even have access to those in a civilized country either.
Jayden Edwards
Prove that it works.
Robert Martin
how about no
Jonathan Anderson
>the fact of gun crime and other gun-related deaths that happen each year in the US. The US has a murder rate similar to that of backwater Eastern European shitholes.
Without nigger violence, we'd be near Switzerland levels. We should get rid of niggers before guns.
Carter Nguyen
so cringe
Daniel Baker
Fuck you faggot.
Joshua Ross
Dont forget to use the magical Salvia Officinalis in slide threads
Thomas Cruz
You know what? I once thought like you. I kept my gun locked up. I was afraid it would kill someone. But then, I decided on an experiment. I would leave my fully loaded weapon, on the table. It never shot a person. It didn’t shoot my dogs. It just collected dust, right where I placed it. It didn’t shoot anybody. So it’s then, after conducting a six month long, scientifically based study, that I knew guns didn’t kill people.
Ian Baker
>no other responses Typical.
Pack it in boys. Just another kike with a slide thread.
Henry Mitchell
Provide a single argument that counters my claims first.
Nolan Brooks
Every thing you said is wrong and your picture proves why.
Nathan Roberts
I told you to prove that it works, first.
Youve done nothing to prove that it works, faggot.
Aiden Perry
I've seen people hand craft firearms. They do it in Afghanistan all the time. Fuck off.
Brody Bailey
>Luty 9mm SMG. It is a shitty, unreliable open bolt, smoothbore, jam-o-matic piece of shit that lacks any extractor or shoulder stock Wrong.
Whatever they're offering you or your benefactors in exchange for unilateral disarmament is a fabrication. In an ideal society, the mere possession of deadly weapons by commoners should pose no threat to competent leadership, as there should not be any desire to use them for any purpose other than entertainment or self-defense. If the people at large did not have reasons to feel threatened, gun control would not be necessary.
No I want people to see how much of a faggot op is.
Levi Sanchez
how about you fuck off, nigger faggot
Josiah Cooper
And yet who gets imprisoned for the most gun crimes? Blacks and Latinos. Fuck off with your "majority population" bullshit. Gun control is just another code word for racist white people who want blacks working in the fields again.
Jayden Mitchell
Tec 9s are actually really good.
Adam Adams
We're going to raid your shit and sell your mom to the whore slavers, you little bitch
>Yes, but how many of them use refurnished gun parts or mills and lathes? Just about all of them do None you fucking idiot.
Gavin Richardson
You can make guns by hand you fucking no nothing nigger. Its how berretta started.
Joseph Gonzalez
Guns with their bare fucking hands to fight off the taliban. Fuck you and heil Pakistanis.
Grayson Williams
Tell that to all the people at the gun store today coming in to find out it will be at least a week before they can take their gun home. Not to mention the fact that there was no ammo left in stock for them to buy.
Oliver Cook
In another country maybe it works. I don't know and don't give a shit about other countries. Here, the lid is already off Pandora's Box and we have a Right to keep and bear arms. So shove your craving to violate my Rights straight up your ass.
Ryder Lewis
I never said it would eliminate ALL GUNS. I just said it would put them out of favor over having to use obsolete or outdated weaponry to commit crimes with. Personally, I don't have anything against antique guns personally. But if they use cartridges or shells, then yeah, they're modern firearms. I'm not against them because a musket could actually be used for something other than killing people (ie an antique, a historical item for collectors, that's pretty much it). As for what actual firearms I do think should be legal are only shotguns. Single and double shot. And only under extensive licensing procedures. And then again, not for self-defense either, but rather for trap and skeet shooting or hunting.
Brody Jones
It’ll be hilarious to see you cower in fear when me and my armed raider boys make easy pickings of your defenseless ass when society collapses.
Owen Butler
>it's another begging the question logical fallacy Yas Forums episode starring faggot OP >hurr dur laws that criminals ignore somehow keeps guns out of the hands of criminals somehow durr hurr
Nicholas Price
Yes, but I wouldn't need a gun to defend myself with if nobody else had one. Do you get where I'm coming from? And btw, that's about the only decent argument you pro-gun people have come up with. Is the "gun-free zones" argument. Obviously, a mass gunman wouldn't target a police station or an airport because they would get neutralized faster than you could blink an eye. The liberals who deny that argument are just in denial and try to disagree with everything the other side says without admitting some of their arguments hold at least SOME water, but only minute.
Michael Morales
Ok zoomer
Connor Brown
Maybe we should finally compromise with these people. Say... we give up our guns but we each get a personal nuke. Those are single shot so they can't complain.
I said that prove that gun control works. Thats not proving that gun control works.
Wyatt Russell
>Yes, but I wouldn't need a gun to defend myself with if nobody else had one Wish in one hand. Shit in the other. Tell us which one fills up first.
Carson Wright
Okay, well look at the UK. Are there guns on the streets? No. At least not in sufficient numbers. That's why you hear of so many stabbings and acid attacks. Why would they be using that if gun control didn't work?
Jaxon Hughes
> I never said it would eliminate ALL GUNS Just the useful ones. Police don't show up half the time and you're gonna tell me lets ban the guns, because some cracka on meth is breaking into your house? > put them out of favor > extensive licensing procedures So only rich white people get to have guns, like how it works in NJ? You think they should bring back the colored fountains too, or did you think anyone with color was beneath you once you got that college education and moved into a gated community? nigga you so out of touch with how the world is. This isn't no playground where the teacher tells everyone to play nice. First time anyone tries to take your stuff or pulls a knife on you, you tell me you don't want a gun. And then you bring up the UK like it's some kind of utopia? Go get stabbed and tell me it's worse than getting shot, I'll wait. niggas bleed out on the street before the paramedics even show, at least with a gunshot they got a chance.
Benjamin Martin
Did the U.K. have more privately owned firearms than citizens when they instituted gun control?
Aaron Hall
>look at me say things without sources *sigh*
Nathan Garcia
No. I don't think so at least. But remember, the last mass shooting in the UK happened in 2010. When was the last time a mass shooting ever happened in America? Yesterday? The day before? Exactly.
I'm not even gonna bother refuting this one. Just read it yourself. It's nonsensical. But if there is one claim I will address is that I believe that everyone has a right to self-defense. The reason I'm anti-gun is because they're not necessary in life. Their only sole purpose and design is for killing. That's it. And sure, you could counter one of my arguments in the OP regarding daggers and swords, and ask "well, if we should sue gun companies for gun-related deaths, why not also use Kabar or Gerber or Coldsteel or whatever" and honestly, that is a decent retort somewhat, and it would've made a lot more sense than what you said. Okay, sure. A weapon is a weapon. Realistically, anything could be used as a weapon. But I think the state's main purpose is to promote the health of it's citizenry. That's it, really.
Chase Gonzalez
OP, if I'm a criminal (I'm not but get in the mindset) and I don't have a gun because they all poofed away and none are coming from the south (theres a good documentary about the illegal trade of manufacturing guns from the south) but I still wanted to kill, all I'd have to do just start stabbing people, or if I wanted a high body count, just get into a crowded train, bus, or something and mix two commonly found chemicals for a gas that kill people painfully. Or I could take the time (I have zero knowledge of how to do this FBI, I'm just saying it's out there :) ) to learn how to make explosions. There was a person who mailed anthrax, someone who poisoned food. The difference is that I, as a hypothetical crazy person (I am sane) will continue doing bad things in new ways. What I use wouldn't thwart me, but the idea that someone may fight back would make me more selective on where I do things. Like a gun free zone ;)
>No. I don't think so at least. Right. You are comparing apples with garden rakes.
Gavin Johnson
Because you're missing the point of gun control. Why control the guns if it has no meaningful reduction of crime. Because the stats I know you're referencing also show a dramatic rise in a bunch of weapons that are NOT guns. Comparably so.
Carson Peterson
>or if I wanted a high body count, just get into a crowded train, bus, or something and mix two commonly found chemicals for a gas that kill people painfully. Or I could take the time (I have zero knowledge of how to do this FBI, I'm just saying it's out there :) ) to learn how to make explosions. There was a person who mailed anthrax, someone who poisoned food. Are you referring to Sarin or Clorox? If it's the former then you know nothing about the background of Aum Shinrikyo and how his preparation went. There's no way you would be able to manufacture that shit in your kitchen. Realistically, flying a Boeing into a skyscraper would've gotten the job done much better. Manufacturing that shit is more dangerous than the end product itself. As for explosives, that's easy to trace and shut down in a civilized country (for example, what would you need sufficient quantities of ammonium nitrate for?). Anthrax? I don't know much about that, but what little I do know, the 2001 Anthrax attacks were committed by somebody who worked as a bioengineer and wouldn't be readily in the hands of anybody. But again, red herring.
Joseph Stewart
*Chlorine, not Clorox.
Camden Morris
I'd rather have people shooting at each other than throwing acid and stabbing one another.
Jonathan Campbell
I can make guns from shit I get at home depot. Gun control is a fantasy. And it doesnt work.
Ethan Gomez
I'm declining to answer either way. It's not relevant and you're dodging my points by saying they are impossibilities. At best they are unlikely friend. You're attempting to treat the argument as a straw man and disregard it through that channel rather than address the fact that it is possible to do all these things and attain a body count similar or higher.
I want you to admit that guns scare you on a fundamental level and that there is no way you could ever be persuaded to be around one. There's nothing to be ashamed of and I'm not trying to antagonize you. All I want you to do is to quit wasting your time by treating this as a one way street. You only reveal your intelligence by refusing to see things in another way but still hold your own opinion. >TL;DR: It's okay to be scared by an inanimate object because it can cause death, but it's not okay to take away law abiding citizens rights to have them and utilize them because seeing them makes you scared.
> I'm not even gonna bother refuting this one. Just read it yourself. It's nonsensical. Your claim is shit. I'll give you mine though-You think you know it all, think you know better then everyone else, and haven't spent 5 minutes in place where the police take more than 10 minutes to show up, if they show up at all. It's the same shit every day here on this site, where somebody like you comes here, thinks they're doing a good deed by spreading the word of gun control to the masses, meanwhile people are out there dying because the police don't give a damn. All you have is your family and the people in your neighborhood to fall back on. That's it, that's the "real world" for many and you can't even put yourself in their shoes. this is why you out of touch. > But I think the state's main purpose is to promote the health of it's citizenry. State doesn't give a damn about you if your black, and all you have is yourself, people you trust, and whatever weapons you have. if it's guns it's guns, if it's fists it's what you got. But don't for one second show up and think you can even THINK you have the right to tell people what is or isn't necessary. Especially the black man. That why you racist, man. Freaking educate yourself.
Joseph Roberts
Still hold your opinion as 100% correct*
Justin Evans
>It would just make it much more difficult for criminals to obtain (and stupidly expensive) lmao I had a friend of a friend offer to sell me a full auto mini 14 for $300, and a bunch of frag grenades for $20 a pop You can buy anything if you know the right nigger
Michael Ward
But again, knives and acid could be used for other things. Like in lead car batteries or in chemistry. To say that acid's only purpose is blinding people is stupid. Obviously no one wants acid in their face, but again, you must consider that fact first before trying to make the blanket claims that the pro-gun side is notorious for.
Aaron Bell
Do not reply to 9onxUPOB He is a disengious Jew who seeks to find fools. He will only find himself
As for you 9onxUPOB, go stand in front of a mirror and talk to yourself. You will achieve much more desirable results
