Why Do People Like Guns So Much?

[Deleted member 12002]

None of those things give you a advantage as big as having a firegun
No women would be able to kill a mma Fighter with a knife or a corrosive material

Lol, I've never had a woman try to kill me. Well, there was one who came at me with a knife one time. But I doubt she was trying to kill me.

 

[ToursOverBoyo2020]

So what? I'd rather have a high murder rate for the sake of the ability to protect myself. Freedom isn't free.

Anyways, look at all the countries with "successful" gun control. England, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand. Notice anything similar? They're all island nations. No land borders. Now look at America. Our border to the South is the most crossed border in the world. That's even if you ignore all the illigal crossings. Do you really think we could keep guns out of our country? Criminals will always have a need for them. If you somehow managed to confiscate and ban all guns in America the criminals would all just have fully automatic weapons instead of semi automatic ones.

That will never happen though. There's too many people like myself who would be willing to die before they ever let something like that happen. Only from my cold dead fingers will my right to bear arms be taken from me.

Americans aren't free tho. In so called patriotic Texas you literally have to pledge allegiance to a foreign entity or you get fired from your job and don't get aid from the govt if a hurricane or other natural disaster occurs. In the most gun-loving state in the United States, Jews have the most control in that state than any other. Let that sink in.

 

[Deleted member 12002]

America is terrible. It's completely owned by Jews with nonstop feminist, phaggot, tranny propaganda. Everything in America exported elsewhere. If people with guns were ever going to rise up it would've happened already by now. It's a fantasy to think your average low iq fat phuck american is going to overthrow the US govt.

What do you care then, loser? Mind your f*cking business then and quit worrying about what we Americans want for our country.

 

[Deleted member 5185]

So what? I'd rather have a high murder rate for the sake of the ability to protect myself. Freedom isn't free.

Anyways, look at all the countries with "successful" gun control. England, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand. Notice anything similar? They're all island nations. No land borders. Now look at America. Our border to the South is the most crossed border in the world. That's even if you ignore all the illigal crossings. Do you really think we could keep guns out of our country? Criminals will always have a need for them. If you somehow managed to confiscate and ban all guns in America the criminals would all just have fully automatic weapons instead of semi automatic ones.

That will never happen though. There's too many people like myself who would be willing to die before they ever let something like that happen. Only from my cold dead fingers will my right to bear arms be taken from me.

There are many nations that are not island nations with very low amounts of gun violence. Scandinavia is a prime example.

Even if we assume that a gun ban would leave 100% of the good faith citizens without guns, and every single criminal would have guns, it still isn't logical to own a gun for self defence purposes. Criminals aren't breaking into your home to murder you, they want to rob you. If you have a gun, and they know you have a gun, the chances of someone (either you or him) dying is way higher.

We have no reason to believe that any significant number of criminals want to murder innocent civilians for no reason, except to defend themselves. Civilians owning guns as such is problematic, and increases violence.

On top of that, if a person wants to murder you, and is plotting to do so, owning a gun will do nothing in self defence. They will simply wait until you're walking to your car and shoot you in the back of the neck or something. You will have no way of defending yourself.

There is no logical argument to keep gun laws except idiotic, irrational "muh amendment" cope, likely because the person in question thinks guns are cool and makes them a badass. Which is of course wrong.

 

[ToursOverBoyo2020]

What do you care then, loser? Mind your f*cking business then and quit worrying about what we Americans want for our country.

Thanks for confirming that you support phags, trannies, and feminism.

 

[ToursOverBoyo2020]

There are many nations that are not island nations with very low amounts of gun violence. Scandinavia is a prime example.

Even if we assume that a gun ban would leave 100% of the good faith citizens without guns, and every single criminal would have guns, it still isn't logical to own a gun for self defence purposes. Criminals aren't breaking into your home to murder you, they want to rob you. If you have a gun, and they know you have a gun, the chances of someone (either you or him) dying is way higher.

We have no reason to believe that any significant number of criminals want to murder innocent civilians for no reason, except to defend themselves. Civilians owning guns as such is problematic, and increases violence.

On top of that, if a person wants to murder you, and is plotting to do so, owning a gun will do nothing in self defence. They will simply wait until you're walking to your car and shoot you in the back of the neck or something. You will have no way of defending yourself.

There is no logical argument to keep gun laws except idiotic, irrational "muh amendment" cope, likely because the person in question thinks guns are cool and makes them a badass. Which is of course wrong.

 

[Deleted member 12002]

Ofc the government wouldnt destroy the world but Im just telling u how powerful they are on a military level
Personal fireguns have pretty much no role as war weapons nowadays

The military is powerful. But American people fill their ranks. I've served in the military myself, and I can tell you without a doubt that the government would never be able to wage war against it's people. They might be able to impose martial law from time to time, but if they ever wanted tried to attack us the military would not stand.

 

[Deleted member 12002]

1. Cars are necessary, guns are not. Beyond that, this is an example of a "whataboutism" argument - Whether or not guns should or shouldn't be legal for instance, has no relation to how many people die in car accidents. It is bad or good on its own merits, not depending on other death causes
2. If you believe guns are a necessary evil to keep people free from oppression, who are you refering to? The state would swiftly murder a militia of gun touting retards. Those who have guns to protect themselves are the very people who would die in a combat situation against the state.

No they wouldn't. The military would devide itself in that situation. Mass mutinies would occur.

 

[Albeacho]

There are many nations that are not island nations with very low amounts of gun violence. Scandinavia is a prime example.

Even if we assume that a gun ban would leave 100% of the good faith citizens without guns, and every single criminal would have guns, it still isn't logical to own a gun for self defence purposes. Criminals aren't breaking into your home to murder you, they want to rob you. If you have a gun, and they know you have a gun, the chances of someone (either you or him) dying is way higher.

We have no reason to believe that any significant number of criminals want to murder innocent civilians for no reason, except to defend themselves. Civilians owning guns as such is problematic, and increases violence.

On top of that, if a person wants to murder you, and is plotting to do so, owning a gun will do nothing in self defence. They will simply wait until you're walking to your car and shoot you in the back of the neck or something. You will have no way of defending yourself.

There is no logical argument to keep gun laws except idiotic, irrational "muh amendment" cope, likely because the person in question thinks guns are cool and makes them a badass. Which is of course wrong.

Based af bro

 

[Deleted member 5185]

The military is powerful. But American people fill their ranks. I've served in the military myself, and I can tell you without a doubt that the government would never be able to wage war against it's people. They might be able to impose martial law from time to time, but if they ever wanted tried to attack us the military would not stand.

What the fuck is this logic?

You're assuming that if the government wanted to "wage war", the entire military would turn against them, so thats why civilians needs guns? Like how does that make sense? The military already has guns, in this scenario civilians wouldn't need guns since the military is on your side.

In the case that the military ISN'T at your side.... You do know US is the #1 military force on planet earth, and would eradicate civilians so easily its not even funny. Fat ameritards with glocks attempting to defeat tanks, fighter jets and artillery shells, just LMFAO imagine being this autistic

 

[ToursOverBoyo2020]

The military is powerful. But American people fill their ranks. I've served in the military myself, and I can tell you without a doubt that the government would never be able to wage war against it's people. They might be able to impose martial law from time to time, but if they ever wanted tried to attack us the military would not stand.

European Christian Americans who literally founded the country are being ethnically cleansed by their own govt and made into a minority in a country that was built for them, if that is not considered waging a war against it's own people then I don't know what is. Meanwhile, Americans are serving in the military and killing themselves in Jewish wars while the same Jews who own the govt are replacing them with minorities from every corner of the Earth. jfl

 

[Deleted member 5185]

What the fuck is this logic?

You're assuming that if the government wanted to "wage war", the entire military would turn against them, so thats why civilians needs guns? Like how does that make sense? The military already has guns, in this scenario civilians wouldn't need guns since the military is on your side.

In the case that the military ISN'T at your side.... You do know US is the #1 military force on planet earth, and would eradicate civilians so easily its not even funny. Fat ameritards with glocks attempting to defeat tanks, fighter jets and artillery shells, just LMFAO imagine being this autistic

And this is all before considering just how laughably unlikely the scenario is. Its like saying "I always wear a buttplug with a keylock just in case a huge gay bear attempts to rape me xdd I'm never risking my asshole getting raped, no matter how unrealistic it ever happening is!"

 

[fukmylyf]

just write lots of words theory

 

[Deleted member 12002]

Americans aren't free tho. In so called patriotic Texas you literally have to pledge allegiance to a foreign entity or you get fired from your job and don't get aid from the govt if a hurricane or other natural disaster occurs. In the most gun-loving state in the United States, Jews have the most control in that state than any other. Let that sink in.

Every country has laws. So by your logic unless there's total anarchy you're not free?

 

[Deleted member 12002]

What the fuck is this logic?

You're assuming that if the government wanted to "wage war", the entire military would turn against them, so thats why civilians needs guns? Like how does that make sense? The military already has guns, in this scenario civilians wouldn't need guns since the military is on your side.

In the case that the military ISN'T at your side.... You do know US is the #1 military force on planet earth, and would eradicate civilians so easily its not even funny. Fat ameritards with glocks attempting to defeat tanks, fighter jets and artillery shells, just LMFAO imagine being this autistic

The military would be to scared to side with the people if the people weren't armed themselves.

 

[Deleted member 5185]

The military would be to scared to side with the people if the people weren't armed themselves.

No, this makes zero sense.

Firstly, there is no reason to suspect that any high percentage of the gun owning population would be willing to wage war, and even less reason to suspect they would be useful in any meaningful way in close quarters combat warfare.

Secondly, even assuming that every single gun touting citizen was willing and able to wage war against the US army, you're making a massive assumption about just how the military would split in this absurd scenario that didn't make sense in the first place.

If a majority of the US military goes against the government, then the citizens will be superfluous. If a tiny minority of the US military goes against the government, they will lose either way because the military has access to the most advanced military equipment in the world, and the UN would quickly get involved both politically and militarily to avoid war crimes etc. I mean you're actually sitting here saying that the US citizens best bet against the US army is themselves doing warfare with their glocks. I can tell you are completely and utterly brainwashed and has lost all capabilities of thinking logically about this subject.

 

[Deleted member 12002]

European Christian Americans who literally founded the country are being ethnically cleansed by their own govt and made into a minority in a country that was built for them, if that is not considered waging a war against it's own people then I don't know what is. Meanwhile, Americans are serving in the military and killing themselves in Jewish wars while the same Jews who own the govt are replacing them with minorities from every corner of the Earth. jfl

Well, whatever America becomes at least we'll still be armed.

 

[Deleted member 5185]

just write lots of words theory

"Bro your argument sucks cause u used like a lot of words"

let me persuade you with this single argument: COPE

 

[Ryan]

Guns allow any cuck to kill you at any time for any reason what so ever. Back in the old day without guns people fought like men, now some cuck takes out a gun and shoots you. Heck, even a foid can easily own you if she has a gun.

Just Marry a gun theory

 

[Deleted member 12002]

No, this makes zero sense.

Firstly, there is no reason to suspect that any high percentage of the gun owning population would be willing to wage war, and even less reason to suspect they would be useful in any meaningful way in close quarters combat warfare.

Secondly, even assuming that every single gun touting citizen was willing and able to wage war against the US army, you're making a massive assumption about just how the military would split in this absurd scenario that didn't make sense in the first place.

If a majority of the US military goes against the government, then the citizens will be superfluous. If a tiny minority of the US military goes against the government, they will lose either way because the military has access to the most advanced military equipment in the world, and the UN would quickly get involved both politically and militarily to avoid war crimes etc. I mean you're actually sitting here saying that the US citizens best bet against the US army is themselves doing warfare with their glocks. I can tell you are completely and utterly brainwashed and has lost all capabilities of thinking logically about this subject.

The UN, lol.

Anyways, a large enough percentage of the population would be willing to wage war. Look what's going on in America already. And no, I'd be willing to bet the majority of the military would mutiny.

 

[Deleted member 5185]

The UN, lol.

Anyways, a large enough percentage of the population would be willing to wage war. Look what's going on in America already. And no, I'd be willing to bet the majority of the military would mutiny.

If the majority of the military would mutiny, then why would the civilians need guns? Your argument makes zero sense. Why are you laughing at the UN? The UN and NATO would have a way bigger say in any political warfare internally in the US than dumb fatmericans with glocks.

Also, again, all this is assuming this fever dream scenario that you have no reason to believe will happen. What do you mean "already going on"? Is there a civil war in america I'm not aware of?

 

[Deleted member 12002]

I'm actually with the Jews on this one since a revolution is extremely unlikely to occur, I'd rather have all guns banned so I wouldn't need to be worried about getting shot jfl. If there was an actual chance of a revolution occurring then I'd get the need for guns, but it's a fantasy so I'd rather have guns banned.

Ban guns all you want. There's still enough people in America who will never give them up. Ban em and we will not comply.

 

[Albeacho]

Ban em and we will not comply.

 

[Deleted member 12002]

If the majority of the military would mutiny, then why would the civilians need guns? Your argument makes zero sense. Why are you laughing at the UN? The UN and NATO would have a way bigger say in any political warfare internally in the US than dumb fatmericans with glocks.

Also, again, all this is assuming this fever dream scenario that you have no reason to believe will happen. What do you mean "already going on"? Is there a civil war in america I'm not aware of?

Because members of military wouldn't have the confidence to mutiny if there was no armed civilian population to back them up. It makes no sense because you lack a prerequired understanding of the nature of conflict.

Yeah, the UN. Do you think we'd ever let an armed blue hat set boots on American soil? They might be able to say whatever they want, but force sh*ts on the back of reason.

The UN is impotent when it comes to force.

 

[Deleted member 12002]

If the majority of the military would mutiny, then why would the civilians need guns? Your argument makes zero sense. Why are you laughing at the UN? The UN and NATO would have a way bigger say in any political warfare internally in the US than dumb fatmericans with glocks.

Also, again, all this is assuming this fever dream scenario that you have no reason to believe will happen. What do you mean "already going on"? Is there a civil war in america I'm not aware of?

Do you not think members of Saddams military didn't want to mutiny as well? Why didn't they.

 

[Deleted member 12002]

View attachment 1094626

Yeah, don't kid yourself.

 

[Deleted member 12002]

There are many nations that are not island nations with very low amounts of gun violence. Scandinavia is a prime example.

Even if we assume that a gun ban would leave 100% of the good faith citizens without guns, and every single criminal would have guns, it still isn't logical to own a gun for self defence purposes. Criminals aren't breaking into your home to murder you, they want to rob you. If you have a gun, and they know you have a gun, the chances of someone (either you or him) dying is way higher.

We have no reason to believe that any significant number of criminals want to murder innocent civilians for no reason, except to defend themselves. Civilians owning guns as such is problematic, and increases violence.

On top of that, if a person wants to murder you, and is plotting to do so, owning a gun will do nothing in self defence. They will simply wait until you're walking to your car and shoot you in the back of the neck or something. You will have no way of defending yourself.

There is no logical argument to keep gun laws except idiotic, irrational "muh amendment" cope, likely because the person in question thinks guns are cool and makes them a badass. Which is of course wrong.

So I should be at the mercy of someone who would break into my home because, statistically speaking, he probably won't murder me? Maybe he wants to rape my wife too, but that's ok because nobody will get killed. You're an idiot.

Anyways, you're right about one thing. I'm very comfortable around guns and I know how to use them. If someone invades my home one of us will surely die.

 

[Deleted member 12002]

There are many nations that are not island nations with very low amounts of gun violence. Scandinavia is a prime example.

Even if we assume that a gun ban would leave 100% of the good faith citizens without guns, and every single criminal would have guns, it still isn't logical to own a gun for self defence purposes. Criminals aren't breaking into your home to murder you, they want to rob you. If you have a gun, and they know you have a gun, the chances of someone (either you or him) dying is way higher.

We have no reason to believe that any significant number of criminals want to murder innocent civilians for no reason, except to defend themselves. Civilians owning guns as such is problematic, and increases violence.

On top of that, if a person wants to murder you, and is plotting to do so, owning a gun will do nothing in self defence. They will simply wait until you're walking to your car and shoot you in the back of the neck or something. You will have no way of defending yourself.

There is no logical argument to keep gun laws except idiotic, irrational "muh amendment" cope, likely because the person in question thinks guns are cool and makes them a badass. Which is of course wrong.

"We have no reason to believe that any significant number of criminals want to murder innocent civilians for no reason, except to defend themselves. Civilians owning guns as such is problematic, and increases violence."

You're so increadibly stupid and naive.

 

[Deleted member 12002]

No, this makes zero sense.

Firstly, there is no reason to suspect that any high percentage of the gun owning population would be willing to wage war, and even less reason to suspect they would be useful in any meaningful way in close quarters combat warfare.

Secondly, even assuming that every single gun touting citizen was willing and able to wage war against the US army, you're making a massive assumption about just how the military would split in this absurd scenario that didn't make sense in the first place.

If a majority of the US military goes against the government, then the citizens will be superfluous. If a tiny minority of the US military goes against the government, they will lose either way because the military has access to the most advanced military equipment in the world, and the UN would quickly get involved both politically and militarily to avoid war crimes etc. I mean you're actually sitting here saying that the US citizens best bet against the US army is themselves doing warfare with their glocks. I can tell you are completely and utterly brainwashed and has lost all capabilities of thinking logically about this subject.

Here in China when people invade a home to rob they kill everbody inside 99% of the time. It's easier to get away with it that way. Tying up a family takes a lot of time and effort.

Why do you think there are bars on every window over here? It's well known that you never answer the door over here for someone you don't know. My ex girlfriend had two different classmates growing up who's entire family was killed in separate home invasions. One little girl survived by hiding in a closet. Her mother, father, grandparents, and brother were all knifed to death. Her other classmate, a few years later, didn't make it. She was killed along with her family. This happens all the time.

 

[Deleted member 5185]

Because members of military wouldn't have the confidence to mutiny if there was no armed civilian population to back them up. It makes no sense because you lack a prerequired understanding of the nature of conflict.

Yeah, the UN. Do you think we'd ever let an armed blue hat set boots on American soil? They might be able to say whatever they want, but force sh*ts on the back of reason.

The UN is impotent when it comes to force.

The military doesn't need civilians to back them up. Dumb fatmericans with glocks are useless. The military aren't going to be like "hmm, do we follow orders or join the rebellion? Well, we would WANT to join the rebelion BUT none of them are armed, and since we are the military that means we can't possibly win against the politicians in the white house without them" like just think about how incredibly retarded what you are saying is.

You obviously have literally no idea how the UN and NATO works. They would employ necessary force via other countries support. When France, UK, Germany etc sends soldiers to clean up the clusterfuck fever dream scenario you're thinking up, the civilians with their glocks will have absolutely no significance. They wouldn't even if the UN & NATO didn't exist either way, because your fantasy about the military doing the optimal split just to justify your stance would never happen in real life.

[1]Here in China when people invade a home to rob they kill everbody inside 99% of the time. It's easier to get away with it that way. Tying up a family takes a lot of time and effort.

[2]Why do you think there are bars on every window over here? It's well known that you never answer the door over here for someone you don't know. My ex girlfriend had two different classmates growing up who's entire family was killed in separate home invasions. One little girl survived by hiding in a closet. Her mother, father, grandparents, and brother were all knifed to death. Her other classmate, a few years later, didn't make it. She was killed along with her family. This happens all the time.

[1] Interesting, do you have a source? I mean obviously what you said makes absolutely zero sense, and is so stupid that no person would ever believe it to be true, but since you're stating it I might as well ask for a source.

[2] This is just an analogy that on top of being a useless analogy is also obviously a lie. Lets assume that China is filled to the brim with murder gangs that just wants to murder civilians - how is this relevant to the US?

[1]So I should be at the mercy of someone who would break into my home because, statistically speaking, he probably won't murder me? Maybe he wants to rape my wife too, but that's ok because nobody will get killed. You're an idiot.

[2]Anyways, you're right about one thing. I'm very comfortable around guns and I know how to use them. If someone invades my home one of us will surely die.

[1] If you make up specific, unreal scenarios like home invaders wanting to rape and murder you, instead of focusing on the real world where this isn't the case, then of course your argument will make a lot more sense. But I'm here to talk about the real world, not your fantasy world. And as it stands, home invasions are a rare occurance in terms of violent crimes, and even when they occur, the chances of them ending up in rape or murder is low. And guns being present on the home owners side will increase the chances of deadly force being used, which can be deducted by simple logical thinking.

[2] Yep. If someone invades my home, they will rob me and I'll get it back on insurance and live a happy life. You being a big tough gun man will get shot and murdered, and so will your wife and children. Good job!

 

[IncelsBraincels]

OP got shot by a manlet lol

 

[Deleted member 9666]

Americans like guns because it’s part of their culture.

where as here in Canada most people could care less about them

 

[Deleted member 12002]

The military doesn't need civilians to back them up. Dumb fatmericans with glocks are useless. The military aren't going to be like "hmm, do we follow orders or join the rebellion? Well, we would WANT to join the rebelion BUT none of them are armed, and since we are the military that means we can't possibly win against the politicians in the white house without them" like just think about how incredibly retarded what you are saying is.

You obviously have literally no idea how the UN and NATO works. They would employ necessary force via other countries support. When France, UK, Germany etc sends soldiers to clean up the clusterfuck fever dream scenario you're thinking up, the civilians with their glocks will have absolutely no significance. They wouldn't even if the UN & NATO didn't exist either way, because your fantasy about the military doing the optimal split just to justify your stance would never happen in real life.




[1] Interesting, do you have a source? I mean obviously what you said makes absolutely zero sense, and is so stupid that no person would ever believe it to be true, but since you're stating it I might as well ask for a source.

[2] This is just an analogy that on top of being a useless analogy is also obviously a lie. Lets assume that China is filled to the brim with murder gangs that just wants to murder civilians - how is this relevant to the US?




[1] If you make up specific, unreal scenarios like home invaders wanting to rape and murder you, instead of focusing on the real world where this isn't the case, then of course your argument will make a lot more sense. But I'm here to talk about the real world, not your fantasy world. And as it stands, home invasions are a rare occurance in terms of violent crimes, and even when they occur, the chances of them ending up in rape or murder is low. And guns being present on the home owners side will increase the chances of deadly force being used, which can be deducted by simple logical thinking.

[2] Yep. If someone invades my home, they will rob me and I'll get it back on insurance and live a happy life. You being a big tough gun man will get shot and murdered, and so will your wife and children. Good job!

The media here isn't allowed to report on whatever they want. Ask any mainland Chinese person. I haven't seen stats on it. Everybody knows. It's an open secret.

You obviously have a very naive outlook on the criminal mind.

Anyways, what makes you so sure I'll be the one to get shot and murdered in a home invasion? I've been shooting guns since I was 3 years old. I used to shoot competitively as a teen (handguns). I'm not some bumbling fool who doesn't know how to use a firearm. I'll keep a glock loaded and cocked within reach around me at all times inside my home as my father always has (glocks don't have safety switches btw). I'll know the layout of my home better than anyone who might try to rob it ever would. If someone does try to invade I will shoot to kill without any warning or hesitation. I'm pretty confident the odds will be in my favor.

Your liberal statistics are very baised. They conveniently leave out a lot of variables I'm sure.

 

[Deleted member 12002]

The military doesn't need civilians to back them up. Dumb fatmericans with glocks are useless. The military aren't going to be like "hmm, do we follow orders or join the rebellion? Well, we would WANT to join the rebelion BUT none of them are armed, and since we are the military that means we can't possibly win against the politicians in the white house without them" like just think about how incredibly retarded what you are saying is.

You obviously have literally no idea how the UN and NATO works. They would employ necessary force via other countries support. When France, UK, Germany etc sends soldiers to clean up the clusterfuck fever dream scenario you're thinking up, the civilians with their glocks will have absolutely no significance. They wouldn't even if the UN & NATO didn't exist either way, because your fantasy about the military doing the optimal split just to justify your stance would never happen in real life.




[1] Interesting, do you have a source? I mean obviously what you said makes absolutely zero sense, and is so stupid that no person would ever believe it to be true, but since you're stating it I might as well ask for a source.

[2] This is just an analogy that on top of being a useless analogy is also obviously a lie. Lets assume that China is filled to the brim with murder gangs that just wants to murder civilians - how is this relevant to the US?




[1] If you make up specific, unreal scenarios like home invaders wanting to rape and murder you, instead of focusing on the real world where this isn't the case, then of course your argument will make a lot more sense. But I'm here to talk about the real world, not your fantasy world. And as it stands, home invasions are a rare occurance in terms of violent crimes, and even when they occur, the chances of them ending up in rape or murder is low. And guns being present on the home owners side will increase the chances of deadly force being used, which can be deducted by simple logical thinking.

[2] Yep. If someone invades my home, they will rob me and I'll get it back on insurance and live a happy life. You being a big tough gun man will get shot and murdered, and so will your wife and children. Good job!

The media here isn't allowed to report on whatever they want. Ask any mainland Chinese person. I haven't seen stats on it. Everybody knows. It's an open secret.

You obviously have a very naive outlook on the criminal mind.

Anyways, what makes you so sure I'll be the one to get shot and murdered in a home invasion? I've been shooting guns since I was 3 years old. I used to shoot competitively as a teen (handguns). I'm not some bumbling fool who doesn't know how to use a firearm. I'll keep a glock loaded and cocked within reach around me at all times inside my home as my father always has (glocks don't have safety switches btw). I'll know the layout of my home better than anyone who might try to rob it ever would. If someone does try to invade I will shoot to kill without any warning or hesitation. I'm pretty confident the odds will be in my favor.

You're liberal statistics are very baised. They conveniently leave out a lot of variables I'm sure.

Lastly, I'm not gonna advertise that I'm armed. Nobody outside my family would ever find out, unless it's the hard way.

 

[Deleted member 12002]

Americans like guns because it’s part of their culture.

where as here in Canada most people could care less about them

I'm Canadian as well. Speak for yourself.

 

[Deleted member 5185]

[1]The media here isn't allowed to report on whatever they want. Ask any mainland Chinese person. I haven't seen stats on it. Everybody knows. It's an open secret.

[2]You obviously have a very naive outlook on the criminal mind.

[3]Anyways, what makes you so sure I'll be the one to get shot and murdered in a home invasion? I've been shooting guns since I was 3 years old. I used to shoot competitively as a teen (handguns). I'm not some bumbling fool who doesn't know how to use a firearm. I'll keep a glock loaded and cocked within reach around me at all times inside my home as my father always has (glocks don't have safety switches btw). I'll know the layout of my home better than anyone who might try to rob it ever would. [4]If someone does try to invade I will shoot to kill without any warning or hesitation. I'm pretty confident the odds will be in my favor.

[5]Your liberal statistics are very baised. They conveniently leave out a lot of variables I'm sure.

[1] So its basically something you pulled out of your ass. Again though, it doesn't matter. If, by chance, China is filled to the brim with home invasion murder gangs, so be it. I'm not speaking about China. For all I know, the logical thing is to always be wearing acid to defend yourself against child gangs attacking you in dark allies.

[2] Hmm, no. I have a realistic outlook on the criminal mind, whilst your outlook is more based on scary movies.

[3] Lets say its a 50% chance. Remember, the home invasion gang coming to kill and rape you and your wife definitely has way more experience than you, considering this is what they do. They likely are very experienced both with guns and how to swiftly murder regular people that just happens to own guns and practice at the gun range. Thats how they're still alive, after all.

[4] This very attitude has gotten several people killed. People so far up in their ass about their fantasy of protecting their homes from intruders have ended up killing friends and relatives because they shoot to kill the second they see a shadowy figure. This happens all the time.

[5] What statistics, exactly? What am I leaving out? My argument is based on pure logic. I'm as far from a liberal as they come, and even if I were hardcore liberal or hardcore conservative - that doesn't change the validity of my argument. It simply isn't relevant.

 

[fukmylyf]

tagging @tapout & @Tony for high iq analysis

 

[Deleted member 6186]

Fireguns are definitely an incel invention, a woman with a gun can kill even shaquile o'neal easilly

Well if our history is correct, the first proto guns were made in China. They used it coz they got tired of being mogged by chads like the Mongols and needed something to even the score.

And you can see to this day, the invention still rings true to its purpose. Doesn't matter how great your genetics are, it won't stop a bullet going through your skull. Spits at nature in its face.

 

[fukmylyf]

guns dont kill ppl
ppl kill ppl

 

[Deleted member 4430]

tagging @tapout & @Tony for high iq analysis

sweet frogo

 

[Deleted member 7901]

this thread is pure soy, guns let people have the feeling of autonomy, and not let
any 6'5 chad to oppress others, it also promotes intelligence rather pure size which is very important
on top of that guns are being used primary for self defense in the US, more then for bad things

You have been brainwashed by the jewish media OP

 

[Deleted member 7901]

Compare the murder rate of England with America.

All of those crimes come from blacks, if you kick the blacks,
the crime rate in the US will be one of the lowest in the world

also JFL terrorists in Europe still get guns, and guess what, normal people can't defend themselves
and need to wait for the police since they don't have guns

guns historically haven't shown to decrease crime

 

[Deleted member 4416]

Imagine wanting guns in your country. The muh amendment argument is beyond retarted: it's completely anachronistic and made some sense 150 years ago. There's not a singe valid reason for guns to be available and every possible argument can be easily countered with 5th grade logic.

 

[Deleted member 7901]

[1] So its basically something you pulled out of your ass. Again though, it doesn't matter. If, by chance, China is filled to the brim with home invasion murder gangs, so be it. I'm not speaking about China. For all I know, the logical thing is to always be wearing acid to defend yourself against child gangs attacking you in dark allies.

[2] Hmm, no. I have a realistic outlook on the criminal mind, whilst your outlook is more based on scary movies.

[3] Lets say its a 50% chance. Remember, the home invasion gang coming to kill and rape you and your wife definitely has way more experience than you, considering this is what they do. They likely are very experienced both with guns and how to swiftly murder regular people that just happens to own guns and practice at the gun range. Thats how they're still alive, after all.

[4] This very attitude has gotten several people killed. People so far up in their ass about their fantasy of protecting their homes from intruders have ended up killing friends and relatives because they shoot to kill the second they see a shadowy figure. This happens all the time.

[5] What statistics, exactly? What am I leaving out? My argument is based on pure logic. I'm as far from a liberal as they come, and even if I were hardcore liberal or hardcore conservative - that doesn't change the validity of my argument. It simply isn't relevant.

Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.

Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence | Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence | The National Academies Press

Read chapter Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence: In 2010, more than 105,000 people were injured or killed in the Uni...

www.nap.edu

 

[Deleted member 5185]

Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.

Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence | Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence | The National Academies Press

Read chapter Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence: In 2010, more than 105,000 people were injured or killed in the Uni...

www.nap.edu

Exactly - and these statistics are a result of the gun policy and culture in the US.

I assume the statistics aren't strictly about home invasions, so they probably don't apply 1:1. However the widespread presence of firearms among the public will obviously raise the stakes in any altercation, resulting in the need actually use ones firearm. If, however, the general public didn't have a firearm, fewer shots would be fired. This is obvious - the need for firearms will snowball as more and more people, criminals and civilians alike, has access to firearms.

 

[Deleted member 7901]

Exactly - and these statistics are a result of the gun policy and culture in the US.

I assume the statistics aren't strictly about home invasions, so they probably don't apply 1:1. However the widespread presence of firearms among the public will obviously raise the stakes in any altercation, resulting in the need actually use ones firearm. If, however, the general public didn't have a firearm, fewer shots would be fired. This is obvious - the need for firearms will snowball as more and more people, criminals and civilians alike, has access to firearms.

no, many criminals who commit crimes with guns already have felonies which don't allow them to own guns
so they get them illegally, also there is almost a 1:10 ratio of violent crimes vs self defense which is massive (you can read in the study, that majority of statistics supported the 3 million figure) all of what you are going to do is to let criminals have guns while taking them for those who use it for self defense won't have them, also an uprising will 100% occur if someone will ever try to ban guns in the US

 

[Deleted member 5185]

no, many criminals who commit crimes with guns already have felonies which don't allow them to own guns
so they get them illegally, also there is almost a 1:10 ratio of violent crimes vs self defense which is massive (you can read in the study, that majority of statistics supported the 3 million figure) all of what you are going to do is to let criminals have guns while taking them for those who use it for self defense won't have them, also an uprising will 100% occur if someone will ever try to ban guns in the US

I've heard many variants of this argument before.

As I stated earlier in this discussion, even if we assume that a gun ban would result in 100% of criminals owning guns, and 0% of the good faith citizens, we would still end up with less gun violence for a myriad of reasons. There would be less accidental gun violence, there would be fewer impulse killings because getting a gun would require one to become a criminal, and last but not least, the need for criminals to actually use their firearms would drastically decrease because every other citizens wouldn't be in possession of one. Criminals with guns aren't trying to kill innocent civilians.

If there is an uprising, the dumb gun touting fatmericans will quickly lose to the US army.

 

[Deleted member 7901]

I've heard many variants of this argument before.

As I stated earlier in this discussion, even if we assume that a gun ban would result in 100% of criminals owning guns, and 0% of the good faith citizens, we would still end up with less gun violence for a myriad of reasons. There would be less accidental gun violence, there would be fewer impulse killings because getting a gun would require one to become a criminal, and last but not least, the need for criminals to actually use their firearms would drastically decrease because every other citizens wouldn't be in possession of one. Criminals with guns aren't trying to kill innocent civilians.

If there is an uprising, the dumb gun touting fatmericans will quickly lose to the US army.

you just look at a way to decrease the use of firearms without seeing the full picture, let alone also calling Americans "fatmericans" which shows what I call "cope elitism" which comes from non-americans usually, I am sorry but I don't think you completely understand the gun situation, let alone the American situation

 

[Deleted member 4416]

no, many criminals who commit crimes with guns already have felonies which don't allow them to own guns
so they get them illegally, also there is almost a 1:10 ratio of violent crimes vs self defense which is massive (you can read in the study, that majority of statistics supported the 3 million figure) all of what you are going to do is to let criminals have guns while taking them for those who use it for self defense won't have them, also an uprising will 100% occur if someone will ever try to ban guns in the US

You are not considering that when guns are illegal it becomes way harder for criminals to get them since they are simply not available. Here in Italy for example the only criminals that have access to guns are criminal organizations that 99% of the time don't bother civilians and only kill each other. The average thug gangster wannabe does not have any access to guns.

 

[Deleted member 5185]

you just look at a way to decrease the use of firearms without seeing the full picture, let alone also calling Americans "fatmericans" which shows what I call "cope elitism" which comes from non-americans usually, I am sorry but I don't think you completely understand the gun situation, let alone the American situation

If you believe you have arguments for why what I am saying is wrong, I suggest you present them instead of attempting to deflect them by putting the focus on me not being american, or using a word you don't like.

You say I don't get the "full picture". Please point to exactly what factors it is that makes my argument not true for USA specifically.