Quite surprised that there are no threads here already related to this. However, I'd like to offer my opinion (yes, they are like a-holes, everyone has one and they all stink.) So, here we go anyway.



There's quite an uproar to "Do Something."

There's a growing number of people saying, "No one should have (that many guns) (guns that can cause so much damage) (fill in the blank)."

Yet, it is quite unclear what that something should be and little thought to the underlying principle (the 2nd Amendment) as to what should be banned from people.

-------Do Something------

What? Really, What should be done?

Using Las Vegas as the most recent case study, the shooter seemed intent on causing mass damage.

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?

Would you have mandated background checks? The shooter passed them.

Perhaps we could have further prohibitions on devices whose purpose is to increase the rate of fire of a semi-automatic weapon. Yet these devices are fairly basic and easily to produce with common components. Someone intent on causing damage will make it happen. If not with guns, then with something else.

-------No one should have...-----

There are several purposes to the 2nd Amendment. 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.

People say that in this day and age we shouldn't worry about a tyrannical government. Yet, people alive today have lived through (and died because of) government sponsored genocide.

Under past US Law, blacks were prohibited from having firearms and were unable to defend themselves against lynchings.

Some people say that we should just let the government provide security and trust that they won't become tyrannical.

Depending on whom you're listening to, our current president is like Hitler, but incompetent. As the Chief Executive, he's responsible for federal law enforcement (FBI). He also hates brown people (Why else would he be so adamant on not helping PR?) So, should I believe that we have a racist tyrant in the White House and that we should have our guns to protect us, or should I believe that the US Govt will never do anything bad and we should have full faith in the government to protect everyone?

I'm going for the third choice, that he's really like Hitler, but too incompetent to execute, so give up your guns.

TLDR
There's a reason we have the 2nd Amendment. Emotional pleas in the wake of violent attacks seem to propose solutions that will not have any benefit at the expense of curtailing one of our rights.

Good post, and since the Left uses mass shootings to create feels arguments to push their twisted bullshit policies, save this. Every time a mass shooting happens we need quick posts like this to dismiss the gun grabbers, point out their despicable tactic of constructing the argument in a way that makes us look like we actually agree with mass shooters simply because we oppose gun control policies.

I think we should stay more on the attack. A few retards like Hillary Clinton, that lady at CBS, and failed "comedian" turned Chuck Schumer mouthpiece Jimmy Kimmel and his crocodile tears made complete asses of themselves. Leftist tendency to use shooting victims as pawns should be pointed out to swiftly knock them off their moral high ground.

Also the "nobody should own that many guns" argument is so asinine I have to elaborate on it.

Until people have the technology to build mech fighters than can wield more than two firearms, why does it matter? No more than one gun at a time was used in the shooting.

Sigh, I found a flaw in my argument.

I seemed to imply that many of the people that lived through a genocide actually died. Oh well, I hope the reader gets my point.

But what about 2 guns?

http://a.fod4.com/misc/OBAMA_SixGuns.gif

yeah where are all these attacks happening in open carry zones where other people have guns

Edited 10/5/2017 19:06:23

^^That'll happen a lot. Especially to unpopular people, like many STEM people.

And both sides will have nukes. Until they have used all their nukes. Then they will have death.

People are welcome to all the guns they want. But even many Republican Congressmen are starting to consider a ban on Bump-Stocks, which I think is completely reasonable. I understand that people can still build this kind of thing, but banning them would make it more difficult to acquire, which seems good enough to me.

>bans
>preventing people from getting anything

kek

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.