most school shootings end with the assailants killing themselves

the majority of students wouldn't carry guns, by the time anybody who had a gun got to the scene the shooter would probably already be dead.

also there are much more pressing matters in our society than a few middle class kids getting shot jk but srsly there are

Didn't Columbine end with the shooters killing themselves? That would indicate that fear of death would not have prevented them.

Maybe if everyone was armed they'd have been stopped sooner. Maybe if everyone was armed, a dozen more people would have died after being mistaken for the "real" shooters.

>Need proof? Look up "Fort Hood Shooting."

13 people died and 30 injured. Wow guns really helped even more there.

Read up more books on the subject, maybe it'll lift up your delusion.

Guns should not be available to the main public, their illegal distribution must be pursued with more vigilance, and there should be armed and trained security personnel at schools. Everybody tells me, "but DURR HURR I DEFEND MYSELF". Bitch please, you don't need guns for that. Even if someone broke into your house, you can handle the situation without a gun. A gun should only be necessary if you really live in an area infested with gangsters and shit.

Anyone who thinks otherwise is a gun-nut American anyway.

>implying the inbred retards of american middle class wouldnt pull out a gun and shoot the guy beside them over an argument involving a stick of gum
Yea, good think I'm not an americunt. Dumb fucks, the whole lot of them.

>implying the Cold War was won

lrn2history. The Cold War simply ended.

the average college student wouldn't carry a gun even if they could. I know personally I wouldn't even if it were required by law.

Also can you imagine how many drunk frat boys would end up shooting people? jesus christ what a terrible idea

>>331024
for anyone interested, expert names recommend reading up on books by Massad Ayoob on the subject of guns.

Yeah, uh, also that shit doesn't happen nearly as often when guns aren't easily accessible to people.

So you think everyone having guns is better than no one having them?

Because fear is a terrific way of keeping people in line.

lol, wonder what colleges the fags who say nobody would CC on campus go to. I go to school at UNLV which is full of hippy liberal californians and all my friends would CC on campus as well as I. If you don't think students would use their guns on a school shooter just look up the UT Austin shooting. Armed civilians were taking shots at Whitman so he had to duck for cover which limited the number of casualties he could score.

>>331024

>Implying it is difficult or ever will be difficult to get a weapon illegally
>Implying bad guys won't try to acquire a weapon
>Implying good guys will have only fists and strong words in their defense against someone who merely wants to kill.

>>331024
>Even if someone broke into your house, you can handle the situation without a gun.
Wow, you really are ignorant. No, you cannot always handle the situation without a gun, and neither will it always help. Just the simple racking of a shotgun will have a lot of burglars shit their pants. Literally.

>>331050
>Also can you imagine how many drunk frat boys would end up shooting people? jesus christ what a terrible idea
Yes, a lot would, since america does not supply anyone with training. And not everybody needs to lock their weapons away iirc. But just one student in 10 armed should reduce the number of casualties.

>>331065
Probably because he thinks that once criminals obtain guns, the regular unarmed citizens are finished.
In real life, trained law enforcement personnel are the ones who solve the great majority of situations involving guns (notice, "solve, not "end". It can end with he assailants shooting themselves, as it has always happened).
People who make such claims are people who either have never confronted violence, don't understand it, or extremely aggressive "though guys" who also don't know shit except aggression.

I understand what you mean, but many of the murdered students may have not wanted to carry a gun with them everywhere - is it their fault for getting killed for not arming themselves when there was really no plausible reason to expect a psycho murderer?

>>331118
Wat.

Your image is retarded. That ragtag that the Americans call a constitution was drawn up after their little fracas for independence.

>>331147

Butthurt Brit-fag detected.

Don't blame the shooter or the weapons. Blame matter displacement.

Physics are killing us all.

>>331147

It makes perfect sense. At first, we tried to tell the British to GTFO. When they came with more force, we simply started killing them until they quit and ran away.

>>331118
The "harshness" of gun control laws in a nation are well inversely correlated with gun crime in that nation.

Don't really need to fuck around with >implies or reasoning. Just look to the evidence.

And for every tragedy that ends with 50+ dead their will be 200+ individual deaths stemming from armed population.

>>331163

Those nations aren't America, with American niggers running around.

Check and mate sir.

>>331118
FUCK YEAH AMURRICUHHH

>>331126
>Wow, you really are ignorant. No, you cannot always handle the situation without a gun, and neither will it always help. Just the simple racking of a shotgun will have a lot of burglars shit their pants. Literally.
I agree with you on the last part. Keep a shotgun in your house and make burglars hear it being pumped to scare them off. That works. That works, because the gun never leaves house.

On the other hand, before thinking about buying a shotgun and pumping it, you can think about setting your house in a safe place, and spend enough money to really make your house secure. Alarm systems, hardened windows, even motion detectors or shit, I don't know.
inb4 HURR SO U'LL RISK UR FAMILEY SAFETY. No you retard, I'll ambush them and hit them in the head with a hard object if it comes to that. It's my house, I know the layout, I use the geography to my advantage.

>>331154
Nope

>>331160
The title says
"The second amendment"
in bold fucking print. I don't even have to enlarge the thumbnail. The image only makes sense to retards, Americans and uneducated fools

>>331155

"Guns don't kill people. Bullets do. Guns just get them moving really really fast."

>>331181

You should learn about the US constitution, since your government is probably a puppet of ours anyways.

>>331118
Then how come there aren't many shooting sprees of the sort the OP mentioned in the UK?

There have been something like five or six ever, and never by depressed teenagers shooting up their schools.

unrelated but, what other cases of school shootings or massacres are there? me and my friend really enjoy researching about them, we've looked at the three OP mentioned, are there any more?

>>331178
Just putting your house in a "safe place" doesn't mean you're not vulnerable

also how the fuck are you going to ambush somebody who's already snuck into your house? You fucking retard.

You take away guns, people are still going to find other ways to kill people. I find gun battles to be rather mild compared to people throwing mustard gas in the ventilation system or bombs of some sort.

Humans are, by instinct and biology, predators. Taking away guns is not going to take away the urge to kill. If someone is psychotic enough to shoot up a school, they will be able to find just as lethal ways to take out their targets.

>>331191
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rampage_killers

There are separate sections for 'school massacres, workplace killings, hate crimes and familicides' for some reason though so you can't see everything on one page.

>>331214
damn, thank you so much!! this is perfect.

>>331211
>If someone is psychotic enough to shoot up a school, they will be able to find just as lethal ways to take out their targets.

Like what? I've never seen a case of a mass poisoning or bombing of a school in countries where you can't get hold of guns.

>>331186
> Implying I'm British
lolololololol

You should learn something about your own countries history. Specifically which came first, the war of independence or your constitution. You can't amend what's not there dipshit.

>>331065
Gun laws take lives. Lives of good, honest hardworking individuals. It's the criminal that benefits from gun laws, they're already breaking the law, they dont give two fucks whether it's illegal for them to be packing or not. The people need to be armed to protect themselves, but when they have to jump through hoops to do so... you're simply making it easier for some crackhead to pop a cap in the unarmed law-abiding citizen for a quick buck.

It would be better if NOBODY, absolutely NOBODY, had access to guns, But that's impossible. You'd have to be an ignorant moron to think by restricting access, you're going to stop crime. You're going to increase violent crime and increase the likelihood that the victim will be seriously injured or killed, why? "OH HEY I CAN ROB THIS GUY, HE'S PROBABLY NOT ARMED!"

>Criminals will do as criminals do.

>>331188

I heard Norway has some pretty strict gun laws. They seem to work fine.

>>331188
There was one in Scotland in the late 1980s

>>331211
Give a psycho a knife and they'll kill.
Give a psycho an assault rifle and they'll kill.

It's just that with the assault rifle they'll be able to kill many more people before they're stopped.

(Mustard gas is not as freely available as guns or knives, so it's an odd example to use)

>>331240
Not by a student. It was some pedo nut job.

>>331200
>your house
>pitch black

oh shit how do i ambush

Also it's funny, you retards always claim that being in a safe place never guarantees your safety, yet you never make any mention about alarm systems and the such. Also by your logic, if the guy is already in your house, he might be standding near your shotgun in the first place.
Or, let' say, you hear a sound, you pump your shotgun, the sound stops. You hear nothing. An unknown man is in your house, he knows WHERE YOU ARE, he knows WHAT WEAPON YOU HAVE. you, on the other hand, don't know shit about him, you don't even know if he's a novice burglar armed with nothing, or a homicidal one WITH A GUN. Now you need to go downstairs in darkness, and what, find him hoping not to get stabbed or shot?
Yeah real nice strategy there.

>>331240
That's exactly the point. One attack in the past 30 years.

Obviously there's a higher population in the USA than Britain so you'd need to do some scaling up, but even then you're not near the numbers of gun related deaths that America sees.

>>331222
Yeah, i see your argument. By your logic gun point robberies should be sky high in the UK but they aren't. Gun crime is relatively rare.

>One person starts shooting, no one knows who fires the first shot, everyone starts shooting everyone, one person survives, he gets arrested.

>>331222
BREAKING NEWS FORM TURKEY

IT HAS BEEN REPORTED THAT 99% OF GUN CRIMES ARE COMMITTED WITH LEGALLY BOUGHT GUNS, EITHER ONES THAT ARE LEGALLY AVAILABLE TO PURCHASE FOR PEOPLE 18 AND UP, OR WITH GUNS BELONGING TO THE FATHER IN ONE'S FAMILY.

Yeah, you know? This is a perfect example of a country directly applying American gun laws since the 80's, and this is what has come out of it. Before those times, gun crimes with legally obtained guns were only committed by people in shady businesses, never by ordinary criminals or mafia wannabes like today.

Cry some more and keep staying delusional, Americans.

>>331262
Last gun related robbery I heard of was 3 guys trying to rob an old guys shop, I think one of them was stabbed to death, the other two ran off.

>>331230
>I heard Norway had a very nicely trained and organised police force

>>331050
>Also can you imagine how many drunk frat boys would end up shooting people? jesus christ what a terrible idea
>imagine how many drunk frat boys would end up shooting people?
>drunk frat boys shooting people
>implying they will hit anything

I think people overestimate how easy it is to obtain guns in countries that have very strict gun laws.

A shotgun or a hunting rifle sure, but something like a handgun or anything semi automatic? Not a fucking chance unless you've got the money and the criminal connections. And criminals generally want to steal or sell things, they don't shoot up schools.

>>331302
Someone got shot in London not long back. Thing is, in the UK gun crime is so rare that whenever it happens, it's front page news. In America they don;t give a fuck because it happens all the time.7

>>331317
Miss their drunk frat "bro", hit the toddler across the street.

Bullets don't stop because you're a bad shot.

>>331295
oh wait, I forgot-
Before the 80's, you could not obtain guns legally. The only gun crimes happened with illegal guns obtained by powerful enough syndicates with contacts on the outside, or with guns bought in the warzone that is the east of the country.

>>331295

Of course they're legally bought if there's few gun control laws. That's a really fucking retarded argument there.

IN OTHER NEWS: 99% OF GUN RELATED DEATHS ARE CAUSED BY GUNS

The issue is, by restricting gun access, law abiding citizens will follow the law, and not buy guns. Criminals will buy them anyway, through illicit means. You're disarming people who follow the law. If someone's breaking into your house, they don't care about the law, they'll buy their guns illegally.

>>331278
Only in bad comedy movies.

Yeah, but how many more regular murders would occur if everyone was allowed to carry guns? How many people get fucking wasted on a college campus every weekend? Should they all be allowed to be carrying guns?

If my school let people carry guns all the time, I would promptly get the fuck out of there.

>>331328
I think what a lot of people don't get is that a lot of the illegal guns in America don't come from criminals, they come from states where those guns are legal.

>>331338
What kind of world do you live in where all missed bullets end up in toddlers spontaneously warping into existence?

>>331416
>Of course they're legally bought if there's few gun control laws.

There are no few gun control laws, they are pretty much the exact same as in murrika.
The people are the problem. Control all you want, it takes only 1 bad moment for a guy with a gun to do something irreversible. Be it in Turkey or in America, retards are plenty, and they have guns. More guns won't protect you. Taking all the guns out will do it.

>>331483
Taking all the guns out is impossible. As long as guns exist, people will have them.

Even if we somehow magically snapped our fingers and turned every single gun in the world into a chocolate cake (Topped with strawberries), guns are not at all that hard to make, someone will make them, someone will distribute them. Suddenly you have criminals out there again, with these new (and likely poorly crafted) ranged super-death machines nobody can fight back against because all they have is a kitchen knife and rocks.

You have to give people the ability to protect themselves.

>>331519
Oh my God. You are fucking retarded.

Read >>331130

Grow the fuck up.

Given that more people commit suicide with their own gun than are killed by other people I don't think giving guns to teenagers would be a good idea.

>>331542
The sound of defeat. You can't get rid of guns, so people need to get rid of people who use them to hurt other people.

This looks like an obvious troll thread, and yet...
>55 posts and 2 image replies omitted. Click Reply to view.

>>331562
Brilliant philosophy right there. I'm sure you will be the man who will stop the bad guys with guns.

>>331542
Gee, I'm glad to know that after I've been murdered by an armed criminal the police will eventually be there to get him.

And ffs, stop talking about how guns increase gun crime. No shit. That statistic is meaningful next to the overall crime rate. Say harsher gun law reduce gun crime in an area by 80%. That sounds good unless the overall crime rate goes up 200% at the same time. IN the town of Kennesaw Georgia, gun ownership was made mandatory and crime rates plummeted afterwards.

Fuck normalfags.

GET SHOT IN DA FACE LIKE A CAN FULLA MACE HOOYAH.

>>331718
*isn't meaningful*

>>331555

There are plenty of other ways to kill yourself, a gun is just one of the easier, and more straightforward ways to do it.

Attention my fellow anons, I have discovered a teleportation device (pic related). It simply displaces matter but does not guarantee to reconfigure matter in the same density before usage.

>Shit like Columbine, VA Tech and Oslo never would've happened if the students and staff had all been packing.
but if everyone carried guns allt he time there would be far more murders all around the country.

I just wonder how those in favor of guns explain why the USA has a murder rate five times higher than Western Europe?

If it's not the guns then doesn't that just mean that the USA has a more lawless, violent and failing society.

>>331762

It's all the gun carrying uncivilized ethnic minorities (blacks, mexicans, christians)

>>331718
Yes I already told you, I agree that we should all stock up on more guns instead of educating people, strengthening Law Enforcement and being even more vigilant on illegal guns. Sounds very reasonable to me.

>He thinks people are rational actors

Here's what would really happen if everybody was armed: The person who shot the orignal would be seen by somebody else who couldn't see the original shooter, and get shot. This person would be seen by somebody who didn't see the first two people and eventually the situation would devolve into an out-and-out bloodbath, with everybody shooting everybody else with a gun.

>>331230

Norfag here. By the age of 16, I owned 2 guns. I think we more guns for every person than Americans

> won the Cold War
lol what?
thats the most untrue thing i think i've ever seen on this board

>>331857
Mad Ruskie detected.

Stay beta and poor, bitch.

Capitalism reigns.

So much hurr durr in this thread.

>>331043
You know it's funny when retards always play the what if game. These retards said that Florida's Concealed Carry permitting would cause shootouts over every little argument. The gutters would be overflowing with blood they said. They shut up when violent crime dropped and there were no daily shootouts between permit carriers.

To the tard who thinks they can ambush and knock out an intruder, do you really think everyone takes one hit to the head and falls unconcious. It's more likely that you swing and he puts a saturday night special against your gut; but hey, after they pull those .38's out of your corpse you can have "not Sam Fisher" put on your headstone.

Come talk to me when you don't get your info. from TV and Movies.

>>331849
well ignoring that atrocious grammar. i think your wrong, when we Americans own guns, we might as well have a small armory, in my house alone we have 24 different guns.

>>331806
Real life destroys your game of "what if, oh god ban it"; CCer's have drawn on CCer's who were holding muggers until the cops arrived. No one got shot, because your "logical assumption" on what would happen is based on your lack of knowledge on the matter causing you to jump to conclusions that are merely plausible.

>>331970
FUCK YEAH GUNS BEST INVENTION EVER I LOVE GUNS I FAP TO GUNS OH GOD GUNS GUNS GUNS

2bad irl you are a pussy ass faggot

Everyone who thinks guns should be illegal has never fired one. Launching a small bit of metal out of a tube that is capable of tearing through concrete and metal is incredible. So what they kill people? Knives and clubs kill people too. If someone wants me dead I'd much rather be shot to death than stabbed or beaten to death. Sure there is more chance of survival with a knife wound but if the assailant's objective is to murder me he'll keep stabbing until I'm dead. That would fucking hurt compared to a lights-out shot to the head.

>>331761
Baseless Correlation/=Causation. Switzerland has more private firearms than england, but a lower murder rate.

>>332045
GUNS SAVE LIVES GUYS

>gun laws have saved the life of 1 person!
>...for every 100 homicide with guns


You can refer to that anon's Turkey example to see if gun laws made things better or not. In the global scale of things, guns don't make things better, only worse. The lives of hundreds shouldn't be put in danger just so that 2 people will be able to defend themselves.

PEOPLE ARE NOT CONSTANTLY OUT TO GET YOU. YOU WON'T GET ATTACKED EVERY SINGLE SECOND. 99% OF PEOPLE WHO GO TO 4CHAN LIVE SAFE LIVES AND DON'T NEED GUNS AT ALL.

I bring all of this to school everyday

>>331857
America did. It was the arms race that crippled the communist soviet economy along with USSR's war with Afghanistan. Then the communist system collapsed when Gorbachev basically gave up.

Since I don't see Soviet Russia around anymore, I'd bet they lost.

>>331024

>WELL ALL GUNS SHOULD BE GONE GET RID OF YOURS EVEN THOUGH CRIMINALS WILL BE ABLE TO PROCURE THEM ILLEGALLY LONG AFTER CIVILIAN WEAPONS ARE OUTLAWED

Yeah, nah. I have a right to defend myself anyway I see fit. I'm not driving an armed intruder away with my closet hanger, I'm using my snub-nose or my shotgun.

Deal with it.

5/10 clever but not mad

Guys, no one is stupid enough to believe that more guns means less shootings

>>332123
>implying that people who use guns to kill cant get them somwere else
>implying people wont start stabbing each other
>implying gun laws have saved a single life

you've obviously been to new york were its near impossible for someone to own a gun but they still have one of the highest murder rates. hell never even been to Sweden were they have lax gun laws and have obne of the lowest murder rates.

>>332123

Oh please, there are so many cities in America that are the inverse- more legal weaponry, less armed crime.

Besides, it's not terribly difficult to buy guns under the table in 'murrica, which contrasts with a lot of countries that have laws against gun ownership AND low gun crime. They typically have few guns in circulation, while America has shittons. Banning them would be like trying to get pee out of a pool.

>>331806
it's true. That's why police can't ever work in the same building or even be in the same room as another police officer at anytime otherwise they'd all be dead

>>332062
How's that wheelchair treating you Brady? Still...
MAD?

>>332162
This is America we're talking about dude

I live in america and its fucking retarded how easy it is to buy a gun. And not just hunting rifles or shotguns, but handguns, semi-automatics, etc. Hell, i could go to our local outdoorsman store and pick up a p90 if i wanted to. Wtf would i ever need a p90 for? Yet there they are, sitting on the shelf.

>>332162
They are.

>>332144
Defend yourself from WHAT you brainless ass? Do you really live in danger? In that case, as I pointed out before, I have no objections to people carrying guns. However, in any other case, you're being a faggot. At the most basic example, you have a hundred things you can do to secure you house, but instead you Americans just go on and on about how guns will drive out people once they're in, and can never make a comment about keeping people out in the first place.

Also protip: doing something as simple as owning a dog and making him sleep in the living room so that he will react to any stranger sound he hears will reduce the odds of your house being robbed by a good deal.

Deal with it, there is no need for guns for a lot of people on this world, and you probably are a part of them but you think guns are cool so you want to own them anyway, and to justify yourself you claim self defense.

Speaking of justifying, Justified did a really good job on the matter of pulling guns or not. Too bad you are more interested in series about criminals.

>>332128
i had a friend who kept a glock in her car. she felt she needed just in case something did happen. i decide to keep a my machete in there since it was easier to grab and use instantly. plus it has other uses to, while a gun only has one.

>>332239
well considering some people are ballsy and dont mind killing animals, what happens then, what if they have a gun and all you have is a knife. gonna wish you had a gun now arent you.

funny thing its cheaper to own a gun then it is to place bars around your windows (which some HOA's dont allow) and reinforce your doors and locks. also its nice to be prepared for anything and a gun works in all home invasion situations.

>>332241
well it is my army issued weaponry so technically I didn't but it. But I have to keep it at home.

>>332280
>a gun works in all home invasion situations.

Until the point where the ballsy guy understands you have a gun, gets pissed, and shoots you before you can do anything, because he's a stone cold killer, you're nothing but a wannabe.

Also if he shoots the dog, he will have exposed himself. Left a cartridge or a bullet, whatever, make the neighbours wake up, in short made himself open, and leave traces of himself. Who the fuck would do that?
Proof that people like you think that real life is a shoot'em up movie.

There are too much variables that go in "home defense". However, sane minded experts never advise you about buying a gun. They advise you to have knowledge about guns and know gun safety, but they never advise the regular Joe to carry a gun.

>>332288
They use Lego guns in the Swiss army now?

>>332325
oh god your dumb. if a man breaks into a house with a gun your supposed to either get him to drop his weapon or kill him. literally if you shoot a person and dont kill them or at least make it seem like you were trying to it will seem as if you had time to subdue him without need.

if a guy breaks into my house without a gun and knife my dog and i pull my gun on him he is gonna stop dead in his tracks and either try to run or beg like a bitch i dont shoot him.

>>332123
A guy I lived next to saved a woman by shooting her ex who was beating her, she was working at a gas station and he happened to be there. The 911 recording has about five minutes of him crying over having to kill the guy.

>99%
>nope.avi

>>332226
2/10
>P90
>90
>1990
>post-86
>dealer samples only
>PS90/=P90

>>332372
>man beats woman
>shoot her

AHAHAHAHAHAHAH
also
>99% of people on 4chan
>my neighbour blah blah

Thank you for proving my point. Good day, retarded Amerifriend. I have learned today that the only way to talk guns with American nutjobs is to not talk to them.

>>332370
I don't understand what relation has your post to mine so... yeah ok bro ur right, I guess.
Oh wait, I understood. You're supposing that YOU will be the one who shoots first and drops him perfectly.
I got news for you.

OK, guns are banned entirely from civilians. Including but not limited to a) collectors and b) farmers/people who live in the wilderness.

A burglar breaks into my house and tries to injure/kill/rape me and/or family. I still get punished because I "ASSAULTED" the "innocent" little burglar with my "AUTOMATIC HEAT-SEEKING MACHINE ASSAULT WEAPON" of a fist. I could use a knife, but that would be akin to raping three billion toddlers. I could use a carpenter's hammer, crowbar, chair, ceramic plate, scissors, feather duster, a tube of moisturizing lotion, and that would be akin to stealing 40 tanks from the army and burning 5000% of the orphanages in the country.

Now, hyperbole aside, here's the simple version: People who want to ban firearms are generally also against ANY form of self-defense. Knives, tools, rocks, pottery, feather dusters...

All this just so they can live in their feelgood fantasy world. Their laws are jokes that do not prevent or decrease crime and only serve to bully law-abiding firearms hobbyists.

>>332339
The furniture on modern Sigs is made from the same plastics as Legos. So sort of...

>>332405
I mean
>shoot him

>>332408
It's made out of Lego, are you blind?

>>332405
i break into your house shoot your dog in the face, i have a gun what the fuck do i care. you come out with your knife or whatever or maybe you call the police. i kill you and your family cops show up everybody's dead since you were to much of liberal fag to own a gun.

>>332453
Who are you and why do you kill me?

Oh sorry, right now you're being too American to think rationally. Sorry. If you broke into my house, armed with a gun, intent on killing me, and if me having a gun or not makes a difference, you're a very, very shitty criminal.
Good day, shove some rifles up your ass to relieve the pain.

>>332477
>implying people kill each other over rational reasons
>implying hes logical
>implying having a gun doesnt increase your chances against someone who also has one

>>332425
I don't think you know what "furniture" is or "Sig" for that matter. Yes I see that I'm commenting on what it is supposed to be, i.e.- a Sig Sauer rifle, the rifle most suisse own.

>give emotionally unstable individuals (everyone under 30 and most people over 30) handguns
This should turn out well.

>>331049
Which means everyone won.

>>332502
>implying you understood a single word of what I wrote

>>332539
>implying you wrote something profound
>still implying criminials wont do what ever it take to minimize getting caught.
>implying that criminals still cant get guns illegally
>ignoring that European countries have high stab and bludgeoning rates

>>332521
Opposing ridiculous hobbyist-bullying laws is the same as wanting to GIVE EVERYONE free guns?

Truly you are the master of logic.

>implying
>implying
>implying
>implying
>implying
>implying
>implying
>implying
>implying
>implying
>implying
>implying
>implying
>implying
>implying
>implying
>implying
>implying
>niggers
>implying
>implying
>implying
>implying
>implying
>implying
>implying
>implying
>implying
>implying
>implying
>implying
>implying
>implying
>implying
>implying
>implying
>implying
>implying
>implying
>implying

Fucking warzone mentality. I don't want to carry a gun you fucking hick. And I don't want dumbasses like you armed around me.

Hate this fucking country and this world.

>>332606
You wouldn't feel safer waiting in line next to these guys?

>>332568
>everyone everywhere with guns all the time = SAFETY
This is the OP's argument. It's shit.

Cho was full of antiphsychotics, as were many other recent mass shooting perpetrators.

This stuff is not good for kids or adults.

>>332620

No, not really, and even moreso I wouldn't feel safe around a dumb, mentally unstable, loud idiot who can't understand or doesn't care about the consequences of shooting someone who looks at them funny.

Has anyone here ever played Trouble in Terrorist Town?

Yeah, pretty much that would happen if everyone carried guns.

>>332239

>defend yourself from what?

The numerous muggers that wander my horrible neighborhood in LA, and the several breaking and entering crimes that happen around me on a weekly basis.

Not everyone has daddy's roof over their heads.

>>331024
Troll or very stupid

>>332655

And just to add to this, it's ridiculous how many retarded assumptions you made- like having a house, being able to afford to take care of a dog or being able to buy security systems, etc.

Really, you're not portraying yourself very well at all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GX5kwVc9IOk

Hey look y'all maybe if dis cop wus armed dis wuldn'ta--aww shiet.

>>332675

Triple post, I also can't afford a television, and I don't watch crime series. The only thing I watch on TV are old sci-fi serials and cartoons.

Funny thing is all these hipster liberals here complaining about guns, they also had pipe-bombs and propane tank bombs. If they built them right they could have killed more and caused more destruction than they ever would with guns. Could have taken out the entire filled cafeteria.
>2011
>Even without guns, if there's a will there's a way.
>Explosives are probably even more effective than guns anyways, cheaper to get and easier to get as you can build them from home supplies.
Right now with the supplies in my house I can currently create chlorine bombs, propane bombs, napalm, fireless explosives, ect. So taking away guns is not the answer as there will never be an answer to violence.

>mutually assured destruction: increase the chances of massive violence because the state is afraid of minor violence
AMERIKA

In a constitutional republic you have the right to do whatever you want as long as you cause no harm, loss or fraud to another Living Soul.

You have the DUTY to protect the public peace.

If you want to buy, own, carry, conceal, transport, use for sport or pleasure any weapon, including firearms, that is your absolute unimpeachable right.

If you are so armed and you witness one of the people breaking the public peace you have a duty to said peace to step in and use necessary force to bring that disturbance of the peace to an end.

Anything you can obtain a license for is by definition a right you already have, and by applying for a license you are abrogating your rights and are thus shown to be unable to handle your own affairs and reduced to, at best, the status of a ward of the state.

Yes, this includes applying for a license to operate a vehicle.

You have the right to do what you want in a common law jurisdiction provided you cause no harm loss or fraud.

Of course, we are not TOLD this these days. Ever wonder why?

Think about this: Let's say everyone is allowed to carry firearms around. Now, the only people who would end up actually USING them would be the stupid people, right? And they themselves would end up getting shot, right?

You wind up with an effective way of weeding out the unfit population, give or take a few minor accidents eliminating actual useful people.

>>332702

Bystander effect. Nobody gives a shit about "duty".

>>332696
murder is never minor violence

>>332677
He pulled his gun in a previous incident. He was reprimanded for it and was fearful to pull it out again.

>Another form of gun control
>Another innocent life lost

>>332567
OK you win, we should all live in fear, armed to the teeth, without making changes to the society in order to diminish the number of criminals. Clearly, this is the way to go.

>implying American government isn't run by gun companies
>implying gun business isn't one of the most profitable ones
>implying if this wasn't the case murrikans would have guns
>they still think that they can get guns to defend themselves and that people care about their lives

all of you are #1

>>332705
The type of people who'd shoot someone over bullshit would do so behind their back.

>>332727

So what, your ideal police officer just fucking pulls his gun on everyone he sees with no discretion?

>>332739
America is owned by banks, not gun companies.

>>332675
I already told that I was OK with it in the situation that you really lived in danger. Thanks for proving once again that you have your head up your ass.

>>332621
I believe OP was speaking in general terms. "Students" as in those students who choose to carry. Staff could be a different thing, because they could be armed by their employer and firearms handling classes would fit reasonably into the standard training for the job. Even if the staff were simply allowed to carry their own firearm if they choose to, it would still have an impact.

Even if only 1 in 10 was carrying, it would still be enough to ruin the plans of these spineless retards the media call "school shooters". Even if it doesn't stop them from trying, it's still better than just presenting the shooter with a defenseless buffet of victims.

>>331049
Right it just ended and then USSR was o longer around and USA was kicking ass...
oh, but nobody won thoguh...

>>332771

I have no way of knowing which posts are yours, asshat.

Why would anyone listen to someone who results to that level of immaturity in an argument? "Wahh, you're just a roughneck who watches cops all day wahh".

Fuck you, I'm a typical poor-ass student and you took a shit all over me for no reason other than some asspain about an issue you're not even prepared to debate sensibly about. And you can't even admit you acted like a dick, you just go "well if you had read my OTHER anonymous posts you moron..."

>>332805

>results to

Goddammit.

>resorts

>>332739
>implying gun companies are the most profitable companies ever
>ignoring banks
>ignoring that criminals in europe have guns and use them frequently
>ignoring that people kill each other other ways.
>ignoring the fact that you have actual life experience and actual knowledge on gun regulations, laws, and how to properly use a gun.

>MFW i realize your an uneducated ignorant hipsterFAG.

>>332762
One that shouldn't be forced to not touch his gun until fired at, that's for sure.

>Put the gun down! Put the gun down!

>Brannon stated that had Deputy Dinkheller used more force and never let him get back to his truck, he never would have shot him. He said that he purposely shot him everywhere except in the chest because he knew that the officer had on a bulletproof vest.

>>330972

Russia today is far more of a threat to the status quo that it was under communism. They have paid off their debts to the world bank and IMF and are refusing to allow the bankers to put the country back into debt.

They are far more free in Russia that those of us living in the west.

Guns are illegal here
I tried to look up how many school shootings my country had on Google.
Couldn't find much, but one news website claimed that we only had 2 in the history of our country.

I'm from the Netherlands btw, if someone finds different numbers than mine, let me know.

None of them expected to get away with that shit, I mean the columbine shooters and Cho fucking killed themselves.

Jesus Christ you're retarded.

>>332880

How many kids are on antiphsychotics in your country?

How many of those have access to knives?

How many stabbings have you had involving under 18's on antiphychotics?

>>332835
>MFW i realize your an uneducated ignorant hipsterFAG.
>your uneducated

You are not helping, Michael.

>>332880
while you have less gun related crimes you have an overall higher crime rate. your violent crime rate is 24% higher then u.s and your property crime rate is 55% higher.

sauce: http://qsi.cc/blog/archives/000144.html

>>332920
I dunno.
Should I Google "stabbings performed by kids under 18 on antipsychotics in the Netherlands"?

I cannot believe that no-one has mentioned World War 1; the ultimate foil to this argument.

Let's all get huge armies and navies and shit - no-one will attack because they'll take some casualties for sure! And no politician would risk a few deaths for a huge prize, right?

>>332972

World War 1 is not a good example if you understand the actual reasons behind the war.

Read Tragedy and Hope by Carroll Quigley to educate yourself on why the world really went to war.

>>332946
can't find any sauce outside that blog

i dont trust blogs ):

>Implying people willing to shoot up a school and kill innocent people cares about getting shot

And Fort hood is a military base, not a school

>Ohlookaretard.jpg

AFAIK in Costa Rica there is a very small number of crimes? The lowest rate in all SA countries, to be exact?
That country has no army right? And you practically can't get a gun there either.

Someone verify this but I think that murikans will get ass hurt.

>>333038

Switzerland most everyone is in the military and keeps a gun at home.

Very, very little gun crime.


Hmmm. Maybe the guns are not the real issue?

>>333031
I think this man concluded the thread. Well done.

>>333051

Similar situation to that in Sweden.

>>333051

Very little gun crime because anyone knows that if they break into someone else's house, or try to rob someone, some member of the reserves or the militia might blow their fucking face off.

>>333014
the netherlands are ranked 25th in murders per capita, the U.S is not on this list which shows the top 37 countries of murder per capita. there goes out the less guns less crime argument.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita

>>333092
Your point? That's obviously positive and it's what the guy was talking about.

>>333051
Exactly. As long as your population produces violence-prone people, no amounts of guns will shelter you. If everyone gets guns, then the "bad guys" will get explosives or bigger guns.
There's no end to that, and that's why, with the Cold War analogy, MAD was put in place in the first place. Both the US and the USSR produced more and more and more nukes, until one side hit bankruptcy. And now what do we have? tons and tons of nukes that no one needs. All the money and effort spent on those could have made tons of difference in some parts of the world. But nope. WE WON FUCK YEA WE'RE #1. You "won", so what? Your soldiers are still getting killed, the world is still a shithole, and your people hasn't improved a single bit.

>>333113

I'm just trying to jump into the discussion because I'm upset that I wasn't here when this thread started.

>>333115

Beautiful.

bloxetc

>>333115
>If everyone gets guns, then the "bad guys" will get explosives or bigger guns.

LOLno.

The most common firearms used in violent crimes involving firearms are .22 and .38 caliber.

Not 'assault weapons', not grenades, not machine guns...Most are shitty fucking pistols like Lorcins and Ravens. The only places it starts to edge into 'quality firearm' territory are with S&W .38 revolvers, .40 Glocks, and Mossberg 12 gauge shotguns.

I don't know about you, but last time I checked, the average citizen who legally owns a firearm usually has something equal to or bigger than that.

Any government's primary enemy in time of peace and to some extent at time of war, is their own population.
The population is the most likely body to eject them from power, to reject their rule and overthrow them.

Disarming a population is one of the steps on the road to tyranny.

Look into what really happened in New Orleans after hurricane Katrina if you want to see tyranny in action.

All governments love an unarmed populous.

Remember, when your government is scared of the people you have a peaceful republic. When the people are scared of the government you have tyranny.

You know, in a way i do kind of wonder why people care about these sort of massacres?
The death toll is always less than 100 and the killer is always a lone wolf with unclear motives.

I think these massacres happen no matter what the situation is, and that there isn't a whole lot we can do about it.
Much more people die in wars, gang fights and disasters than in massacres done by a crazed gunman.

Besides even IF America would have more crime than countries who don't allow civilians to own firearms, it would be very hard to find some good statistics on it and it would be very hard to prove that firearms are to blame. Next to that, American culture is too attached to guns to let go of them that easily.

I think we should worry about bigger things.

>>333098
ok that's better

Fuck that, guns aren't far enough.

Everyone should have a nuclear warhead in their back yard. I bet my neighbor would think twice about his dog crapping on my property then, fuckyeahamerica.

>>333173

No, there's not really a lot we can do about it - even the most modern law enforcement response is 'Find the guy and kill him as quickly as humanly possible, because he won't stop until he dies or runs out of bullets'.

That said...You're acting like this is some huge hurdle we have to overcome to give people a chance to defend themselves....It's not. It's not some massive government program, or a restructuring of law enforcement...No...Just let people carry a goddamned gun for self-defense if they want to. Bam, you're going to have less shootings because the little high school faggots are going to worry that their old Desert Storm vet of a history teacher, or the ex-cop Criminal Justice teacher have a .45 in their desk.

You won't have something like Fort Hood again, because there will be at least four or five other people in that building with a pistol on their hip.

You won't have something like Virginia Tech again, because there will be dozens of students who are armed and willing to defend themselves and others.

I don't understand this 'Just worry about other stuff! We've got starving people on the streets, and old fuckers are going to freeze to death this winter, not to mention the recession and the debt!" mentality....Ok? So the fuck what? How does that make it any harder to say, "You know what? 'gun free' zones are gay. We're not gonna do that shit anymore."

>>333173

These sorts of violent assaults have always happened down through history, and will always happen.

This is where the word Amok comes from. It is specific to, and was coined for, this kind of event.

These things happen. Its not nice, and its not pretty, but far, far more people are killed by prescription drugs daily than are killed yearly by amok rampages.

However, the argument that everyone should be an unarmed victim because some people may act like children if they are allowed access to weapons has not merit. People must take responsibility for their actions, if they are unable to do so there are already mechanisms in place to ensure they are brought to account.

>>333166
>The most common firearms used in violent crimes involving firearms are .22 and .38 caliber.
Yeah, and their victims are unarmed. If they knew the victims would be packing, it only makes sense to up their firepower.

>>333241

Herp, derp...

Because crack heads can afford to buy the best!

Its telling that the most cogent, considered and reasonable points here are being made consistently by those who advocate everyone being armed should they wish to be.

>>333170
>typicalmurrikanparrotdetected.jpg
Oh God, the brainwashing.

>>333166
I told you that IN THE EVENT EVERY SINGLE FUCKING PERSON GETS ARMED, and yet you still talk bullshit.

To the gun nuts here:
You don't know shit about violence. You don't know what it is, why it happens, how it happens, when it happens. You are stuck up with your heroic fantasies hiding behind your gun, forgetting the fact that no armed man who wants to kill you will come at you. Very likely you will get shot from behind. Your gun will serve no purpose. In the vent that he breaks in your house, you'd better believe that he'll do it silently. Before you have even reached for your gun, he will have his on your head (for some reason you people think that your guns will wake you up when someone breaks in your house).
You think that violence happens for no reason, that you are so important that at any time you will be a victim of very violent crime, and the reason you give is "just because".
A very few number of people really do need guns for protection. A good part of those are people who are on diplomatic jobs anyway. The rest lives in very bad places and are forced to arm themselves because the government or their fellow richer countrymen won't do shit (they are too busy arming themselves against ghosts as I already said).
You are all delusional and have the wrong mindset. I hope none of you get killed.

>>333315
>Oh God, the brainwashing.

Right, because no people, ever, in the history of the world has ever been

A) disarmed as a prelude to their persecution
B) disarmed as a prelude to a dramatically increased government presence in their lives
C) disarmed during a period of civil unrest, to prevent the populace from achieving their goals

Oh, wait...

I seem to recall all of those things happening right before the war for the independence of our own nation, in fact, to name one instance...

>>333230
>ecause the little high school faggots are going to worry that their old Desert Storm vet of a history teacher, or the ex-cop Criminal Justice teacher have a .45 in their desk.

>high school shooters have already planned offing themselves at the end of the shooting
>herp derp dey get scared of teacher's gun army vet so badass derp

You know why, mostly in Japanese culture, warriors could charge headfirst on spears and swords and don't give a shit, or crash their planes into sips and still not give a shit? Because they had accepted death. They just didn't give a fuck.
Same with the HS shooters who have already decided to kill themselves. They WON'T give a fuck about teachers' guns.

>>333315

Ten out of ten for making blind assumptions over and over again that have no basis in fact, are not provable, not cogent and clearly show your bias and lack of critical thinking. Instead of a reasoned response you enter into the fallacious territory of personal attacks on the authors instead of actually breaking down and offering refutation to the arguments. Thereby you admit you have no refutation and are forced to agree that all the points of those you advocate the ownership of weapons by those who should choose to are valid and correct.

Nice one mate.

Yeah, but when a liberal faggot sees a gun he understands a direct cause, after that there is nothing in his little brain.

Sorry guns were invented? Your protests about gun powder and loud noises are cool?

My cousin's mom wouldn't let him touch any kind of toy weapon... what was that supposed to prevent? Fun? Nerf guns? Moral of the story is that liberals are stupid controlling bitches, every last one of them.

>>333382

You are missing the point, likely deliberately.

No. They won't give a shit teachers and other students are armed, however they will find their reign of terror ending far more quickly than they would perhaps have wished due to return fire from an armed aware populace.

This is obvious and is clearly the point, if you miss it again you are clearly intellectually deficient.

>>333353
If we're going to make conspiracy theories, let me make one too...

What if your government controls you so well, and has subverted your idea of liberty so well that they can afford you to keep your guns in order to give you an illusion of liberty?

Uh-oh, what if, what if?

Also, civilians armed with pistols and sometimes rifles, but people who still are civilians, won't be able to win the fight themselves in the event of an invasion or attack. And, they might even incite even more brutal attacks by the enemy. On those cases instead of fighting civilian vs military, people should immediately join with heir own major fighting force and then fight back.

I bet you cried at the beginning of Red Dawn where the Russian soldier took a pistol from the hands of the dead though guy civilian next to the "pry out my gun from my cold dead hands".

>>333098

perhaps that is because they have no damn statistics from these countries, notice how most off the middle east and africa aren't included neither?

>>333315
>You don't know what it is, why it happens, how it happens, when it happens
Exactly why I want to be armed, and able to defend myself, should I need to.
>You are stuck up with your heroic fantasies hiding behind your gun, forgetting the fact that no armed man who wants to kill you will come at you.
That's exactly the point...If people are commonly able to carry firearms for self defense in these places...There will be less or none of these mass shootings, because the shooter won't be able to accomplish his goals before he's killed - even crazy people who are going to shoot a bunch of motherfuckers don't want to die after they've only popped off four or five rounds.
>Very likely you will get shot from behind.
Go study some active shooter incidents. The only people shot in the back in the manner you describe were the ones running away.
>In the vent that he breaks in your house, you'd better believe that he'll do it silently. Before you have even reached for your gun, he will have his on your head (for some reason you people think that your guns will wake you up when someone breaks in your house).
Have you ever had your home broken into? It's not quiet, and it's not subtle. There's no carefully picking the lock on the front door, or jimmying open a back window...No, they pry the bitch open with a crowbar, kick it in, or break the window and open it, if nothing's unlocked.

>>333444
I don't know about you, but someone prying or kicking in my door or breaking a window in my home would wake me up, and give me plenty of time to reach under my pillow and grab my pistol.
>You think that violence happens for no reason, that you are so important that at any time you will be a victim of very violent crime, and the reason you give is "just because".
Pretty much, yeah. Same reason I wear a seatbelt. I drive safe, and do my best to never be in a traffic accident, but sometimes shit happens. I don't know when, where, or why it could happen, but I know it still happens. To be unprepared for it is just foolish.
>A very few number of people really do need guns for protection.
Entirely not the point. For one, every man should be responsible for his own safety and then safety of his family. Why? Because the government's sure as fuck not. The police aren't. The SCOTUS established that years ago.
>You are all delusional and have the wrong mindset. I hope none of you get killed.
And you're willfully being a fool.

>>333420

Conspiracy theory? The quoted event is irrefutable fact. It happened.

Do you even understand fully the meaning of the word 'conspiracy'? Likely not, as it simply means two or more people meeting to discuss something, anything.

Right now we are conspiring to discuss the morality or otherwise of gun control.

A theory is an idea.

So if you have an idea that people may be talking about something you have a conspiracy theory.

However what was being discussed is FACT, pure and simple, so that is conspiracy fact.

The phrase 'conspiracy theory' is used over and over again in arguments such as this by people who fail to understand what it is they are saying, and in this case is used incorrectly and ultimately fallaciously.

>>333388
Hahaha, ok, whatever yo say pal. +1 internet victory for you, you get a free drink from me.

>>333411
OK, it is correct that they might die more quickly (nvm that they can maybe manage to eliminate the armed people first, oh but wait, you're thinking of an entirely armed school, sorry)
I have a question: let's say someone in your "armed and aware" populace decided to use his gun not so legally against someone who wasn't so lucky to buy a gun.
What do?

It's unbelievable that you assume people with guns will transform into heroic beings with 0 weaknesses instantly. It won't happen.

>>333420

Your comment doesn't even make sense. I'm seriously trying to understand what the fuck you're trying to say, and I am failing every time.

What the fuck ARE you trying to say?

>>333452
>>333444
Whoa, way to miss the point of everything I said. Good job! You win. You can also add +1 internet victory under your belt. You have made your country proud.

>>333241

For one, despite what you might read in the caliber wars on /k/, getting shot by a .38 Special versus a .45 ACP or even a .50 AE generally leaves you just as hurt or dead.

For another...What the fuck do you even mean by 'up the firepower'? The term really isn't applicable in the context of civilian weaponry.

Someone makes a bigger, stronger tank, you make a bigger, longer-range, better anti-tank weapon. Someone makes an aircraft that flies higher, you make a SAM that shoots higher. It works it the context of military technology, where you're talking about ranges, armor, and countermeasures....Not so much with civilian stuff.

If everyone went out tomorrow and bought a Colt .45, yeah, there'd probably be an increase in crime using Colt .45s, but only because they were the most commonly available weapon, and easy to attain.

>>333484
I'm trying to say that your points are not necessarily always correct, and that an armed CIVILIAN populace won't necessarily make a big difference in an event of attack.

Also just FYI your "hurr let's arm civvies to protect" position was shared by a retarded functionary of the Turkish government (when the new gun law, allowing everyone 18+ to buy up to 5 guns of all types and to carry up to 2 of them was being passed) claiming "if civvies were armed there'd be no genocide during the Kosovo war blah blah". This is just FYI, don't search deep meanings under it.

>>333469

Once again you offer no refutation, spurious logic and nonsense. Failing to grasp even the most obvious basic points. Showing once and for all you are either being deliberately idiotic or are simply lacking in the mental capacity to grasp the arguments being put to you. I am sorry that you find yourself in this depressing and demeaning situation, and would recommend you take it upon yourself to look to your own education and intellectual well being as soon as is practicable.

If you have a point, make it, if you don't, please be quiet and let the adults discuss and debate.

>>333469
>It's unbelievable that you assume people with guns will transform into heroic beings with 0 weaknesses instantly. It won't happen.

I'm really beginning to think the other dude was right when he called you 'mentally deficient'.

No, they won't all transform into 'heroic beings with 0 weaknesses instantly.'

How the fuck is that even relevant? Of the people with guns, SOME will attempt to eliminate the shooter. SOME will attempt to strongpoint a room, digging in and being ready to defend a classroom or office of innocents from the shooter, should he try to break down the door and slaughter them.

And, yes, SOME will blindly flee in terror.

Just because we cannot deny that SOME will flee from someone with a firearm, doesn't mean by a long shot that everyone's firearms will be useless.

Hell, even at the absolute worst, you have a guy getting shot at by the active shooter, like actively has rounds flying past him as he's crouched under a desk or something...What do you think he's going to do, if he has a gun? I don't know about you, but I'm going to return fire, with out fucking hesitation I'm going to return fire.

And I bet I'm a better shot than his ass is.

>>333550

The viet cong and viet minh made little to no difference, you are of course completely correct.

Oh, wait, no, civilian militia employing hit and run tactics have a long and bloody history of achieving their aims. While they don't always succeed, if they are well armed, supplied, led and organized there is a long, long history, going right back into the ancient world of great and overwhelming success of such units.

To-wit, your ignorance is showing.

However, in the event of an attack most countries have what are called 'armed forces' to meet and repulse an invasion. Civilians so inclined are usually free to join said 'armed forces' in order to be fully trained and equipped to meet said aggression.

Your point is of course invalid from every conceivable viewpoint.

>>333550

No, they're not going to always be correct. A government is still better armed than an armed populace, and a group willing to persecute or kill another is still going to be larger (And if armed, better armed) than the people they are persecuting.

However, just FYI, it makes it a hell of a lot harder to do, all around.

>>333496

So...I missed the point of what you tried to say by responding, in a point-by-point format, to everything you said?

What the fuck? Are you retarded?

>>333551
You fucking retard.
Yourself, instead of responding to the points I make, talk some stupid logic jargon. Oh but I guess that's OK, since you are intelligent and can do everything you want, yet you fail to take meaning from the things I say just because I don't speak explicitly. You didn't even grasp the fact that I was ASKING you a question, and you want me to give arguments in a fucking question. Way to go.
I had heard the American education system produced beings lacking any kind of critical or deep thought, but I had never really believed it. Now I see.
I recommend you to take a look at your own education, and to actually become an adult. Up your mental age, not your physical age.

As a final note, before I leave (beaten and destroyed before the might of fuckyeahmurika's gun loving intellectual defenders), speaking as you just did doesn't make you intelligent- it just shows how much of a stuck-up you are.

I also hope that you realize that here you are like either 2 or 3 different people, or 1 really, really fanatical guy, responding and "masterfully" taking apart a single poster's posts. Nice.

>>333496

I must be as retarded as he is, because I'm not seeing how he missed your point. I'm curious just what the hell you were trying to say, though, since I apparently didn't understand it. Could you re-phrase yourself in a more articulate manner, perhaps?

>>333618
..and SOME will panic and start using their firearm. Then SOME others will see them shooting, and shoot them back.

Then SOME people will die.

>>333638

How many police and military are there in America?

How many people?

How many firearms are owned by those people?

If even five percent of those armed and willing to stand up to tyranny stood up and said "No." would they be able to achieve results?

History says yes. Time and again history says yes.

This is the real reason government wants to know who has firearms. This is the reason that the DAY after hurricane Katrina FEMA and their military and mercenary forces were out disarming civilians in New Orleans.

The aftermath of Katrina was a test. Military and mercenary's were used openly against the American population in contravention of the Constitution.

>>333551

>>333664

You know, I really don't agree with the arguments this guy is making, even when I can understand what the hell they are, but he does have a valid point here...Until he devolves into pointless name-calling.

All you're doing is pointing at his comments and going, "HAHA YOU DON'T MAKE SENSE! NEENER NEENER NEEEENER!"

Contribute something worthwhile to the discussion, or shut up, please.

>>333713

Unlikely, but a distinct possibility, yes.

I'd rather take my chances with that, however, than with being declawed and utterly defenseless against an active shooter, however.

Wouldn't you?

>>333722

I agree with you, I am simply conceding to the logic of the man's point - it's not ALWAYS going to help.

99.999% of the time, however, it is.

>>333754
I'd certainly rather have a gun myself than not.

But my trust in my fellow man is such that I'll give that up if it means the vast majority of other people around me are also unarmed.

>>330972
Depends... You should have extensive training to own a gun, and statistically you're more likely to die by gun accident than you are by gun crime if you don't carry if you actually carry one. Same goes for a shotgun under your bed.

But yeah, not letting anybody have a gun is bullshit because the people who would use them for crime will have them either way.

Bad troll. Columbine was a high school, so only the teachers would've been packing. Only a few of them, and probably not shotguns and micro-SMGs either.

I don't want to go to school surrounded by people who may or may not be carrying a concealed weapon. More guns just means a higher likelihood of somebody getting shot. What would you prefer? Fights or killings?

>>333864
>I'd certainly rather have a gun myself than not.
Agreed.

>But my trust in my fellow man is such that I'll give that up if it means the vast majority of other people around me are also unarmed.

Wait, what?

>>333877
>because the people who would use them for crime will have them either way.
I'd like some statistics showing that the majority of crimes involving firearms are committed with illegally bought weapons. Even if they were, they were probably bought legally at some point.

>>333893
>What would you prefer? Fights or killings?

If someone's defending themselves against an aggressor? Killings, to be brutally honest.

But you'd see a decreased amount of both on a college campus, because, like you said, you'd never know when the guy next to you has a gun.

He might have a gun, so are you going to go out of your way to start shit with him because of some offhand comment he made, or some look he gave you, like you otherwise might have?

>>333940

Go look at Guncite dot com, they have a bunch of awesome statistics on the subject.

>>333926
Not sure if you're expressing incredulity, or want an explanation. So just in case:

If I'm in a group of people and we're all unarmed, I feel quite safe.
If I'm in a group of people and I know some of them are armed, then even if I'm armed too I feel unsafe.

The nature of firearms is it's very easy for mistakes to happen. I'm confident that I'll not make a mistake, but I know enough about people that I fully expect someone to reach into their jacket and accidentally shoot the guy next to them.

Beyond mistakes happening, if someone is armed and decides to start hurting people then the first anyone will know about it is likely to also be when the first person dies.
No matter how well armed and trained I am, if someone behind me randomly pulls a gun and shoots me in the back of the head then I'm fucked.
I'd rather be in a situation where the best that guy can do is punch me.

ITT: reactionary sloganeering
>hurr durr only outlaws will have guns, blah blah
>more guns = less crime!
this is the most retarded shit ever. "hey, if we just give everyone a gun, crime will go away!"

Just owning a firearm doesn't mean shit. You realize we don't just give our armed forces rifles and ship them overseas right? It takes a lot of training to even be able to hit a human sized target at 25 yards on a firing range.

Now imagine you're in a school shooting scenario. Gunfire everywhere, people are screaming, fire alarms are going off. How the hell is any untrained civilian going to be able to take careful aim & hit the perpetrator? What happens when someone's trying to stop a massacre & ends up hitting a bystander or 2 by mistake? Yes, target practice is only a small part of gun safety...remaining cool under fire is the hard part.

In a school shooting scenario, it seems improbable that an armed teacher could just stop the whole thing with a well aimed shot. More likely, you'd have jumpy civilians blasting away at anything that moved, probably causing more collateral damage than if they just tried to hide or run away.

Remember, the first rule of self defense is to avoid being hurt, and the best way to do that is evade the attacker.

Honestly, psychological screening would be a FAR more effective way of preventing massacres.

>>334044

So...You'd rather be unarmed, as long as everyone else is, too...Even if in a situation where someone wanders into your midst and starts emptying magazines into people?

It was a little bit of incredulity, because I thought you meant what you meant, but mostly wanting an explanation to confirm.

>>334060
> It takes a lot of training to even be able to hit a human sized target at 25 yards on a firing range.

knot really, know...

>>333940
Lots of them get imported, lots of them. Personal experience isn't exactly the best evidence, but when I lived in San Diego I personally witnessed a little. I'm not there anymore, but I know people in town who could acquire imported weapons.

Though most likely, the guns originate from states without handgun registration and are of legal purchase. Not exactly a reason to ban them altogether, but definitely a good reason to enforce registration across the U.S. (despite don't-tread-on-me claims) so that the legal sources of illegally bought firearms can be assessed (and arrested). It's kind of like giving alcohol to minors, it is illegal, and you should be held responsible for any crime they commit while drunk--you sell your gun illegally, without registration transfer, and it ends up in an investigation, your ass is facing charges.

>giving teenage girls glocks

NOPE

USA; Gun ownership legal
>7.07 firearm related homicides per 100,000/year

England; Gun ownership largely illegal
>0.07 firearm related homicides per 100,000/year

wat

>>334538
This sums it up, really.

>>334422
>the guns originate from states without handgun registration and are of legal purchase

Law enforcement officials in virtually every state with firearm or handgun registration have openly stated that it is absolutely and utterly useless for preventing crime.

>>334060

Unless I, and all my cadet friends were naturally talented marksmen, no.

First time firing a rifle, not even zeroed (or whatever the term is, it's been 6 years) we were all able to hit an A4 page and get a hand sized grouping or smaller.

Once zeroed, most were hitting palm sized groupings, and a few were getting 3cm groupings on target.

Maybe at 2-300 yards it gets harder to hit a human sized target, especially moving, but those cadet GP rifles are balls, SA80's were better for range.

>>334615

Sums what up, that with more guns, there is more violent crime with guns, versus violent crime without guns?

England's violent crime rate, since their all-but outright ban on firearms, has skyrocketed, and now surpasses even the US, and is on par with 'gun free' havens like Chicago, NYC, and formerly Washington DC.

>>334765

Unless you are of the view that violent crimes are worse or more of a bad thing, simply because they might be violent crimes involving a firearm...And then this argument is pointless, because, in your mind, the addition of a firearm to *any* scenario makes it worse, regardless of the logic behind it.

>>331307
>I heard Norway is the most peaceful place on earth and had no reasons to prepare for terrorism to happen