Why do socdems hate guns

see

yeah that problem will surely be fixed by removing the possibility for the proles to get guns easely

Bernie is actually extremely pro-gun for a democrat which became a weak point during the elections, so he had to adjust.

This

No, it's like saying you can't be anti-capitalist while owning a store.

The one where:
Is considered an argument, friendo :^)

Also, your claim that "guns aren't owned by the working class" is pure neolib fantasy from a white picket fence liberal that has never interacted with the working class.

Your argument boils down to: The top 0.7% of the population control 41% of the world's wealth, therefore the other 99.3% have no wealth. It's a childish non-argument.

that is fucking retarded, why would proles suddenly get guns?
if there is even a hint of a "gun run" on weapon stores dolan can shut them all down within hours.

Just as idiotic.

if he can't get universal healthcare and university do you really expect he is going to win votes with "the proletariat should be armed because Karl and Malcolm X said so".

I mean, he should say that, but this is why we will never get anywhere with Liberal Democracy.

On a sidenote what is the difference between a Trot and a Socdem?

...

...

Yes, socdems are inconsistent in their beliefs and hypocritical on every level. I agree.

WTF I love socdem now

socdem is a western european ideology, the far-left is home grown

Because they believe widespread, unchecked gun ownership contributes to violent death rates (homicide and suicide) and they're not exactly wrong.

Got any evidence to back that nonsensical claim?

Shit, which state has that? I'll move there tomorrow.

i can't give you a zip file containing all the history, ideology and experience i base this upon. it isn't a matter of evidence

take SJW's for example, they're an american export, while socdems are imported from europe

Yes, Carl Marks was born in Buttfart, MO

you don't understand the difference between place and location

I am Britbong who supports arming the proles but there is no denying that Britain and Australia have all but eradicated gun violence. When somebody, anybody, even a crack dealer, gets shot here, there is like a 5 year inquest. We can do this, because nobody ever gets shot.

My future socialist utopia would see common ownership of weapons (which are tools) for use, the community would still definitely regulate this use however.

Right now I support all guns for everyone purely as a revolutionary tool, after the revolution, after the counter revolution, I would like to see a society where only the citizens militia carry weapons

May you elaborate on your claim that American far left is homegrown?

Because it's a very weird thing to say.

...

I generally assume for two reasons.

1. Violence is the primary recourse of people acting prematurely or people who have no better alternative presented to them, including the status quo. The Socdems want to keep one group from acting and the other group on their side instead of turning to guns.

2. The sort of working class folk that rise up to fight are not the sort who are armed. You will find that elements of the petite-bourgeois and proletariat transitioning to that status are far, far better armed than the working class and typically have training to back it up.

Because they are liberals

They get stabbed instead, meanwhile your police went from carrying batons and whistles to MP5s and body armor. Interesting how that turned out, don't you think?
Which creates the same problem you currently have, where the weak are the playthings of the strong. If you really hate women, children, and the elderly, certainly, disarm them and watch the fun as they're brutalized by strong young men and unable to fight back. What you don't seem to understand is that on the individual level, firearms are the great equalizer. How many of those women do you think would be getting brutally raped if they were concealed carrying? Without a gun, what else can she do? Pull a knife? The one who wins a knife fight is the one who's still alive when they reach the ER. Hope she can dial 911 and pray that MEN WITH GUNS arrive before she's tortured/killed? Come on, you clearly haven't thought this through.

Turning gun ownership into a "left" vs right issue was one of the biggest mistakes liberals have ever made.

...

Why do people even need to own guns?

How common were shootings before the various gun bans in the UK, user?

how is the working class going to defend themself if the bourgeois have monopoly on gun ownership?

when the far-left emerged around a 150 years ago, it soon took presence in america and from that initial presence it evolved in tandem with ideology in america, what it is now, isn't moved into it from another time and place. it has the rhetoric of HR marketing speak and gotcha! comedy, it's obsessions are national, it is typically american in being subcultural.

scientism+liberal ideology=a system of thought that can dismiss anything beyond it's comprehension

Disarm the bourgeois.

fairly uncommon, but still a thing.

Guns create the huge potential for mass shootings and extremist uprisings. They should be banned entirely from the public. The first thing a progressive or socialist government should do is crack down on guns.

Besides owning a gun implies property ownership.

People are still killed now. People are killed with guns too, look at Moaty.

Famalam don't misunderstand me. It is a travesty that porky has our guns and our balls.

I'm just saying that once the dust has settled I'd like for people to be able to hang up their guns. Surely that is the society we are eventually aiming for?

I'm talking FALC times, like, way in the future

how are you going to do that without violence

there is a difference betwen personal and private property you mong

Stricter gun control

There is, but private property will just be reword ed to mean personal property. Just like they use tax loop holes to avoid taxes on income.

I AM the 3%

I know they do, these things will always happen under capitalist alienation. But in terms of robberies that turn into killings by accident, etc harm from gun violence has gone down, also incidence of gun violence have gone down. Now, you can make the argument that people just kill each other with other stuff, which would be true, but it doesn't' entirely account for things as simple as accidents, like kids shooting themselves, or suicides, all of this stuff.

In terms of that, its probably been a net gain for UK proles assuming they must remain under capitalism.

That being said, we should have guns, because there are much bigger problems for the UK than gun violence, namely, capitalism.

What the fuck are you talking about?

"Your trespassing on personal property"

Because they are authoritarian.

How often were armed robberies performed with legal guns? How often were armed robberies going wrong in such a way that people were shot?
Proof?

Suicide is the right of the individual. How often was that stuff happening?

That's somewhat of a paradox, and one I've wrestled with before. In this theoretical FALC world, either A) we have completely conquered "human nature" and the violence inherent in our species, in which case it wouldn't matter if people had guns for recreational shooting since they would never turn them on one another.

Or B) We haven't solved the issue of violence, in which case there is still a strong need for that equalizer or you're throwing the weak to the wolves.

...

Because Socdems don't think the material conditions are a problem. They think the means for people to show symptoms is the problem.

you are naive as fuck

It is true that by FALC nobody will be depressed or nobody will have a reason to rob somebody, but I wonder if that point comes before or after it becomes a reasonable option for people to disarm?

If the first is true there is no reason to disarm anyone. If the first is not true then removing guns only disarms the victims.

There is nothing wrong with having firearms if you treat them with an appropriate level of caution. There is a LOT wrong with not having weapons, since it makes you very vulnerable to being conquered. People tend to forget that we went from primitive communism to a slave society. There's no reason that nobody would ever try to turn FALC into a class society, which means arms will always be important.

Correct. Take a look at the National Firearms Act of 1934. What do you think the $200 tax stamp (adjusted for inflation, $3500 in current year dollars) was meant to do? It put a massive artificial barrier in place so the working class couldn't afford the same weapons (that were themselves quite affordable) as the wealthy. What did the Hughes amendment do? Closed the machinegun registry which created artificial scarcity so only the wealthy can own machineguns in the US. This is also why the big NRA donors are actually against repealing the Hughes amendment because their "investments" would become worthless overnight. What did 922r do? Stopped porky from having to compete with foreign manufacturers, driving up the prices and making quality firearms less affordable.

So the bourgeois are sitting there with their private security, fortress-tier mansions, and machine gun collections, while telling you to turn your guns in.

Yep, this:

Because Identity politics. Cut off your nose to spite your face kinda deal. Logic falls apart at the first line of scrutiny.

I am convinced. You are correct.

Gee it's almost like liberals lowkey worship class or something.

It's been a while since I've read such an incoherent world salad.

You do realize the very left-right distinction in politics comes from the French Revolution and the seating arrangements in the French Parliament, right?

Well, uh… Yeah, sort of?

Dude, what the fuck are you even talking about?

...

Fuck off retard

Requesting sauce on Muslims being against background checks and mental illness screenings.

I do, what do you imply with this?

No, it's about interpretation. Facts are silent, they don't speak, and certainly for themselves.

Your ideology.

...

Going through Bernie's history, I think the shit he said about guns was just him playing realpolitik. I don't think he actually believes it.

Taking just about any psychiatric drug is grounds for disqualification. Having ever been properly diagnosed with any disease, no matter how bad the DSM-V is, is grounds for disqualification.

If the rules on "mental health" screening were being strictly followed, some near 66-75% of the US would be disqualified on that alone.

Different Socdem poster here, I think people should be allowed guns, since it reminds anyone whether it be big bussiness or a tyranical government and military that the working class can rise up if needs be and defend themselves from the threats whatever they may be.

I think that guns like pics 1, 2 and 3 should be unrestricted since they are not capable of doing the kind of damage pic 4 can do, I'm not saying the first three are pea-shooters but relatively speaking they are less capable then the forth.

Not that I'm saying people shouldn't be allowed pic 4 we would just need a slight measure even if it was just a 2 day waiting period or a slight criminal record check.

*reminder

...

Actually, shot for shot, that SMLE (with .303) or that remshit 870 (with any type of buckshot or slugs) is going to do significantly more damage in the sense of terminal performance than the 5.56x45 FAMAS in the fourth pic.
They each have their respective niche, so we can break them down into 4 separate categories when being used against other people.

The first would be bolt action or semi-auto rifles chambered in full-sized rifle cartridges. Extremely powerful, heavy recoil, capable of reaching out to very long distances without compromising their terminal performance, and will defeat all soft armor. These weapons are ideal for sharpshooting with a fixed or variable zoom optic. If you wanted to 'vote from the rooftops' or start your revolution by eliminating high value targets through long range hit and run attacks (fire one shot from a great distance, flee in the ensuing confusion and panic) this would be your weapon of choice. These are used in a fraction of a percent of homicides.

The second would be handguns. Shot for shot, these are extremely weak, and are stopped by soft armor. The benefit here is concealability, size, and weight, which makes them the ideal 'out and about' defensive weapon where carrying a long gun would attract undue attention. The majority of crimes are committed with these.

The third would be shotguns. Very powerful, but like handguns, stopped by soft armor. The benefit here is cost, and against unarmored targets you've got a very good chance of a one-shot stop with buckshot. As a weapon for the revolutionary, essentially useless as all government forces would at minimum have soft armor. Used in very few crimes.

The final category would be rifles chambered in intermediate rifle cartridges. Moderate terminal performance, light/med recoil, effective out to around 300 yards depending on cartridge, and will defeat all soft armor. For anything from urban conflict to home defense, this is your ideal weapon. Like "hunting rifles", these are used in less than 1% of homicides.

That's less than what we currently have in the US, especially if you actually mean a real FAMAS which would be funny since I don't think there's a single pre-86 registered FAMAS in the US.

Shit like this is why gun owners don't take socdems seriously the second you start talking about guns.

The real problem though is that you need a lot more than guns now. It's kind of hard to justify people owning 155mm gun-howitzers in their back yards. How are you going to take on a modern Main Battle Tank and their extremely thick armor, sometimes reaching a meter of steel thick? How do you take on aircraft in any capacity?

If the US tried rolling MBTs down main street, and using airstrikes against civilian targets, the infrastructure of the nation, which is very fragile, falls apart immediately, then the war machine grinds to a halt.

That's why disarming the population is key.

...

read Homage to Catalonia already, Orwell despised bourgeouis parlamentary politics

Can you provide an argument against putting praxeologists into wood chippers?

Tell that to Switzerland, fagger

It's the same problem every Socdem faggot has

Fine
Fine
Fine
Oh shit that thing sure looks scary! We better ban it!

Pic related

I don't want to ban assult rifles, I just think we have to have a bare minimum when it comes to them.

Either regulate all of it or none of it. I have no training with an assault rifle but I am an experienced hunter. I could take my rifle out and do a LOT more damage than with an assault rifle just because I know how to use it.

People need to be allowed GPMGs, grenades, and mortars.

Indeed.

It's a case of killing the goose that lays the golden eggs. It's not question of how the civilian populous would respond to military force but why the military is acting upon the citizenry to begin with.

There's always that logical leap that occurs during the escalation of force scenario.

If the situation boils down me stopping a tank the U.S. would have much more to worry about than whether or not guns are being confiscated.

That's full on mad max tier at that point. Complete collapse of society kinda deal. See places like Syria or the Ukraine for reference of 21st century 1st world tier countries (prior to happenings) devolving into hellholes.

You don't need tanks or other assorted AFVs either. See less mechanized military in Venezuela or various African states.

Regardless of the state of a country's gun ownership laws or it's fighting tech if your respective government has decided to turn it's guns on it's own people in a large scale they're fucked and so is the society.

That's a fair suggestion. As long as the people drafting legislation actually know what the hell their talking about when it comes to guns and isn't someone after "high capacity assault clip ghost guns."

Let's begin by removing the NFA and redrafting more sensible gun legislation that makes it harder for actual criminals to get guns and allows for citizenry to better defend themselves and their property from vagabonds and the sort.

This guy is on it right.

Automatic fire is just a waste of ammo for the most part. Unless you're in a crowded night club fully automatic fire isn't really going to help you…then again the guy at the Orlando place was using a semiauto rifle…hmmm

Statistically most gun deaths are from handguns. Rifles are much less dangerous by comparison. :^)

It's a politically correct version of the right wing's utopian fetish for "high trust" societies.

This was my point. I hate this weird selective legislation that is enacted against assault rifles and similar weapons,especially those weird laws about magazines, like what difference is it going to make if my gun can carries 29 bullets instead of 30?

Also I posted the FAMAS because I thought that if I posted an AR-15 or AK-47 two guys would start having a debate over which is superior plus I like bullpup rifles tbh

Holla Forums only needed motivated haxors to make the global world stumble. Methinks you're engaging in Christian crusader fantasies. Understandable, as Western culture is soaking in that piss.

Then everyone should be trained on the use of firearms and deadly force, in order to destroy the role of the state as monopsony violence vendor. Secondary education could include milder versions of basic training as graduation requirements.

This I would be totally fine with.

Same

I prefer bullpups myself. I was hoping to get some tankie to bite my bait about "defending property from vagabonds and the sort."

I was expecting someone to shout me down about property right spooks… maybe next time.

I would love mandatory military service/training even if it was just a domestic security position and maybe a last ditch resort when regulars are in need of more boots on the the ground.

Americans have become soft though. The idea of any far right or left rising "to power" and going full 1488 or tankie (choose your favorite LARP) is laughable to me.

Most of those posting on an image board like this probably would crash out of basic when they don't get their necessary supply of carbonated sugar water and tendies.

Never mind becoming a brown shirt brigade or khmer rouge as they often fantasize about.

The rule of law requires violence. Opposing the right of the general population to own rifles is just another way of eroding popular sovereignty. It doesn't matter how flowery your rhetoric is; if regular people don't have the material means to change society to suit themselves, you do not live in a democracy.

It's worth considering that the North Korean LOLsassin managed to neutralize a family member of a head of a pariah state without a firearm and probably without extensive physical training, at the cost of never working again.

They repeat it until they pass. I don't think Pic related's going to be as tender and caring when they start wielding their tinkle sprinklers. in my present potatoed condition I'd undoubtedly fail basic too

I think that's perfectly reasonable. I own two guns that are broadly similar in function to two of those images, in fact: a PTR-91 rifle and a Colt 1991 pistol (pics related). I've been considering getting a shotgun, too.
I've never felt uncomfortable around weapons like those, though I do exercise the appropriate level of caution–and I wouldn't feel uncomfortable with others who owned such weapons.
But, like you say, automatic rifles change things up a bit. I'd want some scrutiny applied in determining just who has access to those.

I don't think you read what he actually said.

Seems pretty cut and dry to me.

Are you shitposting, or do you really not understand terminal ballistics?

I could support a handgun ban. Not really particularly useful in revolutionary warfare. Nonsense for hunting.

Optimal use scenario is murdering another human being.

Filthy statists.

See

Oh, I don't agree with him on the basis of the physics. The FAMAS is the weakest long gun in that post. It's automatic fire that concerns me more. How often is suppressing fire necessary for personal defense?
A full-caliber, semi-automatic rifle is multipurpose enough, and limited enough in terms of what a nutjob on a spree could do, that it's appropriate for mass civilian ownership–and powerful enough that it's still useful in doing things that require offensive force like taking over your workplace.
Of course, ideally I'd like to also see a society in which there's no standing army, just a skeleton force for logistics and training, with conscription or volunteers when war is declared by the (democratic, obviously) government.

also the main way to defend yourself outside of your home. Then again if you let me carry around a rifle everywhere I go I'll be game

It would be ideal in pretty much every home defense scenario against multiple assailants if you're going to argue from that point of view.
You're joking, right? Pic very related.

Statists! Authoritarians, all of you! Begone!

And my point was that if I decided to go on a spree I would be USING a semi auto rifle and I would make pol pot look like fucking Ghandi

While on the other hand, if I was given a full auto M4 I'd be at a loss how to use it properly because I have no experience with it.

I hunt with my semi auto, I know it like the back of my hand. Snipers are lethal too and they don't use full auto. Full Auto is wasting ammunition most of the time. The point of suppression is to keep someone's head down not kill them.

A handgun is more likely to be used against you or a member of your family than ever be used in self defense. Owning a handgun actively makes you LESS safe.

So what would you propose instead? Making the ownership laws identical for pistols, non-automatic rifles, automatic rifles, and shotguns? All I'm saying is that I think it would be prudent to have some kind of restriction on the ownership of automatic rifles. Just a background check or something, not even a ban.

The only problem with with going after full auto rifles is engineers working ways around them. Unless you make some legislation requiring a set rate of fire you're going to get other ways to produce "full auto".

slide fire full auto
youtube.com/watch?v=dvLt8-Wf7r0

rapid fire double action trigger
youtube.com/watch?v=PYThNUVZrYM

I'm not trying to be all poo poo your fears but I'm not terribly goncerned with normies getting full auto guns. In most "crowded theater" situations it's not going to make a difference anyway. You could argue it might be safer to allow crazies to have full auto guns since the supressive fire would be more inaccurate.

The last sentence is clearly jest.

But it's a lot easier to conceal and lighter on the hip. Do you want to see people toting around rifles everywhere?

Don't bullshit a bullshitter

Driving with a car makes you more likely to die from car accidents etc etc.

/k/ommandos want complete deregulation. They argue that because if they don't argue they get the 1992 ban again. I agree there needs to be regulation but before any more laws are added we have to get rid of the NFA.

[citation needed that is not democratic party owned]

Either way, fuck off and stay out of my life you authoritarian.

Nobody seriously expects the revolution to be carried out by people shooting pistols at tanks, famalam. Revolutions against industrial-scale militaries are won by either: 1) seizing their heavy weaponry (artillery, armor, aircraft) early on and recruiting veterans who can use it and train others to use it, or 2) holding out in a war of attrition, in which case all you need are rifles, mountains, and time.

Yes.
Which is exactly what we already have for non-NFA weapons. You fill out your 4473, provide state-issued photo ID, it is called in to the NICS, and if you aren't flagged, you walk out with your gun. The process of actually obtaining an NFA item in the US is fucking ridiculous. Go look up the process for completing a Form 1.

Cotton shirts and car accidents, etc.

If automatic rifles were legal, their ownership would increase, and presumably you'd know how to use them pretty well after a short amount of time. Or, if not you specifically, then people younger than you, for whom that ownership is the norm. This is the weakest argument, on either side, in this thread.

Technically he's right. As I mentioned earlier in the thread a majority of gun violence is with handguns.

This isn't because they're more dangerous than rifles it's because they're more prevalent and easy to acquire.

Technically yes, you're more likely to die from a hand gun you own (via suicide/accidental discharge) than ever get a chance to defend yourself with simply by owning one.

A better statistic to look at the amount of people who own handguns vs the amount of people actually killed by them. I don't even have the number in front of me but I'm willing to bet it's less than a fraction of 1 percent.

You're in the same realm of getting struck by lightening in terms of chances.

Speak for yourself. I bought my PTR-91 and my Colt from a private seller, paid in cash, and no paperwork was involved because my state doesn't hate guns. I think automatic rifles warrant a paper trail, whether you're a dealer or a private individual.

And my other point is that Automatic fire is not used that way.

Assault rifles are not Machineguns in WW1. Full auto is not for mowing down crowds of people and it's not as threatening as someone who can shoot WELL and ACCURATELY with a Semi Auto. If you are using the "Assault Rifle" in Semi auto why is it ANY DIFFERENT than an equivalent weapons that ONLY fires in Semi Auto.

If you had purchased the firearms from an FFL, you would have had to fill out a 4473. Since you purchased them from a private seller, it is no different from you selling any of your property to another private party, and thus the government doesn't step in.
What the fuck do you think a Form 4 is? It's genuinely dismaying to know that one of the few gun owners here is a blithering idiot who doesn't know what he's talking about and is spreading such shit ideas.

I think a better solution would be to offer free (but not mandatory) rudimentary military training to all citizens.
This wouldn't, however, include the "deprogramming" element of basic training. So no psychological element, no programming people with shoot-to-kill reflexes, no attempt at breaking the individual to make him part of the unit, etc.
You could do all that stuff, but save it for the real military training, i.e., training people who are immediately going to serve after the training.
This would be more along the lines of a public education program–just a military one.

Because assault rifles are black (NIGGER) and have scary accessories like rails, forward grips, a folding stock and don't forget…

A PISTOL GRIP

Congratulations?
So? Regardless, the most easy to acquire is shotgun made from two pipes, a nail, and a pipe cap.
Suicide is my choice. Not yours.
Accidents are a non argument. Interacting with thing X makes you more likely to die from thing X as opposed to when you don't interact with it. If you never swim, you can't drown. But if you swim, your chance of drowning increases. No shit.
Yes, but WHY? Mental illness? Poverty? Culture? "People are taking photos of children being raped??? Let's ban cameras instead of treating the problem!"
I don't see a point, so because the chance is low you can get a state to reach into my personal life for you and make choices for me?

Look, you said the requirements should be identical for all four of those weapon types. I pointed out how, at least where I live, there are no requirements (besides not being a felon). You can't then point out an existing restriction and use it as an argument.
Maybe I don't know enough about how these laws vary by locale; I only researched my state's laws.

Correction: There are no requirements for the first three types of weapon we're discussing.

Shameful.

Yes.
But that's wrong. Go try to buy a gun from an FFL and when they hand you the 4473, tell them that it's okay if you don't fill it out because you aren't a felon. Please report back to us what happens.
I can when you don't even understand your own state's gun laws.
You clearly didn't.

nigga I was supporting your point.

Hence the term "technically right". Don't get mad at statistics, use them in your favor like I did.

I didn't, that's the point. I bought from a private seller, and there is no required paperwork for doing that in my state.

You have yet to post any.

I already explained that to you.

Apparently you understand this better than me. I'm sorry I disappointed you. I am actually being sincere.
Also, are you saying that I bought my guns illegally?

The entire point of arming the proletariat is so that they have the capacity to murder other human beings, namely, the ruling class. But yeah, that will mostly be accomplished with rifles. I still don't want handguns banned, though.

No, you bought them legally unless you had knowledge that they were stolen or if you're legally barred from owning firearms.

The issue is that in this theoretical we're treating all small arms equally, which unless you're in a shitty liberal state, means that you can sell your property to another individual that is legally allowed to own it, without uncle sam stepping in. What you want would be additional restrictions for select fire weapons, even just a simple background check required for private sales. This is actually far more reasonable a measure than what we currently have, but the problem is how do you enforce that?

Do you want it to be like Canada where owning "restricted" weapons (even just handguns) gives the police a 24/7 search warrant for your home, to ensure that your weapons are where they should be? Short of a national registry for all firearms, and giving the police (state) the means to constantly check up on you to ensure your guns are where they should be, that system would never work. So we either have minimal/no restrictions, or full on draconian gun laws.

I didn't think you were a lazy nigger.

Look em up. Statistically you're more likely to be killed your own handgun. This is technically true but people use that stat to distort reality. That being that the vast majority of handgun owners will not be killed by their own handgun.

I had it in front of me a while ago but I can't find it now. I'll stand by my original statement unless someone posts some stats to dispute it.

Liberalism

No, it's because they're more portable and concealable.

that too

The vast majority of handgun owners will not be killed by their own handgun, but also an even vaster majority of handgun owners will never use them for self defense. Focusing on the rarity of accidents still means that AT BEST handguns for self defense are actively pointless.

Nigger in my very post i talk about how useful other guns are for revolutionary warfare. I am clearly differentiating between murder and armed combat.

To expand on this, and perhaps better explain where I'm coming from; I think the background check system as-is is worthless and should not exist. Not just because it violates our constitutional rights (which it does), but if you've been deemed someone such a danger to society that you've forcefully stripped their right to bear arms from them, why the fuck are you letting them walk free in society?

Either you sent them to prison and successfully rehabilitated them, in which case there's no need to remove their right to bear arms.

Or you didn't rehabilitate them, in which case, again, why the fuck are you letting them walk free in society?

I just realized that your point, I think, was that, since all guns come from a manufacturer at some point, paperwork is done to register their sale at least once, before they can enter the private seller's market.
Well, it's definitely one of those laws that would require the occasional "show of force." You use the fear of punishment, by prosecuting the fuck out of the few violators that you catch. Many laws that hinge on private transactions have to use that method, since enforcement is going to be hampered by the fact that neither of the parties to the transaction is a large group that's required to document their activities.
Fuck no, that sounds awful.
But you don't have to use draconian enforcement measures just because it's difficult to determine when a law is being broken.
My area of expertise is finance, so I'll use an example from the financial world to illustrate: Insider trading. That's when people who have intimate knowledge of a company's business (usually because they're managers or employees at said business) use their confidential information to unfairly benefit from changes in the company's stock price. They know what the company's performance is before any other investors–and using that knowledge for profit is unfair to public investors, and hence illegal. Here's the thing: insider trading still happens. It's one of the hardest, maybe the hardest, financial crime to detect, at least in specific circumstances. (We can tell that it happens at a macro level because stock prices sometimes rise before optimistic performance reports, or fall before pessimistic ones.) So the government's response is to prosecute the ever-living fuck out of the people they do manage to catch (with sufficient evidence). That's why Martha Stewart did prison time. As I said above, we could use a similar model in enforcement. That way you aren't violating the personal rights of people who own automatic weapons, but people still understand that there's a big, big risk in violating that law. Enough to reduce the overall level of its occurrence by at least some degree.

Because SocDem's are insufferable traitors.

I don't see a meaningful distinction tbh.

I see. I can understand the reasoning behind your view. I'm just not convinced it would be a waste of time. You have to provide tax documents to get a bank account, a credit card number to book a flight–why are guns so different?
But I do agree that we shouldn't strip people of their rights to own guns, even felons. In fact, if it can be removed, it wasn't a "right" in the first place! But it's hard to get people to take you seriously when you start talking about how prisoners and felons should still be able to vote–they should, but try telling most normalfags that, and they'll look at you like you're an alien. There's only one state that lets all prisoners and felons vote, I think it's either New Hampshire or Vermont.

If the chance of it occurring is that negligible then why even bother arguing that point either way? Let people who want to own them own them. Tackle something worthwhile that kills more people like diabetes or cancer.

May as well cut try to cut down on accidental death by dragon dildos for as much good as a fucking handgun ban would do.

15. Leftists tend to hate anything that has an image of being strong, good and successful. They hate America, they hate Western civilization, they hate white males, they hate rationality. The reasons that leftists give for hating the West, etc. clearly do not correspond with their real motives. They SAY they hate the West because it is warlike, imperialistic, sexist, ethnocentric and so forth, but where these same faults appear in socialist countries or in primitive cultures, the leftist finds excuses for them, or at best he GRUDGINGLY admits that they exist; whereas he ENTHUSIASTICALLY points out (and often greatly exaggerates) these faults where they appear in Western civilization. Thus it is clear that these faults are not the leftist’s real motive for hating America and the West. He hates America and the West because they are strong and successful.

16. Words like “self-confidence,” “self-reliance,” “initiative,” “enterprise,” “optimism,” etc., play little role in the liberal and leftist vocabulary. The leftist is anti-individualistic, pro-collectivist. He wants society to solve everyone’s problems for them, satisfy everyone’s needs for them, take care of them. He is not the sort of person who has an inner sense of confidence in his ability to solve his own problems and satisfy his own needs. The leftist is antagonistic to the concept of competition because, deep inside, he feels like a loser.

...

To reiterate, though: I do think this should only apply to automatic weapons (hell, maybe only automatic rifles); pistols, shotguns, bolt-action/semi-automatic rifles should all be obtainable without background checks, whether you're buying from a dealer or from a private indidivudal.

Is it weird that I instantly recognized the source?
Anyway, reported, since you're clearly using this as a shitty Holla Forums-tier shitpost. Though everyone should read the Unabomber's manifesto at least once.

pretty much

The chance of THAT particular form of gun violence is negligible but other handgun crime is much less so. A handgun ban is not to save handgun owners from themselves but because the primary use of a handgun is petty crime and the INTENDED use of a handgun is so pointless as to be an acceptable casualty.

Also yeah let me get right on banning cancer that's not the stupidest fucking thing anyone's said in this thread or anything

A bumpy cake of ideology. Diggin' it.

Got bored of lobbying for the MPAA's anti-VCR campaign, I see.

But how do you propose they accomplish that for private transactions of otherwise legal property? The only thing I can think of is setting up sting operations, and I see that is a massive waste of resources.

I just don't see the reasoning in singling out select fire weapons when something like your PTR with a cheap 4-12x scope in a claw mount is far more "deadly" from a practical standpoint. Even something like a Vepr 12 w/ LE132-1B would be far better from a spree killer's point of view since you're not likely to encounter anyone with soft armor in an elementary school.

It's pretty crazy. I know he gets lambasted as a social democrat here quite often and by all means and purposes he ran on the platform of one, but I have no doubt about him hiding his power level. If you watch either older or more private videos of his, he is pretty clearly a democratic socialist.

Nigs gonna nig. Least in the states. Blame the instrument and not the society that promotes that violent culture. I'm sure that will fix the problem

I'll take hyperbole for 500.

I don't think I suggested such a notion. I was rather implying you donate time or money to help fight those diseases. As a typical leftist I'm sure such a concept if foreign to you.

Never implied that. In the very post that started this whole supply chain I talked up how great other guns are in the event of revolution. Handguns, however, are basically only used for the most pointless violence.

I'm just arguing on the fucking internet that I wouldn't be OPPOSED to a handgun ban. If arguing on the internet isn't an acceptable use of people's time to you might as well just demand leftypol get shut down entirely.

Honestly, that's a question that's probably better suited for a cop. I'd like to think it could be done in a reasonable and not-overly-expensive manner, but maybe I'm being optimistic.

It actually came with a scope and claw mount, but I never use it.
It's almost funny to think about, but the best way to determine what (if any) weapons should be singled out as most useful for sprees in civilian areas…would be simulations and test. Not killing people, but getting people or institutions to volunteer; then, at a random time, someone with a fake gun and a camera would go on a simulated spree, and experts would analyze the data after the fact. They'd have to use multiple "shooters," too, to account for differences in expertise, mental condition, etc.
But, of course, no government is ever going to want to do that, since it would be wildly unpopular. An elected official advocating for such a test, even if it's a practical policy research method, might as well write, "I FUCK DOGS" in neon lights in the sky.

Fuck off.

Well I mean also unless we're in a situation where gun bans have any chance of happening already i'm pretty sure testing out what guns are best for shooting sprees is gonna do jack shit beyond telling spree shooters what gun they should buy

You wouldn't make the test results public, famalam, only the policy conclusions.

Uh, the policy conclusion "we should ban x y and z" still makes it pretty clear what the test results are

I'm sure the gang members have valid beefs with one another.

Except you're full of shit.

If you're true focus is saving life then you'd be better off investing your time in something that's actually going to pay off in some life saving.

Removing a particular kind of gun from nogs isn't going to stop them from nigging. They'll either find a new gun to use or use another kind of weapon.

Instead of worrying about banning a particular type of gun why don't you argue to end gang violence. An actual tangible problem. Not a SPOOK like guns.

go back to reddit fag.

When you catch yourself saying that, presume that a system is doing exactly what it was designed to do, and reverse-engineer its actual objectives.

The error is in assuming that all battle happens on grassy plains between boldly identified combatants in good order and uniform during announced, scheduled periods. Most of those handgun crimes are, indirectly, reactions to economic violence. Those who would ban handguns often seem more interested in protecting the economic violence that the force differential echoing the power differential facilitates.

If you've learned that certain weapons are drastically more useful in violent sprees, you'd be a fool not to take steps to regulate them–the material consequences of their regulation would outweigh the chance that some nutjob spree killers are astute enough to deliberately seek out weapons mentioned in a wonky government policy research test.
It could also turn out that automatic weapons, or indeed any specific category of weapon, don't confer a significant enough advantage in spree shootings to warrant regulation.

I think the best place to start with that is an understanding of terminal ballistics, and analyzing other mass killings. There are a lot of places on your torso that you can be hit with a 5.56 and still be fully ambulatory, especially since if it doesn't fragment it's going to produce an ice pick wound channel. Not so with a load of #1 buck. With the Vepr (or Saiga) we have reliable mag fed semi-auto shotguns that offer very high volume of fire, and statistically you're extremely unlikely to survive a hit center mass with buckshot. Thus the optimal indoor spree killing weapon against unarmored targets would be a mag fed semi-automatic shotgun.

Outdoors, looking at 'sniper'-type mass killers, we get an accurate semi-automatic or bolt action rifle chambered in a full-size rifle cartridge with a magnified optic as our optimal outdoor spree killing weapon.

Automatic weapons don't really enter the equation here unless we get into ridiculous territory with belt fed light machineguns.

Yeah you're right on both counts.

huh kinda makes sense

Stop trying to fit in.

Arguing on an anonymous imageboard on the internet is like a fraction of a fraction of the bare minimum effort put into something. I have given no indication I'm focused on saving life at all.

In urban warfare and guerrilla warfare people still use fucking rifles

I've got some bad news for you about the people in charge of writing regulations…

Holla Forums-tier fallacy of composition

I'll take your word for it. Maybe my thinking on automatic weapons has been colored by my normalfag upbringing. I've only been a gun owner for a few years. Maybe one day I'll know enough to be full /k/.
You've probably seen it already, but for anyone else who's interested, here's a good video on gunshot wounds, from the medical/first responder perspective.
youtube.com/watch?v=wXwPtP-KDNk
We should have embedding on this board. I know they don't want to give IPs to YouTube, but come on, it's [CURRENT YEAR].

I just using spook to trigger the tankie niggers here. I basically call whatever I want a spook since the notion of spooks is fucking stupid.

So you agree with me we should have all guns be legal to allow nogs to kill one another more efficiently.

Now we're getting somewhere.

No that would be SMGs

You don't understand Stirner if you actually think that. Not like anyone here has read Der Einzige, anyway.

They use rifles, too, you retard.

Go to bed, Holla Forums.

In respect to our discussion handguns actually are spooks though. In the sense that they're some kind of "speical weapon" that is so much more deadly than rifles or whatever implement of death dealing you choose and scapegoat for a real problem (read nogs) that requires societal restructuring.

But yea, the notion of spooks is fucking stupid and if you subscribe to that ideology you're a fucking idiot.

I'm just trying get him to see the light…

Oh fuck, don't do that. I just want to steer you give you more info to help you along with your own research on the subject.
Most everyone has been manipulated into thinking "assault weapons" are far more dangerous than they really are due to hollywood, television, and videogames. I don't hold it against you at all, since you're at least open to learning more.
Great video, highly recommended.

I'd recommend this as well (youtube.com/watch?v=c4ZpyKSmgdE), which should be enlightening to the knife LARPers here.

SBRs have been supplanting SMGs for a while now. They're obviously still in service, but inferior from both a logistical and practical standpoint.

Well, thanks for being willing to actually have a discussion with me. I'll watch your video on edged weapons when I get the time.
I need to go to bed, but this has been a good thread overall minus the Holla Forums retard who can't stop rambling about blacks. Thanks for talking, comr8.

my arguments would be the same if it were all white on white gang violence.

Just pointing out it's nogs killing nogs. :^)

It was fun, finance-user. Lefty/k/ is always entertaining.

Because socdems hate the working class as a matter of ideology. They worship the state and state bureaucrats. The balance of power between state and individual is a zero sum game, their entire mission is to give full power to the state and the class that runs the state.

I'm surprised it's on the decline. I imagine it peaked in the '90s due to negro crime, and with it on the rise I'd expect gun ownership to be on the rise as well. Although white flight has taken a toll on these shit-hole cities since then and many whites no longer live around them, and those who still live in the cities, especially heavily diverse ones, are often subject to harsh gun regulations. After all, where whites are a minority the authoritarians rule, as they ride their mud hordes to the top of the political ladder.

Missing the point, but you're really smart

I think you're on the wrong board.

Haha this is the stupidest thing I've read all day

socdems hate guns because an armed proletariat frustrates the plans of their fascist masters

I feel like your trying to convince yourself that you are the norm.
I have never been diagnosed with a mental illness, or been prescribed a psychiatric drug. I can guarantee that those numbers are wrong. 2/3 to 3/4 of the people I walk past are not mentally ill.
This is a more reliable source, but to be honest I think their numbers are still very high.
newsweek.com/nearly-1-5-americans-suffer-mental-illness-each-year-230608

all this gun talk and I'm here living in nogunistan