AWWWW SHIT LET'S SEE HOW YOU CHOOSE

...

Get out, anti-freedom scum.

...

Government protects lives, it doesn't appease lists of rights, because that's a foolish way to do things. If guns make people less safe, then I can just say I have a right to safety and then where are we?

Wow I guess your life doesn't matter if you're from the Middle East. What a great ideology you have. You blew me out

Wrong. The studies show pedophiles don't have the same thing as homosexuals have, and aren't attracted to adult males. If you're against all homosexuals because there is homosexual abuse done by pedophiles, who are in their own category, you should stop

Exaggerating so you can pretend you're oppressed. Also, society already accepts plenty of 'mutilations' without beating people to death. Circumcision, all piercings, and tattoos, are mutilations of the human body.

Except drug use has gone up in the US for a long time despite huge spending, and Portugal has less drug use than most European countries with money to spend on treating people who are harmed by drugs.

...

Ebic

he point is to also shop the options you chose so we can make fun of you

I'm unsure about some of my options. For example:

- Cannabis, alcohol, and tobacco use would have some restrictions, but simple possession would not be fined
- Monarchy would be mostly inherited, but a ruler could be kicked from the throne if specific councils deemed him unfit
- Gambling I would consider making illegal, but just like the prohibition of alcohol, I don't think it would work

Niggers and the like are going to illegally buy firearms anyway. It's better that law abiding citizens can defend themselves with guns from criminals that won't abide the gun laws to begin with.

Moreover, it would be easy to rid a nation of "aggressive urban youths", and these kinds of people would never be able to acquire a gun license to begin with.

Of course, I'd like to add that I'd have no niggers in my nation to begin with, and I would squash the degenerate culture that is firing up part of the white lower class.

Well fuck me, I already closed the tab. Off the top of my head, all I remember is
>state-run brothels a-ok ;^)))

Except they don't. Criminals in Europe hardly ever use guns. If they had them, I assume they would use them.

You're cool

Those are misleading statistics. The USA is full of niggers and other undesirables who commit far more homicides than other races, of course the homicide rate will be higher.

IIRC, in Switzerland 1 in 3 people owns a gun, but look how much lower their homicide rate is compared to the USA. Also take into account that the USA lets pretty much any idiot have a gun, some restrictions like intelligence tests, safety tests and mental health tests are necessary.

Switzerland has a very complicated system. You can hardly even say people own guns

Y-you too..

Your post made me laugh so hard. Where to start, first, they don't need guns. 2nd, they have them. Pics included for both points.

Go back to Holla Forums or cuckistan.

PS: Your picture is talking about 22 more people Per MILLION. Well, worth the price of being able to stop niggers from invading your house or the government from finally rounding up white people.

But we President now. Hail Trump

Looking into it, I'm seeing various estimates in the range of 25% ~ 60% - the estimates vary so much because their gun laws are very relaxed. Their gun-related murder rates are so low (despite their relaxed laws) because most people in Switzerland and white.

An entirely European country that allows all people declared intelligent and mentally sane to own firearms would have very close to zero annual murders by people with firearms in their legal possession.

are white*

We should be less willing to pay that price, and examine critically whether governments are actually going to 'round up white people'

r8

You seriously believe that? Man, have you had a sheltered life.

Also, if you're such a weakling that you depend on the government to protect you and don't have the capacity to protect yourself, you are a failure at being a man.

… so a government couldn't possibly list a set of basic rights that all citizens are entitled to?

I'm still trying to decipher this gibberish, but my best guess is that you're saying that there's some sort of disconnect between having the ability to protect yourself and being safe.

Your life doesn't matter to me if you're not part of my group. If you don't share my people's culture, language, or history, then you are an outsider and I simply don't care about you.

I know this seems like some "fringe right wing ideology" to someone who has grown up living a sheltered life in a gated community, but the reality is that this is the ideology that every group around the world that has not been indoctrinated to hate itself has.

Go ahead, go to whatever ISIS's capital is and try explaining your high-minded ideals of globalism to them. Visit some warlord in the Congo and tell him that we're all the same, man. Try telling a Mexican narc that we're all one race, the human race.

You'll get your throat cut before you've finished explaining all your buzzwords.

The reality is that the only people who care about you are people who share your culture and language, because those are the only people who you share common ground with. These are the only people who can trust you, because they are the only people who understand who you are. To everyone else, you're an outsider who is not to be trusted, because from their perspective you share no common ground with them.

Also there's the fact that those poor oppressed kebabs are going around raping and murdering people. They're driving trucks through markets and blowing themselves up in town squares. Even if I did give a shit about them before, the fact that they're an obvious danger to my people indicates that there is no reason to take them in.

Even if you like dogs, it would be foolish to take in a rabid dog. To claim that people have a moral imperative to take in a rabid dog is to claim that people have a moral imperative to kill themselves.

downloads.frc.org/EF/EF10F01.pdf

Oh my, that projection.

How about you stop being intellectually dishonest and post actual violent crime stats, because at the end of the day it's just as bad (or worse) being killed by being stabbed than it is being killed by being shot.

Turns out that when you look at the intentional homicide rate, America is in the same group as the U.K., France, and Poland.

But hey, I suppose people stabbed to death just don't count. After all, as long as they weren't killed by an evil gun, they don't mess up your propaganda stats.

Then you also have the fact that the "gun problem" is actually a race problem. The gun violence rate among whites is identical to that of Holland.

But hey, ONE RACE THE HUMAN RACE, right?

Well, good thing guns are the only things that can kill people, amirite?

Look into the restrictions they have. Their guns might be locked in cupboards without any ammunition.

Holla Forums pls go

You guys are pretty great sometimes. Kudos

The vast majority of them in America are niggers. I would give up the right to guns if we got rid of all non-whites. Until then, we will fight to stop rampaging niggers and when the niggers die, it is nothing but a gain for our country and society.

You're pretty racist but the rest of what you said is spot on.

This is not an enjoyable discussion.

The US ONLY has a nigger, moslem & mexican problem, NOT a gun problem, but so does the rest of the white countries and they all stem from the Jew problem.

Things like hunting and target practise are tradition in Switzerland. Why would anyone buy a gun to lock it away in a cupboard?

Maybe they keep their gun from their military service, but under strict conditions.

What if guns make the 'race problem' worse? They make it easier for blacks to kill each other?
I'd be surprised if blacks in European countries kill as much as Americans

Well, we've reached the point in a leftist's "debate" where you just start being straight up intellectually dishonest. Where you ignore troublesome statements that prove you wrong, twist what I've said into whatever form is expedient for you, and respond to my statements not by proving me wrong, but by saying "wow, just wow! You're such a bigot!"

Never change, Holla Forums.

Cognitive dissonance?

Yeah, let's ignore the part where I pointed out that banning guns wouldn't protect peoples' lives. Let's just sweep that under the rug, because acknowledging that would just be inconvenient, wouldn't it, you intellectually dishonest snake?

Also, that being said, you're still a faggot. Any man who would rather beg for help than deal with an attacker himself is essentially a woman.

Aaaaand here's the hysterical over exaggeration. Typical of women and effeminate men.

Nobody would "lol own nukes" because nukes aren't useful for defending yourself. If you detonated a nuclear bomb as someone was approaching you to kill you, you would kill yourself as well.

Guns, on the other hand, are perfectly capable of killing the nigger trying to kill you for your wallet without also killing you. So they're not even equivalent.

But hey, intellectual honesty just isn't your thing, is it? And I suppose when the whole concept of self-agency is elusive to you it's difficult to understand what is and is not logical to use as a weapon in self-defense.

You are. If you honestly think a sandnigger from Syria gives one shit about flowery concepts like the "universal rights of man" or about "everyone all being equal," you're a dumbass. The fact that you actually think that's how people think indicates that you haven't had any real world experiences outside of your gated community and your ivory tower.

Also,

No you don't. If you did, you'd actually get off your ass and help them. But at the end of the day all you care about is virtue signalling just how very not racist you are.

That's because being murdered is being murdered, you insufferable twat. If the net effect of banning guns is to cause all the people who would have been shot to death to instead be stabbed to death, then you haven't exactly improved the common welfare, have you?

But go ahead – tell the family of someone who was stabbed to death that his death was less bad because hey, at least he wasn't killed by one of those evil guns. So his death doesn't count. Because the tool used to cause it wasn't something that you're currently trying to ban.

Leftism: where political expedience is more important than peoples' lives.

Dubs of truth. BTFO'd don't even respond, just go to a burn ward

Why should I be forced to give up my gun just because some room temperature IQ nigger can't go through a day without shooting someone?

It's the physical form of pic related.

sure why not

You did call me a pussy for thinking the government should protect people. It doesn't matter if you said the government wasn't really protecting people. As you will remember, you were calling me a pussy for thinking the government ought to protect people- not for thinking a certain method is effective.
It's not inherent that a nuclear bomb always kills the person using it. You could, for example, be defending yourself from a foreign power, or you might have already left the country when the bomb goes off.
It seems like there can be contradictions between letting people defend themselves better and public safety.
I never said people in Syria cared about anything.
I never said people killed by knives were less dead. I was pointing out people in countries where guns are banned don't have guns.

...

...

No, for claiming that peoples' ability to defend themselves should be restricted because the government would be able to protect them.

Whether you want to admit it or not (and you're not going to admit it, since that would involve being honest), claiming people shouldn't get to own guns because government should protect people is claiming that the government will be able to protect people, which is a ludicrous statement that conveys that you've never been involved in a fight or home invasion in your life.

Unless of course you suggest that people's ability to defend themselves should be limited despite the government not being able to protect them, in which case I have to ask why you view people as slaves. Only a slave would not have the ability to defend himself, and only someone that views others as slaves would willingly put them in a situation where they had no ability to defend themselves.

You mean your shitty nuke reference? That makes no logical sense for the reason I pointed out in my last post. Nuclear bombs are not defensive, because you could not use one against a mugger without killing yourself. Guns are defensive, because it is perfectly possible to shoot someone without shooting yourself. Conflating guns and nuclear weapons indicates a profound dishonesty on the part of the person making that argument.

Oh, but you did. You claim other races can coexist in white countries without friction. This implies that these groups can trust each other, which can only happen if they share something in common. As the two groups have no shared culture, language, or history, this indicates that there will have to be some flowery, abstract concept like "we're all one race, the human race!" to tie them together. And while beliefs like that may be common among teenagers and inexperienced university students, anyone who has interacted with average people on a day to day basis will tell you that such high minded concepts are not reciprocated by the average person.

Then why focus on "gun violence" instead of just violence in total?

The average mugger maybe. Achmed and organized crime has no trouble getting anything from rifles to general purpose machine guns.

I think it's time you listened to the man

No, they should be restricted if it makes people safer. Because the weapons can be used for aggression as well. Got to pay attention.
You accuse me of being dishonest but you can't even get that much right.

Self defence doesn't only apply to muggers.
How does that make sense?
Nukes can be used for self defence from foreign countries, but they shouldn't be allowed because they also make other people less safe. Nukes can't be used for defending you from muggers, but that's not the point.

I don't remember mentioning much about that.

For the third time, to show that people in these countries don't have guns. Guns are used much less frequently because people don't have any.
To be more precise I could have tried to find exact data on the types of weapons used, but the difference in the amount of gun murder shows it as well.

Guns do not make the race problem worse, it just stops the monkeys from going wild across the whole country.

Unfortunate for you that I grew up in Prince George's County Maryland and know 100% what niggers are like with or without guns. I am basically the Red pilled, white hetero Jane Goodall of niggers.

Which it doesn't, which I showed several posts ago. Try to be honest and not just forget things that contradict your feelings, Holla Forums.

Are you being willfully dense? The mugger was just an example you daft moron. The fact is that a weapon that kills you if you use it isn't defensive. Nuclear weapons are not defensive. Guns are. So conflating the two is intellectually dishonest.

Oh hell, why do I even bother? You'll just say I'm wrong because of some technicality or a willful "misunderstanding" of what I wrote.

Then why did you support immigration?

Or do you support immigration without even pretending that the immigrants will be able to coexist with the natives? In that case, as is the case if you seriously intend to place people in situations where they cannot defend themselves, I must ask you: why do you see others as slaves?

But if the total homicide rate is not effected, why does people having guns matter? If the same number of people are going to die, and the only difference is the tool used to kill them, why does it matter what the gun ownership rate is?

Jesus this is literally like arguing with a Jew. You got a hook nose, Holla Forums?

wdadawd

Nukes can be used for self defence from foreign countries, but they shouldn't be allowed because they also make other people less safe. Nukes can't be used for defending you from muggers, but that's not the point.

I believe they co-exist sometimes imperfectly with natives, sometimes quite well, and are almost always much better off than if they had been abandoned to whatever fate they were escaping from.

The last point was only started by me arguing against someone that said everybody just gets guns anyway. My point is fighting against guns actually reduces gun ownership, so you can expect some actual changes.

As for the actual changes that occur due to limiting firearm ownership, the data doesn't seem to show any particular correlation. It's more the climate of fear I'm worried about, and police having a harder time about the line of duty. Also, while in America it's seen as no big deal when a burglar gets shot and dies, people in Britain would see it as quite a tragedy

When will they learn?

Also, nice datamining thread, OP. Faggot.

… and this relates to private ownership of firearms how?

How? They're a weapon like any other. The only difference is how much damage one of them can cause vis-a-vis one conventional bomb. And if you want to outlaw one weapon because it's "too powerful," then you might as well outlaw anything more powerful than a wooden spear.

Then why have them? If you flood your country with people who coexist "sometimes imperfectly" with yours, then you are damaging your own peoples' security to preserve the wellbeing of foreigners.

Congratulations, you are literally a cuck.

What a shame you had to grow up there. I fucking hate going there. It's such a shithole.