ITT we discuss Gun Violence

When you're trying to shoot someone. When you only want to have to bring one magazine.

The thing about a temporary gun ban is that I don't believe it'd stay temporary. Especially with how it'd so utterly and blatantly violate the constitution. You've got everything else right though.

Except maybe /k/. /k/ not rarely contains fun/sport shooters and people who carry for defense.

...

Clearly, the solution is to ban people from having black skin.

It would drive violent crime to an all time low, and we'd only have to get rid of 9-10% of the population.

whenever the fuck I feel like i need them you fucking piece of shit. Say it with me…
STANDARD
CAPACITY

Oh look, another Holla Forums terraforming thread.

/k/ used to be a pretty diverse and fun place but then it got taken over by Holla Forums, like most other boards.

Holla Forums loves guns, retard.
If it was up to them literally every citizen would be armed.
Man people around here literally don't know jack shit about what Holla Forums is about, i bet there's some people here that think liberals and SJWs are actually welcome there.

So you're saying a gun ban should involve destroying the illegal guns?

they let reddit in. its unforgivable.

I dont care how many children it requires, the SCOTUS already decided on it in Heller vs DC and McDonald vs Chicago.

fuk off, u gun grabbin fagits

Finally, a discussion on Holla Forums that I actually know something about.
First, allow me to preface this with the fact that gun violence in the United States is at an all time low. The 33,000 victims of gun violence are, well, misrepresented. If the 33,000 were the actual number, it still wouldn't be that bad. 33,000 in a population of 315 million is a number I can live with. Now, let's get more specific.
About 22,000 of those deaths by firearms are actually suicides. Nothing we can really do about that. As much as I feel for the families of the people who decided to end it, I can't justify any kind of regulation on firearms based upon that. Suicide sucks, and it happens. But there is no logical reason to disarm the populous based on that.
With that out of the way, we are now left with 1/3 of the original number, 11,000. Approximately 8,000-8,300 of those deaths are a result of gang violence. How many gangs do you know of that use firearms that were purchased legally? Do you think the Hell's Angels walk into Dick's Sporting Goods to get a Mac 10 or an AK 47? Of course not, because that's retarded. Let's dwell on why those 8,000 people die each year.
Gangs are formed for a multitude of reasons. Some people just want a sense of family or security, others want money, earned by drug or arms dealing. Illegal things. I believe that we can attribute the rise of gang violence to the war on drugs. When people make their income off of an illegal commodity, the only way to protect your business is through violence. You don't have access to legal support to settle your disputes, because what judge would hear you out? It all comes down to who has the sharper stick, and when the other guy has a bunch of metal sticks that can be thrown at speeds that exceed the speed of sound, then you get protective. Kill or be killed. The war on drugs has also incarcerated record numbers of black teens and young adults, leaving many father-less homes. As we know, gangs are predominantly black, which is why I said "sense of family" earlier. Young men want a father figure, an outlet, and a model of masculinity. They turn to gangs to fulfill that need. Now that we have that out of the way, let's move back to the 3,000
Some of these remain 3,000 deaths are accidents. Maybe 500 or so, and that's high-balling it. What can you do about accidents? News flash, you cannot legislate action. I'll say it again, "you cannot legislate action." All you can do is punish those who act out of line. How are you gonna enforce laws that ensure weapons be stored safely in steel safes? That 500 includes children too. Parents are irresponsible sometimes, but more kids die drowning in swimming pools and fucking bathtubs than guns. It is not a problem.
The remaining 2,500 are random acts of violence. Some are en mass, most are not. 2,500 annually in a society of 315,000,000 is a number I can live with. When it comes to mass shootings, all I can say is that most of them occur in areas where other people are not allowed to carry weapons. I'm sure you've heard it before, the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun, and cops are heavy to carry around all day.
Now I have a few miscellaneous points about the issue
There are 116.4 firearms per 100 Americans (That first number might be off by a few numbers, but it's around there). There are currently billions of rounds of ammunition collectively owned among some percentage of 315 million people. If gun violence was a problem, you'd fucking know it.
There are more guns than there are people in this country. Go ahead and make it illegal to possess them, I'd love to see you enforce it. You'd have to use the ATF, FBI, police, and National Guard, all known for their nuance approaches to violent situations, to confiscate millions of firearms from well armed individuals, many of whom would rather start civil war than give up their constitutional rights. Fucking try it.
Well… they had a gun buyback program, not a confiscation. There's still 60%-80% of firearms still out there.
If gun control laws work, explain to me how the cities with the highest levels of gun violence (Washington D.C., Miami, Chicago to name a few) have some of the nation's strictest gun policies
The war on guns will go just like the war on drugs. A disaster, except worse. Drugs can't kill cops when they bust a meth lab (you know what I mean). There is currently a heroin epidemic in the United States, and the war on drugs has gone on since before Reagan was in office. It has failed, what makes you think the war on drugs will go any better?

Thanks for giving me that soap box OP, and thanks to any faggots who actually read my autistic ranting

Life isn't a movie. In movies, 3 bad guys pop up and the dude fires 3 times with 3 dead bad guys. In real life, you miss… a lot. So when you fire all 5 shots out of the pea-shooter you call revolver all you have is a cool looking paper weight against a thief who has no problem hurting you and your family.

Do you see what you just did there?
I do.
You said a gun ban won't work, and then you suggested a gun ban. What makes a lot more sense to me is that the current laws against owning or possessing a firearm if you are mentally ill should be enforced. That includes a registry of all mentally ill people which is cross-checked before allowing someone to purchase a gun. And that includes hugely stiff penalties for people who allow mentally ill people to have access to firearms. The burden of the law needs to be on the right people here, and those people are the mentally ill.

True, which is why some use knives or swords or axes or set fires or use their cars….etc….
Claiming that firearms are easily accessible is itself an argument for enforcing the laws we currently have about restricting the mentally ill from owning or possessing them. It is not an argument for restricting access to firearms for everyone.

Oh, and BTW, making a bomb like the one used in Oklahoma City is much easier than getting a gun. MUCH easier. And depending on how much ammunition you are talking about, the truck bomb is going to end up being cheaper as well.

Oddly, you would expect that to be the case, but nearly every single instance of mass murder in this country has been committed by a white guy. It is remarkably disproportionate, as a matter of fact.

Not all gun deaths are caused by killers. If you have some kind of basic fire arms training required to own fire arms along with rules for how they are stored will reduce accidentally gun injury and death.

In the Rwandan genocide in 1990 caused the deaths of 800,000.

The main weapons used…machetes.

While I seem to disagree the subject of if it is feasible to make those numbers you mentioned better without going into draconian laws, that is a very well thought out post. 10/10 we need more well anons like you.

True, which is why I said that the term "gun violence" was misleading back in .

I would be very much in favor of more robust firearms education programs being required of EVERYONE in this country, not just people who want to own them. It makes very little sense to me that we live in a country where anyone can have a gun but yet we don't teach our kids about them in schools the way we teach them about other safety issues. Right now, if you were to ask most 5 year olds what to do if they were outside playing and found a gun, they wouldn't be able to tell you that they shouldn't touch it. That is a death waiting to happen.

Only genuine retards want to ban guns. Democrats don't even want to ban guns. Every single anti-gun law Obama has signed and every anti-fun congressional hearing have been false-flags set up by the firearms industry to create artificial moral panic that results in boosted gun sales.

I agree completely.

Bubbas got one, but I don't? If those fucktards can't stop criminals from getting high cal guns and mags, I sure has fuck don't want to go without one. Tell me when they do their job, and then we can start discussing potential security measures.

...

politicians make more money from guns than gun makers?

The Entire world has a Nigger, Mexican & Moslem problem, not a gun problem. Remove niggers, Mexicans and Moslems and you have peaceful society.

/thread

P.S. WAY more people were killed by Sand Niggers using Trucks than when they used guns. (on a 1 killer per kill count basis) So outlaw trucks.

P.P.S. Or we can fix all problems and just ban Niggers, Mexicans and Moslems.

yes goyim, it's Nigger, Mexican & Moslem that are the problem…

I didn't mention Jews because it is like talking about Satan. Everyone knows Satan is responsible for all the world's evils, but I was talking about individual evils, like drugs, rape, etc.

I hope you get the analogy merchant. You are my greatest ally.

...

When there's more than 0 targets. Resistance keeps niggers, central american rats and kikes in their place.

In the year 2015, according to ucr.fbi.gov crime statistics 252 murders were committed with rifles of every kind, military style or otherwise. With that in mind, and the population of the United States being 320,000,000 you have an approximately a 1 in 1,269,841.26984127th chance of being murdered by a criminal with a rifle. To put things into perspective, according to Kristen Ketchell, WNCN News: “Odds of winning Powerball jackpot less than being hit by lightning — twice.” you have a 1 in 960,000th to be struck by lightning, and I haven’t seen a grownup try and hide from lightning storms. One thing you might be thinking is “yeah, lightning storms aren’t preventable, but murder can be.” To which I say, not only are you wrong, but you are actually enabling it, In otherworld’s, your prohibition era wrong. The population in the UK in 2015 according to www.worldometers.com was 64,715,810, according to citizensreportuk.org the murders in the UK were 619. Meaning you have a 104,548.9660743134 chance of being murdered, but here’s the kicker. The UK has a ban on any and all military firearms, they even have a very strict hold on knives. There is no correlation between “military grade” firearms and murder rates anywhere.
This is not to say that the us is a perfect place, it’s not. Its murder rate is abysmal with a 321,773,631 population and 15,696 murders in 2015. Meaning that you have a 1 in 20,500.35875382263 chance of getting murdered in general. 11,265 are related to firearms according to the www.bjs.gov statistic 60% of those firearms used for murder are stolen. Meaning 4506 crimes were committed with a legally owned firearm. Being killed by a legally owned firearm in general is 1 in 71,410.03794008th chance.

Time to grow up little kid

...

Even if you ban guns people will still try to commit suicide, they just use other tools to do it.
Ropes, trains, magnets, pills, etc.

t. Satan

t. Angel

t. t.

...

t. European

...

ITT

Just because you asked that retard question, I'm going to go buy a 75 round AK drum.

Because I can.

...

I like this user. He speaks the truth.

...

Gun violence isn't related to whether or not guns should be legal. That's nothing buy a shitty appeal to emotion meme pushed by statists.

Guns are required to be a sovereign citizen, weapons are required to overthrow tyranny.

They come at a cost to safety, but they bring you freedom and independence.

Those were some quality posts.

I really can't respect the argument of banning guns to save lives, first off, statistically, the places where the strictest gun bans are in effect have the highest gun deaths in this country, but they obviously only want to ban guns because they are scary/black etc,
I can at least respect the idea of a liberal utopian society where nothing goes wrong and we should legislate to prevent death at every chance we can, but guns are 16th on the list of accidental death, and even if you count suicides, still very far from the top, IF it were about saving lives you would
1)ban cars, only public transportation now
2)poison, no household cleaners of any kind
3)medicine, all pharmacies can only issue medicine 1 days worth at time
4)doctors, yes doctors/medical malpractice kills way more than guns, now illegal
5)falls, no building shall be erected more than 1story high,
6)pools, no more private ownership of pools, only public pools with lifeguards on duty
7)other, not sure what to ban here but im sure congress will figure it out

the first guns they always want to ban are "high capacity assault guns" which are literally responsible for fewer deaths than hammers,

This list doesnt even include other killers like smoking or heart disease, If congress goes through this list and bans the real problems first then ill give up my guns, otherwise they can fuck off

I think the primary concern isn't so much accidental gun deaths but intentional murders.
It's really a somewhat rational fear when you think about. Someone with a hammer is going to have an awfully hard time killing you from 100m away whereas someone with a gun can kill a whole group of people at a distance. You could consider it somewhat equivalent to being scared of someone walking into a convenience store with a stick of dynamite, in so far as it's a rather context sensitive fear.

People who want to ban guns are like people who want to ban nuclear power. It's not a statistically rational argument but they see it as a huge social cost to not do so. WHAT IF the nuclear plant blows up? WHAT IF someone walks into a store and shoots them and half their family. It's not that it does that much tangible harm in the real world but the potential to do it.

The irony is, as always, that doing so generally causes a lot more harm but usually to other people.
I think it's important to understand where they're coming from if you want to effectively argue against them. When they say think it will save lives it makes no difference how many accidental toilet related deaths there are, because they're accidental. What matters is if you can show that banning guns would most likely lead to a lot more gun murders because only the people with intent to murder will have guns and police will not be able to respond in time to save them, or something of that nature.

So you want to criminalize everything. If I had a gun and those things were criminalized, I would organize resistance.

i dont want to criminalize those things, but i think it proves they are being disingenuous by going after guns first if it were really about saving lives

I was exaggerating. I understood your point. You'd want them to prove their intentions first. But if the intention is criminalization of anything, it's probably not something to support.

Drugs are only a problem because of the failed war on drugs. If you are upset about blacks and Mexicans dealing drugs and the gang wars that result over it, their market disapeers if you legalize, tax and regulate drugs. Do you think a bunch of gang bangers can compete with Wall Mart?

...

wtf i hate the constitution now.

this should help

What a fucking shitty syntax tree.

here u go
also: nod an argument

There are literally 20 million "assault rifles" in the USA in private hands. According to the gun grabbers it should be a war zone/shooting gallery, but it isn't.

Why? Because of responsible gun ownership, which they can't comprehend.
They take away guns from the negro because they believe they aren't capable of owning a gun responsibly, so in the inner cities people are disarmed and the gangs roam free and armed. And they wonder why the crime rate is so high.

in other words:

WHEREAS a well regulated Militia, [is] necessary to the security of a free State,
BE IT RESOLVED [that] the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

I guess the Founding Fathers never expected we'd forget how to speak English.

...

not an argument

...

America has a Nigger problem, not a gun problem. Nigger men have committed 52% of all murder since the 80's

Im in the UK, a few years ago I got into a fight with a bunch of nogs, the next day my neighbour knocked on my door with a 410 shotgun. Guns are everywhere, even in th UK its piss easy to get them. I think banning guns does nothing to stop people wanting other people dead, i think thats more to do with living in close proximity and human nature.

Nice. Is that RPK chambered in 5.45?

In states where guns are restricted, general crime and gun related violence in particular skyrocket.

You CAN'T legislate behavior. Banning guns only takes guns away from law abiding citizens, and without that deterrent, the actual criminals with guns they purchased off the black market are free to use them as much as they want without fear of retribution. An unarmed populace emboldens criminals and promotes violence and, yes, gun crime.

...