debate

1. Youre right my political leaning doesnt make me knowledgeable about guns. Actually learning and using proper terminology and such does. For example I was impressed you used semi-auto instead of automatic ((8/10) people fuck up right there. 2. Sure our military is over the top loaded but our military is loyal to the constitution not a leader. So if the government did turn on the people our entire military isnt likely to comply. A percentage probs will and that percentage is anybodys guess. Also even as recent as Vietnam or Iraq proves that pure military might wont overwhelmingly win on its face. 3. Why should I have to be a cop or military to own a gun? Is my right to effective self defense governed by my career choice? You forget to gun people safety and training is a hobby. Me having a gun does not impede the police from being able to police (unless im doing so unlawfully) 4. Why is the US fairly high in gun violence is not a simple answer as several things factor in. *gun violence numbers get fluffed up in asinine ways most notably suicides are added in most calculations boosting the data by 66% or so since roughly 2/3 deaths per year are siucide *most occurrences of gun violence is in a select few areas ironically where the gun laws are strictest (these occurrences often masked by per capita stats) if you took out inner city gang violence which are typically in controlled areas I bet our ranking drops dramatically *countries calculate these things differently making any comparison require some grains of salt If it were really the guns red states would be blood baths but overall this isnt the case. With 300+ million guns and trillions of rounds if we were the problem itd be too obvious. In short our violence rates are much more represented than what actually occurs and silly things are added in. This is done to create the illusion of some epidemic to fearmonger ignorant mostly liberals. Not only that but compare the death per year on guns to defensive gun use (which does not require pulling the trigger). Even at 40,000 per year inflated with suicides is dwarfed by 50,000 to 2.5 MILLION. So real fast the more you look into our gun statistics the numbers get real questionable real fast due to intelectually dishonest compilation tactics such as including people over 18 as "children".

2.but the fact that the military wont go against us is a point that the government cant go against us, the military will be on our side so they have no way to trap the people 3.sorry i should have brought the point im countering when i said that police thing. i ment more the "dont trust the police take matters into your own hands" thing, not that gun owners should only be people with police training. the police get training to uphold the law and their hands are tied by the same law, citizens dont the gun laws in placed like detroit are stricter because of the violence rates so the violence came before the laws, and without any real work done to the places, law breakers will continue to break the law what about the extreme rates of school shootings?

You really don't realize what you said there at the end do you? "law breakers will continue to break the law" so imposing more laws burdening EVERYONE will stop the criminals who will break the laws anyway? Please tell me that isn't what you are trying to communicate. Do you also mean to tell me that there is a bigger problem then say - the guns ? Also gun laws tend to be stricter in both (usually) urban areas and areas with democrat representation (which are often one in the same). I'm going to give you some benefit of the doubt that your intentional brevity due to being on your phone rendered you unable to fully explain yourself. If not comments like that are exactly why conservatives use the term "libtard" I'm compiling some data and such on Canadian gun laws since you asked and I don't really have such analysis at the ready.

see, i thought youd say that ;P because its an argument iv heard before, but the problems im talking about are not hardened criminals, but instead people who want to "play police" and the mass shootings america is plagued with criminals will criminal so i have nothing really to say on that front

Things that are wrong or unduly burdensome about Canadian gun laws: 1. The basic absence of (conceal and) carry permits 2. Gun registration 3. The increased amount of restrictive classifications of firearms (a precursory look shows no real logic or consistency in what is legal and what isn't) 4. Insanely arbitrarily small magazine size restrictions 5. Surpressors are illegal in Canada 6. They are usually ineffective and admitted to being costly and burdensome 7. Very long wait periods (longer than US in most cases) 8. Character references to be eligible to purchase a firearm In short there are a whole lot of things that Canada does that if implemented here would solve not a god damn fucking thing. School shooters would use whatever weapons they could get their hands on and because "gun free zone" its going to be a "free fire zone". Inner city gangs such as those in Detroit or Chicago would be completely unaffected as they get their guns through bodegas and other black markets (or theft). They also wouldn't stop suicides by guns (at least not directly - sure if so many fewer people had guns they wouldn't have the access but as I'm sure liberals don't realize this creates a bigger problem than is solved).

Play police? Just because I want my own weapon for my own protection does not mean I want to play police. I do not intend to pull people over, initiate contact into what someone is doing. You completely 100000000% do not understand the mentality of people who want guns on their person or access. You couldn't be much more ignorant if you tried (honestly I think you're being this dumb on purpose just to annoy me). For a peek into how us gun carriers ACTUALLY think (the context puts things in a very black and white way I'll admit to that caveat but in honesty the last paragraph is the most important): https://munchkinwrangler.wordpress.com/2007/03/23/why-the-gun-is-civilization/ I'm not sure what non hardened criminal problem in inner cities you're talking about (aside from the mass shootings) then so please do clear that up. As for the "mass shooting plague" is for one over-sensationalized by the media for obvious reasons (you know like ratings and the excuse to go "all hail gun control"). Hell school shootings are way over-reported as things like shootings outside of a school or in an empty school parking lot would be counted as a "school shooting" the same as Columbine. Nuance like this matters not to the gun grabbers though. EDIT: "criminals will criminal" no fucking shit so will passing more gun laws really impact them? That's literally a pro gun argument right there (that laws will do nothing to deter them). Take out suicides and those inner city criminals account for the remaining bulk of gun deaths per year. While sensational on the news other gun deaths are statistically insignificant. No proposed "common sense" gun law would do much if at all to prevent criminals or school shooters as they don't really target that problem directly.

thats fine on the canadian gun laws aspect, as i didnt know much more than what iv heard from a video you should watch vegan gains on gun laws, hes really pro gun (on the paranoid anti government gun front as well)

I'll give the video you put on my page a whirl. It is a bit long but I suppose I can go through it in shorter bits. I would appreciate if you read the link I posted in my last post so you can get some well needed education to open your mind about the mentality of someone who wants/carries a gun. Your currently presented ideas on the matter are so out of touch I don't even know if I can find an accurate comparison. Just imagine how dumb you think evangelical christians are on abortion or LGBT issues - and multiply that by 10 and you might be close though - maybe.... Anything you've mentioned on the topic of guns that isn't mental health is just asinine and absurd in so many ways. If you're trying to troll or rile me up then what you say makes sense - but if you're actually trying to seriously debate as you've expressed the wish to do in this thread .... I can't even you're going full libtard. "criminals are gonna criminal" (the biggest offense of libtardation) "playing police" (close second) "wish our gun laws could be like Japan" "only the police or military should have guns" How are you to convince rational intelligent people to agree to restrictions on THEIR RIGHTS that will do NOTHING to deter the ACTUAL PROBLEM that is criminal use by criminals if these laws will do little or nothing to impede criminals? (or school shootings or mass shootings). These common sense gun laws (ironically named as they are rarely common sense - some barely have sense at all) that will do nothing to combat actual problems but people who don't care to exercise their rights make them feel better but... ACCOMPLISH FUCKING NOTHING If this is the case... *why* should we agree and pass these draconian restrictions other than some empty feel good egoboost? Like what good actual reason is there? It boggles my mind really and I've been actively seeking out the view (and there are soooooo many gun control views out there - there is absolutely no shortage) and I can't find it.

no no no again your misunderstanding me, i apologize, and i wouldnt "be dumb on purpose", your just not understanding what im trying to get at im talking pieces of shit like george zimmerman, who brought a gun on a neighborhood watch (and theres no debate if hes a piece of shit or not and if his motives were racially motivated after how he acted after the trial, hes bottom feeding scum)' i agree that the media does horrible things with mass shootings, and how they publicize the shooters only encourages others they shouldnt even show the face or say the name of the shooter, for the family of the shooter as well 4 school shoots occured in just 2018 that resulted in casualties, 17 dead in the first shooting of 2018 (i was doing some research for this and i think Everytown shouldn't be a trusted source for school shooting records because they are receiving funding an anti-gun organization, so their research will of course be bias) i wouldnt call 17 dead children in only one shooting alone not a problem from what i found on knife attacks (which was a bit hard to find straight attack casualties and more amassed it as a whole which was frustrating) five people were killed in a terrorist attack involving both knife attacks and vehicles in westminster england knife attacks bring less casualties is my over all point, so to ban guns would lower the rate of death do to terrorist attacks (and i consider mass shootings terrorist attacks, even if they are americans doing it) i hope you enjoy the video, he makes some good progun points i think youd like to hear, hes a really smart dude over all this gun debate is not something im really having fun with, as im just not as knowledgeable on this topic as yourself, we can continue but im not see us really reaching a good point we should debate veganism instead >w>/

There are some points or edit I didn't catch til just now. The fact that our military won't completely go against us is not an argument for civilian disarming. This fact does not negate any number of factors not to mention it does not negate a ..... RIGHT. Also the fact that civilians are armed is an even bigger deterrent to would be tyrannical government. Okay the "don't trust the police take matters into your own hands" you baaaareeeellyyyy sorta have a point here but you're being guilty of some gigantic stereotyping and shit like that. First off civilian gun owners are subject to self defense laws and restrictions on that (sometimes we're lucky and have stand your ground laws). However neither of those laws allows me to "take matters into my own hands" to the extent you're probably thinking. So it is just plain incorrect that civilian non police gun owners aren't subject to laws and restrictions - we're subject to a shit ton with some very serious boundaries. For the most part if someone isn't an *immediate* threat to me (or someone in my vicinity as good Samaritan laws allow me to act on another's behalf if they would be legally able to use lethal force) I can't act or do anything to them. If I'm (or someone near me) not being lethally threatened, being forced into a sex act (you know rape), kidnapping, or serious bodily injury. This varies a bit by state and such but generally those four situations are it. In any situation it is completely illegal to be the *aggressor* and gun owners are usually acutely aware of what they can and cannot do and when they can or cannot do it. Hell civilian gun owners have lower crime rates than.... the po-fucking-lice. So if there really was someone trying to be some vigilante "taking the law into their own hands" it really is basically "that *one* fucking guy" Extreme rates of school shootings? This is the only point that isn't mental health that you've brought up that isn't completely libtarded. First off the media has blown these events out of proportion in part to drum up fear and hysteria. Even if these shootings are as bad as the media and liberals say - the solutions proposed by the aforementioned do damn near nothing to actually stop these events from happening. When people who actually have an idea how to stop this from happening speak on the matter... ya'll don't like the answer and then make us guilty by association because fuck the NRA or something. Just like criminals gonna criminal - school shooters gonna shoot a school really. Unless you ban all guns (which creates a bigger problem than you'd solve) since nobody else has a gun that shooter is going to have all of the power regardless of the gun (and any restrictions such as magazine capacity). https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/18/us/gun-deaths.html Even in the NY Times - quite the liberal thinkpiece they even note in 2018 with a year with an increase in gun deaths that no more than 1% are by mass shootings. According to the above article 39,773 people died in 2018 due to guns (including suicide which once again accounts for over 60% of that) and 1% of that again already being generous as it probably isn't even a whole 1%) rounded up) is 398. Given our vast population I can't really justify that number of anything as an "epidemic". Taking action and passing laws based on these instances which will impact the ability of people in self defense (defensive gun use) in any number of ways is completely counter productive. Defensive gun use varies a lot depending on the source but most estimates are between 50,000 (on the very lowest end) to 2.5 million a year. 400 lives versus 50,000 lives hmmmmm I'll take 50,000. This isn't to say we shouldn't try to stop these school (or other shootings) from happening but lets not do so at the expense of everyone else. Again since we're talking problem vs symptom - is the cause of the school shooting really the gun? Schools used to have rifle teams (in other words guns were allowed and available on campus) and people often went hunting after school was over and their guns were in their cars (for high schoolers) and you don't see the shootings you see today. So if we want to stop the shootings shouldn't we get to the root of the problem not just mask a symptom and then have an empty feel good feeling?