Civvies can own guns in Japan?
yes, if they're hunters or part of a gun club. No handguns or select fire rifles.
>No handguns or select fire rifles.
How boring. What's the fucking point?
Guns are cool.
So malls and theaters and schools don't get shot up
I think you can get stuff like hunting-rifles, and shotguns, if you're a hunter, but it's not easy at all, they'll bust your balls. There's also lots of storage requirements and shit.
Really, it's one of those countries with bullshit rules, I think everyone should be able to have any damn gun they want, for pretty much any purpose they want.
>sheep regurgitating agitprop
Op is a fag and this is now an I am Hero thread
Anyone have that one QUALITY manga page where the author didn't know shit about guns and the character held the rifle by the side of his head or whatever?
>implying private gun ownership in the US doesn't stop about 2000 crimes daily
It's worth a couple dead kids, if you look at the statistics.
>So CIA psy-ops aimed at swaying public opinion towards disarmament don't happen
nice source bro
Guns bring in the pussy
No. Only America is evil, fat, and inferior to Europe in every way enough for that to happen.
Here's the one dealing specifically about crime.
SOURCES, SOURCES ERRYWHERE!
Leftover from the wartime probably, when the granpa was in service.
>but if we make them harder to get, they will be less available for criminals
That's probably possible.
You think it'd still have Chrysanthemum on the receiver?
enough of this faggotry! More of the greatest zombie manga of all time >>101248705
And my favorite, EVIL SALRIFLUS!
WHY DOES ANYONE NEED 30 CLIPS IN A MAGAZINE
>deterrence == defense
They do indeed go hand in hand.
Not really. Ever watch Star Wars?
can't we all just admit it'd be a better world without guns?
No because guns are awesome.
No, because guns are fantastic.
>a world without /k/
>fictional sci-fi movie a reliable source
Now go watch The Island and make me a clone.
we base laws off of the bible because it has allegorical value and application to our modern society. just like sci fi
Yes, swords are more chivalrous *tips fedora*
And back to a world where your physical prowess actually determined something tangible so we can trample the weak, subjugate women, and have to kill each other with pointy objects again?
What part of Star wars is "allegorical value" or "application in our society"
Uh, we do that already. Even with guns dude. Also guns =/= physical prowess. I think your brain is backwards.
So Japan, which has a long history of rebellions against the empire, won't have their government overthrown by their citizens. Same reason guns are becoming more and more heavily restricted in other countries - citizens are realizing the government is shit and they should be overthrown, and if you let them have firearms, they can do so
the nuclear deterrence attitude (embodied by the death star) breeds corruption by way of power which breeds resistence which breeds war which breeds killing which breeds hatred and anger
That has less to do with guns and more to do with Americans being insane.
>guns =/= physical prowess
That's his point. With guns, the weak can win as well. Without guns, not so much.
A world without guns means you're back to physical prowess. The gun has actually been one of the driving factors of equality in letting a 110lb person kill a 200+lb attacker with ease regardless of musculature. Society's become quite a bit more egalitarian since.
Civilians didn't have any firearms in Nazi germany. Try /pol/, they'll love you
Just kidding, even the Nazis know better now
/pol/ gets buttfurious if you bring up Nazi Germany when talking about gun control, I guess they're very defensive about their husbando.
No, because we'd still be killing each other with bladed and blunt weapons, which are MUCH less humane.
Democrats and Libtards are not real Americans and are more like Yuroboos
>implying a taser wouldn't work just as well
>implying guns are the only weapons that don't require physical prowess
>implying a 50 pound midget couldn't kill a crazed mike tyson with a ford focus
>muh top men
>muh trained professionals
When did guns become the only weapons?
Could a 50 pound midget kill a crazed ford focus with Mike Tyson?
>multiple assailants come at you
>they rape you before killing you for tasing Trayvon
also you can't tase a Drone
>implying a taser wouldn't work just as well
Do you think a Taser is some kind of substitute for a weapon? It's not, it's for one guy to zap an uncooperative suspect, while the one holds a gun on him, and another cuffs him.
It's an arrest tool, not a weapon.
Funnily enough, tasers kill thousands of people every year.
>I can't counter their arguments
>better tell them to get out
>no counter argument, just posts a image macro
>implying a taser has a 100% hit success rate
>implying a taser isn't effectively a 1 shot weapon before becoming a melee stun gun
>implying you'd have the time to ask your attacker to wait while you go start your car.
and what would you use instead?
>implying without guns people would invent multi shot tasers
>implying if all the little people in the world had tasers and all the big people had "physical prowess," the little people wouldn't win
>implying arrest tools can't be used as weapons
Ever been sprayed with pepper spray? That shit is as good a weapon as many
They're by far the simplest weapons to use and their power is independent of individual strength. The only weapons that are comparable are assassins tools and crossbows.
Guns add power to commit violence. Other weapons generally only multiply a person's inherent power to commit violence.
They hit people with pepper spray all the time and you can fight through that. It's part of cop training to get sprayed in the face to know what it feels like so you can work with it around.
This, only hunters or gun clubs, only long rifles.
Only if Tyson had the first swing
> with the midget.
Animals can be used as weapons for one
im not a girl on a prom date. besides its better to just kill criminals than to waste money on them. Guns save the taxpayer trillions by killing burglers and muggers
Better carry your enraged badger with you everywhere then.
>Ever been sprayed with pepper spray?
Ever peppersprayed a coked out lunatic, who's stark naked, coated in his own blood, sporting a raging errection and a tire iron? Because that shit will NOT make HIM stop.
>implying the average joe is trained to work through pepper spray
Pepper spray doesn't necessarily render you unable to fight.
My sister once sprayed me with it when I called her boyfriend a faggot.
What would you do if the next Zvezda episode was anti-gun?
What would you do if the next Zvezda episode was pro-gun?
>collect gun grabber anus
to keep and bear franklinators!
I've hit a 50+ year old man and woman with pepper spray. They kept on fighting each other. It's not terribly effective as you think it is.
>coked out lunatic, who's stark naked, coated in his own blood, sporting a raging errection and a tire iron
with an ar15
Then we have an exponentially bigger problem
Did you beat the ever-living shit out of her and then call the cops on her?
>What would you do if the next Zvezda episode was anti-gun?
I wouldn't like it, but it wouldn't be enough to drop it.
>What would you do if the next Zvezda episode was pro-gun?
Not likely, coming from Japan.
No, I cried and wet myself
you probably literally put pepper in water and expected it to work
Mostly because it requires an admission that Hitler, in fact, Did Something Wrong.
Also, the idea that the average shooter is a right wing redneck in the USA is continuously proven false, the average shooter is usually (ironically) from a gun control support family, usually a committed Marxist that believes the State owes them something, and seldom are they fat.
Do we honestly believe that teenagers in the JAPANESE educational system are emotionally balanced enough that we wouldn't get school shootings if they were permitted concealed arms?
No, but mum kicked her out of the house. It was worth it.
So we shoot him with OUR AR-15's, how hard is this to get? He's wired out his mind, you think he can aim well? Three of us pump him full of .223 Hollowpoints until the drop in bloodpressure causes him to pass out (and then of course dies).
Mace will either not work or make him angrier, he'll just get up from the taser.
>fat white redneck
That person is clearly Argentinian, what are you talking about?
Aren't most gun crimes committed by nigger gangs?
Nope. Also nice non-counterargument.
Then you realize there was an old woman, vision impaired, standing approximately 20 meters behind him, who was hit by your stray bullets. But of course you don't feel guilty, because you "stood your ground"
Who's talking about letting teens carry Concealed Weapons?
>Not raping then mind breaking her to your sex slave
>Not making her live for your cock
The single largest source of gun crime is armed robbery by individuals of all races, i.e. mugging, and usually the gun is never fired. 90% of all gun crimes in the US are committed with two heavily regulated handguns, the S&W Police Issue .38 Revolver and the Ruger P in 9mm and .40. Rifles and Shotguns (the 'dangerous' weapons) represent less than 5% of all crimes and are fired in less than 1% (Rifles and Shotguns are usually unlawfully possessed by criminals with existing records rather than being used in actual crimes)
This is what trained police officers are for.
>implying .223 overpenetrates
>implying a .223 _hollowpoint_ overpenetrates
>implying common procedure isn't to make sure of what's behind a target before opening fire
Man nigga you're dum.
I also suggest you read about what Stand Your Ground actually means, rather than take the words of some angry blogger for truth.
Not a SYG case.
>implying pepper spray
The police have no legal obligation to save you
If we take into account all the "legal" murders that have been committed by guns, gun killings become the number one source of gun crimes.
Fucking scummy chav britbongs. Get out.
You said "our ar15s"
Also, assuming there are three of you, it's impossible for you all to be standing directly in front of him, which means your bullets will converse on him from 3 directions, with not all of the shots hitting him. This is when the old woman meets her doom
Not even close. Unlawful possession (unregistered, felony, etc.) is #1 in the USA and represents 70% of all gun crime
American police are incompetent assholes.
Now that's just lewd, anon.
ProTip, anyone on /k/ can out-shoot your average police officer, it's common knowledge that they can't shoot worth shit.
What are you gonna do, call the police and wait for them to arrive on time? They take 10 minutes in a GOOD neighborhood, and that's wholly inadequate, anything can happen in that time, so why don't you take responsibility for your own safety instead of relying on others?
You mean all the people who defended their lives and property?
You forgot violent and sadistic
S-sorry, I didn't mean anything by it.
I'm not talking USA specifically. Killing in wartimes (i.e. global hotspots like iraq and tajikistan) also qualify as "legal murders," because according to the Kellogg-Briand Pact, war is technically illegal.
>what is high ground
>what is clearing civilians
Do you know the meaning of the phrase "Justifiable Homicide" ? Because I don't think you do.
I guess I should sell my gun and start raping, then. Thanks, Brady Campaign
That's the dumbest anti-gun argument I've ever seen.
However, in terms of actual crimes committed where the gun is fired (whether or not they hit anyone), armed robbery is #1. Murder/Manslaughter are way down the list at #5, after auto theft (#2), kidnapping (#3) and unlawful discharge (shooting outside of a designated area, #4).
That's an barbaric concept conceived by stupid Americans. You will do whatever you can to defend your vices.
because it's satire.
if you had time to position yourselves into high ground, you could have very well left the scene and the person in question on his own to be dealt with by proper authorities
>"I looked something up on Wikipedia and now I am an expert!!"
That applies to everyone else in this shitty fucking thread
I'm talking about specifically evidenced, recorded statistics in the USA. The majority of gun crime here doesn't even involve actually firing the weapon, much less killing anyone with it.
>self defense is stupid and american and only justified MURDER !!!!!!!
>with not all of the shots hitting him
So you somehow think that the only way to use a semi-automatic weapon is to just working the trigger until it goes click?
That's because its a fake add you dumbass. Is this your first day on the internet
I don't understand, even if I had looked up the Kellogg-Briand Pact on wikipedia (which I didn't), that doesn't change the fact that war has been officially outlawed.
because even junkies generally understand what looking down the barrel of a gun means.
>defending your life, family, and property is baaad
Yeah, ok, I'll just lay down and take it, after all, he's stronger than me, so he should just be allowed to take what he wants.
More proof that laws are bullshit and anarchy is the only reality
I dont see any specifically evidenced, recorded statistics for that
Nigga, I barely ever leave /a/, let alone 4chan.
Now you tell be to find it myself and keep spreading your made up bullshit like it is fact
And hatred and anger breeds power.
Suck my dick, hippy.
Has this argument gone full circle? There are plenty of ways to stop someone without resorting to firearms or homicide. Many of which are listed above
Jumping into the conversation...
Don't shoot to kill, you fuckhead. Everyone deserves a fair trial. Street justice isn't justice. Yes, self-defense is the only time you'll ever get the chance to kill a person without getting in trouble, but you aren't supposed to kill people when there's an option to just injure a limb.
Woe is you life is hard waaaaa.
Tis is the dumbest progun shit I have ever heard
How long until plasma cannons?
I'm sick of boring old bullets.
it's not hard to shoot a gun wildly and hit some people. When I was a police officer in Prague, something similar happened by accident
I'm not a hippie. I'm an individualist anarchist in the style of the great Josiah Warren. Hippies are collectivists. I'm an 'every man for himself' type
Eru is dissappointed in you guys.
Which leads to the dark side
Mace doesn't reliably stop an attacker.
Tasers don't reliably stop an attacker.
But a gun can, and will, reliably stop an attacker.
How about we just invent a gun that detects when it's operator is a douchebag?
If we put that into circulation, then we'll have less gun violence from both illegal AND legal weaponry.
I'm not sure you understand the logistics of shooting people. Torso contains the largest area and under stress is the easiest place to hit. If you're calm enough to shoot them in the arm without them moving it out of the way, you're gonna get reamed in a US court because you also don't have the feeling that your life is in danger. On both physiological and legal sides, shooting to kill is the best and most efficient method.
Bullpup a shit.
You're a modern hippie, and you smoke cock instead of pot and cock, hippy. All anarchists are hippies, regardless of whether they want to live in a stoner commune or a nuclear bunker.
How's Prague doing?
Also, in what context was that guy doing that?
But it looks so cool
Have you ever seen someone on pcp been shot? They don't go down easily. Tasers are the most reliable because they cause neuromuscular incapacitation
Wow, the Taser C2 is $400? I could buy a hipoint for half that price and actually get to practice with it.
Douchebag detection would be very bad news for the people in power.
>Don't shoot to kill
So the crook can come back and sue me for hospital bills? No thanks.
Weapons can not be reliably used to plain wound, and using a firearm for the purpose of just wounding, rather than killing, is a Federal Offense. Have fun in court.
Whether he lives or dies, you always shoot to kill, because when you pull that trigger, you must accept that the person is very likely to die.
>"it is estimated"
>source: pro gun lobby
>source: gun manufacturer
>source: "Organization for the Promotion of Gun Rights"
I believe all of it
I've seen people getting up from being tased.
I seriously didn't know what board I was on for a second.
You've never been tasered have you?
It's even called 'Sources.pdf'.
From an industrial strength taser? I don't think so. Maybe from that civvie shit
>cherrypicking sources that you don't like in an attempt at invalidating the material
>and if they don't, they're allowed to sue you in civil court, even if they were trying to kill you seconds before
Ive seen people get up from being shot too. Nothing works if you don't use it right
It looks like Ribbit and Stormfront have come to visit.
Classical Liberal/Individual Anarchist. The goals are similar but the ideology is not.
The names of the sources don't discredit anything, if you want to criticise, why don't you go analyse their studies?
And all studies are estimates. If you want to criticise how they got to the numbers, go ahead.
Especially when you compare it to the death toll incurred by entrusting control of firearms to a select few suited idiots with almost no accountability on record.
I'm a licensed accountant and I don't do any sort of drugs, I haven't had a cigarette or as much as a beer in 2 years.
>ignoring obvious bullshit thrown in to make your argument seem stronger and posting it anyway
>having these "sources" saved for troll threads like this
>I'll only accept sources from incremental banners and admitted communists
Are you talking about the post you linked?
Whatever, hippy. Not being a vegan and like guns doesn't make you any less of a whiny little girl faggot. Now bend over and take the state dick like the rest of us men.
The term "shoot to kill" supports good practice more than anything. The idea is that you're not supposed to try to wound your attacker. You pull your firearm on someone with the resolve to kill a fellow human to protect yourself. It's not a decision you take lightly.
This means that if you shoot them and they don't die, but they stop being a threat to your life, you stop shooting them.
I'm going to fap to this now, thanks anon.
Celebration. He was drunk and intended to shoot in the air but instead blew off 3 people's heads.
Another thing to consider is that gun violence research in the US hasn't had funding in decades so all sources before 2012 are either from the 90s or done by entities with little credibility.
Fuck is she trying to hit, I hope they're above her.
Talking about this entire thread.
There's a whole set if you're interested. You can do your own legwork on finding it.
>but muh reload
I didn't see you doing perfect reloads with your first AR-15 either, go practice
>but muh ejection
forward or downwards, see P90 or that upcoming MDR
That's your issue? You don't mind that she's using wood as cover?
What could she possibly be shooting at in that context...
Black Lagoon: Roberta's Blood Trail.
She's cover-firing for the people behind her so that her group can flank before the other group manages to do so.
>implying guns could stop this guy
A organization created solely to spread pro-gun ideals finds that guns are completely harmless and never do anything but good?
Shocking. Learn reality dumbass
The correct term for this is "neutralized" I believe.
>A organization created solely to spread anti-gun ideals finds that guns are completely harmful and never do anything but bad?
See how this argument doesn't work?
>shichika on pcp
We guns now?
I believe neutralize refers to simply stopping an attacker, regardless of what state they end up in.
We've been guns.
But like >>101252743 said, she doesn't seem to be in good cover, I mean shit, there are bullet holes going through that wood. true, it could have been from the side she's on, from a previous firefight for something, but the way those holes look, it don't look too sturdy, ya know?
Everyone thinks airsofters are nuts. Even gun owners.
Criticise how they got to the numbers
'Good cover' doesn't happen in the real world, but neither do crazy run and gun fights that would put her in that position. It's a work of fiction, but it's supposed to represent blind-firing as cover
>thumb over bore
Disgusting, dynamic bullshit.
>What's the fucking point?
I assume calculators were involved? Or the whats-it-called, the big rack with the balls and stuff
I found the ultimate small arm of Japan.
Based Chiwa Saito
What about Australia
Asians are too short to use longbows. It would scrape the ground
very related if you're not a newfag
Hong Kong, doing it right.
It's probably because the guns were just bootlegs made to look real.
Everything kills you in Australia
As expected of China.
Americans conviently ignore Aus. Or "it works there but wont work here", despite the countries being nearly identical
But it's a hankyu. They're tiny little bows.
You don't blind fire. That's Hollywood sandnigger levels of retarded. When you shoot, whoever you're shooting at isn't shooting back. They're ducking behind cover. This is what suppressing fire means. Keeping enemies from shooting back for as long as possible.
>Australian gun control
Mate, the crime rates went up.
Shite, bikers have machineguns and shit now, they didn't use to have that too often back in the day.
Port arthur was a sham and the government confiscated almost every voluntary legal gun available because the aussies were willing to listen to them.
Too bad it didn't help.
I realize that man, why would I take an anime picture seriously? And what do you mean good cover doesn't happen? I mean, elaborate on that because I think I feel what you're saying, but I'm not sure.
But, that's a Belgian weapon.
The hankyu is just a little baby bow, and it's orient approved!
It doesn't work in Australia because there was never an issue with gun violence here. We didn't have much of it before, and we don't have much of it now.
Of course, we still have it. No surprise there.
Crime rates are still much lower than US.
And no, your own sources discredit "everyone has machine guns now" bullshit
Guns kill cats.
Therefore guns are bad.
lol @ NRA propaganda
you beg the question.
Is getting killed by gunshot any worse than getting killed by stabbing?
Why are people bitching about Japan's gun laws when they're working perfectly fine and when you guys aren't living there?
This has happened quite a fair bit since the bans.
Dude, they just buried their FAL's, anyway.
>Is getting killed by gunshot any worse than getting killed by stabbing?
I'd rather take my chances with a guy that's carrying a knife than a guy that's carrying a handgun.
I heard getting explosions from behind like that makes your anus prolapse
She didn't even make it into proper doujins
Because Japan has a multitude of other problems, not to mention being generally unaccommodatingly xenophobic
>working perfectly fine
>a nation that never had a gun problem has its guns banned doesn't have a gun problem
>this is surprising
>the evil NRA boogeyman hiding behind every corner
But wouldn't you rather have your own gun in that case, to even the odds?
Because you, as an American, can't conceivably walk into a building while armed and have nobody notice until you start shooting things when visiting Japan.
And that's bad.
Modern shootouts happen on rugged terrain (on a hill) where your 'cover' consists of going prone and hoping the bullets pass you, and/or in urban territory where all of the cover is very thin. The availability of tons of 'cover' spots to hide is a product of movies and video games.
>But wouldn't you rather have your own gun in that case, to even the odds?
It's not just me having a gun, since if I have one, it means lots of crazy people have guns as well.
Are you implying that people in America don't notice when someone walks into a building with a gun before they fire it?
Well, the only thing that will stop a bad guy with a gun is fewer guns in circulation, a stronger police force, and a greater societal awareness of mental issues and how one should go about reporting or treating them.
I can have my own knife and the chances of either of us dying are a lot less.
They notice it, but they greet them as a hero.
You're more likely to blow your own dick off than be shot by crazies.
Statistically, you're a lot more likely.
It depends on how many white woman are calling the police saying theres a mass muderer outside with a handgun on his belt
>it means lots of crazy people have guns as well
Ah, I see.
Do you know anything about mental health? Did you know that raging psychopaths with bloodlust for no reason don't commonly crop up in society? Did you know that people like him don't follow the law, whatever it says, whenever he does turn up?
Did you know that most crazy people aren't even violent?
This fear is exactly why you shouldn't own a gun.
It's the main reason why most mass shooters are libtards: they're terrified and delusional.
If a person like me has a gun, and I'm not some sort of special exception to the local gun laws, then the world is fucked.
I forgot, when testing GUN crime prevention, we should study all OTHER crime.
Go ahead, say it, we bot know what the only bullshit response you have is
>Did you know that most crazy people aren't even violent?
Did you know that normal people don't shoot innocent people?
that's totally not an opinion
Your reasoning is wrong.
Because Japan is descendant of an imperial consolidation rather than a popular movement (like most western liberal democracies) they missed a great deal of gun culture present in other places.
They went from shogun and lords saying no guns or swords for you to the emperor and the prefectures saying no guns for you. Even places like Britain had a sizable period of liberal gun laws to create a general gun culture. The difference between the UK and Japan on this issue is palpable.
Libtards believe this at the same time they demonize cops for brutalizing minorities.
Cops are not your friends, morons. They have absolutely no obligation to stop crime.
Then why don't you define normal, and then define innocent?
Well, of course the world isn't filled with waist high half-walls, Brah Brah. I was just pointing out that she took shelter behind, what seemed to be, a flimsy wooden thing that could be shot through. Though I did use the term "good cover" so I apologize for that, Brohammad
>People wanting to take their chances with a knife
at least I don't have to worry about walking down the street and getting hit by a stray knife stabbing. Being caught in a firefight and being caught in a knifefight are two completely different things.
It's the exact same comical lie that that NRA spins whenever they address Australia's gun ban. And your belief in their (lunatic) "guns are an equalizer and stop crime!" theory adds to the idea that you parrot/believe their stupid shit.
Also: Australia never had a gun problem anyway - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Australia
Note the nine gun killing sprees pre-ban. And none since.
Did you know that, statistically, not many people in America die to gun violence?
Did you know killing people with guns is easier than with knives?
And that is better how?
>You're more likely to blow your own dick off
Well yes, if you live in a country that requires absolutely nothing from gun owners.
There's a reason why you can't drive on public roads without a license.
Did you know when someone is killed they die?
Yes, I did know that.
Well, given a lack of available hard cover, soft cover is better than nothing.
liberals fear crazies with guns so they become crazies with guns?
I feel kind of dirty taking part in these conversations with Americans, the term liberal has been raped so hard by your media and government it is starting to leak into the Atlantic and spreading to Europe.
>OMG all those scary lunatics out there with guns
I know, it's scary that your entire basis for fear and paranoia is incorrect.
Google 'rebellion japan' and look at how many times the Shogunate was almost destroyed in the past five centuries
Neither of which even happen particularly often, even in the US, you're more likely to get hit by lightning, or die from trying to perform autofellatio.
It means you're more likely to kill yourself due to your own impenitence than be killed by someone else.
If you can't handle that risk, stop using sharp knives, power tools and pointed objects.
Of course they have an obligation, it's just that they currently don't have to adhere as tightly to it as they should. And that is where reform comes in.
SO HOW ABOUT THEM ANIME
Ask permission comrade!
That which is not forbidden is mandatory!
You are legally allowed to shoot someone in the US only if you are reasonably in fear for your life or great bodily harm (applies to defending a third party as well, Texas is the only exception). You may not maim someone if you fear only bodily harm. You will most certainly go to jail and be the recipient of a civil lawsuit for doing what you say.
I should check to see if anybody died today
Getting a gun in my state:
>fill out 2 page form
>pay $15 processing fee
>wait 2 weeks
No training at all
And my state is one of the ones most criticized for being "too strict on gun 'freedoms' "
And yet you have to practice for MONTHS to get that drivers license you compare it to
True, I guess we'd just have to see the whole gymnasium, and the position of her enemies, to truly say thing about it.
Not him but I live in Baltimore.
It's a lot more likely than you're implying.
>Well, given a lack of available hard cover, concealment is better than nothing.
>And yet you have to practice for MONTHS to get that drivers license you compare it to
But a car has been designed to kill people efficiently. You can't just let any kid drive that.
But there are scary lunatics with guns.
That's what soft cover is, yes.
OH SHIT WHAT UP BRO
No seriously, what are the odds? This is great.
Have you never been so angry you had to fight to restrain yourself?
Just imagine if you were just a little angrier or had just a little less willpower.
Saying people who do these things are mental is just Americas way of saying, "Yes but..."
Seriously if you can't see that pretty much anyone with the right circumstances could be pushed to that sort of thing, then you are more of a monster than they are.
No, they don't. No pig in the entire US has any legal obligation to stop crimes.
Morally, sure, but I hope no one here really believes that the government acts morally, except by accident.
>requires absolutely nothing from gun owners
I think maybe, you should shut your dumb fucking mouth, and maybe familiarize yourself with the laws in place, such as the 1934 National Firearms Act, and the Brady Bill, which, gasp, has required Background Checks since the 90's.
Yes, you can not purchase a firearm if you are a convicted felon, or deemed mentally unfit by a court of law.
You think operating a firearm is the same as learning to drive? Better get a license for that circular saw. You could hurt yourself with it, or someone else!
A gun is a tool.
And you're less likely to get killed by them than in a swimming pool.
Ban pools now!
A car is a tool too. Your point?
/a/ - Gun Debates
You're an idiot.
>has required Background Checks since the 90's
This doesn't at all stop idiots who accidentally blow off their and others' balls. A background check is not enough to guarantee they know how to use a gun and won't accidentally shoot someone.
I wish my country let me have a gun
>why doesn't everyone have an explosively violent personality like me
again, this is progressives projecting their instability on everyone.
That's because there are a bunch of swimming pools.
Like, a whole lot of swimming pools.
Enough swimming pools that there was a whole anime about them.
>all these anti gun faggots
holy shit rest of the world why are you so afraid of inanimate objects?
There is nothing that can ever guarantee that
A car is a vehicle. You prove your proficiency in one in order to use it.
A gun is a tool. You can be a shit shot, but you're still allowed to shoot it.
Are you really? Because last time I checked 3500<33,000
Why exactly do you care if people blow their own balls off?
Because you're a statist nanny? If they blow their balls off, they save you time when you're setting up eugenics programs.
>This doesn't at all stop idiots who accidentally blow off their and others' balls.
And you think licensing magically stops this?
Because they cause a lot of blood to come out of people in hurty ways a whole bunch.
i guess drivers licenses have eliminated the threat of car deaths right?
>afraid of inanimate objects
Yeah, there's nothing to be scared off if it's an inanimate object.
By the way, can South Korea have a nuclear weapon now? It's an inanimate object. Nothing to be scared off.
Because 90% of /a/ is sociopathic enough to go on a killing spree.
It certainly cuts it down.
lel. Gotta love lumping suicides into your gun stats.
So do knives, and hammers, and arrows, and pushing people in the way of trains.
>And you think licensing magically stops this?
Licensing will significantly lessen it when you require them to have gun handling training.
Your characterization of the NRA is comical. They are one of the few populist arms of American politics intact.
>muh mass shootings
Outliers are not a valid sample to trend.
The rest of Australia's crime has gone up, but you've solved the flashy problem of outliers. If you want to argue that's somehow a valid trade then you can. But the fact remains that Australia's crime rate increase correlates to the gun ban. On the other had gun ownership has no correlation to the murder rate.
south korea can have all the nukes it wants. if anything giving a country nukes makes them much more willing to talk when they realize their actions can endanger the entire world with nuclear mayhem.
A car is a tool. You prove your proficiency in one in order to use it.
A gun is a tool. You prove your proficiency in one in order to use it.
Why is this such a problem? And if you say "its my right" then you are just retarded
By a margin.
Dumb fucks round the world manage to get licenses anyway, shit, if I had half a nickel for ever chump who managed to become a Police Officer, I'd be one rich motherfucker.
We have drivers licenses too, but yet millions of retards get out on the roads every day.
Guns don't kill people, people use guns to kill people with ease.
That is the lesson of /a/.
a gun is a vehicle, for a bullet.
It's not about being a bad shot, it's about running around with the chamber loaded and the safety off because no one taught you proper gun drills.
Cover; something between the enemy and you that will stop rounds. Walls, dead ground etc.
Concealment; something will hide you from the enemy, but will not provide cover. Bushes, car doors etc.
You can own Handguns but they're kept at a police station and only used in their shooting range.
If you think something is not worth doing if it doesn't eliminate it entirely, there's no reason to have any laws.
steals weapons from his mother
>nigger who shot up navy yard
Worked for the government. Had a fucking security clearance. Somehow, multiple instances of him having temper tantrums and claiming he heard voices didn't reach anyone.
Why do you statists ascribe competence to government? Have you not paid any attention to anything they do... ever?
That's drownings, good reading skills though
Unintentional suicide? Holy shit you are pants on head.
The restriction of the sale and ownership of guns is ultimately predicated on the use of guns to enforce. I do not recognise the people imposing these restrictions, or any regulatory body they preside over, as having the legitimate authority to do so. I did not sign a contract stating that I would submit to this authority, and therefore this monopoly organization has no right to exercise the use of force to get me to follow along with it's wacky scheming.
And that gun is going to magically fire without a trigger pull? The most popular handgun in America doesn't have an external safety, and people carry it with one in the chamber.
Driver's license is required for use of a vehicle on public roads.
A proper analogy would be requiring firearms training for CCW licenses, not for simple possession.
name one reason the government need guns that would also mean your everyday person doesnt
>I did not sign a contract stating that I would submit to this authority
You have an active contract with the nation you're living in to follow its laws.
America is in a trillion dollar war minus the twin towers because people were afraid of nuclear weapons in the middle east.
What makes South Korea so bad that they can not proliferate nuclear weapons? Were you perhaps thinking about NORTH Korea?
What kind of pussy round are you using? Better make sure that wall is 6 inches of concrete if you're putting your ass behind it.
Personally this is my issue with guns, however I have nothing against guns themselves I dislike the fact that people can use them to easily kill someone. I have no problem with someone killing someone else however if they wish to do so they should at least have to put in some kind of effort instead of just being able to pull a trigger.
South Korea would engage North Korea in an instant and vice versa.
Considering the immense butthurt third episode caused and considering gunfags are much more vocal than cigfags, it would turn into a one huge shitflinging thread.
>implying anyone gives a shit if north korea is purged by the blinding light of democracy
But Jamukha ordered that his execution be bloodless, so his longtime-friend-now-khan Genghis ordered that he have his back broken with hammers. No blood was spilled, and Jamukha got his wish.
My anarchist nigga.
I didn't sign shit, bitch.
So they can steal our shit and kill us when we refuse to let them steal our shit.
It was stupid sarin gas they were afraid of. Though that's just the excuse, since Saddam even if he had a trillion metric tons of the stuff had no delivery system capable of harming anyone other than his own people and his immediate neighbors.
No they wouldn't. You really don't know much about Korea if you think that. Radiation from the nuke would kind of kill the purpose of taking them over.
>I didn't sign shit, bitch.
My Japanese friends shot guns in Vegas including a LMG.
They said it was scary loud and very American.
I'd totally settle for firearms training for conceal carry if it was governed by a third party, not the government.
Of course, like anything, the government can make restrictive in itself. It's better to just remove as many barriers as possible.
No, they wouldn't. So, imagine the Middle-East... but with even dumber muslims and ever worse, incredibly, agriculture and education.
South Korea does not want to try to educate and undoctrinate N. Koreans.
>Being this retarded and being okay with a Nuke being used
You really have no idea what you're talking about do you? I'm almost willing to be you're American thinking it's okay for nukes to be used like this.
>I do not believe in the validity of a law, therefore, the law does not exist
Good idea, anon.
Consider the following:
You may drive a car on your own property to your hearts content, but you need a license for the use of public land.
You may own and use a gun (negligent discharge not withstanding) on your own property to your hearts content, but you need a license for use on public land.
This is the case in 90% of America already.
Criminals won't be so kind, but you can always ask.
It seems that you do not know anything of the delicate political situation between North Korea and South Korea.
South Korea has had the power to demolish North Korea for a couple of decades now, with or without nuclear weapons.
If the South wanted to, they could destroy the North tomorrow, you clearly don't understand their situation.
>lol, you're chattle because you were born here
Fuck off, statist. I didn't consent to be your property.
>I'm almost willing to be you're American thinking it's okay for nukes to be used like this.
Well, United States has proven that it has no qualms about using nukes.
Well go ahead, break the laws and see what happens.
Once and it probably prevented them from being used again. So far. Not that it really matters, Hiroshima and Nagasaki weren't any more atrocious than Dresden.
Because the government doesn't want you to have guns. That makes it very hard for you to get them if they have to power to do so.
You don't have to be good as self-defense to use it.
The fact they have been used once in history suggests they in fact do have qualms about their use
So it's ok for the Government to hold it's people at gunpoint when they don't agree with them?
Look at all the sources cited in those images. They're from a broad-range of sources.
People probably feel a bit chilly about their use
I am not the nra. If you read my post you'll see I'm referring to what your own linked editorial states as
>but an increase of over 40% in assaults and 20% in sexual assaults
His immediate dismissal of a correlation afterwards on the basis that guns aren't being used in the crime entirely misses the point or is a deliberate misrepresentation.
seeing as my country is the only one to have dropped them as intended. i would have burned all of north korea with nukes.
I imagine that your average coked out robber has the grace that Genghis Khan had to his closest friend at the hour of the latter's death.
Props to Jamukha for not taking the offer to become co-Khan as to not sully the title or imply that he deserved mercy without reason.
What makes you think you have any rights if you're not in some sort of contract?
because fuck communism and it would have sent a strong message to china and russia at the time.
>muh broad range of commies and dictators
Listen, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, Che, Castro, and the Sandinistas agree; you can't allow your populace to be armed if you're planning on stealing their shit and murdering them.
But what if I wanted to go live in the wilderness, bothering no one? Left alone?
Is it then right for the government to go and find me, demand I pay them taxes, and demand I go their prison because I have certain firearms they arbitrarily deem illegal?
You'd kill tens of thousands for that reason? Especially NK. These people need saving, not killing.
Yes, since you're inhabiting its land.
Just like someone is entitled to ask you for rent for living in their house.
>the natural state of man is as slave to the state
So, the state gives you your rights? So, when the state decides you no longer have the right to life, you don't. When the state decides that you don't have the right to live free, you get to be slave for as long they please.
By your argument, none of the mass murderers in history did anything wrong, because they were the state and when the state kills you, it is only revoking your right to life.
In the same way that a falsely accused prisoner/hostage owes his captors because he accepts food, water and other such services when offered to him.
The social contract is Stockholm syndrome.
A reminder that nobody's coming to take away all your guns and make America a nation without gunpowder.
They just want to make it an annoying process so the only people that get guns are the people that actually need guns, and not Mr. Thompson that just wants to point it at people and go 'pew, pew!'
The years have not been kind to Mr. Thompson's mind.
that's the red talking in you, cleanse them with fire.
we tried saving vietnam, iraq, and afghanistan.
Mars now please. I want to homestead on Mars, so I can have a moral claim to the land I would own.
I knew it. I knew Hitler did nothing wrong!
we really don't need a malnourished and mind controlled country. Just get them out and mine the rare metals in North Korea to make more smart phones.
>So, the state gives you your rights?
State gives you rights and responsibilities.
>So, when the state decides you no longer have the right to life, you don't.
Yes. It's called the death penalty.
>When the state decides that you don't have the right to live free, you get to be slave for as long they please.
Yes. It's called prison.
>in charge of deciding needs
no thanks m8
And we fucked those up big time.
So you are A-OK with the state deciding over life and death, freedom and imprisonment?
Who decides who "needs" a gun? And why should it only be those who "need" one that get one?
Wild boar is a dangerous invasive species in my state, and we have hunters who go out to hunt every year. Do they "need" it, or should we just equip the DLNR with hunting rifles and hunting dogs?
What about a historic firearms collector who buys revolvers and handguns from 1911? Should they have their guns taken away because it's just a hobby?
lol. So you really do believe the second paragraph.
Either that, or you're too stupid to understand that 'is' is not 'ought'. The way things are is not necessarily the way things ought to be.
The argument for natural rights is the state of nature.
There are different disagreeing forms of this argument, classically Locke and Hobbes.
New anon here, let God sort them out.
And this whole gun debate is some stupid shit. If you are an American, you have a right to bear arms that can never be taken away as stated in your Constitution. People who want guns banned do not realize that, while gun crime goes down a lot, it will never disappear because the black market always will exist and thrive, and there will be an increase in other violent crimes such as knife kills and runovers.
It will be a lot harder to shoot up an entire school if you ban guns, but it would be a lot easier for niggers to try and rape some chick, or for some thugs to put a knife to a bloke's neck, drag him into an alley, and take all his shit.
God made Men, but Samuel Colt made them equal and all that shit.
Yes and no.
Yes with freedom and imprisonment. I don't want crazy people on the streets. I want them locked up.
No with life and death. That's why I live in a country that has no death sentence.
It's still illegal until the state actually passes a new, edgier version of the Alien and Sedition Acts. At which point, you just leave for a country that hasn't passed such an act. If the country has outlawed leaving the country, only THEN are you fucked.
But the logistics of such a change in US law would be ludicrous.
Not the guy you're responding too, but in limited cases yes I'm okay with that.
I just don't think they should have that power over the non-criminal and non-mentally ill or non-biologically disadvantaged.
clearly, he is. Might makes right anon!
A ban on private sales of firearms is de facto registration.
So, you've conceded all arguments at this point and are essentially saying "Do what they (read: I) tell you to do, or else I'll do something horrible to you.".
Statists are scary people. Fucking sociopaths, all of them.
The Second Amendment gives States the right to form militias, and for the individual's right to bear arms to be protected. Look at the way it's written; it explicity refers to the free State, and to the People's right to bear arms.
No one is forcing you to live in that country. If you don't want to follow the laws that the state offers, you don't also get the rights that the state offers.
Move if you don't like it.
To butt in...
'Ought' is certainly subjective, 'is' significantly less so.
Friendly reminder that the Crusader massacre and subjugation of Orthodox Christians directly led to the collapse of their states.
except "some chick" doesn't carry guns, the niggers do. and "a bloke" doesn't carry a gun, the thugs do.
>No one is forcing you to live in that country
But if every other country is just like that, but worse?
And I also can't help but notice that you didn't deny what he said.
>nobody's coming to take away all your guns
>several legislators have said they want to ban all guns, including Diane Feinstein, who is apparently taking away to "dangerous ones"
Slippery slopes are a logical fallacy, but when your legislator has said they want to ban all guns, you don't let them ban any.
Buy a boat and live in international waters if you want.
I like living in a country.
>But if every other country is just like that, but worse?
It means that most people think you're crazy and that you should be locked up or put to death.
I didn't even have to read the OP to understand what the thread was going to be about.
the government can do no wrong m8
all statists know this
So if a country comes to the democratic decision that a certain people are to be genocided, anyone who disagrees with them is insane?
No, they're shot. Welcome to the new Reich.
We still gave them dirty muslims a run for their money!
Any sane person will carry a weapon on them if they are to live or travel through a bad neighborhood. If they don't, then they deserve everything they get for at least not putting up a fight.
And going by most women, I think most would prefer to shoot 2 or 3 of the niggers then go down riddled with bullets than get raped.
They might certainly think so.
It means globalization is very deliberate.
If you believe something that the entire rest of the world does not believe, then that means you are, as they say, 'a fucking nutter' in the eyes of the rest of the world.
The issue is that many confuse what is, for what ought to be.
But reality isn't based on consensus, it's based on... reality. If everyone believes the world to be flat, does it suddenly become such?
They just want to be nobility. She has bodyguards and has a concealed carry permit.
>In 2006, Glasgow politician Tommy Sheridan of the political party Solidarity launched a consultation to restrict possession of air guns, highlighting recent cases including the death of toddler Andrew Morton but the Scottish Parliament did not have the power to ban airguns at the time so any measures would have needed to be formally approved by Westminster. Around this time, the media gave some exposure to growing public desire to have air guns banned or regulated, particularly from the parents of a child that died after being struck in the head by a pellet in Easterhouse, one of Glasgow's many deprived areas.
I have to say, this is getting stupid. I think we should just euthanize the entire human race and save ourselves the trouble of arguing over banning weapons.
The way gun laws work aren't based on reality. It's based on consensus.
>2+2=5 because everyone else says so, especially the government.
statist logic, not even once
Let's be hypothetical.
>England takes over everything
>The world is the British Empire 2.0
>some people think the world shouldn't be ruled by a monarch
Don't give me those negative waves, man.
I don't condone genocide. Almost nobody does.
But what is 'right' in a moral sense is determined by what most of the world believes. If the majority of people in the world believe that cyan and lime is the best color combination for clothing, then cyan and lime is probably the best color combo.
>SOMEONE CAN DIE FROM IT!!!
>THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!
if the government just banned living then no one would have to die anymore.
>rest of the world
Finland here, don't lump us together with nogunz elevens.
Might makes Right, anon. You should have murdered them better if you didn't want to be their slave.
Why doesn't the government just ban death?
>living in finland
I'm sorry, perkele.
But they are crazy, if the rest of neoBrit is loyal to the king (may he live forever).
2 + 2 = 5 if there's a global consensus to change how math work.
So now that they are the majority, murdering them for my beliefs is wrong?
because feelings can still get hurt even if you can't die.
Gee, I wonder how much gun violence they have in Japan compared to the U.S.? Oh, almost none. Yeah, fucking oppressive bullshit gun laws, right?
>morality is determined by a majority
There is no king in the British Empire 2.0. The patriarchy was thoroughly crushed decades ago.
We /pol/ now.
It's pretty nice if you don't talk to the populace.
We are pretty much nogunz.
You need to prove you've had shooting as a hobby for two years in order to purchase firearms.
>math is governed by majority rule
holy shit some one call reality and tell itself to get fucked.
Too much bureaucracy in the process. Plus, the Tea Party and the Libertarians would never allow it.
>I'll just post this so everyone thinks all gunowners are racist
Hello Mr Randroid, I think you've mistaken this for >>>/pol/. Hopefully, you won't have the same problem again in the future.
They also aren't even allowed regular kitchen knives or any form of defense. Considering how much of a shithole Japan is, I'm surprised more people don't get ripped then start wacking bitches around while trying to get into the yakuza.
Obviously, because they say it's wrong. Please note, that they can kill you, because they say it's right.
>morality defined by rulers in a nutshell
Fuck, we're right back to rule by divine right.
Well, /a/, do you feel like a hero yet?
The right to bear arms is worth the sacrifice of a few lives. Japan has violent crimes rate greater than the US, but the gun ban results in most crimes being commited with knives and blunt objects, which are less immediately lethal.
>But what is 'right' in a moral sense is determined by what most of the world believes.
Fuck no it's not.
Things can be moral even if nobody believes them to be, and amoral even if everyone loves them.
>gun violence is the only measurable standard of society
tell me again about japan's lack of rape, robbery, assault, drunk driving, and suicide.
The queen (may she reign for eternity).
>Japan has violent crimes rate greater than the US
Only applies to handguns.
Japan has institutionalized racism against blacks. Blacks thrive in America. America has more violence that Japan. Blacks are the problem.
But it's true. Look at base-12, for example. Or other alternative base math systems. Look at prehistoric math systems which didn't include 0.
Math is an artificial construct of the human mind.
Because OBSTRUKSTIONIST REPUBLIKKKANS
I'd be a loyal subject if that Queen was Satsuki. Long live that holy, holy ass.
>a black woman with a Tsarist Russian weapon
Fuck yeah multiculturalism.
Control for blacks, and the statistics make sense.
Just google it.
Hey, the same origin as minimum wage laws.
You're playing semantic games.
You seem to be confused.
So, morality is not determined by what most people think is right for the world and each other, but is determined by...Mark, the guy that works in accounting at the office?
You can't argue that the state has a legitimate land claim, without conceding that human beings are primarily a resource that can be owned and that their ownership is dependent not on their explicit consent to be owned (which is self-contradictory), but on the arbitrary distinction of their geographical location when they were brought into this world.
You can't say that the state owns the land it presides over, without admitting that the crop that it harvests is the people within it's jurisdiction, it's borders, it's fences. And with that they are free to milk, sheer, process into food, etc. any of us as they see fit, without accountability. In the same way I have no accountability to wheat crop I'm not growing.
A soviet hammer works just as well.
Any Canada gun owners here?
Going for my license in summer. Is the selection progress rigorous or do they accept anyone as long as they have no criminal record or mental illness?
There's no point in debating this. No one is going to change their mind based on what they read in an internet board, let alone /a/. We can't even figure out whether SnK is interesting action/mystery or kiddy shounenshit.
Toppest of sides.
everyone already knows SnK is casual plebtier shit covered shit.
If we're bringing this back around into anime discussion...
Are morals determined by the goddess Haruhi?
Not really. Obviously, there is a sense in which math is real. For example, a hydogen atom has one proton, whereas a helium atom has two. That is a mathematical fact on which the sun's continued existence is dependent.
I'm so proud of my /a/narchist and liber/a/l brethren.
I heard you have to battle a moose with a musket rifle in a small room
No, morality should be found through discourse and discussion, the directly democratic approach is very rarely the smart choice.
Because that'd imply that you truly believe all people, regardless of intelligence, education or experience, should have a say in vitally important societal questions and decisions.
State is a necessary evil, because anarchy doesn't work.
Meh, my morals derive from the NAP; I'll go along with what she says if she's down with that.
Morality is only created by intelligent beings.
says the state
This thread is nothing but semantics and subjectivity. We're just going through the motions, really.
...why is the picture just Obama with a bottle of water? That isn't very menacing.
Also, min/a/rchist sistas.
Why are you so sure of yourself?
Look up social contract. Or read Hobbes thoughts on what the world would be like without a state:
""In such condition there is no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain, and consequently, not culture of the earth, no navigation, nor the use of commodities that may be imported by sea, no commodious building, no instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force, no knowledge of the face of the earth, no account of time, no arts, no letters, no society, and which is worst of all, continual fear and danger of violent death, and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."
But why do I bother debating with a Randroid or an anarchist?
Anarchy can work. I just don't believe it can work when scaled up.
the state doesn't need to be evil
>posits his arguments as truths
Is this how anarchists argue? Logic is a structure they oppose as well, I guess.
Same with communism, I suppose.
the bottle of water is proved by a contractor that sells it to them by contract at the price of $42 a bottle.
It's simple. Someone is always looking out to get ahead of others, and thus there is a need to have a social structure that backs everything up. Never in the history of mankind has there been a society based on anarcy that has worked, and that is proof enough.
So you are dependent on the government because the government convinced you that's the case?
>people are bad, therefore we need a government made up of people...
Back to Le Reddit. I'm from /k// I would barrage you with tons of facts but you're a dumbshit libfag and you don't care about those, just muh chilluns. Thanks for spoiling everything fun, dick.
says the anarchist
A bit too easy, don't you think? It doesn't really let the argument flow into further subtopics if we just reduce it to that.
Anarchism in a nutshell:
>So you are dependent on the government because the government convinced you that's the case?
You should really look into the social contract.
You don't really understand what anarcy is about, do you?
>this zone is GUN FREE for easy murder and robbery
No, it isn't. Changing your base doesn't stop 2+2 from equaling 4. The meaning of 10+10=100 (base 2) is the same as 2+2=4 (base 10).
Human rights being natural is completely different from them being derived from the state.
Communism doesn't work in any scale. Just look at the Soviet Union's legacy. At the same time, it's morally wrong.
>true anarchy has never been tried
>true communism has never been tried
Tell that to Somalia. Waka-waka-waka!
>tons of facts
Oh poor us, since we won't see your amazing "facts".
Oh aye, a great example.
that response doesnt work at all m8
So you're not a fan of Ayn Rand, then? Really?
or fuck, w/e 2+2=4 is in base 2. Can't remember that shit.
Well, the Soviets weren't exactly "true communists", right?
Don't get me wrong, I'm in no way a fan of communism, nor an expert on the topic, but didn't early Christians live in small pretty communist groups?
I guess in that family-like enviroment, it'd work.
Gee, sure is anime and manga in here. Why don't you faggot mods do your jobs and delete this /pol/ tier bullshit thread?
Boy, I sure love being a member of the evil NRA, I like how they defend my constitutional rights so that I can go to a gun range and shoot at paper, tin cans, and bottles, and garauntees my right to defend my person and my property from people who do not obey the law.
It sure is a sinister contract we have.
The failed communist state that is governed by warlords?
Well, no, she was a blithering idiot, but I can sympathize with her hatred for Communism, because the communists took everything her family had.
It's funny because the SU was criticized by communist intellectuals for not being Communist from the get-go, back when the revolution first happened.
I guess they were just pretending so as to ruse people a century later?
What early christians did or did not do is entirely apocryphal and has a thousand years of political re-writings of history in front of it.
>Not recognizing The Fozz.
I feel old.
Why are you pointing that at me? I'm all for gun ownership (though I also support some form of gun control)
Okay, let's approach this from a different angle...
Why is anarchy a GOOD thing?
Anarchy is lawlessness. If you can imagine libertarianism, you can image anarchy on a large scale.
Why doesn't that image say what they're protecting those things from?
>discussing constitutional rights is bullshit
So if I went to your bookshelf, I wouldn't find a copy of Atlas Shrugged?
I'm just gonna go check your room.
I don't think I've heard of the show. What genre is it? Which studio? Still airing?
Yeah, I know, of course.
That just seems like the most common description/interpretation of pre-church Christianity I've seen.
On the topic of weaponry, wasn't there some Jeezus quote about selling your cloak to buy a sword? Completely taken out of context, I'm sure, but still.
why would it matter?
is money worth defending with guns but children are not?
>let's shift the burden of proof casually
/a/ is not the place to talk about the laws of one shitty place.
>implying taking away guns from the people who want to protect themselves will prevent criminals from getting guns
Do you think anything out?
He's right though. This isn't anime related.
>black people cause problems
>guns guns bad good good bad bad good bad
>guns black people guns negroes guns
>why would it matter?
Because what you need to protect those things from people with guns.
If america banned guns, anime couldn't have their gun otaku go on vacation to the US to get their hands on experience.
Yeah man totally every classroom should have the teacher inside a pillbox equipped with a machinegun. That'ss teach those pesky kids with issues wanting to shoot people up.
I might read it some day, because I've heard the writing is supposed to be genuinely fucking atrocious and boring, but I can't say that I'd miss it, if I "accidentally" threw it in the fire one cold day.
I'd honestly be more interested in studying Mein Kampf, to get into the head of neo-nazis and other fucksticks.
Well, the conversation wasn't getting anywhere.
Anything to move the public dialogue.
And yes, I did just refer to a bunch of people yelling at each other on 4chan as 'the public dialogue'.
It's not, really. Libertarianism is totally cool, though. Great periods of history existed where governing a country came down to taxing some of the population in order to develop cities. Those who chose to live outside of the government's reach simply farmed in order to survive.
In our current society, getting the governments hands out of the cookie jar is what we want. We still want prisons, taxes and laws.
USA doesn't have a gun problem. We have a nigger problem. 80% of gun crimes are committed by niggers.
What if we just got rid of all technology?
What if we all just went on a slippery slope and rode it down to hell?
But people who shoot up schools or movie theatres are all white.
I feel bad for all the decent redguards.
But that would include fire and agriculture too. I've played enough civ to know that they're technology.
Not that anon but Oh my God! Typical libfag always going to the extremes about everything. Can you not have a mature conversation without acting like a child.
We wouldn't have any gun crime!
Poor people. They just happen to be negroes, god, anon, don't be racist. Besides, you're forgetting the asians, latinos, spaniards, slavs, and other whities.
But seriously, high population density and high levels of poverty is the biggest contributor to violence.
I guess if you stick a whole bunch of miserable people in one place, things get ugly.
just put a sign up, that'll stop 'em
What need has the land of the samurai for such barbarous weapons when a katana can easily cut any number of bullets in half?
So? That's like what? 100 people a year? The only reason they don't report mass nigger shootings is because it would literally take up all the time slots on the news.
>All these anons that have never played Europa Universalis
Propose me a better alternative then, would it be better to arm every kid? Or have armed guards inside the classroom?
I'm not racist. I also know why niggers do that. I'm not going to justify it though because they're poor.
That's because 75% of all Americans are white.
It's funny that there exist people out there that genuinely believe you can do that.
What happens when you split a bullet mid air is that you will now be hit by two half bullets instead of one whole bullet.
The zombies have no legal obligation to stay outside of that circle.
Zombies get it easy. Why don't we have more zomblaw?
good thing most "gun crime" is nigger on nigger
12 die in chicago where gun laws are horrid as fuck and dont allow shit, but the news wont report it since it was all niggers.
1 white person shoots 12 people and only kills 2 it's a fucking national emergency and clearly the fault of access to "assault style weapons"
Yeah man 100 deaths aren't important. White people are all responsible and polite thanks to statistical relativity.
like that white guy who shot up the Navy Yard.
And that white guy who killed someone in that mall.
A better alternative than having a machine gun in the class? Easy. Allow teachers to carry firearms if they desire given the have the proper qualifications.
So, it's on your shelf...but you've never read it you say?
Zombies have no right to life. Or rather, unlife.
Fountainhead is a lot better. Still pretty bad, though.
Why don't a third of us go to /pol/, a third to /k/, a third to /r9k/, and leave the remainder here in /a/?
Wouldn't that work?
>given the have the proper qualifications
So, the ability to fill a paper and wait two weeks?
>someone is always looking out to get ahead of others
What do you mean by this?
>social structure that backs everything up
Why can't this be resolved in the market? Between producer and consumer? Why is their need for a third party, or middle man who has no direct interest in the interests of either consumer or producer?
>Never in the history of mankind has there been a society based on anarcy that has worked, and that is proof enough.
That claim is dubious, but even if we accept that their hasn't been a functional anarchic society, why should that discourage any of us from pursuing a solution that isn't predicated on the initiation of force? History is littered with new phenomena being brought into existence that had previously been the stuff of imagination, now more than ever.
Besides, even today we have microcosms of anarchy in various areas of life. No one is forcing you to be romantically involved with anyone. Anarchy.
I'm considering hollowing it out and hiding a gun in it.
It'd be genius, because nobody in their right mind would look at the shelf, see "Ayn Rand" on the spine of the book, think "Oooh, neat", pull it out and start reading.
Do you believe in zombie civil rights? Integration?
100 people out of 7 billion. I'm sorry man but it really doesn't bother me. And I would hope that if I was some random shooting victim no one would care about me. I'm just one guy. I'm not special and hardly anybody else is either. I'd care more about the perps punishment, hopefully execution because why would some dick who's shooting randoms be allowed to live?
A better idea, why don't everyone who posted in this thread go the fuck back to the shithole boards they crawled from and leave /a/ to anime and manga discussion. Fucking mods, do your jobs and delete crossboarder threads.
Because they're not people. They're not even living things.
none of us would be on /a/ then!
Silly anon, when a Samurai bisects a bullet, he hits it just such an angle that it will hit the enemies behind him, or in any other direction there happens to be.
This is just a fact, I'm sorry if you can't accept reality. In the end, guns are just weapons for cowards who can't swing their swords so hard the air pressure cuts their enemy.
Well, there's about 350 million people in the US, and maybe 300 people are killed by rifles every year in the US, it's still a drop in the ocean, regardless.
Please do not give jezebels any ideas.
Well, if you took 1/3 as meaning 33.3 percent. Obviously, those aren't literally the same, but I don't intend on bisecting anons to get the numbers even.
And even more are killed with hammers. We should ban those too.
not in statist logic land anon.
3-3=1 now thanks to majority rule. math is just a social construct.
you were supposed to say GOOD
Oh, but what's that I spy on the other shelf...
>And even more are killed with hammers.
I'm guessing you have a citation for that.
That's all it takes to convince you that these people are legit? They're literate and can wait a couple weeks?
Numbers are a social construct, idiot.
I also have a Bible, that I intend on hollowing out, to hide a flask in.
Though I don't actually drink alcohol, so I don't know what I'd put in it. Cola?
>/a/ - Guns and Anarchism
Fuck off back to /k/ and /pol/.
>They're literate and can wait a couple weeks?
USA! USA! USA! USA!
As well as background checks which are bullshit.
numbers exists even if you claim you're a pansexual demigender otherkin m8.
If I want to hide my handgun in my pocket I have to prove I wont accidently shoot everyone with some classes
If I want to tape it to the outside of my pocket so everyone can see its fine though
Similar situation to you. I'm fairly certain that carbonated drinks will make the top pop off, though. And it might ruin the flask if it isn't stainless steel or glass.
Time to start drinking, anon.
That's all blunt objects together, not just hammers.
>trying to tread on them
They're just standing their ground as the oppressed minority, anon
But it tastes like windowwipe.
Is there any alcohol that's terribly sweet, but doesn't taste like cleaning solvent?
The mods would have, if they were not massive cocksucking faggots.
better band things harder than a whiffle bat i guess.
mmkay, the point still stands.
Orange juice. Not a cocktail, just orange juice. Just don't let it sit in the flask for over a day.
I don't care, pro-gun, anti-gun, anarchist, statist they can all go the fuck back to their respective boards. This is not the place for such discussions.
Typical mod worshipping statist.
Fuck off weeaboo.
But orange juice is so boring, I don't even like it that much.
Also, what's the point if it doesn't last a day in there?
I don't think he's being a pedant when making the distinction between 'hammer' and 'the concept of a blunt object'.
Uh... any alcohol that's terribly sweet?
Try a weak GnT. Or a gimlet. Or a gin fizz... I like gin.
There are whole classes of drinks designed to taste nothing like alcohol.
Even bad alcohol shouldn't taste like window cleaner.
Seems like the more interesting thing to take from this is that firearms are the most likely weapon in a murder.
Well, your alcohol shouldn't last more than a whole day of travel when carried in the hip flask.
What's the point of hiding a flask in a book if you're not going to leave it there until you have a moment of weakness?
Will you be keeping that book in a cooled area?
I don't see the chart there. Also, take into account all the gang violence from these firearms. Gangs who are already getting their weapons illegally. Gun control literally only punishes responsible gun owners. You wouldn't ban sober people from driving because drunk people kill. Why would you take average joe's guns away because some nigs and spics in the city want to chimp out and kill each other.
>I don't see the chart there.
It's the very first link - the source for the article.
>Also, take into account all the gang violence from these firearms.
The chart has gang violence in it and you still have buttloads of gun murders after you take them away.
>Not Incest Simulator 2
>there are people who don't like guns
Why do you oppose fun?
Nukes are fun. Do you oppose nukes?
I can say with confidence that anime is more fun that guns
Have you ever shot a gun? I promise you it would be fun.
Have you ever launched a nuke? I promise you it would be fun.
I was assuming all black people were in gangs or had gang affiliation which the poor lower class redguards probably do. It's not you're average persons fault for gun violence. It's poor blacks who account for 52.5% of homicides. These people already get their guns illegally definitively proving gun control doesn't work.
There's no reason you can't like both.
>It's not you're average persons fault for gun violence.
Except that it is. There are people who will shoot people to death for sending a text message in a movie theater just because they had a gun.
Get rid of your niggers first.
And maybe fix your government. It's clearly run by psychopaths. NSA, Guantanamo Bay, drug trade, Middle east shenanigans, jesus fuck I'd buy a gun too if I lived there.
Not him, but I've shot a gun, and...
I destroyed some aluminum cans. It wasn't an enjoyable experience and I wish I had spent that time playing video games.
>literally happened one time
>"It's a daily occurrence now."
>want to shoot the class
>shoot teacher first
>shoot others later
What amazes me is that you people fail to understand that guns by themselves cannot protect anyone. When a president is protected during a speech outside, it's not just a couple of armed guys at his side protecting him. It's a whole team of snipers and shit that already have established themselves and have the area under surveillance.
You can only protect yourself in very limited situations, and in most of those your life is actually not threatened. If someone wants to kill you but the fact that there are people with guns around bothers him, he'll just follow you and kill you when he doesn't run a risk of being gunned on the spot. Or if someone wants to rob and then kill you, he'll never confront you outright from the front, he'll just stab or shoot you from behind and take your shit away. Every single self-defense scenario crafted by gun nuts supposes that for some reason the attacker makes himself known and pretty much engages you in a fair fight, but this doesn't happen in real life. When you shoot and kill someone who doesn't do any violence to you but just grabs your handbag and dashes away it also counts as self-defense, when it's really not.
Hence why guns by themselves aren't enough, and depending on the country not even necessary. The state has to take some measures first, such as establishing an actually competent police force, limiting as most as possible the access of mentally unstable people to guns, educating people about guns, educating people about life safety in general, and making extraordinary efforts to limit or stop the entry of illegal guns to the country (instead of making extraordinary efforts to build up the military for example). A society and state that is healthy in itself is the only proper protection you can gain against crime, weapons are there to just create certain constraints on it.
Look at the "Other arguments" part.
>fix your government
Hah. Like that possible.
>implying he's average
In China a man stabs 29 children. I'd love to see this guys gun. Oh wait he didn't have one because people will always find a way.
It's also worth keeping in mind that the government fucked blacks up in the ass first and caused them to become like this.
>Gun grabber faggots ruin everything
I watch anime to get away from liberal faggots, not get more exposure to them.
Nuclear fallout and the massiveness of the damage caused by the explosion assure that the use of nuclear weapons always results in massive harm being caused to countless people. You can't claim to be using a nuclear weapon recreationally, or as a proportionate self-defense measure.
But nobody died
So the reasonable solution is that everyone should be armed? Know one would fuck with an armed populace. The exact reason no one fucks with Switzerland.
You partake in Japanese media to get AWAY from the left?
Unless you consider yourself a member of the uyoku dantai, how does that work?
According to the gun control arguments ITT, if we required licensing to watch anime, then we'd have much less moeshit loli pedo shit ruining your animes. So you should be in favor of that just as much as you support banning guns.
Seems sound to me.
What about the man in the UK, a place where they've almost entirely have banned guns, just walking down the street gets stabbed for no apparent reason? Is that enough proof for you?
Liberal used to mean someone who DIDN'T want gun restrictions of any kind. The socialists stole the word and redefined it to mean, "big government".
You're both using anecdotal evidence.
So I get shot to death by some nutter, and then he is immediately killed by a bunch of other people.
That makes it so much better, then.
I don't see the death by text message Circumstances
Can someone explain to me how gun control is related to Chuunibyou? Do liberals have to ruin EVERYTHING?
Makes sure only he and you dies, instead of him, you, and fourteen other people.
I believe they wouldn't even try it in the first place if they basically knew they would die.
>but this doesn't happen in real life
And his chances of going to court go from 'incredibly slim' to 'none at all'.
Why do they care?
If you want to carry a gun you can carry a gun.
If you don't want to carry a gun you don't have to carry a gun.
It's not that hard. If you're really paranoid, we can ban high school students from carrying guns, and set the minimum age to carry guns to 21, but once you're at "minimum age", you should be allowed to carry a gun if you want to, even if you're a high school teacher or a college student. Private schools that get zero federal funding can set different standards as they see fit.
Because they tend to favor places where they know they wont get much opposition.
You can't carry a gun on a military base since 1993 (Clinton), and you can't carry a gun on school grounds.
Hell, there was a mallshooter in Utah who put his gun in his mouth when he saw a CCW holder pull his gun.
So what if he goes to court or not? Isn't the important part to stop him from what he's doing? To stop him from shooting a bunch of innocent people? Court cases cost money too, so it's almost a bonus if he dies and we don't have to try him.
The police will never be able to hire
>a whole team of snipers and shit that already have established themselves and have the area under surveillance
For every single citizen of a nation. Quit being autistic.
It comes down to "Why the fuck do you want to send people to prison, for owning a metal object you don't like". Did you know we have a gun board on 4chan? Why do you want to ban their hobby? How would you feel if people tried to ban lolis, fascist?
No, why do they care HOW soon they are dying? They usually save the last round for themselves, anyway.
Anime doesn't have feminist, anti-white bullshit in it, and that's enough for me. Everything else in nerddom is poisoned by this stuff.
Common belief is that if they rack up a high count of kills, they will get attention from the media (the media will gladly give them that), it's bad recognition, sure, but at least someone is finally paying attention to them, for once in their sad, lonely life.
I think that's why I like games like Doom, no bullshit politics or shitty characters written to appeal to the Kutako audience.
Guns are not moe, insurrectionist.
You're an idiot.
Don't you fucking lie to my face.
So, you are saying this individual does not deserve a fair trial?
Hey, that's relatively uncalled for.
If he survives, we can trial him, sure, but if he dies, that's just what happens when you try to go on a killing spree and people use their own guns to stop you.
As I said, I think it's more important to stop him from what he's doing, then when that's done, if he's alive, or if his life can be saved, we should try him in a court of law, sure.
The better question is why would you have mercy for such scum. If there is definitive proof as in he's actually killing people in front of tons of witnesses he should be killed. No point in my tax dollars going towards supporting a douche he tried to kill my fellow man.
Equality under the law, my friend.
Everyone deserves a fair trial, but also everyone deserves a right to self-defense. It doesn't make any sense to punish somebody who already went through hell, and had to do something awful to protect their life and the lives of others. If you're a liberal feminist, this is literaly "victim blaming", you're blaming the victim of a crime for defending himself from it.
Men aren't equal buddy. That's an illusion people tell themselves to make themselves feel like a good person.
>Equality under the law
Everyone has a right to self-defense under the law.
Equality under the law isn't the same thing as interpersonal equality.
It just means that the law isn't supposed to look at your gender, race, or social status, and rather look at circumstance, motive, and the events that unfolded.
I'm not telling you to put the other person in prison.
Okay...I thought that was the whole point of the exercise.
>I'm not telling you to put the other person in prison.
Then what are you saying
I've been being racist the entire time...
Silly. If you have a gun, you are the law.
Nice arguing guns with you guys but I'm going to bed.
Love, Racist one
Goodnight, Racist one. We'll see ya tomorrow.
Hope you mellow out with age, there's plenty of nice blacks.
That is the most indolent bayonet I have ever seen.
Don't question my choice in vocabulary
>indolent (comparative more indolent, superlative most indolent)
>Habitually lazy, procrastinating, or resistant to physical labor/labour.
>The indolent girl resisted doing her homework.
>Inducing laziness (e.g. indolent comfort).
>(medicine) Causing scant or no physical pain; >progressing slowly; inactive (of an ulcer, etc.).
>(medicine) Healing slowly.
So what you're saying is... the bayonet is lazy?
I don't understand?
I saw the bayonet, and it just looked...silly. I couldn't find the word, and, as I scoured my brain for something accurate, 'indolent' kept popping up, even though that blatantly wasn't right. I decided to go with it, thinking that I suppose it DOES look like the bayonet was a lazy afterthought to the weapon. To make the same mistake I did in my last post, the situation is quite epilogical.
It's just a regular old bladed bayonet.
Do you prefer cruciform bayonets?
>mod deletes posts with nigger-related images
>doesn't just delete the thread
I don't even.
Redwood please control your racism.