The Gun Control Debate Thread - Controlling autism since 2022

[Ultrapenguin]

It does not, stop repeating blatant lies.

...if you didn't have a gun it wouldn't stop spree killings? How would you execute a spree killing with a knife?

There are only so many ninjas out there, you know.

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

It works fine for stopping spree killers.

"shall not be infringed"

 

[Freshly Baked Socks]

It works fine for stopping spree killers.

Don't look now, but stabby spree killers are a thing, nigger.

 

[Dyn]

"shall not be infringed"

And yet they don't let you own a cobalt bomb. The 2a definitely needs to be rewritten so the government can actually be forced to accept it instead of just ignoring it whenever they don't like it.

Don't look now, but stabby spree killers are a thing, nigger.

Yeah and they usually get one person before walking up and down the street impotently yelling until the cops smoke them.

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

And yet they don't let you own a cobalt bomb. The 2a definitely needs to be rewritten so the government can actually be forced to accept it instead of just ignoring it whenever they don't like it.

"shall not be infringed"

Edit: I shouldn't shit post too much, so on a serious note, it isn't necessary since the government won't accept anything anyway, they'll always just do whatever they can get away with and then some.

 

[Dyn]

"shall not be infringed"

Edit: I shouldn't shit post too much, so on a serious note, it isn't necessary since the government won't accept anything anyway, they'll always just do whatever they can get away with and then some.

But they are infringed.

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

But they are infringed.

Did you read the rest? I was lazy so I didn't specify clearly but I meant to say it's not necessary to rewrite the Constitution, for the reason I gave.

 

[Montalbane]

Wasn't one of the gun grabbing retards a fat fuck who said that you cannot possibly stab children because they run fast?

 

[Dyn]

Did you read the rest? I was lazy so I didn't specify clearly but I meant to say it's not necessary to rewrite the Constitution, for the reason I gave.

I think it's pretty necessary to rewrite the constitution if 100% of your population wants lawmakers to completely ignore it. Just amend the 2a to say "hey you can own X weapons but not Y weapons".

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

I think it's pretty necessary to rewrite the constitution if 100% of your population wants lawmakers to completely ignore it. Just amend the 2a to say "hey you can own X weapons but not Y weapons".

For one thing, we'd have to update it every time an advancement or innovation occured. We can't have an ever changing Constitution. For another, if the government is already infringing upon 2A then why won't they when it's rewritten?

 

[Dyn]

For one thing, we'd have to update it every time an advancement or innovation occured. We can't have an ever changing Constitution.

That's what amendments are for. If a bunch of guys in 1776 said "you can have any weapon you want" but all they knew about were muskets and swords, it's probably a really good idea to amend it when you invent something that can render your entire country uninhabitable for 50,000 years.

For another, if the government is already infringing upon 2A then why won't they when it's rewritten?

They're pretty much forced to infringe it right now because there are weapons so powerful that everyone in the world agrees that letting people freely own them would be completely unacceptable, but constitution is still very clear that your right to own weapons shall not be infringed. If you give SC the leeway to say "look okay obviously they wouldn't have meant hydrogen bombs or weaponised glanders", why can't they say "also machineguns"? Why can't they say "also six-shot revolvers". Nobody knew shit about any of them when the 2a was written, so the same logic applies to each argument and all that really changes is just how gun-friendly the SC justices happen to be at any given time.

If you don't rewrite the 2a to be more specific, you can only interpret it to mean Ahmed-fresh-off-the-boat gets to bring a dirty bomb with him, or your constitutional right to own anything more modern than a bronze cannon is more of a guideline than a rule. Anything inbetween is left up to 'common sense', which means the SC is empowered to write laws instead of just interpret them.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

My argument is that war rifles should be regulated because they are incredible facilitators of spree killings.

1. But nobody uses them for spree killings, nor gun violance in general. Only up to 3% of rifles are used in gun crime, far less of that in spree killings.
2. War rifles is a term as broad as assault weapons, terms that are scary and meaningless
3. We don't ban or massively regulate (to the point of uselessness) something because it makes killing easy. Gas stoves makes mass murder very easy, for example, something US found out during the great depression. 40 million of US households still use the stoves.
4. You have constantly ignored the statistics that suggest that if it were regulated it would have no effect.

A war rifle is a broad term that implies that if the rifle could be imagined as issued to a military for general usage by grunts in modern war. Implies ease of handling and capacity to deliver larger than pistol round in a large capacity. If you have trouble discerning what I mean then it's obvious you want to be using technicalities to derail on purpose.

Why can't you admit you just want pretty much all the rifles banned? Just be honest, dickhead.

Oh and about regulations; I want them out of cilvilian hands as much as possible. I think it's fair.

No.

They said the same about the Vax. Now there are also 1M deaths of mostly unvaxxed and we are coming for your wallet with the restrictions. You will give in your rifles eventually and you will like it. Mark my words.

You do realise vaccinated deaths have long since surpassed the unvaccinated ones? But that's not what this thread is for, I suppose

I think gun control greatly impedes spree killers because spree killers with guns tend to be far more successful than spree killers without guns ; I do not think gun control has an appreciable difference in crime or murder rates outside of that, so it's irrelevant if more people get murdered with knives.

I'm sorry, but this is a bit too funny to ignore. You managed to claim that gun control both works and doesn't to reduce and or stop gun violence, and this contradiction, while consistent with your believes, is still endlessly funny.

...if you didn't have a gun it wouldn't stop spree killings? How would you execute a spree killing with a knife?

Most gun crime is commited by people illegally aquiring a gun. Gun control is actually connected to less guns in people who can defend themselves and far more in the hands of people that are criminals.

 

[Dyn]

I'm sorry, but this is a bit too funny to ignore. You managed to claim that gun control both works and doesn't to reduce and or stop gun violence, and this contradiction, while consistent with your believes, is still endlessly funny.

There's no contradiction here, you just can't read. I said gun control massively impedes spree killers but not other types of violent crime.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

There's no contradiction here, you just can't read. I said gun control massively impedes spree killers but not other types of violent crime.

We've had this discussion before, and I still think your take is as nonsensical as it is funny

 

[Dyn]

We've had this discussion before, and I still think your take is as nonsensical as it is funny

I guess most takes are pretty nonsensical and funny when you replace them in your head with something else so you don't feel threatened by them, but I'm glad you're entertained.

 

[独人13]

...if you didn't have a gun it wouldn't stop spree killings? How would you execute a spree killing with a knife?

There are only so many ninjas out there, you know.

LAMO BASED RELIGION OF PEACE

Also don't forget most shitskins were killed by fucking banana machetes during the Rwandan civil war.

 

[updoot farmer]

Sorry, but no. You can make some decent tertiary explosives if you're careful enough to buy a load watchlisted chemicals slowly over time, but you'll still need to build or steal a detonator charge and make something nitro-based for the booster or you won't be able to set it off. That's not trivial to make at home, and the ingredients aren't "basic household supplies".

I don't get this meme because propane tanks & jurry rigged grill lighters exist.

...if you didn't have a gun it wouldn't stop spree killings? How would you execute a spree killing with a knife?

There are only so many ninjas out there, you know.

Quite simply, you go after the most vulnerable. There's a reason why china has picrelated as part of their police arsenal, and it's primarily due to the regular mass stabbings in kindergardens that go on over there. The body count some of these stabbers have racked up goes above some US school shootings, but then again who follows what goes on in China.

 

[Dyn]

I don't get this meme because propane tanks & jurry rigged grill lighters exist.

That's also not going to work, it'll just spin around frantically and shoot out gouts of flame that will startle people and maybe singe off some hair and eyebrows before everyone steps back a few feet. To reliably make a pressurised gas tank explode you'd need to hit it with some kind of booster charge, and if we're talking about propane you'd want at least a truckbed full of multiple bbq tanks or one of those big trailer-pulled ones you see outside rural farmhouses and such to get any kind of decent payload out of it.

 

[updoot farmer]

That's also not going to work, it'll just spin around frantically and shoot out gouts of flame that will startle people and maybe singe off some hair and eyebrows before everyone steps back a few feet.

You are correct that most propane tanks are designed to not fail catastrophically (but they do, and can be induced to do so), but hell, it's all about the end-goal isn't it? If you're a whacko who's trying to kill & maim, then Tsarnaev did a number with just a pressure cooker and some fireworks. If you're Timothy McVeigh, then yeah, your trailer-pulled propane tank becomes a necessity.

I have fond memories of getting evacuated when one of those tanks decided to take a swim down a local river that I lived next to.

 

[Dyn]

If you're a whacko who's trying to kill & maim, then Tsarnaev did a number with just a pressure cooker and some fireworks.

I believe he used blackpowder, but yeah, he had a massive crowd standing directly over two bombs and they still only killed three people, and his bombs were probably the absolute best you could hope to make without using high explosives. Perfect conditions, highest quality homemade bombs, and he still only ended up with the same score as Couch Cuck.

Homemade bombs just aren't all that threatening anymore.