Are guns dangerous?
no
>>697316599
No shit you fucking retard. It's a high power machine designed to kill things.
>>697316599
Whatcha up to Ahmed?
>>697316599
Only if you're stupid
>>697316599
Only in the hands of niggers and mudslimes.
>>697316599
Intrinsically? No. Facilitatively, sure. Just like most objects. With higher potential for harm? Depends.
>>697316599
>dangerous
>able or likely to cause harm or injury
A gun is not likely let alone able to cause harm or injury without the influence of an outside source.
Therefore, the answer is no.
>>697316878
This is the only correct answer based in fact that will be in this thread.
>>697316599
yes, duh. they are devices designed specifically to maim and kill. if they aren't inherently dangerous then fucking nothing is.
inb4 hurr durr guns are safe its people that are dangerous. the statistics on accidental gun injuries and deaths beg to differ. find me the equivalent with knives, oh wait you cant
No, they have a safety so that means theyre safe
>>697316599
Only as dangerous as the person holding them
>>697316599
no, but fagots who don't know how to engage the safety and that have poor trigger discipline are.
>>697316599
If someone is holding one, they are dangerous.
If you have a really really crap one, it is incredibly dangerous
If it's just lying there unloaded and safetied, no.
>>697316878
this is a fallacy. a knife or a blowtorch are also "not dangerous" by this twisted stretch of a definition. the implication is and has been from the start that the item in question is in the hands of someone who means to do harm. with this in mind, a gun is clearly far and away more dangerous than most other potentially dangerous items.
the mental gymnastics at play here are insane. I'm actually pretty pro guns myself but come the fuck on you just sound delusional.
>>697316599
They are potentially deadly. Just like being homosexual.
>>697317019
I'm guessing ur the fat type with a Swiss Army knife collection ?
>>697317253
I have an extensive collection of shotguns and rifles, for hunting. I got my hunter's safety certification when I was still in middle school and have used and been around guns my entire life. That said, the facts about guns and their social impact are pretty undeniable.
>>697316782
guns dont kill people.
people kill people.
>>697317194
Not a fallacy, nor a stretch of the definition.
A stretch of the definition is to say, "well, people use a gun to be dangerous, therefore it is dangerous."
Your argument implies that literally everything in this world is dangerous.
I could kill someone with a spoon, a pillow, a puppy, a stick of butter, a shampoo bottle, water, oxygen, etc. Are these items considered "dangerous"?
My statement was a fact. Yours is a "stretch of the definition".
>>697317615
Anon didn't say that, they are designed to kill. That's fine but that's what they're designed for.
no, bullets are
>>697317624
No see, once again you misunderstand.
A puppy is not designed to kill or maim. A gun is. A knife is designed to cut, which is one way to kill or maim. A shampoo bottle is not. Your argument is a fallacy by omission, you are conveniently ignoring inherent properties of the items being discussed because they would reflect poorly on your overall point.
But yeah keep on believing that guns are no more inherently dangerous than puppies. That's totally not ridiculous at all and isn't a fine summation of the mental gymnastics that your side goes through everyday to pretend that guns jesus.
>>697317019
No gun is designed to kill. Every single gun is designed to fire a projectile.
Bullets are designed to kill. Or injure, or stun.
I can shoot nothing but beanbags out of my shotgun all day and never kill anyone because the shotgun was made to fire a projectile, and I chose a non lethal projectile. The shotgun did its job.
No. People are dangerous.
no. try if you don't believe me.
>>697317830
They were actually designed to kill animals and later became a tool to kill people for the sole purpose of war.
The problem is, bad people found out guns are the perfect tool to kill people and now GOOD people need them to protect them from bad people.
If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.
Implying that criminals, who by definition do not follow laws will follow anti-gun laws is simply autistic at it's core.
>>697318256
I'm pro gun I was was just stating that's they're designed for.
>>697318413
*what
>>697318132
To your first point, semantics. You know damn well that most guns are used to fire bullets, whether at people or animals or targets that are meant to represent either of the former. I'm sure you aren't implying that lethal ammunition should be regulated heavily and replaced with bean bags and blanks, so your second point is fucking irrelevant. The problem with guns isn't people shooting each other with fucking bean bags.
So basically fuck your semantics and face the facts.
If you shoot someone, do people blame the gun, or you?
Thus, whoever possess the weapon is dangerous, not the weapon itself.
>>697316599
No, mine has been leaning against a wall like a cool ass motherfucker for like a week now.
>>697316599
nope, idiots with guns can be dangerous
also niggers
and sandniggers
>>697318256
And a person is an animal. Like, even if I grant you that guns were "originally designed to kill animals" and that somehow people don't fall under that definition, what difference does that make to your overall position? None whatsoever. The problem with guns today remains that people are using them to effectively kill each other with little or no regulation to stop them. Your whole point is a non-sequiter
>>697316599
Obviously not
now just place it in your mouth and pull the trigger
>>697318732
Guns enable people to become dangerous.
Thus gun are partly dangerous.
>>697318030
Ok, well then by your own logic then your argument is also flawed because it is also designed to protect.
Therefore, since you seem to reject the fact that something can be both harmless and dangerous in different contexts you are wrong.
Guns were not designed to kill people. They were designed to kill animals for food. They then became a common tool for war and got in the hands of DANGEROUS PEOPLE and are now used by dangerous people to hurt non-dangerous people.
Non-dangerous people use them for protection against dangerous people.
Therefore, they protect the majority (non-dangerous people) against the minority (dangerous people).
Since by your own logic there cannot be multiple definitions of a noun then we must accept the majority definition.
Since most people if in possession of a gun are not inherently dangerous then we must say that "no, guns are not dangerous".
This is by your own logic so any argument you may have now is completely invalid as you would be arguing with yourself and therefore insane or autistic.
ITT: one dude scared of big scary guns uses big words to dance around the fact his feelings aren't important.
>>697318926
By that logic literally everything on this planet is dangerous.
>>697317253
Whoa whoa whoa, Swiss army knives are excellent tools. No need to try and associate them with fat idiots.
>>697318926
You'd think this would be a pretty simply point to grasp but gun fanatics seem quite obstinate in their utter refusal to acknowledge it in any way shape or form. Its kind of pathetic actually to see what I assume are otherwise reasonable, logical people twist their thinking every which way to keep from accepting this basic fact.
>>697319008
>literally everything on this planet is dangerous.
Not that anon but that is true
>>697319065
They should ban legos for faggots like you because you could make a lego AR-15 and take it to a bar and cause mayhem
>ITT fucking morons talk shit about the NRA
>>697316599
shoot yourslf & find out
>>697317049
None of my guns have a safety.
>>697318256
>If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.
and law enforcement, and military, and security services
>Implying that criminals, who by definition do not follow laws will follow anti-gun laws is simply autistic at it's core.
criminals will need to break law in the attempt to obtain guns and ammo
that is serious undertaking in develop world, you dont just go out to the docks and start screaming - who want to sell me a gun
what I am saying is that theres high risk of getting apprehended during obtaining of gun, especially for you classic "shooting up school cause I am aspie as fuck" retard
Theres high chance that a criminal would be appre
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rR9IaXH1M0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9UFyNy-rw4
>>697319065
Again, by this logic literally everything is dangerous.
Ofc not
its not like its only purpose is to send a peice of lead flying at 5,000 ft/s
and its not like it was created to kill or anything like that
>>697316599
people are dangerous not guns.
>>697316599
If guns are not dangerous, why do firing ranges have so many safety rules? Pretty sure they'd say it's because guns are dangerous.
>>697319065
>>697318732 here.
I'm not pro-gun. In fact I'm Australian so I wouldn't get a say, but from an outsiders perspective it's all bullshit. Like that old saying goes
"Outlaw guns and only outlaws will have them"
The amount of police raids in 'Straya which result in finding weapons is quite astonishing. Guns are what you make of them. Give everyone a gun and only the immoral will use them.
Thus proving my point, the only danger is the person behind the gun.
>>697318960
Once again you've completely ignored my point and devolved the discussion into semantics. Well done.
Guns were still designed to maim and kill, whether for animals or for people, and this is what I've been saying all along. A gun doesn't care if its shot at a deer or a person, because its designed to maim and kill anything its shot at. So your whole "kill animals for food" point falls flat on its ass.
For that matter, a gun doesn't care if its used for defense or aggression. A gun doesn't protect anyone, a person with a gun protects themselves just like a person with a gun assaults someone with that gun. I've never denied this, by the way, since my point never revolved around predicting how people will use guns, merely that guns are dangerous because they are designed to maim and kill and therefore any violent situation involving a gun will be inherently more dangerous than one without.
I never said anything about nouns and do not accept your "majority definition", you either misunderstand me or your putting ideas into my mouth that are not mine. Either way, you're arguing with a strawman right now. Arguing from plurality is a different sort of fallacy, by the way.
Acknowledge that I was correct earlier and your own point was and mostly remains semantics.
>>697319506
would you consider a 3 year old dangarous? i dont think so, put a gun in her hands and all of the sudden shes dangarous, so is the 3 year old dangarous or is it the gun?
>>697319632
Because if you're a moron and fuck something up somebody's 12 year old son gets shot in the face. If you're not a moron and handle the gun safely and responsibly then everyone has a good time in their day at the range
Magic huh?
My gun hasn't shot anyone including myself yet. I think it's defective.
>>697319313
>implying you can stop the imports from countries who don't give a fuck about domestic laws (Mexico, Russia, South Korea, Taiwan)
We've already seen that this is impossible time and time again. It's the same concept as why the war on drugs has been a failure.
You're living a pipe dream if you think you can go "No more guns guys mmm'kay?" and there will be any positive affect on murder rates whatsoever.
>>697319313
umm no. if you want a gun in a country with banned firearms, you can get one relatively easily. also, when a country bans firearms, crime rates increase dramatically because the criminals know they'll face less resistance.
>>697319856
But you're still saying that extra precautions are necessary when dealing with guns to ensure safety. While this applies to a lot of things, it does imply that the use of guns is inherently dangerous.
>>697319709
This is why me we need to start sending guns to prison instead of shooters. Same with an active shooter situation. Just shoot the gun instead of the messed up kid.
>>697319709
The man holding the gun was dangerous. He put himself into that situation by not securing his weapon.
>>697316599
No more dangerous than a car.
>>697320129
Yes, he put himself in that position by not appropriately securing a dangerous object.
>>697320102
No, It implies humans are stupid and there needs to be some regulations and safety procedures in place.
>>697319313
So it's no more high risk than drugs though. Not to mention people do go down to the docks and shout what they need but that's why slang was invented. Also, only outlaws will have guns until the police show up 30 min later. Which the police are always unreliable anyway.
>>697320351
>humans are stupid
I don't think you'll get any arguments there.
>>697320102
A gun does what its told, whether its a little kid who got their hands on it (like my brother did when he was 2) or a police officer.
A spoon can be dangerous to a fatass just like a plugging a lamp into the wall can spark a fire. This world is dangerous, it's faggot snowflakes who explicitly point out guns because they grew up whining and crying about EVERYTHING
>>697320062
sure you can stop import, how exactly do you think UK and australia is doing their thing
of course not 100% stop, but the price of guns on the blackmarket in those countries is MUCH more higher than the US, unobtainable for regular folks who are not little savers that rather buy gum and risk prison than for same price buying new toyota truck
You are living on lsd if you think that reduction in guns wont affect dead people
not to mention your cops would stop being trigger happy morons
>>697320079
no you cant get gun relatively easy
and no, developed wetern countries dont have higher crime rates because criminals now dont fear for their life.. jesus where the fuck do you live?
>>697320459
desire for drugs in general population is much greater than desire for gun
guns are also less accepted than drugs, get fucked up on drugs all you want idea, vs - did you just buy thing to kill people for the price of a new car? What for?
>>697319313
>mfw the places that do have the highest amounts of gun crime are socioeconomically fucked predominantly black gang residing places
>mfw gun control laws is at its strictest there
>mfw the crime still makes of the majority of the overall gun crime
>mfw people say the overwhelming majority who follows the law should be fucked because of the literal shit minority
>mfw the scary assault rifles are the rarest guns to be used in a crime but people say they should be the ones banned but handguns are literally the overwhelming majority of gun crime but they're fine
>mfw the focus of society isn't at all helping the shit minority it's guns are scary and cops are racist!
>mfw you're one of those fags who posts some drunk guy telling jokes as some smug form of evidence for you argument
>>697321070
Since you want to point out two micro-examples of UK and Australia that are "working" let me offer up a micro-example of my own: Cook County (Chicago)
>>697319652
I'm someone else but I have to point out that an inanimate object is not more dangerous than another one by itself because of its design. He was saying people are the dangerous aspect because of their motive and not the origin of the weapon. For example, trucks are not designed to kill, yet in Nice, France a human used a truck to kill over 80 people. Had he not driven the truck it wouldn't have killed anyone. In fact, that terrorist without a weapon was deadlier than Omar Mateen who only killed 50 people with an inanimate object designed to "kill and maim" as you put it. So no, guns are not dangerous by themselves, and no a blowtorch or sword, or grenade are not any more dangerous than another inanimate object designed without the intent to harm life because they will continue to lay where they are until the motive to do harm acts upon those objects first.
>>697321293
>>697321345
>mwf when nigger goes for a ride in a car for 30 minutes and is out of "strict gun control area"
>mfw tards were talking about scarry assault rifles not being used, and then orlando happens
One thing I dont get
why are you tards pretend to be reasonable, talk about protection
and then are against ban on assault style weapons
I dont want to get in to defintion on words, but long barrel high magazine kind of guns
why not ban them? They are terrible choice for home protection. They are overkill for huntung.
Why letting rednecks roam with AR15 and MCX?
>>697318256
Human beings are also animals. And no, the earliest firearms were designed for warfare, i.e. to kill people.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_lance
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heilongjiang_hand_cannon
>>697318413
Well you're wrong. If you really support gun rights, you might actually learn something about gun history.
>>697321070
Yeah so drugs aren't more popular than guns at all. Maybe where you're at but in the US everyone knows someone with a gun. But at this point (used to be different) I'd actually have to talk to a complete stranger to get some drugs. Even MJ. So guns are more common and guns are still popular where the population doesn't have much crime and violent crime.
>>697316599
Nope.
Muslims are.
>>697322474
The idea was with banning
sure you know guy with a gun, because he can go in to a store and buy one for the price of a play station
but people dont go out, hey what are we going to do this friday, we got some money for weed and LSD, or we can get old 9mm beretta for $17,000
so what do you guys want to do?
do you see the point?
>>697316782
Designed to shoot things. Nothing more nothing less.
>>697322279
I know this is hard for you to understand, but when people debate, they generally use terms acceptable for the context. In our case "animals" refers to creatures of the wild that may be hunted or defended against by Mankind. Not refuting your point about their origin though. Just pointing out that your correction of his use of "animal" in the context of arguing about guns is garbage. You know he's talking about deer, rabbits, and elk.
>>697317615
guns don't kill people-bullets do
>>697321953
Probably because the people who have these rifles use them overwhelmingly legally and safely. Mass shootings make up less than 1 percent of gun violence. And then the majority of mass shootings aren't even done with those rifles. They're done with handguns. Again the majority of those mass shooting aren't the crazy guy picks up a gun and shoots up a school or club cause he's a crazy Muslim. The majority of them are the guys back in those shit socioeconomic neighborhoods fucking with gangs and stuff. The only reason to want to ban rifles like the AR 15 is because the media, who doesn't know shit about guns, tells you how scary they are and over sensationalize everything about them and even sometimes misinforms people.
>>697316599
Yes. Anyone who actually supports gun ownership knows this. If guns weren't dangerous, they wouldn't have gun safety courses. Guns being dangerous is intrinsic to their value. We, the people, need guns because we need to be a danger. We need to be a danger to the government, such that they never take our acquiescence for granted. We need to be a danger to each other, such that there are dire consequences for trespass against each other. This is the foundation of society, the social contract. I can kill you, but I refrain from doing so because I don't wish you to kill me. An armed society is a polite society. An unarmed society isn't really a society, it's a bunch of sheep waiting to be slaughtered.
>>697316854
Almost nothing is dangerous by that definition. The only thing that might qualify as dangerous with no human input whatsoever is a forest fire or earthquake or other natural disaster.
>>697322714
Now are you talking about your perspective from the UK where guns don't really exist or in the US where people say "Hey guys how about we go down to the range Friday and teach my son how to shoot at 300 yards?" I think that's better than "Hey Tom, can I get an 8 ball for my son? He's been real hungry lately because I have to feed my addiction and I haven't bought any food so I figured this Friday we could split that 8 ball and get crazy."
>>697322974
Best logic I've ever heard.
>>697322965
Fuck you, you condescending shit. Your premises are fucking wrong, next time try looking it up instead of assuming. I pointed out that humans are animals because the simple fact is guns were originally designed to kill humans.
>>697321953
Forgot to add. If you really want to make this country better by lowering the violence with guns, violence in general, and crime in general while preserving the rights of our people we should be focusing even just a little bit about the root of the problem. You get rid of the black population in this country and our gun violence rates plummet down to any other nation like Australia or in Europe. That's the problem. We need to find away to help that society instead of just shifting the blame to objects that are largely used responsibly and on simply just race baiting.
>>697316599
Ask the question differently:
Is a stupid person ith a gun dangerous? -> yes
Is a conscious and normal person with a gun dangerous? -> no
there you go
/thread
Yes.
Also tapwater is dangerous.
Walking outside is dangerous.
talking to strangers is dangerous.
>>697323154
Doesnt matter if they are in 1% just because you have 1/3 of all mass shootings in the world.
They are represented and they posses danger to the law enforcment and general public without any reasoning why keeping them allowed.
Especially high cappacity magazines is the issue here
>why are you banning my tank, when only 1% of mass shootings invovled guy with a tank
you see?
WHY NOT TO BAN THEM? what purpose do they serve?
you see you dont have an answer, so stop pretending its about personal safety or some statistics. You just like guns thats all.
>>697323323
we talked about black market and desire of people to get something from it
I am sorry if you cant follow
also dad from your story could go with his son to shooting range, shooting low caliber spor pistols, or even hunting rifles.
funny thing that with all that shooting, americans are not represented in shooting dicsiplines in olympics or biatlon
>>697323566
try ending war on drugs first, before trying to kill everyone of some race
>>697318926
Pussies enable women to become whores.
Thus women are partly whores.
Shut the fuck up.
>>697320102
yep. but hey everyone drives cars without traffic laws, because cars are not designed to maim and kill, and humans never screw up, and always pay attention to what the are doing. (here is looking at you shaving/applying make up driver)
>>697318132
I would be very interested in learning to shoot beanbags out of my shotgun
>>697323688
>>>697316599 (OP)
>Ask the question differently:
>Is a stupid person ith a gun dangerous? -> yes
>Is a conscious and normal person with a gun dangerous? -> no
>there you go
>/thread
If you remove the word guns from these questions we have the same result. Therefore guns are not the issue.
/thread
>>697323688
>Is a stupid person ith a gun dangerous? -> yes
>Is a conscious and normal person with a gun dangerous? -> sometimes
ftfy
>>697321953
>mfw 60 homicides in a weekend within the "strict gun control area"
>mfw Canada and Mexico wouldn't be an excellent source for imports
>mfw stupid nigger thinks that you can make the entire United States a "strict no gun zone"
>mfw I have no face
Enjoy your Marshall Law, cuck. That's the only way you can enforce no civilians with guns.
Also, RIP Bernie. It's becoming overwhelmingly apparent that you are a Bernie cuck.
>>697324036
I can agree on that.
But then again, most of "somtimes", the person has a valid reason...
>>697324415
Such as?
>>697324449
Self defence for example
>>697316599
Ladders are
>>697324282
its always funny how morrons think that some simple tasks are impossible even though they have been done before
can shit be harder or less effective? sure
can it still be done over few decades with relatively simple laws and enforcmnet?
I am from europe btw, you enjoy corrupt incompeten hillary or trump, guy who believes vaccinations cause autism and that global warming is a hoax
>>697323835
Ah. Well I think it's interesting that you're willing to point out the high cost of under-the-table weapons yet you don't seem to remember that the gentlemen who slaughtered your beloved woman in Parliament had a gun he obtained illegally and he happened to be poorer than your average American nigger. And it doesn't bother me in the slightest we're not represented in the Olympics by guns because we run too many other competitions of our own of that nature in this country to bother. Meanwhile we'll continue to dominate our gold medal earnings in other events.
>>697324415
True, and I'm certainly not calling for a ban, but the anons claiming that guns are not at all dangerous are being disingenuous imo.
>>697317126
You underestimate the power of Americans. They'll swallow anything yiu give them.
German here:
Would it be still unacceptable for you, if there would be stronger restrictions in buying one?
for example a clear police-history or smth like that?
>>697324715
Of course. Guns are made to kill. that's a fact. but I think it really depends on the person, who owns the gun and his intentions.
>>697319313
>law enforcement, and military, and security services
These are the exact people the Founding Fathers wanted us to have guns to defend against. You know, because they had just fought a war against those kinds of people and it would've been a pretty quick defeat if they didn't have any guns.
>you dont just go out to the docks and start screaming
That's not really so far off, except maybe the screaming. Have you ever bought weed, or known anyone who did? Was it a "serious undertaking?"
>>697324615
>a guy had a gun to shoot some british cunt
>dunno details
well let me help you cause its really damn funny
>One witness reported seeing one of the men brandish a gun, a makeshift weapon or World War I-style firearm, and pull Cox by the hair before shooting her twice.
>Meanwhile we'll continue to dominate our gold medal earnings in other events.
but not in guns, not in marksmanship
cause you are not good enough
>>697320079
Look on the bright side, they're less likely to kill you since they know you're a defenseless cuck who won't do a damn thing. Hell, aren't EU countries so cucked that you're actually liable for any harm done to an assailant should you defend yourself?
>>697324999
if you think you will be able to defend against your countries military you are delusional lunatic
whats those videos there, guy touches on everything, the law made a lot of sense when they had muskets
>That's not really so far off, except maybe the screaming. Have you ever bought weed, or known anyone who did? Was it a "serious undertaking?"
guns are not drugs
drugs everyone want, drugs everyone sells
theres huge market
if you ask random guy in school they tell you where you can get drugs or who to ask
if you ask random guy in school about where to buy guns, for huge amount of money, and not misdemeanor but felony with mandatory jail time.. you damn can be sure you are in trouble
Nope not really, it is just an object
>>697316599
Objectively yes, but its a poor question. Danger surrounds us every day. Cars are dangerous. Fire is dangerous. Guns, like many things, are dangerous. Unlike many things, they are explicitly designed to be dangerous, and for good reason. The relative danger of guns, in a vacuum, is irrelevant. The real question is "Is the way a culture uses guns dangerous?"
>>697325404
just an object
>>697325105
Actually we are good enough, but since we don't bother to be represented there's no way to know. I mean, your country hasn't won it's own war in over a century so why would anyone assume you could win one now? Especially since Scotland and Ireland want nothing to do with the tiny little population below them. Also, you didn't refute my main point that it wasn't difficult for even the poorest man to obtain that weapon and use it on a high level official on your Parliament. Meaning your previous statements are M00t.
>>697325488
3 minute mark
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9UFyNy-rw4#t=3m
>>697324985
I don't think most people would have a problem with that, at least in principle, since most people are not ex-cons. But it's a slippery slope when you allow the government to erode even a little bit of your rights. Before you know it, you don't have any left.
Yeah guns are dangerous. Theyre a responsibility not to be taken lightly.
>>697325683
funny, my country was on the german side both times
though we played it off as not willingly
>>697317194
No, you are just dumb and unable to fathom the reality that inanimate objects are generally harmless
>>697316599
Guns don't kill people, people kill people.
>>697325346
That's still not true. Of course you would know nothing about the majority of American underground culture. No one will report you for asking about guns. In fact, it's legal to ask about guns at school. It would even be legal to purchase a firearm from a teacher in communities where hunting is a normal part of life. However if you ask a teacher about drugs you will be reported. You ask the wrong student about ILLEGAL drugs you will be reported. And if you show drugs to the wrong people you will again be reported.
>>697323835
>try ending war on drugs first, before trying to kill everyone of some race
Fucking hell I hope we don't kill everyone in that race because my mother and technically I am part of that race. I'm all for the end on the war on drugs. I'm all for anything that helps that community without infringing on the rights of the American citizen.
There's virtually no reason to ban rifles either other than "the news media told me they're scary" or "Jim Jeffries told me they're scary!" The fact of the matter is that they make up the rarest most smallest minority of the crime. Handguns are what make up the high majority of crime. The same shit is going to happen when you legalize drugs. There's going to be a small minority of people using the drugs and getting into vehicle crashes and other things of that nature. But the overwhelming majority of the people using the drugs will be law abiding citizens.
And I know you don't want to hear it but the truth is that people DO use and prefer AR-15s for both hunting and home protection. One pro of the AR 15 for home defense is that it doesn't have much penetration so if you have to shoot an intruder it is less likely to go through a wall and kill someone else. There have actually been cases where they are used against multiple intruders where a pistol would have ran out of ammo. You might say that "it's too long". The extended use of a hand gun is the same length of the common 16 inch AR 15. It's useful for hunting when faced with multiple animals or a single aggressive animal where a single shot doesn't put them down.
>>697325942
guns help a lot though
>>697316599
Are niggers Dangerous?
>>697316599
People are dangerous.
>>697325752
Well I that is the fear, sure.
But (from my external perspective) I personally think, that the gun control system you currently have, is not really working/alright.
>>697325346
It's not about being able to defeat them in battle, it's about being able to bleed them. If they seriously want to kill you, you're dead. But they're your neighbors. They don't want to kill you. They signed up to PROTECT you, to protect their country. It's a lot easier to oppress your neighbors when you don't have to kill them, and there's zero chance they'll kill you. But try selling that to impressionable youths that wanted to be heroes when they're getting shot at and being forced to kill the people whose admiration and respect they wanted.
I wish I could find that pic. But the basic argument was what I've just outlined, and the conclusion was that nobody wants to rule a nation of corpses.
Gun control only helps criminals not law abiding citizens.
>>697326003
do you even get that we were talking about banning?
no fucking teacher will be going helping you obtain guns for your "project" when guns would hot marked as hot fucking illegal issue
no would they be helping you get ammo
you fucknit you have zero gun policy that even kid making gun with hand will send your teachers screaming
And you still dont get the idea that people would not get guns. They would just dont. And with really low demand, the prices would be really high. And asking around without good conenction would just get you law enforcment informant and bust when you are trying to buy
Who needs guns when you can have safe fun?
People with guns but no combat training and no experience in life/death situations involving live firearms, will just create a bloody mess.
Imagine if ppl in that dark club in Florida had guns, no one sees the shooters but hear screams and gunfire, what will the logic concusion be?...thats right, ppl start shooting like crazy at anyone percieved as a threat.
>>697326275
Most people here would say America does not have a gun problem, it has a nigger problem.
>>697321953
Because to ban AR15's you have to have a valid reason (bullet is too big, too destructive, too high capacity, too short/concealable, too long/accurate) etc.
Then, politicians would use that precedent to ban every other rifle/gun that falls into any of those similar categories.
The real question is, why ban an AR-15? Whats so different about it, than other guns, that makes you think that it's worthy of banning?
The answer: nothing. You have no idea. All you know is that it's a commonly used term to describe any rifle in any attack that is sensationalized by the media. It is no more dangerous than any other rifle, nor is it an "assault" weapon. You don't even know what an "assault" weapon is.
>>697326383
except if you had guns and start to shot them you would not be some fucking neighbourly american
you would be terrorit trying to destroy democracy, armed to the teath with confederate flag on your back...
the guns are not important in your story, they would help only destroy your movement. Defiance in democracy does not need guns.
If you believe that soldiers would not want to kill you, then you dont need guns
>>697323875
Not the same faggot but thats a good point. Kek
No you don't need guns let's fight with hugs I guess.
>>697326532
You don't seem to understand that it doesn't matter what you ban people find a way to get it. People will even make them (just like drugs) if they have to. How do people get guns in Britain, Australia, France, Chicago or New York? They import them. Just like drugs. It's all illegal and they don't care about the difference because there is none. You seem to be trying to interject some sort of difference but there's not. Because if guns were banned here people will think of drugs and guns the same exact way.
>>697316814
Defos a trump supporter, his ideals are wrong you nonce
>>697326039
So do knives and trucks and chainsaws and high places. Go through a rent thread and count the deaths by gun and without gin and you'll see a big difference.
>>697317019
hurr durr what is a car... Accidental deaths.. with guns must be higher than cars.
>>697316599
their use is for killing. in any situation.
it all depends on who is being killed though
>>697326789
I do have idea
>high accuracy at long distance
>high rate of fire
>large magazine option
no purpose for hunting or home defense where shotguns and handguns serve better
do you have argument againt abrahms tank?
So the ar-15 killed less the all the other factors weird Hun?
>>697316599
Yes of course, but operating one safely is part of the responsibility of owning one. I'm not super pro gun rights or anything, but I'm not naive- the fact is there's already so many in the world they're not going anywhere. So you're damn right I'll protect myself with equal firepower.
>>697326980
you do know that people in GB dont have guns
and they have low murder rates
and low police shooting
and they have niggesr and africans and pakis,...
the guy that shot that british PM the other had a gun from WW1
people get what they want if they can
people dont tend to risk their lives to have gun that they cant show to people or shoot without fear
>>697326275
Because the media is reporting on it as such. Could you imagine if they started broadcasting every cancer or car accident death? There are more of those every year in every country than all guns combined and somehow guns are the focus.
>>697323274
Well said anon.
>>697326700
People are allowed to do dangerous or unwise things in a free country. Disasters are avoided not by taking away choices but by punishing wrong ones. If you're carrying and you shoot an innocent bystander while trying to hit a criminal, you better believe you're going to prison.
What kind of question is that OP?
Can you scratch your balls with a gun?
Do you trust a 5 y/o with it?
Blah blah liberal shit you know the rest
>>697326732
Would you agree, that if you would keep niggers (not generally talking about blacks but well... black thugs) from just going into Walmart and buying a gun, that it would decrease the nigger problem?
>>697327090
purpose of gun is only to kill and hurt
trucks and knives and chainsaws and high places are used for different purpose
>>697316784
>Assumes most people aren't
>>697316599
no. I am dangerous
>>697327282
Just ignoring that giant handgun statistic, huh?
>>697327145
A shotgun will guarantee a kill if shit in the torso or head. It will also ruin the wall behind your target. A rifle is simply a preference and can be more effective than a pistol in certain situations.
>>697327370
The fact you think the person shot is 'that british pm' shows how little you know about the country.
>>697326275
Well from my perspective, as an American, I don't give a shit what you think. You don't live here you dirty foreigner. Why are you faggots always so concerned with what we do? It's like you're fucking life to follow American politics and culture. Notice how foreigners usually always have an opinion on our way of life? Kek.
>>697327378
I am very aware of this, don't worry.
But when I imagine, that I, as a black thug, could just pop into a store buy a gun without any restrictions, then i don't think that this is really a working system...
correct me if I'm wrong...
>>697316599
In the hands of someone who doesn't know how to use safely it then yes, but in the same light people who don't know how to drive a car makes cars dangerous
>>697327370
Yes we do, you fucking nigger
We can't get semi automatic centerfire guns, or guns shorter than 24", but we absolutely can get guns you complete fucking retard
We have lower murder rates because Amerifats are retarded 'muh guns muh 2nd amendment muh freedums' whereas British people treat guns reasonably
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LE32Riyugg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxIfMuJzKxQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kg4ttaVM9LY
>>697327626
No his point was that the AR-15 is not evil like the media portrays it.
The handguns are simply because of niggers.
>>697326817
Are you really that naive? That's how tyranny begins. Yes, defiance in democracy does not need guns. We don't live in a democracy. We live in a republic, legally speaking. And no matter how lofty the democratic principles our republic was founded under, those principles are being constantly eroded every day. The mere fact that you think a citizen defending his own home with a firearm constitutes terrorism just shows how deeply the seeds of tyranny are planted.
>>697327370
they have less niggers.
>>697327370
>>>697326980 (You)
>you do know that people in GB dont have guns
>the guy that shot that british PM the other had a gun from WW1
So people in The UK don't have guns but they have guns from WW1 that are somehow less deadly. Mmkay.
>>697327427
not my point. My point is that everyone seems to think that just having guns will make you safe, when there is a whole raange of psychological factors that come into play facing a gun situation. Sure you can prosecute a couple of people that shot bystanders instead of criminals, but what if a panicked club starts shooting randomly......
>>697327914
NIGGERS ARE DANGEROUS!!!!!
>>697327485
So does that make a difference then? If you ban guns they will start using trucks. And according to Nice, France that is at least a 25% kill increase over Orlando, Florida in which a gun was involved.
>>697327697
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hrxkjRXk7m8
Ar-15 rounds penetrate less through walls.
>>697327453
No, niggers gonna nig. Well, if we could deport them all back to Africa, that might help, if that's what you meant by keeping them from going to Walmart.
>>697327940
Thank you for the validation anon I thought I had a pretty good point and am glad you acknowledged it
Firearms really are not very dangerous.
Bullets are extremely dangerous
most guns though are plastic now so someone probably wouldn't be able to hurt you too bad pistol whipping you with it.
Funny how in Mexico civilians are not allowed to have weapons , guns are banned in Mexico and the cartels and other criminals own them and are beheading people left and right. But you don't need weapons spread your ass chicks for the criminals.
>>697328041
to you
>>697327931
yes, much less deadly
you try to take out cinema or gay club with his gun
>>697316599
Not at all. Feel free to carry in your pants with hammer cocked and safety off.
>>697327873
No, you have lower murder rates because you don't have niggers.
>>697328165
niggers are dangerous to others and themselves, which has been proven time and time again
>>697328376
and other people are not a menace to their own ethnicity/society ?
>>697328098
they might and public events with lot of people would start getting blockades to prevent such attack
but we need trucks
but no one needs AR15, sig mcx (orlando) or M&P15 (aurora shooting)
>>697328164
comparing annything with mexico is a bit of a stretch
>>697327760
Sadly, you are. Every weapon that is purchased from an approved FFL dealer has to contact the FBI every single time a weapon is to be purchased. So the people who commit these crimes are simply people who have no record. Unlike the black thugs. And since we live in a society that trusts until proof of distrust is well deserved, there is no telling who is going to buy one of these guns and kill or if they will decide to use a knife instead.
>>697321345
easy leave chicago, buy weapon, come back
that wont hold true if the gun laws are uniform and the average criminal wont have access to black market firearms, and if they do they wont be able to afford them. Also the nuts that do school shootings will definitely not have access to them
>>697327873
Actually YOU are the retard...
Conservatives want to keep guns to protect their families and to prevent another King George incident where the government invokes martial law over their people (which is what created the United States to begin with).
That's their reality.
Liberals want to take guns away from people because the facts are that the ones who are doing these shootings more often then not are their own constituents. You can do the research for yourself, cunt. They're creating the polices that are putting people in the positions where crime is the only option for them and the democrat elite want to further disarm their constituents (and everyone else) to stop those same people from killing them.
And that's the liberals reality.
And if you don't believe me, go look at the most recent California legislation that limits magazine and weapon ownership and AT THE SAME TIME exempts the entire state legislature from the same laws. IOW.. the elite can own an AR-15 with a 30, 50 or 70 around magazine, but the citizens of California soon won't be able to.
So FUCK YOU you ignorant cunt. You don't like Murica..? Fuck.. you CREATED Murica.. So EAT ME.
>>697327939
That's why if guns were as common as cell phones people aren't going to just shoot first ask questions later. They will take their time, identify the issue, and punish who is abusing their freedoms and rights.
>>697328514
I do
Whats the fucking problem with that?
>>697328734
Amen
>>697328514
>but no one needs AR15, sig mcx (orlando) or M&P15 (aurora shooting)
Fuck you faggot.
I have an M&P 15/22.. that rifle is a fuckton of fun to shoot.
And Lee Harvey Oswald killed a president with a 6 round gravity fed clip.. 6 shots..
The rifles aren't the problem cuntrag.
>>697316599
no, is protection against niggers
>>697328798
I need a tank, abrams M1 would be fine
tell me reasons why I should not be allowed to have one
>>697327939
Who the hell thinks that? Guns won't make you safe any more than guns kill people on their own. But the simple fact is that criminals when faced with potentially lethal resistance would most likely rather find a new target. Perhaps not mudslime terrorists like those at that gay club, but your average petty crook who steals because it's his job would likely choose another job(target) if faced with that.
>panicked club starts shooting randomly
I don't see how this changes anything. They do have an entire field devoted to matching bullets with the guns they were fired from. And good intentions only go so far in court.
>>697328913
Why not? They cost a couple mil butif you use it safely and responsibly I don't fucking care
Whats your point anon?
>>697328753
Unlikely.
The likely scenario is that people will begin threatening each other with firearms.
Someone wants to cut you off? Pull out a revolver.
Its going to be even worse if everyone expects that others have firearms because youre better off drawing first and controlling the situation.
>>697328514
Its not about "need". Why dont people understand that? I dont need 550 horsepower, but im an American and if i want it, its mine. It's what our country was founded on, its called freedom.
>>697328913
Honestly I can't.. esp given what our government is trying to do to its own populace.. I mean.. it would be expensive to maintain and shoot.. but damn. it would be hilarious to see one sitting in my driveway.
>>697329034
I fucking care you inbred degenerate.
I don't want some autistic retard from 4chan owning a tank. What the fuck is wrong with you?
>>697329034
That you are pretty out there, out the reasoning ground if you just tell some anon on /b/ that you have no problem for him to have gun
theres never going to be convincing liek of you, you just need to die out slowly
society moves forward, one death at a time
in few decades things will be different
>>697329070
>The likely scenario is that people will begin threatening each other with firearms.
"A well-armed society is a polite society"
People in Idaho and AZ walk around with sidearms all the time.. in fact it's presumed they're armed.. notice no one in either place is shooting each other up.
Guns aren't the issue.. lack of humanity is.
>>697329181
How'd and autistic retard buy a multimillion dollar tank? Im fucking impressed, he deserves it.
>>697328913
Last thing we need is an autistic faggot with a tank
>>697329353
Rich parents or some bullshit.
Don't give him a tank you fucking idiot.
>>697329086
when it comes to devices designed to sole purpose of killing people most efficiently
there is absolutely place for reasoning if public should have access to it or not
why not allow fully automated guns, tanks, rocket launchers, nukes..
>>697329309
texas is well-armed and they can't stop shooting each other. try again, moron.
>>697328514
Right and you don't NEED the freedom of speech either so after you give that up and the government taxes you 80% of your income because you don't NEED all that excess cash I'll turn over my weapons. Willingly. Freedom isn't about only what you need.
>>697329396
An autistic retard couldnt operate a tank. Give it to him.
>>697329309
Idaho and Arizona have lower population density. People dont generally get on each others nerves.
In urban areas, the threshold for danger is going to be much higher, with the constant interactions and daily conflicts.
>>697329181
Why do you care about what other people have? Are you entitled to know about that? Why do you care about what's in my closet? You can't even handle your own life, stop trying to run mine.
Liberal
>>697316599
Depends on who's using them, and for what.
>>697329353
probably goodboypoints
>>697329578
There's a small chance he'll get in there and press all the right buttons through a sheer miracle.
Don't.
>>697329598
Simple, I don't want to get shot at by some retard on 4chan in a tank.
>>697319709
>is your 3 year old dangerous? Put her in the driver seat of your suv. Now are cars dangerous? We should b& cars
>>697329540
sweet jesus holly hyperbole
note being able to own military style, long barrel, high cadency, large magazine gun is like taking away my libertyyyyyyyyyy
>>697317019
I have both a car and a gun in my garage, guess wich one has killed more people.
>>697316599
Only if it's in the hands of idiots.
>>697329241
After you.
Hope you like muslims in your society, bitch ass faggot
>>697329598
Yeah i think you should be able to own nuclear warheads and biological weapons because otherwise its an infringement on your rights.
>but muh rights
dumbass conservitard logic
>>697328119
I know. That's what I was telling the guy.
>>697329070
And when everyone around you sees you pull out your piece like a chimp with his cock, they'll all pull out theirs and you'll sheepishly put it away like a fucking cuck. Only a fool would die for pride. And only a psycho would kill for it.
Trump is going give us access to nukes finally. We get our rights back!
>>697316599
This has been argued by retards for ages on here.
new question:
Are drugs dangerous?
ITT: trolls trolling trolls etc etc
>>697329730
It IS taking away one of your liberties. And more importantly, it's the first step to taking away your OTHER liberties.
>>697316599
Yes they are. It's a spring loaded metal launcher. Human skin doesn't do so well against high projectile shit.
>>697329627
A gun is inherently dangerous. Its not a toy. Its designed to kill people. If you are in front of the barrel when it fires, you will die. When you go to gun ranges, the trainers will tell you a gun is dangerous, because they dont want you killing yourself or someone else fucking around. In the same way a car is dangerous
>>697328182
You do realise guns from WW1 are just as lethal now as they were 100 years ago?
>>697329518
You mean the austin shootings? Austin is typically disarmed.. It's the pussy liberal part of the state.
Try again, stick fucker.
>>697316599
Guns don't kill people. Nuh-uh. I kill people. With guns. PAW
>>697329589
>In urban areas, the threshold for danger is going to be much higher, with the constant interactions and daily conflicts.
Then people should expect they are going to get shot in the face if they're that stupid.
>>697330109
>Boipusci is inherently dangerous. Its not a toy. Its designed to kill people. If you are in front of the shaft when it fires, you will die. When you go to Boipusci ranges, the trainers will tell you a Boipusci is dangerous, because they dont want you killing yourself or someone else fucking around. In the same way a nigger is dangerous
>>697329979
>Are drugs dangerous?
I know someone who died from taking too much diphenhydramine.. does that count?
>>697329730
Fine. We'll take away your liberty to drink alcohol again. Or go swimming on Sundays and Thursdays since you might drown. Btw, in the English language, a simile or hyperbole is perfect fine to clarify a point in an argument. Many people do it every day.
>>697330061
I just dont understand the nutjobs here
how excatly do they imagine transition to dictatorship would be happening if all the soldiers and americans are all high up on them democract and representation juice?
Like I am the would be dictator president, I really really want to rule the country.
Do retards think I will just give orders to take power?
OK lets say I manufacture a crisis, need power to deal with it, but sending some troops against american citizens? do you really see them going killing unarmed citizens to get their liberties?
I feel like you need to be all kind of retarded and brainwashed
you cant build up the nationalism to the level that is in the US and have it themed by democratic rule and then use US soldiers to take it away
>>697316599
The same question. Is a stick dangerous? no?
Is a nigger holding a big stick with 2 of his friends dangerous?
>>697329951
Except, that generally doesnt happen. Bystanders will be bystanders. Its why people will run for cover during a shooting or watch when two people get down.
Even worse is what happens when no one is around? You work at a grocery store and a dipshit customer gives you a hard time. You run into him after work and youre alone. you might threaten him with no intention of actually killing him but then he draws his gun. Now the situations is fucked because whoever puts the gun down first loses control of the situation
>>697330503
Go read this you stupid fuckbag..
>>697328734
>>697316599
Well its hard to say since guns are so common, its almost like a coffee machine.
But to get a grip on how dangerous they are replace gun with an equally dangerous object like a hand-grenade, antipersonnel mine or a stick of dynamite and see how that feels in terms of dangerousness.
>>697330418
Im going to assume you have no valid argument against mine lol
>>697329899
Linked the wrong post brother, my bad.
>>697330632
No I just like Boipusci and do not want my rights taken away.
I can tell you why *I* own a gun.
Because I can't carry a cop around.. they're too heavy.. probably from the donuts.
>>697330474
you are confusing analogy with hyperbole
and are the guns going to protect your right to go swim on thursday?
point is that guns are kinda of stuff that you dont need to go by rationalization why ban them, but which kind to allow.
What is your reasoning behind being perfectly content with ban on full automatic weapons?
300 million of them in murican' households,some owners are not qualified to have a pet ant farm,let alone 3 or 4 rugrats,idiocy is hereditary, one of every 500k being an idiot,if they reproduce,idiots multiply.
idiots in the human race are in enough numbers to compel,we hope,squadrons of cops to keep pressure on the dingdongs,like the poor,Y'shua said they;d always be with us.
99,999 % OF OWNERS are decent law abiding,use them responsibly,violent crime a victim summoning cops,is usually after he's been biffed robbed shot or someone else calls post facto,the best way to dissuade/stop attacks,armed or of an assault nature,is the gun firing lead 1700 fps enough to plug & drop the goof,Goofs, too often they come outa the hoozgau,having learned no lesson from the lockup,liberal parole boards are notorious for this,as are lifetime appointed judges,Goofs are also renowned for never listening to anyone about anything on not following their impulses.
the best protection from the goof,is a sidearm,the owner trained to use it,goofs sometimes are owners who get pissed off as in roadrage & offing someone who's paying no heed, both are idiots,, if you like your sidearm you can keep them,
>>697317624
Fucking told.
>>697316599
>Are guns dangerous?
Yup, that's why I own them.
>>697328514
>but no one needs AR15
Ok, try to take mine away
>>697328753
No, thats how ppl with combat training act. Not ordinary civilians with a gun around their waist.
>>697331015
Not bad. Make?
>>697330503
american soldiers have ALREADY killed unarmed civilians - kent state
police shoot unarmed civilians every day.
america has a large amount of private security personnel that have spent the best part of a decade killing civilians in iraq.
you are living up your own ass hole if you think the us military, or military contractors, would refuse and order to shoot civilians.
>>697331015
I bet you are fat as a hypo
>>697330719
fair enough
>>697330503
You act like it hasn't happened multiple times throughout history. Why do you think things have changed? People hide themselves more now (pc), but our underlying selves is the same as it was thousands of years ago.
Eventually something bad will happen (natural disaster, war, etc etc) and the first place people turn are to the people that have protection. I wont willingly disarm myself so you can sleep better at night.
>>697330545
>Its why people will run for cover during a shooting
I'd just as soon argue it's because they're unarmed. Since most people don't carry, this proves nothing.
>>697330545
>you might threaten him with no intention of actually killing him
This is called assault and he would be well within his rights to shoot you in self-defense. The fact that you think this is acceptable behavior is mind-boggling. No wonder you think guns should be banned if you regularly go around threatening people who offend you. You, sir, are a criminal, or at least sympathize with them.
>>697331116
I bet you're as stupid as a box of rocks
>>697331082
Daniel Defense V5, 16" midlength with some trijicon and surefire shit for maximum oper8ing
no
>>697316599
>>697318132
No gun is designed to kill
>being this retarded.
>>697331230
Quite the contrary, I dont want people going around threatening me over minor conflicts
>>697331105
I know replying to insanse morons who never finished highschool and are generally losers hooked on their fantasy is pointless
but calling few deads in 1970 as reason why guns are needed to fight off military that would start killing US citizens if the dictatorship came... well thats just what it is -- far fetched
but whatever makes you dont shoot your brains out at night
>>697330503
So I'm a nutjob for disagreeing with you? That's a worthy argument. Please allow me to retort: you're a fucking moron.
>>697321070
UK's homicide rate increased after the ban on guns. look it up smart guy.
>>697331234
yes, but slim
>>697331245
I have an EOtech on my .223 but i want another 7.62 with a trijicon. Shits expensive tho
>>697331434
except I did not say you are a nutjob for dissagreeing
did I?
>>697331297
A gun is inherently dangerous. Its not a toy. Its designed to kill people. If you are in front of the barrel when it fires, you will die. When you go to gun ranges, the trainers will tell you a gun is dangerous, because they dont want you killing yourself or someone else fucking around. In the same way a car is dangerous.
>>697331455
I'd rather be fat and smart than thin and stupid as fuck lol
>>697331453
jesus is the savior and god is real, follow the jews
look it up moron
>>697330729
No I am not. You can use a hyperbole in an analogy. I didn't say hyperbole is the only way to compare. I said you can use it to further a point. You are a dumb meat headed shit sack. Now that's a hyperbole. You're as comprehensive as an African nigger. Now that's a hyperbole and an analogy comparing a more retarded mongoloid (you) and a simple dumb nigger and exaggerating the simile used.
>>697316599
Only if you get shot
>>697322738
It's designed to use kinetic forces to put holes in things
Humans don't function well with more than the usual amount of holes.
>>697331116
>hypo
what? also, lol
If by dangerous you mean death and crime, then the real enemy is poverty. Poverty is far more dangerous than guns.
>>697331550
Id rather fuck your mom than your dad
>>697316599
put one in your mouth OP
pull the trigger
find out
>>697316599
Not really. People are.
>>697322738
>>697317615
god shut up
>>697331703
You don't wanna fuck my mom, shes bald from cancer treatment right now.
Asshole
>>697318256
>They were actually designed to kill animals
bullshit
>>697331075
So people with combat training can't be ordinary civilians? Also, that is how most people act. If they didn't they wouldn't be able to drive from one place to the next without killing someone with their bare hands out of road rage.
>>697331550
yeah, when I imagine a smart person, its always a fat guy with a gun
>>697316599
Yes, of course. They're tools designed to kill living things. They are dangerous by nature.
>>697331688
I think he meant hypo as in hypochondriac, but was too stupid to know how to spell it
>>697321293
lmao you fucking sound like a faggot. sucking enough dick there kid?
>>697331749
OK fine
pick up a loaded gun and wave it around in a public setting
drop it a couple of times
nothing would go wrong
>>697331529
>an object that can't do anything on its own is dangerous
HURRRRR DURRRRR
Technically, guns aren't any more dangerous than a brick.
It's the ammo that's dangerous.
When it comes down to it, if I want to own something or do something, there better be a damn good reason why I'm not allowed. Gun laws have never had any verifiable positive effect on the murder rate anywhere, ever, and they never will. I doubt murderers often find themselves thinking "fuck, I want to kill that guy but I don't have a gun so I guess I'll just overlook the thousands of other ways to kill someone that are even more impossible to legislate away than guns" or "fuck my gun doesn't have a bayonet lug and only holds ten rounds, now it's fucking useless." Want to kill a bunch of people? Just run over a crowd in a truck or make some bombs out of shit you can get at the gardening supply. Actually thinking it is a good idea to let some epic memers (school shooting is a meme) dictate national policy and deprive hundreds of millions of their freedoms to JUST MAYBE, if the planets align and God recasts his blessing over America, prevent such a statistically insignificant event is too pathetic to describe in words. What these school shooters really need is machine guns, then they'd kill 4, maybe 5 people and run out of ammo.
>>697331922
If it had function drop safety, nothing would go wrong.
Also, people would be the ones freaking out and making a big deal out of it - not the gun.
"OH MY GOD! YOU TOOK ME OUT IN PUBLIC AND WAVED ME AROUND?! HOW COULD YOU?!" - said no gun ever.
>>697332012
Tell a firearms instructor a gun isnt dangerous and watch as he either laughs at you or kicks you at for being a retard
>>697332182
functioning*
>>697332077
I bet you were the slowest idiot in your whole class in every school you ever attented
>>697332206
I'm a licensed law enforcement instructor. Guns aren't dangerous. People are dangerous. How are you this dense?
>>697332206
I am a firearms instructor. Guns by themselves are no more dangerous than any other inert piece of metal.
People are dangerous. What they do and how they use the guns are the issue, and those same people even if they had no gun would STILL be dangerous because they are either negligent or just flat out don't give a shit about other people's safety.
>>697332410
They can both be dangerous. Being dangerous is not mutually exclusive
>>697332429
If only we could send this to every person's head in the world right now. That would be too much common sense at once though.
>>697332429
There are plenty of reasons a gun might discharge without a person pulling the trigger
>>697332410
>>697332429
You're either lying about your profession or about your beliefs. Your job is to instill the belief that firearms are dangerous and therefore objects to be respected. If firearms weren't dangerous you'd be out of a job. How are you people so dense?
>>697332577
Of course it is. If a gun is just laying on the ground, how does that make it as dangerous as the person next to it? People have to be around for a gun to be potentially destructive. But the same is for a knife.
>>697332628
>american want to export his warped idea bout guns everywhere
next you will try to convert the rest of the world to the metric system
>>697332689
No, there's not. I have yet to see a gun shoot itself, ever, without some form of interaction either by a person or other creature.
>>697332806
A gun can discharge for a variety of reasons
>>697332689
Really? How many guns in safes, shops, museums, and factories just go off when laying there? Care to provide a number and death toll?
>>697332895
>>697332922
http://www.good4utah.com/news/local-wasatch-front-/a-gun-is-accidentally-discharged-inside-a-chipotle-in-sandy-gun-owner-not-cited
>>697332744
Not lying about my profession or my beliefs. I tell people flat out - if you misuse this tool, you could end your life or someone else's. There are no accidents when it comes to guns, only negligence.
Like any other tool humans use, it can be beneficial or harmful, and it all depends on the person using it.
>>697332914
No. No it cant.
It will only discharge if someone pulls the trigger. Every gun made since 1940 has been drop safe.
>>697332806
>>697332429
gun is dangerous because it allows any individual to easily kill a person, be it by intend or accidentally
compared to wooden dice, guns are more dangerous
>>697333095
refer to >>697333069
>>697332888
Except that was Britain's idea originally. And since you're probably retarded I'll keep it simple, the American government has officially used metric since the 1970s. Thus every scientist and federal employee here knows metric better than imperial you dumb fuck. Also, knowing that people are more dangerous than inanimate weapons is not warped. How do inanimate things get up and hurt people? That's warped.
>>697332577
>Being dangerous is not mutually exclusive
This sentence is pure retardation. That's not how you use those words.
On topic: Yes, guns are dangerous. They are designed for hurting/killing people, they do so at range better than anything else and they can be used on several individuals in quick succession.
Also, they can be used by accident if improperly handled.
>>697332744
"The stories and information posted here are artistic works of fiction and falsehood.
Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
OP here. Guns aren't dangerous, it's special snowflakes like you who brainfuck yourselves into thinking they are who are dangerous. Stupid, drug-fed since birth and no common sense at all.
>>697316599
If fags like you use them then yes.
>>697333133
No because a wooden dice can be inhaled and easily kill someone. Guns don't kill and they don't allow someone to kill you as easily as you think. Trucks aren't dangerous until they're operated by humans and they perfectly safe until then.
>>697333237
>every federal employee here knows metric better than imperial
>>697333080
That doesn't contradict the statement that guns are dangerous. Just because guns require human input, intentional or negligent, to cause harm, doesn't mean they're not dangerous. If that's what you're arguing, your definition of "dangerous" is shit, because nothing except natural disasters are dangerous under that definition.
>>697333069
He mistreated the gun by not making sure it was mechanically sound and then he dropped the bag it was in.
Human negligence caused the discharge. If he had done proper maintenance on the gun, he would have found the flaw and that would not have happened. He might have also purposely removed the drop safety for whatever reason. That too is negligence on the owner's part of that is what happened.
Human negligence - the gun was interacted with by a person, and discharged.
>>697333069
>man drops bag
We literally just told you guns do not shoot themselves. For fucks sake. There was human intervention. What we said was guns don't act on their own. Jesus christ.
>>697333133
Compared to a gun, a swimming pool is more dangerous.
Cigarettes are more dangerous.
Doctors with bad handwriting are more dangerous than a gun.
>>697333605
please google out death by dice
I can maybe find some deaths by firearms
guns are dangerous
>>697333508
You realize metric is the system Europe uses as well right?
>>697333808
Go smoke some more pot and shut up, cracker
>>697333306
You're a fucking moron. Read my earlier post since I don't have the patience to explain it again to an idiot.
>>697323274
>>697333133
Swimming pools are statistically 100 times more likely to kill a child than a gun is.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2001/07/27/levittpoolsvsguns/
>>697333788
We should band doctors with bad handwriting. Especially the ones with good surgical skills.
>>697333841
do we not have federal european employees?