/k/ - Weapons

Tell them that their gun utopia of Australia didn't do shit and only made innocent people be at the mercy of the criminals. If they don't care you your safety from these types of people, then why should I care for their own perceived safety?

>>561918

>The most powerful legal weapon that could be owned in most states? AK-47. What are weapons and tools the military use? 50caliber snipers, machine guns, rockets, grenades, mines, jets with missiles, ac130 bombers gunships, nuclear missiles, drones that shoot guns, drones that shoot lasers, remote controlled mini tanks, regular tanks, etc. You're telling me you as an untrained firearm owner can stop any military weaponry or personnel with AR15s, shotguns, and pistols?

This is so retarded I feel like dismissing it outright, but I'll break it down. He's obviously wrong about the gun ownership where civilians can and own .50 snipers and machine guns

https://www.gunbroker.com/Barrett-50/Browse.aspx?Keywords=Barrett+50

https://www.gunsamerica.com/915753203/M2HB-Ma-Deuce-Browning-50-Caliber-Machine-Gun.htm

Rockets, grenades, and mines are also ok for civilian ownership, but good luck finding one. Primitive ones are easy to make, but I'd never do that mr ATF. Civilians can and do own surplused military airplanes including jets.

http://warbirdsnews.com/warbirds-news/airplane-mig-21um.html

The minute a government nukes their people is when other nations use that as an excuse to attack it. Everything else he mentioned requires lots of infrastructure, munitions, and fuel to maintain and will probably be one of the first things to go if the US government declares open war on Americans.

>The argument that it's a constitutional right: I mean it's not a right to kill a man, but it's a right to own and wield a tool that has immediate power to kill a person? That logic is beyond me. Most things are beyond him

This is a complete strawman because we have a right to self-defense and self-preservation and if in the course of preserving ourselves we kill someone, then so be it. Home invaders, muggers, rapists, etc. have forfeited their expectation of others to respect their rights the moment they engaged in those activities.

>Is killing a part of defense? At that rate, it's called unintentional murder. Murder is still murder.

I covered this just above, but murder is killing without sanction from the state. Killing isn't murder and a good example of this was a law in Missouri until the 1970's where it wasn't considered murder if you killed a Mormon and you would be breaking the law by not killing them. Look up Governor Boggs’ Extermination order.

>making it harder to get a hold ahold of one, on top of a ban, do a lot more work in saving lives? I would think that's an ultimate fix in cutting down our gun deaths vs relying on citizens who are untrained…

No, criminals find other ways to harm just look at acid attacks by kebabs in london or knife attacks. Why do these faggots elevate violence committed with guns above violence committed with any other implement?

>Police who are trained and paid to do that can't even use guns properly.

I've had more range time this month than most cops have in a year.

>it's a lot harder to do it without a tool, especially one as powerful as a gun.

I'm an engineer and I don't need a gun to cause mass mayhem I'm a law abiding citizen plz no bully FBI go find a school shooter to ignore instead

>Guns are completely outlawed in the UK, Japan, Netherlands, etc.

Wrong and it's odd that he picked countries with far fewer shitskins than the US

>…that our rights should never be taken away even if those rights infringe a lot of other things…

Explain how my gun ownership infringes on someone else's rights

>It's just stupid

not an argument

>>561934

I also forgot to mention that sweden now has grenade attacks thanks to all the moslems they foolishly imported

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37161752

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-sweden-grenades/in-a-port-city-grenade-attacks-shatter-swedish-sense-of-safety-idUKKCN0QE09F20150809

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_grenade_attacks_in_Sweden#2015

sage for double post

>>561918

>I made this thread in hoping some of you guys here can help me and many other gun owners counter-argue against anti-gun arguments. Here are but a few examples I witnessed and had no argument against.

Waste of effort.

shoot them with an already 100% illegal and unlicensed weapon.

>>561934

>>Guns are completely outlawed in the Japan

BECAUSE OF THE FUCKING OCCUPATION AEURGH

UK is a shithole country where niggers use battery acid and machetes.

>>561934

>I'm an engineer and I don't need a gun to cause mass mayhem

You know too much, are you free next friday? we need to arrange your suicide (^:

Just give up and move to Uganda

>1

A gun is a right and is written out on a piece of parchment so that retards can be pointed to it to read. Along with that the rights of LIFE, liberty, and property the pursuit of happiness exist but the only way to defend all that is to use a weapon you also don't NEED a car everyday you can choose to spend your day at home or you can take public transportation to whatever location you need to be at. People have survived by walking, biking, and riding but the use of force is and always will be required to defend yourself, property, loved ones, or liberty/freedom and force can be easily multiplied so that even the physically weak (compared to the aggressor or AGGRESSORS) can easily defend themselves.

>2

1- >untrained

Most officers just barely pass range qualification. Those that rely on just barely passing rarely ever train if at all. a civilian that has taken shooting up as a hobby is more likely to not only be proficient in their weapons use but also seek out additional training other than the knowledge to safely handle and correctly use their firearm.

2- That is a perfect argument to loosen restrictions

3- Vietnam (France and then later USA), Various resistance movements during… (use WW2 for max butthurt), Al-Queda, Taliban, Hamas, IRA.

4- Profiteers (gun runners) go where there is demand and due to an unprotected southern and even northern border they can and will set up shop selling whatever is needed aka the weapons to fight the gov't more efficiently . Where will they set up shop? Literally any ground that can support the weight of their stock and is currently not held by Gov't forces which will be large swaths of land since in order to occupy said land you'll need men not drones to actually peek into crevices, caves, towns, cities, and houses since a drone can't do so and just bombing the areas is an easy way to get collateral casualties/damage thus driving what support you had to your opposition. All of this is only possible under a massive assumption that even a few that make up the military/gov't will not defect to the other side or choose not to obey and simply sit it out or worse possible and commit a coup or junta.

>>561972

>3

The 2A is the only right that has the words "shall not be infringed" written into it. Guns are used more often to save lives than to take lives in malicious acts, if you are quoting gun deaths per year then you are quoting a correct statistic but used incorrectly as it is used to argue for the banning of guns in the form of times crime was committed despite the fact that the majority of deaths in the statistic is suicide and if removed will drop homicide/accidental deaths to less than half of the original. In the context of the current year then the right to bear arms is even more relevant today as the supreme court has ruled numerous times that the police have no obligation to protect you in several cases which make for very interesting reads.

do not copy paste this part if you are doing so and find a better source as this is going to be some shortened and fuck lazy regurgitation

>Castle Rock v Gonzales

Gonzales a mother, sued due to no police action resulting in the death of her children. Basically she is going through a very nasty divorce so bad that she felt the need for a restraining order on her husband. She gets the restraining order but her husband ignores it anyway and kidnaps their three children, she then calls the police several times and is met with little to no action. Finally her husband shows up at the police station and gets into a gun fight resulting in his death. In the trunk of his car they find the three kids dead. The court ruling finds that the enforcement of restraining orders is not mandatory and even if it was it creates no "individual right to enforcement".

>Warren v DC

Three people. Carolyn Warren, Joan Taliaferro, and Miriam Douglas all became victims of abuse and rape due to little to no action by the police. Douglas living on the second floor of the building became the victim of a home invasion where two men broke in and began to rape her while Warren and Taliaferro could hear from the third floor. hearing the screams they called 911 getting police dispatched to their place but as a code 2 meaning lower priority despite the fact that crimes in progress should take code 1 or high priority, four cops answer the call. Warren and Taliaferro climbed out their window onto a roof and watched as an officer drove down the alley behind the house without making an attempt to check the rear door or surrounding area, a second officer knocked on the front door but soon left with the other officers after receiving no reply. W and T go back inside their house, hearing the screams again they called for the police again this time without the call being dispatched to any officer. Later believing the police to be in the house W and T called to Douglas alerting the rapists to their presence resulting in them getting caught, raped, beaten, and robbed for 14 hours.

>4

Justifiable homicide is such a thing to prevent situations (just a very small example of what guns can prevent) such as the above from happening. It is a guns potency that makes it easy for the physically weak or outnumbered to defend themselves from a bad situation, a melee weapon still requires you to be strong or proficient through months of training to defend yourself without the weapon being ripped from your hands and used on you as you still need to make physical contact with the aggressor giving him a very good chance to do so. If a world where the weak should fear and be dominated by the strong is what you wish then by all means continue your flawed crusade.

>police brutality

When police brutality happens it's because the individual officer cares not for the consequences of his actions possibly because he believes that he will not be prosecuted no matter what. Civilians who conceal carry in many states are restricted to do so until they pass training and a major part of gun culture is seeking out and training as much as possible with whatever weapon they have be it a revolver or AR15. At the same time civilians are under intense scrutiny for every action they took when being investigated for a shooting. Actions such as, whether or not deadly force was justified, what weapon/ammo did they use, how many times did they fire/was the number of rounds used necessary,

and did they fire negligently or did they use correct restraint and control. All this is in the back of the mind of the average gun owner and in many cases civilians have been able to use their gun defensively without ever firing a shot at a rate much higher than the police.

>>561973

>5

hoo boy i'm a gook and I've been waiting for this for the longest time. Daegu subway, you fags will never beat the arson high score Mc Veigh don't count that's bomber man

First off guns are not completely banned in any of those countries and in the case of Germany you can own an AR15, In cancada you can own your choice of nearly whatever semi-auto save it was not banned by name (yes AKs in another name and AR like rifles exist fairly widespread along with others). Just a small example but enough to prove you did little to no research. As for number of casualties then lets look at South Korea.

A country where a majority of the male population has gone through compulsory military service and thus have both training and knowledge of not just handguns or other "safe guns" but actual real assault rifles (FULL AUTO CAPABLE) yet the population is heavily restricted from keeping and owning weapons. The Korean civilian gun owner is restricted to mostly shotguns and manual action hunting rifles (similar restrictions you may find in england and australia) however they must keep said firearms locked away at the local police station and must sign a form to release it and then bring it back within a certain curfew, despite these regulations guns have been used to kill with notable incidents being the Sejong and Hwaseong shootings. But of course these are very minor in terms of mass shootings. So what can kill better and more than a gunman and his weapon? A gas can and a bic lighter, or other flammable liquid containing device

The Daegu subway fire. Kim Dae-han carrying a duffle bag with two containers holding flammable liquids walked onto a train (1079) that reached the Jungangno station. His presence and intent became obvious and some passengers tried to stop him but it resulted in a container spilling and igniting which then spread quickly through the aluminium shell while burning plastics created massive amounts of toxic smoke. Unfortunately due to incompetence the driver failed to notify the station quickly enough, the burning train then pulled into the station as another was coming in. The other train (1080) opened its doors but then shut trying to keep the smoke out causing passengers to be trapped, to make matters worse a fire detection system shut power down to the station causing 1080 to be unable to leave the station. The conductor finally told passengers to run out but he then left and removed a key that caused a shut down on the trains batteries powering its doors causing whatever remaining passengers to be trapped.

The result. 192 dead with 151 injured.

I feel autistic

>>561989

Yeah, and the NFA and all gun control laws are unconstitutional.

Just beat them with their own weapons.

Those racists :^)

I guarantee you, most of them are rich, white, suburban, college kids, like that attention whore mulatto.

Hoodniggas love guns, because they NEED them.

>>561996

Fucking this. They aren’t people who can be rational and weigh facts and statistics to come to a conclusion. They are lemmings who will never change no matter what you do. Refer to pic related before you try to debate these people.

>>562220

There's no point in debating these people in private, there's especially no point in using excessive statistics in your talking points. A better idea would be using the kind of tactics you would see being utilized in The Hammer of the Patriot where you "debate" them in a public form and slam them with emotional arguments. I've had a surprising amount of success by using their the watching audience against them in tandem with emotionally charged and punishing techniques. It's alinskyist as fuck, but it works.

A lot of these people are the people that cannot stand the idea of alienation and having the dunce hat very vocally forced on them in front of people. Dominant arguments, even emotional, beat the hell out of trying to use statistics and justifications for your views. As dirty as it is, Alinskyism works now that these gun-grabbing fucks are establishment.