File: How Many Bodies.swf-(3.08 MB, 848x480, Other)
[_] Anonymous 05/16/14(Fri)18:08 No.

Marked for deletion (old).
>> [_] Anonymous 05/16/14(Fri)18:21 No.

  if only someone could stop them
  oh wait i fucking can't because you took my fucking gun

>> [_] Anonymous 05/16/14(Fri)18:26 No.

  >Holding the gun by the fucking magazine
  come on now.

>> [_] Anonymous 05/16/14(Fri)18:37 No.

  >>2385966
  >calling a clip a magazine

  Get a load of this gun expert.

>> [_] Anonymous 05/16/14(Fri)18:45 No.

  Here's a little food for thought. Why make gun control laws if criminals break laws? Straight
  from the mouth of my friend's 6 year old son. If he can figure it out, why can't shithead
  politicians? Like some psychotic asshole is gonna be like "well, I was gonna go shoot up a
  school, but now i can't cuz they won't let me bring my gun into the building!". Seriously, da fuq?

>> [_] Anonymous 05/16/14(Fri)18:49 No.

  >>2385978
  The idea is to keep them from getting their hands on assault rifles in the first place.

  Why do we have stricter laws on car ownership than gun ownership?

>> [_] Anonymous 05/16/14(Fri)19:07 No.

  >>2385973
  >calling a magazine a clip

  Get a load of this gun expert.

  Actually holding and M4 by the mag well is just fine. The real offender was the M14, well really
  it's crappy mag lock.

>> [_] noko 05/16/14(Fri)19:07 No.

  >>2385957

  HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  Holy shit, activist moms are a thing.

>> [_] Anonymous 05/16/14(Fri)19:07 No.

  >>2385980
  probably because cars kill three times as many people per year than guns do

>> [_] Anonymous 05/16/14(Fri)19:08 No.

  >>2385973
  Thinking that a magazine is a clip; get a load of this absolute failure to make an accurate
  correction.

>> [_] Anonymous 05/16/14(Fri)19:11 No.

  >>2385995
  fucking WRECKED

>> [_] Anonymous 05/16/14(Fri)19:11 No.

  >>2385980
  >scary assault rifles
  Like 3 times as many mass shootings are done with a pistol than with a rifle you faggot. Also,
  the same concept applies. I've had the opportunity to buy guns illegally numerous times if I'd
  wanted.
  >>2385993
  >>2385996
  >/k/
  >understanding sarcasm

>> [_] Anonymous 05/16/14(Fri)19:18 No.

  Man you Americans really get butthurt about your guns.
  >>2385978
  So according to that logic, you shouldn't have any laws at all because criminals break them?
  Yeah, does sound like a six year old came up with that.

>> [_] Anonymous 05/16/14(Fri)19:21 No.

  >>2386005
  no, you just shouldn't have stupid prohibition laws because criminals break them

>> [_] Anonymous 05/16/14(Fri)19:29 No.

  >>2386005
  Yes, but that's true for both sides of the argument. Anti-gunners are almost always just as if
  not more assblasted whenever the subject comes up. Just look at this flash.

>> [_] Anonymous 05/16/14(Fri)19:32 No.

  >>2385980
  because mass shootings with literally any other firearm just don't count

>> [_] Anonymous 05/16/14(Fri)19:33 No.

  >>2386005
  We banned alcohol and that didnt stop criminals from getting it. In fact it made them a shit ton
  of money running it.

>> [_] Anonymous 05/16/14(Fri)19:34 No.

  >>2386005
  A law whose enforcement is nearly impossible and while jeopardizing the safety of those whom it
  seeks to protect is a danger to the populace, not a helpful one.

  Prohibition, as >>2386006 mentions, is one of those cases. It proved impossible to end the
  alcohol trade, while helping the proliferation of criminal organizations, which now could make a
  profit out of what was a common and relatively uninteresting industry.

  A law that makes it prohibitively difficult for the general populace to acquire a self-defense
  weapon is similar, as it would likely be unlikely to properly regulate the flow of illegal
  firearms, especially with the advent of 3D printing and the ability of organized crime cartels to
  manufacture their own weapons (hell, look on /k/--there's usually a thread about homemade
  firearms). So, in conclusion, we would introduce a law that would be essentially unenforceable
  while depriving the citizenry of the means to defend themselves.

>> [_] Anonymous 05/16/14(Fri)19:36 No.

  >>2386022
  When our government's police force is powerful enough to intercept all the individual smugglers,
  drug dealers and meth factories and put an end to the drugs trade I'm sure they'll be able to do
  the same with guns, and at that time I would gladly accede to these laws. But at that point our
  law enforcement agencies would have been given the leeway to abrogate so many right privileges we
  should have opposed and be powerful enough that there would be no point in protest anyway.

>> [_] Anonymous 05/16/14(Fri)19:36 No.

  I thought it was a pro school shooting video made by and angsty teen not a moms agaisnt guns

>> [_] Anonymous 05/16/14(Fri)19:39 No.

  There's something about the mechanical action of guns that get's me hard, the physicality of them
  is just so beautiful in this world dominated by tiny forces. Laser weaponry and other shit is
  cool, but there's something very human about using explosives and a mechanical system to propel
  pieces of metal at super sonic speeds.

>> [_] Anonymous 05/16/14(Fri)19:40 No.

  >>2385999
  It's like you think that the amount of people who do shootings now literally /would not change/
  even a bit if guns were much, much harder to obtain legally.

  No one is arguing that guns (note: I'm for /all/ guns being harder to obtain. Maybe not
  impossible, but not just assault rifles) will be completely barren if banned and made nigh
  unobtainable barring a few exceptions, but there's no way the number of shootings simply would
  not go down.

  Just because a criminal breaks the law in the first place does not mean they could if proper
  preventatives are used.

  (1/2)

>> [_] Anonymous 05/16/14(Fri)19:41 No.

  >>2386027
  (2/2)

  Also, if anyone comes in here trying to say "why not ban cars and knives" I'm going to shit down
  your throat. Cars have an intended /benign/ purpose. Yes, it's stupidity in the end, but cars
  aren't meant to kill. Knives also have other non-murder related uses, and the thing about knives?
  You don't have nearly as high of a chance of death as you do with a gun. No one misfires a knife.

  Guns /only/ have the purpose of intimidation or being used to kill. It's fucking stupid to expect
  that we shouldn't make sure we're safe and smart about obtaining and using guns.

  Also, no, you really wouldn't be able to lessen death tolls at shootings by a considerable amount
  if you had a gun on you. Aside from the fact that most people freeze up, you'd be reacting, and
  that means a bunch of people probably already died.

  G-fucking-G

>> [_] Anonymous 05/16/14(Fri)19:41 No.

  >Banning guns

  I like how gun advocates always have to change the subject and argue against strawmen. No one
  actually proposed any laws banning guns, the laws these organizations are pushing are about
  having background checks so people with criminal records or mental illness can't get guns. But of
  course we can't even do that because "gubbermunt will know who has the guns and round them all up
  for the concentration camps"

  Anyone proposing any kind of gun law at all, no matter how minor, is clearly a UN agent working
  on the secret plot to take all the guns away from everyone.

>> [_] Anonymous 05/16/14(Fri)19:45 No.

  >MUH SPREE KILLINGS
  >Many thousands of times more likely to be killed by some hood rat with a stolen glock

>> [_] Anonymous 05/16/14(Fri)19:48 No.

  >>2386028
  go back to reddit

>> [_] Anonymous 05/16/14(Fri)19:49 No.

  >>2386029
  background checks are already mandatory for every firearm sale that goes through an FFL

  of course, you might know that if you bothered to learn anything about the subject you're trying
  to preach on

>> [_] Anonymous 05/16/14(Fri)19:52 No.

  >>2386039
  Unfortunately, background checks are largely a formality. There has been times ex-cons have
  gotten guns no problem simply because a lot of gun stores don't really care.

>> [_] Anonymous 05/16/14(Fri)19:52 No.

  >>2386040
  then why will further laws help the problem?

>> [_] Anonymous 05/16/14(Fri)19:53 No.

  >>2386028
  people often factor in what humanity is like
  if somebody wants somebody fucking dead they're gonna find a way to fucking kill them
  you know that car thats so "benign"? not in the hands of someone who wants to kill its not

  and don't even get me started on animals
  you think a guns only self defense purpose is killing humans?

  banning guns = oh shit nigger what are you doing

  >G-fucking-G
  you're a faggot
  never call gg until you've won the match

>> [_] Anonymous 05/16/14(Fri)19:54 No.

  >>2386042
  >people often forget to factor in what humanity is like
  my bad

>> [_] Anonymous 05/16/14(Fri)19:55 No.

  >>2386041
  The idea is that we create laws that are actually enforced and come down hard on the people who
  don't enforce those. It sounds futile, but I don't see why the more appealing option is to just
  lay back and say "fuck it" when we're talking about some really dangerous things here.

  Maybe it's "idealist" but I don't see why it would be that hard to enforce properly.

>> [_] Anonymous 05/16/14(Fri)19:57 No.

  >>2386045
  guns are an issue of absolutes

  unless you can figure out a way to take away all guns ever, anywhere, (and you can't), there will
  always be someone out there with a gun capable and willing to hurt me, and I will always be
  subject to that evil will unless I have a gun of my own

>> [_] Anonymous 05/16/14(Fri)19:59 No.

  >>2386042
  Yes, we /can/ kill with various other things, but the reason we don't ban those is because of the
  other uses they have/are intended for. Guns have no ulterior purpose. And yeah, people will kill,
  you're correct, but it is not only harder to kill without a tool specifically for doing so, but a
  lot more personal. Also way more prevantable.

>> [_] Anonymous 05/16/14(Fri)20:00 No.

  >>2386047
  but more people were killed with hammers last year than "assault weapons", so you're wrong

>> [_] Anonymous 05/16/14(Fri)20:01 No.

  >>2386046
  Technically yes, but it's also a bigger question of if we should let that sole point determine
  how we handle guns as a whole or not. I've weighed the pros and cons and find it much more
  appealing to go with limiting obtainability as much as reasonably possible.

  I'm not even 100% opposed to guns, I just think it's ludicrous to not aim towards making it
  harder to get them than not.

>> [_] Anonymous 05/16/14(Fri)20:02 No.

  >>2386045
  I'm sure those who passed the Drug Control Act and the 18th Amendment thought it wouldn't be hard
  to police too.

  You're introducing a law that's impossible to reinforce while making it harder for the
  law-abiding citizen to properly defend himself. That's a law with no purpose.

>> [_] Anonymous 05/16/14(Fri)20:02 No.

  >>2386049
  >I just think it's ludicrous to not aim towards making it harder to get them than not

  >what is "shall not be infringed"

>> [_] Anonymous 05/16/14(Fri)20:04 No.

  >>2386048
  Harder doesn't mean less frequent.

  Hence the statistic about cars. The fact is there are a staggering amount of gun related deaths
  that are able to be slimmed down. A lot of the deaths that occur outside ofgun use /also/ include
  accidental deaths. I haven't looked at that divide specifically for recent data, but I know,
  especially with cars, there's a ton of accident related deaths out there and we can't forget
  those. With guns though, even if it's accidental, it has no other purpose. That brings it to more
  of a moot point.

>> [_] Anonymous 05/16/14(Fri)20:05 No.

  >>2386051
  Because nothing changes over the course of 200+ years. Not even a bit. We totally have no
  argument to alter things as needed about our own laws.

>> [_] Anonymous 05/16/14(Fri)20:05 No.

  >>2386052
  you quite literally just said nothing but "SOMEBODY OUGHT TO DOOOOO SOMETHING"

  how about this: if you're scared, go buy yourself a gun, problem solved

>> [_] Anonymous 05/16/14(Fri)20:06 No.

  >>2385957
  What if we just banned crime?

>> [_] Anonymous 05/16/14(Fri)20:07 No.

  >>2386051
  The state is allowed to deprive you of your right to live if you commit murder in the first
  degree if that is within their laws, because you forfeit those rights. Similarly, if mental
  instability invalidates the consequences guaranteed by abrogation of the law, they should also
  invalidate some of the right afforded to a lucid, mentally sound individual.

  I'm all for allowing the average law-abiding citizen to get "assault" weapons, but what's clear
  is that the state isn't enforcing what regulations we have on the criminally negligent enough.

>> [_] Anonymous 05/16/14(Fri)20:08 No.

  >>2386054
  >because nothing changes over the course of 200+ years

  and now you've resorted to strawmanning

>> [_] Anonymous 05/16/14(Fri)20:08 No.

  >>2386050
  There are ways to ID guns. To my knowledge, that's much, much harder to do with alcohol and
  drugs, especially since you can make your own.

  Also, my views on alcohol and various other drugs are that we shouldn't too heavily police
  something that only affects you (family situations notwithstanding for this point).

  I understand your point though, but I can't comment on how feasible it is because I don't know
  for sure, I'll admit that, I just think it sounds quite unreasonable to suggest we can't make a
  positive impact by striving for that.

  If you have substantial proof otherwise, send it my way.

>> [_] Anonymous 05/16/14(Fri)20:09 No.

  >>2386058
  you really need to work on your sentence building skills buddy, I have no idea what the fuck
  you're trying to say

>> [_] Anonymous 05/16/14(Fri)20:10 No.

  >>2386060
  >hey I know it probably won't work all that well and will affect the wrong people, but what else
  are we gonna do?

  how about not pass shitty laws for lack of a better solution?

>> [_] Anonymous 05/16/14(Fri)20:10 No.

  >>2386061
  you really need to work on your reading skills, buddy, I have no idea why you couldn't understand
  it. The only real mistake there was "they" should be "it"

>> [_] Anonymous 05/16/14(Fri)20:10 No.

  >>2386059
  No, it's just fucking stupid to suggest that since we have a right, we can't change it.

  I'm all for someone giving me a really objective, substantial reason about gun laws being more
  lax than strict, but saying "2nd Amendment!!!" is not the way to do it.

>> [_] Anonymous 05/16/14(Fri)20:11 No.

  These are the people we're using to push restriction of firearms? Maybe I'll start listening to
  anti-gun advocates once we've put into place a serious restriction of Islam after 9/11.
  >>2386054
  >I bet those founding fathers never saw this technology coming! They never would've anticipated
  what we've got going now. They wouldn't have made the law like this today.
  Do you seriously think that out of all the founding fathers, none of them thought about what the
  future could hold? They knew exactly what they were fucking doing.

>> [_] Anonymous 05/16/14(Fri)20:11 No.

  >>2386064
  I've already given you plenty of sound reasons though, this is just the one you've chosen to
  focus on

>> [_] Anonymous 05/16/14(Fri)20:12 No.

  >>2386060
  >>2386060
  >There are ways to ID guns.
  I understand, but as I mentioned earlier in the thread, look at /k/ right now. There are people
  resourceful enough to build shotguns out of piping, and those macguyvers do not have the
  financial support of drug cartels, some of which are very visibly operating within the US border.
  There are 3-D printers that can print out firearms as well. I feel like advances in technology
  will make it harder for the government to clamp down on illegal weapons without breaking certain
  rights guaranteed us, not easier.

>> [_] Anonymous 05/16/14(Fri)20:12 No.

  >>2386063
  you're trying to tell me that if a crazy person does something, we should limit the rights of
  sane people because of it

  that makes no sense

>> [_] Anonymous 05/16/14(Fri)20:13 No.

  >>2386062
  Again, this goes back to the question of how we handle it as a community. I don't view this as a
  punishment towards the law-abiding, others do. I view it as a responsibility that we take on in
  response to the realization of the danger guns aide in presenting.

  Maybe that seems aside the point to you, but it doesn't to me. I'm not aiming to throw my vote
  towards punishing, I'm trying to voice my support for saying "Yeah, maybe we should strive
  towards responsibility, even if it means we have to adapt and accept some change".

  If you don't agree, that's fine, but this is what my view is.

>> [_] Anonymous 05/16/14(Fri)20:14 No.

  >>2386069
  No, I'm trying to tell you that mentally unstable people and individuals with criminal records
  should not be allowed to own guns for the same reason law-abiding citizens should be allowed to
  own them. Work on those reading skills.

>> [_] Anonymous 05/16/14(Fri)20:14 No.

  >>2386071
  >I view it as a responsibility that we take on in response to the realization of the danger guns
  aide in presenting

  take on responsibility by deciding that people aren't responsible enough to have their rights,
  what a great way of thinking

>> [_] sage 05/16/14(Fri)20:15 No.

  sure is /k/ and /pol/ in here

>> [_] Anonymous 05/16/14(Fri)20:15 No.

  >>2386072
  that still makes absolutely no goddamned sense

>> [_] Anonymous 05/16/14(Fri)20:16 No.

  >>2386068
  You know, I agree on that -- it probably will be harder, but that's a problem for the future.
  This probably will end up as a moot point later on, but this is still a present problem and I
  simply think it's more advantageous for us to do what we can now if the goal is a positive impact.

  >>2386066
  Lol

>> [_] Anonymous 05/16/14(Fri)20:18 No.

  Gay

>> [_] Anonymous 05/16/14(Fri)20:19 No.

  >>2386028
  Let's get rid of EVERY car and the only vehicles you are allowed to own are mini vans and
  pickups, because they have a purpose. You don't need a car. They are only for a couple people and
  can't haul anything. Their only purpose is to go fast.

>> [_] Anonymous 05/16/14(Fri)20:19 No.

  >>2386073
  I don't view it that way. As I said, I view this as a response to the potential uses of guns.
  While it may not sound separate from the criminal use of guns, I view it that way. There is
  literally no way to use a gun non-lethally when using it in terms of defense. It's simply that
  quality that I find reason enough to do this. Not because of criminal use, but because of what
  guns can do.

>> [_] Anonymous 05/16/14(Fri)20:20 No.

  >>2386078
  >What is transportation?

>> [_] Anonymous 05/16/14(Fri)20:20 No.

  >>2385973
  >magazining a clip a call

  Get a load of this gun expert

>> [_] Anonymous 05/16/14(Fri)20:20 No.

  >>2386079
  >There is literally no way to use a gun non-lethally when using it in terms of defense.
  >It's simply that quality that I find reason enough to do this

  So you think you have the right to tell me I can't defend myself and my family because you're
  scared?

  Awful weak-minded of you, don't you think?

>> [_] Anonymous 05/16/14(Fri)20:21 No.

  >>2386075
  Then you can't goddamn read. Unfortunately, we can't post pictures within this board so I can't
  make a coloring book for you, but I'll try to explain it to you once again.

  When you kill someone, you lose some of your rights. Like the freedom of movement, and the right
  to life. Why? Because you broke the law and violated the social contract that guarantees you
  those rights, among other thing.

  Similarly, when you commit a crime, you forfeit some of your rights, like the ability to be
  entrusted with a deadly weapon, because you have shown you are willing to violate the law and
  social contract.

  The mentally unstable, on the other hand, aren't bound by laws--if they are certified insane,
  they will not serve their punishment as meted out under the law. Therefore, if you cannot be
  relied on for keeping the law or be punished be punished for violating it, you should not be
  entrusted with the right to a deadly weapon under the law.

>> [_] Anonymous 05/16/14(Fri)20:23 No.

  >>2386027
  >>2386028
  Is it summer already?

>> [_] Anonymous 05/16/14(Fri)20:23 No.

  >>2386085

  If they can be taken away, they weren't rights in the first place.

  They were privileges.

  You're the most statist, mouth breathing motherfucker I've ever seen post anywhere on the
  internet.

>> [_] Anonymous 05/16/14(Fri)20:24 No.

  >>2386085
  that's the most backasswards way to say that crazy people shouldn't have guns that I've ever read

  congratulations, you got your simple, unimportant point across

>> [_] Anonymous 05/16/14(Fri)20:24 No.

  shitstorm status achieved

>> [_] Anonymous 05/16/14(Fri)20:25 No.

  >>2386083
  Stop taking it personally. What part of this being community-based don't you get? I'm not vying
  to unlawfully take guns away, I'm simply making my case on why I think it's more advantageous for
  us /all/ to be for that. Obviously people differ, and that's okay, I simply think gun
  restrictions are a very good thing and throw my vote for that.

>> [_] Anonymous 05/16/14(Fri)20:26 No.

  >>2386092
  >you should think this way because I think this way

  nice rebuttal

>> [_] Anonymous 05/16/14(Fri)20:26 No.

  >>2386080
  Buy a minivan. What, are you going to speed Anon? A minivan does the same thing but is better for
  transportation.

>> [_] Anonymous 05/16/14(Fri)20:27 No.

  >>2386087
  >that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are
  Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
  According to the founding fathers they're rights, you illiterate. Or are you also against the
  execution (or even imprisonment) of murderers because they have an unalienable right to "Life"
  and "Liberty"?

  >>2386088
  Well it's difficult to explain to the illiterate.

>> [_] Anonymous 05/16/14(Fri)20:27 No.

  >>2386097
  >well I'm bad at sentence composition

>> [_] Anonymous 05/16/14(Fri)20:28 No.

  >>2386098
  >waaah big sentences are too hard for me

>> [_] Anonymous 05/16/14(Fri)20:28 No.

  >>2386095
  You're really bad at debate. Like, you do realize discussions like this happen because people
  differ on views and people make cases so that there can be a way for everyone to understand each
  other and make decisions accordingly, right? I'm not saying simply "Do what I say because" I'm
  saying "Do to these previously listed reasons, I think it's more advantageous for us to vye for
  restriction."

  Big difference. And I've said it multiple times now, but I'm okay with people differing on
  opinions, I'm simply making my case.

>> [_] Anonymous 05/16/14(Fri)20:28 No.

  >>2386085
  It's a good thing criminals won't use an unlawful method to obtain firearms. That'll show them.

>> [_] Anonymous 05/16/14(Fri)20:29 No.

  >>2386099
  >waaaah a simple point can't be gotten across in a simple manner or else it just looks simple

>> [_] Anonymous 05/16/14(Fri)20:29 No.

  >>2386103
  >Hurrr you can't make me read!

>> [_] Anonymous 05/16/14(Fri)20:29 No.

  >>2386097

  >I have no fucking goddamn clue what the word "inalienable" means

>> [_] Anonymous 05/16/14(Fri)20:30 No.

  >>2386097
  >Why can't I hold all these fallacies

  Come back with a real argument.

>> [_] Anonymous 05/16/14(Fri)20:30 No.

  >>2386101
  >I'm simply making my case

  but so am I, and every time I counter one of your points you move on to a different one, that's
  not how a debate works

>> [_] Anonymous 05/16/14(Fri)20:31 No.

  >>2386096
  flawless logic right here.

>> [_] Anonymous 05/16/14(Fri)20:31 No.

  >>2386105
  >>2386106
  >H-he's actually posted a logical statement!
  >I-I know! I'll call them fallacies! That'll show him!
  So violating the "inalienable" rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of Happiness when someone
  has commited a crime is okay, but violating their rights to bear arms when they have committed a
  crime isn't?

>> [_] Anonymous 05/16/14(Fri)20:32 No.

  >>2386107
  No, I really haven't. I've responded in kind with yours and all you've down is make some
  half-assed assumptions of what I'm doing by discussing these points.

>> [_] Anonymous 05/16/14(Fri)20:33 No.

  >>2386102
  I'm not against the right of a law-abiding citizen to buy, purchase, hold and use weapons.

  I'm against the right of people who already have a criminal record to buy a gun through legal
  means.

>> [_] Anonymous 05/16/14(Fri)20:33 No.

  >>2386111
  and now we're arguing about whether or not we're arguing, because you can't think of a counter
  point to anything I have to say, otherwise we'd be arguing about that

>> [_] Anonymous 05/16/14(Fri)20:33 No.

  >>2386111
  Done*

>> [_] Anonymous 05/16/14(Fri)20:33 No.

  >>2386105
  >inalienable

>> [_] Anonymous 05/16/14(Fri)20:34 No.

  >>2386114
  As I said, responding in kind. You bring up a completely unrelated point, I'm addressing it.

>> [_] Anonymous 05/16/14(Fri)20:35 No.

  >>2386119
  >no you

  try again next time anti-guns

>> [_] Anonymous 05/16/14(Fri)20:37 No.

  >>2386117
  Well? Does that mean you're against imprisoning or executing criminals because it violates their
  "inalienable" rights? Are you trying to hide your inability to make a logical argument by
  pretending I can't read?

>> [_] Anonymous 05/16/14(Fri)20:38 No.

  >>2386122
  >Are you trying to hide your inability to make a logical argument by pretending I can't read?

  different guy, but that's what you were just doing to me a second ago

>> [_] Anonymous 05/16/14(Fri)20:41 No.

  >>2386125
  You admitted at the end >>2386088 that it was a logical, if (in your opinion overly complex)
  argument. It's not my fault that you weren't able to understand a perfectly logical argument
  without me explaining it slowly to you.

>> [_] Anonymous 05/16/14(Fri)20:42 No.

  >>2386127
  man you're really upset about a bunch of semantic bullshit that has nothing to do with the
  argument, and you're trying your best to focus on it

  I wonder why that is

>> [_] Anonymous 05/16/14(Fri)20:42 No.

  >>2385978

  So that, if someone does acquire an illegal gun, they can be sent to jail before they have a
  chance to use it.

  Problem is, laws only work if you enforce them. We make too many special exceptions to the law
  for too many races, classes, and political affiliations for gun control to have any effect beyond
  disarming the people that actually try to obey the law.

>> [_] Anonymous 05/16/14(Fri)20:42 No.

  >>2385980
  >>2385996
  >>2385997
  The only thing I can think of is Renai Neck Injuries...

>> [_] Anonymous 05/16/14(Fri)20:44 No.

  >oh boy, time to check /f/
  >first flash has 96 replies

  /f/ go to bed

>> [_] Anonymous 05/16/14(Fri)20:44 No.

  These "mothers" don't stand a chance, the NRA has a much more well-funded lobby.

>> [_] Anonymous 05/16/14(Fri)20:44 No.

  >>2386130
  >semantic bullshit
  I didn't point out any semantic bullshit, I just pointed out that you agreed it was a logical
  point. According to >>2386088 you already (finally) understood it and agreed with the (as you
  said, "simple") point, but if you really want me to, I can explain it to you again with
  reaaaallly easy words to show you that it's logical. Do you want me to?

>> [_] Anonymous 05/16/14(Fri)20:45 No.

  >>2386135
  >everything you just said

  still has nothing to do with my guns should be illegal

>> [_] Anonymous 05/16/14(Fri)20:46 No.

  >>2386133
  this happens everytime the flash has something to do with the government and guns

>> [_] Anonymous 05/16/14(Fri)20:47 No.

  >>2386122
  What are you niggering about? I was just pointing out how you're swapping out "unalienable" with
  "inalienable". There's nothing more to it. Stop being such a defensive faggot

>> [_] Anonymous 05/16/14(Fri)20:48 No.

  >>2386137
  I'm pretty sure /k/ frequenters frequent /f/ more than any other board.

>> [_] Anonymous 05/16/14(Fri)20:48 No.

  FLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOR

>> [_] Anonymous 05/16/14(Fri)20:48 No.

  >>2386139
  agreed

>> [_] Anonymous 05/16/14(Fri)20:48 No.

  >>2385980

  Do the laws on car ownership prevent unlicensed drivers from driving a car? I don't know where
  you live, but around here we're constantly seeing people injured or killed because drunken
  assholes with neither driver's licenses nor the ability to speak any language other than Spanish
  keep getting behind the wheels of stolen cars and going on destructive joyrides.

  If the idea is to keep them from getting their hands on assault rifles in the first place, I'm
  afraid you will be disappointed no matter how strict you make the laws. Natural laws can make
  things impossible; man-made laws don't.

>> [_] Anonymous 05/16/14(Fri)20:49 No.

  >>2386139
  this is true, /k/ is my only other board pretty much

>> [_] Anonymous 05/16/14(Fri)20:49 No.

  >>2386136
  Do you have a criminal record, or are you mentally disabled? If not I have nothing against you
  and your guns provided you got it through legal channels. I just think that those people
  shouldn't have the right to guns for the same reason murders aren't allowed the right to liberty.

  I'm not the anti-guns guy.

  >>2386138
  Shit, I didn't even notice. I apologize, I thought you were the other guy who just went
  >I don't know what unalienable means
  And I apologize. If it helps, they mean exactly the same thing.

>> [_] Anonymous 05/16/14(Fri)20:50 No.

  >>2386144
  oh, okay

  sorry

  you're still a pedantic autist though

>> [_] Anonymous 05/16/14(Fri)20:51 No.

  >>2386146
  Y-you too

>> [_] Anonymous 05/16/14(Fri)20:56 No.

  >113 replies
  Jesus fucking Christ what

>> [_] Anonymous 05/16/14(Fri)20:57 No.

  Guns dont kill people, people kill people. We should be banning americans.

>> [_] Anonymous 05/16/14(Fri)21:00 No.

  >>2386153
  Why don't we just ban murder?

>> [_] Anonymous 05/16/14(Fri)21:02 No.

  >>2386154
  Or we could just ban Amerifats.

>> [_] Anonymous 05/16/14(Fri)21:03 No.

  >>2386157
  oh you

>> [_] Anonymous 05/16/14(Fri)21:05 No.

  >>2386157
  Britbongs should ban knives. That'll stop knife crime.

>> [_] Anonymous 05/16/14(Fri)21:08 No.

  >>2386144
  It's okay, anon. I forgive you. But please, try to contain your autism next time.

>> [_] Anonymous 05/16/14(Fri)21:08 No.

  Greatest Bait Flash ever.

>> [_] Anonymous 05/16/14(Fri)21:09 No.

  >>2386160
  this explains everything

>> [_] Anonymous 05/16/14(Fri)21:11 No.

  >>2386171
  this is bait

>> [_] Anonymous 05/16/14(Fri)21:12 No.

  >>2385973
  actually it is a fucking magazine, dumbass

>> [_] Anonymous 05/16/14(Fri)21:13 No.

  >>2386173
  no it's a clip

>> [_] Anonymous 05/16/14(Fri)21:14 No.

  >>2386172
  no this is patrick

>> [_] Anonymous 05/16/14(Fri)21:17 No.

  >>2386177
  you're mom's a clip

>> [_] Anonymous 05/16/14(Fri)21:19 No.

  >>2386179
  no my mom is a magazine

>> [_] Anonymous 05/16/14(Fri)21:20 No.

  >>2385957
  I thought of a new header!

  /f/ - Gun Control Debate & Ant Social Justice

>> [_] Anonymous 05/16/14(Fri)21:20 No.

  >>2386177
  a magazine is something inserted into the magwell, a clip is CLIPped into the magwell, hence the
  name. Fucking call of duty makes these 9 year olds retarded

>> [_] Anonymous 05/16/14(Fri)21:21 No.

  >>2386187
  no, a magazine loads a clip, and a clip loads the gun

  stupid

>> [_] Anonymous 05/16/14(Fri)21:21 No.

  Everyone else but me is a huge faggot.
  GG, faGGots.

>> [_] Anonymous 05/16/14(Fri)21:25 No.

  heck, here in NZ it's piss easy to get a gun and license. It's easy because there's no need for
  strenuous tests. Our history with gun violence is small.
  You you Americans need the toy taken off you. Like a child whinging when mommy takes away a
  misused object you bitch and moan.
  You go on about your freedoms but like a child you can not handle the responsibility.
  That is how the rest of the world see's these school shootings and the reactions.
  Just whinging kids with toys to big for them.

>> [_] Anonymous 05/16/14(Fri)21:26 No.

  >>2386196
  lel go fuck a sheep commie

>> [_] Anonymous 05/16/14(Fri)21:28 No.

  This threads even bigger then the cop killer, jesus

>> [_] Anonymous 05/16/14(Fri)21:30 No.

  >>2386199
  The fire rises.

>> [_] Anonymous 05/16/14(Fri)21:30 No.

  >>2386199
  SHITSTORM IMMINENT

>> [_] Anonymous !fLhUNH0O/2 05/16/14(Fri)21:30 No.

  over 100 replies wow

>> [_] Anonymous 05/16/14(Fri)21:33 No.

  >implying bombers don't kill more people in one go than any shooter
  >implying the truly deranged won't stoop to hijacking vehicles to crash with shards of glass
  wrapped in duct tape
  >>2386079
  >confirmed for shitty marksman

>> [_] Anonymous 05/16/14(Fri)21:34 No.

  >>2386207
  sorry buddy, you missed the argument, could've used you on my side about half an hour ago

>> [_] Anonymous 05/16/14(Fri)21:40 No.

  >>2386027
  Hey faggot.

  http://www.rampageshooting.com/

  Look up the statistics on mass shootings per capita and you'll see no correlation between easy
  access to firearms and these mass shootings.

>> [_] Anonymous 05/16/14(Fri)21:42 No.

  >>2386210
  they've also been on a steady decrease in the US since the 70's

>> [_] Anonymous 05/16/14(Fri)21:44 No.

  >>2386211
  is that from better prevention methods or worse aim?

>> [_] Anonymous 05/16/14(Fri)21:46 No.

  >>2386212
  probably neither?

>> [_] Anonymous 05/16/14(Fri)21:46 No.

  >>2386212
  It's because of the increase in concealed carry. More people are armed, and a statistically
  significant number of mass shootings are interrupted by an armed bystander.

>> [_] Anonymous 05/16/14(Fri)21:52 No.

  so apparently /k/'s seeing /f/ on the side now, I'll have to update my shipping charts.

>> [_] Anonymous 05/16/14(Fri)22:02 No.

  since /k/ has invaded /f/ I'm going back to /b/; It's starting to look a little bit more sane.

>> [_] Anonymous 05/16/14(Fri)22:06 No.

  >>2386241
  hey, the anti-guns started it

>> [_] Anonymous 05/16/14(Fri)22:08 No.

  >>2386243
  >first shitpost is a pro-gun nut
  Nope. Eat shit and fuck off.

>> [_] Anonymous 05/16/14(Fri)22:09 No.

  >>2386247
  :^)

>> [_] Anonymous 05/16/14(Fri)22:10 No.

  >>2386247
  The flash was astroturf anti gun bullshit to begin with.