/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

>>601926

>Comments?

fuck off socdemcuck

>>601926

The rights of the people to arm bears, or any other animals for that matter, shall not be infringed.

>>601926

You are not going to sit too well here anon. You are not radical enough, but most importantly, your proposals aren't edgy and don't sound smug as shit.

>>601926

I agree with most of your post even though I personally believe that in a communist society everyone ought to have at least basic training in firearm safety and competency, and I think most people here would agree that we need sane gun laws and most certainly need free healthcare for the mentally ill.

But, that being said:

>That's my first point, unless you're planning a massacre, it's silly to have more guns than you can effectively carry at one time

Contradictory statement. You can't stage a "massacre" with more guns that you can carry, numbnuts.

> I don't recall guns somehow intervening and preventing any law. If there comes a point where the secret police have knocked on your door demanding your weapons, it'll already be too late.

This isn't the point m8. As the Zapatistas put it: We may never have to use our guns, but we refuse to surrender them. Having to actually use your weapons to defend against a fascist state is a worst-case-scenario (and a pretty extreme example at that), but if things get that bad we want to be fully prepared to handle it on all fronts. That includes the political shit as well as actual armed struggle.

>2. Every gun comes with a finger scanning device. No internet, no way to download the fingerprint, just a device that scans, records and saves that fingerprint. The gun can only work of the finger is touching one part of the handle the entire time. This prevents users aside from the background-checked buyer from using it. This also prevents someone from stealing the gun and using it, it can never be reset. This device is also turned on by the retailer when it's properly sold, like a credit card.

The potential for this being abused is pretty terrifying in the kind of society we live in. No thanks.

>>601930

>>601934

>>601935

Ignore these idiots.

>>601926

>1. Background checks…

Already in use.

>2. Every gun comes with a finger scanning device…

Impractical.

>3. Invest in free mental health facilities…

Good idea, in general, but most violent firearms offences are committed by mentally healthy individuals, not persons suffering psychosis or schizophrenia.

Anyway, >shall not be infringed.

>As a liberal …

No thanks.

I'm seriously wondering if this is just bait that's had way too much effort put into it.

>>601936

Also, part of the point of being armed is to be prepared for a revolution. We want to be not only armed, but also trained in firearms usage and safety so that when the time for a revolution comes, we will have access to weapons that we know how to use.

On the one hand, I know that a revolution will require an armed proletariat

On the other hand, I feel incredibly uncomfortable with guns. As an Australian, the idea of going to the U.S and seeing someone casually walking down the street with a gun mortifies me. I already feel nervous when I see cops with them.

I just really dislike guns.

>Identifies as "liberal"

>The present possibility of retaliation isn't what stops bullies from abusing others

>"I don't recall guns somehow intervening and preventing any law. If there comes a point where the secret police have knocked on your door demanding your weapons, it'll already be too late."

Have you been castrated and/or lobotomised?

>Those suggestions

Everything but getting rid of the inherently alienating system, right?

This has to be a troll.

>>601926

>As a liberal

This is a communist board. Get out.

>>601958

Fuck off, there is Mutualists and SocDems here as well.

>>602049

oops, forgot take off shitposting flag.

>>601926

Is this guy our first liberal poster?

>1. Background checks

We have that already

>2. Fingerprint scanner

Ridiculous and impossible

>>602054

they've existed before

ancaps technically count as "liberals" too

>>602038

They can fuck off too.

You know why you're a liberal and not a communist? Because you never ask "why".

First off, let me just get your silly claim out of the way before I get into my main point. You claim I don't need more guns than I can carry. Funny you claim you're a liberal, because you sound awfully authoritarian saying that my ability to own a gun should be based on need rather than merely my liberty to do whatever the fuck I want provided I'm not hurting anyone else. Owning more guns "than you can carry" isn't "silly", it's much like owning more books than I need…or cars, or whatever the fuck. They're objects, and my ability to own something isn't based on someone else thinking it's silly or not.

Now, mental healh/background checks…sure, I'm on board with it. But fucking fingerprint readers? Oh me oh my, you're confused. You've got to be kidding me if you think I'm ever going to believe you've held a weapon before let alone use one if you think that sort of thing will work with a gun in practice. Second of all, it's super fucking invasive and just because you say that it won't be used to record fingerprints doesn't mean that it will happen. Last point on this totally fucking ridiculous idea of fingerprint scanners (because it is a ridiculous idea)…how will that lower violent crime? Do you expect everyone to just lay down the weapons currently in circulation, even criminals, and pick up the new guns just because the government says they have to? How daft can you get?

Now I said earlier that liberals aren't communists because they don't ask why. You see gun violence and say "oh man, gun violence exists. Let's solve this problem, but treating the problem as it exists on its own". But you never seem to ask why gun violence occurs. Could it be that material conditions exist in which people are forced or coerced into committing crimes with guns? Could poor mental health be a sign of society at large rather than instances of random craziness dispersed in a population?

There are larger issues at work here than just fucking guns. You'll never solve the problem of gun violence because it doesn't exist on its own, it exists as it is created by a system of production which perpetuates it.

Protip to all the "communists" reading this: If you call yourself a communist in any way want to stem gun ownership, you're not a communist.

>>602176

not to mention that a scanner would be a huge intrusion on privacy. You'd have to keep a record, and who knows what that could be kept for. I don't want the state to have my records.

>>602402

This.

But in honesty this could have been condensed and the unhelpful rhetoric could have been trimmed. Present the facts, and we will usually convince. People don't like being lectured.

>>602402

To each according to his need, faggot, some communist you are

>>601926

>As a liberal

why are you here?

>>602796

Exactly, so what's with the essay post? lol

Nice pic.

>>602825

When it comes to necessities. But what about luxuries? Even Marx didn't advocate giving everyone the same thing.

>muh background checks

>muh James Bond

Shut up, you liberal pussy. Class war needa guns that work without government approval.

>3. Invest in free mental health facilities and outreah programs in every state so deranged individuals can get help for free before they go off the deep end. It will pay for itself when violent crime drops.

I do have some sympathy with this proposal, however who can we trust to determine what is considered a mental illness and what is not? If it is the government, then what's to stop them from creating new and new mental illness? If it's state funded scientists then the risk is just as high. They could start promoting the idea that being against the government is a mental illness thus such an individual should not carry a weapon, but should be sent to rehabilitation. You might say that I am a tinfoil hat wearer, but there is a "scientific" article that promotes this very idea.

https://web.archive.org/web/20150912200634/http://www.tetrahedron.org/articles/info_schedule_battle/Anti_Government_Phobia.html

The article doesn't exist any more but thankfully the way back machine exists

>This study conclusively demonstrates that unfounded fear of government is a recognizable mental illness, closely related to paranoid schizophrenia. Anti-Government Phobia (AGP) differs from most mental illnesses, however, in that it is highly infectious and has an acute onset. Symptoms include extreme suspiciousness, conspiracy-mongering, delusional thought patterns, staunch "us against them" mentality, withdrawal from reality, and often religious fanaticism. Having the patient committed to a qualified mental health institution is the best option for family and loved ones. For this reason, all psychiatrists and family physicians should be provided with educational materials which will help them recognize the various symptoms and warning signs accompanying onset. Since comparatively little is known about Anti-Government Phobia at the present time, a government-funded health commission should be set up to oversee, and help focus, future research.

>>602825

>not differentiating between different types of property

Don't worry, you'll get past the 11th grade too.

>>603038

We're not all like that, anon, it's just an imageboard. I certainly can't think of any board where expressing an opinion someone disagrees with won't have them at your throat.

That said I think /leftypol/ is better than /pol/ because the actual regulars and people who give a shit do attempt to justify their opinion with reasoned argument and sources. There's a certain amount of memeing and no shortage of retards (just look at the gender thread) but more genuine discussion than /pol/ IMO. And remember the sticky:

"The term “politically correct” was used disparagingly, to refer to someone whose loyalty to the Communist Party line overrode compassion, and led to bad politics. It was used by Socialists against Communists, and was meant to separate out Socialists who believed in egalitarian moral ideas from dogmatic Communists who would advocate and defend party positions regardless of their moral substance."

Leftist political incorrectness is about not demanding ideological conformity. We generally have a sense that everyone is welcome here, as >>602049 says, liberal, socdem, demsoc, marxist, ancom or otherwise. As long as you can back up your positions.

>As a liberal

ok?

>There are many Americans that don't live close to a police station, and so they feel that they need to take their defense into their own hands

I feel more scared of the police than of anyone else and I live in europe.

> I don't recall guns somehow intervening and preventing any law.

You need to reread history. Power and power dynamics are always about force and the threat of force. All of the advances in workers rights were gained in my country because the workers protested and revolted, they tried to stage a revolution. This was possible because they had weapons. Back then they had cannons and advanced shit too, but the avarage enforced is not going to have a drone or cannon, nor is he willing to use it on civilians.

>Waiting for a physical confrontation before being politically active and informed is lazy and short-sighted.

Nice misunderstanding of reality, dumbfuck.

>Every gun comes with a finger scanning device.

Lol, you are going to put complicated, delicate electronics into something as violent as a gun? Also, no matter how fancy you make it, I could strip it out within a day. Its not software that can be encrypted. A gun works purely mechanically. You could hotwire them just as easily as pre-computerized cars.

>Questions? Comments? I'd like to know.

Comment: Go away

>>603038

>4. Hoarding guns in case of a "worst-case scenario" is really just waiting until the problem arrives at your doorstep. I'm sure YOU aren't ignoring politics, but many people are lazy and only have the energy to put up one line of defense and have given up all other options. Less than half of this country votes. Maybe if we made voting mandatory like Australia there wouldn't be such desperate extremism.

>

Oh damn, you honestly thing that voting works. Its even more hilarious because you are american.

Perhaps you have not noticed it, sweetheart, but this is an image board full of hard line communists who want to overthrow the entire economic and political system, not a bunch of social democrats who want slightly less exploitation.

>The army has sound cannons, tanks, bombs, smoke bombs, and could cut off the water and power to your house. If you're saving guns for that special day, it would just result in a standoff until you run out of food, ammo and water. The solution is to nip encroaching powers in the bud by participating in politics. Your guns are a grown-ups version of a security blanket.

>Government can cut off X

Who do you think is the "government". Will the president personally turn off the water? No. He will instruct workers to do so, workers which can turn it on or off if they so please. The people who operate infrastructure have the power.

>At least I'm proposing SOMETHING instead of sitting on my ass dismissing anyone who cares.

Like voting?

>am not aware of any study that says that perpetrators of mass shootings are "mentally healthy"

Dont care

> Thumbprint scanners are not impractical,

They are, they can be hacked and fooled piss easily.

>>603126

nice try OP

You honestly think something like a fingerprint scanner is going to last any length of time when you fire the gun?

Also, you can still take it off or hack it.

>>603126

>actually thinking a thumbprint scanner will survive the repeated violent slamming back and forth from recoil and the constant heating and cooling inside a firearm

>>603038

>3. Thumbprint scanners are not impractical, I have one on my computer. They can be used to open safes and car doors now. We have the technology. Furthermore, if you had read my entire post, you would see that I specified that the scanners aren't stored anywhere else but that one gun and can't be rewritten, copied, downloaded, uploaded or anything. It's more secure than having a key, because you can't kill the original owner of the gun and steal the key.

So you also want to make it so that firearms can't be sold between private sellers. GG No re, i'd offer services just to jailbreak that shit for cheap. A dremel and a soldering iron would be more than enough to get rid of any lock it uses.

>4. Hoarding guns in case of a "worst-case scenario" is really just waiting until the problem arrives at your doorstep. I'm sure YOU aren't ignoring politics, but many people are lazy and only have the energy to put up one line of defense and have given up all other options. Less than half of this country votes. Maybe if we made voting mandatory like Australia there wouldn't be such desperate extremism.

The problem is already past our doorstep. The problem broke down the door centuries ago and is sitting on my couch demanding a blowjob if I want to be able to eat food from my own fridge, waving its own gun around in anger.

Less than half the country votes because they realize that they're participating in a heavily rigged system that ensures that their vote is barely relevant, the sentiment behind it even less so. Most people recognize that the ruling class exists, and that most all voting is nothing but shuffling people from one position to another without ever changing the game up.

>5. The army has sound cannons, tanks, bombs, smoke bombs, and could cut off the water and power to your house. If you're saving guns for that special day, it would just result in a standoff until you run out of food, ammo and water. The solution is to nip encroaching powers in the bud by participating in politics. Your guns are a grown-ups version of a security blanket.

Go ahead, use an Abrams and let it fire a 120mm high explosive round on me in an apartment building middle of a major city. Better yet, let's watch what happens when we have multi-ton bombs dropped from F-35's landing in Chicago, New York, Los Angeles. Enjoy rebuilding the country. Oh, and dealing with the now hundreds of thousands of people now pissed off that the army is ripping their homes to shreds Protip: it's why islamic extremism is growing stronger; the US' reckless destruction in the area has convinced the locals that the islamists are right.

Of course, Cliven Bundy and his retarded cousin ended up showing just how much of cowards the feds really are. Their drones didn't help much there.

>If the proletariats can join forces as one and stand against tyranny, they should do it now when times are good instead of a time of survival when it's every man for himself. It would be very difficult to cooperate then.

Why in the fuck would anyone revolt when times are good? "Yeah, things are fine, but I'm going to throw my life on the line anyway on the small chance I could make it better. Or maybe I could just get a somewhat better paying job that will also make my life better. That sounds substantially more reasonable."

>6. At least I'm proposing SOMETHING instead of sitting on my ass dismissing anyone who cares. Claiming society is too sick to get better isn't a useful thing to say.

Taking tylenol won't get rid of a tumor. Tough as it is, there are not always feel-good, nobody loses solutions to life's problems.

>>603178

>Cliven Bundy and his retarded cousin ended up showing just how much of cowards the feds really are.

You mean the people who are now in jail? The feds got all of them and shot the leader of the wildlife refuge takeover. The feds have never been pussies. Ruby Ridge, Waco, they play their cards smart.

>>603171

>This is like saying that you could not put delicate electronics in cars because they operate at high speeds and need to brake quickly. Are you a fucking retard?

Cars dont get vibrated at high frequences.

>You just described guns as "violent" which makes you look like someone who has emotional connotations about guns

>hurhurhurhurhur

>howdoienglish

Fucking hell mate, shaking "violently" is a manner of speech.

>First pic

It must drive a servo to lock the spring, as such you can rewire it with a soldering iron and a pair of pliers.

>That second picture

It literally is just a cover with a fingerprint scanner. Steal the gun and you can take it off within ten minute with a mechanical spin-saw.

>>603183

>Cars dont get vibrated at high frequences.

This is just wrong. Also, do you understand what a combustion engine is?

>"something as violent as a gun"

>just a figure of speech lol!!!

You're retarded. I can't believe you're still insisting that this technology is ~infeasible~ when it already exists. You even brought up pre-computerized cars; we could simply make computerized guns and the technology would be as impossible to rewire as modern cars. The biometric locks I showed are simply early inventions intended to be compatible with older models. "But it's hard/imperfect" is no reason not to do anything.

>>603198

>Also, do you understand what a combustion engine is?

The combustion engine is installed away from the delicate electronics that control it, in such a way that it doesnt vibrate it. Something which cant be done with a gun.

>already exists

And as I pointed out, its totally useless.

>we could simply make computerized guns and the technology would be as impossible to rewire as modern cars.

Unlikely. Cars became computerized because it has a lot of moving parts and a lot of different circumstances under which it functions optimally with different settings.

>Figure of speech isnt real

And you call me a retard? You are so autistic that you think that someone uses a common figure of speech, the are actually employing some underlying psychological trauma.

On the other hand, a gun just need to keep repeating the exact same motion over and over again.

>"But it's hard/imperfect" is no reason not to do anything.

Tell me why people will buy complicated, more fragile things, which can still be circumvented anyway, if it doesn't even have added functionality?

>>603182

>>603198

>the technology would be as impossible to rewire as modern cars.

Again.

Dremel and soldering iron.

Guns are not complicated machines.

>>603178

> The problem is already past our doorstep, the system's rigged, nothing is sacred, blah blah blah

I'm seeing a lot of naysaying but no solutions. Your negativity gets us nowhere.

>>603225

They could be rigged to not work as easily as a safe that resists lockpicking.

>>604074

How? I'm serious, how could you make it not work? Any kind of positive lock that blocks any part of the system can be cut out. Any negative lock can be filled in.

Any electronic firing system can be short circuited. Firearms do not have the luxury of cars and safes of being able to take lots and lots of space-filling, intricate parts.

>>604072

Educate, agitate, organize, revolt. That's the only solution, that's the only one that's ever really been a solution.

>>604155

Let's just say the average crazed kid that wants to go on a killing spree is not going to know how to "hotwire" a fingerprint-activated device. And that's enough.

> lots of space-filling, intricate parts.

Yeah, because machines never get smaller over time, right?

>That's the only solution

Your all-or-nothing philosophy will go nowhere. If the opposition can introduce gradual changes, so can we.

>>604626

No, on average, firearm parts have not gotten any smaller than they were in the early 1900s.

If the average crazed kid wants to go on a shooting spree, if he's got no criminal record, how exactly do you intend to stop him from getting a gun even legally? Or just looking up how to jailbreak a gun online? Because I can tell you it'll pop up on google pretty fast.

Gradual changes will allow you to shift things within the current system. You will not be allowed to replace the system itself. I seriously want you to ask if you think "Strip the bourgeoisie (the people who heavily pay all congressmen off) of their property" will ever make it through congress.

If you actually think that's possible, you're a fucking moron.

>>601926

I've often wondered how America could make its gun laws more… coherent. Plenty ITT have commented that you need to go through a background check. There are (as always), loopholes in that which could do with being closed.

The first thing you'd need to do is make background checks mandatory for all sales - for private sellers that aren't able to conduct a record check themselves, then gun stores or the police should be able to officiate the sale. Not only does it improve safety, it reduces the pitfalls that are common in online shopping through sites like Craigslist (such as being ripped off, being sold a dud etc.)

Secondly, you'd need a decent FEDERAL licensing system. I'm not in the public policy business, but it could look something like this:

In order to get any kind of Firearms license (which you will need to purchase said firearms as well as owning them), you need to pass a background check and prove that you can safely handle and store said firearms. Law enforcement would have the right to check that you were complying with these the provisions of your license, and you could lose your license if you're proved to be a risk to the public or breach the terms. As for the licenses themselves, it'd probably go like this:

Class A - Agriculture: you can keep rifles and shotguns for pest control purposes. With this license, you can offset the tax on your ammunition and guns because you're using it for business purposes, rather than funsies. Taking the guns held under this license off the property they are registered to (unless it's for repair, to sell it etc.) would be illegal.

Class B - Weapons for Business Use: This is for people like rent-a-cops, security guards etc. In order to get this, you'd need to prove you were also a decent shot and trained in things like proportionate response. You'd also get the right to offset tax. You'd only be permitted to openly carry your weapon while on duty with this license - at all other times it must be stored.

Class C - Sport: Whether you're hunting, target shooting or anything else. Hunting permits would be noted against your license. While it would be illegal to walk about town with your rifle slung over your shoulder, you could carry it in a gun bag until you got to where you were going.

Class D - Self Defense: This would be the most rigorous license to hold. Not only would you need to meet the conditions of a Class B license (proving you're a decent shot, knowing when you should shoot etc), as well as undergoing regular psychological evaluations to prove that you're not going to take any unnecessary risks. Once you've passed all that, you'd be allowed to keep a gun about your person.

There'd be another category, for people who hold more than one type of license.

>>604678

>if he's got no criminal record, how exactly do you intend to stop him from getting a gun even legally?

Age restrictions would be a good start - under my hypothetical system, you couldn't get a license for self defense or business purposes until you're 18. Sport licenses would be open to those aged 16 and above (under 16s would be required to hunt/shoot with the supervision of a license holder over 18). Agricultural licenses would be linked to the farm rather than individuals that live on it.

>>604722

>you'd need a decent FEDERAL licensing system

SHALL

NOT

BE

INFRINGED

>>604722

Do you think 4 year olds are allowed to buy firearms or something? There's still minimum age restrictions on guns and it pops up during background checks.

>>604730

What part of "here's this plastic card that proves I can safely use this gun I've got here" is infringing on your rights? Unless of course being spread-eagled on the bonnet while getting frisked by a burly cop is what you'd prefer…

>>604737

No, but you hear of plenty 4 year olds getting shot because one of their idiot parents kept a loaded gun in a bedside cabinet - hence why I made a big thing about how guns are stored.

>>604748

>What part of "here's this plastic card that proves I can safely use this gun I've got here" is infringing on your rights?

If I must earn permission from an external and illegitimate (and imaginary, but that's another topic) authority, that's infringement.

Your proposal is authoritarian garbage.

>>604755

You need to obtain permission from said external and illegitimate authority to operate a motor vehicle or aircraft. What is magically different about a gun?

Unless of course your point is

>hurr durr ebul staetists

in which case I guess I better prepare for a circular conversation.

After the hypothetical revolution, Marx reckons that the state will eventually wither away. Most seem to think that this means eventually no governments and no states, whereas I think he was aiming more in the direction of states losing all the "spooky" stuff, leaving a smallish organisation to make sure fullcommunism.exe is free of bugs and so on, as well as arbitration and dispute resolution within a fixed geographical area.

>>604807

Guns and multi-ton vehicles aren't comparable. There are arguments to be made against drivers' licences, too.

Your proposal sounds like something written by someone who knows nothing about firearms, and doesn't use them. It also sounds like something written by a non-American; but I won't assume that you're not an American. Either way, I wouldn't tolerate it for a minute, and nor would any other sane person.

>>604812

"Illegal" is a spook. If I want to possess a weapon, that's a choice for me to make. I don't really need spooks like laws or constitutions; but they can help to make things easier, because others believe in them and enforce them.

Gun-grabbers please leave.

>>604722

Makes the most sense. People need licenses to operate vehicles, and that has a much greater impact on someone's livelihood than a gun, so a gun license makes sense.

To say otherwise is implying we can accomplish a revolution entirely on foot.

>>604856

Guns:

Can kill people

Take training to operate properly

Aren't allowed to be operated by kids

Cars:

Can kill people

Take training to operate properly

Aren't allowed to be operated by kids

Guns:

Can and do kill many innocent people every year

Prevent exactly zero forms of tyranny every year

If I want to own child slaves, that's a choice for me to make. Slave-grabbers please leave.

>>604812

>constitution is illegal

So this is why the supreme court upholds it's amendments? I recognized that it is not enforced, but don't tell me that the constitution bears zero relevance in the United State's political discourse because of something said by one of the fathers.

>>604869

>>604859

>>604856

>>604807

Still want to know why we should agree cede even the smallest thing to the bourgeoisie. Why shouldn't we make them tear it from our clenched fingers if they want it?

>>602832

Swconded

>But unless you have an army, there's no point in storing more guns than you can carry during a possible incident. That's my first point, unless you're planning a massacre, it's silly to have more guns than you can effectively carry at one time.

dat liberalism

> if a government steps towards fascism, it's done in Congress

Yes, because coup d'etats totally aren't a thing.

> I don't recall guns somehow intervening and preventing any law

Laws are just ink on a piece of paper. They just happen to be relevant because of the states monopoly on the use of force. If the working class is armed to the point at which the police have no real power, then the law doesn't mean shit

>Background checks for mental illness and criminal records involving violent crime before any purchase is made.

The state could potentially extend this to radical leftists

>Every gun comes with a finger scanning device

No, smartguns are autistic as fuck

>>604869

Cars kill far more people than guns; by your standards, cars should be even harder to obtain than guns. Falls and trips kill many innocent people each year, too; a lot more than guns do. Household chemicals, food poisoning, pharmaceuticals, alcohol… Maybe we should have the state licence those things, too?

>Slave-grabbers please leave

>'Owning' a human being is just like 'owning' an inanimate object!

Great comparison.

Gun grabbers please leave.

>1. Background checks for mental illness and criminal records involving violent crime before any purchase is made. I'm sure you trust you to have a gun, but I was actually in a mental hospital, do you trust me?

Yes, governments have never ever abused that before. Shit dude. You a tyrant?

>2. Every gun comes with a finger scanning device. No internet, no way to download the fingerprint, just a device that scans, records and saves that fingerprint. The gun can only work of the finger is touching one part of the handle the entire time. This prevents users aside from the background-checked buyer from using it. This also prevents someone from stealing the gun and using it, it can never be reset. This device is also turned on by the retailer when it's properly sold, like a credit card.

Jesus christ, a gun botnet. How Tyrannical. Not that it would work anyway. Fingerprints are easy to graft from a photo, as shown at a recent HOPE talk (or was it DEFCON?), and fingerprints are not actually unique. Remember the London tube bombing? Some guy in America got arrested because he had the same fingerprint as the bomber.

>3. Invest in free mental health facilities and outreah programs in every state so deranged individuals can get help for free before they go off the deep end. It will pay for itself when violent crime drops.

This is literally the only good thing you said.

>>604876

Also, i feel the need to point out.

You are <i>not</i> required to have a license to own a car. You are <i>not</i> required to have a license to drive a car.

You are required to have a license to drive a car on public roads. You are not required to have a license if you are on private property.

The only comparison you could make is saying you need to have a license to have a gun when you're on public property.

>>601926

The fact of the matter is: Ownership of weaponry, particularly large weaponry does hold back tyranny, because it does give the population the opportunity to form a militia or an even greater army, something that cannot be done if we are limited to 10 round magazines along with various regulated accessories and firearms.

When the masses have equal footing in terms of arms technology compared to the government, it gives them a chance to effectively combat the government, it is that simple. You will find only one example in history in which a technologically inferior group of people effectively resisted a superior power, and that was during the Anglo-Zulu war, and although the Zulus put up a good fight, it resulted in British victory.

That is just speaking about the government v. The people

Now we must speak about the people v. the people.

Restricting firearms is an overall stupid idea in urban populations, as it gives criminals an upper hand in taking advantage of the common civilian. Almost 100% of all legal registered firearms obtained legally are not involved in any murders, the gun issue is places such as chicago and LA is due to the wide circulation of illegally obtained, unregistered firearms that come from south of the border. If you put tight restrictions or even ban firearms altogether, you will increase the amount of weaponry smuggled in from Mexico.

On a side note, given that from 2000-2014 there was a recorded number of 1000-1500 deaths by mass shootings compared to 8000 deaths by firearms in the year 2014 alone, i think trying to use mass shootings as ammunition for your argument is like how BLM trys only to address the insignificant white on black crime issue versus the massive black on black issue.

Overall, in all aspects, restrictions on guns are useless and will only do more harm than good. Often times people will use Britain or Germany as an example of instances in which gun control has worked, but not only do they fail to realize that especially in britain they have replaced firearm assault with knife assault, they don't take into account the size of these countries compared to the entire united states along with the many densely populated cities the united states has. It will never worked in the US, as chicago and LA have shown us, so stop trying.

>>601926

The fact of the matter is: Ownership of weaponry, particularly large weaponry does hold back tyranny, because it does give the population the opportunity to form a militia or an even greater army, something that cannot be done if we are limited to 10 round magazines along with various regulated accessories and firearms.

When the masses have equal footing in terms of arms technology compared to the government, it gives them a chance to effectively combat the government, it is that simple. You will find only one example in history in which a technologically inferior group of people effectively resisted a superior power, and that was during the Anglo-Zulu war, and although the Zulus put up a good fight, it resulted in British victory.

That is just speaking about the government v. The people

Now we must speak about the people v. the people.

Restricting firearms is an overall stupid idea in urban populations, as it gives criminals an upper hand in taking advantage of the common civilian. Almost 100% of all legal registered firearms obtained legally are not involved in any murders, the gun issue is places such as chicago and LA is due to the wide circulation of illegally obtained, unregistered firearms that come from south of the border. If you put tight restrictions or even ban firearms altogether, you will increase the amount of weaponry smuggled in from Mexico.

On a side note, given that from 2000-2014 there was a recorded number of 1000-1500 deaths by mass shootings compared to 8000 deaths by firearms in the year 2014 alone, i think trying to use mass shootings as ammunition for your argument is like how BLM trys only to address the insignificant white on black crime issue versus the massive black on black issue.

Overall, in all aspects, restrictions on guns are useless and will only do more harm than good. Often times people will use Britain or Germany as an example of instances in which gun control has worked, but not only do they fail to realize that especially in britain they have replaced firearm assault with knife assault, they don't take into account the size of these countries compared to the entire united states along with the many densely populated cities the united states has. It will never worked in the US, as chicago and LA have shown us, so stop trying.

CookedKike let me fuckin post you glass-boned piece of shit

>>604909

Would you be opposed to that, then?

>>604876

Because the American's obsession with guns is more of a danger to itself than the bourgeoisie. You can say it exists to resist tyranny all day long, but it hasn't since the revolutionary war, despite how bad it's gotten. If guns really solved government overreach, why has nobody alive seen it work?

>>604890

> coup

Unnecessary in the age of lobbyists and superPACs

> if the population is armed

This is a bad thing. If the population could ignore laws because they're armed to the teeth, it's basically anarchy so good and bad laws are out the window. I could steal from you if my guns outnumbered yours.

> mental health screening is bad

Everything has the potential for abuse but so is the way things are now. Just protest to make sure the mental health guidelines are non-partisan.

> autistic

Great debating skills, friendo

>>604896

Those deaths are caused on accident, not deliberate acts of murder. You can design a safer car, you can't design a less lethal gun. People should have gun licenses just like they can have concealed-carry permits, because it's a muh privilege,

>>604898

I'm not a tyrant, thanks for asking.

If you had bothered to read my post, you would see that the point of the fingerprint scanner is to prevent someone else from stealing the gun and using it, like the Sandy Hook perpetrator. It would be just as easy to dust a regular gun for fingerprints. There is no internet involved in the device, so no botnet.

>>605000

> it has never worked, so don't try

Hey NRA, Australia would like a word with you. Their gun control is reasonable and live-saving. Your attempt to equate gun ownership with liberty falls apart when you mentioned how often it's used to kill proletariats, versus starting a revolution which only happened when this nation didn't have an army.

The only way you'll convince me gun control is bad is when I see a citizen beat the government at something except being a rube for the NRA.

>>605002

Britain is actually a success story. There's no chance of a mass shooting with a knife.

>>607487

>This is a bad thing.

Fuck off.

>Those deaths are caused on accident, not deliberate acts of murder.

So, only the intent matters? The result is the same: deaths. The majority of gun murders are committed with illegal guns, not legally-acquired ones. You're also ignoring that suicides by gun comprise a lot of the U.S. gun deaths.

>Hey NRA, Australia would like a word with you.

Australia is an authoritarian shithole and international irrelevance. No one cares what it has to say about anything, let alone guns.

>Their gun control is reasonable and live-saving.

>live-saving

I can take care of my own life, thanks. I don't want your protection.

>Their gun control is reasonable

>Ban all semi-automatic firearms

>Ban all "military style" firearms (AKA "the scary black ones")

>Ban all concealed or open-carried weapons, including all edged and blunt weapons (does not apply to cops, lol)

>Enforce draconian licencing and registration policies

>Enforce absurd magazine-capacity limits

>Enforce absurd, compulsory safe policies

>Enforce absurd import policies

>Ban all airsoft toys and almost all replica guns, no matter non-functional they are (toys are very dangerous, after all)

>Some of the world's most authoritarian gun laws

>reasonable

Fuck off.

>>607488

>muh mass shootings

Fuck off.

>>609017

http://www.marxist.com/an-introduction-to-historical-materialism.htm

>>609017

>Capitalism is responsible for many things, but you can't blame it for violent crime and murder.

In many cases you can. Capitalism creates the social conditions needed for most violent crimes to even be a thing (muggings for instance), and alienation (including the separation of the sexes) as a result of those conditions gives rise to antisocial tendencies. People don't simply become violent in a vacuum, they aren't simply "born that way".

While genetic faults could make some people less empathetic, or even prone to anger (though this is debatable), an environmental trigger of some sort is necessary to turn those tendencies into antisocial behavior.

>>609056

>Alienation as a result of those [capitalistic] conditions gives rise to antisocial tendencies.

Prove this please. Humans are violent and dominate each other as early as childhood.

>While genetic faults could make some people less empathetic, or even prone to anger (though this is debatable), an environmental trigger of some sort is necessary to turn those tendencies into antisocial behavior.

This is implying that there is ANY economic or social system that won't trigger those who are predisposed to violence to become violent. Even the bourgeoisie go insane and commit murder, rape, theft etc. I'm just saying that I think that violent crimes are more due to the nature of certain humans than Capitalism.

50,000 years ago, you could murder a man, take all of his belongings, kidnap/rape his daughter and it would benefit you greatly. No justice would befall you. I think that some humans, no matter what class or system they belong to, are motivated by these primitive instincts that benefited us at one point in history.

You could just as easily formulate a justification that "The Patriarchy" is responsible for gun crime in the world today.

>>601949

Just remember, at any point in time you could be kinghit and die. Guns are the least of your worries.

>>607517

>fuck off

Great debating skills.

> Australia is a bad place to live

Not according to the facts.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index

I wonder if their sane gun laws helped their life expectancy.

> illegal guns

Which is why my proposal for fingerprint-activated guns is so clever, it eliminates the black market.

> I can take care of my own life

Then live in Somalia if you're such a bad-ass, clearly the benefits of society are wasted on you mister internet tough guy.

> mass shootings are to be mocked

Because being unable to empathize with the victim's families makes you a real toughie, right? The fact that our country has them far more often than any other developed nation is cause for concern.

If you want to stop gun crime, stop poverty.

>>609017

Lol crime is much easier with a gun, and what causes most crime is socio-economic struggle.

>>609068

Oh look a self identified liberal believes in Human Nature, Human nature doesn't exist, patterns in behavior develop from matierial conditions: Human Nature is an artificiality.

>>609088

>Great debating skills.

They're more than your "guns are bad because I say so" arguments deserve.

>Australia is a bad place to live

Whom are you quoting?

>their sane gun laws

"Ban all guns, except those of the state" ≠ sane

>Which is why my proposal for fingerprint-activated guns is so clever, it eliminates the black market.

Your James Bond solution isn't clever; it's like something that a child would come up with. It's literally laughable to anyone who has a basic knowledge of firearms. Plus, a black market of "cracked" guns would almost surely arise.

>Then live in Somalia if you're such a bad-ass

>le somalia argument :^)

Are you reading from a playbook? Go back to reddit.

>mass shootings are to be mocked

No, they are just a statistical irrelevance. You just have an irrational, emotional response to their coverage by newsmedia and exploitation by anti-gun groups.

Again, fuck off.

>>609111

>They're more than your "guns are bad because I say so" arguments deserve.

If you had actually read my posts you'll see I never said guns are bad, they're just falsely promoted as the solution to tyranny.

>Whom are you quoting?

You literally called Australia an authoritarian shithole.

>"Ban all guns, except those of the state" ≠ sane

That's not the law and you know it.

Here, let me spoonfeed you.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Australia

>Your James Bond solution isn't clever; it's like something that a child would come up with. It's literally laughable to anyone who has a basic knowledge of firearms.

Well get ready to literally laugh, friendo.

http://www.engadget.com/2014/05/12/smart-gun-explainer/

http://www.intelligun.com/

>le somalia argument :^)

> le lack of a rebuttal

> Go back to reddit.

I wasn't aware my browser had to be exclusive. What other faux-pas am I committing by just visiting all sorts of websites?

>No, they are just a statistical irrelevance.

Like you ;)

> Again, fuck off.

I'm here to stay, because 8chan gives us the freedom to share ideas.

Firearms training and ownership should be mandatory for adults. If a citizen fails to produce a firearm upon monthly firearms testing (or fails to pass the test), they will be sent to a gulag. Where they will receive firearms training and reasonable accommodation until they prove themselves capable of concealed carry. Then they will be sent home with a CC permit and a new gun. So your options are to either get a fucking gun and learn how to use it or we will fucking make you train until you're good at using it. Obviously handicapped people and old people are exempt.

>>609136

>they're just falsely promoted as the solution to tyranny.

An armed populace is harder to intimidate, control and dominate than an unarmed one. That's the bottom line.

>You literally called Australia an authoritarian shithole.

Because it is. That doesn't say anything to what kind of place it is to live in.

>That's not the law and you know it.

Can an Australian go online, or visit a firearms dealer, and freely and easily purchase a firearm? No.

>Here, let me spoonfeed you.

I don't need you to. I live in Australia and live every day with its tyrannical anti-gun legislation. I'm more familiar with the laws than are you.

>Well get ready to literally laugh, friendo.

Thanks for the links; I indeed lol'd. I'm sure the drug dealers and gangbangers of America's cities will be stumped by such popular and widespread developments in the firearms industry.

>I wasn't aware my browser had to be exclusive. What other faux-pas am I committing by just visiting all sorts of websites?

You tell me to "go to somalia;" I tell you to go to reddit. Give shit, get shit.

>Like you ;)

Unfortunately for authoritarians, like yourself, opinion polls show that the majority of the U.S. populace supports private gun ownership; the right to which is enshrined in the country's most important, and most treasured legal document. There's also a large industry that has a big stake in that right, and many American jobs to protect; as the gun industry is one of the few manufacturing industries that hasn't outsourced its labour force from the third world.

But, yeah, I'm the statistical irrelevance.

>I'm here to stay, because 8chan gives us the freedom to share ideas.

It also gives me the freedom to tell you to fuck off. I suggest to Australia, where your anti-gun sympathies are quite popular; and where you can sit around with other arrogant, wimpy suburbanites, shaking your heads and tsk-tsking at those crazy Americans who just won't see sense, and willingly surrender their arms and freedom, like we did.

>>609267

Just in response to the picture, 'cause it made me think:

1) Are the fishing lessons free, too, though?

2) Even if they are free; they take time too. Time costs money in capitalist society - time for fishing lessons is not time spent earning money. So even free fishing lesson are not as "free" as free fish, if you like.

>>609267

In all seriousness, if free fish are available, why NOT get them?

>hurr durr muh lazy entitled people

The entire point of making new and better technology and societal changes is to make things easier. This argument could very easily lead towards arguing that we shouldn't have nice things.

>>609347

this guy >>601934 is right though

communist gun toting bears would be awesome

The fingerprint thing as mandatory is terrifying because governments WILL exploit it. It'd be funny if uppity /pol/yps got caught because of it but the NSA would probably RFID chip us if they could get away with it.

Though I do like the idea as a consumer product so you can own a CCW or home defense gun that only you can fire. Burglar tries to shoot you and nothing happens.

>>601926

>Every gun comes with a finger scanning device. No internet, no way to download the fingerprint, just a device that scans, records and saves that fingerprint. The gun can only work of the finger is touching one part of the handle the entire time. This prevents users aside from the background-checked buyer from using it. This also prevents someone from stealing the gun and using it, it can never be reset. This device is also turned on by the retailer when it's properly sold, like a credit card.

what the actual fuck? do you live in mass effect?

>>609440

Those guns, actually, exist in reality, tho.

Good bait, but I'll reply for fun

>Being a liberal

Literally the definition of capitalist scum. You just want to make it so capitalism lasts a little longer before it cannibalizes itself. If you really cared about poor people you'd support giving people a living wage instead of giving enough poor people enough gibsmedats so they don't rise up and they look to maintain the system… why do you think most poor blacks believe that socialism doesn't help the poor?

>Gun debate

There is no gun debate here, socialists and anarchists understand the need for firearms, your reforms are foolish in my opinion, mental health checks make sense, but the fingerprint would cost too much, make it ineffective. It doesn't stop most deranged people from getting guns, could be easily hacked, makes them useless in a revolution and will make them too expensive for the working class to own.

>>609505

>Literally the definition of capitalist scum.

Yeah, like it's my sole effort that's keeping capitalism alive. Your "with us or against us" radicalism will never pay off because you're alienating everyone that might have been an ally.

And by the way I'm for a living wage. But you didn't bother asking me, did you?

>but the fingerprint would cost too much, make it ineffective, etc.

http://www.intelligun.com/

>one of the handful of times a liberal ever shows up on this board

>everyone just tears him to shreds and tells him to fuck off

This is some great educating and agitating, guys. At this rate, I'm sure the revolution will happen any day now. I mean, what person WOULDN'T be persuaded to become a communist with such great arguments as "fuck off you piece of shit" and "SEND HIM TO THE GULAG"?

How about this: Any police gun should have a built-in device that makes a photo whenever the gun is fired.

>>609267

That becomes nature, inherit qualities linked to intelligence aren't strictly human because .evolution processes affect any organic being's development. You're proclaiming humans are born to act a certain way because it's in their nature when it isn't, there's a distinction between the forces of nature and "human nature", and "human nature" being strictly human doesn't exist, such patterns come from institution, condition, etc.

>>609699

>http://www.intelligun.com/

What if someone have to borrow my gun quickly?

What if there is some grease/dirt on my hands and i need to fire quickly?

What if I wear gloves and i have no time to take them off?

What if the battery dies?

What if there is a killswitch intended for dissidents? (Do you really think the gubberment is uninterested in population control?)

What if there is a malfunction in the circuitry?

No way in hell i will ever use Intelligun or any similar system!

This is just liberal propaganda and a way to sell error-prone castrated guns.

Weapons jam enough as it is, we don't need this crap!

>>609746

>a consumer product is political propaganda

kys tbh fam

>>609722

OP here, I like the idea. Same should go for tasers and there should be body cameras too.

>>609746

You should probably send these questions to Intelligun and they could direct you to their FAQs page.

>What if I wear gloves

Who are you, OJ Simpson?

>What if my hands are dirty

Sounds like a personal problem.

>What if someone has to borrow my gun

They should get their own, otherwise a thief could just as easily "borrow" yours.

>What if something goes wrong

I assume that's no problem considering people like you tend to stockpile guns.

>Is there a killswitch

How would that work if the gun isn't connected to the internet?

>>609753

>>609760

https://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=8653227&cid=51355205

>>609694

>>609760

>>609753

Literal porky apologist shitwipes who deserve to be put against the wall.

>>609930

The upper class will trick people into thinking being pro-gun is for fascism. It already has succeeded to a certain degree.

>>609969

Then I really need to get to work on arming the poor.

>>604876

Where did I say that porky is going to take your guns? There's some substantial difference between a system making sure somebody isn't going to go all Derek Klebold with that gun they're holding and the Government banning guns.

As I said previously, after the withering of "the state", we're still going to require organisations to ensure that the surgeon who's about to operate on your spleen is qualified to do so, as opposed to being say, an accountant.

>>609088

>fingerprint guns will eliminate the black market

Considering that you can make an AK-47 with some pig iron, a log, piano wire and a small stone let alone improvised firearms or anything 3D printed, I don't think this will catch on.

>>609157

>have fun fighting 200+ years of legal precedent

Not really fam - the US had the beginnings of gun control until about the end of the 60's with Warren Burger's appointment as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

>>609347

I agree. And again. I'm not against people owning guns, I just think you should be required to prove that you can use it safely and aren't going to go waving it about unnecessarily.

>>610153

> I just think you should be required to prove that you can use it safely and aren't going to go waving it about unnecessarily.

Once you do that, you open up the route to more regulation. Firearms are not hard things to use. Instead, a more level-headed approach is to make firearm safety a basic part of education. This was the case when I was growing up. I was in the Boy Scouts and firearms were part of it. No need to go out and test for it if everyone is supposed to know it already. The ability to use a firearm should be the default.

>>610111

>I'm claiming that humans have evolved to act a certain way, which they have. That way of acting just so happens to include domination and violence because it was so beneficial for so long. We have not yet had time to breed those tendencies out because advanced civilization has only existed for a few hundred years.

If acting against this was against our nature, we would literally be incapable of doing so, not merely inclined not to. People are sapient. We choose our destinies.

>>609974

Yeah, because poor minorities with guns has always worked out well.

>>610076

The government agent man has a bulletproof flak jacket and has already thrown tear gas canisters at your feet. Get real.

>>610162

Slippery Slope is a logical fallacy.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope

>>610179

But this isn't that. It's called legal precedent. Once you establish something can be regulated, it only follows that regulation will follow. We are talking about fundamental rights. For this reason, we should not regulate.

>>610162

>Once you do that, you open up the route to more regulation.

How dreadfully reactionary. Not at all what I was thinking.

>Firearms are not hard to use

Indeed. I was thinking more of teaching people when it is appropriate to use a gun rather than how to simply operate one. A subject that's a bit to nuanced for an 8 year old, wouldn't you agree?

>>610182

It's a question of balancing the individual's rights against the rights of the collective.

The individual wants a gun, the collective wants to be sure that the guy with the gun isn't going to go on a killing spree. Some kind of system to reconcile this is necessary if people seriously wish to keep hold of their guns in this risk-assessed world; rejecting this in principal is almost Mickawber-esque.

>>610248

>>610248

Collectives don't have rights. What you propose is prior restraint, which is antithetical to individual rights.

Until a person commits a crime, you cannot infringe on their rights. Every man can rape, and yet we don't ask for mental health checks to be around women because they '"might'' do something.

>>610179

>fucking poor people

>why can't they just learn their place

eat shit

why is this a thread?

>>601949

>On the other hand, I feel incredibly uncomfortable with guns. As an Australian, the idea of going to the U.S and seeing someone casually walking down the street with a gun mortifies me

Ausfag here, you actually see it out in rural areas, but once I saw a goth looking guy walking the backstreets of my surburb with a handgun in his hands while I was riding my bike home and "Noped" out pretty quickly and turned off as soon as possible.

That said, I do believe Australia's gun laws do go too far. Had a G1 Megatron seized by customs for being a firearm, can't get airsoft guns, can't get paintball guns etc.

Many countries have effective gun laws and also have low gun crime rates without going "full Australia", even New Zealand has far more lax regulations than Australia.

America's gun laws (or lack of them) are ridiculous though, the fact they fight against even background checks and mental health checks is fucking astounding too me.

People always talk of stopping gun crime with more laws an regulation.

The part you're missing is that criminals by definition aren't following the law. You're only disarming law-abiding people.

>>610333

not to mention that it just never works.

>>610333

Which is why gun control laws bring in incredibly punitive punishments for illegal gun use/ownership.

Restrict access too firearms (especially in the hands of mentally ill people) and throw people in Jail for 5 years minimum for owning an illegal firearm and watch gun crime melt away.

Gun control does work, it's worked in most countries. The problem is you have too find a balance. Countries like Australia blatantly go too far into nanny-state territory where the US is on the opposite end with little restrictions or regulations whatsoever.

>>610359

I'd be fine with harsher punishments on illegal firearms if there wasn't such an expansive database of legal firearms. I shouldn't have to agree to be on a government watchlist to be allowed to own a gun. That's just asking for trouble further down the line.

>>610359

The bourgeois state is illegitimate and we need guns to overthrow it, fuck off suckdem

>>610382

>illegal firearms

Why should any firearms be illegal?

>>610411

You know, if I take the argument back far enough to ask that question, why should any firearm require registration in the first place, I can't find a good answer.

So, good question. I dunno. Maybe no firearm should be illegal, only some owners.

>>610308

>G1 Megatron

Bahahahahahaa my mate has one of those, guess he was a bit sneaker about.

>>610283

Does this mean I can own a nuclear missile, as long as you can't prove ahead of time I'm going to shoot it at some innocent civilians?

>>610333

This old bullshit.

http://www.armedwithreason.com/rebutting-the-criminals-dont-follow-laws-and-gun-control-only-hurts-law-abiding-citizens-argument-against-gun-control/

tl;dr: In actual real-world situations this doesn't happen. You're wrong.

>>610401

Yeah, and when are you planning on doing that? How many guns need to be bought until the revolution happens? I'm waiting.

>>610611

>posting an obviously biased source

>implying anybody believes you

>>610611

>tracking only firearm deaths

>implying being killed only counts if you get shot

Are you fucking retarded?

But of course, let's ignore actual fucking research on the topic.

http://bjc.oxfordjournals.org/content/47/3/455.abstract

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1465-7287.2009.00165.x/abstract;jsessionid=1B3CDFFF42D63CD1EEA6252F6DF1DA6A.f01t02

Really, how fucking retarded are you, you stupid motherfucker?

>>610615

>strawmanning this hard

Guns are the tools of any revolution in the same way that a a hammer is the tool of a carpenter. Free and easy access to them is in any leftists best interest.

More importantly, for all Mao's problems, he was right about something: Political power grows from the barrel of a gun. Governments are only governments because they have the necessary force of arms to enforce their will, and any system that claims to represent the people needs to have the populace armed as well so that the government does not have a complete monopoly on the use of force. To disarm the people in any way is to disenfranchise them politically.

>>610903

I don't recall guns solving voter suppression, which is UNDOUBTEDLY disenfranchising citizens.

If you're waiting for the oppression of the people to get violent before you use your guns, it's too late. You don't have a helicopter or smoke grenades.

>>610761

Great sources, too bad you have to pay to actually read it, which I doubt you did.

>>609694

>Is there any research on this?

Are you serious? Do you honestly think an armed person is as susceptible to intimidation as is an unarmed?

>The gun-toting poor of the USA have consistently voted against their interests for decades

That has literally nothing to do with the right to own personal firearms.

>I don't know where you think more guns = more freedom

Logic. Who has the right to own a gun (a freedom), has at least one more freedom than who has no right to own a gun. Get it?

>"Durr…I said it was an authoritarian shithole, but that's not a description". Just admit you're wrong.

Singapore is an authoritarian shithole. It's still a decent place to live in. Just admit you're ignorant.

>Again, just because an Australian can't buy guns in all the ways you can doesn't mean they "Ban all guns, except those of the state". Just admit you're wrong.

It's called hyperbole; welcome to 8chan. If you were actually familiar with Australia, you'd know that most Australians go through their entire lives without touching a gun, let alone owning and using one. Here, there are virtually no guns in private possession; in the suburbs and cities, where the overwhelming majority of the populace dwells, guns are virtually unheard of. People don't own handguns, here. You have to go further inland to find guns; most of them being simple bolt-action rifles and break-open shotguns; most owned by farmers who, even then, rarely use them. Even the "shooting sports" community is tiny, and under frequent pressure from anti-gun fanatics. For all intents and purposes, the only armed entities to be found in Australia are the police force and the military; i.e. the state. Just admit you're ignorant.

>Oh, now you're FROM Australia?

Yeah, but it's virtually irrelevant; I could be from Antarctica, and you'd still be wrong.

>If the technology was so foolish, it wouldn't be developed by multiple arms manufacturers.

That's not the point, professor. How are you going to apply these security systems to the millions of already-existing, illegally-acquired firearms in the U.S.? You know, the guns that are actually used to commit crimes? Do you think the criminals will just hand-in their guns to be retrofitted with this new technology? Use your head.

>You're saying you don't need any police or army

Yeah, I don't. Maybe you do. Not my business.

>you can protect yourself

I could, if I was allowed to own guns for the purpose of self-defence (which is not permitted in Aus., as it's considered "not a valid reason for acquisition")

>Surely the tax dollars you pay for such services are wasted

Indeed, they certainly are.

>why not lower your unnecessary taxes and relocate to an anarchy as a real test of your independence?

You mean, one of those anarchies that wasn't crushed by authoritarian states and capitalistic interests? Like Catalonia? I'd love to; know a good travel agent?

>Opinion polls are not facts

Opinion polls indicate opinion. The dominant one being that the 2nd amendment is important and should be protected.

>and I'm not saying guns should be banned altogether.

>>607487
>if the population is armed
This is a bad thing.

>It was also made before we had any armed forces

So, once a state military has been established, the populace should stop using guns?

>and relied on militias to defend the country.

This is a bad thing?

>In fact the first words are "A well regulated Militia"

"Well regulated" does not mean "dictated by the state." Anyway, a discussion about the semantics of the amendment is for another thread.

>But again, I wasn't advocating banning guns altogether.

OK. But you are advocating more state-legislated restrictions, and for those restrictions to be enforced by the state (which they would use guns to do).

>So?

Most Americans want to keep their jobs, if you hadn't noticed. There's also a desire to support American-made products and support U.S. industries.

>We should all be owning armor-piercing bullets because Americans are making them?

In America, you have the freedom to either not own a gun, or own one. That freedom doesn't exist in most countries (including Australia, in practical terms). I won't get into the complexities of the term "armor-piercing," as I presume that it was beside your point.

>You could use the same logic to promote cigarettes.

People have the right to buy and use cigarettes. In my opinion, people also have the right to grow tobacco and make their own cigarettes. Additionally, tobacco kills far more people each year than do guns; by your logic, as tobacco is more deadly than guns, cigarettes and smoking paraphernalia should be even more tightly controlled and harder to obtain than are guns. Not to mention passive smoking and its effects.

>>609694

Cont.

>Thanks for admitting it. Give me more weak arguments to destroy, I'm hungry.

I wouldn't get cocky; you're still yet to make a proper and valid point.

>It gives me the freedom to ignore you.

Good idea. That is what most anti-gun morons do when confronted with reality, anyway.

>I don't need to, your country already has sane gun laws.

Yeah, that is, by your definition of sane; guns for the state, none for the populace.

>>610997

>Great sources, too bad you have to pay to actually read it, which I doubt you did.

You can read the abstract, and in either case, there isn't any sound research that supports your claims or those of any anti-gunner.

>>609484

but just think about how fucking impractical that would be? man, whenever i use a mouse i always make sure my middle finger is on the left side of the right click area so it can reach the scroll easier. its just a habit that im very used to. now if they make a mouse that only works when the middle finger is on a specific area other than the area im used to, obviously its going to be very inconvenient. if a man was shooting at you, you wouldnt have the time to think about a lot of stuff other than HOLY FUCKING SHIT HES SHOOTING AT ME, let alone

>pull gun out of concealment

>insert finger on specific area

>do all the snick snack necessary for the gun to work

>aim

>pull trigger

>>610153

>Where did I say that porky is going to take your guns? There's some substantial difference between a system making sure somebody isn't going to go all Derek Klebold with that gun they're holding and the Government banning guns.

>look, I know that porky is willing to use the government to burn the world in the name of capitalism, but do you really think they're going to disarm you to do it?

>costanza. jpeg XDDD

>>609760

>Who are you, OJ Simpson?

do you live on motherfucking mercury? its cold in winter even in tropical countries

>Sounds like a personal problem.

you fucking hypocrite, who do you think get their hands dirty to feed their families? yea, the workers, dumbass, the very people leftypol is fighting for

>They should get their own, otherwise a thief could just as easily "borrow" yours

i can throw a gun to the person i trust, a thief would need to do a lot more to get the gun from me

>I assume that's no problem considering people like you tend to stockpile guns

you assumed wrong, only the really crazy gun addicts do that, most people only get a $300 handgun and some ammunition in case of emergency

>How would that work if the gun isn't connected to the internet

sure thing mr governor

>>604755

what the fuck do you expect from a fucker who uses the viet cong flag?