Can we have a discussion about sensible gun control?

Can we have a discussion about sensible gun control?

>sensible
>gun control
Every person who proposes gun control should be tortured to death on national television.

No

No.

Well surely average people don't need assault weapons.

As soon as you explain why Mexico has 2 times the firearm homicide rate, despite having more strict gun laws.

Whats the thing at the bottom?

Americans and Mexicans are different.

>sensible
So no liberals will be taking part in this conversation I guess.

>bill of needs
Please, Anons reading this, stay out of this shitty thread or s__e it if you can't resist the bait. I couldn't resist the bait. Don't be like me.

The only argument you're owed is quite simple: Shall not be infringed.

Traitors get the bullet first.

I mean what's wrong with keeping guns out of the hands who are on anti-psychotic medications?

Or why Switzerland seems just fine even though they probably have more gun ownership per capita in such a small country.
School shootings didn't become a thing in the US until the (((government))) forced white schools and white kids to integrate with nignogs and spics who routinely beat them and abuse them every day while being told that they're sinful creatures by their marxist teachers.

Only if the discussion is about the American people controlling more guns

Well everybody know those who can do and those who can't teach, you're not going to fix liberals from making up the vast majority of educators.

>Can we have a discussion about sensible gun control?
Sure. The more we do the more gun sales will go through the roof.

How do we definitely mental illness? Who gets to define it? "Oy vey user, having such deeply held right wing views is a a sign of mental illness! No guns for you, goy!"

>Can we have a discussion about sensible gun control?
Not if it involves us giving up or being stripped of our rights.

>Well surely average people don't need assault weapons.
Our rights are protected by the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Needs.

>Whats the thing at the bottom?
The shoulder thing that goes up.

>I mean what's wrong with keeping guns out of the hands who are on anti-psychotic medications?
If someone is so mentally ill that they'd harm innocent people what is that person doing walking the street?

I decide what I need thanks

If some one is coming out and saying I'm going to become a professional school shooter, why should that individual have access to a gun?

>pt1
There are 30,000 gun related deaths per year by firearms, and this number is not disputed. The U.S. population is 324,059,091 as of June 22, 2016. Do the math: 0.0009% of the population dies from gun related actions each year. Statistically speaking, this is insignificant! What is never told, however, is a breakdown of those 30,000 deaths, to put them in perspective as compared to other causes of death:
• 65% of those deaths are by suicide, which would never be prevented by gun laws.
• 15% are by law enforcement in the line of duty and justified.
• 17% are through criminal activity, gang and drug related or mentally ill persons – better known as gun violence.
• 3% are accidental discharge deaths.
So technically, "gun violence" is not 30,000 annually, but drops to 5,100. Still too many? Now lets look at how those deaths spanned across the nation.
• 480 homicides (9.4%) were in Chicago
• 344 homicides (6.7%) were in Baltimore
• 333 homicides (6.5%) were in Detroit
• 119 homicides (2.3%) were in Washington D.C. (a 54% increase over prior years)

You don't think that there are other ways to deter that person from owning a gun?

The gun laws are racist because felons aren't allowed to own guns - CNN

>pt2
So basically, 25% of all gun crime happens in just 4 cities. All 4 of those cities have strict gun laws, so it is not the lack of law that is the root cause.
This basically leaves 3,825 for the entire rest of the nation, or about 75 deaths per state. That is an average because some States have much higher rates than others. For example, California had 1,169 and Alabama had 1.
Now, who has the strictest gun laws by far? California, of course, but understand, it is not guns causing this. It is a crime rate spawned by the number of criminal persons residing in those cities and states. So if all cities and states are not created equal, then there must be something other than the tool causing the gun deaths.
Are 5,100 deaths per year horrific? How about in comparison to other deaths? All death is sad and especially so when it is in the commission of a crime but that is the nature of crime. Robbery, death, rape, assault are all done by criminals. It is ludicrous to think that criminals will obey laws. That is why they are called criminals.
But what about other deaths each year?
• 40,000+ die from a drug overdose–THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR THAT!
• 36,000 people die per year from the flu, far exceeding the criminal gun deaths.
• 34,000 people die per year in traffic fatalities(exceeding gun deaths even if you include suicide).

>pt3
Now it gets good:
• 200,000+ people die each year (and growing) from preventable medical errors. You are safer walking in the worst areas of Chicago than you are when you are in a hospital!
• 710,000 people die per year from heart disease. It’s time to stop the double cheeseburgers! So what is the point? If the liberal loons and the anti-gun movement focused their attention on heart disease, even a 10% decrease in cardiac deaths would save twice the number of lives annually of all gun-related deaths (including suicide, law enforcement, etc.). A 10% reduction in medical errors would be 66% of the total number of gun deaths or 4 times the number of criminal homicides ................ Simple, easily preventable 10% reductions! So you have to ask yourself, in the grand scheme of things, why the focus on guns? It's pretty simple:
Taking away guns gives control to governments. The founders of this nation knew that regardless of the form of government, those in power may become corrupt and seek to rule as the British did by trying to disarm the populace of the colonies. It is not difficult to understand that a disarmed populace is a controlled populace.
Thus, the second amendment was proudly and boldly included in the U.S. Constitution. It must be preserved at all costs. So the next time someone tries to tell you that gun control is about saving lives, look at these facts and remember these words from Noah Webster: "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed."

Well do we allow those convicted of violent crimes to have guns?

We already have it. No amount of gun control will stop the mentally ill from getting their hands on their family's pieces.

No. You are not getting gun control. Your last hurrah was in 1994. End of discussion.

Innocent until proven guilty

No one noticed this kid until he had already taken lives. There were warning signs that were ignored but you're proposing that someone should be barred from gun ownership over something so potentially nebulous to define

>Well do we allow those convicted of violent crimes to have guns?
If they're so dangerous that they'd kill innocent people, why are they let out of prison?

If they've done their time, they have the right to own firearms just like everyone else.

And if your uncle had a cunt he'd be your aunt.

You're being a fucking retard.

Shall not be infringed. And like any other right it can be lost via due process of law; ie. felons cannot legally own guns nor can those who have been committed to a mental institution.

How do you "keep them from" renting a Home Depot truck for 19.95 and plowing through a crowd or buying a chainsaw and going on a rampage? You fucking don't. If you're so much of a coward that this frightens you, go out and commit a crime, go to prison and be a fuckup in there until you're put in solitary confinement where the friendly people in uniforms are the only ones with guns and you are safe and secure from anything that could hurt you.

>If some one is coming out and saying I'm going to become a professional school shooter, why should that individual have access to a gun?
So obviously you need to fix the mental health system and leave our firearm rights alone.

>• 480 homicides (9.4%) were in Chicago
>• 344 homicides (6.7%) were in Baltimore
>• 333 homicides (6.5%) were in Detroit
>• 119 homicides (2.3%) were in Washington D.C.

We already have proper gun laws. We just have too much incompetence in law enforcement and state agencies

What we should do first is disarm all Democrats. All of them. Death penalty if a Dem owns a gunThen, let's see if it has any impact on the gun violence. If it doesn't, then we can take additional measures.

I'd rather have a discussion about Taytay

>incompetence
No, we have too many people intentionally failing so they can build momentum to disarm the population and further oppress them.

Let's talk about the possibility of allowing people to buy these small and cute tanks. PIC related.

Less talk about parental incompetence laws and manditory prison sentences instead?

I’m sensible and would let her control my (semen) gun.
If you know what I mean ;^)

Can the paid advertisers for this illuminati thot just fuck off

No. Fuck off.

Will you faggots give it up already? We're not gonna give up our firearms.

She looks so fucking retarded here like a literal retard I can't stop laughing

Idk. She did try and copyright "haters gonna hate" recently.
Thats my thing.

beat me to posting that meme by literal seconds kek

Yeah, TLDR the problem is that you guys have too many dindus in US. And we have a shortage of assault weaponz in Italy

You can't imagine all the shit i had to go through to have a fucking pump shotgun into a cabinet into my house

B-but I thought race was a social construct....

There is no sensible discussion about gun control. Just by uttering such stupid words you are never to be taken serious again.

>gun control
nope

I love this meme

no

No

That may be why she is so beloved by Cred Forums. We suspect shes as autistic as we are.

There has been an ongoing debate since the 1920's. What kind of dumb question is this?

There is no such thing, stop talking about retarded pipe dream ideals, you retarded liberal cunt.

Simple. Deport all niggers and spics. Gun violence rate goes down. Problem solved.

No. Mostly because it's a non-starter. With the (rightful) D.C. v. Heller decision, the right to keep and bear arms has been determined to be an individual right not to be infringed. Any gun control, even if it would solve all our problems (it wouldn't), would have to be done with a consitutional amendment, and there's just no way 34 states are going to go for a modification to the second amendment of the Bill of Rights (thank god) anytime soon. So it's not even worth discussing. It just can't happen, legally. It's a waste of time. That doesn't mean we can't do anything. We can make sure NICS is functioning properly (though it should just be used to determine if someone is a convicted felon and has had their rights suspended lawfully by a court of law) and make it accessible to private sellers (there's no way to enforce it be used, but most people probably don't want to give their guns to felons). We can re-fund the CDC to research ways to prevent gun violence that don't involve gun control. We can make sure the FBI does its fucking job instead of wasting time spying on political opponents. There's a lot of things we can do, gun control just isn't one of them for better or worse (better).

Stop it.

We already have

Not as long as the left controls and defines what "sensible" means

There's no such thing.

Not with a 250x179 image you cheap fuck!

>salt wapins