What are your thoughts on guns? Should guns be banned or nt?

Kill yourself.

>need
Fuck off retard

Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Ban people. leave those poor guns alone.

So are you saying white people shouldn't have guns, or just those people that Zog says aren't allowed? Your argument reeks of leftism and ignorance.
If you're going to make statements with such broad implications you should elaborate a little more, in your mind are guns only for self defemce? What about classifications of firearms, if you use the term assault weapons I won't be able to take you seriously.
(Old pic, before i knew as much)

Attached: 20180314_001132.jpg (1600x1200, 677K)

No.

should have mandatory safety training and marksmenship in high school. maybe a week or two in PE. They are the single most useful tool to fight tyrants, tigers, and tyrone. Everyone should own one, and practice until competent, if for no other reason than being self sufficient

also fuck the ATF. there should be no laws on what you can and cannot buy in relations to small arms

What about a mini-nuke blaster?

Alrighty. I'll admit I definitely should've worded it a bit better. I don't think there is a need for firearms in self defense in exceedingly low crime areas. After all, statistically speaking it's almost universal that areas with the lowest gun violence are in highest favor of increased gun control. I don't wish to imply that gun control is binary, no gun or yes gun. However I do think that certain levels of restrictions are acceptable depending on the crime rates. I also don't wish to imply that guns are exclusively tools for defense. Recreational shooting and hunting are fine by me, however I do believe that if the guns used do not conform to whatever regulations are set in place, than it would be best if said weapons are kept within the hunting grounds/firing range. As for classification, I'm not exactly sure quite what you want me to say. Obviously there's no set definition for what an "Assault Weapon" actually is so there's nothing in the way of legislation that needs to be done. Anyway, sorry for the late reply, I didn't realize this thread wasn't going to die.

legal, though you should be able to be sued if you cause cancer rates in your jeighborhood to skyrocket

No, trying to ban them will ironically kill thousands more than unbanning them.

Not a ban but a little gun control can't hurt right?

Neck yourself faggot.

Attached: 1554435638731.jpg (591x479, 74K)

guns are good for you and laws regarding them never make any sense whatsoever

Attached: 5308DE19-1737-4D61-80E5-BC904A545290.jpg (720x773, 58K)

I'm with this guy. He's got the right mindset.

So you want a shorter barrel and some type of vent hole? That's not how you kill gun user.

>everything must be regulated
>everyone should democratically have every action they do throughout every second of the day voted on by a group of other people to decide if they can or can't do it
I'm really getting sick of democracy in some ways. Ancient philosophers were right in calling it mob rule.
I think we should ban the guns just to accelerate the process of banning other things, such as idiots and the mentally ill from voting; instead of distracting reasonable people with bull shit like this.

If you're in a country where over 10% of the population is blacks, probably shouldn't have guns.
Even if you only sold it to white people you know the white people will sell them at a markup to the blacks

>the crime rate is because of the guns
>you shouldn't have them in an area with low crime rate
bit of circular logic there eh
why waste your breath on so many words when you can just tell people you're a cuck and make the same point?

A'aighty. You're stuffing words into my mouth. I never said guns caused crime. I'm just saying that statistics show that generally people who have in raised in absolute safety have no need for firearms while those who are in need of personal protection do. Once the need for personal protection is eliminated, so to does the need for guns in self defense.

Attached: 12E5EB28-A2A5-4785-9D43-8ED70071FC16.png (900x900, 10K)

By your logic, I'm going to aim for gun free zones because they A. Don't have them, B. Obviously won't expect it and put up less of a fight.

See how easy it is to get around that nonsense and go for your throat in a nice neighborhood?

>. I'm just saying that statistics show that generally people who have in raised in absolute safety have no need for firearms while those who are in need of personal protection do.
99% of statistics are made up on the spot, sort of like what you're doing here.
>you don't need it, you need a person that needs it
cuck

Well regulated. You already can't have a bazooka or howitzer, so all sides agree there should be some limits. Come to a good compromise.

This

Attached: 10FFDA0E-EF29-4AE7-B898-2C0F54B4BB8D.jpg (800x598, 73K)

I never stated that I wanted binary gun laws. Like I said, I believe that the level of gun control for personal defense ought to reflect the potential threat. There will always be some level of threat, therefore personal defense firearms will always be needed to a degree. Of course you're right in assuming that violence could potentially spread to surrounding areas, however I'm hoping that ideally the gun control would factor in surrounding territory when calculating the best course of action. In most cases, a shooter won't travel cross country to go on their rampage. However, such things can still happen. So long as there is a single city with gun violence, there will be a need to allow for firearms to a degree throughout the entire nation. However, my belief is that there is only so far you can take the risk before there may as well be no risk at all.

Banned.

2nd amendment has been perverted far past what the founders intended.

America didn't want to fall into a dictatorship trap where there was only one army for an entire nation. Therefore, it wanted every STATE to have it's own well-regulated army (or militia as it's called in the amendment). That way, no one state or group of states could outright attempt to dominate or intimidate the others.

Instead, we got psychopaths and sociopaths that bent it to the point where idiots can own .50 cal weapons that can take down airplanes because, you know... MURICA!

You sound fat

Alrighty. I'll admit, I can't find the source of my statistic, so feel free to call bullshit on it. But I do think the logic is sound enough. People tend not to want what they have never felt any need for. If you've never needed to defend yourself, why would you bother to try and get a gun to defend yourself. If you're in active danger, surely you'd want to defend yourself through necessary means.

I'm currently around 57kg which isn't too bad for my height. Would prefer a few CMs less on the waist but who doesn't? And, no, I don't play the "tits or GTFO" game; You guys have /s/ for that.

>2nd amendment has been perverted far past what the founders intended.
Typical comment from fags that don't understand the right to bear arms. You probably think it only applies to muskets and that the militia is the National Guard.

What kind of guns?
Guns made to kill people should be controlled.
Guns made to hunt and take game should be allowed, but only with the proper training

All guns should be banned in the United States. Israel should fund more anti-gun programs publicly so Americans know who to blame.

A person in a standing army at the time was called a regular. A well regulated soldier would mean well equipped.
2nd wasn't written about it's own military, it's just refering to any paramilitary organization. America was full of other armies from different countries, and mercenaries. So what's stopping a paramilitary organization from south america like a cartel from picking up a bunch of machettes or ball pin hammers, a dozen guys already there, with some random melee weapon, and breaking into your house and pulling a rawanda genocide on you? Even if a police officer was there say there is a dozen of them what makes you think A single person is going to do there? So maybe instead of waiting for them to show up you have some agency to take care of yourself or your neighbor instead of getting beat to death by a group of people within seconds?
>But I do think the logic is sound enough
That's what everyone thinks, nobody sits around and thinks "well fuck I'm wrong, better do this anyway lulz"
I typically have one on my person. So I'm not sure what the point of your question was.

Guns for taking game are more powerful than guns intended to kill people. Most game is a bit more hardy than a person. They're bigger, and stronger. There is a reason why people don't just kill them with their bare hands.

Alrighty, that's enough screaming at the top of my internet lungs, 'nighty.

It’s libtard faggot logic

This.

Dutch guy here: all gun rights are infringements. I believe we should be able to carry militairy grade hardware.

Seeing as niggers are statistically shown to commit more violent crimes, I think it would be more prudent to just ban them. Therefore, crime rates would plummet and the actual need for private gun ownership would also go down. Win-win for everyone

It's not a game, you dumb whore. Seeing as your opinions are worthless tits are still the only thing you have to offer. So GTFO.

People talk about the low gun crime rate in Europe... But this guy gets it.

The gun crime rate among white non Hispanic Americans is just about the same as EU. We don't have a gun problem, we have a nigger problem.

I believe we should recreational nukes.
Walmart should be able to hire PMCs as security.

It should be legal. Maybe even mandatory.