Communist China: ‘Private Ownership Of Guns’ In U.S. ‘Serious Problem,’ Must ‘Change’

They are not wrong, ya know?
The weapon is a tool of murder and it is created solely to take life. You are not the judges or the state to decide who will die and who will not, so even a robber deserves life and a fair trial. And you can protect your life with other, non-lethal means of protection.
Let's just look at the homicide rate here en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

United States - 5.30
China - 0.60
South Korea - 0.60
Japan - 0.20
The most important thing is that by destroying the market for legal weapons, these countries have also destroyed the market for illegal weapons. The black market DIED along with the normal market. It is a proven fact that these countries were able to get rid of 99% of illegal weapons along with legal ones. CRIMINALS DON'T HAVE WEAPONS THERE, SO IT'S SAFE.

You don't need an Arsenal at home to live in safety, you need millions of cameras watching every inch of your country and the iron hand of the state protecting you from trouble
This applies to all countries with weapons problems - we must all unite in giving up firearms in the name of security. In the modern world, there is no need for firearms and they only create an additional threat, and do not provide security.

Attached: 1585981020179.jpg (1280x963, 201.65K)

Other urls found in this thread:

congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/5717/text
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

You can kill with anything. You can kill with a chair or even a fist.
The question is how effective the weapon is, how lethal it is, and what methods of protection the victim has.

Against firearms there is no protection at all and it works for very long distances, as well as on the area, if we are talking about a shotgun.

There is no defense against the knife, but it only works in close combat.

Against a hammer or plastic knife, you can protect yourself with your hand or some object because it is only lethal when it hits very specific areas of our body.

A gun is far more dangerous than a knife and far more dangerous than a hammer, just as a knife is far more dangerous than a hammer and far more dangerous than a Pepsi-Cola bottle.

For example, in Britain for a long time they have been making knives with a blunt end so that people do not stab each other. To cut with a cutting edge IS already much more difficult than to inflict a stab wound leaving a terrible internal bleeding.

The whole question is efficiency and knives with firearms are TOO effective.

Attached: 1513929517618.jpg (1200x853, 179.92K)

It is not the weapon that kills - this is the argument most often heard from a defender of weapons in the civilian population for no particular reason.
And it's true, it's true, it doesn't kill weapons, it kills people... [B]with fucking WEAPONS![/B]
Now we turn to the topic - this issue is not acute because viruses are all bullshit, but I still suggest to plunge into the discussion about weapons units in the hands of the civilian population.
And here there are two important questions - why do we need them at all and with what parameters do we need them?
We are dealing with the first question - why would a civilian need a weapon?
Well the usual gun owner's answer is known:
1. Hunting.
2. Self.
3. Entertainment shooting.
4. Collectables.

I will start with the last point - it is the most normal. Collections this is really important, interesting and beautiful, but with the only correction-collectible weapons should not shoot. After all, collecting butterflies you do not expect that they will take and fly, so why is it not so with weapons?

Attached: 1514921482075.jpg (540x807, 126.21K)

Further, self-defense-our legislation is such that the use of most means of protection, and even more lethal, is at best classified as exceeding the norms of self-defense with an aggravating and shining from 3 to 8 years with the seizure of your own firearms and the inability to get it again, but this is at best, usually just reclassified as murder of various degrees and sent for 9-15 years.
How can a citizen defend himself, if not with a gun, since we have such strict laws? Very simply.
First, you need to try to use distractions like pepper spray and try to leave the house, and then call the police from the street.
If you can't leave your home, then you need to voluntarily give the criminals all the valuables and beg them not to touch you and your family. No robber is interested in your life, only your property, and it is better to part with your property than with your life or freedom for 15 years. No value or honor is worth 15 years of freedom.

The next item is hunting. And we will smoothly flow from it to the second main question.
So hunting is the oldest occupation, we were hunters before we became farmers. And this is normal when a person takes up arms and goes to hunt game in the forest to feed his family. It is wonderful. But the problem here is that 99% of the population of the modern world DOES not HUNT FOR FOOD. They do it for fun. They enjoy killing animals that are already disappearing. Because of human activity, the number of forests is reduced, the number of animals is also reduced, roads block everything like death lanes and animals simply have no place to turn around and they do not have food. In the European region of Russia, there ARE no places where people would need hunting for food, and not just for entertainment. And hunting for entertainment should be strictly forbidden within the hunting of nature.

Attached: 1450700563880.jpg (2592x1944, 1.32M)

Now the second main point - we have determined that the gun in the modern world is only needed by people who survive on commercial hunting. That is, 1% of people living in the taiga or Siberia. These are people for whom weapons are a tool of work, not a tool of retribution, a tool of entertainment or a tool of malice. This is a working tool and therefore it has its own specifics and there IS no room for excesses in it. A good hunter needs a single-shot smoothbore rifle to get game. It is light, precise, powerful, and unpretentious.
He does not need new-fangled carbines made for the Kalash, he does not need rifled sniper rifles of turret calibers, he does not need automatic weapons and even more so does not need pistols. He needs one clear shot in foul weather and with maximum reliability.

Therefore, we come to the conclusion that the sale of weapons should be allowed ONLY in certain regions of our country, ONLY for people of a certain profession and ONLY in the form of a single-barrelled smoothbore 12-gauge rifle.

After all these events in Kerch, when a psychopath shot people for nothing, and a recent case when a psychopath near Ryazan shot 5 people, including a pregnant girl, for nothing, all this leads us to only one thing - the ISSUE of WEAPONS to the CIVILIAN POPULATION SHOULD be STOPPED, and the AVAILABLE weapons SAMPLES WITHDRAWN.

Do you agree?

Attached: 1544408398817.jpg (1378x1392, 217.84K)

>ba autofire so that 40 people die in shootings instead of 50.
>ban the semi-automatic so that 30 people die in shootings instead of 40.
>ban multi-shot so that 10 people die in shootings instead of 30
This logic is works, don't you agree?

Right now, China is one of the safest countries in the world, where you are 10 times less likely to die than in the United States. But in the US, someone still protects firearms as a means of security.

Attached: 1526761637184.jpg (660x563, 162.63K)

Texas Clock Tower 1966

Attached: 1546140720957.png (413x479, 430.06K)

Attached: 1571183112238.jpg (1200x640, 172.71K)