So if I understand correctly, this board is against gun control...

So if I understand correctly, this board is against gun control, because reducing violence should be done by other means, such as redirecting the focus in the prison system from punishment to rehabilitation, ending the war on drugs and generally reducing inequality. But Australia's ban on guns was significant, was it not?

Attached: gundeathsinaustraylya.jpg (1200x900, 35.79K)

This board is against disarming the working class because it deprives them of their only means by which to fight tyranny.

It could have been, but the statistics may be misleading. Vehicular homicides and bombings could have increased, for example, as outlets for the same problems that drove people to gun homicides. Some of the deaths may have also been due to decreases in accidental shootings which doesn't have much to do with America's mass shooting problem.

I know but try saying this to your average joe and he will think you are a crazy extremist/anarkiddie

honestly, kys
no joke, do it

Attached: 64c54ba075ac3ca1e3cf5d9f949db33a2915b5ef6a3da8572ceda0592f02a49e.jpg (1024x768, 160.83K)

you dont, go away

lol

well fuck i read that completely wrong
sorry OP, just too used to the usual Zig Forums shitposts

xD you OWNED that newfag!!

ironic shitposting is still shitposting

When someone replies to my serious post with "sage" and "lol ur fag" am I supposed to reply seriously?

UNDER NO PRETEXT
or if you are an outsider lik it seems like you are there are versions for other people too like
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
or
FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS
dunno what the nazi one is but they probably have one too

this

Attached: d30.jpg (600x450, 27.88K)

???

What about Gandhi? Did he not win over the British Empire without using violence?

Ghandi was a fascist

read
the context of trumpcucks in the image should've given away that i misread

You can not deny how effective his movement was though

You can't deny how effective Hitler was though.

I am trying to question if violence really is necessary when overthrowing a government. Was not the soviet revolution relatively violenceless?

Yes but only because right wingers don't count as people.

The October revolution was more or less peaceful but the aftermath, the reaction, was an absolute bloodbath.

Attached: real big change.png (1200x900, 83.09K)

I'm not sure this infograph is really useful. Decrease in crime from the late '80s and on happened throughout the developed world including the US. This might as well just be a continuation of that trend.

Also I'll add that it deals in absolute numbers which skews the data (since you have a larger population and therefore increased chances of incidence of crimes), though in the other direction this time.

This is the trick they always pull. They focus on gun violence specifically and don't mention if gun control actually reduces violent crime overall, because it typically doesn't.

Attached: z.gif (350x263, 44.03K)

gun control for the government

Gun deaths aren't the same as gun crime,

Notice how gun crime didn't fall when new laws were passed, or when laws were repealed (like the 1994 AWB) so they switched to "gun deaths" because if they're able to restrict the amount of guns deaths from accidents will obviously fall as less people will have them. This is extremely deceptive and manipulative.

Attached: unsolicited_opinions_on_israel.jpg (679x315, 29.44K)

Violence is necessary, and it is deserved.
Guns are good for the proletariat as they exist currently.

*gets shot*

This is the power of the Liberal Ideology. Any attempt to reverse engineer this dark power will only lead to personal embarrassment.
Perhaps the only cure for terminal liberal illness is violence? Explains why they are so obsessed about having a monopoly on it.

The most dishonest example used by liberals in regards to guns. The gun ban/buyback did practically nothing to actually reduce crime or homicide

Attached: AusGuns.png (489x437, 57.66K)

Hmmmmmmmmm

Ba guns for nazis. Legalize all weapons of every form for ☭TANKIE☭s.
Then sit back and watch the show.

So it seems, comrade, so it seems.

Attached: beatings.jpg (520x397, 27.97K)

Australia had a pre-existing secular decrease in homicide and gun crime which makes attributing causality to the ban pretty much impossible.

A fun thing about that chart is that it includes suicides as part of gun deaths.

It includes literally any death involving a gun as a gun death, homicide committed in self-defense and accidents are counted as a death by a gun.

Ghandi was the final straw that led to Indian independence, before him there were 2 centuries of violent indian rebellions and British opression. Also if the British didn't give in to Ghandi there definitely would have been violence

Well, friend, what happened after the october revolution?

"Had we adopted non-violence as the weapon of the strong, because we realised that it was more effective than any other weapon, in fact the mightiest force in the world, we would have made use of its full potency and not have discarded it as soon as the fight against the British was over or we were in a position to wield conventional weapons. But as I have already said, we adopted it out of our helplessness. If we had the atom bomb, we would have used it against the British."

Ghandi was peaceful out of neccassity, he would of loved to drop some a bombs