Why do they want to ban possession of firearms? It sounds like they want to create a type of gun library...

Most European countries have some form of guranteed healthcare and a well funded social safety net. Most of the US has neither of these. When you compare states which have actual social welfare programs in place and low poverty but high firearm ownership and lenient gun laws (like Vermont) to those with very little in the way of such programs but strict gun laws (like Illinois, Michigan, or New York), you find those who have programs in place have little to no crime while those who have no health or social welfare programs or underfunded programs or simply just high rates of poverty have higher rates of crime, regardless of gun ownership.

Excuse me what

Attached: CjcQBE6_d.jpg (362x346, 12.66K)

Pic related

Attached: guncontrolredpill.png (872x886, 219.82K)

We're comparing entire countries here, not subdivisions.

The only country that is even remotely similar to the US right now is Israel.

You know what the trouble is with Americans?

They're still clinging to the childish fantasy that you can separate human beings into "good people" and "bad people". They think, in their idiocy, if you can take the guns out of the hands of the "bad people" (Muslims, blacks, Mexicans, the "mentally ill") and put more of them into the hands of the "good people" (so they can stop the bad ones), the problem will be solved. That's why the Las Vegas shooting threw all the conservative pundits into a tailspin; they just CAN'T FIND the evil in this man. They can't figure out what, in his DNA or personality or history, is the red flag that they can point to and say, "Yep, that's it. That's why he suddenly went and decided to murder a whole bunch of people."; they can't find the method to categorize him as a "bad person", the method that would have prevented him from acquiring all those weapons, legally. It's blowing their little minds.

The hard truth of the world is that EVIL DOES NOT EXIST! It's a fantasy mostly made up by religion to classify who will go to Heaven, and who will go to Hell. The truth is, there are no "good people" and "bad people"; there are just PEOPLE, who may over the course of their lives do many things, some of them good and some of them bad, but that does not and cannot define the entirety of their existence. There is no gene or personality trait or belief that turns people from upstanding contributors to society into devilish mass-murderers. No matter what you do, no matter how hard you try, perfectly normal and psychologically stable people will, on occasion totally lose their marbles — it's just HUMAN NATURE to be violent. The only thing you can do is mitigate the damage by reducing their access to devices that have no purpose but mass-murder.

Once you've accepted that it's impossible to do any sort of background check or vetting to keep guns out of the hands of those who would do violence (because that propensity exists simultaneously in everyone and in no one), you are left with two options: give everyone guns, or give nobody guns. We're currently deep into an experiment of the former option, and you can see quite well how it's going; mass-shootings so often it's background noise unless (like this one) it breaks the record of "most people killed". So the other option is: nobody gets guns. Ah, here is what the conservatives fear, that the government will rescind the Second Amendment and confiscate their guns. After which they will TAKE OVER THE COUNTRY and the citizens, thus disarmed, will not be able to stop them! (I can't even figure out how that logic works; they already rule unopposed, and make unholy amounts of money for doing basically nothing; they have ZERO TO GAIN by attempting a hostile takeover of a country they already control).

Once this happens, if it happened hypothetically, the mass-shootings will stop. But won't the criminals still be able to get guns? Yes, you're right. But look at these mass-shootings carefully, and you'll see something interesting: they are never done by a "criminal". You see, a mugger or a home-invasion robber or whatever has one thing on his mind when he perpetrates his violence, sometimes at the barrel of a gun: "how will I profit by this?" See, when a man breaks into a home and ties up or beats up or shoots the occupants, he is not looking to kill people, he's looking to steal some stuff. There is NOTHING TO BE PERSONALLY GAINED by going into a crowd and raining down death to dozens, and all these types are looking for is personal gain. Similarly, gang-bangers mostly just shoot each other over territory, a bit like cats except with bullets instead of urine. The mass-shootings are all being perpetrated by "ordinary people". So what happens is a trade-off. If none of the law-abiding citizens have guns, there won't be mass-shootings, but they also won't be able to defend themselves or their family if some guy breaks into their house to rob them.

Ignoring for now the statistics that show how low that possibility is, the question that needs to be asked of every person who owns a gun, who believes in the Second Amendment, who wants zero gun-control, etc, is: "ARE YOU WILLING TO SACRIFICE YOUR ABILITY TO DEFEND YOUR FAMILY TO PREVENT THE NEXT MASS SHOOTING." Because that is what it will take.

And, because this is America, the answer will be a resounding and universal: "NO!" Because doing things that do not personally benefit YOU, and instead benefit the country as a whole, is anti-capitalist; it's Socialism, which is basically Communism. The number one issue that the people in the USA care about is individual liberties, individual rights, and FUCK EVERYONE ELSE — they should just take care of themselves. It's the country which still continues to stubbornly and naively believe that everything that happens to a person, whether they are rich or poor, healthy or sick, shot or survived, is ENTIRELY DUE TO INDIVIDUAL EFFORT, or lack thereof. If something bad happens to you, IT'S YOUR FAULT.

That, my friends, is why, in a few centuries when the rest of the world is united together and exploring the Galaxy in a utopia, the USA will still be like this, locked behind a wall of both metal and ignorance, derided like North Korea, while her citizens still believe fervently that they are "the best country in the world". Because we put the individual first, and fuck everyone else.

Ah yes, a country founded 70 years ago, surrounded by mortal enemies, that struggles to impose its legitimacy upon its conquered peoples, struggles to impose itself as a regional agent against countries such as Iran, Turkey or KSA, that gets a terror attack every other month is similar to a country isolated from any state enemy which controls 350 million people and has established its total and unchallenged rule upon its land 150 years ago.

I wish I was 14 again.

Attached: liberals get the bullet too312312.jpg (1024x768, 50.55K)

But the subdivisions matter in this case because the US is huge and states have a huge amount of autonomy in how they're run outside of federal law. The UK is about the size of Michigan or Oregon, Texas is larger then France. You have to take the states into consideration because they each have different ways of running things. All neoliberal, but different in there own way.

...

Stop posting any time dude.

Attached: tankie453.mp4 (400x230, 1.07M)

Texas is less than half the size of France, no one cares about the ranches of the west and north west of the state. What matters is that it has under 30 million inhabitants, versus 67 million Frenchmen.
Laxist vs. tough gun laws is literally a useless debate because the US doesn't have any internal border with checkings* so you can just buy guns in Texas and take them to California or New York without any problem.
Furthermore, there are no such thing as "rural states" in Europe, all countries are urban, which makes the comparison with rural states even more futile.

* inb4 neither does WE: there are in fact border checks within Schengen, just not systematic

I see there are no arguments justifying the death of the working class in the hands of upper class gun owners huh
Remind me again how revolutionary people in the dark red states in pic related are

Attached: GunOwnership.png (570x617, 63.8K)

I wish i had a shrine to comrade stalin in my house ;_;

Imagine fucking believing this.
Hey faggot, the left doesn't fucking exist in the US and in Europe the best you usually get is SocDems. Not a single party in the US is remotely left and it's literally just a bunch of differently flavored liberals fighting amounst each other.
Ah yes, I too support the current ML vanguard in power throwing all of the liberals in Gulags and executing traitors of the state. Take you're meds, all of the those in power are neoliberals/neoconservatives and you're system is still fully capitalist. I'm assuming you're capitalist, so you made this bed, now sleep in it.

le guns save the revolutionary working class maymay

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (1280x2183, 462.54K)

UNDER NO PRETEXT

le pre-actual revolution 19th century warfare tactics hypothesis

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Gun ownership doesn't correlate with total homicide in anyway, especially when you subtract suicide, accidental death, and homicide in self-defense with a gun. Social programs and a reduction in poverty literally do more to reduce crime then banning firearms, and there is no way around this fact. justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

...

Go against the word of Marx again, liberal fuckface, I dare you.

Attached: 1479345900302.jpg (449x491, 53.65K)

looks alright to me

Remember when the Russians rose up with their own Walmart-acquired guns?
Oh wait it was the army, not individual gun owners…
What are you going to do, outspend the Bourgeois and their 700 billion dollars army by starving for a month so that you can acquire a semi-automatic rifle from the 1970's?

look at the income

Attached: 359.jpg (1352x1331, 280.98K)

cite me one (1) revolution lead by proletarian gun owners
this is made sadder by the fact that you're using my own old vectorized porky

Tbf the Spainish Revolution was started by farm gun owners, although you're right user most guns in any revolution are captured by those who are engaged in it or from defecting security forces.

It's funny how this argument is literally never used by someone whose own child was just killed at school in one of those shootings.

haha but don't you see in here we try really hard to out-edge /r/the_pol/ so children dying isn't that bad and if you do think it's bad then I just have to say >muh children haha

I wish you were 28 instead of 14. I mean come on , calling people 14 is not an argument for anything, it is actually called ageism, another stupid philosophy you guys created.

You want guns to kill your enemies with? yeah, eat your own logic and fuck off.

The Left owns 90% of the deveoloped world, and almost all of America. Do you want me to post innumerable racist - media - public hangings of people who said the wrong thing? You do know that the more deveolped a country is the more welfare it give to people. Even people who are not citizens of said countries, ie Sweden / Gemany / America ……

Gulags, You are talking in absolutes when you fucking know that leftism is a fucking spectrum. The
EU is completely left - wing progressive , America as a whole is left wing progressive. Left - wingers own the world. Do communists own the world? obviously fucking not, that isn't the fucking point, you stupid smooth talker

Look at Australia.

Um…. The French revolution and many other revolutions…………..

just replying to you because fellow Zig Forumsers might believe the French Revolution was indeed led by proletarian gun-owning people
First of all it was the Bourgeois class who rose up in France, mainly in the cities, especially Paris. Second of all, they had the support of the army, and stormed the palace of the Invalides to acquire guns and gunpowder.

What I told you that no one is in control of the world.

Again, you're argument is to let only the corporations and wealthy have guns.

… which is pretty much already the case, except reactionary not-so-lower-class workers also do own guns to use against us and defend Capitalism for free
Guns are already too expensive for the poorest to actually acquire and maintain in sufficient quantities. Want to get a shot at destroying the Bourg but don't want to actually do good praxis such as parallel organization and strikes via labour unions? Join the police or the military and get top tier equipment for free.

Hey faggot, again, liberals and Social Democrats aren't leftists. They are not us and we do not agree with them or align with them in anyway economically. We are communists, we believe in communism. Liberals and Social Democrats on the other hand just want nicer capitalism. We have a class based focus. They tend to have a more identity/social/culture focus. We are not the same thing, and they are not left. If you live in America, your politicians are ==ALL LIBERALS== on ==BOTH SIDES==.
You killed off all you're labour movements and leftist parties in the 20s and 30s. As in, literally killed their leaders and sabotaged the parties. They no longer exist. This is you're capitalist bed, now sleep in it.

Attached: ff6929e84a89ac76a7e5b23af1ee6c0a28ab27b7.png (1259x506, 153.4K)

NO. and no, it wouldn't. fucking kill yourself you absolute delusional fucking retard.

Switzerland allows a gun in every home and their murder rate is astronomically lower then the US
Its a Problem of Culture not Guns

...

Surplus firearms are actually rather cheap
Unions are useless if not armed and militant
…user. You're literally telling people to a) Become cops in America or b) Join the American military.

Also i am Australian and suprise suprise banning guns hasnt changed the fundamental causes of violence in our society

Not a Rebuttal

When you're not poor
Ah, yes, the gun owning unions in WE in the 60's and 70's.
Absolutely. You'll actually get proper training, useful for the happening, and will decrease the amount of classcuckery in these armed branches of the American state.

Ok so youre

A. Advocating the mass disarmament of proles because the already confirmed bullshit "Lost cause" argument
B. Are advocating that people join the US Police force and Military
C. Are so delusional you believe entryism into these groups is possible

Reminder to everyone to sage the rest of this thread :)

Attached: 422`1212112.png (600x600, 209.64K)

Cheap surplus arms can be purchased for around $300 to $500. Not super cheap, but the price of a console or a car maintinance.
You mean the ones that didn't institute socialism?
I'm not against the ex-military becoming socialists, especially given that their experiences in the military may have been what first opened them up to realizing imperialism and the problems of capitalism, but you're asking current socialists to partake in what were trying to convince others is imperialist activity.

Capitalists? The MIC? You know the, the people who could profit from such things.
No. Only in America.
The reduction in gun ownership didn't actually reduce the total amount of yearly crime or the total homicide rate. It marginally reduced gun related homicide, but not homicide in general. I'll post the stats when I'm at my home computer.