Debating Pro anti-gun advocates

The 2A is the only right that has the words "shall not be infringed" written into it. Guns are used more often to save lives than to take lives in malicious acts, if you are quoting gun deaths per year then you are quoting a correct statistic but used incorrectly as it is used to argue for the banning of guns in the form of times crime was committed despite the fact that the majority of deaths in the statistic is suicide and if removed will drop homicide/accidental deaths to less than half of the original. In the context of the current year then the right to bear arms is even more relevant today as the supreme court has ruled numerous times that the police have no obligation to protect you in several cases which make for very interesting reads.
do not copy paste this part if you are doing so and find a better source as this is going to be some shortened and fuck lazy regurgitation
Gonzales a mother, sued due to no police action resulting in the death of her children. Basically she is going through a very nasty divorce so bad that she felt the need for a restraining order on her husband. She gets the restraining order but her husband ignores it anyway and kidnaps their three children, she then calls the police several times and is met with little to no action. Finally her husband shows up at the police station and gets into a gun fight resulting in his death. In the trunk of his car they find the three kids dead. The court ruling finds that the enforcement of restraining orders is not mandatory and even if it was it creates no "individual right to enforcement".

Three people. Carolyn Warren, Joan Taliaferro, and Miriam Douglas all became victims of abuse and rape due to little to no action by the police. Douglas living on the second floor of the building became the victim of a home invasion where two men broke in and began to rape her while Warren and Taliaferro could hear from the third floor. hearing the screams they called 911 getting police dispatched to their place but as a code 2 meaning lower priority despite the fact that crimes in progress should take code 1 or high priority, four cops answer the call. Warren and Taliaferro climbed out their window onto a roof and watched as an officer drove down the alley behind the house without making an attempt to check the rear door or surrounding area, a second officer knocked on the front door but soon left with the other officers after receiving no reply. W and T go back inside their house, hearing the screams again they called for the police again this time without the call being dispatched to any officer. Later believing the police to be in the house W and T called to Douglas alerting the rapists to their presence resulting in them getting caught, raped, beaten, and robbed for 14 hours.

Justifiable homicide is such a thing to prevent situations (just a very small example of what guns can prevent) such as the above from happening. It is a guns potency that makes it easy for the physically weak or outnumbered to defend themselves from a bad situation, a melee weapon still requires you to be strong or proficient through months of training to defend yourself without the weapon being ripped from your hands and used on you as you still need to make physical contact with the aggressor giving him a very good chance to do so. If a world where the weak should fear and be dominated by the strong is what you wish then by all means continue your flawed crusade.
When police brutality happens it's because the individual officer cares not for the consequences of his actions possibly because he believes that he will not be prosecuted no matter what. Civilians who conceal carry in many states are restricted to do so until they pass training and a major part of gun culture is seeking out and training as much as possible with whatever weapon they have be it a revolver or AR15. At the same time civilians are under intense scrutiny for every action they took when being investigated for a shooting. Actions such as, whether or not deadly force was justified, what weapon/ammo did they use, how many times did they fire/was the number of rounds used necessary,
and did they fire negligently or did they use correct restraint and control. All this is in the back of the mind of the average gun owner and in many cases civilians have been able to use their gun defensively without ever firing a shot at a rate much higher than the police.

Attached: b8c.jpg (316x302, 81.53K)

hoo boy i'm a gook and I've been waiting for this for the longest time. Daegu subway, you fags will never beat the arson high score Mc Veigh don't count that's bomber man
First off guns are not completely banned in any of those countries and in the case of Germany you can own an AR15, In cancada you can own your choice of nearly whatever semi-auto save it was not banned by name (yes AKs in another name and AR like rifles exist fairly widespread along with others). Just a small example but enough to prove you did little to no research. As for number of casualties then lets look at South Korea.
A country where a majority of the male population has gone through compulsory military service and thus have both training and knowledge of not just handguns or other "safe guns" but actual real assault rifles (FULL AUTO CAPABLE) yet the population is heavily restricted from keeping and owning weapons. The Korean civilian gun owner is restricted to mostly shotguns and manual action hunting rifles (similar restrictions you may find in england and australia) however they must keep said firearms locked away at the local police station and must sign a form to release it and then bring it back within a certain curfew, despite these regulations guns have been used to kill with notable incidents being the Sejong and Hwaseong shootings. But of course these are very minor in terms of mass shootings. So what can kill better and more than a gunman and his weapon? A gas can and a bic lighter, or other flammable liquid containing device
The Daegu subway fire. Kim Dae-han carrying a duffle bag with two containers holding flammable liquids walked onto a train (1079) that reached the Jungangno station. His presence and intent became obvious and some passengers tried to stop him but it resulted in a container spilling and igniting which then spread quickly through the aluminium shell while burning plastics created massive amounts of toxic smoke. Unfortunately due to incompetence the driver failed to notify the station quickly enough, the burning train then pulled into the station as another was coming in. The other train (1080) opened its doors but then shut trying to keep the smoke out causing passengers to be trapped, to make matters worse a fire detection system shut power down to the station causing 1080 to be unable to leave the station. The conductor finally told passengers to run out but he then left and removed a key that caused a shut down on the trains batteries powering its doors causing whatever remaining passengers to be trapped.
The result. 192 dead with 151 injured.

I feel autistic

Attached: 1420082669141.jpg (862x646, 120.02K)

Isn't that implicitly admitting that the Second Amendment extends to all arms and not just 'muh durr rifle' and 'muh dubble barrel'?

Shit disregard this part there was more info about whats more easy to get and okay in their gov'ts eyes that I was going to add but fucked up.

Yeah, and the NFA and all gun control laws are unconstitutional.

Attached: aaa020a2e3824c9ff16bbb8fc189faa11320e8fe6e7f3bf2c96819d28d39ce19.png (839x960 263.11 KB, 190.47K)

vs
Sad to say, debating these people will never work. When confronted with the truth, they double down on their stupidity.

Just make sure you have an audience, user.

I hope these aren't examples of the "impossible to defeat arguments" that you are talking about because these are all babby tier shit.

What level of liberal delusion are these faggots on

This. Your target is fence sitters who watch the gun-control retard get beaten by logic and sources.

As many as it takes.

What the fuck is this real? Why is everything so expensive nowadays? Is it inflation or have guns become more costly to make?

That's $105 now, Mosins were cheaper.

Just beat them with their own weapons.
Those racists :^)
I guarantee you, most of them are rich, white, suburban, college kids, like that attention whore mulatto.
Hoodniggas love guns, because they NEED them.

Attached: D7F89541-BB7F-4743-B726-8BD054063E63.jpeg (400x400 266.08 KB, 57.11K)

So inflation? Fucking audit the FED already

This is some of the most basic, easily arguable shit imaginable.
Homicide is a catch-all term that includes self defense. Doesn't matter what their purpose is, that doesn't pertain to the argument, not to mention hunting & wildlife defense, etc. Guns kill more people intentionally than not because, as he just said, they are made to kill. "You don't NEED it" is not an argument, you're trying to take away something from me that I want to keep. You don't NEED a house, or your computer and whatnot.
Puckle guns and other repeating firearms, particularly revolvers, were widely known when the amendment was made. Breach-loaders also existed in a capacity. Founding fathers explicitly mentioned that a citizen should be able to own a battleship, 'should he be to afford it'. Their intentions are clear. The latter half of this is so ridiculously retarded that I literally involuntarily laughed, this guy has no clue what the absolute hell he's talking about. Topic's been done to death, but in short: The "AK-47" is "less powerful" then many fudd woodstock hunting rifles, we can own "machine guns" and semis can be technically kinda converted to auto easily in a hypothetical rebel situation. Guy seems to think that people stand in a line and shoot at each other and whoever has the "most powerful weapons" win. Remind him that every insurgency is history has been done with comparatively worse firepower, not to mention, the US government isn't going to destroy its own infrastructure with nukes or "bombers" in the case of a rebellion. Even point out that in Afghanistan & Iraq, where we are using the full extent of munitions, only more and more groups pop up. You have to define "military" also, good portion of people are going to defect. Guerrilla warfare, sabotage, asymmetrical fighting, etc. Many firearm owners are better acquainted with firearms than US infantry. The numerical volume of lead you can technically put down range has practically no consideration in modern warfare.
So, he in very elementary-school terms, describes what a firearm is and says it's "not right" and "not logical". Not an argument. "hurr the greater good" is not an argument either, especially considering it would be actively detrimental for the greater good.
They're used literally in a 50 to 1 ratio of self defense to criminal use. Someone post the infograph. Self defense is in no way "unintentional murder". "Why is it okay to kill someone who is actively trying to kill you"? What the fuck? This is the actual, real mindset of a liberal. Appeal to emotion anyhow, not an argument. Again, the stats he makes up in his mind are not the actual stats. No, in that case the criminal would have a gun and I would not. Funny he mentions the police thing, iirc they have a 10~% error rate while people using them in self defense have a

Fucking this. They aren’t people who can be rational and weigh facts and statistics to come to a conclusion. They are lemmings who will never change no matter what you do. Refer to pic related before you try to debate these people.

Attached: 5260639D-6449-4C08-933E-0638F806A248.jpeg (1468x7317, 2.41M)

On a related note, didn't a late-Obama period (2016?) survey show that the majority of nogs in America are against gun control?

OY GEVALT!

Your correct. Sadly it's because we have idiots who are romanticists and never consider that theory does not equal practicality. We need like something to shake the populace to the core, like either another 9/11. Better yet, we need some sort of major crisis on the level of a major famine to wake these shits up. They will realize how important guns are to people when nigs go around raping everyone and there mum with nothing but baseball bats.

Sage for crap below. But I really hate californians now, some woman the other day cut in front of me and was all snarky about it. I threatened to shoot her I dont own a pistol. She got scared and the local DPS officer just laughed lol. Rural californians are cool, just not the libcucks.

There's no point in debating these people in private, there's especially no point in using excessive statistics in your talking points. A better idea would be using the kind of tactics you would see being utilized in The Hammer of the Patriot where you "debate" them in a public form and slam them with emotional arguments. I've had a surprising amount of success by using their the watching audience against them in tandem with emotionally charged and punishing techniques. It's alinskyist as fuck, but it works.

A lot of these people are the people that cannot stand the idea of alienation and having the dunce hat very vocally forced on them in front of people. Dominant arguments, even emotional, beat the hell out of trying to use statistics and justifications for your views. As dirty as it is, Alinskyism works now that these gun-grabbing fucks are establishment.

Attached: -.jpg (316x475, 63.47K)

But who is the other 10% of the population?

The right to self-protection is inherent. There is no inherent right to speedy travel. And remind them here in the United-fucking-States we believe in inherent rights. Government doesn't give us shit so it also can't take away our rights out with absolute due process.
And full artillery pieces. A Privateer asked Congress if he could use the cannons he appropriated from enemy ships. They told him he didn't even have to ask.
Until they were banned everyone who had the money could purchase what the military could in terms of small arms as well.
Call them an authoritarian fascist and unamerican, they don't believe in freedom or liberty
refer to number 1&3
refer to 1&3. They are unamerican cucks who don't understand the foundation of the country. Tell them they need to learn history and read the thinkers and philosophers who founded the nation.