you probably didn’t even refute my points anyways. just not worth it.

*honk honk

lmfao. wut?

tldr yawn

said the man who couldn’t refute literally any of my points (and clearly didn’t understand most of them in the first place)

only lack of logic then? ok.

reread your stuff. if you can’t understand how it proves your own stupidity, then you really are hopelessly lost.

“I work in health care” Exhibits the intelligence of a ostrich

you’ve given me all the proof I would need lmfao.

I really don’t think you are smart enough. lol

there is a point where peaceful protest is not enough, you realize that, right?

honestly it is the only way they can throw off the bourgeoisie. people who want to deprive the proletariat of guns are class traitors or posers from the bourgeoisie.

preach! This! couldn’t have said it better myself.

Yawn. Your personal experience is not reflective of broader trends. If you work in healthcare, you really should be smart enough to know this. So I will lecture you, because you clearly need it. Besides, you haven’t refuted any of my points, you just resorted to logical fallacies like appeals to authority and anecdotal evidence. Proof that you don’t have anything useful to say anymore. Smh.

• There are plenty of convenient and easy ways for harming each other outside of guns (France circa 2016). The same goes for suicide. So banning guns doesn’t actually make it “harder” for people to harm one another, esp. when you can just drive a truck through a crowd.
• Gun control doesn’t work anyways (Winnenden School Shooting, Jokela School Shooting Finland, 2007, Alphen aan den Rijn Shopping Mall Shooting in Netherlands, 2011, etc. etc.).
• Guns save more productive civilian lives than the the criminal lives they take, and people like you purposefully ignore this fact. In trying to save a few hundred or maybe thousand lives from gun violence (most of which are violent criminals themselves), you people are willing to deprive millions of innocent hard working people the ability to defend themselves. You know nothing.
• Even if all of this was false, the ability to resist tyranny is more valuable than the lives lost to gun-crime.

How about instead of low-IQ hamfisted moves such as taking away guns, you people look at policies that would address the root causes of crime like broken families, poverty, mental illness, homelessness, and cultural malaise? You don’t. Because you’re lazy. And THAT is why you want to get rid of guns. Because you don’t care enough about the people to invest some effort in actually solving all the related problems that lead people to use guns in the first place.

How about you just give them guns so they can shoot the acid attackers. Turns out, you don’t need much training with a gun. Point shoot. Very simple. Point shoot. School shooters figure it out just fine.

“how would you stop a fascist with a gun that wants to put you in a camp”

If they were really a fascist, I would shoot them.

facts.

these people are such idiots. besides, the founding fathers didn’t exclusively intend the second amendment to be used against petty thieves or violent criminals… they wanted it to be used to resist tyranny in all its forms. One form of tyranny is prosecutors dropping violent felons cases, judges setting low bail on repeat violent offenders, and federal governments throwing the borders open and granting special protection to violent criminals that come across the border. The government at best can punish crime, but it can never defend us. I am more than willing to accept school shootings if it means I can shoot someone that I deem a threat if necessary.

Countries that “don’t have much gun crime” = countries with acid attacks