March for our lives is flawed.

It isn't a really good one., but we have been over this already.
I say we ban people and water though, that might actually be a good start to making us safe.

 

We haven't specifically gone over the valid use of lethal force. I can give a number of examples where killing someone is a valid action.

 

Sole purpose of killing others? What about;

- defense/insurance against tyranny
- hunting
- self defense / property defense
- taking out your anger on schoolchildren

I know those are all related to killing, but guns are TOOLS. They're only dangerous if a fellow uses them that way. I listed 4 great ways to use guns which heavily oughtweigh "killing people for no reason"

 

shoulda renamed this thread “gun rights pt 2” to be honest

 

-The government could annihilate you if they wanted to
-I do like venision
-I disagree
-I no longer know how to respond

 

Gun control 2: the electric boogaloo

 

I would argue that the United States military could not destroy the millions of people that would stand against them, should it turn tyrannical

I've never had venison, how is it?

I would rather have a gun than nothing in a self defense situation, surely you could agree

 

If it's them or you getting hurt, why risk it being you? @SirGiggly

 

-As would I, but I could never imagine being in need of a weapon beyond a handgun or shotgun unless I somehow pissed off someone crazy which generally doesn't happen. I think stricter laws surrounding guns that go beyond reasonable use (not agreeing with the tyranny argument) would impact bad guys getting guns than normal people getting guns.

-Venison is fantastic, probably one of top three best meats.

 

But than I could use those in a school shooting as well.

Don't agree we need it, or don't agree it would work?

 

You act like schools are frequently shot up with fully automatic guns (gun fact, outside a few rare (and expensive) cases, civilians can't own these) in reality, the columbine shooters used a 9mm pistol, two shotguns, and a rifle. All of these have uses that vastly outweigh a few unlucky high schoolers.

tldr their functionality > the danger

 

I conceded the point of school shootings earlier.

I do not believe that it is in the governments interest to repress us anymore more than we already are, and I believe that the government possesses force dwarfing any hope of defending your liberty. So pretty much both, because most of today's problems in first world countries are not disputed with guns.

 

Picture yourself in a school shooting. Would you rather the shooter have a battle rifle or a shotgun/pistol?

 

you're incredibly naive if you think an armed population could somehow annihilate a "government that turns tyrannical". also, it's definitely not out of the water to say it already is, it's just not happening to you, so you don't care. until the government starts to target your group, you don't care.

 

How would a gun ban control the ghost guns being smuggled into America, they are bought on the streets and will continue to be after law changes. They don't care who they sell to whether that be the next school shooter or those who are banging, guns will still be purchasable for those who have ill intentions.
Gun law won't change anything, there will always be those being armed who intend to harm and those who collect them for a hobby.

Do not compare America to other secluded countries that are more difficult to smuggle to, think a little.

 

A school shooter would rather have a battle rifle, presumably. But should they not have the means to obtain one, if their intent was solely on shooting up a school, they would use a handgun or shotgun

 

A battle rifle is more effective at mass shootings. If all guns we're banned people might use knives but it is preferable they use knives to guns right?

 

In a school shooting situation, yes. But someone intent on breaking the law anyway would not be discouraged by the fact assault weapons are illegal. They would find the means to obtain one.

I really don't understand this, could you explain this please

 

I agree that in practice you can't effectively stop someone from getting a battle rifle.

The government has historically been oppressive to plenty of minority groups. Gun control laws originated as a way to stop black liberation groups from defending themselves from the police. Drug laws were passed with the intention of criminalizing black and politically dissident groups. These are examples of tyrannies that white gun's rights groups seemingly don't care about.

 

I feel thats an invalid argument. If blacks were oppressed today, much much more people would care.