Jon Stewart stays bringing the heat on gun crime statistics.

[saturn7]

Tell that to the victims of school shootings

What laws would have prevented those acts?

Those shooters broke multiple laws.
Murder is already illegal but those shooters chose to murder.

 

[Da King]

What laws would have prevented those acts?

Those shooters broke multiple laws.
Murder is already illegal but those shooters chose to murder.

Almost every school shooter used a LEGALLY obtained automatic rifle to go and massacre children… but you see nothing humanly possible to prevent this?


Ok breh, enjoy that gun under your pillow at night

 

[saturn7]

Almost every school shooter used a LEGALLY obtained automatic rifle to go and massacre children… but you see nothing humanly possible to prevent this?


Ok breh, enjoy that gun under your pillow at night

What additional laws do you think would've prevented the shootings?
You act like people can't also illegally acquire weapons.

They used those weapons to break the law. Fukk them, at that point they are criminals.
Yall really want the government to be on some Minority Report shyt.

"Ok breh, enjoy that gun under your pillow at night"

You're damn right I will.
Enjoy leaving the defense of yourself and your family in another man's hands.

 

[Da King]

What additional laws do you think would've prevented the shootings?
You act like people can't also illegally acquire weapons.

They used those weapons to break the law. Fukk them, at that point they are criminals.
Yall really want the government to be on some Minority Report shyt.

"Ok breh, enjoy that gun under your pillow at night"

You're damn right I will.
Enjoy leaving the defense of yourself and your family in another man's hands.

So basically whenever there’s a school shooting you’re thinking “ fukk those kids, they should’ve been strapped up and nothing could’ve prevented this, oh well”

 

[⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐]

NO.

I agree with the overall federal laws. I think the gun laws in states like NY, CA and Ill are awful.

"and that mirroring NY laws in states with high gun sales would not save any lives"
Correct. mimicking those laws would not make a difference. Again the criminals are already breaking the fukking law.

They are not going to stop in the middle of a crime and be like "oh shyt I got a 30 round mag. the limit in this state is 10. let me not rob this fool because I don't want to get an extra 5 years for possessing an illegal mag".
In for a penny, in for a stag.

"we shouldn't even bother trying at all since we can't eliminate gun violence 100%?"

Yes we should try to eliminate crime and violence. We have laws on the books that prohibit certain people from possessing and buying firearms!! You act like there are no gun laws at all.

What you are proposing will not accomplish that is the point!!!
What laws do you want that we don't have now?

They just repeat talking points and they are stuck in a cognitive dissonance, virtue signaling with their “good intentions”

 

[saturn7]

They just repeat talking points and they are stuck in a cognitive dissonance, virtue signaling with their “good intentions”

It's all emotion. No logic.
Dems are sooo off on this issue.

 

[BaldingSoHard]

NO.

I agree with the overall federal laws. I think the gun laws in states like NY, CA and Ill are awful.

"and that mirroring NY laws in states with high gun sales would not save any lives"
Correct. mimicking those laws would not make a difference. Again the criminals are already breaking the fukking law.

They are not going to stop in the middle of a crime and be like "oh shyt I got a 30 round mag. the limit in this state is 10. let me not rob this fool because I don't want to get an extra 5 years for possessing an illegal mag".
In for a penny, in for a stag.

"we shouldn't even bother trying at all since we can't eliminate gun violence 100%?"

Yes we should try to eliminate crime and violence. We have laws on the books that prohibit certain people from possessing and buying firearms!! You act like there are no gun laws at all.

What you are proposing will not accomplish that is the point!!!
What laws do you want that we don't have now?

I didn't expect you to admit that you believe that zero lives could be saved. At least you're not one of those hypocrites, so that's good, albeit a wild belief.

What laws do I want? I say get rid of guns completely. Wipe those shyts off the map; firearms have outlived their usefulness in an advancing society. I don't give a flying fukk if it means Billy Bob can't go hunt quails on the weekend. That's my take.

 

[BaldingSoHard]

It's all emotion. No logic.
Dems are sooo off on this issue.

I'm not a democrat. at allying yourself to a political faction.

And I agree, it's all emotion. There is no logic to an entire sect of Americans advocating for higher rates of gun ownership in 2023 when firearms are the leading cause of death for children.

 

[saturn7]

I'm not a democrat. at allying yourself to a political faction.

And I agree, it's all emotion. There is no logic to an entire sect of Americans advocating for higher rates of gun ownership in 2023 when firearms are the leading cause of death for children.

You want the Nanny State to hold your dikk and protect you at all times.

Guns exist. The 2A exists. Gun ownership rates have increased.

 

[saturn7]

I didn't expect you to admit that you believe that zero lives could be saved. At least you're not one of those hypocrites, so that's good, albeit a wild belief.

What laws do I want? I say get rid of guns completely. Wipe those shyts off the map; firearms have outlived their usefulness in an advancing society. I don't give a flying fukk if it means Billy Bob can't go hunt quails on the weekend. That's my take.

Finally.

You admit what you want is not realistic at all.

 

[Prodyson]

The constitution outlines the right for people to bear arms in self defense. And in life, self defense IS a necessity. Your post is straight semantics.

“If you don’t like it you can leave” is also a terrible argument because another right given to citizens (first amendment) is the right to redress (criticize) the govt


While militarizing the police they’re pushing gun control. People who roll around with armed security guards are telling average Americans to give up their/certain guns. The govt is telling the populace to give up certain guns when the 2nd amendment was put in place IN CASE of a tyrannical govt. all because criminals commit crimes. It’s always going to be a terrible argument coming from a govt that rather have an unarmed populace than an armed one…

The constitution outlines the right for people to bear arms in self defense. And in life, self defense IS a necessity. Your post is straight semantics.

“If you don’t like it you can leave” is also a terrible argument because another right given to citizens (first amendment) is the right to redress (criticize) the govt


While militarizing the police they’re pushing gun control. People who roll around with armed security guards are telling average Americans to give up their/certain guns. The govt is telling the populace to give up certain guns when the 2nd amendment was put in place IN CASE of a tyrannical govt. all because criminals commit crimes. It’s always going to be a terrible argument coming from a govt that rather have an unarmed populace than an armed one…

I’m the one who made the ORIGINAL statement that we shouldn’t treat guns like they are necessities for life (ie food, water and shelter), based on the LITERAL definition of necessity, which means something is required WITHOUT EXCEPTION. You can’t then come and give a semantic definition that doesn’t factor in the context of my comment to try to discredit my statement. That’s a disingenuous way to debate. It’d be one thing if someone ELSE said something about guns being a necessary in one context and I tried to come and flip the script. No. I had a clear meaning by necessity and y’all are trying to make it a semantic argument to make what I said seem to be untrue. In it’s ORIGINAL CONTEXT, what I said is a FACT.

With regard to the second part of your statement, let me reiterate that I never said that people shouldn’t be able to own guns, even semi-automatic rifles. So I’m not sure why that continues to be the target when responding to me. Take that argument to someone else who suggested it. I simply said that if it makes people safer, then I don’t have a problem making the process a difficult one. That’s all predicated on the idea that whatever POTENTIAL law we’re talking about makes people safer.

 

[Field Marshall Bradley]

There's over 400 million guns in America and ~900,000 3D printers (used to manufacture ghost guns).

No amount of legislation is going to fix this problem.

Yup…. It will take a holistic approach outside of politics to eradicate guns to a significant degree in these unites states….. Otherwise, guns will be a political wedge in America until GOD decides to turn the lights off on this planet

 

[Goat poster]

The constitution outlines the right for people to bear arms in self defense. And in life, self defense IS a necessity. Your post is straight semantics.

“If you don’t like it you can leave” is also a terrible argument because another right given to citizens (first amendment) is the right to redress (criticize) the govt


While militarizing the police they’re pushing gun control. People who roll around with armed security guards are telling average Americans to give up their/certain guns. The govt is telling the populace to give up certain guns when the 2nd amendment was put in place IN CASE of a tyrannical govt. all because criminals commit crimes. It’s always going to be a terrible argument coming from a govt that rather have an unarmed populace than an armed one…

Your guns would mean NOTHING if the government REALLY wanted to get at you

They don't even need to send a human after you, a drone will take you and your guns out in SECONDS.

 

[⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐]

I'm not a democrat. at allying yourself to a political faction.

And I agree, it's all emotion. There is no logic to an entire sect of Americans advocating for higher rates of gun ownership in 2023 when firearms are the leading cause of death for children.

Sounds like irresponsible parents are the leading cause of death for children

 

[⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐]

Your guns would mean NOTHING if the government REALLY wanted to get at you

They don't even need to send a human after you, a drone will take you and your guns out in SECONDS.

This argument is redundant and stupid


The American military is made up of American citizens

Who have had so much success in taking out children without proper footwear that we were ran out of Afghanistan

So take it laying down is your solution. God forbid somebody enters your house, and your wife looks at you to help …. You remember your take it laying down position