No word yet on whether this applies to airports and courthouses.

>>1521441
>This regime
What a fucking joke.

>>1521442
It still doesn't apply to stores in Hawaii
Refusing service to some jackass carrying a gun onto my property will always be legal

…How? It's private property, you abide by the rules of the owner when you come in. Just as they get to kick you out for being an annoying shit, they can kick you out for having a gun. It's been like this forever, you've been able to set rules on not having guns within your establishment since the founding of the nation. They've managed to be so pro-2A that they're infringing on property rights.

The 2nd Amendment is the most hypocritical and worthless part of the Constitution. Supposedly it will help us reign in tyrannical despots but where are the tyrannical despots in those Hawaiian shops? Nowhere to be found.

>>1521450
It's funny that we don't get the same protections for the 1st amendment even though this would solve so many problems with society and is by far a more important right than the 2nd, which is made to protect teh first.

NOPE

GOTTA PROTECT THAT SECURITY BLANKET WHILE WE DESTROY THE REASON THE SECURITY BLANKET EXISTS
MORE PRIVATE CORPOS ACTING AS THE FEDS BLACKLIST, PLEASE

>>1521450
They struck down a law that said the default is no and you have to ask the owner for special permission even if the owner does not care or specifically approves of guns on their property. They can still tell people with guns to leave.

>>1521450
The law was written to mean you can only carry a gun inside of private property with the permission of the owner first. This made concealed carry impossible at gas stations, grocery stores etc and made it impossible to keep a firearm concealed.

>>1521459
Surely a person could just put up a sign saying 'guns allowed, come on in'. Also, it's fucking Hawaii. If you feel you need a concealed carry wherever you go in Hawaii, you have problems that concealed carry won't solve.

>>1521451
Democrats politicians gotta shop somehwere.

>>1521466
Would you accept such a standard when it comes to the first amendment?
Having to get permission from a business owner before being allowed to exercise your first amendment on their property

>>1521476
holy logical fallacy

>>1521480
The law was written to mean you can only carry a gun inside of private property with the permission of the owner first. That would be suppressing your second amendments right to bare arms. I am asking if you would accept similar restrictions on the first amendment, requiring permission of the owner first.

>>1521483
and i'm making fun of you because you don't deserve to be taken seriously

>>1521485
Universal standards are not a joke or a logical fallacy

>>1521489
and your childlike understanding of the american constitution is apparently not a joke either

>>1521466
>Also, it's fucking Hawaii. If you feel you need a concealed carry wherever you go in Hawaii, you have problems that concealed carry won't solve.
Do you have the slightest idea how many meth-heads and homeless are in Hawaii?

>>1521494
and letting them go wherever they want with guns is supposed to fix things?

>>1521495
You do realize criminals don't get their guns from gun stores, right?

>>1521496
i can't believe your shill farm wastes money on you

>>1521466
>Surely a person could just put up a sign saying 'guns allowed, come on in'.
Yeah, but it wouldn't just be one person, but literally every single owner of every private property you plan on visiting. And you would have a burden to prove that permission exists to the court, otherwise you could be held criminally liable for exercising your constitutional rights.

>>1521497
I can't believe you have no rebuttal.

To everyone else that isn't a shill, criminals don't follow the law (shocking, I know) and these meth-heads already have guns. Heaven forbid anyone else be allowed to protect themselves.

>>1521499
you're projecting again

>>1521466
>need

>>1521499
Retarded ESL shill: Your store is probably full of criminals with guns and I need a gun to protect myself
Sane America: Okay, don't come then
Retarded ESL shill: NOOOOO YOU HAVE TO LET ME INTO YOUR CRIME RIDDEN METH HOLE NOOOOO

do you ever get embarrassed? you'd think someone as stupid as you would just kill yourself

>>1521483
>This law means you can't carry a gun on private property without the owner's permission. THIS IS SUPRESSING YOUR RIGHTS! MUH GUN RIGHTS!!!!! You wouldn't let the government limit your completely and totally unlimited free speech like some eurofag, would you!?!?

Your free speech is already restricted.You can't commit libel or slander, can't yell fire in a crowded theater, can't scream slurs at your neighbors thru a megaphone at 3AM.

So congrats for not only failing to make any coherent point on these gun laws, but for arguing for restricting speech on private property.

>>1521498
>You would have a burden to prove you had permission...

Yeah, because it's guilty until proven innocent... oh wait, it's the other way, so you're nakedly lying.

>otherwise you'd be criminally liable for exercising your constitutional rights.

But... it's not your right to bear arms on steve's lawn specifically, it's your right to bear arms. limiting what you're allowed to do with a gun on someone else's property doesn't limit your right to gun ownership, the same way limiting what you're allowed to say in a crowded theater is not an attack on free speech.

How does this meaningfully effect you. How often to you wander into private property waving your gun around, how much of a fucking pussy are you that you constantly have to have a weapon on you? Do you like, legit think you're going to step over your neighbor's property line wearing a holster, and the second your foot touches their grass there's going to be a swat team tackling you? That's fucking retarded man.

>>1521499
>criminals don't follow laws, gun restrictions don't work!

Yeah, and laws don't force people to wear seatbelts, so we shouldn't have them either. It's not like black market guns are like 10 times more expensive. It's not like sensible gun legislation has been proven to work in other countries. Guess we should give up and accept there's nothing we can do about being the only developed nation with these rates of gun violence. Let's just make back to school cloths bulletproof!/s

>but I NEED to have access to enough firepower to kill a dozen people in the time it takes me to wipe my brow! There are rabid meth heads around every corner, waiting in every shadow!

Funny, because I live in the heroine capital of the US and see strung out homeless people literally every day. And I've never felt unsafe walking around them, or like I needed to wear my gun to work.

Then again, I guess I'm not a giant paranoid schizophrenic faggot bitch, so I don't live in a constant state of insecurity, terror, and barely restrained cocklust, to the point where I need a gun on me at all times to feel safe.

>>1521506
>you're nakedly lying
This law already exists for state buildings at a national level retard.
>How does this meaningfully effect you.
It doesn't because its been overturned. You're still gay though. Sorry you have to suffer because of that.

>>1521506
You know what? You're wrong. The supreme court disagrees with you.
It's another "L".
And the core of your argument is based on criminal actions such as libel.
Walking around with a firearm isn't illegal.
Libel and slander would be more like brandishing or firing a weapon without cause.

>>1521508
Being gay doesn't make me suffer. You probably assume that because it makes you suffer. You should ask your boyfriend to use more lube.

>>You're nakedly lying
>the law already exists at a st-

Excuse me, what the fuck are you talking about? That line wasn't debating the existence of a law you monosyllabic moron. We are talking about the legal burden of proof.

Is it that your reading level never graduated from the third grade, or do you need a software update? Fuck you retard faggot.

>>1521507
>It's not like sensible gun legislation has been proven to work in other countries.
It has? When? To the best of my knowledge no country that banned firearms or drastically restricted them had any decrease in murder.
In fact iirc the murder rate in UK continued to rise for nearly a decade after guns were banned.
And before you go into the "shootings" routine, The base argument about guns and the need to restrict them is how easy they make killing.
So, if the murder rate hasn't decreased noticeably after gun bans, you've failed (you have, you are a nard).
>>1521508
Indeed. All liggerals are LGBTQ. It's not even even a joke any more.

>>1521511
>Being gay doesn't make me suffer.
You're obviously mentally ill so there's probably some suffering there.

>>1521510
>the core of your argument is based on criminal actions such as libel.
>walking around with a firearm isn't illegal.

Yeah, and talking isn't illegal either you fucking moron. Walking around with a gun is to talking as carrying a weapon on private property without permission is to slander.

>>1521512
>When has sensible gun legislation been proven to work in other countries?

Australia introduced major firearms restrictions after the Port Arther Massacre, which lowered gun deaths substantially.

>GUN deaths? if the murder rate hasn't noticeably decreased, no other outcomes are relevant.

Not true at all, there are plenty of other relevant outcomes. The effect on Australia's murder rate is arguable, it was declining anyway, but there was a dramatic reduction in mass shootings. Lower firearm access is also associated with lower suicide rates.

Nice attempt to seize control of the narrative though, faggot.

>All figgeral tiggerals are lgbtq

Oh, are they? You noticing more of them on grndr lately closet case?

>>1521513
>you're obviously mentally ill?

I'm not tormented by my sexuality like you are... so I'm mentally ill?

So you think you're NOT mentally ill... and you think NOT BEING mentally ill... means being tortured about being gay?

You're like all the conservative christians who claim that it's a choice to be gay; who think it's a choice, because they chose to be straight.

>If I don't comment about the fucking schizorant I went on about the law already existing at a state level, maybe he'll forget about it!

Sure didn't, faggot.

>>1521517
Wow. You suck.
100% of chomos are LGBTQ.

>>1521517
>which lowered gun deaths substantially.
However did not lower the occurrence of mass casuality events.
You're disgusting and your posts reek of foulness.

>>1521519
>which lowered gun deaths substantially.
>However did not lower the occurrence of mass casuality events.

Define “mass casualty event” and cite your dataset. Because under every standard academic definition, Australia had repeated high-fatality mass shootings before 1996 and none of comparable scale for decades after.

>You reek
You're in a room with a computer alone. Go take a shower dumbass.

>>1521506
>“Because most owners do not post signs either allowing or forbidding guns – and because it is virtually impossible to go about publicly without setting foot on private property open to the public – Hawaii’s law functions as a near-total ban on public carry,” the Justice Department told the court in a filing.
The justice department is right on this one. I have TDS more than anyone else I know, but the three liberal justices were brain dead in their ruling. We don't need signs saying masks allowed, knives allowed, boots allowed, etc. why treat guns differently? If you don't want them on your property, put up a fucking sign. Forcing businesses to buy a "guns allowed" sign so people can carry is ridiculous.

ESL shill wants to indulge their humiliation fetish, so of course they want to be told to leave instead of being afraid to enter a building because there's a sign that says they're not allowed

>>1521466
>Surely a person could just put up a sign saying 'guns allowed, come on in'.

That's allowed everywhere in America but you can still go in with your concealed handgun, it only applies to open carry or if you were to tell the store owner you had a gun on you, at which point he'd tell you to leave and if you refused, you'd be charged with trespassing.

>>1521530
Wrong, the store owner can assume you're concealed carrying and still tell you to gtfo

>>1521531
>the store owner can assume you're concealed carrying

So... the store owner is refusing to let anybody in his store?

esl shill hits their esl limit in their esl understanding

>>1521507
>Yeah, and laws don't force people to wear seatbelts, so we shouldn't have them either.
Hasty generalization fallacy and/or strawman.
> It's not like black market guns are like 10 times more expensive.
[citation needed]
>It's not like sensible gun legislation has been proven to work in other countries.
1) those countries don't have 2A, and 2) I'd rather live in a country that has gun violence over a country like the UK where I have to sit back and watch as my 12 year old daughter gets whored out to Muslim rape gangs, or else I'll go to jail or get beheaded.
>Guess we should give up and accept there's nothing we can do about being the only developed nation with these rates of gun violence.
Strawman.
>Let's just make back to school cloths bulletproof!/s
Absurdity.
>but I NEED to have access to enough firepower to kill a dozen people in the time it takes me to wipe my brow! There are rabid meth heads around every corner, waiting in every shadow!
Misquotation and strawman.
>Funny, because I live in the heroine capital of the US and see strung out homeless people literally every day. And I've never felt unsafe walking around them, or like I needed to wear my gun to work.
Anecdotal fallacy.
>Then again, I guess I'm not a giant paranoid schizophrenic faggot bitch, so I don't live in a constant state of insecurity, terror, and barely restrained cocklust, to the point where I need a gun on me at all times to feel safe.
Ad hom.

When you calm down, please try to rationally explain why Hawaii shouldn't allow licensed concealed carriers to carry a compact pistol for protection.

>>1521531
Easy discrimination lawsuit.
>I didn't let that man into my store because I assumed he had a gun
>why did you assume he had a gun?
>because of the way he looked
Bam, you now owe that man a million dollars and your business is destroyed.

esl shill remains confused and scared of discrimination

You were right this site is better if you filter ESL and shill it's like he is not even there. It's just the same board experience but better

>>1521543
Lately when someone says "ESL shill" or something along those lines, someone often makes a post like this. I don't think you're actually filtering anything.

>>1521520
>Define
Why would I speak to anyone on this subject who doesn't know what the term means?

stupid law.
a mass shooter isn't going to announce that they want permission to bring a gun into a populated area

>>1521548
I do know what the terms mean you stupid faggot, YOU don't, you're using them wrong. Clarify what the fuck you're talking about, or shut the fuck up you dishonest dipshit.

>>1521552
Cool. That makes sense, because the only factor that effects mass shootings is whether or not someone announces if they're going to do one. That's literally the only way to prevent one.

Gun control wouldn't help, because the shooter having smaller magazines, meaning they have to stop to reload more, giving people more chances to escape and law enforcement more time to stop them, that doesn't matter. Them having smaller caliber bullets which can result in less severe injuries to victims doesn't matter either, a 9mm is exactly the same as a 5.56.

Mass shootings are also the only thing this law was designed to prevent. I mean sure, it'd keep belligerent drunks from being armed in communal spaces, and I'm sure I could find a bunch of other stats you'd just fucking ignore, but none of that matters, because it has no effect on gun deaths at all.

Oh wait, yes it does, that's fucking bananas and so are you.

>>1521574
>I do know what the terms mean you stupid faggot, YOU don't, you're using them wrong. Clarify what the fuck you're talking about, or shut the fuck up you dishonest dipshit.
OK then you tell me what it means if I'm wrong, Hoss.

>>1521537

>>let's just make back to school cloths bulletproof
>absurdity.

Gee, I was being totally serious you stupid faggot, but it's good to see right wing retards still don't understand satire or sarcasm. Thanks.

>you didn't quote me exactly, wah!
Yeah, I paraphrase, deal with it you stupid faggot.

>I used a strawman literally, not figuratively, literally right before I called you out for using a strawman.

I know, you're a disingenuous faggot.

>you called me mean names, wah!
Do you know where you are right now, retard?

>rationally explain why Hawaii shouldn't allow licensed concealed carriers to carry a compact pistol for protection.

I didn't argue that, and don't actually care one way or the other. I just like making fun of retarded right wing faggots who argue in bad faith. I never once argued for the ban, just against ridiculous shit you stupid bastards were saying. I'm a fucking gun owner and a centrist, but you stupid pieces of shit would push anyone to the left.

>>1521578
Tell you what a compound word you made up means?

No, go fuck yourself.

The common definition of mass shooting is a shooting where 4+ people were injured.

Australia had those regularly before 1996, and didn't have any for decades after.

You claimed mass shootings went down, but mass casualty events went up. You didn't define what a mass casualty event was and gave no evidence.

Explain what the fuck you are talking about, and show me where you're getting this data, or shut the fuck up.

>>1521582
Once again, you don't understand what a mass casualty event is, so there's no need to debate you.
It's a word for a "massacre". And there were many massacres in Australia before and after gun restrictions.
Gun restrictions did nothing.

>>1521584
>make claim with term
>won’t give evidence of claim
>won’t define term
NTA, but he’s kicking your ass.
>Gun restrictions did nothing.
Sounds to me that gun restrictions reduced deaths by guns.

>>1521585
No he isn't. He's (You) is a fucktard probably using some AI shit to generate slimy sounding mental gymnastics.
You think I don't have evidence? Fuckfaces who use the "define it" method of liggeral-jewish argumentation deserve to be toyed with.

>>1521587
>No he’s not.
That isn’t your decision to make.
>He's (You) is a fucktard
Try again, anon.

>>1521588
Fine then we have two liggeral retards at least.
Do you understand the faggot's argument at all?

>>1521584
>Once again, I am unable to answer a simple question. When asked to define my terms, I gave you a vague synonym, not a definition, because I'm fucking dumb.

Did you just learn that word? Impressive.

I understand the concept of a massacre, I didn't learn english in a classroom like you are. It needs some work, by the way. I'm asking you to tell me what you would define a mass casualty event as. Maybe that's mean of me, I know english is hard for you and numbers aren't your fucking strong suit, so maybe I'm asking too much.

I would assume it would be an incident where 4+ people were harmed and a gun wasn't involved, because you're juxtaposing it to mass shootings, which would be the same thing but a gun is involved. But I'm not going to do your fucking job for you, if you want to be taken seriously in an argument, quick talking past me like a retarded faggot and define your terms.

You won't even go that far, because you know there's no data to back up what you're saying, and the moment you actually define what you mean you lose the argument.

Thanks for playing faggot.

>>1521591
Here you go you fucking queer:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Australia
Looks like the primary method of killing mass groups of people in Australia is by arson.
So, why do you believe banning guns decreases violence?
Or do you? The argument you're making hinges on "shootings" and "shooting deaths". But you an kill people with anything and be pretty successful.
That's why I'm detecting slime running off your foul homosexual fingers are you type up a joke post that slips through the logical cracks in the liggeral mind as if you're intentionally intending to mislead stupid idiots like >>1521588 (You) who doesn't get the trick.

>>1521595
you always have to add your bizarre sex fantasies into everything, don't you

>>1521598
You get fucked in the ass and get your partner to call you ESL shill

>>1521595
>Here you go, I'm fucking queer.
Cool. Won't even question wikipedia as a source since I had to pull fucking inbred tooth to get it.

So we look at the massacre in 1996 that killed 35 people. And we look at the most devastating arson after, that killed 15 people. So that's what we call a reduction in violence. It turns out, it's easier to kill people with a gun than a fire you fucking imbecile.

>So why do you believe banning guns decreases (gun) violence?

Because the evidence shows firearm restrictions can reduce firearm deaths and firearm-specific harm. You keep proving my point. The reason we distinguish gun violence from other violence is because the method matters. A policy designed to reduce firearm deaths is evaluated by firearm deaths, not by whether humans have invented other ways to harm each other. “People can use arson” is not an argument against reducing shootings; it’s an admission that guns are a particularly effective tool for mass harm.

>The argument you're making hinges on shootings or gun deaths.

Yeah. Laws about guns tend to reduce gun violence. When we pass laws to reduce gun violence, we usually want to measure GUN VIOLENCE to see what kind of effect they have.

You went from claiming gun restrictions don’t reduce violence to showing that violence can happen without guns. Those are not the same claim.

>I see slime on your homosexual fingers are you type up a joke post.

Pointing out to other human users on the board this is not wording or sentence structure a native speaker uses.

Now stop imagining my fingers as gay and slimey, they aren't going in your ass you fucking creep.

>Intending to mislead

You mean what you're doing when you use violence interchangeably to describe the frequency and severity of attacks?

>>1521574
>because it has no effect on gun deaths at all.
>Oh wait, yes it does,

Even if it did, the inalienable natural human right to keep and bear arms FAR outweighs the dangers.

will esl shill ever stop pretending to be american? it's unlikely

>>1521614
OK so, let's shift and see if your argument holds water.
Let's talk about the US specifically and relaxing gun laws, such as what happened in the OP post.
Over the past decade or so, liggerals and Democrats have been losing battle after battle with gun control.
Since you are hyper focused on gun crimes instead of murders or assaults as a whole (which I find ridiculous since the entire idea is to reduce total death and violence, but hey, I guess some don't get the idea that you can still murder people quit easily with an adequately sized tree branch), has relaxing gun laws led to an increase in gun deaths or gun related violence?
If the answer is yes, gun laws are demonstrated to be ineffective
If no, gun laws are effective.

What'll it be, slimeball?

>>1521622
why do you think people care about your nonsense? all you ever do is get clowned

>>1521623
>No argument
>Nocaps
Hi 'esl shill' shill. Of course your 40 IQ can't grasp anything that uses capitalization.
I'm fairly certain you're confused.

>>1521624
i'm not confused, and neither is your mother. we're just disappointed

>>1521622
>Let's shift and see if your argument holds water.

Oh, buddy. You're not gonna be smart enough to test that.

>Let's talk about the US specifically, and relaxing gun laws, such as what happened in OP post.

In the OP (saying O(riginal) P(ost) post is like saying A(utomated) T(eller) M(achine) machine, mouthbreather), gun laws were not relaxed. Relaxing gun laws would be removing existing laws, not a failure to add more. You're already being a dishonest dipshit and framing things incorrectly. I told you you weren't smart enough to test that.

>let's talk about gun laws specifically.
cool, I accept your concession.

>I don't understand that it's easier to kill someone with a gun than a tree branch, so we need to regulate guns, not tree branches. I'm a fucking dumbass.

I know buddy, you're real fucking dumb. You said we'd stick to guns and still tell me a fucking shaggy dog story.

>If removing gun laws doesn't cause an increase in gun deaths, it proves they weren't effective. The same way if removing the seatbelt from my car doesn't cause me to immediately crash, it proves the seatbelt was ineffective.

No, if you remove protection and don't immediately don't have a massacre, that is not evidence the protection doesn't work. Your logic doesn't follow. Again, I told you you weren't smart enough for this.

>>1521623
Hey, I care about his fucking nonsense, clowning him keeps me sharp.

>>1521630
>No, if you remove protection and don't immediately don't have a massacre, that is not evidence the protection doesn't work. Your logic doesn't follow. Again, I told you you weren't smart enough for this.
Finally after line after line of bullshit we get your faggy non-answer.
We have nearly a decade of crime stats to look at you dodgy little cunt.
Is gun violence up or down over the past decade?

Graph incoming:
Guns banned in UK in 1996.
https://www.broadbentssolicitors.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/038069e1-1c02-4520-bb6a-3b5148f21735-1.png
Link
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_regulation_in_the_United_Kingdom#Gun_crime
Middle finger
>n1m m1n

esl shill is getting pretty heated over heaters
good thing you can kick gun owners off your property, its not discrimination

>>1521631
Gun violence rose sharply around 2020 and has declined since. Different states changed different policies in different directions, while dozens of other variables changed.

I mean for fuck's sake, the thread we're arguing in is a discussion of state law you fucking dunce. National gun violence trends do not answer the questions you are pretending they do. But no, you're right, I'm the faggot and I'm the dishonest dipshit shill. That's why you keep trying to sneak shit like that by

I told you you weren't smart enough to test that. I'm tired of beating your ass here, give your boyfriend a turn. Sweet dreams, faggot

>>1521635
>Hypothesis: Gun laws reduce gun violence
>All available data points to the hypothesis being wrong
>Baitposting continues
Sigh. I'm tired. Can we just civil war already?

>>1521580
>I didn't argue that, and don't actually care one way or the other. I just like making fun of retarded right wing faggots who argue in bad faith. I never once argued for the ban, just against ridiculous shit you stupid bastards were saying.
My stance has always been that people should be allowed to conceal carry and a ban on licensed carriers does not make us safer. Now do you agree or not, and if not why?

>>1521637
>All available data points to the hypothesis being wrong
Arguments are easy when you just lie.

>>1521642
Show me some data that disproves my "lie" then.
We have several new open carry states in the US.
There should be something you can use to create a compelling argument that confirms your hypothesis that stronger gun laws mean fewer gun crimes. With so many states going open carry in recent years you should have plenty of available data to present.

>>1521637
>I'm a stupid faggot, and can't win an argument based on merit, so my only recourse is to have violent fantasies typical of a powerless, impotent loser.

Sounds about right, words are hard for you, huh?

>>1521641
>>I didn't argue that, and don't actually care one way or the other. I just like making fun of retarded right wing faggots who argue in bad faith. I never once argued for the ban, just against ridiculous shit you stupid bastards were saying.
>My stance has always been that people should be allowed to conceal carry and a ban on licensed carriers does not make us safer. Now do you agree or not, and if not why?

It's a stupid question, because the answer shouldn't be based on my opinion, my feelings on the matter are irrelevant, the answer should be based on data.

I don't care what your stance is, but the premise that a ban on licensed carries does not make us safer is fucking absurd, and you're doing exactly the same thing the retard I spent all night arguing with last night did; taking a very complex problem with many variables, and treating it like there is only one (guns/no guns).

Typically I am in favor of banning high capacity magazines and semi-auto long guns, because data shows doing those things make mass shootings less deadly. That wouldn't affect your concealed carry unless you're walking around with a bazooka in your pants. Is that your gun, or are you just happy to see me?

>>1521643
>Stronger gun laws means fewer gun crimes.

Not my hypothesis. If you're going to schizo-rant at me, defend your own random bullshit. Now:

>criminals don't follow laws, so gun laws don't matter.

This is objectively wrong, if that were true, making murder illegal would be pointless.

>Sensible gun legislation hasn't been proven to work! It doesn't reduce violence! There are the same number of attacks with or without guns!

Yeah, and the attacks with guns are deadlier, and the attacks with long guns with high capacity magazines are deadlier still, which is why AU targeted them in their 1996 bans and didn't have a similar incident in decades.

>fires are just as deadly! tree branches are just as deadly! There's the same number of attacks!

Okay. The attacks are actually extremely infrequent if you actually look at the timeline, one every few years compared to our daily school shootings at home. Attacks happened at a similar rate now. The number of people killed and severity of injuries went down.

>W-well, relaxing gun restrictions, doesn't make violence increase!

Okay, we're up to date. I Wanted to do a recap of all the arguments we've had in this chain. Look at all the times you walked back from your points and moved the goalpost. Wow, I kicked your ass man. Are you sore after all that?

Nah, you've got a humiliation fetish, don't you painslut? Cool.

Stronger gun laws don't necessarily mean fewer gun crimes. To reduce gun crimes, you would need to address the root of the problem. What they actually do is reduce harm. That's why AU banned semi-auto long guns and extended magazines, because those are linked to reduced harm. So even though the number of incidents stayed relatively constant, as you pointed out earlier, the severity of them dropped dramatically., which means there was a reduction in violence, which is a point you never addressed.

You're arguing that seatbelts are useless because they don't prevent crashes. You're a fucking moron, painslut.

>>1521648
>Stronger gun laws don't necessarily mean fewer gun crimes. To reduce gun crimes, you would need to address the root of the problem
It seems like you are talking around what you really believe

>>1521451
Because theyre all on capitol hill

>>1521643
Doesn't Chicago have some of the strictest gun control in the country? That city might have the data you are looking for

Anti-gun laws are just a way for liberals to avoid the cognitive dissonance they feel towards the fact that non whites represent 90% of all gun crimes. I am against all forms of gun control until someone starts proposing race based gun laws

>>1521655
It seems that way to you because you're a simpleton.

>>1521682
43%, actually.

>>1521451
The despots themselves may not be in the shop but the evil unleash upon us is all around. Moron.

>>1521647
>the answer should be based on data.
And all the data I've seen shows that crime goes down when people are allowed to carry. Licensed carriers are also 5 to 7 times less likely to commit a crime than the average US citizen, and in Florida they're less likely to commit a crime than the police. I'd argue having more of these people is a good thing.

>but the premise that a ban on licensed carries does not make us safer is fucking absurd
Based on what? Places with strict gun laws usually have higher crime. Los Angeles, D.C., Chicago, NYC, etc.

>Typically I am in favor of banning high capacity magazines and semi-auto long guns, because data shows doing those things make mass shootings less deadly.
Which is ridiculous. California has the most mass shootings and school shootings of any state in the country, and the majority are carried out using pistols. Our worst school shooting was Virginia Tech, and Cho did that using a 9mm and .22 pistol. But whatever, to get back on the subject of concealed carry, 94% of your mass shootings occur inside gun free zones where concealed carriers are not allowed. We have at least five manifestos left by shooters that have said they've targeted these places because they're gun free zones or less defended than other locations they were considering.

You really want to put a stop to mass shootings and make them less deadly? Then stop banning the guys who are 5 to 7 times less likely to commit a crime from these gun free zones. It's not guaranteed to stop every tragedy, but it will help reduce them. It's better than the alternative of waiting to die.

>>1521647
Also before you say anything about per capita, make sure you're using stats for gun CRIME and not gun DEATHS. Why? Because suicide usually takes up 2/3rds of deaths. Which is why the counterargument usually includes places like Alaska, Montana (both high suicide states) and Wyoming (Slater, WY is supposedly more deadly than Chicago because it has a population of less than 100 people).

>>1521647
>data
The data says that semi-automatic rifles are very rarely used in murders and that the fear-mongering over them is just Democrats manipulating the ignorant children who vote for them.
AR15s are good protection against the mass mob violence that the Democratic party supports though. Out of curiosity, what's your position on Rittenhouse?
>>1521648
>AU
You mean the tyrannical country where citizens no longer have freedom of speech because they no longer have the guns necessary to defend that freedom?
btw Australia didn't exactly have a lot of mass shootings prior to then either lol
>>1521632
How is freedom of speech doing in the UK?

>>1521648
>To reduce gun crimes, you would need to address the root of the problem
Anon please, don't be racist. And it's also misogynistic to say that feminism was wrong about single mothers.

>>1521706
>licensed carries are 5-7 less likely to commit a crime. It's almost like criminals aren't going to use licensed guns that can be traced back to them to do crime.

kek

>There's more crime in cities than rural areas. Is this because there's more people, in higher concentrations, with a wider range of economic backgrounds? Are there a million other variables we should consider? Nah, the only relevant link to gun violence is how strict their gun laws are.

Kek. With arguments like these, you don't even need me to hand you your ass anymore. Wonder when you'll pivot this time?

>Ridiculous, the majority of mass shootings are carried out with pistols.

Yep.

>Let's move on.

That was fast. Nope, no more pivoting faggot.

Virginia tech was our most deadly shooting. What made it the most deadly? It went on for a long time, and the shooter had multiple opportunities to reload.

So if the guns used had a higher muzzle velocity, magazine capacity, rate of fire, and fired larger bullets, do you think the massacre would have been more or less deadly?

You just proved my point you fucking dumbass. The strawman you're arguing against is "if we ban all guns, then people won't have guns, and mass shootings won't happen."

That's a fucking dumb position. That's why you want to argue against it, it's a pretty even match for you.

The argument is actually, "If we ban things that make firearms more deadly, firearms will be less deadly."

No one says gun restrictions will stop mass shootings. Evidence says they will make them less severe. You can't have a good faith discussion about this, because you'd get your ass handed to you, which is why you have to draw all of these retarded inferences that don't even follow the logic you're trying to force and pretend there's no other perspective.

>>1521720
I'm not a feminist you stupid faggot, I hate those obnoxious blue-haired screeches. I just also hate retarded pedophile enablers.

Congrats on being so obsessed with those annoying faggots you enable con men to nakedly grift you. Good job letting them live rent free in your head, pussy.

>>1521721
>>There's more crime in cities than rural areas. Is this because there's more people, in higher concentrations,
Which is why I already brought up the per capita argument and how it doesn't remain higher even if you factor that. But I can see I'm wasting my time here. I've made my case for why we should allow people to conceal carry. You keep wanting to shift the focus to long guns. I'm not interested. Either argue why CCW laws are bad or concede that they're good and Hawaii should allow them.

>>1521723
>you fucking pussy faggot I'm a real tough alpha male which is why I want the government to tell me what to think. Also I'm obsessed with pedophiles and think that anybody who is not a spineless bootlicker is a pedo enabler. Also being a spineless bootlicker makes me a real alpha male, only pussy faggots don't lick the boot!
legit cringe

>>1521721
>The argument is actually, "If we ban things that make firearms more deadly, firearms will be less deadly."

........ buuuuut more people die from handguns??? lol

>>1521727
>More people die from handguns.

Correct.

>Ergo, handguns are more deadly.

Oh, cool, then why doesn't the military use handguns exclusively since they're more deadly?

What's that? They aren't? Assault rifles are far more deadly at longer range and have higher rate of fire and magazine capacity? So they're more deadly?

>No, handguns are more deadly.

So you're defining deadly as 'statistically are used to commit more gun violence .'

I'm defining deadly as 'able to do more harm, or able to kill more people more efficiently.

So the air is clear and we aren't talking past each other.

Now here's the fun part. Do you think you could kill more people with a 9mm with a 12 round magazine and 5 spares, or with an assault rifle chambered in 5.56 with two 50 round drum magazines?

Obviously the assault rifle? That's the point you fucking moron.

>>1521741
>more people are dying from X
>I don't care! Ban Y.
>but people are still dying from X
>I still don't care! Keep banning Y!
>[people dying from X intensifies]
lmao

>>1521724

>I tried to pre empt your per capita argument by bringing it up. You saw this coming from a mile away, which is why you brought up other variables like income inequality and population density. I'm going to ignore that so I can strawman you.

Cool, then yeah, you are wasting your time, painslut.

>I've made my case for why we should allow people to conceal carry.

That's not the discussion we're having. I am a gun owner and conceal carry a pistol. Again, I don't actually care about this law, or whether you conceal carry. What I care about is when right wing retards make stupid claims.

Also, no you didn't. First you argued gun regulations don't work because criminals don't obey the law. Then you argued regulation on firearms are pointless because other weapons exist. Then you argued that regulations being walked back causes gun violence to go down; without addressing the fact that different states implemented different regulations in different directions with different outcomes, making it literally impossible for you to draw that conclusion from that data. The whole time you've been using violence to mean severity of an attack OR frequency of attacks whenever it is convenient. When I brought up AU you asserted violence didn't decrease because the infrequent rate of attacks stayed consistent, even though the severity dropped; something you refuse to acknowledge, making your arguments objectively dishonest. You also like to pretend that the goal of gun regulation is to get rid of all guns and eliminate all gun violence; when the actual goal is to REGULATE firearms and reduce harm.

I never once said anything even resembling "we should ban handguns." You have a pattern of arguing against strawmen and pivoting though, so I guess that checks out.

>>1521743
>more people are dying from X because Y is more tightly regulated.
>I'm literally proving your point, I'm just too retarded to realize it.
>I also don't think I realize I'm actively arguing to ban handguns.

That's an extreme position. Instead of banning all guns, (or just handguns), I think civilians should have access to some guns for hunting and self defense. Want a bolt action or a handgun? Knock yourself out. Bolt action rifles are beautiful pieces of engineering. Want an assault rifle, a weapon designed to kill humans more efficiently, which can cause orders of magnitude more harm? I don't think you need that. Really, if you need more than six bullets, you're probably doing something you're not supposed to, and probably fucked anyway.

Why is this difficult for you?

>>1521745
>more people are dying from X because Y is more tightly regulated.
>source: pulled from my ass
kek tell me more how a mini-14 is more regulated than a glock in nogunz states

also
>Really, if you need more than six bullets, you're probably doing something you're not supposed to, and probably fucked anyway.
confirmed dipshit who knows nothing about guns XD

>>1521748
How bad is your aim?

>>1521442
>No word yet on whether this applies to airports and courthouses.
It doesn't. The legal distinction is that private property open to the public is open to the public and the state can't force buisnesses to put a "firearms welcome" sign in order for the people to continue their default 2nd amendment right.

"No firearms" signs are like a "No talking" sign at the library. It is enforceable only in that you are asking people to leave, they still have the 1st amendment right to talk, they just don't have the right to remain at your place of business.

A "Talking Permitted" sign is what the Hawaiian law required and Hawaii made it illegal to talk unless a "Talking Permitted" sign was in place. Obviously the law is unconstitutional.

>>1521480
>holy logical fallacy
That's the logic of the court's opinion.

>>1521747
Handguns kill more, therefore rifles shouldn't be regulated" is a brainlet argument.

Handguns kill more because there's way more of them and they're the preferred tool for everyday crime. A lower death count for a more restricted category doesn't prove the restriction failed, it can literally be the reason the numbers are lower.

You're arguing against your own premise.

>>1521748
Literally a quote from the old man who taught me to shoot, but sure, pivot to a throwaway line instead of defending any actual substance.

>>1521775
>>1521745
Rittenhouse needed 7 bullets, and would have needed even more if the terrorists did not back down.
ARs with standard-capacity magazines are a critical part of protecting ourselves from violent terrorists and tyrannical politicians, and the bootlickers like you who support them.

>>1521441
leftists in sanctuary cities want softer punishments and forgiveness, lets hope they enjoy being the victim when a gun fight breaks out in their grocery store and they get shot.

>>1521777
NTA, ackchyually Rittenhouse fired eight rounds. Other than that, based post, based digits, and based Kyle.

>>1521775
>some fudd taught me everything I know about guns
lol yeah we know thats why your opinion = shit

>>1521777
Using Rittenhouse as a justification for “we need standard capacity mags or we die” is doing a lot of work on a single edge case.

Self-defense incidents don’t prove a general rule about optimal civilian armament policy. They prove that armed self-defense is sometimes successful; not that there should be no constraints on weapon capability.

Also “terrorists/tyranny” is just rhetorical inflation. You’re arguing policy off the most emotionally loaded framing possible.

>>1521797

Cool, my instructor was a Fudd. You gonna address the argument, pain slut?

Pivot incoming in 3... 2...

>>1521777
Rittenhouse was doing something he shouldn't have been.

He inserted himself into an already volatile situation while openly armed, which escalated tension on the ground and raised the odds that any confrontation would turn lethal. Even if you argue legality or “self-defense in the moment,” that doesn’t change the fact that bringing a gun into a chaotic crowd environment predictably shortens everyone’s fuse and turns ambiguity into life-or-death outcomes.

That’s not an argument for “more rounds are necessary,” it’s an example of how armed escalation in unstable situations produces exactly the kind of outcome people then use to justify more escalation.

>>1521798
laws are created based on edge cases anon. you don't need to make laws for things that already exist or are clearly established.

>>1521799
There is nothing wrong with carrying a fire extinguisher in public. There is nothing wrong with putting out fires. Violent piece of shit leftists like you who believe that it's wrong to do so are exactly why I need my AR-15.
>>1521798
Given the widespread support the terrorists received from the Democratic Party, it's reasonable to see much larger violence like that happening if we allow ourselves to be disarmed. 5 years ago Democrats said that they want terrorists to murder me and anybody else who doesn't subscribe to their fucked world view. So no, you can't have my guns.
>ummm actually you're being like emotional and stuff
Okay, then if you just want to be an obnoxious asshole who argues in bad faith because you can't justify the terrorism and tyranny you support. Explain why school shootings are bad without relying on "rhetorical inflation" or "emotionally loaded framing"

>>1521799
>Rittenhouse was doing something he shouldn't have been.
He had more of a right to be there than the rioters. In fact, he was there first, hanging out at a friend's house, before the riots started.

>Even if you argue legality or “self-defense in the moment,” that doesn’t change the fact that bringing a gun into a chaotic crowd environment predictably shortens everyone’s fuse and turns ambiguity into life-or-death outcomes.
You'd have a point, if Rosenbaum and the Ziminski's didn't already plan to kill Rittenhouse in retaliation for him putting out their dumpster fire. We know this because they set up an ambush when they saw Kyle alone, and Rosenbaum is recorded saying if he catches any of them alone he's going to 'cut their fucking heart out'.

Leave it to an anti-gun piece of shit like you to blame the victim, though. Leftists still seething about this case six years later.

>>1521801
>>1521804

Laws aren't made by asking "what happens in the most extreme scenario?" They're made by balancing risks and outcomes. Rittenhouse is an example of one chaotic situation escalating into lethal violence, not proof that every civilian needs maximum firepower.

The fire extinguisher comparison doesn't work. A fire extinguisher's purpose is reducing an existing hazard. A firearm's purpose is applying lethal force, so its availability creates different risks around misuse, escalation, and accidents.

And "school shootings are bad because children dying is bad" isn't rhetorical inflation. That's the moral premise behind wanting to prevent them. Calling political opponents "terrorists" and "tyrants" doesn't prove a policy argument; it just replaces evidence with fear and raises the emotional stakes so you don't have to defend the actual claim.

>>1521806
>The fire extinguisher comparison doesn't work.
It wasn't a comparison you dumb twat. Rittenhouse was there putting out fires and giving medical aid to both sides. He was attacked because he put out fires - not because he was carrying an AR-15. Please hang yourself.

>>1521805
I'm not anti gun, I own guns, I'm pro sensible gun legislation. You can literally only argue against a strawman, huh?

Didn't bring up Rittenhouse, you did. The receipts are above us, how short is your memory?

>>1521809
>I'm not anti-gun, but...
Shut the fuck up faggot. Nobody wants to hear your bullshit.

>Didn't bring up Rittenhouse, you did.
Uh, retard. This is you here >>1521799
>Rittenhouse was doing something he shouldn't have been.
That's you. The anon you replied to said Rittenhouse fired 7 shots (it was actually 8). I'm replying to you being a massive faggot who needs to be slapped for saying Rittenhouse was doing something he shouldn't have been, as if you dirty subhuman leftists had more of a right to be there setting fires to everything than he did putting them out.

>>1521810
>Shut the fuck u! I'm an emotional toddler

Concession accepted.

>I'm nakedly lying right now.

I know, the post you referred to was >>1521799.

>>1521777 Is when you brought up rittenhouse. Now I know numbers are really hard for you, but is that number larger or smaller than the one you linked?

Smaller? So it came first? So YOU brought up rittenhouse?

You tried to bring him up earlier too, I just ignored the pivot. See: >>1521715

You wanna lie about more easily disprovable shit and pivot even harder?

Cool, again, concession accepted.

>>1521812
>Concession accepted.
Suck my dick, anti-gun lefty.

>I'm nakedly lying right now.
What part did I say was a lie? Go ahead. Address it.

>>1521777 Is when you brought up rittenhouse.
Hey dumbass, notice there's no (You) there?
>>1521777 isn't me. Dumb fuck.

See: >>1521715
Also not me you fucking retard. Holy shit.

>You wanna lie about more easily disprovable shit and pivot even harder?
Let me know when you find a part where I lied. And then when you wear yourself out finding nothing, we'll get back to me beating the piss out of your monkey ass when it comes to the Rittenhouse case, and how victim-blaming faggots like you want to argue that he shouldn't have been there as you're being bussed in to cause more arsons that Rittenhouse was putting out. Which is why you animals tried to kill him.

>>1521814
>suck my dick
No, ask your boyfriend, faggot.

>Where was I lying
I mean, constantly throughout, but I'm literally referring to the next line, when you said I brought up rittenhouse.

(you) is a client side feature, dumbass.

If that's not you, and instead it's you, (a generalization for the right wing retards I've been arguing with; again I know english is hard for you) I didn't bring up Rittenhouse, you did.

>You animals tried to kill him. "You" animals. I'm literally, not figuratively, literally doing the same thing I just tried to pivot and call you out on. Because every republican accusation is a confession.

I didn't try to kill anyone you schizophrenic retard.

>>1521818
>No, ask your boyfriend, faggot.
Keep being an anti-gun piece of shit, faggot.

>I mean, constantly throughout,
So constantly that you can't quote one fucking post of mine where I did, faggot.

>(you) is a client side feature, dumbass.
And my client side didn't post any of those posts you misquoted as being me, dumb fuck.

>If that's not you, and instead it's you, (a generalization for the right wing retards I've been arguing with; again I know english is hard for you) I didn't bring up Rittenhouse, you did.
I love how you accuse me of being those anons, and then sneakily admit to being a retard and conceding those weren't my posts, to try and save whatever pathetic face your anti-gun monkey-ass thinks you have.

>I didn't try to kill anyone you schizophrenic retard.
A generalization for the left-wing anti-gun retard I've been arguing with; again I know english is hard for you.

>>1521820
>>where was I lying
> literally referring to the next line, when you said I brought up rittenhouse.
>you can't quote one fucking post of mine where I did, faggot.

>you can't do what you literally just did. I'm a fucking retard.

>>1521822
>Didn't bring up Rittenhouse, you did.
Uh, retard. This is you here >>1521799
>Rittenhouse was doing something he shouldn't have been.
That's you. The anon you replied to said Rittenhouse fired 7 shots (it was actually 8). I'm replying to you being a massive faggot who needs to be slapped for saying Rittenhouse was doing something he shouldn't have been, as if you dirty subhuman leftists had more of a right to be there setting fires to everything than he did putting them out.

Let me know when you're ready to get your ass beat some more on the Rittenhouse case.

>>1521823
>The anon you replied to brought up rittenhouse.
>that means you brought up rittenhouse.
>Can't even finish a post without contradicting myself now, I'm a fucking retard.

>>1521448

Yup. Folks will see this ruling and then think, act according to the opposite because they lack reading comprehension

>>1521824
I notice how you don't want to talk about Rittenhouse anymore after getting called out for being an anti-gun victim-blaming piece of shit. It's okay, if I were you I wouldn't want to say anything else retarded about the Rittenhouse case either. Especially if I was a nogunz leftist who doesn't know shit about that case.

>>1521835
Good thing you're not me, so you can keep saying retarded things about rittenhouse then.

>>1521837
Retarded things like Rittenhouse was doing something he shouldn't have been? Like putting out the fires you chimps started?

>>1521838
>Right wing retard still seething about this case six years later. Rittenhouse totally wasn't a pivot, I definitely won.

>>1521841
>waaaaah he shouldn't have even been there! He had no right to defend himself from us! Waaaahhh!
>I'm not seething! You are!
Well if nothing else, I got you to stop saying anymore stupid shit about the Rittenhouse case for now, because you know how underclassed you are on that topic.

>>1521841
I'm the anon who brought up Rittenhouse as a very relevant example in a thread about whether guns are necessary to protect against tyranny and mass terrorism.
>still seething about this case six years later
Why are you so eager for everybody to forget about that time the entire Democratic party said terrorists should mass murder everybody who opposes them? It was only six years ago. Less than 2 years ago you all voted for the VP who wanted terrorists to murder your opponents or even just anybody who doesn't support your tyranny.
>pivot
Are you ESL or just an idiot? In a thread about wanting to ban semi-automatic rifles because we never need to protect ourselves from mob violence or a tyrannical government, it is very relevant that just 6 years ago, a teenager needed an AR to defend himself from mob violence and the tyrannical party said that mob violence is good and conservatives should be killed by mob violence.

It's obvious that Democrats want a Cultural Revolution and it's obvious that our guns are the main obstacle preventing it. You seethe whenever people bring up Rittenhouse because you want everybody to forget it happened, since you know how badly that case BTFO tyrannical boot lickers like you.

>>1521741
>>1521745
now why are you bringing up assault rifles? Those are already basically banned since the 80s. Technically they're legal but it's almost impossible to get one and they're never used in crimes. So why bring them up?
Wait I know why you brought them up... You're one of those gullible no-guns who let Democrats trick you into believing that AR-15 stands for Assault Rifle 15

>>1521865
I don't think the guy you are talking to can understand how second amendment and the right to bear arms ties into Black Lives Matter protestors, and police officers not responding to 911 calls or standing down officers who were being called by business owners and home owners who were having their property threatened with arson or vandalism by BLM crowds.