Gun Control is dead after riots

you think?  how about the 12 year old boy knocked down by the big black man?  the guy being attacked while at work? 

there's an awful lot of instances aside from rogue cops and white supremacist that would motivate first time gun purchasers, many of which, ironically are learning that the laws they supported are now biting them in the ass.

it did happen,

If someone is attempting to modify a weapon to suppress the sound it makes, I think that should be illegal. So i would support that. 

Those are absolutely police tasks. But those make up a relatively small percent of what police spend their time doing. Stats can be hard to come by because lots of police forces don't report on this. But here is an article discussing how police in these specific locations that actually report on this, spend about 4% of their time dealing with violent crime. A large percent of what they spend their time doing could be better handled by other agencies. 

so you admit that guns are much more deadly than a knife?

so you turn a situation where she may get hurt into a situation where she is very likely to be killed. I don't see that as an improvement. 

agreed. But that is a core part of the problem. Police do this all the time. Many police see being black as a reasonable reason to stop, question or arrest people. They need a reason to do this, but since there is little to no enforcement of this, they can make up any flimsy pretext they want to question or arrest someone. 

ok. so we should have the freedom to own nuclear weapons? I mean it will be the end of the human race, but hey, at least we will be free as we die. 

Strict penalties on their own are completely worthless. They don't work. People don't think they will get caught, or they wouldn't have committed the crime in the 1st place. Just slapping harsher punishments on them will do nothing. You need to actually get the guns out of circulation. 

They aren't the only issue, but i have never argued that they are. The underlying causes of crime also need to be fought. But the guns themselves are a problem too. Nuclear weapons and grenade launchers are also "tools". But they also would cause way more problems than they solve if we were allowed to own them. 

If we want to stop people being killed by guns, we need to do something about the guns. 

Ok, if you want to ban oil filters for cars, then fair enough.

so you admit that guns are much more deadly than a knife?

That is the point. It allows someone who is weak to defend themselves from larger people.

Outside of stop and frisk, I see little evidence of just pulling people over for no reason.

Why is it all or nothing with you people? It is either "you must support getting rid of all guns" or "I bet you want everyone to own nukes".

You make a determination on both the chance of getting caught and the punishment/payoff.

Nuclear weapons and grenades aren't self-defense or hunting tools. They really have no use outside of blowing things up.

Again, it isn't the guns. That is like saying "men beating women is a problem. We need to do something about those fists". Awfully like UK blaming stabbings on knives and not the people. Much easier and convenient to blame inanimate objects instead of people. 

I mostly just wanted to point out that you seem to understand your other argument about how "if they can't get a gun they will use a knife" is completely bullshit. You understand that knives are much less deadly, but when it suits you, you will pretend that they aren't. 

ok, but do you live in a neighborhood with lots of black people? Or do you live in a predominantly white neighborhood and have no idea what you are talking about?

the point is to show that your argument is ridiculous. You believe you should have an unquestionable right to own weapons that no government has any right to curtail in any way. But you also accept that the government absolutely has the right to curtail what weapons people can have (grenade launchers, nukes etc). You want to draw an arbitrary line in the sand and pretend like it is inviolable. But that line keeps moving all the time and you just pretend it doesn't and that anyone who thinks that line should be somewhere else is attacking the constitution. 

 An assault rifle is not a particularly useful weapon for self defense. no one is going to announce they are attacking and give you time to get your weapon and then use it at an effective range. They are designed to assault enemy positions and put down high rates of fire. There is no reason for a civilian to own that. If your dividing line is things that are useful for self defense and hunting, then you should advocate for only handguns and hunting rifles. Is that your position?

I keep repeating this for you. I understand that there are underlying causes of crime that need to be addressed. You would likely oppose the methods needed to do that, but that is a separate argument. But you will never get crime down to 0. No matter how well we do, there will be criminals. And right now, virtually any criminal can arm himself to the teeth with little to no problem. Until the supply of guns is brought under control, it will never be possible to prevent this. 

A gun puts them on equal footing. Guns are more deadly. That is why one person can fend off multiple attackers with them.

I have black neighbors, but I don't see how the anecdotal evidence that you are sure to spew at me will prove anything as a general trend for every black person in the country.

Something about bearing arms and not being VIOLATED. Arms referred to guns. So, drawing the line anywhere else is attacking the constitution.

And if you are complaining about gun homicide still, I'll let you in on a little fun fact:

Blunt objects like hammers kill more people than all rifles combined. Fists and feet kill more people than all rifles combined (NOT just "assault rifles".) 

And even if you get rid of guns, you won't get those crime rates down to zero.

I went to extensive lengths to compare gun ownership rates to homicide rates in other countries. I showed how #19 in the world for most guns per capita, Switzerland, had one of the lowest homicide rates in the world, and much lower than UK that had gotten rid of most guns.

There’s no use arguing with the dude. He can’t even vote in US Elections cause he’s probably not even American.

gun permits have increased the most during the COVID-19 pandemic in states that tend to be more liberal, both in terms of citizen ideology and political party of state governor.

Michigan, the site of some of the more contentious anti-lockdown protests, saw a nearly 340% increase in gun permits from February to April 2020.

lol that's right. hide in your right wing echo chamber. I know you need a safe space. But if that is what you are looking for, you shouldn't be in a politics forum. 

well anyway, this really shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.

guns massively increase the odds of critical injury and death. 

See this is the problem. The systemically racist system collects the stats. If they choose not to note their racist interactions, or choose to misclassify it, then there is no stats to prove anything. So saying you won't believe it without stats is like saying you won't believe a crime happened unless the criminal describes in detail what they did. 

no. It says right to bear arms in order to be part of a well regulated militia. It doesn't say that citizens can own any weapons they want. It says they can own weapons for the purpose of being part of a regulated militia. The intention was that the US military would be tiny and would need a large militia force to back it up. Since that is no longer true, the entire amendment is pointless. 

so your argument is that because people die in other ways, we should do nothing about them dying in this way? So because people die in car accidents, we should stop all cancer research.... sounds logical. 

true. Switzerland does more to deal with the underlying issues that cause crime. They also treat gun ownership as a significant responsibility. Everyone must get training and education on proper use of firearms. They don't wander around out in public with their assault rifles just to prove they have a tiny penis as the right loves to do. 

And I would have no problem with requiring a training course before getting a firearms license as long as it wasn't used as a form of "gun control"- meaning they make it super rigorous for the mere reason of stopping normal people from legally acquiring a gun. If it was merely a course on safe storage and use, that's fine.