Why US are so obsessed with guns?

youtube.com/watch?v=1t-mbbHTEdk
So he's an outlaw?

No, no one has ever tried to break in. I've also never had a house fire, but I keep the fire extinguisher and smoke alarm around just in case.

Pretty much only dealers have access to full auto and they need to obtain a special permit from the ATF.

Still you don't explain why many of gun owners are against a bit of regulation.
That said niggers are not the probelm, poor people are

Don't forget that the 'white' 'people' in the deep south have niggerblood in them.

I think it's a lack of hunter culture in the US, compared to Europe. No one cares if you own a gun since all it tells you is that you're a hunter or interested in shooting when it happens in Europe because it's part of their thousand-year old hunting culture. Sitting in a watchtower for hours, talking to your buddies over a mike while sipping coffee is what gun ownership is all about. In the US it's a status symbol, glorified bling bling. Obviously I'm baiting, I don't really know.

Ok then, let's give a gun to everyone no question asked?
Pic related

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

No, niggers are. Poor white areas don't have absurd murder rates like nigger areas.

Because why not? They're used in a tiny fraction of crimes. The only reason people want to ban them is literally because they look and sound scary.

Statistic anomalies that didn't happen before the news media invented the "mass shooter" meme and gave these defectives an easy path to notoriety.

burgers worship their guns instead of having it as a tool. Might as well worship the spoon.

Look up Class III weapon purchase guidelines. People who insist you can just go into a store and walk out with a full auto rifle are pretty much without exception either clueless foreigners or sheltered suburban liberals who have no fucking clue what they're talking about.

>Statistic anomalies

Not him, but they are as anomalous as it gets.

I'm just glad I have one so when the west collapses, I will feel safe protecting my life and land.

Lol how can the be anomalous if we know what they look like and know they're names?

Really don't think you understand how astronomically low the chances of being involved in a "mass shooting" (or any gun crime, for that matter) are.

This sentence doesn't even make sense.

Makes perfect sense to me

Probably because English isn't your first language or you're just retarded. He said anomalous not anonymous.

You're extremely dense or humourless

You're a Germn aren't you.

Binland :DDDDDD

I've never shot a real gun before and I've probably gotten more pussy than you.

I don't have to answer those questions. My right is protected by law.

"What do you need that for?"
I want it. That should be the end of the discussion. I shouldn't have to justify me owning one to another person or the government.

I have alot of fun shooting and treat it like a hobby. I wouldn't mind background checks if within that law there was a guarantee that reiterated the importance of the second amendment. I don't care about background checks since I'm a law abiding citizen but I can understand why people are paranoid about them, since usually the people who call for background checks are also associated with people/groups that want full on confiscation and bans.

Also you have to understand that alot of Americans live in bad neighborhoods where owning a dog and a gun is near mandatory since police response rates/efficiency vary greatly from place to place

I can speak as a nongun owning American, who doesn't feel too strongly one way or the other. From my observations there are three broad categories.
1st are people who own guns but don't mind regulations. In my personal experience this tends to be pretty small minority. Alot of them hunt.
2nd people who believe in the real possibility of there being a home invaders where an assault rifle will be the best response. These people are not playing games and think the safety of themselves and their family depends on owning adequate fire power. These people are more numerous but I wouldn't say they are the majority.
3rd are the people who treat their guns like collectable and recreational guns. I think these people treat their guns like a dark or new huge TV something to show off and have people compliement. These people can also be huntera but they don't have to be. I would say these people make up a slight majority.

Now realize this is just my personal observation on my part and I am sure there is alot of overlap and other factors going on.

Because only rich people and politicans deserve to be defended by guns; normal people should just call the police for clean-up.

SHALL

NOT

BE

INFRINGED

>burgers will trade away free speech
>but not their peashooters.

They think they need guns to fight their government. Basically to them regulation can only ever lead to the government going door to door to take away everyone's guns. Once the guns are gone they think the government will basically end live or kill the entire population

In short Americans are retarded

>In short Americans are retarded
which is why we love them.

American "Liberals" trade away free speech

yeah right.
didn't know that the republicans were "liberals"

Enslave or kill** fucking auto correct

My two cents as a Yuropoor.
Having a population this heavily armed with such lax regulations is a recipe for disaster.

Look at how readily your police draw their handguns, even in relatively safe situations.
You know why that is. It's because any loon that may get ticked off by being stopped might produce a fucking shotgun.

If you asked people here, "would you feel safer if you and most people around you owned or carried guns" they would look at you baffled and tell you "of course not". The concept of the right to bear arms is pretty alien here.

This guy gets it

You also have muslims and albanian mobsters killing and raping people by the truckload.

Our cops overreact because of niggers.

and they get arrested because cops do their jobs.

GO BACK TO P/POL/
REEEEEEEEE

in 2016 so far, there have been 925 fatal uses of force by police in a nation of over 300 million people.
And I think it's safe to assume that at least some of these fatal uses of force were entirely justified. It really is an overblown issue, 99% of law enforcement encounters are just police ticketing people for expired registration or speeding (this statistic is pulled from my ass, however)

Fellow Euro, feel similarly. Although as mentions decent background checks and regulations shouldn't be an issue and would prevent the worst problems.

But then you get the paranoiacs who populate the NRA screaming blue murder at the slightest hint of regulation, and make all gun owners look like the paranoid nuts the anti-gunners like to portray them as. At least that's how the situation appears to me, a Brit who wished he could own an antique rifle.

Why do people who don't live in the U.S even care?

As a Kraut: Because they are brought up in the belief that all bad things can be banned out of existence.

>But then you get the paranoiacs who populate the NRA screaming blue murder at the slightest hint of regulation

Because many of the people pushing for regulation see Australia-style confiscation as the end goal. It's like when some red state governor institutes waiting periods or mandatory ultrasounds for abortions -- regardless of what the governor says, everyone knows that the intent is to reduce the number of abortions and that his supporters want to see abortion full stop banned, and that regulations such as this are intended to ratchet up towards that end. The best strategy to counter this is to fight every limiting regulation, even if said regulation isn't the end of the world in a vacuum. I'm not even a gun owner but I will always vote against any restrictive legislation when possible.

It's also shocking to me that people on Veeky Forums of all places brush off fears of a coercive, oppressive, or hostile government taking power. An armed populace is a strong check against this and you don't even need to venture outside of living memory to find examples. You should know that "the end of history" is a myth.

E D G Y
D
G
Y

>An armed populace is a strong check against this and you don't even need to venture outside of living memory to find examples. You should know that "the end of history" is a myth.

Not him, but there's also the notion that the level of small arms within a populace being a significant factor in armed revolt against suppressive governance isn't historically borne out. Places like Sri Lanka, modern day Iraq, and Checnya all had extremely viable rebellions against state authority despite private ownership of firearms being banned and not having lots of guns floating around before the violence broke out.

I don't doubt that a portion of the pro-regulation crowd is aiming for confiscation, but surely the strategy should be to pick your battles? My point was more that both sides have radicalised one another by pushing further and further towards extreme positions, when they could likely appease each other's main demands by meeting somewhere in the middle. A reasonable level of background checking, mental health checks etc. in exchange for less mass shootings and day to day violence.

Your comparison to the abortion debate is interesting as well, because it seems like another area where purely ideological/faith-based positions have come to replace anything resembling reasoned argument on both sides. Each sees the other as the devil, out to kill all our little children/enslave our women's bodies. Nothing good comes from this kind of entrenchment, and that was my main point really - the confiscators are just as bad as the diehard anti-regulators, though I didn't make that clear in the original post.

Iraqi insurgency had the benefit of fianciers buying old soviet era milsurp and having alot of leftover guns lying around from the previous conflicts.

And pretty much every successful insurgency catches a break from somewhere, and often gets supported by the outside.

That's a hell of a lot more important than how many pistols are in circulation among the general populace.

>bitcoin

I laughed at that autistic shit when it came out to, now 1 of those fucking things is worth $700, and it started at 7 cents.

>tfw now would have $9800 if I had bought just one dollar worth of memecoins

If you can find an external power to support your rebellion for geopolitical reasons, then yes, you can become armed during a rebellion, but this is not guaranteed. Who can predict what the geopolitical landscape will look like in, for example, 100 years and whether or not a major power would find it in its interest to support a rebellion in a given country? It's also helpful to have firearm proficiency well-established before SHTF and an armed populace can help prevent a hostile government from coming to power or acting coercively in the first place (see ).

Well both sides would need to meet the other halfway on this. It's difficult for me to imagine how the pro-regulation/anti-gun crowd could credibly offer to end the push for more restrictive legislation after they get mental health checks or background checks or whatever. After all, the hardliners do exist and have loud voices, and they'll pull some of the more moderate people along with them to the next battle.

>It's also shocking to me that people on Veeky Forums of all places brush off fears of a coercive, oppressive, or hostile government taking power. An armed populace is a strong check against this and you don't even need to venture outside of living memory to find examples. You should know that "the end of history" is a myth.
Ballots are the rightful and peaceful successor to bullets. The only reason we need to go back to using bullets is if they take away the power of the ballot.

Plus the only really successful rebellions are the ones which have state backing and standing armies. Otherwise you end up like Ammon Buddy: The Man using divide and conquer and Fabian tactics to wear you down unceremoniously while you beg friends and supporters for logistic support.

And the Minutemen were a meme, everywhere the British stood their ground and fought back, the private militias melted away like butter. It took Washington importing French drill instructors to create the U.S Army that they began actually winning battles. True insurgencies only work when it's in the interest of a foreign entity willing to invest a great deal of time and effort turning a disorganized rabble into a friendly regime.

As all of American culture, it stems from a marketing campaing. From Colt company, if I am not mistaken.

Better dialogue goes a long way, if nothing else. I share your pessimism though I'm sad to say. It seems that a lot of the anti-gun people know 0 about guns in any case, which can't help, as your image well illustrates.

>What the fuck do you need that for?

It's simple. Laws need to be enforced; enforcement entails force used against those who don't comply with the law. The weapons are supposed to be a deterrent to the government to not pass laws that would cause a revolt, such as massive theft/corruption/etc. No government plan to put people in camps or anything else crazy like that can be executed successfully against an armed populace, because the population can actually enforce its own will and rights without govern. Yuropoors have to hope the ballot box will enforce their will if their rights and freedoms are ever stripped from them by government fiat, while Americans will laugh.

Simple stuff, really.

>The only reason we need to go back to using bullets is if they take away the power of the ballot.
>but we voted our guns away a long time ago

I mean, alright.

>you can find an external power to support your rebellion for geopolitical reasons, then yes, you can become armed during a rebellion, but this is not guaranteed.

It's practically guaranteed. Of insurgency movements in the 20th century, the only one I can think of offhand that didn't get foreign support from somewhere were the Mau Mau. Individual political entities come and go, but there are always rivalries, and someone who doesn't like the government you're rebelling against.

>It's also helpful to have firearm proficiency well-established before SHTF and an armed populace can help prevent a hostile government from coming to power or acting coercively in the first place

When has it?

>(see )

How the hell does the fleet in being concept apply? A well armed populace requires the government fighting against an insurgency to travel in larger groups? It certainly isn't something you apply to descents into tyranny.

Maybe if France wasn't so heavily armed they wouldn't keep having all these massacres

>Plus the only really successful rebellions are the ones which have state backing and standing armies.

Outside backing is pretty common, but standing armies certainly isn't. Look at Algeria, the half-success of the LTTE, most of the decolonialist revolts in sub-Saharan Africa.

It is entirely possible to win an insurgency without ever winning a battle.

This is completely wrong.
Firearms have been a part of American culture since the 1700's, see the glorification of the American trapper with his Kentucky rifle picking off redcoats.

>I mean, alright.
You'd trade in your civilian grade tacticool rifle for a military grade variant as soon as you got tired of getting your shit pushed in by better armed law enforcement.

And in order to get those your rebellion will need its own state, or at least the beginnings of one.

Americans are obsessed with preserving the second amendment because it's a civil right like any other. And to answer your ridiculous distinctions between what an "appropriate" home defense weapon is, we don't call it the build of needs. In a perfect world US citizens would be defending their homes with select fire weapons of their choice. We're agadir regulation because my civil rights are more important than your feelings and lack of understanding.

Because Amerifats have been conditioned from childhood to equate guns with a macho ideal. Owning a gun means you're a real "man", at least in the mind of Amerifats. Hence why it's not just crackers who obsessively amass them as a status symbol, but also niggers.

>to protect my home

Amerifats like to imagine elaborate scenarios in which they are subject to robbery or assault, and in which they successfully retaliate with their weapons, therefore not only demonstrating themselves to be adept with weapons and "able", but also heroes. It's a ego-boost, and protecting one's home is really just lip service. Deep down, Americans desire for their homes to be broken into so that they can impress everyone with how they "fought back", since American culture is all about "fighting back".

Of course, in reality, most Americans would actually fail, and start a shoot-out and chaos.

NOW THIS IS A HOT TAKE!!!!!!!!!!! SOMEONE GET THIS GUY A TALKSHOW LIKE BILL MAHR>

>americans will resist the state
>from their mobility scooters and hamburger marts.

so you see his strawman is as stupid as yours

>When has it?

The Vietnamese were armed and trained from the French Indochina War. Even without the counterfactual, I think it's fair to say that they were able to more effectively resist the US from the start rather than having to rely on Soviet and Chinese advisers to arm and train them from scratch.

Look, having an armed populace isn't a smoking gun against tyranny nor is an unarmed populace hopeless in a resistance, but I think being armed does tilt the playing field in the people's favor. Bigly.

>How the hell does the fleet in being concept apply?

The point is that it deters something from happening in the first place by its mere existence rather the actions it takes. An armed populace can make a government fearful of taking actions that it wouldn't think twice about with an unarmed populace, or even deter a hostile government from taking power in the first place (see Switzerland).

so that we can defend ourselves. The amount of deaths caused by legal gun owners every year is pretty insignificant. IF you add up the deaths as a result of shootings, mass murders, bombs, ect. from the EU to the US they are pretty close which is much more reasonable than comparing the US to your tiny euro country.

(You)

WE ALREADY HAVE ALOT OF REGULATION IT IS LIKE YOU TOOK A HUGE PIECE OF MY PIE AND THEN ASKED WHY I AM AGAINST YOU TAKEN JUST ANOTHER SMALL PIECE.

>The Vietnamese were armed and trained from the French Indochina War.

You mean, well after the local government started acting coercively, around the late 19th century?

>I think it's fair to say that they were able to more effectively resist the US from the start rather than having to rely on Soviet and Chinese advisers to arm and train them from scratch.

But the U.S. wasn't the first person they were resisting, the French were, and they did have to build that insurgency from scratch.

>The point is that it deters something from happening in the first place by its mere existence rather the actions it takes.

Then say strategic deterrence, not point to an operational move that works in a very specific set of circumstances.

>An armed populace can make a government fearful of taking actions that it wouldn't think twice about with an unarmed populace, or even deter a hostile government from taking power in the first place (see Switzerland).

And often it doesn't, such as during the Russian Revolution, the Chinese Civil War, (or hell, the troubles in China in the 20s), the colossal shit-show that is Israel in the late 40s, or in the actions leading up to the American revolution.

There are lots of governments that go full on opression mode towards armed population segments, usually by employing the majority to bully a minority.

WOAH DUDE AWESOME JOKE CUTTING EDGE STUFF XD UBOAT

Americans own firearms according to their lifestyle. Thus, the prevalence of long guns in rural areas (huntings, pest control), and the popularity of handguns in urban areas (concealed carry, self defence).
In considering why Americans own firearms, you must also take in to account where they live. In many places in the US, police response times are not instantenous, such as in notoriously underserved areas such as urban Detroit, or rural areas in such places as South Dakota or Minnesota.
There is also the education factor in the gun debate. Many proponents of "gun regulation" are not familiar with firearms or the firearm laws of the United States and each particular state. I doubt the average New York liberal is familiar with the ATF's definition of a rifle, handgun, AOW, why you cannot put a stock on a handgun without a $200 tax stamp, that automatic firearms have been banned for civilian manufacture since 1986, the minimum barrel length of a rifle, and so on.

again with this dumb strawman shut up ignorant fuck

>I think it's a lack of hunter culture in the US
>US it's a status symbol, glorified bling bling
No, you are just a moron

>a lot of regulation
>Cleetus buys a rifle at the fair for his 12yo nephew

why are these anomalies so predominant in the US? No developed country matches up to the US when it comes to spergs shooting up schools because they didn't get laid

For personal enjoyment (yes, people shoot guns for fun, and some people earn a lot of money by just shooting guns and filming it. See: DemolitioRanch, Hickock45, any other prominent gun channel)

And there's also for defense against tyrannical government/foreign invasion

this place is a shithole with 0 infrastructure anyone cares about outside of cities
most americans live outside cities either in the municipal areas or in bumfuck nowhere. Im staring out my window and all i see are cows and undeveloped land.

a lot of america has a hunting culture, grew up around guns, and see the right to bear guns as patriotic and something that brings them closer to their roots at the founding of the nation and the constitution.

It has a distinct gun culture that has only gotten more "ammo" so to speak with examples of totalitarian regtimes disarming then controlling it's populace.

The biggest pro gun stance at the moment is that it allows the populace to fight against a tyrannical government should the occassion arise, which isnt exactly a farfetched idea considering what a disarmament policy usually led to.

A handgun for self defence, a shogun and a bolt action for hunting, an assault rifle to keep our soverignety should the government become tyrannical and infringe upon our rights forcefully. American gun culture in a nutshell.

hell im surprised with all the "new fascist" and "trump is a nazi" rhetoric that the liberals in this country are not flocking to gun culture as well. In my opinion every household should have at least one gun.

wew lad great argument really put a lot of effort into that Amerikkka btfo

compare us to the EU if you want a more intellectually honest look at mass murders and such.

>americans shoot guns for fun

literally subhuman

No it isn't?

Americans do use their guns as a symbol of their masculinity.

so do everyone else, the IPSC wouldn't exist otherwise

the only other people who do that are sub saharan niggers and the pashtun tribesmen.

some do sure but everyone overstates it

lol you are very dumb