Philosophically and ethically speaking, what is the reason civilians SHOULD NOT own firearms?

Philosophically and ethically speaking, what is the reason civilians SHOULD NOT own firearms?

Fuck off to saged and reported

nope.

people asking for gun control, are asking to be less equal. modern firearms allow women, children, disabled, and elderly people to be equal in violence potential to young able bodied men. a populace armed with small arms comparable to what the government owns. serves as a deterrent to tyranny and keeps democratic principles protected.

easy access to ownership of modern firearms gives equality of security among the various social economic classes. A farmer way out in the country or someone living in a bad neighborhood, has slower and less government protection services than. those that live in wealthy suburban/urban areas. So being armed themselves means they are able to make up the gap in security.

Nice, user
I dare anyone to even TRY to refute this

It's not why they shouldn't, but why should they in a peaceful society?

>peaceful society

>peaceful society
No such thing, and also there is no such thing as being too safe. It's impossible to completely eliminate violence for good, the best thing you can do is to just hedge your chances as much as possible against it happening.

>serves as a deterrent to tyranny

Yeah how often did that happen again and how many people die year by year and you still justify it as we were in the 19th century.

You can not stop Jets with your overstyled ar 15 you are just a insecure loser that's about it.

made up pro gun bullshit propaganda

show me 1 fucking piece of evidence that guns get used more to defend someone from a criminal rather than just being used to murder someone

protip you cant

nice try tho neckbeard

>le current year meme

That looks like a riot, not a everyday occurrence.

That sounds extremely paranoid. Are you one of those doomsday preppers? You gotta live a little and take a chance.

>NRA makes a list of things to do when when you have a gun in your car and a police officer pulls you over.
>Man (with girlfriend and son in the car) does everything on that list perfectly.
>Police officer shoots the guy anyways while the other officer there didn't expect a thing.
>NRA doesn't say anything because it always supports the police.
>NRA members are absolutely livid at the NRA because the dead man did everything he was supposed to and the NRA didn't defend him.

NRA is a gun manufacturers lobby. Its not really for the gun owners.

Wrong.

Jets can't maintain a police state, only police can, and the number of police will always be outnumbered by the people.

But go ahead and keep justifying being a pussy.

Bombardment ain't worth shit if you don't have at least a measure of some boots on the ground - the gains of ISIL pre-2016 can attest to that. Bombardment can't collect taxes, hold territory and enforce laws in a systemic way.

Gun crime has zero correlation with legal gun ownership for a start.

I'd recommend you the book "White Girl Bleed a Lot" by Colin Flaherty if you want more information on this issue.

>live a little and take a chance
That's a good argument for gun ownership.

no he didn't
he was reaching for his wallet, which the cop (reasonably) interpreted as reaching for his gun
would you take any chances and wait to see what he's pulling out of his pocket where you can't see?

>dude lmao violence doesn't real nobody ever gets mugged or attacked, just stop being paranoid lmao the world is a safe place where aggressive and violent people don't exist

>I am not at war now.
>Therefore my nation will not ever need an army or guns.

>It doesn't rain every day.
>Therefore I don't need an umbrella.

Did you actually post an infographic about small arms ownership on top and homicides related to drug violence and think this is a compelling argument about gun ownership? Are you joking or just incredibly stupid?

Homicides related to drug violence on the bottom*

>makes stupid argument
>gets debunked
>"are YOU the stupid one?"

fuck off to or >>>/leftypol/ already

Not him, but you're retarded if you don't see where your argument fails.

>we need guns in case the government is evil

Ok explain this one guncucks, why would any government literally give the right to maintain the weapons that could destroy it?

Either 1, the government knows you can't beat it with your shit guns.

Or 2. The government knows it will never turn evil and the guns will never be used.

Either way, guncucks are morons who think they need to protect themselves from boogeymen.

Allow me to spell this out for you. In your infographic you have two images. The top image is one of gun ownership. The bottom image is the rate of homicide deaths due to crimes related to drugs per 100,000 people. Someone, I imagine not you, decided to juxtapose those images together to try and make a point that "look, gun ownership is so high in these countries and they have such a low homicide rate compared to countries that have low gun ownership", clearly hoping that no one would actually look up what the two images actually represent. It's not even misleading, it's a complete lie.

Because an unarmed populace is easier to control and oppress then an armed one. This is important if you value the ability to control other people over the rights of said people to live their own lives.

None.

Or 3. The government knows it can't turn evil as much it may like to or else the people with guns will come fuck them up.