How restrictive should gun laws be?

How restrictive should gun laws be?

The main 2 reasons people give for guns being legal are self defense and to stop tyranny. Tyrannical governments have been a very popular trend in history so I think that's a valid reason, whether or not the guns would actually help against tyranny is another question altogether for /k/. Self defense has also been necessary throughout history but that's more of a /pol/ question than a Veeky Forums question. I'd say that gun laws shouldn't be very restrictive, and only the war crime shit should be outlawed.

Not strict at all.
>tfw American
Feels good man

Just as they are right now, the only problem is that they're barely enforced.

>guns here are only allowed in a personal safe or while being carried to a gun range
>I can literally just put a 12 gauge in my trunk and drive any where to start shooting
>literally nothing put in place to avoid this except for "well he surely won't do it because we'll arrest him afterwards."

You have to either let people have guns whenever they please or make gun free zones without guns in them. Look at Switzerland, they take guns very seriously and therefore have little to no problem with them.

...

>That pic
WRONG

There should be no restriction on guns, same with drugs or age of consents. They are all arbitrary and authoritarian restrictions, look up negative liberty.

>dividing men between "chads" and "betas"
Typical feminine tactic. Men should stand united to face the female tyranny.

Unrestricted for citizens, slaves and foreigners are barred from possessing them on pain of death by castration and dismemberment.

t. Beta

>This board is dedicated to the discussion of history and the other humanities such as philosophy, religion, law, classical artwork, archeology, anthropology, ancient languages

t. woman

The trouble is the ease with which a gun can be used to harm another person, compared to drugs or (consensual) sex.

>Mohammed
>correct about matters of theology
That's bullshit but I believe it.

It's even easier to hurt someone with words, let's ban those too.

people like you need to really be banned. A bunch of crybaby leftists who can't debate. Got news for you, pol is Veeky Forums.

>tfw humanities destroyed history culture

It should be a privilege, not a right.

I don't side with banning guns. But I don't think Americans have a good idea about it either.

Just like some people don't deserve to drive, some people don't deserve to own guns, plain and simple.

Why are you assuming the state should have any involvement in the free trade of firearms in the first place?

Debating politics is discussion that belongs on /pol/ you fucking dumbass no matter the stripe.

We should restrict gun ownership only to white people, nigger shouldn't be given access. If only white people had guns, America's gun crime rate would be comparable to Belgium or Finland.

Dear Veeky Forumstorians

Throughout what we all love to study there have been countless revolutions, some successful, some not.

The question I wish to pose to you today is this:

With the rapid advancement of technology, does an armed revolution in the modern period stand any chance of success. I'm mostly wondering about the United States but any country could be used as an example if someone wishes to make a case.

Pic related, the reason I don't think it could ever happen these days

They have to be liberal enough to allow any random woman to be armed, so she can shoot men who approach her without invitation.

>the mesure of the ideal restrictivness of a law is the interest of women

Not really, Cletus and his 12 guage won't stand a chance in reality. An actual unified and cohesive revolution is even more unlikely to happen.

>inb4 embarrassing Vietnam analogies which aren't even remotely comparable

Successful revolutions are inevitably ones where the government is horribly weak and semi-collapsing even before the revolutionaries take up arms.

You can't have a revolution in America at the moment, not because of technology, but because of organization; even if they were armed with the same kinds of weapons as insurgents, the government can draw upon too much support, money, training, manpower, etc. to be overthrown.

what a weak excuse. Guns aren't poltiical. You just had a problem with discussion and "muh pol" was your easiest response.

>With the rapid advancement of technology, does an armed revolution in the modern period stand any chance of success.
Of course it does.
"Dem drones" are no defense against a sniper's bullet, and there's no stronger rebuke for a corrupt politician or despot

>misunderstanding insurgency this hard

Protip: Cletus has long since upgraded to a kit built AR.

The interest of a person who cannot typically physically prevent another person from assaulting them.

Maybe in your country you'd rather weaker people were assaulted at will rather than armed.

Any law that would prevent an average 22 year old woman from carrying a gun is too restrictive.

You act like the us military would kill it's own people if ordered to do so. Maybe a group of raping city niggers but if "Celtus" and his friends staged a takeover I bet there would be a good reason and I doubt Pvt. Smith would gun down a guy he most likley went to school with.

Guns aren't political. Debating their regulation is political. Stop posting.

You stop posting, if you don't like it go to another thread.

Good luck getting people to hop on with any sort of "revolution", people too content to risk their lives for any kind of half baked revolt.

In a country like the United States, a large part of the Army and Police would probably defect in the event of a tyrannical government taking power.
You also have to remember that drones and tanks can't kick down doors with search warrants.
They would only be effective in urban environments if the government had no qualms about causing massive collateral damage.

The main asset / balance of guns in developed nations with stopping government abuse is to primarily empower people with the damage they could do against unconventional targets (like politicians) instead of formal rebellions. Think more of James Hodgkinson type shootings and more violent types of riots done with guns that wouldn't be as threatening to authorities if the ones committing it didn't have guns. That is the main and primarily reason why we should allow guns to most of the people if we want some sort of power-check in place. Chances are is that there is very unlikely to be a full-on revolution in developed States anymore, but as a deterrence of abuse, apathy, and stagnation there needs to be some violent mofos out there that feel empower to blow some minor shit up to keep politicians more in line and forcefully make people pay attention to news of public affairs.

Cletus will likely have the national guard and the local army garrison defecting to his side.

Pretty much this, If it came to this kind of "revolution" I'm betting most of the police, militia and military would defect.

the point is you are making it sound like the endgame of gun laws is to protect women

lax gun laws + lack of mental health awareness is a recipe for disaster (e.g. USA)

Go to another board. This is off topic political discussion.

you better tell that to the dozen other people engaging here.

We are discussing laws, it's in topic.

>does an armed revolution in the modern period stand any chance of success.

Martyrdom is a hell of a drug. Make it evil for the 'winners' to continue and you can shift any point of view.

Sure, it could work. The thing is, in many realistic large-scale revolution scenarios, part of the armed forces would join the revolution.

t. eurocuck