Using science and logic; how do I convince the mutts on /k/ to give up their guns?
Using science and logic
shall not be infringed
go be a faggot somewhere else
Protip: you can't
The point of having guns is that they ARE tools for the weak. Any large strong dude could just try to assault/rape/kill a weaker man or woman and completely overpower them, but with guns this advantage is neutralized and gives the "prey" a chance to fight back.
Henry Rollins' best friend was executed in front of him. Clearly, the strong do need guns. If he had had one, maybe that wouldn't have happened.
Actually I may have misread your question. You needn't be right, I assume you agree with that. You only need to engage in convincing sophistry by making your language adopt the trappings of a mathematician. In that case, just end your sentences with QED, use words like WRT, format arguments into if-then statements, etc
You'd have to be a retard to believe that quote. Even if the guns are seen as "tools of the weak" the intelligent spend their time creating even more efficient ways of killing people. Even if the "tools" are seen as pawns, pawns are really important in a game of chess. So if you're "smart" you will consider the use of guns because other people have guns. And I bet you a million dollars that that guy would love to have a gun if he were watching his family shot infront of him by people using guns. War is war, hate is hate, it's never going away. And the last part of the qoute is really retarded, shows how dumb he really is. A single bullet can change everything.
Show them a video of uri gellen bending the spoon with his mind, which is proven science now. They will then realise that next time they get attacked with a gun they can simply use the power of their mind and bend it.
how do I convince the mutts on /k/ to give up their guns?
Why the fuck would you care to convince non-criminals to give up their guns? Also
the strong don't need guns
Yeah, your hands will be good enough in the event of a break-in, in which armed criminals threaten the security of your family. Fucking idiot tripfag
You need decent upper body strength to fire a high-caliber rifle properly. You don’t need to be ripped like Rollins but you certainly can’t have twig arms.
So I'm going to to explain to you why you are a complete, irredeemable faggot, OP. Using only science and logic, we can deduce that much of politics is actually just power-play. Carl von Clauswitz famously stated: "War is the continuation of politics by other means." Paul Babiak, who wrote the novel "Snakes in Suits," notes that our Hollywood, stereotypical image of a psychopath as a deranged murder doesn't hold water -- many psychopaths exist, unnoticed, in day-to-day life.
Imagine that you a *very* powerful politician or businessman. Now imagine that you also exhibit traits of psychopathy. Would you care about the peons? Would you care about the people killed in shootings? The answer is 'no.' You would not.
But this would give an interesting opportunity. You could use the peasants' fears and grievances against them by convincing them to give up one of the only rights that stands in between you and their sovereignty.
Congratulations, you have (via the media) successfully convinced them to give up their only means of defense. Now, those pesky peons can be jailed for thought-crimes, killed for their political dissidence, ect.
You can't derive an ought from an is, so you've already lost.
You claim you will pay full market price plus 50% per gun. Plus the same for ammo and accessories.
Let's see.... 350 million guns average $ / gun ~ 500 =
175 billion just in payments for guns, I'd say another 50 billion for the ammo, and 100 billion to execute. Then there's cost overruns and the general theft and malfeasance, so double or triple that estimate.
Looks like a trillion dollars ought to do it for the mutts on /k/
Because an is is objective, while you need first principles to derive an ought you turbobrainlet
explain it in two sentences
Is a certain course of action automatically good because of event X? No, because an event alone doesn't tell us what should be done; a set of axioms outlining what is good must first be established, since an ought is concerned with what is good, and goodness is a human construct
guns historically posed a forceful resistance to government power. nowadays it's only a matter of public relations. national goverments can just nuke a real rebellion if it ever comes to that.