Why do Americans brag about owning guns?

To protect themselves from a tyrannical government.

Why didn't they do it in the OP picture?

The Italian gets it.
Nicolo Machiavelli suggested that letting your citizens own weapons is actually a good way to keep them on your side (ergo NOT have them revolt against you).

It gives them the illusion that they have power over the government. Waco proved them very wrong.

Because it was still possible to resolve the situation politically?

Because it was still possible to resolve the situation politically?

In the end, it wasn't. Because racial intergration was fully implemented.

'If someone puts up the argument that King Louis gave the Romagna to Pope Alexander, and the kingdom of Naples to Spain, in order to avoid a war, I would answer as I did before: that you should never let things get out of hand in order to avoid war. You don't avoid such a war, you merely postpone it, to your own disadvantage'.

If a violent abbo decided to rape you, you'd be utterly helpless.

Guns won't help you against a violent abo either, silly snowgook. You haven't seen shit.

nothing else to talk about

FUCKIN YURO KEKS WONT DO SHIT LOL

Yes Sheriff Shekelstein, I will surrender and I will go to Iran to die for our great ally of Israel

*gets executed anyway*

So it was resolved politically.

I highly doubt that your violent abos are bulletproof.

The American Civil War should've have proved to them it was an illusion.
The Southerners revolted, with arms, against the tyranical North, and LOST.

semi automatic rifles was probably not what they had in mind when the 2nd amendment was written. and like others have said, trying to overthrow the government you don't like will only get you branded a terrorist and blown up by a drone. it's not going to happen
but hey at least the kids at the local school and the nigs in the hood can have their fun, or your president getting his ear blown off

So it was resolved politically.

Umm, dude, the photograph in OP shows the government using MILITARY VIOLENCE to solve the issue.
It was resolved, to the governments satisfaction, using miliatry soldiers pointing guns at their civilians.

Yeah, that commonly happens when the state escalates use of force. What point are you trying to make?

Your point was that the civvies didn't use their guns against the government soldiers because it 'was still possible to resolve the situation politically'.
Did you take a bullet to the brain and forget?

No, I didn't forget. What kind of a point are you trying to make?

I simply refuted what you said. Any points that can be derived from that are able to stand on their own without my saying.

So you don't have a point?

poor americans
there was nothing they couldve done to stop this

'Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime'.

I realised, you're trying to get me to outright say it so you can type it into chatGPT and have an AI refute me.
Damn bro, you stupid AND dishonest. A stupid man who is also dishonest, what good is he in existing? except for as a slave.

'There are three classes of intellects: one which comprehends by itself; another which appreciates what others comprehend; and a third which neither comprehends by itself nor by the showing of others; the first is the most excellent, the second is good, and the third is useless'.

because they're drug addicts and schizophrenic

Americans hate sex because they still retain some vestiges of their puritan settler mindset.

Living in the wild, you'll most certainly love your gun, while at the same time look down on women who look attractive, since they would be seen as planting the seeds of lust and therefore fracturing the community, which in that time was pretty much deadly.

That mindset survives to this day.

This logic can also be applied to the internet and all modern media regarding the 1st amendment. Retard. Let me tell you about your shithole and its laws.

Sun Tzu said: "give a man a gun and he may use it to defend himself. Take a man's gun and he will submit for a lifetime".

You haven't made a point, you're just shitposting.

When the second amendment was written, the military had access to warships and artillery, both of which could be owned by private citizens. If the 2nd amendment were taken as intended, civilians could still own artillery, missiles and machine guns without doing a tax stamp dance with the ATF.

they arent even good at using them. absolutely no presence in shooting competitions.
their coppers and muhreens buy european imports.

Why do “people” from your countries suck off the state so hard? Aus and NZ are the slave class of Anglo nations. I’ve never seen white people with a greater reverence for the state than the poor sunburnt husks from both of your islands. Sad.

Trvke.

American Civil War. The rebels lost. 2nd proven useless.

that is the funny part of it. they claim it's essential for them to have guns to fight against government tyranny then proceed to be the biggest bootlickers in the world outside of tankies

1st is also stupid. Imagine giving communists free speech.

Guns won't help you against a violent abo either, silly snowgook. You haven't seen shit.

I'm sure when you did that gay little haka dance it stopped them in their tracks

Two states fighting against each other and one losing means that there is no reason for civilians to have a right to bear arms?

Strawman.

They’re fun and for some reason foreignshits seethe that we can own them.

Right, it failed because the south was a state. The 2nd was intended for one individual to take on the govt. by himself.

Not at all. Address the point, if two states clash and one loses, does it make the right to bear arms pointless?

Now this is a strawman.

If mine is, yours is. They're the same.
If you cannot see that, you are retarded. Take that gun and blow your brains out, it's useless. Won't waste my time speaking to an inferior.

What's the point of having it if you're not going to use it; either because you fear your police & federal secret services, that your judges punishes civilians if they kill “the people in uniform”, or imprisonment for life, respectively death?
Europe doesn't have them because they wouldn't be able to cauterize the psychotic impulses in killing neighbours, minorities, and risking some form of pariah status?

Is wearing a seatbelt pointless if someone got in a crash and died despite having a seatbelt?

To have it in case you need it?

HAVING a seatbelt IS pointless if you never use it when driving (its intended purpose).
Likewise Americans HAVING guns but never using it to kill government soldiers (its intended purpose) is, indeed, pointless.

guns are cool and swissland does it too unironically. look up swiss shooting clubs.

Kyle Howard Rittenhouse (born January 3, 2003), is a good boy and did his duty to kill pedos at a BLM riot. you pussies will never understand.

Kind of true except you're describing two different groups; Puritans were more urbanized and evolved into modern Northeastern liberals (atheists) and Western conservatives (Mormons), whereas the gun-toting wilderness settlers were semi-religious who either converted to Evangelical Protestantism during the Great Awakenings or stayed as rural gun-lovers in the West.

AHHHHHH THEY’RE MAKING US SEND OUR AMERICAN KIDS TO SCHOOL WITH OTHER AMERICAN KIDS AHHHHHHH IM GOING INSANE!!!!!!!!!!

That is like saying that you don't need a seatbelt if you never crash your car.

But let's for the sake of argument assume that you do indeed never crash your car. Is having a seatbelt pointless then? Should the state ban seatbelts?

That is like saying that you don't need a seatbelt if you never crash your car

No, it's not. I already spelt it out for you and you still manage to not understand.
You are too retarded to talk to.

HAVING a seatbelt IS pointless if you never use it when DRIVING (its intended purpose).

But I do use my guns. I go shooting nearly every weekend. I also stopped a guy from trying to steal my car.

I'm not going to let you alter the analogy. Is having a seatbelt pointless if you never crash your car? Should the state ban seatbelts?

seatbelts don't kill people. Ford burning cars do.

I'm not going to let you prove me wrong

Blow your brains out.

Let the record show that the defendent refused to address the argument.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogy

False equivalence still applies.

Most people own them for protection and home defense. Most people that say they have guns for "muh tyranny" are LARPers and/or liars.

It's nice to have a gun at home just in case something happens. If you're allowed to own one, why not? Criminals won't take any chances and bring weapons, so so should you.

pic related is my daily carry btw

Criminals won't take any chances and bring weapons

Actually gun crimes are uncommon in Western Europe. Hell, if Westoids did not accept refugees the crime would be nearly non-existent

State worship here is way less than it is in America.

Thank you for your service

If it works, it works. Simple as.

so where are all these "well-regulated militias"?

Actually gun crimes are uncommon in Western Europe

yeah I know.

Anyway, guns are great because they are very strong force multipliers, and they are easily accessible.

For example, a single woman with a gun in her home has a chance to defeat a group of men with guns (or make them run away), while a single woman with a knife can't do that against a group of men with knives.

Anyway it's probably safer in Germany because the overall crime rate is down. But just know that if a crime does happen, I am much better off in a gun nation than a gun-free nation.

because the overall crime rate is *lower

get a load of mr. synthol arms over here

Is having a seatbelt (gun) pointless if you never get in a car crash (the government tyranny doesn't get to the point that an armed insurrection is absolutely necessary)?

Is having a seatbelt (gun) pointless if you still die in a crash despite wearing one (an armed insurrection fails)?

Should the government ban seatbelts (guns) if they promise you're never going to crash your car (we're benevolent overlords we swear also no dictator is ever going to abuse the systems we have put in place in our shortsightedness) and you're going to die anyway even if you have a seatbelt (gun) (ruby ridge, waco)?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogy

based and true, would respect mutts if they actually use them, in reality they hide indoors and still get sent to prison if they use it on a nogger

Also to add one more thing:

People often look at what weapon you're legally allowed to own, but they overlook their local self defense laws. Sure you can own a deadly weapon, but can you use it?

America has very relaxed laws when it comes to owning guns, but it also has a very relaxed self defense law (in most states). Meanwhile, in several European nations, you could go to prison for years for hitting someone with a stick in self defense.

those are natty I swear

You can go to prison for hitting someone with a stick in self defence in the US too if it's deemed excessive. Conversely, you can shoot someone dead in self defence in euroland if it's deemed appropriate and commensurate.

i though brazilians were retarded not based????

Yes the question is always "was the force given by the defendant equal to the force he was receiving/about to receive"?

This question is universal in most nations' laws, but the interpretation is vastly different. In most US states you won't even be charged with anything and you don't have to go to court. Finished. Or if you go to court, the process is simple and it's over fast.

Meanwhile in other nations, the law on self defense may be similar on paper, but the treatment will be different. You will be interviewed by detectives for several days, prosecuted by the state, and you must go to court for a few months with expensive lawyers to prove your self defense was legal. And the judges tend to be less sympathetic to any use of deadly force, even in justified self defense. They will ask why didn't you first run away, why didn't you try to resolve the situation peacefully first, etc etc.

It's pointless if you never use it when the situation arises. Which I've ALREADY SAID.
Stupid fucking muppet.

Also forgot to mention that most US states has a "Castle Doctrine" where you're allowed to fatally harm any uninvited intruders into your home even if they didn't actively try to hurt you or if they had a weapon or not.

The doctrine assumes that any uninvited intruder into your home has deadly intent (intent to kill the homeonwer).

Some retarded states such as New York has a "duty to retreat" where you first have to be cornered in your own home before you can shoot your intruder.

luigi shot a jew nigger, so uh, yeah guns based.
Sorry sweaty get fucked

So you think it's okay for the state to ban seatbelts if you don't ever get in a car crash?

Home invasions are generally scenarios where the courts are most sympathetic towards use of firearms. If you're at home, it's difficult or impossible to escape, and you can't positively verify whether the intruder is armed. The situation is different if you get in a street fight.

Strawman.
I've literally never said anything about banning guns.

You really are retarded.

That was cool, but:

United States Attorney General Pam Bondi directed the federal prosecutors to seek the death penalty in Mangione's federal case.[11]

And no American will use their guns to save him from a tyrannical govt.

With guns they can stop all the murderers and criminals. Oh wait..

well yeah, thats more of an argument against americans than against gun ownership.

mutts are fags, guns are cool. Nothing new was really learned here

It's not meant to counter your argument. Your stance is not based on logic, reason or evidence, only emotion, so I can't refute it with logic, reason or evidence. So let me just accept your position for the sake of argument, and pretend that owning guns is pointless because you can't and won't ever use them to defeat the government. Fine.

So, given that guns are completely pointless and ineffective in resisting the government in whatever they want to do, is it acceptable for the government to ban them?

I'm surprised how quick you, a Mexican, came to understand what I was saying compared to the retarded Finn who still doesn't get it.

The highest listed homicide rate of 12.5/100k extrapolated to the entire US population would result in 43750 dead burgers per year. The lowest estimation of defensive gun use frequency is over 50000 instances annually.

So it seems to me that they work just fine in stopping crime.

This is more about the people than access to weapons. Anyway, easy access to guns is still probably a large factor, but I argue it's not the largest factor.

I argue it's a mitigating factor, not a contributing one. It's much more dangerous to be a criminal when people are armed.

You don't get to have those for self defence like Americans. You don't get to do shit.

I don't have them for self defence in legal terms, but I can use them for self defence if I must.

No, you can't. You would be behind bars in a heartbeat. I am right there is no debate.

I think this Australian is really a chink foreign agitator trying to incite unrest in America. No officer, we won’t destroy the country with another civil war.

I generally agree. However, an "armed populace is a polite populace" concept works ONLY when almost every single potential victim is armed.

The problem is that in America, most people are not carrying around guns, and most major cities are quite restrictive on gun ownership, carry, and legal self defense use. That is why crime rate is still high in America.

Until every American citizen is carrying a gun with them, only every criminal will carry a gun and have an unfair advantage.

damn you can see how old this photo is from the phone lmao

There have been legal precedents of armed self defence occurring in Finland and the perpetrator being released without punishment.

No, it still works. Even if everyone isn't carrying, there's always a chance that a potential victim is carrying, thus dissuading the attacker. Or the incident ending with the prospective mugger being ventilated, dissuading others.

Also how the fuck can you use those loading strips? They're awful, get a safariland speedloader instead, my recommendation is the comp II.

Those are 16 year old kids and that's the 101st airborne
I know, it's possibly one of the worst things that ever happened in this country
but we're working hard to reverse it

because guns are cool, what kind of stupid question is this?

Post carry guns. I alternate between these depending on what I’m wearing.

No, it still works. Even if everyone isn't carrying, there's always a chance that a potential victim is carrying, thus dissuading the attacker.

I mean most people aren't carrying, that's why criminals are still bold here. I can look at some random people on the street and I can assume none of them are carrying. The "it won't happen to me" mentality is very common, especially for criminals.

I guess if you see a guy dressed in tacticool stuff, you should be careful. Or I would be careful with small businesses in general (they are usually armed).

Also how the fuck can you use those loading strips?

It's more for ease of daily carry in your pocket than usefulness. You just load 1 at a time, it's not a speedloader. The most important point is that if you're in a situation where you really need to reload, you already fucked up.

I usually carry pic related when I'm at the beach and I need something light to fit in my speedo

Gee, why wouldn't you trust a government whose members live in gated communities so they don't have to deal with immigrants, send their kids to private schools so they don't have to deal with plummeting education quality, and keep their businesses overseas so they don't have to deal with rising taxes?

Our forefathers understood that government is the enemy when it is from any class of people other than the normal citizens of the land, and government is almost never made up of the normal citizens of the land. Thus it makes sense to keep the citizenry armed so that even in a world where nothing ever happens, if something ever DOES happen you can at least shoot it in the face. Its a very simple fundamental concept that has nothing to do with the state of America or Americans that could be universally applied everywhere if people weren't so distrustful of their fellow citizens as to give up their own rights to own a weapon just so somebody else won't have one either.

Criminals are bold because they're dumb young niggers full of testosterone feeling invincible. Statistically speaking of course. It's really hard to dissuade those kinds from committing crime no matter what you do, it's just a fact of life you have to deal with. But the quasi-rational actors who are desperate might just give up on mugging that old timer if there's a chance he has a .357 on his belt.

You can easily fit a comp II in your pocket, and why are you loading 1 at a time? At least do two chambers at once.

Yeah, most of the time if you need to reload you fucked up. But if you even have to use your carry gun in the first place you fucked up in the situational awareness and avoidance department anyway, so who's to say you're not going to fuck up some more? Always plan for the worst case scenario.

Or if you go to court, the process is simple and it's over fast.

no

Besides some nuances, I generally agree with your reply

in comparison with other nations. I'm just speaking in a relative sense.

NTA but, he's right within certain bounds. The nature of our hyper-capitalist system in the US makes it so that if there's no money to be made off of you, its within the court's best interest to process your case as quickly as possible and send you on your way, so in cases of justified self-defense and other similarly clear-cut situations where the evidence is overwhelmingly in your favor, the court will just push things through quickly because they're spending time and money on you with no discernable return on their investment.