If you think about it, mass murder is already pretty rare in the United States. It is defined as follows:
“Any event in where four or more people are killed in a public setting within a span of 24 hours that is not motivated by robbery or gang violence.”
Given that definition, very few times do people actually make it to that number as well as meet other requirements. In Great Britain, you had the 2010 Cumbria shootings by Derrick Bird which killed 12 people and injured 11 others. In Germany recently you had the Halle shootings that only killed two and injured two others. In France you had the Bataclan concert shootings. There are countless other examples of mass shootings in Europe despite having stricter gun laws. Then you also have millions of other weapons that could be used as well. In Europe and Asia you have mass stabbings. There was that one in the Philippines in 1905 where that cholo killed just as many as Cho did before getting stoned to death by a lynch mob. Then in the United States you have 9/11 which killed over 2,000 people which used only knives, mace and some commercial planes.
Really, the only good argument against it is that it’ll stop normal crime, but if you look at the crime rates of countries with lax civilian gun ownership laws and compare them to countries with tougher ones, there really isn’t much of a difference between them. For example, the United States has a murder rate of 5.30 per 100,000 people, putting it on par with that of Eastern Europe, Israel has a murder rate of 1.36, New Zealand has a murder rate of 0.70 and Switzerland has a murder rate of 0.50. Compare that to Mexico, which has gun laws similar to that of Japan, with a whopping murder rate of 24.80 or Brazil at 30.50, despite their strict gun laws. Also note that the last mass shooting in Switzerland happened in 2001.
Assault rifles also aren’t used in everyday crime that often, but it’s rather handguns that are. You’re more likely to be stabbed to death than you are to be killed with an AR-15. The only argument for gun control that I could agree with as an incel would mean that only criminals and badgefags could have them while normies are disarmed. But does it mean that it'll stop the flow and trafficking of guns? Maybe, maybe not. It depends. Most guns that are found in the hands of criminals in countries with stricter gun laws typically come from the United States (although in the Philippines street gangs manufacture 1911s which often fall into the hands of gangs like the Yakuza in Japan).
Liberals are living in their own fantasy world, really. Fuck them and fuck conservative normies both, but I’m honestly stuck at which option I would choose.
Also reposting because the last thread was shit.
“Any event in where four or more people are killed in a public setting within a span of 24 hours that is not motivated by robbery or gang violence.”
Given that definition, very few times do people actually make it to that number as well as meet other requirements. In Great Britain, you had the 2010 Cumbria shootings by Derrick Bird which killed 12 people and injured 11 others. In Germany recently you had the Halle shootings that only killed two and injured two others. In France you had the Bataclan concert shootings. There are countless other examples of mass shootings in Europe despite having stricter gun laws. Then you also have millions of other weapons that could be used as well. In Europe and Asia you have mass stabbings. There was that one in the Philippines in 1905 where that cholo killed just as many as Cho did before getting stoned to death by a lynch mob. Then in the United States you have 9/11 which killed over 2,000 people which used only knives, mace and some commercial planes.
Really, the only good argument against it is that it’ll stop normal crime, but if you look at the crime rates of countries with lax civilian gun ownership laws and compare them to countries with tougher ones, there really isn’t much of a difference between them. For example, the United States has a murder rate of 5.30 per 100,000 people, putting it on par with that of Eastern Europe, Israel has a murder rate of 1.36, New Zealand has a murder rate of 0.70 and Switzerland has a murder rate of 0.50. Compare that to Mexico, which has gun laws similar to that of Japan, with a whopping murder rate of 24.80 or Brazil at 30.50, despite their strict gun laws. Also note that the last mass shooting in Switzerland happened in 2001.
Assault rifles also aren’t used in everyday crime that often, but it’s rather handguns that are. You’re more likely to be stabbed to death than you are to be killed with an AR-15. The only argument for gun control that I could agree with as an incel would mean that only criminals and badgefags could have them while normies are disarmed. But does it mean that it'll stop the flow and trafficking of guns? Maybe, maybe not. It depends. Most guns that are found in the hands of criminals in countries with stricter gun laws typically come from the United States (although in the Philippines street gangs manufacture 1911s which often fall into the hands of gangs like the Yakuza in Japan).
Liberals are living in their own fantasy world, really. Fuck them and fuck conservative normies both, but I’m honestly stuck at which option I would choose.
Also reposting because the last thread was shit.
