Thread 64256501

K-anons, I had an argument with my friend who lives in California. She thinks that California gun laws are good because California is apparently #44 in violent gun deaths in the US.

I disagree on principle, but I'm too much of a retard to produce a viable argument against her. Please give me talking points on why California gun laws are retarded.

Unfortunately I feel like she might have more authority on this than myself because she was literally a fucking markswoman in Afghanistan while I've never fired a gun in my life.

>>64256501 (OP)
>I've never fired a gun in my life

>>64256513
Not by choice. I just wasn't raised around guns and I refuse to be a wagecuck, so I don't have money I could spend on firearms.

>>64256501 (OP)
>Unfortunately I feel like she might have more authority on this than myself because she was literally a fucking markswoman in Afghanistan while I've never fired a gun in my life.
Being a veteran doesn't give anyone anymore authority on gun control. Your typical soldier isn't much more special than the average population, picrel is what happens when your typical lower-enlisted are left to their own devices.
Honestly, if she isn't persuaded by the fundamental fact that persecuting law-abiding citizens for the actions of criminals is retarded then she probably won't ever be in the mindset to come around on the issue.

>>64256501 (OP)
My understanding is that difference is largely due to fewer suicides.

You could also point out there are ‘safer’ states that have no gun laws (New Hampshire)

>>64256529
>I refuse to be a wagecuck
Then what are you?

>>64256555
checked

>>64256557
>Then what are you?
he is a bum. can't even afford a .22.

>>64256501 (OP)
Bro, I get where you’re coming from. Nobody likes the idea of “nanny state” laws telling you what you can or can’t buy, and California gun regs are notorious for being overcomplicated and kinda dumb in places (feature bans, roster nonsense, etc.). From a freedom/enjoyment standpoint, yeah, they suck.

But here’s the thing: your friend isn’t pulling that “44th in gun deaths” stat out of nowhere. Whether you chalk it up to culture, enforcement, or the laws themselves, the numbers don’t exactly scream “total failure.” Meanwhile, you admit she’s an actual trained markswoman who’s deployed overseas, and you’ve… never fired a gun. So when it comes to credibility, it’s not really a contest.

So basically your argument boils down to “I don’t like the idea of it,” while hers has real-world data and experience behind it. Hard to spin that in your favor without looking like the retard you already called yourself.

tl;dr: you wanted ammo for your side, but you walked straight into a controlled pair. She’s right, bro.

>>64256501 (OP)
>lives in California.
>She
You cant win, no amount of facts or logic will change her mind. Just nod and maybe she will fuck you later.

>>64256557
I'm a wizard. I just cast fireball on mfs for home defense.

>>64256570
Broseph is fighting with a woman who spent her entire career busting balls and shutting down dumb dudes.

He could be arguing that the earth is round and she will still mop the floor with him, all the way off the edge of the earth.

>>64256574
Actually she's gay so probably not.

>>64256501 (OP)
>California is apparently #44 in violent gun deaths
Is that the same as homicides?
No?
I wonder if suicides and self defense shootings are counted as "violent gun deaths".

>>64256593
>she's gay
grim

strict gun laws in california are a good thing because people from california aren't human and don't deserve rights. Your friend is correct.

>>64256501 (OP)
California is not #44 in violent gun deaths. They lie in their reporting on crime statistics or don't even bother to report them at all.
And that doesn't include the violent altercations that they refuse to prosecute in California. People aren't leaving Cali for places like Texas, Florida and Colorado for no reason at all.

>>64256766
>They lie in their reporting on crime statistics
"Violent gun deaths" is a lie. We are supposed to imagine they are referring to murder only. Or murder with a gun only. Self defense shootings are violent and also use a gun. But you don't have as many of those when the victims are prohibited from having firearms. Bam! Fewer violent gun deaths.
That's why it says "violent gun deaths" and not "violent gun crimes resulting in death".

>>64256501 (OP)
>she was literally a fucking markswoman in Afghanistan

Combat award status?

>>64256801
It also raises the question on if they even recognize the possibility of a non-violent gun death. When they pulled out the "anyone under 25 counts as a child for the purposes of gun fatalities" card, they lost any benefit of the doubt. Ask for the citations with definitions for every single word they use.

>>64256766
I always hear people say that California falsified or doesnt report their crime statistics but I never see anyone back it up with a source. The closest I've seen is people sending me DOJ crime stats, which show an overall decrease in violent crime after a peak in Covid times. Do you happen to have a source that was able to prove California lies or lied about its violent crime reporting.

>>64256501 (OP)
I agree with the second amendment, but in its original interpretation as a well regulated militia. The second amendment right now basically means the military industrial complex should be free to do whatever they want and get state funding.

The real 2nd amendment is that is that every citizen gets a standard rifle, to be kept at home and used when necessary to enforce the will of the people.

This has been completely twisted into rich arseholes being about to own every super weapon possible to LARP on tiktok with while these same weapons are used against the people.

>>64256822
Also the "school shootings" that include events like "we found a shell casing on school grounds", "some gangbangers were lurking in the parking lot at 3am and got in a fight", "the resource officer ND'd into the floor", and other such things.

>>64256954
>I agree with the second amendment, but
kill yourself, faggot

>>64256963
You agree with Aristocracy. I agree with Democracy. Those are the two interpretations that haunt the second amendment, and I'd argue the constitution. Should the masses have the power? Or should power be proportional to money and profit. You side with aristocracy.