Upload
Login or register
x

Arguments make me hard

shared Rightwing Neal; photo.
WHY DO YOU NEED A GUN?"
You need mese tor mags. was 8 madman;
This one no my H. who :
or Ina tabla.
This one for nouns! , forman
and to maven! atrocities.
Unlike . Comment. Share
it You like this.
T This is the one I need in Canada because only licensed people
can bigguns that are only meant for hunting and the clip size is limited.
Like . Reply. in . or hrs
I have never once in my entire life felt the need, desire, or
even whim to hold a gun, let alone own one.
Like . Reply. 14 hrs
an Hide 24 Replies
I That' s because you live underneath a blanket
provided by misgovernment that could be taken away at any point
Like . Reply. yhr
I'll Let' s keep blanket.
...
+298
Views: 18724
Favorited: 33
Submitted: 01/11/2016
Share On Facebook
submit to reddit +Favorite Subscribe to mdizzlethreeonefiv

Comments(207):

Leave a comment Refresh Comments Show GIFs
123>
[ 207 comments ]
Top Rated Controversial Best Lowest Rated Newest
Anonymous comments allowed.
122 comments displayed.
Reply
+62
User avatar #1 - sinery (01/11/2016) [-]
I swear to god you ********************** if you're going to post this ******* **** will you at least crop the damn thing properly.
Reply
+39
User avatar #46 - chrysaor (15 hours ago) [-]
Personally, I think people who think their guns are going to help them that much in self-defense are missing some fairly crucial facts.
1. If you're storing a gun in your house properly, then there's no way you'd be able to get to it in time to protect yourself. Guns should be stored unloaded and in a locked safe where children can't get to them by accident. What, you think the robber is gonna be kind enough to let you go and grab it? Besides, most break ins happen in the day, when people are at work or school anyway

2. Funnily enough, GUNS ARE DANGEROUS TOOLS. Unless you're actually trained properly in their use and practice consistently, you're going to miss your target. A lot. Even trained professionals miss a lot of the time during actual firefights. And when you're inside your house or in a crowded public place, that missed shot doesn't just go away, it hits something else. Sometimes you'll get lucky and nobody gets hurt. Sometimes you'll end up shooting your wife or child or some random passerby instead.

Frankly, if your actual concern is about your home being broken into, buy a security system. If you're worried about public shootings, well frankly you'd just be adding more random bullets flying around getting people killed.

Now if your reasons for wanting a gun is either "hunting" or "just to shoot it, because it's fun/for marksman competitions", that's totally fine. But you should be prepared to sign out a bunch of paperwork and/or get a background check to make sure that's what you're using it for. Because honestly that's what most proponents of gun control want. They don't want to take away our guns, they just want to make sure any random ****** can't grab one off the shelf like it's a pack of gum.
Reply
0
#190 to #46 - anon (10 hours ago) [-]
Eh my biggest problem is the removal of said weapons is hard and would result in radicals firing at officials unnecessarily. My family all put together own around 31 unregistered firearms collectively and I know some of those would be stupid enough to fight over them.
Reply
+1
User avatar #56 to #46 - vladhellsing (15 hours ago) [-]
Home Invasion | How to protect yourself Please enjoy this safe & sensible drill for defending your home against intruders with a firearm.
Reply
+8
User avatar #58 to #56 - chrysaor (15 hours ago) [-]
Thank you, that's very informative.

Although to clarify my point a little, that video is full of things which most people would not know or think of. Honestly, a lot of people are really dumb.

I'm not saying it's impossible to use a gun to defend your home from invasion. It's simply that, in order to do so properly and safely, you must be trained and be very well practiced, and most people simply won't be. I am uncertain on the feasibility of this, but perhaps one of the requirements for being allowed to purchase a gun would be completion of a course which teaches gun safety, practical use of firearms (including defending a home), as well as qualify as a marksman at a bare minimum. perhaps also require them to qualify every year to ensure their skills remain sharp . Hell, we have stupid overkill training for something as comparatively simple as driving, it's not too much to ask that gun owners need to pass a basic competency test.
Reply
+11
User avatar #62 to #58 - vladhellsing (14 hours ago) [-]
I totally agree. Guns are like cars; they are practical although dangerous pieces of equipment that require a trained, licensed professional in order to operate. Unfortunately gun regulations in America (not on the guns themselves but rather the requirements to own them) are so lax that they often fall into the wrong hands - fuelled even more by American gun culture (and American culture in general). And I'm not even talking about illegal gun ownership here.

The way I see it, it's a cultural problem over there, not a problem with guns themselves. Americans see gun ownership as a "right", whereas in Slovenia (where Polenar Tactical, the guys who made that video, live) they see gun ownership as a "privilege". And you can own all kinds of guns there provided you have the right reason, anything from a handgun to a 30 round assault rifle. America needs to understand that just because you have a right doesn't mean you have a duty to own guns and that mentality must carry over to gun legislation.
Reply
0
User avatar #88 to #58 - ishallsmiteyou (13 hours ago) [-]
I'll guarantee you that at least the majority of firearms owners are properly trained in their use for personal defense.
Reply
-2
User avatar #84 to #46 - thefallenlord (13 hours ago) [-]
1.) Don't have wife / gf, don't have kids, nor do I plan to have any. I would still like to defend my life thank you very much.

2.) Cars are dangerous and knifes are dangerous as well. You can crack open your skull in a shower. There are million and one ways of killing or hurting yourself in the safety of your own home even without a gun. Also I would like to think that we (and by "we" I mean people eligible for purchase of firearms) are all responsible adults that can make decisions for ourselves, accepting risks, responsibilities and consequences on the individual basis.

I kinda agree with your point on shooting in public spaces tho.
Reply
+1
User avatar #195 to #46 - mdizzlethreeonefiv [OP](10 hours ago) [-]
Just FYI

I, OP, am the hardcore conservative in the post. I HAVE been trained, I DO practice consistently, and I keep my loaded gun right on my bed in a safe when I'm sleeping or on my hip when I'm just around my house. Just HAVING the gun, and it being visible, is such a powerful tool in and of itself. I sincerely hope that all I have to do is point my gun at someone and then they piss off, because I don't know the circumstances that they live in. If I'm in a convenience store and a guy with a mask comes in waving a gun around, I don't know if he was coerced into doing this, I don't know if he is just trying to feed his family, I just don't have enough information. BUT, if he points that gun at some 9 year old kid or something, I will not hesitate to put as many hollow points as it takes into him. I have prepared myself as much as I can for that moment and to be honest nothing is going to prepare me for the gravity of taking another man's life. I carry hollow points to reduce overpenetration, I aim center mass to both kill and reduce my chances of missing, I won't be shooting at a target further than 50 feet from me because that's the longest most of my training has been at. There is so much literature on the subject, and I hero worship Massad Ayoob.
Reply
+3
#139 to #46 - anon (11 hours ago) [-]
Not everyone has kids

Get training
Reply
+3
User avatar #143 to #46 - hatsune (11 hours ago) [-]
home invasions, when the home owners are at home, are much lower in the US than in other nations, because we have guns.
children can be educated about guns, and the safety issues are minimal.
accidental gun deaths by children are very low, and a lot of people don't have children anyway.

_ Sometimes you'll end up shooting your wife or child or some random passerby instead._
this literally never happens.
most defensive gun uses don't even involve shooting.
presenting a firearm will deescalate most situations
you don't have to be trained.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_gun_use
Reply
+2
#167 to #143 - traceirving (10 hours ago) [-]
You need to login to view this link
That literally took 5 seconds to find on google, and I was looking for a specific story. I found ********* more anyway.

Unless you're using the tumblr version of the word 'literally', you're wrong.

Reply
0
User avatar #169 to #167 - hatsune (10 hours ago) [-]
negligent discharges
not defensive gun uses
Reply
+2
User avatar #172 to #46 - thejusticar (10 hours ago) [-]
1:loaded kept out of reach of children and teach them gun safety so they understand its a dangerous weapon and not a toy.

2:Lots of stuff is dangerous, most people aren't gonna fire blindly at crap like a ******* crazy ass ***** , which in term would lower the chance of randomly hitting your wife your child, another thing is that they are probably in a room with the other parent if someone has broken in, while the man of the house will get strapped and go find the cunt thats breaking in.

3: "oh no that man is killing innocent people, might as well just run away and let him keep going instead of firing back at him", someone isn't gonna fire like a maniac in a crowded mall if theres a bunch of innocent people, trained people who handle firearms more often will wait until a shot is clear then they will take it.


I do understand your thing about trying to keep them out of bad peoples hands but some of your "facts" aren't gonna help too much. there are still millions of guns around america right now and me having a pistol for home defense isn't going to harm anyone else. except many any dick waffles that try to break in to my house.
Reply
+139
#2 - anon (01/11/2016) [-]
i used to be anti-gun because here in europe we had no need for weapons
since we had no immigration problems and our borders were under control the police and the military were the only ones that could carry weapons
as a result most incidents are just pathetic wiggers and ******* with knives
everything was well
until politicallycorrectfaggotopia AKA germany imported half of syria into europe
syria
a country infested with terrorists and extremists...
now we have terrorists with AK-47 shooting us, raping our women and brainwashing our people and the EU's retarded governaments to join/support their cause

i wish we had the abundance of guns america has right now
and trump instead of merkel
i also wish our people had the balls to stand for their country and their future generations
they are being taught to hate themselves for being white, their countries culture and to love merkel's favorite ice creams: arab and ****** flavour
Reply
0
User avatar #164 to #2 - paddypancake (10 hours ago) [-]
I dunno even if we have more migrants more guns means more guns for both sides. The guns are already in circulation in the US and will stay there so its better for the good guys to be able to get them but i have doubts about europe profiting from guns being more accecible, it always goes both ways. Could easily escalate the situation a bit more than comfortable.
Don't want to judge the immigrants personally here but no matter how you judge them i think more guns means more problems in europe. Not in the US though.
Reply
0
User avatar #191 to #2 - fiveblackmen (10 hours ago) [-]
I can understand your change of heart on gun control and your desire for different governmental leaders but you really don't want Trump. He says things for attention and not because he will actually do anything about it. He largely only appeals to the lowest common denominator because they are the only ones that are stupid enough to fall for the **** spewing from his mouth. I'm not saying this to try and sway you to the left or as a bash on the right. I am saying this because Trump would make a terrible president and almost any candidate on either side of this election would be better than him.
Reply
+1
#41 to #2 - anon (16 hours ago) [-]
GIF
**anonymous used "*roll picture*"**
**anonymous rolled image** tfw the EU are actually straight on helping all extremist muslim groups to do what they are born to do. To kill anybody who does not agree to a religious character. I wonder why left parties are not being shut down and their members not arrested for assisting acts of murder and other crimes. I don't want to live in Sweden anymore as it has become a rape carnival now that we have a massive idiot for president. And also the left party are directly helping ISIS to spread terror here as they offer "scarred returning isis members who "regret" beheading men, women and children for fun " a home and a job. No idea why nobody has talked about that since that sounds pretty ******* serious to me. I don't even take any offense for any "Sweden Yes" jokes because they are all true.
Reply
0
#47 to #41 - anon (15 hours ago) [-]
okay mexico 2.0
Reply
+1
User avatar #116 to #2 - PlagueDoctor ONLINE (12 hours ago) [-]
Money talks, bs walks. That's why they're importing these ******* cavemen into Europe. ******* cheap labour-force for y'all.
******* dammit, I'm moving to the country of hockey and maple syrup.
Reply
+7
#132 to #116 - heyyoutoo (12 hours ago) [-]
Cheap labor for what? Where will you use such huge numbers of uneducated and unqualified people?
Reply
+2
#137 to #132 - lean (11 hours ago) [-]
Soon Germany shall create massive fair labor facilities where the uneducated and unqualified will be able to express their newfound freedom! These areas shall be the new pinnacle of manufacturing and industry in the world, and the workers will have the freedom to work overtime and live in communals with the whole family "just like home".
Reply
0
#174 to #137 - dannyredwizard (10 hours ago) [-]
I know you're joking but I'm hoping this happens. I know it won't though, Germany won't risk demonizing themselves again.
Reply
0
User avatar #207 to #132 - PlagueDoctor ONLINE (4 minutes ago) [-]
trash collection, cleaning, logistics plants,..
Reply
0
User avatar #203 to #132 - djmaryhikineet (9 hours ago) [-]
And most probably wont do work b/c they're so use to not working as they lived of there parents money, Germany is basically importing neets into the country. no matter how nice it is for them to do that, they literally are ******* themselves as the people cant do **** . why don't they ******* limit peoples entry if they are about to do work with a few exceptions for the sake of being nice
Reply
0
User avatar #144 to #132 - Shiny ONLINE (11 hours ago) [-]
Native people have much higher standards of living and won't work for chump change. If the foreigners were vetted and integrated, they'd be demanding the same conditions. A bunch of unskilled fighting-age males means business can make ********* off of their manual labor.

It all boils down to money.
Reply
0
#149 to #144 - heyyoutoo (11 hours ago) [-]
Depends. If someone is in corner, he will work for that change, also, i am willing to bet that there are labor laws.
Reply
0
User avatar #156 to #149 - Shiny ONLINE (11 hours ago) [-]
It's the problem of the hedonic treadmill. They're so used to living in ********* that what we'd consider ****** in our own nation seems peaceful and pleasant to them. We have the same problem in the US with Hispanic illegals. Labor laws don't matter when the people involved aren't full citizens.

The cultural conflicts aren't an externality, they're expected. It's what keeps the labor force separate.
Reply
0
#158 to #156 - heyyoutoo (11 hours ago) [-]
So you can freely employ Hispanics in companies?

Actually, my main gripe has always been that economic migrants get inside Eurozone together with refugees(or other way around since economical migrants are more numerous) and get the same benefits as refugees.
Reply
0
User avatar #162 to #158 - Shiny ONLINE (10 hours ago) [-]
Not legally, but it still happens, and it's often considered economic suicide to stop it. The "too big to fail" effect.

That's also a fair complaint, but the economic migrants are ****** if none of them want to do any work because the short term relief is **** for anyone who doesn't really need it.
Reply
0
#168 to #162 - heyyoutoo (10 hours ago) [-]
Germany had cheap labor force from other European countries, you know, the newly joined ones? From what i understood, they didn't need unqualified workforce that doesn't understand the language because most of people that left my country to work abroad went to England.
Reply
0
User avatar #170 to #168 - Shiny ONLINE (10 hours ago) [-]
European countries aren't even remotely as low as the Middle East has sunk. Even Muslim-dominant Western places think it's barbaric.
Reply
0
#173 to #170 - heyyoutoo (10 hours ago) [-]
Ok, explain me one thing, how is Germany going to create 200k or w/e work places for people that most likely can't even understand german and that have very bad education?
Reply
0
User avatar #182 to #173 - Shiny ONLINE (10 hours ago) [-]
Giving simple directions doesn't require a nuanced understanding of language or culture. Plus, they'll form their own businesses in their own communities, doing trade and putting money in the local economy, which the government wants. Money talks louder than any atrocity.
Reply
0
#188 to #182 - heyyoutoo (10 hours ago) [-]
Idk why but that sounds really stupid. Creating businesses in their own communities? Where will those businesses get clients if people don't have jobs? To generate money, you have to add value to product, how will uneducated masses do that?
Reply
0
User avatar #196 to #188 - Shiny ONLINE (10 hours ago) [-]
Uneducated doesn't mean literally retarded, they're still familiar with basic concepts of human society. Money will get traded around by more people over time, thus ensuring growth of capital.
Reply
+15
#40 to #2 - exima (16 hours ago) [-]
Yeah, I live in germany, and every single immigrant I've seen and talked to was absolutely awesome.
And I live in Munich. The city where like 80% of Immigrants go to.
Our central train station was filled for like 4 days. And then everything went normal again.
There are 80 000 000 Germans, and 200 000 Immigrants.
Thats 0.25%
thats a Ratio of 1 Immigrant to 400 native People.
And wtf do you think happens when someone finally gets to germany? You think they come here and be like "Hm... Now that I'm here in germany and out of syria... Yeah, let's attack some people just for the **** of it! Didn't want to stay here anyways!"

- Crime Rate hasn't increased, infact, it continues to DEcrease
- Unemployment continues to decrease from 7% to 6% (2014 to 2016)
- The employees that do the **** jobs like carrying trash that we desperately needed are finally there.
- You still need to pay like 40k to get a ******* Gun. And if you've got 40k, you have a job and have no reason to be a criminal.
- in 2015 the "death by shooting" was 2 dead People per 1 Million Inhabitants.
=> In America that number is 29.8

So wtf exactly is your point?
I thought we went over the whole "This minority is different, so we should shoot and/or gas them"
Reply
+5
User avatar #72 to #40 - huszti (14 hours ago) [-]
there were 470,000 asylum requests made in germany in 2015.
the actual number of immigrants is unknown; 1.1 million were added into a database for asylum seekers.
actually, crime rate rose by 2% in 2014; numbers for 2015 wont be published until april/may.
i dont know where you get that "40k to get a gun" from but i highly doubt it. a permit to buy guns is just 80€, registering a gun is an additional 20€. im not even commenting on the latter part of the gun argument because that was very meh.
Reply
+20
#43 to #40 - theinternetwizard (15 hours ago) [-]
Tell that to the women in cologne that was violated by a group of 1000 refugees in new years eve
Reply
+1
User avatar #130 to #43 - enlightednatzie (12 hours ago) [-]
*köln
Reply
-9
#45 to #43 - exima (15 hours ago) [-]
Yeah, you mean the refugees where most of them already were long under the eye of the police and were in germany for a bunch of years already?

These refugees that actually aren't refugees since they were in germany for a couple of years already?

Yeah. Bad Refugees right?
Reply
+5
#49 to #45 - theinternetwizard (15 hours ago) [-]
Several of the ones arrested self-identified as syrian refugees
And even if they had been in the country for years they are still representative of refuges.

And what kind of stupid argument is it to point out that most of them were already under the auspice of the police?
You do realize that it only supports what i am saying.
By making that claim you are undermining your own argument above.
Did you actually think through what you wrote?
Reply
0
#51 to #49 - exima (15 hours ago) [-]
If you just came into this country, how the **** are you supposed to be under auspice already??
You know how slow the german buerokratic system is?

And Why the **** would these few people be representative of refugees all around germany? Who states who's representative and who's not?
Why aren't the hundreds of refugees that a colleague of mine takes care of as her second job representative of the whole lot?
They never did anything violent, get good grades in school and try to learn german as fast as they can.

But nooo let's just burn all of them. Hitler would be so proud. -_-
Reply
0
#66 to #51 - theinternetwizard (14 hours ago) [-]
I might have used the word auspice wrong, looking it up it seems to mean something else then i thought. I thought it meant something like suspect/suspected.

anyways, that was a response to what you said, and i quote:
"you mean the refugees where most of them already were long under the eye of the police"
Thats why i ment that your comment basically supported my claim.

Few?
A thousand of them organized themselves and did this, and it happened at the same time in other parts of europe.
The fact that this could happen in europe marks a significant shift in the security image we have been dangling over the Americans.
How blatantly ******* obvious does it have to be?
Do they have to walk around the city shooting people?

And tell your coworker i said hi when she gets raped.

Hitler?
I thought you subjugated pussies were put in jail by mama Merkel for even mentioning his name.
Reply
+1
#70 to #66 - exima (14 hours ago) [-]
No, the fact that its reported makes a significant shift.
But only on the reporters side.

And even if all refugees were Steel Beam melting demons, so ******* what? They're still only 0.25% of the german population. Even less in other countries since they close their borders.
Also we germans don't make alot of children, we're decreasing. Getting people into the country is a good thing, because currently we're searching for people who pick up our garbage and manage the ***** we take. Jobs that noone wants to do here, because everyone's got a bachelor or master at something.

and "thousands organized to grab onto one female" is ******** . That didn't happen.
It was a normal assault, that happens every day on every country on earth, they got caught, they get sued, everythings normal again.

The only thing thats not normal, is the media coverage, because 12 year old wannabe nazis click on everything that has "Refugees rape **** " in the title, and Youtube VLoggers can run their mouths wild.
Organized Crime is something for the Italians.
Reply
-2
#109 to #70 - theinternetwizard (12 hours ago) [-]
It doesn't matter how many percentages were in on it.
What matters is that there are enough of them here that they feel they have a right to do this.
This is where it begins. This is were democracy starts to go in reverse. It is now liberty starts to rot away. First with the demands that we control our speech so not to insult the muslims. And then we can't say anything negative about them. Then women has to cover up themselves.
Who do you think is going to be doing the **** jobs in thirty years?
It aint gonna be the muslims, cause they tend to use whoever they have subjugated for those jobs. You are setting yourself up for ethnic and cultural genocide.

And ""thousands organized to grab onto one female" is ******** . That didn't happen. " i didn't say that. i said women, as in plural, as in several women.
As in women and men have reported 379 attacks to the police following that new years eve.
www.breitbart.com/london/2016/01/10/bbc-cologne-attacks-new-years-eve-crime-cases-top-500/
Reply
0
User avatar #115 to #109 - welliguessitsaname (12 hours ago) [-]
"First with the demands that we control our speech so not to insult the muslims. And then we can't say anything negative about them. Then women has to cover up themselves."

Um. Do you realize how many Muslims will be in Germany in the next few years? Not enough for Muslim law to be implemented, not for a very long time unless we see some drastic changes. Even if you did see that, who would implement and enforce those laws? I don't know much about German law, but I imagine that'd be the government. And I imagine that government, in a majorly white country, is majorly white. Not Syrians. You couldn't blame brown people for a decision made by a bunch of white people.

inbox CUCK
Reply
0
#134 to #115 - heyyoutoo (11 hours ago) [-]
Too many people already think that being tolerant means that you can't criticize people at all. Those people have votes.
Reply
-1
#59 to #51 - anon (15 hours ago) [-]
Merkel is that you?
Reply
+1
#50 to #45 - anon (15 hours ago) [-]
So your logic is that them being under police observation for years and not being deported is somehow better than if they just came over last week?

I feel bad for all the sane germans who have to life with you self hating idiots.
Reply
-2
#53 to #50 - exima (15 hours ago) [-]
No, my logic is: If you're living in germany for a couple of years already, you live in germany for a couple of years already.
Thats why you've got an identification card, that indicates, that you've been living in germany for a couple of years already.

Think about that logic. I'm sure you can understand it after a couple of hours.
Reply
0
#75 to #45 - vigilantej (14 hours ago) [-]
i dont know what ******** your spewing but they where not "in Germany for years" the German national accused of rape was but the others a bunch of Syrian dudes and an american where new to the country
Reply
0
#101 to #45 - anon (12 hours ago) [-]
Reply
+2
#77 to #40 - evulchibi (13 hours ago) [-]
Give me source for those statistics fagget
Reply
+1
User avatar #82 to #40 - nanahara (13 hours ago) [-]
whoa whoa! easy there! you're gonna get all logical and **** up in here? bringing hard facts to show how minor the the problem is compared to the media coverage? how dare you?!
i think you're forgetting that FJ has become the rectum of /pol/. after moot left they all went looking for a new place to store their **** , and FJ was the "lucky" winner

the thing that is really hard to get for some people on fj, apparently, is that no one thinks what happened in köln was okay. They should be punished, no one is denying that. The whole point is, other peaceful respectful immigrant shouldn't have to suffer for it, they shouldn't have to be beaten up in the streets, cause some assholes touched an ass on new years.

yesterday in Norway there was a teacher (ethnic norwegian) caught having taken sexual advantage of over 250 underaged kids. he single-handedly pulled a köln, if not worse. no one is dragging him out in the streets to beat his **** .
Reply
0
#113 to #82 - theinternetwizard (12 hours ago) [-]
Those cases are not comparable.
There weren't a culture supporting the teachers pedophilia.
People are not reacting to a single persons actions. but a massive organized event that were solely for the purpose of crime.
People are reacting to a massive shift in the culture that leads the europe down the path to what the middle-east is now.

Oh btw: "buhu, peepl who ar aginst moslms are /pol (hurr hurr thtl shew dem)"
Why don't you **** off back to your hugbox in SV.
Reply
0
User avatar #123 to #113 - nanahara (12 hours ago) [-]
There is no culture supporting what happened in Köln either. it was done by a group of people representing less than 0.5% of Germany's new immigrant population.

if you genuinely think all (or most) muslim immigrants sit at home plotting how they're gonna rape, or disgrace as many western women as possible, as soon as they cross the border, you are insane. it is ludicrous.

if I equate what you are saying about muslims, to norwegians. i would be as if i rounded up a couple of pedophilia cases, and said all norwegians support rape of children. they are indoctrinated to rape children and that is all they know.
Clearly you can understand how ******* retarded this sounds, right? so why does it make sense to you when you change norwegian with muslim?

just because everyone around you are chanting and repeating a lie often enough, doesnt make it true.
Reply
0
#136 to #123 - heyyoutoo (11 hours ago) [-]
Why use pedophilia as an example when the Muslim prophet had sex with 9 year old? It seems like a bad analogy.
Reply
0
User avatar #141 to #136 - nanahara (11 hours ago) [-]
my whole point being, dont judge (a huge group) of people based on the actions of a few. you can change pedophelia with rape and norwegian with western european. as im sure you know western europeans rape too. Rape is not some phenomenon introduced by muslims onto the world, as some would like you to believe. still you dont go around associating western europeans with rape. so why cant a muslim be judged and punished individually the same way?

or do you just have an tangible need to bring out your expertise on islamic history?
you do know child brides were common in western europe too right? so i feel the pedophilia is equally fitting to arabs, western europeans, israelis and east asians
Reply
0
#148 to #141 - heyyoutoo (11 hours ago) [-]
"you do know child brides were common in western europe too right?" You used the correct word - "were". "so why cant a muslim be judged and punished individually the same way?" - because people are too politically correct and they won't be punished because those people will be afraid to be labeled racist or smth else.
"Rape is not some phenomenon introduced by muslims onto the world, as some would like you to believe" - never said that, can i now start insulting you too?
Reply
0
User avatar #152 to #40 - Shiny ONLINE (11 hours ago) [-]
The people being let in without question aren't just a danger to native people, they're a danger to immigrants that respect local customs and want to integrate. It's not us vs. them, it's purely opportunism. Open borders is more appealing to people who want to commit crimes than the rest of the herd.

Of course, there are quite a few retards online screaming "race war" but they aren't any different.
Reply
0
User avatar #104 to #40 - bottlemonster (12 hours ago) [-]
Why Spede Pasanen
Reply
+6
#5 to #2 - anon (01/11/2016) [-]
spoken like a true freedom fighter,my country in canada is going through the same fate.
Reply
+2
User avatar #118 to #5 - bme (12 hours ago) [-]
No we aren't you ******* knob
Reply
+8
#33 to #2 - anon (17 hours ago) [-]
Just make your own weapons.. thats what i did. You can make a lot of nice things with household objects. And when the **** goes down (what it will for sure) there will be hellfire.
Reply
0
#171 to #33 - anon (10 hours ago) [-]
Molotov for home defense? Lol, that couldn't possibly go wrong in any way.
Reply
+9
#4 to #2 - baconfattie (01/11/2016) [-]
I was the same as you. Totally opossed to guns. But now things are getting out of hand, and you cannot defend yourself, the government is not helping you, and often times people cannot run away.

When all these things happen, every citizen should be allowed to have a weapon to protect him/herself and those around him/her.
Reply
+4
User avatar #15 to #2 - dofyx (01/11/2016) [-]
sorry to hear about that buddy, hope you get a gun soon if you decide to do so, protect your loved ones
Reply
+8
#20 to #2 - kingderps (21 hours ago) [-]
My advice to any European, be like the paranoid gun nuts of America. Build secret bunkers, stockpile supplies. Do it in defense. It's not a matter of if, but a matter of when, your societies will erupt in chaos. Have an insurance policy for your loved ones and your lineage. The elephant in the room is that action is needed in Europe to protect their ancient cultures and ways of life. I don't know what the solution is, but you people need to get angry.
Reply
-1
User avatar #150 to #20 - guillem (11 hours ago) [-]
You reeeally should leave the Internet and go outside, things aren't nearly 1/10th as bad or apocalyptical as they are said to be in this website. Just because we've let a couple hundreds of thousands, or even a million or two, of refugees/migrants into Europe, a country with around 700 million people doesn't mean our societies will "erupt in chaos". Jesus, man, just no.

Some of them will be assholes, true, but it is also true they will be promptly kicked out of here, and the rest will probably assimilate within a generation or two, retaining elements of their cultures but ending up integrated. This migrant wave isn't really the threat you portrait them to be and in fact could do good to this continent if handled properly.
Reply
+29
#7 - twentyfourseven (01/11/2016) [-]
Anti-gun dude knows that pro-gun dude has a pretty solid argument, so he tried resorting to making pro-gun dude look stupid or rednecky. Good for pro-gun dude for not stooping to anti-gun dude's level. Murica
Reply
+4
User avatar #38 - lolollo (16 hours ago) [-]
I used to believe that we were safe with the idea that even if that law were to happen, the police would never obligate themselves to enact on it, but then I look at the social climate of my state and the worry creeps in.

The police here are becoming so aggressively paranoid of the common populous that it's starting to rival the feminazi mindset on men and rape. "Better to incarcerate 9 innocent men on the garuntee the 10th one is a rapist." You ask a hypothetical on "what would you do if someone tackles your partner?" and they immediately say "shoot him!"

**** your grappling training, **** M.A.C.H training, **** your tazer...just shoot him. There's no R.O.E. anymore, and it ******* terrifies me, because I'm starting to see this climate where we might actually need guns just to be able to viably make that choice "do I shoot back and be labeled a cop killer, or do I just lie down and die for having been 'walking down the street all suspicious like'..."

But then I can't express that worry because "LoL you're being paranoid nothing will happen!" as more and more of these controversies happen weekly.
Reply
+9
User avatar #16 - DivineInfinity ONLINE (01/11/2016) [-]
Personally I'm against having guns and wouldn't like to see my country pass laws to allow owning them.

But I can see that America is in too deep, banning guns at this point would do more harm than good
Reply
+1
#27 to #16 - deepterror (18 hours ago) [-]
So you don't think that people have a right to self-defense?
Reply
+11
User avatar #28 to #27 - DivineInfinity ONLINE (18 hours ago) [-]
so you think the right to self-defense consists only of having guns?

Reply
+1
#29 to #28 - deepterror (18 hours ago) [-]
You didn't answer mt question....

I think that private firearm ownership goes hand in hand with self-defense. Technically you can defend yourself without firearms, but a firearm is the best way of defending yourself. It is the equalizer. To me, if I have the right to self-defense (which everyone does), than I must also have the right to own firearms.
Reply
+7
User avatar #31 to #29 - DivineInfinity ONLINE (18 hours ago) [-]
firearms also go hand in hand with offense and ******* , especially when people aren't trained to use them.

thiefs, robbers and rapists rarely use guns here, it attracts too much attention. Fire it and there's a squad car coming for you. carrying one adds years to your sentence.

How would arming civilians with guns help? What was a knife or a taser fight is now a gunfight.

When crime may become rampant and more life-threatening guns may be a solution, but as now it isn't.
Reply
+5
#32 to #31 - deepterror (17 hours ago) [-]
Holy **** , the assumptions are real.

First off, I did not say that people should not be trained. They should be, but even if they weren't, they have the right to take that risk. Why are you so quick to disregard the average citizen as someone too stupid to properly handle a firearm? Proper firearm discipline is easy to learn. To say that the average citizen cannot handle a gun is to say that the average citizen cannot drive a car, because proper firearm handling is literally much easier than handling a car.

I don't care if they often use guns or not. If I am getting mugged, or my house is getting broken into, if my family's like is in danger, I have the right to defend myself and my family. Like is not like some videogame where your strength is based on some simple ******* stats or weapons that you equip. Someone is in my house. I want to draw my gun on them and hold them there until police arrive and shoot them if they pose an immediate threat. How can I do that with a knife, or a baseball bat? How can elderly people or weaker people (your beautiful wife, for example) defend themselves if they do not have the strength to resist and overcome an attacker? I would rather be in a firefight than get gutted while some other nignog takes a turn at my wife and daughter. I dont need a gun to even the odds. I need a gun so that I control the odds. So that I am not at someone else's mercy. Someone who is already posing a threat to me. But how illogical of me., sorry.

I don't know where you live, but regardless, bad things can happen. The police cannot stop every crime, the police cannot be there when you wake up to thugs in your home, the police cannot be there when someone tries to mug you or rape you. You need quick, reliable defense in the moment, and that defense comes in the form of a gun.

I hope no one ever has to rely on you for their safety and well-being in a moment of danger, because they are going to be sorely let down. You owe it to yourself and to your loved ones to be able to provide a capable defense.
Reply
-4
#34 to #32 - DivineInfinity ONLINE (17 hours ago) [-]
Have you tried taking a chill pill? It's just an internet argument.

So who's gonna protect my girlfriend if not me? Someone with a gun? because that would be a criminal. I hope they have visitation hours where he's going.

Anyway, I'm bad at explaining or I just don't know everything I need to know about this subject. What I do know is that our system is at the lower bound of criminal offenses, but pretty close to our neighbours. www.numbeo.com/crime/gmaps_rankings_country.jsp Its the Netherlands

Maybe when things go south we need guns. But we're not there yet
Reply
+4
#35 to #34 - deepterror (17 hours ago) [-]
I am not angry, just thorough.

The whole point is that YOU are supposed to be the one to protect your girlfriend. And a gun is the best way to do that. If you think that just because some gets caught and goes to jail, that is somehow negates whatever they did in the first place, you should go get committed, because that is insane.

The whole point of having a gun is for when we NEED them. You have to have one before you need it obviously. And you don't even take into account government overreach. But that is something else entirely.

My original point still stands. You are responsible for your safety and for the safety of your family. Go buy a gun.
Reply
+4
User avatar #39 to #35 - DivineInfinity ONLINE (16 hours ago) [-]
>Buy gun
>get arrested
>???
>profit

can't you just imagine that there are countries where you don't need to fear for your life when you go outside? I have to go to a really bad neighbourhood at night and provoke people to have my ass kicked.

Also, nobody has cash on hand, we pay for everything with a debit card. robbing people is pointless. You keep saying I will have to fight for my life but people aren't out to kill me. If they rob me, I won't be a smartass and hand them my 15 cents. Burglars strike almost always when they know the target isnt home. To them its a risk, because they dont know what the owner has lying next to their bed. Some rapist wants to tackle a girl while her boyfriend is with her? I call that a tactical failure. Violence is much less present here, and as a result crimes are much less violent as well. Each time someone gets killed during a breakin or robbery there is a public outcry.
Reply
+2
User avatar #126 to #39 - severepwner (12 hours ago) [-]
"Can't you just imagine there are countries where you don't need to fear for your life when you go outside?"

Oh my sweet summer child. Nobody thinks anything bad could ever happen to them, until it happens to them. The world is an extremely dangerous place, saying it's not is a fantasy.

We have people being raped, assaulted, another victim in shootings, their person's mugged, their cars stolen, their houses broken into with them inside, ALL THE TIME. What are you going to say when that person is you?
Reply
0
User avatar #128 to #126 - DivineInfinity ONLINE (12 hours ago) [-]
And in turn, thats what someone from the third world would say to you. Have fun feeling better about yourself because your country has more violence
Reply
+1
#42 to #39 - anon (16 hours ago) [-]
Sounds like you have everything figured out and you're protected from all the real world problems.
Reply
+4
User avatar #48 to #42 - DivineInfinity ONLINE (15 hours ago) [-]
thats what the government is for. making sure we dont need to kill eachother to live
Reply
+1
User avatar #140 to #48 - unladenswallow (11 hours ago) [-]
Unfortunately the government can't protect every single person constantly.
Reply
-1
User avatar #165 to #140 - DivineInfinity ONLINE (10 hours ago) [-]
Fortunately it does a better job at keeping its citizens safe than the US citizens do
Reply
0
User avatar #166 to #165 - unladenswallow (10 hours ago) [-]
That's kinda arguable, given the tens of thousands of times a year that people use their guns to ward off/shoot an intruder/attacker in the U.S. The police don't get there until after the problem has ended.
Reply
0
User avatar #193 to #166 - DivineInfinity ONLINE (10 hours ago) [-]
about 200 rapes
120-140 murders, it seems to be going down each year
these are serious offences which allow for a possibly lethal response

If youre getting mugged, give him your coppers and file a complaint. Its not worth it to end either of your lives for whatever's in your wallet.

So now we're talking about arming maybe 10 out of the total 16 million people in case any of them is the unlucky 340? it sucks for them, but this is a severe overreaction.
Reply
0
#52 to #39 - onecommentonlyone (15 hours ago) [-]
You're hitting on one of my thoughts on this whole thing fairly well, I'm just not afraid of getting mugged/broken into, it's never happened to me or anyone I know. I've lived at home and am currently studying and have never felt intimidated or threatened in either location. I don't know how to fix the issues in the US, better background checks and forcing people to get permits or the equivalent seems like it makes sense, but the gun lobby I'm sure would argue that goes against the wording of the 2nd amendment. Guns are fun, I get that, I've hunted and stuff, that's good fun, but I'd never want to have one in my house, there's more risk there than me getting attacked, and even in a crisis I really doubt I could kill someone honestly.
Reply
+1
User avatar #57 - Anonymis (15 hours ago) [-]
tldr

Who am I supposed to side with
Reply
0
User avatar #89 to #57 - highkingtorygg (13 hours ago) [-]
side with the ones who like freedom and liberty

pro gun
BUZZWORDS AHOY
Reply
+2
#61 to #57 - pebar (15 hours ago) [-]
side with the pro gun people


because anti-gun people are unbelievably retarded
Reply
+10
#73 to #61 - anon (14 hours ago) [-]
They are both retarded though.

One shouldn't be trying to take away thing from the other just because one doesn't like it, and the other shouldn't be trying to justify being so paranoid to one.
Reply
0
User avatar #90 to #73 - highkingtorygg (13 hours ago) [-]
phrasing
can someone explain to me what this anon is trying to say
Reply
+1
#180 to #90 - anon (10 hours ago) [-]
Basically, he's pro-gun in the sense that he doesn't believe that anti-gun people should even have the option to take away guns, which are literally right after freedom of speech on the bill of rights. At the same time, he says that the pro-gun case is retarded because they take the burden of proof when they don't need to and try to make their case which is built on a paranoid and pessimistic worldview that is easy to attack and tends to drive neutral people towards the anti-gun side.
Reply
0
User avatar #202 to #180 - highkingtorygg (10 hours ago) [-]
thank you anon
Reply
0
User avatar #125 to #90 - stigus ONLINE (12 hours ago) [-]
that it isn't just black and white like most ignorant people see it as. there exists gray area where everyone (mostly everyone anyway) can agree to a compromise. an example being required gun licences/training where you have to prove that you can use and handle a gun.
Reply
0
User avatar #127 to #61 - severepwner (12 hours ago) [-]
Dat perfect 0 though.
Reply
+3
User avatar #151 - ChewyConor (11 hours ago) [-]
I don't think that guns are an inherent problem, but there are some common US attitudes and behaviours with respect to guns that I find terrifying.
Many countries are able to have guns all over the place without serious consequences, you gun toters love to cite them as evidence that guns aren't the problem.
No, they're not. People are the problem. Stupid, irrational, ignorant, violent people. So why are you giving them access to guns?

Why, when your common solutions go problems are:
Angry at the world? Getting bullied? Depressed?
Kill them.

Stranger in your home?
Kill them.

Someone threatens you?
Kill them.

Why do so many American people have a willingness, or sometimes even a desire, to perform summary executions? Do you not realise how barbaric that is?

I may have strayed into severe red thumb territory now but I've come this far...

Is USA such a ****** place that people face life threatening situations frequently enough that a gun is required?

Are people really so paranoid about someone coming for them (even/especially their own government)? When was the last time that was an even remotely credible threat? What outcome could that possibly achieve?

What the **** is wrong with people?
Reply
+4
#154 - TehFunnyMan (11 hours ago) [-]
GIF
Hey, you. Don't go down there. It's a mess.
Reply
+1
User avatar #161 to #154 - jazert (10 hours ago) [-]
I should have listened
Reply
+8
User avatar #14 - wcpapier ONLINE (01/11/2016) [-]
imo they both sound absolutley retarded
Reply
+2
User avatar #121 - rahzma (12 hours ago) [-]
Saying guns are evil is retarded. Saying guns should be given to everyone is also retarded.

I believe a lot of people should not be trusted with something as dangerous as a gun, because there's just too many idiots out there that'll here a pop of a balloon and start shootin cause they think someone else is.

I wouldn't take someone's gun away if they've been smart enough with it, but I don't want every self-entitled little **** to get one either. You need to earn the right to have a gun, just like you need to earn the right to drive.
Reply
+1
User avatar #157 to #121 - Shiny ONLINE (11 hours ago) [-]
I wouldn't say it needs to be gained as much as it needs to be easily lost.
Reply
+1
User avatar #159 to #121 - lamarsmithgot (11 hours ago) [-]
the problem is, the US constitution says that having guns IS a right, and making a revision to the constitution would be extremely controversial
Reply
+1
User avatar #189 to #159 - rahzma (10 hours ago) [-]
God forbid anyone do anything controversial right? Haha, nah, I do get what you're saying man.

Now, I'm not saying we should change the constitution, but I am saying maybe look at it again. I mean, things have changed quite a bit. We're definitely not in completely peaceful times, people die every day to violence, and I believe everyone does have the right to defend themselves in any way possible, including owning a gun. All I'm saying is that there's some people out there that really shouldn't own a gun.

As for how to fix the situation? No idea. I got nothing. You start taking people's guns away, there's gonna be problems. Start testing people, they're gonna cry, "But muh freedoms" because human beings are whiny little bitches.

The sad truth is that there is no real way to fix it because then where would the freedom be? All we can do is hope that humanity keeps getting better and one day we can still eat our cake and have it too.
Reply
+1
User avatar #201 to #189 - lamarsmithgot (10 hours ago) [-]
fully agreed. It's a real catch 22
Reply
+2
User avatar #147 to #121 - unladenswallow (11 hours ago) [-]
The driving permit concept is really a bad comparison though. Guns, designed to kill people, licensing requirements vary, kill a third or less as many people as a device that is designed to provide transportation and requires testing, licensing, and insurance, has tens of thousands of rules and regulations, departments specifically devoted to policing it (highway patrol, state departments of motor vehicles, etc.), and has been continually made more safe with each passing year. About 1 in 3 people out of the total population of the U.S. drive. About 1 in 3 people in the U.S. own a gun. Yet the thing designed to kill does so considerably less frequently. Not saying we should stop licensing people to drive or ditch anything else listed. Just pointing out the slight issue in the comparison.
Reply
+2
User avatar #102 - redbannerman (12 hours ago) [-]
I like guns

I like hunting

I like target practice

Why would you want to take guns away from me when I use them for perfectly harmless actions? Is it because there's a couple of ********* out there who are ******* insane? I'm not going to hurt someone unless they attempt to harm me. I will not hurt a person on accident, because I've taken gun safety (Hunter's safety but same idea). What gun control is, to me at least, is telling me that I'm too irresponsible to handle a firearm because someone else used it maliciously. I'm all for regulation of firearms in that we screen people before allowing them to purchase and making gun safety courses mandatory. The screening should be for mental health and criminal records only.
Reply
+2
#30 - anon (18 hours ago) [-]
>Get held up by a mugger in the middle of the afternoon

>Get stabbed because I didn't have any money to give him

>Eventually get a license and pistol for self-defense reasons

>Talking with a colleague and the topic drifts to guns

>Mention I keep a self-defense weapon on me and what led me to do so

>He calls me a monster and a racist (don't know why, never mentioned the mugger's race and the mugger was white regardless) and tells me to leave before he calls the cops.

>Ok then
Reply
+2
#117 - anon (12 hours ago) [-]
I'd like to see guns treated like cars
They're both killing machines, but one is explicitly designed to kill as efficiently as possible
Gun owners should register their guns like they register their cars so that if you or someone else uses your gun in a crime, the police have a lead
And have training in order to get a licence that says you know what the hell you're doing
If you have a DUI they take away your licence
The same should apply to guns
Reply
+2
User avatar #8 - Riukanojutsu (01/11/2016) [-]
Hows your tinfoil hat club going OP?
Reply
+1
User avatar #131 to #8 - severepwner (12 hours ago) [-]
He doesn't even take a side here. You just think he is, the the Pro-gun arguer here has a better argument and is the one that is winning the argument in this content.
Reply
+1
#186 - adr (10 hours ago) [-]
They both make terrible arguments. As for me I prescribe to the mentality of "better to have it and not need it, than need it and not have it"
Reply
+1
User avatar #183 - douthit (10 hours ago) [-]
If I want to own a gun, it's none of your business. Live and let live. The only way you're gonna keep me from having one is to use violence or threat of violence (via gun) to stop me. Then you've pretty much defeated your own ideas.
Reply
+1
User avatar #155 - idkwhatthatmeans (11 hours ago) [-]
Its a pretty ******* simple situation in the US and idk why people have a hard time grasping this:

-There are MILLIONS of guns and high power assault rifles in the US and in Mexico where they are often smuggled. You cant get rid of them, you cant take all of them. period.
-Criminals dont care about the law, they can buy guns illegally if you stop selling them.
You cant ban guns at this point because then you give all the criminals power to kill whenever they ******* feel like with no threat of a vigilante protector. Best plan of action at this point is to ensure society can protect itself, by allowing people to attain guns(background checks help).

It's ******* stupid that the anti-gun guys entire argument is "well its never happened to me so i dont see the need." NO ******* **** it hasnt happened to you, otherwise YOU WOULD BE DEAD.
Reply
+1
#112 - serenitynocturnus (12 hours ago) [-]
Jim Jefferies - Guns Are Not Protection - from BARE - Netflix Special

Every time I see these arguments, I'm firmly in the middle. So instead of commenting, I'm just gonna leave a comedian who I find funny, speaking relevantly.
Reply
0
#199 to #112 - lordraine (10 hours ago) [-]
People being firmly in the middle is what allowed the progressives to push as far as they have.

Obama was able to pass legislation that allows the President to indefinately detain anyone he so chooses for no reason, even American citizens, because of people like you who "just don't want to talk about it."

**** you. Not talking about it got us into this **** . More not talking isn't going to make things better.
Reply
0
User avatar #206 to #199 - serenitynocturnus (3 hours ago) [-]
Look. Being in the middle and inaction, are two very different things. It's the passive people that don't decide one way or another what they want, THOSE middle people with one toe in each pool that let ****** legislation get passed.
I agree, that talking needs to happen. That being said, this is a website, full of idiots, and people who like to have strong opinions on things just to piss people off. I'm not going to talk about it here, because me saying "I think we should have better ways to regulate who can get a hold of firearms, without making legislation that's so choking and restrictive and still allows every single average american that wants a gun to get one" on funnyjunk, does absolutely nothing. I hate politics on this site. And not talking about it here, doesn't affect anyone.
Reply
+1
#107 - verycoolcat (12 hours ago) [-]
I had a 308 FN rifle. My antigun brother in law asked me 'What do you need a rifle like that for... for hunting?'

and i said 'No.... its to defend myself from people who are half a mile away'
123>
[ 207 comments ]
Leave a comment

Top Content in 24 Hours

No entries found.
<
>
 Friends (0)