Login or register
Anonymous comments allowed.
#201 - residentblackman
Reply +3
(11/25/2013) [-]
In 2010, 11,078 gun murders are caused by illegal guns: it's already illegal to own these guns, what are we going to do?

Also, the majority of gun deaths are self inflicted, 3/5ths of all gun deaths are suicides.

Crazy right, it's almost as if America is actually a good place to live and guns aren't evil? Who would have thought?


You need to login to view this link
#207 to #201 - unculturedswine
Reply 0
(11/25/2013) [-]
But you also have to realise that the more legal firearms there are in circulation, the more guns are thenreadily available to be sold on the black market; And also more likely to end up in the hands of careless idiots and/or the suicidally depressed.
#210 to #207 - amsel
Reply +3
(11/25/2013) [-]
The guns that are sold illegally in the United States mostly come from other countries and are smuggled across the border. Guns that are legally purchased in the United States are essentially never sold into the black market, because it would be way to easy to find all the registered owners of a particular handgun used in a murder and say "which one of these registered owners no longer has their gun?" People don't legally register a gun and then sell it into the black market.

And honestly, who cares if someone suicidal has a gun? If they're gonna kill themselves anyways, what the hell difference is having a gun gonna make? It's not like they can't find a rope, or sleeping pills, or even freaking tylenol and alcohol to kill themselves instead. Hell, you can kill yourself with a paper bag and a rubber band if you wanted. Most would be less frightening and painful than a gunshot too. Guns aren't the reason people kill themselves.
#217 to #210 - unculturedswine
Reply -2
(11/25/2013) [-]
I personally know someone who tried to commit suicide by jumping off a bridge, but then did what every person does at the moment when they step off the ledge, they realised that what they were doing was a mistake.
They survived and got help, and I know for a fact that if they had easy access to the gun used on the farm, or indeed any other, then they would have used that instead. The gun would've been too quick for them to actually realise that they didn't want to die, that they had something to live for.
And then he would have died at 20 and never have grown up to have a family, had my best friend.
So yes, somebody would care, I care because of his kids that wouldn't exist, his wife cares because he would never have asked her out, his mother and sister care because he would have died a pointless death. So yes, there is always somebody that cares.
#220 to #217 - amsel
Reply 0
(11/25/2013) [-]
What makes you think jumping off a bridge is any more difficult than pulling the trigger on a gun? In both occasions, you know what's coming if you go through with it, and you have infinite time to think about it. And, in both cases, it takes only a split second to do it, and you don't feel any pain while deciding. If the same thing occurred when he had access to a gun, he would have put it to his head, thought about it, and put it down and got help. It's absolutely no different.
#225 to #220 - unculturedswine
Reply -1
(11/25/2013) [-]
It's not that he would've put the gun down, it's the fact that he wouldn't of put it down, he did jump off the bridge. He went through with his attempted suicide and survived. People are more likely to survive a suicide attempt from an impact fall than a bullet to the face and a surprising number of people do fail to shoot themselves 'properly' and the damage from the fall is often less traumatising than the trauma people get from blowing a hole through the side of their skull.

Sorry, but this is a bit of a sensitive topic for me, and I have never been able to understand the argument that a tool whose primary function is to mutilate and kill is something everyone should have access to
#228 to #225 - amsel
Reply +1
(11/25/2013) [-]
There's a simple reason everyone has access to it in the United States, I can't speak for other countries.

The reason the United States can't have stricter gun laws is because the entire purpose of our constitution and our country is that the people are more powerful than the government. We, as people, can protest, vote, etc to change what we see necessary within our country. One of the main reasons we can do this is because if the government suddenly turned on the people, we would have enough firepower to fight back. If suddenly the government has millions of assault rifles, bombs, airplanes, and the people have their fists, what reason would they have to obey the constitution?
#239 to #228 - unculturedswine
Reply 0
(11/25/2013) [-]
Yeh, I understand the reasoning behind the second admendment existing but it seems to me that because voting is completely optional almost no-one actually pays much attention to what the government is doing thus giving them freedom to act in a more totalitarian manner that your gun laws are meant to discourage.

But it's 4:30 am here in Aus and I really don't want to go into politics, especially considering I'm having trouble making much sense anymore, so I'm going to bed.