(untitled)
| |
Anonymous comments allowed.
134 comments displayed.
#6
-
anon (12/04/2015) [-]
got no problems with people owning guns, some weapons cross lines though, and having gun regulations isnt a bad thing. the debate isnt all or nothing.
#165 to #135
-
anon (12/05/2015) [-]
-age
-a firearms safety course that teaches proper care, handling and associated laws
-being a member of a local rage/club this acts as both a resource for the owner as well as a balance against if the owner is ****** in the head (the club could notice if something is off/ patterns change)
-a background check, if you have had gun related offences or mental health issues that would affect ownership
-transport regulations- for example a certificate of transport from local club if your travelling around with your gun showing destination; can have different types for permanent carry or just going back and forth to the range.
-if buying from a private seller the sale must go through a certified dealer with stamped bill of sale, the customer is responsible to ensure any above regulations met (courses, checks etc)
-guns in family households: children should be taught that guns are tools and proper safety in order to prevent mishaps, should be stored child safe. IE no way they can handle it without its owners knowledge.
these sound pretty decent regulations to me, of course thats not set in stone, and this is just off the top of my head; but is something like that reallllly that unreasonable?
-a firearms safety course that teaches proper care, handling and associated laws
-being a member of a local rage/club this acts as both a resource for the owner as well as a balance against if the owner is ****** in the head (the club could notice if something is off/ patterns change)
-a background check, if you have had gun related offences or mental health issues that would affect ownership
-transport regulations- for example a certificate of transport from local club if your travelling around with your gun showing destination; can have different types for permanent carry or just going back and forth to the range.
-if buying from a private seller the sale must go through a certified dealer with stamped bill of sale, the customer is responsible to ensure any above regulations met (courses, checks etc)
-guns in family households: children should be taught that guns are tools and proper safety in order to prevent mishaps, should be stored child safe. IE no way they can handle it without its owners knowledge.
these sound pretty decent regulations to me, of course thats not set in stone, and this is just off the top of my head; but is something like that reallllly that unreasonable?
#87 to #6
-
lgninjaleetful (12/04/2015) [-] i think owning select fire firearms would be fine actually.
#30 to #18
-
billymayss (12/04/2015) [-] But I need an assault rifle in my home to defend against enemies both foreign and domestic. Meaning that I have right to carry the weaponry to defend myself against tyranny, even from our own government. And the government has tanks. I think me asking for an AK-47 (Of which I own 5) isn't too much to ask.
Also, what's an assault rifle? Is this picture one? It's not black and scary. But the AR-15 is, this gun is essentially an AR-15. Does the same thing. Yet there's no giant controversy over this weapon and it being legal and easy to acquire. Assault Rifle is a made up word that people use to refer to scary looking rifles with high capacity magazines.
And you 100% need a 12 ga for home protection. A 12 gauge with Buck shot preferably. If someone breaks into my house, they will die. I don't want them injured, I want them dead. When you break into my house and threaten me and my family, you've given up your right to live by threatening mine. There's also many cases where people simply injure home invaders and then burglar ends up suing them for something stupid and far too often the burglar win.
Also, what's an assault rifle? Is this picture one? It's not black and scary. But the AR-15 is, this gun is essentially an AR-15. Does the same thing. Yet there's no giant controversy over this weapon and it being legal and easy to acquire. Assault Rifle is a made up word that people use to refer to scary looking rifles with high capacity magazines.
And you 100% need a 12 ga for home protection. A 12 gauge with Buck shot preferably. If someone breaks into my house, they will die. I don't want them injured, I want them dead. When you break into my house and threaten me and my family, you've given up your right to live by threatening mine. There's also many cases where people simply injure home invaders and then burglar ends up suing them for something stupid and far too often the burglar win.
#47 to #46
-
billymayss (12/04/2015) [-] That's a rugar M-14. No idea what an ak-47 glock is, unless you're making fun of the people who call all rifles aks and all handguns glocks.
#116 to #47
-
potatorgue (12/04/2015) [-] i thought that was the glock & wesson 45mm automatic pistol manufactured in 1789 by baby killer company colt koch
#40 to #38
-
icedmantwo (12/04/2015) [-] Sure, but you are missing 2 points:
That rifles are generally the most effective tools for any firearm related task, save for home defense, and even then it's dependent on the situation.
And that firearms have uses beyond simply resistance to tyranny, including but not limited to self defense, hunting, target shooting, shooting competitions, and so on.
And of course, it would just be much better to avoid a violent rebellion altogether, and intimidation/fear are and effective method of doing that.
That rifles are generally the most effective tools for any firearm related task, save for home defense, and even then it's dependent on the situation.
And that firearms have uses beyond simply resistance to tyranny, including but not limited to self defense, hunting, target shooting, shooting competitions, and so on.
And of course, it would just be much better to avoid a violent rebellion altogether, and intimidation/fear are and effective method of doing that.
#78 to #38
-
hilariouswaste (12/04/2015) [-] When you say "larger than a handgun" do you mean the size of the weapon or the size of the projectile? Try and remember that the 5.56mm rifle round and 9mm handgun round are both measured in the same units...
Rifles offer better handling for most tasks, and carbines can be suited for most combat environments. Even so, the people carrying carbines often carry a handgun as backup anyhow.
Rifles offer better handling for most tasks, and carbines can be suited for most combat environments. Even so, the people carrying carbines often carry a handgun as backup anyhow.
#143 to #81
-
Kanoah (12/05/2015) [-] Well, it's because your points are flawed and full of holes, mate. Most of the people reading these don't think you're an idiot, just incredibly uninformed to the point of it being detrimental to your very standpoint.
By all means, have your opinion, but don't run into an argument half-cocked without knowing as much information about your topic as you can.
By all means, have your opinion, but don't run into an argument half-cocked without knowing as much information about your topic as you can.
#62 to #61
-
goobyman (12/04/2015) [-] what about columbine?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States
here's a list but they don't state the weapon used...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States
here's a list but they don't state the weapon used...
#39 to #32
-
billymayss (12/04/2015) [-] But you see, we need every advantage we can get, now I know screaming "the government is gonna take over if I dont have mah guns!!!" kinda just makes me sound like a lunatic. But think about it, and if there were no resistance whatsoever guns are banned or something , would you really trust our government not to do something terrible? Sure it's unlikely, but it could happen, and I like to be prepared.
The while obvious, the US army wins in the battle of the rednecks vs tyranny, but us having guns and powerful ones keeps the battle from happening. To a degree, it's the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction. Should the US government become tyrannical, if we had no weapons they could force us around with fear of any consequence. But us having guns means that they would lose many of their soldiers while killing their own citizens. Which as you might guess, that's something the US government would probably like to avoid.
Also my large arsenal of high powered weaponry keeps me prepared for foreign invaders as well. if ISIS for some unimaginable reason decided to invade my backwoods town in Alabama, they'd be ****** . Regardless of their superior weaponry, we'd have a bunch of rednecks out there hunting them like deer. More men than not around here can easily make a 200 yard shot with 100% consistency with a rifle due to years of hunting. And many are far more skilled. But most everyone, and for sure all of my family and friends, have a basic knowledge of how to operate firearms.
Now obviously we can't just let anyone run around with 50 cal. machine guns, that wouldn't be too wise. But there are very few weapons I don't think should be allowed to the general public. But you do you sir, and fight for what you believe, and I'll fight for what I believe. Maybe one day our opinions will change but it's probably not gonna be from some random guy on FJ.
The while obvious, the US army wins in the battle of the rednecks vs tyranny, but us having guns and powerful ones keeps the battle from happening. To a degree, it's the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction. Should the US government become tyrannical, if we had no weapons they could force us around with fear of any consequence. But us having guns means that they would lose many of their soldiers while killing their own citizens. Which as you might guess, that's something the US government would probably like to avoid.
Also my large arsenal of high powered weaponry keeps me prepared for foreign invaders as well. if ISIS for some unimaginable reason decided to invade my backwoods town in Alabama, they'd be ****** . Regardless of their superior weaponry, we'd have a bunch of rednecks out there hunting them like deer. More men than not around here can easily make a 200 yard shot with 100% consistency with a rifle due to years of hunting. And many are far more skilled. But most everyone, and for sure all of my family and friends, have a basic knowledge of how to operate firearms.
Now obviously we can't just let anyone run around with 50 cal. machine guns, that wouldn't be too wise. But there are very few weapons I don't think should be allowed to the general public. But you do you sir, and fight for what you believe, and I'll fight for what I believe. Maybe one day our opinions will change but it's probably not gonna be from some random guy on FJ.
#41 to #39
-
goobyman (12/04/2015) [-] i'd do it like (switzerland?) does it, everyone gets a gun, everyone gets ammunition (sadly from the state)
that way, you're good for home defence from foreign invaders. that's one part taken care of. now, having the government give out ammunition is probably not the best idea though
that way, you're good for home defence from foreign invaders. that's one part taken care of. now, having the government give out ammunition is probably not the best idea though
#146 to #41
-
emiyashirou (12/05/2015) [-] Having civilians fight against foreign invaders is generally a very bad idea in any war. It gives the enemy perfect justification to use weapons of mass destruction on population centers and generally slaughter any civilians.
#90 to #41
-
billymayss (12/04/2015) [-] I'm sorry for all the red thumbs you're getting sir. It was never my intention to demonize you, but that's kinda how FJ works, so sorry friend.
#51 to #39
-
mrpkmon ONLINE (12/04/2015) [-] Right with all those nations that have gunlaws are being oppressed by their governments while the US is in no way oppressing their people because they have guns. That is a bad argument the US government does pretty much what it wants honestly because the people of the US have such short attentions spans combined with the fact they just don't care. I don't care for the gun debate but your reason for having guns is irrelevant.
#53 to #51
-
billymayss (12/04/2015) [-] Ah these are prime examples of Strawman and Ad Hominem logical fallacies.
You see, by stating my argument in a silly way, he's taken away the validity of it. It's the strawman argument.
Now the Ad Hominem attack is a little sneakier. You see, instead of blatantly attacking me, he's gone and attack the American Public as a whole, which I am a part of, hoping to once again, take from the validity of my argument.
Ah, education is a hell of a thing isn't it? If anyone would like to use actual arguments instead of just saying things, I'm always open to news ideas and debate.
You see, by stating my argument in a silly way, he's taken away the validity of it. It's the strawman argument.
Now the Ad Hominem attack is a little sneakier. You see, instead of blatantly attacking me, he's gone and attack the American Public as a whole, which I am a part of, hoping to once again, take from the validity of my argument.
Ah, education is a hell of a thing isn't it? If anyone would like to use actual arguments instead of just saying things, I'm always open to news ideas and debate.
#55 to #53
-
mrpkmon ONLINE (12/04/2015) [-] Seriously? You didn't address my argument in any way and just used an ad hominem attack to imply that i'm uneducated. Is anything of what I said wrong? Don't most americans tend not to even care about politics? Your government isn't insanely oppressive but it's corrupt and bought out and the main type of oppression you guys face is the insane distribution of wealth. Your argument for having weapons is to defend your self from an oppressive government which would want to control by force which they wouldn't they would use distraction like they do now. Also if by some reason you were invaded by a foreign power which would be impossible because of how powerful the US is. The only thing that remotely makes sense is the possibility of defending yourself from terrorism which happens frequently enough in the US but even then most people aren't prepared to kill or even react that fast when someone surprises them in a public place or sets of a bomb.
#67 to #55
-
billymayss (12/04/2015) [-] While yeah, 100% ad hominem on me on that last one, this one is just a simple message to say you're obviously very deadset in your ways, as am I in mine. I disagree with pretty much everything you just said, and attempting to change that would be silly. So instead of having a pissing contest with you over the internet, see ya bitch!
#134 to #51
-
heartlessrobot (12/04/2015) [-] Have you seen the **** going down in Europe? Next step is arresting all white people for having an oppressive skin colour.
#151 to #32
-
miasaki (12/05/2015) [-] If we have enough we can begin the rites to summon the all glorious Murder Cube to smite our foes into the nth dimension.
In all seriousness though, I think they were comparing the two in terms of lethality and roles they would play in a wartime situation as well as recreational use rather than owning a **** ton of AK's to possibly take out the tank. Improvised explosives are not too uncommon and everyday household items can cause quite a stir in the juggernaut equivalent of a tin can on tracks.
In all seriousness though, I think they were comparing the two in terms of lethality and roles they would play in a wartime situation as well as recreational use rather than owning a **** ton of AK's to possibly take out the tank. Improvised explosives are not too uncommon and everyday household items can cause quite a stir in the juggernaut equivalent of a tin can on tracks.
#83 to #32
-
dakkadakka (12/04/2015) [-]
Worked for the Taliban and Vietcong and insurgents in general
Worked for the Yanks against us
Worked for the Yanks against us
#159 to #30
-
zuflux ONLINE (12/05/2015) [-] The term "Assault Rifle" is really just used to describe a gun that is used as the spearhead of an attack. An assault or attack, if you will. It's separated from single fire rifles in the sense that it can fire in full automatic and has the capacity to fire a lot of rounds before reloading. Unlike a support machine gun like an MG3, it's much lighter, and uses smaller ammunition, and can be reloaded quicker.
Making an assault rifle by its definition; illegal is pretty dumb. I can see the lack of needing a rocket launcher for self defense, but using an automatic rifle is just as legitimate as using a handgun. In a perfect world, you'd be able to assess the threat and decide on the appropriate firearm for it.
Making an assault rifle by its definition; illegal is pretty dumb. I can see the lack of needing a rocket launcher for self defense, but using an automatic rifle is just as legitimate as using a handgun. In a perfect world, you'd be able to assess the threat and decide on the appropriate firearm for it.
#158 to #30
-
anticitezenone ONLINE (12/05/2015) [-] >Meaning that I have right to carry the weaponry to defend myself against tyranny, even from our own government.
No, ESPECIALLY from your own government
No, ESPECIALLY from your own government
#147 to #30
-
anon (12/05/2015) [-]
**** off. Protection against the gorverment? WTF are you gonna due against the USA military your guns are useless. Use it to defend your home? Dont you think it increases the chance of a home invader to cap your neck in your sleep if its commern for people to store guns in their night drawers. and what about the police dont you think they are much more trigger happy due to everyone could be carrying handguns in their back pockets. How do they know if you are scrathing your ass or trying yo reach your hidden weapon. Guns also dont do **** against mass shooters. The best sniper in the history of the USA was shoot on a shooting range where ******* everyone had guns and he didt do **** neither did anyone else.
#145 to #30
-
emiyashirou (12/05/2015) [-] Assault Rifle has an actual definition, smartass.
"a lightweight rifle developed from the sub-machine gun, which may be set to fire automatically or semi-automatically."
"a lightweight rifle developed from the sub-machine gun, which may be set to fire automatically or semi-automatically."
#88 to #30
-
jeffthellamaking (12/04/2015) [-] Hello!
Billymayss here for Savage, the No-Chill Specialist!
Billymayss here for Savage, the No-Chill Specialist!
#155 to #18
-
komandantmirkoo (12/05/2015) [-] it's called the bill of rights, not the bill of needs.
#91 to #18
-
gongwiththewind (12/04/2015) [-]
Would you rather have a gun which can take several rounds to stop someone (like the 9mm) or a gun that can stop someone with one round (a 12 gauge )
true there is a limit but thats in the comical level... such as miniguns...
true there is a limit but thats in the comical level... such as miniguns...
#23 to #18
-
ihateeverybodytoo (12/04/2015) [-] what if the people attacking you have any of those things?
#37 to #29
-
icedmantwo (12/04/2015) [-] >Implying you can guarantee somebody who's willing to break into your house will just take your stuff
>Implying that they might not have and care about your life
>Implying it isn't a distinct possibility that they will kill you just for being there
>Implying that they might not have and care about your life
>Implying it isn't a distinct possibility that they will kill you just for being there
#31 to #29
-
ihateeverybodytoo (12/04/2015) [-] no thanks. If someone is in my house uninvited, they're not going to like what happens to them.
#138 to #29
-
heartlessrobot (12/04/2015) [-] Yeah but if you're robbing me, your life is worth however many bullets I put in you.
#75 to #6
-
anon (12/04/2015) [-]
If you look at the history of the laws, politicians will just keep pushing for complete removal. First you have no automatic weapons (which is what it is now). Now they want no collapsible stocks. How the hell does a collapsible stock even make a weapon "deadlier"? It's like saying cars driving stick are deadlier to pedestrians.
Give an inch, and they take a mile. It's that simple.
Give an inch, and they take a mile. It's that simple.
#77 to #6
-
heartlessrobot (12/04/2015) [-] No, no weapons cross the line. It's the people that do.
We need people control, not gun control.
We need people control, not gun control.
#7
-
vorarephilia 
(12/04/2015) [-] I am against gun control because one day I want to own a functioning laser weapon.
pew pew mother ******* .
(12/04/2015) [-] 
pew pew mother ******* .
#20 to #9
-
timegnomez (12/04/2015) [-] I'm sorry to tell you... lasers don't go pew pew. I know, I know its sad but the best you'll get is the hum of the power source.
#76 to #20
-
heartlessrobot (12/04/2015) [-] I feel like we could make laser guns with a little speaker that goes pew pew when you shoot it.
#71 to #7
-
spartantoaster (12/04/2015) [-]
laser weapons will probably not be for civilians as they are not "FIRE arms"
#122 to #7
-
robotvoice (12/04/2015) [-] nice flashlight,
you and fifty of your friends gonna help your boss find those 100baneblades he lost?
you and fifty of your friends gonna help your boss find those 100baneblades he lost?
#1
-
mobilebull (12/04/2015) [-] I don't think everyone should have a gun OP, some people are really retarded, and **** it up. why not only let the educated people use them, and protect the people?
#120 to #1
-
besle (12/04/2015) [-] I guess it's a valid point you post, although using a picture of the Danish Special Forces probably isn't. We're really anti-gun most of the time, and while it's pretty cool and all, i really doubt it would work in the US unless some mayor constitutional chances happened.
I don't want to see the US do that, just take care of those mentally ****** up people and get them straight. You can keep your guns for all you want, but it saddens me everytime some lunatic ruins it for everyone else.
I don't want to see the US do that, just take care of those mentally ****** up people and get them straight. You can keep your guns for all you want, but it saddens me everytime some lunatic ruins it for everyone else.
#14 to #2
-
bellrunner (12/04/2015) [-]
Have people test for a gun ownership licence, a la the drivers licence. At least that way you'll know that gun owners are capable of loading/unloading/discharging/handling/cleaning their guns without blowing their or other people's heads off, and that they've been informed on the importance of gun safes, so their kids don't kill themselves either.
Would be nice to have psych evaluations too, but we'd actually need a functioning mental health care system in place, so one step at a time.
Would be nice to have psych evaluations too, but we'd actually need a functioning mental health care system in place, so one step at a time.
#5 to #2
-
anon (12/04/2015) [-]
I think he meant people who can actually comprehend the consequences of owning a gun, an instrument devised to kill, that should definitely not be in the hands of a redneck who thinks everything's deers or a weeb who wants to be tough and probably will end up shooting a school
#60 to #1
-
elementfall (12/04/2015) [-] Wait there is no licence for guns in USA ?
**** i always thought they was.
**** i always thought they was.
#24
-
skeletorexplains ONLINE (12/04/2015) [-] Youcandoitskeletor..
Thatsnothowitworkstho
Thatsnothowitworkstho
Thatsnothowitworkstho
Thatsnothowitworkstho
#15
-
mrspi (12/04/2015) [-] If you make laws to fix problems, only those who follow laws will be effected.
Time for action!
Time for action!
#43 to #15
-
anon (12/04/2015) [-] The best solution is to have police officer in every corner of a street, in every public area, in every public toilets, inside the stall, just starring at you while you take a **** , with a shotgun in his hands, maybe some small talk while you whipe. No compromised gun laws, just the blues everywhere. No phychopaths would even attempt to commit a killing spree, with 20 police officer surrounding a fire hydrant.
#16 to #15
-
blackmageewizardt (12/04/2015) [-] ...
You heard the smartass guys, throw all the laws away, criminals don´t fallow them anyway!
You heard the smartass guys, throw all the laws away, criminals don´t fallow them anyway!
#34 to #16
-
icedmantwo (12/04/2015) [-] Laws only exist to punish the people who break them. They only prevent people from harming other when those people wouldn't have harmed others in the first place.
#48 to #34
-
blackmageewizardt (12/04/2015) [-] "Laws only exist to punish the people who break them"
Thats not the ******* Point.
The Point is as fallowing, as what mrspi said is an fallacy. Of course criminals break the law! Doesn´t ******* mean said law is useless! It´s there to prevent People from doing whatever they want regardless if they affect others negativly with it. It´s to prevent People to become criminals in the first place. (we are not talking about murder, we talk about an law that would prevent weapon seller to just give out guns without cheeking if said Person has certain papers with him that prove that he is very able to use this gun in responsible extent)
All this idiots here go full nuts and think that gun control means that you get no ******* guns, seemingless ignoring that there stands "control" instead of "ban" behind it. It´s to make ******* sure nutcases or other idiots that are not fit to handle an weapon don´t just get them for whatever reason. (Just pointing out that the amount of accidents with this said weapons is almost hillarious high, wouldnt it mean that most of them, or People around them die because of it)
And than this :"They only prevent people from harming other when those people wouldn't have harmed others in the first place."
How do you ******* know it? Never heard about "in affect"? It´s when someoen does something stupid in the given Moment because of an Reflex or emotion. Sure mister tomson didn´t wanted to shot his wife (though he is alcohol addicted and theirfore would not be fit to handle an weapon), but now she lays dead on the floor, ah **** .
It´s to make sure that some mentaly unstable Person that would like to shoot up the next School just doesn´t get his Hand on an weapon to easly kill People. (teaching People how to Keep their weapons out of the reach of their children until they think they are VERY able to handle them would also ******* help)
Also how would it then affect every Person that is mentaly stable and able to handle an gun? Not at all, they get their licence, make some tests about their mental stability, get their gun. Jesus crist, not like you do the same **** when you get an licence for an car: make an health test, make an theoreticle test, make an practicle test, get licence, get car.
People make an fuss about it like an bunch of retarded monkey on crack for absolutly ************** reasons, i don´t even ******* care here when i get red thumbs for stating the reasonble thoughs.
Thats not the ******* Point.
The Point is as fallowing, as what mrspi said is an fallacy. Of course criminals break the law! Doesn´t ******* mean said law is useless! It´s there to prevent People from doing whatever they want regardless if they affect others negativly with it. It´s to prevent People to become criminals in the first place. (we are not talking about murder, we talk about an law that would prevent weapon seller to just give out guns without cheeking if said Person has certain papers with him that prove that he is very able to use this gun in responsible extent)
All this idiots here go full nuts and think that gun control means that you get no ******* guns, seemingless ignoring that there stands "control" instead of "ban" behind it. It´s to make ******* sure nutcases or other idiots that are not fit to handle an weapon don´t just get them for whatever reason. (Just pointing out that the amount of accidents with this said weapons is almost hillarious high, wouldnt it mean that most of them, or People around them die because of it)
And than this :"They only prevent people from harming other when those people wouldn't have harmed others in the first place."
How do you ******* know it? Never heard about "in affect"? It´s when someoen does something stupid in the given Moment because of an Reflex or emotion. Sure mister tomson didn´t wanted to shot his wife (though he is alcohol addicted and theirfore would not be fit to handle an weapon), but now she lays dead on the floor, ah **** .
It´s to make sure that some mentaly unstable Person that would like to shoot up the next School just doesn´t get his Hand on an weapon to easly kill People. (teaching People how to Keep their weapons out of the reach of their children until they think they are VERY able to handle them would also ******* help)
Also how would it then affect every Person that is mentaly stable and able to handle an gun? Not at all, they get their licence, make some tests about their mental stability, get their gun. Jesus crist, not like you do the same **** when you get an licence for an car: make an health test, make an theoreticle test, make an practicle test, get licence, get car.
People make an fuss about it like an bunch of retarded monkey on crack for absolutly ************** reasons, i don´t even ******* care here when i get red thumbs for stating the reasonble thoughs.
#49 to #48
-
icedmantwo (12/04/2015) [-] >All this idiots here go full nuts and think that gun control means that you get no ******* guns
Well it turns out the slippery slope is real. Australia, have severely limited general access to semi automatics and pump action shotguns, is now moving to limit access to lever and bolt action guns. Even in the USA, Senator Diane Feinstein has openly stated she would confiscate every gun in America, given the opportunity.
>It´s when someoen does something stupid in the given Moment because of an Reflex or emotion.
Yeah, it turns out guns can be on hand in an unexpected and uncontrollable emotionally charged situation. It also turns out that people will grab whatever is on hand to use as a weapon, including, but not limited to, guns, bats, hammers, and knives. Doesn't matter to the person who's dead, they are dead. Getting shot doesn't make you more or less dead than getting stabbed.
>It´s to make sure that some mentaly unstable Person that would like to shoot up the next School
Already done. It's called background checks, and it's done to everyone, every time they buy a gun at a store. In California, it's also done at private sales. Unfortunately they aren't magic, and can't detect undiagnosed mental disorders, and they can't stop people from committing crimes.
>Licenses
I live in Canada, I got my gun license for here. It could, and often is, done by any retard who has the patience. We actually published a study jiv.sagepub.com/content/27/12/2303.abstract which came to the conclusion that our gun laws didn't affect overall crime rate. Turns out, even if a criminal can't get their hands on a gun, they'll still commit crime, still kill people, and still be a criminal. This all not counting illegally acquired guns.
>Just like a driver's license though
Except it isn't. You don't need a driver's license to buy a car, only to drive it on public roads. There aren't any limits to any aspect of cars, so long as it isn't used in a public setting, so that would be the equivalent of licensing people who conceal carry. In the mean time, I will get raided by police, the day my license expires, because they will know I just went from a peaceful law abiding citizen to a domestic terrorist who's also racist. All of this on top of the fact that the SCOTUS has already ruled that licensing gun owners is illegal.
Well it turns out the slippery slope is real. Australia, have severely limited general access to semi automatics and pump action shotguns, is now moving to limit access to lever and bolt action guns. Even in the USA, Senator Diane Feinstein has openly stated she would confiscate every gun in America, given the opportunity.
>It´s when someoen does something stupid in the given Moment because of an Reflex or emotion.
Yeah, it turns out guns can be on hand in an unexpected and uncontrollable emotionally charged situation. It also turns out that people will grab whatever is on hand to use as a weapon, including, but not limited to, guns, bats, hammers, and knives. Doesn't matter to the person who's dead, they are dead. Getting shot doesn't make you more or less dead than getting stabbed.
>It´s to make sure that some mentaly unstable Person that would like to shoot up the next School
Already done. It's called background checks, and it's done to everyone, every time they buy a gun at a store. In California, it's also done at private sales. Unfortunately they aren't magic, and can't detect undiagnosed mental disorders, and they can't stop people from committing crimes.
>Licenses
I live in Canada, I got my gun license for here. It could, and often is, done by any retard who has the patience. We actually published a study jiv.sagepub.com/content/27/12/2303.abstract which came to the conclusion that our gun laws didn't affect overall crime rate. Turns out, even if a criminal can't get their hands on a gun, they'll still commit crime, still kill people, and still be a criminal. This all not counting illegally acquired guns.
>Just like a driver's license though
Except it isn't. You don't need a driver's license to buy a car, only to drive it on public roads. There aren't any limits to any aspect of cars, so long as it isn't used in a public setting, so that would be the equivalent of licensing people who conceal carry. In the mean time, I will get raided by police, the day my license expires, because they will know I just went from a peaceful law abiding citizen to a domestic terrorist who's also racist. All of this on top of the fact that the SCOTUS has already ruled that licensing gun owners is illegal.
#86 to #49
-
blackmageewizardt (12/04/2015) [-] Also nothing against you man but you made an gigantic Fallacy:
"Turns out, even if a criminal can't get their hands on a gun, they'll still commit crime, still kill people, and still be a criminal."
Nirvana fallacy: Because somethign does not solve an Problem ABSOLUTLY in anyway, it´s not worth going for it. It´s an really harsh Logical fallacy right after Wagner.
"Turns out, even if a criminal can't get their hands on a gun, they'll still commit crime, still kill people, and still be a criminal."
Nirvana fallacy: Because somethign does not solve an Problem ABSOLUTLY in anyway, it´s not worth going for it. It´s an really harsh Logical fallacy right after Wagner.
#84 to #49
-
blackmageewizardt (12/04/2015) [-] "Well it turns out the slippery slope is real. Australia, have severely limited general access to semi automatics and pump action shotguns,"
Why the ever living **** would you Need semi automatics to protect yourself man?... shotguns? okay, can see how, but semiautomatics?... You are supposed to protect your place, not to hunt down the burglar after they run out from ******** their Pants.
"Diane Feinstein has openly stated she would confiscate every gun in America, given the opportunity"
And she has any power to convince the Senate to anything with the actuell weapon Lobby or has anyway any big word in the goverment in what way?... Why bringing her up? That´s like me bringing up Jarkesian when we would talk about feminism in 3. world countrys... why? Hell she is the oldest member their, the chances she Drops dead any Moment are not that bad...
"Yeah, it turns out guns can be on hand in an unexpected and uncontrollable emotionally charged situation."
Don´t even Need to read what Comes now "but you could also take an kitchen knife" ... You can block an kitchen knife unlike an bullet.... Also you can well survive severall knife stabs... Nothing against you but this Argument is used be the not very brightest, because it wants to sell, that guns make it NOT far easyer to kill someone. Also it Needs quit an resolve to stab someone Close up, you have to look them at the face, have to put actuell physicle energy into the act. An gun? Safe off, target up, pull Trigger, done.
"Getting shot doesn't make you more or less dead than getting stabbed." CALLED IT!
"Already done. It's called background checks," Because all mentaly unstable People have already done criminal acts... *sighs*
"they aren't magic, and can't detect undiagnosed mental disorders, and they can't stop people from committing crimes." At this Point you pulling my leg, why the **** did you think i said that you would Need an psychological test befor Hand to prove you can handle the weapon? Come on man, it´s not so many words to remember.
"I live in Canada, I got my gun license for here." Could have ******* sworne we talked about US. I ******* know that Canada makes enough sense to consider an weapon for as much responsebility as an car, theirfore tests People.
"Turns out, even if a criminal can't get their hands on a gun, they'll still commit crime, still kill people, and still be a criminal."
They have an harder time doing it though.
" It could, and often is, done by any retard who has the patience."
So is driving licence, your Point? If they can prove to remember how to use their gun right and where to put it so no idiot but them gets them. Unless you want to tell me you guys miss the psychological test to make sure true "brainnuggets" don´t get them.
> Shows study, what do i read there?
"The effect of legislation on homicide by firearm and the subcategory, spousal homicide, is controversial and has not been well studied to date." You test my Patience.
"Other factors found to be associated with homicide rates were median age, unemployment, immigration rates, percentage of population in low-income bracket, Gini index of income equality, population per police officer, and incarceration rate."
... Mate... honest talk here, are you pulling her an bait? Far to many factors to clearly tell that your gun regulations did NOT in anyway work actuelly, for all we know it make sure the numbers are not higher.... Also i would have liked to read the PDF, BUUUT some Retard though it should be necessary to have such an interesting pdf include registering their... nope.
"Except it isn't. You don't need a driver's license to buy a car, only to drive it on public roads."
If i get catched driving an car without my licence i will have for an LOOOOONG TIME lots of ******* Problems. Including getting targeted be Police.
"so that would be the equivalent of licensing people who conceal carry." Equal punishment for them: "no legal buying of guns anytime soon (25 years)"
Why the ever living **** would you Need semi automatics to protect yourself man?... shotguns? okay, can see how, but semiautomatics?... You are supposed to protect your place, not to hunt down the burglar after they run out from ******** their Pants.
"Diane Feinstein has openly stated she would confiscate every gun in America, given the opportunity"
And she has any power to convince the Senate to anything with the actuell weapon Lobby or has anyway any big word in the goverment in what way?... Why bringing her up? That´s like me bringing up Jarkesian when we would talk about feminism in 3. world countrys... why? Hell she is the oldest member their, the chances she Drops dead any Moment are not that bad...
"Yeah, it turns out guns can be on hand in an unexpected and uncontrollable emotionally charged situation."
Don´t even Need to read what Comes now "but you could also take an kitchen knife" ... You can block an kitchen knife unlike an bullet.... Also you can well survive severall knife stabs... Nothing against you but this Argument is used be the not very brightest, because it wants to sell, that guns make it NOT far easyer to kill someone. Also it Needs quit an resolve to stab someone Close up, you have to look them at the face, have to put actuell physicle energy into the act. An gun? Safe off, target up, pull Trigger, done.
"Getting shot doesn't make you more or less dead than getting stabbed." CALLED IT!
"Already done. It's called background checks," Because all mentaly unstable People have already done criminal acts... *sighs*
"they aren't magic, and can't detect undiagnosed mental disorders, and they can't stop people from committing crimes." At this Point you pulling my leg, why the **** did you think i said that you would Need an psychological test befor Hand to prove you can handle the weapon? Come on man, it´s not so many words to remember.
"I live in Canada, I got my gun license for here." Could have ******* sworne we talked about US. I ******* know that Canada makes enough sense to consider an weapon for as much responsebility as an car, theirfore tests People.
"Turns out, even if a criminal can't get their hands on a gun, they'll still commit crime, still kill people, and still be a criminal."
They have an harder time doing it though.
" It could, and often is, done by any retard who has the patience."
So is driving licence, your Point? If they can prove to remember how to use their gun right and where to put it so no idiot but them gets them. Unless you want to tell me you guys miss the psychological test to make sure true "brainnuggets" don´t get them.
> Shows study, what do i read there?
"The effect of legislation on homicide by firearm and the subcategory, spousal homicide, is controversial and has not been well studied to date." You test my Patience.
"Other factors found to be associated with homicide rates were median age, unemployment, immigration rates, percentage of population in low-income bracket, Gini index of income equality, population per police officer, and incarceration rate."
... Mate... honest talk here, are you pulling her an bait? Far to many factors to clearly tell that your gun regulations did NOT in anyway work actuelly, for all we know it make sure the numbers are not higher.... Also i would have liked to read the PDF, BUUUT some Retard though it should be necessary to have such an interesting pdf include registering their... nope.
"Except it isn't. You don't need a driver's license to buy a car, only to drive it on public roads."
If i get catched driving an car without my licence i will have for an LOOOOONG TIME lots of ******* Problems. Including getting targeted be Police.
"so that would be the equivalent of licensing people who conceal carry." Equal punishment for them: "no legal buying of guns anytime soon (25 years)"
#99 to #84
-
anon (12/04/2015) [-]
semi autos keep people like you from deciding what you think people "need" as if you knew better. the reason that the 2nd amendment works is because the deterrent that deadly force provides keeps cowards and cuckolds from betraying their countrymen for the sake of their own arrogance.
#101 to #99
-
blackmageewizardt (12/04/2015) [-] Shut the **** up anon, no Body wants to hear your opinion anyway.
#126
-
anon (12/04/2015) [-]
Oh man totally. Just look at Britain and Australia. All those gorillions of people being mown down daily by criminals with guns. **** off dick stain.
#149 to #126
-
kibbleking (12/05/2015) [-] Oh yeah I'd sure love for the US to turn into panzy land and get arrested for having a plastic knife.
#19
-
astatine (12/04/2015) [-]
That's not gun control, that's gun ban.
You outright ban guns in areas where guns are or recently were legal, those guns will still be in circulation and it'll be the criminals holding them. Ideally if you want to reduce the number of guns, you make stricter restrictions and ensure that everyone buying them has full responsibility and isn't a total idiot. It's difficult to take guns away from criminals, but you can make it harder for them to get their hands on them.
You outright ban guns in areas where guns are or recently were legal, those guns will still be in circulation and it'll be the criminals holding them. Ideally if you want to reduce the number of guns, you make stricter restrictions and ensure that everyone buying them has full responsibility and isn't a total idiot. It's difficult to take guns away from criminals, but you can make it harder for them to get their hands on them.
#28 to #19
-
ihateeverybodytoo (12/04/2015) [-] really? like how drug prohibition made it harder to get drugs?
#141
-
anon (12/05/2015) [-]
That's not how it works.
It's this kind of ******** argumentation that pro-gun people believe is a reasonable argument. It's not. In practice, gun control will remove guns from both parties. but muh they won't follow the rules
It's this kind of ******** argumentation that pro-gun people believe is a reasonable argument. It's not. In practice, gun control will remove guns from both parties. but muh they won't follow the rules
#156 to #141
-
anon (12/05/2015) [-]
Some dude made a gun in prison, if that can happen teens with a load of freetime can learn to make one and do so, then shoot up a school. Our problem isnt guns or lack of guns, its lack of reliable, medium to long range less-lethal weaponry and personal defence. Extreme pain wont stop a druggy, and a tazer wont stop a sniper, we need to be able to stop the brain from talking to the body without killing one of them.
#124
-
samoaspider (12/04/2015) [-] 
oh hey, lets put a gun shop next to a liquor store, which is next to a chuck-e-cheese
#44
-
anon (12/04/2015) [-]
i ******* hate that part of funnyjunk... just deal with it.. one of the main problems with the united states is people with access to guns..
#63 to #50
-
noplaceperson ONLINE (12/04/2015) [-]
Obviously you've never been to Australia. There is plenty of white trash there.
#105 to #45
-
lulzdealer (12/04/2015) [-] >muh australia
Australia has failed to release any of its violent crime data despite increasing complaints of violent crime involving guns surfacing on the 'net. Meaning it's no longer credible proof that "gun control just werks."
Australia’s gun ban had no effect on violent crime
www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/?Article_ID=17847
“In 2002 – five years after enacting its gun ban – the Australian Bureau of Criminology acknowledged there is no correlation between gun control and the use of firearms in violent crime. In fact, the percent of murders committed with a firearm was the highest it had ever been in 2006 (16.3 percent)”
And this
Homicide rate fails to decrease after countries enact gun bans
crimepreventionresearchcenter.org/2013/12/murder-and-homicide-rates-before-and-after-gun-bans/
Australia has failed to release any of its violent crime data despite increasing complaints of violent crime involving guns surfacing on the 'net. Meaning it's no longer credible proof that "gun control just werks."
Australia’s gun ban had no effect on violent crime
www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/?Article_ID=17847
“In 2002 – five years after enacting its gun ban – the Australian Bureau of Criminology acknowledged there is no correlation between gun control and the use of firearms in violent crime. In fact, the percent of murders committed with a firearm was the highest it had ever been in 2006 (16.3 percent)”
And this
Homicide rate fails to decrease after countries enact gun bans
crimepreventionresearchcenter.org/2013/12/murder-and-homicide-rates-before-and-after-gun-bans/
