Owning a weapon is fine. Owning a weapon with this - #99015957 added by bokkos at 13 Rules of Gunfighting

Reply+18

(08/01/2013)[-]

Owning a weapon is fine. Owning a weapon with this kind of attitude is insane.

Reply+1

(08/02/2013)[-]

Are you stupid? If you ever have to use a gun to defend yourself, you damn well better use it like he says. If you flash at someone to scare them, you're going to get yourself arrested. If you hesitate pulling the trigger on someone who is armed, you're dead. Yeah, I guess defending yourself is insane, right?

#186 to #97 - bokkos

Reply-2

(08/02/2013)[-]

A gun is only ever an offensive weapon. Can it be used for defense? Strictly speaking, no, because actual defense products advertised for defense are non-lethal, such as a tazer or pepper spray.

#42 to #40 - anon id: a99da4c1

Reply0

(08/01/2013)[-]

A gun is like a seatbelt that you always wear and hope you never need. It doesn't mean you're paranoid, just cautious.

#44 to #42 - bokkos

Reply+6

(08/01/2013)[-]

A seat belt is a device designed to keep you from flying out of a moving vehicle. A gun is a device made to kill. Both have their purposes, but saying a seat belt and a gun are in the same league is the insane kind of attitude I'm talking about.

#181 to #44 - Onemanretardpack

Reply0

(08/02/2013)[-]

It's actually pretty accurate. IF used in the way he's describing, guns are something that you keep but hope to never have to use. If you can't compare them, how can you say they're different?

#187 to #181 - bokkos

Reply0

(08/02/2013)[-]

Seat belts save lives from arguably arbitrary events. A gun works my ending, maiming, or impairing life. The two are dissimilar and do not make sense when compared.

#191 to #187 - Onemanretardpack

Reply0

(08/02/2013)[-]

You're taking only one side of what a gun does and distorting it to your own needs. That's like saying all a seatbelt does is restrict your movement. How many families have been saved from an intruder? How many people have defended theirselves from someone who would do them harm? A gun is not an offensive item. It is only an item. Guns don't kill innocents, people do. If you use it to harm innocents, you can only hope someone else has one to stop him. Because what you're arguing is that people shouldn't be allowed to carry guns for defense of someone with a weapon, BECAUSE there are people with weapons that would hurt someone.

#59 to #44 - thenewgizmobox

Reply+1

(08/01/2013)[-]

technically a gun in just a device made to shoot bullets, where it shoots these bullets is usually determined by the user.

#73 to #59 - draxdiesel

Reply0

(08/01/2013)[-]

i agree, when smith and wesson designed their revolver they envisaged people using it to turn out lights

#45 to #44 - anon id: a99da4c1

Reply0

(08/01/2013)[-]

You're obviously afraid of guns and that's okay. Guns aren't for everyone. It's your choice to be a victim and take whatever happens and hope you live through it or take the necessary steps to protect yourself and your loved ones. Just don't project your irrational fear of guns onto the rest of society and try to take away our right to self defense. Not all of us aspire to be hapless victims.

#53 to #45 - kuci

Reply0

(08/01/2013)[-]

So when are you going to buy a tank or a nuke?

Since someone else can threaten you with it, why should you not have one aswell!?

**** your guns you nutcase.

#142 to #53 - lifeofliam [OP]

Reply0

(08/02/2013)[-]

as soon as i can afford one i want to buy a tank they are pretty cool although i might have to get it from someone in the UK there its legal to drive them on the road

#99 to #53 - Onemanretardpack

Reply0

(08/02/2013)[-]

Piers Morgan plz go. Tanks are legal, but when's the last time you heard of someone going on a killing rampage with a tank? Your whole argument is based on a non-issue. There's no one trying to kill people with tanks, and nobody wants to deal with the moral weight of a nuke. You literally have no argument. All you can say is people who want to defend themselves are nutcases and want to use nukes and tanks on each other. Meanwhile, you say only law enforcement and government should have guns? Yeah, because I totally trust the government that sold firearms to mexican drug cartels and spies on its citizens.

People like you are why this country is going to ****. "Wah wah, I don't agree with something, it should be banned!"

#57 to #53 - anon id: a99da4c1

Reply0

(08/01/2013)[-]

You really need to see a shrink...

#60 to #57 - kuci

Reply0

(08/01/2013)[-]

How so?

"Guns aren't for everyone" & neither are tanks or nukes. Guns are for law enforcements and military personnel, not civilians.

If you think you need a gun as a necessary item to protect yourself against others, what are you going to do when X-Country, wants to nuke your living location?

Going with your gun logic, everyone should have access to nukes.

#62 to #60 - anon id: a99da4c1

Reply0

(08/01/2013)[-]

You really need to read up on US history and our Constitution. You obviously don't know much about either.

#188 to #62 - bokkos

Reply0

(08/02/2013)[-]

The consitution states firearms are to be used if the state becomes corrupt or becomes self serving, and the people are to tear it down and erect a new one. Since it's obvious most Americans have not, do not, and will not perform this civic duty, the need for guns appears greatly diminished.

#63 to #62 - kuci

Reply0

(08/01/2013)[-]

I'm sorry, something that was written in 1790ish is completely immune to being removed or improved in todays society?

And how does tanks/nukes differ from guns? The governemnt can still kill you while you are unable to do ******** back at them.

#179 to #63 - Onemanretardpack

Reply0

(08/02/2013)[-]

THEN WHY DO YOU CARE? Holy ****, all you do is contradict yourself. Are guns killing machines? Or are they small and ineffective. Also, apparently somebody hasn't watched the news lately, because both the US and Russian army were ****** up by sand ******* in mud huts with nothing but small arms. I swear you have the most selective memory of anyone I ever met. The first amendment was written at the same time as the rest of them, do you think your right to free speech is still relevant? Yes? Then the constitution and bill of rights are all relevant. Just shut up and please stop spreading your disinfo. Tanks and nukes aren't the issue, quit bringing them up in a pathetic attempt to cover up the fact that you literally have no argument besides "LOL UR NUTZ, Y U NEED GUN?"

#67 to #63 - anon id: a99da4c1

Reply0

(08/01/2013)[-]

I'd rather die on my feet than live on my knees.
Your mileage obviously varies...

#68 to #67 - kuci

Reply0

(08/01/2013)[-]

I'm sorry, but you'll still be on your knees if someone has a tank and you have your ****** little peashooter.

#120 to #68 - anon id: a99da4c1

Reply0

(08/02/2013)[-]

A brave man dies but once. A coward dies a thousand times.
Make sure to carry your own lube because you'll need it.

#121 to #120 - kuci

Reply-2

(08/02/2013)[-]

How does not wanting to arm an entire society or myself, make me a coward?

#170 to #121 - useroftheLOLZ

Reply0

(08/02/2013)[-]

Okay, you seriously know nothing about gun policy, or militant deterrence, you seem to think that guns are on the same level as tanks and nuclear armaments, when they are not, with a gun, you have to make the conscious decision to cause destruction, and your capacity to destroy is severely limited by a vast number of factors. With a nuke, all you have do, is press a button, and boom, you cause permanent and uncontrolled destruction, your decision to cause destruction is not conscious, there is a case of see no evil.

Any my little pea shooter won't stop a tank? Maybe it won't kill the tank, but tanks are not ******* invincible, a mag dump from a .308 will take out the treads of most tanks used in the military, and it takes five minutes of google searching, and twenty minutes of collecting materials, to create a powerful enough explosive that would disable a M1 Abrams tank.

And to just stir up the pot, yeah, I see no problem with countries owning nukes, peace through deterrence and all that good ****. It is human nature to take when we see something we want, if it is in possession of someone else, either we deal with it, find a copy of it, or take it with any means necessary, but we won't peruse that route if we find that we are incapable to taking our desired item.

And there is something seriously wrong with you if you are willing to live your life, by giving your natural freedoms to someone else. I would rather die, than let someone dictate how I should properly live my life. "A man who is willing to sacrifice freedom, in the name of safety and protection, deserves neither." Benjamin Franklin

#65 to #63 - anon id: a99da4c1

Reply0

(08/01/2013)[-]

People haven't changed one bit. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter how evolved, enlightened or even self-actualized you think you are. I promise you, the person illegally carrying a gun with the intent to hurt and take from you isn't.

You can't have nukes because you'll shoot your eye out.

#66 to #65 - kuci

Reply-2

(08/01/2013)[-]

What? How does that make any sense:

"You can't have nukes because you'll shoot your eye out"?

#46 to #45 - bokkos

Reply+2

(08/01/2013)[-]

I own 3 .22s, 3 shotguns (one of which is a 12 gauge), a 7mm magnum rifle, a .308 and a vintage 1896 winchester, of which I can't remember the specs. There is a difference between fear and respect, and those who have no respect for human life or firearms have no right to own or use guns.
Oh Canada, bitch.

#180 to #46 - Onemanretardpack

Reply0

(08/02/2013)[-]

I completely agree. If you want a toy to dick around with, get an airsoft gun. Too bad your gun laws are stupid as hell. Although having a shortbarrelled shotgun shipped directly to my door sounds nice

#47 to #46 - anon id: a99da4c1

Reply0

(08/01/2013)[-]

Right on!