Ban Them!. .. If you're taking this tragedy and using it to forge a political message mocking those who criticize assault weapons, aren't you no better than those who forged  Ban Them! If you're taking this tragedy and using it to forge a political message mocking those who criticize assault weapons aren't you no better than forged
Upload
Login or register
Hide Comments
Leave a comment Refresh Comments (24)
> hey anon, wanna give your opinion?
asd
#9 - willysbilly
Reply +12 123456789123345869
(04/08/2013) [-]
If you're taking this tragedy and using it to forge a political message mocking those who criticize assault weapons, aren't you no better than those who forged a political message out of the original tragedy?
User avatar #21 to #9 - Onemanretardpack
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(04/08/2013) [-]
First of all, assault weapons isn't a correct term. It's a buzz word that has no meaning, really. Created by politicians to scare people by demonizing things that have no effect on a guns lethality. And to your point: no, he's still better than them. He's not standing on the bodies of dead kids to push his political agenda. You think they care about the kids? No, they just want to see their own beliefs pushed through the floor of the senate, and they'll rally behind dead kids to do it
User avatar #13 to #9 - Shramin
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(04/08/2013) [-]
He also seems to forget that you have to apply your own physical force to use an axe, not just squeeze a trigger a few times.
User avatar #20 to #13 - Onemanretardpack
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(04/08/2013) [-]
Ammo is heavy, an axe doesn't need to reload, high-guality steel doesn't blunt easily. People are going to kill, how does 21 killed at once compare to the millions killed every year through easily preventable obesity and malnutrition? The funny thing is that both of those are easier to fix and would provide better results than more gun control
#6 - prettyfire
Reply +8 123456789123345869
(04/07/2013) [-]
but it was "kills nine" not "kills twenty-one." that's the difference between an axe and an assault rifle.
User avatar #19 to #6 - Onemanretardpack
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(04/08/2013) [-]
I'm sure I could kill 21 people with a tomahawk in a school. It's easy to get killed by anything when you're not legally allowed to carry something to defend yourself
User avatar #8 to #6 - dakkenly
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/08/2013) [-]
Not enough people maybe
User avatar #12 to #6 - lulzdealer
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/08/2013) [-]
fist off, so called "assault rifles" aren't assault rifles at all, real ones have select fire, the ones you're thinking of are semi-automatic, as in: the function in the exact same way a pistol does.

Secondly, that's a moot point. want to know how many people "assault rifles" kill every year? 300. Hammers? 400. Hands and Feet? 600. Cars? 50,000. Alcohol? 75,000. So really, which should be banned?
User avatar #14 to #12 - Shramin
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/08/2013) [-]
erm... while I do not know about "Assault Rifles" I did discover this with some google searching: Guns were used in 11,078 homicides in the U.S. in 2010, comprising almost 35% of all gun deaths, and over 68% of all homicides.

and

Firearms were used in 19,392 suicides in the U.S. in 2010, constituting almost 62% of all gun deaths.

Source: smartgunlaws.org/gun-deaths-and-injuries-statistics/

Maybe a little bit more than 300? maybe.
User avatar #15 to #14 - lulzdealer
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/08/2013) [-]
notice i said assault rifles, not guns in general. and even then, you have to consider the following:

in 2005 the total number of gun-related deaths was around 30,000, that number has obviously declined since then.

are you implying that guns enable suicide? look at japan, they're suicide rates are at least 3x ours, and almost no one is allowed to own a gun.

and lastly, that number, 11078. that's out of the entire U.S. population of 315,634,587. 11078/315,634,587= .0035% of people dying as a result of guns.
User avatar #25 to #15 - Shramin
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/08/2013) [-]
I was implying that there are more than 300 deaths a year as a result of Assault Rifles, nothing more.

I do believe that guns allow for a much easier time to do killing, accidental or not, than other tools do, simply because of the low effort required to fire a shot.

I do not believe that banning guns in the US as a whole would be a good idea, the culture and history of the US means it grew with weapons as a regular thing, meaning banning guns would just mean less awareness of who does and doesn't have firearms for the government.
I do however believe they need a better system for background checks and gun allowance. For example a minimum amount of weapons safety classes to be allowed to use a gun at a range, and another minimum to actually be able to purchase a gun, as well as making guns and ammo only accessible at specific gun store.

I believe if the right protocols were there, guns could be allowed still while suicides and accidental deaths may lower due to precautions on safety and training in how to be careful with weapons.

I have never fired a weapon myself and therefore have no ideas on how to elaborate my meaning on Gun Control.
User avatar #18 to #14 - Onemanretardpack
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(04/08/2013) [-]
>Using statistics from a source that is heavily biased

Do you even try? Or do you just cherry pick **** that helps your argument?
User avatar #26 to #18 - Shramin
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/08/2013) [-]
I picked that source because the page has 23 sources on it.
#10 to #6 - tankthefrank
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(04/08/2013) [-]
but what do they have in common?

bot victims were unarmed
#1 - anon id: 9ad1f238
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/07/2013) [-]
***** that's a hatchet
User avatar #5 to #1 - traelos
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/07/2013) [-]
Have you seen the gun control laws?
#3 to #1 - bignastyjohnson
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(04/07/2013) [-]
Punk-ass thats a tactical tomahawk.
#2 to #1 - nyawgga
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(04/07/2013) [-]
It's not like the media would know the difference anyways.   
   
No more wood for anybody.
It's not like the media would know the difference anyways.

No more wood for anybody.
#4 - zukabazuka
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(04/07/2013) [-]
He just wanted to axe them about jesus christ.
User avatar #27 - shemaledong
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/09/2013) [-]
All americans realised this happened in India, not Indiana?
#17 - longboarding
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/08/2013) [-]
'kills nine' what the **** does that mean. I can just see him being in court looking at the judge making air quotes going "Yeah! I killed '9 people'"
#16 - glowparty
0 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
#11 - andytang
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/08/2013) [-]
Brolaf op need nerf
User avatar #7 - slenderwolf
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/07/2013) [-]
Why is "kills nine" in quotes? Is it because it is a quote (that could have just been typed up regardless) or it up to debate? Like idk that one over there is still twitching and that one there can still blink and oh that one no wait she's gone.