Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search

hide menu
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #6 - Fgner (12/27/2012) [-]
Apparently nobody thinks like me. Who cares if guns are around, that's not the problem here. The problem is PEOPLE ARE MURDERING OTHER PEOPLE. If someone wants someone dead, it will happen.The problem isn't that people can kill other people with guns instead of knives or bombs like all the anti-gun people want us to believe. It's that we have so many murderers and people with the intent to kill other people, who will do so one way or another. The way I see it, they'll eventually make a gun ban or something, and the murder rates will either stay the same, or go up (from those same murderers knowing people can no longer defend themselves). Then half the country will say "I TOLD YOU SO!", make them give their guns back, and they'll move on to the next stupid ******* thing to blame like "well it's the fact we use fossil fuels! These murders are all just worried ecologists!


Also: Take out the gang crime from thes statistics and the drug related ones and such, and these numbers will decrease massively. The majority of these are not innocent civilian deaths.
#14 to #6 - rkdisme ONLINE (12/27/2012) [-]
How many of the last few mass shootings in the US were done with illegal guns? None. All of the past shootings were done with legally acquired guns and bullets because the regulations are so lax. If you don't want to bad guns, okay, how about you change the regulations so that the background checks are mandatory and you can't straight out buy guns from gun shows. Also raise the funding of mental institutions to prevent violent breakouts.

Problem with the US is that NRA makes it so that there will be no changes to gun regulations. Republicans want to cut spending and cut funding of mental institutions. All this contributes to more murders.

As an example take the latest shooting we had in America. 26 people were gunned down by one person. Were his guns legal? Yes, his mother owned 12 guns in the house. Was she safe by having so many guns in the house? Idk, go find her corpse and ask her. If the guy wanted to kill those children with a knife, would it be harder to do so? Yes. Would the same amount of people be dead? Probably not.

Around the time of that shooting, in China, a man attacked kindergarteners with a hammer. Most of the kids got hurt, but there were no casulties. "Gun ownership in the People's Republic of China is heavily regulated by law. Generally, private citizens are not allowed to possess guns" as stated by wikipedia.

26 dead vs 0 dead. I'd pick 0 any day. Making guns illegal or heavier regulation will not make the crimes go away, but it will make killing people harder and in doing so will hopefully lower the murder rates we have now.
User avatar #44 to #14 - chiefrunnyjeans (12/31/2012) [-]
Actually there are other ways people can kill eachother. Making guns illegal won't change that. Killing will just become more brutal with swords, pipe bombs, and still guns. The reason killers choose schools, movie theatres etc. is because they are low risk. They know no one will have a gun so they can just walk in and shoot it up, whereas a bank robbery can lead to getting shot (which recently happened). The NRA is 100% correct that an armed gaurd in every school, just like a bank, will protect more lives. Making guns illegal is taking them away from those who follow the law, not those who break it.
User avatar #41 to #14 - Fgner (12/28/2012) [-]
> Who cares if they got them legally? If a criminal wants a gun, and it's legal - why not? If a criminal wants a gun and it's not, buy one on the black market, make a homemade bomb (extremely easy), or just go stab the **** out of people.
> Actually, the EU has worse/more public shootings than us. Less reported though. Most of our gun related crime is gang related. Public shootings are rare but are reported everywhere for weeks/months, so it seems like we're worse.
> Mental institutions get enough money. But the applicant has to have a family member ienroll them or enroll themselves, we can't just go grabbing people "oh you might be crazy." Thus, the loons don't get in when they should. It's not a matter of funding, it's a matter of identification and retrieval.
> Don't blame Republicans. I hate it when people have to point fingers at the people they don't like and generalize. Make a point instead of bashing with ******** .
> Actually, I don't think it would have been all that much harder to have made a simple bomb you could google and blown up half the school instead. And there are plenty of weapons other than real rifles, chainsaws for instance.
> Can I hear what injuries they had? I'll be brutal here, I'd rather have dead children, then children who got beaten in the head and are vegetables now.
> I believe heavier regulation for sure. Just not making guns illegal complety. Hefty background checks, limiting factors like number, size, type , et cetera. I support that completely.

But again, not many of these are actually innocent civilian deaths. And I'm not really convinced that taking away people's right to have a gun (and therefore some of the fear of committing crimes) is such a great idea. Heavy regulation, yes, weapons should be for self defense, and sometimes hunting (not my boat so I can't say much here).
User avatar #45 to #41 - chiefrunnyjeans (12/31/2012) [-]
I agree somewhat. If by heavy regulation you mean background checks and not selling to the mentally ill/criminals then I agree. But everything else will fail as you can see in the EU where illegal weapons are used every day to kill innocent people and defending yourself can land you in jail for life.
User avatar #46 to #45 - Fgner (01/01/2013) [-]
I would say reasonably: Background checks, a cooldown period, a psychological examination, and some other limitations/precautions.

Don't take weapons away, just make sure you only sell them to those who are fit to own them.
#23 to #14 - xxxsonic fanxxx (12/28/2012) [-]
Finally some sense. Guns are not the answer.
#21 to #14 - comehonorfacetwice (12/28/2012) [-]
But the issue isn't that I, as a 19 year old American, could get my hands on a legal gun. The issue is that I, as a 19 year old American, could get my hands on a fully automatic gun of any sort without much trouble at all (illegally of course). If I was so inclined (and had the money), I could by the end of January, have, in my possession, an RPG, a mounted gun, armor piercing rounds, etc. If we restrict legal guns, people inclined to murder will get their guns illegally. It is not a difficult feat at all. The issue we should look at is, as you said, increased funding (hopefully privatization) of mental institutions, and stopping the sale of illegal weapons. The fact that I could easily get an illegal assault rifle (having lived in one of the top 100 richest counties, attending a top 500 ranked high school, being an Eagle Scout, having grown up in an altogether 'clean' environment) is what is scary. I have little exposure to the violence of an inner city neighborhood, little exposure to gang violence, the drug trade, arms trade, etc. Yet, I still know people who could get me nearly any weapon I wanted within a month. Clearly, some sort of background check is needed. But more than that, we need to stem the flow of illegal weapons into (and out of, AG Eric Holder) this country.
User avatar #42 to #21 - Fgner (12/28/2012) [-]
I thought I put this in the OP:

I do believe in regulation of weapons. Just not the ban of them. People should be able to have side arms for self defense, maybe a couple rifles for hunting (not people hunting). But I agree, it's silly to have assault rifles and RPGs and stuff as a civilian. They can't be used for anything but bling and trouble, and the bling ain't worth it of course.
User avatar #22 to #21 - restrict (12/28/2012) [-]
TL;DR

dont call me here
#24 to #22 - comehonorfacetwice (12/28/2012) [-]
Sorry about that. I'll spell it incorrectly next time.
 Friends (0)