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 #4 - lordmoldywart (12/18/2012) [-]
Much harder to kill 20 kids with a knife or a baseball bat

No guns, no mass killings
#120 to #4 - durzaa (12/19/2012) [-]
If you know anything about the correct usage of knives in combat,or swords, or any common axe (not hard to learn). You'll find the same thing that can be done with guns can be done with most forms of weapon, you've just gotta try a little bit harder.

Killing a bunch of kids in a school for example, isn't hard to do without a gun. People killed unarmed civilians for centuries before they started using guns.

It's just as illegal to carry a sword as it is a gun, in a close-quarters situation it's not much more difficult to kill with a sword, but it's a hell of a lot more messy. And anyone who's trained or has practiced with a sword can use it with more than enough efficiency to kill.
0
#66 to #13 - defender has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #22 to #13 - lordmoldywart (12/18/2012) [-]
You fail to see that there are other uses for fertilizer, racing fuel and box trucks, we can't impose bans on them

The only use for guns is to harm/kill, that is where the argument in your picture falls on its head
#68 to #22 - defender (12/19/2012) [-]
"No guns, no mass killings"

I just proved it is possible to commit mass killings without a gun so therefor your argument has fallen on its head, what
#152 to #68 - noket (12/19/2012) [-]
your picture makes no sense.. how are calculated the people saved by guns everyday? when guns are used to kill people holding guns? i really don't understand   
   
so almost 1 out of 3 americans, has a gun? and 1 out of 3 is calculated with the whole population, also with kids.. Maybe it would be more accurate that in america there are 85m guns...   
   
So if the shooting were in a gun free zone what's your point? that gun owners don't give a 						****					 about guns free zone?
your picture makes no sense.. how are calculated the people saved by guns everyday? when guns are used to kill people holding guns? i really don't understand

so almost 1 out of 3 americans, has a gun? and 1 out of 3 is calculated with the whole population, also with kids.. Maybe it would be more accurate that in america there are 85m guns...

So if the shooting were in a gun free zone what's your point? that gun owners don't give a **** about guns free zone?
User avatar #573 to #152 - defender (12/20/2012) [-]
how about instead of asking me go to the facebook page and ask the person who made it
#80 to #68 - fragman ONLINE (12/19/2012) [-]
Yeah like a gun free zone was ever going to help.
It's like saying "here, have an AK-47, but please don't bring it to school"...
What would actually help is a law that preventy every lowlife redneck ******* from getting as many guns as he likes.

Sure there would still be bad people wo got ther hands on guns, you'll never prevent that. But check the swiss gun law... In order to buy a weapon (which you can actually do here) you have to apply for a permit, which requires you to be of age, have a clean criminal record and undergo a security check. So everyone who likes to go shoot at a range can still do that as long as he's not a crazy and/or criminal bastard.

Guns in fact don't kill people. But giving every dumbass moron in your country the ability to easily get one is kinda just asking for it...
User avatar #575 to #80 - defender (12/20/2012) [-]
Not sure what you think buying guns is like in the US but when you buy a gun you fill out a form asking certain questions regarding things like are you a felon, are you a citizen, have you been dishonorably discharged from the military, have you ever renounced your citizenship of the US plus other things which I can't recall at the moment then you must be of legal age to buy a gun which varies from state to state, in Alaska it was 18 for long guns and 21 for pistols plus you have to be a resident of the state you plan to buy in. Then they run your info with the FBI and other agencies to make sure you haven't lied on the form, the only time all that fun stuff isn't used is when sold person to person. In summary if they meet all the requirements to get a gun then its not the systems or the gun makers fault they went crazy and killed people same thing goes with cars, alcohol, cancer sticks once it leaves the sellers hands they are not at fault its the owners fault so stop blaming inanimate objects and start blaming the owners
User avatar #30 to #22 - trostell ONLINE (12/18/2012) [-]
So you're saying there's also no reason to not ban swords, knives, bows, arrows, or staves? They were all originally designed for, and in most cases, still are used for, killing other human beings. And the most terrifying mass murderers, the serial killers? They don't typically use guns. Guns are easier to trace than a bow and arrow, or a brick, or a knife. The most prominent serial killers used axes, knifes, blunt instruments, not guns.
User avatar #44 to #30 - lordmoldywart (12/18/2012) [-]
Knives have other uses so it would be impractical to impose a ban on them. In most countries, you're not allowed to carry around swords or bows and arrows in public, I don't know about the US

Some of the most prominent serial killers are prominent because they were able to carry on their killing in silence without being caught because they weren't using weapons as loud as a gun. It doesn't mean guns aren't less dangerous than other, more silent weapons like you suggest
User avatar #47 to #44 - trostell ONLINE (12/18/2012) [-]
And you think some crazed individual hell-bent on a killing spree is going to follow LAWS? There's your problem.
User avatar #50 to #47 - lordmoldywart (12/18/2012) [-]
They do in countries with strict gun laws. Strict gun laws has already been proved to work time and time again. There's your problem
User avatar #51 to #50 - trostell ONLINE (12/19/2012) [-]
Those countries have had time to set up those strict gun laws and enforce them. Not many people at the time even owned guns, they were simply too expensive. Now you can buy a shotgun at Wal-Mart, enforcing those same types of gun laws will not only be gloriously difficult due to the sheer number of firearms out there, but the constitutional right against unreasonable search and seizure (the police MUST have a warrant or verbal permission to enter private property) literally makes nabbing most of the guns impossible.
User avatar #55 to #51 - lordmoldywart (12/19/2012) [-]
Just because many people own guns, doesn't mean the process of passing a bill that bans the possession of guns will be any more difficult
User avatar #56 to #55 - trostell ONLINE (12/19/2012) [-]
I doubt the politicians would survive the violent, bloody coup that occurs shortly after that bill is passed. Also, the bill would be nigh IMPOSSIBLE to enforce.
User avatar #64 to #56 - lordmoldywart (12/19/2012) [-]
Any 'bloody coup' that occurs afterwards would only further prove that those gun-toting rednecks in the US are lunatics who don't deserve to have such lethal force at their fingertips
User avatar #566 to #64 - trostell ONLINE (12/19/2012) [-]
You have your head so far up your own ass all you can see is your own **** coming back at you...it is impossible to carry on a conversation with you because you're literally too narrow-minded to see that what works for you won't work for everyone else, especially when the last time someone tried doing things your way, it started a ******* war.
User avatar #8 to #4 - nonnotitiapono (12/18/2012) [-]
much harder to misspell words with a quill and ink or writing with a syringe of blood

no pencils and pens, no misspelled words.
User avatar #20 to #8 - lordmoldywart (12/18/2012) [-]
Misspelled words aren't on the same scale of importance than people being killed
User avatar #21 to #20 - nonnotitiapono (12/18/2012) [-]
youre one of those ignorant people i hate. you think like making guns illegal will take them off the streets, by your logic we should make dangerous drugs like meth and heroine illegal, i mean, making **** illegal obviously works to remove it from society, right?
User avatar #53 to #21 - lordmoldywart (12/19/2012) [-]
You call me ignorant even when you're the one with facts being shoved in your face, yet you ignore them

You are the definition of ignorant
User avatar #58 to #53 - nonnotitiapono (12/19/2012) [-]
in all retrospect, you're the ignorant one, you look only from the side you support, you lack the reasoning and argumentative skills to look at the opposing sides thoughts and reasons behind them. i can see why you want guns banned, because a little tragedy happened with a few guns caused by some lunatic. you're on a stupid ******* bandwagon that's gonna get nowhere fast. the fact of the matter is that the removal of guns would end in a situation exactly like the prohibition. people are gonna keep getting guns, and police enforcement cant do **** about it. the problem will get out of hand fast and the cause will die as fast as it went up, but that's implying your deadbeat cause even gets as far as to see the day that congress takes a look at your ideas.
#61 to #58 - lordmoldywart (12/19/2012) [-]
My side has facts to back it up, your's is full of gun-toting rednecks waving the American constitution around in the air (acting like a 250 year old piece of paper should hold any significance in your daily lives whatsoever, which it shouldn't, times have changed since the barbaric, uncivilised times of the 18th century)   
   
It is hard to be objective in a situation where one side is so obviously the best option. I'm not going to be objective for the sake of being objective, I'd be half-supporting the side in-which I believe is wrong.   
   
"little tragedy", really? 20 kids dead and you think of it as little? I swear you have social issues.    
   
You yanks need to step out of the 18th century and get a grip, you don't need a gun to protect yourself, 99% of the world's population doesn't need one
My side has facts to back it up, your's is full of gun-toting rednecks waving the American constitution around in the air (acting like a 250 year old piece of paper should hold any significance in your daily lives whatsoever, which it shouldn't, times have changed since the barbaric, uncivilised times of the 18th century)

It is hard to be objective in a situation where one side is so obviously the best option. I'm not going to be objective for the sake of being objective, I'd be half-supporting the side in-which I believe is wrong.

"little tragedy", really? 20 kids dead and you think of it as little? I swear you have social issues.

You yanks need to step out of the 18th century and get a grip, you don't need a gun to protect yourself, 99% of the world's population doesn't need one
User avatar #65 to #61 - nonnotitiapono (12/19/2012) [-]
oh **** yourself. how many people started flipping **** on guns when Columbine happened? that was a real tragedy. with connecticut, they were little, they were young, i admit, it sucks that it happened. but **** happens. the individuals killed in columbine were just kids too. guns are merely a tool in the crimes taken place anywhere a poor choice is involved. its the influence and choice that an individual makes with that tool that chooses the fate in which the weapon is used for. do you think any person raised correctly in a loving home with people who cared and looked out for them would raise a gun at anyone and kill them without reason? no, they wouldnt. banning tools is pointless, changes should be made to how people are raised.
User avatar #69 to #65 - lordmoldywart (12/19/2012) [-]
I've always been anti-gun, it's only stupid, moronic content like this that entices me to speak out on this website

Guns have one purpose, to kill, and are therefore not needed by the public.

People will never be perfect, trying to achieve perfection is impractical and unfeasible. You can better living standards and people's well-being, but there will always be the small minority looking to spoil it for everyone. Even the socially stable people of the world can be pushed over the edge and end up committing horrific acts . Banning the tools is therefore our only option
User avatar #71 to #69 - nonnotitiapono (12/19/2012) [-]
except you don't see it how it is. guns will always be around, one thing will want to kill another, killing and death is nature. no matter what you teach it, and what you do to it, the wolf will always try to kill the rabbit. the cruel reality of life is that everything has a feral side, no matter how far we've come, no matter how many people are on earth, even if there are only two people left on earth, one man is going to want another dead, for one reason or another. what you forget is how the government will have guns and the individuals wont, or atleast a necessary majority wont. what you don't realize is that cops don't have guns to protect the public, they have guns to protect themselves. what if the government goes more corrupt than it is? targeting the individuals, laws against unfair and cruel punishment are removed, the government takes control of everyday life, our liberties are taken away, all theoretically, but it could and would all start with the removal of our right to bear arms and to defend ourselves from said situation. my point is, is that guns are our way of securing our lifestyle, securing the probability that something corrupt doesn't happen, but if it did, the american people can rise against whatever corrupt power were faced with. i see guns as a first and last defense. they are necessary, and under no circumstances should they ever be taken away, they are there to secure our liberties, our rights, and our lifestyle.
User avatar #73 to #71 - lordmoldywart (12/19/2012) [-]
On the contrary, people like you who see the need for guns as a vital one are

The majority of 1st world countries have banned guns and their citizens live life just fine, if not better than what those in the US do

Guns are not needed in modern-day life, we don't live in a dog-eat-dog world anymore
User avatar #74 to #73 - nonnotitiapono (12/19/2012) [-]
and people like you see guns solely as weapons, not as tools for self defense. regardless of what you think it is a dog eat dog world and will always be so.
User avatar #75 to #74 - lordmoldywart (12/19/2012) [-]
We don't have guns in the UK and we get along just fine

All we have are chavs running around with shanks
#81 to #75 - sheathedfang (12/19/2012) [-]
What you seem to fail to realize is that America is, in itself a giant melting pot. We have various cultures living among each other for prosperity. With each culture comes different lifestyles and cultural morals. Whereas honestly how many immigrants do you have in the UK, you are all virtually cut from the same cloth and because of that your laws seem more practical, however in a way they are not. You can not compare to things that are so different and say oh it will work because it worked for us. That can't happen because we aren't the same entity and therefore may not react in the same way as your cultural area. For instance you are mainly targeting red necks? Bravo they are a small percent of our population that doesn't mean you can base all of our misfortunes on how "rednecks" act. Frankly the fact you are arguing with facts on completely different cultural terms is very aggravating, this is the exact reason I like to stay out of conflict of any political nature like this because it's short minded people who think we are all the same so we all react the same to certain scenarios. All in all you can't stop the circle of violence and being a melting pot doesn't help the matter whatsoever the only way to stop violence is to separate entirely to cultural backgrounds and have no influence of other cultures for means of aggravation. And even then, EVEN then people will st ill hate others who are more fortunate unless they are raised differently. That isn't even including the multiple possibilities of mental changes, or changes in someones psyche. Therefore.... stop this nonsense arguing it gets no where fast.
#25 to #21 - trolliban (12/18/2012) [-]
Drugs are not guns.
User avatar #23 to #21 - lordmoldywart (12/18/2012) [-]
October 2012:

8 gun-related crimes in the UK (strict gun laws)
23 gun-related gun crimes in Norway (strict gun laws)
Over 10,000 gun-related crimes in the US (you can buy a rifle/shotgun in Wal-mart)

Go figure, retard
User avatar #31 to #23 - nonnotitiapono (12/18/2012) [-]
huh, Go figure, retard.
User avatar #26 to #23 - nonnotitiapono (12/18/2012) [-]
butthurt much? in the UK with their gun control the police have to go about every day activities with submachine guns, making them illegal doesn't fix the situation, it adds opportunity for organised crime to make more cash, and alot easier since civilians aren't armed.
User avatar #45 to #26 - lordmoldywart (12/18/2012) [-]
I'll make it even more simple for you (if that's even possible)

Gun control = Less gun-related crimes

Looks like you didn't figure the first time, How about a second time?
User avatar #48 to #45 - nonnotitiapono (12/18/2012) [-]
gun control = larger audience attentive to organized crime, a larger audience who supports it, and even more crime to come of it. you think of what scratches the surface, you dont think any deeper. you dont think of the repercussions of actions taken against and for major subjects and trades such as guns. with a ban of guns a large profitable market has its throat cut, weakening an already weak economy. it wont stop, or even slow gun related crimes. acquiring guns illegally is just as easy as getting illegal drugs, sure, they're illegal, but its not gonna do **** to get rid of them in a nation forged by them.
User avatar #52 to #48 - lordmoldywart (12/19/2012) [-]
There isn't more crime to come of it, it's been proven time and time again that strict gun laws STOP gun crime

"a large profitable market" that most countries in the world do not have and get along just fine, the market is of little significance

User avatar #54 to #52 - nonnotitiapono (12/19/2012) [-]
i respect your opinion, but your opinion is wrong. currently theres an underground market for automatic weaponry, is there not? christ, people even buy semi automatic, bolt actions, ******* anything that shoots bullets. but people only purchase from the black market because they cant legally purchase them in the first place, whether its because they lack a permit or they did something stupid when they were young that stops them from getting a permit. with the ban of all guns, anyone and everyone that aims to get a gun and has the initiative to go out and find a dealer can and will get one, it only widens and strengthens the market for weaponry.
User avatar #57 to #54 - lordmoldywart (12/19/2012) [-]
I'm the one with facts to back up my opinion, even though opinion can not be right or wrong, mine is the more credible

There's an underground market for automatic weaponry in every country, yet countries with strict gun laws still have little problem with gun-related crimes. The government is stronger than the underground markets and will always come out the winner when it comes to stopping underground movements

If guns were banned in the US, the underground markets would get more much more business, and be more visible to the authorities as a result, making them easier to stop altogether
User avatar #59 to #57 - nonnotitiapono (12/19/2012) [-]
like i said in my last post, it would end up in a situation EXACTLY like the prohibition. people arent going to give up their guns without a fight, especially when alot of the american public has grown up with them.
User avatar #62 to #59 - lordmoldywart (12/19/2012) [-]
The Police aren't as weak as they were back in the 1920s/30s, in those days, the underground movements had just as much power and influence as the authorities. Today, it's a different story, the gangs of days gone by have long died out and the Mexican cartels of today are scared to cross the border
User avatar #67 to #62 - nonnotitiapono (12/19/2012) [-]
hah, yeah right. the police are just as weak as any individual and have to follow protocols, they're weaker than any random group of idiots with guns who have the initiative to use them. they have to follow those protocols, they HAVE to make decisions they've been taught, else they risk repercussions. all authority fears individuals, they fear the cartels, they fear anyone with a hint of power equal or stronger than they have, which isn't much. no matter what you think, authority has no real authority over individuals, or groups of people. we govern ourselves but decide ourselves to follow government guidelines.
User avatar #70 to #67 - lordmoldywart (12/19/2012) [-]
Yet who is it that is running the country? The government, which controls the police.

If said "random group of idiots" were more powerful than the police don't you think they would've overthrown the government by now? Oh right that's it, the police are more powerful. You put a "random group of idiots" up against a 12-man SWAT team and see who is victorious. The police have little repercussions from their actions, if a policeman shoots a man, all he has to do is claim he thought the man was reaching for a gun, and the policeman gets off scot free.
User avatar #7 to #4 - lolzponies (12/18/2012) [-]
no lunatics with guns = no mass killings
User avatar #19 to #7 - lordmoldywart (12/18/2012) [-]
You don't know who the lunatics are until they do something like this

No guns = No chance of it happening
User avatar #300 to #19 - lolzponies (12/19/2012) [-]
actually
if we had better mental health checks when people bought fire arms some of these things wouldn't happen
I'm not saying it will end them but it will lower the number of them
 Friends (0)