| Home | RSS Feeds |
| Funny Pictures | Funny Videos |
| Funny GIFs | YouTube Videos |
| Text/Links | Comic Editor |
| User Rankings | Channels |
| Copyright Removal Request | |
| |
#17
-
punkrockdude (01/22/2013) [-]
No we want the AR-15 to be banned because it can be (and has been) very easily modified into an automatic rifle. If mental cases like the sandy hook shooter can get what they need and figure out how to do it, it just shows how easy it is. Also, the AR-15 is only part of it - the other part is the high cap magazines. Hi cap mags + automatic "assault type" rifle = mass killing. There is no other use
#18 to #17
-
seducedtonothing (01/27/2013) [-] That is bullshit. Any semi-auto weapon can be modified, with the right knowledge, to a fully auto weapon. Not just guns that look evil or scary, you blind ignorant fool. Instead of blindly following what your "friends" and neighbors think, do some fucking research for yourself.
I for one enjoy not having to reload my clip when target shooting/plinking every 10 shots, which I do not even blast through fast. hi-cap mags are merely a convenience for shooters.
If someone wanted to shoot up a school, they'd just bring fifteen 10 round mags instead of five 30 round mags and only take up about the same amount of space. IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE.
I for one enjoy not having to reload my clip when target shooting/plinking every 10 shots, which I do not even blast through fast. hi-cap mags are merely a convenience for shooters.
If someone wanted to shoot up a school, they'd just bring fifteen 10 round mags instead of five 30 round mags and only take up about the same amount of space. IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE.
#19 to #18
-
punkrockdude (01/27/2013) [-]
See as you said it takes the right knowledge to modify them. It just happens to be that the AR-15 is very easy to modify. You are correct in saying that all semi autos can be modified to automatic, and it is my perso al belief that America should ban all semi automatic as well, much like what Canada has done.
As for the high cap magazines, there was one shooting (I can't remember which one) where the only opportunity someone had to stop the shooter is when he was reloading, as it gave a brief moment when he wasn't shooting. The higher the capacity, the more people a shooter can shoot before giving up a chance at stopping
As for the high cap magazines, there was one shooting (I can't remember which one) where the only opportunity someone had to stop the shooter is when he was reloading, as it gave a brief moment when he wasn't shooting. The higher the capacity, the more people a shooter can shoot before giving up a chance at stopping
#29 to #19
-
charagrin (02/16/2013) [-] The problem is even if banning WAS the answer, it is to late. The guns are here, they won't magically disappear because you ask. Canada and select other countries enacted the bans before firearms were saturated in the population, we do not have that here. And on a side note, even with more firearms, America has a lower crime rate then many other first world countries. We absolutely have a higher firearm murder rate, but that is because we have more guns. And countries with more cars have more car crime then countries with less cars.
#30 to #29
-
punkrockdude (02/16/2013) [-]
I do agree that it is extremely late to be bringing these measures in, but Canada only brought our existing restrictions in in the mid 90s. As far as crime rates go, there are a lot of factors that go into them, such as country demographics, gangs, how often crime is actually reported, and even population. It is not, however, related whatso ever to the fact that we have strict gun laws. Our gun laws do have an effect on murder rates, wich, If you look at murder rates, America is higher than most other countries.
#31 to #30
-
charagrin (02/16/2013) [-] That doesn't prove your point. I specifically stated before firearms saturated the population. Canada has never had the gun culture we do, thus they never saturated your population like they have ours. We HAVE the guns, we HAVE the gun culture, and we HAVE the second amendment to back up the claim. Guns won't go away, and I don't want them to. On a side note, the US and Canada have very close murder rates per capita. Canada has a % of 0.0017, and the US has a % of 0.0046. Sounds like a big difference, but we are really only talking about 100,000ths of assorted percentile values.
#33 to #31
-
punkrockdude (02/16/2013) [-]
See the first step is having the legally obtained restricted guns turned in. Then the illegally obtained ones will slowly be confiscated until they ate virtually non existent. I understand that this will take years, possibly decades, to work but it will work eventually. Besides, the point isn't to eliminate all criminal guns - that would be impossible. The point is to make it harder to for the mental cases committing mass shootings to obtain their weapons.
Now on to the second amendment. I have said this many times and everyone always seems to ignore it. Do you really think those that wrote the amendment would approve of the guns available today? Probably not. But if you really think that they would approve of modern weapons, why cant you own a rocket launcher, machine gun, or other already restricted firearms? A rocket launcher doesn't commit acts of terror, terrorists do. Or is that something completely different?
I still am waiting for an answer as to why you need to own high cap assault type rifles
Now on to the second amendment. I have said this many times and everyone always seems to ignore it. Do you really think those that wrote the amendment would approve of the guns available today? Probably not. But if you really think that they would approve of modern weapons, why cant you own a rocket launcher, machine gun, or other already restricted firearms? A rocket launcher doesn't commit acts of terror, terrorists do. Or is that something completely different?
I still am waiting for an answer as to why you need to own high cap assault type rifles
#38 to #36
-
punkrockdude (02/16/2013) [-]
No bit there is really no difference between expressing your opinion in public and on the Internet. There is a huge difference between an AK-47 or AR-15 and a musket. You do know why machine guns (and later assault rifles) were invented, right? To kill more people faster than existing weapons. They weren't meant for hunting or to protect your house from robbers, they were meant for fighting wars
#35 to #33
-
charagrin (02/16/2013) [-] My car gets 390 miles to a tank of gas, I work 10 miles from my home. Should I take my car in and get a low capacity tank because you don't think I need it? If you don't like guns, great. Don't get one, I do like them, and have many. Maybe stop worrying about your neighbors, and start worrying about the United States catch and release legal system that lets these asshats get out to cause harm?
#37 to #35
-
punkrockdude (02/16/2013) [-]
So because something is fun, it should be legal? Great! I've heard rape is pretty fun for the rapist lets legalize it. Meth is fun lets legalize it and put no restrictions on it.
I am perfectly fine with anyone owning these illegal guns being considered criminals. It's no different if they were to raise the legal drinking age from 18 to 21 and now the 18 year olds with booze can be arrested.
I don't see how you can even compare high cap mags to larger had tanks but I'll try my best to continue with it. Larger tanks are a convince to drivers. Larger mags are unnessecary. The only purpose to have a high cap magazine is to kill things faster. I do t think you are going to need to pump 30 rounds into the deer you are hunting.
And yeah, I don't like guns. In fact I'm scared to hell of the fact that you can get an assault rifle with no background check just by going to a gun show. If that makes me a pussy then it's what I am. But that doesn't mean I'm against hunting
I am perfectly fine with anyone owning these illegal guns being considered criminals. It's no different if they were to raise the legal drinking age from 18 to 21 and now the 18 year olds with booze can be arrested.
I don't see how you can even compare high cap mags to larger had tanks but I'll try my best to continue with it. Larger tanks are a convince to drivers. Larger mags are unnessecary. The only purpose to have a high cap magazine is to kill things faster. I do t think you are going to need to pump 30 rounds into the deer you are hunting.
And yeah, I don't like guns. In fact I'm scared to hell of the fact that you can get an assault rifle with no background check just by going to a gun show. If that makes me a pussy then it's what I am. But that doesn't mean I'm against hunting
#40 to #39
-
punkrockdude (02/16/2013) [-]
I love when you get to the point in an arguements when people seem to stop reading English and interpret everything their own way. 1) as I said, criminals aren't the problem. Did James Holmes or Adam lanza have violent priors? Nope they seemed like regular people (if nothing else, a little strange). 2) I never mentioned Walmart or any other retailer. I said GUN SHOWS where people can literally buy a gun and take it home with no need to register or anything. Does that seem right to you? 3) You seem to be ignoring the bulk of my arguements
#41 to #40
-
charagrin (02/16/2013) [-] Both Adam Lanza and Holmes had prior medical history of mental instability. Your own point makes mine, gins aren't the problem, our mental health system and catch and release programs are. I do agree with you on the private sales though. I think background checks should be universal.
#42 to #41
-
punkrockdude (02/16/2013) [-]
Holmes is somewhat of an exception because just by the traps he set in his apartment we know that he would have found a way to get a gun. But Lanza and others probably wouldn't have been able t o commit the level of murder if someone like a family member didn't own one or they couldn't get one as easily as they did
#43 to #42
-
charagrin (02/16/2013) [-] Look up the Oklahoma City Bombing, and think about it. They may not have done it with a gun, or on that date, but if someone wants to do damage it is very easy. I could spend a hour in Home Depot and buy the supplies needed to build a bomb that would do more damage then any nutjob could with a automatic weapon with unlimited ammo. Guns do make it easier to cause harm, they also make it easier to prevent harm. the problem is, where is the cut off point? Who should and who shouldn't have guns? And why? Law Enforcement? The military? Criminals? I agree that there should be some control, but automatically making all guns illegal everywhere would cause more problems then it solves.
#44 to #43
-
punkrockdude (02/16/2013) [-]
Ok so why don't we give every kid over 10 a handgun? Every 18 year old an AK-47? Let people buy rocket launchers and machine guns? That will make everything safe and prevent you paranoid nut jobs from being taken over from your government like you think you will. And it certainly won't cause more problems
Guns do not make it safer or prevent crime or mass shootings. In fact at the shooting of Governor Gifford multiple people that had guns on them (which I don't get in the first place) and said that they weren't comfortable with trying to take our the shooter. I'd be willing to bet that if everyone in the colerado movie theater had a gun when Holmes started firing, there would have been many more casualties. Just imagine, Holmes starts firing. Someone else fires at him. Someone sees this other person firing and fires at him. This repeats until nobody knows who to shoot at. Does that sound like it will work
Guns do not make it safer or prevent crime or mass shootings. In fact at the shooting of Governor Gifford multiple people that had guns on them (which I don't get in the first place) and said that they weren't comfortable with trying to take our the shooter. I'd be willing to bet that if everyone in the colerado movie theater had a gun when Holmes started firing, there would have been many more casualties. Just imagine, Holmes starts firing. Someone else fires at him. Someone sees this other person firing and fires at him. This repeats until nobody knows who to shoot at. Does that sound like it will work
#45 to #44
-
charagrin (02/16/2013) [-] You are taking it to extremes, why? Let's have a nice reasonable discussion. i think adults should be able to drinke booze, doesn't mean I want kid's to drink. I think adults should be able to have cars, don't think coulds should, etc. Don't make it an overblown point by point, mate. And please don't put words in my mouth, I don't think we are gonna "fight dah guv'ment." Guns DO make it safer and prevent mass shootings, because guns in the hands of responsible adults are the obvious bane of crazed gunmen. how many mass shootings have happened in a police precinct? A NRA meeting? A gun show? Mass shootings happen where armed civilians are LEAST likely to be, why do you think that is? . Here, www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2969594/posts
#46 to #45
-
punkrockdude (02/16/2013) [-]
"freerepublic" doesn't sound biased at all. And you know what fuck it. If you ate just going to ignore every good point I make I'm not even going to bother. Keep your lack of gun laws. Get rid of the existing restrictions. But for god's sake keep your shit in your own country. I think it's gotten to the point where I won't feel much sympathy for the next school shooting because if you dont care enough to change anything, why should I?
#34 to #33
-
charagrin (02/16/2013) [-] Wait, so this law will automatically turn hundreds of millions of otherwise law abiding citizens into criminals if they do not turn it in my a certain date, and that is ok with you? And I do not understand the need question. We don't NEED a 50 inch tv, we don't NEED a nice car, we don't NEED a gaming PC, we don't NEED a 3 story house. We want them, at least firearms, like the other objects, serve a practical purpose. I target shoot on a daily basis. Not to hurt anyone, but because it is fun. The very spirit of your post is flawed. We shouldn't have guns because they can hurt people, but bows are ok because they can hurt people a little slower.
#24 to #19
-
N. Korean citizen (02/13/2013) [-]
People can easily find guides to cook crack, make pipe bombs, and make guns out of stuff that is laying around your house at this very moment. If you ban fully automatic (most of which aren't used) and semi automatic (Which EVERY GUN IS), what's left for the gun owners to use? Almost every gun falls under those two categories, and the only bolt-action or pump-action (read: every shot has to be manually loaded) guns are left for law-enforcement. If only law enforcement can use them, then what's stopping them from selling their weapons to criminals? And criminals STILL can get the other guns, there's an underground market for it. That's why gambling is a public affair that is controled by the government. You are saying that we should ban about 60% of all guns that exist in the world, and the largest amount of hanguns are in the united states, all semi-auto, and instead just force ALL THESE GUNS that alot of upset gun owners have underground to the criminals.
In other news, there's a second amendment. It says we're allowed to own a gun. Banning almost all the guns in the country is not going to fix anything.
In other news, there's a second amendment. It says we're allowed to own a gun. Banning almost all the guns in the country is not going to fix anything.
#26 to #24
-
punkrockdude (02/13/2013) [-]
Also, as far as the second amendment goes, 1) do you think you should have the right to own any fire arm you want? Should rocket launchers, submachine guns, fully automatic assault rifles, etc. be available to the public? If not than its infringing on your second amendment
2) if the authors of the second amendment were around today do you think they they would approve of the weapons you can get? Probably not
3) one of the authors of the constitution (can't think of who) said that he thought that the constitution should be reviewed every 20-30 years to see if it is still valid
2) if the authors of the second amendment were around today do you think they they would approve of the weapons you can get? Probably not
3) one of the authors of the constitution (can't think of who) said that he thought that the constitution should be reviewed every 20-30 years to see if it is still valid
#25 to #24
-
punkrockdude (02/13/2013) [-]
I agree that you could make a simple rifle in your backyard, although it would probably end up more like a suicidal pipe bomb, but that's beside the point. Most people cannot make an automatic or semiautomatic gun that functions well on their own. They don't have the knowledge, experience, tools or materials to make one.
As for a near total gun ban, take a look at Canada (where I live). It is very hard to get a handgun (I believe a few are legal), automatic or semiautomatic gun; even harder (and completely illegal). The most that the average person can get is a shotgun and hunting rifle.
>but teh criminals will get your "evil" guns
Sure they will, for a while. But eventually they will get harder and harder to find. Yeah a criminal might be able to get one, but are thieves, rapists, and (for lack of a better word) normal murderers the ones committing the mass shootings? No they are committed by people who seem to be normal law abiding citizens. Again look at Canada for the crime, although we may have a reasonably high crime rate we have a reasonably low gun crime/death rate.
As for a near total gun ban, take a look at Canada (where I live). It is very hard to get a handgun (I believe a few are legal), automatic or semiautomatic gun; even harder (and completely illegal). The most that the average person can get is a shotgun and hunting rifle.
>but teh criminals will get your "evil" guns
Sure they will, for a while. But eventually they will get harder and harder to find. Yeah a criminal might be able to get one, but are thieves, rapists, and (for lack of a better word) normal murderers the ones committing the mass shootings? No they are committed by people who seem to be normal law abiding citizens. Again look at Canada for the crime, although we may have a reasonably high crime rate we have a reasonably low gun crime/death rate.
#20 to #19
-
seducedtonothing (01/28/2013) [-] You think just anyone can modify a semi-auto?
Look at actual crime rates involving firearms.
That's right, the LOWEST percentage involved any kind of rifle at all, the majority were all pistols/handguns. ALSO, there also is not a large majority involving fully automatic weapons, and then you can't even tell what percent of those were modified from Semi-autos. If someone is going to get an ASSAULT RIFLE (which is the intended name for an automatic military style rifle) for these purposes, then it's safe to say they are doing it illegally 90% of the time.
If the first AWB didn't work AT ALL, then WHY WOULD THIS ONE WORK.
You're a bunch of scared pussies who target the "scariest" looking things for the wrong reasons and use tragic situations as ammo to fuel your bat-shit agendas.
Look at actual crime rates involving firearms.
That's right, the LOWEST percentage involved any kind of rifle at all, the majority were all pistols/handguns. ALSO, there also is not a large majority involving fully automatic weapons, and then you can't even tell what percent of those were modified from Semi-autos. If someone is going to get an ASSAULT RIFLE (which is the intended name for an automatic military style rifle) for these purposes, then it's safe to say they are doing it illegally 90% of the time.
If the first AWB didn't work AT ALL, then WHY WOULD THIS ONE WORK.
You're a bunch of scared pussies who target the "scariest" looking things for the wrong reasons and use tragic situations as ammo to fuel your bat-shit agendas.
#21 to #20
-
punkrockdude (01/28/2013) [-]
Look they aren't bringing the ban in to curb all gun violence, sadly at this point it is impossible. They are trying to curb mass shootings that seem to happen twice a week now. Not every person can modify every semi automatic - but again the AR-15 is very easy to do it.
If safety for innocent people is a bat shit crazy agenda, then I'm guilty; but appearently you are perfectly fine with the breach of freedoms that happens every time you go to the airport - oh yeah, that's a republican breach so it's ok
If safety for innocent people is a bat shit crazy agenda, then I'm guilty; but appearently you are perfectly fine with the breach of freedoms that happens every time you go to the airport - oh yeah, that's a republican breach so it's ok
