Home Funny Pictures YouTube Funny Videos Funny GIFs Text/Links Channels Search
Show:   Top Rated Controversial Best Lowest Rated Newest Per page:
Order:

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Anonymous commenting is allowed
#143 - fooyou (01/04/2013) [-]
I think he controlled that gun excellently.

Bu in the terms of the government dumb **** , I beleive there's no fixing the issue. I own no firearms (yet), however, when I do I intend to put safeties in the way.

More often than not, these psychos Have either illegally bought or stolen a firearms and ammo to do their evil deeds. No amount of gun control to going to prevent that from happening. None, at all. However, for those of us that do and will buy firearms through a legal process, there are multiple safeties that can be followed that my family have used for generations.

The most common in my family being safes. My grandfather has over a dozen firearms in a single gun safe that weighs over half a ton on its own. Another hundred or so pounds in firearms and ammo. My father and i both have much smaller safes, only large enough to hold a pistol. But he has a second safety in use that I plan to use as well.

Both his pistols and rifles all in a locked case (rifle case, safe, lockbox, whatever) as well as a lock that fits through the magazine space and the chamber of all firearms. This lock prevents a magazine from being fed into the firearms, and any single rounds from beind put into the chamber, and the firing pin is too far to meet any round, and forces the chamber permanently open.

I beleive all these gun control laws and restrictions are ridiculous. Instead, impose more gun safety laws. Require all firearms to have at a minimum, the magazine/chamber lock. attach the key for those locks to your car keys and youll never lose them, and a second key hidden ina place of your liking (like a fake wall outlet that is really a small hidden safe). so there
+3
#149 to #143 - keggut **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#155 to #149 - fooyou (01/04/2013) [-]
I figured this was a post mostly geared towards the U.S. But since you asked (and his is all completelu circumstantial, every country will be different) If what theyve got going works, keep it up. Like the guy from Sweden said. If few people own a firearm, and there isn't much of a problem, then keep up with the laws you have set. If you have many guns and theres is a lack of firearm related crimes, you should run the worlds gun laws haha.

But, also like the guy stated, Most of America owns a firearm of some type. If you continue making it harder and harder to get a firearm, or even breath of taking firearms away at all, the military should probably be on a constant stand by. Eventually, the limit will be found, and while the civilians with firearms have little training, they far outnumber the military and law enforcement.

Side tracked a bit. The point is, if what you've got works, dont change it. If what youve got doesnt work, study the reason as to why and fix it. Don't just assume guns are the problem and make them impossible to have, cause there will always be another method of getting a firearm.
0
#158 to #155 - keggut **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#161 to #158 - fooyou (01/04/2013) [-]
Which means that what we're doing isn't working. I never said that nothing should be done about the issue. I simply see this constantly flying around government and they have repeatedly gone immediately to more stricter control laws. Obviously stricter control laws arent working. I beleive stricter safety laws should be put in place instead of control laws.
User avatar #141 - zakaizer (01/04/2013) [-]
I have no opinion, as Britain won't have guns... Ever. (Minus the occasional crazy farmer down the road with a shotgun)
#137 - Nameloc (01/04/2013) [-]
It all depends.   
   
In most cases if someone has a gun they most likely aren't willing to use it.   
For instance, during a robbery, the last thing they would want would be to kill someone. They just want the money and to leave.   
   
Now if it were a psychopath looking to gun down innocent people, that's a different story...   
   
Although what's shown above is a good representation of the mugger not wanting to kill. It isn't an intention of his. He's simply trying to pull a bluff. Which is why it was so easy for the unarmed man to eliminate the threat.   
   
Now if you're defending yourself, you better not be in the bluff state. You HAVE to be willing to use it. Whether it's to incapacitate the foe or kill out of self defense.
It all depends.

In most cases if someone has a gun they most likely aren't willing to use it.
For instance, during a robbery, the last thing they would want would be to kill someone. They just want the money and to leave.

Now if it were a psychopath looking to gun down innocent people, that's a different story...

Although what's shown above is a good representation of the mugger not wanting to kill. It isn't an intention of his. He's simply trying to pull a bluff. Which is why it was so easy for the unarmed man to eliminate the threat.

Now if you're defending yourself, you better not be in the bluff state. You HAVE to be willing to use it. Whether it's to incapacitate the foe or kill out of self defense.
#146 to #137 - anonymous (01/04/2013) [-]
Lol I dont think you know many people who own a gun if you think that 2nd sentence is true.
User avatar #228 to #146 - Nameloc (01/04/2013) [-]
I was talking about in Public scenarios when they are meaning to use the weapon as an advantage against everyone else to do whatever they want.
(Basically, anyone who thinks they can simply rob a bank, wave a gun to intimidate you, ect.)

I'm sure most people are more than willing to fire to save their life; Not for a few hundred dollars if it isn't necessary.

Also, #220 gives a valid point.
User avatar #220 to #146 - serotonin (01/04/2013) [-]
Humans by nature are not ********* . USA army did research after ww2 and they found out that about 80% of shots fired in front lines were not aimed to kill. Soldiers were just shooting around because they had to and it kept enemy away. After that research army gathered small ....well army, of psychologists to create training method to bypass this instinct.

Majority of people are extremely reluctant when it comes to taking someones life
User avatar #136 - wilddittoappears ONLINE (01/04/2013) [-]
I like how the guy with the black jacket doesn't even give a **** about what happens next to him.
#133 - nadastress (01/04/2013) [-]
To be honest, I'm kinda split on this topic and for the following reasons, "bear" with me:

In countries like Sweden that have strict gun laws I see it as a good thing because most people don't own one and it would be idiotic to sell them and letting more people having them, with risk to sell guns to the wrong kinda person and rather seek out for the illegal guns (not so many) and ********** them.

But in the situation like USA is in, where a huge amount of citizens already own a gun and the illegal ones are many as well. I see it more as a defensive strategy to own one. I know I would have one in the states, but not here in Sweden because it's not as necessary.

Well that's my two cents anyway...
User avatar #140 to #133 - richardastley (01/04/2013) [-]
I feel like on an individual basis, it's incredibly advantageous to have a gun, but collectively, it would be better if only people who need guns (hunters and cops for example) had them. Of course, when it comes to a lot of pro-gun Americans (though not all of them), the self is far more important than the collective and nobody is willing to make sacrifices. I understand that too because some people actually fear for their lives.

It reminds me of the problem with pollution. It might be more convenient to just throw a piece of garbage on the ground (owning a gun), and it won't really have a huge effect. However, if everyone does it, it kind of becomes contagious and people collectively suffer. The difference between the situations is that gun presence can be part of a more immediate death.
#144 to #140 - warriortnt (01/04/2013) [-]
You forgot criminals, hunters cops and criminals.
User avatar #152 to #144 - richardastley (01/04/2013) [-]
I don't think policy would allow for criminals to have guns. That would happen illegally unless a cop, hunter, or whoever actually needs a gun becomes a criminal.
#135 to #133 - anonymous (01/04/2013) [-]
Heijsan,

Tuning in from Finland, and I fully agree with you. We sort of have the same thing goign on here, hunters being an exception. Otherwise it is very difficult to get a hundgun, and an automatic rifle is right out, thank goodness. However we are a freaking small country and most crazy people are registered somewhere, and all of the gun owners are known, and the USA is like 300,000,000 people, so all kinds of things can happen.
#132 - majorkilljoy (01/04/2013) [-]
The real question is what is your policy on chair control? They can really hurt people.

Never bring a gun to a chair fight.
#131 - fukluvmakesammichs (01/04/2013) [-]
honestly i am incredibly anit guns. i dont believe anyone should have them.
but at the same time i think that nobodies view is more important than anyone elses, even mine.
in america the right to bear arms is part of life, its in the constitution, and for this reason i dont believe you should ban them. they should be more controlled, but not banned.
in short; as long as you having guns doesnt effect anyone else for the worse it is your decision and it is not down to anyone else to judge.
#145 to #131 - BunnyStew (01/04/2013) [-]
I'm extremely pro-gun, and I think that if every anti-gun person was like you, we'd actually be able to come to a compromise, instead of endlessly bickering back and fourth. You're alright, man.   
 Have a HoneyBooBoo gif  :)
I'm extremely pro-gun, and I think that if every anti-gun person was like you, we'd actually be able to come to a compromise, instead of endlessly bickering back and fourth. You're alright, man.
Have a HoneyBooBoo gif :)
#281 to #145 - fukluvmakesammichs (01/04/2013) [-]
the key to any species is individualism, its what makes the species strong, and in my view we have evolved to the point that opinions also shape this. we cant bicker about what is right because what is right for some is never right for all, we just have to learn to live with each others differences and respect them. i may not share your opinion, but i see the strength in the difference of opinion. its as simple as that.
and your comment seems to put all the blame on those who are anti gun, sorry but that strikes me as ignorant.
also sorry but i dont have any gifs, will a random background suffice?
User avatar #130 - profesoreoak (01/04/2013) [-]
i believe that bullets should cost 5000 dollars so every one would be like i would kill you if i could afford it.jpg
0
#129 - garagesale **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#128 - graphenz (01/04/2013) [-]
After discussing this with a couple of people over the time I've been on FJ I absolutely loathe that question.
User avatar #123 - iammeto (01/04/2013) [-]
i love this guy :D
#122 - EmulateSnes ONLINE (01/04/2013) [-]
This image has expired
Honestly to me he was probably just looking for easy money, too much of a bitch to honestly work he tried to bully someone with a gun as to take an easy way out. However when push comes to shove he was too much of a coward to kill someone over cash, or just honestly figured out it was not worth spending the rest of his life in jail for a few bucks.
#120 - anonymous (01/04/2013) [-]
obv it was fake or he didnt have any ammo or was too intimidated
#119 - shazain (01/04/2013) [-]
Black man stopping a ****** .
User avatar #117 - celestiasbeard (01/04/2013) [-]
You can almost hear him say "Ah hell nah"
#113 - anonymous (01/04/2013) [-]
This is a betting shop in England. The man's name was Martin RIchardson. Therefore any attempt to use this to support/argue against gun control in America is a bit pointless.
#111 - anonymous (01/04/2013) [-]
thats a sexual reference
#108 - goodguydavid (01/04/2013) [-]
**** gun control...
Somebody get rid of those ******* chairs.
#107 - danimer ONLINE (01/04/2013) [-]
**danimer rolled a random image posted in comment #141 at Perhaps.... ** Gunman's face when the chair first hits him
User avatar #103 - ifuckbabies **User deleted account** (01/04/2013) [-]
Welp...
I guess Americans have to ban chairs now.
#125 to #103 - anonymous (01/04/2013) [-]
this happened in England, you dumb **** .
User avatar #134 to #125 - ifuckbabies **User deleted account** (01/04/2013) [-]
I love you too!
User avatar #124 to #103 - thebukman (01/04/2013) [-]
No. They'll just get more people to carry chairs, to protect others from chairs.
User avatar #127 to #124 - whitcher (01/04/2013) [-]
Everyone should have chairs!
 Friends (0)