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

hide menu

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Show:   Top Rated Controversial Best Lowest Rated Newest Per page:
Order:
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #283 - GenerationXero (01/06/2013) [-]
Guns don't kill people, people kill people, but the people with guns, can kill a hell of a lot more.
#359 to #283 - anonymous (01/06/2013) [-]
If everybody had a gun, mass shootings would probably not happen often, if it all. Because, if one person decides to start firing on an armed crowd, he won't last long. Who knows, though.
User avatar #537 to #359 - coolcalx (01/07/2013) [-]
..unless he is fed up with life and just wants to go out with a bang (ha, puns).

now what happens? he shoots some people, someone shoots him, and now someone ELSE shoots the guy who shot the shooter, because **** , they all look the same.
User avatar #306 to #283 - iHAXnoobs (01/06/2013) [-]
toasters don't toast toast, toast toast toast.
User avatar #318 to #306 - tehmudkipz (01/06/2013) [-]
You should probably be toasting bread not toast. But, hey, extra crispy.
+1
#281 - Yesitsme has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #276 - danniegurl (01/06/2013) [-]
why is this in stoner humor?
User avatar #271 - turtletroll ONLINE (01/06/2013) [-]
The United Kingdom has one of the lowest rates of gun homicides in the world with 0.07 recorded intentional homicides committed with a firearm per 100,000 inhabitants in 2009 compared to the United States' 3.0 (over 40 times higher) and to Germany's 0.21 (3 times higher)
User avatar #347 to #271 - paintbucket (01/06/2013) [-]
and yet gun crime is higher than before the gun ban.
#302 to #271 - caras (01/06/2013) [-]
They still have an insanely high homicide/crime rates.
User avatar #290 to #271 - cmcghie (01/06/2013) [-]
You need to login to view this link en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_attacks_in_China_(2010%E2%80%932012) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osaka_school_massacre Arson, Stabbing Rampage in Seoul South Korea : 10/20/2008. 6 people dead, 5 from stabbing. 7 others wounded, 4 seriously. An angry man felt people “looked down on him.”

Anti-police stabbing spree in Shanghai, China: 7/2008. 6 Police Officers stabbed to death, 4 wounded. 28 year old man angry at police attacked a police station with a knife.

Akihabara Massacre, Chiyoda City, Tokyo, Japan: 6/8/2008. 7 people killed (3 struck by car, 4 by stabbing), many more injured. Man slammed into a crowd with his car, then jumped out and began stabbing people to death.

18 year old slashes 4 to death in Sitka, Alaska, US: 3/25/2008. 4 people killed. 18 year old (old enough to purchase a rifle over the counter) kills 4 people, related to him, with a 5 inch knife.

Stabbing Spree kills 2, Tsuchiura, Japan: 3/23/2008. 2 killed, 7 wounded. Man “just
wanted to kill anyone.”

Stabbing spree wounds 41, 6 seriously in Berlin Train Station: 5/26/2006. 41 wounded, 6 seriously. Thankfully no one died in this attack, but not for lack of trying on the part of the drunk 16 year old.

4 killed in stabbing spree in London, UK: 9/2004. 4 killed, 2 wounded. Mentally ill man attacks mostly older people.

6 killed over Xbox dispute in Deltona, Florida, US: 8/6/2004. 6 killed. 4 men (all old enough to legally purchase firearms) bludgeon 6 people to death with baseball bats over purloined Xbox.

Daegu subway fire, Daegu, South Korea: 2/18/2003. 198 killed, 147 injured. A 56 year old unemployed taxi driver, dissatisfied with his medical treatment, sets fire to a crowded train.

Osaka School Massacre, Osaka Japan: 6/8/2001. 8 children dead, 13 other children and 2 teachers wounded. Committed by 37 year old former janitor armed with a kitchen knife.

The violent crime rate in the UK is higher than in the US as well.
#368 to #290 - thegamegestapo (01/06/2013) [-]
I hate to be that guy as your argument is well researched enough that you've proven not to be some gun totting moron but according to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime puts the 2012 murder rate at 1.2 for the UK and 4.8 for the US.    
   
That, to me anyway, means that provided your statement that the UK has more violent crime is correct that make violent people more dangerous. However, as the Anon below said, the UK and US are very different societies so it's not really a great example.    
   
After spending longer than I'm proud of comparing levels of murders by countries with similar socio-economic conditions I've concluded that countries with low levels of firearm regulation and countries with high levels were roughly the same with the favour leading slightly towards tighter restrictions (I can't conclude that the laws are the reason though as the difference is usually by a rate of only about one). The only solid conclusion I could make is that countries with moderate levels of gun control had a slightly higher rate of violent crime than the other two. Take from that what you will.   
   
My figures were taken mostly off UNODC website. Sorry I wrote so much.
I hate to be that guy as your argument is well researched enough that you've proven not to be some gun totting moron but according to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime puts the 2012 murder rate at 1.2 for the UK and 4.8 for the US.

That, to me anyway, means that provided your statement that the UK has more violent crime is correct that make violent people more dangerous. However, as the Anon below said, the UK and US are very different societies so it's not really a great example.

After spending longer than I'm proud of comparing levels of murders by countries with similar socio-economic conditions I've concluded that countries with low levels of firearm regulation and countries with high levels were roughly the same with the favour leading slightly towards tighter restrictions (I can't conclude that the laws are the reason though as the difference is usually by a rate of only about one). The only solid conclusion I could make is that countries with moderate levels of gun control had a slightly higher rate of violent crime than the other two. Take from that what you will.

My figures were taken mostly off UNODC website. Sorry I wrote so much.
User avatar #540 to #368 - whaawhaa (01/07/2013) [-]
But the US has almost 5x the population
User avatar #548 to #540 - thegamegestapo (01/07/2013) [-]
That's why the figures have been calculated per capita.
User avatar #559 to #548 - whaawhaa (01/07/2013) [-]
Plus we have a lot of black people and mexicans.
#284 to #271 - anonymous (01/06/2013) [-]
An irrelevant comparison. There are more guns in the US (what with them being legal and all), so obviously there's going to be more gun violence. Compare the actual violent crime (unarmed, knife, bludgeon, gun, whatever else) statistics.
User avatar #259 - schmitty (01/06/2013) [-]
Fake and gay. If you look closely you can see a shock collar on the gun. It's not well behaved, it's just too scared to leave the house for fear of pain.
User avatar #361 to #259 - gingershavetrolls (01/06/2013) [-]
haha i have no ides wtf a schock collar is
#390 to #361 - captnpl ONLINE (01/06/2013) [-]
It is a collar that shocks you. usually if you leave a certain area.
User avatar #255 - ellokitehsixtynine (01/06/2013) [-]
Why is this in stoner-humor?
User avatar #332 to #255 - tehmudkipz (01/06/2013) [-]
Eugene Stoner is associated with the design the AR-15.
#254 - anonymous (01/06/2013) [-]
People have the right to defend themselves if they need to. You can't keep a gun away from individuals who would massacre anyone. Hunting and massacres have nearly no correlation so stop with that crap. UK is a terrible example, its population is smaller and it's a completely different society. Guns are very dangerous (in the wrong hands) and should be handled with extreme RESPECT. The average American needs to be better educated on the subject. I own a gun for my protection, I pray I never have to use it. Limiting/banning guns has no direct effect on violent crimes. I hope to God nothing devastating happens to America where people would have to defend themselves, seems like a lot of people would die out of pure fear that guns are only for killing and not the BEST shield. Lung cancer kills more people in the US then any gun could. Why not get up in arms about smoking? TLDR: Guns aren't bad mmkay?
here's a fun read: theacru.org/acru/harvard_study_gun_control_is_counterproductive/
User avatar #251 - beefs (01/06/2013) [-]
It knew you were watching, they sneak out when they know you're not around.
#403 to #238 - alexusapi (01/06/2013) [-]
a pencils purpose is not to misspell, a cars purpose is not to drive drunk and once a again a spoons purpose is not to make people fat, but a guns purpose is to kill.

User avatar #526 to #403 - revanthewin (01/06/2013) [-]
A pencil is used to stain paper, but it can be used to misspell words. It can also be used to stab someone in the neck with. A car is used to drive, and it can be used to drive drunk. It can also be used to run people over with. A spoon is used to get food to your mouth. It can be used too much and make you fat, and it can be used to scoop someone's eyes out. A firearm is mainly used for either personal defense, hunting, or for shooting targets, but it can be used for killing people.

Just because something can be used in a bad way doesn't mean it should be banned. Countless people are hit by cars every day, but you don't see people crying out to outlaw cars. Why guns then?
User avatar #713 to #526 - elcreepo (01/07/2013) [-]
Driving drunk is illegal. Misspelling something is a mistake that gets erased. Overeating should be illegal.

Guns meant for killing should be illegal. You can keep your hunting rifles and if you kill someone with it, at least it won't be 20 kids in under 5 minutes.
User avatar #720 to #713 - revanthewin (01/07/2013) [-]
Driving drunk is illegal, killing people is illegal.
User avatar #744 to #720 - elcreepo (01/07/2013) [-]
Yes, but tools that kill people are not illegal or even monitored.

If we made it so that a gun can only kill one person, instead of many at once, the lives we could save each year as a nation would be massive.

The mother of the Newtown shooter should not have had those guns in the first place, where her mentally unstable son could easily access.
User avatar #757 to #744 - revanthewin (01/07/2013) [-]
But there's no way to make it to where a gun could only kill one person unless everyone had a gun. The fact that you can fire it more than once quickly is kind of why people use guns instead of bows and arrows.
User avatar #773 to #757 - elcreepo (01/07/2013) [-]
So you're saying that if everyone had a gun, the person with the quickest gun gets the kill?

Your logic makes no sense. There is no need to have an AK-47. Nor do we need to arm and train TODDLERS in gun use, that's just asking for war in middle school.

You keep your hunting rifles and if you're lucky, kill only half a dozen people. You keep your semi and full automatics and kill three times that. This law wouldn't stop criminals, but that doesn't matter considering that if someone wants to kill you bad enough they'll always find a way, even if you're armed to the teeth.

It would stop the woman from Newtown from having the guns which her son then used to kill 20 little kids. It would prevent the two teenage boys from Columbine from getting easy access to guns.
User avatar #776 to #773 - revanthewin (01/07/2013) [-]
Wait, are we arguing the same point now? I'm trying to say that banning all guns wouldn't work. What are you trying to say?
User avatar #788 to #776 - elcreepo (01/07/2013) [-]
Ban guns which are designed only to kill, but allow hunting rifles/ectera that are designed for actual sport (if you can call it that.)

I'm not saying ban all guns either, that would be impossible. I'm just saying limit guns as a preventative measure, like they do with knives.
User avatar #796 to #788 - revanthewin (01/07/2013) [-]
Oh, then I guess I agree with you. People shouldn't need to own anything other than a shotgun, a hunting rifle or a pistol, but guns shouldn't be illegal.
User avatar #543 to #526 - alexusapi (01/07/2013) [-]
an atom bomb can be used as a means to save us from meteorites and other comets but it can also kill people, lets give everybody an atom bomb. nobody would need a firearm to protect themselves from firearms if there were no firearms. but that said, i'm not even against guns. me and my pop go hunting for christmas every year. but i think the US is way too loose with their gun laws, i mean who needs an AK47 to hunt?
User avatar #554 to #543 - revanthewin (01/07/2013) [-]
What if you see six deer and you wanna kill them all? I mean, I don't know about you, but I'm no Lee Harvey Oswald.
User avatar #560 to #554 - alexusapi (01/07/2013) [-]
Ok you win, if i happen to need to kill 6 deer at once, having an AK-47 would be a convenience. because thats a rational and completely valid argument.
User avatar #563 to #560 - revanthewin (01/07/2013) [-]
Or if three bears came at you at once. Are you just gonna try to club the other two after shooting one?
User avatar #575 to #563 - admiralen ONLINE (01/07/2013) [-]
.44 magnum friendo, six bullets with enough force to kill the bear
User avatar #581 to #575 - revanthewin (01/07/2013) [-]
But then what if there's seven?
User avatar #586 to #581 - admiralen ONLINE (01/07/2013) [-]
thats why you own two
User avatar #590 to #586 - revanthewin (01/07/2013) [-]
But what if there's fifteen?
User avatar #595 to #590 - admiralen ONLINE (01/07/2013) [-]
thats why you learned to wrestle bears in highschool
User avatar #601 to #595 - revanthewin (01/07/2013) [-]
But admiralen,...What if the last one's horny?!
#611 to #608 - revanthewin (01/07/2013) [-]
But what if it's a girl?!?!?!?!?!?
But what if it's a girl?!?!?!?!?!?
#619 to #611 - admiralen ONLINE (01/07/2013) [-]
call roman and he´ll bowl with it
#759 to #619 - revanthewin (01/07/2013) [-]
Wow, someone came through and thumbed down every one of my comments. I feel honored.
#622 to #619 - revanthewin (01/07/2013) [-]
But what if Roman wins and the bear get's pissed off?!
User avatar #780 to #622 - admiralen ONLINE (01/07/2013) [-]
then roman shoots it down with his uzi since hes an outlaw and its no longer your problem
User avatar #785 to #780 - revanthewin (01/07/2013) [-]
But now he has an illegal weapon!
User avatar #898 to #785 - admiralen ONLINE (01/07/2013) [-]
but its ok since roman is a criminal anyway
User avatar #440 to #403 - ojallday (01/06/2013) [-]
yes, true but you can use literally anything to kill any one
#466 to #440 - alexusapi (01/06/2013) [-]
ok let's have a 1v1 fight, you get a toothpick and i get an AR-15 :)
ok let's have a 1v1 fight, you get a toothpick and i get an AR-15 :)
#478 to #466 - ojallday (01/06/2013) [-]
Okey... ill wait till you're asleep then i'll tie you down and beat you too death. then ill go to Mcdonalds and get an egg mcmuffin.
Okey... ill wait till you're asleep then i'll tie you down and beat you too death. then ill go to Mcdonalds and get an egg mcmuffin.
#484 to #478 - alexusapi (01/06/2013) [-]
Awww man, we here in iceland lost our mcdonalds some years ago, not like a ridiculous loss but still, when you don't have it you miss it :P
Awww man, we here in iceland lost our mcdonalds some years ago, not like a ridiculous loss but still, when you don't have it you miss it :P
#515 to #484 - ojallday (01/06/2013) [-]
... what do you have?
User avatar #529 to #515 - alexusapi (01/06/2013) [-]
Well my favorite is probably subway, but we have dominos,pizza hut, tgi fridays, american style, kfc and probably some more i cant remember. so it's not like our situation is bad :P
#538 to #529 - ojallday (01/07/2013) [-]
what is American Style?
what is American Style?
#549 to #538 - alexusapi (01/07/2013) [-]
i just realized it isnt xD here is the website You need to login to view this link
#584 to #549 - ojallday (01/07/2013) [-]
yaaaaaaa... thats not in english soo i dont think i can navigate that. does it say where the company is based?
#600 to #584 - alexusapi (01/07/2013) [-]
nevermind, it's icelandic, just a very misleading name and theme.
User avatar #546 to #538 - alexusapi (01/07/2013) [-]
a restraunt very much like T.G.I Fridays. i thought that came from america :P
#555 to #546 - ojallday (01/07/2013) [-]
nope never herd of it unless its from the north. those ******* are wierd
#253 to #238 - miaandvinny (01/06/2013) [-]
And bombs blow people up.
User avatar #235 - ednakrababbal (01/06/2013) [-]
i always thought if people say "guns kill people" they were talking about how some retards accidentally shoot people because they don't know how to safely use guns. i know most gun users are responsible people, but keep in mind that there are lives at stake if they're not.
User avatar #230 - blahness (01/06/2013) [-]
this post is absolutely ******* retarded. so is op.
nuclear bombs don't go anywhere. nor do they kill people. that means nuclear bombs are perfectly safe for society and everybody should own one.
so are bombs.
makes no sense at all.
User avatar #349 to #230 - DasSpiel (01/06/2013) [-]
You can safely use firearms.

You can't safely use nuclear devices.
#532 to #349 - coolcalx (01/07/2013) [-]
I'm sorry, what?
User avatar #892 to #532 - DasSpiel (01/07/2013) [-]
I meant bombs and you know it.
Way to exploit my change in terminology.
User avatar #912 to #892 - coolcalx (01/07/2013) [-]
they use the exact same process, bub
#313 to #230 - mytrakytra (01/06/2013) [-]
This image has expired
A nuclear bomb can give off hazardous amounts of radiation that can lead to sickness and death.
User avatar #448 to #313 - waaw (01/06/2013) [-]
Not really. There's relatively little actual radioactive material in it. The only way to be seriously harmed would be to live with it in your house for a very long time
User avatar #324 to #313 - blahness (01/06/2013) [-]
which is why they're kept in silos, where they pose no harm to the people
see, perfectly safe
#262 to #230 - anonymous (01/06/2013) [-]
Implying nukes and guns are similar. \
#268 to #262 - sexuality (01/06/2013) [-]
literally three posts or so above us we see a parody Twitter account comparing guns to spoons, pencils, and cars. But we aren't allowed to compare them to other objects that share the sole purpose of killing things?
User avatar #263 to #262 - blahness (01/06/2013) [-]
implying i wasn't criticizing the post
#241 to #230 - happyfaceninja (01/06/2013) [-]
I see no problem with people owning bombs, if only we could trust people to not blow the **** out of other people. But we can't, now can we?
#226 - thatotherchild (01/06/2013) [-]
552nd thumb division
User avatar #223 - blahness (01/06/2013) [-]
apart from hunting, what is a gun meant to do, other than kill people?
you pro-gun people can deny all you want, but guns are a TOOL for KILLING people. period.
therefore that makes it dangerous.
and then you might say "second amendment bitch"
but people who say that obviously don't know anything about how these things SHOULD work. the constitution was signed ******* over 200 years ago. there is absolutely no way that everything is still relevant today. It's like saying a law made in the medieval times should still be in place today because thats history and heritage or some other ******** . they signed the constitution at a time where there was unrest and the government was just formed. nothing like today.
User avatar #329 to #223 - paintbucket (01/06/2013) [-]
well, i could kill an intruder with a bat
but that's not easy or efficient.
+3
#315 to #223 - elgringogordo **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#297 to #223 - anonymous (01/06/2013) [-]
So are the javelin and the bow. Both of those were created as weapons to kill both animals and humans, but you aren't stopping the track-and-fielders from throwing their javelins or stopping America's Olympic archery team from practicing with their bows... That said, AR-15's are a widely used sports rifle. People shoot for FUN. At TARGETS. There are a HUGE number of gun-based sporting events; shooting is a SPORT. Just like chucking a javelin or letting loose some arrows... People like you are so ******* retarded, it's amazing.

What about martial arts and wrestling? I think people should stop practicing those sports because they encourage kicking the **** out of their fellow man (and in some cases killing them); we should only allow people to practice nice sports. I propose we start a new sport based around hugging.

And the second amendment was designed and implemented so that people could (a) overthrow the government (be on level terms with the military) if the people decided that needed to happen and (b) help defend the country if necessary; the second amendment was actually a key factor in deterring the Japanese from invading the Continental US during WWII, as the vast number of armed civilians would have made victory on land nearly, if not totally, impossible.

Gun should be regulated better, tracked better; background checks are important. But ANY American (that has a clear record and a saftey course in dealing with the weapon class) should be able to purcase any weapon, wether it is a muzzleloader or a fully automatic assault weapon. Guns don't kill, unstable people with guns kill (and soldiers, but that's combat).
User avatar #261 to #223 - wtfisthesun (01/06/2013) [-]
I mean. i like to shoot at targets every now and again. There are also people who do it for sporting events. Also, guns arent the only dangerous things in the world. There are bows, cars, knives, lamps, bricks, swords, plastic bags, nails, 2x4's, water, hammers, pickaxes. i think you see where im going with this. most of them only have a few uses and can be a tool for killing people.
User avatar #273 to #261 - blahness (01/06/2013) [-]
mind you, guns were invented with killing people as the primary objective.
Bows were made for hunting
cars were made for travel
knives were tools to make life easier
lamps are for lighting, which is necessary in life
bricks are the foundation of housing
swords, yes killing, but it has been since replaced by guns, since guns kill people more efficienty.
plastic bags were designed to hold stuff, not to kill people.
the point is, these tools were designed as such. to be tools. guns were designed for killing.
User avatar #249 to #223 - The Last Templar (01/06/2013) [-]
Target shooting and self defense. The right to defend yourself is no less relevant now than it was 200 years ago.
User avatar #257 to #249 - blahness (01/06/2013) [-]
the constitution wasn't signed with self defense in mind
think about it. who in their right minds would say : "Hey, lets let the people defend themselves from guns, by giving everyone guns!"
#663 to #257 - kumiuchi (01/07/2013) [-]
I think it absolutely WAS signed with self-defense in mind.
0
#321 to #257 - elgringogordo **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#272 to #257 - anonymous (01/06/2013) [-]
The constitution was signed with the idea that the people of the U.S. could defend themselves against their own government if it ever came to that. As the military becomes more advanced and evolve so do the weapons that the people have. This is a very watered down explanation.
#266 to #257 - anonymous (01/06/2013) [-]
You make it sound like criminals can still not acquire guns, if people didn't have guns to defend themselves, how would people with them be stopped?
User avatar #245 to #223 - roliga (01/06/2013) [-]
Tool for killing people? How about a tool for home defense?
#227 to #223 - anonymous (01/06/2013) [-]
So what do you think we should do? Take away all of the guns?
User avatar #232 to #227 - blahness (01/06/2013) [-]
lol, as if gun control could do anything in the U.S. now
its way too late for that.
#236 to #232 - anonymous (01/06/2013) [-]
And even if you were to get rid of guns, people would still resort to knives.
User avatar #243 to #236 - Ehwhat ONLINE (01/06/2013) [-]
Let's take away the people and let the guns and knifes live in peace.
0
#343 to #243 - elgringogordo **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#328 to #243 - anonymous (01/06/2013) [-]
Made me laugh, so I did math for you. :)
User avatar #240 to #236 - blahness (01/06/2013) [-]
knives
melee range
much less of a threat
#247 to #240 - anonymous (01/06/2013) [-]
In china, some guy went on a slashing spree in a school and killed 27 kids...
#252 to #247 - miaandvinny (01/06/2013) [-]
How many of thsoe kids died?
User avatar #291 to #252 - thecurlysage (01/06/2013) [-]
"killed 27 kids..." i'll let you figure out the rest
#295 to #291 - miaandvinny (01/06/2013) [-]
If they were talking about the recent one, I don't believe even 1 of those kids died.
User avatar #248 to #247 - blahness (01/06/2013) [-]
actually, none of those kids died.
and knives at least gives the possibility of actually running away. with guns that chance is so much smaller
User avatar #354 to #248 - thenukecity (01/06/2013) [-]
Implying it is impossible to throw a knife or for a person to run faster than you.
#921 to #354 - miaandvinny (01/07/2013) [-]
But you would have more of a chance. Bullets tend to be more accurate and are much faster.
User avatar #932 to #921 - thenukecity (01/08/2013) [-]
Well there is that.
#211 - anonymous (01/06/2013) [-]
You americans can talk about guns while I eat this kinder egg.
#231 to #211 - happyfaceninja (01/06/2013) [-]
**** YOU! ********************* . You are an evil ******* bastard anon. Just stop reminding us of what we don't have! I'm gonna have to go out and run 300 rounds through my M1 Carbine to make myself feel better.
0
#214 to #211 - nigalthornberry has deleted their comment [-]
#209 - iwee (01/06/2013) [-]
I think that guns make it a lot easier to kill people in general, you kinda just point and click, with knives, rocks, hands or pencils it's a lot harder. which is why I think that the wrong people shouldn't be allowed to have guns. I'm not anti gun however. but I've almost never been in contact with any guns. keep safe guys and good luck out there in this semi horrible world.

pic semi related, think about what would happen if they didn't have access to guns.
And had to attack their fellow students with axes or knives or whatever.
rubber bands? flicking nail clippings? spitting in their general direction?
0
#336 to #209 - elgringogordo **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #730 to #336 - elcreepo (01/07/2013) [-]
I think we did something once, in the 60s or perhaps 50s, where the biggest heroin bust of all time was found in New York. We discovered France was smuggling heroin and cocaine into America and immediately barred them of all trade with the US until they got their **** together. Perhaps we can do the same thing with guns, just to keep it from the hands of responsible citizens that MIGHT give birth to a psychopath?

Democrats have a tendency to ignore those pro-rape conservatives who just kinda scream a lot about nothing.
0
#904 to #730 - elgringogordo **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #919 to #904 - elcreepo (01/07/2013) [-]
We find 100 guns clearly smuggled from Puerto Rico.

Kind of hard to talk your way around that.
#334 to #209 - anonymous (01/06/2013) [-]
Funny thing about that is that they obtained the guns illegally, since
they were minors. Also proving that banning firearms, drugs, alcohol and tobacco
won't stop people from obtaining and using them.
User avatar #205 - trollofhalo (01/06/2013) [-]
Gun Control.
User avatar #204 - eaglEEE (01/06/2013) [-]
******* Americans, just because you bought a gun and you go to the shooting range with it once in a while doesn't mean you should support it NO MATTER WHAT HAPPENS.... seriously, you people don't give 2 ***** about anyone's security, do you?
#239 to #204 - sonewitsfunny (01/06/2013) [-]
this is going to get a lot of hate and im sorry but us Americans have been concerned with the security of the world for quite a long time now, we arent always the most progressive or open to different ways of thinking, but I'd say that based on all the **** you could make fun of us for "not caring" is probably last on that list, I mean doesn't the rest of the world always complain about us trying to get into their business?
User avatar #905 to #239 - eaglEEE (01/07/2013) [-]
The fact is, a lot of you would rather keep your guns than ban them and improve security of everyone in your country (including your friends and family)
#217 to #204 - anonymous (01/06/2013) [-]
go die in a hole
User avatar #202 - vladhellsing (01/06/2013) [-]
Great, now try that on a sidewalk.
#213 to #202 - anonymous (01/06/2013) [-]
Same result. The gun wouldn't do anything. It wouldn't load itself and shoot someone. It would sit there.
User avatar #229 to #213 - vladhellsing (01/06/2013) [-]
I'm still sure it would run away though.
#188 - anonymous (01/06/2013) [-]
I call "FAKE!" You obviously photo-shopped all the blood and carnage that scary weapon caused when it was set loose like that.
 Friends (0)