Upload
Login or register
Anonymous comments allowed.
#105 - alucord
Reply +5
(01/13/2013) [-]
Go ahead, Ban guns.





I like a challenge
#32 - RonaldRegan
Reply +5
(01/12/2013) [-]
i wouldnt think that FJ was so radically Anti-Gun.. you know.. 10 yr olds who play call of duty usually think guns are awesomecoolneatbro..
#282 - urgnnahaveabadtime
Reply 0
(01/13/2013) [-]
I find it funny how pro-gun americans keep hammering on the fact that people kill people, and not guns. Yet guns are obviously alot more dangerous than knifes etc. since victims don't have a chance to defend themselves.    
   
without guns people have a bigger chance of survival
I find it funny how pro-gun americans keep hammering on the fact that people kill people, and not guns. Yet guns are obviously alot more dangerous than knifes etc. since victims don't have a chance to defend themselves.

without guns people have a bigger chance of survival
#288 to #282 - anon
Reply 0
(01/13/2013) [-]
Yeah sure, til someone comes along with a gun. Do you really think guns would magically be gone with more restrictions?
#290 to #288 - urgnnahaveabadtime
Reply -1
(01/13/2013) [-]
I think there'd be less. yes
#299 to #290 - Antonkr
Reply 0
(01/13/2013) [-]
Good luck eliminating 300 million guns in the entire ******* nation, dumb ****.
#304 to #299 - urgnnahaveabadtime
Reply -1
(01/13/2013) [-]
there is no reason to make more, nothing good comes out of it
#302 to #299 - urgnnahaveabadtime
Reply -1
(01/13/2013) [-]
Im not saying they'd all be gone..
If you stop distributing them, ofcourse the incidents will go down, its freakin math
#307 to #302 - Antonkr
Reply +3
(01/13/2013) [-]
>nothing good comes out of it
Except for you know women protecting themselves from rape.
Are you saying that the jews shouldn't have been allowed to own guns to protect themselves from Nazis?
Stats are stats.
#310 to #307 - urgnnahaveabadtime
Reply -2
(01/13/2013) [-]
So you are saying that there are more cases of women protecting themselves from rape, than cases of criminials killing people with guns?
#314 to #310 - Antonkr
Reply -1
(01/13/2013) [-]
I am saying there would be more cases of women not being able to protect themselves against rapers with now knives (or illegally obtained or made guns).

gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/6.1/gun_facts_6_1_press.pdf
Educate yourself.
#316 to #314 - Antonkr
Reply 0
(01/13/2013) [-]
Going to sleep and not responding to any further arguments until you read that PDF.
You don't know **** about guns, therefore you shouldn't talk **** about guns. ******* ********* these days.
#339 to #316 - urgnnahaveabadtime
Reply 0
(01/13/2013) [-]
>Women protecting themselves with guns is a good thing.
The point im trying to make is that guns do in fact kill people, and it is harder to kill a person without a gun.

I'm not saying we can magically get rid of all guns.
#525 to #339 - Antonkr
Reply 0
(01/13/2013) [-]
are you saying that women shouldn't be able to kill their attacker with a gun?
Are you saying that the Jews that died during the holocaust should have not had a gun either?

If it's not guns it's swords and knives.

And yes you are ******* saying that we can magically get rid of all guns. This is what you implied in your first post.
#527 to #525 - urgnnahaveabadtime
Reply 0
(01/13/2013) [-]
Swords and knives are far less dangerous than guns.

And no, I was implying guns are bad, not that we can magically get rid of them.
#309 to #282 - chiefrunnyjeans
Reply 0
(01/13/2013) [-]
No ****. Criminals, not the innocent, have a greater chance of survival without guns. Victims have the choice not to be victims if they also have a gun. Also because we have more guns our violent crime rate is lower compared to the rest of the world and has been on a constant decline. I think it's funny how anti-gun people have a complete disregard for statistics and logic. More guns=less crime and less innocent deaths in all cases
#363 to #309 - anon
Reply 0
(01/13/2013) [-]
Your "statistics" are ********. Our crime rates are far higher than countries with stricter gun laws. Maybe you should check your facts before saying people "have a complete disregard for statics and logic". Moron.
#530 to #363 - chiefrunnyjeans
Reply 0
(01/13/2013) [-]
My statistics are from the FBI. I don't know where your getting your statistics but they are definitely flawed. Our crime rates are at historic lows. Our homicide rate is the lowest it's been since the 1950's and gun ownership has increased tenfold along with population. If you had actually looked at the statistics you would see that guns decrease crime rate. You sir are the moron.
#359 to #309 - anon
Reply 0
(01/13/2013) [-]
The fact of the matter is that you're putting other people at danger simply because you're paranoid. Yes, you can defend yourself, but what most people overlook is the fact that the majority of murder cases occur in the heat of the moment, and are targeted against someone somebody knows, not simply a random person. With stricter gun regulations, sure you won't be able to have a lethal weapon to defend yourself, but you won't need to because the people you know (who are the most likely to shoot you) wouldn't have them easier. Now, before you make the argument that "if people want guns they'll get them, black market blah blah blah", this doesn't truly work, as the majority of people who do these shootings get the guns from someone they know (which they wouldn't be able to if stricter gun regulations were put in place) and would be forced to think over their decision, and would result in a large decline in assaults with guns. Now, next time you're fighting for your right to have killing machines, just know that you're putting other people in danger, and are indirectly responsible for the majority of deaths by guns.
#531 to #359 - chiefrunnyjeans
Reply 0
(01/13/2013) [-]
I am not paranoid, I'm just not stupid like you. No **** guns are killing machines. So are cars and they are much more effective. According to your flawed logic no one should have a car either. You also seem to be completely ignoring the fact that in populations with strict gun control crimes are still committed all the time with banned guns and the crime rate, especially in russia and the uk is insanely high. You also seem to not understand why we have guns in the first place. We not only have the right to have guns and defend ourselves, but to keep a check on the government and to defend against tyranny. You need to have equivalent arms to the military in order to keep a check on them, that's how democracy works and that's why we are the most free nation on the planet. Not enough people are armed in other nations like korea and china so they have no rights and are treated horribly. You are right about one thing. I am putting the lives of people in danger. The lives of violent criminals. And any other arguments you have, the second amendment invalidates them.
#351 to #309 - urgnnahaveabadtime
Reply 0
(01/13/2013) [-]
Also because we have more guns our violent crime rate is lower compared to the rest of the world and has been on a constant decline.

I refuse to believe that.
Even if it were true, wouldnt it be better if there were NO guns at all? I'm not saying that's easily achievable. My point was that, guns do in fact people, and guns are the problem.
#356 to #351 - urgnnahaveabadtime
Reply 0
(01/13/2013) [-]
*do in fact kill*
#306 to #282 - breakfastskippa
Reply +4
(01/13/2013) [-]
Yeah but criminals dont obey laws and innocent people cant defend themselves.
#188 - anon
Reply 0
(01/13/2013) [-]
Every single one of those weapons have another purpose and their main purpose is not that of killing... except guns of course, their main purpose is to kill.
#209 to #188 - BerwindTwentyFour
Reply 0
(01/13/2013) [-]
that might be, but there are blunt objects and knives that are meant for killing.
#229 to #188 - jokeface
Reply 0
(01/13/2013) [-]
Not always. There's guns for stunning and tranquilizing and other non-killing purposes.
#214 to #188 - Vanquix
Reply +4
(01/13/2013) [-]
Funny, because when blades were first created they were used for hunting and killing, not for cutting up the lettuce. And yes, they were used for skinning stuff too probably.
#250 to #214 - miaandvinny
Reply 0
(01/13/2013) [-]
When they were FIRST made, but now knives have many other uses.
#272 to #250 - Vanquix
Reply 0
(01/13/2013) [-]
im going to say the same thing i say in all of these gun posts. If guns are banned, then only criminals will have them. The only way to keep guns out of bad peoples' hands is to completely get rid of them, like DESTROY ALL GUNS. And if that happens then people who would have killed someone with a gun would just kill them with something else instead. Guns can (and do) diffuse situations too. Like hostage situations. If a guy has a hostage at knifepoint, and he is surrounded by cops with knives, al he has to do is be faster then them to get away. They could throw it, but they would have to be trained and throwing a knife right is waaay more complex than firing a gun right (depending on the gun being used). People need to understand that guns are a part of the world now, and although (like pretty much ANYTHING else) they can be used for bad, they can also be used for good, and they do more good than bad. Some people have to die in instances to save others, or at least have to be held at gunpoint an not shot.
#315 to #272 - anon
Reply 0
(01/13/2013) [-]
Your argument about good people and bad people is too smple. Yes there are many inherently 'bad' people out there but most 'bad people' are good people having a bad day. Most murders are people known the victim, not some random bogey man. Most murders are people having a conflict that gets out of control. Something like an argument that upsets one so much that in a moment a normally sane person has pulled the trigger. In europe where its hard to buy a gun, this just ends in assault, in the states where its easy, it ends in murder.. Other countries have reduced there total gun ownership over decades and now have much safer societies. If the US wants a safer country, they will quite stringent gun laws.
#352 to #315 - Vanquix
Reply 0
(01/13/2013) [-]
The majority of gun related murders are gang related. Personal murders more often use different means of murder. So technically, the good people bad people thing may be simple, but it is accurate. And the U.S. is still one of the safest countries in the world all around. Also, europe has a crap ton of crime and gangs and underground stuff which has PLENTY of guns changing hands. In, fact, a lot of illegal gun shipments to the u.s. come from europe (not nearly as much as mexico though, obviously). Its not hard to get a gun in europe. its just hard for regular people to get guns. Criminals can get one like nothing.
#408 - noahz
Reply +3
(01/13/2013) [-]
1) its far harder to avoid someone with a gun that with a bat, you cant outrun a bullet.
2) you cant kill or injury 20+ people just by strangling them without getting caught, for that you need something fast like a gun
#405 - thessalonaki
Reply +3
(01/13/2013) [-]
Alright, let me go over what I think about this whole Gun Control thing. Honestly, I'm neutral in this Political Spectrum in America, since I'm not really loyal to America, or any other country. I believe the only government or nation worth actually pledging loyalty to is an Earth government, a unified Human Race. But that's a different issue, much more politically and philosophically  complex than Gun Control. I just wanted to get that out of the way before somebody calls me a 'Stupid Liberal' or 'Terrorist lover' or some ****, because I'm not aligned with any existing political spectrum. Anyways.   
   
   
On the issue of banning fire arms altogether, it's not the best decision in the world, in fact, it's probably the worst, in the interest of maintaining a stable or peaceful government, or for the welfare and happiness of the citizens. But at the same time, extremely lax or non existing regulations inevitably leads to some bad ****. So the key is in striking a balance between regulation and liberty of using firearms. You guys with me so far? Now, one of the key arguments for super anti-gun control nuts is the Second Amendment. Sure, but that gives you the Right to Bear Arms, and if I'm not mistaken, doesn't say you're allowed to wave the ******* around in public like some ******* crazy GTA player hyped up on horse blood and mountain dew. Not to mention the Founding Fathers (By the way, can we stop treating the founding fathers like gods, for ***** sake? They made mistakes, too. Stop sucking the cocks of their legacies.) probably were unaware of automatic firearms, semiautomatic fire arms,  the insane kinds of ballistic and explosive technologies we have access to today, and the sheer killing power and lethality of some of these things. So Gun Control laws should focus and restricting who can own certain types of weapons, and possibly introducing a gun license, like you get a license for a car. In short: Extensive mental health screenings and stuff. Outta letters now.
Alright, let me go over what I think about this whole Gun Control thing. Honestly, I'm neutral in this Political Spectrum in America, since I'm not really loyal to America, or any other country. I believe the only government or nation worth actually pledging loyalty to is an Earth government, a unified Human Race. But that's a different issue, much more politically and philosophically complex than Gun Control. I just wanted to get that out of the way before somebody calls me a 'Stupid Liberal' or 'Terrorist lover' or some ****, because I'm not aligned with any existing political spectrum. Anyways.


On the issue of banning fire arms altogether, it's not the best decision in the world, in fact, it's probably the worst, in the interest of maintaining a stable or peaceful government, or for the welfare and happiness of the citizens. But at the same time, extremely lax or non existing regulations inevitably leads to some bad ****. So the key is in striking a balance between regulation and liberty of using firearms. You guys with me so far? Now, one of the key arguments for super anti-gun control nuts is the Second Amendment. Sure, but that gives you the Right to Bear Arms, and if I'm not mistaken, doesn't say you're allowed to wave the ******* around in public like some ******* crazy GTA player hyped up on horse blood and mountain dew. Not to mention the Founding Fathers (By the way, can we stop treating the founding fathers like gods, for ***** sake? They made mistakes, too. Stop sucking the cocks of their legacies.) probably were unaware of automatic firearms, semiautomatic fire arms, the insane kinds of ballistic and explosive technologies we have access to today, and the sheer killing power and lethality of some of these things. So Gun Control laws should focus and restricting who can own certain types of weapons, and possibly introducing a gun license, like you get a license for a car. In short: Extensive mental health screenings and stuff. Outta letters now.
#419 to #405 - sketchE
Reply 0
(01/13/2013) [-]
the founding fathers never lived in a world where owning a gun was abnormal. most people had a firearm over their fireplace until the intolerable acts were placed on boston. the purpose of the second amendment is to ensure the united states can defend itself in the case a standing army doesnt exist. seeing as the founding fathers opposed a standing army we are basicly doing the opposite of what they intended.

saying limited gun laws is a bad thing is to a certain extent wrong. murders will happen regardles of the law. great britain has the highest murder rate in the civilized world yet guns are restricted there. not on the same scale but i live in alaska with virtually no gun laws. we have a very low gun crime rate
#466 to #419 - anon
Reply 0
(01/13/2013) [-]
Where did you get the idea the UK has the highest murder rate? Per 100,000 the UK is rated at 1.2 while the US is 4.8...'
I dont mean to be a stickler but could you please provide a link?
#491 to #466 - anon
Reply 0
(01/13/2013) [-]
You can mod me down, but I think you'll find Great Britain/UK has one of the lowest murder rates inthe civilized world.
#485 to #466 - sketchE
Reply 0
(01/13/2013) [-]
i looked in to it better and i was wrong. this is however a list of EU members murder rates, at least in 2006. http://www. nationmaster. com/graph/crimurpercap-crime-murders-per-capita . the most noticible to me is australia only because i know they have fairly strict laws to. or so ive heard.
#501 to #485 - anon
Reply 0
(01/13/2013) [-]
Yeah, I live in New Zealand and remember while I was growing up the mass shootings in Australia. Remember they have only just got started on their gun laws.
#526 to #501 - sketchE
Reply 0
(01/13/2013) [-]
the point im trying to make is that gun laws dont determine murder rate. many nations on that list have fairly strict gun laws. while the u.s. may have a high gun crime rate there are countries with a much higher murder rate. you dont stop people from killing by taking away one of the options. if they want to kill someone they will
#380 - alyosha
Reply +3
(01/13/2013) [-]
Even beyond the surface issue of murderings and gang violence and what have you, the thing that really upsets me is how gun legalization wasn't put in the constitution (I'm talking US here) just to let us hunt and defend ourselves from home invasions and the like. The founding fathers intended it to give our liberty "teeth," meaning if the government turned malevolent and started screwing the people (like Britain had done to them, in their eyes) then the people could fight back.

One of the earlier policies of Hitler's day was to strip the guns from the populace, which had the added bonus effect of making the majority of the population unable to do anything when he started cracking down with his harsher policies. Not everyone was on board with the whole Nazi thing, and they had resistance movements all throughout the Reich which gave them hell even unarmed. Also, we air-dropped a whole bunch of crappy mass-produced pistols into Germany once we had control of the airspace, to encourage them to rise up and fight back. And it did sort of work.

I'm not saying that a fully armed German resistance movement would have been able to do anything to their Army at the time, or that America needs another civil war, but... if we don't have guns, and the government does, then they can do literally anything they want and we can't really do anything about it besides vote them out - and that's worked really well, considering how hard it is to unseat incumbents in this country. Revolution, the thing the WANTED us to be able to do when they made the country, will be off the table if they get guns outlawed. And given the Internet censorship bills and the crackdown on our other rights... it's a scary idea which brings to mind images of Orwell's 1984.

Just food for thought.
#370 - SaNcAlandariel
Reply +3
(01/13/2013) [-]
#358 - skinless
Reply +3
(01/13/2013) [-]
oh my god, the frontpage is just oozing **** storm content today
#374 to #358 - zahnrad
Reply +1
(01/13/2013) [-]
Squidward: And then...The walls will ooze green **********!
#375 to #374 - zahnrad
Reply 0
(01/13/2013) [-]
Oh wait...They always do that...
#257 - shmexytiime
Reply +3
(01/13/2013) [-]
It's more like: You beat him? Whats the matter with you? HOLY **** YOU JUST KILLED 20 ******* PEOPLE WITH A GUN WHAT THE **** MAN WHY ARE YOU SO ******* ****** UP!!? Man we really need to do something about guns.
#108 - cupotruth
Reply +3
(01/13/2013) [-]
Guns are fine.   
   
Idiots like you who got curb stomped by the stupid fairy having guns aren't.   
   
We make laws so idiots that have been curbed stomped by the stupid fairy can't get guns.   
   
The occasional funny cat picture or feel does not make up for me having to deal with this **** that deserves to be on a site where people will actually ******* care..
Guns are fine.

Idiots like you who got curb stomped by the stupid fairy having guns aren't.

We make laws so idiots that have been curbed stomped by the stupid fairy can't get guns.

The occasional funny cat picture or feel does not make up for me having to deal with this **** that deserves to be on a site where people will actually ******* care..
#54 - spearpwi
Reply +3
(01/12/2013) [-]
In other news, a man managed to mow down an entire cinema full of citizens, including 5 marines and a world class body builder, using a piece of cheese wire.
#464 - psychopsychedelic
Reply -1
(01/13/2013) [-]
I see no point in high-powered rifles BESIDES mowing down hordes of people. I find it very interesting how you can pick one up at your local walmart. I'm okay with single-shot. But who needs to fire that many shots that quickly. Give me one REASONABLE use for it. I can't come up with any
I see no point in high-powered rifles BESIDES mowing down hordes of people. I find it very interesting how you can pick one up at your local walmart. I'm okay with single-shot. But who needs to fire that many shots that quickly. Give me one REASONABLE use for it. I can't come up with any
#477 to #464 - pedobearson
Reply -3
(01/13/2013) [-]
I agree. You know what else we should ban? Fast cars. All cars that go above 80 miles per hour should not be legal. I'm okay with a 60 miles per hour car, but who needs to travel that quickly? Give me one reasonable use for it. I can't come up with any.
#518 to #477 - ivoryhammer
Reply +2
(01/13/2013) [-]
Apples and oranges kid, apples and oranges. Cars are meant to be used as transport, and guns were invented for the sole purpose of killing things.
#510 to #477 - anon
Reply 0
(01/13/2013) [-]
Most cars are electronically limited to 180. Besides not just anyone is allowed to drive a car. You need a license.
#514 to #510 - pedobearson
Reply -3
(01/13/2013) [-]
180? Did you even read what I said? Also, that you need a license is an insanely weak argument. More people die from cars than guns.
#471 to #464 - wolfdogone
Reply -1
(01/13/2013) [-]
Zombies.
#473 to #464 - ichbinlecher
Reply -1
(01/13/2013) [-]
Because the military has it, would be one. History has shown that every government becomes destructive eventually. Because I sometimes don't hit a vital spot on deer on the first try, would be two. Many gun owners are hunters. Because I don't own one to complete my collection, would be three. A 2935869348 horse power engine is only good for getting really fast in a short period of time, but we don't assume that is why the guy owns a sports car.
#479 to #473 - eliisfresh **User deleted account**
0
has deleted their comment [-]
#487 to #479 - anon
Reply 0
(01/13/2013) [-]
That doesn't change the need to defend ourselves at all. It's like saying the colonies shouldn't have revolted, because Britain had superior firepower.
#490 to #479 - ichbinlecher
Reply -1
(01/13/2013) [-]
I would imagine it was harder to get a cannon than that, but I will blaketly accept the claim. The question is, will the government bomb itself? I don't think so. So the particular example is void. I feel it is important to be able to appropriately defend myself against any hostile government, I think guns will help. It would be much harder with swords.
#495 to #490 - psychopsychedelic
Reply +1
(01/13/2013) [-]
But swords look more badass.
#498 to #495 - ichbinlecher
Reply -1
(01/13/2013) [-]
Remember that saying, don't bring a knife to a gun fight, well it turns out (I have extensively researched) swords are just big knives.
#502 to #498 - psychopsychedelic
Reply 0
(01/13/2013) [-]
I know I know. It's a depressing and painful truth. Sword vs. gun doesn't work.
#483 to #473 - psychopsychedelic
Reply -1
(01/13/2013) [-]
Well I can understand semi-automatics. I haven't gone hunting but I've always wanted to (it's a big family thing). I'd rather automatic weapons be in the hands of trained military personnel, not of Uncle Bubba or Loony Larry. And you can buy these things at WALMART. They are so easy to get a hold of, and that's what I think needs to be controlled. At least get the autos out of Walmart. And I can tell you why I want a sports car, because they are purty.
#492 to #483 - ichbinlecher
Reply 0
(01/13/2013) [-]
Automatic weapons are already illegal.
#468 to #464 - anon
Reply 0
(01/13/2013) [-]
Writing your name on the side of a barn in a stylistic and timely fashion.
#447 - matriculator
Reply +2
(01/13/2013) [-]
Out of all those things, or anything else discussed that can kill people, guns are the only ones who's only MAIN purpose is to kill other people. Therefore it makes complete sense that they'd wanna ban guns.

Now I don't have a side in this issue or anything. I see a benefit to both keeping(mostly leaned towards this side, but just a little) and getting rid of them. But the above is my logic behind this whole discussion of it being the only thing banned when many other things kill people as well.
#461 to #447 - ichbinlecher
Reply 0
(01/13/2013) [-]
Guns, for most owners, are actually to kill animals. Additionally, to most self defense users, they are meant to let you know they could kill you, not to actually do it - the same thing nukes are for countries.
#371 - hiruma
Reply +2
(01/13/2013) [-]
ITT: Arguments over the internet about **** most people don't care about
#278 - dementedllama
Reply +2
(01/13/2013) [-]
I hope I live long enough to see "Anti vs pro-laser pistol" debates.
#102 - flybager
Reply +2
(01/13/2013) [-]
This is stupid.
Gun their ONLY use are killing.
a bat, knife and wire AREN'T just for killing.
#121 to #102 - killyojoy
Reply 0
(01/13/2013) [-]
Im sorry I did not know guys could not be used for target practice, shooting for sport, and you know revolutions.
#122 to #121 - flybager
Reply +1
(01/13/2013) [-]
Target Practice for what?
Sport which includes what? Hitting targets for what ending purpose?
Revolutions? Oh really, tell me more about how they are used to spew out confetti or something.
#123 to #122 - killyojoy
Reply 0
(01/13/2013) [-]
That's like saying base ball is only for teaching people to club each other in the head more accurately.
#132 to #123 - flybager
Reply 0
(01/13/2013) [-]
Yes, I agree with you on the practice part.
But still, baseball bats weren't origionally designed to beat in people's head, but guns WERE designed to kill people, weren't they?
#136 to #132 - killyojoy
Reply 0
(01/13/2013) [-]
you are telling me big wooden clubs weren't designed to base peoples heads in? I'm pretty sure the cave men didn't plan on killing mammoths with those. Sure base ball bats are generally used to play base ball but guns are generally used for hunting and target practice. Just because one is more effective than the other does not mean it should be banned it means we need to limit on who can wield it.
#138 to #136 - flybager
Reply 0
(01/13/2013) [-]
I never mentioned the wooden clubs cavemen used.
Those were indeed made to hunt, but when was that? a couple of thousand years ago?
baseball bats aren't the same, they weren't made for hunting, but for the SPORT

even though this dos make me think about not every gun has been made just to kill, some for sport. But you get my point here, right?
#144 to #138 - killyojoy
Reply 0
(01/13/2013) [-]
I completed understand your point but, I would bet money that the percent of guns used in crime is about the same as bats.
#148 to #144 - flybager
Reply 0
(01/13/2013) [-]
Yeah I redraw my case.
I didn't take into account that guns can be used as just sport or entertainment (FPS-russia, for instance)
besides, I don't really care about them getting banned in america in the first place, but it just pissed me off how they were trying to make them look stupid because they're only trying to ban guns.

I think you'd loose that bet, take africa for instance. Or war in general.
#154 to #148 - killyojoy
Reply 0
(01/13/2013) [-]
Im glad I can help alter you view if only a little I also under stand where you come from. But gun control is something I take to heart because I have all ways lived around people whom own guns and we all only use them for hunting.
#156 to #154 - flybager
Reply 0
(01/13/2013) [-]
Well I'm not really fammiliar with them, all expirience i've had was the spring-trickered hunting rifle my granddad had. which was just used to scare off (and in some cases, kill) the birds in our fruit trees.

There are a lot of guns mass-produced just for the sole purpose of winning a war, though.
not directly for just 'killing', but in a secondairy way.
#161 to #156 - killyojoy
Reply 0
(01/13/2013) [-]
True I love guns they are a major part in my life and I will seriously start killing ******* as soon as they go for my guns no doubt.
#162 to #161 - flybager
Reply 0
(01/13/2013) [-]
I killed three birds in one summer, and that's all I ever did with a gun. lethal one anyways.

Not those big birds like pigeons or crows, because it wouldnt kill them instantly, and you'd have to walk up, and finish them off by hitting their head against an iron pole, before the cat got to them, because if the cat would get them, their death'd be even worse.
Nowadays we just scare them off with CD's or those noise-making merry-go-rounds, rarely use the rifle.
#164 to #162 - killyojoy
Reply 0
(01/13/2013) [-]
Cool, I have killed my fair share of wild boar and a couple of deer, Question Why not just get a scare crow?
#572 to #571 - killyojoy
Reply 0
(01/24/2013) [-]
I like it!
#167 to #164 - flybager
Reply 0
(01/13/2013) [-]
Scarecrow for protecting a fruit tree's kinda... unpractical, wouldn't you agree?
#131 to #123 - trale
Reply 0
(01/13/2013) [-]
No it's not. The exact reason guns were invented is so we could kill easier.
#135 to #131 - killyojoy
Reply 0
(01/13/2013) [-]
To make killing game easier. we decided to turn them on each other.
#143 to #135 - trale
Reply 0
(01/13/2013) [-]
They we not made to kill game, we were fine with bows, traps, dogs, etc.. Guns were made for the sole purpose of being able to kill people more effectively.
#134 to #131 - killyojoy
0
has deleted their comment [-]
#137 to #122 - stanleys
Reply -2
(01/13/2013) [-]
Sports are sports, you do it for competition like skeet shooting.
Revolution. The second amendment was created for the purpose to have a fighting chance against a tyrannical government. We may not be there yet but there is every chance it could happen in the future.
Target practice. Practice for skeet shooting and also better accuracy while hunting.
#140 to #137 - flybager
Reply +1
(01/13/2013) [-]
I was implying killing

Is that a gif from elfen lied..?
#142 to #140 - stanleys
Reply +1
(01/13/2013) [-]
Why yes, yes it is
#71 - anon
Reply 0
(01/13/2013) [-]
The difference is that a bat, a guitar string or any other form of string, and a knife is tools rather than weapons. a gun is ONLY a weapon, that was made for killing, or making a serious injury.
#74 to #71 - volleys
Reply +1
(01/13/2013) [-]
No. A gun is also considered a tool, hunters use them to get food.
#524 to #74 - anon
Reply 0
(01/13/2013) [-]
Your logic is flawed.
>a gun is ONLY a weapon, that was made for killing
>No. A gun is also used for hunting
Hunting =/= killing?
#75 to #74 - srskate
Reply -1
(01/13/2013) [-]
hmm, do they hunt lettuce?
#78 to #75 - volleys
Reply +1
(01/13/2013) [-]
No, but a gun is a tool that could be used for hunting, or killing people obviously. People get killed by plenty of other things, there are very few items that you couldn't kill another human with, a piece of string, spoiled food. The problem we are having in the US is not a gun issue, it is a psychotic problem. You can't put limits on the average non-criminal citizen and expect things to get better. For example, automatic weapons are illegal (unless you get a license, which takes a huge process to get), but criminals have them, therefor I want something that can match what the criminal has.
#80 to #78 - srskate
Reply 0
(01/13/2013) [-]
But the difference between a gun and a piece of string is, a gun is ALWAYS intended to kill something. That something could be a deer, or it could be a human, but its a weapon nonetheless.
#82 to #80 - lotengo
Reply +2
(01/13/2013) [-]
#83 to #82 - srskate
Reply +2
(01/13/2013) [-]
Okay, let me rephrase, a gun is only meant for killing OR style.
#85 to #80 - volleys
Reply +1
(01/13/2013) [-]
No, people target shoot all the time, I love guns, but I have never gone hunting. What would you say about bow and arrows, crossbows? Cars weren't intended to kill people, yet they do. The problem is that the average citizen is not a criminal and 99.9% of registered guns in America are never used in a crime, so 99.9% of crimes committed with a gun are illegal. The citizen should be able to protect themselves from the people trying to harm them. If someone broke into my house I would not hesitate to blow them away, nor would I regret it one bit. They criminal was not there to bring me flowers, they were there to do some form of harm. I am for gun rights for the protection aspect. Put yourself in the role of the criminal for this instance. Imagine all guns are illegal, yet obviously you have obtained one illegally, robbing someone inside their home is like taking candy from a baby. Now imagine if 80% of people possessed a gun, wouldn't you hesitate to enter that home?
#99 to #85 - gladiuss [OP]
Reply +2
(01/13/2013) [-]
A gun is used as a signal for starting races, a warning for scaring off predators,(not everyone kills the critters that wander too near like bears,) and even a distress signal, if one is lost. Saying a gun is only for killing is like saying a bat is only for baseball. It's a CLUB. People were beating each other senseless for millennia before they decided it would be great- gay to wack a ball instead of a skull.

It's a circular and specious argument to say that guns are bad because people are killed with them. Personally, I'd rather ban handguns if your going to and leave long guns of any kind legal. 80% of gun crime and homicide is committed with handguns. Assault rifle crimes are sensational and make great news, but by far the majority of workplace, mall, school and gang violence is handgun related.

More stringent regulations for ACQUIRING and REDISTRIBUTING guns is what is needed. Not removal.
#119 to #99 - srskate
Reply +1
(01/13/2013) [-]
you responded to the wrong person.

1. other things can signal a race better than a gun, same with scaring off predators. Yes a gun CAN be used for other things, but it is a fact that guns are intended for killing, just like a sword. I addressed the point of things like bats. Yes, it is technically a weapon, but it is not effective for mass murder.
2. I am not saying guns are bad because people are killed with them. I am saying guns are bad because their specific use is killing.
3. Aren't handguns already more regulated? For example, in my state of maryland, i think owning a handgun requires much more licensing than owning an AR-15 (semi-auto of course. I chose this gun because a good friend of mine just bought one)
4. I never said guns should be banned.
#551 to #119 - gladiuss [OP]
Reply 0
(01/14/2013) [-]
Sorry, yes my response SHOULD have been to the person YOU responded to. I was simply too lazy to delete and repost.

I agree with most of your points, at least in spirit except for present adequacy of hangun restrictions as regards background checks. I believe that the current system of background checks is inadequate at simply requiring a criminal background check. This process also needs to require an applicant to supply evidence of emotional/psychological stability. Nothing that will place a mental healthcare pro at risk of litigation. Perhaps a standardized "emotional stability" profile? I know it's an entirely new boondoggle, (say can of worms if that works better), but there is too much gun violence that should not be happening at all. Not that there is such a thing as an acceptable/normal cause for it. But you stop what you CAN stop. You slow down what you CAN slow down, and try to minimize the effects of what you can't.

The argument is bigger than just me. The solution? Other than what I have suggested? I got nuthin'.
#88 to #85 - srskate
Reply +1
(01/13/2013) [-]
I swapped to list format, just for ease of reading. I'm a bit fatigued and this seemed simpler to me. Continue responding as you wish, but i shall use a list.

1. target shooting, as in practicing shooting to kill
2. the difference between a gun and a crossbow is effectiveness. It's damn hard to light up a movie theater with a crossbow.
3. correct, cars weren't intended to kill people. Guns were.
4. I would regret ending a human life. We have non-lethal weapons, why not use them? Guns aren't the only means to protect oneself.
5. Hell, I'd still rob the house. Chances are that the owner doesn't have their gun with them. It'd probably be in a safe.

#523 to #88 - volleys
Reply 0
(01/13/2013) [-]
You'd still rob a house if 80% of every household had a gun? That's a majority my friend. Target shooting, is not practicing shooting to kill. It is for sporting.
#528 to #523 - srskate
Reply 0
(01/13/2013) [-]
guns for sports is ... an odd subject. its like bombing for sports, or stabbing for sport. its odd.

and yeah, but you can expect the owner not to have the gun ready. Plus, most robberies occur when no one is home. Robbers don't want to kill, they want money. Most will bail if even a small child is home.
#552 to #528 - gladiuss [OP]
Reply 0
(01/14/2013) [-]
<- MFW=Bombing for sport?
#532 to #528 - volleys
Reply 0
(01/13/2013) [-]
True most robberies are committed when no one is home, but does that mean when the rare few that do happen when someone is home shouldn't be able to protect themselves? It doesn't take but a few seconds to have a gun ready if someone breaks in. You can have it pre-loaded and beside your bed, it takes around 3-4 seconds. Maybe you think guns are bad, but I prefer to think guns aren't bad, but rather bad people can use them in bad ways, good people can use them in good ways(to ensure the safety of themselves and others around them) .
#534 to #532 - srskate
Reply 0
(01/13/2013) [-]
Having a gun loaded next to your bed? That, i must take a pure stance, as VERY bad.
If you have children, you definitely need a gun safe, end of story. Additionally, if you have a gun ready next to the place where you sleep, an accident is highly likely. In those few moments after you wake, your judgement is very impaired. Is that a dangerous criminal in the hall, or your lovely wife?
#536 to #534 - volleys
Reply 0
(01/13/2013) [-]
No, obviously you have never used a weapon. A gun will not go off all by its self. It does not have to be chambered, at the same time it is loaded (or cocked). Yes if you have little children you would have to keep it in a safer place. How hard would it be to check to make sure your spouse was in the bed with and, and to ask "Honey is that you?"
#89 to #88 - srskate
Reply 0
(01/13/2013) [-]
also, I hope we can keep this debate cordial.
#10 - ksiota
Reply 0
(01/12/2013) [-]
If we let everyone have guns, where do we draw the line?

Should everyone have access to nuclear warheads as well?
#24 to #10 - pooploop
Reply -1
(01/12/2013) [-]
We have laws on which types of fire arms are legal and illegal. That's where we draw the line.
#11 to #10 - anon
Reply 0
(01/12/2013) [-]
you are comparing an idiot with a firearm to genocide.
#16 to #11 - ksiota
Reply +2
(01/12/2013) [-]
Genocide is specific to a certain group of people - So no, it's not genocide.

Both are weapons made with the sole intention to kill (in their raw form they have other purpose). So what I'm asking is, what (if any) weapons do we allow the common average to have?
#39 to #16 - Crusader
Reply 0
(01/12/2013) [-]
Bolt action rifles
Semi-auto rifles
Carbines
All capped at 12-15 round magazines
You may obtain larger clips and full auto rifles if you are in a region where hogs or other wildlife are a nuisance and pose a threat to your livelihood.
Pump action shotguns
Double barrel shotguns
Auto-loader shotguns
Capped at 8 shells in the tube
Single action revolvers
Double action revolvers
Repeating pistols
all capped at 12 round magazines without full auto options
#72 to #10 - stripeygreenhat
Reply 0
(01/13/2013) [-]
Nuclear war heads don't kill people, people kill people.
#37 to #10 - Crusader
Reply +1
(01/12/2013) [-]
No, that's a stupid argument, a gun is a cannon, whether you like to admit it or not, that's what it is.

It is much different than a nuke, that is a god damn WMD, that will vapourize you, your dog, and the small town you are currently living in.
It's like saying, we let people have rottweilers, a dobermans and pitbulls, should we let them have lions and tigers and bears as pets?
No, because there is a logical barrier there that separates something useful from something that is not.
#69 to #37 - stripeygreenhat
Reply 0
(01/13/2013) [-]
His point is that there is no clear limit on what weapon is too dangerous for the public to have access to. We can only identify extremes, like how obviously handguns should be legals but nuclear warheads not. We need to actually make a clear standard .

#26 to #10 - Onemanretardpack
Reply +2
(01/12/2013) [-]
This is an acceptable argument, yet when someone says that gay marriage will lead to people marrying animals, everyone thinks they're goddamn stupid..
#1 - neverunderstand
Reply +2
(01/12/2013) [-]
Comment Picture