Upload
Login or register
Anonymous comments allowed.
#1012 - megaton
Reply +1
(04/22/2013) [-]
obviously its the kinder egg since its being held in hands of a comunist. jsut look you can see the communism. just look in those demonic eyes
#984 - flufflepuff
Reply +1
(04/22/2013) [-]
Alcohol and heart disease are responsible for more deaths than guns.

ban fast food, and beer, then come talk to me about saving lives.
#1017 to #984 - rockerrocksixty
Reply 0
(04/22/2013) [-]
well alcohol + guns is just crazy, and a good portion of the deaths caused by alcohol are the person who was drunk, save the victims of drunk car accidents. that's why there's a blood alcohol level where you can get arrested and have to pay a gynormous fine.
also, heart disease is self inflicted. if most of the deaths from guns were suicide we wouldn't care nearly as much as we do. it's more than preventing death, it's preventing murder.
#1059 to #1017 - bazda
Reply 0
(04/22/2013) [-]
The vast majority of gun deaths are suicides.
#1029 to #1017 - flufflepuff
Reply 0
(04/22/2013) [-]
If someone is determined to kill, it's going to happen.

serial killers don't like using loud weapons, for example.
The bomb in boston is another example..

and if i actually make an effort, i can probably show that very many people die for very many reasons, from very many things that can be called "murder."

Recently, the guy that shot up the school? He could've just became a bus driver, and driven off a cliff. (and you can't tell me an 8 yr old can stop a grown man from driving a bus into a wall or something.)

Taking the rights away from Millions of law-abiding citizens, while selling guns to mexico, and having illegal immigrants come here with guns is nothing short of stupid.

Until you can show me that this is legitimately a large problem, with a real fix, I just can't agree with the idea of banning guns. Not how things are now.
#1043 to #1029 - rockerrocksixty
Reply 0
(04/22/2013) [-]
so just because there's other ways to kill people means that we should'nt even try to prevent the most lethal, most likely and the easiest way?
#1063 to #1043 - flufflepuff
Reply 0
(04/22/2013) [-]
"most lethal" "most likely the easiest"
I disagree with that almost entirely..
a gun is a great way to get caught, and anyone unwilling to get caught can, and often does not use one. So, when we don't have guns, these people would only be empowered. The police aren't god-like, and they won't know when you're in trouble unless you alert them, and you don't always have time. when you're 60, and there is a 200lb muscular dude breaking into your house, you'll really be wishing for a gun, and getting up close with a taser is sorta risky. pepper spray would be your best bet, but if he is wearing a mask... (to hide identity)

Besides, a lot of these people were known to be dangerous, and they weren't properly supervised. Many of them were messed up on medications. You can look at Australia and Great Britain as examples of how this doesn't work. Nazi Germany too, though i don't think the government is planning anything similar.
#1082 to #1063 - rockerrocksixty
Reply 0
(04/22/2013) [-]
well i doubt anyone who took part in the numerious public shootings in the past few months cared about stealth or secrecy.
#1092 to #1082 - flufflepuff
Reply 0
(04/22/2013) [-]
Just because it's on the news, doesn't mean it's the only thing happening.

how many people have disappeared this year?
If you disappear, the chances are, they won't find you.
I'm worried about the killers that aren't making public statements.
those who are too insane to even blend into society can be detected, and stopped, if we actually put in effort. The people who are sane, but just plainly evil, are the ones that worry me the most. These scenes where someone was slowly cut up and the killer just watched them wriggle in pain and die slowly.. it worries me, that some of these people are in our churches, in our schools, and they can go through a lifetime without getting caught.

I'm not saying that guns are more important than lives, no. I'm saying that there is evidence to support that we should keep guns, and too little evidence to reject people's right to own a gun. I really do think that more guns = more safety.

in a perfect society, we wouldn't even need cops, because nobody would murder. The way things are, I think we need them. Maybe someday in the future we won't, but i don't think that future is here yet. The way people are, i'm not sure if it ever will be.
#1079 to #984 - ivoryhammer
Reply 0
(04/22/2013) [-]
Apples and oranges
#974 - oneironeer
Reply +1
(04/22/2013) [-]
Because kinder eggs had the bright ******* idea to put small surprise toys into their product which resulted in kids choking to death and others damaging teeth. The two are completely unrelated to each other. It's like saying: We won't sell caramel apples with razor blades in them to children, so why let children own knives? Did you know thousands of people die every year by knives in the US alone? Please ban them... for our children's protection.
#982 to #974 - thepandaking
Reply +1
(04/22/2013) [-]
precisely. I like this. I do enjoy this. well done sir.
#968 - iluvscuba
Reply -4
(04/22/2013) [-]
What did I learn on FJ today?

It's full of liberal-hating conservatives
#989 to #968 - iluvscuba
Reply -2
(04/22/2013) [-]
Lol bring on the red thumbs

rage more, you bunch of pissed-off rednecks
#1007 to #989 - douthit
Reply 0
(04/22/2013) [-]
Liberal tolerance at its hypocritical best.
#971 to #968 - Metallicock
Reply 0
(04/22/2013) [-]
I guess you haven't heard the general opinion about marijuana legalization then
#973 to #968 - anon
Reply 0
(04/22/2013) [-]
liberals deserve to be hated
#977 to #968 - douthit
Reply 0
(04/22/2013) [-]
I'm not conservative, I'm libertarian. And BTW, conservatives have more in common with one another than either does with libertarians.
#987 to #968 - rockerrocksixty
Reply +1
(04/22/2013) [-]
liberals are against guns, not conseravtives.
#965 - blacknbluebrony
Reply -1
(04/22/2013) [-]
It annoys me whenever people use the argument, "guns don't kill people, people kill people". While that maybe true, who do you think would be more dangerous, a man with a knife or a man with a gun? Guns are tools with the sole purpose of making it much easier to kill. If someone has the intention to kill, they have potential of taking much more lives if they had a gun versus if they tried to use almost anything else.
#978 to #965 - douthit
Reply 0
(04/22/2013) [-]
Yes, but guns make self-defense much easier. When the revolver was invented, they call it the "great equalizer". Because with that new technology, for the first time in the history of the world, even an arthritic 80 year-old woman of any size could adequately defend herself from a male attacker of any size.
#1014 to #978 - blacknbluebrony
Reply 0
(04/22/2013) [-]
As I said in another comment, I'm not completely against gun ownership. I just think it's ridiculous that buying a gun for self-defense boils down to, "I need a gun because someone may attack me with a gun". It just leads to more and more people buying guns. Also owning a gun makes it much more likely that you will be shot compared to someone who doesn't own a gun and a large portion gun related deaths are caused by someone losing control of their emotions( i.e. someone walking in on their wife cheating in them) and they just so happen to have a gun nearby.
#1041 to #1014 - douthit
Reply 0
(04/22/2013) [-]
Self-defense isn't only in case of being attacked by someone with a gun. Self-defense with a gun prevents many muggings, rapes, assaults, and murders every year. Sometimes the bad guy uses a gun, sometimes a knife, sometimes a baseball bat, and sometimes his fists. But a firearm is the best tool for self-defense, because it can be adequately deployed in those instances with much less training, strength, and time than it would require to become proficient in self-defense using any other weapon. Also, I don't buy that a large percentage of gun crimes are due to crimes of people losing their minds. Road rage is a big problem, but we don't use that as an excuse to outlaw or limit cars. We allow 16 year-olds to operate multi-ton gas-filled projectiles, and there's no background check or mental health evaluation.
#991 to #978 - rockerrocksixty
Reply 0
(04/22/2013) [-]
yea, but that was back in the lawless west.
#994 to #991 - douthit
Reply 0
(04/22/2013) [-]
The "wild west" wasn't wild. Common myth. But it applies even today. With a firearm in hand, a small woman can adequately defend herself from an attacker of any size, and even from a group of assailants. Self-defense is a human right, and the most effective and efficient tool for it is a firearm.
#996 to #994 - rockerrocksixty
Reply +1
(04/22/2013) [-]
there's still tazers and pepper spray, those aren't lethal. (maybe the tazer, but it's not designed to kill.)
#999 to #996 - douthit
Reply 0
(04/22/2013) [-]
Still, a gun is much more effective. But even if guns weren't, owning and carrying a gun is a nonviolent crime, and we can't justly deny people their rights just because we don't like them. Live and let live.
#1008 to #999 - rockerrocksixty
Reply 0
(04/22/2013) [-]
well we still don't need huge, automatic rifles for self defense. we should make sure there's background checks on everyone who tries to buy a firearm and not let these crazy super-weapons into anyone's hands. the only reasons i could think to allow someone to own a firearm is a) self defense or b) hunting. and you don't need anything extravagant for either of those.
#1023 to #1008 - douthit
Reply +1
(04/22/2013) [-]
First, automatic weapons are generally only allowed for military and police use. It is possible for civilians to obtain them, but they are extremely expensive and are very tightly regulated. Don't think that we're talking about automatic rifles here. Those are terrifically few and far between. Second, It's not just for self-defense, it's for whatever the owner wants it for. Rights aren't based on others' perceived needs. Third, mandatory background checks mandates a law based on a nonviolent and victimless crime. And if you want to enforce it, then you're supporting the initiation of violence by the government, which is just as bad as the gun violence you'd be hoping to prevent. Fourth, you have no right to allow or deny someone their rights. I can't justly tell you what you can or can't eat, drink, shoot, smoke, own, etc. as long as you're not hurting anyone, and someone simply owning a gun isn't harming anyone.
#1068 to #1023 - rockerrocksixty
Reply -1
(04/22/2013) [-]
you're right, we should let people own grenades and tanks and nukes too. hell, let's sell vehicles with miniguns on top of them. remember the sandy hook school shooting not too long ago? the shooter stole the guns from his mom, a legal gun owner. when that ammendment was passed we were still using muskets. i doubt our founding fathers had any idea about the weapons we'd have today.
#1083 to #1068 - douthit
Reply +1
(04/22/2013) [-]
You just committed an argumentative fallacy. You took my argument and took it to an extreme which I never argued for, and commenced to criticizing the result. We're not talking about grenades, although with the right background checks and licensing it's already possible to legally obtain them--and when was the last time you heard about grenade murders? And the government already does auction off old tanks to civilians--and when was the last time you heard about tank murders? And nukes is the typical asinine non-argument. We're talking about guns. As long as there is legal gun ownership, nothing can be done about someone who murders in order to get a gun illegally. If laws could stop that, the law against murder would be sufficient. And as for the musket part, do you believe the First Amendment only applies to the Guttenberg-style printing presses that were available then? Please, give me a break.
#1096 to #1083 - rockerrocksixty
Reply -1
(04/22/2013) [-]
fine, maybe i took the point too far but still, times have changed and that ammendment has taken more lives then it's saved, at least in the recent years. our current regulation did'nt stop the arorua shooting nor the sandy hook shooting. and those both happened before march. www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/02/21/mass-shootings-domestic-violence-nra/1937041/
#1103 to #1096 - douthit
Reply 0
(04/22/2013) [-]
And no law being proposed now would have prevented Newtown. The Second Amendment has taken no lives, because what it does (at least in the past) is prevent government from intruding on individuals' right to own and carry firearms. Criminals and crazy people will always do criminal and crazy things, despite the laws. And we'll never know what potential governmental tyranny our Second Amendment has prevented, by allowing firearms to be in the hands of the common man, rather than just the government. Governments are the biggest murderers of all, having killed millions of their own people in this century alone. If you ask me would I rather have a tyrannical government, or possible criminals (which will exist in a tyrannical government-run state, too), I'll risk the criminals.
#1111 to #1103 - rockerrocksixty
Reply 0
(04/22/2013) [-]
well maybe you'd risk the criminals, but i would'nt. but i guess that's the beauty of a democracy, let the people choose what kind of country they want to live in.
#1134 to #1111 - douthit
Reply 0
(04/22/2013) [-]
There will always be criminals, no matter the laws or the government. I can't understand why you'd rather risk government tyranny than risk crime--which is gonna happen anyway. I mean, tyrannical governments killed hundreds of millions in the 20th century alone. Mao Zedong killed 40M, Stalin killed 20M, Hitler killed 11M, etc. Street crime doesn't even compare. But anyway, I don't place any trust in democracy, because democracy is simply mob rule, whereby 51% can impose anything they want upon the 49%. I prefer anarcho-capitalism.
#1020 to #1008 - pebar
Reply +1
(04/22/2013) [-]
automatic weapons are already heavily regulated
#1024 to #1008 - anon
Reply 0
(04/22/2013) [-]
ar-15s aren't super weapons...
they're weak as far as rifles go
#970 to #965 - pebar
Reply +1
(04/22/2013) [-]
True, but when criminals know that a community is full of gun owners, they tend to not want to risk dying while committing a crime. Even if everyone had a gun, adults included, there wouldn't be shootouts in the streets because people would shoot back. GIF related.   
   
"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." - Robert A. Heinlein
True, but when criminals know that a community is full of gun owners, they tend to not want to risk dying while committing a crime. Even if everyone had a gun, adults included, there wouldn't be shootouts in the streets because people would shoot back. GIF related.

"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." - Robert A. Heinlein
#972 to #970 - pebar
Reply +1
(04/22/2013) [-]
criminals included*
#995 to #970 - rockerrocksixty
Reply 0
(04/22/2013) [-]
i think the arrogant worms demonstrate the flaws of that argument pretty well: www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCtD3OJ-_Es
#985 to #970 - blacknbluebrony
Reply 0
(04/22/2013) [-]
I'm not completely against gun ownership. Afterall, it would be extremely stupid and damn near impossible to try and ban guns after over 200 years of allowing people to own them.

It seems like the only way to curb gun violence is if everyone has a gun and knows how to use, or if guns are completely outlawed and always have been. Obviously the latter won't work for America due to the amount of guns already in our country. But I honestly wouldn't feel very safe at all if everyone in my community owned a gun.
#760 - jokeface
Reply +1
(04/22/2013) [-]
There's a sneaker in that desk...I wanna know why there's a ******* sneaker in a desk for an anti-gun ad...
#757 - forevertrombone
Reply +1
(04/22/2013) [-]
Well you can't choke on a ******* assault rifle.
Well you can't choke on a ******* assault rifle.
#745 - bladebites
Reply +1
(04/22/2013) [-]
I live in the US of A, and I go to this mall (Sawgrass Mills Mall) and there are kinder surprise eggs being sold literally all over the ******* place in there like it ain't no deal, and no one really gives a ****. It's weird.
I live in the US of A, and I go to this mall (Sawgrass Mills Mall) and there are kinder surprise eggs being sold literally all over the ******* place in there like it ain't no deal, and no one really gives a ****. It's weird.
#761 to #745 - spyisspy
Reply 0
(04/22/2013) [-]
address, now
#767 to #761 - bladebites
Reply +1
(04/22/2013) [-]
12801 W SUNRISE BLVD, SUNRISE, FL
#769 to #767 - spyisspy
Reply 0
(04/22/2013) [-]
inb4 prank calls and maybe someone crazed robbing it for its eggs
#771 to #769 - bladebites
Reply 0
(04/22/2013) [-]
Strangely enough, not a lot of people buy them.
Like, it's the only ******* place to get them around here, and everyone in murica wants them. How the **** can they not be selling like crazy?
#750 to #745 - TheLastNinja
Reply +1
(04/22/2013) [-]
No idea why but Judas Priest's song Breaking The Law just started to play in my mind.... Wtf brain
#663 - obese
Reply 0
(04/22/2013) [-]
**** guns, swords are better. They're cooler too. If you could wield a sword in the military and practice with that instead of a gun. I'd join.
#722 to #663 - bossdelainternet
Reply 0
(04/22/2013) [-]
Are people allowed to carry swords around in the US?
#683 to #663 - murrlogic
Reply +1
(04/22/2013) [-]
Sword's dont run out of ammo.
#706 to #683 - ghouleyed
Reply +1
(04/22/2013) [-]
But they break and get dull after hit into hard spots like bones and when blocked.   
But i too would like that all guns were ambandoned and broken and all gun smiths killed so the new better middle ages would rise.
But they break and get dull after hit into hard spots like bones and when blocked.
But i too would like that all guns were ambandoned and broken and all gun smiths killed so the new better middle ages would rise.

#728 to #706 - obese
Reply 0
(04/22/2013) [-]
This would be my sword, the Chronicle 2. It can manipulate time. Without having to use a pedestal, unlike Link's Master Sword.
#695 to #683 - obese
Reply +1
(04/22/2013) [-]
not if it's a gun sword.
#704 to #695 - ponyfcker
Reply +1
(04/22/2013) [-]
Or a knife gun
#690 to #683 - ferrettamer
Reply 0
(04/22/2013) [-]
They could. If they are throwing swords
#472 - Fgner
Reply +1
(04/22/2013) [-]
Kinder eggs also aren't banned specifically, that's rediculous. We would never make a single law to ban a single product like a chocolate egg.

No... Kinder eggs are illegal because of an umbrella law that says you can't put non-food items inside of food items. This decision was made because many adults and children alike were dying from choking on objects in things like kinder eggs (not Kinder eggs) that didn't make it obvious enough or something of the like. It's a reasonable law because when it was made, it was an actual problem. Sure you can say "let the idiots die off", but in reality even a genius child could have died like this without proper parental supervision.
#467 - SteyrAUG
Reply +1
(04/22/2013) [-]
well if you had bothered to take 5 seconds to teach the girl proper rifle etiquette before handing her the gun, she WOULD be safe.
#316 - thedarkestrogue
Reply 0
(04/21/2013) [-]
I thought they lifted the kinder egg ban?
#341 to #316 - Kingsteveooo
Reply 0
(04/21/2013) [-]
So did I
#342 to #316 - slendermanspenis
Reply +1
(04/21/2013) [-]
Apparently not...
#302 - higaphix
Reply +1
(04/21/2013) [-]
Has her finger on the trigger, **** this anti-gun agenda
#295 - xjessicaxrabbitx
Reply +1
(04/21/2013) [-]
Gun control and Kinder Eggs, yeah, but can we focus on the fact some kid has shoes inside their desk?
#285 - sirbutterballs
Reply +1
(04/21/2013) [-]
But then most Americans who know what Kinder eggs are and like 'em simply buy 'em in another country and bring a ton back... Think about that.
#195 - xmeatshieldx
Reply +1
(04/21/2013) [-]
"you think this is a ************* game?"
#190 - DanLacasky
Reply +1
(04/21/2013) [-]
My wife came back from Germany with 20+ Kinder eggs, having no idea that they were illegal. Pretty funny when i told her the potential fine if they found them/ the fact it could be considered a felony
#183 - bloodofthedragon
Reply +1
(04/21/2013) [-]
Other countries are just jealous guys.
#87 - zomaru
Reply +1
(04/21/2013) [-]
Well, To be honest, I would feel safer giving my kid a AR then a Kinder egg. Hundreds of kid chew stupid **** and choke to death each year. You never hear about a kid shooting up another one outside of a black neighborhood, except when Fox news decides its the most important story to have ever existed ever. Still think it's stupid to outlaw them though, kinder eggs are awesome.
#74 - douthit
Reply +1
(04/21/2013) [-]
Gun ownership is a nonviolent crime. Nobody's really against guns, you're just against guns being owned by the people. You still want guns in the hands of a small minority in government, because they'll be necessary to take the guns away from the people.