Upload
Login or register
> hey anon, wanna give your opinion?
asd
#1178 - jgk **User deleted account**
0 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #1180 to #1178 - jaydudereborn
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
The toy on the inside is a choking hazard, some Americans cant handle the surprise.
#1210 to #1180 - ryderjamesbudde **User deleted account**
0 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
#1141 - ookichinchindesu
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
Yes because children can buy an M16
#1144 to #1141 - sittingwhale
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
Yes because that's not an M16. It's an M4 carbine. Just sayin'..
#1148 to #1144 - ookichinchindesu
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
Okay thanks, I am in the National Guard. It looked similar to the weapons we use, but not the same. Since I wasn't sure so I just guessed :) . But thanks for the update.
#1179 to #1148 - anon id: 47e1b961
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
I wanna be in the national guard, I'm just a ******* forever alone fatass high school student who's failing all his classes because of ADHD :(
User avatar #1199 to #1179 - fjmod
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
So.. You're perfect for the Nat Guard. 101st ALL DAY! Hearts and minds baby!
#1164 to #1144 - anon id: d8b5814c
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
Jesus christ.

It's neither. It's an ar-15. m16 and m4s are illegal for civilian possesion unless it was manufactured before may 19 1986
#1064 - teFlyingNinja
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
I believe in the right to have bear arms. No?
User avatar #1074 to #1064 - certifiedidiot
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
In Russia they have right to whole bear, your move 'Murican
#1078 to #1074 - teFlyingNinja
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
#1101 to #1078 - certifiedidiot
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
Thought so.
User avatar #1044 - zraven
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
Because it's not an assault weapon, it's a semi-automatic rifle, usually used in target tournaments, and, sometimes, hunting.
#1048 to #1044 - anon id: 978f9647
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
it's used significantly in hog hunting
User avatar #1051 to #1048 - zraven
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
That makes sense. Range and precision would be welcome when hunting an animal that will happily eat your knees off.
#1060 to #1044 - Animefreake
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
THAT IS RIGHT! HOW AM GOING TO HUNT NAZIS AND COMMUNISTS, THEN ALL THE TERRORISTS AND UNPATRIOTIC HIPPIES IS TRYING TO, TAKE, AWAY, MY...


FREEDOM

'MURIKAAA!
User avatar #1072 to #1060 - zraven
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
? No, seriously, it's a hunting rifle. One shot per trigger pull, fires normal-ass rifle-caliber bullets, nothing huge. There are guns I don't feel a civilian should have out there, but this isn't one of them.
User avatar #1095 to #1072 - Animefreake
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
I'm not for banning guns personally.
But only if people, that try to buy a gun, have a license.
The licensee shall be approved in their capability in handling the weapon, their psychology healthiness, they should be old enough, have no criminal history and accept, that the gun, at all time, then not in use, is in a special gun locker.
If this this is accepted, then it is a hunting gun.
User avatar #1219 to #1095 - zraven
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
So, I take it that, by extension, you have similar views on limiting the purchase of cars?
User avatar #1220 to #1219 - Animefreake
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
Yes I have.
Why should we treat it any different?
User avatar #1231 to #1220 - zraven
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
So, not to drive, but to purchase a car, period, you should have to pass psychological exam? Seems a little extreme. Also, the restraining device for said car, so that it could not be moved or actuated, whatsoever, without first being removed from it, would be rather pricey.
User avatar #1235 to #1231 - Animefreake
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
I don't know.
If you want to have restraining devices, that make it so the car can't be used, unless you are the legitimate owner, wouldn't the car keys enough?
User avatar #1237 to #1235 - zraven
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
Wouldn't unloading the gun be enough? Or a safety? Or a trigger lock? And we're still stuck on the "Psychologically Healthy" part of this. Everyone is assumed sane unless proven otherwise, last I checked. The normal backround check should be enough.
User avatar #1246 to #1237 - Animefreake
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
Yes that is true, a safety and a trigger lock is necessary. The point is however that the gun, the car and any other devices with high intentional kill ratio ( Don't know a good name for this.) have some kind or lock, so someone should not accidentally hurt other including themself with it.

And it is a fair point, that the normal background check should be enough. I may have been too overboard with it, but if you have been diagnosed with mental illness like dementia, schizophrenia and other mental problems, that can make you a danger with a gun or a car, then you should not be permitted a license.
User avatar #1265 to #1246 - zraven
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
Which is generally the case. These things usually come up in a background check.

The AR-15 has been unfairly vilified because, basically, it looks like a machine gun. It fires a round originally intended for accuracy and range, to allow a clean kill in hunting. Yes, it can be modified to be full-auto, but so can any semi-auto gun, rifle or hand gun. Frankly, putting so much attention on the AR-15 as an "assault weapon" detracts attention from other guns that, honestly, shouldn't be sold to civilians without specialized permits.

If you wanna say people shouldn't be able to get 50 cal rifles, fine, I don't see a use for the thing unless you're hunting Rhino or Chevys. The AR15 is not somethng to worry about.
User avatar #1273 to #1265 - Animefreake
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
True, and I completely agree it is unfortunate about the AR 15 design.
I like guns too, and they should not be illegal, I just don't want a child, a mentally handicapped or any trouble makers easy legal access to guns, just because it is their right to have them.
User avatar #1281 to #1273 - zraven
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
Children can't purchase guns. As far as them getting to them at home, they should be treated like knives, household cleaners, dangerous tools, etc. Mentally handicapped, basically same that apples to children. Criminals can't buy them through any legal means, and the best defense against a criminal with an illegal weapon is a citizen with a weapon he is educated in the use of.

I do feel the weapon need be appropriate to circumstance. I live in an apartment, and I would never, ever consider any gun other than a shotgun loaded with birdshot as appropriate. Too easy to shoot through a wall otherwise.

However, in some hoses, especially on farmland or in rural areas, an AR-15 may be a good choice as a combination hunting rifle/self-defense tool. Especially for service veterans, they are already familiar with the look and feel of it from using an M16.

I'm running on a tangent. The point stands, the AR-15 is a fine gun, and really doesn't need any other laws governing it's purchase.
User avatar #1283 to #1281 - zraven
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
*hoses=homes. it's monday, and I'm tired.
User avatar #1284 to #1283 - Animefreake
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
It's is a fine opinion you have, and I have nothing to say against it without sounding petty.
You are a well thought, good work.
User avatar #1286 to #1284 - zraven
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
Appreciated. :-)
User avatar #936 - amsel
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
Banning assault rifles gives the government more power over the people. The second amendment has nothing to do with hunting; it was put in there to ensure that at any given point in time, the majority population would have stronger firepower than the government. With new legislation allowing the federal government to use drones in law enforcement, and the ridiculous arsenal of automatic weaponry and explosives owned by the military, it's silly to ban something like assault rifles. I really don't understand how "let's ban more things and intentionally give up a piece of our freedom" is ever a respectable argument in politics.
#860 - anon id: 978f9647
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
this is the **** that happens when you vote for democrats......
User avatar #875 to #860 - majortomcomics
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
Truth.
#681 - trigondarkthree
Reply -3 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
This is simple: One is given to and used by children. One is only used by radically pro gun adults.
#687 to #681 - fordun
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
Or ya know. Law abiding citizens with friends and families they want to protect.
User avatar #697 to #687 - PhuckingPhreak
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
or you know those same law abiding citizens who enjoy to not have thier hobby ****** with
#703 to #697 - trigondarkthree
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
Now I don't have a very detailed knowledge of guns, but you seem to. I apologize if anything I said sounded ignorant, but exactly what hobby requires a gun like that?
#732 to #703 - justakewldewd
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
Mostly shooting at targets and hunting. Nothing much else.

I'm not much of a gun guy (though if you put a good rifle in my hands I'm not a bad shot within fifty yards) but getting rid of a model of gun seems odd. You can kill unarmed civilians just as easily with a scoped .22 as with a 5.56 (maybe slightly easier with the higher calibers depending on the skill of the shooter) so banning the guns themselves seems strange to me.

Where you need to look at is ammunition and the components needed for making said ammunition, along with ammo containers and methods of quickly loading. Guns don't kill people, loaded guns kill people.
#940 to #732 - trigondarkthree
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
**trigondarkthree agrees**
#731 to #703 - fordun
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
Well then im sorry if what i said was ignorant. Most of those that are against guns are less friendly.

As for hobbys? Hunting, Anything out doors where dangerous 4 legged aggressors might be. Sport shooting like timed shooting, distance shooter, or trap shooting. Military Training simulation.
#941 to #731 - trigondarkthree
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
It's just, I mean. Do you really need a gun like that for deer humting? It looks to me like a semiautomatic.
#1305 to #941 - fordun
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
Deer can be both game and pests. In some parts of the country they walk into neighboring towns and cause trouble. They jump in front of cars. Pick through peoples trash. They cause trouble.

As do feral pigs (Destroy Crops) as well as bears and coyotes.. The population occasionally needs culling to keep it in check. AR-15s with 30 round magazines are great for that. Specifically boar and coyotes.

Coyotes and Feral Pigs often travel in groups. Bear are strong and have been known to take several rounds before falling to the ground sometimes.

My uncle has a camera set up in his hunting area that takes pictures of wildlife that walk buy. He has deer feeders set up. Last time i was there (several years ago) he had a mama bear and her cubs scaring off all the deer.

So naturally since he pays for the property he felt the need to stop this. I don't know what he did but he did say he would half to bring down the bears. And when hunting in general its your life on the line.

The land isn't strictly used for hunting either. They ride ATVs and go fishing. Whenever he is there he makes sure someone has a gun on them in a group of people.

They have seen bear and feral dogs. Feral dogs can be a big safety hazard. As you can imagine they can be just as dangerous as any other big dog.

Poachers can possibly be a problem. In some parts of the country poachers run out with Semi Automatic Silenced .22 rifles because they are small, cheap, easy to use, and quiet. And some of these poachers can be aggressive.

As well as some people that live next to the Mexican border sometimes run into illegal immigrants.

Guns don't have to be used just for hunting. Like i said any manner of outdoors activity like hiking that takes place off the beaten path (Outside of reservations and parks) such as camping, fishing, survival camping, sometimes geocaching, off roading.

All have a use and sometimes a need for a gun to protect themselves against 2 or 4 legged aggressors.
#1307 to #1305 - trigondarkthree
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/23/2013) [-]
Ok in that case it makes perfect sense to own a gun such as that. Maybe I just can't shake the image of guys going into the wilderness and shooting 10 deer for fun. What if they only legalize guns like that in lightly populated areas?
#1313 to #1307 - fordun
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/23/2013) [-]
Well then we get into the area of gun control were it wouldn't matter what we passed because at that point it doesn't effect anything.

If you left these semi automatic rifles with those in rural areas then criminals would just go over to those areas and purchase these rifles. Not to mention these areas do have schools as well. Some places wild life routinely walks on to the school campus.

At my own middle school we saw several turkeys. This is in the New England suburbs by the way. And Deer have been known to maul people to death. They can actually be quite dangerous.

Newtown was a fairly rural area as well. Not to mention shortly after Sandy Hook a man in china killed 22 people with a simple kitchen knife. The Boston Bombings were done with homemade pressure cooker bombs.

In my opinion i would rather be shot then blown up by an IED. Its cleaner. Less chance i lose my legs. If i get shot in the head i would die before i felt the pain. Sad thing to think about.

I mean the Geneva convention bans certain weapons for the use of war. Knifes in WW1 uses triangular blades that left a unclean cut, biological and chemical weapons are banned, exploding bullets are banned. These are banned because they offer painful and inhumane ways to die. Luckily governments and military organizations are usually a lot better at following bans then singular criminals are.

Anti personal mines are banned but they are still being used heavily in the middle east by terrorist groups. These groups have a lot more similarities to street thugs and act like such.

Now "Assault Rifles" are only used in about 1% of gun violence. These mass shootings are the exception to the rule. More people die everyday from cheap 9mm Kel-Tec brand handguns. But we can't ban those or the poor will not be able to afford adequate defense.

What it comes down to is if a ban isn't going to hurt the criminals. It will hurt the civilians.
#1325 to #1313 - trigondarkthree
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/24/2013) [-]
Ok, what about universal background checks?
#1326 to #1325 - fordun
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/24/2013) [-]
We already do that. Thanks to the 1994 Brady Bill which requires all states do at least a quick search for criminal and violent activity on said persons record. Mental Illness is a different story that i am not fully educated on. I will only say that Adam Lanza who shot up Sandy Hook would not have been stopped by further background checks. He stole his guns. And a lot of the "crazies" out there are crazy but have no record of mental illness.

My father knew someone back in the 80s who stole shotguns right out of a sporting goods store. Slung the gun over his shoulder and walked out of the store like he owned it. He did this several times and was not questioned each time.

He also knew a group of people who stole one of there mothers cars (Also in the 80s they were older teenagers) drove it through the front of a sporting goods store (Or broke in some other way, i don't remember) loaded up the trunk with about 30 rifles and shotguns and began to drive away. They were caught driving away.

My father was mixed into the wrong crowd during his early adulthood and saw alot of gangs activity and guns change hands. None of them purchased legally. Some came in from local gun owners. But its also very likely that a lot of firearms come into the country from Mexican Cartels.

At this point i would like to commend you for being so civil. I am normally get shunned pretty quickly by anti-gunners. Whether or not you agree i am glad to see someone is at least willing to consider new information.

The problem is we already do background checks and that wouldn't stop criminals it would only make it harder for law abiding citizens to protect themselves.
#1333 to #1326 - trigondarkthree
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/25/2013) [-]
However, people can still buy guns over the internet, and even from "friends" in some states. But in all else, it seems that the current system is relatively healthy.
#1334 to #1333 - fordun
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/25/2013) [-]
I'm pretty sure you still need all the regular credentials when ordering online. The only actual avoidance is person to person transfer. Which will occur even if we mandated background checks across the board.
User avatar #727 to #703 - PhuckingPhreak
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
alright what hobbies do you have?
User avatar #712 to #703 - TheMacDaddy
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
The hobby that is shooting guns.
#720 to #697 - fordun
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
Or you know. The same police that found the Boston Bomber. With child killing 30 round mags. Genocide performing barrel shrouds. Grandma life ending folding stocks and opitcal sights.
User avatar #563 - foliap
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
ok...ok. Honestly, I think both arguments are flawed regarding gun laws. But if you own a gun for self defense, why are there those with more than one? why would you need an assault riffle and so on, why not just an ordinary hand gun? Isn't that the point where the commodity of owning a gun becomes less self protection and more for leisure.

I'm don't really side with either end, as there isn't really any fix to the crime issues in america, but I don't agree with the argument "the gun didn't kill the person" statement. You're providing a killer with a killing machine, the use of a gun is quick and fast and requires much less pre-meditation to do than physically attack someone with a knife. I dunno, There are pro's an cons to either end, but it's really those two things that piss me off about the pro gun side.
#586 to #563 - anon id: 1c564d85
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
Owning more than one has a few advantages, besides simply enjoying it. For example, you can have a .22 and a couple .45s. The .22 would be for target practice and the .45s would be for personal protection. When one runs out, you can switch to the other, or you can have them in different palces in your home so that you always have easy access to one in case of emergency.
#598 to #563 - anon id: 1c564d85
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
As for using a gun as opposed to a knife, yes it's easier, but that's the point. A small woman with a gun instead of a knife is on equal ground with a large man who has one.
User avatar #630 to #563 - thathorse
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
Some people also use them as a hobby for competition shooting or hunting. "Assault Rifles" are illegal without the proper paper work and permits and if for some reason you wish to move them from your home to somewhere else you must notify the police. An AR15 is a civilian model which is a semi-auto meaning that it fires one round per trigger pull. There are other rifles that do the same but aren't mentioned because they don't look "scary" like the AR15 does.
#551 - gernab
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
In 2010 358 deaths from rifles and on average 2,500 deaths from choking. Heue hehehe ueuhehueheuuheeeu heueuheehu.
In 2010 358 deaths from rifles and on average 2,500 deaths from choking. Heue hehehe ueuhehueheuuheeeu heueuheehu.
User avatar #564 to #551 - Crusader
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
More people eat than shoot guns.
User avatar #571 to #564 - gernab
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
Yeah but no one intends to ******* choke, people intent to shoot guns, and people.
User avatar #593 to #571 - Crusader
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
Still, it's a logical fallacy.
Of course more people are going to choke, because more people eat.
It's like saying "There are more people with cars in America than in Canada"
Of course there is, there are more people in america than Canada.
User avatar #619 to #593 - gernab
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
Caution makes it so less people choke, guns are intended to kill food is meant for eating. Additionally I was including rifles alone but including all guns the deaths are around 20-30 thousand. But people feel its necessary to blame a certain weapon because the looks. More people eating means little to nothing when there is no intent to choke. But even then knives contribute to more murders than rifles.
User avatar #641 to #619 - Crusader
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
It's still a fallacy.
Saying more people choke than are killed by rifles is not a proper comparison, because there are more people eating than owning guns.
It doesn't matter the amount of caution, the base numbers are so grossly different that there are going to be massive margins of difference.
User avatar #674 to #641 - gernab
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
This post compared the two regardless stating its a fallacy simply isn't true less people own cars than eat but still more people die in car crashes. And even then judging this by how lethal they are. You can't give accurate data when you don't even consider every variable. You cannot simply becomes irrelevant just to prove you point. Even more people ******* breath air but nobody dies from air. This isn't about more or less this is about how many people die from it. Less people die from rifles than choking that is what this compares so stick to it.
User avatar #537 - iamslender
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
Kids can buy candy but not guns. /content
#495 - danielscqro
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
We need to ban Democrats from owning guns, and not good average americans
User avatar #505 to #495 - jlew
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
Yeah its funny how people who have a problem with something tend to try and restrict it.
Not saying your picture is stupid, just being kinda sarcastic.
I personally don't think gun control works as a person who wants to hurt someone is going to find a way to do so even if the law tells them they can't.
User avatar #518 to #495 - vanoreo
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
Because only Democrats are bad people
User avatar #520 to #495 - vanoreo
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
also because only Democrats are in favor of banning assault weapons.
User avatar #503 to #495 - capslockrage
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
Guys look, a graph on the internet!
must be 100% true!
#355 - verby
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(04/21/2013) [-]
I don't see the problem with background checks, and low capacity magazines. ****, even make assault weapon owners take a class on how to use it. In reality, it takes less than half a second to reload for a trained shooter. Which is what many NRA member claim to be.
Seems like all three are a reasonable compromise to me. Law abiding citizens lose no rights, psychopaths have a harder time doing evil things
User avatar #392 to #355 - teoberry
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
Yeah, we do lose rights. I'm not American. I don't personally own guns. But this infringes on the American 2nd amendment. Look at what happened with Dorner. Cops opening fire on anything that vaguely resembled his truck. People need a right to fight back against that. I'm sorry, but a bolt-action savage with 5 rounds won't do the trick. If it takes an AR-15 with 30 round mags, then it takes an AR-15 with 30 round mags.
#397 to #392 - verby
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
Did I say ban assault rifles?
User avatar #400 to #397 - teoberry
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
You said low capacity, I was addressing that.
#417 to #400 - verby
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
I also said it doesn't take long for someone trained with the weapon to change mags. Like really, less than half a second for a speed reload,, maybe a second or two for a tactical reload
User avatar #428 to #417 - teoberry
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
Yeah, but that half a second could cost your life. The more bullets I'd have in a gun the safer I'd feel. 5 or tens rounds is definitely not enough.
#1241 to #428 - verby
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
It could, but you're not going to get it perfect. The only reason they give us 28 round magazines in the military is to increase our capacity to carry ammo. Just in case
#398 to #397 - teoberry
0 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
#389 to #355 - moofinbanana
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
The Gun-Control Bill would not have stopped the shooting at Sandy Hook.   
There was a similar assault weapon ban when Columbine which didn't stop it from happening.   
Australia banned Automatic and Semi-Automatic weapons in 1996.  Gun related crimes dropped drastically, but other types of crime rose dramatically.   
   
Criminals can and will find ways around laws if they intend to do harm.
The Gun-Control Bill would not have stopped the shooting at Sandy Hook.
There was a similar assault weapon ban when Columbine which didn't stop it from happening.
Australia banned Automatic and Semi-Automatic weapons in 1996. Gun related crimes dropped drastically, but other types of crime rose dramatically.

Criminals can and will find ways around laws if they intend to do harm.
#396 to #389 - verby
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
I'm not saying ban assault rifles, *******. I'm saying screen those who wish to purchase them legally, so that the people who we don't want with weapons can be prevented from having them. It won't prevent everything, but we need to do something.
This is coming from a firearms enthusiast. I also think we should have more citizens carrying, and potentially armed guards at schools
User avatar #448 to #396 - moofinbanana
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
I didn't say anything about banning anything. It's just that every time that new gun legislature is made, it either does nothing or makes things worse.
#1242 to #448 - verby
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
Yeah, the assault rifle/high capacity magazine bans would be surprisingly easy to get around
#359 to #355 - bitchitroll
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(04/21/2013) [-]
the only people who own legal assault rifles have a class 3 firearms license and a federal tax stamp saying they can have it. everyone else has a semi automatic rifle
#372 to #359 - verby
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(04/21/2013) [-]
I meant the legal definition of assault rifle, semi automatic and what not. In any case, it can be an assault rifle if it's not fully automatic.
User avatar #333 - dawgfan
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(04/21/2013) [-]
Who the **** would give a little kid an AR-15?
#336 to #333 - anon id: d57399ec
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/21/2013) [-]
happens all the time that a kid finds his parents' firearm and provokes an accident.
User avatar #340 to #336 - dawgfan
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(04/21/2013) [-]
I have never heard of a child accidentally shooting themselves with an AR-15.
Most people keep their guns locked up in a safe and keep them unloaded and on safety.
User avatar #350 to #340 - bitchitroll
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/21/2013) [-]
couple years ago some kids in my state had been playing cops an robbers. the "cop" kid found his grandfathers revolver........ the other kid got shot in the throat.
User avatar #370 to #350 - bitchitroll
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/21/2013) [-]
not trying to argue for gun control just pointing out it does happen
User avatar #395 to #370 - dawgfan
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
handguns yes but when it comes to guns such as AR-15s and AK-47s, the likely hood of a kid finding it and knowing how to use it is far less likely
#347 to #340 - anon id: d57399ec
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/21/2013) [-]
happens all the time that a kid finds his parents' firearm and provokes an accident.
User avatar #289 - Soilwork
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(04/21/2013) [-]
Breaking Bad should change from meth to kinder eggs
#259 - Bforbacon
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(04/21/2013) [-]
Her trigger discipline is agitating my /k/ gland
#85 - waffies
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(04/21/2013) [-]
I wonder how the little girl felt when they handed her that. I mean im sure it's either a prop or unloaded, but still   
   
"Just stand here and look homicidal!"
I wonder how the little girl felt when they handed her that. I mean im sure it's either a prop or unloaded, but still

"Just stand here and look homicidal!"
User avatar #76 - habasparkz
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(04/21/2013) [-]
Nice trigger control bitch.
#30 - leshiggydonatello
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(04/21/2013) [-]
>that ******* trigger discipline
#25 - therealmagnum
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(04/21/2013) [-]
We should probably ban cars because they can run over people and pools because you can drown in water...