Upload
Login or register
Anonymous comments allowed.
#122 - Uranium
Reply +3
(06/15/2013) [-]
#110 - SubjectThree
Reply +2
(06/14/2013) [-]
What about bows and arrows? They have several advantages over guns.

*Genuinely silent, and leave no smoke cloud.
*Can penetrate most commercial issued body armors because arrowheads cut and slice, and can go through the holes in a kevlar weave with ease.
*Can be poisoned
*Cheaper than guns
*Modern carbon-fiber arrow shafts cannot be broken off without risk of further damage to the victim.

Why aren't we banning these then?
#111 to #110 - anon
Reply 0
(06/14/2013) [-]
thats more of a assasination weapon than a self defence weapon
#124 to #110 - jorah
Reply 0
(06/15/2013) [-]
Because they are useless for mass killing
#129 to #110 - ltsparky
Reply 0
(06/15/2013) [-]
They weren't mentioned in the Constitution
#112 to #110 - secretdestroyers ONLINE
Reply +1
(06/15/2013) [-]
Because how many mass shootings can you name that have been done with a bow and arrow? As interesting as that would be to witness...
#126 to #112 - captainsheperd
Reply 0
(06/15/2013) [-]
have you played Crysis 3?
#127 to #126 - secretdestroyers ONLINE
Reply 0
(06/15/2013) [-]
I have not. Although, I obviously should...
#128 to #127 - captainsheperd
Reply 0
(06/15/2013) [-]
quite its basically arrow after arrow
#78 - wobbles
Reply 0
(06/14/2013) [-]
can someone clarify this for me? I am not American... do they want to ban all guns or what?
#88 to #78 - thelastamerican
Reply 0
(06/14/2013) [-]
It really depends. Some Americans want to ban all guns. Some want to ban only certain guns that are/have been used in warfare. Some want to ban only certain accessories that can be used with guns. Some want every citizen to be allowed to choose. Some want it mandated that every citizen be required to own a gun. Some want it mandated that every citizen is conscripted into the military for a certain amount of time when they come of age.

What it comes down to is that some people want to be left alone to take care of themselves, and some people want to take care of everyone else.
#80 to #78 - pebar
Reply +2
(06/14/2013) [-]
Some people do, and they're trying...
But thankfully they will not succeed. They couldn't even get background checks for private sales through the democrat controlled senate.
*evil laugh*
#96 to #78 - chiefrunnyjeans
Reply +2
(06/14/2013) [-]
no, just "scary looking" semi automatic rifles. the only ones who support banning them are ignorant sheep.
#117 to #96 - hazelnuttz
Reply -2
(06/15/2013) [-]
Really? Sheep? No one I've ever heard from has made a clear and solid argument as to why average citizens should need to be able to buy automatic rifles and high capacity magazines. I get not banning all guns, that's obvious, but you don't NEED to have a weapon that is capable of killing lots of people really quickly. The less of those there are around the less lives will be lost en-mass. How can anyone argue that fact?

The only argument I've heard from gun advocats is that they want to have the same, if not, more powerful weapons then the bad guys have. Well. Considering the badguys are more often then not just average citizens like you gun advocates... the irony is perfectly clear.

And if you're worried about criminal gangs getting hold of now illegal automatic rifles and going on shooting sprees, well you can rest assured that there will still be FAR LESS shooting sprees then the alternative. And in any case you'll still have your concealed hand guns etc and be able to defend yourself if you're smart about it.

Advocating for the right to buy assault rifles won't save a crowd of people from getting mowed down at a fair, or in a mall, or anywhere really. But if the gun wasn't available to begin with, far less people would be killed.

If you don't agree feel free to say why
#135 to #117 - wobbles
Reply 0
(06/15/2013) [-]
banning guns for regular people is just bad.

If a criminal wants to kill someone, do you think that a gun law would stop him? Most of the worst shootings happen at gun-free zones, where are people just couldn't protect themselves with a gun.

And by the way if someone like REALLY wants to kill someone, a small revolver or a knife can be more dangerous because they are stealthy.
#133 to #117 - chiefrunnyjeans
Reply 0
(06/15/2013) [-]
In the UK there was an increase in gun crimes after they banned them.
1. 30 rounds is standard capacity
2. You obviously don't know enough about guns to be having this debate
3. They are semi automatic rifles, not assault rifles. Do you get all your information from msnbc or cnn? I ask because it's all wrong.
4. Open carrying of semi automatic rifles would make shooting sprees all but extinct. If you saw law abiding citizens with guns around you would you commit a violent crime? I think not. However if they weren't it would be so much easier to murder people because they can't fight back can they?
5. Semi automatic rifles and standard capacity magazines are what keeps places like detroit safe. I should know because I live right by there. Store owners use AR-15's to shoot and kill would-be robbers.
6. Second amendment makes any argument you come up with invalid. Welcome to America. Respect all rights to the fullest extent or gtfo
#134 to #133 - chiefrunnyjeans
0
has deleted their comment [-]
#77 - njjsoccerkid
-6
has deleted their comment [-]
#86 to #77 - exarzero
Reply 0
(06/14/2013) [-]
Asshole going around making his name really close to others and doing this. Not his content.
#79 to #77 - pebar
Reply +2
(06/14/2013) [-]
the name isn't the same
#85 - brenton
Reply +1
(06/14/2013) [-]
<sarcasm>That magazine holds too many rounds. Still illegal.</sarcasm>
#63 - Jewssassin
Reply +1
(06/14/2013) [-]
One of my local gun stores has an "Assault Bat"
Its a black baseball bat with a scope on it and fake blood stains, "only used once" $80.
#132 - ethkot
Reply 0
(06/15/2013) [-]
Come on! Now we have to ban sticks because when you do that to it, it looks like a gun!
#130 - snakefire
Reply 0
(06/15/2013) [-]
Nobody's taken' mai snipah
Nobody's taken' mai snipah
#137 to #130 - wholesomeburn
Reply 0
(06/20/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
#125 - anon
Reply 0
(06/15/2013) [-]
I thought self-defense became illegal too.
#120 - anon
Reply 0
(06/15/2013) [-]
of the course the anti-sanity idiot makes a bunch of spelling errors
#100 - mymiddleleg
Reply 0
(06/14/2013) [-]
End result of Britains Armed Forces budget cuts
#108 to #100 - lolfire
Reply 0
(06/14/2013) [-]
Haha, you lot in the mainland aren't allowed guns.
#98 - mattucheese **User deleted account**
Reply 0
(06/14/2013) [-]
In theory since it doesn't have a stock it could be considered a "pistol". The law is stupid on pistols and says you can not have forward vertical grip on it. Thus making it a federal crime to have that grippod on it...
#95 - bbbaka
Reply 0
(06/14/2013) [-]
ib4 goverment confiscates it   
   
GIF somewhat relevant
ib4 goverment confiscates it

GIF somewhat relevant
#94 - chiefrunnyjeans
Reply 0
(06/14/2013) [-]
oh no. it has a scary foregrip and magazine. hurr durr we should ban this guys
#93 - doctormisha
Reply 0
(06/14/2013) [-]
This is..the only relevant thing I have
#83 - xxhunterxx
Reply 0
(06/14/2013) [-]
#66 - Tazdingo
Reply 0
(06/14/2013) [-]
Too bad the magazine is too big for it to be legal.
#76 to #66 - anon
Reply 0
(06/14/2013) [-]
Only in fascist states like California and a couple others.
#101 to #76 - anon
Reply 0
(06/14/2013) [-]
>implying fascism is bad
#121 to #101 - skinless
Reply 0
(06/15/2013) [-]
it is
#109 to #101 - anon
Reply 0
(06/14/2013) [-]
>implying it's not
#62 - Thenewguygunther
Reply 0
(06/14/2013) [-]
n0-scope
#71 to #62 - vedgetable
Reply 0
(06/14/2013) [-]
isnt no-scope just a regular shot..
#61 - tmdarby
Reply 0
(06/14/2013) [-]
Here come the internet fights.
Here come the internet fights.
#27 - hypex
Reply 0
(06/14/2013) [-]
meanwhiile on /k/....