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

hide menu
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#675 - ericzxvc (09/08/2012) [-]
Well if we want to talk logic, why don't we.   
The U.S gun-related homicide rate is 2.97 / 100,000 people   
France and England's are 0.06 and 0.07 respectively   
   
Funny how that works, huh?   
This situation is stupid, it implies that you agree with guns or you're stupid, it's an argument that only one side can win. But deciding that you're gun or anti-gun is based on a hell of a lot more than one situation. Besides this situation is complete 						********					, if somebody is pointing a gun at a loved one, and you reach for your gun, by then your loved one just had their head blown off.   
   
Illegal guns in the US are just legal guns that have been tampered with, what do you think that there's an illegal glock factory? More guns in circulation and looser gun laws creates a much easier place for illegal guns to thrive. Plus it's not a safe environment, nor is it a trusting one, it just makes for a horrible community. It's why people say Canadian's are so friendly, because we know that nobody has a gun strapped to their hip. If you disagree with me, just look at the above statistics, what possible arguments could you make against cold hard facts that even legal guns create more death.
Well if we want to talk logic, why don't we.
The U.S gun-related homicide rate is 2.97 / 100,000 people
France and England's are 0.06 and 0.07 respectively

Funny how that works, huh?
This situation is stupid, it implies that you agree with guns or you're stupid, it's an argument that only one side can win. But deciding that you're gun or anti-gun is based on a hell of a lot more than one situation. Besides this situation is complete ******** , if somebody is pointing a gun at a loved one, and you reach for your gun, by then your loved one just had their head blown off.

Illegal guns in the US are just legal guns that have been tampered with, what do you think that there's an illegal glock factory? More guns in circulation and looser gun laws creates a much easier place for illegal guns to thrive. Plus it's not a safe environment, nor is it a trusting one, it just makes for a horrible community. It's why people say Canadian's are so friendly, because we know that nobody has a gun strapped to their hip. If you disagree with me, just look at the above statistics, what possible arguments could you make against cold hard facts that even legal guns create more death.
#730 to #675 - gingerwithabat (09/08/2012) [-]
No matter what the statistics say, the right to bare arms is put in place to protect the rights of the citizen. This is for if the government tries to take control of the population turning into a dictatorship (communist/nazi/fascist) government. So then the citizens can rise up with said weapons and take down said dictatorship. This is one of our most basic rights that need to be careful guarded so we don't just turn into innocent lambs that get kept in cages then get lead to slaughter. Though there is one thing you need to think of, most of those murders will occur while or not there are guns laws or not. Look at it this way, do criminals obey the law? Of course not, and with any society there are ALWAYS going to be criminals that will break laws. However without those laws in place criminals will still find guns some how, only now the average citizen will have nothing to protect themselves with.
User avatar #741 to #730 - ericzxvc (09/08/2012) [-]
Did you even read my comment, or were you too busy excitedly enlarging your comment font? YES THE STATISTICS MATTER, how could they not? You live in a first world country, with first world laws, there is no threat WHATSOEVER of a hostile dictatorship. Besides if the army marched on the civilians, there would be no chance in hell some gun toting civilian would have a REMOTE chance against holding against your stupidly big army. Your entire second point is completely invalidated by the fact that all the criminals in every single other fist world country are still able to acquire guns as you say, but the rate is lower, so those murders WILL NOT happen laws or not, the statistics obviously tell you that they DON'T HAPPEN. Less guns = less death, there's no counter to that argument which is solidly proven. Please read my comment this time
#763 to #741 - gingerwithabat (09/08/2012) [-]
Ok to be honest I was just playing with the font size and didn't know it'd end up being like that. However I did read your comment sir, and you are saying there is never a chance of a change in government? Have you ever looked at Germany or Russia, those two governments were monarch controlled governments until they grew weak and were taken over. There can always be drastic shifts in power, and our founding fathers knew this and wanted to prepare for this because they caused one themselves. Also even if the military did turn on the public at least there would be a chance of us fighting back. Instead of us just being forced into that new government with no say in it at all. Now look in the way I say statistics don't matter is that different groupings of murders that may only have just the same factor that someone died because of a gun get tied together. So based on just a number you can't really say that all the murders were committed for the same reason that you use to condemn the law. Plus there are tons of ways to kill someone without a gun, so these murders can still be committed. We don't live in a perfect society yet where we can trust that no one has some homicidal intent for others. So it should rather be that we have guns to stop one murder then have it where there other murders where innocent people die because they didn't have one. Also even if there is only a slim chance of the government taking over, it would still be better to have that insurance for if it does happen then be left there with just our dicks hanging out when it does.
Ok to be honest I was just playing with the font size and didn't know it'd end up being like that. However I did read your comment sir, and you are saying there is never a chance of a change in government? Have you ever looked at Germany or Russia, those two governments were monarch controlled governments until they grew weak and were taken over. There can always be drastic shifts in power, and our founding fathers knew this and wanted to prepare for this because they caused one themselves. Also even if the military did turn on the public at least there would be a chance of us fighting back. Instead of us just being forced into that new government with no say in it at all. Now look in the way I say statistics don't matter is that different groupings of murders that may only have just the same factor that someone died because of a gun get tied together. So based on just a number you can't really say that all the murders were committed for the same reason that you use to condemn the law. Plus there are tons of ways to kill someone without a gun, so these murders can still be committed. We don't live in a perfect society yet where we can trust that no one has some homicidal intent for others. So it should rather be that we have guns to stop one murder then have it where there other murders where innocent people die because they didn't have one. Also even if there is only a slim chance of the government taking over, it would still be better to have that insurance for if it does happen then be left there with just our dicks hanging out when it does.
User avatar #768 to #763 - ericzxvc (09/08/2012) [-]
Assaults with guns are TWENTY-THREE times more lethal than other weapons, so the "other ways" argument really has no base. Germany and Russia were far in the past, I'm talking about now in 2012 in a country like America, Canada, or the UK, any sort of violent change is not going to happen, because 99.999% of people living in these countries have values completely against that and would never go at war with their neighbours.
#810 to #768 - gingerwithabat (09/08/2012) [-]
Every human has the ability to become violent and murderous because it is hard coded in our minds. Where that impulse of defending ourselves becomes twisted in ways where our minds fall into chaos and anarchy. To believe that our world is becoming some perfect place where things like this doesn't happen is just wishful thinking. Every boundary and feeling of safety we have is just a thin wall of paper, that anyone can just simply tear down. Pulling us out in the pure hell, we humans can pull forth with our own two hands turning our nightmares into reality. You sitting there pulling up statistics (Where unless a proper source is produced it cannot be taken as fact) thinking the world just stays "peaceful" without someone suffering for it. Now look at our society thinking "oh well things in our history can never repeat again" well think of the quote "Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it". You see the idiots we have in power all over the world are actually on thin ice messing with **** left and right. We still will have wars we still will have genocide, and it is for the simple fact that humans haven't learned fully how to be peaceful yet. So until the day the world can come together and learn not to shoot each other. Then it would be wise to be armed so we don't have ours lives put in some side note in history as the ones who got buried first.
User avatar #832 to #810 - JuliusC ONLINE (09/09/2012) [-]
thankyou, at least someone on here has some sense of logic, if you look at my posts against him just look at his lack of logic, he just brings up the same statistics and platform over and over again
User avatar #749 to #741 - JuliusC ONLINE (09/08/2012) [-]
this argument is entirely fallacious as well, the united states army is a CITIZEN ARMY, no trooper in even their craziest imagination would raise their arms against a civilian population full of their family friends relatives and loved ones and if by some glorious stretch of the imagination would this occur there are upwards of 90million gun owners in the US that is a greater than 85:1 ratio
User avatar #753 to #749 - ericzxvc (09/08/2012) [-]
Ok, if the army would never attack anybody, who the hell are you afraid of? The President personally killing every civilian? Like I said before, the chance of a dictatorship in a first world country is 0%.
User avatar #764 to #753 - JuliusC ONLINE (09/08/2012) [-]
Well, personally i don't believe that i will ever use my guns for self defense or any other purpose, however i do like having them. Why? because they are fun to shoot, i like the challenge of shooting a target at 300m (and the peace of mind is nice too)
User avatar #767 to #764 - ericzxvc (09/08/2012) [-]
Refer to my comment #766 and see how disgusting of a human being you are, believing that having something fun to shoot is worth even one more person dying.
User avatar #774 to #767 - JuliusC ONLINE (09/08/2012) [-]
what does the fact that i own guns pertain to the death of people, i would never raise a weapon to a man that did not deserve it (hed have to do something REALLY bad)
User avatar #760 to #753 - gingerwithabat (09/08/2012) [-]
There are always ways and people, who with enough money would kill for anyone. I mean holy crap the government could form a treaty with Cuba and have them bring in soldiers, or North Korea. Plus there are quite a few private military groups that would love to jump on a huge contract like that.
User avatar #691 to #675 - JuliusC ONLINE (09/08/2012) [-]
well you see the problem is is that those figures are skwed by the lack of guns in Europe. If you lok at the European homicides by blunt or sharp objects they are MUCH higher than in the us (% wise). (also you have fewer blacks and mexicans)
User avatar #707 to #691 - ericzxvc (09/08/2012) [-]
Exactly, dumbass, the less guns there are the less killings there are, don't you see? Ok, Canada, we're right beside the US and there's a thriving illegal gun trade, but guns are not legal. Yet we have a 0.51/100,000 homicide rate so therefore even though there are illegal guns, the fact that there are no legal guns seems to help the situation. Australia has a 0.14/100,000, Japan is 0.01/100,000, no first world country comes remotely close to the US.
Homicide rates in general are much lower in every first world country compared to the US, showing how much guns promote violence and killings. These statistics are not skewed, but you proved my point by saying less guns = less violence.
User avatar #723 to #707 - JuliusC ONLINE (09/08/2012) [-]
well thanks for the hostilities ******** but you have to look at population density and other aspects that we have and you dont, also take a look at the demographics of your coutry as well as ours you have WAAAAAAAAAY fewer blacks, mexicans, white trash etc than we do and dont say im racist in assuming only minorities commit crims because it IS true, 75% of people incarserated in america are either black or mexican. even if there were no guns people will still find ways to kill other people.
>were right beside the us
>right beside the us
>beside the us
>beside, try above *******
User avatar #729 to #723 - ericzxvc (09/08/2012) [-]
Hmm population density, what's a good example? I don't know, how about EUROPE. The point is that you cannot find a single first world country that has a higher gun homicide rate than the US, there are a plethora of factors in all the different unique countries that can cancel out any bias that you imply. The type of people are irrelevant, just because you're racist doesn't mean you can try to use that as an argument. The point is that all these people that you are racist against can get guns, it doesn't matter who they are, just that they are getting guns.
I have no idea what the last part of your comment meant.
User avatar #752 to #729 - JuliusC ONLINE (09/08/2012) [-]
but by all means try to live in your perfect fantasy world where there are no poor people, no diseases weapons or arms, people that would gladly kill another merely because they are from a "diffnt hood" or their skin color is different. lets all live in a world where the problems of overpopulation and starvation are mere figments of the imagination and no one in their right mind would ever be able to comprehend the very idea of harming another. Maybe ill drop by sometime to drink the chocolate that springs from wild fairy asshole geysers that are native to the lush lands of perfectland.
User avatar #742 to #729 - JuliusC ONLINE (09/08/2012) [-]
also in your comment you stated "Ok, Canada, we're right beside the US "
Canada is North of the us with the exception of Alaska which holds approx 3% of the us population
User avatar #740 to #729 - JuliusC ONLINE (09/08/2012) [-]
well first off i CAN name a country with higher gun crime, its called mexico and the whole first world thing is entirely irrelevant, those terms were invented by the media in the 60's to describe soviet sattelite states and is in no way relevant to really any country anymore. And NO i am not a racist, i am a REALIST, i recognize that yes there is a lot of gun violence in the US, but guns dont commit acts of violence, PEOPLE DO. i don't see how hard this concept is to grasp. Yes gun crime is much higher in the us than most other counties but namely because guns are easy to get ahold of and are the most efficient way to kill someone. And the availability of guns in this country will NEVER go down so raging on the internet on a flame war about a place where you dont even live is completely retarded of you and adding insults into an otherwise peaceful debate is jouvenile
User avatar #751 to #740 - ericzxvc (09/08/2012) [-]
OK, any modern civilized country, happy? Mexico is not one of those, and those factors are extremely important because you cannot compare an uncivilized country on the same field as a civilized one, next thing you know you're going to tell me that the Middle East or Africa is the same as England. Yes in the future it is inevitable that gun availability will go down in the US, the same way that it is inevitable that gay marriage will be legal, and evolution will be more accepted, the same reason why woman can vote, and slavery is abolished; because these are modern values, and every other modern civilized country has embraced them and moved forward. The US can either join modern civilization or be left behind.
The whole guns don't kill people, people kill people argument just removed any credibility you might have, for that is one of the stupidest arguments ever made. Gun assaults are 23 times more lethal than assaults with other weapons or bodily force, as well as a much higher accident lethality rate, so yes guns kill people. Somebody is much more likely to pull a little trigger, than bludgeon somebodies head with a hammer. A gun's sole purpose is to kill, a knife or hammer is a tool that is not meant to kill, and any thing that's sole purpose is to kill should be illegal, because it is completely unnecessary. Besides statistically, like I said before if criminals only had non-gun weapons, violent assaults and death would be a 23rd or what it is now.
User avatar #759 to #751 - JuliusC ONLINE (09/08/2012) [-]
>removed all credibility you might have
Ok im going to lay my handgun on the counter and stare at it for THOUSANDS of years until it grows legs, gets up and fires a bullet into a mans chest. Guns do kill people, BUT as an INSTRUMENT used by MAN, youre so ******* retarded its painful. If the man in Colorado wanted to kill all those poor souls in that theatre and he did not posess a firearm he could have done it EASILY and quite possibly more effectively. He could have simply built a bomb out of everyday household items, or closed off the vents and exits and introduced homemade chlorine gas into the containment area. You need to grow up and realize that people are not hard to kill and if someone wants someone else dead, they will make it so
User avatar #766 to #759 - ericzxvc (09/08/2012) [-]
Look at any credible publication, they all **** on the stupidity that is the, "guns don't kill people...." argument, because it's STUPID, even if you believe in guns, please don't embarrass yourself with that argument. I didn't mention the man in Colorado, but theoretically he could have stolen a jet and bombed the theatre, but why the **** would you make an argument about what could have happened when the actual scenario is staring you right in the face. Are you just going to ignore my facts then? Without guns assaults are 23 times less lethal, so yes there are other ways, but those other ways cause much less death.
I cannot argue with somebody so stubborn in reducing the sanctity of human life, if legal guns cause one more person's child to be killed then how can anybody be on the other side of that? Is owning guns so important that you are able to put on blinders on to the death that is happening, just so you can carry a gun around? Human life is more important than any second amendment in my books, and if you even dare to say that using guns is what you do to preserve human life, then you are only promoting that violence, mistrust, and death.
User avatar #778 to #766 - JuliusC ONLINE (09/08/2012) [-]
oh also, WHEN did i EVER say that human life is unimportant, never i merely stated that people are not hard to kill and if someone wanted to they could. If anyone is living with blinders on it is you. You seem to think that a world without guns would be any different than the one we are living in today. You need to face the reality that outside of your perfect Canadian biome there is a Universe full of chaos and destruction, there is literally NOTHING to stop a Pulsar star from swaying on its axis and vaporizing our atmosphere.
User avatar #775 to #766 - JuliusC ONLINE (09/08/2012) [-]
and please dont reply, im growing tired of arguing with a 13 year old with no life experience that believes in illogical fallacies such as a world without violence
User avatar #779 to #775 - ericzxvc (09/08/2012) [-]
I believe in violence,and I'm not thirteen. Based on my ability to form coherent thoughts and rebut your points logically, compared to your complete ignorance of mine, and constant support of arguments that are moronic when contrasted to the plain facts, it really shows who has life experience.
User avatar #782 to #779 - JuliusC ONLINE (09/08/2012) [-]
Oh my god you are just so ******* unrealistic its unbearable, i AM the logical one in this debate, you are the one blindly throwing statistics with no complete idea how the world works. But you, through your illogical mind seem to be twisting this to trick yourself into believing that you are right. You sir are the very definition of insane
User avatar #786 to #782 - ericzxvc (09/08/2012) [-]
When one person is using facts to argue, and the other is calling the other insane for using facts and they are using purely opinion, you can really tell who's insane. Why don't I know how the world works? Just saying that with no basis is wrong, and is a blind attempt to remove credibility from me, just because you own a gun doesn't give you world experience sorry to say. I almost wish I was there so that you could shoot me because of your anger, and my point would be all the more proved.
User avatar #789 to #786 - JuliusC ONLINE (09/08/2012) [-]
I am using facts, you are the one MISusing them, also im not eve mad, im actually kind of having fun argueing with someone that has the mental apacity of a 7 yr old
User avatar #770 to #766 - JuliusC ONLINE (09/08/2012) [-]
youre too stupid to even recognize that i was using those scenarios as a possible alternative. "oh gun assaults are 23 times more lethal" im pretty sure a baseball bat to a sleeping mans skill is just as effective as a gun (it has happened on multiple occasions). there is no such thing as a credible publication on that argument because they are not necessary saying that only guns kill people with no human element on a public street would get you the same looks as the doomsdayers. And what blinders i have NEVER met anyone who has ever lost someone they know to a gun homicide. When you look at your figures and think that those numbers are massive, look at the population of the us in contrast to the amounts of crime, the difference is staggering. People like you blindly look at statistics and think that just because they ARE facts that you are right. if you have ever taken a statistics course you would realize how they can be misrepresented to sway opinion. and taking up the stance as a humanitarian online is ******* pathetic, what have you ever done to help another man? i know exactly what ive done to help. and finally EVEN IN A WORLD WITHOUT GUNS, PEOPLE WILL STILL BE VICTIM TO VIOLENT CRIMES LIKE HOMICIDE i just cant make it any clearer than that
User avatar #776 to #770 - ericzxvc (09/08/2012) [-]
You can't keep on saying the same things, because they don't make sense. Yes violent crimes would still exist, but they would be 23 times less lethal, so stop saying that. I have looked at the population contrast, because the rates are represented in homicides/ set amount of population, so that's also a stupid wrong thing you've said. Just because you don't know someone means it doesn't happen? Just how stupid are you? I'm not a humanitarian online, I live in Canada and hardly anybody gets murdered, and it's pretty great, but the little murder that does happen is somewhat attributed to the loose gun policies of our neighbours to the south. You're telling me that blank statistics are swaying me? I'm not taking my points from a politician, they're from an unbiased third-party.
I can't argue with you, because you don't acknowledge any of my facts, you just go on spouting your illogical stupidity over and over despite being proven wrong time an time again. When a fact does counter your argument you say I'm not allowed to use facts. When a statistic counters your argument, you say that they're swaying me, despite the fact that I looked them up. Your arguments go in endless circles that revolve around points that make no sense when contrasted against the raw facts of the matter. When it comes down to it, it really is just this.

LESS GUNS = LESS VIOLENCE AND DEATH.
If you can disprove that, then maybe you have a point, but you can't. And if you're just going to skirt around that one question, or bring a completely different unrelated and incomparable country into in like Mexico, don't bother replying, because there really is no counter to that basic fact.
User avatar #781 to #776 - JuliusC ONLINE (09/08/2012) [-]
HAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHA 23 times less lethal, if i run someone through with a spear They WILL die
User avatar #783 to #781 - ericzxvc (09/08/2012) [-]
There's the avoidance of my point, well looks like I won, too bad, but there was never really any doubt. If you weren't as stupid as you are (it makes me shudder that people like you exist), you would realize that people can get injured and not killed during assaults, and also that multiple people can die during a gun assault.
Here's my source, hopefully you can read and understand it, I worry because the logic a 6-year-old could grasp seems to evade you.
http://wwwDOTopposingviewsDOTcom/i/society/crime/guns-dont-kill-people-load-nons ense-they-certainly-do
User avatar #784 to #783 - JuliusC ONLINE (09/08/2012) [-]
you cant just claim victory by stating "looks like i won" you are clearly backing out due to a lack in inteligence. Lets live in your world for one second, the US government has outlawed guns, how could they possibly round up 400+ million firearms, its damn impossible which is why your arguement is a phallacy
#843 to #784 - arguement (10/07/2012) [-]
*argument
User avatar #788 to #784 - ericzxvc (09/08/2012) [-]
Avoiding my question yet again, unless you can prove that single basic fact right, you are wrong. And it's not a change that would happen overnight, but over time.
User avatar #799 to #788 - JuliusC ONLINE (09/08/2012) [-]
.
User avatar #798 to #788 - JuliusC ONLINE (09/08/2012) [-]
.
User avatar #797 to #788 - JuliusC ONLINE (09/08/2012) [-]
.
User avatar #796 to #788 - JuliusC ONLINE (09/08/2012) [-]
.
User avatar #795 to #788 - JuliusC ONLINE (09/08/2012) [-]
.
User avatar #794 to #788 - JuliusC ONLINE (09/08/2012) [-]
.
User avatar #792 to #788 - JuliusC ONLINE (09/08/2012) [-]
and the 23 times more lethal debate that is based in statistics is misrepresented, let me tell you why. "Many "assaults with a deadly weapon" charges are filed against those who bludgeoned or stabbed others without the intent to kill, only to maim or injure however these charges are often trumped up in court in order to get a higher conviction rate" When someone fires a gun at someone it is a VERY serious action, often with the CLEAR intent of the assaulter to kill which is why guns are "so much more deadly than other weapons" i actually do know someone that was a victim of a crime like this, he was working at walmart when his co-worker snuck up behind him and beat him in the head with a pipe wrench, he wound up in the hospital and the assaulter is in court on attempted murder charges. Personally i believe that it was never his intent to kill my friend but i do think that he went about it the wrong way and so thats why he is facing said charges. If a mugger is holding up someone in an alleyway with a knife and he stabs them repeatedly, that is entirely just as deadly as a gun. Which is why your 23 times more deadly statistic is misleading
User avatar #800 to #792 - ericzxvc (09/08/2012) [-]
One person was beat with a pipe wrench, and lived, if a gun was used then they would have died. That's one person that survived because a gun wasn't used, GUNS ARE MORE LETHAL. The fact isn't misleading because most people understand that somebody can't be dead 23 times over, but I guess you're not part of that group. It's more lethal because of multiple killings, and successful vs. unsuccessful killings. Besides people who do these studies adjust for bias, they are correct.

Don't bother replying if you can't rebut my point (which I know you can't because it's impossible) that,
LESS GUNS = LESS VIOLENCE AND MURDER
User avatar #805 to #800 - JuliusC ONLINE (09/08/2012) [-]
i sincerely hope that you reread my argument to understand that your entire argument platform has been defeated and that you are, in fact, wrong. I do understand that you will continue to believe that you are right, but in your heart, you will know that you are, and will always be, WRONG
User avatar #804 to #800 - JuliusC ONLINE (09/08/2012) [-]
i also like how you think youre on a mental plane above me when you simply arent, you COMPLETELY failed to understand the message in my argument. You are also unsuccessfully attempting to salvage your main "23 times deadlier" platform and then have the gall to say that im too incompetent to defeat your logic AGAIN which is leading me to suspect that you are actually trying to escape this argument with the "i was just trollin you, you mad" gag which quite frankly, is pathetic
User avatar #802 to #800 - JuliusC ONLINE (09/08/2012) [-]
your so ******* stupid i cant fathom how you managed to figure out the internet
User avatar #801 to #800 - JuliusC ONLINE (09/08/2012) [-]
************** did you even READ or ABSORB the message of the post or did i just not go through your thick skull, that paragraph was about as straight forward as humanly possible. Yes if a gun was used than he would be dead but it was NOT the assaulters INTENT to kill, he never would have used a gun because that was not his ******* intent.I UNDERSTAND that someone cant be 23 times dead, I understand that the statistics lye in the amounts of people killed in incidents using guns as opposed to other weapons. If he wanted to kill my freind with that wrench he could have easily hit him a second time and he would be dead. ITS ALL ABOUT INTENT, NOT SUCCESS OR UNSUCCESS YOU ******* DIMWIT
User avatar #806 to #801 - ericzxvc (09/08/2012) [-]
Your anger clearly indicates that you are losing, and quite badly so. My entire platform has not been defeated, I see that happening nowhere, I just see you going on large tangents about how I am stupid and wrong, but you never actually tell me why. I'm not escaping, I'm just winning, because my fundamental point is right and you know it, because you haven't addressed it. Your logic doesn't make sense, and neither do your morals. You would rather have the ability to carry around a gun then for one person's child to live and for that you are too despicable to argue with.
REGARDLESS OF ANY OTHER POINTS MADE AT ALL, IN ANY FORM, OR ANYTHING.

I will say this one last time, unless you can prove the fundamental point of anti-gun wrong, then you are by extension most definitely wrong.
Less guns = less violence and death
I will not reply unless you find some godly reason for why this might be wrong. If it is a stupid reason as are plentiful in your comments, I will not be replying. There is no point in sitting here talking to someone who has no value for human life, and who believes they are winning an argument when they have been ignoring the only point I want answered, but it shows how obvious your loss is. Please, save yourself the embarrassment and just go to bed.
#807 to #806 - anon (09/08/2012) [-]
i get it maybe with your number there is less deaths and homicide maybe its true who ******* knows but no your a spacial kind of stupid i understand its you opinion but our fore fathers(assuming your american and not some communist troll from another county) set up the second amendment to protected us from the government and had nothing at all to do with menders so you can claim you know more about how a county should be run the makers of the constitution but win it comes down to it weather or not gun increases deaths is irrelevant and if you don't like freedom and guns gtfo of my red white and blue
User avatar #803 to #801 - JuliusC ONLINE (09/08/2012) [-]
* in-success
User avatar #791 to #788 - JuliusC ONLINE (09/08/2012) [-]
avoiding? no i just chose a topic in your statement because i feel if i use all my logic in one paragraph you wont read it all before you throw out your ill advised reply. You seem to think that all gun owners are murderous beasts with no regard for the law. You share the same logic as the teacher that punishes her entire class for the act of one student. Yes people kill other people VERY efficiently with guns but you seem to be neglecting the points in my arguments that people can kill other with just as much ease with another form of weapon.
User avatar #785 to #784 - JuliusC ONLINE (09/08/2012) [-]
fallacy
User avatar #758 to #751 - JuliusC ONLINE (09/08/2012) [-]
and no, the availibility will never go down as there are around 400+ MILLION firearms in this country with a powerful industry cranking out Thousands a day, and if you havent noticed, guns last a LONG time
#757 to #751 - JuliusC ONLINE (09/08/2012) [-]
"the US can accept these laws and ideas or be left behind"
>implying that your ideas are correct and that the US will be left in a stoneage era as opposed to the rest of the world in your imagination of the world in perfectland
User avatar #756 to #751 - JuliusC ONLINE (09/08/2012) [-]
by definition civilized implies groups of homo-sapiens living together in some sort of community, there hasent been an uncivilized COUNTRY in EVER
 Friends (0)