| Home | RSS Feeds |
| Funny Pictures | Funny Videos |
| Funny GIFs | YouTube Videos |
| Text/Links | Comic Editor |
| User Rankings | Channels |
| Copyright Removal Request | |
| |
What? Logic? Stop that!
Lie,
Pit? s
Pit? s
...
| |
Links are not allowed.
You are allowed to post every 1 minute on the same page.
You are allowed to post every 1 minute on the same page.
Remaining character count: 1000
#166 to #147
-
N. Korean citizen (01/13/2013) [-]
dynamite requires planning, and won't be used in moments when people snap. A gun on the other hand provides a quick way of killing multiple people with the pull of a trigger. Of course some would use dynamite, but those statistics are really, really low, and if you were to ban that you might aswell ban kitchen knives etcetera.
#155 to #153
-
miwauturu (01/13/2013) [-]
I am Canadian, so I don't know much about American law, but according to Wikipedia
In 1966, M-80s and cherry bombs were banned by the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) and the Child Protection Act of 1966. Furthermore, they were then made illegal by the ATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives) in the 1970s. In 1975, U.S. federal regulations were passed to limit all consumer-grade fireworks in the United States to a maximum of 50 milligrams flash powder, down from a previous maximum of 200 milligrams (though firecrackers mounted onto a rocket stick, or other aerial firework devices, such as Rockets, Roman Candles, and Cakes, may have up to 130 mg).
In 1966, M-80s and cherry bombs were banned by the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) and the Child Protection Act of 1966. Furthermore, they were then made illegal by the ATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives) in the 1970s. In 1975, U.S. federal regulations were passed to limit all consumer-grade fireworks in the United States to a maximum of 50 milligrams flash powder, down from a previous maximum of 200 milligrams (though firecrackers mounted onto a rocket stick, or other aerial firework devices, such as Rockets, Roman Candles, and Cakes, may have up to 130 mg).
#382 to #372
-
mrbuu (01/13/2013) [-] stealing a gun? from a guy with a gun? a gun shop? most people don't just get angry one day and shoot up a school. they are crazy people who plan out and guy a gun waiting weeks/months to act even years. The people who get angry and want to hurt somebody stab them or go chris brown vs rihanan on them.
#35 to #31
-
soisoisoisoisoi (01/12/2013) [-]
Lol fucking nigger faggot, can you not see that it is clearly an assault rifle with an 8 round clip being used. Fucking brush up on your facts kiddo or prepare to be arse fucked by some mother fucker with an assault rifle with even more in its clip, then we'll see how good guns really are.
#38 to #35
-
RonaldRegan (01/12/2013) [-] FAGIT DO YOU EVN LFT?? kiddo i will find you and i will kill you with my 1000 round drum clip on my Bushmaster 223 and mow your ass down my KD is 3.04 motherfucker! RECONIZE. i do tackticool training everyday because im a Navy Seal i know what the fuck is going on!
#59 to #51
-
miwauturu (01/12/2013) [-]
I've always liked being outside, I like hunting and yes, I have used guns before and am fine with people owning them (although personally what i really want to do is learn to bow hunt).
That said, I don't believe just anyone should be allowed to own just any gun. A revolver like in this comic is fine, but when you're getting into real semi or full auto weapons then they should be heavily restricted at the very least.
That said, I don't believe just anyone should be allowed to own just any gun. A revolver like in this comic is fine, but when you're getting into real semi or full auto weapons then they should be heavily restricted at the very least.
#61 to #59
-
RonaldRegan (01/13/2013) [-] alright kid. ive noticed that you dont know guns. if youre a true hunter, you wont be against guns in any way, period. bow hunter, mussel loader, anything.. if you knew any law, mr. future forest ranger, that fully auto guns are illegal to the public. and a revolver works in the same action as a simi auto gun. it just takes a bit longer to re-load. i am in fact a wildlife officer and was in the military.. gun control is the dumbest thing ive ever heard.. look at Chicago and DC and England. it doesnt work
#21
-
lamarsmithgot (01/12/2013) [+]
(7 replies)
you can't unload on a school and kill 20 people with a string.
#15
-
superlazer (01/12/2013) [+]
(9 replies)
guns shouldn't be fully illegal however, I believe they should make gun laws more strict. I live in Canada and i have my hunting and possession's licence. people shooting up a school rarely ever happens here but how come it's a problem in the U.S.A? Really, that stupid fucking constitution is so outdated and laws should evolve just like the guns themselves. That was signed in 1791 which is over 200 years ago for fuck's sake. At the time, everyone had muskets and would take a long time to reload. who could go on a rampage with a fucking musket? this shit happens too often to not consider stricter gun laws.
#36 to #18
-
Crusader (01/12/2013) [-] Yea, but most people see the idiocy of those laws, so even most cops will let a lot of that stuff slide when they should be arresting people.
As for gun laws.
You don't need full auto rifles, you don't need 30 round clips, you don't need .50 cal rifles.
Why not make it so for each different thing you need a different type of license.
A pistol license, a shotgun/rifle license, a permit to own large clips for certain reasons, such as wild hogs, a permit to own high calibre rifles in case of large wild animals such as bear, etc.
Don't ban them outright, but restrict it so it is harder for people to get them.
As for gun laws.
You don't need full auto rifles, you don't need 30 round clips, you don't need .50 cal rifles.
Why not make it so for each different thing you need a different type of license.
A pistol license, a shotgun/rifle license, a permit to own large clips for certain reasons, such as wild hogs, a permit to own high calibre rifles in case of large wild animals such as bear, etc.
Don't ban them outright, but restrict it so it is harder for people to get them.
#127
-
killyojoy (01/13/2013) [+]
(17 replies)
We have had guns for hundreds of years we don't need to fix guns, we need to fix our mental health.
#333 to #245
-
N. Korean citizen (01/13/2013) [-]
From a country where we have all the media and all the games etc. I can tell you, your problem is quite simply the guns.
We have the same percentage of retards, we have violence, family fueds etc etc.
What we dont have is the guns to exagerate an already bad situation.
We have the same percentage of retards, we have violence, family fueds etc etc.
What we dont have is the guns to exagerate an already bad situation.
#434 to #127
-
allahakbar (01/13/2013) [-] Too bad that is not entirely possible. The human mind is deeper than we can ever fully understand, and some people will snap after they already have a weapon. Guns are a more definite approach when dealing with this matter. Neither approach will be entirely successful, but gun control is a much more stable route to go.
#427 to #127
-
iamchicken (01/13/2013) [-] We've had guns for hundreds of years and when the founding fathers made the 2nd amendment the guns they had shot one shot and has a tendency to miss so they didn't count on shootings to be a big problem. Now we have guns that shoot 30 shots and land all of them if the shooter is well enough trained. But yea our mental health for all humanity is slowly dwindling.
#330 to #127
-
N. Korean citizen (01/13/2013) [-]
Every other country has as many mental retards as you. But without guns they dont have the deaths.
More importantly, most of your gun related deaths are not Adm Lanza's shooting up schools. They are good people having a bad day or intense argument. Most deaths the victim is known to the killer.
More importantly, most of your gun related deaths are not Adm Lanza's shooting up schools. They are good people having a bad day or intense argument. Most deaths the victim is known to the killer.
#568 to #561
-
jewsburninindaoven (01/15/2013) [-] Original comment, "We have had guns for hundreds of years we don't need to fix guns." My comment, "Mental health issues have been around as long as humans have been around. We don't need to fix mental health issues." I was mocking the original comment. I replaced guns with mental health issues to show the outlandishness of his comment by reversal.
#76
-
ImFrumAija (01/13/2013) [+]
(4 replies)
"People don't ban baseball bats, wire or knives so why ban guns?"
Well these items and knives have other uses. Trying slicing onions with a gun and then we'll talk about proper comparisons.
People need to understand that a gun was designed to hurt/kill people. People should be screened for mental health and guns should be kept in reach away from children/teens. People just need to be more responsible about where killing machines end up.
Well these items and knives have other uses. Trying slicing onions with a gun and then we'll talk about proper comparisons.
People need to understand that a gun was designed to hurt/kill people. People should be screened for mental health and guns should be kept in reach away from children/teens. People just need to be more responsible about where killing machines end up.
#84 to #76
-
InfiniteFetus (01/13/2013) [-] Clubs (baseball bats) and knifes are well known and efficient weapons. And guns have other uses beside killing people, such as hunting, sport, and collecting. So it's not a terrible comparison. Where I will agree with you is that people need to be WAY more responsible with ALL weapons, bans and screenings will do nothing to stop someone who is already willing to break the law; the ultimate fixer is to stop people from wanting to break the law and do terrible things in the first place. OpinionJunk.
#433 to #84
-
rockamekishiko ONLINE (01/13/2013) [-] that's not the point, that bat could be a tree branch someone just broke off while going to kill someone. one could use a rock but then we would have to ban every item in the work because if i hit you with a wooden chair in the head, you'll probably die. people don't go on killing sprees with baseball bats.
#543 to #433
-
InfiniteFetus (01/14/2013) [-] I realize that. I'm not against gun control; In fact i'm mostly for it, but people shouldn't think it's the only thing between us and another killing spree. The only point I was trying to make was that we pay too much attention to the weapons. I think people get so caught up with banning weapons that they forget to take care of psychopaths thereafter. It's definitely important to disarm a would be killer, but it's far more efficient not to have a killer in the first place. Again, just my opinion. thumb for you.
#3
-
ihavenoimagination (01/12/2013) [+]
(4 replies)
Gee, a gun post, I sure hope it doesn't create a shitstorm.
Both sides of this debate are retarded to some extent.
Both sides of this debate are retarded to some extent.
#519 to #183
-
karmakoala (01/13/2013) [-]
A middle ground doesn't always work. if anything that's a more complex issue; who gets the guns? Presumably your reply would be the mentally capable, and a reasonable assertion that is. However, this wouldn't really appeal to either side of the debate. Furthermore, this would be a difficult undertaking; suppose a law that made mandatory an even stricter psychiatric test came in, taking the guns from the existing owners would be hard (and probably dangerous) whilst not really solving the original problem of obtaining firearms. Not taking either side here, i'm just saying that a middle ground isn't always the correct way to go, sometimes you get the worst aspects of both.
Boobies.
Boobies.
#115
-
arnoldbusk (01/13/2013) [+]
(15 replies)
Ban bats in public = Kinda stupid
Bad bats 100% = Take away equipment for age old sport
Ban strings in public = Take away a convenient tool
Ban strings 100% = Take away a convenient tool
Ban knifes in public = pretty sure it already is, atleast where I live
Ban knifes 100% = Take away a convenient tool
Ban guns in public = Not everybody has the power to kill anybody whenever they feel like
Ban guns 100% = Rednecks wont get to kill animals
Bad bats 100% = Take away equipment for age old sport
Ban strings in public = Take away a convenient tool
Ban strings 100% = Take away a convenient tool
Ban knifes in public = pretty sure it already is, atleast where I live
Ban knifes 100% = Take away a convenient tool
Ban guns in public = Not everybody has the power to kill anybody whenever they feel like
Ban guns 100% = Rednecks wont get to kill animals
#190 to #115
-
newfalcon (01/13/2013) [-] I'm a democrat and I both duck and deer hunt every year. I also enjoy sport shooting.
self protection is a valid use as well( and yes an overused excuse), many people live in areas where it can take over half an hour before police can arrive after they have been called. I also get bears, raccoons and foxes at my house sometimes, and I have pet ducks I don't want to get hurt, Im sure as hell not facing a 500 pound black bear without some "insurance" between me and him.
self protection is a valid use as well( and yes an overused excuse), many people live in areas where it can take over half an hour before police can arrive after they have been called. I also get bears, raccoons and foxes at my house sometimes, and I have pet ducks I don't want to get hurt, Im sure as hell not facing a 500 pound black bear without some "insurance" between me and him.
#342 to #190
-
N. Korean citizen (01/13/2013) [-]
Then you probably wouldnt mind adhering to gun regulations that most other countries have. If you need your gun so badly ( and it sounds like you do) then you would be willing to work and pay to own it.
The best thing todo is ntoban guns, but make it effort to obtain one. Those people like you will dilligently do the work and show the rest of society regularly that you are taking the proper care.
This would stop many guns being bought and the less guns in circulation, the less deaths.
The best thing todo is ntoban guns, but make it effort to obtain one. Those people like you will dilligently do the work and show the rest of society regularly that you are taking the proper care.
This would stop many guns being bought and the less guns in circulation, the less deaths.
#273 to #265
-
Antonkr (01/13/2013) [-]
Is your country seriously such a fucking third world country that I have to rely on police (which may be many minutes away) when I am about to be raped or murdered?
I appreciate the privileges and responsibilities of carrying firearms and I am trained for it. This does not only benifit me, it also benifits for the safety of others around me.
I appreciate the privileges and responsibilities of carrying firearms and I am trained for it. This does not only benifit me, it also benifits for the safety of others around me.
#223
-
soggytomatoe (01/13/2013) [+]
(20 replies)
Baseball bats- Used for the sport of baseball
Wire- Used for electricity, rope, etc.
Knives- Used for cutting meat
Guns- Used for KILLING PEOPLE
Yeah, OP. I completely understand your logic
Wire- Used for electricity, rope, etc.
Knives- Used for cutting meat
Guns- Used for KILLING PEOPLE
Yeah, OP. I completely understand your logic
#254 to #248
-
Antonkr (01/13/2013) [-]
How do you expect me to hunt hogs without an AR-15?
How do you expect me to control pests without an AR-15?
How do you expect me to do semi-auto competitions without an AR-15?
Also
Assault rifles are banned, what you are referring to is a semi-automatic civilian versions of military rifles.
How do you expect me to control pests without an AR-15?
How do you expect me to do semi-auto competitions without an AR-15?
Also
Assault rifles are banned, what you are referring to is a semi-automatic civilian versions of military rifles.
#457 to #248
-
JoshBauer (01/13/2013) [-] You're an idiot.
"Assault rifles" are the medias term for those scary-looking black guns that all of these killers use to shoot people at schools.
Oh wait, those shooters don't even use assault rifles! Many of the school shootings have happened where the shooter used pistols and/or sub-machine guns! You liberals have your argument all kinds of twisted. Form your own argument before you make yourself look stupid by listening to some other left-wing nut.
"Assault rifles" are the medias term for those scary-looking black guns that all of these killers use to shoot people at schools.
Oh wait, those shooters don't even use assault rifles! Many of the school shootings have happened where the shooter used pistols and/or sub-machine guns! You liberals have your argument all kinds of twisted. Form your own argument before you make yourself look stupid by listening to some other left-wing nut.
#294 to #248
-
AnomynousUser ONLINE (01/13/2013) [-] ...you think that handgun up in the picture is an assault rifle? O.o
That's putting words in my mouth when you say it like that.
And also, I'd like to see the special needs kids getting more attention before they go crazy and murder people...
I have a friend who has an air rifle and several guns at his house and he uses them weekly so he can practice for the rifle team in our school. Last I checked, he had no intentions on killing anyone...
That's putting words in my mouth when you say it like that.
And also, I'd like to see the special needs kids getting more attention before they go crazy and murder people...
I have a friend who has an air rifle and several guns at his house and he uses them weekly so he can practice for the rifle team in our school. Last I checked, he had no intentions on killing anyone...
#170
-
EpicTie (01/13/2013) [+]
(5 replies)
correct me if i'm wrong but isn't the gun in this post the only one designed to actually take someones life and not serve any other function?
#176 to #170
-
Zarke (01/13/2013) [-] Well, guns are tools primarily designed for killing, though with some creativity you COULD use them for explosive ordinance disposal, door-breaching, and other mudane tasks. Just like a car. Primarily designed for transportation, but you COULD use is for towing, power generation, or drive-in robberies.
#199 to #195
-
Zarke (01/13/2013) [-] Designed? Maybe not. But boil it down. These are mechanical devices, nothing more. It's up to the end user to decide how to use them. You can be responsible or irresponsible with cars, guns, knives, baseball bats, whatever. It's in everyone's best interests that we teach everyone to treat every device, no matter what it was designed for, with the care and respect that it deserves.
#180 to #163
-
alpacaking ONLINE (01/13/2013) [-]
No you can't but think of all the people who own guns that don't go shooting up schools. If the people didn't have guns who says they wouldn't get a knife and stab up a school. Not all people who own guns will go on a killing spree and even if they don't have guns if a person wants to kill someone they will do it. They don't have guns in prison but criminals still manage to kill people.
#187 to #180
-
SirSheepy (01/13/2013) [-] [rant]
so basically what your saying is that guns don't kill people, people kill people, right? well yes while that is technically true guns do make it a hell of a lot easier to kill people. Think of the chances of a person killing someone in a school if they had a knife instead of a gun. if someone tries to stab up a school they would probably be subdued after the first couple of kids. if he has a gun hes probably going to get more than a couple of kids. im not saying that people shouldn't own guns, because that's fucking retarded. im just saying that its easier to kill people with guns than pretty much anything else.
[/rant]
so basically what your saying is that guns don't kill people, people kill people, right? well yes while that is technically true guns do make it a hell of a lot easier to kill people. Think of the chances of a person killing someone in a school if they had a knife instead of a gun. if someone tries to stab up a school they would probably be subdued after the first couple of kids. if he has a gun hes probably going to get more than a couple of kids. im not saying that people shouldn't own guns, because that's fucking retarded. im just saying that its easier to kill people with guns than pretty much anything else.
[/rant]
#467 to #187
-
JoshBauer (01/13/2013) [-] Yeah, seriously. We should've outlawed guns hundreds of years ago!
Wait..wouldn't that mean the American Revolution never would've happened?
Guns are legal in America because we have the right to fight against our government.
The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it isn't needed until the government tries to take it away.
Wait..wouldn't that mean the American Revolution never would've happened?
Guns are legal in America because we have the right to fight against our government.
The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it isn't needed until the government tries to take it away.
#503 to #499
-
JoshBauer (01/13/2013) [-] >"so basically what your saying is that guns don't kill people, people kill people, right? well yes while that is technically true guns do make it a hell of a lot easier to kill people. Think of the chances of a person killing someone in a school if they had a knife instead of a gun. if someone tries to stab up a school they would probably be subdued after the first couple of kids. if he has a gun hes probably going to get more than a couple of kids."
Ok, now read the rest of your paragraph. "Guns make it so much easier to kill people!"
You're pointing out flaws with guns being legal.
You clearly have trouble with putting your opinion into words.
Ok, now read the rest of your paragraph. "Guns make it so much easier to kill people!"
You're pointing out flaws with guns being legal.
You clearly have trouble with putting your opinion into words.
#202 to #196
-
SirSheepy (01/13/2013) [-] and i don't disagree with that. all im saying is that guns only have one purpose: to kill. and that's what people use them for. no more no less.
people do kill people. but guns sure make it a hell of a lot easier.
by the way it's toasters don't toast toast, people toast toast
people do kill people. but guns sure make it a hell of a lot easier.
by the way it's toasters don't toast toast, people toast toast
#216 to #202
-
alpacaking ONLINE (01/13/2013) [-]
Well that's not the joke though. But guns make it easier to kill people but it also makes hunting easier, personally I bow hunt because I don't see the challenge of shooting something from 400 yards away with a crazy scope. My gun is for my own personal defense because if I need to protect myself I will be able to.
#224 to #222
-
pawnman (01/13/2013) [-] im commenting on your first post about not being able to shoot up a school with a bat. Even so you could still go on rampage so making guns illegal would change nothing.
It's a rebuttal on why i think guns shouldn't be illegal because it would change nothing. I know guns are better than bats.
It's a rebuttal on why i think guns shouldn't be illegal because it would change nothing. I know guns are better than bats.
#228 to #224
-
SirSheepy (01/13/2013) [-] [rant]
first of all i never said anything about guns being illegal. i was merely stating why the picture was retarded. second of all "guns illegal would change nothing" and "I know guns are better than bats" are very contradictory. making guns illegal WOULD change a whole lot. my point is once again that it is easier to kill people with a gun that with a bat.
"Even so you could still go on rampage"? of course you could the point STILL REMAINS THAT A GUN WOULD KILL MORE PEOPLE THAN A MOTHERFUCKING BAT. HOLY JESUS CHRIST HOW ARE YOU NOT GETTING THIS?
[/rant]
first of all i never said anything about guns being illegal. i was merely stating why the picture was retarded. second of all "guns illegal would change nothing" and "I know guns are better than bats" are very contradictory. making guns illegal WOULD change a whole lot. my point is once again that it is easier to kill people with a gun that with a bat.
"Even so you could still go on rampage"? of course you could the point STILL REMAINS THAT A GUN WOULD KILL MORE PEOPLE THAN A MOTHERFUCKING BAT. HOLY JESUS CHRIST HOW ARE YOU NOT GETTING THIS?
[/rant]
#252 to #231
-
N. Korean citizen (01/13/2013) [-]
actually he is still wrong :P
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=43
although guns were (mostly) #1 with exceptions being bare hands and simple assaults, other weapons won out for almost every crime.
so yeah.
FACTS
people will use anything to commit a crime.
and yeah...taking out 20 kids with a bat in a school would be cake. no lie
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=43
although guns were (mostly) #1 with exceptions being bare hands and simple assaults, other weapons won out for almost every crime.
so yeah.
FACTS
people will use anything to commit a crime.
and yeah...taking out 20 kids with a bat in a school would be cake. no lie
#98
-
Yesitsme (01/13/2013) [+]
(5 replies)
I'm all for gun rights, but this is a stupid argument.
Guns obviously aren't the only thing that you can use to kill someone, but they definetely make it a hell of a lot easier, which is why people want to have them for self-defense.
It's always possible for someone to try and grab a knife or a baseball bat and go on a killing spree, but they wouldn't get nearly as far as someone with an assault rifle would.
Guns obviously aren't the only thing that you can use to kill someone, but they definetely make it a hell of a lot easier, which is why people want to have them for self-defense.
It's always possible for someone to try and grab a knife or a baseball bat and go on a killing spree, but they wouldn't get nearly as far as someone with an assault rifle would.
#188
-
N. Korean citizen (01/13/2013) [+]
(7 replies)
Every single one of those weapons have another purpose and their main purpose is not that of killing... except guns of course, their main purpose is to kill.
#272 to #250
-
Vanquix ONLINE (01/13/2013) [-]
im going to say the same thing i say in all of these gun posts. If guns are banned, then only criminals will have them. The only way to keep guns out of bad peoples' hands is to completely get rid of them, like DESTROY ALL GUNS. And if that happens then people who would have killed someone with a gun would just kill them with something else instead. Guns can (and do) diffuse situations too. Like hostage situations. If a guy has a hostage at knifepoint, and he is surrounded by cops with knives, al he has to do is be faster then them to get away. They could throw it, but they would have to be trained and throwing a knife right is waaay more complex than firing a gun right (depending on the gun being used). People need to understand that guns are a part of the world now, and although (like pretty much ANYTHING else) they can be used for bad, they can also be used for good, and they do more good than bad. Some people have to die in instances to save others, or at least have to be held at gunpoint an not shot.
#315 to #272
-
N. Korean citizen (01/13/2013) [-]
Your argument about good people and bad people is too smple. Yes there are many inherently 'bad' people out there but most 'bad people' are good people having a bad day. Most murders are people known the victim, not some random bogey man. Most murders are people having a conflict that gets out of control. Something like an argument that upsets one so much that in a moment a normally sane person has pulled the trigger. In europe where its hard to buy a gun, this just ends in assault, in the states where its easy, it ends in murder.. Other countries have reduced there total gun ownership over decades and now have much safer societies. If the US wants a safer country, they will quite stringent gun laws.
#352 to #315
-
Vanquix ONLINE (01/13/2013) [-]
The majority of gun related murders are gang related. Personal murders more often use different means of murder. So technically, the good people bad people thing may be simple, but it is accurate. And the U.S. is still one of the safest countries in the world all around. Also, europe has a crap ton of crime and gangs and underground stuff which has PLENTY of guns changing hands. In, fact, a lot of illegal gun shipments to the u.s. come from europe (not nearly as much as mexico though, obviously). Its not hard to get a gun in europe. its just hard for regular people to get guns. Criminals can get one like nothing.
#404
-
kingpongthedon (01/13/2013) [-]
Normally, I don't argue about gun control, but tonight is a very special night. About an hour ago, I listened to a shootout maybe 2 blocks away from my house, go on for 5 minutes. I can guarantee somebody is dead as a result. Now that sucks for them, but knowing the area, they probably brought it on themselves. I can hardly feel sorry for them.
But I still have very personal issues with guns over knives:
With a hand-to-hand weapon, if you miss, you hit nothing. With a gun, that bullet goes until it hits something. About a year ago, one of those somethings happened to be the 8 year old in my neighborhood. He was inside at the time and believed to be safe. He had absolutely nothing to do with the situation but was still the only one hurt.
People go somewhere else to avoid the consequences and sometimes that's my property. Now I have a fully-stocked kitchen, an American bulldog, and 3 other fairly large people living here. If they come with a knife, we can overwhelm him, and he's fucked to no end. But with a gun, we can't.
About 5 years ago, I used to have another dog. One night, somebody was running through my backyard (from another shooting several hours earlier) and my dog happened to be out at that time. My dog attacked the trespasser and he ran away. However, to get away, he shot my dog in the chest with a .45 slug. Luckily, he missed the heart, lungs and every other organ and my dog lived, though with a bullet an inch from his spine. Had he not had a gun, he would have been the one fearing for his life and not me and my dog.
My problem with guns isn't that they kill people. There will always be fucked up people killing each other somehow. My problem is that the radius of danger is much higher than with anything else and innocent people get hurt. I don't give two shits if people want to kill each other, but as soon as a gun is pulled, everyone within range is in danger, even if they have nothing to do with it.
But I still have very personal issues with guns over knives:
With a hand-to-hand weapon, if you miss, you hit nothing. With a gun, that bullet goes until it hits something. About a year ago, one of those somethings happened to be the 8 year old in my neighborhood. He was inside at the time and believed to be safe. He had absolutely nothing to do with the situation but was still the only one hurt.
People go somewhere else to avoid the consequences and sometimes that's my property. Now I have a fully-stocked kitchen, an American bulldog, and 3 other fairly large people living here. If they come with a knife, we can overwhelm him, and he's fucked to no end. But with a gun, we can't.
About 5 years ago, I used to have another dog. One night, somebody was running through my backyard (from another shooting several hours earlier) and my dog happened to be out at that time. My dog attacked the trespasser and he ran away. However, to get away, he shot my dog in the chest with a .45 slug. Luckily, he missed the heart, lungs and every other organ and my dog lived, though with a bullet an inch from his spine. Had he not had a gun, he would have been the one fearing for his life and not me and my dog.
My problem with guns isn't that they kill people. There will always be fucked up people killing each other somehow. My problem is that the radius of danger is much higher than with anything else and innocent people get hurt. I don't give two shits if people want to kill each other, but as soon as a gun is pulled, everyone within range is in danger, even if they have nothing to do with it.
#452 to #345
-
N. Korean citizen (01/13/2013) [-]
to an extent, yes, video games can influence SOME people directly, and from a macroscopic scale, every video game user is learning about guns easily and quickly. If they did not exist, you probably wouldn't know what the names of specific weapons would be unless you had one.
there are several more legitimate arguments than the above (which i explained poorly) that explain how video games have an effect on people
there are several more legitimate arguments than the above (which i explained poorly) that explain how video games have an effect on people
#482 to #452
-
thefloppinater (01/13/2013) [-] If so many people play violent video games then why do a select few choose to go on a killing spree? Because they have underlying social or mental problems.
The fault should not be placed solely on video games, as it often is. Nobody wants to accept that it was partially their fault, so they put the blame on violence in video games, music or tv, which is unfair to those of us who enjoy those things but don't go fucking crazy.
The fault should not be placed solely on video games, as it often is. Nobody wants to accept that it was partially their fault, so they put the blame on violence in video games, music or tv, which is unfair to those of us who enjoy those things but don't go fucking crazy.
#109
-
durgesark (01/13/2013) [+]
(17 replies)
The government wants to disarm the public so it can control them with out resistance.
Its happened before in history, they can pull my gun from my cold dead body.
Its happened before in history, they can pull my gun from my cold dead body.
#124 to #109
-
zzforrest (01/13/2013) [-] If you know anything about the origin of the bill of rights, more importantly the second amendment, you will know that they made that right specifically so that the government couldn't subdue the people. People > Government. If the government tried to take on the people, second amendment would keep their guns safe.
#159 to #109
-
blahness (01/13/2013) [-] Lol at all the misguided people thinking that the second amendment will protect them from the government if the government decides to go rogue.
yeah, good luck protecting yourselves with your AR-15s and glocks against UAVs, tanks, navy seals, jets, etc.
face it. the sentiment is there, but the constitution clearly wasn't desgined to withstand such long periods of time. Back then, technology was nothing, and the people as well as the army only had muskets. How about now? you think the people can own tanks or fighter jets? and even if they were allowed who would have the financial ability to own one?
So yeah, they WILL pull your gun from your cold dead body. although it might slow them down, it will come nowhere close to stopping them if they do decide to do it.
yeah, good luck protecting yourselves with your AR-15s and glocks against UAVs, tanks, navy seals, jets, etc.
face it. the sentiment is there, but the constitution clearly wasn't desgined to withstand such long periods of time. Back then, technology was nothing, and the people as well as the army only had muskets. How about now? you think the people can own tanks or fighter jets? and even if they were allowed who would have the financial ability to own one?
So yeah, they WILL pull your gun from your cold dead body. although it might slow them down, it will come nowhere close to stopping them if they do decide to do it.
#165 to #159
-
kingmarston (01/13/2013) [-] Umm... Most soldiers would defect if such an order was given to disarm the populace. And since you said that the 2nd amendment doesn't apply today, does that mean the 1st one doesn't either?
AND I'M SO FUCKING SORRY TO BREAK IT TO YOU BUT THE CONSTITUTION IS STILL THE LAW OF THE LAND.
Oh, look at Afghanistan, they don't have Tanks, Jets, UAVs, or Navy SEALS and their still giving us hell after a decade of war.
Your logic is flawed.
AND I'M SO FUCKING SORRY TO BREAK IT TO YOU BUT THE CONSTITUTION IS STILL THE LAW OF THE LAND.
Oh, look at Afghanistan, they don't have Tanks, Jets, UAVs, or Navy SEALS and their still giving us hell after a decade of war.
Your logic is flawed.
#168 to #165
-
blahness (01/13/2013) [-] did you miss the part where i said "if they do decide to do it"?
I think you misinterpreted my point there. My point wasn't if the government decided to take away the guns forcibly. it was if the government decides to just turn against its people i.e. fuck everything we're gonna be tyrannical.
the constitution would be meaningless if the government decides to control its people. just because it's law doesn't mean it'll stop them. just like how killing is illegal yet people can still do it.
and how does Afghanistan even fit into the situation here.
I think you misinterpreted my point there. My point wasn't if the government decided to take away the guns forcibly. it was if the government decides to just turn against its people i.e. fuck everything we're gonna be tyrannical.
the constitution would be meaningless if the government decides to control its people. just because it's law doesn't mean it'll stop them. just like how killing is illegal yet people can still do it.
and how does Afghanistan even fit into the situation here.
#175 to #168
-
kingmarston (01/13/2013) [-] "yeah, good luck protecting yourselves with your AR-15s and glocks against UAVs, tanks, navy seals, jets, etc. "
The Taliban have fertilizer and rusty AK's and we still haven't been able to defeat them after a decade of war. See my point?
The Taliban have fertilizer and rusty AK's and we still haven't been able to defeat them after a decade of war. See my point?
#177 to #173
-
blahness (01/13/2013) [-] as i've said before. the army clearly has an advantage in terms of just about everything. Let me remind you of the laws that restrict high-powered weapons such as RPGs, mortars, etc. if the government exerts control through tyranny then yes, the people can fight back with their guns. But again, like i said in the first post. It might slow them, but it won't stop them. the difference in power level is simply too high
#191 to #177
-
kingmarston (01/13/2013) [-] I'm sure that's what the British thought too.
You don't seem to understand that people can capture/import gear as well as create their own. You can make a very powerful explosive just by using a few common household ingredients and fertilizer. Why do you think the Taliban have been so tough to beat?
And you don't seem to understand the power it would take for an order of that sort, it just couldn't happen with our current government. If one could control Congress, Presidency, and the Supreme court they would still have to gain control of the other 50 states that each have a legislative branch, executive branch, and judicial branch. As well as their own National Guard Units. So just think about it.
You don't seem to understand that people can capture/import gear as well as create their own. You can make a very powerful explosive just by using a few common household ingredients and fertilizer. Why do you think the Taliban have been so tough to beat?
And you don't seem to understand the power it would take for an order of that sort, it just couldn't happen with our current government. If one could control Congress, Presidency, and the Supreme court they would still have to gain control of the other 50 states that each have a legislative branch, executive branch, and judicial branch. As well as their own National Guard Units. So just think about it.
#205 to #191
-
blahness (01/13/2013) [-] Congratulations. You have just proved that it is nearly impossible for the government to turn against it's people, and thereby turning the 2nd amendment obsolete. Because you're right. In order for the government to turn against it's people, it would have to think about the consequences: how the world would react, how the entire nation would react, even it's own army, and whether the plan would go through or not.
#426
-
mrmiguel (01/13/2013) [+]
(24 replies)
You can't slaughter a room of people with a rope or a blunt object.... Unless you're Chuck Norris, but he wouldn't do that. For he is awesome.
#443 to #438
-
N. Korean citizen (01/13/2013) [-]
That is not true. The fox news article you are reffering to should have been called. "More people are killed with every type of blunt object than with rifles". If you compare blunt objects with guns as a whole the numbers are not even close.
Beware of Fox news, its hardly jounalism.
Beware of Fox news, its hardly jounalism.
#455 to #446
-
ichbinlecher (01/13/2013) [-]
It is what I have heard, though I could not point to a source. Anon below thinks it was Fox, and refers to rifles in particular. If so it doesn't really diminish the significance of what I am saying in the political field, as the only way to raise gun numbers would be to add deaths not caused by gun that they are talking about banning.
#469 to #455
-
nerdrugger (01/13/2013) [-] i wouldnt be surprised if fox said that, but it was probably just some random person that said that
but anyway, yes many things can be used as a weapon and be used to kill someone. but guns (especially high capacity assult riffles) can kill alot of people in a short amount of time.
its not that we need to ban all guns. but there is a high amount of gun related deaths in this country, and some regulations would be a good idea to try and help reduce the amount of people killed each year from gun violence.
its one thing to go hunting, or have a gun for protection, but an ordinary law abidding citizen doesnt need military grade assault weapons with large magazines
but anyway, yes many things can be used as a weapon and be used to kill someone. but guns (especially high capacity assult riffles) can kill alot of people in a short amount of time.
its not that we need to ban all guns. but there is a high amount of gun related deaths in this country, and some regulations would be a good idea to try and help reduce the amount of people killed each year from gun violence.
its one thing to go hunting, or have a gun for protection, but an ordinary law abidding citizen doesnt need military grade assault weapons with large magazines
#481 to #469
-
ichbinlecher (01/13/2013) [-]
The question is why "in a short amount of time" is added. As I said, the statistic is valid, the most slight turned against it is that it refers to rifles not guns in general. The high capacity assault rifles are a sub-category of rifle. That means that hammers killed more than these high cap rifles and so my original challenge remains: why do we care that it wasn't spread out?
#500 to #497
-
nerdrugger (01/13/2013) [-] ok
first the anon didnt cite any sources.
and ill accept something as a fact if im given evidenence that something is true. like if you or the anon posted a link to that article i would have read it and accepted that i was wrong
first the anon didnt cite any sources.
and ill accept something as a fact if im given evidenence that something is true. like if you or the anon posted a link to that article i would have read it and accepted that i was wrong
#506 to #504
-
nerdrugger (01/13/2013) [-] i dont know if fox new said it. (it sounds like something they would say)
but for all i know you (and the anon) could be making that up and said fox new said it inorder to give your side some validity
but anyway if you can show me an article that was publish or the broadcast that it was said on air. then ill admit that your statement about gun violence is valid
but for all i know you (and the anon) could be making that up and said fox new said it inorder to give your side some validity
but anyway if you can show me an article that was publish or the broadcast that it was said on air. then ill admit that your statement about gun violence is valid
#508 to #506
-
ichbinlecher (01/13/2013) [-]
www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/01/03/FBI-More-People-Killed-With-Hammers-and-Clubs-Each-Year-Than-With-Rifles
I want you to feel special. I really do. In fact I am giving you a thumb to make sure you do. I have now done more work for you than anyone else on this website. Going over a tab to google was freaking hard.
Jest aside, this should meet base requirements. It quotes FBI crime database.
I want you to feel special. I really do. In fact I am giving you a thumb to make sure you do. I have now done more work for you than anyone else on this website. Going over a tab to google was freaking hard.
Jest aside, this should meet base requirements. It quotes FBI crime database.
#512 to #508
-
nerdrugger (01/13/2013) [-] ok while that article was highly opinionated at different points, but it did show what you were saying
i still believe that there should be regulations on military grade assault riffles, due to the potential they have for causing harm.
and you dont need to worry about thumbing me, i dont thumb people down for discussing things with me. but i will give you a thumb for doing that. using actual facts gives your argument more teeth and makes it much more effective. and it makes you much more respectable being able to back the things up you say, compared to just randomly saying things that may not be true.
so ill tip my hat to you
i still believe that there should be regulations on military grade assault riffles, due to the potential they have for causing harm.
and you dont need to worry about thumbing me, i dont thumb people down for discussing things with me. but i will give you a thumb for doing that. using actual facts gives your argument more teeth and makes it much more effective. and it makes you much more respectable being able to back the things up you say, compared to just randomly saying things that may not be true.
so ill tip my hat to you
#515 to #512
-
ichbinlecher (01/13/2013) [-]
Yeah, like I said below it was simply the first result, the point was to validate the hammer claim.
I feel most people reaction to guns isn't logical but emotional (not saying that they don't have reasons but that reasons were not what led them to the initial stance that they have backed up). I was raised with guns, they don't scare me, and as such when the news is scared by guns I simply feel humored. That said if I was raised without them I would likely be on the other side.
The thumbing was part of the joke about making you feel special. I am on FJ to have fun, and as such do, even in these types of discussions. As such I routnely make jokes or snide remarks. Also that fun bit is also why I don't generally back up my fact, and simply accept any contrary fact given me. I don't wnat to look things up, takes time and effort. In this case i did because it seemed like it was actually important for you, but that is also why I asked about it being essential to your case - for I am betting even if I answered each of your concerns, you would still feel there was something wrong with accepting ARs in the hands of individuals.
I feel most people reaction to guns isn't logical but emotional (not saying that they don't have reasons but that reasons were not what led them to the initial stance that they have backed up). I was raised with guns, they don't scare me, and as such when the news is scared by guns I simply feel humored. That said if I was raised without them I would likely be on the other side.
The thumbing was part of the joke about making you feel special. I am on FJ to have fun, and as such do, even in these types of discussions. As such I routnely make jokes or snide remarks. Also that fun bit is also why I don't generally back up my fact, and simply accept any contrary fact given me. I don't wnat to look things up, takes time and effort. In this case i did because it seemed like it was actually important for you, but that is also why I asked about it being essential to your case - for I am betting even if I answered each of your concerns, you would still feel there was something wrong with accepting ARs in the hands of individuals.
#516 to #515
-
nerdrugger (01/13/2013) [-] i can accept someone owning a pistol, a shotgun, or even a semiautomatic rifle. but i dont think that it is wise to allow the process for getting one to be easy. and i dont think that a normal person needs a 30+ magazine either. And i believe comparing people who get murdered from blunt instruments to those that are killed by a piece of technology that has been engineered over many years to effiecently and effectively kill a large amount of people in a short amount of time, is kinda insulting and making light of the situation
and yes there was a bit of emotion to me for this subject. mainly because when the Newtown shootings happened, the information came out slow. and for awhile all i heard was that someone was shooting up a kindergarten classroom. my sister is a kidergarten teacher, so you can understand why i was scared alot of that day
and yes there was a bit of emotion to me for this subject. mainly because when the Newtown shootings happened, the information came out slow. and for awhile all i heard was that someone was shooting up a kindergarten classroom. my sister is a kidergarten teacher, so you can understand why i was scared alot of that day
#478 to #469
-
N. Korean citizen (01/13/2013) [-]
That's exactly what an ordinary law abiding citizen needs. We have the right to bear arms to protect ourselves from a corrupted government. Do we stand much of a chance at this point in time at fighting the military? No, but we would much worse off if all we had were pistols and hunting rifles.
#383
-
noshitholmes (01/13/2013) [+]
(20 replies)
I'd say it's much easier to shoot a man than beat/strangle/stab them.
When was the last time there was a massacre via knife?
When was the last time there was a massacre via knife?
#413 to #406
-
noshitholmes (01/13/2013) [-] I don't know if this website is completely accurate, but if it is you would be wrong...
fleshisgrass.wordpress.com/2012/07/24/us-and-uk-murder-rate-and-weapon-updated/
fleshisgrass.wordpress.com/2012/07/24/us-and-uk-murder-rate-and-weapon-updated/
#429 to #425
-
noshitholmes (01/13/2013) [-] Ergo my stating that it probably wasn't very accurate. However, this is the first time I have heard someone say that Great Britain had the highest murder rate of first world countries. I have heard the same about the U.S. many more times.
Plus, Great Britain is not the only country with gun restrictions. Many countries in Europe like the Netherlands have high restrictions on guns with extremely low homicide rates.
Sorry for the novel.
Plus, Great Britain is not the only country with gun restrictions. Many countries in Europe like the Netherlands have high restrictions on guns with extremely low homicide rates.
Sorry for the novel.
#436 to #429
-
sketchE (01/13/2013) [-] http://www. nationmaster .com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita
according to this they actually have a high murder rate. at least in 2006. i will detract my statement however. what i said was based off of a stateemt i heard but hadnt researched myself. many people who say america has the most only refer to gun murders and likely just see gun death and bunch them together. many of those deaths are accidental. lumping accidental death and homicide together is just wrong.
according to this they actually have a high murder rate. at least in 2006. i will detract my statement however. what i said was based off of a stateemt i heard but hadnt researched myself. many people who say america has the most only refer to gun murders and likely just see gun death and bunch them together. many of those deaths are accidental. lumping accidental death and homicide together is just wrong.
#445 to #435
-
noshitholmes (01/13/2013) [-] I think the Netherlands has some of the lowest crime rates in the world, but I didn't check that. If you want to look it up and prove me wrong be my guest. As for the rest of them, I'm not sure... However, I would prefer violent crimes to higher homicide rates.
#453 to #383
-
counteractive (01/13/2013) [-] A school in china the same day the Sandy Hook shooting took place. 22 children and teachers slashed. A year prior to that a similar knife attack in china took somewhere around 50 (That includes injured, not all dies, but neither do all in shooting sprees).
#486 to #476
-
counteractive (01/13/2013) [-] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_attacks_in_China_(2010%E2%80%932012)
The above cases only pretain to reported chinese attacks only. Some cases resulted in no casualties, some had many fatalities. The cases do not relate to any incidents outside of china.
The above cases only pretain to reported chinese attacks only. Some cases resulted in no casualties, some had many fatalities. The cases do not relate to any incidents outside of china.
#410 to #383
-
ichbinlecher (01/13/2013) [-]
The real question is how many people total are killed with knives vs guns (don't know the answer, not really relevant to the point I am making). Asking about massacres is ad miseracordium (spelling? - an appeal to emotions) because we seem to care more about people's deaths if several die at once rather than spread out over the year.
#431 to #422
-
ichbinlecher (01/13/2013) [-]
Again, it depends on how you look at the statistics. Other countries have way higher violent crime rates than the US, but murder is lower. It also has to do with where murder is likely to happen - bigger cities. The US has almost 200 cities with over 200,000 people, most countries have an entire order of magnitude (power of ten) less. I am also just assuming your stats are correct, being to lazy to check them right now, but most of the report I have heard on the news have to do with gun violence rather than murder rates, and that is not synonymous (take the example of some of the new town kids that were shot but didn't die). Again, I am just throwing things out there - I don't think any legislation will come of this simply because the nearest they can get it to the floor is April and the hype will have died down.
#441 to #431
-
noshitholmes (01/13/2013) [-] Interesting points. But there is a quote I've heard before.
There are three types of lies. Lies, damn lies, and statistics.
I am aware I've been throwing around my fair share of them too, but I've think we've reached a point where neither of us care to really look deeper into the subject's statistics seeing as how there is another group of statistics that can disprove it.
I personally am ok with people having guns so long as we have more regulations and restrictions.
There are three types of lies. Lies, damn lies, and statistics.
I am aware I've been throwing around my fair share of them too, but I've think we've reached a point where neither of us care to really look deeper into the subject's statistics seeing as how there is another group of statistics that can disprove it.
I personally am ok with people having guns so long as we have more regulations and restrictions.
#484 to #420
-
N. Korean citizen (01/13/2013) [-]
You have a police state because the authorities whose job it is to keep the peace are having a hard time because so many people with guns are trying to disturb it. If people were less likely to shoot each other and/or the police the police would relax a little. They aren't so menacing here in NZ because its rare for them to get hurt (though it does happen)
