Gun control logic

Well in that case all of our politicians would more than likely be in jail

Good, less politics, then.

They are. That's why you go to jail for doing them.

As in 'They are banned'

hate to brake it for you pal but all crimes are banned (by definition)

That's not American logic, that's dumbass logic, don't mix all us Americans into that group, we're not all idiots.

Because people will always have guns. I'm not going to stand by while someone breaks in my house and I hide in a corner.
I have my .357 locked up, but easy to get to. Why? After living in so many burned down places, where you can walk outside to have a cigarette and see your neighbor get robbed, you'll want to protect yourself too.

TL;DR? Lowlifes kill people for nothing. People protect themselves.

Right, I'm from Norway, and I agree that it's fine to own a revolver if you keep it in your home. But why would anyone need an assault rifle to protect themselves from burglars? I mean, that's all Obama wants to ban, right?

Im from Denmark, and most of us dont own a gun. The worst thing that could happen to us is getting stabbed...

But if you had a gun, you wouldn't be stabbed, and you'd be damned sure the burglar would put that shit back.

but if you had a gun chances are he has a gun.

chances are he has a gun whether or not you have one.. people committing a crime may already have committed a crime.. like owning an illegal firearm..

There are 12 guns per 100 people. I don't think the chances of the person robbing you having a gun is that high, and the chances of you dying is waaaaaay lower.

statistics? without reference? always nice.. does that include illegal firearms? does that include a list of how many of those 100 are felons and how many of those 12 represent felons?
i actually do think that the person committing burglary might be armed; he'd be stupid not to.. and i think felons aren't stupid, they were merely brought up with low chances to amount to anything differently and can see a quick buck when presented the opportunity.

people want assault rifles because they look awesome, why do people buy swords? There isnt going to be a feudal knight barging into your house looking for a duel, people just by them because they look kick anus

yeah, but isn't that great childhood stick enough? - you know, the one you found as a child with the perfect grib and balance? the one we hid under our beds, just in case something happened? the one our mom hated infourisly? (- mine did, so she bought a couple of mahogany fighting sticks for me instead.)
In a country, with almost no guns, like Denmark, you wouldn't need a gun for self defence, you'd just need goold old trusted clubby the club, for the job.

I still have my trusty old clubby under my bed, just in case something happens. And clubby the club has endning it's fair share of violence, so far, and I feel a lot more safe within it's proximity, than I do with guns of any kind.

Real Logic:

>No guns
>No people getting shot

People can kill people just as easily with other shit, and this isn;t our logic, this is 1780's american logic.

self defense alone does not justify owning a weapon which sole purpose is for murder.

Hey guys how about we make guns illegal, so bad guys don't have guns
Just like how bad guys don't have drugs because we made drugs illegal.

thats like saying murder should be legal since people will do it anyway. in that case, why do we need a government and laws?

youre right, humans can live happily with chaotic anarchy. fuck everything, do what you want, right?

">give people a killing tool"

Do you really think we just let people walk into gun stores and buy guns without permits and background checks? We allow people to get guns because it's a Constitutional right in the US. I think the issue with some pro gun people with the topic is that once one type of gun is banned, it can be seen as a foothold for getting more guns banned until law abiding citizens are disarmed.

oh, so the guy who shot 3-4 people this week, who bought it hours before, was screened and checked? - i think not

I'm not sure which incident you're stating. If he bought it from a source that didn't have any sort of screening or background check, why would that seller be affected by a ban on guns?

sorry, kinda drunk, forgot to mention that he was screened and checked, but not thouroughly enough (obviously)

Oh, I see. I know our current laws and regulations aren't perfect, and I'm fine with strengthening and modifying background checks and screenings where necessary, but I personally think that once one type of gun is banned, it may be the beginning of a gradual process of other types being banned until guns are taken out of the hands of law abiding citizens.

yeah i agree that it's a possibility, but there's a slim chance that hunting rifles and pistols will be banned in the process, since the right to arms is protected by the constitution - but again this is just what I think.

in america the guy with the gun would have probably shot the other car just because.

i just love that gif haha i would feel bad ass doing that to some random douche

but would you give guns to those crazy, irresposible outliers that make it to the media?

It's not fair to let those kinds of people have guns., while it's also not fair to keep them from those that are responsible and will use their guns safely. but for that, there needs to be some kind of gun control. the outliers need to be identified so that we can only allow the responsible people to buy weapons.

Somebody doesn't understand satirical comedy.

THE SOUTH SHALL RISE AGEEEN

It only takes 1 person with a so called "assault rifle," or what ever you want to call it, to go on a rampage and kill 20+ people. The fact that this guy is on your side is what makes you lose. If you win, he wins and that cannot happen.

Okay, here's why you're wrong. Fully automatic rifles have been banned for years. Read up, before you start calling stuff out:

www.assaultweapon.info/

The site definitely has a political leaning, but it references anti-gun groups and their exact quotes, so it's worth a read. This should educate you a bit more on the so called "assault weapons" that have been used recently.

I put assault rifle in quotations because I know that people like you were going to jump my shit. I do not know exactly what you or any gun enthusiast would call the type of gun used in the recent Sandy Hook or in the Aurora theater shooting, nor do I care. Since I do not know the term, I put assault rifle in quotes to inform others that I am referring to the guns that have been the subject of recent gun law discussions. No matter what, the definition of an "assault rifle" is irrelevant to my point. I also never said "fully automatic rifles" anywhere in my comment because I know damn well that a semi-auto rifle can still do catastrophic damage to a group of people. Before you attempt to tell someone to "read up" on an issue, I suggest you read their comment until you actually understand the main point of their argument.

And additionally, the DEFINITION of an Assault Weapon/Assault Rifle should be VERY relevant to your point, as it's what is being discussed at this moment. A ban will happen for sure, it just depends on what guns will be removed from the market.

Semi-automatics are dangerous, huh?
So shall we ban pistols too? Perhaps ranch rifles as well, as they are also semi-automatic.

I seriously advise you to read over that link I sent you. The term that is being thrown around in the media is "Assault Weapons", as "Assault Rifles" have already been banned. Now, what is an assault weapon, is it a "gun-nut" term? Nope. It's a political term that was used years ago in a ban on some weapons which "looked like" true machine guns.

For your information, the most lethal weapon used in the Aurora shootings was in fact the Remington 870, a PUMP-ACTION shotgun, not a assault riffle. To clarify, I'm not exactly pro-gun, I don't even own one. My point here is simply that pistols can be just as lethal, and if your argument is "they're too dangerous" you'd have to ban all other semi-auto pistols and 12 gauge shotguns in the process.

Due to the nature of US politics, this will not happen.

Look you can call it what you want. You can continue to act like Mr. Big Shot and correct me on my usage of terminology, but that does not change the fact that something has to be done. Semi-automatic rifles and shotguns like the one used in the Aurora shooting are killing machines that serve no other practical purpose than to kill. One could argue that they could be used for home defense, but a handgun will work just as well if not better. Yes, pistols may be just as lethal, but pistols tend to have smaller magazines, are harder to control, and tend to not be as powerful thus making them less deadly in a public setting. No matter what, some guns need to be banned, whether they are assault rifle and/or 12 gauge shot guns it makes no difference. There is obviously a problem with guns in this country and something must be done.

Inaccurate, George Washington rode a T-Rex. Get your history right!

That pic is unfortuneately pretty accurate. :/

what the fuck are you even saying

>Lawful people need a new way to defend themselves

I have never understood that argument, how chaotic and crime ridden is America? The way progun people talk about the necessity to bear arms for ones protection I picture a goddamn war zone run by a dictator. Good god crime can't be that bad can it?

No, it's just that a lot of people live by the saying "It's better safe than sorry."

I guess it's best to have a M16 or P90 or barrat 50.cal just in case...damn that's idiotic. Fair enough own a hand gun, but there is absolutely no reasons why someone would need a shotgun/assault rifle/sniper rifle.

There is a reason, if someone busts into your house with an M16, P90, of .50 cal.

Well maybe if they were incredibly difficult to get......it's ridiculous. There is no legitimate reason to own such a dangerous weapon

In the event that such a thing DOES happen, I'll be glad to have my AR15.

Yea it won't in your life time. You have that gun just for the sake of having it. No need for it

Why WON'T it happen in my lifetime?
Man has landed on the moon, stars are born and die every day, we constantly find things infinitely smaller than before, we're starting to believe that there are numbers of universes, this may be our 1,000,000 time alive due to our belief of a universal cycle, animals can change colors, life exists...
but a criminal owning a dangerous gun is SOOOOO impossible?

It is. We simply create a system that breeds insane people, criminals, and Sometimes insane criminals with legislation.
Our drug laws and effort to fight them made a harmless group of individuals into a well armed war and drug lords.
Then we have a system that has no incentive to help out the mentally insane or mentally or emotionally damaged.

Also here's a fun fact:
One of the lowest crime rate despite lack of social programs: Texas
One of the highest crime rates despite powerful police and social programs: New York

Crime is that bad in the United States, but what a lot of people forget is that the second amendment is less a about protecting yourself against robbers or a thief, and was put in place to allow the people to protect themselves from an oppressive government. Also, your argument about P90s and M16 is absurd and unfounded, as fully automatic weapons have been banned for years.

It sounds strange, I know, I'm British; however, Americans don't trust their government. Now, here's the question, can you blame them? The Patriot Act, the NPAA? Hell, even going back as far as Prohibition, americans have plenty of reason not to trust their politicians to do the right thing. If I was an american, I'd be damn glad to have a gun if SOPA or PIPA passed, which would supress the greatest form of communication humans have ever had.

For info on the gun stuff, so you can stop spewing a load of bullshit:

www.assaultweapon.info/

I started reading right in the middle of that, and had no idea what the fuck was going on.

If I ever go to war with you, I promise not to pansy it up with guns.

I remember reading that the mortality rates from those days during war are much higher than they are with guns today. Interesting if true.

because of disease. up until like WWII or some shit disease accounted for more deaths during war time than battlefield fatalities.

im assuming because maiming is better than killing straight up, if you maim a man his friend has to stop to help him. you kill him and his friend is out for blood.

Medical technology may play some role in that.

Perhaps. I can't remember much of what I read. But I am also sure that in term of contact area, swords are likely more deadly, easier to slice arteries or open up a large wound.

That's a good point too, more likely to bleed out before the fight's even close to over.
And then even if you survive that, infections must have been a bitch to deal with.

You know, watching sword fighting themed movies always makes me want to live in those times and experience it myself...but really thinking about it makes me terribly glad we have evolved from that. That being said, I still believe swordcraft is a much more elegant and sophisticated style of fighting. The sword provides defense and offense equally and relies upon the skill of the user.

I agree, that's why I do martial arts, though I haven't done much with swords specifically.
I really should get my friends who are in the SCA to teach me how to fight with a sword some time.
I do know a little bit of Japanese sword arts, and I'm even taking a class for it this semester, but I know very little of that and nothing of any other kinds.

Nobody walked into an elementary school and killed 20 children using anal beads

just sayin

Challenge accepted.

this one time at band camp i did!!! :B

More like idiot logic.

Because Aliens man.

I don't know why someone red thumbed you that was fucking funny

Then why take their guns? Why waste time and effort on people, you already perceive as weak?

because they ARE fearful WITH guns

Columbine was also during the Assault Weapons Ban.

Detroit has armed cops.

Gun control has been being talked about for decades...

Yes it was. They were all weapons free zones in urban areas with restrictive gun laws.

They still have plenty of shootings and violent actions. Its just not usually as publicized.

What about Anders Brevik? He killed more than all those mentioned in the comic.

>implying the fact that he was politically motivated makes it different

How about the mexican gangs an the hundreds if not thousands of non gang or law related civilians that have died in the cartel turf wars? Mexico doesnt have easy gun laws.

First of, all Mexico is a first world developed nation. They arent the US or Britain in economic prosperity, but they arent dirt poor and scraping to get by. And explain why Brevik wasnt prevented then.

>Why Brevik wasn't prevented: An otherwise peaceful country with strict gun control laws was too used to not getting shot and so did not feel the need to adequately secure their political camps for youth

i think you made TRNs point

Mexico is rated high in human development though, according to the UN human development index. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index#Americas

I was... kidding
SO many people smoke weed

I feel not so good righ now.
I should inject one or two marijuana.

<-- what I see when I inject more than two marijuana.

Guns and drugs are different things. You don't inject a school with 6 marijuanas. Fucking nigger

you can't grow guns in a bathroom
/thread

Says you.

Or alcohol prohibition stopped alcohol sales/consumption.

well,.....well, since i cant argue with that point i guess i'll just have to thumb you down
- every liberal-ass faggot funnyjunker

Im actually a liberal..... but I don't agree with gun prohibition.

brought it down from what, exactly? they havnt been legal for 50 or so years so we dont have much info from when they were legal and obviously they werent quite a cultural force as they are now, so youre full of shit, kill yourself jewnigger

Heroine, when it was legal, was used more than morphine as a painkiller.
There was a time before WWI from 1870 to 1914 called The Great Binge, and it is really well documented. There's your info.
You're an angry kid, but I forgive you, not a lot of people know about history anymore.

I did not say that drugs were never used, I said that we cant say it has brought down drug use because we dont know exacctly how many people use drugs these days (Recreational drug use only, Prescriptions don't count) Because they are illegal, Transactions arent monitored or regulated, police raids only scratch the surface (If they were really effective there would be few problems with illegal drugs). No, I didnt know about 'The great binge' but i know about the great bitch "awesomenessdefined" who got called out on his bullshit and responded with condescending garbage instead of GIVING PROOF TO SUPPORT HIS CLAIM THAT DRUG USE HAS DECLINED SINCE PROHIBITION 2.0 STARTED. We may have figures from the victorian era on recreational drug use but I doubt they are accurate and whatever figures we could get now would be very broad estimates, so no you cant prove that drug use has gone down.
I Don't know everything there is to know about history (And neither do you) but I can prove my arguments with facts, evidence, and logic, maybe you should try that instead of getting butthurt, show me the proof that drug use has gone down since becoming illegal.

Yes we can back up the claims, I said that it was very well documented, and there are records from then. They aren't broad at all, I just used a broad example. I backed up my claim that it went down because we all know for sure that kids don't use heroine as cough syrup.
I didn't get butthurt, google what butthurt is. I did support my claim, you still haven't. I did act condescending because I'm not going to treat a kid that thinks 'jewnigger' is an insult like an equal.
And to what you said about us not knowing about recreational drug use, people aren't idiots, they know how many people use drugs to within a range of 2%. We don't know exactly, but we are more than close enough.

Are you going to bitch more about how some jackoff on the netz called you a bad name (Cry some more, cockfag) or are you going to post the figures (or links to said figures) that prove your point?

I'm going to take that as a sign that you admit defeat.

The proof that would have proved your argument "Banning drugs= Less drug use"
does not exist. sorry about calling you a jewnigger (U still mad, bro?) don't wear your heart on your sleeves, the internet isn't a group therapy session

I was never mad. Jesus fuck dude, stop crying.

And the proof does exist. Once again, look at the great binge and what happened there, I shouldn't have to give you a link to something that would take you three seconds to google.
Infact, lmgtfy.com/?q=The+Great+Binge. There. Literally anything on the first page.
Now compare that to today. Yeah, see the fucking difference yet.

There'd be less crime.

True.

Heh thumbed down. Things like weed and stuff shouldn't be illegal though. Shit like meth and crack...yeah those don't need to be used.

Its a funny joke guys. Dont take it so seriously.

I must have missed the funny part.

"No, but it will bring it down"
Except it doesn't work in countries with high organize crime with high gun control. Like Mexico, Russia. Panama, Honduras, Jamaica, El Salvador, Brazil, Columbia, Peru, and so.

When there's a need, there's a way.

:(

Ehhhh, calling bullshit on Panama. We have guns everywhere here, but no organized crime. Rich families own most of the country, but most crime stems from gangs in Chorillo and David. I know you probably don't give a fuck, but I'd just like to call you out on that.

Aren't most of those countries devoloping? It's a little different.

That hits the spot. Mental health!

i bet most of those shooters seemed like normal people and could pass a psychology test fine

The NRA makes a point to have pro-gun rallies in towns where recent, gun-related tragedies have occurred so if you're disgusted by anyone, it should be them. Also, a school shooting seems like pretty legitimate leverage when you're talking about how dangerous guns are. Statistically, every country has the same number of mentally insane people. But, the US has a much higher rate of gun-related incidents. The difference isn't that other countries have fewer psychos. It's that these other countries don't say things like "guns don't kill people. People kill people. So as long as people are going to kill anyway we might as well make it super easy for them." There's really no possible way to argue that stricter gun laws wouldn't save lives. It's a fact. It happens all over the world.

and i love building character!! no seriously i do :o

I completely agree with you, except for the teacher part.
I would think it would not be good for a little kid to see a pistol in their teacher's waistband.
I can understand some sort of firearm in like the principal's office, but not in an actual classroom.

Well I didn't say the teacher had to have it out all the time. I mean, they could keep it well hidden until they needed it, at which point I don't think it matters if the kids see it if they stay alive.

Besides, what I said was that killers would think twice about shooting a school if they knew the teachers could shoot back. The knowledge itself would keep the school safe for the most part, because most killers only target people that they think can't fight back.

He was being sarcastic.

He did an excellent job.

The B-B-BUT was ironically quoting anti-gunners reactions to gun-activists.

And the fact it was in all caps was also making fun of the stupidity of those that use the "guns = more crime" argument.

You can read the sarcasm perfectly.

"I can't detect sarcasm in text." Well maybe you should learn the fuck how.

Which is more likely:
Him being sarcastic making his comment agree with his picture,
Or, him putting a studder in the comment not because he is highlighting his sarcasm, but because he has a studder in real life and for some reason it got transferred to text, and he is also so stupid that he made his comment disagree with the picture he put up.

Which story do you think is more likely? Think. Speak.

thatsTheJoke.jpg

you make anons look bad

You make those pants look good.

>tries to someone look stupid
>has no concept of rhetoric or sarcasm
>makes self look stupid instead

I don't know what I expected from an anon.

tries to someone look stupid.

yes :3

i sware on me mum ile nok ur teeth in
do u evn lft fgt?
i lift 50 ponds
ile lift u tell ur ded

What the fhtagn did you just fucking say about me, you little bitch? I'll have you know I graduated top of my sect in Innsmouth, and I've been involved in numerous secret rites of R'lyeh, and I have over 300 confirmed summons. I am trained in ritual sacrifice and I'm the the most prodigious student of our orginization. You are nothing to me but just another heretic. I will horrify you the fuck out with terrors the likes of which has never been seen before on this Earth, mark my fucking words. You think you can get away with saying that shit to me over the Internet? Think again, fucker. As we speak I am contacting my Lovecraftian overlords across R'lyeh and your lifeforce is being traced right now so you better prepare for the storm, maggot. The storm that wipes out the pathetic little thing you call your life. You're fucking dead, kid. I can be anywhere, anytime, and I can kill you in over seven hundred ways, and that's just with the Necronomicon. Not only am I extensively trained in dark magic, but I have access to the entire power of the Almighty Evil Cthulhu and I will use it to its full extent to wipe your miserable ass off the face of the continent, you little shit. If only you could have known what unholy retribution your little "clever" comment was about to bring down upon you, maybe you would have held your fucking tongue. But you couldn't, you didn't, and now you're paying the price, you goddamn idiot. I will shit terror all over you and you will drown in it. You're fucking sacrificed, kiddo.

Lets not forget how his "journalism" got British soldiers killed by broadcasting the location of their base when he was trying to portray those same soldiers as evil for interrogating prisoners that had info on high profile targets in the area