Will delete profile -- see description. Functionally, these guns are identical. They shoot the same size bullets. They can have magazine that carry many bullets gun rights educa
Upload
Login or register

Will delete profile -- see description

Click to block a category:GamingPoliticsNewsComicsAnimeOther
 
Will delete profile -- see description. Functionally, these guns are identical. They shoot the same size bullets. They can have magazine that carry many bullets

Functionally, these guns are identical.

They shoot the same size bullets.

They can have magazine that carry many bullets.

When you pull the trigger, one bullet comes out.

Yet, people want to ban one, but not the other. All this will do is force people to commit atrocities with less scary looking guns.

(top gun is Ruger Mini 14, bottom is AR-15)

+601
Views: 36982 Submitted: 01/31/2013
Hide Comments
Leave a comment Refresh Comments (746)
[ 746 comments ]
> hey anon, wanna give your opinion?
asd
#110 - therobsorensen
Reply +60 123456789123345869
(02/01/2013) [-]
Guns don't kill people. Nuh uh. I kill people. With guns.
#599 to #110 - hauntzor
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(02/01/2013) [-]
"Guns don't kill people; the government does."
User avatar #122 to #110 - johnnygat
Reply +9 123456789123345869
(02/01/2013) [-]
Pow
#522 - therealjc
Reply +31 123456789123345869
(02/01/2013) [-]
No one needs guns.   
Its just a fact, Amerifags need to stop crying about this and realise guns aren't an essential part of living.
No one needs guns.
Its just a fact, Amerifags need to stop crying about this and realise guns aren't an essential part of living.
#623 to #522 - tankthefrank
Reply -4 123456789123345869
(02/01/2013) [-]
Until someone is trying to kill you, then its essential to living.

Its easy to say what you said if you're from a nice all white suburban neighborhood, but not everyone is, some people live in the inner cities (coincidentally the cities have the strictest gun laws, yet the highest rate of violence)
You need to login to view this link
You need to login to view this link
videos related, where I'm from, and why I want to own firearms.

Then it comes to the second amendment, Its not so you can go duck hunting on a saturday, it so the government is terrified of the people, and not the other way around, because when the people are scared of the government, very very very bad things happen, and if you dont think that the American government would oppress its citizens, see executive order 9066
And yes I do want a massive arsenal of weapons to defend my rights.

also refer to the links to compare the violent crime rates of the United States and the Soviet Kingdom, erm the United Kingdom. Remember that a rate is the percentage and not the total number of people.
www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-1
You need to login to view this link
you will find that the violent crime rate in England and Wales is 3.5 times larger than the US, or you could watch this video if you dont want to do the work.
You need to login to view this link

tl;dr: get you head out of Piers Morgan's ass and actually do some research to get credible information
User avatar #631 to #623 - therealjc
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/01/2013) [-]
I live in a city. Never needed to defend myself.
second amendment is a billion years old. Keep up with modern times.
And violence is high, I agree, but I blame the economy, this education system and slack boarder control. yes you can blame the same things on your gun violence. but you don't need them. since when will your government turn on its people?
User avatar #527 to #522 - falgabird
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(02/01/2013) [-]
Im Amurican and i agree with you!
#602 to #527 - anon id: 02eef204
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/01/2013) [-]
Oh look, an "Amurican" that agrees with a European! He must be a blue fish living in a red fish pond.
User avatar #603 to #602 - falgabird
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/01/2013) [-]
Was supposed to be a joke... i agree not a funny one.
#619 to #603 - anon id: 02eef204
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/01/2013) [-]
Don't beat yourself up, you tried.
You failed.
But you learned what not to do next time.
User avatar #621 to #619 - falgabird
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/01/2013) [-]
Be amurican?
User avatar #739 to #522 - DrBobsPatient
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(02/01/2013) [-]
it's not just the fact of owning a gun, it's the fact that it infringes our constitutional right to own a gun. I don't own one, but am pro gun when it comes to this debate.
#531 to #522 - anon id: ff230887
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/01/2013) [-]
It's the principle, don't need them but want to keep them.
User avatar #538 to #531 - therealjc
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(02/01/2013) [-]
But why?
They have no sentimental value. its a tool. Tools don't have sentimental value.
Why would you want to keep them?
#545 to #538 - anon id: ff230887
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/01/2013) [-]
A lot of things don't have sentimental value, yet people still buy them and use them. They are safe if used correctly, and most of all they are fun.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmOGVANph5o&list=UUEPTp5WMAzjh9mOrKUwRLmQ&index=6
User avatar #550 to #545 - therealjc
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(02/01/2013) [-]
This man is American, which means his entire arsenal is obtainable by the american people. Why the **** do you need these kind of guns? I understand for hunting or what ever if you live in the middle of no where. but fully automatic assault rifles? If you want to use these things go join the army.
#565 to #550 - anon id: ff230887
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/01/2013) [-]
I agree, average Americans do not need these kinds of weapons and high powered assault rifles are not needed. I live in Pennsylvania, and I take part of deer season, I only need one shot.

Although your first statement inclines we take all guns away because they are not needed. Well it is a sense of pride, would you like something that was entitled to you taken away?
User avatar #558 to #550 - thamuz
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(02/01/2013) [-]
Collectors,its different,its cool ****,theyre fun to shoot,and in all honesty I would rather hunt a wild hog with an AR-15 than a bolt action. Those ******* can take a hit or two and keep coming.

Personally,I want to start a collection of WW2 era guns. Many of those might be automatic. I have my grandfathers M1 Paratroopers Carbine(with original folding stock and no I wont sell it) and they want to take guns like that away from us. Its history. In my state,I cant use that gun even at a range anymore because I only have 2 15 rd and 1 30rd mags for it. In my state,they even were talking about doing a full on gun confiscation with the NY Safe Law.

So yes,its a touchy issue,and we really dont want to be a police state. Gun Control is a very emotional issue with lots of misinformation. The reality is theres not that much gun violence(and if there is,its actually handguns,see Sandy Creek) and violence has been steadily decreasing overall in the US. But where the violence does occur,sadly is in urban areas. Those areas.tend to be poor,or have some sort of other social issue that is allowing the violence in general to occur,from drugs,to gangs,it could be anything really.
User avatar #561 to #558 - therealjc
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(02/01/2013) [-]
Want to see a gun collection? Go to a museum.
Want to shoot a gun? Go to a range and use what they have there.
Is this really an argument? Its ridiculous.
#574 to #561 - thamuz
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/01/2013) [-]
1-Perhaps one would rather have their own,and have something they can hand down. My rifle was handed down to me,and my rifle will be handled down to my son when hes old enough. Some museums dont even have real guns,some are knock offs,fakes,or chinese trash. Some might not even be real guns in the first place. I want to see a real gun,not a wax copy.

2-Not all gun ranges will have what I want to shoot. Some of the smaller ranges are BYOS. Bring your own stuff. Guns and ammo included. Guns are fun to shoot,varaity is the spice of life. Also,most AR style platforms are quite comfortable to shoot vs the standard long stock. Also, it isnt that hard to convert that Ruger Mini 14 to an AR style.

Guns arent scary,people are scary, Guns are a tool,or a work of art in some cases,theres some beautiful flintlock guns that I would love to own,but I could never afford due to their rarity and cost.

http://www.ogrank. com/content/view/698/59/
http://www.youtube. com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Ooa98FHuaU0

Thanks to the stupid tinyurl spammer asshats I hope the links mostly work if not ill repost them.

Pic related. Its a Ruger Mini 14. Looks scary to some people. Should be taken away. People cant handle this kind of stuff. But its just a Ruger Mini 14.
User avatar #585 to #574 - therealjc
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/01/2013) [-]
To be honest, I don't care for any of the technical stuff, so don't bother.
And yes, I agree that the old Blunderbuss styled guns from the old days look cool, but that doesn't mean I feel the urge to own one.
Like I said in another reply, You've been brought up in a place where guns are deemed acceptable. If you don't live in the us (UK) you wouldn't see the attraction towards guns because they're they're just a catalyst for trouble.
User avatar #570 to #561 - almostlover
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/01/2013) [-]
See the issue you keep bring up is fully automatic firearms. Not a lot of americans own full autos because of the difficulty in obtaining them. This picture is 100% true, why ban an AR-15 style gun but not the other? They both do they same thing, civilian versions are all semi-auto (1 trigger pull 1 bullet). People dont always enjoy going to a museum to see a collection. They want to be able to own hold and tend for the gun collection them selves. Americans do go to the range to shoot guns, but not every american that likes to shoot can afford a gun to rent at a range because they charge for ammo and the use of it. Also on that point not every gun range has firearms to rent to people.
User avatar #582 to #570 - thamuz
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/01/2013) [-]
I think the issue is theres so much misinformation about guns. With that stupid cunt in the government who hates guns(yet has a CCW permit and armed guards) wants to ban them,yet knows so little about them.

People need to become educated in gun control and guns. A perfect way to give veterans jobs. Let them teach people about guns and gun safety. My rifle wont jump out of the safe and start killing people. My rifle wont load itself will it? I have to put the magazine in it and load it and I have to pull the trigger.

People dont understand that guns are an inanimate object. Like the painters paintbrushes. The brush is a tool to make art. Some of it may not be pretty,some of it may be pretty. But you cant fault the brush for the painters lack of skills.

A gun is a tool,a tool that can feed my family,defend myself and my country. No more,no less. We dont blame cars for drunk drivers(a ****** argument but it applies)

User avatar #576 to #570 - therealjc
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/01/2013) [-]
I've never had the urge to fire a gun, or own any, let alone an entire collection.
It's only because you've been brought up in a society where guns are acceptable you feel the need to fight for them.
If you live this side of the pond you'd see my point exactly.
User avatar #600 to #576 - thamuz
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/01/2013) [-]
If I were looking at all the statistics I would see that people in the UK tend to get stabbed versus shot.

The most common method of killing continues to be by sharp instrument, with 232 victims killed in this way in 2010/11, compared with 210 in 2009/10.

You need to login to view this link

Why dont we ban knives? And make everyone use safety knives?

See what I mean? If someone wants to kill someone it dont matter how they do it,theyre gonna do it regardless. Guns,or not.
User avatar #608 to #600 - therealjc
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(02/01/2013) [-]
No because a man with a knife cant go into a school and kill people like a man with gun.
Also a knife is a necessary tool for every day stuff, which a gun isn't. Don't even argue that, it's just a fact.
people in the UK can live just fine without a gun. Why can't you?
User avatar #587 to #576 - almostlover
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/01/2013) [-]
Now your assuming that because of the way i was raised i dont see both ends? I do see both ends. I agree with the 10 rd magazine thing. But that doesnt mean i agree with having guns banned for absolutely no reason.The whole sandy hook thing was done with a hand gun. No assault rifle of any kind was used(to my knowledge). Now just because you dont like firearms nor wish to won shoot or partake in a fun recreational sport doesnt mean you should ruin it for the people who do like to collect, do like to shoot, do like to own firearms.
User avatar #595 to #587 - therealjc
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(02/01/2013) [-]
I didnt say that, I said you live in a society where they're acceptable, not a society where you're completely ignorant.
If you want to collect them, then take the firing mechanism out.
If you want to shoot them, go to a range and shoot when they own there.
Or to be really over the top, take the firing mechanism's out of the collection, give them to the gun range where they have some bank to store the mechanisms, when you want to use them, go to the range, assemble your gun with your own mechanism (so you're not reusing someone else's) then when your done, take the mechanism out and take the gun home.
is that not reasonable?
User avatar #613 to #595 - almostlover
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(02/01/2013) [-]
No it's not reasonable. To set up a bank for firing mechanisms that would take a lot of tax payer money and would make it all a big hassle when there really doesnt need to be. If you take the firing mechanism out of a firearm even in a collection it can deface the value. This gun ban is similar to homosexuals aloud to get married. They dont harm anyone, and yet there are the bad ones who give homosexuals bad names just as there are gun owners who give bad names to the good gun owners
User avatar #624 to #613 - therealjc
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(02/01/2013) [-]
Some homosexuals giving other homosexuals a bad name. HAHAHA oh really, that's hilarious, what do they do? prance around and act fabulous?
and a waste of tax payers money? there are talks of armed guards at every school. where's that money going to come from then?
#632 to #624 - thamuz
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(02/01/2013) [-]
How about this idea for you.   
   
Why not give all those homeless veterans a job by having them stand guard. Have them teach guns and gun safety.
How about this idea for you.

Why not give all those homeless veterans a job by having them stand guard. Have them teach guns and gun safety.
User avatar #641 to #632 - therealjc
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(02/01/2013) [-]
Why would a homeless veteran want to guard a school.
Why is a veteran homeless in the first place?
Do you not treat your hero's with respect?
Why not eliminate the guns then you can use that free time teaching maths and science instead of gun safety.
#654 to #641 - thamuz
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/01/2013) [-]
Because these veterans cant get jobs anymore because nobody wants to hire them.   
   
It gives them a job,something to do,and something that they can look forward to.   
   
Treating them with respect? I know many veterans who love teaching the proper safety from guns(Ive learned from vets)   
   
Who said anything about taking away from math and science? You arent. You can easily add to a day with a yearly course that teaches gun safety.
Because these veterans cant get jobs anymore because nobody wants to hire them.

It gives them a job,something to do,and something that they can look forward to.

Treating them with respect? I know many veterans who love teaching the proper safety from guns(Ive learned from vets)

Who said anything about taking away from math and science? You arent. You can easily add to a day with a yearly course that teaches gun safety.
User avatar #658 to #654 - therealjc
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/01/2013) [-]
Surely a veteran should have a pension good enough to retire with, without having to worry.
Any why take the time learning about guns which aren't even needed when you can spend more time learning maths and science. You know, the stuff that is necessary and gets people jobs.
User avatar #663 to #658 - thamuz
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/01/2013) [-]
Actually,not always. If you have an ex,for example with children,the pension would go to that.

Learning about something that exists and is in our society is something that should happen. Be optional yes,but a yearly course.

We will still be teaching math and science. How would we be taking away from those? Explain to me that. Your arguments lack any substance.
User avatar #671 to #663 - therealjc
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/01/2013) [-]
Before you start screaming MUH GUNS. You don't need them. Its just a fact.
and you only have so many hours in the day to teach children. Why use that time to teach them about something that isn't necessary?
it's like teaching them how to make fire by rubbing stick together.
and i shan't be replying any more, I have a train to catch.
#676 to #671 - thamuz
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/01/2013) [-]
random .gif to throw at you just to piss you off.   
   
Actually,an optional yearly course is perfectly acceptable. Because many people own guns. And having the safety from both parents/family/friends AND having a society teaching safe use you can hopefully help reduce gun issues(such as accidental firing)
random .gif to throw at you just to piss you off.

Actually,an optional yearly course is perfectly acceptable. Because many people own guns. And having the safety from both parents/family/friends AND having a society teaching safe use you can hopefully help reduce gun issues(such as accidental firing)
User avatar #607 to #595 - thamuz
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/01/2013) [-]
If you take the firing pin out of it and safe it,thats fine(its what I do) But if you disable it entirely,its worthless. Welded,locked up,etc kills any value in them. Functional examples are what sells. Non functionals sell for parts value most often.

Most people have their guns safely put away. I do not store my gun loaded,or with the firing pin in it. I do not store my ammo in the open of the gun locker(its in its own firebox locked up with a different key) I even use a trigger lock on mine to keep the neighbor happy.

Everyone I know here,does something similar. Only one person I know has his gun in the open,and thats because its an 1880 shotgun that has its pins removed and will never shoot again.
User avatar #611 to #607 - therealjc
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(02/01/2013) [-]
Ok, be sensible with me now.
Do you really need a gun. have you needed to use it within the past week?
User avatar #627 to #611 - thamuz
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(02/01/2013) [-]
When you have people breaking into homes and stealing just one town over? Yes. Its like a condom,I would rather have it and not need it,then need it and not have it. When I know theres going to be local wildlife when Im out and about driving up north and something happens and I break down? Yes I would rather have it.

I dont think a knife is going to work that well against someone who could have a gun,or for all intents and purposes has the intent to kill you. I dont think a knife would work that well against a feral animal whos every intent is eating you.

When you have a gun,your intent is to kill something. Be a target,or a living thing.

Yes,theres some times where having a gun is a requirement.
User avatar #637 to #627 - therealjc
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/01/2013) [-]
You don't need a gun. You just said it yourself.
Stop arguing for something you don't need.
Its like a child complaining because his xbox has been taken away from him.
The child doesn't need the xbox, it's just there for entertainment. Go find something else to entertain yourself with.
#646 to #637 - thamuz
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(02/01/2013) [-]
You are just running around in circles and have yet to counter my arguments.   
   
Why is violence on the decrease(for the past 20 years) and yet gun violence is low(and hardly ever done with AR style rifles,most often with pistol caliber weapons) and said violence is in the suburbs? Why is that?   
   
Oh,and if you don't need guns,why do your police's higher ranking officers carry guns? You shouldn't need to.    
   
You are right,I don't always need my gun,but I would rather have my gun,and not need it. Because if I need it and its not there,well,I guess I'm ******.   
   
Enjoy stabbing **** I guess.
You are just running around in circles and have yet to counter my arguments.

Why is violence on the decrease(for the past 20 years) and yet gun violence is low(and hardly ever done with AR style rifles,most often with pistol caliber weapons) and said violence is in the suburbs? Why is that?

Oh,and if you don't need guns,why do your police's higher ranking officers carry guns? You shouldn't need to.

You are right,I don't always need my gun,but I would rather have my gun,and not need it. Because if I need it and its not there,well,I guess I'm ******.

Enjoy stabbing **** I guess.
User avatar #656 to #646 - therealjc
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(02/01/2013) [-]
Because a pistol is easier to conceal.
Armed police officers have guns so we don't have to.
If no one has guns, who's going to rob you then?
There are your answers.
#668 to #656 - thamuz
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(02/01/2013) [-]
Wow. Either you are trolling,or you are without a doubt the most retarded limey bastard I have had the displeasure of dealing with.   
   
I posted data,you have nothing to counter that. Whos going to rob me? How about the knife wielding delinquent whos going to stab me if I don't give him his crack money?   
   
That was with out a doubt,the worst comment you have posted.
Wow. Either you are trolling,or you are without a doubt the most retarded limey bastard I have had the displeasure of dealing with.

I posted data,you have nothing to counter that. Whos going to rob me? How about the knife wielding delinquent whos going to stab me if I don't give him his crack money?

That was with out a doubt,the worst comment you have posted.
#728 to #656 - tankthefrank
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/01/2013) [-]
I think for some reason you seem to believe that making these firearms illegal will vaporize them into thin air simultaneously. The truth is when you make it against the law to own them, you take them away from the law-abiding but not from the law-breakers

see >drugs
#729 to #611 - tankthefrank
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/01/2013) [-]
Do you really need a condom. have you used one in the past week?

Its about having and not needing, rather than needing and not having.
User avatar #618 to #611 - almostlover
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/01/2013) [-]
For recreational uses yes. Its enjoyable for a lot of people like football is to a football player.
User avatar #551 to #545 - therealjc
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/01/2013) [-]
And I don't mean using fully auto weapons for hunting. I structured that sentence wrong.
#629 to #522 - anon id: c5c767bf
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/01/2013) [-]
you started a huge *********
User avatar #549 to #522 - collegedood
Reply +6 123456789123345869
(02/01/2013) [-]
SECOND AMENDMENT! SECOND AMENDMENT! IF I WANT A GUN I DESERVE THE OPTION TO HAVE ONE!
User avatar #553 to #549 - therealjc
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(02/01/2013) [-]
Please explain what the second amendment is.
I've heard it a billion times and don't know what it is.
#567 to #553 - anon id: 8ba2fb63
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/01/2013) [-]
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Essentially owing to American's fear of Government (while being very proud of democracy at the same time for some reason) and multiple lawsuits it came to mean that everyone who wanted a gun could have one. This allows for any ******* short of any mental capacity to get a gun and shoot up a school.
User avatar #560 to #553 - collegedood
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/01/2013) [-]
when the american constitution was written it introduced the bill of rights saying "it is agreed people cant do this and the government cant do that". the second right (amendment) is "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." the "the right to bear Arms" part means the government cant legally outlaw guns.

the amendment was made 200+ with the idea that if the american government became tyrannous, the common people could fight back.
User avatar #562 to #560 - therealjc
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(02/01/2013) [-]
>2013
>200 year old law is still in force
User avatar #675 to #562 - collegedood
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/01/2013) [-]
they tried to make the amendments as timeless as possible. but i do believe it is out of date since automatic rifles are completely different than muskets
#590 to #562 - oedad
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/01/2013) [-]
The brits have 500 year old laws still in force
User avatar #598 to #590 - therealjc
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/01/2013) [-]
Yeah, things like treason = beheading in public.
Who wants to kill the royal family?
Who beheads people in public these days?
Compared to the right to own a gun then misusing them and innocent people getting killed.
#571 - winiacz
Reply +18 123456789123345869
(02/01/2013) [-]
Guns don't kill people.   
   
Bender Bending Rodriguez does.
Guns don't kill people.

Bender Bending Rodriguez does.
#634 to #571 - norwegianlolz
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(02/01/2013) [-]
#642 to #634 - vorack **User deleted account**
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(02/01/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
User avatar #436 - happygrowman
Reply -4 123456789123345869
(02/01/2013) [-]
you cant kill 100 people in 10 seconds with the first one.
#474 to #436 - anon id: d7c56c39
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/01/2013) [-]
retard
#438 to #436 - Iseewatudidthere
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(02/01/2013) [-]
you cant do it with the AR-15 either.
#439 to #438 - happygrowman
Reply +17 123456789123345869
(02/01/2013) [-]
you can with aimbot.
User avatar #450 to #436 - zraven
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(02/01/2013) [-]
Dude, an AR-15 is semi auto. Nice fail, there.
#483 to #450 - arcahne
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/01/2013) [-]
AR15 is very very broad.....it could refer to an M-4. Which has the auto-select fire switch.
#189 - ronyx
Reply +14 123456789123345869
(02/01/2013) [-]
There be at least 5 ********** down there.    
Have this gif instead then skip.
There be at least 5 ********** down there.
Have this gif instead then skip.
User avatar #699 to #189 - andnowducks
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/01/2013) [-]
That **** was deep.
#556 - fieldvaughan
Reply +12 123456789123345869
(02/01/2013) [-]
a kid in australia snapped today and came to school with the intent to harm people. all he was able to aquire as a weapon was a knife and only one person was harmed, it wasnt fatally either. this would have been a lot worse with even a semi-auto rifle, however australia banned them last time a massacre occured (port Arthur massacre decades ago). since then there havent been any large scale killings or massacres here. i acknowledge that stupid/psycotic/mental people are responible for these happenings in america, however, its impossibe to ban these people from society, ecspecially those that havent shown signs of this behaviour before, the next best thing is to ban the weapons that can cause more damage. we have done that here in australia, and its proven effective. i realise how important the constitution is to the american people, but is the decision to not change/alter it worth the lives of all the men women and children that have and will be killed....?
User avatar #569 to #556 - EvilFluffyBunny
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(02/01/2013) [-]
There are many ways to kill lots of people quickly without a gun. Banning them won't get rid of them either. People who do these shootings do not obey they gun laws that are already in place. Even if you ban the selling of these guns people can still find them pretty easily.
#584 to #569 - catephant
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(02/01/2013) [-]
Nope, not true, we have gun laws in England, and the number of murders in general is much less (proportionally - so taking into account population difference) than that of the number of murders in America, hell even if you only look at shootings we have less murders. So that would indicate that gun laws do not inflate the number of alternate murders such as stabbings and beatings.
User avatar #591 to #584 - EvilFluffyBunny
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(02/01/2013) [-]
As far as violent crimes and deaths resulting from those crime guns are at the bottom of the list. what needs to happen is not more laws being put in place, but for them to actually enforce the many laws that are already in place that they seem it ignore. They also need to crack down harder on the people breaking those laws, such as gang members. Tacking more on is not going to do any good if people are not willing to enforce the already existing laws.
#610 to #591 - fieldvaughan
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/01/2013) [-]
however, as far as mass killings and massacres go, semi auto and auto guns are at the top of the list. thats a good point though, the laws in place need to be much more strongly enforced
#605 to #591 - catephant
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/01/2013) [-]
True, true, but there definitely needs to be a change to how guns can be attained in America. In England you have to get a permit, and even then you can only store your weapon in certain places unless you get an additional permit to keep it at your personal home. And the storage system has to be incredibly robust and safe. So anyone that would likely commit atrocities such as school shootings cannot easily get hold of guns in England. The one thing that definitely does not need to happen is a waste of money into a study to see if games cause crime, which is totally untrue, bad and/or reactive parenting causes crime within kids. Bad where the kid is traumatised or not stopped/punished for doing bad things, and reactive when the parent doesn't try to stop the kid but instead just punishes them once they do something wrong.
User avatar #617 to #605 - EvilFluffyBunny
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(02/01/2013) [-]
See i don't disagree with any of that and I am not a gun owner myself. The most I would want as far as a gun would be a handgun for home defense, but it would be in a heavy duty case with a biometric lock on it. All I am trying to say is that there is no point in tacking on new laws if they lack the ability to enforce what laws are already in place.
#653 to #617 - catephant
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/01/2013) [-]
I agree, first enforce laws that exist, but then when they manage that, get around to further improving the existing laws or implement a couple more.
#589 to #569 - fieldvaughan
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/01/2013) [-]
they havent here. maybe putting stronger penalties on illegal gun ownership would help solve that? if the evidence is present that it seems to work in other countries, wouldnt you at least try it..? best case: solves the problem for the most part. worst case: doesnt work and it goes back to how it was...
User avatar #593 to #589 - EvilFluffyBunny
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/01/2013) [-]
But that goes both ways. there are countries that have banned guns and have far more gun deaths and gun related crimes. What needs to happen is stricter enforcement of the already existing laws. Making more laws is not going to help if people are not willing to enforce the gun laws and restrictions that already exist.
User avatar #677 to #569 - vonspyder
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(02/01/2013) [-]
I can build a gun using parts purchased at home depot for 7 dollars that fires 12 guage shells. Have you people learned nothing from Star Trek V ? Ban weapons and we will make our own.
#586 to #556 - anon id: 02eef204
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/01/2013) [-]
That kid in Australia couldn't get a gun, legally. The act of him bringing one to school would already be illegal and punished in Amerikkka.
Our laws aren't the greatest, but then again, not every country has 300 million people spread out.
I admire Australia's laws but I see that on a larger scale, it is a lot more difficult to enforce.
#601 to #586 - fieldvaughan
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/01/2013) [-]
he couldnt get one but his dad or a relative may have one, ie as in they r more availabe. even if this kids dad owned a gun, the worst it could be would be a bolt action rifle that holds 7 rds. while still devestating there is much less chance of a large scale killing using a weapon like that. yes, the population is a lot bigger but america is a very progressive country and very government orientated. i reckon if u all work together some change would be able to be implemented and enforced

#609 to #556 - epicx
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/01/2013) [-]
Well there are other factors to look at -

The population of Australia is 22 million while in the US it is 313 million, so it is a lot more likely that someone would snap. It also means that if that one kid in school did die, percentage wise, that is almost equal to the 20 kids that died in Sand Hook ES.

A person with a knife can actually do a lot of harm. In China where guns are banned, they have people snap and kill many people with a knife. For example. the same day as Sandy Hook, a man in china slashed 23 students in an elementary school.

And when it comes to the constitution, well the bill of rights is what we are talking about, it is a set of rights to protect us from a corrupt government. One might say that we have a democratic government so we should just use our power of voting. But no, we live in a representative democracy. It would still be easy for corruption to enter into the government, it already has. Now I don't think Obama is a Nazi, I actually think he is doing a good job, but when you look at most of the senate and house, some bills that are being passed have no reason to be passed unless some company is paying them. Just look at how stupid the right to work act is.

The right to bear arms protects democracy. Look at the Civil War, before you think I am racist, the war was not started because of slavery, if you ask I can explain, but I don't have the character count left. Why do you think there were only two peopled tried for war crimes after the war and the rest were let go back to their homes? It is because it was their right to rebel. Around 50% of the country was upset with Lincoln and the legislators. They felt the federal government was getting to powerful, and no matter who they voted for in the next election they would still have to live under this large government. You also have to remember that the Revolutionary War was only around 80 years before this and they remember what they thought was tyranny from Britain.
#640 to #609 - fieldvaughan
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/01/2013) [-]
a person with a semi auto gun can do more damage than some1 with a knife. thats why we moved from swords to muskets, its more effective for killing people. yeh there is more chance of people snapping, which is a good reason to be even more careful and aware open minded to prevention techniques. im no expert on this but in this case i really believe prevention could be the best solution. dont escalate the situation (armed gaurds outside of schools?!?) i really think working towards preventing certain people from being armed, reducing the capability of available weapons and increasing the punishments for laws already enforced is a step in the right direction. leave the guns designed to kill people and enforce authority to the people whose job that is; the police ond soldiers
#697 to #640 - epicx
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/01/2013) [-]
I fully support 100% background checks. I also support a lot harsher punishment for selling guns illegally. But the fact of the matter is that this country was started with the Bill of Rights which are the core principles of the U.S. To keep out representatives in check, we have the right to the same weaponry as the military that corrupt representatives might use against us. But I don't think that includes napalm and tanks.

There is also the fact that there are so many guns in the United States, that I know exactly who I can call to buy a gun from right now. Laws will not keep it out of peoples hands. And actually, a lot of people will probably still keep an assault weapon in their house even though it is illegal because the government isn't going to search everyone's house. So if someone snaps, they can still easily get a gun.
User avatar #674 to #640 - vonspyder
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/01/2013) [-]
we didnt MOVE from swords to muskets. We shortened the swords and made them into bayonettes which are still in use today.
User avatar #19 - diegrammernazis
Reply +11 123456789123345869
(02/01/2013) [-]
I am ashamed at being a american. the second amendment was to keep us on a even level with the military. Why? because we didn't was another tyrannical government from taking power. For a example the reason japan did not invade Americas mainland was because "Behind every door there would be a rifle". It was also to grant us easy access to the ability to form "modern day minuet men" in a way. Here in america we have a negative constitution, (the citizens give rights to the government) don't let them take your right to bear arms. Because if we let them take away one of our rights what is to stop them from taking our other rights. Imagine this the government is corrupt, so is the military and police force what are you going to do. well if you have a bolt action rifle that can only hold one round in the chamber what will you do. The same goes if you have a small self defense pistol. your still screwed, this write was given to us for a reason to have the civilians on a equal or near equal level to the military's level of weaponry (i'm saying don't let civilians get smaw's and such).Understand, we need to fight for this right and keep it ours.
#22 to #19 - anon id: 0ee7e100
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/01/2013) [-]
I think the mentality for a lot of people who want guns banned is that you don't need something that could mow down a group of people effortlessly just because you find it exhilarating. But you hold a good point. We don't live in a safe enough world to just take away a form of defense from everyone just because it CAN be dangerous. Until we live a world where we wouldn't need that "modern day minute man" stuff, we should be aloud this right. I wouldn't mind a limit on how many guns we're aloud though, it's not like we need to own an arsenal but it's stupid to ban any certain type as specific as assualt.
User avatar #23 to #22 - diegrammernazis
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(02/01/2013) [-]
hold on ill respond to you in a moment my brother is crying.....
i want to see what this is about
User avatar #24 to #23 - diegrammernazis
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(02/01/2013) [-]
lol a 10 year old break up. ha ha ha
#37 to #24 - killyojoy
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(02/01/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
#38 to #37 - diegrammernazis
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(02/01/2013) [-]
that made my day. take a like.
User avatar #453 to #38 - emmiepony
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(02/01/2013) [-]
>like
#163 to #19 - anon id: 2d050b23
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/01/2013) [-]
>>"a american"
>>"a level"
>>"we didn't was"
>>"government from taking power"
>>"minuet man"
>>"your still screwed"
>>"this write"
**** you, you're retarded
User avatar #185 to #163 - diegrammernazis
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/01/2013) [-]
1) I was eating and typing at the same time. (Its hard to eat watermelon without getting juice all over your computer)
2) I just woke up from a nap.

aaaaaaand you're trolling me because of my username.
User avatar #232 to #19 - zerokiller
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/01/2013) [-]
There's a lot of people out there who see this argument and say "Well there's no way civilians can stand up to the military because even with the weapons civilians have access to now." Which, I agree, in a way. I feel like if a rebellion starts, the civilians will end up losing. But at least with the guns we do have, we can put up a decent fight. And if we do put a decent fight the Government probably wouldn't want to start a civil war, due to the possible massive amount of casualties on both sides.
User avatar #749 to #232 - diegrammernazis
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/01/2013) [-]
Like I said a tyrannical government. So they probably wont care either way
#343 to #19 - schvetten
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(02/01/2013) [-]
I agree with you in the way that Americans should have the right to bear arms and that they shouldn't let themselves be oppressed by the gouverment, but I do think that its a bit easy for you in some states to aquire the guns. Someplaces you just have to wait one hour while they background check you and then you can walk out with a 50.cal rifle. They should simply be more thorough and responsible about what guns they sell to who.
User avatar #6 - Milvath
Reply -14 123456789123345869
(01/31/2013) [-]
Actually, the M14 uses 7.62, the AR-15 uses 5.56
User avatar #8 to #6 - TimBisley
Reply +11 123456789123345869
(01/31/2013) [-]
Ruger Mini 14, not M14
#604 - HumbertoL
Reply +9 123456789123345869
(02/01/2013) [-]
They are not equal.... The AR-15 has a faster fire rate.

That's like saying a Honda is the same as a Lamborghini because they can both use the same kind of gasoline.
#713 to #604 - anon id: 6f44fe61
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/01/2013) [-]
Flagged your picture as porn.
User avatar #620 to #604 - volleys
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(02/01/2013) [-]
Neither of them are automatic, so technically as fast as you can pull the trigger thats how fast it will shoot.
User avatar #645 to #620 - HumbertoL
Reply -6 123456789123345869
(02/01/2013) [-]
There is a version of the AR15 that is fully automatic and can fire at 800 round/min

(see above picture and link)
User avatar #652 to #645 - volleys
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(02/01/2013) [-]
Yes, but thats not the typical civilian model, you have to get a class 3 license or buy one on the streets. You could make pretty much any weapon automatic if you wanted to. There still wouldnt be much difference if either of these were automatic, it would be so fast that we wouldn't be able to tell.
#649 to #645 - tankthefrank
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(02/01/2013) [-]
you are infuriating me
User avatar #680 to #649 - FuckyouMrCrowley
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(02/01/2013) [-]
Don't worry tank i found that whole point he was offering up pretty stupid also
#702 to #604 - xadakk
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(02/01/2013) [-]
You just went full retard. You are why i can't talk about my SKS in public...
Pic related...my ******* SKS.
User avatar #614 to #604 - admiralshepard
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(02/01/2013) [-]
You're only limited by how fast you can pull the trigger on both weapons. The shooter decides how fast he can fire the weapon, so how can one fire an AR-15 faster than a Mini 14?
User avatar #630 to #614 - osskari
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(02/01/2013) [-]
there's still a max fire rate and i think the ar-15 is faster
User avatar #644 to #630 - admiralshepard
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(02/01/2013) [-]
Okay, I'll buy that, an M4A1 Carbine, which is a fully automatic military variant of the AR-15 in the picture, cycles around 950 rounds per minute, so we'll peg the AR's cyclic rate somewhere around there. A full scale M14 fires around 800 rounds per minute on fully automatic, again, military grade. Since the Mini 14 is a scaled down M1A (the semi-automatic civilian version of the M14) and fires the same round as the AR, it should theoretically have a slightly higher cyclic rate. Either way, we'll just use the M4's cyclic rate, and the M14's cyclic rate to make this easy. Both weapons fire at a faster rate than is humanly possible to pull the trigger. So essentially, both weapons fire as fast as the operator can pull the trigger.
User avatar #757 to #644 - volleys
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/02/2013) [-]
The M4A1 is not the same as the AR-15. The AR-15 is the semi-auto version, so the fire rate is non existent, it is "how fast you can pull the trigger". But, yes if we were talking about the military versions then yes your point is correct. Personally though I don't care about how fast it shoots, I want to hit my intended target. It is much harder to hit firing in full auto, you may hit something just not as often as aiming.
User avatar #760 to #757 - admiralshepard
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(02/02/2013) [-]
I didn't say they're the same thing. However, the way in which they operate is nearly identical, barring the fact that the AR lacks a select fire trigger group. Osskari was making the claim that the "maximum" rate of fire on an AR-15 is higher than that of a Mini 14. I used the fully automatic equivalents as examples to demonstrate the maximum cyclic rate of the design, not the weapons themselves. My conclusion was that both designs are capable of a rate of fire that cannot be reproduced with a human trigger finger. Therefore, whatever edge one design has over the other is completely nullified, because the rate of fire is only limited by how fast the shooter can pull the trigger. Lastly, as someone who's qualified on the M16 (sharpshooter, nothing special like expert or hawk-eye) I agree with you wholeheartedly that fully automatic *three-round burst in my case* is useless when trying to lay down accurate fire.
User avatar #662 to #644 - osskari
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(02/01/2013) [-]
you can also buy a slide fire stock for the ar-15 wich makes it (kinda) ful-auto. then it can shoot about 900 rpm
User avatar #758 to #662 - volleys
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/02/2013) [-]
It isn't the same. Slide fire stocks create a huge problem with accuracy.
#626 to #604 - tankthefrank
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(02/01/2013) [-]
Holy **** you are retarded , you realize they are both SEMI-autos, the fire rate is only restricted to how you fast you can pull the trigger.
#638 to #626 - HumbertoL
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(02/01/2013) [-]
User avatar #708 to #638 - DrBobsPatient
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(02/01/2013) [-]
It says "fully automatic version only" ... The automatic version is only available to swat units. It's illegal for a law abiding civilian to purchase/own a fully automatic rifle.
User avatar #731 to #638 - fapperdefap
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/01/2013) [-]
that looks like an M16
User avatar #639 to #638 - HumbertoL
Reply -4 123456789123345869
(02/01/2013) [-]
800 round/min

That's a pretty fast finger
#648 to #639 - tankthefrank
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(02/01/2013) [-]
Are you even ******* reading the picture you posted???!???!???!?!!!
it says 800 rounds/min (fully automatic versions ONLY)
seriously how are you this incompetent

semi-auto, one pull one round
automatic, one pull, continuous rounds
civilians own *********************************
User avatar #651 to #648 - HumbertoL
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(02/01/2013) [-]
Your argument was that they are both only semi-automatic

And the picture is to prove that the AR15 is not necessarily just semiautomatic.

The fully automatics are also available to civilians. That's why they want to ban them.
User avatar #742 to #651 - SteyrAUG
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/01/2013) [-]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act

They've been banned for civilian purchase since 1986. The only automatics out there are the ones that were registered at the time of the ban. And in order to purchase one you have to go through an extremely rigorous background check, acquire a class III firearms license (essentially making you a dealer) and THEN find someone willing to part with the automatic they own.
#703 to #651 - anon id: 6f44fe61
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/01/2013) [-]
THAT'S FOR COP/SWAT USEyou ******* dumbass.
#691 to #651 - anon id: 1a6d4720
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/01/2013) [-]
Fully automatic firearms have been banned for civilians since the 1930's. The only way to legally posses one it to obtain either a manufacturers license or a Class III weapons license. Both of those require you to be entered into a national database and registration with the ATF.
User avatar #752 to #691 - xadakk
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/01/2013) [-]
You say banned for civilians then say you can get one with a Class III license...Its not banned for civilians then.
#666 to #651 - tankthefrank
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/01/2013) [-]
they want to ban the semi autos, if legislation is passed it would be just as easy (and by that i mean extremely hard) for a civilian to go through the process of obtaining a full-auto. and the mini-14's rate of fire at SEMI-auto is 750 rounds per min, compare that to the AR's 800 rounds per min at FULL-auto and its pratically identical anyways.
link for proof: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mini-14
User avatar #688 to #648 - alexhill
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(02/01/2013) [-]
STFU and chill out its a gun
User avatar #701 to #688 - ScruffytheJanitor
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(02/01/2013) [-]
Tell that to Obama.
User avatar #740 to #701 - alexhill
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(02/01/2013) [-]
As in IDGAF not everyone is American and gives 2 ***** about guns and I'm bored of this retarded gun logic arguments
#455 - hypex
Reply +8 123456789123345869
(02/01/2013) [-]
guns dont kill people... I DO!