Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search
Buy your amazon goods through FJ's link.
Just click this link and search for any product you want. FJ gets a commission on everything you buy.
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#556 - fieldvaughan (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....?
#609 to #556 - epicx (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 (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 (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 (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.
#586 to #556 - anonymous (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 (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

User avatar #569 to #556 - EvilFluffyBunny (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.
User avatar #677 to #569 - vonspyder (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.
#589 to #569 - fieldvaughan (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 (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.
#584 to #569 - catephant (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 (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 (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 (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 (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 (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.
 Friends (0)