Let's ban hammers.. Don't know if retoast. I'm not on 24/7.. THE NRA ISN' T THE ENEMY... HOME DEPOT IS! THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE Kill - IN 2011 BY THIS MESSAGE IS ' thank You
Upload
Login or register
Hide Comments
Leave a comment Refresh Comments (435)
[ 435 comments ]
> hey anon, wanna give your opinion?
asd
#41 - draxdiesel
Reply +29 123456789123345869
(02/10/2013) [-]
and as we all know it's just as easy to carry out mass murder with a hammer as with an assault rifle. also that figure is completely wrong unless it means that specific type of gun in which case surely you should only take the figures from one specific brand of hammer. i've seen some pretty stupid pro gun control (and anti gun control) arguments in my time (like anyone who's spent more than five minutes on the internet) and this is one of the most retarded.
and as we all know it's just as easy to carry out mass murder with a hammer as with an assault rifle. also that figure is completely wrong unless it means that specific type of gun in which case surely you should only take the figures from one specific brand of hammer. i've seen some pretty stupid pro gun control (and anti gun control) arguments in my time (like anyone who's spent more than five minutes on the internet) and this is one of the most retarded.
#288 to #41 - anon id: 51fb0a69
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/10/2013) [-]
>using Clint Eastwood in an anti gun argument
#346 to #288 - draxdiesel
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(02/10/2013) [-]
yeah i realized when i was doing it although i don't think clint eastwood would be stupid enough to use this argument
User avatar #310 - goodadventures
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(02/10/2013) [-]
Well most likely the death by hammers would be accidental, however the deaths by assault rifle will more than likely be murder.

Also the hammer is a useful tool with many purposes, with an assault rifle it's primary usage is to kill.
User avatar #392 to #310 - LocoJoe
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(02/10/2013) [-]
Quit using the term assault rifle. You are not only using it incorrectly but you probably don't even know the true definition of one.
User avatar #312 to #310 - Zarke
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(02/10/2013) [-]
How do you accidentally kill yourself with a hammer? How stupid do you think Americans are?
User avatar #318 to #312 - marijanelover
Reply +25 123456789123345869
(02/10/2013) [-]
Dumb enough to re-elect both Bush and Obama.
#351 to #318 - nordicmike
Reply +6 123456789123345869
(02/10/2013) [-]
In all fairness, who would you rather have as president? Obama or Romney?
User avatar #428 to #351 - marijanelover
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/11/2013) [-]
If I was American (I'm Canadian) I would have voted Obama. But Obama would be considered a Conservative up here... and in most of the western world for that matter.

Fact is the American electoral and political system is broken, with the crazy right having taken over the republican party and any moderate conservative has already jumped ship to the democrats, making them a centrist party as opposed to a leftist party. Add to that the fact that the people's opinion has been replaced by lobbyist and you have a system that is broken beyond repair and a population that is largely unaware of it.
#391 to #351 - caplocker
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/10/2013) [-]
Neither. there's the problem with our system. We've got 2 people with similar and effective ways to **** up our nation for their profit and a population too stupid to do anything different. Vote third party and it's a true waste because the majority of voters will believe the **** they hear on their evening tv. Sad sad ****.
#360 to #318 - drewbridge
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(02/10/2013) [-]
First terms are always better than second terms.
User avatar #323 to #318 - Zarke
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(02/10/2013) [-]
Touche.
User avatar #315 to #312 - goodadventures
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/10/2013) [-]
Be creative, there's lot of bizarre accidents that can happen, also it isn't limited to killing yourself with.
User avatar #321 to #315 - Zarke
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/10/2013) [-]
Creativity reflects possibility, not occurrence.
User avatar #42 - crazyanger
Reply +13 123456789123345869
(02/10/2013) [-]
I used to be against banning guns in America, I just thought you needed to regulate who can buy and what they can buy better. But after seeing the arguments people like OP make, I'm beginning to think banning guns is the best idea.
User avatar #46 to #42 - bigbeaufort
Reply +6 123456789123345869
(02/10/2013) [-]
It also turns out that America has the highest rate of gun violence out of any developed nation.

I know that gun control won't lower other forms of violence, but I mean come on.... The kinds of guns that are being banned are made for killing people. Do we really need these?

INB4 butthurt

User avatar #56 to #46 - charagrin
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/10/2013) [-]
We do have a higher ratio of gun violence, because we have more guns. And countries with more cars have more car crimes then countries with less cars.
User avatar #63 to #56 - giblets
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/10/2013) [-]
Cars have uses other than killing/injuring people.
Guns on the other hand do not.
User avatar #65 to #63 - charagrin
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/10/2013) [-]
I have multiple firearms made just for target practice. Like a car they CAN be used for wrong.
#54 to #46 - anon id: f5e366f2
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/10/2013) [-]
I can make explosives with common household items that could level a city block. I could have it all put together in a couple of days. Anyone can do this. The directions can be found readily online. Mass shooters use guns because it gives them more satisfaction to pull the trigger on each one of their victims. Yes, taking away guns would eliminate that satisfaction for them but be prepared because if they can't shoot people they'll resort to more extreme methods for killing people, such as loading up a truck with common household chemicals parking it inside the structure of a crowded place and just leveling it with everyone inside. Its a war of escalation. If you want to up the ante go right ahead but be prepared for wackjobs to do the same.

Or we can address the real issue, social and community degradation, and find these people, get them help and avert the entire issue. But of course that's way too much work for liberals. Let's take what seems to be the easer way out.
User avatar #58 to #54 - charagrin
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/10/2013) [-]
The Oklahoma City bomber killed 168 people, and injured over 600 others with over the counter chemicals.
User avatar #69 to #46 - lolzponies
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(02/10/2013) [-]
You should see where mos of the gun violence occurs though
places with the most gun control
User avatar #79 to #69 - crazyanger
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/10/2013) [-]
I want to see your sources for this, because what I've found says exactly the opposite.
User avatar #80 to #79 - lolzponies
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/10/2013) [-]
Chicago
nuff said
User avatar #84 to #80 - crazyanger
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/10/2013) [-]
That was banning guns, not stricter gun control.
User avatar #86 to #84 - lolzponies
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/10/2013) [-]
it started with gun control
and then they banned guns
and since the first of this year more 40 people were killed there
User avatar #97 to #86 - crazyanger
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/10/2013) [-]
So because Chicago ended up banning guns you shouldn't have stricter gun laws? You don't have to ban guns because you get stricter laws.
User avatar #112 to #97 - lolzponies
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/10/2013) [-]
with stricter laws come regulation of the firearms
regulation of firearms means I'm limited to what I can buy
to hunt , defend myself and my family , friends, property and strangers
the current thing going through congress the "Assault weapon ban"
would say that
Any firearm with a pistol grip, collapsing stock or high capacity magazine would be banned
on top of that it would also limit
the number of rounds in a magazine to 7 for semi automatics and 3 to bolt and pump action weapons
The problem with that is
If some thugs break into my house and I have a pump action 12 gauge
if there's four of them
I have 3 shells
if the fourth charges me I'm dead
I'm not saying I need a 100 round high capacity magazine for a ar15
thats overkill to me
but thirty round magazines are not high capacity
the mid capacity magazines

my point is
they will pass gun control
and slowly add on until some firearms are completely gone from market and illegal to own in the US


User avatar #154 to #112 - crazyanger
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/10/2013) [-]
If 4 people breaks into your house they wont kill you unless you kill any of them first. Which you would be an idiot to try to do since you're outnumbered 4 to 1.

Your point is that they will eventually ban all guns? Or most guns? They wont do that. In the US constitution there is something called the 2nd ammendment which prevents them from doing that. And even if they do, so what? If you think about it, every single 1st world country except for the US lives great with stricter laws. In fact, all of them has a lot lower crime rates.
#133 to #112 - ericzxvc
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/10/2013) [-]
First of all, you're a ******* idiot.
Correlation does not equal causation. Chicago banned guns because of the high gun crime, there isn't high gun crime because they banned guns, is your brain literally full of ****? And you're using a sample of one in your study to prove your point?! ONE ******* PLACE?! Want to hear a large case study? The fact that America has exceedingly higher gun crime than every other developed nation, that's my proof, you have none.
If guns are ******* legal, and someone breaks into your house with guns because they're oh so easily accessible then you are not going to be able to beat four guys no matter how ******* large your clip is. Besides you don't need to ******* defend yourself from guns if there aren't any, and don't feed me some ******** about "oh criminals will always get guns" because LESS will get guns and MANY lives will be saved because of it.
#271 - themrsunshine
Reply +10 123456789123345869
(02/10/2013) [-]
And I who believed that around 11.000 deaths in U.S.A. were related to firearms...
Silly me...
#283 to #271 - vigilantej
Reply -9 123456789123345869
(02/10/2013) [-]
you are silly and ignorant :D more people are killed by clubs (broad term to consist of hammer and other blunt held objects) each year in homicide cases than a fire arm, in fact ignorant people quoting statistics that are false against gun laws 2/3 of Americas gun violence is suicide and accidents with only 1/3 of the actual deaths attributed to homicide so that being said you are silly for thinking America is gun violent country in fact if you look at gun homicides ect America isnt even in the top 5 for gun homicides per capita i think where 8th or 9th
User avatar #294 to #283 - themrsunshine
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(02/10/2013) [-]
I still believe 11,671 gun related murders to be a rather high amount. It is however true that that 27.000 deaths were related to accidents and suicide...

Not very nice calling me ignorant :C
User avatar #298 to #271 - drewbridge
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/10/2013) [-]
This is pointing out that "assault rifles" (guns with 30 round mags, long barrels, pistol grips, etc) have been involved in consistently less murders than hammers.

This has been a trend for a number of years. Again, JUST "assault weapons".
#307 to #271 - supermanon
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(02/10/2013) [-]
Maybe the issue is who is using them, cause guns can't really pull their own triggers
< Who pulls the triggers
#300 to #271 - feelythefeel
Reply +6 123456789123345869
(02/10/2013) [-]
I think he cheated by only counting the deaths caused by that specific firearm. OP doesn't play fair because OP is a faggot.
User avatar #142 - occamsrazor
Reply +9 123456789123345869
(02/10/2013) [-]
Good thing hammers have the sole purpose of inflicting lethal force and are deadly precise with that... wait no I'm thinking of something else
#150 to #142 - anon id: f5e366f2
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/10/2013) [-]
What are you thinking of?
i thought maybe it was guns but I have target rifles who's sole purpose is to shoot targets so it can't be that.
#155 to #150 - occamsrazor
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(02/10/2013) [-]
I'm not sure but let me throw some hammers at a target till it comes to me. Also that's what they're primarily used for all of a sudden, I decree.
#160 to #155 - anon id: f5e366f2
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/10/2013) [-]
You're entitled to that. Purpose is defined by its use. If you want to use a hammer for target practice that is its user defined purpose. If you want to use a hammer to bash someones head in that is its purpose.
User avatar #168 to #160 - occamsrazor
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(02/10/2013) [-]
Ok I can't even keep this up that is the most fallacious piece of **** argument for guns I have ever heard in my life
#172 to #168 - furryerection
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(02/10/2013) [-]
Please, list the logical fallacies.

Because you're trying to straw man the argument.
User avatar #174 to #172 - occamsrazor
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(02/10/2013) [-]
In America alone there are 87 gun deaths per day by gun violence alone, which means murders. You're trying to say what about their use now? It's pretty clear what that is. And that's not what a straw man is.
#238 to #174 - anon id: 6724cb24
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/10/2013) [-]
And by banning guns, all those people that planned on murdering someone will stop that ****, and turn in their gun... Because getting in trouble for owning a banned gun is MUCH worse than getting in trouble for murder.
#232 to #142 - anon id: 6724cb24
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/10/2013) [-]
Well, hammers do inflict a lethal force at a pinpoint location... a nail isn't a big target, and you have to drive it through some rather hard surfaces... Also, the only use of a handgun is to inflict lethal force with high accuracy. How many people do you know go hunting with a glock?
#243 to #142 - fuckyosixtyminutes
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(02/10/2013) [-]
So it's okay that hammers kill people because they hit nailes too?
#210 to #142 - pedobearson
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(02/10/2013) [-]
Unless someone breaks into my house, my gun will hurt as many people as your x-box. And I got it for the same reason. It's fun!
#364 - pebar
Reply +8 123456789123345869
(02/10/2013) [-]
We're lonely in the politics board... funnyjunk.com/politics/

pic related, sort of

User avatar #123 - Emendo
Reply +8 123456789123345869
(02/10/2013) [-]
I keep hearing this argument and it doesn't make any sense to me when something like a hammer has actual practical uses like building **** where as an assault weapon has no practical function other than shooting people.
#124 to #123 - anon id: f5e366f2
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/10/2013) [-]
Define "practical purpose."

If hobby is not a "practical purpose" then baseball bats should be banned too. Plenty of people have been killed by baseball bats and their only purpose is hobby.

Also, building things with hammers can be defined as impractical. Structures built by hammers aren't necessary in the most basic definition of survival.
User avatar #125 to #124 - thegrayknights
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/10/2013) [-]
Damn anon, that was a well done argument. You should have signed in so you could have my thumb :(.
User avatar #131 to #125 - bramdk
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(02/10/2013) [-]
it really wasnt because an assault rifle is still much more deadly then a baseball bat
User avatar #170 to #131 - sexybarracuda
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/10/2013) [-]
Humans are a lot more deadly than an assault rifle...
User avatar #171 to #170 - bramdk
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/10/2013) [-]
a Human cant go run into a place kill nearly everyone inside it and run out withouth some kind of weapon like lets say... an assault rifle maybe
User avatar #176 to #171 - sexybarracuda
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/10/2013) [-]
I do agree with that argument. But consider this...is an assault rifle deadly if it's just sitting on a table literally doing nothing. I hope your answer is no it's not deadly. Now it only becomes deadly in the hands of a deadly person, or a person with deadly intent.
User avatar #177 to #176 - bramdk
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/10/2013) [-]
i agree
now
how do we make it harder for people to obtain an assault rifle
User avatar #188 to #177 - sexybarracuda
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/10/2013) [-]
Well that's exactly my point. It isn't the 'assault rifle' itself that is bad, it is the person weilding it. The solution doesn't lie in getting rid of the item, it lies in finding a way to recognize those with malintent and to try and either help them with their issues before they escalate into something lethal or to put measures forth to have trained individuals ready to act on a moment's notice (similar to the US Air Marshalls). I am a little bit bias in favor of guns because one of my good friends (similar to you I think) didn't really see the point of firearms, until one night a person broke into their home and seriously injured them. They went a bought an AR-15 as soon as they recovered.
User avatar #194 to #188 - bramdk
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/10/2013) [-]
its not your point im saying that **** wouldnt happen if people didnt get these guns in the first place
the point you are defending is the thing that lets these bad people aquire these rifles and use them
User avatar #262 to #194 - myrtille
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/10/2013) [-]
If somebody really wants to shoot someone, they'll get the firearm illegally.
User avatar #361 to #262 - bramdk
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/10/2013) [-]
the harder it is for them to aquire guns the better
User avatar #430 to #361 - myrtille
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/11/2013) [-]
It's not exactly hard to acquire an illegal firearm.
User avatar #431 to #430 - bramdk
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/11/2013) [-]
harder i said
and id like to see you try to get your hands on an illigal firearm
User avatar #432 to #431 - myrtille
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/11/2013) [-]
I don't want an illegal firearm, but if I did want one, I'm sure I could get it.
User avatar #433 to #432 - bramdk
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/11/2013) [-]
go back to playing with dolls
you arent able to get an illigal firearm
you might think you do but you dont
you see most sellers of these illigal firearms have to watch out for police and stuff
they will not sell to strangers
and you being on funnyjunk and playing xbox dont fall under their normal customer base
User avatar #434 to #433 - myrtille
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/11/2013) [-]
I like your pitiful insults. Since it has gotten to empty accusations, I'll leave you with your delusions that gun laws will keep killers from getting guns. Evenin'.
User avatar #204 to #194 - sexybarracuda
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/10/2013) [-]
We shall see what happens with gun legislation. I have my opinions (good and bad) for firearms, but I'm curious to see if the legislation passes and if it works out in the long run. Past tries point to it not really making a difference, but maybe something will deter the senseless killing of civilians. Who knows...
#145 to #131 - anon id: f5e366f2
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/10/2013) [-]
You're wading into the logical fallacy waters.

If I shoot someone in the middle of a Texan mall how long do you think I have to live. As soon as I pull that trigger I just let hundreds of gun toting lone star staters in a couple mile radius that I want to be shot.

If I take my baseball bat and hide in a parking garage I can kill people quietly and secretly as long as I'm not seen up until people are reported missing and authorities track their last known location. That would probably take a day or two. Do you have an idea how many people i can kill with a bat in a day or two?
User avatar #173 to #145 - bramdk
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/10/2013) [-]
also you are comparing these 2 in difrent situations
overall an assault rifle is still much more deadly then a baseball bat even though you can kill a few people at night
User avatar #158 to #145 - bramdk
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/10/2013) [-]
id like to see you kill 2 people with a baseball bat
because when youve hit the first one the second one is probably punching away and overpowering you
with a gun you could just should them both from a distance
User avatar #136 to #131 - thegrayknights
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/10/2013) [-]
That could be argued. Baseball bats are much easier to obtain, and are less conspicuous than an assault rifle. So could can be used with the same deadly efficiency.
User avatar #148 to #136 - bramdk
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/10/2013) [-]
yes exept for that a baseball bat can only hit a person up close and you will be massively underpowered against a group of people
wheras an assault rifle can kill a person with 1 shot through the head or lots of shots anywhere else
is easy to use against groups
and can kill people from meters away
saying that a baseballbat has the same deadly efficiency as an assault rifle is like saying my cat has the same deadly efficency as a mountain lion just because they are both cat species
#157 to #148 - anon id: f5e366f2
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/10/2013) [-]
That all being said, if I'm a smart person, I'll pick my battlefield to give myself the upper hand. I wouldn't take my bat into a crowded shopping mall because I know its deficiencies.

The point is, if you want to kill lots of people, there are plenty of ways to do it. The longer we focus on guns the longer we disregard the true issue which is social degradation and a lack of adequate mental health detection and treatment.
User avatar #161 to #157 - bramdk
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/10/2013) [-]
so you are saying the problem is mental health
while your country is pretty much giving away guns (i know that isnt true i mean that they are much to easy to obtain)
to people with a low mental capacity
#153 to #148 - anon id: f5e366f2
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/10/2013) [-]
I never said anything about efficiency.

If you want to talk about efficiency I'll just drive a semi full of explosives made with household chemicals into a crowd. A gun would be child's play in comparison.
User avatar #156 to #153 - bramdk
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/10/2013) [-]
... i wasnt replying to you was i?
#163 to #156 - anon id: f5e366f2
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/10/2013) [-]
Oh, you weren't. Sorry, misread that.
#128 to #125 - anon id: f5e366f2
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/10/2013) [-]
Thanks but recognition isn't what's important. Informing people and potentially making society a little smarter is plenty rewarding.
User avatar #132 to #128 - thegrayknights
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/10/2013) [-]
Fair enough, carry on the good fight my friend!
#215 to #123 - pedobearson
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/10/2013) [-]
Well, guns are fun AND can hunt AND can defend you. Hammers can only build stuff and defend you (Not as well as a gun).
#254 to #123 - fuckyosixtyminutes
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/10/2013) [-]
So the fact that hammers are useful for other things cancels out the deaths they cause.
#18 - thebronykindthree **User deleted account**
+8 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
#57 to #18 - anon id: f5e366f2
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/10/2013) [-]
This is a logical fallacy. To say we need hammers is to say that we need the things that build them. Technically we don't. The structures we build with hammers are an expression of human desire to fulfill our perceived needs. Likewise, owning and shooting an assault rifle is also a perceived need. So to say one is "needed" more than the other is logically flawed.
#67 to #57 - thebronykindthree **User deleted account**
-1 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
#70 to #67 - anon id: f5e366f2
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/10/2013) [-]
Sure let's do this.

"Oh man, I can't punch a hole in this paper target from a hundred yards away, if only I had a rifle. I really need a rifle to do this."

"Here, have this hammer instead."

"wha.. I don't need this, I need a rifle!"

*your quote*
"**** this, I'm going to find a rifle"
#72 to #70 - thebronykindthree **User deleted account**
+1 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
#75 to #72 - anon id: f5e366f2
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/10/2013) [-]
you're not going to punch holes in a target at a hundred yards with a bb gun
#81 to #75 - thebronykindthree **User deleted account**
-1 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
#95 to #81 - anon id: f5e366f2
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/10/2013) [-]
I just said, target shooting. Its a hobby.

And by "assault rifle" I'll assume you mean rifles that are commonly mistaken by non-gun people as assault rifles.
#98 to #95 - thebronykindthree **User deleted account**
0 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
#102 to #98 - anon id: f5e366f2
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/10/2013) [-]
Right, I built a target rifle. I have absolutely no intention of killing anyone with it. I built it strictly for target shooting.
I sure could kill someone with it. I could also kill someone with my car, or my baseball bat, or the toxic chemicals I have under my sink, or the fountain pen on my desk.
#106 to #102 - thebronykindthree **User deleted account**
0 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
#113 to #106 - anon id: f5e366f2
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/10/2013) [-]
Some guns are designed for militaristic purposes, some are not.

Some cars are built for militaristic purposes, some are not.
#114 to #113 - thebronykindthree **User deleted account**
0 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
#116 to #114 - anon id: f5e366f2
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/10/2013) [-]
No, I have target rifles that have not and will not ever kill anything. They were never designed to do that and they would actually be very ineffective at ever hunting much of anything because their optics would make it near impossible to use practically to hunt something living.
#120 to #116 - thebronykindthree **User deleted account**
0 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
#9 - ruinsage
Reply +7 123456789123345869
(02/10/2013) [-]
This image has expired
#11 to #9 - anon id: 1a2deda9
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/10/2013) [-]
West-Germany? Really, it's like 25 years since it ceased to exist.
#12 to #11 - milson
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(02/10/2013) [-]
I'm confused too, this does not look like it's 24 years old but why didn't they have the data from 'east germany' then?
#39 to #12 - comradewinter
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/10/2013) [-]
It's obviously made to make fun of pro-gun controllers. www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/japan Over 500 people were killed with guns in Japan in 2008, I doubt the numbers change that drastically. www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-kingdom And over 700 died in GB, not 8.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States Handguns made up approx. 6000 deaths, not over 10000.

West Germany doesn't even exist. I think the whole thing was made to show how pro-gun control-ers make dumb statistics. I'm not sure. The numbers clearly show that there are more deaths in America, and that the ratio doesn't go in favor of the US pro-gun-ers, even if the differences aren't that big. Why would you need a gun anyway?
User avatar #44 to #39 - xkmarcus
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(02/10/2013) [-]
It does say handguns, maybe a different kind of gun is more common to use in Japan.
#221 to #44 - comradewinter
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/10/2013) [-]
Most people who carry guns in Japan are either organized criminals or police/military. I find it more plausible that the killings are done by the Yakuza, and they are more likely to carry easily concealed weapons/handguns.
User avatar #427 to #221 - xkmarcus
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/11/2013) [-]
Don't Yakuza tend to go for sub machine guns?
#305 to #39 - anon id: da5930e7
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/10/2013) [-]
According to your link, 4 people died from handguns in GB in 2008. And only 155 in total in 2010.
#313 to #305 - comradewinter
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/10/2013) [-]
****, mixed all guns into it.

Guess that just adds to pro-gun controls then.
#198 to #9 - nightstar
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/10/2013) [-]
Last time I checked that number includes suicide. That isn't gun violence. This picture is intentionally trying to deceive.
User avatar #263 - skittlevodka
Reply +6 123456789123345869
(02/10/2013) [-]
Not sure, what kind of gun this is, but is this only comparing the deaths by this specific gun? cause that would be resarded, then you shoudl put a certain brand and type of hammer as well... just saying
#268 to #263 - anon id: 735f9158
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/10/2013) [-]
no its all guns
User avatar #278 to #268 - bigtbone
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(02/10/2013) [-]
I believe that you are retarded.
User avatar #274 to #268 - skittlevodka
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(02/10/2013) [-]
#286 to #263 - vigilantej
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/10/2013) [-]
check the fbi they released in 2011 or 2010 statistics comparing all fire arms to all (clubs) a term they used to describe hammers wrenches ect and again you have to remember 2/3 of those gun deaths are suicide / accident and only 1/3 of the deaths can be attributed to homicide where as all of the "clubing" deaths where homicide
User avatar #329 to #286 - skittlevodka
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/10/2013) [-]
id say its pretty difficult to kill yourself with a hammer, and i also dont believe you should make it soo easy for people to kill them selves, as i think many victims of suicide, can be saved from their depression.