Truly romantic

WHY I 'OUGHT TO- oh...I see. Carry on then.

Not sure if you "carry on" pun was intentional or not.
Either way I enjoyed it.

I was raging so damn hard until I saw that small text, lmao..

lol what about those 72 kids killed 2 years ago by a guy with an assualt rifle in sweden. The Murderer now lives in a prison akin to a 4 star hotel

That's in norway, you dumb shit.

Yeah with an imported illegal mod of the ruger 14. (you have to be evaluated to own any semi-fully automatic gun here, by police, goverment and a gun organization)
and the 4 star hotel, yeah that's because Norway believes in rehabilitation, and it works big time, too bad there are some bad guys (ABB) getting a advantage from a goods we offer here.

i was about to go all batshit on you for a second...

you had me going there

Took guns away from his citizens in 1997 then murdered... Oh wait.

Maybe,but in the UK you have a three month waiting period just for a spoon.

Reading this as a history student, it's like the people who think this applies to America in 2012 have never heard of context or a "similar comparison base".

tldr it's a stupid pro gun picture

We aren't saying that it applies to the current situation, but there may be a time when it does happen. Almost every time the government takes away gun rights some mass murder happens.

Are you saying a mass murder happens because people are angry about having their guns taken away, or there's no guns to protect people or it's a coincidence ?

But if you seriously think that a serious argument for the legality of guns in America is the threat of the Government trying to impose Genocide on the nation then I seriously don't know what is wrong with you.

Like the person below me with the picture of Blair I could find a number of countries whose politicians passed more restrictive gun legislation in more modern times and similar circumstances that actually benefited the country.

That picture holds no weight in the gun argument for America

Maybe not yet, but why disarm the law abiding citizens? They aren't the ones committing crimes.

But they are the ones getting caught in the crossfire, and also it's doesn't mean that civilians can't have guns and "criminals" can.

It's the same with drugs, you think that it's your body your right. Some people can limit themselves and take cocaine responsibly, but by making it legal there are so many people who would get addicted and develop a serious social problem, instead of thinking about your own individual rights and freedoms think about what's best for the country as a whole

Limiting guns is not best for the country. Statistics show that in countries, cities, states that have high gun control there is much more crime. Let's say we did ban guns, it would only limit the law abiding citizens not the criminals. Criminals will get guns regardless.

That argument gets thrown out every time, statistics can be manipulated in so many ways when taken out of context

The cities that had very high crime rates compared to other cities would try and limit the amount of guns, just because they have a high crime rate compared to other cities after gun limitations does not mean the lack of guns are the problem.

You assume that having tighter gun control will somehow lead to more crime, that's really not the case. Mexico has very harsh drug laws because they recognize the drug problem over there, and so measures are done to reduce this. You couldn't then compare Mexico with Holland (lineiant drug laws) and then say by having strict drug laws you crime gets worse

Also another flaw in the stats is that if having a gun is illegal in a state gun crime will go up, because anyone found with a gun will be a number added to that statistic, even if their only crime was having a gun


You see what I am saying, if having blue eyes was a criminal offense in the UK there would be lots of arrest, ie crime stats would go up making it look like the UK is a bad place to live.

Also the whole criminal vs citizens argument has limitations because firstly laws are brought in, which would deter a lot of people, and after that anyone with a gun would be arrested so it makes it easier to find people who would be committing offenses ie having a gun.

And then you assume that guns are the only way of defending yourself, against a pretty non existent threat, most people will never ever have to defend themselves against a gun, so why do you need one ? If you feel the need for protection use mace a taser or self defense.

Guns are illegal in the UK ( barring shotguns but you need a really special land permit) and there is barely any gun crime, furthermore no one here feels the need to
have self defense weapons, you seem quite paranoid my friend



oh btw your stats are pretty much 100% wrong with the whole countries aspect of gun laws

There is some truth in your gun control/crime argument. Yes, limiting guns may help in some countries, but in most it does nothing. Personally I think the best way to reduce crime is by providing better education. Which in turn will get people off the streets and working instead of having the free time to commit crime. Your argument on other ways of protection is useless in my eyes. For example, if someone breaks into my house, obviously they aren't there to give me flowers and kisses, I am going to blow their ass away. If they break into my house they are most likely armed with something and I am not going to take the risk of being unarmed. Concealed carry permits are also very useful, many rimes have been stopped by simply pulling out the gun and pointing it at the mugger. Of course you don't hear much about these occurances because who would report a crime that didn't happen. So all in all I am saying if you don't want guns, don't have any. I'm not going to take the risk of being in a dangerous situation without one.

Well actually in a lot of first world countries where guns have been made illegal the gun crime is significantly lower than that of America. If you compare similar countries

Like New Zealand, Japan, Australia and the UK the rates are massively lower than that of America when it comes to gun crime and murder, even though GDP, poverty rates and other crimes are similar to America, a kind of indication of the pros of gun control.

You seem to think if you carry a gun you are protected from a gun ? And there is the same paranoid argument about someone breaking in and trying to kill you, that shit doesn't happen, random murders are not justifiable to have a nation full of armed civilians.

Yes education should happen, yes there should be a better social system to reduce the rich poor gap.

By your logic you would have to be armed every minute of every day, if you read this online debate this guy puts it into better words than I do.

www.debate.org/debates/Guns-should-be-banned-in-the-united-states./1/

I never said someone would break into your house just commit random murders, although there are some crazies that would, I was referring to people looking for a quick buck. Yes there are some instances when someone has a gun aimed on you and you are unable to obtain yours, but again not every crime can be stopped. Recently my brother got jumped by 6 people luckily he got out of there grasp fairly quick, but imagine if that happened to someone who couldn't escape, a gun is the only option. I could easily defend myself from a group of thugs with a gun. So to make my point clearer, do not ban guns from the law a biding population because they aren't the ones committing the crime. Yes we shouldn't allow mentally ill or criminals to obtain guns, but even if we place limits on guns it will not affect there ability to obtain them.

And if you seriously think that the government seriously wont get seriously worse about seriously imposing seriously stupid "safety" laws on the US, you are seriously deluded. Seriously.

I never said they were planing genocide, but the comparison is still apt. Genocide is not the only terrible thing that can come out of disarming the civilian population.

I've been to places where the civilian population was disarmed. They live in squalor while the ruling class, protected by armed guards, lives in opulence. That's the difference between you and me. You're a student of history, and I've actually lived some of it.

Also, look at the police state that is the UK. it may work on a population of just over 60 million people,in an area of under 100,000 square miles but try that with a population of more than 350 million, spread out over an area of almost 4 million square miles. It can't be done.

What ?! , you are calling me deluded, it's the United States of America,

You're first three paragraphs are literally wrong, you are seriously misinformed

1)In what world do you think that having gun regulation in America is the American government trying to suppress the people, there will never be a dictatorship or anything like it in America, it's literally beyond belief that, I am kind of lost for words, you have nothing to fear, grow up

DIsarming the population again, the population is being suppressed in America, even if in your tiwsted view that the government is trying to control the people for it's own gains do you really think that there would be an all out war, the gun toting civilian vs the American Army Navy and Air force.

You have lived it ... ? where, I live in Europe and there is none of that in any of the countries in the EU, unless you are talking about somewhere like Korea ? and liked I stated in my first post, a base for comparison then your argument is retarded.

And lastly for you saying it can't be done, you think that leaving it is a solution and that no attempt should be made to make a solution.

How old are you ?!

32. I've been to war. I've seen what happens when a government is allowed to run unchecked by it's people. I'm not going to sit here and argue with someone who obviously has no idea what they are talking about, or how the real world works.

People with money and power will do anything to avoid losing said money and power, and the fact that you don't see that as a problem is why I call you deluded.

Good day.

Right so your rebuttal is some anecdotal evidence that when you have supposedly been to war ?

And what war is this ?
I at least make some valid points whereas you try and use anecdotal evidence, that you don't actually reveal to me. Apparently I should just refute my opinion based on a anonymous persons claims that they "have seen things".

Of course people would rather not lose money, and would rather not give up a position of power, but is the civilian in America really being oppressed here or is it maybe ... potentially... a good idea to not have guns, have you ever considered that they may be a harm to society.

If you're not too retarded to reply it would be interesting to know which countries you have been to war in, unless they are probably bogus claims

wtf is a gun?
and i dnt see any british dictator since norman the conqueror and he was a good king

this is the only time that pot has killed

Deception is the first step in getting elected.

Most of the people Hitler had killed weren't German. Besides, what makes you think that our government would go on a fucking killing spree once they took away our guns? Dumbasses.

I support gun ownership but I believe that there needs to be stricter regulations in order to protect the general public.

Rationally thinking, I understand that it is an American past time, and going to the shooting range is fun, but it really angers me that so many American on FJ in particular blindly say that guns make the country safer.

Solely on the safety aspect guns are really quite detrimental to the American society

I agree

obama isn't taking away handguns... nobody is.

>Source at the bottom of the picture

Fuck you're stupid

This flaccid penis appears to have ejaculated a brown lump of sorts upon being put down.

"I came here to fuck bitches and fire Hellfires.
And I'm all out of Hellfires."

and the couple of yards around it.

and i like it

except he never once said that or anything like it

Argumentum ad Hitlerum.

Not really comparing anything to Hitler rhetorically. The comparison is valid, as there are more than a few casual similarities.

Also, in Europe, they don't count unsolved crimes as crimes. They actually have a higher rate of crime in Britain WITHOUT adding those numbers in too

Isn't that just empirical proof that guns are useless and in fact encourage suicide?

No, many countries with strict gun control or even bans have higher suicide rates or equal suicide rates compared to countries without gun control. It's all over the board and there really is no connection between the two. People who are going to kill them selves and own guns often use the gun because they can. In other countries, people who are going to kill themselves and don't have a gun can use other methods (Drug Overdose, Hanging, Jumping, Ect.)

How so?
It's not like guns are the cause of an extreme suicide rate, it's just a preferred methodology to suicide because it seems more instantaneous than being strangled on a noose or slicing your wrists. Japan has a high suicide rate, yet few of them are able to own and use a firearm.

No, because he is talking about the number of suicide deaths.
It would be saying guns promote suicide if it said most gun deaths are suicide

You are a true liberal, such as I. Freedom for everyone. Too bad that term has become bastardized to mean every lefty statist that wants to cradle Obama's balls in their mouth

If he didn't want to cause a shitstorm he should'nt have uploaded this picture, its inevitable. Now leave me alone you limp wristed shitpacker.

It's a Smith & Wesson M&P. Very fine gun

Crap, meant to reply to the guy above me

Goddamnit, I was fooled by a ruseman!

nope, thats a five-seven.

Huh, I remember the Five-Seven to be a lot larger than that.

looks about right to me. great gun for target shooting if you can get used to the sights...

>Confirmed for never touched a gun
The only thing that they have in common is the color scheme. I mean really, come on..

One, it was a quick glance
Two, been around guns my whole life also in the police force
Three, they share the same undermount and color scheme.

Get over yourself, i said i was wrong.

Lots of pistols have a rail, your point? No gun owner would think that looks like a five-seven. A five-seven is rare enough to where you know when you see one

Rare? "The Five-seven is currently in service with military and police forces in over 40 nations, such as Canada, France, Greece, India, Poland, Spain, and the United States. In the United States, the Five-seven is in use with numerous law enforcement agencies, including the U.S. Secret Service. In the years since the pistol's introduction to the civilian market in the United States, it has also become increasingly popular with civilian shooters"


Its all over the fucking place... last time i went to the range at least 3 people were shooting one... Shut the fuck up about shit you have no clue about. i saw the colors and the rail and didnt look at much else... I know now that i was wrong, but i also know you are fucking retarded...