Go Ahead, Gun. .
Home Funny Pictures YouTube Funny Videos Funny GIFs Text/Links Channels Search

Go Ahead, Gun

Views: 42049
Favorited: 45
Submitted: 07/08/2013
Share On Facebook
Add to favorites Subscribe to phycopath E-mail to friend submit to reddit
Share image on facebook Share on StumbleUpon Share on Tumblr Share on Pinterest Share on Google Plus E-mail to friend


Show:   Top Rated Controversial Best Lowest Rated Newest Per page:

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Anonymous commenting is allowed
User avatar #291 - skubasteve ONLINE (07/09/2013) [-]
Britians are really hell bent on convincing americans our gun laws are dangerous...

Those gun laws were established after a bunch of farmers defeated the british army with personal munition.
#315 to #291 - anonymous (07/10/2013) [-]
You mean the French Army?
User avatar #288 - jacobomexicano (07/09/2013) [-]
I would like to present the "tool" argument, just some food for thought.

What are hammers made for? To hammer things.
What are guns made for? Killing things.
If someone were to use a hammer as a ****** weapon, we would not ban hammers (heh), because the tool was not made for that purpose; someone abused it.
However, someone killing another person with a firearm would be different because they are specifically designed for that purpose. The gun did its job. The tool functioned the way it was designed.
#283 - Yesitsme has deleted their comment [-]
#251 - anonymous (07/09/2013) [-]
Banning guns in the US would be stupid. It's too late.
Everyone who owns a gun illegally to commit a crime will still have theirs
Then when they use their firearm to commit the crime, the citizens have no way of defending themselves quickly.
#281 to #251 - antthejoker (07/09/2013) [-]
hey guys look.....a anon that's speaks the truth
User avatar #245 to #244 - anniethreeone ONLINE (07/09/2013) [-]
Forgot to cover one of the words.
**** it, you get the idea
#285 to #245 - AbcDenny ONLINE (07/09/2013) [-]
Actually, I don't get the idea. Care to explain how this differs at all from the original?

Neither medicine nor guns can save or kill on their own. Both are tools and can do nothing more than aid human intent. Medicine can kill too, when misused.
User avatar #289 to #285 - anniethreeone ONLINE (07/09/2013) [-]
I'd love to explain, but let me begin by saying that when I said "you get the idea" I meant that the alteration to the original comic was clear, despite that I had forgotten to replace the word "gun" with "medicine" in the second panel.

Furthermore, by presenting the same faulty logic which was used in the first scenario in a new scenario where a helpful tool was being questioned rather than a harmful one, I attempted to present exactly the point you just outlined, so congratulations, intellectual-wanna-be, you figured it out.
#300 to #289 - AbcDenny ONLINE (07/09/2013) [-]
I still don't quite understand.

You are contradicting yourself. The point I "figured out" assumes that the logic is not faulty. In which case your version has exactly the same meaning as the original and is pointless. But otherwise, my bad. I assumed you were trying to make some kind of anti-gun argument when you were instead just posting something with identical meaning to the pro-gun argument .
User avatar #302 to #300 - anniethreeone ONLINE (07/09/2013) [-]
The original faulty logic is, as you know, that guns are not dangerous because they can't kill someone while sitting on a table. The same rhetoric can be applied to medicine; however, most people, including gun advocates would agree that medicine, does indeed, save people. When the same arguement is put into different context, its flaws may be more easily seen -- something you are clearly unable to do.

The point of the rhetoric is that it has the exact same meaning which is wrong in both cases. You clearly have no grasp on rhetoric or hyperbole.
#307 to #302 - AbcDenny ONLINE (07/09/2013) [-]
Right, I see what the problem is now. Our argument lies in our disagreement on the logic "guns are not dangerous because they can't kill someone while sitting on a table". I find this to be perfectly valid logic. You don't. That's where this argument stems from.

By replacing guns with medicine, the statement changes to "Medicine is not helpful because it can not save someone while sitting on a table" which seems significantly more ridiculous, thus outlining the flaw that you see in the argument, yes? This does not alter the original argument in anyway, though, correct? I would counter that the increased apparent ridiculousness of the argument however is not caused by a highlight of it's flaws; there are no flaws to highlight. The reason it appears more ridiculous is that the connotation of the words used has changed while the literal meaning has not. The connotations in the medicine example are significantly more bizarre because we do not think of medicine in the same way as we think of guns. That is, even though both are merely tools, we have different feelings for them. Also important is the change of the word "harmful" to the word "helpful". Again, these both have the same literal meaning in the example. That is, the quality of the one that wields the tool. However, we have different feelings associated with these two qualities. The argument is: "The tool is not dangerous/helpful, it's wielder is". This I find to be a valid argument. This is what we should be debating.

For the record, I am anything but an intellectual or an intellectual-wanna-be. I do like arguing though.
User avatar #309 to #307 - anniethreeone ONLINE (07/09/2013) [-]
You aren't argueing, you're simply refusing to acknowledge that the danger of guns can't be refuted by putting it down and asking it to kill someone.
#311 to #309 - AbcDenny ONLINE (07/09/2013) [-]
What danger, son? What danger? The point I'm making, and the point being made in the argument presented in this content, is that there is no danger.

The tool is not dangerous.
The tool is not helpful.
The wielder is what assigns that quality to the tool.

I can kill you just easily with medicine as with a gun. There are situations where I can save you just easily with a gun as with medicine. Tools are created with a certain purpose in mind, this is true. Let's remember that killing is always a means. Let us also remember that guns do not have to kill to meet their end purpose. There is a reason I need over ten years of school to practice medicine. If equal training was given with guns, they would not be dangerous. Why? How is it that training can remove the danger from a gun? Because the gun is not dangerous, the wielder is.
#243 - anonymous (07/09/2013) [-]
****** retarded ass fat muricans
#234 - mcquiston ONLINE (07/09/2013) [-]
**mcquiston rolled a random image posted in comment #6 at Comedy Gold Title **
#220 - snackman (07/09/2013) [-]
KNOCK KNOCK ************ !
#254 to #220 - lolchris (07/09/2013) [-]
Someone tell Ahmed to drop the RPG he's gonna kill us
#296 to #254 - snackman (07/09/2013) [-]
I cant stop ******* Laughing.
User avatar #217 - finni (07/09/2013) [-]
I think we should ban guns.

That way we could go back to fighting with swords, shields, bows and arrows.
User avatar #272 to #217 - crazylance (07/09/2013) [-]
Agreed. inb4 we get showered with red thumbs by people with gun ******** .
User avatar #252 to #217 - thegamerslife ONLINE (07/09/2013) [-]
I have a SHIELD. It's in 9mm
User avatar #213 - olmesy (07/09/2013) [-]
Hey guys? Genuine question.
You know how the first amendment says everyone has the right to bare arms? Who said they have to be firearms?
By banning guns and allowing knives, you're still following the amendment.
You can't say it's wrong to ban any kind of arm either because you already can't have a damn cannon
User avatar #240 to #213 - awildniglet (07/09/2013) [-]
Second Amendment, genius
And they didn't specify which arms so technically you can't ban any of them. Guns are as legal in the US as a hunting knife
User avatar #222 to #213 - pebar (07/09/2013) [-]
you can have a cannon......... (with the right paperwork)
User avatar #219 to #213 - vonspyder (07/09/2013) [-]
First, it's the SECOND AMENDMENT. Second, it clearly states that the right to have arms shall not be infringed. Limiting the kinds of weapons you can have is an infringement. Much the same as saying you can have any car you want except a fiat would be infringing your choice of car.
User avatar #224 to #219 - olmesy (07/09/2013) [-]
I'm British. I have no idea about you're government's history of amendments.
And by your logic, wouldn't they already be infringing on it by not allowing you to have cannons or mounted machine guns on your car?
User avatar #256 to #224 - thegamerslife ONLINE (07/09/2013) [-]
dude come over here and shoot a cannon, go to a range and kill some targets (with assistance, and understanding of the rules) you'll have fun, I promise....now I want to go shoot a cannon. :/
User avatar #226 to #224 - vonspyder (07/09/2013) [-]
...we are allowed to have cannons. And in some states you can in fact own a machine gun and even mount it on your car. Its just not practical to haul a cannon or a machine gun around so its rare to see. Come across the ocean, buy a cannon, youll feel better I promise.
#215 to #213 - anonymous (07/09/2013) [-]
they will never ban guns. that would spark a revolution.
User avatar #229 to #215 - vonspyder (07/09/2013) [-]
Correct. I served in the US Army and one of the first things they tell you is that if you are ever ordered for fire on civilians to remember you serve the civilians not the politicians. (the implication is that if ever order to shoot citizens, that that is your cue to shoot the politicians.)
User avatar #322 to #229 - masterspectre (07/29/2013) [-]
But this country might need nothing less than a revolution!
User avatar #323 to #322 - vonspyder (07/29/2013) [-]
if there is a revolution, the military sides with the citizens. If the revolution breaks down to left vs. right....well...the right has the gun and the minute the left uses one they violate what they believe in.
User avatar #324 to #323 - masterspectre (07/29/2013) [-]
I was making a Fable III reference.
User avatar #325 to #324 - vonspyder (07/29/2013) [-]
Ive only played Fable I
User avatar #326 to #325 - masterspectre (07/29/2013) [-]
I've only played Fable III.
User avatar #327 to #326 - vonspyder (07/29/2013) [-]
why are we whispering?
User avatar #328 to #327 - masterspectre (07/29/2013) [-]
I don't know.
User avatar #258 to #229 - thegamerslife ONLINE (07/09/2013) [-]
That's why the politicians work so closely with the U.N. and now russian troops, cause our own people are never going to turn on each other enough to change the face of the country like that.
User avatar #214 to #213 - madbomber (07/09/2013) [-]
that's the second amendment, and from your argument i have a good guess that you might be from Britain.
User avatar #216 to #214 - olmesy (07/09/2013) [-]
That's damn good detective work. Well done
#196 - cptbarney (07/09/2013) [-]
Humans and guns can also join forces and destroy the evil water.   
99% of all humans have drunk water atleast once in their life time.   
just saying.
Humans and guns can also join forces and destroy the evil water.
99% of all humans have drunk water atleast once in their life time.
just saying.
User avatar #284 to #196 - ICEDgrunge (07/09/2013) [-]
He's like Caligula 2.0
User avatar #260 to #196 - theshadowed (07/09/2013) [-]
You know who drank water? Hitler. And the Illuminati.

#295 to #260 - cptbarney (07/09/2013) [-]
That's my point.
That's my point.
#273 to #260 - crazylance (07/09/2013) [-]
sheeples ... hehe +1 to you good sir
#192 - olesc (07/09/2013) [-]
**olesc rolled a random image posted in comment #5172009 at My Little Pony fanfiction, backgrounds, songs, lyrics, and GIFs. ** the root of all evil
#191 - frantasium (07/09/2013) [-]
Absolutely anything can kill a person as long as the bearer is determined enough. Take a prison for example. It harbours perhaps the most determined people. A prisoner has the ability to smuggle in a very small disguised weapon, they then can proceed to kill someone with it and all of this is possible because of determination and instinct. It is in our nature to kill, some people don't adjust to the instinct removal process that most of us part-take in when we're in school or at home. Also, the governments of the world shouldn't try and waste their time on banning weapons because then our useful tools will be banned too. They should invest their time in protecting citizens while controlling the instinct, either by allowing gangs to eliminate each other or by training good people who possess weapons to openly allow themselves to defend other good citizens.
TL;DR The government should try and even out the war between good people and bad people by making it easier for good people to defend themselves. Also, removing guns is pointless because basic tools will have to be eradicated also.
User avatar #236 to #191 - timmywankenobi ONLINE (07/09/2013) [-]
1.guns are designed only to kill they are not tools that were repurposed nor do they serve any other functions.

2. a semi auto rifle with a extended mag can kill a lot more people then a shiv my ****** .
#225 to #191 - saturninepariah (07/09/2013) [-]
* sees a well educated opinion and doesn't thumb down or rage*
#181 - buriedstpatrick (07/09/2013) [-]
People kill people. I know we can all agree on that.
Give people more means and tools to do it, more people kill more people.

Out of all the respect I can give americans, gun control simply is one point I don't agree with, when some of you say you need guns for 'protection'. It's like adding another layer to the problem instead of really fixing the core issue. I get that a lot of criminals already have black market weapons and I understand that's an obvious threat to consider if you're handing away your gun. I'm afraid I don't even have a good answer to the damage that has already been done over there, since guns have a way of both appearing to be cool to own and have sinked so much into the American culture, it's a disease almost impossible to cure.
User avatar #264 to #181 - thegamerslife ONLINE (07/09/2013) [-]
You need to login to view this link Except it's not a disease and so many lives are saved each year with guns it far outweighs the couple thousand deaths by guns (by the way, that is always presented as a vague clump of data) each year (still under 10,000)
I personally live in a high unemployment rate area, with massive amounts of homeless, and the number of guns in our county almost out number the people (a **** ton of people around here also conceal carry). yet we have a pretty low violent crime rate (here's the secret, criminals are scared of being killed during there illegal activities)
#178 - osirusrising (07/09/2013) [-]
**** storm inbound.
User avatar #287 to #178 - bannon (07/09/2013) [-]
Bomber: Has a pilots licence to fly the place and has permission from his superiors. Pilots are also routinely tested to ensure they have the capabilities expected of them along with their bombs and planes.

Driver: Has a licence to drive the car and has been tested to show that he should have been sensible enough to not drink and drive. Drivers must also submit to routine testing. In Ireland we also have the NCT or National Car Test in which vehicles are tested once a year (depending on the condition or year of the vehicle) so that the vehicle is regulated and kept up to a certain standard

Shooter or person in possession of weapon: ?

Sure, go ahead and have guns but at least have some sort of licencing where people are trained to use the firearms or they're tested, not to mention renewal of mental health evaluations every so often and submission of firearms to be checked for defaults.
User avatar #268 to #178 - Hoobling (07/09/2013) [-]
Bombs are already illegal everywhere
Cars are integral to life and drink driving is illegal

No-one blames the gun, it's why Adam Lanza is in jail. I don't want all guns to be *********** , but there is a problem in America when it comes to how easy it is to get hold of a gun. Lanza's mother didn't need 12 guns.
User avatar #255 to #178 - megashot ONLINE (07/09/2013) [-]
it's not the gun that is blamed, it's the shooter's access to guns we blame
User avatar #176 - lorkhan (07/09/2013) [-]
Guns don't kill people, nuh uh... I kill people, with guns. Pow!
User avatar #165 - jouten ONLINE (07/09/2013) [-]
I'm all for "guns don't kill people, people kill people", but if I lived in a country like the USA and knew that US citizens tend to use their gun on almost every occasion and that every retarded redneck can easily access to a gun, then I'd be all for guns to be banned, because I don't want to be shot, just because I'm out late at night.

Americans don't know how to use guns. Don't give them any.
User avatar #282 to #165 - skubasteve ONLINE (07/09/2013) [-]
Yea...about that. We try to take the innocent before proven guilty stance. For every 1 crazy guy there are thousands of law abiding citizens that use weapons for protection and sport. Will an occasional crazy get through? Yes. But we value our freedom over your tyranny.

#185 to #165 - lordaurion (07/09/2013) [-]
It's funny because none of that is true except where most people can buy one. We have less than 8000 ******* a year from guns. Our violent crime rate is less than half what the UK's is.
User avatar #189 to #185 - jouten ONLINE (07/09/2013) [-]
You need to login to view this link

"In the United Kingdom, annual deaths resulting from firearms total

2010: 155"

Compare that to "only" 8000 people (It's actually more than 30000 You need to login to view this link )
User avatar #265 to #189 - thegamerslife ONLINE (07/09/2013) [-]
Did you know that when someone defends themselves with a gun where the attacker is killed and when our police shoot and kill someone, that all gets lumped together to help out politicians keep the lines vague to try and make the situation seem worse than it actually is. js The number 8000 is for illegal uses, and innocent deaths.

You need to login to view this link our own white house, FBI, etc all find that guns save far more lives than they take each year. also just having a gun and presenting it can defuse a life threatening situation, and the majority of times that is what happens and shots don't even get fired.
#262 to #189 - theshadowed has deleted their comment [-]
#248 to #189 - defender has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #204 to #189 - pebar (07/09/2013) [-]
"from firearms"
look at total ******* , then look at total violent crime, then look at population

Of that 30000, around 20000 are suicide and they don't count (suicide rates in the US and UK are about the same). Around 60% of all ******* are done with a gun in the US, simply because they're there. If you don't include gang activity, which accounts for about 80% of all gun crime in the US, the ****** rates in the US and the UK are about the same.
User avatar #228 to #204 - meierme (07/09/2013) [-]
not sure if you knew this, but when a cop shoots some one its counted as homicide as well, so the number is even lower
User avatar #198 to #195 - jouten ONLINE (07/09/2013) [-]
Yeah those are only the ******* committed with guns. The other list includes accidentally fired gunshots and deaths that don't count as ******

And even with your source it's12,000 to 155. This doesn't really prove that you should give americans guns
#203 to #198 - lordaurion (07/09/2013) [-]
Yeah, because ******* and assaults are all that matter when talking about crime. If someone wants to die, they're going to find a way. Guns are just quick and painless which is why so many people use them to suicide.

That's 12000 total homicides a year with ALL WEAPONS. Stop trying to make this look worse than it does. In 2011 8,583 were reported dead from firearms. Not 12k.
User avatar #209 to #203 - jouten ONLINE (07/09/2013) [-]
Even if you only strictly look at the 8000 people who are downright ******** with a gun, do you honestly think it's a good number to proof that americans are reasonable enough to own a gun? You said more people are killed in the UK with guns, yet it's 155 people who died. And this statistic, too, includes suicide and apparently that doesn't count.
(And it still includes accidentally killed people with guns, nice for overlooking them. It's about a 1000 people too, who died like that)
#211 to #209 - lordaurion (07/09/2013) [-]
>You said more people are killed in the UK with guns
Where did I ever say that? Now you're just putting words in my mouth. What I said, was the UK has a higher violent crime rate.
>Our violent crime rate is less than half what the UK's is.
User avatar #179 to #165 - majortomcomics (07/09/2013) [-]
Americans actually tend to be better with guns.
User avatar #186 to #179 - jouten ONLINE (07/09/2013) [-]
No they don't. More people die in Chicago through gunshots than in Afghanistan.
Think about that.
User avatar #223 to #186 - vonspyder (07/09/2013) [-]
yes...in chicago...where guns are banned....as opposed to Atlanta....where I buy guns on my lunch breaks.
#190 to #186 - lordaurion (07/09/2013) [-]
Because Chicago and Detroit totally speak for the entire US and are not simply the result of decades of ****** infestation and gang violence.
User avatar #202 to #190 - majortomcomics (07/09/2013) [-]
Don't try. This guy is ******* retarded.
User avatar #187 to #186 - majortomcomics (07/09/2013) [-]
Chicago is a gun-free zone. Think about that.
User avatar #193 to #187 - jouten ONLINE (07/09/2013) [-]
Do you think this makes it better? This just further proves how dangerous it is to give americans guns, if there's a region where even the fewest people who own a gun shoot more people than in Afghanistan
User avatar #201 to #193 - majortomcomics (07/09/2013) [-]
No, MORE people own guns because they're illegal, you **** . And where the **** do you get your statistics from?
#212 to #201 - jouten has deleted their comment [-]
#218 to #212 - lordaurion (07/09/2013) [-]
Did you even read the ******* article?

Comparing absolute numbers of ******** schoolchildren in one place to absolute numbers of dead soldiers in another is problematic, to say the least. During the 2006-07 school year, 34 kids were killed in Chicago. The death of 34 children is morally reprehensible, but if we are going to turn tragedy into a data point, we may as well use a slightly — though only slightly — more rational denominator. In other words, 34 out of how many? We could compare those 34 deaths to the total number of children in Chicago, but since most shooting victims are teenagers, it might be more relevant to consider the total number of public high-school students (109,982). By that measure, about .03% (or three out of every 10,000) of Chicago high-school students were killed last school year.

OK, what about the Illinois soldiers in Iraq? Obama didn't offer specific numbers, but his technical point turns out to be correct. Between 24 and 28 military members from the state (depending on which of the many available sources we rely on) were killed during the 2006-07 school year. That�s fewer, in absolute terms, than the number of kids killed in Chicago. But Obama was wrong on the relative victimization of both populations: the number of dead soldiers represents about .3% (or 30 out of every 10,000) of the total number of active and reserve troops from Illinois currently serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to Defense Department statistics.

So there you have it: Illinois soldiers in Iraq are still 10 times more likely to be killed than teenagers in Chicago.
#235 to #218 - meierme (07/09/2013) [-]
wow, just like every other libtard that i get in a gun argument with. they never read what they send you. good job debunking that tho.

for your efforts here a little gun porn
User avatar #271 to #235 - thegamerslife ONLINE (07/09/2013) [-]
This is...beautiful. is this an M&P 15 upper or a DPMS sportical upper. I notice the missing forward assist and dust cover like my DPMS.
User avatar #303 to #271 - meierme (07/09/2013) [-]
my DPMS has both of those, but its also rated for .223 and 5.56
User avatar #304 to #303 - thegamerslife ONLINE (07/09/2013) [-]
Mine is also 5.56 capable, idk why you would assume it wasn't.
#305 to #304 - meierme (07/09/2013) [-]
my assumption was because my my DMPS had both of those and the only ones ive seen missing both were only rated for .223. didn't mean to offend

here is my collection
User avatar #306 to #305 - thegamerslife ONLINE (07/09/2013) [-]
I need a shotgun. :/
I'm looking forward to getting a Mossberg 500.
I believe all AR manufacturers now just by default make there guns rated for 5.56, it helps sell them a little easier. there may be exceptions but I know Panther arms and S&W only produce 5.56 rated guns now.
I have a few .22's for training (rifle, pistol) a few compact 9mm's an AR. just the normal stuff.
User avatar #308 to #306 - meierme (07/09/2013) [-]
i would recommend the Remington 870. from what im told is they are much more reliable. but i have personally never had an issue with a Mossberg either, so that was probably some bias on their part. mine is completely galvanized, has an extended tube, has the full length rail system, collapsible butt stock, a door breaching choke, and the shell holder, i designed and ordered it for $840
User avatar #310 to #308 - thegamerslife ONLINE (07/09/2013) [-]
I'm looking in the $400 or less range. so I'm getting a J.I.C. model mossberg 500. They are both reliable (for superb reliability mossberg 590A1 is best) but I'm getting the 9 shot 12G so I don't need extended tubes and all the other stuff I'll add later on.
User avatar #312 to #310 - meierme (07/09/2013) [-]
that is a good way to go about it, i have just been saving and knew what i wanted. but im still replacing the pump with one that has a rail system so i can add a broom stick and a flashlight, as well as putting a reflex sight on top
User avatar #269 to #235 - majortomcomics (07/09/2013) [-]
Be careful what you say here, you might get red-thumbed. (It's the liberals' only method of defense.)
User avatar #227 to #218 - jouten ONLINE (07/09/2013) [-]
Hum, this was the wrong article then. Here's the correct one
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)