Click to expand
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#4 - fefe (07/08/2013) [-]
I never understood the arguement 'guns dont kill people, people kill people'. If thats the case and people kill people...then dont give people guns and they have one less way of killing people!!!
User avatar #183 to #4 - mrblueftw (07/09/2013) [-]
Hands can kill people. Just about anything can kill a person.
User avatar #137 to #4 - sirformidio (07/09/2013) [-]
The problem there is Guns are a tool.
Murder was not unheard of before the invention of the firearm. In fact, it was even more common.
People have an internal want to kill others, for multiple reasons. Banning guns will not get rid of that want, only close one of the many doors on how to achieve it.
User avatar #136 to #4 - rhiaanor ONLINE (07/09/2013) [-]
Actually, in australia they have banned guns and they have a bunch ore stabbings then we have actual shootings. And I guarantee getting stab is not fun or quick or painless.
#237 to #136 - fefe (07/09/2013) [-]
After you've been shot you usually won't die instantly and without pain either...
Also I use knives daily when cooking, tell me another use for guns.

I'll never set foot in a Country were the population is allowed to carry guns like the USA.
User avatar #131 to #4 - witislimited (07/09/2013) [-]
If I was on an island with 5 other people who each have a pointy stick, I`d at least like a pointy stick too. Dumb ass.
#118 to #4 - fefe (07/09/2013) [-]
people kill people... BAN PEOPLE

OK, now seriously. The problem is not in the fact that guns are made to kill or used as a defense. People are unpredictable and all kinds of situations can make someone go mad and if the person in such a state had access to a gun, it might end up with a murder. The thing is in probability. Probability of accidents.

Should guns be banned in USA? No. Think about it. We, in Europe don't use guns mostly because of our mentality. People in USA seem to be more aggressive, thus they need guns to defend themselves. Level of stupidity in USA is higher than in the rest of the world (stupid people are everywhere, but for some reason you can find more of them in 'Murica) and even with banning the guns, it's not that hard to get a gun in USA anyway. So if they got an army of idiots with a short-tempered mentality with guns, then no wonder they are scared for their lives.
#82 to #4 - hypex (07/09/2013) [-]
guns dont kill people.... I DO!
guns dont kill people.... I DO!
User avatar #53 to #4 - ParallelDuck (07/09/2013) [-]
No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms.
Thomas Jefferson

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniencies attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it."
Thomas Jefferson

If the government starts to ban guns and prevent public citizens from owning them there is nothing to stop the government from becoming tyrannical and preventing other liberties protected by the bill of rights. Gun control is fine but banning weapons and forcing people to sign a register is a terrible terrible idea..
#93 to #53 - onewhoobserves ONLINE (07/09/2013) [-]
Two things:
First: If you are going to quote someone to support your argument make sure to use the full quote. If you don't and it ends with something along the lines of: "within his own lands or tenements" it can damage your credibility and hurt your argument. Jefferson was obviously not arguing for the unrestricted bearing of arms at all times but more akin to the right to keep arms in your home to defend it.

Second: "If the government starts to ban guns and prevent public citizens from owning them there is nothing to stop the government from becoming tyrannical and preventing other liberties protected by the bill of rights." This argument always amuses me. What exactly is an AR-15 or even a full blown M4 going to do against a drone, an F-18, an M1 Abrams, or even a Stryker? Slow it down for a fraction of a second? Draw its fire a little faster? The problem here is that when the founders were writing up the Constitution/Bill of Rights the level of technology between government and common man was near parity. In modern times there is no comparison between the armament technology a civilian can obtain and what the government can field.

I have no opinion either way on gun control...just wanted to point these things out.
#40 to #4 - kompleteciller (07/09/2013) [-]
i hope you get cancer and never spawn so we can clense the world of your 			*******		 stupidity   
i hope you get cancer and never spawn so we can clense the world of your ******* stupidity

User avatar #36 to #4 - fredthemilkman (07/09/2013) [-]
9/10 excellent b8
#32 to #4 - vissova (07/09/2013) [-]
You're a 			*******		 retard.
You're a ******* retard.
#30 to #4 - repostsrepost (07/09/2013) [-]
Except if you support taking peoples guns away well, you need guns to do that. So you only support the government having guns. And governments have never abused power ever.
User avatar #48 to #43 - jagenblitz (07/09/2013) [-]
Except somebody being pro-gun control doesn't automatically mean that person thinks all guns should be taken away from the public, in the same way somebody being pro-gun doesn't mean that person thinks owning an RPG should be legal.

I don't really give a **** about gun control one way or the other, but that quote is beyond retarded.
User avatar #39 to #30 - Crusader (07/09/2013) [-]
Are you implying that a government has been corrupt, or otherwise powerhungry and tried to seek that power from it's own people, creating a totalitarian state?
Pssh, that was, like, 80 years ago, and we all know history doesn't repeat itself.
#29 to #4 - noschool (07/09/2013) [-]
People were killing each other with rocks and sticks long before we had weapons, and while the argument of guns ability to kill more people in less time and at a farther range does have truth to it compared to most other things like knives and hammers, it's not the weaponry that's the problem it's the people, it's always been the people. Two normal people aren't going to want to kill each other no matter how many weapons they have, and how we (in the US) are treating our criminals in our society is not good, locking a bunch of criminals in a building, focusing on punishment and deterrence has not shown to be very effective. We need to be dealing with the mental issues these people by treating them medically and psychologically have not lock them up with people with the same mental ideology.
#23 to #4 - wyattgc (07/09/2013) [-]
Oh yes! ban guns that'll stop people from having/using them! Sure works for weed! Sure worked for prohibition!
#16 to #4 - fefe (07/09/2013) [-]
of you take away spoon it wouldn't stop people from eating cereal, They'll just find a different way to do it
#11 to #4 - phycopath (07/09/2013) [-]
Might as well ban knives because those kill people too. The object itself cannot walk up to someone and kill them. That's the argument, and it's pretty straight forward, so not sure how you don't understand it...
User avatar #253 to #11 - megashot (07/09/2013) [-]
kinves aren't made for the intent purpose of killing, guns are, shiface
#184 to #11 - molehasmoles (07/09/2013) [-]
Isn't that just a joke argument though? I can see it being funny in a show like American Dad, but it kind of fails as a real argument.
User avatar #174 to #11 - slugnugget (07/09/2013) [-]
try and take a school or bank hostage with a knife you cunt.

Go on a murder spree with a knife and see how long you last.
#160 to #11 - chainz (07/09/2013) [-]
If guns were not that easy to get access to in America, how could kids shoot up schools? No guns = No problems.
#138 to #11 - fefe (07/09/2013) [-]
try to kill half of your classmates or 20 people in the mall with a knife...
#123 to #11 - fefe (07/09/2013) [-]
but the difference is, unlike a knife, guns are only made to kill.
#116 to #11 - aceonfire (07/09/2013) [-]
you see, my problem with this logic is that it is based solely on the fact that guns don't have a will. But people die from inanimate objects all the time. Assuming that it can be agreed upon that when this happens, it is the objects fault, then would a misfire not be the gun killing a person? I already know my opinion on the matter is that of the minority, but **** it. Ready for the rage.
#111 to #11 - mashedbacon (07/09/2013) [-]
to be fair, its alot easyer with a gun...
User avatar #100 to #11 - drastronomy (07/09/2013) [-]
well, a knife is not exactly as effective as a gun...
#73 to #11 - fefe (07/09/2013) [-]
******** and you know it.

Guns don't kill people, true. They just make if extremely easy to kill a large amount of people.

Knives don't, and they have many other practical uses too- whereas a gun's only purpose is to kill.
#68 to #11 - europe (07/09/2013) [-]
As if the lethality of a knife can be compared to that of a gun
I'd like to see a man kill several people from 10 feet away using a single knife
#132 to #68 - dudeomg (07/09/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
User avatar #84 to #68 - commontroll ONLINE (07/09/2013) [-]
Well, it's not hard to cross 10 feet quickly honestly...
#94 to #84 - onewhoobserves ONLINE (07/09/2013) [-]
Much harder to stab several people in a given area than it is to shoot them. Also, knives tend to need either a bit more precision than guns or a longer period of time because of the lesser penetration and lesser potential for damage.

Interestingly enough there was a knife attack in China a few days after the Sandy Hook mass shooting. Similar situation where a mentally unbalanced person took a weapon and found their way to a school. However, no one died in the knife attack and I believe it was only like 20 people injured.
User avatar #96 to #94 - commontroll ONLINE (07/09/2013) [-]
It's because they're weak and unable to do the job right...
#97 to #96 - onewhoobserves ONLINE (07/09/2013) [-]
True that could have been one aspect of it...but that same argument doesn't apply to guns. You can be physically fairly weak and still cause havoc with a gun.
User avatar #98 to #97 - commontroll ONLINE (07/09/2013) [-]
I meant emotionally. It was a joke. And while I do I agree that guns make it more efficient to kill, the reason we have them is because the government does too. It's as a fire insurance essentially. If the government becomes a tyranny, then you can have a revolution and you're equally armed. The militia was armed with the same weaponry as the military in the Revolution for instance, and because of that they could topple their government.

That's why I'm pro gun. I love me some knives, but when it comes to guarding my rights and liberties against those who are supposed to be doing that, I'd rather have a gun on my side.
#242 to #98 - onewhoobserves ONLINE (07/09/2013) [-]
I find that line of logic humorous. While the Founders had a good idea at the time because there was a parity in the technology that either citizens or the government could field (IE. they both had access to the roughly the same type of weaponry) this has changed in the modern era. Common citizens do not have access to drones, military planes/helicopters, tanks, and light armoured vehicles nor do they typically have the weapons or ability to destroy those things. If the government does become tyrannical there is little a common citizen with a firearm can do except die that much faster.
User avatar #299 to #242 - commontroll ONLINE (07/09/2013) [-]
That's why I'm saying it's stupid to ban assault rifles and such, because the reason for us having guns is to fight in a war as a militia. So why have .22LR rounds only? Now, here's the thing, people need to be tested before buying such weapons in my opinion. Force everybody to be trained in use of firearms maybe? But there's too many hicks accidentally killing their kids because they're idiots with their guns.
#316 to #299 - onewhoobserves ONLINE (07/10/2013) [-]
You missed the point of my examples. Everything up to and including assault rifles are going to be ineffective against armored vehicles or aircraft. You would need to have Anti-tank/anti-armor rockets/missiles and Surface to Air Missiles as something you could legally purchase to have any effect on the technology which the government could field. And it would be INSANE to legalize those things because of the amount of havoc a criminal or terrorist could wreak with them.
User avatar #320 to #316 - commontroll ONLINE (07/12/2013) [-]
Well, already you can legally buy anti-tank rifles. Just have to jump through a **** ton of hoops. But yes, I agree with you on that one. With how things are going, it wouldn't matter if we had assault rifles, because they could wipe out any resistance with just remote controlled tech.
#188 to #98 - molehasmoles (07/09/2013) [-]
You know, it's not very likely that a democratic country like a lot of those in the west would just out of nowhere become a totalitarian dictatorship.
#241 to #188 - grandterskrasao (07/09/2013) [-]
The main reason we hold the right to bear arms in the U.S is because at the time of inception of the Constitution, the U.S really didn't have a military. It was the responsibility of the people to fend off invaders. While not as applicable today as in the 1700's, the fact remains that the U.S will be one of, if not the hardest, country to invade simply because of the populace gun ownership. And now that we're in a day and age where launching nukes is immediately followed by world devastation, the likely-hood the U.S falling by external means is near non-existent. That's not to say that Americans aren't stupid as **** and might invoke a revolution that leaves us so weak that the even the militantly weak countries such as Spain and Italy would be able to invade successfully.
User avatar #298 to #241 - commontroll ONLINE (07/09/2013) [-]
This. I certainly don't want a civil war, but if one happens again, I don't think it will be far off.
#246 to #241 - molehasmoles (07/09/2013) [-]
" the fact remains that the U.S will be one of, if not the hardest, country to invade simply because of the populace gun ownership"

I don't think that's even relevant. If another country would invade you (why did you even begin to talk about this hypothetically?), I'm sure the military would be the real challenge not the citizens that happen to have guns. I'm pretty sure they wouldn't even be relevant, because once the new country has seized control these citizens would be like ants to the new rulers, and it's not like these people are gonna aid the military in the big fights either.

"even the militantly weak countries such as Spain and Italy would be able to invade successfully. "

Why would Spain and Italy invade you? It's really weird, you're talking like there's a some huge threat to your country somewhere out in the world and that this threat wants to conquer you...
#250 to #246 - grandterskrasao (07/09/2013) [-]
Its merely hypothetical, and in case you haven't noticed, the majority of the world hates the United States. The reason why we haven't been attacked is because our military and our economy. We spend the most money on our military out of every single peace-time country (making it one of the most advanced) and we consume 70% of the worlds GDP. We're bullies who shove other around to get what we want. Italy and Spain have repeatedly voiced their distaste at the United States because of our involvement in Iran, and I just used them as an example anyways. Besides, all that is after a revolution, which does leave a country weak.
#75 to #68 - fefe (07/09/2013) [-]
Well primitively had the man known how to throw knives or ninja stars he easily could have. A crossbow or normal bow and arrow can be just as effective. It was probably just in a movie but i think they have automatic crossbows. There's always molotovs. If you're stealthy enough you probably could kill several people with one knife, you'd need that ninja status. A person could always just run over a bunch of people with a car.
To be honest if they removed guns i think that would make murder much more creative which is probably a worse outcome. It would be entertaining as hell, though.
User avatar #76 to #75 - europe (07/09/2013) [-]
"It would be entertaining as hell though"
Lol, people died
Is your entire comment a joke?
#78 to #76 - fefe (07/09/2013) [-]
Battle Royale, Hunger Games, etc. were popular for a reason.
#64 to #11 - fefe (07/09/2013) [-]
we should hand everyone on the street a bunch of C4 in case they need it to protect themselves.

oh thats a retarded idea? because nobody needs that much power to protect themselves?

boom, thats the perspective of the counter argument
#46 to #11 - fefe (07/09/2013) [-]
from what I've heard, the UK is working on a blunt tip knife that you can't stab people with since they have a really bad knifing problem

******* nanny states....
User avatar #83 to #46 - commontroll ONLINE (07/09/2013) [-]
Well what about the edges for slashing? Then they'll get rid of heavy, blunt objects, etc. etc. Soon people will only be allowed to have plastic spoons on them.
User avatar #66 to #46 - smithforprez (07/09/2013) [-]
why the **** would anyone bother to use a knife that isnt a knife?
User avatar #28 to #11 - jewsburninindaoven (07/09/2013) [-]
Well then we should legalize nukes, heroin, and anthrax because they don't kill people. People kill each other and/or themselves with these things.
User avatar #18 to #11 - adeadaxe (07/09/2013) [-]
Guns are tools designed specifically to kill. That is literally their only function (except for those designed for sports), whereas knives have other functions, mostly culinary stuff. When anon said he didn't understand the argument he didn't mean he literally didn't understand, he meant that he thinks the argument suggests guns aren't tools explicitly designed to kill, even though they are. In a hypothetical world where guns don't exist, we wouldn't be missing much because they don't do anything except kill (again, except sports), whereas a hypothetical world without knives would be inconvenient in a number of ways.
User avatar #42 to #18 - enkmaster (07/09/2013) [-]
Are you actually that ignorant. If we lived in a world without guns im quite sure that there would be some other equally lethal form of slaughtering each other. Humans are constantly looking for better and more interesting ways to butcher each other, something would come up.
#41 to #18 - fefe (07/09/2013) [-]
In a hypothetical world where guns don't exist, large countries would be impossible.
#194 to #41 - molehasmoles (07/09/2013) [-]
You're joking right? Or are you actually saying that there's never been a large country before guns were invented?
#20 to #18 - phycopath (07/09/2013) [-]
There are more killings with knives and other small handheld weapons that are not guns than there are with guns. Also, the areas with the most gun control in the country have the higher crime rates. The purpose of the gun is self-defense. Most people have guns for hunting or self-defense. If you aren't taught how to use a gun from day 1, then it can be used to kill, but it will never be the killer. On the news, you never hear them say the pistol killed John. You hear James killed John with a gun. Huge difference. While guns may be used to kill and murder, I can tell you for a fact that they will never be THE murderer.
User avatar #34 to #20 - adeadaxe (07/09/2013) [-]
I never said guns killed more than knives, I simply pointed out that the sole purpose of guns is to kill. I did this because you suggested banning all knives in response to OP's suggestion of banning guns, which doesn't make sense since knives have other functions. Also, I never said I supported OP's suggestion, and if you had replied with, "Also, the areas with the most gun control in the country have the higher crime rates," in the first place I wouldn't have even posted because that's a logical argument against banning guns, unlike the suggestion to ban all knives. I know guns are used for self defense, I just pointed out that the way they do this is via killing your attacker (or wounding). I also never said the gun would be THE murderer, I said that it was a tool designed for the sole purpose of killing things via high-velocity metal bits. We don't hear people say, "the pistol killed John," because guns aren't sentient, which isn't something I suggested. You mention, "While guns may be used to kill and murder..." and my point was that that's ALL guns do because that is their only utility (again, except for sports).
#10 to #4 - fefe (07/08/2013) [-]
You do understand that people would just get killed in a different manor, right?
#14 to #10 - onewhoobserves ONLINE (07/09/2013) [-]
Well if they are in a manor in the first place I think they can hire some damn security.
User avatar #69 to #14 - smithforprez (07/09/2013) [-]
User avatar #7 to #4 - sketchE (07/08/2013) [-]
so should we take away knives forks letter openers screwdrivers hammers pencils and even paper clips because they help kill people
User avatar #58 to #7 - ilovehitler (07/09/2013) [-]
don't forget people's hands.
 Friends (0)