Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search

hide menu
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#115 - EventHorizon (08/23/2013) [-]
Picture this: You're standing in line at Starbucks, waiting to receive your Double Mocha Frappawhothefuckknowsanymore with you 98 year old Holocaust survivor grandmother, brand new bouncing baby girl and your new charming rags-to-riches gentleman husband. You're all giddy with excitement, discussing your upcoming trip to the inner city to volunteer at a soup kitchen that is renting space at a terminal cancer orphanage.    
   
Suddenly, a crazed lunatic busts through the door ranting about how communist Obama is destroying the world and that his magic 8-ball told him that "Sources say yes" when asked if Obama was the Anti Christ.    
   
He then proceeds to open fire on the entire store with hollow point incendiary rounds, hot lead ripping and tearing through the coffee lovers' bodies like a steak knife through butter. You're entire family is massacred before your eyes as you helplessly cower behind the coffee grinder.    
   
The gunman is eventually killed by police in a massive shootout,; you're psychologically scarred for life and eventually have to be institutionalized for extreme PTSD and trauma-induced psychosis. In the meantime, the entire nation is up in arms over the "scourge" of gun-related violence, screaming out that guns are simply instruments of death and should be banned entirely from every public place.   
   
   
Now, instead, picture that exact same scenario except standing in line behind you is another man with an open-carry permit and a Barretta strapped to his hip. Our crazed friend bursts through the door, and proceeds to encounter a barrage of 9mm glory. He never gets to take a single victim with him on his trip to the depths of Hell, you get to go on your honeymoon and fuck like a rabbit on the beaches of Bora Bora, and the nation proceeds to sing the graces of the 2nd Amendment and all that it has to offer.   
   
Bottom line: the very complaints these anti-gun critics make would result in the very changes that would make the former scenario the only possible outcome.
Picture this: You're standing in line at Starbucks, waiting to receive your Double Mocha Frappawhothefuckknowsanymore with you 98 year old Holocaust survivor grandmother, brand new bouncing baby girl and your new charming rags-to-riches gentleman husband. You're all giddy with excitement, discussing your upcoming trip to the inner city to volunteer at a soup kitchen that is renting space at a terminal cancer orphanage.

Suddenly, a crazed lunatic busts through the door ranting about how communist Obama is destroying the world and that his magic 8-ball told him that "Sources say yes" when asked if Obama was the Anti Christ.

He then proceeds to open fire on the entire store with hollow point incendiary rounds, hot lead ripping and tearing through the coffee lovers' bodies like a steak knife through butter. You're entire family is massacred before your eyes as you helplessly cower behind the coffee grinder.

The gunman is eventually killed by police in a massive shootout,; you're psychologically scarred for life and eventually have to be institutionalized for extreme PTSD and trauma-induced psychosis. In the meantime, the entire nation is up in arms over the "scourge" of gun-related violence, screaming out that guns are simply instruments of death and should be banned entirely from every public place.


Now, instead, picture that exact same scenario except standing in line behind you is another man with an open-carry permit and a Barretta strapped to his hip. Our crazed friend bursts through the door, and proceeds to encounter a barrage of 9mm glory. He never gets to take a single victim with him on his trip to the depths of Hell, you get to go on your honeymoon and fuck like a rabbit on the beaches of Bora Bora, and the nation proceeds to sing the graces of the 2nd Amendment and all that it has to offer.

Bottom line: the very complaints these anti-gun critics make would result in the very changes that would make the former scenario the only possible outcome.

#297 to #115 - montanus ONLINE (08/23/2013) [-]
... You people DO realise that it's harder to just go on a random killing spree if you don't have a gun, right? I mean, the US has got a much higher rate of these incidents than pretty much any country currently outlawing guns. Just putting it out there.

Tl;dr, Imagine the same scenario, but with no guns at all.
User avatar #306 to #297 - EventHorizon (08/23/2013) [-]
You DO realise that people are going to be able to ahold of guns whether they're illegal or not. And by our Constitution, it is the citizen's job to keep their government in check. How are we to do that if we cannot defend ourselves on equal ground?
User avatar #307 to #306 - montanus ONLINE (08/23/2013) [-]
But, but, but, the rate of those incidents are extremely increased in countries with legal access to guns?
User avatar #308 to #307 - EventHorizon (08/23/2013) [-]
I'm sorry but you simply cannot compare the methods of one country to another halfway around the world when it comes to human nature. That is an entire conversation in itself.
User avatar #313 to #308 - montanus ONLINE (08/23/2013) [-]
It really isn't tho? I think you can compare countries, regardless of distance. If 'murica wants to lock itself in a bubble of violence, fine, but it still exists; therefore comparable.
User avatar #318 to #313 - EventHorizon (08/23/2013) [-]
No I totally agree;America has a violence epidemic. And I think I know the reason, based on crime statistics and America's fascination with privatizing everything... If you want to discuss this issue in particular, I would love
User avatar #329 to #318 - montanus ONLINE (08/24/2013) [-]
So you don't think it has anything to do with every other person being able to go on a killing spree at any given time?
User avatar #330 to #329 - EventHorizon (08/24/2013) [-]
All humans are born with the capability to do terrible things. But what is it that allows some to retain their humanity while others can't?
User avatar #331 to #330 - montanus ONLINE (08/24/2013) [-]
... Yeah but it's easier tho, when you have a gun. You now what, forget it. You're like a pidgeon.
User avatar #332 to #331 - EventHorizon (08/24/2013) [-]
I'm trying to keep up some intelligent discourse here, and I'm not really sure where your animosity is coming from. Just because something makes it easier for you to do something doesn't mean you should fear it irrationally. I could go to Lowes right this very instant, pick up a few supplies, come back home and whip up something that could take out far more people than a pistol or a rifle.

You seem to not realize that guns are absolutely essential to our concept of freedom, and it's not because we just like to have things that go boom or something deadly that we can boast we own. It's because over 200 years ago, 13 colonies rose up against an arguably oppressive empire and broke the bonds holding them in order to rise up and become the most powerful country in the world (but certainly not the greatest). They stood up against tyranny and thanks to their militia's ability to bear arms they were able to overcome an entity far more powerful than themselves.

Today America is faced with a far graver threat to its people's freedom, and it has nothing to do with that bullshit about terrorism and Muslims "hating our freedom" which in itself is one of the most absolutely ridiculous concepts I've ever seen become so viral.

The 2nd Amendment to our Constitution, the foundation for our entire nation, states that its citizens will have the right to bare arms. With these arms, they will protect themselves from whatever tyranny and oppression should be laid upon them by the powers that be.

So when you tell me that we should ban these pieces of metal and wood simply because people are too goddamn lazy to fix the problems of gun control instead of just the symptoms, you identify yourself as the problem itself.
User avatar #333 to #332 - montanus ONLINE (08/24/2013) [-]
Did you ever hear the one about arguing with you is like playing chess with a pidgeon? No matter how good I am ata chess, the pidgeon will just knock down the pieces and strut around victoriously. You sir, are that pidgeon. My point is that I think guns are bad, no matter who wields them.
User avatar #334 to #333 - EventHorizon (08/24/2013) [-]
Oh you're absolutely right, guns are terrible. They're tools of death, and have no place in civil society. But basing your personal beliefs on gun control on the idea that they're just bad is an absolute waste of your mental abilities. You're obviously an intelligent person, but what do you want to happen? You cannot remove guns from this Earth, you literally absolutely can NOT. They are here to stay, and human nature dictates that where there's a will there's a way and the will for human aggression far outweighs any fickle piece of legislation. I'm not debating with you that guns are bad; they are. I'm debating with you on how we can work around human nature, or better yet work with it, to make gun ownership a safer venture in the world.

Also, do you realize that mas shootings are responsible for less than 100 out of 12,000 homicides in the US each year? They're sudden and tragic, THAT'S why they receive such sweeping media attention, outrage and sympathy. If the media devoted as much air time and emphasis to mass shootings as they did every other homicide, the nation would hardly notice.
#286 to #115 - anonymous (08/23/2013) [-]
Or picture this scenario.
Your waiting in line ast Starbucks when you see a group of thugs getting in with clearly visible guns on them. They start to offensively talk shit so people start to leave. The manager can do three things now. Either do nothing and wait for them to leave while risking property damage or someone getting hurt. He can then try to get them out himself which will probably get him shot even if he had a gun. Or third, he could call them cops, who at most, could ask them politely to leave.

On other hand if they wouldn't allow guns if the same scenario happened, he could've called the cops immediately and hoped they don't do shit until they arive. But at least then they would have a good reason to get rid of them.


#289 to #286 - anonymous (08/23/2013) [-]
Continuing from last post.

Also, the people who hide guns in their house. What the fuck, guys? If someone decides to hold you hostage in your own house, you won't have time to run around the house to get your gun, especially not if it's in a safe. You either give the guy what he wants or you you get the nearest possible weapon if you think you can handle it. Which by the way is not a good idea. Giving up on your things is always a better idea than trying to fight( Most of fj is probably gonna heavily disagree with me here, but it's true, risking your life is not worth any phone or money you have), unless he ain't got any weapon and you know some martial arts. Which, btw, are also gonna help you more than a gun if there is only one robber.



TL;DR Banning guns is not gonna completely remove violence and deaths, but offering them to everyone will make it worse.
User avatar #320 to #289 - volleys (08/23/2013) [-]
Actually no. Statistics show that crime is reduced when citizens can easily obtain firearms. I know it sounds backwards, but do some research. Crime rates sky rocketed in the UK and Australia when they implemented gun bans.
0
#287 to #286 - acirikis has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #281 to #115 - YllekNayr (08/23/2013) [-]
And if the psycho didn't have a gun to begin with, the other people in line wouldn't need one. Why are the default settings of your scenario that bad people have guns and good ones don't?
#239 to #115 - mattesweita (08/23/2013) [-]
Yet at the Aurora shooting or any of the other shootings, no good guy with a gun was able to stop it...
Yet at the Aurora shooting or any of the other shootings, no good guy with a gun was able to stop it...

User avatar #246 to #239 - teoberry (08/23/2013) [-]
>what are gun free zones
#252 to #246 - mattesweita (08/23/2013) [-]
Yhea I dont know much about this since Im not living in the states, and mazbe I should not comment then but did anyways.

However people who commit murder usually dont care that much about breaking the law.
So the logic behind the only thing stopping a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun wudnt work so good, when every one can legally have a gun but only "the bad guys" will bring it to the gun free zones.

However this inst really my business since Im not American, I just find it sad all these times I hear on the news innocent lives being wasted like this time after time.
User avatar #321 to #252 - volleys (08/23/2013) [-]
You nailed it on the head. The only people who bring guns into gun free zones are evil people. If these gun free zones were eliminated someone may have been able to stop the killers.
#227 to #115 - europe (08/23/2013) [-]
You actually expect to be able to react on time with the gun?   
   
If anything there will be alot more gun crazed lunatics because it's so goddamn easy to get one
You actually expect to be able to react on time with the gun?

If anything there will be alot more gun crazed lunatics because it's so goddamn easy to get one
User avatar #322 to #227 - volleys (08/23/2013) [-]
So just because you doubt that I will be able to properly use a gun to defend myself in a bad situation means I shouldn't be able to carry around a gun with me? Your way of thinking takes my gun away, leaving me nothing to defend myself.

TL;DR If I posses a gun in a dire situation at least I have a fighting chance than I do without a gun.
User avatar #323 to #322 - europe (08/23/2013) [-]
You'll have a bullet in your head
Plus, you've never been in a situation like that before so odds are that you'll piss your pants so hard you'll lift off the ground
User avatar #324 to #323 - volleys (08/23/2013) [-]
Maybe I will get killed, but at least I could have the chance to defend myself if I had a gun. Here in the US when the states started considering concealed carry permits people were claiming shootouts would happen at every disagreement like wild west shootouts. It never happened. It possibly has done the opposite. When carrying a firearm the firearm has to be a last resort, and your thinking must be clear and concise.
#283 to #227 - rageisfunny (08/23/2013) [-]
MFW you name and your stance on guns.
User avatar #257 to #227 - mrstalin (08/23/2013) [-]
Anyone who is depraved enough to shoot an entire family isn't concerned about the legality of guns at that point. Once a man was able to make a fully automatic SMG out of plumbing parts he found in his jail cell. Pretty sure a gun ban wouldn't stop that.
User avatar #259 to #257 - europe (08/23/2013) [-]
It should always be as difficult as possible for them to get their hands on one
Most people don't have the wits nor skill to build a gun and there's a massive difference between a gun made from scrap that you have to reload after every shot and a semi-automatic handgun
Not to mention the comparison in accuracy and lethality
User avatar #263 to #259 - mrstalin (08/23/2013) [-]
So what you're saying is is that gun laws should be as tough as possible? Let's look at an example: Mexico. Mexico has only one legal gun store in the entire nation, and yet the cartels always seem to be well stocked and supplied. RPGs, IED's, M16A4's, et cetera. Thanks to the gun laws however, the civilians have little ability to defend themselves, unless they join a rival gang/cartel, and at that point, it's like choosing which shade of black to wear to a funeral.
Personally, I think anyone convicted of a felony or serious misdemeanor should be barred, as well as anyone ever diagnosed with a thought-altering mental illness. Bipolar, schizophrenics, some anxiety disorders, and of course mental retardation should be automatic bars.
On a final note, gun deaths aren't the leading cause of death in the nation. It's one of the hardest to defend against, I'll give you that, but it's not the worst problem we face. Besides, I'd rather be shot by a gun than a bow, or stabbed by a sword or knife (just to name a few other weapons.)
User avatar #212 to #115 - rhetoricalfunny (08/23/2013) [-]
You're arguing a worst/best case scenario

No point can be made arguing worst or best case scenario's
User avatar #217 to #212 - EventHorizon (08/23/2013) [-]
I'm illustrating a point, not arguing scenarios. There are thousands upon thousands of documented instances of criminals being stopped by lawfully armed citizens.
User avatar #219 to #217 - rhetoricalfunny (08/23/2013) [-]
And thousands upon thousands of innocents being killed by lawfully owned guns.

MY point is this isn't a black and white issue. And every damn pro gunner thinks this is just a home run, and indisputable thing. That there's always going to be some freedom lovin gun toting cowboy to save you, when a psycho bursts through the door. It's the most fucking ridiculous thing.

I'm not on one side or the other because most pro gunners are like rabid dogs if you disagree with something, and most anti gunners are fucking stupid.

Imagine that same scenario, but instead of an armed citizen some stupid fat fuck, who's never trained with his gun beyond practicing in front of a mirror starts firing off rounds into a panicking crowd creating more panic, injuring and killing more civilians. It's happened, and it is the more likely scenario
User avatar #250 to #219 - EventHorizon (08/23/2013) [-]
There's a reason that training with a firearm should be required to get a permit, however our friends in Congress are too damn wrapped up in other pointless gun control bullshit and can't manage to pass useful legislation. I agree that the idea of a hero being there to save the day is far more often than not very improbable. However, banning guns will not keep them out of criminal hands, and expecting the police and Congress to protect you is completely laughable. I have a permit and my father's glock, with over 10 years of pistol training in addition to my military response training, and we're I to be in a situation such as the one I described I know exactly how I would have responded. We need to make educated policy which restricts who can purchase and register a firearm on the legal services department, and we need to find the sources of illegal weapons trade and crackdown on it. Keep guns in the hands of the sane, for our right to bare arms is the one thing between ourselves and the possibility of revolution. I'm a libertarian, but the firmly believe and understand that it is entirely feasible that our government could become oppressive and fail in its directive to uphold the constitution. It is our duty and right to be prepared for that, even if I believe it will never happen. Also, it's fucking fun to shoot shit.
User avatar #328 to #250 - rhetoricalfunny (08/24/2013) [-]
Yes, I agree wholeheartedly it's fun to shoot shit.

.303 British Master Race
User avatar #327 to #250 - rhetoricalfunny (08/24/2013) [-]
Government could become oppressive?

In any case I mostly agree with you. And I believe far more that education about guns is a far better solution than banning them. There are many valid points raised on both sides. And neither of the solutions we are considering are the right one.

We need an open discussion with both sides open to the fact that they are wrong, and consciously searching for a solution to the problem, not an answer to their own agenda.
#165 to #115 - anonymous (08/23/2013) [-]
You're a fucking idiot.

Gun-related crime and killings are much higher in places where guns are legal.

Gun-related crime and killings are much lower in places where guns are illegal.

Why are you too stupid to understand this simple fact?
User avatar #266 to #165 - rieskimo (08/23/2013) [-]
I bet New York really agrees with that.
User avatar #200 to #165 - volleys (08/23/2013) [-]
No its not. I know it seems backwards, but where citizens are allowed to own firearms crime is reduced. Basically if you were a criminal and the area you were about to commit a crime showed high gun ownership would you risk doing the crime. With civilians owning guns an instant deterrent is available.
#225 to #200 - gerfox (08/23/2013) [-]
I see both good and bad with low gun regulation, like you have in the United states - and I see the good and bad of strong regulation like we have in Europe. However, I find it amusing that the arguments used in the US, with for instance self defense are difficult to turn down with pure logic - but the statistics of homicide rates in Europe in contrary to the US are quite contrary. The US has a murder rate of 4,9 per capita (just looked it up) with all parts of Europe (except of eastern Europe) has below 2, where gun regulations are strict. However, I'm glad I don't have to participate in these discussions - because my country already share my point of view.
User avatar #319 to #225 - volleys (08/23/2013) [-]
The US has almost always had a higher homicide rate than much of Europe, and it is very difficult to dissect what triggers this (guns, education, society). But lets compare the US and England for a moment. As of this moment, the US has a 4.8 homicide rate where the UK has 1.2. A ratio of 4 to 1. The pitfalls of comparison here are population, typically larger populations do have a higher homicide rate because there is more human interaction. Over the past 20 years the US homicide rate has drastically dropped from 10 to 4.8, obviously thats half the murders, where the UK has essentially plateaued since 1857, with fluctuations of course. So gun bans did nothing to curb the homicide rate in the UK because guns were banned long after 1857. The UK banned guns almost totally in 1997, but the homicide rate virtually remained the same. Now the major difference is crime rate. The US had 11,877,218 crimes in 2002, with a population of 287 million, which is a rate of 4.1. The UK had 6,523,706 in 2002, with a population of 58 million, a rate of 11.24. Crime rate is where the gun debate lie, as after UK banned guns crime sky rocketed. If a citizens can posses a gun easily would many criminals take the risk of getting shot/killed? Essentially my argument is "Because gun bans did nothing to lower the homicide rate in the UK, but the crime rate increased after the bans, the gun bans made the UK worse off."


Here are my sources

www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri-crime-total-crimes
You need to login to view this link
scienceblogs.com/deltoid/1996/08/03/international-00028/
www.multpl.com/united-states-population/table

I couldn't find a 2002 UK population so I used 2001, which would be very close
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Census_2001
#325 to #319 - gerfox (08/23/2013) [-]
Ah, nice arguments Yeah, I agree with the crime rates - but is it really worth it to have statistically speaking four times as many deaths due to crime as in other countries, just to lower the general criminality? That's like putting a price on human lives.. However, I definitely see your points - and some of the same points can be applied to arguments about capital punishment

I think population density is a more essential factor than actual population though...
User avatar #337 to #325 - volleys (08/24/2013) [-]
You missed the whole point. Gun bans were not a factor in the UK's homicide rate. Gun bans were a factor in the crime rate however. If gun bans did nothing to lower the homicide rate, but increased the crime rate the bans actually hurt the UK.
#338 to #337 - gerfox (08/24/2013) [-]
Well, the full ban on arms weren't initiated until '97, but the accessibility for weapons have in general been lower in the UK since god knows how long ago. The second amendment is based originally as the population working as some kind of militia, and this automatically allows the people easier access to weaponry. In the UK on the other hand the army (or state) have always had a monopoly on the use of force. Maybe that's why the homicide rate have stayed that low since 1857.

My point being, even before the (almost) full ban on arms in '97, accessibility to arms in the UK were much more restricted than in the US. It's obvious that murder rates decrease with the ban of fire arms, it's much easier to shoot someone than to beat them to death. And it also makes sense with the general crime rate, you're of course much "safer" from regular criminality with fire arms. But, in any regard, most European countries has a ban on firearms and a much lower homicide rate. It's easy to get tunnel vision if you just compare two specific cases.
User avatar #339 to #338 - volleys (08/24/2013) [-]
Thats a good observation, but I can show you how guns didn't negatively affect the US homicide rate. If we look at the US rate in the last 20 years the rate dropped from 10 in 1993, to 4.8 in 2013. In those 20 years the firearms industry has experienced record sales. So either there is no correlation between firearms and homicides, or firearms have prevented many homicides. I prefer to believe the latter.
#342 to #339 - gerfox (08/25/2013) [-]
Well, that's a drastic conclusion to draw just from that statistic. Personally I believe other factors have played a huge part in that statistic.

People have in general become wealthier, more educated - and you've seen a drastic decrease in gang related violence. I think it's strange to believe that easy access to fire arms actually will decrease the homicide rate, considering it's much easier to obtain a weapon - and it's much easier to kill a person in rage, or with clouded judgment with a gun, you'd just have to squeeze the trigger. There's a huge difference between that, and actually beating someone to death. Remember, the major part of homicides occur in the homes of people, not in the public where you have "vigilantes" to protect other people.
User avatar #343 to #342 - volleys (08/25/2013) [-]
If citizens have easy access to firearms, defending themselves if need be is easier. Just allowing citizens to own a gun shows criminals that there may be larger risk if robbing/hurting someone. You are saying that more firearms equals more homicides, which has not been proven. And you have to remember that a homicide is a homicide no matter the tool. Why would you even bring up vigilantes? No one ever mentioned anything like that.
#344 to #343 - gerfox (08/25/2013) [-]
Why I would bring up vigilantes? If citizens have easy access to firearms and defend themselves, or others with it they would in effect be vigilantes. I agree with the fact that you'd probably have fewer regular crimes with low gun control, but it's beyond sense to think it would actually be positive for the homicide rate.

Sorry, if you can't grasp the logical aspect of my arguments, that easier access to guns will cause more homicides, then I think we would have to stop our discussion here. Seems like you're not able to simply grasp it, or give in to anything.

I don't know whether if my thesis about homicide have been proven or not, and I'm too lazy to look. And like I have said a dozen times already, it's obvious that it's easier to kill someone in an unstable state with a gun than with anything else. A drunkard with a gun is just as deadly as a sober man, but a drunkard who wishes to bludgeon you to death is something else. Easy access, and an overflow of weapons would let people have easy access to guns even when they shouldn't. Most homicides happen in your own home, where you in any case feel safe - and you probably won't carry a firearm - so the self defense aspect is a minor argument in this case, an argument blown out of proportions by pro-gun people.

I'm sure if you dig up some research on homicides while intoxicated, you'll find out that a huge part of homicides that do happen happens while a person is drunk or in some other way out of his own mind. I'm also confident that this percentage is higher in the US than in European countries with stricter weapons regulations.
User avatar #345 to #344 - volleys (08/26/2013) [-]
Vigilantes are someone who goes out of their way to prevent crime, like Batman. Self defense, my topic, is in a whole other category.

And I've showed that guns have no correlation to increasing/decreasing homicide rate. The US homicide rate has dropped by half, but firearms sales have sky rocketed. Guns don't even have to be used to prevent crime, they only have to have the possibility of being present. If a criminal knew 75% of all homes owned a gun would he take the massive risk of breaking in?

So to say I'm not grasping the concept is irrational.
It is you who have not grasped anything.
#346 to #345 - gerfox (08/26/2013) [-]
No, you haven't shown that guns have no correlation - you've just pointed to the UK homicide statistic, we haven't looked into details about gun laws there, and for instance cultural differences (like I have already pointed to, but you seem to ignore that).

My point is still, as I said initially - easy gun access prevents criminality, but increases the homicide rate. Low gun access increases criminality, but decreases the homicide rate. That's the logical thing, and since I'm too lazy to look after proof, I suggest we end our discussion here. In any regard, it wasn't my intention to start discussing with someone who isn't willing, or able, to grasp what I think is logical.

Thank you for the discussion, at least you convinced me guns are a good thing for preventing crime albeit not homicides.
User avatar #347 to #346 - volleys (08/26/2013) [-]
I've pointed out multiple times that the US homicide rate has dropped drastically from 1993 to 2013 and in those 20 years firearms sales have increased dramatically.

Just look at my comment with all the sources.

Just because you think firearms increases homicide doesn't make it so.
#173 to #165 - wheresmymarbles (08/23/2013) [-]
oh ok because virtually all of the mass shootings took place in places were guns were allowed...ie newtown, aurora. Oh wait, nevermind, the opposite is true. Legally owned guns are nearly nonexistant in Chicago and they have such low crime rates, huh?
#153 to #115 - metera (08/23/2013) [-]
Yes however the crazy man most likely got his weapon legally I am not saying we should ban guns we just need greater regulation. For example canada has .5 homicides per 100,000 people the US has 10.3 homicides per 100,000 people.
User avatar #198 to #153 - volleys (08/23/2013) [-]
What matters if it was legal or not? Criminals get illegal full autos from Mexico. A majority of guns used in crime are illegal, only a small portion are bought legally.
#126 to #115 - internetrage (08/23/2013) [-]
imagine if the guy behind you with the open carry permit was the one who flipped.
User avatar #209 to #126 - volleys (08/23/2013) [-]
Concealed carry permit holders are good law abiding citizens. When Texas was debating over allowing concealed carry, many opponents claimed that Wild West like shoot outs would happen often (ie./ car stops, fender benders, etc). None have happened yet.
User avatar #146 to #126 - themastermorris (08/23/2013) [-]
That why there are extensive background checks and waiting periods
#136 to #126 - Epicgetguy (08/23/2013) [-]
I don't think a crazy person would wait for a permit to conceal carry a gun.
I don't think a crazy person would wait for a permit to conceal carry a gun.
User avatar #202 to #136 - volleys (08/23/2013) [-]
Yes, nothing is really stopping a lunatic/criminal from carrying a gun.
#119 to #115 - taurusguy (08/23/2013) [-]
Exactly, whenever someone tries to argue with me that oh we dont need guns, they basically say not exact words but the principle is the same oh, people wont use guns then, no amount of law will get you that kind of control, unless you turn into a police country, what i mean is no freedom for you then "Murica".
 Friends (0)