Guns make us less safe. .. Secret service members requirements: Pass background checks, trained in proper uses and safety of firearms, and whole lot of other . Gun ownership requirements: Guns make us less safe Secret service members requirements: Pass background checks trained in proper uses and safety of firearms whole lot other Gun ownership
Upload
Login or register
Hide Comments
Leave a comment Refresh Comments (127)
[ 127 comments ]
> hey anon, wanna give your opinion?
asd
User avatar #20 - TARDIS
Reply +80 123456789123345869
(09/21/2013) [-]
Secret service members requirements: Pass background checks, trained in proper uses and safety of firearms, and whole lot of other ****.

Gun ownership requirements:
User avatar #33 to #20 - ivoryhammer
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(09/21/2013) [-]
And a ton of psych exams
User avatar #65 to #20 - tittystargalactica
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(09/21/2013) [-]
You guys should do with your guns what we do here in the UK with our Airsoft guns.

You have to be a registered member of a shooting club (airsoft site) and have to qualify to own one and have a good reason to do so. (Background checks etc.)

I know you guys have your second amendment and what not and as a British guy, I can't comment on that as I will never truly understand it but if it was me, I would put my right to own a gun a little tiny bit to the side to try and help the country to feel safer knowing that whackjobs are less likely to be shooting stuff up.

Opinion.
User avatar #78 to #65 - useroftheLOLZ
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/21/2013) [-]
All the places where the shootings have been, have been in gun free zones. meaning it is illegal to possess firearms at that premisses. Why do you think it is because of that?

And the USA was founded upon the belief that the Government shall not infringe upon your right to defend your self, and your family, whether the threat is foreign, or domestic. And you know what, I would feel a hell of a lot safer knowing that if some ****** decides that my wallet needs to be lightened, that there is a pretty good chance that there is someone who is going to intervene with lethal force.
User avatar #92 to #78 - tittystargalactica
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/21/2013) [-]
Well the thing is, all the bad people who want to get a gun will go and get a gun from somewhere. There's no possible way of stopping that.

As far as I know, you guys can just trade guns in the street if you feel like it so there is no way of regulating who buys what from who.

However, the thing I'm thinking of is making the people who don't know **** about guns (children, housewives (stereotypical ones), dumb people, school teachers etc.) feel a little bit safer in thinking that only good people have them.

I don't know the magical answer but that's what I would do.

It's like over here, you can buy knives off random people if you want and that's perfectly legal. However, a 15 year old thug can't walk into a supermarket and buy a pack of knives. I know it doesn't make THAT much of a difference to accessibility but it does make us feel a little bit safer.

User avatar #102 to #92 - useroftheLOLZ
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/21/2013) [-]
If you give someone a gun who can't legally own it, its a felony, and the ATF will be on your ass faster than you can say **** my life.

The problem with people fearing weapons is because their unfamiliarity with them, because the media portrays all guns as super evil assualt weapons that fire 5000 clips a second, and because their is such a negative cultural stereotype against teaching other people responsible firearm usage, and responsibility. We didn't have this problem 20 years ago because of the cultural stance, and the fact that we have a liberal president. Society will usually swing with the political affiliation of the president, as soon as there is a conservative or a libertarian, expect the shootings to slow down, or stop.

But that would be a lie, you need to teach people the fact that guns are not evil, which is the current belief, and tell them that the people using them are evil. And that the only thing stopping a bad guy with a gun, which they will get, no matter what you do, is a good guy with a gun. Fight fire with fire, fight violence with violence, fighting violence with peace is like going to a fight, taking the guys gun, putting it to your head, and pulling the trigger
User avatar #101 to #92 - hudis
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/21/2013) [-]
The U.S. is so ****** up compared to many other countries it's goddamn exotic. Criminals wouldn't be able to hold onto their guns half as easily if local governments actually bothered to make sure that law enforcement enforces the law everywhere, including projects, ghettos, areas heavy with gang-related activity. That's not the case in the U.S. Impoverished projects are basically self-governed by criminals and that's one hell of a problem. Vote for the right representatives, not the ones who are most charismatic, get them to do what the people wants, make sure people are well-informed, enforce the law everywhere, eradicate the existence of ghettos and you won't need any guns to protect yourselves. And don't say that it's not possible. Government spending on areas where poverty is at its worst is tiny compared to what it should be. Far too much goes into the military. Far too little goes to the people. It's messed up.
User avatar #91 to #78 - hudis
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/21/2013) [-]
You do realise that phrasing it like that takes away all your credibility and invalidates your entire argument?
User avatar #94 to #91 - useroftheLOLZ
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/21/2013) [-]
How so? I implied that all the shootings occurred on gun free zones because there was no possible way of anyone stopping them. Then I went on to say that American gun policies are more unrestricted because America was founded on the people owning firearms, and that I feel safer in a place where people are CC weapons, because they are armed, and because in order to get a CC permit, you have to have an extensive background check, psychiatric review, and in a few places, get it approved by the local sheriff. How does that contradict anything?
User avatar #96 to #94 - hudis
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/21/2013) [-]
"I would feel a hell of a lot safer knowing that if some ****** decides that my wallet needs to be lightened, that there is a pretty good chance that there is someone who is going to intervene with lethal force."

No one's going to listen to a bigot, except other bigots.
User avatar #103 to #96 - useroftheLOLZ
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/21/2013) [-]
I feel safer knowing that someone is going to stop the ****** dead in his tracks. And news flash, ****** no longer applies to african americans, you can call a white trash guy, who dropped out of school, and started selling drugs, a ******.
User avatar #104 to #103 - hudis
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/21/2013) [-]
It's just a messed up statement for two reasons. Firstly even mentioning the word ****** tells quite a lot about you even if you personally think you can call anyone a ****** with impunity. Secondly because you want someone dead because he is unfortunate enough to have to rob you either to feed himself, his family or an addiction for which he is given no help to defeat. What the hell is up with that? The value of other people's lives in the U.S., or lack thereof, is ******* primitive.
User avatar #126 to #104 - useroftheLOLZ
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/21/2013) [-]
Of course I don't value the bastards life, it was his decision to commit a crime, he decided to rob me, he decided to do threaten my life, and or the life of an individual who was with me, for all I know he may decide to take my life after he has taken my possessions, and why should I sympathize with him if it was HIS decision to start taking drugs, I don't give a **** if he wants to feed his addiction, I do care if he wants it treated.

I have sympathy for his family, but I do not have sympathy for the man, there are other things you can do or resort to, stealing from your fellow man is not a thing to resort

And just the fact that you are not willing to protect your life is pathetic. Do you not value your life? Do you not care if you live or die? Why would you sympathize with a man who is not just doing something wrong, but is willing to let murder be the means to the end. And you know what, so what if I don't value the life of a criminal, they are worse than scum, there are always other options, stealing and theft are just the easiest and most convenient. So you know what, hate all you want, I will be the one laughing when I am alive and well, and you're dead in a ditch because a ****** took your stuff, as well as your life.
User avatar #127 to #126 - hudis
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/21/2013) [-]
See, that's what I mean. It's messed up and backwards. If you don't have sympathy for people less fortunate than you, how can you expect change to ever come about? It doesn't happen by itself, y'know. Countries with stability get there because people give a ****, because people realise that even those who people like you automatically label "the bad guys" more often than not just need a little help to become "good guys". You however seem to view them as lesser people either way, which is absurd.

Regardless, you have to stop assuming that people want to commit crime and that they even had a choice to begin with whether it's about drugs or money. Poor districts ignored by those in charge are no easy places to live, but judging from your previous statements I don't expect you to understand that.
User avatar #128 to #127 - useroftheLOLZ
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/22/2013) [-]
How is them resorting to crime makes them less fortunate than me? There are always options. Once you resort to harm, crime, and violence, you have changed, you become a lesser man, you're not even a man, you are a pathetic piece of waste, because you decided to choose the easiest route, which involved causing harm to another person.

And how is it not a conscious decision to decide to commit a crime? And yes, I do understand, for 16 years I lived on and off of the edge of the poverty line, and many times, my father could have resorted to crime, but he didn't, he worked hard, and long hours to support his family, and eventually got to the point where he got a job that better supported his family. He hated it, and many times he wanted to give up, but he didn't, he didn't resort to crime, hell, there were many times when he could have stolen from the company, he could have made thousands, and greatly improved the quality of our lives, but he didn't, he would pull over time, he would kiss his superiors ass to get bonuses or promotions, and he would do everything in his power to better his self, so that he could better support his family.

A person resorting to an option, that would benefit them, while harming another, is the worst possible option.
User avatar #129 to #128 - hudis
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/22/2013) [-]
Well, still, you were lucky. A lot of people don't even have a job that they can stubbornly stick to even though they hate it. Crime-related activity is almost always due to poverty, desperation and peer-pressure. It's exceedingly rarely a conscious choice by the criminal himself to get into such a lifestyle, and once he gets in, it'll be very very difficult to get out. A lot of people who rob other people are not so different from you, they are just often not fortunate enough to be able to feed themselves otherwise.

Then again you and I may have some very different philosophical difference. I, for one, am against the death penalty entirely, partly because the value I put to life itself and everyone's - every single human being - right to it. I don't believe in killing people unless it is absolutely and unquestionably necessary.
User avatar #21 to #20 - largeheadphones
Reply +14 123456789123345869
(09/21/2013) [-]
I have similiar views on this, I think to own a gun you should pass a background check, and if you have aa mental illness like half of the people that do public shootings do, should not be allowed to own a gun.
User avatar #25 to #21 - dafiltafish
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(09/21/2013) [-]
I am a democrat and I agree.
User avatar #97 to #21 - canthegreat
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/21/2013) [-]
actually, in some states you are required to have a license in order to own a gun, and in order to get this license you have to go through a couple weeks of classes and pass a test. yet even after this you may be required to attend a seminar or somthing after a period of time, depending on the state.
User avatar #124 to #97 - largeheadphones
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(09/21/2013) [-]
I'm talking about they get the gun from their parents, or they steal, it, What i'm saying, is that they illegally own the gun.
User avatar #130 to #124 - canthegreat
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/22/2013) [-]
then that's gun owners being stupid and leaving the guns in an unlocked box or not being a responsible parent and not teaching the kids how to properly handle a gun. while im not saying that people can still steal the guns, more people who know how to use them properly and safely would make guns safer (especially if they keep them in safes).
User avatar #131 to #130 - largeheadphones
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(09/22/2013) [-]
The point is the government wants to pretty much take guns away from people, it's going to start with assault magazines, and then it's just gonna get worse. They aren't thinking it through, they think doing this will stop gun crime, it won't.
User avatar #69 to #21 - habasparkz
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/21/2013) [-]
In New York, now-a-days, it can be hard to obtain a firearm, or ammunition for that matter. I am a gun owner myself, and I agree with you on every point.
#106 to #69 - jazzytheferret
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/21/2013) [-]
In michigan, getting the gun isn't really a problem if you follow the program; the problem is ammo. There's like a 2 month back order after the government bought millions (or billions can't remember) of rounds.
User avatar #125 to #106 - habasparkz
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/21/2013) [-]
Yeah they bought like all of the ammo after the Conn. School shooting.
#56 to #21 - juniden
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/21/2013) [-]
you act like that isn't already the law.
User avatar #61 to #56 - largeheadphones
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(09/21/2013) [-]
It isnt...
User avatar #27 - megazman
Reply +23 123456789123345869
(09/21/2013) [-]
Right because you need as much protection as the president...
#41 to #27 - jackassalope
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(09/21/2013) [-]
Its the principle of it. Politicians want us to protect our children with "Gun free zones". If that's an effective measure, then why not use it to protect the politicians? Oh, right, because the only people gun free zones disarm are the law-abiding ones, the ones who aren't going to shoot any innocents.
#74 to #41 - anon id: ce8e9469
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/21/2013) [-]
You are correct, Sir!!
#87 to #74 - anon id: 5c468418
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/21/2013) [-]
Sorry, I couldn't resist samefagging
For those of you wondering, yes, I posted again as anon to agree with myself
#90 to #87 - jackassalope
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(09/21/2013) [-]
lol, i dont samefag, just some person using misdirection cuz they dont have a legitimate response.
User avatar #79 to #27 - useroftheLOLZ
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/21/2013) [-]
Mr President has Snipers, SWAT, Special forces, and Secret service protecting his children, all of them using firearms. So why can't my children have that same protection?
#26 - satanlovesyou
Reply +13 123456789123345869
(09/21/2013) [-]
missed one
User avatar #30 to #26 - viscerys
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/21/2013) [-]
There are two up on that roof.
User avatar #18 - GodofTV
Reply +8 123456789123345869
(09/21/2013) [-]
You have to be smart to be in the secret service, most Americans are ******* retarded. Don't deny it, I'm American and I acknowledge this. The sooner we all accept it the sooner we can start to better ourselves.
User avatar #22 to #18 - largeheadphones
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(09/21/2013) [-]
No, see your on the internet bandwagon, don't fall into this, say some Americans are retarded, but not all of them, a good amount of Americans don't have much sense in them anymore.
User avatar #28 to #18 - psydoc
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/21/2013) [-]
Not smart enough to pay their hookers.
User avatar #68 to #28 - GodofTV
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/21/2013) [-]
If I could make someone else pay for my hookers I would, don't begrudge them for it.
User avatar #132 to #68 - psydoc
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/23/2013) [-]
Maybe you missed the story, they didn't pay (or underpaid) a hooker that was part of their orgy, and she ratted them out. They all got fired.
User avatar #34 to #18 - ivoryhammer
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/21/2013) [-]
I'd say most people are retarded, not just Americans.
User avatar #31 - actinglead
Reply +7 123456789123345869
(09/21/2013) [-]
Um... I think there should be more gun laws only for how to get guns. Like to pass an APA mental health test, stronger background checks, and even a certain amount of hours in training. Like if they require license for cosmetologist that requires many hours per year of training to keep (even after they have the license). Then why can't we have something like that for gun owners.
User avatar #44 to #31 - bitchitroll
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/21/2013) [-]
so i should have to undergo training for my hobby and collection because somebody else has to undergo training for their job?
User avatar #47 to #44 - actinglead
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/21/2013) [-]
i was more making a point that you have to be trained to cut hair, but not firing a gun.
User avatar #48 to #47 - bitchitroll
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/21/2013) [-]
join the military or the police and you will be trained to use a gun because it is part of your job. just like being trained to cut hair for your job. collectors and hobbyists will often seek training but are not required because its a hobby. just like if your hobby is flying RC helicopters you dont have to be trained. if you want me to go through training for my hobby well you better make sure the jack ass flying his helicopter in the park goes through training to
User avatar #49 to #48 - actinglead
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/21/2013) [-]
some find hunting to be a fun hobby...
but you still need a license for that! It shows that even hobbies can need training or a license.
User avatar #50 to #49 - bitchitroll
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/21/2013) [-]
hunting while being a hobby is also i source of food like fishing. the license for hunting is to show that when out in an open area you know how to dress the animal and choose your shots carefully. at the range it is set up to be a safe place for firearms to be discharged. after the bullet hits the target it will a back stop of some sort and stay there. when hunting in the woods there may be nothing behind the animal to stop the bullet.
User avatar #51 to #50 - actinglead
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/21/2013) [-]
who says the gun will only be used at a range.
I am just saying training on how to use the gun would be good because then there wont be any idiots shooting themselves or others by accident. and if someone dosn't pass the APA test or lives with someone that dosn't pass it means there will be less lunatics with easy access to guns.
User avatar #52 to #51 - bitchitroll
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/21/2013) [-]
ok im done. the first line of your comment is enough to show you already think you have won. seriously that was just a stupid remark. and with the way you word that last statement it sounds like you are trying to say that if person A who is mentally fit to own a firearm lives with person B who is not then person A doesnt get a gun. and again that is just stupid.
User avatar #53 to #52 - actinglead
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/21/2013) [-]
i said that because many of the big shootings in the last few years (chardon, sandy hook, etc.) were caused by mentally ill people who had access to a gun through the person they lived with.
So person A dosn't get a gun because Person B is likely to get access to it and shoot a place up.
User avatar #54 to #53 - bitchitroll
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/21/2013) [-]
in these shootings person A illegally purchased the gun for person B. person A may have been legally able to purchase it but purchasing a firearm with the intent of giving it to somebody who can not legally own it due to being mentally ill or a felon is illegal. however if person A buys it for themselves and person B steals it that means only person B is breaking the law and well what do you know they just broke a law that is already in place so why is adding a new one going to make a difference?
User avatar #58 to #54 - actinglead
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/21/2013) [-]
i am not saying that person A is getting the gun For person B or that person B is stealing it.
Take a case at my old school:
Kids dad showed him a gun and they agreed to share it for at the shooting range. So he didn't steal it. and the dad originally owned it and so didn't by it for the kid. but the kid is mentally ill and brought it to school. luckly the officer at the school saw and now he is in jail.
I find it that you are reading only what you want to read, and ignoring the message i am saying.
(and about the breaking the law thing, we have laws against drugs, but ppl still do them, but it reduces the number of people doing it).
User avatar #80 to #58 - useroftheLOLZ
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/21/2013) [-]
THATS THE SAME ******* THING YOU ********, THE KID TOOK HIS FATHERS HANDGUN, AND USED IT FOR SOMETHING THEY HADN'T AGREED UPON, THAT BEING, FOR RANGE PRACTICE. ITS THE SAME THING AS SOMEONE STEALING A RELATIVES FIREARM.
User avatar #64 - wersand
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(09/21/2013) [-]
And I bet every single one of those people had to go through extensive training to carry it, and they don't let their kids at home play with them willy nilly. And they have all had tests to make sure that they are mentally stable.
User avatar #13 - KayRed
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/21/2013) [-]
**** logic. He's way more likely to be a target than your average citizen.
#14 to #13 - nightstar
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(09/21/2013) [-]
Weird. I think more average citizens have been targets since he took office...
User avatar #75 - angelusprimus
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(09/21/2013) [-]
I have no problem with every law abiding citizen having a weapon.
I have one, I go to shooting range to practice every second weekend.
What makes us less safe is not weapons, its the fact that there is a huge number of people that think anyone should be able to have as many guns of any type with absolutely no regulation.
**** that.
Paranoid schizophrenics should not be able to get a gun. People with history of violent assaults should not have a gun. People suffering from extreme PTSD shouldn't have one until they get help for their condition.
Guns are not the cause of violence, people are. But guns make violence easy. So if we are just smart about it, don't go into extremes of "Everyone gets guns of every type!" or "No one gets any guns!" we could make our country far more safe. Just like we don't let blind people drive we shouldn't let people who can't handle it have guns.
#66 - ninjamyles **User deleted account**
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(09/21/2013) [-]
oh, so your still beating on this horse.
User avatar #99 to #66 - dedaluminus
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/21/2013) [-]
We've moved past the dead horse AND the live cow at this point. I guess we're beating an...undead...llama?
#111 to #99 - syntheticwatermelo
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/21/2013) [-]
It's being brought up again because of the Navy yard shooting.
#112 to #111 - dedaluminus
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/21/2013) [-]
I've been expecting you...
#122 to #112 - syntheticwatermelo
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/21/2013) [-]
Well played Sir, but you'll never take me alive. *Pulls magicians cape around himself and disappears in a puff of smoke*
User avatar #32 - ivoryhammer
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(09/21/2013) [-]
Can we just not post political/religious ******** on here and focus on the funny?