guns n shit. thought i'd share. The muss shootings the mah is so quick to point out are in gun free zones. ‘I You don‘! get muss shootings in areas with armed c Guns yes this is tags
Upload
Login or register
Hide Comments
Leave a comment Refresh Comments (157)
[ 157 comments ]
> hey anon, wanna give your opinion?
asd
#15 - hitlersgayabortion
Reply -15 123456789123345869
(11/25/2013) [-]
you ******* retards do not understand the reason for a gun free zone. gun free zones are not meant to stop massacres, they are meant to allow a prosecutor to charge someone who was found in that area with a gun before they started shooting people. the fact that you do not understand this simple concept shows how little thought you have put into any of this.
you ******* retards do not understand the reason for a gun free zone. gun free zones are not meant to stop massacres, they are meant to allow a prosecutor to charge someone who was found in that area with a gun before they started shooting people. the fact that you do not understand this simple concept shows how little thought you have put into any of this.
#112 to #15 - anon id: 63006cb2
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/25/2013) [-]
id love to live in this schmucks world.
User avatar #17 to #15 - frozenworld
Reply +24 123456789123345869
(11/25/2013) [-]
So what happens when they shoot people before they are found with a gun?
User avatar #18 to #17 - hitlersgayabortion
Reply -3 123456789123345869
(11/25/2013) [-]
then they go to jail. the gun free zone isn't meant to deter someone from committing a massacre, it's to allow law enforcement to stop them before they do. Unlike charging them with attempt, the violation of a gun free zone law does not require a prosecutor to prove the person had any intent to harm anyone, so they can be sure to get at least some kind of conviction. but the fact that pro gun people think gun control advocates believe a gun free zone will be some sort of "magic force field" just shows how deaf gun nuts are to reason. they don't even take the time to understand the other side's argument.
#22 to #18 - anon id: bfe55ceb
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/25/2013) [-]
So it's so the police, who are never there when you need them, know who the guy is?
That's still a ******** reason
User avatar #24 to #22 - hitlersgayabortion
Reply -4 123456789123345869
(11/25/2013) [-]
how did you get "so the police know who the guy is" out of what i said?

"that's still a ******** reason" what a flawless, articulate counter argument. well played anon. well played.
#77 to #24 - articulate
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/25/2013) [-]
I guess it's useful if there's a guy in a gun free zone waving his gun around, but they probably won't be doing that so it'll just end up being a guy with a gun vs. people without guns so he's free to kill whoever he wants until the police arrive.
#27 to #24 - anon id: bfe55ceb
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/25/2013) [-]
Violating the gun free zone doesn't mean jack **** for getting a quicker conviction
Just look at the batman shooter, he's pleading insanity. Insane people do not have the mental capacity to have "intent" so there is no conviction. Nearly all the people in shootings either commit suicide when they're done or they are insane (cept for that jihad guy on the military base).
User avatar #32 to #27 - hitlersgayabortion
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(11/25/2013) [-]
I didn't say they would get a quicker conviction. are you even reading my posts?

let me break it down for you=
gun free zones make it a crime to be in that area with a gun regardless of what the person intended.
like a speeding ticket, the prosecution does not need to prove your mental state.

let's say a kid brings a gun to school, the teacher sees it and at lunch she calls the cops. the kid is arrested. at trial, the kid's lawyer claims he didn't intend to hurt anyone and there's no evidence that he did. with a gun free zone law the kid gets jail time regardless, because all you need to prove is he had the gun at school.

so even if you're insane you can still be convicted of violating a gun free zone law.

as for James Holmes, perhaps we should at least try to make it more difficult for crazy people to get guns, but that's other gun control proposals.
#38 to #32 - Einsty
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(11/25/2013) [-]
The problem is gun free zones do not solve the problem they were introduced to solve, ergo deaths of innocent people. If a kid brings a gun to schol, possibly to look badass in front of his peers, without any malicious intention, he can then get arrested for violating a gun free zone. Ammounts of lives saved is zero because they were not in direct danger to begin with.   
   
But suppose the kid wants to hurt people for whatever reason. He doesn't just want to show off. Now that kid could have gotten the gun into school just as the other kid. And just as him, he is now the only person in the school area with a firearm. And when the teacher sees him with the gun at lunch, the kid already opens fire at people. Sure, they may arrest him afterwards, but they could have done that even without a gun free zone. Ammounts of lives saved now is all the people that were not shot on the premises. It is a high number possibly, depending on police competence and ammount of ammo the kid brought with hmself. But it is not complete, people died and noone could have done anything to prevent it.   
   
This would not happen in either of two following scenarios:   
1) The gun free zone works as intended, every possible entry point is guarded and all people and all material entering it is thoroughly checked for guns. It is now not possible to enter the gun free zone with a gun.    
Problem: This is either incompatible with democracy or downright ipossible to maintain.   
2) There is no gun free zone tobegin with. An armed cop is always in reach and there is a number of people with guns at hand that are willing to stop the offender, using lethal force to save lives. The difference is people can defend themselves now, that gives them more options than to get slaughtered by cattle. And if one option is death, every alternative is prefferable.   
Problem: This won't prevent people with guns to enter schools etc. Shootings could still happen, they could only be mitigated unless their cause is discovered and removed
The problem is gun free zones do not solve the problem they were introduced to solve, ergo deaths of innocent people. If a kid brings a gun to schol, possibly to look badass in front of his peers, without any malicious intention, he can then get arrested for violating a gun free zone. Ammounts of lives saved is zero because they were not in direct danger to begin with.

But suppose the kid wants to hurt people for whatever reason. He doesn't just want to show off. Now that kid could have gotten the gun into school just as the other kid. And just as him, he is now the only person in the school area with a firearm. And when the teacher sees him with the gun at lunch, the kid already opens fire at people. Sure, they may arrest him afterwards, but they could have done that even without a gun free zone. Ammounts of lives saved now is all the people that were not shot on the premises. It is a high number possibly, depending on police competence and ammount of ammo the kid brought with hmself. But it is not complete, people died and noone could have done anything to prevent it.

This would not happen in either of two following scenarios:
1) The gun free zone works as intended, every possible entry point is guarded and all people and all material entering it is thoroughly checked for guns. It is now not possible to enter the gun free zone with a gun.
Problem: This is either incompatible with democracy or downright ipossible to maintain.
2) There is no gun free zone tobegin with. An armed cop is always in reach and there is a number of people with guns at hand that are willing to stop the offender, using lethal force to save lives. The difference is people can defend themselves now, that gives them more options than to get slaughtered by cattle. And if one option is death, every alternative is prefferable.
Problem: This won't prevent people with guns to enter schools etc. Shootings could still happen, they could only be mitigated unless their cause is discovered and removed
User avatar #148 to #38 - hitlersgayabortion
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/25/2013) [-]
okay you raise several good points here, so let's address them in turn.

your alternative solutions are accurate, although i would add some important points:

1.so in a gun free zone police officers can still be armed, so if a school is sufficiently dangerous there is still a cop on the premises. admittedly shootings happen so fast that this might not stop anything, but the reality is that once a gun reaches the wrong hands they can almost always create a huge amount of damage.

2. it would of course be impossible to have armed checkpoints at schools i think that alternative we both reject out of hand.

3. the result you favor is not having a gun free zone and having some people (in this case, some teachers and an on campus cop) armed. It's true that this would reduce the amount of people killed in a school shooting. how many is debatable, there are so many different scenarios, but for the sake of argument let's say on the whole it does reduce the amount of people killed in these massacres. the problem with that solution is that school shootings are actually quite rare. accidental shootings resulting from teachers having guns in class would far outnumber the number of lives saved from the very rare occurrence of a school shooting. In other words, having a gun around creates a background risk that would end up with more accidental deaths in the aggregate than murders that having the gun would prevent. compare having a gun in the home for example. newyork.cbslocal.com/2013/05/15/guns-in-your-home-a-statistical-accident-waiting-to-happen/
aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full


User avatar #162 to #148 - Einsty
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/26/2013) [-]
I can agree that simply by having a gun around poses a certain risk. Those are risks caused by legal arms holders, trough better education and filtering of ownership, the risk can be lowered. Gun free zones can help in this regard, but won't stop people from comiting intended gun crimes on the premises.

Illegal guns can only be controlled using other guns, so to speak.

So, while I am for a reasonably strict gun control, in the sense a gun should not be sold to an idiot who is likely to leave it unattended or shoot someone by mistake (just like you should not let a person drive without a driver licence), I think gun free zones won't solve what many people like to think they will.
#46 to #38 - anon id: 578420f2
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/25/2013) [-]
You're right, gun restricted zones were a stupid idea. There generally isn't much you can do, because of the already, in my opinion, alarming amount of guns in circulation in the US. But I don't think that justifies not doing anything at all.
The fact that a kid, as you used as an example, can take a gun to school, is wrong! They shouldn't even be able to get hold of one, if you ask me.
Kids are unpredictable, and I do not belive a scenario, where a kid having a gun with him to school and then getting real pissed of on someone else, because of bullying or something similar and then shooting the kid/kids bullying him, is totally unrealistic.
but I have ofcourse little to say in that matter, since i live in Denmark <3
#13 - pebar
Reply +19 123456789123345869
(11/25/2013) [-]
#16 to #13 - anon id: 6240930c
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/25/2013) [-]
classic false dilemma logic. either you let me have my gun without a background check to make sure i'm not crazy, or you want a totalitarian dictatorship to rule us all because apparently your m16 will be sooo effective against the US military tanks, drones, massive logistics capabilities if they decide to take over
#30 to #16 - gassnake
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(11/25/2013) [-]
Too bad background checks already exist for buying a gun, and they do their job. However the government does like throwing illegal guns into Mexico so they can come back over the border and kill Americans. Funny how that works out.
User avatar #114 to #30 - metalmind
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/25/2013) [-]
Haha, that's priceless.
American Gun control doesn't work.
User avatar #20 to #16 - pebar
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(11/25/2013) [-]
>implying democrats aren't trying to pass waaaayyy more than just background checks
#141 to #20 - sexuality
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/25/2013) [-]
"waaaayyy more than just background checks"

Read Obama's gun control bill, it basically wants to ban military-style assault rifles (the ones that can be changed to fully automatic with the simple purchase and installation of the right trigger mechanism which are constantly sold at gun shows) and extended magazine clips. Oh that and have stricter consequences for gun violence.

WOAH, WAY MORE, Obama is definitely planning an overthrow, better grab your rifle and 40 shots of ammo so you can fend off the drones, Mr. Bond.
User avatar #149 to #141 - pebar
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/25/2013) [-]
What's wrong with a fully automatic weapon (which are already heavily regulated, including conversion kits)? You'll run out of ammo very quickly.
Extended magazines jam very easily; it happened with the batman shooter. 30 rounds is standard but politicians want 10-15 rounds; what is this "extended" part you talk about?
Massacres account for a negligible amount of violence in this country so what is proposed would do nothing but piss off half the country. Gun control is heavily partisan.
#143 to #16 - anon id: bad76bbd
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/25/2013) [-]
Educated opinion on Funnyjunk (simply calling it educated since you used the correct fallacy name, and my money says most FJers won't know what it means til they google it.), thumbed down. Gotta love this site.
User avatar #132 to #13 - jajathezombie
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/25/2013) [-]
I dislike guns. I dislike anything made solely for the purpose of killing. However, I understand that they exist, and nothing I can do is going to change that.. So I think civilians should be allowed to own guns, purely because they exist, and because if they ARE illegal, only criminals and our crooked government/law enforcement will own them.
#139 to #13 - anon id: bad76bbd
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/25/2013) [-]
>Implying gun control makes you anti-gun.

I own a gun, I'm fine with guns, but the fact that people believe they can be heroes if they have a gun and someone else attacks them with a gun is pathetic.
Also, there are almost no background checks for people purchasing guns at a gun show, the entire process takes around 10 minutes, which is the problem. Then we have Republicans demanding that voters show ID before casting a vote, but when Democrats ask for a national gun database in order to stop the shady gun show deals, it's suddenly impeding on their rights.

TL;DR : If you are scared of a national gun database, you're retarded. Your handgun isn't going to stop a government overthrow, period. Also, none of you neckbeards would stop a homicidal shooter, so keep bitching that "cops are never there when you need them."
User avatar #44 - maidenmk
Reply +10 123456789123345869
(11/25/2013) [-]
You dont get them in unarmed societies either
User avatar #49 to #44 - redstag
Reply -3 123456789123345869
(11/25/2013) [-]
Nope you just get mass stabbings.
User avatar #53 to #49 - jimmycrank
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(11/25/2013) [-]
I'd rather Run from a guy with a knife than a guy with a gun
User avatar #82 to #53 - captainfuckitall
Reply -3 123456789123345869
(11/25/2013) [-]
You don't have a chance to. That's the thing about knives, they're generally pretty quiet.
#72 to #44 - taurusguy
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(11/25/2013) [-]
How does it make a difference? If he wants to get a gun he will get a ******* gun, just depends on how much he has to pay for one, it would be impossible to outlaw all the guns, there are bound to be some illegal markets producing guns even if EVERY country outlawed selling them to the public.
User avatar #161 to #72 - maidenmk
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/26/2013) [-]
in an unarmed society getting a gun isnt the first thing that comes to their mind. Not saying that they dont, but in places like america where guns are are such part of the culture, guns are available and therefore tend to be more in the present of mind for these types.
#60 to #44 - anon id: 7b0966e8
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/25/2013) [-]
Most of those places being on isolated land masses dumbass.
#69 to #44 - chancevance
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/25/2013) [-]
The problem with that here is in America it is completely impossible to disarm the entire populace. Just like with Alcohol Prohibition you will only fuel organized crime. That, and, now only criminals and police officers have guns. Average 911 response time is 9 minutes at a city with GOOD response time. Response time for a .40 S&W is roughly 1100 feet per second.

When you're staring down the barrel of a madman with a gun that wants to kill you simply to watch you die or for some mental instability, and you're wondering why no one has yet to stop this rampaging, mass murdering lunatic, remember your stance on gun control.
#135 to #69 - anon id: c9f63e97
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/25/2013) [-]
That will never happen, we don't give lunatics guns in civilized countries.
#142 to #135 - chancevance
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/25/2013) [-]
Of course not, they get them without your knowledge, then turn your "civilized country" into their personal playhouse because of strict gun control.
User avatar #43 - ImmortalBaconEater
Reply +9 123456789123345869
(11/25/2013) [-]
A number of the mass shootings recently in the US have occurred on military bases.
#70 to #43 - chancevance
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(11/25/2013) [-]
Military bases on home soil are generally speaking, gun free zones. Only MPs carry sidearms, they're few and far between, and all the real guns and ammo are stored in an arsenal.
User avatar #71 to #43 - useroftheLOLZ
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(11/25/2013) [-]
All military bases are gun free zones, only the military police carry sidearms, and even then, they must be unloaded unless being used in a confrontation.
#79 - liebebella
Reply -5 123456789123345869
(11/25/2013) [-]
mfw the British come here and preach about how the UK has not mass shootings and it is a completely gun free zone but fail to mention the fact that murders using knives are so common that people are trying to enforce a plastic knife only in public areas.
mfw the British come here and preach about how the UK has not mass shootings and it is a completely gun free zone but fail to mention the fact that murders using knives are so common that people are trying to enforce a plastic knife only in public areas.
User avatar #95 to #79 - Loppytaffy
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/25/2013) [-]
Knife crime dropped dramatically when legislation came in.
And stabbings can happen accidently in the kitchen or whatever. Nobody shoots a person accidently; if you pull the trigger you damn mean to shoot.
User avatar #127 to #79 - Gandalfthewhite
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/25/2013) [-]
you can't mow down tens of people in 5 seconds with a knife
#146 to #127 - thecrayzeeman
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(11/25/2013) [-]
Not with that attitude.
User avatar #83 to #79 - kyoutu
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(11/25/2013) [-]
People actually stand a chance of survival in knife crime and one attacker can easily be overpowered by one or more people also the act of stabbing someone is personal, anyone can pull a trigger, the act is distanced from the killer, this is the reason there is laws against drone strikes.

User avatar #86 to #83 - captainfuckitall
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(11/25/2013) [-]
I would actually disagree. You're more scared of a knife than you are a gun because when facing a guy with a knife you're concerned about staying alive, v.s. if a guy has a gun you know your chances of dying are much higher, and thus you're more willing to just throw yourself at them in order for someone else to get another shot in.

Besides, as mentioned above, knives, while less lethal, tend to be much quieter than guns and when they sneak up behind you, your chances are low regardless of how well you fight.
User avatar #92 to #86 - kelp
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(11/25/2013) [-]
Still murdering someone with a knife is the most cold hearted thing you can do. Like kyoutu mentioned, everyone can pull a trigger. But with a knife it really gets personal.
User avatar #151 to #92 - captainfuckitall
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/25/2013) [-]
Yes, because those deranged enough to engage in mass murders would have stopped if they could just see the fear and misery in their victims eyes.
#84 to #79 - baileyshy
Reply +8 123456789123345869
(11/25/2013) [-]
Rather take my chances with a knife than a gun
#66 - alekshm
Reply +7 123456789123345869
(11/25/2013) [-]
Juicey-boy
User avatar #99 to #66 - nerdrugger
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(11/25/2013) [-]
SOA is awesome
User avatar #52 - jimmycrank
Reply +7 123456789123345869
(11/25/2013) [-]
Yeah, you're right, since we here in Britain (and Australia) have outlawed guns, Unarmed Civilians have been gunned down by Criminals with Guns! It's been a 20 year massacre!..... Oh wait what's that? No that hasn't happened? Oh yeah it didn't! Also funny how the UK has a much lower Murder rate per 100,000 people than the US.

Because you need an Assault Rifle to defend yourself.


Stop using this "Self Defense" "Protection" ******** to make an excuse for the fact most of you just simply like having Guns, you ******* love guns!
User avatar #73 to #52 - karson
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(11/25/2013) [-]
I guess you just choose to ignore the fact that the murder rate went up in the uk after guns were banned....

online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887323777204578195470446855466


"Within a decade of the handgun ban and the confiscation of handguns from registered owners, crime with handguns had doubled according to British government crime reports. Gun crime, not a serious problem in the past, now is. Armed street gangs have some British police carrying guns for the first time. Moreover, another massacre occurred in June 2010. Derrick Bird, a taxi driver in Cumbria, shot his brother and a colleague then drove off through rural villages killing 12 people and injuring 11 more before killing himself."


and in oz, the murder rate by gun went down with the outlawing of guns, but the murder by other means just went up.

Also, I love guns(but I don't own any assault rifle). but seriously, most of the stuff you just said is wrong and unfounded. Glad to hear it "worked" so well for your country.
User avatar #81 to #73 - kuchikirukia
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/25/2013) [-]
Small difference: 12 shot dead is what we Americans call, "A weekend in Detroit."
#59 to #52 - anon id: 19d9dacf
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/25/2013) [-]
UK and australlian murder rates were already much lower than the US before gun control.
User avatar #110 to #52 - landerp
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/25/2013) [-]
Suppose someone does somehow get a gun in the UK and decides to start shooting people. What then? No citizens have guns, no police have guns, no one has any ranged weapon and cannot even get close to the man with the gun. I guess you would have to just wait around for a special forces or the military arrive, or maybe you could bum rush him with a knife. Taking away guns will stop most gun violence, but will do practically nothing to stop violence in general.
User avatar #126 to #110 - eddymolly
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/25/2013) [-]
I don't get into gun arguments, so i'm not joining in, just correcting your statement.

Police do have guns in the UK, just not all of them.
Also, civilians do have guns, but generally only shotguns and rifles for sport. Maybe a handgun if you have a very specific reason, but everyone who has one has to have a gun license, which has very strict rules and regulations surrounding it.
User avatar #153 to #126 - landerp
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/25/2013) [-]
I will agree with that, just because we have the right to bear arms doesn't mean everyone in america is responsible enough to own one. Just look at lil' Wayne, that dumbass accidentally shot himself in the chest and almost died. The problem would be a lot less severe if we had to have a license to own one as long as there aren't severe restrictions and a long waiting period. Having licensed weapons and a mandatory gun safety course would definitely make it easier to control weapons and prevent gun violence.
User avatar #1 - karlthemarxist **User deleted account**
Reply -5 123456789123345869
(11/24/2013) [-]
Yes you do, caused the armed civilians are committing the mass shooting.
#2 to #1 - tedge
Reply +6 123456789123345869
(11/24/2013) [-]
but what he is saying is a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun, but the bad guy with a gun doesn't care whether or not it's a gun-free zone while the good guy does.
User avatar #3 to #2 - karlthemarxist **User deleted account**
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(11/24/2013) [-]
I know and it still doesn't constitute the lack of gun control laws.
#4 to #3 - tedge
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(11/24/2013) [-]
that's not how you use the word "constitute". and it's because no matter how you try and control it. dangerous people are dangerous people. Outlawing guns will not save lives. I'm not a gun enthusiast, i'm just saying the people who wanna shoot up a mall are gonna get a gun to do it, whether or not it's legal.
User avatar #5 to #4 - karlthemarxist **User deleted account**
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/24/2013) [-]
Well I'm a gun owner myself, and don't think outlawing guns is the answer but stricter gun control will limit dangerous peoples access to guns.
#8 to #5 - tedge
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(11/24/2013) [-]
I live in Ohio. Marijuana is illegal here. i get high every day.
#9 to #8 - tedge
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(11/24/2013) [-]
and that's not me being a dumbass stoner. I'm just saying that the laws don't sway people all that much. especially if they want to do something.
#68 to #8 - chancevance
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/25/2013) [-]
Good example my friend. Agree wholeheartedly. I would rather there be more citizens with guns than less. Maybe then after the insane ************* with guns pull out that first shot a sane ************ with a gun can stop him, rather than letting him kill 1-50 people before police ever respond.
User avatar #93 - Loppytaffy
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(11/25/2013) [-]
The first time there was a school shooting in Britain, guns were banned.
There has not been a school shooting since and civilian shootings in Britain have dropped to nearly nothing.
User avatar #106 to #93 - landerp
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(11/25/2013) [-]
Obviously if you take away guns people cant shoot each other but they're still gonna kill each other. Do you suggest they take away knives too? What then after that? You're solution to the problem of murder is not to stop people from doing it but to take away anything they can use to do it. Murder is in human nature and it has been since the dawn of man.
#119 to #106 - admiralamory **User deleted account**
+2 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #154 to #119 - landerp
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/25/2013) [-]
What about bombs? You can make a bomb with supplies you can buy at any hardware or sporting goods store. If someone wants to kill a lot of people and cannot access a gun they can just build a bomb and plant it in a public place just like the Boston Marathon.
User avatar #125 to #106 - Loppytaffy
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(11/25/2013) [-]
Knife crime has fallen dramatically since legislation was brought in a few years ago.
Yes, peopel will always find a new weapon, but why does that suggest that we shouldn't try and prevent the loss of life because of it?
User avatar #129 to #125 - PARTYHARD
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/25/2013) [-]
Knife crime hasn't dropped you just don't hear about it. 3 students were stabbed at my college two weeks ago. Air lifted to the London Royal for surgery after one of their lungs collapsed. Yet no one heard about it.
User avatar #131 to #129 - Loppytaffy
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(11/25/2013) [-]
You can't base the number of knife crimes on a single incident.
User avatar #133 to #131 - PARTYHARD
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(11/25/2013) [-]
I live in Tottenham if you know where that is. There is a weekly stabbing without fail in the area. I don't base my opinion on one incident. I base it on the many I've personally seen.
User avatar #102 to #93 - TimBisley
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/25/2013) [-]
School shootings are a one time event, gun crime is still a massive problem
User avatar #34 - asasqw
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(11/25/2013) [-]
You need an entirely unarmed people or an entirely armed people this half way **** isn't working
User avatar #36 to #34 - SCREWTHERULES
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/25/2013) [-]
not true. if literally ALL the citizens had their guns taken away, criminals would still have them.
User avatar #37 to #36 - Einsty
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(11/25/2013) [-]
That's reality that prohibits the possibility of completely unarmed people.