BUT HOW LIKELY ARE YOU TO GET KILLED BY GAY - #118881453 added by ilikemudkips at (untitled)

Refresh

Options

asd

Reply+134

(06/20/2014)[-]

You more likely to be killed by a vending machine than to be caught in a massacre.
Statistically speaking, mass shootings are insignificant to the gun violence in America.
Even if a law magically got rid of all the "assault weapons" and "high capacity" magazines, those types of guns are almost never used and no more than a couple rounds are fired so it wouldn't make a difference at all.

It is entirely a political issue.

#154 to #2 - ilikemudkips

Reply0

(06/21/2014)[-]

BUT HOW LIKELY ARE YOU TO GET KILLED BY GAY MARRIAGE?

OBAMA, HELP!

#116 to #2 - phudgepacker

Reply0

(06/21/2014)[-]

well it is true that some people use the "HOW AM I GOING TO EXPLAIN THIS TO MY KIDS" because as an argument against gay marriage. That's what this guy is saying

#110 to #2 - thesecretberry

Reply0

(06/21/2014)[-]

it wouldn't make a difference at all?

#72 to #2 - meierme

Reply+1

(06/21/2014)[-]

The school shooting in Oregon was stopped within 60 seconds because of a good guy with a gun, brainwashed liberals try to ban **** they know nothing about. yes some people with guns have killed people but that is less than 0.01% of gun owners in america. and again the FBI has released the 2012 statistics and again hammers beat "assault rifles" the actual dictionary term for an assault rifle states the rifle must be fully automatic in murders. on top of all that parents are responsible for more child murders than any gun out there.
i spent three months writing a research paper on this topic

#92 to #72 - internetexplain#365 on commentsRank#365

Reply0

(06/21/2014)[-]

The thing , you don't need to defend yourself with a gun , if a potential shooter can't get a gun to begin with.

#122 to #92 - meierme

Reply0

(06/21/2014)[-]

these days you can print a gun. also look at mexico they have some of the toughest gun control laws on the planet, look how well that's going for them. like i said i wrote a research paper on this, don't you think i would have covered such an ignorant response such as that?

#158 to #122 - internetexplain#365 on commentsRank#365

Reply0

(06/22/2014)[-]

Yes , but mexico is also like the wild-west , so that doesn't exactly count.
You rarely hear of any shootings in Europe because of our gun laws.
The only place that has even weaker gun-laws than the U.S and a crime rate as low as Germany or Norway is Switzerland , because they have a different kind of mentality.

#168 to #158 - meierme

Reply0

(06/22/2014)[-]

in included that in my essay as well, you can walk in to a bar and see rifles slung on the coat rack there. they don't let the liberal bias throw a taboo on guns so people aren't so afraid of them. most of their crime is from Germans on vacation there. and that's BS mexico doesn't count your only saying that because it disproves what your are trying to say. any who we can look at a more developed country with insane gun laws too. Australia, has pretty much an out right ban on guns and despite what their media coverage decides to display they have almost the same amount of crime with guns as pre ban, in some places its even worse. they are even their own continent, so they can use the excuse that they are brought in from a neighboring country, yet almost weekly they are finding stashes of illegal guns.
I've done three months of research into this topic your not going to dispel me with half ass arguments.

#103 to #92 - anon id: 0e8c9a72

Reply0

(06/21/2014)[-]

#96 to #92 - anon id: 0e8c9a72

Reply0

(06/21/2014)[-]

>if a potential shooter can't get a gun

That is so ******* naive

#54 to #2 - shadowgandalf

Reply0

(06/21/2014)[-]

I'm fairely certain that the entire idea behind OP's post, is that it's stupid to flip out when you explain the concept of homosexuality to young children, while your teaching them that their classmates are potential phycopaths, and they'll die if they don't do so and so.

Actually i find it quite sad that it's come to the point where you actually have drills for school shootings in the first place...

Also it's not just a political issue, it's a big mix of ***********:
People taking religion as if it where reality, making it impossible to educate them properly about things going against said religion.
People not giving a **** politics.
People thinking that breaking the law and essentially being a ****** is cool(see, miley cyrus, justin beiber and those associated with them and their fans).
Major social groups doing huge marches, parades, occupations, despite knowing **** all about the political subject at hand.
Way too overzealous patriots.
A ****** up political system, where does that have money decides everything(NO ONE, not even corporations should be allowed to donate anymore than 1 dollar to anything regarding politics. At this point, it does not even matter who gets elected, because the goverment will always suck the corporations big green dick).

AND SO MANY OTHER **** factors.

#53 to #2 - DmOnZ

Reply-1

(06/21/2014)[-]

I just think it's retarded that a person with a diagnosed anger management issue with a history of violence can legally get their hands on a gun. You guys are ******* stupid to think that that's not an issue that needs to be dealt with. Hell, you'd get denied a driver's license if you had the same issues on your permanent record.

#30 to #2 - anon id: 8032f5a7

Reply0

(06/21/2014)[-]

'mass massacres are insignificant to the gun violence in america' this is why removing guns is pointless

#32 to #30 - economicfreedom

Reply+2

(06/21/2014)[-]

A couple dozen each year from massacres vs the 10,000 from everything else.
Yes, massacres are insignificant.

#20 to #2 - xdiabolicx#4 on commentsRank#4

Reply+1

(06/21/2014)[-]

Also creating explosives is fairly simple using household items and the internet. Getting rid of guns does nothing.

#13 to #2 - anon id: 5945295c

Reply0

(06/21/2014)[-]

You are more likley to be killed by a vending machine than a shark, we still tell kids not to swim with open wounds.

Also the stats are flawed they don't take into account the fact that vending machines are everywhere and mostly only children, which is a tiny percent of the population, are regularly in a school.

#16 to #13 - economicfreedom

Reply+1

(06/21/2014)[-]

If you hadn't noticed, guns are everywhere too. There are more guns than people in this country. The AR-15, the epitome of so-called assault weapons, is one of the most popular rifles in America.

And likewise, we do tell kids not to play with guns.

#4 to #2 - internetexplain#365 on commentsRank#365

Reply+25

(06/21/2014)[-]

It's not even a political problem , it's a social problem.
In a society that promotes individual " strength " in a way even dumber than most 3rd world countries , "standing up for yourself" easily translates to Vigilantism for a lot of people.
These people are the ones that hate any sort of change , cry if they lose after challenging somebody , bully others and complain about being bullied and resort to violence a lot more often than common sense can comprehend.
They are the ones everyone sees in the Media and formed the stereotype of the average american.
The saddest thing is , a lot of people who you wouldn't expect to be that dumb , just bandwagon along once they are partially or fully anonymous and do the exact same crap their stereotype dictates.

TL;DR People complaining about gay marriage are the same kind of people that red thumb america jokes. And spree killers think they're Batman.

I deleted my previous comment because of a few grammatical errors

#89 to #4 - rekumate

Reply-1

(06/21/2014)[-]

But America has gotten to the point where standing up for yourself is considered wrong. Have you ever heard of the no tolerance policy school instituting for violence? Even retaliating against bullying or being attacked can get you suspended or in trouble. I disagree with you when you say individual strength is promoted in this country when its clearly not.

#81 to #4 - swagbot

Reply+1

(06/21/2014)[-]

No - I think this is an overly-simplistic explanation, and that there is a much more concrete issue besides "A Batman Complex" that is causing mass-shootings - pharmacological drug use:

Leaving the kooky stuff aside (MK ULTRA & such) , here is a good compilation of 'mass'-shooters over the last few decades, and the drugs they were taking: www.ammoland.com/2013/04/every-mass-shooting-in-the-last-20-years-shares-psychotropic-drugs/

I think these drugs mess with with peoples' brains more than is discussed in public or 'officially' admitted to in litigation.

The article IS from 'ammoland.com', so take it with a grain of salt... just something to think about.

#90 to #81 - anon id: 0e8c9a72

Reply0

(06/21/2014)[-]

Tens of millions of Americans are taking SSRIs. They are prescribed for everything from "I'm feeling a little stressed" to "I can't get up in the morning because I am so sad".

Blaming SSRIs is like blaming water because every serial killer drank water.

#115 to #90 - swagbot

Reply0

(06/21/2014)[-]

Heh... you're right - if we're gonna go to that level, let's just have it all out:

There is no statistical increase in the number of 'Mass-Shootings' (incidents where 4+ people are killed at once) since the 1970s, and possibly before. All we have is more media coverage now, hyping it for ratings (or worse - to push their agenda).

So it's not even "A Social Issue" as OP says... it's not even an issue at all!

I only mentioned SSRIs (et. al.) because if you're going to take an electron-microscope to this issue, THEY seem to be a smoking gun... far more that "The Batman Complex"... which can hardly even be measures, researched, or quantified in any way.

#40 to #4 - durkadurka

Reply0

(06/21/2014)[-]

The social problem is not the promotion of individualism. It's a problem of the participation trophy mentality. It conditions kids to expect to always get their way and that they'll never lose. They're praised and told that they're the greatest thing and that they're the most special snowflake, etc. Then when they get into the real world they suddenly find that everything is different.

Couple that with mental issues (which seems to be a common thread in these shootings) and bad things will happen.

If we get rid of our individualism focus, we'll essentially be destroying this country's identity.

#36 to #4 - dontread

Reply0

(06/21/2014)[-]

internetexplain explaining real life

what is this

#91 to #36 - internetexplain#365 on commentsRank#365

Reply+2

(06/21/2014)[-]

I chose the name internetexplain , because "socialsciencesexplain" was too long for account creation , so I figured , the internet is full of social outcasts and they may or may not require information on the topic; Boy was I wrong.

#104 to #91 - dontread

Reply+1

(06/21/2014)[-]

Well since you commented i might as well give my honest and non sarcastic opinion on this:

Thought the explains were named by what they were explaining not who they were explaining to

i pointed out ur name and ur comment topic because the internet and real life are often seen as opposites of each other

it'd be like seeing comicexplain explain an autobiography or something ya know?

#159 to #104 - internetexplain#365 on commentsRank#365

Reply0

(06/22/2014)[-]

well perspectives are subjective
the internet is part of real life , everything is part of real life.
Real-life intuitive social-laws apply on the internet just as much as the wilderness.
The internet is a great example of how an anonymous society would look like , and that it's anything but great , considering the amount of hatred openly flowing through it , but I digress (slightly).
I see the internet as a social experiment , hence why I went with this name , it's a symbol for my work.

And on the topic of explain accounts - legend has it that in ancient times , before FunnyJunk was born , the mythical "Realifexplain" split into various spirits and took posession of the bodies of the explain crew we know today , starting off with the strongest human emotion : Happyness. And thus Jokexplain came into being and he called forth onto us , his brethren to come together once more to surpass even the all-mighty Realifexplain we once were.

#160 to #159 - dontread

Reply0

(06/22/2014)[-]

or i can gather you guys up in a room and with some glue...

#161 to #160 - internetexplain#365 on commentsRank#365

Reply+1

(06/22/2014)[-]

#105 to #104 - comicexplain

Reply+2

(06/21/2014)[-]

I actually speak outside my field all the time! We're not a union, you know. So long as we're not spreading mis-information, we're good!

It's also nice to see honest opinions, though. Keep up the good work!

#108 to #105 - dontread

Reply+1

(06/21/2014)[-]

oh yeah, you're pretty much everywhere man. You're great!

im just saying it's not often u see explains explaining their opposites haha

#33 to #4 - anon id: 5ae544c5

Reply0

(06/21/2014)[-]

If we think about it long enough, I'm sure we'll finally come to the conclusion, that there is not even a problem to begin with.

#17 to #4 - reginleif#81 on contentRank#81

Reply0

(06/21/2014)[-]

Once you're done trying to insult the other side of the debate please feel free to actually point out what is wrong with individuals being empowered and safe wherever they go.

The choice is key here, people who are afraid of guns, who detest guns are allowed not to wield them, people who want them are allowed to have them and to use them if need arises to defend themselves, their families and those around them.... people who abuse these weapons are called criminals and are severely punished by the police. There's no need for controversy here.

I get it, some people (in particular English sons of bitches who have no business opening their Eurobitch mouths on American issues) may not believe in violence not even to save their own hides, to them vigilantism is worse than murder and would rather die. This is of course their choice. But the moment you decide to involve the government and the law, this becomes a political issue, not a social one as you want to frame it.

#59 to #17 - anon id: 88178406

Reply0

(06/21/2014)[-]

those "Individuals" include criminals.

The point is once abused, someone is ******* dead. Regardless of even the most severe punishment.

Sure.

#95 to #59 - reginleif#81 on contentRank#81

Reply0

(06/21/2014)[-]

They include criminals when they commit crimes, not a second before. I've never understood European logic which assumes that people are criminals in the first place.

You're trying to prevent futurecrime by taking away people's rights. And the US constitution doesn't share that idea.