|Funny Pictures||Funny Videos|
|Funny GIFs||YouTube Videos|
Rank #3482 on CommentsLevel 313 Comments: Wizard
OnlineSend mail to azroth Block azroth Invite azroth to be your friend flag avatar
Yes, I am the glorious winged faggot you speak of
latest user's comments
|#5 - Picture||03/23/2014 on Pussytime||+16|
|#230 - You should do one about Darth Talon, cause she's Bammin' Jammi…||03/21/2014 on psychadelicace's profile||0|
|#1 - The Bad point and Good point of gun ownership in one gif [+] (95 new replies)||03/15/2014 on Well...||+253|
#132 - mutzaki (03/16/2014) [-]
I'm not saying the guy was right in what he said, but I think what he meant was that the chances of the situation happening in the first place drop substantially. Because accept it or not, random civilians being allowed guns WILL make it easier for criminals to get them, meaning that more of them WILL have them, and it will by far raise the rates of misuse, accidents, etc.
The logic of tackling the gun problem by throwing out guns to everyone, is incredibly stupid, in my opinion. You raise crime rates so you can have a higher chance of civilians stopping crimes, even though that probably wouldn't happen most of the time anyway, since most people don't know how to properly use a gun and have no training in that sort of thing.
#174 - blargtastic (03/17/2014) [-]
I agree with you entirely; however, to take them away from civilians entirely is not the answer. That just leaves them defenseless. The answer might be to introduce a gun proficiency course that one must pass in order to purchase a gun. A Gun License if you will, and a few other tests along the lines of psycho-analysis tests to show that they have no underlying mental disorders, or other problems that may cause complications down the line.
The answer is not to revoke the privilege to own a gun, but make it harder to obtain one.
#14 - thehornedking (03/16/2014) [-]
Right, and if crime were illegal, there would be no crime at all. We could get rid of the police, close down the prisons, and use taxes somewhere else. And the idea of crime would change completely if we made it illegal. "I'd really like to rape you but evidently it's illegal now."
#107 - broswagonist (03/16/2014) [-]
That analogy sucks. I'm not getting into this pointless gun law argument but crime is already illegal. That's why, you know, it's crime. And you can bet anything that if for some reason theft, rape or murder were legal they would be happening a lot more than they do now.
#13 - anonymous (03/16/2014) [-]
This^ This post right here is the problem with society. Yeah let's have the government enforce and make more laws restricting freedoms, that'll keep crime and violence from happening.
How about instead of stricter gun laws, or taking guns away, we simply enforce the current gun laws teach stricter gun safety, and rather then just assuming people evil we try to lower crime through being aware of dangerous situations and a kind word.
#154 - anonymous (03/16/2014) [-]
Drug addicts don't follow the law, its illegal to have crack or heroin but they do it anyway. Does this mean we should suddenly make heroin and crack legal? Hell no. The point is that the current gun laws are laughable pathetic, I could go out and get an unregistered gun with no background check in less than a week. Its shit like tha,t that we need to address.
#149 - anonymous (03/16/2014) [-]
This is true but the way the current regulations stand its about 5% harder for a criminal to get a gun than for a normal person. A lot of the gun regulation laws have HUGE loopholes that allow basically anyone to get a gun. So when 90% of people talk about gun regulation they are referring to closing these issues making it more difficult for criminals and mentally unstable people from gaining easy access to guns. Because what we currently have sure isn't working the gun related death rate in the USA is 10.3 per 100,000 in Mexico it is 11.1. Countries that have stricter rules but still protect gun rights, like Germany, its 1.2. I fucking love guns and have several but we really need to do something here.
#105 - odonnell (03/16/2014) [-]
Well depending on how much of a bitch you are, you dont need a gun to fight off an armed robber.
Staff use a stapler to chase off robber: www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2189880/Bookies-staff-use-STAPLER-chase-knife-wielding-robber-betting-shop.html
Teen uses sticky tape to chase off robber: www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17377089
Shopkeeper uses a can of air-freshner to chase off robber: www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/paisley-shopkeeper-tells-how-fought-2439589
Now I know you're thinking those are just knifes and axes, but I personally would find an axe more intimidating, it might not have the range of a gun, but you know if its deadly or not. A guy with a gun might not have it loaded, might not have the safety off, might not have the mental or physical strength to pull the trigger. Now if someone comes running at you with an axe, you don't think twice, this cunts running around with an axe, he's clearly a fucking psychopath.
#98 - anonymous (03/16/2014) [-]
Why do Americans act like all criminals have underworld connections that allow them to get guns easily?
#158 - anonymous (03/16/2014) [-]
18 year old from Denmark here.
I could get any drug I'd like, but I have no idea how I'd get a gun.
#90 - turtletroll (03/16/2014) [-]
To be honest here in England nobody has guns.
Closet i've been to was a friend's dad's sawed off. Which is illegal but that's the only case of anyone owning a illegal gun i've heard of (from friends, family etc).
But of course in America there are so many guns it seems pointless to go back.
Banning guns is a good thing unless everybody already has one.
#76 - clannadqs (03/16/2014) [-]
Ok, I was thumbed down previously for this, but no one had a rebuttal. Pro-gun people somehow think criminals would be able to obtain a weapon easily after a gun ban. I'm not for a gun ban, but it is quite naive to think criminals would have the same access to weapons that they have now. The majority of illegal weapons out there right now are stolen from legal gun owners. Without weapons in the hands of legal gun owners, the amount of weapons in the hands of criminals would decrease and it would be illogical to say otherwise. Pro-gun logic is literally," The way to counter the gun issue is to introduce more guns into society". Too bad the majority of criminals would have absolutely no access to weapons if legal owners weren't around. After a decade of police randomly finding illegal weapons the overall number would decrease and criminals would have to rely on outside sources for new weapons and guess where that would be? Yes, gangs and imported weapons that would basically be monopolized for profit. Those weapons that are imported would be extremely more pricey than those stolen from legal gun owners (once more, that is the majority of illegal weapons). The prices alone would render many "petty" criminals unable to obtain a weapon and that is assuming they even know someone who would be willing to sell them a weapon. Basically, imagine how hard it would be for you to find an automatic weapon off of the mystical (how most ignorant individuals treat it) black market. Where would you start? How would you get the money? Who would you trust? Imagine how much work a thug that, in today's world (US), could just simply steal a handgun from an individual out of town because they can't afford a handgun would have to go through to obtain a handgun when prices are way higher, legal owners aren't around, and his only goal is to get some quick cash from the local jiffy lube. It would easily weed out criminals who don't have money and deem it not worthy to go through paying that.
#147 - brisineo (03/16/2014) [-]
First of all, black market isn't the only method of obtaining a firearm illegally. Anywhere from connections in gangs/military/police, stealing/buying from someone who owns it legally, or even making one. You can build a Sten Mk III full auto SMG with a spring, some scrap metal, and basic knowledge of machinery. (a tiny gun with a whole lotta firepower) Or even simpler, a shotgun made of two pieces of pipe, a nail, and some tape. (otherwise known as the infamous Four Winds Shotgun)
Then you have the problem of America's geopolitical circumstance. High population, long history in firearm business, both professional and civilian, large number of gangs, very powerful criminal organizations as neighbors who basically own the smuggling routes and can get you whatever you want for the right price, and people willing to buy.
Unlike places like Germany, for example, people have had a long history of being around firearms. We're used to it to the point where there are more firearms than people in the US. Not only is it impossible to track every gun, but the demand is at an all time high. And it'll remain high even if you impose a law blocking legal access to guns. So the trade immediately goes underground, just like the Prohibition act did with alcohol. Funny how quickly illegal alcohol use soared during that time, no matter how much the law enforcement tried to control it.
And finally, the logistics of owning a weapon for self defense. I have to disagree with you that the pro-gun argument is "more guns = less crime." It's not. It's "more properly trained gun owners = less crime" Because someone who's trained for a CC permit and is carrying when someone robs the store he's in is far more likely to take action than the store clerk who keeps a handgun under the desk but never fired it once in his life. And the average gunfight, if it comes down to it, only lasts a few seconds at best. Far before police could ever show up and prevent any loss of life.
#157 - brisineo (03/16/2014) [-]
And finally, do you want to know what happens to many gun owners who fear that their guns might become banned? They hide them. Bury them, give them to a friend to borrow, put them in the attic, etc. Guns not only are a pretty expensive hobby/investment (some guns already cost thousands of dollars to keep and maintain) but a majority buy guns for their own protection, and there's enough that are so paranoid that if you try and say, get people to register your guns on threat of confiscation, (which the state of Connecticut is trying to do) a majority hide them and deny they even have them.
Same with illegal guns, you don't know who has them, and who doesn't. No, you can't prevent someone snapping after a breakup and raiding their father's gun closet and shooting his ex in anger. You can't prevent a teen with no previous criminal record from going all out and taking a firearm into a public place and begin shooting people. You just cant stop the factor of people wanting to kill other people, period. BUT, as several studies and statistics show, having more people who are trained and know what they're doing can stop someone as early as the moment they pull their gun out.
So in conclusion, prevention really isn't an option in this case... You can't track guns, you can't stop the smuggling trade, you can't stop the sale of springs and scrap metal, (nor the main components of a bullet and gunpowder, the blueprints to make guns, etc.) you can't simply take all guns out of the picture, and you cant control the chaos factor of life. To think you can is naive. The next best thing is to stop any incidents as quickly and efficiently as possible; emboldening and empowering the people on a closer, community level to keep their loved ones safe, which also has the added insurance of making your average criminal think twice if people are going to sit back quietly or if they find themselves completely surrounded and outgunned in an instant.
#140 - ryander (03/16/2014) [-]
Exactly. Why do americans always assume there's no such thing as gun regulation or that it doesn't work? Yes, they can get them illegally, but do you have any idea how fucking difficult and non occurring that is?
95% of the time you'd get mugged you wouldn't fucking need guns, because if they were illegal nobody else would have them to begin with.
You'd get mugged by a guy with a knife or some other crap and you could also have a knife yourself, to intimidate him to back off or to fight him on equal grounds,
and at least then the chance of death would more likely than not decrease.
#129 - aldathane (03/16/2014) [-]
Ok first of all the argument is that they would find a way to get the guns, and they would. Petty crimes wouldn't go down at all, they would just become more violent with knives and other weapons.
Second of all it's a proven fact places that have more armed citizens who are trained in using their weapons have less crime than anywhere else, and the two cities in the U.S. that have the strictest gun control have the highest crime rate.
And third do you know what the first thing Hitler did in Germany.....Take away the citizens guns, I'm not saying the moment our guns are taken away that will happen, but I'm sure not for forfeiting our rights.
#106 - anonymous (03/16/2014) [-]
There are more guns in america than people. Many of them unregistered, do you think the government will be walking into every household and taking all of them? Their are too many guns in the US to effectively monitor and remove. Also, criminals don't only steal guns directly from citizen. They buy them from fences who acquire them legally. This isn't the UK where gun control has been a fact of life for generations.
Besides your argument completely ignores the second most important facet of gun control. The disempowerment of the common man. With our government (and many governments around the world as well) enacting more and more policies that eliminate our rights as citizens you want us to be even more helpless before our government. Citizen empowerment via guns is about more than property protection against thieves. It's a bulwark against tyranny.
I didn't thumb you down and I respect your opinion (you're argument has some compelling points), I hope you will consider mine.
#85 - anonymous (03/16/2014) [-]
It would end up exactly like the drug chain now, where there's a will (and some money hungry, powerful, corrupt people near you) there's a way. If that isn't enough, just think of how many innocent people would be harmed while we wait for the criminals to lose all their guns. And to add on top of that, think of how many people who are currently law abiding citizens become felons by keeping their family heirlooms.
I know the exact train of thought you are mentioning and it is very farsighted. Even when other people don't have guns you are still at risk. Think of the LA riots in '92, where the mobs didn't possess weapons but devastated section after section. The Koreans used guns to defend their well earned establishments, when the police wouldn't intervene, and actually decreased collateral damage.
Yes, guns take lives, but if you are really worried about the safety of the community there are other places to look. For instance, how many drunk drivers have you reported?
#101 - animationhac (03/16/2014) [-]
You are completely wrong. It can be the same difficulty as smuggling pounds of pot/meth/ect. which does get through. Criminals will find a way even if its not guns and when it happens, the innocent will be left defenseless. Your ideals will only solve the problem temporarily but as soon as they find a easy way to get out and distribute weapons, we are in trouble. More so then before.
#89 - anonymous (03/16/2014) [-]
We will have to agree to disagree on that one. The truth is that guns are smuggled across borders quite frequently, but they are leaving the US rather than entering.
Guns are harder to produce in a straw hut in Columbia than drugs so neither one of us can say what would happen with absolute certainty. My logical side would be willing to bet that the druglords invest in whatever keeps their empires alive. Regardless of all that, thank you for speaking your mind clearly and being open about the issue.
#159 - captchakid (03/16/2014) [-]
Uh, you are very ignorant if you believe that means your laws are better. America has almost triple Germany's population. Our population is far more diverse. You can't simple ban criminals from owning guns, I mean like wtf are you thinking? They are criminals! They won't follow the law, why would not still get guns?
#145 - anonymous (03/16/2014) [-]
you have laws that forbid criminals from having guns? well why didn't we think of that, dammit Germany you smart
#143 - amsel (03/16/2014) [-]
Germany has less of a problem with being "politically correct." Us Americans can't say "we'll background check you thoroughly and not provide you a gun if you look suspicious," because it'd turn into "YOU JUST WON'T LET ME GET A GUN BECAUSE I'M GAY" or something along those lines. Instead, we like to do this thing where we make it really difficult and painful to get things LEGALLY, so people do it ILLEGALLY instead. It's the same with immigration, drugs, etc.
#134 - anonymous (03/16/2014) [-]
As an American, these laws already sound better than ours regarding guns.
#12 - anonymous (03/16/2014) [-]
Here's the flaw with this. Since criminals dont follow the law, does that mean that everyone who ever robbed a store also has sex with 12 year olds? Cuz, you know, it's illegal to have sex with a 12 year old, but criminals don't follow laws, right?
#74 - anonymous (03/16/2014) [-]
No. The flaw in the argument is that fighting off a criminal is generally desirable. It is not. Even in a society wherein it is reasonable that a shop owner may have a gun in his back pocket, it doesn't stop criminals (who are dumbasses) from attempting violent crimes. The scenario pictured above is amusing and whatnot, but the odds are against this outcome. It is much more likely that in attempting to fight off the robber, the victim and/or bystanders will be shot, armed or not. The best thing to do here is to let the the dumbass have the money, show the footage to the police, and have them throw his ass in jail.
#15 - apurpleliger (03/16/2014) [-]
That's not a flaw in the argument. Guns are tools used in many crimes. If someone is planning on doing something illegal like rape or robbery, they're also probably willing to do something like finding a gun illegally in order to make sure their rape or robbery or whatever goes in their favor.
#110 - anonymous (03/16/2014) [-]
So your solution is to make it more difficult for law-abiding people to exercise their constitutional right, in hopes that it would make it harder for criminals to get guns? Despite the fact that there's no evidence to back up your asspulled theory?
#79 - clannadqs (03/16/2014) [-]
Here is what you are assuming:
- The amount of stolen weapons (majority of illegal weapons now) would remain the same (that would be impossible)
- The prices on illegal weapons (due to having to be imported after a few years due to stolen weapons not being widespread) skyrocketing
- Criminals would have the money to afford said weapons
- Criminals would find it worth it to give up thousands of what they are trying to make (because normally they are poor)
- Petty criminals would have access to said illegal weapons (as in, knowing individuals)
- After a decade it wouldn't be harder to obtain any weapon ,if a weapon ban was enacted, than it would to obtain an illegal automatic weapon now (think how difficult it would be for idiotic thugs to gain access to such a network)
#100 - anonymous (03/16/2014) [-]
That is one of the stupidest, most senseless analogies I've ever read.
Cakes can't be used to kill people, moron, and it's more like a restriction on how much "cake" you can have at one time, and if you can be trusted not to kill people or let your "cake" get stolen.
#16 - apurpleliger (03/16/2014) [-]
Although I do favor gun rights, I do agree with you, there are some people out there that I wouldn't want to see owning guns. I like the background check system that they have in Texas. I was able to walk in to a licensed dealer's shop, get a background check, and walk out with the gun I wanted. I think that a background check to make sure that you aren't a murderer or something of that sort is perfectly reasonable, as long as is does not restrict law-abiding citizens from getting a firearm in a timely manner.
#141 - anonymous (03/16/2014) [-]
What I was saying, was that just because someone's a criminal, it doesn't mean that they ignore every law. Tons of people rob people without a gun, tons of people murder without a gun. But just because someone would rob somone, it doesn't mean they'd rape someone. Stricter gun laws WOULD actually cause less guns in the hands of criminals because there are a lot of criminals that would actually follow that law.
Onto this post. That background check is a start, except there's a point in time where every criminal wasn't a criminal. There's ALWAYS a first crime. They need to be looking at the risk that comes with that person. ALso, the non-criminal gun owners shold have to prove they can responsibly own them, because a lot of gun problems come from kids getting their parents guns that weren't stored the way they were suposed to be. Look at the kid that shot up the school with his mothers gun last year. Most americns just aren't responsible enough for weapons.
#57 - apurpleliger (03/16/2014) [-]
I know that they're already in place. I own a gun. I'm saying that the background check is an example of a good restriction, one that is better than having no restrictions at all. Unless I read alltimetens comment wrong, he was referring to stuff like the background check that makes it harder for criminals to acquire guns legally while not inhibiting on the ability of law-abiding citizens to acquire guns.
#58 - bazda (03/16/2014) [-]
Yeah, I know. The way you said it just made it sound like Texas is the only state with such checks in place. I think there is a lot of ignorance among the public regarding these checks, like anybody can just walk into a gun shop and walk out with a gun. They think we NEED gun control because they have no idea how the system works, probably like the guy you're talking about.
#62 - apurpleliger (03/16/2014) [-]
I was more saying that I liked that Texas's process for buying a gun could be done in a day, whereas in other states it requires waiting periods, which I think are silly. The way I see it, if you can pass the background check, you should be able to get your gun right then. I also like how you don't have to register your firearms in Texas. I like all the freedoms and leeway that Texas gives to gun-owners, but I also like that they do implement a background check, because I think that it does help deter criminals from acquiring firearms. I'm not saying it stops them, but it serves as a decent deterrence because there are probably people who would think that acquiring one illegally is more trouble than it's worth.
#66 - bazda (03/16/2014) [-]
Oh I know all about waiting periods. I live in CA, where we have a 10 day "Cooling off" period before we can pick up a gun, which is hilarious. I think if you're gonna kill someone "in the heat of the moment," as it were, you would use a shovel, or a kitchen knife, or a hammer. You wouldn't drive to your local gun shop, handle several guns, ask a lot of questions, make an informed purchase, and then take it home and shoot someone.
I have no problem with using NICS. I think it's a good system, but in CA, TX, and any other state that borders Mexico, acquiring guns illegally is way too easy with borders that are essentially open. And they got the good stuff, full autos and more, courtesy of your friendly neighborhood ATF.
#39 - konradkurze (03/16/2014) [-]
i saw something on that note in texas
some guy had open carry, went to walmart, someone had a cry to police about the gun...cops turned up, they grill the shit out of him, checked his permit, checked his background....everything....he asked the cops why is he being detaine"....cops just replied "we dont know yet".....he asked what he did wrong, cops said they dont know....he asked if he was free to go...cops said no
they kept going back and forth from their cars to check on him....finally after a while they let him go...but seriously...is this what america is becoming....where citizens can be 100% clean and cops will still detain them
#65 - apurpleliger (03/16/2014) [-]
Not sure you're entirely straight on the facts there, primarily because almost that exact same thing happened where I live over the winter holidays, and secondarily because there aren't any permits needed to open carry a rifle in Texas. Recently there was someone who walked into a mall in Beaumont, TX with a loaded AR-15 strapped to his back. Is this the incident you're referring to? If so, I can tell you for a fact that the man who did it is an idiot. Through a mutual friend on facebook, I ended up talking directly to him, and given the circumstances of the incident, he was way out of line walking through the mall with the rifle on his back. If you want more information or if you want to discuss this I can elaborate.
#68 - konradkurze (03/16/2014) [-]
well this was just a simple 9mm pistol in a holster on the guys hip, just a simple open carry sidearm, like anyone else would have, the guy wasnt acting suspicious, he loked like your average middle class american, but someone still had a whine to police and it went from there
and given the police know hes allowed it, they couldnt find anything on him, and even though he has the legal right to walk away in police have no reason to suspect him, they still detained him
#69 - apurpleliger (03/16/2014) [-]
Then that must not have been in Texas, because open carry of a handgun is explicitly illegal here. Firearms that are not handguns, however, are a different story, but handguns are only allowed to be carried legally if they are concealed and the carrier has a Concealed Carry Permit, or if the carrier is on their own property. So if this was, in fact, in Texas, that man should have been arrested right there.
#41 - thelastamerican (03/16/2014) [-]
Yeah, we call those cops thugs with guns. They're exactly like your average garden variety thugs, except they have badges and the weight of the state/federal government behind their baton/tazer/gun. They outnumber the good cops 4 to 1 easily. But, when you give the average guy that much power after a couple months of training and lecture courses, it's bound to go to their head. They decide they ARE the law, instead of upholding the law.
And I've known some good cops. Some really good cops, don't get me wrong. I don't just mindlessly hate cops for the sake of hating cops. I've just had two or three too many cops tell me in plain English that they actually carry a drop gun. "You know, just in case."
#67 - apurpleliger (03/16/2014) [-]
They're not thugs with guns, they are doing their job of protecting citizens who feel threatened. They let him go, they didn't beat him, they just made sure that they were doing all they could to protect the safety of the people there before they let him walk. Sounds to me like they were doing their job better than if they hadn't at least detained him to make sure that what he was doing was legal. And even then, in Texas it's only legal to open carry in a public place and only if it is done in a non-threatening manner. Firstly, WalMart isn't a public place, and secondly, if someone there feels threatened then he can be arrested if he doesn't put away his gun.
#75 - thelastamerican (03/16/2014) [-]
I really hope you're either young enough to still be in middle school, or troling, or from a country with decent police officers. Also, you have no idea what you're talking about concerning open carry. Just because someone FEELS threatened doesn't mean that they can sic the police on you. It doesn't work that way, and if it did, I would be able to sic the police on you for threatening to drag my IQ down a couple points.
#161 - apurpleliger (03/16/2014) [-]
You think you're the knowledgeable one? I live in Texas, I've specifically looked into this when arguing with some other bimbo about open carry. Open carry, in Texas, is only explicitly outlawed for handguns. Which, in this case, is apparently what the guy was carrying. For firearms other than handguns, such as rifles and shotguns, open carry is not explicitly addressed in the law. However, court cases in Texas have set the precedent that open carry is only allowed as long as it is done in a "non-threatening manner", and only as long as it is in a public place or on your own property. That being said, "non-threatening" has not been defined explicitly either, so basically if anyone calls the police, in Texas, because they feel threatened by someone carrying a rifle or shotgun openly, the police can tell the person to put it away or arrest him if he does not comply. Following on that, there is no way to walk into a crowded place such as a mall or a WalMart with a gun strapped to your back and be "non-threatening".
#81 - clannadqs (03/16/2014) [-]
Yes, it does work that way. They treat every citizen equally and if someone feels threatened they look into the situation. Big fucking deal, the kid was detained for maybe an hour while they looked into him and the situation at hand. Quit thinking about only yourself and imagine what other people think. I carry concealed and I would never think about open carry. It's tactically stupid and will make others worry around you. Just because you know your intentions with that weapon doesn't mean that person behind you in line knows what is going through your head.
#43 - thelastamerican (03/16/2014) [-]
Absolute power corrupts absolutely. I mean think about it. A cop can do anything they want and you can't give them the least bit of shit about it unless you want to have to spend a couple days cleaning your name up. And even after those couple days you've still got a couple more lines on your permanent record regardless of how right you were and how wrong they were.
When law is applied inequitably it is the same as having no law.
#47 - konradkurze (03/16/2014) [-]
ah hell the system is messed up too
i heard of a guy who reported his neightbours having a domestic, he had to give a statement and all....and weeks later he got pulled over for minor speeding, police detained him while they did a check on him because his file was tagged as special interest because he reported that domestic...so he got detained for something not related to the speeding
#83 - clannadqs (03/16/2014) [-]
Your point? Nothing bad came from him being detained in a cop car while they did a quick search on him other than some of his day. Cops are human and most of the time they are simply trying to do their job to the best of their ability. They have terrible pay for what they do and the majority of them aren't PhD holders. I am in the National Guard and I have about five cops in my company and the amount of shit they have to go through each day is astounding. Quit bitching about a VERY small number of events where cops were in the wrong because I could easily point out thousands of cases where cops have saved lives and probably tens of thousands of cases of them dealing with asshole citizens.
#84 - konradkurze (03/16/2014) [-]
now youre just spouting propaganda...the majority of cops are thungs and usa is making a point of militarizing theirs....you ask anyone who served in the middle east...they didnt get hummers armours cars to start with....they got them later...they come home, they see POLICE with the same APCS ....so tell me what part of usa is a warzone?
#88 - clannadqs (03/16/2014) [-]
"Ask anyone who served in the middle east"
I think you entirely jumped over the portion where I said I was in the military. When you deploy the garrison vehicles are not taken with you. This means that all vehicles oversees are armoured. I don't know where the hell you got that from. On to police APCs. You're referring to SWAT vehicles that are rarely used and most counties do not even own these and even then quite a few counties don't even have SWAT. Larger counties will have better vehicles and equipment. That is not a sign of a police state and assuming that makes you mentally handicapped.
#94 - clannadqs (03/16/2014) [-]
So, you're seriously siding with a guy complaining about state police having 7.62 plating and a few state funded APCs? Since when have police not had bulletproof vests? Since when have State Police not had helmets in their arsenal? Since when has SWAT/State police not had armoured vehicles in their arsenal? Your entire argument is a logical fallacy that goes by the name of slippery slope.
#95 - konradkurze (03/16/2014) [-]
well why do police need stuff capable of protecting against military issue weapons....aside from the south states that have issues with hispanic drug cartels, the rest of usa doesnt usually see heavy stuff so what are they protecting against
and the issue whats the purpose of SWAT if the regular police have military gear, unless theyre gonna gear up all police to the paramilitary training swat have
#96 - clannadqs (03/16/2014) [-]
1. Because in some situations a typical cop car can't safely get personnel to a location
That's like saying "Lol, why does the US military need that great of an air force? Why not just match the rest of the world and call it quits?" You even said it yourself," The rest of the states USUALLY..."
2. Increase in state funding produces better gear for cops. They want them to be as geared as possible. It's better to go into any situation overgeared than undergeared.
#97 - konradkurze (03/16/2014) [-]
so in other words instead of police calling swat lets just have all police able to mobilise armor like their soldiers in a warzone
and usa wouldnt be a warzone if lawyers and courts would actually deal with crime in the first place instead of giving obvious problems second chances
usa is letting its own crime issues get out of control and all the while scaling up how much hardware police need just to balance out with it, but in the meantime the militarized police are being brutal towards lower case criminals too, or people who arent even committing crimes but they just want to grill someone because they can
#10 - anonymous (03/16/2014) [-]
What restrictions? Let's for example not have Women Have guns... Or maybe not have people under 27 have guns ... Or or maybe Not have People above 65 have guns.
Or simply battle the illegal gun ownership AIGTH? AM I RIGHT?
If all the idiocy about LEgal Guns is stopped and instead all of this energy is put towards illegal gun ownership there would be less crimes.
#164 - apurpleliger (03/16/2014) [-]
You must be in a crappy state for gun rights then. Here's the process I went through to get a semi-automatic rifle in Texas:
>Be at least 18.
>Find a licensed dealer selling the rifle I wanted.
>Go to that dealer's place of business.
>Tell him which rifle I wanted.
>Let him run a background check on me.
>Pay him for the rifle.
>Leave the store with the rifle.
Here's the process to get a concealed carry in Texas:
>Be at least 21.
>Sign up for a Concealed Carry class.
>Go to said class. Literally a four-hour long class.
>Pass the class.
>Fill out paperwork, get your thumbprints put into the system.
>Wait for your license to come in through the mail.
I'll agree that there are states with way too many restrictions, but there are plenty states with very minimal and reasonable restrictions.
#167 - sventrain (03/16/2014) [-]
#170 - apurpleliger (03/17/2014) [-]
There aren't any limits to magazines in Texas, except maybe in handguns. I'm not very familiar with handguns, but my rifle came with a 25 round magazine. As far as I know there aren't bans on polymer stocks, and the only ammo regulations are outlawing especially brutal or dangerous types of ammunition. Ones that aren't used for hunting or for sport. I'm not sure what you define as scurry looking guns, but even the more dangerous guns such as .50 caliber rifles can be purchased in Texas, albeit after getting a special license.
To be honest in Texas it's far easier to buy a gun than a car, and until that changes it's unreasonable, in my opinion, to say that there are excessive restrictions.
#173 - sventrain (03/17/2014) [-]
People keeping pushing ban legislation of rifles that look like machine guns. Like AR15s, AK47s, PKMs, Mac10s, and MP5s. That's what I mean by scurry looking guns. Also, Texas isn't the focus of those comments. Places like New York where guns are being confiscated due to magazine restriction. Every state has different gun laws and the point is that people try to push legislation on shit they don't know about. Anti-gunners don't know shit about guns. They'd ban .223 chambered rifles and think that would get rid of all AR15 and M4 pattern rifles.
#78 - clannadqs (03/16/2014) [-]
No there isn't. I have no paperwork on my weapon, had it given to me as a gift underage, and can legally conceal carry without a permit because I am in the military. Wow, you have to have a background check and wait a few months for a CCW? That's some massive restrictions right there.
|#19 - oh.. I think we all prefer starfire.. [+] (7 new replies)||03/02/2014 on I prefer Starfire||+33|
|#35 - Old Simpsons Was Best Simpsons||02/23/2014 on Daddily Doodily||+4|
|#110 - I liked a lot of fillers, that 5 episode "Power" fil…||02/13/2014 on More than 15...||+1|
|#10 - Picture||02/11/2014 on mfw 1st time discover...||+3|
|#19 - I can't think of the appropriate words to describe how much th…||02/08/2014 on The Sneezing Dead||+4|
|#24 - >The Egyptian Mau >Egyptian Mau >Mau … [+] (4 new replies)||02/01/2014 on Cat Facts||+57|
#55 - anonymous (02/01/2014) [-]
The Chinese word for cat is mao. It pretty much sounds like, "Mow!"
|#69 - implying he writes his own music||01/26/2014 on wat||0|
|#7 - yeah||01/25/2014 on Monopoly Nigga||0|
|#13 - As worn out as this saying is, I really do hope he wins the os…||01/25/2014 on An old one||0|
|#66 - Comment deleted [+] (3 new replies)||01/24/2014 on Mugshot||+2|
|#17 - "Anon here" implying anyone gives a …||01/22/2014 on Who do we have here?||0|
|#9 - it's probably happened more than once..||01/22/2014 on We all have that one friend||-1|
|#29 - best photo i've ever taken, a guy bought it for 6 dollars and … [+] (1 new reply)||01/17/2014 on #Selfie||+119|
|#16 - Yeah, that'll show 'em..||01/16/2014 on (untitled)||+9|
|#9 - oh||01/15/2014 on mama, oooOOOO||+12|
|#6 - why would you ring your own doorbell [+] (2 new replies)||01/14/2014 on mama, oooOOOO||+8|
|#21 - Why hasn't did you know gaming put up anything new since befor…||01/14/2014 on Did You Know Gaming Fallout...||0|
|#36 - Picture||01/14/2014 on Sad title||+27|
|#21 - I've got an Xbox one and my room mate has the PS4, they're bot… [+] (1 new reply)||01/12/2014 on PS4vsXbox one||+12|
#42 - xgrandmoffx (01/13/2014) [-]
The awesome thing about PC is that it accepts a wide variety of controllers. I disagree with your statement that Xbox One is more practical because while it adds a new way to get to TV and apps and shit, the TV and the apps are still the same, so it's another $100 for a different input device which doesn't add to the content.
|#71 - Picture [+] (1 new reply)||01/12/2014 on Probably Not||+5|
#75 - anonymous (01/12/2014) [-]
Wow, cant thumb you enough.
|#8 - They are||01/11/2014 on in||+17|
|#37 - There is no question about it, women these days heavily depend…||01/07/2014 on The Power Of MakeUp||0|