Savannah?? (left 4 dead 2 :D)

:D my day? It is made now.

That's the same as saying the Beatles are European.

I tried to ignore her presence for as long as possible.

Was she a child star?

.....aw man.....

He's Canadian. But nice try!

Canada is part of the American continent. But nice try!

That's the same as saying the Beatles are European.

Whats the speech from?

when or what is this from??

What speech was this from?

So your conclusion is that meth and cocaine should be legalized?

But it's much harder for both criminals and the standard man to get.

It says that you can fucking make meth and cocaine. The average person wouldn't have the slightest clue as to how to build a gun. And don't even say "oh they could just buy it off the black market" because how many people really know how to buy things off the black market? And how is it going to get shipped? You can't hide a gun as well as you can hide a bag of cocaine. You know how many people Adam Lanza and James Holmes would have killed if they were using a bolt action rifle or a shotgun that hold 3-5 shells instead of a fully automatic one that holds 40 rounds? Not nearly as many as they did. Why wouldn't we at least try to reduce the amount of people that have assault rifles?

Alright i'm reading through you're little paragraph here, you're welcome.

1. The average person wouldn't have the slightest clue as to HOW TO MAKE FUCKING METH AND COCAINE.
2. The amount of people that really know how to buy things off the black market hmmmm... I would guess the same amount of people that are dangerous to our society.
3. lol this nigga, how is it gonna get shipped? Fucking shitting me? Like that's their biggest worry, the motherfucking shipping and handling.
4. People smuggle carloads of cocain into the US, you really think that guns will be that hard.
5. No I don't know how many people they would've killed if they were using a bolt action rifle or a shotgun and neither do you. You're so retarded what a great fucking point.
6. Not nearly as many as they did, yeah sure in an alternate universe they probably wouldve had years of sword training and slain the entire movie theater with a butter knife. You're so fucking terrible at coming up with good points.
7. We fucking have tried reducing the amount of people that have assault rifles. There are plenty of regulations on owning a gun. Why don't you take Australia for example, after they outlawed having a gun for reasons other than hunting, homicide and robbery rate increased.

1. Then how do retards in trailer parks have meth labs? You can google that kind of shit.
2. It's not like you can just got to [url deleted] and ask to buy an assault rifle. And I'm sure it would be expensive as fuck
3. You'd almost have to personally deliver them, which would lower the chances of getting them.
4. Cocaine is a little easier to hide than guns.
5. So you're saying a bolt action rifle wouldn't take more time to fire than a semi auto gun? You've obviously never shot a gun.
6. What the fuck are you talking about?
7. So we just shouldn't even try to fix it?

1. That just proves my point that any civilian can make a gun just like they can make meth.
2. yeah drugs aren't cheap either
3. Since it's not cheap, the person selling it to you would hire someone to transport it to you.
4. yes but if you can smuggle in a car full of cocaine, you can smuggle in a car full of anything else
5. I'm saying that you can't determine what would've happened if you changed his weapon because YOU JUST DON'T KNOW and therefore it's not a valid argument.
6. You said "not nearly as many as they did" as an answer to how many people would've died if the killers didn't have automatic weapons and I used the same argument you're using and told you a story of an alternate universe where changing the man's weapon to a knife resulted in him killing everyone in the theater.
7. Well hmmm... I've tried to keep my whole argument unbiased but you asked me for my opinion so here it is: I don't think that we should take guns away from people. You're just taking them away from the good guys, not the bad guys. Also, taking away stuff that people are used to just pisses them off. It would be best to let people keep their guns and the amount of bullets they want in it, but in return they have to show that they can properly use that gun and go through a mental health screening of some sort.

1. Absolutely not. Making a substance is a little different than putting together a machine. You wouldn't be able to go to the store and buy a firing mechanism like you could buy an ingredient for meth,
2. I think guns might be a little bigger deal then drugs, so they'd be more expensive
3. Which would add to the cost.
4. I don't think it's as easy as that.
5. Ever heard of a mass shooting with a .22? Me neither, because it would be far less efficient.
6. I still don't understand. You honestly think him not using an assault rifle wouldn't result in less deaths?
7. I agree on hundred percent. If there isn't a gun ban I would love to see something like what you described. The only problem is figuring out how to prove you won't use the gun to murder.

1. look up how to make a firing mechanism out of what you could buy? you kidding me?
2. think of the volume of a gun and then think of the equal amount in cocaine. Honestly I have no idea how much cocaine or an illegal gun would cost so I can't make this argument but neither can you yet you still try.
3. The cost would be included. getting the item to the costumer is part of what makes illegal substances so expensive.
4. Man think of a fucking box holding a bunch of guns, now think of the same fucking box full of cocaine. You're smuggling the same fucking box just filled with different stuff.
5. I am just completely baffled that you think that is a legitimate argument.
6. I'm saying you just don't know because it is a hypothetical situation. If he had a semi-automatic pistol then maybe he would've been more accurate with his shots and killed more people, you just don't know.
7. See now that's the thing that makes people despise guns so much and make completely retarded arguments about why guns should be banned. Sane people don't use the gun to murder, they use the gun as self defense and for sport. (You're sleeping in bed with your wife and you got 2 kids in the room next door and you hear a loud noise. You know that there is an intruder in your home. You grab your gun, find the intruder, and then you shoot him.) Yes you just killed a man in pretty much a heartbeat but was it really unfair? Would it have been more fair for you to go at it with this intruder with a knife or fists and risk him killing you and then your family?

You have your beliefs and I have mine. I agree with some of what your saying about the way we go about who we sell guns to but I disagree with some of your points as well. There are obviously things I am uneducated about and that's why I'm on funnyjunk instead of being a part of congress. I will vote for what I think is right and you can do the same, that's about all we can do. I'm not going to keep this going any longer. There's no point. Good debate.

Likewise but honestly my point throughout this whole thing is that you can't just make up a correlation between one thing and another. There has to be facts backing up reasoning.

Agreed. There's no proof to show that a gun ban would be bad though either. People are always going to have different opinions on everything

a gun isn't really that hard to make dude, sorry

He didn't have a fully automatic rifle. It was a semi automatic rifle.

Adam Lanza did but they aren't sure if Holmes' were semi auto or not. Either way, a semi auto still shoots a hell of a lot faster than a bolt action. It only takes one bullet to kill, and they had 40 and could fire as fast as they wanted. Do you not see a problem with that?

And if the adult victims were allowed to have handguns then they could have shot the shooter and defended themselves. Outlawing guns just makes it easier for criminals to do what they want. Lets take Columbine for example. That shooting happened in a gun free town and what happened? So mentally unstable kids got a hold of guns and killed people. Washington D.C. No guns allowed yet gun violence still happens. Why punish people who have never broken the law for what the criminals do?

It's just my belief that we should try to eliminate as many guns as possible because I think that's better than doing nothing, if you don't see it that way then that's your opinion.

I see your point but removing our ability to defend ourselves won't solve anything. Upping the punishment for those who use a firearm to break the law would be more effective. Having law abiding citizens have guns to protect themselves will make criminals think before committing said crime. For example, let's say I'm a criminal and I see a person walking down the street, I want to rob him. Since guns are outlawed I know he's unarmed so I have no fear. I rob him. Now what if guns were okay to have? Same situation, I want to rob him, wait, he may have a gun on him, better not risk it. I can list more scenarios but you get the gist.

tl;dr See the argument from the other point of view before speaking. (no insult intended)

That's the best argument I've heard. I just think that somebody crazy enough to kill dozens of people isn't exactly worried about punishment. But I understand your point about the robbing thing. I think that if there isn't a total ban there definitely needs to be a better way to determine who we sell guns to.

Well the punishment idea goes more toward petty criminals not the psycho killers. Think of it this way. I walk into a room with 10 people inside and pull a gun and open fire, they will die before police arrive. Why? Nobody has a gun to stop me. Same scenario but 3 people have guns. I pull out my gun and open fire but those 3 people pull out their guns and shoot me down. Albeit some people may be dead or wounded but I was stopped from killing them all. It's bad that I shot up the place but I was stopped before I killed them all. How was I stopped? With a gun, not some paragraph on a piece of paper with a fancy signature.

Yes I understand that and to a point I agree, but how are we to trust those 3 with guns? They could end up being psycho killers too.

With that logic we shoot wiretap everyone's phones cause they might be terrorists. Actually why do that? Lets put everyone in jail cause they all might be criminals! Also lets take away all cars cause people might run over someone else! etc etc etc...

Valid point. I guess I'm just not a very trusting person.

Neither am I, but you have to mix morals and logic so we can reach the best possible outcome. Pure logic might be most effective but morally wrong likewise when it's reversed. Balanced is the way to go.

You can't cook up a batch of AK-47

You sound like a terrorist.

you could use that argument to legalize anything, "Lets make it illegal for people to (insert crime), what there are people that do it anyway? well i guess there is no point in making a law if there are people that are going to do it anyway."