x
Click to expand

lilnuggetbob

Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Gender: male
Consoles Owned: PC
Video Games Played: Garry's mod, Arma 2 OA, War thunder
X-box Gamertag: Xbox? More like x-gay
Interests: Your mom, dicks, gayness, dragon dildos
Date Signed Up:3/22/2012
Last Login:3/04/2015
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Content Ranking:#12523
Comment Ranking:#1983
Highest Content Rank:#1236
Highest Comment Rank:#1076
Content Thumbs: 10706 total,  12239 ,  1533
Comment Thumbs: 6914 total,  8711 ,  1797
Content Level Progress: 8% (8/100)
Level 204 Content: Comedic Genius → Level 205 Content: Comedic Genius
Comment Level Progress: 51% (51/100)
Level 262 Comments: Pure Win → Level 263 Comments: Pure Win
Subscribers:2
Content Views:406577
Times Content Favorited:788 times
Total Comments Made:2925
FJ Points:7752
Favorite Tags: 4Chan (3) | comp (3) | to (3) | 4 (2) | a (2) | bad (2) | chan (2) | Cute (2) | funny (2) | gmod (2) | How (2) | humor (2) | is (2) | k (2) | Russian (2) | tags (2) | Tank (2) | the (2) | Time (2) | WTF (2)

latest user's comments

#31 - Picture 12/29/2014 on murica +1
#30 - Picture 12/29/2014 on murica +1
#29 - Picture  [+] (1 new reply) 12/29/2014 on murica +1
User avatar #148 - heartlessrobot (12/30/2014) [-]
Butthurt eurofag anon thumbed you down.
#28 - Picture  [+] (12 new replies) 12/29/2014 on murica +1
#316 - anonexplains (12/30/2014) [-]
Except nothing you have posted has any truth or facts behind it you lying sack of shit.
#36 - lilnuggetbob (12/29/2014) [-]
#35 - lilnuggetbob (12/29/2014) [-]
#34 - lilnuggetbob (12/29/2014) [-]
#33 - lilnuggetbob (12/29/2014) [-]
#32 - lilnuggetbob (12/29/2014) [-]
#31 - lilnuggetbob (12/29/2014) [-]
#30 - lilnuggetbob (12/29/2014) [-]
#29 - lilnuggetbob (12/29/2014) [-]
User avatar #148 - heartlessrobot (12/30/2014) [-]
Butthurt eurofag anon thumbed you down.
#122 - How would that still stop like any crime? Citation ne… 12/29/2014 on Anti-gunnerz be like 0
#103 - Yes, thank you for correcting me. BTW i ****** … 12/29/2014 on Anti-gunnerz be like 0
#54 - "The point was, if you were unable to carry your father's…  [+] (3 new replies) 12/29/2014 on Anti-gunnerz be like 0
#117 - newall (12/29/2014) [-]
Again, no, he wouldn't. Notice I said carry? as in publicly. Private property is exempt from laws such as that already.

Really, and how would that happen? Despite what the NRA will tell you, you aren't more likely to be shot to death if you don't carry a gun.

Exactly. But people carrying guns into school property to shoot 30+ kids usually aren't concerned with that. Armed guards and proper checks could at least prevent this.

How much later? after you've already bought, and "lost" the gun? The weapons come from somewhere, they aren't built in people's gardens. Sure, many are smuggled in, but I doubt smuggled guns are the majority of weapons involved in firearms offences.
User avatar #122 - lilnuggetbob (12/29/2014) [-]
How would that still stop like any crime?

Citation needed

Exacly, none of these laws you propose would reduce mass shootings.

I stated it incorrectly, thelastamerican explained it much better, ill just quote him.
"They do a cursory check that takes about 10 minutes, and send your information off to the FBI. If you fail either of these, you don't get to buy your gun. That's not a state law, it's a federal mandate. Store owners MUST do this. And there is no question that you'll get in trouble. If they've got you on a minor drug charge you'll be summoned, but if you have anything even minor that looks like a violent crime, you had better be prepared to have a visit from the SWAT team."
User avatar #96 - thelastamerican (12/29/2014) [-]
They do a cursory check that takes about 10 minutes, and send your information off to the FBI. If you fail either of these, you don't get to buy your gun. That's not a state law, it's a federal mandate. Store owners MUST do this. And there is no question that you'll get in trouble. If they've got you on a minor drug charge you'll be summoned, but if you have anything even minor that looks like a violent crime, you had better be prepared to have a visit from the SWAT team.
#51 - Also forgot to add, if you purchase a firearm online they do a…  [+] (2 new replies) 12/29/2014 on Anti-gunnerz be like 0
User avatar #93 - thelastamerican (12/29/2014) [-]
Guns you order on line need to be sent to an FFL dealer. The post office isn't. (Or, mine isn't more accurately) To get an FFL you need to have the government crawl up your ass and look around with a 10,000 candle power floodlight. If they find any shit you're passed up for the licence. It's very hard to get an FFL, and most people don't have the cash for the process.
User avatar #103 - lilnuggetbob (12/29/2014) [-]
Yes, thank you for correcting me.
BTW i fucked up when i said post office, i meant to say a nearby gun store owner.
#49 - A: Already exists B: What would define "severe mental…  [+] (5 new replies) 12/29/2014 on Anti-gunnerz be like 0
#53 - newall (12/29/2014) [-]
The point was, if you were unable to carry your father's gun legally, or purchase your own due to a failed background check, it would become that much more difficult to get your hands on a firearm. This would, at the least, stop a percentage of school shootings from ever occurring.

Although a large amount of what is mentioned in that video is true, the part mentioned, about criminals illegally purchasing weapons through various means is directed at career criminals. Making it illegal for someone with, for example, violent Schizophrenia, or a history of violent crime, to ever own a gun, would make it more likely for people planning on executing a spree-style event, to be caught beforehand.

The part about the law not being simple because it is 18 pages is asinine. Laws must go into the minutia of detail, to prevent loopholes.
With regards to the legality of handing someone a gun, on private property, that's juts straight up horse shit. You can legally allow the use of a firearm anywhere on private property, so long as the weapon does not leave the property in the hands of anyone other than the owner.

And yes, background checks do exist, but making them more stringent could not possibly hurt.

Also, as far as I know, the vast majority of gun sales still occur in person, specifically because of those checks, I'd imagine. It's easier to pick a gun up from a gun shop, than it is to pay your phone bill over the phone.

Even if ONE school shooting is prevented by these measures, what if that ONE is the next sandy hook? what if 28 people aren't killed.

I agree that gun-free zones are retarded. At the very least armed guards would make more sense. "you're not allowed a gun in here, but if you have one, we literally have no way of stopping you"
Though having seen the piss-poor training even the police are given, I'd hope it would be more in-depth training for these guards.
User avatar #54 - lilnuggetbob (12/29/2014) [-]
"The point was, if you were unable to carry your father's gun legally"
What if there is a kid (for this example ill say he's 15) that hears a criminal breaking into his home, so he grabs his fathers shotgun/rifle/handgun and shoots the criminal
Under your suggested law, he would be a criminal for using a gun that was not his in self defence, most likely ruining his life because he tried to defend it from a criminal.


Yes, backround checks might save people from one mass shooting that COULD save 20 or more people, however, more people might end up getting fucked over, and killed because of it.

I'm pretty sure its a felony to bring a gun onto school property anyways.

Also when you are purchasing a gun from a gun store, you normally have to write down stuff like "Are you a criminal?" and, if the gun dealer later finds out you lied on that, you can get in trouble.
#117 - newall (12/29/2014) [-]
Again, no, he wouldn't. Notice I said carry? as in publicly. Private property is exempt from laws such as that already.

Really, and how would that happen? Despite what the NRA will tell you, you aren't more likely to be shot to death if you don't carry a gun.

Exactly. But people carrying guns into school property to shoot 30+ kids usually aren't concerned with that. Armed guards and proper checks could at least prevent this.

How much later? after you've already bought, and "lost" the gun? The weapons come from somewhere, they aren't built in people's gardens. Sure, many are smuggled in, but I doubt smuggled guns are the majority of weapons involved in firearms offences.
User avatar #122 - lilnuggetbob (12/29/2014) [-]
How would that still stop like any crime?

Citation needed

Exacly, none of these laws you propose would reduce mass shootings.

I stated it incorrectly, thelastamerican explained it much better, ill just quote him.
"They do a cursory check that takes about 10 minutes, and send your information off to the FBI. If you fail either of these, you don't get to buy your gun. That's not a state law, it's a federal mandate. Store owners MUST do this. And there is no question that you'll get in trouble. If they've got you on a minor drug charge you'll be summoned, but if you have anything even minor that looks like a violent crime, you had better be prepared to have a visit from the SWAT team."
User avatar #96 - thelastamerican (12/29/2014) [-]
They do a cursory check that takes about 10 minutes, and send your information off to the FBI. If you fail either of these, you don't get to buy your gun. That's not a state law, it's a federal mandate. Store owners MUST do this. And there is no question that you'll get in trouble. If they've got you on a minor drug charge you'll be summoned, but if you have anything even minor that looks like a violent crime, you had better be prepared to have a visit from the SWAT team.
#45 - How would backround checks have of stopped almost any of the s…  [+] (10 new replies) 12/29/2014 on Anti-gunnerz be like 0
#46 - newall (12/29/2014) [-]
From my understanding, Gun free zone means you aren't allowed to enter with a weapon.
If you, for example, shoot the unarmed guards, then walk through the checkpoint, you have bypassed the gun free zone.

Also, thats ONE entire school that hasnt been shot. Perhaps that's worth doing?
And no, background checks on firearms would prevent people with A: violent criminal records and B: A history of severe mental illness being able to purchase guns, alongside the fact that it would become illegal to carry a gun registered to someone else, even in an open-carry state.

All weapons used in the Sandy-Hook, and in-fact most, school shootings, are usually legally purchased, and owned.
User avatar #51 - lilnuggetbob (12/29/2014) [-]
Also forgot to add, if you purchase a firearm online they do automatic backround checks while sending the gun to a post office (Unless you have a Federal Firearms License, you can not get one sent to your door.)
User avatar #93 - thelastamerican (12/29/2014) [-]
Guns you order on line need to be sent to an FFL dealer. The post office isn't. (Or, mine isn't more accurately) To get an FFL you need to have the government crawl up your ass and look around with a 10,000 candle power floodlight. If they find any shit you're passed up for the licence. It's very hard to get an FFL, and most people don't have the cash for the process.
User avatar #103 - lilnuggetbob (12/29/2014) [-]
Yes, thank you for correcting me.
BTW i fucked up when i said post office, i meant to say a nearby gun store owner.
User avatar #49 - lilnuggetbob (12/29/2014) [-]
A: Already exists
B: What would define "severe mental illness"?

"alongside the fact that it would become illegal to carry a gun registered to someone else, even in an open-carry state. " Bad idea, explained here:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IN9GiyRzKI

All weapons used in the Sandy-Hook, and in-fact most, school shootings, are usually legally purchased, and owned.
Exactly, backround checks would not have of stopped any of them.
#53 - newall (12/29/2014) [-]
The point was, if you were unable to carry your father's gun legally, or purchase your own due to a failed background check, it would become that much more difficult to get your hands on a firearm. This would, at the least, stop a percentage of school shootings from ever occurring.

Although a large amount of what is mentioned in that video is true, the part mentioned, about criminals illegally purchasing weapons through various means is directed at career criminals. Making it illegal for someone with, for example, violent Schizophrenia, or a history of violent crime, to ever own a gun, would make it more likely for people planning on executing a spree-style event, to be caught beforehand.

The part about the law not being simple because it is 18 pages is asinine. Laws must go into the minutia of detail, to prevent loopholes.
With regards to the legality of handing someone a gun, on private property, that's juts straight up horse shit. You can legally allow the use of a firearm anywhere on private property, so long as the weapon does not leave the property in the hands of anyone other than the owner.

And yes, background checks do exist, but making them more stringent could not possibly hurt.

Also, as far as I know, the vast majority of gun sales still occur in person, specifically because of those checks, I'd imagine. It's easier to pick a gun up from a gun shop, than it is to pay your phone bill over the phone.

Even if ONE school shooting is prevented by these measures, what if that ONE is the next sandy hook? what if 28 people aren't killed.

I agree that gun-free zones are retarded. At the very least armed guards would make more sense. "you're not allowed a gun in here, but if you have one, we literally have no way of stopping you"
Though having seen the piss-poor training even the police are given, I'd hope it would be more in-depth training for these guards.
User avatar #54 - lilnuggetbob (12/29/2014) [-]
"The point was, if you were unable to carry your father's gun legally"
What if there is a kid (for this example ill say he's 15) that hears a criminal breaking into his home, so he grabs his fathers shotgun/rifle/handgun and shoots the criminal
Under your suggested law, he would be a criminal for using a gun that was not his in self defence, most likely ruining his life because he tried to defend it from a criminal.


Yes, backround checks might save people from one mass shooting that COULD save 20 or more people, however, more people might end up getting fucked over, and killed because of it.

I'm pretty sure its a felony to bring a gun onto school property anyways.

Also when you are purchasing a gun from a gun store, you normally have to write down stuff like "Are you a criminal?" and, if the gun dealer later finds out you lied on that, you can get in trouble.
#117 - newall (12/29/2014) [-]
Again, no, he wouldn't. Notice I said carry? as in publicly. Private property is exempt from laws such as that already.

Really, and how would that happen? Despite what the NRA will tell you, you aren't more likely to be shot to death if you don't carry a gun.

Exactly. But people carrying guns into school property to shoot 30+ kids usually aren't concerned with that. Armed guards and proper checks could at least prevent this.

How much later? after you've already bought, and "lost" the gun? The weapons come from somewhere, they aren't built in people's gardens. Sure, many are smuggled in, but I doubt smuggled guns are the majority of weapons involved in firearms offences.
User avatar #122 - lilnuggetbob (12/29/2014) [-]
How would that still stop like any crime?

Citation needed

Exacly, none of these laws you propose would reduce mass shootings.

I stated it incorrectly, thelastamerican explained it much better, ill just quote him.
"They do a cursory check that takes about 10 minutes, and send your information off to the FBI. If you fail either of these, you don't get to buy your gun. That's not a state law, it's a federal mandate. Store owners MUST do this. And there is no question that you'll get in trouble. If they've got you on a minor drug charge you'll be summoned, but if you have anything even minor that looks like a violent crime, you had better be prepared to have a visit from the SWAT team."
User avatar #96 - thelastamerican (12/29/2014) [-]
They do a cursory check that takes about 10 minutes, and send your information off to the FBI. If you fail either of these, you don't get to buy your gun. That's not a state law, it's a federal mandate. Store owners MUST do this. And there is no question that you'll get in trouble. If they've got you on a minor drug charge you'll be summoned, but if you have anything even minor that looks like a violent crime, you had better be prepared to have a visit from the SWAT team.
#1 - I love inspect element.  [+] (1 new reply) 12/29/2014 on Gotta go faster -1
#2 - anonexplains (12/30/2014) [-]
Or you know... you can edit Wikipedia articles
#9 - Its sarcastic humor..... 12/29/2014 on Musiczz +1
#42 - Its making fun of people who hate guns and use terms like &quo…  [+] (1 new reply) 12/29/2014 on Anti-gunnerz be like +9
#156 - anonexplains (12/29/2014) [-]
''Hate guns''

Or just have a different opinion.
#37 - all of the links 12/29/2014 on Anti-gunnerz be like +1
#36 - Picture 12/29/2014 on Anti-gunnerz be like +1
#35 - Picture 12/29/2014 on Anti-gunnerz be like +1
#34 - Picture 12/29/2014 on Anti-gunnerz be like +1
#33 - Picture 12/29/2014 on Anti-gunnerz be like +1
#31 - Picture 12/29/2014 on Anti-gunnerz be like 0
#30 - Picture 12/29/2014 on Anti-gunnerz be like 0
#29 - Picture 12/29/2014 on Anti-gunnerz be like 0
#28 - Picture 12/29/2014 on Anti-gunnerz be like 0
#27 - Due to the gun debate in all the comments imma do this again.  [+] (37 new replies) 12/29/2014 on Anti-gunnerz be like +7
#44 - newall (12/29/2014) [-]
Although this may be true, School shootings in america are up, whereas everywhere else in the world, they are down.

In the 12 months following sandy hook, there were almost 60 school shootings.

I'm not anti-gun. I believe guns SHOULD be legal.
But I, along with the rest of the western world, will never understand why you guys blocked a bill to mandate background checks before gun sales.

Pic related.
User avatar #142 - durkadurka (12/29/2014) [-]
We pretty much already got them.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Instant_Criminal_Background_Check_System
www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics

I'll be honest, I'm not entirely sure what that bill was advocating that we don't already do.

I went to buy a shotgun recently. I went to the store and made my selection. Then I had to fill out several forms and they told me that they'd call me once the background check cleared. I paid and left (without the gun of course). They called me a few days later and let me know I was cleared and could come pick my gun up.
It was simple and not too inconvenient. I have no problem with a system that proves to the seller I am and who I say and can own the weapon.

Because school shootings are up while overall gun crime is down, I think the problem is clearly related to what's going on inside the heads of these killers. They always seem to be lonely/depressed/mentality unstable and ignored. It's clearly a very patterned occurrence that we really haven't devoted enough attention to.

Also, I'm curious as to where you get the 60 shootings number. From what I've researched, some of the numbers are very misleading. For example, I remember that one statistic counted any sort of firearm discharge on school grounds as a "school shooting". This ended up counting circumstances such as after-hours drug deals on school grounds and other things that are not even close to Sandy Hook.

Anyway, props on the civil tone. It's great to discussions on here that don't devolve into shit-slinging.
User avatar #91 - thelastamerican (12/29/2014) [-]
We ALREADY have a background check system. I don't understand why everyone is so pissed off about the new bill that was a copy of a law already in place.
#99 - anonexplains (12/29/2014) [-]
Because it wasn't a copy, it was an expansion. An expansion that people who expressly want to take away gun rights helped write. An expansion on a law that many people who would be targeted by it believe is as pointless as the prohibition.

Don't get me wrong, if I thought it would actually help I would totally support it, but I strongly believe it's another "feel good" law that only give people the illusion of safety.
User avatar #101 - thelastamerican (12/29/2014) [-]
I read the bill. It's just a compilation of the same language moved around some. That's why it got no attention from anyone who was serious about writing legislation.
User avatar #67 - dorfdorfdorf (12/29/2014) [-]
to which bill are you referring?
#48 - anonexplains (12/29/2014) [-]
They happen because of the media. They play every detail about the shooter over and over for the next 2 months so mentally deranged person that believes they have something important to say know all they have to do is start shooting and they will get all the attention they want. The solution to this problem is to localize coverage to the effected community, don't talk about the shooter, don't mention his name or message, his details, anything. When they no longer receive attention, they don't see this as a viable option to spread their message. Just like that rich kid that shot the girls that didn't like him, he left a youtube video, and the guy before that who did the weird joker persona prior to the shooting. This is also why they occur shortly after other shootings rather than long term. Also, we already have background checks before gun sales. It was rejected because most shooters have no prior records, a background check would be ineffective. The others just stole the guns used.
#50 - newall (12/29/2014) [-]
I agree. The shooters should not get any attention. Just as the terrorist from the recent Incident in Sidney should have got 0 coverage, but news outlets played his message over and over, giving him exactly what he wanted.

Yes, there are background checks, in some states, this would make it a federal mandate, requiring it in ALL states, and also making the checks more complete. There is no harm in more severe checks.
#55 - anonexplains (12/29/2014) [-]
Background checks are in every state as per requirements of the BATFE. Any and every gun shop you go to will require this or face severe prosecution and revocation of their FFL as well as 10 years mandatory minimum sentencing in a federal prison. There is in fact harm in more severe checks because the only way to increase severity of checks would be to delve into mental evaluation. This would not help as most(if not all) these shooters you see have no mental health records either. The ones such as Adam Lanza that did, he just stole the weapon used from his mother who was mentally fit and in legal ownership of the used firearms, I believe the rich kid previously mentioned also stole his fathers weapon(going off memory so may be wrong). So ultimately, more severe checks would basically require every American citizen to go through a mental evaluation at some point in their life to be effective. Enacting and enforcing a policy like this would be overwhelmingly expensive. hang on char limit
#56 - anonexplains (12/29/2014) [-]
Part 2: Next issue with this is the fact that somebody will have to determine what is and is not a definition of mentally fit. Humans are like snowflakes, no two people are exactly alike, and to come up with a standard of determining who is and is not mentally fit is impossible, like the rich kid who seemed perfectly fine prior to shooting. Next, because nobody has any way of reading the mind of the person being mentally evaluated, when the psychiatrist asks if everything is alright, he could easily just lie and say "I'm great and I love life, everything is wonderful!" just to pass the evaluation. Because the psychiatrist would have go off only what he sees, not knowing much or any of the persons life experience makes this determination impossible to be accurate. Then finally you have a risk of a psychiatrist who is vehemently anti-gun who will mark someone as unfit regardless. AND say this system was successfully implemented... hang on part 3 coming
#57 - anonexplains (12/29/2014) [-]
Finally, if this system was in place, you still cannot prevent the acquisition of firearms as you not only have smugglers such as the Mexican cartels who are PARTNERED with the BATFE leaking information of the other cartels to them in exchange for allowing their drugs and weapons to come into the country, then you have failed operations such as Fast and Furious( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATF_gunwalking_scandal ) PURPOSELY causing illegally owned weapons to leak into the public, on top of this you have corrupt officials like Leland Yee smuggling weapons ( www.mercurynews.com/crime-courts/ci_26923497/leland-yee-racketeering-case-put-fast-track-trial ), then you have petty smugglers such as the recent case of ( gothamist.com/2014/12/23/delta_baggage_handler_arrested_for.php ) who all provide weapons, all illegally acquired to individuals such as this ( www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5MGJ87hPGw ) who continue to use and sell these weapons. So no matter, a gun can be gotten.
#59 - anonexplains (12/29/2014) [-]
Forgot the partnership link: www.globalresearch.ca/u-s-government-and-mexican-cartel-partners-in-drug-plot/5371143

Also from personal experience, I've seen how easy it is to buy a gun in the ghetto. I was riding with my weed guy before and actually had a crack head come up and offer us a revolver for $40. Right there in a shitty gas station in the middle of the day.
#116 - anonexplains (12/29/2014) [-]
although you made many, many valid points, one thing i have to point out, is that it's never kids from the ghetto that end up going on school shooting sprees, it's usually "middle-american" kids, who, as you said, use their parents guns.

The problem is, guns are so easy to get hold of, legally, that they are so often lost/stolen without any real punishment on the owners.
As a result, lost/stolen guns make their way into illegal sales and end up being used criminally.

The fact of the matter is, Guns are easier to get a hold of than medicine in the US. Legal or not, this is due to an oversaturation of firearms. Guns used illegally, were at some point, sold legally, then either lost, stolen, or sold on illegally. Now, you cant prevent these things from happening, but you can make it more difficult to do so. Make loss, or even theft of a firearm an offence. Place a larger emphasis on keeping your own firearms safe.
#143 - anonexplains (12/29/2014) [-]
It is never kids in the ghetto shooting up SCHOOLS because they do not shoot each other in SCHOOLS. Because of the cultural upbringing many kids in the ghetto are brought up in, the music they hear glorifies violence in the streets. think about how many songs, movies, actual encounters where someone says "see you in the streets nigga" Also refer back to my link here: www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5MGJ87hPGw
At multiple times in this video there are large parties and just start shooting, and at one point they show a freshly murdered body. killing another person is nothing to them since this is how their parents and grandparents have been raised. Now refer back to these middle-american you mention and what do you see? how many shootings happened in these suburban gated communities last year? none? these children aren't raised in such a hostile environment and so when they do go to that point it is because of what is to them, a severe grievance with something, like the... damn char limit
#146 - anonexplains (12/29/2014) [-]
like the previously mentioned rich kid, he did it because those women weren't attracted to him. And the problem is, as previously highlighted by the multiple smuggling links and this one here ( www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/man-charged-with-making-machine-guns/story-e6frea83-1226528981674?nk=efcd79eb89e4f858696e3d8ef6c78883 )
is that no, not all guns are legal at some point. They also do not all originate from our country, like the AK-47 which is a popular choice for illegal machine guns. A gun is not a complicated device, all you need is an appropriate sized pipe, a cap and nail to make a gun. I do agree with you somewhat on the ease, its way easier to get one illegally though. I agree using a nice big safe if you got a bunch of guns and a big budget like many do, but to make it an offense to not somehow stop somebody from stealing your possessions when you may be at work is a terrible idea. Not only would this alienate the poor like omg fuck you char limit
#148 - anonexplains (12/29/2014) [-]
like this woman who would not be able to afford to have a safe installed to secure that gun, which is about $ 150.www.ammoland.com/2014/02/hi-point-carbine-used-to-stop-detroit-home-invasion/
Would you suggest that she just be mugged, raped and killed by the handgun wielding intruder since she couldnt afford a safe? I agree with you on storing guns as best as possible, but the only way to really deter a thief from getting your guns in a smash and grab style robbery, is to have a very heavy safe with bolts anchoring it to the ground. And even then if somebody finds out you have a safe anchored to the floor with possibly30 thousand dollars of items, all they have to do is dress up as a service installer(AT&T, Directv) and nobody would bat an eye at him going in or out of your house. Read of this used a few times now, can't find the story link though. It would be impossible to completely eliminate this with a law like that and terrible for punishing someone for somebody else's crime.
#70 - brisineo (12/29/2014) [-]
User avatar #45 - lilnuggetbob (12/29/2014) [-]
How would backround checks have of stopped almost any of the school shootings?
It Might have of prevented one.

Also, almost all mass shooting happen in areas that are "Gun free Zones" Meaning, theoretically if there weren't any gun free zones, there would not be very many mass shooting.
#46 - newall (12/29/2014) [-]
From my understanding, Gun free zone means you aren't allowed to enter with a weapon.
If you, for example, shoot the unarmed guards, then walk through the checkpoint, you have bypassed the gun free zone.

Also, thats ONE entire school that hasnt been shot. Perhaps that's worth doing?
And no, background checks on firearms would prevent people with A: violent criminal records and B: A history of severe mental illness being able to purchase guns, alongside the fact that it would become illegal to carry a gun registered to someone else, even in an open-carry state.

All weapons used in the Sandy-Hook, and in-fact most, school shootings, are usually legally purchased, and owned.
User avatar #51 - lilnuggetbob (12/29/2014) [-]
Also forgot to add, if you purchase a firearm online they do automatic backround checks while sending the gun to a post office (Unless you have a Federal Firearms License, you can not get one sent to your door.)
User avatar #93 - thelastamerican (12/29/2014) [-]
Guns you order on line need to be sent to an FFL dealer. The post office isn't. (Or, mine isn't more accurately) To get an FFL you need to have the government crawl up your ass and look around with a 10,000 candle power floodlight. If they find any shit you're passed up for the licence. It's very hard to get an FFL, and most people don't have the cash for the process.
User avatar #103 - lilnuggetbob (12/29/2014) [-]
Yes, thank you for correcting me.
BTW i fucked up when i said post office, i meant to say a nearby gun store owner.
User avatar #49 - lilnuggetbob (12/29/2014) [-]
A: Already exists
B: What would define "severe mental illness"?

"alongside the fact that it would become illegal to carry a gun registered to someone else, even in an open-carry state. " Bad idea, explained here:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IN9GiyRzKI

All weapons used in the Sandy-Hook, and in-fact most, school shootings, are usually legally purchased, and owned.
Exactly, backround checks would not have of stopped any of them.
#53 - newall (12/29/2014) [-]
The point was, if you were unable to carry your father's gun legally, or purchase your own due to a failed background check, it would become that much more difficult to get your hands on a firearm. This would, at the least, stop a percentage of school shootings from ever occurring.

Although a large amount of what is mentioned in that video is true, the part mentioned, about criminals illegally purchasing weapons through various means is directed at career criminals. Making it illegal for someone with, for example, violent Schizophrenia, or a history of violent crime, to ever own a gun, would make it more likely for people planning on executing a spree-style event, to be caught beforehand.

The part about the law not being simple because it is 18 pages is asinine. Laws must go into the minutia of detail, to prevent loopholes.
With regards to the legality of handing someone a gun, on private property, that's juts straight up horse shit. You can legally allow the use of a firearm anywhere on private property, so long as the weapon does not leave the property in the hands of anyone other than the owner.

And yes, background checks do exist, but making them more stringent could not possibly hurt.

Also, as far as I know, the vast majority of gun sales still occur in person, specifically because of those checks, I'd imagine. It's easier to pick a gun up from a gun shop, than it is to pay your phone bill over the phone.

Even if ONE school shooting is prevented by these measures, what if that ONE is the next sandy hook? what if 28 people aren't killed.

I agree that gun-free zones are retarded. At the very least armed guards would make more sense. "you're not allowed a gun in here, but if you have one, we literally have no way of stopping you"
Though having seen the piss-poor training even the police are given, I'd hope it would be more in-depth training for these guards.
User avatar #54 - lilnuggetbob (12/29/2014) [-]
"The point was, if you were unable to carry your father's gun legally"
What if there is a kid (for this example ill say he's 15) that hears a criminal breaking into his home, so he grabs his fathers shotgun/rifle/handgun and shoots the criminal
Under your suggested law, he would be a criminal for using a gun that was not his in self defence, most likely ruining his life because he tried to defend it from a criminal.


Yes, backround checks might save people from one mass shooting that COULD save 20 or more people, however, more people might end up getting fucked over, and killed because of it.

I'm pretty sure its a felony to bring a gun onto school property anyways.

Also when you are purchasing a gun from a gun store, you normally have to write down stuff like "Are you a criminal?" and, if the gun dealer later finds out you lied on that, you can get in trouble.
#117 - newall (12/29/2014) [-]
Again, no, he wouldn't. Notice I said carry? as in publicly. Private property is exempt from laws such as that already.

Really, and how would that happen? Despite what the NRA will tell you, you aren't more likely to be shot to death if you don't carry a gun.

Exactly. But people carrying guns into school property to shoot 30+ kids usually aren't concerned with that. Armed guards and proper checks could at least prevent this.

How much later? after you've already bought, and "lost" the gun? The weapons come from somewhere, they aren't built in people's gardens. Sure, many are smuggled in, but I doubt smuggled guns are the majority of weapons involved in firearms offences.
User avatar #122 - lilnuggetbob (12/29/2014) [-]
How would that still stop like any crime?

Citation needed

Exacly, none of these laws you propose would reduce mass shootings.

I stated it incorrectly, thelastamerican explained it much better, ill just quote him.
"They do a cursory check that takes about 10 minutes, and send your information off to the FBI. If you fail either of these, you don't get to buy your gun. That's not a state law, it's a federal mandate. Store owners MUST do this. And there is no question that you'll get in trouble. If they've got you on a minor drug charge you'll be summoned, but if you have anything even minor that looks like a violent crime, you had better be prepared to have a visit from the SWAT team."
User avatar #96 - thelastamerican (12/29/2014) [-]
They do a cursory check that takes about 10 minutes, and send your information off to the FBI. If you fail either of these, you don't get to buy your gun. That's not a state law, it's a federal mandate. Store owners MUST do this. And there is no question that you'll get in trouble. If they've got you on a minor drug charge you'll be summoned, but if you have anything even minor that looks like a violent crime, you had better be prepared to have a visit from the SWAT team.
#37 - lilnuggetbob (12/29/2014) [-]
pastebin.com/XzRJmBDR all of the links
#36 - lilnuggetbob (12/29/2014) [-]
#35 - lilnuggetbob (12/29/2014) [-]
#34 - lilnuggetbob (12/29/2014) [-]
#33 - lilnuggetbob (12/29/2014) [-]
#31 - lilnuggetbob (12/29/2014) [-]
#30 - lilnuggetbob (12/29/2014) [-]
#29 - lilnuggetbob (12/29/2014) [-]
#28 - lilnuggetbob (12/29/2014) [-]
#39 - Picture 12/27/2014 on "MERICA" +3
#38 - Picture 12/27/2014 on "MERICA" +3

items

Total unique items point value: 1570 / Total items point value: 2120
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #24 - atheisttsiehta (06/27/2014) [-]
You pass
User avatar #22 - RageRambo (12/10/2013) [-]
I read the comment you posted on the TWD content about Daryl blowing up the tank with the grenade. Those were some of the best comments I've ever seen you post.
#20 - drewbridge (07/15/2013) [-]
Wear a seatbelt, 						******
Wear a seatbelt, ******
#17 - dtowngangsta (02/21/2013) [-]
**dtowngangsta rolled a random image posted in comment #40 at finn-arl-ay **
**dtowngangsta rolled a random image posted in comment #40 at finn-arl-ay **
#15 - dtowngangsta (02/21/2013) [-]
**dtowngangsta rolled a random image posted in comment #559 at Poinkie Poi Party thread 3 **
 Friends (0)