Login or register


Last status update:
Date Signed Up:9/11/2010
Last Login:7/20/2016
FunnyJunk Career Stats
Content Thumbs: 548 total,  613 ,  65
Comment Thumbs: 35 total,  60 ,  25
Content Level Progress: 70% (7/10)
Level 54 Content: Sammich eater → Level 55 Content: Sammich eater
Comment Level Progress: 72.72% (40/55)
Level 0 Comments: Untouched account → Level 1 Comments: New Here
Content Views:24244
Times Content Favorited:22 times
Total Comments Made:42
FJ Points:583

latest user's comments

#158 - **mouthofthesouth used "*roll picture*"** **mouthofthesouth… 06/27/2016 on Hey anon, what are you... 0
#66 - Is it personal experience or just 6 years at a university stud… 02/27/2014 on product placement +2
#62 - I almost replied to explain the purpose of him doing this....Y…  [+] (2 new replies) 02/27/2014 on product placement +3
User avatar
#64 - theguywhoaskswhy (02/27/2014) [-]
The trick is to make yourself look like a really special class of stupid.
User avatar
#66 - mouthofthesouth (02/27/2014) [-]
Is it personal experience or just 6 years at a university studying subjects?
#14 - Well aint that some ****. 01/01/2014 on tfw no gf 0
#11 - Idiot here! Hi, is this an app I'm not aware of? It looks …  [+] (2 new replies) 01/01/2014 on tfw no gf 0
User avatar
#13 - linkofreek (01/01/2014) [-]
it's called tinder, some dating app
User avatar
#14 - mouthofthesouth (01/01/2014) [-]
Well aint that some shit.
#703 - HAHA. Yes, because I used the improper "fries/fry's"… 12/09/2013 on Black people facts 0
#10 - But, who's going to flip my burgers? Who's going to ask m…  [+] (9 new replies) 12/08/2013 on Black people facts +6
User avatar
#274 - chevelleguy (12/08/2013) [-]
Teenagers, like it used to be.
User avatar
#198 - bjorntheberserk (12/08/2013) [-]
There are a lot of poor white people willing to do those jobs especially cause it is harder for them to get on welfare because you know they are white.
User avatar
#22 - mcderper (12/08/2013) [-]
User avatar
#512 - jasonmaki (12/09/2013) [-]
I wonder what kind of differences we could see if we got rid of them too
User avatar
#551 - nervaaurelius (12/09/2013) [-]
Manual labor shortage(serious they tried getting legals to pick fruit plenty of times yet couldn't).
#496 - anon (12/09/2013) [-]
Impossible! They wouldn't be able to get the job since they wouldn't know what the customer is saying.
User avatar
#701 - mcderper (12/09/2013) [-]
#14 - anon (12/08/2013) [-]
I think you mean fries not fry's. Fry is a singular and adding the 's makes it a possession. Clearly, you are of the group of people bringing this country down... and I'm black.
User avatar
#703 - mouthofthesouth (12/09/2013) [-]
HAHA. Yes, because I used the improper "fries/fry's" on a post, on the internet, the whole United States is trickling through my fingers as I type.
#8 - Lets say we did "ban guns". How many criminals do yo…  [+] (53 new replies) 09/23/2013 on Not Today Asshole +14
User avatar
#163 - checkandmate (09/23/2013) [-]
Go look at statistics. A no guns law has a slight change in number of homicides. Criminals are always going to exist and the police are always going to try getting them.

But look outside of that. Crimes of passion with gun, accidental shots gone off and killing people, hell children handling guns (even if it is the parents fault) and shooting themselves in the foot or others accidentally, etc.

Its ironic that the US wants peace doesn't have a law that at least cuts down a little on deaths.

Don't tell me that "Oh the citizens won't be able to defend themselves in that case". Guess what? Most citizens don't own guns ANYWAY!
User avatar
#284 - liquidz (09/24/2013) [-]
The hell you mean most citizens don't own guns here in the US?

There are more guns here than people easily by a factor of 10 to 20.
User avatar
#286 - checkandmate (09/24/2013) [-]
And did you take into account who owns those guns?

For example: If there are 10 people and 20 guns, that could just as well mean that only one of them owns those 20 guns (I know a person that owns 18).

Even if there are more guns than people, that HARDLY means theres an even distribution of them
User avatar
#288 - liquidz (09/24/2013) [-]
Obviously, but there is a vast quantity of people that own is my point.

Easily more than 50 percent of the population and that's being conservative.
User avatar
#312 - checkandmate (09/24/2013) [-]
Wrong. Go look it up. It used to be 50% around the 70s. Now it is 32% and still decreasing every year.
User avatar
#315 - liquidz (09/24/2013) [-]
I call bullshit on that as the number of places I go and do work for people easily 75% of them have guns.

What is your source of info for that statistic?
User avatar
#318 - checkandmate (09/24/2013) [-]
The New York freaking Times is my source on that info dude.

Even if 75% of the people YOU know own guns, it doesn't mean the rest do. Some areas just have a higher number of people that own guns while most others don't.

I live in the middle of freaking NJ. Other than shady areas in Newark or Camden, barely anyone owns guns.
User avatar
#77 - turtletroll (09/23/2013) [-]
That`s only because citizens have been able to hold guns for so long. If that never happened then a high percentage of the general population (including criminals) wouldn`t have one.
#113 - anon (09/23/2013) [-]
Uk has the issue were criminals are one who currys guns that greater than those who have by legal means there also thse who can make there own gun it's not that hard
User avatar
#134 - turtletroll (09/23/2013) [-]
There are less then 100 people killed by people using guns every year in England whereas it`s over 16,000 in America.
User avatar
#234 - thegamerslife (09/23/2013) [-]
I hate how you guys use numbers of lumped gun uses. it's honestly pathetic.
User avatar
#236 - turtletroll (09/23/2013) [-]
I`m just saying what the numbers show. You can buy hunting rifles in England but its heavily regulated. And look at Germany, you can own a gun there but again its heavily regulated.
User avatar
#240 - thegamerslife (09/23/2013) [-]

Maybe go watch some of his other videos too. he is quiet knowledgeable.
User avatar
#238 - thegamerslife (09/23/2013) [-]
yeah, no thanks.
we are still on decline and our "mass shootings" have maintained at our average for a decade or more (I forgot the exact amount), of between 20-100 deaths by mass shooting each year (and always in areas where it is known that civilians and guards are not allowed to carry for protection from them). I think we are doing fine as is.
User avatar
#241 - turtletroll (09/23/2013) [-]
Whatever you say. I`m not telling you what to believe i`m just giving a different perspective on a issue.
User avatar
#242 - thegamerslife (09/23/2013) [-]
and one that is wrongheaded and can not apply similarly to our country.
User avatar
#243 - turtletroll (09/23/2013) [-]
I know it can`t be applied to America. In fact I don`t think that they should outlaw guns but just make it more regulated.

I`m saying that it would probably be more beneficial if the right to bare arms wasn`t there in the first place. The reason why so many guns are in America is because of that right but it I do agree that taking that right away at this point in time is a stupid idea.
User avatar
#245 - thegamerslife (09/23/2013) [-]
taking it away at any point is a stupid idea. it guaranties us our god given right to protect our life from anyone who would try to take it from us with greater or equal force to them.

and I don't agree with more regulation either. we have a 4th amendment for a reason, and "regulating" guns more is almost impossible without infringing our 4th A. right. We have already seen some try to make a record of those who do and do not own guns, that will only lead to more issues as records can be hacked or leaked.
in NYC there was a map printed into a newspaper that showed owners and non owners, this could create problems for both sides as now the criminals have a map of where to go to TRY and steal a gun, as well as a map of those who are the easiest targets (large groups of non gun owners). we have a right to privacy and that includes are ownership of firearms.
User avatar
#246 - turtletroll (09/23/2013) [-]
But to be fair you`re protecting yourself from someone who has a gun.

And I know I keep relating this back to England (because that`s where I live) and outside of my Grandad`s hunting rifle I have never seen a rifle outside of military progressions through the town and I live in a pretty depraved area.
User avatar
#247 - thegamerslife (09/23/2013) [-]
Not always, My life can be threatened with a knife, bat, lead pipe, car, etc. there are more ways than just a gun to threaten/take someones life.
User avatar
#248 - turtletroll (09/23/2013) [-]
But you do have the right to those anyway. It`s easy to carry round a kitchen knife and its different from a gun because its main function isn`t killing. Whether it be killing animals or people.

And i`m not really disagreeing with you but I along with a huge majority of people in England would say it`s best not to have guns.
User avatar
#249 - thegamerslife (09/23/2013) [-]
Actually I do have a right to own any of those I choice, and on my private property no one can say otherwise, not even my government.
I can own as many cars as I want and never drive them on public roads and no one would be the wiser to it. driving them on the road however is a privilege granted by the state, owning a gun and being able to carry it on me is a right that I am granted by being an american citizen with a spotless record.
User avatar
#250 - turtletroll (09/23/2013) [-]
There has to be some limits.
User avatar
#287 - liquidz (09/24/2013) [-]
Limits are what you put on people that you don't trust.

The problem with folks in england is you have been so restricted on your firearms, so many of you have never seen or even used one and there is a huge perception that they are instant death machines. There is no training or respect given to the weapon by the general population because they never get the chance to handle or comprehend the capabilities of the weapon.

It would be the same as telling everyone you can't own a car, when you have never owned, driven, or been inside of one. Basing it on data such as how fast they can go, the number of passengers, etc. However any car owner knows they are'nt quite as bad, as they drive them, operate them, pay for upkeep, know the limits of the car, etc.

Because a gun can take a magazine of 100rds does'nt mean that magazine actually works well. Because a gun comes with a 30rd mag, does'nt make it high capacity, that makes it normal capacity. Because a gun is semi auto, does not mean it fires constantly and uncontrollably, it does not mean you can wipe out a room in split seconds either. Because you can pull a trigger does not mean the shot is placed to be lethal either.

There are multiple factors, caliber, placement, number of shots, type of projectile, velocity, materials impacted with, etc.

Just the same as if you put the pedal to the floor of your car, it does'nt mean you will do 150mph, and it does'nt mean you will fly off the road either.

The wrong actions of a few, does not mean the greater use of many should be restricted.
User avatar
#260 - thegamerslife (09/23/2013) [-]
Limits on law abiding citizens with a right to bear arms are an infringement and unconstitutional to begin with. I think the firearm act should be repealed also. you won't agree, and I don't expect you to understand.

Things like background checks and "mandatory" training to conceal carry are infringement when the citizen has to put their own money towards these things to prove to it's gov that they deserve said rights. if the gov pays for these things as to make themselves feel better then I see no issues, except the delay it puts on a citizen from having their right afforded to them. infringements like those are why I love living in my state, where background checks are not tacked onto the price of my gun, but instead are afforded through our FBI HQ here in our state (the phone call to them, only cost them in that agents time). and where you don't need any training to obtain your conceal carry permit, just pay the filing fees and do a heavy background check with fingerprints to the pentagon and regular paperwork background checks(mine took about 15-20 minutes)(records of which are to be discarded within 24 hours of completion).

God bless America.
User avatar
#261 - turtletroll (09/23/2013) [-]
The right to bare arms could include any arms including nuclear. The whole constitution is vague because that makes it easier to adapt to more modern cultures.

And to be honest I don`t really care enough to keep talking about this.
User avatar
#259 - thegamerslife (09/23/2013) [-]
idk what is happening, I didn't delete that comments. My brain is full of WAT?!?!
#256 - thegamerslife has deleted their comment.
User avatar
#257 - thegamerslife (09/23/2013) [-]
I would not take it on my own dime. if they want me to prove myself and pay for the training and courses that is fine and is not and infringement. asking me to pay for the training to prove to them that I can handle my rights is an infringement*
#69 - newall (09/23/2013) [-]
this is why i said

"that's impossible, now"

because there are too many guns already.

Gun's arent the issue, regulate ammuniton and you'll have less gun crime, simple as that.
User avatar
#64 - vincetacular (09/23/2013) [-]
So why is there less gun related crime in lets say the EU? Don't say they have no badasses there, I've been they also have criminals and ghetto neighbourhoods and so on.
#43 - Sampsy (09/23/2013) [-]
I like how people bring up this point every time without the slightest ounce of thought. [sarcasm]Af if there is a magical line where one stops being a citizen and starts being a criminal. Of course all citizens are the same as are all criminals and they will remain that way forever.

Oh yes. The police are also completely useless and have no way whatsoever to find and retrieve guns that would remain in circulation. There are no examples of where gun control has successfully managed to do this. Certainly not loads of examples. Naaah.[/sarcasm]
#167 - bann (09/23/2013) [-]
Well to be fair, most places where guns were taken out of circulation, there were no many to begin with except for service weapons. There are many guns that have been stolen and we have no way of knowing where they are or keeping track of them. We can't go ransacking houses for these lost guns, they're out there and are unlikely to go anywhere.

That said, I'm in strong support of increased background checks. There are too many cases where people with obvious signs of mental health problems purchased guns at shows and such then later committed crimes. You have the right to your own views and beliefs to the point where you do not impose them on others...a gun tends to impose quite a bit on others.
User avatar
#96 - jrondeau (09/23/2013) [-]
The issue though is that it seems like crime rates (particularly crimes involving firearms) always seem to spike after guns are taken from the people. That being said, sometimes the practice seems effective. Hell, in the UK it seems like gun crimes are pretty much gone, though stabbings are on the rise (but I suppose criminals have to use something; if you found a way to magically get rid of all the knives I'm sure they'd just use something else).
User avatar
#151 - wtfduud (09/23/2013) [-]
I'd like to see a source for crime rates spiking after the removal of guns.
User avatar
#185 - jrondeau (09/23/2013) [-]
"During the years in which the D.C. handgun ban and trigger lock law was in effect, the Washington, D.C. murder rate averaged 73% higher than it was at the outset of the law, while the U.S. murder rate averaged 11% lower."
"Not counting the above-listed anomalies, the homicide rate in England and Wales has averaged 52% higher since the outset of the 1968 gun control law and 15% higher since the outset of the 1997 handgun ban."

"Criminals used handguns in 46% more offences [after the ban], Home Office statistics revealed."

Just a couple examples. I'm aware that the issue is more complicated than these spikes in crime rates (after all, they seem to level out after some time), but I'm just saying that firearm advocates love to jump on these statistics, and in certain instances, it would appear that they are correct. D.C., Chicago, and California (the latter two of which I haven't provided statistics for) have had very negative results after they restricted access to guns, whilst areas like the UK would seem to be doing just fine by me.
User avatar
#189 - wtfduud (09/23/2013) [-]

Nice to see that you can actually back up a statement.
User avatar
#86 - gatorade (09/23/2013) [-]
Where I am Police would take about 15-30 minutes to get here, that's a long time to wait. It's also a long time to pray that this man who is going to shoot me waits just long enough.
#200 - anon (09/23/2013) [-]
most police take so long because of other gun crimes going on.

police would arrive quicker.
User avatar
#276 - gatorade (09/24/2013) [-]
What kind of logic is that? Police take that long because of traffic, and just over-all driving time.
User avatar
#56 - instakill (09/23/2013) [-]
how long do the police take to show up on average? let me tell you, it usually takes half an hour for a police response, how long does it take an assailant to shoot you? less than a second, I carry a gun because I would rather not die waiting for the cops to show up and protect me (which the supreme court has ruled that they have no legal obligation to do)
User avatar
#109 - didactus (09/23/2013) [-]
It does take less than a second for him to shoot you. But from him pulling his gun on you to shooting you. Do you think that you would react faster than a bullet? I'm not against guns I just hate it when people say a gun can counter another gun because you can shoot him. Often it would be the legal gun carrier who would get shot before even getting the gun out. The content is an exception to what I said.
#171 - happyschlappy (09/23/2013) [-]
Well in the vast majority of situations you would have time to get the weapon. When a person is confronting another human with intent of violence, there is usually a progression of aggressive posturing, whether it be screaming, brandishing the weapon, etc, in order to make the victim submit to the person doing the posturing. Most animals will do the same thing, going through increasingly more aggressive shows of force before resorting to actual violence. So unless you are encountering an aggressive sociopath, you would usually have more than enough time to get your own weapon out and make the aggressor submit.
User avatar
#304 - didactus (09/24/2013) [-]
it's just that all the shootings are from those sociopaths. I'm not against a ban but you NEED regulations and that is a fact. And about the thing that others will draw a gun to protect you. Then why would you need a gun in that case? If all got it?
User avatar
#166 - bookyle (09/23/2013) [-]
It doesn't have to be the defender saving himself. A bystander with a gun could also make a robber back down
User avatar
#142 - instakill (09/23/2013) [-]
not necessarily, a friend of mine keeps a shotgun with a quick release lock in his closet (he puts a large key in and it pops out of the trigger guard) a dude broke in trying to steal his TV and had a gun on him, my friend survived because he was able to do the same thing the guy in the content did, he put the robber in a situation where they didn't want to be so they backed down
User avatar
#143 - instakill (09/23/2013) [-]
also I keep my gun on my person and have timed myself, I can load it and fire in under a second on average, I could take mine apart and reassemble it blindfolded, if you know your firearm as well as you should it should be no problem defending yourself, especially since I carry a dual-action pistol so I dont need to have the hammer back to fire the first round
#34 - anon (09/23/2013) [-]
that is exactly what newall said. You can't always reverse bad decisions like handing a gun to pretty much anyone who wants one.
User avatar
#29 - mctoilet (09/23/2013) [-]
Criminals and Civilians aren't 2 different breeds.
Since Civilans have guns, they could easily turn into criminals.
So this way a simple citizen could easily turn into a criminal if they just get a gun. which is easy for any citizen.
You are not only fighting criminals downtown, it could easily be your neighbor who would be the next criminal. you actualy have enemies all around you who are armed and dangerous.
I for sure are happy to live in a city with no guns, and happy that my neighbor would not have the resources to turn into a high armed criminal overnight.

And if he had a gun, i would give him what he wanted to spare my own life. we do have insurance do we not? or is your insurance the bullet in your gun?
User avatar
#25 - hudis (09/23/2013) [-]
Disarming criminals isn't an over-night solution. It's a long process that could take months or years and would require government to actually give a shit and make sure that the law is enforced even in impoverished areas.

Let's say, hypothetically, that that along with enforcing harsh restrictions on gun ownership would reduce gun crimes altogether and make people safer. Wouldn't it then be worth it?
User avatar
#65 - vincetacular (09/23/2013) [-]
I agree, it can't be done overnight but I don't see why it would be a worse situation compared to now. There will have to be a lot of work and it would take a few years but at the end it would be much safer/better. And you wouldn't have to get rid of all the guns but at least try to regulate it quite strictly.
User avatar
#123 - hudis (09/23/2013) [-]
Yeah, that's what I was trying to say.
#12 - stormtrooperface (09/23/2013) [-]
a lot of firearms that criminals have are not registered anyways, so at that point the civilians would be defenseless against criminals who would still have them.
#551 - DUDE, 3 was what I was thinking the whole damn time!!!! 08/09/2013 on Worth the read... 0
#43 - Comment deleted 07/01/2013 on Recently [read description... 0
[ 42 Total ]