Login or register


Last status update:
Gender: male
Date Signed Up:9/18/2011
Last Login:10/25/2016
Comment Ranking:#7400
Highest Content Rank:#2312
Highest Comment Rank:#577
Content Thumbs: 1813 total,  1958 ,  145
Comment Thumbs: 11650 total,  12451 ,  801
Content Level Progress: 90% (90/100)
Level 117 Content: Funny Junkie → Level 118 Content: Funny Junkie
Comment Level Progress: 61% (61/100)
Level 290 Comments: Post Master → Level 291 Comments: Post Master
Content Views:75632
Times Content Favorited:142 times
Total Comments Made:1562
FJ Points:10943

latest user's comments

#5 - Picture  [+] (1 reply) 10/15/2015 on (untitled) +5
User avatar
#6 - kouzan (10/15/2015) [-]
That's not cruel. That's funny.
#16 - are you forgetting the incident earlier this year in the same …  [+] (47 replies) 10/15/2015 on uh +16
User avatar
#24 - trollmobile (10/15/2015) [-]
organized terrorist group.
not angry 15 year old.
angry 15 year olds are far more common than organized terrorists.
User avatar
#129 - doktorevil (10/16/2015) [-]
So with the fact that angry 15 year olds are the most common shooter, you could reduce school shootings drasticly by removing guns from civilian homes.

A 15 year old angry fuck would have a hard time getting his hands on a gun if he had to buy them illegally at high prices.
User avatar
#135 - trollmobile (10/16/2015) [-]
User avatar
#28 - wertologist (10/15/2015) [-]
Instead of attacking gun supporters, why not put more focus on mental health? That would nip a lot of those problems at the source. Getting rid of guns won't stop the crazies who want to kill. You think they would just say "oh, guns are illegal, I guess I can't use it"? Before you say "it would be harder for them to get them", keep in mind that if guns were banned, there would be a large back alley demand for them. Let's ignore that whole factor for a second. Let's say guns were banned and there was no possible way to get them. You really think they would just give up if they couldn't get a gun? No. If they were planning on killing people, they wouldn't let somehting like not having a gun stop them. They would grab anything that could be a deadly weapon like a baseball bat or a steak knife. It isn't illegal to buy those and you certainly don't need a permit or ID. You can buy a knife at most stores. It doesn't need to be a fancy big knife like in the movies. A pocket knife is still deadly. Hell, even a butter knife is with enough force. You going to start saying to ban knives too?

Personally I'd rather be shot to death than stabbed to death. Stab wounds typically take a lot longer to kill than a bullet wound. I'll take a quick an painless death over internal bleeding and a slow agonizing death.
#108 - anon (10/15/2015) [-]
"Instead of attacking gun supporters, why not put more focus on mental health?"
I wonder how much of a tax increase you're willing to take for funding such a huge project?

"Personally I'd rather be shot to death than stabbed to death."
Personally I'd rather be stabbed to death while the guy stabbing me gets bashed in the head and knocked out before he can kill the rest of my family. Though I guess you could argue if he had a handgun, you could rendezvous with mom and dad in the afterlife in 10 seconds flat.
User avatar
#126 - wertologist (10/16/2015) [-]
It doesn't take a long time to get stabbed. You think it's like the movies where they stab you and pull you close to look into your eyes? Unlikely. All it takes is one stab to to the neck or gut to put you down and then they're off to the next person. If guns were banned, they may still have a gun anyways and shoot you and your family. Most shootings happen with illegally obtained guns.
User avatar
#130 - doktorevil (10/16/2015) [-]
Dont pretend like a knife wielding 15 year old would be just as deadly as a gun wielding one.

A grown male teacher can easily pin a 15 year old with a knife. Heck, he can even chuck chairs and shit at him until he falls over.

A grown male teacher cannot easily pin a 15 year old with a gun. If he tried to throw things at him, he would prolly just get shot.

And the illegal gun market is so big because it is SOOO easy to buy guns. If you couldn't, guns would not only be more expensive, but also alot harder to buy. With time, 15 yo wouldnt be able to get shit.
User avatar
#131 - wertologist (10/16/2015) [-]
You seem to be implying that holding a gun suddenly makes someone unstoppable. You throw a chair at the kid and they will react the same way as if they were holding a knife. Likely they would fall on their ass. Yes, they can shoot you, but if they had a knife they could also stab you. You think that if they were intent on stabbing you that they would stand across the room, pull out a knife and shout that they were gonna stab you? Very unlikely. They would keep the knife concealed until they were close enough to kill.

I think it's fair to say that a 15 year old kid with a gun had gotten the gun illegally. If guns were illegal then there would be a bigger illegal market for them. You're whole prediction on guns disappearing over time after a ban is a huge assumption. There will always be guns here. Many people support guns. Many people will always defend the second amendment. I know that if guns were illegal I'd certainly make sure to own one. Most anti-gun people assume anyone with a gun is a ticking time bomb. I don't own a gun yet, but I would never use it to kill someone outside of self defense or the defense of others. Why should I be punished for what the psychos do?

Again, a 15 year old trying to perform a shooting would fall under the "mental health issues" and if you started to take care of that problem, then likely that kid would never try to kill or get the chance. Guns are not the problem. Getting rid of them is pointless. Deal with the real problems. Go after the shooters at the source. Not their tools. Without their tools they would just find another way. If you solve the psycho problem, you effectively solve most shootings and then taking the guns away is just pointless. You're whole argument is that guns enable people to kill, but the only people using them to kill outside of self defense are the crazies and the criminals(muggers, gangs, etc). Those people get those guns illegally most of the time so banning them wouldn't even slow them down and if anything would make their job easier. If you were a mugger, wouldn't you feel more comfortable knowing that your victim doesn't have a gun while you do?
User avatar
#132 - doktorevil (10/16/2015) [-]
You are basicly the exact person Jim Jefferies is commenting on It's hillarious.

As a 26 year old male, I would pick a fight vs. a knife wielding fuck over a gun wielding fuck anyday. Sure, if I am his sole and one target, I'm prolly dead either way. But I'd bet alot of money on, that I'd have a bigger chance of surviving a surprise knife attack than a surpise gun attack.

You never hear about "mass school stabbings", thats not a thing. You stab 1 dude and everyone else would run away or throw shit at you. If you are really fast, you can stab like 2-5 people, prolly not fataly, unless you stay behind to make sure. Hence you kill fewer!

Sure, it's also a mirror of the US's poor health system, but the shitstorm you threw when Obamacare came out was retarded.

So the problem is, you not want to spend more money on poor people, you dont want to ban guns, you have no problem with the capitalistic system you have and you think you are the best country ever.

So basicly, you do this:

Mass school shooting => outrage, "ban guns" => "But it's in our rights" => the discussion last so long, that people stop caring => Mass school shooting => outrage.....

User avatar
#133 - wertologist (10/16/2015) [-]
"..I would pick a fight vs. a knife wielding fuck over a gun wielding fuck anyday..."
A gun is more dangerous yes, but that doesn't mean a knife can't be as deadly. You are very likely to get stabbed if you try to fight a guy who has a knife.

"I'd have a bigger chance of surviving a surprise knife attack than a surpise gun attack."
Not really. A surprise knife attack would very likely be directly next to you and you wouldn't be on guard. One stab and you're likely to be down. A surprise gun attack could either be right next to you or at a distance. Both are deadly. Taking away the guns would only be taking the tool away, not stopping the killer. Most anti-gun people think taking the tool away would prevent deaths. It would only make them use another method.

"You stab 1 dude and everyone else would run away or throw shit at you"
Except you're assuming that the stabber is just going to stand there. Liekly they would be all over the place. All it takes is one good stab to put someone down and then they're off to the next. They made the magazine size limited to I think it was less than 8. Unless they obtained a gun that was illegal, they could only do so much damage. Yes, there is a thing as reloading, but that isn't an instant thing like in movies and games where they just slide the magazine out and pop another right back in. In games and movies that is done autonomously and done perfectly every time. Unless the shooter has spent a lot of time around guns, it is unlikely they will know how to reload fast enough. Likely they will only get to shoot off one magazine. They can also fucking miss those shots. Not every shot leads to a kill. They could easily hit the wall.

"So the problem is, you not want to spend more money on poor people, you dont want to ban guns, you have no problem with the capitalistic system you have and you think you are the best country ever. "

When did I say "don't spend more money on poor people"? That would help ease crime rates. Many crimes are done out of desperation. Take care of poor people and there will be less armed robberies. Of course I don't want to ban guns. It's in our fucking rights. For good reason. For hunting, self defense, and in case our government turns tyrannical. Before you say that's a tinfoil hat conspiracy, it's not. What would stop them if they did decide to go tyrannical? Don't give me that "they would never do that" because that's just an assumption. Guns give the people a say in that. That's the main reason it's in our rights.

"you think you are the best country ever. "
You seem to make a whole lot of assumptions. You think that every American thinks this? I certainly don't think we're the best country anymore. We used to be, but not anymore.

"So basicly, you do this:

Mass school shooting => outrage, "ban guns" => "But it's in our rights" => the discussion last so long, that people stop caring => Mass school shooting => outrage....."
That's implying that every American is on the same page. The way you are talking makes it sound like you don't live here. Most people are pro-gun. The people who are anti-gun are just the most vocal and the media always covers them. We don't have a ban on guns. You don't see pro-gun people chanting "We have guns!". They merely want to defend their right against the people who aren't well informed and think all guns are evil.

You're whole argument is to ban guns because they can kill. Why stop there? Cigarettes kill more people than shootings. You going to ban them too? Knives can also kill. Ban them next? Can't buy a fancy big blade and want to kill? Go buy a steak knife. Those can kill just as easily. You going to ban steak knives next?
#83 - anon (10/15/2015) [-]
except its not always about mental health. gun supporters always like to divert the issue to mental health. the truth is most of these ppl on rampages aren't really "mentally ill". theyre just bored and tired of life. basically theyre killing people because they can't get a gf and live a shitty life (and are also quite autistic, note autism does not = mental illness).
#31 - detroitshanker (10/15/2015) [-]
Knife/ baseball bat aren't as good as guns tho. If everyone that went on a gun rampage was armed only with a knife, then less people would die. Can you imagine the Joker guy with a knife? Or some wimpy would be school shooter with a bat?
User avatar
#62 - heartlessrobot (10/15/2015) [-]
No, they're worse. You get caught alone in an alley with someone with a gun, they shoot you, you die fairly quickly.
If he has a knife or a bat, you get brutally stabbed or beaten to death, and die painfully.
#115 - anon (10/15/2015) [-]
I'd like you to receive a non fatal gunshot wound and bleed out for 30 minutes writhing on the asphalt, then tell me it's not painful.
User avatar
#117 - heartlessrobot (10/15/2015) [-]
You'd have to wait at most, 10 minutes if you're in a first world country.
Gunshots don't go uninvestigated.
#121 - anon (10/15/2015) [-]
User avatar
#122 - heartlessrobot (10/16/2015) [-]
Detroit's its own country.
User avatar
#113 - msypsylon (10/15/2015) [-]
By your logic I can say FIST is worse than guns, bats and knives because it would take the longest time to kill someone by beating them to death without weapons and it's probably the most painful.
You're forgetting the fact that they have to be right beside you to stab you. They can shoot your ass from far away. It's a lot easier to kill someone with a gun than with a knife/bat. It's not about how painful your death would be, it's about what your chances of escaping are. Also deaths from bullet wounds can be just as slow and painful as deaths from stab wounds or trauma from hits with a bat.
User avatar
#116 - heartlessrobot (10/15/2015) [-]
If you get shot once, it's either gonna hurt a bit or kill you almost immediately.
And if it's fists, you can fight back.
Fists vs baseball bat don't usually work.
#77 - detroitshanker (10/15/2015) [-]
But no one kills someone in an alleyway for the same reasons as mass shootings. This will reduce the death toll of mass shootings significantly and will also make people attacked in an alleyway more likely to survive.
User avatar
#123 - wertologist (10/16/2015) [-]
Except that those types of shootings are completely different. Most of the alleyway shootings are with illegally obtained guns. Obviously banning guns wouldn't work there because most of those people didn't get them legally.

Why put the focus on the tool and not the killers themselves? They are the real problem, not guns. Banning guns after treating the crazy people is just plain useless and would accomplish nothing. All it would be doing is taking guns away from law abiding people. If they don't have the guns do you know who will? Police and criminals. You may say "well the police will stop anyone for you" and that may be the case some of the time, but they can't get to you instantly. You have to call them and wait. Some people would actually just shoot you for calling them. If a criminal wants to shoot you at first sight, who is going to stop them? The police won't be able to unless there is one right there.
User avatar
#78 - heartlessrobot (10/15/2015) [-]
Having a gun increases chances of survival in an Alleyway by more than not having a gun.
And treating mental health issues will decrease mass shootings more than gun control ever will.
#82 - detroitshanker (10/15/2015) [-]
I never said don't treat mental health issues. We can do both.
And of course if you have a gun you'll be more likely to survive. But even then, someone comes up to you in an alley and draws, you're chances of drawing and making a shot before he makes one on you are still slim.
But I think that number of deaths in alleyways and in other scenarios will drop if people didn't have guns.
User avatar
#86 - heartlessrobot (10/15/2015) [-]
Two things cause gun crime.
Mental health issues, and poverty.
Treat mental issues and you're left with poverty.
Someone draws on you for your wallet, they're not planning on shooting. They don't want to shoot. They might not even have bullets, or a real gun. Draw a gun on them, they fuck off.
#88 - detroitshanker (10/15/2015) [-]
Treat mental health issues and you're not left with just poverty, you're left with poverty and less mental health issues. But still mental health issues. You can't just get rid of them. You can try and you can succeed to an extent, but they will still be there for the foreseeable future.
User avatar
#89 - heartlessrobot (10/15/2015) [-]
There's always workarounds.
I know asylums are shitholes but with more funding, they wouldn't be literally the worst place to be in a 1st world country.
#91 - detroitshanker (10/15/2015) [-]
It's not just treatment, it's finding them in the first place. They tend to be reserved people or hiding their true nature. You always hear "He was such a nice, quiet guy. He's the last person I'd expect to do something like this."
User avatar
#92 - heartlessrobot (10/15/2015) [-]
Offer it cheap with free wi-fi?
#93 - detroitshanker (10/15/2015) [-]
That might just be crazy enough to work.
User avatar
#35 - wertologist (10/15/2015) [-]
"Knife/ baseball bat aren't as good as guns tho"
They actually can be as deadly, but that's not the point. The point is that if someone was intent on killing, they would use whatever they could. It doesn't matter what the body count is. The fact that people are thinking guns are the root problem is. The people who do these things are not mentally stable. The problem is we have poor mental health help and don't work on fixing those people. That's the root of these problems. You fix the mental health problem and you prevent a vast number of these killings. When is the last time you heard of a shooter that was sane? The few who weren't insane were usually racists who killed because of race(which may also stem from mental instabilities).

"Can you imagine the Joker guy with a knife? Or some wimpy would be school shooter with a bat?"
Those are both incredibly deadly. They may not rack up as much kills as a gun, but all it takes is one kill to make an incident. You feel confident you could dodge a bat swing? Those things are literally built to be swung very fast. If you try to block it with your arm and your arm will likely break. The knife? Those things are crazy easy to conceal. Wear a long sleeve shirt and slide a knife in your sleeve. No one is constantly on guard looking for people who may have a hidden knife. Hell, if you were at a school you could go pick up a pair of scissors. Who is going to suspect the kid holding scissors to go up and stab the teacher? You going to be on guard every time someone picks up anything that could be used as a stabbing weapon? Ever been to a high school? At mine, we had many rooms that had sharp deadly things. Hell, the damn art room had a massive paper cutter that if you ripped off the blade you basically had a machete.

The solution of "ban guns" could only reduce the kill count(assuming it worked), not stop the killings. Guns in those cases are just the murder tools. The best way to stop a murder is not to take their tool. It's to stop them before they kill. Step up mental health awareness and you can nip many of those cases out.
#109 - anon (10/15/2015) [-]
"The solution of "ban guns" could only reduce the kill count"
That's good enough for me. We have an issue with mass shootings in america.
User avatar
#134 - wertologist (10/16/2015) [-]
Except that guns aren't the problem. It's the psychos who use them to kill that are the problem. Banning guns won't stop them from killing. Without guns, you would be hearing about the same type of killings, but with something else used in place of a gun. Most anti-gun people want to take the tool away rather than deal with the killers. Step up mental health care and awareness and you effectively stop most of those shootings.

When I said "reduce the kill count" you automatically assumed that only was a plus with no downsides. The downside is that law abiding people wouldn't have them and nothing would stop criminals from getting them. When I said "reduced kill count" I meant it in the way that you're simply taking away the thing that can kill faster. That doesn't stop killings or shootings at all. It may prevent some shootings, but most shootings are done with illegally obtained guns so they obviously aren't getting them the regulated way. Banning them would only affect the people who get the legally which most shooters don't.

Take care of the mentally ill. Don't take their tools away. They'll just find another tool to use. Taking the guns away would only slightly inconvenience them. It helps no one.
#39 - detroitshanker (10/15/2015) [-]
What's wrong with reducing the death count? You say banning gun would reduce the death count, yet you still seem to be arguing against banning guns. Why? And you seem to be proposing an either or situation, why cant we ban guns and take action on mental health problems?
User avatar
#41 - wertologist (10/15/2015) [-]
Reducing the death count isn't bad, but that's not solving the problem. It's taking the easier tool away from the psychos who are going to kill anyways. Why do we need to ban guns if we solve the mental problems which are the root? If you cut the problem at it's source, then the tool isn't a problem. We have the right to bear arms for a reason. Taking them away is stupid. Guns are not the problem. I don't know why people think they are. Taking them away doesn't solve anything. Stepping up mental healthcare does. Taking them away after stepping up mental health care makes no sense. When is the last time you heard of a shooting where the person was sane? Don't count self defense cases either. If you take away the crazy people factor, likely the majority of shootings would be between drug dealers, gangs, and the rare sane/semi-sane shooting.
#42 - detroitshanker (10/15/2015) [-]
Treating mental health = less death = good

Banning guns = less death = bad

How are you getting both of these answers? If they both reduce death, what makes one good and the other bad?
#63 - heartlessrobot (10/15/2015) [-]
Treating mental health = a shitload less death = good

Banning guns = a little less death = bad

One helps people, the other strips them of freedom and means of self-defense.
#112 - anon (10/15/2015) [-]
"One helps people, the other strips them of freedom and means of self-defense."
*oh and the second one actually works
User avatar
#114 - heartlessrobot (10/15/2015) [-]
You're absolutely right.
While we're at it, everyone should be locked in their own individual cell so no one can hurt anyone else.
User avatar
#47 - wertologist (10/15/2015) [-]
Because guns aren't causing the deaths. They are tools. If you take out the psycho factor, you don't really need to worry about them. Pretty much the only shootings would be from criminals who likely aren't using legal or legally obtained firearms.

Imagine a world where painting portraits was illegal. In this world portraits are a horrible thing and everyone hates it, but there are a few artists who want to paint. Paintbrushes are their tools and if given the chance, the artist would paint a portrait. Now, would you take away the paint brushes or deal with the artists?

A) You take away the brushes. Now they can't paint with brushes, but neither can people who use those brushes to paint houses. Those people who weren't painting portraits can't work, but at least those artists are out one tool. Without brushes, the artists move to finger painting.

B) You deal with the artists. The artists are all being dealt with and the amount of portraits being painted are significantly reduced. Would you take away the brushes still even though you stopped the problem at it's source? The brushes were merely a tool after all. People can use them for other things.

You seem to be under the notion that guns can only kill and serve no other purpose other than to cause death. While that was their first initial intent when made, it's not solely what they are used for. People use them to hunt for food. I know plenty of hunters. Guns are also a self defense weapon. There were cases of shootings being prevented by a licensed owner who had a permit to open carry. You don't hear much about those cases because the media puts more focus on the articles that give them more views.

I myself want to own multiple guns. Would I ever kill anyone with them? Not if I could help it. I would use them in self defense and the defense of others. I would never do illegal things with them. Why should I be denied my 2nd amendment right? Because they are a tool used by crazies to kill? Take care of the psychos and the guns won't be the problem. Without the crazies, there would likely be no huge gun debate.
#71 - detroitshanker (10/15/2015) [-]
You can't just take out the psycho factor tho. You can reduce it, but that's all. And you can further reduce it by making guns less accessible by banning them.
I can understand to an extent wanting to keep guns available for hunting and self defence but you have to understand focusing on mental health issues by itself isn't a perfect solution.
User avatar
#124 - wertologist (10/16/2015) [-]
Again, banning them won't stop them. If you take care of the mental health issues in our country you effectively take out the vast majority of possible shootings. Taking the guns after won't do anything but un-arm law abiding people. Obviously the few crazy people left won't care if it's illegal. They'll either find a gun illegally or just use something else like a knife. A gun is more deadly than a knife, but not always. A handgun is only barely. You can only kill the amount of people equal to the amount of bullets you have(which if obtained legally, would be not a lot since they lowered the magazine size) and would have to reload, giving people a chance to either escape or fight back. You also would have to factor in how good of a shot the shooter is. You think every shooter is an ace gun man who never misses? You think every shot they take is a kill shot? Some of those victims walk away. If you have a knife, all it takes is a good stab to a vital area and you move on to the next. You can ram the knife in their back and they could bleed to death. You could stab them in the neck and they'll definitely die. Stabbing them in the stomach would also kill them. If agile enough, you could easily kill more people than a person with a handgun.
User avatar
#45 - lucariopwnz (10/15/2015) [-]
banning guns is not going to equal less death though. Bad guys will always get guns regardless of what you do. As soon as you ban them the black market for them goes through the roof. Look at what happened during prohibition with alcohol. They tried to ban it and immediately it became one of the biggest products of the mob. People were making it in bath tubs at home for shit sake. You can't keep people from doing what they are going to do.
Not only that but 98% of violent gun crimes committed today, in the USA are committed by people who are not allowed to legally own guns yet still they end up with them. How can that be if its illegal? Oh they don't care...
#111 - anon (10/15/2015) [-]
"banning guns is not going to equal less death though"
You sure about that?

"You can't keep people from doing what they are going to do."
You're right. You can't stop premeditated murder. Except premeditated murder accounts for a fraction of homocide. Nobody buys a gun off the black market because one day they might get so pissed off at their boss that they decide to shoot him in the moment.
"But then they'll just bash his head in with whatever they find laying around"
By your own logic, we might as well make rocket propelled launchers legal. If people want to blow something up, they can do it with improvised explosives, so why not?
#75 - detroitshanker (10/15/2015) [-]
I know a lot of people get guns illegally, but where do you think illegal guns are sourced from?
In Britain, guns are obviously illegal and gun crime is obviously much lower, and most illegal guns that do get into the country come from the USA.
Illegal guns come from the legal gun trade, so it would certainly make them harder to get in the long run.
Whether this is an overall good idea or not, I'm not entirely sure. I was really just trying to make the point that a guy with a knife isn't as deadly as a guy with a gun and it's gotten a bit out of hand.
User avatar
#125 - wertologist (10/16/2015) [-]
"Illegal guns come from the legal gun trade"
I seriously doubt that is true. I'm fairly certain it would be far easier and cheaper to get the weapons from Mexico or something rather than a legal person. You think all those shootings with automatics were acquired by legal trade? Hell no. Automatics have been illegal for a long time, but that certainly doesn't stop people from getting them.

"...a guy with a knife isn't as deadly as a guy with a gun..."
If they obtained the gun legally, then the knife may be more deadly. If they obtained the gun legally, they could only hold so much ammo what with the national reduced magazine size regulation. While they reload, people can either fight back or escape. Have a person with a knife and they can easily keep on killing. It doesn't take a whole lot of fancy moves to kill with a knife. A simple stab in the neck or gut will do it and then move on to the next.

The problem is that most shootings had guns illegally obtained so obviously banning them wouldn't stop shit since they get the guns elsewhere anyways. All you would be doing is taking them from law abiding people.
User avatar
#18 - nanako (10/15/2015) [-]
but thats illegal, people cant do that
User avatar
#95 - AnomynousUser (10/15/2015) [-]
Unless it's illegal in the US. Because then, it doesn't matter.
#13 - yeah but for example, how many people send death threats and h…  [+] (2 replies) 10/07/2015 on Boners of justice 0
User avatar
#132 - parashizo (10/08/2015) [-]
so its totally ok for me to threat to rape and kill your sister, or to tell other people to do that, and you can´t do anything about it?

User avatar
#176 - nevolmon (10/08/2015) [-]
i can shoot you if you try it. Florida master race.
#6 - as much as this feels like justice i still don't think people …  [+] (5 replies) 10/07/2015 on Boners of justice 0
User avatar
#11 - komandantmirkoo (10/07/2015) [-]
well i mean you can't exactly call out for the extermination of an entire race of people.

there is such a thing as hate speach
User avatar
#13 - nevolmon (10/07/2015) [-]
yeah but for example, how many people send death threats and how many people actually do it? people say things often as a spur of the moment thing and very rarely actually mean it.
User avatar
#132 - parashizo (10/08/2015) [-]
so its totally ok for me to threat to rape and kill your sister, or to tell other people to do that, and you can´t do anything about it?

User avatar
#176 - nevolmon (10/08/2015) [-]
i can shoot you if you try it. Florida master race.
User avatar
#12 - komandantmirkoo (10/07/2015) [-]
edit: speech*
i'm a bit retarded today
#3 - >not plugging it into your TV with an HDMI cable.  [+] (12 replies) 10/07/2015 on this is a dead horse +46
#12 - agronimo (10/07/2015) [-]
Mfw no TV with HDMI port
User avatar
#14 - avatice (10/07/2015) [-]
Get an adapter.
#15 - agronimo (10/07/2015) [-]
Do those adapters work for CRT TVs from 20 years ago?
User avatar
#16 - avatice (10/07/2015) [-]
Depends what kind of input the TV accepts.
#19 - jesusmarx (10/07/2015) [-]
i have a crt tv with the RCA, wich adapted can I use?
User avatar
#21 - avatice (10/07/2015) [-]
If you are using an hdmi input this should suffice.
#18 - agronimo (10/07/2015) [-]
It was a rethoric question, it only has a port for the antenna cable and a broken VHS slot I often use to hold pasties and sandwiches to keep them warm and fresh
User avatar
#20 - avatice (10/07/2015) [-]
You should be able to purchase a hdmi to coax adapter.
#22 - agronimo (10/07/2015) [-]
I'm not able to purchase anything, mate, or else I'd have replaced the TV long ago

Thanks for the advice, tho
User avatar
#23 - avatice (10/07/2015) [-]
Cost of new tv> cost of signal converter. If you have literally zero money I would recommend simply saving up about 50 bucks, as it would be a fairly cost effective solution. Or get a second hand TV I suppose.
User avatar
#24 - agronimo (10/07/2015) [-]
OR... I could steal one for free, then treat myself to some fine ass hookers with the money and still being able to watch TV and browse dank memes in full HD

I'm just pulling your leg, mate, I'm not really that broke, I'm just lazy as sin for this kind of shit
User avatar
#25 - avatice (10/07/2015) [-]
Well it's your business if you want to spend your life seeing things on a 20 year old tv. Unless you were lying from the beginning. Yes I do believe sloth is a sin, so I suppose lazy as sin is not simply figurative language.