|Funny Pictures||Funny Videos|
|Funny GIFs||YouTube Videos|
|Copyright Removal Request|
Rank #5691 on CommentsLevel 227 Comments: Mind Blower
OfflineSend mail to volleys Block volleys Invite volleys to be your friend flag avatar
latest user's comments
|#74 - No. A gun is also considered a tool, hunters use them to get food. [+] (33 new replies)||01/13/2013 on What? Logic? Stop that!||+1|
#524 - N. Korean citizen (01/13/2013) [-]
Your logic is flawed.
>a gun is ONLY a weapon, that was made for killing
>No. A gun is also used for hunting
Hunting =/= killing?
#78 - volleys (01/13/2013) [-]
No, but a gun is a tool that could be used for hunting, or killing people obviously. People get killed by plenty of other things, there are very few items that you couldn't kill another human with, a piece of string, spoiled food. The problem we are having in the US is not a gun issue, it is a psychotic problem. You can't put limits on the average non-criminal citizen and expect things to get better. For example, automatic weapons are illegal (unless you get a license, which takes a huge process to get), but criminals have them, therefor I want something that can match what the criminal has.
#85 - volleys (01/13/2013) [-]
No, people target shoot all the time, I love guns, but I have never gone hunting. What would you say about bow and arrows, crossbows? Cars weren't intended to kill people, yet they do. The problem is that the average citizen is not a criminal and 99.9% of registered guns in America are never used in a crime, so 99.9% of crimes committed with a gun are illegal. The citizen should be able to protect themselves from the people trying to harm them. If someone broke into my house I would not hesitate to blow them away, nor would I regret it one bit. They criminal was not there to bring me flowers, they were there to do some form of harm. I am for gun rights for the protection aspect. Put yourself in the role of the criminal for this instance. Imagine all guns are illegal, yet obviously you have obtained one illegally, robbing someone inside their home is like taking candy from a baby. Now imagine if 80% of people possessed a gun, wouldn't you hesitate to enter that home?
#99 - gladiuss (01/13/2013) [-]
A gun is used as a signal for starting races, a warning for scaring off predators,(not everyone kills the critters that wander too near like bears,) and even a distress signal, if one is lost. Saying a gun is only for killing is like saying a bat is only for baseball. It's a CLUB. People were beating each other senseless for millennia before they decided it would be great- gay to wack a ball instead of a skull.
It's a circular and specious argument to say that guns are bad because people are killed with them. Personally, I'd rather ban handguns if your going to and leave long guns of any kind legal. 80% of gun crime and homicide is committed with handguns. Assault rifle crimes are sensational and make great news, but by far the majority of workplace, mall, school and gang violence is handgun related.
More stringent regulations for ACQUIRING and REDISTRIBUTING guns is what is needed. Not removal.
#119 - srskate (01/13/2013) [-]
you responded to the wrong person.
1. other things can signal a race better than a gun, same with scaring off predators. Yes a gun CAN be used for other things, but it is a fact that guns are intended for killing, just like a sword. I addressed the point of things like bats. Yes, it is technically a weapon, but it is not effective for mass murder.
2. I am not saying guns are bad because people are killed with them. I am saying guns are bad because their specific use is killing.
3. Aren't handguns already more regulated? For example, in my state of maryland, i think owning a handgun requires much more licensing than owning an AR-15 (semi-auto of course. I chose this gun because a good friend of mine just bought one)
4. I never said guns should be banned.
#551 - gladiuss (01/14/2013) [-]
Sorry, yes my response SHOULD have been to the person YOU responded to. I was simply too lazy to delete and repost.
I agree with most of your points, at least in spirit except for present adequacy of hangun restrictions as regards background checks. I believe that the current system of background checks is inadequate at simply requiring a criminal background check. This process also needs to require an applicant to supply evidence of emotional/psychological stability. Nothing that will place a mental healthcare pro at risk of litigation. Perhaps a standardized "emotional stability" profile? I know it's an entirely new boondoggle, (say can of worms if that works better), but there is too much gun violence that should not be happening at all. Not that there is such a thing as an acceptable/normal cause for it. But you stop what you CAN stop. You slow down what you CAN slow down, and try to minimize the effects of what you can't.
The argument is bigger than just me. The solution? Other than what I have suggested? I got nuthin'.
#88 - srskate (01/13/2013) [-]
I swapped to list format, just for ease of reading. I'm a bit fatigued and this seemed simpler to me. Continue responding as you wish, but i shall use a list.
1. target shooting, as in practicing shooting to kill
2. the difference between a gun and a crossbow is effectiveness. It's damn hard to light up a movie theater with a crossbow.
3. correct, cars weren't intended to kill people. Guns were.
4. I would regret ending a human life. We have non-lethal weapons, why not use them? Guns aren't the only means to protect oneself.
5. Hell, I'd still rob the house. Chances are that the owner doesn't have their gun with them. It'd probably be in a safe.
#528 - srskate (01/13/2013) [-]
guns for sports is ... an odd subject. its like bombing for sports, or stabbing for sport. its odd.
and yeah, but you can expect the owner not to have the gun ready. Plus, most robberies occur when no one is home. Robbers don't want to kill, they want money. Most will bail if even a small child is home.
#532 - volleys (01/13/2013) [-]
True most robberies are committed when no one is home, but does that mean when the rare few that do happen when someone is home shouldn't be able to protect themselves? It doesn't take but a few seconds to have a gun ready if someone breaks in. You can have it pre-loaded and beside your bed, it takes around 3-4 seconds. Maybe you think guns are bad, but I prefer to think guns aren't bad, but rather bad people can use them in bad ways, good people can use them in good ways(to ensure the safety of themselves and others around them) .
#534 - srskate (01/13/2013) [-]
Having a gun loaded next to your bed? That, i must take a pure stance, as VERY bad.
If you have children, you definitely need a gun safe, end of story. Additionally, if you have a gun ready next to the place where you sleep, an accident is highly likely. In those few moments after you wake, your judgement is very impaired. Is that a dangerous criminal in the hall, or your lovely wife?
#536 - volleys (01/13/2013) [-]
No, obviously you have never used a weapon. A gun will not go off all by its self. It does not have to be chambered, at the same time it is loaded (or cocked). Yes if you have little children you would have to keep it in a safer place. How hard would it be to check to make sure your spouse was in the bed with and, and to ask "Honey is that you?"
#91 - barondante (01/13/2013) [-]
So, how about sports? Guns are used there. Unless we want to bring in an argument that the sports are only there for one to practice. But then, we can make the same argument for stuff like javelin throw and whatnot. Further, efficiency doesn't generally matter. And then there's the thing that guns weren't made to kill PEOPLE. Hunting for animals is rather different in itself.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying guns shouldn't be banned. In fact, I don't particularly care either way. I just think the reasoning here is flawed.
#104 - srskate (01/13/2013) [-]
Guns were invented for killing people. The first use of guns was by the Chinese military, to kill.
Shooting sports are honestly, quite odd. It's difficult to work into with gun control.
Efficiency doesn't matter, you say? Then why aren't citizens allowed to own nukes. It's a weapon just like a gun, the difference is how efficiently it can kill, and on what scale.
#533 - volleys (01/13/2013) [-]
Nukes are quite different from guns. Why would the average person even need a nuke? There is absolutely no reason, guns on the other hand are for protection purposes, hunting for food, etc. Let's just assume someone possesses a nuke, what if it accidentally went off? Hundreds, thousands, even millions of people could be killed. As history points out, when guns are taken away by there own governments, millions of lives are lost because of these tyrannical governments. Hey if you choose not to own a gun, I will not be saddened in any way, but when I choose to own a gun this typically happens "Woah woah woah. What is going on here?" Most adults have enough sense to be responsible with guns, obviously we wouldn't want crazy people to obtain them, but they still would even if guns were banned.
#535 - srskate (01/13/2013) [-]
The average person does not need a gun. There are other ways to get food (you pointed out crossbows early. Ted Nugent does quite well with a crossbow). There are other just as good non-lethal forms of protection. Forms that cannot accidentally kill anyone.
You actually brought up a good point. What if a gun accidentally goes off? Well I already have the answer to that. There were 23,237 accidental non-fatal gunshot injuries in the United States during 2000.
As to history and taking away guns blah blah blah. That, statistically, is shit. For one, it confuses correlation with causation. Guns were banned because dictators rose, dictators did not rise because guns were banned. Today, there are thousands of countries world wide where guns are not necessarily banned, but gun ownership is so low, it might as well be 0. Japan, for example, only people who use guns for sport may own a firearm, and they don't have a dictator. You also forget this is the united states of America. If the government magically turned tyrannical, which is nigh impossible under our Constitution, who would enforce their tyranny? Our soldiers are loyal to their country, not their government.
#538 - volleys (01/13/2013) [-]
Sorry I also forgot to reply to other parts about governments banning buns. Hitler gained much more power when he banned guns, killing 6 million jews (not to mention other people who were considered unfit) who had no protection, Stalin banning guns and sending out soldiers to kill citizens who disagreed with his view? The reason why our country is "safe" from tyrannical government is because of the 2nd amendment my friend. Just as you may you hunt with a crossbow, you may kill people. There were mass murders even without guns, people are capable of doing this even without these "tools of destruction".
#540 - srskate (01/13/2013) [-]
All that i can say is, no.
Hitler banned guns because he was a dictator. Same with stalin. Banning guns didnt create them.
And no, the second amendment does nothing today to stop our government. What stops our government is our system. If someone wanted to take control and oppress people, they couldn't. we have checks and balances for a reason.
Lets pretend that the only thing our constitution says is that we can bear arms. Great. Woohoo. You have an AR-15, I have an airforce, tanks, trained snipers, predator drones, and bombs. I win. What stops this from happening is the system that the framers set up with the constituion. No one person has power, and we have a multi-party system where power is derived from the people.
#546 - volleys (01/14/2013) [-]
I never said Hitler or Stalin gain their initial power because of massive gun banning, I simply said they gained much power through this act. The 2nd amendment by it self may not keeps us from tyrannical rule, but at least it gives a fighting chance. For instance, imagine we are under dictatorship, we could form a militia and capture tanks or some other form of military weaponry, not that it is very likely, it helps equalize the power. I want my government to be afraid of guns, because they know if they screw up massively we can take them out by impeaching them, or if comes to worse situations then we will take them out personally. The government should never be the one in total control. They work for the voters. Not the other way around. Sadly the situation does seem like they are in control of us at this point in time.
#547 - srskate (01/14/2013) [-]
I nearly missed this comment.
Honestly, I think the massive ownership of guns is better at stopping foreign powers, because fuck those guys. Also, unfortunately the government, while not evil or tyrannical, is sort of corrupt. It's shifting towards an aristocracy because the rich can buy votes.
My feelings on guns are mixed, to be honest. I like the protection aspect as well as the idea of some foreign nation just trying to invade us without getting shot at, but then shit like sandy hook happens. I believe we need better gun safety and control.
#537 - volleys (01/13/2013) [-]
The accidents part is so very wrong, somebody was involved in directly causing the accident, someone pulled the trigger and expected nothing to happen. If you have a gun in a room with no one in there, the gun would do nothing. If there are so many forms of non-lethal protection, please tell me how you would handle the situation if someone broke into your house while you were there.
#539 - srskate (01/13/2013) [-]
I don't understand your argument. The accidents part is very right. There was a gun, it was used as it is intended to function, to harm. The person didn't intend to use it, but the gun was used for its intended person.
Additionally, if C4 was in a room, and no one was there, the C4 would do nothing. Same with heroin and a tank, yet there is a damn good reason that they are illegal.
Here is how I'd respond to someone breaking into my house:
www.ritzcamera.com/ (criminals do not like to be identified)
#544 - volleys (01/14/2013) [-]
Obviously tanks and C4 are illegal, are the same reason nukes are, they can do massive amounts of damage on a far greater scale than a gun. So you would tazer the person/rubber bullet a criminal and risk them getting back up and suing you because of the screwed up legal system in the US? A dead man can't sue.
#545 - srskate (01/14/2013) [-]
Yes, and a gun can cause destruction on a much greater scale than knifes, guitar string, and a bat.
Hell, there was even a shooting at my school this year. Fortunately, the assailant was tackled after he fired one shot.
And I'd rather injure someone whom then tries to sue me rather than kill them.
#548 - volleys (01/14/2013) [-]
#549 - srskate (01/14/2013) [-]
the problem with someone in the school having a gun would be that it'd have to be a teacher or principal. My mom is a teacher has personally said that she'd never be able to shoot anyone, especially a student. Instead of a gun, give her a taser, change some legislation (which is easy with protest, we just need numbers) and change some of the backwards laws on taser and rubber bullets and such.
also, we have been debating for around a day now. we should wrap it up soon :P
#558 - volleys (01/14/2013) [-]
Yeah I agree let's wrap this up. I would like to say that if schools had signs that read "Faculty Armed and Trained with Firearms" that in it self would ward of some wanna be mass murderers. Even if your mother may not fire the gun, another teacher most likely would. If you imagine the situation of not shooting the murderer he could kill 20 people, and be taken to prison, versus, 2 people then somebody shoots him. Much less catastrophic. It has happened before where the principle has stopped a student from killing people. But anyway, it was nice talking to you.
|#73 - No it was not meant for just militias, it says that there need… [+] (2 new replies)||01/13/2013 on What? Logic? Stop that!||-1|
#94 - defeats (01/13/2013) [-]
The problem isn't someone invading your house and being killed, the problem is you could have serious mental health problems and you have access to firearms.
This doesn't mean you couldn't be dangerous without access to guns, you could make a weapon out of anything. But outside of a range of lets say 1 meter, the person with the gun will win the confrontation.
|#10 - It looks like there is also some guy jeriking it too||01/12/2013 on The Shadow Knows...||-1|
|#15 - Because the opposite water is trying to get through aswell, an…||01/11/2013 on yeah, what if?||+2|
|#21 - Picture||01/10/2013 on home alone and you hear...||+7|
|#39 - I'm assuming that either they are not completely perpetual, or… [+] (4 new replies)||01/09/2013 on i heard fj likes perpetual...||0|
#89 - johhen (01/09/2013) [-]
Sorry to spoil your fun, but when you hook it onto a turbine, you steal the self built power stream of the objekt slowing it down, thus stopping it after a period.
second, it would cost a lot to buy the material, which over time will become dilapidated, and the expense would be greater than the profit
A old rule in physics says that you can not use energy to create more energy then you used
|#76 - www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8pISIZfWpI||01/09/2013 on To /b/ or not to /b/||+1|
|#75 - Guys...It's over 9000! [+] (1 new reply)||01/09/2013 on Goku's Name||+8|
|#30 - Ehh yo tik tik!||01/08/2013 on Animaception||+1|
|#118 - I TRIED THAT! Damn you internet!!!!!!!!!||01/07/2013 on Posterior Puncturist||0|
|#110 - FJ what is happening? [+] (4 new replies)||01/07/2013 on Posterior Puncturist||+6|
|#184 - Picture [+] (2 new replies)||01/06/2013 on Trillion Explained||0|
|#37 - I thought that was a remote control car at first. :(||01/06/2013 on Fatality||+4|
|#38 - Hehe how would you know??||01/06/2013 on Classy||+49|
|#17 - It's technically not paper, it's a mixture of stuff. But yeah …||01/05/2013 on Close||0|
|#19 - Elementary is Kindergarten - 5th, most of the time. Junior Hig…||01/04/2013 on Popularity||0|
|#50 - And the Ark is nowhere to be found. Thought the pic was funny though. [+] (5 new replies)||01/04/2013 on Fight||+1|
|#92 - Pete's fucking dead. Bladder infection. Poor bastard didn't ha…||01/04/2013 on Relationships through life||+4|
|#59 - The first couple were good, then I was like "What?"||01/04/2013 on Know the difference||+1|
|#16 - What a douche.||01/04/2013 on Just doing his job!||+23|
|#799 - Just gonna leave this here. www.gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/…||01/04/2013 on father of the year nominated||0|
|#63 - Damn you OP, now I have to wait for iTunes to load!||01/03/2013 on Try it, I dare you.||+1|
|#10 - If you don't believe in religion then you probably don't belie…||12/31/2012 on Wood||+4|
|#16516 - They have thumb scanner safes, maybe one teacher wouldn't want…||12/31/2012 on Politics - politics news,...||+1|
|#16485 - Let teachers have guns. [+] (6 new replies)||12/31/2012 on Politics - politics news,...||+1|
#16493 - jumpingjellybeans (12/31/2012) [-]
That would just not work. At LEAST a quarter of teachers would not want to shoot a gun at all. Maybe they are scared of them or they are just older teachers. Besides, where would you put the gun and how would you stop kids from taking it? A lock? That would take to long to open in an emergency situation.
#16536 - bazda (12/31/2012) [-]
First of all, have it on the teachers hip. That's easy to get at, and difficult to be taken away. That might be scary for the kids? It's a lot less scary than watching your best friend in 4th grade get his head blown off.
Second, they just had a class somewhere in Utah for teachers to get hands on firearm training and the place was packed. Google it. It was in the news.
#16534 - mothafuckingbatman (12/31/2012) [-]
Most teachers wouldnt shot, yes this is true, but if they hire teachers that were ex cops and military it could help cuz they would be more likely to use it, i know most military and cops dont want to use their weapons but they will most likely put their lives at risk than most, courage is imbedded in their minds more so than civilians...does my idea make since most likely not, is there flaws in it, yes like most plans, but is it a idea that cpuld work..i have no idea...im not psychich