Political Junk. .. i love how a 17-year-old (with proper consent from a guardian) can legally go die for his country, four years before he's allowed to have a damn beer. America r Political Junk i love how a 17-year-old (with proper consent from guardian) can legally go die for his country four years before he's allowed to have damn beer America r
Upload
Login or register
Hide Comments
Leave a comment Refresh Comments (564)
[ 564 comments ]
> hey anon, wanna give your opinion?
asd
User avatar #11 - sgtstacke
Reply +183 123456789123345869
(12/29/2012) [-]
i love how a 17-year-old (with proper consent from a guardian) can legally go die for his country, four years before he's allowed to have a damn beer. America really shows its priorities.
#46 to #11 - lpplph
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(12/29/2012) [-]
Also if you're active duty military, you can drink alcohol (to an extent of course) if you're under aged
#55 to #46 - narwhalsnballs [OP] **User deleted account**
+4 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #65 to #55 - commontroll
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(12/29/2012) [-]
My friend who was in the Navy a year ago said on base you can drink. And most places are willing to overlook the law for military members.
User avatar #162 to #65 - sgtstacke
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(12/29/2012) [-]
just because people overlook the law doesn't mean it isn't a law. I did not address any variables
#66 to #65 - narwhalsnballs [OP] **User deleted account**
+3 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #69 to #66 - commontroll
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(12/29/2012) [-]
And what was you MOS, contract length, etc?
#74 to #69 - narwhalsnballs [OP] **User deleted account**
+4 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #167 to #74 - commontroll
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(12/29/2012) [-]
Nice. One of the cooler jobs out there if you ask me.
#170 to #167 - narwhalsnballs [OP] **User deleted account**
+4 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #172 to #170 - commontroll
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(12/29/2012) [-]
I agree, sounds really awesome.
User avatar #337 to #172 - mulciber
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(12/29/2012) [-]
Why the hell can't most military discussions be as civil as this little chain here?
User avatar #621 to #337 - commontroll
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(12/30/2012) [-]
Because this is the internet, and we love being raging dickholes here.
User avatar #68 to #66 - commontroll
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(12/29/2012) [-]
Yeah, it probably varies branch to branch, but I remember he was telling me that was one of the benefits of the Navy.
#195 to #11 - anon id: 9a0a01e2
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/29/2012) [-]
exactly. I hate it. you can literally be in a warzone here grenades are catapaulted towards you and risk having your brains literally blown out before you can legally drink a can of beer. i think once you are 18 you should be responsible enough to drink! just make the dwi laws harsher. you can smoke at 18 also.
#516 to #11 - anon id: 3918d44c
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/30/2012) [-]
18 year old marines can legally drink at base parties
User avatar #553 to #11 - Deavas
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/30/2012) [-]
you can drink beer if under 21 if you are enlisted and on base
User avatar #572 to #11 - mahnamesjakers
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/30/2012) [-]
I'm not saying that you're wrong because I think it's ridiculous too, but technically if we're talking about priorities then that means America is showing that they care more about defending our country than letting people get drunk.
User avatar #606 to #11 - revanthewin
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/30/2012) [-]
You can be trained to use any type of firearm at the age of 17, and go out into war and use them, but if you come back to the States you aren't allowed to carry one.
User avatar #609 to #11 - pokemonstheshiz
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/30/2012) [-]
With a military license you can buy beer at 18. most 17 year olds aren't allowed in the army without special permission
User avatar #632 to #609 - sgtstacke
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/30/2012) [-]
the legal drinking age is 21 in nearly every state. and i said 17 with proper consent from a guardian
User avatar #616 to #11 - roflcopterkklol **User deleted account**
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/30/2012) [-]
That is actually the exact reason they lowered the drinking age over here.
User avatar #268 to #11 - fredthemilkman
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(12/29/2012) [-]
I think Nixon lowered the age to 18 near the end of the Vietnam war. He figured they were gonna get drunk anyways.

It led to alot of drunks apparently, so they raised the age again.
User avatar #89 to #11 - graydiggy
Reply +17 123456789123345869
(12/29/2012) [-]
That is actually incorrect. At 17 any civilian with proper consent can enlist and go to training. They will not be sent to their first duty station or to war until after 18.
User avatar #51 - roflcopterkklol **User deleted account**
Reply +86 123456789123345869
(12/29/2012) [-]
I live in Australia, we have strict gun control (no semi automatic, have to go through ******** to get a gun license yadda yadda yadda)
In Australia there are about 250 murders (in total) to 21,000,000 people each year.
In America there are about 17,000 (15,000 being gun related) murders (in total) to 311,000,000 people each year.
So....
Odds of being murdered in America - around 1 in 18,000.
Odds of being murdered with a gun in America - around 1 in 20,000
Odds of being murdered in Australia - around 1 in 84,000


But no no go on, please continue to tell me about how gun control does not work.


User avatar #130 to #51 - illogicalkhan
Reply -3 123456789123345869
(12/29/2012) [-]
America has black people though
User avatar #63 to #51 - commontroll
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/29/2012) [-]
We have *******, and a large populace of America lives in large cities, where you're more likely to be murdered.
#70 to #63 - comradewinter
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(12/29/2012) [-]
Australia has a larger native population and several organizations thereof who believe killing the white man is the only way to regain their lost land. Your native Americans run casinos and stuff, theirs live in the jungle.
User avatar #72 to #70 - commontroll
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(12/29/2012) [-]
I was just kidding about the black people and such. Honestly, there's no excuse for it other than just us Americans being violent. I seem to run into you a lot these past couple days comrade...
#73 to #72 - comradewinter
Reply +8 123456789123345869
(12/29/2012) [-]
Maybe we're fated to discuss everything from A-Z.
User avatar #77 to #73 - commontroll
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(12/29/2012) [-]
Perhaps... perhaps. Well, might as well get rid of another topic while we're at it.

How's your day going, friend?
#179 to #73 - roarflmao
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(12/29/2012) [-]
no excuse? isnt the obvious excuse that the gun regulations should be more strict? sure it would be hard to implement better gun control in USA but after 10-20 years it would probably work almost as well as the other industrialized countries. Please dont give me the "even without guns there would still be murders!" yes there still would be murders and some people would still have guns but if it wouldnt be effective why does it work in other places then?

TL:DR, Anti gun thumb up pro gun thumb down.. because reading before you thumb is unnessary right fj??
#180 to #179 - comradewinter
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(12/29/2012) [-]
I'm sorry, but what on earth are you talking about? How is this related to my comment?
#183 to #180 - roarflmao
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(12/29/2012) [-]
tho i was supposed to reply to your earlier comment when i look back, ykno the one about americans just being more violent
#185 to #183 - comradewinter
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(12/29/2012) [-]
That wasn't my comment, either. That was commontroll's. I said the natives were more hostile, which most people agree to.
#201 to #185 - roarflmao
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(12/29/2012) [-]
i should not comment more today.. i cant read correct and keep pressing the wrong reply button and accidentially bring up things that are irrelevant, thanks for your patience instead of insta retard stamping me m8 :)
#181 to #180 - roarflmao
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/29/2012) [-]
**** replied to the wrong comment
#324 to #51 - anon id: 9dc27355
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/29/2012) [-]
>implying two cultures will be affected the same with any change
#415 to #51 - anon id: 872b8d35
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/30/2012) [-]
you're also twice as likely to be assaulted in Australia than the u.s. point being the violence won't go away if you get rid of guns.Guns just make it easier to kill people. As the saying goes guns don't kill people: people kill people
#429 to #51 - anon id: 92a9d486
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/30/2012) [-]
Chicago is a prime example of why gun control would not work in AMERICA. Australia and America are completely different areas with a completely different culture. Chicago recently reached their 500th homicide for the year of 2012 with many of those being gun related homicides. So please continue to tell me about how gun control would work in a country that already has hundred of millions of guns in the hands of the people.
#470 to #429 - anon id: 4d64f056
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/30/2012) [-]
Make it illegal to own one, or hold a "Cash for guns" similar to "cash for clunkers" where you submit any firearm to a local approved gun station, you get cash, and they destroy it.
User avatar #608 to #470 - revanthewin
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/30/2012) [-]
But if you make it illegal to own guns then you've just made millions of law abiding citizens criminals. And on a different note, if someone wanted to own a gun, would a law really stop them? I mean, criminals aren't really known for following the law.
User avatar #198 to #51 - odonnell
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(12/29/2012) [-]
In Scotland we have strict gun laws. (Only permitted a shotgun or rifle, and only with proof of what it will be used for (Hunting etc), with locked cabinet in a secure household etc)
In Scotland (2011-12) there was around 500 Firearm related Homicides recorded. To a population of 5,295,000.
1 in 10,590 chance of being shot, Damn, we should sort out our ****. No wonder we're the murder capital of Europe.

I never realised our **** was this bad until i felt the need to do what you just done but with my values.
User avatar #336 to #51 - adrianking
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(12/29/2012) [-]
Easy. We all already have guns.
User avatar #468 to #51 - thatevanguy
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(12/30/2012) [-]
You're awesome.
User avatar #492 to #51 - conquer
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(12/30/2012) [-]
There are too many guns in America for it to work here. Keep in mind that murder is a criminal act and tell me that you honestly expect murderers and gang bangers to turn in their guns like happy, law abiding citizens. At this point in America's history, it would be a mistake to start pushing laws that work so well in Australia. It would leave many people open to threats and acts of violence simply for obeying the law. Im not saying America has it right, but i will say that your way wouldn't work here. At least, not now
User avatar #500 to #51 - hawaiianhappysauce
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(12/30/2012) [-]
Switzerland has one of the highest gun ownership per capita in the world, yet their homocide rate is the 4th lowest in the world.
User avatar #99 to #51 - imnotkickthecat
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(12/29/2012) [-]
maybe if you all had guns, you could take care of the bunny and frog problems you have over there that are killing al the native wildlife.
User avatar #611 to #99 - roflcopterkklol **User deleted account**
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/30/2012) [-]
You do not need a semi automatic rifle to go bunny hunting.
#507 to #51 - firecrotchq
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(12/30/2012) [-]
I'm watching Snatch right now, and i was wondering why it was such a big deal, and so hard to get, a gun. then i realized they were in England. Gun control has nothing to do with crime/ murder really.
User avatar #120 to #51 - Johnsfer
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(12/29/2012) [-]
It's illogical anyway, the only way to drastically reduce guns is to make it so that making guns is illegal, and owning guns is illegal, which is impossible because you'd be putting big companies out of business.
Either way, you ever hear of prohibition? Alcohol didn't disappear. Or how about banning drugs?
User avatar #59 to #51 - zzonked
Reply +13 123456789123345869
(12/29/2012) [-]
You Aussies have to worry about being murdered by a whole multitude of animals before you worry about getting murdered by each other
#80 to #59 - anon id: 90c85961
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/29/2012) [-]
what? have you been to Australia unless you live out in the bush you are completely fine
User avatar #81 to #80 - zzonked
Reply +8 123456789123345869
(12/29/2012) [-]
I have and it was a joke.
User avatar #109 to #51 - upunkpunk
Reply +20 123456789123345869
(12/29/2012) [-]
Stop comparing drastically different countries with drastically different populations and expect to get the same result in both. There are many factors making America and Australia different one being Australia is an island which has a lot of control in who comes on and what comes in while America is above ******* Mexico which also has strict gun laws yet has high murder rates. Which in itself proves gun laws don't always work.
#365 to #109 - ertene
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(12/29/2012) [-]
Almost every gun in mexico is originally purchased in the USA
User avatar #367 to #365 - upunkpunk
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(12/29/2012) [-]
So we should make guns illegal in every country?
#211 to #109 - anon id: 203cb4ff
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/29/2012) [-]
So first you say stop comparing two drastically different countries and then you go on to compare Mexico and America? Those are much more different than Australia & America.
However, one country you could compare America with is Switzerland. Both have little gun control yet Switzerland has a much lower gun homicide rate.
Switzerland has 0.52 per 100,000 - vs. - America with 3.7 per 100,000
(Australia has 0.09 per 100,000)
Based on this, one could deduct that either Americans just like to think they can shoot anything they want because of HERPDERPFREEDOM and believe more guns will fix anything. Or that Switzerland's population is much more sober & mature, and actually learns proper gun etiquette. As opposed to Americans.
While I don't guns are necessarily bad, I do believe that proper gun etiquette is more important; if you can't use a gun properly, you shouldn't be allowed near one.
User avatar #261 to #211 - penguinmonk
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/29/2012) [-]
Now did your original computations include the effects of murder by spiders in Australia? I that case you have a 1 out of 200 chance of getting murdered.
#477 to #261 - adissaddd **User deleted account**
0 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #578 to #477 - penguinmonk
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(12/30/2012) [-]
Because statistics on Funnyjunk are meant to be taken seriously? It's a humor site dear, get used to some sarcasm.
#623 to #578 - adissaddd **User deleted account**
-1 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #92 - churrundo
Reply +54 123456789123345869
(12/29/2012) [-]
a 19 year old is responsible enough to take a person's life, but not to drink
#93 to #92 - mikeliterous
-4 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
#100 to #93 - SpartansDrinkDew
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(12/29/2012) [-]
If you're in the military the drinking age is still 21, regardless of whether or not you're on base. However, if the country you are stationed in has laws different from our own (Japan- drinking age is 20) then you may consume alcohol at that age both on and off base.
#437 to #93 - mikeliterous
0 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
#95 to #92 - captnpl
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/29/2012) [-]
Your brain doesn't finish developing until you're 21, that's why you shouldn't drink.
User avatar #101 to #95 - NolanNasty
Reply +8 123456789123345869
(12/29/2012) [-]
but you should be deciding who gets to live and who gets to die? Seems legit to me.
User avatar #107 to #101 - biomedic
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(12/29/2012) [-]
He never said that. Just stated the biological reason you shouldn't drink.
User avatar #96 to #95 - joekooldash
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(12/29/2012) [-]
your body doesn't stop developing on average until you're 25. also the average American male will not leave their parent's house for good until they're 29. and it doesn't matter how long it takes for your brain to finish developing because were all going too kill those brain cells anyway with all the glorious drinking.
#97 to #96 - captnpl
Reply +6 123456789123345869
(12/29/2012) [-]
but the more brain cells you have, the more you can drink before you forget how to hold the bottle.
User avatar #98 to #97 - joekooldash
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(12/29/2012) [-]
good point
User avatar #504 to #95 - hawaiianhappysauce
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/30/2012) [-]
Do you think undeveloped brains can be responsible for choosing to spare or take life?
User avatar #242 to #95 - churrundo
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/29/2012) [-]
with that logic you can't prescribe medication like ritalin
#193 to #95 - cockineveryorifice
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(12/29/2012) [-]
Brain development doesn't end until late 20s. Still that's a stupid reason to make something illegal, how is someone having a very slightly less developed brain going to harm anyone else?
#552 to #193 - captnpl
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(12/30/2012) [-]
Have you ever worked retail?
#122 to #92 - rubadubdubb
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(12/29/2012) [-]
yeah its bull **** ive been in the army for almost two years and im only 18. ( I swore in a month after my 17th birthday) and i couldnt buy smokes or even drink. like **** me right
User avatar #426 - unhappyspanners
Reply +52 123456789123345869
(12/30/2012) [-]
Your average 19 year old isn't a trained soldier, he's a *******.
#431 to #426 - davidavidson
Reply -17 123456789123345869
(12/30/2012) [-]
And you sir, are an ungrateful piece of ****
#440 to #431 - notstill
Reply +9 123456789123345869
(12/30/2012) [-]
He's not talking about 19 year old soldiers he means that the majority of 19 year olds are immature and stupid.
#465 to #440 - davidavidson
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(12/30/2012) [-]
Then that means I deserve all of these red thumbs...
#444 to #431 - ninjasquirle
Reply +6 123456789123345869
(12/30/2012) [-]
Comment Picture
#592 to #444 - coolcalx
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/30/2012) [-]
here, take this!
here, take this!
#438 to #431 - notstill
0 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #526 to #426 - thepartygod
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(12/30/2012) [-]
how old are you? Cause you really seemed pissed off at all those damn 19 year old hoodlums. They been skateboardin on your sidewalk again?
User avatar #527 to #526 - thepartygod
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(12/30/2012) [-]
although I do love your use of the word *******.
#441 to #426 - theasguard
Reply +7 123456789123345869
(12/30/2012) [-]
LMAO *******, that is going to be my word of the day today
#214 - ipostcheesepizza
Reply +45 123456789123345869
(12/29/2012) [-]
"Protects"
User avatar #473 to #214 - JoshBauer
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/30/2012) [-]
That's kinda what a military does, you idiot. It's prevention by presence. If there wasn't a military, there would be nothing to stop a foreign military from invading. So yes, this kid is protecting everybody in the USA.
User avatar #522 to #473 - ipostcheesepizza
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/30/2012) [-]
You really think your country is in danger at the moment? There's a fine line between prevention and exaggeration.
User avatar #560 to #522 - JoshBauer
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(12/30/2012) [-]
No, we aren't in danger because we have a military. Did you just skip through my comment or what?
User avatar #568 to #560 - ipostcheesepizza
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(12/30/2012) [-]
Even without the military, you're not in danger. There's no point in defending something that isn't being attacked. By defending, you're causing the danger.
User avatar #573 to #568 - JoshBauer
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(12/30/2012) [-]
We're not being attacked because we're defending. Who knows where the world would be right now if the U.S. didn't have a military. We'd probably all be speaking German or Russian.
#382 - gehrkstar
Reply +40 123456789123345869
(12/29/2012) [-]
Ya, but you see, THOSE 19 year-olds have months of training and discipline. There's a difference.
#390 to #382 - mikepetru
Reply -15 123456789123345869
(12/29/2012) [-]
Implying 19 year olds that are not in the army couldn't possibly get someone to train them.
User avatar #393 to #382 - arcanemonkey
Reply -15 123456789123345869
(12/29/2012) [-]
yes but that doesnt meen it makes them responsible just a better killer

that was the point of the post numb nuts
#154 - achselschweiss
Reply +38 123456789123345869
(12/29/2012) [-]
There's a difference between a 18-19 year old who has been drilling muzzle and trigger control for months, memorized the gun safety rules, had firearm training by professionals in a safe environment, and a 18-19 year old whose firearm training comes from Call of Duty and hip-hop videos.
#228 to #154 - pedobearson
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(12/29/2012) [-]
They may be different but should still be allowed.
#231 to #154 - anon id: 9d754b72
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/29/2012) [-]
I believe the point is that he was judging all 19 year olds.
#294 to #154 - anon id: b03a1d8c
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/29/2012) [-]
you Americans just don't get it do you? it's not about training someone how to handle a gun or protecting yourselves with guns, it's about people turning aggressive or desperate for a random reason, searching for a way to express it and if there are guns nearby, why not use it? So simply take the guns away and it will be much harder too kill someone. The violence won't drop probably but the death rate will.
#450 to #294 - achselschweiss
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(12/30/2012) [-]
>implying I'm American
I'm from northern Europe. Less than five gun related murders this year, yet there's over 30 guns per 100 people here. USA has 88 per 100. Other countries with loads of guns and few gun related homicides include Finland, Switzerland, Austria.

The point is that it's important to teach gun safety if you're gonna have guns, whether it's by compulsory military service or firearm safety classes.
User avatar #246 to #154 - newfalcon
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(12/29/2012) [-]
Exactly we need a proper way to teach gun use and safety! I took a hunters safety course when I was 12 and I learned about gun safety and proper firearm usage in the boy scouts. If We had prerequisites like this in the US we would probably have less gun related violence. Probably won't happen though. It would require Democrats to accept that guns are not godless killing machines, and Republicans to think of a better statement than "YUR ANI'T GUNNA TAKE MA GUNS!! DIRTY LIBERAL SOCIALIST!!"
#510 to #246 - achselschweiss
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(12/30/2012) [-]
I'm European, and as you may already know, it's difficult to get a hold of a firearm in most of the European countries. But we still have a lot of guns: between 30 and 50% own a firearm.

Even though there's many guns, there's relatively few homicides involving guns compared to the US (some facts here: http://www.gunpolicy.org). I picked a handful of European countries at random and gun homicide per 100 000 people in all of them are less than 0.5. USA is around 3.0. You don't have to have a degree in something to see the issue here.

To gain the privilege to own a gun over here, you have to jump through some hoops.
In my country, you either
A: have to be a member of a sports shooting club for some time before applying for a gun owners license
B: take a hunters class which involves multiple courses (which contains wildlife identification and safety, among other things) and a target shooting test before getting a hunters license. After all that you can apply for a gun owner license and buy a gun.
Or C: be in the national guard, where you are assigned a rifle which you can't really use unless the country is being invaded or there's an exercise. No backyard shooting or killing animals allowed.
Also, you have to have an approved locker that's bolted to the floor.

Some people are just sick, and would kill regardless of gun regulations, but by making the people take a mandatory safety class, much can be solved. But one of the problems is that the US constitution is so strong that any legislation or law being passed would be considered infringement. It's sad, because making a few tiny hoops doesn't necessarily infringe on the peoples" right to bear arms" as it's called.


Personally, I've done my compulsory military service and have extensive training with guns and the safety surrounding them, but I don't own a gun. I'm thinking of taking up shooting as a hobby, but owning a gun for protection doesn't really cross my mind at all.
User avatar #636 to #510 - JuliusC
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/16/2013) [-]
the real question is how many blacks and mexicans do you have in your country. They commit 67% of all crime here in the US (yes this is a statistical fact)
User avatar #546 - zeusmm
Reply +34 123456789123345869
(12/30/2012) [-]
Theres a huge difference between 19 year old trained and well disciplined soldier and a random 19 year old who obsessed with call of duty...
#581 to #546 - anon id: e28b8f45
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/30/2012) [-]
You obviously have never spent any amount of time around the military.
#458 - Yojimbo
Reply +27 123456789123345869
(12/30/2012) [-]
The police protect his ass. TRAINED soldiers of ALL ages protect his COUNTRY. And no, I don't think trigger happy untrained 19 year olds who have played too much Call of Duty and have something to prove are responsible. Adam Lanza's mother trained him to use a gun because she thought it would give him responsibility.   
   
Not implying all 19 year olds aren't responsible, but rather that they aren't always well.   
   
Ultimately we must ask ourselves: WWBD?   
   
What would Batman do?   
   
I think the answer is obvious
The police protect his ass. TRAINED soldiers of ALL ages protect his COUNTRY. And no, I don't think trigger happy untrained 19 year olds who have played too much Call of Duty and have something to prove are responsible. Adam Lanza's mother trained him to use a gun because she thought it would give him responsibility.

Not implying all 19 year olds aren't responsible, but rather that they aren't always well.

Ultimately we must ask ourselves: WWBD?

What would Batman do?

I think the answer is obvious
#502 to #458 - anon id: e55c4e20
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/30/2012) [-]
You do realize that there were three shooters at Newtown, right?
User avatar #525 to #502 - Yojimbo
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(12/30/2012) [-]
Show me a source.
#476 to #458 - UnoSkullmanx
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(12/30/2012) [-]
Right, SOME 19 yr olds aren't responsible, therefore we should punish ALL of them and use a carpet ban.
User avatar #524 to #476 - Yojimbo
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(12/30/2012) [-]
Is punish the right word though? Chances are, most 19 year olds can live without having a gun. It's akin to school's requiring dress code. It is there to stop a minority of incidents like bullying, but it effects everyone. Still, kids live on regardless.
#513 to #458 - johnshepherd
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(12/30/2012) [-]
You should know that you need to do safety courses to get anything besides a long-gun. And that for a hunting license or carry permit you do need to pass safety courses for all gun-types.
User avatar #528 to #513 - Yojimbo
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(12/30/2012) [-]
I didn't completely know that, and it's a fair point. However, it is no guarantee. For instance, most drivers on the road have licenses. Does that make them responsible drivers?
#615 to #528 - johnshepherd
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(12/30/2012) [-]
Sorry it took me so long to respond.

No it doesn't, but with the sheer number of background checks and hoops to jump through in order to get a firearm, an increase in the security would probably not have any noticeable effect. May I ask: what is your view on automatic weapons? Permaban, extra license or same license?
User avatar #618 to #615 - Yojimbo
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(12/30/2012) [-]
No worries, I guess my logic is any crime stopped is still crime stopped. You can't put a price on life. As far as automatic weapons go, it's tricky. I guess I'd say this:

It comes down to need. I understand some people need rifles. Some people hunt to feed themselves, some make their living hunting. I understand some people need pistols, some people live in bad neighborhoods. I also understand our Constitution gives us a right to bear arms, despite what a tricky area that is. But I don't think anyone needs an assault weapon. I mean, I get that they are fun for target shooting, etc., but you would survive if you didn't have one. Someone on here made a good point: an assault weapon is as it's name suggests, to assault. And assault is illegal, and dangerous. So that pretty much sums up my opinion on guns. They're usefulness is dependent on need and necessity.

Thumbed you up for being a respectful commenter.
#620 to #618 - johnshepherd
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/30/2012) [-]
Thanks for the mutual respect. Thumb for you in return.


From a certain perspective, I do agree with your necessity assumption for automatic weapons (also, assault weapon is slightly innacurate, in my opinion, as it is makes them seem more violent than they are: an "assault weapon" is just an automatic or semi-automatic gun with a larger cartridge.) but here's my view:

The second amendment says that freedom is dependent on having a well-regulated militia to keep the government in check. Regulated might initially seem like gun-control laws are in proper order, but back then, it meant something more akin to uniform, or equally armed, anyway. The only conditions set forth are "not a drunkard and not insane," so my opinion is that, if the military owns one and you aren't drunk or mad, you should be able to purchase and own one. Also, I am of the opinion that carry permit should be synonymous with an ownership permit, but that's just my two-bits.
User avatar #462 to #458 - durkadurka
Reply +13 123456789123345869
(12/30/2012) [-]
So we should strike fear in the hearts of all criminals?
#464 to #462 - Yojimbo
Reply +11 123456789123345869
(12/30/2012) [-]
MFW your username
MFW your username
User avatar #508 - Shiny
Reply +26 123456789123345869
(12/30/2012) [-]
The difference is that a 19-year-old in the Army knows **** about discipline.

Random 19-year-olds are clueless jerkoffs that think playing Counter-Strike makes them masters of armed combat.