The way things have been going.... . The way things have been going
Upload
Login or register
Hide Comments
Leave a comment Refresh Comments (157)
[ 157 comments ]
> hey anon, wanna give your opinion?
asd
User avatar #2 - hudis
Reply -82 123456789123345869
(09/09/2013) [-]
To be honest, with the amount of school shootings, cinema shootings, street shootings, armed robberies, gun violence in projects etc across the U.S., I cannot blame politicians for wanting to do whatever they physically can about it. Everything from teaching kids that using guns is wrong to limiting gun allowances - yes, anything goes, in my opinion. As long as some of those measures reduce the acts of gun violence. It's unlikely that they will not continue with something that doesn't work, anyway.

I'm not saying "Remove Idaho from the map", obviously, but the OP ridicules the removal of other gun-resembling things in kids' environment, and my point is that who knows, maybe it helps to reduce the exposure to guns and thus reduces the risk of the children using guns later in their lives.
#94 to #2 - anon id: a70117e2
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/10/2013) [-]
It's extremely likely they'll continue with something that doesn't work seeing as they passed an assault weapons ban in the 90's that had literally no discernible impact on murder rates by firearms yet after it expired they're STILL pushing for a new one.
User avatar #100 to #94 - hudis
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(09/10/2013) [-]
That ban did decrease murder rates by firearms, actually.
User avatar #104 to #100 - priestoftheoldones
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/10/2013) [-]
Who the hell would kill some one with a ******* automatic?
#121 to #100 - teranin [OP]
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/10/2013) [-]
No, it actually didn't.  It was an absolute failure.  Murder rates continued to decline steadily after the assault weapons ban was lifted.  Now that's not to say that it caused MORE crime, but the actual effect of the assault weapons ban?  Not ****, beyond preventing people from getting neat looking guns.
No, it actually didn't. It was an absolute failure. Murder rates continued to decline steadily after the assault weapons ban was lifted. Now that's not to say that it caused MORE crime, but the actual effect of the assault weapons ban? Not ****, beyond preventing people from getting neat looking guns.
#101 to #100 - anon id: a70117e2
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/10/2013) [-]
Actually no, it didn't, murder rates by firearms had been decreasing since the early 90's and once the ban was enacted in 94' it continued to decrease at the same rate.
#30 to #2 - LocoJoe
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(09/10/2013) [-]
He thinks Tyrone and Co. will listen to laws.
He thinks Tyrone and Co. will listen to laws.
User avatar #62 to #2 - angelious
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(09/10/2013) [-]
have you ever heard of the "forbidden fruit" psychology


the more "forbidden" something is the more likely people are to try it out.just for the excitement of doing something that is forbidden.
User avatar #85 to #62 - hudis
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(09/10/2013) [-]
You assume that banning guns will automatically increase gun violence. Assumptions are not a valid argument. Sorry.
User avatar #93 to #85 - angelious
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/10/2013) [-]
i did not say that.i said that if we make guns these "magical objects that you are not allowed to touch see or hear about" people will get curious about them.

just tell me when you were little kid and your parents told you not to go somewhere or do something did you just listen to them obediently?


#88 to #85 - anon id: a70117e2
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/10/2013) [-]
And you're assuming if guns are banned in the US that there will be an decrease in gun violence. Assumptions are not a valid argument. Sorry.
User avatar #92 to #88 - hudis
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(09/10/2013) [-]
Countries with gun control have less gun violence than countries with little gun control. Same goes for states. American states with implemented gun control have shown a decrease in gun-related homicide.
#97 to #92 - anon id: a70117e2
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/10/2013) [-]
Countries with gun control don't have the problems the US has, we have a gigantic open border with a corrupt ******** that pours in crime, drugs, and guns, not to mention the US already has over 300 million guns currently in circulation which would be impossible to create any replication of any severe gun control as seen in those countries. The US isn't the same as any other country so assuming that something that works for other countries will work for the US is just that assuming.
User avatar #45 to #2 - psydoc
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(09/10/2013) [-]
The sort of actions that are being done right now, such as making "gun free" zones, and expelling children for biting their pastries into a gun shape are policies that make it seem like they're doing something while actually doing nothing. The problem of shooting deaths is rooted in deeper problems that some politicians don't care about because they aren't politically correct to talk about. So you see, the jackasses who push for symbolic measures (which they often admit are symbolic) instead of actually addressing the problem are part of the problem.
User avatar #86 to #45 - hudis
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(09/10/2013) [-]
See, I agree with that. Like I said, anything to decrease gun violence. Hopefully they will discard what does not work and implement what does work in the future. It's a shame that I was thus thumbed down to oblivion simply because I said something against guns.
User avatar #25 to #2 - skeptical
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(09/10/2013) [-]
Bad people with guns already acquire them illegally.
Banning guns will keep guns from good people and bad people would continue to acquire them.
Good people would have no defense against bad people with guns.
Crime rates increase as does ease of committing them.

So tell me again how gun control is supposed to stop shootings?
User avatar #83 to #25 - hudis
Reply -5 123456789123345869
(09/10/2013) [-]
That's stupidly oversimplified and irrelevant, also does not seem based on anything except your own assumptions. Start researching into this more thoroughly and you will have your questions answered. I'm not going to bother.
User avatar #163 to #83 - skeptical
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/10/2013) [-]
By the way, the anon reply is samefag, you have the same exact writing style.
User avatar #165 to #163 - hudis
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/10/2013) [-]
It's not, but think whatever you wish.
#160 to #83 - anon id: cd86f0a8
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/10/2013) [-]
i for one agree with the things youre saying hudis, having studied a little on it myself. seems like fj is overwhelmingly pro gun, and therefore butthurt in the face of an anti gun argument.

Do remember the majority of fj are 17-18 year olds if you remember that survey a while back.
#158 to #83 - mrdrpage
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/10/2013) [-]
You truly are your own level of stupid.   
   
If I'm a criminal, I'm going to rob the house that has no gun-owner inside. That's just me.   
You wanna run in and risk getting your head blown off by the guy you're trying to rob, go right ahead.
You truly are your own level of stupid.

If I'm a criminal, I'm going to rob the house that has no gun-owner inside. That's just me.
You wanna run in and risk getting your head blown off by the guy you're trying to rob, go right ahead.
#137 to #83 - anon id: 78ea72e9
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/10/2013) [-]
Maybe he simplified it so you could understand it easier. I'm not sure you'd be able to handle the bigger words.
#134 to #83 - skeptical
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/10/2013) [-]
User avatar #9 to #2 - toosexyforyou
Reply +8 123456789123345869
(09/10/2013) [-]
I want you to take as much offense to what I'm about to say as you possibly can. You are the dumbess piece of **** in the world if you think that the cinema shooting/school shootings are the norms of gun use. The media doesn't show you all the times someone uses a gun in self defense/to save people.
User avatar #19 to #9 - hudis
Reply -11 123456789123345869
(09/10/2013) [-]
There is actually very little evidence that suggests that high rates of gun ownership in the U.S. or outside of it actually makes anyone safer or saves any lives. Also, while I don't appreciate being indirectly called a dumbass, I think it's pretty clear that your attitude says more about you than it does about me.
#26 to #19 - strumpetthesheep
Reply +11 123456789123345869
(09/10/2013) [-]
Are you serious? People defend themselves everyday yet the national media does not report it because it isn't a tragedy, and it does not fit their quota: that guns are bad and should be banned. If you ban guns you take them away from the law abiding citizens that are not  committing the crimes. The criminals that kill people usually have guns they have purchased illegally.  Take Chicago for example; the local government has  completely  banned guns in the city. And yet, Chicago has the HIGHEST murder rate by GUNS in the entire country. Now can you please explain how we can use tougher gun laws and gun free zones to make Chicago a safe place? Because I don't know if you know this, but, criminals don't obey laws. Banning guns will do nothing but take them away from the good people.
Are you serious? People defend themselves everyday yet the national media does not report it because it isn't a tragedy, and it does not fit their quota: that guns are bad and should be banned. If you ban guns you take them away from the law abiding citizens that are not committing the crimes. The criminals that kill people usually have guns they have purchased illegally. Take Chicago for example; the local government has completely banned guns in the city. And yet, Chicago has the HIGHEST murder rate by GUNS in the entire country. Now can you please explain how we can use tougher gun laws and gun free zones to make Chicago a safe place? Because I don't know if you know this, but, criminals don't obey laws. Banning guns will do nothing but take them away from the good people.
User avatar #81 to #26 - hudis
Reply -4 123456789123345869
(09/10/2013) [-]
The problem is much, much more complicated than that and I could go into why Chicago still has high rates of gun violence, but you seem convinced that it's all a conspiracy by the government and media to take your guns so I'm not going to waste time on it.
User avatar #95 to #81 - toosexyforyou
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/10/2013) [-]
He had a long response with a point and your counter argument is that he's closed minded when he's even giving you opportunities to interject by asking questions.
User avatar #99 to #95 - hudis
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(09/10/2013) [-]
Oh come on. In nearly every single instance I've gotten into a discussion about guns on this site or any other site, it ends up with pro-guns people making things up and saying the government and media are twisting and altering statistics and news to suit their own agenda. How am I expected to have any interest in continuing such a discussion?
User avatar #115 to #99 - nogphille
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/10/2013) [-]
dude..
just google gun ownership and crime..

also, switzerland is deemed one of the safest places to live and has an extremely high rate of gun ownership per capita, because they don't have an army, they rely on militias.

i've even seen an article about the city in america with the highest amount of guns per capita, having the lowest crimerate, because noone dared commit a crime..

The problem isn't the guns, it's the people who fail to store them properly.
User avatar #119 to #115 - hudis
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/10/2013) [-]
I have studied the subject thoroughly for several months, otherwise I wouldn't even comment on it.
User avatar #120 to #119 - nogphille
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/10/2013) [-]
so no thoughts on the correlation of gun ownership and crime?

or switzerland?
User avatar #129 to #120 - hudis
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/10/2013) [-]
There is definitely a correlation between gun ownership and crime. As for Switzerland, first of all they percentually have about half as many guns among civilians compared to the U.S., and secondly the attitude to guns there is very different. As you said, they rely on militias rather than an extensive army; this means that gun ownership is a matter of great responsibility and discipline, and it's not something taken lightly "just because the 2nd amendment says we should have guns".
User avatar #159 to #129 - nogphille
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(09/10/2013) [-]
lol, you mention that there is a correlation, but no other thoughts?
and though you are truthful when saying it's in the second amendment and that some take it waaay too lightly, doesn't mean they all are..
and if you check on gunrelated deaths, you should always take suicides out of the equation, as those account for a ******** of them..
User avatar #140 to #81 - skeptical
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/10/2013) [-]
Please, do elaborate. I'd like to see your argument.
User avatar #153 to #140 - hudis
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/10/2013) [-]
First of all, like many people on this site, the articles and such that I've read on the subject seem to be written by people convinced that the government is only out to take people's guns away. Now I don't know about you, but that makes me very skeptical to begin with.

As for Chicago in particular: I'm sure you are familiar with the Robert Taylor projects. Once one of the most succesful housing projects in the U.S., now a place full of gang violence and drug abuse. I'm going to take this as an example because it demonstrates my point. In 1989, Sudhir Venkatesh (sociologist) walked into the projects to make a study on them. He stayed there on and off for a decade during which he wrote the book Gang Leader for a Day which documented his experience. What the book makes very clear throughout the story (if you can call it that) is the total lack of police involvement in the projects, or government interest in keeping them safe at all. While the Robert Taylor projects are among the worst, they certainly aren't alone, and especially not in Chicago. Many of the areas in and around Chicago are consequently governed and policed not by politicians and law enforcement, but by gangs and violence. What gun laws did in that situation was to give criminals monopoly on gun usage - however, that does not mean that the same will happen everywhere else. The problem lies not with taking guns away from law-abiding citizens, but rather with the ignorance of the areas where gun control and law enforcement is truly needed. Had the projects been handled differently and indeed been part of the plan at all in the build-up to the implementation of the current gun laws in Illinois, I am certain that the outcome would have been different.

For gun control to work, it must apply to everyone. Sadly, the U.S. is hardly unique in its government's and people's habit of looking away from impoverished areas and downtrodden people.

Apologies for post being a bit messy. Lack of caffeine.
User avatar #162 to #153 - skeptical
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/10/2013) [-]
So don't focus on guns in general and instead inflict a harsher penalty for acuiring them illegally. Put a little spending into investigations of areas where crime is most common instead of pork-barrel everywhere else. Make some restrictions on acquiring certain kinds of firearms based on mental state. But don't make guns in general illegal to own.
User avatar #164 to #162 - hudis
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(09/10/2013) [-]
I agree, except for the last bit. I stand by my opinion that gun control is a good thing, but there needs to be a lot leading up to it to avoid the otherwise inevitable consequences that we now can see in Chicago and certain other areas. Pave the way, then take the weapons from where they don't belong. That would make the U.S. a safer place.
User avatar #166 to #164 - skeptical
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/10/2013) [-]
You agree with my argument but don't agree with the inevitable conclusion?
At this point you are either trolling or a serious ********, and I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person.
User avatar #167 to #166 - hudis
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/10/2013) [-]
Haha, oh gods. I don't think I realised until now how polarly opposed the two sides of this discussion are. I agree in this instance as well, that this discussion can't really get very fruitful when one or both sides considers the other idiotic. I'm not sure what you're on about, but just know that issues such as these are the core of my everyday studies. I base what I say on research, events, people in general, statistics, articles, things written and said by experts both for and against gun control, so I do know what I'm talking about even if it's all nonsense in your eyes.

This isn't a dick size contest, so knock it off with the attitude. I'm only here to provide a counter-argument for once and try to make people think a little deeper.
#168 to #167 - anon id: fa47a80c
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/10/2013) [-]
>implying anyone who says oh gods isnt a 12yo percy jackson fan
User avatar #169 to #168 - hudis
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/10/2013) [-]
I don't know who Percy Jackson is.
#170 to #169 - toastersburnthings
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/10/2013) [-]
>America
>Doesn't what Percy Jackson is
Either you're not from America or you aren't involved in the media enough to not just be trolling us in the first place.
User avatar #171 to #170 - hudis
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/10/2013) [-]
I am not from the U.S., no.
User avatar #173 to #171 - toastersburnthings
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/10/2013) [-]
Then you have no right to judge what is right for my country, and you likely also have no right to own a gun. Good day to you, sir.
User avatar #183 to #173 - hudis
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/10/2013) [-]
So the only ones allowed to share their opinion on gun control are those who grew up with a culture and history in which guns play a pivotal role and over half the population can't imagine life without them?
User avatar #185 to #183 - toastersburnthings
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/11/2013) [-]
No. The only ones who can make decisions for their homeland are the ones who are native to their homeland.
User avatar #186 to #185 - hudis
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/11/2013) [-]
I'm not making decisions here, I'm offering a different perspective. Besides, the influence and impact of other peoples and ideals are vital to the prosperity of any culture, not sure if that's a widely accepted fact in the U.S. considering the usual response to any non-American having an opinion on U.S. affairs.

Don't forget that you are a whole lot of people, and whether you like it or not, you are so prevalent in both population and media that part of your people's actions and behaviour will inevitably reflect upon the rest of the world.
User avatar #187 to #186 - toastersburnthings
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/11/2013) [-]
Okay, just next time try to make it more obvious that you're not forcing your opinion down our throats.
User avatar #188 to #187 - hudis
+1 123456789123345869
(09/11/2013) [-]
Well, apologies for that. I get impatient when people bring paranoia into their arguments.
User avatar #22 to #19 - toosexyforyou
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(09/10/2013) [-]
I thought I was pretty direct in calling you a dumbass?
User avatar #89 to #22 - hudis
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/10/2013) [-]
No, you said I'm a dumbass if I believe cinema/school shootings are the norms of gun use, which I don't.
#3 to #2 - teranin [OP]
Reply +97 123456789123345869
(09/09/2013) [-]
So long as I am paying taxes, and not committing felonies, the social contract my citizenship with the united states creates means that my rights are non-negotiable, and irrevocable barring a breach from me of said social contract. Efforts to restrict rights guaranteed to me by said contract due to the actions of an insane hyper-minority are tyranny, plain and simple. There is no room for negotiation on my rights, or your rights, and even if you want to see your rights limited, I will not stop resisting such nonsense, for the sake of every single United States citizen's continued freedom.

Then again, the freedom is already gone, and the cowards have already won. The 4th amendment has become so provisional as to be a joke, same with the 5th and 10th. In all the efforts made to protect the 2nd, far too many have quietly accepted the loss of 3 others. My country is tired of freedom, and has embraced fear and weakness, and it makes me sick.
#41 to #3 - johnturdell
Reply +7 123456789123345869
(09/10/2013) [-]
#110 to #3 - imnotkickthecat
Reply +6 123456789123345869
(09/10/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
#46 to #3 - thegamerslife
Reply +6 123456789123345869
(09/10/2013) [-]
#31 to #3 - askinnywhiteboy **User deleted account**
+6 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #10 to #3 - drolejonque
Reply +6 123456789123345869
(09/10/2013) [-]
Keep your chin up, buddy. We still have the 3rd Amendment.
User avatar #13 to #10 - teranin [OP]
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(09/10/2013) [-]
LOL that's true, they aren't after the quartering soldiers one.
#58 to #3 - pappathethird
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(09/10/2013) [-]
Sorry ... sorry ... I agree with you, I just thought it was funny.
User avatar #7 to #3 - karson
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(09/10/2013) [-]
I agree 100%
User avatar #152 to #3 - therealtjthemedic
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/10/2013) [-]
You, my dearest of sirs, are the embodiment of everything I love about America.
I'm not american myself, but I always grew up hearing about a land of opportunity, where everyone was equal, and people were free. I can't stand what the american government is doing to it's people.
They are removing people's rights, plain and simple. If any other country (with significant oil reserves) did that, your entire nation would be informed that they are a dictatorship and must be destroyed.
User avatar #112 to #3 - tittylovin
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/10/2013) [-]
I don't even like guns, but that was beautiful.

#156 to #3 - tjubox
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/10/2013) [-]
I farted while reading this and a bald eagle came out.
#135 to #3 - anon id: 9f6b129b
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/10/2013) [-]
Oh just **** off.. "an insane minority" even if they are a minority (obviously) it's still to ****** easy to get a gun!

When a country has 33 gun murders per day.. something is sincerely ****** up with that country.. I dont know if it's your retarded Laws or if the whole country is just full of retards.. but one of things has to change atleast..



**** USA, Go and cry about pearl harbor or something else that the rest of the world doesnt give a **** about...
#141 to #135 - teranin [OP]
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(09/10/2013) [-]
You aren't from the USA, but tell me to **** off for my defense of the rights of my fellow citizens? I'd say it was a bold move, but you're an anon, so eat a dick.
#76 to #3 - anon id: 660d602b
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/10/2013) [-]
Freedom's a joke, if you want freedom, accept the consequences. You ******* idiot American's love guns so much, then go ahead and play with them and kill each other off so other countries can take over and make better use of all that land.
#75 to #3 - anon id: 7a8ea093
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/10/2013) [-]
Poignant. And I'm not even american.
**** like this is why the modern world annoys the **** out of me, a lot of societies offer freedom, but are just shadows of their former selves, countries that have slowly evolved away from what they stand for and represent in order to further accommodate cowards and people who d o not have the interests of the country at heart. anyone is welcome in my country,but if they don't like it and what it stands for, get the **** out. I am thinking of leaving my homeland to move to a country that represents me. The only thing that bothers me is that I have been forced out by usurpers.
#38 to #3 - anon id: 70244de4
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/10/2013) [-]
You're an idiot, you don't need your ******* guns dude. The only reason you yanks want guns is because you're too full of yourselves to admit that the rest of the world is right in saying that you don't need guns. "but I have to protect myself from the bad guys" you then may retort but Australia banned guns in 3 months of them bringing in the anti gun law, there has not been an Australian mass shooting since 1996. So not only are Australians free but they are also not riddled with bullets just for going to school
#47 to #38 - thegamerslife
Reply +6 123456789123345869
(09/10/2013) [-]
User avatar #20 to #3 - skypatrol
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(09/10/2013) [-]
*is tyranny
User avatar #21 to #20 - teranin [OP]
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(09/10/2013) [-]
incorrect, Efforts is plural so are is the correct choice
User avatar #14 to #3 - bushingenna
Reply -9 123456789123345869
(09/10/2013) [-]
I'm not taking a side but just wondering, do you think your opinion could change if your child was shot in school?
#15 to #14 - teranin [OP]
Reply +8 123456789123345869
(09/10/2013) [-]
No, but I'd be in an incredible amount of emotional anguish, to a degree that is likely inconceivable to a person who hasn't lost a child in such a way, so while I say no I can't imagine what that severe of a trauma might do to my sanity.
No, but I'd be in an incredible amount of emotional anguish, to a degree that is likely inconceivable to a person who hasn't lost a child in such a way, so while I say no I can't imagine what that severe of a trauma might do to my sanity.
#67 to #15 - anon id: ed08a7a0
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/10/2013) [-]
So you basically have no desire to stop it from happening again...
User avatar #4 to #3 - hudis
Reply -11 123456789123345869
(09/09/2013) [-]
Okay, obviously you and I have some very different philosophical differences, but either way 'freedom' as Americans see it doesn't even enter into the equation. I'm talking about that some measures may actually help, such as limiting children's exposure to guns in their everyday lives, and that if it does help it is a good thing.

This is something that's very hard to discuss countries between, because to me as a Swede, guns can never be something positive. They are not part of our culture and have never been so either, and yet the laws preventing us from carrying firearms do nothing to change the fact that we are among the most democratic and free countries in the world. Certainly there will be some Swedes who disagree with me, but I can honestly say that of dozens and dozens of people I've discussed this with (I study sociology), very few can even imagine citizens with guns being a good thing in a modern, western country.

So that makes this discussion difficult for us to have.
User avatar #5 to #4 - teranin [OP]
Reply +7 123456789123345869
(09/09/2013) [-]
Yes, I agree. That's why I didn't thumb you down, I had a feeling you might not be from the states (although I did speak as though you were).

The American mentality is supposed to be "Don't tread on me". We're so gung-ho about defending rights that most of us feel should be absolute that it ends up making us look ridiculous to countries that trust their government. So yeah, I can see how from a swedish perspective, where feminism has stripped all rights to children from males, and where that was allowed to happen, that sort of mentality would seem ridiculous.

I agree. Bit much of a cultural difference.
#29 - LovegoodJuggalo
Reply +47 123456789123345869
(09/10/2013) [-]
#23 - bloodofthedragon
Reply +39 123456789123345869
(09/10/2013) [-]
User avatar #59 to #23 - pappathethird
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/10/2013) [-]
Are you looking for a discussion on weapon's ban?
#34 - SirSheepy
Reply +16 123456789123345869
(09/10/2013) [-]
*fixed
User avatar #18 - yodaddysofat
Reply +14 123456789123345869
(09/10/2013) [-]
but it's ok...it only shoots potatoes........
#12 - sequel
Reply +10 123456789123345869
(09/10/2013) [-]
I didn't have a picture of slowpoke, so I googled it, saved it and posted it right here.
#55 to #12 - thegamerslife
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/10/2013) [-]
Have another!
#32 to #12 - batmanbeyonddgrave
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/10/2013) [-]
well that took a while
well that took a while
#1 - quitethedelicacy
Reply +8 123456789123345869
(09/09/2013) [-]
#35 - TheFunnyJunkie
Reply +6 123456789123345869
(09/10/2013) [-]
OP'sFW
OP'sFW
#82 - NinjaHermit
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(09/10/2013) [-]
Man, forget guns. We should bring back swords an' armor.
#90 to #82 - NinjaHermit
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/10/2013) [-]
#91 to #90 - NinjaHermit
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/10/2013) [-]
User avatar #131 to #91 - midgetyjoker
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(09/10/2013) [-]
i saw that painting the other day, at Kelvin Grove art gallery; it's really beautiful :3
User avatar #155 to #82 - theshadowed
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(09/10/2013) [-]
Thats not what amour ever looked like. You could only afford the best if you were a knight, or a favored man-at-arms.
That would be Milanese plate. Otherwise you would likely have something like this picture.
Even then, it was only later in the medieval period that good armor was common.
For archers, skirmishers and a lot of the infantry, the most common form of protection was a leather jerkin.
Maybe a helmet, and if they survived, better armour was looted off the dead.
Thats why the casualty rates in medieval battles were so high.
So no, armour and swords wouldn't be good
#161 to #155 - NinjaHermit
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/10/2013) [-]
Oh, I know. History is a passion of mine. But you gotta admit, fantasy artwork just plain looks cool.
And, personally, romanticism aside, medieval/ancient weaponry in general is just so much cooler than modern weaponry, imo. Anyone can pick up a gun and shoot someone from a distance, and while efficient, it's just kinda lamer.

In any case, as far as casualties go, while the percentage of casualties has decreased in modern times, modern weaponry is far more lethal and the scale of battle is much greater. The number of deaths in World War II is greater than probably the entire medieval population of England or France.
User avatar #172 to #161 - theshadowed
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/10/2013) [-]
Thats because there were more people. Imagine if Agincourt had been the same numbers as the Somme
User avatar #178 to #172 - NinjaHermit
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/10/2013) [-]
Hah. Then whoever was fletching arrows for the longbows would have been very rich.
#157 to #155 - theshadowed
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/10/2013) [-]
Forgot the picture. This man is carrying a voulge, which commonly saw action during the Hundred Years War
#71 - cosmicapprentice
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(09/10/2013) [-]