The way things have been going.... .
x

Comments(157):

[ 157 comments ]
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#34 - SirSheepy (09/10/2013) [-]
*fixed
User avatar #18 - yodaddysofat (09/10/2013) [-]
but it's ok...it only shoots potatoes........
#12 - sequel (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 (09/10/2013) [-]
Have another!
#32 to #12 - batmanbeyonddgrave (09/10/2013) [-]
well that took a while
well that took a while
User avatar #59 to #23 - pappathethird (09/10/2013) [-]
Are you looking for a discussion on weapon's ban?
#82 - NinjaHermit (09/10/2013) [-]
Man, forget guns. We should bring back swords an' armor.
User avatar #131 to #91 - midgetyjoker (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 (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 (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 (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 (09/10/2013) [-]
Hah. Then whoever was fletching arrows for the longbows would have been very rich.
#157 to #155 - theshadowed (09/10/2013) [-]
Forgot the picture. This man is carrying a voulge, which commonly saw action during the Hundred Years War
#8 - gayboard (09/10/2013) [-]
I don't have a slowpoke pic, so here's this.
#35 - TheFunnyJunkie (09/10/2013) [-]
OP'sFW
OP'sFW
#146 - unbentgodfather (09/10/2013) [-]
The government is just scared of us.
User avatar #61 - failtolawl (09/10/2013) [-]
haha.. ha ... ha?
#122 - pirschie (09/10/2013) [-]
USA: You can carry real guns, you cannot make a sandwich in a shape of a gun at school.
Europe: Have fun playing with toy guns and have the freedom to create things in the shape of a gun, Do not carry real guns.

You may call it freedom carrying guns, but then explain me why everything that even looks similarly to a gun gets banned?
User avatar #98 - jonajon (09/10/2013) [-]
I don't get why they are banning all these gun things; fake guns, things that look like guns, people that say the word 'gun', plastic guns, bb guns, but they have not actually banned guns. Guns any one can walk around with.
0
#108 to #98 - vrthbvyfa has deleted their comment [-]
#114 to #98 - vrthbvyfa (09/10/2013) [-]
Scared of jokes fine with masacre. The people who are made most fearful of guns are at the smoking end of a barrel. The people left over, take more offense from jokes about guns or shooting, and by extension those close to them who died by the bullet (therefore those individuals lost becoming part of a tragic joke). They are basically selfish and don't care about the future pain that may be inflict upon other people, only for lost honor. Such is human nature.

It is actually hard to word and work this out, the whole thing is far too much of a rhetoric for me to write well so I had to rewrite it.

Well I tried.

User avatar #77 - xoyv (09/10/2013) [-]
looks more like a gun stock
#50 - anon (09/10/2013) [-]
Called itself the land of freedom...has Patriot Act, NDAA, gun control, soda size limits, trans fat bans, eminent domain, gay marriage bans, the drug war, highest incarceration rate.
User avatar #66 to #50 - Keoul (09/10/2013) [-]
The freedom to restrict the freedom of others.
User avatar #87 to #50 - sabcy (09/10/2013) [-]
it's the freedom of the many, not the few.
User avatar #28 - apaulcolypse (09/10/2013) [-]
If lawmakers are banning Idaho, then they should ban the letter "L". Because if you rotate it 90 degrees to the right, it looks like a gun. And that can be harmful to society and make them become gun violent. This is serious people.

Please don't hurt me to bad, I have kids.
#148 - beastyg (09/10/2013) [-]
1. Ban's entire state.
2. Said state as a result drops to 0 gun crime each year
3. Successful legislation was successful
User avatar #107 - NinjaHermit (09/10/2013) [-]
There's somethin' I've been kinda curious about. Over in the UK it's illegal for citizens that have firearms. Even the normal beat cops don't carry guns, only special armed units that have to be called in, from what I understand (but correct me if I'm wrong). Yet even so, knives are far more prevalent than gun violence, right?

So, my question here is what's stopping more criminals there from bringing a gun to a knife fight?
#116 to #107 - Jowi (09/10/2013) [-]
It's not illegal for citizens to own firearms here.
User avatar #127 to #107 - troopermk (09/10/2013) [-]
totally correct mr ninja, our knife crime is probibly equal to your gun crime if not greater, but our mortality rate is lower, why not ban the retards that shoot and stab people from reproducing? solution?
User avatar #125 to #107 - grapefruity (09/10/2013) [-]
Not totally illegal for civilians, it has to be related to work. Farmers in the UK can own firearms used for hunting animals. Shotguns, handguns and some rifles if I am not mistaken...

But to answer your question, the gun (And knife) laws are mostly in place to stop crimes/acts of passion or anger more than to stop a premeditated murder (Those people are going to kill anyway)

They stop the drunk, the furious and the stupid from killing others on impulse. Also hinders depressed children from killing themselves easily, giving them more time to think.
User avatar #144 to #125 - NinjaHermit (09/10/2013) [-]
Ah, okay, I see. I believe Japan has similar gun laws, for for farmers an' stuff.

Thank you for the info.
User avatar #128 to #125 - troopermk (09/10/2013) [-]
Farmers are not allowed to own and semi automatic or any firearm which carries more than one shell due to farmers getting pissed up and shooting townies that go camping in the countryside
User avatar #130 to #128 - grapefruity (09/10/2013) [-]
Ah, thanks. Didn't know the exact law on the subject. Wasn't really relevant to my point anyway...
User avatar #132 to #130 - troopermk (09/10/2013) [-]
what are the laws for americans? fully auto? semi? max capacity for mags?
User avatar #138 to #132 - grapefruity (09/10/2013) [-]
Varies heavily on a state by state basis. Some (Like Texas) lack a magazine restriction, don't require a state permit or license while others (New york) have heavy laws on magazine size, and on the ownership of firearms in general.

So I couldn't recite every states gun-laws to you, but I know some places have numerous restrictions and some have next to none...
User avatar #78 - responsibletim (09/10/2013) [-]
A bit l8, m8.
[ 157 comments ]
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)