Upload
Login or register
Anonymous comments allowed.
asd
#251 - anon
Reply 0
(01/13/2013) [-]
Never noticed that people get shot more in places where its easier to get guns?
#269 to #251 - Antonkr
Reply -5
(01/13/2013) [-]
Ever notice that instead of getting shot you could just be stabbed instead?

this logic is comparable to

Do you ever notice how the country with most cars has the most car accidents?
#279 to #269 - negr
Reply +2
(01/13/2013) [-]
its also easier to fend off a knife attack than a gun. if somebody pulls out a knife you can run. outrunning a gunman hasnt really worked out in the past. i agree that gun control might not make a difference but im just saying youre knife logic is not sound. there have been like 5 shootings in the past month and a half and i would say its very easy to push reform right now
#285 to #279 - anon
Reply 0
(01/13/2013) [-]
What's stopping them from throwing the knife? Unless they've got some decent practice, it's about the same chance for them to hit you while you run.
#287 to #285 - negr
Reply +1
(01/13/2013) [-]
lawl
#286 to #285 - Antonkr
Reply +1
(01/13/2013) [-]
Throwing a knife is ******* difficult though. You have to know how to do it right and it's not effective what so ever. If you ever ****** around in the woods you would know.
#297 to #286 - anon
Reply 0
(01/13/2013) [-]
Aiming a gun is ******* difficult though. If you ever shot one, you would know.
#300 to #297 - Antonkr
Reply +1
(01/13/2013) [-]
No it isn't. And yes I have shot one, it's far easier than throwing a ******* knife.
#281 to #279 - Antonkr
Reply 0
(01/13/2013) [-]
I would prefer to shoot the ****** instead in both cases. Thanks.
#139 - awesomenessdefined
Reply +2
(01/13/2013) [-]
It's actually really a great feeling to know that, even though I don't feel like going on a killing spree, the option is open if I ever feel like it.
#264 to #139 - miaandvinny
Reply 0
(01/13/2013) [-]
I don't feel safe with you owning a gun after that comment.
#102 - flybager
Reply +2
(01/13/2013) [-]
This is stupid.
Gun their ONLY use are killing.
a bat, knife and wire AREN'T just for killing.
#121 to #102 - killyojoy
Reply 0
(01/13/2013) [-]
Im sorry I did not know guys could not be used for target practice, shooting for sport, and you know revolutions.
#122 to #121 - flybager
Reply +1
(01/13/2013) [-]
Target Practice for what?
Sport which includes what? Hitting targets for what ending purpose?
Revolutions? Oh really, tell me more about how they are used to spew out confetti or something.
#123 to #122 - killyojoy
Reply 0
(01/13/2013) [-]
That's like saying base ball is only for teaching people to club each other in the head more accurately.
#132 to #123 - flybager
Reply 0
(01/13/2013) [-]
Yes, I agree with you on the practice part.
But still, baseball bats weren't origionally designed to beat in people's head, but guns WERE designed to kill people, weren't they?
#136 to #132 - killyojoy
Reply 0
(01/13/2013) [-]
you are telling me big wooden clubs weren't designed to base peoples heads in? I'm pretty sure the cave men didn't plan on killing mammoths with those. Sure base ball bats are generally used to play base ball but guns are generally used for hunting and target practice. Just because one is more effective than the other does not mean it should be banned it means we need to limit on who can wield it.
#138 to #136 - flybager
Reply 0
(01/13/2013) [-]
I never mentioned the wooden clubs cavemen used.
Those were indeed made to hunt, but when was that? a couple of thousand years ago?
baseball bats aren't the same, they weren't made for hunting, but for the SPORT

even though this dos make me think about not every gun has been made just to kill, some for sport. But you get my point here, right?
#144 to #138 - killyojoy
Reply 0
(01/13/2013) [-]
I completed understand your point but, I would bet money that the percent of guns used in crime is about the same as bats.
#148 to #144 - flybager
Reply 0
(01/13/2013) [-]
Yeah I redraw my case.
I didn't take into account that guns can be used as just sport or entertainment (FPS-russia, for instance)
besides, I don't really care about them getting banned in america in the first place, but it just pissed me off how they were trying to make them look stupid because they're only trying to ban guns.

I think you'd loose that bet, take africa for instance. Or war in general.
#154 to #148 - killyojoy
Reply 0
(01/13/2013) [-]
Im glad I can help alter you view if only a little I also under stand where you come from. But gun control is something I take to heart because I have all ways lived around people whom own guns and we all only use them for hunting.
#156 to #154 - flybager
Reply 0
(01/13/2013) [-]
Well I'm not really fammiliar with them, all expirience i've had was the spring-trickered hunting rifle my granddad had. which was just used to scare off (and in some cases, kill) the birds in our fruit trees.

There are a lot of guns mass-produced just for the sole purpose of winning a war, though.
not directly for just 'killing', but in a secondairy way.
#161 to #156 - killyojoy
Reply 0
(01/13/2013) [-]
True I love guns they are a major part in my life and I will seriously start killing ******* as soon as they go for my guns no doubt.
#162 to #161 - flybager
Reply 0
(01/13/2013) [-]
I killed three birds in one summer, and that's all I ever did with a gun. lethal one anyways.

Not those big birds like pigeons or crows, because it wouldnt kill them instantly, and you'd have to walk up, and finish them off by hitting their head against an iron pole, before the cat got to them, because if the cat would get them, their death'd be even worse.
Nowadays we just scare them off with CD's or those noise-making merry-go-rounds, rarely use the rifle.
#164 to #162 - killyojoy
Reply 0
(01/13/2013) [-]
Cool, I have killed my fair share of wild boar and a couple of deer, Question Why not just get a scare crow?
#572 to #571 - killyojoy
Reply 0
(01/24/2013) [-]
I like it!
#167 to #164 - flybager
Reply 0
(01/13/2013) [-]
Scarecrow for protecting a fruit tree's kinda... unpractical, wouldn't you agree?
#131 to #123 - trale
Reply 0
(01/13/2013) [-]
No it's not. The exact reason guns were invented is so we could kill easier.
#135 to #131 - killyojoy
Reply 0
(01/13/2013) [-]
To make killing game easier. we decided to turn them on each other.
#143 to #135 - trale
Reply 0
(01/13/2013) [-]
They we not made to kill game, we were fine with bows, traps, dogs, etc.. Guns were made for the sole purpose of being able to kill people more effectively.
#134 to #131 - killyojoy
0
has deleted their comment [-]
#137 to #122 - stanleys
Reply -2
(01/13/2013) [-]
Sports are sports, you do it for competition like skeet shooting.
Revolution. The second amendment was created for the purpose to have a fighting chance against a tyrannical government. We may not be there yet but there is every chance it could happen in the future.
Target practice. Practice for skeet shooting and also better accuracy while hunting.
#140 to #137 - flybager
Reply +1
(01/13/2013) [-]
I was implying killing

Is that a gif from elfen lied..?
#142 to #140 - stanleys
Reply +1
(01/13/2013) [-]
Why yes, yes it is
#10 - ksiota
Reply 0
(01/12/2013) [-]
If we let everyone have guns, where do we draw the line?

Should everyone have access to nuclear warheads as well?
#24 to #10 - pooploop
Reply -1
(01/12/2013) [-]
We have laws on which types of fire arms are legal and illegal. That's where we draw the line.
#11 to #10 - anon
Reply 0
(01/12/2013) [-]
you are comparing an idiot with a firearm to genocide.
#16 to #11 - ksiota
Reply +2
(01/12/2013) [-]
Genocide is specific to a certain group of people - So no, it's not genocide.

Both are weapons made with the sole intention to kill (in their raw form they have other purpose). So what I'm asking is, what (if any) weapons do we allow the common average to have?
#39 to #16 - Crusader
Reply 0
(01/12/2013) [-]
Bolt action rifles
Semi-auto rifles
Carbines
All capped at 12-15 round magazines
You may obtain larger clips and full auto rifles if you are in a region where hogs or other wildlife are a nuisance and pose a threat to your livelihood.
Pump action shotguns
Double barrel shotguns
Auto-loader shotguns
Capped at 8 shells in the tube
Single action revolvers
Double action revolvers
Repeating pistols
all capped at 12 round magazines without full auto options
#72 to #10 - stripeygreenhat
Reply 0
(01/13/2013) [-]
Nuclear war heads don't kill people, people kill people.
#37 to #10 - Crusader
Reply +1
(01/12/2013) [-]
No, that's a stupid argument, a gun is a cannon, whether you like to admit it or not, that's what it is.

It is much different than a nuke, that is a god damn WMD, that will vapourize you, your dog, and the small town you are currently living in.
It's like saying, we let people have rottweilers, a dobermans and pitbulls, should we let them have lions and tigers and bears as pets?
No, because there is a logical barrier there that separates something useful from something that is not.
#69 to #37 - stripeygreenhat
Reply 0
(01/13/2013) [-]
His point is that there is no clear limit on what weapon is too dangerous for the public to have access to. We can only identify extremes, like how obviously handguns should be legals but nuclear warheads not. We need to actually make a clear standard .

#26 to #10 - Onemanretardpack
Reply +2
(01/12/2013) [-]
This is an acceptable argument, yet when someone says that gay marriage will lead to people marrying animals, everyone thinks they're goddamn stupid..
#475 - anon
Reply 0
(01/13/2013) [-]
It's harder to beat, strangle or stab more than one person at once than it is to shoot a bunch of people at once. That's why many gun control laws don't take guns but restrict clip size. Quit with the false analogies.
#553 to #475 - gladiuss [OP]
Reply 0
(01/14/2013) [-]
You are so certain of the validity of your statement that you hide in anonymity?

It is easier to kill people with a bomb made of fertilizer and diesel fuel than it is with a single shot action. "Assault Rifle." Diesel fuel is still unregulated, and, last time I checked, ammonium nitrate fertilizer is still on the market. Just wondering, do you remember a bastard named Timothy McVeigh?
#554 to #553 - gladiuss [OP]
Reply +1
(01/14/2013) [-]
#459 - givemecoke
Reply +1
(01/13/2013) [-]
I was waiting for a Hitman joke.
#421 - derfnerf
Reply +1
(01/13/2013) [-]
That is a lot of ******* words in this thread!!!
That is a lot of ******* words in this thread!!!
#450 to #421 - lordnerevar
Reply 0
(01/13/2013) [-]
<- Relevant
<- Relevant
#418 - sniffalot
Reply +1
(01/13/2013) [-]
Mfw every comment in this thread.
#394 - captainromance
Reply 0
(01/13/2013) [-]
So you're saying "there are so many ways of killing people, it makes no sense to try and make the easiest one harder"?
#403 to #394 - ichbinlecher
Reply -1
(01/13/2013) [-]
Easiest? That would be my bear hands (tools at hand and all). Maybe as a compromise the nearest heavy object. I hear hammers are good at such things.
#439 to #403 - anon
Reply 0
(01/13/2013) [-]
you would need to be in close proximity to the person with bare hands, so that the other people can defend, AND you need to beat them multiple times, as opposed to headshots, thus the gun is the easiest
#440 to #439 - ichbinlecher
Reply 0
(01/13/2013) [-]
Completely ignoring the compromise point of hammers.
#442 to #440 - ichbinlecher
Reply 0
(01/13/2013) [-]
****. I just replied to an anon...I said I wasn't going to that.
#407 to #403 - captainromance
Reply -2
(01/13/2013) [-]
you're so cool
#411 to #407 - ichbinlecher
Reply 0
(01/13/2013) [-]
Nope, I am actually quite the opposite. But nice ad hominem attack against a logical point that undermines your argument.
#412 to #394 - Gonnafly
Reply +1
(01/13/2013) [-]
Actually beating someone is the easiest
If you go into public with a gun people Will panic and attack you,
But if you just have a baseball bat That is less likely to happen allowing you to Kill your target by bashing their head In.

Obtaining a baseball bat is easier as well because there cheap and common
#423 to #412 - ichbinlecher
Reply -1
(01/13/2013) [-]
I like how you have one thumb, and I have a neg and we say the same thing...
#542 to #423 - captainromance
Reply 0
(01/13/2013) [-]
**** how can that be? maybe ******* different people read your comments
#559 to #542 - ichbinlecher
Reply 0
(01/14/2013) [-]
I apologize, I wasn't being ironic, I actually thought it was amusing.
#368 - theseustheminotaur
Reply +1
(01/13/2013) [-]
Why did this guy beat, strangle, stab, and shoot a corpse? Why didn't the other guy stop him? That's the main problem here.
#378 to #368 - anon
Reply 0
(01/13/2013) [-]
Because he doesn't believe in the second amendment, meaning he had no means to stop him.
#388 to #378 - theseustheminotaur
Reply 0
(01/13/2013) [-]
He should have hired someone from one of his local militias. I hear they believe in the second amendment.
#416 to #368 - ichbinlecher
Reply +1
(01/13/2013) [-]
"Why didn't I stop you...WHAT'S WRONG WITH ME!?"
#348 - lapsushominum
Reply 0
(01/13/2013) [-]
I feel really conflicted about this whole thing. On one hand I agree that it seems logical to assume that arming the populace, which generally tend to be good, if not acceptable, people, would reduce crime.

On the other hand, I've looked at statistics, and apparently the countries with the most AND the least gun deaths have guns legalized, meaning that it's obviously not so simple (not that I thought it was to begin with).

Also, to the point of people wanting guns to overthrow the government if they needed to, I also have conflicting thoughts that come down to too many variables. First of all, the government has resources in the military that would make guns basically useless, on the other hand, the general population far outnumbers the military, but like I said the technological difference makes me not think it would matter. Another variable that should be considered is if the government truly became incredibly terrible, who is to say the military itself might rebel, in which case the guns don't matter that way either?

Just thoughts.
#379 to #348 - anon
Reply 0
(01/13/2013) [-]
Which countries have least gun deaths and most guns? Im not going to look it up but I bet on closer inspection you will find the guns are heavly regulated.

For example, switzerland the men are issued a gun but not billets, they are regualary checked and the country is thinking of doing away with the gun issue due to something like 40 murders or so a year (i believe)
#391 to #348 - bigscarygary
Reply 0
(01/13/2013) [-]
Let me clue in on a very unfortunate reality in the US. People in power will not do anything unless they get recognition or credit for it.

As a legal gun owner in California, I had to go through an awful lot of hoops to get my handguns; paying fees, going through waiting periods, and intensive background checks. One of the things they point out is if you ever commit a felony or a misdemeanor domestic violence, you can never have a gun. If you ever are committed to a mental hospital against your will, you can never have a gun. If there is a restraining order against you, you can not have a gun. There are even times where someone can take you to court, and if they demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that you pose a significant danger, they take your gun away. I believe the people in the last few gun crimes had major warning signs that were outright ignored. One guy's shrink ignored a note that hinted he was going to shoot up a theater. However, these laws aren't enforced well enough, so deeply troubled people will commit horrible acts while those who have a lot to lose see their rights get taken away.

The problem with this country is that lawmakers will never say "Hey, let's see how we can better enforce our existing laws in order to protect people." Instead, they wait until a tragedy happens and say "Elect me and I'll pass a law that will make sure this never happens again." Then years later when the new law not being enforced allows another tragedy, the cycle repeats.

For my personal opinion, I don't use my second amendment right enough to be really hurt by any knee-jerk legislation, but just because I'm not using my right doesn't mean I should let someone take it away.
#393 to #348 - bersrker
Reply +1
(01/13/2013) [-]
Yeah, I like to go with what Canada is doing.   
&lt; Basically, no automatics guns.    
   
Pistols are only allowed in three places, the gun shop, home and shooting range. No where else. (Of course you need to put the pistol in your car, but if you are caught with the pistol in your car at public place, just to stop in for a second, is illegal. You're allowed to go from your house to the place you want to go, then back. No pit stops)   
   
Rifles and shoot guns are allowed to be used in hunting, but besides that, the same rules as pistols.    
   
All guns must be under lock and key, and the ammo for said guns must be in a different room and also locked up.    
   
Thats what I think is a good system, but what can I say?
Yeah, I like to go with what Canada is doing.
< Basically, no automatics guns.

Pistols are only allowed in three places, the gun shop, home and shooting range. No where else. (Of course you need to put the pistol in your car, but if you are caught with the pistol in your car at public place, just to stop in for a second, is illegal. You're allowed to go from your house to the place you want to go, then back. No pit stops)

Rifles and shoot guns are allowed to be used in hunting, but besides that, the same rules as pistols.

All guns must be under lock and key, and the ammo for said guns must be in a different room and also locked up.

Thats what I think is a good system, but what can I say?
#274 - gardenjustice
Reply +1
(01/13/2013) [-]
I don't know guys. I think that OP brings up a bunch of good points, gif related.
I don't know guys. I think that OP brings up a bunch of good points, gif related.
#87 - gladiuss [OP]
Reply +1
(01/13/2013) [-]
I love track and field events. It's fun to watch the runners sprint away at the sound of the starter's rope. Wait.....that's a GUN, isn't it.
I love track and field events. It's fun to watch the runners sprint away at the sound of the starter's rope. Wait.....that's a GUN, isn't it.
#95 to #87 - anon
Reply 0
(01/13/2013) [-]
Loaded with blanks?
#97 to #95 - gladiuss [OP]
Reply +1
(01/13/2013) [-]
Oh right. It's not a gun if it's loaded with blanks. It's a BOARD! Wait...wasn't late action film actor, Brandon Lee killed by a &quot;blank&quot; round?
Oh right. It's not a gun if it's loaded with blanks. It's a BOARD! Wait...wasn't late action film actor, Brandon Lee killed by a "blank" round?
#444 - blackhawksfan
Reply 0
(01/13/2013) [-]
Everyone else is throwing out their opinion so I might as well too. Studies have shown that a very high percentage (idk the % but an article I read said it was like 85 or 90% or something) of weapons involved in gun related violent crimes are unregistered, meaning they did not buy their weapon from a licensed dealer, instead bought it illegally. Banning guns will not keep them out of the hands of someone trying to do harm with them, instead keep them out of the hands of people like me, a 4 year Marine Corps infantry vet. I carry a Colt M1911 everywhere I go. Yes it is registered, and yes I do have a license to carry.
#465 to #444 - ichbinlecher
Reply 0
(01/13/2013) [-]
I just reference the drug rates...nice to see research has been done on guns themsleves.
#480 to #444 - anon
Reply 0
(01/13/2013) [-]
I read an article. I saw a percentage. I'm obviously credible.
#520 to #480 - blackhawksfan
Reply 0
(01/13/2013) [-]
It was an FBI survey of prison inmates...not even gonna bother with a link on here. They basically asked them where they got their weapon, fewer than 2% from a flea market, 12% from a retailer... and more than 80% said a friend, family, street buy or other illegal source. you can google it if you want.
#291 - solarruner
0
has deleted their comment [-]
#243 - anon
Reply 0
(01/13/2013) [-]
so America...
when is the next massacre?????
#266 to #243 - darkjustifier ONLINE
Reply 0
(01/13/2013) [-]
Next week sunday.
#276 to #266 - miaandvinny
Reply 0
(01/13/2013) [-]
I was planning on watching football that day, can you bump it up to tuesday?
#65 - anon
Reply 0
(01/13/2013) [-]
man all these gun posts are really ridiculous. I mean I guess it's fine that anyone can buy a firearm, you know whether they're mentally stable or not. And let's not forget "2nd amendment muh freedums" yeah when the second amendment was written that was about having a standing militia, which in today's day in age isn't relevant. Let's also keep in mind that when they wrote that there were not any fully automatic, even semi-automatic weapons that were portable and able to more than once without reloading. "DUUUUR if guns are illegal that will only stop law abiding folks from having them not dem der criminals" well it seems to work well enough in other countries doesn't it?
#73 to #65 - volleys
Reply -1
(01/13/2013) [-]
No it was not meant for just militias, it says that there needs to be a well regulated militia. If there are more guns out there most crime would drop drastically, maybe not the psychotic people, because they are crazy anyway, but criminals get whatever weapon they want, so I believe that there should be absolutely no gun laws. If the criminals come into my house with some automatic weapon, I want something that is equal. www.gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/6.1/gun_facts_6_1_screen.pdf
#94 to #73 - defeats
Reply 0
(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.
#522 to #94 - volleys
Reply 0
(01/13/2013) [-]
I agree with the mental illness part, I don't think we put restraints on the average citizen, but rather have better background checks. Don't punish the people who didn't do the crime.
#68 to #65 - anon
Reply 0
(01/13/2013) [-]
first of all, the 2nd amendment was written at a time when your average person was equally armed as your average soldier (different levels of training and discipline mind you). it wasnt put in place to single shot muskets or they would have said that. it would say: "you have the right to bear a musket, but not a cannon" or something like that. so dont give that same bs no semi auto ****.
secondly, the amendment is there not to save your ass from some random criminal, its to save the ****** country from threats. both foreign AND DOMESTIC. its to prevent a president or congress or the supreme court from becoming tyrants and trampling the rights of the people. no matter how many safeguards you place in government, they will eventually erode and create tyrants and you must revolt, peacefully or violently.
that is why we have guns.
and dont give me that ****, "it works in other countries". no it doesnt. it does stop gun violence (the majority, not all) but you get other crime stats up. london has by far the one of the highest knife attacks per capita in the world. crime will shift. and what happened when those riots in england took place? they got out of control. what did the government do? they armed up. stopped the riots pretty quick after that. what does that tell you?
#44 - anon
Reply 0
(01/12/2013) [-]
Guns laws should at least be more strict. Not banned, but more strict. I mean knife laws here are pretty strict.

Maybe I don't know, have people undergo mental assessment, and make it a lot harder to get a gun. Maybe then less psychopaths would have guns. I mean I know a lot of people say "oh they were nice people really" but if anyone could find underlying psychological problems it'd be a professional. So make the assessment compulsory for getting a gun.
#30 - Ajracer
0
has deleted their comment [-]
#22 - anon
Reply 0
(01/12/2013) [-]
I think the main difference is the other items have other uses. Knife cutting vegetables, bat for baseball. I'm not sure what exactly he strangled him with so skip that one. Guns are made for shooting animals, or warfare. They are hunting weapons, used for killing. We don't use guns for simple everyday tasks, like a knife. Their only use is killing living things. The only other use for guns I can think of is competition.

Guns are a lot like bows and arrows. So why aren't bows and arrows illegal as well, they are used for killing (originally) and are used in competition , well because they are harder to use. A gun is a bow and arrow an idiot can pick up and use in a few minutes. It is very hard for someone to pick up a bow and arrow and become deadly with it. We can't add laws on idiots so they add laws on guns.

In my opinion the thing they should do is make it a lot harder to get guns and have many mental tests to test your mental stability before you can have a gun. Someone told me that in Israel (may have been a different country), you are limited to bullets in your lifetime, and it takes around 2 years to get your gun, with many mental tests during those years. That way the idiots and insane don't get guns, but the people that actually want them and need them get them.



#33 to #22 - Crusader
Reply -1
(01/12/2013) [-]
"the bat is used for baseball"
Guns are used for skeet shooting
Target shooting
Hunting
etc.
A bat is essentially a club, it is only good to hit stuff
A gun is a gun, it is only good for shooting stuff
When you look at how often a gun is used for harmless stuff compared to murders and compare a baseball bat used for harmless stuff compared to how often it is used for murders, it's probably about the same, baseball bats are one of the most commonly used murder weapons ever.
But that is neither here nor there. If you look at how often a gun is used for murder compared to harmless stuff, it's about the same as all other "weapons"
#64 to #33 - mariogomez
Reply 0
(01/13/2013) [-]
I do not disagree with using guns for self defense, i.e killing people who threaten me, but guns are never used for something harmless. Bats are.

The only place guns are used for something harmless, i.e not killing something or some one is at a gun range, where you practice your aim so you can kill people better.

Again, you must be mentally retarded.
#77 to #64 - masdercheef
Reply 0
(01/13/2013) [-]
Well ****, the same goes for bows and crossbows, no? People use the hell out of them for hunting, and the only time they're relatively harmless (given that the operator knows their ****) is when one is at a range or in a competition.
#79 to #77 - mariogomez
Reply 0
(01/13/2013) [-]
Bows are such a niche item, it doesn't even register on murder items.

And more people are killed every year in the US by guns than deer are, the same cant be said for bows.
#63 to #33 - mariogomez
Reply 0
(01/13/2013) [-]
Mr Crusader, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

Baseball bats are made for baseball, guns are made for killing things, and more specifically people.

There are 32,000 thousand deaths a year in the US caused by firearms, are you actually telling me baseball bats cause the same thing?

Because according to statistics 67.8% of murders are caused by firearms, while only 3.9% are caused by blunt objects like baseball bats and hammers and so on.
More people are killed by fists and feet than that, 5.7%.

You sir are an idiot...........
#263 to #63 - anon
Reply 0
(01/13/2013) [-]
actually you are wrong.
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=43
crime statistics.
try backing up random percentages next time.
more people are attacked by unarmed assailant
#521 to #263 - mariogomez
Reply 0
(01/13/2013) [-]
http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/baseballbats.asp

boom