Click to expand
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #252 - aconfuseddonut (01/17/2013) [-]
Wait, when did this happen?
#250 - funkyrednipples (01/17/2013) [-]
Thanks Obama!
Thanks Obama!
User avatar #258 to #250 - lostxprophit (01/17/2013) [-]
if he hadn't sat down so ******* fast, then he wouldn't have spilled his **** ....just saiyin
#262 to #258 - hampuncher (01/17/2013) [-]
#243 - juicymucus (01/17/2013) [-]
Was wondering why this gun looked so familiar...
#241 - Rascal (01/17/2013) [-]
I think its funny you all think that having these guns is going to do anything if you decide to get up one day and rebel against the government. you could have an entire armory in your basement and it still wouldn't be enough to stop the military from invading your house or something of the sort. try and take out a tomahawk missile or M1 Abrams with an Ar-15, you will see how well that will go.. not very well as you can imagine. also if we are going by what the constitution says and that the founding fathers were always 100% right then there is no government to rebel against because every citizen is the government. we are the government as stated by the first 3 words of the constitution, We The People. we control who is in it through a democratic system of voting. there is no government to rebel against you would just be rebelling against your selves. Now your probably thinking I'm very naive and ignorant to think that but I'm solely basing this off of the logic most of you pro gun guys are using by talking about the second amendment of the constitution as an infallible law of basic human rights given to us by God and our founding fathers.
User avatar #254 to #241 - heartlessrobot (01/17/2013) [-]
Well, if they wouldn't do anything, how the hell have we not ended the war in the middle east? I'm pretty sure our weapons are higher quality and better maintained.
User avatar #265 to #254 - sonicg (01/17/2013) [-]
Liberal twats making up ******** rules of engagement. If it wasn't for dumbasses in D.C., we wouldn't have lost those 8 SEALs and 11 other U.S. troops during Operation Redwing.
#263 to #254 - Rascal (01/17/2013) [-]
I'm pretty sure we don't have complex cave systems and mountainous regions with people who don't speak our language and all look the same because of there religion. also they have suicide bombers and don;t really have any lines they won't cross (i.e. killing children. bombing schools etc.) its an entirely different situation over there than it would be here if there was to be a revolution in the U.S.
User avatar #268 to #263 - heartlessrobot (01/17/2013) [-]
Well, our army would be severely out-numbered, the difference between civilian and rebel wouldn't be obvious at first, and the tanks would have difficulty navigating the streets, and soldiers would have trouble firing upon people who might be their friends, family, and neighbors. Also, many soldiers would be against such laws as they might own weapons that would be outlawed.
#333 to #268 - Rascal (01/18/2013) [-]
your also implying that we would need a rebellion. I'm not well informed on actual military tactics so i can't say much on that but what i can ask is why are you all so paranoid? the government has no reason to come after us. this is not soviet russia this is the U.S.A. the country with the most freedom on the entire planet. also as you jut said soldiers would have a very difficult time firing on innocent American citizens. Its more likely they would go and shoot the person who gave them that order before they came and shot innocent civilians on the street and thus there would be no need for everyone to be an armed rebel because their will be no rebellion. seriously i don't get why your all so paranoid about the government coming after us. I don't see that happening in this country any time soon.
User avatar #238 - captchakid ONLINE (01/17/2013) [-]
And its got a forward pistol grip. And a collapsible butt. And its rapid fire.
User avatar #235 - bigbeaufort ONLINE (01/17/2013) [-]

I'll leave this here... so you may be better informed
#282 to #235 - rotinaj (01/18/2013) [-]
Most of that's not too unreasonable, actually. The fact that little kids are writing letters about politics is pretty silly ; Pretty much every person under 13 (and a lot of people under 18) doesn't actually make their own decisions, but rather spouts out what the adults around them preach to them. Not to mention that the children writing those letters are almost definitely from an urban area. Either way, I guess that we'll have to put our faith in the legal system to do what's best.
User avatar #244 to #235 - captchakid ONLINE (01/17/2013) [-]
Yes. Yes to this comment.
#231 - Rascal (01/17/2013) [-]
read: http://rense.com/general9/gunlaw.htm (town in georgia made it mandatory to own a gun)
Gun crime at less than half of the national average
User avatar #206 - reaperssprint (01/17/2013) [-]
I'm against gun bans and all that, but I really don't understand what the big deal is over the high capacity magazines. What use do you have for more than 10 rounds in your assault rifle? I mean worst comes to worst you have to reload a little more often when shooting for fun.

Gun activists want something done, so Obama is doing something. It'll make them happy without banning high-powered weapons. The only use you'd have for a high-capacity magazine is if you were planning to kill someone, so there's where we are now anyway.
User avatar #224 to #206 - bigbeaufort ONLINE (01/17/2013) [-]
The ban also includes assault weapons. Still, same concept though... who really needs an assault weapon?
User avatar #230 to #224 - reaperssprint (01/17/2013) [-]
I mean, I can understand why people would want them if they enjoy the feeling of the kick of a gun, but exactly. Anything that is high-powered that fires faster than a bolt/lever action rifle is unnecessary. Same with shotguns, anything past a pump-action shotgun is basically a combat shotgun. Not needed to be owned in my opinion.

But it is a right for the American people to own them, but it seems gun nuts are unhappy with being limited. It's apparently not enough just to be able to own guns in the first place.
User avatar #466 to #230 - keiishiyama (01/18/2013) [-]
When most pistols are legally allowed to chamber 15+=sized clips and assault rifles of all types are banned, something in the equation is ******** . True, the kick behind a pistol is a lot less, but with 15 shots, I could still kill you just as easily (and a hell of a lot more painfully) as if I'd fired two 7.62s into your skill.
User avatar #501 to #466 - reaperssprint (01/18/2013) [-]
However a pistol is considered a personal defense weapon. High-powered rifles are generally placed under Assault Weapons. Assault is by definition offense.

Obviously a pistol is still perfectly capable of a killing spree, but when faced with a pistol versus and assault rifle people are more likely to resist. A little psychological point to that.
User avatar #517 to #501 - keiishiyama (01/18/2013) [-]
I still don't believe the government and its laws are taking this seriously. It's being reinforced constantly that guns are able to kill people, but a gun doesn't have a brain. It doesn't see people and kill them. It is an equal-opportunity ********** . It's the one pulling the trigger who needs to be dealt with, and nobody seems to care.
User avatar #531 to #517 - reaperssprint (01/18/2013) [-]
It's not that nobody cares, it's that all those in charge are the ONES who don't care.
User avatar #538 to #531 - keiishiyama (01/18/2013) [-]
The ones in charge don't give a **** about anything that creates opposition in their districts. Politics is a sick, dirty business that is ruining any chance we have of improving.

And yes, I hate politicians. No, the government is perfectly fine.

C'est la vie when you place humans in charge.
User avatar #264 to #230 - heartlessrobot (01/17/2013) [-]
Semi-automatic is for when the first shot misses or if there's more than one attacker. Full auto is for people who can't aim for **** .
User avatar #248 to #230 - bigbeaufort ONLINE (01/17/2013) [-]
The unhappiness seems to stem from some sort of misguided pretenses that once a constitutional right is restricted that our government will start taking away our other privileges and give rise to the new Hitler. But the simple fact is, I don't trust other Americans enough with guns as is....
User avatar #266 to #248 - reaperssprint (01/17/2013) [-]
True, very true.
User avatar #204 - arsenymous (01/17/2013) [-]
They only want to have gun control so when the american people realize that they are controlling us in horrible ways, we won't be be able to rebel.
User avatar #199 - Shiny ONLINE (01/17/2013) [-]
If you need a fully automatic rifle to defend yourself, then my first assumption is that you're just a really ****** shot.
User avatar #227 to #199 - mylazy (01/17/2013) [-]
I am reasonably sure that fully automatic weapons have been illegal for awhile....it is semi-automatic, or assault weapons, that a lot of gun control activists want to ban. But yeah, if you need a fully automatic weapon to defend yourself you are probably a ****** shot.
#179 - Rascal (01/17/2013) [-]
it's really funny..people graduate from public schooling, graduate from college, obtain jobs...and yet we keep seeing the same lessons for children: a few bad apples can spoil the fun for everyone
#175 - pebar (01/17/2013) [-]
I hate it when mass shootings start gun control debates. The Sandy Hook shooting for example, 20 kids and a few teachers died. In the grand scheme of gun violence in the U.S, whoop dee ******* doo. People who use these examples are just part of a bandwagon. In my opinion, one person chose to kill people so it counts as ONE incident of gun violence... (inb4 gimli)

Looking at gun violence as a whole... it's been shown time and time again that people having gun reduces overall crime. The U.S. is a more or less free economy so there's a gap between the rich and poor. This "poor class" sometimes have to resort to desperate means to make money. Simply taking away guns doesn't solve this problem and all; they'll just use other tools for their crimes. Helping the poor and inner city folk would be the best thing to stop crime.
I consider myself liberal but gun control is one of the things I go conservative on...
User avatar #456 to #175 - keiishiyama (01/18/2013) [-]
And the root of the problem is always ignored: the man using the gun. You may try to disagree with me, but the Columbine kids were depressed, bullied loners who were able to get access to guns. Who's to say that filthy ******* animal behind Sandy Hook didn't have a similar background?

Laws don't take the human psyche into the equation. Guns are a BIG ******* RESPONSIBILITY, and by selling them to people whose state of mind could repeat this tragedy, we're proving to God and everybody that we think it's a joke.
User avatar #504 to #456 - pebar (01/18/2013) [-]
I do disagree... being a bullied loner just means you were unlucky in school and having depression is actually more complicated than it sounds. If having a gun gives someone confidence, then they should have the right to have one. Banning someone from owning a gun because they fit they fit the profile is like racism... sort of, if you know what I mean. Whether or not someone is psychologically able to kill is a complicated question and the gov shouldn't even try to work with it.
The example that you brought up, someone going on a rampage because they hate society, rarely happens. I agree that insane people shouldn't be allowed to have guns, but any laws made banning people from guns for psychological reasons need to be very specific and not broad like what you want.
User avatar #516 to #504 - keiishiyama (01/18/2013) [-]
What healthy-minded individual would commit an inhuman atrocity like killing grade-school children? We're trusting people with weapons that can take life away in a heartbeat. If we can't go with Option A, I say we go, " **** it," and require gun-seekers to have worked at least a year in the Army. We're not taking this seriously, and the Army, at least, will weed out the responsible people.

But I'm a 17-year-old libertarian bent on the preservation of our rights to own guns. Why does my voice matter?
User avatar #226 to #175 - moooossseeee (01/17/2013) [-]
As a conservative, I completely agree with you. I think Sandy Hook was a tragedy (it happened <20min away from me), but it was just a small portion of what really gun violence is about. I don't blame Obama for the 10mag+ ban, but my main issue is if you ban that, what's stopping you from banning everything else?
#168 - Rascal (01/17/2013) [-]
explanation of the joke please? not everyone here is from USA
User avatar #180 to #168 - pebar (01/17/2013) [-]
new gun control ideas are being passed around by the gov in the US, a law banning high capacity magazines has been suggested.
#156 - ohhitheree (01/17/2013) [-]
You've got to be joking. A HANDGUN has more than ten rounds most of the time.
User avatar #183 to #156 - avatarcharizard (01/17/2013) [-]
which is why its ridiculous
#150 - rambearclaw (01/17/2013) [-]
Assault weapons have gotten a lot of bad press lately, but they’re manufactured for a reason: to take out today’s modern super animals, such as the flying squirrel, and the electric eel.
#169 to #150 - Rascal (01/17/2013) [-]
don't forget sasquatch
gonna take a lot of rounds to take down that mofo
User avatar #142 - cycloberrick (01/17/2013) [-]
to all you gun haters out there saying automatic weapons and stuff should be banned, while that's actually a debatable subject and could possibly help, a legally obtained automatic weapon has never been used in a crime (in America) they've always been obtained illegally. just a fun fact for you all
#185 to #142 - Rascal (01/17/2013) [-]
Wait, so you're actually claiming that out of the thousands of gun deaths that happen in America every year, that not one of them was obtained legally?

Prove it.
User avatar #174 to #142 - fantomen (01/17/2013) [-]
The only legally registered fully automatic weapon used in a murder since the law was passed in 1934 was registered to a police station. One of the cops there stole the gun and used it to machine gun his wife's lover.
#159 to #142 - ohhitheree (01/17/2013) [-]
THANK you! No one gets that! They think if they ban them, they will go away. Nope, we just will not have them, but they still will.
User avatar #166 to #159 - cycloberrick (01/17/2013) [-]
glad to see i brightened up someone's day
User avatar #186 to #166 - bramdk (01/17/2013) [-]
so wait
you are saying those illigally obtained weapons werent in a store before this
they just came falling from the ******* sky
no gun laws>store buys automatics>guy legally buys automatic>guy isnt actually that nice and sells it for a profit to someone who wants to do harm using it

its not like illigally obtained means it has never seen a store shelve
User avatar #197 to #186 - cycloberrick (01/17/2013) [-]
so you want to ban them because you think it will keep them away from people, please tell how hard it is for people to obtain banned drugs and honestly i dont feel like debating about this with someone over the internet because both of us have made up our minds and all it will turn into is a flame war. so this is my last post on the subject, bye bye
User avatar #203 to #197 - bramdk (01/17/2013) [-]
well i wont flame i promise that i stay above that
but its not like the illigal guns are aquired by people just running into an army base and taking them
those are militairy propperty and not for trade
the guns that are in illigal hands may not have gotten there from a store
but they sure have bein inside a store sometime in the past
as its the only thing gun manufacturers send these guns to exept the military
User avatar #212 to #203 - cycloberrick (01/17/2013) [-]
okay screw it I'll keep commenting. to add on to that, not all guns are manufactured by large companies there's tons of people who know how to make and mold firearms. you don't have to buy them off a mass produced shelf in order to get them because someone could just make them underground and sell them that way

PS: the captcha required for every comment is really bugging me
User avatar #201 to #197 - cycloberrick (01/17/2013) [-]
also sorry about the grammar in my last comment, I typed that out pretty horribly
#119 - heroyoudeserve (01/17/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
#112 - chiefrunnyjeans (01/17/2013) [-]
I am getting one of these tomorrow and the government can suck my ******* balls. The government needs to keep their dirty hands off my rights. I will keep my rifles and my 30 round mags and they can keep the change.
#269 to #112 - Rascal (01/17/2013) [-]
you definitely need this for you self defense right? how bout you buy all the guns you want and go shoot yourself with them cuz its people like you that has made our gun culture this to the pont that the government has to take action
User avatar #277 to #269 - chiefrunnyjeans (01/17/2013) [-]
*please see #147
#147 to #112 - chiefrunnyjeans (01/17/2013) [-]
lol all the red thumbs from butthurt anti-gun fags
User avatar #110 - desuforeverlulz (01/17/2013) [-]
Extended mags aren't banned?... Even though they should be. You don't need to have 30 bullets in a clip to go hunting or defend yourself.
User avatar #239 to #110 - desuforeverlulz (01/17/2013) [-]
I wonder why this comment was thumbed down most of all when it was probably the most obvious factual thing I said, except the mistake of saying "clip" of course.
User avatar #148 to #110 - friendlyanonymous (01/17/2013) [-]
What the **** ?
I wish there was 30 round clips.
#160 to #148 - desuforeverlulz (01/17/2013) [-]
You know I meant to say magazine. Even still, here's your 30 round clip.
User avatar #171 to #160 - friendlyanonymous (01/17/2013) [-]
A 30 round clip would totally work with my Mosin.
#116 to #110 - chiefrunnyjeans (01/17/2013) [-]
Don't even start with that bullcrap. yes you do need as many bullets to defend yourself as possible. Especially because we don't just have guns for self defense. It is to keep a check on the government.
User avatar #190 to #116 - bramdk (01/17/2013) [-]
so you have to keep a check on the government...
that you partially elected...
yes... that makes total sense
User avatar #192 to #190 - chiefrunnyjeans (01/17/2013) [-]
>implying there are no corrupt politicians
User avatar #798 to #192 - bramdk (01/18/2013) [-]
you know what
keep your damn guns
use them even
use them on your politicians on others and on yourself
ittl be a great act of natural selection
User avatar #149 to #116 - desuforeverlulz (01/17/2013) [-]
Haha, no. Just, no. You conservatives and your crazy dreams of overtaking the government... and that's assuming the government decides to do some Orwellian nonsense. I pity your insane ideology. You will not survive against an army.
User avatar #158 to #149 - chituat (01/17/2013) [-]
That's what the old regime said about the french
User avatar #163 to #158 - desuforeverlulz (01/17/2013) [-]
>implying the french have an army
User avatar #173 to #163 - thedutchs ONLINE (01/17/2013) [-]
Are you retarded? The French have quite a strong military force.

And believe me. If it's all the people against the government, the people will win.

Armies tend to split during times of revolution y'know.
User avatar #181 to #173 - desuforeverlulz (01/17/2013) [-]
During the French Revolution? They had a sizable army but it doesn't hold a candle to our nation's army today.
User avatar #188 to #181 - thedutchs ONLINE (01/17/2013) [-]
Even though France has the 6th strongest army in the world?


Get your facts straight.
User avatar #191 to #188 - desuforeverlulz (01/17/2013) [-]
Again... during the French Revolution? No they did not. Back when people used muskets and pikes to kill each other, it was probably quite a bit easier to overthrow a government.
User avatar #202 to #191 - thedutchs ONLINE (01/17/2013) [-]
Sure. But whenever a revolution would happen this instant some general would take over a part of the army and foreign parties with interest would supply arms and vehicles to the rebels and even help fight the government.

There is always a bunch of high-ranking officers who want to have power.

It happened in the Roman empire, the French revolution (Napoleon) and a few years back in Egypt and Libya.

So the people would still win in the end.
User avatar #237 to #202 - desuforeverlulz (01/17/2013) [-]
You don't know that. Way to give the benefit of the doubt to your government, who you are accusing of enforcing some form of Orwellian state by force. You'd like to believe a lot of people in the army are good people, right? Well the army is where people who want sick thrills of killing people or enforcing martial law go as well.
User avatar #167 to #163 - chituat (01/17/2013) [-]
seeing how they were recently in africa, yes. they do have an army.
User avatar #182 to #167 - desuforeverlulz (01/17/2013) [-]
See the above comment.
User avatar #155 to #149 - chiefrunnyjeans (01/17/2013) [-]
that's the same thing the jews said before they got gassed you ignorant liberal
User avatar #165 to #155 - desuforeverlulz (01/17/2013) [-]
I'm not saying it couldn't happen, I'm saying violent resistance will end up with you dead, end of discussion.
User avatar #184 to #165 - chiefrunnyjeans (01/17/2013) [-]
That's just how democracy works. Your rights mean nothing if you can't defend them.
User avatar #242 to #184 - desuforeverlulz (01/17/2013) [-]
Sad day for you, my friend. Let's just hope the government never decides to do that. Which in all honesty I wouldn't think it would. It would be bad for corporate profits to enslave Americans.
User avatar #114 to #110 - MythBuster (01/17/2013) [-]
I shoot gophers with my .22 so an extended mag really helps when you're busy clearing out a field
#118 to #114 - desuforeverlulz (01/17/2013) [-]
You're justifying the fact that a psycho with a gun can unload more rounds in a shorter amount of time on innocent people because it's convenient for your purposes?
You're justifying the fact that a psycho with a gun can unload more rounds in a shorter amount of time on innocent people because it's convenient for your purposes?
User avatar #154 to #118 - cycloberrick (01/17/2013) [-]
a fully automatic large mag rifle has never been obtained legally and used in a crime, they've always been illegally obtained when used for shootings
User avatar #170 to #154 - desuforeverlulz (01/17/2013) [-]
3/4ths of guns used in mass murders are obtained legally. The six guns used in the Sandy Hook shooting were legally bought possessed by the shooter's mother.
User avatar #208 to #170 - cycloberrick (01/17/2013) [-]
gosh I just told someone I was done debating the subject so here is my final comment

which is why instead of banning something I think they should just perform background checks on people, that could also help and people could keep their guns. also the guns were obtained by a person who wasn't apart of the shooting which means the people using them were handling them illegally
User avatar #215 to #208 - desuforeverlulz (01/17/2013) [-]
Who said I was in favor of banning guns? Pro-gun rights activists usually spout that strawman when in fact we want the same reasonable legislation that you'd probably be in favor of. Federally mandated background checks, closing the gun show loophole, and banning most if not all extended magazines. I'm also in favor of banning assault rifles, but JUST assault rifles. People who want guns for morally honest reasons would be forced to buy some other type of gun, boohoo. We can't always get what we want because sometimes the government deems it dangerous to society, like illegal narcotics for example.
User avatar #228 to #215 - cycloberrick (01/17/2013) [-]
also this is totally off topic, but do you play League of Legends or own a PS3 because you seem to be one of the few reasonable people I've seen on the internet and I would like to add you as a friend on something, don't really care what game I'd add you on just any random game would work.
User avatar #232 to #228 - desuforeverlulz (01/17/2013) [-]
I've got an Xbox? Neither of those though, sorry.
User avatar #236 to #232 - cycloberrick (01/17/2013) [-]
my brother moved out recently and I let him take it with him, damn.
User avatar #222 to #215 - cycloberrick (01/17/2013) [-]
oh sorry, I wasn't paying enough attention before and I guess I just assumed you were against gun use. But banning assault rifles, that's a very broad term and can be interpreted in many different ways. A person can look at a bolt action hunting rifle and say it can be used as an assault weapon, so sure you could ban certain firearms but please make it more specific than simply "assault rifles"
User avatar #229 to #222 - desuforeverlulz (01/17/2013) [-]
If you didn't know, the Clinton magical fairy princessistration passed a law known as the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban, and it laid out the specific grounds for what types of guns would be banned. I actually just want that law reenacted, as it expired in 2004.
User avatar #234 to #229 - cycloberrick (01/17/2013) [-]
well we seem to have found a common ground, good debate my friend (if you could call it that because we kinda agreed on stuff)
User avatar #193 to #170 - bramdk (01/17/2013) [-]
and even if they werent they didnt grow on automatic trees , even illigal guns have bein on a store shelve someday
User avatar #195 to #193 - desuforeverlulz (01/17/2013) [-]
Not necessarily. And I don't see the point you're trying to make.
User avatar #198 to #195 - bramdk (01/17/2013) [-]
i mean that when an automatic gun is manufactured it isnt put in a public bin for the illigal person just to take
its bought by a store
who then sells it for a profit
now if you are a bad person you can go and sell this gun for a higher profit to someone who hasnt got a license but wants one to lets say do harm
then this gun is now deemed illigal
but saying it has never bein inside a store once in its time is total ********
User avatar #209 to #198 - desuforeverlulz (01/17/2013) [-]
People who make guns don't just sell to gun stores. And I really fail to see the point here.
User avatar #130 to #118 - MythBuster (01/17/2013) [-]
It's a .22, you can take 5 shots to the chest and live.. Plus I shoot gophers on cow farms so yeah it's for the convince of everyone, gophers ruin grass fields and if a cow breaks its legs by stepping in a gopher hole, you have to kill it. The more cows that have to be killed, the higher the beef prices are
User avatar #143 to #130 - desuforeverlulz (01/17/2013) [-]
I wasn't talking about just .22s, you made that argument yourself and now you're attacking a strawman.
User avatar #157 to #143 - MythBuster (01/17/2013) [-]
I was making the example that if you ban all of them, you're banning a tool that honest people use everyday
User avatar #189 to #157 - desuforeverlulz (01/17/2013) [-]
I understand it makes your job and the others who do the same sort of activity easier... but we are talking about people's lives here man. It really does have an impact whether a shooter is able to shoot continuously for longer amounts of time. Imagine if someone committed a mass murder using a minigun.
User avatar #196 to #189 - MythBuster (01/17/2013) [-]
Imagine if someone committed a shooting with a handgun and a legal magazine size... O **** that already happened at VT. Crazy people will be crazy
User avatar #200 to #196 - desuforeverlulz (01/17/2013) [-]
That doesn't prove a point. Just that it's possible. One instance doesn't prove all the rest of the data to the contrary false. Assault rifles with legal extended mags are most commonly used in mass shootings.
User avatar #210 to #200 - MythBuster (01/17/2013) [-]
All that banning will do is take it away from honest citizens, criminals will ALWAYS find a way to illegally obtain banned mags
User avatar #223 to #210 - desuforeverlulz (01/17/2013) [-]
That's not true. You need to think and consider the many ways that making something illegal could prevent someone from getting banned mags. First of all, you say "criminal" which implies that they have a criminal background. Most people who go on killing sprees do not have a criminal history. Usually people in gangs or tough neighborhoods that I would call criminals know people that could probably find them extended magazines, because perhaps they know someone who illegally deals arms. But what about those people who've never done anything criminal? They might not have that same connection. And there you go, it's a change. Maybe a small or a big change, that all depends on how successful the implementation is and how well the police handle illegal arms trafficking, but a little change today could save someone's life tomorrow.
User avatar #249 to #223 - MythBuster (01/17/2013) [-]
Have drugs went away since they were banned?? There millions and millions of extended mags circulating through the US, banning them wouldn't do **** ... This argument isn't going anywhere since you're so closed minded, so have a good one man
User avatar #253 to #249 - desuforeverlulz (01/17/2013) [-]
Not being easily persuaded by illegitimate arguments is being closed minded? Sure. Whatever you say.
User avatar #251 to #249 - desuforeverlulz (01/17/2013) [-]
Obviously not, I was just making the example of appropriate legislation. The war on drugs doesn't work, decriminalization and fines with rehabilitation would make a difference. Just like how some gun control works and others makes things worse, like my home state's ban on concealed weapons. You say that like you know it's a fact lol. It still doesn't change the basic principle that if you reduce the availability you'll reduce the number.
#127 to #118 - Rascal (01/17/2013) [-]
The psycho killer will just bring more magazines. Just look at columbine and virginia tech.
User avatar #140 to #127 - desuforeverlulz (01/17/2013) [-]
And they will have to reload, which gives people time to escape, or the police an opportunity to take him down. That's the point I'm making.
#113 to #110 - Rascal (01/17/2013) [-]
When is this ever about needs? This is America, if you want something you can go buy it. Should we outlaw everything that the people don't "need", like Xbox's and iPads?
User avatar #153 to #113 - desuforeverlulz (01/17/2013) [-]
We outlaw things like poison. People don't need that, they are used to kill people. How about you make an actual shred of ******* sense, and then come have this discussion with me.
User avatar #115 to #113 - desuforeverlulz (01/17/2013) [-]
Do you not see the obvious logical flaw in your analogy? Those things don't assist people committing mass murders.
#134 to #115 - lisreal (01/17/2013) [-]
Because, as many other people have said, people out to commit mass murders actually follow the law, right? We should ban knives, poisonous chemicals, cars, hammers, you know, anything that could ASSIST in a murder, right?

If somebody wants something or to do something badly enough, they are going to do it.
User avatar #194 to #134 - bramdk (01/17/2013) [-]
i hate this picture actually....
its implying that you can use a gun to lets say drive around and go do groceries in
its that stupid
a car has a propper urban use
guns dont
#217 to #194 - gisuar (01/17/2013) [-]
everything he mentioned is used to do other things even the opposite of killing they might be abused but guns aren't good for anything else than killing and that's what those people won't understand arguing that way.
User avatar #139 to #134 - desuforeverlulz (01/17/2013) [-]
Absolutely, I agree. But not everyone would go to such lengths. And if we can decrease the number of people with incredibly easy means of committing mass murders, then perhaps we can decrease the number overall. It's the simple principal of macroeconomics.
User avatar #162 to #139 - lisreal (01/17/2013) [-]
You just make it sound like guns are the only murder weapons. Like somebody else said, if extended mags aren't within somebody's grasp, they can bring more mags.

I'd like to pull the "keep the guns to check our government" card, but no matter how much or how little control we have on guns, we will always be outgunned. I don't think Obama is trying to piss us off. I don't like him as a president but I believe he means well. It's just I think he is expecting for more people to obey the laws than who actually will. Unless guns are 100% unavailable (which is a nice but outlandish thought), you will always run the risk of tragedy. Same goes for drugs, alcohol, vehicles, etc. I know it's terrible, but that's unfortunately the world we live in.
User avatar #176 to #162 - desuforeverlulz (01/17/2013) [-]
A nice but outlandish thought? Wow. How about Japan where guns are virtually nonexistent?
User avatar #172 to #162 - desuforeverlulz (01/17/2013) [-]
They are the most efficient murder weapon. If you had to kill someone and you couldn't sneak up on them, which would you choose?

A. A grenade
B. A knife
C. Plastic explosive
D. Poison (you'd have to force them to ingest it)
E. A gun
#128 to #115 - Rascal (01/17/2013) [-]
If I don't use my guns to commit crimes, why can't I have whatever size magazine I want? Why can't I have automatic weapons? I'm never going to commit crimes with them, or use them for anything illegal. What's the big deal?

User avatar #131 to #128 - desuforeverlulz (01/17/2013) [-]
Because there are other people who are not you, maybe? Did you ever consider that?
User avatar #126 to #115 - cadaverbox (01/17/2013) [-]
One might use a computer to pirate things.
They might pirate a book titled "Steal This Book"
This book contains detailed instructions on how to build a bomb and where to place it on a wall to get the most blast damage.
One could also use said computer to remotely detonate this bomb, killing many people in the process.
We don't need computers.
Criminals, like society as a whole, find ways to innovate when there is scarcity.
User avatar #207 to #126 - desuforeverlulz (01/17/2013) [-]
When you look at the bigger picture, if we reduced the number of gun related crimes through good legislation, we'd have less mass murders overall. The reason being is that guns are easy to obtain and are very efficient methods of killing people, it looks very suspicious when you're purchasing things to make bombs. Also mass murderers are usually sadistic and might not get the same thrill from remotely detonating a bomb.
User avatar #240 to #207 - cadaverbox (01/17/2013) [-]
Or maybe you could kill the problem at the source in helping to identify and aid mentally unstable citizens so that they don't go off on rampages. Why is restriction of the masses the proper solution when you could just restrict those deemed unfit to carry such weapons?

Also, your reasons about "looking suspicious" and "thrill" are ******** . Bombs can be made with so many household items, that with the right know-how, you could probably blow up your garage using only the stuff inside it. And if anything, an explosions would be more thrilling to a psychopath.
#120 to #115 - captnpl has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #135 to #120 - desuforeverlulz (01/17/2013) [-]

“The Nature of Mass Murder and Autogenic Massacre”

Bowers, Thomas G.; Holmes, Eric S.; Rhom, Ashley. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 2010, 25:59-66. doi: 10.1007/s11-6

Abstract: “Incidents of mass murder have gained considerable media attention, but are not well understood in behavioral sciences. Current definitions are weak, and may include politically or ideologically motivated phenomenon. Our current understanding of the phenomenon indicates these incidents are not peculiar to only western cultures, and appear to be increasing. Methods most prominently used include firearms by males who have experienced challenging setbacks in important social, familial and vocational domains. There often appears to be important autogenic components … including dysthymic reactions and similar antecedents. There have been observations of possible seasonal variations in mass murders, but research to date is inadequate to establish this relationship. It is recommended behavioral sciences and mental health researchers increase research efforts on understanding mass killings, as the current socioeconomic climate may increase vulnerability to this phenomenon, and the incidents are not well understood despite their notoriety.”
 Friends (0)