Upload
Login or register
Anonymous comments allowed.
asd
#1216 - pinktroll
Reply -5
(04/22/2013) [-]
Of course the Asian is holding it.
#1245 to #1216 - neokun
Reply +2
(04/22/2013) [-]
I don't understand.
#754 - thatotherchild
Reply +2
(04/22/2013) [-]
because you choke to death on an egg you cant fit a full sized assault rifle in your ******* mouth
#755 to #754 - jokeface
Reply +2
(04/22/2013) [-]
Challenge accepted.
#756 to #755 - thatotherchild
Reply +1
(04/22/2013) [-]
pics ******.
#765 to #756 - jokeface
Reply +1
(04/22/2013) [-]
YOUR ****A FULL SIZED ASSAULT RIFLEING MOUTH
#774 to #765 - thatotherchild
Reply 0
(04/22/2013) [-]
FINE.
#705 - schrodngrscat
Reply +2
(04/22/2013) [-]
I thought that ban was lifted recently...
#464 - eatinyojello
Reply +2
(04/22/2013) [-]
those kids are gonna gets suspended
#208 - kinglobster
Reply +2
(04/21/2013) [-]
lets give this kid a gun not teach her how to properly hold it :D
#984 - flufflepuff
Reply +1
(04/22/2013) [-]
Alcohol and heart disease are responsible for more deaths than guns.

ban fast food, and beer, then come talk to me about saving lives.
#1017 to #984 - rockerrocksixty ONLINE
Reply 0
(04/22/2013) [-]
well alcohol + guns is just crazy, and a good portion of the deaths caused by alcohol are the person who was drunk, save the victims of drunk car accidents. that's why there's a blood alcohol level where you can get arrested and have to pay a gynormous fine.
also, heart disease is self inflicted. if most of the deaths from guns were suicide we wouldn't care nearly as much as we do. it's more than preventing death, it's preventing murder.
#1059 to #1017 - bazda
Reply 0
(04/22/2013) [-]
The vast majority of gun deaths are suicides.
#1029 to #1017 - flufflepuff
Reply 0
(04/22/2013) [-]
If someone is determined to kill, it's going to happen.

serial killers don't like using loud weapons, for example.
The bomb in boston is another example..

and if i actually make an effort, i can probably show that very many people die for very many reasons, from very many things that can be called "murder."

Recently, the guy that shot up the school? He could've just became a bus driver, and driven off a cliff. (and you can't tell me an 8 yr old can stop a grown man from driving a bus into a wall or something.)

Taking the rights away from Millions of law-abiding citizens, while selling guns to mexico, and having illegal immigrants come here with guns is nothing short of stupid.

Until you can show me that this is legitimately a large problem, with a real fix, I just can't agree with the idea of banning guns. Not how things are now.
#1043 to #1029 - rockerrocksixty ONLINE
Reply 0
(04/22/2013) [-]
so just because there's other ways to kill people means that we should'nt even try to prevent the most lethal, most likely and the easiest way?
#1063 to #1043 - flufflepuff
Reply 0
(04/22/2013) [-]
"most lethal" "most likely the easiest"
I disagree with that almost entirely..
a gun is a great way to get caught, and anyone unwilling to get caught can, and often does not use one. So, when we don't have guns, these people would only be empowered. The police aren't god-like, and they won't know when you're in trouble unless you alert them, and you don't always have time. when you're 60, and there is a 200lb muscular dude breaking into your house, you'll really be wishing for a gun, and getting up close with a taser is sorta risky. pepper spray would be your best bet, but if he is wearing a mask... (to hide identity)

Besides, a lot of these people were known to be dangerous, and they weren't properly supervised. Many of them were messed up on medications. You can look at Australia and Great Britain as examples of how this doesn't work. Nazi Germany too, though i don't think the government is planning anything similar.
#1082 to #1063 - rockerrocksixty ONLINE
Reply 0
(04/22/2013) [-]
well i doubt anyone who took part in the numerious public shootings in the past few months cared about stealth or secrecy.
#1092 to #1082 - flufflepuff
Reply 0
(04/22/2013) [-]
Just because it's on the news, doesn't mean it's the only thing happening.

how many people have disappeared this year?
If you disappear, the chances are, they won't find you.
I'm worried about the killers that aren't making public statements.
those who are too insane to even blend into society can be detected, and stopped, if we actually put in effort. The people who are sane, but just plainly evil, are the ones that worry me the most. These scenes where someone was slowly cut up and the killer just watched them wriggle in pain and die slowly.. it worries me, that some of these people are in our churches, in our schools, and they can go through a lifetime without getting caught.

I'm not saying that guns are more important than lives, no. I'm saying that there is evidence to support that we should keep guns, and too little evidence to reject people's right to own a gun. I really do think that more guns = more safety.

in a perfect society, we wouldn't even need cops, because nobody would murder. The way things are, I think we need them. Maybe someday in the future we won't, but i don't think that future is here yet. The way people are, i'm not sure if it ever will be.
#1079 to #984 - ivoryhammer
Reply 0
(04/22/2013) [-]
Apples and oranges
#974 - oneironeer
Reply +1
(04/22/2013) [-]
Because kinder eggs had the bright ******* idea to put small surprise toys into their product which resulted in kids choking to death and others damaging teeth. The two are completely unrelated to each other. It's like saying: We won't sell caramel apples with razor blades in them to children, so why let children own knives? Did you know thousands of people die every year by knives in the US alone? Please ban them... for our children's protection.
#982 to #974 - thepandaking
Reply +1
(04/22/2013) [-]
precisely. I like this. I do enjoy this. well done sir.
#965 - blacknbluebrony
Reply -1
(04/22/2013) [-]
It annoys me whenever people use the argument, "guns don't kill people, people kill people". While that maybe true, who do you think would be more dangerous, a man with a knife or a man with a gun? Guns are tools with the sole purpose of making it much easier to kill. If someone has the intention to kill, they have potential of taking much more lives if they had a gun versus if they tried to use almost anything else.
#978 to #965 - douthit
Reply 0
(04/22/2013) [-]
Yes, but guns make self-defense much easier. When the revolver was invented, they call it the "great equalizer". Because with that new technology, for the first time in the history of the world, even an arthritic 80 year-old woman of any size could adequately defend herself from a male attacker of any size.
#1014 to #978 - blacknbluebrony
Reply 0
(04/22/2013) [-]
As I said in another comment, I'm not completely against gun ownership. I just think it's ridiculous that buying a gun for self-defense boils down to, "I need a gun because someone may attack me with a gun". It just leads to more and more people buying guns. Also owning a gun makes it much more likely that you will be shot compared to someone who doesn't own a gun and a large portion gun related deaths are caused by someone losing control of their emotions( i.e. someone walking in on their wife cheating in them) and they just so happen to have a gun nearby.
#1041 to #1014 - douthit
Reply 0
(04/22/2013) [-]
Self-defense isn't only in case of being attacked by someone with a gun. Self-defense with a gun prevents many muggings, rapes, assaults, and murders every year. Sometimes the bad guy uses a gun, sometimes a knife, sometimes a baseball bat, and sometimes his fists. But a firearm is the best tool for self-defense, because it can be adequately deployed in those instances with much less training, strength, and time than it would require to become proficient in self-defense using any other weapon. Also, I don't buy that a large percentage of gun crimes are due to crimes of people losing their minds. Road rage is a big problem, but we don't use that as an excuse to outlaw or limit cars. We allow 16 year-olds to operate multi-ton gas-filled projectiles, and there's no background check or mental health evaluation.
#991 to #978 - rockerrocksixty ONLINE
Reply 0
(04/22/2013) [-]
yea, but that was back in the lawless west.
#994 to #991 - douthit
Reply 0
(04/22/2013) [-]
The "wild west" wasn't wild. Common myth. But it applies even today. With a firearm in hand, a small woman can adequately defend herself from an attacker of any size, and even from a group of assailants. Self-defense is a human right, and the most effective and efficient tool for it is a firearm.
#996 to #994 - rockerrocksixty ONLINE
Reply +1
(04/22/2013) [-]
there's still tazers and pepper spray, those aren't lethal. (maybe the tazer, but it's not designed to kill.)
#999 to #996 - douthit
Reply 0
(04/22/2013) [-]
Still, a gun is much more effective. But even if guns weren't, owning and carrying a gun is a nonviolent crime, and we can't justly deny people their rights just because we don't like them. Live and let live.
#1008 to #999 - rockerrocksixty ONLINE
Reply 0
(04/22/2013) [-]
well we still don't need huge, automatic rifles for self defense. we should make sure there's background checks on everyone who tries to buy a firearm and not let these crazy super-weapons into anyone's hands. the only reasons i could think to allow someone to own a firearm is a) self defense or b) hunting. and you don't need anything extravagant for either of those.
#1023 to #1008 - douthit
Reply +1
(04/22/2013) [-]
First, automatic weapons are generally only allowed for military and police use. It is possible for civilians to obtain them, but they are extremely expensive and are very tightly regulated. Don't think that we're talking about automatic rifles here. Those are terrifically few and far between. Second, It's not just for self-defense, it's for whatever the owner wants it for. Rights aren't based on others' perceived needs. Third, mandatory background checks mandates a law based on a nonviolent and victimless crime. And if you want to enforce it, then you're supporting the initiation of violence by the government, which is just as bad as the gun violence you'd be hoping to prevent. Fourth, you have no right to allow or deny someone their rights. I can't justly tell you what you can or can't eat, drink, shoot, smoke, own, etc. as long as you're not hurting anyone, and someone simply owning a gun isn't harming anyone.
#1068 to #1023 - rockerrocksixty ONLINE
Reply -1
(04/22/2013) [-]
you're right, we should let people own grenades and tanks and nukes too. hell, let's sell vehicles with miniguns on top of them. remember the sandy hook school shooting not too long ago? the shooter stole the guns from his mom, a legal gun owner. when that ammendment was passed we were still using muskets. i doubt our founding fathers had any idea about the weapons we'd have today.
#1083 to #1068 - douthit
Reply +1
(04/22/2013) [-]
You just committed an argumentative fallacy. You took my argument and took it to an extreme which I never argued for, and commenced to criticizing the result. We're not talking about grenades, although with the right background checks and licensing it's already possible to legally obtain them--and when was the last time you heard about grenade murders? And the government already does auction off old tanks to civilians--and when was the last time you heard about tank murders? And nukes is the typical asinine non-argument. We're talking about guns. As long as there is legal gun ownership, nothing can be done about someone who murders in order to get a gun illegally. If laws could stop that, the law against murder would be sufficient. And as for the musket part, do you believe the First Amendment only applies to the Guttenberg-style printing presses that were available then? Please, give me a break.
#1096 to #1083 - rockerrocksixty ONLINE
Reply -1
(04/22/2013) [-]
fine, maybe i took the point too far but still, times have changed and that ammendment has taken more lives then it's saved, at least in the recent years. our current regulation did'nt stop the arorua shooting nor the sandy hook shooting. and those both happened before march. www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/02/21/mass-shootings-domestic-violence-nra/1937041/
#1103 to #1096 - douthit
Reply 0
(04/22/2013) [-]
And no law being proposed now would have prevented Newtown. The Second Amendment has taken no lives, because what it does (at least in the past) is prevent government from intruding on individuals' right to own and carry firearms. Criminals and crazy people will always do criminal and crazy things, despite the laws. And we'll never know what potential governmental tyranny our Second Amendment has prevented, by allowing firearms to be in the hands of the common man, rather than just the government. Governments are the biggest murderers of all, having killed millions of their own people in this century alone. If you ask me would I rather have a tyrannical government, or possible criminals (which will exist in a tyrannical government-run state, too), I'll risk the criminals.
#1111 to #1103 - rockerrocksixty ONLINE
Reply 0
(04/22/2013) [-]
well maybe you'd risk the criminals, but i would'nt. but i guess that's the beauty of a democracy, let the people choose what kind of country they want to live in.
#1134 to #1111 - douthit
Reply 0
(04/22/2013) [-]
There will always be criminals, no matter the laws or the government. I can't understand why you'd rather risk government tyranny than risk crime--which is gonna happen anyway. I mean, tyrannical governments killed hundreds of millions in the 20th century alone. Mao Zedong killed 40M, Stalin killed 20M, Hitler killed 11M, etc. Street crime doesn't even compare. But anyway, I don't place any trust in democracy, because democracy is simply mob rule, whereby 51% can impose anything they want upon the 49%. I prefer anarcho-capitalism.
#1020 to #1008 - pebar
Reply +1
(04/22/2013) [-]
automatic weapons are already heavily regulated
#1024 to #1008 - anon
Reply 0
(04/22/2013) [-]
ar-15s aren't super weapons...
they're weak as far as rifles go
#970 to #965 - pebar
Reply +1
(04/22/2013) [-]
True, but when criminals know that a community is full of gun owners, they tend to not want to risk dying while committing a crime. Even if everyone had a gun, adults included, there wouldn't be shootouts in the streets because people would shoot back. GIF related.   
   
"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." - Robert A. Heinlein
True, but when criminals know that a community is full of gun owners, they tend to not want to risk dying while committing a crime. Even if everyone had a gun, adults included, there wouldn't be shootouts in the streets because people would shoot back. GIF related.

"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." - Robert A. Heinlein
#972 to #970 - pebar
Reply +1
(04/22/2013) [-]
criminals included*
#995 to #970 - rockerrocksixty ONLINE
Reply 0
(04/22/2013) [-]
i think the arrogant worms demonstrate the flaws of that argument pretty well: www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCtD3OJ-_Es
#985 to #970 - blacknbluebrony
Reply 0
(04/22/2013) [-]
I'm not completely against gun ownership. Afterall, it would be extremely stupid and damn near impossible to try and ban guns after over 200 years of allowing people to own them.

It seems like the only way to curb gun violence is if everyone has a gun and knows how to use, or if guns are completely outlawed and always have been. Obviously the latter won't work for America due to the amount of guns already in our country. But I honestly wouldn't feel very safe at all if everyone in my community owned a gun.
#745 - bladebites
Reply +1
(04/22/2013) [-]
I live in the US of A, and I go to this mall (Sawgrass Mills Mall) and there are kinder surprise eggs being sold literally all over the ******* place in there like it ain't no deal, and no one really gives a ****. It's weird.
I live in the US of A, and I go to this mall (Sawgrass Mills Mall) and there are kinder surprise eggs being sold literally all over the ******* place in there like it ain't no deal, and no one really gives a ****. It's weird.
#761 to #745 - spyisspy
Reply 0
(04/22/2013) [-]
address, now
#767 to #761 - bladebites
Reply +1
(04/22/2013) [-]
12801 W SUNRISE BLVD, SUNRISE, FL
#769 to #767 - spyisspy
Reply 0
(04/22/2013) [-]
inb4 prank calls and maybe someone crazed robbing it for its eggs
#771 to #769 - bladebites
Reply 0
(04/22/2013) [-]
Strangely enough, not a lot of people buy them.
Like, it's the only ******* place to get them around here, and everyone in murica wants them. How the **** can they not be selling like crazy?
#750 to #745 - TheLastNinja
Reply +1
(04/22/2013) [-]
No idea why but Judas Priest's song Breaking The Law just started to play in my mind.... Wtf brain
#700 - thesoulless ONLINE
Reply +1
(04/22/2013) [-]
They could certainly protect people by taking the gun away from her. I mean, she's got her finger on the trigger.

What happened to the kinder eggs in the US, anyway? Did some moron try to shove the whole ******* thing down his throat or something.
#717 to #700 - moooossseeee
Reply 0
(04/22/2013) [-]
Exactly what happened. The ban was lifted recently though.
#663 - obese
Reply 0
(04/22/2013) [-]
**** guns, swords are better. They're cooler too. If you could wield a sword in the military and practice with that instead of a gun. I'd join.
#722 to #663 - bossdelainternet
Reply 0
(04/22/2013) [-]
Are people allowed to carry swords around in the US?
#683 to #663 - murrlogic
Reply +1
(04/22/2013) [-]
Sword's dont run out of ammo.
#706 to #683 - ghouleyed ONLINE
Reply +1
(04/22/2013) [-]
But they break and get dull after hit into hard spots like bones and when blocked.   
But i too would like that all guns were ambandoned and broken and all gun smiths killed so the new better middle ages would rise.
But they break and get dull after hit into hard spots like bones and when blocked.
But i too would like that all guns were ambandoned and broken and all gun smiths killed so the new better middle ages would rise.

#728 to #706 - obese
Reply 0
(04/22/2013) [-]
This would be my sword, the Chronicle 2. It can manipulate time. Without having to use a pedestal, unlike Link's Master Sword.
#695 to #683 - obese
Reply +1
(04/22/2013) [-]
not if it's a gun sword.
#704 to #695 - ponyfcker
Reply +1
(04/22/2013) [-]
Or a knife gun
#690 to #683 - ferrettamer
Reply 0
(04/22/2013) [-]
They could. If they are throwing swords
#511 - anon
Reply 0
(04/22/2013) [-]
nice gun safety with her finger on the trigger...must be a liberals kid
#516 to #511 - vanoreo
Reply +1
(04/22/2013) [-]
You know, or she's 7.
#559 to #516 - asschwitz
Reply 0
(04/22/2013) [-]
My father taught me proper firearm safety at a young age, younger than 7 that's for sure. Probably why I haven't killed anyone or myself with a firearm.
#553 to #516 - anon
Reply 0
(04/22/2013) [-]
Yes, but keeping your finger off the trigger is the first thing that a responsible (average) gun owner would teach their kids. We teach our kids how to handle guns safely before ever letting them touch one.
#558 to #553 - vanoreo
Reply 0
(04/22/2013) [-]
>Raised in conservative household
>Never once owned a gun
#567 to #558 - anon
Reply 0
(04/22/2013) [-]
I'm not saying that you need to own a gun, I'm just saying that we gun owners teach our kds how to use them safely, that a seven year old in the average gun owning home would know what not to do.
#660 to #567 - vanoreo
Reply 0
(04/22/2013) [-]
That seven year old is an actress.
#670 to #660 - asschwitz
Reply 0
(04/22/2013) [-]
Regardless, his argument stands. He is not talking about the kid in the picture, he's talking about the children of average firearm owners.
#562 to #558 - asschwitz
Reply 0
(04/22/2013) [-]
By that do you mean you never owned a firearm or you family never did?
#661 to #562 - vanoreo
Reply 0
(04/22/2013) [-]
Neither.
#676 to #661 - asschwitz
Reply 0
(04/22/2013) [-]
Well, I'm sure you'll have a different opinion but firearms have their place, for my family and I firearms are used for home defense/hunting/sport shooting.
#467 - SteyrAUG
Reply +1
(04/22/2013) [-]
well if you had bothered to take 5 seconds to teach the girl proper rifle etiquette before handing her the gun, she WOULD be safe.
#388 - kanedam
Reply 0
(04/22/2013) [-]
i'm not from the usa.
are the eggs (called "Kinderüberraschung" translated into "Children surprise") really forbidden?!
#391 to #388 - anon
Reply 0
(04/22/2013) [-]
yep, choking hazard.
#394 to #391 - kanedam
Reply 0
(04/22/2013) [-]
from the chocolate?
or the little toy inside?
#406 to #394 - swagbot
Reply 0
(04/22/2013) [-]
the toy.
#404 to #394 - bitchitroll
Reply 0
(04/22/2013) [-]
the toy
#414 to #404 - kanedam
Reply 0
(04/22/2013) [-]
lolk, k the content gets a green thumb.

dont want to offend anyone, but how many kids in the us choked on that?!
#419 to #414 - bitchitroll
Reply 0
(04/22/2013) [-]
i couldnt find a number for us. i did find at least 6 worldwide 3 of them were in england
#436 to #419 - kanedam
Reply 0
(04/22/2013) [-]
like in 40 years... doesnt sound too dangerous or likely to happen...
#415 to #388 - floofy
Reply +1
(04/22/2013) [-]
our department for product safety says there cant be a non food item in a food item (the prize)

we have kinder type eggs that have candy in them instead.
#422 to #415 - kanedam
Reply 0
(04/22/2013) [-]
well ok... that at least sounds reasonable.
#316 - thedarkestrogue
Reply 0
(04/21/2013) [-]
I thought they lifted the kinder egg ban?
#341 to #316 - Kingsteveooo
Reply 0
(04/21/2013) [-]
So did I
#342 to #316 - slendermanspenis
Reply +1
(04/21/2013) [-]
Apparently not...
#310 - anon
Reply 0
(04/21/2013) [-]
What ******* terrible trigger discipline.
#348 to #310 - verby
Reply +1
(04/21/2013) [-]
SHe learned gun safety from Diane Feinstein
#285 - sirbutterballs
Reply +1
(04/21/2013) [-]
But then most Americans who know what Kinder eggs are and like 'em simply buy 'em in another country and bring a ton back... Think about that.
#280 - hipsophobadon
Reply +1
(04/21/2013) [-]
So according to this since we can't have Kinder eggs we shouldn't get guns?
******* love kinder chocolate though ohgawd
#183 - bloodofthedragon
Reply +1
(04/21/2013) [-]
Other countries are just jealous guys.
#176 - mavericjones
Reply +1
(04/21/2013) [-]
Appeal to emotion, false analogy, begging the question.

Every thumb this gets kills logic a little more.