Upload
Login or register
Back to the content 'Extremist' Leave a comment Refresh Comments (335)
[ 335 comments ]
Anonymous comments allowed.
asd
#71 - vissova
Reply +10
(08/23/2013) [-]
If I threw a pencil at your face, would you blame the pencil? And then ban pencils for
violence? No. You would blame me for throwing it at you. That's just logical. Anyone
would agree. So if that's the case, why the **** are we blaming guns for stuff like this.
It's the person with the gun, not the gun itself.
#264 to #71 - skumbaner
Reply -1
(08/23/2013) [-]
Pens don't kill people
#312 to #71 - vissova
Reply -1
(08/23/2013) [-]
Guys, I realize you can't compare a pencil to a gun, but I was using a pencil as an easier
way to explain that you shouldn't blame something on an inanimate object that had
no choice on whether or not you get hurt. Don't take it so literally. :u
#91 to #71 - kaiizel
Reply +9
(08/23/2013) [-]
Hur dur, lets compare guns to pencils.
#216 to #71 - olibear
Reply -2
(08/23/2013) [-]
I couldn't really care less about this stuff. I see where you're coming from. However, I feel that your argument is invalid. I mean, pencils are not made for hurting someone. They have other uses. Proper uses. Whereas a gun is made for killing someone, which at most times is a lot worse than hurting someone. Yes, you can kill people with other stuff, but it's a lot easier to kill someone with a gun. (A weapon made lethal)
#93 to #71 - emotep
Reply -1
(08/23/2013) [-]
That argument is so flawed, and you put those who support the right to bear firearms in a bad light.
By your logic everyone should be allowed to own a nuclear warhead and a detonator for it, and why not some chemical weapons to go along with that? I mean it's not the weapon that has a problem. Yes a rifle is a tool just like a pencil, but a pencil is a tool for writing, and a full automatic assault rifle is a tool for killing people; a lot of them, and fast. There's a pretty big difference.
When you enable people on a mass scale (allowing them to own weapons), someone is bound to take actions they wouldn't otherwise have (If they had to illegally acquire one for example), which is why it is quite a difficult matter to legislate about as allowing people to bear firearms has certain pros as well, one being self defense.
#162 to #71 - lazypaul
Reply -1
(08/23/2013) [-]
I would blame whatever government allowed you to own a gun, enabling you to shoot me in the face.
#234 to #71 - reredrumuoy
Reply -1
(08/23/2013) [-]
but guns are completely unnecessary they are just an invention to kill people more effectively. And the reason we have the right to bear arms is because 200 years ago we needed to defend ourselves from peyote tripping, peace loving, savage redskins.
#268 to #71 - anon
Reply 0
(08/23/2013) [-]
a pencil doesn't have the same capacity to kill a large amount of people though.....
#270 to #71 - anon
Reply 0
(08/23/2013) [-]
You really don't see nothing wrong with your idiotic analogy? Here, let me caps it up for you. A PENCIL HAS OTHER USES, A GUN DOESN'T. THAT'S WHY COCAINE, HEROINE AND OTHER HEAVY DRUGS ARE OUTLAWED FOR BEING ABLE TO **** UP YOUR LIFE, BUT GLUE ISN'T, ALTHOUGH YOU CAN STILL SNIFF IT AND YOU CAN OVERDOSE ON IT TOO.
Grow the **** up, idiot.
#272 to #71 - anon
Reply 0
(08/23/2013) [-]
Guns are made for the purpose of killing people. Pencils are used to write and draw. It can also be the same with knifes, yeah people use them to kill people but if you ban them we won't be able to cut food.
#296 to #71 - trollolololgabe
Reply 0
(08/23/2013) [-]
"The blade itself incites to acts of violence"--Homer; Its not that I agree or disagree its just people believe that weapons incite violence just by being there.
#299 to #71 - drastronomy
Reply 0
(08/23/2013) [-]
a pencil is not a tool people often use to kill
#301 to #71 - anon
Reply 0
(08/23/2013) [-]
because the idea is guns make it way too easy, if you think about it it's almost godlike power, killing a person by twitching your finger
#127 to #71 - icefall
Reply +4
(08/23/2013) [-]
Disclaimer: not trying to say whether there should be a ban or not.

Your argument is flawed since the pencil and gun analogy are not equivalent.
-A pencil's main use is to write, thus by throwing it you are not using it for its intended use. Guns in the other hand are weapons, thus intended to be used to harm or kill.

Your analogy would be more correct if you were to compare guns with a katana, which is also a weapon. Then the story is a completelely different isn't it?
#248 to #71 - danimer
Reply -1
(08/23/2013) [-]
Yeah well I still think we should illegalize guns beacuse it doesn't even matter whos' fault it is beacuse people get hurt anyway
#242 to #71 - toggme
Reply -1
(08/23/2013) [-]
Mostly stupid people actually use a gun to kill others. And having guns so accesible would make it easier for those to commit crimes.
#193 to #71 - anon
Reply 0
(08/23/2013) [-]
all these faggots below keep talking about how guns are manufactured for the sole purpose of harming and killing.

what about sport? there is a skill in being accurate, even with an assault rifle. most people who own guns hunt animals OR they shoot stupid **** in their backyard, like clay pigeons and bottles from long distance as it takes talent to do so.
#177 to #71 - xnotcreative
Reply -1
(08/23/2013) [-]
The reason why people are trying to ban guns is because it reduces the amount of mentally unstable people getting their hands on that equipment capable of ending someone elses life in a matter of seconds.

Look at Europe and how well most of them are doing without guns.
#167 to #71 - anon
Reply 0
(08/23/2013) [-]
Pencils aren't manufactured to kill human beings
#114 to #71 - ruebezahl
Reply -1
(08/23/2013) [-]
It's funny actually that the same political forces that go on about how "Guns don't kill people" are the ones that advocated invading Iraq, because they were afraid Saddam Hussein might have weapons of mass destruction.
#163 to #71 - anon
Reply 0
(08/23/2013) [-]
If multiple cases of a certain brand of pencil being thrown were brought forward in the judicial system and a strong case was made by the politicians supporting the bill they could determine the pencils to be a cause of violence and ban them.

Moral of the story: always fistfight. It's more manly and no one can take your fists away.

#72 to #71 - herberto
Reply -1
(08/23/2013) [-]
Except a pencil can't kill a group of people with a few shots.
#104 to #71 - anon
Reply 0
(08/23/2013) [-]
Guns are a MEANS for KILLING.
Pencils are not MADE to pepper people to death.

Guns are made for the sole purpose of killing people, pencils are not.
Your argument is highly illogical.
#73 to #71 - RandomAnonGuy
Reply -2
(08/23/2013) [-]
To play the devils advocate, if a pencil was primarily used to stab someones eyes out and was as widely available as it is, there would be huge pushes to ban pencils. It's not about blaming the guns, it's about removing the tools that are used to cause harm.
#75 to #71 - sassmastawillis
Reply 0
(08/23/2013) [-]
pencils are made to write, not fight
#80 to #71 - navadae
Reply +104
(08/23/2013) [-]
#255 to #80 - anon
Reply 0
(08/23/2013) [-]
and psychopaths go into schools with these things all of the time, we need to ban them all! think of the children!!!! PDSPAPDselkfdrkgmdkgnmsmfnafokvgn
#228 to #80 - bhlizzm
Reply 0
(08/23/2013) [-]
why do you have something like this
#229 to #228 - navadae
Reply 0
(08/23/2013) [-]
well.. i did a search for 'pencil gun' cause i`m sure someone somewhere has made a gun that shoots pencils...

and that came up, it was thoroughly enjoyable
#115 - EventHorizon
Reply +36
(08/23/2013) [-]
Picture this: You're standing in line at Starbucks, waiting to receive your Double Mocha **************************** with you 98 year old Holocaust survivor grandmother, brand new bouncing baby girl and your new charming rags-to-riches gentleman husband. You're all giddy with excitement, discussing your upcoming trip to the inner city to volunteer at a soup kitchen that is renting space at a terminal cancer orphanage.    
   
Suddenly, a crazed lunatic busts through the door ranting about how communist Obama is destroying the world and that his magic 8-ball told him that "Sources say yes" when asked if Obama was the Anti Christ.    
   
He then proceeds to open fire on the entire store with hollow point incendiary rounds, hot lead ripping and tearing through the coffee lovers' bodies like a steak knife through butter. You're entire family is massacred before your eyes as you helplessly cower behind the coffee grinder.    
   
The gunman is eventually killed by police in a massive shootout,; you're psychologically scarred for life and eventually have to be institutionalized for extreme PTSD and trauma-induced psychosis. In the meantime, the entire nation is up in arms over the "scourge" of gun-related violence, screaming out that guns are simply instruments of death and should be banned entirely from every public place.   
   
   
Now, instead, picture that exact same scenario except standing in line behind you is another man with an open-carry permit and a Barretta strapped to his hip. Our crazed friend bursts through the door, and proceeds to encounter a barrage of 9mm glory. He never gets to take a single victim with him on his trip to the depths of Hell, you get to go on your honeymoon and **** like a rabbit on the beaches of Bora Bora, and the nation proceeds to sing the graces of the 2nd Amendment and all that it has to offer.   
   
Bottom line: the very complaints these anti-gun critics make would result in the very changes that would make the former scenario the only possible outcome.
Picture this: You're standing in line at Starbucks, waiting to receive your Double Mocha **************************** with you 98 year old Holocaust survivor grandmother, brand new bouncing baby girl and your new charming rags-to-riches gentleman husband. You're all giddy with excitement, discussing your upcoming trip to the inner city to volunteer at a soup kitchen that is renting space at a terminal cancer orphanage.

Suddenly, a crazed lunatic busts through the door ranting about how communist Obama is destroying the world and that his magic 8-ball told him that "Sources say yes" when asked if Obama was the Anti Christ.

He then proceeds to open fire on the entire store with hollow point incendiary rounds, hot lead ripping and tearing through the coffee lovers' bodies like a steak knife through butter. You're entire family is massacred before your eyes as you helplessly cower behind the coffee grinder.

The gunman is eventually killed by police in a massive shootout,; you're psychologically scarred for life and eventually have to be institutionalized for extreme PTSD and trauma-induced psychosis. In the meantime, the entire nation is up in arms over the "scourge" of gun-related violence, screaming out that guns are simply instruments of death and should be banned entirely from every public place.


Now, instead, picture that exact same scenario except standing in line behind you is another man with an open-carry permit and a Barretta strapped to his hip. Our crazed friend bursts through the door, and proceeds to encounter a barrage of 9mm glory. He never gets to take a single victim with him on his trip to the depths of Hell, you get to go on your honeymoon and **** like a rabbit on the beaches of Bora Bora, and the nation proceeds to sing the graces of the 2nd Amendment and all that it has to offer.

Bottom line: the very complaints these anti-gun critics make would result in the very changes that would make the former scenario the only possible outcome.

#126 to #115 - internetrage
Reply -6
(08/23/2013) [-]
imagine if the guy behind you with the open carry permit was the one who flipped.
#136 to #126 - Epicgetguy
Reply +4
(08/23/2013) [-]
I don't think a crazy person would wait for a permit to conceal carry a gun.
I don't think a crazy person would wait for a permit to conceal carry a gun.
#202 to #136 - volleys
Reply 0
(08/23/2013) [-]
Yes, nothing is really stopping a lunatic/criminal from carrying a gun.
#209 to #126 - volleys
Reply +2
(08/23/2013) [-]
Concealed carry permit holders are good law abiding citizens. When Texas was debating over allowing concealed carry, many opponents claimed that Wild West like shoot outs would happen often (ie./ car stops, fender benders, etc). None have happened yet.
#146 to #126 - themastermorris
Reply +1
(08/23/2013) [-]
That why there are extensive background checks and waiting periods
#153 to #115 - metera ONLINE
Reply -1
(08/23/2013) [-]
Yes however the crazy man most likely got his weapon legally I am not saying we should ban guns we just need greater regulation. For example canada has .5 homicides per 100,000 people the US has 10.3 homicides per 100,000 people.
#198 to #153 - volleys
Reply +1
(08/23/2013) [-]
What matters if it was legal or not? Criminals get illegal full autos from Mexico. A majority of guns used in crime are illegal, only a small portion are bought legally.
#227 to #115 - europe
Reply -1
(08/23/2013) [-]
You actually expect to be able to react on time with the gun?   
   
If anything there will be alot more gun crazed lunatics because it's so goddamn easy to get one
You actually expect to be able to react on time with the gun?

If anything there will be alot more gun crazed lunatics because it's so goddamn easy to get one
#257 to #227 - mrstalin
Reply +1
(08/23/2013) [-]
Anyone who is depraved enough to shoot an entire family isn't concerned about the legality of guns at that point. Once a man was able to make a fully automatic SMG out of plumbing parts he found in his jail cell. Pretty sure a gun ban wouldn't stop that.
#259 to #257 - europe
Reply 0
(08/23/2013) [-]
It should always be as difficult as possible for them to get their hands on one
Most people don't have the wits nor skill to build a gun and there's a massive difference between a gun made from scrap that you have to reload after every shot and a semi-automatic handgun
Not to mention the comparison in accuracy and lethality
#263 to #259 - mrstalin
Reply +1
(08/23/2013) [-]
So what you're saying is is that gun laws should be as tough as possible? Let's look at an example: Mexico. Mexico has only one legal gun store in the entire nation, and yet the cartels always seem to be well stocked and supplied. RPGs, IED's, M16A4's, et cetera. Thanks to the gun laws however, the civilians have little ability to defend themselves, unless they join a rival gang/cartel, and at that point, it's like choosing which shade of black to wear to a funeral.
Personally, I think anyone convicted of a felony or serious misdemeanor should be barred, as well as anyone ever diagnosed with a thought-altering mental illness. Bipolar, schizophrenics, some anxiety disorders, and of course mental retardation should be automatic bars.
On a final note, gun deaths aren't the leading cause of death in the nation. It's one of the hardest to defend against, I'll give you that, but it's not the worst problem we face. Besides, I'd rather be shot by a gun than a bow, or stabbed by a sword or knife (just to name a few other weapons.)
#322 to #227 - volleys
Reply 0
(08/23/2013) [-]
So just because you doubt that I will be able to properly use a gun to defend myself in a bad situation means I shouldn't be able to carry around a gun with me? Your way of thinking takes my gun away, leaving me nothing to defend myself.

TL;DR If I posses a gun in a dire situation at least I have a fighting chance than I do without a gun.
#323 to #322 - europe
Reply 0
(08/23/2013) [-]
You'll have a bullet in your head
Plus, you've never been in a situation like that before so odds are that you'll piss your pants so hard you'll lift off the ground
#324 to #323 - volleys
Reply 0
(08/23/2013) [-]
Maybe I will get killed, but at least I could have the chance to defend myself if I had a gun. Here in the US when the states started considering concealed carry permits people were claiming shootouts would happen at every disagreement like wild west shootouts. It never happened. It possibly has done the opposite. When carrying a firearm the firearm has to be a last resort, and your thinking must be clear and concise.
#283 to #227 - rageisfunny
Reply 0
(08/23/2013) [-]
MFW you name and your stance on guns.
#297 to #115 - montanus
Reply -1
(08/23/2013) [-]
... You people DO realise that it's harder to just go on a random killing spree if you don't have a gun, right? I mean, the US has got a much higher rate of these incidents than pretty much any country currently outlawing guns. Just putting it out there.

Tl;dr, Imagine the same scenario, but with no guns at all.
#306 to #297 - EventHorizon
Reply 0
(08/23/2013) [-]
You DO realise that people are going to be able to ahold of guns whether they're illegal or not. And by our Constitution, it is the citizen's job to keep their government in check. How are we to do that if we cannot defend ourselves on equal ground?
#307 to #306 - montanus
Reply 0
(08/23/2013) [-]
But, but, but, the rate of those incidents are extremely increased in countries with legal access to guns?
#308 to #307 - EventHorizon
Reply 0
(08/23/2013) [-]
I'm sorry but you simply cannot compare the methods of one country to another halfway around the world when it comes to human nature. That is an entire conversation in itself.
#313 to #308 - montanus
Reply -1
(08/23/2013) [-]
It really isn't tho? I think you can compare countries, regardless of distance. If 'murica wants to lock itself in a bubble of violence, fine, but it still exists; therefore comparable.
#318 to #313 - EventHorizon
Reply 0
(08/23/2013) [-]
No I totally agree;America has a violence epidemic. And I think I know the reason, based on crime statistics and America's fascination with privatizing everything... If you want to discuss this issue in particular, I would love
#329 to #318 - montanus
Reply 0
(08/24/2013) [-]
So you don't think it has anything to do with every other person being able to go on a killing spree at any given time?
#330 to #329 - EventHorizon
Reply 0
(08/24/2013) [-]
All humans are born with the capability to do terrible things. But what is it that allows some to retain their humanity while others can't?
#331 to #330 - montanus
Reply 0
(08/24/2013) [-]
... Yeah but it's easier tho, when you have a gun. You now what, forget it. You're like a pidgeon.
#332 to #331 - EventHorizon
Reply 0
(08/24/2013) [-]
I'm trying to keep up some intelligent discourse here, and I'm not really sure where your animosity is coming from. Just because something makes it easier for you to do something doesn't mean you should fear it irrationally. I could go to Lowes right this very instant, pick up a few supplies, come back home and whip up something that could take out far more people than a pistol or a rifle.

You seem to not realize that guns are absolutely essential to our concept of freedom, and it's not because we just like to have things that go boom or something deadly that we can boast we own. It's because over 200 years ago, 13 colonies rose up against an arguably oppressive empire and broke the bonds holding them in order to rise up and become the most powerful country in the world (but certainly not the greatest). They stood up against tyranny and thanks to their militia's ability to bear arms they were able to overcome an entity far more powerful than themselves.

Today America is faced with a far graver threat to its people's freedom, and it has nothing to do with that ******** about terrorism and Muslims "hating our freedom" which in itself is one of the most absolutely ridiculous concepts I've ever seen become so viral.

The 2nd Amendment to our Constitution, the foundation for our entire nation, states that its citizens will have the right to bare arms. With these arms, they will protect themselves from whatever tyranny and oppression should be laid upon them by the powers that be.

So when you tell me that we should ban these pieces of metal and wood simply because people are too goddamn lazy to fix the problems of gun control instead of just the symptoms, you identify yourself as the problem itself.
#333 to #332 - montanus
Reply 0
(08/24/2013) [-]
Did you ever hear the one about arguing with you is like playing chess with a pidgeon? No matter how good I am ata chess, the pidgeon will just knock down the pieces and strut around victoriously. You sir, are that pidgeon. My point is that I think guns are bad, no matter who wields them.
#334 to #333 - EventHorizon
Reply 0
(08/24/2013) [-]
Oh you're absolutely right, guns are terrible. They're tools of death, and have no place in civil society. But basing your personal beliefs on gun control on the idea that they're just bad is an absolute waste of your mental abilities. You're obviously an intelligent person, but what do you want to happen? You cannot remove guns from this Earth, you literally absolutely can NOT. They are here to stay, and human nature dictates that where there's a will there's a way and the will for human aggression far outweighs any fickle piece of legislation. I'm not debating with you that guns are bad; they are. I'm debating with you on how we can work around human nature, or better yet work with it, to make gun ownership a safer venture in the world.

Also, do you realize that mas shootings are responsible for less than 100 out of 12,000 homicides in the US each year? They're sudden and tragic, THAT'S why they receive such sweeping media attention, outrage and sympathy. If the media devoted as much air time and emphasis to mass shootings as they did every other homicide, the nation would hardly notice.
#119 to #115 - taurusguy
Reply 0
(08/23/2013) [-]
Exactly, whenever someone tries to argue with me that oh we dont need guns, they basically say not exact words but the principle is the same oh, people wont use guns then, no amount of law will get you that kind of control, unless you turn into a police country, what i mean is no freedom for you then "Murica".
#165 to #115 - anon
Reply 0
(08/23/2013) [-]
You're a ******* idiot.

Gun-related crime and killings are much higher in places where guns are legal.

Gun-related crime and killings are much lower in places where guns are illegal.

Why are you too stupid to understand this simple fact?
#173 to #165 - wheresmymarbles
Reply +5
(08/23/2013) [-]
oh ok because virtually all of the mass shootings took place in places were guns were allowed...ie newtown, aurora. Oh wait, nevermind, the opposite is true. Legally owned guns are nearly nonexistant in Chicago and they have such low crime rates, huh?
#200 to #165 - volleys
Reply +2
(08/23/2013) [-]
No its not. I know it seems backwards, but where citizens are allowed to own firearms crime is reduced. Basically if you were a criminal and the area you were about to commit a crime showed high gun ownership would you risk doing the crime. With civilians owning guns an instant deterrent is available.
#225 to #200 - gerfox
Reply 0
(08/23/2013) [-]
I see both good and bad with low gun regulation, like you have in the United states - and I see the good and bad of strong regulation like we have in Europe. However, I find it amusing that the arguments used in the US, with for instance self defense are difficult to turn down with pure logic - but the statistics of homicide rates in Europe in contrary to the US are quite contrary. The US has a murder rate of 4,9 per capita (just looked it up) with all parts of Europe (except of eastern Europe) has below 2, where gun regulations are strict. However, I'm glad I don't have to participate in these discussions - because my country already share my point of view.
#319 to #225 - volleys
Reply 0
(08/23/2013) [-]
The US has almost always had a higher homicide rate than much of Europe, and it is very difficult to dissect what triggers this (guns, education, society). But lets compare the US and England for a moment. As of this moment, the US has a 4.8 homicide rate where the UK has 1.2. A ratio of 4 to 1. The pitfalls of comparison here are population, typically larger populations do have a higher homicide rate because there is more human interaction. Over the past 20 years the US homicide rate has drastically dropped from 10 to 4.8, obviously thats half the murders, where the UK has essentially plateaued since 1857, with fluctuations of course. So gun bans did nothing to curb the homicide rate in the UK because guns were banned long after 1857. The UK banned guns almost totally in 1997, but the homicide rate virtually remained the same. Now the major difference is crime rate. The US had 11,877,218 crimes in 2002, with a population of 287 million, which is a rate of 4.1. The UK had 6,523,706 in 2002, with a population of 58 million, a rate of 11.24. Crime rate is where the gun debate lie, as after UK banned guns crime sky rocketed. If a citizens can posses a gun easily would many criminals take the risk of getting shot/killed? Essentially my argument is "Because gun bans did nothing to lower the homicide rate in the UK, but the crime rate increased after the bans, the gun bans made the UK worse off."


Here are my sources

www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri-crime-total-crimes
polyticks.com/polyticks/beararms/liars/usa.htm
scienceblogs.com/deltoid/1996/08/03/international-00028/
www.multpl.com/united-states-population/table

I couldn't find a 2002 UK population so I used 2001, which would be very close
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Census_2001
#325 to #319 - gerfox
Reply 0
(08/23/2013) [-]
Ah, nice arguments Yeah, I agree with the crime rates - but is it really worth it to have statistically speaking four times as many deaths due to crime as in other countries, just to lower the general criminality? That's like putting a price on human lives.. However, I definitely see your points - and some of the same points can be applied to arguments about capital punishment

I think population density is a more essential factor than actual population though...
#337 to #325 - volleys
Reply 0
(08/24/2013) [-]
You missed the whole point. Gun bans were not a factor in the UK's homicide rate. Gun bans were a factor in the crime rate however. If gun bans did nothing to lower the homicide rate, but increased the crime rate the bans actually hurt the UK.
#338 to #337 - gerfox
Reply 0
(08/24/2013) [-]
Well, the full ban on arms weren't initiated until '97, but the accessibility for weapons have in general been lower in the UK since god knows how long ago. The second amendment is based originally as the population working as some kind of militia, and this automatically allows the people easier access to weaponry. In the UK on the other hand the army (or state) have always had a monopoly on the use of force. Maybe that's why the homicide rate have stayed that low since 1857.

My point being, even before the (almost) full ban on arms in '97, accessibility to arms in the UK were much more restricted than in the US. It's obvious that murder rates decrease with the ban of fire arms, it's much easier to shoot someone than to beat them to death. And it also makes sense with the general crime rate, you're of course much "safer" from regular criminality with fire arms. But, in any regard, most European countries has a ban on firearms and a much lower homicide rate. It's easy to get tunnel vision if you just compare two specific cases.
#339 to #338 - volleys
Reply 0
(08/24/2013) [-]
Thats a good observation, but I can show you how guns didn't negatively affect the US homicide rate. If we look at the US rate in the last 20 years the rate dropped from 10 in 1993, to 4.8 in 2013. In those 20 years the firearms industry has experienced record sales. So either there is no correlation between firearms and homicides, or firearms have prevented many homicides. I prefer to believe the latter.
#342 to #339 - gerfox
Reply 0
(08/25/2013) [-]
Well, that's a drastic conclusion to draw just from that statistic. Personally I believe other factors have played a huge part in that statistic.

People have in general become wealthier, more educated - and you've seen a drastic decrease in gang related violence. I think it's strange to believe that easy access to fire arms actually will decrease the homicide rate, considering it's much easier to obtain a weapon - and it's much easier to kill a person in rage, or with clouded judgment with a gun, you'd just have to squeeze the trigger. There's a huge difference between that, and actually beating someone to death. Remember, the major part of homicides occur in the homes of people, not in the public where you have "vigilantes" to protect other people.
#343 to #342 - volleys
Reply 0
(08/25/2013) [-]
If citizens have easy access to firearms, defending themselves if need be is easier. Just allowing citizens to own a gun shows criminals that there may be larger risk if robbing/hurting someone. You are saying that more firearms equals more homicides, which has not been proven. And you have to remember that a homicide is a homicide no matter the tool. Why would you even bring up vigilantes? No one ever mentioned anything like that.
#344 to #343 - gerfox
Reply 0
(08/25/2013) [-]
Why I would bring up vigilantes? If citizens have easy access to firearms and defend themselves, or others with it they would in effect be vigilantes. I agree with the fact that you'd probably have fewer regular crimes with low gun control, but it's beyond sense to think it would actually be positive for the homicide rate.

Sorry, if you can't grasp the logical aspect of my arguments, that easier access to guns will cause more homicides, then I think we would have to stop our discussion here. Seems like you're not able to simply grasp it, or give in to anything.

I don't know whether if my thesis about homicide have been proven or not, and I'm too lazy to look. And like I have said a dozen times already, it's obvious that it's easier to kill someone in an unstable state with a gun than with anything else. A drunkard with a gun is just as deadly as a sober man, but a drunkard who wishes to bludgeon you to death is something else. Easy access, and an overflow of weapons would let people have easy access to guns even when they shouldn't. Most homicides happen in your own home, where you in any case feel safe - and you probably won't carry a firearm - so the self defense aspect is a minor argument in this case, an argument blown out of proportions by pro-gun people.

I'm sure if you dig up some research on homicides while intoxicated, you'll find out that a huge part of homicides that do happen happens while a person is drunk or in some other way out of his own mind. I'm also confident that this percentage is higher in the US than in European countries with stricter weapons regulations.
#345 to #344 - volleys
Reply 0
(08/26/2013) [-]
Vigilantes are someone who goes out of their way to prevent crime, like Batman. Self defense, my topic, is in a whole other category.

And I've showed that guns have no correlation to increasing/decreasing homicide rate. The US homicide rate has dropped by half, but firearms sales have sky rocketed. Guns don't even have to be used to prevent crime, they only have to have the possibility of being present. If a criminal knew 75% of all homes owned a gun would he take the massive risk of breaking in?

So to say I'm not grasping the concept is irrational.
It is you who have not grasped anything.
#346 to #345 - gerfox
Reply 0
(08/26/2013) [-]
No, you haven't shown that guns have no correlation - you've just pointed to the UK homicide statistic, we haven't looked into details about gun laws there, and for instance cultural differences (like I have already pointed to, but you seem to ignore that).

My point is still, as I said initially - easy gun access prevents criminality, but increases the homicide rate. Low gun access increases criminality, but decreases the homicide rate. That's the logical thing, and since I'm too lazy to look after proof, I suggest we end our discussion here. In any regard, it wasn't my intention to start discussing with someone who isn't willing, or able, to grasp what I think is logical.

Thank you for the discussion, at least you convinced me guns are a good thing for preventing crime albeit not homicides.
#347 to #346 - volleys
Reply 0
(08/26/2013) [-]
I've pointed out multiple times that the US homicide rate has dropped drastically from 1993 to 2013 and in those 20 years firearms sales have increased dramatically.

Just look at my comment with all the sources.

Just because you think firearms increases homicide doesn't make it so.
#266 to #165 - rieskimo
Reply +1
(08/23/2013) [-]
I bet New York really agrees with that.
#239 to #115 - mattesweita
Reply 0
(08/23/2013) [-]
Yet at the Aurora shooting or any of the other shootings, no good guy with a gun was able to stop it...
Yet at the Aurora shooting or any of the other shootings, no good guy with a gun was able to stop it...

#246 to #239 - teoberry
Reply +3
(08/23/2013) [-]
>what are gun free zones
#252 to #246 - mattesweita
Reply -1
(08/23/2013) [-]
Yhea I dont know much about this since Im not living in the states, and mazbe I should not comment then but did anyways.

However people who commit murder usually dont care that much about breaking the law.
So the logic behind the only thing stopping a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun wudnt work so good, when every one can legally have a gun but only "the bad guys" will bring it to the gun free zones.

However this inst really my business since Im not American, I just find it sad all these times I hear on the news innocent lives being wasted like this time after time.
#321 to #252 - volleys
Reply +1
(08/23/2013) [-]
You nailed it on the head. The only people who bring guns into gun free zones are evil people. If these gun free zones were eliminated someone may have been able to stop the killers.
#281 to #115 - YllekNayr
Reply 0
(08/23/2013) [-]
And if the psycho didn't have a gun to begin with, the other people in line wouldn't need one. Why are the default settings of your scenario that bad people have guns and good ones don't?
#286 to #115 - anon
Reply 0
(08/23/2013) [-]
Or picture this scenario.
Your waiting in line ast Starbucks when you see a group of thugs getting in with clearly visible guns on them. They start to offensively talk **** so people start to leave. The manager can do three things now. Either do nothing and wait for them to leave while risking property damage or someone getting hurt. He can then try to get them out himself which will probably get him shot even if he had a gun. Or third, he could call them cops, who at most, could ask them politely to leave.

On other hand if they wouldn't allow guns if the same scenario happened, he could've called the cops immediately and hoped they don't do **** until they arive. But at least then they would have a good reason to get rid of them.


#289 to #286 - anon
Reply 0
(08/23/2013) [-]
Continuing from last post.

Also, the people who hide guns in their house. What the ****, guys? If someone decides to hold you hostage in your own house, you won't have time to run around the house to get your gun, especially not if it's in a safe. You either give the guy what he wants or you you get the nearest possible weapon if you think you can handle it. Which by the way is not a good idea. Giving up on your things is always a better idea than trying to fight( Most of fj is probably gonna heavily disagree with me here, but it's true, risking your life is not worth any phone or money you have), unless he ain't got any weapon and you know some martial arts. Which, btw, are also gonna help you more than a gun if there is only one robber.



TL;DR Banning guns is not gonna completely remove violence and deaths, but offering them to everyone will make it worse.
#320 to #289 - volleys
Reply +1
(08/23/2013) [-]
Actually no. Statistics show that crime is reduced when citizens can easily obtain firearms. I know it sounds backwards, but do some research. Crime rates sky rocketed in the UK and Australia when they implemented gun bans.
#287 to #286 - acirikis
0
has deleted their comment [-]
#212 to #115 - rhetoricalfunny
Reply +1
(08/23/2013) [-]
You're arguing a worst/best case scenario

No point can be made arguing worst or best case scenario's
#217 to #212 - EventHorizon
Reply +1
(08/23/2013) [-]
I'm illustrating a point, not arguing scenarios. There are thousands upon thousands of documented instances of criminals being stopped by lawfully armed citizens.
#219 to #217 - rhetoricalfunny
Reply +5
(08/23/2013) [-]
And thousands upon thousands of innocents being killed by lawfully owned guns.

MY point is this isn't a black and white issue. And every damn pro gunner thinks this is just a home run, and indisputable thing. That there's always going to be some freedom lovin gun toting cowboy to save you, when a psycho bursts through the door. It's the most ******* ridiculous thing.

I'm not on one side or the other because most pro gunners are like rabid dogs if you disagree with something, and most anti gunners are ******* stupid.

Imagine that same scenario, but instead of an armed citizen some stupid fat ****, who's never trained with his gun beyond practicing in front of a mirror starts firing off rounds into a panicking crowd creating more panic, injuring and killing more civilians. It's happened, and it is the more likely scenario
#250 to #219 - EventHorizon
Reply -1
(08/23/2013) [-]
There's a reason that training with a firearm should be required to get a permit, however our friends in Congress are too damn wrapped up in other pointless gun control ******** and can't manage to pass useful legislation. I agree that the idea of a hero being there to save the day is far more often than not very improbable. However, banning guns will not keep them out of criminal hands, and expecting the police and Congress to protect you is completely laughable. I have a permit and my father's glock, with over 10 years of pistol training in addition to my military response training, and we're I to be in a situation such as the one I described I know exactly how I would have responded. We need to make educated policy which restricts who can purchase and register a firearm on the legal services department, and we need to find the sources of illegal weapons trade and crackdown on it. Keep guns in the hands of the sane, for our right to bare arms is the one thing between ourselves and the possibility of revolution. I'm a libertarian, but the firmly believe and understand that it is entirely feasible that our government could become oppressive and fail in its directive to uphold the constitution. It is our duty and right to be prepared for that, even if I believe it will never happen. Also, it's ******* fun to shoot ****.
#328 to #250 - rhetoricalfunny
Reply -1
(08/24/2013) [-]
Yes, I agree wholeheartedly it's fun to shoot ****.

.303 British Master Race
#327 to #250 - rhetoricalfunny
Reply -1
(08/24/2013) [-]
Government could become oppressive?

In any case I mostly agree with you. And I believe far more that education about guns is a far better solution than banning them. There are many valid points raised on both sides. And neither of the solutions we are considering are the right one.

We need an open discussion with both sides open to the fact that they are wrong, and consciously searching for a solution to the problem, not an answer to their own agenda.
#3 - teranin
Reply +22
(08/22/2013) [-]
That was Gagliardi, right? Zach Gagliardi?
#4 to #3 - newnayytay [OP] **User deleted account**
0
has deleted their comment [-]
#7 to #4 - prepe
Reply 0
(08/22/2013) [-]
good work on censoring the location
#8 to #7 - newnayytay [OP] **User deleted account**
0
has deleted their comment [-]
#20 to #8 - Polomaster
Reply +1
(08/22/2013) [-]
just went to this guys facebook... what a complete tool
just went to this guys facebook... what a complete tool
#84 to #3 - anon
Reply 0
(08/23/2013) [-]
yes
#5 - ffffyou
Reply +16
(08/22/2013) [-]
This image has expired
Hey the link works.Thanks! gfy.com/
#92 - foelkera
Reply +15
(08/23/2013) [-]
Zach Gagliardi sounds like the guy who thinks that a sign saying "Gun free zone" magically converts any firearms within a 5-foot radius into candy and welfare checks.
#112 to #92 - anon
Reply 0
(08/23/2013) [-]
So you are also against laws in general? Because a law against murder does not magically convert all potential murderers into mild-mannered well-adjusted people.
#76 - punnyjunky
Reply +8
(08/23/2013) [-]
Honestly I thought better of Zach Gagliardi...
#78 to #76 - soule
Reply 0
(08/23/2013) [-]
I... What?
#79 to #78 - punnyjunky
Reply +2
(08/23/2013) [-]
Zach gaglifokonis
#81 to #79 - navadae
Reply -3
(08/23/2013) [-]
i`m just going to assume you`re joking and walk away now
#83 to #81 - punnyjunky
Reply +2
(08/23/2013) [-]
Zach galdorfinkaylus
#82 to #81 - punnyjunky
0
has deleted their comment [-]
#90 to #76 - mrgoodlove
Reply 0
(08/23/2013) [-]
I lol'd a little
#269 - MasterManiac
Reply +7
(08/23/2013) [-]
Starbuck's FW
Starbuck's FW
#276 to #269 - gongthehawkeye
Reply +5
(08/23/2013) [-]
No, it was more like this   
   
 they have millions and millions of customers daily, I don't think they'll miss just one.
No, it was more like this

they have millions and millions of customers daily, I don't think they'll miss just one.
#137 - anticitezenone
Reply +7
(08/23/2013) [-]
I'm not even going to rant
but i will say this

An assassin is a weapon. A weapon doesn't choose to kill. The one who wields it does. - Thane Krios
#288 to #137 - squire
Reply 0
(08/23/2013) [-]
That's a weird quote, I like and agree with the idea he intended but he contradicts himself :p

>A weapon doesn't choose to kill.
>An assassin is a weapon.
Poor choice of words imo.
#309 to #288 - anticitezenone
Reply 0
(08/23/2013) [-]
Stay in school
#310 to #309 - squire
Reply 0
(08/23/2013) [-]
you too
#66 - kingbulbasaur
Reply +7
(08/23/2013) [-]
Why don't people realize that even if we do ban guns, it'll cause a chain reaction of so much worse things?   
We'll be giving more power to the black market for weapons, a few that already own might riot, there's too many guns in cycle so  the gov't would have to confiscate said guns. That'll create an even worse response from the people, even those who don't own guns. There's so much more **** that can stem from this but I'm sure most of you can think of it on your own. Since we already have guns around we might as well just keep enforcing the same laws if not a few more, for the sake of safety and not for the gov't to find an excuse to extort more cash!
Why don't people realize that even if we do ban guns, it'll cause a chain reaction of so much worse things?
We'll be giving more power to the black market for weapons, a few that already own might riot, there's too many guns in cycle so the gov't would have to confiscate said guns. That'll create an even worse response from the people, even those who don't own guns. There's so much more **** that can stem from this but I'm sure most of you can think of it on your own. Since we already have guns around we might as well just keep enforcing the same laws if not a few more, for the sake of safety and not for the gov't to find an excuse to extort more cash!
#74 to #66 - masdercheef
Reply -1
(08/23/2013) [-]
That's an extremely valid point you make there. Considering the fact that there are already people talking about how "we must own guns so we can fight back when the government finally decides to take over" (it pains me to admit that there are actually people who believe that, but it's an unfortunate truth) imposing a total ban on guns would be a bad move. There would instantly be people yelling "fascists!" or "we're being oppressed!" and that's before they'd have to move to confiscate the guns already in civilian hands.
#85 to #74 - gassnake
Reply +4
(08/23/2013) [-]
Because the government is 100% infallible and no government has ever abused being the only entity with weapons.
#166 to #85 - anon
Reply 0
(08/23/2013) [-]
A bunch of hicks with AK-47s and pistols aren't going to do much to threaten tanks and drones, *******.
#210 to #166 - gassnake
Reply +1
(08/23/2013) [-]
It's done wonders for 11 years in Iraq and Afghanistan
#197 to #166 - elitehacker
Reply 0
(08/23/2013) [-]
Yep, because that mentality totally worked in Vietnam.
#106 to #74 - loganhusted
Reply +2
(08/23/2013) [-]
"How ironic that those who are calling for gun control are those who want the guns so they can have the control."
#60 - douthit
Reply +6
(08/23/2013) [-]
It's a good thing guns kill people, or else we'd be up ****** creek when we need the cops or military. If you're in trouble but you don't like guns, the first thing you're gonna do is call 911 and have them send a guy with a gun.
#120 - trevcars
Reply +5
(08/23/2013) [-]
Okay time for my little rant. Just for the **** of it, I'm gonna tell you all my opinion on guns and gun laws...
Okay, let me start off by saying I do not think all guns need to be banned. To me, that would be very very ignorant and stupid. I do however agree that in the US there should be some changes made. no bans, but just changes. I see a lot of people saying that guns shouldnt be banned and it gets me thinking: who wants guns to be banned? Obama? no, he just wants expanded background checks, unless i'm missing something. I remember reading someone's comment a while back about how if you were teaching a bunch on kindergartners and 1 child began eating the crayons, you wouldnt take all the crayons away from everyone, just that child. Now, like I said I'm not against guns, but what if 5 or 6 kids started eating the crayons? Wouldn't you decide that maybe something should be changed in the classroom? you don't have to take all the crayons out but at least watch the children closer? I just wish people would realize that while taking every gun away would not solve the problem, maybe keeping a closer eye on who buys guns could at least help? I mean, if you feel the need to own an AK-47 I think you're living in the wrong part of town.
#142 to #120 - anon
Reply 0
(08/23/2013) [-]
Surely though that crayon argument is a bit flawed! The crayons arent killing people, guns are a means of killing, that is their sole purpose by allowing one person to get away with it so the majority can feel 'protected' is the ignorant part! but wholesomely agree with the rest of your argument!
#26 - flemsdfer ONLINE
Reply +5
(08/22/2013) [-]
I hope he is also against all military and police. They have guns too, and guns kill people.
#98 to #26 - teoferrazzi
Reply -4
(08/23/2013) [-]
nobody cares about your opinion
#58 to #26 - douthit
Reply 0
(08/23/2013) [-]
#139 to #26 - anon
Reply 0
(08/23/2013) [-]
But funnily enough the military and police are trained to use it, you're not. I do not envy America's irrational paranoia that's led to this whole gun law argument.
#174 to #139 - anon
Reply 0
(08/23/2013) [-]
Apparently its not paranoid to think that your society would start killing each other in massive numbers if you allowed them guns.
#143 to #139 - flemsdfer ONLINE
Reply -2
(08/23/2013) [-]
Regardless they are people just like you or me. Anyone could be trained to use a firearm and I wholeheartedly think you must pass a training course to have a license.
#213 to #143 - anon
Reply 0
(08/23/2013) [-]
its a right,not a privilege,and the MASS MAJORITY of gun owners use their guns responsibly. No need for training classes when they're not needed.
#218 to #213 - flemsdfer ONLINE
Reply -2
(08/23/2013) [-]
All I'm saying is that it'd qualm all of the frightened people about gun ownership. Shoots the argument of misuse out of the water. If anyone is actually well disciplined with a firearm than it should be no problem to pass a course quickly.
#298 - roliga
Reply +4
(08/23/2013) [-]
Starbuck's stance on the whole allowing people to carry guns is not supporting either side, they've released a statement SEVERAL TIMES saying -

"We are sorry if you are displeased with the current laws surrounding guns in your state, if you feel they should be changed we encourage you to write your senators and local representatives, but Starbucks will uphold whatever laws are currently in place. Thank you."

That's not taking a ******* side, that's saying "I'm a ******* coffee shop, leave me out of this ****"

Just because majority of their customers are entitled little liberal **** heads who've never had to stand up for themselves in their life doesn't mean that the owners of Starbucks are too. Now if you'll excuse me I suddenly have a craving for some coffee while OCing my Glock 19 gen 4.
#159 - gibroner ONLINE
Reply +4
(08/23/2013) [-]
can we all agree to stop blaming inanimate objects for things humans do
#57 - arkadia
Reply +4
(08/23/2013) [-]
Crack is illegal which means there's no one in the world that smokes crack, rite?
#6 - jacklane
Reply +4
(08/22/2013) [-]
I went ahead and replied to one of his comments, but then I went into his profile and saw some **** about how elysium is tied to Republicans. The kid has obviously been brainwashed by whatever institution he is attending. It's funny... you're supposed to keep an open mind when going to college. However, once indoctrinated, you turn into a biased liberal. They love to say **** that doesn't make sense. You can't argue with them, because they have been brainwashed. It's a fact that 95% of sociology teachers are far gone liberals. Hell, my teachers get education boners just talking about Karl Marx!
#9 to #6 - anon
Reply 0
(08/22/2013) [-]
I get your point, to a certain degree I even agree with it. But three things I need to say:

1. You need to try rephrasing what you just said, because you sound like an angry try-hard teenager.

2. Noam Chomsky said exactly the same thing you are trying to say right now, just wiser: "Most schooling is training for stupidity and conformity"

3. Additionally, Tim Minchin once said: "If you open your too much, your brain will fall out."
#10 to #9 - anon
Reply 0
(08/22/2013) [-]
Either I can't remember what I just wrote or "teenager" is censored.

Testing, "teenager" (sans space) "teen ager" (with space).
#39 to #10 - jacklane
Reply -1
(08/23/2013) [-]
Ha! I just logged out and the word "teen" and "teenager" are censored! WTF?!?

Anyways, what I want to say does not come out correctly. I'm 25. I graduated high school with a 2.5GPA. I just started college on the 19th. I'm taking an English class along with a public speaking class. I'll get better!
#12 to #6 - ilovemyguns
Reply +1
(08/22/2013) [-]
Yes, colleges in general have been turning VERY liberal, but since I was born and raised in a strong republican conservative environment, I fell immune to their left wing ********.

Not all liberals are bad, and not all liberal ideas are bad, but when you have ******* morons voting in ******* morons to be ******* morons and not run this country even remotely correctly, the idea of liberalism seems like a joke. If it bothers you as much as it does me, I would look in to a conservative based college. 2, 4, or even 6 years of listening to that ******** is too much for people not to feel brainwashed.
#40 to #12 - jacklane
Reply +2
(08/23/2013) [-]
I just want to knock out all the humanities and other required core ******** classes early. I'll focus on the actual **** after that. Double E!
#29 to #12 - mananas
Reply -1
(08/22/2013) [-]
Then the same could be said about you, I mean, the brainwashed part.
Also, your username. You cannot call another point of view ******** when you are that biased.
#61 to #29 - ilovemyguns
Reply 0
(08/23/2013) [-]
I love guns, big deal. There's also noone in this world who isn't biased, nor is there a form of non biased media. I get what you're saying, but I like to think I'm not brainwashed because I don't vote based on party, agree with (some) liberal ideals, and watch both liberal and conservative based news. Those hardcore liberals in colleges I'm talking about, they don't look at different news outlets. They say they want socialism because it's fair for everyone, when they don't even know what socialism is because they never had a proper education. They run to gun shows and protest guns like it's a disease. It's not, and I don't go around protesting people for ****. There is brainwashing on both sides, I know that for a fact, look at WBC. Everyone wants them dead.

Personally, I believe Americans have a right to arm themselves efficiantly enough to hold off tyranny in the government or state, as well as protect themselves and their property from injury, damage, or death. Honestly, I know people are going to disagree, but if some asshole is beating in my windshield with a crowbar, I feel I should have the right to blow his head off.
#261 - npfortytwo
Reply +3
(08/23/2013) [-]
So basically, this guy thinks that Starbucks is disgusting for respecting various state laws regarding concealed and open carry.
His comment could have been rephrased as "You are absolutely disgusting for knowing state laws."
#284 to #261 - ROTFLcopter **User deleted account**
Reply +1
(08/23/2013) [-]
Not just state laws, it's in the ******* constitution, and this guy's still complaining. And getting mad at a company just because they support something you don't like makes absolutely no sense.
#105 - loganhusted
Reply +3
(08/23/2013) [-]
I think it is funny that there are people that are this stupid. Starbucks doesn't support Pro gun. They don't support Anti-Gun. They are Neutral. But i guess if your not against Gun Rights then you are for them in the eyes of these people.
#53 - xdeathspawnx
Reply +3
(08/23/2013) [-]
yeah we should just ban all guns and no one will ever be shot!




because criminals and gang members totally don't have access to anything that is illegal
#158 to #53 - erpetrich
Reply -1
(08/23/2013) [-]
Who wants to ban guns, what laws said that they wanted to BAN guns?
#144 to #53 - anon
Reply 0
(08/23/2013) [-]
True, but making it readily available is worse. The majority of people that own guns are paranoid for some unknown reason and that leads to cases such as zimerman! It's the paranoia thats the problem and giving guns to the paranoid is like letting peadophiles teach!
#316 to #144 - xdeathspawnx
Reply 0
(08/23/2013) [-]
Yeah I don't support deregulation of guns, I actually think that there should be a more difficult process for acquiring one. I just think the idea that making guns illegal will stop killing people is as ridiculous as the idea that banning drugs will stop people from doing them.
#63 - bloodofthedragon
Reply +2
(08/23/2013) [-]
Pic related