Wonka. sencond thing i ever uploaded, please dont be harsh, stole from interwebs but thought to share. an Laws yhm.. ... ll, Hm nunnyy. If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns. they are a lie
Upload
Login or register
Leave a comment Refresh Comments (194)
[ 194 comments ]
Anonymous comments allowed.
127 comments displayed.
#9 - mortality
Reply +13
(07/23/2012) [-]
If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.
#80 to #9 - anon
Reply 0
(07/23/2012) [-]
And police will too, bit of a ying and yang deal
#97 - coolcman ONLINE
Reply +7
(07/23/2012) [-]
#104 to #97 - expeditas
Reply 0
(07/23/2012) [-]
That is THE funniest thing I have seen on FJ today
#105 to #97 - talonman [OP]
0
Comment deleted by talonman [-]
#38 - icedmantwo ONLINE
Reply +7
(07/23/2012) [-]
its not about banning guns, its about making them harder to get, especially for people with psychological issues
#54 to #38 - surfby
Reply 0
(07/23/2012) [-]
Even so, there's always going to be a way to get it, just like other illegal things. I would much rather be able to legally put that ****** down with my gun.
#86 to #54 - icedmantwo ONLINE
Reply 0
(07/23/2012) [-]
im not saying make them illegal im saying make them harder for people to get, like requiring mental examination
#77 to #54 - anon
Reply 0
(07/23/2012) [-]
Except legally you still can't. You'll still be tried for murder or manslaughter.
#123 to #77 - surfby
Reply +1
(07/23/2012) [-]
self defense?
#137 to #77 - AcidFlux
Reply -2
(07/23/2012) [-]
Depends where you are. In Florida, I have the right to defend myself with lethal force if there is a clear and present threat of lethal force about to be used on me.
Someone that just shot someone near me is a 'clear and present threat'.
#40 to #38 - heartlessrobot
Reply +2
(07/23/2012) [-]
Except he didn't have any recorded psychological issues. And though no law states it, no one will sell you a gun if you DO have any.
#41 to #40 - icedmantwo ONLINE
Reply -1
(07/23/2012) [-]
well you would think buying an assault rifle (a class of weapon specifically designed for war) and over 1000 bullets + several 100 rounds magazines would seem just a little suspicious
im not saying take away guns im saying make it hard for something like this to happen
#91 to #41 - accdodson
Reply +2
(07/23/2012) [-]
he bought the ammo over a period of a couple months. He could have easily been going to the gun range
#93 to #91 - icedmantwo ONLINE
Reply -3
(07/23/2012) [-]
oh so now movie theaters are considered gun ranges? thats just sick
#94 to #93 - accdodson
Reply +1
(07/23/2012) [-]
? I'm saying that over the period of time that he bought the ammo he could have been going to the gun range so it would make sense for him to get more ammo to use at the range
#96 to #94 - icedmantwo ONLINE
Reply -2
(07/23/2012) [-]
and i got bored on answering the replies to my comments here so i tried to make a joke

and failed apparently


:C
#43 to #41 - heartlessrobot
Reply +1
(07/23/2012) [-]
He could have been making an FPSRussia style video.
#85 to #43 - icedmantwo ONLINE
Reply -1
(07/23/2012) [-]
still should have had a visit from the government, and maybe a psychiatrist
#138 to #85 - AcidFlux
Reply -2
(07/23/2012) [-]
Because he made a legal purchase?
No.
If you want the law to be changed, then support a new amendment to the Constitution.
#147 to #138 - icedmantwo ONLINE
Reply -2
(07/23/2012) [-]
if somebody purchases a large amount of munitions in such a short time, (or even purchases an assault weapon, cuz they are meant for war damnit) they should have to have at least a brief psychological checkup to make sure they dont, say shoot up a theater or anything
im not saying ban all guns
#156 to #147 - AcidFlux
Reply 0
(07/24/2012) [-]
The AR-15 is not an assault weapon. It's a semi-automatic rifle. The main issue for this weapon,in this situation,is the 100 round drum he had, not the firearm itself. Without that, you could do as much damage with, say a Remington 750 hunting rifle.
Additionally, the suspect had a shotgun and two Glock pistols (can't find the exact models in any articles). He would have still killed and wounded a lot of people.

To be clear, I support a ban on high capacity magazines like the 100 round drum he had for the AR-15. And if you start requiring psychological examinations for every firearm or ammunition purchase, not only would that create an insane amount of red tape, who would pay for that?

How many legal, licensed firearm owners commit crimes? Very, very few. The system works, unless you propose to ban all firearms ownership among U.S. citizens. That would be unconstitutional, so unless you're proposing an amendment to the Constitution, it's an invalid argument.
#159 to #156 - icedmantwo ONLINE
Reply -2
(07/24/2012) [-]
i have repeatedly mentioned >NOT< banning firearms for anyone, im saying that there should be a system in place that prevents large amounts of munitions from being purchased within a certain time period, at least without a checkup from the government
#161 to #159 - AcidFlux
Reply 0
(07/24/2012) [-]
Should there be a system in place to monitor how much gasoline people purchase?
And how much ammunition, in a certain time frame, is too much, in your opinion?
#162 to #161 - icedmantwo ONLINE
Reply -2
(07/24/2012) [-]
i fail to see what gas has to do with bullets and guns
as for ammunition i have no idea but i have a feeling it will be somewhere below a gun, a few thousand rounds, and several 100 round magazines within 2 months
#163 to #162 - AcidFlux
Reply +1
(07/24/2012) [-]
Can gasoline be used in a manner that could cause death or injury to large groups of people? Does it have a legal use, but could be used in an illegal manner? If you're going to monitor and regulate one purchase that is potentially lethal, then why exclude another purchase that has the same potential? What if this guy had decided to use molotov cocktails or another form of improvised explosives?

As far as ammunition? I average about 3-4 trips to my shooting range every month. In each session, I use about 100-150 rounds of ammunition. And compared to some of my friends, I'm a 'casual' shooter. Most shooters I know purchase in bulk, to save money. And someone with the intent to go on a killing spree wouldn't need to by thousands of rounds of ammo. While I would never commit such an atrocity myself, the gear that I have on hand, right now, would be more than sufficient to duplicate such a crime. And I've never purchased more than 1000 rounds of ammunition at a single time, or even in a single month.

Your proposal might 'feel good', and make you think you're having a impact on preventing these types of crimes, but that's not the case. When I can order 500 rounds of .223 FMJ for about $140-150, then exactly how much ammunition do you think someone needs to commit a crime like this?
#164 to #163 - icedmantwo ONLINE
Reply -2
(07/24/2012) [-]
there is a difference in purchasing ammunition on a semiregular basis, such as for shooting, than there is in going from buying a gun straight to buying 1000 bullets
if somebody takes up a new sport (ie shooting a gun) they usually start up slowly (1 maybe 2 times a month) then build up, or they have almost always been shooting guns (grew up with parents who shot guns learnt from them)
i would think that a monitoring system on patterns of purchase would help identify persons of risk to commit crimes if they suddenly make a largely out of place purchase
also gas is a pain in the ass to weaponize, requiring a bunch of Styrofoam to make napalm (or at least something close to it) and it isnt exactly easy to sneak 10 bottles of the stuff into anywhere, ever
even if he did try to burn the theatre down, somebody would have noticed him putting gas everywhere, especially around the from of the building
#166 to #164 - AcidFlux
Reply +1
(07/24/2012) [-]
So, how many rounds of ammunition should someone be allowed to purchase within 30 days of purchasing a firearm? A maximum of 500? And what about the reverse; what if someone purchased the ammunition first, and then purchased the firearm?
You're talking about the government monitoring legal activities. Would you support the government monitoring your bank account, to see how much money you're making and where you're spending it? Without just cause, that's an invasion of privacy.

If someone with no criminal record of mental health history decided to go on a killing spree, how many rounds of ammunition would they need?

As far as gasoline goes, you're debating the method of use, not the potential damage or the monitoring. If a nutjob wants to hurt or kill other people, then they'll use whatever means they have available.
#167 to #166 - icedmantwo ONLINE
Reply -2
(07/24/2012) [-]
in this case the easiest means available to them happened to be a few guns and a ton of ammo, and again im not saying monitor everything im saying monitor the things that tend to be used in violent crimes of this manner or to a lesser extent (this could include knives, tasers, pepper spray etc) what im saying is tighter gun control, and weapon control in general could have prevented the attack or at least delayed to a less popular movie got released
#169 to #167 - AcidFlux
Reply +1
(07/24/2012) [-]
So, it's a lot more complex than you made it sound originally?
Tell me exactly how you would tighten up gun control, considering the restrictions and limitations already in place for ownership.
Here are some examples of people that may not legally purchase or own a firearm in the U.S.
1. Under the age of eighteen (certain exceptions allowed with parental consent)
2. Convicted or currently indicted for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year
3. Fugitive from justice
4. Unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance
5. Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution
6. Illegal immigrants
7. Dishonorably discharged from the Armed Forces
8. Any prior U.S. citizen that has renounced citizenship
9. Under some restraining orders, especially one involving harassing or stalking an intimate partner or their child.
10. Has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.

What would you add to that list?
#171 to #169 - icedmantwo ONLINE
Reply -2
(07/24/2012) [-]
it has nothing to do with preventing people from getting guns it has more to do with monitoring purchases for suspicious activity,
1000 rounds, 100 round mags and tear gas within 2 months makes me think of maybe some sort of tactical unit stocking up after a raid on a drug den or something
#172 to #171 - AcidFlux
Reply +1
(07/24/2012) [-]
So, you're advocating & supporting the government monitoring the purchases of legal items? Let's say that ever happens. What then? What level of intervention is appropriate, based on a private citizen engaging in legal activity?
#191 to #172 - icedmantwo ONLINE
Reply -2
(07/25/2012) [-]
i know its flawed, but so is the system already in place, if it wasnt **** like this wouldnt happen, at best it could discourage those with undiagnosed psychosis (as they tend to be impatient) or at least get them noticed in time
a primarily computerized system would have a high start up cost but a low running cost, and could utilize agents from the existing agencies (FBI or drug tobacco firearm groups) to limit costs even more
the point of this isnt entirely to catch everyone but at least catch the impatient ones and discourage others from trying
#192 to #191 - AcidFlux
Reply +1
(07/25/2012) [-]
The current system isn't flawed. It does what it is designed to do.
If you want to prevent these types of crimes, why not simply require every citizen to undergo a psychiatric evaluation by the age of 15? That way, even the smart ones that keep their purchases under the radar would be caught in time.
#193 to #192 - icedmantwo ONLINE
-2
(07/25/2012) [-]
ok now you just attempting to sound absurd, the time and money cost of that would be enormous and all teenagers would fail it regardless
and it is obviously flawed as crazy people still manage to get their hands on guns and kill others
just about everything everywhere is flawed btw especially human made stuff
#185 to #172 - icedmantwo ONLINE
Reply -2
(07/25/2012) [-]
somewhere along the lines of 4 guns/1500 rounds/500 shells/any tear gas or other gas based weapon withing a 3 month period sound acceptable to you?
also please dont go on about how this will lead to monitoring purchases of everything, as its pretty hard to justify monitoring something like nail clippers
#194 to #185 - AcidFlux
Reply +1
(07/25/2012) [-]
Okay, so what about age 18, or 21, or 25? Or how about BEFORE they purchase a firearm? I mean, if we're going to be serious about implementing a system to protect the public, why do it half-assed?
#195 to #194 - icedmantwo ONLINE
-1
(07/26/2012) [-]
i give up on you, seeing as how this has devolved to the point where you went through and thumbed down all my comments, congratulations have fun with you under regulated firearms
#188 to #185 - AcidFlux
Reply +1
(07/25/2012) [-]
We've now got too many purple lines, so it's time to end this. What you're proposing is ridiculous.
First off, if there's no record kept after two months, then what's to stop someone from buying the maximum every month for a year, and then have a massive stockpile?
Secondly, the shooting in Aurora could have been duplicated within the limits you are proposing. It was a shotgun, an AR-15, and two pistols. That's not a huge arsenal. I personally own more than that.
Third, all the monitoring would do is give people a false sense of security. And that's far more dangerous.
Finally, you are proposing an invasion of privacy of law-abiding citizens based upon the actions of a very, very few individuals. That sets an extremely dangerous precedent, and in this situation, would be unconstitutional.

I share your concerns regarding public safety. But what you're proposing is based upon reactionary emotionalism, not critical thought.
#189 to #188 - icedmantwo ONLINE
-2
(07/25/2012) [-]
obviously it would still happen, but the shooter purchased 4 guns, if something like the limit i proposed was in place the first 2 guns would have triggered a visit to the home, as for invasion of privacy, the government only knows how much ammo and guns you are buying for 2 months, so yes it would still be possible to stockpile a small arsenal but it would take longer
as for invasion of privacy i see that as an emotional reaction to somebody proposing a restriction on something you enjoy, as the govt wont know how much you shoot and how much you save and after 2 months it wont even know that
#186 to #185 - AcidFlux
Reply +1
(07/25/2012) [-]
My point is that you don't need to make such a large purchase in such a short time frame in order to commit such a crime. Therefore, monitoring would be virtually pointless. The benefits of monitoring do not justify the costs. Monitoring private citizens activities is an invasion of privacy and an infringement upon liberty.

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. - Benjamin Franklin
#187 to #186 - icedmantwo ONLINE
-2
(07/25/2012) [-]
it wouldnt cost that much to monitor something like that, a simple gun license could have a magnetic strip that gets run through each purchase and a couple of servers with some hard drives monitors it, deleting the info after the 2 month limit. if somebody goes over the limit they get a stop in by the government to see whats up, while yes it would cost some money, it could reduce the chance of somebody running around buying a bunch of guns and ammo in a couple days/weeks/months and, lets say, shoot up a theater. the limit can be increased for those that routinely go over the limit for whatever legitimate reason (gun nuts who shoot 2000+ every couple weeks)
yes i admit that it is still possible for somebody to do something bad of this scale or even worse if they want to, i mean you can mail order tanks from russia if you want too, though that would be hard to explain,
and you arent giving up a liberty you are just attempting to increase safety for the general public
besides, as with everything governmental, if it doesnt work you can always for a vote in the government to have it removed
#200 to #185 - AcidFlux
Reply 0
(07/26/2012) [-]
I have no fear of being shot, because I carry my own defense, and don't rely upon the police to do it for me. And I'm not the only one thumbing you down.

If you can't handle a few red thumbs, then perhaps FunnyJunk isn't for you.
#198 to #185 - AcidFlux
Reply 0
(07/26/2012) [-]
So, you care more about the thumbs than the actual conversation? Interesting.
I've shown you how your proposed monitoring system would be flawed, and how it wouldn't prevent these tragedies, except those that would be perpetuated by the truly ignorant and unorganized. And since the vast majority of these types of atrocities are committed by people that are intelligent and plan ahead, it's a ridiculous waste of time, money & resources.

Your hearts in the right place. But the idea you propose is preposterous, and you are too stubborn to admit it.
#199 to #198 - icedmantwo ONLINE
0
(07/26/2012) [-]
i was commenting more on how you thumbing every comment down was something of an act of childishness but seeing how stubborn you are in your views i give up
have fun getting shot in the country with the most gun violence im done here
#190 to #185 - AcidFlux
Reply 0
(07/25/2012) [-]
So, you're admitting that your monitoring system has a huge flaw in the design? So, it's a waste of money. And if the limits were public knowledge, then an intelligent person would simply fly under the radar until it's too late. This proposed monitoring system wouldn't prevent any appreciable number of incidents like this. Additionally, you assume the response time of the intervention would be immediate. Even when law enforcement agencies have actual evidence of crimes, it takes a while for the wheels to get moving. Only in situations of imminent threat is there any kind of speedy response. Say it takes a week for this 'government investigation' to occur. That's not going to stop the person that decides to go on a shooting spree the day after he gets his bulk order of ammunition.

The background check already in place is more than sufficient. Do you know how many gun registration permit requests are declined every year?

You're so intent on sticking to this monitoring idea that you don't even see how flawed it is.
#37 - aviriorix
Reply +4
(07/23/2012) [-]
My main issue is why the hell can a civilian obtain an assault rifle. There is no circumstance where you would ever need an assault rifle besides killing people. Shotguns, and owning ONE handgun I can see, but how the hell can you justify letting average citizens own a ******* assault rifle.
#56 to #37 - lolzponies
Reply -2
(07/23/2012) [-]
people own .50 cal sniper rifles and mg-42s dude
a AR-15 is nothing
#128 to #37 - valetparking
Reply 0
(07/23/2012) [-]
first off, "assault" rifles are pure media ********. to them, an "assault" rifle is any rifle used in a crime. the only way you can get a genuine "assault" rifle is by either being in the military or obtaining a Class 3 License. the rifles roughly 99.99 percent of the gun-owning American population uses are semi-auto, which shoot one round per trigger pull. "assault" usually means "automatic", which can fire multiple rounds per trigger pull.

second, there are reasons why people would want a rifle that you may be unfamiliar with. it could be for self-defense, a wider variety of firearms to shoot at a range, or even for collection purposes.

third, "assault" rifles, by themselves, don't kill people; it's the people holding them that often do. saying all "assault" rifles are used for killing is like saying all black people are robbers.
#50 to #37 - youngfearless
Reply +2
(07/23/2012) [-]
some people enjoy shooting bigger guns down firing ranges, a lot of people consider it a hobby collecting guns too
#52 to #50 - aviriorix
Reply 0
(07/23/2012) [-]
Oh, I thought the reason people had guns was to protect themselves, not have fun. It's nice to know that people's lives are less important than a hobby.
#55 to #52 - youngfearless
Reply 0
(07/23/2012) [-]
they mainly use pistols for protection because they're easier to carry around or if they are rifles or shotguns, they are for home protection





#57 to #55 - aviriorix
Reply 0
(07/23/2012) [-]
what the hell are you protecting yourself from, a SWAT team?
#58 to #57 - youngfearless
Reply -1
(07/23/2012) [-]
someone breaks into your house

he has a pistol

you walk down your stairs with a 12 gauge

who wins in that situation?
#64 to #58 - SuitUp
Reply +3
(07/23/2012) [-]
Society, because hopefully you both die from bullet wounds and serve as an example.

You're better off just being robbed (which you then report and claim insurance) than pulling out a gun and getting shot. Burglars bring weapons to intimidate and stop you from trying to stop them getting stuff, not to coldly murder you. By pulling a gun all you're doing is escalating the situation.

Even if you manage to shoot them before they get you, you'll be the one doing time for attempted murder or violent assault.
#98 to #64 - DerpScout
Reply +1
(07/23/2012) [-]
I assume you know how burglars think from personal experience?
#99 to #98 - SuitUp
Reply +7
(07/23/2012) [-]
Working as a police office...yes. It really isn't worth their time risking being charged with assault, battery or manslaughter. They're there for a quick buck to fuel whatever habits they have.
#103 to #99 - DerpScout
Reply 0
(07/23/2012) [-]
Well my hats off to you then good sir.
#139 to #99 - AcidFlux
Reply -5
(07/23/2012) [-]
What city do you work in? Because every cop I know, both friends from the military and new friends I've made in the civilian world, supports legal gun ownership.
#145 to #139 - SuitUp
Reply +2
(07/23/2012) [-]
Leeds, United Kingdom.

Legal gun ownership is fine. Barely regulated gun ownership however is terrible.
#158 to #145 - AcidFlux
Reply 0
(07/24/2012) [-]
There's plenty of gun ownership regulation in the U.S. Here are some examples of people that may not legally purchase or own a firearm in the U.S.
1. Under the age of eighteen (certain exceptions allowed with parental consent)
2. Convicted or currently indicted for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year
3. Fugitive from justice
4. Unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance
5. Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution
6. Illegal immigrants
7. Dishonorably discharged from the Armed Forces
8. Any prior U.S. citizen that has renounced citizenship
9. Under some restraining orders, especially one involving harassing or stalking an intimate partner or their child.
10. Has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.

What would you add to that list?
#160 to #158 - AcidFlux
Reply 0
(07/24/2012) [-]
For example, my younger brother was in a sever car accident 14 years ago from which he will never fully recover. He was the passenger in a vehicle that was struck broadside by a drunk driver. His girlfriend walked away without a scratch, but the doctors that treated him prepared my parents for his potential death. Ironically, the woman that would become his physical therapist was a witness to the crash, and was convinced he wouldn't survive. He still has a TBI (traumatic brain injury) and has been deemed 'mentally defective' because of it. Thankfully, he's gotten most of his life back, but his mental development is forever 'frozen' at the age of 16.
He's 30 years old now, and through no fault of his own, cannot legally purchase or own a firearm.

The system works. Unless you propose eliminating ALL firearms, then events like this can and will continue to occur. I'm saddened by the tragedy, and I have sympathy for the victims' families. But that doesn't mean that the regulation of firearms in this country is flawed. And until there are no more people in the world that are willing to use violence on innocent victims, then I will continue to carry my weapon with me, so that I can defend myself and my family, if the need arises.

I can't control what other people do. All I can do is be prepared, as much as possible, to respond.
#84 to #64 - anon
Reply 0
(07/23/2012) [-]
thats the pussy way to do things you don't let "insurance" handle it if someone comes into YOUR house and points a gun threating YOUR family would you let him get away with it ? it becomes personal and you have to kill him
#70 to #64 - youngfearless
Reply -1
(07/23/2012) [-]
so someone invades my home and potentially trys to murder me, i can't fight back?

makes sense
#73 to #70 - SuitUp
Reply +4
(07/23/2012) [-]
The point is that if it's a standard robbery then they aren't there to murder you. If you pull a gun however you INCREASE the chance of being murdered because now you're a threat and one of you is going to start shooting.

If they actually want to murder you, whats to stop them simply burning your house down with you in it, or blowing you up in your car?
#83 to #73 - youngfearless
Reply -5
(07/23/2012) [-]
alright here's a little story for ya
(true story happened to me a few weeks ago)

>walking down my street because i like walking
>generally good neighborhood
>no one's out side and no cars on the street
>3 guys come up to me and pull out a knife
>tell me to give them my wallet and my phone
>i do
>get back to my house as fast as possible
>call cops and they rush out here
>tell them what happened and gave them a description of the 3 guys
>they find 2 of them
>neither of them had my stuff or the knife on them
>can't arrest them because they don't have hard evidence of it
>can no longer go on my daily walks

how would that be different if i had pistol with me?

#87 to #83 - SuitUp
Reply +5
(07/23/2012) [-]
Well considering the fact that in most places having a concealed permit doesn't give you the right to brandish and threaten, let lone shoot someone, jack **** would be different. Unless of course they see your holstered weapon, panic and stab you in the gut.
#89 to #87 - youngfearless
Reply -2
(07/23/2012) [-]
so where in the constitution does it say i can't defend myself from armed robbery
#92 to #89 - SuitUp
Reply +4
(07/23/2012) [-]
Where does it say you can? Don't start spouting the usual 'right to bear arms' crap. That entire section is wildly ambiguous and open to interpretation.

Here's a nice little link for you:
www.newscientist.com/article/dn17922-carrying-a-gun-increases-risk-of-get ting-shot-and-killed.html

You're 4 times more likely to be shot carrying a weapon. Really 'safe' huh?
#140 to #92 - AcidFlux
Reply -6
(07/23/2012) [-]
Actually, the incidence of a licensed firearms owner being shot and killed is 0.5 out of 100,000. Non-licensed & non-carrying incidence is 300 out of 100,000.

A licensed firearms owner has approximately a 0.16% chance, compared to a non-carrier, to be the victim of a fatal shooting.

I don't believe you're a police officer.
#146 to #140 - SuitUp
Reply +1
(07/23/2012) [-]
Source?
#60 to #58 - aviriorix
Reply 0
(07/23/2012) [-]
And I believe it would still be whoever shoots the fastest and the most effectively, hard to shoot someone with a shotgun if you have a hole in your head.
#59 to #58 - aviriorix
Reply -1
(07/23/2012) [-]
I'm talking about an assault rifle, as I said before I can understand shotguns and standard rifles, things that aren't meant for gunning down multiple people. I do not see the reason why anyone would need an AR unless it was for the sole purpose of harming others.
#62 to #59 - youngfearless
Reply 0
(07/23/2012) [-]
fully automatic assault rifles are illegal to civilians in the US (excluding certain states and in those states you require a certain, rare permit) and the semi-automatic/burst assault rifles are, like i've stated, for collectors and also require a special permit to purchase
#67 to #62 - youngfearless
Reply 0
(07/23/2012) [-]
scratch that first part, in any state you can have fully automatic gun with a federal licence
#66 to #62 - aviriorix
Reply 0
(07/23/2012) [-]
I think the country can suffer the loss of a hobby for removing a weapon that allows one person to gun down an entire crowd.
#69 to #66 - youngfearless
Reply +1
(07/23/2012) [-]
that'll just increase gun sales on the black market


do you really think most criminals get guns legally?
#71 to #69 - aviriorix
Reply 0
(07/23/2012) [-]
The guy who shot up a crowded movie theater did.
#74 to #71 - youngfearless
Reply +1
(07/23/2012) [-]
before then he was known to be a completely sane individual, when he snaped he could have just as easily gotten some weapons from a black market dealer, if he found the right connections

also i said MOST not all
#78 to #74 - aviriorix
Reply -1
(07/23/2012) [-]
Yes but it would have been much more difficult, I still see no positive in allowing people to own such deadly weapons. And collectors getting to wank off to their big guns is not a positive, it is just another depressing sign of how much this country loves death and violence.
#100 to #78 - DerpScout
Reply -1
(07/23/2012) [-]
People die each your playing American football. lets ban that. People commit suicide each year because they are depressed. Lets implement the thought police!
#141 to #78 - AcidFlux
Reply -3
(07/23/2012) [-]
Have you ever discharged a firearm in your life? I doubt it.
Regular practice with your firearm improves your skill and control of the weapon. So, disparaging those that engage in the 'hobby' or 'practice' is ridiculous.
#142 to #141 - aviriorix
Reply 0
(07/23/2012) [-]
How the hell is someone's skill in anyway pertinent to a discussion on whether or not a person should be able to own weapons like the man who gunned down the theater had.
#154 to #142 - AcidFlux
Reply 0
(07/24/2012) [-]
How is the skill level pertinent? You were discussing hobbyist who go to a shooting range. Those hobbyists are seeking to improve their skill. Also, a trained used is a safer user.

And it was a semi-automatic rifle, not a military grade weapon. He could have done the same amount of damage with a 'hunting rifle'.
#14 - twilightdusk
Reply +6
(07/23/2012) [-]
He obtained the guns through legal means. Stricter regulation could have kept him from getting them. The primary weapon in the shooting was actually banned from 1994-2004, had it still been banned he wouldn't have gotten a hold of it.
#22 to #14 - neoexdeath ONLINE
Reply -3
(07/23/2012) [-]
Riiiiiiight, so if he couldn't of gotten his mitts on that SPECIFIC weapon, we'd of averted this whole tragedy.
#17 to #14 - Shramin
Reply -1
(07/23/2012) [-]
*points you towards the Norwegian incident*
#124 to #17 - TheMather
Reply +1
(07/23/2012) [-]
You know Breivik actually modified that weapon himself, right? He didn't acquire it illegally, he acquired a semi-automatic rifle and turned it into a fully automatic one.
Not many people are capable of doing that, and fewer yet of those who can are willing.
#143 to #124 - Shramin
Reply 0
(07/23/2012) [-]
Norway has heavy gun control, he still got hold of weapons.
"he heavily modified the weapon he used". no he modified the farming utilities to make a bomb, the rifle he purchased is still a rifle. He even stated himself he didn't purchase a hunting weapon, these were military grade, which is not a simple purchase.
#148 to #143 - TheMather
Reply 0
(07/23/2012) [-]
Turns out we're both wrong, the weapon he used was a Ruger Mini-14 Ranch Rifle, a semi-automatic hunting rifle.
#149 to #148 - Shramin
Reply 0
(07/23/2012) [-]
It's not a hunting rifle, it is a rifle he could acquire with his hunting license.
also, Glock pistol.
#150 to #149 - TheMather
Reply 0
(07/23/2012) [-]
Then explain this line on the rifle's Wikipedia article:
"Ruger offered a selective fire variant of the Mini-14, the AC-556, to police and military customers."
If not for being intended for civilian use, why specify that there's a different model of it intended for cops and soldiers?

And the Glock 34, the model he used, is one intended for competitive use, which is to say it's a sports model.
#15 to #14 - anon
Reply 0
(07/23/2012) [-]
are you seriously that stupid no matter what you ban people will find away around it **** cocaine is illegal doesn't stop criminals from getting it
#19 to #14 - natedizzie
Reply +2
(07/23/2012) [-]
Drugs are banned but people can get them from anywhere.
Murder is banned but people still murder.
Stealing is banned but people still steal.
if guns are banned people will still have them.
#26 to #19 - Welshhobo
Reply +7
(07/23/2012) [-]
In first world countries we ban guns and theyre incredibley difficult to attain. Its very rare for even a gang member to have a gun in the UK, and even if they did, its doubtful theyd be an ******* nutjob. The only reason drugs are easier to find is because they have a demand, so theres always someone supplying.

There's no demand for guns in civilized places.
#32 to #26 - natedizzie
Reply 0
(07/23/2012) [-]
Thats a joke right? Gangs use guns for turf wars drug sales and disagreements.
They have the money to obtain them because they sell those drugs.
Watch any documentary on a gang and what are all of them doing waving around fully automatic AKs and ar 15.
A fully automatic weapon which cannot be made or manufactured for CIVILIAN use.
These gangs have them and hurt civilized innocent people because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Blaming guns because of murders is ridiculous, people don't blame cars they blame drivers. people don't blame knives they blame wielders.
Guns are tools a hammer a wrench a screw driver can kill.
Why dont we just abolish the constitution because the government knows best for us
Once you give away one right you might as well throw them all in the trash because you are scared.

TL:Dr if you give in to a mad mans demands he will always win
#122 to #32 - TheMather
Reply +1
(07/23/2012) [-]
You know there's a reason you only see gun-toting gangs in America, Africa and the middle-east right?
There is no market for combat weapons in first-world countries, with the exception of America because there the government is too dimwitted to ban them.
#129 to #32 - Welshhobo
Reply 0
(07/23/2012) [-]
A gun isn't a tool. Its only function is to kill. There is literally never any need to kill anyone or thing. You talk as though if every civilian wasn't weaponized then there will be some sort of genocide where people who can illegally get guns would go around shooting everyone who doesn't. Thats ludicrous. It doesn't happen anywhere else, why would it happen there? Gangs are only interested in fighting other gangs and maybe terrorizing a few civilians, but that happens anyway with the US law right now.

Its so sad when you have to live in gated communities because people are so scared of gangs armed to the teeth, willing to kill people. Money should be spent on preventing crime and helping others, not having to defend yourself against potentially anyone.

It doesn't matter how strict you make gun laws, people shouldn't be able to walk around with a "tool" thats capable of ending your life by the pull of a lone trigger.
#47 to #19 - tomliboo
Reply +2
(07/23/2012) [-]
If drugs were legal there would be a lot more people using them
if murder was legal there would be a lot more murders
if stealing was legal there would be a lot more robberies
If guns were banned less people would have them
#45 to #19 - tomliboo
0
has deleted their comment [-]
#2 - flemsdfer
Reply 0
(07/22/2012) [-]
I think everyone should have a gun personally. No having to register all of them or anything like you have to now. You should have to register once, take a course and be done with it, and you should be able to take a concealed firearm everywhere except court houses (obviously). If everyone had a gun, could there be huge shootings like this? Would the gunman just be shot down immediately?
#18 to #2 - natedizzie
Reply -1
(07/23/2012) [-]
Thank you sir. to go a step further I think if you are military or if you take a training course you should be able to own automatic weapons but you must go every weekend for a month or year or something then they will be able to tell if you're fit enough to own one
#3 to #2 - anon
Reply 0
(07/23/2012) [-]
Well ****, there'd still be dead people. And if there were no guns allowed, the criminals would still be doing their ****, but there'd barely be any single killings.
#4 to #3 - flemsdfer
Reply +1
(07/23/2012) [-]
I just think if every person had a gun, and we all knew that. Maybe people would be too intimidated to pull stuff like that, and on a plus side. We could all count as the national guard :D
#8 to #3 - immortalfear
Reply 0
(07/23/2012) [-]
Because if someone really wants you dead, they'd find a way. Which would you rather, a quick bullet to the brain or being pushed out a 5 story window?
#11 to #8 - flemsdfer
Reply +1
(07/23/2012) [-]
At least the view is better :D
#108 to #11 - immortalfear
Reply 0
(07/23/2012) [-]
yea, but then you have time to think "wow, this sucks so-"*splat*
#30 to #2 - gwegw
Reply 0
(07/23/2012) [-]
Dont forget just about everyone these days are ******* retards. If that were the case people would start shooting people they don't like simply because they could and want to feel like tough ****. If people were actually mature these days I might have agreed but as the case is....
#25 to #2 - neoexdeath ONLINE
Reply +1
(07/23/2012) [-]
To hell with guns. **** them, just...**** them. Melt them all down, make a ******* of swords. Everybody in America gets one, and if that jackass neighbor of yours blasts his music after 10 PM?

You don't call the ******* cops, you have a ************* duel on his front lawn. And if you win? Hack his equipment to bits with the thing.
#132 to #25 - flemsdfer
Reply 0
(07/23/2012) [-]
This. Just..... this. I like it.
#21 to #2 - avrg
Reply +2
(07/23/2012) [-]
Yeah but think about how it would feel to walk around knowing every single person around you could take your life with ease.
#35 to #21 - anon
Reply 0
(07/23/2012) [-]
implying that that's not already the case
#49 to #35 - avrg
Reply 0
(07/23/2012) [-]
America yeah, but not t in Britain
#6 to #2 - foelkera
Reply +6
(07/23/2012) [-]
can't shoot up the school if the school shoots back
#10 - oufancyna
Reply +5
(07/23/2012) [-]
Why don't we just tax the **** out of bullets?
Why don't we just tax the **** out of bullets?
#23 to #10 - herecomesjohnny ONLINE
Reply +1
(07/23/2012) [-]
You like Chris Rock, don't you oufancyna?
#184 to #23 - oufancyna
Reply 0
(07/24/2012) [-]
I ******* love Chris rock!   
   
I knew I had heard that before, dammit.   
That's a good catch, here's a winry gif for your trouble.
I ******* love Chris rock!

I knew I had heard that before, dammit.
That's a good catch, here's a winry gif for your trouble.
#1 - lilnuggetbob
Reply +5
(07/22/2012) [-]
that and most shootings involve illegally obtained firearms.
#112 - mrmcsnodgrass
Reply +4
(07/23/2012) [-]
Hurr Durr, we should ban fire because it can be used as a deadly weapon.

That's some peoples logic.
#127 to #112 - valetparking
Reply +2
(07/23/2012) [-]
your FISTS and TEETH can be used as deadly weapons. how the **** are we gonna ban THOSE?
#152 to #127 - grogabusk
Reply +1
(07/24/2012) [-]
Hammers. Lots and lots of hammers.
#63 - grogabusk
Reply +1
(07/23/2012) [-]
Well, considering criminals will ALWAYS be able to get their hands on a gun if they want to shoot people, I don't think making guns harder to get would help at all. It would make things worse, actually. If all of the good people, who follow laws and most likely will NOT go on a murder spree, were armed, would anyone really think about walking into somewhere just to shoot them up?
#68 to #63 - anon
Reply 0
(07/23/2012) [-]
No they would simply move onto the next most destructive weapon at their disposal. How effective would a bunch of people with guns be against some ordinary-looking guy with a backpack, that just happens to be stuffed with explosives? Criminals will always be able to get hold of anything banned right? So you stop their guns being effective and they retaliate by blowing you up instead.
#72 to #68 - grogabusk
Reply 0
(07/23/2012) [-]
While I do agree with you that they could do that, isn't that just proving the point that stricter laws would be absolutely useless? Since you know, they'll get their hands on anything to kill us effectively.
#75 to #72 - anon
Reply 0
(07/23/2012) [-]
Just because you can't stop something 100% doesnt mean you shouldn't try to reduce the problem. You can make it harder to get guns by more heavily regulating them, look at any country thats implemented it.

The idea of "Oh well they'll still get them, guns for all!" is just a defeatist argument because you cant be bothered to try and solve the problem.
#90 to #75 - peacetoad
Reply +4
(07/23/2012) [-]
so true. In Europe we hear about shootings in the USA from time to time. In Belgium, no one has a gun. Only the cops ... We had one terrorist that I can remember. A foreign guy with grenades. I have never heard of mass shootings or w/e because they are simply forbidden. So saying gun laws don't do **** is ******** indeed.

And those who really want to commit a crime will still be able to get guns. Or they will be caught trying it. If criminals go buy a gun now, they can't even be stopped. Doesn't seem logic to me.