...... .
x
Click to expand
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
+28
#8 - lolzinyourmouth **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #17 to #8 - millennial (08/07/2012) [-]
...that's my goddamn gun.
I feel honored
#27 to #17 - u do wat to sheep (08/07/2012) [-]
This is my gun....I enjoy it
#56 to #27 - crickity (08/07/2012) [-]
That seems to have too many attachments for something designed to throw a lead slug at someone.
Also your bayonet hardpoint seems to have a smaller gun on it.
User avatar #66 to #56 - u do wat to sheep (08/07/2012) [-]
Who doesn't need an M203 at the end of their M200 Sniper?
#69 to #66 - crickity (08/08/2012) [-]
Anyone who's a good enough shot with an M200 Sniper? xD

Seriously though, is that any kind of use? Is there tactical value in sticking a gun on your gun?

(Genuine questions, sarcasm is a byproduct of the fact we're talking about sticking a gun to a larger gun)
User avatar #70 to #69 - u do wat to sheep (08/08/2012) [-]
There is when the gun on your gun is a grenade launcher
#71 to #70 - crickity (08/08/2012) [-]
Ah, so it is, my mistake.

Seems superfluous (althoguh safer) to have a second trigger.
#50 to #27 - Rascal (08/07/2012) [-]
**anonymous rolled a random image posted in comment #9952 at Drawing & Art **
#44 - Rascal (08/07/2012) [-]
Yes! I like this sign. Because gun control means hitting your target!
#32 - feeniks (08/07/2012) [-]
Thought of this
Thought of this
User avatar #1 - techketzer (08/06/2012) [-]
I like that place already.
Neither Breivik nor that guy that shot up the cinema would have had a chance in hell there.
#24 to #1 - ronyx (08/07/2012) [-]
LOLWUT   
   
Dude was wearing armor good enough to stop small caliber weapons so unless you are packing a beast then you would only get yourself killed. You ever shot while inhaling tear gas? you ever shot at somebody who is also shooting, while there are kids and adults running past you? would you feel better if you had killed a kid or an innocent person just for trying to be a "hero"?    
   
It would be 			*******		 irresponsible to use a weapon in that situation. It's easy to say "Oh yea if i had been there and had my gun i would've totally saved everyone's ass" while you're sitting on your chair typing on a computer.   
Your aim could be godly on the gun range, but that's nothing at all compared to a movie theater filled with tear gas with people screaming, running, with a loud ass movie that's flashing in front of you.
LOLWUT

Dude was wearing armor good enough to stop small caliber weapons so unless you are packing a beast then you would only get yourself killed. You ever shot while inhaling tear gas? you ever shot at somebody who is also shooting, while there are kids and adults running past you? would you feel better if you had killed a kid or an innocent person just for trying to be a "hero"?

It would be ******* irresponsible to use a weapon in that situation. It's easy to say "Oh yea if i had been there and had my gun i would've totally saved everyone's ass" while you're sitting on your chair typing on a computer.
Your aim could be godly on the gun range, but that's nothing at all compared to a movie theater filled with tear gas with people screaming, running, with a loud ass movie that's flashing in front of you.
User avatar #61 to #24 - techketzer (08/07/2012) [-]
I never said I would have saved everyone.

I said in a theater full of armed, trained people, that madman would have gone down quickly.
I said that on an island of armed, trained people, Breivik would not have left over 70 corpses and had been one of the few himself.

I said a predator cannot prey upon those who can defend themselves.
I said human lives are worth fighting for.
That is what I said, nothing else.
User avatar #31 to #24 - teutoburg (08/07/2012) [-]
winning a fight does not mean killing the other guy, would you go charging at a guy with a gun, not knowing how good a shot he is nor how high powered his gun is? Also body armor doesn't stop anything unless it's a very small bullet very far away
#4 to #1 - tiredofannon (08/07/2012) [-]
I don't mean to start a fight, but this is just something that really bugs me. I worked at a movie theater and worked the night it happened (different one about half an hour away). But why do people think that someone could have shot him or stopped him? Its hard to see in those theaters during the movies (I should know, I've had to look through theaters before trying to find people recording videos, or having sex), when everyone is sitting down. Now add in smoke, 100 plus screaming people all trying to get away and bullets flying at you. Other people would have been hurt.

Can't we all just say it sucks, thats its tragic, that it is something we should remember and to be a little safer in the future. To let those who we love know we love them. All this "I could have stopped it" needs to end. Because odds are, you wouldn't. You would have been the next one dead after you shot him, either by the police or by his return fire. It just does a disservice to those who lived and those who died, to imply that somehow they didn't do enough, that they didn't stop that which they couldn't.
User avatar #5 to #4 - techketzer (08/07/2012) [-]
"All this "I could have stopped it" needs to end."
On the contrary. It must be pushed and forwarded until it becomes a "I've stopped it."
The helpless must be protected, not a foot of ground must be given to madmen seeking to kill innocents.
Teeth, blades and guns must be ready to rend and tear the flesh of anyone daring to break the sacred peace.
This isn't about practicality, this is about principle and human dignity.
When a lunatic predator can just walk into a cinema or youth camp and start slaughtering without being resisted in any way, shape or form, then yes, not enough was done.

You are doing the disservice and disgrace by remaining passive in the face of slaughter of human beings.
What value has human life to you when you object to defending it?
#6 to #5 - tiredofannon (08/07/2012) [-]
At the place I worked, we were told to put in metal detectors. We had armed policed, multiple armed police at all time. And they're expecting them to be there for a long time. There is a point where the efforts outweigh the safety they provide. Cars kill thousands of people every day, are we to lower the speed limits to 15 mph? Lower? Outlaw them all together? I get your point we must protect the innocent. I agree. But as I said, someone shooting back would have made it worse. Would have cost more lives. If you were there, and had your gun, shot at him, and killed a child near by, how would you react? What would you tell the parents? That you meant good? That you thought your aim was better? That you wanted to stop him, to save lives, but cost one in the process?
Pushing this forward will result in that exact result. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but some day, innocents will be killed by those trying to protect them because those who have no business playing policeman are allowed, no encouraged to do so.
Please do not take this the wrong way. My heart aches for those who died, and I'm sorry that they died. But I am not saying we allow madmen to run free. We have ways to stop this from happening. They didn't work. We should improve those first, before we call for an increased arming of private citizens.
User avatar #7 to #6 - techketzer (08/07/2012) [-]
Car accidents are not malicious omnicidal murder streaks, are they?
They do not happen on purpose, therefore cannot be resolved by legislation, only through superior planning, engineering and training. There can be no excuse in slacking off at those, though.

"But as I said, someone shooting back would have made it worse. Would have cost more lives."
And how the **** would you know? Do you have a magic looking glass that let's you see what was and what will be? No? Then please refrain from these laughable speculations.

In fact, the perfect life-saving shots have been made numerous times over the years, by cops and civilians alike. In a situation like some maniac going loose, the only thing that counts is to stop him, not who does it or by what means.
If innocents are hurt or killed in the process, we have a tragedy at our hands.
They still had better chances than to be put at the mercy of a murdering lunatic, for what that's worth. Hesitating to defend others from certain death because we might injure them is a cowardly disservice.

Don't you ever underestimate a trained civilian. There is nothing keeping them from outperforming ANY police officer in saving lives. On the contrary, they have the immense advantage of being right there where they are needed.

No. I say the people deserve the very best means of self-defense they can possibly get their hands on. Homicidal maniacs on killing spree are not the only thing they may be endangered by, there are muggers, rapists, home invaders and so on.
The people need to realise that their safety and the safety of their loved ones and fellow citizens lies nowhere else but in their own hands.
Nobody in his right mind would depend on the coincidence of having police right at the crime scene to protect him.
On the contrary.

I'd like to end with this quote:
"An armed society is a polite society." - Robert A. Heinlein
#15 to #7 - bazda (08/07/2012) [-]
Just listen to Eowin from LoTR, when she said "The women of this country learned long ago that those without swords could still die upon them."

Looking towards police to be the answer to these problems is laughable. Law enforcement has nothing to do with crime prevention. Law enforcement is an "after the fact" service.
#18 to #15 - Rascal (08/07/2012) [-]
User avatar #60 to #15 - techketzer (08/07/2012) [-]
Exactly. Police and LE are there to enforce the decrees of the government, one of which is to keep the status quo and keep unrest under control.

They are not there to protect you, merely to get rid of your corpse, clean up, and keep everyday life running for the others afterwards.
#16 to #7 - kingoyaks (08/07/2012) [-]
Oooh, an internet fight! These always end with meaningful progress.

"And how the **** would you know? Do you have a magic looking glass that let's you see what was and what will be? No? Then please refrain from these laughable speculations. "

"Don't you ever underestimate a trained civilian. There is nothing keeping them from outperforming ANY police officer in saving lives. On the contrary, they have the immense advantage of being right there where they are needed. "

I love juxtaposing quotations which are mutually exclusive. Either speculations are allowed, i.e. "smoke and panic would prevent trained citizens from responding competently" or they aren't. Make up your mind.

Personally, I prefer to stick with cold hard statistics! Let's look at some statistics, comparing deaths

Let's see... google search... first result.. ah, here we go.

In the United Kingdom in 2009 there were 0.07 recorded intentional homicides committed with a firearm per 100,000 inhabitants; for comparison, the figure for the United States was 3.0, about 40 times higher

Source: The UN Office on Drugs and Crime
www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/statistics/Homicide/Homicides_by_firearms.xls
(I have no idea if this link will work, if not and you don't believe me, I'll find another link)

The UK response to two terrible shooting sprees a few decades ago was not to give more guns to potentially unbalanced civilians, but rather to restrict gun access. The result? No shooting sprees, and an immensely lowered firearm-related injury rate.

Sure, everyone having guns sounds good in theory, and Heinlein is a fantastic author, but just like his utopian communes from the middle of Stranger in a Strange Land don't work outside of fiction, and like Communism is best as a theory, everyone having guns only sounds good.
#19 to #16 - bazda (08/07/2012) [-]
You're first sentence is hilarious, but I must say I disagree with you.

I saw a statistic the other day, if you don't believe me that's fine, but it said that the death rate in possible mass shootings when stopped by police was 18.3 per, while the death rate when stopped by gun carrying civilians was only 2.2.

Homicides with a firearm may be lower in the UK, and I don't doubt that they are, but it is no secret that crime as a whole is rampant in countries, and even cities, that outlaw guns. Take the UK, and Washington DC as examples.
#20 to #19 - Rascal (08/07/2012) [-]
Also, what he doesn't ******* mention, is that crime rates are freaking crazy high in the UK, not with firearms, no, but knives, fists, blunt weapons, all that jazz. You can't have ANYTHING legally to defend yourself, I can carry a knife because I have no regard for the law, and mug you, taking all of your money. I can break in to your home without fear of being shot, etc., etc. General crime and non-gun crime is far higher in the UK and other countries where you can't defend your life and property through means of deadly force.
#39 to #19 - largenintimidating (08/07/2012) [-]
Okay, I' not joining in on this debate, as I don't have much of an opinion on gun control, but simple common sense puts holes in using that statistic 18.3-2.2 as an argument:

If it's bad enough that the police have arrived, and are in a position to stop the guy, the shooter is a hell of a lot more dangerous than the average gunman. He's likely using body armor, tear gas, and all that other fancy stuff James Holmes and Seung-Hui Cho were equipped with. Most of the civilian-stopped ones on the other hand, are some guy who just snapped without much premeditation.
User avatar #59 to #39 - techketzer (08/07/2012) [-]
There is that of course, plus the fact that valuable minutes go by until police arrives at the crime scene, in which the perpetrator is able to kill with maximum efficiency.
Unless he encounters civilian resistance right on scene, at least distractinbg him, at best stopping him outright.

This debate is not so much about gun control than about civilian courage and resistance against violent attackers.
#67 to #59 - bazda (08/08/2012) [-]
Well yeah, that is the point of the argument. If someone is right there right when it happens to shoot the ****** , he isn't gonna get a whole lot of killing done while the sheep are waiting for the cops to roll up.
User avatar #72 to #67 - techketzer (08/08/2012) [-]
That's it in a nutshell.
#21 to #19 - kingoyaks (08/07/2012) [-]
... Yeah, I don't believe you.

For starters, the USA has the highest incarceration rate in the world.

Roughly 1 in 140 people in the USA are in prison.
Roughly 1 in 680 people in the UK are in prison.
The rate at which people are put in prison in the USA is over 4 times what it is in the UK.
Source: The International Center for Prison Studies You need to login to view this link

Let's address the "more crime overall" claim. Saying that one country has "more crime" is a very difficult to substantiate claim. What counts as crime? Robbery, arson, murder, sure, those are crimes. Mugging, child abuse, all of these are obviously crimes. What about jaywalking? Teens shoving other teens at school? What if people don't go to the police? etc. There are hundreds of factors affecting how you measure "crime", which is the first 5 sources I found for the USA crime rate per 100,000 for 2009 all disagreed with each other. Perhaps the UK has more crime than the USA, but we have more firearm-related, as seen in my previous post, and homicides overall, 4.8 per 100,000 as opposed to the UK's 1.23 per 100,000. Again, that's more than 3 times the UK rate.

I'm tired of citing, so here's the wikipedia page: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

TL;DR Countries with strict gun control, i.e. UK have a far lower homicide rate with or without guns than countries with looser gun control, i.e. USA
#68 to #21 - bazda (08/08/2012) [-]
American prisons are full of people arrested on petty drug charges. What percentage of all those people incarcerated are in there because of violent crimes? I'm not telling you to look it up, just think it through. Just because someone got arrested and is in prison doesn't automatically make him a violent criminal.
#57 to #16 - techketzer (08/07/2012) [-]
I see no contradiction. Not at all.
The first sentence says the exact outcome of any event is an unknown.
The second is about not underestimating a potential.
How are they mutually exclusive at all?

Oh, how I love beating idiotic arguments to death with their own statistics.
So what do we have here? The very statistic you presented us with in comment 21, look at the URL.

Apparently, there is no real causal correlation between liberal gun laws and overall murder rate, or Northern America would be close to either top or bottom.
It seems the reason people kill and slaughter each other cannot be reduced to the availability of a special kind of inanimate objects, but have much more complicated and diverse background.
#13 to #5 - bazda (08/07/2012) [-]
Some faith in humanity has been restored!
#10 to #4 - Rascal (08/07/2012) [-]
By removing firearms from people who would have used them to take out a shooter like James Holmees you all have created more problems and deaths. When you leave a market (the black market) the only one available for guns then criminals are the only ones who have guns. SHOVE YOUR BS FEAR (our greatest enemy) MONGERING UP YOUR ASS! Hope you enjoy living in a police state.
#14 to #10 - Rascal (08/07/2012) [-]
Oh shut he **** up. I'm all for guns, I have 8, and I go hunting every so often, but what you said is some of the dumbest **** I've ever seen
#25 to #10 - Rascal (08/07/2012) [-]
dude...weapons only make problems...look at germany...they only have around 50 deads caused by weapons per year....
the US have more than 50.000 deads...
User avatar #30 to #1 - BlakMetlSoul (08/07/2012) [-]
Alright, I've read everything that everyone in every reply branching from this has said and I am here to post my personal beliefs on this issue. I firmly believe that every person should be able to start out with the right to own a firearm once they have reached a level of maturity that would show they can handle the responsibility. After this, that rite should be able to be blocked from them due to any violent criminal act committed by the individual. However, after an individual has chosen to take advantage of the offer of this rite (as long as they have not blocked it for themselves), it is their duty as an intelligent being to do a few things within that rite. First they must familiarize themselves with any and all firearms of their choosing once they have claimed ownership of them. Second they must be sure that they can determine the best possible use of the firearm. Third they must properly sight in the firearm and choose the best ammunition for their particular firearm (IT DOES MAKE A VERY BIG DIFFERENCE IN YOUR ACCURACY). Finally, once they have completed these three steps and put themselves in a position to use their firearm, they must be able to recognize the proper conditions for its use. Situational awareness is key here and can make a very big difference in whatever you're doing. It can get you the victory point in a shooting competition, give you a cleaner kill when hunting to cause the animal less suffering, and keep you from hitting an innocent child when attempting to stop an armed person in commission of a crime. To sum this up, everyone should have the rite to a firearm unless they have shown proof of the contrary (innocent until proven guilty) and once they own a firearm, they must have sensibility, intelligence, and wisdom concerning all aspects of the firearm for their safety and the safety of others. If a person does not know something they should, it is also their duty to recognize this and seek advice on the matter for the very same reasons.
User avatar #62 to #30 - techketzer (08/07/2012) [-]
Excellent comment, excellent reasoning.
Everything you've said, I agree to.

The only problem I see is keeping firearms out of the hands of those that have proven unreliable. As with all things, there will be a black market seeking to make a profit from selling them what they want anyway.
This problem can be kept small, but hardly ever eradicated and it would be a mistake to turn a blind eye towards it.
User avatar #29 - swittig (08/07/2012) [-]
An armed populous is safer, gun control doesn't work as there will always be access to illegal firearms
User avatar #41 to #29 - psychfouronenine (08/07/2012) [-]
An armed and educated* populous is safer.
#47 to #41 - Rascal (08/07/2012) [-]
the educated part is important, hunters are less likely to hurt themeselves or someone else with a gun than the general populace. Gun safetly and education is needed for it to be safer
User avatar #65 to #41 - swittig (08/07/2012) [-]
good point
User avatar #28 - BlakMetlSoul (08/07/2012) [-]
I've got two years to go and then it's concealed carry time for me.
#2 - croce (08/06/2012) [-]
'MERICA!
#11 - Rascal (08/07/2012) [-]
******* Tennessee, permit to carry not conceal. I walk around with it out in the open on my hip.
User avatar #22 to #11 - sisupisici (08/07/2012) [-]
Then why do you carry it? If someone wants to rob you he would first shoot you.
User avatar #43 to #22 - arawan (08/07/2012) [-]
Or, and just spit balling here, he'll leave you the **** alone. Criminals don't want to be on equal footing in those types of crimes. They want the upper, they want you scared and defenseless so you'll do whatever they say. Why start shooting at the guy with a gun who can shoot back when you stick up the guy who has **** all to defend himself with?
#23 to #22 - NolanNasty (08/07/2012) [-]
compensating for something perhaps? =D
#26 to #23 - NolanNasty (08/07/2012) [-]
thumb me down all you want, can't change da truth :D
thumb me down all you want, can't change da truth :D
User avatar #45 to #22 - inyourmind ONLINE (08/07/2012) [-]
Not only is arawan right but also robbers don't usually want to kill as that results in an intense search for them.
#40 to #11 - Fighteroneohthree (08/07/2012) [-]
Arizona. Where you DONT need a permit to carry a non concealed weapon and a concealed permit is 60$.
#52 - ichbinlegion **User deleted account** (08/07/2012) [-]
mfw i watch americans fighting each other about guns
#38 - Rascal (08/07/2012) [-]
'MURICA
#42 to #38 - Rascal (08/07/2012) [-]
**** Yeah!
#12 - slandersalamander (08/07/2012) [-]
Of course it's a fat, balding, middle-aged white guy.
User avatar #48 - dafuq (08/07/2012) [-]
The red around the gun means its presence is prohibited, you stupid americunt *****
#49 to #48 - drakesblood (08/07/2012) [-]
Only if there is a line through the middle of it.

<Like so.
User avatar #58 to #53 - drakesblood (08/07/2012) [-]
Yeah, that means you are allowed to do 60, but not over. 60 is fine. It is okay to travel at 60. 61 however would have a red line through it.
Whereas the no smoking sign means you are not allowed smoke. No smoking at all. Hence the red line through the middle.

I hope you have found this educational...
#51 to #49 - dafuq (08/07/2012) [-]
Your argument is invalid.
User avatar #64 to #51 - TeamAmerica (08/07/2012) [-]
Iv'e never seen a sign like that anywhere in America.
#55 to #48 - crickity (08/07/2012) [-]
You are not a clever man.
User avatar #33 - plutoo (08/07/2012) [-]
I need a sign like this!
User avatar #34 to #33 - TeamAmerica (08/07/2012) [-]
compliance signs dot com forward slash NHE-16347.shtml
User avatar #35 to #34 - plutoo (08/07/2012) [-]
thx bro!
#3 - Rascal (08/07/2012) [-]
 Friends (0)