Logic does not apply to.... Funny Junk.. Are you ? Take the following test to find out. QUESTION if sameone attempted to inflict pain, and possibly death upon t Logic does not apply to Funny Junk Are you ? Take the following test find out QUESTION if sameone attempted inflict pain and possibly death upon t
Upload
Login or register

Logic does not apply to...

Are you ? Take the following test to find out.
QUESTION
if sameone attempted to inflict pain, and possibly death upon
the person yeu bye the most, would you be willing to use a
gun to save your hired one?
SELECT YOUR ANSWER
A) Yes
KEY
if you answered A:
You are not .
If you answered B:
Unfortunately for yew gwed me, you are truly .
If you answered A, but still claim to be antigen: 2 A E
...
+2172
Views: 57479 Submitted: 09/07/2012
Leave a comment Refresh Comments (775)
[ 775 comments ]
Anonymous comments allowed.
59 comments displayed.
#26 - jimmycrank
Reply +155
(09/07/2012) [-]
a street gang attempts a drive-by shooting unfortunately your child is accidently hit in the cross-fire...would you

A) Rather they didn't have guns at all?

or

B) avenge your child's death using your own gun?



If you picked A) you're anti-gun.. if you picked B) you might be a psycho, if you picked a) and you're still pro-gun then well.....you're a ******* retard....


That Logic works both ways
#46 to #26 - sketchE
Reply -3
(09/07/2012) [-]
excepy mos drive buys use automatic weapon which inless it was made before the 1950s is illegal to have
#35 to #26 - profarnsworth
Reply -1
(09/07/2012) [-]
How does B make me a psycho? If anything it would make me feel like mother ******* clint eastwood.
#732 to #26 - shroomftw
Reply 0
(09/08/2012) [-]
or c) only sell guns to white people
#619 to #26 - soopafreak
Reply +1
(09/07/2012) [-]
so you're a possible psycho for wanting to avenge your child's needless death?
#29 to #26 - malific
Reply +58
(09/07/2012) [-]
Actually no. Because you're making the assumption that being anti-gun would mean those gangbangers didn't have theirs.

Guns laws are not followed by lawless people. Banning guns simply means thr criminals are thr only ones who have them.
#156 to #29 - Faz
Reply +27
(09/07/2012) [-]
In England its very very hard to get a gun, common street criminals don't have guns the only ones with guns are the biggest drug dealers/weed growers and you wont find any of them using their gun on random people in the street.
#361 to #156 - thepyras
Reply +16
(09/07/2012) [-]
England is an island the size of Michigan with cops everywhere.
#267 to #156 - HARDSTYLESHUFFLER
Reply +7
(09/07/2012) [-]
It's mainly stabbings in the place of shootings, right?
#497 to #267 - Faz
Reply 0
(09/07/2012) [-]
Yeah but its kinda rare even in bad areas like mine, i only know of like 2 people who have been stabbed and killed in my area throughout my entire life.
#282 to #156 - dickynix
Reply -4
(09/07/2012) [-]
England also doesn't have Mexico bordering it
#324 to #282 - failtolawl
Reply -1
(09/07/2012) [-]
second generation Mexicans are the ones gang banging, the ones that are raised in american schools, don't blame mexico for our problems.
#335 to #324 - dickynix
Reply +3
(09/07/2012) [-]
I'm saying many guns come through Mexico into the US just like drugs do not Mexicans in The US but Mexican arms dealers sell a lot of weapons to gangs in the US.
#220 to #29 - jinjo
Reply +3
(09/07/2012) [-]
Watch Bowling for Collumbine.

Obviously Michael Moore is well.. Michael Moore, but there are many extremely vlid points made in the film.
#725 to #220 - newfalcon
Reply -2
(09/08/2012) [-]
Michael Moore wasn't saying the guns were the problem, he was talking about how we a violent culture, mostly due to media.
#557 to #29 - xuberpwnagex
Reply 0
(09/07/2012) [-]
But with gun laws, they could carry those guns very easily. If they got pulled arrested for another illegal thing they were doing, and there were anti gun laws, they would get put away for much longer.
#113 to #29 - Viggiator
Reply -4
(09/07/2012) [-]
But that is wrong. USA is the country where it is easiest to get a gun, and at the same time the country with most people killed by guns. I see what you're getting at, but it's just not how it works in real life. Guns should be illegal.
But that is wrong. USA is the country where it is easiest to get a gun, and at the same time the country with most people killed by guns. I see what you're getting at, but it's just not how it works in real life. Guns should be illegal.
#286 to #113 - dickynix
Reply +5
(09/07/2012) [-]
I could easily list 5 countries it is easier to get a gun so I will
Brazil
Mexico
Iraq
Afghanistan
Russia
#196 to #113 - newfalcon
Reply +2
(09/07/2012) [-]
Canada has more guns per person than USA and yet their gun related death rate is lower. Guns don't kill people any more than knifes or hammers. only people can kill people.
#223 to #196 - jinjo
Reply +3
(09/07/2012) [-]
Hunters are accountable for like 80 + percent of that, not just people with semi-automatic weapons in their nightstand etc.
#261 to #223 - megustaculo
Reply 0
(09/07/2012) [-]
Hunters aren't accountable for 80+ of weapons. It's the farmers that carry the most guns, usually for pest control (i.e. coyotes, gophers, pigeons, badgers etc). But ya I do somewhat agree since the farmers are also usually hunters in the fall/winter.
#266 to #261 - jinjo
Reply 0
(09/07/2012) [-]
I was just trying to say that most guns aren't handguns and such that regular people just have for no real reason, it's mostly hunting rifles/shotguns.

#272 to #196 - xlooooolx
Reply +2
(09/07/2012) [-]
False

USA has approximately 3 times more guns per capita than Canada
#363 to #196 - greasychesticles
-2
has deleted their comment [-]
#31 to #29 - enuo
Reply -7
(09/07/2012) [-]
EXACTLY! Anti gun people are retarded. I mean genuinely medically retarded. Because they live in their own imaginary bubble where laws are always obeyed by the criminally minded. If you are willing to break the law by killing someone with a legally owned gun you are not going to say 'oh guns are now illegal, well can't do it with a gun now. I'm happy killing, but illegal ownership of a gun??? Too far man, too far...'.
#38 to #31 - anon
Reply 0
(09/07/2012) [-]
a normal, lawlfull person freaks out and shoots his wife because of cheating on him...would you

A)Rather he didn't have a gun at all?

or

B)Rather his wife also would have a gun and they start a ******* shoot-out

#74 to #38 - captnpl
Reply +6
(09/07/2012) [-]
The person is the problem, not the method. If he was willing to kill his wife, he didn't need a gun. He could have beaten her, strangled her, pushed her down the stairs, run her down with his car, stabbed her, set the house on fire while she sleeps, put thumbtacks in her fruit loops, or any number of other things cheaper and easier than using a gun.
#129 - iFail
Reply +29
(09/07/2012) [-]
If nobody had guns, the world would be a much better place. I can understand that many gun owners use them for sport or protection, but those who misuse them are generally ******** that only use so that they can pretend they're strong.
Most people who shoot somebody else out of anything other than protection, are too scared to actually put up a fight.
I'll use a real life example, last summer I was playing basketball with my friend in the court outside the school and then these guys come up just trying to cause trouble. I didn't have a gun, but before you know it I got in a fight, and yeah, I might have got beaten up, but it's not all bad. Because now I live with my uncle and auntie in Bel-Air
#217 to #129 - lilnuggetbob ONLINE
Reply 0
(09/07/2012) [-]
go to Britain and get yourself mugged with no way to defend yourself now have fun! Every person on this planet isn't all "i love you and i never want to hurt you!" no, people are assholes, and sometimes you need to defend yourself against these assholes, and that's why you might need a gun sometimes, i know people will abuse it, but it will do more good than harm.
#633 to #217 - anon
Reply 0
(09/07/2012) [-]
You think somebody trying to mug you is worthy of being killed? Guns clearly don't do more good than harm because at the end of the day more people are getting killed. No guns= less deaths for public...
#547 to #217 - lazypaul
Reply 0
(09/07/2012) [-]
Go to Britain and almost no-one will have a gun to pull on you.
#297 to #217 - iFail
-1
has deleted their comment [-]
#556 to #129 - frink
Reply 0
(09/07/2012) [-]
Was going to thumb you down, but I read it till the end and I realized what you did there.
#671 to #129 - anon
Reply 0
(09/08/2012) [-]
the thing i think about is this:
humans are creatures who want power over other humans. Say guns didn't exist, then we would create something worse. for example, in the Medieval era they started with swords, then the catapults, swords soon became weaker as people like pirates had guns that shot glass shards and other objects.

Basically, get rid of guns and we'll most likely create somethin gmore powerful to kill each other.
#258 to #129 - thedarkhavok
Reply +4
(09/07/2012) [-]
'If nobody had guns, the world would be a much better place' That statement is revoltingly obvious, the fact is it would be impossible to impose new gun laws in America due to the currently present guns.
#201 - gasster
Reply +21
(09/07/2012) [-]
This is stupid ." would you use a localised nuclear bomb on a town of pedophiles? "

Yes? Then you're pro nuclear war!

Silliness
#548 to #201 - lazypaul
Reply +1
(09/07/2012) [-]
You nailed it.
#762 to #548 - gasster
Reply 0
(09/08/2012) [-]
Thanks brother
#40 - lujan
Reply +20
(09/07/2012) [-]
This image has expired
while I don't necessarily think this post is logical, I am not anti-gun.
here's the average anti-gun protester
#57 to #40 - anon
Reply 0
(09/07/2012) [-]
Alcohol is legal, you can get it very easily pretty much everywhere.
Pot is illegal, you can get it but its expensive and harder to get.

Banning it wont remove all guns, but will reduce the availability.
#59 to #57 - lujan
Reply +3
(09/07/2012) [-]
I'm 20 years old, not legally old enough to buy alcohol in the US, and I can get pot easier than alcohol for less money easily. Maybe it's just where I live. But "reduc[ing] the availability" is not possible. If you take guns out of our country then the illegal imports from other countries will just increase. There's no way around stopping anyone who wants to own a gun from obtaining one. It's a reality that has to be faced.
#69 to #59 - anon
Reply 0
(09/07/2012) [-]
This is exactly why I think they should either lower the alcohol age limit, or legalize pot. whynotboth.jpg

On topic tho. I'm fully aware that if a person want to buy a gun, they can. But when it has to be smuggled, price will increase, and quality will mostly drop. Police would also be able to get rid of guns if they catch people with them (I know this will be a small percentage, but its will happen)
#664 - rambearclaw
Reply +18
(09/07/2012) [-]
Guns are good, did you know Jesus and Moses used guns to defeat the Romans?
#552 - xxKingKhanxx
Reply +18
(09/07/2012) [-]
It would be cool if there were no guns at all and we just solved our problems with martial arts.
#569 to #552 - fooljamable
Reply +5
(09/07/2012) [-]
now there's a world where i would lose a lot of arguements
#189 - shutes
Reply +18
(09/07/2012) [-]
American was founded by men who wanted their damn guns.
American was founded by men who wanted their damn guns.
#249 to #189 - comradewinter ONLINE
Reply -5
(09/07/2012) [-]
The US was also founded by men who thought having black slaves was alright, even if the constitution prohibited it. We can't really rely on people who lived 200 years ago in some matters. Back in those days, if you brought a gun to some place to start a massacre, there wasn't many you could hit before the spree ended. Reloading those rifles took ages. Now you can just buy a high caliber semi-automatic pistol legally and take down atleast a dozen before it's over. Also, it's easier to conceal a handgun today inside your pocket, while pistols back in the 1800's were much bigger and obvious. Even if you can pull a gun on someone robbing you with a knife, he can also level with you and use one himself.
#512 to #249 - shutes
Reply +2
(09/07/2012) [-]
#563 to #249 - frink
Reply 0
(09/07/2012) [-]
Actually the constitution didn't prohibit slavery until about 70 years after it was created. Didn't you learn anything in school? Do you even know what the Civil War was about? Do you know what the 13th Amendment did?
#577 to #563 - comradewinter ONLINE
Reply 0
(09/07/2012) [-]
Well, I'm sorry. The curriculum in Norway doesn't cover American history so well. All we learn is how America was founded and how Martin Luther King and his followers abolished the discrimination based on that part of the constitution.

And yes, I know what the Civil War was about.
#639 to #577 - JuliusC ONLINE
Reply 0
(09/07/2012) [-]
maybe you should study up on matters before blindly charging in with ignorance and making a fool of yourself. Many of the founders were against slavery and at that point it was a hot button issue, many of them did infact own slaves, however many of them set them all free within their lifetimes. Also at that point in history, much of the economy was based in agriculture from slave labor, and cutting half of your economy while struggling to fight a war against an empire was probably not a good idea.
#754 to #639 - comradewinter ONLINE
Reply 0
(09/08/2012) [-]
I see your point, but my main argument wasn't about the slaves, it was how guns were far less effective back then than they are now. Being on horseback with a sword wasn't ridiculous back then. In fact, it proved quite effective. With that in mind, guns weren't weapons that gave you the ultimate advantage of every situation, but rather a small edge. 2 out of 3 murders in the US commited by using firearms are done on impulse, which is why they have a 15 day waiting time for purchasing handguns, so people won't do anything rash. Having a gun in your drawer and being pissed at someone is not a good combination, and it has corrupted the minds of many.
#389 - stromming
Reply +16
(09/07/2012) [-]
What.

"Are you anti-rape?"

"Yes.."

"So you wouldn't rape a perfect 10/10 woman to save 10 million lives?"

"Of course I would"

"THEN YOU ARE NOT ANTI RAPE!!!!"

This faulty logic could be used for about any situation. Pic unrelated but awesome
#462 to #389 - snaikravdra
Reply +2
(09/07/2012) [-]
But, what is 10 million lives versus one? i think the logic is slightly more legitimate than you think sir, however, i see your point.
But, what is 10 million lives versus one? i think the logic is slightly more legitimate than you think sir, however, i see your point.
#493 - mrsecret
Reply +14
(09/07/2012) [-]
i would just use my bear hands
#523 to #493 - bloodyfox **User deleted account**
+10
has deleted their comment [-]
#303 - callmemrdillan
Reply +9
(09/07/2012) [-]
A. No question, if my someone ever hurt my Mom or Dad, I wouldn't think twice.
A. No question, if my someone ever hurt my Mom or Dad, I wouldn't think twice.
#304 to #303 - narwhalsnballs [OP] **User deleted account**
+6
has deleted their comment [-]
#314 to #304 - thegirlyoudespise
Reply +14
(09/07/2012) [-]
your daughter is going to have a fun dating life