Guns. ..... mu TO an. storm in 3... 2... 1...
Home Funny Pictures YouTube Funny Videos Funny GIFs Text/Links Channels Search

Guns

....

mu TO an
...
+1411
Views: 51264
Favorited: 64
Submitted: 12/15/2012
Share On Facebook
Add to favorites Subscribe to killyojoy E-mail to friend submit to reddit
Share image on facebook Share on StumbleUpon Share on Tumblr Share on Pinterest Share on Google Plus E-mail to friend

Comments(609):

[ 609 comments ]
Show:   Top Rated Controversial Best Lowest Rated Newest Per page:
Order:

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
User avatar #628 - dapianoman (12/16/2012) [-]
A couple days ago, 26 people were killed in a school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut.
The same day, thousands of miles away, a man stabbed 22 kids in an elementary school in China.
The difference? No one died.
As quoted from the article:
"What was supposed to be another day of learning at an elementary school in central China instead turned to one of terror, as a man slashed 22 children and one adult with a knife.
The injuries were gruesome, and reportedly include cut-off fingers and ears, but this story had a different outcome from the massacre 8,000 miles away in Newtown, Conn. Everyone survived.
"
This is why I hate posts like these. "hurr durr crimnals dont follow laws so y shud we ban gunz." Well obviously it makes a difference. You hear it all the time on the news after a shooting or a suicide. "He was such a good student." "She was a great inspiration." "I never would have guessed he killed those people." The thing is, the people who buy these weapons aren't criminals (yet). Anyone can get their hands on a weapon. Hell, a child could get a firearm license. But once they're illegal, it's just that much harder for someone to get a gun. Another argument I hate is, "well we can use the gun to stop someone from commiting a crime." Yeah, because these school shootings wouldn't happen if we just give students guns, right? Let's face it, not everyone is a famed marksman. Having a gun and shooting someone are two completely different things. Especially if your life is in danger or you're in a panic. And once a criminal sees a gun come out, they panic. People are gonna get hurt. Chances are, the person holding the gun will get hurt. Anyways, what I'm trying to say is, gun control works. In China, you're not allowed to have guns. When's the last time a school shooting that killed more than 3 people occurred? So yeah, thanks for reading, just throwing in my two cents, have a nice day
tl;dr: gunz r bad
/rant
User avatar #598 - pergaminos (12/16/2012) [-]
By that logic, We shouldn't have any laws, because a criminal will eventually break them.
#575 - infinitereaper ONLINE (12/16/2012) [-]
Getting shot sounds better than being stabbed multiple times or getting beaten to death with a blunt hammer/bat.
#570 - lordbyronxiv (12/16/2012) [-]
I don't know who's worse.   
   
The people who use national tragedies like this to argue for their political beliefs without much regard for the families of the fallen.   
   
Or me for wondering what the insensitive but incredibly funny shock posts that are undoubtedly coming are gonna be like.
I don't know who's worse.

The people who use national tragedies like this to argue for their political beliefs without much regard for the families of the fallen.

Or me for wondering what the insensitive but incredibly funny shock posts that are undoubtedly coming are gonna be like.
#563 - anonymous (12/16/2012) [-]
>.< the largest majority of ******* are committed by those "good people" who hold on to a gun for self defense (and 99% of the time never use it as such, but I digress) who one day find their wife/husband cheating and lose their **** in a drunken rage, grab their gun, and kill them both.

It's not like the mob is out whacking every other person on a block for fun, nor is it like any trespasser gets shot, what with being on the offensive and all, nor would it have saved many lives in the event of a massacre, considering the shooter is the one who is going to open fire first.
#561 - herecomesfatben (12/16/2012) [-]
The problem is that America is more full of unregistered guns than FJ is of FAT BEN'S POOP!

If guns were to be banned, how would one propose to get rid of the perhaps millions of unregistered guns currently being trafficked? Gangs and drug cartels certainly won't give them up willingly. You'd have to have much of the police and even the military going around to come even close to ************ all of them. Even then we are still presented with the problem of more guns coming in from Mexico. We'd have to enact strict border protection (which many people don't seem to want to do) to stop it , or help Mexico cleanse itself of the cartels and government corruption that run rampant (like that will ever happen).

If you support banning guns, fine. Just please also have measures ready to ensure the end of illegal gun trafficking or the ban will be rendered nothing more than a "feel-good legislation."
#557 - anonymous (12/16/2012) [-]
Banning Guns would only help a little as all the countries around it have guns and it would be so easy to smuggle some in. And the guns arent the only factor.

If you could go back in time and stop the 2nd amendment from happening however. That would probably change a lot
User avatar #578 to #557 - asschwitz (12/16/2012) [-]
The second amendment was put in place so we could forcibly remove the government if necessary. Let's say someone rose to a dictator ship in the US, or was trying to. If the citizens had no guns, we'd just have to take up the ass. If we had guns, we could rebel and fight back. That's what we learned from the revolutionary war.
User avatar #547 - pepemex (12/16/2012) [-]
If we want to put an end to school, mall and cinema shootings clearly the answer is to ban ****** .
User avatar #546 - randomserb (12/16/2012) [-]
In that case everything should be legalized. Horrible argument.
#537 - tehlulzbringer (12/16/2012) [-]









Huh... I guess that means it's time to legalize ****** and prostitution and drugs and everything since criminals do it anyway
#644 to #537 - killyojoy (12/16/2012) [-]
Gun Laws are made to prevent criminals from having guns, Well they will get guns any way but the good people who need those guns to defend them selves from criminals won't be able to get them.
#535 - iAmAWizard (12/16/2012) [-]
Well perhaps a certain 20 year old wouldn't have casually shot up a certain school if his Mother didn't have guns in the house
Well perhaps a certain 20 year old wouldn't have casually shot up a certain school if his Mother didn't have guns in the house
#645 to #535 - killyojoy (12/16/2012) [-]
He got those guns illegally ******** .
User avatar #646 to #645 - iAmAWizard (12/16/2012) [-]
He mainly used a rifle, which belonged to his mother, who, thanks to the law, had them conveniently in the house.

******** .
#647 to #646 - killyojoy (12/16/2012) [-]
Well Prehaps if his mother-in-law new how to proparly lock a gun up then we would not have these sort of problems
User avatar #539 to #535 - syrenthra ONLINE (12/16/2012) [-]
Perhaps if some responsible citizen could carry a pistol near the school they could have gone and stopped 20 children from being killed
0
#534 - tehlulzbringer has deleted their comment [-]
#530 - anonymous (12/16/2012) [-]
Actually, Over 1/2 of criminals using guns obtained their firearms legally.
Statistics, ************ .
User avatar #552 to #530 - littlenish (12/16/2012) [-]
If they're criminals, they will those fire arms for illegal things.

Logic, ************ .
#562 to #552 - kez (12/16/2012) [-]
I have never heard of a massacre like that happening in the UK and we dont have guns.

I have heard of about 3 in the last 5 years in the US and they do have guns.

They are a problematic factor. But thats not to say banning guns is going to stop that as its not the only main factor.

The 2nd ammendment is one of the stupidest things ever conceived though
User avatar #572 to #562 - littlenish (12/16/2012) [-]
1. You guys have access to explosives. There have been a few bombings in the UK that I've heard of.

2. Yes, there are alot of idiots in the US that decide to shoot up ****

3. Noone said banning guns will stop *******

4. The constitution was written almost 200 years ago, when the US and Britain were warring over the freedom of the colonies.
#586 to #572 - kez (12/16/2012) [-]
Bombings by terrorists. We do not have access to explosives either. Where did that come from? Nothing major anyways.

You cannot ban explosives anyway. They are made from chemical reactions. It makes no sense. How can you ban someone doing science. And you cannot ban elements because they are part of everything and in the air.

You want to ban air?
User avatar #602 to #586 - littlenish (12/16/2012) [-]
Ileagally obtain explosives. I also did not know that STABLE gases caused chemical reactions. And, I did not know that we are breathing in tons of transition metals.
#604 to #602 - kez (12/16/2012) [-]
Oxygen retard
User avatar #606 to #604 - littlenish (12/16/2012) [-]
You also forgot that the air is not only made of oxygen, but consists mostly of nitrogen. And again, I never said anything about banning anything, stop saying things that I never said.
#529 - draxdiesel (12/16/2012) [-]
this argument is total 						********					. anyone with internet access and ten seconds spare can find the firearm related death figures for all countries in the world which puts the usa up there with countries like south africa and the phillipines with 9 deaths per 100,000 each year. the uk has 0.22 and germany which is considered to have a problem with gun crime has 1.1.    
TL:DR- this is an argument used by brainless rednecks who haven't bothered to put in five seconds of research to realise they're talking total codswallop.
this argument is total ******** . anyone with internet access and ten seconds spare can find the firearm related death figures for all countries in the world which puts the usa up there with countries like south africa and the phillipines with 9 deaths per 100,000 each year. the uk has 0.22 and germany which is considered to have a problem with gun crime has 1.1.
TL:DR- this is an argument used by brainless rednecks who haven't bothered to put in five seconds of research to realise they're talking total codswallop.
User avatar #528 - colegaleener (12/16/2012) [-]
"We need to make bullets cost $5000 dollars. I'd kill you, if I could afford it!" -Chris Rock
+4
#524 - whalewhalewhale **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #531 to #524 - asschwitz (12/16/2012) [-]
Well, think about it this way, if you ban guns, taking them away from law-abiding citizens, who is going to have guns? Criminals. And if criminals know they are the only ones with guns, and that it is very unlikely there victim would retaliate with lethal force, crime will go up. And don't even say anything about the police, because how many times do the police actually show up while the guy is still there?
#571 to #531 - kez (12/16/2012) [-]
England doesnt have guns and I never have to fear of being shot.

Only brutaly stabbed.

But I much prefer that. I can also run away from a guy with a knife and the chance of dying from being stabbed is so much less than being shot.
User avatar #585 to #571 - asschwitz (12/16/2012) [-]
Problem is, citizens have had guns in the U.S. Since, well the beginning. We aren't going to go back, and infact, it was your country that caused us to create the second amendment. It was put in place to forcibly remove the government if needed. The only reason we were able to fight the Revolutionary War and become our own country, was because most citizens had guns at them time, and if you look back, not many criminals went around breaking into people's houses and stealing things, because chances were the guy in the house had a loaded rifle sitting next to his bed.
#595 to #585 - kez (12/16/2012) [-]
Yeah i understand that you have guns due to it being a founding part of your nation. But times have changed. And you can rely on the government (within reason) to protect your property and lives. I dont understand why so many Americans think for this day and age that giving everyone a load of power in the form of a weapon so people mad at the world can easily take brutal revenge before they have had time to cool down.

If I was angry and just wanted to kill people and then myself I would have so much trouble doing so and by the time I managed to somehow get a gun (I have zero idea how to even get near one yet alone get one) I would have cooled down.

With everyone having guns anyone can grab it within a couple seconds and change so many lives for the worse
User avatar #610 to #595 - asschwitz (12/16/2012) [-]
We can't really rely on our government. Not to protect us against domestic threats( Each other) at least. For instance, when someone breaks into your house, and steals everything, and you call the police, the first thing they do is start taking the report. Instead of sending someone after the guys, they write down what happened, say "Sorry, we'll see what we can do, and we'll notify if we find the guy" and leave. 75% of the time nothing gets done and your stuff isn't found or replaced. The police here are really bad, and don't do a good job at stopping the crime unless they happen to see it right in front of them and can react. Most mentally stable people won't just grab a gun and shoot up a school because they are angry. It's the psychotic mentally unstable people who do that. Banning guns won't do **** , putting restrictions on guns that require training and a test at how mentally stable you are does.
#612 to #610 - kez (12/16/2012) [-]
Things come and go, atleast no one dies. Most people are insured anyways so most their stuff will just be replaced for them.

Yeah i'm not saying banning guns is the thing to do either. Just making guns harder to get.

In england if someone breaks into my house and attacks me I will not feel safer knowing I have a gun if they also have one. I feel so much safer knowing neither of us have a gun and the most likely thing is that they will retreat and neither will attack each other as in a 1 on 1 melee fight anything can happen and its not worth them risking it.

If I had a gun and knew they also had a gun I would be looking to fire as soon as possible as they will be thinking the same and I dont want to die. Guns do not help and if they would, you're probably ****** anyways.
User avatar #617 to #612 - asschwitz (12/16/2012) [-]
I'd rather point and squeeze a trigger then get into a melee fight. Chances are, the other guy will be more fit than you, you'll probably loose. He'll also probably be hopped up on drugs, while you'll still be drowsy from waking up at 3AM to investigate a strange noise in your house. I would personally feel safer knowing I have something that can kill someone with a single pull of a trigger if that person was threatening me. Not mention, let's say I have a 12guage shotgun, one of the most common home defence weapons. I see the guy in my house rooting through a jewelry box. I walk up about 10 feet behind him and chamber a round, making the classic "Cch chh" sound, very audibly. Now, if I were the criminal, I'd instantly **** my pants, and get the hell out of there. I wouldn't really feel like having my head blown off my shoulders. In that situation, no shots were fired, no one was hurt, crisis avoided, at least for the mean time. Obviously, that's not how it would always go down, but if criminals new almost every house had a loaded shotgun/rifle/pistol in it, what do you think the chances of them wanting to risk there lives for a quick 50-100$ would be?
#623 to #617 - kez (12/16/2012) [-]
But you're thinking they are burglering because they want to get an easy $50.

They're probably doing it because they have no money. Robbing a shop would be more risky with the CCTVs and the fact that they will definitely have a weapon.

A house will be much less risky to rob. Now if I was a criminal and an angry man started waving a gun at me I would probably run but in some curcumstances I might miss read that as i'm about to die, might as well try to kill him first.

I went to Florida for 2 weeks and while I was there i heard on the news about someone being killed while burglering. I've lived in england for 21 years now and I have never heard of anyone being killed. Injured yes, killed no.

If you have two situations:
1- easy to kill each other
2- Hard to kill each other

And you repeat them thousands of times its obvious to see that the situations where its easy to kill each other is going to have more fatalities
User avatar #626 to #623 - asschwitz (12/16/2012) [-]
[url deleted]

Read that. If every citizen had a gun, or at least every homeowner, crime would plummet, because criminals will know that all citizens are armed, and will fight. I wouldn't break into a house knowing that the people living there are armed and willing to kill me the second I enter, would you?
#630 to #626 - kez (12/16/2012) [-]
They dont have a choice. This is the point. They almost definitely dont want to rob someone but when they have no other way to get money they have no choice.

Its not about just wanting more money, Its they either get more money or they and their family starve. Sure, it will probably decrease it slightly because some people wouldnt have the courage. But most will do what it takes for their family.
User avatar #636 to #630 - asschwitz (12/16/2012) [-]
You are saying that as if all criminals do it for their families, no, that's far from the case. They're some sadistic ***** in the world, who just enjoy seeing others in pain, in any way shape or form.
#632 to #630 - kez (12/16/2012) [-]
Crime will always happen as long as there is poverty and some people cannot feed themselves or their families while others around them can.
+1
#551 to #531 - whalewhalewhale **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #568 to #551 - asschwitz (12/16/2012) [-]
Of course good sir, but it makes a good point, however irritating it is. In my opinion, guns are like nukes, once you have em, you can't go back to not having them, because you can take em all away from yourself, the responsible one, but the other side will still have them, leaving you vulnerable. So you can't take them from yourself, otherwise you'll die. As long as criminals have guns, there will be a need for law-abiding citizens to have them, maybe not all, but enough to pose a threat to any criminal.
0
#587 to #568 - whalewhalewhale **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #594 to #587 - asschwitz (12/16/2012) [-]
No problem my fine friend, and I agree with you, there should be tighter restrictions in some areas, like the more densely populated ones. But where I live, gun laws (and all laws in general) are pretty lax, and we have a pretty low crime rate. The only crime we get is drug smuggling and usage, and human trafficing, and that's only because my states borders Mexico.
#522 - anonymous (12/16/2012) [-]
well if u stop selling guns in shops maybe they won't be able to get them
#559 to #522 - anonymous (12/16/2012) [-]
becaus all guns come from shops
User avatar #527 to #522 - graydiggy ONLINE (12/16/2012) [-]
Black market. Most guns that criminals get are stolen and sold on the black market. Banning guns would have no effect.
#580 to #527 - kez (12/16/2012) [-]
Thats not true. Its about half. And of those illegally used it wouldnt be much of a leap to say some of those would have been stolen from places such as shops or people who had their weapons legally
User avatar #533 to #527 - asschwitz (12/16/2012) [-]
Exactly.
User avatar #520 - giblets (12/16/2012) [-]
I live in the UK.
The only time I've ever seen a real gun was at this military thing, and I got to fire one that was loaded with blanks.
Other than that I've never seen one before, or since.


And I've never heard of anyone being shot to death anywhere near me.
User avatar #555 to #520 - goonmcnasty (12/16/2012) [-]
Same. I've seen two guns on armed guards in London.


I know of one guy who got shot in the arse over a minuscule drug issue, but everyone finds that hilarious.
#518 - timetravelzero (12/16/2012) [-]
I'll just leave this here...
[ 609 comments ]
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)