Gun Laws. . Nobody blamed the light saber.. This makes startling amounts of sense. Gun Laws Nobody blamed the light saber This makes startling amounts of sense
Upload
Login or register
Leave a comment Refresh Comments (1033)
[ 1033 comments ]
Anonymous comments allowed.
75 comments displayed.
#8 - Muppetz
Reply +212
(12/18/2012) [-]
This makes startling amounts of sense.
This makes startling amounts of sense.
#26 to #8 - loldonkaments
Reply +1
(12/18/2012) [-]
the fun point is, that it makes no sense. it is way more difficult for a guy to kill 50 people with a sword, axe or knife than with a gun
#155 to #26 - gytisout
Reply +6
(12/18/2012) [-]
Not if he's using The Force.
#16 to #8 - Xepheros
Reply +46
(12/18/2012) [-]
It would have, if Lightsabers weren't extremely regulated in that universe and coincidentally, the only time there was a recorded school massacre in which one was used, it was by government order.

Point: Lightsaber regulations worked flawlessly, and corrupt governments suck.
#27 to #16 - anon
Reply 0
(12/18/2012) [-]
The second amendment was put in place to protect against corrupt governments.
#53 to #27 - doctorlean [OP] **User deleted account**
+18
has deleted their comment [-]
#958 to #53 - achian
Reply +2
(12/19/2012) [-]
#1057 to #958 - doctorlean [OP] **User deleted account**
0
has deleted their comment [-]
#638 to #27 - Visual
Reply +2
(12/19/2012) [-]
The amendment sounds cool and all, but let's think about it.

How are people supposed to protect themselves from a corrupt government if the government has death machines and weapons of mass destruction and all we have are some rifles?...

The original concept sounds good on paper, but we'd probably be ****** if the government really wanted to **** over it's population.
#653 to #638 - natedizzie
Reply +1
(12/19/2012) [-]
Do you really think that is how its going to happen?
If only 20% americans fought you would still have 60000000 people fighting each one armed with a semi automatic rifle is a pretty deadly force.
Then you say jets tanks and bombs!
Well yes they have them but they wont use them
1) If the government started bombing and using missiles against the resistance the rest of America would grow tired and join the resistance America economy would crumble no one would work out of fear.
2) Nukes? whats the point I'm a dictator so I'm going to destroy all the people and land i control. They wouldn't do it.
Eventually with no one producing goods their armies would starve and abandon the dictator leaving him defenseless.
#656 to #653 - Visual
Reply +2
(12/19/2012) [-]
Good point, it was a stupid theory.
#361 to #16 - admiralen
Reply -1
(12/18/2012) [-]
the children had lightsabers too you know, didnt really help
#1147 to #361 - Xepheros
Reply -1
(12/19/2012) [-]
The children had training lightsabers. The training ones can't harm anyone, and they definately couldn't use them to defend themselves against a strong jedi.
#42 - tolazytomakename
Reply +184
(12/18/2012) [-]
One Kid dies from a Kinder Egg, and they ban them all. 20 die from a gun and the same people say we should get more guns. America, get your **** together.
#45 to #42 - retris
Reply -2
(12/18/2012) [-]
and yet marijuana has never killed anyone and it's still illegal
#49 to #45 - doctorlean [OP] **User deleted account**
-2
has deleted their comment [-]
#91 to #42 - thepyras
Reply -2
(12/18/2012) [-]
Kinder Eggs were not banned. Having non-edible toys inside candy has always been illegal in the US.
#418 to #42 - anon
Reply 0
(12/18/2012) [-]
Very true, however you answer your own argument. Was it okay to ban Kinder Eggs? I ******* LOVED THOSE.
#97 to #42 - semisane
Reply +9
(12/18/2012) [-]
You can't protect yourself with a kinder egg...
#118 to #42 - lillpip
Reply +14
(12/18/2012) [-]
One kid dies from a kinder egg because he's stupid enough to eat the ******* toy.

It's not like 20 kindergartners were like "We should totally shoot ourselves in the face."

Imagine banning Kinder Eggs because some psycho came into a school and shoved the toys inside down the kids throats.
#527 to #118 - tomainstream
Reply +11
(12/18/2012) [-]
Or in their assholes
#529 to #527 - lillpip
Reply +9
(12/18/2012) [-]
#565 to #118 - uncalledforgiraffe
Reply +2
(12/18/2012) [-]
I can't tell if you're arguing with him or agreeing with him.
#839 to #565 - lillpip
Reply +1
(12/19/2012) [-]
Eh, not really arguing, but I'm not agreeing.

Disagreeing? I guess?
#881 to #839 - uncalledforgiraffe
Reply +1
(12/19/2012) [-]
I actually don't entirely know what I was trying to say there. Don't hold it against me if it doesn't make sense.
#892 to #881 - lillpip
Reply +1
(12/19/2012) [-]
Lol, it's cool. I was just saying that in terms of the person(s) who died in both cases, the blame was on the deceased for the egg, and not for the gun.
#874 to #839 - uncalledforgiraffe
Reply +1
(12/19/2012) [-]
Well by arguing I meant disagreeing. It just sounds to me like your furthering his point almost.

They banned Kinder Eggs. It's not like every kid was thinking "let me shove the whole thing down my throat.".
But with guns it's not like every gun owner is thinking "let me shoot up a school.".
What he's saying is that it's stupid they ban something after 1 death but won't after 20 deaths (countless more if you throw in all gun related deaths).

If you think banning Kinder Eggs is justified but not guns in comparison then I really don't understand what's going on in your head.
#887 to #874 - lillpip
Reply +1
(12/19/2012) [-]
No, what I was saying is that the death due to kinder eggs was the users fault, not the company. I don't think Kinder eggs should have been banned, you can choke on a ******* goldfish just as easily. But he's saying that 1 death from the eggs gets them banned, but 20 from a gun doesn't. It's not the people that died's fault for dieing, it's the dumbass with the gun. It's just a tool, not a ******* mass murdering robot.
#898 to #887 - uncalledforgiraffe
Reply +2
(12/19/2012) [-]
A person misused the egg; Banned.
A person misused a gun; Not banned.

It shouldn't matter who killed them, whether it be themselves or another, if the problem is large enough and persists then why not ban it?
#907 to #898 - lillpip
Reply +1
(12/19/2012) [-]
That's the same stuff I'm saying, from the other side of the coin.

The people that were victims during the misuse of the gun were not at fault. If guns were banned, and a criminal managed to get a hold of another gun, who's to stop them? The person with another gun? They wouldn't be able to due to their lack of protection. Stuff like what happened with the kindergartners is publicized because Obama doesn't want guns, and this is a perfect argument to use against them. While on the other hand, stuff like this You need to login to view this link happens a lot too, and you NEVER hear about it, because it shows how useful a gun can be.
#956 to #907 - uncalledforgiraffe
Reply +1
(12/19/2012) [-]
The police would stop them? I'm sure there's plenty of occasions where a civilian with a gun stopped a criminal but most of the time I reeaallly doubt thats the case. The police are the majority of what stops them. And yes you're right, if guns are banned criminals will still get guns. But that would be much harder. I doubt many people would go out of their way to do so. A 17 year old who is angry at their school probably won't have the knowledge, persistence, or ability to get a gun to shoot their school when it would be so difficult to acquire a gun.
#960 to #956 - lillpip
Reply 0
(12/19/2012) [-]
Okay, but let's say he did. Plenty of people were still killed before the cops could get to them. How many do you think would have died if one of the teachers had a gun locked up in her desk? Definitely not as many as there were.
#994 to #960 - uncalledforgiraffe
Reply +1
(12/19/2012) [-]
What are the chances of a teacher having that?
#1062 to #994 - lillpip
Reply 0
(12/19/2012) [-]
That's what I'm saying. Teachers should have guns locked away in case something like this happens. Instead of disarming everyone, how about we arm them instead?
#15 - lucidria
Reply +63
(12/18/2012) [-]
This image has expired
Yeah, and nobody blamed the dildo, either.
#10 - mattdoggy ONLINE
Reply +51
(12/18/2012) [-]
This is the best thing ive seen dealing with gun laws ever.    
You are my hero for the day sir
This is the best thing ive seen dealing with gun laws ever.
You are my hero for the day sir
#11 to #10 - doctorlean [OP] **User deleted account**
0
Comment deleted by Abandoned [-]
#21 - acfurryface
Reply +39
(12/18/2012) [-]
But if the lightsaber wasn't there, he couldn't have killed them so quickly.
#25 to #21 - holdup
0
Comment deleted by Abandoned [-]
#123 to #21 - heytheremister
Reply 0
(12/18/2012) [-]
He could probably just force throw them everywhere.....Or...regular throw them. I mean. They are just kids.
#161 to #21 - rhonin
Reply 0
(12/18/2012) [-]
People are still going to get lightsabers if you ban them.

Just like with the alchohol banning.


GET YOUR **** TOGETHER GOKU!
#890 to #161 - pokemonstheshiz
Reply 0
(12/19/2012) [-]
the point is that less do
#902 to #21 - anon
Reply 0
(12/19/2012) [-]
You can make VERY powerful bombs with bleach, salt substitute, Vaseline, metal piping, a few other comm goods, and some know-how. Banning guns would just get people to use bombs again, which he could have thrown one in each classroom and killed the whole ******* school with. Guns aren't these awful killing machines, household objects are.

It's also very fun light these and throw them in ditches and stuff if you live in a remote area. Except you don't want metal piping, have a plastic or cardboard or something else so there isn't any/much shrapnel.
#1055 to #902 - lordmoldywart
Reply -1
(12/19/2012) [-]
You can't ban those products though - they have other practical uses

Unlike guns, their only use is to kill
#1110 to #1055 - anon
Reply 0
(12/19/2012) [-]
You seem to dense to grasp my point. A gun's purpose, aside from hunting/recreation, is to defend yourself from other individuals and threats both foreign and domestic.
When you have someone mad like that who creates very simple chemical bombs bursting through the door of a building you're in, what are you going to do? The police will take at least 10 minutes to respond, you could all be dead and they could have escaped by then. Or you could get your ASSAUHULT WAPEON and kill the ******.
What about WW2 Germany? Those Jews didn't need any guns, right! Especially anything with high capacity magazines or anything! they could have went on a shooting rampage! We need to take all the guns away from German citizens because the fuhrer says they're only used to kill and have no legitimate use!
Either stop being such a reactionary and illogical fool who's blind to the world or kindly go **** yourself.
#1174 to #21 - supermegasherman
Reply 0
(12/20/2012) [-]
force choke?
#22 to #21 - doctorlean [OP] **User deleted account**
+23
has deleted their comment [-]
#28 to #22 - josephgrove **User deleted account**
+3
has deleted their comment [-]
#23 to #22 - acfurryface
0
Comment deleted by Abandoned [-]
#24 to #23 - doctorlean [OP] **User deleted account**
-1
Comment deleted by Abandoned [-]
#264 - sheeplviolator
Reply +37
(12/18/2012) [-]
#988 to #264 - srskate ONLINE
Reply 0
(12/19/2012) [-]
That's the exact reason people believe gun regulation will work.
Bravo
Youve won the whole argument.
This whole post can deleted now because you posted that one picture.
#783 - konamicode
Reply +34
(12/19/2012) [-]
>mfw comment section
>mfw comment section
#246 - chevelleguy
Reply +34
(12/18/2012) [-]
Day they ban guns is the day we take back our goverment
#250 to #246 - doctorlean [OP] **User deleted account**
-2
Comment deleted by Abandoned [-]
#560 to #246 - whiteyswag
Reply -2
(12/18/2012) [-]
come and take it.
#630 to #560 - chevelleguy
Reply 0
(12/19/2012) [-]
its not yet time
#619 to #246 - graphically
Reply -2
(12/19/2012) [-]
You're using the logic of a first grader.

Please do go on though about how all criminals that have broken the law are the same and that there's no difference between a premeditated murder and a heat of passion murder.
#628 to #619 - chevelleguy
Reply -2
(12/19/2012) [-]
do you drive a car?
#665 to #628 - graphically
Reply -1
(12/19/2012) [-]
But even though I don't drive, it's pretty obvious where you're going to try to take this conversation, but even if you do, you're still ignoring the significant difference between premeditated murder and heat of passion murder, and how heat of passion murder would dramatically decrease if guns were made inaccessible to people who can get easily caught up in a moment, over react and recklessly fire their weapons.
#1101 to #665 - thesnarfalarker
Reply 0
(12/19/2012) [-]
they can still kill the guy if they wanted to
#1128 to #1101 - graphically
Reply 0
(12/19/2012) [-]
Heat of Passion murders are much more difficult to commit let alone occur when there aren't guns involved.
#633 to #628 - graphically
Reply -1
(12/19/2012) [-]
No. I live in New York City, I take the subways/walk everywhere. You'd be stupid to waste our money on a car here.
#1059 to #246 - lordmoldywart
Reply -1
(12/19/2012) [-]
UK - strictest gun laws in the world

8 gun-related crimes in October 2012, compared to the 10,000+ in the US

Facts, gotta love 'em
#1134 to #1059 - chevelleguy
Reply +1
(12/19/2012) [-]
UK doesnt have as many *******
#378 to #246 - notaperv
Reply 0
(12/18/2012) [-]
It would prevent every other simpleton who just feels like stirring up society 'cause he's bored from grabbing a gun from his local shop and going pruppruprurprurpru at somebody. Just saiyan
#602 to #378 - elgringogordo **User deleted account**
+5
has deleted their comment [-]
#13 - waffies
Reply +34
(12/18/2012) [-]
Because lightsabers are government issue only, and there's no need to restrict them
Because lightsabers are government issue only, and there's no need to restrict them
#654 - Cilreve
Reply +30
(12/19/2012) [-]
Lets say we are talking about someone who does not have access to guns because they have been banned. But this person is still bent on retribution, retaliation, or just mentally ill. He wants to kill people. He will find a way. It doesn't matter how he does what ever it is. Now lets say, okay, he can't get guns, but he reads some books, looks around online, and learns how to make fertilizer bombs. Or maybe a chemical bomb made from the **** underneath most people's kitchen sinks. This is something INCREDIBLY simple. He plants this bomb in a school, or a mall, or another place of meeting. This bomb will go off, and it will kill mass amounts of people UNLESS it is found. Nothing can stop it except for finding it and disarming it.

Now lets say this same person DID get a hold of guns. He runs in to a mall and starts shooting people. This form kills selectively, randomly, but mostly it CAN BE STOPPED. The gunman is still just a man, and he can be brought down, tackled, shot by officer or citizen, knifed, what have you.

Now which would you prefer?
Case 1: Either lots of people die or no one dies; luck is a huge factor.
Case 2: The degree of death is purely dependent on the reactions of the people present.

I know which I would prefer, and I care not for other's opinions of the matter. As such I will not be responding to any replies. I'm simply stating this scenario for people to think about.

Banning guns won't solve anything. It is a social matter, not a mechanical matter. As a free country we will just have to deal with things like this. We CANNOT afford to give up more rights simply because we are scared. I am not saying that we should be cold and heartless. It is terrible when things like this happen, and they should never happen. The simply fact, though, is that this stuff cannot be stopped simply by banning a method for it. People will kill people and that is all there is to it. The only true way to stop it is to reform the people's minds.
#933 to #654 - Canucklehead
Reply -2
(12/19/2012) [-]
That's the stupidest ******* **** I've ever heard. You should be embarrassed. This whole website should be embarrassed.

Someone wants to go on a killing spree, but he can't get a gun, so he is automatically going to decide to change the outlook of his whole plan and plant a bomb? It's much more likely he goes on a killing spree with a ******** weapon. Like the guy in China who stabbed 22 kids in an elementary school.

Lol, a guy walks into a mall with a gun, and it can be stopped? Are you serious? Yes, maybe compared to a bomb. If the knee jerk reaction of a guy who wants to go on a shooting spree is to make a bomb instead. If he wanted to go the bomb route, his intentions would be much different in the first place. These guys are usually people who want to go on a shooting spree for a specific reason. To get a feeling from their murders they would not get from something that would be more effective. Yes he wants to kill people. But he wants to do it in a specific way. A bomb would be way more effective. But these sick ***** usually don't want that. A guy who plants a bomb is the kind of guy who tries to get away. Not the kind of guy that plans to commit suicide after he is done seeing people slaughtered in front of his eyes.

You're just twisting stuff to conform it to your view point. The psychology of a guy who goes on a shooting spree is much different from a guy who plants a bomb. I highly doubt you are going to get an increase in dangerous events like bomb blasts if you reduce the efficiency of a shooting spree.

Get it together.
#763 to #654 - olinerocks
Reply -1
(12/19/2012) [-]
mfw I realize i just read a well-formed, eloquent response that I can totally agree with
mfw I realize i just read a well-formed, eloquent response that I can totally agree with
#689 to #654 - anon
Reply 0
(12/19/2012) [-]
Well said.
#761 to #654 - turbontine
Reply 0
(12/19/2012) [-]
Brilliant. In addition, do you think people who want to shoot people follow the law? It would be just like illegal drugs, people who want them can get them. The only thing it changes is it takes away people's way of protecting themselves and their house. Don't you agree?
#869 to #654 - anon
Reply 0
(12/19/2012) [-]
I'm sure banning guns wont stop people from getting them, but I think they should be a lot harder to get for the average joe. Plus the person who does get them should be checked thoroughly and regularly. That should hopefully lessen the shootings.
And as for your scenario. If this hypothetical killer wanted to build a bomb, he would of built a bomb. Its just easy to get a gun.
#937 to #869 - Canucklehead
Reply 0
(12/19/2012) [-]
This. Seriously.