Gun Laws. . Nobody blamed the light saber.. This makes startling amounts of sense.


What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#514 - reallynotdashie (12/18/2012) [-]
No one blamed the force.
No one blamed the force.
#1068 to #514 - EdwardNigma ONLINE (12/19/2012) [-]
Boba Fett in the background.   
Boba Fett in the background.
User avatar #616 to #514 - organicglory (12/19/2012) [-]
Am I the only one that was more interested at the random body hurtling through the air in the background?
#15 - lucidria (12/18/2012) [-]
This image has expired
Yeah, and nobody blamed the dildo, either.
#530 - novaknightmare **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#573 to #530 - pedocommando (12/18/2012) [-]
ACTUALLY if ANY logic is to be in use, even with lightsaber regulations Anakin would have slain all their asses with his lightsaber anyway. I highly doubt a member of the Jedi Council would be denied the use of a lightsaber. (which Anakin was at the time on the council as a rep. of the chancellor)
#577 to #573 - novaknightmare **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#581 to #577 - pedocommando (12/18/2012) [-]
Just playing my role as a Starwars nerd of epic proportions.
Just playing my role as a Starwars nerd of epic proportions.
#8 - Muppetz (12/18/2012) [-]
This makes startling amounts of sense.
This makes startling amounts of sense.
#26 to #8 - loldonkaments (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
User avatar #155 to #26 - gytisout (12/18/2012) [-]
Not if he's using The Force.
#16 to #8 - Xepheros (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 (12/18/2012) [-]
The second amendment was put in place to protect against corrupt governments.
#53 to #27 - doctorlean **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#1057 to #958 - doctorlean **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#638 to #27 - Visual (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.
User avatar #653 to #638 - natedizzie (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 (12/19/2012) [-]
Good point, it was a stupid theory.
User avatar #361 to #16 - admiralen ONLINE (12/18/2012) [-]
the children had lightsabers too you know, didnt really help
#1147 to #361 - Xepheros (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.
#783 - konamicode (12/19/2012) [-]
>mfw comment section
>mfw comment section
#406 - DrWeird (12/18/2012) [-]
I came to the comments expecting a 			*********		.   
I was not disappointed.
I came to the comments expecting a ********* .

I was not disappointed.
#597 to #406 - elgringogordo **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#891 - schlecht (12/19/2012) [-]
Comment Picture
#1018 - SemiAnon (12/19/2012) [-]
I blamed Padme, because as always, a woman caused widescale suffering and the ushering in of a galactic dark age.
User avatar #872 - jibbablabba (12/19/2012) [-]
they even tried to say Video Games had a role in him shooting up the school.
yeah, the scent of ******** was so strong that i couldn't even eat my dinner because the smell overpowered my sense of taste.
#989 to #872 - bukkakeninja (12/19/2012) [-]
I got this **** , i wrote my research paper last year on video games and violence. The games of course don't make people want to get up and react the situations they see and act out in video games but it does desensitize us to the acts that occur in violent games. That desensitization mixed with other psychological problems what ever those may be and any family issues or social issues like social isolation can lead people to do this stuff. I'm not pinning anything on video games besides the fact that they do desensitize people to witnessing or even taking part in acts of a violent nature.
User avatar #1065 to #989 - jibbablabba (12/19/2012) [-]
finally someone is making sense around here
User avatar #931 to #872 - phsycocake (12/19/2012) [-]
yeah as some one who has grown up playing violent video games my entire life ive strangely never had the urge to go shoot up a place. unless that place is full of zombies in which case all bets are off
User avatar #944 to #931 - jibbablabba (12/19/2012) [-]
same. i was a kid, i played some gory **** . all that did was give me paranoia for about an hour.
unless it's a zombie or some dude trying to kill me, or an alien trying to kill me, i ain't shooting it.

don't even get me started on Mario Party 1. Nintendo was sued due to overreactive parents and pansies (the kids) they'd get blisters from the minigames where you rotate the stick. and either cry about it, or cause their parents to. Nintendo lost the suit and had to give out 1 million dollars as compensation as well as a glove for all the children involved.
me? i got blisters, but i didn't cry. that was like a badge of honor to me. no pain no gain. hell my mother would just say, "run some cold water on it" simplest remedy, no freaking out. no legal stuff.
#204 - russlenavy (12/18/2012) [-]
These aren't the comments you were looking for.
Move along.
#377 to #204 - EKcEntRIC (12/18/2012) [-]
you mother...damnit........
User avatar #1036 - factcube ONLINE (12/19/2012) [-]
**factcube rolls 55** Nobody blamed dubs.
#1054 to #1036 - anon (12/19/2012) [-]
**anonymous rolls 416** that's because they blamed it on trips.
User avatar #1180 to #1054 - factcube ONLINE (12/23/2012) [-]
**factcube rolls 779**
User avatar #866 - fukkentyranitar ONLINE (12/19/2012) [-]
Why not address the fact that Anakin was mentally unstable but still managed to get a lightsaber?
User avatar #876 to #866 - craaabs (12/19/2012) [-]
In defense of the jedi counsel, those whom gave him the lightsaber, he didn't show any signs of mental illness before. Nothing that warranted a removal of his lightsaber, anyway.
User avatar #923 to #876 - ninjastarthrow (12/19/2012) [-]
Yoda saw the signs but Qui Gon Jin was like " **** you, you pointy eared freak. I will train this boy." Then died and left him to Obi Wan.
User avatar #1176 to #923 - craaabs (12/20/2012) [-]
Well, yeah, but Yoda is the wisest of the jedi order. If they really knew he was going to kill a class of children, they would have done something for sure.
User avatar #896 to #876 - fukkentyranitar ONLINE (12/19/2012) [-]
I'm no Star Wars aficionado, however, I'm adamant they didn't access his mental stability when they let him make his light saber.
#909 to #896 - anon (12/19/2012) [-]
He was perfectly sane when he created his lightsaber, theoretically.

They just failed at checking up on him.
User avatar #1177 to #909 - craaabs (12/20/2012) [-]
This guy's correct.
#916 to #909 - fukkentyranitar ONLINE (12/19/2012) [-]
I was not aware of that. They really should do inspections more often.
#796 - DrPeppir (12/19/2012) [-]
Comment Picture
#762 - snakefire (12/19/2012) [-]
Nobody blames the knifegun
User avatar #1151 to #762 - knifegun ONLINE (12/19/2012) [-]
#773 to #762 - neoexdeath (12/19/2012) [-]
Translation: This will vastly revolutionize our way of life! Truly this is an invention for the ages!

Translation: This will vastly revolutionize our way of life! Truly this is an invention for the ages!
#499 - jakstoir (12/18/2012) [-]
**jakstoir rolled a random image posted in comment #121 at Toughtful pup ** mfw lightsabers don't kill people
User avatar #491 - LiamNeeson (12/18/2012) [-]
Looking at the top comments, ignoring the jedi comments, people on both arguing sides seem to forget something.
The real reason the 2nd amendment was made was because the founding fathers wanted the people to have a way to fight the government if they ever got out of hand (communist/dictatorship etc.) That's why they thought it was so important, not because Americans like to shoot up **** .
User avatar #897 to #491 - pokemonstheshiz ONLINE (12/19/2012) [-]
Not entirely. It was mostly because there wasn't an established military yet, they wanted the men to have a way to defend their country from invaders. There wasn't a "take back the government thing" because they designed the system to be the will of the people. Political powers to give and take away government positions were given to the people so they choose their own government.
#604 to #491 - trenchman (12/19/2012) [-]
Of course, that doesn't mean that shooting up 			****		 ISN'T fun...
Of course, that doesn't mean that shooting up **** ISN'T fun...
#272 - anon (12/18/2012) [-]
When I heard about the shooting. My first statement was, 'He just Anakin Skywalkered the place.' My family had a wtf face. Funnyjunk, what have you done to me?
#288 to #272 - doctorlean **User deleted account** Comment deleted by Abandoned [-]
User avatar #292 to #288 - kevintk (12/18/2012) [-]
Wait so not feeling any emotion for the whole shooting means you're a man? You must have had a pretty ****** up childhood.
User avatar #42 - tolazytomakename (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.
#418 to #42 - anon (12/18/2012) [-]
Very true, however you answer your own argument. Was it okay to ban Kinder Eggs? I ******* LOVED THOSE.
User avatar #91 to #42 - thepyras (12/18/2012) [-]
Kinder Eggs were not banned. Having non-edible toys inside candy has always been illegal in the US.
User avatar #45 to #42 - retris (12/18/2012) [-]
and yet marijuana has never killed anyone and it's still illegal
#49 to #45 - doctorlean **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #97 to #42 - semisane (12/18/2012) [-]
You can't protect yourself with a kinder egg...
User avatar #118 to #42 - lillpip (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.
User avatar #527 to #118 - tomainstream (12/18/2012) [-]
Or in their assholes
User avatar #565 to #118 - uncalledforgiraffe (12/18/2012) [-]
I can't tell if you're arguing with him or agreeing with him.
User avatar #839 to #565 - lillpip (12/19/2012) [-]
Eh, not really arguing, but I'm not agreeing.

Disagreeing? I guess?
User avatar #881 to #839 - uncalledforgiraffe (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.
User avatar #892 to #881 - lillpip (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.
User avatar #874 to #839 - uncalledforgiraffe (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.
User avatar #887 to #874 - lillpip (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.
User avatar #898 to #887 - uncalledforgiraffe (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?
User avatar #907 to #898 - lillpip (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.
User avatar #956 to #907 - uncalledforgiraffe (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.
User avatar #960 to #956 - lillpip (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.
User avatar #994 to #960 - uncalledforgiraffe (12/19/2012) [-]
What are the chances of a teacher having that?
User avatar #1062 to #994 - lillpip (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?
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)