not funny. sad truths makes me feel... Except he didn't stop . The guy killed 2 people and wounded 7 others after bludgeoning his mother to death and got "stopped" when he was driving away  joel myrick prin
Upload
Login or register
Leave a comment Refresh Comments (492)
[ 492 comments ]
Anonymous comments allowed.
136 comments displayed.
#5 - gammajk ONLINE
Reply +102
(12/18/2012) [-]
Except he didn't stop ****. The guy killed 2 people and wounded 7 others after bludgeoning his mother to death and got "stopped" when he was driving away to go to a different area.
Once again, you ******* dumb ***** are focusing on HURR DURR USE GUNZ TO STOP DA SHOTERS instead of focusing on the real causes of the problem. Want to know what the cause was? Here's a note the kid left his friend before going on the shooting:
"I am not insane, I am angry.I am a cross dresser. I killed because people like me are mistreated every day. I did this to show society, push us and we will push back. ... All throughout my life, I was ridiculed, always beaten, always hated. Can you, society, truly blame me for what I do? Yes, you will. ... It was not a cry for attention, it was not a cry for help. It was a scream in sheer agony saying that if you can't pry your eyes open, if I can't do it through pacifism, if I can't show you through the displaying of intelligence, then I will do it with a bullet."

Yeah, he sounds like a normal, well-adjusted human being, doesn't he? Maybe focus on the fact that he probably has mild autism and severe depression instead of THE WAY THAT WE DEAL WITH IT AFTER IT'S ALREADY TOO LATE.
#6 to #5 - locuples
Reply 0
(12/18/2012) [-]
Seems like I'm not the only one that just read the wikipedia entry of this incident because that picture stank of biased "truths".
#8 to #5 - Fgner
Reply 0
(12/18/2012) [-]
You don't need a gun to go on a killing rampage to be honest. Go run people over in a car, chainsaw it up, or who's going to say no to a crazy guy with a makeshift bomb? I mean, humans have done pretty well murdering each other the thousands of years before guns were invented. If nobody has a gun, sure, nobody will get shot. But that's not going to stop all the violence and death. It'll just use a different medium.

Plus, criminals have this tendency to break the law. I wonder why someone obviously on a mission for murder wouldn't want to follow the law. Europe has much worse/more (I forget which) public shootings than the U.S. But I blame that on overzealous gun laws (cops can't have guns except a couple special times).

I don't own a gun, but I believe in the right to defend yourself and accept the inevitability that crazy/malicious people will always exist. When I have a wife, I'll most likely want her to carry a small firearm with her at all times, just in case. I believe that gun laws should be stricter, but a bit. And that the laws and procedures regarding people committing crimes with weapons should be much heavier.
#202 to #8 - anon
Reply 0
(12/19/2012) [-]
Europe doesn't have more school shootings than the US i call ********

And when is the last time you heard of someone killing 20 people in one day with a knife.
people aren't saying stopping guns is gonna stop murder but it will reduce there ability to do so.
#228 to #202 - dankfrank
Reply +1
(12/19/2012) [-]
22 children and elderly woman stabbed outside primary school by Chinese knifeman

Happened the same day as the school shooting! Checkmate
#283 to #228 - anon
Reply 0
(12/19/2012) [-]
There were 0 deaths.
#302 to #283 - dankfrank
Reply 0
(12/19/2012) [-]
But I can guarantee his intent was to kill.
Just because it wasnt an effective weapon doesnt mean ****.

#365 to #302 - anon
Reply 0
(12/19/2012) [-]
So we have two disturbed individuals, both of whom decided to assault a school.

In one of the incidents, almost everyone died. In the other, no one died. The primary difference between the two was the weapon used.

You think that "doesn't mean ****"?

#24 to #8 - anon
Reply 0
(12/18/2012) [-]
You forgot all the examples? Funny, cause I live in Europe and I sure as hell haven't heard about those crazy shootings you are mentioning...
#27 to #24 - Fgner
Reply 0
(12/18/2012) [-]
www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/06/10/john-lott-america-gun-ban-murders-multiple-victim-public-shootings-europe/

Couldn't remember the name of the shooting, but just Googling "EU public shooting" gives me this article as the #1. Google is a wonderful tool, you should use it some time.
#370 to #27 - anon
Reply 0
(12/19/2012) [-]
It sure is.

[url deleted]
#10 to #8 - gammajk ONLINE
Reply 0
(12/18/2012) [-]
So why not actually try to deal with the root of evil/crazy/maliciousness instead of just killing them and saying "it will always exist".
#11 to #10 - Fgner
Reply +1
(12/18/2012) [-]
Because the root of evil/crazy/maliciousness is the very existence of the mind. Deep neurological issues and unmovable psychological ideas are the reasons people do these things. It's not some societal thing you can change, to fix these problems you would have to fix the human brain itself.

And if you did fix these aspects of it, you will have stripped away the free will of man. It's because we can decide and choose that we can do things like this. We can rationalize insanity within ourselves, this man truly believed with every ounce of his being that murdering all those people was the only way. And there are many worse cases out there.

And how would you even diagnose these conditions? Because people can lie and decide for themselves, you can't actually often determine this homicidal insanity until an attempt has been committed.

You can fix society as much as you want, but there will always be the crazies, and they will always find something. It's human nature, it's human biology. Don't try to make me the bad guy for making you admit the fact that humans have constantly found ways to murder and kill for thousands of years, and that crazy people will always exist and find a way. You can't fix the problems we're talking about. Never.
#114 to #11 - gammajk ONLINE
Reply 0
(12/19/2012) [-]
But the problem is that these cases CAN be fixed. Murdering innocent people isn't something that rational people do, and irrationality can be spotted. Education is the key here - a more well educated public trained to spot behaviours typical of schizophrenia, depression and other major disorders will be able to "fix" people before they do something this drastic. These "deep neurological issues" can be treated and there's no such thing as an "unmovable psychological idea".
Free will of man my ass, they're taking away the free will of others by, you know, slaughtering them.
You can be as pessimistic as you like, but claiming that the disorders that cause people to murder are unfixable is ignorant and just plain wrong.
#167 to #114 - revanthewin
Reply 0
(12/19/2012) [-]
Alright, if someone's schizophrenic, and someone else can tell that he is, then the crazy guy gets medication. A few years go by and one day maybe forgets to take his medication or maybe he gets worse. Then he goes and shoots some people anyway.

Also just because they kill a lot of people doesn't mean they're crazy. You can right that off as a convenient excuse, but that doesn't mean they're 100% crazy. They can go kill a ton of people just because they're angry. There's no way to treat a disorder, there's no way to "fix" them. They're just angry.
#270 to #167 - revanthewin
Reply 0
(12/19/2012) [-]
Really? Normal people, under no circumstances murder anyone else? There's never been a single person in the history of the all of humanity who killed someone else for any other reason besides that they had a mental disorder.

And I do believe that they don't have to happen, but they still do, and nothing will change that. Even if someone does have schizophrenia, and they do get help for it, that isn't a sure guarantee that they won't snap and start killing people. Someone could start ******* with them about it and make them do it. Also, I said crazy because schizophrenia is a really long ******* word, and I didn't want to type in schizophrenia more than once, but if you want me to I could type schizophrenia more than once to avoid any confusion about what I mean when I'm talking about schizophrenia.

And last, you want me to find a shooting that doesn't involve someone with a mental disorder? Fine, I already found one. It's right above us. Didn't say anything about any mental disorders or anything. He was just some guy who people ****** with a lot. If he even had any mental disorder, it could have even been caused by people ******* with him.

P.S. I can tell from the way you write off people who shoot other people as schizophrenic that you really have no idea as to why people go on these shooting sprees in the first place.
#230 to #167 - gammajk ONLINE
Reply -1
(12/19/2012) [-]
You still don't get it. Why are you refusing to even consider the idea that these shootings don't HAVE to happen?
I can tell by the way you write off people with schizophrenia as "crazy" that you really have no idea as to why people go on these shooting sprees in the first place. Go look at some records of these mass shootings, and tell me how many you find that DON'T have some sort of mental disorder. These aren't normal people who just "get angry", normal people DON'T MURDER.
#417 to #230 - Fgner
Reply 0
(12/19/2012) [-]
George Hennard. He even let a woman and her child leave.
Jivverly Wong. He was an immigrant and was just having a tough time fitting in - for years. Said he felt "degraded and disrespected" in America. A bitter, unlucky man. But not insane.
Howard Unruh. Poor kid got teased for years. About being a mama's boy, about (not true) him being homosexual, One day he comes home from the movies, and someone had stolen his new gate. He got into his best suit, got his mom out (through threats of course), had breakfast, and went out to kill those who had made fun of him. He killed innocent people who stood in his way. A cop even said "You a phyco?" after the killings, he responded: "I'm no phyco. I have a good mind." Is he insane - of course not. Who wouldn't snap after years of nonstop emotional and mental abuse.

www.buzzfeed.com/craigslistkiller/the-normal-lives-of-10-notorious-serial-killers

And those are just SERIAL KILLERS and MASS MURDERERS. Let's not even bring in the one time murderers, domestic abusers, blah blah blah. Maybe you should grow up and know what you are talking about before you start blabbering your mouth like you know what's going on.
#427 to #417 - gammajk ONLINE
Reply -1
(12/19/2012) [-]
I don't think you understand the difference between "insanity" and "mental illness".
#430 to #427 - Fgner
Reply 0
(12/19/2012) [-]
Insane:
Seriously mentally ill.
They're synonyms you idiot. Why don't you try countering the sound arguments we all provided instead of arguing semantics like a child.
#477 to #430 - gammajk ONLINE
Reply -1
(12/19/2012) [-]
Because it's people like you who write off everybody that does these things as "crazy" or "insane" that DIRECTLY CAUSE THEM TO AVOID SEEKING HELP. ******* morons like you label them, provide them with a negative connotation, you laugh at them, you insult them, and then when they finally snap and shoot a few kids, you cry, boo ******* hoo, why did this evil man do this, he must have been some faggot loser with no friends with some faggoty insanity disorder.

Plus, it doesn't take a SEVERE mental illness to cause these things. All it takes is even a mild case of depression, constantly lowering your self esteem, your confidence, incapacitating your ability to function in society and feeling, even if it isn't true, as if society is laughing at you, like they rejected you because you're such a loser. This **** eats away at your mind CONSTANTLY and it'd drive you to shoot up a ******* school too if it happened to you.
#538 to #477 - Fgner
Reply 0
(12/19/2012) [-]
I was the one that just proved that normal people commit murders. I was the one who just stated that insanity isn't black and white, there is a massive grey area. You don't seem to understand what the conversation is about now. YOU said normal people don't do this, only crazy peopel do. YOU labeled and judged. and I defended them.

You just contradicted yourself completely you moron. Seriously, you should just stop talking now.
#552 to #538 - gammajk ONLINE
Reply 0
(12/20/2012) [-]
You have absolutely no reading comprehension and are clearly incapable of cognitive reasoning. Please go get an elementary education before arguing on the internet about **** you have absolutely no clue about.
#567 to #552 - Fgner
Reply 0
(12/20/2012) [-]
Holy ****, you are stupid.
> Talk about the topic at hand you stupid twat.
> Make up your mind over which side you are on.
> If you pick one stupid side, at least defend it.
> Nice job using your "big words." You saying reading comprehensions and cognitive reasoning totally don't make you sound like you're trying to appear smart.

I can't help but notice the only thing you did after we presented absolute truths that disproved you is argue semantics and then switch your viewpoint rapidly. Get back on topic if you want to talk at all.
#395 to #230 - Fgner
Reply 0
(12/19/2012) [-]
Actually, murder is a built in desire of the human mind. Evolution taught us dog eat dog, and though we don't physically murder, we still murder economically and socially. We wage brutal war against others, but it's okay because it's on a national level. So every soldier is therefore insane? So every corporate man is insane? Hell, every man tries to ruin somebody at some point in his life. So every man is insane.

You seem to put so much emphasis on the insanity of the perpetrator. Why does he have to be insane? Why can't normal people murder? Why can't a man just be pushed one to many times? Why can't a person just look in the mirror one day and snap? Insanity isn't some magical property that is black or white. Insanity is so complex and unique it's unstoppable. People can be fine one day and the next day lose it.

The state of the human mind teaters on the edge of insanity at all times, it's how we are capable of emotion and free will. The same reason you cry when a loved one dies is the same reason someone may put a gun to their own head. The same reason you grind your teeth when someone is taking an argument too far is the reason someone may put a gun to anothers head. How we handle these emotions, how we conduct ourselves is the problem.

And yes, you are right, perhaps if we lived in a utopia, where nobody fought and nobody suffered we could prevent these things simply by keeping thosewho are clinically insane at bay. But we don't. Nor will we ever. It's a cruel dog eat dog world, and our minds are designed the way they are.

And if you want some examples, read my next comment.
#12 to #10 - Fgner
Reply 0
(12/18/2012) [-]
And sorry if I'm not getting my ideas across properly. It's pretty late and I've had a long week(end). I read it over and it didn't sound right to me, but it was close enough. I think I got my point out.
#314 to #5 - zenagirl
Reply 0
(12/19/2012) [-]
Cross dresser?


What a faggot
#362 to #5 - anon
Reply 0
(12/19/2012) [-]
o he mad.
#21 - gagster
Reply +26
(12/18/2012) [-]
I thumbed down, Wasn't funny.
#216 - iaintevenrustled ONLINE
Reply +23
(12/19/2012) [-]
Guess what happened at MY school? Kids were ******* around in the lunch room, joking about punching the **** out of each other (Hit chest really hard to produce thud, while missing friends face with fist to make it seem like punch). Then they grabbed knives and ketchup packets and pretended stab each other and bleed. ******* parent decides to get out gun and try to calm situation down by screaming "NOBODY MOVE, AND DROP THE KNIVES!" Whole cafeteria goes nuts, and kids look up and **** pants while dropping knives (they're plastic, mind you. Been plastic since one kid stabbed another in the neck). Parent then shoots one of them, and his defense was "I didn't see a school id, I thought he was here to kill him". Luckily it was just a bullet to the arm, but the man spent some time in prison.

TL;DR Not all people should have guns. Some defective humans will pull the trigger based on hasty assumptions.

I don't think guns should be banned, hell no. But don't think guns are just safety. They're dangerous tools, that can easily cause harm or death to those who didn't deserve it.
#244 to #216 - asschwitz
Reply 0
(12/19/2012) [-]
It was the guys fault. You should never shoot unless it's absolutely required. And what made him think it would be a good idea to pull a pistol out in a cafeteria full of kids..?
#256 to #244 - iaintevenrustled ONLINE
Reply 0
(12/19/2012) [-]
Teenagers really, but I live in hick-town. Where the brain cells are few. We had to move here -_-
#258 to #256 - asschwitz
Reply 0
(12/19/2012) [-]
That sucks. And honestly, the last thing you wanna do is panic if a gun gets pulled. Because it'll be harder to hit his intentional target, and he'll more or less likely fire multiple shots, without ever hitting his target, and more then likely hitting innocent bystanders.
#479 to #216 - japfapper
Reply 0
(12/19/2012) [-]
Okay, a valid point, but how are we supposed to determine who can and cannot handle a gun? Are we supposed to do psychiatric evaluations on every person trying to buy a hand gun? The guns that were used to shoot those children were purchased legally by his mother. There was no way of telling how or what they were going to be used for. People who plan on doing terrible things with guns are going to do them regardless of whether they purchase a gun legally or if they have to steal them from someone else.
#31 - malifauxdeux
Reply +18
(12/18/2012) [-]
Except that, if there was adequate gun control, that 16 year old wouldn't have gotten a gun in the first place, and there wouldn't have even been a situation.
#235 to #31 - falxon
Reply -1
(12/19/2012) [-]
im 16 and i can get a gun easy my dad owns 5 legally and i am in canada
#289 to #31 - supermegasherman
Reply -1
(12/19/2012) [-]
locks only keeps honest people honest. getting an illegal firearm is very possible if you know where to look
#407 to #31 - trowlernotparas ONLINE
Reply 0
(12/19/2012) [-]
just because it's illegal doesn't mean people won't have it such as any ******* drug
#132 - BeoX
Reply +12
(12/19/2012) [-]
The obvious solution to school shootings, then, is to have all teachers carry around .45 caliber pistols, be they first or twelfth grade teachers. This is obviously the best solution with no potential side effects.
#133 to #132 - pedobearson
Reply -8
(12/19/2012) [-]
Well, doesn't someone like the straw man fallacy. It actually is the best solution, albeit it may have some side effects. The pros would outweigh the cons though.
#137 to #133 - BeoX
Reply 0
(12/19/2012) [-]
Alright. Alright. Alright. Now. Tell me something; are we really so goddamned cynical as a society to believe that everyone should carry around a firearm at all times, especially teachers of ******* 5 and 6 year olds? I'm sorry, but when the hell did I wake up in the world of Mad Max or some stereotypical vision of the Old West? Are we really, as a nation, willing to accept that it is BETTER if everyone carried around guns, all the time? Is that what we've come to? Because if it is, if being so paranoid and scared of those around us that we constantly carry around something designed to end life, then I am no American.
#146 to #137 - stunning
Reply -1
(12/19/2012) [-]
carrying a gun around with you doesnt mean flashing it around popping off shots
#149 to #146 - BeoX
Reply +2
(12/19/2012) [-]
It's the principle of the act, my Funnyjunk friend. It's the principle believing you have to be constantly armed. It's like being in an abusive relationship; you don't simply defend yourself, you get the hell out of the relationship.
#155 to #149 - stunning
Reply -1
(12/19/2012) [-]
Running away wont solve everything. Sometimes you gotta face it and do something. Even if it means getting out your own gun and shooting the other guy tryin to kill everyone else. Would you rather have 1 dead child or 20 dead childrenz?
#158 to #155 - BeoX
Reply +1
(12/19/2012) [-]
Of course you do. I'm not advocating rolling over and taking it from some criminal wastrel. However, I will not advocate being constantly armed to the tooth and mentally prepared to end someone's life. And in cases such as the actual content here, I'm glad the principal had a weapon with which he could defend the innocent. That does not mean, though, that we should all be armed at all times, "just in case."
#163 to #158 - stunning
Reply -3
(12/19/2012) [-]
okay maybe you dont have to kill the kid just shoot him in the leg or something i dont know. and i never said anything about being armed at all times. thats ridiculous. im not gonna go to a job interview with a pistol in my waist no thank you. I dont know man i guess everyone has different views. im being trained as a police officer here in toronto and i guess having a gun would be a pretty good idea if used responsibly
#166 to #163 - BeoX
Reply 0
(12/19/2012) [-]
I agree. When I'm of age, I probably will buy a handgun, for multiple reasons, mainly for protection and because shooting is damned fun. But that some people think we need or ought to all own weapons for personal, constant defense is absurd.
#139 to #137 - pedobearson
Reply -4
(12/19/2012) [-]
Yes.
#144 to #139 - BeoX
Reply +2
(12/19/2012) [-]
I will gladly accept those red thumbs. I refuse to be so cynical as to believe that everyone is potentially out to slaughter me. I refuse to accept that guns should be held aloft as the only true protectors of justice. I am not for the outlawing of guns, that is simply unconstitutional. But to immerse our children in a culture so permeated by instruments of death, and then to exalt those instruments, is not only un-American, but plain barbaric. America is better than that. Humanity is better than that.
#154 to #144 - anthonyd
Reply -1
(12/19/2012) [-]
****** part is, we aren't better than that. America isn't, humanity isn't. We're all a load of douche
#150 to #144 - pedobearson
Reply -2
(12/19/2012) [-]
OK, OK, I was kidding. Not everyone is out to slaughter you, but when they do then you should always have a means to protect yourself, equal to or above your foe's. Who do you expect to win, a guy with even a bee bee gun versus a guy with mere fists?
#156 to #150 - BeoX
Reply 0
(12/19/2012) [-]
That's the same logic that got us into the Cold War. Constant one-upsmanship with foes leads only to more potential death. Everyone starts carrying handguns, then muggers don't wait to murder you, they just shoot first and steal later. Muggers do that, average citizens begin shooting first at anyone who looks slightly suspicious. And now we have a land founded on distrust of your fellow man and general anarchy. Having a gun is not defense, it's offense waiting to happen.
#143 - Sampsy
Reply +10
(12/19/2012) [-]
Did the fact that guns are legal provide the possibility for it to happen in the first place? Yep.
#171 to #143 - mayedh
Reply -1
(12/19/2012) [-]
Not really. Illegal guns are pretty easy to get. They're cheaper too.
#173 to #171 - Welshhobo
Reply +1
(12/19/2012) [-]
Thats because you live in a country were you can buy guns you moron. Anywhere where guns are illegal are practically impossible to get.
#241 to #173 - theaveragejoe
Reply -2
(12/19/2012) [-]
Lets equate a ban on guns to a ban on drugs. it will not work. Marijuana is illegal but almost half of my school smokes it. Sound like it working? nope. point is, if someone is determined to get something thats illegal they will.
#259 to #241 - anon
Reply 0
(12/19/2012) [-]
There is a difference you retard. Drugs are way easier to fabricate and sneak in, unlike guns that need an actual factory and assemble which make the production costs really high.
#534 to #241 - Welshhobo
Reply -1
(12/19/2012) [-]
What the **** are you talking about "Lets equate a ban on guns to a ban drugs". Lets equate your ass to your mouth because its talking ****.
For a start, theres a huge moral difference between buying yourself some drugs, or buying yourself a gun. No one in any civilized country feels the need to buy a gun, let alone risk getting caught buying one. When you buy yourself drugs, you aren't buying something that is made specifically to kill people.

There is literally no use for guns other than murdering children in schools, unless you live in yellowstone ****** park.
#179 to #173 - mayedh
Reply -2
(12/19/2012) [-]
So does the shooter.
#160 to #143 - blinkfreak
0
has deleted their comment [-]
#162 to #160 - comradewinter ONLINE
Reply 0
(12/19/2012) [-]
Just because something exists on the market doesn't mean illegalizing it is not effective. There's a **** ton more who drink alcohol than smoke marijuana or any other illicit drugs.
#170 to #162 - zarcos
Reply 0
(12/19/2012) [-]
ever hear of Prohibition?
#191 to #170 - roflsaucer
Reply 0
(12/19/2012) [-]
Yea. And it didn't work, either.
#192 to #191 - zarcos
Reply -1
(12/19/2012) [-]
thats the point.
#193 to #192 - roflsaucer
Reply 0
(12/19/2012) [-]
Well I feel stupid now.
#161 to #160 - blinkfreak
0
has deleted their comment [-]
#190 to #143 - pyroniclol
Reply 0
(12/19/2012) [-]
It's too late for making guns illegal. They are already millions of them here. Unless the gov't goes on some gun repossession crusade.... and we all know how badly that would turn out.
#441 to #143 - zenethe ONLINE
Reply 0
(12/19/2012) [-]
*Did the fact that guns exist provide the possibility for it to happen in the first place? Yep.*

Just because it's illegal doesn't mean it's gonna stop people from getting it
#157 to #143 - karson
Reply +2
(12/19/2012) [-]
#164 to #157 - rprol
Reply -1
(12/19/2012) [-]
no but the people who commit the sort of atrocities such as the recent shooting aren't generally criminals.
#168 to #164 - karson
Reply +1
(12/19/2012) [-]
I figured you'd say that. (thanks for the red thumb, also) anyways, the point is, making guns illegal isn't going to keep them out of the hands of criminals. someone who plans on killing a ******** of people obviously doesn't give a **** about how he gets the guns to do it. basically, if a psycho wants a gun bad enough, he can get it. case in point: friend of mines school had a kid who got arrested the day before his planned shooting because one the of guys who he asked to help him reported him. when they searched his house, they found several fully automatic weapons and about 10 bombs. Obviously he didn't buy those legally. it was in a ghetto area and he admitted to buying the guns off of a couple of gang-bangers. like I said, its not like someone who wants to kill a bunch of people gives a single **** about whether or not he obtained the weapons legally or not. truly, all banning guns would do is keep them out of the hands of normal people.
#175 to #168 - rprol
Reply +1
(12/19/2012) [-]
i didn't red thumb you (i haven't red thumbed anyone on the gun debate apart from if they're retarded). no banning guns won't keep them out of the people who are really determined to get them. however it does stop the people who snap from going out on a rampage at whim. it needs a bit of premeditation. in addition to that it allows a buffer of time for the authorities to stop the individual. im not saying that they always would but it makes it easier for them and prevents random killings where the would be shooter can't simply open his front door and gun down the neighbourhood children.
#187 to #175 - karson
Reply -1
(12/19/2012) [-]
while I respect your opinion, I still disagree. if someone wants to go on a rampage they're gonna do it with whatever weapons they can find. in china (or was it japan? anyways) there are mass killings but instead of guns a guy stabbed and cut up a ******** of school children. I have a friend who lives in sydney, where guns are really hard to obtain, and there are gangs of people at night who murder people by hacking them up with machetes. while guns being legal here in the US definitely has bad side effects, I do believe it is better in the long run for the people. the founding fathers want the citizens to have firearms not only for the defense of the country with militia but also if they didn't like the government. the idea was that if the people believed the government was corrupt, the 2nd amendment gives them the ability to attempt to overthrow said government. the 2nd amendment is kind of like insurance for all the other amendments. (or at least, that was the founding fathers' reason for it).
#194 to #187 - rprol
Reply 0
(12/19/2012) [-]
of course there will be an increase in other types of violence. that doesn't give an excuse to keep this particular type. and for the second amendment, do you not trust the american democracy enough to let the system work? it doesn't ensure that you keep democracy as evidenced when George bush beat Al Gore in Florida. and when you look at the oppression in Bahrain and elsewhere in the middle east where guns are almost as readily available as in the US then you can see that it wouldn't help to overthrow the government even if it did become corrupt (and be honest. what do you think are the chances of that happening ever in the US? Not only does the very system of democracy (generally) work to keep that stuff from happening but also organisations such as the UN, NATO and all of America's allies would steer the country away from such a disastrous course if it came to it.
#209 to #194 - karson
Reply 0
(12/19/2012) [-]
like I said, it was the founding fathers' idea. if the government was bad enough to start a revolt, then I'd say the democracy wouldn't be in place at all, let alone to keep it from happening. clearly, even if there was a revolt, due the the very advanced weaponry the US military uses, it would be over in a few days.and I know revolts usually don't work, especially when its a couple of normal people with ak's against a trained army with heavy weapons such as MG's, mortars, artillery, air support and tanks, to name a few.(pretty sure the few recent civil wars have been going quite well for the rebels, look at the libyan civil war. Even the syrian rebels are doing fairly well right now) personally, I would rather be shot in the face than have my ******* arms hacked off, but hey, that's just me. all of this said, I like guns. I live in a rural area, own quite a bit of different shotguns and rifles, and I like to target shoot as a hobby and have gone to a few state competitions.( irrelevant maybe, but thought you should know why I am in this debate with you.)
#210 to #209 - rprol
Reply +1
(12/19/2012) [-]
fair enough. im not saying all guns should be banned outright. i just think that there needs to be an overhaul of what is considered acceptable.
#213 to #210 - karson
Reply 0
(12/19/2012) [-]
ah, well then, for some reason I thought you did. Honestly, we should start fixing the guns issue just by actually enforcing the gun laws that are already in place.
#72 - haywoodjablome
Reply +9
(12/18/2012) [-]
mfw discussions that follow
mfw discussions that follow
#174 - metalbass
Reply 0
(12/19/2012) [-]
I saw this statistic on tv. I cant remember the exact numbers but it was something like this:
People killed by guns per year on average in;
UK - 86
Canada - 326
America- 9,643
Just saying.
#207 to #174 - verifiedcorn
Reply +2
(12/19/2012) [-]
Population of each said country
Uk-63,181,775
Canada- 35,011,000
America-314,959,00
so given your numbers gun violence is
UK: 1-734,672
Canada: 1-107,396
America: 1-32,662
Puts it in a little better perspective? I believe the UK and Canada both have strict gun control laws..... They do not work
#218 to #207 - benryx
Reply +2
(12/19/2012) [-]
i'd like to see the math for that,

but usually homicides are reported in number per 100,000

in the US it's like 9.5 something
in the UK it's like .11
in Canada it's like 1.something

i don't have the numbers memorized, but they're to that effect, point being that america has a lot more homicides per 100,000 people
#223 to #218 - verifiedcorn
Reply +1
(12/19/2012) [-]
I gave all the numbers. the population are in accordance with the last country census. Your correct gun deaths are at 9.5 in the u.s but the homicide is only 4.6 still a relatively high number but if you take into consideration most of these homicides are do to drug wars caused by non-native populace in larger cities.
#251 to #218 - asschwitz
Reply 0
(12/19/2012) [-]
I'd rather be shot in the head then be stabbed multiple times. The second one sounds more painful.
#255 to #251 - benryx
Reply 0
(12/19/2012) [-]
i agree, far more painful, but equally less deadly (depending on where they stab you >_>)
#257 to #255 - asschwitz
Reply 0
(12/19/2012) [-]
Not less deadly at all. They are ganna stab you when it's dark, in a shady area where people won't see you. You'll fall to the ground, and probably bleed out. Or he'll bag you, take you to his ******** of a home, cut you up, and bury you. A sociopath with a gun honestly seems a lot better then a Jack the Ripper.
#183 to #174 - pyroniclol
Reply +4
(12/19/2012) [-]
Is that per capita? NY City has about the same population as the whole of Canada.... sooooo those numbers would be skewed if they don't take into account population.
#182 to #174 - derpwolf ONLINE
Reply +7
(12/19/2012) [-]
That could be skewed. Beyond that, there are a metric ******* of people in the United States. Just because people go out and murder each other doesn't mean it's all mass murder. People are trying to stop things like that, mostly.

Though I only argue against gun control because I'm not really a fan of the government. They make decisions they shouldn't.
#186 to #182 - metalbass
Reply 0
(12/19/2012) [-]
I think people should be able to have guns, but it should be limited. Kind of like up here in Canada.
#188 to #186 - derpwolf ONLINE
Reply 0
(12/19/2012) [-]
But why should it be limited?
#196 to #188 - thepalmtoptiger
Reply 0
(12/19/2012) [-]
While I don't think that gun control will keep guns out of the hands of career criminals, it can keep them out of the hands of lunatics. People applying/holding on to a firearm license, and the families there of, should submit to regular psychiatric evaluations in order to hold the license and weapons.

Of course the people who really want to do harm will go find illegal weapons, but most people don't know where to get that.
#215 to #196 - derpwolf ONLINE
Reply 0
(12/19/2012) [-]
If you're good enough, you can lie your way through some psych evaluations. I haven't taken one in a while, but I'll get back to you on how easy some of the questions are. I can see how limiting guns could keep them out of the hands of people who aren't in their right mind, but I don't think you could really keep them from it. There's always a way.
#220 to #215 - thepalmtoptiger
Reply 0
(12/19/2012) [-]
Oh, I don't doubt that people will get their hands on firearms no matter what. That's why I'm really on the fence about gun control. I think the people who are most hurt by gun control laws are normal people.
#221 to #220 - derpwolf ONLINE
Reply 0
(12/19/2012) [-]
Because if they can't get their guns legally, they can't protect themselves from the people who have guns illegally? Personally, I don't think a government should be that involved with the rights of the people.
#253 to #221 - asschwitz
Reply 0
(12/19/2012) [-]
And yet that's all they do, is mess with our rights. Day by day they steps on our rights a little more and little more. A government prefers when it has complete control. As Ben Franklin once said "When the government fears the people, that's liberty. When the people fear the government, that's tyranny"
#334 to #253 - derpwolf ONLINE
Reply 0
(12/19/2012) [-]
I actually had to do a project in school once on things I stand for. Now, I've learned not to be an opinionated person. Having opinions is dangerous. Plus, some of the options I do have don't mesh well. So, three days of having no idea, I suddenly realize that this is the very issue I don't like. The government in America is just doing **** it absolutely shouldn't. Technically, we have a right to amend or abolish it if this gets out of hand.
#445 to #334 - asschwitz
Reply 0
(12/19/2012) [-]
We also have the right to forcibly remove them if they get way to out of hand. Hence the need for the 2nd Amendment.
#454 to #445 - derpwolf ONLINE
Reply 0
(12/19/2012) [-]
Which they are currently trying to infringe upon. I don't think there's any real way to prevent it. It might have been better if the States had decided to be a Confederation instead of a Federation.
#482 to #454 - asschwitz
Reply 0
(12/19/2012) [-]
Maybe, or we just need to flip it back to when we, the people, were actually in charge, and enforce that.
#483 to #482 - derpwolf ONLINE
Reply 0
(12/19/2012) [-]
We SHOULD, but the probability is that it just won't happen.
#486 to #483 - asschwitz
Reply 0
(12/19/2012) [-]
It could, if the government takes a step too far, and piss enough people off, it could spark a revolution.
#489 to #486 - derpwolf ONLINE
Reply 0
(12/19/2012) [-]
True, but the last time that happened, we had the Civil War. We know the South had its ass kicked by the North because they couldn't manufacture their own stuff, and had no boats. But then the question becomes, which side gets what weapons? That determines who wins.
#496 to #489 - asschwitz
Reply 0
(12/19/2012) [-]
The military wouldn't turn on it's own people and kill civilians. I think we could probably overthrow the government, as long as the Military sided with us.
#502 to #496 - derpwolf ONLINE
Reply 0
(12/19/2012) [-]
But the moment we raise up arms, the other side could daemonize us. It would technically make us into a separate army, or at least a militia. In that case, the military would have full leave to murder everyone.
#517 to #502 - asschwitz
Reply 0
(12/19/2012) [-]
There would be a long series of events before that, I'm sure they'd know who really is the evil in that case. But idk, Maybe it'll never happen. I kinda hope it would, as Thomas Jefferson once said "God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty.... And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."
#189 to #188 - metalbass
Reply 0
(12/19/2012) [-]
because that way they can control it. The people killed will drop. in my opinion. Granted im 17 with not much life experience, but thats what I honestly think
#198 to #189 - parcedon
Reply 0
(12/19/2012) [-]
limiting guns wont solve anything, if people can't legally buy the gun they will go through other channels or just steal one. and Should that fail there,s always other weapons like knives, cars, or poisons. we would be better focusing on education and help for the mentally deranged.
#28 - iitroxic
Reply +7
(12/18/2012) [-]
Below us we see the fight of Anti-gunfags and Pro-gunfags

Nothing much is resolved.
#320 - maxcarnage
Reply +6
(12/19/2012) [-]
could this man have used pepper spray, a taser, or anything else not a gun to stop him to stop him?
#369 to #320 - asdflkjhg
Reply -5
(12/19/2012) [-]
Yes he could of. Any everyday civilian who feels he needs to carry a gun around is a little pussy.
#408 to #369 - GBird
Reply 0
(12/19/2012) [-]
Meh.
#345 to #320 - skeedskis
Reply 0
(12/19/2012) [-]
If he's got a gun on a school campus do you really think he deserves pepper spray or a taser?
#355 to #345 - skorne
Reply 0
(12/19/2012) [-]
if he gets subdued, he'll get caught by the cops and face the consequences in court.
#356 to #320 - vade
Reply 0
(12/19/2012) [-]
Or in the near future a light saber?
#357 to #320 - improbablyyourdad ONLINE
Reply +2
(12/19/2012) [-]
Hahaha hell no. Do you not know how close you have to get to use either of those? Rubber bullets may have worked but guess what you need for those?
#324 to #320 - jalthelas
Reply +5
(12/19/2012) [-]
You can still shoot while pepper sprayed.


#340 to #324 - tubaplayah
Reply +3
(12/19/2012) [-]
true true, allow me to retort. You can still shoot when you are shot, following your logic.
#347 to #340 - bloodofthedragon
Reply +2
(12/19/2012) [-]
pepper spray and a taser don't have as much range as a .45
#376 to #347 - GBird
Reply 0
(12/19/2012) [-]
Range? He is an asst. principal who had a fire arm in the gray area of legality. Range is not a problem, and the shooter most likely ran out of ammunition and that's why he fled.
#403 to #376 - bloodofthedragon
Reply 0
(12/19/2012) [-]
On the wikipedia page on this shooting says he had a rifle and injured 7 students and killed two. It is possible that he may have ran out or not but either way i'm sure the vice principal stopped him which allowed him to be captured.
#406 to #403 - GBird
Reply 0
(12/19/2012) [-]
The asst. principal could have stopped him with most things that are legal.
#416 to #406 - bloodofthedragon
Reply 0
(12/19/2012) [-]
like? he was in his car when the principal shot him. tasers and pepper spray don't go through windshields.
#429 to #416 - GBird
Reply 0
(12/19/2012) [-]
He didn't shoot him, just threatened him. Also I realize that what I said made no sense. I just believe the right to bear arms should be taken as the right to own rifles and shotguns for hunting and in some cases of self defense. I don't think high-powered military grade sniper rifles and assault rifles should be readily available to anyone. Handguns are a gray are for me.
#438 to #429 - bloodofthedragon
Reply 0
(12/19/2012) [-]
I understand why you believe guns are bad. They look scary to someone who has never had any kind of training with them. Guns aren't the killers. It is the people using them. I agree they shouldn't be as readily available but they shouldn't be banned because of an action of a few people. I know you look at guns and think that they are nothing but trouble but for us responsible gun owners they are just our hobby. I know what happened is tragic and I am upset as anyone else in this country. The crazed gun man stole the guns from his mother. I believe that we should enforce gun safes or trigger locks on guns so as to prevent a criminal from using them.
#451 to #438 - GBird
Reply +1
(12/19/2012) [-]
I know gun safety. It's not that difficult to comprehend. This man knew how to safely operate firearms. I have shot an SKS on multiple occasions and a glock more times than I can count. The thing about it is, why do we need anti-personal rounds in a weapon used specifically to kill as many people as possible in the shortest amount of time. I understand recreational shooting. It is very enjoyable, but why should these class of weapons be so very readily available to anyone the proper age and financing. I'm not anti-gun, I support the second amendment heartily, but the constitution wasn't written to be specific about weapons. The founding fathers had NO idea what weaponry would become. I love guns, but things have gotten out of hand.
#462 to #451 - bloodofthedragon
Reply +1
(12/19/2012) [-]
The problem with "assault weapons" is that there is a broad definition. Is it a weapon that can shoot fast? bullet caliber? When the brady campaign went into affect they banned certain features on the gun limiting to guns to 10 round mags and fixed stocks and unthreaded barrels. When the founding fathers wrote the bill of rights they were in a time were everyone had a musket. The standard civilian had the same weapon as the government. Now in today's world we can have the weapons the military has but they are a lot more expensive. I love weapons to and gun regulations will make it harder for criminals to obtain weapons but not impossible. I'm glad we can have a legitimate conversation without any butthurt. Thanks
#473 to #462 - GBird
Reply -1
(12/19/2012) [-]
I appreciate civility on the internet. I think that the biggest problem is just accessibility. Its just too easy to buy weapons of that grade. I would define and an assault rifle is essentially a weapon used for the killing of other humans. That would basically be those specifications. (Although I believe the telescopic stock is more for comfort than for anything else.) Its just too easy to obtain. Also the ammunition should be kept at basic rounds. Armor piercing, hollow point and anti-personal should be highly illegal.
#474 to #473 - GBird
Reply 0
(12/19/2012) [-]
A weapon used specifically for killing humans*
#485 to #474 - bloodofthedragon
Reply 0
(12/19/2012) [-]
Will guns were designed to kill humans no denying that. Like the picture I showed you. Same round relatively same magazine capacity. You could kill someone with a .22 as easily with a .223 within a 300 ft. range. And they are easy to obtain but they go through the standard background check before you buy a gun. I understand why you wouldn't want those rounds.
#501 to #485 - GBird
Reply 0
(12/19/2012) [-]
It's and extremely awkward situation to explain, for I am not exceedingly knowledgeable in the field ammunition. I understand the need for larger rounds for hunting deer, elk, and bear i.e. .308, .30-6 and larger, but it is also an awkward situation that for 7.62 and 5.56/.223 rounds are just as lethal if not less.
#503 to #501 - bloodofthedragon
Reply 0
(12/19/2012) [-]
Any round is lethal like I said. Rifles like the FN FAL and M1 garand use the .308 and .30-06 and those guns are considered "assault weapons"
#508 to #503 - GBird
Reply 0
(12/19/2012) [-]
Like I said, your point being beyond valid, its just awkward to express what I'm trying to say. I suppose I submit. Its just high powered round like those really shouldn't have to be in quantities of 30 or 20 or really even 10.
#512 to #508 - bloodofthedragon
Reply 0
(12/19/2012) [-]
For recreational shooters like me, we just enjoy the 30 round magazine. The problem is still the person manning the gun no matter what. If guns are illegal or magazine capacity are set criminals will find a way to get those mags. Like california they are only allowed 10 round mags but criminals do not follow laws.
#514 to #512 - GBird
Reply 0
(12/19/2012) [-]
I'm saying personally. Not legislator, but the thing of it is criminals will always pretty much always get a hold of firearms if they truly want them, but it might prevent the normal, law abiding citizen from doing something crazy, but I digress. I must be off. Thank you for the discussion and information.
#515 to #514 - bloodofthedragon
0
(12/19/2012) [-]
peace hopefully we will argue soon enough again.