gun control. This is how it works, right?. Dang. Now what do we CID?". Using that argument is like saying murder should be legal because murderers are going to murder people anyway
x

Comments(301):

[ 301 comments ]
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#2 - kingsombra (12/21/2012) [-]
Well, you can't just disobey the rules
#109 - killerblue (12/22/2012) [-]
Gee where have I seen this before....
+4
#115 to #109 - vvhoozy **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #121 to #115 - oddesy (12/22/2012) [-]
UK has a huge violent crime rate vs. the US.

Switzerland, by comparison, has nearly no violent crime and everyone is required to keep a self-loading rifle.
#127 to #121 - anon (12/22/2012) [-]
That's ******** . As swiss i'd know.
User avatar #128 to #127 - oddesy (12/22/2012) [-]
0.3 gun homicides per 100,000 inhabitants
third highest rate of gun ownership.

You guys have conscription, right?
+1
#125 to #121 - vvhoozy **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #130 to #125 - oddesy (12/22/2012) [-]
Violent crimes, rather. Homicides are directly proportional to a lot of things, while guns may or may not be one of them, keep in mind that there are also more people in the US than the United Kingdom.
0
#132 to #130 - vvhoozy **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #140 to #132 - oddesy (12/22/2012) [-]
Ive seen it plenty of times, and the fact is its simply an ignorant picture.

While they may make it easier, in many situations people will still kill people, regardless of if a gun is present or not. A gun is a tool, meant to make the life of a person much easier. While it can kill easily, so can a car.

You are referring, in most cases, to criminal activity with handguns when you talk about that statistic. Crime will continue if we ban handguns or place tighter control on them, or not. If you ban them, you take them out of the hands of the god guys. Criminals, get this, don't follow laws. I know, crazy right?

Maybe I have spent to much time removed from modern society, but I end up using my guns nearly every day for a variety of reasons. I see them as a tool, not a weapon.
+3
#145 to #140 - vvhoozy **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #159 to #145 - oddesy (12/22/2012) [-]
That still doesn't solve the issue of criminals. Russia has a 14.1 in 100,000 murder rate, and violent crime is something like 1478 in 100,000. Thats not crimes, but people of 100,000 that can expect to be exposed to violent crime, And the laws to get a gun in Russia are insane. Trust me, I lived there. Its simple to get a gun through illegal channels, though in some instances it is a bit expensive.

Im a rancher in currently, have been on and off for nearly fifteen years now. I carry a rifle in saddle and a pistol on hip. Normally varmint control, taking care of various wildlife whom might want to prey on small fowl or a variety of other animals we raise on farm. Target shooting with fellow ranch hands. Hunt for food.
+1
#162 to #159 - vvhoozy **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#172 to #162 - oddesy (12/22/2012) [-]
I wouldn't, because you simply disarm the good guys. I think the issue is mental people more than anything.

But I didnt just work as a rancher. Im a RN, ive worked in NYC and Hartford, Conn. I lived in an apartment with friends, my walk to work was 15 minutes at most, or a three minute jog when I was in NYC. I was a soldier, I saw deployment. Its not just a lifestyle, I made a logical choice some time ago. Better to have and not need, then need and not have. And I am armed to protect myself. Im not going to shoot up a school, I am not going to kill anyone unless my life, or another, is in immediate danger. an 99% of people who own guns would agree with that statement.

I do, actually.

Look at this picture.

M1 garand on top
AR-15 on bottom.

What if I told you that the M1 garand was more deadly? ******** , right?
Wrong.
The M1 garand shoots a .30-06 caliber round out of a 24 inch barrel at 2800 feet per second, and delivers 2,872 foot pounds of energy. Its powerful enough to kill a bear. It holds 8 rounds. It was made for killing.

The AR-15 shoots a 5.56x45 NATO or a .223 Remington round out of a 20 or 16 inch barrel at 3100 feet per second and delivers 1303 foot pounds of energy. In that configuration, it holds 5 rounds. It was made for sporting.

Its not an assault rifle, its a tool. Something I can shoot on weekends, defend my home with if the need should arise, hunt with or do pest control. Thats what a gun is.
+3
#177 to #172 - vvhoozy **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #183 to #177 - oddesy (12/22/2012) [-]
Im not arguing that point, but violence will happen regardless of the gun or not. For centuries people killed people with blades. Since human times we killed each other, its just the way we are. But a gun is a tool, it can not spring to life and kill anyone on its own. its the person behind the gun that's the issue.

And yes, we are. You have your views, I have mine. But I have one question.

Have you ever shot a gun?
+1
#185 to #183 - vvhoozy **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #191 to #185 - oddesy (12/22/2012) [-]
I liked working with you Norwegian guys. Always very well mannered folk.

And they will, I cant see mine ever changing, nor yours.
+1
#194 to #191 - vvhoozy **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #196 to #194 - oddesy (12/22/2012) [-]
Was with ISAF in Afghanistan
+1
#198 to #196 - vvhoozy **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #201 to #198 - oddesy (12/22/2012) [-]
That requires quite some schooling. Any reason why? Big history fan?
+1
#214 to #201 - vvhoozy **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
+1
#206 to #201 - vvhoozy **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #211 to #206 - oddesy (12/22/2012) [-]
Join the army, see the navy.
#258 to #172 - anon (12/22/2012) [-]
We don't need anybody to just go vigilante. We need to reform the police institution. We could still keep guns from the people who are responsible for the majority of shootings (regular people who get really pissed within a few feet of a gun) but have a better presence to actively respond to and combat situations like these mass shootings.
#259 to #258 - anon (12/22/2012) [-]
also implying you have ever or will ever need to gun people down with a rifle in your nice suburban house.
User avatar #216 to #172 - illusiveman (12/22/2012) [-]
blahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblah

blahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblah blahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblah
blahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblah
blahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblah

blahblahblahblahblahblah

blahblahblah

PD. blah
#118 to #115 - fordun (12/22/2012) [-]
The UK gun legislator has been a failure. There is a lot of knife violence. Even more so compared to the United States with guns.
+2
#120 to #118 - vvhoozy **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#126 to #120 - fordun (12/22/2012) [-]
Compare the UK's population to America's.
#133 to #126 - yerfdog (12/22/2012) [-]
Murder RATES.

# of murders per 100,000 people in the population.
-3
#129 to #126 - vvhoozy **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#138 to #129 - thebeatlesfan (12/22/2012) [-]
"West Germany"
#155 to #138 - anon (12/22/2012) [-]
Also, "Great Britain" I'm no expert but I'm pretty sure they don't call it that anymore...
User avatar #152 to #138 - Jackimole (12/22/2012) [-]
It appears to be an old ad. Might be from before the fall of the Berlin wall. It doesn't mention a website, it just has a snail mail address and a phone number. I think it was photocopied from a magazine.
#156 to #152 - thebeatlesfan (12/22/2012) [-]
If I wasn't lazy, I'd try to find out where it's from.
User avatar #161 to #156 - oddesy (12/22/2012) [-]
The Brady Campaign To Prevent Gun Violence.

That one is from 2006 as I remember. They make a new one every two years or so. Not in the past...four? after the UN decided that looking at a homicide rate was an ineffective way of looking at the rate of violence in a country, and they realized their statistics fell from favor if you stacked it the reasonable way.
#224 to #161 - thebeatlesfan (12/22/2012) [-]
West Germany in 2006 though?
User avatar #141 to #138 - oddesy (12/22/2012) [-]
That made me laugh.
#151 to #129 - repostsrepost (12/22/2012) [-]
"Stop Handguns" Last time I checked, guns are inanimate objects that can't fire themselves and lack any sort of sentience.
0
#158 to #151 - vvhoozy **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #150 - frienderman (12/22/2012) [-]
Everyone on FunnyJunk seems to have a terrible understanding of pro- and anti-gun control ideas. Eh, whatever.
User avatar #1 - bananarchy (12/21/2012) [-]
Using that argument is like saying murder should be legal because murderers are going to murder people anyway
User avatar #261 to #1 - steelcock (12/22/2012) [-]
Ya you're kinda dumb dude, if that same sign said everybody in here is armed and trained, do you still think people would go shooting in schools?
#295 to #1 - anon (12/22/2012) [-]
Why are everyone so damn stupid? The joke is that they can just go in the school and shoot everyone up, a sign won't stop them.
#32 to #1 - pedobearson (12/21/2012) [-]
People need somewhat of a guideline.
User avatar #286 to #1 - eiad (12/22/2012) [-]
making guns illegal will only cause more killings
it's like the "war on drugs"
only with guns
#19 to #1 - heartlessrobot (12/21/2012) [-]
This image has expired
Sure, why not?
User avatar #3 to #1 - brndnl (12/21/2012) [-]
have you ever heard of a murderer who decided not to kill because it was illegal?

do you actually think people don't commit crimes because it is illegal?
User avatar #10 to #3 - whitcher (12/21/2012) [-]
That's exactly why people don't commit crimes....
User avatar #42 to #3 - Ruspanic (12/22/2012) [-]
Well, yes. The whole idea of "deterrence" is people inclined to commit crimes will not do so for fear of punishment. It does work, you know. Not on everyone, but on many people.
User avatar #4 to #3 - bananarchy (12/21/2012) [-]
That's the opposite of what I'm saying
User avatar #7 to #4 - brndnl (12/21/2012) [-]
What I am saying is, laws don't prevent crime, so by making an area "gun free" you only disarm the ones who follow the law. The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun. There is nothing we can do to prevent bad guys from getting guns either. There will always be a black market. Why disarm the people who can protect you when something goes wrong?
#53 to #7 - anon (12/22/2012) [-]
Its not like this is a evil vs good fairytale. One of your school protectors will turn his gun on the kids when out of the blue one day, he snaps. There is no such thing as good guys and bad guys, just people, time and circumstance.
#52 to #7 - anon (12/22/2012) [-]
The bad guys are the good guys all the way up to the point he shoots his first victim.
User avatar #48 to #7 - colossusshadow (12/22/2012) [-]
>Ban guns
>There is only a black market for guns
>it now costs thousands of dollars to own a gun

That's MUCH more comforting then knowing all adults now own guns. There are no "good" or 'bad" guys, just guys.

Give a law-abiding citizens a gun, and then if they snap because someone shoves them or they are cheated on or whatever, you're ****** .

The reason school shootings happen is because people snap, and they happened to have a gun. If you could only get it from the black market, they might not have the money, or might not want to put themselves at risk going to a sketchy place for a gun.
0
#46 to #7 - colossusshadow has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #11 to #7 - iamnaked (12/21/2012) [-]
That was his point
#15 to #1 - quattrocandella (12/21/2012) [-]
if someone wants to murder another guy there is only one way to stop him and that is by knowing before it happens. But 90% of the time that isnt gonna work so its something we have to deal with. We have to many guns in america to ban them because its to easy to posses one and no matter what, someone , somewhere , will own one. The only way to stop it is do even the playing field
#50 to #15 - anon (12/22/2012) [-]
If you banned guns then gun related deaths may only change slightly initally. But some gun stores would close and less guns would be bought. Then kids would see less of them so in time people would become less intersted in them and less would be bought again. So in fifty years you would have a better country. Worth the wait. Countries with stricter gun laws endure less murders... I live in New Zealand, had never seen a gun until I went travelling, most people here have never seen a gun, so most people here dont desire one. Im happy the burglar wont kill me.
#266 to #50 - thundagawd ONLINE (12/22/2012) [-]
You are literally too stupid to insult.

If you banned guns, then the only way to obtain them would be illegally through the black market, and the only people who acquire guns through the black market are criminals/gang members/mafia/etc. So banning guns would essentially disarm civilians, putting them at a disadvantage against armed criminals.

Your argument of "Kids see less guns and therefore will become less interested in them which will therefore lower gun related deaths" has got to be the stupidest thing I've seen this month. Guns are displayed in every ******* source of media out there; Video games, movies, television, books, magazines (hue), newspapers, etc. it doesn't matter if they never see one in person, if they end up wanting to commit a criminal act, they'll find a way to acquire a firearm, and then once they commit the act, the victim will have no way of defending themselves because THEY won't have access to a firearm.

TL;DR: gun control will only disarm the innocent, criminals will always find a way to acquire a gun.
#280 to #266 - anon (12/22/2012) [-]
If less guns were being made and sold they would cost more (blackmarket or store). So many petty crims would be priced out, ofcourse the organised criminals would still have the police to deal with. Most gun incidents in the US are not organised crime blackmarket problems. They are depressed or angry common men.
#282 to #266 - anon (12/22/2012) [-]
I was actually talking from experience. We dont see guns here and I dont know anyone who cares for them. All my friends enjoy, gaming, sailing, drinking etc. No one here wants a gun and therefore they are rare. As are gun related deaths. I dont think a people loosing their interest in guns is such a far fetched reality. Ill concide banning of the mark is too much. But its not an impossible utopia. Other countries have acheived it.
User avatar #312 to #282 - miniwilliam ONLINE (12/22/2012) [-]
Because correlation = causation, right?
User avatar #290 to #282 - thundagawd ONLINE (12/22/2012) [-]
Keep in mind that it's the USA, they have the highest percentage of gun-related deaths annually (not counting central America & South America), I can understand your mentality since you're from New Zealand and that's relatively small country with different types of people compared to the USA. I'm from Canada myself, so I might not understand how everything works down there either, but based on past events I can tell that gun control would basically benefit the criminals, seeing as the civilians would be the ones getting disarmed while criminals obtained weapons from other sources.

Also, apologies for the insults earlier, I was drunk, celebrating 2012 and all that with a couple buddies.
#283 to #282 - anon (12/22/2012) [-]
Oh and we get all your media, so yes, seeing the things in the flesh is important. I've never fired a gun so I dont know their appeal.
0
#262 to #50 - thundagawd has deleted their comment [-]
#319 to #15 - anon (12/22/2012) [-]
"If someone wants to murder another guy tere is only one way to stop him"
DON'T SELL HIM A ******* GUN
#297 to #15 - anon (12/22/2012) [-]
I hope you all kill each other.
-2
#27 to #15 - majordraco has deleted their comment [-]
#74 to #1 - pandahuggrstabbr (12/22/2012) [-]
Except owning a gun isn't bad. You require legal fiction in order to make possession a crime, because there is nothing inherently bad about it. Those same guns can prevent a murder, which is an actual action.
User avatar #334 to #74 - lordmoldywart (12/22/2012) [-]
Guns have one purpose, to kill, therefore they are bad
#171 to #13 - RipperMan ONLINE (12/22/2012) [-]
yeah...... the gun killed them.. totally wasn't me
#316 - fourtwentt (12/22/2012) [-]
what channel implies
User avatar #342 to #317 - neoexdeath ONLINE (12/22/2012) [-]
Every time he climaxes, a pigeon dies...Occasionally a hang glider or a small plane...
User avatar #45 - goodguygary ONLINE (12/22/2012) [-]
lay the guns on the ground, then go in with the grenades, it's not a grenade free zone
User avatar #8 - biggieboy (12/21/2012) [-]
getting really tired of this ******** , one way or the other.
#305 - anon (12/22/2012) [-]
Number of Americans killed by handguns in 2011 = 8583
Total number of Americans killed in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Uzbekistan = 1939
Now I know why you Americans want to sign up - it's safer in Afghanistan.
#301 - shinnok (12/22/2012) [-]
This Thread
This Thread
#146 - anon (12/22/2012) [-]
If it's not a problem of weapons, it must be because the USA has a cultural problem. Maybe they're just more insane than us.
#63 - jalthelas (12/22/2012) [-]
**jalthelas rolled a random image posted in comment #17 at Toe Juice **


MFW I'm about to shoot up a school, and I see that sign
0
#72 to #63 - DasSpiel has deleted their comment [-]
#71 to #63 - mcstorms (12/22/2012) [-]
**mcstorms rolled a random image posted in comment #2382211 at MLP Friendly Board ** Mfw when I use knockout gas and katanas
#104 to #71 - mrchickers (12/22/2012) [-]
**mrchickers rolled a random image posted in comment #399892 at Anime & Manga ** my Weapons
#100 - ghostninja (12/22/2012) [-]
>TFW they go in
#285 - badpeace (12/22/2012) [-]
Okay, first of all, I'm not here to butthurt anyone. You can redthumb me all you wan't, but i merely wish to have an argumentally-based civilised conversation.   
   
I wish to say that anti-gun laws could, in my opinion, have prevented the shootings. I know that you can easily get guns from drug cartels or downtown alleyway drug dealers, but it requires a special kind of effort that makes the optainment of guns harder. Of course, if you are willing enough, you will get a gun, but the amount of effort people have to put in it would sometimes not be enough to make them go into these shadowy dark places, and then they would not even have had a shooting to start with.   
   
If you really believe that anti-gun laws won't stop criminals, look at other countries, such as mine, Denmark. We have nearly none to zero amounts of shootouts in the cities, and the only times it happens (1-2 times a year) is because that gang members become violent against eachother - it's never been massacres.   
   
I know about the Breivik case, and that one is extraordinary due to the fact that he had the willingness to put an insane amount of effort into getting all of these automatic weapons and ammunition that he wished to use. This also means that anti-gun laws may not necessarily stop gun massacres and shootouts, but i believe that they can drastically reduce them.   
   
This would also be due to the fact that regular civilians would not have guns. If a civilian is extremely mad at his neighbour, and he just want's to hurt him so badly, he would perhaps use his handgun to shoot him in the leg or similarly, from a distance. To hurt or kill his neighbour without the guns, he would have to get close with a knife or another blunt tool, which translates into an entirely different kind of killing - you get close up and personal with your victim, and the feeling of standing right besides someone you're trying to kill, is usually very hard due to moral reasons.   
   
Guns were made to kill from a distance.
Okay, first of all, I'm not here to butthurt anyone. You can redthumb me all you wan't, but i merely wish to have an argumentally-based civilised conversation.

I wish to say that anti-gun laws could, in my opinion, have prevented the shootings. I know that you can easily get guns from drug cartels or downtown alleyway drug dealers, but it requires a special kind of effort that makes the optainment of guns harder. Of course, if you are willing enough, you will get a gun, but the amount of effort people have to put in it would sometimes not be enough to make them go into these shadowy dark places, and then they would not even have had a shooting to start with.

If you really believe that anti-gun laws won't stop criminals, look at other countries, such as mine, Denmark. We have nearly none to zero amounts of shootouts in the cities, and the only times it happens (1-2 times a year) is because that gang members become violent against eachother - it's never been massacres.

I know about the Breivik case, and that one is extraordinary due to the fact that he had the willingness to put an insane amount of effort into getting all of these automatic weapons and ammunition that he wished to use. This also means that anti-gun laws may not necessarily stop gun massacres and shootouts, but i believe that they can drastically reduce them.

This would also be due to the fact that regular civilians would not have guns. If a civilian is extremely mad at his neighbour, and he just want's to hurt him so badly, he would perhaps use his handgun to shoot him in the leg or similarly, from a distance. To hurt or kill his neighbour without the guns, he would have to get close with a knife or another blunt tool, which translates into an entirely different kind of killing - you get close up and personal with your victim, and the feeling of standing right besides someone you're trying to kill, is usually very hard due to moral reasons.

Guns were made to kill from a distance.
User avatar #355 to #285 - trostell ONLINE (12/22/2012) [-]
Now, you're correct that regulations can reduce GUN-RELATED massacres, but if someone really wants to go hurting/killing a large number of people, they'll find some way to do it, regardless. Diesel fuel, ammonium nitrate (available in common fertilizer, available at every hardware store or garden center), and the internet can create a very powerful explosive capable of leveling a large section of whatever target building you desire. It is, in fact, cheaper and more effective than a gun in the same circumstance. Guns are just less trouble to set up than explosives, so people tend to use guns. It's already been said, and deserves repeating, "The best way to stop a bad man with a gun is a good man with a gun".
#300 to #285 - thechucklefuck (12/22/2012) [-]
Anyone who is willing to massacre tens of people would have the balls to acquire guns from those shady places. If someone wants to acquire a gun, they will.
#320 to #300 - rprol (12/22/2012) [-]
not the point. it means that if someone snaps then they don't just go on a rampage and start indiscriminately killing. it takes time in which the individual may come to their senses or someone notices them acting oddly and calls the police. it also prevents killing as even those that do snap can only use a knife instantly and thus survival rates are a lot higher as it's easier to stop someone with a knife.
#341 to #320 - thechucklefuck (12/22/2012) [-]
That's why I think that we shouldn't sell guns to everyone. If someone wants to own a gun, they must prove that they are mentally stable, be over 18 and prove that they are capable of properly operating a firearm.
#308 to #300 - funnydutcha (12/22/2012) [-]
Yes, some socially awkward teenager is just going to make contact with some hardcore criminals and they will just give him guns. Things like that happen all the time in Europe.

Oh wait, it doesn't. Keep on dreaming.
#321 to #285 - anon (12/22/2012) [-]
to put it simply "Guns don't kill people , people do" with all that fearmongering it won't just be the gu control stuff it will go further with more ridiculous laws and controls. But yeah less Weapons less Shootouts that's something logical.

Besides that as an example which is also important for all of us, some bankers and economy experts said a few weeks ago that Cash Money is dirty and corruptes our society and it should be banned and we all should pay with electronic money system.
So when you think about it , it's true because peopke get robbed , stabbed over cash and many other crimes can be put back because cash was the target etc. So should we all say yeah we should ban it ..it's evil ? But what are the sideffects ? We would be under surveillance all the time because they would now what and were we buy stuff , we couldn't lend other money or could lend it from others and if anybody would make problems they would just ban his account or ID so that person couldn't get anything anymore. And they already started years ago to cut the amount of Cash and they won't stop till it's gone at the end.

Not because something my seem safer in the first place means it's good the best way to go is always distrust the upper ones who say this or that might be better.
#307 to #285 - funnydutcha (12/22/2012) [-]
Seeing the stupid comic that started this discussion almost made me lose my faith in mankind. Your comment restored it. Thumbs all around.
#325 to #307 - badpeace (12/22/2012) [-]
Glad to please you =)
Glad to please you =)
#288 to #285 - ludislavonac (12/22/2012) [-]
I agree with you, here in Croatia civilians can posses guns for themselves, however they have to go through extensive testing before they can get a licence (which is also somewhat costly), which usually involves psychological tests, also cops come to you to see if you know how to properly use and maintain a gun. Also you can't buy assault rifles, only pistols and hunting ordinance. Shootoouts are a very very rare occurence here, in fact I can't remember hearing about any in the last few years. However our country has the problem that a lot of now illegal arms remained from the war in 1991-1995, so guns are somewhat more easy to come by here.
#294 to #288 - badpeace (12/22/2012) [-]
Thank's for the reply and consideration, have a thumb =)
Thank's for the reply and consideration, have a thumb =)
#289 to #285 - alkassim (12/22/2012) [-]
I thought about writing something like that, but I'm lazy and don't think that my opinion counts that much given that its an US problem which the US citizen should decide.
If you want the freedom to carry guns accept the shootings.
If you want to considerably lower the risk of shootings make it harder to get guns.
Now amount of BS that the NRA comes up with can change anything on that.
(And besides the ultra right, xeno- and homophobic, dumb as **** , religious fanatics that I picture when I think of US gunowners are exactly the ones I wouldn't want to have weapons if I had to live with them in a country)
#293 to #289 - badpeace (12/22/2012) [-]
Thank you for the reply, have a thumb =)
#217 - darthblam ONLINE (12/22/2012) [-]
I heard a very valid argument from a surprisingly old trial recently..   
   
The 2nd Amendment "The right to bear arms" wasn't made so that people can own guns to protect themselves from each other.   
It was put in place to basically keep the government in check over the people. So that the citizens, as a last resort, can actually FIGHT the government if everything was to go to 			****		. It also made a militia easier to set up in the case of attack of the country.   
   
Sure these ideas were based upon the ideals of revolutionary freedom fighters in the 1700's... but it is kind of a justifiable argument.   
While I myself don't have a real opinion on the situation of gun control, I thought this specific argument was rather interesting.   
   
Gif unrelated. Couldn't find a good reaction pic...
I heard a very valid argument from a surprisingly old trial recently..

The 2nd Amendment "The right to bear arms" wasn't made so that people can own guns to protect themselves from each other.
It was put in place to basically keep the government in check over the people. So that the citizens, as a last resort, can actually FIGHT the government if everything was to go to **** . It also made a militia easier to set up in the case of attack of the country.

Sure these ideas were based upon the ideals of revolutionary freedom fighters in the 1700's... but it is kind of a justifiable argument.
While I myself don't have a real opinion on the situation of gun control, I thought this specific argument was rather interesting.

Gif unrelated. Couldn't find a good reaction pic...
User avatar #218 to #217 - darkangeloffire (12/22/2012) [-]
Honestly, I enjoy my bear arms. They're stronger than human arms, and they have claws. Hard to beat that. Also, good argument.
#220 to #218 - darthblam ONLINE (12/22/2012) [-]
I know right? Bear arms kick ass.
I know right? Bear arms kick ass.
#229 to #220 - jedisquirrel ONLINE (12/22/2012) [-]
The right to arm bears is a very important part of our constitution
The right to arm bears is a very important part of our constitution
#176 - jahnaids (12/22/2012) [-]
Just recently, my school declared that none of the students can go outside to get to their classes for safety reasons. And therefore, all the doors in my school are now locked.

...What are the chances that an armed gunman can be stopped by a single ******* door.
#222 to #176 - bathoryhannibal (12/22/2012) [-]
We did drills like that in my high school. I think the principal once said that logic of it was that it would make it harder for the gunman to find people. I'm not sure if it would actually work, since we never had to actually use it.
#62 - phanact (12/22/2012) [-]
This image has expired
Use knives!
#203 - artifex (12/22/2012) [-]
I see nothing about katanas
0
#215 to #203 - illusiveman has deleted their comment [-]
#95 - therealdoctor (12/22/2012) [-]
Comment Picture
[ 301 comments ]
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)