What? Logic? Stop that!. . Lie, Pit? s
Click to expand


What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #21 - lamarsmithgot (01/12/2013) [-]
you can't unload on a school and kill 20 people with a string.
#114 to #21 - seylorm ONLINE (01/13/2013) [-]
oh yeah? Make sure to read the news next week...
User avatar #194 to #21 - mexicandudeinsd (01/13/2013) [-]
not with that attitude
User avatar #415 to #21 - ponieskilledmyacc (01/13/2013) [-]
You don't tell me what to do
User avatar #96 to #21 - hor (01/13/2013) [-]
Challenge accepted.
User avatar #225 to #21 - adrianking (01/13/2013) [-]
YOU can't.
#149 to #21 - patthebakr (01/13/2013) [-]
Oh, really?
#373 - facadeon (01/13/2013) [-]
< op making fj fight about guns
< op making fj fight about guns
#404 - kingpongthedon (01/13/2013) [-]
Normally, I don't argue about gun control, but tonight is a very special night. About an hour ago, I listened to a shootout maybe 2 blocks away from my house, go on for 5 minutes. I can guarantee somebody is dead as a result. Now that sucks for them, but knowing the area, they probably brought it on themselves. I can hardly feel sorry for them.

But I still have very personal issues with guns over knives:

With a hand-to-hand weapon, if you miss, you hit nothing. With a gun, that bullet goes until it hits something. About a year ago, one of those somethings happened to be the 8 year old in my neighborhood. He was inside at the time and believed to be safe. He had absolutely nothing to do with the situation but was still the only one hurt.

People go somewhere else to avoid the consequences and sometimes that's my property. Now I have a fully-stocked kitchen, an American bulldog, and 3 other fairly large people living here. If they come with a knife, we can overwhelm him, and he's ****** to no end. But with a gun, we can't.

About 5 years ago, I used to have another dog. One night, somebody was running through my backyard (from another shooting several hours earlier) and my dog happened to be out at that time. My dog attacked the trespasser and he ran away. However, to get away, he shot my dog in the chest with a .45 slug. Luckily, he missed the heart, lungs and every other organ and my dog lived, though with a bullet an inch from his spine. Had he not had a gun, he would have been the one fearing for his life and not me and my dog.

My problem with guns isn't that they kill people. There will always be ****** up people killing each other somehow. My problem is that the radius of danger is much higher than with anything else and innocent people get hurt. I don't give two ***** if people want to kill each other, but as soon as a gun is pulled, everyone within range is in danger, even if they have nothing to do with it.
User avatar #31 to #2 - RonaldRegan (01/12/2013) [-]
7 dead guys with a revolver.. Achievement Unlocked.

typical anti-gun, doesnt know the first thing about guns themselves.

i bet you use the term 'clips' and call every black gun an assault rifle
#35 to #31 - soisoisoisoisoi (01/12/2013) [-]
Lol ******* ****** faggot, can you not see that it is clearly an assault rifle with an 8 round clip being used. ******* brush up on your facts kiddo or prepare to be arse ****** by some mother ****** with an assault rifle with even more in its clip, then we'll see how good guns really are.
User avatar #92 to #35 - RonaldRegan (01/13/2013) [-]
damn.. the gu is on the same page as i am and he gets 5 thumbs compared to my -6.. goodness.. people are dumb.. lol
User avatar #38 to #35 - RonaldRegan (01/12/2013) [-]
FAGIT DO YOU EVN LFT?? kiddo i will find you and i will kill you with my 1000 round drum clip on my Bushmaster 223 and mow your ass down my KD is 3.04 ************ ! RECONIZE. i do tackticool training everyday because im a Navy Seal i know what the **** is going on!
User avatar #41 to #38 - Crusader (01/12/2013) [-]
How have you gotten .04 kills?
User avatar #45 to #41 - RonaldRegan (01/12/2013) [-]
goodness... do you even maths...
User avatar #46 to #45 - Crusader (01/12/2013) [-]
Your KD is 3.04
As you only have one life, I must assume that you have killed 3.04 people.
The 3 people is easy to understand, what about the other .04?
User avatar #48 to #46 - RonaldRegan (01/12/2013) [-]
kill to death RATIO.. ratio = average
User avatar #50 to #48 - Crusader (01/12/2013) [-]
You average 3.04 kills per life
Since you have only one life, that means you have killed just over 3 people, so my question is.
User avatar #56 to #50 - RonaldRegan (01/12/2013) [-]
goodness god... its a call of duty reference.. but i suppose i killed a midget who was shorter than the average midget...
#90 to #56 - gladiuss (01/13/2013) [-]
OMG, the poor MIDGETS!
#463 to #31 - ventriloquist (01/13/2013) [-]
you ******* autist stop trying to legalize ******* your cousin and guns with technicalities on a cartoon
#47 to #31 - miwauturu (01/12/2013) [-]
Actually as a future forest ranger I've taken courses in both Shotgun and Rifle usage and general knowledge. I just Ctrl+C>Ctrl+V'd a couple of times for this picture without counting.
User avatar #51 to #47 - RonaldRegan (01/12/2013) [-]
future forest ranger... what made you seek out that profession?
#59 to #51 - miwauturu (01/12/2013) [-]
I've always liked being outside, I like hunting and yes, I have used guns before and am fine with people owning them (although personally what i really want to do is learn to bow hunt).

That said, I don't believe just anyone should be allowed to own just any gun. A revolver like in this comic is fine, but when you're getting into real semi or full auto weapons then they should be heavily restricted at the very least.
User avatar #61 to #59 - RonaldRegan (01/13/2013) [-]
alright kid. ive noticed that you dont know guns. if youre a true hunter, you wont be against guns in any way, period. bow hunter, mussel loader, anything.. if you knew any law, mr. future forest ranger, that fully auto guns are illegal to the public. and a revolver works in the same action as a simi auto gun. it just takes a bit longer to re-load. i am in fact a wildlife officer and was in the military.. gun control is the dumbest thing ive ever heard.. look at Chicago and DC and England. it doesnt work
#62 to #61 - miwauturu (01/13/2013) [-]
I'm Canadian, I don't know **** about American law.
User avatar #43 to #31 - xkmarcus (01/12/2013) [-]
Collateral, man.
User avatar #42 to #31 - Crusader (01/12/2013) [-]
Straight through the chest at point blank range can enter a person standing behind the target.
It's physics, the resistance created by the body it not enough to stop a bullet.
User avatar #147 to #2 - mrbuu (01/13/2013) [-]
the most kids killed by a single event was with dynamite. why do we still have dynamite?
User avatar #303 to #147 - waaw (01/13/2013) [-]
We do have dynamite control
#166 to #147 - anon (01/13/2013) [-]
dynamite requires planning, and won't be used in moments when people snap. A gun on the other hand provides a quick way of killing multiple people with the pull of a trigger. Of course some would use dynamite, but those statistics are really, really low, and if you were to ban that you might aswell ban kitchen knives etcetera.
User avatar #322 to #166 - mrbuu (01/13/2013) [-]
might as well ban cars. they kill 100x more than guns. excluding wars. infact lets ban cars/motorcycles/planes. so people have to walk. we can solve weight problem and killing with cars.
#396 to #322 - watsupguise **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #567 to #396 - watermelonkittie (01/15/2013) [-]
Post that on /b/ and everyone would do that just to prove a point.
#152 to #147 - anon (01/13/2013) [-]
But how often are people killed by dynamite?
#151 to #147 - miwauturu (01/13/2013) [-]
How often is dynamite sold to the general public?
User avatar #153 to #151 - mrbuu (01/13/2013) [-]
fireworks. enough m80's put together in one solid tubing would be more dangerous,cheaper, and less likely to get caught.
#155 to #153 - miwauturu (01/13/2013) [-]
I am Canadian, so I don't know much about American law, but according to Wikipedia

In 1966, M-80s and cherry bombs were banned by the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) and the Child Protection Act of 1966. Furthermore, they were then made illegal by the ATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives) in the 1970s. In 1975, U.S. federal regulations were passed to limit all consumer-grade fireworks in the United States to a maximum of 50 milligrams flash powder, down from a previous maximum of 200 milligrams (though firecrackers mounted onto a rocket stick, or other aerial firework devices, such as Rockets, Roman Candles, and Cakes, may have up to 130 mg).
User avatar #160 to #155 - mrbuu (01/13/2013) [-]
m80s where a quater stick of dynamite. so, all we need is 4x more. still i can make a solid stick of dynamite for under 20 bucks with m80's. check out all the bombing in other countries. hell they wish people would just grab a gun.
#372 to #160 - anon (01/13/2013) [-]
Just steal a gun, it will be far more easy and realistic.

Besides, I doubt any one in a jelous rage ever went out finding fireworks and put together a bomb before the rage subsided.
User avatar #382 to #372 - mrbuu (01/13/2013) [-]
stealing a gun? from a guy with a gun? a gun shop? most people don't just get angry one day and shoot up a school. they are crazy people who plan out and guy a gun waiting weeks/months to act even years. The people who get angry and want to hurt somebody stab them or go chris brown vs rihanan on them.
User avatar #157 to #155 - evilmagic (01/13/2013) [-]
You can still buy them on native american reservations
User avatar #19 to #2 - mafkees (01/12/2013) [-]
exactly this.
#345 - thefloppinater (01/13/2013) [-]
#452 to #345 - anon (01/13/2013) [-]
to an extent, yes, video games can influence SOME people directly, and from a macroscopic scale, every video game user is learning about guns easily and quickly. If they did not exist, you probably wouldn't know what the names of specific weapons would be unless you had one.

there are several more legitimate arguments than the above (which i explained poorly) that explain how video games have an effect on people
User avatar #482 to #452 - thefloppinater (01/13/2013) [-]
If so many people play violent video games then why do a select few choose to go on a killing spree? Because they have underlying social or mental problems.

The fault should not be placed solely on video games, as it often is. Nobody wants to accept that it was partially their fault, so they put the blame on violence in video games, music or tv, which is unfair to those of us who enjoy those things but don't go ******* crazy.
#76 - ImFrumAija (01/13/2013) [-]
"People don't ban baseball bats, wire or knives so why ban guns?"
Well these items and knives have other uses. Trying slicing onions with a gun and then we'll talk about proper comparisons.

People need to understand that a gun was designed to hurt/kill people. People should be screened for mental health and guns should be kept in reach away from children/teens. People just need to be more responsible about where killing machines end up.
User avatar #84 to #76 - InfiniteFetus (01/13/2013) [-]
Clubs (baseball bats) and knifes are well known and efficient weapons. And guns have other uses beside killing people, such as hunting, sport, and collecting. So it's not a terrible comparison. Where I will agree with you is that people need to be WAY more responsible with ALL weapons, bans and screenings will do nothing to stop someone who is already willing to break the law; the ultimate fixer is to stop people from wanting to break the law and do terrible things in the first place. OpinionJunk.
User avatar #433 to #84 - rockamekishiko (01/13/2013) [-]
that's not the point, that bat could be a tree branch someone just broke off while going to kill someone. one could use a rock but then we would have to ban every item in the work because if i hit you with a wooden chair in the head, you'll probably die. people don't go on killing sprees with baseball bats.
User avatar #543 to #433 - InfiniteFetus (01/14/2013) [-]
I realize that. I'm not against gun control; In fact i'm mostly for it, but people shouldn't think it's the only thing between us and another killing spree. The only point I was trying to make was that we pay too much attention to the weapons. I think people get so caught up with banning weapons that they forget to take care of psychopaths thereafter. It's definitely important to disarm a would be killer, but it's far more efficient not to have a killer in the first place. Again, just my opinion. thumb for you.
User avatar #110 to #84 - InfiniteFetus (01/13/2013) [-]
or I can get thumbed down for wanting to have a conversation with a fellow FunnyJunker...that works too.
#383 - noshitholmes (01/13/2013) [-]
I'd say it's much easier to shoot a man than beat/strangle/stab them.
When was the last time there was a massacre via knife?
#410 to #383 - ichbinlecher (01/13/2013) [-]
The real question is how many people total are killed with knives vs guns (don't know the answer, not really relevant to the point I am making). Asking about massacres is ad miseracordium (spelling? - an appeal to emotions) because we seem to care more about people's deaths if several die at once rather than spread out over the year.
User avatar #422 to #410 - noshitholmes (01/13/2013) [-]
I can agree with your logic to a certain degree, but when you look at other 1st world nations they don't have nearly as many homicides. What they do have is better gun control.
#431 to #422 - ichbinlecher (01/13/2013) [-]
Again, it depends on how you look at the statistics. Other countries have way higher violent crime rates than the US, but murder is lower. It also has to do with where murder is likely to happen - bigger cities. The US has almost 200 cities with over 200,000 people, most countries have an entire order of magnitude (power of ten) less. I am also just assuming your stats are correct, being to lazy to check them right now, but most of the report I have heard on the news have to do with gun violence rather than murder rates, and that is not synonymous (take the example of some of the new town kids that were shot but didn't die). Again, I am just throwing things out there - I don't think any legislation will come of this simply because the nearest they can get it to the floor is April and the hype will have died down.
User avatar #441 to #431 - noshitholmes (01/13/2013) [-]
Interesting points. But there is a quote I've heard before.

There are three types of lies. Lies, damn lies, and statistics.

I am aware I've been throwing around my fair share of them too, but I've think we've reached a point where neither of us care to really look deeper into the subject's statistics seeing as how there is another group of statistics that can disprove it.

I personally am ok with people having guns so long as we have more regulations and restrictions.
#448 to #441 - ichbinlecher (01/13/2013) [-]
I hate that quote...It implies statistics are lies, where as the truth is you just have to know how to look at them to see what they really say...oh well, personal issue.
User avatar #460 to #448 - noshitholmes (01/13/2013) [-]
Well it's been fun having a controlled and reasonable debate with you but I am tired and can no longer brain. Good day
#420 to #383 - anon (01/13/2013) [-]
Probably sometime before the Boston Massacre, where a tyrannical government was met with stones, and the citizens lost. Kind of like the police state we have now, which is why so much advocacy for the 2nd amendment.
#484 to #420 - anon (01/13/2013) [-]
You have a police state because the authorities whose job it is to keep the peace are having a hard time because so many people with guns are trying to disturb it. If people were less likely to shoot each other and/or the police the police would relax a little. They aren't so menacing here in NZ because its rare for them to get hurt (though it does happen)
User avatar #453 to #383 - counteractive (01/13/2013) [-]
A school in china the same day the Sandy Hook shooting took place. 22 children and teachers slashed. A year prior to that a similar knife attack in china took somewhere around 50 (That includes injured, not all dies, but neither do all in shooting sprees).
#476 to #453 - anon (01/13/2013) [-]
That incident in China was a large assault, but seeing as no one died its not a massacre. The question is still stands.
User avatar #486 to #476 - counteractive (01/13/2013) [-]

The above cases only pretain to reported chinese attacks only. Some cases resulted in no casualties, some had many fatalities. The cases do not relate to any incidents outside of china.
User avatar #386 to #383 - ronyx (01/13/2013) [-]
Same day the massacre at the middle school some dude in asia went into a school with a knife. Nobody was killed but a few kids got slashed.
User avatar #395 to #386 - noshitholmes (01/13/2013) [-]
I would say that there is a huge difference in those two results.
User avatar #406 to #395 - sketchE (01/13/2013) [-]
GB has the highest murder rate of first world countries. guns are restricted there
User avatar #413 to #406 - noshitholmes (01/13/2013) [-]
I don't know if this website is completely accurate, but if it is you would be wrong...
You need to login to view this link
User avatar #425 to #413 - sketchE (01/13/2013) [-]
its hard to compare when they are using different years. this is called selective evidence. picking statistics from a good year for GB and a bad year for the US is bad science. no argument could be formed wither way
User avatar #429 to #425 - noshitholmes (01/13/2013) [-]
Ergo my stating that it probably wasn't very accurate. However, this is the first time I have heard someone say that Great Britain had the highest murder rate of first world countries. I have heard the same about the U.S. many more times.
Plus, Great Britain is not the only country with gun restrictions. Many countries in Europe like the Netherlands have high restrictions on guns with extremely low homicide rates.
Sorry for the novel.
User avatar #436 to #429 - sketchE (01/13/2013) [-]
http://www. You need to login to view this link
according to this they actually have a high murder rate. at least in 2006. i will detract my statement however. what i said was based off of a stateemt i heard but hadnt researched myself. many people who say america has the most only refer to gun murders and likely just see gun death and bunch them together. many of those deaths are accidental. lumping accidental death and homicide together is just wrong.
#435 to #429 - ichbinlecher (01/13/2013) [-]
If isn't the highest murder rate (I don't know of care) I can tell you it has a much higher incidence of violent crime in general, even though it has less gun crime.
User avatar #445 to #435 - noshitholmes (01/13/2013) [-]
I think the Netherlands has some of the lowest crime rates in the world, but I didn't check that. If you want to look it up and prove me wrong be my guest. As for the rest of them, I'm not sure... However, I would prefer violent crimes to higher homicide rates.
#170 - EpicTie (01/13/2013) [-]
correct me if i'm wrong but isn't the gun in this post the only one designed to actually take someones life and not serve any other function?
User avatar #176 to #170 - Zarke (01/13/2013) [-]
Well, guns are tools primarily designed for killing, though with some creativity you COULD use them for explosive ordinance disposal, door-breaching, and other mudane tasks. Just like a car. Primarily designed for transportation, but you COULD use is for towing, power generation, or drive-in robberies.
#179 to #176 - EpicTie (01/13/2013) [-]
I suppose but how are explosive ordinance disposal and door breaching mundane task? Also towing doesn't kill someone nor does power generation.
User avatar #192 to #179 - Zarke (01/13/2013) [-]
1. Anti-hyperbole

2. Now THOSE are mundane. But vehicular manslaughter, vehicle-assisted suicide, and drive-in robberies aren't.
#195 to #192 - EpicTie (01/13/2013) [-]
True but the car still wasn't designed with that in mind.
User avatar #199 to #195 - Zarke (01/13/2013) [-]
Designed? Maybe not. But boil it down. These are mechanical devices, nothing more. It's up to the end user to decide how to use them. You can be responsible or irresponsible with cars, guns, knives, baseball bats, whatever. It's in everyone's best interests that we teach everyone to treat every device, no matter what it was designed for, with the care and respect that it deserves.
#127 - killyojoy (01/13/2013) [-]
We have had guns for hundreds of years we don't need to fix guns, we need to fix our mental health.
We have had guns for hundreds of years we don't need to fix guns, we need to fix our mental health.
#330 to #127 - anon (01/13/2013) [-]
Every other country has as many mental retards as you. But without guns they dont have the deaths.
More importantly, most of your gun related deaths are not Adm Lanza's shooting up schools. They are good people having a bad day or intense argument. Most deaths the victim is known to the killer.
User avatar #427 to #127 - iamchicken (01/13/2013) [-]
We've had guns for hundreds of years and when the founding fathers made the 2nd amendment the guns they had shot one shot and has a tendency to miss so they didn't count on shootings to be a big problem. Now we have guns that shoot 30 shots and land all of them if the shooter is well enough trained. But yea our mental health for all humanity is slowly dwindling.
User avatar #434 to #127 - allahakbar (01/13/2013) [-]
Too bad that is not entirely possible. The human mind is deeper than we can ever fully understand, and some people will snap after they already have a weapon. Guns are a more definite approach when dealing with this matter. Neither approach will be entirely successful, but gun control is a much more stable route to go.
User avatar #146 to #127 - jewsburninindaoven (01/13/2013) [-]
Mental health issues have been around as long as humans have been around. We don't need to fix mental health issues.
User avatar #184 to #146 - gammajk (01/13/2013) [-]
Cancer has been around since humans have been around.
We don't need to fix cancer.
- you
User avatar #556 to #184 - jewsburninindaoven (01/14/2013) [-]
Wow, I thought the sarcasm was apparent but I guess you're too retarded to see it.
User avatar #561 to #556 - gammajk (01/15/2013) [-]
Really? Because it sounded like you said something extremely ******* stupid. Care to explain how it was "sarcasm"?
User avatar #568 to #561 - jewsburninindaoven (01/15/2013) [-]
Original comment, "We have had guns for hundreds of years we don't need to fix guns." My comment, "Mental health issues have been around as long as humans have been around. We don't need to fix mental health issues." I was mocking the original comment. I replaced guns with mental health issues to show the outlandishness of his comment by reversal.
#150 to #146 - killyojoy (01/13/2013) [-]
Of course they have, but mental institutions suck, If you go one of two things happen 1) You leave the next day no changes 2) You get pumped full of drugs and revert back to normal once you stop taking them.
#560 to #146 - gammajk has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #172 to #127 - shazmothree (01/13/2013) [-]
But we do need to make sure that guns can't be put into the hands of the mentally unstable
#236 to #172 - Antonkr (01/13/2013) [-]
I am really pro-guns, but we do need to revise how well mental health issues.
User avatar #242 to #236 - shazmothree (01/13/2013) [-]
The thing I get the most butthurt about with all this controversy is the media trying to place blame on violence in movies, TV, and videogames. I grew up killing hookers and stealing cars and i turned out alright.
#245 to #242 - Antonkr (01/13/2013) [-]
As much as NRA is really needed to support gun-owners, they are ********* for blaming it on the media. I don't think it has any major impact on children.

I mean I grew up around GTA too, when I learned to fire a gun I learned respect, and it worked.
#333 to #245 - anon (01/13/2013) [-]
From a country where we have all the media and all the games etc. I can tell you, your problem is quite simply the guns.

We have the same percentage of retards, we have violence, family fueds etc etc.

What we dont have is the guns to exagerate an already bad situation.
User avatar #246 to #245 - shazmothree (01/13/2013) [-]
Just a bunch of crazy people being crazy
#98 - Yesitsme has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #100 to #98 - codyxvasco (01/13/2013) [-]
I agree. Which makes it hard for me to be as completely anti-gun control as I currently am.
User avatar #101 to #100 - gladiuss (01/13/2013) [-]
You get my thumb. I posted the picture because it illustrates the ridiculous nature of the anti-gun arguments.

Regulation is better than restriction. But I would only regulate acquisition and reselling, not ownership.
User avatar #103 to #101 - codyxvasco (01/13/2013) [-]
....Those were some nice big words.
User avatar #106 to #103 - gladiuss (01/13/2013) [-]
Made my brain hurt, I gotta tell ya. Lol!
User avatar #107 to #106 - codyxvasco (01/13/2013) [-]
...This makes me want to order a stun gun for some reason.
#15 - superlazer (01/12/2013) [-]
guns shouldn't be fully illegal however, I believe they should make gun laws more strict. I live in Canada and i have my hunting and possession's licence. people shooting up a school rarely ever happens here but how come it's a problem in the U.S.A? Really, that stupid ******* constitution is so outdated and laws should evolve just like the guns themselves. That was signed in 1791 which is over 200 years ago for ****** sake. At the time, everyone had muskets and would take a long time to reload. who could go on a rampage with a ******* musket? this **** happens too often to not consider stricter gun laws.
#28 to #15 - elgringogordo **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #399 to #15 - youcame (01/13/2013) [-]
"that stupid ******* constitution" ?

Don't make me unload an extended clip of pure, lead filled AMERICAN FREEDOM all over your sorry ass.
User avatar #18 to #15 - formattedlizard (01/12/2013) [-]
what good is making gun laws stricter? weed is illegal and it's everywhere!
#20 to #18 - miwauturu (01/12/2013) [-]
It's also really difficult to grow your own guns
User avatar #25 to #20 - Onemanretardpack (01/12/2013) [-]
Not really, either order a parts kit and machine your own receiver or you can make all the parts with a cnc machine
User avatar #215 to #25 - evanking (01/13/2013) [-]
Yeah, but who the **** has a cnc machine in their house?
User avatar #381 to #215 - Onemanretardpack (01/13/2013) [-]
A lot of people actually. They have personal cnc machines
User avatar #36 to #18 - Crusader (01/12/2013) [-]
Yea, but most people see the idiocy of those laws, so even most cops will let a lot of that stuff slide when they should be arresting people.
As for gun laws.
You don't need full auto rifles, you don't need 30 round clips, you don't need .50 cal rifles.
Why not make it so for each different thing you need a different type of license.
A pistol license, a shotgun/rifle license, a permit to own large clips for certain reasons, such as wild hogs, a permit to own high calibre rifles in case of large wild animals such as bear, etc.
Don't ban them outright, but restrict it so it is harder for people to get them.
#355 to #36 - trolltroller (01/13/2013) [-]
I am a complete gun rights activist and own an assortment of firearms, your opinion has got to be one of the best that I have ever heard..
#49 - roliga (01/12/2013) [-]
In related news, I passed my firearms class today!
#111 to #49 - Kirbyman (01/13/2013) [-]
User avatar #408 - noahz (01/13/2013) [-]
1) its far harder to avoid someone with a gun that with a bat, you cant outrun a bullet.
2) you cant kill or injury 20+ people just by strangling them without getting caught, for that you need something fast like a gun
User avatar #380 - alyosha (01/13/2013) [-]
Even beyond the surface issue of murderings and gang violence and what have you, the thing that really upsets me is how gun legalization wasn't put in the constitution (I'm talking US here) just to let us hunt and defend ourselves from home invasions and the like. The founding fathers intended it to give our liberty "teeth," meaning if the government turned malevolent and started screwing the people (like Britain had done to them, in their eyes) then the people could fight back.

One of the earlier policies of Hitler's day was to strip the guns from the populace, which had the added bonus effect of making the majority of the population unable to do anything when he started cracking down with his harsher policies. Not everyone was on board with the whole Nazi thing, and they had resistance movements all throughout the Reich which gave them hell even unarmed. Also, we air-dropped a whole bunch of crappy mass-produced pistols into Germany once we had control of the airspace, to encourage them to rise up and fight back. And it did sort of work.

I'm not saying that a fully armed German resistance movement would have been able to do anything to their Army at the time, or that America needs another civil war, but... if we don't have guns, and the government does, then they can do literally anything they want and we can't really do anything about it besides vote them out - and that's worked really well, considering how hard it is to unseat incumbents in this country. Revolution, the thing the WANTED us to be able to do when they made the country, will be off the table if they get guns outlawed. And given the Internet censorship bills and the crackdown on our other rights... it's a scary idea which brings to mind images of Orwell's 1984.

Just food for thought.
#358 - skinless (01/13/2013) [-]
oh my god, the frontpage is just oozing **** storm content today
User avatar #374 to #358 - zahnrad (01/13/2013) [-]
Squidward: And then...The walls will ooze green ********** !
User avatar #375 to #374 - zahnrad (01/13/2013) [-]
Oh wait...They always do that...
#108 - cupotruth (01/13/2013) [-]
Guns are fine.   
Idiots like you who got curb stomped by the stupid fairy having guns aren't.   
We make laws so idiots that have been curbed stomped by the stupid fairy can't get guns.   
The occasional funny cat picture or feel does not make up for me having to deal with this 			****		 that deserves to be on a site where people will actually 			*******		 care..
Guns are fine.

Idiots like you who got curb stomped by the stupid fairy having guns aren't.

We make laws so idiots that have been curbed stomped by the stupid fairy can't get guns.

The occasional funny cat picture or feel does not make up for me having to deal with this **** that deserves to be on a site where people will actually ******* care..
User avatar #163 - SirSheepy (01/13/2013) [-]
you can't shoot up a school with a bat *******
User avatar #217 to #163 - pawnman (01/13/2013) [-]
No but I'm sure it is pretty easy to walk through the hallways with one without anyone caring much about it. I could probably kill 3-5 people before anyone would stop me.
#218 to #217 - SirSheepy (01/13/2013) [-]
but think of the possibilities with a gun
User avatar #221 to #218 - pawnman (01/13/2013) [-]
I'm just saying. if guns are outlawed people can go on rampage with other means.
User avatar #222 to #221 - SirSheepy (01/13/2013) [-]
true but
people kill by bat < people killed by gun
that's all im saying
User avatar #224 to #222 - pawnman (01/13/2013) [-]
im commenting on your first post about not being able to shoot up a school with a bat. Even so you could still go on rampage so making guns illegal would change nothing.

It's a rebuttal on why i think guns shouldn't be illegal because it would change nothing. I know guns are better than bats.
User avatar #228 to #224 - SirSheepy (01/13/2013) [-]
first of all i never said anything about guns being illegal. i was merely stating why the picture was retarded. second of all "guns illegal would change nothing" and "I know guns are better than bats" are very contradictory. making guns illegal WOULD change a whole lot. my point is once again that it is easier to kill people with a gun that with a bat.
"Even so you could still go on rampage"? of course you could the point STILL REMAINS THAT A GUN WOULD KILL MORE PEOPLE THAN A ************* BAT. HOLY JESUS CHRIST HOW ARE YOU NOT GETTING THIS?

User avatar #231 to #228 - pawnman (01/13/2013) [-]
Ok I'm done. didn't even read your whole comment. this is a retarded argument that i didn't plan on starting.
#252 to #231 - anon (01/13/2013) [-]
actually he is still wrong :P
although guns were (mostly) #1 with exceptions being bare hands and simple assaults, other weapons won out for almost every crime.
so yeah.
people will use anything to commit a crime.
and yeah...taking out 20 kids with a bat in a school would be cake. no lie
#327 to #252 - anon (01/13/2013) [-]
This link is to the 'non-fatal' section of the stats. The stats show that very few 'non-fatals' involve guns. When very few guns are involved very few people die. People still have a bad day, but its not death.
User avatar #256 to #252 - pawnman (01/13/2013) [-]
Awesome, have a thumb.
#220 to #163 - madmaxx (01/13/2013) [-]
A man in China stabbed over 20 school children the day after the Newtown School shootings. Can't shoot up a school with anything but a gun, but thats only beacuse only guns shoot.
#253 to #220 - miaandvinny (01/13/2013) [-]
26 people died in Newtown, 0 died in China.
User avatar #255 to #220 - memberforcontent (01/13/2013) [-]
None of those kids died though.
User avatar #472 to #255 - JoshBauer (01/13/2013) [-]
Still happened didn't it? Over 20 kids are now probably physically and mentally scarred for life.

Ban knives! You can cut your food with spoons!
#180 to #163 - alpacaking (01/13/2013) [-]
No you can't but think of all the people who own guns that don't go shooting up schools. If the people didn't have guns who says they wouldn't get a knife and stab up a school. Not all people who own guns will go on a killing spree and even if they don't have guns if a person wants to kill someone they will do it. They don't have guns in prison but criminals still manage to kill people.
User avatar #187 to #180 - SirSheepy (01/13/2013) [-]
so basically what your saying is that guns don't kill people, people kill people, right? well yes while that is technically true guns do make it a hell of a lot easier to kill people. Think of the chances of a person killing someone in a school if they had a knife instead of a gun. if someone tries to stab up a school they would probably be subdued after the first couple of kids. if he has a gun hes probably going to get more than a couple of kids. im not saying that people shouldn't own guns, because that's ******* retarded. im just saying that its easier to kill people with guns than pretty much anything else.

User avatar #203 to #187 - kingmarston (01/13/2013) [-]
I'm sure the British Government wished they disarmed its colonies...
#197 to #187 - alpacaking (01/13/2013) [-]
Forgot to say I completely agree with you on that point.
#208 to #197 - SirSheepy (01/13/2013) [-]
yay agreeing
User avatar #467 to #187 - JoshBauer (01/13/2013) [-]
Yeah, seriously. We should've outlawed guns hundreds of years ago!

Wait..wouldn't that mean the American Revolution never would've happened?

Guns are legal in America because we have the right to fight against our government.

The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it isn't needed until the government tries to take it away.
User avatar #493 to #467 - SirSheepy (01/13/2013) [-]
didnt i just say that i thought that outlawing guns was retarded?
User avatar #494 to #493 - JoshBauer (01/13/2013) [-]
You sure didn't say that not outlawing guns was retarded. You completely contradicted yourself in that comment, so I figured you're against guns.
User avatar #499 to #494 - SirSheepy (01/13/2013) [-]
>im not saying that people shouldn't own guns, because that's ******* retarded. im just saying that its easier to kill people with guns than pretty much anything else.

because you obviously have trouble with long paragraphs
User avatar #503 to #499 - JoshBauer (01/13/2013) [-]
>"so basically what your saying is that guns don't kill people, people kill people, right? well yes while that is technically true guns do make it a hell of a lot easier to kill people. Think of the chances of a person killing someone in a school if they had a knife instead of a gun. if someone tries to stab up a school they would probably be subdued after the first couple of kids. if he has a gun hes probably going to get more than a couple of kids."

Ok, now read the rest of your paragraph. "Guns make it so much easier to kill people!"

You're pointing out flaws with guns being legal.
You clearly have trouble with putting your opinion into words.
User avatar #517 to #503 - SirSheepy (01/13/2013) [-]
i wasnt really trying to point out the flaw in guns being legal but simply trying to explain why the picture is retarded. i do have trouble forming my opinions into words a lot though.
#196 to #187 - alpacaking (01/13/2013) [-]
It is much easier to kill people with guns and they probably would get subdued after a couple kids but yes people kill people. inb4 toasters don't toast toast, toast toasts toast
User avatar #202 to #196 - SirSheepy (01/13/2013) [-]
and i don't disagree with that. all im saying is that guns only have one purpose: to kill. and that's what people use them for. no more no less.

people do kill people. but guns sure make it a hell of a lot easier.

by the way it's toasters don't toast toast, people toast toast
User avatar #260 to #202 - GeneralBiscuit (01/13/2013) [-]
people toast bread...
User avatar #283 to #260 - SirSheepy (01/13/2013) [-]
well **** me sideways
#216 to #202 - alpacaking (01/13/2013) [-]
Well that's not the joke though. But guns make it easier to kill people but it also makes hunting easier, personally I bow hunt because I don't see the challenge of shooting something from 400 yards away with a crazy scope. My gun is for my own personal defense because if I need to protect myself I will be able to.
#212 to #163 - auesis (01/13/2013) [-]
Sounds like a challenge.
User avatar #171 to #163 - Zarke (01/13/2013) [-]
But you can do more damage by driving your car through the playground and doing donuts over the screaming children.
#174 to #171 - SirSheepy (01/13/2013) [-]
i laughed at that way more than i should have
#105 - alucord (01/13/2013) [-]
Go ahead, Ban guns.

I like a challenge
#32 - RonaldRegan (01/12/2013) [-]
i wouldnt think that FJ was so radically Anti-Gun.. you know.. 10 yr olds who play call of duty usually think guns are awesomecoolneatbro..
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)