Click to expand
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #110 - desuforeverlulz (01/17/2013) [-]
Extended mags aren't banned?... Even though they should be. You don't need to have 30 bullets in a clip to go hunting or defend yourself.
User avatar #239 to #110 - desuforeverlulz (01/17/2013) [-]
I wonder why this comment was thumbed down most of all when it was probably the most obvious factual thing I said, except the mistake of saying "clip" of course.
User avatar #148 to #110 - friendlyanonymous (01/17/2013) [-]
What the **** ?
I wish there was 30 round clips.
#160 to #148 - desuforeverlulz (01/17/2013) [-]
You know I meant to say magazine. Even still, here's your 30 round clip.
User avatar #171 to #160 - friendlyanonymous (01/17/2013) [-]
A 30 round clip would totally work with my Mosin.
#116 to #110 - chiefrunnyjeans (01/17/2013) [-]
Don't even start with that bullcrap. yes you do need as many bullets to defend yourself as possible. Especially because we don't just have guns for self defense. It is to keep a check on the government.
User avatar #190 to #116 - bramdk (01/17/2013) [-]
so you have to keep a check on the government...
that you partially elected...
yes... that makes total sense
User avatar #192 to #190 - chiefrunnyjeans (01/17/2013) [-]
>implying there are no corrupt politicians
User avatar #798 to #192 - bramdk (01/18/2013) [-]
you know what
keep your damn guns
use them even
use them on your politicians on others and on yourself
ittl be a great act of natural selection
User avatar #149 to #116 - desuforeverlulz (01/17/2013) [-]
Haha, no. Just, no. You conservatives and your crazy dreams of overtaking the government... and that's assuming the government decides to do some Orwellian nonsense. I pity your insane ideology. You will not survive against an army.
User avatar #158 to #149 - chituat (01/17/2013) [-]
That's what the old regime said about the french
User avatar #163 to #158 - desuforeverlulz (01/17/2013) [-]
>implying the french have an army
User avatar #173 to #163 - thedutchs (01/17/2013) [-]
Are you retarded? The French have quite a strong military force.

And believe me. If it's all the people against the government, the people will win.

Armies tend to split during times of revolution y'know.
User avatar #181 to #173 - desuforeverlulz (01/17/2013) [-]
During the French Revolution? They had a sizable army but it doesn't hold a candle to our nation's army today.
User avatar #188 to #181 - thedutchs (01/17/2013) [-]
Even though France has the 6th strongest army in the world?


Get your facts straight.
User avatar #191 to #188 - desuforeverlulz (01/17/2013) [-]
Again... during the French Revolution? No they did not. Back when people used muskets and pikes to kill each other, it was probably quite a bit easier to overthrow a government.
User avatar #202 to #191 - thedutchs (01/17/2013) [-]
Sure. But whenever a revolution would happen this instant some general would take over a part of the army and foreign parties with interest would supply arms and vehicles to the rebels and even help fight the government.

There is always a bunch of high-ranking officers who want to have power.

It happened in the Roman empire, the French revolution (Napoleon) and a few years back in Egypt and Libya.

So the people would still win in the end.
User avatar #237 to #202 - desuforeverlulz (01/17/2013) [-]
You don't know that. Way to give the benefit of the doubt to your government, who you are accusing of enforcing some form of Orwellian state by force. You'd like to believe a lot of people in the army are good people, right? Well the army is where people who want sick thrills of killing people or enforcing martial law go as well.
User avatar #167 to #163 - chituat (01/17/2013) [-]
seeing how they were recently in africa, yes. they do have an army.
User avatar #182 to #167 - desuforeverlulz (01/17/2013) [-]
See the above comment.
User avatar #155 to #149 - chiefrunnyjeans (01/17/2013) [-]
that's the same thing the jews said before they got gassed you ignorant liberal
User avatar #165 to #155 - desuforeverlulz (01/17/2013) [-]
I'm not saying it couldn't happen, I'm saying violent resistance will end up with you dead, end of discussion.
User avatar #184 to #165 - chiefrunnyjeans (01/17/2013) [-]
That's just how democracy works. Your rights mean nothing if you can't defend them.
User avatar #242 to #184 - desuforeverlulz (01/17/2013) [-]
Sad day for you, my friend. Let's just hope the government never decides to do that. Which in all honesty I wouldn't think it would. It would be bad for corporate profits to enslave Americans.
User avatar #114 to #110 - MythBuster (01/17/2013) [-]
I shoot gophers with my .22 so an extended mag really helps when you're busy clearing out a field
#118 to #114 - desuforeverlulz (01/17/2013) [-]
You're justifying the fact that a psycho with a gun can unload more rounds in a shorter amount of time on innocent people because it's convenient for your purposes?
You're justifying the fact that a psycho with a gun can unload more rounds in a shorter amount of time on innocent people because it's convenient for your purposes?
User avatar #154 to #118 - cycloberrick (01/17/2013) [-]
a fully automatic large mag rifle has never been obtained legally and used in a crime, they've always been illegally obtained when used for shootings
User avatar #170 to #154 - desuforeverlulz (01/17/2013) [-]
3/4ths of guns used in mass murders are obtained legally. The six guns used in the Sandy Hook shooting were legally bought possessed by the shooter's mother.
User avatar #208 to #170 - cycloberrick (01/17/2013) [-]
gosh I just told someone I was done debating the subject so here is my final comment

which is why instead of banning something I think they should just perform background checks on people, that could also help and people could keep their guns. also the guns were obtained by a person who wasn't apart of the shooting which means the people using them were handling them illegally
User avatar #215 to #208 - desuforeverlulz (01/17/2013) [-]
Who said I was in favor of banning guns? Pro-gun rights activists usually spout that strawman when in fact we want the same reasonable legislation that you'd probably be in favor of. Federally mandated background checks, closing the gun show loophole, and banning most if not all extended magazines. I'm also in favor of banning assault rifles, but JUST assault rifles. People who want guns for morally honest reasons would be forced to buy some other type of gun, boohoo. We can't always get what we want because sometimes the government deems it dangerous to society, like illegal narcotics for example.
User avatar #228 to #215 - cycloberrick (01/17/2013) [-]
also this is totally off topic, but do you play League of Legends or own a PS3 because you seem to be one of the few reasonable people I've seen on the internet and I would like to add you as a friend on something, don't really care what game I'd add you on just any random game would work.
User avatar #232 to #228 - desuforeverlulz (01/17/2013) [-]
I've got an Xbox? Neither of those though, sorry.
User avatar #236 to #232 - cycloberrick (01/17/2013) [-]
my brother moved out recently and I let him take it with him, damn.
User avatar #222 to #215 - cycloberrick (01/17/2013) [-]
oh sorry, I wasn't paying enough attention before and I guess I just assumed you were against gun use. But banning assault rifles, that's a very broad term and can be interpreted in many different ways. A person can look at a bolt action hunting rifle and say it can be used as an assault weapon, so sure you could ban certain firearms but please make it more specific than simply "assault rifles"
User avatar #229 to #222 - desuforeverlulz (01/17/2013) [-]
If you didn't know, the Clinton magical fairy princessistration passed a law known as the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban, and it laid out the specific grounds for what types of guns would be banned. I actually just want that law reenacted, as it expired in 2004.
User avatar #234 to #229 - cycloberrick (01/17/2013) [-]
well we seem to have found a common ground, good debate my friend (if you could call it that because we kinda agreed on stuff)
User avatar #193 to #170 - bramdk (01/17/2013) [-]
and even if they werent they didnt grow on automatic trees , even illigal guns have bein on a store shelve someday
User avatar #195 to #193 - desuforeverlulz (01/17/2013) [-]
Not necessarily. And I don't see the point you're trying to make.
User avatar #198 to #195 - bramdk (01/17/2013) [-]
i mean that when an automatic gun is manufactured it isnt put in a public bin for the illigal person just to take
its bought by a store
who then sells it for a profit
now if you are a bad person you can go and sell this gun for a higher profit to someone who hasnt got a license but wants one to lets say do harm
then this gun is now deemed illigal
but saying it has never bein inside a store once in its time is total ********
User avatar #209 to #198 - desuforeverlulz (01/17/2013) [-]
People who make guns don't just sell to gun stores. And I really fail to see the point here.
User avatar #130 to #118 - MythBuster (01/17/2013) [-]
It's a .22, you can take 5 shots to the chest and live.. Plus I shoot gophers on cow farms so yeah it's for the convince of everyone, gophers ruin grass fields and if a cow breaks its legs by stepping in a gopher hole, you have to kill it. The more cows that have to be killed, the higher the beef prices are
User avatar #143 to #130 - desuforeverlulz (01/17/2013) [-]
I wasn't talking about just .22s, you made that argument yourself and now you're attacking a strawman.
User avatar #157 to #143 - MythBuster (01/17/2013) [-]
I was making the example that if you ban all of them, you're banning a tool that honest people use everyday
User avatar #189 to #157 - desuforeverlulz (01/17/2013) [-]
I understand it makes your job and the others who do the same sort of activity easier... but we are talking about people's lives here man. It really does have an impact whether a shooter is able to shoot continuously for longer amounts of time. Imagine if someone committed a mass murder using a minigun.
User avatar #196 to #189 - MythBuster (01/17/2013) [-]
Imagine if someone committed a shooting with a handgun and a legal magazine size... O **** that already happened at VT. Crazy people will be crazy
User avatar #200 to #196 - desuforeverlulz (01/17/2013) [-]
That doesn't prove a point. Just that it's possible. One instance doesn't prove all the rest of the data to the contrary false. Assault rifles with legal extended mags are most commonly used in mass shootings.
User avatar #210 to #200 - MythBuster (01/17/2013) [-]
All that banning will do is take it away from honest citizens, criminals will ALWAYS find a way to illegally obtain banned mags
User avatar #223 to #210 - desuforeverlulz (01/17/2013) [-]
That's not true. You need to think and consider the many ways that making something illegal could prevent someone from getting banned mags. First of all, you say "criminal" which implies that they have a criminal background. Most people who go on killing sprees do not have a criminal history. Usually people in gangs or tough neighborhoods that I would call criminals know people that could probably find them extended magazines, because perhaps they know someone who illegally deals arms. But what about those people who've never done anything criminal? They might not have that same connection. And there you go, it's a change. Maybe a small or a big change, that all depends on how successful the implementation is and how well the police handle illegal arms trafficking, but a little change today could save someone's life tomorrow.
User avatar #249 to #223 - MythBuster (01/17/2013) [-]
Have drugs went away since they were banned?? There millions and millions of extended mags circulating through the US, banning them wouldn't do **** ... This argument isn't going anywhere since you're so closed minded, so have a good one man
User avatar #253 to #249 - desuforeverlulz (01/17/2013) [-]
Not being easily persuaded by illegitimate arguments is being closed minded? Sure. Whatever you say.
User avatar #251 to #249 - desuforeverlulz (01/17/2013) [-]
Obviously not, I was just making the example of appropriate legislation. The war on drugs doesn't work, decriminalization and fines with rehabilitation would make a difference. Just like how some gun control works and others makes things worse, like my home state's ban on concealed weapons. You say that like you know it's a fact lol. It still doesn't change the basic principle that if you reduce the availability you'll reduce the number.
#127 to #118 - anon (01/17/2013) [-]
The psycho killer will just bring more magazines. Just look at columbine and virginia tech.
User avatar #140 to #127 - desuforeverlulz (01/17/2013) [-]
And they will have to reload, which gives people time to escape, or the police an opportunity to take him down. That's the point I'm making.
#113 to #110 - anon (01/17/2013) [-]
When is this ever about needs? This is America, if you want something you can go buy it. Should we outlaw everything that the people don't "need", like Xbox's and iPads?
User avatar #153 to #113 - desuforeverlulz (01/17/2013) [-]
We outlaw things like poison. People don't need that, they are used to kill people. How about you make an actual shred of ******* sense, and then come have this discussion with me.
User avatar #115 to #113 - desuforeverlulz (01/17/2013) [-]
Do you not see the obvious logical flaw in your analogy? Those things don't assist people committing mass murders.
#134 to #115 - lisreal (01/17/2013) [-]
Because, as many other people have said, people out to commit mass murders actually follow the law, right? We should ban knives, poisonous chemicals, cars, hammers, you know, anything that could ASSIST in a murder, right?

If somebody wants something or to do something badly enough, they are going to do it.
User avatar #194 to #134 - bramdk (01/17/2013) [-]
i hate this picture actually....
its implying that you can use a gun to lets say drive around and go do groceries in
its that stupid
a car has a propper urban use
guns dont
#217 to #194 - gisuar (01/17/2013) [-]
everything he mentioned is used to do other things even the opposite of killing they might be abused but guns aren't good for anything else than killing and that's what those people won't understand arguing that way.
User avatar #139 to #134 - desuforeverlulz (01/17/2013) [-]
Absolutely, I agree. But not everyone would go to such lengths. And if we can decrease the number of people with incredibly easy means of committing mass murders, then perhaps we can decrease the number overall. It's the simple principal of macroeconomics.
User avatar #162 to #139 - lisreal (01/17/2013) [-]
You just make it sound like guns are the only murder weapons. Like somebody else said, if extended mags aren't within somebody's grasp, they can bring more mags.

I'd like to pull the "keep the guns to check our government" card, but no matter how much or how little control we have on guns, we will always be outgunned. I don't think Obama is trying to piss us off. I don't like him as a president but I believe he means well. It's just I think he is expecting for more people to obey the laws than who actually will. Unless guns are 100% unavailable (which is a nice but outlandish thought), you will always run the risk of tragedy. Same goes for drugs, alcohol, vehicles, etc. I know it's terrible, but that's unfortunately the world we live in.
User avatar #176 to #162 - desuforeverlulz (01/17/2013) [-]
A nice but outlandish thought? Wow. How about Japan where guns are virtually nonexistent?
User avatar #172 to #162 - desuforeverlulz (01/17/2013) [-]
They are the most efficient murder weapon. If you had to kill someone and you couldn't sneak up on them, which would you choose?

A. A grenade
B. A knife
C. Plastic explosive
D. Poison (you'd have to force them to ingest it)
E. A gun
#128 to #115 - anon (01/17/2013) [-]
If I don't use my guns to commit crimes, why can't I have whatever size magazine I want? Why can't I have automatic weapons? I'm never going to commit crimes with them, or use them for anything illegal. What's the big deal?

User avatar #131 to #128 - desuforeverlulz (01/17/2013) [-]
Because there are other people who are not you, maybe? Did you ever consider that?
User avatar #126 to #115 - cadaverbox (01/17/2013) [-]
One might use a computer to pirate things.
They might pirate a book titled "Steal This Book"
This book contains detailed instructions on how to build a bomb and where to place it on a wall to get the most blast damage.
One could also use said computer to remotely detonate this bomb, killing many people in the process.
We don't need computers.
Criminals, like society as a whole, find ways to innovate when there is scarcity.
User avatar #207 to #126 - desuforeverlulz (01/17/2013) [-]
When you look at the bigger picture, if we reduced the number of gun related crimes through good legislation, we'd have less mass murders overall. The reason being is that guns are easy to obtain and are very efficient methods of killing people, it looks very suspicious when you're purchasing things to make bombs. Also mass murderers are usually sadistic and might not get the same thrill from remotely detonating a bomb.
User avatar #240 to #207 - cadaverbox (01/17/2013) [-]
Or maybe you could kill the problem at the source in helping to identify and aid mentally unstable citizens so that they don't go off on rampages. Why is restriction of the masses the proper solution when you could just restrict those deemed unfit to carry such weapons?

Also, your reasons about "looking suspicious" and "thrill" are ******** . Bombs can be made with so many household items, that with the right know-how, you could probably blow up your garage using only the stuff inside it. And if anything, an explosions would be more thrilling to a psychopath.
#120 to #115 - captnpl has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #135 to #120 - desuforeverlulz (01/17/2013) [-]

“The Nature of Mass Murder and Autogenic Massacre”

Bowers, Thomas G.; Holmes, Eric S.; Rhom, Ashley. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 2010, 25:59-66. doi: 10.1007/s11-6

Abstract: “Incidents of mass murder have gained considerable media attention, but are not well understood in behavioral sciences. Current definitions are weak, and may include politically or ideologically motivated phenomenon. Our current understanding of the phenomenon indicates these incidents are not peculiar to only western cultures, and appear to be increasing. Methods most prominently used include firearms by males who have experienced challenging setbacks in important social, familial and vocational domains. There often appears to be important autogenic components … including dysthymic reactions and similar antecedents. There have been observations of possible seasonal variations in mass murders, but research to date is inadequate to establish this relationship. It is recommended behavioral sciences and mental health researchers increase research efforts on understanding mass killings, as the current socioeconomic climate may increase vulnerability to this phenomenon, and the incidents are not well understood despite their notoriety.”
 Friends (0)