Libfags. . Muzzle IT '' SAFE direction. Finger OFF the trigger. Safety ON. Less safe with guns than a six year old kid. Claims tn he an authority an gun safety  Libfags Muzzle IT '' SAFE direction Finger OFF the trigger Safety ON Less safe with guns than a six year old kid Claims tn he an authority gun safety
Upload
Login or register
Hide Comments
Leave a comment Refresh Comments (238)
[ 238 comments ]
> hey anon, wanna give your opinion?
asd
#1 - scottmc
Reply +71 123456789123345869
(01/25/2013) [-]
It costs four-hundred-thousand dollars to fire this weapon.... for twelve seconds.
#2 to #1 - Bobtheblob
Reply +30 123456789123345869
(01/25/2013) [-]
Them $200 bullets ain't so hot when they don't hit nothin', are they?
Them $200 bullets ain't so hot when they don't hit nothin', are they?
#6 to #2 - sprudlebass
Reply +18 123456789123345869
(01/25/2013) [-]
>heavy's face when
#54 - taintedangel
Reply +44 123456789123345869
(01/26/2013) [-]
The gun is not the problem. It never was. The problem is that you can easily get one, even if you are mentally unstable or untrained.

The gun doesn't kill the person, it's only a tool. The killer is the one holding the gun with the malcontent/fear to pull the trigger.
User avatar #177 to #54 - dadukesta
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/26/2013) [-]
And several news studies have shown it's impossible to stop the off the record selling of guns because people sell them illegally in parking lots. I saw a big news report on it, this one guy was selling a barret 50 cal to complete strangers no questions asked.
#208 to #54 - Hiddendemon
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/26/2013) [-]
while i do agree with your point of view, as I own a couple hunting guns, i wouldn't care if assault weapons are banned, those are specifically made to kill people.
User avatar #61 to #54 - shaddz
Reply +6 123456789123345869
(01/26/2013) [-]
unstable people can get hold of hammers pretty easily too, what's your point
User avatar #66 to #61 - TheMacDaddy
Reply +17 123456789123345869
(01/26/2013) [-]
and baseball bats, cars, and knifes. All used more in murders then guns
User avatar #178 to #66 - TheMather
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(01/26/2013) [-]
More assaults, yes, but not murders.
www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/violent_crime/murder.html#table2_9
If you look at that table, you'll see that firearms make for the murder weapon in just under two thirds of all homicides that take place in the US.
User avatar #226 to #178 - shaddz
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/26/2013) [-]
yea thats the united states only because they can get hold of guns, look up rates for other countries that can't for a fair comparison of what it would be like without the guns.
User avatar #227 to #226 - TheMather
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/26/2013) [-]
Canada, seems to have very lenient gun laws:
www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/canada - Rougly 1/3

Norway, very lenient gun laws for a European first-world nation;
www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/norway - Roughly 1/10, though this varies wildly because of the low numbers.

Japan, stricy laws:
www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/japan - 1/21.

The UK, very strict gun laws;
www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-kingdom - Roughly 1/30.
User avatar #70 to #66 - taintedangel
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/26/2013) [-]
Also, you can make anything you can grab into a weapon, fyi.

Hammers, baseball bats, a garden hose, a chain, forks, fire pokers, your fists, ect.
User avatar #72 to #70 - gggman
Reply +11 123456789123345869
(01/26/2013) [-]
How many of them can hit multiple targets within a matter of seconds like a gun?
User avatar #131 to #66 - starzero
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(01/26/2013) [-]
*than.

You have a good point.
User avatar #75 to #61 - generaljosh
Reply +12 123456789123345869
(01/26/2013) [-]
You can't mow down a crowd of people with a hammer
inb4 thor
User avatar #64 to #61 - jgd
Reply +12 123456789123345869
(01/26/2013) [-]
well if i wear to point a hammer at you and squeeze it i would look silly.
User avatar #65 to #61 - taintedangel
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/26/2013) [-]
That is my point.

The. Gun. Is. A. Tool. Just like a hammer.
#15 - originalop
-18 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
#16 to #15 - originalop
-5 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #47 to #16 - diegrammernazis
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(01/26/2013) [-]
1st: how would you contact the police.
2nd: they would just get guns off of the black market, possibly militarized versions.
#19 to #16 - anon id: 95fd0bc9
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/26/2013) [-]
Because obviously criminals follow gun laws.

These big guys sure did stop a lot at Sandy Hook...
User avatar #25 to #16 - alalalalal
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(01/26/2013) [-]
Lol at "They can stop and outburst in a giffy..." Thank god that they stopped Columbine and Conecticut shootings
User avatar #40 to #25 - ichbintarded
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(01/26/2013) [-]
No one is allowed to have a gun in those areas. Therefore only criminals and police would have guns. Fix yourself before you comment, you're kinda tore up from the floor up right now.
#18 to #15 - originalop
-5 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #20 to #18 - CallMeCrisco
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(01/26/2013) [-]
Why do we need weapons? See: history
#234 to #20 - originalop
0 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
#30 to #18 - lifeisahighway
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(01/26/2013) [-]
More people die every year from blunt objects (hammers, clubs, etc) than die from guns.
User avatar #24 to #18 - satrenkotheone
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(01/26/2013) [-]
Walking around with swords, axes and spears sound pretty cool to me.
#33 to #15 - ofc
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(01/26/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
#217 to #15 - krispybananaz
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(01/26/2013) [-]
m14 ebr SO goddamned easy to conceal, holy **** right. your so vauge with that, people conceal knives all the time, same with guns. get the **** over it
#232 to #217 - originalop
-1 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
#93 to #15 - redrex
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(01/26/2013) [-]
#233 to #93 - originalop
0 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
#29 to #15 - lifeisahighway
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(01/26/2013) [-]
More people are killed with bats and clubs every year than are killed with guns. Only 2% of gun deaths result from rifles of any kind. All but one mass shooting since Colombine has taken place where guns are banned (movie theatre, school, etc). Chicago, which has some of the strictest gun control laws in the United States also has some of the highest murder rates. Facts are FUN!!!
User avatar #32 to #29 - mehturtlesareok
Reply -3 123456789123345869
(01/26/2013) [-]
Please cite a source next time
#36 to #32 - lifeisahighway
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(01/26/2013) [-]
washington.cbslocal.com/2013/01/03/fbi-hammers-clubs-kill-more-people-than-rifles-shotguns/ clubs
You need to login to view this link mass shooting
And if you don't already know Chicago is violent, you should not be allowed to have access to a computer.
That literally took 20 seconds, you can look it up yourself next time.
#63 to #36 - varrlegrimscythe
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(01/26/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
User avatar #44 to #36 - mehturtlesareok
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(01/26/2013) [-]
Preferably statistics and hard data, not articles which are obviously written by people for one side or the other.
#45 to #44 - lifeisahighway
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(01/26/2013) [-]
Look, if you're going to be close minded about the actual facts, we cannot have a civil debate. You can look it up yourself, and until you prove otherwise (impossible because it is true), the information I stated should be regarded as true. Did you not read about those things on npr or msnbc?
#136 to #45 - ronniedrew
0 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
#26 to #15 - reconred
Reply +31 123456789123345869
(01/26/2013) [-]
Yes, lets ignore the 6 million dead Jews that couldn't defend themselves. Alright, what about Stalin? No? Okay what about this, in Britain there was 59 firearm homicides, compared to the United States of America's aprox 8,000 homicides however 600 of them were justifiable homicides by police officers and self-defense, pretty low number of justified homicides to have the highest gun ownership in the world right? I have an explanation for this: Say you're walking down the street and somebody jumps out of a corner with a knife and says 'Give me your money!' you pull out a firearm, this man now frightened was not expecting resistance and runs away. Therefor, theoretically anyway, the crime goes unreported to the police, does this make sense to you?

Alright now, lets try this out seeing as Britain has a population of about 65 million people versus America's 314 million people, yes, Britain would have a much lower gun homicide rate, but you say '59 versus 7,400' well look at this:

per-100,000 people there is aprox; 2,000 violent crimes in Britain, Seems like a fair number right? Well across the pond, here in America there are aprox 446 violent crimes per-100,000 people. Woah, let's look at this, we have ALOT of gun homicides compared too Britain but a MUCH lower VC rate. Well obviously in a place where it is easy to get a firearm there is going to be more firearm related deaths, but less stabbings and beatings when compared to Britain. Because in Britain criminals know that the most their victim is going to have to defend themselves is a knife, so Criminals are going to take advantage over this, but over here they are going to say (If they're smart) 'This man may have a gun, I don't want to mess with him!' And for this reason Britain is rank one of the most dangerous nations by the EU.

And this is why I say, God Bless the United States of America and long live the Constitution and thee Republic.
#77 to #26 - upunkpunk
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(01/26/2013) [-]
i love you
i love you
User avatar #86 to #77 - reconred
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(01/26/2013) [-]
I love you too.
User avatar #97 to #26 - goldenleaf
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(01/26/2013) [-]
this is the best thing on our constitution that I've ever read.
#142 to #26 - manter
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(01/26/2013) [-]
You, sir, are a Hero.
You, sir, are a Hero.
#138 to #26 - ronniedrew
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(01/26/2013) [-]
Marry me
Marry me
#89 to #26 - defender
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/26/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
User avatar #34 to #26 - mehturtlesareok
Reply -11 123456789123345869
(01/26/2013) [-]
If you pull a gun on a man robbing you, you are a ******* moron
User avatar #38 to #34 - ichbintarded
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(01/26/2013) [-]
Please explain how pulling a weapon on somebody who is already trying to take what is yours through violent means is stupid. I'm not being sarcastic, I really want to hear your justification.
User avatar #41 to #38 - mehturtlesareok
Reply -4 123456789123345869
(01/26/2013) [-]
Because the robber would most likely shoot you if you did, and it would all have been for your phone and whatever you had in your wallet. Maybe if you already gave the robber everything you had and he still wouldn't give up it would be a last way out.
User avatar #43 to #41 - ichbintarded
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(01/26/2013) [-]
Most robbery take place by amateurs with a knife. If you've been trained, or even just taken a psychology class you can tell a person who is trying to frighten you to doing what you want. When you have someone who is trained in firearms they can pull while making it look like they're going for their wallet. It's smart if you know what your doing, but I believe that no one should have a gun they haven't practiced with. Also known as the person in the picture who has obviously never practiced with a firearm in her life. Or she's simply to stupid to live. Either way it all comes down to the fact that it's only stupid if you don't know what you're doing.
#37 to #34 - lifeisahighway
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(01/26/2013) [-]
How so?
User avatar #42 to #37 - mehturtlesareok
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(01/26/2013) [-]
see comment above
User avatar #90 to #34 - defender
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/26/2013) [-]
now we know who to rob
User avatar #49 to #34 - taintedangel
Reply -7 123456789123345869
(01/26/2013) [-]
Technically, you're only allowed to have a gun if you're in a state militia, not just because 'it's your god-given right to'. Then that amendment is ignored so that every jag-off and his mother can get a gun, dispite training and mental capacity.
User avatar #58 to #49 - MrPadre
Reply +7 123456789123345869
(01/26/2013) [-]
But the Supreme Court made a decision in 2010 (5 to 4) that owning a gun is one of our fundamental rights. There is no technicality about it

Source:
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/28/AR2010062802134. html
#60 to #58 - taintedangel
Reply -7 123456789123345869
(01/26/2013) [-]
Well shut my mouth.

So now it's every psychopath and sociopath's fundamental right to have a gun now?
User avatar #144 to #60 - Zarke
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(01/26/2013) [-]
Yep, and it's every honest and good person's right to point a gun right back at them.
User avatar #62 to #60 - MrPadre
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(01/26/2013) [-]
No, remember, certain things can take away your rights. Having commited felonies is one for example. Also, direct quote from the article: "The 5 to 4 decision does not strike down any gun-control laws, nor does it elaborate on what kind of laws would offend the Constitution. One justice predicted that an 'avalanche' of lawsuits would be filed across the country asking federal judges to define the boundaries of gun ownership and government regulation."
User avatar #69 to #62 - taintedangel
Reply -3 123456789123345869
(01/26/2013) [-]
I understand that, just kinda making a scary statement/unfunny joke there.

It's just that the guideline for who can own a gun tend to get blurred so anyone can get a gun so it doesn't piss anyone off and that people can't claim "They are taking my God-given right away".
User avatar #83 to #49 - reconred
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(01/26/2013) [-]
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" Really? Because this piece of paper seems to say otherwise. Seriously, did you even read the 2A?
#23 - pickledpee
Reply +28 123456789123345869
(01/26/2013) [-]
A complete ban on guns wouldn't be effective, but a psychological and physical examination is needed. You can be completely blind and still own a gun if you can afford it.
A complete ban on guns wouldn't be effective, but a psychological and physical examination is needed. You can be completely blind and still own a gun if you can afford it.
User avatar #46 to #23 - taintedangel
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(01/26/2013) [-]
I am not afraid of someone who's been trained to use a gun safely and effectively. I'm afraid of a guy who hasn't been trained with one, has a mental problem, or both.
User avatar #27 - satrenkotheone
Reply +15 123456789123345869
(01/26/2013) [-]
I THINK WE SHOULD ABANDON FIREARMS ALTOGETHER AND USE MELEE WEAPONS!

Caps cause I am cool like that.
User avatar #59 to #27 - varrlegrimscythe
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(01/26/2013) [-]
You do that, I'll learn to melt peoples faces off with my mind.
User avatar #105 - impaledsandwich
Reply +14 123456789123345869
(01/26/2013) [-]
God damn this is stupid. She isn't retardedly unsafe because she's a liberal, she's retardedly unsafe because she's a middle-aged woman who almost certainly has no training with guns. Political beliefs have nothing to do with gun skills or knowledge.
#108 to #105 - neonblackkitty
0 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #184 to #105 - popkornking
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/26/2013) [-]
People like to imagine that if one of many beliefs someone adheres to is against their own, that the entire ideology must be the root cause
User avatar #109 to #105 - neonblackkitty
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(01/26/2013) [-]
She has her own concealed weapons permit- meaning she qualified with a personal firearm, which required her to take a test on basic safety rules.
User avatar #120 to #109 - thamuz
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(01/26/2013) [-]
She also has stated "She has seen many pictures of weapons and that makes her an authority on them"

That cunt wants to ban all guns on the AR/AK platform. So no more SKS,or anything that resembles the AR-15(yes,even your Ruger 22 kit would be banned).

The woman doesnt know what end makes the loud noise. And if she has a CCW then she would be limiting herself in her petty crusade against gun ownership.
User avatar #113 to #109 - impaledsandwich
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(01/26/2013) [-]
I'll take your word for it. I honestly have no idea why I thought I should start an Internet argument at 10:30. My last sentence still stands, anyway; you can't say that all liberals are unsafe retards around guns.
User avatar #114 to #113 - neonblackkitty
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(01/26/2013) [-]
agreed. I have friends that claim to be liberal but do enjoy shooting and know a thing or two about guns.
User avatar #117 to #114 - impaledsandwich
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(01/26/2013) [-]
If it weren't for the title, I'd actually like this post. Anti-gun people should at least know how to deal with one so they don't sound like idiots.
#116 to #109 - anon id: fb55c69d
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/26/2013) [-]
Wait...Why does she have a concealed carry permit if she's trying to disarm everyone?...
User avatar #119 to #116 - neonblackkitty
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(01/26/2013) [-]
Because like most politicians she feels as if she is more important than us lowly citizens. Her safety and liberty is more important.
User avatar #161 to #109 - eatherbreather
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(01/26/2013) [-]
Makes her a hypocrite am I right? She's all "the gun I choose to defend myself with is o.k. but not yours".
#130 - alphajunk
Reply +11 123456789123345869
(01/26/2013) [-]
MFW reading this post and the stupid ********* comments about banning guns and ****
MFW reading this post and the stupid ********* comments about banning guns and ****
#152 to #130 - Kittehh
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/26/2013) [-]
< Almost everyone on these types of threads.

Me: *skip*

User avatar #185 - jasonbomb
Reply -5 123456789123345869
(01/26/2013) [-]
maybe the drum mag is empty?
User avatar #205 to #185 - hydraetis
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(01/26/2013) [-]
It doesn't matter. Even when the gun has been disengaged (trigger & firing mechanism removed) you're still not supposed to point it at people.
User avatar #193 to #185 - thereisaguy
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(01/26/2013) [-]
Doesn't matter, it's about proper gun safety and etiquette.
User avatar #243 to #193 - jasonbomb
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/27/2013) [-]
i knew that, i was just refering to comments about the gun going off.
User avatar #194 to #185 - dratyats
Reply +9 123456789123345869
(01/26/2013) [-]
its still proper etiquette. if somebody points a gun at you, your first reaction wont be to ask them if the magazine is empty, it will be to get the **** out of the direction of the barrel.
User avatar #158 - reican
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(01/26/2013) [-]
because if people disagree she could spray them down
User avatar #165 to #158 - malhaloc
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(01/26/2013) [-]
Then blame it on the gun! Its brilliant!
User avatar #167 to #165 - reican
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(01/26/2013) [-]
I know! and then her law passes
User avatar #5 - maidenmk
Reply -4 123456789123345869
(01/25/2013) [-]
There is no way to argue that 'guns and death' are the something to defend.
#9 to #5 - anon id: 72f50118
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/25/2013) [-]
How the **** did you think people went on killing sprees before there were guns?
God damn, the ignorance of some people.
#28 to #5 - chazzxz
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/26/2013) [-]
The only remotely valid anti-gun argument is the fact that you can commit acts of terrorism on a larger scale with guns.
#7 to #5 - wormman
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(01/25/2013) [-]
guns are nothing but tools. its what people decide to do with them that matters. people fear guns more then any of the other weapons that our species has created because they are just easier to use. MFW your comment.
User avatar #31 to #7 - mehturtlesareok
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(01/26/2013) [-]
Yeah, but think of it this way; take away a man's tools and he can't do the job

Sure you can kill people without guns, but guns sure as hell are more effective at killing than most household objects.
User avatar #187 to #31 - wormman
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/26/2013) [-]
depends on the person using them.
User avatar #35 to #31 - mcroflskates
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(01/26/2013) [-]
Guns aren't a household object, so why would someone choose a lamp to kill someone if they don't have a gun? They'll just go out and buy another weapon.
Like the guy in Wyoming who killed people with a bow and arrow.
Not to mention that criminals get guns (illegally) now, so what will making them illegal do?...
User avatar #39 to #35 - mehturtlesareok
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(01/26/2013) [-]
realistically though, how is a gun going to help the average person against a criminal?
For example; say you were a store clerk and someone pulled a gun on you trying to rob you. You know you have a gun nearby, do you reach for it in hopes that you can get off a shot first?
the answer is no, your life is worth more than whatever is in the cash register.

This isn't the wild west where you had to defend your town against bandits who wouldn't stop pillaging the town unless you defended yourself.