Click to expand
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #9 - Loppytaffy (03/04/2013) [-]
Be American "Making guns illegal will not solve the problem"
Be British. Gun are illegal. Do not get shot.
User avatar #499 to #9 - doddythechef (03/04/2013) [-]
there we go thats my arguing done with american idiots for the night
man these people and guns, its like there born with one in their hand
User avatar #478 to #9 - Onemanretardpack (03/04/2013) [-]
Instead get stabbed, raped to death with a metal rod
User avatar #479 to #478 - Loppytaffy (03/04/2013) [-]
I'd rather be stabbed than shot. At least if I'm stabbed they have to chase me down and catch me, rather than face me at a distance like a coward
User avatar #480 to #479 - Onemanretardpack (03/04/2013) [-]
Ok dude, whatever you say. Someone who stabs you isn't going to let you live. And stabbing hurts a hell of a lot more than shooting.
User avatar #481 to #480 - Loppytaffy (03/04/2013) [-]
Oh, so you think the stabbing mortality rate is higher than the shooting?
User avatar #484 to #481 - Onemanretardpack (03/04/2013) [-]
Seeing how less stabbings happen over here (and less violent crime overall), I wouldn't know. I know I've gotten shot in the foot and had been stabbed and slashed in the hand/arm region and can tell you shooting is a lot cleaner than being stabbed. Plus someone going after you with a knife is more determined to kill you than someone who shot you over your wallet
User avatar #487 to #484 - doddythechef (03/04/2013) [-]
wait wait wait
you think getting shot is better than getting stabbed

so a chance to fight back against your attack face to face, or a bullet ripping through your body with no chance to fight back, and before you know it you'll get another bullet and bang dead.

what ever you say man your view even if it does sound dumb
User avatar #490 to #487 - Onemanretardpack (03/04/2013) [-]
So something around 5x bigger than a bullet tearing through your muscles sounds better than a hole going clean through you? Ok, dude. And no, you don't get a chance to fight back after getting stabbed. You're sort of more concerned about getting stabbed
User avatar #493 to #490 - doddythechef (03/04/2013) [-]
1) yes you can fight back against a knife in any situation, its basic science for the brain to make you survive in anyway possible, you might not but you brain will try to fight back if it can
2) A hole clean from a vital organ yer sounds great, except a typical gun holds a 6 bullet magazine no? fire all 6 off into your chest good luck with that one. 6 stab wounds is unlikely to happen, unless it is a murder which using a gun or a knife would make no difference, and you still have more chance of surviving a knife wounds than a gaping hole though your body
User avatar #496 to #493 - Onemanretardpack (03/04/2013) [-]
No, you don't die immediately from getting shot, dumbass. Just as with stabbing, placement is key. Getting stabbed multiple times is just as possible as getting shot multiple times. What, you think you're gonna go Jason Bourne and doing knife deflects and **** ? No, by the time you're stabbed, you're at a severe disadvantage that only gets worse as the fight goes on, leaving you open to more stabs
User avatar #498 to #496 - doddythechef (03/04/2013) [-]
no your body will defend its self its ******* nature
and your much more likely to die from a gun shot wound that stabbed, a bullet could easily deflect of a bone in your body and cause alot of damage, stabbing a rib cage isnt going to do **** to you rival organs, by vial i mean heart and lungs, stabbed in the stomach easily survivable, abdominal region, easy fix

its alot harder to die from being stabbed to death, your more likely to die from blood lose, a bullet however will destroy anything as it passed through you flesh.

there's even reports of people surviving a knife to the heart.
but obviously you not going to change you opinion so whatever, believe you want and that guns are gods gift to america or some **** like that. good bye
User avatar #486 to #484 - Loppytaffy (03/04/2013) [-]
I've never been stabbed or shot. I've never even witnessed a violent crime. In the 12 years that I've lived in my current country, I heard of two incidents of stabbing- one was a stoner who only inflicted light and unintentional harm. The other was a man who stabbed him mother to death, and he was arrested easily, because he woudl have had to get close to the police to stab them, whilst they could quite saftely tazer him from a distance.

Not even our riots use guns.
User avatar #488 to #486 - Onemanretardpack (03/04/2013) [-]
Lel, you can stop thumbing me down guy. That's great, I haven't seen any crime either, except from when I got stabbed, in Germany
User avatar #468 to #9 - plainarcane **User deleted account** (03/04/2013) [-]
>Be Switzerland
>Everyone here owns assault rifles, carries them around on the street while on militia duty
>Have drastically lower crime rate than the UK
>Britfags are so proud that they get stabbed to death instead of shot
#427 to #9 - anon (03/04/2013) [-]
Be British. Get stabbed instead
User avatar #418 to #9 - haaaxderp (03/04/2013) [-]
I don't think England has a second amendment, does it?
It doesn't.
The day guns are illegal in America is the same day a second revolutionary war begins.
#485 to #418 - doddythechef (03/04/2013) [-]
i think you mean civil war right??   
a revolution is when an oppressed state takes power   
for example:    
The Thirteen Colonies (America)   
Bolshevik party in Russia   
French revolution between King Louis XII and the people of France   
Communist revolution in china led by Mao   
and even if america went to arms about guns it would only be against the people on congress because the army would be on your side for sure. Would be more of a coup
i think you mean civil war right??
a revolution is when an oppressed state takes power
for example:
The Thirteen Colonies (America)
Bolshevik party in Russia
French revolution between King Louis XII and the people of France
Communist revolution in china led by Mao

and even if america went to arms about guns it would only be against the people on congress because the army would be on your side for sure. Would be more of a coup
User avatar #520 to #485 - haaaxderp (03/05/2013) [-]
Making guns illegal is being oppressive of the second amendment.
User avatar #519 to #485 - haaaxderp (03/05/2013) [-]
It would be a revolutionary war because a government would be overthrown by its people. It could be a civil war or a revolution depending on how it goes through.
If gun owners nationally form an alliance, then it would be a revolution.
If states succeed to become their own country, it would be a civil war.
User avatar #472 to #418 - Loppytaffy (03/04/2013) [-]
Good luck getting France to help you again.
User avatar #375 to #9 - marinepenguin (03/04/2013) [-]
Good luck overthrowing your government if it gets bonkers.
User avatar #351 to #9 - bulbakip (03/04/2013) [-]
Get stabbed! yay!
User avatar #327 to #9 - roliga (03/04/2013) [-]
>Ignoring the fact that when GB banned guns violent crime rose 40%
User avatar #489 to #327 - doddythechef (03/04/2013) [-]
and yet death rates fell vastly
User avatar #309 to #9 - supermegasherman (03/04/2013) [-]
>get stabbed instead
#303 to #9 - cpthaze **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#244 to #9 - anon (03/04/2013) [-]
>Implying you can't get guns via black market.
#270 to #244 - Loppytaffy has deleted their comment [-]
#422 to #270 - anon (03/04/2013) [-]
>Implying everyone is a law abiding citizen that follows the rules.
>Implying full auto weapons aren't already illegal.
>Implying gangs don't buy illegal weapons.
Are you that stupid?
User avatar #373 to #270 - xxiixx (03/04/2013) [-]
I have a problem with this logic here. You say people won't buy guns if they are illegal, yet killing people is illegal too, and it still happens. You are saying we should make laws to stop people from getting items to break laws. What makes you think that people who violate the law will follow this new profound law? The people that wouldn't buy guns because it is illegal are the same people who wouldn't kill people because it is illegal, And the people who would kill people even though it is illegal are the same people who would buy guns even though it is illegal. So, in essence, you are taking guns away from the law abiding majority, while having a significantly lower effect on those that actually commit crimes.
#383 to #373 - Loppytaffy has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #393 to #383 - xxiixx (03/04/2013) [-]
So if guns are legal, a lot more people have guns, yes I understand. I think you are working on the fallacy that guns are evil and magically control themselves and shoot people. A person kills someone. If someone has killing intent, I do not think a gun law will stop them.

I agree that something needs to be done. The US had an arms ban years ago, it didn't work in the slightest. I do not see why we think it will this time. I personally think we need to focus more on the mental health of our citizens, our over-zealous media, and that parents need to learn to be parents.
User avatar #475 to #393 - Loppytaffy (03/04/2013) [-]
It's a lot easier to pull a trigger than it is to kill in a different way.
I'm not saying the people behind guns are not responsible, there's no need to be a patronising twat. I'm not saying guns are evil- they have their uses.
However, there are still accidents, people still go on rampages. Let's take one of your numberous public shootings; are you saying that, if the killers didn't have guns, they would have still gone on a muderous rampage? Because we don't get that in the UK, we dont' get stabbing rempages.

Yes, it might be the person, or the culture, but a huge part of that can be controlled with gun laws.
User avatar #494 to #475 - xxiixx (03/04/2013) [-]
If someone REALLY wants to kill a lot of people, there are nearly an infinite number of ways to do so. Right now I could look up how to make and IED out of fertilizer and blow up my school cafeteria, killing just as many as any massacre. A gun is merely one way of doing this. So I guess yes, I am saying a gun is not needed for a murderous rampage.
User avatar #497 to #494 - Loppytaffy (03/04/2013) [-]
Okay, and someone could do that in a Gun-controlled country, too.
But they don't.
User avatar #500 to #497 - xxiixx (03/04/2013) [-]
So then the problem cannot be directly correlated with guns. We don't have a gun problem, we have a people problem. People kill people, not objects. This can be backed up with data too. Those total gun death statistics that everyone likes to pull out, the majority of the deaths are suicides. We have an epidemic of mentally impaired people, not gun toting rednecks. Outreach to these mentally unstable people will do a hell of a lot more good than trying to take away everyone's guns, because we tried that already and it did nothing.
#501 to #500 - Loppytaffy (03/04/2013) [-]
"We don't have a gun problem"
"We don't have a gun problem"
User avatar #502 to #501 - xxiixx (03/04/2013) [-]
Mock me however you like, it's a very good argument.
#482 to #475 - anon (03/04/2013) [-]
Are you saying that because you've shot someone? Because it's so much easier?
User avatar #483 to #482 - Loppytaffy (03/04/2013) [-]
No, i've not shot anyone, because guns are illegal in my country.
However, I have shot rifles in military bases and training camps (SAT ranges), and I gotta say, I would have problem shooting someone if I had a gun and a bad day.
However, I could never stab someone. Let alone multiple people. Children.
#237 to #9 - zeittergiest (03/04/2013) [-]
Great theory - only problem is, the crime statistics don't back it up. There are many times more violent crimes per capita in Britain than in the US. I encourage you to do the research, as I'm too lazy to do it for you.
User avatar #286 to #237 - legodude ONLINE (03/04/2013) [-]
Loppytaffy said "Do not get shot." so less gun crime not less violent crime...
#229 to #9 - anon (03/04/2013) [-]
ignore American Bill of Rights, Second amendment.

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.[13]
User avatar #212 to #9 - paintbucket (03/04/2013) [-]
everyone seems like an idiot here
let me just throw my bit into it.
where i live, everybody owns guns. everybody.
i own more guns than i can count. handguns, shotguns, assault rifles.
no one gets shot. it's extremely rare.
most gun crime happens in cities, and is gang on gang violence.
innocent people don't get randomly shot.
another point i'll make, our cities, like DC, Chicago, NYC, have extremely restrictive gun laws, but still have high gun crime.
User avatar #491 to #212 - doddythechef (03/04/2013) [-]
no arguing but
wouldn't you feel safer if guns had never been allowed for general public from the start?
User avatar #506 to #491 - paintbucket (03/05/2013) [-]
that would only work if no one had guns.
User avatar #507 to #506 - doddythechef (03/05/2013) [-]
yer thats what im asking
do you think it would of been better if america never let the public own guns since its founding
User avatar #508 to #507 - paintbucket (03/05/2013) [-]
no. absolutely not.

also, call me paranoid, or whatever the **** you want, but i would not feel good if only the police had guns.
i actually own better weapons then my local PD.
User avatar #509 to #508 - doddythechef (03/05/2013) [-]
ah right just was wondering thanks
User avatar #79 to #9 - Onemanretardpack (03/04/2013) [-]
No, you just get ****** with a metal rod until you die
User avatar #73 to #9 - flutterdoc (03/04/2013) [-]
its not making them illegal, just assault rifles and hand guns which are designed to kill humans. you can still have hunting weapons, also it is way harder to get a gun in GB than america. GB you have to have a licenses in the US you have to wait two days.
#282 to #73 - anon (03/04/2013) [-]
Hand gun

Kill humans

Choose one.
#231 to #73 - anon (03/04/2013) [-]
'scuse me, assault rifles were basically banned by the Hughes amendment and the NFA act
#227 to #73 - anon (03/04/2013) [-]
All guns are designed to kill, you people really should learn that.
User avatar #359 to #227 - flutterdoc (03/04/2013) [-]
well actually anon hunting rifles where designed for hunting animals
#164 to #73 - Loppytaffy has deleted their comment [-]
#66 to #9 - duudegladiator (03/04/2013) [-]
Shut up Pierce.
User avatar #88 to #66 - thegamegestapo ONLINE (03/04/2013) [-]
The 1938 German Weapons Act actually relaxed gun laws for everyone except the Jews and other groups Hitler hated.
User avatar #103 to #88 - Zarke (03/04/2013) [-]
Hm. Doesn't that say something?

I'm not one of those tin-foil hat-wearing "the Gooberment is trying to kill us" types, but the point you brought up just gives both sides ammunition, so to speak.
User avatar #120 to #103 - thegamegestapo ONLINE (03/04/2013) [-]
That's another way of looking at it yes. I was just stating a fact because Mr.NRA up there was flat out wrong. As a Eurofag I have no real say in the matter but the way I would propose the law amendment should go is this:

1) The current State laws regarding firearm ownership are to be replaced with National Standard Regulation
2) All fully automatic weapons, high capacity magazines, specialised ammunition types and shotguns with a magazine tube of more than four shells are to be made illegal for private ownership. These weapons should be stored at gun clubs, sold back to Government authorities, or the owner should register with and actively join a legal militia.
3) Before ownership of any firearm citizens must pass a Firearms Competence Exam which must be renewed every two years.
4) Private sales of firearms is to be made illegal without a license or the supervision of a licensed individual.
5) Doctors/ psychiatrists will have the right to recommend that police confiscate the weapons of individuals for a maximum of thirty days.

That's my idea anyway.
User avatar #182 to #120 - SonofChuck (03/04/2013) [-]
If I may interject here, fully automatic weapons are already illegal here in the United States, in fact they've always been illegal since they are classified as "weapons of war". Specialized ammunition and shotguns with more than four shells also can't be obtained here legally (except hollow points I believe those are legal but armor piercing and tracer rounds are definitely illegal). As for high capacity magazines, that has actually already been attempted under the Clinton itemsistration it was called the Assault weapons ban and it included the ban of high capacity magazines, it was supposed to be renewed but it was found to have such a negligible effect on gun crime (it was around .2 or .3%) that they decided against it.
User avatar #185 to #182 - thegamegestapo ONLINE (03/04/2013) [-]
But I know a guy with a... this is awkward...
User avatar #201 to #185 - Zarke (03/04/2013) [-]
Well, this guy's leaving out some information.

Fully automatic weapons are technically illegal. However, weapons manufactured before 1986 are "grandfathered", and are legal to purchase (although extremely expensive, often costing thousands of dollars, which pretty much reduces them to collector's items) with registration and a $200 tax stamp. I'm pretty sure there are no magazine restrictions on shotguns (unless his state has harsher regulations than on the federal level. Like I said, there's irregularity in State laws). The 1994 Clinton Assault Weapons Ban did restrict several features on firearms, but it was allowed to expire in 2004 because it was deemed ineffective in preventing crime (as is stated by the FBI).
#203 to #201 - thegamegestapo ONLINE (03/04/2013) [-]
Ah... it's inherited so that makes a lot more sense.
Ah... it's inherited so that makes a lot more sense.
User avatar #206 to #203 - Zarke (03/04/2013) [-]
Not exactly inherited. "Grandfathered" is a legal term. They can still be sold and transferred, but there are legal processes you have to go through (registration, $200 tax stamp, etc.).
User avatar #188 to #185 - SonofChuck (03/04/2013) [-]
With a what, is something wrong?
User avatar #191 to #188 - thegamegestapo ONLINE (03/04/2013) [-]
You're absolutely sure fully automatic rifles are illegal?
User avatar #196 to #191 - SonofChuck (03/04/2013) [-]
Absolutely, they are classified as machine guns which are weapons of war. Just like how you can't own a live grenade or a bazooka or anything like that.
User avatar #199 to #196 - thegamegestapo ONLINE (03/04/2013) [-]
If you'll excuse me I need to see a guy about a thing...
User avatar #135 to #120 - Zarke (03/04/2013) [-]
1) I do believe that the irregularity of State laws causes problems and efforts should be made to normalize them. What good is a magazine capacity restriction in New York if J. D. Thugg can cross the state line and get a 33-round Glock magazine? It just handicaps law-abiding citizens and does nothing to stop actual criminals. It's a feel-good law and nothing more.
2) That's far too harsh. I say that if you're safe, stable, and sane, then you should be free to own whatever you feel you want or need. The vast majority of firearms owners in the U.S. are actually safe, stable individuals. Over 290,000,000 firearms were NOT used in a violent crime yesterday, and I bet you can expect to see a similar statistic tomorrow.
3) I'm fine with licensing. Hell, go for graduated licensing like we have in Canada. However, to comply with their current Second Amendment rights, licenses should be issued on a "will issue" basis, with applications only being rejected if the applicant is a violent criminal (Lucky Brother Dooby Dooby's safe. He isn't harming anyone) or has a history of mental health problems causing violent behavior.
4) That goes with licensing, but isn't realistically enforceable without a full firearms registry (which is a horrible bureaucratic nightmare. We scrapped our Canadian Long Gun registry because it was deemed inefficient and did little to affect gun crime, and we don't have anywhere near the number of guns in our country as they do State-side).
5) See point 4.
User avatar #139 to #135 - thegamegestapo ONLINE (03/04/2013) [-]
I'd say a few people feeling a bit irritated is well worth it if it avoids another mass shooting and to be honest I think the constitution is out of date. But each to their own. Fair points though.
User avatar #156 to #139 - Zarke (03/04/2013) [-]
But it wouldn't stop more mass shootings. Remember Virginia Tech? I'm pretty sure that psychopath only used 10-round magazines. He didn't carry less ammunition. He only carried more magazines. If I remember correctly, he reloaded several times. Nobody had time to tackle him or otherwise apprehend him. Madmen will always find ways to do whatever heinous acts they wish to commit.

If you wish to stop mass shootings, you don't have to do much.

1) Simply enforce the laws that are already in place (the ones that already say that violent criminals and psychopaths can't legally buy weapons). This won't stop straw purchases or people MURDERING THEIR OWN MOTHERS to get guns, but it will do what the laws were designed to do.
2) Stop the media from glorifying these psychopaths and telling them that their name will be forever remembered if they can rack up the highest kill count. If you can name even one mass murderer, then you've already given these crazy nobodies reason to turn themselves into somebodies. Instead, focus on the victims. Let these people die as they lived: as nobodies.
3) Get rid of gun-free zones. It sounds like a hick-ish, barbaric way to handle things, but seeing that sign posted tells people that they have a target range instead of a warzone. It's like a candy shop for monsters. If people are licensed to carry, let them carry. Failing that, enforce these gun-free zones (see point #1). Make people walk through a metal detector and be inspected by security guards at every entrance. A sign and an unlocked door won't do anything to stop a crazy person from murdering your sons and daughters.

It really isn't that hard.
User avatar #160 to #156 - thegamegestapo ONLINE (03/04/2013) [-]
I see your point however I wonder who would support restrictions on the freedom of the press?
As for gun free zones I do not and never have seen the point of them unless they're enforced.
User avatar #172 to #160 - Zarke (03/04/2013) [-]
The right to free speech and press doesn't free you from social responsibility. You have to weigh profit and sensationalism against knowing that you're giving more of these crazy people crazy ideas. This is about business ethics just as much as it is about the rights of the publisher.
User avatar #77 to #66 - satrenkotheone ONLINE (03/04/2013) [-]
I don't get the point of the picture. Please explain.
#71 to #66 - brohio **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#59 to #9 - anon (03/04/2013) [-]
en mi opinión las armas no son el problema PERO



User avatar #105 to #59 - thegamegestapo ONLINE (03/04/2013) [-]
Además, el problema parece ser que la gente no toma las medidas de seguridad adecuadas con sus armas. ¿Acaso no algún niño se pegan un tiro en la cabeza hace poco porque encontraron su pistola padres?
User avatar #52 to #9 - jrondeau **User deleted account** (03/04/2013) [-]
We've tried that. It didn't work unfortunately.

Look up D.C. & Chicago gun regulation statistics.
Or the Australia gun ban.
#80 to #52 - anon (03/04/2013) [-]
Ya dun goof'd from the start, is why.
#46 to #9 - anon (03/04/2013) [-]
so youd get exploded or stabbed instead?
User avatar #18 to #9 - durkadurka ONLINE (03/04/2013) [-]
Be American, 1920's: "Making alcohol illegal will stop people from drinking"
Be American, 1970's: "The war on drugs will solve the problem"
User avatar #109 to #18 - skullzero (03/04/2013) [-]
Be American, think guns are cool because of media and wars brainwashing the people. Buy guns. Guns get stolen/you get shot. legally obtained guns now in criminal hands. Be surprised when gun homicide rate is higher than some third world countries with high crime rates...
User avatar #474 to #109 - Onemanretardpack (03/04/2013) [-]
Except it's not. The UK has one of the highest violent crime rates in the world, and the US isn't even in the top ten. Try again
#149 to #109 - durkadurka ONLINE (03/04/2013) [-]
MFW you think I'd actually invest in a firearm and then NOT bother to secure it.    
MFW guns are merely tools.    
MFW when you think high gun homicide should somehow keep me from owning a gun.
MFW you think I'd actually invest in a firearm and then NOT bother to secure it.
MFW guns are merely tools.
MFW when you think high gun homicide should somehow keep me from owning a gun.
User avatar #14 to #9 - sheepysquirrel (03/04/2013) [-]
Guns are banned in Chicago and New York and they are the two most dangerous cities here with the highest rate of gun violence. When is the last time you heard about someone shooting up anything in texas?
User avatar #460 to #14 - ericzxvc (03/04/2013) [-]
>Implying they aren't banned there because of the high gun crime
>If you are #1 in gun crime and you make guns illegal, do you really expect it to just magically drop to the lowest?

Let me rephrase that, did you eat lead paint as a child?
#104 to #14 - anon (03/04/2013) [-]
Because you can smuggle guns in from neighbouring states.
User avatar #476 to #104 - Onemanretardpack (03/04/2013) [-]
No, not really. In almost every state you have to be a resident of that state to buy a gun there. Besides, if we ban smuggling guns, our government would go broke
#35 to #14 - swiftykidd **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #155 to #35 - durkadurka ONLINE (03/04/2013) [-]
>Troubled inner city teens

THAT'S the problem. Millions own guns, and rather few of them are out killing people. It's the people who grew up surrounded by violence, never given a chance to develop a strong set of morals.
#157 to #155 - swiftykidd **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #477 to #157 - Onemanretardpack (03/04/2013) [-]
Yeah, it's definitely the tools fault. It wispered in his ear "Kill them Tyrone, kill them all."
User avatar #161 to #157 - durkadurka ONLINE (03/04/2013) [-]
That too. Current laws are not being enforced.
User avatar #36 to #35 - sheepysquirrel (03/04/2013) [-]
Chicago isn't all that small. Not as big as texas but still not small.
#37 to #36 - swiftykidd **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #40 to #37 - sheepysquirrel (03/04/2013) [-]
Well according to wiki chicago has around 2.5 million people and texas has around 24 million so it's safe to assume texas has places as dense as chicago.
#41 to #40 - swiftykidd **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #42 to #41 - sheepysquirrel (03/04/2013) [-]
What is your point? The U.S.A is much larger than China but China has more people.
You're just repeating yourself here.
Texas has much easier access to guns and more people, if guns were the problem it would be as violent as Chicago.
#45 to #42 - swiftykidd **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #48 to #45 - sheepysquirrel (03/04/2013) [-]
Yes, and I'm sure there are cities in Texas with just as many people packed just as close.

Water kills more people than guns, let's ban water. Refer to the comment durkadurka made. We have banned plenty of things but it changed nothing.
#49 to #48 - swiftykidd **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #57 to #49 - jrondeau **User deleted account** (03/04/2013) [-]
Look at it from a statistical perspective then. When guns are banned/heavily regulated in the US, crime rates (particularly gun crime rates) always increase noticeably. Banning guns in the US just doesn't seem to work for whatever reason and therefore it is ineffective here.

And in a situation where you're about to be murdered I'd say that a gun is quite essential to life my good sir.
#68 to #57 - swiftykidd **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #299 to #68 - jrondeau **User deleted account** (03/04/2013) [-]
See the second and third sentences of comment 45.
User avatar #51 to #49 - sheepysquirrel (03/04/2013) [-]
I don't own a gun.
But just because I don't doesn't mean I don't feel the right to.
If I DID own a gun I would have a rubber bullet before the "real" ones so there could be a warning shot. Things like that COULD avoid death but because of the mentality of this world someone would just shoot you right back as quick as you turned your back.
#56 to #51 - swiftykidd **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #61 to #56 - jrondeau **User deleted account** (03/04/2013) [-]
Rubber bullet mass < lead bullet mass. It wouldn't fly as fast because a rubber bullet would not be designed to fly as fast as lead because the goal of that bullet is to stun, not kill. That's the point sheepysquirrel is trying to make.
#29 to #14 - thereasonableperso has deleted their comment [-]
#13 to #9 - anon (03/04/2013) [-]
>get stabbed
User avatar #25 to #13 - milthyfoustache (03/04/2013) [-]
People just usually just got beaten to death where I'm from :(
User avatar #15 to #13 - Loppytaffy (03/04/2013) [-]
knives are also illegal. There was a bg knife crack down a few years ago and people just anonymously dropped them into police stations. People were turning out katanas and everything.
User avatar #400 to #15 - bestdraven (03/04/2013) [-]
Kinves illegal., that's ******* retarded, i can't ******* put my peanut butter on my toast, or cut my steak. ******* , retarded.
User avatar #354 to #15 - bulbakip (03/04/2013) [-]
Illegal impies people don't carry them.... /s/

Naivety at it's finest.
User avatar #381 to #354 - Loppytaffy (03/04/2013) [-]
No, it's a deterrant. It means people are less likely to, and those caught doing so are punished.
User avatar #388 to #381 - bulbakip (03/04/2013) [-]
Not knowing whether the person you're about to harm/ rob is armed is also a deterrent.

Isn't it possible a crime could be commited before the cops catch the offender with the weapon? Defending yourself preserves the victim and stops the crime before it happens, not just punish the criminal after the damage is done and the victim is dead.
User avatar #111 to #15 - Lilstow (03/04/2013) [-]
are bottles illegal too?
you could break a bottle and shank someone.
User avatar #166 to #111 - Loppytaffy (03/04/2013) [-]
If you're caught by police whilst in possession of anything that could be considered an offensive weapon, you're in trouble.

I dont' think we're allowed tazers, either.
User avatar #277 to #166 - odonnell (03/04/2013) [-]
In Glasgow we found a loophole in the logic.
Take a telescopic fishing rod in a bag along with your knife, if you're pulled: "I'm going fishing." If they question you're excuse, pull out the fishing rod. They cant say you're not going fishing. Even in the middle of the city centre you're only 5 minutes away from water (Clyde)
User avatar #290 to #277 - Loppytaffy (03/04/2013) [-]
This is why knifecrime is high in Scotland.

That, and the Scottish are very angry people. I sometimes wonder if they bred out all docile scots by sending them to colonise Novascocia.
User avatar #295 to #290 - odonnell (03/04/2013) [-]
That would explain why Canada is so friendly, all the nice people from Europe were sent there while the rest stayed to **** **** up.
Most of us arent angry, we only get pissed off if people provoke us. Other than being the knife crime capital of Europe, we're also one of Europe's friendliest places.
And yeah, knife crime is high because a lot of people carry knives. But, If there werent as many petty criminals using them to threaten people into giving them their bag then it would drop.
User avatar #300 to #295 - Loppytaffy (03/04/2013) [-]
Germany is a really, really nice place. **** history, Germans are the friendliest culture I've met.

And to think Canada was so close to being colonised by Nordics. Now that would have been interesting.
User avatar #305 to #300 - odonnell (03/04/2013) [-]
I've never been to Germany, but from pictures it looks like a nice place.
I've been to Norway though, I've always thought they were quite friendly. Might just be similar interests though, the only time I'd bother to start up a conversation was on the slopes, and 90% of snowboarders and skiers are friendly, you get the odd few that hate the opposite though (I've noticed that its mostly the skiers that get pissed with the snowboarders since some snowboarders usually speed down the slope and kick up some powder that hits others.
User avatar #288 to #277 - odonnell (03/04/2013) [-]
inb4 "why would you even want to carry a knife you ******* chav?"
1. Its N.E.D in Scotland
2. Its more to do with self defence, Scotland being the knife crime capital of Europe and all, your chances of getting stabbed are fairly high, if you're going to get stabbed then you may as well stab them back, get even.
User avatar #192 to #166 - imnotkickthecat (03/04/2013) [-]
such is life in a police state.
User avatar #272 to #192 - Loppytaffy (03/04/2013) [-]
Helps me sleep at night.
#258 to #192 - doddythechef (03/04/2013) [-]
sorry i didnt realize David Cameron was 			*******		 leader of the Nazi party
sorry i didnt realize David Cameron was ******* leader of the Nazi party
User avatar #116 to #111 - Faz (03/04/2013) [-]
You could but thats something that can be done everywhere, don't be one of them people who makes everything a weapon to make something look bad.
User avatar #12 to #9 - kagji (03/04/2013) [-]
be American. value your opinion. realize that its not guns, but mental health that is the problem. writes congressman. what are you doing about the problem?
User avatar #16 to #12 - northleech ONLINE (03/04/2013) [-]
We don't have a problem, we arn't American. ZING.
#411 to #16 - anon (03/04/2013) [-]
You are a massive faggot. ZING.
User avatar #20 to #16 - kagji (03/04/2013) [-]
eh, we kinda got forced into the global police position, so our problems are everyone's problems. I would rethink my stance if I were you.
User avatar #22 to #20 - northleech ONLINE (03/04/2013) [-]
Implying EU gives a **** about your "police position"
 Friends (0)