Click to expand
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#276 - pivotmasterdm (04/21/2013) [-]
This image has expired
Ok here we go.
Kinder eggs are banned cause children would choke on the candies inside. Not saying they should still be banned. But assault rifles don't hurt anyone. The shooter is the one hurting people. Forgive me, as I'm about to reference other arguments without the ability to quote the exact person.
"If guns kill people, spoons make people fat. Cars get in accidents. It is the person holding the gun that kills people. They make the decision to kill the people."
"Saying guns kill people is like picking up a cat and throwing it on someone and then claiming the cat attacked you."
In short, guns shouldn't be banned because it's not the guns fault. It's the decisions of the shooter that put people in harms way.

Rant over.
Go on with your life.
#928 to #276 - anon (04/22/2013) [-]
That's the stupidest comment I've read in years. "Guns don't kill people, people do". It's obvious that if there's a school massacre, and the person responsible has a better, more dangerous weapon he's more likely to kill more people. If you ban automatic weapons, he wouldn't be able to shoot that many people.

However, do as you please - I'm just glad I don't live in a country where some people are so ******* dumb they have to ban kinder-eggs to protect their safety.
#539 to #276 - anon (04/22/2013) [-]
When anybody with any mentality (and or mental illness, life issues etc) can easily get a hold of a legal gun to do what he pleases with it, means your law system is pretty poorly designed. But since america has a strong economy based on gun production and sells i doubt we will see any changes any time soon. It is less probable to have gun related deaths somewhere where guns aren't handed out to everybody. So now is America really interested in it's population's safety?
#589 to #539 - anon (04/22/2013) [-]
Gun deaths will just be replaced if not surpassed by violent deaths in general (knives, for example).
#624 to #589 - anon (04/22/2013) [-]
it's far easier to pull the trigger of an automated fire arm and kill a dozen people, then stab them or violently kill them.
#789 to #624 - anon (04/22/2013) [-]
guess what ******* retard, they used semi automatic guns, not full auto there is a ******* difference, and guess what else ppl in the military dont even go full automatic, it is less accurate. now before you go and bitch about it, yea i know they have 50 cals but that is not what was used or has been ever used here on us soil to kill innocent civilians
#444 to #276 - anon (04/22/2013) [-]
It's a shame how blinded you guys are to guns. Just look at your own gangs. Why do you have troubles with them? Because guns can easily be acquired and they can shoot you right back.
User avatar #519 to #444 - brisineo (04/22/2013) [-]
Using gang violence as an argument is pretty invalid mostly because gangs majorly get their weapons through illegal means, therefore making any gun control invalid. Not to mention a few of them have military-grade, fully automatic weaponry, which is completely UNAVAILABLE to obtain legally for any average citizen.

Not to mention, if gun control is strictly enforced like the probation amendment did on alcohol, America is in a unique position because the black market and smuggling jobs would boom and illegally obtained guns would be everywhere.
#922 to #519 - anon (04/22/2013) [-]
That's funny, because that's not the case in any other western civilized country where you have gun control. But I guess it's because it's just America, after all you had to ban kinder-eggs because you ate it's ******* content.
#935 to #922 - brisineo (04/22/2013) [-]
There is a very distinct difference that America has and Europe doesn't, and that's a major organized crime-run black market and trade route.

No matter what, as long as there is an illegal substance in demand, there will be people who smuggle it here, because we're conveniently placed next to places where guns and drugs are made and sold like candy, and have international access to distribute.

Also, while gang violence is a problem, it's a statistical fact that it occurs a lot more in areas with stricter gun control, such as in LA and Chicago, while in Texas, where everyone is armed, there's practically none in comparison, even though it's on the border with Mexico. Here's a picture with a bunch more facts to read up on.

PS. The Kinder Eggs have been unbanned since March. The controversy was because of a bunch of sue-happy soccer moms who didn't know the heimlich.
#1030 to #935 - anon (04/22/2013) [-]
I was done writing a reply for you, but my PC turned itself off. So instead of the long post that got deleted, I'll just write you a little recap :P

I'm sure there's a big black market in the US, but I am also confident that the creation of stricter gun laws would make it harder to illegally smuggle in arms, and illegally sell them.

Gang violence may be a problem, but I think connection this to guns among the civilians is a bit far fetched. Yes, it is a statistical fact, but if you look more closely into it, there's probably a bigger connection between population density and gang violence than between guns per capita and gang violence. I think that even wealth and unemployment could check in before guns per capita. I do not know, I just think it sounds reasonable.

I'm sure you're right about the Kinder eggs, but I have to laugh. USA is the only country who could ban Kinder eggs because it's dangerous to eat for children in the first place.
User avatar #296 to #276 - garymuthafuknoak (04/21/2013) [-]
Yes, but if you don't have the gun there in the first place it makes it less easier to shoot up your school :D
User avatar #356 to #296 - stigman **User deleted account** (04/21/2013) [-]
That makes no difference though. If there were no guns for the mad men to use, then what's stopping them from just using a stick to kill kids.
#429 to #356 - benvinnyandmia (04/22/2013) [-]
But if you go to a school with a stick then you won't kill 20 kids.

No, I don't think all guns should be banned, but I do think there should be restrictions on them.
User avatar #1301 to #429 - stigman **User deleted account** (04/22/2013) [-]
depends what kind of stick he has.
User avatar #587 to #429 - revanthewin (04/22/2013) [-]
If you go to a school with a bomb, though...
User avatar #298 to #296 - pivotmasterdm (04/21/2013) [-]
What's stopping them from doing the same thing with bombs? Man will always find another way to kill man.
#556 to #298 - anon (04/22/2013) [-]
That takes us to our next lesson: "Education"
User avatar #308 to #298 - garymuthafuknoak (04/21/2013) [-]
Like I said. Less easier. Pretty sure you would need to go to quite the extent to get a bomb that will actually cause casualties.

Whereas, with a gun, you just need to go in your dad closet.
User avatar #557 to #308 - bothemastaofall (04/22/2013) [-]
>"less easier"
What's the word for that again?
User avatar #432 to #308 - Laddie (04/22/2013) [-]
You can literally walk over to Walmart and get all the supplies you need to make a bomb.
User avatar #459 to #432 - garymuthafuknoak (04/22/2013) [-]
so if there is no guns, everyone is going to be blowing each other the **** up?

just like all the other first world countries with strict gun laws right?
#600 to #459 - anon (04/22/2013) [-]
Violent maniacs who perform mass shootings will. Going back to your original argument, are you seriously going to pretend there are no gangs or terrorists in countries with gun control?
User avatar #314 to #308 - pivotmasterdm (04/21/2013) [-]
You're implying that every father owns a gun. You can also make mustard gas out of house hold items that everyone owns, which is easier than guns.
User avatar #330 to #314 - garymuthafuknoak (04/21/2013) [-]
It was a figure of speech. I wasn't saying every dad will have a gun I'm just saying it's much easier to acquire a weapon in a society where it's common.

And besides, mustard gas isn't even much of a killer as it is an irritant. When was the last time you heard someone using ******* mustard gas?
User avatar #788 to #330 - deadrifler (04/22/2013) [-]
"Mustard gas is a minor irritant"

Yes, a chemical weapon banned under the CWC that is an extremely powerful mutagenic is only a minor bother. You just went from trying to defend your position to full-retard.

Just because a weapon does not kill(Mustard gas was only lethal in about 1% of cases) does not mean it is only "irritating". It was commonly used as an area denial and it could linger for days in one location. Granted, previous poster who mentioned mustard gas probably did not know this.

I would rather be exposed to mustard gas than phosgene though, because at least then you would know you were exposed. Phosgene smells much like fresh cut grass or hay, so you would probably not even realize exposure until already displaying symptoms.
User avatar #339 to #330 - pivotmasterdm (04/21/2013) [-]
My point is that there are easier things to aquire than guns, such as knives, bombs or chemical agents.
 Friends (0)