Go Ahead, Gun. . Go Ahead Gun
Upload
Login or register
Leave a comment Refresh Comments (307)
[ 307 comments ]
Anonymous comments allowed.
116 comments displayed.
#5 - grandtheftkoala **User deleted account**
Reply +274
(07/08/2013) [-]
#135 to #5 - ballerfifteen
Reply 0
(07/09/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
#301 to #5 - metalkprint
Reply +1
(07/09/2013) [-]
This image has expired
#119 to #5 - zombietronexe
Reply +3
(07/09/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
#247 to #5 - Cleavland Steamer
Reply +5
(07/09/2013) [-]
[dies internally]
#25 to #5 - include
Reply +9
(07/09/2013) [-]
#21 - fuckthehabs
Reply +90
(07/09/2013) [-]
************* rolled a random image posted in comment #97 at The LoL community and its rules... ** what actually kills people
#127 to #21 - anon
Reply 0
(07/09/2013) [-]
Children: killing all living creatures since forever.
#144 to #21 - anon
Reply 0
(07/09/2013) [-]
tgfw you understand the reference.
#24 to #21 - tankerdude ONLINE
Reply +3
(07/09/2013) [-]
fair enough
#44 - pebar ONLINE
Reply +48
(07/09/2013) [-]
#77 to #44 - necroshiz **User deleted account**
0
has deleted their comment [-]
#113 to #44 - ShaunG
Reply 0
(07/09/2013) [-]
That's an ad hominem attack. And it can go both ways.
#120 to #113 - douthit
Reply +3
(07/09/2013) [-]
Not in this case, because LaPierre's position is the default in this situation. Those who would seek political action in the wake of disasters are the ones utilizing it to their benefit. Responding to someone attempting to change the status quo is not taking advantage of a disaster, whether they be right or wrong.
#124 to #120 - ShaunG
Reply 0
(07/09/2013) [-]
You are correct. My comparison is inaccurate.

However, my point about the image representing an ad hominem attack is still correct. While using tragedies to achieve political goals makes her immoral, her argument and the political issue of gun control is amoral, and her terrible personality is not representative of the effectiveness of her policies.

I actually have no idea who she is, I just had a problem with the incorrect debating attempt. Australians don't see a lot of American politicians unless they are black and are the president.
#175 to #124 - pebar ONLINE
Reply +3
(07/09/2013) [-]
Dianne Feinstein is the senator from California. She is a career politician and has been in office since 1992. In all that time she has been a major advocate for gun control and she was behind the 1994 federal 10 year assault weapons ban. Not even 1 day after the sandy hook incident, she took the opportunity to to use it to advance her cause that she'd been pushing for decades. During the senate gun debates at the beginning of the year, she kept saying "think about the children" but she didn't give a damn about children, she just wanted gun control.

It's not an argument for or against gun control, it's just saying she's a bitch.
#182 to #175 - emrakul
Reply +5
(07/09/2013) [-]
On an unrelated note, she also heads the Senate Intelligence Committee, aka the people who knew about the NSA spying program the entire time and were perfectly fine about it. She's been the biggest voice in Congress defending the program.
#238 to #120 - bigmanfifty
Reply -3
(07/09/2013) [-]
But isn't the most logical thing you can do in the wake of a disaster is make changes?

By that logic, after 9/11, nothing should have been done or said
#86 to #44 - ivoryhammer
Reply +2
(07/09/2013) [-]
Pat Robertson uses national disasters.
#92 to #44 - douthit
Reply +7
(07/09/2013) [-]
If she wants my guns, she's gonna hafta send men with guns.
#221 to #92 - smellmyfaceforswag
Reply +2
(07/09/2013) [-]
Dat avatar pic with dat comment. Win.
#45 to #44 - pebar ONLINE
Reply +12
(07/09/2013) [-]
#4 - anon
Reply 0
(07/08/2013) [-]
I never understood the arguement 'guns dont kill people, people kill people'. If thats the case and people kill people...then dont give people guns and they have one less way of killing people!!!
#10 to #4 - anon
Reply 0
(07/08/2013) [-]
You do understand that people would just get killed in a different manor, right?
#14 to #10 - onewhoobserves
Reply +4
(07/09/2013) [-]
Well if they are in a manor in the first place I think they can hire some damn security.
#69 to #14 - smithforprez
Reply 0
(07/09/2013) [-]
illerminaty!
#16 to #4 - anon
Reply 0
(07/09/2013) [-]
of you take away spoon it wouldn't stop people from eating cereal, They'll just find a different way to do it
#29 to #4 - noschool ONLINE
Reply 0
(07/09/2013) [-]
People were killing each other with rocks and sticks long before we had weapons, and while the argument of guns ability to kill more people in less time and at a farther range does have truth to it compared to most other things like knives and hammers, it's not the weaponry that's the problem it's the people, it's always been the people. Two normal people aren't going to want to kill each other no matter how many weapons they have, and how we (in the US) are treating our criminals in our society is not good, locking a bunch of criminals in a building, focusing on punishment and deterrence has not shown to be very effective. We need to be dealing with the mental issues these people by treating them medically and psychologically have not lock them up with people with the same mental ideology.
#30 to #4 - repostsrepost
Reply 0
(07/09/2013) [-]
Except if you support taking peoples guns away well, you need guns to do that. So you only support the government having guns. And governments have never abused power ever.
#43 to #30 - pebar ONLINE
Reply +2
(07/09/2013) [-]
#48 to #43 - jagenblitz
Reply -1
(07/09/2013) [-]
Except somebody being pro-gun control doesn't automatically mean that person thinks all guns should be taken away from the public, in the same way somebody being pro-gun doesn't mean that person thinks owning an RPG should be legal.

I don't really give a **** about gun control one way or the other, but that quote is beyond retarded.
#39 to #30 - Crusader
Reply 0
(07/09/2013) [-]
Are you implying that a government has been corrupt, or otherwise powerhungry and tried to seek that power from it's own people, creating a totalitarian state?
Pssh, that was, like, 80 years ago, and we all know history doesn't repeat itself.
#32 to #4 - vissova
Reply 0
(07/09/2013) [-]
You're a ******* retard.
You're a ******* retard.
#53 to #4 - ParallelDuck
Reply 0
(07/09/2013) [-]
No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms.
Thomas Jefferson

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniencies attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it."
Thomas Jefferson

If the government starts to ban guns and prevent public citizens from owning them there is nothing to stop the government from becoming tyrannical and preventing other liberties protected by the bill of rights. Gun control is fine but banning weapons and forcing people to sign a register is a terrible terrible idea..
#93 to #53 - onewhoobserves
Reply 0
(07/09/2013) [-]
Two things:
First: If you are going to quote someone to support your argument make sure to use the full quote. If you don't and it ends with something along the lines of: "within his own lands or tenements" it can damage your credibility and hurt your argument. Jefferson was obviously not arguing for the unrestricted bearing of arms at all times but more akin to the right to keep arms in your home to defend it.

Second: "If the government starts to ban guns and prevent public citizens from owning them there is nothing to stop the government from becoming tyrannical and preventing other liberties protected by the bill of rights." This argument always amuses me. What exactly is an AR-15 or even a full blown M4 going to do against a drone, an F-18, an M1 Abrams, or even a Stryker? Slow it down for a fraction of a second? Draw its fire a little faster? The problem here is that when the founders were writing up the Constitution/Bill of Rights the level of technology between government and common man was near parity. In modern times there is no comparison between the armament technology a civilian can obtain and what the government can field.

I have no opinion either way on gun control...just wanted to point these things out.
#22 to #4 - bothemastaofall
Reply +3
(07/09/2013) [-]
#118 to #4 - anon
Reply 0
(07/09/2013) [-]
people kill people... BAN PEOPLE


OK, now seriously. The problem is not in the fact that guns are made to kill or used as a defense. People are unpredictable and all kinds of situations can make someone go mad and if the person in such a state had access to a gun, it might end up with a murder. The thing is in probability. Probability of accidents.

Should guns be banned in USA? No. Think about it. We, in Europe don't use guns mostly because of our mentality. People in USA seem to be more aggressive, thus they need guns to defend themselves. Level of stupidity in USA is higher than in the rest of the world (stupid people are everywhere, but for some reason you can find more of them in 'Murica) and even with banning the guns, it's not that hard to get a gun in USA anyway. So if they got an army of idiots with a short-tempered mentality with guns, then no wonder they are scared for their lives.
#131 to #4 - witislimited ONLINE
Reply 0
(07/09/2013) [-]
If I was on an island with 5 other people who each have a pointy stick, I`d at least like a pointy stick too. Dumb ass.
#136 to #4 - rhiaanor
Reply 0
(07/09/2013) [-]
Actually, in australia they have banned guns and they have a bunch ore stabbings then we have actual shootings. And I guarantee getting stab is not fun or quick or painless.
#237 to #136 - anon
Reply 0
(07/09/2013) [-]
After you've been shot you usually won't die instantly and without pain either...
Also I use knives daily when cooking, tell me another use for guns.

I'll never set foot in a Country were the population is allowed to carry guns like the USA.
#137 to #4 - sirformidio
Reply 0
(07/09/2013) [-]
The problem there is Guns are a tool.
Murder was not unheard of before the invention of the firearm. In fact, it was even more common.
People have an internal want to kill others, for multiple reasons. Banning guns will not get rid of that want, only close one of the many doors on how to achieve it.
#183 to #4 - mrblueftw
Reply 0
(07/09/2013) [-]
Hands can kill people. Just about anything can kill a person.
#7 to #4 - sketchE
Reply +1
(07/08/2013) [-]
so should we take away knives forks letter openers screwdrivers hammers pencils and even paper clips because they help kill people
#58 to #7 - ilovehitler
Reply -1
(07/09/2013) [-]
don't forget people's hands.
#23 to #4 - wyattgc
Reply +1
(07/09/2013) [-]
Oh yes! ban guns that'll stop people from having/using them! Sure works for weed! Sure worked for prohibition!
#40 to #4 - kompleteciller
Reply -1
(07/09/2013) [-]
i hope you get cancer and never spawn so we can clense the world of your ******* stupidity   
   
   
IF I REALLY WANTED TO ******* KILL SOMEONE IM 100% SURE I COULD EASLY MANAGE TO FIND OTHER MEANS TAKING AWAY GUNS WILL NEVER  STOP KILLING YOU ******* WALKING ******** OF EXSISTANCE
i hope you get cancer and never spawn so we can clense the world of your ******* stupidity


IF I REALLY WANTED TO ******* KILL SOMEONE IM 100% SURE I COULD EASLY MANAGE TO FIND OTHER MEANS TAKING AWAY GUNS WILL NEVER STOP KILLING YOU ******* WALKING ******** OF EXSISTANCE
#36 to #4 - fredthemilkman
Reply -1
(07/09/2013) [-]
9/10 excellent b8
#82 to #4 - hypex
Reply 0
(07/09/2013) [-]
guns dont kill people.... I DO!
guns dont kill people.... I DO!
#11 to #4 - phycopath [OP]
Reply +33
(07/09/2013) [-]
Might as well ban knives because those kill people too. The object itself cannot walk up to someone and kill them. That's the argument, and it's pretty straight forward, so not sure how you don't understand it...
#68 to #11 - europe
Reply +4
(07/09/2013) [-]
As if the lethality of a knife can be compared to that of a gun
I'd like to see a man kill several people from 10 feet away using a single knife
#132 to #68 - dudeomg
Reply +1
(07/09/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
#75 to #68 - anon
Reply 0
(07/09/2013) [-]
Well primitively had the man known how to throw knives or ninja stars he easily could have. A crossbow or normal bow and arrow can be just as effective. It was probably just in a movie but i think they have automatic crossbows. There's always molotovs. If you're stealthy enough you probably could kill several people with one knife, you'd need that ninja status. A person could always just run over a bunch of people with a car.
To be honest if they removed guns i think that would make murder much more creative which is probably a worse outcome. It would be entertaining as hell, though.
#76 to #75 - europe
Reply 0
(07/09/2013) [-]
"It would be entertaining as hell though"
Lol, people died
Is your entire comment a joke?
#78 to #76 - anon
Reply 0
(07/09/2013) [-]
Battle Royale, Hunger Games, etc. were popular for a reason.
#84 to #68 - commontroll
Reply -2
(07/09/2013) [-]
Well, it's not hard to cross 10 feet quickly honestly...
#94 to #84 - onewhoobserves
Reply +2
(07/09/2013) [-]
Much harder to stab several people in a given area than it is to shoot them. Also, knives tend to need either a bit more precision than guns or a longer period of time because of the lesser penetration and lesser potential for damage.

Interestingly enough there was a knife attack in China a few days after the Sandy Hook mass shooting. Similar situation where a mentally unbalanced person took a weapon and found their way to a school. However, no one died in the knife attack and I believe it was only like 20 people injured.
#96 to #94 - commontroll
Reply -2
(07/09/2013) [-]
It's because they're weak and unable to do the job right...
#97 to #96 - onewhoobserves
Reply +1
(07/09/2013) [-]
True that could have been one aspect of it...but that same argument doesn't apply to guns. You can be physically fairly weak and still cause havoc with a gun.
#98 to #97 - commontroll
Reply -1
(07/09/2013) [-]
I meant emotionally. It was a joke. And while I do I agree that guns make it more efficient to kill, the reason we have them is because the government does too. It's as a fire insurance essentially. If the government becomes a tyranny, then you can have a revolution and you're equally armed. The militia was armed with the same weaponry as the military in the Revolution for instance, and because of that they could topple their government.

That's why I'm pro gun. I love me some knives, but when it comes to guarding my rights and liberties against those who are supposed to be doing that, I'd rather have a gun on my side.
#242 to #98 - onewhoobserves
Reply 0
(07/09/2013) [-]
I find that line of logic humorous. While the Founders had a good idea at the time because there was a parity in the technology that either citizens or the government could field (IE. they both had access to the roughly the same type of weaponry) this has changed in the modern era. Common citizens do not have access to drones, military planes/helicopters, tanks, and light armoured vehicles nor do they typically have the weapons or ability to destroy those things. If the government does become tyrannical there is little a common citizen with a firearm can do except die that much faster.
#299 to #242 - commontroll
Reply 0
(07/09/2013) [-]
That's why I'm saying it's stupid to ban assault rifles and such, because the reason for us having guns is to fight in a war as a militia. So why have .22LR rounds only? Now, here's the thing, people need to be tested before buying such weapons in my opinion. Force everybody to be trained in use of firearms maybe? But there's too many hicks accidentally killing their kids because they're idiots with their guns.
#316 to #299 - onewhoobserves
Reply 0
(07/10/2013) [-]
You missed the point of my examples. Everything up to and including assault rifles are going to be ineffective against armored vehicles or aircraft. You would need to have Anti-tank/anti-armor rockets/missiles and Surface to Air Missiles as something you could legally purchase to have any effect on the technology which the government could field. And it would be INSANE to legalize those things because of the amount of havoc a criminal or terrorist could wreak with them.
#320 to #316 - commontroll
Reply 0
(07/12/2013) [-]
Well, already you can legally buy anti-tank rifles. Just have to jump through a **** ton of hoops. But yes, I agree with you on that one. With how things are going, it wouldn't matter if we had assault rifles, because they could wipe out any resistance with just remote controlled tech.
#188 to #98 - molehasmoles
Reply 0
(07/09/2013) [-]
You know, it's not very likely that a democratic country like a lot of those in the west would just out of nowhere become a totalitarian dictatorship.
#241 to #188 - grandterskrasao
Reply 0
(07/09/2013) [-]
The main reason we hold the right to bear arms in the U.S is because at the time of inception of the Constitution, the U.S really didn't have a military. It was the responsibility of the people to fend off invaders. While not as applicable today as in the 1700's, the fact remains that the U.S will be one of, if not the hardest, country to invade simply because of the populace gun ownership. And now that we're in a day and age where launching nukes is immediately followed by world devastation, the likely-hood the U.S falling by external means is near non-existent. That's not to say that Americans aren't stupid as **** and might invoke a revolution that leaves us so weak that the even the militantly weak countries such as Spain and Italy would be able to invade successfully.
#298 to #241 - commontroll
Reply 0
(07/09/2013) [-]
This. I certainly don't want a civil war, but if one happens again, I don't think it will be far off.
#246 to #241 - molehasmoles
Reply 0
(07/09/2013) [-]
" the fact remains that the U.S will be one of, if not the hardest, country to invade simply because of the populace gun ownership"

I don't think that's even relevant. If another country would invade you (why did you even begin to talk about this hypothetically?), I'm sure the military would be the real challenge not the citizens that happen to have guns. I'm pretty sure they wouldn't even be relevant, because once the new country has seized control these citizens would be like ants to the new rulers, and it's not like these people are gonna aid the military in the big fights either.

"even the militantly weak countries such as Spain and Italy would be able to invade successfully. "

Why would Spain and Italy invade you? It's really weird, you're talking like there's a some huge threat to your country somewhere out in the world and that this threat wants to conquer you...
#250 to #246 - grandterskrasao
Reply 0
(07/09/2013) [-]
Its merely hypothetical, and in case you haven't noticed, the majority of the world hates the United States. The reason why we haven't been attacked is because our military and our economy. We spend the most money on our military out of every single peace-time country (making it one of the most advanced) and we consume 70% of the worlds GDP. We're bullies who shove other around to get what we want. Italy and Spain have repeatedly voiced their distaste at the United States because of our involvement in Iran, and I just used them as an example anyways. Besides, all that is after a revolution, which does leave a country weak.
#174 to #11 - slugnugget
Reply +1
(07/09/2013) [-]
try and take a school or bank hostage with a knife you cunt.

Go on a murder spree with a knife and see how long you last.
#184 to #11 - molehasmoles
Reply 0
(07/09/2013) [-]
Isn't that just a joke argument though? I can see it being funny in a show like American Dad, but it kind of fails as a real argument.
#160 to #11 - chainz
Reply 0
(07/09/2013) [-]
If guns were not that easy to get access to in America, how could kids shoot up schools? No guns = No problems.
#138 to #11 - anon
Reply 0
(07/09/2013) [-]
try to kill half of your classmates or 20 people in the mall with a knife...
#123 to #11 - anon
Reply 0
(07/09/2013) [-]
true,
but the difference is, unlike a knife, guns are only made to kill.
#116 to #11 - aceonfire
Reply 0
(07/09/2013) [-]
you see, my problem with this logic is that it is based solely on the fact that guns don't have a will. But people die from inanimate objects all the time. Assuming that it can be agreed upon that when this happens, it is the objects fault, then would a misfire not be the gun killing a person? I already know my opinion on the matter is that of the minority, but **** it. Ready for the rage.
#111 to #11 - mashedbacon
Reply 0
(07/09/2013) [-]
to be fair, its alot easyer with a gun...
#100 to #11 - drastronomy
Reply 0
(07/09/2013) [-]
well, a knife is not exactly as effective as a gun...
#73 to #11 - anon
Reply 0
(07/09/2013) [-]
******** and you know it.

Guns don't kill people, true. They just make if extremely easy to kill a large amount of people.

Knives don't, and they have many other practical uses too- whereas a gun's only purpose is to kill.
#64 to #11 - anon
Reply 0
(07/09/2013) [-]
we should hand everyone on the street a bunch of C4 in case they need it to protect themselves.

oh thats a retarded idea? because nobody needs that much power to protect themselves?

boom, thats the perspective of the counter argument
#46 to #11 - anon
Reply 0
(07/09/2013) [-]
from what I've heard, the UK is working on a blunt tip knife that you can't stab people with since they have a really bad knifing problem

******* nanny states....
#83 to #46 - commontroll
Reply 0
(07/09/2013) [-]
Well what about the edges for slashing? Then they'll get rid of heavy, blunt objects, etc. etc. Soon people will only be allowed to have plastic spoons on them.
#66 to #46 - smithforprez
Reply 0
(07/09/2013) [-]
why the **** would anyone bother to use a knife that isnt a knife?
#253 to #11 - megashot
Reply -1
(07/09/2013) [-]
kinves aren't made for the intent purpose of killing, guns are, shiface
#28 to #11 - jewsburninindaoven
Reply -1
(07/09/2013) [-]
Well then we should legalize nukes, heroin, and anthrax because they don't kill people. People kill each other and/or themselves with these things.
#18 to #11 - adeadaxe
Reply -1
(07/09/2013) [-]
Guns are tools designed specifically to kill. That is literally their only function (except for those designed for sports), whereas knives have other functions, mostly culinary stuff. When anon said he didn't understand the argument he didn't mean he literally didn't understand, he meant that he thinks the argument suggests guns aren't tools explicitly designed to kill, even though they are. In a hypothetical world where guns don't exist, we wouldn't be missing much because they don't do anything except kill (again, except sports), whereas a hypothetical world without knives would be inconvenient in a number of ways.
#20 to #18 - phycopath [OP]
Reply +2
(07/09/2013) [-]
There are more killings with knives and other small handheld weapons that are not guns than there are with guns. Also, the areas with the most gun control in the country have the higher crime rates. The purpose of the gun is self-defense. Most people have guns for hunting or self-defense. If you aren't taught how to use a gun from day 1, then it can be used to kill, but it will never be the killer. On the news, you never hear them say the pistol killed John. You hear James killed John with a gun. Huge difference. While guns may be used to kill and murder, I can tell you for a fact that they will never be THE murderer.
#34 to #20 - adeadaxe
Reply 0
(07/09/2013) [-]
I never said guns killed more than knives, I simply pointed out that the sole purpose of guns is to kill. I did this because you suggested banning all knives in response to OP's suggestion of banning guns, which doesn't make sense since knives have other functions. Also, I never said I supported OP's suggestion, and if you had replied with, "Also, the areas with the most gun control in the country have the higher crime rates," in the first place I wouldn't have even posted because that's a logical argument against banning guns, unlike the suggestion to ban all knives. I know guns are used for self defense, I just pointed out that the way they do this is via killing your attacker (or wounding). I also never said the gun would be THE murderer, I said that it was a tool designed for the sole purpose of killing things via high-velocity metal bits. We don't hear people say, "the pistol killed John," because guns aren't sentient, which isn't something I suggested. You mention, "While guns may be used to kill and murder..." and my point was that that's ALL guns do because that is their only utility (again, except for sports).
#41 to #18 - anon
Reply 0
(07/09/2013) [-]
In a hypothetical world where guns don't exist, large countries would be impossible.
#194 to #41 - molehasmoles
Reply 0
(07/09/2013) [-]
You're joking right? Or are you actually saying that there's never been a large country before guns were invented?
#42 to #18 - enkmaster
Reply -2
(07/09/2013) [-]
Are you actually that ignorant. If we lived in a world without guns im quite sure that there would be some other equally lethal form of slaughtering each other. Humans are constantly looking for better and more interesting ways to butcher each other, something would come up.
#112 - kaboomz
Reply +31
(07/09/2013) [-]
This image has expired
guns are made to kill
if an inocent is killed the user and the governament should be blamed

the user for being a ******* psycho and the governament for making it possible for a psycho to have a weapon
#114 to #112 - satrenkotheone ONLINE
Reply -4
(07/09/2013) [-]
We should blame the Chinese for inventing gunpowder!
#270 to #112 - hailarty
Reply +1
(07/09/2013) [-]
I prefer having a weapon in my home locked up in my safe. When the government will be able to ensure fully that no one will break in with intention to rob or murder my family, then they can start talking about banning defense tools.
#275 to #270 - thegamerslife
Reply 0
(07/09/2013) [-]
why not quick access bedside safe? I like those little *******.
#139 to #112 - sirformidio
Reply +2
(07/09/2013) [-]
indeed, Guns are made to kill. and injure, in the case of the .22.
It is the responsibility of a gun owner to know, and understand this so he will not pull a gun without the intent to fatally wound someone else.
#277 to #139 - thegamerslife
Reply 0
(07/09/2013) [-]
You shouldn't go for fatally wounding, you should go for quick kills. center mass and head shots. I'm not taking a chance with my life, someone breaks in, they are 99% chance a dead person (WA is gender neutral now. :/ )
#178 - osirusrising
Reply +23
(07/09/2013) [-]
**** storm inbound.
#287 to #178 - bannon
Reply 0
(07/09/2013) [-]
Bomber: Has a pilots licence to fly the place and has permission from his superiors. Pilots are also routinely tested to ensure they have the capabilities expected of them along with their bombs and planes.

Driver: Has a licence to drive the car and has been tested to show that he should have been sensible enough to not drink and drive. Drivers must also submit to routine testing. In Ireland we also have the NCT or National Car Test in which vehicles are tested once a year (depending on the condition or year of the vehicle) so that the vehicle is regulated and kept up to a certain standard

Shooter or person in possession of weapon: ?

Sure, go ahead and have guns but at least have some sort of licencing where people are trained to use the firearms or they're tested, not to mention renewal of mental health evaluations every so often and submission of firearms to be checked for defaults.
#255 to #178 - megashot
Reply +1
(07/09/2013) [-]
it's not the gun that is blamed, it's the shooter's access to guns we blame
#268 to #178 - Hoobling
Reply +2
(07/09/2013) [-]
Bombs are already illegal everywhere
Cars are integral to life and drink driving is illegal

No-one blames the gun, it's why Adam Lanza is in jail. I don't want all guns to be confiscated, but there is a problem in America when it comes to how easy it is to get hold of a gun. Lanza's mother didn't need 12 guns.
#1 - teranin ONLINE
Reply +23
(07/08/2013) [-]
Guns don't kill people, Omni-tools do
Guns don't kill people, Omni-tools do
#6 to #1 - sketchE
Reply -1
(07/08/2013) [-]
it was self defense
#8 to #6 - teranin ONLINE
Reply +4
(07/08/2013) [-]
"This is for Thane, you son of a bitch" Just because it's self defense, doesn't make it him any less dead
#9 to #8 - sketchE
Reply -1
(07/08/2013) [-]
i was making a joke. he deserved it
#321 to #1 - masterspectre
Reply 0
(07/29/2013) [-]
I kept pressing RT hoping Shepard would stab him again and again.
#33 to #1 - RequieminMortis
Reply +4
(07/09/2013) [-]
This was one of the most immensely satisfying moments of the game.
#31 to #1 - darthblam ONLINE
Reply +6
(07/09/2013) [-]
I REALLY enjoyed this..

Even as a pure Paragon player, Renegade moments like these just HAVE to be taken.
#205 to #31 - hydraetis
Reply 0
(07/09/2013) [-]
And punching the reporter in the face.

Though killing that son of a bitch definitely was one of the best feelings in the game. Nobody ***** with Thane and gets away with it.
#130 - ireallylikepotatoe
Reply +18
(07/09/2013) [-]
Look, I don't want to sound like a libtard or anything, but I live in England where guns are not legal. Sure we have the occasional crazy guy shooting up some people but it's nothing like the scale of it in America.

If it's easier for you to get a gun then it's easier for a crazy guy to get a gun and that just isn't safe.

By all means have your right to bear arms, but you need to take precautions to make sure your guns stay in the right hands.
#239 to #130 - bigmanfifty
Reply -2
(07/09/2013) [-]
Exactly. A gun should never be in the hand of an untrained civilian, that's just stupid.
#286 to #239 - anon
Reply 0
(07/09/2013) [-]
On the contrary, why not do nuclear deterrence? EVERYONE has a gun, so EVERYONE who uses a gun has to get in a shootout. Those who use guns to kill other people almost never use it expecting a shootout. This has ALWAYS worked for Sweden.
#261 to #130 - fantomen
Reply +1
(07/09/2013) [-]
Everything has it's ups and downs.
It may be harder for crazy people to obtain guns, but criminals can still get them fairly easily as evidenced by the fact that handgun crime as increased since Blair banned handguns. The people that were killing people before the ban weren't the licensed gun owners. It was criminals with illegal guns, And since the police couldn't track those guns, all the licensed gun owners lost their guns, but the criminals kept theirs.

And many people had their lives ruined by the stricter gun laws.
I know an English gunsmith that had to leave the country because he couldn't find work anymore. The government also seized and destroyed his gun collection worth over 10 000£, most of which were extremely rare antiques.
#47 - trogdorrules
Reply +15
(07/09/2013) [-]
I think damn near anything can kill anyone, as long as the person wielding said object is determined enough to kill you with it.
#141 to #47 - anon
Reply 0
(07/09/2013) [-]
try to go on a killing spree with a cucumber...
Even a knife wont bring you much success! Only fire arms and explosives are effective enough and (usually) easy to use for everyone no matter how weak or young/old.
#208 to #141 - hydraetis
Reply -1
(07/09/2013) [-]
You could stuff the cucumber down the person's throat.
#27 - zeroxnight
Reply +13
(07/09/2013) [-]
pencils kill people too
#280 to #27 - thegamerslife
Reply 0
(07/09/2013) [-]
My dad was stabbed with a pencil when he was in school. still has the piece of lead in his hand.