Rank #10862 on CommentsLevel 284 Comments: More Thumbs Than A Hiroshima Survivor
OfflineSend mail to thepink Block thepink Invite thepink to be your friend
|Last status update:|| |
|Date Signed Up:||11/13/2012|
|FunnyJunk Career Stats|
|Highest Content Rank:||#2736|
|Highest Comment Rank:||#712|
|Content Thumbs:||2263 total, 2779 , 516|
|Comment Thumbs:||10366 total, 10796 , 430|
|Content Level Progress:|| 68.99% (69/100) |
Level 121 Content: Respected Member Of Famiry → Level 122 Content: Respected Member Of Famiry
|Comment Level Progress:|| 99% (99/100) |
Level 284 Comments: More Thumbs Than A Hiroshima Survivor → Level 285 Comments: More Thumbs Than A Hiroshima Survivor
|Times Content Favorited:||293 times|
|Total Comments Made:||1227|
- Views: 68427The feel that lived
1655 180 Total: +1475
- Views: 19607What's it gonna be?
394 157 Total: +237
- Views: 5211The wittiest of titles
79 17 Total: +62
- Views: 2050hmm yes quite
33 4 Total: +29
- Views: 2655Seeing a veteran's username
27 4 Total: +23
- Views: 2248Oh Tannenbaum....
30 9 Total: +21
- Views: 1759Shit's frozen
9 4 Total: +5
- Views: 17399This fuckin' channel
255 29 Total: +226
- Views: 5770There's the door
79 12 Total: +67
- Views: 2819[insert a pun of some kind]
25 4 Total: +21
- Views: 2185When I start to browse morbid
18 2 Total: +16
latest user's comments
|#128 - whups. Done goofed.||06/14/2016 on /pol/ on Orlando||0|
|#46 - Not trying to lessen the religious bit of it because it's so o… [+] (22 new replies)||06/13/2016 on /pol/ on Orlando||+33|
#126 - anon (06/13/2016) [-]
But a pistol is semi-automatic. What the hell are you talking about? People who follow the law should - and do, in the US - have all sorts of weapons; are you arguing that some firearms are more dangerous than others? Do you also believe full-auto is inherently more dangerous? Protip: It's not. Sure is scarier to the untrained and less knowledgeable, but it's not inherently more dangerous. It all comes down to [bold]intent and skill[/bold].
The Orlando shooter was a certified security officer - which suggests he had at least a certain amount of training. And I shouldn't even have to explain intent. It doesn't matter if he had Grandpappy's .30-06 bolt action or an AR-15, he'd have killed as many people as he could anyway. It doesn't matter how fast people die when someone has the intent to kill another human being. All that matters is what is being done to stop him. Not his gun, not the law - him. He is the problem.
#120 - Fgner (06/13/2016) [-]
I agree with the concept, but it would need to be very, very carefully implemented. The problem is that the right to bear arms has shit-all to do with self-defense. It's a constitutional right created by people who knew that a corrupt government could take away all weapons and therefore the only means to rebel. The government is supposed to fear it's people, not vice versa. It's even worse in a modern world, because now they have the added advantage of having military tech that could wipe anyone off the face of the world from anywhere.
And here is the line: Someone who commits a violent crime cannot get a gun. It's illegal and that makes perfect sense. But he was looked into, there was never an arrest and there was never a conviction. He wasn't guilty of any crime yet and the investigations couldn't prove he was a danger. He was legally allowed to obtain a weapon after those incidents because he was not a violent criminal. And if we make it illegal to get weapons after being investigated... we risk giving the government power to just "investigate" whoever they want to take away their rights.
Also: That would make several people I know unable to own weapons. There are a lot of (especially chemical) engineers on watch lists because of the access to questionable materials. In fact, my friend once got investigated for terrorist activity... He accidentally brought rocket fuel aboard an airplane and they didn't like that.
#90 - anon (06/13/2016) [-]
#64 - olinerocks (06/13/2016) [-]
How is that edgy? This guy just doesn't sound like he knows what he's talking about. He says no person should have access to a semi automatic firearm, but then says that people having a pistol is ok. Unless you do so for a very specific reason, most pistols used for defense are semi-automatic.
#73 - timmity (06/13/2016) [-]
While he worded it poorly, to try and take down his entire argument for the sake of a mistake that just about anyone without good enough knowledge would of guns would make, which is most people, is a fallacy.
Just because someone doesn't know as much about something as you doesn't mean they can't have an opinion on it. What he's trying to saw, that there is absolutely no reason a regular citizen should need anything more than a pistol to defend themselves is true.
#96 - olinerocks (06/13/2016) [-]
I had realized I made a mistake when I read the above comment, hence the deletion. I read it as "Just because he doesnt know much about something" and missed the "as much as you"
But still, in order for an opinion or argument to be taken seriously, you need to understand the subject enough that you don't make basic terminology mistakes. As to the stronger/weaker statement, a hunting rifle, lets say .308, is way more powerful than the ones used in the shooting (assuming 5.56/.223 based on the most popular AR caliber). Just because a gun looks scary does not mean that it is more dangerous. On top of that, how are you going to regulate what gets used for what without instituting an australia style registration/buyback program followed by a strict licensing program? That would never happen a: because in the US it is a constitutionally protected right, just as the first amendment is for free speech ( do I need a license for that now too?) and b:good luck getting everyone to turn their guns in to the goverment, they already tried that in NY with "assault rifles" and had an estimated 10% compliance with no way to enforce it unless the owner tells the police he/she has one. You would also get uprisings for violating a right of the people which is kind of the point of that amendment in the first place.
The gun laws are fine as they are now, the government just needs to enforce them instead of regulating them out of the hands of law abiding citizens. Look how good that worked in France and Germany, which both have extremely strict gun laws, yet terrorists were able to get full-auto weapons, which as a side note are EXTREMELY regulated in the US and cost about 40-50k, way more than the average joe can afford.
#100 - timmity (06/13/2016) [-]
France and Germany are anecdotes, many countries with strict gun laws, such as Switzerland, have very low crime, murder and shooting rates. Yes, many have guns, but bullets are what are regulated and heavily taxed, you can't have more than a couple, and even those will set you back hundreds. .
The US still has higher gun crime rates. Less murders than some countries that disallow guns, but gun crime is, unlike say kitchen knife crime, easier to control, and if we can, we probably should, just a little.
As for amendments Specifically the first, I think. , it doesn't say you get to own the latest mininuke cannon 4000 with G spot vibrator.
And finally going back to the first line of this comment, about terminology. I could say that "Those damn turban wearers rape 50% more often than us chalk skin folk." Just an example off the top of my head, not to be taken seriously and purely there because I was just passing an anti-islam comp... for the 5th time today. They're getting out of hand. , and yeah, my terminology would be horrible, my tone inappropriate, but my statistic and opinion valid? Certainly.
#124 - anon (06/13/2016) [-]
You're also forgetting the part where Germany and France have a muslim population approaching 10% of their respective national population, and the fact that Switzerland is neither an EU country, nor "diverse" or "multicultural". It has very little crime because:
1) The Swiss are vastly more homogenous than the French or Germans
2) Crime rate is consequently very low, to the point most of the problems Swiss police have to deal with is DUIs
Additionally, aren't the last few words of the 2nd Amendment "shall not be infringed"? Here in Europe, many of us envy the fact your right to self-defense and gun ownership is constitutionally protected.
#125 - anon (06/13/2016) [-]
Same poster as #124, forgot to add:
3) They have functional borders. But see what I said about not being an EU country.
|#17 - No thanks, Elizabeth Banks. Spiders gave me the willi…||06/03/2016 on What could possibly go wrong?||0|
|#5 - Okay. I read this like six times but I think I got it: … [+] (1 new reply)||06/01/2016 on Wow...||+4|
|#1643 - **thepink used "*roll picture*"** **thepink rolled image **||05/24/2016 on Mystery Amazon Package||0|
|#6 - clock towel [+] (1 new reply)||05/16/2016 on Whats Your Favorite Jontron...||+1|
|#16 - I only remember the theme song. And how it didn't loo…||05/15/2016 on Anaconda||+2|
|#866 - What is even "a chan?" Like a 4chan post or…||05/15/2016 on Roll Fap Game||0|
|#863 - **thepink used "*roll 1, 01-99*"** **thepink rolls 94** … [+] (1 new reply)||05/15/2016 on Roll Fap Game||0|
|#13 - well he does rule||05/12/2016 on Stephen King||0|