Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search

hide menu

tyraxio    

no avatar Level 225 Comments: Mind Blower
Offline
Send mail to tyraxio Block tyraxio Invite tyraxio to be your friend
Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Date Signed Up:7/31/2012
Last Login:4/22/2014
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Content Thumbs: 1902 total,  2298 ,  396
Comment Thumbs: 2592 total,  3935 ,  1343
Content Level Progress: 99% (99/100)
Level 118 Content: Funny Junkie → Level 119 Content: Funny Junkie
Comment Level Progress: 27% (27/100)
Level 225 Comments: Mind Blower → Level 226 Comments: Mind Blower
Subscribers:0
Content Views:90650
Times Content Favorited:113 times
Total Comments Made:1501
FJ Points:4385

latest user's comments

#147 - >implying the American government is not already corrupt as…  [+] (10 new replies) 11/18/2013 on My boy Barry -3
User avatar #155 - ispn (11/18/2013) [-]
Lets look at the facts?

The united states military in total function is the strongest military force in the world (Per capita single nation, excluding UN) The military is totaled to about 1% the population of the Continental united states. Assuming (safely) not all the entirety of the army would stay with the government during a rebellion, we assume .5% of total population is not faced against 99.5% of 320 million people. Now excluding children, running against factors of elderly who cannot physically fight, we get about...... 215 million total population of people fighting against a 600,000 strong military force. seeing as how many military bases are close to civilian locations, and are not completely reinforced with perfect security, the civilian and now ex-military population could easily get access to military grade equipment. Totaling now that 65% of the current military is over-seas, or not on the continental states, we now have 250,000 people against a 215 million person army, each with weapons, and at bare minimum 35% of them well trained in marksmanship.

So most likely, yes, the government could be taken down by the people.
#162 - tyraxio (11/18/2013) [-]
Yeah, it'll be fun to see people standing around with uzis and hunting rifles shooting at tanks and bomber planes.

Just give it up. It was probably possible when the law was made way back in the day, but there is simply too much wartech that the government possesses that the ordinary man does not.
User avatar #169 - ispn (11/18/2013) [-]
And besides, do you know the schematics of a tank? It is very easy to infiltrate a tank while it is in motion. If there is a gunner stationed on the tank it's even easier. And have you ever heard of the IRA? they fight in modern combat all the time as a civilian militia.
#173 - tyraxio (11/18/2013) [-]
You've got a point with the IRA, I just highly doubt that an entire nation the size of America (note; bigger than Europe and China and approximately the same size as Russia) could organise themselves in a manner to not only take down the current government but also establish a new one and not be in anarchy until the last inhabitant is dead.

Also, and this is actually very important, what makes you think that in the case of a tyrannical government, the inhabitants would not be brainwashed as to think they weren't being opressed? I don't know of a lot of protesters, violent or peaceful, in North Korea, for example.
User avatar #177 - ispn (11/18/2013) [-]
To be honest? In all regards, and to no surprise, there is already talk of revolution. And it is true that perhaps it would be difficult to create a new stable form of government with such a large portion of the population at war. But destroying a tyrannical government, and bringing hope for a better future, is far prefered to sitting stagnant in the dark.

Allegory of the cave.
#182 - tyraxio (11/18/2013) [-]
Haha, you are way smarter than I first assumed. Also, Plato references are always kill. I will settle for a tie here, and I will underline that you are a very smart guy, and I respect that.
User avatar #185 - ispn (11/18/2013) [-]
Thank you. I respect your point of view, i was actually going to make that point, always remember, so long as one man, woman, or child has belief in an idea, then it still lives on, and someone will fight for it one day.
User avatar #164 - ispn (11/18/2013) [-]
Thus the statement early on in the argument, the people raiding a military compound, taking military grade equipment. One army, air force, or naval base is all they need to get enough equipment.
#168 - tyraxio (11/18/2013) [-]
"Hey Frank, how does this thing work?"

"I don't know Joe, try pushing that button..."

*Frank accidentally shoots Joe with a bazooka*


Yeah, because a bunch of civillians could shoot their way through a human barricade of highly trained soldiers and then afterwards instantly know how to operate a shitload of technology they have only ever seen in video games and movies.
User avatar #170 - ispn (11/18/2013) [-]
You're making the assumption that there are no schematics of the functions. You're making the assumption that there is nobody outside of the military that know the functionality of this equipment. I know how to fire, load, and work a rocket launcher. It is not difficult. The Taliban learned it, the IRA learned it, it's called reverse engineering.
#145 - I already referred to this and said that I don't mind shooting… 11/18/2013 on My boy Barry -1
#143 - I live in Denmark; a country which runs a highly social democr…  [+] (2 new replies) 11/18/2013 on My boy Barry -2
User avatar #157 - Sockopolis (11/18/2013) [-]
I am surely not educated on this topic, but crime and gun violence is a much stronger trait in America than in Denmark, im guessing. A lot of the people committing the crimes are either using an illegally possessed gun, or it's just not there. Taking it away from the general populous will just end up in more killings. Or maybe not, who knows.
#163 - tyraxio (11/18/2013) [-]
What you just said made no sense.

Gun violence is lower in Denmark because it is impossible to have a gun unless you have a permission for such (hunting license etc.), you can't just go to your local town hall and get a license check.
#140 - I will refer to my argument below; go to the shooting range if…  [+] (12 new replies) 11/18/2013 on My boy Barry -3
User avatar #142 - ispn (11/18/2013) [-]
Which i will refer to the other portion of my argument, in that keeping guns in your home is a bases of protection from not just intruders, but the government as well. You cannot deny that in history, when governments were given so much power, they abuse it.
#147 - tyraxio (11/18/2013) [-]
>implying the American government is not already corrupt as fuck
>implying it is possible to take down the government with a huge unorganised population

Try to take down the government tomorrow. It's not possible simply due to people being allowed to possess guns. The only good argument for guns in a house is a zombie apocalypse.
User avatar #155 - ispn (11/18/2013) [-]
Lets look at the facts?

The united states military in total function is the strongest military force in the world (Per capita single nation, excluding UN) The military is totaled to about 1% the population of the Continental united states. Assuming (safely) not all the entirety of the army would stay with the government during a rebellion, we assume .5% of total population is not faced against 99.5% of 320 million people. Now excluding children, running against factors of elderly who cannot physically fight, we get about...... 215 million total population of people fighting against a 600,000 strong military force. seeing as how many military bases are close to civilian locations, and are not completely reinforced with perfect security, the civilian and now ex-military population could easily get access to military grade equipment. Totaling now that 65% of the current military is over-seas, or not on the continental states, we now have 250,000 people against a 215 million person army, each with weapons, and at bare minimum 35% of them well trained in marksmanship.

So most likely, yes, the government could be taken down by the people.
#162 - tyraxio (11/18/2013) [-]
Yeah, it'll be fun to see people standing around with uzis and hunting rifles shooting at tanks and bomber planes.

Just give it up. It was probably possible when the law was made way back in the day, but there is simply too much wartech that the government possesses that the ordinary man does not.
User avatar #169 - ispn (11/18/2013) [-]
And besides, do you know the schematics of a tank? It is very easy to infiltrate a tank while it is in motion. If there is a gunner stationed on the tank it's even easier. And have you ever heard of the IRA? they fight in modern combat all the time as a civilian militia.
#173 - tyraxio (11/18/2013) [-]
You've got a point with the IRA, I just highly doubt that an entire nation the size of America (note; bigger than Europe and China and approximately the same size as Russia) could organise themselves in a manner to not only take down the current government but also establish a new one and not be in anarchy until the last inhabitant is dead.

Also, and this is actually very important, what makes you think that in the case of a tyrannical government, the inhabitants would not be brainwashed as to think they weren't being opressed? I don't know of a lot of protesters, violent or peaceful, in North Korea, for example.
User avatar #177 - ispn (11/18/2013) [-]
To be honest? In all regards, and to no surprise, there is already talk of revolution. And it is true that perhaps it would be difficult to create a new stable form of government with such a large portion of the population at war. But destroying a tyrannical government, and bringing hope for a better future, is far prefered to sitting stagnant in the dark.

Allegory of the cave.
#182 - tyraxio (11/18/2013) [-]
Haha, you are way smarter than I first assumed. Also, Plato references are always kill. I will settle for a tie here, and I will underline that you are a very smart guy, and I respect that.
User avatar #185 - ispn (11/18/2013) [-]
Thank you. I respect your point of view, i was actually going to make that point, always remember, so long as one man, woman, or child has belief in an idea, then it still lives on, and someone will fight for it one day.
User avatar #164 - ispn (11/18/2013) [-]
Thus the statement early on in the argument, the people raiding a military compound, taking military grade equipment. One army, air force, or naval base is all they need to get enough equipment.
#168 - tyraxio (11/18/2013) [-]
"Hey Frank, how does this thing work?"

"I don't know Joe, try pushing that button..."

*Frank accidentally shoots Joe with a bazooka*


Yeah, because a bunch of civillians could shoot their way through a human barricade of highly trained soldiers and then afterwards instantly know how to operate a shitload of technology they have only ever seen in video games and movies.
User avatar #170 - ispn (11/18/2013) [-]
You're making the assumption that there are no schematics of the functions. You're making the assumption that there is nobody outside of the military that know the functionality of this equipment. I know how to fire, load, and work a rocket launcher. It is not difficult. The Taliban learned it, the IRA learned it, it's called reverse engineering.
#130 - Sure, I even went to the shooting range once. I see no problem… 11/18/2013 on My boy Barry -2
#129 - Where did I say this? Of course I think all of those are terri…  [+] (7 new replies) 11/18/2013 on My boy Barry -3
#205 - bigrog (11/18/2013) [-]
hunting, collecting, sports, self defense. All very legal reasons to have a gun.
User avatar #146 - whitie (11/18/2013) [-]
i wish we could ban guns, but bans don't work, all it does is drives the market underground and makes currently law abiding citizens into criminals pointlessly, the best you can do is have a registry of guns and their owners so if you commit a crime with a gun it is easily traced back to you and so prevents deaths by gunshot which stops alot of death but people will always find a way to kill each other, by rock, hand, knife, or bomb they will find a way as long as they have reasons to
#151 - tyraxio (11/18/2013) [-]
Indeed, but think of how easy it is to get guns in the current manner. Many young people who would've otherwise had no means of contacting the black market can go to fucking Wall-Mart and buy a couple of guns for their school shooting the following day.
User avatar #133 - Sockopolis (11/18/2013) [-]
I believe that unless all guns are taken from everybody, the right to buy and own one for defense is a natural right. If you outlaw guns, youre making the citizens defenseless to a possible shooting or perhaps a tyrannical government. As long as hunting is done for meat and consumption, not just sport, it's totally okay. It starts to get shady in specifics, but thats politics.
#143 - tyraxio (11/18/2013) [-]
I live in Denmark; a country which runs a highly social democratic (what you would probably call opressive and tyrannical) in which guns are banned. We do have gun violence related to gangs, but there is practically no gun violence except from that. The Utøya shooting in Norway was so groundbreaking because it was literally the first big shooting in Scandinavia since ever. They happen, what, a few times a year in America?
User avatar #157 - Sockopolis (11/18/2013) [-]
I am surely not educated on this topic, but crime and gun violence is a much stronger trait in America than in Denmark, im guessing. A lot of the people committing the crimes are either using an illegally possessed gun, or it's just not there. Taking it away from the general populous will just end up in more killings. Or maybe not, who knows.
#163 - tyraxio (11/18/2013) [-]
What you just said made no sense.

Gun violence is lower in Denmark because it is impossible to have a gun unless you have a permission for such (hunting license etc.), you can't just go to your local town hall and get a license check.
#124 - *cough* I am OP. *cough* But haaaaaay. Danishfriends …  [+] (2 new replies) 11/18/2013 on My boy Barry 0
User avatar #150 - krobeles (11/18/2013) [-]
I live in Copenhagen now. Recently moved here after enrolling in the University Physics department.
Its pretty nifty.
#154 - tyraxio (11/18/2013) [-]
Very nice! If I can get entry, I will study in CPH or Aarhus uni, trying to get a can. in philosophy and sociology, haha.
#122 - Alright, fine. Tell me why drugs are illegal then. Tell me why… 11/18/2013 on My boy Barry 0
#118 - Helll yeeeee OP is a Danishfag. Getting paid to study…  [+] (4 new replies) 11/18/2013 on My boy Barry 0
User avatar #123 - krobeles (11/18/2013) [-]
Sorry to disappoint you, but i'm not OP. Am Danish though.
Since i moved out, my SU went up so significantly, that i can not only afford to pay rent and food easily, i have quite a bit of money to spare.
I live very cheap though. Still. Its fucking ace!
#124 - tyraxio (11/18/2013) [-]
*cough* I am OP. *cough*

But haaaaaay. Danishfriends for life, huh? Where do you live?
User avatar #150 - krobeles (11/18/2013) [-]
I live in Copenhagen now. Recently moved here after enrolling in the University Physics department.
Its pretty nifty.
#154 - tyraxio (11/18/2013) [-]
Very nice! If I can get entry, I will study in CPH or Aarhus uni, trying to get a can. in philosophy and sociology, haha.
#117 - Are you actually trying to argue that people only smoke to hur…  [+] (17 new replies) 11/18/2013 on My boy Barry -4
User avatar #131 - ispn (11/18/2013) [-]
Guns exist as a higher form of warfare, yes they are primarily based around the purpose of killing, but when i take a rifle in hand and shoot at a target, i find relaxation in it. When i practice my marksmanship, i find peace in it. There is a calm in the target, and in the trigger. Practicing my shooting abilities help me keep sane, and to prevent myself from committing suicide. It gave me something that was mine, something that was my own freedom. Guns may be able to kill, but then again, i can kill a man with a tin can, i can kill a man with just about anything in a room, including my bare hands; guns are just a more ultimate form of killing. There is a reason why guns should not be banned. A Japanese war general once said "It would be impossible to invade homeland America, for behind every blade of grass there would be a rifle waiting for you." Isoroku Yamamoto, Commander-in-Chief of the Imperial Japanese Navy during World War II.

A mans body is his own, and if you wish to harm yourself, then so be it, but your actions will always affect those around you, no matter how mundane they may seem. Committing suicide affects your family and friends, smoking harms those around you, even in small measures, i spent times around smokers as a child, and when i first smelled fresh, non smoky air, i almost vomited. You are a fool to think guns are the greatest threat in the world, the truth of the fact is that 3 out of 5 deaths from firearms are suicide, then another 4 out of 5 of those remaining are self-defence cases.
#140 - tyraxio (11/18/2013) [-]
I will refer to my argument below; go to the shooting range if you want to go shooting. This does not justify you keeping a gun in your home.
User avatar #142 - ispn (11/18/2013) [-]
Which i will refer to the other portion of my argument, in that keeping guns in your home is a bases of protection from not just intruders, but the government as well. You cannot deny that in history, when governments were given so much power, they abuse it.
#147 - tyraxio (11/18/2013) [-]
>implying the American government is not already corrupt as fuck
>implying it is possible to take down the government with a huge unorganised population

Try to take down the government tomorrow. It's not possible simply due to people being allowed to possess guns. The only good argument for guns in a house is a zombie apocalypse.
User avatar #155 - ispn (11/18/2013) [-]
Lets look at the facts?

The united states military in total function is the strongest military force in the world (Per capita single nation, excluding UN) The military is totaled to about 1% the population of the Continental united states. Assuming (safely) not all the entirety of the army would stay with the government during a rebellion, we assume .5% of total population is not faced against 99.5% of 320 million people. Now excluding children, running against factors of elderly who cannot physically fight, we get about...... 215 million total population of people fighting against a 600,000 strong military force. seeing as how many military bases are close to civilian locations, and are not completely reinforced with perfect security, the civilian and now ex-military population could easily get access to military grade equipment. Totaling now that 65% of the current military is over-seas, or not on the continental states, we now have 250,000 people against a 215 million person army, each with weapons, and at bare minimum 35% of them well trained in marksmanship.

So most likely, yes, the government could be taken down by the people.
#162 - tyraxio (11/18/2013) [-]
Yeah, it'll be fun to see people standing around with uzis and hunting rifles shooting at tanks and bomber planes.

Just give it up. It was probably possible when the law was made way back in the day, but there is simply too much wartech that the government possesses that the ordinary man does not.
User avatar #169 - ispn (11/18/2013) [-]
And besides, do you know the schematics of a tank? It is very easy to infiltrate a tank while it is in motion. If there is a gunner stationed on the tank it's even easier. And have you ever heard of the IRA? they fight in modern combat all the time as a civilian militia.
#173 - tyraxio (11/18/2013) [-]
You've got a point with the IRA, I just highly doubt that an entire nation the size of America (note; bigger than Europe and China and approximately the same size as Russia) could organise themselves in a manner to not only take down the current government but also establish a new one and not be in anarchy until the last inhabitant is dead.

Also, and this is actually very important, what makes you think that in the case of a tyrannical government, the inhabitants would not be brainwashed as to think they weren't being opressed? I don't know of a lot of protesters, violent or peaceful, in North Korea, for example.
User avatar #177 - ispn (11/18/2013) [-]
To be honest? In all regards, and to no surprise, there is already talk of revolution. And it is true that perhaps it would be difficult to create a new stable form of government with such a large portion of the population at war. But destroying a tyrannical government, and bringing hope for a better future, is far prefered to sitting stagnant in the dark.

Allegory of the cave.
#182 - tyraxio (11/18/2013) [-]
Haha, you are way smarter than I first assumed. Also, Plato references are always kill. I will settle for a tie here, and I will underline that you are a very smart guy, and I respect that.
User avatar #185 - ispn (11/18/2013) [-]
Thank you. I respect your point of view, i was actually going to make that point, always remember, so long as one man, woman, or child has belief in an idea, then it still lives on, and someone will fight for it one day.
User avatar #164 - ispn (11/18/2013) [-]
Thus the statement early on in the argument, the people raiding a military compound, taking military grade equipment. One army, air force, or naval base is all they need to get enough equipment.
#168 - tyraxio (11/18/2013) [-]
"Hey Frank, how does this thing work?"

"I don't know Joe, try pushing that button..."

*Frank accidentally shoots Joe with a bazooka*


Yeah, because a bunch of civillians could shoot their way through a human barricade of highly trained soldiers and then afterwards instantly know how to operate a shitload of technology they have only ever seen in video games and movies.
User avatar #170 - ispn (11/18/2013) [-]
You're making the assumption that there are no schematics of the functions. You're making the assumption that there is nobody outside of the military that know the functionality of this equipment. I know how to fire, load, and work a rocket launcher. It is not difficult. The Taliban learned it, the IRA learned it, it's called reverse engineering.
User avatar #128 - EpicWin (11/18/2013) [-]
Some people enjoy going to the shooting range and challenging themselves to shoot targets. They get a sense of enjoyment out of it as a sport.
This doesnt hurt anyone.
So neither hurt anyone and both are simple a way someone chooses to enjoy themselves.
One of them WILL hurt at least one person and the other may never hurt anyone or anything.
User avatar #132 - ispn (11/18/2013) [-]
^^
#130 - tyraxio (11/18/2013) [-]
Sure, I even went to the shooting range once. I see no problem in guns being allowed for rent on the range, or for a membership where you can go to shoot all you like.

This does not justify being allowed to take the gun home, however. I have no problems with guns used in such a controlled environment.
#114 - You are avoiding my main argument being that there is simply n…  [+] (20 new replies) 11/18/2013 on My boy Barry -4
User avatar #115 - EpicWin (11/18/2013) [-]
What use is there for cigarettes?
User avatar #387 - ilovehitler (11/19/2013) [-]
Stress relief is a major reason. But yes, cigarettes have no real use, as the same effects can be obtained by other objects which don't have anywhere near the same amount of harmful chemicals.
E-cigarettes or vapes, for example, provide nicotine, yet the only byproduct of breathing it out is water vapor.
But enforcing the reduction of those is silly because they don't solely exist to kill. A gun does.
#117 - tyraxio (11/18/2013) [-]
Are you actually trying to argue that people only smoke to hurt other people?

Some people find comfort in smoking and I see no problem in other people self-harming to achieve a sense of euphoria.
User avatar #131 - ispn (11/18/2013) [-]
Guns exist as a higher form of warfare, yes they are primarily based around the purpose of killing, but when i take a rifle in hand and shoot at a target, i find relaxation in it. When i practice my marksmanship, i find peace in it. There is a calm in the target, and in the trigger. Practicing my shooting abilities help me keep sane, and to prevent myself from committing suicide. It gave me something that was mine, something that was my own freedom. Guns may be able to kill, but then again, i can kill a man with a tin can, i can kill a man with just about anything in a room, including my bare hands; guns are just a more ultimate form of killing. There is a reason why guns should not be banned. A Japanese war general once said "It would be impossible to invade homeland America, for behind every blade of grass there would be a rifle waiting for you." Isoroku Yamamoto, Commander-in-Chief of the Imperial Japanese Navy during World War II.

A mans body is his own, and if you wish to harm yourself, then so be it, but your actions will always affect those around you, no matter how mundane they may seem. Committing suicide affects your family and friends, smoking harms those around you, even in small measures, i spent times around smokers as a child, and when i first smelled fresh, non smoky air, i almost vomited. You are a fool to think guns are the greatest threat in the world, the truth of the fact is that 3 out of 5 deaths from firearms are suicide, then another 4 out of 5 of those remaining are self-defence cases.
#140 - tyraxio (11/18/2013) [-]
I will refer to my argument below; go to the shooting range if you want to go shooting. This does not justify you keeping a gun in your home.
User avatar #142 - ispn (11/18/2013) [-]
Which i will refer to the other portion of my argument, in that keeping guns in your home is a bases of protection from not just intruders, but the government as well. You cannot deny that in history, when governments were given so much power, they abuse it.
#147 - tyraxio (11/18/2013) [-]
>implying the American government is not already corrupt as fuck
>implying it is possible to take down the government with a huge unorganised population

Try to take down the government tomorrow. It's not possible simply due to people being allowed to possess guns. The only good argument for guns in a house is a zombie apocalypse.
User avatar #155 - ispn (11/18/2013) [-]
Lets look at the facts?

The united states military in total function is the strongest military force in the world (Per capita single nation, excluding UN) The military is totaled to about 1% the population of the Continental united states. Assuming (safely) not all the entirety of the army would stay with the government during a rebellion, we assume .5% of total population is not faced against 99.5% of 320 million people. Now excluding children, running against factors of elderly who cannot physically fight, we get about...... 215 million total population of people fighting against a 600,000 strong military force. seeing as how many military bases are close to civilian locations, and are not completely reinforced with perfect security, the civilian and now ex-military population could easily get access to military grade equipment. Totaling now that 65% of the current military is over-seas, or not on the continental states, we now have 250,000 people against a 215 million person army, each with weapons, and at bare minimum 35% of them well trained in marksmanship.

So most likely, yes, the government could be taken down by the people.
#162 - tyraxio (11/18/2013) [-]
Yeah, it'll be fun to see people standing around with uzis and hunting rifles shooting at tanks and bomber planes.

Just give it up. It was probably possible when the law was made way back in the day, but there is simply too much wartech that the government possesses that the ordinary man does not.
User avatar #169 - ispn (11/18/2013) [-]
And besides, do you know the schematics of a tank? It is very easy to infiltrate a tank while it is in motion. If there is a gunner stationed on the tank it's even easier. And have you ever heard of the IRA? they fight in modern combat all the time as a civilian militia.
#173 - tyraxio (11/18/2013) [-]
You've got a point with the IRA, I just highly doubt that an entire nation the size of America (note; bigger than Europe and China and approximately the same size as Russia) could organise themselves in a manner to not only take down the current government but also establish a new one and not be in anarchy until the last inhabitant is dead.

Also, and this is actually very important, what makes you think that in the case of a tyrannical government, the inhabitants would not be brainwashed as to think they weren't being opressed? I don't know of a lot of protesters, violent or peaceful, in North Korea, for example.
User avatar #177 - ispn (11/18/2013) [-]
To be honest? In all regards, and to no surprise, there is already talk of revolution. And it is true that perhaps it would be difficult to create a new stable form of government with such a large portion of the population at war. But destroying a tyrannical government, and bringing hope for a better future, is far prefered to sitting stagnant in the dark.

Allegory of the cave.
#182 - tyraxio (11/18/2013) [-]
Haha, you are way smarter than I first assumed. Also, Plato references are always kill. I will settle for a tie here, and I will underline that you are a very smart guy, and I respect that.
User avatar #185 - ispn (11/18/2013) [-]
Thank you. I respect your point of view, i was actually going to make that point, always remember, so long as one man, woman, or child has belief in an idea, then it still lives on, and someone will fight for it one day.
User avatar #164 - ispn (11/18/2013) [-]
Thus the statement early on in the argument, the people raiding a military compound, taking military grade equipment. One army, air force, or naval base is all they need to get enough equipment.
#168 - tyraxio (11/18/2013) [-]
"Hey Frank, how does this thing work?"

"I don't know Joe, try pushing that button..."

*Frank accidentally shoots Joe with a bazooka*


Yeah, because a bunch of civillians could shoot their way through a human barricade of highly trained soldiers and then afterwards instantly know how to operate a shitload of technology they have only ever seen in video games and movies.
User avatar #170 - ispn (11/18/2013) [-]
You're making the assumption that there are no schematics of the functions. You're making the assumption that there is nobody outside of the military that know the functionality of this equipment. I know how to fire, load, and work a rocket launcher. It is not difficult. The Taliban learned it, the IRA learned it, it's called reverse engineering.
User avatar #128 - EpicWin (11/18/2013) [-]
Some people enjoy going to the shooting range and challenging themselves to shoot targets. They get a sense of enjoyment out of it as a sport.
This doesnt hurt anyone.
So neither hurt anyone and both are simple a way someone chooses to enjoy themselves.
One of them WILL hurt at least one person and the other may never hurt anyone or anything.
User avatar #132 - ispn (11/18/2013) [-]
^^
#130 - tyraxio (11/18/2013) [-]
Sure, I even went to the shooting range once. I see no problem in guns being allowed for rent on the range, or for a membership where you can go to shoot all you like.

This does not justify being allowed to take the gun home, however. I have no problems with guns used in such a controlled environment.
#112 - You're welcome. 11/18/2013 on My boy Barry +3
#109 - >second hand smoke is more dangerous than regular smoking …  [+] (2 new replies) 11/18/2013 on My boy Barry -8
User avatar #135 - ispn (11/18/2013) [-]
To takes it to the shooting range to release stress from the day. There you go, no killing involved.
#145 - tyraxio (11/18/2013) [-]
I already referred to this and said that I don't mind shooting ranges, as long as the guns stay inside the shooting range, and don't leave the complex.
#108 - Okay.  [+] (2 new replies) 11/18/2013 on My boy Barry +1
User avatar #111 - mysterykid (11/18/2013) [-]
Thank you for understanding.
#112 - tyraxio (11/18/2013) [-]
You're welcome.
#107 - Hunting is still killing. Armed forces, I guess is an…  [+] (3 new replies) 11/18/2013 on My boy Barry -2
User avatar #136 - ispn (11/18/2013) [-]
What you want is a tyranny, a form of government capable of complete control over its subjects. And that never works, it didn't work for britain, hasn't worked for any european country, never has. Yeah, leaders die from guns, and violence happens because civilians have access to guns, but at the same time, the government is kept in check by us. By the people.
#148 - tyraxio (11/18/2013) [-]
I live in Denmark, and as I have already stated, it is, to your standards, a highly socialistic country. We do, however, function very well. Sure, we disagree, but the politicians do not "abuse" their power, and we are considered the happiest nation in the world. We fight with words, not with guns.
User avatar #403 - ilovehitler (11/19/2013) [-]
this is also largely due to the social culture of Denmark which differs in America. America has, for the good majority of its existence, been involved in wars. Violence is seen as a valid solution, and we are, in general, a war loving people. We couldn't apply the same things that are in Denmark to current America, as it is simply not the same scenario. I wish it were otherwise, but it's not.
Let's bring an example into this.
In Denmark, I'm going to assume that it would NOT be legal to kill someone who's in your house without your permission, as nothing I can find suggests to that. Yet many places in America not only have a law that protects you if you kill an intruder, but places that actively support it.
The logic behind it is that if anybody is an intruder in your house, they have malicious intent. Of course, to do so is positively barbaric, but that's part of the current American culture.
A large change would have to happen for that which works in Denmark to work in America.
#105 - Except he compares weapons with the power to hurt others with …  [+] (22 new replies) 11/18/2013 on My boy Barry -4
User avatar #113 - EpicWin (11/18/2013) [-]
A speeding car could kill yourself and others. Not recycling could eventually lead to killing just about anything you could think of. The point is everything kills the living. There is no immortality. It you start to take away one thing, you take away more and more, until nothing is left but to sit in a padded room and wait to die. I we start taking away one right where will it end? And what good would the world be without rights and freedoms. That's what flash is saying... "You start with guns? Then what?"
#114 - tyraxio (11/18/2013) [-]
You are avoiding my main argument being that there is simply no excuse to keep guns in the hands of everyone.

There is an excuse for cars as they are a highly efficient method of transportation and there is an excuse for knives as they can be used to prepare food. Guns simply have no use beyond killing. Indeed, in some cases, it may be self-defence, but is it just me or does it seem a bit dodgy that it is technically possible for one manufacturer to sell a gun to the killer and to the victim?
User avatar #115 - EpicWin (11/18/2013) [-]
What use is there for cigarettes?
User avatar #387 - ilovehitler (11/19/2013) [-]
Stress relief is a major reason. But yes, cigarettes have no real use, as the same effects can be obtained by other objects which don't have anywhere near the same amount of harmful chemicals.
E-cigarettes or vapes, for example, provide nicotine, yet the only byproduct of breathing it out is water vapor.
But enforcing the reduction of those is silly because they don't solely exist to kill. A gun does.
#117 - tyraxio (11/18/2013) [-]
Are you actually trying to argue that people only smoke to hurt other people?

Some people find comfort in smoking and I see no problem in other people self-harming to achieve a sense of euphoria.
User avatar #131 - ispn (11/18/2013) [-]
Guns exist as a higher form of warfare, yes they are primarily based around the purpose of killing, but when i take a rifle in hand and shoot at a target, i find relaxation in it. When i practice my marksmanship, i find peace in it. There is a calm in the target, and in the trigger. Practicing my shooting abilities help me keep sane, and to prevent myself from committing suicide. It gave me something that was mine, something that was my own freedom. Guns may be able to kill, but then again, i can kill a man with a tin can, i can kill a man with just about anything in a room, including my bare hands; guns are just a more ultimate form of killing. There is a reason why guns should not be banned. A Japanese war general once said "It would be impossible to invade homeland America, for behind every blade of grass there would be a rifle waiting for you." Isoroku Yamamoto, Commander-in-Chief of the Imperial Japanese Navy during World War II.

A mans body is his own, and if you wish to harm yourself, then so be it, but your actions will always affect those around you, no matter how mundane they may seem. Committing suicide affects your family and friends, smoking harms those around you, even in small measures, i spent times around smokers as a child, and when i first smelled fresh, non smoky air, i almost vomited. You are a fool to think guns are the greatest threat in the world, the truth of the fact is that 3 out of 5 deaths from firearms are suicide, then another 4 out of 5 of those remaining are self-defence cases.
#140 - tyraxio (11/18/2013) [-]
I will refer to my argument below; go to the shooting range if you want to go shooting. This does not justify you keeping a gun in your home.
User avatar #142 - ispn (11/18/2013) [-]
Which i will refer to the other portion of my argument, in that keeping guns in your home is a bases of protection from not just intruders, but the government as well. You cannot deny that in history, when governments were given so much power, they abuse it.
#147 - tyraxio (11/18/2013) [-]
>implying the American government is not already corrupt as fuck
>implying it is possible to take down the government with a huge unorganised population

Try to take down the government tomorrow. It's not possible simply due to people being allowed to possess guns. The only good argument for guns in a house is a zombie apocalypse.
User avatar #155 - ispn (11/18/2013) [-]
Lets look at the facts?

The united states military in total function is the strongest military force in the world (Per capita single nation, excluding UN) The military is totaled to about 1% the population of the Continental united states. Assuming (safely) not all the entirety of the army would stay with the government during a rebellion, we assume .5% of total population is not faced against 99.5% of 320 million people. Now excluding children, running against factors of elderly who cannot physically fight, we get about...... 215 million total population of people fighting against a 600,000 strong military force. seeing as how many military bases are close to civilian locations, and are not completely reinforced with perfect security, the civilian and now ex-military population could easily get access to military grade equipment. Totaling now that 65% of the current military is over-seas, or not on the continental states, we now have 250,000 people against a 215 million person army, each with weapons, and at bare minimum 35% of them well trained in marksmanship.

So most likely, yes, the government could be taken down by the people.
#162 - tyraxio (11/18/2013) [-]
Yeah, it'll be fun to see people standing around with uzis and hunting rifles shooting at tanks and bomber planes.

Just give it up. It was probably possible when the law was made way back in the day, but there is simply too much wartech that the government possesses that the ordinary man does not.
User avatar #169 - ispn (11/18/2013) [-]
And besides, do you know the schematics of a tank? It is very easy to infiltrate a tank while it is in motion. If there is a gunner stationed on the tank it's even easier. And have you ever heard of the IRA? they fight in modern combat all the time as a civilian militia.
#173 - tyraxio (11/18/2013) [-]
You've got a point with the IRA, I just highly doubt that an entire nation the size of America (note; bigger than Europe and China and approximately the same size as Russia) could organise themselves in a manner to not only take down the current government but also establish a new one and not be in anarchy until the last inhabitant is dead.

Also, and this is actually very important, what makes you think that in the case of a tyrannical government, the inhabitants would not be brainwashed as to think they weren't being opressed? I don't know of a lot of protesters, violent or peaceful, in North Korea, for example.
User avatar #177 - ispn (11/18/2013) [-]
To be honest? In all regards, and to no surprise, there is already talk of revolution. And it is true that perhaps it would be difficult to create a new stable form of government with such a large portion of the population at war. But destroying a tyrannical government, and bringing hope for a better future, is far prefered to sitting stagnant in the dark.

Allegory of the cave.
#182 - tyraxio (11/18/2013) [-]
Haha, you are way smarter than I first assumed. Also, Plato references are always kill. I will settle for a tie here, and I will underline that you are a very smart guy, and I respect that.
User avatar #185 - ispn (11/18/2013) [-]
Thank you. I respect your point of view, i was actually going to make that point, always remember, so long as one man, woman, or child has belief in an idea, then it still lives on, and someone will fight for it one day.
User avatar #164 - ispn (11/18/2013) [-]
Thus the statement early on in the argument, the people raiding a military compound, taking military grade equipment. One army, air force, or naval base is all they need to get enough equipment.
#168 - tyraxio (11/18/2013) [-]
"Hey Frank, how does this thing work?"

"I don't know Joe, try pushing that button..."

*Frank accidentally shoots Joe with a bazooka*


Yeah, because a bunch of civillians could shoot their way through a human barricade of highly trained soldiers and then afterwards instantly know how to operate a shitload of technology they have only ever seen in video games and movies.
User avatar #170 - ispn (11/18/2013) [-]
You're making the assumption that there are no schematics of the functions. You're making the assumption that there is nobody outside of the military that know the functionality of this equipment. I know how to fire, load, and work a rocket launcher. It is not difficult. The Taliban learned it, the IRA learned it, it's called reverse engineering.
User avatar #128 - EpicWin (11/18/2013) [-]
Some people enjoy going to the shooting range and challenging themselves to shoot targets. They get a sense of enjoyment out of it as a sport.
This doesnt hurt anyone.
So neither hurt anyone and both are simple a way someone chooses to enjoy themselves.
One of them WILL hurt at least one person and the other may never hurt anyone or anything.
User avatar #132 - ispn (11/18/2013) [-]
^^
#130 - tyraxio (11/18/2013) [-]
Sure, I even went to the shooting range once. I see no problem in guns being allowed for rent on the range, or for a membership where you can go to shoot all you like.

This does not justify being allowed to take the gun home, however. I have no problems with guns used in such a controlled environment.
#93 - Indeed, I never said such, but what is one good reason to keep…  [+] (6 new replies) 11/18/2013 on My boy Barry -5
User avatar #96 - winsauceiswin (11/18/2013) [-]
the reason for the public having guns is to "protect themselves from the government" so it's the peoples only means for ensuring their government isn't abusive. just pointing out facts not opinion.
#94 - slugnugget (11/18/2013) [-]
hunting. armed forces. I am against the public having guns. I think their plenty of other ways to protect yourselves.
#107 - tyraxio (11/18/2013) [-]
Hunting is still killing.

Armed forces, I guess is an alright reason, although killing is still killing. I don't see why the soldiers should bring home their weapons. I guess I don't see the problem in a policeman being allowed to take home his gun, but come on, you cannot compare that to everyone in a country being allowed to carry guns.
User avatar #136 - ispn (11/18/2013) [-]
What you want is a tyranny, a form of government capable of complete control over its subjects. And that never works, it didn't work for britain, hasn't worked for any european country, never has. Yeah, leaders die from guns, and violence happens because civilians have access to guns, but at the same time, the government is kept in check by us. By the people.
#148 - tyraxio (11/18/2013) [-]
I live in Denmark, and as I have already stated, it is, to your standards, a highly socialistic country. We do, however, function very well. Sure, we disagree, but the politicians do not "abuse" their power, and we are considered the happiest nation in the world. We fight with words, not with guns.
User avatar #403 - ilovehitler (11/19/2013) [-]
this is also largely due to the social culture of Denmark which differs in America. America has, for the good majority of its existence, been involved in wars. Violence is seen as a valid solution, and we are, in general, a war loving people. We couldn't apply the same things that are in Denmark to current America, as it is simply not the same scenario. I wish it were otherwise, but it's not.
Let's bring an example into this.
In Denmark, I'm going to assume that it would NOT be legal to kill someone who's in your house without your permission, as nothing I can find suggests to that. Yet many places in America not only have a law that protects you if you kill an intruder, but places that actively support it.
The logic behind it is that if anybody is an intruder in your house, they have malicious intent. Of course, to do so is positively barbaric, but that's part of the current American culture.
A large change would have to happen for that which works in Denmark to work in America.
#91 - That argument is so ******* flawed it hurts. …  [+] (75 new replies) 11/18/2013 on My boy Barry -49
User avatar #405 - theexplodingcheez (11/19/2013) [-]
despite the flood of red thumbs, I do believe you have a point. Guns are the only thing on that list invented for the sole purpose of killing people (certain guns, anyway)
#344 - rainyeyes (11/18/2013) [-]
**rainyeyes rolled a random image posted in comment #4 at Call of Duty: The Ultimate Pointstreak **

Retard alert!

Retard alert!
User avatar #361 - ilovehitler (11/18/2013) [-]
You provide no argument. tyraxio did. Whether or not you agree with him is irrelevant, you're the bigger retard here. Any point against a point should include a counterpoint.
#364 - rainyeyes (11/18/2013) [-]
**rainyeyes rolled a random image posted in comment #3 at Just One Trip Seems To Be Universal **

There is no point in arguing with an idiot. People in the comments below have already made the arguments for me.

Your point is invalid.
User avatar #370 - ilovehitler (11/18/2013) [-]
Then if they have made the point you intended to make, you could simply refer to their comment, ask the opposing side to refer to their comment, or simply not comment, as that which you would say has already been said.
#373 - rainyeyes (11/18/2013) [-]
**rainyeyes rolled a random image posted in comment #6678113 at Safe For Work Random Board **

Yes, but a genius like you has failed to realize one vital point.

I am not arguing. I am pointing out a retard, such as yourself.
User avatar #377 - ilovehitler (11/18/2013) [-]
Which, once again, is comparable to a five year old saying "I know you are, but what am I?"
Even when calling someone out, you should back up your opinion. Once again, doing anything aside from that is both childish and plainly illogical.
#379 - rainyeyes (11/18/2013) [-]
**rainyeyes rolled a random image posted in comment #57 at Tanks! **

I care about this... why?

Trivial comment. Trivial arguments. I give 0 fucks other than ridiculing the ignorant such as yourself.
User avatar #380 - ilovehitler (11/18/2013) [-]
Oh look, you once again fail to back up your point in the slightest.
#381 - rainyeyes (11/18/2013) [-]
This is funnyjunk. Not a peer review site. If you want to discuss empirical evidence and methodology, you're in the wrong place. Have some semblance of fucking common sense.
#230 - anonymous (11/18/2013) [-]
So sad to see the one person who gets it getting thumbed down
#134 - pedobearson (11/18/2013) [-]
He was showing how easy it would be for Superman to lose himself in his justice.
User avatar #371 - ilovehitler (11/18/2013) [-]
Except people have the ability to realize where a line can be drawn.
User avatar #125 - Sockopolis (11/18/2013) [-]
Soooo let me get this straight.
You believe that a man going 50mph through a small residential neighborhood should be overlooked. You believe that an irresponsible dog owner with a poorly trained mastiff (or something similar) that leaves it unattended around kids is just fine. You believe that recycling will not benefit the overall world in any way. I'll give you secondhand smoke, but even that is horrible for you if you are around it for any relatively significant amount of time.
At least admit your argument is horribly flawed as well.
#129 - tyraxio (11/18/2013) [-]
Where did I say this? Of course I think all of those are terrible. I am just saying that we can't ban cars because some people speed, we can't ban dogs because some attack (this has unfortunately taken place with specific races in Denmark, which I think is highly wrong) and we can't punish people who don't recycle (although we should do anything we can to encourage it and make it easier to do).

We can, however, ban guns; because guns have no other use than that which is the illegal act. Sorry, you can hunt too, but even that is a somewhat shady act.
#205 - bigrog (11/18/2013) [-]
hunting, collecting, sports, self defense. All very legal reasons to have a gun.
User avatar #146 - whitie (11/18/2013) [-]
i wish we could ban guns, but bans don't work, all it does is drives the market underground and makes currently law abiding citizens into criminals pointlessly, the best you can do is have a registry of guns and their owners so if you commit a crime with a gun it is easily traced back to you and so prevents deaths by gunshot which stops alot of death but people will always find a way to kill each other, by rock, hand, knife, or bomb they will find a way as long as they have reasons to
#151 - tyraxio (11/18/2013) [-]
Indeed, but think of how easy it is to get guns in the current manner. Many young people who would've otherwise had no means of contacting the black market can go to fucking Wall-Mart and buy a couple of guns for their school shooting the following day.
User avatar #133 - Sockopolis (11/18/2013) [-]
I believe that unless all guns are taken from everybody, the right to buy and own one for defense is a natural right. If you outlaw guns, youre making the citizens defenseless to a possible shooting or perhaps a tyrannical government. As long as hunting is done for meat and consumption, not just sport, it's totally okay. It starts to get shady in specifics, but thats politics.
#143 - tyraxio (11/18/2013) [-]
I live in Denmark; a country which runs a highly social democratic (what you would probably call opressive and tyrannical) in which guns are banned. We do have gun violence related to gangs, but there is practically no gun violence except from that. The Utøya shooting in Norway was so groundbreaking because it was literally the first big shooting in Scandinavia since ever. They happen, what, a few times a year in America?
User avatar #157 - Sockopolis (11/18/2013) [-]
I am surely not educated on this topic, but crime and gun violence is a much stronger trait in America than in Denmark, im guessing. A lot of the people committing the crimes are either using an illegally possessed gun, or it's just not there. Taking it away from the general populous will just end up in more killings. Or maybe not, who knows.
#163 - tyraxio (11/18/2013) [-]
What you just said made no sense.

Gun violence is lower in Denmark because it is impossible to have a gun unless you have a permission for such (hunting license etc.), you can't just go to your local town hall and get a license check.
User avatar #119 - terrria (11/18/2013) [-]
Actually the taken question is, "what ruins lives the most?" considering the context, which is then amended to the rhetorical, "You want to save lives?". He then establishes his argument. Which coincides cigarettes ruin physical life, as do the other things he mentions, more so than guns. His argument is largely logical, yours requires a flawed understanding of the argument.
#122 - tyraxio (11/18/2013) [-]
Alright, fine. Tell me why drugs are illegal then. Tell me why big guns are illegal. Tell me why explosives are illegal, etc. etc. etc..

My only argument resides in the fact that there is a reason to ban guns (them only having one purpose, to kill or injure) while other things, regardless of whether they are harmful or not, have other purposes. There is a reason to defend cigarettes, knives etc. - there are none to justify guns.
User avatar #116 - krobeles (11/18/2013) [-]
Move to Europe. Seriously. Gun violence is just one of the problems you'de be without in Europe. Its actually really cozy here.
Free Education and healthcare, not to mention we have actual democracy where our politicians isn't bought off by corporations and religious fringe groups.
#118 - tyraxio (11/18/2013) [-]
Helll yeeeee OP is a Danishfag.

Getting paid to study is FTW, will get my first SU in about 8 months from now.
User avatar #123 - krobeles (11/18/2013) [-]
Sorry to disappoint you, but i'm not OP. Am Danish though.
Since i moved out, my SU went up so significantly, that i can not only afford to pay rent and food easily, i have quite a bit of money to spare.
I live very cheap though. Still. Its fucking ace!
#124 - tyraxio (11/18/2013) [-]
*cough* I am OP. *cough*

But haaaaaay. Danishfriends for life, huh? Where do you live?
User avatar #150 - krobeles (11/18/2013) [-]
I live in Copenhagen now. Recently moved here after enrolling in the University Physics department.
Its pretty nifty.
#154 - tyraxio (11/18/2013) [-]
Very nice! If I can get entry, I will study in CPH or Aarhus uni, trying to get a can. in philosophy and sociology, haha.
User avatar #106 - mysterykid (11/18/2013) [-]
No.
#121 - europe has deleted their comment.
#108 - tyraxio (11/18/2013) [-]
Okay.
User avatar #111 - mysterykid (11/18/2013) [-]
Thank you for understanding.
#112 - tyraxio (11/18/2013) [-]
You're welcome.
User avatar #104 - shadecrenshaw (11/18/2013) [-]
Second hand smoke.
User avatar #99 - EpicWin (11/18/2013) [-]
Suicide only hurts yourself. Except it doesnt, It hurts everyone around you. So if you slowly kill yourself with cigarettes, you are hurting other people.

Guns actually have a more practical purpose than cigarettes. People can use guns to hunt, or depend themselves. Killing things is the sole purpose, i suppose, but killing people is not.
How many more people have loved ones dying early from lung cancer than gun wounds?


Finally the REAL point of this is not even that. The point is that superman wants to take away peoples freedom and choices to save lives, and the flash is making the point that we should just take away everything that kills people. In the end that leaves nothing and no one can make their own choices anymore.
#105 - tyraxio (11/18/2013) [-]
Except he compares weapons with the power to hurt others with weapons with the power to hurt yourself. Sure, it hurts other people around me if I kill myself, but I am in control of my own body. I am, however, not in control of other's, so I go killing someone else.

Also, I'm against hunting, so to avoid a long argument, let's try to stay away from that topic. Killing is killing, in my optic.
User avatar #113 - EpicWin (11/18/2013) [-]
A speeding car could kill yourself and others. Not recycling could eventually lead to killing just about anything you could think of. The point is everything kills the living. There is no immortality. It you start to take away one thing, you take away more and more, until nothing is left but to sit in a padded room and wait to die. I we start taking away one right where will it end? And what good would the world be without rights and freedoms. That's what flash is saying... "You start with guns? Then what?"
#114 - tyraxio (11/18/2013) [-]
You are avoiding my main argument being that there is simply no excuse to keep guns in the hands of everyone.

There is an excuse for cars as they are a highly efficient method of transportation and there is an excuse for knives as they can be used to prepare food. Guns simply have no use beyond killing. Indeed, in some cases, it may be self-defence, but is it just me or does it seem a bit dodgy that it is technically possible for one manufacturer to sell a gun to the killer and to the victim?
User avatar #115 - EpicWin (11/18/2013) [-]
What use is there for cigarettes?
User avatar #387 - ilovehitler (11/19/2013) [-]
Stress relief is a major reason. But yes, cigarettes have no real use, as the same effects can be obtained by other objects which don't have anywhere near the same amount of harmful chemicals.
E-cigarettes or vapes, for example, provide nicotine, yet the only byproduct of breathing it out is water vapor.
But enforcing the reduction of those is silly because they don't solely exist to kill. A gun does.
#117 - tyraxio (11/18/2013) [-]
Are you actually trying to argue that people only smoke to hurt other people?

Some people find comfort in smoking and I see no problem in other people self-harming to achieve a sense of euphoria.
User avatar #131 - ispn (11/18/2013) [-]
Guns exist as a higher form of warfare, yes they are primarily based around the purpose of killing, but when i take a rifle in hand and shoot at a target, i find relaxation in it. When i practice my marksmanship, i find peace in it. There is a calm in the target, and in the trigger. Practicing my shooting abilities help me keep sane, and to prevent myself from committing suicide. It gave me something that was mine, something that was my own freedom. Guns may be able to kill, but then again, i can kill a man with a tin can, i can kill a man with just about anything in a room, including my bare hands; guns are just a more ultimate form of killing. There is a reason why guns should not be banned. A Japanese war general once said "It would be impossible to invade homeland America, for behind every blade of grass there would be a rifle waiting for you." Isoroku Yamamoto, Commander-in-Chief of the Imperial Japanese Navy during World War II.

A mans body is his own, and if you wish to harm yourself, then so be it, but your actions will always affect those around you, no matter how mundane they may seem. Committing suicide affects your family and friends, smoking harms those around you, even in small measures, i spent times around smokers as a child, and when i first smelled fresh, non smoky air, i almost vomited. You are a fool to think guns are the greatest threat in the world, the truth of the fact is that 3 out of 5 deaths from firearms are suicide, then another 4 out of 5 of those remaining are self-defence cases.
#140 - tyraxio (11/18/2013) [-]
I will refer to my argument below; go to the shooting range if you want to go shooting. This does not justify you keeping a gun in your home.
User avatar #142 - ispn (11/18/2013) [-]
Which i will refer to the other portion of my argument, in that keeping guns in your home is a bases of protection from not just intruders, but the government as well. You cannot deny that in history, when governments were given so much power, they abuse it.
#147 - tyraxio (11/18/2013) [-]
>implying the American government is not already corrupt as fuck
>implying it is possible to take down the government with a huge unorganised population

Try to take down the government tomorrow. It's not possible simply due to people being allowed to possess guns. The only good argument for guns in a house is a zombie apocalypse.
User avatar #155 - ispn (11/18/2013) [-]
Lets look at the facts?

The united states military in total function is the strongest military force in the world (Per capita single nation, excluding UN) The military is totaled to about 1% the population of the Continental united states. Assuming (safely) not all the entirety of the army would stay with the government during a rebellion, we assume .5% of total population is not faced against 99.5% of 320 million people. Now excluding children, running against factors of elderly who cannot physically fight, we get about...... 215 million total population of people fighting against a 600,000 strong military force. seeing as how many military bases are close to civilian locations, and are not completely reinforced with perfect security, the civilian and now ex-military population could easily get access to military grade equipment. Totaling now that 65% of the current military is over-seas, or not on the continental states, we now have 250,000 people against a 215 million person army, each with weapons, and at bare minimum 35% of them well trained in marksmanship.

So most likely, yes, the government could be taken down by the people.
#162 - tyraxio (11/18/2013) [-]
Yeah, it'll be fun to see people standing around with uzis and hunting rifles shooting at tanks and bomber planes.

Just give it up. It was probably possible when the law was made way back in the day, but there is simply too much wartech that the government possesses that the ordinary man does not.
User avatar #169 - ispn (11/18/2013) [-]
And besides, do you know the schematics of a tank? It is very easy to infiltrate a tank while it is in motion. If there is a gunner stationed on the tank it's even easier. And have you ever heard of the IRA? they fight in modern combat all the time as a civilian militia.
#173 - tyraxio (11/18/2013) [-]
You've got a point with the IRA, I just highly doubt that an entire nation the size of America (note; bigger than Europe and China and approximately the same size as Russia) could organise themselves in a manner to not only take down the current government but also establish a new one and not be in anarchy until the last inhabitant is dead.

Also, and this is actually very important, what makes you think that in the case of a tyrannical government, the inhabitants would not be brainwashed as to think they weren't being opressed? I don't know of a lot of protesters, violent or peaceful, in North Korea, for example.
User avatar #177 - ispn (11/18/2013) [-]
To be honest? In all regards, and to no surprise, there is already talk of revolution. And it is true that perhaps it would be difficult to create a new stable form of government with such a large portion of the population at war. But destroying a tyrannical government, and bringing hope for a better future, is far prefered to sitting stagnant in the dark.

Allegory of the cave.
#182 - tyraxio (11/18/2013) [-]
Haha, you are way smarter than I first assumed. Also, Plato references are always kill. I will settle for a tie here, and I will underline that you are a very smart guy, and I respect that.
User avatar #185 - ispn (11/18/2013) [-]
Thank you. I respect your point of view, i was actually going to make that point, always remember, so long as one man, woman, or child has belief in an idea, then it still lives on, and someone will fight for it one day.
User avatar #164 - ispn (11/18/2013) [-]
Thus the statement early on in the argument, the people raiding a military compound, taking military grade equipment. One army, air force, or naval base is all they need to get enough equipment.
#168 - tyraxio (11/18/2013) [-]
"Hey Frank, how does this thing work?"

"I don't know Joe, try pushing that button..."

*Frank accidentally shoots Joe with a bazooka*


Yeah, because a bunch of civillians could shoot their way through a human barricade of highly trained soldiers and then afterwards instantly know how to operate a shitload of technology they have only ever seen in video games and movies.
User avatar #170 - ispn (11/18/2013) [-]
You're making the assumption that there are no schematics of the functions. You're making the assumption that there is nobody outside of the military that know the functionality of this equipment. I know how to fire, load, and work a rocket launcher. It is not difficult. The Taliban learned it, the IRA learned it, it's called reverse engineering.
User avatar #128 - EpicWin (11/18/2013) [-]
Some people enjoy going to the shooting range and challenging themselves to shoot targets. They get a sense of enjoyment out of it as a sport.
This doesnt hurt anyone.
So neither hurt anyone and both are simple a way someone chooses to enjoy themselves.
One of them WILL hurt at least one person and the other may never hurt anyone or anything.
User avatar #132 - ispn (11/18/2013) [-]
^^
#130 - tyraxio (11/18/2013) [-]
Sure, I even went to the shooting range once. I see no problem in guns being allowed for rent on the range, or for a membership where you can go to shoot all you like.

This does not justify being allowed to take the gun home, however. I have no problems with guns used in such a controlled environment.
User avatar #101 - EpicWin (11/18/2013) [-]
defend*
#97 - anonymous (11/18/2013) [-]
You can't discount second hand smoke because it is a relevant point, that shit is way more harmful than regular smoking due to the smaller carcinogen particles which are expelled that are more easily brought into and absorbed by the body.

20 minutes of it will affect your breathing, and approximately 40k nonsmokers die due to the exposure every year.

That is compared to say 30k gun deaths, 19k of which are suicides.....which according to your logic on people hurting themselves shouldn't be counted as they are hurting themselves.

And finally, why should we assume the best out of smokers (that they will smoke responsibly and not put others at risk, when you are clearly willing to assume the worst out of gun owners) by making the ignorant limey assumption that guns exist only to kill.
>.>

#109 - tyraxio (11/18/2013) [-]
>second hand smoke is more dangerous than regular smoking

No. Smaller carcinogen particles is not relevant, as you will get those from regular smoking on top of the bigger ones. Although you are correct; being constantly subject to second hand smoking is more dangerous than having a single fag every once in a while.

I will need sources on the 40.000 people dying from second hand smoking, and also the proof that this is truly what killed them.

Give me one example of a gun used for another purpose than to kill.
User avatar #135 - ispn (11/18/2013) [-]
To takes it to the shooting range to release stress from the day. There you go, no killing involved.
#145 - tyraxio (11/18/2013) [-]
I already referred to this and said that I don't mind shooting ranges, as long as the guns stay inside the shooting range, and don't leave the complex.
#95 - sventrain (11/18/2013) [-]
User avatar #390 - ilovehitler (11/19/2013) [-]
yes, anyone who disagrees with your belief simply must be a troll.
#92 - slugnugget (11/18/2013) [-]
He obviously knows that but hes making a point.

Just because something isnt made to kill doesnt mean it isnt easy to kill with.
#93 - tyraxio (11/18/2013) [-]
Indeed, I never said such, but what is one good reason to keep guns around? For example, knives has the excuse of being able to prepare food. Guns aren't really around for anything but malicious intents.
User avatar #96 - winsauceiswin (11/18/2013) [-]
the reason for the public having guns is to "protect themselves from the government" so it's the peoples only means for ensuring their government isn't abusive. just pointing out facts not opinion.
#94 - slugnugget (11/18/2013) [-]
hunting. armed forces. I am against the public having guns. I think their plenty of other ways to protect yourselves.
#107 - tyraxio (11/18/2013) [-]
Hunting is still killing.

Armed forces, I guess is an alright reason, although killing is still killing. I don't see why the soldiers should bring home their weapons. I guess I don't see the problem in a policeman being allowed to take home his gun, but come on, you cannot compare that to everyone in a country being allowed to carry guns.
User avatar #136 - ispn (11/18/2013) [-]
What you want is a tyranny, a form of government capable of complete control over its subjects. And that never works, it didn't work for britain, hasn't worked for any european country, never has. Yeah, leaders die from guns, and violence happens because civilians have access to guns, but at the same time, the government is kept in check by us. By the people.
#148 - tyraxio (11/18/2013) [-]
I live in Denmark, and as I have already stated, it is, to your standards, a highly socialistic country. We do, however, function very well. Sure, we disagree, but the politicians do not "abuse" their power, and we are considered the happiest nation in the world. We fight with words, not with guns.
User avatar #403 - ilovehitler (11/19/2013) [-]
this is also largely due to the social culture of Denmark which differs in America. America has, for the good majority of its existence, been involved in wars. Violence is seen as a valid solution, and we are, in general, a war loving people. We couldn't apply the same things that are in Denmark to current America, as it is simply not the same scenario. I wish it were otherwise, but it's not.
Let's bring an example into this.
In Denmark, I'm going to assume that it would NOT be legal to kill someone who's in your house without your permission, as nothing I can find suggests to that. Yet many places in America not only have a law that protects you if you kill an intruder, but places that actively support it.
The logic behind it is that if anybody is an intruder in your house, they have malicious intent. Of course, to do so is positively barbaric, but that's part of the current American culture.
A large change would have to happen for that which works in Denmark to work in America.
#2 - Thank you, thank you and thank you. Will definately watch toni…  [+] (1 new reply) 11/15/2013 on Sauceeeee 0
User avatar #3 - jakedertree (11/15/2013) [-]
www . youtube . com / watch?v=4ed0gax4bu8&feature=related
#284 - This is where things get funny. (I'm braced for red thumbs bec… 11/12/2013 on And the Nobel Piece Prize... 0
#192 - I used "anywhat" in a correct sense. 11/12/2013 on for real. 0
#156 - omg go away u stupd man  [+] (3 new replies) 11/11/2013 on This got me 0
User avatar #157 - xxmemesxx (11/11/2013) [-]
bite me you stupid ponyfucker
User avatar #171 - mvtjets (11/15/2013) [-]
KKEEEKEKEKEK
User avatar #170 - mvtjets (11/15/2013) [-]
KOOKKOOO KAKA XDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
#148 - ... Is that technically NSFW? this lad…  [+] (9 new replies) 11/11/2013 on This got me 0
User avatar #150 - xxmemesxx (11/11/2013) [-]
shut up nerd
User avatar #172 - mvtjets (11/15/2013) [-]
SOOPER KOOKOO POOP
User avatar #174 - xxmemesxx (11/15/2013) [-]
srsly r u ok
User avatar #175 - mvtjets (11/15/2013) [-]
I WANT UR KEOOKEEKIE LEL OLL
User avatar #169 - mvtjets (11/15/2013) [-]
KEEK
#156 - tyraxio (11/11/2013) [-]
omg go away u stupd man
User avatar #157 - xxmemesxx (11/11/2013) [-]
bite me you stupid ponyfucker
User avatar #171 - mvtjets (11/15/2013) [-]
KKEEEKEKEKEK
User avatar #170 - mvtjets (11/15/2013) [-]
KOOKKOOO KAKA XDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
#5 - Of course, but it doesn't qualify as content. Occasio… 11/10/2013 on for real. +1
#2 - Repost? wat  [+] (1 new reply) 11/10/2013 on looks like someone got lucky 0
#3 - euphoricfedora Comment deleted by tyraxio
Show:
Sort by:
Order:

items

Total unique items point value: 3985 / Total items point value: 5760

Comments(0):

 

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Per page:
Order:
Anonymous commenting is allowed
No comments!
 Friends (0)