image stats
rating
3.12
votes
31
views
1637
uploader
quasi
comments
70
date added
2012-07-19
category
Misc
previous votes
Loading..
log in
Username:

Password


indent register
indent recover

deadly weapons

1 star2 stars3 stars4 stars5 stars
deadly weapons

Comments for: deadly weapons
BlahX3 Report This Comment
Date: July 19, 2012 05:41PM

I suppose a gun wouldn't hold enough slop to stick in his pie hole.
woberto Report This Comment
Date: July 19, 2012 06:05PM


Wow, 6 years ago...



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 19/07/2012 06:07PM by woberto.
BlahX3 Report This Comment
Date: July 19, 2012 06:31PM

Yep, those analogies fail but they are kinda funny. I was thinking about that very 6 year old thing too. smiling
smiley
jgoins Report This Comment
Date: July 20, 2012 06:27AM

Those analogies don't fail. Guns do not commit crimes by themselves, they have to have human hands attached to do anything. I have never seen a gun kill someone by itself without some idiot interacting with it in some way. There have never been any guns which load themselves either. Guns don't kill people it's the idiots holding the guns who do. cars kill far more people so let's outlaw cars.
BlahX3 Report This Comment
Date: July 20, 2012 09:39AM

Of course guns don't kill by themselves but that is the intended purpose of a gun.
jgoins Report This Comment
Date: July 21, 2012 06:52AM

It doesn't matter what the intended purpose is. Do we not have a right to protect ourselves? The police can't protect us in time so we need to do it ourselves and a gun is the best way to do it. If guns were to magically disappear then people would be carrying around swords again. The fact of the matter is that the human race is inherently violent and some will always kill others. Why take guns away from those who do not normally kill others and leave them in the hands of those who do? The number of guns which have killed people are far fewer than the number of guns which haven't killed anyone.
woberto Report This Comment
Date: July 21, 2012 07:04AM

You Americans are pretty fucked up.
BlahX3 Report This Comment
Date: July 21, 2012 08:26AM

Of course it matters what the intended purpose is. I don't give a shit if you have guns or not and I stand by your right to have them, just don't be an idiot about it with stupid comparisons. A gun is a gun, period. It's not like anything else except another gun.
pulse Report This Comment
Date: July 21, 2012 11:13PM

Of course guns don't kill people (by themselves), but they make it a hell of a lot easier if that's your intention.

Put it this way, it would be a hell of a lot harder to kill 12 and wound 58 even in a crowded cinema with a knife, or a sword, or a tomahawk, or even a car or a... Sure, a few people would've got injured, or maybe even a couple killed, however there's a hell of a lot more chance people could fight back to protect themselves in such a situation.

Your contention that if guns were taken away, everybody would be carrying swords is quite ridiculous. The vast majority of the 'western' world doesn't permit guns. Murder rates are way lower in those countries than in the US and nobody carries swords. Fact.

What are you so afraid of that you have to defend yourself from? England isn't coming. Who the fuck needs automatic weapons to "defend themselves" anyway?
quasi Report This Comment
Date: July 22, 2012 12:21AM

Who needs guns when you can make bombs right in your kitchen?

The gun genie was let out of the bottle a long time ago and he isn't going back in no matter how hard you try. As long as the crazies and crooks have access to them, and they will be the ones who find a way to get them even if they are outlawed just like anything else that's outlawed, the only really rational thing to do is to protect yourself. Just one sane, armed person in that theater may not have taken the guy out with all of his body armor but he could have been slowed down enough that more people may have escaped. Nobody wants a shooting gallery (except of course the afformentioned crazies and crooks)but bringing a box of popcorn to a gunfight definitely doesn't work out so well.
pulse Report This Comment
Date: July 22, 2012 12:29AM

Yeah I realise that it's too hard to go back now. Honestly though even if the patrons had guns they'd be next to useless as he fired tear gas into the cinema first. If you were in there and had a gun, how do you shoot when you can't see? Or are you blasting away at random causing as much death and panic as the psycho?

However, if he couldn't get guns in the first place then the whole event likely either wouldn't have happened or at least not to the same degree.
woberto Report This Comment
Date: July 22, 2012 12:41AM

We get it quasi.
But why would an intelligent able bodied person bother living in the USA?
There are dozens of better countries to live in.
Or you could try to make the USA better but you guys have just given up, and it's pretty sad.
Some of our countries aren't far behind but we still try to NOT be like the USA.
If every second person had a gun on thier belt it WOULD be a safer place.
But who the fuck is that stoopid they want to live like that?
There is no hope for you guys.
Pretty soon Mexico & Canada will build walls to keep you guys OUT.
Sadly, you're all such xenophobes that you think that would be OK.
To put this in perspective, I've never met the stereotypical American. Everyone I have met has been intelligent, educated and compassionate. But they are patriotic and put too much faith in a seriously broken Government.
/rant
Dingo Report This Comment
Date: July 22, 2012 02:22AM

Guns don't kill people. It's those darned bullets.
jgoins Report This Comment
Date: July 22, 2012 07:31AM

It is not too difficult to function in a room with tear gas, I have done it during training in the Navy. If one remains calm and doesn't rub their eyes they can see good enough to shoot back. Ducking behind the seats you could remain hidden and as the shooter approached closer you could get off a clean shot or two at the gas mask he was wearing and it wouldn't matter what body armor he was wearing. Panic is what killed most people by causing them to bunch together at the exits. There would have been time for someone carrying concealed to return fire before the gas canister permeated the room.

It doesn't matter what the gun laws are criminals will still be able to get them. The only people that gun laws apply to are law abiding citizens, not criminals. I think gun education is more important than gun laws. In areas with strict gun laws death from bladed weapons rises higher.

Even without the guns the death toll would have been very high in the movie theater if he just threw the gas canister and yelled fire but because he used guns then emphasis is placed on the guns only.

Guns are no more responsible for crime than McDonalds is for obesity, it is the people eat the food who is responsible for obesity. It is the people who use the guns who are responsible for the crime.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 22/07/2012 07:35AM by jgoins.
quasi Report This Comment
Date: July 22, 2012 07:35AM

[www.youtube.com]
quasi Report This Comment
Date: July 22, 2012 09:13AM

Yeah, I think I'll move to Norway, a peaceful country with much more strict gun laws and where everybody loves to have folks from other nations come in and make themselves at home.

[en.wikipedia.org]
BlahX3 Report This Comment
Date: July 22, 2012 05:31PM

Basic training tear gas is nothing worth bragging about JG. It's a small fraction of normal strength gas.
pro_junior Report This Comment
Date: July 22, 2012 10:35PM

really? it seemed pretty strong to me...
BlahX3 Report This Comment
Date: July 22, 2012 10:41PM

Oh it had an effect for sure but I distinctly recall the instructor say it was a very low amount compared to what would come out of a full canister. Something like 1/4 the amount. It was a small tablet they put on a hot plate that turned into the gas which did really fill that small chamber quickly and the guy of course laughed at us all choking and shit when we had to take off the gas masks and kept repeating it was a very small dose. Full blast I am sure that shit is most brutal but that wasn't what they dosed us with in 72 at San Diego.
jgoins Report This Comment
Date: July 23, 2012 07:01AM

In our training there was no tablet. It was a tear gas canister, pulled the pin and dropped in a wire cage in the center of the room. There was no mention of partial strength and this was back in 1970 probably before they reduced the strength. The instructors removed their masks along with us and said they will see who stays the longest. I walked out calmly after the last person, and instructor, left. Tear gas can be handled if done so in a calm manner, it is not a pleasant experience but it can be handled.

I am surprised there were no other guns in the theater since Colorado is and open carry state.
BlahX3 Report This Comment
Date: July 23, 2012 02:09PM

Regardless of how it was administered, the gas used in that training is NOT the same as what gets encountered in the real world and even if it was it is a completely ridiculous expectation that civilians would be able to handle it calmly anyway.
jgoins Report This Comment
Date: July 24, 2012 07:11AM

Civilians can handle anything calmly, it is all a state of mind. Panic is closely related to a fear of death and when one is afraid to die then they will panic in dangerous situations thereby likely bringing about that which they are trying to avoid.
BlahX3 Report This Comment
Date: July 24, 2012 08:11AM

It is unreasonable to expect the average person to not fear death.
quasi Report This Comment
Date: July 24, 2012 11:58AM

In such a situation, when the fight or flight instincts kick in, and with no reasonable ability to fight, most folks will flee while some will freeze and become a perfect target. Panic is instinctual and we're closer to the herd animals that most folks want to believe.
BlahX3 Report This Comment
Date: July 24, 2012 11:18PM

Civilization, what a concept.
quasi Report This Comment
Date: July 25, 2012 05:27AM

It's a jungle out there.
jgoins Report This Comment
Date: July 25, 2012 07:14AM

The fear of death can be overcome if one desires to as can the fight or flight response. The information to overcome all these is everywhere all one has to do is desire to change how they repond to situations. One way to correct your responce is to always be aware of your surroundings anywhere you go. One way to not be afraid of death is to become comfortable with where you are going after you die and always keeping your affairs in order and knowing your loved ones will be taken care of when you go. Not being afraid of death does not mean you will go without a fight it simply means that should you lose you don't go crying and screaming.
BlahX3 Report This Comment
Date: July 25, 2012 10:10AM

I agree that it is possible but I don't believe everyone is capable of doing that.
jgoins Report This Comment
Date: July 27, 2012 06:47AM

Everyone is capable, they just don't want to.
BlahX3 Report This Comment
Date: July 27, 2012 02:32PM

Oh come on, I can't believe you are actually that stupid to really believe that.
pulse Report This Comment
Date: August 01, 2012 02:45AM

An article published today by our ex-Prime Minister

[www.theage.com.au]

Particularly interesting are some of the stats toward the end which run against what a lot of pro-gun Americans believe.

Oh and also just as an addition, I don't care what side of the story you sit on, the image is rubbish with regards to guns kill people / spoons made me fat. Spoons are designed for eating, guns are designed for killing. In the wrong hands, guns are a tool for killing (fact). Nobody ever made somebody ELSE fat with their spoon, but there's been plenty of people who have killed others with their gun. One you inflict upon yourself, the other you can inflict upon others.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/08/2012 02:49AM by pulse.
jgoins Report This Comment
Date: August 01, 2012 07:29AM

Guns are merely tools and tools can only be made deadly by the person who uses them. Even hammers have been used to murder people there have been no calls to ban hammers. Guns would not be an issue if we were able to remove the desire from everyone to kill others. It is easier to blame the tool than to work towards what it is that makes people want to destroy other people. Many of us have lawfully killed others and most of us do not want to have to do it again but we do desire to protect the ones we love by any means necessary. Maybe you should ban all the video games, music and movies which anesthetize us to death and killing. You wouldn't get much support for that but with political correctness running amok you would get support against guns.
jgoins Report This Comment
Date: August 01, 2012 07:31AM

Also another spot
pulse Report This Comment
Date: August 01, 2012 08:48AM

It's fucking hard to walk into a cinema and kill 12 people with a hammer. It's the efficiency of the tool at doing its job.

As stated in that article:

These national gun laws have proven beneficial. Research published in 2010 in the American Journal of Law and Economics found that firearm homicides, in Australia, dropped 59 per cent between 1995 and 2006. There was no offsetting increase in non-firearm-related murders. Researchers at Harvard University in 2011 revealed that in the 18 years prior to the 1996 Australian laws, there were 13 gun massacres (four or more fatalities) in Australia, resulting in 102 deaths. There have been none in that category since the Port Arthur laws.

So why would I need a gun? Maybe the problem isn't the guns, maybe it's the people. Maybe the rest of the westernised world isn't as fixated on killing each other? Our crime rates are lower than the US, yet we have no guns to protect ourselves from criminals. Some of our criminals do. But it's rare because they're not easily available. The chances of me being attacked are very slim, and I'm not scared to leave my home at night. And yes, I've been mugged, in the UK (and if I had a gun I still wouldn't have pulled it as I was significantly outnumbered at the time).



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/08/2012 08:52AM by pulse.
quasi Report This Comment
Date: August 01, 2012 09:23AM

I think the course for this was set in the U.S. in the 1920s during alcohol prohibition. The gangs who controlled the illegal alcohol and even the mom & pop moonshiners began fighting each other and the law with guns and the affinity for guns continued after the end of prohibition. Today the majority of gun violence has to do with the illegal drug trade and at this point, just as prohibition of alcohol and drugs led to increased violence I tend to believe that prohibition of guns will spur more violence. I also pity any populace that has been disarmed by it's government when that government turns against it, something our founding fathers had in mind when crafting our constitution and which has been shown to happen in other nations since. Our national psyche, at least of the decent honest folks, is not so much one of violence but one of meeting violence with like force, ie "fuck with me and you're apt to be sorry you did". I've also seen numbers that say the majority of all gun deaths in the U.S. are due to suicide, and in that case at least I'm sure other methods will be found and suicide levels will not decrease.
BlahX3 Report This Comment
Date: August 01, 2012 12:30PM

The issue of the public having the right to have firearms predates the history of the US as a country, as much as we'd like to take credit for it and are seemingly so proud of it, we inherited the concept from England which was codified into law in the 1600s.

That is not meant to detract for what you said though Q and I believe you have a valid point. Gun violence in the US also got a jump during union riots.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/08/2012 12:46PM by BlahX3.
GAK67 Report This Comment
Date: August 01, 2012 02:42PM

I am getting so sick of hearing this argument: "Even hammers have been used to murder people there have been no calls to ban hammers". That's because hammers were designed to hit nails and have a useful and practical other purpose. Guns on the other hand are designed to shoot bullets and fast moving bullets are designed to kill things.

And as pulse said, it would be hard to kill 12 people in a cinema with a hammer.

NZ has always had tight gun control, and as pulse said Australia now is, crime is lower than the US and we don't have guns to defend ourselves.

That said, it is easier to police the movements of guns into a country when that country is an island with strict border controls at both air and sea ports. It is different for a country like the US, but that just makes it harder, not impossible.

As for it being England's fault, the law can be changed, and has been in England.
quasi Report This Comment
Date: August 01, 2012 04:23PM

Are you trying to stir up the border issue now, GAK?

Actually I noticed something interesting when I looked at the tables here [en.wikipedia.org]
True, as compared to New Zealand, Australia, Great Britain and may other countries, the U.S. has a very high murder rate but we're still in the middle of the pack and perhaps not farther down the list due in part to the fact that many of the illegals (and legals) that come across our border with Mexico come from nations with the highest murder rates. I wonder if there is a correlation there.

Se what you started? (*facepalm*)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/08/2012 04:23PM by quasi.
GAK67 Report This Comment
Date: August 01, 2012 04:59PM

It is not unreasonable to assume that people bring part of their culture with them, whether that be good or bad, when they move to another country, so yes there could be a correlation.

But, no, I was not trying to stir up an immigration issue. By border controls I was meaning customs inspections, not immigration. Maybe you're the one wanting to raise the issue? smileys
with beer
fossil_digger Report This Comment
Date: August 01, 2012 05:37PM

until it's not a Constitutional right, all arguments are moot. maybe after 20 or more years after it being repealed (as if that will ever happen) there may be some stats worth discussing. until then you are pissin' in the wind. (*finger*) grinning
smiley
GAK67 Report This Comment
Date: August 01, 2012 06:17PM

The thing about your constitutional right is that it doesn't specify what arms can or cannot be kept and borne. It also doesn't specify what regulations can or cannot be implemented around that right. That means there is a large scope for gun control laws and regulations that would still be constitutional.
fossil_digger Report This Comment
Date: August 01, 2012 06:23PM

no, it means there are no restrictions that can be implemented.
GAK67 Report This Comment
Date: August 01, 2012 06:43PM

So the states that do have some gun control laws are being un-constitutional? I don't think so. If they were there would be litigation brought against them immediately.
fossil_digger Report This Comment
Date: August 01, 2012 06:52PM

it's called states rights. why do we have to explain this to you every time the comes up?
pulse Report This Comment
Date: August 01, 2012 07:42PM

Just because you have a right to "arms" doesn't mean you have a right to ANY arms.. so why not practise some form of restrictions?

Why not start by restricting fully automatic weapons? That'd be a start. There really is no useful purpose of a machine gun. They're not useful hunting tools. Then you could look towards semi-automatic. It's still a lot harder to do mass killings with a revolver than an M16. You don't have unrestricted rights to arms. Are you allowed to walk down the street carrying an RPG? You're not allowed to go and purchase any nuclear or chemical weapons..

You already have restrictions on your armaments, yet are happy that your constitutional rights aren't being violated. Therefore, why not look at some restriction? After all, if the idea is that criminals wouldn't dare attack you because you might have a gun (which really is one of the main responses I see on this subject), then a revolver is still a significant deterrant - and they already know that you're not likely to be carrying an Uzi.

And yes, you're right - suicide numbers aren't likely to change significantly if guns were banned, but murder rates are. So are accidental gun injury rates, which are huge in the US. Whether they lead to death or not, they still cause significant pain and damage (not to mention expense).

The other thing with a murder, and maybe this is just my view. It feels easier, to me, to shoot somebody from a distance and be disconnected from the event than it would be for me to walk up to somebody and beat them to death with a hammer or stab them to death. It's also physically harder to do those things. They're just such violent events.
GAK67 Report This Comment
Date: August 01, 2012 07:46PM

Since when do states rights out-weigh the constitution?
fossil_digger Report This Comment
Date: August 01, 2012 07:47PM

like i said, until they change it, that's all i have to say.
GAK67 Report This Comment
Date: August 01, 2012 08:52PM

You remind me of an ostrich with it's head in the sand (and yes I know ostrich's don't really do that, but it's a good analogy).
fossil_digger Report This Comment
Date: August 01, 2012 09:12PM

was that supposed to be an insult? smiling
bouncing smiley
GAK67 Report This Comment
Date: August 01, 2012 09:57PM

Nope - it was supposed to be an analogy, which is why I called it an analogy.
fossil_digger Report This Comment
Date: August 01, 2012 10:13PM

i'm still laughing at that feeble attempt. smiling
bouncing smiley
woberto Report This Comment
Date: August 01, 2012 10:15PM

Gak, you need to do some research on Texas and it's inhabitants.
They are very special, not for the obvious reasons though...
jgoins Report This Comment
Date: August 02, 2012 06:49AM

We already have sufficient gun control laws. We are not allowed to own automatic weapons without a permit so no machine guns. People are not trying to control access to guns by criminals they are trying to remove all guns from law abiding citizens. In the country it will always be easy for criminals to obtain guns even if they are taken away from law abiding citizens. while it is true that guns are designed to kill things but using them to kill people is determined by the people who use them.

One of the first things an invading army does when they invade a country is to find all citizens who own guns and disarm them or kill them. Ever wonder why they do this? Ever wonder why we have never had a dictator in this country, even though a lot of you thought Bush would remain in office after his term was over?
woberto Report This Comment
Date: August 02, 2012 07:31AM

More cops [www.odmp.org] died in vehicle accidents so far this year.
BlahX3 Report This Comment
Date: August 02, 2012 09:57AM

You need to educate yourself JG. The Federal Assault Weapons Ban expired on September 13, 2004 and has since failed to be renewed. You are also wrong about "People are not trying to control access to guns by criminals they are trying to remove all guns from law abiding citizens." The entire focus of gun control laws in the US is to deter criminals from having them while preserving the rights of citizens to bear arms. Almost all of the arguments and ridiculous comparisons that gun enthusiasts propose are full of crap and it doesn't take a whole lot of brain power to determine that.

As I have stated numerous times I am NOT opposed to the right of US citizens to own firearms but you guys would do much better if your arguments actually made any real sense. If you want to win a debate and accomplish something useful about the issue then use truth and logic, not the same loads of retarded crap over and over again. And stay informed, educate yourselves.
fossil_digger Report This Comment
Date: August 02, 2012 11:01AM

you guys? i thought you were talking to JG.
BlahX3 Report This Comment
Date: August 02, 2012 11:37AM

Oh, now all of a sudden Skidly starts using logic for a change. I knew you had it in you. smiling
smiley There are a handful of "you guys" here who seem to say the same sort of uninformed BS, hence my use of the words.
fossil_digger Report This Comment
Date: August 02, 2012 11:41AM

all of a sudden? when have i not used complete logic. (don't you love the yak attack?)
BlahX3 Report This Comment
Date: August 02, 2012 01:00PM

Constantly. You couldn't follow a logical train of thought if you were shackled and chained to the caboose.
fossil_digger Report This Comment
Date: August 02, 2012 01:03PM

so no examples? why does this not surprise me.
BlahX3 Report This Comment
Date: August 02, 2012 02:10PM

"all of a sudden? when have i not used complete logic. (don't you love the yak attack?)"
fossil_digger Report This Comment
Date: August 02, 2012 02:42PM

what's wrong with that? you use the yak attack all the time, but it can't?
GAK67 Report This Comment
Date: August 02, 2012 05:51PM

"Ever wonder why we have never had a dictator in this country" - there are lots of countries that have either tighter gun control laws than the US or looser gun control laws than the US that have never had a dictator either, so your argument that the guns in the hands of your citizens has prevented the rise of a dictator is invalid.

Blah - don't feed the troll. Just ignore him when he spirals the discussion to his own delusions of logic.
fossil_digger Report This Comment
Date: August 02, 2012 06:40PM

calling someone a troll is an admission of defeat.
jgoins Report This Comment
Date: August 03, 2012 07:10AM

Here in the US we are not permitted to own a fully automatic weapon without a permit and those were not included in the assault weapons ban anyway.

Just what laws prevent criminals from getting guns? They are criminals because they do not obey the laws and laws only affect the rest of us. You want to reduce murders bring back public executions and none of these lethal injections use hangings or firing squads or hand them over to the Comanches for skinning.

People are more easily controlled when you remove their weapons.
BlahX3 Report This Comment
Date: August 03, 2012 07:33AM

I have no idea what you mean by the "yak attack" if such a think even exists for anyone else.

In your previous statement JG you did not specify between fully-automatic and semi-automatic.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/08/2012 08:16AM by BlahX3.
fossil_digger Report This Comment
Date: August 03, 2012 08:55AM

the Constitution doesn't specify either.
BlahX3 Report This Comment
Date: August 03, 2012 09:52AM

That's true but the constitution is not all of the laws. Are all of the laws constitutional? I do not know. We supposedly vote for people to hire people to make those decisions for us. That's US Government.
jgoins Report This Comment
Date: August 04, 2012 06:02AM

If you don't like what your elected officials are doing then get of your lazy ass and vote them out in the next election and keep doing that until they learn to listen to the people.
fossil_digger Report This Comment
Date: December 01, 2016 04:36PM

i still have guns, and none of them have whacked any fools..
good gun, good gun