Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   Less than 1% of the world's population owns one-third of the guns on the planet. USA USA USA   (cnn.com) divider line 234
    More: Interesting, United States, General Social Survey, gun owners, guns  
•       •       •

6072 clicks; posted to Main » on 01 Aug 2012 at 11:12 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



234 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-08-01 05:59:58 PM  

umad: Well if killing is all they are designed to do, then we need to come up with a better tool. The hundreds of millions of them out there that have never killed anyone prove you are a mouth-breathing tard. Get rid of your gun. You aren't smart enough to own one


You can use a sword only as a letter opener, but it was designed to cut people into littler pieces. The fact that some guns haven't been used to hunt or kill does not mean that they were created to shoot paper targets. The fact that you think your gun is a toy to play with means you shouldn't be allowed to own one.
 
2012-08-01 06:10:18 PM  

SpoilerAlert: umad: Well if killing is all they are designed to do, then we need to come up with a better tool. The hundreds of millions of them out there that have never killed anyone prove you are a mouth-breathing tard. Get rid of your gun. You aren't smart enough to own one

You can use a sword only as a letter opener, but it was designed to cut people into littler pieces. The fact that some guns haven't been used to hunt or kill does not mean that they were created to shoot paper targets. The fact that you think your gun is a toy to play with means you shouldn't be allowed to own one.


When your uncle turns in his collector cars, then we can start to talk.
 
2012-08-01 06:10:34 PM  

SpoilerAlert: Farkage: a gun is simply a firearm

World English Dictionary
firearm (ˈfaɪərˌɑːm)

- n
a weapon, esp a portable gun or pistol, from which a projectile can be discharged by an explosion caused by igniting gunpowder, etc


Very clever, but it doesn't invalidate my point that anything can be a weapon, including anything in your house that isn't nailed down, and you can and will be charged accordingly. What you actually use it for makes the final determination, doesn't it? (No, I'm not remotely implying that they aren't ever weapons, but you need to take into account that the vast majority of them will never be used that way. )
 
2012-08-01 06:19:21 PM  

Farkage: SpoilerAlert: Farkage: a gun is simply a firearm

World English Dictionary
firearm (ˈfaɪərˌɑːm)

- n
a weapon, esp a portable gun or pistol, from which a projectile can be discharged by an explosion caused by igniting gunpowder, etc

Very clever, but it doesn't invalidate my point that anything can be a weapon, including anything in your house that isn't nailed down, and you can and will be charged accordingly. What you actually use it for makes the final determination, doesn't it? (No, I'm not remotely implying that they aren't ever weapons, but you need to take into account that the vast majority of them will never be used that way. )


I'm not invalidating your point that anything can be used as a weapon. My point remains that guns are designed primarily for the purpose of being weapons. Like a fork is a utensil. It is made to shovel food towards your face. You can use it to pick your nose, by use it is a nose-picker, by design it is a utensil.

I mention that people should respect the lethality of a gun as a weapon and half the gun owning dipshiats on fark jump out to tell me it's not a weapon and I'm an idiot for thinking that a gun could possibly be designed with shooting living things in mind. I was never for more gun control, but damn has this changed my mind. People this jumpy and defensive over an obvious statement shouldn't own guns.
 
2012-08-01 06:21:25 PM  

redmid17: When your uncle turns in his collector cars, then we can start to talk


Father in law, and you'd have to pry them from his cold dead hands before he'd part with them.
 
2012-08-01 06:25:00 PM  

SpoilerAlert: Farkage: SpoilerAlert: Farkage: a gun is simply a firearm

World English Dictionary
firearm (ˈfaɪərˌɑːm)

- n
a weapon, esp a portable gun or pistol, from which a projectile can be discharged by an explosion caused by igniting gunpowder, etc

Very clever, but it doesn't invalidate my point that anything can be a weapon, including anything in your house that isn't nailed down, and you can and will be charged accordingly. What you actually use it for makes the final determination, doesn't it? (No, I'm not remotely implying that they aren't ever weapons, but you need to take into account that the vast majority of them will never be used that way. )

I'm not invalidating your point that anything can be used as a weapon. My point remains that guns are designed primarily for the purpose of being weapons. Like a fork is a utensil. It is made to shovel food towards your face. You can use it to pick your nose, by use it is a nose-picker, by design it is a utensil.

I mention that people should respect the lethality of a gun as a weapon and half the gun owning dipshiats on fark jump out to tell me it's not a weapon and I'm an idiot for thinking that a gun could possibly be designed with shooting living things in mind. I was never for more gun control, but damn has this changed my mind. People this jumpy and defensive over an obvious statement shouldn't own guns.


Sounds like we're kind of on the same page then. Realistically, they didn't invent guns ~800 years ago (or whatever) so they could target shoot on weekends. They're fine owning guns, their statements won't make them go out and shoot a bunch of people. I know people are defensive after Colorado especially when Democrats won't waste a good crisis to try to pass ineffective laws. (Hear about the push to ban online ammo sales?)
I have several guns myself, don't have the stomach to hunt. Clay pigeons and pieces of paper are afraid of me though :)
 
2012-08-01 06:25:29 PM  

SpoilerAlert: redmid17: When your uncle turns in his collector cars, then we can start to talk

Father in law, and you'd have to pry them from his cold dead hands before he'd part with them.


He can only hold two at most with his hands, so I'm sure they'd start with the ones he isn't touching.
 
2012-08-01 07:12:03 PM  

SpoilerAlert: I was never for more gun control, but damn has this changed my mind.


So you've been trolling then. Good jorb. I suppose you can point out where anyone said that "guns aren't weapons." Unlike you, we aren't idiots. We know guns are dangerous. That still doesn't mean they are only designed for one reason. And finally, SAYING GUNS WERE NOT ONLY DESIGNED FOR KILLING DOESN'T MEAN YOU ARE SAYING THEY AREN'T DANGEROUS!

I wrote that last bit in caps in hopes that it will penetrate your thick farking skull. Now do everyone a favor and get rid of your gun. You own one and think they are only for killing. That means you want to kill. Most gun owners don't. Alright, I'll stop now. Trying to use retard logic hurts my brain.
 
2012-08-01 07:19:24 PM  

Big Man On Campus: [4.bp.blogspot.com image 640x388]

[images.sodahead.com image 333x334]

//hot like my barrel


Here is a piece written by Australia's longest serving conservative Prime Minister about guns in the US versus guns in Australia and gun control. I think he's right.

Link

/As a note I actually like guns, they're fun, but I'd prefer my idiot neighbour didn't own one.
 
2012-08-01 08:09:08 PM  
Less than 1% of the world's population owns one-third of the guns crossbows on the planet.
Fixed.

Other meaningless substitutions:
• bullwhips
• Ferraris
• Armani suits
• tractors
• telescopes
• leather chaps
• badminton rackets
etc.
 
2012-08-01 08:39:06 PM  
Collecting guns you don't ever shoot. Yup that's a proper collection!
 
2012-08-01 08:45:51 PM  

Tahs4Evar: Here is a piece written by Australia's longest serving conservative Prime Minister about guns in the US versus guns in Australia and gun control. I think he's right.

Link


From that link: 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.

Saving an average of 5.7 lives per year. "Is your freedom worth 5.7 people a year?" If the government controlled all communication, if they censored any potential planning for terrorist or unhealthy acts, they could save a lot more lives than that! How many lives are lost due to STDs, high cholesterol, or inept use of five gallon buckets could be saved compared with that?
 
2012-08-01 08:48:10 PM  

Haoie: Collecting guns you don't ever shoot. Yup that's a proper collection!


That's how museums collect guns, yes.
 
2012-08-01 09:01:18 PM  

redmid17: SpoilerAlert: redmid17: When your uncle turns in his collector cars, then we can start to talk

Father in law, and you'd have to pry them from his cold dead hands before he'd part with them.

He can only hold two at most with his hands, so I'm sure they'd start with the ones he isn't touching.


He grows extra hands when you're not looking, it's farking scary.

umad: And finally, SAYING GUNS WERE NOT ONLY DESIGNED FOR KILLING DOESN'T MEAN YOU ARE SAYING THEY AREN'T DANGEROUS!


Even butter knives are dangerous in the right hands. Aside from hunting and killing, WTF do you think they are designed for? You don't need to worry about jamming, folding stocks, laser sights, non-reflective finishing, etc if you're sneaking up on a paper target. What else aside from shooting things are you using them for? Opening bottles?

I'll give you those rifles that could also grind coffee in the civil war, but it's not like these things are swiss army knives.
 
2012-08-01 09:29:40 PM  
For those of you who can't seem to wrap your brains around the fact that the gun is a tool and by itself has broken no laws. It's what you use the tool for that makes all the difference.
Use a tire iron to tighten the lug nuts on your car? OK.
Use a tire iron to cave in someone's skull? Not so much.
It is no consolation to the victim whether you used a tire iron or a gun. The law also doesn't care so much about that detail.

As for "primary purpose" that's also hogwash. Here let me help your limited imaginations.

Specifically designed to put tiny holes in paper very accurately. Please show a single instance of this being used to kill a person.

www.50bmgstore.com
I know, it's scary but primary purpose was as an anti-materiel and EOD rifle. Sure, it's been used as a sniper rifle vs people, however NOT it's primary purpose.

static.ddmcdn.com
Primary use: signal for help. Can it be lethal? I'm certain of it. Primary purpose? Not so much.

Please engage your mind next time you open your mouth. You see a mouth and mind are kind of a tandem, they should ideally be in the same state, open or closed.
 
2012-08-01 09:31:30 PM  
HTML fail, first image didn't post. Here you go.
www.champchoice.com
 
2012-08-01 09:50:12 PM  

Luse: Specifically designed to put tiny holes in paper very accurately


That's not a weapon then, that's an extremely expensive hole punch.

Though

Luse: Please show a single instance of this being used to kill a person


and

Luse: Sure, it's been used as a sniper rifle vs people


is funny when you add

Luse: Please engage your mind next time you open your mouth


That.

I also don't think you'll find an argument from me that a flare guns primary purpose is to shoot signal flare for help. But you're delusional if you think a 9mm and a flare gun are designed for the same purpose.

I love target shooting. It's one of the most relaxing things in the world, that moment when you line up a shot and squeeze. But it's still a weapon.
 
2012-08-01 09:52:36 PM  

Luse: The law also doesn't care so much about that detail.


Well, that's not entirely true. There are many sentencing guidelines (hell, there are crimes that specifically involved the use of a gun) that call for certain sentences when a gun is involved. Including murder, manslaughter and other crimes that involve a death.

Luse: Specifically designed to put tiny holes in paper very accurately. Please show a single instance of this being used to kill a person.

I know, it's scary but primary purpose was as an anti-materiel and EOD rifle. Sure, it's been used as a sniper rifle vs people, however NOT it's primary purpose.


Huh? When is was used as a snipe rifle did the shooter miss every shot?
 
2012-08-01 10:35:35 PM  
Nightowl, I'm hoping you are trolling. If you read the VERY NEXT POST it was an HTML fail.

But for the slow, allow me to be more blunt.
Please show me a single instance of the target pistol, a true firearm using .22lr ammo, being used to kill a person.

My HTML skills (or lack thereof) in no way detract from the statement.
 
2012-08-01 10:45:23 PM  
And who has the most freedom as well.......
 
2012-08-01 10:49:50 PM  
Spoileralert:

I do not deny that all of the 3 examples (there are many more) are weapons. A pen can be mightier than a sword. We all know this.
The point I make is, left alone, without human intervention, the gun is NOT a weapon. It's a completely inert, dead hunk of metal and wood/composite. When I pick it up, insert a magazine and charge the slide it becomes a potential weapon, or a really expensive hole punch.
As has been mentioned before, a baseball bat can be a weapon. You talk of intended purpose but that is entirely objective. Give an aluminum baseball bat to an Aborigine, or a South American tribesman living traditionally. I'm willing to bet they won't use it to start a baseball game.
Hell, even feet can be used as weapons, and not even in the traditional kicking sense. There are Aborigine tribes that quite literally run their prey down to exhaustion.

You like definitions, so here you go. You're obviously not an idiot. Please stop trying your best to convince us otherwise.
weap·on (wpn)
n.
1. An instrument of attack or defense in combat, as a gun, missile, or sword.
2. Zoology A part or organ, such as a claw or stinger, used by an animal in attack or defense.
3. A means used to defend against or defeat another: Logic was her weapon.
 
2012-08-01 10:50:05 PM  

Luse: Nightowl, I'm hoping you are trolling. If you read the VERY NEXT POST it was an HTML fail.

But for the slow, allow me to be more blunt.


You can't post a simple picture correctly, and fail to preview, but you want to call me slow?

Hope you have a good glazier on speed dial, what with all those broken windows in your glass house.
 
2012-08-01 10:54:54 PM  

NightOwl2255: Luse: Nightowl, I'm hoping you are trolling. If you read the VERY NEXT POST it was an HTML fail.

But for the slow, allow me to be more blunt.

You can't post a simple picture correctly, and fail to preview, but you want to call me slow?

Hope you have a good glazier on speed dial, what with all those broken windows in your glass house.


I see, then you didn't accidentally miss the next post and it's explanation. You intentionally ignored it. So I take it back. You're not an idiot. You're an intentionally dishonest douche.
I fail to see how this makes you any more credible.
 
2012-08-01 10:59:02 PM  

NightOwl2255: Luse: Nightowl, I'm hoping you are trolling. If you read the VERY NEXT POST it was an HTML fail.

But for the slow, allow me to be more blunt.

You can't post a simple picture correctly, and fail to preview, but you want to call me slow?

Hope you have a good glazier on speed dial, what with all those broken windows in your glass house.


He got 2 out of 3, so he clearly can post a picture. Meatloaf approves.
 
2012-08-01 11:07:32 PM  

Luse: I see, then you didn't accidentally miss the next post and it's explanation. You intentionally ignored it. So I take it back. You're not an idiot. You're an intentionally dishonest douche.
I fail to see how this makes you any more credible.


You seem like a really nice, polite, level-headed guy.
 
2012-08-01 11:09:45 PM  

NightOwl2255: Luse: I see, then you didn't accidentally miss the next post and it's explanation. You intentionally ignored it. So I take it back. You're not an idiot. You're an intentionally dishonest douche.
I fail to see how this makes you any more credible.

You seem like a really nice, polite, level-headed guy.


helian.net
 
2012-08-01 11:12:47 PM  

redmid17: He got 2 out of 3, so he clearly can post a picture. Meatloaf approves.


Funny thing is, I'm on his side (if there are sides). He's just so bent on tilting a windmill, he can't see beyond the end of his lance.
 
2012-08-01 11:13:40 PM  

NightOwl2255: Luse: I see, then you didn't accidentally miss the next post and it's explanation. You intentionally ignored it. So I take it back. You're not an idiot. You're an intentionally dishonest douche.
I fail to see how this makes you any more credible.

You seem like a really nice, polite, level-headed guy.


Depends on how you approach me. In my post I made an error. In my very next post I realized my error, admitted to it, corrected it and even took a little shot at myself in humor.
You chose to completely ignore it. In my response I even gave you the benefit of the doubt in the statement "I hope you are trolling".
You chose a personal attack rather than trying to debate any of my actual point. If you intentionally ignore all of the above and instead launch a personal attack on me, not bothering to debate the actual point, I can only come to this conclusion. Should you ever decide to engage me on the actual merit of my argument you may see a different side.
 
2012-08-01 11:34:21 PM  

Luse: You chose to completely ignore it.


I did? How do you know this? I did not see your "correction" post. I replied to you without anything that could be called insulting or attacking. You decide that I was "slow" and was personally attacking you. You've called me slow and a dishonest (which I would like you to point out where I posted anything that was dishonest) douche. Yes, a true gentleman.
 
2012-08-02 12:01:33 AM  
Not only did I make a correction post but I also had another post stating "Luse: Nightowl, I'm hoping you are trolling. If you read the VERY NEXT POST it was an HTML fail."

That was the VERY FIRST sentence in my response. It was meant as an If/Or statement oh HTML god. You for some reason latched on to the OR part and attacked me. You CHOSE the "slow" statement.

Also, I can't help but notice others chiming in and agreeing with me, while on your side I hear *crickets*. Furthermore you have YET to actually address my original (corrected) post.

The slow accusation I withdrew, had you bothered to notice. The dishonesty lies in ignoring my follow up post, several times at this point, you ignoring the withdrawl, and continually ignoring the actual point of the debate. SpoilerAlert did the same thing, but at least he had the decency to bow out without further trying to drag the debate off topic. He even conceded that the .22lr chambered target pistol is an "expensive hole punch" instead of a weapon.

You attack me on my mental faculties, yet claim you can't even read a 1 line, 1 picture post immediately following my error. In spite of the fact that it's been pointed out several times you still use this defense and continue trying to attack my character.
Also, for the record I never claimed to be a gentleman. Strawman much?
 
2012-08-02 09:29:30 AM  

Luse: Not only did I make a correction post but I also had another post stating "Luse: Nightowl, I'm hoping you are trolling. If you read the VERY NEXT POST it was an HTML fail."

That was the VERY FIRST sentence in my response. It was meant as an If/Or statement oh HTML god. You for some reason latched on to the OR part and attacked me. You CHOSE the "slow" statement.

Also, I can't help but notice others chiming in and agreeing with me, while on your side I hear *crickets*. Furthermore you have YET to actually address my original (corrected) post.

The slow accusation I withdrew, had you bothered to notice. The dishonesty lies in ignoring my follow up post, several times at this point, you ignoring the withdrawl, and continually ignoring the actual point of the debate. SpoilerAlert did the same thing, but at least he had the decency to bow out without further trying to drag the debate off topic. He even conceded that the .22lr chambered target pistol is an "expensive hole punch" instead of a weapon.

You attack me on my mental faculties, yet claim you can't even read a 1 line, 1 picture post immediately following my error. In spite of the fact that it's been pointed out several times you still use this defense and continue trying to attack my character.
Also, for the record I never claimed to be a gentleman. Strawman much?


Shouldn't you be off slaying windmills?
 
2012-08-02 09:55:51 AM  

Kit Fister: Is this, or is this not counting the multitude of weaponry floating around the middle east, south america, africa, etc? I have a hard time believing that these statistics, especially from the VPC.


Doesn't the president technically own every gun in the military as a result of being commander in chief? I bet that skews the numbers a bit.
 
2012-08-02 10:01:05 PM  

Luse: You talk of intended purpose but that is entirely objective


Alright, so how many other purposes do you think guns have, and do you think the evolution of models have been meant to make that object more useful in hunting or combat or not?

A baseball bats primary use is to hit baseballs. A butter knife is primarily used to spread butter. You can use either as weapons. The primary function of a gun is as a weapon. The entire history and evolution of different gun models are about making it a better weapon. The reason the AK is popular is because it can be used in multiple environments and doesn't jam. That's not a big deal if you shoot targets.
 
2012-08-02 11:29:07 PM  
All of your questions are already answered in my previous posts.
Yes, the AK doesn't jam, it also rarely hits what you aim it at. It's only popular because it has such loose tolerances that any idiot can make it go bang.

Baseball bats are clubs. YOU may use them for hitting a ball. Many use it to hit a skull.
The "main" use is in the intent, period. What makes YOUR personal idea of what the "intended" use is more valid than anyone elses?
You called the .22lr pistol posted above "an expensive hole punch" and yes, THAT is it's intended purpose. And it's a firearm, imagine that.
The best use we found for lead when we first started playing with it was to make plates and silverware. So by all means, use it for it's main intended use.
Viagra's original intended purposes was as a cardiovascular drug that lowers blood pressure, and for some reason everyone uses it as boner pills.
Absolutely noone abuses prescription meds do they, because you know, that's not their intended purpose.
For that matter, gunpowder's original intended use was for fireworks. So since all a gun really does is set off a gunpowder charge, it's main use must be entertainment.

Instead of fixating on banning objects, let's work on fixing behavior. I believe that ultimately we want the same thing, less senseless loss of life, preferably none.
Fine, let's work toward that goal. There are far more meaningful things we can do that have already been rehashed dozens of times.
 
Displayed 34 of 234 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report