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.

(Gizmodo)   Time machines are dangerous. Therefore, guns are too advanced for humans to be trusted with   (gizmodo.com) divider line 385
    More: Dumbass, 34th Street, death ray, exsanguination, accessibilities, The Time Machine  
•       •       •

10494 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Aug 2012 at 10:43 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-08-25 09:00:12 PM
Guns are similar to time machines in the same way catapults are to kumquats.

/worst rant ever
 
2012-08-25 09:06:58 PM
i.imgur.com
Don't you mean "heaters?"
 
2012-08-25 09:12:08 PM
As if we needed more evidence that any Gizmodo article gets greened, no matter what it is about.
 
2012-08-25 09:37:54 PM
Darn it, I've been waiting for a time travel-related thread for a while so I can jump in with "Boobies" and become a Fark time traveller.

Alas, too late.
 
2012-08-25 09:48:17 PM
Sale of most guns currently available should be banned...along with death rays. We can't expect Bugs Bunny to always be around to dismantle them.
 
2012-08-25 09:59:11 PM
That's quite possibly the stupidest argument against guns I've ever read.
 
2012-08-25 10:11:37 PM
I'm not sure I even wanna RTFA. My brain already hurts.
 
2012-08-25 10:18:55 PM

gameshowhost: I'm not sure I even wanna RTFA. My brain already hurts.


It's pretty stupid.
 
2012-08-25 10:19:28 PM

Lsherm: That's quite possibly the stupidest argument against guns I've ever read.


Not really. He's intentionally being outlandish, but the central point is there must be a line drawn when determining what is the acceptable level of killing machine citizens can possess. Everyone can agree that your neighbor shouldn't have access to launch a nuclear weapon, but when it's only dozens they can kill instead of millions, people get more argumentative about their right to own these weapons.

The potential for dozens of deaths is still too much. Pretty much hunting rifles and shotguns that can hold no more than 2 rounds is the appropriate limit that should be available for sale. Everything else is simply unnecessary.
 
2012-08-25 10:25:15 PM

GAT_00: gameshowhost: I'm not sure I even wanna RTFA. My brain already hurts.

It's pretty stupid.


I couldn't resist clicking.
 
2012-08-25 10:28:55 PM

MayoSlather: He's intentionally being outlandish, but the central point is there must be a line drawn when determining what is the acceptable level of killing machine citizens can possess.

 
2012-08-25 10:29:51 PM

doglover: MayoSlather: He's intentionally being outlandish, but the central point is there must be a line drawn when determining what is the acceptable level of killing machine citizens can possess.


This was supposed to be Professor Farnsworth with his Spheroboom TM
 
2012-08-25 10:36:39 PM

MayoSlather: Pretty much hunting rifles and shotguns that can hold no more than 2 rounds is the appropriate limit that should be available for sale. Everything else is simply unnecessary.


2? You've obviously never gone barn pigeon hunting.
 
2012-08-25 10:40:22 PM

gameshowhost: MayoSlather: Pretty much hunting rifles and shotguns that can hold no more than 2 rounds is the appropriate limit that should be available for sale. Everything else is simply unnecessary.

2? You've obviously never gone barn pigeon hunting.


I mean if this is a critical function in modern society then allow a special permit to be available. It definitely sounds of utmost importance.
 
2012-08-25 10:42:14 PM

MayoSlather: Lsherm: That's quite possibly the stupidest argument against guns I've ever read.

Not really. He's intentionally being outlandish, but the central point is there must be a line drawn when determining what is the acceptable level of killing machine citizens can possess. Everyone can agree that your neighbor shouldn't have access to launch a nuclear weapon, but when it's only dozens they can kill instead of millions, people get more argumentative about their right to own these weapons.

The potential for dozens of deaths is still too much. Pretty much hunting rifles and shotguns that can hold no more than 2 rounds is the appropriate limit that should be available for sale. Everything else is simply unnecessary.


I disagree. It was a stupid article.
 
2012-08-25 10:46:03 PM
Uh... wow.
 
2012-08-25 10:46:54 PM
Article was stupid.

But not as stupid as bedwetters who "need" a gun to to drive to 7-11 for a Slurpee.
 
2012-08-25 10:47:39 PM

GAT_00: As if we needed more evidence that any Gizmodo article gets greened, no matter what it is about.


Calling that an "article" is very similar to their comparison of guns and time machines.
 
2012-08-25 10:50:18 PM
This is,without,the dumbest article I've ever read. And it's not even from Cracked.com.
 
2012-08-25 10:52:03 PM
Jesus Christ, if I wanted to kill a bunch of people I'm pretty sure I could find a way to gas up a chainsaw in a Target and have at it.
 
2012-08-25 10:52:10 PM
Safety Not Guaranteed
 
2012-08-25 10:52:12 PM

Apos: This is,without a doubt,the dumbest article I've ever read. And it's not even from Cracked.com.



Sorry. My anger at confronting such an inane piece interfered with my post.
 
2012-08-25 10:52:22 PM
The stupid is strong in that post
 
2012-08-25 10:52:49 PM
What ever the hell he was smoking, he needs to quit
 
2012-08-25 10:53:15 PM

MayoSlather: The potential for dozens of deaths is still too much. Pretty much hunting rifles and shotguns that can hold no more than 2 rounds is the appropriate limit that should be available for sale. Everything else is simply unnecessary.


But then how will I defend myself when the Nazis Commies U.N. invades?
 
2012-08-25 10:53:55 PM

GAT_00: As if we needed more evidence that any Gizmodo article gets greened, no matter what it is about.


I don't think that was an article, i think someone submitted comments from gizmodo to fark
 
2012-08-25 10:53:56 PM
I think the writer plagiarized that from a middle school newspaper.
 
2012-08-25 10:55:41 PM
Yeeehaw

i391.photobucket.com
 
2012-08-25 10:56:05 PM
Thanks for reminding me why I avoid gizmodo links.
 
2012-08-25 10:56:06 PM
Quick! Someone post that meme where some guy runs up to a group of people, falls down and yells out something trolly, only to have the group of people turn on each other in argument.

'cus that's all the article was.
 
2012-08-25 10:56:54 PM
FTA :Too many people are dying. Colorado. 34th Street.

I don't know about thatI don't remember anyone dying.

someone post the minutes from the time travelers club.
 
2012-08-25 10:56:54 PM
Dumbest article, argument, and green of the day.
 
2012-08-25 10:57:03 PM
I didn't RTFA, but given that it is Gizmodo I imagine they think that changing the law will actually affect what people do. But given that they are simply taking it for granted that time travel is possible, that shouldn't surprise anyone.

Idiots.
 
2012-08-25 10:57:41 PM

jaytkay: But not as stupid as bedwetters who "need" a gun to to drive to 7-11 for a Slurpee.


They're only surpassed by the bedwetters who freak out about the idea that the guy getting a Slurpee and minding his own business might be carrying a gun.
 
2012-08-25 10:57:56 PM
Joe, your problem isn't guns, it's me mercifully suffocating you to death with a pillow to the reluctant but nodding acceptance of everyone on Earth who is not also as retarded as you are.

/ Would you sell a pillow at WalMart?
 
2012-08-25 10:58:31 PM
... Guns already exist. It's pretty stupid to suggest that they shouldn't now.
 
2012-08-25 10:58:44 PM

BuckTurgidson: Joe, your problem isn't guns, it's me mercifully suffocating you to death with a pillow to the reluctant but nodding acceptance of everyone on Earth who is not also as retarded as you are.

/ Would you sell a pillow at WalMart?


that's a waste of a perfectly good pillow
 
2012-08-25 10:58:50 PM

MayoSlather: Not really. He's intentionally being outlandish, but the central point is there must be a line drawn when determining what is the acceptable level of killing machine citizens can possess. Everyone can agree that your neighbor shouldn't have access to launch a nuclear weapon, but when it's only dozens they can kill instead of millions, people get more argumentative about their right to own these weapons.


Yes, I think most people would agree that there is a limit on the destructive capability of weapon that an individual should be allowed to possess, the question is what it this limit.
 
TWX
2012-08-25 11:00:02 PM

MayoSlather: Lsherm: That's quite possibly the stupidest argument against guns I've ever read.

Not really. He's intentionally being outlandish, but the central point is there must be a line drawn when determining what is the acceptable level of killing machine citizens can possess. Everyone can agree that your neighbor shouldn't have access to launch a nuclear weapon, but when it's only dozens they can kill instead of millions, people get more argumentative about their right to own these weapons.

The potential for dozens of deaths is still too much. Pretty much hunting rifles and shotguns that can hold no more than 2 rounds is the appropriate limit that should be available for sale. Everything else is simply unnecessary.


I support the capacity restrictions that were in place in the nineties. Generally speaking, if you as John Q. Public can't get it done in ten rounds, you probably can't get done at all.

Mind you, I support mandatory training and proficiency to purchase or otherwise obtain, other than through inheritance, anything over a 20 gauge shotgun or a .22 rifle (long gun, .22 rifle-firing pistols do not count), but I know the odds of that coming to pass are very slim. Courses would include learning when it's not OK to introduce a weapon into circumstances, and guidelines for securing one's firearms against theft or other uses not overseen by the owner.
 
2012-08-25 11:00:51 PM
Hmm.. Interesting argument...

I have a device that can accelerate over two tons of metal and flammables to about 150 miles per hour. Similar devices kill around 30,000 people a year. Surely these are too dangerous for us common plebes!

Thousands of people keep large, unsecured vats of the dangerous chemical known as dihydrogen monoxide in and around their homes. This chemical is responsible for thousands of deaths per year. Surely we must end this household menace!

We're surrounded by a shiatload of items that can be used to wreak immense havoc if used incorrectly. What makes one any more dangerous than the next? If we started banning everything that a determined person could use to injure another person, we'd end up with practically nothing available to us.

Oh, and the analogy fails because most fictional time-machine havoc stems from causality disruption. You kill Hitler, and come home to Red Alert. You go to a 1950s prom, get your mom and dad together, and end up almost ruining the lives of everyone you know three times. You go back to Roswell and become your own grandpa, later going back to end the American Revolution. Causality is the big danger with time machines, and while guns can be argued to effect causality as well, nobody really cares about that particular argument, because when you use a gun, you generally don't have to memorize a lot of new kings when you get back home...
 
2012-08-25 11:01:14 PM

DrewCurtisJr: Yes, I think most people would agree that there is a limit on the destructive capability of weapon that an individual should be allowed to possess, the question is what it this limit.


exactly how do you plan to limit people from making something that exceeds your defined limit?
 
2012-08-25 11:03:23 PM
SHUT UP, DOCTOR! DON'T MAKE ME SIC THE SILENCE ON YOU AGAIN!!1!

:-/
 
2012-08-25 11:03:30 PM
It's perfectly acceptable to own a gun as long as it's not black with rounded corners.
 
2012-08-25 11:05:01 PM
If time machines ever became a reality, there may have to be a thing like the Eye of Harmony (Doctor Who) to prevent the web of time of changing by keeping established events fixed. The best explanation that I've heard about this is in the Doctor Who audio plays where Rassalon first established time travel. He then went into the far future and found that another race would one day create time travel and wipe Gallifrey and the Time Lords out of existence. He then established the Eye of Harmony to protect his version of the web of time and then trap the future threat (called the Divergence) in a pocket, timeless universe, of his own creation.

Before time travel could be extended to the "masses" there would need to be an Eye of Harmony to prevent too much damage to the timeline.

As for guns, there are millions of Americans who legally own weapons. It's less than one percent of those who own guns who use guns to commit crimes and murders. So it makes no sense at all to say "Since so few gun owners use guns to kill, and the rest have them for protection, we need to ban all hand guns." And honestly, those who go through the process of getting the conceal carry licenses aren't the ones to fear. I'm honestly scared more of those who want to ban guns over those who legally own them and legally conceal and carry those guns.
 
2012-08-25 11:05:33 PM
When I was a kid the future featured jet packs and interplanetary travel. I guess we didn't get there because it was too dangerous.
 
2012-08-25 11:06:13 PM

ladyfortuna: Yeeehaw


Oh Lord all up IN of this time BIATCH!
 
2012-08-25 11:07:07 PM
guess what, dum dum?

the guns are already here.
they're not going anywhere.


of course it's insane, it's the USA
 
2012-08-25 11:07:29 PM

dbubb: When I was a kid the future featured jet packs and interplanetary travel. I guess we didn't get there because it was too dangerous.


i.imgur.com
 
2012-08-25 11:07:34 PM

Lsherm: That's quite possibly the stupidest argument against guns I've ever read.


Seriously. I believe in the 2nd Amendment and enforcing it and even I think this is a really stupid argument.
 
2012-08-25 11:07:50 PM

pedrop357: jaytkay: But not as stupid as bedwetters who "need" a gun to to drive to 7-11 for a Slurpee.

They're only surpassed by the bedwetters who freak out about the idea that the guy getting a Slurpee and minding his own business might be carrying a gun.


oh snap such a clever response we have here the present-day equivalent of oscar wilde someone call the pulitzer committee
 
Displayed 50 of 385 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report