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.

(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  
•       •       •

10503 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Aug 2012 at 10:43 PM (2 years 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 11:08:06 PM  
A gun cannot have the potential of causing a reality destroying paradox.
 
2012-08-25 11:08:50 PM  

PsyLord: A gun cannot have the potential of causing a reality destroying paradox.


So you didn't try to kill the younger version of Revolver Ocelot in MGS3, thereby getting the "Time Paradox" ending?
 
2012-08-25 11:10:32 PM  
Number of people killed by cars every year > Number of people killed by guns every year. Therefore according to the article, we should not be allowed to have cars.

Blaming guns for gun violence is like blaming both airplanes and skyscrapers for 9/11.
 
2012-08-25 11:10:56 PM  

PsyLord: A gun cannot have the potential of causing a reality destroying paradox.


so no shooting through time portals, check
 
2012-08-25 11:11:27 PM  

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


People can't be trusted with guns.
But not for the reasons in that silly article.
 
2012-08-25 11:11:42 PM  

jaytkay: 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


He does ask a good question, if someone is minding their own business, what matter is it that they have a gun?
 
2012-08-25 11:12:17 PM  
The baby heard me say Fark! Oh no! What do we do now?
 
2012-08-25 11:12:21 PM  

JosephFinn: 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.


This.
 
2012-08-25 11:12:41 PM  

phrawgh: Safety Not Guaranteed


I was torn between this and time cube guy...
 
2012-08-25 11:12:41 PM  
Can't f*ck your own grandmother with a gun.

Well... Maybe... Hm...
 
2012-08-25 11:13:04 PM  
Cars cause lots of death because people make bad decisions while driving two tons of steel and glass. Let's ban those.

I understand there are some differences with guns and that I will get yelled at by some wet blanket. If you don't want people to have guns, you have to change the Constitution. It's as simple as that. You can't ignore the Second Amendment. You can keep guns away from some people at the margins, people with felony records or serious mental illness diagnoses and dangerous behavior. But that's not going to keep the undiagnosed crazies or disgruntled former employees from going on a rampage.

Don't want guns on the streets? Repeal the Second Amendment and you can have just about any gun law passed that you please. But you have to accept that that's tough road to hoe - full repeal of the Second Amendment is politically unpopular, and you have to be prepared for the possibility that you will lose and will just have to accept that some people will have guns and some of them will use them for evil purposes.
 
2012-08-25 11:13:58 PM  
FZXXAAROPPTTSWAXESXZZXAAS!!!

And here I am at the crucifixion.
With an M=60 and a bukkit of ammo.
Do I let them nail this dude and create thousands of years of suffering?
Or do I ventilate the Roman guards?

OOOOoooooooooooh.
You have hazelnuts, roasted in garlic oil?
BRB
 
2012-08-25 11:14:48 PM  
Holy crap. Someone needs to go to journalism school.
 
2012-08-25 11:16:48 PM  

indylaw: Cars cause lots of death because people make bad decisions while driving two tons of steel and glass. Let's ban those.

I understand there are some differences with guns and that I will get yelled at by some wet blanket. If you don't want people to have guns, you have to change the Constitution. It's as simple as that. You can't ignore the Second Amendment. You can keep guns away from some people at the margins, people with felony records or serious mental illness diagnoses and dangerous behavior. But that's not going to keep the undiagnosed crazies or disgruntled former employees from going on a rampage.

Don't want guns on the streets? Repeal the Second Amendment and you can have just about any gun law passed that you please. But you have to accept that that's tough road to hoe - full repeal of the Second Amendment is politically unpopular, and you have to be prepared for the possibility that you will lose and will just have to accept that some people will have guns and some of them will use them for evil purposes.

The second amendment is there to protect the rest.
 
2012-08-25 11:16:54 PM  
I will only begin to even CONSIDER accepting this line of reasoning when someone can tell me how it can be implemented.
 
2012-08-25 11:17:37 PM  

Securitywyrm: Blaming guns for gun violence is like blaming both airplanes and skyscrapers for 9/11.


Guns are designed with one thing in mind - killing people. Airplanes and skyscrapers, not so much.
 
2012-08-25 11:17:54 PM  

Great Janitor: jaytkay: 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

He does ask a good question, if someone is minding their own business, what matter is it that they have a gun?


You know the multiple stories we read every week about "barricade situations" after some guy kills his family?

How many of those stories do not involve handguns?

I know gun enthusiasts get all emotional and excited and spout off talking points from today's email fundraiser from the NRA, but just this once please present some facts. Try to be rational. Enlighten me.
 
2012-08-25 11:18:15 PM  

jaytkay: Article was stupid.

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


Well, maye not for a Slurpee. Now, if you're going for some iced tea and skittles ...
 
2012-08-25 11:18:25 PM  
I could kill about 10 people with my car right meow if I wanted to.
 
2012-08-25 11:18:49 PM  

TripcodeMel: I will only begin to even CONSIDER accepting this line of reasoning when someone can tell me how it can be implemented.


you could change the dimensions of most ammo so it wouldn't work in civilian hands, but that assumes people aren't capable of reloading their own casings
 
2012-08-25 11:19:03 PM  

fastbow: 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...


People drink water. Guns kill, and have no other purpose. They are designed to kill. So yes you can kill people with a rolling pin, but a gun makes it so much easier. So much easier that fatalities happen that otherwise might not have. That's pretty simple to understand.
 
2012-08-25 11:20:10 PM  

TripcodeMel: I will only begin to even CONSIDER accepting this line of reasoning when someone can tell me how it can be implemented.


1. Apple comes out with the iGun. (Gizmodo creams their jeans over it and suddenly doesn't hate guns anymore)
2. Apple sues all other gun manufacturers for retroactively ripping them off. Bribed judges see it Apple's way.
3. Now all guns are Apple iGuns
4. The Apple iGun only has half the functionality of regular guns, so less people die.
 
2012-08-25 11:20:17 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.


According to who? You? Fine. You can have your two round long guns.

Me, I'll keep my 5 round semiauto 20 gauge, my 15 round clip semiauto pistol, and 6 shot revolver. Who are you to say I shouldn't have them? There's a nice little thing called the Constitution that says I can. My state says I can and my county even licensed me to carry my handguns in a concealed manner and encourages me to do so.
 
2012-08-25 11:20:46 PM  

indylaw: derstand there are some differences with guns and that I will get yelled at by some wet blanket. If you don't want people to have guns, you have to change the Constitution. It's as simple as that. You can't ignore the Second Amendmen


actually the second amendment allows for guns to be kept in a citizens, militia. So no, you actually don't need an amendment, just for people to read the whole amendment.
 
2012-08-25 11:21:06 PM  
fark, I'll have to come up with a counter argument for this before all my Dem friends start using it.
 
2012-08-25 11:23:01 PM  

TripcodeMel: I will only begin to even CONSIDER accepting this line of reasoning when someone can tell me how it can be implemented.


Well, first we toss the guns into the time machine. Then we set the time machine for 1,000 years into the future.

Then we can sit back and relax for 1,000 years until our insectoid manservants suddenly and mysteriously acquire an arsenal of guns and revolt.
 
2012-08-25 11:23:06 PM  

nigeman: People drink water. Guns kill, and have no other purpose. They are designed to kill. So yes you can kill people with a rolling pin, but a gun makes it so much easier. So much easier that fatalities happen that otherwise might not have. That's pretty simple to understand.


you're trying to cure a symptom, first you would have to make humans not want to kill people with rolling pins, knives, cars, or whatever else is handy
 
2012-08-25 11:23:12 PM  
FACT:

All men have dix and balls, and most of them can use them, at least passing well;

FACT: You can rape a woman with this equipment, therefore you may not have it.

FACT: All women have titz and pussies, and you can be a whore with such equipment;

Therefore, you may not have it.

Even in places where guns are legal, very few use them to kill, and fewer yet are killed by them. Yet with very few exceptions, EVERY man has the equipment to be a rapist, and EVERY woman has the equipment to be a whore, so why no laws against sex?
 
2012-08-25 11:23:56 PM  

whatshisname: Securitywyrm: Blaming guns for gun violence is like blaming both airplanes and skyscrapers for 9/11.

Guns are designed with one thing in mind - killing people discharging bullets. Airplanes and skyscrapers, not so much.

 

Airplanes designed with killing people in mind.
 
2012-08-25 11:24:02 PM  

olddinosaur: Even in places where guns are legal, very few use them to kill, and fewer yet are killed by them. Yet with very few exceptions, EVERY man has the equipment to be a rapist, and EVERY woman has the equipment to be a whore, so why no laws against sex?


You're not familiar with some of the old blue laws, and laws regarding prostitution are you
 
2012-08-25 11:25:10 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.


Is that Slurpee more than 12 oz? Those 32oz drinks of mass destruction need to be banned. Do you realize how much damage you can do with just one of those?
 
2012-08-25 11:28:07 PM  
I want those two minutes back.
 
2012-08-25 11:28:35 PM  

ttc2301: I want those two minutes back.


quick, hop into your time machine
 
2012-08-25 11:29:06 PM  

whatshisname: Securitywyrm: Blaming guns for gun violence is like blaming both airplanes and skyscrapers for 9/11.

Guns are designed with one thing in mind - killing people. Airplanes and skyscrapers, not so much.


One, this is not true, and two, what does design have to do with anything? People don't design swimming pools to kill kids (at least that's what the industry wants you to believe), yet they are responsible for four times more children dying each year than guns. There is no redeeming social value of pools other than dangerous entertainment. I like to call them murder holes. We banned lawn darts, why not focus on these reckless threats to our children now?
 
2012-08-25 11:29:32 PM  

whatshisname:

Guns are designed with one thing in mind - killing people. Airplanes and skyscrapers, not so much.


Oh for farks sake. That's your argument? No, guns are designed to kill animals, to shoot holes in paper targets, to bust up flying clay discs, to shoot visual distress signals high into the air, to start marathons, to launch ropes and other messenger devices, to clear minefields, and to kill people. I'm sure I forgot a few uses there but any reasonable and sane person gets my point.
 
2012-08-25 11:30:04 PM  

nigeman: indylaw: derstand there are some differences with guns and that I will get yelled at by some wet blanket. If you don't want people to have guns, you have to change the Constitution. It's as simple as that. You can't ignore the Second Amendmen

actually the second amendment allows for guns to be kept in a citizens, militia. So no, you actually don't need an amendment, just for people to read the whole amendment.


The Supreme Court has ruled that the Second Amendment guarantees someone's right to own a firearm entirely disconnected from any service in a militia. But you are welcome to interpret it anyway you want.
 
2012-08-25 11:30:43 PM  
Guns are already being regulated. Check out the NFA. Full auto guns are illegal (yes I know you can buy them with lots of cash and some paperwork, but that doesn't change the fact that virtually nobody owns a full auto gun, and that's because of the NFA).

Why was there no outcry when full auto guns were banned? This distinction is completely arbitrary. You could just as well ban semi automatic guns and only allow repeating guns (bolt/lever/pump action, single action revolvers). Since the NFA is legally accepted as being constitutional, why should a slightly more restrictive NFA change that?

To extend the second amendment to our time is ridiculous. Back then, there were flintlock muskets and pistols, and that was it. If you wanted to carry over the militia aspect, you would have to legalize hand grenades and RPGs as well, because those are essential weapons of any modern infantry unit. Strangely, nobody is advocating that, even though a militia without at least RPGs would be powerless against any halfway decent military with armored vehicles. And since the whole militia idea is central to the second amendment, I think legally you would either have to allow grenades and RPGs and heavy machine guns, or repeal the second amendment altogether.

Personally, I would be all for restricting private ownership to repeating guns. Simply because it would be funny to watch gang bangers shoot each others old west style with single action revolvers.
 
2012-08-25 11:31:05 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.


Using this logic, any motor vehicle larger than a moped should also be banned.

In 1998, 30,708 people in the United States died from firearm-related deaths
In 1998, 41,501 people in the United States died from automobile-related deaths

Firearms are involved in 0.5% of accidental deaths nationally, compared to motor vehicles (37%), poisoning (22%), falls (17%), suffocation (5%), drowning (2.9%), fires (2.5%), medical mistakes (1.7%), environmental factors (1.3%), and pedal cycles (0.7%). Among children: motor vehicles (41%), suffocation (21%), drowning (15%), fires (8%), pedal cycles (2%), poisoning (2%), falls (1.9%), environmental factors (1.5%), firearms (1.1%) and medical mistakes (1%).
 
Al!
2012-08-25 11:31:06 PM  
Cars kill more people than guns. I never see rants proposing a ban on automobiles. Malaria kills more people than guns and cars combined. Seriously, more people die jumping off of bridges than die in mass shootings. You don't want to see people bleeding in the streets? Quit watching cable news. They're going to show you what gets the ratings. Nothing more, nothing less. Bridge jumpers don't get the ratings, so you don't see them plastered all over the news.
 
2012-08-25 11:32:21 PM  

whatshisname: Securitywyrm: Blaming guns for gun violence is like blaming both airplanes and skyscrapers for 9/11.

Guns are designed with one thing in mind - killing people. Airplanes and skyscrapers, not so much.


You're right. Police officers shouldn't carry them, because they're carrying a tool that's only functions to kill people and they're supposed to "Serve and Protect" It doesn't work at all to dissuade people from attacking the police.
 
2012-08-25 11:32:57 PM  

loonatic112358: nigeman: People drink water. Guns kill, and have no other purpose. They are designed to kill. So yes you can kill people with a rolling pin, but a gun makes it so much easier. So much easier that fatalities happen that otherwise might not have. That's pretty simple to understand.

you're trying to cure a symptom, first you would have to make humans not want to kill people with rolling pins, knives, cars, or whatever else is handy


no not at all. if somebody wants to kill someone they will, if someone is angry, they can pull a trigger pretty quickly, and kill someone that otherwise would not have died, further it makes a whole bunch of crimes far easier to do and that is to say nothing of accidents with guns. Further you can's have a drive by without a gun. This is all very simple to understand, it won't stop all murder, but it will stop a lot of them. To say that that isn't good enough is ridiculous.
 
2012-08-25 11:33:23 PM  

violentsalvation: The Supreme Court has ruled that the Second Amendment guarantees someone's right to own a firearm entirely disconnected from any service in a militia. But you are welcome to interpret it anyway you want.


The Supreme Court also once ruled that black people are property.

Just because the USSC says so doesn't mean it's actually right.
 
2012-08-25 11:34:01 PM  
Tell me why guns are any different.

Since the hippie asked, I may as well answer:

The next time some 300lb blob of beer, steroids and stupid hops of his Harley to spend a few minutes raping your wife/daughter/sister/mom ... you just go ahead and try to stop him with your mighty bong-fu and see if throwing your Birkenstocks at him will solve the problem.

Or you could just shoot him. Better yet, she can just shoot him herself.

Guns are what put people like you & me on even footing with people like Genghis Khan, which is why people like Genghis Khan no longer run the planet. But hey, if you want to go back to living under the yolk of Meatheads with Big Axes, knock yourself out.

4.bp.blogspot.com
Above: A world without guns.
 
2012-08-25 11:34:09 PM  
Can I have a gun?
 
2012-08-25 11:34:21 PM  
Time travel? I would go back to 9/10/01 and arm some people.

www.scottbieser.com
 
2012-08-25 11:34:23 PM  

radiobiz: whatshisname:

Guns are designed with one thing in mind - killing people. Airplanes and skyscrapers, not so much.

Oh for farks sake. That's your argument? No, guns are designed to kill animals, to shoot holes in paper targets, to bust up flying clay discs, to shoot visual distress signals high into the air, to start marathons, to launch ropes and other messenger devices, to clear minefields, and to kill people. I'm sure I forgot a few uses there but any reasonable and sane person gets my point.


not sure if serious.
 
2012-08-25 11:34:44 PM  

radiobiz: Oh for farks sake. That's your argument? No, guns are designed to kill animals, to shoot holes in paper targets, to bust up flying clay discs, to shoot visual distress signals high into the air, to start marathons, to launch ropes and other messenger devices, to clear minefields, and to kill people.


Yes, and the average American keeps a handgun in their nightstand drawer to start marathons and bust up clay disks It's absolutely incredible how Americans will back peddle to try and justify their insatiable appetite for guns.
 
2012-08-25 11:35:38 PM  

nigeman: no not at all. if somebody wants to kill someone they will, if someone is angry, they can pull a trigger pretty quickly, and kill someone that otherwise would not have died, further it makes a whole bunch of crimes far easier to do and that is to say nothing of accidents with guns. Further you can's have a drive by without a gun. This is all very simple to understand, it won't stop all murder, but it will stop a lot of them. To say that that isn't good enough is ridiculous.


i think that's the only logical argument i've heard yet against firearms
 
2012-08-25 11:35:49 PM  

nigeman: fastbow: 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...

People drink water. Guns kill, and have no other purpose. They are designed to kill. So yes you can kill people with a rolling pin, but a gun makes it so much easier. So much easier that fatalities happen that otherwise might not have. That's pretty simple to understand.


What about the Japanese Tsunami? What about swimming pools? What about damned reservoirs and out-of-control rivers? Water's one vindictive biatch.

Or, to better adress your concern of design, nobody should have a knife. They're thousands of years old and designed to do one thing: kill. We've been killing each other with knives for longer than we've had literature. So, by your own admitted logic, we should not have knives. Your CutCo? Gone. Your pocket knife, that heinous killing tool? Gone.

Or to take it further, we've been killing each other with blunt instruments ever since we lost our tails. We picked up branches for no other reason, so by your own logic, we should have no blunt instruments. Your baseball bat, rolling pin, paperweight? All gone...

Kind of ridiculous, huh? Guns might have been designed to kill, but they have other functions as well. Get with the program. This isn't the 1500s anymore.
 
2012-08-25 11:36:01 PM  

nigeman: loonatic112358: nigeman: People drink water. Guns kill, and have no other purpose. They are designed to kill. So yes you can kill people with a rolling pin, but a gun makes it so much easier. So much easier that fatalities happen that otherwise might not have. That's pretty simple to understand.

you're trying to cure a symptom, first you would have to make humans not want to kill people with rolling pins, knives, cars, or whatever else is handy

no not at all. if somebody wants to kill someone they will, if someone is angry, they can pull a trigger pretty quickly, and kill someone that otherwise would not have died, further it makes a whole bunch of crimes far easier to do and that is to say nothing of accidents with guns. Further you can's have a drive by without a gun. This is all very simple to understand, it won't stop all murder, but it will stop a lot of them. To say that that isn't good enough is ridiculous.


It's also a lot easier to defend yourself with a gun than it is with rolling pin, frying pan, stapler, or paring knife...
 
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 »
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