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 50
    More: Dumbass, 34th Street, death ray, exsanguination, accessibilities, The Time Machine  
•       •       •

10499 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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-08-25 11:00:51 PM  
4 votes:
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 10:47:39 PM  
4 votes:

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 09:59:11 PM  
4 votes:
That's quite possibly the stupidest argument against guns I've ever read.
2012-08-25 09:12:08 PM  
4 votes:
As if we needed more evidence that any Gizmodo article gets greened, no matter what it is about.
2012-08-25 11:05:01 PM  
3 votes:
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 10:57:41 PM  
3 votes:

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 10:19:28 PM  
3 votes:

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.
2012-08-26 12:57:31 AM  
2 votes:

whatshisname: Wise_Guy: You know how bad Canada sucks? Our shiattiest, coldest, nobody-wants-to-live-there-because-it's-freezing-and-sucks-so-bad states--the ones way at the top of the map, are where Canada farking begins! That's better than anything they got-- North Dakota is like Florida to them. Minnesota is like the Bahamas.

I live in Canada's largest city. It's at about the same latitude as Southern Oregon. We have a lake effect so the winters are mild and the summers are pleasant.

But by all means, keep being the poster child for the ignorant American.


Yeah, you're right. I was generalizing an entire country.

That's a pretty stupid thing to do.

Wouldn't you agree?
2012-08-26 12:33:54 AM  
2 votes:
About half of the households in America have at least one gun.

There are about 270 millions guns in the U.S.

There are about 300 million people in the U.S.

There are about 11,500 firearm homicides in the U.S. annually.

Even assuming that each homicide was committed using a different gun (no multiple killings at all), that still means that each year, 99.6% of the firearms in the U.S. *aren't* used to commit a murder.

Also, even the *non-firearm* murder rate for the U.S. is higher than the *total* murder rate for many other Western countries. In short, we don't have a "gun problem" in the U.S. - we have a "homicidal asshole* problem.
2012-08-25 11:53:55 PM  
2 votes:

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.


...But to make this an argument for gun control, the audience must believe killing is always wrong.
Most people don't believe that, which is why there are laws allowing for Justifiable Homicide.

So the question is not just who should be allowed to own a gun, but who should have the ability to defend themselves with lethal force. If you say "only agents of the state" then we start going down a very different road than the original ideal of making the nation into a murder-free zone.
This is why people see gun control as being less about public safety and more about keeping the proletariat in line.


In the end, criminals and cops don't have to obey weapons laws.
The people who don't shoot other people will be weakened the most and gain the least.

I don't see why anyone in a democracy would want to support that.
2012-08-25 10:58:50 PM  
2 votes:

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.
2012-08-25 10:57:56 PM  
2 votes:
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 10:56:54 PM  
2 votes:
Dumbest article, argument, and green of the day.
2012-08-25 10:56:05 PM  
2 votes:
Thanks for reminding me why I avoid gizmodo links.
2012-08-25 10:52:49 PM  
2 votes:
What ever the hell he was smoking, he needs to quit
2012-08-25 10:52:03 PM  
2 votes:
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 10:42:14 PM  
2 votes:

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 10:18:55 PM  
2 votes:

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


It's pretty stupid.
2012-08-25 09:00:12 PM  
2 votes:
Guns are similar to time machines in the same way catapults are to kumquats.

/worst rant ever
2012-08-26 11:30:04 AM  
1 votes:

nigeman: how come the terrorists don't have guns in that scenario?


BeSerious: Hey you managed to post something stupider than the article. Congrats.


Suicide of a Phoenix: If everyone on the plane was allowed to carry a gun, why wouldn't the terrorists have carried guns? They had box cutters because they could carry them. I'm sure they would have used a more deadly weapon such as a gun if they had been allowed to.


It's a cartoon. You know, the same reason Superman used to bounce bullets off his chest but ducked when the empty gun was thrown at him.

hamdinger: HERR DERR HAR'S WUT I WOODA DUN TO DEM DAR TERISTS! I'm all for gun rights, but shiat like that is farking pathetic.


Yet you have no problem with the article's concept of using a time-machine? Perhaps guns ARE too advanced for some humans to be trusted with.

gameshowhost: Yes, because people WHO WERE WILLING TO FLY THEMSELVES INTO BUILDINGS AND DIAF were going to smile and go peacefully.


What's the point in going straight to Allah as a failure? Might as well get "three hots and a cot" on our dime while awaiting rescue/armageddon/whatever.

GAT_00: The right to bear arms is a clause dependent on being in a militia. Militias have no value without organization, because they are unable to be effective. All you have with an unorganized militia is a lynch mob. And unorganized militia is a contradiction in terms, like compassionate conservatism.


Sorry, our constitution does not say it must be a "government" organized militia. Kinda defeats the purpose when you think about it.
2012-08-26 10:53:40 AM  
1 votes:
This is by far the dumbest "gun" article ever written. Followed by the dumbest FARK-GUN-THREAD ever.


Guns are weapons. Weapons exist. Weapons have ALWAYS been around. Even before some evolved apes began making them,they existed naturally. Weapons are on plants and animals. (thorns,claws,horns and teeth etc)

Weapons will never go away. Strong preying on weak will always occur. Armed or unarmed.

Stop whining and grow a pair. Pussy.

There are so many serious and truly scary as HELL things going on in this world right now.
Some Americans who occasionally go koo-koo with a pistol is at the bottom of the list of things to worry about.
2012-08-26 09:48:42 AM  
1 votes:

GAT_00: enforcerpsu: GAT_00: 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.

This has been argued to death.

The sentence, the way it is written, guarantees a individual right to bear arms.

Oh, and just so you know, you are already in the militia. Every able bodied male 18 and above is part of the USA unorganized militia.

Facts. How do they work?

The right to bear arms is a clause dependent on being in a militia. Militias have no value without organization, because they are unable to be effective. All you have with an unorganized militia is a lynch mob.

And unorganized militia is a contradiction in terms, like compassionate conservatism.


Sorry bub. It's not. The clause is completely independent. End of story.

Do you want me to mail you your militia card?

Regardless, nothing changes now. People like yourself are too scared to admit that its not a gun problem. But for people like myself we've already won the fight. Not only is it our right and we choose to excercise it but no politician will touch it. It's political suicide.
2012-08-26 08:30:37 AM  
1 votes:

GAT_00: enforcerpsu: GAT_00: 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.

This has been argued to death.

The sentence, the way it is written, guarantees a individual right to bear arms.

Oh, and just so you know, you are already in the militia. Every able bodied male 18 and above is part of the USA unorganized militia.

Facts. How do they work?

The right to bear arms is a clause dependent on being in a militia. Militias have no value without organization, because they are unable to be effective. All you have with an unorganized militia is a lynch mob.

And unorganized militia is a contradiction in terms, like compassionate conservatism.


"Well regulated" back when the Bill of Rights was written meant "In it's proper working order" These days people like you try to redefine it as "Strictly controlled". It's not the same thing no matter how much you try to pretend it is. And why would the Founding Fathers make it a right strictly controlled by the government when they just fought a war to get us away from a very oppressive government and guarantee we will never be forced to endure oppression again? No matter how many times this comes up, you just never really address these issues.

Here are a few more that you'll just end up ignoring anyway (since things like facts and history trouble you so much):
Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. - James Madison

The Constitution shall never be construed ... to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms. - Samuel Adams

The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed. - Alexander Hamilton

When the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually...I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor... - George Mason, Virginia Constitution Convention

To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them. - Richard Henry Lee 1788

And last but not least:
"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government." - George Washington

Now, since you're a unmitigated tool that refuses to actually think about what the Founding Fathers meant, please explain all of the above in your "people aren't allowed to have arms unless they are in a militia strictly controlled by the government" mindset.
2012-08-26 07:47:19 AM  
1 votes:
What kills more people per year in the USA?
Guns?
Cars?
Cigarettes?
2012-08-26 02:24:51 AM  
1 votes:

radiobiz: whatshisname: radiobiz: This is fun. Let's pull more dumb statements out of our butts and post em.

Sorry, it's not 47%, it's 46% of Americans believe God created humans in their current form within the last 10000 years.

Again, prove them wrong. All you did was post a link to a graphic. Where's the proof? You may not agree with them (neither do I but that's not the point), but you can't prove any differently and your difference in beliefs doesn't make you superior to them.


If God did exist, and is as loving and kind and thinks humanity is as precious as they say he is, why did he put the one thing he didn't want humans to touch right in the middle of the garden and fail to keep watch out for Satan sneaking in? Why did he curse the entire universe to eventual death to punish two humans and their descendents? Why does he randomly slaughter people with natural disasters and allow evil people to slaughter more? Why is his answer to everything "destroy it all and send most of my creation to undending unspeakable torture"?

Man in God's image, Man causes the universe to be cursed, Man is the thing that makes God want to destroy everything and also save everything, Man this and Man that. Religion, especially Christianity, is a tribute to the increbile ego and arrogance of the human animal. We think we're the center of the universe and everything happens because of us. We create all-powerful beings and make them slaves to what we think, say, and do. We feel that our high intelligence makes us the masters of fate, that nature should bend to our whims. There is only one thing in this universe more common than hydrogen, and that's the hubris of man.
2012-08-26 01:54:27 AM  
1 votes:

GAT_00: Heliodorus: The supreme court makes judgement on what is constitutional. It isn't supposed to make judgments on morality, that's the job of the legislature.

That's amusingly naive.


And factually correct.
2012-08-26 01:46:08 AM  
1 votes:

GAT_00: Drug use is not a fundamental right.


The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.



GAT_00: Would you listen to a murderer telling you murder should be legal?


Who's being murdered or even harmed by the filthy hippy? Roe v. Wade hinged on the right of privacy. How is drug use different? You walk the liberal walk on most issues, but on this libertarian issue you're an authoritarian purely due to personal bias from what I can tell.

GAT_00: loonatic112358: GAT_00: Would you listen to a murderer telling you murder should be legal?

listen yes, agree with, probably not

So where's the line where we should suddenly listen and agree with the person committing the crime over the people who put the law into place?


I don't know, maybe if the person is actually not hurting anyone else and is just doing something that someone else disapproves of because said busybody is a moralistic douche?
2012-08-26 01:07:06 AM  
1 votes:

GAT_00: Farker Soze: GAT_00: Farker Soze: GAT_00: The right to bear arms is a clause dependent on being in a militia.

No, it clearly isn't, as all research into original intent points to. Please, disagree with it if you want, but don't lie about it.

I'm sorry I'm capable of understanding how clauses work in English.

Clearly you don't, as the militia part is not a qualifying clause.

How do internal commas work again?


Honestly, it could be slightly clearer, but anyone with an modicum of unbiased thought can see that changing "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." to "GAT_00, being the wisest most totally awesome person in the world and definitely not authoritarian against anything he personally doesn't like, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." changes nothing concerning the right of the people to keep and bear Arms whether or not is shall be infringed.

Or are you making a jab at my shiatty grammar? Irrelevant.
2012-08-26 01:03:43 AM  
1 votes:

loonatic112358: 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


i71.photobucket.com
2012-08-26 12:38:43 AM  
1 votes:

whatshisname: radiobiz: This is fun. Let's pull more dumb statements out of our butts and post em.

Sorry, it's not 47%, it's 46% of Americans believe God created humans in their current form within the last 10000 years.


Who cares? WE LANDED A GIANT FARKING ROBOT ON MARS LAST WEEK. Beat that, bumpkin.
2012-08-26 12:23:37 AM  
1 votes:

nigeman: There is absolutely no way to stop people from killing each other. Since the dawn of time a significant portion of human thought and energy has gone into the creation and use of weapons. Making them illegal just makes it harder for law abiding people to get them, it doesn't stop someone already willing to break the law. Nor does it make people less able to kill each other, it just brings knives back into fashion.

So why not make it easier for people to kill each other? Collect your Nobel Prize for amazing logic!


It's the same argument against Prohibition and the Drug War. Making guns illegal does nothing to stop their sale, all it does it take them out of the hands of the law abiding. Trying to ban them will never work, they're too easy to hide, transport, and make. It's better to educate people about responsible gun ownership and put some reasonable restrictions where they can be taken. Look at Chicago for example. Do you really think that if guns vanished the murders would too?

I'll be honest, making it marginally harder for criminals to kill people with firearms isn't worth taking them out of the hands of the public.
2012-08-25 11:59:29 PM  
1 votes:

whatshisname: Great Janitor: And those times when I'm in a mall or a grocery store and I realize that no less than five people in that store are legally carrying a concealed hand gun, I actually feel pretty safe.

Which should scare you. The fact that it doesn't shows just how desensitized to guns the American public has become.


as we should be, it's not a boogieman lurking in a dark corner wating for innocent passersby, it's a tool that can be used for good, or evil just like much of the rest of the things humanity has come up with
2012-08-25 11:57:09 PM  
1 votes:

jaytkay: 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.


I know anti-gun enthusiasts get all emotional and excited and spout off talking points from the latest ill conceived gun control law (shoulder thing that goes up! OH NOES!), but just his once, please present some facts. Try to be rational. Enlighten us.
How does disarming the law-abiding segment of the population make them any safer?

Compare violent crime rates in Switzerland to the UK. Almost all men in Switzerland are trained to handle firearms and keep 2 weapons in their homes (rifle and pistol).

lawful activity isn't newsworthy.

"Man drives to work... arrives safely"
"Couple engages in consensual sex in their home"
"Grandmother carries concealed pistol into beauty parlor... returns home without incident"

The millions of hunters aren't newsworthy.
The millions of people who carry daily aren't newsworthy.

Learn how to safely operate a firearm, and you'll not be so deathly afraid of them.
2012-08-25 11:44:55 PM  
1 votes:
The Internet is too dangerous of a technology for libtards to have access to.
2012-08-25 11:39:38 PM  
1 votes:

jaytkay: 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.


You still haven't answered my question, why is a guy minding his own business a threat because he carries a gun?

There are millions of people in this country who own guns, millions, but, there are not the numbers of people who are murdered to say that all hand guns need to be taken away because of the murders because it's less than one percent of those with hand guns who cause the murders.

Let's also look at places like Chicago. Chicago has a 100% hand gun ban. But, there are hand gun murders in Chicago. A complete hand gun ban has done nothing but kept a city of 3 million people defenseless from those who have no problem going to the suburbs getting a gun, then breaking the law by bringing the guns into the city to commit more crimes. And that is one of the biggest flaws with the anti-gun movement, murderers break laws, so if you're going to commit a murder, what consequence is it to you to also break the no hand gun law? When you really think about it, if you use a hand gun to shoot someone in Chicago, what is the point is punishing you for breaking the hand gun ban? So in that view point, breaking the law of no hand guns is almost unpunishable, since odds are, you won't know they have a hand gun until it's used.
2012-08-25 11:39:11 PM  
1 votes:

Alleyoop: Time travel? I would go back to 9/10/01 and arm some people.

[www.scottbieser.com image 540x540]


HERR DERR HAR'S WUT I WOODA DUN TO DEM DAR TERISTS!

I'm all for gun rights, but shiat like that is farking pathetic.
2012-08-25 11:33:23 PM  
1 votes:

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 11:29:06 PM  
1 votes:

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 11:11:42 PM  
1 votes:

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 11:10:32 PM  
1 votes:
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 11:07:34 PM  
1 votes:

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 11:07:29 PM  
1 votes:

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 11:07:07 PM  
1 votes:
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 10:58:44 PM  
1 votes:

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 10:58:31 PM  
1 votes:
... Guns already exist. It's pretty stupid to suggest that they shouldn't now.
2012-08-25 10:57:03 PM  
1 votes:
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 10:53:56 PM  
1 votes:
I think the writer plagiarized that from a middle school newspaper.
2012-08-25 10:52:12 PM  
1 votes:

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 10:52:10 PM  
1 votes:
Safety Not Guaranteed
2012-08-25 10:11:37 PM  
1 votes:
I'm not sure I even wanna RTFA. My brain already hurts.
 
Displayed 50 of 50 comments

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