Why are gun owners so defensive that they accuse anti-gun people of ridiculous lies?

[CavaliersFTW]

The basic political question here is should citizens be allowed to own and use firearms yes or no.

Gun owners constantly play the strawman card of "non gun owners, do you honestly believe guns kill people? Guns and bullets have no brains. They're just objects. Guns don't commit crimes, people do." Blah blah blah. As if anti-gun crowd aren't 100% aware of this.

It is insanely pathetic looking when the gun crowd resorts to arguing against straw men. Anti-gun crowd is pointing out the obvious. A gun offers extremely high lethality, with multiple projectiles, in a small portable package, and because it is legal it is widely accessible to obtain and keep. Of course guns don't have minds. That is dodging the point. It's far easier to kill someone with a gun, than with other tools and weapons such as knives, swords, baseball bats, or even cars. A gun will **** up potentially many more targets with far far greater precision and efficiency than other legal-to-own tools and equipment. By the pro-gun crowds ridiculous strawman argument "nuclear bombs aren't deadly, the people dropping them are! Why can't we all be trusted to own nuclear bombs as long as we use them fairly!" that's an exaggeration of their straw man counter argument.

Now on the flip side, the anti-gun crowd does of course need to understand that just like with illegal drugs, making guns illegal is NOT I repeat is NOT going to take guns off the street in the hands of bad people. But on the flip side again the gun crowd needs to understand it WILL still greatly reduce fatal shooting crimes. You'll have less incidents of those non-hardened criminal variety with no prior records "snapping" and purchasing a weapon conveniently followed by shooting up innocent people. A-la this recent news reporter incident. That guy probably never would have been able to obtain a firearm had firearms been illegal. That doesn't mean he wouldn't have tried to hurt people somehow. But he wouldn't have had a small highly efficient easy to conceal tool designed strictly for the purpose of killing humans at his disposal.

I'm perfectly okay with people in the U.S. owning guns by the way. I'm just tired of hearing defensive gun owners fail time after time to understand exactly what the anti-gun crowd is trying to argue. They KNOW guns don't have brains dipshits. It's just a ridiculously effective killing tool and it's quite ****ing obvious why its legality is in question.

[NumberSix]

I don't really care about what any of the arguments are. It's a simple matter of freedom. People have a right to protect themselves and not be completely dependant on the incompetent government for their safety.

[warriorfan]

For me personally it's fine if there are no guns. If shit ever goes bad I could get tribal on someone. If you are a 100 pound female on the other hand then it's open season on your ass and you might as well walk around with a sign that says free lunch.

[9erempiree]

I have to agree with the OP. While I believe everyone should own guns and be able to protect their family, we still need to adhere to stricter guidelines or tests before someone is able to purchase a firearm. Common sense and rationalization is what these pro-2nd amendment people don't understand. I love guns a lot but some of these owners out there make the sensible ones look bad.

Also, stricter gun laws from the government goes against their grain. Gun ownership is allowed to prevent tyranny so for a government to make stricter gun laws is like taking our freedom away.

If they can take our guns away then they can take anything you can possibly imagine.

Those are basically the two sides of the argument without bringing up the 'guns don't kill people...people kill people' argument.

[DaHeezy]

Humans being humans. Gun owners will hang onto any arguments to support their agendas. They're the 3ball's of gun owners

[KNOW1EDGE]

TLDR

Guns are dangerous. People are retards. Not a good combination

[ISHGoat]

Gun laws in the US are outdated; there is absolutely no need for civilians to own guns. Let us not forget that the right to bear arms was established in the 2nd Amendment which was drafted during the 18th century. This amendment was written so that states had the right to form a militia in case the federal government became tyrannical. Remember, this was when America first formed and was not a well established sovereign entity. Nobody really knew or trusted each other.

However, things are much different in contemporary times. Do you really think Obama or whoever gets elected in 2016 will become an evil dictator, and if so, do you really think some pistols and rifles will help you in the grand scheme of things?

[Patrick Chewing]

OP complains about gun owners, but doesn't complain about anti-gun people saying we need more gun enforcement when the system is the strictest in the most violent of cities.

Here is a list of the types of scenarios that prevent gun ownership:



Persons under indictment for, or convicted of, any crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding on year
Fugitives from justice
Persons who are unlawful users of, or addicted to, any controlled substance
Persons who have been declared by a court as mental defectives or have been committed to a mental institution
Illegal aliens, or aliens who were admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa
Persons who have been dishonorably discharged from the Armed Forces
Persons who have renounced their United States citizenship
Persons subject to certain types of restraining orders
Persons who have been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence


OP creates a thread about gun owners and fails to see who the bigger crybaby hypocrites are.

[CavaliersFTW]

OP complains about gun owners, but doesn't complain about anti-gun people saying we need more gun enforcement when the system is the strictest in the most violent of cities.

Here is a list of the types of scenarios that prevent gun ownership:



Persons under indictment for, or convicted of, any crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding on year
Fugitives from justice
Persons who are unlawful users of, or addicted to, any controlled substance
Persons who have been declared by a court as mental defectives or have been committed to a mental institution
Illegal aliens, or aliens who were admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa
Persons who have been dishonorably discharged from the Armed Forces
Persons who have renounced their United States citizenship
Persons subject to certain types of restraining orders
Persons who have been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence


OP creates a thread about gun owners and fails to see who the bigger crybaby hypocrites are.
Case in point, you.

I am all for gun ownership. But people who don't want guns to be legal AT ALL have solid reasoning behind it. It isn't about who's the bigger cry baby. They have a point, and it can't be taken away with logical fallacies and straw man arguments which pro-gun crowd often resorts to.

[GreggPopazit]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBOk1SnQ8uU

Watch the above. Entertaining and makes a shit load of sense. The point that is best is how much a black market gun costs in a place where guns are banned.

[Patrick Chewing]

Case in point, you.

I am all for gun ownership. But people who don't want guns to be legal AT ALL have solid reasoning behind it. It isn't about who's the bigger cry baby. They have a point, and it can't be taken away with logical fallacies and straw man arguments which pro-gun crowd often resorts to.


And what is this solid reasoning behind it??

The only counter-argument I've heard pro-gun people make is that it's our 2nd amendment right. That's it. They don't need to explain any further. So I don't know where you're getting this straw man nonsense.

[CavaliersFTW]

And what is this solid reasoning behind it??

The only counter-argument I've heard pro-gun people make is that it's our 2nd amendment right. That's it. They don't need to explain any further. So I don't know where you're getting this straw man nonsense.
It's a highly efficient, ranged, extremely portable killing tool.

You don't see that as a valid reason to question its legality? Really? lol.

[NumberSix]

It's a highly efficient, ranged, extremely portable killing tool.

You don't see that as a valid reason to question its legality? Really? lol.
No. Not really.

[CavaliersFTW]

No. Not really.
It's a pretty sound reason.

[Patrick Chewing]

It's a highly efficient, ranged, extremely portable killing tool.




That has been used to hunt and used in battle during wars. The bow and arrow was a highly efficient, ranged, extremely portable killing tool too.

King David killed Goliath with a slingshot. Samurai killed with swords. You dare question the efficiency and lethal power of these weapons? I could go on and on about weapons that have been used through time to kill.

But I think what you want is a complete elimination of weapons all together. And that's what spawns Totalitarian regimes. That's what spawns the Holocaust.

So if someone is using that pathetic excuse to eliminate guns, then that person is beyond an idiot. That's a person that does not understand how weapons have taken humanity from the stone age to the current age we are in today. That's a person that doesn't know what the **** they're talking about. Period.

[NumberSix]

It's a pretty sound reason.
What is?

[KnittingRyu]

I'm guessing grenades should be legal because them being efficient killing weapons not being a valid reason to ban them.

[CavaliersFTW]

That has been used to hunt and used in battle during wars. The bow and arrow was a highly efficient, ranged, extremely portable killing tool too.
Mentioning a less effective killing tool as if it is analogous to a gun doesn't work. A gun is exponentially more portable/lethal than a bow and arrow.

A gun is the most effective/lethal tool/device/weapon or w/e you want to call it that is legal in the United States. Thus its legality comes into question. For that very obvious reason.

Is it honestly this difficult to understand? :lol

[NumberSix]

I'm guessing grenades should be legal because them being efficient killing weapons not being a valid reason to ban them.
The 2nd amendment prohibits the government from abridging the people's right to own firearms. Not explosives.

[NumberSix]

Mentioning a less effective killing tool as if it is analogous to a gun doesn't work. A gun is exponentially more portable/lethal than a bow and arrow.

A gun is the most effective/lethal tool/device/weapon or w/e you want to call it that is legal in the United States. Thus its legality comes into question. For that very obvious reason.

Is it honestly this difficult to understand? :lol
The legality is not in question.

[CavaliersFTW]

What is?
The high lethality of the weapon/device/tool in question.

[CavaliersFTW]

The legality is not in question.
It is, actually.

[NumberSix]

It is, actually.
Not at all. It's settled law. The people have a right to keep and bear arms. End of story. Guns are legal. There's no question about that.

[Patrick Chewing]

Mentioning a less effective killing tool as if it is analogous to a gun doesn't work. A gun is exponentially more portable/lethal than a bow and arrow.




That wasn't your point you were trying to make. You were trying to say that the reason guns should be banned are because they are highly efficient, ranged, and extremely portable killing tools. I mean, that's what you said.

To which I retorted with, well, if you're going to consider the gun such a killing machine, lets not forget that the gun is simply an evolved concept that came from the previous weapons I mentioned. Which are....


Originally Posted by CavaliersFTW
a highly efficient, ranged, extremely portable killing tool.

Tadaaa!!


Just because guns are the cheaper, more useful alternative today does not negate the killing or hunting power of the sword, bow and arrow, slingshot, etc.

Also, you cannot ignore the most important fact that I mentioned in my previous post. That guns are responsible for the great, modern society in which we live in today. You cannot focus on the negative aspects of guns, and attempt to erase 500 years of responsible history with guns. It just doesn't work that way. Like I said, anyone who thinks they are wiser by propositioning a ban on guns, doesn't know jack shit about modern civilization.

[CavaliersFTW]

The 2nd amendment prohibits the government from abridging the people's right to own firearms. Not explosives.
And it came about in the round ball and musket era, when firearm technology was exponentially less lethal than today, in a country who's peoples and government were pretty unrecognizable compared to the one you see today.

Thus some people are quite reasonably suggesting amendment number two may be worth re-evaluating. After all, amendments are not set in stone.

[CavaliersFTW]

That wasn't your point you were trying to make. You were trying to say that the reason guns should be banned
Damn you are so defensive you don't even know what my stance is :oldlol:

[CavaliersFTW]

Not at all. It's settled law. The people have a right to keep and bear arms. End of story. Guns are legal. There's no question about that.
It's an amendment. Amendments can be changed.

[Dresta]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBOk1SnQ8uU

Watch the above. Entertaining and makes a shit load of sense. The point that is best is how much a black market gun costs in a place where guns are banned.
Maybe if you didn't get your opinions from comedians then they wouldn't be such stupid opinions.

[KNOW1EDGE]

It is, actually.

What makes you question whether or not guns are legal?

I think I can answer any questions you may have about the legality of guns.

[CavaliersFTW]

What makes you question whether or not guns are legal?

I think I can answer any questions you may have about the legality of guns.
I don't have questions about the *legality of guns.

This thread is about the defensiveness (some times to the point of delusion) of the pro-gun crowd. Which is on full display right now.

[NumberSix]

And it came about in the round ball and musket era, when firearm technology was exponentially less lethal than today, in a country who's peoples and government were pretty unrecognizable compared to the one you see today.

Thus some people are quite reasonably suggesting amendment number two may be worth re-evaluating. After all, amendments are not set in stone.
Do you people know anything about history? :wtf:

Before the 2nd amendment ever existed, there were already guns in the United States that could fire 22 bullets with a single trigger pull.

You people simply do not know what your talking about.

[Patrick Chewing]

Damn you are so defensive you don't even know what my stance is :oldlol:


With all due respect amigo, you created the thread.

I'm merely a former anti-gun advocate who's eyes were opened years ago when I visited a Holocaust museum in Miami Beach.


Plus, the ratio of violent gun crime to responsible use of a gun with rightful gun owners is beyond minuscule that all these gun arguments are quite silly in the grand scheme of things.

[NumberSix]

I don't have questions about the *legality of guns.

This thread is about the defensiveness (some times to the point of delusion) of the pro-gun crowd. Which is on full display right now.
Yeah, people usually get defensive when people are actively trying to take their rights away.

[KNOW1EDGE]

Yeah, people usually get defensive when people are actively trying to take their rights away.

Don't defend your rights. Let us take them from you. If you try to resist you are delusional.

[CavaliersFTW]

Do you people know anything about history? :wtf:

Before the 2nd amendment ever existed, there were already guns in the United States that could fire 22 bullets with a single trigger pull.

You people simply do not know what your talking about.
Not in a package that you could bring into a small room in a concealed fashion or purchased with a weekly paycheck. A device like you mention had to be lugged around by oxcart. Guns back then were not even close to the lethality, production numbers, and convenience of use of guns today. Not even close. A glock today is far more effective and versatile a killing tool than the device you bring up.

Why would you assume I do not know history on guns? Do you know I enjoy firearm history? Guns around when the 2nd amendment was created were exponentially less effective at killing people than guns of today.

[warriorfan]

I have a friend who lives in a bad part of town. His house has gotten broken into 3 times. He obviously has guns. What are you going to tell him when you take his guns away?

[CavaliersFTW]

Yeah, people usually get defensive when people are actively trying to take their rights away.
I know. That's why I made this thread, to put it on full display. To an objective person, the pro gun arguments sound extremely ridiculous. I stated I'm pro gun but I can at least see the points the anti gun crowd make, and they are very very valid. Some of the pro gun arguments against that anti gun crowd? Not so much.

The two most solid reasons for being "pro gun" is basically because you don't want a right taken away from you, and you like guns. That's it. There's nothing stronger than that on your side. The crowd that wants guns taken away have great points. The pro gun crowd gets so pissed that all that they tend to come up with are terrible analogies and strawman arguments.

[CavaliersFTW]

I have a friend who lives in a bad part of town. His house has gotten broken into 3 times. He obviously has guns. What are you going to tell him when you take his guns away?
Who said I want to take guns away? And what do people breaking into his house have to do with guns anyways. People are trying to rob him not shoot him.

[NumberSix]

Guns around when the 2nd amendment was created were exponentially less effective at killing people than guns of today.
I'm sure chainsaws are a lot more lethal than axes. I'm not particularly worried about chainsaws being legal.

[CavaliersFTW]

I'm sure chainsaws are a lot more lethal than axes. I'm not particularly worried about chainsaws being legal.
Because chainsaws are not as lethal as guns. This is the second time a *let's attempt to compare guns to something a lot less lethal* analogy has come up :oldlol:

[NumberSix]

Because chainsaws are not as lethal as guns. This is the second time a *let's attempt to compare guns to something a lot less lethal* analogy has come up :oldlol:
Why does how lethal they are matter?

[KNOW1EDGE]

Why does how lethal they are matter?

For the record, If the end result is death, I'm not going to be any more sad if my mom is killed by a gun or a chainsaw. Makes no difference to me

[CavaliersFTW]

Why does how lethal they are matter?
Why it matters in the minds of those opposed to the legality of civilian firearms is that in the hands of civilians things that are accessible and are effective at killing end up being used by those with intent to kill. Humans have and have always had a capacity to murder. Increasing the lethality and convenience of objects we civilians are allowed to access and possess is going to increase the success rate of those with intent to kill. It's a simple equation. And a simple reason to question the legality of highly lethal, and convenient killing devices. Such as guns.

Which are far more lethal than bows and arrows and chainsaws and the guns that existed when the 2nd amendment was initially created which were all mentioned in this thread.

[CavaliersFTW]

For the record, If the end result is death, I'm not going to be any more sad if my mom is killed by a gun or a chainsaw. Makes no difference to me
Another ridiculous thing said in this thread unbelievable :oldlol:

A chainsaw is a far less effective killing device than a gun. Think of how many ways you could kill someone with a chainsaw. Could you sneak up on someone? Could you kill them from range? Could you conceal it? All the practical limitations to it. Now think of how many ways you could kill someone with a small handgun, like say a glock.

A gun is exponentially more lethal than a chainsaw. My god I'm pro gun but honestly you guys suck at this you really do you are making pro gun people like myself look so bad :roll:

[CavaliersFTW]

You guys sound so ridiculous. I'm pro gun. I can tell you from an objective point of view, if you are pro gun here are your valid arguments:

*I don't want my rights to be taken away.

*I like guns.

That's it. Anything else and you start to sound ridiculous.

[Patrick Chewing]

I know. That's why I made this thread, to put it on full display. To an objective person, the pro gun arguments sound extremely ridiculous.


You mean subjective. An objective person would listen and study both sides and make an informed, unbiased opinion on the matter. You've stated on multiple occasions that pro-gun arguments are ridiculous, so I'm assuming you're looking at gun ownership and reasons for gun ownership from subjective lenses.

What is confusing is when you then say that you are pro-gun. I have given you valid reasons why people are pro-guns, and the most valid reason of them is that it is simply our right within the Constitution. No other reason really needs to be given. Pro-gun people are on the defensive because Liberals rant and rave about more gun control, but fail to understand that there are states with extreme gun control rules and yet people still shoot people. So the only solution to them would be a total banishment of guns. Hell would freeze over before that would ever happen. It is the furthest thing from reality.

[NumberSix]

Another ridiculous thing said in this thread unbelievable :oldlol:

A chainsaw is a far less effective killing device than a gun. Think of how many ways you could kill someone with a chainsaw. Could you sneak up on someone? Could you kill them from range? Could you conceal it? All the practical limitations to it. Now think of how many ways you could kill someone with a small handgun, like say a glock.

A gun is exponentially more lethal than a chainsaw. My god I'm pro gun but honestly you guys suck at this you really do you are making pro gun people like myself look so bad :roll:
It's probably easier to kill someone with a gun than with a dose of radioactive poison. I would hope you're sensible enough to understand that it's more reasonable for guns to be legal than for radioactive poison to be legal.

[KnittingRyu]

The 2nd amendment prohibits the government from abridging the people's right to own firearms. Not explosives.

Time for another amendment then.

[longtime lurker]

OP should just call it out for what it is. Republicans, right wing conservatives are spineless mouth breathers that don't have the ability to critically think for themselves. That's why they love candidates that tell them what to do. An overwhelming majority of Americans want stricter gun control laws and a majority of NRA members also want stricter gun control laws. However these idiot right wingers listen to the minority of politicians that are in the NRA's pocket. So instead of working towards a common good, they just repeat the some garbage that the government is going to "take errr gunz!!!" and no progress is made. While the gun manufacturers and NRA laugh all the way to the bank.

[Patrick Chewing]

OP should just call it out for what it is. Republicans, right wing conservatives are spineless mouth breathers that don't have the ability to critically think for themselves. That's why they love candidates that tell them what to do. An overwhelming majority of Americans want stricter gun control laws and a majority of NRA members also want stricter gun control laws. However these idiot right wingers listen to the minority of politicians that are in the NRA's pocket. So instead of working towards a common good, they just repeat the some garbage that the government is going to "take errr gunz!!!" and no progress is made. While the gun manufacturers and NRA laugh all the way to the bank.


Do you even know what the gun laws of this country already are?


Stop projecting.

[longtime lurker]

Do you even know what the gun laws of this country already are?


Stop projecting.

Have you ever had an original thought? Or do you just do what your overloads at Fox news tell you to?

[KNOW1EDGE]

What is the point of this discussion?

Does anyone have any ideas for a solution?
Do we even agree on the problem?

Some people think its a mental health and stupid people problem.

Some people think it's a gun problem.

It's probably a combination of both.

[Norcaliblunt]

Both the pro gun and anti gun crowds are obsessed with the idea and paranoid that someone is going to violently kill them. They just each have different methods on how to go about protecting themselves. I don't give a **** either way and will not live in fear.

[longtime lurker]

What is the point of this discussion?

Does anyone have any ideas for a solution?
Do we even agree on the problem?

Some people think its a mental health and stupid people problem.

Some people think it's a gun problem.

It's probably a combination of both.

Well the common sense approach is at a minimum increase psychological screening for gun ownership. Also there should be mandatory safety programs and training before you can become a licensed gun owner.

[UK2K]

Time for another amendment then.
" I don't like it, therefore, you can't have it. "

[Patrick Chewing]

Have you ever had an original thought? Or do you just do what your overloads at Fox news tell you to?


You're being defensive and verbally abusive towards people that do not share your same viewpoint. This is a Liberal tactic. You need counseling.

You should read up on my replies within this very thread. You will learn a thing or two.

[iamgine]

We should legalize guns but ban bullets.

[Bless Mathews]

It's a highly efficient, ranged, extremely portable killing tool.

You don't see that as a valid reason to question its legality? Really? lol.


All you retards are forgetting the main point

If the us made it illegal and 20 years in prison for possession of a gun, law abiding citizens wouldn't own any but ALL THE CRIMINALS STILL WOULDNT GIVE A FUCC AND WOULD BE OUT THERE SMILING EAR TO EAR KNOWING NO ONE ELSE HAD GUNS.

Y'all can't be that dumb.

I'm in Washington state. A convicted felon caught in possession of a firearm is doing 5 years. Period. No good time possible. 5 straight years. ALL my niggahs still doin dumb shit, ALL HAVE GUNS CUZ THEY DONT GIVE A FUCC.

you idiots really think the violent crackhead pistol whipper is all of a sudden gonna stop carrying his gun if there was a change to more strict gun laws??? The FUCC???

We need protection from them. If laws become more strict the only one with guns would be the worst of the worst criminals.

[KevinNYC]

But I think what you want is a complete elimination of weapons all together. And that's what spawns Totalitarian regimes.

This is an utter bullshit talking point. Iraq under Saddam had one of the highest level of gun ownerships in the world. Fully automatic ak-47 in private hands were commonplace. And yet he was still able to rule as brutal tyrant for decades.

Guns are not what prevents America from becoming a dictatorship.

[NumberSix]

What is the point of this discussion?

Does anyone have any ideas for a solution?
Do we even agree on the problem?

Some people think its a mental health and stupid people problem.

Some people think it's a gun problem.

It's probably a combination of both.
The reality that nobody wants to admit is that there is no solution. Crazy people and violent people will always exist. One of these people will snap and kill people from time to time. Get rid of all the guns then what? When a psycho snaps he'll stab or strangle someone instead. It's simply not worth it at the cost of removing everybody else's ability to protect themselves as they see fit.

I get that some of you would rather place your lives in the hands of the government, but others would rather be able to be responsible for their own safety. Maybe some of you think the government can take care of you better than you take care of yourself. Some of us think otherwise.

[KevinNYC]

Before the 2nd amendment ever existed, there were already guns in the United States that could fire 22 bullets with a single trigger pull.

What was the name of the revolutionary weapon?

How did it actually fire? Was it a flintlock?

[dude77]

Who said I want to take guns away? And what do people breaking into his house have to do with guns anyways. People are trying to rob him not shoot him.

:facepalm :facepalm :facepalm :facepalm :facepalm :facepalm :facepalm .. you have no clue what some scumbag's intentions are or what he will ultimately do when he breaks into your house .. nor should you be obliged to decipher it .. .. many burglaries/robberies have turned into homicides ..

if someone breaks into your house with bad intentions and you're not armed and they are, you're completely at their mercy .. fk that

[KnittingRyu]

" I don't like it, therefore, you can't have it. "

No, I meant "The right to bear explosives."

[Coach Eddie]

Oh noez! The govament wantz to takes away ourz gunz! How eva well we defendz owselfs frum govament newks and tanx?

[UK2K]

No, I meant "The right to bear explosives."
No you meant you don't like it so nobody can like it.

[SexSymbol]

only rednecks and men with low testosterone would even want to own a gun.
The vast majority of people in europe do not own guns, don't think about it and we're as civilized as can be.
Stop living in the past, this isn't medieval times where another farmer will come threatening your family to steal your focking corn.

[Patrick Chewing]

only rednecks and men with low testosterone would even want to own a gun.
The vast majority of people in europe do not own guns, don't think about it and we're as civilized as can be.
Stop living in the past, this isn't medieval times where another farmer will come threatening your family to steal your focking corn.


And Europe has had leaders like Mussolini, Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, and Milosevic. Did I miss anyone?

And now Europe is flooded with undesirable Muzzies. Far from civilized.

[I<3NBA]

gun ownership is fine. it's the ease by which psychos get them which is the problem.

it should be mandatory that if you're buying a gun, you and everyone in your household old enough to hold it should undergo a psychiatric exam. and only if everyone passes should you be sold a gun.

then, if your gun is proved to have been used in a crime, even if it wasn't you who used it, you should be liable for criminal negligence and the penalty should be jail not less than half of what the guy who used your gun will get.

plus, the store who sold the gun should be closed, pay the victims damages, and pay all the funeral costs. end of story.

[UK2K]

only rednecks and men with low testosterone would even want to own a gun.
The vast majority of people in europe do not own guns, don't think about it and we're as civilized as can be.
Stop living in the past, this isn't medieval times where another farmer will come threatening your family to steal your focking corn.

http://s14.postimg.org/9q7oea8bl/IMG_20150815_131017765.jpg

You're welcome for saving your ass. Twice.

'merica

[Patrick Chewing]

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y3/Babich4000/11139386_922053504528864_8399129952382546183_n_zps s5lrixz5.jpg


Hold this L, Liberals.


:lol

[ballup]

People say whatever they can to give them more points in an argument. It's not anything exclusive to the debate of gun control.

[9erempiree]

Maybe if you didn't get your opinions from comedians then they wouldn't be such stupid opinions.
:lol

Too easy.

[9erempiree]

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y3/Babich4000/11139386_922053504528864_8399129952382546183_n_zps s5lrixz5.jpg


Hold this L, Liberals.


:lol

Too easy.

Black, gay and gunman.