Redneck shoots up Pensacola with AK-47

[mistermack]

They often refuse to obtain Social Security cards or register their vehicles, and they won't carry driver's licenses or use ZIP codes.

I don't suppose he was keen on gun licences then!

Seriously, this is what happens when you don't allow kids to take their machine guns to school. They don't learn responsible gun ownership.

Every american kid should carry a machine gun. Then you wouldn't get all these shootings.
.

Yeah, it's a shame this guy was able to get a gun. If he hadn't been able to get a gun, he never would have been able to find a way to damage that seafood market.

It would take a lot more nerve.
Any sad wanker can get drunk and pull a trigger. You can do it at a distance, at high speed, as this hero did.
If you try to do the same with a gasoline can, you might end up on fire yourself, or getting the shit beaten out of you.
Lots of people turn into heroes, when they have a machine gun, and the other people have nothing.

[Wumbologist]

It would take a lot more nerve.
Any sad wanker can get drunk and pull a trigger. You can do it at a distance, at high speed, as this hero did.
If you try to do the same with a gasoline can, you might end up on fire yourself, or getting the shit beaten out of you.
Lots of people turn into heroes, when they have a machine gun, and the other people have nothing.

I agree completely. We should ban all guns, so that way nobody will be able to get a gun ever. And, if nobody ever has a gun, then bad things will stop happening.

[Gallstones]

It would take a lot more nerve.
Any sad wanker can get drunk and pull a trigger. You can do it at a distance, at high speed, as this hero did.
If you try to do the same with a gasoline can, you might end up on fire yourself, or getting the shit beaten out of you.
Lots of people turn into heroes, when they have a machine gun, and the other people have nothing.

I agree completely. We should ban all guns, so that way nobody will be able to get a gun ever. And, if nobody ever has a gun, then bad things will stop happening.

That won't be enough. We have to ban knives and spray paint and salad bars too.

And flintknapping.

And dangerous breeds of dog like toy poodles.

[mistermack]

It would take a lot more nerve.
Any sad wanker can get drunk and pull a trigger. You can do it at a distance, at high speed, as this hero did.
If you try to do the same with a gasoline can, you might end up on fire yourself, or getting the shit beaten out of you.
Lots of people turn into heroes, when they have a machine gun, and the other people have nothing.

I agree completely. We should ban all guns, so that way nobody will be able to get a gun ever. And, if nobody ever has a gun, then bad things will stop happening.

I can assure you, that nobody would get shot. Or shoot themselves. Or get mugged by someone with a gun.
Just because antibiotics don't cure ALL diseases, that is no reason to stop using them.
Likewise, guns don't cause ALL violent deaths, but that's no reason not to ban them.
.

[Wumbologist]

It would take a lot more nerve.
Any sad wanker can get drunk and pull a trigger. You can do it at a distance, at high speed, as this hero did.
If you try to do the same with a gasoline can, you might end up on fire yourself, or getting the shit beaten out of you.
Lots of people turn into heroes, when they have a machine gun, and the other people have nothing.

I agree completely. We should ban all guns, so that way nobody will be able to get a gun ever. And, if nobody ever has a gun, then bad things will stop happening.

I can assure you, that nobody would get shot. Or shoot themselves. Or get mugged by someone with a gun.
Just because antibiotics don't cure ALL diseases, that is no reason to stop using them.
Likewise, guns don't cause ALL violent deaths, but that's no reason not to ban them.
.

You're absolutely right, and I don't know why other people don't understand this. I mean, nobody ever got killed before guns were invented, so obviously if we banned them (which makes it so that nobody can ever get one), it would go back to being that way.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Who wouldn't want their daughter to date a likely looking lad like Larry Wayne?

[mistermack]

You're absolutely right, and I don't know why other people don't understand this. I mean, nobody ever got killed before guns were invented, so obviously if we banned them (which makes it so that nobody can ever get one), it would go back to being that way.

You seem to be arguing that if an action doesn't fix everything, it's not worth doing.
That's obviously wrong, and plain silly. Is that really your best argument?
If you follow that logic, it would be a waste of time banning plastic explosives.
Because people could still get stabbed.
Or nerve gas. Because people might still get hit with a baseball bat.

[Pensioner]

Well I could fart in your face and then I would be charged with assault with a deadly smell.

[mistermack]

Well I could fart in your face and then I would be charged with assault with a deadly smell.

I think dirty bombs are banned under the Geneva Convention.
Even Hitler didn't do that.
.

[Wumbologist]

You seem to be arguing that if an action doesn't fix everything, it's not worth doing.
That's obviously wrong, and plain silly. Is that really your best argument?
If you follow that logic, it would be a waste of time banning plastic explosives.
Because people could still get stabbed.
Or nerve gas. Because people might still get hit with a baseball bat.

Nah, it just looked to me like you were playing the "Let's make absurd parodies out of any opinion differing from mine" game, and I figured I'd join in, because it's a fun one to play.

YOU seem to be arguing that banning guns will lower violent crime, and therefore, guns should be banned. Unfortunately, despite the best efforts of many people I've debated on this very topic, nobody has ever been able to prove a causative link between legal firearms ownership and violent crime. The common refrain is "Well, America has a high homicide rate, and it has guns, so there!". Unfortunately, correlation does not imply causation. We can find examples of nations with high gun ownership rates and low violent crime (Switzerland), and we can find examples of nations where guns are completely illegal without exception (Jamaica), with extreme levels of violent crime. Even in the US, we can find a scattering of states with low gun ownership and high violent crime, high gun ownership and low violent crime, low gun ownership and high gun crime, and low gun ownership and low gun crime.

When people drive drunk and something bad happens because of it, should we ban the car, or the alcohol?

[Pensioner]

You seem to be arguing that if an action doesn't fix everything, it's not worth doing.
That's obviously wrong, and plain silly. Is that really your best argument?
If you follow that logic, it would be a waste of time banning plastic explosives.
Because people could still get stabbed.
Or nerve gas. Because people might still get hit with a baseball bat.

Nah, it just looked to me like you were playing the "Let's make absurd parodies out of any opinion differing from mine" game, and I figured I'd join in, because it's a fun one to play.

YOU seem to be arguing that banning guns will lower violent crime, and therefore, guns should be banned. Unfortunately, despite the best efforts of many people I've debated on this very topic, nobody has ever been able to prove a causative link between legal firearms ownership and violent crime. The common refrain is "Well, America has a high homicide rate, and it has guns, so there!". Unfortunately, correlation does not imply causation. We can find examples of nations with high gun ownership rates and low violent crime (Switzerland), and we can find examples of nations where guns are completely illegal without exception (Jamaica), with extreme levels of violent crime. Even in the US, we can find a scattering of states with low gun ownership and high violent crime, high gun ownership and low violent crime, low gun ownership and high gun crime, and low gun ownership and low gun crime.

When people drive drunk and something bad happens because of it, should we ban the car, or the alcohol?

Silly cunt ban the car.

[mistermack]

YOU seem to be arguing that banning guns will lower violent crime, and therefore, guns should be banned. Unfortunately, despite the best efforts of many people I've debated on this very topic, nobody has ever been able to prove a causative link between legal firearms ownership and violent crime.

Well, I'm really arguing that guns should be banned because their purpose, unlike the car, is to kill people without effort.
And machine guns are for killing lots of people very quickly. Just like high explosives and nerve gas.
So it seems obvious to me that they should be banned. It might take a long time to pay off, but it's still the right thing to do. And the payoff would probably last equally as long.
We should be making it harder for people to kill each other, not easier.
It's exactly a year since a guy went mental in the north of England, and killed a couple of dozen people with legal weapons.
All he had to do was gently sqeeze a trigger.
No way would that happen if he went out with a knife. Guns make complete wankers dangerous. In fact, the less the intelligence, the more dangerous the gunman.

[Gallstones]

I'm pretty intelligent so I get to keep my guns. In fact, take guns away from the stupid and give them to me.

[Geoff]

I'm pretty intelligent so I get to keep my guns. In fact, take guns away from the stupid and give them to me.

Now that's a gun law I could happily support!

[Gallstones]

Sarah Palin?

She's pointed towards the camera and HAS HER FINGER ON THE TRIGGER!
Her eye doesn't even look like it's lined up behind the scope.

She's faking.

Oh wait. This means I get to have her gun.