File: How Many Bodies.swf-(3.08 MB, 848x480, Loop)
[_] Anon 2660072 Marked for deletion (old).
>> [_] Anon 2660141 score one for blaming the wrong problem... bad parenting
>> [_] Anon 2660144 itt liberal propaganda
>> [_] Anon 2660163 >># https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FABuouuB wpg
>> [_] Anon 2660165 >># >Not knowing that they're advocating for a new high score.
>> [_] Anon 2660166 All the bodies!
>> [_] Anon 2660198 Muh chilluns
>> [_] Anon 2660199 > hysterical cunts for authoritarian action this shit doesn't even register statistically
>> [_] Anon 2660227 >># incredibly unfunny
>> [_] Anon 2660233 #include <stdio.h> int main() { int i; for (i=1; i<=4; i++) { printf("%d\n\n", i); printf("NOTHING WRONG WITH ME\n"); } return 0; }

File: How Many Bodies.swf-(3.08 MB, 848x480, Loop)
[_] sandy hoax 2014 when are you Anon 2419154
>> [_] Anon 2419156 guaranteed_replies.swf
>> [_] Anon 2419159 guaranteed_edge.mov
>> [_] Anon 2419205 guaranteed_OP IS A FAGGOT.mp4

Unrecognized thread format. [a/b/c/d/e/f/g/gif/h/ hr/k/m/o/p/r/s/t/u/v/ vg/vr/w/wg][i/ic][r9k][s4s][cm/ hm/lgbt/y][3/adv/an/asp/biz/cgl/ ck/co/diy/fa/fit/gd/hc/int/jp/ lit/mlp/mu/n/out/po/pol/sci/soc/ sp/tg/toy/trv/tv/vp/wsg/x][Settings] [Home] Board ▼ Settings Home [IMG]/f/ - Flash __ [Advertise on 4chan] __ Return Bottom Refresh Post a Reply [Post a Reply] Name __ E-mail __ Post Comment __ Verification Start typing to load the verification image. IFRAME: //www.google.com/recaptcha/api/noscript? k=6Ldp2bsSAAAAAAJ5uyx_lx34lJeEpTLVkP5k04qc __ 4chan Pass users can bypass this verification. [Learn More] [Login] * Please read the rules and FAQ before posting. * Supported file types are: SWF * Maximum file size allowed is 10240 KB. * Check out the 4chan Flash archive! __ [Return] [Bottom] __ Anon best flash of 201406/01/14(Sun)17:37 2402481 File: How Many Bodies.swf-(3.08 MB, 848x480, Loop) [_] best flash of 2014 Anon 2402481 Marked for deletion (old). >> Anon 2402493 [_] Anon 2402493 >># your rights end where my feelings begin >> Anon 2402498 [_] Anon 2402498 >># >my feeling safe about fantasy fight-the-government bullshit is more important than other people feeling safe about actual repeated mass murders muh gun nut feelins >> Anon 2402501 [_] Anon 2402501 >># guns don't kill people niggers do >> Anon 2402505 [_] Anon 2402505 >># well that's true, because white guys just sit in their house jerking off about the guys and crying when they can't buy all of the toys except the ones that go on murder sprees >> John Moses Browning 2402510 [_] John Moses Browning 2402510 >># ..with illegaly obtained guns which gang members also use. So if you aren't going to move your cracker ass to the ghetto and disarm the Crips than don't even start with gun control, because it won't work. >> Anon 2402519 [_] Anon 2402519 >people still thinking stricter gun regulation is the same as banning guns >people being freedumshurt about it y'know that even in countries with stricter gun regulation people that need em can legally obtain em, right? You know that the state knowing precisely who owns how many guns can be a good thing, right? >> Anon 2402530 [_] Anon 2402530 >># no its more like >People want more gun regulaton >Few years later >want more >more >...and more >No more guns. They want the whole cake, not a slice. I don't think you understand how long it took us in canada land to get rid of the long-gun registry. >> Anon 2402543 [_] Anon 2402543 >># Ban all the guns or ban none of the guns. When the cops and the military turn theirs in, you can have mine. >Aggression? Terrorism? War crimes? Not when we do it, lol >Prepare for FREEDOM, bitch >> Anon 2402548 [_] Anon 2402548 Oh, and the knives, ban the knives too. Because knife crime will be a major thing without guns (see England). And swimming pools, too. Those kill lots of kids every year, too. >> Anon 2402550 [_] Anon 2402550 >Let's make guns against the law >That way criminals will respect that and won't get them! That's the first, most obvious point. Just to touch on some other points lightly: >The vast majority of shootings are done with handguns, not the big scary rifles that everyone wants to ban >If there's a shooting and the police are the ones to intervene, the death count is statistically something like 12 or 14. If an armed citizen stops it, it's a bit over 2 >An armed populace is a major threat to any authoritarian government. That's why without exception, stable shitholes that have one lifelong dictator never allow the citizens to be armed. Tanks cannot enforce laws in cities, they can only shell them to shit >Gun laws are only remotely effective in geographically isolated countries, such as Australia or other well patrolled island nations. They're infamously ineffective in any country with borders I'm sure I'm leaving out a bunch. Lurk /k/ to get the full rundown with citations. >> Anon 2402555 [_] Anon 2402555 >># Don't swimming pools cause something like five times the number of deaths a year? You don't NEED a swimming pool. I bet you go home and stroke the cleaning pole as you use it to compensate for your tiny penis. >> Anon 2402556 [_] Anon 2402556 0.00007% of the population have committed a mass killing (Not just shootings) since 2006 (Based on US census data, and a map of mass killings from 2006-current by USA Today following the FBI's 4 victims minimum rule). Numbers kills the "Lets pass more gun laws because mass shooters" argument. They're not even a blip on the radar. More people are killed on the road in a day or two than in a whole year by mass shooters. You might as well be shaving the heads of half your neighborhood because you got a single grey hair. Punishing over 315 MILLION people with further infringements upon their constitutionally guaranteed rights for the actions of maybe a couple hundred psychos is unacceptable and wrong. Most mass shooters go into it expecting their own death as a result, your punishments for broken laws mean nothing to them. Pretty sure a guy going out and murdering people wouldn't care anyways, murder is also against the law after all and he's breaking that pretty hard. >> Anon 2402558 [_] Anon 2402558 >># You cannot honestly think that American is authoritarian. Our government can't even come to a consensus on health care. So many of our politicians are bought and paid for by lobbyists and special interests it's starting to look like a cheap puppet show. >> Anon 2402562 [_] Anon 2402562 I just have to ask all the people that are against gun regulation; how many people need to die before you think about changing something? >> Anon 2402564 [_] Anon 2402564 >># >Ban all the guns or ban none of the guns. >When the cops and the military turn theirs in, you can have mine. You mean those people with all the tanks, money, nuclear weapons, international agreements to borrow military strength, jet bombers, stealth drones, grenades, etc? Yeah, I'm sure your 9mm will stop them. >> Anon 2402566 [_] Anon 2402566 >># And you think these special interests want people to be armed while they fuck us without lube? Any half decent risk/cost analysis says that if you can control the government as it relates to you and remove the ability for outside objection, the profit is worth it. They've already killed net neutrality, which just so happens to give Comcast complete control over most of the communication in the US. The only reason gun laws aren't going down as quickly is because if they forced it, they would meet heavy resistance from people who are armed and willing to fight to stay that way. >> Anon 2402567 [_] Anon 2402567 >># See >># >> Anon 2402570 [_] Anon 2402570 Only cops should own guns, and generally speaking people should have to live in heavily regulated gated communities. >> Anon 2402571 [_] Anon 2402571 >># Yeah, but the thing about knives or swimming pools is that they dont come in fully automatic versions for mowing down crowds. No one is strapping themselves up with kitchen knifes and throwing them into the audience at a cinema, and combat-water is a phenomenon thus far restricted to the buggier parts of Dwarf Fortress adventure mode. >> Anon 2402572 [_] Anon 2402572 Kek, fucking muricans are removing their own fangs by themselves, pathetic. >> Anon 2402573 [_] Anon 2402573 >># Fun Fact: Knifes are actually more regulated than guns in the U.S. It's easier to get a handgun than it is to get a switchblade, and carrying a concealed knife in public is a felony in most states. Cars are also more regulated than guns. >> Anon 2402575 [_] Anon 2402575 >># >tanks Can't enforce laws. >money Can't buy off everyone. >nuclear weapons Can't enforce laws. international agreements to borrow military strength Can't enforce laws. >jet bombers Can't enforce laws. >stealth drones Can't enforce laws. >grenades Can't enforce laws. This isn't CoD "kill everyone to win" war. If the government were to attack us with most of these, they would completely lose the area and most national support of their actions. Ruling with an iron fist has always been retarded because you can only scare people for so long before you're killing your own supply lines. >> Anon 2402576 [_] Anon 2402576 >># Yet swimming pools still seem to manage to kill far more people than guns. There's no legitimate reason to own a swimming pool outside of entertainment, not even for self defense. Why are you banning guns when more innocent people and far more children are the victims of swimming pools just because some fucker with money wants to take a large bath? >> Anon 2402579 [_] Anon 2402579 >># That song is so overused that it looks it's making fun of all those shootings, like some edgy kid put it together or something, everything looks fucking stupid with song. >> Anon 2402582 [_] Anon 2402582 >># The original commercial didn't have that song. This flash is something put together by an edgy kid to make fun of anti-gun activists. >> Anon 2402585 [_] Anon 2402585 >># We're not even coming close to 1% of the population each year. Even if it somehow went up to 35k-63k deaths you'd still only get ~0.01%. You'd have to kill 3,200,000 to even get ~1% of the population. >> Anon 2402587 [_] Anon 2402587 >># And yet, in spite of those regulations, cars still kill more people than guns. It's almost like even the strongest regulations can't stop irresponsible car ownership. Only thing that will work is shutting all the car factories down, which has taken the left-wing leadership of Detroit nearly fifty years to accomplish, and still failed to make our country a bicycle-riding utopia. >> Anon 2402588 [_] Anon 2402588 >># This, why do you NEED an assault pool? Fucking pedo terrorist poolnut >> Anon 2402590 [_] Anon 2402590 >># >easier to get a handgun than a switchblade I can walk to big five and get a spring assisted folding knife right now for less than 40 bucks and walk right out the door with it. I can also walk to the same big five and purchase an antique or hunting rifle, fill out a form allowing the BATFE to run a background check on me, give the california government 25 dollars to keep record of a gun being sold, register that gun, wait 10 days, and then come back to the same big 5 and walk out the door with it. >> Anon 2402592 [_] Anon 2402592 >># >># BAN ASSAULT POOLS HOW MANY CHILDREN NEED TO DIE BEFORE WE FINALLY REALIZE HOW EVIL POOLS ARE? WE ARE MOTHERS THAT DEMAND ACTION, GOD FORBID MY POOR SWEET BABY GOES TO YOUR HOUSE AND DROWNS IN THE POOL FROM YOUR MUDEREST NEED TO HAVE AN ASSAULT POOL >> Anon 2402597 [_] Anon 2402597 >># >I can walk to big five and get a spring assisted folding knife right now for less than 40 bucks and walk right out the door with it. >buying a $40 dollar knife >not waiting for it to go on sale next week nigga are you even a part of our e-teams >> Anon 2402598 [_] Anon 2402598 >># >full auto uhhhhhhh >> Anon 2402599 [_] Anon 2402599 >># >spring assisted folding knife There is a specific legal definition for "swtichblade" regarding how the blade locks and the opening mechanism. If you can buy it at big five, it's not a switchblade, because those are banned in California. Yet other types of blades that have safety mechanisms and are designed for uses other than stabbing people are still legal. It's almost as if we can ban some things and not others. Yet gun nuts continue to insist that having any gun laws at all means we're going to ban everything. >> Anon 2402600 [_] Anon 2402600 >># This. The saying is. "If you don't have boots on it. You don't own it." >> Anon 2402606 [_] Anon 2402606 >># >I don't think you understand how long it took us in canada land to get rid of the long-gun registry. Hahaha, have you been keeping up with current events? The RCMP kept the registry after being ordered to get rid of it, and then used it to illegally confiscate guns in abandoned homes after the floods in alberta forced evacuations. The conservatives are pretending to make a fuss about it, but they don't actually give a damn about firearms anymore than the liberals do. Disarmament and firearm confiscation is very likely within the next few years in Canada. >> Anon 2402608 [_] Anon 2402608 >># This video does not even contain an AR15. It contains a fully automatic M4A1. >> Anon 2402612 [_] Anon 2402612 >># >if you are against the stupid anti-gun pro-dictate you are edgy D : >> Anon 2402613 [_] Anon 2402613 >># And fully automatic firearms were banned in the United States in 1986. The only full autos left are ones from before 1986, and due to the lack of supply they cost over $15000 for an M16. >> CalimariGod 2402616 [_] CalimariGod 2402616 >># >adventure mode water combat I hadnt heard of this, how does one weaponize water? I wasnt aware you could carry enough of it to make anything that would be physically present? >> Anon 2402624 [_] Anon 2402624 >># Pumps and/or floodgates. If some fucking elephants or some shit tries to fuck with you, go Moses on their asses. >> Anon 2402632 [_] Anon 2402632 who remembers the los angeles riots. another good reason to own a gun >> Anon 2402637 [_] Anon 2402637 >># Are you ignorant as well as stupid? Automatic weapons were never banned in the US; their MANUFACTURE was. They can still be imported, sold, and owned. It's a moot point anyway. The day ba public gun gan goes into effect is the day you'll be killed during a home invasion by someone ignoring the ban, and you'll have no legal way to defend yourself. >> Anon 2402640 [_] Anon 2402640 >># >muh slippery slope >> Anon 2402643 [_] Anon 2402643 To tell you the truth. I would blame the economy and the individuals need to mow down numerous people with assault rifles. Now why would people do this? Is it because they are evil? Is it because they were taken over by satan? No, NO! its because they are miserable. You think taking away the weapon from their hands will solve the problem? You think thats going to stop these helpless people who kill because they have nothing to lose? The real problem is the problem that no one wants to address or don't have the ability to fix. >> Anon 2402645 [_] Anon 2402645 >># happened to a lot of places, so it's not unfounded >> Anon 2402649 [_] Anon 2402649 >># What is California and the north eastern blue states? >> Anon 2402653 [_] Anon 2402653 >># And which states have the most gun deaths per capita? >> Anon 2402655 [_] Anon 2402655 Hey guys, if you could go ahead and outlaw guns, that'd be great. I mean, I was planning a school shooting, but if you're gonna ban the guns SOON, I'll just wait until I know nobody at school could stop me. >> Anon 2402656 [_] Anon 2402656 This whole issue would be a lot easier to manage if people weren't so fucked in the head to begin with >> Anon 2402660 [_] Anon 2402660 >># Has a civilian ever actually stopped a shooting like that? >> Anon 2402661 [_] Anon 2402661 >># Legitimately interested. That sounds like an awesome premise for a 1v1 game. >> Anon 2402662 [_] Anon 2402662 Oh god, this flash/thread again >> Anon 2402664 [_] Anon 2402664 >># Actually, yes. First result for "civilian stops mass shooting": http://www.buzzfeed.com/ryanhatesthis/10 -potential-mass-shootings-that-were-stopp ed-by-someone-wit >> Anon 2402665 [_] Anon 2402665 >># I like how the gun grabbers will just skip over a good point like this, and go on arguing about the next thing they can find a rebuttal for. >> Anon 2402666 [_] Anon 2402666 ITT: GUARANTEED REPLIES THE FLASH >> Anon 2402667 [_] Anon 2402667 I don't remember Minneapolis' school shooting and I live there, do they mean Red Lake? >> Anon 2402668 [_] Anon 2402668 >># That get >> Anon 2402669 [_] Anon 2402669 >># Yes. By the mere possibility of a civilian also having a gun, they have stopped many criminals who thought better of it before any crime was committed or shot was fired. You know, some people put up a sign in their yard to advertize that they have a security system. You ever wonder why nobody puts up a sign saying they have no security system? Or that they're anti-gun-ownership? >> Anon 2402673 [_] Anon 2402673 >># When you fill a container with a liquid, you pick up units of that liquid. You can then THROW these liquid units to inflict injury upon your foes. You want to have a lot of strength / throwing skill to do this though. Ever hear about that guy who killed a hydra by pelting it with dozens of cockroaches? That's what playing a master thrower is like. >> Anon 2402674 [_] Anon 2402674 >># >my feeling safe against "mass shootings" is more important than being able to defend against home invaders or some crazy fuck with a knife >inb4 B-but those things don't happen very often! Without looking anything up, order these in terms of most per year to fewest: A. Mass shootings with rifles B. Mass shootings with handguns C. Gun murders D. Murders with other objects (knives, blunt force trama, etc.) E. Breaking and entering cases F. Rapes >> Anon 2402689 [_] Anon 2402689 >># Not using suicides to fluff the numbers it's usually those crazy gun control states. Example of why counting suicides is bullshit: Idaho has almost no murders or other man on man killings by firearm but when you tie in suicides suddenly there's a ton of "gun deaths" in the State and it looks terrible. You're creating a "Gun violence issue" by using self inflicted fatalities. What's worse is some anti-gun groups tack on injuries and deaths with a firearm nearby but not used as "Gun deaths". >># Clackamas Mall is a fine example of a foiled mass shooting, shooter was even a /b/tard. Guy merely aimed his glawk at the shooter while he was clearing a jam and then went and became an hero in a back room as a result. Pretty much every mass shooting but a few of them have taken place in gun free zones where it's illegal to shoot back because it's illegal to have a gun there in the first place. >> Anon 2402691 [_] Anon 2402691 >># From most to least occurring. E, F, D, C, B, A not the same anon >> Anon 2402692 [_] Anon 2402692 Instead of posting in this shit thread you niggers should be posting porn >> Anon 2402695 [_] Anon 2402695 >># >shooter was even a /b/tard. Guy merely aimed his glawk at the shooter while he was clearing a jam and then went and became an hero in a back room as a result hehehhe __ [Return] [Top] __ Post a Reply Return Top Refresh __ [Advertise on 4chan] __ Delete Post: [ [_] File Only] Delete [BUTTON] Style: [Yotsuba..] [a/b/c/d/e/f/g/gif/h/ hr/k/m/o/p/r/s/t/u/v/ vg/vr/w/wg][i/ic][r9k][s4s][cm/ hm/lgbt/y][3/adv/an/asp/biz/cgl/ ck/co/diy/fa/fit/gd/hc/int/jp/ lit/mlp/mu/n/out/po/pol/sci/soc/ sp/tg/toy/trv/tv/vp/wsg/x] [Settings] [Home] [Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site] [Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site] All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.

File: How Many Bodies.swf-(3.08 MB, 848x480, Other)
[_] Anon 2385957 Marked for deletion (old).
>> [_] Anon 2385963 if only someone could stop them oh wait i fucking can't because you took my fucking gun
>> [_] Anon 2385966 >Holding the gun by the fucking magazine come on now.
>> [_] Anon 2385973 >># >calling a clip a magazine Get a load of this gun expert.
>> [_] Anon 2385978 Here's a little food for thought. Why make gun control laws if criminals break laws? Straight from the mouth of my friend's 6 year old son. If he can figure it out, why can't shithead politicians? Like some psychotic asshole is gonna be like "well, I was gonna go shoot up a school, but now i can't cuz they won't let me bring my gun into the building!". Seriously, da fuq?
>> [_] Anon 2385980 >># The idea is to keep them from getting their hands on assault rifles in the first place. Why do we have stricter laws on car ownership than gun ownership?
>> [_] Anon 2385993 >># >calling a magazine a clip Get a load of this gun expert. Actually holding and M4 by the mag well is just fine. The real offender was the M14, well really it's crappy mag lock.
>> [_] noko 2385994 >># HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Holy shit, activist moms are a thing.
>> [_] Anon 2385995 >># probably because cars kill three times as many people per year than guns do
>> [_] Anon 2385996 >># Thinking that a magazine is a clip; get a load of this absolute failure to make an accurate correction.
>> [_] Anon 2385997 >># fucking WRECKED
>> [_] Anon 2385999 >># >scary assault rifles Like 3 times as many mass shootings are done with a pistol than with a rifle you faggot. Also, the same concept applies. I've had the opportunity to buy guns illegally numerous times if I'd wanted. >># >># >/k/ >understanding sarcasm
>> [_] Anon 2386005 Man you Americans really get butthurt about your guns. >># So according to that logic, you shouldn't have any laws at all because criminals break them? Yeah, does sound like a six year old came up with that.
>> [_] Anon 2386006 >># no, you just shouldn't have stupid prohibition laws because criminals break them
>> [_] Anon 2386017 >># Yes, but that's true for both sides of the argument. Anti-gunners are almost always just as if not more assblasted whenever the subject comes up. Just look at this flash.
>> [_] Anon 2386019 >># because mass shootings with literally any other firearm just don't count
>> [_] Anon 2386020 >># We banned alcohol and that didnt stop criminals from getting it. In fact it made them a shit ton of money running it.
>> [_] Anon 2386022 >># A law whose enforcement is nearly impossible and while jeopardizing the safety of those whom it seeks to protect is a danger to the populace, not a helpful one. Prohibition, as >># mentions, is one of those cases. It proved impossible to end the alcohol trade, while helping the proliferation of criminal organizations, which now could make a profit out of what was a common and relatively uninteresting industry. A law that makes it prohibitively difficult for the general populace to acquire a self-defense weapon is similar, as it would likely be unlikely to properly regulate the flow of illegal firearms, especially with the advent of 3D printing and the ability of organized crime cartels to manufacture their own weapons (hell, look on /k/--there's usually a thread about homemade firearms). So, in conclusion, we would introduce a law that would be essentially unenforceable while depriving the citizenry of the means to defend themselves.
>> [_] Anon 2386023 >># When our government's police force is powerful enough to intercept all the individual smugglers, drug dealers and meth factories and put an end to the drugs trade I'm sure they'll be able to do the same with guns, and at that time I would gladly accede to these laws. But at that point our law enforcement agencies would have been given the leeway to abrogate so many right privileges we should have opposed and be powerful enough that there would be no point in protest anyway.
>> [_] Anon 2386024 I thought it was a pro school shooting video made by and angsty teen not a moms agaisnt guns
>> [_] Anon 2386026 There's something about the mechanical action of guns that get's me hard, the physicality of them is just so beautiful in this world dominated by tiny forces. Laser weaponry and other shit is cool, but there's something very human about using explosives and a mechanical system to propel pieces of metal at super sonic speeds.
>> [_] Anon 2386027 >># It's like you think that the amount of people who do shootings now literally /would not change/ even a bit if guns were much, much harder to obtain legally. No one is arguing that guns (note: I'm for /all/ guns being harder to obtain. Maybe not impossible, but not just assault rifles) will be completely barren if banned and made nigh unobtainable barring a few exceptions, but there's no way the number of shootings simply would not go down. Just because a criminal breaks the law in the first place does not mean they could if proper preventatives are used. (1/2)
>> [_] Anon 2386028 >># (2/2) Also, if anyone comes in here trying to say "why not ban cars and knives" I'm going to shit down your throat. Cars have an intended /benign/ purpose. Yes, it's stupidity in the end, but cars aren't meant to kill. Knives also have other non-murder related uses, and the thing about knives? You don't have nearly as high of a chance of death as you do with a gun. No one misfires a knife. Guns /only/ have the purpose of intimidation or being used to kill. It's fucking stupid to expect that we shouldn't make sure we're safe and smart about obtaining and using guns. Also, no, you really wouldn't be able to lessen death tolls at shootings by a considerable amount if you had a gun on you. Aside from the fact that most people freeze up, you'd be reacting, and that means a bunch of people probably already died. G-fucking-G
>> [_] Anon 2386029 >Banning guns I like how gun advocates always have to change the subject and argue against strawmen. No one actually proposed any laws banning guns, the laws these organizations are pushing are about having background checks so people with criminal records or mental illness can't get guns. But of course we can't even do that because "gubbermunt will know who has the guns and round them all up for the concentration camps" Anyone proposing any kind of gun law at all, no matter how minor, is clearly a UN agent working on the secret plot to take all the guns away from everyone.
>> [_] Anon 2386035 >MUH SPREE KILLINGS >Many thousands of times more likely to be killed by some hood rat with a stolen glock
>> [_] Anon 2386038 >># go back to reddit
>> [_] Anon 2386039 >># background checks are already mandatory for every firearm sale that goes through an FFL of course, you might know that if you bothered to learn anything about the subject you're trying to preach on
>> [_] Anon 2386040 >># Unfortunately, background checks are largely a formality. There has been times ex-cons have gotten guns no problem simply because a lot of gun stores don't really care.
>> [_] Anon 2386041 >># then why will further laws help the problem?
>> [_] Anon 2386042 >># people often factor in what humanity is like if somebody wants somebody fucking dead they're gonna find a way to fucking kill them you know that car thats so "benign"? not in the hands of someone who wants to kill its not and don't even get me started on animals you think a guns only self defense purpose is killing humans? banning guns = oh shit nigger what are you doing >G-fucking-G you're a faggot never call gg until you've won the match
>> [_] Anon 2386044 >># >people often forget to factor in what humanity is like my bad
>> [_] Anon 2386045 >># The idea is that we create laws that are actually enforced and come down hard on the people who don't enforce those. It sounds futile, but I don't see why the more appealing option is to just lay back and say "fuck it" when we're talking about some really dangerous things here. Maybe it's "idealist" but I don't see why it would be that hard to enforce properly.
>> [_] Anon 2386046 >># guns are an issue of absolutes unless you can figure out a way to take away all guns ever, anywhere, (and you can't), there will always be someone out there with a gun capable and willing to hurt me, and I will always be subject to that evil will unless I have a gun of my own
>> [_] Anon 2386047 >># Yes, we /can/ kill with various other things, but the reason we don't ban those is because of the other uses they have/are intended for. Guns have no ulterior purpose. And yeah, people will kill, you're correct, but it is not only harder to kill without a tool specifically for doing so, but a lot more personal. Also way more prevantable.
>> [_] Anon 2386048 >># but more people were killed with hammers last year than "assault weapons", so you're wrong
>> [_] Anon 2386049 >># Technically yes, but it's also a bigger question of if we should let that sole point determine how we handle guns as a whole or not. I've weighed the pros and cons and find it much more appealing to go with limiting obtainability as much as reasonably possible. I'm not even 100% opposed to guns, I just think it's ludicrous to not aim towards making it harder to get them than not.
>> [_] Anon 2386050 >># I'm sure those who passed the Drug Control Act and the 18th Amendment thought it wouldn't be hard to police too. You're introducing a law that's impossible to reinforce while making it harder for the law-abiding citizen to properly defend himself. That's a law with no purpose.
>> [_] Anon 2386051 >># >I just think it's ludicrous to not aim towards making it harder to get them than not >what is "shall not be infringed"
>> [_] Anon 2386052 >># Harder doesn't mean less frequent. Hence the statistic about cars. The fact is there are a staggering amount of gun related deaths that are able to be slimmed down. A lot of the deaths that occur outside ofgun use /also/ include accidental deaths. I haven't looked at that divide specifically for recent data, but I know, especially with cars, there's a ton of accident related deaths out there and we can't forget those. With guns though, even if it's accidental, it has no other purpose. That brings it to more of a moot point.
>> [_] Anon 2386054 >># Because nothing changes over the course of 200+ years. Not even a bit. We totally have no argument to alter things as needed about our own laws.
>> [_] Anon 2386056 >># you quite literally just said nothing but "SOMEBODY OUGHT TO DOOOOO SOMETHING" how about this: if you're scared, go buy yourself a gun, problem solved
>> [_] Anon 2386057 >># What if we just banned crime?
>> [_] Anon 2386058 >># The state is allowed to deprive you of your right to live if you commit murder in the first degree if that is within their laws, because you forfeit those rights. Similarly, if mental instability invalidates the consequences guaranteed by abrogation of the law, they should also invalidate some of the right afforded to a lucid, mentally sound individual. I'm all for allowing the average law-abiding citizen to get "assault" weapons, but what's clear is that the state isn't enforcing what regulations we have on the criminally negligent enough.
>> [_] Anon 2386059 >># >because nothing changes over the course of 200+ years and now you've resorted to strawmanning
>> [_] Anon 2386060 >># There are ways to ID guns. To my knowledge, that's much, much harder to do with alcohol and drugs, especially since you can make your own. Also, my views on alcohol and various other drugs are that we shouldn't too heavily police something that only affects you (family situations notwithstanding for this point). I understand your point though, but I can't comment on how feasible it is because I don't know for sure, I'll admit that, I just think it sounds quite unreasonable to suggest we can't make a positive impact by striving for that. If you have substantial proof otherwise, send it my way.
>> [_] Anon 2386061 >># you really need to work on your sentence building skills buddy, I have no idea what the fuck you're trying to say
>> [_] Anon 2386062 >># >hey I know it probably won't work all that well and will affect the wrong people, but what else are we gonna do? how about not pass shitty laws for lack of a better solution?
>> [_] Anon 2386063 >># you really need to work on your reading skills, buddy, I have no idea why you couldn't understand it. The only real mistake there was "they" should be "it"
>> [_] Anon 2386064 >># No, it's just fucking stupid to suggest that since we have a right, we can't change it. I'm all for someone giving me a really objective, substantial reason about gun laws being more lax than strict, but saying "2nd Amendment!!!" is not the way to do it.
>> [_] Anon 2386066 These are the people we're using to push restriction of firearms? Maybe I'll start listening to anti-gun advocates once we've put into place a serious restriction of Islam after 9/11. >># >I bet those founding fathers never saw this technology coming! They never would've anticipated what we've got going now. They wouldn't have made the law like this today. Do you seriously think that out of all the founding fathers, none of them thought about what the future could hold? They knew exactly what they were fucking doing.
>> [_] Anon 2386067 >># I've already given you plenty of sound reasons though, this is just the one you've chosen to focus on
>> [_] Anon 2386068 >># >># >There are ways to ID guns. I understand, but as I mentioned earlier in the thread, look at /k/ right now. There are people resourceful enough to build shotguns out of piping, and those macguyvers do not have the financial support of drug cartels, some of which are very visibly operating within the US border. There are 3-D printers that can print out firearms as well. I feel like advances in technology will make it harder for the government to clamp down on illegal weapons without breaking certain rights guaranteed us, not easier.
>> [_] Anon 2386069 >># you're trying to tell me that if a crazy person does something, we should limit the rights of sane people because of it that makes no sense
>> [_] Anon 2386071 >># Again, this goes back to the question of how we handle it as a community. I don't view this as a punishment towards the law-abiding, others do. I view it as a responsibility that we take on in response to the realization of the danger guns aide in presenting. Maybe that seems aside the point to you, but it doesn't to me. I'm not aiming to throw my vote towards punishing, I'm trying to voice my support for saying "Yeah, maybe we should strive towards responsibility, even if it means we have to adapt and accept some change". If you don't agree, that's fine, but this is what my view is.
>> [_] Anon 2386072 >># No, I'm trying to tell you that mentally unstable people and individuals with criminal records should not be allowed to own guns for the same reason law-abiding citizens should be allowed to own them. Work on those reading skills.
>> [_] Anon 2386073 >># >I view it as a responsibility that we take on in response to the realization of the danger guns aide in presenting take on responsibility by deciding that people aren't responsible enough to have their rights, what a great way of thinking
>> [_] sage 2386074 sure is /k/ and /pol/ in here
>> [_] Anon 2386075 >># that still makes absolutely no goddamned sense
>> [_] Anon 2386076 >># You know, I agree on that -- it probably will be harder, but that's a problem for the future. This probably will end up as a moot point later on, but this is still a present problem and I simply think it's more advantageous for us to do what we can now if the goal is a positive impact. >># Lol
>> [_] Anon 2386077 Gay
>> [_] Anon 2386078 >># Let's get rid of EVERY car and the only vehicles you are allowed to own are mini vans and pickups, because they have a purpose. You don't need a car. They are only for a couple people and can't haul anything. Their only purpose is to go fast.
>> [_] Anon 2386079 >># I don't view it that way. As I said, I view this as a response to the potential uses of guns. While it may not sound separate from the criminal use of guns, I view it that way. There is literally no way to use a gun non-lethally when using it in terms of defense. It's simply that quality that I find reason enough to do this. Not because of criminal use, but because of what guns can do.
>> [_] Anon 2386080 >># >What is transportation?
>> [_] Anon 2386081 >># >magazining a clip a call Get a load of this gun expert
>> [_] Anon 2386083 >># >There is literally no way to use a gun non-lethally when using it in terms of defense. >It's simply that quality that I find reason enough to do this So you think you have the right to tell me I can't defend myself and my family because you're scared? Awful weak-minded of you, don't you think?
>> [_] Anon 2386085 >># Then you can't goddamn read. Unfortunately, we can't post pictures within this board so I can't make a coloring book for you, but I'll try to explain it to you once again. When you kill someone, you lose some of your rights. Like the freedom of movement, and the right to life. Why? Because you broke the law and violated the social contract that guarantees you those rights, among other thing. Similarly, when you commit a crime, you forfeit some of your rights, like the ability to be entrusted with a deadly weapon, because you have shown you are willing to violate the law and social contract. The mentally unstable, on the other hand, aren't bound by laws--if they are certified insane, they will not serve their punishment as meted out under the law. Therefore, if you cannot be relied on for keeping the law or be punished be punished for violating it, you should not be entrusted with the right to a deadly weapon under the law.
>> [_] Anon 2386086 >># >># Is it summer already?
>> [_] Anon 2386087 >># If they can be taken away, they weren't rights in the first place. They were privileges. You're the most statist, mouth breathing motherfucker I've ever seen post anywhere on the internet.
>> [_] Anon 2386088 >># that's the most backasswards way to say that crazy people shouldn't have guns that I've ever read congratulations, you got your simple, unimportant point across
>> [_] Anon 2386091 shitstorm status achieved
>> [_] Anon 2386092 >># Stop taking it personally. What part of this being community-based don't you get? I'm not vying to unlawfully take guns away, I'm simply making my case on why I think it's more advantageous for us /all/ to be for that. Obviously people differ, and that's okay, I simply think gun restrictions are a very good thing and throw my vote for that.
>> [_] Anon 2386095 >># >you should think this way because I think this way nice rebuttal
>> [_] Anon 2386096 >># Buy a minivan. What, are you going to speed Anon? A minivan does the same thing but is better for transportation.
>> [_] Anon 2386097 >># >that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. According to the founding fathers they're rights, you illiterate. Or are you also against the execution (or even imprisonment) of murderers because they have an unalienable right to "Life" and "Liberty"? >># Well it's difficult to explain to the illiterate.
>> [_] Anon 2386098 >># >well I'm bad at sentence composition
>> [_] Anon 2386099 >># >waaah big sentences are too hard for me
>> [_] Anon 2386101 >># You're really bad at debate. Like, you do realize discussions like this happen because people differ on views and people make cases so that there can be a way for everyone to understand each other and make decisions accordingly, right? I'm not saying simply "Do what I say because" I'm saying "Do to these previously listed reasons, I think it's more advantageous for us to vye for restriction." Big difference. And I've said it multiple times now, but I'm okay with people differing on opinions, I'm simply making my case.
>> [_] Anon 2386102 >># It's a good thing criminals won't use an unlawful method to obtain firearms. That'll show them.
>> [_] Anon 2386103 >># >waaaah a simple point can't be gotten across in a simple manner or else it just looks simple
>> [_] Anon 2386104 >># >Hurrr you can't make me read!
>> [_] Anon 2386105 >># >I have no fucking goddamn clue what the word "inalienable" means
>> [_] Anon 2386106 >># >Why can't I hold all these fallacies Come back with a real argument.
>> [_] Anon 2386107 >># >I'm simply making my case but so am I, and every time I counter one of your points you move on to a different one, that's not how a debate works
>> [_] Anon 2386109 >># flawless logic right here.
>> [_] Anon 2386110 >># >># >H-he's actually posted a logical statement! >I-I know! I'll call them fallacies! That'll show him! So violating the "inalienable" rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of Happiness when someone has commited a crime is okay, but violating their rights to bear arms when they have committed a crime isn't?
>> [_] Anon 2386111 >># No, I really haven't. I've responded in kind with yours and all you've down is make some half-assed assumptions of what I'm doing by discussing these points.
>> [_] Anon 2386113 >># I'm not against the right of a law-abiding citizen to buy, purchase, hold and use weapons. I'm against the right of people who already have a criminal record to buy a gun through legal means.
>> [_] Anon 2386114 >># and now we're arguing about whether or not we're arguing, because you can't think of a counter point to anything I have to say, otherwise we'd be arguing about that
>> [_] Anon 2386115 >># Done*
>> [_] Anon 2386117 >># >inalienable
>> [_] Anon 2386119 >># As I said, responding in kind. You bring up a completely unrelated point, I'm addressing it.
>> [_] Anon 2386120 >># >no you try again next time anti-guns
>> [_] Anon 2386122 >># Well? Does that mean you're against imprisoning or executing criminals because it violates their "inalienable" rights? Are you trying to hide your inability to make a logical argument by pretending I can't read?
>> [_] Anon 2386125 >># >Are you trying to hide your inability to make a logical argument by pretending I can't read? different guy, but that's what you were just doing to me a second ago
>> [_] Anon 2386127 >># You admitted at the end >># that it was a logical, if (in your opinion overly complex) argument. It's not my fault that you weren't able to understand a perfectly logical argument without me explaining it slowly to you.
>> [_] Anon 2386130 >># man you're really upset about a bunch of semantic bullshit that has nothing to do with the argument, and you're trying your best to focus on it I wonder why that is
>> [_] Anon 2386131 >># So that, if someone does acquire an illegal gun, they can be sent to jail before they have a chance to use it. Problem is, laws only work if you enforce them. We make too many special exceptions to the law for too many races, classes, and political affiliations for gun control to have any effect beyond disarming the people that actually try to obey the law.
>> [_] Anon 2386132 >># >># >># The only thing I can think of is Renai Neck Injuries...
>> [_] Anon 2386133 >oh boy, time to check /f/ >first flash has 96 replies /f/ go to bed
>> [_] Anon 2386134 These "mothers" don't stand a chance, the NRA has a much more well-funded lobby.
>> [_] Anon 2386135 >># >semantic bullshit I didn't point out any semantic bullshit, I just pointed out that you agreed it was a logical point. According to >># you already (finally) understood it and agreed with the (as you said, "simple") point, but if you really want me to, I can explain it to you again with reaaaallly easy words to show you that it's logical. Do you want me to?
>> [_] Anon 2386136 >># >everything you just said still has nothing to do with my guns should be illegal
>> [_] Anon 2386137 >># this happens everytime the flash has something to do with the government and guns
>> [_] Anon 2386138 >># What are you niggering about? I was just pointing out how you're swapping out "unalienable" with "inalienable". There's nothing more to it. Stop being such a defensive faggot
>> [_] Anon 2386139 >># I'm pretty sure /k/ frequenters frequent /f/ more than any other board.
>> [_] Anon 2386140 FLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOR
>> [_] Anon 2386141 >># agreed
>> [_] Anon 2386142 >># Do the laws on car ownership prevent unlicensed drivers from driving a car? I don't know where you live, but around here we're constantly seeing people injured or killed because drunken assholes with neither driver's licenses nor the ability to speak any language other than Spanish keep getting behind the wheels of stolen cars and going on destructive joyrides. If the idea is to keep them from getting their hands on assault rifles in the first place, I'm afraid you will be disappointed no matter how strict you make the laws. Natural laws can make things impossible; man-made laws don't.
>> [_] Anon 2386143 >># this is true, /k/ is my only other board pretty much
>> [_] Anon 2386144 >># Do you have a criminal record, or are you mentally disabled? If not I have nothing against you and your guns provided you got it through legal channels. I just think that those people shouldn't have the right to guns for the same reason murders aren't allowed the right to liberty. I'm not the anti-guns guy. >># Shit, I didn't even notice. I apologize, I thought you were the other guy who just went >I don't know what unalienable means And I apologize. If it helps, they mean exactly the same thing.
>> [_] Anon 2386146 >># oh, okay sorry you're still a pedantic autist though
>> [_] Anon 2386147 >># Y-you too
>> [_] Anon 2386150 >113 replies Jesus fucking Christ what
>> [_] Anon 2386153 Guns dont kill people, people kill people. We should be banning americans.
>> [_] Anon 2386154 >># Why don't we just ban murder?
>> [_] Anon 2386157 >># Or we could just ban Amerifats.
>> [_] Anon 2386161 >># oh you
>> [_] Anon 2386163 >># Britbongs should ban knives. That'll stop knife crime.
>> [_] Anon 2386168 >># It's okay, anon. I forgive you. But please, try to contain your autism next time.
>> [_] Anon 2386169 Greatest Bait Flash ever.
>> [_] Anon 2386171 >># this explains everything
>> [_] Anon 2386172 >># this is bait
>> [_] Anon 2386173 >># actually it is a fucking magazine, dumbass
>> [_] Anon 2386177 >># no it's a clip
>> [_] Anon 2386178 >># no this is patrick
>> [_] Anon 2386179 >># you're mom's a clip
>> [_] Anon 2386182 >># no my mom is a magazine
>> [_] Anon 2386184 >># I thought of a new header! /f/ - Gun Control Debate & Ant Social Justice
>> [_] Anon 2386187 >># a magazine is something inserted into the magwell, a clip is CLIPped into the magwell, hence the name. Fucking call of duty makes these 9 year olds retarded
>> [_] Anon 2386189 >># no, a magazine loads a clip, and a clip loads the gun stupid
>> [_] Anon 2386190 Everyone else but me is a huge faggot. GG, faGGots.
>> [_] Anon 2386196 heck, here in NZ it's piss easy to get a gun and license. It's easy because there's no need for strenuous tests. Our history with gun violence is small. You you Americans need the toy taken off you. Like a child whinging when mommy takes away a misused object you bitch and moan. You go on about your freedoms but like a child you can not handle the responsibility. That is how the rest of the world see's these school shootings and the reactions. Just whinging kids with toys to big for them.
>> [_] Anon 2386197 >># lel go fuck a sheep commie
>> [_] Anon 2386199 This threads even bigger then the cop killer, jesus
>> [_] Anon 2386201 >># The fire rises.
>> [_] Anon 2386203 >># SHITSTORM IMMINENT
>> [_] Anon !fLhUNH0O/2 2386204 over 100 replies wow
>> [_] Anon 2386207 >implying bombers don't kill more people in one go than any shooter >implying the truly deranged won't stoop to hijacking vehicles to crash with shards of glass wrapped in duct tape >># >confirmed for shitty marksman
>> [_] Anon 2386208 >># sorry buddy, you missed the argument, could've used you on my side about half an hour ago
>> [_] Anon 2386210 >># Hey faggot. http://www.rampageshooting.com/ Look up the statistics on mass shootings per capita and you'll see no correlation between easy access to firearms and these mass shootings.
>> [_] Anon 2386211 >># they've also been on a steady decrease in the US since the 70's
>> [_] Anon 2386212 >># is that from better prevention methods or worse aim?
>> [_] Anon 2386216 >># probably neither?
>> [_] Anon 2386217 >># It's because of the increase in concealed carry. More people are armed, and a statistically significant number of mass shootings are interrupted by an armed bystander.
>> [_] Anon 2386221 so apparently /k/'s seeing /f/ on the side now, I'll have to update my shipping charts.
>> [_] Anon 2386241 since /k/ has invaded /f/ I'm going back to /b/; It's starting to look a little bit more sane.
>> [_] Anon 2386243 >># hey, the anti-guns started it
>> [_] Anon 2386247 >># >first shitpost is a pro-gun nut Nope. Eat shit and fuck off.
>> [_] Anon 2386249 >># :^)
>> [_] Anon 2386251 >># The flash was astroturf anti gun bullshit to begin with.