Creepy Condescending Wonka

Creepy Condescending Wonka Meme | OVER 500 PEOPLE ARE MURDERED EACH YEAR IN CHICAGO WHERE GUNS ARE INVOLVED BUT 17 ARE KILLED AT ONE TIME IN FLORIDA AND NOW YOU'RE CONCERNED? | image tagged in memes,creepy condescending wonka | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
10,266 views, 154 upvotes, Made by SpursFanFromAround 5 months ago memescreepy condescending wonka
Creepy Condescending Wonka memeRe-caption this meme
Add Meme
Post Comment
reply
7 ups, 2 replies
Creepy Condescending Wonka Meme | THEY WERE WHITE AND IN SCHOOL FOOL | image tagged in memes,creepy condescending wonka | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
reply
14 ups
Laughing Men In Suits Meme | AND THEN I SAID I’M VOTING DEMOCRAT BECAUSE THEY TAKE CARE OF BLACK PEOPLE IN THE HOOD | image tagged in memes,laughing men in suits | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
reply
9 ups, 1 reply
It's more about having gun control, but close enough...
reply
9 ups, 3 replies
It doesn’t matter what it’s about. Inner city voters love democrats. When democrats make inner city living worse. You want more guns and shootings in the hood? Get democrats in office.
reply
8 ups, 1 reply
I agree with you 100%.
reply
5 ups
A lot more people in these places voted for trump - they’d just never publicly admit it.
reply
0 ups
So gun control for them darkies, yup!
reply
1 up
ayyyy boi you tell em how its done lol
reply
7 ups, 2 replies
Guys, I hope you realize gun control isn't going to stop people from dying. Any terrorist can easily use something else to slaughter people. The biggest terrorist attack that killed thousands of people didn't require a single bullet. Besides terrorist attacks, people in Chicago that are killing people with guns could easily use knives or other things. Did you know that there were five times as many people killed with knives than those killed with guns. Once gun laws are enforced people will find other ways to kill others.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
I highly doubt Paddock with a knife would've been able to kill 58 people and injure 800 within an hour. Because that would've meant hand to hand combat, and he would've gotten stopped sooner. Guys like Paddock would rather hide somewhere and shoot from a distance... like a COWARD.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
I know that. I'm just saying with gun control the killing won't stop. In fact more people might die because the is no way to defend themselves.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
I wonder how the numbers of victims of gun violence compare to those who were able to thwart gun violence with their own gun. And if the numbers who are dying are worth the numbers who actually find themselves in a position to gun their gun for self-defense.
reply
0 ups
I people defend themselves with guns a lot more than you think. Image if you broke into someone's house in the middle of the night. You walk around the corner and all of the sudden you hear a shotgun pump, you would get your ass out of that house.
reply
4 ups, 3 replies
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
reply
2 ups, 2 replies
Then we can defend ourselves from hijackers and unruly passengers...
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
And annoying kids :)
reply
1 up
reply
2 ups
reply
1 up, 1 reply
A hand grenade cannot be used in self defense without causing unreasonable collateral damage.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
yes good thing that kid in fla had that assault rifle to defend himself from all those classmates
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
?
reply
1 up, 1 reply
That person is a douche and doesn't even live here. Ignore it.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
I don't live there anymore.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
But you still have a brain.
reply
0 ups
True
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
yeah because grenades and guns are the same thing.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
reply
0 ups
yeah because somewhere it says, "the right to keep and bear grenades shall not be infringed" oh wait... it doesn't say that anywhere. we aren't talking about grenades, tanks, nukes, b17 bombers, stop wasting time when it takes 160 seconds to reply to nonsense posts.
reply
9 ups, 2 replies
:)
reply
14 ups, 4 replies
So you're saying that if a group of people are killed in one setting it's more urgent than if 500+ people are killed EVERY SINGLE YEAR in ONE CITY alone? And why exactly is that?

These mass shootings over the past few years happen about 2 times every year where an average of about 30 people are killed. That's roughly about 180 people killed in three year's time over the past three years.

Chicago had a record amount of people murdered in its city limit I believe it was two years ago (2016). Over 700 people murdered. Generally the city of Chicago have about 500 or more murders where guns are used.

Taking the lowest total of 500 each year, that's 1,500 murders in the past three years compared to 180 from mass shootings. Now looking at the total for Chicago over the past three years we know it was far greater than 1,500. IN CHICAGO ALONE.

So I'm trying to wrap my head around the idea that no one on the left seems to bat an eye in the gun free zone of Chicago where far more people are murdered every year than in mass shootings, but every mass shooting they want to talk about gun control and get angry about it.
reply
8 ups, 4 replies
It's not that 17 people killed in a mass shooting is more urgent than 500-700 each year in Chicago. It's just that when people are murdered in Chicago, it's one at a time, or maybe two. Obviously 17 people killed in one incident will garner much more attention than individual murders spread out over a large city over an entire year.

Also, the reason Chicago has strict gun control laws is precisely because of public outcry due to the high murder rate.

Have strict gun laws made Chicago a safer city? No, they haven't. But I never said they did, or would. I agree with people who say that stricter gun laws won't prevent criminals from getting them, but will only serve to disarm decent, law-abiding people.

Also keep in mind that a lot of the gun crime in Chicago is gang-related. I think the murder of 17 high school students by a psychopath will gather more public outcry than the murder of gang members by other gang members.
reply
7 ups, 2 replies
Really, you're just gonna assume that all those people that died in Chicago were apart of some gang? Wow. My dad literally had friends shot down in front of their houses. GOOD friends! Good people!

Sorry for getting triggered.
reply
6 ups, 1 reply
I said a lot of the gun crime is gang related, not all of it.
reply
4 ups, 3 replies
A lot? A lot? I used to live in South Chicago, the murder capital of the world! Almost everybody I met there was a good dude. Almost everybody who died was a good dude.
reply
7 ups
If you lived there, then you know that there is a lot of gang activity there. Again, I never said that everyone there is a gang member, or even most people.
reply
2 ups
that's only as much as you knew. there is a possibility that they were omitting certain details.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
If they weren't shot by gangs, why WERE they shot?

Oh, did I ever tell you about the march in Arthur Ave to free John Gotti because he was 'innocent'?
reply
1 up, 2 replies
Why were they shot? Somebody wanted them dead.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
But I have it on good authority they were good people.
reply
0 ups
I'm not saying they weren't. I thought you were trying to say that they were gang members or something.
reply
0 ups
Or they were collateral damage in gang violence....
reply
3 ups, 2 replies
The left seem unconcerned with inner city violence in poor areas.
reply
2 ups
Whenever a criminal is executed, they cry for the life of the convict. However, when some 300x as many criminals die in a year than a mass murder, nobody cares.
reply
2 ups, 3 replies
I don't see conservatives doing anything about it
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
Getting them off welfare and into self-respecting jobs would help.
reply
1 up
Yes it would help...if they did that
reply
1 up, 1 reply
No, you don't see conservatives doing what you think should be done about it. Liberals and conservative disagree on what the solution is, and in some cases whether the problem can be solved (at least via legislation).
The problem is with the complete lack of accountability and morality within American culture, and culture is an extremely difficult thing to fix. It is not something you can simply legislate.
Gun bans seem appealing because it's quick, it's simple. But guns will always be available on the black .
Guns are only harmful in the hands of criminals (or idiots). Taking the right to own guns from those who do no harm will not stop those who intend to harm.
That gentleman who disassembled his AR15 on video helped no one. That gun, in his possession was NEVER going to be used in a crime. If anything the message "Good people will give up what they have trying to obtain a false sense of security"
reply
0 ups
*on the black market*
I accidentally skipped the word
market
Also i should have used the word destroyed instead of disassembled.
reply
0 ups
They're not doing anything about it because they don't care about the poor or their kids. If they could they would wipe them all off the face of the earth so they didn't have to look at them.
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
its a 30 minute drive from Chicago over state lines to easily buy a gun, that is the issue.
reply
1 up
Or they could just steal guns and stay in Chicago.
reply
2 ups
The right doesn't care about the deaths in Chicago because many of the victims are low income and racially mixed. I've seen enough comments on this board alone showing how people think they're all criminals and gang bangers who are just killing each other.

It's disgusting, but not surprising, to think they would actually try to use that as some excuse to argue against banning guns.
reply
1 up
Not sure why you just don't just say it: NYC.

Also, how do you know strict gun laws don't make Chicago safer? Do you have ANY idea how many MORE deaths there'd be there without it?
reply
7 ups
I thinkk what upsets people is the fact that it was in a school full of innocent people, where as in a crime ridden citys its thug against thug. Either way, both are huge problems, with a common denominator.
reply
5 ups, 2 replies
Er there is no border around Chicago and most of America is mass gun market, plus I believe in American some Americans drive things like motor cars over state borders occasionally. I'm guessing, but maybe someone buys a gun in a different state and then drives to Chicago and uses it. Then again that is probably too fanciful.
reply
10 ups, 2 replies
That's the main argument I hear from gun control advocates. They brought it from another state or county.

The fact is Chicago is a gun free zone. You cannot even own a gun on your own property and shoot an intruder without getting yourself in trouble. Criminals know this. There is very little repercussions to their actions and most law enforcement agencies won't even touch inner city Chicago.
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
Gun free zone? So how's this possible? It's unconstitutional, right? Where are the armed militias who were supposed to defend the good people against tyranny rulers?
reply
6 ups
It's called illegal government overreach.
reply
2 ups
yeah state laws aren't as effective as federal laws, who would of thunk?
reply
3 ups
People cross state lines to get fireworks. Indiana, right next door, has less strict gun laws I believe.
reply
1 up
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
they weren't killed at one time, it was spaced apart over a few minutes. If a gun some how killed 17 people at exactly the same time, we'd be screaming about quantum mechanics right now, and not a rifle.

But people understand quantum mechanics around here about as much as they understand guns, healthcare, religion, abortion, war, lgbt, groupthink mob mentality, and torture.

So by all means, lets keep diverting the issue away from the obvious, and blame guns more!
reply
5 ups, 1 reply
You're either trolling or incredibly obtuse. I never said all 17 people were killed at the exact same instant. They were all killed in the same *incident*, as in the same attack.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
Obviously quantum guns don't exist yet, and the school wasn't a schrodinger box . Freaking calm down. :/ How could I have made that any more obviously sarcastic.

Go back to blaming 3d printed military-style-grade assault babykiller ghost guns with hicap clippazines and I'll be on my way to contrasting abortion numbers and the amount of deaths in Baltimore by the minute that nobody else cares about.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
When I hear people on this site routinely say incredibly dumb things unsarcastically, it makes it difficult sometimes to distinguish between sarcasm and genuine stupidity.
reply
0 ups, 2 replies
you're complaining about stupid people, and still are convinced guns are the problem. Hollar when you've got it figured out. I know it's tough.
reply
1 up
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
Show me one post I made where I said guns were the problem. Show me one.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
Show me somewhere, where you've said what you think the problem actually is? Say like... 80% of the problem, or maybe 90%. Or do you think there are two different 50/50 problems?

Jobs? family structure? drugs? videogames? movies? fluoride? chemtrails? rap music? group think?

Choose something and talk about it... or you're just hovering. :/
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
I asked you to show me a post where I said that guns were the problem, and you can't.

What is the problem? There are numerous problems. Mental health, broken families, inadequate or ineffective treatment for his mental issues, his ability to buy an AR-15 after having such a lengthy list of run-ins with law enforcement, etc.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
There's your post. ^ I don't know how you could any more clearly be blaming the fact that he had an AR15 when he could do that much carnage or more any gigantic number of ways.

They could review him for a thousand years and be no closure to understanding his mental state, and people raised with perfectly fine families grow up to be assholes all the time, and vice versa.

At the end of the day, you're holding an inanimate object responsible.

LEO doesn't stop people from committing crimes. They come clean up the pieces. Mental health professions are about as close to figuring this out as cancer, auto immune disorders, etc.. If anything, they'll diagnose more pills that cause even more issues down the road. Yet I don't see you holding meds responsible.

Try to think through a little more clearly as to how you actually stop someone who is hell bent on doing this. Oh, take the AR15 away. I guess he'll change his mind. Oh, he talks to someone once a week about it? Take a pill? Common... be serious. Stop talking around the issue.
0 ups
1. I never did say the gun was responsible. I simply said that that was the gun he used.

2. I didn't mention medication because I don't know if he was on any or not.

3. Yes, therapy and counseling can have positive impacts on the lives of mentally unstable people. So can medication.

4. I also pointed out other issues like his family life.

If someone like him is determined enough to carry out this type of attack, it's rather difficult to totally prevent it from happening. But that doesn't mean that nothing can be done.
reply
6 ups, 1 reply
They’re concerned because it’s a school.
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
As a gun owner myself, that is wholly untrue
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
For you maybe, not for others...
reply
0 ups
It’s their constitutional right to be able to defend themselves. Yes, we could do more in terms of enforcing gun laws, but it won’t stop the fact that there are guns on the streets. If we can crack down on illegal gun trade and poor enforcement of gun control laws, then we can stop stuff like this.
reply
5 ups, 1 reply
I posted this 2 days ago...
reply
6 ups
Yeah, didn't see it. I like yours better.
reply
4 ups
reply
5 ups, 1 reply
But the mass shooting affected white kids. Most victims in Chicago murders are minorities.
reply
7 ups
I think it has more to do with the fact that many of the murders in Chicago are gang related and they don't give a crap about gangs shooting each other. But there are also many victims that are innocent.
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
Well they're all youngins' everyone cares.
reply
8 ups, 1 reply
reply
3 ups
Why are people so stupid!?
reply
2 ups, 2 replies
Are they saying that 500 Chicagoans are worth less than 17 rich kids? Hmmmmm
reply
3 ups
Where did I say they're worth less? I'm the one saying they should be worth just as much as the 17 that died in the mass shooting. Maybe you should reread the meme. It's sarcasm aimed at the left.
reply
0 ups
Are those the thugs referenced earlier?
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
The gun laws shouuld limit who the guuns are being sold to, like they should be sold to someone with a clear background check, hasn't been to prison, and maybe over 28 years of age! Also schools and such should get more security, maybe some police could always be around in the area.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Here's a tidbit for you- background checks are required already. How about has passed a firearms safety course and qualified with the weapon in the case of concealed carry permit holders with additional yearly qualifications? As a concealed carry holder, that's fine by me as I shoot often...because I enjoy shooting and the responsibility that comes with my permit is not lost on me.
reply
1 up
Ok... Sorry i didn't think about that. You proved me wrong well. Good job keep doing what your doing!
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
reply
2 ups, 2 replies
reply
1 up
I wouldn't really be surprised if anything like that happened in this day, although about that I was half-joking.
reply
1 up
Sadly, yes it can, and it will.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
Chicago has among the most strict gun control regulations in place and yet the shootings continue at a disturbing rate.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
preach!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Counted 33 exclamation marks.
reply
0 ups
lol
reply
1 up
APPLY COLD WATER TO BURN AREA
reply
1 up, 1 reply
The difference is that the 500 killed in Chicago are mostly (something like 97%) committed with illegally obtained, unregistered firearms. If they complained about that it would defeat the argument for disarming law abiding citizens. The target the relatively few that are committed with legally obtained firearms to try and justify disarming the law abiding citizen.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
https://townhall.com/columnists/kevinmccullough/2018/02/18/how-to-eliminate-school-shootings-overnight-n2450380
reply
1 up, 1 reply
I would agree with a lot of this but a lot is already in place. The item about metal detectors should be there for general safety but will be of little consequence in the case of someone like our most recent shooter- he's going to pull out a gun and start shooting; do you think he's going to balk at someone discovering he's got a gun? Having trained, armed individuals on the premises will be the greatest deterrent- it's called being a 'hard target' rather than a 'target of opportunity'. This latest perpetrator would likely have been dissuaded by this alone as you notice that he did not kill himself afterward as in so many other cases- he wasn't bent on self destruction. For those whose end game is to die, they get to their end faster with the help of armed and capable people on the premises.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
True. But I think if there were metal detectors there, he wouldn’t have even tried either. And any other entrance should have an armed guard. I just heard on the radio today that in Israel they also have selected teachers and principals who carry. But they do not advertise so no one knows who is carrying at any time. I would think our children deserve any extra expense.
reply
1 up
You may be right and I do agree that metal detectors are a good thing overall.
reply
1 up
Newsflash to some, I guess
reply
1 up, 1 reply
JUST BLAME CAPITALISM
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
Yes, I'm concerned. Wouldn't you be if your went to a school in the south?
reply
1 up, 1 reply
I'm not saying we shouldn't be concerned. I just find it hilarious when the left try to push their gun control agenda after mass shootings, but fail to realize it's their gun control agendas that ruined Chicago and every other gun free zone in the country. They don't care about the gun violence in Chicago because it's their utopia.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
How exactly has gun control ruined Chicago? I don't believe gun control laws work as well as they should; they'd work just as well as anti-abortion laws and anti-drug laws. However, I don't operate by the philosophy of "more guns = less gun violence" because... well... just look at how that sounds.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
No, more guns in the hands of law abiding, mentally stable people equal less violence. And learn how to use guns properly. They are a tool, not a toy. Any tool used properly by trained individuals will be successful.
reply
0 ups, 2 replies
Just like cars in the hands of careful drivers equal less traffic. I may be comparing apples to oranges (how does that phrase make any sense to what it's supposed to mean), but people use guns and cars to kill plenty of people every year.

How can we put our faith into the idea that giving every person a gun, which is a tool so easy to use a millennial could use it, will make our country a safer place? We'd have shoot-outs west coast to east.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
I have a serious question for you. If you are attacked by a man in your own home and he is carrying a loaded gun and pointing it at you, what will you do?
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
Since it was a serious question, I won't respond with "take out a rocket launcher, crossbow, or sword".

If he were pointing it at me, I wouldn't have much time to yield a weapon of my own because he'd most likely shoot me before I could bring anything out.

Now, if he were after me for my money, I would most likely defend myself via martial arts that I have learned. If he kills me, it'd be better to be killed out in the open.

I will be honest, though. If someone wanted to kill me, I doubt holding a gun at me wouldn't be the way they'd do it; they'd probably stab me, snipe me, or burn me alive, and not for my money.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
It kind of sounds like you're reaching on how you'd die. Unless you're an assassin for the CIA or something, the chances of you being sniped or set on fire are pretty slim. If you are being attacked with a knife, the idea of conceal carry looks rather good. He brings a knife and you have a gun.

Martial arts is good for close combat in most situations, but if someone enters your home to do no good, having a weapon like a gun to defend yourself is a good idea. Martial arts isn't going to do too much if they have a gun.

My point is we all have the right to protect ourselves and our family and property. This is a right that is pointed out by our founding fathers. I have no intention of standing there pissing myself or just handing over my money and watching my family die as they're shot to death. Being a victim is not something I want to be if I can help it.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
Maybe I am being farfetched about how I'd die. I've just been examining the stories of others like me, but thanks for making me reassured.

With the skills one has learned in martial arts classes, one could defend themselves if the individual is close up. The best solution if the attacker is shooting from a long range is not to let them shoot to kill.

The founding fathers were referring to muskets, and intended muskets to be owned to defend themselves against the government if it got too tyrannical. They didn't see military jets, tanks, machine guns, or the CIA coming.

Well, obviously I'd defend my family. I would call the police if there was an unauthorized individual entering our home. Who knows.. I might even buy/craft myself some actual weapons such as swords or bows & arrows.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
I'd like you to show me in the 2nd amendment where it refers to muskets. The founding fathers weren't fools. They knew that muskets were temporary. They knew they would become an archaic weapon quickly. But that's one argument that doesn't stick.
0 ups
Show me where it says the founding fathers saw airplanes and tanks coming.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
You're just basing this off the idea that the founding fathers were ignorant fools. They were far from it. But to make a claim that the 2nd amendment was intended only for muskets is silly. It doesn't say anything about muskets.

The 2nd amendment was written so the citizens of the United States could not only protect themselves from other citizens who wish to do them harm, but also from their own government should it try to enslave them. And because the government has much more powerful guns than most citizens, muskets are nothing but loud noise makers.
reply
0 ups
I wouldn't say that the founding fathers were ignorant fools if they didn't see military vehicles coming.
reply
1 up, 2 replies
Yeah gangmembers vs innocent children. Really hard to figure out the difference.
reply
5 ups
They aren't all gang members being shot up. There are a lot of innocent people being murdered by guns in Chicago.
reply
0 ups
Every life matters, no matter who they are.
reply
1 up
reply
1 up
Flip Settings
Creepy Condescending Wonka memeRe-caption this meme

Created with the Imgflip Meme Generator

Show embed codes
IMAGE DESCRIPTION:
OVER 500 PEOPLE ARE MURDERED EACH YEAR IN CHICAGO WHERE GUNS ARE INVOLVED; BUT 17 ARE KILLED AT ONE TIME IN FLORIDA AND NOW YOU'RE CONCERNED?
hotkeys: D = random, W = like, S = dislike, A = back