Wonka After Florida Shooting

Wonka After Florida Shooting | TELL ME MORE ABOUT WHY YOU THINK SOMEONE WHO IS WILLING TO KILL INNOCENT PEOPLE WILL CARE ABOUT STRICTER GUN LAWS | image tagged in memes,creepy condescending wonka,gun control,liberal logic | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
25,404 views, 219 upvotes, Made by haflander 7 months ago memescreepy condescending wonkagun controlliberal logic
Creepy Condescending Wonka memeRe-caption this meme
Add Meme
Post Comment
reply
15 ups, 1 reply
So, a liberal was sitting in a cafe when a man with an assault rifle walked in. The man pointed the rifle at the liberal's head and was about to blow his brains out, when the liberal yelled, "STOP, DON'T SHOOT THAT RIFLE THAT'S ILLEGAL!" The man then said, "You don't say" and blew his brains out.
reply
7 ups, 3 replies
Love this. Only contradiction to it is, you implied a Liberal had brains. Isn't it all cotton fluff?
reply
3 ups
LOL
reply
0 ups
Probably was just blood + skull fragment.
reply
0 ups
NOT ALL OF IT I STILL GOT ME SOME LEFT IN MINE | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
reply
11 ups, 2 replies
Confession Bear Meme | I'M WORRIED IF GUNS ARE BANNED WE'LL GET KILLED IN WORSE WAYS | image tagged in memes,confession bear | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
Upvoted:)
reply
5 ups, 1 reply
TRUTH | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
reply
2 ups
Murders NYC 2017: Only 270 in a city of 8.5 million.

Truth.
reply
[deleted]
1 up
reply
8 ups
i.imgflip.com/22tqs1.jpg (click to show)
imgflip.com/i/22tqs1
reply
8 ups
reply
12 ups, 7 replies
reply
9 ups, 4 replies
Exactly. If something is illegal, it'll be harder for crazy people to get it. Not impossible, but at least harder.
reply
13 ups, 2 replies
reply
0 ups
i.imgflip.com/24zudn.jpg (click to show)

Ask them. You know, in THE market central for Planet Earth.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
I said harder, not impossible
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
Hell I can find a seller in an alley and get one after I hand the money over.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
True, but the hand grenade comparison still stands. The more dangerous something is, the harder it is to get (for the most part). This country is saturated with guns. The question is how to keep them out of the hands of the wrong people.
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
I agree. But I never said guns should be banned.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Yet harsher laws won't help either.
reply
1 up
To an extent they do, since fully automatic guns are heavily restricted and there are fewer of them floating around.
reply
5 ups
Tell that to the people in Mexico, Guatemala and El Salvador..who have the highest murder rates in the world...mostly by illegal guns.
reply
5 ups
If somebody can make background checks better while not making it more difficult for me to buy guns I would be all for it. The problems is that everyone will be regulated, even people who have never committed a crime.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Meth has never been legal, and that is not that difficult to get. How is something that there are already millions of going to be harder to get by changing legislation?
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
It would at least be harder for them to buy it legally, so they would have to go through illegal means to get them. Again, I'm not saying it would be impossible, but anything that can put a dent in the number of bad people getting guns would be good.
reply
2 ups
The only people legislation will effect are those who follow the law. That is the definition of a criminal, and that is who will begin to thrive, the criminals.

https://youtu.be/lRQbmOMmBDU
reply
5 ups, 3 replies
This is a good counter point that I didn't consider before you mentioned it, so thanks. However, I'd say it's because guns are by far the easiest deadly weapon to obtain whether legally or in the black market. Simply stated, there aren't many grenades in the world compared to guns. It would take someone an hour to buy a gun legally or illegally...but it's a much different story for someone trying to find a grenade.
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
Dip an M80 in glue and roll it in BB's. Not exactly a grenade, but close. I think its kind of funny that some folks think violence will end just by increasing gun control. We might start finding out how hard or easy it is to come by a hand grenade, but I doubt they'll say,
"Oh poo! They ruined our fun. Guess we'll just go home...."
reply
2 ups
Even easier to make (come by) is a molotov cocktail...where there's a will there's a way.
reply
5 ups, 3 replies
reply
2 ups
Do I sound like a criminal to you?
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
I get the feeling if I really wanted one and had the cash, a fair bet would be 24hrs, would be about all I needed. Google gangsters and guns, they seem to have a pretty good supply of AK47s and UZIs.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
I agree. You can probably get free shipping and a kilo of fentanyl as your free gift, too.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
But wait, if I act now I get free Jarts.
reply
1 up
And a Twinkie
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
No thanks...I already refuted your grenade point and you said you'd explain my original meme after I did that. No need to move on to your second counter until you've done what you said you would do...
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
reply
2 ups
I like how you argue. There are very few that I see, that are mature about the argument. Props to you!
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
Guns are one of the harder deadly weapons to obtain. How about a knife? Apparently you can't kill a person with a knife according to anti gun people. A knife is found in kitchens, stores, scissors, anywhere. BUT knifes can't kill people, and guns are everywhere!
reply
8 ups, 1 reply
reply
5 ups, 3 replies
And guess what? Japan has outlawed guns, and they'll tell you that it doesn't stop mass killings.
reply
4 ups, 2 replies
Provide stats, please, You can never stop mass killing completely, but it would be a great success if the numbers would go down by a considerable percentage in the US, such as in Australia). The rest of the world just shakes their head about the US and questions themselves if America has gone totally crazy now.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
So, if your argument is that less killing is better, while at the same time acknowledging that we cannot completely stop it, you get to decide who gets killed. Which schools get attacked? Which people still must die to satisfy your argument?
reply
1 up
reply
1 up, 1 reply
They don't care as long as they get to keep playing with their guns. What are the stats of people who have defended themselves against an armed assailant successfully? And do those numbers legitimize allowing people to keep guns when so many are being killed by them?
reply
0 ups
Yes, they do. Because I choose to protect myself, my family, and whoever may be in the vicinity of me, including you, should you be there.
reply
1 up
I don't think anyone is trying to say banning guns will completely stop mass attacks. But the homicide rate is lower overall and statistically speaking, less guns = less homicides.
reply
3 ups
Whereas in Sweden where it is more difficult to get firearms there have been 139 Hand Grenade attacks in the last three years.

So supporting a firearms ban is actually supporting hand grenade violence..
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
reply
1 up, 1 reply
reply
3 ups
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
Well, guns are easier to use, and are cheaper. I don't know this from the type of experience that you are thinking of, but think about it, there are gun stores everywhere. Also, all that you have to do is buy one gun that is re-usable, and just buy a ton of bullets. With a hand grenade, every time you use it, you have to get a new one, which is pretty expensive. So now you know why guns are used more often that hand grenades. P.S Liberal stations would rather report a gun shooting than an attack with a hand-grenade because they want to get rid of guns, so that is another reason why you don't hear about hand grenade shootings.
reply
1 up
I just realized I said HAND GRENADE shootings. HAHAHA! I meant to say killings.
reply
1 up
Thankfully he didn't kill anyone with them
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
We enacted restrictions before hand grenades were widely produced in America. If we had restrictions on semi-auto guns fairly soon after they were invented, not very many people would have them.
reply
0 ups, 2 replies
Ever heard of the black market? Also, one other point: a hand grenade is really loud, bright, and kicks up a lot of debris, so people will spot the murderer easier. With a gun, you can buy a silencer, which will make the gun shot almost noticeable. Also, a gun is easier less noticeable. Also, hand grenades are not restricted, but are just strictly regulated. Next, one does not require a hand grenade when they go hunting, and when they are defending their home, that would just be quite ridiculous. The government has made a lot of different drugs illeagal, but people still get them. Have you heard about when the government made alcohol illegal? Well, if you haven't, alcohol usage was at it's highest peak during that period of time. People can bribe politicians, smuggle, and use the black market in order to get stuff that is illegal. Next, criminals WILL NOT OBEY THE LAW! That is quite obvious. So even if America successfully makes guns illegal, criminals will not obey the law. Last, but certainly not least, even if America successfully exterminates the usage of guns throughout the USA, criminals will find other ways to kill. They can use complicated weapons that technically are not illegal, use bombs (if, in this alternate universe, the USA does not successfully exterminate the usage of bombs), knives (which are in almost every American home), chemicals, psychology, their own body, fires, and other such things. They will always find a way to kill. Guns have not been around for all of recorded history, but before that, people killed just as many other people using swords, singing cities,
reply
1 up
Sorry, I accidentally pressed post comment when I was not finished: using stones, fires, their bodies, sticks, throwing them off cliffs, burning them alive, stretching their body apart, trampling their body, you get the idea. The american people need guns in order to defend themselves. Hitler himself tried to make guns illegal, and do you know why? So the Jews would not be able to defend themselves.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
Silencers do almost nothing to silence a gun. That's all I'm going to say because that's all I currently have time for.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
Grenades are a lot louder though, you can't ignore that fact.
reply
0 ups, 2 replies
They are, but there's a reason every school shooter is accounted for.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
What do you mean by "accounted for"?
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
We know who they are.
reply
0 ups, 2 replies
Oh, you mean every school shooter gets punished by the government. Thank you captain obvious! Of course it is illegal to shoot up a school, or kill someone, but you can't make guns illegal so people can protect themselves.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
My point is, they were noticed, even without using a hand grenade.
0 ups
Yes thank you again Captain Obvious! Of course anybody that kills people inside of a school, and affects dozens of families would, and should get noticed, but, that does not mean guns should be banned. Your point at the beginning was that you wanted guns to be banned, now you are just saying that people who kill other people will be noticed. That is quite obvious. It is easier to get away with killing someone with a gun, then a hand grenade, because of the points I stated earlier. Also, like I stated earlier, CRIMINALS WILL NOT OBEY THE LAW AND PEOPLE NEED TO DEFEND THEMSELVES AGAINST CRIMINALS WHO DO NOT OBEY THE LAW GET THAT INTO THAT THICK SKULL OF YOURS!
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
I'm confused. I thought YOU wanted to ban guns. The point I was trying to make at the top was it's too late to enact restrictions.
1 up
What, you thought I wanted to ban guns? The way you were arguing earlier, it sounded like YOU wanted to ban guns. Sorry for the confusion. Well, at least we both agree that we want to keep our guns.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
But they are easier to DIY.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
That's true, but making a DIY hand grenade would be difficult to get instructions for. Try typing into Google "how to make an explosive device capable of killing more than freaking mustard gas" and see how it turns out.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
A hand grenade is an explosive charge inside a metal surround. When the charge is detonated, the explosive force creates shrapnel. That's oversimplified, but as long as you're not expecting to look like something on pinterest, an effective, basic device is not difficult to construct. You don't need instructions.
reply
1 up
True.
reply
6 ups, 2 replies
The truth is that the media refuse to cover the truth about guns and the gun cultures in America. They don’t want to admit there are two wildly different gun cultures in our country. One is the freedom-loving, gun-rights culture that upholds the responsible use of guns for hunting, sport and self-defense. The other is the criminal culture that thrives in the places where government restricts gun rights.

Not acknowledging that the two cultures are different and claiming that legal gun owners are responsible for crimes committed by the illegal gun culture isn’t just a lie. It is getting good people killed.

In the most recent mass murder the FBI failed in its responsibility – not guns or gun owners.
reply
1 up
But Cruz bought the gun legally.
reply
0 ups
i.imgflip.com/22tqs1.jpg (click to show)
imgflip.com/i/22tqs1
reply
5 ups
i.imgflip.com/251aqh.jpg (click to show)
reply
4 ups
reply
3 ups
exactly
reply
3 ups
reply
3 ups
reply
3 ups
reply
4 ups
reply
3 ups
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
It's really not that hard, people
reply
2 ups
Hmm...I do agree with you. However, I don't believe that "stupid people" are the ones we should be worried about. It's the mentally unstable, who should not be classified as stupid. Often, these mentally ill shooters are very manipulative and scheming, qualities a stupid person would not possess. I think the majority of these massacres are committed by these people with mental problems, NOT stupid people with low IQ.
reply
2 ups
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
reply
5 ups
reply
2 ups, 3 replies
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
reply
4 ups
reply
0 ups
reply
1 up, 2 replies
Yeah Pakistan tried that in the wake of a school shooting. Armed teachers stopped a grand total of 0 attacks before the program was quietly discontinued after a teacher shot and killed an innocent student.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
I can assure you the standards of training in the Pakistan attempt was nothing like what is required of the School Marshall requirements for a teacher to be a School Marshall in Texas. Do some research and you will see...
"The 2013 Protection of Texas Children Act allows schools to designate up to one teacher or staff member per 400 students to be a “school marshal.” The individual must already be an employee of the school, hold a license to carry a concealed handgun, undergo a psychological evaluation, and attend 80 hours of training at a state-certified police academy."
reply
1 up
reply
1 up
reply
1 up
reply
1 up
https://www.filmsforaction.org/articles/after-the-florida-school-shooting-we-need-to-talk-about-more-than-guns/
reply
[deleted]
1 up
reply
1 up
reply
1 up
reply
1 up
Mass Shooter Decisions
reply
1 up, 5 replies
reply
7 ups, 1 reply
I can care that kids are killed without thinking gun control will fix it, or is even an appropriate way to fix it.
I care that women get **ped, but I don't go around demanding all men have their dicks chopped off to prevent it. And whats that, some women are **ped with foreign objects instead.
We can care about a problem without agreeing that your solution is appropriate or will even work.
reply
3 ups, 2 replies
They actually do castrate rapists nowadays. But that's an entirely different because banning guns isn't the same as cutting off a vital appendage. And if it is those people need help. We don't know if banning guns will work because we haven't tried it yet.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
In the U.S., no they don't. It's considered cruel and unusual punishment. But even if they did, the comparison still stands, because we do require background checks so anyone with a violent criminal record cannot buy a gun.
reply
1 up, 2 replies
Anyone in the US can legally purchase a firearm at a gun show without a background check. Also, the Sutherland Springs shooter was able to purchase an automatic rifle at a gun store, with a background check, despite a conviction and dishonorable discharge for domestic assault.

Background checks are a joke.
reply
1 up, 2 replies
So the laws we already have aren't being enforced properly and your solution is more laws?
reply
1 up, 2 replies
If no amount of enforcing existing laws will prevent a felon from legally purchasing a firearm at a public sale, does it not logically follow that a new law is in order to prevent such an occurrence?

Let me ask you this: if a man were to **pe a woman, and not face prosecution due to those exact circumstances being not illegal, would you call for more enforcement of existing laws or a new law?
reply
1 up, 2 replies
Your comment makes no sense. **pe is illegal. You persecute him for **pe, the crime he committed. You don't make it illegal for him to have p**is. And I'm not saying no more laws. I'm saying even you said we can't even enforce the ones we have. How about we work on enforcing existing laws first. It is pointless to write a new law if you aren't even enforcing the ones you have.
reply
2 ups
And maybe that's what needs to change as well as more stringent laws. Because I'm hearing a lot about the gun owners being the criminals. But if it's gun sellers that aren't doing the mandatory background checks, then aren't they the real criminals here?
reply
0 ups
My comment makes perfect sense once you take the time to educate yourself. Not so long ago anal **pe was not prosecutable as **pe in many US states. It fell under sodomy laws, but those also penalized consensual acts, and were less harsh than **pe laws. So, while **pe is morally wrong and ought to be illegal, certain types of **pe have not always been illegal even in the US.
reply
0 ups
Felons can not purchase or possess firearms, law states that. So another law that states the felon can't purchase or possess firearms will suddenly make it to where that felon can't? Criminals completely disregard laws, so how will one more make the felon follow that one?
reply
1 up
reply
1 up, 1 reply
No, he did NOT buy an automatic rifle.
reply
0 ups, 2 replies
AR-15s, like all firearms that eject a spent casing and load a fresh cartridge, are automatic firearms. An AR-15 with a barrel greater than 16 inches in length is classified as a rifle, therefore the AR-15 is an automatic rifle.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
You're meem comment is great...if you apply it to yourself. An automatic rifle is one that fires multiple rounds while the trigger is depressed. A semi-automatic fires one round per trigger pull. An AR-15 is the SEMI-Automatic version of the M-16. Which is an automatic. The AR-15 functions in the same way as the Ruger mini-14 and the Ruger 10/22 and a lot of other rifles used in hunting and sport and recreation.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
Look it up. You are thinking of a fully automatic firearm. I am talking about an automatic firearm. All fully automatic, burst-fire, and semi-automatic only firearms are, technically speaking, considered automatics.
reply
1 up, 2 replies
It is an auto-loading firearm, as in not a revolver; pump, lever, or bolt action firearm. The operator of a semi automatic firearm is required to depress the trigger to fire each round that is automatically loaded though the cycling of the firearms action. So it is a semi automatic firearm.
0 ups
-Haf- if you are interested I can give you links to learn the terminology. If everyone speaks the same language it is easier to have civil discussion even with opposing points of view.
0 ups
Wow, I'm impressed with all of the technical gun terminology being thrown around here. I know nothing about all of this
reply
0 ups
Speaking of terminology, you just defined a SEMI-automatic rifle. And Automatic rifle is one that fires, and continues to fire rounds until the trigger is released or all the ammo has been fired. Therefore the AR-15 is *NOT* an automatic rifle.
reply
1 up
BTW, how is it a "vital" appendage. I don't have one and I'm just fine. I'm sure it's a lot of fun to "shoot" but you don't really need it.
reply
4 ups, 2 replies
This is a dangerous assumption. I agree with BM. Personally I think a little more gun control would help as would mental health initiatives. What bothers me is people who think that one thing is the problem. No, we have several issues at play here.
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
reply
1 up
Even the God Emperor of Man seems to think a little more gun control may not be the end of the world.
reply
1 up
I wholeheartedly agree. I would love to see someone come up with a gun control - mental health package deal (sorry, couldn't resist).
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
Many of us have been calling for an end to violence, especially in Chicago for years. The problem is many liberals don't like to talk about Chicago because they have to admit gun control has not worked there.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
But isn't that because guns are being purchased out of state?
reply
2 ups, 2 replies
Out of state, out of town, out of country it doesn't matter. When you have a region so ridiculously out of whack with the rest of the country, something else is to blame. There are more guns in Dallas than in Chicago.
reply
0 ups
actually it probably does matter. Chicago is still using American made guns. Getting in touch with a dealer that imports them, from out of the country into a black market, isn't something just anybody can do.
reply
0 ups
And far far less gun crime in Dallas than in Chicago. What is different, the laws that restrict only the law abiding.
reply
2 ups
Perhaps we should ban all the Dims who are committing the major majority of the murders.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Of course they do. Which is why they purchase guns so they can reduce the odds of being included in that statistic.
reply
0 ups
i.imgflip.com/22tqs1.jpg (click to show)
imgflip.com/i/22tqs1
reply
0 ups
that is not a joke
reply
0 ups
It will make it a lot tougher to get a hold of said Assault Rifles.
reply
0 ups
Since criminals, by definition, are people who break the law, perhaps we should simply eliminate laws. There, problem solved.
reply
0 ups
That's not the point...
reply
0 ups
https://www.filmsforaction.org/articles/after-the-florida-school-shooting-we-need-to-talk-about-more-than-guns/
reply
0 ups
stricter gun laws? Sorry i'm Canadian.
reply
0 ups
Thanks to everyone who made this my best meme ever and pushed me over 100,000!
reply
0 ups
Harder to obtain at least. That's the whole point. Not making guns illegal, adding hurtles to obtaining them
reply
0 ups
Just illigalize all guns and assault rifles. Only allow strict applications of rifles for hunters just like the nations that have the least of gun related deaths in the world.
reply
1 up
reply
1 up
"Opportunity makes a thief", right? And opportunity can make a murderer as well. Give all mentally ill people worldwide the easy opportunity to buy semi-automatic weapons, then you will soon not to have to worry about anything any longer.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
stricter regulations = harder to obtain
harder to obtain = less people will have them
less people will have them = less people will die from them, especially YA mentally unstable teens that decide to shoot up their school on a whim and on their allowance.
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
reply
0 ups, 2 replies
Australia and Japan seem to have no problem with the practice. It's not only theoretical
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
Australia and Japan are also island countries with a physical barrier between it and other countries. Mexico also has very strict gun control laws, how much of a contrast is that from Australia and Japan. Chances are, The US would become just like Mexico with similar gun laws, since the cartels are already in and operating in the US. But let's just gloss over that problem and highlight Australia and Japan.
reply
1 up, 3 replies
Mexico is corrupt af, they can't enforce gun laws. America is a much more resourceful country than has the power to enforce these gun laws. Of course their will still be gun violence, but we can still dramatically reduce it. Where do you think Mexico is getting those guns from?
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Source does not matter, the guns used in the gun violence is Australia are not made in Australia and are not legal to import into the country, yet they are there and used illegally. Mexico is corrupt because of the cartels, they go into a town and try to buy off the law enforcement who denies the offer, so the cartel kills him and his family. The next guy to take the job gets the same offer, and what choice do you think he makes? And that is because the only people who have guns are the police, who are outnumbered and outgunned. Yet in the US, the majority of "The People" support law enforcement and would have their back, that is what keeps them in check since the cartels are already in the US. Ever wonder why there has never been a land invasion by an opposing force inside the US? There is a quote about that dating back to World War 2, I'll let you find it.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
source does matter. If we didn't hang guns out like candy, they would have less guns too. No one is going to invade the US because we have the strongest military in the world. It would take two shakes to bring in a huge force from foreign countries to fight a war on our land, we'd neutralize the enemy within weeks, even if they were hundreds of thousands strong. Because ain't no AR going to stand up to that shit.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
It is kind of like, nuclear weapons, they can not be un-invented, same with firearms. They are both a Pandora's box that once what is released will never go back. Even if there were not firearms, atrocities are still going to occur. The first recorded murder occurred with a rock. We all suffer from the human condition and all legislation is going to do is make more targets. The "Gun Free" zone debacle proves that. And if you say it doesn't, then put a gun free zone sign on your house.
reply
0 ups
again, you are thinking that I want to take away all guns, but really just the deadly ones are fine. I know gun violence and slaughter will continue, but that doesn't mean we should at least try to reduce the number of victims.
reply
0 ups
US does not enforce gun laws. It's shocking, but true.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
They got a bunch from the Obama admin, didn't they?
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
that was an effort to see what percentage of American guns were used in MExico. As you recall the outcome revealed it was close to 90% of firearms in Mexico come from America.
reply
0 ups
As I recall the Obama admin provided a place/places where drug cartel could purchase as many weapons as they wished and then trace said weapons to their destination. One problem with this is the way they were to be traced, they weren't. The was no device that tracked anything except how many guns were bought giving inflated inaccurate stats. These stats were intended to be used to show the american people how easy it is to acquire a gun in an effort to bring about stricter gun laws. I would hope this would not be acceptable to someone merely because it would have helped their argument.
reply
1 up, 2 replies
Then why haven't you moved?
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Because I'm an American and I believe in America. America can become a great place to live again. But you can't be so resistant to new ideas that have been proven to work well.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
I am an American and an Australian, and the gun laws in Australia have not stopped gun violence, highly intrusive, to the point of being a violation of the US 2nd *AND* 4th Amendment rights. Daily there are news reports of shootings in Australia, yet you highlight Australian gun control laws as the cure all. Is that because what the news have told you? I can assure you, it is reported that way through some very very rose colored glasses and skewed perspectives.
#redpill
-
https://tenplay.com.au/news/national/2018/2/22/melbourne-shooting
-
https://www.9news.com.au/
-
http://www.abc.net.au/news/
-
https://www.sbs.com.au/news/topic/australia
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
Stopping gun violence? What is this a utopia? How about, radically reducing it, by a good factor? How about comparing murder rates before and after gun law is introduced? http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/gun-deaths-eliminated-america-learn-japan-australia-uk-norway-florida-shooting-latest-news-a8216301.html #TheRealRedpill #WeCouldDoSoMuchBetter
reply
1 up, 1 reply
There are sheep, there are wolves, and there is the sheep dog. There are always more sheep then the wolves, and there are always more wolves than the sheepdog. But the sheepdog still protects the sheep. We all have our place in society, where is yours?
reply
1 up, 2 replies
I'm not saying we should ban all guns. Just semi-auto rifles. limit magazine sizes, and ban on bump stocks. I'm willing to work with what I believe is an outdated "right" to bear arms. I understand that it is a part of American culture so a full ban would probably do more harm than good. But there has to be a middle ground. One where we can save more children from being shot by a super deadly weapon that purchased with incredible ease. Like a kid would even be able to find the black market, and use it without getting caught.
reply
0 ups, 5 replies
Since you bring up the "right" to bear arms when referring to the 2nd amendment as being outdated, how is it outdated. Tyranny never goes by the wayside, as long as there are people having the position and ability to violate human or civil rights, there is the chance for tyranny. How is that outdated? And the 2nd amendment is there to allow The People to protect themselves and their posterity from whatever the source of that tyranny is, whether it be a government or a cartel or anything else. You really should read the entire Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill or Rights, and a property history book covering the time frame of when it was written.
1 up
instead of explaining the huge technological advancements in our war machines in the last 40 years that have fundamentally changed how we fight armed troops; I'll give you an alternative to fighting Tyranny with guns. A peaceful protest, of millions of Americans, marching onto DC to stop the slaughter. They would have to massacre us in cold blood if they wanted to stop us. That would only inspire more to do the same. It seems like a drastically idiotic move, but it would be our last hope for an acceptable revolution. I'll leave you with one of my favorite quotes from one of my favorite geniuses.

"I do not know what weapons world war III will be fought with, but World War VI will be fought with sticks and stones." -Albert Einstein
1 up
-Bert- the right to protest is the first amendment, which you enjoy with all the other amendments. But it is the 2nd amendment that gives The People teeth against the government. And without those teeth, the protest get that they allowed us to do would be a peasantry they allow, should they choose to allow it to continue. Which at that point they wouldn't have to because there is nothing protecting those rights.
1 up
Its outdated because you can't fight tyranny with AR's when they have A10's, tanks, and drones. The only thing it makes sense for, besides hunting, is self defense in small conflicts. You shouldn't need anything more than a single well placed bullet by a handgun, at most. The very least, use it to de-escalate the situation, although it usually does the exact opposite.
0 ups
Bert, maybe you should read some history books on Vietnam as well. The people there were able to hold off two, technologically superior forces, one of them prior to the arrival of the US. So in essence they fought two wars back to back. Enough determination, anything is possible.
0 ups
...*proper history book....
reply
0 ups
imgflip.com/i/254woo
i.imgflip.com/254woo.jpg (click to show)
reply
1 up, 1 reply
I hate questions like this...Just because someone disagrees with the status quo, then tell them to leave. f*** that. DBP, I probably lean the same way politically as you. however, telling those that don't like it to leave isn't right. We all love this country (but not every single aspect of it), and therefore want to work to make it the best possible version of itself.
reply
0 ups, 3 replies
I understand. For my part, I have a problem with those who are constantly the US with other countries, suggesting we do it their way. Android apps don't work on iPhones, not because they are not good ideas but because the systems are different. Cherrypicking doesn't work. It's a package deal. If some other place is so great I wish they'd go there because the suggestions they make are not helpful. And just being picky, I didn't anyone to leave, just asked why they hadn't moved to the places they mentioned.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Hmm. I disagree with most of what you've said here. The only way to know if policy will work is to compare to other countries or places. You're right, different countries and systems. It's a package deal? I doubt you were saying that when Obama was in charge, with Obamacare and whatever else you didn't like. I assume back then you wanted to change things. Well... dems want to change things now with Trump in charge. Our country is constantly changing and evolving and therefore it is not a package deal. Change is constant... the only way to be at peace is to accept that fact. Those comparing the policy of other countries stay here because the US is better. That doesn't mean that little things can't be improved here (in their opinion).
Again, keep in mind that I think we're similar politically, but I suppose not so much in terms of open-mindedness.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
What I mean by package deal is that many of the ideas that work in other countries are not plug and play, and are effective in those countries because they have different economic and social systems. I do agree that things can be better. Certainly the cost of healthcare. I'm not aware of anyone who thinks that shootings are okay. The controversy comes in what to do about it, and who should change.

I appreciate your openness and style of discussion.
reply
1 up
Agreed. High five and happy Friday!!!!!
reply
0 ups
*comparing*
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
Because copycats are unoriginal hacks that don't deserve to be heard?
reply
1 up
Not unoriginal. The idea that laws there are plug and play and would work here is an unproven assumption. In my admittedly unhumble opinion.
Flip Settings
Creepy Condescending Wonka memeRe-caption this meme

Created with the Imgflip Meme Generator

Show embed codes
IMAGE DESCRIPTION:
TELL ME MORE ABOUT WHY YOU THINK SOMEONE WHO IS WILLING TO KILL INNOCENT PEOPLE; WILL CARE ABOUT STRICTER GUN LAWS
hotkeys: D = random, W = like, S = dislike, A = back
Feedback