This needed to be said.

Apr 28, 2016 11:54 PM

DatPug

Views

97130

Likes

4726

Dislikes

608

I know for a fact this is going to cause a lot of controversy and its going to royally piss a LOT of people off, and honestly I do not care. I am not saying in anyway that the victims and their families do not deserve any kind of (What would they honestly get in this situation? I don't know what the word is that basically translates to "Sorry your kid got shot, have some money.") because they do, what they and their families went through was simply horrific, we can all agree on this and they deserve some sort of... compensation? (That doesn't sound right still). BUT, suing the gun manufacturer because some asshole misused their product is only going to open up an ugly can of worms that will easily be abused (And it will be, trust me it will be) and lead to future scenarios where instead of people blaming the wrong do-er, they will instead use it as an excuse to attack big corporations that honestly did nothing wrong. (For once.) Behold, what I hope is to be some simple common sense examples.

Seriously, this should be pretty open and shut. The only person at fault here in this situation is the driver. You can't blame Toyota and say its their fault some maniac got behind the wheel of one of their cars, slammed on the gas and commenced to drive down the sidewalk while screaming WITNESS ME at the top of his/her lungs. Now maybe if the car had some factory defect that caused the operator to lose control of it or made it impossible to stop his/her vehicle from going off the road and killing some one then yea, its the manufacturers fault, but in this situation where there's was nothing wrong with the vehicle and the driver is clearly whacked out of their mind, fault falls on said whack-job.

Once more another common sense situation. Who is at fault here, the guy who decided to do his best Babe Ruth imitation with your skull and a baseball bat, your fault for simply minding your own business and existing (Seriously what kind of human garbage are you, shame on you for existing.) or the manufacturer who made the baseball bat? Again the fault here lies on the user for misusing the product.There's no reason to try to hit a home run with some ones skull unless your in the mob or re-enacting Smash Bros. Melee.

Now this one may be a bit more extreme but again who is at fault here? Its both the drivers fault for drinking to much and then driving AND its the passengers fault for drinking to much and allowing his/her friend to drive instead of going "Dude, where fucked up.. we should probably walk or get a cab..". You could also argue its the bartenders fault for letting these two get to this point of intoxication or for letting them leave and not calling them a cab. How ever the one party that is not at fault is again.. the manufacturer! Its not Jack Daniels fault you are not a responsible human being! Seriously we have all seen the commercials, EVERY SINGLE FUCKING ALCOHOL COMMERCIAL ALWAYS ENDS THE SAME WAY! THEY ALWAYS END WITH SOMEONE SAYING, "Please Drink Responsibly." Why? because they WANT you to drink their product but they DON'T (At least I hope) want you to then go out and endanger yourself or other people afterwards.

All right this last one is going to rustle a whole lot of jimmies. This is an ugly and extreme situation where again the point needs to be made. In this situation its pretty clear who is at fault here. It's clearly the woman's I mean Jesus lady pay attention to your drink! I'M KIDDING IT WAS A JOKE! (Oh god, the triggers there so many what have I done!) No, the fault lies on the rapist, he (Hell maybe even she) is the piece of shit that spiked your drink and did things to you while you where out like a light. It is in no way shape or form the victims fault BUT it is also not the manufacturers fault, this product of theirs was meant to help you fall asleep, not to use to rape people! (God I hope so, how fucked would that be if some CEO came out and announced that was its only real purpose of being made?)

All of this has led me to these twenty seven individuals you see before you. Gun down in the prime of their lives and some long before they even know what a prime was or knew anything outside of child innocence. YES their families deserve something for this tragedy. YES we need to make sure something like this never happens again. NO we cannot put the blame on a company whose product was misused!

Annon: "Hurr Dur, but guns where designed to kill people!"

...You are technically correct my friend.. which is the best kind of correct. Yes guns where designed with the single purpose to end a life. Yes you can argue that the shooter used the gun correctly. (Its fucking horrible I know) BUT guns now-a-days are designed to end life and protect it. I can promise you these gun companies don't manufacture these guns thinking "Man I bet some one could shoot up a school or office with this thing!". No they make them because we as Americans have the RIGHT to own them. Guns now-a-days are meant to be used in war (MURICA! BRINGING YA FREEDOM FOR YA OIL!) to be used for hunting ANIMALS (not Man... the most dangerous of game..) and for protection (Because they climbin in yo window, snatchin yo people up.). These things where never meant to be brought into a school or an office building or a starbucks and used to start gunning down innocent people.

Do NOT allow these victims before you to be used to create a system where anyone can sue an innocent entity (Whether it be a corporation or a single person.) just because something terrible happened and the victim feels entitled to some sort of compensation (Again still not sure if that's the right word.) and the easiest way to get it would be to sue someone/thing that had nothing to do with the crime rather then suing the asshole who committed the crime. Hold the perpetrator responsible! Not the manufactures whose products where misused!

TL;DR Its not the gun manufacturers fault some asshole shot up a school, its the assholes fault for shooting up a school.

Cat Tax: http://i.imgur.com/5EmenFt.jpg This is BB (Because frickenunbelievable called me a twat for not posting a cat tax, fuck you I'm not a twat you're a twat!)

FP Edit: Holy shit I made Front Page! Send Pugs! Heck send dogs and cats! Screw it just show off your pets!

"I passed on from this world to the next at such a young age.. But at least my mom carried my memory by getting rich off my death!"

10 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 2

Good to see people actually blaming the shooter and not the inanimate object just doing what it's made to do

10 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

I'm not exactly pro gun and even I find this ridiculous.

10 years ago | Likes 12 Dislikes 3

*Reads negative replies*

10 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 1

A gun manufacturer is not responsible for that which their product is used. If that were the case any gun maker would be sued every war.

10 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 2

Just ban all Americans from schools. That's the easiest solution. Then we get to keep guns and rohipnol. Easy

10 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Our society overall is too litigious

10 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 2

There still are checks on judges legislating from the bench, fortunatelly.

10 years ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 3

+1gor roofy-colatta

10 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

and for technically correct, and for climbin in yo window, snatchin yo people up

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Gun vontrol is the most divisive issue on the left. They don't truly care about life, just feel good legislation that wins them more votes

10 years ago | Likes 13 Dislikes 6

well you see the left is beyond corrupt so the citizenry being able to defend themselves is a clear threat to their continued existence.

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

But does nothing to effect the situation. If we just enforced the laws we have then we would see a definitive lull of illegal firearm deaths

10 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 1

Shhhhhhshhh, don't tell them that existing laws being enforced will help, That will just lead them to believe it won't help....

10 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

"Guns don't kill people, people kill people."

10 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 1

but it would be a lot harder without the proper tools from guns to tying a rock to a stick I say we outlaw the science responsible for them

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

People kill people, but guns sure do help rack up a body count.

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

i was about to say the exact same thing actually.

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

They won't win. Will set a very bad precedent.

10 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

I don't know I feel like it will set a very good precedent. Can't sue a manufacturer unless they are negligent.

10 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

100% with the OP. I'm completely disgusted with the families using their children's death to promote a political agenda.

10 years ago | Likes 19 Dislikes 18

Yeah, sure, I bet they were waiting for someone in their family to die to promote their evil agenda.

10 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 2

The word you were looking for is restitution.

10 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 1

Should we blame the Mathews? Should we blame the fire? Or the doctors who allowed him to expire? Heck no! Blame Canada! Blame Canada!

10 years ago | Likes 653 Dislikes 13

When all else fails ..always blame Canada

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 2

Sorry

10 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

you beautiful bastard.

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

With their beady little eyes and flapping heads so full of lies

10 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 0

With all their hockey hullabaloo, and that bitch Anne Murray, too

10 years ago | Likes 27 Dislikes 1

It's not even a real country anyway.

10 years ago | Likes 14 Dislikes 2

It seems everything's gone wrong, since Canada came along... BLAME CANADA! BLAME CANADA!

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

It's not even a real country anyway.

10 years ago | Likes 15 Dislikes 2

Typo or not take my damn upvote, I lol'ed.

10 years ago | Likes 74 Dislikes 1

Fuckin Canada and they're dumb shit! (I'm Canadian btw :P)

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

If Boy Meets World was Boy Versus World.

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Darn that Matthew, always starting fires...

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Aww shit matches got autocorrected. Fuck you Matthew.

10 years ago | Likes 37 Dislikes 1

Fucking Matthew and his bullshit.

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

Well fuck you too

10 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 0

♪ Before somebody thinks of blaming US!!! ♪

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I believe reparation is the word you're looking for.

10 years ago | Likes 27 Dislikes 7

Also the word 'were' instead of 'where.'

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

We're *Ahem*

10 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

I would've said restitution

10 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Absolutely right..I own multiple guns and guns do not just kill people..people with those guns kill people

10 years ago | Likes 31 Dislikes 14

[deleted]

[deleted]

10 years ago (deleted Feb 4, 2017 11:41 PM) | Likes 0 Dislikes 0

Actually, bullets kill people.

10 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 0

sue the miners! without the metal they get, we could never have accurate bullets.

10 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

Can confirm have gun it has yet to get up and kill me… so far

10 years ago | Likes 12 Dislikes 3

I keep mine locked up, just in case it tries to get me.

10 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Gas chambers don't kill people. People who use gas chambers kill people.

10 years ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 2

Your argument is valid.

10 years ago | Likes 11 Dislikes 7

[deleted]

[deleted]

10 years ago (deleted Feb 2, 2017 6:11 AM) | Likes 0 Dislikes 0

Yeah it is. You want to come tell my gun to kill someone. I bet your life it doesn't do shit because it's an inanimate object.

10 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 1

Talk some sense into this son of a bitch

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 2

Yep, my guns have not killed anyone.

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

@OP, did you also hear about the car accident dude suing Snapchat because the other driver hit him while trying to snap?

10 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 1

Yea...yea... people are dumb..

10 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

I know, like the people buying AR-15's.

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

The average number of people killed in a mass shooting while waiting for the police is 14. But when an Armed citizen is present its 2.5

10 years ago | Likes 11 Dislikes 7

Source for that?

10 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

Source given is from a site called the "dailyanarchist" lol. I hope it doesn't have any bias.

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

This sounds so much like Runaway Jury.

10 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 1

Wasn't Runaway Jury cigarettes?

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

Naw. Guns.

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Movie: yes........ Book: no

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Gun manufacturer sued for an office shooting. ROT13 spoiler: gur cebgntbavfgf jub vasvygengr gur whel ner fheivibef bs n fpubby fubbgvat

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

27 people stabbed and killed in China, IIRC same day as Sandy Hook, in a school. Blame the maniac, or the knife manufacturer?

10 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 1

Imagine if they had guns. It wouldn't be 27 dead 140 wounded, it'd probably be reversed. The fact that they had knives proves the point.

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

Also, it wasn't a "maniac" it was 8 people and it was a terror attack. Imagine 8 people w/ any firearm vs. 8 people w/ knives. You choose.

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

Ban assault knives!

10 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

My ex-gf's father was at a bar one night. He got drunk and ended up driving home. When he tried to leave again his wife tried to stop him.

10 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 1

Seems like a poor officer if he cant disarm a drunk man with a knife. Or figure another way. I assume this was in America?

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 7

You don't disarm an aggressor, you neutralize the threat. Self defense 101.

10 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

The cops got called for a domestic dispute. When they arrived her father was in their driveway still drunk trying to get in his car and

10 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

He had a butcher's knife. The cop told him to step away from the vehicle and to drop the butcher's knife. He proceeded to ask the officer

10 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

"If he wanted to party" and walked towards the cop with the knife outstretched. The cop told him to drop the knife again and to get on the

10 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

Ground. He proceeded towards the officer with the knife outstretched at him. The cop shot him in the chest around the shoulder to disarm

10 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

Him. Her father ended up going to the hospital to have the wound treated and ended up dying due to blood loss from the wound. Her mother

10 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

I disagree. Gun manufacturers don't make guns because of FREEDOM and LIBERTY and your God given rights. They make them because money.

10 years ago | Likes 36 Dislikes 25

It's still a free enterprise making a product that is not illegal.

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Oh my god! People start business to make money?! CALL THE PRESS!

10 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

It sure is easy as heck to pontificate behind legions of well armed soldiers protecting your right to free speech!

10 years ago | Likes 14 Dislikes 7

Oh, god, that's horrible. How dare they.

10 years ago | Likes 13 Dislikes 0

I wasn't disagreeing with a OP's sentiment, just that guns aren't made purely to satisfy your American rights.

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I am in no way denying the legality of arms manufacturing. Personally, I feel it's morally dubious, but it is very much a legal enterprise.

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Still, they have the legal right to sell that product, why should they be held liable for the criminal use of their product?

10 years ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 1

None of the above examples market themselves based on an ability to kill. If they did it would open then up to legal liability

10 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 12

Yet, the above examples kill more than any AR-15 does. FBI says that long guns (shotguns and rifles) only amount to around 350 deaths.

10 years ago | Likes 11 Dislikes 0

You missed the point. I'm not moralising. As soon as Toyota markets a car based on how many things you can run over in it we can compare.

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 10

How about knife? It was a sharp weapon designed to kill animal, then other people.

10 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 2

And you might have a case of Lanza had actually purchased the guns. But he murdered his mom for them. No amount of marketing is responsible.

10 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 1

I don't like guns and am happy they're banned where i live. But you can't legally allow guns to be sold and sue the manufacturers for this.

10 years ago | Likes 79 Dislikes 8

2/2 You can't make something legal for a company to produce and then allow them to be sued for producing it. Their issue should be political

10 years ago | Likes 28 Dislikes 2

The problem is also the view that everyone should be allowed to have a gun. NO, NO NO NO! Some people should NOT have weapons of any kind.

10 years ago | Likes 18 Dislikes 6

Exactly, which is a political/legal issue, not something that should/is left up to the manufacturer

10 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 2

I own several, and I practice with them and am responsible. I know many people that I wouldn't trust looking at a gun much less owning one.

10 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 1

But it's not the manufacturer's job, or even the government's, to make that distinction.

10 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 3

Completely agree with my own family in that mind set. I own guns but I have a job related to guns so I practice.

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Where do you live that guns are banned?

10 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 4

The UK. Although, banned is a slight exaggeration for brevity.

10 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

Ah. And therein lies a salient point: firearms don't need to be actually banned for them to EFFECTIVELY be banned by incremental regulations

10 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 3

Also in feelings on guns. I dare say under our laws quite a lot more of us could get guns if we wanted.

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

Depends gun's are not exactly cheap.

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

There is a vast gulf between our laws and yours on this issue. Even arguing slippery slope, it's a long slope.

10 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

The problem with long slopes is that once you start down one it becomes harder & harder to stop.

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

Yeah, I'm sure that a bad guy is really going to take the "ban" into consideration when choosing to commit a crime. Gawd you're an idiot.

10 years ago | Likes 17 Dislikes 11

Well, bar London gun crime is really low, so yeah?

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Then why do we make laws for anything? If you are saying laws have 0 preventative effect then why do we have them?

10 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

Seems to me you have a really black and white idea of crime where "bad guys" are just evil and we can do nothing to prevent their actions.

10 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Correct me if I'm wrong but weren't the guns used his mother's that she legally purchased? He used stolen guns to commit the shooting.

10 years ago | Likes 73 Dislikes 9

The lack of adequate storage should be considered gross negligence and should be tried every time it's a factor.

10 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 8

Everyone is law abiding until they arent.

10 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 6

Lanza was never law abiding, he never purchased any guns, he murdered his mother to get the guns. Nothing law abiding there.

10 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 1

[deleted]

[deleted]

10 years ago (deleted Nov 5, 2017 1:21 AM) | Likes 0 Dislikes 0

Yet, the only way he got a gun was by murdering his mother. Never went through a background check or anything.

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

I personally don't know but what's the difference? You & I own kitchen knifes if your brother decided to kill many & steal it from you or me

10 years ago | Likes 14 Dislikes 6

The AR15 rifle was created for one reason, to kill people. That's the argument as to why they are being sued and not knife/bat/car companies

10 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 7

I believe the point is that even if gun co. could be held liable for selling practices, they sold this one legally and not to the killer

10 years ago | Likes 15 Dislikes 0

He stole the guns, killed his mother and then went to the school and killed all of those kids.

10 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 0

What difference it makes? Its not the knife company fault & guns must be kept locked but if it was stolen from that safe is not your fault

10 years ago | Likes 15 Dislikes 2

You're right. Im not sure what my point was earlier.

10 years ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 2

I think it's meant to show how even though the gun company follows every precaution to safely sell guns, bad people find a way to get them.

10 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

"... guns now-a-days are designed to end life and protect it." Explain the latter part to me. Seatbelts protect lives, helmets protect 1/

10 years ago | Likes 26 Dislikes 19

they are tools which when used properly can protect people by killing dangerous animals. sometimes those dangerous animals were human.

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Re animals, I'd say that's pretty rare. Re humans, that's covered by parts 3 and 4 of my comment.

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

depends where you are, we have some nasty stuff out here in both categories

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Helmets and seatbelts can also take lives. My cousin was cut in half internally from a seatbelt.

10 years ago | Likes 11 Dislikes 7

I'm not going to ask about your cousin because that would be insensitive, but I am interested in your thoughts on how helmets take lives.

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

lives, ballistic vests protect lives. A firearm does not project some force field of protection. It is designed to inflict maximum damage 2/

10 years ago | Likes 20 Dislikes 20

to a target in minimum time (caveat: yes there is a small proportion designed to be less lethal). Can a person with a firearm protect 3/

10 years ago | Likes 11 Dislikes 14

*some* lives? Yes, but only via the threat or action of ending *other* lives. AFAIK America is unique in the developed world to hold so 4/

10 years ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 13

strongly, so fiercely, to the belief that firearms are a basic necessity for citizens to wield against other citizens. 5/5

10 years ago | Likes 14 Dislikes 13

I'm from a 3rd world country (guns ard hard to obtain) now living in the US trust me ppl owning guns will solve the criminals on my country

10 years ago | Likes 14 Dislikes 0

I've used my firearm for protection several times. stopped crimes in process and still have yet to for a single bullet.scared them all off

10 years ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 1

Yes that's covered by parts 3 and 4 of my comment.

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Yup, guns kill bad guys.

10 years ago | Likes 17 Dislikes 12

They also kill a whole shit loadof good guys, and kids

10 years ago | Likes 13 Dislikes 12

Weird...did they grow legs or something? If so I need to update my collection.

10 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 5

If, as you said, "guns kill bad guys", then they can kill good guys and kids.

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

What if Toyota lobbied expressly to have safety measures that hurt car sales removed from the law?

10 years ago | Likes 54 Dislikes 18

Like the restrictions on suppressors?

10 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

Could they sue the NRA for preventing effective gun control?

10 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 6

No, because they would first have to sue law enforcement agencies for not enforcing the existing laws.

10 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 3

That and effective gun control is a contradiction of terms.

10 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

Using both hands on one gun is pretty effective for me, but I do like to go full akimbo from time to time.

10 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 2

You rascal, I like you sir.

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 2

What if such safety measures didn't just hurt car sales, but were also unnecessary and sometimes detracted from their purpose?

10 years ago | Likes 17 Dislikes 6

3 transmissions must be to blame. Also, the trucks that did the most hit-and-runs had fog lights mounted on top, so any truck, regardless

10 years ago | Likes 11 Dislikes 2

4 of transmission type, that has fog lights on the roof must also have this range limit. And they change these regulations every few years,

10 years ago | Likes 11 Dislikes 2

5 adding to the list of combinations that are supposedly easier to use for hit-and-runs, and very rarely removing or decreasing them.

10 years ago | Likes 12 Dislikes 2

For instance, if the government put in place a law stating that all manual transmission vehicles must have a limited range before refuelling

10 years ago | Likes 12 Dislikes 2

2 of 5 miles, because research shoes that most hit-and-runs are done through trucks with a manual transmission, and therefore, manual

10 years ago | Likes 12 Dislikes 2

The problem with this here is an automatic gun in the hands of an inexperienced rifleman has a far greater potential to kill using 1/2

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

your examples for instance. Cars are also a mandatory part of every day lives for regular citizens guns are not. 2/2

10 years ago | Likes 0 Dislikes 0

An automatic gun is illegal, and noone is lobbying for them to be made legal. The examples I used are analogous to the magazine capacity 1/?

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

5/? cover, but you'll need many more to take down a gunman who's actively trying to hide behind cover and avoid your fire, who may very well

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

8/? weapons for reasons they were not intended to be, namely, a preemptive strike on individuals who are not prepared to defend.

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

/fin

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

7/? firearm. Therefore, these restrictions put more of a disadvantage and punishment on law-abiding citizens than those who would use these

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

4/? would only put one at a disadvantage in a fight they did not instigate. You only need 1-2 rounds to kill an unsuspecting target with no

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

3/? unnecessary at best, and harmful to the purpose of the firearm at worst. The limit to a 10-round non-detachable magazine, for instance,

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

2/? limit in many states for semiautomatic firearms, as well as further restrictions to any guns with pistol grips. Both of which are

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Then why the war on drugs? Why not just use them 'responsibly'?

10 years ago | Likes 16 Dislikes 10

I don't think anyone wants the war on drugs anymore except old school Reagan/Nixon Republicans, but no one wants to come out as "pro-drugs".

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Excellent point. The war on drugs should be stopped and those that wish to should be able to use them responsibly.

10 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 2

The war on drugs spanned decades, cost trillions of dollars and considered an enormous failure.

10 years ago | Likes 13 Dislikes 2

Depends on whose pockets you're emptying. I'd you think only the cartels make the money...

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 2

Look at Portugal. They barely have any drug abuse problems after they legalized and regulated drugs.

10 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 2

The irony is legal drug use would crush the cartel's marketability and ultimately prevent a lot of violence.

10 years ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 3

Doubtful. They'd find something else illegal to smuggle, which they're probably already doing.

10 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 1

I doubt they could find something as lucrative as narcotics. They would definitely lose a lot of money. A good thing.

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Sure, but the violence wouldn't stop. In fact, it'd probably get worse and more prevalent.

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

For a relatively short time, yes. Still need to address it in the States first regardless of how chaotic it would cause cartels to become.

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Like organs and body parts

10 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

They are arguing that the AR-15 should not be sold to civilians. And they can't sue the government. I see where they are coming from

10 years ago | Likes 66 Dislikes 32

Sorry if this is a silly question, but why can't they sue the government? As they create these laws it would make more sense to me...

10 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

A cars purpose is transport people. A baseball bats purpose is used to hit balls in a baseball game ect. All of the above OP mentioned (1/2)

10 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 12

Purposes are for something other then killing. What is a guns purpose? To kill. Why were they invented? To kill!

10 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 14

Guns can be used to hunt animal. But by your logic, knife and other share weapons were also invented to kill So we should ban knife?

10 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 1

How many people buy guns to actually hunt animals. I didnt say anything about banning, I was just saying the argument was a little flawed.

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 11

Wait, you saying people buy guns JUST to kill?! You sure, man? How about hunting, self defense or sport?

10 years ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 1

no one really needs an AR-15 and there are enough floating around now that if you really wanted to collect one it wouldn't be hard

10 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 42

No one needs to shitpost either

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

I like my AR. They're fun to shoot in a safe and controlled environment. Mine has killed exactly zero people.

10 years ago | Likes 27 Dislikes 2

Well obviously you're a monster! Snark off.

10 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

It's dumb though, they are virtually never used in crime.

10 years ago | Likes 29 Dislikes 1

but when they *are* used in crime, the damage is much faster and worse than non-automatic weapons. I think that's their point.

10 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 11

An Ar-15 isn't automatic it's semi automatic just like pistols and most other rifles.

10 years ago | Likes 12 Dislikes 0

Also it shoots a 223/556 round that isn't worse than. 308 or a 30-06 round.

10 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 0

How many shots a minute can it fire? I'm pretty sure a 5 yr old doesn't care what size the bullets are.

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 4

In the right mode, how fast can it fire?

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 3

You're so stupid just stop and learn stuff before you spout shit. It's a damn semi-auto. One pull of the trigger one round. Simple as that.

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

It's semi-auto. Which means it only fires as fast as you pull the trigger. Like a pistol. Full auto is illegal in the U.S..

10 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

It only has one mode. It fires just as fast as a pistol.

10 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

It's silly that they have to make their case against such a specific type of weapon, rather than that they'd be able to argue for more 1/2

10 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 3

2/2 sensible gun regulations (regulations, not necessarily bans) in general. That's politics and the legal system for you though.

10 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 3

Yeah. Like 97% of gun crime is handguns.

10 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

Because those are cheap and easily concealed. That doesn't usually matter for mass shooters though, they just only make up for a small 1/2

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

Although people feel like a ban on guns is safer, it limits those law-abiding citizens to use guns while law breakers.. You know, break laws

10 years ago | Likes 12 Dislikes 9

Exactly! Why bother with vehicle licenses while we're at it. Law breakers will break laws after all.

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 4

Why waste time on any laws someone will always be breaking them.

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 2

Why would mandatory licensing (like we do for vehicles) and training be bad. It limits access for everyone, which is the whole point.

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

If 100 law-abiding citizens have to go through a couple of checks and a few hours of training to prevent just 1 gun death, it's worth it.

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Owning and carrying is a pain in the ass. You have to wear correct clothing, not participate in certain activities, and be totally aware (2)

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Of your surroundings at all times. (3)

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Just cause he is pro-gun doesn't mean he's anti-training. As a CCW carrier, most other people I know take ownership VERY seriously. (1)

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Ya, and just because I'm anti-gun doesn't mean I want to ban them. But he was talking about limits I thought, though.

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

It's worked in Australia, no mass killings since gun laws have been tightened, and it was about one per year before that.

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 3

319mil to 23mil people... Yes the US should model everything Australia does...

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

I'm not saying that, I'm saying that the mass killings went way down when they tightened gun laws.

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

It didn't make you any safer. You had a huge increase in crime and if I remember a while back you had a mass shooting in a cafe :O

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

Good point, one mass shooting since the Port Arthur massacre in 1996.

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Also you can't compare both countries it's Apples to Oranges.

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

I disagree, both countries are 'western' and have similar traditions and customs. They are much more comparable than say Russia or Japan.

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0