LordSkippyTheMagnificent
50102
1707
315
Jul 21, 2016 5:00 PM
LordSkippyTheMagnificent
50102
1707
315
Adin1
If you could reason with idiots there would be no idiots.
WeirdStealth
LOL, why blame the person who actually pulled the trigger, let's blame the people who sold the weapon to him, and the people who made it.
FaithAlone
The analogy doesn't make sense. A better one would be "McDonalds made me fat"
GunPonTooth
I like the exchange of looks in the image.
Attaroo
Checks out. Guy is fat.
ronnyhugo
Well spoons and guns certainly HELP. Even Batman used guns in the last movie, because its easier than writing a no-gun fight script.
spoopinator
guns don't kill people, nuh uh, I kill people *chk chk* with guns (POW) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xC03hmS1Brk
stulfer
This is poor logic
TraitorousTrump3
Torrent sites are file sharers.
Whhpssh
Ha! Shooter's Shop. I bought my .45 there.
patrickgpking
I do think guns suck, but this is quite funny indeed.
88PeppyPeppers
I thought it said spoons made him eat lmaoo
Idsertian
But guns don't kill people. Uh uh... https://youtu.be/xC03hmS1Brk?t=45s
WomanlyWoman
This guy would not pass the ACT or SAT.
kcxlefty
WHY IS THERE ADS ON MOBILE
pyr0chaos
http://imgur.com/gqxQv0E
raveyards
Swapped to pocketgur. No more ads for me
camelroosterchickenteeth
I just realised too!! Wtf!
tarataqa
fuckin casuals
AtricksyHobbitwithtaters
I'm pro gun but the whole "the spoon made me fat" "the drunk killed him not the car" etc. argument needs to be put to rest. its getting old.
66dmewd
Just because an argument is old doesn't mean its not valid. So... do you have another reason?
AtricksyHobbitwithtaters
I just think everyone has heard it and it's not helping, and actually hurting us in some areas. We need to pick a new avenue of approach.
66dmewd
Fair enough. I would also counter with: we've all heard "assault rifles kill people" approach. I'm just tired of both sides. 1/2
66dmewd
People are evil.. get over it.. guns, big pharma, trucks, dictators.. people suck. its a sinful world. end of story.
Turtleproof
ocelot77
theamazinspiderman
And then they knew, it was true love.
tarataqa
Spooks made him fat??
QwerpHole
So true +1
guyfawks
My spoon is too big!
LobsterNipples
at first i thought you said "my poon is too big" i was about to ask if you were my girlfriend
guyfawks
Spike and Mike's sick and twisted animation festival
MakerOfBadJokes
#ThatsWhatSheSaid
CaptMoonMoon
I am a Banana!
LordSkippyTheMagnificent
Good for you, you be Banana.
cookseancook
my anus is bleeding
guyfawks
Beat me to it!
boondoggle2025
Fortunately a spoon isnt a tool that will instantly end someones life
ineptusMechanicus
Is he only allowed to use spoons.... Makes sense
Panda4hire
Can we all stop pointing the finger and agree that Assault spoons need to be banned.
LordSkippyTheMagnificent
Not everyone can kill people with their bear hands.
Panda4hire
Why not, do they not exercise their 2nd amendment rights to a pair of Bear's arms? Come on guys, mine have claws!
MakerOfBadJokes
Your name makes the comment, really.
Panda4hire
I try.
AJCanuck
Ooooo, so close to being comparable
MediaMuerte
In Nice, someone without a gun killed seventy people. There is evil in the world. I won't lose rights because you fear objects.
AJCanuck
Wow, that's a reach...and it's a rather specific "object" you are referring to...that provably does far more damage, as US stats will attest
TheLastSouthernGentleman
More damage than cars? Might want to run those numbers again, especially if you're talking about "assault rifles"
AJCanuck
Cars are needed...guns are not...nice try
TheLastSouthernGentleman
Maybe you don't need them. But there's a reason you're not in charge of making laws
coldeezeoverdose
Spoons don't kill pints of ice cream, I do
IAlwaysUpvoteDumps
With spoons.
littlegoblin
The spoon held me back
BuyMeBoozeAndWaffles
Guns don't kill people, wappas do. Summon the police. Woo! Woo! Wooo!
DidIShaveMyNutsForThis
Buuut, but the spoon does help in accomplishing it. ✋ hey just saying.
coldeezeoverdose
This wasn't a metaphor. I eat ice cream.
DidIShaveMyNutsForThis
Gluttony is serious my friend and should be regulated, your country thanks you.
spoopinator
my spooooon is too big!
bobbi21
Can you eat without a spoon? Can you shoot someone without a gun? Then it's not a fair comparison. Also you need to eat to live....
TheLastSouthernGentleman
You can kill without a gun and do it easily. Shooting isn't the Only thing that kills people
Ireallydonthaveanyideawhattonamemyself
Some people use guns so they can eat..
bobbi21
but guns make it a lot easier while entire societies don't use spoons and have 0 impact on their ability to eat... also no one is talking 1
bobbi21
about getting rid of hunting rifles. 2
awefulcrowded23
Unfortunately, imgur will not like this
ClassyTavi
59 points and rising...
azazyel
Why? Because it's a repost? It's not funny? Shit quality?
thefatlonelyjew
It's still a bad argument
awefulcrowded23
keep telling yourself that
thefatlonelyjew
Guns are designed to kill. That's it. That's literally what they're for. You can't make analogies between guns and non-weapons.
awefulcrowded23
Spoons are designed to feed people. That's it. That's literally what they're for. You can't make analogies between spoons and non-utensils
awefulcrowded23
Either inanimate objects have agency and responsibility, or they don't. Their purpose is 100% irrelevant to the analogy
OneDayIllBeRelevant
Imgur is totally inconsistent. As a social scientist, I've repeatedly tried to identify patterns of what will, and will not, make it to 1/2
tarataqa
social scientist = Imgurian faptard
OneDayIllBeRelevant
Nope. My mature filter is very much on. I work as a policy analyst, and sometime use my social science training to analyze non-policy trends
MakerOfBadJokes
A simple group. Pro Gun. Pro drug. Pro boobs. Pro animal. Fuck Dan.
OneDayIllBeRelevant
the front page. There's little consistency. The problem is small viewer sample sizes in usersub/newest first. This leads to massive variance
LordSkippyTheMagnificent
We shall see. Probably, but still...we'll see one way or another.
awefulcrowded23
I'll admit you're doing better so far than I expected
LordSkippyTheMagnificent
I blame you.
awefulcrowded23
I'll take it
Potentiate
Why are people so so so very stupid when it comes to reasoning about gun control
figrelish
Maybe because there is fuck all gun control in America.
TheUnknownNoob
Because it's become an entirely dogmatic debate. No-one wants to compromise because they know the other side isn't likely to either.
flowseeker
Fear?
Attaroo
Maybe because the NRA does its best to block investigation into patterns of gun fatalities.
Attaroo
http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-gun-research-funding-20160614-snap-story.html
wfwood
wow people did not like that article it seems. do people not know the history?
Attaroo
There's a lot of strident people that don't want to know.
forelle
They are not stupid, they are polarized. This is even more obvious to those not coming from the US.
critterfluffy
They aren't stupid they just don't have the same considerations. They don't own guns and therefore they serve no purpose but to threaten 1/?
critterfluffy
them. This makes them feel unsafe so the remedy is to remove the threat. It is sound logic based on the premise and ignoring elements 2/?
critterfluffy
of history involving ones own government. I feel safer with more guns around me (Alaska) since if someone abuses their responsibility 3/?
critterfluffy
I feel it would be ended quickly, usually with the perpetrator dead and no longer a future threat. Just my opinion based on a different 4/5
critterfluffy
premise and is also sound logic. Life is full of grey areas and conflicting logic. 5/5
tarataqa
cuz 'MURICA!!!!!!1
TheGhostofElizabethShue
Before I answer, which side are you on? Because there is literally no way to tell from what you've just said.
Potentiate
I'm on the side of sound reasoning and empirically driven policies. I'm against blocking research on gun control at the very least.
forelle
It is not about rational discourse anymore, it is just about stating ones opinions, which are meant to make you superior to the other group¹
forelle
If you are for stricter gun laws you see guns as evil and gun-nuts as barbarians with no sense for a civil society. If you are pro-gun you ²
forelle
see guns as a holy and crucial thing and see the others as naive wimps, who will not survive the apocalypse. Both sides need to take ³
forelle
realistic stances. Pro-Gun people need to get their fingers out of their ears and aknowledge there is definitly a gun problem in the US. ⁴
forelle
Anti-Gun people need to get an more and informed stance towards weapons instead of plain fearmongering.⁵
hardytardigrade
Because laws have to be aimed at protecting society from the most stupid among us.
critterfluffy
So no fast cars, self service gas stations (looking at Oregon), homeopathy, mandatory drug screening, mandatory vaccinations, etc. 1/2
critterfluffy
I hate homeopathy and vaccinations are important but I like freedom and it isn't free. It requires we accept risk, not just our military 2/2
Darkjynxer
So politicians?
hardytardigrade
If only
Arnoski
Yep. It's irritating when they're family members, too. My uncle's been trying to convince me that I'm evil for owning guns.
Kycirion
Well if your Uncle is like my Guncle, you're also evil because you're a CIS white male. The gun thing just means you're a murderer in wait..
thuperduperthpeshul
My uncle is the polar opposite: You're a weak-minded, bleeding heart, Barry Hussein Obama loving libtard if you don't own a gun.
DavidBrooker
I'm a gun-owning, bleeding-heart liberal, environmentalist Canadian supporter of sensible gun control. What would your uncle think of me?
bane83
You Canadians don't really come into it. You're a bit smarter and have actual things to hunt other than schoolkids, cops and your neighbors.
thuperduperthpeshul
He'd probably discount your opinion entirely on account of you being a foreigner. Or have an aneurism.
Knillis
.
FarmerFrance
Slippery slope. Give up one thing and they will keep taking. Then they'd say it's all "safe" but a bus can still drive through a crowd..
ImMrbulldops
Ask a New Yorker or a Californian, they will keep taking
forelle
The Bus/Plane/Bomb will not be scared of your guns anyways.
HandsomeSwede
99.9% of vehicles are designed and used to transport people. 100% of guns are designed to kill. There's a difference.
Darkjynxer
What about paint guns? Or nail guns? Or bb guns? Or paintball guns? Or Nerf guns? Generalizing is not a good idea.
HandsomeSwede
That's a good point, but in this context I was hoping people weren't going to nitpick and would know what I'm talking about.
FarmerFrance
Ok but 99.9% of all those guns are only used to target shoot or hunt game. Very few actually take lives. The logic can be flipped on you too
FarmerFrance
And please dont try to lump military guns in with this, although even those, percentage wise, don't take many deaths. Many sit in storage
Toralar
What about tranquiliser guns?
HandsomeSwede
Can you buy those anywhere just like that? Either way those aren't for killing. In fact they're non-lethal.
Toralar
You can't buy regular guns anywhere just like that either. So, yeah 100% of guns aren't designed to kill then?
MechaNinja
You want all of us to be less stupid about gun control than we are about literally everything else?
HandsomeSwede
Well..yes, seeing as guns do kill people, it's kind of important to keep that debate sensible.
MrRandom314159
Well that's stupid. You're stupid, and so is Peter Dinklage's clone. Minier me. (He really needs some tutoring. He's falling behind.)
MechaNinja
There are a lot of things that kill more people than guns. Too much food, for example, and not enough exercise. Way more deaths than guns.
HandsomeSwede
Food and exercise aren't designed to kill. What a hopelessly useless argument.
MechaNinja
They aren't, but they still kill more people than guns except sometimes during a war. Huh.
MechaNinja
We aren't smart about most of those things either.
MechaNinja
Which isn't to say that I think you're wrong, exactly, just that I don't think it'll happen.
UnoMuerto
Idk, i went to a shooting range where there were more then 50 guns and none of them killed anyone.
HandsomeSwede
your comment has more than 50 letters and their words killed me because of how stupid their logic is
TastyTastyScience
I've seen a bomb up close. It didn't explode in my face. That doesn't mean it's not a deadly weapon created solely for killing.
ImTotallyNotTheNSA
I thought bombs had uses like demolition, and mining, but I guess not. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
SJohnson23
Well, you don't know that. For example http://news.sky.com/story/dad-accidentally-kills-son-at-gun-range-10376068
MechaNinja
That was HARDLY the gun's fault. It was super apologetic, too.