The 4 Most Meaningless Arguments Against Gun Control.....

[Aprilgold]

It doesn't matter if I'm pro-gun or anti-gun, my opinion on all Cracked articles is the same, although they can be entertaining or thought provoking, I would never take one seriously, or by extension, the points within.

Bingo here.

The criminal element will always get a hold of guns. Go to Japan, police don't have guns, citizens don't have guns, but i bet you dollars to Doughnuts you'll be hard pressed to find a yakuza member without one.

How bout England, do you think the criminal elements there don't have guns? You think they run around with billy clubs committing crimes and holding up convenience stores?

Anti gun rights people may be coming from a good place, I doubt they see it as limiting are freedom but Helping the community. However it doesn't, it just guarantee's that no citizen will ever squash a crime or protect their family from a criminal who has a gun.

Also a militia is important for the defense of a country. Just saying.

Up here in Norway, one of the political parties recently tried to get a debate going about whether or not the police should carry guns with them at all times. The debate stopped dead when the police said that they wouldn't actually want to carry guns. Keep in mind that this was only a few months after an heavily right-wing extremist killed 77 people(most of which were teenagers).
Miraculously, we still have fewer deaths, and crimes, per capita than the US has. And that goes for every other country you listed there, as far as I know.

With that being said, I don't believe gun regulations are a core factor of the crime rates: you don't need to look further than Canada for that. At the same time, I still think the US gun regulations are dumb, and that having them tighter would prevent accidental injuries and deaths. I also have no reason to believe that carrying a gun would help you against an armed robber in most cases, unless you're constantly carrying an armed firearm [http://i.imgur.com/pDHHz.jpg].

AH-UH-AH! http://www.ssb.no/english/subjects/02/befolkning_en/ Here's some stats for Norway currently. And then http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html for the United States.

I'm currently looking for other sources for the population of Norway that is more up-to-date but if what it is saying is true, Norway only [or over] five million people within its borders, while the US has over 314 million. The US, by default is going to have more crime because it has more people.

I am by no means sticking by anything but the POPclock numbers for the US since that other site might not be correct, but if it isn't, you have less crime not because there are less people with guns, but because your population is a lot smaller.

In conclusion, the argument "My country has less crime because we don't have guns, thus if the US didn't have guns they would have less crime" is that most people don't think about how big the US is, why guns are allowed in the US since its inception and don't often look at numbers relating to things like knife murders or blunt weapon murders, just guns.

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

Yes, but you cannot commit mass murder with a chinese throwing star.

You could but it would be harder. You could, in theory, go around mass murdering people with a pointy metal stick if you landed hits in the right places.

Removing guns from the equation does what exactly when it comes to slaughtering people? Makes it slightly more inconvenient?

Knights way back when had no issues slaughtering hundreds of other knights, and this was before the advent of guns, so how would removing a gun stop people from slaughtering hundreds of other people.

__________________________

With me, the most pointless argument against guns is that banning them will do anything but remove a shield from a citizen versus the sword of a criminal.

Well, and the fact that in the US were allowed to carry guns so that, in case a revolution is needed we can HAVE a chance to change the government back to serving the common man rather then the richest man.

Also, what I said above, anyone who uses the argument "well my country has less crime because of no guns therefore if the US has no guns their crime rate would drop" without ever looking at the differences in population, beliefs, the fact that removing guns does not suddenly mean less murders happen or that there are less people with guns.

In conclusion, most people [like the above] who argue without addressing things like population, the ideology of guns in the country their arguing shouldn't have guns, the fact that murders are declined because of a ban on guns but more weapons are used are reasons why I think its not sensible to outright ban guns.

 

[Ihateregistering1]

I'll respond piece by piece to the cracked article:

Point 4: The "guns don't kill people, people kill people" argument is not to be taken literally, the point is that guns are just tools, they don't get up, walk around, and shoot someone. People use that quote to point out the fact that you need to look at the core of the problem, ie. why are people doing this, before you look at means.

Point 3: Yes, guns are different than matches, cars, etc., but the overall point remains: alcohol for example, leads to far more deaths per year than guns do (and this includes innocent victims of drunk drivers), so if you're overall objective is to save innocent lives, why not ban alcohol? Because we tried that once and we saw what happened.

Point 2: You can use an "offensive" weapon in a "defensive" role, the author shows his ignorance with this one (and before anyone starts trolling, I'm in the Army, Combat Arms). Admittedly, it difficult to know exactly how often people use guns defensively every year, largely because studies have found that the majority of times that they are used, the gun is pulled out, the perp runs away, and no one is hurt and no real crime is committed.

Point 1: I've heard this "well back then they only had muskets and now guns are much deadlier" argument oftentimes, but it completely misses what the entire point of the 2nd amendment is, which is NOT having people be armed to stop criminals, but having people be armed to stop a tyrannical Government. In other words, the people should be able to be armed with weaponry capable of fighting back against their Government should it turn tyrannical on them. And before you say "oh well that's stupid because the Military has planes and Artillery and bombs" etc. I'd suggest doing some reading about the Jewish resistance during WW2, who held off large numbers of the Nazi Army with the few firearms they were able to acquire (subsequently, gun control was one of Hitler's big pushes). Also, if you need further proof:
"The constitutions of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property and freedom of the press."
-Thomas Jefferson

Oh, and for all the people pointing out how England is so much safer with no guns at all, I'd suggest having a look at Switzerland. Switzerland has the highest gun-ownership rate in the world and has a lower murder rate than England, so let's quite pretending that it's somehow all the fault of guns.

 

[J Tyran]

From the comments,

"It's easier to control guns on an island"

If I see this absurd fallacy one more time my head will burst, what do people expect? Do they believe the smugglers try and swim over with their goods? For a start the UK receives over two billion tons of cargo via ISO containers each year, to search even a few percent of those containers is impossible. Then you have the ships themselves which are so massive it could take weeks to carry out a thorough search.

Then you have the thousands of small private boats and aircraft in UK territory at any moment in time.

Finally you have all of the ferries and passenger aircraft. UK borders are as porous as a countries with a land border, unless that border is completely un-monitored.

It's actually true though. Nobody said it was easy, simply easier. Searching through every shipping container sent to the US would be much harder than searching through every shipping container sent to the UK. It isn't a fallacy. It is simply a matter of greater traffic in one than the other. Is either one possible without recruiting every working man in the country for search duty? Not even a little bit.

I dont get what you are trying to say, it has nothing to do with being an Island. You just mention the US has greater traffic. The fallacy I am referring to is the one that makes people believe its hard to smuggle things into the UK because we have no land border.

It is easier to control guns on an island. . . Did your head burst? Anyways, I am sure it's fabulous and all that the UK does get so much cargo, and how difficult it would be to search through them all. . . but did you stop and think that the impossible to search through cargo amounts would apply to EVERY SINGLE COUNTRY WITH A PORT.

Since America is prevelant in this particular debate, let's compare. Since I already know what the answer is going to be, you look it up:

1. Compare and contrast the amount of cargo the UK receives with the US.

2. Compare and contrast the amount of private watercraft and aircraft UK vs US.

3. Add in the # miles of border with Canada and Mexico, factor in that the majority are left unguarded. ( as they would be with every country ever, with the exception of possibly Korea)

4. Subtract that the UK shares no border with anyone.

5. slap self in the face repeatedly until brain works.

Seriously though, if you take my points 1-4 and think about the nature of an island vs a bordered country, everything is easier to control on an island.

Where to start with this? this one is a real doozy. You're first paragraph and point one or two actually have nothing to do with land borders, you just talk about how smuggling happens via freight and cargo, small private boats and light aircraft. You also bring the American preoccupation with size into it to for some reason. The scale of smuggling in the UK is smaller because the population is smaller. The increase in traffic the US has because its MOAR! is balanced by the fact that you have more border control agents.

Point 3 is a bit better, I cannot speak about the Canadian border but the security on the Mexican border is pretty damn heavy. Even the bits that look unguarded have specialist tracker teams to find the illegal immigrants and drug runners trying to cross on foot, about the only only thing they could do to make it more secure is build something either like the West Bank wall or the cold war IGB.

Even then that wouldn't stop them all getting over it somehow, smugglers can be some of the most creative off all criminals. Still in groups or as individuals these foot slogging guys are small time, they do not move a lot of stuff and they are only a problem when you factor in how many groups like this might be out there. Still they are small time, they do not carry nine tons of cargo like those submarines the cartels are using.

The other traffic across the border is road traffic, sometimes it will be cars or trucks carrying contraband. This is no different from ferries really, the land border in this context doesn't make much difference.

The UK being an Island makes almost no appreciable difference to the difficulty of smuggling. The only thing we do not have to deal with is the guys with backpacks going it on foot. Considering the amount of stuff pouring in from all of the other ways having those guys wouldn't make a difference, it would even bring in a fraction of what already comes in.

Also, Americans /sigh. My post was not about you or the US so why try and make the subject all about the US? If you want to refute it on its merits I welcome the discussion but I wont be responding to anymore Mericuh is MOAR! posts.

 

[Aprilgold]

snip

By that logic, why not let the people carry around swords? If swords and axes can slaughter people just as badly as guns, then there should be no problem banning the sale of guns as long as people have access to swords.

Also, you seem to forget that Knights were the equivalent of a Medieval tank... And they only fought on the battlefield (where you were SUPPOSED to kill almost everyone in front of you). It's the equivalent of someone in the future saying "We shouldn't ban laser weapons because people back then had no problem slaughtering others with a Sherman Tank".

Your argument that "blades can cause as much problems as guns" is just piss poor. If one person, decked out in armor, walked into a crowded movie theatre carrying a sword, do you think he would be able to kill nearly as many people as with a gun? No! The fact is Guns allow for one man slaughters. If the Columbine shooters walked into school carrying bladed weapons, they could easily be overpowered by a crowd, at best only managing to kill two or three people.

Plus, your argument that "people having guns keeps the government in line" is also pretty dumb. Sure you have guns... But they have tanks, fighter drones, and battleships... And trained marines... And the most advanced military technology known to man... And actual Military Strategists... And any number of things that could instantly send those gun owners crawling back wounded.

Plus, what about the reverse? Couldn't people owning guns in the country also lead to Tyranny? After all, what if the Partisanship in this country gets worse. Right wing personalities like Beck or Limbaugh can stir up the crowds, and pretty soon they could be murdering the next president because they don't agree with him.

1. Blades can do as much damage as a sword in the right hand, for god sake there are people who train in blades that could cut off limbs with a few precise swings on a dummy, I'd hate to see them fight a real person.

The argument "They were a medieval tank" is irrelevant. It doesn't matter that they are a higher tier of fighter, now a well placed shotgun round would kill them. My point was that, if we take away guns there would be people running around with knives, some crazy ones swords and axes and we would be back to the same thing twenty years down the road when some maniac takes out a diner using only a greatsword.

2. Guns also allow us to kill animals more easily. Guns also are for the sport of Trapshooting. If you want to get into it, a gun is a tool, not a murderer which your screaming here. A gun, just like a sword can be used for more then murder and thinking that any gun owner buys a gun with the intent of murder is a silly notion.

Also love how you pull the columbine shooters in here, they, believe it or not, bought their guns illegally, the same exact events would have come about whether or not guns were banned. The Aurora Movie Shooter actually bought his gun legally, however there are hints that he used a type of tear gas to make the killings easier.

Finally on this point, people are not all chivalrousness knights, in the type of event such as the columbine shooting, I would wager that they would have ran from the man who just chopped three people's heads off. [Blades, in well trained hands, similar to guns CAN be very deadly, if not more so in close quarters]

3. Its not my argument, it is not only stated by the writer of the declaration, which is the same one that allows us to bear arms. The issue with this statement is that the above you just stated that the Aurora Movie Shooter / Columbine shooters could not kill that many people without a gun, followed by making the statement that gun enthusiasts [typically people who own a gun use it in places where they can either hunt or practice their aim] could not harm a infantry unit. Let me ask you this, if the Aurora Movie Shooter could get a extended mag for his sub-machine-gun, a shotgun and plenty of ammo for that with ingredients to make several fire-bombs for his apartment and tear gas, how could many people who are resisting their government not do the same?

This final statement of yours is essentially going back to several other presidents that have been murdered. They don't need someone to tell them too, someone eventually WILL murder the president.

Overall, you do try and argue that "Guns are bad" but quote terrible cases such as Columbine shooters, who got their guns illegally thus banning guns would have solved nothing. Trying to change the subject by saying that knights, highly trained people, were tanks and as such can not be compared to a mad man with a gun when my point, if you now understand, was that if we ban guns murderers will just move to another weapon, we ban that one and they go on to the next one, rinse and repeat until were taking out babies teeth, cutting off their hands and feet just so that they can never commit a crime.

A gun is a tool, like a sword, someone highly trained in it could do some major damage, however so can somebody who is highly trained in any other weapon. All the arguements, including the above, usually boil down to "Guns are pointless and are only made to kill" which is 1. Not true and 2. If they are meant to kill is a citizen killing a mugger with a gun something to arrest the citizen for? Its always on a case-by-case basis that you have to take these things and you have to face up when suddenly knives become the next big murder weapon.

EDIT: Sorry, forget to finish a thought.

Guns don't kill people. Bullets do.

Bullets don't kill people, Metal Does.

Can we go for that idea that comedian suggested? Make bullets ridiculously expensive.

You know, thinking about that, I honestly think that's the best we can hope for. We already have enough guns in the country that I can't imagine a full ban on guns would work... What, are the police going to go door to door asking people to turn in their weapons? However, if we increase the cost of bullets or put limits on magazines, then the gun nuts (who strictly use their guns for hunting and protecting their property) and the gun control groups can both be satisfied.

"Well I'm sorry honey, I couldn't bring back any meat. Our car is out of gas, were stuck in the wild, I have a rifle in the back but because bullets cost so much were going to starve to death."
-death

Also
"Well I want to shoot up my classroom, lets look on Ebay for some ammunition to my shotgun.... Well 1,000$ is a ridiculous price.. OH 2$ for a clip from some guy in Europe, its a steal."

Do you get my point here that this wouldn't solve anything and would only hurt few.

 

[spartan231490]

God, when I log back on in 2 hours I'm sure my inbox will make me thouroughly regret jumping into another of these, but here we go.

4) I don't even see how you can claim this is a meaningless argument. It's perfectly valid. People have been killing the shit out of each other long before guns came around, hell, we've been killing the shit out of each other since before we were people. Also, guns aren't even the best tools for the job. You've got poisons, incendiaries, bombs, cars, ect. I bet if you think about it, every single one of you could think of at least 3 ways to easily kill a human being without using just these listed methods, from scratch, using things you can legally buy in your country. That's not even counting knives, bows, spears, ect. ect. ect.

3) Guns have numerous legal uses as well. Collecting. Sport shooting. Hunting. Self-defense. Varmint control. Dangerous animal control. Sporting competitions(I mean for fuck's sake there is an olympic sport that is 1/2 about firing a gun).

2) 2.5 million may come from one study. But another study found just short of one million. Another found 1.5 million. Several educated estimates say somewhere between 2 and 3 million or just a share higher. Even if it is only 1/2 of the lowest number, you still have 500 thousand DGUs. That's over 10 times more than all gun deaths in the US, including suicides, and that's at a very conservative estimate. More than enough reason to validate the statement: Guns save lives.

1) This one I actually do agree with, in a way. any self-respecting American should despise every single gun law on the books(or nearly all of them) because they represent legal precedence to ignore your individual rights from the bill of rights without compelling reason. However, the debate would still exist, because our constitution can be Amended, so the argument would just be how much we want to amend.

Although, I will mention that the argument that the 2nd amendment refers only to the national guard is mentally retarded. I know some of you probably use it, I'm not calling you stupid, I'm saying you're using a stupid argument, so calm down.

Every single time the phrase "The people" appears in the declaration of independence, the constitution, the bill of rights, or any amendment to the constitution, it refers to an individual right. To assume that this one time was an exception when all the evidence from the writings of the founding fathers, as well as the grammatical structure of the sentence, shows unequivocally that they meant for it to be an individual right is absurd.

The man who wrote more of the bill of rights than any other, when speaking about the 2nd amendment just a few years after it was written said that the "militia" was every single male in the US capable of performing military duties. So, the only citizens who wouldn't be protected, even if we made the giant, unfounded leap that "the people" only refers to members of the militia, would be the handicapped and women. Nobody wants that.

Also, if any of you want sources, find one of the hundreds of posts I've made on this subject over the last few days. I've linked it all here and there, and I'm not going to dig it up again just so you can have a source for the obvious.

 

[Semitendon]

Seriously??? Completely. Missed. The. Point. Out of personal interest, How old are you? Anyways, let's go at this one more time, and address your concerns one by one.

Where to start with this? this one is a real doozy.

Only for you evidently.

You're first paragraph and point one or two actually have nothing to do with land borders, you just talk about how smuggling happens via freight and cargo, small private boats and light aircraft. You also bring the American preoccupation with size into it to for some reason. The scale of smuggling in the UK is smaller because the population is smaller. The increase in traffic the US has because its MOAR! is balanced by the fact that you have more border control agents.

Ok, this is the big one where you missed the point. It's not about size. The point is, that all of the water and air based smuggling can be applied to almost anyone, including when you adjust for size of the country, population, whatever. The point is, your point about the UK having smuggling issues is rendered irrelevant. While this point does not specifically address land smuggling, what it indicates is that the addition of land smuggling to one side of the equation is objectively, factually, and emperically provable that it is easier to maintain an island. Which as stated, is the point you seem to be missing.

Point 3 is a bit better, I cannot speak about the Canadian border but the security on the Mexican border is pretty damn heavy.

If by "heavy" you mean, has patrols in some areas, but not most.

Even the bits that look unguarded have specialist tracker teams to find the illegal immigrants and drug runners trying to cross on foot, about the only only thing they could do to make it more secure is build something either like the West Bank wall or the cold war IGB.

I don't know where you are getting your information, but the US/Mexico border is largely unguarded, and there are no elite teams of Superman powered soldiers running around either.

Even then that wouldn't stop them all getting over it somehow, smugglers can be some of the most creative off all criminals. Still in groups or as individuals these foot slogging guys are small time, they do not move a lot of stuff and they are only a problem when you factor in how many groups like this might be out there. Still they are small time, they do not carry nine tons of cargo like those submarines the cartels are using.
The other traffic across the border is road traffic, sometimes it will be cars or trucks carrying contraband. This is no different from ferries really, the land border in this context doesn't make much difference.

Ok, I seriously doubt there are that many smugglers hoofing it on foot, when they could just drive on the many, many roads/paths that have no guards or fences. So, yes, it does present a significant amount of smuggling when they are using an eighteen wheeler to move across the border. I don't know why you are bringing up the submarines and ferries, it's already been established that sea craft is used exstensively in countries with ports.

The UK being an Island makes almost no appreciable difference to the difficulty of smuggling. The only thing we do not have to deal with is the guys with backpacks going it on foot. Considering the amount of stuff pouring in from all of the other ways having those guys wouldn't make a difference, it would even bring in a fraction of what already comes in.

Also, Americans /sigh. My post was not about you or the US so why try and make the subject all about the US? If you want to refute it on its merits I welcome the discussion but I wont be responding to anymore Mericuh is MOAR! posts.

So to recap, America has all of the same sea and air smuggling problems, plus all of the land potential, which means that it is objectively easier to guard an island. Also, the US border is not guarded 24/7 by elite teams that watch the entire border. The truth is the border is largely unguarded with the exception of a few high traffic areas, and is monitored by underpaid, overworked, and understaffed crews who try their best but still miss quite a bit that goes on right under their noses.

I understand not wanting to talk about America. Obviously it is not a country you have any real knowledge of.

But, it is what I know best, and when talking of gun control, most of the countries that are represented on the escapist already have bans on certain guns, whereas America does not have much in that way, and thus when talking about gun control, America is a highly relevant country. Also worth noting, and as stated in my original post, my points about countries with ports and land borders vs countries with just ports, is applicable to most of world, not just America.

p.s. just in case you've forgotten since the beginning of the post, how old are you? just curious.

 

[Naeras]

snip

Dude. Read my post. Or at least the "per capita"-part of it.

 

[luke10123]

How bout England, do you think the criminal elements there don't have guns? You think they run around with billy clubs committing crimes and holding up convenience stores?

Yeah, but in the UK, ANY gun-related assault/murder is massive news, all over the national TV and papers - it's a big, big deal. In the US, people don't seem to bat an eyelid when thousands of people die from gunshot wounds annually, it just seems like part of american culture. What I don't get is why arn't people starting to ask for tighter controls, licences, tighter restrictions and such - it's not the ban the US so desparately needs but it'd be a step into the 21st centuary.

 

[Something Amyss]

There is NO REASON to ever own one unless you plan on using it in a CRIME.

The purpose of the second amendment is a well-regulated militia. As this is the only real valid argument for why we own guns in this country, why wouldn't you have a legit reason to own assault rifles?
Additionaly, Ted Nugent may be a serious minority, but the NRA has massive lobbying power and has expanded beyond merely gun rights.

 

[kickassfrog]

I'm sorry. Really. I know there's already a few threads, one even related to what I'm about to ask but that one is 666 posts in and I'd like fresh responses on this. Anyway, I just read this article on Cracked and I have to say I found it pretty damn interesting.

[link]http://www.cracked.com/blog/the-4-most-meaningless-arguments-against-gun-control_p1/[/link]

But as interesting as I found it and even though I kind of agree with what Cody says....I'm Irish. I can't properly relate to the arguments and counter-arguments brought up about this issue so I figured I'd ask and see what people-particularly pro-gun people-think about the points raised in that article.

Damn you, why did you link me back to that internet spider's web?
As long as there are guns, people will find a way to get hold of them. I don't know what solution this entails, and I'd rather leave the details to people more intelligent and wise than I am.

 

[Something Amyss]

Go to Japan, police don't have guns, citizens don't have guns, but i bet you dollars to Doughnuts you'll be hard pressed to find a yakuza member without one.

Yeah, but do you have an evidence of that, or just a bunch of crime movies/games?

How bout England, do you think the criminal elements there don't have guns? You think they run around with billy clubs committing crimes and holding up convenience stores?

Actually, street-level gun crime is very infrequent and a pretty big deal when it happens. Sure, some people do have access to firearms, but I think you might actually need to look into crime in England before you continue to talk about how other countries work.

it just guarantee's that no citizen will ever squash a crime or protect their family from a criminal who has a gun.

Come now, that's utter crap. Are you telling me that if one side has a gun, they win? That's not even true in the US now, why would it be true because firearms are illegal?

Also a militia is important for the defense of a country. Just saying.

A "militia" exists. We have one of the best-funded and ostensibly best-trained militias in the world. Hell, even if you're going the "stand against the government" route, the US Constitution puts the President in charge of militias. This is largely because this was the colonial version of the standing army. Just saying.

 

[Sandernista]

If the Police wouldn't want to carry guns...why the fuck are they allowed to be Police anyway?
Their job is to protect and serve, and sometimes in order to protect they have to use deadly force. That's as stupid as wanting to join the Army but not wanting to use firearms.

Carrying a gun generally escalates a conflict from non-lethal to lethal, when you pull a gun on a criminal you push him against a wall, and they will react accordingly. Anyone who is not crazy as shit does not want more dead bodies lying around. I'd prefer my cops not to be crazy as shit.

 

[oneeyemug]

The article fails to refute the most legit argument against gun control that I've seen: "If we outlaw guns for all citizens, only criminals will have guns," which is irrefutable. As for the arguments that it does address:

4. As has been said before, guns on their own can't kill a person, as they don't possess the brain capacity necessary to do so. Just because it CAN be used to kill someone, doesn't mean it should be outlawed. Just because it was DESIGNED to kill someone, doesn't mean it should be outlawed. Nuclear fission was originally designed to kill, but we found a way to use it to provide another source of electricity. Likewise, people have a way to use guns for sport and entertainment.

3. Nothing that hasn't said before; guns can be used for sport, not just killing. "Oh, but those gun sports are used to practice killing others." Then why don't we just outlaw ALL combat sports. (Fencing, Archery, Wrestling) You "practice killing people" in those sports, using equipment intentionally designed to be weapons. And by the way, if someone is accidentally killed by a gun, it IS a misuse.

2. This guy doesn't seem to understand the relationship between offense and defense. The mere threat of instant death by a gun is enough to deter most criminals. Less than 1 percent of the guns used in self-defense are actually fired back at the attacker.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2003/04/10/duncan3/

1. This is the only rebuttal that has any weight. It IS a fallacy to assume that it is okay to have guns just because the Constitution or the Supreme Court says so.

Most of the fear toward guns stems from ignorance. Just know basic gun safety and no one will get hurt.

 

[McNinja]

I think the POTUS' stance is pretty reasonable (and I didn't even vote for him! OH GOD I MUST SUCK AT POLITICS!! D. Respect the second amendment right to own guns, but outlaw ones that serve no practical purpose except for use in violent crime. Sure, it may not be "cool" to saw assault rifles are illegal, but seriously, WHO THE FUCK NEEDS AN ASSAULT RIFLE?! They aren't even legal hunting weapons! There is NO REASON to ever own one unless you plan on using it in a CRIME. Ted Nugent will ***** and moan, but let him! Those guys are in a serious minority.

That's not true at all. I plan on owning more than a few assault rifles and I will never use any of them in any sort of illegal manner. I just like guns. I've been around guns since I was six, been taught firearms safety since I was nine, and learned how to shoot properly when I was a teenager. Not everyone intends to use guns (of any kind) for violent crime, and to assume so is a terrible generalization.

Just because you can't find value or reason behind owning an assault rifle, does NOT mean that I cannot either. List of reasons I want to own an Assault rifle, fully automatic or no:

1.) They're cool. No really, they are. Will I ever use it? Barring the Zombie apocalypse, no, probably not. But then again, I'll never use my dinner-plate-sized shuriken or any of my LotR swords either.

2.) I like collecting weapons. I have about a dozen swords, a few things that I'm not sure how to classify (like that huge shuriken), and a whole bunch of knives. It's one of my more expensive hobbies.

EDIT: Just read the article. Got to the end of the first point and had to stop. The author is so stupid, so naive, and so fucking ignorant it made me cringe. That is the single worst article I have ever read on Cracked and it makes me ashamed to live in the same country as that ignorant jackass.