Handy Guide To Dangerous Weapons [Pic]

Submitted by: 5cats 4 years ago

Because politicians and the MSM are looking out for YOUR safety! Right?
There are 72 comments:
Male 4,547
"Guns don`t kill people" "A gun is just like a crossbow" "Oh next you`re going to ban rocks".

If any of you actually believed anything you were saying, you wouldn`t have a gun, you`d have a rock.

Regulate guns like you regulate any of the other things on that list (Cars need to be registered, you need a license, you need to prove you can drive a car responsibly, it gets taken away from you if you misuse it (not just by killing people with it.))

That`s a reasonable discussion everyone but Republicans are capable of having.
0
Reply
Male 710
"It`s not the gun that kills, it`s the speeding bullet ripping thru flesh that pretty much does the job..."

But again, lets see that bullet go "ripping thru flesh" without a person first sending it on its journey. As I already said, the gun is a tool, like any other. Its only dangerous if its used in such a way as to make it dangerous, like any other tool. Is a screwdriver dangerous when used as intended? Sure, but only minimally so. However, when you throw it at someone, or stab at someone with it, it can potentially be deadly. I`ve fired many different guns, many different times. Still haven`t killed anyone, though. Yet. When it happens, it will be a matter of self-defense.
0
Reply
Male 535
It`s not the gun that kills, it`s the speeding bullet ripping thru flesh that pretty much does the job...
0
Reply
Male 535
"A gun is designed to send a projectile at a target. Much like a bow & arrow, crossbow or slingshot. This is it`s primary purpose.
A car is designed to move from "point A" to "point B"."

Thank you 5Cats! THAT was the point I was trying to make. You can`t compare Apples to Oranges & expect a reasonable debate...

"Any other STUPID questions?"

Just one. Is it...you know...THAT time of the month?
0
Reply
Male 710
"International comparisons show conclusively that fewer gun owners per capita produce not only fewer murders by firearm, but fewer murders per capita over all. In the case of Britain, firearms murders are 48 times fewer than in the US."

Sources? Keeping in mind that there are also sources that claim the exact opposite. You can spin almost any "study" to show the exact results that you want it to. As stated earlier, guns DO NOT kill people. Seriously, all joking aside, when is the last time you heard about a gun getting up, walking around, and shooting people? Seriously. A gun is a tool. I can kill someone with a gun. A hammer is a tool. I can kill someone with a hammer. Oh, my god!!! Lets ban hammers now, before its too late!!! Don`t blame the tool, blame the person that used it in that way.
0
Reply
Male 36,400
@LePigeon: Wiki Says: You Are WRONG!
USA is easily #1 in gun ownership and FAR from #1 in "murder rate" by any weapon. Your theory = busted!

@Magickrat: A gun is designed to send a projectile at a target. Much like a bow & arrow, crossbow or slingshot. This is it`s primary purpose.

A car is designed to move from "point A" to "point B".

Any other STUPID questions?

The GUN doesn`t decide what the "target" is. A HUMAN does that! Food? Paper circle? Enemy? A HUMAN points it and a HUMAN pulls the trigger.
0
Reply
Male 44
International comparisons show conclusively that fewer gun owners per capita produce not only fewer murders by firearm, but fewer murders per capita over all. In the case of Britain, firearms murders are 48 times fewer than in the US.
0
Reply
Male 535
What is a gun designed for?
What is a gun`s primary function?

What is a car designed for?
What is a car`s primary function?
0
Reply
Male 7,340
Magickrat-"Okay, it`s apparant you`re missing the point."

The point (besides the one on your head) is that you are making assertions that are easily proven wrong.

But as you are `enlighted`, you are incapable of consideration that anything you say can possibly can be wrong.

If you`re going to be inaccurate, at least attempt to entertaining. At the moment you are just managing to be tedious.
0
Reply
Male 36,400
@Magickrat: You seem to be obsessed with the notion that guns "have NO other purpose" than to kill humans. It`s just "a tool" and how it is used depends on... the human being using it!

Explosives, poisons, they can (and have been) used in mass-killings before. The reason you can`t buy TNT (or Sarin) at WalMart is: because it`s dangerous! Gun-grabbers equate guns and lethal items, that`s faulty logic.

You can`t defend yourself using TNT or Sarin, but you CAN defend yourself with a gun! If some one or some people put you or your family in peril? Unless you`re a Kung-Fu master or something, you`ll NEED something to drive the bad guys away. Guns are very useful in that regard! Most crooks flee at the sight of one, you don`t HAVE TO shoot them for it to be effective.

People should have a RIGHT to self-protection.
0
Reply
Male 535
MeGrendel - Okay, it`s apparant you`re missing the point. Carry on with your blind ignorance...
0
Reply
Male 7,340
@Magickrat,

Yes, because NO mode of tranportation has EVER been used in a mass killing...

0
Reply
Male 14,330
Were Adam Lanza`s guns legally his? So now how would more laws help?
0
Reply
Male 535
MeGrendel - I was proven wrong by you showing me a picture of some guy running over a bunch of bikers (none of which suffered anything more than a few scratched & bruises by the way)? Was that PRE-MEDITATED MURDER like Adam Lanza`s killing spree? Was the car he was driving DESIGNED to kill as many people as it could in as little time possible? Can one DRIVE a gun to work or school?

But if that`s what makes you feel better, my friend...

Don`t ever let it be said that I don`t cater to the over-zealous & under-educated...
0
Reply
Male 7,340
Magickrat-"Keep comparing ACCIDENTS to INCIDENTS"

Hey, it`s you idiots who like to include accidents and suicides in the `gun deaths` numbers.

Which is more dangerous in the hands of a drunk? A pistol or a Lincoln Navigator?

YOU inferred that cars could not be used as weapons.

YOU were proven wrong.

Magickrat-"I`m actually embarrassed FOR you"

Actually, you`re embarrassing yourself. But like a good lib you blame someone else. (It`s society`s fault).
0
Reply
Male 535
MeGrendel - Keep comparing ACCIDENTS to INCIDENTS. It`s the only last-ditch defense you have left.

You`re ignorance deserves the utmost pity. I`m actually embarrassed FOR you...
0
Reply
Male 36,400
[quote]Some of these were designed to kill as many BAD GUYS AND CRIMINALS as effectively as possible.[/quote]

fify @Palfas! I for one approve of defending the innocent...
0
Reply
Male 1,252
@5Cats Even bear spray is restricted lol.

0
Reply
Male 411
Some of these were designed to kill as many people as effectively as possible.

Any argument made in support of this idea presented in this image is a complete logical fallacy.

End of discussion
0
Reply
Male 36,400
Nice Link @Cajun! Fighting oppressive governments has been going of for centuries. Sometimes the civilians win, other times it`s the Gov`ts.

@patchy: All guns in Canada are "restricted" since you need an FAC to get one, eh? Pistols more so because special rules apply to them, plus they are registered.
Long rifles were "registered" at HUGE cost and ZERO benifit. Still are "restricted" by FAC`s of course.
Tasers are rare, it`s true. Usually drug dealers use them on each other.
"Bear Spray" is common around here! It`s illegal to buy "personal" defences but one can buy "bear spray" which is the same thing, in a BIG can!
The Native Youth Gangs like it since Bear Spray is common on the reserves (where, you know, it`s used -on bears-!) and they can just steal it from their families and bring it to the city...
0
Reply
Male 10,845
[quote"> People on the left have pointed out that fighting government tyranny would be an extreme scenario (yet it has happened but not very often)[/quote">

Now that I think about it though
0
Reply
Male 5,811
Also, there is no meaningful way to compare the "data" presented in that cartoon. Average deaths vs. average homicides? That`s not a fair comparison. And what is "Mass shootings - 18" anyway, the average homicides per year from mass shootings? This cartoon is flame-bait, plain and simple.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
[quote]It`s not "paranoia" it`s a FACT (in Canada). Of course criminals still have and use ALL those "illegal" items against defenceless citizens... [/quote]
LOL! That`s the dumbest thing I`ve ever heard. So when exactly was the last time you heard of a criminal using a taser in Canada against someone? The only time I`ve ever heard of tasers being used is when it`s the RCMP. And pepper spray? There are ways around pepper spray laws, but also I`ve never heard of a criminal using it, so even if there are cases they are so miniscule so as to be of no importance. Also you`re dead wrong about pistols and rifles too, because both are legal in Canada. So you`re right, it`s not "paranoia" it`s simple delusion and propaganda.
0
Reply
Male 14,330
[quote]-"being harmless is a good protection" [/quote]

0
Reply
Male 559
You have to be an idiot to be against gun control.

Likewise, you have to be an idiot to think banning any kind of gun is a good idea.

Gun control includes laws against selling firearms to felons and things like a waiting period. How is that bad?
0
Reply
Male 10,845
[quote]If you want to protect yourself, being harmless is a good protection.[/quote]

0
Reply
Male 10,845
[quote]But one side uses fear and lies (liberals) while the other side uses truth and logic (pro-2nd amendment).[/quote]

Someone obviously overlooked Wayne LaPierre`s poo-pooing of "Bulletstorm", "Mortal Kombat", "Red Dead Redemption". Et Cetera. People on the left have pointed out that fighting government tyranny would be an extreme scenario (yet it has happened but not very often). Whereas conservatives and libertarians have pointed out that implementing such measures would have messy results.
0
Reply
Male 3,407
something tells me these statistics are not world wide.
0
Reply
Female 6,381
I happen to think having everybody going around packing heat is insane. It`s asking for the very trouble it would deliver. But you Yanks have got so many guns, such slack laws, that you`ll never get that toothpaste back in the tube. People expect their (misinterpreted) 2nd Amendment rights and you`d have the biggest bunfight in history if you tried to dial back the number of guns. Y`all are screwed, basically.
0
Reply
Male 7,340
7eggert-"being harmless is a good protection"



Okay, we have a winner! 7eggert is officially the biggest dumbass on the web.

Being harmless makes you safe?

As a baby seal:
0
Reply
Male 2,362
[quote]...If you want to protect yourself, being harmless is a good protection. Thieves aren`t that dumb, they know killing somebody will make them most wanted in that area. But if they think you`ll shoot them, they`ll shoot first...[/quote]



0
Reply
Male 36,400
@Deaad_Kittens: It`s true! In Canada it`s ILLEGAL to defend one`s self with a taser OR pepperspray. That`s what "nanny-state laws" lead to.
First no pistols
Then no rifles
Then no tasers
Then no pepperspray

It`s not "paranoia" it`s a FACT (in Canada). Of course criminals still have and use ALL those "illegal" items against defenceless citizens...

Extremeists on both sides have painted it "black & white" it`s true. But one side uses fear and lies (liberals) while the other side uses truth and logic (pro-2nd amendment).
0
Reply
Male 945
1 - That`s not an assault rifle. An assault rifle is an automatic, not a semi-automatic.
2 - [quote]If you want to protect yourself, being harmless is a good protection. Thieves aren`t that dumb, they know killing somebody will make them most wanted in that area. But if they think you`ll shoot them, they`ll shoot first.[/quote]
What kind of retarded statement is that anyway? I cannot believe you are that f*cking stupid. If you want to bury your head in the sand, go ahead. Just remember, if you continue to do that, one of those thieves you mentioned will blow your ass off.
0
Reply
Male 315
A gun is made to kill. You can carry a handgun around and kill dozens of people (bullies, kids laughing at you, teachers looking away) in your school. You can do the same using an automatic rifle.

But if you try this using a string, a bat or a knife, you`ll soon be overpowered. You`d never do that using a tiny knife. A gun, however, makes you feel strong.

If you want to protect yourself, being harmless is a good protection. Thieves aren`t that dumb, they know killing somebody will make them most wanted in that area. But if they think you`ll shoot them, they`ll shoot first.
0
Reply
Female 89
Stupid post. Numbers aren`t even comparable. Obvious post to stir up the comments and everyone is biting. This site is pants now!!
0
Reply
Male 1,252
To clarify ..I do think the defining lines between what is and isnt banned is a little retarded..and owning and safe operation with proper training in a controlled and safe environment I have no problem with ...I do however have a problem with carry laws..no need to pack heat at the local grocery store ... so many degrees of opinion on this one.... the extremists seem to push the whole black or white thing.. nothing in between.
0
Reply
Male 1,252
@5cats I think a better approach would be to legalize tazers for personal carry/protection, tear gas key chains, reform citizen intervention and `citizen arrest` guidelines.. no need to go straight for the death penalty ..the whole `he drew first` method just doesnt sit right.

Might have something to do with that albaniana shotgun wedding post a day or two ago lol.
0
Reply
Female 836
The whole chart is invalid because, as I`m sure ti`s been pointed out, the statistics they show are for INDIVIDUAL deaths, except for the assult weapon. That only shows "incidents"... it does not mention how many people were killed in those "incidents".
0
Reply
Male 7,340
Magickrat-"Tell you what, when you can break into a school & murder 20 innocent children in less than three minutes with your fists, a knife, a car or a blunt object, let me know... "



Imagine what he could had done in a school playground.
0
Reply
Male 58
comparing a mass shooting of 20 elementary school kids to auto accidents is sick. they are in no way similar.
0
Reply
Male 535
Tell you what, when you can break into a school & murder 20 innocent children in less than three minutes with your fists, a knife, a car or a blunt object, let me know...
0
Reply
Male 7,340
Draculya-"I can think of a way to reduce 6,480 deaths a year right there. "

Yeah, park all cars worldwide for two days.
Cure heart disease for only five hours.
Cure aids for 30 hours.

Draculya-"You`re onto a losing argument."

Only an ignorant asswipe would think so (you qualify).

Draculya-"Over 1000 gun deaths in the USA since Sandy Hook"

And in that same time: 55,010 deaths to Heart Disease, 53,000 to cancer, 11,370 to accidents, 6,146 to Diabets and 4,609 due to the flu.

Your point?
0
Reply
Male 36,400
@Draculya: It`s called "math" eh?
Divide the total number of gun murders by the number of days and it`s about 33 per day.
30 days X 33 = WOW! OVER 900!!!!
ffs.
The USA is a BIG place! 3rd largest in the world! Of course the total numbers are going to be high! There`s 330 million people ffs!

The RATE in the USA is below the world average.

Answer this: What % of guns used in murders were illegal? The Newton ones were (the killer stole them) illegal... how would more laws "prevent" anything?
0
Reply
Male 19
drat that they cant take are gunz away !!!
0
Reply
Male 14,774
I can think of a way to reduce 6,480 deaths a year right there.

Gun nuts, stop posting these. You`re onto a losing argument. Better let it drop.

Here`s an example. Over 1000 gun deaths in the USA since Sandy Hook:

SlateSlate
0
Reply
Male 7,340
10Bears-"It shows clearly that if there were no guns, there would be nearly 7,000 less deaths."

Or, more accurately, if there were no guns (impossible, btw), there would be 7,000 deaths by other means.
0
Reply
Male 2,362
Stupid Fing anti gun nuts. The AR15 is much less dangerous than many of the guns you don`t want to regulate more. Please explain this.
0
Reply
Male 5,608
"We should ban cars"
Then, where would I keep my blunt objects and handguns?
0
Reply
Male 3,431
More childrenwere killed last year during an abortion than have been killed by assault rifles in the history of the United States.

That is, if you acknowledge that a fetus with a heart beat is a human child.
0
Reply
Male 12
@avail9988

Yep, banning cars would reduce the number of vehicle related deaths. It would also come at a cost (more difficult to travel, elimination of car related jobs and income, countless secondary costs, etc).

Banning guns or a subset of guns should only be done if the expected benefits of doing so sufficiently outweigh the expected costs in the foreseeable future. However, I doubt anyone can even come close to accurately predicting the costs and benefits.

I doubt everyone who claims that banning guns or a subset of guns would either have a beneficial or detrimental effect on society. Number of gun deaths is not the only important statistic. Only make claims that you can provide supporting evidence for.
0
Reply
Male 1,625
and all those auto accidents, as well as all drunk driving incidences and traffic in general, could be eliminated with the introduction of autonomous cars.

seriously, it would be no different than when they forced everyone to have an HD tuner for their TVs, GPS units are now cheap enough that they could be had for <$50, add in the necessary 4-6 sensors all around the car, we`re looking at <$100 for all the necessities to automate driving.
0
Reply
Male 12
@10Bears

Really? What train of `logic` leads you to that conclusion? Sure, IF you could make all guns disappear, there would be no deaths due to firearms. Do you believe that there would be no additional deaths by other means as a result?

What you could have said is:
"Nice graphic. It shows clearly that if there were no guns, there would be nearly 7,000 less gun related deaths."

Sorry to beat this to death, but I occasionally promote logical and factual statements. I usually restrain from correcting others in this regard, as it ultimately seems pointless. But hey, I prefer it to being a `grammar Nazi`.
0
Reply
Male 700
We should ban cars
0
Reply
Male 36,400
@ultimakewl: Martin Luther King was an AVID gun owner. His home was "like an arsenal". I`m sure they were for safety & protection, after all there WERE nuts trying to kill him, but HE owned LOTS of guns, loaded, in the house.

@korhan: Don`t forget Dungeons & Dragons! The Three Stooges movies...

@10Bears: Look at the Wiki list of murders per capita, then get back to us. Like I said: in Rwanda, they used machettes quite a lot.
0
Reply
Male 473
Nice graphic. It shows clearly that if there were no guns, there would be nearly 7,000 less deaths.
0
Reply
Male 833
@Ston
tell that to ghandi and martin luther king
0
Reply
Male 1,418
They forgot to add video games to the list because, everyone knows, video games are the reason behind every killing.
0
Reply
Male 36,400
Data Source = FBI

That site is a treasure trove of information!

Rwandan Genocide upwards of 500,000 people killed, about half with machettes...

@Azerphel: nice try, but if you can tell me the difference between an "offensive pistol" and a defensive one? That`d be new!
Welcome to IAB, eh?

@Markus2: Biased? It`s a sarcastic political cartoon, not Encyclopaedia Britannica, ffs...

@Dead-Kittens: Those people you want to prevent from having firearms? They`re NOT the ones who`ll obey a gun-ban, OK? The people we DO want having them will have THEIR rights infringed.

Get to the back of the bus Rosa Parks! (/sarc)
0
Reply
Female 2,027
id still rather get stabbed than shot. drat me
0
Reply
Male 1,252
The intent and function of my car is to get to work,knifeto cook my dinner, hammer build a shed...etc a gun is designed to `shoot holes in paper because its fun` as my gun nut buddy puts it? its a tool just like the rest and its function is death..lets not be stupid here.
The main problem with gun control whether it be a sport rifle/assault rifle/personal side arm is the potential for collateral damage in any bad situation requiring the use of such a tool...I know far too many people that I would deem too irresponsible to own let alone carry. At very least `some` people are just too damn irresponsible/irrational to have free and open access to firearms...

side note: I also much prefer cops using tazers over guns.
0
Reply
Male 198
Azerphel. You can`t win with morals, conviction, and integrity alone. You also need weapons and body armor.

You can be a moral victor and still take a bullet to the chest.

There`s no difference between an offensive weapon and a defensive weapon. There`s also a difference between the "military style" weapon and assault rifles, which are ALREADY banned in the US. The AR-15, which is what most people see when pictures are shown, is visually identical to the military model with burst/auto. But it`s single shot only. So it all depends on how fast you can pull the trigger, which is still fast enough for people to scream "machine gun".
0
Reply
Male 25
@diylobotomy: So you`re saying because you personally like to shoot for fun it doesn`t matter that they`re used to murder people more often than all other murder weapons put together?

This is what this whole gun control argument really boils down to:

"We`re rich entitled white folk and we like having guns because they make loud noises and make us feel like real men, plus some guys wrote a law saying we could have them a couple of centuries ago and society hasn`t changed at all in the meantime so it`s impossible to consider that that law might be bad for our society now so we don`t care that they`re the leading cause of murder in the US! Yay, `murica!"
0
Reply
Male 1,832
@Azerphel "Guns have one purpose... Killing things."

I can honestly say that of all the time I have gone shooting - even considering all the guns we used; handguns, old rifles, shotguns and yes, even an AR15 assault rifle - not once did we kill a single thing.
0
Reply
Male 25
So what you`re saying is that guns are responsible for more murders than all types of murder put together, therefore are a non issue?
0
Reply
Male 25
So what you`re saying is that guns are responsible for more murders than all types of murder put together, therefore are a non issue?
0
Reply
Male 677
Notice how it counts `mass shootings` for the assault rifles and not `deaths` like all the others. It doesn`t specify how many people died in those mass shootings, and doesn`t include suicides, or accidental deaths like all the other weapon catagories. Ever so slightly biased, no?
0
Reply
Male 20
The dificulty here is Hammers, knives, cars are all tools and have functional uses and are used 10`s of millions of times a day with no bad results. Guns have one purpose... Killing things. That can be used for good or bad but only has 1 purpose. The military style weapon is especially good at killing lots of people quickly, (not good for defense but mostly offence). Keep your defensive weapons (pistols, hunting rifles, shotguns). Restrict the offensive ones. And don`t give me that BS about overthrowing tyranny. Gandhi did it with food. You don`t win against tyranny with weapons, they have tanks, you don`t stand a chance. You win with morals, conviction and integrity.
0
Reply
Male 1,045
Yeah, but car accidents don`t get people angry at the same level, so they don`t count.
0
Reply
Male 527
It`s not the guns, computergames, DUI or violence on television, it is the times we live in.
Unless we stop living by the sword we will die by it.

And unless people understand that this sword that was referred to is just a metaphor and it can`t be taken away physically but only mentally harder laws ain`t going to help.
Because if you look hard enough, there`s always a pointy stick to be found to vent your anger.
0
Reply
Male 586
People in the USA need to calm down and stop being so crazy and paranoid.
0
Reply
Male 1,793
idiots...
0
Reply
Male 36,400
Link: Handy Guide To Dangerous Weapons [Pic] [Rate Link] - Because politicians and the MSM are looking out for YOUR safety! Right?
0
Reply