+432 Yeah conservatives, loosening gun laws will totally make people safer and lower the murder rate. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to improve my credit score by buying tons of shit I can't afford, prevent pregnancy by poking holes in condoms, and increase my intelligence by watching MTV, amirite?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

this makes no sense asswad

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Maybe you just aren't capable of understanding it, dumbfuck.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Oh, you're right; I get it now. Sorry, my brain just died temporaily back there.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

explain it to me brilliant one

by Anonymous 13 years ago

It's not a conservative site, but- http://www.lp.org/issues/gun-laws I thought it was pretty interesting.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

That article DOES make a good point. But the point is not to get rid of guns. That could never happen. The point is to make much much much much stricter gun control laws. Like honestly, why would anyone need a semiautomatic gun that is designed to kill large amounts of people in a short amount of time? Besides a soldier, that is..

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I don't see the point of extremely powerful guns like that, but if someone wants one and they take the necessary tests and we know they're not insane, why not? I could see how people wouldn't want people able to obtain them, though.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

It's illegal to hunt with those guns. It's illegal to kill people. Why should those guns be sold to people? They are obviously going to use them for something bad, there's no other reason to own one.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

It is unnecessary, but some people do feel safer. What if someone breaks in? Still, not necessary, but banning them won't do any good.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Where I live, even if some one breaks into your house, you'll get charged with assault with a (if you have and use a gun) deadly weapon if you do something to them. Although I don't know what our laws on guns are.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

You can challenge that in court. It's self defense.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

You can, but it depends on what happens. Like if you find some one in your house you can't just attack them because they're stealing your stuff.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

You have to warn them first, of course. But yeahh. Depends on what happens.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Soldiers aren't the only ones who need them. Mythbusters do to.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Haha nice. Although to the people above: why would you need a semi-automatic weapon to deter ONE person in your home? If a mob attacked your house, it would be more acceptable, but I still don't condone killing anyone!

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Maybe because the guy breaking into my home, isn't carrying a single shot flintlock. If you are going to defend yourself, you need the tools to match what the threat may be.

by Anonymous 5 years ago

Newsflash: criminals are going to get guns whether they're legal or not, so why should law abiding citizens be left defenseless? Also, strict gun laws only causes the black market for them to flourish, making the criminals even more powerful. It's not rocket science here. And there's the whole 2nd Amendment giving us the right to bear arms thing.. You might actually have know this if you hadn't been watching so much MTV.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

But the guns on the black market had to be bought at some point. With fewer guns bought, the fewer that would make their way to the black market, the fewer criminals would have them, the less murders there would be.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

The guns are generally smuggled in, and since we can't control the gun production and laws in other countries, your point is moot.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

L2sarcasm.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

That last sentence made me smile.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

NEWSFLASH: The Constitution is 222 years old and reflects a different time when there were pioneers blazing trails through wilderness in uninhabited areas where there were no police officers or anything to protect people and enforce laws and when the only army America had was a militia of privately armed citizens. Now we spend $1 trillion a year on the military and 99% of Americans live in fairly densely populated areas. You should be able to own a handgun of course, but not ones like the one Laughner used. No private citizen will find themselves in a situation where they need to fire 30 rounds without reloading.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Oh BreakfastFan.... When will you learn?:p In 1997, the English Parliament decided to ban guns. From 1998 to 2005, the number of deaths and injuries from handguns skyrocketed 340 percent.... In 2007, a study was done that compared gun ownership and murder rates in almost every single European country. It found that countries with more widespread gun ownership had fewer murders, while countries with less gun ownership had more murders... I know it sounds ridiculous, but consider this: Let's say every woman in the country was issued a handgun (not from the government, of course), and they could do whatever they wanted with it. Let's say only half of them carried it around with them. The other half gave it away, put it up, etc. Now assume that you are a rapist. Are you really going to try and rape that woman knowing that there is a 50% chance she has a gun?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Who's talking about banning guns? I'm pretty sure he's just talking about gun LAWS, and how they shouldn't be loosened.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

My entire comment was not about banning guns. I also addressed gun ownership in general.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Which isn't what the post was about :p

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Yes it is?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Whoops, I skipped over the "not". Nvm

by Anonymous 13 years ago

haha. ok

by Anonymous 13 years ago

http://www.guninformation.org/ And country's in Europe with wide spread gun ownership crime rates are usually lower because of smaller population and less poverty. Also most of them have compulsory military service, so they are trained how to use guns.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Wow, Breakfastfan, I guess I don't agree with you as often as I thought. I like how absolutely none of the other scenarios match looser gun laws. The ONLY thing gun control does is limit law-abiding citizens from owning them. Criminals get them either way, the difference is that criminals are less likely to attack if their victim may be armed. It's also been shown the world over that stricter gun laws show an increase in violent crime. Looser gun laws, obviously, show a decrease in violent crime.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Thank you:)

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Personally, I don't know any conservatives who want looser gun laws. Just ones that don't want them to be more strict. The ones you are talking about must be very conservative, and not indicative of the majority.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

It's the end of the world as we know it!

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Gun laws dont mean shit to criminals.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I'm pretty sure that it's the conservative libertarians, not regular conservatives, that want looser gun laws. I myself am a libertarian conservative.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

The people who want to murder someone will just buy guns illegally then.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Or there won't be a gun involved at all! I haven't heard any talk of knife-control laws, or workout-control laws, or anything like those. It's entirely possible to kill without guns, it's just that they have become such a common scapegoat and symbol of violence. That's all people seem to care about, while entirely forgetting that there are other ways to kill someone.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

An untrained person can't rapidly kill or wound multiple people from a distance with a knife.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

And few can adequately defend themselves from someone with a knife, especially if they're surprised. I know that very few people can pull off an Assassin's Creed-like move and stab someone with no one knowing it was them, but there's nothing stopping them from simply walking up to you and stabbing you without any warning whatsoever, running away afterwards. And a lot of people who use guns aren't trained to kill with them (excluding the military). If you're talking about mass killings, then it's more than understandable to use a gun, but if you're talking about killing only one individual, then it would make sense to use a knife.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Yeah, I was talking more about mass-killings, but you're right that a knife can be effective if your're just going after one person.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I always thought that it was ironic that 97% of black people are liberals and vicariously are for getting rid of firearms, how are they going to go around and kill each other now?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Ignorance of guns causes more damage than anything. -FPSRussia

by Anonymous 13 years ago

@1012080 (Darth___Vader): And as always, have a nice day XD

by Anonymous 13 years ago

okay, you have a good point. So i'll say something unheard of on the internet. sorry

by Anonymous 13 years ago

y

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I love you. I cannot agree with this post enough.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Why thank you Holden

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I think it would almost be a good idea to make it mandatory for everyone to have a gun. Think about it if a gunman walked into a place and started firing chances are he would be lit up rather than getting away with killing people. That is assuming multiple people would have the balls to shoot him. IDK though I would really have to see how it plays out, theres too many things to consider with it and not enough experience for me to give a proper opinion on that.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

reminded me of http://ctrlv.in/19943

by Anonymous 13 years ago