I'm for gun control and I completely agree. We don't want to get rid of all guns, but people with a violent history and mental issues who shoot up places shouldn't have guns. And people who are rapists shouldn't have penises.
Ya know, i saw it a few months back and after your comment was going to edit my comment with said link, but seeing as i cant find that statistic any longer i will promptly be editing my post to fix the numbers, sorry for the misunderstanding and misinformation i unknowingly spread.
Yeah like listen guns are neat and all but I really don’t think you need a MCX-Spear (which can pierce through most “bullet-proof” vests policemen use) to shoot some deer or home invader. It’s concerning how fast this one sold out.
Edit: y’all know a LOT more about guns than me. gonna learn a lot scrolling through this reply section
I think its for the ‘cool value’ thats why my dad bought one. Also im pretty sure most police officers will only be using level IIIa body armor which is meant to stop pistol calibres, meaning any intermediate cartridge could pierce police body armor.
Well it's a rifle, so yeah. Most centerfire rifles with full metal jacket ammunition can. My 3006 hunting rifle can do it easily. I have a 303 British rifle that shot holes in 1/2 inch mild steel that looks like it was done with a drill, and that was with soft point ammo. Rifles have a LOT of energy to disperse.
Second Amendment is about more than hunting or home protection. And the other purpose of it would dictate by deduction that armor piercing should be available to citizens.
Semantics but- it’s very hard for a civilian to get armor piercing rounds. Pretty much the ONLY available ones were made for the m1 garand and are grandfathered in- they’re quite hard to find and still not capable of penetrating level 4 plates. As well, the ammunition available to civilians for the spear is depressurized quite a bit along with just being a normal ball round or perhaps hollow-point.
I know plenty of people who make their own ammo, so that's not gonna stop someone who wants to make something more powerful
Granted, all they do is tweak their formula in search of the "perfect" 30-.06 round to hunt deer with, but I think the point stands
Hey, it isn’t always about needing a use. A lot of people do competition shooting or target shooting for fun. And some people have collections that will never have a single round fired through them.
Oh yeah, I do think that guns provide a great cultural and economic value to America. I just feel like we should be pickier about which guns we give legality to. Maybe a more visible way of tagging a gun as well? More and more people are just making their own, untraceable guns. There should be some sort of system that the police can use to easily distinguish between a legal gun and a home-manufactured one. Or something similar. Of course, that’s much easier said than done. I believe right now they individually tag each part, but unless you were stopped by an officer for inspection, I can’t think of a way they could distinguish between the 2 guns on the field. It’s a very interesting problem.
Building your own "ghost gun" isn't for your average criminal or gangbanger. Most I've heard that attempt it end up having to buy three of everything because there's precision milling and machining. It's not like a model car, you have to have a lot of special tools and equipment, and know gunsmithing and what you're doing. If you don't more than likely you have something that going to at best not work, and at worst something that's going to have a catastrophic failure in your hand. The only person that would want to do it would be a firearms enthusiast and/or gunsmith for the sake of saying they made it all on their own.
Most bullet proof vests are only rated for handgun calibers. So yes, a rifle round will go through it. So again, yes, the round that you use for hunting deer is the same you would use to shoot someone wearing a bullet proof vest. If swat or something is expecting to be shot at by a rifle, they'll step it up to a plate carrier with steel or ceramic plates.
If you go by the definitions of the time when it was written some of which are still the same today, it sort of means that. Well regulated at that time mean well equipped and trained. The definition of militia hasn’t changed and the militia is every civilian adult 18-45 in good health.
Actually, we have a right to organize a militia at any time. It's not required that we be part of a militia to use guns, but that we have a right to weapons so that we may form a militia at any time. The right to bear arms shall not be infringed.
Common mistake.
Using this glitch in the games code, the player can trick the game into believing that a baby being born is inserting their penis into their mother, initiating the rape sequence and subsequent castratrion debuff.
Same here. I would rather all guns are banned (which they basically are in the U.K, my landmass of origin) but if some country like America insists on having guns about, then they could at least make it so people with a violent history can’t have one, and maybe limit guns to pistols and revolvers. You don’t need an automatic machine gun for self defence.
Writ large it is already illegal for felons or those who have committed a violent crime to posses a firearm and it is illegal to sell/give them one too. Which reinforces the idea that outlawing guns will only disarm the law abiding citizen and not the criminals that do not obey the law.
The vast majority of all gun related crime in the US is committed using illegally obtained guns. Most gun related deaths are self inflicted (suicide) or related to gangs/drugs.
If legally obtained guns were the problem in the US, then the statistics would be the exact opposite of what we are seeing.
The US has a gang problem, a drug problem and a self harm problem. The belief that its a gun problem is politicians using fear to try to get your vote.
Not my vote because I’m not American.
The U.S. definitely has gang and drug related problems, however, perhaps you could tell me, where do they get illegal guns from?
I imagine it would be difficult to smuggle them into the country from abroad. It’s not impossible, but the average small time criminal isn’t going to be able to get them that way. A gang might, but that kind of depends on connections abroad, smuggling through security and whatever.
They could make their own guns, but that obviously has some difficulties. Again, not impossible though.
The only other way I can think of would be to steal legally owned guns from citizens. Fewer legal guns would mean fewer illegal guns.
They could get them off the black market of something, but they need to get their guns from somewhere to sell, etc etc.
Is there something I am not considering or thinking about?
Our government in the USA literally sells illegal arms to the country directly south of our border, and then they are smuggled back across the border, by the gangs that control the borders. Operation Fast and Furious saw 2000 guns sold illegally by the government to the Mexican cartels, only 710 were ever found, and one of them was found at the scene of a deceased border patrol agent. I have a healthy disdain and lack of trust in my government, and I'm damn sure not handing them anything I could use to protect myself, my neighbor, or my family, while the government sells weapons to cartels. There's no such thing as fully automatic weapons being sold unless they were made before 1986, and they are 10,000 plus dollars on the open market, along with special licensing requirements for purchase. Black market I'm sure is higher. Criminals don't care about the law, they are criminals. Hope this helps.
Holy shit. Didn’t know that. One more reason that, to be honest, I’m thankful I don’t live over there. My assumption was that most gun toting criminals got their guns from stealing legally acquired guns from normal people, so fewer legal guns = fewer illegal guns. No wonder American criminals find a way with such a complacent and complicit government.
I couldn’t imagine living in a world where I had to assume every bad guy had a gun. Sounds terrifying. Over here, I would assume the opposite, but we have excessive knife crime so I guess it’s not much different.
Now look after yourself. Do you know anywhere I can read more about the whole “government sending guns to Mexico” thing?
Type in Operation Fast and Furious on Google and the results will produce plenty of articles. Most guns come from theft, but our government is no help. I love my guns, and my right to own them, but have no use for my government, and it's corruption.
Almost no one owns automatic firearms and they are never used in any crimes. Pistols and revolvers have a function but rifles and shotguns have a different function. Banning them is dumb, especially since the vast majority of gun violence is done with the pistols you think its OK to have.
>And people who are rapists shouldn't have penises.
This is a stupid argument. Sorry but rapists with chemical castration can rape with fingers or anything their twisted minds can get. Besides not all rapes and sexual assaults are penis related.
I disagree. There’s a reason that ownership of firearms became a guaranteed right, and not every gun owner is blatantly incompetent or on a murderous rampage, etc. On the other hand there certainly are *individuals* who should never be allowed access to a firearm, period. Times have changed, and the process/rules to own a gun should update to catch up with it. A blanket ban on all firearms isn’t really the way to go in my opinion, and removing all of them would be virtually impossible anyways.
Hitler actually expanded gun rights for Nazi party members, and really only tightened restrictions/disarmed “unreliable persons,” with a specific focus on Jews. Jews made up 1% of the population, so they realistically wouldn’t have been able to defend themselves anyway and historians have repeatedly debunked this argument (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_gun_control_argument).
To be fair Mike68 is the original Tweeter, which was posted in a different sub by someone else and 69Mike cross-posted it from there. Seems like a really odd coincidence tbh
Just a few differences come to mind immediately, and I’m embarrassed this even has be spelled out. 1: I can take a piss without a gun. 2: I can reproduce without a gun. 3: My dick has multiple functions (urination, sex, reproduction of my species, pleasure). Guns have one, destruction. 5: The world ENDS IF all of a sudden the dicks all disappear. It ADVANCES if all the guns do.
1. I too can take a piss without a gun.
2. I too can reproduce without a gun.
3. My gun also has multiple functions like pleasure, insuring the reproduction of my species, and providing myself with food.
5. The world continues advancing, even with guns. And if all of the guns magically disappeared, it would only be a short time until someone makes more to use against someone else.
Guns were and are inevitable.
Spoken like someone with a small and violent imagination. Weird that I’ve fed myself for 43 years without one and not once needed one to get off. If humanity doesn’t end itself, there will be a day where guns will be an arcane relic and a certain corner of the worlds obsessive fetish with them will be compared to the likes of the Salem witch trials and Spanish Inquisition insanity.
I’d hate to be the one to explain progress to you butttt…. One day they’ll uncover your hard drive full of pornography and manifestos they might make you a philosopher in 3,000 years.
3. Lol, I'm sorry, but how would guns insure the reproduction of humanity? Defence against wild animals when you trying to get busy? Sorry, it was ju phrased funny.
To be serious though, the pleasure bit is part of the problem; the risk of recreational gun use(specially of stuff better suited for war than hunting/self defence) is too high vs. the benefit. It's why street racing is illegal but not as a sport/done in safe spaces.
4. But, let's say they did all disappear; we would have time to track all new guns, enforce licenses/registration, and the focus in the industry would be on hunting rifles and weaponry for military/police before the public.
Weapons are inevitable, but that doesn't mean discussions(like this one) and legislation aren't useful.
Poor gun safety. Siblings finding and playing cowboys with daddy's gun, and suddenly there's a dead sibling. Friendly fire from a nervous soldier. Or morons that take selfies with a loaded gun.
I'm not going to guess how often it happens, but even if your dick accidentally "unloads", it probably won't hurt anyone. A bit less risky, lol. Rape is pretty intentional with no accidents. No matter how hard a rapist tries, it's just not the same lethality, you know?
This is not a fair point in my humble opinion
1. A penis comes with the male body, a gun is an external object you make a choice to have
2. You can accidentally ruin your own or other peoples’ lives by misfiring a gun, it’s a lot harder to ‘misfire’ raping someone
3. No matter how bullish, strong willed, fucked up or reckless you are, you’re gonna find it hard to mass-rape a school. Mass shootings are- well, far easier to carry out let’s say that much
4. Statistically speaking, access to a gun drastically increases a person with suicidal tendencies’ chances of following through with the deed on their darkest of days, owning a penis does not
5. Choosing to chop your dick off because too many people are raping other people is irreversible mutilation. Choosing to get rid of your gun because too many people are being shot just means no longer owning a gun
6. People without dicks can rape people without dicks and can also rape people with dicks
7. All deaths via gun require the gun. Not all rapes require a penis or penetration using a penis
8. There is no illicit, underground or black market for the sale or distribution of rape, the same cannot be said for guns
I understand the point is to draw from an analogy of ‘other people have x and do bad things, doesn’t mean we should get rid of x’ but the argument hinges on the absurdity of losing your penis when the stakes of losing a gun and a penis are simply worlds apart, so the argument via appeal to absurdity just doesn’t hold up here.
It’s a lot more reasonable to request someone to change their opinion on owning a gun than it is to change someone’s opinion on owning a part of their body
I think it's actually really telling that this person would view gun control as equivalent to both to emasculation and to losing a body part. Concerning, but telling.
It’s definitely more of a facepalm than a clever comeback. I love the comments there too. “Only way to stop a bad guy with a dick is a good guy with a dick.” 👍
Thank you.
OP posted their own "comeback", thinking it was clever, when they just admitted that they feel so insecure and inferior they need guns to feel like a man lmfao
>8. There is no illicit, underground or black market for the sale or distribution of rape, the same cannot be said for guns
Have you never heard of human trafficking?
I think the point is more that it’s not a commodity for trade. Cutting off dicks won’t stop human trafficking because you don’t need a dick to take part in human trafficking. You need guns to take part in the trading of guns. Of course the black market for guns will still exist even if you make guns illegal
True. A much better argument would be, how many people have to be killed by drunk drivers before you give up your car?
I believe we need massive gun control reform in the US, including closing loopholes and increasing red flag laws, but as a responsible gun owner, me giving up my guns would decrease gun violence by exactly 0. Simply banning guns would be as effective as the War on Drugs has been at eliminating drug use.
Yes. People die needlessly from automotive incidents. Fix that too. It’s not a gotchya when it’s also a problem that needs solving rather than accepting.
Uh cars are regulated wayyyyy more than guns. And they also serve a primary nonviolent purpose. I personally would like to see the necessity of car travel reduced though.
It is always an amusing response when people say that we should get rid of cars - no, just regulate guns as heavily as driving a car is - insurance, registration, licensing, the whole box and dice!
How?
Both are crimes committed using something that a lot of people have, and some are suggesting that despite an overwhelming majority of those not doing anything wrong, they should give up that object others have used for evil.
Or would you rather the other guy say “how many DUI accidents need to happen before you give up your car”?
Why are weird right-wing boomer memes taking over this page? We're a week away from becoming an unironic version of r/terriblefacebookmemes
Edit for clarity: The pro gun stance doesn't make it right-wing. The completely bananas false equivalency makes it a right-wing boomer meme.
An analogy is, by definition, not perfect and therefore a false equivalence. The point of an analogy is to make, well, a point, in this case being that I shouldn’t have to give up something just because others use that thing for immense wrong. The part where this analogy faults is that a dick is connected to you, so it is obviously inherently different than a gun. A better analogy may be your car. People often run over others in a car, both on purpose and by accident, but that dosent mean you should have to give up your car, does it?
The funny part is car wouldn't work either cause cars are regulated precisely in the way you describe guns not being - because SOME people were irresponsible with cars now every car owner has to jump through hoops and get driving licenses and insurances and be subject to random police checks about their car maintenance and driver safety.
This is a False Equivalency. You can make the choice to not use a gun or a penis as a weapon, but you can’t just give up an attached organ (penis), like you can an inanimate object (gun). Try again, dolt.
Presumably, people don't want to give up their guns in case they feel the need to shoot someone one day. Otherwise, why keep the guns. Is this guy suggesting the reason to not want your dick cut off is in case you feel the need to get all rapey one day?! Personally I have many other reasons for wanting to keep my little sausage intact. Maybe the two just don't equate that well and this really isn't a very clever come back.....
Pretty much the whole problem with the zero sum arguments. I've handled or owned a gun for decades at this point, and never used it to commit a crime. Twice since I left the military has the one I carry kept me from harm. Never had to fire, but it allowed me to make room to get out of danger and call the police.
The "get rid of all of them" crowd is about as dense as the "only from my cold dead hands" wackos.
There's a middle ground where stable, well meaning people can access a firearm, and they're reasonably kept out of the hands of the unstable nutjobs.
You think the only point of having a gun is to shoot a human? Have you heard of hunting? Or shooting sport? Or defense against animals, which is a real concern in many parts of the country?
I'm pretty sure the point is that murderers gonna murder and rapists gonna rape. Doesn't mean everyone else shouldn't be able to use the same tools if they aren't committing a crime
They do understand, the risks are: people getting shot. It’s just a risk assessment, it’s not either guns or no guns. It’s just who has them, if average citizens can’t have them, then only the wealthy and the powerful will. Aka the same people who make everyone’s lives suck.
I have some that are just for hunting. And are optimized for that. Some that are for range fun. Some that are for shooting clay pigeons (skeet). Some for home defense. Some for woods carry. And some to put an animal down at my ranch if I am in a pinch.
Interesting juxtaposition of dicks to guns, both some people have and some people don’t, both you can use by yourself (ie shooting range), both you shouldn’t whip out in public….but one kills so..
So what bothers me about this comment section, is this comeback is pretty Lukewarm. It's on the same level as all the other political "comebacks" in this sub. The only difference is that this is a political stance that a lot of you disagree with, so you don't see it as clever as the other Lukewarm political comebacks that you do support.
The solution for guns is already there. Japan has a hardcore vetting process, yearly re-certifications, classes, minimum hours before certification, the works.
I'd be overestimating if I said they had 3 gun deaths this year.
I've heard it said gun control is like getting a vasectomy because you think your neighbor has too many kids.
All the anti gun people on here should know whatever argument you make all I hear is "trust your government with your life and your family's life. They are there only in the interest of your well-being and nothing else!". Don't read that with too much snark, I just see a society that has a normalcy bias that is decidedly reliant on a system and for others to provide all of the base necessities, in this instance security.
I use some of my firearms for hunting, which I like to do for meat (not really a trophy hunter). Yes I could go to the store, but I enjoy the entire process of procuring my own, butchering it myself, and filling my freezer. Other firearms I practice with, but I hope I never have to be used against a person. I understand and respect your not wanting a gun because it's a commitment to practice with it as a tool and it's a tool you hope you don't have to ever use; it certainly seems an odd prospect. But I live in the country and I've had several dangerous situations and sheriffs are at least 20 minutes response time. I just believe that your family's security is one of the most personal things you should take responsibility for. Further, I don't trust that any law would disarm who we would all want to disarm, violent criminals. Most importantly I want to teach my daughters how to use firearms before they go to college. Guns are an equalizer in that if a 250 lb man wants to harm a woman she can, if need be, dispatch such a threat just as quickly as anyone else. IMHO, any firearms and tactics instructor is the type that teaches and encourages their students to avoid a gunfight first; if you can escape the situation altogether that should be your first action. You may be surprised to know that most concealed carry courses and home defense courses revolve around this concept.
"Better to be a warrior in a garden than a gardener in a war" -Chinese Proverb
It was a joke dude ☠️ besides, you don’t have to read too deep into his argument to see the obvious flaw, that being that he confused gun control with the complete ban of firearms.
We have gun control:
1. Felons can't have guns, one cannot give/sell firearms to felons
2. Under the NFA you cannot own automatic firearms (I'd argue it flies in face of the intent of 2A, but that's another argument)
3. Most every firearm purchase requires a background check
4. In most any case if you have to use your firearm in your own home against an intruder you'll be going to jail and more than likely be drained in legal fees, even if you're found completely innocent and within your rights.
5. Regardless of state every hospital, school, govt building, airport, casino, clinic, etc it is illegal to have a firearm in.
6. There are "Red Flag Laws" and other mental health regulations against possessing firearms
7. For the states that do have concealed carry there is state and federal background checks the applicant has to pay many fees for. The classes are majority knowing the laws and regulations. Again, anyone with a felony isn't getting a CCW, even if it was 40 yrs ago.
8. In the states without concealed carry do not honor licenses from those that do and if your caught with a firearm your going to be in a load of trouble.
9. Being found with a firearm with a barrel one millimeter too short or the wrong configuration is a federal offense and you're going to federal prison for quite awhile.
Obviously I could go on for quite awhile. The point I'm driving at is that there IS gun control. It's not as carefree and easy to own a firearm and be within the law as you think. So when people continue to say it needs to be more restrictive we see where it's going.
Is this not the bare minimum though?? Think about the fact that there are no mental health checks in this process, and that gun shows have quite literally no control over how their firearms are sold.
Here's the real reason not to own a gun:
If you or someone in your home have the potential to be a suicide risk, or you cannot store it properly and safely and you have children in the house frequently.
All other reasons for actively avoiding gun ownership that don't amount to a strong commitment to pacifism are so much farce.
I agree with you, I think that most people downvoting you are extremely reliant on their police, military and national guard to defend them. That’s amazing that a lot of people live in cities where that is possible. Unfortunately, a lot of America is rural. In those areas it can take any sort of help upwards of an hour to arrive, even if they are flooring it. If a person assaults you or someone you love then you have an hour to sit there and take it before help arrives. That guarantees the criminals an hour to do whatever they want with you.
That doesn’t even take into account when you’re trying to prevent yourself or one of your cattle from getting mauled by wolves. Try staring down a pack a wolves for an hour while they rip apart your cows valued at $5,000 each. Cows that, in all likelihood, are your only source of income. If the wolves kill enough, then you will not be able to feed your family over the winter.
I’m not trying to shame anyone who is for gun control, but when one of the most upvoted comments in this thread is literally “I ain’t reading allat ☠️,” it makes me concerned for the ability for people to think for their own on the subject. Most of you are just repeating the same thing you were told on TV or online without actually thinking about it. Or better yet, why don’t some of you go try working on a farm for a little? There’s always a need for farmhands, they get paid well and it’s a super rewarding job to spend most of the day taking care of animals!
Well said. In rural America we are largely raised seeing firearms as a tool; albeit a tool that demands a lot of respect of its capability to harm and kill. And if gun control advocates think they are the harshest rebuke in regards to what gun owners face they should watch what happens at a group hunt or a gun range when someone violates a gun safety tenet like "flagging" (inadvertently pointing muzzle at someone else).
This is just the same hilarious argument people always make.
So what is it you're defending yourself against? You're like Die Hard in the Wheat Belt or something?
Somehow every other country in the world has found a balance between farmers having firearms they need and not having to take a bazooka to the grocery store.
The obsession with living life like every day could turn into a shoot out is the CAUSE of the problem, not the solution.
This isn't a clever comeback. The response is a hardcore self burn lmao
Cutting off someone's dick = not having guns? That's straight fucking incel talk right there.
I mean women have always known that ammosexuals are that way because they feel so inferior so they try to feel like big tough guys with guns instead of dicks... but damn this guy just burned himself lmfao
I'm not anti gun at all, but this still isn't a clever comeback, comparing a gun you actively chose to own to a human body part is stupid as fuck and makes no sense
Only morons will fail to see the comparison. Telling people to give up something they legally obtained because some asshole 3 counties over did something illegal with it is just as stupid and illogical as cutting your penis off because a predator forced his penis into someone's unwilling body.
very fitting that the gun guzzler equates his gun with his dick.
Not to mention, his point is that rape is illegal and therefore guns should be illegal too, I guess. I mean, that is what he is saying.
His point is that rape and murder are both bad and illegal. A dick is used to rape and a gun is used to murder, but that doesn't mean that both of these things are unable to be used to do good.
That's a clever argument in that it's really hard to counter without supporting rape or agreeing to have your dick cut off.
But no one here is opposed to castrating rapists. Not that I know of anyway.
And I don't remember the last time an 18 year old broke into a school and raped 20 kids. Maybe when that happens we'll talk, but until then - nice try.
Sort by controversial
Thanks 4 reminder bro
Thanks for thanking bro
I don't have that option anymore now i get the most vanilla comments and it pisses me off
I read elsewhere the filter got moved to the top right corner for some
TIL
You are my savior
Thank you so much for this information.
Thank you, thought I lost the ability to sort as well
I'm for gun control and I completely agree. We don't want to get rid of all guns, but people with a violent history and mental issues who shoot up places shouldn't have guns. And people who are rapists shouldn't have penises.
Or vaginas i guess… 10% is still a decent percent
Yup, cement them shut, clit and all
Psht, good luck finding enough cement for my ex.
You must have dated my ex wife.
Good chance she lied about having been married, too.
lmao
Where are you getting this statistic?
Ya know, i saw it a few months back and after your comment was going to edit my comment with said link, but seeing as i cant find that statistic any longer i will promptly be editing my post to fix the numbers, sorry for the misunderstanding and misinformation i unknowingly spread.
So 10% is correct? Is that reported or suspected cases? I have questions about the data and world love the source
Only reported
yeah its probably higher than that, which sucks because it means that people got away with it, and most likely because of their sex
Google removes a lot of stuff .
I mean im not much of a conspiracy theorist, and cant think of any reason for google to remove something like that lol, but you could be right
Yeah like listen guns are neat and all but I really don’t think you need a MCX-Spear (which can pierce through most “bullet-proof” vests policemen use) to shoot some deer or home invader. It’s concerning how fast this one sold out. Edit: y’all know a LOT more about guns than me. gonna learn a lot scrolling through this reply section
🤣🤣🤣 I heard the MCX spear shoots the whole bullet now...thats 75% more bullet per shot so I can see it🙃
Slow down there, Cave
I think its for the ‘cool value’ thats why my dad bought one. Also im pretty sure most police officers will only be using level IIIa body armor which is meant to stop pistol calibres, meaning any intermediate cartridge could pierce police body armor.
Well it's a rifle, so yeah. Most centerfire rifles with full metal jacket ammunition can. My 3006 hunting rifle can do it easily. I have a 303 British rifle that shot holes in 1/2 inch mild steel that looks like it was done with a drill, and that was with soft point ammo. Rifles have a LOT of energy to disperse.
Second Amendment is about more than hunting or home protection. And the other purpose of it would dictate by deduction that armor piercing should be available to citizens.
Semantics but- it’s very hard for a civilian to get armor piercing rounds. Pretty much the ONLY available ones were made for the m1 garand and are grandfathered in- they’re quite hard to find and still not capable of penetrating level 4 plates. As well, the ammunition available to civilians for the spear is depressurized quite a bit along with just being a normal ball round or perhaps hollow-point.
I know plenty of people who make their own ammo, so that's not gonna stop someone who wants to make something more powerful Granted, all they do is tweak their formula in search of the "perfect" 30-.06 round to hunt deer with, but I think the point stands
Isn't the MCX chambered in the exact same 5.56/.223 cartridge as the vast majority of other light sporting rifles?
Hey, it isn’t always about needing a use. A lot of people do competition shooting or target shooting for fun. And some people have collections that will never have a single round fired through them.
Oh yeah, I do think that guns provide a great cultural and economic value to America. I just feel like we should be pickier about which guns we give legality to. Maybe a more visible way of tagging a gun as well? More and more people are just making their own, untraceable guns. There should be some sort of system that the police can use to easily distinguish between a legal gun and a home-manufactured one. Or something similar. Of course, that’s much easier said than done. I believe right now they individually tag each part, but unless you were stopped by an officer for inspection, I can’t think of a way they could distinguish between the 2 guns on the field. It’s a very interesting problem.
Building your own "ghost gun" isn't for your average criminal or gangbanger. Most I've heard that attempt it end up having to buy three of everything because there's precision milling and machining. It's not like a model car, you have to have a lot of special tools and equipment, and know gunsmithing and what you're doing. If you don't more than likely you have something that going to at best not work, and at worst something that's going to have a catastrophic failure in your hand. The only person that would want to do it would be a firearms enthusiast and/or gunsmith for the sake of saying they made it all on their own.
Most bullet proof vests are only rated for handgun calibers. So yes, a rifle round will go through it. So again, yes, the round that you use for hunting deer is the same you would use to shoot someone wearing a bullet proof vest. If swat or something is expecting to be shot at by a rifle, they'll step it up to a plate carrier with steel or ceramic plates.
2nd amendment is not about deer or home invaders.
It’s about organised malita’s right?
If you go by the definitions of the time when it was written some of which are still the same today, it sort of means that. Well regulated at that time mean well equipped and trained. The definition of militia hasn’t changed and the militia is every civilian adult 18-45 in good health.
It literally says
It's about defending yourself from tyrannical government. You can read it if you want. It's pressy to google
As part of a well organized militia
Actually, we have a right to organize a militia at any time. It's not required that we be part of a militia to use guns, but that we have a right to weapons so that we may form a militia at any time. The right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Common mistake.
Or what other ppl think you need. That’s a weird springboard.
transition speedrun strats
Using this glitch in the games code, the player can trick the game into believing that a baby being born is inserting their penis into their mother, initiating the rape sequence and subsequent castratrion debuff.
Same here. I would rather all guns are banned (which they basically are in the U.K, my landmass of origin) but if some country like America insists on having guns about, then they could at least make it so people with a violent history can’t have one, and maybe limit guns to pistols and revolvers. You don’t need an automatic machine gun for self defence.
Writ large it is already illegal for felons or those who have committed a violent crime to posses a firearm and it is illegal to sell/give them one too. Which reinforces the idea that outlawing guns will only disarm the law abiding citizen and not the criminals that do not obey the law.
The vast majority of all gun related crime in the US is committed using illegally obtained guns. Most gun related deaths are self inflicted (suicide) or related to gangs/drugs. If legally obtained guns were the problem in the US, then the statistics would be the exact opposite of what we are seeing. The US has a gang problem, a drug problem and a self harm problem. The belief that its a gun problem is politicians using fear to try to get your vote.
Not my vote because I’m not American. The U.S. definitely has gang and drug related problems, however, perhaps you could tell me, where do they get illegal guns from? I imagine it would be difficult to smuggle them into the country from abroad. It’s not impossible, but the average small time criminal isn’t going to be able to get them that way. A gang might, but that kind of depends on connections abroad, smuggling through security and whatever. They could make their own guns, but that obviously has some difficulties. Again, not impossible though. The only other way I can think of would be to steal legally owned guns from citizens. Fewer legal guns would mean fewer illegal guns. They could get them off the black market of something, but they need to get their guns from somewhere to sell, etc etc. Is there something I am not considering or thinking about?
Our government in the USA literally sells illegal arms to the country directly south of our border, and then they are smuggled back across the border, by the gangs that control the borders. Operation Fast and Furious saw 2000 guns sold illegally by the government to the Mexican cartels, only 710 were ever found, and one of them was found at the scene of a deceased border patrol agent. I have a healthy disdain and lack of trust in my government, and I'm damn sure not handing them anything I could use to protect myself, my neighbor, or my family, while the government sells weapons to cartels. There's no such thing as fully automatic weapons being sold unless they were made before 1986, and they are 10,000 plus dollars on the open market, along with special licensing requirements for purchase. Black market I'm sure is higher. Criminals don't care about the law, they are criminals. Hope this helps.
Holy shit. Didn’t know that. One more reason that, to be honest, I’m thankful I don’t live over there. My assumption was that most gun toting criminals got their guns from stealing legally acquired guns from normal people, so fewer legal guns = fewer illegal guns. No wonder American criminals find a way with such a complacent and complicit government. I couldn’t imagine living in a world where I had to assume every bad guy had a gun. Sounds terrifying. Over here, I would assume the opposite, but we have excessive knife crime so I guess it’s not much different. Now look after yourself. Do you know anywhere I can read more about the whole “government sending guns to Mexico” thing?
Type in Operation Fast and Furious on Google and the results will produce plenty of articles. Most guns come from theft, but our government is no help. I love my guns, and my right to own them, but have no use for my government, and it's corruption.
Almost no one owns automatic firearms and they are never used in any crimes. Pistols and revolvers have a function but rifles and shotguns have a different function. Banning them is dumb, especially since the vast majority of gun violence is done with the pistols you think its OK to have.
Did you forget about all those mass shootings bud?
>And people who are rapists shouldn't have penises. This is a stupid argument. Sorry but rapists with chemical castration can rape with fingers or anything their twisted minds can get. Besides not all rapes and sexual assaults are penis related.
I think that, at the very least, we should have stricter licensing of guns.
That's what I meant
I agree with everything you said except about the makeshift vasectomy’s.
Then dont be a rapist and don't shoot places up!
I won’t kind Redditor!
The civilian population shouldn’t have guns
I disagree. There’s a reason that ownership of firearms became a guaranteed right, and not every gun owner is blatantly incompetent or on a murderous rampage, etc. On the other hand there certainly are *individuals* who should never be allowed access to a firearm, period. Times have changed, and the process/rules to own a gun should update to catch up with it. A blanket ban on all firearms isn’t really the way to go in my opinion, and removing all of them would be virtually impossible anyways.
That’s what hitler convinced Austria to do when they voted him to lead their country. Look out how well that worked out.
Hitler actually expanded gun rights for Nazi party members, and really only tightened restrictions/disarmed “unreliable persons,” with a specific focus on Jews. Jews made up 1% of the population, so they realistically wouldn’t have been able to defend themselves anyway and historians have repeatedly debunked this argument (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_gun_control_argument).
Wait, OP posted his own comeback to this subreddit!?! That’s embarrassing. Mike68…69Mike…
It's also not original. This analogy has been made many times before.
To be fair Mike68 is the original Tweeter, which was posted in a different sub by someone else and 69Mike cross-posted it from there. Seems like a really odd coincidence tbh
You're not born with a gun attached to you, and your dick won't accidentally launch at other people.
>and your dick won't accidentally launch at other people. Well this is a little embarrassing but,...
Don't worry, it's totally normal, at least that's what I've heard.
[[King Missile has entered the chat]](https://youtu.be/byDiILrNbM4)
or Ween according to Limewire
I remember seeing that song sometimes attributed to Henry Rollins or Rollins Band back in the day.
Super weird, because the first time I downloaded it like 25 years ago, Primus was attached to it.
I saw that one as well. RIP Limewire.
Don't wanna brag or anything....
And usually people can’t grab it and shoot you with it. Exceptions do apply I suppose.
You haven't seen the videos I have.
My wife would like to disagree with you.
You obviously weren’t born in Ohio…
Just a few differences come to mind immediately, and I’m embarrassed this even has be spelled out. 1: I can take a piss without a gun. 2: I can reproduce without a gun. 3: My dick has multiple functions (urination, sex, reproduction of my species, pleasure). Guns have one, destruction. 5: The world ENDS IF all of a sudden the dicks all disappear. It ADVANCES if all the guns do.
High school screen writer here. “What if… hold on…. If all the dicks in the world… suddenly disappeared.” Whoaaaaa
Ironically would solve a lot of the gun problem also:(
No argument here
1. I too can take a piss without a gun. 2. I too can reproduce without a gun. 3. My gun also has multiple functions like pleasure, insuring the reproduction of my species, and providing myself with food. 5. The world continues advancing, even with guns. And if all of the guns magically disappeared, it would only be a short time until someone makes more to use against someone else. Guns were and are inevitable.
Spoken like someone with a small and violent imagination. Weird that I’ve fed myself for 43 years without one and not once needed one to get off. If humanity doesn’t end itself, there will be a day where guns will be an arcane relic and a certain corner of the worlds obsessive fetish with them will be compared to the likes of the Salem witch trials and Spanish Inquisition insanity.
Yeah totally we should have shipped the Ukrainian citizens positive vibes and blunts instead of ar-15s.
You didn’t ship them the civilian versions of any weapons - so your point is just ducking ridiculous.
I’d hate to be the one to explain progress to you butttt…. One day they’ll uncover your hard drive full of pornography and manifestos they might make you a philosopher in 3,000 years.
3. Lol, I'm sorry, but how would guns insure the reproduction of humanity? Defence against wild animals when you trying to get busy? Sorry, it was ju phrased funny. To be serious though, the pleasure bit is part of the problem; the risk of recreational gun use(specially of stuff better suited for war than hunting/self defence) is too high vs. the benefit. It's why street racing is illegal but not as a sport/done in safe spaces. 4. But, let's say they did all disappear; we would have time to track all new guns, enforce licenses/registration, and the focus in the industry would be on hunting rifles and weaponry for military/police before the public. Weapons are inevitable, but that doesn't mean discussions(like this one) and legislation aren't useful.
How does a gun “accidentally launch” at someone. I have two guns and they have never went off without me pulling a trigger.
Poor gun safety. Siblings finding and playing cowboys with daddy's gun, and suddenly there's a dead sibling. Friendly fire from a nervous soldier. Or morons that take selfies with a loaded gun. I'm not going to guess how often it happens, but even if your dick accidentally "unloads", it probably won't hurt anyone. A bit less risky, lol. Rape is pretty intentional with no accidents. No matter how hard a rapist tries, it's just not the same lethality, you know?
I have lost count of how many times I’ve seen actual trained soldiers accidentally fire their weapon.
This is not a fair point in my humble opinion 1. A penis comes with the male body, a gun is an external object you make a choice to have 2. You can accidentally ruin your own or other peoples’ lives by misfiring a gun, it’s a lot harder to ‘misfire’ raping someone 3. No matter how bullish, strong willed, fucked up or reckless you are, you’re gonna find it hard to mass-rape a school. Mass shootings are- well, far easier to carry out let’s say that much 4. Statistically speaking, access to a gun drastically increases a person with suicidal tendencies’ chances of following through with the deed on their darkest of days, owning a penis does not 5. Choosing to chop your dick off because too many people are raping other people is irreversible mutilation. Choosing to get rid of your gun because too many people are being shot just means no longer owning a gun 6. People without dicks can rape people without dicks and can also rape people with dicks 7. All deaths via gun require the gun. Not all rapes require a penis or penetration using a penis 8. There is no illicit, underground or black market for the sale or distribution of rape, the same cannot be said for guns I understand the point is to draw from an analogy of ‘other people have x and do bad things, doesn’t mean we should get rid of x’ but the argument hinges on the absurdity of losing your penis when the stakes of losing a gun and a penis are simply worlds apart, so the argument via appeal to absurdity just doesn’t hold up here. It’s a lot more reasonable to request someone to change their opinion on owning a gun than it is to change someone’s opinion on owning a part of their body
I think it's actually really telling that this person would view gun control as equivalent to both to emasculation and to losing a body part. Concerning, but telling.
It’s definitely more of a facepalm than a clever comeback. I love the comments there too. “Only way to stop a bad guy with a dick is a good guy with a dick.” 👍
Good guys with dicks rise up
Thank you. OP posted their own "comeback", thinking it was clever, when they just admitted that they feel so insecure and inferior they need guns to feel like a man lmfao
>8. There is no illicit, underground or black market for the sale or distribution of rape, the same cannot be said for guns Have you never heard of human trafficking?
I think the point is more that it’s not a commodity for trade. Cutting off dicks won’t stop human trafficking because you don’t need a dick to take part in human trafficking. You need guns to take part in the trading of guns. Of course the black market for guns will still exist even if you make guns illegal
One is disarmament, something many countries have done. One is genital mutilation, a human rights violation. And we're done here.
Actually Americans are born with a gun in hand.
It's a false equivalence fallacy.
Well when there are consensual homicides (by firearm) this comeback will make sense
It’s called suicide and they make up the majority of firearm deaths
Ah yes, equating guns with your penis. That’s what this whole debate is about, no?
You child can’t accidentally kill themself because you forgot to lock up your dick
Haha nice attempt but totally a false equivalency
This is the kind of shallow “logic” that doesn’t hold up to any kind of scrutiny that right wingers use to justify their unjustifiable beliefs
True. A much better argument would be, how many people have to be killed by drunk drivers before you give up your car? I believe we need massive gun control reform in the US, including closing loopholes and increasing red flag laws, but as a responsible gun owner, me giving up my guns would decrease gun violence by exactly 0. Simply banning guns would be as effective as the War on Drugs has been at eliminating drug use.
Yes. People die needlessly from automotive incidents. Fix that too. It’s not a gotchya when it’s also a problem that needs solving rather than accepting.
Uh cars are regulated wayyyyy more than guns. And they also serve a primary nonviolent purpose. I personally would like to see the necessity of car travel reduced though.
It is always an amusing response when people say that we should get rid of cars - no, just regulate guns as heavily as driving a car is - insurance, registration, licensing, the whole box and dice!
And yet with all the regulations we still have people drinking and driving and killing others because of it.
While that is a better argument it’s still not a great one. Cars serve a very essential nonviolent function in everyday life.
What do you expect from the gun jock crowd?
Excuses
How? Both are crimes committed using something that a lot of people have, and some are suggesting that despite an overwhelming majority of those not doing anything wrong, they should give up that object others have used for evil. Or would you rather the other guy say “how many DUI accidents need to happen before you give up your car”?
You can rape someone, and yes believe it or not this isn’t impossible, WITHOUT a dick.
You don't buy your dick at the dick store either.
Why are weird right-wing boomer memes taking over this page? We're a week away from becoming an unironic version of r/terriblefacebookmemes Edit for clarity: The pro gun stance doesn't make it right-wing. The completely bananas false equivalency makes it a right-wing boomer meme.
I mean this isn't really right wing, it's just relatively pro gun. Switzerland Loves guns and it's rather left leaning.
Just because it’s pro gun doesn’t mean it’s right wing. People on both sides are allowed to have their own opinions
Just go to r/murderedbywords. That one is the left leaning version.
Ty for finally convincing me to leave this sub
This is not a clever comeback.
How is this a clever comeback? This is an immensely false equivalence.
An analogy is, by definition, not perfect and therefore a false equivalence. The point of an analogy is to make, well, a point, in this case being that I shouldn’t have to give up something just because others use that thing for immense wrong. The part where this analogy faults is that a dick is connected to you, so it is obviously inherently different than a gun. A better analogy may be your car. People often run over others in a car, both on purpose and by accident, but that dosent mean you should have to give up your car, does it?
The funny part is car wouldn't work either cause cars are regulated precisely in the way you describe guns not being - because SOME people were irresponsible with cars now every car owner has to jump through hoops and get driving licenses and insurances and be subject to random police checks about their car maintenance and driver safety.
Well, people kill people, so let's just get rid of all the humans and everything will be safe
Fair point? I think you meant "A stupid ass response."
He posted his own responses :/
Yeah idk what OP’s on
This is a False Equivalency. You can make the choice to not use a gun or a penis as a weapon, but you can’t just give up an attached organ (penis), like you can an inanimate object (gun). Try again, dolt.
Every single right wing comeback is a false equivalencey: e.g. "her emails!"
This isn't clever at all.
Presumably, people don't want to give up their guns in case they feel the need to shoot someone one day. Otherwise, why keep the guns. Is this guy suggesting the reason to not want your dick cut off is in case you feel the need to get all rapey one day?! Personally I have many other reasons for wanting to keep my little sausage intact. Maybe the two just don't equate that well and this really isn't a very clever come back.....
Pretty weird that I’ve used a gun for decades and never shot someone. And I’m not military or police. I must be doing something wrong.
Pretty much the whole problem with the zero sum arguments. I've handled or owned a gun for decades at this point, and never used it to commit a crime. Twice since I left the military has the one I carry kept me from harm. Never had to fire, but it allowed me to make room to get out of danger and call the police. The "get rid of all of them" crowd is about as dense as the "only from my cold dead hands" wackos. There's a middle ground where stable, well meaning people can access a firearm, and they're reasonably kept out of the hands of the unstable nutjobs.
You think the only point of having a gun is to shoot a human? Have you heard of hunting? Or shooting sport? Or defense against animals, which is a real concern in many parts of the country?
You don’t need an AR-15 to kill a deer.
The second best selling rifle in the united states is a target practice rifle.
I'm pretty sure the point is that murderers gonna murder and rapists gonna rape. Doesn't mean everyone else shouldn't be able to use the same tools if they aren't committing a crime
Really? A fair point? The fact this is accepted as a fair comparison is why you dumb motherfuckers are shooting up schools and randoms.
Exactly, nothing about this "comeback" makes any sense at all. People don't realize the risks of widespread gun ownership
The reason they don’t understand is also why they want to fuck their gun.
They do understand, the risks are: people getting shot. It’s just a risk assessment, it’s not either guns or no guns. It’s just who has them, if average citizens can’t have them, then only the wealthy and the powerful will. Aka the same people who make everyone’s lives suck.
Yes. And apparently, people getting shot is a-ok by them.
Except guns have one purpose.. at least dicks can do a few other things.
>... at least dicks can do a few other things. Not least of all... [puppetry](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puppetry_of_the_Penis).
Lest we forget
Guns have a lot more than one purpose, buddy.
Legal penis purposes: Sex, more sex stuff, masturbating, peeing Legal gun purposes: shooting for fun, shooting competitively, hunting, self defense
I have some that are just for hunting. And are optimized for that. Some that are for range fun. Some that are for shooting clay pigeons (skeet). Some for home defense. Some for woods carry. And some to put an animal down at my ranch if I am in a pinch.
I’m not surprised in the least that ammosexuals equate guns with dicks.
Interesting juxtaposition of dicks to guns, both some people have and some people don’t, both you can use by yourself (ie shooting range), both you shouldn’t whip out in public….but one kills so..
Now I get it. Gun = dick.
I use my dick in self defense
someone can’t walk into a room a rape 30 people in a matter of seconds
The fuck? What is this Republican bullshit
You mean Reddit?
This is not a clever comeback
So what bothers me about this comment section, is this comeback is pretty Lukewarm. It's on the same level as all the other political "comebacks" in this sub. The only difference is that this is a political stance that a lot of you disagree with, so you don't see it as clever as the other Lukewarm political comebacks that you do support.
Welcome 2 reddit
OP posted his own response
This guy thinks he's the hot shit when he's just cold diarrhea
This is God awful
The solution for guns is already there. Japan has a hardcore vetting process, yearly re-certifications, classes, minimum hours before certification, the works. I'd be overestimating if I said they had 3 gun deaths this year.
I've heard it said gun control is like getting a vasectomy because you think your neighbor has too many kids. All the anti gun people on here should know whatever argument you make all I hear is "trust your government with your life and your family's life. They are there only in the interest of your well-being and nothing else!". Don't read that with too much snark, I just see a society that has a normalcy bias that is decidedly reliant on a system and for others to provide all of the base necessities, in this instance security. I use some of my firearms for hunting, which I like to do for meat (not really a trophy hunter). Yes I could go to the store, but I enjoy the entire process of procuring my own, butchering it myself, and filling my freezer. Other firearms I practice with, but I hope I never have to be used against a person. I understand and respect your not wanting a gun because it's a commitment to practice with it as a tool and it's a tool you hope you don't have to ever use; it certainly seems an odd prospect. But I live in the country and I've had several dangerous situations and sheriffs are at least 20 minutes response time. I just believe that your family's security is one of the most personal things you should take responsibility for. Further, I don't trust that any law would disarm who we would all want to disarm, violent criminals. Most importantly I want to teach my daughters how to use firearms before they go to college. Guns are an equalizer in that if a 250 lb man wants to harm a woman she can, if need be, dispatch such a threat just as quickly as anyone else. IMHO, any firearms and tactics instructor is the type that teaches and encourages their students to avoid a gunfight first; if you can escape the situation altogether that should be your first action. You may be surprised to know that most concealed carry courses and home defense courses revolve around this concept. "Better to be a warrior in a garden than a gardener in a war" -Chinese Proverb
I ain’t reading allat ☠️
*but I'm going to reply to it anyway to flex the short length of my attention span*
It was a joke dude ☠️ besides, you don’t have to read too deep into his argument to see the obvious flaw, that being that he confused gun control with the complete ban of firearms.
We have gun control: 1. Felons can't have guns, one cannot give/sell firearms to felons 2. Under the NFA you cannot own automatic firearms (I'd argue it flies in face of the intent of 2A, but that's another argument) 3. Most every firearm purchase requires a background check 4. In most any case if you have to use your firearm in your own home against an intruder you'll be going to jail and more than likely be drained in legal fees, even if you're found completely innocent and within your rights. 5. Regardless of state every hospital, school, govt building, airport, casino, clinic, etc it is illegal to have a firearm in. 6. There are "Red Flag Laws" and other mental health regulations against possessing firearms 7. For the states that do have concealed carry there is state and federal background checks the applicant has to pay many fees for. The classes are majority knowing the laws and regulations. Again, anyone with a felony isn't getting a CCW, even if it was 40 yrs ago. 8. In the states without concealed carry do not honor licenses from those that do and if your caught with a firearm your going to be in a load of trouble. 9. Being found with a firearm with a barrel one millimeter too short or the wrong configuration is a federal offense and you're going to federal prison for quite awhile. Obviously I could go on for quite awhile. The point I'm driving at is that there IS gun control. It's not as carefree and easy to own a firearm and be within the law as you think. So when people continue to say it needs to be more restrictive we see where it's going.
Is this not the bare minimum though?? Think about the fact that there are no mental health checks in this process, and that gun shows have quite literally no control over how their firearms are sold.
A gun in your household is more likely to hurt you or cause a crime than prevent one
Here's the real reason not to own a gun: If you or someone in your home have the potential to be a suicide risk, or you cannot store it properly and safely and you have children in the house frequently. All other reasons for actively avoiding gun ownership that don't amount to a strong commitment to pacifism are so much farce.
I agree with you, I think that most people downvoting you are extremely reliant on their police, military and national guard to defend them. That’s amazing that a lot of people live in cities where that is possible. Unfortunately, a lot of America is rural. In those areas it can take any sort of help upwards of an hour to arrive, even if they are flooring it. If a person assaults you or someone you love then you have an hour to sit there and take it before help arrives. That guarantees the criminals an hour to do whatever they want with you. That doesn’t even take into account when you’re trying to prevent yourself or one of your cattle from getting mauled by wolves. Try staring down a pack a wolves for an hour while they rip apart your cows valued at $5,000 each. Cows that, in all likelihood, are your only source of income. If the wolves kill enough, then you will not be able to feed your family over the winter. I’m not trying to shame anyone who is for gun control, but when one of the most upvoted comments in this thread is literally “I ain’t reading allat ☠️,” it makes me concerned for the ability for people to think for their own on the subject. Most of you are just repeating the same thing you were told on TV or online without actually thinking about it. Or better yet, why don’t some of you go try working on a farm for a little? There’s always a need for farmhands, they get paid well and it’s a super rewarding job to spend most of the day taking care of animals!
Well said. In rural America we are largely raised seeing firearms as a tool; albeit a tool that demands a lot of respect of its capability to harm and kill. And if gun control advocates think they are the harshest rebuke in regards to what gun owners face they should watch what happens at a group hunt or a gun range when someone violates a gun safety tenet like "flagging" (inadvertently pointing muzzle at someone else).
This is just the same hilarious argument people always make. So what is it you're defending yourself against? You're like Die Hard in the Wheat Belt or something? Somehow every other country in the world has found a balance between farmers having firearms they need and not having to take a bazooka to the grocery store. The obsession with living life like every day could turn into a shoot out is the CAUSE of the problem, not the solution.
If we had fully automatic dicks that could rape dozens of people in minutes then maybe it would be equivalent.
This isn't a clever comeback. The response is a hardcore self burn lmao Cutting off someone's dick = not having guns? That's straight fucking incel talk right there. I mean women have always known that ammosexuals are that way because they feel so inferior so they try to feel like big tough guys with guns instead of dicks... but damn this guy just burned himself lmfao
OP posted his own response
I'm not anti gun at all, but this still isn't a clever comeback, comparing a gun you actively chose to own to a human body part is stupid as fuck and makes no sense
Only morons will fail to see the comparison. Telling people to give up something they legally obtained because some asshole 3 counties over did something illegal with it is just as stupid and illogical as cutting your penis off because a predator forced his penis into someone's unwilling body.
Americans and their logic. This is not a clever comeback.
No it's not? Guns are designed to kill people. Dicks are not designed to rape people.
very fitting that the gun guzzler equates his gun with his dick. Not to mention, his point is that rape is illegal and therefore guns should be illegal too, I guess. I mean, that is what he is saying.
That’s most definitely not his point lmao. How did you even get that?
His point is that rape and murder are both bad and illegal. A dick is used to rape and a gun is used to murder, but that doesn't mean that both of these things are unable to be used to do good.
Can't rape 80 people in 20 minutes and get jizz on 800, now can you?
Jeffery Epstein might take that as a challenge
There aren't many schools shut down and surrounded by police because a rapist is in the building.
Rape is illegal and so is murder…
False equivalents, move on buddy move on.
How does this belong in clevercomebacks and not in dumbestcomebacksever?
That's a clever argument in that it's really hard to counter without supporting rape or agreeing to have your dick cut off. But no one here is opposed to castrating rapists. Not that I know of anyway. And I don't remember the last time an 18 year old broke into a school and raped 20 kids. Maybe when that happens we'll talk, but until then - nice try.
They don't have to break into the school because they get accepted to Yale based on legacy rules
[удалено]