🔥 Popular | Latest
![chalamets:
The Last Jedi resolved the intrigue surrounding the heroine of this new sequel-trilogy, Rey, and her parentage with a gracefully simple, bold assertion: Rey is… just Rey. Not the daughter of some space aristocracy or legacy lineage, but a hero of her own making. […] That Rey’s parents were ordinary people meant anyone from anywhere could be born a hero; what determined a person’s place in the world was who they chose to be, rather than their last name. “Rey is our protagonist. And the truth is, in the story, the toughest possible thing for her to hear is, you know, you’re not gonna get the easy answer that you’re so-and-so’s daughter, this is your place,” [Rian] Johnson told me after The Last Jedi’s release. “You’re gonna have to stand on your own two feet and define yourself in this world.”
Instead of taking the baton from Last Jedi and running with it to new heights, The Rise of Skywalker retreats right back into the safety of nostalgia. […] It’s as if Abrams and Terrio scrambled for a loophole specifically to mollify the “fans” upset that this hero—worse, this girl—dared to wield such incredible abilities with only her own strength […] Bookending the saga Anakin began with the story of a girl from nowhere who sets right what he helped unbalance might have been resonant. But who cares for that when there’s another billion-dollar franchise to set up and potential spin-offs to tease?
— Melissa Leon, ‘The Rise of Skywalker’ Erases the Power of Rey’s Story and Surrenders to Sexist Trolls
: chalamets:
The Last Jedi resolved the intrigue surrounding the heroine of this new sequel-trilogy, Rey, and her parentage with a gracefully simple, bold assertion: Rey is… just Rey. Not the daughter of some space aristocracy or legacy lineage, but a hero of her own making. […] That Rey’s parents were ordinary people meant anyone from anywhere could be born a hero; what determined a person’s place in the world was who they chose to be, rather than their last name. “Rey is our protagonist. And the truth is, in the story, the toughest possible thing for her to hear is, you know, you’re not gonna get the easy answer that you’re so-and-so’s daughter, this is your place,” [Rian] Johnson told me after The Last Jedi’s release. “You’re gonna have to stand on your own two feet and define yourself in this world.”
Instead of taking the baton from Last Jedi and running with it to new heights, The Rise of Skywalker retreats right back into the safety of nostalgia. […] It’s as if Abrams and Terrio scrambled for a loophole specifically to mollify the “fans” upset that this hero—worse, this girl—dared to wield such incredible abilities with only her own strength […] Bookending the saga Anakin began with the story of a girl from nowhere who sets right what he helped unbalance might have been resonant. But who cares for that when there’s another billion-dollar franchise to set up and potential spin-offs to tease?
— Melissa Leon, ‘The Rise of Skywalker’ Erases the Power of Rey’s Story and Surrenders to Sexist Trolls](https://pics.me.me/thumb_chalamets-the-last-jedi-resolved-the-intrigue-surrounding-the-heroine-68241554.png)
![BACK IN JANUARY, THE NEW YORK TIMES AGREED WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP THAT CALIFORNIA NEEDED TO IMPROVE ITS FORESTRY MANAGEMENT
Editorial by Kevin Ryan
The deadliest and most destructive fire in California's history was finally brought under control by firefighters yesterday, more than two weeks after it erupted. So far 87 people are confirmed to have been killed in the blaze, and many are still missing.
But the media firestorm continues over President Trump’s assertion that poor forest management contributed to the disaster. After Trump tweeted that better forest management could have prevented, or at least mitigated, the damage caused by the devastating wildfires, the media and California politicians said his assertion was false.
A spokesman for California Governor Jerry Brown said that the president's assertion was “inane” and “uninformed.” The New York Times wrote a piece entitled “Trump’s Misleading Claims About California’s Fire ‘Mismanagement’”
Yet just a few months back, both Governor Brown and The New York Times said basically the same thing as Trump.
In a January article, the Times wrote that “A group of scientists warned in the journal BioScience that [100 million] dead trees could produce wildfires on a scale and of an intensity that California has never seen,” and that “scientists say they cannot even calculate the damage the dead-tree fires might cause; it exceeds what their current fire behavior modeling can simulate.”
“‘It’s something that is going to be much more severe,’ said Scott Stephens, a professor of fire science at Berkeley and the lead author of the study. ‘You could have higher amounts of embers coming into home areas, starting more fires.’”
The Times article even pointed the finger at California’s forestry regulations, saying “California forests are much more vulnerable now because, paradoxically, they have been better protected. In their natural state, forests were regularly thinned by fire but the billions of dollars that the state spends aggressively fighting wildfires and restrictions on logging have allowed forests to accumulate an overload of vegetation… That’s a scenario that could nudge the state into rethinking its forest management.“
And yet, fast forward to today, and The New York Times is suddenly interviewing “experts” to contradict its previous assertions now that President Trump has also questioned California’s forest management.
“President Trump’s statements, which drew outrage from local leaders and firefighters, oversimplified the cause of California’s wildfires.” The Times says that the logging advocated by Trump, Republicans, and, apparently, The New York Times last January, would not have helped because “logging gets rid of trees, but it does not get rid of the kindling — brush, bushes and twigs. Logging does, however, enable the spread of cheatgrass, a highly combustible weed, which makes a forest more likely to burn.”
That’s basically the opposite of what the Times’ said earlier this year.
And it’s not just the media reversing itself to discredit Trump. Governor Brown’s office was calling for the same changes to logging regulations just a few months ago. In order to mitigate the fire danger from dead trees, Brown proposed that landowners be permitted to cut trees up to 36 inches in diameter, a jump from the current 26 inches, on properties that are 300 acres or less without getting a timber harvest permit and would also be able to build roads up to 600 feet long.
Of course the environmental lobby opposed it. And now huge swaths of land that environmentalists were “protecting” are now embers.
But Brown, and the media, would rather reverse their recent calls for safer forestry management than to agree with the president.
SOURCES: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/19/us/california-today-100-million-dead-trees-prompt-fears-of-giant-wildfires.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/12/us/politics/fact-check-trump-california-fire-tweet.html
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-hammered-for-california-wildfire-claims-but-gov-brown-has-also-backed-new-forest-management-measures: JANUARY NOVEMBER
TheAew JJork Eimes
TheAewJjorkTimes
FACT CHECK
CALIFORNIA TODAY
California Today: 100 Million Dead
Trees Prompt Fears of Giant Wildfires
Trump's Misleading Claims About
California's Fire Mismanagement'
Patches of dead and dying trees near Cressman, Calif
By Thomas Fuller
lan. 19, 2018
By Kendra Pierre-Louis
This week a group of scientists warned in the journal BioScience President Trump took to Twitter over the weekend, blaming the
that the dead trees could produce wildfires on a scale and of an
infernos on forest management...
intensity that California has never seen
Stephens, a professor of fire science at Berkeley and the lead
coming into home areas, starting more fires."..
Restrictions on logging have allowed forests to accumulate an
His statements, which drew outrage from local leaders and
It's something that is going to be much more severe," said Scott firefighters, oversimplified the causes of California's wildfires...
author of the study. "You could have higher amounts of embers The administration and Republicans in Congress have supported
calls by the timber industry to clear out potential fuel by letting
the land be logged...
overload of vegetation.
Unbiased Amer
BACK IN JANUARY, THE NEW YORK TIMES AGREED WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP THAT CALIFORNIA NEEDED TO IMPROVE ITS FORESTRY MANAGEMENT
Editorial by Kevin Ryan
The deadliest and most destructive fire in California's history was finally brought under control by firefighters yesterday, more than two weeks after it erupted. So far 87 people are confirmed to have been killed in the blaze, and many are still missing.
But the media firestorm continues over President Trump’s assertion that poor forest management contributed to the disaster. After Trump tweeted that better forest management could have prevented, or at least mitigated, the damage caused by the devastating wildfires, the media and California politicians said his assertion was false.
A spokesman for California Governor Jerry Brown said that the president's assertion was “inane” and “uninformed.” The New York Times wrote a piece entitled “Trump’s Misleading Claims About California’s Fire ‘Mismanagement’”
Yet just a few months back, both Governor Brown and The New York Times said basically the same thing as Trump.
In a January article, the Times wrote that “A group of scientists warned in the journal BioScience that [100 million] dead trees could produce wildfires on a scale and of an intensity that California has never seen,” and that “scientists say they cannot even calculate the damage the dead-tree fires might cause; it exceeds what their current fire behavior modeling can simulate.”
“‘It’s something that is going to be much more severe,’ said Scott Stephens, a professor of fire science at Berkeley and the lead author of the study. ‘You could have higher amounts of embers coming into home areas, starting more fires.’”
The Times article even pointed the finger at California’s forestry regulations, saying “California forests are much more vulnerable now because, paradoxically, they have been better protected. In their natural state, forests were regularly thinned by fire but the billions of dollars that the state spends aggressively fighting wildfires and restrictions on logging have allowed forests to accumulate an overload of vegetation… That’s a scenario that could nudge the state into rethinking its forest management.“
And yet, fast forward to today, and The New York Times is suddenly interviewing “experts” to contradict its previous assertions now that President Trump has also questioned California’s forest management.
“President Trump’s statements, which drew outrage from local leaders and firefighters, oversimplified the cause of California’s wildfires.” The Times says that the logging advocated by Trump, Republicans, and, apparently, The New York Times last January, would not have helped because “logging gets rid of trees, but it does not get rid of the kindling — brush, bushes and twigs. Logging does, however, enable the spread of cheatgrass, a highly combustible weed, which makes a forest more likely to burn.”
That’s basically the opposite of what the Times’ said earlier this year.
And it’s not just the media reversing itself to discredit Trump. Governor Brown’s office was calling for the same changes to logging regulations just a few months ago. In order to mitigate the fire danger from dead trees, Brown proposed that landowners be permitted to cut trees up to 36 inches in diameter, a jump from the current 26 inches, on properties that are 300 acres or less without getting a timber harvest permit and would also be able to build roads up to 600 feet long.
Of course the environmental lobby opposed it. And now huge swaths of land that environmentalists were “protecting” are now embers.
But Brown, and the media, would rather reverse their recent calls for safer forestry management than to agree with the president.
SOURCES: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/19/us/california-today-100-million-dead-trees-prompt-fears-of-giant-wildfires.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/12/us/politics/fact-check-trump-california-fire-tweet.html
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-hammered-for-california-wildfire-claims-but-gov-brown-has-also-backed-new-forest-management-measures](https://pics.me.me/thumb_january-november-theaew-jjork-eimes-theaewjjorktimes-fact-check-california-today-38002597.png)
![BACK IN JANUARY, THE NEW YORK TIMES AGREED WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP THAT CALIFORNIA NEEDED TO IMPROVE ITS FORESTRY MANAGEMENT
Editorial by Kevin Ryan
The deadliest and most destructive fire in California's history was finally brought under control by firefighters yesterday, more than two weeks after it erupted. So far 87 people are confirmed to have been killed in the blaze, and many are still missing.
But the media firestorm continues over President Trump’s assertion that poor forest management contributed to the disaster. After Trump tweeted that better forest management could have prevented, or at least mitigated, the damage caused by the devastating wildfires, the media and California politicians said his assertion was false.
A spokesman for California Governor Jerry Brown said that the president's assertion was “inane” and “uninformed.” The New York Times wrote a piece entitled “Trump’s Misleading Claims About California’s Fire ‘Mismanagement’”
Yet just a few months back, both Governor Brown and The New York Times said basically the same thing as Trump.
In a January article, the Times wrote that “A group of scientists warned in the journal BioScience that [100 million] dead trees could produce wildfires on a scale and of an intensity that California has never seen,” and that “scientists say they cannot even calculate the damage the dead-tree fires might cause; it exceeds what their current fire behavior modeling can simulate.”
“‘It’s something that is going to be much more severe,’ said Scott Stephens, a professor of fire science at Berkeley and the lead author of the study. ‘You could have higher amounts of embers coming into home areas, starting more fires.’”
The Times article even pointed the finger at California’s forestry regulations, saying “California forests are much more vulnerable now because, paradoxically, they have been better protected. In their natural state, forests were regularly thinned by fire but the billions of dollars that the state spends aggressively fighting wildfires and restrictions on logging have allowed forests to accumulate an overload of vegetation… That’s a scenario that could nudge the state into rethinking its forest management.“
And yet, fast forward to today, and The New York Times is suddenly interviewing “experts” to contradict its previous assertions now that President Trump has also questioned California’s forest management.
“President Trump’s statements, which drew outrage from local leaders and firefighters, oversimplified the cause of California’s wildfires.” The Times says that the logging advocated by Trump, Republicans, and, apparently, The New York Times last January, would not have helped because “logging gets rid of trees, but it does not get rid of the kindling — brush, bushes and twigs. Logging does, however, enable the spread of cheatgrass, a highly combustible weed, which makes a forest more likely to burn.”
That’s basically the opposite of what the Times’ said earlier this year.
And it’s not just the media reversing itself to discredit Trump. Governor Brown’s office was calling for the same changes to logging regulations just a few months ago. In order to mitigate the fire danger from dead trees, Brown proposed that landowners be permitted to cut trees up to 36 inches in diameter, a jump from the current 26 inches, on properties that are 300 acres or less without getting a timber harvest permit and would also be able to build roads up to 600 feet long.
Of course the environmental lobby opposed it. And now huge swaths of land that environmentalists were “protecting” are now embers.
But Brown, and the media, would rather reverse their recent calls for safer forestry management than to agree with the president.
SOURCES: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/19/us/california-today-100-million-dead-trees-prompt-fears-of-giant-wildfires.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/12/us/politics/fact-check-trump-california-fire-tweet.html
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-hammered-for-california-wildfire-claims-but-gov-brown-has-also-backed-new-forest-management-measures: JANUARY NOVEMBER
TheAew JJork Eimes
TheAewJjorkTimes
FACT CHECK
CALIFORNIA TODAY
California Today: 100 Million Dead
Trees Prompt Fears of Giant Wildfires
Trump's Misleading Claims About
California's Fire Mismanagement'
Patches of dead and dying trees near Cressman, Calif
By Thomas Fuller
lan. 19, 2018
By Kendra Pierre-Louis
This week a group of scientists warned in the journal BioScience President Trump took to Twitter over the weekend, blaming the
that the dead trees could produce wildfires on a scale and of an
infernos on forest management...
intensity that California has never seen
Stephens, a professor of fire science at Berkeley and the lead
coming into home areas, starting more fires."..
Restrictions on logging have allowed forests to accumulate an
His statements, which drew outrage from local leaders and
It's something that is going to be much more severe," said Scott firefighters, oversimplified the causes of California's wildfires...
author of the study. "You could have higher amounts of embers The administration and Republicans in Congress have supported
calls by the timber industry to clear out potential fuel by letting
the land be logged...
overload of vegetation.
Unbiased Amer
BACK IN JANUARY, THE NEW YORK TIMES AGREED WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP THAT CALIFORNIA NEEDED TO IMPROVE ITS FORESTRY MANAGEMENT
Editorial by Kevin Ryan
The deadliest and most destructive fire in California's history was finally brought under control by firefighters yesterday, more than two weeks after it erupted. So far 87 people are confirmed to have been killed in the blaze, and many are still missing.
But the media firestorm continues over President Trump’s assertion that poor forest management contributed to the disaster. After Trump tweeted that better forest management could have prevented, or at least mitigated, the damage caused by the devastating wildfires, the media and California politicians said his assertion was false.
A spokesman for California Governor Jerry Brown said that the president's assertion was “inane” and “uninformed.” The New York Times wrote a piece entitled “Trump’s Misleading Claims About California’s Fire ‘Mismanagement’”
Yet just a few months back, both Governor Brown and The New York Times said basically the same thing as Trump.
In a January article, the Times wrote that “A group of scientists warned in the journal BioScience that [100 million] dead trees could produce wildfires on a scale and of an intensity that California has never seen,” and that “scientists say they cannot even calculate the damage the dead-tree fires might cause; it exceeds what their current fire behavior modeling can simulate.”
“‘It’s something that is going to be much more severe,’ said Scott Stephens, a professor of fire science at Berkeley and the lead author of the study. ‘You could have higher amounts of embers coming into home areas, starting more fires.’”
The Times article even pointed the finger at California’s forestry regulations, saying “California forests are much more vulnerable now because, paradoxically, they have been better protected. In their natural state, forests were regularly thinned by fire but the billions of dollars that the state spends aggressively fighting wildfires and restrictions on logging have allowed forests to accumulate an overload of vegetation… That’s a scenario that could nudge the state into rethinking its forest management.“
And yet, fast forward to today, and The New York Times is suddenly interviewing “experts” to contradict its previous assertions now that President Trump has also questioned California’s forest management.
“President Trump’s statements, which drew outrage from local leaders and firefighters, oversimplified the cause of California’s wildfires.” The Times says that the logging advocated by Trump, Republicans, and, apparently, The New York Times last January, would not have helped because “logging gets rid of trees, but it does not get rid of the kindling — brush, bushes and twigs. Logging does, however, enable the spread of cheatgrass, a highly combustible weed, which makes a forest more likely to burn.”
That’s basically the opposite of what the Times’ said earlier this year.
And it’s not just the media reversing itself to discredit Trump. Governor Brown’s office was calling for the same changes to logging regulations just a few months ago. In order to mitigate the fire danger from dead trees, Brown proposed that landowners be permitted to cut trees up to 36 inches in diameter, a jump from the current 26 inches, on properties that are 300 acres or less without getting a timber harvest permit and would also be able to build roads up to 600 feet long.
Of course the environmental lobby opposed it. And now huge swaths of land that environmentalists were “protecting” are now embers.
But Brown, and the media, would rather reverse their recent calls for safer forestry management than to agree with the president.
SOURCES: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/19/us/california-today-100-million-dead-trees-prompt-fears-of-giant-wildfires.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/12/us/politics/fact-check-trump-california-fire-tweet.html
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-hammered-for-california-wildfire-claims-but-gov-brown-has-also-backed-new-forest-management-measures](https://pics.me.me/thumb_january-november-theaew-jjork-eimes-theaewjjorktimes-fact-check-california-today-37997924.png)
When I try to assert myself in my marriage by mibcomix
MORE MEMES: MARKIACEYOu NEVER ASK ME WHAT
Ou ALWAYS TELL ME WHAT
YOu'D LIKE TO DO AND WE
DO IT. I DON'T HAVE MUCH
AGENCY.
IS BLISS
'D HKE TO DO WITH
ouR WEEKENDS.
WHAT?
OK, WHAT WOULD You
LKE TO DO THI
WEEKEND?
WE ARE GOING TO
THE CARPET STORE.
CAN I WAIT IN THE CAR?
'O HIKE TO GO TO THE FLEA
MARKET TO 5HOP FOR
RARE HE-MAN FIGURES
YES
THANK
ou
When I try to assert myself in my marriage by mibcomix
MORE MEMES
![When I try to assert myself in my marriage by mibcomix
MORE MEMES: MARKIACEYOu NEVER ASK ME WHAT
Ou ALWAYS TELL ME WHAT
YOu'D LIKE TO DO AND WE
DO IT. I DON'T HAVE MUCH
AGENCY.
IS BLISS
'D HKE TO DO WITH
ouR WEEKENDS.
WHAT?
OK, WHAT WOULD You
LKE TO DO THI
WEEKEND?
WE ARE GOING TO
THE CARPET STORE.
CAN I WAIT IN THE CAR?
'O HIKE TO GO TO THE FLEA
MARKET TO 5HOP FOR
RARE HE-MAN FIGURES
YES
THANK
ou
When I try to assert myself in my marriage by mibcomix
MORE MEMES]()
When I try to assert myself in my marriage by mibcomix MORE MEMES
selfdeprecatingmemer:
n-breezii:Now am cool kid with lot friend
This is what I have been doing wrong my whole life: wiki How
How to Increase Your Social
Status at School
Assert your dominance. T-posing will let
other students know you are superior.
selfdeprecatingmemer:
n-breezii:Now am cool kid with lot friend
This is what I have been doing wrong my whole life
![selfdeprecatingmemer:
n-breezii:Now am cool kid with lot friend
This is what I have been doing wrong my whole life: wiki How
How to Increase Your Social
Status at School
Assert your dominance. T-posing will let
other students know you are superior.
selfdeprecatingmemer:
n-breezii:Now am cool kid with lot friend
This is what I have been doing wrong my whole life]()
selfdeprecatingmemer: n-breezii:Now am cool kid with lot friend This is what I have been doing wrong my whole life
![<p><a href="http://therevenantrising.tumblr.com/post/135827422115/garregret-therevenantrising-garregret" class="tumblr_blog">therevenantrising</a>:</p>
<blockquote><p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://garregret.tumblr.com/post/135810589826">garregret</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://therevenantrising.tumblr.com/post/135540905500">therevenantrising</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://garregret.tumblr.com/post/135517237536">garregret</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://therevenantrising.tumblr.com/post/135479826270">therevenantrising</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://pushingpin.tumblr.com/post/135479128813">pushingpin</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://jingle-brrrrt.tumblr.com/post/135448815816">jingle-brrrrt</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://metal-queer-solid.tumblr.com/post/134386190976">metal-queer-solid</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://0122358.tumblr.com/post/134383153016">0122358</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://therevenantrising.tumblr.com/post/134381412470">therevenantrising</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://shelovespiano.tumblr.com/post/134380537619">shelovespiano</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://kaisernighthawk1996.tumblr.com/post/134342240504">kaisernighthawk1996</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://feels-by-the-foot.tumblr.com/post/134299613814">feels-by-the-foot</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://therevenantrising.tumblr.com/post/134299542770">therevenantrising</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://neuroxin.tumblr.com/post/134298026257">neuroxin</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://pizzaotter.tumblr.com/post/134294057737">pizzaotter</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://madmints.tumblr.com/post/134293259422">madmints</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://pizzaotter.tumblr.com/post/134280963537">pizzaotter</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://bolt-carrier-assembly.tumblr.com/post/133694853738">bolt-carrier-assembly</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://therevenantrising.tumblr.com/post/133689796940">therevenantrising</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://therevenantrising.tumblr.com/post/133689234535">therevenantrising</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Mak N Cheese<br/></p>
</blockquote>
<p>Not to be confused with Mac N Cheese.</p>
<figure data-orig-width="3264" data-orig-height="1840" class="tmblr-full"><img data-orig-width="3264" data-orig-height="1840" src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/49bb53d1810cdc4a6c5f1fa9e40355ae/tumblr_inline_ny6xsoZgNT1sh8jq3_540.jpg"/></figure></blockquote>
<p><figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="1802" data-orig-width="3246"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/e723085af378cad726af085c2220068f/tumblr_inline_ny72aotJ7s1r4zl7m_540.jpg" data-orig-height="1802" data-orig-width="3246"/></figure></p>
<p>Also in the Big Mac variety</p>
</blockquote>
<p>WhY do you people have automatic weapons</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Even if they are automatic (which they most likely aren’t), why does it matter to you?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Look at all these gun nuts coming out the woodwork cause I asked why people randomly have automatic weapons on cheese</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Gun obsession is so fucking gross. There is no valid logical rational reason why any normal US citizen should own a machine literally designed for no other purpose than to kill human beings. Do not try to give some weak ass justification when “because I like them” is all it actually fucking boils down to. A disgustingly huge amount of people are DYING to these things every month, just trying to go about their normal lives. That trumps your ill-chosen hobby. </p>
<p>There is no solution better than the one that several European countries and the Australians have proven works, anything else is a less-effective compromise so that you, again, can get off on owning a literal killing machine.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This was supposed to be a light-hearted and fun joke post, but fine. Let’s do this.<br/></p>
<h2><b>There is no valid logical rational reason why any normal US citizen
should own a machine literally designed for no other purpose than to
kill human beings.</b></h2>
<p>I own several guns and have shot literally thousands of rounds over the last couple of years, yet I haven’t killed or even harmed a single living creature. Huh… I guess my guns must be broken since they can’t even fulfill their “only purpose”.</p>
<h2>
<b>A disgustingly huge amount of people are DYING to these things every
month, just trying to go about their normal lives. That trumps your
ill-chosen hobby.</b><br/></h2>
<p>Many anti-gun advocates will point out that there were 33,000 people killed by guns in 2013. While this is a terrible number, we must also put this number into perspective against the grand scheme of things. There are an estimated 340-370+ MILLION legally owned guns in
America, not even including illegal black markets that we cannot
effectively track. This means that, even if we use conservative
estimations, literally over 99.99% of the guns in America didn’t kill a
single person in 2013.</p>
<p>When we look at the big picture, your chances of being harmed by a gun are actually very low.<br/></p>
<p><b>Chances of being shot or killed based on firearm deaths and population count:</b></p>
<p><b>Death by gun, suicide excluded:</b><br/>0.0032%</p>
<p><b>Death by gun, suicide included:</b><br/>0.0095%</p>
<p><b>Death in a mass shooting alone:</b><br/>0.000032%</p>
<p><b>Injury by gun, no death:</b><br/>0.024%</p>
<p><b>Death of injury by gun including suicide:</b><br/>0.033%</p>
<p>Gun
deaths and injuries etc based off general stats used by anti gun
people, rather than exact numbers from each year because its faster and
easier to do. Going by exact yearly figures would result in very little
change to the average numbers used above.</p>
<p><b>Guns compared to other ways you can die:</b></p>
<p><b>
Unintentional fall deaths:</b></p>
<ul><li>Number of deaths: 26,009</li>
<li>Deaths per 100,000 population: 8.4</li>
</ul><p><b>Motor vehicle traffic deaths:</b></p>
<ul><li>Number of deaths: 33,687</li>
<li>Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.9</li>
</ul><p><b>Unintentional poisoning deaths:
</b></p>
<ul><li>Number of deaths: 33,041</li>
<li>Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.7</li>
</ul><p><b>All poisoning deaths:</b></p>
<ul><li>Number of deaths: 42,917</li>
<li>Deaths per 100,000 population: 13.9</li>
</ul><p><b>All Drug poisoning deaths:</b></p>
<ul><li>Deaths per 100,000 population: 12.4 (2010)</li></ul><p><b>All firearm deaths (suicide included):</b></p>
<ul><li>Number of deaths: 31,672</li>
<li>Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.3</li>
</ul><p><b>All firearms deaths (suicide excluded):</b></p>
<ul><li>Number of deaths: 12,664 <br/></li>
<li>Deaths per 100,000 population: 3.6</li>
</ul><p><b>Firearm deaths broken down completely:</b></p>
<p>3.6 for homicide <br/>6.3 for suicide<br/>0.30 for unintentional <br/>0.10 undetermined</p>
<p>
10.3 for deaths total in general of 3.6 for homicide only. You are more
likely to trip and die than be killed by a gun. Cars kill more than guns
but are not even protected by the constitution and isn’t a right, and
are less regulated than guns!
</p>
<p>
<i>[Sources are <a href="https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8">FBI</a> and <a href="http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_06.pdf">CDC</a>]</i></p>
<p>Many people will also cite mass shootings as a reason that guns are evil and should be banned, but this assertion also falls flat and looks ridiculous when put into perspective. While these stories draw media attention and are absolutely horrible,
you seem to have casually and conveniently left out the part where these
attacks account for less than even one quarter of 1% of America’s
overall murder rate. About 0.2% to be more exact.</p>
<figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="317" data-orig-width="500"><img data-orig-height="317" data-orig-width="500" src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/bc45a6b149582a24ee012977c76ca402/tumblr_inline_nynm1mUXyB1sh8jq3_540.jpg"/></figure><p>Now, let’s compare this, how often guns are used to harm innocent lives, to how often guns are used to protect innocent lives.</p>
<p>Guns help protect
innocent lives FAR MORE OFTEN than they help to harm innocent lives.
There are literally hundreds of thousands of defensive gun uses in this
country alone every single year.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/category/defensivegunuseoftheday/">http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/category/defensivegunuseoftheday/</a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/cdc-study-use-firearms-self-defense-important-crime-deterrent">http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/cdc-study-use-firearms-self-defense-important-crime-deterrent</a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/cdc-study-use-firearms-self-defense-important-crime-deterrent">http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/cdc-study-use-firearms-self-defense-important-crime-deterrent</a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/02/defensive-gun-ownership-gary-kleck-response-115082.html#.VcYed_lRK1w">http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/02/defensive-gun-ownership-gary-kleck-response-115082.html#.VcYed_lRK1w</a></p>
<p>Quite
simply put, guns save innocent lives. And they do so far more often
than they hurt them. When guns are harming more innocent lives than
they are protecting, it could be argued that it might make sense to
further limit guns.</p>
<p>But for now, it’s not even close. Moving on…<br/></p>
<h2><b>There is no solution better than the one that several European countries
and the Australians have proven works, anything else is a
less-effective compromise so that you, again, can get off on owning a
literal killing machine.</b></h2>
<p>Sorry, but strict gun control has been an absolute failure in both Australia, The UK, and everywhere else it has tried. It has done nothing to effectively reduce murder, violent crime, suicide, or even gun violence rates. It has done nothing to achieve its desired goal of creating a safer society. It is, and always will be, a complete failure.</p>
<p><b>Australia:</b></p>
<p><i>[this segment brought to you by <a href="http://lee-enfeel.tumblr.com">lee-enfeel</a>]</i><br/></p>
<p><a href="http://www.news.com.au/national/is-australia-staring-down-the-barrel-of-a-gun-crisis/story-fncynjr2-1226690018325">People die Australia as a result of firearms violence at almost the same rate they did prior to the firearms act</a>, and some sources state that more than a quarter million illicit firearms exist in Australia currently.</p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/productsbytitle/9C85BD1298C075EACA2568A900139342?OpenDocument">total firearms death rate in 1995 </a>-
the year before the massacre and the laws introduced - was 2.6 per
100,000 people. The total firearms murder rate that year was
0.3/100,000. From 1980-1995, Australian firearms deaths dropped from
4.9/100,000-2.6/100,000 without the implementation of firearms laws.
This is a rate of decline that has remained fairly constant; Looking at
1996-2014, in which the rate has dropped from 2.6-0.86, it shows that
the decline has been slower in a longer period of time since the law’s
passing. Likewise, homicides declined more quickly in the 15 years prior
to the firearms laws (0.8-0.3) than in the 18 years since it (0.3-0.1).
This just indicates that firearms deaths haven’t been noticeably
affected by the legislation you’ve claimed has done so much to decrease
gun crime. <br/></p>
<p>It should also be noted that around the same time,
New Zealand experienced a similar mass shooting, but did not change
their existing firearms laws, which remain fairly lax; even moreso than
some American states like California, New York, or Connecticut. Despite
this, their firearms crime rate has declined fairly steadily as well,
and they haven’t experienced a mass shooting since.</p>
<p>The <i>“australia banned guns and now they’re fine”</i>
argument is really old and really poorly put together. Gun control is
little more than a pink band-aid on the sucking chest wound that is
America’s social and economic problems. It’s a ‘quick fix’ issue used by
politicians to skirt around solving the roots of the violence problem
in the United States, which are primarily poverty, lack of
opportunities, and lack of education.</p>
<p>You could ban guns tomorrow nationwide and gun violence and overall violent crime would not be reduced at all.</p>
<p><i>[this segment brought to you by <a href="http://tmblr.co/m9F_132GzodNt-UaipnK67g">cerebralzero</a>]</i></p>
<p>In 2005 the head of the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, Don Weatherburn,<sup><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Australia#cite_note-37">[37]</a></sup>
noted that the level of legal gun ownership in NSW increased in recent
years, and that the 1996 legislation had had little to no effect on
violence</p>
<p>In 2006, the lack of a measurable effect from the 1996
firearms legislation was reported in the British Journal of Criminology.
Using ARIMA analysis, Dr Jeanine Baker and Dr Samara McPhedran found no
evidence for an impact of the laws on homicide.<sup><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Australia#cite_note-40">[40]</a></sup></p>
<p>A study coauthored by Simon Chapman <b>found declines in firearm‐related
deaths before the law reforms</b> accelerated after the reforms for total
firearm deaths (p=0.04), firearm suicides (p=0.007) and firearm
homicides (p=0.15), but not for the smallest category of unintentional
firearm deaths, which increased.<sup><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Australia#cite_note-43">[43]</a></sup></p>
<p>Subsequently, a study by McPhedran and Baker compared the incidence of
mass shootings in <b>Australia and New Zealand</b>. Data were standardised to a
rate per 100,000 people, to control for differences in population size
between the countries and mass shootings before and after 1996/1997 were
compared between countries. <b>That study found that in the period
1980–1996, both countries experienced mass shootings. The rate did not
differ significantly between countries. Since 1996-1997, neither country
has experienced a mass shooting event despite the continued
availability of semi-automatic longarms in New Zealand</b>. The authors
conclude that “the hypothesis that Australia’s prohibition of certain
types of firearms explains the absence of mass shootings in that country
since 1996 does not appear to be supported… if civilian access to
certain types of firearms explained the occurrence of mass shootings in
Australia (and conversely, if prohibiting such firearms explains the
absence of mass shootings), then New Zealand (a country that still
allows the ownership of such firearms) would have continued to
experience mass shooting events.”<sup><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Australia#cite_note-44">[44]</a></sup></p>
<figure data-orig-width="500" data-orig-height="261" class="tmblr-full"><img data-orig-width="500" data-orig-height="261" src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/cdc45e76a09651676eab1f058341110c/tumblr_inline_nynm84pBjF1sh8jq3_500.gif"/></figure><p>We see the same trend in The UK.</p>
<figure data-orig-width="500" data-orig-height="373" class="tmblr-full"><img data-orig-width="500" data-orig-height="373" src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/bf599e784e9963b91a4e4f245fed90f5/tumblr_inline_nynm9wKrKT1sh8jq3_540.png"/></figure><figure data-orig-width="458" data-orig-height="366" class="tmblr-full"><img data-orig-width="458" data-orig-height="366" src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/279f61b9c596b97badd4bc465cc46b60/tumblr_inline_nynm9zWkxr1sh8jq3_540.png"/></figure><p>And Ireland and Jamaica…</p>
<figure data-orig-width="453" data-orig-height="714" class="tmblr-full"><img data-orig-width="453" data-orig-height="714" src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/4914c912d5690b40a382b90cf18c646f/tumblr_inline_nynmakqIup1sh8jq3_540.jpg"/></figure><p>And on and on and on… Gun control simply does not create a safer society and often times actually has the opposite effect.</p>
<p>At this point I should also probably point out that Australia’s gun laws have not even reduced gun ownership in Australia. <a href="http://louderwithcrowder.com/australian-gun-ownership-rises-gun-crime-remains-low-america-still-at-fault/">In fact, gun ownership in Australia is actually higher now than in 1996.</a></p>
<p>All
of these inconvenient facts aside, we haven’t even touched on the cost
of implementing Australian style gun control in America.</p>
<p>I keep hearing people say that the US should adopt Australia’s gun
control policy and I don’t think they have really thought about the big
picture of that plan.</p>
<p>Australia had far less guns per person and
people in their country did not live in a society that was brought up
respecting The 2nd Amendment. The culture of Australia is very
different than that of the culture of America when it comes to gun
ownership and self defense.</p>
<p>Because of this, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_buyback_program#Australia">the Australian government was able to buy back 631,000 guns at the estimated price of about <b>$500,000,000.</b></a> You read that correctly, <b>500 MILLION</b>.</p>
<p><a href="http://cerebralzero.tumblr.com/tagged/australia">And
even after all of that, it still did nothing to prevent violent crime
and criminals in Australia still have access to illegal guns, </a>despite
being an island country that isn’t bordered by other countries with
high violent crime rates and rampant with illegal drug cartels.<br/></p>
<p>There are over 360,000,000 legally owned firearms in America. If we go by Australia’s numbers (<b>$792.39 per gun</b>), these guns would cost our government <b>$285,261,489,698.89</b> to buy back. Almost <b>300 BILLION dollars</b>, assuming that every gun owner voluntarily turns in their guns… Which is a very slim to nothing chance.</p>
<p>Who’s going to pay for that? Anti-gunners? I think not.</p>
<p>So, in closing, you want America to put in place gun legislation that will cost the country hundreds of billions of dollars <b>AND </b>has
already been proven time and time again to be completely ineffective at
protecting innocent lives or creating a safer society?</p>
<p>Seems pretty silly.</p>
<h2>Get dunked on, nerd.</h2>
<figure data-orig-width="250" data-orig-height="188"><img data-orig-width="250" data-orig-height="188" src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/36a75ffd7a3ce392092201d3769d443e/tumblr_inline_nynmeusS661sh8jq3_500.gif"/></figure></blockquote>
<p><figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="281" data-orig-width="500" data-tumblr-attribution="eonline:S4A57ljapSvQXLPM7Jsomg:ZCTZKx1sDpydf"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/5b521c18948099c6594a510905c6dfe9/tumblr_nt8sq3NZGm1qlgbzbo1_500.gif" data-orig-height="281" data-orig-width="500"/></figure></p>
</blockquote>
<p>Teehee, Mac ‘n’ cheese</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Would make it clear that a gv’t buyback has never been on the table. Also, cars are registered, which is reasonable. Gun shows have too many loopholes. America has a specific culture that is unique when it comes to guns. Not sure anything we do will make people feel truly safe, but reasonable measures are worth a try. Thorough background checks are reasonable. Taking away all guns? Not so much. Good thing is, very few advocate for that.</p>
</blockquote>
<h2><b>Would make it clear that a gv’t buyback has never been on the table.</b></h2>
<p>Maybe not a mandatory federal one, no. But government gun buybacks are most certainly a thing here in America.</p>
<h2><b>Also, cars are registered, which is reasonable.</b></h2>
<p>You know that guns are not cars, right?</p>
<h2><b>Gun shows have too many loopholes.</b></h2>
<p>What loopholes would those be? Please enlighten us.</p>
<h2><b>Not sure anything we do will make people feel truly safe, but reasonable
measures are worth a try.<br/></b></h2>
<p>The fact is, WE HAVE TRIED STRICT NATIONAL GUN CONTROL.</p>
<p>Does the year 1994 or the name Clinton ring a bell to anyone? Anyone?</p>
<p>From
1994 - 2004, there were strict national gun control laws in place in
America. They included most of the laws that are being proposed now.
An “assault weapons” ban. Magazine capacity limits. All of that.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/204431.pdf">Guess what?</a></p>
<p><a href="https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/204431.pdf">IT WAS A COMPLETE FAILURE.</a></p>
<h2><b>Thorough background checks are reasonable.</b></h2>
<p>We already have mandatory federal NICS background checks, where the buyer’s criminal and mental healthy history are reviewed and have to be approved by the FBI, for every FFL purchase.</p>
<h2><b>Taking away all guns? Not so much. Good thing is, very few advocate for that.</b></h2>
<p>Except for people in politics, the media, and every social media platform I can think advocate for just that every single day.<br/></p>
</blockquote>
<p>Rekt</p>
</blockquote>
<p><figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="500" data-orig-width="500"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/06dc5d6fb9a872f66494555df3d8e68d/tumblr_inline_nyq063shKC1qmqn62_540.jpg" data-orig-height="500" data-orig-width="500"/></figure></p>
</blockquote>
<p><figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-width="300" data-orig-height="152" data-tumblr-attribution="sweetnighttheorist:iC3ZUAaLREBo5eAyAtwOWw:Z_9d1l1pDjh9p" data-orig-src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/68abc0e9798bcb3c43bc230a5ab9e9e0/tumblr_nr9gyqXCqt1uqa8bho1_400.gif"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/68abc0e9798bcb3c43bc230a5ab9e9e0/tumblr_inline_nzkb0efWgQ1t5zudu_500.gif" data-orig-width="300" data-orig-height="152" data-orig-src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/68abc0e9798bcb3c43bc230a5ab9e9e0/tumblr_nr9gyqXCqt1uqa8bho1_400.gif"/></figure></p>
</blockquote>
<p>but like if you could save 33000 peoples lives a year, by giving up a hobby would you?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>A hobby? Sure. No problem.</p>
<p>However, me owning a gun is not merely a hobby. It is the most effective tool at protecting my life, the lives of my family, and the lives of innocent lives around me. I’m sorry, but self defense and self preservation are not “hobbies”.</p>
<p>Furthermore, it’s a bit of pipe dream anyway considering that we have decades of evidence from all over the world that proves that gun control and even gun bans do not effectively reduce murder or violent crime rates. They do not create safer societies. Sure, it might look good on paper and feel good to think about, but reality just doesn’t align with those dreams.<br/></p>
</blockquote>
<p>hey I’m glad for all the sources because this is changing my perspective but you gotta admit that at the very least requiring extensive background checks, mandatory waiting periods, and registering guns would help at least reduce gun violence a little bit and would help solve cases b/c registers guns</p>
</blockquote>
<p>No, I do not have to admit that at all because all of these measures are in place in states like California, New York, and Washington DC, yet they have not made these societies any safer from murder, violent crime, or even gun violence.</p>
<p>So, no I do not have to nor will I be admitting that at all because it simply isn’t true.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>oh? is that so? so if buying an automatic weapon is as easy as picking up a prescription that’s <i>not</i> going to make it easier for anyone who’s upset to get a gun and then fire it on people??? o k</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Automatic weapons are extremely regulated for civilian ownership in America. They cost tens of thousands of dollars on the low end all the way up to hundreds of thousands of dollars on the high end, they are registered with the federal government, the owner must apply for a special NFA license which requires a thorough background check that takes months or even years to get approved, paper work must be kept with the weapon at all time, the weapon cannot have been manufactured after 1986, they require a federal tax stamp to own which also can takes months to over a year to get processed, the owner must also designate a licensed gun dealer who will take possession of the weapon in the event of their death, and on and on and on…</p><p>If you truly believe that acquiring an automatic weapon in America is as easy as “picking up a prescription”, then you are simply ignorant to the subject of automatic weapons and just do not know what you are talking about.<br/></p><p><a href="https://www.atf.gov/qa-category/national-firearms-act-nfa">https://www.atf.gov/qa-category/national-firearms-act-nfa</a></p><p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act</a></p><p><a href="http://m.dailykos.com/story/2012/12/17/1171047/-There-are-240-000-fully-automatic-guns-in-the-US-and-only-2-deaths-in-80-years">http://m.dailykos.com/story/2012/12/17/1171047/-There-are-240-000-fully-automatic-guns-in-the-US-and-only-2-deaths-in-80-years</a><br/></p></blockquote>
<p>Pretty sure I’ve shares this before but it’s never a bad time.</p>: asic
KOSHER DILL
SPEARS
2924
8
924 1
<p><a href="http://therevenantrising.tumblr.com/post/135827422115/garregret-therevenantrising-garregret" class="tumblr_blog">therevenantrising</a>:</p>
<blockquote><p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://garregret.tumblr.com/post/135810589826">garregret</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://therevenantrising.tumblr.com/post/135540905500">therevenantrising</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://garregret.tumblr.com/post/135517237536">garregret</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://therevenantrising.tumblr.com/post/135479826270">therevenantrising</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://pushingpin.tumblr.com/post/135479128813">pushingpin</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://jingle-brrrrt.tumblr.com/post/135448815816">jingle-brrrrt</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://metal-queer-solid.tumblr.com/post/134386190976">metal-queer-solid</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://0122358.tumblr.com/post/134383153016">0122358</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://therevenantrising.tumblr.com/post/134381412470">therevenantrising</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://shelovespiano.tumblr.com/post/134380537619">shelovespiano</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://kaisernighthawk1996.tumblr.com/post/134342240504">kaisernighthawk1996</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://feels-by-the-foot.tumblr.com/post/134299613814">feels-by-the-foot</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://therevenantrising.tumblr.com/post/134299542770">therevenantrising</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://neuroxin.tumblr.com/post/134298026257">neuroxin</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://pizzaotter.tumblr.com/post/134294057737">pizzaotter</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://madmints.tumblr.com/post/134293259422">madmints</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://pizzaotter.tumblr.com/post/134280963537">pizzaotter</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://bolt-carrier-assembly.tumblr.com/post/133694853738">bolt-carrier-assembly</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://therevenantrising.tumblr.com/post/133689796940">therevenantrising</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://therevenantrising.tumblr.com/post/133689234535">therevenantrising</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Mak N Cheese<br/></p>
</blockquote>
<p>Not to be confused with Mac N Cheese.</p>
<figure data-orig-width="3264" data-orig-height="1840" class="tmblr-full"><img data-orig-width="3264" data-orig-height="1840" src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/49bb53d1810cdc4a6c5f1fa9e40355ae/tumblr_inline_ny6xsoZgNT1sh8jq3_540.jpg"/></figure></blockquote>
<p><figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="1802" data-orig-width="3246"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/e723085af378cad726af085c2220068f/tumblr_inline_ny72aotJ7s1r4zl7m_540.jpg" data-orig-height="1802" data-orig-width="3246"/></figure></p>
<p>Also in the Big Mac variety</p>
</blockquote>
<p>WhY do you people have automatic weapons</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Even if they are automatic (which they most likely aren’t), why does it matter to you?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Look at all these gun nuts coming out the woodwork cause I asked why people randomly have automatic weapons on cheese</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Gun obsession is so fucking gross. There is no valid logical rational reason why any normal US citizen should own a machine literally designed for no other purpose than to kill human beings. Do not try to give some weak ass justification when “because I like them” is all it actually fucking boils down to. A disgustingly huge amount of people are DYING to these things every month, just trying to go about their normal lives. That trumps your ill-chosen hobby. </p>
<p>There is no solution better than the one that several European countries and the Australians have proven works, anything else is a less-effective compromise so that you, again, can get off on owning a literal killing machine.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This was supposed to be a light-hearted and fun joke post, but fine. Let’s do this.<br/></p>
<h2><b>There is no valid logical rational reason why any normal US citizen
should own a machine literally designed for no other purpose than to
kill human beings.</b></h2>
<p>I own several guns and have shot literally thousands of rounds over the last couple of years, yet I haven’t killed or even harmed a single living creature. Huh… I guess my guns must be broken since they can’t even fulfill their “only purpose”.</p>
<h2>
<b>A disgustingly huge amount of people are DYING to these things every
month, just trying to go about their normal lives. That trumps your
ill-chosen hobby.</b><br/></h2>
<p>Many anti-gun advocates will point out that there were 33,000 people killed by guns in 2013. While this is a terrible number, we must also put this number into perspective against the grand scheme of things. There are an estimated 340-370+ MILLION legally owned guns in
America, not even including illegal black markets that we cannot
effectively track. This means that, even if we use conservative
estimations, literally over 99.99% of the guns in America didn’t kill a
single person in 2013.</p>
<p>When we look at the big picture, your chances of being harmed by a gun are actually very low.<br/></p>
<p><b>Chances of being shot or killed based on firearm deaths and population count:</b></p>
<p><b>Death by gun, suicide excluded:</b><br/>0.0032%</p>
<p><b>Death by gun, suicide included:</b><br/>0.0095%</p>
<p><b>Death in a mass shooting alone:</b><br/>0.000032%</p>
<p><b>Injury by gun, no death:</b><br/>0.024%</p>
<p><b>Death of injury by gun including suicide:</b><br/>0.033%</p>
<p>Gun
deaths and injuries etc based off general stats used by anti gun
people, rather than exact numbers from each year because its faster and
easier to do. Going by exact yearly figures would result in very little
change to the average numbers used above.</p>
<p><b>Guns compared to other ways you can die:</b></p>
<p><b>
Unintentional fall deaths:</b></p>
<ul><li>Number of deaths: 26,009</li>
<li>Deaths per 100,000 population: 8.4</li>
</ul><p><b>Motor vehicle traffic deaths:</b></p>
<ul><li>Number of deaths: 33,687</li>
<li>Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.9</li>
</ul><p><b>Unintentional poisoning deaths:
</b></p>
<ul><li>Number of deaths: 33,041</li>
<li>Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.7</li>
</ul><p><b>All poisoning deaths:</b></p>
<ul><li>Number of deaths: 42,917</li>
<li>Deaths per 100,000 population: 13.9</li>
</ul><p><b>All Drug poisoning deaths:</b></p>
<ul><li>Deaths per 100,000 population: 12.4 (2010)</li></ul><p><b>All firearm deaths (suicide included):</b></p>
<ul><li>Number of deaths: 31,672</li>
<li>Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.3</li>
</ul><p><b>All firearms deaths (suicide excluded):</b></p>
<ul><li>Number of deaths: 12,664 <br/></li>
<li>Deaths per 100,000 population: 3.6</li>
</ul><p><b>Firearm deaths broken down completely:</b></p>
<p>3.6 for homicide <br/>6.3 for suicide<br/>0.30 for unintentional <br/>0.10 undetermined</p>
<p>
10.3 for deaths total in general of 3.6 for homicide only. You are more
likely to trip and die than be killed by a gun. Cars kill more than guns
but are not even protected by the constitution and isn’t a right, and
are less regulated than guns!
</p>
<p>
<i>[Sources are <a href="https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8">FBI</a> and <a href="http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_06.pdf">CDC</a>]</i></p>
<p>Many people will also cite mass shootings as a reason that guns are evil and should be banned, but this assertion also falls flat and looks ridiculous when put into perspective. While these stories draw media attention and are absolutely horrible,
you seem to have casually and conveniently left out the part where these
attacks account for less than even one quarter of 1% of America’s
overall murder rate. About 0.2% to be more exact.</p>
<figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="317" data-orig-width="500"><img data-orig-height="317" data-orig-width="500" src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/bc45a6b149582a24ee012977c76ca402/tumblr_inline_nynm1mUXyB1sh8jq3_540.jpg"/></figure><p>Now, let’s compare this, how often guns are used to harm innocent lives, to how often guns are used to protect innocent lives.</p>
<p>Guns help protect
innocent lives FAR MORE OFTEN than they help to harm innocent lives.
There are literally hundreds of thousands of defensive gun uses in this
country alone every single year.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/category/defensivegunuseoftheday/">http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/category/defensivegunuseoftheday/</a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/cdc-study-use-firearms-self-defense-important-crime-deterrent">http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/cdc-study-use-firearms-self-defense-important-crime-deterrent</a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/cdc-study-use-firearms-self-defense-important-crime-deterrent">http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/cdc-study-use-firearms-self-defense-important-crime-deterrent</a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/02/defensive-gun-ownership-gary-kleck-response-115082.html#.VcYed_lRK1w">http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/02/defensive-gun-ownership-gary-kleck-response-115082.html#.VcYed_lRK1w</a></p>
<p>Quite
simply put, guns save innocent lives. And they do so far more often
than they hurt them. When guns are harming more innocent lives than
they are protecting, it could be argued that it might make sense to
further limit guns.</p>
<p>But for now, it’s not even close. Moving on…<br/></p>
<h2><b>There is no solution better than the one that several European countries
and the Australians have proven works, anything else is a
less-effective compromise so that you, again, can get off on owning a
literal killing machine.</b></h2>
<p>Sorry, but strict gun control has been an absolute failure in both Australia, The UK, and everywhere else it has tried. It has done nothing to effectively reduce murder, violent crime, suicide, or even gun violence rates. It has done nothing to achieve its desired goal of creating a safer society. It is, and always will be, a complete failure.</p>
<p><b>Australia:</b></p>
<p><i>[this segment brought to you by <a href="http://lee-enfeel.tumblr.com">lee-enfeel</a>]</i><br/></p>
<p><a href="http://www.news.com.au/national/is-australia-staring-down-the-barrel-of-a-gun-crisis/story-fncynjr2-1226690018325">People die Australia as a result of firearms violence at almost the same rate they did prior to the firearms act</a>, and some sources state that more than a quarter million illicit firearms exist in Australia currently.</p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/productsbytitle/9C85BD1298C075EACA2568A900139342?OpenDocument">total firearms death rate in 1995 </a>-
the year before the massacre and the laws introduced - was 2.6 per
100,000 people. The total firearms murder rate that year was
0.3/100,000. From 1980-1995, Australian firearms deaths dropped from
4.9/100,000-2.6/100,000 without the implementation of firearms laws.
This is a rate of decline that has remained fairly constant; Looking at
1996-2014, in which the rate has dropped from 2.6-0.86, it shows that
the decline has been slower in a longer period of time since the law’s
passing. Likewise, homicides declined more quickly in the 15 years prior
to the firearms laws (0.8-0.3) than in the 18 years since it (0.3-0.1).
This just indicates that firearms deaths haven’t been noticeably
affected by the legislation you’ve claimed has done so much to decrease
gun crime. <br/></p>
<p>It should also be noted that around the same time,
New Zealand experienced a similar mass shooting, but did not change
their existing firearms laws, which remain fairly lax; even moreso than
some American states like California, New York, or Connecticut. Despite
this, their firearms crime rate has declined fairly steadily as well,
and they haven’t experienced a mass shooting since.</p>
<p>The <i>“australia banned guns and now they’re fine”</i>
argument is really old and really poorly put together. Gun control is
little more than a pink band-aid on the sucking chest wound that is
America’s social and economic problems. It’s a ‘quick fix’ issue used by
politicians to skirt around solving the roots of the violence problem
in the United States, which are primarily poverty, lack of
opportunities, and lack of education.</p>
<p>You could ban guns tomorrow nationwide and gun violence and overall violent crime would not be reduced at all.</p>
<p><i>[this segment brought to you by <a href="http://tmblr.co/m9F_132GzodNt-UaipnK67g">cerebralzero</a>]</i></p>
<p>In 2005 the head of the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, Don Weatherburn,<sup><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Australia#cite_note-37">[37]</a></sup>
noted that the level of legal gun ownership in NSW increased in recent
years, and that the 1996 legislation had had little to no effect on
violence</p>
<p>In 2006, the lack of a measurable effect from the 1996
firearms legislation was reported in the British Journal of Criminology.
Using ARIMA analysis, Dr Jeanine Baker and Dr Samara McPhedran found no
evidence for an impact of the laws on homicide.<sup><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Australia#cite_note-40">[40]</a></sup></p>
<p>A study coauthored by Simon Chapman <b>found declines in firearm‐related
deaths before the law reforms</b> accelerated after the reforms for total
firearm deaths (p=0.04), firearm suicides (p=0.007) and firearm
homicides (p=0.15), but not for the smallest category of unintentional
firearm deaths, which increased.<sup><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Australia#cite_note-43">[43]</a></sup></p>
<p>Subsequently, a study by McPhedran and Baker compared the incidence of
mass shootings in <b>Australia and New Zealand</b>. Data were standardised to a
rate per 100,000 people, to control for differences in population size
between the countries and mass shootings before and after 1996/1997 were
compared between countries. <b>That study found that in the period
1980–1996, both countries experienced mass shootings. The rate did not
differ significantly between countries. Since 1996-1997, neither country
has experienced a mass shooting event despite the continued
availability of semi-automatic longarms in New Zealand</b>. The authors
conclude that “the hypothesis that Australia’s prohibition of certain
types of firearms explains the absence of mass shootings in that country
since 1996 does not appear to be supported… if civilian access to
certain types of firearms explained the occurrence of mass shootings in
Australia (and conversely, if prohibiting such firearms explains the
absence of mass shootings), then New Zealand (a country that still
allows the ownership of such firearms) would have continued to
experience mass shooting events.”<sup><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Australia#cite_note-44">[44]</a></sup></p>
<figure data-orig-width="500" data-orig-height="261" class="tmblr-full"><img data-orig-width="500" data-orig-height="261" src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/cdc45e76a09651676eab1f058341110c/tumblr_inline_nynm84pBjF1sh8jq3_500.gif"/></figure><p>We see the same trend in The UK.</p>
<figure data-orig-width="500" data-orig-height="373" class="tmblr-full"><img data-orig-width="500" data-orig-height="373" src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/bf599e784e9963b91a4e4f245fed90f5/tumblr_inline_nynm9wKrKT1sh8jq3_540.png"/></figure><figure data-orig-width="458" data-orig-height="366" class="tmblr-full"><img data-orig-width="458" data-orig-height="366" src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/279f61b9c596b97badd4bc465cc46b60/tumblr_inline_nynm9zWkxr1sh8jq3_540.png"/></figure><p>And Ireland and Jamaica…</p>
<figure data-orig-width="453" data-orig-height="714" class="tmblr-full"><img data-orig-width="453" data-orig-height="714" src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/4914c912d5690b40a382b90cf18c646f/tumblr_inline_nynmakqIup1sh8jq3_540.jpg"/></figure><p>And on and on and on… Gun control simply does not create a safer society and often times actually has the opposite effect.</p>
<p>At this point I should also probably point out that Australia’s gun laws have not even reduced gun ownership in Australia. <a href="http://louderwithcrowder.com/australian-gun-ownership-rises-gun-crime-remains-low-america-still-at-fault/">In fact, gun ownership in Australia is actually higher now than in 1996.</a></p>
<p>All
of these inconvenient facts aside, we haven’t even touched on the cost
of implementing Australian style gun control in America.</p>
<p>I keep hearing people say that the US should adopt Australia’s gun
control policy and I don’t think they have really thought about the big
picture of that plan.</p>
<p>Australia had far less guns per person and
people in their country did not live in a society that was brought up
respecting The 2nd Amendment. The culture of Australia is very
different than that of the culture of America when it comes to gun
ownership and self defense.</p>
<p>Because of this, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_buyback_program#Australia">the Australian government was able to buy back 631,000 guns at the estimated price of about <b>$500,000,000.</b></a> You read that correctly, <b>500 MILLION</b>.</p>
<p><a href="http://cerebralzero.tumblr.com/tagged/australia">And
even after all of that, it still did nothing to prevent violent crime
and criminals in Australia still have access to illegal guns, </a>despite
being an island country that isn’t bordered by other countries with
high violent crime rates and rampant with illegal drug cartels.<br/></p>
<p>There are over 360,000,000 legally owned firearms in America. If we go by Australia’s numbers (<b>$792.39 per gun</b>), these guns would cost our government <b>$285,261,489,698.89</b> to buy back. Almost <b>300 BILLION dollars</b>, assuming that every gun owner voluntarily turns in their guns… Which is a very slim to nothing chance.</p>
<p>Who’s going to pay for that? Anti-gunners? I think not.</p>
<p>So, in closing, you want America to put in place gun legislation that will cost the country hundreds of billions of dollars <b>AND </b>has
already been proven time and time again to be completely ineffective at
protecting innocent lives or creating a safer society?</p>
<p>Seems pretty silly.</p>
<h2>Get dunked on, nerd.</h2>
<figure data-orig-width="250" data-orig-height="188"><img data-orig-width="250" data-orig-height="188" src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/36a75ffd7a3ce392092201d3769d443e/tumblr_inline_nynmeusS661sh8jq3_500.gif"/></figure></blockquote>
<p><figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="281" data-orig-width="500" data-tumblr-attribution="eonline:S4A57ljapSvQXLPM7Jsomg:ZCTZKx1sDpydf"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/5b521c18948099c6594a510905c6dfe9/tumblr_nt8sq3NZGm1qlgbzbo1_500.gif" data-orig-height="281" data-orig-width="500"/></figure></p>
</blockquote>
<p>Teehee, Mac ‘n’ cheese</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Would make it clear that a gv’t buyback has never been on the table. Also, cars are registered, which is reasonable. Gun shows have too many loopholes. America has a specific culture that is unique when it comes to guns. Not sure anything we do will make people feel truly safe, but reasonable measures are worth a try. Thorough background checks are reasonable. Taking away all guns? Not so much. Good thing is, very few advocate for that.</p>
</blockquote>
<h2><b>Would make it clear that a gv’t buyback has never been on the table.</b></h2>
<p>Maybe not a mandatory federal one, no. But government gun buybacks are most certainly a thing here in America.</p>
<h2><b>Also, cars are registered, which is reasonable.</b></h2>
<p>You know that guns are not cars, right?</p>
<h2><b>Gun shows have too many loopholes.</b></h2>
<p>What loopholes would those be? Please enlighten us.</p>
<h2><b>Not sure anything we do will make people feel truly safe, but reasonable
measures are worth a try.<br/></b></h2>
<p>The fact is, WE HAVE TRIED STRICT NATIONAL GUN CONTROL.</p>
<p>Does the year 1994 or the name Clinton ring a bell to anyone? Anyone?</p>
<p>From
1994 - 2004, there were strict national gun control laws in place in
America. They included most of the laws that are being proposed now.
An “assault weapons” ban. Magazine capacity limits. All of that.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/204431.pdf">Guess what?</a></p>
<p><a href="https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/204431.pdf">IT WAS A COMPLETE FAILURE.</a></p>
<h2><b>Thorough background checks are reasonable.</b></h2>
<p>We already have mandatory federal NICS background checks, where the buyer’s criminal and mental healthy history are reviewed and have to be approved by the FBI, for every FFL purchase.</p>
<h2><b>Taking away all guns? Not so much. Good thing is, very few advocate for that.</b></h2>
<p>Except for people in politics, the media, and every social media platform I can think advocate for just that every single day.<br/></p>
</blockquote>
<p>Rekt</p>
</blockquote>
<p><figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="500" data-orig-width="500"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/06dc5d6fb9a872f66494555df3d8e68d/tumblr_inline_nyq063shKC1qmqn62_540.jpg" data-orig-height="500" data-orig-width="500"/></figure></p>
</blockquote>
<p><figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-width="300" data-orig-height="152" data-tumblr-attribution="sweetnighttheorist:iC3ZUAaLREBo5eAyAtwOWw:Z_9d1l1pDjh9p" data-orig-src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/68abc0e9798bcb3c43bc230a5ab9e9e0/tumblr_nr9gyqXCqt1uqa8bho1_400.gif"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/68abc0e9798bcb3c43bc230a5ab9e9e0/tumblr_inline_nzkb0efWgQ1t5zudu_500.gif" data-orig-width="300" data-orig-height="152" data-orig-src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/68abc0e9798bcb3c43bc230a5ab9e9e0/tumblr_nr9gyqXCqt1uqa8bho1_400.gif"/></figure></p>
</blockquote>
<p>but like if you could save 33000 peoples lives a year, by giving up a hobby would you?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>A hobby? Sure. No problem.</p>
<p>However, me owning a gun is not merely a hobby. It is the most effective tool at protecting my life, the lives of my family, and the lives of innocent lives around me. I’m sorry, but self defense and self preservation are not “hobbies”.</p>
<p>Furthermore, it’s a bit of pipe dream anyway considering that we have decades of evidence from all over the world that proves that gun control and even gun bans do not effectively reduce murder or violent crime rates. They do not create safer societies. Sure, it might look good on paper and feel good to think about, but reality just doesn’t align with those dreams.<br/></p>
</blockquote>
<p>hey I’m glad for all the sources because this is changing my perspective but you gotta admit that at the very least requiring extensive background checks, mandatory waiting periods, and registering guns would help at least reduce gun violence a little bit and would help solve cases b/c registers guns</p>
</blockquote>
<p>No, I do not have to admit that at all because all of these measures are in place in states like California, New York, and Washington DC, yet they have not made these societies any safer from murder, violent crime, or even gun violence.</p>
<p>So, no I do not have to nor will I be admitting that at all because it simply isn’t true.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>oh? is that so? so if buying an automatic weapon is as easy as picking up a prescription that’s <i>not</i> going to make it easier for anyone who’s upset to get a gun and then fire it on people??? o k</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Automatic weapons are extremely regulated for civilian ownership in America. They cost tens of thousands of dollars on the low end all the way up to hundreds of thousands of dollars on the high end, they are registered with the federal government, the owner must apply for a special NFA license which requires a thorough background check that takes months or even years to get approved, paper work must be kept with the weapon at all time, the weapon cannot have been manufactured after 1986, they require a federal tax stamp to own which also can takes months to over a year to get processed, the owner must also designate a licensed gun dealer who will take possession of the weapon in the event of their death, and on and on and on…</p><p>If you truly believe that acquiring an automatic weapon in America is as easy as “picking up a prescription”, then you are simply ignorant to the subject of automatic weapons and just do not know what you are talking about.<br/></p><p><a href="https://www.atf.gov/qa-category/national-firearms-act-nfa">https://www.atf.gov/qa-category/national-firearms-act-nfa</a></p><p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act</a></p><p><a href="http://m.dailykos.com/story/2012/12/17/1171047/-There-are-240-000-fully-automatic-guns-in-the-US-and-only-2-deaths-in-80-years">http://m.dailykos.com/story/2012/12/17/1171047/-There-are-240-000-fully-automatic-guns-in-the-US-and-only-2-deaths-in-80-years</a><br/></p></blockquote>
<p>Pretty sure I’ve shares this before but it’s never a bad time.</p>](https://pics.me.me/thumb_asic-kosher-dill-spears-2924-8-924-1-<p><a-href-http-therevenantrising-tumblr-com-post-135827422115-garregret-therevenantrising-garregret-33201813.png)
laughoutloud-club:
Run at them naked. Assert dominance.: NUDESLEEPERS.,WHATIS YOUR
PLAN DEFENSE
OF
IFSOMEONE BREAKS IN?
MEMEFUL COM
laughoutloud-club:
Run at them naked. Assert dominance.
![laughoutloud-club:
Run at them naked. Assert dominance.: NUDESLEEPERS.,WHATIS YOUR
PLAN DEFENSE
OF
IFSOMEONE BREAKS IN?
MEMEFUL COM
laughoutloud-club:
Run at them naked. Assert dominance.]()
laughoutloud-club: Run at them naked. Assert dominance.
great-quotes:
“If you want to assert a truth…” – Neil deGrasse Tyson [615x342]MORE COOL QUOTES!: If you want to
assert a truth,
first make sure
it's not just an
opinion that
you desperately
want to be true.
(0
Neil degrasse Tyson
facebook.com/AtheistCosmos
great-quotes:
“If you want to assert a truth…” – Neil deGrasse Tyson [615x342]MORE COOL QUOTES!
![great-quotes:
“If you want to assert a truth…” – Neil deGrasse Tyson [615x342]MORE COOL QUOTES!: If you want to
assert a truth,
first make sure
it's not just an
opinion that
you desperately
want to be true.
(0
Neil degrasse Tyson
facebook.com/AtheistCosmos
great-quotes:
“If you want to assert a truth…” – Neil deGrasse Tyson [615x342]MORE COOL QUOTES!](https://pics.me.me/thumb_if-you-want-to-assert-a-truth-first-make-sure-43711939.png)
![great-quotes:
“If you want to assert a truth…” – Neil deGrasse Tyson [615x342]MORE COOL QUOTES!: If you want to
assert a truth,
first make sure
it's not just an
opinion that
you desperately
want to be true.
(0
Neil degrasse Tyson
facebook.com/AtheistCosmos
great-quotes:
“If you want to assert a truth…” – Neil deGrasse Tyson [615x342]MORE COOL QUOTES!]()
great-quotes: “If you want to assert a truth…” – Neil deGrasse Tyson [615x342]MORE COOL QUOTES!
to every security camera everomg-humor.tumblr.com: *makes eye contact with security
cameras to assert dominance*
Source: regkvjlnsaerkgjnaerkjgnaer
to every security camera everomg-humor.tumblr.com
![to every security camera everomg-humor.tumblr.com: *makes eye contact with security
cameras to assert dominance*
Source: regkvjlnsaerkgjnaerkjgnaer
to every security camera everomg-humor.tumblr.com]()
to every security camera everomg-humor.tumblr.com
![<p><a href="http://tactical-pants.tumblr.com/post/135832273318/runningrepublican-therevenantrising" class="tumblr_blog">tactical-pants</a>:</p>
<blockquote><p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://runningrepublican.tumblr.com/post/135830964382">runningrepublican</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://therevenantrising.tumblr.com/post/135827422115">therevenantrising</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://garregret.tumblr.com/post/135810589826">garregret</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://therevenantrising.tumblr.com/post/135540905500">therevenantrising</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://garregret.tumblr.com/post/135517237536">garregret</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://therevenantrising.tumblr.com/post/135479826270">therevenantrising</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://pushingpin.tumblr.com/post/135479128813">pushingpin</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://jingle-brrrrt.tumblr.com/post/135448815816">jingle-brrrrt</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://metal-queer-solid.tumblr.com/post/134386190976">metal-queer-solid</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://0122358.tumblr.com/post/134383153016">0122358</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://therevenantrising.tumblr.com/post/134381412470">therevenantrising</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://shelovespiano.tumblr.com/post/134380537619">shelovespiano</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://kaisernighthawk1996.tumblr.com/post/134342240504">kaisernighthawk1996</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://feels-by-the-foot.tumblr.com/post/134299613814">feels-by-the-foot</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://therevenantrising.tumblr.com/post/134299542770">therevenantrising</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://neuroxin.tumblr.com/post/134298026257">neuroxin</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://pizzaotter.tumblr.com/post/134294057737">pizzaotter</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://madmints.tumblr.com/post/134293259422">madmints</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://pizzaotter.tumblr.com/post/134280963537">pizzaotter</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://bolt-carrier-assembly.tumblr.com/post/133694853738">bolt-carrier-assembly</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://therevenantrising.tumblr.com/post/133689796940">therevenantrising</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://therevenantrising.tumblr.com/post/133689234535">therevenantrising</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Mak N Cheese<br/></p>
</blockquote>
<p>Not to be confused with Mac N Cheese.</p>
<figure data-orig-width="3264" data-orig-height="1840" class="tmblr-full"><img data-orig-width="3264" data-orig-height="1840" src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/49bb53d1810cdc4a6c5f1fa9e40355ae/tumblr_inline_ny6xsoZgNT1sh8jq3_540.jpg"/></figure></blockquote>
<p><figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="1802" data-orig-width="3246"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/e723085af378cad726af085c2220068f/tumblr_inline_ny72aotJ7s1r4zl7m_540.jpg" data-orig-height="1802" data-orig-width="3246"/></figure></p>
<p>Also in the Big Mac variety</p>
</blockquote>
<p>WhY do you people have automatic weapons</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Even if they are automatic (which they most likely aren’t), why does it matter to you?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Look at all these gun nuts coming out the woodwork cause I asked why people randomly have automatic weapons on cheese</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Gun obsession is so fucking gross. There is no valid logical rational reason why any normal US citizen should own a machine literally designed for no other purpose than to kill human beings. Do not try to give some weak ass justification when “because I like them” is all it actually fucking boils down to. A disgustingly huge amount of people are DYING to these things every month, just trying to go about their normal lives. That trumps your ill-chosen hobby. </p>
<p>There is no solution better than the one that several European countries and the Australians have proven works, anything else is a less-effective compromise so that you, again, can get off on owning a literal killing machine.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This was supposed to be a light-hearted and fun joke post, but fine. Let’s do this.<br/></p>
<h2><b>There is no valid logical rational reason why any normal US citizen
should own a machine literally designed for no other purpose than to
kill human beings.</b></h2>
<p>I own several guns and have shot literally thousands of rounds over the last couple of years, yet I haven’t killed or even harmed a single living creature. Huh… I guess my guns must be broken since they can’t even fulfill their “only purpose”.</p>
<h2>
<b>A disgustingly huge amount of people are DYING to these things every
month, just trying to go about their normal lives. That trumps your
ill-chosen hobby.</b><br/></h2>
<p>Many anti-gun advocates will point out that there were 33,000 people killed by guns in 2013. While this is a terrible number, we must also put this number into perspective against the grand scheme of things. There are an estimated 340-370+ MILLION legally owned guns in
America, not even including illegal black markets that we cannot
effectively track. This means that, even if we use conservative
estimations, literally over 99.99% of the guns in America didn’t kill a
single person in 2013.</p>
<p>When we look at the big picture, your chances of being harmed by a gun are actually very low.<br/></p>
<p><b>Chances of being shot or killed based on firearm deaths and population count:</b></p>
<p><b>Death by gun, suicide excluded:</b><br/>0.0032%</p>
<p><b>Death by gun, suicide included:</b><br/>0.0095%</p>
<p><b>Death in a mass shooting alone:</b><br/>0.000032%</p>
<p><b>Injury by gun, no death:</b><br/>0.024%</p>
<p><b>Death of injury by gun including suicide:</b><br/>0.033%</p>
<p>Gun
deaths and injuries etc based off general stats used by anti gun
people, rather than exact numbers from each year because its faster and
easier to do. Going by exact yearly figures would result in very little
change to the average numbers used above.</p>
<p><b>Guns compared to other ways you can die:</b></p>
<p><b>
Unintentional fall deaths:</b></p>
<ul><li>Number of deaths: 26,009</li>
<li>Deaths per 100,000 population: 8.4</li>
</ul><p><b>Motor vehicle traffic deaths:</b></p>
<ul><li>Number of deaths: 33,687</li>
<li>Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.9</li>
</ul><p><b>Unintentional poisoning deaths:
</b></p>
<ul><li>Number of deaths: 33,041</li>
<li>Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.7</li>
</ul><p><b>All poisoning deaths:</b></p>
<ul><li>Number of deaths: 42,917</li>
<li>Deaths per 100,000 population: 13.9</li>
</ul><p><b>All Drug poisoning deaths:</b></p>
<ul><li>Deaths per 100,000 population: 12.4 (2010)</li></ul><p><b>All firearm deaths (suicide included):</b></p>
<ul><li>Number of deaths: 31,672</li>
<li>Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.3</li>
</ul><p><b>All firearms deaths (suicide excluded):</b></p>
<ul><li>Number of deaths: 12,664 <br/></li>
<li>Deaths per 100,000 population: 3.6</li>
</ul><p><b>Firearm deaths broken down completely:</b></p>
<p>3.6 for homicide <br/>6.3 for suicide<br/>0.30 for unintentional <br/>0.10 undetermined</p>
<p>
10.3 for deaths total in general of 3.6 for homicide only. You are more
likely to trip and die than be killed by a gun. Cars kill more than guns
but are not even protected by the constitution and isn’t a right, and
are less regulated than guns!
</p>
<p>
<i>[Sources are <a href="https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8">FBI</a> and <a href="http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_06.pdf">CDC</a>]</i></p>
<p>Many people will also cite mass shootings as a reason that guns are evil and should be banned, but this assertion also falls flat and looks ridiculous when put into perspective. While these stories draw media attention and are absolutely horrible,
you seem to have casually and conveniently left out the part where these
attacks account for less than even one quarter of 1% of America’s
overall murder rate. About 0.2% to be more exact.</p>
<figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="317" data-orig-width="500"><img data-orig-height="317" data-orig-width="500" src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/bc45a6b149582a24ee012977c76ca402/tumblr_inline_nynm1mUXyB1sh8jq3_540.jpg"/></figure><p>Now, let’s compare this, how often guns are used to harm innocent lives, to how often guns are used to protect innocent lives.</p>
<p>Guns help protect
innocent lives FAR MORE OFTEN than they help to harm innocent lives.
There are literally hundreds of thousands of defensive gun uses in this
country alone every single year.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/category/defensivegunuseoftheday/">http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/category/defensivegunuseoftheday/</a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/cdc-study-use-firearms-self-defense-important-crime-deterrent">http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/cdc-study-use-firearms-self-defense-important-crime-deterrent</a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/cdc-study-use-firearms-self-defense-important-crime-deterrent">http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/cdc-study-use-firearms-self-defense-important-crime-deterrent</a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/02/defensive-gun-ownership-gary-kleck-response-115082.html#.VcYed_lRK1w">http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/02/defensive-gun-ownership-gary-kleck-response-115082.html#.VcYed_lRK1w</a></p>
<p>Quite
simply put, guns save innocent lives. And they do so far more often
than they hurt them. When guns are harming more innocent lives than
they are protecting, it could be argued that it might make sense to
further limit guns.</p>
<p>But for now, it’s not even close. Moving on…<br/></p>
<h2><b>There is no solution better than the one that several European countries
and the Australians have proven works, anything else is a
less-effective compromise so that you, again, can get off on owning a
literal killing machine.</b></h2>
<p>Sorry, but strict gun control has been an absolute failure in both Australia, The UK, and everywhere else it has tried. It has done nothing to effectively reduce murder, violent crime, suicide, or even gun violence rates. It has done nothing to achieve its desired goal of creating a safer society. It is, and always will be, a complete failure.</p>
<p><b>Australia:</b></p>
<p><i>[this segment brought to you by <a href="http://lee-enfeel.tumblr.com">lee-enfeel</a>]</i><br/></p>
<p><a href="http://www.news.com.au/national/is-australia-staring-down-the-barrel-of-a-gun-crisis/story-fncynjr2-1226690018325">People die Australia as a result of firearms violence at almost the same rate they did prior to the firearms act</a>, and some sources state that more than a quarter million illicit firearms exist in Australia currently.</p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/productsbytitle/9C85BD1298C075EACA2568A900139342?OpenDocument">total firearms death rate in 1995 </a>-
the year before the massacre and the laws introduced - was 2.6 per
100,000 people. The total firearms murder rate that year was
0.3/100,000. From 1980-1995, Australian firearms deaths dropped from
4.9/100,000-2.6/100,000 without the implementation of firearms laws.
This is a rate of decline that has remained fairly constant; Looking at
1996-2014, in which the rate has dropped from 2.6-0.86, it shows that
the decline has been slower in a longer period of time since the law’s
passing. Likewise, homicides declined more quickly in the 15 years prior
to the firearms laws (0.8-0.3) than in the 18 years since it (0.3-0.1).
This just indicates that firearms deaths haven’t been noticeably
affected by the legislation you’ve claimed has done so much to decrease
gun crime. <br/></p>
<p>It should also be noted that around the same time,
New Zealand experienced a similar mass shooting, but did not change
their existing firearms laws, which remain fairly lax; even moreso than
some American states like California, New York, or Connecticut. Despite
this, their firearms crime rate has declined fairly steadily as well,
and they haven’t experienced a mass shooting since.</p>
<p>The <i>“australia banned guns and now they’re fine”</i>
argument is really old and really poorly put together. Gun control is
little more than a pink band-aid on the sucking chest wound that is
America’s social and economic problems. It’s a ‘quick fix’ issue used by
politicians to skirt around solving the roots of the violence problem
in the United States, which are primarily poverty, lack of
opportunities, and lack of education.</p>
<p>You could ban guns tomorrow nationwide and gun violence and overall violent crime would not be reduced at all.</p>
<p><i>[this segment brought to you by <a href="http://tmblr.co/m9F_132GzodNt-UaipnK67g">cerebralzero</a>]</i></p>
<p>In 2005 the head of the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, Don Weatherburn,<sup><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Australia#cite_note-37">[37]</a></sup>
noted that the level of legal gun ownership in NSW increased in recent
years, and that the 1996 legislation had had little to no effect on
violence</p>
<p>In 2006, the lack of a measurable effect from the 1996
firearms legislation was reported in the British Journal of Criminology.
Using ARIMA analysis, Dr Jeanine Baker and Dr Samara McPhedran found no
evidence for an impact of the laws on homicide.<sup><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Australia#cite_note-40">[40]</a></sup></p>
<p>A study coauthored by Simon Chapman <b>found declines in firearm‐related
deaths before the law reforms</b> accelerated after the reforms for total
firearm deaths (p=0.04), firearm suicides (p=0.007) and firearm
homicides (p=0.15), but not for the smallest category of unintentional
firearm deaths, which increased.<sup><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Australia#cite_note-43">[43]</a></sup></p>
<p>Subsequently, a study by McPhedran and Baker compared the incidence of
mass shootings in <b>Australia and New Zealand</b>. Data were standardised to a
rate per 100,000 people, to control for differences in population size
between the countries and mass shootings before and after 1996/1997 were
compared between countries. <b>That study found that in the period
1980–1996, both countries experienced mass shootings. The rate did not
differ significantly between countries. Since 1996-1997, neither country
has experienced a mass shooting event despite the continued
availability of semi-automatic longarms in New Zealand</b>. The authors
conclude that “the hypothesis that Australia’s prohibition of certain
types of firearms explains the absence of mass shootings in that country
since 1996 does not appear to be supported… if civilian access to
certain types of firearms explained the occurrence of mass shootings in
Australia (and conversely, if prohibiting such firearms explains the
absence of mass shootings), then New Zealand (a country that still
allows the ownership of such firearms) would have continued to
experience mass shooting events.”<sup><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Australia#cite_note-44">[44]</a></sup></p>
<figure data-orig-width="500" data-orig-height="261" class="tmblr-full"><img data-orig-width="500" data-orig-height="261" src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/cdc45e76a09651676eab1f058341110c/tumblr_inline_nynm84pBjF1sh8jq3_500.gif"/></figure><p>We see the same trend in The UK.</p>
<figure data-orig-width="500" data-orig-height="373" class="tmblr-full"><img data-orig-width="500" data-orig-height="373" src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/bf599e784e9963b91a4e4f245fed90f5/tumblr_inline_nynm9wKrKT1sh8jq3_540.png"/></figure><figure data-orig-width="458" data-orig-height="366" class="tmblr-full"><img data-orig-width="458" data-orig-height="366" src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/279f61b9c596b97badd4bc465cc46b60/tumblr_inline_nynm9zWkxr1sh8jq3_540.png"/></figure><p>And Ireland and Jamaica…</p>
<figure data-orig-width="453" data-orig-height="714" class="tmblr-full"><img data-orig-width="453" data-orig-height="714" src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/4914c912d5690b40a382b90cf18c646f/tumblr_inline_nynmakqIup1sh8jq3_540.jpg"/></figure><p>And on and on and on… Gun control simply does not create a safer society and often times actually has the opposite effect.</p>
<p>At this point I should also probably point out that Australia’s gun laws have not even reduced gun ownership in Australia. <a href="http://louderwithcrowder.com/australian-gun-ownership-rises-gun-crime-remains-low-america-still-at-fault/">In fact, gun ownership in Australia is actually higher now than in 1996.</a></p>
<p>All
of these inconvenient facts aside, we haven’t even touched on the cost
of implementing Australian style gun control in America.</p>
<p>I keep hearing people say that the US should adopt Australia’s gun
control policy and I don’t think they have really thought about the big
picture of that plan.</p>
<p>Australia had far less guns per person and
people in their country did not live in a society that was brought up
respecting The 2nd Amendment. The culture of Australia is very
different than that of the culture of America when it comes to gun
ownership and self defense.</p>
<p>Because of this, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_buyback_program#Australia">the Australian government was able to buy back 631,000 guns at the estimated price of about <b>$500,000,000.</b></a> You read that correctly, <b>500 MILLION</b>.</p>
<p><a href="http://cerebralzero.tumblr.com/tagged/australia">And
even after all of that, it still did nothing to prevent violent crime
and criminals in Australia still have access to illegal guns, </a>despite
being an island country that isn’t bordered by other countries with
high violent crime rates and rampant with illegal drug cartels.<br/></p>
<p>There are over 360,000,000 legally owned firearms in America. If we go by Australia’s numbers (<b>$792.39 per gun</b>), these guns would cost our government <b>$285,261,489,698.89</b> to buy back. Almost <b>300 BILLION dollars</b>, assuming that every gun owner voluntarily turns in their guns… Which is a very slim to nothing chance.</p>
<p>Who’s going to pay for that? Anti-gunners? I think not.</p>
<p>So, in closing, you want America to put in place gun legislation that will cost the country hundreds of billions of dollars <b>AND </b>has
already been proven time and time again to be completely ineffective at
protecting innocent lives or creating a safer society?</p>
<p>Seems pretty silly.</p>
<h2>Get dunked on, nerd.</h2>
<figure data-orig-width="250" data-orig-height="188"><img data-orig-width="250" data-orig-height="188" src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/36a75ffd7a3ce392092201d3769d443e/tumblr_inline_nynmeusS661sh8jq3_500.gif"/></figure></blockquote>
<p><figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="281" data-orig-width="500" data-tumblr-attribution="eonline:S4A57ljapSvQXLPM7Jsomg:ZCTZKx1sDpydf"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/5b521c18948099c6594a510905c6dfe9/tumblr_nt8sq3NZGm1qlgbzbo1_500.gif" data-orig-height="281" data-orig-width="500"/></figure></p>
</blockquote>
<p>Teehee, Mac ‘n’ cheese</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Would make it clear that a gv’t buyback has never been on the table. Also, cars are registered, which is reasonable. Gun shows have too many loopholes. America has a specific culture that is unique when it comes to guns. Not sure anything we do will make people feel truly safe, but reasonable measures are worth a try. Thorough background checks are reasonable. Taking away all guns? Not so much. Good thing is, very few advocate for that.</p>
</blockquote>
<h2><b>Would make it clear that a gv’t buyback has never been on the table.</b></h2>
<p>Maybe not a mandatory federal one, no. But government gun buybacks are most certainly a thing here in America.</p>
<h2><b>Also, cars are registered, which is reasonable.</b></h2>
<p>You know that guns are not cars, right?</p>
<h2><b>Gun shows have too many loopholes.</b></h2>
<p>What loopholes would those be? Please enlighten us.</p>
<h2><b>Not sure anything we do will make people feel truly safe, but reasonable
measures are worth a try.<br/></b></h2>
<p>The fact is, WE HAVE TRIED STRICT NATIONAL GUN CONTROL.</p>
<p>Does the year 1994 or the name Clinton ring a bell to anyone? Anyone?</p>
<p>From
1994 - 2004, there were strict national gun control laws in place in
America. They included most of the laws that are being proposed now.
An “assault weapons” ban. Magazine capacity limits. All of that.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/204431.pdf">Guess what?</a></p>
<p><a href="https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/204431.pdf">IT WAS A COMPLETE FAILURE.</a></p>
<h2><b>Thorough background checks are reasonable.</b></h2>
<p>We already have mandatory federal NICS background checks, where the buyer’s criminal and mental healthy history are reviewed and have to be approved by the FBI, for every FFL purchase.</p>
<h2><b>Taking away all guns? Not so much. Good thing is, very few advocate for that.</b></h2>
<p>Except for people in politics, the media, and every social media platform I can think advocate for just that every single day.<br/></p>
</blockquote>
<p>Rekt</p>
</blockquote>
<p><figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="500" data-orig-width="500"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/06dc5d6fb9a872f66494555df3d8e68d/tumblr_inline_nyq063shKC1qmqn62_540.jpg" data-orig-height="500" data-orig-width="500"/></figure></p>
</blockquote>
<p><figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-width="300" data-orig-height="152" data-tumblr-attribution="sweetnighttheorist:iC3ZUAaLREBo5eAyAtwOWw:Z_9d1l1pDjh9p" data-orig-src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/68abc0e9798bcb3c43bc230a5ab9e9e0/tumblr_nr9gyqXCqt1uqa8bho1_400.gif"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/68abc0e9798bcb3c43bc230a5ab9e9e0/tumblr_inline_nzkb0efWgQ1t5zudu_500.gif" data-orig-width="300" data-orig-height="152" data-orig-src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/68abc0e9798bcb3c43bc230a5ab9e9e0/tumblr_nr9gyqXCqt1uqa8bho1_400.gif"/></figure></p>
</blockquote>
<p>but like if you could save 33000 peoples lives a year, by giving up a hobby would you?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>A hobby? Sure. No problem.</p>
<p>However, me owning a gun is not merely a hobby. It is the most effective tool at protecting my life, the lives of my family, and the lives of innocent lives around me. I’m sorry, but self defense and self preservation are not “hobbies”.</p>
<p>Furthermore, it’s a bit of pipe dream anyway considering that we have decades of evidence from all over the world that proves that gun control and even gun bans do not effectively reduce murder or violent crime rates. They do not create safer societies. Sure, it might look good on paper and feel good to think about, but reality just doesn’t align with those dreams.<br/></p>
</blockquote>
<p>hey I’m glad for all the sources because this is changing my perspective but you gotta admit that at the very least requiring extensive background checks, mandatory waiting periods, and registering guns would help at least reduce gun violence a little bit and would help solve cases b/c registers guns</p>
</blockquote>
<p>No, I do not have to admit that at all because all of these measures are in place in states like California, New York, and Washington DC, yet they have not made these societies any safer from murder, violent crime, or even gun violence.</p>
<p>So, no I do not have to nor will I be admitting that at all because it simply isn’t true.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>oh? is that so? so if buying an automatic weapon is as easy as picking up a prescription that’s <i>not</i> going to make it easier for anyone who’s upset to get a gun and then fire it on people??? o k</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Automatic weapons are extremely regulated for civilian ownership in America. They cost tens of thousands of dollars on the low end all the way up to hundreds of thousands of dollars on the high end, they are registered with the federal government, the owner must apply for a special NFA license which requires a thorough background check that takes months or even years to get approved, paper work must be kept with the weapon at all time, the weapon cannot have been manufactured after 1986, they require a federal tax stamp to own which also can takes months to over a year to get processed, the owner must also designate a licensed gun dealer who will take possession of the weapon in the event of their death, and on and on and on…</p>
<p>If you truly believe that acquiring an automatic weapon in America is as easy as “picking up a prescription”, then you are simply ignorant to the subject of automatic weapons and just do not know what you are talking about.<br/></p>
<p><a href="https://www.atf.gov/qa-category/national-firearms-act-nfa">https://www.atf.gov/qa-category/national-firearms-act-nfa</a></p>
<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act</a></p>
<p><a href="http://m.dailykos.com/story/2012/12/17/1171047/-There-are-240-000-fully-automatic-guns-in-the-US-and-only-2-deaths-in-80-years">http://m.dailykos.com/story/2012/12/17/1171047/-There-are-240-000-fully-automatic-guns-in-the-US-and-only-2-deaths-in-80-years</a><br/></p>
</blockquote>
<p>This is it. This will be the first post I tag master post.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This is the greatest thing I’ve ever seen.</p></blockquote>
<p>I’m just surprised none of the anti-gunners screaming “OMG! In America guns are literally included in happy meals! Disgusting!”</p><p>But seriously good post.</p>: asic
KOSHER DILL
SPEARS
2924
8
924 1
<p><a href="http://tactical-pants.tumblr.com/post/135832273318/runningrepublican-therevenantrising" class="tumblr_blog">tactical-pants</a>:</p>
<blockquote><p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://runningrepublican.tumblr.com/post/135830964382">runningrepublican</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://therevenantrising.tumblr.com/post/135827422115">therevenantrising</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://garregret.tumblr.com/post/135810589826">garregret</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://therevenantrising.tumblr.com/post/135540905500">therevenantrising</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://garregret.tumblr.com/post/135517237536">garregret</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://therevenantrising.tumblr.com/post/135479826270">therevenantrising</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://pushingpin.tumblr.com/post/135479128813">pushingpin</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://jingle-brrrrt.tumblr.com/post/135448815816">jingle-brrrrt</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://metal-queer-solid.tumblr.com/post/134386190976">metal-queer-solid</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://0122358.tumblr.com/post/134383153016">0122358</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://therevenantrising.tumblr.com/post/134381412470">therevenantrising</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://shelovespiano.tumblr.com/post/134380537619">shelovespiano</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://kaisernighthawk1996.tumblr.com/post/134342240504">kaisernighthawk1996</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://feels-by-the-foot.tumblr.com/post/134299613814">feels-by-the-foot</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://therevenantrising.tumblr.com/post/134299542770">therevenantrising</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://neuroxin.tumblr.com/post/134298026257">neuroxin</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://pizzaotter.tumblr.com/post/134294057737">pizzaotter</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://madmints.tumblr.com/post/134293259422">madmints</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://pizzaotter.tumblr.com/post/134280963537">pizzaotter</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://bolt-carrier-assembly.tumblr.com/post/133694853738">bolt-carrier-assembly</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://therevenantrising.tumblr.com/post/133689796940">therevenantrising</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://therevenantrising.tumblr.com/post/133689234535">therevenantrising</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Mak N Cheese<br/></p>
</blockquote>
<p>Not to be confused with Mac N Cheese.</p>
<figure data-orig-width="3264" data-orig-height="1840" class="tmblr-full"><img data-orig-width="3264" data-orig-height="1840" src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/49bb53d1810cdc4a6c5f1fa9e40355ae/tumblr_inline_ny6xsoZgNT1sh8jq3_540.jpg"/></figure></blockquote>
<p><figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="1802" data-orig-width="3246"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/e723085af378cad726af085c2220068f/tumblr_inline_ny72aotJ7s1r4zl7m_540.jpg" data-orig-height="1802" data-orig-width="3246"/></figure></p>
<p>Also in the Big Mac variety</p>
</blockquote>
<p>WhY do you people have automatic weapons</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Even if they are automatic (which they most likely aren’t), why does it matter to you?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Look at all these gun nuts coming out the woodwork cause I asked why people randomly have automatic weapons on cheese</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Gun obsession is so fucking gross. There is no valid logical rational reason why any normal US citizen should own a machine literally designed for no other purpose than to kill human beings. Do not try to give some weak ass justification when “because I like them” is all it actually fucking boils down to. A disgustingly huge amount of people are DYING to these things every month, just trying to go about their normal lives. That trumps your ill-chosen hobby. </p>
<p>There is no solution better than the one that several European countries and the Australians have proven works, anything else is a less-effective compromise so that you, again, can get off on owning a literal killing machine.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This was supposed to be a light-hearted and fun joke post, but fine. Let’s do this.<br/></p>
<h2><b>There is no valid logical rational reason why any normal US citizen
should own a machine literally designed for no other purpose than to
kill human beings.</b></h2>
<p>I own several guns and have shot literally thousands of rounds over the last couple of years, yet I haven’t killed or even harmed a single living creature. Huh… I guess my guns must be broken since they can’t even fulfill their “only purpose”.</p>
<h2>
<b>A disgustingly huge amount of people are DYING to these things every
month, just trying to go about their normal lives. That trumps your
ill-chosen hobby.</b><br/></h2>
<p>Many anti-gun advocates will point out that there were 33,000 people killed by guns in 2013. While this is a terrible number, we must also put this number into perspective against the grand scheme of things. There are an estimated 340-370+ MILLION legally owned guns in
America, not even including illegal black markets that we cannot
effectively track. This means that, even if we use conservative
estimations, literally over 99.99% of the guns in America didn’t kill a
single person in 2013.</p>
<p>When we look at the big picture, your chances of being harmed by a gun are actually very low.<br/></p>
<p><b>Chances of being shot or killed based on firearm deaths and population count:</b></p>
<p><b>Death by gun, suicide excluded:</b><br/>0.0032%</p>
<p><b>Death by gun, suicide included:</b><br/>0.0095%</p>
<p><b>Death in a mass shooting alone:</b><br/>0.000032%</p>
<p><b>Injury by gun, no death:</b><br/>0.024%</p>
<p><b>Death of injury by gun including suicide:</b><br/>0.033%</p>
<p>Gun
deaths and injuries etc based off general stats used by anti gun
people, rather than exact numbers from each year because its faster and
easier to do. Going by exact yearly figures would result in very little
change to the average numbers used above.</p>
<p><b>Guns compared to other ways you can die:</b></p>
<p><b>
Unintentional fall deaths:</b></p>
<ul><li>Number of deaths: 26,009</li>
<li>Deaths per 100,000 population: 8.4</li>
</ul><p><b>Motor vehicle traffic deaths:</b></p>
<ul><li>Number of deaths: 33,687</li>
<li>Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.9</li>
</ul><p><b>Unintentional poisoning deaths:
</b></p>
<ul><li>Number of deaths: 33,041</li>
<li>Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.7</li>
</ul><p><b>All poisoning deaths:</b></p>
<ul><li>Number of deaths: 42,917</li>
<li>Deaths per 100,000 population: 13.9</li>
</ul><p><b>All Drug poisoning deaths:</b></p>
<ul><li>Deaths per 100,000 population: 12.4 (2010)</li></ul><p><b>All firearm deaths (suicide included):</b></p>
<ul><li>Number of deaths: 31,672</li>
<li>Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.3</li>
</ul><p><b>All firearms deaths (suicide excluded):</b></p>
<ul><li>Number of deaths: 12,664 <br/></li>
<li>Deaths per 100,000 population: 3.6</li>
</ul><p><b>Firearm deaths broken down completely:</b></p>
<p>3.6 for homicide <br/>6.3 for suicide<br/>0.30 for unintentional <br/>0.10 undetermined</p>
<p>
10.3 for deaths total in general of 3.6 for homicide only. You are more
likely to trip and die than be killed by a gun. Cars kill more than guns
but are not even protected by the constitution and isn’t a right, and
are less regulated than guns!
</p>
<p>
<i>[Sources are <a href="https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8">FBI</a> and <a href="http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_06.pdf">CDC</a>]</i></p>
<p>Many people will also cite mass shootings as a reason that guns are evil and should be banned, but this assertion also falls flat and looks ridiculous when put into perspective. While these stories draw media attention and are absolutely horrible,
you seem to have casually and conveniently left out the part where these
attacks account for less than even one quarter of 1% of America’s
overall murder rate. About 0.2% to be more exact.</p>
<figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="317" data-orig-width="500"><img data-orig-height="317" data-orig-width="500" src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/bc45a6b149582a24ee012977c76ca402/tumblr_inline_nynm1mUXyB1sh8jq3_540.jpg"/></figure><p>Now, let’s compare this, how often guns are used to harm innocent lives, to how often guns are used to protect innocent lives.</p>
<p>Guns help protect
innocent lives FAR MORE OFTEN than they help to harm innocent lives.
There are literally hundreds of thousands of defensive gun uses in this
country alone every single year.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/category/defensivegunuseoftheday/">http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/category/defensivegunuseoftheday/</a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/cdc-study-use-firearms-self-defense-important-crime-deterrent">http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/cdc-study-use-firearms-self-defense-important-crime-deterrent</a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/cdc-study-use-firearms-self-defense-important-crime-deterrent">http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/cdc-study-use-firearms-self-defense-important-crime-deterrent</a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/02/defensive-gun-ownership-gary-kleck-response-115082.html#.VcYed_lRK1w">http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/02/defensive-gun-ownership-gary-kleck-response-115082.html#.VcYed_lRK1w</a></p>
<p>Quite
simply put, guns save innocent lives. And they do so far more often
than they hurt them. When guns are harming more innocent lives than
they are protecting, it could be argued that it might make sense to
further limit guns.</p>
<p>But for now, it’s not even close. Moving on…<br/></p>
<h2><b>There is no solution better than the one that several European countries
and the Australians have proven works, anything else is a
less-effective compromise so that you, again, can get off on owning a
literal killing machine.</b></h2>
<p>Sorry, but strict gun control has been an absolute failure in both Australia, The UK, and everywhere else it has tried. It has done nothing to effectively reduce murder, violent crime, suicide, or even gun violence rates. It has done nothing to achieve its desired goal of creating a safer society. It is, and always will be, a complete failure.</p>
<p><b>Australia:</b></p>
<p><i>[this segment brought to you by <a href="http://lee-enfeel.tumblr.com">lee-enfeel</a>]</i><br/></p>
<p><a href="http://www.news.com.au/national/is-australia-staring-down-the-barrel-of-a-gun-crisis/story-fncynjr2-1226690018325">People die Australia as a result of firearms violence at almost the same rate they did prior to the firearms act</a>, and some sources state that more than a quarter million illicit firearms exist in Australia currently.</p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/productsbytitle/9C85BD1298C075EACA2568A900139342?OpenDocument">total firearms death rate in 1995 </a>-
the year before the massacre and the laws introduced - was 2.6 per
100,000 people. The total firearms murder rate that year was
0.3/100,000. From 1980-1995, Australian firearms deaths dropped from
4.9/100,000-2.6/100,000 without the implementation of firearms laws.
This is a rate of decline that has remained fairly constant; Looking at
1996-2014, in which the rate has dropped from 2.6-0.86, it shows that
the decline has been slower in a longer period of time since the law’s
passing. Likewise, homicides declined more quickly in the 15 years prior
to the firearms laws (0.8-0.3) than in the 18 years since it (0.3-0.1).
This just indicates that firearms deaths haven’t been noticeably
affected by the legislation you’ve claimed has done so much to decrease
gun crime. <br/></p>
<p>It should also be noted that around the same time,
New Zealand experienced a similar mass shooting, but did not change
their existing firearms laws, which remain fairly lax; even moreso than
some American states like California, New York, or Connecticut. Despite
this, their firearms crime rate has declined fairly steadily as well,
and they haven’t experienced a mass shooting since.</p>
<p>The <i>“australia banned guns and now they’re fine”</i>
argument is really old and really poorly put together. Gun control is
little more than a pink band-aid on the sucking chest wound that is
America’s social and economic problems. It’s a ‘quick fix’ issue used by
politicians to skirt around solving the roots of the violence problem
in the United States, which are primarily poverty, lack of
opportunities, and lack of education.</p>
<p>You could ban guns tomorrow nationwide and gun violence and overall violent crime would not be reduced at all.</p>
<p><i>[this segment brought to you by <a href="http://tmblr.co/m9F_132GzodNt-UaipnK67g">cerebralzero</a>]</i></p>
<p>In 2005 the head of the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, Don Weatherburn,<sup><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Australia#cite_note-37">[37]</a></sup>
noted that the level of legal gun ownership in NSW increased in recent
years, and that the 1996 legislation had had little to no effect on
violence</p>
<p>In 2006, the lack of a measurable effect from the 1996
firearms legislation was reported in the British Journal of Criminology.
Using ARIMA analysis, Dr Jeanine Baker and Dr Samara McPhedran found no
evidence for an impact of the laws on homicide.<sup><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Australia#cite_note-40">[40]</a></sup></p>
<p>A study coauthored by Simon Chapman <b>found declines in firearm‐related
deaths before the law reforms</b> accelerated after the reforms for total
firearm deaths (p=0.04), firearm suicides (p=0.007) and firearm
homicides (p=0.15), but not for the smallest category of unintentional
firearm deaths, which increased.<sup><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Australia#cite_note-43">[43]</a></sup></p>
<p>Subsequently, a study by McPhedran and Baker compared the incidence of
mass shootings in <b>Australia and New Zealand</b>. Data were standardised to a
rate per 100,000 people, to control for differences in population size
between the countries and mass shootings before and after 1996/1997 were
compared between countries. <b>That study found that in the period
1980–1996, both countries experienced mass shootings. The rate did not
differ significantly between countries. Since 1996-1997, neither country
has experienced a mass shooting event despite the continued
availability of semi-automatic longarms in New Zealand</b>. The authors
conclude that “the hypothesis that Australia’s prohibition of certain
types of firearms explains the absence of mass shootings in that country
since 1996 does not appear to be supported… if civilian access to
certain types of firearms explained the occurrence of mass shootings in
Australia (and conversely, if prohibiting such firearms explains the
absence of mass shootings), then New Zealand (a country that still
allows the ownership of such firearms) would have continued to
experience mass shooting events.”<sup><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Australia#cite_note-44">[44]</a></sup></p>
<figure data-orig-width="500" data-orig-height="261" class="tmblr-full"><img data-orig-width="500" data-orig-height="261" src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/cdc45e76a09651676eab1f058341110c/tumblr_inline_nynm84pBjF1sh8jq3_500.gif"/></figure><p>We see the same trend in The UK.</p>
<figure data-orig-width="500" data-orig-height="373" class="tmblr-full"><img data-orig-width="500" data-orig-height="373" src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/bf599e784e9963b91a4e4f245fed90f5/tumblr_inline_nynm9wKrKT1sh8jq3_540.png"/></figure><figure data-orig-width="458" data-orig-height="366" class="tmblr-full"><img data-orig-width="458" data-orig-height="366" src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/279f61b9c596b97badd4bc465cc46b60/tumblr_inline_nynm9zWkxr1sh8jq3_540.png"/></figure><p>And Ireland and Jamaica…</p>
<figure data-orig-width="453" data-orig-height="714" class="tmblr-full"><img data-orig-width="453" data-orig-height="714" src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/4914c912d5690b40a382b90cf18c646f/tumblr_inline_nynmakqIup1sh8jq3_540.jpg"/></figure><p>And on and on and on… Gun control simply does not create a safer society and often times actually has the opposite effect.</p>
<p>At this point I should also probably point out that Australia’s gun laws have not even reduced gun ownership in Australia. <a href="http://louderwithcrowder.com/australian-gun-ownership-rises-gun-crime-remains-low-america-still-at-fault/">In fact, gun ownership in Australia is actually higher now than in 1996.</a></p>
<p>All
of these inconvenient facts aside, we haven’t even touched on the cost
of implementing Australian style gun control in America.</p>
<p>I keep hearing people say that the US should adopt Australia’s gun
control policy and I don’t think they have really thought about the big
picture of that plan.</p>
<p>Australia had far less guns per person and
people in their country did not live in a society that was brought up
respecting The 2nd Amendment. The culture of Australia is very
different than that of the culture of America when it comes to gun
ownership and self defense.</p>
<p>Because of this, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_buyback_program#Australia">the Australian government was able to buy back 631,000 guns at the estimated price of about <b>$500,000,000.</b></a> You read that correctly, <b>500 MILLION</b>.</p>
<p><a href="http://cerebralzero.tumblr.com/tagged/australia">And
even after all of that, it still did nothing to prevent violent crime
and criminals in Australia still have access to illegal guns, </a>despite
being an island country that isn’t bordered by other countries with
high violent crime rates and rampant with illegal drug cartels.<br/></p>
<p>There are over 360,000,000 legally owned firearms in America. If we go by Australia’s numbers (<b>$792.39 per gun</b>), these guns would cost our government <b>$285,261,489,698.89</b> to buy back. Almost <b>300 BILLION dollars</b>, assuming that every gun owner voluntarily turns in their guns… Which is a very slim to nothing chance.</p>
<p>Who’s going to pay for that? Anti-gunners? I think not.</p>
<p>So, in closing, you want America to put in place gun legislation that will cost the country hundreds of billions of dollars <b>AND </b>has
already been proven time and time again to be completely ineffective at
protecting innocent lives or creating a safer society?</p>
<p>Seems pretty silly.</p>
<h2>Get dunked on, nerd.</h2>
<figure data-orig-width="250" data-orig-height="188"><img data-orig-width="250" data-orig-height="188" src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/36a75ffd7a3ce392092201d3769d443e/tumblr_inline_nynmeusS661sh8jq3_500.gif"/></figure></blockquote>
<p><figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="281" data-orig-width="500" data-tumblr-attribution="eonline:S4A57ljapSvQXLPM7Jsomg:ZCTZKx1sDpydf"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/5b521c18948099c6594a510905c6dfe9/tumblr_nt8sq3NZGm1qlgbzbo1_500.gif" data-orig-height="281" data-orig-width="500"/></figure></p>
</blockquote>
<p>Teehee, Mac ‘n’ cheese</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Would make it clear that a gv’t buyback has never been on the table. Also, cars are registered, which is reasonable. Gun shows have too many loopholes. America has a specific culture that is unique when it comes to guns. Not sure anything we do will make people feel truly safe, but reasonable measures are worth a try. Thorough background checks are reasonable. Taking away all guns? Not so much. Good thing is, very few advocate for that.</p>
</blockquote>
<h2><b>Would make it clear that a gv’t buyback has never been on the table.</b></h2>
<p>Maybe not a mandatory federal one, no. But government gun buybacks are most certainly a thing here in America.</p>
<h2><b>Also, cars are registered, which is reasonable.</b></h2>
<p>You know that guns are not cars, right?</p>
<h2><b>Gun shows have too many loopholes.</b></h2>
<p>What loopholes would those be? Please enlighten us.</p>
<h2><b>Not sure anything we do will make people feel truly safe, but reasonable
measures are worth a try.<br/></b></h2>
<p>The fact is, WE HAVE TRIED STRICT NATIONAL GUN CONTROL.</p>
<p>Does the year 1994 or the name Clinton ring a bell to anyone? Anyone?</p>
<p>From
1994 - 2004, there were strict national gun control laws in place in
America. They included most of the laws that are being proposed now.
An “assault weapons” ban. Magazine capacity limits. All of that.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/204431.pdf">Guess what?</a></p>
<p><a href="https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/204431.pdf">IT WAS A COMPLETE FAILURE.</a></p>
<h2><b>Thorough background checks are reasonable.</b></h2>
<p>We already have mandatory federal NICS background checks, where the buyer’s criminal and mental healthy history are reviewed and have to be approved by the FBI, for every FFL purchase.</p>
<h2><b>Taking away all guns? Not so much. Good thing is, very few advocate for that.</b></h2>
<p>Except for people in politics, the media, and every social media platform I can think advocate for just that every single day.<br/></p>
</blockquote>
<p>Rekt</p>
</blockquote>
<p><figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="500" data-orig-width="500"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/06dc5d6fb9a872f66494555df3d8e68d/tumblr_inline_nyq063shKC1qmqn62_540.jpg" data-orig-height="500" data-orig-width="500"/></figure></p>
</blockquote>
<p><figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-width="300" data-orig-height="152" data-tumblr-attribution="sweetnighttheorist:iC3ZUAaLREBo5eAyAtwOWw:Z_9d1l1pDjh9p" data-orig-src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/68abc0e9798bcb3c43bc230a5ab9e9e0/tumblr_nr9gyqXCqt1uqa8bho1_400.gif"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/68abc0e9798bcb3c43bc230a5ab9e9e0/tumblr_inline_nzkb0efWgQ1t5zudu_500.gif" data-orig-width="300" data-orig-height="152" data-orig-src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/68abc0e9798bcb3c43bc230a5ab9e9e0/tumblr_nr9gyqXCqt1uqa8bho1_400.gif"/></figure></p>
</blockquote>
<p>but like if you could save 33000 peoples lives a year, by giving up a hobby would you?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>A hobby? Sure. No problem.</p>
<p>However, me owning a gun is not merely a hobby. It is the most effective tool at protecting my life, the lives of my family, and the lives of innocent lives around me. I’m sorry, but self defense and self preservation are not “hobbies”.</p>
<p>Furthermore, it’s a bit of pipe dream anyway considering that we have decades of evidence from all over the world that proves that gun control and even gun bans do not effectively reduce murder or violent crime rates. They do not create safer societies. Sure, it might look good on paper and feel good to think about, but reality just doesn’t align with those dreams.<br/></p>
</blockquote>
<p>hey I’m glad for all the sources because this is changing my perspective but you gotta admit that at the very least requiring extensive background checks, mandatory waiting periods, and registering guns would help at least reduce gun violence a little bit and would help solve cases b/c registers guns</p>
</blockquote>
<p>No, I do not have to admit that at all because all of these measures are in place in states like California, New York, and Washington DC, yet they have not made these societies any safer from murder, violent crime, or even gun violence.</p>
<p>So, no I do not have to nor will I be admitting that at all because it simply isn’t true.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>oh? is that so? so if buying an automatic weapon is as easy as picking up a prescription that’s <i>not</i> going to make it easier for anyone who’s upset to get a gun and then fire it on people??? o k</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Automatic weapons are extremely regulated for civilian ownership in America. They cost tens of thousands of dollars on the low end all the way up to hundreds of thousands of dollars on the high end, they are registered with the federal government, the owner must apply for a special NFA license which requires a thorough background check that takes months or even years to get approved, paper work must be kept with the weapon at all time, the weapon cannot have been manufactured after 1986, they require a federal tax stamp to own which also can takes months to over a year to get processed, the owner must also designate a licensed gun dealer who will take possession of the weapon in the event of their death, and on and on and on…</p>
<p>If you truly believe that acquiring an automatic weapon in America is as easy as “picking up a prescription”, then you are simply ignorant to the subject of automatic weapons and just do not know what you are talking about.<br/></p>
<p><a href="https://www.atf.gov/qa-category/national-firearms-act-nfa">https://www.atf.gov/qa-category/national-firearms-act-nfa</a></p>
<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act</a></p>
<p><a href="http://m.dailykos.com/story/2012/12/17/1171047/-There-are-240-000-fully-automatic-guns-in-the-US-and-only-2-deaths-in-80-years">http://m.dailykos.com/story/2012/12/17/1171047/-There-are-240-000-fully-automatic-guns-in-the-US-and-only-2-deaths-in-80-years</a><br/></p>
</blockquote>
<p>This is it. This will be the first post I tag master post.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This is the greatest thing I’ve ever seen.</p></blockquote>
<p>I’m just surprised none of the anti-gunners screaming “OMG! In America guns are literally included in happy meals! Disgusting!”</p><p>But seriously good post.</p>](https://pics.me.me/thumb_asic-kosher-dill-spears-2924-8-924-1-<p><a-href-http-tactical-pants-tumblr-com-post-135832273318-runningrepublican-therevenantrising-33519876.png)
That Anonymous 'NYT' Op-Ed Spawned Some Darkly Amusing Memes
Twitter prepares for Thanksgiving with the return of #ThanksgivingClapback memes
69 Philly Cops Punished For Hateful Facebook Posts
Elon Musk pokes fun at himself while hosting PewDiePie's popular Meme Review
Kodak Black Is Dropping His Meme-Worthy Travis Scott Collab This Week
Moderate QUAKE wakens San Francisco, Twitter flooded with witness reports
We're All Worrying About The Wrong Thing And This New Meme Proves It
Folks Are Already Plotting On The Lies They're Going To Tell Their Kids And It's The Best ...
Stephen A. Smith joins in on the hilarious baby Stephen A. memes
Chrissy Teigen Proved Once Again She's The Queen Of Awards Show Memes
