This is inconvenient
Comments
-
As I recall, you started the comparison.
They aren't equivalent.
A 155 artillery round will kill your ass. But a hydrogen bomb will kill you way better. -
Just fucking quit while you're 5 TD's behind already.dflea said:As I recall, you started the comparison.
They aren't equivalent.
A 155 artillery round will kill your ass. But a hydrogen bomb will kill you way better. -
Shut up, faggot.salemcoog said:
Just fucking quit while you're 5 TD's behind already.dflea said:As I recall, you started the comparison.
They aren't equivalent.
A 155 artillery round will kill your ass. But a hydrogen bomb will kill you way better.
You don't know shit about guns or knives, so go fuck yourself.
Any time you want to meet up at 7-11, you bring your knife, I'll bring my gun, and you can roll the fucking dice.
There's a reason cops carry firearms instead of switchblades, you dumb fucking donkey.
If you just kept your hole shut, nobody would know you're a fucking retard. Why do you have to yell it from the rooftops and expose your idiocy?
-
It doesnt really matter if a knife can kill 58 people at once or if a knife can defend against a gun. Or is there something about 58 people dying at once in one location that is worse tha n 58 people dying in separate isolated incidents? Last I checked, a life is a life, and there is no solid proof that the overall amount of people who are murdered over time are decreased when guns arent available.
When we compare the US to other countries, we see that other countries already had a lower murder rate than the US before those countries banned guns, and that they were already trending toward that direction anyway. So there is nothing to conclude. -
Australia says to fuck off.Fenderbender123 said:It doesnt really matter if a knife can kill 58 people at once or if a knife can defend against a gun. Or is there something about 58 people dying at once in one location that is worse tha n 58 people dying in separate isolated incidents? Last I checked, a life is a life, and there is no solid proof that the overall amount of people who are murdered over time are decreased when guns arent available.
When we compare the US to other countries, we see that other countries already had a lower murder rate than the US before those countries banned guns, and that they were already trending toward that direction anyway. So there is nothing to conclude. -
"This one time..."
"This one country..."
"My gun could totally beat up your knife."
Is that the best you guys got? -
I'm waiting to see which of our constitutional rights strippers is going to saddle up to be on the gun takeaway squads and kick some doors In? I'm guessing 0 as they're all talk and no balls.
-
It's better than what you got.Fenderbender123 said:"This one time..."
"This one country..."
"My gun could totally beat up your knife."
Is that the best you guys got?
Take your knife to a gun range and whip it out and confront someone. How long before you're dead? I'm guessing 30 seconds, tops. And that's assuming everyone clowns you for bringing your knife to a gun fight before they air you out.
-
Bro, I've seen The Last Samurai.AZDuck said:
You might be being obtuse if you can't recognize that a gun is many, many times more deadly than a knife.Fenderbender123 said:
And I could point out shootings where people were shot and didn't die, and stabbings where people were stabbed and did die.AZDuck said:
Sure. The same day as Sandy Hook some lunatic attacked a primary school in China with a kniife. Stabbed 23 people, mostly elementary school kids. Zero fatalities.Fenderbender123 said:
But people do still obtain weapons and kill other people with them. They might replace guns with knives, but people still kill other people.AZDuck said:
that's kind of a dumb poont. also contradicted by evidence freely available in every other country on the planetFenderbender123 said:The point is that if the law isn't going to deter anyone who is planning on killing people from obtaining weapons, then we are only preventing good, law-abiding citizens from obtaining them.
Compare/contrast.
You know people fill a 2 litre bottle 50/50 with ammonia and bleach, shake it up and throw it onto a subway car and kill all kinds of people, but they don't.
You could fill a bottle full of BB's, diesel, and fertilizer and wipe out hordes of people, but they don't outside of the Middle East.
PVC pipe filled will BB's, black powder, and sawdust could demolish people just as well.
No one does this shit in the US for the most part outside of McVey who did what he did partly because of guns in a roundabout way.
Wal-Mart doesn't sell these WMD's because that would be a completely unnecessary risk to society. -
ANFO bombs have to be pretty big to get decent bang + overpressure and require potent accelerant like TNT.
Pipe bombs gonna pipe bomb, but black powder is lousy primary ingredient for explosive and blast wave dissipates really quickly.
Decent bombs aren't easy to make, unless the Iranians are shipping Semtex to you by the ton, or you have thousands of 155 rounds lying around unattended.
You're welcome BTW,I just got this whole bored followed by @NSA_Dawg
