this post was submitted on
933 points (52% like it)
10,304 up votes 9,371 down votes

funny

subscribe2,619,346 readers

11,013 users here now

Please take our newest poll about facebook posts

Reminder: Political posts are not permitted in /r/funny. Try /r/PoliticalHumor instead!

NEW! No gore or porn (including sexually graphic images). Other NSFW content must be tagged as such

Welcome to r/Funny:

You may only post if you are funny.

Please No:

  • posts with their sole purpose being to communicate with another redditor. Click for an Example.

  • Screenshots of reddit comment threads. Post a link with context to /r/bestof or /r/defaultgems if from a default subreddit instead.

  • Posts for the specific point of it being your reddit birthday.

  • Politics - This includes the 2012 Presidential candidates or bills in congress. Try /r/politicalhumor instead.

  • Rage comics - Go to /r/fffffffuuuuuuuuuuuu instead.

  • Memes - Go to /r/AdviceAnimals or /r/Memes instead.

  • Demotivational posters - Go to /r/Demotivational instead.

  • Pictures of just text - Make a self post instead.

  • DAE posts - Go to /r/doesanybodyelse

  • eCards - the poll result was 55.02% in favor of removal. Please submit eCards to /r/ecards

  • URL shorteners - No link shorteners (or HugeURL) in either post links or comments. They will be deleted regardless of intent.

Rehosted webcomics will be removed. Please submit a link to the original comic's site and preferably an imgur link in the comments. Do not post a link to the comic image, it must be linked to the page of the comic. (*) (*)

Need more? Check out:

Still need more? See Reddit's best / worst and offensive joke collections (warning: some of those jokes are offensive / nsfw!).


Please DO NOT post personal information. This includes anything hosted on Facebook's servers, as they can be traced to the original account holder.


If your submission appears to be banned, please don't just delete it as that makes the filter hate you! Instead please send us a message with a link to the post. We'll unban it and it should get better. Please allow 10 minutes for the post to appear before messaging moderators


The moderators of /r/funny reserve the right to moderate posts and comments at their discretion, with regard to their perception of the suitability of said posts and comments for this subreddit. Thank you for your understanding.


CSS - BritishEnglishPolice ©2011

a community for

reddit is a source for what's new and popular online. vote on links that you like or dislike and help decide what's popular, or submit your own! learn more ›

top 200 commentsshow 500

[–]withrecklessabandon 129 points130 points ago

Yeah man, fuck spoons. We should have better government regulation on those.

[–]misterwhite999 78 points79 points ago

We should ban high capacity spoons that can hold more than 10 grams of food. It's for the children.

[–]5kToSelfDestruction 14 points15 points ago

Anything more than 2 chopsticks and I wonder what someone is doing with all of that eating power.

[–]timmurphysblackwife 21 points22 points ago

Those spoons belong on the battlefield. They are assault spoons and should be highly regulated. Only those trained in their responsible use should have access.

[–]Deagle_Shitter 2 points3 points ago

All spoons with certain military-style features shouldn't belong in the hands of civilians.

[–]jjloees 49 points50 points ago

Maybe not spoons, but we should have a waiting period on purchasing forks. I think the laws concerning sporks should be a little less strict than forks, but I'm sure they will not be without much controversy.

[–]jimbolauski 26 points27 points ago

You're all making jokes but large cups are being outlawed. Don't say it too loud they may come for your spoons soon too.

[–]5kToSelfDestruction 5 points6 points ago

first they came for the Big Gulps and I said nothing.

[–]Oni_Tabris 3 points4 points ago

Well, I'm not sure if I agree or not, but there is a fair amount of science behind the reasoning. Portion sizes as presented do play a large role in how much people consume, as the famous bottomless sou-bowl experiment indicates: http://mindlesseating.org/lastsupper/pdf/bottomless_soup-OR_2005.pdf

[–]saynotoswag 5 points6 points ago

shut up meg

[–]Cyberogue 13 points14 points ago

Don't get me started on knives...

[–]Sy87 9 points10 points ago

What kind of liberal nut job are you! Knives have never hurt anyone!

Source: I'm a knife.

[–]Sporkinat0r 3 points4 points ago

Get your government out of my sporks

[–]somerandomguy255 6 points7 points ago

Any child can walk into a store and purchase ENTIRE SETS of utensils without being questioned or asked for ID. What is this nation coming to?

[–]ByJiminy 22 points23 points ago

Yeah, and forks, too! And plates! And sodas over a certain size! Wait.

[–]MRB0B0MB 5 points6 points ago

I don't see why you're being downvoted.

[–]Sy87 9 points10 points ago

Too soon. NYC just made a ban...

[–]MRB0B0MB 3 points4 points ago

Exactly.

[–]pitchblack2035 2 points3 points ago

Whooosh

[–]MrPhillipb 3 points4 points ago

Are you being sarcastic? I sense a hint of sarcasm in your tone. Do you know how easy it is to break a plate and then stab and murder someone with the shard of plate you just broke off?

[–]JuzPwn 1 point2 points ago

Careful what you say, in this country anything can happen - or be banned, even your free speech!

[–]jacobtaylor1987 34 points35 points ago

As someone who lives outside of America, your continued defence of a gun culture baffles me. But your commitment to the absolute principals of freedom are admirable.

[–]3klipse 16 points17 points ago

A lot of us love our guns, its a culture hard for outsiders to understand honestly.

[–]hearthfire 31 points32 points ago

Didn't a report just come out that over 97% of registered weapons are used appropriately and not for crimes? It's the ones purchased illegally for people who aren't supposed to have them in the first place that cause the problems. I don't believe banning anything or making their sale harder is going to solve anything. They're already on the streets... and it's not like you can make people turn in the weapons they purchased legally with their own money.

[–]3klipse 19 points20 points ago

You get it. A lot of people don't.

[–]SirRonSwanson 3 points4 points ago

Switzerland, Finland, Sweden, Norway, France, Canada, Germany, Uruguay, Cyprus, Austria as of 2007 are all countries that have at least 30 guns per 100 residents. United States is not the only country that has a gun culture, it just so happens we are number one.

[–]lurker_becomes_lurkd 44 points45 points ago

Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it more difficult for sober people to own cars.

[–]eyun 5 points6 points ago

Your example can also be extended to something like DRM. Criminals don't buy weapons legally (at least for the purpose of committing a crime). Only the truly idiotic people shoot people (without legal purpose) with their own guns. More prohibitive laws really just inconveniences those that purchase firearms through legal channels.

[–]lurker_becomes_lurkd 5 points6 points ago

Yep. DRM has no effect on people who pirate software (which has had all the DRM removed).

[–]mechasmartypants 40 points41 points ago

That's it. I've had enough. I'm unsubscribing from /r/funny. This subreddit's name is false advertising and I want my money back.

[–]jpark343 11 points12 points ago

This "joke" is funnier the fifth time, right?!

[–]DupaZupa 19 points20 points ago

Your $0 has been deposited back into your bank account.

You can now gtfo.

[–]weetduck 25 points26 points ago

Without guns how would I protect myself during the coming zombie apocalypse?

[–]Cyberogue 63 points64 points ago

With a spoon

[–]Wattisright 7 points8 points ago

True, but it might take a while: Youtube.

[–]Vivovix 2 points3 points ago

[–]Subrotow 4 points5 points ago

With a spoon

[–]Anal_Explorer 3 points4 points ago

[–]cockporn 2 points3 points ago

You make a spear. One of the most simple and practical weapons in history.

[–]MattTheMilkMan 16 points17 points ago

I would bet that the percentage of guns used in crimes is very minuscule vs. the amount of guns that are out there in the public. The problem with people with the logic of remove all firearms is, instead of helping the demented people that would use any weapon to commit a crime they just take the weapons away from everyone else. They refuse to acknowledge that the major problem is that we need raise our children in society right.

I'm a gun owner and my primary reason for ownership is that they are just fun to shoot. To me it's like golf, I played golf to socialize with friends but I'm terrible at golf but I can socialize with friends at the range but I can get more holes in ones.

If you have a problem with guns, do us all a favor and take a gun safety course and shoot a few rounds, after that you can talk about banning guns all you want. Chances are you will realize that they are not as scary as you think and will enjoy shooting again.

[–]tmaspoopdek 7 points8 points ago

Anyone who thinks we should completely ban guns is crazy, but so is anyone who things the current system works. Although shooting guns for sport is a perfectly legitimate reason to own them, it doesn't make them any less lethal. The solution to the problem isn't to ban guns, it's to do more extensive background checks before selling people weapons.

[–]orevilo 58 points59 points ago

[–]number420pencil 39 points40 points ago

Repost complainers are FAR worse than reposters. It's like you are literally saying that you have seen all the content that has ever existed and that only something brand new is worthy of your time.

Guess what? It takes far less time to downvote and move on than to comment about how you saw this picture in the past.

I also feel the need to comment that anyone who complains about reposting is either unemployed, or someone who can afford to sit on their ass and browse the internet all day. Us working folks, who don't have the time browse the internet every waking moment of the day, appreciate the sharing of content that we weren't able to view when it was first posted.

[–]dubyat 18 points19 points ago

yeah and most new content gets 3 upvotes and vanishes into oblivion in 20 minutes..

*EDIT

[–]terriblehuman 0 points1 point ago

in some cases I would agree with you, but this is something that has been on the front page several times. OP knew what he was doing.

[–]W357Y 42 points43 points ago

False equivalency as one does not use a spoon to make other people fat, as one uses a gun to shoot other people.

[–]notjasonlee 29 points30 points ago

next thing you're going to tell me is that this image is years old and has been reposted hundreds of times. sheesh.

[–]A_Public_Terminal 15 points16 points ago

You ever fed a baby?

[–]KeatingOrRoark 8 points9 points ago

But you could also shoot yourself with a gun, as you could actually feed other people with a spoon.

[–]cpenoh 1 point2 points ago

I think they were going for more of a "spoons are to fat people as guns are to murderers."

[–]mottese 9 points10 points ago

You're missing the point. The point is that it's not the fault of the person who sells it. Rather, it is the fault of the person who used it.

[–]PurpleSfinx 2 points3 points ago

So what? That means we just sell anything?

Okay let's just sell nuclear bombs because it's not the fault of the seller. /s

[–]CommanderCooper 3 points4 points ago

But nukes are so expeeeeensiiiive...

[–]tophat02 2 points3 points ago

As a liberal who grew up in Texas and lived there until recently, I've never understood why banning gun ownership is a "liberal" belief.

Even the most liberal atheists where I lived liked to shoot and many of them owned weapons as a hobby.

I'm absolutely pro gun regulation and though I'm on the fence regarding banning assault weapons, I can see the argument.

I just don't get the idea that we should ban all gun ownership... I honestly thought it was a conservative caricature of liberals until fairly recently.

What am I missing here? I like to take the rational approach to forming opinions and, I've gotta be honest, the "no guns ever" arguments just aren't swaying me. That's not to say I couldn't be persuaded, but I've grown up around guns and gun owners and, to a T, they seemed well educated and extremely responsible about the subject.

[–]Zerv14 2 points3 points ago

Just curious, what is your definition of an assault weapon?

Do you follow the expired federal definition, that defines it as a semi-automatic rifle that can accept a detachable magazine and that also has at least 2 banned features such as a pistol grip or threaded barrel? Or do you follow some other definition?

[–]mamahamster 42 points43 points ago

Yeah they banned drugs, no body can buy drugs. Wake up people if they take guns away people will still have them, bad people. And the good gun owners won't be able to protect their families.

[–]Spaizer1 13 points14 points ago

I make this point a lot. Banning guns doesn't stop crime, those individuals who want guns to commit crimes with them will still manage to get them regardless. If you ban marijuana, but I still want to smoke it I will get it regardless. I know they are not equivalent, but the principle is similar. Its a choice of what to do and what to do it with. Just something to think about.

[–]banzai33 2 points3 points ago

It's not as simple as that at all. I live in the UK and guns are not even "banned" here, they just have extremely strict licensing laws. It's perfectly legal to own some types of gun. Despite this, I have absolutely no idea where I could get a gun or how much it would cost me. I have never so much as held one or known someone else who owns one.

Contrast that with marijuana usage, which is completely illegal to use in every case without exception. I know exactly how to get it and use it.

Edit: And the idea that only "bad people" will have guns while "good people" will give them up is absurd. People who keep their guns for defence are those who find the law to be unjust and think they can get away with it. See marijuana again. Or speeding, or littering, or whatever. Someone who plans a crime often decides there are more practical ways to do so than break the law before you've even started by trying to get hold of an illegal firearm. It's an absurd argument.

[–]Cheesewire 1 point2 points ago

The principle isn't similar. You can have a look at the statistics for countries like the UK or Germany to see that gun control has had a positive effect on lowering gun crime, simply because it's more difficult to get a gun.

[–]darkotter 8 points9 points ago

While this seems fairly logical, it is worth considering that in many countries where owning firearms is illegal or much more tightly controlled (for example, in the UK), the incidence of crimes involving guns is generally much lower.

Now, it is true that it would still be possible to get guns. But I think it is perhaps more complicated than simply a case of: people could still get guns, therefore it makes no difference. Whether it would make a difference in the US is uncertain.

[–]skeletor100 3 points4 points ago

Where is the black market in guns in Europe? If what you are saying was remotely true there would be an epidemic of shootings in European countries because the criminals would apparently still be getting easy access to them. Instead any time there is a shooting in a country it becomes national news because it is rare.

And where exactly do you think the black market in the US would be supplied from? Canada? Strict gun laws and no gun problems. Mexico? The Mexicans are supplied by guns from the US with upto 2000 guns being trafficked from the US to Mexico on a daily basis. So it really does beg the question where would these black market guns be coming from?

[–]Mr_Walter_Sobchak 17 points18 points ago

Great Britain and Germany have 30 times less gun violence than the US and I would correlate it to their gun laws and how strict they are.

[–]constipated_HELP 39 points40 points ago

Switzerland has less violence than either country, and they are number 4 in gun ownership.


Edit:

Intentional Homicides per year per 100k citizens:

Switzerland - 0.7

Germany - 0.8

Great Britain - 1.2

US - 4.2

Guns per 100 residents:

Switzerland - 45.7

Germany - 30.3

Great Britain - 6.2

US - 88.8


What have we learned here?

Gun ownership and homicide are not directly correlated.

[–]shaggydogg 0 points1 point ago

Really we've learned from your stats that every country but the US can handle the responsibility of not killing their compatriots when given access to guns.

[–]constipated_HELP 2 points3 points ago

Yup.

I think rather than freak out about guns, we should look at the inner city poverty that causes these horrific crimes.

[–]Psada 26 points27 points ago

While I do agree with you I think it is also important to correlate it with their culture.

[–]Givants 15 points16 points ago

What? Do you mean how they are more civilized and they don't go about shooting people?

[–]hydrogenous 15 points16 points ago

Yep. It's a much more homogenous society, too. You also have to consider population density and overall population. It's not that simple...

Then there are also places like Vermont, which have very high levels of gun ownership yet very low levels of gun crime.

[–]treedick2011 8 points9 points ago

Actually after the hand gun ban in England, gun crime rose 89 % in the 10 years after.

Also, if you look up diversity vs murder rates, it correlates almost exactly and proportionally. Europe is at minimum 80% white. With some places being upwards 90 %. The U.S. is 75 %. Other areas with horrible gun crimes number 1/3 is the largest race.

[–]Sacoud 0 points1 point ago

There was an incident in my city in the UK yesterday. A man in a van went on a rampage running over 11 adults and children , getting out of his van using a crowbar to assault people resulting in 1 death. Imagine what it would have been like if he had easy access to a gun.

[–]treedick2011 5 points6 points ago

Actually after the hand gun ban in England, gun crime rose 89 % in the 10 years after.

[–]aznscourge 4 points5 points ago

China has almost 4 times less per capita homicides than the US, and both their citizenry and local police forces are banned from having guns.

[–]Anal_Explorer 3 points4 points ago

China is also ruled an authoritarian regime. It guarantees no rights at all to it's citizens, arrests anyone who speaks out against the state, has people starving to death every day, and still has labor camps.

The people here are scared of their government. That's the difference.

[–]ColoradoAmendment64 4 points5 points ago

Norway has a lot of guns. Switzerland has a lot of guns. Yet Norway and Switzerland have far lower violent crime rates than the UK.

[–]ikillbambis 7 points8 points ago

Now, look up their knife statistics.

[–]scwt 4 points5 points ago

Besides, you're far more likely to die from a gunshot wound than a knife wound. It wouldn't really matter if guns were banned and knife attacks surged, fewer people would still be dying.

[–]Cheesewire 11 points12 points ago

Overall homicide rate is more relevant.

[–]opeth10657 17 points18 points ago

Except gun owners using their guns to actually protect their family is very rare.

Edit: Study about how guns kept in homes are more likely to used in "accidental shootings, criminal assaults, or suicide attempts than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense"

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9715182

[–]ChemicalOle 18 points19 points ago

Pshh. You and your crazy empirical evidence.

[–]TheMaskedHamster 3 points4 points ago

Empirical evidence can be crap if methods are poor.

For example, the rates of incidents in which a gun is used in self-defense is actually much higher than this study would show, since not every such case results in injury or death. Studies which try to collect data on that sort of incident tend to find two things: a) It happens a lot and b) it's nigh-impossible to measure since it isn't reported as injuries and deaths are.

[–]ChemicalOle 9 points10 points ago

Using the same logic, it should follow that incidents where a gun is accidentally discharged, but no one is injured or killed, are also greatly under-reported. I would conjecture that the number of such unreported accidents is much greater than the number of unreported instances of a gun being used in self-defense.

edit: grammar

[–]PostalPenguin 3 points4 points ago

So you don't have car insurance, health insurance or homeowners insurance right? Those companies exist SOLELY because you end up paying them more than statistics EVER predict you'll get in claims. You are more likely to pay your car insurance company FAR more money than you will ever get in car accident claims, yet people are still required by law to have it. You will pay far more into homeowners insurance than you will likely ever get from the insurance company yet you are stupid if you don't have a policy. Guns are no different than insurance, its a balance of risk(mitigated by following proper fucking handling/storage) and reward(not putting your life in the hands of a person who just broke into your home).

Thanks, but I have renters insurance and a loaded gun next to my bed so I'm prepared if the unthinkable happens.

[–]I_HATE_US_POLITICS 4 points5 points ago

So is gun control actually decreasing violent crime rates.

[–]Ztiller 5 points6 points ago

Wake up people

Got i hate that phrase so fucking much...

[–]MrMooga 13 points14 points ago

Guns don't kill people, they amplify stupidity

[–]DrHankPym 8 points9 points ago

So they do kill people?

[–]Quazz 152 points153 points ago

False equivalency.

A spoon is designed for a myriad of food, both healthy and unhealthy, big quantities, small quantities. A gun, on the other hand, is designed for a singular purpose: to kill. Spoons are not designed to make people fat. Guns are designed to kill.

[–]TheMaskedHamster 28 points29 points ago

Knives are designed for a singular purpose: To cut. But we distinguish between cutting for a legitimate purpose (food) and cutting for an malicious purpose (other people).

Likewise, guns are designed for a singular purpose: To incapacitate targets (and the way it happens is likely to kill). We distinguish between incapacitating for a legitimate purpose (food and self-defense) and an illegitimate purpose (murder, crime).

[–]dimview 4 points5 points ago

Is killing always illegal?

[–]hooj 18 points19 points ago

A gun, on the other hand, is designed for a singular purpose: to kill.

This is simply incorrect. If you're going to argue using logic, you can't just throw out incorrect premises and not expect to get called out on it.

[–]Tempesttt 9 points10 points ago

Not really. The majority of firearms are not designed to be weapons and are often repurposed into weapons by those with malicious intent.

Whether you like it or not, saying a gun is responsible for a murder, robbery, etc., is no more valid than saying a spoon made you fat, or that your keyboard made typos. It's the basic principle of blaming an inanimate object for the behavior of an individual.

[–]willworkforicecream 67 points68 points ago

Many guns are made for sport, not killing.

[–]constipated_HELP 51 points52 points ago

In an anti-gun control argument, this isn't very relevant.

Guns aren't legal in the US because of sport, or hunting. They're legal here because the founding fathers wanted the citizens to be armed. Our guns protect our democracy. They are made for killing, but that should not be taken as an argument against them.

I'm not even saying this in theory. Guns have protected democracy, and recently. Look up the Battle of Athens.

“No man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against the tyranny in government.”

  • Thomas Jefferson

[–]Animal_Mother27 17 points18 points ago

Thank you, the secound amendment has nothing to do with hunting or sporting. Its about protecting the citizens from the Government.

[–]pissoutofmyass 4 points5 points ago

Doesn't it defeat the purpose if there are laws restricting the ownership of firearms among felons? Wouldn't treason be considered such a serious crime that the federal government would simply prevent those people who wish to resist from owning firearms on account of the fact that they are thus criminals?

[–]constipated_HELP 14 points15 points ago

Yes, I think there are quite a few gun laws that violate the intent of the second amendment.

As a leftist, I wish this position wasn't the one of the only things the right got correct and I wish they weren't the only ones championing it.

[–]wizbam 3 points4 points ago

I am left-aligned and work with a lot of right wingers in rural WV. Anytime we start having political arguments I just start talking about guns and then we all sort of meet in the middle.

[–]john_madden_advice 3 points4 points ago

Yup. People never saw where it says "shall not be infringed." That part is now ignored.

[–]Annarr 3 points4 points ago

Spoons are made for killing too.

It's a lot worse than being shot.

[–]Quazz 20 points21 points ago

Some spoons are designed for magic tricks, but that's really just besides the point.

[–]FrugalNinja 23 points24 points ago

Just keep movin' that goalpost.

[–]Ezili 4 points5 points ago

Don't even get me started on goalposts!

Those are made for sport too, and clearly need the same level of legal control as guns because they are the same.

[–]islesrule224 4 points5 points ago

Yeah I can't tell you how many times I though a little kid was a skeet and almost shot them

[–]bo87 3 points4 points ago

Many =/= Majority.

[–]BuckNekkid 6 points7 points ago

You've missed the mark. Guns are a part of a sub-set of the larger issue at hand. Banning guns would only stop the killing of people via use of guns. If you ban killing people all together, then not only will there never be any gun-based murders, but you won't have bow-and-arrow murders, knife-based murder, blunt-object murder, poisonings, you name it, the killing of someone with it won't ever happen because killing people will be banned. Why people focus on banning guns instead of banning killing is beyond me. Ban killing, you'll never have another murder, period.

[–]EurekaOregon 16 points17 points ago

Guns are used for sport, for hunting, and for self defense.

To suggest that guns are simply for murder is ridiculous

[–]Quazz 19 points20 points ago

People here seem to be unable to understand the difference between design and usage.

[–]Zazzerpan 3 points4 points ago

Depends on the gun. There are many meant solely for target shooting.

[–]FoolishLlama 3 points4 points ago

I use my guns for sport and social competition. Its also interesting mechanically when you learn to break them down to clean and maintain.

[–]SilentTheTyrant 155 points156 points ago

Not really, the spoon helps you eat. Without the spoon you can still eat, but not very well. A gun helps you commit a crime. Without a gun you can still commit a crime, but not as easy. It is the same, the only difference is what it helps you do.

[edit]

It is always great when you reply to someone and they change their post. Guns are not necessarily designed to kill. They are designed to be offensive and defensive weapons. Not all guns have to kill, killing is the decision of the handler of the gun. A gun owner, when attacked can choose to not kill his attacker, but instead shoot him in the knee or shoulder or somewhere that wont kill them. Some guns are designed for the ability to kill but the purpose is for protection. Some guns are designed for the sole purpose of killing, an RPG or a 50 cal is not really meant to be able to shoot someone in the knee with to stop them. That is why these guns are primarily used in the military. A 50 cal is legal in the united states to own. RPG's are not legal to own. So like a spoon, you can choose to eat healthy or unhealthy with it. With a gun you can choose to kill or not to kill. Like spoons, guns come in a variety of shapes and sizes for different uses. I could say much more on the topic of guns but I don't wan't to give birth to a wall of text. [end of edit]

[–]teknoire7 12 points13 points ago

What if you commit a crime with a spoon? Boom.

[–]greenfan033 4 points5 points ago

But you see, as far as we can determine the spoon does not have a conciousness. The seller knowingly decides to continue to sell guns. The spoon has no choice, it is inanimate and is manipulated by the person holding it. In this scenario the spoon = gun, spoon manufacturer = gun seller.

So the guy should have said spoon manufacturers made me fat.

[–]daxattacks 4 points5 points ago

I don't even own a spoon, true story.

[–]BRBbear 5 points6 points ago

are you Asian?

[–]stoppedcaring0 15 points16 points ago

Ehh. A gun is a MUCH better crime-aiding device than any alternative. Robbing a convenience store or mugging someone with a knife is possible, but a gun is more deadly, is easier to intimidate someone with with less skill necessary, and introduces the concept of inflicting injury from a distance instead of only being able to injure from an arm's-length away. (Also try killing dozens of people in a movie theater without a gun.) A spoon, meanwhile, is merely one easily-interchanged way of ingesting food, no more effective at calorie delivery than any other way.

That guy (and you) are trying to make the point that guns are just little popstick tools that don't make bad men capable of any more badness than they'd be without one, and help good brave strong American men keep the bad men away.

But I doubt you'd rather your life be threatened with a gun than a knife.

Edit: Woo, riding the hot-button issue karma coaster! Let's see how many downvotes you got, /r/guns!

[–]FishBonePendant 1 point2 points ago

Have you tried eating ice-cream with a tampon? What I'm is that the arguments are perfectly equivalent.

[–]giraffricanamerican 78 points79 points ago

I could drive a car into a crowd of people and kill the fuck out of everyone, but I don't.

Liberals: "You are as likely to get struck by lightning as you are to get targeted in a terrorist attack, end profiling and safety countermeasures!"

"Even though you are as likely to get struck by lightning as you are to get targeted in a mass homicide, we should impose on responsible hunters and sportsmen by banning guns!"

[–]farmthis 10 points11 points ago

Hey now, I'm liberal and a staunch supporter of gun rights. I'm also a realist when it comes to odds of death. Bees are bigger killers than terrorists.

Falling down stairs is a bigger killer than guns.

I've found that urban underexposure to guns leads to fear. Conservative or liberal. The fact that urban centers are typically more liberal is what makes it seem like all liberals fear guns, but that's not the case.

[–]stoppedcaring0 65 points66 points ago

That's another false equivalency. Cars were invented, and have been continuously optimized ever since their invention, to be transport devices; every change on the road between a Model T and a Testarossa has been to make a user better able to transport himself from point A to B, and driving one into a crowd of people is a gross misuse of its design purpose.

Guns, meanwhile, were invented for the sole purpose of fucking shit up, and have been optimized ever since to more effectively fuck shit up. Every difference between a 1600s flintlock and an AK-47 has been done to make the user more effective at putting as many holes in a target as possible, from a distance. Guns were invented with the exclusive intention to damage, have always been built with the intent of maximizing damaging capabilities, and to claim there are any non-disintegrative uses for a gun is to be wrong.

[–]kathysreddit 37 points38 points ago

to claim there are any non-disintegrative uses for a gun is to be wrong.

Target shooting, while destructive (to targets) has no inherent malice in it. We get enjoyment, in exchange for consumption - much the same way that eating ice cream consumes the ice cream.

Guns were invented with the exclusive intention to damage, have always been built with the intent of maximizing damaging capabilities

Many, many guns aren't designed with that intent at all. Match-grade ammunition and competition parts often make for guns that are much, much less effective at killing and damaging things. Shooting things at 1200 yards takes a fair amount of skill.

I don't hunt, and probably never will. When I go to the range with my .22 rifle, I'm using a firearm that's largely ineffective at killing humans. I use it because it's great at putting holes in paper, and ammunition is extremely cheap. To claim that my rifle is designed for "maximizing damaging capabilities" is ridiculous.

[–]paintin_closets 0 points1 point ago

And if we're talking about regulating .22 rifles and match-grade ammunition, I'd agree. How about all handguns of higher than .22 calibre? How about we regulate those?

[–]ThatVanGuy 0 points1 point ago

Well, the movies have taught me that you can shoot smiley faces on target sheets. That's creating art, right?

[–]avengre 18 points19 points ago

There isn't much confusion about the purpose of guns.

However, you are also ignoring the prospects of entertainment, not just the unhinging the reins of slaughter.

Plus, lets all be frank with why it is an amendment to the constitution... the previous 'government' was over thrown by civilian firearm ownership... they wanted that basic check and balance still in place in our populace.

[–]qakgob 23 points24 points ago

Do you really think an unorganised group of civilian gun-owners could over-through the US government today?

[–]TBray96 23 points24 points ago

England at the time was considered the "powerhouse" of the world, just like America is today, yet it was still overthrown. If a large amount of American citizens today decided to rebel, it would be chaos. There are 1,430,895 standing US armed forces as of September 2010, some of those are overseas fighting another war. However, as of october 1 this year there are 314,611,000 US citizens, it would take only a portion of these to completely fuck up the government given our current status in wars, and global economy. This also doesn't take into account other countries that will join the citizens to see the overtake of the government.

Do I wish this to happen, no. Is it possible, yes. But, it is highly unlikely.

[–]qakgob 7 points8 points ago

Pretty sure the weapons available in that time were very different. The weapons the US government has access to now are vastly superior to those that any citizen will have, and can be operated from a distance. If the government was bad enough to cause a rebellion, I'm pretty sure they'd be happy to use some of these on the citizens.

Look how much trouble the people of Libia have had overthrowing their government. Think about how much better equipped the US government probably is.

[–]redditmeastory 14 points15 points ago

They need people to man those guns. If they started killing civilians they might just end up with a military coup.

[–]GoNavy_09 2 points3 points ago

If there was a revolt of the people however many in the military would join in or would coup rather than fight civilians. The military would almost completely split and the side the supports the uprising would use that technology against the government.

[–]ThatVanGuy 2 points3 points ago

Let's not forget that the soldiers are citizens too, as are their families. I'm sure they'd be hesitant to fight their own people just because of orders.

[–]faaaks 5 points6 points ago

Still banning them will only take away legitimate pursuits. Criminals buy guns illegally, the laws don't effect them. Self-defense is an important aspect to weapons, I would feel safer if I had a shotgun nearby if I was going to get robbed(or worse). In addition if the entire planet knew I had a gun, no sane person would try to attack me, it serves as a deterrent.

[–]Ambix 36 points37 points ago

Seems to have done pretty well for the Afghanis, after all we've been mired there for little over a decade and quite nearly bankrupted by it.

[–]well_golly 22 points23 points ago

And Vietnam, for the most part. Also, Afghanistan vs. the Soviets.

[–]songkran 17 points18 points ago

Uh, to be fair, we were supplying the Afghan rebels with stinger missiles to take out Soviet choppers in a proxy war.

[–]farmthis 18 points19 points ago

Yes. There are 270 million civilian guns in this nation. 9 for every 10 citizens.

What is the size of our army? Our reserves? A small fraction.

Honestly, it doesn't matter. You can't control a population where everyone has guns. Even Iraq and Afghanistan had a VASTLY smaller ratio of guns:citizens.

It's not a "group" of citizens that would seek to overthrow the government. A group would get put down, you are right. And rightly so. A minority has no right to rise to power through force.

Our democracy requires a majority to desire an overthrow. And if 150 million people wished it so, it would be so.

[–]TheDragonzord 0 points1 point ago

Do you really think the US army, made up of US citizens, would engage their own brothers, fathers, sisters and mothers in gun battle in order to protect a corrupt government?

There are 350,000,000 guns in the country. There will never be a violent, bloody revolution in this country.

[–]Hot-Tea 5 points6 points ago

You really think America could be overthrown with its populace armed with rifles? That's ridiculous.

[–]tdubss 13 points14 points ago

Yes. Military tacticians tend to say yes, it is doable. And this is assuming that there wouldn't be units of the military defecting in some revolutionary-type situation (although there undoubtedly would be). Imagine Vietnam style warfare a hundred fold. Sources: Numerous Assault textbooks and the mouths of some of my Marine Corps officer, war-theory and Amphibious Assault Tactics instructors in undergrad.

[–]sdhall01 20 points21 points ago

Yes. Yes I do. Because I don't think the military comprised of volunteers would fight the populace armed with rifles.

[–]ambiguousallegiance 2 points3 points ago

More importantly, even if the army was still intact, it could never take back control of the country in that situation. The best the government could hope for is that the citizens are dumb enough to attack them on their terms. Good thing we're too fat and lazy for that to happen.

[–]farmthis 7 points8 points ago

There is no difference between a 30.06 hunting rifle and a "sniper" rifle.

[–]invisiblehackysack 11 points12 points ago

God. Don't tell them that.

[–]farmthis 5 points6 points ago

oh, crap...

[–]AzMoo 1 point2 points ago

we should impose on responsible hunters and sportsmen by banning guns!

Proper gun control regulations don't take guns away from hunters and sportsmen. Those type of guns and gun owners are not the problem.

[–]90cdragon 0 points1 point ago

You don't hunt with an AK-47 or any other fully automatic rifles. That is a nonsensical argument.

[–]Vissiction 5 points6 points ago

"Fun as balls" is still a valid sporting purpose, though.

[–]Ioncannon 4 points5 points ago

WTF are you talking about? Do you know how many people own fully auto firearms? It's like 200k across the US. Along with that, they cost at minimum $15k, and required NFA finger printing, background checks, etc.

[–]ikillbambis 2 points3 points ago

I hunt with an AK47. 5 rd mag and soft point ammo!

[–]therealflinchy 4 points5 points ago

Knife weilding people tend to be crazier than gun wielding people

[–]JanglinCharles 0 points1 point ago

Actually equating the two items is a logical fallacy and has no relevance on the original argument that the man on the left is posing. It is called a Red Herring or irrelevant reason fallacy, it is meant to drag your logical deductions away from the main conclusion of an argument. Such as when you argue for gun control and someone poses a counter argument stating that cars kill more people than guns, we should therefore ban cars. They are two separate arguments and have no relevance at all.

[–]mojorisin2592 9 points10 points ago

People need to eat. Therefore there is a demand for spoons. People need to defend themselves. Therefore there is a demand for guns. Both are tools that help people do what they would do no matter what.

[–]lurker_becomes_lurkd 5 points6 points ago

The possession of a gun doesn't make someone a criminal or mean they are more likely to commit a crime. It's simply a tool. When people blame guns for violent crimes they ignore the people who actually committed the crime. It's rather idiotic.

[–]Maikudono 3 points4 points ago

Or protect, however you may see it.

[–]this-username 2 points3 points ago

The sign doesn't say guns are accomplices of killing, it says they're accomplices of crime. Guns were not designed for crime.

[–]cheemo 3 points4 points ago

I thought it read "spooks" made me fat

[–]SuperBlarg 13 points14 points ago

The spoon wielder makes THEMSELVES fat with a spoon. A gun wielder kills OTHER PEOPLE with a gun. If I could easily make someone fat by throwing a spoon at them then his argument would be valid.

[–]codefeenix 8 points9 points ago

Exactly, its the person not the item.

[–]Armagetiton -2 points-1 points ago

Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Having a gun is just one way to kill someone.

Spoons don't make you fat, you make yourself fat. Using a spoon is just one way to make yourself fat.

Now don't you feel dumb?

[–]alwayschoosepeace 3 points4 points ago

Trying to tell Americans the easiest way for handgun crime rates to go down is to get rid of handguns is like telling a westboro baptist member about evolution

[–]JustinTime112 13 points14 points ago

Americans care more about having an armed populace than handgun crime rates.

I am not saying I agree, just saying that you have to address the whole underlying philosophy of "rights" and the "advantages of an armed populace", you won't change minds with crime statistics really.

[–]Levoamphetamine 10 points11 points ago

That sounds like an oversimplification. You can't uninvent guns to make them disappear but you can make them illegal. This will put guns almost exclusively in the black market just like drugs. Now isn't it still easy to get illegal drugs?

[–]JustinTime112 0 points1 point ago

Ironically another oversimplification. Manufacturing semi-automatic and automatic guns requires a factory and a modest sized workforce. Manufacturing drugs requires a basement and some know how.

That is why it is far easier to get some heroin in Britain than it is to get a machine gun.

[–]Lord_of_Womba 2 points3 points ago

Along that note, I'd say seeing as how a person using a gun to commit a crime is already breaking the law they either a. acquired that gun illegally or b. would have acquired it illegally if they couldn't get the gun legally. When it comes to gun laws you're only stopping/making it harder for law abiding citizens(who need/could use them for self defence), not criminals (which are the one's you're trying to prevent in the first place).

[–]Levoamphetamine 2 points3 points ago

Makes perfect sense. I would go further to say that criminals who obtained weapons illegally would be more confident in committing crimes if they knew non-criminals had a hard time acquiring weapons.

[–]sigzvp 11 points12 points ago

It really is that simple. While they're at it, the Americans should also tackle arson by getting rid of matches and reckless driving by getting rid of automobiles.

EDIT The purpose of comparing two things is not to claim they are equal, but to call attention to important parallels. I aimed to demonstrate through analogy that the inevitable misuse of something, be it cars, matches, or guns, is not a viable reason to eliminate the thing being misused.

[–]free_to_try 0 points1 point ago

I never understand the logic of this argument. Matches and Automobiles are designed for other useful and productive purposes. Guns are specifically designed to kill.

Would you rather have someone drive you to the mall or shoot you?

[–]sigzvp 2 points3 points ago

Yes, handguns are designed to kill. Killing is not misuse of a handgun. Murder is misuse of a handgun. Some people will misuse handguns to murder. The illegal choices of others should not be used to deprive law-abiding people a quick, effective way to defend themselves and their families against those illegal choices.

[–]yellowstone10 2 points3 points ago

Killing can also be a useful and productive purpose.

[–]treedick2011 2 points3 points ago

Its in the way we are raised. We are taught not to rely or trust in someone else to save you. A hand gun has kept me safe on more than one occasion.

People like to try and equate the statistics of gun controlled countries to the U.S. Let us look at this like a game. The legal definition of when a game can be considered gambling is when no matter the amount of skill applied, the outcome can't be changed significantly. Thus you are at the mercy of whatever forces are at work.

This is why Americans like guns, because you can affect the outcome of a scenario through the application of skill. It reduces all physical advantages down to hand eye coordination. (this is a simplified example of course).

However, in gun controlled countries, the government is gambling with your life. Seeing as how the vast majority of the populace couldn't affect the outcome of an armed robber. Barring being exceptionally skilled in martial arts. Even then if they have a gun, it is moot.

So you can see, yes we will take a relatively slightly larger murder rate so we can have the chance to defend our lives, instead of gambling with them.

[–]RONPAUL1776 2 points3 points ago

There is no way to "get rid of handguns". Even if handguns were totally banned people would simply make them in their garage, not to mention the millions of legal and illegal weapons that are already on the street. Guns are metal and plastic, they don't come from some NRA wizard.

[–]warringah08 2 points3 points ago

If you're going to make an analogy it has to equate to the same principal. People who get fat have no one to blame but themselves, as opposed to a person who gets shot. I'm not commenting on gun control but this sign is stupid and doesn't make sense in this situation.

[–]DollarsThanSense 1 point2 points ago

The thing is, you can't usually or easily force someone else to get fat against their will with your spoon. Regardless of the validity of any criticism against the sale of guns to the public, the comparison isn't really all that fair. I'm sure there are fair rebuttals that would be equally funny, I don't know why he didn't use one of them instead.

[–]therealdohr 0 points1 point ago

I think this may be in West Allis, WI - The Shooters Shop. Actually a nice range

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=west+allis+gun+range&aq=1&sugexp=chrome,mod%3D0&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=en&sa=N&tab=wl

[–]ALSO_ATHEISM 1 point2 points ago

Once again, we here we find a thread where Europeans go crazy and complain about peoples rights in another country.

I'll sum this whole thread up right now: Europe > USA. There, saved you 20 minutes.

[–]arcadeego -4 points-3 points ago

The purpose of the spoon isn't to make you fat. The purpose of the spoon is to help you eat. It is an abuse of the purpose of the spoon if the user gets fat.

The purpose of the gun is to hurt someone. That is the only purpose of the gun. It is the correct use of the gun if someone gets hurt.

This is how I see it, but I am a Brit so am very much inclined to think that any argument that says guns are good is crazy. I recognise that this is a cultural thing and that in the US there are many sane people who see gun control as some sort of impedement of their freedom. I'm not trying to start a debate with this comment. I am just pointing out how I see the fallacy in the spoon/gun argument.

[–]45-70 16 points17 points ago

Many people (myself included) would say that hurting people is not the only purpose of a gun. There is also target shooting, hunting, skeet/trap shooting etc. This does not include the either the collection, investment, and yes even hurting people aspects of personal gun ownership.

[–]stoppedcaring0 5 points6 points ago

To make the argument broader, then, the only purpose of a gun is to damage things at a distance more effectively than a person could possibly do on his own. You may not be killing people every time you fire a bullet, but it's still a tool created for the explicit purpose of remote disintegration. It's like saying dynamite should be sold on the open market because not every possible use of dynamite involves blowing people up -- you can blow up landslide debris, old houses you want to rebuild, lots of things that aren't people!

[–]KKV 3 points4 points ago

Ok, lets just dismiss everything else and say guns are for hurting things. Yes, they are, and hurting people is sometimes perfectly legal.

[–]Crossfox17 0 points1 point ago

So someone posted this again, and I'm guessing we are going to have the "guns aren't bad vs guns kill ppl" argument. Well let me just make this simple. When humans attack other humans they use weapons, be it their fists, a club, a knife, or a gun. Guns are easily the most efficient tool for harming other human beings because of their effectiveness coupled with their availability. Bombs are certainly capable of killing more people, but they aren't as available, and so they pose less of a threat. So, guns are an efficient and widely available tool for grievously harming other human beings. They have other uses, but those uses aren't necessary. They are hobbies, and a hobby is hardly a sufficient reason to keep around tools which are also used to harm other human beings in the most effective way possible.

Should such efficient weapons be available to the public when owning one is not at all necessary to lead a successful life? I don't think so.

[–]Broduski 5 points6 points ago

So basically we should ban all things not necessary to life? Hell, far more people die by relation to alcohol, cigarettes, unhealthy food than by guns, and they're not necessary at all. And, on the subject of gun control, let's look at how well prohibition worked.

[–]hitlerwasright 2 points3 points ago

If you give guns to 15% of people, crime will go up.

If you give guns to 95% of people, crime nearly disapears

[–]coldside 0 points1 point ago

Prisoner's dilemma. Eventually everyone is worse off because everyone is forced to buy guns out of fear.

[–]Cheesewire 0 points1 point ago

Look at other countries statistics before you say that. The less guns there are, the less homicides there are.

[–]khanfusion 0 points1 point ago

Hey, a spoon can do 9999 damage. I saw it once in a video game.

[–]Ihavetheinternets 0 points1 point ago

Spoons are actually more dangerous than guns. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VDvgL58h_Y

[–]MoreDonuts 0 points1 point ago

This reminds me of Korra. Obviously the best way to stop crime is to get rid of bending, right?

[–]JoeMojo 0 points1 point ago

laughed out loud

[–]RadiantDark 0 points1 point ago

Cars make me drive fast!

[–]Bortology 0 points1 point ago

Looking at the comments, I think you should identify your self as American or non-American.

It would be interesting to see the difference.

[–]Purgatory_Dog 1 point2 points ago

SPORK SPORK SPORK!

[–]schaft0620 0 points1 point ago

This made me chuckle 5 years ago

[–]Sabz5150 1 point2 points ago

Guns make people kill. Spoons make people fat.

Video games make people violent.

[–]FoolishLlama 1 point2 points ago

I laughed. I can't up vote this one enough.

[–]bhermit 0 points1 point ago

It's so sad to see a person trying to hand our rights away.

[–]Kinomi 0 points1 point ago

Ban reposters

[–]BreadFriendForever 0 points1 point ago

Fuck this. I've seen this too many fucking times.

[–]severalthings 0 points1 point ago

The equivalent of a gun in the eating world would be a machine that infused a constant supply of milkshake into your mouth 20 hours a day -- basically overkill for any "nutritional" needs.