7
8

Buzzfeed: 31 Year-Old Handgun Violence Ad Still Relevant Today (i.imgur.com)

submitted ago by one50bpm

all 29 comments
sorted by:
best
best
top
new
hot
controversial
old

[–]FreedoomR 1 point2 points ago

Majority was probably suicide.

[–]davesidious 0 points1 point ago

So that's just fine then! Don't worry! Just 10,732 people killed themselves - that's all perfect.

[–]pedantic_dullard 2 points3 points ago

What did the untreated mental illness poster say 31 years ago?

[–]SwearWords 0 points1 point ago

There isn't one. Mental illness is still just a fringe issue. Who's going to take a loony seriously anyway?

[–]RedRing14 1 point2 points ago

The guy set out to kill the gun was just an easier way for him to do it. Whether or not it had been stabbing, beating, burning, or shooting he was going to kill.

[–]davesidious 0 points1 point ago

So you are saying that it's just as easy to kill people with a knife than it is with a gun?

[–]RedRing14 -1 points0 points ago

With the element of surprise like he had yes. Humans have been killing one another for as long as we have record of our existence an even before that. Like I said he set out to kill its as simple as that. He could have just as easily walked in with Molotovs and killed them.

[–]maggie937 1 point2 points ago

People kill people. Not guns.

[–]davesidious 2 points3 points ago

Guns just make it far more efficient.

[–]pedantic_dullard -1 points0 points ago

So do tall buildings, alcohol, and sleeping pills. Let's ban them, too.

[–]davesidious 0 points1 point ago

We need tall buildings, alcohol, and sleeping pills - they provide benefits to society. Guns? Nope. We have seen countries remove guns from private hands and still function correctly.

[–]newpong 0 points1 point ago

nah, guns and people coerce bullets to kill people

[–]OlePuddinHead 0 points1 point ago

Fuck everything about guns, unless they are killing Savages with guns.

[–]nate8513 0 points1 point ago

That's incredible the way the gun aims itself and fires at people, then jumps into an unsuspecting persons hand. Crazy.

[–]davesidious 1 point2 points ago

Guns make it easier to kill people, and have dubious benefits to society.

[–]pedantic_dullard 0 points1 point ago

Just like cars. They use millions of gallons of oil and gas every year, the emissions are killing the planet, and placed in the wrong hands, they can be used to commit crime and murder people. I'd bet the automobile has killed more people and done more damage to property and life than guns.

Seriously, who the hell needs a car that goes more than 80 mph? Other than the occasional family, who needs a car that can seat more than six or seven people?

Other than farmers, who needs a truck? They get horrible gas mileage and, in some places, the open truck bed is just a place for the public to throw their trash.

In my opinion, your argument is as dumb as mine.

[–]SwearWords 1 point2 points ago

To answer your rhetorical question about trucks, shipping companies and package deliverers need trucks.

[–]davesidious 0 points1 point ago

And without cars and trucks society would grind to a halt. As we have seen in other parts of the worlds, removing guns only lowers the number of people killed. Your analogy is childish.

[–]pedantic_dullard -1 points0 points ago

Which is why I put that last line there. Might want to read the whole thing before calling someone childish.

Mr poopy-pants dumb-dumb head.

[–]davesidious 0 points1 point ago

You pointing out how ridiculous your logic is doesn't magically make it not ridiculous.

[–]pedantic_dullard -1 points0 points ago

You do realize my suggestion to get rid of cars and trucks wasn't serious, right? Either way, I'm done with your dumb-fuckery.

[–]davesidious 0 points1 point ago

So what the fuck was the point of writing it, then?

[–]nate8513 -2 points-1 points ago

So does a butcher knife, baseball bat, and tire iron which are way easier to get a hold of than a firearm, provided people would be more diligent in their duty to keep them out of someones hands that shouldn't have them.

The dubious benefits you're refering to are hunting, shooting sports, recreational shooting, self defense, hunting, etc. Not to mention to billions dollars Americans plop down to buy them every year, putting money into an industry, that unlike many others, is still employing Americans. People with anger issues, mental problems, or anything else that alters their perception in any way shouldn't have one. That's the problem, not the guns, stupid and unstable people owning them.

[–]Unicornfarts69 2 points3 points ago

Sure it's possible to kill somebody with something like a knife or bat, but when somebody points a gun at you, all they have to do is pull a trigger and you are dead. To kill somebody with a bat or knife you have to actually assault them and they stand far more of a chance of being able to fight back and survive. And I still believe those benefits you listed are very dubious, something that is so dangerous really should not be justified just because it is entertaining for some people, and you wouldn't need guns for self defense if other people didn't have guns in the first place.

[–]davesidious 0 points1 point ago

Butchers' knives, baseball bats, and tire irons are not of dubious benefit to society. Surely you realise that.

What about with the school shooting? The guns were owned by the killer's mother - entirely legally - and were then used to kill 27 people. I don't see how you can possibly defend this, unless you are willing to concede that the price society pays for the easy access to guns is the occasional massacre of innocent children.

[–]nate8513 0 points1 point ago

I didn't say they were, you either didn't read my reply or didn't care to take the time to try and understand a different point of view.

They did, and she like many others, didn't do enough to make sure her mentally unstable son didnt have access to them. I never said any of that, you are implying I am, which is kinda of a shitty assumption. You can't see it because you don't want to. My views are my own, and held by many in the same regard, as you and your views.

So how will banning firearms help? Is it going to bring them back? I wonder how well that's working in Los Angeles, Chicago, and New York? Criminals give zero fucks about laws, they are after all, criminals. Legal gun ownership isn't the issue. It's ease of access for those who shouldn't have them because of the owners disregard for their DUTY to keep them secure and hidden from view of those that shouldn't have them.

[–]YourMothersAss -2 points-1 points ago

have you ever and think about the population at that time. and what the ratio is? there is probably more people in America than all of those countries combined.

[–]Unicornfarts69 0 points1 point ago

Maybe there were more people in America, but that's still not relevant. Britain's 8 compared to America's 10,728 would mean America would have to have 1,341 times the population of Britain for it to be purely an issue of which country has a higher population.

[–]YourMothersAss 0 points1 point ago

its not a perfect ratio. but its the same reason California has more gun crime then say.., Rhode Island.

and America, at 1981, had more people than most of those countries combined. minus German, but most of was populated by Soviet Russia at the time anyway. so that kind of off set the numbers.