Mak N Cheese
Not to be confused with Mac N Cheese.
Also in the Big Mac variety
WhY do you people have automatic weapons
Even if they are automatic (which they most likely arenât), why does it matter to you?
Look at all these gun nuts coming out the woodwork cause I asked why people randomly have automatic weapons on cheese
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 âbecause I like themâ 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.
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.
This was supposed to be a light-hearted and fun joke post, but fine. Letâs do this.
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.
I own several guns and have shot literally thousands of rounds over the last couple of years, yet I havenât killed or even harmed a single living creature. HuhâŚÂ I guess my guns must be broken since they canât even fulfill their âonly purposeâ.
A disgustingly huge amount of people are DYING to these things every month, just trying to go about their normal lives. Â That trumps your ill-chosen hobby.
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 didnât kill a single person in 2013.
When we look at the big picture, your chances of being harmed by a gun are actually very low.
Chances of being shot or killed based on firearm deaths and population count:
Death by gun, suicide excluded: 0.0032%
Death by gun, suicide included: 0.0095%
Death in a mass shooting alone: 0.000032%
Injury by gun, no death: 0.024%
Death of injury by gun including suicide: 0.033%
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.
Guns compared to other ways you can die:
Unintentional fall deaths:
Number of deaths: 26,009
Deaths per 100,000 population: 8.4
Motor vehicle traffic deaths:
Number of deaths: 33,687
Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.9
Unintentional poisoning deaths:
Number of deaths: 33,041
Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.7
All poisoning deaths:
Number of deaths: 42,917
Deaths per 100,000 population: 13.9
All Drug poisoning deaths:
Deaths per 100,000 population: 12.4 (2010)
All firearm deaths (suicide included):
Number of deaths: 31,672
Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.3
All firearms deaths (suicide excluded):
Number of deaths: 12,664
Deaths per 100,000 population: 3.6
Firearm deaths broken down completely:
3.6 for homicide 6.3 for suicide 0.30 for unintentional 0.10 undetermined
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 isnât a right, and are less regulated than guns!
[Sources are FBI and CDC]
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 Americaâs overall murder rate.  About 0.2% to be more exact.
Now, letâs compare this, how often guns are used to harm innocent lives, to how often guns are used to protect innocent lives.
Guns help protect innocent lives FAR MORE OFTEN than they help to harm innocent lives. Â There are literally hundreds of thousands of defensive gun uses in this country alone every single year.
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/category/defensivegunuseoftheday/
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
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/02/defensive-gun-ownership-gary-kleck-response-115082.html#.VcYed_lRK1w
Quite simply put, guns save innocent lives. Â And they do so far more often than they hurt them. Â When guns are harming more innocent lives than they are protecting, it could be argued that it might make sense to further limit guns.
But for now, itâs not even close.  Moving onâŚ
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.
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.
Australia:
[this segment brought to you by lee-enfeel]
People die Australia as a result of firearms violence at almost the same rate they did prior to the firearms act, and some sources state that more than a quarter million illicit firearms exist in Australia currently.
The total firearms death rate in 1995 - 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 lawâs 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 havenât been noticeably affected by the legislation youâve claimed has done so much to decrease gun crime.
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 havenât experienced a mass shooting since.
The âaustralia banned guns and now theyâre fineâ 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 Americaâs social and economic problems. Itâs a âquick fixâ 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.
You could ban guns tomorrow nationwide and gun violence and overall violent crime would not be reduced at all.
[this segment brought to you by cerebralzero]
In 2005 the head of the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, Don Weatherburn,[37] 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
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.[40]
A study coauthored by Simon Chapman found declines in firearmârelated deaths before the law reforms 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.[43]
Subsequently, a study by McPhedran and Baker compared the incidence of mass shootings in Australia and New Zealand. 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. That study found that in the period 1980â1996, 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. The authors conclude that âthe hypothesis that Australiaâs 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.â[44]
We see the same trend in The UK.
And Ireland and JamaicaâŚ
And on and on and onâŚÂ Gun control simply does not create a safer society and often times actually has the opposite effect.
At this point I should also probably point out that Australiaâs gun laws have not even reduced gun ownership in Australia. Â In fact, gun ownership in Australia is actually higher now than in 1996.
All of these inconvenient facts aside, we havenât even touched on the cost of implementing Australian style gun control in America.
I keep hearing people say that the US should adopt Australiaâs gun control policy and I donât think they have really thought about the big picture of that plan.
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. Â The culture of Australia is very different than that of the culture of America when it comes to gun ownership and self defense.
Because of this, the Australian government was able to buy back 631,000 guns at the estimated price of about $500,000,000. Â You read that correctly, 500 MILLION.
And even after all of that, it still did nothing to prevent violent crime and criminals in Australia still have access to illegal guns, despite being an island country that isnât bordered by other countries with high violent crime rates and rampant with illegal drug cartels.
There are over 360,000,000 legally owned firearms in America.  If we go by Australiaâs numbers ($792.39 per gun), these guns would cost our government $285,261,489,698.89 to buy back.  Almost 300 BILLION dollars, assuming that every gun owner voluntarily turns in their guns⌠ Which is a very slim to nothing chance.
Whoâs going to pay for that? Â Anti-gunners? Â I think not.
So, in closing, you want America to put in place gun legislation that will cost the country hundreds of billions of dollars AND has already been proven time and time again to be completely ineffective at protecting innocent lives or creating a safer society?
Seems pretty silly.
Get dunked on, nerd.
Teehee, Mac ânâ cheese
Would make it clear that a gvât 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.
Would make it clear that a gvât buyback has never been on the table.
Maybe not a mandatory federal one, no. But government gun buybacks are most certainly a thing here in America.
Also, cars are registered, which is reasonable.
You know that guns are not cars, right?
Gun shows have too many loopholes.
What loopholes would those be? Please enlighten us.
Not sure anything we do will make people feel truly safe, but reasonable measures are worth a try.
The fact is, WE HAVE TRIED STRICT NATIONAL GUN CONTROL.
Does the year 1994 or the name Clinton ring a bell to anyone? Â Anyone?
From 1994 - 2004, there were strict national gun control laws in place in America. Â They included most of the laws that are being proposed now. Â An âassault weaponsâ ban. Â Magazine capacity limits. Â All of that.
Guess what?
IT WAS A COMPLETE FAILURE.
Thorough background checks are reasonable.
We already have mandatory federal NICS background checks, where the buyerâs criminal and mental healthy history are reviewed and have to be approved by the FBI, for every FFL purchase.
Taking away all guns? Not so much. Good thing is, very few advocate for that.
Except for people in politics, the media, and every social media platform I can think advocate for just that every single day.
Rekt
but like if you could save 33000 peoples lives a year, by giving up a hobby would you?
A hobby? Sure. No problem.
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. Iâm sorry, but self defense and self preservation are not âhobbiesâ.
Furthermore, itâs 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 doesnât align with those dreams.
hey Iâm 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
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.
So, no I do not have to nor will I be admitting that at all because it simply isnât true.
oh? is that so? so if buying an automatic weapon is as easy as picking up a prescription thatâs not going to make it easier for anyone whoâs upset to get a gun and then fire it on people??? o k
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 onâŚ
If you truly believe that acquiring an automatic weapon in America is as easy as âpicking up a prescriptionâ, then you are simply ignorant to the subject of automatic weapons and just do not know what you are talking about.
https://www.atf.gov/qa-category/national-firearms-act-nfa
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act
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
This is it. This will be the first post I tag master post.
This is the greatest thing Iâve ever seen.
I love when anti-gun people think they know more about guns than gun owners and enthusiasts.
This escalated really quickly.Â
HOLIDAY DUNKAGE
Iâd like to point out that the annual death toll from gun-related homicides is usually between 6-800, and was never near 30k.
I came reading the rebuttals. Holy shit
Itâs back. Mak N Cheese is making the rounds again.
Thanks, rev
haha rounds
FSFJKJFDG
FUCK mandatory waiting periods. Tell the mom whose home is being stalked that she has to wait to buy that gun. Thatâs a real benefit for the man trying to get in her daughterâs room. Or tell that to the woman whose husband threatened to kill her and now sheâs afraid heâll come after her and her family since she left. There are a million scenarios where someone would need a gun before they leave that shop. Very few of them are to go shoot up a school. Most of them are self defense or defending loved ones. Someone who wants to kill gives literally no shits about laws, and they do not want their name in any database. Theyâre more likely to deal with a gang or a black market seller or just straight up steal one. Weâve seen it time and again where people who should not have had them managed to get their hands on one before committing a crime. The victims of those crimes should have the means to defend themselves.
Holy flyinâ horelse shit this was world-shakinâ-n-bakinâ levels of new years dunkage
pizzaotter >Look at all these gun nuts coming out the woodwork cause I asked why people randomly have automatic weapons on cheese
Congratulations. You have no self-awareness.
neuroxin >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.
So someone shouldnât own a combat knife, even if itâs kept in an office drawer and used as a letter opener? Shouldnât own an old sword, even if itâs kept on the wall or in a display case and never used? Ever hear of a genetic fallacy? Ever hear of guns designed for hunting or target practive?
>Do not try to give some weak ass justification when âbecause I like themâ 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.
Except most of the people murdered arenât murdered with legal weapons. Most of the rest are suicides, and people still commit those without guns.
>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.
Itâs cute how you pretend youâre the mature ones when youâre somping your feet and throwing a tantrum and making things sexual for no reason, like a child.
Also, Australia has more guns than they did before 1996, and that ban did nothing significant for the murder rate.
shelovespiano >Also, cars are registered, which is reasonable.
You donât need a license for private property. Or to own a car.Â
>Gun shows have too many loopholes
Private sales are not a loophole, and not limited to gun shows. Something tells me you donât know what the âgun show loopholeâ actually is.
>Not sure anything we do will make people feel truly safe, but reasonable measures are worth a try. Â
Reasonable measures proposed by people manifestly operating on emotion and willfully ignoring counterarguments, much like youâre doing right now.
>Thorough background checks are reasonable. Taking away all guns? Not so much. Good thing is, very few advocate for that.
How much more thorough do they need to be? What X factor is being overlooked? Y'all like to talk about improving background checks, but rarely anything specific. And when it is specific, itâs nonsense like mandatory psych exams, which no country on Earth requires, AFAIK.
Also, who exactly talked about banning âall gunsâ? Y'all keep using this one, like itâs a knee-jerk reaction. Thereâs a lot of ground between âban no gunsâ and âban every single gun in Americaâ before gun control stops being âreasonableâ.
pushingpin >but like if you could save 33000 peoples lives a year, by giving up a hobby would you?
Itâs amazing how gun ownership goes from something dirty and sexual to just a âhobbyâ as gun controllers require.Â
And how a hundred millions of legal gun owners are supposed to give up their stuff in the hopes that it might save a few tens of thousands of people, 1/3rd of which are usually shot by illegal gun owners.
This post is a title wave of destruction for gun grabbers. If I may tack on one thing: âyouâd give up your hobby if it meant saving 30,000 lives wouldnât you?â Please explain to me how my giving up my gun that I have never used to harm innocent people ďżźwill stop bad people from using different guns to harm innocent people? ďżźThis is such a stupid argument and yet it comes up time and time again in gun discussions. Me giving up my rights doesnât magically prevent other people from abusing theirs. I could choose to never get behind the wheel of a car again and it would reduce the drunk driving rate by exactly 0.ďżźďżź
If giving up the right to assemble and demand a redress of greviences from the government saved lives, would you give that up?
@shadows-ember bad example. Coof has shown us theyâd execute their children in the street if daddy fed told them too.
