Pick One

1278383_10151837768511826_228041936_n.jpg (90 KB)


  • Leave A Comment

    Notify of
    Inline Feedbacks
    View all comments

    Ignorant libbys will disagree because they’re ignorant libbys.




    Because modifying a weapon doesn’t change its efficiency at all. >_>


    Thank you for posting this comparison chart. Now we all know for sure that the weapons displayed on the left are just as dangerous as the weapons on the right.


    Oh, we know you want to ban them all anyway, whether they’re the same or not. This is just to let YOU know that WE know you’re lying out of your asses when you talk about “reasonable, common-sense restrictions on ‘assault’ weapons”.


    Guns are dangerous. No lie.
    People are safer without them. No lie.
    Pro gun types ignore the facts because of some twisted idea that guns make them “feel” safer…..despite the facts.


    If people are safer without guns, why do cops have guns?


    Statistically, gun owning homes are 3 times more likely to suffer a tragic death….accident, suicide or murder.
    But no less likely to be a victim of a robbery or home invasion.
    Do the math.
    Guns in the home increase the chance of death, but don’t make you any safer.
    Has nothing to do with why cops have guns……



    You ARE aware that the “”3 times more likely” figure is a complete fabrication aren’t you?

    “Fact: A study claiming “guns more likely to kill you than help you” is a total fraud. Not surprisingly, the figure claiming one is three times more likely to be killed by one’s own gun is a total lie. The author of this study, Dr. Arthur Kellerman, refused to release the data behind his conclusions for years. (3) Subsequently available evidence shows why Kellerman stonewalled for so long:

    * Researcher Don Kates reveals that all available data now indicates that the “home gun homicide victims [in Kellerman’s study] were killed using guns not kept in the victim’s home.” In other words, the victims were NOT murdered with their own guns! They were killed “by intruders who brought their own guns to the victim’s household.”

    * In retrospect, Kates found, it was not the ownership of firearms that put these victims at high risk. Rather, it was the victim’s “high-risk life-styles [such as criminal associations] that caused them to own guns at higher rates than the members of the supposedly comparable control group.”
    Don B. Kates, “Guns and Public Health: Epidemic of Violence, or Pandemic of Propaganda?” in Gary Kleck & Kates, Armed: New Perspectives on Gun Control (2001), p. 76.


    That’s a cute statistic, but totally pointless. Allow me to demonstrate: Having a pool (or going swimming, for that matter) significantly increases your risk of death by drowning. See?

    Also, I don’t buy that you want to ban guns because you’re oh so very concerned that I might accidentally shoot myself in the foot.

    I notice you dodged the actual question. If guns are so dangerous, why do cops carry them? Do they have a death wish? Do we secretly hope they get themselves killed?


    See…mental backflips because guns make you “feel” safer.
    But the numbers are clear.
    Total suicides (by any methods)….higher in gun owning homes.
    Total murders (by any method)….higher in gun owning homes.
    Total accidental deaths (by any method) higher in gun owning homes.
    And statistics involving robberies and home invasions show no statistical difference in gun vs non-gun homes.
    Seriously….if the safety of your family is your concern…then no guns is the way to go.
    Sorry that doesn’t jibe with your cowboy mentality…but it is the way it is…..


    Aaaand… still dodging the question. Now that’s a mental backflip right there.


    if people are safer without h-bombs, why does the government have h-bombs? Allow thermonuclear weapons for everyone!


    Why do cops have guns….?
    To shoot at bad guys.
    Are pools unsafe?
    Of course they are…

    But think for a minute.
    Unfortunately, in real life, people have arguments with their spouse or neighbors, and occasionally let their emotions get the better of them….young kids are curious and get into their parents’ things….and sometimes people get so depressed they consider suicide…
    Add a gun into any of those 3 situations and the chances of a tragic death go up big time.
    Regardless of the economic or cultural situation.

    As far as a home invasion or robbery…well if you’re a responsible gun owner then I would think your gun and ammo are locked up in a place where you likely won’t be able to get to them to make much of a difference.

    That’s the reality.
    Sorry, but not owning a gun is the safer way to go….


    If the world is so full of people who are ticking time bombs of homicidal rage with (pardon the pun) hair-trigger tempers, I *definitely* want a gun to protect myself from these monsters.


    You are officially the dumbest motherfucker I’ve seen on the internet today. Live your life in your gun-free zone any way you so feel inclined, that is your choice. Firearms are dangerous, but smug arrogant thought process and flawed logic are even more dangerous.


    Higher capacity magazines make these weapons functionally different.


    totally agree, higher capacity magazines=higher capacity for multiple victims


    By all means, pit a madman with a 5-round-magazine, semi-automatic rifle against unarmed persons, and then compare their victim count against someone with a 15-round magazine semi-automatic rifle. You’ll find reload time to be negligible.


    Cop argument is 100% BS gun lover fantasy.

    Cops (and military personnel) undergo substantial training, both in weapons and how to react to a multitude of potential dangerous situations. 99.9% of gun-owning citizens do NOT.

    I feel significantly better knowing the cops and military have both the weapons AND the training, rather than just some random half-tard with 400 bucks in his pocket and an itch to shoot things and/or people.


    “99.9% of gun owners are slack-jawed Cletuses who like to coonfinger guns while drunk. Cops, on the other hand, are without exception Herrenmenschen, paragons of responsibility, expertise and self-control.”

    Wrong and wrong.

    Nice stereotypes, though.


    To my Un-Named (and perhaps un-namable) Friend,

    Your allegation that Police “undergo substantial training” is NOT a reflection of Reality. Police Academies range in length from 16 to 26 weeks in length. Would you care to guess how long is spent in Firearms Training? It varies from a low of 4 hours of Classroom time with 8 hours of range time to 12 hours of Classroom with the rest of the week spent on the range including “Shoot/Don’t Shoot” exercises. Within the couple of years NYC Cops (supposedly the Creme de la Creme) has had two separate incidents where they shot 11 innocent bystanders. ( nypost.com/2013/09/15/cops-accidentally-shoot-two-bystanders-while-trying-to-subdue-man/ www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/25/empire-state-building-shooting-nypd-bullets-shot-all-nine_n_1830007.html ). In this current Anti-Gun Journalistic Atmosphere, a Concealed Carry Permit Holder shooting a bystander would have been Lead News for a week. Can you think of any? Me neither.


    You obviously haven’t been an LEO or served in the military, have you?


    Pool argument is also utter nonsense. Even worse than the “Cars are dangerous weapons too” argument.

    What is the fundamental, primary function of a pool? For recreation and exercise.

    What is the fundamental, primary function of a car? To transport people and/or goods from one location to another.

    What is the fundamental, primary function of a gun? To launch a projectile designed to damage or kill a living thing.

    Oh yeah, they’re TOTALLY EXACTLY ALIKE


    My family has always owned guns. Grew up with them in the house, lots of hunting trips to the family ranch, and lots of uncles, aunts, cousins, myself serving in the military. Let me see… in the past 70 years of my family, discounting natural deaths, 17 died in various automotive accidents. 3 electricuted in the home(one by lightning strike while bathing.) 6 drownings. 2 by animal attack. 3 suicides: 1 each by overdose, hanging, jumping off a bridge. Only 1 died of a gunshot, that one happened in the Korean War. And yes, the ones who suicided had access to firearms in the house, but chose other methods. So, no, I do not believe that I am 3 times more likely to have an injury/death in my house due to firearm. I do however believe that I am at high risk to be injured/killed by vehicle on the road. Add in the high DWI rate here in NM, I had better buy a lotto ticket before my luck runs out.


    What is the fundamental, primary function of a gun? To control the paper target population.
    I take anti gunners to the target range on occasion, teach them basic safety rules, and let them shoot away at targets. Most of them suddenly realize the reason for owning guns is because they are a recreational sport. Like bowling or baseball, its just for fun.
    If you don’t want a gun in your house fine, that’s your choice.


    It’s a circular argument. ‘I have to have a gun because it’s not safe to go without one because of all the people who have guns….’



    It’s just that I’d rather use a gun to protect myself from a criminal with a gun than to attempt karate against a violent criminal with more fighting experience and possibly a club/knife/gun.

    Nothing circular about that.


    Wildman….the only statisticians that believe the Kates study are in the employ of the NRA.
    Look it up…Kates fudged the data big time.
    Yes Kellerman did not release his data intitialy, true.
    But three studies since, and several others examining his data found essentially the same thing….those that don’t own guns (across all economic and social groups) have a lower death rate and a lower rate of experiencing tragic injury and death.
    But you won’t find them on NRA positive sites….you have to look a little further afield…..


    Then you REALLY need to tell my Statistics Instructor (former Democratic Pollster) that. He used the Kellerman/Kates Brouhaha as a Classroom Example, Kellerman as how NOT to do it. As an example, one of the issues of the “Control Group” was the number of households who when asked “do you own any firearms”, declined to answer and withdrew from the Study. ALL of the follow-on Studies had the same Issue in that this (and all other questions) were NOT made in an anonymous fashion. As such, Gun Owners were vastly under-reported amongst the “Control Group”. Other Studies using different Methodologies get MUCH different results.


    I call BS wildman….
    For starters, Kates is pro-gun lobbyist who makes his living as a lawyer representing gun owners.
    And writing pro gun books…
    His study found exactly what he wanted to find.

    Google it.
    And while you’re at it, read the half dozen or so studies since Kellerman that have found practically the same results.
    Guns in the home are dangerous and lead to higher incidence of tragedy.
    How is this hard to understand….?


    It’s hard to understand things that are untrue. How hard is that to understand?


    Free men and women posses the right and ability to defend themselves to include the use of firearms. Serfs and slaves are denied these basic human rights. Some have turned themselves into serfs and cannot understand why others will not join them. Enjoy your second class status serfs.


    I’m generally in favour of governments not restricting personal freedoms like gun ownership, but that’s a load of utter horsecrap. The right to own a specific set of weapons isn’t a basic human right.

    Every country that isn’t in a state of anarchy regulates which weapons its citizens can own, the line is just drawn in a different place for each country, and having that line a little to one side of where the U.S. has it doesn’t make your citizens “serfs”. Can you purchase a GAU-8 Avenger and mount it on your front lawn to protect you in case the government comes for you with tanks? No? Guess you’re a serf.


    I see that Tiki is having another click drive.


    Because attaching a grande launcher to a gun does not make it any different.

    The King of Nothing

    Yup. The gun with a freaking GRENADE LAUNCHER it totally the same as the gun without one. The ones with suppressors are too. This has got to be an obvious troll or I have lost all faith that there are sane pro-gun people out there.


    Oh it is a troll, I really didn’t want to get involved, but got caught up in it. I own 5 out of the 8 shown, and none look like the tacticool crap on the right.


    What grenade launcher? I see a 37mm flare projector, but no grenade launcher. Go back to playing Call Of Duty.


    The pro-gun people in this thread are NOT representing the pro-gun mentality in a way that will change anyone’s mind. I am NOT any more friendly towards guns or gun nuts than I was before. PR fail.

    Look, I just want to close the loophole that causes people who can’t buy guns at a gun shop to be able to go to a gun show and get a gun without a background check.

    If you’re against ANY background checks for guns, you’re probably one of the reasons we need them.


    You aren’t doing a good job selling your product. Your overbearing urge to want to control people other than yourself, while seeing things two dimensionally, is probably one of the reasons eugenics was a good idea. See what I did there?

  • here's some related content from the store: