Comments
-
@WhimsicalUsername, autocorrect*
-
@WhimsicalUsername, what the h.ll would you have been typing for that to be in your phone's dictionary?
-
@WhimsicalUsername, Perfect
-
@WhimsicalUsername, yo dawg, I heard you like autocorrect, so I autocorrected the word autocorrect.
-
@Bart Starr, that's the joke. And you killed it. And burned it. Then pissed on the ashes in front of its family.
-
If guns kill people,then I wasn't drunk driving,the car was
-
yes, and my condom did your mom.
-
Without the pencil, you can't make a mistake. Without a pen, you can't make a FATAL mistake.
-
And do spoons make people fat?
-
False, people kill people. And I'm a orange.
-
@TheBigOrange, you're an orange, sorry for the trolling... Just kidding.
-
@TheBigOrange, *an orange... Kill yourself
-
@KelCBeast, You suck at that. Just stop
-
@TheBigOrange, are you an... annoying orange? :B
-
I'm so glad my dad is okay, my dad ran the Boston marathon, and his hotel is right by the finish, and that is where the bombing happened, and I give my heart out to all of those that were injured or affected by the bombs
-
Stolen right from my mouth!
-
Guns don't kill people, uh-uh, I kill people, ch-ch, with guns.
-
@Mr Mitt Romney, POW
-
By that logic, spoons make you fat
-
If guns kill people then pencils misspell words, cars make people drive drunk and spoons made Rosie O'Donnell fat.
-
In Harry Potter they do
-
Does toast toast toast toast toast
-
Prayers go to everyone in the world who is injured or the families that lost a loved one, because I'm apparently heartless for caring for the world instead of only USA.
-
@titz, I feel bad for the people that have been hurt for any reason, but I really hate how the Internet handles the situations. It's always really emotional which you may feel, but you don't need to tell everyone by saying "lolz prayers, thumbs up guis"
-
@IMTHEBOCTILIAN, I was going to tell people not to up vote me and go donate money on some charity place. And its not lolz prayer I really don't like people being sad or injured cause I've felt it already. So don't be judging a book by its cover.
-
@titz, unless that book is twilight.
-
@MuthafckinThor, Ha, true
-
Yes, and spoons make people fat
-
@invalid chicken, Imposter!
-
No, but hammers build buildings
-
Guns don't kill tho.....
-
"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try and take it." Thomas Jefferson
-
that depends, does stuckpixel post stupid pictures?
-
Guns were designed to kill. Pencils were designed to write. If you're going to debate guns, at least have a better argument than comparing them to pencils. I'm not anti or pro gun, just think this is a dumb argument.
-
@Miss Chanandler Bong, this argument is invalid. Chicken
-
@Miss Chanandler Bong, guns were designed to fire ammunition. I own a gun. Ive never killed anyone. And i dont intend to. Does that mean i will never use it for what its 'designed' to do?
-
@Miss Chanandler Bong, not the point. The point is blame the person behind the gun/pencil. Not the utensil itself, cause it's an inanimate object that won't do anything unless someone uses it.
-
@MidgetQ, guns were made to kill people. They are used in wars to kill people. That is their only purpose, besides hunting.
-
@MidgetQ, so you have it for no reason then
-
@MidgetQ, in a word, yes. I have a Savage 10 in .223 Rem. It was "designed" as a varmint rifle, but I will never use it as such. So I must admit that I will never use my rifle for what it was intended and made to do.
-
@Miss Chanandler Bong, actually this argument is perfectly valid. You choose to see it as a weapon rather than a tool. Guns are also used to hunt, and also for target practice and sport. The purpose of this picture is that only a person can use the gun to kill. Just as only the person can misspell a word. Need I remind you a pencil can kill people too... Or is that an argument you don't understand either?
-
@Keiji, This argument is comparing murder to spelling errors. They're in completely different ball parks.
-
@Miss Chanandler Bong, even if guns killed people, the deadliest civilian killings in America have all been either bombs, or cars driving into crowds of people, so I guess bombs build, place, and detonate themselves
-
@Miss Chanandler Bong, technically, one could argue that guns were designed for self defense from a distance, even though you're probably right.
-
@Cococonnection1, I'm not saying I'm anti-gun or anything, I'm just saying this particular argument is flawed. It's a collaborative effort of the weapon and the one operating it that kills people. Not just the gun or the person. It's both.
-
@Cococonnection1, I'm guessing you're not counting suicides. If you count total deaths, guns would be way up front. 2/3s of all deaths from firearms are suicides, and that number alone is much greater than that of bombs or cars.
-
@Marten Reed, no, I'm talking about people killing other people in mass numbers
-
@Miss Chanandler Bong, just stop talking
-
@Cococonnection1, I read your original comment incorrectly. Mass killings, you're right. Total deaths is still guns.
-
@rememberthename, nevar!
-
@Miss Chanandler Bong, making guns illegal will not keep then off the street. heroine meth weed cocain crack LSD acid. it's all out there and easily accessible. besides just making people try not to have guns wont help anything. if anything we should keep everyone possible armed so we are always prepared. also please remind me how criminals follow laws.
-
@Mygary, you said acid twice... And I know this is a cliched logic, but it'll work well to counter yours. Since criminals can all readily get all those drugs and firearms, lets fully legalize both of those. And hell, let's legalize bulk purchases of plain salt-peter and sulfur for individuals while we're at it. And make RDX readily available to the general public, since if they REALLY wanted it they'd get it. It isn't a matter of them getting it in the end, it's making it more difficult to attain and prepare for Newtowns or Columbines. It's a discouragement. And you would be surprised at how far some discouraging would go.
-
@Mygary, also, does the OK Corral ring a bell? Giving guns to everyone is a stupid, stupid thing to do. Just look at a history book that covers the Western United States ~1810-1910. Giving everyone guns leads to a lot of people dying over small misunderstandings/arguments/accidents. Not a good idea. Just look at the deaths/injuries that occur from firearm accidents at gun conventions (or more recently an event in which a cop's wife was shot by a child on accident - the cop had a fully loaded gun within reach of a 5 year old). These are people who are supposedly "responsible" gun owners.
-
@Miss Chanandler Bong, I really feel like this is a political argument. Statistics show that crime is higher in places where guns are illegal and lower where guns are legal. This is why it looks like Obama is just trying to pass this gun ban because of his biased beliefs rather than protecting our constitutional rights.
-
@Mygary, please re-read my comment. No where did I say I think guns should be banned. I'm not anti gun. I don't think banning guns will solve the problem, because the root of the problem is much deeper than the guns themselves. What I was saying was that this particular argument, comparing a gun to a pencil, is stupid. @Have Nice Day, aren't guns are legal everywhere in USA? I don't know where you got those statistics, but I wouldn't mind a link, cause it sounds interesting. Was it maybe crime rates compared to the number of gun owners? Also, I like the kind of argument/debate you propose because it is a much better one than this pic is trying to make.
-
@Flad, it doesn't work anymore since you changed your name to Flad...
-
@UncleSwag, and there are still crazy people in the world who will find a way to kill someone. It's actually not that hard. I'm mean are people going to start taking away knives now? Guns are CAPABLE of killing people, but it's really the person pulling the trigger. You're not gonna have a gun, by itself, run around town and kill people.
-
@Haytham Kenway. Cars, pollution, toxic waste also kill people slowly and without their knowledge. Should those be banned too? You can't live in a bubble mass murders happened before guns. People use to use swords or other weapons.
-
Blah blah blah, I'm gettin REAL sick of this gun sh!t. At this poing I don't care what they do
-
No, but autocorrect makes you sound dumb.
-
@OriginalName022, or HILARIOUS
-
HAHAHA SO GODD*MN CLEVER
-
Guns don't kill people, but they do make it a hell of a lot easier to kill people
-
How many times have you heard of a mass murder with someone using a knife, or their bare fists? The idea is that everyone would be safer if no civilian has access to guns. Of course you could counter that with saying that if everyone has a gun than nobody will shoot each other, knowing that they will be shot, but obviously that is not the case. Firearms are too dangerous to be in the hands in the average man. In addition, if you shoot guns for sport, you are basically conditioning yourself to become better with a machine meant for killing. This is just my opinion, and I would be glad to hear any other opinions.
-
@Haytham Kenway, So, what if some criminal, let's say, gets a gun ILLEGALLY (as most criminals do) and that said criminal breaks into your house. What do you do? Hide and hope he doesn't kill you? No. You should be able to use your guns, and defend yourself
-
@Haytham Kenway, well the idea that everyone owning a gun=less violence has obviously worked in Switzerland, and since South America has extreme gun violence yet high restrictions, restricting guns does not always equal less violence. Like Detroit and most other high regulation cities in America
-
@Haytham Kenway, quite the opposite. If no one had access to guns, criminals would get guns illegally; and the common man would be unable to protect himself/herself. However, if EVERYONE had guns, when a shooter enters the scene, their would be fewer casualties because the criminal would be attacked by the armed commoners. Just like Switzerland.
-
@Cuntasaurus Rex, ehh id have to disagree with that. Reply back if you want me to tell you why. If not have a good day (:
-
@Smitywerban, why?
-
@Cuntasaurus Rex, The notorious high crime rate cities across America (Chicago, NYC, Washington D.C) usually have the hardest restrictions on guns. Also if we're talking about other countries google the Iceland massacre (might be Greenland) but nonetheless the island banned all guns and an armed gunman saw this as an opportunity. He fired and killed for hours until he ran out of ammo. If just one guy could have been there with a gun to stop him...
-
@Smitywerban, exactly. Switzerland has extremely high gun ownership, and extremely low crime. In the United States, places with high legal gun ownership typically have lower crime
-
@Cuntasaurus Rex, ahh no it was Norway aha but yes ok yea I see what you're saying now. I agree (:
-
@Cuntasaurus Rex, news.discovery.com/human/is-it-harder-to-get-guns-in-other-countries-130221.htm Or google "is it harder to get guns in other countries" by Discovery News. This source is owned by News Corp., so don't even bring up bias.
-
@Marten Reed, well no sh!t it's harder to get guns in other countries. When exactly did I say it's easier to get guns in other countries??
-
@Cuntasaurus Rex, you didn't read the article, did you...?
-
@Marten Reed, how, in any way does that article help your cause exactly? It gives the example of Japan, which happens to have high restrictions and also low crime. And then they point to Switzerland, which basically has the same restrictions on guns except there is a maximum of 3 owned, which honestly wouldn't matter if you wanted to kill someone. I can point to a million cases in which extreme relative gun restrictions have absolutely no impact on crime rates what so ever, and when high gun ownership results in low crime. For god sake just look at every city in the U.S with high gun restrictions and ones with low gun restrictions, see which cities are at the top of the charts for crime. In addition to that, even if we did ban assault rifles and only allowed pistols and shotguns, there would be virtually no change in gun violence. Considering that only about 1-2% of all gun crime is caused by those scary "assault rifles" how exactly would banning them change anything?
-
@Cuntasaurus Rex, cite your sources.
-
@Marten Reed, http://www.policymic.com/mobile/articles/23791/assault- rifles-kill-5-people-every-year-in-ny-while-obesity-kills-6-000-do-gun-bans-make-sense...... http://blogs.marketwatch.com/election/2013/01/16/assault-rifles-are-not-involved-in-many-u-s-murders-a-look-at-the-data/. Just google it. Every single website says the exact same thing. Pistols account for about 50% of all shootings, yet those are the guns that liberals feel should be the legal. Goes to show you that they only make policy based on fear, not facts
-
@Cuntasaurus Rex, don't know why you're posting articles exclusively about assault rifles. I didn't bring them up, and I used that article to show that the US has the highest number of guns per capita. Also, we actually have one of the laxest systems regarding firearms in the modern world, nationwide. And maybe you shouldn't look at the correlation between high crime and high restriction as high restriction=high crime. Correlation as causation is a pretty poor argument. The high restriction could be a result of high crime instead. And people with guns stopping crimes? The number of people carrying having any effect on overall crime figures would be negligible at best.
-
@Marten Reed, http://marquettetribune.org/2012/02/14/news/concealed-carry-prevents-more-crime-than-it-creates-study-says/ Concealed carriers stop more crime than they cause. And I'm bringing up assault rifles because that is basically the only weapon that far left liberals talk about, and shows the completely un-fact based system they use in policy creation. And maybe you shouldn't look at low gun crime as a correlation to high gun restrictions, if you're willing to deny the fact that high gun restrictions=high gun crime, you must also deny the opposite
-
@Cuntasaurus Rex, except that high restriction ultimately takes away one of the main tools of crime. Look at Australia real quick and how many shooting sprees they've had since upping the restrictions. I'm not using correlation as a cause for my reasoning here, and your idea of equality in that is not really well founded. And I never said that carriers cause crime, try not to use a student paper next time either. I prefer news from people with at least a Bachelors.
-
@Marten Reed, ok, then look at Mexico and tell me that high restriction stops crime. You can't possible be so close minded as to reject the exact same style of idea you have, yet completely accept your own. http://www.wral.com/news/state/nccapitol/story/11204311.How about this one? Or basically any other article on google if you take 3 seconds to research it
-
@Marten Reed, and if you refuse to accept my Mexico example like I most likely assume you will, how about the UK, with very high gun restriction, yet with extreme violent crime, worse than that of the u.s. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html
-
@Cuntasaurus Rex, Mexico isn't a very good example for violent crime because of the Cartels and them being bordered with the US and Central America, and therefore the focal point of drug trade. As for me supposedly rejecting my own idea? One, work on rewording your sentences, just a little awkward. Two, it isn't exactly the same. You were using correlations as an explanation for something. I'm not, I'm looking at when these restrictions were upped and crime levels since. That isn't causation by correlation. Also, as for Britain, look for an article from this decade that's more applicable. As for disregarding points you've made, most that you bring up are either outdated, ill-informed (biased), or irrelevant. You're not smart for typing three words into google, pressing search, and pressing on the first blue link.
-
@Cuntasaurus Rex, and I just want to ask you, do you actually own a firearm? And if so, model?
-
@Marten Reed, in what world do you think that looking at restrictions were upped and differences in crime levels is not considered using correlation in your explanation. The entire first article you posted was all about attempting to correlate the two ideas between restrictions and crimes, yet you continue to deny it, which really just shows me and everyone else the true extent of your brain power. And how exactly do you think updates in 2009 is not this decade? I know numbers get a little confused by someone with your iq level, but really now. And honestly you can't keep attempting to disregard every single piece if evidence I give just because you don't feel like acknowledging it. http://www.secretsofthefed.com/man-in-china-created-fleet-of-floating-doomsday-pods-2/. Any and every single piece of information, considered by you "reliable" or not say the exact same thing. Do your own research if you please, but you'll find the same thing
-
@Marten Reed, well first off I own a mini-14 which fires the .223, I own an FNP. 45 tactical, a glock 17, an fn scar chambered in the .308, a Remington 700, a 357 magnum, and an ar-15 which fires the 5.56x51 standard nato round, but due to the smaller size of the .223 round I fire that instead of the 5.56
-
@Marten Reed, and an old musket but that doesn't fire, it's for show
-
@Cuntasaurus Rex, umm, you just went ahead and displayed your intelligence if you think 2009 is in this decade. You see, a decade is 10 years. So 1990s, 2000s, and 2010s. Different, got it. And I can tell you my ASVAB AFQT score is 93. And you seriously don't understand causation by correlation, do you? Not correlation, causation by correlation. I get correlation and have been using that as some evidence behind what I am saying, but not saying something has happened because of that thing happened. It is merely backup evidence. I get that there is much more than taking away guns in the rise or fall of crime, there are several factors/variables. And the reason why I have not addressed your sources is that I don't feel like reading that much this late, especially since those are just the first links in google searches you've been conducting. Also, based on prior experience with you, I just assume everything you say is less than reliable info.
-
@Cuntasaurus Rex, and from what you just said about the 5.56, you either don't proofread or you don't know cartridges. 5.56x45 mm NATO. You must be thinking 7.62.
-
@Cuntasaurus Rex, I own a Savage 10 in .223 and a Glock 30. In my family there's also a couple .38 revolvers, sawed off .410 Handi-Gun (wildly illegal), couple 12 gauges, a 20 gauge, an old Kar98 8 mm, and a Savage in .308.
-
@Cuntasaurus Rex, sorry for insulting your intelligence, got a little too fired up.
-
@Marten Reed, then if you don't accept my sources, then please go search the ideas on your own. Every website I looked at, no matter what the bias had the exact same facts. So I honestly could care less if you don't acknowledge my sources, but if you reject mine then I only ask that you research them on your own. And yes, that was my mistake. Technically the scar would fire the 7.62x51, while the ar-15 fires the 5.56x45, though my scar is chambered in the .308 since the 7.62 and the .308 are not EXACTLY the same round, although close
-
@Marten Reed, as did I
-
@Cuntasaurus Rex, actually I haven't been looking at the sources because I'm doing an English assignment on the Bible. Fun stuff. But yeah, don't get me wrong, I love guns and shooting. I know plenty, like the differences between 7.62 and .308 Winchester. It's just that I like debating this kind of stuff. Actually going into the Navy later this year (hence the ASVAB reference), we get M9s and Mossbergs (oooh... Not really).
-
@Cuntasaurus Rex, I will concede that you won... This time, Rise.
-
@Clara Oswald, I'm pretty sure the doctor says no guns so you are a bad companion
-
@Cuntasaurus Rex, just a little heads up, the .223 and 5.56 are the same round. Its 5.56x45mm. 5.56 is the NATO version of the .223. The 7.62x51 is the NATO version of the .308
-
@-Miss Chanandler Bong. This comparison is perfectly valid. It is stating that guns and pencils are both objects that have no control over what they do. The person behind the pencil or gun has the Say so. So to say guns kill people would be the same as saying pencils misspell words. Basically saying guns kill people is as dumb as people saying McDonald's made you fat.
-
Love how stupid people can be with this 'argument'. Pencils were created for a certain purpose, they are utensils used to carry out said purpose. Same thing with guns. Guns were designed to kill people. Pencils were meant write words. The only reason guns exist is because swords and arrows weren't efficient enough killing machines. It has nothing to do with protection. It's about murder. Who was protected during the Civil War? Or the Revolutionary War? Nobody. By your logic everyone just stood there and stared at each other and the Wars didn't even happen. Guns don't prevent anyone from doing anything.
-
Did people kill those two people at the boston marathon? No, bombs did. The argument that guns dont kill people, people kill people is the most invalid argument of all times. Its up there with "because im you mother and i said so" seriously people, grow some brains
-
@UncleSwag, But guns make it a whole lot easier for people to kill other people.
-
@UncleSwag, I find it difficult to take someone named uncleswag seriously.
-
@Nicholas the Stout, what im saying is that guns kill people. Without guns, its almost impossible to kill other people. Guns are the cause of this violence. Britain outlawed handguns and murders dropped drastically. Theres proof all over the world that the presence of firearms results in higher death rates.
-
@Odinson , yeah well it seems im the only person here using logic. Guns kill people. Theres evidence everywhere that places with more guns have higher rates of murder. Places like britain with strict gun control laws have almost no murders
-
@UncleSwag, I'm sorry, I read your comment wrong. I thought you were trying to say that guns weren't the cause of multiple murders, but that it was the fault of the person and that guns shouldn't get a bad reputation.
-
@Nicholas the Stout, nope, im agreeing with you. This should be the most disliked photo on this app.
-
@UncleSwag, I have never in my whole life seen a gun get up and shoot a person. Ever. A gun cannot kill a person. It takes a person to pull the trigger.
-
@HarIey Quinn, that comment was so ignorant im finding it hard to justify it with a response
-
@UncleSwag, Also, earlier when you said "Without guns, it's almost impossible to kill people," you were wrong. Strangulation. Stabbing. Beating to death. Beheading. Death by bow an arrow. Poisoning. Bleeding out. Suffocation. Electrocution. Lethal injection. The list goes on. Please learn your facts before trying to make your point.
-
@HarIey Quinn, First, stop being ignorant. Second, if you really are as stupid as you sound, i wont be able to convince you otherwise. So go ahead thinking youve one this argument. Everyone else here will know youre an idiot. Dont try to respond with a catchy comeback, itll only make you look more stupid.
-
@Odinson , says Odinson.
-
@HarIey Quinn, ...and it takes a trigger to be pulled.
-
@UncleSwag, It's almost impossible to kill people without guns? You're kidding right? How do you think wars were fought and people were murdered before guns?
-
@UncleSwag, Guns can't murder a person. That would be an inanimate object performing a task that only living things can do. Sure, guns make it easier, but will gun laws stop it? No! If someone is gonna murder another person do you honestly think they'll stop and think "Oh wait! There is that gun law, guess I can't do it now!". No, if someone isn't above murder how do you expect them to obey the rest of our laws?
-
@BoS Paladin, wars today with swords would not be wars
-
@UncleSwag, There's no need to call me stupid. I'm presenting my case, and you're presenting yours. Kill them with kindness - that's how you win an argument. Not by name calling. By class.
-
@Vox Testuidi, Without a hand to pull it, the trigger would have no use.
-
@UncleSwag, so you're saying that no one detonated the bombs? A random couple of bombs were just sitting on a street corner and decided to waltz on over to the marathon and blow sh*t up? No, some one used the bombs. Bombs themselves don't decide to kill someone, but the people who planted the bombs. So, Uncle Swag, why don't YOU grow up and get some brains. B*stard.
-
@UncleSwag, Then what were wars before?
-
@UncleSwag, But had we not invented guns, people would still be killed just the same. The only things guns change is how the person on the other end dies.
-
@BoS Paladin, you seem to like logic. So let me throw some logic at you. IN EVERY SINGLE COUNTRY that has implemented heavier gun control laws and enforced them (ie britain) the number of murders have been reduced massively
-
@LlamaPericlemynus, you mad? Sounds like it. If those people didnt have access to bombs, they wouldnt have planted them.
-
@UncleSwag, That is true, and I'm not gonna deny that. All I'm saying is that it all depends on the mental state of the person committing the murder. If a person is willing to murder someone laws won't stop them. It may slow the process, but they would still get what they want in due time. That's my take on it.
-
@UncleSwag, mhmmm, so what about places like Switzerland, where almost every household has a military grade assault rifle. Go check their miter rates. Or how about how the most gun violence in the United States takes place under the strictest gun control in the us? Go look at Detroit gun control, and Detroit gun violence.
-
@UncleSwag, oh every single country like Mexico???? Please explain to me your obviously non-present logic.
-
@UncleSwag, If I stab you through your eye socket with a pencil does that mean that pencils suddenly kill people aswell
-
@Captain Zaraki, oh! I know someone who did that!!
-
What
-
@Leon S Kennedy, by far the funniest comment ive seen on this app i laughed so hard
-
@Invalid Chicken, man! I saw this in top comments expecting something good. Typical IC letdown...
-
@prose of a con, dude I know, I had to hunt this comment down and only to find "what"
-
@Flad, INVALID CHICKEN DID YOU CHANGE YOUR NAME
-
To anyone that has been responding negatively to my comments: Im gonna be the bigger man here and stop arguing. Im not going to change your opinion and Ill just have to keep hearing about school shootings and bombings. So peace out, have fun when you baby sister gets shot at her school :)
-
@UncleSwag, so you're saying that if bombs were illegal then the Boston bombing would t have happened? Oh wait, they are illegal.....
-
@UncleSwag, you sir must be trolling, you have only used Britain as an example for this so called murder drop, I'm in Canada and my city is the stabbing capital of our great country, should they ban pointy objects? Go and bang your head against a wall until you start making sense. People will keep killing people until we cease to exist.
-
@M1K3L4W, oh, so we shouldnt try to stop it? Are people gonna just keep shooting children? Okay lets just give up
-
@UncleSwag, yeah let's take away people's rights, that'll make everyone love each other. Give it up man.
-
Guns suck Shrodo good
-
An excellent comparison!
-
No,keyboards do.
-
The difference is in potential. There is very little good that can be done with a gun and a lot of bad
-
*Stewie voice* and spoons make people fat
-
Yep. And pens, crayons or anything you try to use as a medium for writing
-
guns don't kill people--injuries kill people
-
Nicely said!!
-
People made guns. People made pencils. People kill people. People make mistakes. The debate has been ended.
-
Did anyone notice that if you make a pic and post it it says it was successfully posted then if u go to it to see the comments or something is not there?
-
Help! There's politics in my funny!
-
Lol
-
@UnlceSwag, do you think these people bought the bombs at Walmart?!?
-
These people don't usually get their guns legally. I mean come on people, I don't know about you but i can't just go to the corner store and buy an assault rifle.
-
People misspell words with pencils. Take away the pencils and people won't be able to misspell words. Yes people dumb enough not to know how to work will still exist, and might make small mistakes through other means like speech. But it will be impossible for them to make mistakes of a magnitude close to those made with a pencil and paper. Ergo, the smart people won't need pencils to correct such mistakes. You can write "effect" and mean "affect", but such a mistake can't be made in speech.
-
@LexIsOnIt, what about highlighters, pens, markers, crayons, and every other utensil that is used less than pencils but can still write? "Aka knives, clubs, swords, bows, etc.... People will still make writing mistakes "or kill people," but do it using different tools. And that argument was awful, considering a written language is the basis of modern society so we would fall without the use of writing utensils. And if you're using the idea that pencil=gun, them by your definition our society would fall without guns
-
@Cuntasaurus Rex, I'm gonna call someone a cuntasaurus the first chance I get. K the only parallel between pencils and guns I was making was the "making spelling mistakes vs shooting ppl". Just pretend any other parallel you find isn't there. I don't actually think pencils=guns I was just saying that because pencils were mentioned in the picture. U mentioned the fact that ppl can use knives and such, I addressed that before where it says "ppl might make mistakes through other means... but it will be impossible...". I.e. a man wouldn't be able to kill 12 ppl and injure about 30 others with a bat. But those events are so rare. The main area where I'd hope to see a change is in cities where there's gang violence & daily shootings. Ideally, stricter gun regulations (not just with laws but removing guns altogether) would limit access to guns so ppl wouldn't even be able to get them illegally. coz they just wouldn't be there.
-
@Cuntasaurus Rex, .... obviously there'd always be a few people out there who could get guns whatever the case, through clever smuggling etc. But it would still be much better than it is now. Now days, someone in a city could just buy a gun illegally from someone they know. I don't know how exactly the government would go about removing guns from society, but I don't see how that would be a better situation than everyone having guns, so it's worth working towards. The idea is that people shouldn't need to own a gun
-
@LexIsOnIt, wouldn't *
-
Yes
-
Guns don't kill people, people kill people... using guns
-
Without a pencil, you couldn't write the words.
-
Nope. Your keyboard did
-
Somebody just watched Larry the Cable Guy
-
Have you ever misspelled a word you spoke out loud?
-
I don't get it
-
SHUSH
-
Only in school
-
Oh cock!
So does autocock