If they’re good then why does it matter?
Big “if” there.
Last comicbook movie that was good: the first Hellboy.
I don’t know, I enjoy most comic book movies. Unless you’re talking about direct adaptations of comic books. The Avengers and Dark Knight Rises both came out this year and were good.
I should have found this earlier 
It’s not about criminals follwing laws, it’s about making it harder for criminals to get guns. :awesome:
All you need to get a gun in the USA is money. So you wanna tell me, that when the requirements for getting a gun would be higher (like in other countries), this wouldn’t prevent pointless and stupid crimes (like the Columbine Highschool massacre and the shooting in Denver) ?
Drugs are illegal in the US. And it is very very easy to get those. If the cops can’t keep drugs out of peoples hands how would they keep guns out?
Well, few people can fit a Glock in their colon, for starters.
It works fine in every other country. If the cops were really that incompetent I’d be sorry for it.
Indeed. :v
if you don’t die of internal bleeding, any kind of metal detector will see it anyway
what we need is metal detectors in schools and movie theaters 
“Rape laws are supposed to stop rapes?
Tell me more how a rapist follows the law.”
So much stupidity abounds here. What you did, k3nny, is essentially say that there should be no laws anywhere because, well, a criminal doesn’t follow the law, anyway. :facepalm:
You completely took the photo out of it’s context. Also, gun laws and rape laws are entirely different, as well as guns and rape in general.
What about gun rape?
I’m just saying that what the photo did was engage in two logical fallacies known as the “Perfect Solution Fallacy” and a “straw man”. Gun laws aren’t intended to prevent shooting sprees.
Ouch.
Fair enough, but still, you made it seem as though the photo was saying “since criminals don’t follow laws, lets just get rid of laws all together”, which was not what it was saying.
With all due respect, I have to ask you this: what are they there for then? They’re intended to make sure they don’t get into the wrong hands, and consequently, to prevent crimes a gun can be used for. A shooting spree falls under multiple murder charges, so this would be one of those crimes.
The laws were made to justify punishment. That’s why we have freedom but don’t live in total anarchy. Gun and rape laws serve to both punish the offenders and protect the victims.
What Maxey said.
Like seatbelts, gun laws are intended to reduce the possibility of gun crimes, not complete eradication. And, should gun crimes happen, there’s a course of action to take in response. That’s what all laws are. No, criminals aren’t going to follow the laws but that’s not the point.
I posted it because it was funny, not because it was the perfect argument. At any rate, I haven’t seen any conclusive evidence in this thread to determine anything about the effects (if any) gun bans have on crime.
For instance, examine this base of statistics and analysis on the results of the 1996 Australian gun ban. It didn’t INCREASE gun crimes per se, but the results of the ban overall leave much to be desired considering the high cost of the buyback program.
Somehow related: Thank God for the Batman Shooter!
I knew that WBC are idiots, but this is the first of their broadcasts I’ve ever watched.
Gun related crime laws would’ve been a better word for it, since a gun related crime and rape are both actions. K3nny’s post with the photo was talking about gun regulation laws.
Agreed, nothing I disagree with you there. I never stated that gun regulation laws were to completely eradicate gun related crimes, but help prevent them.
Exactly.
According to the CDC, for the years from 2004-2006, gun-related homicides in the US were approximately 4.14 per 100,000 people in one year.
For the UK, according to Krug 1998, that rate was about 0.07 out of 100,000 people.
For Australia, according to Krug 1998 (ibid), that number is about 0.44 out of 100,000 people.