-
My[Confined]Space
Better Than Bread
Movies Coming Soon- Star Trek Books
- “Star Trek: Voyager: 16 Seven Of Nine” Review by Deepspacespines.com
- Nana Visitor Joins Us to Talk About Her New Book – Star Trek: Open a Channel: A Woman’s Trek!
- Out Today: “Star Trek #26”
- Star Trek Strange New Worlds Asylum Book Review
- John Jackson Miller Books Ranked!
- “Star Trek: The Next Generation: Headlong Flight” Review by Lessaccurategrandmother.blogspot.com
- Jumping into Adventure with “Into the Void”
- Happy 2024 Birthday to Jim Johnson!
- “Star Trek: Strange New Worlds: Asylum” Review by Trek.fm
- Beadle & Grimm Interview With StarTrekBookClub.com
- Movie Related Products
- “Deadpool & Wolverine” Review
- Kevin Smith Is Getting Closer and Closer to Dogma 2
- “The Garfield Movie” Review
- Disney Said to be Considering a Surprising Replacement for Bob Iger: EA CEO Andrew Wilson – IGN
- Amazon Is Shutting Down Freevee, Its Ad-Supported Video Streamer
- “Breathe” Review
- “Transformers One” Review
- Captain America: Brave New World | Official Trailer
- Marvel Studios’ Thunderbolts* | D23 Brazil Special Look | In Theaters May 2, 2025
- Mattel apologizes after mistakenly printing porn site on ‘Wicked’ movie dolls packaging | CNN Business
- Music Video DB
Yeah but guns dont kill people!
But they do help.
Ya but London England has a higher crime rate than NYC, LA, Chicago, and Toronto combined.
Anti-gun assholes = stupid. Crime is a symptom of an imbalanced economic system that victimizes integrity and rewards the most deviant all while claiming to do the opposite.
Guns are a tool used by people for a purpose but have nothing to do with the purpose.
These are the same kinds of people who will march to fight tobacco companies but because they’re so fat have to take a break every 10 seconds and never see the stupidity of crying out to save lives when obesity is MUCH worse than smoking 3 packs a day.
I’m in Canada and wish we had more guns. Maybe then people would stop being such mouthy fuckwits?
Of course guns help kill people; kidnappers, muggers, murderers, rapists, burglars, and tyrants are people too.
Also, I’m pulling my weight for 3 people, get to work everyone!
Um yeah…obesity is not really worse than smoking. I would say they are pretty much equals. Both cause death, both cause shortness of breath(sometimes to the extreme) and blah blah blah, they share many things in common especially the waste factor of each.
“Guns help kill people.”
You know, in pretty much any country in the world, if you *really*and honestly wanted to kill somebody(outside of somebody with a real security detail), there’s not much anybody can do to stop you, gun or not.
furthermore, those who break the law already are more apt to break the law again, so if someone is a criminal they’re more likely to have a gun with or without laws… gun laws prevent those who are law abiding citizens from protecting themselves.
What if someone at Columbine or Virginia Tech had a legally concealed weapon and was able to use it?
In terms of the actual effect on your health, smoking probably isn’t quite as bad as obesity. Both are terrible for you, and both will inevitably kill you, but obesity is a bit more efficient about it. I see plenty of elderly people (read: over 60) people who smoke, but I hardly see any obese people of the same age. The reason? The obese people are dead before they hit 60.
Not only that, but there are a lot more obese people than there are smokers (though there is naturally some overlap), which means that more people total wind up dying from obesity-related causes than do smoking. Problem is, if you tell a fat person they shouldn’t be fat, you’re “discriminating against them and their life choice”. But if you tell a smoker they shouldn’t smoke, well that’s just sound health advice.
Wait, why am I writing this in a gun thread? Ban ’em. Completely. There’s no reason for anyone to be carrying lethal weaponry in a civilized country. Rifles, handguns, shotguns, the whole lot. Get rid of them all. And criminalise the sale of ammunition as well. The only people with guns should be the military. Sure, there’ll be a time where the criminals are armed and the rest of the population isn’t, but eventually they’ll run out of ammunition and be left with nothing more than a fancy and rather ineffective club.
On another note, this is a “small arms survey” meaning it probably just includes handguns. Its also missing many militant countries (which they probably couldn’t get data for, becuase they’d be shot by militants), so I have a feeling this graph is very skewed…
An old NRA proverb goes, “Don’t bring a knife to a gunfight.”
@AgZed
There are perfectly good reasons to have guns. Ever hear of hunting? Furthermore, your idea of having the military have guns and civilians to not is flawed. What about cops? Are they, I’m guessing armed with night sticks, supposed to go head on with a criminal who has a gun? Furthermore, if there’s ammunation available, legally or illegally, those who are apt to do illegal actions will still be able to get a hold of them. Hell, even if ammunition and guns aren’t even available in the country in any legal form, its called smuggling. Making more things illegal just increases the amount of illegal activity this country has, and really doesn’t solve the problem. People will always want weapons, whether for defensive or offensive purposes, and if there’s a will there’s a way.
@... AgZed
Do you really think that a countrywide ban on firearms will keep them out of the country? Because absolute bans always work. “The war on drugs” has proved this. In that sort of society where firearms are illegal, your degenerate criminal who wants a firearm is going to be able to get a hold of it a lot easier than an average, decent citizen who just wants one to defend his/her family.
“Fancy and rather ineffective club.”
Um….ever been hit with a “club” type weapon? It’s no joke.
“There’s no reason for anyone to be carrying lethal weaponry in a civilized country”
Sorry, but this isn’t a utopian society. Also, define “lethal weaponry.” Should we also outlaw knives with blades longer than 2 inches and just enact airplane safety type laws? And what about vehicles? More people die per year from automobile accidents than they do from gun related, violent crimes.
@... Mystik.
“Small arms” generally refers to any weapon that one person can carry. This include everything up to assault rifles, light to medium machine guns, grenades, shotguns, rifles, and even your smaller mortars and rocket launchers.
An armed society is a polite society.
The graphs about “number of imprisoned people per capita” and “number of gun related homicides per capita” look exactly the same. Only the scale differs.
Abdix that’s ridiculous, A police state would never allow it’s citizens to be armed. Think before you speak.
AgZed: You act as if it’s a difficult thing to make ammunition. It’s not in the least, and it’s not hard to find instructions on how to do it.
Also, here’s a reason why a civilized person may need a gun: the average woman will lose a physical fight with an average man. If a chart-average man decides he wants to rape a chart-average woman, there is nothing she can do to stop it unless she is armed. Unless you also plan to make rape illegal when you ban all guns?
Kendo_Bunny: Um… I’m pretty sure rape is already illegal. Aside from the inanity of claiming a gun is the only viable means of protection when physically out-classed, you go around arming all the women, it just increases the odds that the rapist will have a gun too. And since he knows with absolute certainty his victim will be armed, he’ll probably be more diligent about making sure he can use his gun.
Regardless, my starry-eyed Utopian dream of completely removing firearms from the civilian populace is about as likely, as someone else mentioned, as winning the war on drugs. So if we have to live with guns, I just say get rid of the handguns. Give everyone big fuck-off rifles and make it perfectly legal, nay, illegal *not* to, carry your rifle wherever you go.
That way there’s no question of, “I wanna rob that guy, I wonder if he’s armed or not.” You know damned well he armed. Let’s see how many people still risk it when they know for an absolute certainty that their “victim” is armed. And hell, let’s be honest. We’re never going to get rid of handguns either. There’s too many of them, and the gun industry lobby would never let it happen, so let’s throw in a requirement to carry one of them too. Hell, carry two. And a derringer in your boot. Or shoe.
If we can’t get rid of guns, then we might as well just make damn sure that every single one of us is armed to the teeth. Some may say, “But AgZed, that sounds like the Wild West, which was terribly violent and a man’s life was worth less than his boots.” But I say, these are different times! Our guns are bigger now, dammit!
And one of the worlds problems can be represented by this thread.
I’m truly amazed at gun nuts and their excuses of why to keep weapons. I live perfectly fine without one, and need never fear one in this country which has banned them for the public.
And Magnus, stop speaking out of your arse and plucking ‘facts’ out of thin air. Twat.
Looking for the UK… looking for the UK…. awwww ! We’re not on there !
Ah well, guess I’ll go ask my not-shot-to-death friends why, given our low murder rate I suspect that are all still alive. And not shot.
You people are forgetting one incredibly important thing. We need guns, not to protect us from rapists and criminals, but to protect us from the GOVERNMENT!
If you look back in history, when the government wanted to take total control over the people, what is the first thing they did? They Banned guns! Why? because a people without weapons are much easier to control than a people will armed.
Think about it, why is Chinaland at the bottom of this graph?
That survey suffers from fail. I’ll tell you why – biased sample.
Look at the name of the survey: Small Arms Survey 2007. It sounds like they surveyed people who are gun dealers, consumers, or other aficionados. There is absolutely no way that 9 out of 10 people in the US have firearms. None. Maybe 9 out of 10 people they surveyed walking out of gun stores. But no, sorry, I simply cannot accept these results. And @... phantomwhale, they have England/Wales listed as “Britain”. I guess they figured the Scots would skew the results??
though i am not anti gun i also dont think people need to have som any friggin guns. and to those who claim that guns dont kill people kill, wtf? the gun doesnt facilitate that you idiots? i loved skewed logic and thats why idiots rule!
ps i am also an idiot for not completing one the sentences above. DOH! brain moves faster then the fingers.
i fail.
@phantomwhale: Can you even read?
MadScientist is right in that this graph is skewed, because there’s no way 9 in 10 people own a gun. The numbers might just work out like that though, statistically, because of the amount of multiple guns owned by one person.
@borandi: If you’ve never lived with a fear of something related to firearms, then why does it bother you that somebody would like to own one?
I’d like to know how many antigun people in this thread have ever actually shot a gun before. They’re not evil, and the only thing a government can do is remove firearms from the responsible citizens who actually obey the law in the first place and are therefore less likely to commit a crime. Hey, here’s some news: maybe you might even have fun shooting a gun. And, call me crazy here, but maybe–JUST MAYBE–you’d find that the majority of gun owners aren’t psychopathic killers with self esteem issues.
Magnus is, in a sense at least, correct regarding London’s high crime rate, though looking at papers from both sides of the pond, there seems to be a clusterfuck of statistics.
The Times, 2005 (UK):
New York’s murder rate per person: 6.9 per 100,000, making it it the safest large city in America
London’s murder rate per person: 2.4 per 100,000
Whereas ‘Reason’ magazine dot com (American):
“Your chances of being mugged in London are now six times greater than in New York. England’s rates of assault, robbery, and burglary are far higher than America’s”
Apart from murder, I’d say Magnus is right about London’s dangerous reputation. But hey, this is an article about guns. Murder is pretty high on the agenda.
lol @... borandi
I don’t pull facts out of my ass. That was two doubters who got proven wrong and I didn’t have to lift a finger. London also has a binge drinking problem. Yet nobody would dare restrict booze!
My facts were pulled from big big old brain which I fill with nutritious information. So quit doubting me and talking out of your ass.
borandi, you have shown that clearly you are the twat. The big hairy kind too that NObody likes.
I also like your point that you live fine without one. Reminds me of that Southpark in the first season when the guy throws a rock at Mr Mackey for smoking weed (or being accused of it at that point) and starts yellig about how bad drugs are and how he’s never taken them and he’s just fine.
Who the fuck cares if you don’t own a gun? You probably have gotten by with a tiny dick and no friends too but that doesn’t mean anybody wants to be like you.
Oh and obesity is WAY worse for your health than smoking. Its laughable that anyone would think otherwise.
MadScientist needs to retake MadStatistics.
The graph is NOT saying 9 out of 10 people own a firearm. It’s saying that there are 270 civilian firearms in a country with a population of 300 millions people. What is so hard to understand?
of course I meant 270 Million firearms
@The Matrix: Rebooted: wat
the graph is saying that there are 270 million civilian firearms in USA, and just under 90 out of 100 people own a gun; which simplifies to 9 of 10.
www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html
also, USA has 304 million people, so 270mil/304mil = 135 out of 152 people own a gun.
and i don’t buy that shit. they obviously just took the number of firearms out there and assumed that they were evenly distributed.
THE NUMBER OF ARMED CIVILIANS FAR OUTWEIGHS THE NUMBER OF ARMED TROOPS/POLICE IN AMERICA
First off, this survey DOES NOT say that 9 out of 10 people own a gun. It says that there are 9 guns per every 10 people in the US. It doesn’t mean those 9 people OWN the gun, just that they exist.
As to guns being worse to your health than smoking, thats bullshit. Never been hurt by a gun, and fewer people are killed by guns than by smoking. And your talking to a native Texan with formal weapons training, who smokes. So i feel that I have experience in both fields.
I said obesity is worse than smoking.
Guns, as I said, are a tool used by people who feel its necessary at the time. That time and those people are influenced into acting as such by any number of external factors.
But go ahead and ban guns. Even if you got all the guns out of America all you’d see is a surge in the increase in knife related crimes. Then what? Ban knives? Then people will use their fists. Ban their hands?
The thinking is so flawed its remarkable.
@AgZed.
It’s become apparent that you have no clue what the hell you’re talking about when it comes to self defense and weaponry of any sort.
What this says is if there are 100 people, there are 90 guns. It doesn’t say that of those 100 people, and those 90 guns, gun owners only own 1 gun.
If all the gun owners own 2 guns, then 45 of the 100 own guns, if its 3 guns each, then 30 of the 100.
That is nothing more than simple math and reading comprehension.
AgZed: I was being sarcastic. Rape being illegal does not stop people from doing it.
Also, can you please explain to me why I don’t have the right to attempt to outshoot a man who intends me harm? I can not fight him off physically, and I can not run from him. A woman can choose to not arm herself. I don’t think it’s the wisest course, but if she chooses it, then that’s her right. The point is, a rapist should always have the possibility of walking face-first into a loaded .45. Maybe that will make some criminals reconsider.
Also, you know what the number 1 cause of violent death in the Wild West was? Blunt trauma to the skull. Not bullet wounds. People in those days needed their guns and their bullets- if they lost their temper and wanted someone dead, they usually beat them to death. If I was going to start hoping anything, I’d hope that the people today are civilized enough to prevent a murder by beating happening in public, though I wouldn’t bet too heavily on it. It would probably be posted on YouTube.
Oh, and I own one gun. My father owns at least 20, mostly antique collectors pieces of historical interest (WWII-era rifles and handguns, Russian, German, British, and American issue, as well as some Vietnam military-issue from the Vietnam War). I have never even pointed my unloaded gun at another person, and if my Dad ever shot someone, it was during the war.
Jagermeister: You can’t really compare smoking to guns. One is an act, the other is an inanimate object. It would be more apt to compare a gun to a cigarette, and in that case neither is more dangerous than the other, it’s what you do with them that makes them dangerous. In that case, I’d agree that the gun is safer, since most people would be more likely to smoke a cigarette than shoot themselves. Of course, if you compare actions (shooting the gun and smoking the cigarette), then the reverse is true, since the cigarette can only kill you, but the gun potentially could kill many more. But at this point I’m just arguing semantics and being a pedantic douchebag, so let’s move on.
FlyingMantisShrimp: You might want to take a look at your Sarcasm-O-Meter. It appears to be malfunctioning.
Kendo_Bunny: Your exact words were: “Unless you also plan to make rape illegal when you ban all guns?” But rape is already illegal. So we wouldn’t have to make it illegal if we banned guns. Unless you meant to say “make rape legal”, but that makes no logical sense. “Well, people don’t have guns anymore, so let’s just make everything illegal legal now so that um…” I can’t even come up with a facetious ending to that sentence. And while something being illegal doesn’t stop people from doing it, it does make it less likely they will. If we lived in some crazy society where it was considered normal and acceptable for any man to grab any woman he fancied and have his messy way with here, can you honestly tell me that such a society wouldn’t have a incredibly high number of women being raped, according to our definition of the term? Please note that I’m not saying this would happen if rape was suddenly legalized tomorrow, I’m talking about a hypothetical society where it was considered acceptable to illustrate the point that morality is relative and that making something illegal (and therefore attaching consequences to it), significantly reduces the number of people who will risk the consequences.
For the record, I own two guns: My grandfather’s .303 Lee Enfield and a Springfield M1903 from my uncle. Though to date all I’ve done with either is blow up small trees.
@... AgZed
For the record, it wasn’t my example, it was a continuation from earlier references to smoking. BTW, I’m still going to disagree on the shootings killing more than smoking but hey, what can you do. And you forgot second hand smoke…
I’m wondering tho. If we ban guns in a civilized country, how would we enforce no rape without weaponry?
Since everyone else was listing their weapons:
20 Gauge over under double barrel
12 Gauge Pump
30-30
.45 Colt 1911
HK 4
.357 Magnum
(plus experience on many others…)
@AgZed
Oh, sorry. I should have picked up on the Comic Sarcasm font you were using. I guess I just couldn’t read between the lines of what resembled most antigun rhetoric. Gee, what was I thinking?
Really? I was supposed to tell which of your retarded points on this subject was the “honest” one? Between 1) you saying we should ban guns as a whole and 2) you saying everybody should carry a giant rifle to ward off attackers?
Guess I should just take more classes on talking out of my ass and then taking the stance of “GEE, CAN’T YOU TAKE A JOKE!?!? LOL!”
Agzed: It’s called an ironic statement. It is ironic because rape is illegal, but people do it. One of the primary reasons I own a gun is personal protection. I encourage my female friends to do the same. By removing our means of defending ourselves, I was asking how you would compensate for that.
I asked, ironically, if you would make sure it was illegal to do the thing which your hypothetical law has prevented me from protecting myself against. If I can not defend myself because it is illegal for me to own a weapon, how do you propose to protect me? By making another law against rape and assault? Or maybe assigning every woman constant police protection? (That last bit was an ironic question, meant to emphasize the ridiculous and thus show the weaknesses of your position)
While we’re comparing, I have a .38 Taurus Tracker revolver.
READ THIS
www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1850156/posts
/gives the 2nd amendment merry-go-round another spin
/tells st_judas to get his commie hands off the merry-go-round before he shoots him.
the key word is civilan. The Swiss are the most heavily armed people in the world, utilizing mass conscription most households are armed with at least assault rifles and many with beltfed machine guns, at-tank missiles, or mortars.