'Murica. Holy !. 19 liu In Britain. guns are illegal, and their crime rate is much lawer than America' s, In Canada, gun ownership amongst civilians is much mor shit
Upload
Login or register

'Murica

Click to block a category:GamingPoliticsNewsComicsAnimeOther
Tags: shit
19 liu
In Britain. guns are illegal, and their crime rate is much lawer than
America' s, In Canada, gun ownership amongst civilians is much more than
America, and their crime rate is still leaner. So guns really durt' t kill people,
Americans kill people.
Like Comment - Evermore . Shane d, 13 LO 1 D I
ant' 10 like this.,
I _ Ben this is how I love yen .
January 19 at . Unlike . ill I
...
+1032
Views: 39666 Submitted: 12/10/2013
Hide Comments
Leave a comment Refresh Comments (263)
[ 263 comments ]
> hey anon, wanna give your opinion?
asd
User avatar #1 - godtherapist
Reply +96 123456789123345869
(12/10/2013) [-]
90 guns per capita in America and 30 guns per capita in Canada.

We do not have more guns. Not even close.
#29 to #1 - anon id: e9cffc67
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/11/2013) [-]
Also, Britain does not have a lower crime rate. They have a lower "Gun crime" rate, but their "Assault with a deadly weapon" rate, i.e Knives and ****, is much higher.
User avatar #41 to #29 - blacknbluebrony
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(12/11/2013) [-]
But I do believe that they classify criminal charges like that rather differently than how we do it in the United States

I could be wrong though
#60 to #29 - anon id: e797280a
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/11/2013) [-]
assault with a deadly weapon rate in britan its actually almost tripple what it is in america
canada has more axe muderers than any other country in the world by nearly double
latin america has more gun crime than half the planet combined. and its illegal to own a gun in alot of those countries.
#166 to #60 - bann
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(12/11/2013) [-]
I guess it doesn't really matter then, hate finds a way.
#265 to #60 - jaked
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/11/2013) [-]
Canada has more axe murderers because almost everyone who lives in a house outside of a city has an axe. I live in a city of 4 million and we still have a hatchet _just in case___
User avatar #45 to #1 - junkinator
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/11/2013) [-]
By "Capita" do you mean 30 guns in a given amount of land, vs 90 guns per the same amount of land? Or 30 per 1000 people vs 90 per 1000 people? Its kinda important because the population is diluted in Canada by them being the second largest country in the world and a population that doesn't come close to America
User avatar #128 to #45 - srskate
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/11/2013) [-]
per capita means per person. The latin root cap hints towards this.
#138 to #128 - jumperzero
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(12/11/2013) [-]
wait. so. in canada... every man has 30 guns. and in america, every man has 90 guns.
wait. so. in canada... every man has 30 guns. and in america, every man has 90 guns.
User avatar #140 to #138 - srskate
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(12/11/2013) [-]
godtherapist got the statistic wrong

america owns about 90 guns per 100 people, not per capita
canada owns roughly 30 guns per 100 people

source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country
#142 to #140 - jumperzero
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(12/11/2013) [-]
User avatar #146 to #142 - srskate
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(12/11/2013) [-]
The funny thing is that is entirely accurate. Only about 40% of americans This number is very unreliable though. It's self reported own guns, but almost all gun owners own multiple guns.
#150 to #146 - jumperzero
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(12/11/2013) [-]
User avatar #54 to #45 - jaggedherp
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(12/11/2013) [-]
Capita is 100,000 isn't it?
User avatar #129 to #54 - srskate
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(12/11/2013) [-]
per capita means per person. The latin root cap hints towards this.
User avatar #57 to #54 - junkinator
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(12/11/2013) [-]
Capita means a given amount of something. If you compare the weight of fat and muscle, you have to use the same amount. it would be asked "I bet you, per capita, muscle weighs more than fat"
User avatar #89 to #57 - ninegagxd
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(12/11/2013) [-]
No, you don't use it like that. What you're thinking of is "pound for pound."
Here's how you use it: "GDP per capita is $100,000". Per capita means "per head" in Latin. You are so wrong.
#93 to #89 - meganinja
0 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #97 to #93 - ninegagxd
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(12/11/2013) [-]
No, I'm not wrong
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Per_capita
I'm not posting as anon because I don't care about thumbs
User avatar #99 to #97 - meganinja
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(12/11/2013) [-]
I'm sorry, I read junkinator's comment incorrectly. I meant that your argument was wrong as in you were arguing the same point, but I see what's going on now.

For your troubles I'll thumb ya down.
#55 to #1 - retepraamrod
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/11/2013) [-]
In Canada we also have huge restrictions on hand guns, and only allow hunting guns, I believe.
User avatar #177 to #55 - eattherich
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/11/2013) [-]
There are restrictions on handguns(and some other types of firearms that fall into the restricted category). But all that means is you need to register it and get a long term permit for taking it away from your home. You also need to upgrade your firearms license(Officially called a Possession acquisition license) to allow you to own them. There are a ton of guns that don't fall into the restricted category and have no purpose hunting though.
User avatar #162 to #55 - megustaculo
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/11/2013) [-]
no.
lol
#170 to #1 - anon id: ca0aec87
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/11/2013) [-]
it's not per capita, it's per 100 residents. per capita means per head, or more commonly per person. so there wouldn't be 90 guns per person in the US. But you're still correct, Ben gave a bull **** stat.
#7 - twofreegerbils
Reply +84 123456789123345869
(12/10/2013) [-]
Britain's violent crime rate dwarfs the USA's.
User avatar #25 to #7 - MasterManiac
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(12/10/2013) [-]
That is true, but there are far less murders in the UK so while you are more likely to get stabbed you are still less likely to die. Just saying.
User avatar #26 to #25 - twofreegerbils
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(12/10/2013) [-]
Yeah, that's true, I'll admit.

But what if I told you that gun control has nothing to do with it?

United Kingdom murders per capita: 1.2
Mexico murders per capita: 23.7

Both of those countries have an almost 100% gun ban.
User avatar #28 to #26 - anonymoose
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(12/11/2013) [-]
23.7 murders per capita? Something seems fishy about that.
User avatar #40 to #28 - twofreegerbils
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(12/11/2013) [-]
Forgive me, per 100,000 persons
User avatar #36 to #28 - vivapinatapro
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(12/11/2013) [-]
He's using a study in 2012 that includes most countries of the world. Rates are calculated per 100,000 inhabitants. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
User avatar #38 to #36 - anonymoose
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(12/11/2013) [-]
"per capita" means "per person". You can't have more than 1 murder per capita because that would be the entire population.
User avatar #39 to #38 - vivapinatapro
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(12/11/2013) [-]
I understand that. I never said anything about per capita. I was just clarifying the situation.
#88 to #26 - anon id: a81d3636
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/11/2013) [-]
You can only make comparison justifiably if enforcement of gun control laws are equally effective in both countries, and they aren't. Also, the right to ownership of some models of firearms is embodied in Mexico's constitution, and it isn't in the UK.
User avatar #107 to #88 - twofreegerbils
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(12/11/2013) [-]
What you're basically saying is that enforcement of existing gun laws is more important than the gun laws themselves. Maybe we should enforce the gun laws that already exist in the US instead of creating new ones that won't be followed anyways.
#121 to #107 - anon id: a81d3636
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/11/2013) [-]
Or do both.
User avatar #210 to #107 - monswine
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(12/11/2013) [-]
what gun laws? The ones about registering everybody? nope. doesn't exist. Oh oh, what about the one about cross-state sales, again, whoops, nope, not a thing. Ok I know, how about the one where we keep track of guns that are sold at shows or conventions? dang it, what? US gun regulation is ridiculous. Ok that's unfair. Gun regulation that's decided by conservatives and gun lobbies is ridiculous. Obviously preventing middle-class white suburban families from owning revolvers and shotguns isn't going to do much to stop the murder rate in the US which is pretty much cause by inner-city violence. But the guns that get into the city aren't from there. They are imported from outside by people who by them thanks to the super lax regulations and smuggle them in illegally. The pistols that gangs and drug dealers get a hold of don't come from Mexico. But since no US agency is keeping track who knows? Maybe they do.
User avatar #215 to #210 - twofreegerbils
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(12/11/2013) [-]
Yeah, really sucks that the Firearm Owners Protection Act has already made a registry of non-NFA firearms illegal.

Read up before you talk like you know ****

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act#Registry_prohibition
User avatar #216 to #215 - monswine
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(12/11/2013) [-]
...son, I am in no way suggesting that the united states should enact illegal legislation, I am expressing displeasure at the fact that what in my mind are common-sense solutions are illegal due to current united states gun policies. Up here in Canadia there was a gun-registry in the works. The conservatives in charge scrapped the project when it was near completion because **** it save money or some other ******** justification (save money by not having a gun registry after already spending millions, spend millions re-renaming every branch of the military 'royal canadian _____', yeah right). Québec had to sue for the right to hold on to the already collected data on gun ownership.
User avatar #218 to #216 - twofreegerbils
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(12/11/2013) [-]
There are around 300 million guns in the USA

Go ahead and try and register them all
User avatar #219 to #218 - monswine
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(12/11/2013) [-]
god that's just an estimate too! nobody has any idea what the actual number is. I mean how the hell are you supposed to curb a crime epidemic without hard facts? Everyone is just talking out of their asses, it's purely emotion and nothing gets done.
User avatar #223 to #219 - twofreegerbils
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(12/11/2013) [-]
I just realized that picture is a gif and you can't enlarge it.

it's voilent crime from the 70's to 2010
#220 to #219 - twofreegerbils
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(12/11/2013) [-]
The thing is, it's not really an epidemic   
   
Violent crime is on a downwards trend   
   
The only epidemic is mass shootings, but that's a beast of an entirely different species
The thing is, it's not really an epidemic

Violent crime is on a downwards trend

The only epidemic is mass shootings, but that's a beast of an entirely different species
User avatar #225 to #220 - monswine
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(12/11/2013) [-]
Yeah I agree that the overall trend since the beginning of time has been less crime. I didn't mean to falsely imply that gun homicide is on the rise in the united states. It just bugs me when someone will say that everyone has guns in israel or switzerland and there's no gun crime there so the problem isn't guns. I don't know what they're implying the problem is. Poverty? Black People? McDonalds? And then someone else will say ''that's ******** you can't compare in Israel and Switzerland everyone is forced to do military training so they don't **** around with guns'' and then someone else is like ''no no, in those countries people don't have guns in their homes and all guns are stored in public government or military locations'' and then someone is like ''actually that stopped several years ago. Then someone talks about cowboys and gun worship. Someone always mentions Canada's flukishness and the Australian solution. Then the statistics on suicide and homicide get dragged out. You get the argument that the violent crime rate has little to do with the weapons but then people say yeah ok CRIME doesn't go down but death does cause it's obviously harder to kill with knives. and then someone says guns are a constitutional right and it can't be taken away and guns are pretty and I like them. Someone says there's a difference between guns designed for killing humans and guns designed for killing animals and nobody has a right to own weapons of war. the intent of the founders. and meanwhile nothing happens, we all seem to agree it's an insolvable dilemma for no reason. flurb.
#257 to #225 - whothewhereami
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(12/11/2013) [-]
That was a fantstic rant. Perfect summary of gun debate on the net. I think its all worth it though. It allows people on both sides of the argument to learn more, even if it is fought out in a childish manner. These people grow up, mature, see some real world **** only old guys know. Then make decisions hopefully for the better.
User avatar #229 to #225 - twofreegerbils
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(12/11/2013) [-]
The strongest correlation to violent crime is in
>population density
>poverty levels
>levels of education

Those are the big 3 that cause violent crime. I suggest you read this Harvard study:
www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf
#231 to #229 - anon id: a81d3636
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/11/2013) [-]
User avatar #262 to #231 - monswine
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(12/11/2013) [-]
beat me to it.
User avatar #230 to #229 - monswine
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(12/11/2013) [-]
not that old chestnuté
#65 to #7 - whothewhereami
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(12/11/2013) [-]
Thats because they record every crime. The record at a level of anal that no other country does. You cant compare countries easily through simple stats. The recording methods are different.
User avatar #66 to #65 - twofreegerbils
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(12/11/2013) [-]
see comment #26
#68 to #66 - whothewhereami
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(12/11/2013) [-]
#26 is a different arguement. I was just pointing out the futility of comparing crime rates. It gets very difficult. The Murder rate is usually considered the best way to compare actual crime rates between nations because it had far less grey area than other crimes.. For example... Is being stabbed with a pen a stabbing/knife crime? Is a couple of drunks giving each other a minor shunt assault? In one country it is in another its not. The UK records evrything and anything (which is why they look bad when the reality if far from it.) The murder rate however is simple. Is he a dead man?
User avatar #69 to #68 - commontroll
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(12/11/2013) [-]
>Implying Britain records everything
>Implying they say it's impossible for a woman to commit rape so that their statistics are almost cut in half for rape.

Right. America's not this barren, post-apocalyptic wasteland with no law. We record everything as well.
#72 to #69 - whothewhereami
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(12/11/2013) [-]
I'm not implying anything. I was 'saying' Britain does record to a level much higher than most countries (like my own little old New Zealand).
I didnt say anything about rape but thats a good example of how comparing some crimes is stupid.
And I bought this up because your first post implys that lives in a more violent society possibly because they have a gun ban.
p.s. Im not saying anything about the US. It seemed nice both times I went there (i live in Canada now btw).
User avatar #75 to #72 - commontroll
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(12/11/2013) [-]
Oh, that was my only comment to you.

But yeah, I mean, New Zealand's a great example. Sure, they officially have low murder rates, but that's because they don't report kills by Orc packs.

If they didn't like it in ************, then why live like they're back there?

Which parts have you been to? It definitely is nice depending on where you're at, just like any other nation.
#80 to #75 - whothewhereami
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(12/11/2013) [-]
I've been from LA up to Seattle, in to Idaho and New York. I need to head out west more.
All countries have thier bad areas right! And even if one place is statistaclly more dangerous than another we need to keep perspective. X in 100000 is a pretty low chance, esp if you have enough smarts to avoid dangerous place, people and predicaments.
#82 to #80 - whothewhereami
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(12/11/2013) [-]
Thats LA up to Seattle and everything in between.
Orcs are not really a problem, just need to be home before Dark.
User avatar #81 to #80 - commontroll
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(12/11/2013) [-]
Yeah, that's actually a great point. All the stats are always out of 100,000. Even with Mexico having it 23.7 per 100,000, that's a very low chance of being murdered, especially if you avoid, like you said, the ****** areas.
User avatar #134 to #7 - nigeltheoutlaw
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(12/11/2013) [-]
Why are people thumbing you down for being right?
#137 to #134 - anon id: a81d3636
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/11/2013) [-]
Could be because he's wrong.
User avatar #139 to #137 - nigeltheoutlaw
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(12/11/2013) [-]
>anon
#143 to #139 - anon id: a81d3636
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/11/2013) [-]
You wanna fight about it?
User avatar #145 to #143 - nigeltheoutlaw
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(12/11/2013) [-]
Maybe if you weren't anon.
#147 to #145 - anon id: a81d3636
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/11/2013) [-]
Yeah, just walk away, bitch.
User avatar #204 to #7 - monswine
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(12/11/2013) [-]
the definition of violent crime is larger in scope than in america.
User avatar #205 to #204 - twofreegerbils
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(12/11/2013) [-]
See: every single comment in this thread
User avatar #211 to #7 - yuukoku
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(12/11/2013) [-]
Yeah, I was thinking that the whole time. Yes, they have lower gun-related crimes, but there's still tons of crime in Britain.
I think that the population-density is the biggest contributor to this.
#241 to #7 - lordmoldywart
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(12/11/2013) [-]
Britain's population density dwarfs that of the USA's, when you're packed in together as tightly as we are, there's gonna be hostility.

Plus, 80% of Britons are chavs who carry their mum's kitchen knives around with them in their joggers
User avatar #248 to #241 - twofreegerbils
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/11/2013) [-]
That filthy thug defiling that glorious AK bayonet with his criminal doings

Maybe if all thugs carried AK bayonets we'd be better off since they're all dull as ****
#159 to #7 - anon id: 59ac594c
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/11/2013) [-]
Sure, but I rather be mugged than killed.

USA's murder rate dwarfs the UK's.


Source: United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime
User avatar #181 to #159 - twofreegerbils
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(12/11/2013) [-]
Never said it didn't. What's your point?
User avatar #185 to #159 - ilovehitler
Reply -3 123456789123345869
(12/11/2013) [-]
That just means you Brits can't kill a man properly.
User avatar #213 to #185 - yuukoku
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(12/11/2013) [-]
Would you rather be shot or stabbed?
User avatar #269 to #213 - ilovehitler
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(12/11/2013) [-]
Shot, of course.
User avatar #273 to #269 - yuukoku
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(12/11/2013) [-]
Point proven.
User avatar #84 to #7 - BeaverBalls
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(12/11/2013) [-]
not refuting or arguing with your comment, but i would like proof please
User avatar #106 to #84 - twofreegerbils
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(12/11/2013) [-]
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-25671/Violent-crime-worse-Britain-US.html

This isn't peer reviewed or anything but it IS written by britbongs about their own country, so that has to count for something.

I would do more for you but I'm working on a paper due in a few hours right now.
#114 to #106 - anon id: a81d3636
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/11/2013) [-]
Yeah, that line of reasoning has been refuted before. As others have mentioned, what constitutes a "violent crime" isn't standardised across countries. People reporting similar statistics have had their methodology questioned, and this fact-checker in particular concludes that if we standardised the definitions, the US would have 466 violent crimes per 100,000 and the UK would be in the range of 271 per 100,000:
blog.skepticallibertarian.com/2013/01/12/fact-checking-ben-swann-is-the-uk-really-5-times-more-violent-than-the-us/
User avatar #116 to #114 - twofreegerbils
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(12/11/2013) [-]
The entire argument is pointless, really
#119 to #116 - anon id: a81d3636
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/11/2013) [-]
Well, clearly not, since the US right-wing is so fond of using it to justify their ridiculous gun laws.
#22 to #7 - roninneko
Reply +6 123456789123345869
(12/10/2013) [-]
He's right, you know.
#23 to #22 - twofreegerbils
Reply +11 123456789123345869
(12/10/2013) [-]
At least I'll get top comment in Most Controversial
#35 - infinitereaper
Reply +48 123456789123345869
(12/11/2013) [-]
Well if we weren't #1 we wouldn't be America now would we?
Well if we weren't #1 we wouldn't be America now would we?
#63 to #35 - DerpScout
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(12/11/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
User avatar #6 - aquareefer
Reply +20 123456789123345869
(12/10/2013) [-]
Britain has made guns completely illegal and their crime rate is through the roof due to the fact that little ******* are running around stabbing people with shanks and mugging people on the streets; learn about something in all it's factural history before posting something that relates to gun and gun violence you retarded ************.

tl:dr - Guns dont kill people. Assholes with guns kill people. L

Learn the difference.
User avatar #237 to #6 - jopemon
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/11/2013) [-]
I would just like to say you can own a gun in Britain, i personally own a .22 sound moderated rifle and a shotgun, you just need to have a valid reason. mine is pest control, killing rabbits on my families land, but everything else you said was true.
#62 to #6 - whothewhereami
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(12/11/2013) [-]
It gets very difficult to do crime stats comparisons. Any complaint, second hand, unverified, suggested, false and so on is listed as a crime in the UK. This level of anal-ity is not recorded in the US or most other places. The UK changed thier recording system about 1995.
Usually long and murder rates is the best way to do a crime comparison because its the mot black and wihite crime... dead or alive.
Other crimes like stabbings get very grey. i.e. Is being stabbed with a set of keys a stabbing/knife crime?

Anyway, just pointing out the futilty of reading crime stats line for line. Its misleading.
#78 to #62 - anon id: 685a6fef
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/11/2013) [-]
Not necessarily, for example suicide and justified shootings are both counted in homicide rates in the US. I'm not sure if it's the same way in the UK but I do see room for error in murder rates as well.
#86 to #78 - whothewhereami
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/11/2013) [-]
Good Point. The plot thickens. Its probably really a case of dont expect to have anything resembling a comparison without years of study, understanding 'the systems' and access to all information.
#64 to #62 - places
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/11/2013) [-]
I have no anal-ity in me. At least I hope not.
#3 - anon id: c5831659
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/10/2013) [-]
Nice work on censoring you and your friend's names, Ben.
#118 to #3 - gingerjew **User deleted account**
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/11/2013) [-]
Yes, but.......   
 Ben WHO???
Yes, but.......
Ben WHO???
#155 to #118 - waitingformydeath
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(12/11/2013) [-]
Ben Dover
Ben Dover
User avatar #130 to #118 - fkelly
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/11/2013) [-]
ben macrae
#163 to #3 - bensho
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/11/2013) [-]
mfw Ben...
#179 to #3 - anon id: f802c23b
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/11/2013) [-]
he is uncle Benis
User avatar #27 to #3 - ugoboom
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(12/11/2013) [-]
>implying this is OC
User avatar #96 to #3 - severepwner
Reply +16 123456789123345869
(12/11/2013) [-]
HA HIS NAME IS BEN! NOW THAT WE KNOW HIS FIRST NAME IS BEN, LET'S GO TEAR APART IS FACEBOOK PAGE!
#133 to #96 - spacepixel
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/11/2013) [-]
Yeah.. it's too bad Ben drowned, though..
#42 - imashitbricks
Reply +13 123456789123345869
(12/11/2013) [-]
I'll probably get a lot of hate for saying this but that's because America is full of gangs (Bloods, Crips, the Klan and the other gangs in between) and then you get all the **** from the Mexican border spilling over like MS 13 and all the other drug related ****. Then you add the hillbillies and the psychos (all of whom can get their hands on guns very easily, legal or illegal it's not hard here), it adds up pretty quick. But not all of America is like that. There's just certain places you may want to avoid but then again every country probably has those places you'll want to steer clear of.
#103 to #42 - anon id: 51fe9041
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/11/2013) [-]
So I should avoid *******, white trash, psychos and spics?
So basically I should just avoid people in general over in America?
User avatar #117 to #103 - imashitbricks
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/11/2013) [-]
No. Just use common sense. If they look like they're affiliated with a gang or are completely off their rocker then just avoid them.
#43 to #42 - places
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(12/11/2013) [-]
I hope I'm not one of these places you need to avoid. I never hurt anyone.
#48 to #42 - blakhawk
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(12/11/2013) [-]
My thoughts: Guns can be a good thing, but gun control is too. Gun control doesn't mean taking everyone's guns, it mean you make it so the right people get guns.
#49 to #48 - anon id: 685a6fef
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/11/2013) [-]
Except the gun control movement in the US is more about taking guns than making sure they're in the hands of the right people.
#67 - sparkysparkybooman
Reply +12 123456789123345869
(12/11/2013) [-]
People love to act like gun crimes/violent crimes are on the rise in America, but truth is, they've been on a decline for nearly over 30 years (more or less depending on the study and crime(s) its reporting on).

One example out of many:
www.policymic.com/articles/23170/gun-control-facts-homicides-and-violent-crime-have-dropped-50-over-the-last-20-years

Many studies will show similar results.
#164 - ncsutroll
Reply +8 123456789123345869
(12/11/2013) [-]
we have more blacks.
#167 to #164 - deadmuerto
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/11/2013) [-]
#148 - yusay
Reply +7 123456789123345869
(12/11/2013) [-]
Actually, crime rates in the US and the UK are about the same.

The only major differences are the US having more gun crimes and the UK having a much higher knife crime rate.
User avatar #52 - billybeee
Reply +6 123456789123345869
(12/11/2013) [-]
The reason the second amendment exists is so that in the event of a tyrannical government the people can rise up against it. its to keep the government fearing the people, not the other way around.. which unfortunately it has become like that