x
FJ is now mobile friendly. Try it out on your mobile browser!
Click to expand

Zarke

Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Gender: male
Date Signed Up:3/24/2010
Location:TROG
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#15036
Highest Content Rank:#12064
Highest Comment Rank:#2296
Content Thumbs: 17 total,  27 ,  10
Comment Thumbs: 3656 total,  4433 ,  777
Content Level Progress: 35.59% (21/59)
Level 0 Content: Untouched account → Level 1 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress: 5% (5/100)
Level 236 Comments: Ambassador Of Lulz → Level 237 Comments: Ambassador Of Lulz
Subscribers:1
Content Views:1525
Total Comments Made:2455
FJ Points:3751

latest user's comments

#133 - Oh, that's right. They aren't used for murder. They're used fo…  [+] (5 new replies) 02/06/2013 on Gun Graph 0
User avatar #136 - defeats (02/06/2013) [-]
That is because "homicide" is the act of killing another human, whether intentional, accidental, self defence or whatever.
So firearm homicide means any killing of a person with a firearm.

Guns are made to kill people, those who carry them for self defence will kill someone if they need to, and those who carry them to murder someone will likely murder them, or attempt it.

It doesn't matter if 1% of gun owners are using them to shoot at ranges if the other 99% carry them for the sole reason of shooting someone (for personal defence or otherwise).

Anyway, your Government aren't trying to ban guns, they're trying to better control them, people with special needs and other mental problems should not have the right to own a gun. It shouldn't be a right anyway, it should be a privilege for those who prove they can be safe and rational with it.
User avatar #171 - sketchE (02/07/2013) [-]
the stupid in this hurts.most people who buy guns are hunters. everyone seems to think that theres stockpiles in suburban towns but bambis head isnt on the wall in these houses. and not everyone carries a gun to kill someone. pulling a gun makes the little shit trying to rob me with a knife run pretty quick. many of the people who do carry for self defense will never pull the trigger to end another life.

and homicide is the intentional murder of another human being. accidental is not homicide
User avatar #172 - defeats (02/07/2013) [-]
Indeed, accidental killing is manslaughter.

"The FBI estimates that there are over 200 million privately-owned firearms in the US."
That's a lot of fucking hunters dude.
User avatar #173 - sketchE (02/08/2013) [-]
most hunters have about five firearms. my uncles got about twelve
User avatar #139 - Zarke (02/06/2013) [-]
Well no shit.

Well, if you do anything to defend yourself, wouldn't you kill if you had to?

Your stats for recreational shooters are largely skewed, but whatever.

Following the 1994 "Assault Weapons Ban", they admitted to be trying to do exactly that, and it's reasonable to believe that they're still trying to do that after Mrs. Hypocrite-Stein openly told "Mr. and Mrs. America" to turn in their guns.

I agree, people with mental health background and a criminal history have forfeit that right. In fact, those laws are already in place. Doesn't mean that you should penalize and handicap stable, law-abiding citizens for the sake of people who shouldn't have firearms in the first place.
#131 - But the "problem people" aren't going to comply with…  [+] (12 new replies) 02/06/2013 on Gun Graph 0
User avatar #132 - scant (02/06/2013) [-]
Every pro-gun person I've talked to holds that attitude... it's almost eerie...
'The "problem people" aren't going to listen to control laws, so why should we?'
Yeah, okay. Well, ya know, criminals don't listen to many laws at all, do they? Let's take them ALL away! After all, if they don't adhere to them, why should we?
User avatar #134 - Zarke (02/06/2013) [-]
Well, logically, if there's no laws, there are no criminals. I mean, it's perfect!

Don't pull that slippery slope bullshit. Laws are put in place to protect people. They don't mean anything if they don't do anything to actually protect people.
User avatar #135 - scant (02/06/2013) [-]
If you're gonna pull loaded questioning, I'll pull slippery slope. One logical fallacy for another.
Question: Do you believe there is a gun problem in America?
User avatar #137 - Zarke (02/06/2013) [-]
I believe that it amplifies the more basic problems in society. More of a coefficient than a base number, so to speak.
User avatar #138 - scant (02/06/2013) [-]
So then you believe that a solution to what most people think of as the "gun problem" would come about from attempting to fix these other issues.
User avatar #140 - Zarke (02/06/2013) [-]
Well, why not? A large percentage of gun crimes are committed by gangs. Get kids out of gangs and you don't have a gang problem. Mentally unstable people are dangerous? Get them the treatment they need. Let's not forget that many states (it might even be federal) say that unstable people shouldn't be allowed to possess firearms anyways. That hasn't stopped them.
User avatar #141 - scant (02/06/2013) [-]
Given the state of American healthcare, the part about mentally unstable people is rather of amusing. But the fact is, it all comes back to the attitude about guns. Despite the flaws in the graph, it clearly shows that there are a number of countries who have roughly the same amount of "murders per 100,000 people" with drastically fewer firearms.
User avatar #144 - Zarke (02/06/2013) [-]
Well, to be honest, I don't exactly think American healthcare is the best it could be either, but I haven't really been following the state of that institution since I left the country.

I could also point out that you don't see high murder rates in countries with high firearms density. To me the graph looks like a filter, where you have various instances of murder in a given density section (these countries are also largely unlabeled. They could have a very good handle on gang violence and mental health issues), but the range of murders is restricted as the density changes.
User avatar #145 - scant (02/06/2013) [-]
Correlation does not imply causation, you're right. High murder density may not be caused by high gun density.
However, as I've said, the graph doesn't detail what KIND of murders per 100k people it is graphing. The highest murder rates may not involve guns at all, and the American murder rate might be exclusively gun related, but not quite as high. This skews the results a lot. Just examples, of course, but it serves to prove my point.
User avatar #152 - Zarke (02/06/2013) [-]
It's not a perfect solution, I'll give you that. However, there are other problems to be solved. Like I said, if you can get kids out of gangs, that murder stat will certainly diminish. Hell, even guns per capita may go down since less people would feel the need to protect themselves.
User avatar #147 - Zarke (02/06/2013) [-]
Not really. I could also make the point that the presence of firearms acts as a deterrent to other forms of violent crime. Which makes sense. J. D. Thugg is less likely to rob a convenience store if he thinks a concealed carrier would Swiss cheese him the moment he threatens the cashier.
User avatar #149 - scant (02/06/2013) [-]
With such a high proportion of law-abiding citizens owning guns, it seems surprising that crime in America is as prevalent as it is. I don't believe guns are nearly as effective a deterrent as gun lobbyists believe they are.
#127 - "Don't blame gun issues on society."  [+] (14 new replies) 02/06/2013 on Gun Graph 0
User avatar #128 - scant (02/06/2013) [-]
Poorly worded. I meant to say that diverting attention away from gun-control by saying it's a problem with the people is moronic. you can't change the attitude of the people without removing some part of the gun culture.
User avatar #131 - Zarke (02/06/2013) [-]
But the "problem people" aren't going to comply with gun-control laws. Be definition, criminals don't follow laws.

Also, many gun control laws really don't solve anything. That 1994 "Assault Weapons Ban" did NOTHING to stop gun crime. New York's "You can carry a 10-round magazine, but you can only carry 7 rounds" is just a bullshit handicap on people who concealed carry to protect their lives that is easily circumvented by a criminal who either buys a standard 12 - 19-round magazine out of state or just... you know, carries a full magazine. Gun-free zones only deter people who obey the law in the first place.
User avatar #132 - scant (02/06/2013) [-]
Every pro-gun person I've talked to holds that attitude... it's almost eerie...
'The "problem people" aren't going to listen to control laws, so why should we?'
Yeah, okay. Well, ya know, criminals don't listen to many laws at all, do they? Let's take them ALL away! After all, if they don't adhere to them, why should we?
User avatar #134 - Zarke (02/06/2013) [-]
Well, logically, if there's no laws, there are no criminals. I mean, it's perfect!

Don't pull that slippery slope bullshit. Laws are put in place to protect people. They don't mean anything if they don't do anything to actually protect people.
User avatar #135 - scant (02/06/2013) [-]
If you're gonna pull loaded questioning, I'll pull slippery slope. One logical fallacy for another.
Question: Do you believe there is a gun problem in America?
User avatar #137 - Zarke (02/06/2013) [-]
I believe that it amplifies the more basic problems in society. More of a coefficient than a base number, so to speak.
User avatar #138 - scant (02/06/2013) [-]
So then you believe that a solution to what most people think of as the "gun problem" would come about from attempting to fix these other issues.
User avatar #140 - Zarke (02/06/2013) [-]
Well, why not? A large percentage of gun crimes are committed by gangs. Get kids out of gangs and you don't have a gang problem. Mentally unstable people are dangerous? Get them the treatment they need. Let's not forget that many states (it might even be federal) say that unstable people shouldn't be allowed to possess firearms anyways. That hasn't stopped them.
User avatar #141 - scant (02/06/2013) [-]
Given the state of American healthcare, the part about mentally unstable people is rather of amusing. But the fact is, it all comes back to the attitude about guns. Despite the flaws in the graph, it clearly shows that there are a number of countries who have roughly the same amount of "murders per 100,000 people" with drastically fewer firearms.
User avatar #144 - Zarke (02/06/2013) [-]
Well, to be honest, I don't exactly think American healthcare is the best it could be either, but I haven't really been following the state of that institution since I left the country.

I could also point out that you don't see high murder rates in countries with high firearms density. To me the graph looks like a filter, where you have various instances of murder in a given density section (these countries are also largely unlabeled. They could have a very good handle on gang violence and mental health issues), but the range of murders is restricted as the density changes.
User avatar #145 - scant (02/06/2013) [-]
Correlation does not imply causation, you're right. High murder density may not be caused by high gun density.
However, as I've said, the graph doesn't detail what KIND of murders per 100k people it is graphing. The highest murder rates may not involve guns at all, and the American murder rate might be exclusively gun related, but not quite as high. This skews the results a lot. Just examples, of course, but it serves to prove my point.
User avatar #152 - Zarke (02/06/2013) [-]
It's not a perfect solution, I'll give you that. However, there are other problems to be solved. Like I said, if you can get kids out of gangs, that murder stat will certainly diminish. Hell, even guns per capita may go down since less people would feel the need to protect themselves.
User avatar #147 - Zarke (02/06/2013) [-]
Not really. I could also make the point that the presence of firearms acts as a deterrent to other forms of violent crime. Which makes sense. J. D. Thugg is less likely to rob a convenience store if he thinks a concealed carrier would Swiss cheese him the moment he threatens the cashier.
User avatar #149 - scant (02/06/2013) [-]
With such a high proportion of law-abiding citizens owning guns, it seems surprising that crime in America is as prevalent as it is. I don't believe guns are nearly as effective a deterrent as gun lobbyists believe they are.
#126 - Recreation. There are recreational shooters. Also, de…  [+] (7 new replies) 02/06/2013 on Gun Graph 0
User avatar #129 - defeats (02/06/2013) [-]
Yeah, but most people who buy guns in the US are NOT using them for target shooting or hunting. They are used mainly for personal defence, and very often used to murder people.
Cars in the US are used only for transport, and extremely rarely for murdering people.
User avatar #133 - Zarke (02/06/2013) [-]
Oh, that's right. They aren't used for murder. They're used for manslaughter. Because the loss of life only means something if it's intentional, doesn't it?

They're carried for defense because people murder people. It's a reaction. Also, legitimate acts of self-defense are still counted as murder stats. Even acts committed by police and security personnel are counted.
User avatar #136 - defeats (02/06/2013) [-]
That is because "homicide" is the act of killing another human, whether intentional, accidental, self defence or whatever.
So firearm homicide means any killing of a person with a firearm.

Guns are made to kill people, those who carry them for self defence will kill someone if they need to, and those who carry them to murder someone will likely murder them, or attempt it.

It doesn't matter if 1% of gun owners are using them to shoot at ranges if the other 99% carry them for the sole reason of shooting someone (for personal defence or otherwise).

Anyway, your Government aren't trying to ban guns, they're trying to better control them, people with special needs and other mental problems should not have the right to own a gun. It shouldn't be a right anyway, it should be a privilege for those who prove they can be safe and rational with it.
User avatar #171 - sketchE (02/07/2013) [-]
the stupid in this hurts.most people who buy guns are hunters. everyone seems to think that theres stockpiles in suburban towns but bambis head isnt on the wall in these houses. and not everyone carries a gun to kill someone. pulling a gun makes the little shit trying to rob me with a knife run pretty quick. many of the people who do carry for self defense will never pull the trigger to end another life.

and homicide is the intentional murder of another human being. accidental is not homicide
User avatar #172 - defeats (02/07/2013) [-]
Indeed, accidental killing is manslaughter.

"The FBI estimates that there are over 200 million privately-owned firearms in the US."
That's a lot of fucking hunters dude.
User avatar #173 - sketchE (02/08/2013) [-]
most hunters have about five firearms. my uncles got about twelve
User avatar #139 - Zarke (02/06/2013) [-]
Well no shit.

Well, if you do anything to defend yourself, wouldn't you kill if you had to?

Your stats for recreational shooters are largely skewed, but whatever.

Following the 1994 "Assault Weapons Ban", they admitted to be trying to do exactly that, and it's reasonable to believe that they're still trying to do that after Mrs. Hypocrite-Stein openly told "Mr. and Mrs. America" to turn in their guns.

I agree, people with mental health background and a criminal history have forfeit that right. In fact, those laws are already in place. Doesn't mean that you should penalize and handicap stable, law-abiding citizens for the sake of people who shouldn't have firearms in the first place.
#122 - So gang-related crime isn't a societal problem? Insane people …  [+] (16 new replies) 02/06/2013 on Gun Graph 0
User avatar #123 - scant (02/06/2013) [-]
Yeah, because I totally said all that stuff. See, it's right there, in that comment I made.
User avatar #127 - Zarke (02/06/2013) [-]
"Don't blame gun issues on society."
User avatar #128 - scant (02/06/2013) [-]
Poorly worded. I meant to say that diverting attention away from gun-control by saying it's a problem with the people is moronic. you can't change the attitude of the people without removing some part of the gun culture.
User avatar #131 - Zarke (02/06/2013) [-]
But the "problem people" aren't going to comply with gun-control laws. Be definition, criminals don't follow laws.

Also, many gun control laws really don't solve anything. That 1994 "Assault Weapons Ban" did NOTHING to stop gun crime. New York's "You can carry a 10-round magazine, but you can only carry 7 rounds" is just a bullshit handicap on people who concealed carry to protect their lives that is easily circumvented by a criminal who either buys a standard 12 - 19-round magazine out of state or just... you know, carries a full magazine. Gun-free zones only deter people who obey the law in the first place.
User avatar #132 - scant (02/06/2013) [-]
Every pro-gun person I've talked to holds that attitude... it's almost eerie...
'The "problem people" aren't going to listen to control laws, so why should we?'
Yeah, okay. Well, ya know, criminals don't listen to many laws at all, do they? Let's take them ALL away! After all, if they don't adhere to them, why should we?
User avatar #134 - Zarke (02/06/2013) [-]
Well, logically, if there's no laws, there are no criminals. I mean, it's perfect!

Don't pull that slippery slope bullshit. Laws are put in place to protect people. They don't mean anything if they don't do anything to actually protect people.
User avatar #135 - scant (02/06/2013) [-]
If you're gonna pull loaded questioning, I'll pull slippery slope. One logical fallacy for another.
Question: Do you believe there is a gun problem in America?
User avatar #137 - Zarke (02/06/2013) [-]
I believe that it amplifies the more basic problems in society. More of a coefficient than a base number, so to speak.
User avatar #138 - scant (02/06/2013) [-]
So then you believe that a solution to what most people think of as the "gun problem" would come about from attempting to fix these other issues.
User avatar #140 - Zarke (02/06/2013) [-]
Well, why not? A large percentage of gun crimes are committed by gangs. Get kids out of gangs and you don't have a gang problem. Mentally unstable people are dangerous? Get them the treatment they need. Let's not forget that many states (it might even be federal) say that unstable people shouldn't be allowed to possess firearms anyways. That hasn't stopped them.
User avatar #141 - scant (02/06/2013) [-]
Given the state of American healthcare, the part about mentally unstable people is rather of amusing. But the fact is, it all comes back to the attitude about guns. Despite the flaws in the graph, it clearly shows that there are a number of countries who have roughly the same amount of "murders per 100,000 people" with drastically fewer firearms.
User avatar #144 - Zarke (02/06/2013) [-]
Well, to be honest, I don't exactly think American healthcare is the best it could be either, but I haven't really been following the state of that institution since I left the country.

I could also point out that you don't see high murder rates in countries with high firearms density. To me the graph looks like a filter, where you have various instances of murder in a given density section (these countries are also largely unlabeled. They could have a very good handle on gang violence and mental health issues), but the range of murders is restricted as the density changes.
User avatar #145 - scant (02/06/2013) [-]
Correlation does not imply causation, you're right. High murder density may not be caused by high gun density.
However, as I've said, the graph doesn't detail what KIND of murders per 100k people it is graphing. The highest murder rates may not involve guns at all, and the American murder rate might be exclusively gun related, but not quite as high. This skews the results a lot. Just examples, of course, but it serves to prove my point.
User avatar #152 - Zarke (02/06/2013) [-]
It's not a perfect solution, I'll give you that. However, there are other problems to be solved. Like I said, if you can get kids out of gangs, that murder stat will certainly diminish. Hell, even guns per capita may go down since less people would feel the need to protect themselves.
User avatar #147 - Zarke (02/06/2013) [-]
Not really. I could also make the point that the presence of firearms acts as a deterrent to other forms of violent crime. Which makes sense. J. D. Thugg is less likely to rob a convenience store if he thinks a concealed carrier would Swiss cheese him the moment he threatens the cashier.
User avatar #149 - scant (02/06/2013) [-]
With such a high proportion of law-abiding citizens owning guns, it seems surprising that crime in America is as prevalent as it is. I don't believe guns are nearly as effective a deterrent as gun lobbyists believe they are.
#116 - How uncivilized do you think people are? The vast majority of …  [+] (27 new replies) 02/06/2013 on Gun Graph 0
#121 - anonexplains (02/06/2013) [-]
I just don't see the point in guns. They are designed for one thing only, at least a knife can be used as a tool.
User avatar #126 - Zarke (02/06/2013) [-]
Recreation. There are recreational shooters.

Also, design doesn't designate intent. You may not realize it, but millions of people drive lethal weapons every day, and many people are killed by these weapons every day, but nobody pays that any mind because they were designed for transportation. They could NEVER be dangerous. That's why we require licenses to operate them, right?
User avatar #129 - defeats (02/06/2013) [-]
Yeah, but most people who buy guns in the US are NOT using them for target shooting or hunting. They are used mainly for personal defence, and very often used to murder people.
Cars in the US are used only for transport, and extremely rarely for murdering people.
User avatar #133 - Zarke (02/06/2013) [-]
Oh, that's right. They aren't used for murder. They're used for manslaughter. Because the loss of life only means something if it's intentional, doesn't it?

They're carried for defense because people murder people. It's a reaction. Also, legitimate acts of self-defense are still counted as murder stats. Even acts committed by police and security personnel are counted.
User avatar #136 - defeats (02/06/2013) [-]
That is because "homicide" is the act of killing another human, whether intentional, accidental, self defence or whatever.
So firearm homicide means any killing of a person with a firearm.

Guns are made to kill people, those who carry them for self defence will kill someone if they need to, and those who carry them to murder someone will likely murder them, or attempt it.

It doesn't matter if 1% of gun owners are using them to shoot at ranges if the other 99% carry them for the sole reason of shooting someone (for personal defence or otherwise).

Anyway, your Government aren't trying to ban guns, they're trying to better control them, people with special needs and other mental problems should not have the right to own a gun. It shouldn't be a right anyway, it should be a privilege for those who prove they can be safe and rational with it.
User avatar #171 - sketchE (02/07/2013) [-]
the stupid in this hurts.most people who buy guns are hunters. everyone seems to think that theres stockpiles in suburban towns but bambis head isnt on the wall in these houses. and not everyone carries a gun to kill someone. pulling a gun makes the little shit trying to rob me with a knife run pretty quick. many of the people who do carry for self defense will never pull the trigger to end another life.

and homicide is the intentional murder of another human being. accidental is not homicide
User avatar #172 - defeats (02/07/2013) [-]
Indeed, accidental killing is manslaughter.

"The FBI estimates that there are over 200 million privately-owned firearms in the US."
That's a lot of fucking hunters dude.
User avatar #173 - sketchE (02/08/2013) [-]
most hunters have about five firearms. my uncles got about twelve
User avatar #139 - Zarke (02/06/2013) [-]
Well no shit.

Well, if you do anything to defend yourself, wouldn't you kill if you had to?

Your stats for recreational shooters are largely skewed, but whatever.

Following the 1994 "Assault Weapons Ban", they admitted to be trying to do exactly that, and it's reasonable to believe that they're still trying to do that after Mrs. Hypocrite-Stein openly told "Mr. and Mrs. America" to turn in their guns.

I agree, people with mental health background and a criminal history have forfeit that right. In fact, those laws are already in place. Doesn't mean that you should penalize and handicap stable, law-abiding citizens for the sake of people who shouldn't have firearms in the first place.
User avatar #119 - scant (02/06/2013) [-]
Don't blame gun issues on the society. I agree that American culture has an ingrained gun-loving attitude, but that doesn't mean you can't do anything about it. Saying that changing the presence of guns won't change anything is silly.
User avatar #122 - Zarke (02/06/2013) [-]
So gang-related crime isn't a societal problem? Insane people committing mass murder are otherwise safe, stable individuals?
User avatar #123 - scant (02/06/2013) [-]
Yeah, because I totally said all that stuff. See, it's right there, in that comment I made.
User avatar #127 - Zarke (02/06/2013) [-]
"Don't blame gun issues on society."
User avatar #128 - scant (02/06/2013) [-]
Poorly worded. I meant to say that diverting attention away from gun-control by saying it's a problem with the people is moronic. you can't change the attitude of the people without removing some part of the gun culture.
User avatar #131 - Zarke (02/06/2013) [-]
But the "problem people" aren't going to comply with gun-control laws. Be definition, criminals don't follow laws.

Also, many gun control laws really don't solve anything. That 1994 "Assault Weapons Ban" did NOTHING to stop gun crime. New York's "You can carry a 10-round magazine, but you can only carry 7 rounds" is just a bullshit handicap on people who concealed carry to protect their lives that is easily circumvented by a criminal who either buys a standard 12 - 19-round magazine out of state or just... you know, carries a full magazine. Gun-free zones only deter people who obey the law in the first place.
User avatar #132 - scant (02/06/2013) [-]
Every pro-gun person I've talked to holds that attitude... it's almost eerie...
'The "problem people" aren't going to listen to control laws, so why should we?'
Yeah, okay. Well, ya know, criminals don't listen to many laws at all, do they? Let's take them ALL away! After all, if they don't adhere to them, why should we?
User avatar #134 - Zarke (02/06/2013) [-]
Well, logically, if there's no laws, there are no criminals. I mean, it's perfect!

Don't pull that slippery slope bullshit. Laws are put in place to protect people. They don't mean anything if they don't do anything to actually protect people.
User avatar #135 - scant (02/06/2013) [-]
If you're gonna pull loaded questioning, I'll pull slippery slope. One logical fallacy for another.
Question: Do you believe there is a gun problem in America?
User avatar #137 - Zarke (02/06/2013) [-]
I believe that it amplifies the more basic problems in society. More of a coefficient than a base number, so to speak.
User avatar #138 - scant (02/06/2013) [-]
So then you believe that a solution to what most people think of as the "gun problem" would come about from attempting to fix these other issues.
User avatar #140 - Zarke (02/06/2013) [-]
Well, why not? A large percentage of gun crimes are committed by gangs. Get kids out of gangs and you don't have a gang problem. Mentally unstable people are dangerous? Get them the treatment they need. Let's not forget that many states (it might even be federal) say that unstable people shouldn't be allowed to possess firearms anyways. That hasn't stopped them.
User avatar #141 - scant (02/06/2013) [-]
Given the state of American healthcare, the part about mentally unstable people is rather of amusing. But the fact is, it all comes back to the attitude about guns. Despite the flaws in the graph, it clearly shows that there are a number of countries who have roughly the same amount of "murders per 100,000 people" with drastically fewer firearms.
User avatar #144 - Zarke (02/06/2013) [-]
Well, to be honest, I don't exactly think American healthcare is the best it could be either, but I haven't really been following the state of that institution since I left the country.

I could also point out that you don't see high murder rates in countries with high firearms density. To me the graph looks like a filter, where you have various instances of murder in a given density section (these countries are also largely unlabeled. They could have a very good handle on gang violence and mental health issues), but the range of murders is restricted as the density changes.
User avatar #145 - scant (02/06/2013) [-]
Correlation does not imply causation, you're right. High murder density may not be caused by high gun density.
However, as I've said, the graph doesn't detail what KIND of murders per 100k people it is graphing. The highest murder rates may not involve guns at all, and the American murder rate might be exclusively gun related, but not quite as high. This skews the results a lot. Just examples, of course, but it serves to prove my point.
User avatar #152 - Zarke (02/06/2013) [-]
It's not a perfect solution, I'll give you that. However, there are other problems to be solved. Like I said, if you can get kids out of gangs, that murder stat will certainly diminish. Hell, even guns per capita may go down since less people would feel the need to protect themselves.
User avatar #147 - Zarke (02/06/2013) [-]
Not really. I could also make the point that the presence of firearms acts as a deterrent to other forms of violent crime. Which makes sense. J. D. Thugg is less likely to rob a convenience store if he thinks a concealed carrier would Swiss cheese him the moment he threatens the cashier.
User avatar #149 - scant (02/06/2013) [-]
With such a high proportion of law-abiding citizens owning guns, it seems surprising that crime in America is as prevalent as it is. I don't believe guns are nearly as effective a deterrent as gun lobbyists believe they are.
#110 - Because gun crime is only part of violent crime. People don't … 02/06/2013 on Gun Graph 0
#106 - Have you ever thought that maybe the presence of firearms disc…  [+] (29 new replies) 02/06/2013 on Gun Graph -3
#113 - frohling (02/06/2013) [-]
so give everyone a gun, so everyone can murder everyone and civil-war breaks out in America I see your point now
User avatar #116 - Zarke (02/06/2013) [-]
How uncivilized do you think people are? The vast majority of people in the U.S. aren't as stupid as we'd like to say, and I'm pretty sure that most of them aren't really all that dangerous. The presence of guns isn't going to change that. If the only think keeping an otherwise civil society from turning into a warzone is the presence of guns, that isn't a problem with guns. That's a problem with the society.
#121 - anonexplains (02/06/2013) [-]
I just don't see the point in guns. They are designed for one thing only, at least a knife can be used as a tool.
User avatar #126 - Zarke (02/06/2013) [-]
Recreation. There are recreational shooters.

Also, design doesn't designate intent. You may not realize it, but millions of people drive lethal weapons every day, and many people are killed by these weapons every day, but nobody pays that any mind because they were designed for transportation. They could NEVER be dangerous. That's why we require licenses to operate them, right?
User avatar #129 - defeats (02/06/2013) [-]
Yeah, but most people who buy guns in the US are NOT using them for target shooting or hunting. They are used mainly for personal defence, and very often used to murder people.
Cars in the US are used only for transport, and extremely rarely for murdering people.
User avatar #133 - Zarke (02/06/2013) [-]
Oh, that's right. They aren't used for murder. They're used for manslaughter. Because the loss of life only means something if it's intentional, doesn't it?

They're carried for defense because people murder people. It's a reaction. Also, legitimate acts of self-defense are still counted as murder stats. Even acts committed by police and security personnel are counted.
User avatar #136 - defeats (02/06/2013) [-]
That is because "homicide" is the act of killing another human, whether intentional, accidental, self defence or whatever.
So firearm homicide means any killing of a person with a firearm.

Guns are made to kill people, those who carry them for self defence will kill someone if they need to, and those who carry them to murder someone will likely murder them, or attempt it.

It doesn't matter if 1% of gun owners are using them to shoot at ranges if the other 99% carry them for the sole reason of shooting someone (for personal defence or otherwise).

Anyway, your Government aren't trying to ban guns, they're trying to better control them, people with special needs and other mental problems should not have the right to own a gun. It shouldn't be a right anyway, it should be a privilege for those who prove they can be safe and rational with it.
User avatar #171 - sketchE (02/07/2013) [-]
the stupid in this hurts.most people who buy guns are hunters. everyone seems to think that theres stockpiles in suburban towns but bambis head isnt on the wall in these houses. and not everyone carries a gun to kill someone. pulling a gun makes the little shit trying to rob me with a knife run pretty quick. many of the people who do carry for self defense will never pull the trigger to end another life.

and homicide is the intentional murder of another human being. accidental is not homicide
User avatar #172 - defeats (02/07/2013) [-]
Indeed, accidental killing is manslaughter.

"The FBI estimates that there are over 200 million privately-owned firearms in the US."
That's a lot of fucking hunters dude.
User avatar #173 - sketchE (02/08/2013) [-]
most hunters have about five firearms. my uncles got about twelve
User avatar #139 - Zarke (02/06/2013) [-]
Well no shit.

Well, if you do anything to defend yourself, wouldn't you kill if you had to?

Your stats for recreational shooters are largely skewed, but whatever.

Following the 1994 "Assault Weapons Ban", they admitted to be trying to do exactly that, and it's reasonable to believe that they're still trying to do that after Mrs. Hypocrite-Stein openly told "Mr. and Mrs. America" to turn in their guns.

I agree, people with mental health background and a criminal history have forfeit that right. In fact, those laws are already in place. Doesn't mean that you should penalize and handicap stable, law-abiding citizens for the sake of people who shouldn't have firearms in the first place.
User avatar #119 - scant (02/06/2013) [-]
Don't blame gun issues on the society. I agree that American culture has an ingrained gun-loving attitude, but that doesn't mean you can't do anything about it. Saying that changing the presence of guns won't change anything is silly.
User avatar #122 - Zarke (02/06/2013) [-]
So gang-related crime isn't a societal problem? Insane people committing mass murder are otherwise safe, stable individuals?
User avatar #123 - scant (02/06/2013) [-]
Yeah, because I totally said all that stuff. See, it's right there, in that comment I made.
User avatar #127 - Zarke (02/06/2013) [-]
"Don't blame gun issues on society."
User avatar #128 - scant (02/06/2013) [-]
Poorly worded. I meant to say that diverting attention away from gun-control by saying it's a problem with the people is moronic. you can't change the attitude of the people without removing some part of the gun culture.
User avatar #131 - Zarke (02/06/2013) [-]
But the "problem people" aren't going to comply with gun-control laws. Be definition, criminals don't follow laws.

Also, many gun control laws really don't solve anything. That 1994 "Assault Weapons Ban" did NOTHING to stop gun crime. New York's "You can carry a 10-round magazine, but you can only carry 7 rounds" is just a bullshit handicap on people who concealed carry to protect their lives that is easily circumvented by a criminal who either buys a standard 12 - 19-round magazine out of state or just... you know, carries a full magazine. Gun-free zones only deter people who obey the law in the first place.
User avatar #132 - scant (02/06/2013) [-]
Every pro-gun person I've talked to holds that attitude... it's almost eerie...
'The "problem people" aren't going to listen to control laws, so why should we?'
Yeah, okay. Well, ya know, criminals don't listen to many laws at all, do they? Let's take them ALL away! After all, if they don't adhere to them, why should we?
User avatar #134 - Zarke (02/06/2013) [-]
Well, logically, if there's no laws, there are no criminals. I mean, it's perfect!

Don't pull that slippery slope bullshit. Laws are put in place to protect people. They don't mean anything if they don't do anything to actually protect people.
User avatar #135 - scant (02/06/2013) [-]
If you're gonna pull loaded questioning, I'll pull slippery slope. One logical fallacy for another.
Question: Do you believe there is a gun problem in America?
User avatar #137 - Zarke (02/06/2013) [-]
I believe that it amplifies the more basic problems in society. More of a coefficient than a base number, so to speak.
User avatar #138 - scant (02/06/2013) [-]
So then you believe that a solution to what most people think of as the "gun problem" would come about from attempting to fix these other issues.
User avatar #140 - Zarke (02/06/2013) [-]
Well, why not? A large percentage of gun crimes are committed by gangs. Get kids out of gangs and you don't have a gang problem. Mentally unstable people are dangerous? Get them the treatment they need. Let's not forget that many states (it might even be federal) say that unstable people shouldn't be allowed to possess firearms anyways. That hasn't stopped them.
User avatar #141 - scant (02/06/2013) [-]
Given the state of American healthcare, the part about mentally unstable people is rather of amusing. But the fact is, it all comes back to the attitude about guns. Despite the flaws in the graph, it clearly shows that there are a number of countries who have roughly the same amount of "murders per 100,000 people" with drastically fewer firearms.
User avatar #144 - Zarke (02/06/2013) [-]
Well, to be honest, I don't exactly think American healthcare is the best it could be either, but I haven't really been following the state of that institution since I left the country.

I could also point out that you don't see high murder rates in countries with high firearms density. To me the graph looks like a filter, where you have various instances of murder in a given density section (these countries are also largely unlabeled. They could have a very good handle on gang violence and mental health issues), but the range of murders is restricted as the density changes.
User avatar #145 - scant (02/06/2013) [-]
Correlation does not imply causation, you're right. High murder density may not be caused by high gun density.
However, as I've said, the graph doesn't detail what KIND of murders per 100k people it is graphing. The highest murder rates may not involve guns at all, and the American murder rate might be exclusively gun related, but not quite as high. This skews the results a lot. Just examples, of course, but it serves to prove my point.
User avatar #152 - Zarke (02/06/2013) [-]
It's not a perfect solution, I'll give you that. However, there are other problems to be solved. Like I said, if you can get kids out of gangs, that murder stat will certainly diminish. Hell, even guns per capita may go down since less people would feel the need to protect themselves.
User avatar #147 - Zarke (02/06/2013) [-]
Not really. I could also make the point that the presence of firearms acts as a deterrent to other forms of violent crime. Which makes sense. J. D. Thugg is less likely to rob a convenience store if he thinks a concealed carrier would Swiss cheese him the moment he threatens the cashier.
User avatar #149 - scant (02/06/2013) [-]
With such a high proportion of law-abiding citizens owning guns, it seems surprising that crime in America is as prevalent as it is. I don't believe guns are nearly as effective a deterrent as gun lobbyists believe they are.
#42 - I call those "supplementary reasons". AKA, reasons y… 02/06/2013 on whats your excuse? 0
#17 - Why bother with a reason? The only reason you need is "I …  [+] (2 new replies) 02/06/2013 on whats your excuse? 0
User avatar #41 - doktorpaj (02/06/2013) [-]
Or maybe because it's an expensive and unnecessary waste of time?
User avatar #42 - Zarke (02/06/2013) [-]
I call those "supplementary reasons". AKA, reasons you can pull out of your to pacify people who seem to think you need one.
#74 - Iunno, I'm fine with a library and other educational services,… 02/06/2013 on Is this for real?? +2
#56 - I'm tempted to start playing Mordekaiser, but I'll definitely …  [+] (2 new replies) 02/06/2013 on Now you Lee Sin to me, kiddo. +2
User avatar #88 - comicsjoey (02/06/2013) [-]
>gib me ur gold
>gib me guld plis
>gib me gold ur I reprt u
>MORDEKAISER ES NUMERO UNO HUEHUEHUEHUE

you're welcome
User avatar #89 - Zarke (02/06/2013) [-]
Jajajajajaja, perfecto!
#30 - Well, not COMPLETELY fine. If you've been smoking your whole l… 02/05/2013 on Pot heads 0
#56 - There are certain legal benefits associated with being married… 02/05/2013 on Jesus fucking bible christ +4
#8 - ~75% of crimes are committed with handguns. ~6 / 7 people shot… 02/05/2013 on 4chan +1
#2626 - Hm. Alright. Yeah. 02/05/2013 on At Your Wedding 0
#59 - Rather "President NotMuchLeftOfAFace". 02/05/2013 on Americas Presidents +2
#108 - Soldiers are people too. They've got friends, children, famili… 02/05/2013 on I can't read 0
#107 - So if the government calls upon the military to enforce a gun …  [+] (1 new reply) 02/05/2013 on I can't read 0
#109 - anonexplains (02/05/2013) [-]
its called mutiny, and it has happened in the past. Just because people wear uniforms and take orders does not mean they cannot tell right from wrong
#62 - I acknowledge that you believe what you believe, just as Musli… 02/05/2013 on Religion: How to do it RIGHT. 0
#51 - There's a reason they don't show the other side of his head.  [+] (2 new replies) 02/05/2013 on Americas Presidents +9
User avatar #58 - gragasvlad (02/05/2013) [-]
president scarface :D
User avatar #59 - Zarke (02/05/2013) [-]
Rather "President NotMuchLeftOfAFace".
#46 - Yeah. The pussy ones.  [+] (1 new reply) 02/05/2013 on how real men shave 0
User avatar #63 - stcronin (02/06/2013) [-]
I can't wait for plasma engines then all former tools will be pussy tools
#54 - The way I see it, Heaven can wait. We're here, and rather than…  [+] (2 new replies) 02/05/2013 on Religion: How to do it RIGHT. 0
#59 - ichbinlecher (02/05/2013) [-]
In Christianity the problem is the fact that every person is dying to our corrupted nature, both physically and spiritually. And then end goal isn't heaven, it is life - resurrection. As such, we have to turn to the fount of life, Jesus.

In other words, I think you are right, there is a need to love life (both ours and just life in general), I simply think your focus is wrong.
User avatar #62 - Zarke (02/05/2013) [-]
I acknowledge that you believe what you believe, just as Muslims believe what they believe and Hindus believe what Hindus believe. Everyone believes they are the one true path. Who are we to say that everyone is wrong or right?
#15 - Correction: chambering. There are many rifles chambered in .50 BMG.  [+] (1 new reply) 02/05/2013 on 360 no scope +3
#102 - beerformyhorses (02/06/2013) [-]
Yes and the gun is a Barrett M107
#74 - Thank you.  [+] (1 new reply) 02/04/2013 on Beyonce's halftime show if... 0
#77 - ninjabaconone (02/04/2013) [-]
No thank you kind friend

items

Total unique items point value: 2474 / Total items point value: 5520
[ 21 items Total ]
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #7 - vanoreo (02/12/2013) [-]
Faggot OP blocked me lol, he is butthurt.

You are correct about the Prohibition. I was thinking about the 19th Amendment.

WHICH DENIED WOMEN'S SUFFRAGE
User avatar #8 to #7 - Zarke (02/12/2013) [-]
I'll disagree with that amendment and point that back to the Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

As far as I can see, something denying women a political voice (part of Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness) shouldn't be in there anyways, and I'm glad that society has progressed past that point.
User avatar #9 to #8 - vanoreo (02/12/2013) [-]
k

But daviddavidson is one butthurt ************ .
User avatar #10 to #9 - Zarke (02/12/2013) [-]
I personally think your statements were idiotic. It seems like you've posed much irritation to him in the past. I only let a mosquito land on me so many times before I figure it needs a swat.
User avatar #11 to #10 - vanoreo (02/12/2013) [-]
Meh, some parts of it were genuinely me trying to piss him off (and it worked) and some were actually my opinion.

>Hunting = Good

>AR's = Bad

Whether or not you're a sane human being, that gun can easily go into the wrong hands
User avatar #12 to #11 - Zarke (02/12/2013) [-]
Any gun can go into the wrong hands. Not just "so-called" ARs (which in reality is a scare-term used to describe semi-automatic rifles with scary-looking furniture). Remember that Virginia Tech massacre? Committed with handguns (using 17 10-round magazines at that). Columbine? Shotguns/handguns.

There are millions of these "assault rifles" in the U.S. The vast, vast, VAST majority of which are not used in crime and likely never will be.
User avatar #13 to #12 - vanoreo (02/12/2013) [-]
I for one think we should just get rid of guns all together sometimes...

But that would be incredibly hard, impractical, and guntoting rednecks would get mad.
User avatar #14 to #13 - Zarke (02/12/2013) [-]
Well, that's pretty well impossible and would likely do no good. You'd have to extract everybody from the country, overturn all the soil, search every nook and cranny, and force everybody to walk back in one at a time through metal detectors.

Secondly, not just rednecks. When there's almost a gun for every person in the U.S., you can't generalize such a large number of people as "gun-toting rednecks". People from all walks of life collect, shoot, protect themselves with, hunt with, and compete with firearms. I mean, what about recreational shooters? We aren't harming anybody, and you're arbitrarily robbing us of our hobby because you don't like guns. That goes right against our rights to Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
User avatar #6 - Zarke (06/08/2012) [-]
Wow... People actually go through with this stuff sometimes...
#5 - cowpog ONLINE (06/08/2012) [-]
You're FABULOUS darling!
#4 - seekay (06/08/2012) [-]
<- You
<- You
User avatar #3 - quotetype (06/08/2012) [-]
COMMENT VIRGINITY :D. oh and btw your fabulous.
User avatar #2 - walcorn (06/08/2012) [-]
You're fabulous
 Friends (0)