Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search

hide menu

volleys

volleys Avatar Level 240 Comments: Doinitrite
Offline
Send mail to volleys Block volleys Invite volleys to be your friend flag avatar
Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Date Signed Up:8/11/2011
Last Login:2/09/2014
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Content Thumbs: 2264 total,  2746 ,  482
Comment Thumbs: 4085 total,  5037 ,  952
Content Level Progress: 64% (64/100)
Level 122 Content: Respected Member Of Famiry → Level 123 Content: Respected Member Of Famiry
Comment Level Progress: 82% (82/100)
Level 240 Comments: Doinitrite → Level 241 Comments: Doinitrite
Subscribers:0
Content Views:93535
Times Content Favorited:122 times
Total Comments Made:1078
FJ Points:6412
Favorite Tags: Beatles (2) | no (2) | so (2) | tags (2) | what (2) | wow (2)

latest user's comments

#200 - It's so true. My tire busted because SC roads. 08/28/2013 on It's funny because is true 0
#178 - Corrected for those of us in the states  [+] (5 new replies) 08/27/2013 on It's funny because is true +4
#208 - savageginger (08/28/2013) [-]
Yes proud NC citizen reporting for duty
#201 - jgwentworthhh (08/28/2013) [-]
User avatar #204 - volleys (08/28/2013) [-]
It do dough.
User avatar #196 - yuukoku (08/28/2013) [-]
Thisn is true. I've driven through both states. NC almost has as nice roads as Texas.
User avatar #200 - volleys (08/28/2013) [-]
It's so true. My tire busted because SC roads.
#531 - You're welcome. Yeah I'm going to get a CCW permit when I turn… 08/27/2013 on Taco Bell +1
#111 - Ok. It shouldn't put you on edge though  [+] (1 new reply) 08/27/2013 on Taco Bell +5
User avatar #212 - elcreepo (08/27/2013) [-]
In today's day and age it's not surprising to be put a little on the defensive.

I went to orientation the other day and there was a man (30s or 40s maybe) covered in tattoos who clearly lifted and had the general look of someone who is not to be fucked with. We leave the school and see him going on a regular bike after putting on a reflective vest (it was at night) and a helmet. The slightest things can put someone on edge for what very well be little to no reason.
#105 - why would you be scared by someone with a gun?  [+] (4 new replies) 08/27/2013 on Taco Bell +4
User avatar #107 - vgmddg (08/27/2013) [-]
Well, them having it would put me on edge a bit knowing they had it, but as long as they're not using it or trying to hold up the store with it it's fine I guess. I'd at least recognize their right to have it, unlike demon lady in the story.
#424 - cabbagemayhem (08/27/2013) [-]
Don't be afraid. When good law-abiding citizens have guns, you can feel safe. Criminals never shoot up places they go to, and the rare times they try, it usually ends quickly.
User avatar #111 - volleys (08/27/2013) [-]
Ok. It shouldn't put you on edge though
User avatar #212 - elcreepo (08/27/2013) [-]
In today's day and age it's not surprising to be put a little on the defensive.

I went to orientation the other day and there was a man (30s or 40s maybe) covered in tattoos who clearly lifted and had the general look of someone who is not to be fucked with. We leave the school and see him going on a regular bike after putting on a reflective vest (it was at night) and a helmet. The slightest things can put someone on edge for what very well be little to no reason.
#80 - Related...very related and worth the read  [+] (24 new replies) 08/27/2013 on Taco Bell +96
#505 - anonymous (08/27/2013) [-]
thank you very much, i hate texts usually, but that one was worth reading and felt really good

can't give thumbs, not lvl 2 -.-
User avatar #462 - walhor (08/27/2013) [-]
That's so fucking dumb. Her report being removed and letting that cunt not having any punishment? wtf man
User avatar #449 - volcanicdiarrhea (08/27/2013) [-]
It would have taken every fiber of my being to not punch this woman in the mouth.
#323 - gastrofizzy (08/27/2013) [-]
This story has more police corruption than I can handle in one day
#321 - blargchikahonkhonk (08/27/2013) [-]
#311 - innos (08/27/2013) [-]
logged in at work just to thumb you

thx for the entertainment
#277 - anonymous (08/27/2013) [-]
Jesus chriest America is beyond medical help with retards like her... And she is being respected/protected... What a joke.. Fucking put her out already
User avatar #202 - elcreepo (08/27/2013) [-]
That pissed me off, it ended alright but the charges he filed against her just "disappeared from the system" and his buddy almost got fired if it wasn't for the video.

Really, all he has to do is take the video evidence from the store and take it to a state or federal court and he can get that man removed from office on so many accounts..

I'd ask if that was really a gun, then I'd just say cool and walk away. Wouldn't even care if he was registered (don't ask, don't cause trouble), I just would find it cool, especially if he told me he was in the military. (I don't have the money nor training for a gun/its permit, and I honestly think I'm too young for one anyway.)
#422 - cabbagemayhem (08/27/2013) [-]
"all he has to do is take the video evidence from the store and take it to a state or federal court and he can get that man removed from office on so many accounts.."
I really wish he did. What does 'Land of the Free' even mean if there are still people above the law who can almost have you arrested on a whim.
User avatar #159 - franger (08/27/2013) [-]
I've grown up around guns, and will carry when I'm 21. I can kind of understand where some of these libtards are coming from, most having never been around a firearm before, but what really gets me is the outright lying that seems to be fairly prevalent in these kinds of stories. Saying he drew the weapon and threatened her, knowing fully well that there are security cameras to prove otherwise, is mind blowing to me. Also if these people really think that everyone who is armed is out to kill, why would you instigate any sort of problems with that individual? What the fuck?


Anyways, thanks for posting that volleys.
User avatar #531 - volleys (08/27/2013) [-]
You're welcome. Yeah I'm going to get a CCW permit when I turn 21 also.
User avatar #134 - biggerlenny (08/27/2013) [-]
That story was so intense that by the end I was genuinely afraid of what was going to happen to OP.
#117 - crazyitalian (08/27/2013) [-]
man that story pissed me off, especially that "crazy vet" line, glad to see it ended well though
#201 - neelix (08/27/2013) [-]
ended well? she got away with it scot free because of her husband, his buddy cop was in more trouble than her, ridic
User avatar #113 - joshkroger (08/27/2013) [-]
OP did an amazing job with that story. 10/10 would read again.
User avatar #104 - vgmddg (08/27/2013) [-]
That woman was crazy! I think if I saw a person had a gun I would be a bit scared, but I wouldn't be nearly as much of a dick about it as she was.
#497 - dross (08/27/2013) [-]
In the UK (not sure where you're from) we don't really have guns at all in most places.

The worst shit I ever got from someone was someone who flipped out drunk and smashed me round the head with a bottle with no prior warning, and someone who had a knife about 3inches long tucked up their sleeve that was swiftly pointed at me, again for fuck all.

If I saw someone with a gun under their shirt I'd be 99% sure they definitely wouldn't pull it on me; they're either police, or wouldn't risk being lifed-off for some punk they just met. This ain't the wild-west.

tl;dr = Don't really get scared of guns in the UK. Unless they're pointed at me, I spose.
User avatar #105 - volleys (08/27/2013) [-]
why would you be scared by someone with a gun?
User avatar #107 - vgmddg (08/27/2013) [-]
Well, them having it would put me on edge a bit knowing they had it, but as long as they're not using it or trying to hold up the store with it it's fine I guess. I'd at least recognize their right to have it, unlike demon lady in the story.
#424 - cabbagemayhem (08/27/2013) [-]
Don't be afraid. When good law-abiding citizens have guns, you can feel safe. Criminals never shoot up places they go to, and the rare times they try, it usually ends quickly.
User avatar #111 - volleys (08/27/2013) [-]
Ok. It shouldn't put you on edge though
User avatar #212 - elcreepo (08/27/2013) [-]
In today's day and age it's not surprising to be put a little on the defensive.

I went to orientation the other day and there was a man (30s or 40s maybe) covered in tattoos who clearly lifted and had the general look of someone who is not to be fucked with. We leave the school and see him going on a regular bike after putting on a reflective vest (it was at night) and a helmet. The slightest things can put someone on edge for what very well be little to no reason.
User avatar #93 - swagpony (08/27/2013) [-]
hot damn. that is funny as hell
User avatar #120 - amishparadise (08/27/2013) [-]
thumbs for Gilda and guns thread ^^
#347 - I've pointed out multiple times that the US homicide rate has … 08/26/2013 on Extremist 0
#345 - Vigilantes are someone who goes out of their way to prevent cr…  [+] (2 new replies) 08/26/2013 on Extremist 0
#346 - gerfox (08/26/2013) [-]
No, you haven't shown that guns have no correlation - you've just pointed to the UK homicide statistic, we haven't looked into details about gun laws there, and for instance cultural differences (like I have already pointed to, but you seem to ignore that).

My point is still, as I said initially - easy gun access prevents criminality, but increases the homicide rate. Low gun access increases criminality, but decreases the homicide rate. That's the logical thing, and since I'm too lazy to look after proof, I suggest we end our discussion here. In any regard, it wasn't my intention to start discussing with someone who isn't willing, or able, to grasp what I think is logical.

Thank you for the discussion, at least you convinced me guns are a good thing for preventing crime albeit not homicides.
User avatar #347 - volleys (08/26/2013) [-]
I've pointed out multiple times that the US homicide rate has dropped drastically from 1993 to 2013 and in those 20 years firearms sales have increased dramatically.

Just look at my comment with all the sources.

Just because you think firearms increases homicide doesn't make it so.
#544 - **volleys rolls 23** 08/25/2013 on When you see it....... 0
#343 - If citizens have easy access to firearms, defending themselves…  [+] (4 new replies) 08/25/2013 on Extremist 0
#344 - gerfox (08/25/2013) [-]
Why I would bring up vigilantes? If citizens have easy access to firearms and defend themselves, or others with it they would in effect be vigilantes. I agree with the fact that you'd probably have fewer regular crimes with low gun control, but it's beyond sense to think it would actually be positive for the homicide rate.

Sorry, if you can't grasp the logical aspect of my arguments, that easier access to guns will cause more homicides, then I think we would have to stop our discussion here. Seems like you're not able to simply grasp it, or give in to anything.

I don't know whether if my thesis about homicide have been proven or not, and I'm too lazy to look. And like I have said a dozen times already, it's obvious that it's easier to kill someone in an unstable state with a gun than with anything else. A drunkard with a gun is just as deadly as a sober man, but a drunkard who wishes to bludgeon you to death is something else. Easy access, and an overflow of weapons would let people have easy access to guns even when they shouldn't. Most homicides happen in your own home, where you in any case feel safe - and you probably won't carry a firearm - so the self defense aspect is a minor argument in this case, an argument blown out of proportions by pro-gun people.

I'm sure if you dig up some research on homicides while intoxicated, you'll find out that a huge part of homicides that do happen happens while a person is drunk or in some other way out of his own mind. I'm also confident that this percentage is higher in the US than in European countries with stricter weapons regulations.
User avatar #345 - volleys (08/26/2013) [-]
Vigilantes are someone who goes out of their way to prevent crime, like Batman. Self defense, my topic, is in a whole other category.

And I've showed that guns have no correlation to increasing/decreasing homicide rate. The US homicide rate has dropped by half, but firearms sales have sky rocketed. Guns don't even have to be used to prevent crime, they only have to have the possibility of being present. If a criminal knew 75% of all homes owned a gun would he take the massive risk of breaking in?

So to say I'm not grasping the concept is irrational.
It is you who have not grasped anything.
#346 - gerfox (08/26/2013) [-]
No, you haven't shown that guns have no correlation - you've just pointed to the UK homicide statistic, we haven't looked into details about gun laws there, and for instance cultural differences (like I have already pointed to, but you seem to ignore that).

My point is still, as I said initially - easy gun access prevents criminality, but increases the homicide rate. Low gun access increases criminality, but decreases the homicide rate. That's the logical thing, and since I'm too lazy to look after proof, I suggest we end our discussion here. In any regard, it wasn't my intention to start discussing with someone who isn't willing, or able, to grasp what I think is logical.

Thank you for the discussion, at least you convinced me guns are a good thing for preventing crime albeit not homicides.
User avatar #347 - volleys (08/26/2013) [-]
I've pointed out multiple times that the US homicide rate has dropped drastically from 1993 to 2013 and in those 20 years firearms sales have increased dramatically.

Just look at my comment with all the sources.

Just because you think firearms increases homicide doesn't make it so.
#140 - Well I don't think the government should handle healthcare. Pr… 08/24/2013 on how feminists argue 0
#339 - Thats a good observation, but I can show you how guns didn't n…  [+] (6 new replies) 08/24/2013 on Extremist 0
#342 - gerfox (08/25/2013) [-]
Well, that's a drastic conclusion to draw just from that statistic. Personally I believe other factors have played a huge part in that statistic.

People have in general become wealthier, more educated - and you've seen a drastic decrease in gang related violence. I think it's strange to believe that easy access to fire arms actually will decrease the homicide rate, considering it's much easier to obtain a weapon - and it's much easier to kill a person in rage, or with clouded judgment with a gun, you'd just have to squeeze the trigger. There's a huge difference between that, and actually beating someone to death. Remember, the major part of homicides occur in the homes of people, not in the public where you have "vigilantes" to protect other people.
User avatar #343 - volleys (08/25/2013) [-]
If citizens have easy access to firearms, defending themselves if need be is easier. Just allowing citizens to own a gun shows criminals that there may be larger risk if robbing/hurting someone. You are saying that more firearms equals more homicides, which has not been proven. And you have to remember that a homicide is a homicide no matter the tool. Why would you even bring up vigilantes? No one ever mentioned anything like that.
#344 - gerfox (08/25/2013) [-]
Why I would bring up vigilantes? If citizens have easy access to firearms and defend themselves, or others with it they would in effect be vigilantes. I agree with the fact that you'd probably have fewer regular crimes with low gun control, but it's beyond sense to think it would actually be positive for the homicide rate.

Sorry, if you can't grasp the logical aspect of my arguments, that easier access to guns will cause more homicides, then I think we would have to stop our discussion here. Seems like you're not able to simply grasp it, or give in to anything.

I don't know whether if my thesis about homicide have been proven or not, and I'm too lazy to look. And like I have said a dozen times already, it's obvious that it's easier to kill someone in an unstable state with a gun than with anything else. A drunkard with a gun is just as deadly as a sober man, but a drunkard who wishes to bludgeon you to death is something else. Easy access, and an overflow of weapons would let people have easy access to guns even when they shouldn't. Most homicides happen in your own home, where you in any case feel safe - and you probably won't carry a firearm - so the self defense aspect is a minor argument in this case, an argument blown out of proportions by pro-gun people.

I'm sure if you dig up some research on homicides while intoxicated, you'll find out that a huge part of homicides that do happen happens while a person is drunk or in some other way out of his own mind. I'm also confident that this percentage is higher in the US than in European countries with stricter weapons regulations.
User avatar #345 - volleys (08/26/2013) [-]
Vigilantes are someone who goes out of their way to prevent crime, like Batman. Self defense, my topic, is in a whole other category.

And I've showed that guns have no correlation to increasing/decreasing homicide rate. The US homicide rate has dropped by half, but firearms sales have sky rocketed. Guns don't even have to be used to prevent crime, they only have to have the possibility of being present. If a criminal knew 75% of all homes owned a gun would he take the massive risk of breaking in?

So to say I'm not grasping the concept is irrational.
It is you who have not grasped anything.
#346 - gerfox (08/26/2013) [-]
No, you haven't shown that guns have no correlation - you've just pointed to the UK homicide statistic, we haven't looked into details about gun laws there, and for instance cultural differences (like I have already pointed to, but you seem to ignore that).

My point is still, as I said initially - easy gun access prevents criminality, but increases the homicide rate. Low gun access increases criminality, but decreases the homicide rate. That's the logical thing, and since I'm too lazy to look after proof, I suggest we end our discussion here. In any regard, it wasn't my intention to start discussing with someone who isn't willing, or able, to grasp what I think is logical.

Thank you for the discussion, at least you convinced me guns are a good thing for preventing crime albeit not homicides.
User avatar #347 - volleys (08/26/2013) [-]
I've pointed out multiple times that the US homicide rate has dropped drastically from 1993 to 2013 and in those 20 years firearms sales have increased dramatically.

Just look at my comment with all the sources.

Just because you think firearms increases homicide doesn't make it so.
#67 - I actually like this feeling.  [+] (1 new reply) 08/24/2013 on Happened to the best of us +2
User avatar #125 - xxxherfaultxxx (08/24/2013) [-]
me too
#337 - You missed the whole point. Gun bans were not a factor in the …  [+] (8 new replies) 08/24/2013 on Extremist 0
#338 - gerfox (08/24/2013) [-]
Well, the full ban on arms weren't initiated until '97, but the accessibility for weapons have in general been lower in the UK since god knows how long ago. The second amendment is based originally as the population working as some kind of militia, and this automatically allows the people easier access to weaponry. In the UK on the other hand the army (or state) have always had a monopoly on the use of force. Maybe that's why the homicide rate have stayed that low since 1857.

My point being, even before the (almost) full ban on arms in '97, accessibility to arms in the UK were much more restricted than in the US. It's obvious that murder rates decrease with the ban of fire arms, it's much easier to shoot someone than to beat them to death. And it also makes sense with the general crime rate, you're of course much "safer" from regular criminality with fire arms. But, in any regard, most European countries has a ban on firearms and a much lower homicide rate. It's easy to get tunnel vision if you just compare two specific cases.
User avatar #339 - volleys (08/24/2013) [-]
Thats a good observation, but I can show you how guns didn't negatively affect the US homicide rate. If we look at the US rate in the last 20 years the rate dropped from 10 in 1993, to 4.8 in 2013. In those 20 years the firearms industry has experienced record sales. So either there is no correlation between firearms and homicides, or firearms have prevented many homicides. I prefer to believe the latter.
#342 - gerfox (08/25/2013) [-]
Well, that's a drastic conclusion to draw just from that statistic. Personally I believe other factors have played a huge part in that statistic.

People have in general become wealthier, more educated - and you've seen a drastic decrease in gang related violence. I think it's strange to believe that easy access to fire arms actually will decrease the homicide rate, considering it's much easier to obtain a weapon - and it's much easier to kill a person in rage, or with clouded judgment with a gun, you'd just have to squeeze the trigger. There's a huge difference between that, and actually beating someone to death. Remember, the major part of homicides occur in the homes of people, not in the public where you have "vigilantes" to protect other people.
User avatar #343 - volleys (08/25/2013) [-]
If citizens have easy access to firearms, defending themselves if need be is easier. Just allowing citizens to own a gun shows criminals that there may be larger risk if robbing/hurting someone. You are saying that more firearms equals more homicides, which has not been proven. And you have to remember that a homicide is a homicide no matter the tool. Why would you even bring up vigilantes? No one ever mentioned anything like that.
#344 - gerfox (08/25/2013) [-]
Why I would bring up vigilantes? If citizens have easy access to firearms and defend themselves, or others with it they would in effect be vigilantes. I agree with the fact that you'd probably have fewer regular crimes with low gun control, but it's beyond sense to think it would actually be positive for the homicide rate.

Sorry, if you can't grasp the logical aspect of my arguments, that easier access to guns will cause more homicides, then I think we would have to stop our discussion here. Seems like you're not able to simply grasp it, or give in to anything.

I don't know whether if my thesis about homicide have been proven or not, and I'm too lazy to look. And like I have said a dozen times already, it's obvious that it's easier to kill someone in an unstable state with a gun than with anything else. A drunkard with a gun is just as deadly as a sober man, but a drunkard who wishes to bludgeon you to death is something else. Easy access, and an overflow of weapons would let people have easy access to guns even when they shouldn't. Most homicides happen in your own home, where you in any case feel safe - and you probably won't carry a firearm - so the self defense aspect is a minor argument in this case, an argument blown out of proportions by pro-gun people.

I'm sure if you dig up some research on homicides while intoxicated, you'll find out that a huge part of homicides that do happen happens while a person is drunk or in some other way out of his own mind. I'm also confident that this percentage is higher in the US than in European countries with stricter weapons regulations.
User avatar #345 - volleys (08/26/2013) [-]
Vigilantes are someone who goes out of their way to prevent crime, like Batman. Self defense, my topic, is in a whole other category.

And I've showed that guns have no correlation to increasing/decreasing homicide rate. The US homicide rate has dropped by half, but firearms sales have sky rocketed. Guns don't even have to be used to prevent crime, they only have to have the possibility of being present. If a criminal knew 75% of all homes owned a gun would he take the massive risk of breaking in?

So to say I'm not grasping the concept is irrational.
It is you who have not grasped anything.
#346 - gerfox (08/26/2013) [-]
No, you haven't shown that guns have no correlation - you've just pointed to the UK homicide statistic, we haven't looked into details about gun laws there, and for instance cultural differences (like I have already pointed to, but you seem to ignore that).

My point is still, as I said initially - easy gun access prevents criminality, but increases the homicide rate. Low gun access increases criminality, but decreases the homicide rate. That's the logical thing, and since I'm too lazy to look after proof, I suggest we end our discussion here. In any regard, it wasn't my intention to start discussing with someone who isn't willing, or able, to grasp what I think is logical.

Thank you for the discussion, at least you convinced me guns are a good thing for preventing crime albeit not homicides.
User avatar #347 - volleys (08/26/2013) [-]
I've pointed out multiple times that the US homicide rate has dropped drastically from 1993 to 2013 and in those 20 years firearms sales have increased dramatically.

Just look at my comment with all the sources.

Just because you think firearms increases homicide doesn't make it so.
#324 - Maybe I will get killed, but at least I could have the chance … 08/23/2013 on Extremist 0
#322 - So just because you doubt that I will be able to properly use …  [+] (2 new replies) 08/23/2013 on Extremist 0
User avatar #323 - europe (08/23/2013) [-]
You'll have a bullet in your head
Plus, you've never been in a situation like that before so odds are that you'll piss your pants so hard you'll lift off the ground
User avatar #324 - volleys (08/23/2013) [-]
Maybe I will get killed, but at least I could have the chance to defend myself if I had a gun. Here in the US when the states started considering concealed carry permits people were claiming shootouts would happen at every disagreement like wild west shootouts. It never happened. It possibly has done the opposite. When carrying a firearm the firearm has to be a last resort, and your thinking must be clear and concise.
#321 - You nailed it on the head. The only people who bring guns into… 08/23/2013 on Extremist +1
#320 - Actually no. Statistics show that crime is reduced when citize… 08/23/2013 on Extremist +1
#319 - The US has almost always had a higher homicide rate than much …  [+] (10 new replies) 08/23/2013 on Extremist 0
#325 - gerfox (08/23/2013) [-]
Ah, nice arguments Yeah, I agree with the crime rates - but is it really worth it to have statistically speaking four times as many deaths due to crime as in other countries, just to lower the general criminality? That's like putting a price on human lives.. However, I definitely see your points - and some of the same points can be applied to arguments about capital punishment

I think population density is a more essential factor than actual population though...
User avatar #337 - volleys (08/24/2013) [-]
You missed the whole point. Gun bans were not a factor in the UK's homicide rate. Gun bans were a factor in the crime rate however. If gun bans did nothing to lower the homicide rate, but increased the crime rate the bans actually hurt the UK.
#338 - gerfox (08/24/2013) [-]
Well, the full ban on arms weren't initiated until '97, but the accessibility for weapons have in general been lower in the UK since god knows how long ago. The second amendment is based originally as the population working as some kind of militia, and this automatically allows the people easier access to weaponry. In the UK on the other hand the army (or state) have always had a monopoly on the use of force. Maybe that's why the homicide rate have stayed that low since 1857.

My point being, even before the (almost) full ban on arms in '97, accessibility to arms in the UK were much more restricted than in the US. It's obvious that murder rates decrease with the ban of fire arms, it's much easier to shoot someone than to beat them to death. And it also makes sense with the general crime rate, you're of course much "safer" from regular criminality with fire arms. But, in any regard, most European countries has a ban on firearms and a much lower homicide rate. It's easy to get tunnel vision if you just compare two specific cases.
User avatar #339 - volleys (08/24/2013) [-]
Thats a good observation, but I can show you how guns didn't negatively affect the US homicide rate. If we look at the US rate in the last 20 years the rate dropped from 10 in 1993, to 4.8 in 2013. In those 20 years the firearms industry has experienced record sales. So either there is no correlation between firearms and homicides, or firearms have prevented many homicides. I prefer to believe the latter.
#342 - gerfox (08/25/2013) [-]
Well, that's a drastic conclusion to draw just from that statistic. Personally I believe other factors have played a huge part in that statistic.

People have in general become wealthier, more educated - and you've seen a drastic decrease in gang related violence. I think it's strange to believe that easy access to fire arms actually will decrease the homicide rate, considering it's much easier to obtain a weapon - and it's much easier to kill a person in rage, or with clouded judgment with a gun, you'd just have to squeeze the trigger. There's a huge difference between that, and actually beating someone to death. Remember, the major part of homicides occur in the homes of people, not in the public where you have "vigilantes" to protect other people.
User avatar #343 - volleys (08/25/2013) [-]
If citizens have easy access to firearms, defending themselves if need be is easier. Just allowing citizens to own a gun shows criminals that there may be larger risk if robbing/hurting someone. You are saying that more firearms equals more homicides, which has not been proven. And you have to remember that a homicide is a homicide no matter the tool. Why would you even bring up vigilantes? No one ever mentioned anything like that.
#344 - gerfox (08/25/2013) [-]
Why I would bring up vigilantes? If citizens have easy access to firearms and defend themselves, or others with it they would in effect be vigilantes. I agree with the fact that you'd probably have fewer regular crimes with low gun control, but it's beyond sense to think it would actually be positive for the homicide rate.

Sorry, if you can't grasp the logical aspect of my arguments, that easier access to guns will cause more homicides, then I think we would have to stop our discussion here. Seems like you're not able to simply grasp it, or give in to anything.

I don't know whether if my thesis about homicide have been proven or not, and I'm too lazy to look. And like I have said a dozen times already, it's obvious that it's easier to kill someone in an unstable state with a gun than with anything else. A drunkard with a gun is just as deadly as a sober man, but a drunkard who wishes to bludgeon you to death is something else. Easy access, and an overflow of weapons would let people have easy access to guns even when they shouldn't. Most homicides happen in your own home, where you in any case feel safe - and you probably won't carry a firearm - so the self defense aspect is a minor argument in this case, an argument blown out of proportions by pro-gun people.

I'm sure if you dig up some research on homicides while intoxicated, you'll find out that a huge part of homicides that do happen happens while a person is drunk or in some other way out of his own mind. I'm also confident that this percentage is higher in the US than in European countries with stricter weapons regulations.
User avatar #345 - volleys (08/26/2013) [-]
Vigilantes are someone who goes out of their way to prevent crime, like Batman. Self defense, my topic, is in a whole other category.

And I've showed that guns have no correlation to increasing/decreasing homicide rate. The US homicide rate has dropped by half, but firearms sales have sky rocketed. Guns don't even have to be used to prevent crime, they only have to have the possibility of being present. If a criminal knew 75% of all homes owned a gun would he take the massive risk of breaking in?

So to say I'm not grasping the concept is irrational.
It is you who have not grasped anything.
#346 - gerfox (08/26/2013) [-]
No, you haven't shown that guns have no correlation - you've just pointed to the UK homicide statistic, we haven't looked into details about gun laws there, and for instance cultural differences (like I have already pointed to, but you seem to ignore that).

My point is still, as I said initially - easy gun access prevents criminality, but increases the homicide rate. Low gun access increases criminality, but decreases the homicide rate. That's the logical thing, and since I'm too lazy to look after proof, I suggest we end our discussion here. In any regard, it wasn't my intention to start discussing with someone who isn't willing, or able, to grasp what I think is logical.

Thank you for the discussion, at least you convinced me guns are a good thing for preventing crime albeit not homicides.
User avatar #347 - volleys (08/26/2013) [-]
I've pointed out multiple times that the US homicide rate has dropped drastically from 1993 to 2013 and in those 20 years firearms sales have increased dramatically.

Just look at my comment with all the sources.

Just because you think firearms increases homicide doesn't make it so.
#209 - Concealed carry permit holders are good law abiding citizens. … 08/23/2013 on Extremist +2
#202 - Yes, nothing is really stopping a lunatic/criminal from carryi… 08/23/2013 on Extremist 0
#200 - No its not. I know it seems backwards, but where citizens are …  [+] (12 new replies) 08/23/2013 on Extremist +2
#225 - gerfox (08/23/2013) [-]
I see both good and bad with low gun regulation, like you have in the United states - and I see the good and bad of strong regulation like we have in Europe. However, I find it amusing that the arguments used in the US, with for instance self defense are difficult to turn down with pure logic - but the statistics of homicide rates in Europe in contrary to the US are quite contrary. The US has a murder rate of 4,9 per capita (just looked it up) with all parts of Europe (except of eastern Europe) has below 2, where gun regulations are strict. However, I'm glad I don't have to participate in these discussions - because my country already share my point of view.
User avatar #319 - volleys (08/23/2013) [-]
The US has almost always had a higher homicide rate than much of Europe, and it is very difficult to dissect what triggers this (guns, education, society). But lets compare the US and England for a moment. As of this moment, the US has a 4.8 homicide rate where the UK has 1.2. A ratio of 4 to 1. The pitfalls of comparison here are population, typically larger populations do have a higher homicide rate because there is more human interaction. Over the past 20 years the US homicide rate has drastically dropped from 10 to 4.8, obviously thats half the murders, where the UK has essentially plateaued since 1857, with fluctuations of course. So gun bans did nothing to curb the homicide rate in the UK because guns were banned long after 1857. The UK banned guns almost totally in 1997, but the homicide rate virtually remained the same. Now the major difference is crime rate. The US had 11,877,218 crimes in 2002, with a population of 287 million, which is a rate of 4.1. The UK had 6,523,706 in 2002, with a population of 58 million, a rate of 11.24. Crime rate is where the gun debate lie, as after UK banned guns crime sky rocketed. If a citizens can posses a gun easily would many criminals take the risk of getting shot/killed? Essentially my argument is "Because gun bans did nothing to lower the homicide rate in the UK, but the crime rate increased after the bans, the gun bans made the UK worse off."


Here are my sources

www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri-crime-total-crimes
polyticks.com/polyticks/beararms/liars/usa.htm
scienceblogs.com/deltoid/1996/08/03/international-00028/
www.multpl.com/united-states-population/table

I couldn't find a 2002 UK population so I used 2001, which would be very close
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Census_2001
#325 - gerfox (08/23/2013) [-]
Ah, nice arguments Yeah, I agree with the crime rates - but is it really worth it to have statistically speaking four times as many deaths due to crime as in other countries, just to lower the general criminality? That's like putting a price on human lives.. However, I definitely see your points - and some of the same points can be applied to arguments about capital punishment

I think population density is a more essential factor than actual population though...
User avatar #337 - volleys (08/24/2013) [-]
You missed the whole point. Gun bans were not a factor in the UK's homicide rate. Gun bans were a factor in the crime rate however. If gun bans did nothing to lower the homicide rate, but increased the crime rate the bans actually hurt the UK.
#338 - gerfox (08/24/2013) [-]
Well, the full ban on arms weren't initiated until '97, but the accessibility for weapons have in general been lower in the UK since god knows how long ago. The second amendment is based originally as the population working as some kind of militia, and this automatically allows the people easier access to weaponry. In the UK on the other hand the army (or state) have always had a monopoly on the use of force. Maybe that's why the homicide rate have stayed that low since 1857.

My point being, even before the (almost) full ban on arms in '97, accessibility to arms in the UK were much more restricted than in the US. It's obvious that murder rates decrease with the ban of fire arms, it's much easier to shoot someone than to beat them to death. And it also makes sense with the general crime rate, you're of course much "safer" from regular criminality with fire arms. But, in any regard, most European countries has a ban on firearms and a much lower homicide rate. It's easy to get tunnel vision if you just compare two specific cases.
User avatar #339 - volleys (08/24/2013) [-]
Thats a good observation, but I can show you how guns didn't negatively affect the US homicide rate. If we look at the US rate in the last 20 years the rate dropped from 10 in 1993, to 4.8 in 2013. In those 20 years the firearms industry has experienced record sales. So either there is no correlation between firearms and homicides, or firearms have prevented many homicides. I prefer to believe the latter.
#342 - gerfox (08/25/2013) [-]
Well, that's a drastic conclusion to draw just from that statistic. Personally I believe other factors have played a huge part in that statistic.

People have in general become wealthier, more educated - and you've seen a drastic decrease in gang related violence. I think it's strange to believe that easy access to fire arms actually will decrease the homicide rate, considering it's much easier to obtain a weapon - and it's much easier to kill a person in rage, or with clouded judgment with a gun, you'd just have to squeeze the trigger. There's a huge difference between that, and actually beating someone to death. Remember, the major part of homicides occur in the homes of people, not in the public where you have "vigilantes" to protect other people.
User avatar #343 - volleys (08/25/2013) [-]
If citizens have easy access to firearms, defending themselves if need be is easier. Just allowing citizens to own a gun shows criminals that there may be larger risk if robbing/hurting someone. You are saying that more firearms equals more homicides, which has not been proven. And you have to remember that a homicide is a homicide no matter the tool. Why would you even bring up vigilantes? No one ever mentioned anything like that.
#344 - gerfox (08/25/2013) [-]
Why I would bring up vigilantes? If citizens have easy access to firearms and defend themselves, or others with it they would in effect be vigilantes. I agree with the fact that you'd probably have fewer regular crimes with low gun control, but it's beyond sense to think it would actually be positive for the homicide rate.

Sorry, if you can't grasp the logical aspect of my arguments, that easier access to guns will cause more homicides, then I think we would have to stop our discussion here. Seems like you're not able to simply grasp it, or give in to anything.

I don't know whether if my thesis about homicide have been proven or not, and I'm too lazy to look. And like I have said a dozen times already, it's obvious that it's easier to kill someone in an unstable state with a gun than with anything else. A drunkard with a gun is just as deadly as a sober man, but a drunkard who wishes to bludgeon you to death is something else. Easy access, and an overflow of weapons would let people have easy access to guns even when they shouldn't. Most homicides happen in your own home, where you in any case feel safe - and you probably won't carry a firearm - so the self defense aspect is a minor argument in this case, an argument blown out of proportions by pro-gun people.

I'm sure if you dig up some research on homicides while intoxicated, you'll find out that a huge part of homicides that do happen happens while a person is drunk or in some other way out of his own mind. I'm also confident that this percentage is higher in the US than in European countries with stricter weapons regulations.
User avatar #345 - volleys (08/26/2013) [-]
Vigilantes are someone who goes out of their way to prevent crime, like Batman. Self defense, my topic, is in a whole other category.

And I've showed that guns have no correlation to increasing/decreasing homicide rate. The US homicide rate has dropped by half, but firearms sales have sky rocketed. Guns don't even have to be used to prevent crime, they only have to have the possibility of being present. If a criminal knew 75% of all homes owned a gun would he take the massive risk of breaking in?

So to say I'm not grasping the concept is irrational.
It is you who have not grasped anything.
#346 - gerfox (08/26/2013) [-]
No, you haven't shown that guns have no correlation - you've just pointed to the UK homicide statistic, we haven't looked into details about gun laws there, and for instance cultural differences (like I have already pointed to, but you seem to ignore that).

My point is still, as I said initially - easy gun access prevents criminality, but increases the homicide rate. Low gun access increases criminality, but decreases the homicide rate. That's the logical thing, and since I'm too lazy to look after proof, I suggest we end our discussion here. In any regard, it wasn't my intention to start discussing with someone who isn't willing, or able, to grasp what I think is logical.

Thank you for the discussion, at least you convinced me guns are a good thing for preventing crime albeit not homicides.
User avatar #347 - volleys (08/26/2013) [-]
I've pointed out multiple times that the US homicide rate has dropped drastically from 1993 to 2013 and in those 20 years firearms sales have increased dramatically.

Just look at my comment with all the sources.

Just because you think firearms increases homicide doesn't make it so.
#198 - What matters if it was legal or not? Criminals get illegal ful… 08/23/2013 on Extremist +1
#65 - The World Wars were different than that of Iraq or Afghanistan. 08/23/2013 on Crime and Punishment 0
#58 - But many times lawyers don't understand the struggles of every… 08/23/2013 on the voice of the people 0
Show:
Sort by:
Order:

items

Total unique items point value: 550 / Total items point value: 750

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Per page:
Order:
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #3 - volleys (07/12/2013) [-]
**volleys rolls 21**
#2 - volleys (06/26/2012) [-]
**volleys rolled a random image posted in comment #16 at The Gift **
User avatar #1 - volleys (06/26/2012) [-]
*roll image*
 Friends (0)