This game is going to blow here's why.

#141cheese_game619Posted 3/25/2013 2:18:51 AM
meth is very yucky
---
http://i.imgur.com/z68cb.png
http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m070ogasVv1qeewbgo2_500.jpg
#142tzar_666Posted 3/25/2013 2:23:16 AM
cheese_game619 posted...
meth is very yucky


most of where i live is thick woods so its easy to hide. all the time i read the paper about meth heads getting busted. one guy got busted for making meth in the justice center parking lot after leaving drug court.
---
psn tzar666
xbox davethebakerx2
#143cheese_game619Posted 3/25/2013 2:57:47 AM
lol
---
http://i.imgur.com/z68cb.png
http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m070ogasVv1qeewbgo2_500.jpg
#144macten5150Posted 3/25/2013 5:37:14 AM
ouch he was in a rolling meth lab. Those are the ones that like to blow up.
---
even a blind squirrel gets a nut
#145hellfire582Posted 3/25/2013 10:39:04 AM
LordPoncho posted...


What does having a high drug rate have to do with this? Nothing. If there's a cause for violence, there will be violence. It doesn't take easily accessible weapons for there to be murders.


You mentioned that Mexico has one of the highest murder rates in the world even though they have strict gun regulations. But, since they also have a much higher rate of drug-related crime than most countries, they have a higher demand for guns among criminals. Their tight gun regulations probably do keep the murder rate from being higher than it already is, but I'm just saying Mexico is a bad example because their murder rates are going to be high either way.

On the other hand, the UK is a good example of a country with a criminal profile more similar to that of the US. When they banned guns, they saw a marked reduction in murder rates. That's a pretty damn good argument for why the US should at least try to restrict gun availability significantly. No one is saying that will solve the problem completely - obviously criminals can still find ways to get guns. But that doesn't change the fact that gun regulation will help to some degree. Trying to argue that gun restrictions won't help at all is just contrary to the best evidence we have.
#146LordPonchoPosted 3/25/2013 10:53:05 AM
hellfire582 posted...
LordPoncho posted...


What does having a high drug rate have to do with this? Nothing. If there's a cause for violence, there will be violence. It doesn't take easily accessible weapons for there to be murders.


You mentioned that Mexico has one of the highest murder rates in the world even though they have strict gun regulations. But, since they also have a much higher rate of drug-related crime than most countries, they have a higher demand for guns among criminals. Their tight gun regulations probably do keep the murder rate from being higher than it already is, but I'm just saying Mexico is a bad example because their murder rates are going to be high either way.

On the other hand, the UK is a good example of a country with a criminal profile more similar to that of the US. When they banned guns, they saw a marked reduction in murder rates. That's a pretty damn good argument for why the US should at least try to restrict gun availability significantly. No one is saying that will solve the problem completely - obviously criminals can still find ways to get guns. But that doesn't change the fact that gun regulation will help to some degree. Trying to argue that gun restrictions won't help at all is just contrary to the best evidence we have.


You're missing the point altogether, which really isn't surprising.

If somebody wants to murder someone, they will, guns or not.
---
"lol der was a shdow on my carpet but ti looked like a stane and tried to clen it up but ti was a shadoow" -Ghost4800
#147puffinslaughterPosted 3/25/2013 11:07:43 AM
From: hellfire582 | Posted: 3/25/2013 2:39:04 PM | #145
You mentioned that Mexico has one of the highest murder rates in the world even though they have strict gun regulations. But, since they also have a much higher rate of drug-related crime than most countries, they have a higher demand for guns among criminals. Their tight gun regulations probably do keep the murder rate from being higher than it already is, but I'm just saying Mexico is a bad example because their murder rates are going to be high either way.

On the other hand, the UK is a good example of a country with a criminal profile more similar to that of the US. When they banned guns, they saw a marked reduction in murder rates. That's a pretty damn good argument for why the US should at least try to restrict gun availability significantly. No one is saying that will solve the problem completely - obviously criminals can still find ways to get guns. But that doesn't change the fact that gun regulation will help to some degree. Trying to argue that gun restrictions won't help at all is just contrary to the best evidence we have.


Stupid. Why should we have to suffer for people who make mistakes? That's like saying "knives are dangerous and banning them will cut down on stabbings. As far as I'm concerned, I don't care if nobody can cut up their food if it saves 1 to 2 lives a year."

And another thing; 1 life per year is basically no difference, so why not keep guns so that the people in danger can protect themselves? Not to sound like a grumpy conservative, but you liberals are all the same. You think banning guns will get rid of violent crime completely and you fail to see the bigger picture. This isn't just banning guns from criminals, this is banning guns from level-headed people who would very much like to live and can't protect themselves in the event of a violent crime.
---
Kris Letang stat tracker ~ 3 Goals, 25 Assists, +11 Pittsburgh Penguins: 24-8
http://i.imgur.com/gKedoAK.png ~grape_purple ^_^
#148CruorComaPosted 3/25/2013 11:29:35 AM(edited)
I actually agree with hellfire on this one. There's significant contextual differences between Mexico and places like the UK, Canada and Australia, so it's unfair to make the comparison. The latter of which have many cultural, social and economic similarities with the US, yet even combined still have a lower homicide rate than the States. I see no problem with gun restrictions, but I'm obviously biased given I'm Australian myself and have never been exposed to popular gun culture.
---
If you have a problem with potheads, throw your computer out the window right now. Why should you be able leech off the creativity of those you condemn?
#149tzar_666Posted 3/25/2013 11:23:10 AM
because of 6 thousand miles of open borders a 100% gun ban would insure south american gangs completely take over. the difference is england is an island they dont have a southern border.
---
psn tzar666
xbox davethebakerx2
#150hellfire582Posted 3/25/2013 2:23:51 PM
LordPoncho posted...
hellfire582 posted...
LordPoncho posted...


What does having a high drug rate have to do with this? Nothing. If there's a cause for violence, there will be violence. It doesn't take easily accessible weapons for there to be murders.


You mentioned that Mexico has one of the highest murder rates in the world even though they have strict gun regulations. But, since they also have a much higher rate of drug-related crime than most countries, they have a higher demand for guns among criminals. Their tight gun regulations probably do keep the murder rate from being higher than it already is, but I'm just saying Mexico is a bad example because their murder rates are going to be high either way.

On the other hand, the UK is a good example of a country with a criminal profile more similar to that of the US. When they banned guns, they saw a marked reduction in murder rates. That's a pretty damn good argument for why the US should at least try to restrict gun availability significantly. No one is saying that will solve the problem completely - obviously criminals can still find ways to get guns. But that doesn't change the fact that gun regulation will help to some degree. Trying to argue that gun restrictions won't help at all is just contrary to the best evidence we have.


You're missing the point altogether, which really isn't surprising.

If somebody wants to murder someone, they will, guns or not.


I don't understand how you can be so simple-minded in your thinking. It's tremendously easier for a person to kill others with a gun rather than a knife. There's a reason the military and police opt to use guns instead of just knives.

Are there some psychopaths who will kill people no matter what weapon they have to use to do it? Sure. But there are also obviously people who would have the will to kill people if given a gun, but wouldn't if not given a gun. It's really not that complicated; just try actually thinking about it.