points: 1

Undercover Security Guard Shoots Robbers

A much deserved shooting in my opinion.

featured

by Stephen

submitted January 4th 2007

165 comments
what do you think? let everyone know!
tagged:
votes:
muchoworthyStephen
not muchoworthy
comments (165)
Makes a criminal think twice when states have open/concealed carry laws. You never know who you're fucking with in this world.
11 years ago
only an american could be so stupid. security isn't about not knowing who in the room might have a gun, it's about knowing NO ONE in the room has a gun. and lots of other countries have solved crime problems, you just try to address the cause instead of seeing how many ppl you can lock up.
11 years ago
oh, and apparently... i'm not feeling very funny this evening. :P
11 years ago
coup that actually made a whole lot of sense... your one liners are always fun but who knew you had the common sense of a young stephen harpinger.
11 years ago
I would be more fun if you knew everyone had guns
11 years ago
Coupland's just back from steaking out his local q
Quicky Mart
11 years ago
^ "staking", fucktard.
11 years ago
Well guess what coupland? We don't really have many armed robberies where I live. Why? Because legal citizens can carry guns. Problem solved. What...you're going to argue with statistics? I fucking dare you bitch.
11 years ago
isn't it always about who has the bigger gun?
11 years ago
Sorry for blowing your cover Coup but its hard to spell after a tray of Bud and an 8th of white
11 years ago
sure i'll argue. see we have no armed robberies in canada because we don't relegate blacks and hispanics to ghettos that allow rich white neighbourhoods the luxury of saying "we don't really have many armed robberies where i live" because we don't really have many armed robberies where ANYONE lives... we have rich ppl here and poor ppl here,but the poor ppl tend to own homes and are generally not easily divided by race. so we kinda have the same peace as you, only it's by preventing poverty, not by making white people so rich that no one else has a voice. well, just my opinion of course...
11 years ago
Explain this: http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/1/24/150547.shtml
11 years ago
Besides, WTF are you talking about? There's not really anyone other than whites in Canada. Look at the Census: http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/demo27a.htm
11 years ago
"Page Not Found?" I dunno jonny-ringo, you have baffled me. How did you hide this page?
11 years ago
Could be all us Brits causing crime of course, we do love a bit of it.
11 years ago
There's armed robberies in Canada. The logic of safety through no citizens having guns fails when the government and police cannot be trusted.
11 years ago
A fight and im not involved??
11 years ago
Sorry, coup, I have to challenge you on this one. FACT: We have dumbshits running around with guns. FACT: A lot of these dumbshits are black, white and hispanic. FACT: Many of these dumbshits (regardless of race) use guns to commit crimes. FACT: More times than not, when a citizen shoots back, the rate of crime in teh general area decreases noticibly. Think about it- you want to rob a bar. Are you going to go into the bar where people MAY have firearms or the one in Canda where NOBODY has firearms? Your myopic "ge teh blacks and hispanics out of the ghetto and all will be well" is nothing shy of a pipe dream, coup. Yeah, I WISH humanity was that way but it isn't. Some people just plain deserve to die.
11 years ago
Sorry Fuckymonk, but if the criminals couldn't get guns so easily then your bar scenario just doesn't work. I live in Japan. Here people try to rob convenience stores with knives. Dangerous, but not nearly as much as a gun.
11 years ago
Japan has always had lower crime rates than the US... saying as much proves nothing about gun control and its effects on crime and violent crime.
11 years ago
I'm reading a lot of theory in this debate and I have to give my 2 cents since this is MS.

If I were going to rob a place and I thought other people would have guns I would thinking twice. I'd think twice about adding those details to the robbery. Go in without the gun out, check out the patrons. Who looks like they can use a gun? Granny? Nah. Muscle man? Yeah.

When gun comes out, first people you whack are the stereotyped gun weilders. Now my crime went from robbery to murder as well. So much for no crime...
11 years ago
Knives aren't as deadly as guns. Seems obvious to me.
11 years ago
Knives are just as deadly as guns, guns just extend the range.
11 years ago
Hank- "Fuckymonk"? We have to resort to name calling now? I guess if I ever ran out of rational and lucid thoughts I would surrender to name calling too.
11 years ago
I don't know. I kinda liked fuckymonk. Sounds like some weird, Hong Kong video about a Tibetan Kama Sutra master.
11 years ago
What's canadas population again? And anyway coupland. Arent they just like a huge pimple for America? Just sucking the juices from the border? "we don't relegate blacks and hispanics to ghettos" yeah. We dont either pal. In fact when a family wants to move from a "ghetto" the other patrons of said place try and keep them there. Cess pools of violence I say. Guns, knifes, pipes, tin foil. You name it, they will kill you with it.
11 years ago
Meh my closing comment is, people do the crimes, not the guns. If there werent so many retards in the world then there would be less crime, just unfortunate a third of america are retarded.
11 years ago
And the other 2/3's of us are too apathetic to give a shit.
11 years ago
Can someone tell me HOW the US is making the white man rich and keeping the blackman poor? My GF is a teacher at a HS with 70% blacks... 15% White... 15% other. The blacks only have a 33.9% graduation rate... whites 82%... other 71%.

Now tell me what is making the blacks poor?

This is the actual link johnny-ringo.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/1/24/150547.shtml
11 years ago
I've read our census johnny, perhaps you should too. report back to me when you see the flaw in your math...
11 years ago
You See Coupland the reason why your argument doesnt work is b/c if you think about it America has a lot more immigrants then Canada has, you dont have thousands of Mexicans crossing the border and living illegally in your country daily, nor do you have nearly as much ethnic diversity in Canada so your solution to poverty in Canada will adjust to your conditions when America has to deal with a lot more racial tensions.
11 years ago
Fine, try these. http://tinyurl.com/y3r6zt

http://tinyurl.com/yx26bx
11 years ago
http://tinyurl.com/y3r6zt takes you to here

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/1/24/150547.shtml

11 years ago
Here it says that blacks make up 2.2% of the population, and latinos make up .7%. So tell me about your ghettos again please. Look I'm trying to see your point, but we simply have a much more diverse demographic in the states, plus an issue with illegal immigration. You can't compare your crime to ours.
11 years ago
Sorry, here's the link

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Canada
11 years ago
Yes, Johnny, because if someone isn't black or hispanic then they must be white, right? Fuck you're ignorant.
11 years ago
No, it goes if someone isn't black or hispanic then they have no rhythm.
11 years ago
or jobs.
11 years ago
That came to mind too, but I'm not a racist fuck, so I didn't say it. And just to preempt all the idiots who will say "If you thought it, you must be racist too." Fuck you.
11 years ago
So you're not a "racist fuck"? What kind of fuck are you then, a dumb fuck?
11 years ago
(Nelson, in the background pointing)Haaaah-hah!
11 years ago
Speaking of ignorance Balls Malone, perhaps you should have read the comment that I was responding to. Oh I know, you're lazy, so here:
Miko
coupland says:

sure i'll argue. see we have no armed robberies in canada because we don't relegate blacks and hispanics to ghettos that allow rich white neighbourhoods the luxury of saying "we don't really have many armed robberies where i live"
11 years ago
notice how coupland got put in his place? Classic ownage. And forget about Balls Alone. Everyone is "ignorant" to him because he is ruler of his tiny little world called Zorpnaph. I know! He told me I could be president! But I said no, so he called me "ignorant" Whatevs.
11 years ago
Johnny-Ringo: "There's not really anyone other than whites in Canada. Look at the census" & "Here it says that blacks make up 2.2% of the population, and latinos make up .7%. So tell me about your ghettos again please."
11 years ago
Am I wrong motherfucker? Have a looksy here: "British Isles origin 28%, French origin 23%, other European 15%, Amerindian 2%, other, mostly Asian, African, Arab 6%, mixed background 26%" This stat was taken from:https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ca.html#People
11 years ago
That 66% caucasian, 6% black/asian/arab, and 26% mixed. Am I still ignorant? Like I said, mostly whites.
11 years ago
^ That sounds like a good looking half cast bitch
11 years ago
Holy shit!! coup, Clear out the spare room, I'm moving to CANADA!!!! Ooo CANADA!!
11 years ago
Damn jonny... why do i have to keep repairing your links.

https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ca.html#People
11 years ago
nope.. sry.. its this forum.. it is adding a space.. if you copy and past a link here.. remove the "%20" and it will work.
11 years ago
I saw justice being served. That robber most likely played that scenario out in his mind that he'd have the potential of being shot and losing his life. When he affords no one else mercy by inducing fear with a gun for a petty amount of cash, why does he deserve any? It was kind of poetic actually. Did that security guard finish him off with his own gun?
11 years ago
did someone mention "canada", does anyone know that it's a fact that canadians are the second most highest amount of illegal aliens in america, i'm sure they carry guns. if things are so rosey north of the border, why would they risk deportment in shitty old america
11 years ago
Because we don't have socialized medicine, play better hockey, cheaper cigarettes, don't say "whats this all aboot, eh?" and have stippers that are worth seeing topless.
11 years ago
Maybe it's cause that stat isn't based in reality?
11 years ago
Or maybe because Commisioner Gordon dresses like Wonder Woman and chases Albert around the Bat Cave with the lasso of truth?
11 years ago
color has jackshit to do with what happened. it was just two assholes trying to rob a place and one died. it's that simple. i think everyone should be allowed to carry a firearm open or other wise. of course it will be like the wild west for about 4 or five months but i promise you all crime will drop and stay low after that. if criminals know that everyone around them is packing do you really think that they're going to stick someone up knowing this?? i think not.
11 years ago
yes they will my uninformed friend, I think you will find that the only think that will change is the amount of innocent people being shot will increase far beyond the huge number already in the USofA
11 years ago
Yeah, or else instead of sticking a gun or knife in your face, criminals could just shoot you right off the bat and rifle your corpse, since they would have to assume you're packing.
11 years ago
Ah let's just do away with the firearms and goto spitballs instead. I'm sure that'll go over well.

Ah fuck it. cdbsr00 is right. Just pack a peice and the blow the fucker away.
11 years ago
Did anyone notice the drunk ghost at the bottom of the screen in the beginning of the video?
11 years ago
I'm sorry I thought countries with fewer handguns had fewer deaths by handgun and countries with more handguns had more deaths by being shot by a handgun. How is more handguns supposed to reduce shootings? Does anyone have any results of any controlled scientific studies where the number of handguns increased somewhere, but the number of deaths by handgun decreased?
11 years ago
its true. no handguns allowed in the UK and fatal shootings make front page news here. they are incredibly rare. but thats partly due to ol' blighty being the best frikkin country in the world
11 years ago
^^ Ya, instead they just pop a few dozen at soccer games every couple weeks or so. Where else can you go to a game and have a high chance of bein popped? Only soccer in Britian.
11 years ago
Well, soccer in other countries, as well. But, in America, if your favorite football team loses, you just go home and beat the wife. Much safer. I had a friend who worked in the domestic violence office on campus and they did a study. Sure enough, on a weekend when the Packers lost, the number of domestic violence incidents reported in Wisconsin would spike.
11 years ago
Ok guys, since the banning of handguns, is the homocide rate higher or lower in England than in the United States? Also, which one of those countries has had a decline in the homocide rate and crime rate, and which has had an increase?
11 years ago
Obviously, the U.S. has a higher homicide rate. What a stupid question.
11 years ago
Hank... re: the Packers... Packers fans are a bunch of animals... Go PATS!!! but that aside, the whole football fan=wife beater canard was debunked long ago.
...
http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/superbowl.asp
...
If this is the type of "data" you use to form your opinions, you're hurting.
11 years ago
Canard. Oh good word. I guess drunken football fans whose team lost aren't more likely to smack their wives than drunken football fans whose team won.
11 years ago
people dont get shot at UK football games. and yes it is football we called it that before your country was even a bubble in colombus' spunk
11 years ago
^^ Shot, popped, beaten, trampled, whatever. The point being, UK "football" is the only sport in the world where a fan has a higher chance of being killed than being hit by lightening. And wah, you country is older than the US...wah.
11 years ago
^^^ your
11 years ago
Hank- we gotta teach the bitches to shut up during the game. If we beat them DURING the game then we might miss a good play. It's priorities, Hank, it's all about priorities.
11 years ago
But they always want to pick that moment to talk about their "feelings", and, by the way, my mom's going to visit for a month.
11 years ago
Football violence in England is actually lower than in a number of other countries such as Italy where you not only have armed police at matches but the military police too. My point? A meaningless juxtaposition.
11 years ago
My question wasn't so stupid, actually. For American statistics, the FBI askes that every homicide be counted, even if they (as so many are) reduced in the legal system to manslaughter or other charges. England has basically the opposite policy. If you compare both countries using the FBI standards, England now has a higher murder rate (murders per number of people, not just number of murders overall.) Also, their rate continues to rise, while the US has basically steadied off and even falls a bit.
11 years ago
Gun control means hitting your target. Bravo to that security guard, though he should have tapped both of them.
11 years ago
Of course banning guns reduces "shootings", just like if you banned all corkscrews there would be fewer corkscrew related deaths too.
.
The question is, what happens to the crime rate. I've not seen any studies that show crime increases when gun laws are relaxed, just as I've not seen any studies that show crime decreases when gun laws are strengthened.
.
Here's one type of crime that was reduced when gun use was increased: School shootings dropped to zero after teachers and school guards were authorized to carry guns in Israel.
11 years ago
Oh righht in that case you win....oh wait in the UK we dont carry guns but we dont have kids using dddies guns to shoot other kids either :)
11 years ago
Corkscrew analogy very funny and relevant, not. The "crime rate" also isn't really relevant. It's the rate of crimes committed using handguns. If handguns are easy to obtain (for use in a crime), criminals will obtain them and use them. As will nutcases just bent on shooting someone for revenge or any other reasons. More guns does equal more safety. A criminal (interested in violent crime) seems alot more likely to get a handgun than the average citizen.
11 years ago
oops, should read "does not equal more safety"
11 years ago
Freudian slip?
11 years ago
Guns invented the point-and-click interface.

I guess we could ban all guns and then just be complete pussies. Yep. Make sure the only defense we have is overworked cops bent on tasering everyone. Make sure no citizen has any power over their own lives, we'll just live in a giant daycare and wear helmets when we drive our cars and make sure there's no pointy knives in the kitchen.

I don't have one yet, but what I want is one of those stickers that looks like the "Protected by.." ones the security companies give you that you put on your window, but it says "We don't call 911 here." If someone breaks into my house, I'll fucking shoot them. Right is right.
11 years ago
Thanks for conceding victory.
The US has always been a more violent place than the UK. This says nothing about gun control and its effects on crime.
11 years ago
@ El_Wanko: I don't agree with you, but nice argument. It was well put. I guess it makes sense when your society is failing. (pearls before swine with this one)
11 years ago
I dont mean to say that you are swine, El_Wanko.
11 years ago
What victory, you moron? Everyone having guns just makes it easier for anyone to kill anyone else. How is that safer?
11 years ago
Hank... Orange said I won... if he was being sarcastic, so was I... see below for my reasoning that its not neccessarily true that less guns means more safety... i also never said everyone should have a gun.
11 years ago
For fuck sake its Oranje, no g its a j!!!! Im not a spelling Nazi BUT Oranjeboom is a brand of larger not a made up word so spelling it wrong it plain unnaceptable
11 years ago
Shit! ....*is
11 years ago
My sarcastometer must be malfunctioning. It just obvious that, all things being equal, fewer guns is safer. Knives aren't deadly as guns. Like fewer viruses in the world means less chance of catching one, or fewer nuclear bombs means...etc...etc...ad nauseum.
11 years ago
<< It just obvious>>
If its so obvious, find an online study that shows that increased gun control leads to an increase in "safety". I agree it will lead to less "shootings", but what are the other costs associated with less legal guns in the hands of law abiding citizens.
11 years ago
....and your logic is flawed when applying gun control to real life because: all things are NOT equal.
11 years ago
You've mentioned costs a few times. What exactly do costs have to do with safety?
11 years ago
I dont mean "costs" in a monitary sense... i mean overall cost to society...
...
so, the "obvious" good of reducing all nukes to, say 3 missles, isn't so obvious when you let Iran have all 3. There are other things to consider... other costs...
11 years ago
Overall cost to society? Like the cost of not having to worry about being robbed at gunpoint on your way home from the store, or is it the cost of having to manufacture a greater number of knives for the criminals to use?
11 years ago
Let me say something to Hank and Monsewage and Balls. If you were going to rob a house and you had two choices. A) House with no Guns or B) House that might have a gun. Which would you choose? Btw house A is in Canada. House B is in the USA. Which one?
11 years ago
Gun control won't stop crimminals from having guns! It will stop only those who respect the law from obtaining the weapons in which to defend themselves from the crimminals. Look at how many of the weapons used in murders are, or have ever been, legally purchased and registered. England tops out at 16%, while other gun-control countires (Canada, Australia) manage about 6%. That means a maximum of 1 out of 6 guns used to kill someone was obtained in some legal way.
11 years ago
<<Corkscrew analogy very funny and relevant, not.>>
My point was: its obvious reducing the use of a tool, reduces the death caused by that tool.
As such, basing a descision to ban guns based soley on the goal of reducing "shootings", ignores all the other costs associated with banning guns.
<<The "crime rate" also isn't really relevant.>>
It has been hypothesised that criminals will decrease their criminal activity if they believe their victims might be armed. A possible increase in the crime rate is a cost I would really be interested in hearing about before a law banning guns was enacted.
<< It's the rate of crimes committed using handguns.>>
I guess you weigh crimes comitted with handguns to the exclusion of all other costs. So hypothetically, if it can be shown that murder using knives are increase when guns are banned, you dont care because the crimes werent committed with a gun?
I don't think that is your belief, but you seem to want to exclude all other crimes, and mearly look at crimes comitted with a gun.
<< If handguns are easy to obtain, criminals will obtain them and use them.>>
Thats true, but crimminals will commit crimes with or without guns too. How does a gun ban effect their behaviour overall.
I agree, there will be less crimes with guns, but what is the effect on other crimes that you claim are irrelevant?
<<More guns does (not) equal more safety.>>
Do you have any links to any studies to show this?
Some of the most violent cities in the US have the most restrictive gun control.
Crime in Brittain has gone up after the 1997 gun ban went into place. http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/page6.asp
http://www.sightm1911.com/lib/rkba/violence_increase_with_British_gun_ban.htm
I'm not claiming these examles prove my point, but it does prove that there is more to consider than the obvious result of whether or not banning guns leads to less "shootings".
<< A criminal (interested in violent crime) seems alot more likely to get a handgun than the average citizen.>>
Since we're talking hypotheticals... it also seems like you'd be a lot more safe from a school shooter if the teachers all had guns. Oh, wait, that isn't hypothetical, it actually happened.
<<I guess it makes sense when your society is failing.>>
Not sure if you sarcasm button was on, Balls... but I would say one symptom of a failing society is one where people cant lawfully defend themselves, with guns or otherwise.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2004/10/31/do3102.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2004/10/31/ixop.html
11 years ago
Getting too drunk to think about this. Here's an idea. You live in the U.S. and have a gun and worry about guns and be much more likely to be shot by a gun and I'll live in Japan and not have a gun and have a snowball's chance in hell of getting shot by a gun. Cool? Wait, who's that behind you?
11 years ago
Im in the UK and the idea of getting shot never ever crosses my mind
11 years ago
<<Getting too drunk to think about this.>>
DAMN, I wanna be drunk too.
<<Here's an idea. You live in the U.S. ... snowball's chance in hell of getting shot by a gun. >>
Actually, in the town I live in, I probably have just as much chance of getting shot as you do.
As I've said elsewhere, the US has always been more violet than Japan. This says nothing about gun control and violent crime, and crime in general.
Just as the higher suicide rate of students in Japan has no link to the fact that you have stricter gun control.
<<Cool? Wait, who's that behind you?>>
No one is behind me. To get behind me they would have to force themselves into my house. I would hear them forcing the door, and within 30-40 seconds I would have 1, maybe 2 firearms in hand.
What would happen to you if a crimminal wanting to murder you were breaking into your home? I guess you'd find a baseball bat and defend yourself.... baseball bats lead to more beating deaths... ban all baseball bats.
<<Im in the UK and the idea of getting shot never ever crosses my mind>>
Good comeback.
Im in the US and the idea of getting beaten by football-hooligans never enters my mind, but neither this, nor your observation prove anything about gun control.
11 years ago
Until you, or some other gun owner, leaves the house and the house is burglarized and the guns are stolen and later used to rob and/or kill someone.
11 years ago
And I didn't say Japan was as violent as the US. If Japan had a higher rate of handgun ownership, I'd have a higher chance of getting shot by a handgun. (Most likely by a criminal)
11 years ago
<<Until you (leave) the house and the house is burglarized ...used to rob and/or kill someone.>>
So the benefit of me not having a gun is that someone wont steal it and kill someone... the cost of me not having a gun is that my ability to protect myself in my own home is reduced.
The whole gun control arguement comes down to this type of cost / benefit analysis, that you seemingly disregard, because (obviously) if there were less guns, less people would get shot.
...
The arguement isnt as simple as you want to make it.
...
Maybe you can see now why i think its significant that:
Ive seen no study that shows crime dropping--even violent crime, when gun control laws are enacted.
and:
Ive seen not study that shows crime increasing when gun control laws are relaxed.
...
And quite to the contrary, I site a specific example where school shootings were eliminated by teachers carrying guns. In this case more guns= more safety, despite your "obvious" statement of less guns=more safety.
...
<<And I didn't say Japan was as violent as the US.>>
Please re-read (with no sarcasm): The US has always had MORE violent crime than Japan and the UK, but I suggest this has less to do with gun control than it does with other basic differences in our societies.
11 years ago
monsewage these >"" are quotation marks learn how to fucking use them you stupid hick
11 years ago
"So the benefit of me not having a gun is that someone wont steal it and kill someone" No, the benefit of noone having guns is that you are less likely to be killed by one.
11 years ago
Sorry Orange, I will try to live up to your standards.
By the way, this character: ">" is a "greater than" symbol, not an arrow.
Nice try tho'
11 years ago
<<the benefit of noone having guns is that you are less likely to be killed by one>>
The trouble is, this is where your argument starts and ends, and the real world doesnt operate that way.
11 years ago
Where the fuck is CotB... at least he could be relied upon for holding up his end of the discussion... sheesh... "hick"?? is that the best you can do?
11 years ago
"The trouble is, this is where your argument starts and ends,"
It's a simple argument yet too difficult for the simple minded.

11 years ago
Repeating a truism isn't much of an argument...even the simple minded can see that.
But if its all you can muster, i guess I must learn to accept your limitations.

Nice use of quotes, btw, Orange would be proud.
11 years ago
So, Hank, your arguemnt for gun control is bassically:
GUNS BAD!
Very cogent.
(hows that for a word... and from a simple mind, no less)
11 years ago
Ho hum
11 years ago
my point exactly...
11 years ago
Tell you what Hank, you get all the guns out of the hands of the criminals, then I might consider giving up mine. And if someone wants to kill you and they don't have a gun, does that mean that they can't kill you? Are you stating that no criminals in Japan possess guns? Maybe the lower crime rates in Japan have something to do with the socially repressed society there. Talk to us in a couple more years as they become more and more "Americanized", a process that started years ago and seems to be hitting its stride from everything that I read and see. And this isn't the 2nd grade playground, the one who shouts loudest doesn't win. If you make a claim, back it up or stop trying to play with the grown-ups.
11 years ago
Monsweage 7.. Hank and Orange..0
11 years ago
By the way, my name is actually Mon J. Sewage, and my icon is an actual photograph of me.
11 years ago
I love to sit back and read everybodys righteous talk and yet you can't see that that you are all contributing to bigotry and hate. The world will never change.
11 years ago
You're right, lamb, the wo't change so quit fucking trying. Just go post your emo "wah wah" story on YouTube and shut the fuck up.
11 years ago
Can any of you "guns are bad!" believers see that the gun itself doens't do shit? A gun is a neutral tool. The thing that makes a gun "good" or "bad" is the intent of the individual holding it. If nobody picks up the gun then the gun is not going to kill anyone. I have been a gun owner for over 25 years and I have yet to shoot anyone. Odds are I never will. Why? because I am law abiding dumb shit that pays his taxes and tries to beleive the government will protect me. The government that can't control it's own borders and doesntt have the balls to do so. We recently had a group of gun toting wetbacks chase our National gaurd troops away from the border. They actually INVADED my country and my government will do nothing about it. If they don't give a flying fuck about my country being invaded, why would they give a fuck about my home being invaded? They don't and so I have to. I do by keeping firearms in my home and advertising the fact when needed. My pussy neighbor has had his house broken into four times in the last 3 years. He is not a gun owner, beleives the cops will protect him and thinks I am a dick for having guns. Well, I don't lay awake in fear every night as he does because I know I have the ability to stop someone in my home whereas the pussy des not and will not. I have guns, I am ready and willing to use them and I will if threatened. If you leave me the fuck alone you have nothing to worry about. If you decide to endanger me or my family, you will have a hell of a lot to worry about for eh few remaining seconds your brain remains in your skull. "Guns are bad"? Fuck you. Depending on other people to protect your sorry pussy as is "bad."
11 years ago
Well put Money. I don't own guns, but I do believe in the right to have/own them. And, to use them in the appropriate circumstances. That being said, I have lived in two of the most violent cities in the US (Detroit and Cleveland) and have never even seen a gun situation come up, so I guess it comes down to what you surround yourself with....
11 years ago
INVADED? they INVADED your country did they? the cheek of them to INVADE! You should read Orwells essay Politics and the English Language....youre a great example of his point.
11 years ago
Okay, Oranje, teach me something. What do YOU call a constant flow of citizens of one country forcibly crossing the borders to enter another country while carrying weapons, and then shooting the same weapons at the citizens of the country they are entering. Maybe you call it going to the square dance? Collecting donations for Mother Theresa? If someone forces their way into your home it is called a "home invasion." What do you call it, Oranje? Please, educate me in your wise ways so that I may too see the light. You should read Merriam Webster's Dictionary- you're a great example of someone needing to do so.
11 years ago
OK it says "to enter for conquest or plunder" Well shit! the news in the UK isnt doin a very good job because i never saw anything about America being concurred and plundered...
11 years ago
Yes, that is one definition, as are these: to encroach or intrude on; To enter and spread through something; To go somewhere in numbers.
11 years ago
SNIKT don’t start being smart by pointing out other definitions that don’t fit my argument, i checked Merriam Websters Dictionary & very cleverly picked the definition that sounded good for what I was saying & yet still managed to tell the truth…Karl Rove dunt have shit on me!
11 years ago
Orange juce boy is going batty bye bye. Btw. I too am pissed of at the invasion going on in my home state. That's why I have now started to learn Spanish! Yeah! Go languages that are forced upon you!
11 years ago
Oranje- I'll give you props for your response to SNIKT above. Very well done and quite similar to numerous posts I have made in the past.
11 years ago
Sorry Oranje, my bad. We'll just have to reasonably agree to disagree. What is the world coming to. BTW, I've read good things about your beer, will have to look for it and give it a try.
11 years ago
Dont drink it, cool name but it tastes like cat piss! ...dont drink that either!
11 years ago
all of the pro gun owners sound like paranoid wrecks. it must be shite to live in constant fear of anything that moves
11 years ago
you noticed how its always "person trying to kill me" seriously they believe that people are out to kill them so they must carry a gun for self defence at all time...probably what you want in a country where selling guns is big business
11 years ago
I am sure it is, UK, but I have a gun and so I don't have to "live in constant fear of anything that moves."
11 years ago
But you own a gun so you dont "live in constant fear of anything that moves"...whats your motto? Fail to prepare prepare to fail?
11 years ago
I used to live in a converted factory building. I was asleep on the couch under the alley window when a car pulled in the alley. I thought it was my ex-wife coming home from a night out with her friends. Suddenly I hear voices through the window grate (it was a bad neighborhood, three crackhouses on the block) a mans voice saying "I don't see anyone but there is a TV on. I grabbed my 9mm and got to the front door as some crackhead and a hooker walk through the front door. The hooker starts to make up some story about breaking down when I bring my pistol out from behind my leg. She looks at it, says "Oh, you have a pistol" (shit you not, her exact words) and they turn around and leave. Two other crackheads were in the alley in the car. They start fighting with the hooker while I'm calling 911. The hooker took off running (she had taken some of their money) and they chased her. The cops pulled them over a block and a half away. They arrested the hooker for possessing a crack pipe and let the guys go. There were 7 police vehicles and they all drove by me standing in front of the building waving my arms and flashlight at them. I had to stand in front of the last squad car to get it to stop. After talking to the officer I found out that the 911 operator hadn't mentioned them walking into my house, just the guys chasing the hooker. All of the guys had priors for home invasion and burglary. The officer said that had they known about them walking in on me, they would have gone to jail instead of going free. Had I not had my 9mm handy there is no telling what would have happened. And with the reaction of the police I will always trust my 9mm over a call to 911. Don't believe me if you don't want to, I don't care, but NOBODY will change my mind about gun ownership after that incident.
11 years ago
No, Oranje, my motto is "tried by 12 is better than carried by six." What's yours- "mommy will make the bad guy go away"?
11 years ago
Mommy will make the bad guy go away? To be fair id much rather have that as my motto and truly live by it than live with a gun under my pillow because im scared my country will be INVADED!
11 years ago
this whole 'eye for an eye' 'gun for a gun' bollocks just means they all go blind.. i blame the US media everytime
11 years ago
Oranje- you don't need to fear your country will be invaded for two simple reasons 1- the Muslims already control London and as Londo goes so does the UK. and 2- you have your "paranoid gun nut" ally called the "USA" who let you sleep at night knowing WE will save your asses once again. We did it with the Huns and then the NAZIs and we will do it again when your country finishes handing itself over to the Muslims. Rest well, my friend, the gun under my pillow will protect both of us so you can continue to tell me how evil and rotten I am.
11 years ago
UK- no worries- I blame the media, the lawyers and Canada.
11 years ago
ok moneyfuck that works for me i suppose
11 years ago
Someone is seeking my opinion?
First off you might like to twist it around and say I feel comfortable with criminals but as a bystander I sure as fuck do not want any more people standing around with guns that I don't know about than there already is. Not only do I <think> they have the potential to escalate a situation to more deadly levels, I don't want to have to put my faith in one-off vigilantes actually knowing what they are doing in such a situation.

Sao Paolo has done well from a gun ban. Gun deaths have fallen (not zero yes but that is not the point) thanks to less people carrying guns and less legally owned guns falling into the hands of criminals. Criminals may still have some guns but it has lowered other crimes to an extent that overall crime is falling.

Sure even after tough gun bans were implemented gun crime continued here (it would be stupid if people thought zero gun crime could be realistically achieved) but I have the sneaking suspicion that armed hold-ups here are less likely to turn deadly thanks to legal types of firearms that remain needing to be locked away and unloaded. Armed hold-ups in banks fell away thanks to better security measures. I can only recall one fatal robbery in the past few years which involved a bank so much so it made national headlines. Those in retailers typically involve threats of violence with bats, knives or syringes which typically end with no violence and very little stolen thanks to security measures on cash and valuable items.

Incidentally most people that hold up convenience stores, service stations and the like typically become repeat offenders as it is out of an ongoing necessity and therefore increase the chances of being caught.
Perhaps we simply favour our odds of survival in compliance rather than confrontation. Seems to have worked well for us so far. Perhaps the US has just gone too far down its own road.
11 years ago
I have not been to Sao Paolo, but I am sure it can be compared fairly to such places like New York or L.A. or hell even Austin. Oh, and lets all go to Austraila and rob Chairman. I hear he's not carrying. :P
11 years ago
Chair- one thing I'd like to point out regarding what you posted above. It makes snese that if there are less guns in the population then there are less gun deaths. Just like we had no deaths from cars driven by drunk drivers in the 1700's- we didn't have cars then either. More people die from car accidents, heart attacks and cancer than do from guns. the only difference is that people are accustomed to automobile deaths, cancer deaths and heart attacks and so they don't get splashed on the front page of the paper. We get stories about guys fucking dead deer, vigilante grannies shooting the nuts off of rapists (down your way too as I recall) and other "uncommon" news. Gun deaths are not as common as car deaths and so they plastered on the front page of the media who, as a RAND study has shown displays an obvious bias in support of gun control. So, yes, less guns mean less shootings just as less cars mean less automobile accidents. That "argument" is so simple and basic that I truly expected better from you than that.
11 years ago
. Actually, I think CotB brings up a valid argument... (thank god he brings up any argument other than calling pro-gun people paranoid, or hicks, a la Orange or UK Commenter)
. But from what I've read Sao Paolo didn't so much benefit from a gun ban, as they did from a gun buy-back program, as part of a comprehensive effort to reduce crime. Guns were strictly controlled in Sao Paolo, and Brazil in general, even before the stricter 2004 laws came into effect and the gun buy-back started.
. The buy-back was technically for any gun, but was actually targetting illegal guns.
. I'm all for getting illegal guns off the street and prosecuting violators of gun laws to the fullest extent of the law. Basically, like the argument goes: enforce the laws you have on the books now before you start creating new laws. Laws werent getting enforced in Brasil, due to all the corruption, and the horrible legal and penal system they have.
...
http://www.nationalreview.com/script/printpage.p?ref=/comment/lott_richardson200511081204.asp
...
. I get the impression violent gun crime in Brasil is still very high, despite the fact that legal gun ownership is a fraction of that in the US, but I cant find any exact numbers.
.. So does the example of Brazil tightening gun laws in 2004 and the subesquent drop in crime in Sao Paolo show gun control at work? I'm still skeptical, since the buy-back program seems to have done more to get illegal guns off the street than did the tighter gun ownership requirements.
. The illegal guns in Brazil seem to come from smuggling rather than being stolen or otherwise illegally transfered from legal gun owners.
11 years ago
See this is where extreme extrapolation to prove a point is simply ridiculous. The difference between cars and guns is that guns are designed for killing whereas cars (more often than not) are designed primarily as a means of transport and most deaths are caused by irresponsible rather than wilful criminal acts. The need for killing in the modern day is incredibly limited versus where we were in various places in time and location in the past. And all extreme relative arguments aside, the car (or more generally, road-going transportation to placate those who would want to argue the merits) can be seen as of crucial economic importance to modern, developed society, moreso than guns I would imagine.
Furthermore, regarding extreme extrapolation, Sao Paolo is mentioned to place the US between two relative extremes in gun culture and laws. I'm sorry if my attempts at framing a situation were of no use to you.
And that brings us onto the next issue. If you think that I am incapable of appreciating the fact that guns are only part of the multifaceted topic that is the cause and contributors to crime than it would be best to ignore what I write on the matter as it is clearly of no importance. It's quite amusing to see how issues are argued. Not specifically drawn from my experiences, if one argues only on the issue of guns, someone will argue they are not addressing the bigger picture of crime. If someone addresses the bigger picture of crime, they are not looking at the finer details. Pick a perspective and stick to it.
If the trouble of tracking me down, losing your dignity in attacking an innocent, defenceless and unsuspecting person and risking capture by the authorities is outweighed by obtaining my meagre possessions, go right ahead. I've always wondered what my dog would do in such a situation, I suspect the stupid, friendly bastard would be trying to make new friends whilst I lie bleeding.
11 years ago
I am sure the way you trained him he would!
11 years ago
Okay, Chair, you win on the argument about cars/motor vehicles assisting the economy and such. My question to you then is this- if "necessity is the mother of all invention" then what "necessity" drove the invention of and improvements to the gun? Sitting around inventing things for the hell of it is not too lucrative and so WHAT is the reason behind the invention of the hand gun? Can't tell me it was so we could sneak up on the deer and make hm think we were unarmed while hunting and it certainly is not for "accuracy." What was it for then?
11 years ago
Oh- and I also want to point out that "nuts" like me with guns are also able to better protect people like you who are without. Granted, I am in the smallminority that has taken firearm safety training, gets refresher training every 2 years, keeps fire arms and ammo in seperate locked places, etc. But not all of us are psychotic retards. Some of us are fairly intelligent, semi-responsible, DO care about others and want to not have to depend on someone else when they can do the job themselves. Most of us are called members of the vast right wing but so be it.
11 years ago
monkeyfuck you personally are not the example we are talking about its just that you unfortunately are the minority & yes it would be unfair on you but handguns were made illegal after the Dunblane School killing in 1996 and gun related deaths decreased dramatically (only certain rifles and shotguns are still legal with a licence), there were people like yourself who were put out by this but it was for the greater good…..as regards to handguns I understand they were invented something like the 16th century for infantrymen, I could be wrong but im pretty confident that’s where it all started
11 years ago
^ sorry i should have made it clear i was talking about handguns being made illegal in the UK
11 years ago
Most up to date statistics i could find are: between 2002-2003 the number of murders involving firearms are 16,204 (USA) & 81 (UK)...your population is 10X the size of ours but those statistics are 200X higher & that should not be acceptable.
11 years ago
Still though, would you go and mug someone not knowing if they had a gun or not? I mean some people still do. But really. would it give you one inkling of pause?
11 years ago
Oranje- you mean it ISN'T all about me???? Shit.
11 years ago
What about murders as a whole? Just curious. If they are similar percentages, then your argument is a moot point. Why argue about HOW people are killing each other when we should be arguing THAT people are killing each other.
11 years ago
Ok you have a point there but to be clear if the homicide rate is less than 200X greater then it will show guns are the problem (ive found already that handguns are used 4X more than any other weapon in the US compared to other guns,knives or other weapons & that could be why there a less in the UK)
11 years ago
FYI...I dont know where OB got his numbers... heres what I found and my sources below that...
year....us murders.....uk murders
1999....15522.....760
2000....15586.....792
2001....16037.....891
2002....16229.....876
2003....16528.....853
2004....16148.....820
....
http://www.murderuk.com/misc/stats.htm
....
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm
.....
so its more like 20x higher, not 200x... and that is all murders, not just ones involving guns.
11 years ago
the murderuk site also shows handgun related crime up since the 97 ban...
11 years ago
and an article i found while looking for more info...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1440764.stm
11 years ago
Hmmm i cant remember what websites i got my numbers from but they both seemed credible...checked your uk source & i was you id have a look around it doesnt seen very credible, it has 172 victims for harold shipman on one page then 300+ on another...
11 years ago
Well the way I see it, there are two approaches to the improvement in firearms. On the one hand they have improved thanks to the necessity of armed forces naturally wanting the most effective form of killing. On the other we have a modern society where necessity, if any, for many new inventions/improvements comes from marketing people and companies wanting to keep their jobs. I sure don't see Nintendo DS as being an invention born of necessity or, say, a mobile phone which has an mp3 player built into it. Likewise we have urban 4wd's and sports sedans with 6 litre V8 engines driven on asphalt roads where the unposted speed limit is 50 km/h. I'm not dismissing gun lovers as simply marketing suckers. I see some worth in the collecting of guns, particularly those of historical significance. But I dare say gun shops and manufacturers wouldn't do a roaring trade unless they didn't have a bunch of different and ever-improving models to entice the consumer to buy.
I'm sure there's a chance you could protect someone. I'm also sure there's a chance (no matter how small) that the criminal(s) with guns might know what they're doing with their weapons too and that pulling another one out to point at them might have an unintended result.
As I said before, some people favour their chances by confrontation. I personally, and I dare say the majority of people in this country, would rather everyone in that situation complied so it would last only for as long as it had to. I'm much more interested in my life than seeing a couple hundred bucks remain in the till.
11 years ago
What you can't see from the figures and admittedly it is impossible to see is whether the law has in fact dampened that rise in murder with or without guns. Just as the evidence in one article suggested through statistics that it is now higher in the District of Columbia than before a law was enacted in 76. What it didn't acknowledge that it was also on a downward trend since after 94.
Now what would coincide with that? Perhaps the <National> Assault Weapons Ban? Seems rather short-sighted to think all gun crimes committed in one jurisdiction where a law is in place is down to guns which reside in that area and not simply brought in by people not from DC.
11 years ago
Here is another fun fact.

Canada pop. 33,098,932 July 2006

US pop. 298,444,215 July 2006

Makes just a LITTLE bit of a difference. You can even take race out of the equation. US has 9x the population.
11 years ago
Ummm, you know, a majority of the guns used to commit crimes are not by people are have a liscense to conceal firearms. Why dont you just go look that up. And because guns are illegal does not mean that they arn't going to be guns available if you know the right people.....Where there are drugs, there are guns, where there are guns, there are idiots who think that it makes them cool if they have one....where there are idiots..there is crime. Personally, I think guns stop violence, why else would we give our police force guns, how many times have you seen an officer pull a club to end up getting into a fight with the assailant....how many times have you seen somone try to fight when he has a gun drawn.......
11 years ago
Again, baalic, the GUN does nothing by itself. It needs someone to pick it up, load it and pull the trigger. It is the motivation of the indivdual who holds the firearm that determines whether it is a "good gun" or a "bad gun." The gun itself does not stop crime. The Police man's gun doesn't stop crime. What stops it is the cop's ability to convince the guy to stop or he will be shot by someone who is trained to shoot and, usually, protected by the laws to do so. The gun just sits quietly all snug in it's holster.
11 years ago
recover password
most discussed
recent comments