World peace will never exist as long as their are humans
The mailman knocked on my door yesterday so i killed him
Or pretty much any creature at all, it's not like every other animal are so peaceful.
And before anyone says anything about only humans have war, it's because of the way we have "war" as in with weapons and nation against nation. The lions and gazelles are constantly struggling for life. Either the gazelles gets away and the lion dies or the lion catches the gazelle and the gazelle dies, either way someone dies. And a lot of male animals are territorial over their turf and their women and will fight to the death if another male tries to take over. I'd call that a never ending war.
That's not even close to the same thing as war. For one thing, one animal eating another is natural. Humans do that as well, and it's not through waging war, it's simply eating in order to live. Territorial disputes also cannot really be compared to war. War is large scale and destructive. You can hardly compare shooting people and bombing cities to a simple territorial dispute. Not to mention, a lot of those don't end in death. Some do, yes, but it would be better to compare that to murder because war is on a much greater scale.
Did you know that there are people who have war over land and women, like the Yanomamo?
Fucking mailmans man.
And Pluto thought it was far enough away. Then New Horizons (unmanned space probe sent to analyse Pluto's atmosphere) scared the crap out of it.
Stuff between other animals is large scale and destructive too... Bombing cities doesn't happen between other animals because they aren't capable of it. When you get down to it, was is one side being constantly killing the other. War is an organized, armed, and often a prolonged conflict that is carried on between states, nations, or other parties typified by extreme aggression, social disruption, and usually high mortality.
Did you know that world war two started because hitler wanted territory?
@TheRaftsman i know youd think theyd realize that my mom has enough dildos
Want to know why he wanted territory? To control and dominate the world with the aryan race, he became a dictator just to make his "favorite" race dominate. If this is not pride motivated, I don't know what is.
ctually he just wanted a big country in which his favorite race could live. He only wanted countries they lived in already. If he had enough space for all of them, he would just have asked them all to come and kicked everyone else out.
He changed his plan when the US got involved or something. Either that, or that was just his vision, which he never planned to actually put into action full-scale.
They kill over food and mates, we kill mostly over physically nothing, but our stupid pride and inflated egos :p
There is a different story when you look back at mein kampf, a book he wrote back in 1925, after contracting syphilis. This already showed his political ideology and his wishes of a world dominated by aryans, not populated by, dominated by.
'Murica, making crazy people change their minds since 1941
World peace is overrated. Why prevent wars when they could create ideas for awesome video games?
DOESN'T MATTER .HAD VIDEO GAMES
What a horribly insensitive thing to say. Yeah, the murder of millions of innocent people including children is totally fine and dismissable -.-.
I really hope this post is sarcastic...
THINKING, THINKING EVERYWHERE
Petition for a "sarcasm" font. Someone make it happen!
Somewhere along the line I made a post like that. You guys should all go check out my posts.
Me too...i think
Yeah...I think it is too...
It is. I think.
I thought it was at first.
I do agree with the sentiment of this post, but before they had guns they had more primitive weapons like rock slings, knives, and bows and arrows. Hard to picture someone robbing a bank using a catapult.
Screw catapults, man tries to rob bank with a plunger http://www.complex.com/pop-cult...toilet-plunger
You make a good point, but what about knives? I've seen bank robberies on the news that only use knives.
Yeah, but its not impossible.
Bitch please. A man tried to rob a bank with a note saying ''I have a knife". Like, just the note. The teller wrote back "Prove it" and the guy replied "Fuck." and walked out.
Have you ever watched "World's dumbest" on tru t.v? Seriously, have you? Seriously.
Swords, Cannons, etc....
However, now that I look at it, this post looks pretty sarcastic to me. If so, I apologize for flipping shit. This sort of thing just really pisses me off because people think this way.
It is sarcastic...
Whoever said banning guns would lead to world peace? I've never heard that claim till now.
This post is sarcastic.
Or maybe he's just voicing his opinion on how stupid some people are who believe they should be banned entirely
Which is why no one takes you seriously Kickass.
I've argued with you plenty of times without resorting to insults. You're not an idiot because I disagree with you. You're an idiot because you're an idiot. BTW: look at your comments on this post, you're the best example of a hypocrite I've seen in ages.
A couple of average, day-to-day citizens who have the ability to voice their opinion in real life or on the internet. I'll link you. http://amirite.net/732262
While I agree that people have the right to voice their opinions and there is no reason to call anti gun advocates "idiots", You need to take in consideration there are millions of gun owners including me that properly use firearms and are well within our right to do them, banning guns would take them out of the hands of the responsible and into black markets and into hands of people who have no regard for laws let alone respect for firearms. It would essentially make things worse, and is proof guns aren't really the problem here,
Not an idiot for anti gun, idiot for saying what he said
I never said it was the same thing, which is why I called you both of those things instead of just one of those things.
its Ok, I love you
Also, who is this person that wants to ban guns?
Lolol, hypocrisy isn't the same as idiot, nice try though. :')
Yeah sarcastic about the banning of guns. It's a pro gun post, probably accusing the president of trying to ban all guns, which isn't the case. He is trying to regulate the buying and selling of guns.
WHO? Who wants that?
Oh ho ho, good line. Calling me an idiot just because my views differ from yours. Well let me tell you this, when you can argue with me without resorting to insults, then can you call me an idiot. :)
Oh, well... we can't entertain the ideas of idiots. :)
It would be pretty cool if we still fought wars with swords and shit...
it hasn't deterred wars in the past before firearms were invented. firearms do not encourage war, nor does the absence of them deter it.
in a way yeah, but have you seen what kind of wounds melee weapons cause? more often than not they are far more dramatic and severe than a caliber from most small arms can cause. war would be much bloodier and more psychologically disturbing. and fyi wars were rarely fought with swords, they usually played a very much secondary role in war. sorry swords as a weapon of war are just a pet peeve of mine.
Take away my gun, I'll kill you with my knife. Take away my knife, I'll kill you with my spoon. Take away my spoon, I'll kill you with my limbs. Take away my limbs, I'll bite you. Tis but a flesh wound.
So peaceful, just like it was before guns were invented.
I think some people are struggling with the concept of sarcasm here..
I don't think guns contribute very much to violence in society.
We're always going to try and kill each other somehow, we just keep finding more efficient ways to do it.
Banning guns does nothing but take away law abidin citizens means o self defense. Chicago has a higher death rate than Afghanistan right now, and they have some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country. If criminals use guns to commit crimes, what makes you think criminals won't get their guns illegally?
I agree with you, if guns werent invented, we'd have less violence, but they are here and we needle abiding citizens deserve a means of self defense.
The only way I can reply to someone that uses another country as an example of lower gun ownership correlating to less gun crimes is this:
It's all demographic.
If you can take a similar population and have the only difference be legal gun ownership, then the facts show that gun crimes go down for the legal one.
The US does this perfectly. We're all from the same country, but states that have higher gun ownership have less gun crimes than, I don't know, DC where the crime rate is horrendous...
you forgot this info Chromana.
Compared with the United States of America, the United Kingdom has a slightly higher total crime rate per capita of approximately 85 per 1000 people, while in the USA it is approximately 80.
Since 1998, the number of people injured by firearms in England and Wales increased by 110%, from 2,378 in 1998/99 to 5,001 in 2005/06. Most of the rise in injuries were in the category slight injuries from the non-air weapons.
THIS. Many criminals are getting their guns illegally regardless. If you can't trace the gun back to the person, the less likely they are to get caught.
We manage just fine without them in the UK.
Total homicide rate per 100k population:
US 4.55, UK 1.44
% homicides with firearms:
US 65, UK 8
Homicides without firearms per 100k population:
US 1.58, UK 1.33
It is SO obvious that removing guns will lower murders that it just makes me speechless when people say otherwise.
The only reason they are "needed" for self-defence is because other people have guns. So essentially the USA got itself into its own mess.
Banning guns and putting extremely tight control on them WOULD lower murders as well as accidental deaths, there is NO question about that.
It baffles the mind thinking about how people can be so illogical about this.
(UK should technically be just England & Wales)
However, now that the USA has such a wide circulation of guns it would be kinda impossible to ban them unless some huge reward was offered for each one handed in.
Although I'd view the government paying out millions of dollars to buy back guns as a good way to spend money when so many lives would be saved.
@TheCatalyst All of your statistics are talking about "crime" in general or injuries via guns. I'm talking about deaths, which is obviously far worse.
I have no idea why the injury rate has increased over here. It's probably due to more guns in circulation. The fact remains, however, that there are fewer murders by guns and fewer murders in total.
@thatguys It's true that it's hard to compare two countries of differing sizes, cultures and other variables. I think comparing the USA and UK does have some benefit though given that they are both rich, western countries with quite similar cultures.
One slightly off-topic thing I'd like to bring up is the "good people need guns to defend against bad people with guns": what about the recent NYC shootings? Those cops are obviously good guys who had significant amounts of training (although the quality of the training seems questionable). Yet so many bystanders came close to being killed accidentally by the cops. I think this is a clear case against that argument.
Chromana, that means your argument supports that cost doesn't outweigh benefit.
So you're saying that more people were put in harm's way from the cop's misfire and ricochet rather than if the cops didn't have guns to stop them?
Also, that's stupid if you're discounting a crime simply because the person just wasn't killed or shot...
the first statistic is about total crime, the second is about firearms injuries and not necessarily even crime.
An example of a police officer accidentally hitting bystanders is not the same as a legally carrying citizen. the law enforcement field often attracts individuals who are sadistic and trigger happy. most cops don't give half a shit about innocent bystanders if their own lives are in danger, they will continue to fire until the threat is eliminated. you find an example of the same thing happening with a legal civilian carrier and you might have an argument.
@thatguy and @TheCatalyst (because I'm too tired to make separate replies):
I'm not saying take guns away from police (although in the UK normal police don't have guns at all, which is a good thing). I'm saying if gun control was tighter and guns were indeed illegal it would be incredibly unlikely that just some random dude with a grudge would be able to get a gun at all and therefore this situation wouldn't have arisen. You're probably gonna say something about how the guy would have killed his ex-boss anyway with a knife or something but it is harder to kill someone this way, both physically and psychologically (I would have thought) and also the police wouldn't have been as frantic to stop him.
There was that case not too long ago with the guy with the knife in Time Square (I think). Yes they killed him in the end but I bet you money that some bystander would have been hurt somehow if the guy had a gun rather than a knife.
Not all crime is the same. I've been mugged and I know what it's like. I was thrown on my head and had to go to hospital. But I'd rather be mugged 20 times than have someone murdered. Therefore I think making a distinction about murders is important.
@TheCatalyst I really doubt what you're saying about police officers. Yeah, I've seen my fair share of police videos where they are assholes/unfair/trigger happy but I certainly don't think that's most of them.
I still think a police officer will have had more training than an average Joe with a gun and in PARTICULAR will have had lots of training about what to do in a stressful or dangerous situation. I doubt any civilians will have that kind of training.
Considering the insane amount of guns circulating in the black market, "stricter gun control" just isn't good enough. It's not simply black and white like that. There's a huge grey area.
regular street cops in the UK don't carry firearms, but they still have armed response units on patrol. there are still plenty of armed police officers on the street. if you want to murder someone not having access to a firearm will not deter you. if you take away firearms from the people then those who are weak are at the will of the strong.
why would you not just want to prevent muggings and murder by allowing a law abiding citizen to legally carry for self defense if they so choose?
in most states where concealed carry is legal you have to take a course to get your license. the training is adequate. police training can't be too much better if they are so often involved in unjustified shootings, accidentally hitting innocent bystanders, accidental discharges, etc. like I said previously, if you can find an example of a legal civilian carrier shooting someone they shouldn't have then you might have some basis to that argument.
2007, United States
Unintentional Firearm Deaths
Number of deaths: 613
Number of deaths: 6,587
Found from http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/n...rate10_sy.html by selecting "Unintentional" and "Firearm". I can't sort by civilian/police but the ratio doesn't matter. 1 is too many.
If I had a gun on me when I was mugged this is what would have happened:
Instead of just being jumped and thrown on my head I would have also had my own gun drawn on me. That's not what I want. They weren't serious about hurting me as they had no drawn weapons but me carrying a gun would have put lives at risk and vastly heightened the tension. I would have had no time to use it or even take it out of a holster.
However, if it were the case that guns were legal to own here then they would be more likely to have a gun in the first place anyway, or at least some other weapon. I don't doubt that I would have been hurt more even if there was no gun present BECAUSE they might think I would have a gun so would want to incapacitate me even more.
Guns still make no sense. I am glad I had no gun.
Could you post tha shit in the general comments, chromana? Im tired of seeing your name in my notifications box.
Hmm there aren't too many gun-wielding police on the streets in the UK. Certainly none anywhere that isn't a large city such as London, Birmingham or Manchester. And even then they are only stationed at important sites such as Buckingham Palace and maybe a couple at airports. You know when you see policemen with guns that they mean major business!
"if you want to murder someone not having access to a firearm will not deter you." True, but there are certainly lots of murders which are not pre-meditated and happen on the spur of the moment. If you suddenly get enraged it is easier to take it too far and kill someone if there is a gun present than if you only have your fists.
"if you take away firearms from the people then those who are weak are at the will of the strong." Again, everything is fine without guns here in the UK. I'm a dual citizen (USA and UK) and one of the reasons I don't want to move back is because of all the people who have guns, including legal owners. That and the fact the in the USA you get hardly any holiday time.
The world was so peaceful before guns, no one killed anyone and we all sat around camp fires holding hands, singing kumbaya, and making smores. I miss the good ol' days :')
Do people seriously not read comments?! It was established this post is sarcastic.
Getting rid of guns is a lazy solution to a problem that doesn't exist in the first place (the problem=mentally ill and criminals getting guns via legal means). How about improving mental health care or having mental health screenings become more common place, and more youth programs to reduce the amount of criminals. If you really do believe in reducing crime and are that devoted to protecting the citizens, you really ought to be believing in the latter. It's better to stop crime at its source rather than cutting off a potential way they can commit a crime, because even if the criminal (or to-be criminal) can't get the gun legally, he's still a criminal and will eventually find a way to commit said crime with either a different weapon or the black market.
inb4 my comment pisses someone off
I've heard this before, but with violent video games not guns
I don't advocate the banning of guns, I don't know many who do. I advocate stricter regulations to keep guns out of the hands of people with criminal or mental health records, and assault weapons like AK47s out of the hands of civilians who don't need them. Guns don't kill people, people kill people is right. But guns help people kill people a lot more easily. Have you ever heard of mass murder these days committed with knives, swords, or rocks?
Being a convicted felon automatically means you cannot own a firearm, ever. Same goes for being convicted of a violent misdemeanor. Certain mental conditions also do the same. These things are already in place.
Assault weapon is a useless term and doesn't refer to any specific class of weapon. Just thought I'd point that out. And why keep them out of the hands of civilians that don't need them? Nobody needs a car that can travel hundreds of miles an hour, and those are certainly more dangerous than guns. They definitely kill more people than assault rifles or machine guns. Of course there isn't mass murder committed with obsolete weaponry; it's fucking obsolete. People WERE committing mass murder with knives and swords when those were the best available weapons of the day. I've got a better question for you: Have you ever heard of a mass murder these days committed in which the murdered were armed as well as the murderers?
yeah cuz a random elementary school janitor has to have been a ninja to stab several children and teachers. and if these isolated incidents don't matter, then why do the isolated incidents involving guns matter and can be used by your side as justification for such gun control? sounds like hypocrisy to me.
oh they definitely need to be revised, stop trying to prevent law abiding citizens from carrying their legally purchased firearms and crime rates will drop. nothing stops criminals from committing crimes like the fear of death. and to those who will still commit their crimes they might just catch a bullet, that will be more effective in stopping them than passing a law that they won't follow. there is a reason they are called criminals, it's cuz they don't follow laws. anyone who thinks they would is pretty damn stupid.
Good point. If I go on a murderous rampage, I'll order some medieval weaponry and armor. Badass.
Guns have that capability, but only against an unarmed crowd. If other people have guns, they can prevent one person with a gun from dominating. That's what people don't understand. Guns prevent crime, a fucking lot of crime. Law abiding citizens with firearms prevent up to two million crimes per year in the U.S. Japan is a shady place where the police coerce doctors in to ruling deaths as natural causes if they can get away with it. That's the thing with statistics, it's only what people tell you. Japan cares too much about its image to tell the truth. Many bodies aren't even inspected. Australia is an isolated area, of course they're going to have lower crime rates. The UK has a ban on guns, and they have one of the worst violent crime rates in the world. You can't really compare countries to one another, they are different demographics. Within the U.S., it's been noted that states with more restrictive gun laws have higher crime rates, and vice versa. What's more is that the rates fluctuate in accordance with changes in laws; going up when restrictions are put in place. What TRULY needs to be changed are the drug laws.
What is with the moral outrage with carrying a pistol in any of those situations? Nobody has to know, so what is the problem? Good for you, you live in a safe, small town. As we all know, that must mean everybody lives in a similar place. Wait, no! A lot of people live in cities rife with crime and violence. It's been proven time and time again that a rise in gun ownership sees a decrease in crime. Perhaps you aren't comfortable carrying a firearm, that's fine. We do need to get more responsible adults to start carrying firearms, though. Perhaps turn some if the strict may-issue states in to shall-issue states. People need to be armed, especially as long as the Drug War is still being waged. That is the cause of a massive majority of crime. We can't simply trust our fellow man, the size of our population has made us extremely divided, and each one of us belongs to a species capable of mass genocide and unparalleled cruelty. It never hurts to be prepared, ever.
Well said @Mike_Hawk
ever heard about the Akihabara massacre or the Osaka school massacre. 2 examples of mass murder committed with knives, cars and other tools. these massacres occurred in Japan a nation that has completely banned civilian ownership of firearms. of course the criminals there though do still have plenty of firearms.
Blades and blunt weapons may have been used in the past and are now obsolete. But can you mow down dozens of people with some rocks or blades? You'd have to be a very skilled ninja to do that. Speaking of ninjas, Japan has a much, much lower homicide rate than the US. Two isolated incidents don't cut it. Australia has the lowest homicide rate in the world, and also has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the world. The US has the worst homicide rate in the developed world, even worse than some developing countries. No matter what arguments we try to use, the facts ultimately speak for themselves. No one wants to ban guns or deny the Second Amendment, but clearly the current American gun laws are not working and need to be revised at least somewhat.
I understand that a number of factors play into the homicide rate. The one thing that sounds unreasonable to me is that you somehow expect people to carry guns with them everywhere they go. Could the Columbine massacre have been prevented if all the students had guns on them? Do you really expect the average citizen to carry a gun with them everywhere they go? No. You would think we would have some trust that our fellow humans beings wouldn't try to murder us. Maybe a cashier or bank teller carrying a gun behind the counter to protect from a robbery is reasonable, but your claim that if everyone carried guns everyone would be safer is unreasonable. Sorry but I'm not about to lug a pistol with me to the supermarket (or movie theater if you know what I mean) because I tend to have faith in my fellow humans. I think ultimately guns at this point are too hard to control. They are already widely circulated and if banned we'll just end up with an illegal black market. We need to focus more on raising a morally sound generation that doesn't resort to violence, but that's pretty hard too.
I didn't say everyone should carry a gun, whether or not you carry is your choice. I said that people should stop trying to prevent those willing to take up the responsibility of carrying from doing so. those who choose to carry being able to carry freely in the manner in which they choose would save lives and prevent crime.
Lights, it's not about expecting to be killed, it's being prepared hit in case.
By what? Carrying a pistol with me to the grocery store? School? My 8 year old brother's football games? See, I don't have to do that because I live in a town of mostly law abiding, sane, and decent citizens.
I concede that you have many good points, Mike. I do think drugs are the biggest problem and like alcohol in the 1920s their prohibition has only increased violent crime. I also think the United States is unique among the developed countries because of its diversity and degree of social inequality, so restrictions on gun ownership may not work as well as they have in places like Australia or Japan. Ultimately I don't think any policy changes will be made for a long time in the US since the issue is in a deadlock, so arguing about it is futile.
Also the tiny little body next to the name is a guy with a blue torso.
Fucking true! She disliked 53 out of 88 comments on this post. (at the time of this comment)
I did. Two out of three people in your picture are women. The most prominent person in your picture is a woman. I did not, however, verify that in any other way, because I care less than not at all.
Ban guns. Swords are more badass
Maybe I have too much faith in humanity, but I still believe that we can have world peace and social harmony somehow. Right now, our biggest problems are ignorance and lack of compassion. It can never happen right now, but in the future, I'm hoping for a change in how we think.
I don't think this post is pro-guns, but that could be me. I just think OP's saying that just a ban won't solve it all.
Oh, what I wouldn't give for the good, calm, peaceful times of the past. The Crusades, the Hundred Years War... Just the good ol' days, eh? (Since the people reading this post and commenting seem to be incapable of recognizing such, this is sarcasm.)
Sorry, but I am a very pro-gun person. They offer self defense as well as a way to hunt for food more efficiently. Besides, the right to bear arms is very clearly stated in the Constitution. Anything can be misused to harm others. I will not relinquish my right to own a gun just because somebody else can't use theirs civilly.
completely agree with you, but this post is sarcastic.
Yeah I didn't get that until after I posted. Blonde moment, lol .
This is completely incorrect.
I can't even handle how wrong this is.
I can't even handle how stupid this comment is.
This post is your typical run of tbe mill sarcasm. I don't see how people keep thinking it's serious.
7/10. Something controversial and heard about a lot. Nice, except it wasn't really funny...
Why on Earth do you admit to being a troll?
I literally have no idea why, but I think I like you, troll.
Because I'm a bad one.
Didn't they ever tell you not to feed the trolls?
Yeah, because people who want to wage war and kill other people really give a flying fuck about what is banned and what isn't. It's bad enough that people are trying to take guns away from citizens, now you want to take them away from law enforcement and military? It would be disastrous. The knowledge and technology for creating guns exists, and it will never go away. It'd be a simple matter for incredibly rich criminals to set up factories for producing firearms, and everyone would be fucking defenseless. Do you think they'd keep them to themselves? Hell no, they'd sell to other small time criminals. The world would be completely at their mercy. That crazy motherfucker who carried out the shooting in Aurora could have kept going if the cops weren't armed. Outlaws would be stomping all over our shit uninhibited because the cops would be like "Sorry, bro. Guns have been banned. Perhaps we shouldn't have relied on people's willingness to follow laws". It's a stupid fucking notion, and maybe we should try to focus on reasonably dealing with the existence of firearms instead of trying to ban them in hopes that they will disappear. Banning doesn't fucking work. Wake the fuck up.
I believe this post was sarcastic, my friend.
Before I finished reading that, I knew it would be you who posted it.
Hahaha! Is that a good or a bad thing? Regardless, I'm glad to be recognized.
:) it's neither really. Just something I noticed you cared about.
Awesome! I don't care about much, but I super care about what I do. I always try to make an impact.
Huh. Who knew history was a liquid?
Guns don't kill people, stupid people with guns kill people.
I swear officer, my dick fucked
her. It wasn't me!
So.... guns do kill people then?
The person is responsible for using the gun however, the cause of death is gun shot wound.
Arrest his penis!
No one is saying we'll have world peace without guns. But if you really think anybody should just be able to walk around with guns, you're an idiot