There is 25 million people in canada and less then 500 murders in a year .

you know its not sexy for the liberal press to focus on the result of failed liberal policies.
They get more "'atta boys" from their liberal friends for attacking the President and his successfull policies.

you'd know "fixing" that is impossible, the poor and homeless flock to DC because it's the nations capital and they think that by being there they're more likely to gain assistance which is not the case by any stretch of the means. and not all of DC is ghetto, a lot of it is... my mom lives on capital hill and it's hardly ghetto there

Since you eliminate Iraqi's death from your calculation, you should for Washington DC eliminate the black population .....

mmmm sounds incorrect

:helpme :1orglaugh :helpme :321GFY

Yes, the quote should be for the number of Washington DC COPS killed... not civilians. Compare that figure and it's all meaningless.

Nice opinion, but I simply do not agree with it. If I want a gun for protection purposes I should damned well be able to have a gun for protection purposes. Period.

Remember, criminals don't care about your "gun laws".

i stubbed my toe this morning

im pulling out

I read this the other day, can't remember where.

When you have strict gun control, the criminals are the only ones with guns, after all they are criminals :1orglaugh

Exactly.

sounds crazy

I love DC, I grew up in VA and my dad was the director of the VA hospital in DC. We would go in every weekend and have so much fun.



:)

Shhh, you know that there are people here who have read that here numerous times but just don't understand it and never will....? :1orglaugh

Oh wait....it's not funny.

I actually heard someone say recently that because a ban on weapons has worked in Australia (some Aussies say otherwise, some agree) that a ban on guns can work in the US too. There is no way you can compare the problem from a basically peaceful oceanic country of 19 million to that of a "wild-west" giant of a melting pot like the USA with over 300 million. No way in hell.

In the US, the existing armed criminal population is huge. Disarming the law-abiding gun owners is so not the way to go. What about putting a ban on all illegal guns only? Yeah.... and give out 20 year sentences to all who are caught with stolen or otherwise illegal guns? What about recouping some revenue from the law-abiding gun owners by making them all take more intensive safety and training courses?

I agree there has to be a gun registry, but those calling for a complete ban in the US and Canada are idiots in my estimation.

I grew up in DC and rarely felt unsafe. I've live in Chicago, NY, and the SF bay area, and each city has their crappy parts.

Many of the neighborhoods that were sketchy when I was growing up are now gentrified and yuppied up. There's even a whole foods smack dab in the middle of the are that used to be ghetto central!

I'd move back in a heartbeat if I could get my signif other to go as well! East Coast 4 Lyfe, yall ;)

From surroundinng states with lax gun laws. If gun control laws don't work then explain why the death rate by guns in England is 1/200 that of the US?

odd that in these states with so called "lax gun laws" they don't have the problem DC has.

that part of the argument doesn't fit into the liberal agenda, eh?

hush it....

So I'm fucked then...

maybe thats true, but your more likely to get a limb blown off my a roadside bomb in Iraq than anywhere else in the world... 2 CENTS

fugw

Not a liberal you dumbass. I've never have been a registered democrat. I have however been a registered republican. I can can guarantee you that my views on topics like Social Security, Affirmitive Action and immigration would make Pat Buchannon look like Teddy Kennedy. So please with the misguided attempt of labling someone. Maybe YOU need to drink the kool-aid of one of the political parties I however can think for myself, thank you very much. People that label themselves as democrats or republicans and feel they have to agree with everything their party stands for are idiots.

Anyways you still haven't explained about England yet. Until then STFU.

Yes I'd like to see the rate of getting your ass blow up in Iraq compared to DC. Where is the person that statrted this thread with those stats?

Also if you think Iraq is safer then how come you pussy ass isn't over there? I mean since you think we needed to be over ther so much, then put you money where your mouths are biatches! I DARE you to go tell a vet that actually has served in Iraq that it's safer over there than here and I hope he punches you in the face. Your lack of respect for our soldiers disgusts me.

DC has always had the highest murder rate with firearms. Even over NY and Miami and LA.

I mean muders with Firearms.

I think Camden, NJ has a worse rate now...could be mistaken though...either way, Camden is more of a shithole than any part of DC (even Southeast DC)

You guys are smart enough to know the origianl stat is BS right?
Both populations have 600k people. Last yeat DC had about 240 murders. Iraq had 1784 since the begining which is 3 years(?). And 70 last month.

Smith, reducing the population in Iraq makes it more obvious a lie not less. Gotta love GFY. 12clicks and company know how to cash the checks. No need to check the math.

:error

:1orglaugh Reality Check 12clicks.. Neo-Cons dont really like gun owners.. They just pretend to get more votes... Like they do with the religious crowd.. :warning

Here's what the GOA (Gun Owner of America) thinks of the Patriot Act's Extension ...

http://www.gunowners.org/patriotii.htm

FACT: if you don't drive like an idiot and stop when a soldier tells you to stop, you are far less likely to be shot at in Iraq.

I'm trying to figure out how you came up with the number 60 per 100,000. If there are 160,000 troops and 1600 are dead already, sounds more like 1000 per 100,000... maybe I'm missing something.

FACT: CDSmith likes to make up shit that sounds good in his head and label it as a fact. For fuck's sake, grow up and stop watching TV already. When the US first arrived they shot anything that moved, and it's the exact same to this day on many of their offenses. Put on a turban and take the next flight to Baghdad and then we'll see if you come back with the same attitude.

Amazing how things change in some parts

Actually that's 1:100, but it's not the same 160K. I think maybe total is say 320K different US troops served in Iraq at most. So that means 1 out of every 200 has been killed and about one in 50 has been wounded so badly he/she wasn't able to return to duty within 72 hours. So basically if you go to Iraq you have a 1:40 in either getting killed or severely fucked up. Yeah good odds.

Actually's that's 1%. :winkwink:

FACT: Rich gets a woody when he sees my threads.

You saying that it wouldn't have mattered had some of those vehicles didn't stop would have been fired upon anyway?

If you think that, you are right Rich... one of us is an idiot. It's just not me.


Run along now.

Well, since you're a twit and all, I'll have to 'splain it to you.

I made it quite clear in a post on page one of this thread that I didn't come up with that first post or those figures.... I said it arrived in my inbox inside a joke email.

In other words, you're sitting here running your mouth and keyboard at me (as usual) over what was intended as a joke, one that is obviously loosedly based on someone's certain take on certain facts, nothing more.

So much for actually reading threads before posting eh Rich? :1orglaugh

Remember... you want them laughing with you :upsidedow

I asked how you came up with the numbers, I wouldn't call that "running my mouth". So basically you got some shit in your inbox that is completely false and doesn't make sense and you decided to share it. Got it now.

Funny joke.

Well, I haven't seen any hard-target irrefutable numbers posted to unequivocally DISprove what's written there, but basically yes, you are getting all sourpuss and pissy with me over one of those pithy little joke emails.

And yes Rich, your first post to me on this thread was the epitome of "running your mouth".

But you know how I'm a forgiving sort. You and I should go for a burger and a beer sometime, that is if we could ever agree on a spot. :1orglaugh

If that's your definition of someone running their mouth, you haven't read many of my posts. :winkwink:

Ummmm --

That would be the definition of running one's mouth before actually reading the thread. If you had read the thread, you would have known that they weren't 'his' numbers and would have known exactly where he got them.

:glugglug