FACT: you are more likely to be shot & killed in DC than in Iraq - Page 2 - GoFuckYourself.com

jimmyf · 05-16-2005, 09:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bringer

thats impossible! if theres strict gun control how do the criminals get them?

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

CDSmith · 05-16-2005, 09:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ytcracker

i stubbed my toe this morning

im pulling out

Exactly.

Screaming · 05-16-2005, 09:28 AM

sounds crazy

TurboAngel · 05-16-2005, 09:32 AM

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.

CDSmith · 05-16-2005, 09:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmyf

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

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

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.

betsy · 05-16-2005, 10:06 AM

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 ;)

GatorB · 05-16-2005, 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bringer

thats impossible! if theres strict gun control how do the criminals get them?

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?

12clicks · 05-16-2005, 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GatorB

From surroundinng states with lax gun laws.

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?

jimmyf · 05-16-2005, 10:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 12clicks

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....

SquireMD · 05-16-2005, 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CDSmith

If you consider that there has been an average of 160,000 troops in-theater in Iraq during the last 22 months, that gives a firearms death rate of 60 per 100,000.

The rate in Washington DC is 80.6 per 100,000.

That means that you are more likely to be shot and killed in the Nation's Capital, which has some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation, than you are in Iraq.

Conclusion: you should immediately pull out of Washington, D.C.

So I'm fucked then...

bluedevil · 05-16-2005, 10:49 AM

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

GatorB · 05-16-2005, 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 12clicks

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?

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.

GatorB · 05-16-2005, 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bluedevil

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

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.

pornguy · 05-16-2005, 11:08 AM

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

I mean muders with Firearms.

SquireMD · 05-16-2005, 11:12 AM

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)

slapass · 05-16-2005, 11:26 AM

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.

xxxdesign-net · 05-16-2005, 11:37 AM

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

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

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

CDSmith · 05-16-2005, 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bluedevil

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

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.

Rich · 05-16-2005, 01:05 PM

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.

Rich · 05-16-2005, 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CDSmith

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.

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.

Drake · 05-16-2005, 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by betsyAFF!

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 ;)

Amazing how things change in some parts

GatorB · 05-16-2005, 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich

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.

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.

Rich · 05-16-2005, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GatorB

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%.

CDSmith · 05-16-2005, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich

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.

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.

CDSmith · 05-16-2005, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich

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.

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?

mardigras · 05-16-2005, 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CDSmith

what was intended as a joke

Remember... you want them laughing with you

Rich · 05-16-2005, 03:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CDSmith

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?

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.

CDSmith · 05-16-2005, 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich

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.

Rich · 05-16-2005, 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich

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.

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

broke · 05-16-2005, 04:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich

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

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.

05-16-2005, 04:17 PM

thas crazy

CDSmith · 05-16-2005, 04:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich

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.

The definition was actually based on this one.

But you already knew what I meant. Ya big nitpicker.

CDSmith · 05-16-2005, 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by broke

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.

I love it when you talk to them like they're in grade school.

Rich · 05-16-2005, 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by broke

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.

His numbers, someone else's numbers, what difference does it make? I read the first page and I didn't notice anyone explaining how those numbers made sense, I just saw a bunch of people arguing over gun control. I saw one person ask and no one explain it. It's not a very good joke when your lead in is a statistic that's off by about 15 times.

Rich · 05-16-2005, 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CDSmith

I love it when you talk to them like they're in grade school.

Hate to burst your bubble dude but that's because it's the only way he knows how to talk, he is in grade school.

CDSmith · 05-16-2005, 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich

His numbers, someone else's numbers, what difference does it make? I read the first page and I didn't notice anyone explaining how those numbers made sense, I just saw a bunch of people arguing over gun control. I saw one person ask and no one explain it. It's not a very good joke when your lead in is a statistic that's off by about 15 times.

Yet still, several have cried "false!".... none have shown anything other than opinion.

Pretty good joke if you ask me :D

broke · 05-16-2005, 04:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich

Hate to burst your bubble dude but that's because it's the only way he knows how to talk, he is in grade school.

How cute.

tony286 · 05-16-2005, 04:34 PM

going to die in a iraq for lie is very different then walking down the street in DC. They make the numbers look like its foolish to worry about the troops which really sucks.

Rich · 05-16-2005, 04:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CDSmith

Yet still, several have cried "false!".... none have shown anything other than opinion.

Pretty good joke if you ask me :D

I don't get it.

It's not funny at all, it doesn't even make sense. You started an argument over gun control. A couple people said that the numbers were way off.

What do you expect people to show other than opinion? That email isn't funny, it looks like something that would be traded around between right wing nutjobs along with other fake statistics about abortion and shit. You may think you see a funny joke here because you're more clever than most people, but making up a bunch of fake stats and then ending it with a lame punch line isn't a good joke no matter how much you'd like it to be.

CDSmith · 05-16-2005, 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tony404

going to die in a iraq for lie is very different then walking down the street in DC. They make the numbers look like its foolish to worry about the troops which really sucks.

I believe there's a greater message hidden in there somewhere.

CDSmith · 05-16-2005, 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich

I don't get it.

No need to say more.

CDSmith · 05-16-2005, 04:44 PM

Rich is bitching about this because 12clicks liked it. :D

ha ha

Rich · 05-16-2005, 05:33 PM

I'm not bitching, I'm telling you that it's not funny and makes no sense.

AmateurFlix · 05-16-2005, 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GatorB

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

Well having firearms has its upside for the 'colonies' here. Tends to keep monarchies and dictators and such away.

Rich · 05-16-2005, 05:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CDSmith

Rich is bitching about this because 12clicks liked it. :D

ha ha

I hate to agree with an idiot like Dark Jedi, but you really do sound like a complete fag sometimes.

nico-t · 05-16-2005, 06:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chadglni

Poll? It's the death rate by location and government propaganda at work.

^^^ exactly... dont forget that guns is one of america's biggest foundations of their economy so this is definately propaganda of the US government.

nico-t · 05-16-2005, 06:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CDSmith

If you consider that there has been an average of 160,000 troops in-theater in Iraq during the last 22 months, that gives a firearms death rate of 60 per 100,000.

The rate in Washington DC is 80.6 per 100,000.

That means that you are more likely to be shot and killed in the Nation's Capital, which has some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation, than you are in Iraq.

and what about the natives of iraq, they dont count? lol...

runaway · 05-16-2005, 06:17 PM

dude thats some reallly disturbing information, remind me never to go to DC

GatorB · 05-16-2005, 06:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AmateurFlix

Well having firearms has its upside for the 'colonies' here. Tends to keep monarchies and dictators and such away.

Tony Blair is the KING of england? Also if it keeps dictators away explain GW Bush then?

Rich · 05-16-2005, 06:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nico-t

and what about the natives of iraq, they dont count? lol...

He's talking about people, generally speaking guys like CDSmith and others in North America who support Bush's imperial wet dreams no longer think of brown people as humans. They could nuke Iran tomorrow and these people would cheer.

05-16-2005, 09:28 AM	#53
Screaming I can change this!!!!! Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 18,972	sounds crazy __________________

05-16-2005, 10:06 AM	#56
betsy Confirmed User Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Brooklyn, yo! Posts: 625	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 ;) __________________ www.phoxglove.com YIM: phoxgloveent ICQ: 237171474 AIM: phoxglove

05-16-2005, 10:49 AM	#61
bluedevil Confirmed User Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: USA Posts: 2,093	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 __________________ My top money maker

05-16-2005, 11:08 AM	#64
pornguy Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Homeless Posts: 62,911	DC has always had the highest murder rate with firearms. Even over NY and Miami and LA. I mean muders with Firearms. __________________ PornGuy skype me pornguy_epic AmateurDough The Hottes Shemales online! TChicks.com \| Angeles Cid \| Mariana Cordoba \| MAILERS WELCOME!

05-16-2005, 11:37 AM	#67
xxxdesign-net My hips don't lie Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 10,129	Reality Check 12clicks.. Neo-Cons dont really like gun owners.. They just pretend to get more votes... Like they do with the religious crowd.. Here's what the GOA (Gun Owner of America) thinks of the Patriot Act's Extension ... http://www.gunowners.org/patriotii.htm Last edited by xxxdesign-net; 05-16-2005 at 11:38 AM..

05-16-2005, 09:32 AM	#54
TurboAngel H.B.I.C. Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: NC Posts: 30,122	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.

05-16-2005, 11:12 AM	#65
SquireMD ICQ # 229-616-436 Join Date: May 2005 Location: Land of Marion Barry Posts: 794	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)

05-16-2005, 11:26 AM	#66
slapass Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Earth Posts: 14,625	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.

05-16-2005, 01:05 PM	#69
Rich So Fucking Banned Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 11,486	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.

05-16-2005, 04:17 PM	#81
blueb8llz Guest Posts: n/a	thas crazy

05-16-2005, 04:34 PM	#88
tony286 lurker Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: atlanta Posts: 57,021	going to die in a iraq for lie is very different then walking down the street in DC. They make the numbers look like its foolish to worry about the troops which really sucks.

05-16-2005, 04:44 PM	#92
CDSmith Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: May 2001 Location: My network is hosted at TECHIEMEDIA.net ...Wait, you meant where am I located at? Oh... okay, I'm in Winnipeg, Canada. Oops. :) Posts: 51,460	Rich is bitching about this because 12clicks liked it. :D ha ha __________________ *Promote Wildmatch, ImLive, Sexier.com, and more!!* ALWAYS THE HIGHEST PAYOUTS: Big Bux/ImLive SIGNUP ON NOW!!! Put some PUSSYCA$H in your pocket. ICQ me at: 31024634

05-16-2005, 05:33 PM	#93
Rich So Fucking Banned Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 11,486	I'm not bitching, I'm telling you that it's not funny and makes no sense.

05-16-2005, 06:17 PM	#98
runaway Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 1,177	dude thats some reallly disturbing information, remind me never to go to DC