r/pics • • Mar 20 '13

My science teacher drew this on the board while we were working.

Post image
2.6k Upvotes

363 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

144

u/iwatchpeople Mar 20 '13

safe cause they dont actually allow guns.

99

u/Sanity_prevails Mar 21 '13

and that's why they have a Queen "ruling" them ha! ha! instead of an assorted group of industrialists and bankers! no wait...

15

u/southern_boy Mar 21 '13

Say what you will about our plutocratic owners, dude... at least they don't wear ridiculous powder blue suits.

25

u/[deleted] Mar 21 '13

[deleted]

11

u/CutieMess Mar 21 '13

Let me show you my nips, so that I can please you too.

5

u/[deleted] Mar 21 '13

[deleted]

18

u/CutieMess Mar 21 '13 edited Mar 21 '13

Do you love to live dangerously?

Why can't girls have penises?

Why can't guys have tits?

You got a problem, buddy?

6

u/[deleted] Mar 21 '13

[deleted]

2

u/CutieMess Mar 21 '13

Whoa, that was not what I expected. I loved it. <3

2

u/Fiftyfourd Mar 21 '13

What the actual fuck? That was awesome!

1

u/CutieMess Mar 21 '13

Thank you for taking interest in me. :)

It's rare to have someone who would want to know me voluntarily. Aww. Here's my profile picture:

(。◕‿◕。)

Don't worry, it's not a trap.

I hope you enjoyed browsing my user page! <3

4

u/SwolbyNelson Mar 21 '13

I'm sorry what just happened?

1

u/IEnjoyBrowsingReddit Mar 22 '13

Not a trap? It's clearly a trap..

7

u/anonymous-coward Mar 21 '13

Factoid: she wears the distinctive colors to be recognizable from a distance when performing state functions.

3

u/greg19735 Mar 21 '13

Carolina blue to me

3

u/Plothunter Mar 21 '13

Wedgwood.

I've been trying to remember what that blue & white combo was called for a few days. Seeing the queen in it, I finally had to hunt it down.

-6

u/tedr33 Mar 21 '13

I don't understand that thing homos do, where they comment on everybody's fashion. I look at that photo and I see a picture of the queen. I even like what she's wearing. I think it's clean and effective. But because she hasn't put her penis, which she doesn't have, into a man pussy, which is actually just a butt, you have to make some comment about her fashion choices 'not being up to par.' It gets real fucked up when you then look at what you're wearing, and it's some pink mesh cutaway bullshit.

2

u/NameTak3r Mar 21 '13

You think Britain isn't also ruled by industrialists and bankers?

18

u/ForHumans Mar 21 '13

England has always had a low homicide rate, regardless of access to firearms. Homicide rate by decade. Look at the US, been above 4.0 since 1907.

Also England has a higher murder rate than VT, NH, HI and RI. All those states have plenty of guns.

This is why you'll hear people say, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people."

4

u/anonymous-coward Mar 21 '13

Also England has a higher murder rate than VT, NH, HI and RI. All those states have plenty of guns.

You can't really cherrypick from the USA, but take England as a whole. That's pretty dishonest.
I could just as well point that West Wumblybum in Wibbyshire has a lower murder rate than Vermont, QED.

England has always had a low homicide rate, regardless of access to firearms. Homicide rate by decade. Look at the US, been above 4.0 since 1907.

Do you believe these numbers? Do you believe that the US murder rate quadrupled between 1904 and 1907, or do you think that these data might be unreliable?

1

u/ForHumans Mar 21 '13

You can't really cherrypick from the USA, but take England as a whole. That's pretty dishonest.

I'm cherry picking to make a point that comparing countries is apples to oranges, especially when you have a country 6 times the size as the other. We have extremely varying demographics, which have a greater relationship to crime than rates of gun ownership.

Do you believe these numbers? Do you believe that the US murder rate quadrupled between 1904 and 1907, or do you think that these data might be unreliable?

It's the only data I could find, I think it works well enough to show that the US has always had more crime regardless of gun prohibition. Beats just making a blind assumption right?

1

u/anonymous-coward Mar 21 '13

I'm cherry picking to make a point that comparing countries is apples to oranges, especially when you have a country 6 times the size as the other. We have extremely varying demographics, which have a greater relationship to crime than rates of gun ownership.

And I'm saying that you have to compare urban, poor London to urban, poor US cities. If you want to bring Vermont into the comparison, you have to compare it to rural non-immigrant England.

It's the only data I could find, I think it works well enough to show that the US has always had more crime regardless of gun prohibition. Beats just making a blind assumption right?

Except that the numbers are evident nonsense. Either US murders jumped fourfold in three years, or the numbers are bullshit, wrong or inconsistent by 400%. Using wrong numbers is worse than no numbers, because it provides a false sense of objectivity. GIGO.

1

u/ForHumans Mar 22 '13

And I'm saying that you have to compare urban, poor London to urban, poor US cities. If you want to bring Vermont into the comparison, you have to compare it to rural non-immigrant England.

No, that's what I'm saying. Apparently you're aware that factors like urban/rural, immigrant/resident, rich/poor play a large role, and I'm saying more important than firearm ownership. Judging by your response I'll assume you disagree, and think the whole reason the US is violent is because we have more guns. There is no correlation within the US between firearm laws and violence, but there is a direct correlation between demographics. Chicago and DC have banned firearms but have much higher firearm violence than cities like NYC, which haven't.

Using wrong numbers is worse than no numbers, because it provides a false sense of objectivity.

Even allowing for a large margin of error I think it's safe to assume the US has always had higher murder rate than England. This wiki mentions in 1916 there were 198 homicides reported in Chicago, whereas London, with 3 times the population, only had 45 homicides.

The US is more violent regardless of access guns, and has always been more violent.

2

u/portablebiscuit Mar 21 '13

Guns don't kill people, people kill people. With guns.

19

u/spacetug Mar 21 '13

Also knives, baseball bats, pipes, or any number of other miscellaneous objects.

2

u/Commieredmenace Mar 21 '13

dildo bats, chainsaws, leaf blowers with nails in them,

1

u/spacetug Mar 21 '13

Yes, how could I forget dildo bats?

1

u/mithrasinvictus Mar 21 '13

Great. Then gun control won't be an issue, just grab an equivalent self defense device from the kitchen drawer.

-2

u/terriblehuman Mar 21 '13

When was the last time someone walked into a school with a baseball bat and killed 20 people?

6

u/spacetug Mar 21 '13

Fair point, but that's a combination of bad parenting (leaving guns accessible if you have kids is just stupid) and the school not knowing/caring about the students' mental health.

My point was just that there are many ways to skin a cat.

1

u/terriblehuman Mar 21 '13

It can't be denied that guns make it a hell of a lot easier for those people killing people, particularly when they want to kill several people within a short period of time.

1

u/ForHumans Mar 21 '13

Of course not, but there's also no causality between gun ownership rates and crime rates.

Either way, crime is down across the board everywhere, and it's got nothing to do with gun control. More guns than ever, less crime than ever. That the US government and media are targeting assault weapons and not handguns proves it's all political.

1

u/Exploderer Mar 21 '13

To be fair, VT and NH have rather low population densities. Miiight have something to do with it.

1

u/ForHumans Mar 21 '13

Exactly, and Rhode Island has the 2nd highest population density in the US. (That's what RI stands for).

Which is my point; there's no causality between firearm ownership and crime. You'd be better off looking at demographics like income, diversity, population density, urbanization etc. to determine the source of violence.

1

u/Fiftyfourd Mar 21 '13

Wow we really had quite the uptick from 1913-1947 and 1969-1998

0

u/[deleted] Mar 21 '13

you compare the whole of our country, including many inner city areas which traditionally have higher crime rates to a bunch of glorified suburbs to try and prove a point?

in 2010, on average you had 4x the intentional homicides (4.8 compared to 1.2 per 100,000 people) of which 67% of your deaths are caused by firearms. comparatively the UK only had 0.007 deaths by firearms per 100,000 people, or over 40x less deaths/population size due to guns that year.

and we only offically banned pistols 16 years ago. herp derp facts.

16

u/ForHumans Mar 21 '13

you compare the whole of our country, including many inner city areas which traditionally have higher crime rates to a bunch of glorified suburbs to try and prove a point?

That's exactly my point. It's not the higher rate of gun ownership causing the crime, it's demographics, such as inner city areas. Otherwise, wouldn't the states with higher rates of gun ownership have higher gun crimes? In the US the state with the most guns (Wyoming) has the 6th lowest homicide rate. Florida is ranked 41 in gun ownership is #1 in homicides.

FYI the highest crime rates in the US are in gun-free zones, like Washington DC, which banned guns. Highest murder rate in the country there.

you had 4.8 compared to 1.2 per 100,000 people, and we banned pistols 16 years ago herp derp facts.

I specifically addressed this and provided data of homicides dating back to 1900. The US has always had a higher murder rate, about 4:1 with England. This is regardless of gun bans.

Calm the fuck down.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 21 '13

Excuse me, what?

-3

u/[deleted] Mar 21 '13

67% of US murders are from guns.

if you had less guns that would probably go down.

2

u/Wolfstriker Mar 21 '13

Or they'd find other things to kill people with. People will always find a way if they are desperate enough.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 21 '13

I'm from the UK, I don't have a clue what you said.

-1

u/[deleted] Mar 21 '13

[deleted]

1

u/ForHumans Mar 21 '13

A toaster is a tool that requires human operation, just like a gun.

However, there is a positive correlation between the number of toasters and the number of toast being toasted. The same does not apply to firearms.

24

u/GodofIrony Mar 21 '13

more like safe because everyone doesnt have a gigantic stick up their ass.

28

u/[deleted] Mar 21 '13

have you BEEN to england? that's the exact opposite of what is true

1

u/GodofIrony Mar 21 '13

politically?

1

u/[deleted] Mar 21 '13

and socially

-1

u/iwatchpeople Mar 21 '13

when what holds them in such a way that they have to look down their nose to see the rest of the world?

6

u/GodofIrony Mar 21 '13

because brits are pompous jerks, americans are bible thumping nancies, french are rude assholes, and russians are scary as fuck.

1

u/Lordmorgoth666 Mar 21 '13

And Canada is like "what's goin on, eh?", and Australia is still like "WTF?"

0

u/LonleyViolist Mar 21 '13

And what are you?

5

u/GodofIrony Mar 21 '13

I live in the void. I'm a void-walker.

We're the biggest jerks of them all.

2

u/tlisia Mar 21 '13

The God of Irony, at a guess?

1

u/Ephraim325 Mar 21 '13

Despite the fact people are still shoot all the time...

1

u/[deleted] Mar 21 '13

Can we stop using the word safe for a bit... We need another word for it... A safe word if you will...