BUSH WINS NOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!

Wise words Leperous.

-Stratesiz- said:
How about just using a pepper spray, baseball bat a household knife or anything less leathal than a gun as you would both be better off with less harm done as a result of the "Prisoner's Dilemma" in Game Theory. It would also reduce the odds of an break in since they wouldn't have a gun either.

If there was a trespasser in my house I would rather not have to get close to him in order to subdue him, so the spray, bat, or knife would be less than optimal. It puts me in even greater danger, especially if this person is bigger or stronger than me and possibly has a concealed weapon. If I have a gun I can project force from farther away so I can stop him without putting myself in unnecessary danger, plus it could scare the bad guy into leaving or giving up. I wouldn't consider the implications of game theory while my life was on the line :razz:

What if he has a gun as well? As I said, you would both be better off with no guns at all. There would be less incentive for a burglery.

Leperous said:
1) I think being pro-choice is a great position to be in, and one that you can really only argue against "effectively" from a religious point of view.

2) Give me one reason why any sane person needs an assault rifle that can fire 10's of rounds per minute. I can understand why they may "need" another gun of some kind, but unfortunately it is a fact that in countries with tougher gun laws that there is less violent crime- compare the US with the UK, Canada, Australia, Germany etc... If owning a gun is so necessary for "self-defence", then why do you still need to be able to buy shotguns, Desert Eagles etc.? I'm sure that if your government said "We'll let you only keep this one type of gun for self-defence" that people would be up in arms, simply because there is some strange "addiction" to them; similarly if someone came up with an effective non-lethal device. On one hand you're ok over killing thieves, but on the other it's totally wrong to kill an unborn child!!

3) I too am against gay marriage; however, it is utterly taking things out of proportion if you judge a presidential candidate based on a view that affects only minorities and will probably not ever affect you. To be honest, I don't think anyone has ever shown that having gay parents will harm children (like someone else once pointed out, straight parents turn out gay kids sometimes!) and it's just homophobia, which is no better than being racist...

1) so ineffective actions should be discouraged then? .. well s**t, if i knew in advance i would have no opinions about pro-choice by being agnostic, i might have chosen some religion. :rolleyes:

2) the problem is, they are not choosing any specific types, they wanna ban all of them.. i see no advantage to owning military weaponry at all.. they are designed to kill people only.. sporting weapons can kill too of course, but when was the last time you heard of it? yes it happens, but usually its accidental, and you cannot prevent all accidents.

3) thats your opinion, its no better or worse than mine is.. the only difference i can detect is, i believe in racist, i do not believe in homophobia.. it doesn't matter if i am alone or the whole world agrees with that, its my choice.

The lack of guns will not make burglary any less problematic. I'm certain that people still get their houses broken into in Great Britain.

And if he has a gun then well I'd better shoot first and ask questions later. Given that I'm in my home turf so to speak and the lights would be off I'd have the upper hand. I'd rather take that risk than for each of us to not have a gun and he beats me to death with a hammer.

With respect to gay marriages. I am against calling it a marriage, but I am not against the concept.

What is marriage? It is the union of 1 man and 1 woman under God with the goal of procreating and raising a child. At least, as far as I can understand from the Bible. Many couples get married and dont even have children. And its not because of infertility, just, they dont want kids. So then why should they be married? The reason is because today the word marriage no longer means the joining of a man and a woman. It is a contract under law for the unison of 2 people.

So I believe 2 people of the same sex could not be married under Religious terms. However, under law, there is nothing against it.

Yak_Fighter said:
The lack of guns will not make burglary any less problematic. I'm certain that people still get their houses broken into in Great Britain.

Your telling me. Here where I live is a very nice community. The only exception is the level of crime. Commited by dumb-ass teenagers with nothing better to do.

A few weeks ago, 3 teens (2 guys, 1 girl) broke the glass window to a bus stop using a 2-by-4 they had picked up off the ground somewhere. Me and my brother nailed them though and we waited for the cops. They got busted pretty good.

Not even a week after that incident, and only a few days after OC transpo replaced the broken window did some kid throw some eggs on it.

The other day, 2 guys were in the middle of a 4-lane road on their skateboards at 11pm all dressed in black. Looking to get killed?

The school in from of my house is a local meeting place for teenagers to smoke a joint at 10pm when there's no one around and the sun has set.

My house, in the last 6 years, has been broken into twice. Most of my friends houses have been broken into. My house has been egged quite a few times as well. So did my neighboor.

Crime doesnt always involve weapons.

did no one read my example for my opinion of gay marriage?

it was well thought out, and not necessarily homophobic (the webster definition)

what, if any right, would a gay couple have over an accidental brother/sister marriage?

as i said, i do not condone bro/sis marriages, but one is definitely illegal.

Yak, I'm only talking about burglary in the sense that that's the only possible (and legal?) reason people can use a gun against someone else; otherwise I was talking about violent crime. Of course we still get break-ins, but at least the criminals aren't killed, and the vast majority aren't doing it with a gun in their pocket ready to kill anyone!

If there are violent psychos out there who are willing to attack and kill you, they will do it with a gun or a hammer or whatever, but how many people do you think there are who feel much more confident attacking someone or stealing someone when they're carrying a gun?

And Orph- I ask you again why you seem to think it's ok to keep a gun for "self defence" (i.e. shooting and probably killing someone) but so absolutely wrong to kill an unborn child?! And yeah, it's totally my opinion that you and other people are homophobic, it doesn't really bother me, but the point is that what does it matter if your potential president wants to ban it- I'm sure you have bigger things to worry about, e.g. petrol prices. What were their energy policies? Bush wants more oil- preferably from Alaska, but he still needs to get it from foreign countries- whilst Kerry wanted more alternative energies. I'm sure you'd love driving around in a solar/hydrogen powered bus for 1/1000th the price of oil...

BUT I guess there's no point in going on about it all. Bush will do some things "right" and I'm sure horribly f**k up a lot of other things, but life is terribly unpredictable and I'm sure very little will go to plan!

-Stratesiz- said:
What if he has a gun as well? As I said, you would both be better off with no guns at all. There would be less incentive for a burglery.

It doesn't matter, they will never turn over that amendment. So, shut it.

There are several guns that are banned here (AKs for example) and guess what, they're used ever so often in crimes because they can pierce Kevlar.

Most people who use guns to commit crimes DIDN'T GET THEM LEGALLY. So, how the hell would a complete ban on firearms help that? Because it's not as if they hijack the latest shipment in .22s to do the bank heist.

I think the only thing that we can really do that sounds reasonable is force REAL security checks at gun shows. They're suppose to check you out with ID and proof of residency, but a lot don't.

Other times there isn't much we can do to stop gun crimes, since the majority of people who commit them aren't suppose to have that weapon anyway. How would this other law actually effect crime rate?
It might actually raise crime in some areas. Since normal people wouldn't be allowed to have guns to scare off people who have the illegal guns.

I think, somewhere in Delaware, there is a town with no police, It's a small town of course. It became more effective, since the police didn't do much of anything. So, it is required by law, in that county, to own a firearm. As a result, crime goes down. Because criminals' chances of being shot just went up about 80% or something like that.

The point is: people who break the law have no respect for the law, so adding another law would mean nothing to them. Meaning, it's pointless. Get over America having guns. I don't go around telling everyone from other countries that their country should support firearms and that firearms are great or anything like that. I doubt you have any position or right to have the same type of argument.

By the way, I don't support the use of guns. But, I have no right to tell people they can't own them.

Leperous said:
And Orph- I ask you again why you seem to think it's ok to keep a gun for "self defence" (i.e. shooting and probably killing someone) but so absolutely wrong to kill an unborn child?!

If a woman get's raped and becomes pregnant. Does she have to keep the child? No. I believe she is allowed to an abortion. Killing in self defence, I believe in. So long as you can proove it to be self defence to the level that 1 of you was going to die for sure, and you, as the victim, wanted to survive.

Bush has killed many Iraquis, and many American soldiers. And he's re-elected too. How is Bush any better than a woman seeking an abortion?

I don't like homosexuals either but if I could vote I'd vote on letting them get marriages. The reason why is because voting no would be voting for something that takes another persons freedom away.

jeezus f**king christ lep.. i didn't like either.. i have said time and again that they only allowed kerry to be a candidate to ensure a bush re-election.. i would rather go a 4 year term with no one than the two we have.. but i don't see that happening either..

i detest kerry, but i do not like bush any more.. but i was not asked about bush (prolly because i constantly bitch about fuel prices already) i was asked about kerry specifically..

i realize you are busy, and cannot keep up with every threads content, but you are mis-judging me as if i did something wrong..

and to answer your really insensitive question, a fetus doesn't break into houses and commit crimes.. if someone is in your home.. kill them, or not i don't care.. but you cannot put them into the same equation as if they were equal circumstances.. :sad:

Spartan 34 said:
I don't like homosexuals either but if I could vote I'd vote on letting them get marriages. The reason why is because voting no would be voting for something that takes another persons freedom away.

Very well said. I am not against gay's myself. It's their rights. After all, most men like lesbians. So why is it men should so hate gays? Just because lesbians is better seen in our world (thanks to porn sites and the like) does that mean 2 gay men is something bad?

Spartan 34 said:
I don't like homosexuals either but if I could vote I'd vote on letting them get marriages. The reason why is because voting no would be voting for something that takes another persons freedom away.

You do realize that voting "No" would make it so there is no amendment banning it and the actual law of making it legal would be up to individual counties in individual states?

No, I know the circumstances aren't the same, but we're still talking about killing them for whatever reason. Is it ever acceptable to kill someone because they're trying to steal something, or rob someone? Hell, why not get rid of the police and just give everyone guns, I'm sure that would fix things! :smile:

So, deviating a bit, why didn't you vote Nader then? :razz:

Who the f**k is Nader?

The independent party candidate.

Leperous said:
No, I know the circumstances aren't the same, but we're still talking about killing them for whatever reason. Is it ever acceptable to kill someone because they're trying to steal something, or rob someone? Hell, why not get rid of the police and just give everyone guns, I'm sure that would fix things! :smile:

So, deviating a bit, why didn't you vote Nader then? :razz:

being who i am, i do not see the taking of an adults life as necessarily a bad thing, i am not supportive of it indiscriminately of course (another bush thing, he killed a bunch in texas on death row who might not have been guilty :sad: )

anyways being who i am, i couldn't have joined the military had i been completely against killing, well yeah i could have been a conscientious objector i suppose but i am not that.. i do not think the crime necessarily dictates whether you kill them or not, simply because you are not sure that the burglar will be satisfied with only your TV set :rolleyes:

and i was so disgusted with the polls, i abstained from voting for anyone

If you join the military, I can only hope your not going to be one to second guess yourself before pulling the trigger on an enemy. Because if you second guess yourself, the enemy wont. And you'll be the one going down.

Wild Card said:
If you join the military, I can only hope your not going to be one to second guess yourself before pulling the trigger on an enemy. Because if you second guess yourself, the enemy wont. And you'll be the one going down.

I think if you have any issues like that, then you wouldn't even think of joining the army, military, whatever.

Wild Card said:
If you join the military, I can only hope your not going to be one to second guess yourself before pulling the trigger on an enemy. Because if you second guess yourself, the enemy wont. And you'll be the one going down.

i joined up in aug of 1980, i am almost to old now, but if someone came over here, well i suppose you are never to old to fight.

seriously though, one never knows till they take a life whether they are truly capable of doing it.. all you can do is people who's attitude dictates that they are capable, and hope, when it comes to military fighting..

i have saved perhaps 1/2 a dozen people, people who would have died had i not been present, but i have never killed yet.. when i saved those people it was instinctive reactions, i would hope my instincts would also save myself.. shrugs but i dunno..

Yak_Fighter said:
The lack of guns will not make burglary any less problematic.
I'm certain that people still get their houses broken into in Great
Britain.

And if he has a gun then well I'd better shoot first and ask
questions later. Given that I'm in my home turf so to speak and the
lights would be off I'd have the upper hand. I'd rather take that risk
than for each of us to not have a gun and he beats me to death with a
hammer.

Just a question:

If someone breaks into your house armed with a gun and you see this, are you then allowed to shot this person?

I'm just asking cause I'm curious, because here in Sweden, if someone
breaks into your house and then trips on something lying on the floor,
YOU'RE the one responsible to pay for HIM! And, imo, that totaly
insane. Just want to know if it's the same over there in the USA.

Well yer still alive t'day Jonny boy :wink:

Crono said:
<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting Spartan 34</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>I don't like homosexuals either but if I could vote I'd vote on letting them get marriages. The reason why is because voting no would be voting for something that takes another persons freedom away.</DIV></DIV>

You do realize that voting "No" would make it so there is no amendment banning it and the actual law of making it legal would be up to individual counties in individual states?

Well I'm not old enough to vote yet and I haven't gotten the chance to read the ammendment yet but you know what I meant.

P.S. I agree with Orph. Everyone needs about 20 shotguns in their home. :biggrin: I know I do.

OtZman said:
Just a question:

If someone breaks into your house armed with a gun and you see this, are you then allowed to shot this person?

I'm just asking cause I'm curious, because here in Sweden, if someone breaks into your house and then trips on something lying on the floor, YOU'RE the one responsible to pay for HIM! And, imo, that totaly insane. Just want to know if it's the same over there in the USA.

i have been told, by my police friends, that you shoot to kill, do not shoot to wound.

if they are dead, its your word, if they are alive its you against the crook..

and yes, if the crook is hurt in your house while in the act of committing a robbery, he can sue you :rolleyes:

Otz:

I think it depends, we have crooked ass lawyers that can probably sew the victims because their client fell on a knife in the kitchen while robbing them ... which is rediculous.

But, overall, in the law, if you can prove it was self-defence then yeah ... you can shoot them. The only thing is: when people talking about shooting people, they automatically think killing. Which isn't really true. You can easily stop someone from robbing your house by shooting them and not killing them. But ... look up.

It seems to kinda the same then. I guess that if some dumba** decides
to break into my house, and then hurts himself in MY house, the best
thing is to kill the s**t and hide the body away someplace far away.

I missed the boat a bit here, but

There are several guns that are banned here (AKs for example) and guess what, they're used ever so often in crimes because they can pierce Kevlar.

Most people who use guns to commit crimes DIDN'T GET THEM LEGALLY. So, how the hell would a complete ban on firearms help that?

Crono, that's all well and good, but explain how it just doesn't work out like that at all in countries where privately owned guns are basically illegal? If banning guns doesn't make a difference, why are gun crime rates in the uk or germany not just the same as yours (relative to population)?

If you ban automatic weapons all together, this affects people who owned those guns illegal anyway, because after such a rule is introduced, nobody has an excuse for owning one- the police can confiscate any they find ever. As it is, there is a legal route, out of which illegally owned guns can fall... Then any such guns would need to be smuggled in, as opposed to now where these guns can be legally in the country, and so don't have to be smuggled.

It's a lot harder to smuggle something from another country [overseas] than it is to move something to a place it shouldnt be that had previously entered the country legally.

Lastly, let's say you are right, and banning automatic weapons wouldn't have any effect - what would be lost by implementing the ban anyway? Surely you don't think people should have this type of weapon for self defense purposes?

OtZman said:
It seems to kinda the same then. I guess that if some dumba** decides to break into my house, and then hurts himself in MY house, the best thing is to kill the s**t and hide the body away someplace far away.

If someone robbed my house I'd blow their freakin head off... literally. Oh and instead of hiding the body I shove it on a pole and stick it in my front yard with a sign that says "this is the last guy who tried to rob me".

laying your personal opinions of me aside for a moment, i assume that the three things i heard about kerry were true since no one stated otherwise?

no one said i had to give logical reasons, or humane ones, or even realistic ones, i was asked why i thought kerry was evil..

now, since i crawled out on that limb and exposed myself to your ridicule, will someone please tell me why kerry was OK???

i am not asking why he is better than bush either, because you may only think he is the lessor of the two evils as well.. i want to know why he is OK?

I think that anyone that want to run a country is evil eg:

-Maggy Thatcher - Privetised the coal mines as well as other industrys and put milions out of work
-Bush - for attacking Sadam when aparently (i say it in bold cos this source may be as reliable as Blairs) he was told that it would not do anything to help him win the war on terrorism.

those are just a coupple I could think of at the min.

Orpheus said:
now, since i crawled out on that limb and exposed myself to your ridicule, will someone please tell me why kerry was OK???

1) Decent foreign policy- he had the vision that other countries would help more in Iraq, that he'll work more with the Israel/Palestine issue, and basically not to piss off the rest of the world. I imagine this would work out better for all of own safetys instead of bombing foreign countries because "there's a nasty man in charge who we once gave chemical weapons to when we liked him" (in which case, why are North Korea, Sudan, Russia etc. etc. who are s**tting on their own people being ignored?) or scaring the population into submission over some "war against terror" that opens up oh so many horrible precedents for other countries and probably just makes everything worse.

2) Decent energy policy- he's quite keen to develop alternate energy sources, which is such a good idea in so many ways.

3) He supports stem cell research, unlike Bush The Goon who'd rather impose his religious views on the whole world via the UN (which usually he's quite quick to ignore)

4) Edwards seems like a nice chap. Unlike Cheney, who I'm surprised is still around...

5) I'm a bit sketchy on this one, but I think Kerry was quite keen to stop giving such huge tax-cuts to the richest in society... Both of them would be able to handle the economy otherwise, anyway.

I'd go research some more, but it's 1am :/

As far as killing someone goes, I believe you only need to convince the jury that you felt your life was in immediate danger of ending.

Leperous said:

Orpheus said:
now, since i crawled out on that limb and exposed myself to your ridicule, will someone please tell me why kerry was OK???

1) Decent foreign policy- he had the vision that other countries would help more in Iraq, that he'll work more with the Israel/Palestine issue, and basically not to piss off the rest of the world. I imagine this would work out better for all of own safetys instead of bombing foreign countries because "there's a nasty man in charge who we once gave chemical weapons to when we liked him" (in which case, why are North Korea, Sudan, Russia etc. etc. who are s**tting on their own people being ignored?) or scaring the population into submission over some "war against terror" that opens up oh so many horrible precedents for other countries and probably just makes everything worse.

2) Decent energy policy- he's quite keen to develop alternate energy sources, which is such a good idea in so many ways.

3) He supports stem cell research, unlike Bush The Goon who'd rather impose his religious views on the whole world via the UN (which usually he's quite quick to ignore)

4) Edwards seems like a nice chap. Unlike Cheney, who I'm surprised is still around...

5) I'm a bit sketchy on this one, but I think Kerry was quite keen to stop giving such huge tax-cuts to the richest in society... Both of them would be able to handle the economy otherwise, anyway.

I'd go research some more, but it's 1am :/

now, i may be a complete dips**t but, doesn't every presidential candidate make such promises as these? i mean really, could someone win an election and have morals and policies that would be anything but exemplery..

now don't misunderstand, i am not calling you a liar, far be it, but you don't think much of this can happen in just 4 years do you? still lets say his heart was in the right place, but we will never know since he didn't win..

i wish i could remember exactly what bush promised 4 years ago and compare it to what actually occured...

anywho's.. those were good answers, truly, but i still see abortion/pro-choice as pure evil.. it over shadows all other good intentions.. it wouldn't be the first time good intentions went horribly astray..

thanx for the info though.. it was...enlightening.

Kerry supports gay marriage because he is obviously a flame king with John Edwards.

http://kerrylove.ytmnd.com/ <----Proof

NotLagur2 said:
Kerry supports gay marriage because he is obviously a flame king with John Edwards.

http://kerrylove.ytmnd.com/ <----Proof

I am sick and tired of all these redneck Bush supporters flaming Kerry. I would've voted for Bush if I could've voted, but I think Kerry is a smarter and better person. It's just that Bush had slightly better plans. The election is over and we have our president so lets drop these damn presidential threads.

Im not a redneck..But yea, this thread should be locked.

I just got to this thread and I would like to address something I've read so far and correct someone.

Posted By half-dude:

Well, looks like Kerry gave up on us. Crap, I better not get drafted to the Iraq war.

thought anyone?

First off, if you even payed any attention about anything having to do with the draft, you would not have said that. Most people so far think that the draft was going to be brought back and people would start getting drafted again like back in Vietnam. Wrong. A while ago, a democrat named Charlie Rengal proposed a bill that would bring back the draft. This bill was so stupid that everytime it was brought to the floor, the house would kill it. In recent news, the republicans brought the bill to the floor once again to kill it once and for all. Democrats then took that information and twisted into a lie. They told everyone that the republicans were bringing back the draft by bringing the bill to the house floor. Wrong again. The republicans were simply trying to get rid of the democratic sponsered bill. As you can probably tell by now, I am republican and pro-bush. So please, before posting something, please do a little research on it.

/2 cents

Its really interesting too se how you Americans talk about politics and wich issues you seem to be conserned about.

We Swedes see it in a totally different way.

Since Sweden has the highest taxrate in the world the most important
issues around our elections is about where to put all the money that
the state gets.

Most of the parties goes for better education, healthcare, and so on
but there are still very big differences between them in how to achieve
these goals.

The moderats, for example, wants to achieve this by boosting the
economics and companies so that they can get more money to the state.

The party in charge right now, and has been so for quite a long while,
is the the social democrats who cares about the workerclass and are a
bit more right than the left guys (the comunists by american
standards) but they are allied with them since they are more "red" than
"blue".

(offtopic)

I thought it is time that you yankies get some real facts about Sweden
instead of going after all the "crap" you hear about us :wink: .

First: Sweden is making ALOT of music in all the different styles
(deathmetal is only a little part of it). Ive heard that sweden is
making the most music per capita in the whole world but i cant confirm
that. Personally i dont really need to listen to many bands from other
countries since there are so much great stuff from here =).

But there always a backside of everything... Sweden is also the number
one bigseller in nazi music in the world. Which is a terribly big shame.

Second: This is not a thing that i am proud of as a swede but i thought
you might wanted to know. Sweden is the absolute best country in the
world in Counter-strike and has a team that has won almost all the
biggest competitions in the world.

I think this is because sweden has put alot of money to let everyone in
sweden acces to the internet via broadband, and because of the cold
weather of course :wink: .

Third: The "heellooo im Inga from sweeedeeeen" bulls**t is totally
retarded. Firstly the swedish school is putting alot of effort in
teaching us as proper english as possible.

Secondly the name inga is definitly NOT an extremely common name.

Fourth: No matter what you think, there ARE more brunettes here than blondes.

Fifth: THERE ARE NO f**kING POLARBEARS ROAMING THE STREETS!

In fact there are no polar bears in Sweden at all.

I don't think the thread should be locked just that we don't make 10 more threads that bitch about Bush getting elected. Both candidates gave America two good choices to choose from. The closeness of the race shows this. We got Bush and posting more threads isn't going to change that.

Spartan 34 said:
I don't think the thread should be locked just that we don't make 10 more threads that bitch about Bush getting re-elected. Both candidates gave America two bad choices to choose from. The closeness of the race shows this. We got Bush and posting more threads isn't going to change that.

Sorry, had to correct a few spelling mistakes :rolleyes:

WHAT!? ME KNOW SPILL RONG.

I bet you speak better French then you do type English :biggrin: lol

Wild Card said:
I bet you speak better French then you do type English :biggrin: lol

Lol spelin arrer

Note: the Rape rate for Canada came from 1990 because there was no value listed for 2000

Oh... I'm sorry? Does that burst the bubble all of you non-Americans have been blowing about how violent we are? Certainly we are not the best in the world, but you cannot make the case that America is a more dangerous place then England because of gun laws. It isn't, for whatever reason, and that's a fact.

I've included Israel because it is the perfect example of zero gun control. Army service is mandatory there, and the soldiers take their guns home with them. Please note that they have the lowest rape and theft rates of the lot. Assault is strikingly high, but 100-1 that is due to terrorism. Canada takes the cake for rape (at least it did in 1990), and the U.S. leads only in violent theft.

I love how flawed that graph is. But I think the support is needed.

Jeff, I'm not against gun bans. I'm saying they wont have as much of a profound effect as everyone is saying. Think about it: for over 200 years the entire nation has had the right to own guns. I guarantee you creating a law to ban guns (not only wouldn't pass) would force more people to get guns illegally. You have to understand that the people who own guns and are fanatics about them (not to say all gun owners are fanatics) will probably break the law to get their weapon back.

Also, An example of a weapon that has been banned here is the AK-47. That was just an example. You said that the gun is easier to get illegally here because it was legal at some point, so, how would a gun ban make it any different for any other gun? I mean, s**t, it's not like anyone goes around carrying a gun. Even though, you can, legally. However, if any one person became uncomfortable from you doing that, then an officer can remove the gun from you. You wont be arrested because you have a legal right to have that gun. By the way you can't conceal a weapon without a permit. Not that they'd know or anything in most cases.

Anyway my entire point was, you can't change this. I mean s**t, son, it's amendment number TWO. It comes before search and seizure. Technically the only thing more important than it (based on when they wrote what amendment) is freedom of speech.

Crono said:
I love how flawed that graph is. But I think the support is needed.

How would you suggest it be improved?

Crono said:
I love how flawed that graph is.

Do continue.

Oh, nothing. It's just there's no confidence interval or anything like that. It seems like the only credible element is that the data is from Interpol taken in 2000 (except Canada's rape amount).

The criminal groups are fine for a general estimate, but it's probably pretty misleading.

It was just a comment.