|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On March 01 2012 02:14 HellRoxYa wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2012 01:54 Dizmaul wrote:On March 01 2012 01:49 TanTzoR wrote:On March 01 2012 01:46 liberal wrote:On March 01 2012 01:45 TanTzoR wrote:On March 01 2012 01:40 liberal wrote:
To me this issue is much bigger than the guns themselves. If we accept the premise that citizens cannot be trusted to be responsible, or accept the premise that statistical safety is more important than liberty, then really it's not possible to have a free society. Don't you agree that you need to draw a line somewhere? If you don't, biological weapons free for all. Biological weapons cannot be used responsibly. They cannot be focused on a dangerous target. They spread. Come on this is like common sense stuff.... Then rocket launchers or machine guns? They can be focused on bad guys. He already answered your question. The line is, can it be used responsibly or not. So who defines what responsible is? Going by his answers rocket launchers, bombs and machine guns all pass the requirement of the possbility of being used responsibly.
We could split hairs all day here, and spend days more even talking about the definition of the terms. A "rocket" could be any number of things. I shot a small model rocket when I was younger. Technically that is as much of a rocket as the most powerful RPG. A gun bullet has an area of effect that is inches or less, so I don't think they even belong in the same discussion as an explosive. Sure, it's clear we need to draw the line somewhere, make some semi-arbitrary distinction about the degree of explosive power a device has, and therefore the degree that it has the possibility of injuring multiple individuals at once with a single use. I just don't enjoy much splitting hairs or arguing definitions, so I will stay out of it.
|
On March 01 2012 02:14 liberal wrote:
It's completely pointless to compare crime statistics across nations. Different nations have different people, different cultures, different education, different economics, etc. Trying to suggest that all of those things are equal and any difference is related to the weapons laws is extremely naive or dishonest.
The US has a higher murder rate whether or not guns exist there. Crime in general is just higher in the US. If you want to look at reasons for crime, then you have to look at sociology. I could get my hands on a gun, that doesn't mean I'm going to shoot anyone, obviously.
The way to fight crime in a sane, liberal nation, is to fight the causes of crime at their root, which is the person and the society which creates them. To blame an inanimate object for the behavior of a human is absurd. Somehow the "progressive" ideal is no longer about eliminating the desire for crime, but eliminating the means to crime.
The reasonable motive behind banning of guns in Europe and other "normal" first world countries should not be preventing intentional planned homicides, but to prevent accidental deaths and unnecessarily high death tolls of crimes of passion. In the long run banning of guns will have some small positive effect even on intentional planned homicides, but that should not be a point as premeditated murder does not require gun to achieve its goal. On the other hand in reasonable first world countries benefits of a gun as a self-defense tool do not outweigh the negatives of accidental death and increased death tolls of crimes of passion.
A guy who is drunk and gets into a fight in a bar might be able to stab a guy, but if he had gun he will easily kill five before being pacified. Similar incidents are much more prevalent than use of guns in self-defense as there is just not that many murders in general.
Would I propose this solution for US, no, the country is fucked up too much as far as violence goes. Gun might actually be a good self-defense tool in US. It is not so in Europe (statistically speaking of course).
|
On March 01 2012 02:24 Shirolol wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2012 02:05 StarStrider wrote:
Here's a fun fact: If you break crime statistics down for the UK and the US, you are twice as likely to be a victim of a knife crime in the UK as you are to be a victim of a gun crime in the US. How do knife crimes in the US compare to knife crimes in the UK though? I'd say they are probably marginal in comparison, if you suppose that guns are easy to get in the US and provide a much graver threat for the criminal's use.
EDIT: What's the point then? That living in a society where gun ownership is illegal isn't safer. Evil people with evil intentions will always exist, regardless of what weapons they have access to. I'm going to try and be as nice as possible here, but you are really not only being ignorant but extremely stupid. I am not even going to explain to you the difference between a knife and a gun, here's a hint though.. One's a sharp pointy piece of metal, the other is a gun. I know the difference is slight and fairly subtle but if you really take the time to weigh up the characteristics of each I think you will see some discrepancies.
Wow. For someone trying to be nice, you sure aren't. But you are completely missing the point. Ignorance defined.
Here it is: crime rate involving deadly weapons isn't lower in the UK. It's higher. Just because you have disallowed a more deadly weapon to be owned by legit members of society doesn't mean you are safer. It just means you are less likely to die when you are confronted with a weapon, because it is harder to kill someone with a knife than a gun. That's it. I was referring to crime rates INVOLVING guns and knives. Not crime rates where the guns or knives injured or killed people.
Or did you think I was making a statement about the USE of those weapons? I didn't say anything about deaths. Reread it. You jumped to a conclusion didn't you.
|
On March 01 2012 02:33 StarStrider wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2012 02:24 Shirolol wrote:On March 01 2012 02:05 StarStrider wrote:
Here's a fun fact: If you break crime statistics down for the UK and the US, you are twice as likely to be a victim of a knife crime in the UK as you are to be a victim of a gun crime in the US. How do knife crimes in the US compare to knife crimes in the UK though? I'd say they are probably marginal in comparison, if you suppose that guns are easy to get in the US and provide a much graver threat for the criminal's use.
EDIT: What's the point then? That living in a society where gun ownership is illegal isn't safer. Evil people with evil intentions will always exist, regardless of what weapons they have access to. I'm going to try and be as nice as possible here, but you are really not only being ignorant but extremely stupid. I am not even going to explain to you the difference between a knife and a gun, here's a hint though.. One's a sharp pointy piece of metal, the other is a gun. I know the difference is slight and fairly subtle but if you really take the time to weigh up the characteristics of each I think you will see some discrepancies. Wow. For someone trying to be nice, you sure aren't. But you are completely missing the point. Ignorance defined. Here it is: crime rate involving deadly weapons isn't lower in the UK. It's higher. Just because you have disallowed a more deadly weapon to be owned by legit members of society doesn't mean you are safer. It just means you are less likely to die when you are confronted with a weapon, because it is harder to kill someone with a knife than a gun. That's it. I was referring to crime rates INVOLVING guns and knives. Not crime rates where the guns or knives injured or killed people. Or did you think I was making a statement about the USE of those weapons? I didn't say anything about deaths. Reread it. You jumped to a conclusion didn't you.
If you are less likely to die, then yes, technically it does mean you are "safer." Let's please not compare guns with knives.
|
On March 01 2012 02:33 StarStrider wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2012 02:24 Shirolol wrote:On March 01 2012 02:05 StarStrider wrote:
Here's a fun fact: If you break crime statistics down for the UK and the US, you are twice as likely to be a victim of a knife crime in the UK as you are to be a victim of a gun crime in the US. How do knife crimes in the US compare to knife crimes in the UK though? I'd say they are probably marginal in comparison, if you suppose that guns are easy to get in the US and provide a much graver threat for the criminal's use.
EDIT: What's the point then? That living in a society where gun ownership is illegal isn't safer. Evil people with evil intentions will always exist, regardless of what weapons they have access to. I'm going to try and be as nice as possible here, but you are really not only being ignorant but extremely stupid. I am not even going to explain to you the difference between a knife and a gun, here's a hint though.. One's a sharp pointy piece of metal, the other is a gun. I know the difference is slight and fairly subtle but if you really take the time to weigh up the characteristics of each I think you will see some discrepancies. Wow. For someone trying to be nice, you sure aren't. But you are completely missing the point. Ignorance defined. Here it is: crime rate involving deadly weapons isn't lower in the UK. It's higher. Just because you have disallowed a more deadly weapon to be owned by legit members of society doesn't mean you are safer. It just means you are less likely to die when you are confronted with a weapon, because it is harder to kill someone with a knife than a gun. That's it. I was referring to crime rates INVOLVING guns and knives. Not crime rates where the guns or knives injured or killed people. Or did you think I was making a statement about the USE of those weapons? I didn't say anything about deaths. Reread it. You jumped to a conclusion didn't you.
"That's it"? Not sure about you but that's pretty damn important to me when it comes to safety. Because, you know, being alive is kind of a requirement for everything. And ~4x homicide rate speaks for itself.
|
On March 01 2012 02:40 Tarot wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2012 02:33 StarStrider wrote:On March 01 2012 02:24 Shirolol wrote:On March 01 2012 02:05 StarStrider wrote:
Here's a fun fact: If you break crime statistics down for the UK and the US, you are twice as likely to be a victim of a knife crime in the UK as you are to be a victim of a gun crime in the US. How do knife crimes in the US compare to knife crimes in the UK though? I'd say they are probably marginal in comparison, if you suppose that guns are easy to get in the US and provide a much graver threat for the criminal's use.
EDIT: What's the point then? That living in a society where gun ownership is illegal isn't safer. Evil people with evil intentions will always exist, regardless of what weapons they have access to. I'm going to try and be as nice as possible here, but you are really not only being ignorant but extremely stupid. I am not even going to explain to you the difference between a knife and a gun, here's a hint though.. One's a sharp pointy piece of metal, the other is a gun. I know the difference is slight and fairly subtle but if you really take the time to weigh up the characteristics of each I think you will see some discrepancies. Wow. For someone trying to be nice, you sure aren't. But you are completely missing the point. Ignorance defined. Here it is: crime rate involving deadly weapons isn't lower in the UK. It's higher. Just because you have disallowed a more deadly weapon to be owned by legit members of society doesn't mean you are safer. It just means you are less likely to die when you are confronted with a weapon, because it is harder to kill someone with a knife than a gun. That's it. I was referring to crime rates INVOLVING guns and knives. Not crime rates where the guns or knives injured or killed people. Or did you think I was making a statement about the USE of those weapons? I didn't say anything about deaths. Reread it. You jumped to a conclusion didn't you. "That's it"? Not sure about you but that's pretty damn important to me when it comes to safety. Because, you know, being alive is kind of a requirement for everything. And ~4x homicide rate speaks for itself.
it's a valid point though. i mean, its great that people die less (though i think there are many different factors involved in that than just gun control) but eliminating deadly crimes is only half the equation. just because you aren't dead doesn't mean you are safe.
|
On March 01 2012 02:20 StarStrider wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2012 02:18 mcc wrote:On March 01 2012 02:05 StarStrider wrote:
Here's a fun fact: If you break crime statistics down for the UK and the US, you are twice as likely to be a victim of a knife crime in the UK as you are to be a victim of a gun crime in the US. How do knife crimes in the US compare to knife crimes in the UK though? I'd say they are probably marginal in comparison, if you suppose that guns are easy to get in the US and provide a much graver threat for the criminal's use.
EDIT: What's the point then? That living in a society where gun ownership is illegal isn't safer. Evil people with evil intentions will always exist, regardless of what weapons they have access to. Your argument makes no sense. US murder rates 4.8, UK 1.23. It is easily shown that it is more likely to be killed in US than in UK. UK is safer. I didn't say murder rate. I said crime rate involving knife/gun. Obviously the murder rate is higher in the US. EDIT: Safety isn't simply defined by how likely you are to be killed on a daily basis.
Why are you then cherry-picking guns and knifes and drawing some conclusion about safety. It does not follow. Also you just assume something about knife-related crimes in US. Do you have any data to back up your statement that it is marginal or are you just making blind speculation ? I think they will be lower than Britain, but frankly comparing anything else than murder rates between countries is extremely iffy task at best as countries differ in what they consider a crime, what is knife-related crime, reporting rates,.....
Yes safety is broader term than just homicide rates, but likelihood of being killed is a big part of it.
|
On March 01 2012 02:30 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2012 02:14 liberal wrote:
It's completely pointless to compare crime statistics across nations. Different nations have different people, different cultures, different education, different economics, etc. Trying to suggest that all of those things are equal and any difference is related to the weapons laws is extremely naive or dishonest.
The US has a higher murder rate whether or not guns exist there. Crime in general is just higher in the US. If you want to look at reasons for crime, then you have to look at sociology. I could get my hands on a gun, that doesn't mean I'm going to shoot anyone, obviously.
The way to fight crime in a sane, liberal nation, is to fight the causes of crime at their root, which is the person and the society which creates them. To blame an inanimate object for the behavior of a human is absurd. Somehow the "progressive" ideal is no longer about eliminating the desire for crime, but eliminating the means to crime. The reasonable motive behind banning of guns in Europe and other "normal" first world countries should not be preventing intentional planned homicides, but to prevent accidental deaths and unnecessarily high death tolls of crimes of passion. In the long run banning of guns will have some small positive effect even on intentional planned homicides, but that should not be a point as premeditated murder does not require gun to achieve its goal. On the other hand in reasonable first world countries benefits of a gun as a self-defense tool do not outweigh the negatives of accidental death and increased death tolls of crimes of passion. A guy who is drunk and gets into a fight in a bar might be able to stab a guy, but if he had gun he will easily kill five before being pacified. Similar incidents are much more prevalent than use of guns in self-defense as there is just not that many murders in general. Would I propose this solution for US, no, the country is fucked up too much as far as violence goes. Gun might actually be a good self-defense tool in US. It is not so in Europe (statistically speaking of course).
This is a pretty reasonable position, and I appreciate your arguments.
I would say that for the rare individual who does face violent crime in EU, the statistics are not going to be of much use. The person has had their right to self-defense taken away from them under the justification of preventing accidents, etc. To me, that doesn't seem moral, even if statistically, it does result in fewer total deaths. Because you cannot choose to eliminate all accidents, but you can choose to defend yourself from violence, and that choice is being taken away.
|
On March 01 2012 02:33 StarStrider wrote:
Wow. For someone trying to be nice, you sure aren't. But you are completely missing the point. Ignorance defined.
Here it is: crime rate involving deadly weapons isn't lower in the UK. It's higher. Just because you have disallowed a more deadly weapon to be owned by legit members of society doesn't mean you are safer. It just means you are less likely to die when you are confronted with a weapon, because it is harder to kill someone with a knife than a gun. That's it. I was referring to crime rates INVOLVING guns and knives. Not crime rates where the guns or knives injured or killed people.
Or did you think I was making a statement about the USE of those weapons? I didn't say anything about deaths. Reread it. You jumped to a conclusion didn't you.
+ Show Spoiler +
I'm not sure there's any more to say on the subject to be honest.
Edit - Oh and I would LOVE to see where you got the underlined information from.
|
I am from the US and I own a handgun. I got it for self-defense after a few home invasions happened in the State I live in. I keep it in its own box with the ammo in a separate box. Shoot it at least once a month to make sure it's working fine and clean it. I don't go running around shooting people.
|
On March 01 2012 02:57 Korlinni wrote:
I am from the US and I own a handgun. I got it for self-defense after a few home invasions happened in the State I live in. I keep it in its own box with the ammo in a separate box. Shoot it at least once a month to make sure it's working fine and clean it. I don't go running around shooting people.
Hi there, can you answer a few things for me then..
How far away from the gun is the ammo kept? Do you think you would be able to reach the box, unlock it (I presume it is locked, otherwise we open the can of worms that is the "what if a child finds it etc."), find your ammo box, load your gun and then confront your invaders before they either find you first or heaven forbid, have their own gun loaded and ready long before you are even aware of the danger?
In a real situation, if the home invaders were ACTUALLY a danger to your life (i.e they are here to kill you.) you will die whether you have a handgun in a box in a draw with your ammo in a box in a draw etc or not. The only difference is that because of your countries retarded view on guns, you essentially are giving them a gun too - and therefore multiplying the risk on your life immensely in any of these situations.
|
Guns aren't really a problem, the problems are more than often the socioeconomic issues. Statisically speaking I would be surprised if guns increase deaths significantly. The problem is not the about the owning guns but that there is wide spread poverty and income gaps. Free health care and good public education would do more to decrease crime rates in the US than banning guns. As for people saying that people have killed each other for a long time, this is true and it is almost exclusively because of uneven resource distrubution.
That said guns fill no function more than it can att most an equalizer and it makes it easier for people to kill each other.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
Comparing statistics in different countries is strange. Here's UK's Home Office Report: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/research-statistics/crime-research/hosb0112/hosb0112?view=Binary
There's 700k violent crime? That's unbelievable for a population of at most 70 million. I think it's closer to 60 million.
US numbers generally aggregate to about 500 per million in the aggravated assault and worse category. The England and Wales numbers would be 10000 per million. I'd have to think that somehow the numbers are being compiled differently. As a bit of a check, I compared them to New Hampshire rates, 1.0 murder / 167 violent / 2183 property crime, and UK's looks roughly about 3? homicide / 10000? violent / 40000? property.
The report also said 200 homicides with pointed weapon. All very very strange.
|
I have a question for proponents of the free guns. Where do you draw the line to this freedom/right to arm yourself? What I mean is why only guns, why not something bigger (explosives etc.)?
|
On March 01 2012 02:55 Shirolol wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2012 02:33 StarStrider wrote:
Wow. For someone trying to be nice, you sure aren't. But you are completely missing the point. Ignorance defined.
Here it is: crime rate involving deadly weapons isn't lower in the UK. It's higher. Just because you have disallowed a more deadly weapon to be owned by legit members of society doesn't mean you are safer. It just means you are less likely to die when you are confronted with a weapon, because it is harder to kill someone with a knife than a gun. That's it. I was referring to crime rates INVOLVING guns and knives. Not crime rates where the guns or knives injured or killed people.
Or did you think I was making a statement about the USE of those weapons? I didn't say anything about deaths. Reread it. You jumped to a conclusion didn't you. + Show Spoiler +I'm not sure there's any more to say on the subject to be honest. Edit - Oh and I would LOVE to see where you got the underlined information from.
I draw the conclusion by narrowing down the following facts:
In or about 2006, there were about 60 million (actually closer to 58M, but we'll use the rounded-up number to be kind to hopolophobes) people in the UK as a whole, including Scotland.
In England and Wales alone — discounting Scotland — there were over 163 thousand knife crimes.
By the end of 2006, there were more than 300 million people in the US as a whole.
In the US as a whole, there were fewer than 400 thousand gun crimes.
In the UK, based on these numbers, there was one knife crime commited for every 374 people (rounded down).
In the US, based on these numbers, there was one gun crime committed for every 750 people — less than half a gun crime per 374 people (about 0.4987 gun crimes per 374 people, actually).
That means that, based on these statistics, you are more than twice as likely to be a victim of knife crime in the UK as you are to be a victim of gun crime in the US.
You can cross check these facts for yourself if you like.
And as to liberal's point (and others): I am not harping on guns vs. knives. I am making a point that you are never truly safe as long as criminals exist outside the rule of law. You can outlaw knives too, and you will still be in danger of being the victim of crime using other deadly weapons.
|
On March 01 2012 03:35 Gustis wrote:
I have a question for proponents of the free guns. Where do you draw the line to this freedom/right to arm yourself? What I mean is why only guns, why not something bigger (explosives etc.)?
Personally I draw the line for private ownership to guns that are used for personal defense, nothing outside a semi-automatic rifle or shotgun for use on private land and buildings, or semi-automatic pistols for use in public or in vehicle. I would be hard pressed to justify the ownership of a chain-fed automatic or C4 or propelled explosives in the defense of my life or those of my friends or family. That crosses into the territory of threat that the national guard or militia should be present to handle.
|
On March 01 2012 02:47 mcc wrote:
Why are you then cherry-picking guns and knifes and drawing some conclusion about safety. It does not follow. Also you just assume something about knife-related crimes in US. Do you have any data to back up your statement that it is marginal or are you just making blind speculation ? I think they will be lower than Britain, but frankly comparing anything else than murder rates between countries is extremely iffy task at best as countries differ in what they consider a crime, what is knife-related crime, reporting rates,.....
Yes safety is broader term than just homicide rates, but likelihood of being killed is a big part of it.
Because people in countries that have outlawed firearms for private use have this idea that they are safer in a gun-free society, but even beyond the obvious danger of criminal element which ignores gun law and possesses them anyway, that feel of safety not truly accurate. My point is that knives in the hands of an evil man can be used for crime as easily as guns. The problem is the evil man's heart, not the weapon he chooses. Sure, the death rate in a weapon-based crime is higher in stats involving guns because they are more deadly. But I have yet to see statistics that crime involving weapons is lower in places like the UK.
But that said, I promise that whatever country or culture, crime rates will decrease significantly in the vicinity of a responsible, properly-trained firearm wielding citizen...imagine how many criminals would be deterred just by the thought that the man next to him could be carrying.
I concede that accidental deaths increase drastically in a gun-legal society because of irresponsible owners....but therein lies the true debate in my opinion: Is it worth it? And how do we eliminate irresponsibility in ownership?
|
On March 01 2012 04:06 StarStrider wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2012 03:35 Gustis wrote:
I have a question for proponents of the free guns. Where do you draw the line to this freedom/right to arm yourself? What I mean is why only guns, why not something bigger (explosives etc.)? Personally I draw the line for private ownership to guns that are used for personal defense, nothing outside a semi-automatic rifle or shotgun for use on private land and buildings, or semi-automatic pistols for use in public or in vehicle. I would be hard pressed to justify the ownership of a chain-fed automatic or C4 or propelled explosives in the defense of my life or those of my friends or family. That crosses into the territory of threat that the national guard or militia should be present to handle.
Wasn't going to post in this thread again but honestly this post made me headbutt my desk.
nothing outside a semi-automatic rifle or shotgun..
Are you fucking serious right now? I mean really? You even then go on to speak in a slightly jokey tone about how you couldn't justify a chain fed automatic etc, well I can't justify using a fucking semi automatic rifle or shotgun to stop ANYTHING that would waltz through your front door. Absolutely LUDICROUS. Where do you think you live?
And you talk to me about violent crimes in us to uk? Which one of us thinks it's perfectly reasonable to keep a shotgun under his bed just to feel "safe". REALLY?
I cannot even think of a way to portray my disbelief at your insane contradictions and stupidity.
|
On March 01 2012 04:25 Shirolol wrote:
stuff and more stuff
I know it is hard for you to wrap your head around since you live in a completely gun-free zone, but a rifle/shotgun for home defense is very common here in the States, especially in the part I am from. A pistol is MUCH more common universally obviously, but the rifle is preferred for home defense because of the distance it can be used at if multiple assailants are coming at your home armed. The shotgun is preferred because it can be used in close quarters and in doorways when you don't have time to sight a pistol.
If you would like statistics on how common home invasions by armed assailants are, I would be glad to provide these, as well as video of homeowners scaring them off with personal protection firearms.
EDIT: Another way less common reason that Americans own semi-automatic rifles is protection against the government should our government fail, or should we ever be invaded. I don't see the risk in that happening, but if it ever does I will be glad that they keep caches of rifles at the ready. It is the duty of every American citizen to take charge and band together against the government should the government ever collapse into tyrannical rule of the American people. It is more of a principle thing, that hearkens back to the patriots of the Revolution. Kinda like a pledge of allegiance.
|
On March 01 2012 04:25 Shirolol wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2012 04:06 StarStrider wrote:On March 01 2012 03:35 Gustis wrote:
I have a question for proponents of the free guns. Where do you draw the line to this freedom/right to arm yourself? What I mean is why only guns, why not something bigger (explosives etc.)? Personally I draw the line for private ownership to guns that are used for personal defense, nothing outside a semi-automatic rifle or shotgun for use on private land and buildings, or semi-automatic pistols for use in public or in vehicle. I would be hard pressed to justify the ownership of a chain-fed automatic or C4 or propelled explosives in the defense of my life or those of my friends or family. That crosses into the territory of threat that the national guard or militia should be present to handle. Wasn't going to post in this thread again but honestly this post made me headbutt my desk. Are you fucking serious right now? I mean really? You even then go on to speak in a slightly jokey tone about how you couldn't justify a chain fed automatic etc, well I can't justify using a fucking semi automatic rifle or shotgun to stop ANYTHING that would waltz through your front door. Absolutely LUDICROUS. Where do you think you live? And you talk to me about violent crimes in us to uk? Which one of us thinks it's perfectly reasonable to keep a shotgun under his bed just to feel "safe". REALLY? I cannot even think of a way to portray my disbelief at your insane contradictions and stupidity.
Honestly, a rifle isn't much more than a very accurate hand gun. Nearly all guns are semi-automatic as well, so I don't think that distinction is a big deal either.
I agree that a shotgun might be considered overkill, but some people argue that it is safer in close quarters because it doesn't pass through multiple walls like a rifle might, and that the sound or look alone is more intimidating, etc.
In either case I think you are being overly dramatic here, and resorting to words like "stupidity" is really unnecessary.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v604/insomniaconfessions/speechless.gif)
