ah >.< looked like you lost a lot more :\.

lol congrats!

you just sit there and keep it warm for us till we feel like it's time to take over

oooh a threat . *jumps sols* oh wait damn, it's only bor :\.

anywayss, how's cor/deflect/greene/TT/any others who stayed in the fam?

mmm.... what Chris_Balsz said. except with better beer .

or this stuff:

http://www.sanurparadise.com/images/photo-gallery/dimsum.menu.jpg

http://lh4.ggpht.com/chrischee18/SHRPwVlCdzI/AAAAAAAABaQ/TCBreTrSCvY/s800/maguro-sashimi-tuna.JPG

lolz, we're napped smartass .
and i'll kick your butt even with revalons!

@Car

i'm in     -= Heroes =- (3909) . lucky random.

and of course i miss you guys, but i bet you guys miss me more .

tyvm .

>>even if that view i gave you is simplistic (i myself gave explanations for why it wouldn't be like that), you chose to say i was wrong when i gave an arguement against that view<<

You seem confused. I quoted you directly and expressed objection to your claim that welfare reduces crime. Are you saying you claimed that welfare both increases and reduces crime rates?

uhm, i remember saying poverty could cause crime, but that it wasn't one of the only causes. By removing my arguement for poverty not being the only cause for crime, you yourself created the simplistic view that crime is a direct consequence of poverty.
you only object, you don't give arguements.

@einstein:
i do agree that each location that has banned guns experienced a spike in crimes. however, isn't this spike because the criminals are the ones who refused to give up their weapon and now are using it against people without them (so lower risk for crime). When you have a nation where guns never had been at a high number, or where it has become prohibited to wear firearms without a very-hard-to-get-gun license and has been so for a long time already, the crime rate is *on average, with UK and all being exceptions to the rule* lower (look at germany, netherlands, belgium, norway... etc).

i do not agree that places with high amounts of guns have a lower amount of crime. take your own example, mexico, where there's huge amounts of people who are in gangs who have access to weapons. look at all the places where there are civil wars, and all the places where there are international wars. A lot of guns there, also a lot of crime there. now look at most of europe: not a lot of guns, not a lot of crime.
So no, i do not agree to this point.

it is true that police cannot be everywhere at once, and having a big enough police force to do that would probably give too much power to the leaders of the police and also cost too much money. however, why would you need extreme measures of self-defense, instead of say basic martial arts training or pepperspray, or even the kick-in-the-balls technique, when there is less (extreme) crime.

@v. kemp
if the welfare isn't substantial, then of course there are high crime rates among them. oh and btw, if you had not yet noticed, your source is only about youth crime, not about crime in total.
even if that view i gave you is simplistic (i myself gave explanations for why it wouldn't be like that), you chose to say i was wrong when i gave an arguement against that view... so in fact you yourself created that simplistic view by not giving any other arguements for why that view is wrong, which is something i actually tried to do.

@V.Kemp
as i am comparing the USA to the Netherlands (as i said i was doing), i think i am right. i never said this was a statistic, i said it was a possibility, and it was even an arguement against my own statement (saying that poverty was not the only cause of a higher crime rate).

thanks for helping support my point that poverty causes higher crime rates, aka wealth distribution (which would reduce the amount of poor people i'd say) would help against crime, so in that way wealth distribution improves our living standards. which brings us back to: wealth distribution benefits all.

I don't know what side you are on, but you seem confused about it.

@V.Kemp:
the first source has calculated poverty by use of the American federal poverty line. don't know how it works... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_united_states
if you would've checked my first source you would've seen that it indeed accounted for the costs of living. http://www.cbs.nl/en-GB/menu/themas/ink