Aw, not enough :( . I miss you, too, Kat. One of these days I'll actually convince myself to break my Giz habits and check out Gizduck (yeah, I can shorten things, too :P ).

I was about cracking up when I saw you ask Kat why she "left us for England" xD . I was like, "Hmm...could it be because she's...I dunno...English?" xD

Same here. After Giz UK launched, I kept telling myself I'd check there every so often for Kat's articles. Never did :( . I'm ashamed of my lack of motivation to do things.

Overdose effects are not side effects. Two different categories. And what's wrong with aspirin?

I was talking about the birth control pills mentioned in this article. You know, the male birth control pills? The things this entire article is about? The subject of the thread? Sound familiar?

:) Nice, Molly! I just hope you realize that not all male readers of Giz are like that; personally, I regard you as one of the better writers around here. (No, as much as that sounds like it, I'm not sucking up; just being honest)

[Insert cry of sexism here]

Why? That didn't work for you, either, did it?

They're both getting men on different celestial bodies. Just like these are both male contraceptives. The difference is which celestial body—or, in this case, whether you take a pill or get a needle in your penis.

Chalk? You're eating chalk because...why?

...side effects of water are? Or aspirin? How about oranges?

...the only thing birth control pills do is control birth, yes. Is that a surprise?

But those aren't the intended uses of the devices. They have other, more prevalent uses that don't kill. Whereas the most prevalent (and cited "intended") use of a gun is self-defense, and the only way to defend yourself with a gun is to be willing to shoot someone with it.

Good to know that you'll never cause injury or death to anyone with your gun. I guess I may as well rob you now, since you won't use that gun against me. So...how is it helping you, again?

I don't agree with MAD on ANY scale, so trying to reference the military, nuclear scale version isn't persuading me at all. We haven't used the nukes YET, but if we weren't willing to use them at all, they'd be no threat. The threat is in the fact that we're willing to launch Earth-destroying nukes, and that's a…

And if it's not being used as a weapon, why be afraid of it? You're only afraid of it if you know it will be used as a weapon.

I thought it was obvious, but I'll clarify: the "we" I refer to is the group of people who are against gun use.

Exactly. Which is almost guaranteed death. Which again, is not something that should be encouraged. If you're trying to make the argument that "if my attacker is wearing thick clothing, a face mask, and a bulletproof vest, I can still kill him with a headshot, so guns are worth it," I have to say it's a very weak…

How can I call it a weapon? Because that's what it is. You can't deter anyone with a gun unless you're willing to fire it at someone. Firing it at someone always causes severe injury and often death. Therefore, you can't deter anyone with a gun unless you're willing to cause injury or death, which is the very…

Tasers aren't primarily used to cause pain. They do cause pain, but that's not how they disable a potential attacker. They do so because when you're being shocked at high voltage, your muscles all contract and you no longer have any control over your motions. That's not something a high pain tolerance can stop. Some…