Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Chicago Sun-Times)   Remember last week's gun-buy-back program in Chicago? A pro-gun group received over $6000 for turning in "rusty, non-firing junk" and will use that money to buy ammo and rifles for its NRA youth summer camp   (suntimes.com) divider line 287
    More: Followup, Chicago, private ownership, NRA, Champaign, John Boch  
•       •       •

7583 clicks; posted to Main » on 01 Jul 2012 at 12:17 PM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



287 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-01 09:56:52 AM  
Good.

A trained person with a gun in hand and plenty of ammo is a hell of a lot safer than an untrained person without a gun at all.

You see, the trained person probably won't hurt anyone they don't want to hurt regardless, but the untrained person is very likely to just up and get themselves or someone else killed as soon as they have access to a weapon of any sort.
 
2012-07-01 10:04:10 AM  
i3.kym-cdn.com

The more kids that know how to handle firearms safely, the better off we all are.

/Need to get my ass back to the range.
 
2012-07-01 10:05:02 AM  
Ok.

So?
 
2012-07-01 10:25:18 AM  
They trolled the morans. Good on them.
 
2012-07-01 10:42:36 AM  

doglover: A trained person with a gun in hand and plenty of ammo is a hell of a lot safer than an untrained person without a gun at all.


Yep.

Silly Jesus: They trolled the morans. Good on them.


Sounds like they had the same goals. Teaching kids about gun safety goes hand in hand with getting guns off the streets.
 
2012-07-01 10:49:49 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: doglover: A trained person with a gun in hand and plenty of ammo is a hell of a lot safer than an untrained person without a gun at all.

Yep.

Silly Jesus: They trolled the morans. Good on them.

Sounds like they had the same goals. Teaching kids about gun safety goes hand in hand with getting guns off the streets.


Yes, but the mentality of the "get the guns off the streets" people is that of "people don't kill people, guns do, so if we get rid of guns, all will live in peace." These guys are just replacing broken guns with working ones. OMG MORE EVIL GUNS. I think it's funny.
 
2012-07-01 10:57:47 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: Sounds like they had the same goals. Teaching kids about gun safety goes hand in hand with getting guns off the streets.


Agreed. Sounds like a win/win to me. I loved my gun safety course in junior high school. Still can't shoot skeet worth a crap.
 
2012-07-01 10:58:06 AM  

Silly Jesus: Yes, but the mentality of the "get the guns off the streets" people is that of "people don't kill people, guns do, so if we get rid of guns, all will live in peace." These guys are just replacing broken guns with working ones. OMG MORE EVIL GUNS. I think it's funny.


It is? You better go tell them that, because they sure aren't saying it.
 
2012-07-01 10:58:57 AM  

Somacandra: Agreed. Sounds like a win/win to me. I loved my gun safety course in junior high school. Still can't shoot skeet worth a crap.


It's all about timing. Once you figure out exactly how much to lead them it's easy. Unless it's windy, then you're f*cked.
 
2012-07-01 11:01:41 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: Silly Jesus: Yes, but the mentality of the "get the guns off the streets" people is that of "people don't kill people, guns do, so if we get rid of guns, all will live in peace." These guys are just replacing broken guns with working ones. OMG MORE EVIL GUNS. I think it's funny.

It is? You better go tell them that, because they sure aren't saying it.


So what's the point in gathering up guns if it's not believed that guns are the problem?
 
2012-07-01 11:02:05 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: Silly Jesus: Yes, but the mentality of the "get the guns off the streets" people is that of "people don't kill people, guns do, so if we get rid of guns, all will live in peace." These guys are just replacing broken guns with working ones. OMG MORE EVIL GUNS. I think it's funny.

It is? You better go tell them that, because they sure aren't saying it.


He sure showed the people who live in his head!
 
2012-07-01 11:08:58 AM  

Silly Jesus: So what's the point in gathering up guns if it's not believed that guns are the problem?


Makes it a lot harder for people to shoot other people without em, doesn't it?
 
2012-07-01 11:11:36 AM  
I once turned in a broken firearm. It was throated something fierce, and therefore unlikely to fire. But if someone tried, it could result in some severe unpleasantness as the shell casing disintegrated in the receiver.

So it is totally worth it to get those guns out of the public's hands and into molten steel.
 
2012-07-01 11:14:47 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: Silly Jesus: So what's the point in gathering up guns if it's not believed that guns are the problem?

Makes it a lot harder for people to shoot other people without em, doesn't it?


Are you worried about people being shot, or people being killed?
 
2012-07-01 11:18:15 AM  

vygramul: cameroncrazy1984: Silly Jesus: So what's the point in gathering up guns if it's not believed that guns are the problem?

Makes it a lot harder for people to shoot other people without em, doesn't it?

Are you worried about people being shot, or people being killed?


Both, which is why I think the youth safety camps are one of the few things the NRA does right. People who don't understand gun safety are infinitely more dangerous than those who do.
 
2012-07-01 11:26:08 AM  

Silly Jesus: So what's the point in gathering up guns if it's not believed that guns are the problem?


Keeping morons away from guns is a problem.

Taking away people's spare guns out of grandma's garage and such is a good way to clean up the streets of pistols without owners.

Step two is teaching people how to use them responsibly.
 
2012-07-01 11:38:44 AM  

Silly Jesus: people don't kill people, guns do


And guns kill people a lot easier than anything else.

To steal from West Wing:

If you combine the populations of Great Britain, France, Germany, Japan, Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark and Australia, you'll get a population roughly the size of the United States. We had 32,000 gun deaths last year. They had 112. Do you think it's because Americans are more homicidal by nature? Or do you think it's because those guys have gun control laws?

More specifically, using this data from the CDC, which is the most recent confirmed data - 2010 is still preliminary - we have 31,347 people injured from firearms, 18.735 suicides by firearm, and of the 16,799 deaths from homicide in 2009, 11,493 were by gunfire. 68% of all homicides were by gunfire. That's absurd.

Do you know how many countries have a lower death by firearm rate than the US? 54, and those are just the ones we have statistics for.

Do you know how many countries have a higher death by firearm rate than the US? 11. Do you know what paradises those are? South Africa, Columbia, El Salvador, Jamaica, Honduras, Guatemala, Swaziland, Brazil, Estonia, Panama and Mexico. Fantastic places, huh? Half of them have higher death rates because of country-wide drug wars. These are the places we are apparently trying to emulate.

Now, to head off the standard derptastic arguments:

No, all homicides will not cease. Don't be a farking idiot and try to pretend that's what I'm saying. As I pointed out, 32% of all homicides in 2009 were by other methods. Let's make a generous assumption. Let's assume that half of those gun homicides would still have happened by some other way. Ax murder is one the NRA fanatics like to point out, so let's assume they were all murdered by axes. The homicide rate would still plummet by a third. Can you imagine ANY form of legitimate crime prevention that would drop the murder rate by one third in this country besides gun control? I can't. Maybe by doubling the number of police in this country, but that's a LOT of money conservatives, remember? Where are we going to get it from? This is cheap.

Yes, people will still have guns. Nobody is saying outlaw hunting, and yes people will still get guns. As the quote up comment says, gun murderers still happen in country with gun control. The point is to REDUCE them people. Despite how many of you think, the world is not black and white. To say that because all gun crime won't stop therefore we shouldn't have gun control is the dumbest farking argument in the book. People still die in auto accidents, despite modern safety measures. Nobody is saying that we should then toss all the safety measures.

No, you don't need a gun for safety. You don't. If someone kills you from a distance, a gun won't help you anyway, because you don't walk around with it in your hand. This isn't the Wild West, despite how often some of you claim it is with all the minorities committing crimes. A lot of murders happen at close range. Ranges where non-lethal deterrence works. Ever seen a taser fail to drop someone? It's pretty rare. What's more, a taser can be used exactly as a gun would be used, is as easy to pull out, and can be used just as quickly as a gun. In other words, you're no less safe.
 
2012-07-01 11:39:59 AM  
Last time I looked at gun prices, $100 per gun was pretty damned cheap. You guys think I should start my own gun buyback program just to stock up for the impending race war?
 
2012-07-01 11:44:00 AM  
It's not socialism when conservatives do it

//it's downright stealing
 
2012-07-01 11:50:43 AM  
So the gun-buyback program actually inspired something useful. Niiiice.
 
2012-07-01 12:05:48 PM  

GAT_00: If you combine the populations of Great Britain, France, Germany, Japan, Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark and Australia, you'll get a population roughly the size of the United States. We had 32,000 gun deaths last year. They had 112. Do you think it's because Americans are more homicidal by nature? Or do you think it's because those guys have gun control laws?


How do you think that statistic is relevant to anything? Yes, countries with fewer guns have fewer gun deaths. Way to go, Sherlock.
The question is whether they have just as many murders in other forms. Turns out they don't, but it's curious why you chose to cherry pick the particular numbers that you did.
Also worth noting the whole correlation vs causation thing there. For example, Mexico has some pretty strict gun laws but no shortage of murders. Just maybe there's other more relevant differences between the countries you mentioned and the US.

GAT_00: As I pointed out, 32% of all homicides in 2009 were by other methods. Let's make a generous assumption. Let's assume that half of those gun homicides would still have happened by some other way


And what evidence are you using to consider that assumption a generous one? The argument you were trying to head off is the one that says that most or all gun murders would have still happened just some other weapon. Since you don't appear to have any evidence, you just assert that only 50% would have still happened?

GAT_00: No, you don't need a gun for safety. You don't. If someone kills you from a distance, a gun won't help you anyway, because you don't walk around with it in your hand. This isn't the Wild West, despite how often some of you claim it is with all the minorities committing crimes. A lot of murders happen at close range. Ranges where non-lethal deterrence works. Ever seen a taser fail to drop someone? It's pretty rare. What's more, a taser can be used exactly as a gun would be used, is as easy to pull out, and can be used just as quickly as a gun. In other words, you're no less safe.


I tend to agree with this one, but with a few caveats. The taser gives you one shot, so if you miss you're farked. But you're usually probably close enough not to miss.
Also a big part of the usefulness of a gun is scaring away the guy who's trying to rob you. Does a taser look as scary as a gun? (That's not a rhetorical question. I'm genuinely curious about that one. Seems feasible that people would fear death more than unconsciousness, but maybe they still fear failure and arrest enough to get the same result).
 
2012-07-01 12:11:40 PM  

GAT_00: If you combine the populations of Great Britain, France, Germany, Japan, Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark and Australia, you'll get a population roughly the size of the United States. We had 32,000 gun deaths last year. They had 112. Do you think it's because Americans are more homicidal by nature? Or do you think it's because those guys have gun control laws?


I hate to break it to you, but if you look at Canada, you start having to conclude we really are more homicidal by nature. Lots of guns, far fewer deaths nevertheless. Switzerland - way higher penetration of guns (lol), way fewer deaths.

It's actually quite concerning. How the fark did we get to love violence so much and hate sexuality so much? How do we get out of here?
 
2012-07-01 12:23:03 PM  

vygramul: How the fark did we get to love violence so much and hate sexuality so much?


It's the religion, stupid.
 
2012-07-01 12:23:03 PM  
Walking around with a gun that can't fire is the quickest way to get killed.
 
2012-07-01 12:23:32 PM  
i.ytimg.com
 
2012-07-01 12:24:41 PM  

vygramul: hate sexuality


That I blame on the Puritans. As for the violence, I think that may stem from a romanticism of a Wild West where guns solved everything and glorifying those who used guns best, plus Cold War trauma where ultra-violence was present as a possibility every day. I think that slowly traumatizes people and leads to thinking violence is acceptable. It is an interesting coincidence, or perhaps not a coincidence, that violent crime began to fall shortly after the Cold War ended. I wonder if anyone has tried to quantify that.

serial_crusher: Does a taser look as scary as a gun?


This is why I figure gun-style tasers exist. Familiar handling, plus the resemblance gets the point across.

serial_crusher: Since you don't appear to have any evidence, you just assert that only 50% would have still happened?


I'm operating on the assumption that some murders were planned out and were carried out by a gun. If someone decides to kill someone, the ready availability and ease of a gun makes a murder fairly easy to commit. Having to instead stab someone is a lot more personal and some people would not carry that out. Additionally, it is harder to stab someone than shoot someone at range 3 or 4 times. Stabbing is up close and personal, it's a lot easier to fight back, and I would think that the survival rate is higher. Therefore less murders would occur. Additionally, suicide is easier with a gun. Pills are reversible if you get there in time, working up a noose is quite a bit harder, and I don't think all that many people stab themselves to death. So suicides would drop.

serial_crusher: Yes, countries with fewer guns have fewer gun deaths.


Kind of goes with the point I'm making about how we could have fewer pointless deaths. I'm not sure why you find that argument hard to grasp.
 
2012-07-01 12:24:50 PM  
So, will this program result on more accurate drive-by shooting?

Oh, and I predict we'll stop having cars before we stop having guns.
 
2012-07-01 12:25:21 PM  
I'm okay with getting non-working or improperly maintained or dangerously modified guns into the giant scrap metal bin. Using the money for gun safety is even better.
 
2012-07-01 12:25:54 PM  
Does this headline qualify as Herp or Derp?
 
2012-07-01 12:27:14 PM  
There are 'pro-gun'groups? What do they do all day - shoot each other?
 
2012-07-01 12:27:18 PM  
Every so often the system works.
 
2012-07-01 12:27:50 PM  
i'm sure this thread will be filled with calmly reasoned discourse.
 
2012-07-01 12:28:03 PM  
Well, at least the guns that might misfire and hurt someone are out of hand.
 
2012-07-01 12:29:27 PM  

GAT_00: Silly Jesus: people don't kill people, guns do

And guns kill people a lot easier than anything else.

To steal from West Wing:

If you combine the populations of Great Britain, France, Germany, Japan, Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark and Australia, you'll get a population roughly the size of the United States. We had 32,000 gun deaths last year. They had 112. Do you think it's because Americans are more homicidal by nature? Or do you think it's because those guys have gun control laws?

More specifically, using this data from the CDC, which is the most recent confirmed data - 2010 is still preliminary - we have 31,347 people injured from firearms, 18.735 suicides by firearm, and of the 16,799 deaths from homicide in 2009, 11,493 were by gunfire. 68% of all homicides were by gunfire. That's absurd.

Do you know how many countries have a lower death by firearm rate than the US? 54, and those are just the ones we have statistics for.

Do you know how many countries have a higher death by firearm rate than the US? 11. Do you know what paradises those are? South Africa, Columbia, El Salvador, Jamaica, Honduras, Guatemala, Swaziland, Brazil, Estonia, Panama and Mexico. Fantastic places, huh? Half of them have higher death rates because of country-wide drug wars. These are the places we are apparently trying to emulate.

Now, to head off the standard derptastic arguments:

No, all homicides will not cease. Don't be a farking idiot and try to pretend that's what I'm saying. As I pointed out, 32% of all homicides in 2009 were by other methods. Let's make a generous assumption. Let's assume that half of those gun homicides would still have happened by some other way. Ax murder is one the NRA fanatics like to point out, so let's assume they were all murdered by axes. The homicide rate would still plummet by a third. Can you imagine ANY form of legitimate crime prevention that would drop the murder rate by one third in this country besides gun control? I can't. Maybe by doubling the number of police in this country, but that's a LOT of money conservatives, remember? Where are we going to get it from? This is cheap.

Yes, people will still have guns. Nobody is saying outlaw hunting, and yes people will still get guns. As the quote up comment says, gun murderers still happen in country with gun control. The point is to REDUCE them people. Despite how many of you think, the world is not black and white. To say that because all gun crime won't stop therefore we shouldn't have gun control is the dumbest farking argument in the book. People still die in auto accidents, despite modern safety measures. Nobody is saying that we should then toss all the safety measures.

No, you don't need a gun for safety. You don't. If someone kills you from a distance, a gun won't help you anyway, because you don't walk around with it in your hand. This isn't the Wild West, despite how often some of you claim it is with all the minorities committing crimes. A lot of murders happen at close range. Ranges where non-lethal deterrence works. Ever seen a taser fail to drop someone? It's pretty rare. What's more, a taser can be used exactly as a gun would be used, is as easy to pull out, and can be used just as quickly as a gun. In other words, you're no less safe.


Wait a minute: You get your public policy information from fictional TV shows? Even worse, ones that are 15 years old? That's like taking your talking points from Meat-head on All In The Family
 
2012-07-01 12:29:58 PM  
The problem is not with guns or even gun owners. It's the "gun culture" in this country. Go to any show and you'll see what I mean. I'm often ashamed at the bottom feeding morons who own firearms and their troglodyte views on everything from politics to what constitutes a useful addition to a firearm (the answer ain't TAPCO).

The biggest retard comes out of the morons who inhabit the "gun culture". BTW, if you want to push for gun rights without the retards in the NRA-ILA pushing a known "gun grabber" for President simply because he has an "R" next to his name, try the Second Amendment Foundation.
 
2012-07-01 12:30:17 PM  
Good.
At least that program will help do something to benefit the community.

/now think of all the cash gang bangers got from the buy back.
/it's a safe bet their new found wealth won't be used for anything upstanding.
 
2012-07-01 12:32:25 PM  

Silly Jesus: They trolled the morans. Good on them.


Really? I'm not sure I see a downside here. A bunch of shiatty, broken, dangerous firearms have been taken off the street, and funding provided to teach kids responsible firearms use. Who, exactly, is a "moran" here?
 
2012-07-01 12:32:30 PM  
When you fetishize something as much as the NRA does, you find yourself "winning" all kinds of "battles" for your obsession that nobody else knows or cares about.
 
2012-07-01 12:33:20 PM  

GAT_00: I'm operating on the assumption that some murders were planned out and were carried out by a gun. If someone decides to kill someone, the ready availability and ease of a gun makes a murder fairly easy to commit.


this is probably most true for drunken suicides. sure we all get drunk. sure we all have dark thoughts from time to time. but one bad (irreversible) decision and boom goes the head shot. i've lost at least one buddy from this combo.

random question; do they sell breathalyzer based locks for gun safes or trigger locks?
 
2012-07-01 12:36:03 PM  
And not one of those bullets will be used to comment a crime. In fact, what these kids learn may prevent a crime in the future.
 
2012-07-01 12:36:22 PM  

Coming on a Bicycle: There are 'pro-gun'groups? What do they do all day - shoot each other?


Yes that is exactly what they do. How did you become so wise?
 
2012-07-01 12:38:02 PM  

way south: Good.
At least that program will help do something to benefit the community.

/now think of all the cash gang bangers got from the buy back.
/it's a safe bet their new found wealth won't be used for anything upstanding.


Rims.
 
2012-07-01 12:38:39 PM  

serial_crusher: You guys think I should start my own gun buyback program just to stock up for the impending race class war?

 
2012-07-01 12:38:50 PM  

GAT_00: It is an interesting coincidence, or perhaps not a coincidence, that violent crime began to fall shortly after the Cold War ended. I wonder if anyone has tried to quantify that.


I thought that was more due to available birth control (& legal abortions) than anything else. Not as many farked-up and unwanted people being born....


/ sorry to go OT here
 
2012-07-01 12:39:01 PM  
I see no problem with this at all.
 
2012-07-01 12:39:34 PM  
And those are a bunch of rusty, non-firing junk which won't be stolen and turned into something that only has to fire once while robbing a gas station.
 
2012-07-01 12:39:52 PM  

GAT_00:

serial_crusher: Yes, countries with fewer guns have fewer gun deaths.

Kind of goes with the point I'm making about how we could have fewer pointless deaths. I'm not sure why you find that argument hard to grasp.


And countries with fewer cars have fewer automobile accident deaths, so we should ban cars?
 
2012-07-01 12:39:59 PM  
data.whicdn.com
 
2012-07-01 12:40:20 PM  

Forbidden Doughnut: GAT_00: It is an interesting coincidence, or perhaps not a coincidence, that violent crime began to fall shortly after the Cold War ended. I wonder if anyone has tried to quantify that.

I thought that was more due to available birth control (& legal abortions) than anything else. Not as many farked-up and unwanted people being born....


/ sorry to go OT here


That's one argument. I think it does have value, but I'm not convinced it can account for everything.
 
2012-07-01 12:40:29 PM  

GAT_00: vygramul: hate sexuality

That I blame on the Puritans. As for the violence, I think that may stem from a romanticism of a Wild West where guns solved everything and glorifying those who used guns best, plus Cold War trauma where ultra-violence was present as a possibility every day. I think that slowly traumatizes people and leads to thinking violence is acceptable. It is an interesting coincidence, or perhaps not a coincidence, that violent crime began to fall shortly after the Cold War ended. I wonder if anyone has tried to quantify that.

serial_crusher: Does a taser look as scary as a gun?

This is why I figure gun-style tasers exist. Familiar handling, plus the resemblance gets the point across.

serial_crusher: Since you don't appear to have any evidence, you just assert that only 50% would have still happened?

I'm operating on the assumption that some murders were planned out and were carried out by a gun. If someone decides to kill someone, the ready availability and ease of a gun makes a murder fairly easy to commit. Having to instead stab someone is a lot more personal and some people would not carry that out. Additionally, it is harder to stab someone than shoot someone at range 3 or 4 times. Stabbing is up close and personal, it's a lot easier to fight back, and I would think that the survival rate is higher. Therefore less murders would occur. Additionally, suicide is easier with a gun. Pills are reversible if you get there in time, working up a noose is quite a bit harder, and I don't think all that many people stab themselves to death. So suicides would drop.

serial_crusher: Yes, countries with fewer guns have fewer gun deaths.

Kind of goes with the point I'm making about how we could have fewer pointless deaths. I'm not sure why you find that argument hard to grasp.


You do realize that the Wild West was mainly a concoction of fiction right. The gunfights are so famous because they were rare. Now in my personal belief, we have glorified violence as a country. This is due to our youth as a country, as well as our throwing of the yoke of a tyrannical government through force of arms. Now, I am one of those that thinks that having guns in the hands of individuals makes throwing off tyrannical goverment easier, but you have to have a inate distrust of auithority as a natio to make it happen.

Our drug laws also contribute to our high murder rate. I would love to see a comparison with outher nations homicide rates, excluding drug related homicide. This would give us an idea of what the effect of liberalizing our drug laws would be. In the end until we look at the true effects of these things can we act in a rational manner. But until we address these things we are not going to find any real solutions, for to the victim of a homicide, or any violent crime for that matter, the tool used to commit the act is much less important than the act itself. If my gun has no effect on you, then you you have no interest in my gun. Much like sexuality, drug use, or any other action.
 
Displayed 50 of 287 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report