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  
•       •       •

7574 clicks; posted to Main » on 01 Jul 2012 at 12:17 PM (2 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 01:03:07 PM

GAT_00: So you're just going to ignore that whole part you don't like about how you're advocating that we actively oppose the intent of the Constitution.


We? You're in the minority.
 
2012-07-01 01:03:52 PM

R.A.Danny: My high school had a range for this very purpose, but it was turned into storage long ago.


Kids and teachers used to have their hunting rifles and shotguns in their vehicles as they went hunting before or after (or both) school. But the Gun Free School Zone Safety Act was passed which made it illegal to have firearms within 1000 ft of a school so that came to an end.

It's usually the city kids that have the most trouble with guns as they were never taught how to act around them and they associate "guns = bad" as they only see criminals with guns. Country kids usually don't have trouble with guns as guns are part of the culture. They are brought up around guns, taught to respect guns and that guns are tools and not toys.

Even an Eddie Eagle course would be beneficial to kids. If you see a gun, STOP. Don't touch it. Leave the area. Tell an adult.
 
2012-07-01 01:03:58 PM

GAT_00: microdome: I still fail to see your point.

So, safety measures for cars are good, but safety measures for guns are bad. That appears to be your point.

globalwarmingpraiser: The US doesn't even make the top ten

Therefore suicide isn't a problem! Marvelous.


Talk about dense, your missing the point. Guns aren't effectively increasing our suicide rates. They are just the method used. You know you are not good on this issue. Tell me, how does my gun have any effect on you, even if I am a CCW holder. If it has no effect on you, then it isn't your problem.
 
2012-07-01 01:04:00 PM

globalwarmingpraiser: What firearm that you can purchase as a civilian without a lot of hassle, tax stamp and background checks, is intended as a "spray weapon"


I forgot, all guns are still single shot weapons. How's life back in the 1500s?

R.A.Danny: Just shedding light on the troll that you are.


I like being called a troll from the guy actively trying to derail the thread with off topic insults. It really convinces me that you're right.
 
2012-07-01 01:04:23 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.


At least the gang members will be safer. That's what counts.
 
2012-07-01 01:05:22 PM

cretinbob: It's not socialism when conservatives do it

//it's downright stealing


... and that comment, folks, is Devolution In Action™

/made me LOL
 
2012-07-01 01:06:00 PM

KrispyKritter: just start shooting the right people and we can all enjoy a nicer place to live. fark that heartbreak homicide-suicide noise or street crime. go bag a few politicians and captains of industry. every week. pretty soon the rest of them will catch on and we'll see all sorts of things improve in america.


What department would be responsive for the tags? You don't want to over hunt...
 
2012-07-01 01:06:49 PM

dustman81: Kids and teachers used to have their hunting rifles and shotguns in their vehicles as they went hunting before or after (or both) school. But the Gun Free School Zone Safety Act was passed which made it illegal to have firearms within 1000 ft of a school so that came to an end.


My dad used to put his shotgun in his locker so he and his friends could hunt pheasants on the way home from school.
 
2012-07-01 01:07:01 PM

GAT_00: Half of them have higher death rates because of country-wide drug wars.


Maybe you hit the nail on the head there. Until the US government-backed Big Pharma and all the small timers end their feuds over the US drug trade, why would there be any hope of the gun violence ending here?
 
2012-07-01 01:07:21 PM

GAT_00: globalwarmingpraiser: What firearm that you can purchase as a civilian without a lot of hassle, tax stamp and background checks, is intended as a "spray weapon"

I forgot, all guns are still single shot weapons. How's life back in the 1500s?

R.A.Danny: Just shedding light on the troll that you are.

I like being called a troll from the guy actively trying to derail the thread with off topic insults. It really convinces me that you're right.


A semi Automatic is not a spray weapon. A M-249 SAW is a spray weapon.
 
2012-07-01 01:07:47 PM

gingerjet: And violent crime in this country has been falling steadily since 1990. Matter of fact - it has never been lower. And there are more guns on street than any time in our history. And besides - the majority of gun related deaths are ... get this ... suicides.


Yes, I know. You could have gotten those citations from MY ACTUAL POSTS. I like it when people actively chose to ignore every argument I make and instead try to simply make villains.

R.A.Danny: We? You're in the minority.


So was civil rights once. Doesn't mean I'm automatically wrong, and you haven't even tried to disprove a single thing, just go for insults. Even the GOP trolls on here make better arguments every day with their threadshiatting than you do while calling me the troll. You can go away. You won't be missed.

globalwarmingpraiser: your missing the point


Says the guy who has completely ignored every single thing I've written.
 
2012-07-01 01:09:33 PM

GAT_00: gingerjet: And violent crime in this country has been falling steadily since 1990. Matter of fact - it has never been lower. And there are more guns on street than any time in our history. And besides - the majority of gun related deaths are ... get this ... suicides.

Yes, I know. You could have gotten those citations from MY ACTUAL POSTS. I like it when people actively chose to ignore every argument I make and instead try to simply make villains.

R.A.Danny: We? You're in the minority.

So was civil rights once. Doesn't mean I'm automatically wrong, and you haven't even tried to disprove a single thing, just go for insults. Even the GOP trolls on here make better arguments every day with their threadshiatting than you do while calling me the troll. You can go away. You won't be missed.

globalwarmingpraiser: your missing the point

Says the guy who has completely ignored every single thing I've written.


No I hav e not. I am actively calling you wrong. You are looking to stop the effect not the cause. End our war on drugs and gun crime drops dramatically.
 
2012-07-01 01:09:37 PM

GAT_00: microdome: I still fail to see your point.

So, safety measures for cars are good, but safety measures for guns are bad. That appears to be your point.



That's not what you advocated. You advocated LESS guns, not guns which are safer to operate.

We have manufacturing and quality control standards, and safety features, which guard against catastrophic failures of the firearm which would harm the operator or guard against unintentional discharges which could harm an innocent. We have automobiles with quality control and safety features which essentially provide the same protections... safety for the operators and bystanders.

So you try and establish a false equivalence instead between banning guns and safety features in cars. He called you out on that not making sense, because it doesn't. It's analogous to you wanting to make cars safer by banning them. That appears to be your point.
 
2012-07-01 01:09:39 PM
4.bp.blogspot.com

BRAVO!!! I just hope this doesn't dissuade the misguided do-gooders out there from continuing the gun buy-back programs.
 
2012-07-01 01:09:51 PM

GAT_00: So was civil rights once.


Rights. Interesting that you would use that term while trying to take rights away.
 
2012-07-01 01:10:05 PM

R.A.Danny: Aikidogamer: I tend to agree Americans are more violent.

We have an oppressed class that is responsible for such a high percentage of violent crime that we'd be considered one of the safest societies without them.
We created this monster with racism.


Smartest comment here so far. It is so much easier to address the symptoms that address the cause.
 
2012-07-01 01:11:54 PM

microdome: GAT_00: microdome: Fewer cars=fewer car accidents

Which is why we have safety equipment in cars. As many people die today in car crashes as did in 1970 IIRC, but there are something like three times as many cars. Therefore, car safety has saved measures. So your argument is utter bullshiat. What you are actually arguing by using cars as an example is that gun safety and control is a good thing. So thanks for making my argument for me.

And firearms have safeties and de-cockers for the same reason. I still fail to see your point. Diminishing the number of ladders would diminish deaths from falls, which still is a nonsense argument for gun control.


Not all. My glock. 21sf does not. I prefer the safety between the ears.
 
2012-07-01 01:12:47 PM
The Swiss can own fully automatic weapons. The Swiss are actually the only nation in the world with a comparable "gun culture" but they are also way smaller and more homogenous as a people. The difference between your typical Swiss gun owner and typical American gun owner is also pretty big. Once more, the vaunted American "gun culture" comes to make all American gun owners look like a bunch of religious, paranoid, loonies with mommy issues.

/Gun owner.
//Liberal
///Signs all gun show petitions against the UN with the name "Harold Balls".
 
2012-07-01 01:12:47 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?


I kind of like how the Swiss gun control laws.

And yes, a gun can be very useful if you hear someone breaking into your house in the middle of the night. A gun might even prevent said individuals from getting all rapey on your wife and daughter.
 
2012-07-01 01:13:25 PM

Aikidogamer: microdome: GAT_00: microdome: Fewer cars=fewer car accidents

Which is why we have safety equipment in cars. As many people die today in car crashes as did in 1970 IIRC, but there are something like three times as many cars. Therefore, car safety has saved measures. So your argument is utter bullshiat. What you are actually arguing by using cars as an example is that gun safety and control is a good thing. So thanks for making my argument for me.

And firearms have safeties and de-cockers for the same reason. I still fail to see your point. Diminishing the number of ladders would diminish deaths from falls, which still is a nonsense argument for gun control.

Not all. My glock. 21sf does not. I prefer the safety between the ears.


Doesn't your Glock have the Glock Trigger safety?
 
2012-07-01 01:15:04 PM
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.


An even Cheaper method (that would also solve drug ,gambling ,child,elder,spouse ,ect. abuse as well as homelessness ,rape,theft from pickpockets to Enron and a range of other griefs plauging hummanity , including an inevitable war between the US and Russia BTW) would simply be to teach the biblical precepts of mercy ,generosity,patience and 'love of neighbor' to as many people and nations as possible.
But youd have to give up movies where people have their mouths sewn to other peoples assholes and forced to eat their poop .Youd also have to give up drinking junkets to Hooters as well. not to mention gambling trips to LasVegas.And Cannibal Corpse will undoubtedly disband and there wont be anymore weird porn to masturbate to online.If this actually happened we might actually start to see some real evolution forward..............Never mind
 
2012-07-01 01:15:06 PM

GAT_00: gingerjet: And violent crime in this country has been falling steadily since 1990. Matter of fact - it has never been lower. And there are more guns on street than any time in our history. And besides - the majority of gun related deaths are ... get this ... suicides.

Yes, I know. You could have gotten those citations from MY ACTUAL POSTS. I like it when people actively chose to ignore every argument I make and instead try to simply make villains.

R.A.Danny: We? You're in the minority.

So was civil rights once. Doesn't mean I'm automatically wrong, and you haven't even tried to disprove a single thing, just go for insults. Even the GOP trolls on here make better arguments every day with their threadshiatting than you do while calling me the troll. You can go away. You won't be missed.

globalwarmingpraiser: your missing the point

Says the guy who has completely ignored every single thing I've written.



You keep repeating like a mantra that everyone one is "ignoring" the points you're making, but they're certainly not. They're actually exploiting the weaknesses in your arguments, and you keep just insisting in return that they're "ignoring" you.

Disagreeing does not equal ignoring.
Finding flaws in your logic does not equal ignoring.

However IGNORING those weaknesses people are calling out in your arguments and then just stubbornly pretending like they aren't - and calling them idiots - DOES equal ignoring.
 
2012-07-01 01:17:01 PM

GAT_00: Half of them have higher death rates because of country-wide drug wars. These are the places we are apparently trying to emulate.


Are you saying that you support putting an end the drug war in the US? About time, dude.
 
2012-07-01 01:17:31 PM
Good job to the NRA on this. I like it when good people find ways of getting their money back from any level of government and putting to a better use than any government could ever hope to use it for.
 
2012-07-01 01:18:27 PM

SuddenlySamhain: 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?


As I said earlier, if we found a way to unfark what racism did to this country, we'd have a far lower violent crime rate than any of these nations.
 
2012-07-01 01:18:59 PM

dustman81: R.A.Danny: My high school had a range for this very purpose, but it was turned into storage long ago.

Kids and teachers used to have their hunting rifles and shotguns in their vehicles as they went hunting before or after (or both) school. But the Gun Free School Zone Safety Act was passed which made it illegal to have firearms within 1000 ft of a school so that came to an end.

It's usually the city kids that have the most trouble with guns as they were never taught how to act around them and they associate "guns = bad" as they only see criminals with guns. Country kids usually don't have trouble with guns as guns are part of the culture. They are brought up around guns, taught to respect guns and that guns are tools and not toys.

Even an Eddie Eagle course would be beneficial to kids. If you see a gun, STOP. Don't touch it. Leave the area. Tell an adult.


Pretty much. I may be a redneck (albeit a sophisticated one), but I know inanimate objects are not evil or good and certainly not capable of killing on their own.
 
2012-07-01 01:19:06 PM

edmo: As long as they don't hand the guns and ammo back to the criminals that were turning the other junk in, who cares?


Problem is that buyback programs hand out cash with too few questions for hardware with no use.
If you took some of these busted up weapons to a pawn shop they'd barely give you scrap metal value.

The same way a second amendment rights group can get this much money for their cause, an organized gang of criminals could turn their paperweights into a dozen brand new weapons. Lord only knows how many imported AK's you can get for six grand.
Its an illusion to say you used public funds to do good if all you did was exchange old weapons for new.

/Not that I believe in gun control. Far from it.
/I just hate seeing tax money wasted on a willfully stupid program.
/Forget the buyback program and invest in the community from the start.
 
2012-07-01 01:19:08 PM
microdome

But you're making the same argument. Fewer guns=fewer gun deaths. Fewer cars=fewer car accidents, fewer buckets=fewer kids drowning in buckets. That's only logical.

Ignorant, you are it.

Driving population (thus car ownership) is growing yet accident rates a have dropped significantly. Not that your fear mongering "texting while driving" frauds will face that fact.

Gun ownership has skyrocketed in the past 10-15 years, yet firearm related crimes have plummeted.

Your "logic" fails, but don't let facts get in the way of your whargarble.
 
2012-07-01 01:20:55 PM

JosephFinn: Jesus, can we just ban terrorist groups like the NRA and get it over with?


You are an established liar and his your claims are not credible.
 
2012-07-01 01:20:57 PM

Aikidogamer: dustman81: R.A.Danny: My high school had a range for this very purpose, but it was turned into storage long ago.

Kids and teachers used to have their hunting rifles and shotguns in their vehicles as they went hunting before or after (or both) school. But the Gun Free School Zone Safety Act was passed which made it illegal to have firearms within 1000 ft of a school so that came to an end.

It's usually the city kids that have the most trouble with guns as they were never taught how to act around them and they associate "guns = bad" as they only see criminals with guns. Country kids usually don't have trouble with guns as guns are part of the culture. They are brought up around guns, taught to respect guns and that guns are tools and not toys.

Even an Eddie Eagle course would be beneficial to kids. If you see a gun, STOP. Don't touch it. Leave the area. Tell an adult.

Pretty much. I may be a redneck (albeit a sophisticated one), but I know inanimate objects are not evil or good and certainly not capable of killing on their own.



While I am not saying this wouldn't help, the violent people in this country aren't getting any education in the first place.
 
2012-07-01 01:23:27 PM

SuddenlySamhain: An even Cheaper method (that would also solve drug ,gambling ,child,elder,spouse ,ect. abuse as well as homelessness ,rape,theft from pickpockets to Enron and a range of other griefs plauging hummanity , including an inevitable war between the US and Russia BTW) would simply be to teach the biblical precepts of mercy ,generosity,patience and 'love of neighbor' to as many people and nations as possible.
But youd have to give up movies where people have their mouths sewn to other peoples assholes and forced to eat their poop .Youd also have to give up drinking junkets to Hooters as well. not to mention gambling trips to LasVegas.And Cannibal Corpse will undoubtedly disband and there wont be anymore weird porn to masturbate to online.If this actually happened we might actually start to see some real evolution forward..............Never mind



You say that... and yet the states with the highest murder rates are also some of the states with the most religious populations as well. Louisiana, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, etc.. The answer to lowering violence is not as simple as "we need more Jesus". The Hutus and Tutsis in Rwanda are very religious people, mostly Christianity, and yet it wasn't that long ago that they slaughtered each other in a massive genocide.

"More Jesus" is simply not an effective method for reducing violence. It's just not that simple.
 
2012-07-01 01:23:28 PM

mongbiohazard: You keep repeating like a mantra that everyone one is "ignoring" the points you're making, but they're certainly not.


There's quite a shortage of actual counterargument here. Everyone, including you, have either gone with responses I've already dismissed or gone for outright insults. I'm happy to address legitimate arguments, but I never see them.

violentsalvation: GAT_00: Half of them have higher death rates because of country-wide drug wars. These are the places we are apparently trying to emulate.

Are you saying that you support putting an end the drug war in the US? About time, dude.


Hey, more off-topic. And as I've said before, I'm not all that big on rewarding criminals.
 
2012-07-01 01:23:31 PM

globalwarmingpraiser: Aikidogamer: microdome: GAT_00: microdome: Fewer cars=fewer car accidents

Which is why we have safety equipment in cars. As many people die today in car crashes as did in 1970 IIRC, but there are something like three times as many cars. Therefore, car safety has saved measures. So your argument is utter bullshiat. What you are actually arguing by using cars as an example is that gun safety and control is a good thing. So thanks for making my argument for me.

And firearms have safeties and de-cockers for the same reason. I still fail to see your point. Diminishing the number of ladders would diminish deaths from falls, which still is a nonsense argument for gun control.

Not all. My glock. 21sf does not. I prefer the safety between the ears.

Doesn't your Glock have the Glock Trigger safety?


Yes, it is a little plastic part that the trigger finger depresses anyway, so I don't really count it. It is not a switch like my M4 has, or a decocker like my wife's USP .45 has.
 
2012-07-01 01:24:22 PM
Let me get this straight - two groups of d-bags game the system to promote their own agendas while the hard-working tax payers get stuck with the bill?

So, business as usual then?
 
2012-07-01 01:25:21 PM

GAT_00: There's quite a shortage of actual counterargument here. Everyone, including you, have either gone with responses I've already dismissed or gone for outright insults.


Call it what you want, but you're being dismissed along with your very weak arguments, with good reason.
 
2012-07-01 01:25:54 PM

globalwarmingpraiser: GAT_00: globalwarmingpraiser: Method is complately unimportant.

Yeah, it's equally easy to kill yourself no matter the method. The method has no meaning at all. I forgot you were actually this dense.

R.A.Danny: Except for those willing to throw The Constitution in the trash of course.

Every single amendment is flexible and has changed greatly in interpretation over the years. What's more, the Constitution was intended to change over time. So to stand there and scream that one amendment should never change in the slightest not only goes contrary to the actual intent of the Constitution, but also says that you think the people who designed the document to change were wrong.

gingerjet: I leave it to others to rip apart your arguments

I've yet to see anyone disprove anything or make an argument that I didn't already address and dismiss.

gingerjet: enshrined in our founding documents

See above.

I provided some statistics for you on actualy suicide rates.The US doesn't even make the top ten. Sure guns are more effective, but if someone is truely to that point of despair, they are going to succeed. It's not a matter of being dense, it is a matter of being exposed to these things in reality. Remember I am one of those guys that works on the streets, been back out here over a year now, and I actually see these things.


GAT_00 is uninterested in comparison of suicide rates between nations. Instead, he wishes to compare the rate of firearm-related suicides in the United States with the total firearm-related death rates of other nations because such a false and intellectually dishonest comparison is more conducive to his advocacy of civilian disarmament.
 
2012-07-01 01:28:47 PM

titwrench: Guns are tools no different than a hammer.


While this is true, I'd like to point out that weapons grade uranium is a tool with legitimate uses. Yet for some reason people would feel uncomfortable with weapons grade uranium being available to the general public. There is also the point that was made (I believe it was GAT) that there is the ease of use. Killing someone with a gun is easier than killing someone with a random other tool that people might have lying about in there house. This causes an increase in the spur of the moment attacks, which tend to end badly.

titwrench: If you give a hammer to a craftsman you will get a house. You give it to a psychopath you will get a crushed skull.


Yet for some strange reason I'd prefer someone coming at me with a hammer or knife than someone not even needing to come at me with a gun.

On guns for self defence: you primarily need a gun for self defence because you expect the other guy to have a gun. The other guy has a gun because he expects you to have a gun. Why would a burglar take a gun with him (Increased penalty when caught? At the very least an extra burden) if running away would be enough protection from someone who replied by bringing out a hammer/knife/baseball bat? It's no defence against murder since shouting out to people so they can see you kill them happens primarily in fictional works and it is no defence against rape. If someone drags you into a dark alley and you manage to overcome the surprise, momentum and instinctual reactions you'd still need to get the gun, aim and pull the trigger. Especially that last point is something nearly all people don't like to do when pointing a gun at a person. Use a gun to defend your family? From what? Other people who carry guns to defend themselves from gun owners while committing the crime?

In all those cases the addition of guns handled by both parties only increases tension and the chance that one or both parties freak out and shoot the other or bystanders.
 
2012-07-01 01:28:53 PM

R.A.Danny: GAT_00: There's quite a shortage of actual counterargument here. Everyone, including you, have either gone with responses I've already dismissed or gone for outright insults.

Call it what you want, but you're being dismissed along with your very weak arguments, with good reason.


I'm being dismissed by partisans who have no intention of listening to any argument but their own? Shocking.
 
2012-07-01 01:29:36 PM

dustman81: [i3.kym-cdn.com image 379x214]

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.


Exactly. Going towards teaching young people about firearms safety? Just fine with that, thanks.
/Cadet rifle team member for 3 years.
 
2012-07-01 01:31:19 PM

GAT_00: There's quite a shortage of actual counterargument here. Everyone, including you, have either gone with responses I've already dismissed or gone for outright insults. I'm happy to address legitimate arguments, but I never see them.


There's no shortage of counterarguments, you're simply ignoring them yourself and projecting that action on to others. And just because you dismiss a legitimate point preemptively doesn't make it any less legitimate. You still would need to address that criticism when it was raised. I think you refuse to do so because you usually know you can't.

For instance, you've made these arguments before and know damn well you can't really argue when someone points out that if you're going to claim that banning guns reduces violence that you have to compare overall homicide rates, and that there are numerous examples of places with high gun ownership and low violence... which clearly points to a flaw in your logic. So instead you just choose to stubbornly refuse to address it and pretend that means the flaw in your logic doesn't exist because that means OTHER people are ignoring you when you made the baseless claim.

Ummm, no, it's just that they're pointing out that your claim was baseless. That's the very HEART of argument. You're the one doing all the stubborn ignoring, guy.
 
2012-07-01 01:31:24 PM

GAT_00: R.A.Danny: GAT_00: There's quite a shortage of actual counterargument here. Everyone, including you, have either gone with responses I've already dismissed or gone for outright insults.

Call it what you want, but you're being dismissed along with your very weak arguments, with good reason.

I'm being dismissed by partisans who have no intention of listening to any argument but their own? Shocking.


Pot, meet kettle.

Dimensio: false and intellectually dishonest


Hit the nail on the head there.
 
2012-07-01 01:32:14 PM
You know, when Gilbert Arenas, Plaxico Burress and any assorted professional athlete gets caught with a gun, we hear nothing from the NRA. No calls for changing the gun laws, no calls for more education, nothing. Total Radio Silence, but whenever some paranoid bed wetter gets caught with a gun, there's a racket to the high heavens about how unfair the world is.

I wonder what's the difference?
 
2012-07-01 01:32:26 PM

GAT_00: R.A.Danny: GAT_00: There's quite a shortage of actual counterargument here. Everyone, including you, have either gone with responses I've already dismissed or gone for outright insults.

Call it what you want, but you're being dismissed along with your very weak arguments, with good reason.

I'm being dismissed by partisans who have no intention of listening to any argument but their own? Shocking.



i32.photobucket.com
 
2012-07-01 01:33:02 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?


Seriously? Anything you had to say went in the crapper the second you quoted a TV show, especially one with an agenda and that is horribly, horribly, horribly, wrong anyway.

For instance, in 2009 the UK alone had 138 deaths by firearms.... So apparently those other countries you listed have figured out how to bring the dead back to life by shooting them? But wait, France had 142 in 2008.... Are all the doctors in these other nations armed with magical resurrecting firearms or something?

Lets add them up from the most recent numbers available.....

UK 138
France 142
Germany 953
Switzerland 279
Sweden 138
Denmark 79
Australia 225
Italy 799
Spain 307
Total = 3060

I replaced Japan with Italy and Spain since Japan hasn't provided good numbers for over a decade, making their numbers useless. Italy and Spain seem appropriate to me since they have 1/3rd the gun ownership rate of France and Germany (~10 per 100 in Italy and Spain vs ~30 per 100 in both France and Germany), both are 1st world nations just as much as any of those listed, making them a fair choice. It also helps offset the cherry-picked nature of these numbers just a tad.

If you look at the deaths by gun to gun ownership rate in those countries you will see that some of them have just as high a rate as the US, others have much lower. But more importantly, if you look at historical numbers you will find that in Australia and the UK, both countries that have enacted strong gun control laws relatively recently, the death by firearm rate was almost entirely unaffected by those laws.

The problem in the US is based on cultural, socio-economic, and historic factorsl (we literally have not yet come close to recovering from the damage done by prohibition, let alone slavery), and is only minorly impacted by the gun ownership rate. If you don't believe me though, look at Germany and France. Same gun ownership rate (as each other), massive difference in deaths by firearm... It isn't about the guns, it is about the people and the society and a host of other factors that lead PEOPLE to want to harm others.
 
2012-07-01 01:33:56 PM

Komplex: You know, when Gilbert Arenas, Plaxico Burress and any assorted professional athlete gets caught with a gun, we hear nothing from the NRA. No calls for changing the gun laws, no calls for more education, nothing. Total Radio Silence, but whenever some paranoid bed wetter gets caught with a gun, there's a racket to the high heavens about how unfair the world is.

I wonder what's the difference?


I agree, this thread was missing some racism.
 
2012-07-01 01:36:22 PM

arentol: 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?

Seriously? Anything you had to say went in the crapper the second you quoted a TV show, especially one with an agenda and that is horribly, horribly, horribly, wrong anyway.

For instance, in 2009 the UK alone had 138 deaths by firearms.... So apparently those other countries you listed have figured out how to bring the dead back to life by shooting them? But wait, France had 142 in 2008.... Are all the doctors in these other nations armed with magical resurrecting firearms or something?

Lets add them up from the most recent numbers available.....

UK 138
France 142
Germany 953
Switzerland 279
Sweden 138
Denmark 79
Australia 225
Italy 799
Spain 307
Total = 3060

I replaced Japan with Italy and Spain since Japan hasn't provided good numbers for over a decade, making their numbers useless. Italy and Spain seem appropriate to me since they have 1/3rd the gun ownership rate of France and Germany (~10 per 100 in Italy and Spain vs ~30 per 100 in both France and Germany), both are 1st world nations just as much as any of those listed, making them a fair choice. It also helps offset the cherry-picked nature of these numbers just a tad.

If you look at the deaths by gun to gun ownership rate in those countries you will see that some of them have just as high a rate as the US, others have much lower. But more importantly, if you look at historical numbers you will find that in Australia and the UK, both countries that have enacted strong gun control laws relatively recently, the death ...



What, you disagree with him? That means you're ignoring him you partisan!
 
2012-07-01 01:36:23 PM

guises: serial_crusher: 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,

Did you look at the list that you linked?

Most recent murder rate in the US: 5.0 per 100,000

For the other countries:
Australia: 1.34
United Kingdom: 1.17
France: 1.09
Denmark: 1.01
Sweden: 0.99
Germany: 0.86
Switzerland 0.66
Japan 0.40


Um, they have fewer murders per capita than us. That was my point.
Did you even read the post you were replying to?
 
2012-07-01 01:36:58 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. Ma ...


Firearms aren't the problem in the United States. A culture that worships violence and ignorance is the problem. That is why we have so many murders.

Perhaps our young people should idolize and emulate Carl Sagan and MLK Jr instead of Eminem and Tupac.

Also, you're not going to stop a 300lb redneck on PCP or meth with an axe or stungun. I'm sure your family will be proud with your moral conviction as they are raped and murdered. Perhaps eaten as well, the media seems to be enjoying popularizing that.
 
2012-07-01 01:37:47 PM

Mrtraveler01: I agree, this thread was missing some racism.


You don't need to be a racist to point out that the oppressed in this country are the ones given the worst education and are therefor the ones committing the most crimes.
Racism CAUSED that.
 
Rat
2012-07-01 01:38:29 PM
Ya'all hang on, I gotta go get some lunch.

© and I totally expected more gun pr0n in my gun pr0n thread
 
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 »






Report