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 01:38:34 PM  

trotsky: 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.


Agreed.

As someone else said, it's just a bunch of machismo dick-waving BS that in my opinion that's practically like a fetish, hurts their cause as a whole because it paints every gun owner as one of these loons.

These same loons think that any form of waiting period or background check is a restriction of their freedom.
 
2012-07-01 01:39:48 PM  

R.A.Danny: 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.


Also true. Decent people will do decent things. But decency must be taught.
 
2012-07-01 01:39:59 PM  

GAT_00: 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.



I'm quoting your mention of it. If it is relevant to the statistics of other countries you used for comparison, it is entirely relevant to the argument in the US.

...And prohibition is in some ways rewarding criminals, and creating many of them....

But I don't feel like arguing with you about this when you not only willfully ignore what is probably directly and indirectly the largest cause for gun violence, but you wholeheartedly support it.
 
2012-07-01 01:40:41 PM  

R.A.Danny: 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.


GAT_00 has established a history of lying in support of civilian disatmament. Were I not reading FARK from a phone while in the ER, I could provide pastreferences.
 
2012-07-01 01:40:59 PM  

R.A.Danny: 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.


How many generations before they can take responsibility for their own lives?

My parents were poor. I am less poor. With continued effort, my children will have better opportunities than myself. I'm not sitting around waiting to win the lottery.
 
2012-07-01 01:41:50 PM  

Dimensio: GAT_00 has established a history of lying in support of civilian disatmament. Were I not reading FARK from a phone while in the ER, I could provide pastreferences.


That's why I pointed out the Sandusky stuff. Not to jack the thread, but to point out what we're dealing with here.
 
2012-07-01 01:43:00 PM  
No, I am not going to depend on a Tazer or some sort of spray for my protection.

Heres my point...I dont cause trouble. I make every attempt to avoid it. That being said, should trouble insist itself upon me, I shall be its last stop. If someone is attacking me, or my family, it will be without just reason. Therefor, why do I owe them the courtesy of a non-lethal response? They clearly have no care or value for us, and I none for them. I see no point in mercy for those who prey on others.
 
2012-07-01 01:43:07 PM  
I'll quote another TV show, bonus: It's worth the watch.
Link
 
2012-07-01 01:43:35 PM  

Cast: How many generations before they can take responsibility for their own lives?

My parents were poor. I am less poor. With continued effort, my children will have better opportunities than myself. I'm not sitting around waiting to win the lottery.


The game is still actively rigged against them, especially in the inner cities, where so much of the gun crime we are talking about is taking place.
I'm NOT making excuses for criminals, I'm pointing out that we are complaining about something we created.
 
2012-07-01 01:45:22 PM  

Sultan Of Herf: No, I am not going to depend on a Tazer or some sort of spray for my protection.

Heres my point...I dont cause trouble. I make every attempt to avoid it. That being said, should trouble insist itself upon me, I shall be its last stop. If someone is attacking me, or my family, it will be without just reason. Therefor, why do I owe them the courtesy of a non-lethal response? They clearly have no care or value for us, and I none for them. I see no point in mercy for those who prey on others.


You know what you owe, and to whom? You owe your loved ones the best possible protection if, god forbid, you get attacked.
 
2012-07-01 01:45:25 PM  

R.A.Danny: Dimensio: GAT_00 has established a history of lying in support of civilian disatmament. Were I not reading FARK from a phone while in the ER, I could provide pastreferences.

That's why I pointed out the Sandusky stuff. Not to jack the thread, but to point out what we're dealing with here.


I was unaware of a history of support for Mr. Sandusky.
 
2012-07-01 01:45:32 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.



Switzerland has a shiatload of guns.
By some estimates Switzerland has the second most guns in the world.
in this graphic they are listed fourth:
solari.com

Notice that the UK has about 1/9th as many guns as Switzerland. And Russia has just 1/8th as many guns as Switzerland

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homici de _rate
Yet somehow Switzerland has about half the intentional homicide rate as the UK and the 7th lowest in the entire world. Russia (which has 1/8 as many guns as Switzerland) has 22 times the number of homicides as Switzerland.
wait, how is this even F*cking possible?

As ever when discussing the propensity for violent criminal behavior, the real culprit is actually culture, not some inanimate object.
in the United States and to some extent the UK (they have 3 times the violent crime rate of the u.s.) it is a culture that knows no racial boundaries,. it is misogynistic, extremely disdainful of education, it values material gain over everything else, and views any person that might have accidentally or intentionally brought on personal disrepute to another as a candidate to become a violent crime victim.

but you are not interested in addressing the real problem because that would involve assigning personal responsibility. that would involve blame. there isn't a government program for the fix, unless you can come up with one to turn more single mom households into two parent households, but you've been preaching against the necessity of that for 40 years, so that is right out.
 
2012-07-01 01:45:45 PM  
Guns allow the innocent to protect themselves. Nobody cares how many criminal on criminal deaths would be reduced by gun control.
Gun freedom is win-win.
 
2012-07-01 01:47:43 PM  

DerAppie: 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 bystand ...


That's only true if you are young, fit, well-trained and male. If you jerk-off to Jean claude van damme movies - sure. That's an awesome approach. *YOU* only need a gun because other people have them.

But if you aren't a badass; you need a gun because other people are badasses.

A famous quote from the 1800s was that 'God made man, Colt made them equal'. And it's largely true. Take my Grandmother for example. She's 72. Her idea of intense physical exercise is walking for five minutes. A criminal wouldn't need a gun to do anything they wanted to her. She is old, weak, frail, and defenceless. She isn't going to fight off a criminal.

Hell, take myself. Mid 20s, healthy, active in sports, male....do I stand a chance against two gang-bangers with knives? Hell no. I'm too busy leading my life to make training for physical confrontation my #1 priority - but lots of criminals do. They spent their lives growing up with other criminals, getting into fights, training, and all that jazz.

Take Mike Tyson in his prime. How many men here could stop Mike Tyson from brutally knocking them unconscious, robbing them, and raping their wife - if Mike Tyson decided he wanted to? I'm guessing 0. But you give my Grandmother a handgun and suddenly it's JUST AS DANGEROUS for Mike Tyson to pick a fight with her as it is for her to pick a fight with him. The stakes are higher, yes. Death is more likely. But now it's BOTH people that are risking death.
 
2012-07-01 01:49:06 PM  

DerAppie: 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.


It might help for a few citations that show when a criminal decided to go under prepared to the crime just because he thought his victims would be unarmed.

/The root purpose of the crooks carrying a weapon is either to use it or to intimidate.
/If anyone expects fair play and good judgement from a violent attacker, its likely they'll be unpleasantly surprised.
 
2012-07-01 01:49:53 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". Even "assault weapons" are not spray weapons, as they require an individual squeeze of the trigger to fire each additional round.


Flamethrower. Not a class III item, and it sprays.
 
2012-07-01 01:50:40 PM  

mongbiohazard: 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.


More who? and I also said 'never mind'
 
2012-07-01 01:51:03 PM  

globalwarmingpraiser: You do realize that the Wild West was mainly a concoction of fiction right.


Compton isn't, though.

/Seriously, I think people are just arguing with GAT just to argue with him. They obviously don't read anything he's actually arguing about.
 
2012-07-01 01:51:07 PM  

R.A.Danny: Cast: How many generations before they can take responsibility for their own lives?

My parents were poor. I am less poor. With continued effort, my children will have better opportunities than myself. I'm not sitting around waiting to win the lottery.

The game is still actively rigged against them, especially in the inner cities, where so much of the gun crime we are talking about is taking place.
I'm NOT making excuses for criminals, I'm pointing out that we are complaining about something we created.


The game is only rigged against those who grow up without any decent role models. That is society's fault, I agree. I don't agree that racism is the issue anymore. Ignorant assholes come in all colors, and I wouldn't hire a ghetto talking idiot of any color. Too many young people choose to stay ignorant despite honest efforts to give them opportunities. That is the individual's fault.
 
2012-07-01 01:51:14 PM  

mynameist: Guns allow the innocent to protect themselves. Nobody cares how many criminal on criminal deaths would be reduced by gun control.
Gun freedom is win-win.


It's also a win because gun enthusiasts shoot themselves (after killing their families) a lot more than they shoot dangerous criminals.

Search Google News for "barricade situation" and you can see how many did it recently.
 
2012-07-01 01:52:41 PM  

DerAppie: 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.


You realize the dangerous factor in all of these senarios is the person. Why don't we ban people? Because that is ludicrous so we go to the next devisive factor the weapon of choice. If I want to hurt you and I am of the mind that I am capable committing the act I will find a way to do it whether it is a gun or a stick or a knife.
 
2012-07-01 01:53:22 PM  

Dimensio: R.A.Danny: Dimensio: GAT_00 has established a history of lying in support of civilian disatmament. Were I not reading FARK from a phone while in the ER, I could provide pastreferences.

That's why I pointed out the Sandusky stuff. Not to jack the thread, but to point out what we're dealing with here.

I was unaware of a history of support for Mr. Sandusky.


That's because it didn't happen. They're lying. They do it to me, too, though I'm not nearly as argumentative as GAT is.

/Defending Joe Paterno != Defending Penn State != Defending Jerry Sandusky != loving pedophilia.
//If you can't parse that, your head's too clouded with Von Erck-speak to make a coherent argument.
 
2012-07-01 01:53:46 PM  
Getting rid of guns does reduce gun related things. I haven't ever seen anything that really shows it reduced deaths, crime, or anything. It simply means people use something other than a gun.

I was going to rob the quick mart, but since I don't have a gun I guess I couldn't possibly do that now.

Gun control is knowing how to use a gun. Criminals will still find some way to do what they do. A knife just means they're within arms reach.
 
2012-07-01 01:56:02 PM  

IlGreven: That's because it didn't happen. They're lying. They do it to me, too, though I'm not nearly as argumentative as GAT is.

/Defending Joe Paterno != Defending Penn State != Defending Jerry Sandusky != loving pedophilia.
//If you can't parse that, your head's too clouded with Von Erck-speak to make a coherent argument.


First of all, I am not lying.
And I am not saying he loves pedophilia. I AM saying he loves to take the contrary argument and push it like that is what he really believes.
 
2012-07-01 01:56:41 PM  
What?! No HERO tag????

/sorry, late for the party...
 
2012-07-01 01:56:42 PM  

BolloxReader: As a libtard, I think that we should require gun safety classes in school, or push people to take classes on their own with the NRA or other groups. In fact, iirc the NRA was established because the US military couldn't afford to teach how to use a firearm following the Civil War, and they basically decided to fill the gap by teaching everyone they could how to operate firearms. It wasn't until later that they started all the lobbying, etc.

This makes a lot more sense to me than "getting guns off the streets." I mean, it is good to get surplus firearms away from people who have no interest in owning them or who don't know how to care for them. But more than that, it's better to teach people how to handle dangerous things safely rather than just run away from a hunk of iron like it was a foaming-at-the-mouth pit bull.

Or, as the song goes, "Fear is the mindkiller." Demystify, remove the fear due to ignorance, and teach how to properly use them. My high school had driver's ed as part of its curriculum, and as the driver's ed teacher was fond of saying "There's no Constitutional guarantee to driving privileges." Yet we ignore something that IS Constitutionally protected. In 2010, 32,800 people were killed in auto accidents in the US, versus about 31,200 gun deaths. People fear guns far more than they fear cars. despite the odds of dying in an accident are the same or higher than by dying in a shooting.

Alternately, we could try to ban cars since they aren't protected by the Constitution and are obviously extremely deadly.


Despite the equal numbers, nearly all innocent civilians need to worry much more about cars than guns. A crash can happen to anyone while the great majority of gun killings happen to people who have specifically put themselves at risk by placing firearms around untrained individuals, being involved in crime, crime, associating with individuals involved in crime, being in an area known for crime, or assaulting neighborhood watchmen.
 
2012-07-01 01:56:45 PM  

DerAppie: 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.


You assume rational thought with a criminal. You also assume an accurate sense of reward vs punishment. Many do not possession either let alone both.
 
2012-07-01 01:57:03 PM  

arentol: 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.


The over-all murder rate in any of those countries is far lower than it is in the US. Using the Wikipedia list that serial_crusher provided: Link

Given that gun ownership is lower in all of those countries except Switzerland, I'd expect that the rate of gun deaths is also much lower in all of those countries than it is in the US. I don't have the statistics on that though, and you say that's not the case, so I'd appreciate a link to where you're getting your numbers.

Not that I disagree with what you're saying about a cultural problem: our taboo is sex, while we venerate violence. Those other countries are generally the other way around and this almost certainly contributes more to the murder rate in the US than the abundance of weapons. However, it would take some awfully twisted logic to claim that making murder easier does not impact its frequency. Many arguments that would otherwise end in fistfights end in death when a gun is conveniently nearby. The Travyn Martin case is an easy example.
 
2012-07-01 01:58:44 PM  

GAT_00: globalwarmingpraiser: You do realize that the Wild West was mainly a concoction of fiction right

Which proves the point that the romanticism makes people think that violence is a good solution, doesn't it?

globalwarmingpraiser: Our drug laws also contribute to our high murder rate.

Look at the suicide rate with firearms then. That alone is higher than most countries total firearms deaths. Then see previous points I've made for elaboration.


Here's where I put on my Unfeeling Bastard hat: So what? If they want to kill themselves, then let them kill themselves.

Or in the alternative, why not do something to prevent the suicidal mindset? Work to remove the causes, rather than banning the methodology. To take things to a ridiculous extreme, you may as well ban rope, knives, prescription sleeping pills, or tall bridges/buildings.
 
2012-07-01 01:58:56 PM  

titwrench: If I want to hurt you and I am of the mind that I am capable committing the act I will find a way to do it whether it is a gun or a stick or a knife.


That's why the US Army switched to sticks years ago. Much cheaper than firearms and just as effective.
 
2012-07-01 01:59:36 PM  
zipmeme.com

/awesome trolling, citizens
 
2012-07-01 02:01:23 PM  

jaytkay: mynameist: Guns allow the innocent to protect themselves. Nobody cares how many criminal on criminal deaths would be reduced by gun control.
Gun freedom is win-win.

It's also a win because gun enthusiasts shoot themselves (after killing their families) a lot more than they shoot dangerous criminals.

Search Google News for "barricade situation" and you can see how many did it recently.


I'm OK with this. This isn't a public safety issue. This is people specifically putting themselves at risk. It sucks for the kids, but we have bigger fish to fry in this country.
 
2012-07-01 02:02:05 PM  

jaytkay: titwrench: If I want to hurt you and I am of the mind that I am capable committing the act I will find a way to do it whether it is a gun or a stick or a knife.

That's why the US Army switched to sticks years ago. Much cheaper than firearms and just as effective.


Way to cut out the first half of the comment and completely miss the point. Do you work for the government?
 
2012-07-01 02:05:03 PM  

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


Nice. Good work finding that, I think I should write that down for future use. It's still a tenth of ours.

arentol: 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.


So we should simply ignore the deaths? While some people for some reason don't mind thousands of deaths every year that aren't needed, I do. Cultures can change, but there's no good reason we should allow mass murder to continue. Changing the way we view guns can help with that change.
 
2012-07-01 02:05:42 PM  

doglover: Good.


Done in one (word). What the hell is it about "our founders considered making militia membership mandatory, but instead settled on just making it super-duper really legal" people don't understand?
 
2012-07-01 02:07:06 PM  

titwrench: jaytkay: titwrench: If I want to hurt you and I am of the mind that I am capable committing the act I will find a way to do it whether it is a gun or a stick or a knife.

That's why the US Army switched to sticks years ago. Much cheaper than firearms and just as effective.

Way to cut out the first half of the comment and completely miss the point. Do you work for the government?


Way to double down on your nonsensical argument.
 
2012-07-01 02:08:38 PM  

R.A.Danny: Cast: How many generations before they can take responsibility for their own lives?

My parents were poor. I am less poor. With continued effort, my children will have better opportunities than myself. I'm not sitting around waiting to win the lottery.

The game is still actively rigged against them, especially in the inner cities, where so much of the gun crime we are talking about is taking place.
I'm NOT making excuses for criminals, I'm pointing out that we are complaining about something we created.


Move then. I could not find consistent work in my small town so I moved to a suburb. You can make excuses all you want but the civil war was over close to 150 years ago and civil rights legislation was passed over 50 years ago. Why is it you are still crying about your skin color. Some people talk about fetishes.....

Newsflash, play the race card and people stop taking you seriously. Work hard, network, and go where opportunity is. For that and you will succeed at some point.
 
2012-07-01 02:08:48 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 ...


Switzerland is a funny comparison - they have a gun-requirement.
 
2012-07-01 02:10:06 PM  
So, uh... Hey everyone, wha'cha packin??
 
2012-07-01 02:11:39 PM  
"We disagree with gun control. We also think government programs are a waste of money. Oh look, there's a government program run by an anti-gun city. Lets go abuse that program to prove how stupid it is."

We truly are a nation of trolls.
 
2012-07-01 02:11:52 PM  

jaytkay: titwrench: jaytkay: titwrench: If I want to hurt you and I am of the mind that I am capable committing the act I will find a way to do it whether it is a gun or a stick or a knife.

That's why the US Army switched to sticks years ago. Much cheaper than firearms and just as effective.

Way to cut out the first half of the comment and completely miss the point. Do you work for the government?

Way to double down on your nonsensical argument.


It's nonsensical to point out that the most dangerous factor in any case of violent attack is the attacker himself? Please enlighten me as to how this is nonsensical and please feel free to only pull 2 or 3 words out of this post and ignore the whole point again if it helps your next convoluted statement.
 
2012-07-01 02:12:04 PM  

Aikidogamer: Move then. I could not find consistent work in my small town so I moved to a suburb. You can make excuses all you want but the civil war was over close to 150 years ago and civil rights legislation was passed over 50 years ago. Why is it you are still crying about your skin color. Some people talk about fetishes.....


People have been strung from trees with crosses burning THIS year. Jobs have been denied due to race THIS year. Educational systems have been gamed to give the well off better educations THIS year. Are you saying that we're doing a great job here? The homicide numbers sure don't.
 
2012-07-01 02:14:47 PM  

guises: Many arguments that would otherwise end in fistfights end in death when a gun is conveniently nearby. The Travyn Martin case is an easy example.


Depending on which version of events you believe: without the gun it would have ended with Zimmerman being beaten unconscious on the concrete where he fell. Its not hard to get a fatality out of that.

I think its somewhat irrelevant tho. If Trayvon had picked a fight with a drug dealer, the result would have been self evident and hardly newsworthy. We expect criminals to be armed in the US.
I think I could safely suggest this is true in most other nations.

The question is: If you expect your attacker will be armed, why is it unwise to arm yourself?
Why would you willfully NOT be prepared for what the media has stated is norm?

Why do I need a fancy argument to justify being a better victim when God and Darwin both suggest I should arm and armor myself?
 
2012-07-01 02:15:40 PM  
Maybe we should throw the device used in homicide in prison rather that the human that used them. I see blame for the divice is stronger than blame for the human. Also, why not make the culture that produces most homicides illegal as well? We will not do such a thing...but if the US really wanted to cut down on such behavior shouldn't we work at ending the cause rather than go after a device that non-criminals can use to defend themselves from the criminal behavior of others?
 
2012-07-01 02:17:19 PM  

way south: Why would you willfully NOT be prepared for what the media has stated is norm?


That's a really good point. The same media that is in a tizzy over the number of guns in the hands of criminals wants you to be unarmed.
 
2012-07-01 02:18:22 PM  

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.


FTFA:

"We host the gun turn-in event on an annual basis to encourage residents to turn in their guns so we can take guns off the street and it's unfortunate that this group is abusing a program intended to increase the safety of our communities," said Melissa Stratton, a police spokeswoman.

LOL

/the comments are an even bigger hoot
//though I do agree that the NRA shouldn't have bragged about it, just kept quietly milking the cash cow
 
2012-07-01 02:19:22 PM  

vygramul: 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?


Large attractive and successful population that has a culture of glorifying violence in their popular media.

Nah, that's just racist.
 
2012-07-01 02:21:49 PM  

GORDON: vygramul: 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?

Large attractive and successful population that has a culture of glorifying violence in their popular media.

Nah, that's just racist.


No I agree, white people do glorify violence. Just look at what's on TV and in the movies.

Oh wait...that wasn't the race you were talking about was it?
 
2012-07-01 02:22:39 PM  

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


I don't even begin to understand how that logic works. That's like saying that pro choice groups sit around performing abortions on each other.
 
2012-07-01 02:23:28 PM  

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

I don't even begin to understand how that logic works. That's like saying that pro choice groups sit around performing abortions on each other.


They sit on blenders for fun I guess.
 
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