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 68
    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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-07-01 09:56:52 AM
8 votes:
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 11:38:44 AM
6 votes:

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 10:04:10 AM
5 votes:
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 01:25:54 PM
3 votes:

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 03:00:29 PM
2 votes:

jso2897: 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?


The moran is anyone who argues that keyboards troll Fark threads.
2012-07-01 02:28:35 PM
2 votes:
Well, we're off on the same pattern as usual:

1. no one wants to take your guns, you're just a paranoid nutcase
2. we should take away your guns

Maybe we could follow this up with:

1. no one is trying to outlaw abortion
2. we just want to do everything we can to keep you from having an abortion
2012-07-01 02:05:42 PM
2 votes:

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 01:33:02 PM
2 votes:

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 01:25:21 PM
2 votes:

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 12:57:55 PM
2 votes:

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.
2012-07-01 12:40:29 PM
2 votes:

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.
2012-07-01 12:27:18 PM
2 votes:
Every so often the system works.
2012-07-01 12:23:03 PM
2 votes:
Walking around with a gun that can't fire is the quickest way to get killed.
2012-07-01 12:23:03 PM
2 votes:

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 11:11:36 AM
2 votes:
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 10:25:18 AM
2 votes:
They trolled the morans. Good on them.
2012-07-01 09:33:34 PM
1 votes:

violentsalvation: So the gun-buyback program actually inspired something useful. Niiiice.


No, the NRA took money (not the first time) from a government program intended as an incentive to get hoodie wearing thugs to give up their working weapons and get them off the streets, not non-working pieces of scrap metal. The NRA has plenty of cash to use for education, and the programs are seriously flawed. replicas and bb guns should not be accepted and the weapon should be in firing condition.

//not anti-gun, just anti-stupidity
2012-07-01 07:39:13 PM
1 votes:

rewind2846: As for Mexico... their gun laws are strict, which is why they illegally import the guns they use from the United States, where we have them to the point of fetishism.


Makes perfect sense. Pay American prices for semi-automatic assault weapons, or buy fully automatic AK-47s by the truck load for pennies on the dollar. I'm sure they're all lining up to buy weapons in the U.S.

The traceable guns are mostly traced back to the US. Why? Because we have a system in place to trace purchases. Solution - buy from a source outside the US that doesn't have trace purchases. That's why the vast majority of guns recovered from Mexican cartels are untraceable.
2012-07-01 06:39:03 PM
1 votes:

Mrtraveler01: DancingElkCondor: Umm...maybe Liberals may someday figure out....the problem with the large number of blacks killed by guns is not because of guns...its the other thing in the equation

They're poor?

This isn't Stormfront btw.


There's lots of other poor groups of people who manage to not kill people a crazy high rates. But of course anyone who mentions that black popular culture might be a factor is some mouth breathing racist. You know a culture that glorifies gangsterism, not working for a living, wasting all your money on gaudy bullshiat, impregnating as many women as possible and every other aspect of the ignorant thug lifestyle. The same culture that shuns education, parental responsibility, cooperating with police investigations and the traditional family structure with a father in the house. Nope all that stuff plays absolutely no part in their off the charts murder rate what so ever. It's all because they're poor. Never mind that there are still white people in Appalachia living without running water and electricity who have so far managed not to kill each other. The only reason why inner-city black youth murder rates are so high must be lack of money!

Being poor does not cause people to shoot one another. They are not killing in order to eat so they don't starve to death. The sooner the libs knock it off with this "it's because they're poor" justification and rationalization bullshiat and acknowledge that their are actual huge problems in this community that need to be addressed and worked out the better it will be for everyone. Or you could just continue shouting RACIST at anybody and everybody who suggests that it might not just be simply because they're poor and hope the murder rate will go down on it's own.

Oh and before I'm told how I think all blacks act in this manner and how racist I am I will again make clear that I'm talking about their popular culture. How many songs on the top ten rap charts are about anything positive or of redeeming value? Now how many songs on the top ten country charts are about criminality and other gangsta bullshiat?

/country blows
// just making a point about cultural values
2012-07-01 04:52:07 PM
1 votes:

bibli0phile: 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.....

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.

What an excellent suggestion! Because, of course, every low-income family can easily afford to buy/rent a new dwelling in a more expensive suburb, as well as the deposits or down-payment on said dwelling -- along with the deposits for utilities, and the expenses of moving itself (the rental truck, taking a few days off work to do the packing, hauling, etc...)

And everyone can afford a reliable car and insurance to get them from that suburb to their new employer (since the public transportation often doesn't reach the suburbs). And it's a good thing everyone can afford daycare, too, since grandma doesn't live down the street any more and can't watch the kids for you,



If peopleofwalmart.com has taught me anything, it's that race has little or nothing to do with your lot in life......I'm not sure about the rest of the country but we have just as many white farkups around here as black. Don't get me wrong they segregate themselves, blacks in "urban" apt. complexes, whites in trailer parks. Which is funny because the "normal" people (white and black) in and around my neighborhood are far less segregated and far less racist. Racism, stupidity, and the inability to provide for yourself go hand in hand, regardless of whether white or black.
2012-07-01 04:09:25 PM
1 votes:
More proof Gun Grabbers are morans

As much as the Liberal Derps want to spin, they are pissing themselves off inside that a weapons-buyback is being used to get money to the NRA.

Umm...maybe Liberals may someday figure out....the problem with the large number of blacks killed by guns is not because of guns...its the other thing in the equation
2012-07-01 02:57:45 PM
1 votes:

LouDobbsAwaaaay: 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.


Funny thing is, the NRA doesn't fetishize anything. I mean, we don't really attach sexually loaded words to people who do archery, or people who collect stamps, or shade-tree mechanics, or any other of the myriad sports and hobbies out there. So why guns? Are you projecting? Is there some deep-seated inadequacy you feel, and to make yourself feel better you denigrate people who like to shoot? Or is it some fear you have, that a gun has some sort of totemistic power all its own, a non-existent power that you are afraid of, like a child that fears the dark because they are unfamiliar with it?
2012-07-01 02:26:10 PM
1 votes:

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 ...


Let's break out the truth from the lies please.

1) What number of homicides with ANY method in the US in a given year, compared with other countries that have a harder time getting guns? Do NOT include suicide (which I have see stats that included EVERY death by gun in the stat for gun related homicide).

Guns are easier to get in this country, so it is going to be chosen over a baseball bat, a knife, a car or other items.

2) What is the number of legally registered gun owners in the US in a specific year?

3) Related to the answer to question 2: How many legally registered gun owners commited a homicide involving a gun in the same year?

4) A question that probably cannot be answered: How many gun related homicides in the US are pre-meditated vs passion of the moment (you farked my wife so you both die, that sort of thing)?

A gun is a tool. INTENT is something we should be focusing on. How can we make people be worth more so that killing another human a deplorable moral choice?

/then again, there are 7 BILLION people on this planet. It's getting a little crowded.
//An armed society is a polite society.
2012-07-01 02:25:32 PM
1 votes:

R.A.Danny: People have been strung from trees with crosses burning THIS year.


Bullshiat.
2012-07-01 02:22:39 PM
1 votes:

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 02:18:22 PM
1 votes:

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 02:15:40 PM
1 votes:
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 02:14:47 PM
1 votes:

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 01:51:07 PM
1 votes:

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 01:49:06 PM
1 votes:

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 01:47:43 PM
1 votes:

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 01:45:45 PM
1 votes:
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 01:43:00 PM
1 votes:
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 01:31:19 PM
1 votes:

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 01:24:22 PM
1 votes:
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 01:19:08 PM
1 votes:
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 01:19:06 PM
1 votes:

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 01:18:27 PM
1 votes:

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 01:09:37 PM
1 votes:

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 01:02:02 PM
1 votes:

GAT_00: 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 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.

In 2007 there was 12,632 non-suicide deaths via guns and 41,059 deaths via car. Those numbers are already pretty low. Those numbers can get lower (looks like both numbers have continue to fall) but the question we have to ask ourselves - is mandating yet another regulation or control worth the cost (either in freedom, money, etc) to save one or two people out of a population of 300 million? We could make cars 100% safe but no one could buy one. We could ban guns and confiscate all of them but we would have zero freedom.
2012-07-01 12:57:20 PM
1 votes:

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.
2012-07-01 12:56:39 PM
1 votes:

Robo Beat: trotsky: The problem is not with guns or even gun owners. It's the "gun culture" in this country.

American gun culture has always struck me as a sort of bizarre mix of dick-swinging hypermachismo and apocalyptic paranoia.


You couldn't be more wrong. Hunting for food, sport shooting, personal protection, none of these have anything to do with dick swinging and paranoia. I enjoy going to the range a couple of times a month and blowing off steam by myself, how does that fit your statement. Guns are tools no different than a hammer. 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. Gun hate makes as much sense as hammer hate.
2012-07-01 12:49:30 PM
1 votes:

GAT_00: No, you don't need a gun for safety.


I leave it to others to rip apart your arguments (which some have already have). But here is a basic inescapable fact - guns are part of the fabric of this country and enshrined in our founding documents. There is no way you will ever get rid of guns. Period. Unless you create martial law - which is 100 times worse than having guns around. We should focus on education and training from an early age and not unnecessary fear mongering.

But to your point - every so often society goes nuts (see aftermath of Katrina, LA riots, etc). And living in Minnesota we experience massive amounts of snow that brings everything to a halt including local law enforcement. I would like to have the basic tools to protect myself and my family in those situations. And a stun gun isn't going to do it (which -btw - are abused by law enforcement).

/yes - I'm a gun owner
//my dad taught me to respect them starting at a very early age
2012-07-01 12:48:32 PM
1 votes:

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?


You're joking, right? The Swiss ISSUE guns to their citizens! In 2011 they rejected stricter gun laws. Switzerland has the highest militia gun ownership rate in the world!

Please hurry up and quote Meathead so I can also shoot holes in those fictional statements.
2012-07-01 12:48:26 PM
1 votes:

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.


My high school had a range for this very purpose, but it was turned into storage long ago.
I completely agree with schools teaching every aspect of reproductive health, knowledge means safety, lower teen pregnancy rates, and FEWER abortions. It's the same with firearms. Knowledge saves lives.
2012-07-01 12:47:34 PM
1 votes:

GAT_00: microdome: 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?

Scroll up for my argument preemptively calling you a retard for advancing that argument.


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.
2012-07-01 12:46:04 PM
1 votes:

trotsky: The problem is not with guns or even gun owners. It's the "gun culture" in this country.


American gun culture has always struck me as a sort of bizarre mix of dick-swinging hypermachismo and apocalyptic paranoia.
2012-07-01 12:45:34 PM
1 votes:
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.
2012-07-01 12:44:10 PM
1 votes:

GAT_00: Now, to head off the standard derptastic arguments:


To head off every argument is the Second Amendment. Nothing you can post makes that go away, ever.

Despite the no-questions-asked policy of the buyback, police officials asked Guns Save Life members where they got their guns, Boch said. Still, the police officials allowed them to turn in their guns, he said.

So they lied about "No questions asked

"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.

None of these guns will ever be a danger to another human being.

Vandermyde said he was told one suburban gun dealer imported junk rifles for less than $50 each and received $100 gift cards for each of them.

Capitalism at its finest.
2012-07-01 12:39:34 PM
1 votes:
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 12:38:50 PM
1 votes:

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 12:38:39 PM
1 votes:

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 12:36:03 PM
1 votes:
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 12:32:30 PM
1 votes:
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 12:25:21 PM
1 votes:
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 12:24:41 PM
1 votes:

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 12:23:32 PM
1 votes:
i.ytimg.com
2012-07-01 12:11:40 PM
1 votes:

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 12:05:48 PM
1 votes:

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 11:50:43 AM
1 votes:
So the gun-buyback program actually inspired something useful. Niiiice.
2012-07-01 11:39:59 AM
1 votes:
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 11:18:15 AM
1 votes:

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 11:01:41 AM
1 votes:

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 10:58:06 AM
1 votes:

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 10:57:47 AM
1 votes:

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 10:49:49 AM
1 votes:

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 10:42:36 AM
1 votes:

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 10:05:02 AM
1 votes:
Ok.

So?
 
Displayed 68 of 68 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report