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.

(Huffington Post)   City of Chicago turns to Twitter for gun control ideas. No, really   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 254
    More: Asinine, Chicago, NBC Chicago, Twitter, police superintendent, murder rate, WGN, systemic problems, drive-by shootings  
•       •       •

3566 clicks; posted to Main » on 03 Oct 2012 at 4:58 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-04 12:10:25 AM

Huck Chaser:
This is a very intelligent and compelling argument (I hope that doesn't sound like sarcasm, because it's not), but I'm afraid that I still disagree with you, and I know you're not going to like my rebuttal because it mostly comes down to philosophy. I understand the benefits of being armed (defending myself if directly threatened with a deadly weapon), but I also understand the risks (suicide, accidents, crimes of passion, overzealous vigilantes), and I believe the risks outweigh the benefits.

/leaving work now, but I'll check this thread tomorrow morning


@Huck Chaser hope your ride home was smooth, I actually left work just after posting that as well.

I'm glad you understand my position and I understand your rebuttal, and while I don't agree with it, I can understand how someone could come to that conclusion. I find it interesting that your more concerned about the person who is legally conceal carrying then the ones who are carrying illegally. Chances are you're around someone that is legally carrying once a week, maybe more depending where you live. Even here in IL I know that I am. The reason I know this is because in IL police officers are required to carry even when off duty and as a few other Farkers have pointed out they carry in spite of the lack of permit.

Kit Fister made a lot of the points I was going to make and made them quite a bit better then I think I could have, but I'm going to change the perspective a little and take a little of what he said a little farther.

Huck, the rest of what I have to say this isn't directed at you as I don't know your position on Abortion, just more of a thought exercise for the group as a whole.

I think there are some parallels between Gun Control and Abortion.

I don't believe in abortion. I believe life starts VERY shortly after conception. Some of this is due to my Roman Catholic upbringing and education, but a larger part is due to my 16 year old, 3 year old and 4 months old daughters.

When my oldest was born, I was barely 20 years old, I had a high school diploma, a minimum wage job and no health insurance. In the positive column I have a great middle class family that have helped me along the way to deal with raising a child so young.

I understand not everyone believes as I do. I also understand that not everyone in my position at 20 has the support system I had when I needed it, and will see they're options differently then I did, particularly since I'm male. I believe that while while Abortion ends a life, I don't know that I can call it murder. I don't believe that it is my job to judge another human being for making what I think for almost all women the hardest decisions of they're lives.

In the end I don't believe it is my job to in force my beliefs on this subject on other people. I do believe that it is my job to teach my beliefs to my daughters, but to also teach them to think for themselves. If I do my job and other like me do the same eventually I believe Abortions can be minimized, if not eliminated all together.

Kit Fisher is spot on that Education is the key, both about Abortion and about Gun Usage.

Hope my point came across in that and didn't sound preachy.
 
2012-10-04 12:23:11 AM

redmid17: jonny99: Silly Jesus: jonny99: Silly Jesus: jonny99: smitty04: Secret Master of All Flatulence: DaCaptain19: You don't live in Chicago, do you? Nope, if you did you'd be thinking the same thing all us Chicagoans think but don't say.

Nope, I don't live in Chicago. That being said: I've dealt with a LOT of scumbags over the years. Not just gangmembers, but baby rapers, wife beaters, and just about every other kind of criminal out there. The color of the skin of the perpetrator is meaningless...it's what they, as an individual, have done. And I can say, with some certainty, that douchebaggery is not the province of any one skin color, socioeconomic status, religious belief, or geographic locale.

[www.chicagonow.com image 583x302]
Then why is homicide rate so low in Edison Park?

Since you think this chart tells the whole story - you might want to consider the poverty level in Edison Park - that's the killer, not "race".

Race and poverty, among other factors, are quite strongly connected.



Yeah, I wonder why that could possibly be? Don't forget about poverty and criminality, or poverty and violence.

Culture.

Ahhhh - of course! I forgot that races that are culturally superior don't succumb to violence and other problems under severe conditions of poverty. Yr whistle brings all the dogs to the yard.

So what's is like being racist and assuming that he meant culture influenced by race?


Step 1: display a chart and imply that because a community is a majority white it has less crime
Step 2: when the relative poverty levels are pointed out, "politely" suggest that it is race and poverty that are linked, not poverty and crime
Step 3: suggest that "culture" is the factor that mediates between race and poverty (ie: a particular race suffers poverty, their culture is therefore inferior)

I suppose you think that the ability to talk "around" what you are trying to say is a component of cultural superiority.
How does it feel to be an apologist for racism?
 
2012-10-04 12:41:03 AM
Perhaps we should redistribute ethics in America:
 
2012-10-04 01:54:40 AM

PallMall: Execute gang members.

Are the cops in Chicago so corrupt that they forgot to be regular-corrupt and do things like take hoods down a dark alley and shoot them in the face?


I think the gang problem can easily be re-framed from a crime issue to one of national security. Relabeling gangs "rebels" who "seek to subvert and damage our democratic institutions for personal profit through violence, extortion, and drug trafficking" is an easy switch to make considering it's mostly true anyway. Moving onto rebel neutralization whereupon these new "rebels" are hunted down by special crime task-forces funded by the DHS will be slightly difficult to stomach for some, but it makes the "hard-on-crime" policy concept even harder without the pain of adding new prisoners to our over-crowded prisons. Now ethically some will hesitate due to these policies. Some gang members are in gangs because the system failed them, they were forced into them and so on. Social justice campaigners will cry foul and call the program "urban genocide." But ultimately the choice of being in a gang does lie with the members themselves. Being disadvantaged is not an excuse for crime. That's the perspective that will need to be hammered into the public's head.

Will this policy actually stop gangs however? In the short-run I believe it will actually empower them to a degree. Gang members already live with the specter of death over them at all times and being threatened to be hunted down like animals is hardly something new to them. But, if they are systematically hunted down like animals, then in the long-run however it will (most importantly I think) stop young people from joining gangs. Living with a chance of death is tolerable if in exchange you receive wealth in return. Especially if you live in a high-crime area to begin with. Make that specter of death the Sword of Damocles however and I think youth will be a bit more hesitant. There are many examples of gang members who got out alive and are richer for it. Change that perception to "You will be dead within five years" and I think you'll have a shift in attitudes. Now this policy should not stand alone. Schools still need to be improved and the overall opportunities for those living in depressed, blighted areas needs to be enhanced, but those are other policies that need to be fleshed out on their own.

So let's look at the costs. There's the cost of enforcing and arming new "anti-rebel" paramilitary operatives. There's also going to be some collateral damage. Some people will get shot who aren't in gangs. This can be used to increase the stigmatization of gangs however by saying, "Interacting with rebels makes us think you're one too." In this way collateral deaths can be framed as the fault of the innocent killed rather than the paramilitary. The benefits are decreasing gang-on-gang violence, decreasing drug trafficking, decreasing illegal gun trade, decreasing crime overall, fewer imprisoned gang members, more kids staying in school, more people working in the formal economy, and ultimately more taxes. We have policies at the ready and I believe politicians are willing to drop the hammer, but we're lacking a good solid catalyzing event that will attract adequate media attention and citizen outrage to the issue. Currently gang crime is pretty consistent but hidden to the average person. It's a thing that happens in "other" places. When that catalyzing event does happen though we'll be on our way to a safer America.
 
2012-10-04 05:48:36 AM

Foxxinnia: PallMall: Execute gang members.

Are the cops in Chicago so corrupt that they forgot to be regular-corrupt and do things like take hoods down a dark alley and shoot them in the face?

I think the gang problem can easily be re-framed from a crime issue to one of national security. Relabeling gangs "rebels" who "seek to subvert and damage our democratic institutions for personal profit through violence, extortion, and drug trafficking" is an easy switch to make considering it's mostly true anyway. Moving onto rebel neutralization whereupon these new "rebels" are hunted down by special crime task-forces funded by the DHS will be slightly difficult to stomach for some, but it makes the "hard-on-crime" policy concept even harder without the pain of adding new prisoners to our over-crowded prisons. Now ethically some will hesitate due to these policies. Some gang members are in gangs because the system failed them, they were forced into them and so on. Social justice campaigners will cry foul and call the program "urban genocide." But ultimately the choice of being in a gang does lie with the members themselves. Being disadvantaged is not an excuse for crime. That's the perspective that will need to be hammered into the public's head.

Will this policy actually stop gangs however? In the short-run I believe it will actually empower them to a degree. Gang members already live with the specter of death over them at all times and being threatened to be hunted down like animals is hardly something new to them. But, if they are systematically hunted down like animals, then in the long-run however it will (most importantly I think) stop young people from joining gangs. Living with a chance of death is tolerable if in exchange you receive wealth in return. Especially if you live in a high-crime area to begin with. Make that specter of death the Sword of Damocles however and I think youth will be a bit more hesitant. There are many examples of gang members who got out alive and a ...


Cool story, bro.
 
2012-10-04 06:04:39 AM

jonny99: Silly Jesus: jonny99: Silly Jesus: jonny99: smitty04: Secret Master of All Flatulence: DaCaptain19: You don't live in Chicago, do you? Nope, if you did you'd be thinking the same thing all us Chicagoans think but don't say.

Nope, I don't live in Chicago. That being said: I've dealt with a LOT of scumbags over the years. Not just gangmembers, but baby rapers, wife beaters, and just about every other kind of criminal out there. The color of the skin of the perpetrator is meaningless...it's what they, as an individual, have done. And I can say, with some certainty, that douchebaggery is not the province of any one skin color, socioeconomic status, religious belief, or geographic locale.

[www.chicagonow.com image 583x302]
Then why is homicide rate so low in Edison Park?

Since you think this chart tells the whole story - you might want to consider the poverty level in Edison Park - that's the killer, not "race".

Race and poverty, among other factors, are quite strongly connected.



Yeah, I wonder why that could possibly be? Don't forget about poverty and criminality, or poverty and violence.

Culture.

Ahhhh - of course! I forgot that races that are culturally superior don't succumb to violence and other problems under severe conditions of poverty. Yr whistle brings all the dogs to the yard.


WTF are you talking about?

Being the child of a single mother is the greatest predictor (when all other factors are accounted for) of future criminality. 70% of black children are born to single mothers. It's a cultural trait that makes that acceptable and the norm. It's not BECAUSE they are black...but it is a commonality of that community.

Avoid reality though and cry racism at any mention of race and you'll be able to blissfully keep your head buried in the sand.
 
2012-10-04 07:05:30 AM

Silly Jesus: jonny99: Silly Jesus: jonny99: Silly Jesus: jonny99: smitty04: Secret Master of All Flatulence: DaCaptain19: You don't live in Chicago, do you? Nope, if you did you'd be thinking the same thing all us Chicagoans think but don't say.

Nope, I don't live in Chicago. That being said: I've dealt with a LOT of scumbags over the years. Not just gangmembers, but baby rapers, wife beaters, and just about every other kind of criminal out there. The color of the skin of the perpetrator is meaningless...it's what they, as an individual, have done. And I can say, with some certainty, that douchebaggery is not the province of any one skin color, socioeconomic status, religious belief, or geographic locale.

[www.chicagonow.com image 583x302]
Then why is homicide rate so low in Edison Park?

Since you think this chart tells the whole story - you might want to consider the poverty level in Edison Park - that's the killer, not "race".

Race and poverty, among other factors, are quite strongly connected.



Yeah, I wonder why that could possibly be? Don't forget about poverty and criminality, or poverty and violence.

Culture.

Ahhhh - of course! I forgot that races that are culturally superior don't succumb to violence and other problems under severe conditions of poverty. Yr whistle brings all the dogs to the yard.

WTF are you talking about?

Being the child of a single mother is the greatest predictor (when all other factors are accounted for) of future criminality. 70% of black children are born to single mothers. It's a cultural trait that makes that acceptable and the norm. It's not BECAUSE they are black...but it is a commonality of that community.

Avoid reality though and cry racism at any mention of race and you'll be able to blissfully keep your head buried in the sand.


You're getting closer... clearly you would like to keep drawing the line at correlations, like the rates of single parenthood or poverty in black communities, and say "I don't think it's because their black, but it is a trait of their community" - without answering the question "why is this the case?" The answer is pervasive, systemic racial inequality. But that's much more threatening to your sense of propriety than "cultural traits", so you'll keep finding reasons to deny it or project racism onto others.
 
2012-10-04 07:28:17 AM
I've got a great idea:
Try letting everyone who's not a criminal have guns too. Then the criminals would be much more leery about shooting folks for fear they might get shot themselves.
I know it sounds farfetched, but it's worked pretty well everywhere else it's been tried.
 
2012-10-04 08:51:56 AM

jonny99: Step 1: display a chart and imply that because a community is a majority white it has less crime
Step 2: when the relative poverty levels are pointed out, "politely" suggest that it is race and poverty that are linked, not poverty and crime
Step 3: suggest that "culture" is the factor that mediates between race and poverty (ie: a particular race suffers poverty, their culture is therefore inferior)

I suppose you think that the ability to talk "around" what you are trying to say is a component of cultural superiority.
How does it feel to be an apologist for racism?


It's not racism to point out the facts. I've actually done the math, and poor blacks have a 2.5 times higher homicide rate than poor whites. My sources were data from the Centers for Disease Control, and the US Census.

Or are you going to argue that math is racist?

Really, violence is largely a cultural phenomenon, and you learn your cultural values largely from your parents and peers, who learned their values from their parents and peers, who learned it from theirs, and so forth back down the line. That's why "European Americans" have a European-like homicide rate, 2.74 per 100,000 in the US vs. 3.5 per 100,000 for Europe*.

It's got nothing to do with melanin content, and everything to do with how cultural values are transmitted. Starting in the 1960's, the traditional black family structure started to shatter. It was noted as far back as 1965 that this trend was a major problem in the black community. All of the traditional values that would normally have been passed from a stable two parent family were essentially abandoned, because out-of-wedlock birth became the norm, not the exception, and single parent homes became the norm, not the exception.

It is interesting to note that after you control for poverty, the increased homicide rate in non-hispanic blacks over non-hispanic whites (2.46 times higher rate) is similar to the born-out-of-wedlock rate (69.5% black non-hispanic births / 25.4% white non-hispanic births = 2.74 times higher).

My theory is that while poverty is a factor, it's totally overwhelmed by the cutting off of traditional cultural values in the black community due to the destruction of the traditional black family in the last 50 years or so. The transmission of cultural values against violence from parent to child are attenuated when only one parent is around to transmit them. That leaves a void where peers can step in, and lacking the control of a strong male father-figure to reign in the worst excesses of testosterone poisoning common in young males, you end up with a homicide rate among young black males that is around 90 per 100,000.

Let me be completely and unequivocally clear: It's got nothing to do with the color of their skin. While I don't have hard numbers, I suspect that blacks who are raised within a traditional, two-parent family structure have a homicide rate closer to that of whites, regardless of economic condition. There is no reason why the black homicide rate *HAS* to be higher, it can and should be changed, but the change must come from within the black community, not imposed on it from the outside, and that change will take decades, just like it took decades for their homicide and bastardy rates to hit where they are now.

*Northern, Western, and Southern Europe all have rates between 1.0 and 1.5, whereas Eastern Europe has a rate of 6.4 per 100,000. It would make sense that the "European Americans" have a rate biased towards lower end, because of all the immigration from Western, Northern, and Southern Europe, but higher because of a significant amount of immigration from Eastern Europe.
 
2012-10-04 09:07:49 AM

jonny99: You're getting closer... clearly you would like to keep drawing the line at correlations, like the rates of single parenthood or poverty in black communities, and say "I don't think it's because their black, but it is a trait of their community" - without answering the question "why is this the case?" The answer is pervasive, systemic racial inequality. But that's much more threatening to your sense of propriety than "cultural traits", so you'll keep finding reasons to deny it or project racism onto others.


Forty years ago, I would have agreed with this. Not today. The external barriers that blacks faced in the 1950's and 1960's have all been removed. The inequality they face today isn't externally imposed upon them.
 
2012-10-04 10:04:25 AM
dittybopper:

Your extremely reasoned presentation has earned you a month of TotalFark.
 
2012-10-04 10:44:47 AM

REKnight: @Huck Chaser hope your ride home was smooth, I actually left work just after posting that as well.

I'm glad you understand my position and I understand your rebuttal, and while I don't agree with it, I can understand how someone could come to that conclusion. I find it interesting that your more concerned about the person who is legally conceal carrying then the ones who are carrying illegally. Chances are you're around someone that is legally carrying once a week, maybe more depending where you live. Even here in IL I know that I am. The reason I know this is because in IL police officers are required to carry even when off duty and as a few other Farkers have pointed out they carry in spite of the lack of permit.


I want to be clear about something I'm now realizing I wasn't yesterday: I'm not afraid for myself from anybody carrying a gun, whether they're a 17 year old gangbanger or a licensed and trained father of 4. Gang members pretty much only kill gang members, and I avoid them by staying out of their neighborhoods (and all the hand-wringers in this thread talking about them walking around shooting random people in Grant Park or on the red line really need to get their facts straight). "Law abiding" people who carry licensed weapons (the quotes are for people who carry where it's illegal) aren't a threat to me for obvious reasons, so I don't worry about them, either.

The reasons I'm generally anti-gun are the reasons I've stated before: suicide, accidents, etc. Some of those are easily backed up by facts and statistics (notably, suicides). Others are more difficult to quantify, and so are more anecdotal or even philosophical.

I understand the point you were trying to make drawing the parallel between your stance on abortion and my stance on gun control, but I just don't think analogies work in situations like this. The issues are different enough that any analogy anybody tries to make will break down under the slightest bit of scrutiny. Also, I just really don't want to start talking about abortion here; one hot-button topic per thread is quite enough for me.
 
2012-10-04 11:15:34 AM

Huck Chaser: REKnight: @Huck Chaser hope your ride home was smooth, I actually left work just after posting that as well.

I'm glad you understand my position and I understand your rebuttal, and while I don't agree with it, I can understand how someone could come to that conclusion. I find it interesting that your more concerned about the person who is legally conceal carrying then the ones who are carrying illegally. Chances are you're around someone that is legally carrying once a week, maybe more depending where you live. Even here in IL I know that I am. The reason I know this is because in IL police officers are required to carry even when off duty and as a few other Farkers have pointed out they carry in spite of the lack of permit.

I want to be clear about something I'm now realizing I wasn't yesterday: I'm not afraid for myself from anybody carrying a gun, whether they're a 17 year old gangbanger or a licensed and trained father of 4. Gang members pretty much only kill gang members, and I avoid them by staying out of their neighborhoods (and all the hand-wringers in this thread talking about them walking around shooting random people in Grant Park or on the red line really need to get their facts straight). "Law abiding" people who carry licensed weapons (the quotes are for people who carry where it's illegal) aren't a threat to me for obvious reasons, so I don't worry about them, either.

The reasons I'm generally anti-gun are the reasons I've stated before: suicide, accidents, etc. Some of those are easily backed up by facts and statistics (notably, suicides). Others are more difficult to quantify, and so are more anecdotal or even philosophical.

I understand the point you were trying to make drawing the parallel between your stance on abortion and my stance on gun control, but I just don't think analogies work in situations like this. The issues are different enough that any analogy anybody tries to make will break down under the slightest bit of scrutiny. Als ...


Suicides are almost a non-starter. Gun suicides are less than 5% of the attempts but are 95% effective, whereas drugs ODs are something like 75 or 80% but are much, much less effective (
 
2012-10-04 11:17:52 AM

redmid17: Suicides are almost a non-starter. Gun suicides are less than 5% of the attempts but are 95% effective, whereas drugs ODs are something like 75 or 80% but are much, much less effective (


Nonetheless, substantially reducing the rate of firearm ownership may prove effective in reducing the suicide rate of the United States to levels observed in France, Belgium or even Japan. Is such an outcome not worth the effort?
 
2012-10-04 11:24:11 AM

Dimensio: HERP-A-DERP!


If someone wants to kill themselves... LET THEM!! Jesus H Christ! It's their decision, not yours or the Gubmin's, or anyone else.

Everyone should have control over their own life and destiny. Butt the fark out of their personal decisions.
 
2012-10-04 11:25:50 AM

Dimensio: redmid17: Suicides are almost a non-starter. Gun suicides are less than 5% of the attempts but are 95% effective, whereas drugs ODs are something like 75 or 80% but are much, much less effective (

Nonetheless, substantially reducing the rate of firearm ownership may prove effective in reducing the suicide rate of the United States to levels observed in France, Belgium or even Japan. Is such an outcome not worth the effort?


No unless that substantially reduced firearm rate comes from effectively judging whether or not a person is mentally healthy enough to have a gun, which goes back to the how mental health treatment angle. I don't want anyone trying to commit suicide, but I definitely don't want arbitrary limits placed on gun ownership because people like to kill themselves.

Also the three countries you listed have higher suicide rates than the US (nearly double in Japan's case), so I'm not sure where you're going with this. The US doesn't have a high suicide rate at all. We're close to the bottom of the middle in the first world. Canada's rate is 11.2 per 100K and ours is 12 per 100k. Given that we have something like 3-4x more guns per capita, I'd say gun ownership doesn't matter much at all.
 
2012-10-04 11:56:02 AM

Dimensio: redmid17: Suicides are almost a non-starter. Gun suicides are less than 5% of the attempts but are 95% effective, whereas drugs ODs are something like 75 or 80% but are much, much less effective (

Nonetheless, substantially reducing the rate of firearm ownership may prove effective in reducing the suicide rate of the United States to levels observed in France, Belgium or even Japan. Is such an outcome not worth the effort?


i.qkme.me
 
2012-10-04 12:04:27 PM

Dimensio: dittybopper:

Your extremely reasoned presentation has earned you a month of TotalFark.


I thank you kind Sir.
 
2012-10-04 12:10:32 PM

redmid17: Suicides are almost a non-starter. Gun suicides are less than 5% of the attempts but are 95% effective, whereas drugs ODs are something like 75 or 80% but are much, much less effective (


Actually,

Dimensio: redmid17: Suicides are almost a non-starter. Gun suicides are less than 5% of the attempts but are 95% effective, whereas drugs ODs are something like 75 or 80% but are much, much less effective (

Nonetheless, substantially reducing the rate of firearm ownership may prove effective in reducing the suicide rate of the United States to levels observed in France, Belgium or even Japan. Is such an outcome not worth the effort?


Heh.
 
2012-10-04 12:15:31 PM

PallMall: Dimensio: HERP-A-DERP!

If someone wants to kill themselves... LET THEM!! Jesus H Christ! It's their decision, not yours or the Gubmin's, or anyone else.

Everyone should have control over their own life and destiny. Butt the fark out of their personal decisions.


You may wish to examine the suicide rates of France, Belgium and Japan before assuming that my comment was intended as a serious statement.

/To provide fair consideration, suicide rates in France are high due to residents realising that they are French.
//To provide fair consideration, suicide rates in Belgium are high due to residents realising that they are frequently mistaken for the French.
 
2012-10-04 12:17:22 PM

redmid17: Also the three countries you listed have higher suicide rates than the US (nearly double in Japan's case), so I'm not sure where you're going with this.


media.giantbomb.com
 
2012-10-04 12:37:29 PM

Kit Fister: jonny99: bim1154: jonny99: I suppose it doesn't matter that this spike in gun violence comes *2 years after* Chicago's handgun ban was struck down by the supreme court?


/Chicagoan
//who doesn't own or want to own a gun

For a "Chicagoan" you don't keep up do you? That's o.k., you can go walk the walk with Father Pfleger and his crowd.

Thanks for your permission to have an opinion - I have no desire to live in an armed society - just as in global politics, the answer can only be found in de-escalation. Gun people love to ask how banning guns is working out for Chicago, but the truth is no one can answer that question because they're not really banned, can be trafficked in from other places that hold the distribution of firearms sacrosanct. I don't have to walk with anyone - I just choose to walk without a deadly weapon on me, and I would prefer that as few people as possible in my immediate vicinity have one.

If you think that is because I am too naive and trusting of people you would be incorrect - I have no faith that anyone who feels the need to carry deadly force with them at all times is well adjusted enough to use it responsibly. So many Fark threads read like Penthouse forum fantasies that replace farking with a barely-contained vigilante rage, just waiting for the opportunity to be in the right place at the right time to visit violence on someone (usually of a different race than themselves) "justifiably". Not my deal.

sadly, I think you're both right and wrong.

Right in that for the first year or so, most guys who get a ccw permit do so because it's cool. However, you're also wrong, as it sinks in with most people just what that responsibility means after a while.

As someone who does carry, and has faced having to use it against an armed attacker after every option of avoidance and deescalation failed, let me tell you that once you realize the gravity of reality, it's neither glamorous nor cool, it's a grim reality.

A gun isn't a sure bet in a ...


Sounds like you could contribute a chapter to these:
On Combat
and...
On Killing 
Both should be required reading for all who carry a gun. ALL.
 
2012-10-04 12:44:53 PM

Dimensio: redmid17: Also the three countries you listed have higher suicide rates than the US (nearly double in Japan's case), so I'm not sure where you're going with this.

[media.giantbomb.com image 452x339]


The goggles. They do nothing.
 
2012-10-04 12:47:45 PM

Dimensio: You may wish to examine the suicide rates of France, Belgium and Japan before assuming that my comment was intended as a serious statement.

/To provide fair consideration, suicide rates in France are high due to residents realising that they are French.
//To provide fair consideration, suicide rates in Belgium are high due to residents realising that they are frequently mistaken for the French.


I'm well aware of the sarcastic trolling you did, but either way, I'll stick with my opinion.
 
2012-10-04 01:09:08 PM

fugeeface: Sounds like you could contribute a chapter to these:
On Combat
and...
On Killing 
Both should be required reading for all who carry a gun. ALL.


To be honest, I find Grossman somewhat unconvincing. His argument that first person shooter games are "murder simulators" that would lead to more violence flies in the face of our actual experience, 20 years later. As FPS games have gotten more realistic, the homicide rate has gone *DOWN*. I'm not saying that the availability of FPS games caused that, merely that Grossman's theory has been shown to be wrong, because they didn't lead to an increase in homicides.
 
2012-10-04 01:24:37 PM

ScottRiqui: Crimes of passion, suicide, and vigilantism don't require firearms. If I'm going to kill myself, kill my lover in a jealous rage, or join a mob intent on dispensing justice, the absence of a firearm isn't likely to deter me.


Of course not; but it's a hell of an equalizer You walk in and, seeing your lover with someone else (let's say not at your home for the sake of argument), go into a murderous rage. Odds of killing them both unarmed? Armed with a vase you grabbed? Odds of killing them both if you happened to have a gun on your person at the time? At best, they're equal; at worst; the gun makes you more likely to commit a murder rather than an attempted murder.

That's the whole thing with crimes of passion, you've got to have a means that instant. If you've got to go home and get your gun, it's become premeditated. Though, yeah, crimes of passion probably aren't a significant amount of gun violence to begin with.

I've got no real issue with gun-people having their guns because they're pretty smart about it because they're a subculture unto themselves. But the idea that the world would be a safer place if everyone was carrying though? That assumes that everyone is at least as responsible as them and that's a farking stupid assumption to make.
 
2012-10-04 01:32:14 PM

dittybopper: fugeeface: Sounds like you could contribute a chapter to these:
On Combat
and...
On Killing 
Both should be required reading for all who carry a gun. ALL.

To be honest, I find Grossman somewhat unconvincing. His argument that first person shooter games are "murder simulators" that would lead to more violence flies in the face of our actual experience, 20 years later. As FPS games have gotten more realistic, the homicide rate has gone *DOWN*. I'm not saying that the availability of FPS games caused that, merely that Grossman's theory has been shown to be wrong, because they didn't lead to an increase in homicides.


I've gone through a lot of training since then with a lot of different groups, schools, and agencies. ALL of it is different, and all of it adds something. However, at the end of the day, you'll never know what's going to happen until you actually have to step up/.
 
2012-10-04 01:34:42 PM

ProfessorOhki: ScottRiqui: Crimes of passion, suicide, and vigilantism don't require firearms. If I'm going to kill myself, kill my lover in a jealous rage, or join a mob intent on dispensing justice, the absence of a firearm isn't likely to deter me.

Of course not; but it's a hell of an equalizer You walk in and, seeing your lover with someone else (let's say not at your home for the sake of argument), go into a murderous rage. Odds of killing them both unarmed? Armed with a vase you grabbed? Odds of killing them both if you happened to have a gun on your person at the time? At best, they're equal; at worst; the gun makes you more likely to commit a murder rather than an attempted murder.

That's the whole thing with crimes of passion, you've got to have a means that instant. If you've got to go home and get your gun, it's become premeditated. Though, yeah, crimes of passion probably aren't a significant amount of gun violence to begin with.

I've got no real issue with gun-people having their guns because they're pretty smart about it because they're a subculture unto themselves. But the idea that the world would be a safer place if everyone was carrying though? That assumes that everyone is at least as responsible as them and that's a farking stupid assumption to make.


Here's the fallacy of your logic: You assume that in any given area (neglecting WADC, anywhere in CA, Chicago, or NY), you're not around a large group of armed people. This is the thing about CCW, you don't KNOW who's armed and who isn't. I bet it would shock you, too, to learn just who in the crowd is and isn't armed. It sure did when I started teaching the CCW courses.
 
2012-10-04 01:38:30 PM

MrEricSir: I'm not the one who thinks he's Bruce Willis.


Nope. Just another gun-grabbing utopian idealist who blames inanimate objects for social problems.
 
2012-10-04 01:44:35 PM

dittybopper: It's got nothing to do with melanin content, and everything to do with how cultural values are transmitted.


SO MUCH THIS

Virtually all "race" issues are really "culture" issues.

Guns don't kill. Ghetto culture kills.
 
2012-10-04 01:53:11 PM

clyph: MrEricSir: I'm not the one who thinks he's Bruce Willis.

Nope. Just another gun-grabbing utopian idealist who blames inanimate objects for social problems.


No, all I'm saying is that this "guns are how I defend myself" argument is hilariously stupid. Take your head out of your ass and look around -- you are not a lone hero in an action movie. Statistically, you're more likely to injure yourself than save anyone.
 
2012-10-04 01:57:21 PM

Kit Fister: ProfessorOhki: ScottRiqui: Crimes of passion, suicide, and vigilantism don't require firearms. If I'm going to kill myself, kill my lover in a jealous rage, or join a mob intent on dispensing justice, the absence of a firearm isn't likely to deter me.

Of course not; but it's a hell of an equalizer You walk in and, seeing your lover with someone else (let's say not at your home for the sake of argument), go into a murderous rage. Odds of killing them both unarmed? Armed with a vase you grabbed? Odds of killing them both if you happened to have a gun on your person at the time? At best, they're equal; at worst; the gun makes you more likely to commit a murder rather than an attempted murder.

That's the whole thing with crimes of passion, you've got to have a means that instant. If you've got to go home and get your gun, it's become premeditated. Though, yeah, crimes of passion probably aren't a significant amount of gun violence to begin with.

I've got no real issue with gun-people having their guns because they're pretty smart about it because they're a subculture unto themselves. But the idea that the world would be a safer place if everyone was carrying though? That assumes that everyone is at least as responsible as them and that's a farking stupid assumption to make.

Here's the fallacy of your logic: You assume that in any given area (neglecting WADC, anywhere in CA, Chicago, or NY), you're not around a large group of armed people. This is the thing about CCW, you don't KNOW who's armed and who isn't. I bet it would shock you, too, to learn just who in the crowd is and isn't armed. It sure did when I started teaching the CCW courses.


But I am in CA, so there's that. And, would you look at that, below average gun deaths. NY is even lower. Link

Again, I don't care if people carry or not. I just think on the whole, more gun owners = more gun deaths in the exact same way more cars = more car deaths. I also think just because something is unsafe is no reason to ban it. Doesn't change that "guns make us safer" argument is a load of bull.

/Not sure what the deal with DC is
//Population density?
 
2012-10-04 02:00:42 PM

ProfessorOhki: You walk in and, seeing your lover with someone else (let's say not at your home for the sake of argument), go into a murderous rage.


Yeah a person in a murderous rage would never strangle someone with their bare hands. Or grab a kitchen knife, hammer, or baseball bat. Or get the tire iron out of their car.

Never mind the fact that CCW permit holders have a dramatically lower crime rate (including domestic violence) than the general population. Contrary to your propaganda-inspired stereotypes, the kind of people who actually go through the process of getting a carry permit are overwhelmingly serious-minded, self-disciplined individuals with a strong sense of civic duty and a high degree of respect for the law.
 
2012-10-04 02:23:59 PM
You know, I'm going to respond to you almost entirely with quotes from my other posts in this thread, because it's pretty clear you skipped most of them, including the one you're responding to.

clyph: Yeah a person in a murderous rage would never strangle someone with their bare hands. Or grab a kitchen knife, hammer, or baseball bat.


"Of course not; but it's a hell of an equalizer You walk in and, seeing your lover with someone else (let's say not at your home for the sake of argument), go into a murderous rage. Odds of killing them both unarmed? Armed with a vase you grabbed? Odds of killing them both if you happened to have a gun on your person at the time?"

clyph: Or get the tire iron out of their car.


"That's the whole thing with crimes of passion, you've got to have a means that instant. If you've got to go home leave the scene and get your gun retrieve a weapon, it's become premeditated."

clyph: Contrary to your propaganda-inspired stereotypes, the kind of people who actually go through the process of getting a carry permit are overwhelmingly serious-minded, self-disciplined individuals with a strong sense of civic duty and a high degree of respect for the law.


"I've got no real issue with gun-people having their guns because they're pretty smart about it because they're a subculture unto themselves. But the idea that the world would be a safer place if everyone was carrying though? That assumes that everyone is at least as responsible as them and that's a farking stupid assumption to make."

So, serious question: how to you manage to quote to a post that says most enthusiasts/permit holders are responsible with a declaration of the same and THEN accuse me of having a propaganda-inspired stereotype? Really?
 
2012-10-04 02:26:16 PM
Oh wow, that wasn't even different posts, those all came from the post you were replying to. Are you a time traveler or something? That's almost eerie.
 
2012-10-04 03:31:01 PM

MrEricSir: Statistically, you're more likely to injure yourself than save anyone.


As is evident by the data showing that attempted defensive uses of firearms more frequently results in injury of the victim, rather than a termination of an assault, which I am certain that you will be able to reference.
 
2012-10-04 03:36:46 PM

jonny99: redmid17: jonny99: Silly Jesus: jonny99: Silly Jesus: jonny99: smitty04: Secret Master of All Flatulence: DaCaptain19: You don't live in Chicago, do you? Nope, if you did you'd be thinking the same thing all us Chicagoans think but don't say.

Nope, I don't live in Chicago. That being said: I've dealt with a LOT of scumbags over the years. Not just gangmembers, but baby rapers, wife beaters, and just about every other kind of criminal out there. The color of the skin of the perpetrator is meaningless...it's what they, as an individual, have done. And I can say, with some certainty, that douchebaggery is not the province of any one skin color, socioeconomic status, religious belief, or geographic locale.

[www.chicagonow.com image 583x302]
Then why is homicide rate so low in Edison Park?

Since you think this chart tells the whole story - you might want to consider the poverty level in Edison Park - that's the killer, not "race".

Race and poverty, among other factors, are quite strongly connected.



Yeah, I wonder why that could possibly be? Don't forget about poverty and criminality, or poverty and violence.

Culture.

Ahhhh - of course! I forgot that races that are culturally superior don't succumb to violence and other problems under severe conditions of poverty. Yr whistle brings all the dogs to the yard.

So what's is like being racist and assuming that he meant culture influenced by race?

Step 1: display a chart and imply that because a community is a majority white it has less crime
Step 2: when the relative poverty levels are pointed out, "politely" suggest that it is race and poverty that are linked, not poverty and crime
Step 3: suggest that "culture" is the factor that mediates between race and poverty (ie: a particular race suffers poverty, their culture is therefore inferior)

I suppose you think that the ability to talk "around" what you are trying to say is a component of cultural superiority.
How does it feel to be an apologist for r ...


www.mlponline.net
 
2012-10-04 03:38:47 PM

jonny99: Silly Jesus: jonny99: Silly Jesus: jonny99: Silly Jesus: jonny99: smitty04: Secret Master of All Flatulence: DaCaptain19: You don't live in Chicago, do you? Nope, if you did you'd be thinking the same thing all us Chicagoans think but don't say.

Nope, I don't live in Chicago. That being said: I've dealt with a LOT of scumbags over the years. Not just gangmembers, but baby rapers, wife beaters, and just about every other kind of criminal out there. The color of the skin of the perpetrator is meaningless...it's what they, as an individual, have done. And I can say, with some certainty, that douchebaggery is not the province of any one skin color, socioeconomic status, religious belief, or geographic locale.

[www.chicagonow.com image 583x302]
Then why is homicide rate so low in Edison Park?

Since you think this chart tells the whole story - you might want to consider the poverty level in Edison Park - that's the killer, not "race".

Race and poverty, among other factors, are quite strongly connected.



Yeah, I wonder why that could possibly be? Don't forget about poverty and criminality, or poverty and violence.

Culture.

Ahhhh - of course! I forgot that races that are culturally superior don't succumb to violence and other problems under severe conditions of poverty. Yr whistle brings all the dogs to the yard.

WTF are you talking about?

Being the child of a single mother is the greatest predictor (when all other factors are accounted for) of future criminality. 70% of black children are born to single mothers. It's a cultural trait that makes that acceptable and the norm. It's not BECAUSE they are black...but it is a commonality of that community.

Avoid reality though and cry racism at any mention of race and you'll be able to blissfully keep your head buried in the sand.

You're getting closer... clearly you would like to keep drawing the line at correlations, like the rates of single parenthood or poverty in black communities, and say "I don't ...


Please explain how "pervasive racial inequality" is the cause of single parenthood rates in black communities.
 
2012-10-04 03:44:39 PM

dittybopper: jonny99: Step 1: display a chart and imply that because a community is a majority white it has less crime
Step 2: when the relative poverty levels are pointed out, "politely" suggest that it is race and poverty that are linked, not poverty and crime
Step 3: suggest that "culture" is the factor that mediates between race and poverty (ie: a particular race suffers poverty, their culture is therefore inferior)

I suppose you think that the ability to talk "around" what you are trying to say is a component of cultural superiority.
How does it feel to be an apologist for racism?

It's not racism to point out the facts. I've actually done the math, and poor blacks have a 2.5 times higher homicide rate than poor whites. My sources were data from the Centers for Disease Control, and the US Census.

Or are you going to argue that math is racist?

Really, violence is largely a cultural phenomenon, and you learn your cultural values largely from your parents and peers, who learned their values from their parents and peers, who learned it from theirs, and so forth back down the line. That's why "European Americans" have a European-like homicide rate, 2.74 per 100,000 in the US vs. 3.5 per 100,000 for Europe*.

It's got nothing to do with melanin content, and everything to do with how cultural values are transmitted. Starting in the 1960's, the traditional black family structure started to shatter. It was noted as far back as 1965 that this trend was a major problem in the black community. All of the traditional values that would normally have been passed from a stable two parent family were essentially abandoned, because out-of-wedlock birth became the norm, not the exception, and single parent homes became the norm, not the exception.

It is interesting to note that after you control for poverty, the increased homicide rate in non-hispanic blacks over non-hispanic whites (2.46 times higher rate) is similar to the born-out-of-wedlock rate (69.5% black non-hispanic births / ...


Very well said. Exactly what I was trying to say, though less eloquently.

Sadly, though, the liberals have informed that all ills in the black community are the fault of whitey, so I'm going to have to dismiss your post outright as propaganda.
 
2012-10-04 03:48:15 PM

Dimensio: redmid17: Suicides are almost a non-starter. Gun suicides are less than 5% of the attempts but are 95% effective, whereas drugs ODs are something like 75 or 80% but are much, much less effective (

Nonetheless, substantially reducing the rate of firearm ownership may prove effective in reducing the suicide rate of the United States to levels observed in France, Belgium or even Japan. Is such an outcome not worth the effort?


At what cost? I'm not willing to accept higher crime rates in exchange for lower suicide rates. By the way, Japan, France, and Belgium all have suicide rates substantially higher than the US. See Link
 
2012-10-04 03:54:32 PM

MrEricSir: clyph: MrEricSir: I'm not the one who thinks he's Bruce Willis.

Nope. Just another gun-grabbing utopian idealist who blames inanimate objects for social problems.

No, all I'm saying is that this "guns are how I defend myself" argument is hilariously stupid. Take your head out of your ass and look around -- you are not a lone hero in an action movie. Statistically, you're more likely to injure yourself than save anyone.


What you don't know is that you're referring to the infamous Kellerman Paper. That was proven to be a fraud See Link
 
2012-10-04 04:28:28 PM

LaughingRadish: Dimensio: redmid17: Suicides are almost a non-starter. Gun suicides are less than 5% of the attempts but are 95% effective, whereas drugs ODs are something like 75 or 80% but are much, much less effective (

Nonetheless, substantially reducing the rate of firearm ownership may prove effective in reducing the suicide rate of the United States to levels observed in France, Belgium or even Japan. Is such an outcome not worth the effort?

At what cost? I'm not willing to accept higher crime rates in exchange for lower suicide rates. By the way, Japan, France, and Belgium all have suicide rates substantially higher than the US. See Link


You may wish to reconsider your response.
 
2012-10-04 04:56:30 PM

dittybopper: It is interesting to note that after you control for poverty, the increased homicide rate in non-hispanic blacks over non-hispanic whites (2.46 times higher rate) is similar to the born-out-of-wedlock rate (69.5% black non-hispanic births / 25.4% white non-hispanic births = 2.74 times higher).


Of course, that also happens to be the same as the percentage of drug treatment revenues coming from public funds, the number of UCLA students receiving grants or scholarships, the number of Japanese television owners ready for digital TV conversion in 2009, and the protein content of P.E. Mysis shrimp cubes.

Interesting, maybe. Of substantive value for analysis? Not so much.
 
2012-10-04 05:01:51 PM

Dimensio: LaughingRadish: Dimensio: redmid17: Suicides are almost a non-starter. Gun suicides are less than 5% of the attempts but are 95% effective, whereas drugs ODs are something like 75 or 80% but are much, much less effective (

Nonetheless, substantially reducing the rate of firearm ownership may prove effective in reducing the suicide rate of the United States to levels observed in France, Belgium or even Japan. Is such an outcome not worth the effort?

At what cost? I'm not willing to accept higher crime rates in exchange for lower suicide rates. By the way, Japan, France, and Belgium all have suicide rates substantially higher than the US. See Link

You may wish to reconsider your response.


Mea culpa. I saw that shortly after I hit "Add Comment".
 
2012-10-04 05:10:25 PM

LaughingRadish: What you don't know is that you're referring to the infamous Kellerman Paper. That was proven to be a fraud See Link


Like creationists or climate change deniers, gun grabbers don't care about science or facts. They will latch on to any "authority" that supports their conclusion and keep endlessly repeating the same old lies in their echo chamber circle jerks, regardless of how many times or how thoroughly their sources have been debunked.

Let's try and make it simple for you people:

1) The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is a Constitutionally protected individual right in the US whether you like it or not.

2) Gun control laws are demonstrably ineffective in keeping guns out of the hands of criminals

3) There is no statistically significant correlation between the legal availability of firearms and violent crime rates, in either direction.
 
2012-10-04 06:30:37 PM

dittybopper: jonny99: You're getting closer... clearly you would like to keep drawing the line at correlations, like the rates of single parenthood or poverty in black communities, and say "I don't think it's because their black, but it is a trait of their community" - without answering the question "why is this the case?" The answer is pervasive, systemic racial inequality. But that's much more threatening to your sense of propriety than "cultural traits", so you'll keep finding reasons to deny it or project racism onto others.

Forty years ago, I would have agreed with this. Not today. The external barriers that blacks faced in the 1950's and 1960's have all been removed. The inequality they face today isn't externally imposed upon them.


Wow- really? I hope you are reincarnated on the southwest side so you can put that theory to the test. I'm sure you'd do great with the adequately funded schools, safe, calm environment, and easy access to healthcare and fresh food that exists on Chicago's southwest side.

As for the fact that these issues can be traced back decades, congratulations - you just learned what pervasive and systemic means.
 
2012-10-04 08:28:04 PM

dittybopper: fugeeface: Sounds like you could contribute a chapter to these:
On Combat
and...
On Killing 
Both should be required reading for all who carry a gun. ALL.

To be honest, I find Grossman somewhat unconvincing. His argument that first person shooter games are "murder simulators" that would lead to more violence flies in the face of our actual experience, 20 years later. As FPS games have gotten more realistic, the homicide rate has gone *DOWN*. I'm not saying that the availability of FPS games caused that, merely that Grossman's theory has been shown to be wrong, because they didn't lead to an increase in homicides.


Yeah, I generally agree with you regarding his opinion on FPS games, but the overall substance of his presentation is solid, sobering, and convincing.
 
2012-10-04 08:51:03 PM

jonny99: dittybopper: jonny99: You're getting closer... clearly you would like to keep drawing the line at correlations, like the rates of single parenthood or poverty in black communities, and say "I don't think it's because their black, but it is a trait of their community" - without answering the question "why is this the case?" The answer is pervasive, systemic racial inequality. But that's much more threatening to your sense of propriety than "cultural traits", so you'll keep finding reasons to deny it or project racism onto others.

Forty years ago, I would have agreed with this. Not today. The external barriers that blacks faced in the 1950's and 1960's have all been removed. The inequality they face today isn't externally imposed upon them.

Wow- really? I hope you are reincarnated on the southwest side so you can put that theory to the test. I'm sure you'd do great with the adequately funded schools, safe, calm environment, and easy access to healthcare and fresh food that exists on Chicago's southwest side.

As for the fact that these issues can be traced back decades, congratulations - you just learned what pervasive and systemic means.


I'd have to agree with both of you. The barriers are no longer externally imposed (at least institutionally), but they're still dealing with the inertia from the time when they were.

And to be completely frank, it's the lack of a safe, calm environment that really ruins access to education, healthcare, and fresh food; if most people are scared to run a business or teach there, you only get the people who have no other options. Of course then, the lack of education and all eventually leads to a lack of safety. The barriers are gone, but the cycle's reached a point where it can sustain itself. You've got to either break it with people who will educate in spite of the risks to their lives, or put a huge dent in the violence somehow.
 
2012-10-04 10:14:25 PM

Dimensio: redmid17: Suicides are almost a non-starter. Gun suicides are less than 5% of the attempts but are 95% effective, whereas drugs ODs are something like 75 or 80% but are much, much less effective (

Nonetheless, substantially reducing the rate of firearm ownership may prove effective in reducing the suicide rate of the United States to levels observed in France, Belgium or even Japan. Is such an outcome not worth the effort?


Absolutely not. Of course, I support a person's right to die, to the point that I'd like to see assisted suicide legalized nation-wide.

I've got a number of degenerative diseases. When I decide that it's time for me to die, I'd PREFER to go to my physician and have him perscribe a painless lethal dose of a pharmaceutically-produced drug. Until that happens, I'll keep the gun I've chosen to end my life with when it's time stashed away. It's nifty...a Remington 870 AOW with a 6.5 inch barrel. None of this "pulling the trigger with my toes" bullshiat for me! :D
 
2012-10-04 11:59:02 PM

DaCaptain19: Which means nothing in IL, the ONLY state with no way to conceal-carry,


While California has conceal carry on the books, in reality the only way you'll get your permit is if you personally know someone important who can "make arrangements". No one gets a permit except judges and anti-gun politicians (I'm looking at you Boxer, you farking c00nt).
 
Displayed 50 of 254 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report