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.

(Hot Air)   Since 2006 Virginia has had a 73% increase in guns sales and the violent crime rate exploded...Wait. Sorry... I mean dropped 27% and gun violence down 26% and over all crime down. So Brady Campaign lets ban guns to make things safer   (hotair.com) divider line 220
    More: Interesting, Brady Campaign, Richmond Times-Dispatch, population growths, vcu, negative relationship, Ice T  
•       •       •

1354 clicks; posted to Politics » on 27 Nov 2012 at 11:51 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-28 03:23:47 AM

mediablitz: Mikey1969: The point is that freaks will murder people using any weapon. Take away guns, they move to blades.

Why didn't they, then? Why only 12 homicides amongst 7 million people? The BEST you can do is point to a "rash" of sword killings that amount to a whole 38? From a couple years ago?

/laughing and pointing


The "best"? No, the quickest, you stupid fark. Besides," a few years ago" doesn't make a lick of difference in this conversation. As for 38,it's what I could remember off the top of my head. I believe it's a bit conservative, actually.
 
2012-11-28 03:27:43 AM

Mikey1969: The "best"? No, the quickest, you stupid fark. Besides," a few years ago" doesn't make a lick of difference in this conversation. As for 38,it's what I could remember off the top of my head. I believe it's a bit conservative, actually.


Dude, you've jumped the shark here. You might try trolling Reddit or something to get your chops back up, and then switch to a new login. Yeah, I went there. Hope you don't still owe anything on the present one.
 
2012-11-28 03:48:44 AM

vernonFL: Virginia has no problems with guns, yet *radar detectors* are illegal.


Well, a radar detector is a rather juicy target. It's basically taunting all those legal gun owners to take a shot.
 
2012-11-28 03:49:31 AM

whidbey: Mikey1969: The "best"? No, the quickest, you stupid fark. Besides," a few years ago" doesn't make a lick of difference in this conversation. As for 38,it's what I could remember off the top of my head. I believe it's a bit conservative, actually.

Dude, you've jumped the shark here. You might try trolling Reddit or something to get your chops back up, and then switch to a new login. Yeah, I went there. Hope you don't still owe anything on the present one.


Misuse of the phrase "jump the shark" just reinforces the idea that a bag of hammers could clean your clock at 'Jeopardy!".
 
2012-11-28 04:02:09 AM

Mikey1969: Misuse of the phrase "jump the shark"


true. That would imply you've been fun and entertaining at some point.
 
2012-11-28 04:09:36 AM

Mikey1969: Big deal, look at the rash of school attacks in China and couple of years ago, something like 38 kids murdered, no guns at all. All knives and one sword, I believe.

The point is that freaks will murder people using any weapon. Take away guns, they move to blades.


Mainland China ain't HK
"Take away guns, they move to blades"....so how is it that we had only 12 homicides last year?
The point is..you want fewer murders? Get civilized.
 
2012-11-28 04:39:08 AM

thomps: "It's mathematically not possible, because the relationship is a negative relationship - they're moving in the opposite direction," Baker said. "So the only thing it could be is that more guns are causing less crime."

well no, it could also be that there is no causation at all, or other factors outweigh a causation between increased gun ownership and gun crime. there are a lot of possibilities here because you aren't doing any actual analysis with the data you were provided.


We also have to remember that Canada has just as many guns per capita as the US, but far less gun crime. This was discovered by that NRA shill Michael Moore in his pro-gun manifesto Bowling for Columbine.
 
2012-11-28 05:03:49 AM

Befuddled: I don't get why the pro-gunners aren't pushing for more things to keep people from committing crimes so that guns don't get blamed for high crime, basically a far better social safety net. Maybe I'm expecting too much from them.


Please provide the data showing that the social safety net or lack there of causes people to commit violent crime. I think it's more of a personal choice rather than a flaw in society.

The highest violent crime offender groups are males between 18-24 years of age, followed by 14-17. 14-17 have access to plenty of government programs.
 
2012-11-28 05:11:42 AM

Lt_Ryan: Please provide the data showing that the social safety net or lack there of causes people to commit violent crime.


How about the crime rates for every other country that has a stronger social safety net than ours?


Lt_Ryan: 14-17 have access to plenty of government programs.


yeah. the high school guidance counselor.
 
2012-11-28 05:31:44 AM
Hey, look. The editors at Hot Air are submitting their own Fark headlines.
 
2012-11-28 05:36:19 AM

thomps: "It's mathematically not possible, because the relationship is a negative relationship - they're moving in the opposite direction," Baker said. "So the only thing it could be is that more guns are causing less crime."

well no, it could also be that there is no causation at all, or other factors outweigh a causation between increased gun ownership and gun crime. there are a lot of possibilities here because you aren't doing any actual analysis with the data you were provided.


Also, something tells me the CRASH program and an extradition treaty with El Salvador have maybe a little to do with this. Since I've never seen one of these white haired fruits with Romney & Allen stickers all over his car whip his "Glock" out of his Members Only jacket and drop a machete wielding Salvadoran gangster, I'm going to have to go with the gang crackdown.
 
2012-11-28 06:20:19 AM

Chimperror2: Interesting but gun violence is generally poor against poor and usually the victim and perpetrator are the same ethnicity (mostly because victims of homicides know their attacker and that tends to mean they have a connection that includes ethnicity). Multiculturalism isn't correlated to gun violence.


The problem isn't immigrants coming in and starting race-wars with the other ethnic groups, it's minority groups self-segregating and, among other things, isolating themselves from law-enforcement (which is primarily staffed by people from relatively affluent backgrounds, i.e. not immigrants/minorities themselves so much). It basically exacerbates the statistical effects of poverty on crime rates.

And, similarly, the fact that violence is usually poor against poor does not in any way negate the overall level of poverty being a major driver of crime. People by default don't like to commit violent crime, they do it because of a real or perceived need. Someone who can be unemployed for half a year without it impacting their lifestyle probably doesn't go to a loan shark and end up press-ganged into organized crime. Someone rich enough to date frequently and find another mate fast is less likely to respond to their current SO leaving with a fit of emotion so strong they shoot someone. And so on.

But the "truth in sentencing" laws and "three strikes" laws are probably much more likely to have reduced violent crime than any gun sales.

Three strikes actually has been a fairly bad policy because it requires too many judgement calls on the part of judges and juries, making it damned near impossible to apply it with anything remotely approaching fairness. There doesn't seem to be any correlation between states implementing them and states that don't where violent crime is concerned, either (not that that's bad, it's been dropping everywhere, again, at about the same rate).

Actually the strongest correlation that anyone has found so far with violent crime is the one Levitt worked out in the 1990s, the availability of legal abortion. Obviously there's a 16-20 year lag time on the effect, but his analysis was actually pretty solid.
 
2012-11-28 06:21:36 AM
Dealers are probably buying guns en masse from VA, then selling them illegally in other states.

Our derpy Republican state government has lifted several restrictions on gun sales. We used to limit handgun sales to 1 per month; that limit has now been lifted. It makes sense that people come here from across the country to stock up, it doesn't mean most of those weapons are remaining within our state borders.
 
2012-11-28 06:23:13 AM

Glockenspiel Hero: I have my students pick a final project based around a controversial scientific theory and I have one group doing the "gun ownership reduces crime rates" bit next week. As many have mentioned, this is all about correlation and causation- they have lots of nice graphs showing gun ownership rates over time vs. violent crime rates.

I can draw those exact same graphs looking at violent video game sales, which have increased as crime rates have dropped. Ditto increase in porn website views. And miles flown by the average American. And ice cream sales.

I have a counter group for each that's supposed to criticize the other group. If their entire paper isn't an attack along these lines I'll be disappointed. The proposing group better be ready for it as well- I've already warned them it's coming.


intellectually dishonest drivel. you shouldn't be allowed to teach.
 
2012-11-28 06:24:21 AM
The Brady campaign is staffed by people with horribly irrational ideas and perverted agendas. They wouldn't know a statistical if it jumped up and bit them on their Silver Nates.

Can we please stop talking about them as if they were some bastion of political sanity?
 
2012-11-28 06:43:47 AM
Well, this is interesting. Since I've moved to Virginia, the violent crime rate has dropped (and I don't even own a gun). Therefore, wherever there is a sharp increase in violent crimes, I will pack up and move there. I apparently can solve your issues with criminal behavior.
 
2012-11-28 06:47:12 AM

DancingElkCondor: Most places find that violent crime goes DOWN when gun laws are less strict

Real reason the left pushes gun control is that they hate white folks having guns to shoot back at minority criminals. Our politically-correct and White Guilt Liberal media will never report nor admit to this


Are you on drugs?

First of all, gun control isn't something supported by everyone you label "liberal."

Secondly, how the fark would that be the reason? Did you just pull this out of your victimhood-loving ass?
 
2012-11-28 06:52:03 AM

way south: The Brady campaign is staffed by people with horribly irrational ideas and perverted agendas. They wouldn't know a statistical if it jumped up and bit them on their Silver Nates.

Can we please stop talking about them as if they were some bastion of political sanity?


Are they the "Operation Rescue" of gun control? I am honestly asking since this lib has not heard much about gun control since the 80s.
 
2012-11-28 06:52:12 AM
Since the original intent of the law was to prevent Virginia from regaining its status as the East Coast's number one gun supplier for crimes in the Northeast, I would be interested to see just how many of these guns purchased are staying in the state now.
 
2012-11-28 06:56:10 AM

Befuddled: I don't get why the pro-gunners aren't pushing for more things to keep people from committing crimes so that guns don't get blamed for high crime, basically a far better social safety net. Maybe I'm expecting too much from them.


Because there are some of us who feel that a guy who crawls though your window at night looking for electronics in your kid's bedroom is actually a criminal and not some victim of society and if only we increased funding to XYZ, then there wouldn't be any more crime.

The first question in any ethics 101 class asks people to consider if it is okay for a hungry man to steal a loaf of bread off someone else's windowsill. (The answer is no, by the way)
 
2012-11-28 07:00:19 AM

sno man: thomps: "It's mathematically not possible, because the relationship is a negative relationship - they're moving in the opposite direction," Baker said. "So the only thing it could be is that more guns are causing less crime."

well no, it could also be that there is no causation at all, or other factors outweigh a causation between increased gun ownership and gun crime. there are a lot of possibilities here because you aren't doing any actual analysis with the data you were provided.

Up here in Canuckistan where we are a bit more, ahem, conservative about gun ownership crime rates are going down too.

/a curious aside: there were 552 murders in all of Canada in 2010. There were just less than half that in L.A. (one tenthish the population) and/or also in New Orleans (one 100thish)


Denser populations in the city- easier to find hit targets.
 
2012-11-28 07:02:31 AM

dustman81: Let's look at Kennesaw, GA. A town where gun ownership isn't just encouraged, it's the law.

Named in 2007 as Family Circle's "10 best towns for families".

In 2008, Kennesaw recorded 31 violent crimes, as compared to 127 in Dalton and 188 in Hinesville. 555 property crimes were recorded as compared to 1,124 in Dalton and 1,802 in Hinesville. (From the Financial Times)


Less crime happens in the more affluent suburbs of Atlanta than it does in rural parts of Georgia. Someone grab me my fainting chair.

Now, if they compared it to places like Marietta, Alpharetta, and Canton, then I could see some validity in that comparison.
 
2012-11-28 07:08:13 AM

Mikey1969: jaytkay: Mikey1969: Big deal, look at the rash of school attacks in China and couple of years ago, something like 38 kids murdered, no guns at all. All knives and one sword, I believe

Damn.

I mean we have weekly incidents in the US where guys kill their families.

But 38 in China? Has their economy recovered?

Yeah, because that was the point. You know what the point is, so I'm not going to re-state it.


No, you clearly don't understand.

There were FAR FEWER HOMICIDES. They didn't just find other ways. What the fark is wrong with your reading comprehension?
 
2012-11-28 07:09:17 AM

0Icky0: Ishkur: Crime is a distinct metric dependent upon a number of factors, the most important being demographics (crime is predominantly caused by 18-24 males), culture, disparity of affluence, and simply reporting crime. But there is no correlation between firearms and crime.

Here in Hong Kong....
Nearly 7 million people, packed tightly together. Extremely stressful working environment.
And no guns.
We had 12 homicides last year.
Correlate that, gun-nuts.

/gun owner..when in the States...because Americans are crazy.


Japan is similar in the sense that they don't include criminals killing criminals in their body count unless the criminal is high profile. I'm guessing that while gun related homocides are low, there is a high occurence of people going missing.
 
2012-11-28 07:15:57 AM

o5iiawah: Befuddled: I don't get why the pro-gunners aren't pushing for more things to keep people from committing crimes so that guns don't get blamed for high crime, basically a far better social safety net. Maybe I'm expecting too much from them.

Because there are some of us who feel that a guy who crawls though your window at night looking for electronics in your kid's bedroom is actually a criminal and not some victim of society and if only we increased funding to XYZ, then there wouldn't be any more crime.

The first question in any ethics 101 class asks people to consider if it is okay for a hungry man to steal a loaf of bread off someone else's windowsill. (The answer is no, by the way)


Sigh.

Nobody is born a criminal. It is a learned behavior. Yes, enforcement of the law is paramount, and gun ownership *can* save your life. But that doesn't mean we have to choose only one solution. Solve the root cause AND deal with the symptoms. Your way deals with the symptoms, and does absolutely nothing to solve the problem of crime.
 
2012-11-28 07:34:02 AM
Ishkur: For the last god damn time:

ACCESSIBILITY TO FIREARMS HAS NO RELATION TO CRIME.

Crime is a distinct metric dependent upon a number of factors, the most important being demographics (crime is predominantly caused by 18-24 males), culture, disparity of affluence, and simply reporting crime. But there is no correlation between firearms and crime.


What about gun crime?
 
2012-11-28 07:34:27 AM
Brady Campaign? Really, subby?

/the 1980s called...
 
2012-11-28 07:35:21 AM
Its simple.

If everyone has a gun, it is frequent for home robbers to steal a gun. Which they would sell to gangs and the gangs would use it on people.

Which makes people scared and they buy more guns.

Which makes Republican Jesus happy.

Im sure it doesnt mean anything that we in Canada have less access to guns, more gun control laws especially handguns and that our murder rate is low. All across the country. In China, its the same. WERE COMMUNISTS-LEFTY-LIBS.

Sure, someone can kill with a knife, even a butter one if he tries hard enough.

And sure, one data point doesnt makes a trend, but keep in mind its not ONE data point.
 
2012-11-28 07:38:45 AM

Lonestar: Im sure it doesnt mean anything that we in Canada have less access to guns, more gun control laws especially handguns and that our murder rate is low. All across the country.


Yeah but everyone knows that Canada is only full of white people...if you don't count Toronto, Montreal, Calgary, Edmonton, or Vancouver.
 
2012-11-28 07:39:18 AM

sno man: /a curious aside: there were 552 murders in all of Canada in 2010. There were just less than half that in L.A. (one tenthish the population) and/or also in New Orleans (one 100thish)


population density has a lot more to do with violent crime than population alone. L.A. has 1/10th the population of Canada in about 1/20000 the land area.
 
2012-11-28 07:40:20 AM

Chimperror2: FishStampede: Correlation, causation, statisticals, etc.

But seriously...do liberals even argue for gun control anymore? It seems like conservatives are just screaming at a wall here, since I don't hear any liberals who have not personally been shot by a crazed gunman coming out against responsible gun ownership.

/member of my local Liberal Gun Club

You mean you haven't been listening to any Liberal mayors of any city? And "Responsible Gun Ownership" is a regulation term, not a freedom term. Think about being for only "Responsible Free speech" or "Responsible Opposition to Warantless Searches". Do you really want the G to decide "Responsible?"


Already decide what constitutes responsible car ownership, and cars are made for purposes other than killing things. In my opinion, people should be able to have whatever firearms they wish, up to and including antitank weapons and gatling guns if they so choose, provided they have a clean bill of mental health* and pass a mandatory safety course.

*this is why I always borrow or rent guns at the range; responsibility starts at home
 
2012-11-28 07:40:44 AM

DrRatchet: FishStampede: But seriously...do liberals even argue for gun control anymore?

In California they do


"a bill that would prohibit semiautomatic rifles or kits with features that allow easy release and replacement of large ammunition clips, either through the push of a button with a finger or use of a tool."

Those BASTARDS!!!!
 
2012-11-28 07:42:50 AM
Not to worry, in 15-18 years their crime rate will be a problem

On February 15, 2012, the Virginia House of Delegates passed House Bill 1 in a vote of 66-32, that effectively outlaws all Virginia abortions by declaring that the rights of persons apply from the moment sperm and egg unite. It also passed a second bill in a 63-36 vote, that requires women to have a transvaginal ultrasound before undergoing abortions
 
2012-11-28 07:45:30 AM

Lonestar: Im sure it doesnt mean anything that we in Canada have less access to guns, more gun control laws especially handguns and that our murder rate is low.


1. We've already been over the major factors here. Economics and demographics. And if you believe any statistic regarding Chinese-reported anything, I've got a bridge to sell you. Good deal, maintenance costs pre-paid until the statute of limitations is up.

2. Have you never been outside the cities in Eastern Canada? Because when I was in Alberta in the late '90s, most of the hotels even had gun-rooms with rentals. And when I visited a friend in western Ontario in the '00s, same deal, dude had two gun safes to fit all his gear. In my admittedly anecdotal experience, the non-urban regions of your country put farking Texas to shame on gun ownership rates.
 
2012-11-28 07:49:56 AM

brap: Yeah, yeah, yeah, blah blah blah, you're a freedom fighter and Minuteman, just put me on ignore.


You've been talking to my wife, haven't you?
 
2012-11-28 07:55:31 AM

theknuckler_33: DrRatchet: FishStampede: But seriously...do liberals even argue for gun control anymore?

In California they do

"a bill that would prohibit semiautomatic rifles or kits with features that allow easy release and replacement of large ammunition clips, either through the push of a button with a finger or use of a tool."

Those BASTARDS!!!!


Well, yeah, because semiautomatic rifles are used by a lot of sportsman, for deer hunting, etc. Here are a couple semiautomatic rifles traditionally used for hunting, that would end up being banned:

mauser98.com

Classic Remington Model 8

www.gunlistings.org

Remington Model 740 Woodsmaster 

Along with a bunch of others, any ban on semiauto rifles would include those guns.

But hey, it's all about "weapons of war", right?
 
2012-11-28 07:55:46 AM
Look, if you think that being heavily armed all the time, at home, in church, at a bar, at work, in the shower, is the only way you can feel safe and complete, I'm no longer inclined to argue. If you have 1 gun, you need 10. If you have 100, you need 1000.

Buy more guns. Lecture me on how you, the brave gun owner, are protecting me.

Blah.
 
2012-11-28 07:57:05 AM

FishStampede: But seriously...do liberals even argue for gun control anymore? It seems like conservatives are just screaming at a wall here, since I don't hear any liberals who have not personally been shot by a crazed gunman coming out against responsible gun ownership


I don't speak for all liberals but I can honestly say I don't care anymore. I used to think having a few reasonable regulations on the ownership of firearms was a reasonable compromise but conservatives are such whiny babies about anything having to do with guns I'm happy to let them do whatever they want just so they'll shut up.

Multiple semiautomatic rifles for home defense? Sure, knock yourself out.
Hundred round magazines for the same? Fine.
Anonymous purchases of 10K+ rounds of ammunition over the internet? Go ahead.
Concealed carry inside bars and schools? fark it, yeah, whatever.

When I realized that the primary reason for this issue was fear I figured, why not let them have their security blanket. The risk to my family is minimal while the risk of them or their family shooting themselves or each other in the face is vastly increased. I'm not afraid of a bunch of saggy middle aged men running around the woods in camoflage and calling themselves the "Freedom Liberty Militia or Don't Tread On Me". They'll occasionally go off an kill a bunch of people but, again, my real risk is minimal and it honestly isn't my job to soothe the unreasonable fears of conservatives so let them have their binkies.
 
2012-11-28 08:06:35 AM

LavenderWolf: Nobody is born a criminal. It is a learned behavior. Yes, enforcement of the law is paramount, and gun ownership *can* save your life. But that doesn't mean we have to choose only one solution.


The whole reason we have police to begin with is to deal with the 2-5% of individuals that have absolutely no moral fiber or concept of self-governance. Some will argue that these individuals were taught at an early age that consequences dont matter, they are exceptional and if someone else has something, then it is just and right to take it from them because that other person can probably go out, get another, make more money, etc.

Yes, I am in favor of a better corrections system and I even want MJ decriminialized at a federal level. I simply reject the idea that a criminal is a victim of society. Each and every one of us, save for the clinically insane has control over our actions.
 
2012-11-28 08:14:47 AM
I totally get that modmins feel they need to troll us to lift traffic and stickiness on the site.

But do they have to allow this illiterate shiat in the headlines?

Please, guys: Do your job, but don't insult us by pretending that every conservative is a gun-happy birther with limited English skills.
 
2012-11-28 08:16:38 AM

dittybopper: theknuckler_33: DrRatchet: FishStampede: But seriously...do liberals even argue for gun control anymore?

In California they do

"a bill that would prohibit semiautomatic rifles or kits with features that allow easy release and replacement of large ammunition clips, either through the push of a button with a finger or use of a tool."

Those BASTARDS!!!!

Well, yeah, because semiautomatic rifles are used by a lot of sportsman, for deer hunting, etc. Here are a couple semiautomatic rifles traditionally used for hunting, that would end up being banned:

[mauser98.com image 850x261]

Classic Remington Model 8

[www.gunlistings.org image 495x330]

Remington Model 740 Woodsmaster 

Along with a bunch of others, any ban on semiauto rifles would include those guns.

But hey, it's all about "weapons of war", right?


It wouldn't ban semiauto rifles themselves, only ones that have "features that allow easy release and replacement of large ammunition clips, either through the push of a button with a finger or use of a tool".

I'm having a hard time seeing that as a necessary feature for dear hunting.
 
2012-11-28 08:17:30 AM

dustman81: Let's look at Kennesaw, GA. A town where gun ownership isn't just encouraged, it's the law.

Named in 2007 as Family Circle's "10 best towns for families".

In 2008, Kennesaw recorded 31 violent crimes, as compared to 127 in Dalton and 188 in Hinesville. 555 property crimes were recorded as compared to 1,124 in Dalton and 1,802 in Hinesville. (From the Financial Times)


you should look at unemployment rates for those cities. I know here in Dalton it's officially about 14-15%. (and actually more than that)
 
2012-11-28 08:18:06 AM

serial_crusher: Resin33: The issue isn't gun ownership, but with gun culture. Canada, for instance, has a lot of gun owners.but not the gun violence the US has.

Mexico, on the other hand, has some of the worlds strictest gun control laws.


Japan, on the other hand, apparently HAS the world's strictest gun control laws:
2008: U.S. had 12,000 firearm homicides
2008: Japan had 11.

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/07/a-land-witho u t-guns-how-japan-has-virtually-eliminated-shooting-deaths/260189/
 
2012-11-28 08:19:54 AM
Bad headlines make people people 73% more stabby and maybe 26% more likely to go on stabbing rampage, so let's ban bad headlines to make things safer...But wait...sorry, i meant correlation equals causation, not.
 
2012-11-28 08:23:18 AM
<b><a href="http://www.fark.com/comments/7455602/80954577#c80954577" target="_blank">theknuckler_33</a>:</b> <i>sno man: /a curious aside: there were 552 murders in all of Canada in 2010. There were just less than half that in L.A. (one tenthish the population) and/or also in New Orleans (one 100thish)

population density has a lot more to do with violent crime than population alone. L.A. has 1/10th the population of Canada in about 1/20000 the land area.</i>

Toronto, Vancouver and several other urban area have similar urban densities.

Toronto is about the same size as Chicago population and area wise...

Chicago 'wins' 433 or 435 to 45 (found both numbers for Chicago in a quick search. All numbers for 2011)
 
2012-11-28 08:23:24 AM

GameSprocket: way south: The Brady campaign is staffed by people with horribly irrational ideas and perverted agendas. They wouldn't know a statistical if it jumped up and bit them on their Silver Nates.

Can we please stop talking about them as if they were some bastion of political sanity?

Are they the "Operation Rescue" of gun control? I am honestly asking since this lib has not heard much about gun control since the 80s.


I'd say they are slightly worse, since they've been known to push their derp in other countries.

So far as not much happening on the gun control front, assuming you know about the Hughes amendment (failed on floor vote, passed into law anyway) You've have missed the AWB, Bush's import ban, and the most recent attempt to slip a magazine ban into a cyber crimes bill.

Politicians are two faced bastards and would be all for more gun control (to please soccer moms and health & safety types) if not for the backlash from the NRA, the multi-billion dollar gun industry, and millions of highly political gun owners.
Because they like to slip things under the radar you've got to pay close attention to measure the wins and losses.
So far we've been on a lucky streak, and having the facts work against the gun banners arguments helps.

/At best, gun control has no measurable effect. At worse, its counter productive.
/Obama has been playing things cool. He's not pro gun, but he's got bigger fish to fry.
 
2012-11-28 08:25:33 AM

0Icky0: Ishkur: Crime is a distinct metric dependent upon a number of factors, the most important being demographics (crime is predominantly caused by 18-24 males), culture, disparity of affluence, and simply reporting crime. But there is no correlation between firearms and crime.

Here in Hong Kong....
Nearly 7 million people, packed tightly together. Extremely stressful working environment.
And no guns.
We had 12 homicides last year.
Correlate that, gun-nuts.

/gun owner..when in the States...because Americans are crazy.


Yeah, except the homicide rate is dependent on way more factors than just gun ownership. I would argue economic inequality, which the US has quite a bit of, is a bigger factor than gun ownership. You take away guns and people will switch to knives or baseball bats.
 
2012-11-28 08:25:37 AM

Monkeyhouse Zendo: When I realized that the primary reason for this issue was fear I figured, why not let them have their security blanket. The risk to my family is minimal while the risk of them or their family shooting themselves or each other in the face is vastly increased.


If by "vastly increased" you mean it goes from being an astronomically small risk, to being a slightly higher astrononimcally small risk, sure. In 2007, there were 613 unintentional firearms deaths. The rate was 0.20 per 100,000, which is roughly 1 per half a million population.
 
2012-11-28 08:26:25 AM

way south: /Obama has been playing things cool. He's not pro gun


In what way is he "not pro gun"?
 
2012-11-28 08:27:12 AM

dittybopper: Monkeyhouse Zendo: When I realized that the primary reason for this issue was fear I figured, why not let them have their security blanket. The risk to my family is minimal while the risk of them or their family shooting themselves or each other in the face is vastly increased.

If by "vastly increased" you mean it goes from being an astronomically small risk, to being a slightly higher astrononimcally small risk, sure. In 2007, there were 613 unintentional firearms deaths. The rate was 0.20 per 100,000, which is roughly 1 per half a million population.


You've left out suicide by firearm which is much more effective than suicide by any other means.
 
Displayed 50 of 220 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report