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  
•       •       •

1355 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
 
2012-11-27 09:13:30 PM
"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.
 
2012-11-27 09:27:49 PM
What is the violent crime rate in other states? What about the rate of gun ownership? This is not enough data to reach the conclusions that the entire internet has apparently reached.
 
2012-11-27 09:35:09 PM
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
 
2012-11-27 09:36:43 PM
Guns don't commit crime, people commit crime
 
2012-11-27 09:50:10 PM
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)
 
2012-11-27 09:54:04 PM
Firstly, gun purchases don't directly correlate with gun ownership - every firearm a particular individual owns after the first increases gun sales but not the number of gun owners. Also, I don't think anyone claimed that total gun ownership corresponds with violent crime - even those who believe firearm restrictions would reduce violent crime aren't making that argument.

Basically, consider the population broken into three groups:

A) Those who would commit premeditated violent crimes,
B) Those who might commit a violent crime in the heat of the moment under some circumstances,
C) Those who would not commit a violent crime.

Of these, the largest group by far is group C, but for them, it doesn't matter if gun ownership is 0% or 100% - they won't commit violent crimes no matter what. This presents a large confounding variable because they make up a large portion of gun owners and gun purchasers, when by definition they will not affect the violent crime rate.

I'm also assuming that people in group A would commit violent crimes irrespective of access to firearms - if you're so bent on committing a crime that you'll plan it out in advance and do it in cold blood, you'd find a way to commit a violent crime no matter what method you used.

The real questions for gun control advocates or opponents to focus on are threefold:
1. Does having access to firearms increase the number of victims or severity of injury for victims of group A or B?
2. Does having access to firearms make it more likely that those in group B will commit a crime at all? That is, does the availability of a gun factor into whether or not they choose to commit a crime?
3. Could firearm restrictions actually effectively reduce the gun ownership by those in groups A and B?
 
2012-11-27 09:56:39 PM
Virginia has no problems with guns, yet *radar detectors* are illegal.
 
2012-11-27 10:13:57 PM
Thanks for the exports "gentlemen farmers" Cracky Joe up the block appreciates you enterprenurial spirit!
 
- I don't do well with gun and abortion threads.
 
Yeah, yeah, yeah, blah blah blah, you're a freedom fighter and Minuteman, just put me on ignore.
 
2012-11-27 10:21:16 PM

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


what power pop song is this from? is this big star?
 
2012-11-27 10:45:17 PM
So subby lets proofread headlines ok
 
2012-11-27 10:46:48 PM

Peter von Nostrand: Guns don't commit crime, people commit crime


That's brilliant. You're brilliant.
 
2012-11-27 10:52:16 PM

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)
 
2012-11-27 11:05:24 PM
From the data I have on hand (2006-2009), violent crime levels dropped by 20% from 06 to 09 in Virginia, but by 10% nationwide during that time. So really you can only claim half of the decrease is exceptional, without even considering whether the law had anything to do with it. And out of curiosity, DC's levels dropped at the national rate during the same time, so probably no influence there.
 
2012-11-27 11:19:23 PM

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


How do they even enforce something like that?
 
2012-11-27 11:31:05 PM

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


In California they do
 
2012-11-27 11:53:33 PM

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


Apparently it's part of the democratic platform or something.
 
2012-11-27 11:54:26 PM
It's almost as if there are other factors involved, besides the ownership of guns, that would account for a drop in violent crime.
 
2012-11-27 11:58:56 PM

Sum Dum Gai: I'm also assuming that people in group A would commit violent crimes irrespective of access to firearms - if you're so bent on committing a crime that you'll plan it out in advance and do it in cold blood, you'd find a way to commit a violent crime no matter what method you used.


What you're not taking into account here is how a gun would compare to the other methods. It's likely the gun would cause more casualties both intentional and unintentional, especially when the crime involves shooting guns indiscriminately like a mass shooting or a drive by. The Columbine killers don't get nearly the body count with knives.
 
2012-11-27 11:59:03 PM
oi45.tinypic.com

/I got nothin'
 
2012-11-27 11:59:22 PM
Guns don't commit crime, guns commit crime.
 
2012-11-27 11:59:43 PM
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.
 
2012-11-28 12:00:54 AM
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.
 
2012-11-28 12:04:16 AM
Yay, guns!

26.media.tumblr.com

Iron helps us play!
 
2012-11-28 12:04:52 AM
sno man: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)


I think the murder rates in cities like LA or New Orleans might be the result of slightly more complex factors than access to guns. Last I checked Canadian gangs have no problems getting them and shooting them off in public.

/lives in LA
//still alive, dodging bullets on my way to work.
 
2012-11-28 12:06:25 AM
And yet because of our media, many Americans think crime is at an all time high.

/USA! USA! USA!
 
2012-11-28 12:07:09 AM
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.
 
2012-11-28 12:07:39 AM
I also don't get why the zealously pro-gun crowd are also so intractable on all other issues. If they think guns are head-and-shoulders in importance over all other rights, then why aren't they seeking out every possible person to side with them on that issue?
 
2012-11-28 12:08:12 AM

CanuckInCA: sno man: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)

I think the murder rates in cities like LA or New Orleans might be the result of slightly more complex factors than access to guns. Last I checked Canadian gangs have no problems getting them and shooting them off in public.

/lives in LA
//still alive, dodging bullets on my way to work.


Apparently they moved out of the city and into the surrounding areas.
 
2012-11-28 12:09:49 AM
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.
 
2012-11-28 12:10:13 AM

CanuckInCA: sno man: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)

I think the murder rates in cities like LA or New Orleans might be the result of slightly more complex factors than access to guns. Last I checked Canadian gangs have no problems getting them and shooting them off in public.

/lives in LA
//still alive, dodging bullets on my way to work.


It's harder to murder people when your gun get's lost in your parka
 
2012-11-28 12:11:15 AM
EnglishMotherfarker.jpeg
 
2012-11-28 12:11:27 AM
Crime has been falling pretty much everywhere. Even in places with very, very strict handgun laws (e.g. Washington, DC & New York City).
 
2012-11-28 12:12:48 AM
Chicago's murder rate plummeted during it's 30-year handgun ban.

Chicago's murder rate has soared with legal handguns.

For some reason conservatives don't shout about these facts.

Well, they don't shout about one of them.
 
2012-11-28 12:13:45 AM
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
 
2012-11-28 12:15:10 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.


They probably already shot anybody worth killing
 
2012-11-28 12:15:25 AM
Duh!

People can't be busy making crime when they have to stand in line for food stamps and free phones.

Socialism FTW!
 
2012-11-28 12:16:02 AM
Wanna see a liberal's head explode? Let illegal immigrants own guns.
 
2012-11-28 12:17:40 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


You are an idiot. Also almost no one on the left is interested in restricting guns.

Clearly we are the racist - according you you. And you don't see the irony.
 
2012-11-28 12:18:41 AM
cdn.ksk.uproxx.com

Not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol must be working like a charm. Right retardlicans?
 
2012-11-28 12:20:01 AM
Has anyone pointed out yet that since 2006, Virginia has become significantly more blue? Obviously, Republicans cause gun violence!

or

Since 2006, Virginia has experienced a noticeable rise in average temperatures. Global warming clearly leads to less gun violence.

or

Since 2006, the number of IT workers in Virginia has climbed steadily while gun crimes have gone down. Clearly, more basement-dwelling nerds leads to a safer society.

or

Ok, you get the point. All this proves is that either increased number of privately owed guns do not lead to an increase in gun violence (which makes sense, since most gun owner are not killers/shooters, and since someone who is likely to attack someone with a gun only needs one. Giving him two or three isn't going to make him more prone to using them); OR that increased number of guns purchased DO cause an increase in the amount of gun violence, but other factors outweigh this relationship and are causing gun violence to drop despite the increased number of guns; OR that a large number of guns purchased in Virginia end up in other states.

Until the exact relationship is sussed out, this stat is (like 99% of stats) absolutely useless.
 
2012-11-28 12:27:06 AM

I HATE LIBS: Wanna see a liberal's head explode? Let illegal immigrants own guns.


??
 
2012-11-28 12:30:30 AM

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


The same conservatives and the NRA supported a guy who signed a bill banning assault rifles over a guy who has never done such a thing.
 
2012-11-28 12:32:08 AM
Ooo, looky what I found! It appears that median household income in Virginia has been dropping at about half the national average. And since gun violence, and violent crime in general, is linked to income levels, that perfectly explains away the fact that gun crime is down by about 2x the national average in VA. In fact, I will make a bold assertion that if you look at gun violence in any state and compare it to the national average, you will find that the relationship almost perfectly matches the relationship between median household income in that state compared to the country.

And that took me like 5 minutes to find, so TFA has no excuses except that it was written by partisan hacks with no interest in the truth.
 
2012-11-28 12:32:32 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)


I'll bite. What are the populations of each town and the crimes as a percentage of those populations.

Dustman81 will deliver, let's just wait.
 
2012-11-28 12:35:06 AM

jaytkay: I HATE LIBS: Wanna see a liberal's head explode? Let illegal immigrants own guns.

??


He hates libs.
 
2012-11-28 12:35:40 AM

CanuckInCA: I think the murder rates in cities like LA or New Orleans might be the result of slightly more complex factors than access to guns. Last I checked Canadian gangs have no problems getting them and shooting them off in public.

/lives in LA
//still alive, dodging bullets on my way to work.


i live outside of N.O. and it's black on black and drug related. not everyone but a hell of a lot of it is.
 
2012-11-28 12:36:26 AM
"jaytkay

I HATE LIBS: Wanna see a liberal's head explode? Let illegal immigrants own guns.

??"


Clearly,HE HATES LIBS.
 
2012-11-28 12:36:35 AM

Summoner101: jaytkay: I HATE LIBS: Wanna see a liberal's head explode? Let illegal immigrants own guns.

??

He hates libs.


And I was supposed to know this how?!
 
2012-11-28 12:37:10 AM
Summoner101



Shakes fist.....
 
2012-11-28 12:37:25 AM

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.
 
2012-11-28 12:39:47 AM

President Merkin Muffley: I'll bite. What are the populations of each town and the crimes as a percentage of those populations.


About the same. But that's far from the whole story. I'm looking at finding demographic information about the cities. Nothing like taking a break from data mining to data mine.
 
2012-11-28 12:41:55 AM
Jesus Christ - I actually used to sort of like guns a little bit before I started hanging out here. Now, I'm constantly reminded that most of you compulsively masturbate over your Cabela's catalog, using bore oil for lube, and frankly I'm so disgusted that I'm finally ready to ban the goddamn things.
 
2012-11-28 12:42:38 AM

Lusiphur: Nothing like taking a break from data mining to data mine.


i2.kym-cdn.com
 
2012-11-28 12:46:52 AM
The original reason for the gun purchase limitation in VA wasn't to reduce gun crime... in Virginia. It was to prevent straw purchases of handguns from ending up in NYC in the late '80s early '90s.
 
2012-11-28 12:47:17 AM

I HATE LIBS: Wanna see a liberal's head explode? Let illegal immigrants own guns.


Most illegal immigrants DO own guns.
 
2012-11-28 12:47:29 AM
I like my guns. I think the anti-gun folks skewers the holy fark out of their numbers all the time. I also think that more gun laws is going to do nothing to prevent violent deaths. People either acquire guns illegally, or they use other weapons...

That said, until they show a statistic of how many people used their gun to prevent a crime, I'm not buying it. I can guarantee you that any researcher worth his pay can find 10 other things that correlate just as well. This is incomplete data, and as a result just as skewed as I just accused the anti-gun people of being. Not that I'm surprised, mind you.

Get better data and get back to me.
 
2012-11-28 12:49:47 AM

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.
 
2012-11-28 12:55:06 AM
Could someone translate that headline into English?
 
2012-11-28 12:56:17 AM

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

How do they even enforce something like that?


Not sure how they enforce it, but years ago I knew a girl from Georgia, and she was the first one who told me about it. The idea is there is no police force in the town, and the nearest Sheriff was 1/2 an hour away. It does have an interesting ring to it from a crime prevention standpoint, but I would assume that the only enforcement would be that if something happened, and you weren't able to defend yourself, at least part of the blame would be on you. I would also guess that when the Sheriff was building a case, he might just ask to see your mandated gun for the records.

I just want to know if you get a discount since the gun is 'required'. Maybe I can move there for 6 months or so and buy the other guns in want...
 
2012-11-28 12:57:25 AM

Lusiphur: President Merkin Muffley: I'll bite. What are the populations of each town and the crimes as a percentage of those populations.

About the same. But that's far from the whole story. I'm looking at finding demographic information about the cities. Nothing like taking a break from data mining to data mine.


I kinda have a Fark crush on you.
 
2012-11-28 01:01:16 AM

Fart_Machine: CanuckInCA: sno man: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)

I think the murder rates in cities like LA or New Orleans might be the result of slightly more complex factors than access to guns. Last I checked Canadian gangs have no problems getting them and shooting them off in public.

/lives in LA
//still alive, dodging bullets on my way to work.

Apparently they moved out of the city and into the surrounding areas.


Yeah, Phoenix was fun. Gunshots every night, usually multiple times throughout the evening. It's pretty bad when the only times you react are when they sound like they're in your front yard(which they sometimes were). I moved here to Utah, the first state to do this stupid 'state gun' thing, and in 6 years, I've heard gunshots twice, maybe 3 times, yet people here really love their guns.

/So glad I got the fark out of Phoenix, LA would make me lose my mind
 
2012-11-28 01:05:37 AM

Mikey1969: Fart_Machine: CanuckInCA: sno man: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)

I think the murder rates in cities like LA or New Orleans might be the result of slightly more complex factors than access to guns. Last I checked Canadian gangs have no problems getting them and shooting them off in public.

/lives in LA
//still alive, dodging bullets on my way to work.

Apparently they moved out of the city and into the surrounding areas.

Yeah, Phoenix was fun. Gunshots every night, usually multiple times throughout the evening. It's pretty bad when the only times you react are when they sound like they're in your front yard(which they sometimes were). I moved here to Utah, the first state to do this stupid 'state gun' thing, and in 6 years, I've heard gunshots twice, maybe 3 times, yet people here really love their guns.

/So glad I got the fark out of Phoenix, LA would make me lose my mind


I've lived in Los Angeles and Orange County for decades and never heard a single gunshot.

I knew a guy who lived right in the heart of Inglewood and the only time he heard shots was during the riots. I heard more gunfire when I lived in rural Nevada.
 
2012-11-28 01:06:06 AM

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

How do they even enforce something like that?


I have three friends that live there. Only one has a gun because he sells drugs.
 
2012-11-28 01:06:07 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.


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.
 
2012-11-28 01:06:40 AM

Biological Ali: Could someone translate that headline into English?


Pricipal . Caught sayof virginia that has stoped Gunsales " See, told ya so" Is People dead or not. Libs Says yes. Brady Campaign Looking for ban -OR- "hello, I am write single to gun violence and wait for answer again"
 
2012-11-28 01:06:45 AM

Gyrfalcon: I HATE LIBS: Wanna see a liberal's head explode? Let illegal immigrants own guns.

Most illegal immigrants DO own guns.


Illegally, might I add
 
2012-11-28 01:13:00 AM

Gyrfalcon: I've lived in Los Angeles and Orange County for decades and never heard a single gunshot.

I knew a guy who lived right in the heart of Inglewood and the only time he heard shots was during the riots. I heard more gunfire when I lived in rural Nevada.


Really? When I lived in the Valley in the late 80's, I'd hear gunshots two or three times a month. When I lived in Hollywood, it was two or three times a week. Here in Seattle, I hear gunshots two or three times a year.
 
2012-11-28 01:16:50 AM

Gyrfalcon: Mikey1969: Fart_Machine: CanuckInCA: sno man: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)

I think the murder rates in cities like LA or New Orleans might be the result of slightly more complex factors than access to guns. Last I checked Canadian gangs have no problems getting them and shooting them off in public.

/lives in LA
//still alive, dodging bullets on my way to work.

Apparently they moved out of the city and into the surrounding areas.

Yeah, Phoenix was fun. Gunshots every night, usually multiple times throughout the evening. It's pretty bad when the only times you react are when they sound like they're in your front yard(which they sometimes were). I moved here to Utah, the first state to do this stupid 'state gun' thing, and in 6 years, I've heard gunshots twice, maybe 3 times, yet people here really love their guns.

/So glad I got the fark out of Phoenix, LA would make me lose my mind

I've lived in Los Angeles and Orange County for decades and never heard a single gunshot.

I knew a guy who lived right in the heart of Inglewood and the only time he heard shots was during the riots. I heard more gunfire when I lived in rural Nevada.


Phoenix was the worst when I was in Central Phx. Downtown wasn't as bad as 2 of the other neighborhoods I lived in. My last neighborhood had a series of little 4-unit apartments at the end of the street that got designated a 'Special Enforcement Zone', meaning that the littlest call would get cops in about 7 minutes. We had a house on our street that was empty, and people would break in and do drugs, bang hookers, bang drugs, do hookers, etc. The house got set on fire 3 times in 4 months,and I would call the non-emergency number for the police any time I saw someone even in the yard. Even that was a 7 minute response. There were also 2 times I saw vans swoop in, full of cops in SWAT gear, which allows the doors open ready to jump out. The Ghetto Bird was over our house at least once a night, and looking in our yard at least once a week.

One night, someone even tried to come in through the back. My dog scared them off, and I never stopped being grateful for that. As for the neighborhood, this was the end of Phx that bordered Scottsdale for God's sake...

Like I said, SO glad I left, even if I DID take up residence with the Mormons. Besides, this place is unbelievably beautiful.
 
2012-11-28 01:17:57 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


Damn.

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

But 38 in China? Has their economy recovered?
 
2012-11-28 01:21:32 AM

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.
 
2012-11-28 01:31:58 AM

jaytkay: Chicago's murder rate plummeted during it's 30-year handgun ban.

Chicago's murder rate has soared with legal handguns.

For some reason conservatives don't shout about these facts.

Well, they don't shout about one of them.


Probably because they are outright lies. Chicago's murder rate during the gun ban was an average of ~900 homicides a year. As I recall, Chicago and DC had the strictest gun control in the country, and had the worst crime rates across the board. Since their gun bans were thrown out, their crime rates have begun to fall more in line with the national average. And Chicago's "soaring murder rate" is still half that of the years during the ban.
 
2012-11-28 01:33:16 AM

you are a puppet: Biological Ali: Could someone translate that headline into English?

Pricipal . Caught sayof virginia that has stoped Gunsales " See, told ya so" Is People dead or not. Libs Says yes. Brady Campaign Looking for ban -OR- "hello, I am write single to gun violence and wait for answer again"


I understand completely.
 
2012-11-28 01:33:21 AM

BSABSVR: What is the violent crime rate in other states? What about the rate of gun ownership? This is not enough data to reach the conclusions that the entire internet has apparently reached.


This one data point, no.

However, you can find all the shiat you've just asked about with Google, and it also largely supports the zero- or negative-correlation conclusion. And by largely I mean... entirely. The entire nation has had declining gun crime along with all crime over the past 20 years or so, roughly evenly distributed. The other major gun-related thing that's happened nationally in that time frame? Essentially every state has implemented a concealed-carry program, and some states have gone open-carry.

The thing that had no noticeable impact on the downward trend? The assault weapons ban.

The relative strictness of gun control, and suppression of legal gun sales, is either actively counterproductive in preventing gun violence or has so little impact compared to other factors that if you're seriously advocating them you need to have your head examined. Thoroughly, thoroughly discredited ideas at this point. Crime is addressed by addressing education, the economy, and criminals directly, roughly in that order. Picking an arbitrary tool sometimes used in crime and arbitrarily picking on the people that use or make it has done nothing to prevent any crime, ever. This is very, very firmly established at this point.

//There is a correlation between gun ownership and gun _accidents_, that's about it.
 
2012-11-28 01:33:29 AM

President Merkin Muffley: I kinda have a Fark crush on you.


Don't get too excited. I got distracted from finding those numbers by XKCD and Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Priorities!
 
2012-11-28 01:35:46 AM
Guns don't kill people, rappers do.

Hey, gun nerds, speaking as a far left activist, most socialists, Communists and anarchists are either strongly pro-gun or at most neutral on the subject. We're on your side! Come on, hang out with us!

/It's a fact, music makes you violent, like Michael Jackson telling little Timmy to be silent
 
2012-11-28 01:37:22 AM
something tells me the point of the article was to keep the "they commin after yer guns!" narrative alive in peoples minds.
 
2012-11-28 01:41:04 AM

RINO: Probably because they are outright lies. Chicago's murder rate during the gun ban was an average of ~900 homicides a year. As I recall, Chicago and DC had the strictest gun control in the country, and had the worst crime rates across the board. Since their gun bans were thrown out, their crime rates have begun to fall more in line with the national average.


You know how I know you haven't bothered to look at the actual numbers?
 
2012-11-28 01:47:05 AM
It's not the guns causing the violence, it's people. Canada also has a fairly high rate of gun ownership, yet their murder rate is much lower. Given that, I'm lead to believe that it's Americans, not the guns, that are the problem
 
2012-11-28 01:50:27 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.


Genghis Khan killed a million people in about an hour with his Golden Horde and their sword
 
2012-11-28 01:52:37 AM

cmb53208: It's not the guns causing the violence, it's people. Canada also has a fairly high rate of gun ownership, yet their murder rate is much lower. Given that, I'm lead to believe that it's Americans, not the guns, that are the problem


We have a much more multicultural population and, iirc, a larger divide between rich and poor, plus a penal system focused on incarceration instead of redress and reformation... so basically yeah.
 
2012-11-28 02:02:20 AM
Too easy for some people to get guns... I can give you 32 reasons. : (
 
2012-11-28 02:03:29 AM
I feel like this headline was written in the midst of a stroke. I certainly hope it was serious.
 
2012-11-28 02:10:42 AM

FlippityFlap: "jaytkay

I HATE LIBS: Wanna see a liberal's head explode? Let illegal immigrants own guns.

??"


Clearly,HE HATES LIBS.


Not at all... His people are known for their shamanic rituals in which the participants are filled with joy and hear the voice of God. This is frequently referred to as the "heady explosion of His joyous voice", or "head explosion" for short.

He just wants to make liberals, and our brethren from across the border, as happy as he is.
 
2012-11-28 02:13:21 AM

BMulligan: Gyrfalcon: I've lived in Los Angeles and Orange County for decades and never heard a single gunshot.

I knew a guy who lived right in the heart of Inglewood and the only time he heard shots was during the riots. I heard more gunfire when I lived in rural Nevada.

Really? When I lived in the Valley in the late 80's, I'd hear gunshots two or three times a month. When I lived in Hollywood, it was two or three times a week. Here in Seattle, I hear gunshots two or three times a year.


I live in the Cleveland vacinity (OH, not TN) and can't even remember the last time I heard a gun shot
 
2012-11-28 02:13:52 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)


President Merkin Muffley: 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)

I'll bite. What are the populations of each town and the crimes as a percentage of those populations.

Dustman81 will deliver, let's just wait.


I checked it out, and they're actually comparable. However, they're in completely different parts of the state, and have completely different demographics.

Kennesaw median income: $61,000
Hinesville median income: $35,000
Dalton median income: $35,000

It's no coincidence that lower income areas have higher crime. To attribute this solely to guns is just dumb.
 
2012-11-28 02:16:30 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.


It might also be worth looking at gun sales by geography within the state and by gender. It's possible that gun sales are increasing more in rural areas, while crime is decreasing primarily in urban areas. And if sales are mostly increasing for women, who commit a comparatively small number of crimes, then that could also disprove the causation.
 
2012-11-28 02:16:56 AM

Moosecakes: 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)

President Merkin Muffley: 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)

I'll bite. What are the populations of each town and the crimes as a percentage of those populations.

Dustman81 will deliver, let's just wait.

I checked it out, and they're actually comparable. However, they're in completely different parts of the state, and have completely different demographics.

Kennesaw median income: $61,000
Hinesville median income: $35,000
Dalton median income: $35,000

It's no coincidence that lower income areas have higher crime. To attribute this solely to guns is just dumb.


Gold Star
 
2012-11-28 02:23:20 AM

BMulligan: Gyrfalcon: I've lived in Los Angeles and Orange County for decades and never heard a single gunshot.

I knew a guy who lived right in the heart of Inglewood and the only time he heard shots was during the riots. I heard more gunfire when I lived in rural Nevada.

Really? When I lived in the Valley in the late 80's, I'd hear gunshots two or three times a month. When I lived in Hollywood, it was two or three times a week. Here in Seattle, I hear gunshots two or three times a year.


Maybe it's just me? I generally advise my roommates and neighbors that my policy is "If I get in trouble because of anything YOU do, the cops will be arresting me for your murder." It keeps things around me very polite.
 
2012-11-28 02:42:45 AM

eraser8: Crime has been falling pretty much everywhere. Even in places with very, very strict handgun laws (e.g. Washington, DC & New York City).


Yakk: Fine, I'll post it:

[blog.lib.umn.edu image 459x185]


Goddammit beat me to it.

Fine, once more from the top: CORRELATION != CAUSATION.

/YOU F--KERS.
 
2012-11-28 02:43:50 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.


Republican governors always see a lower crime rate in Va too.
 
2012-11-28 02:52:48 AM

Nemo's Brother: Republican governors always see a lower crime rate in Va too.


Is it because they shut their blinds?
 
2012-11-28 03:00:20 AM

I HATE LIBS: Wanna see a liberal's head explode? Let illegal immigrants own guns.


Wanna see a conservative's head explode? Invent a gun that can only perform abortions.
 
2012-11-28 03:01:58 AM

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
 
2012-11-28 03:02:48 AM
Subby you can take your HURR DURR liberals want to ban guns and stick it up your ass.
Bonus: pull the trigger.
 
2012-11-28 03:06:05 AM

mediablitz: /laughing and pointing


I find myself pointing and laughing at him quite frequently.
 
2012-11-28 03:08:54 AM
xtupload.com

If liberals just forgot about this stupid gun control wedge issue (their version of the right wing's flag burning amendment) and embraced firearms they would rob the GOP of one of the only remaining legs they have to stand on. It would be like kicking them in the nuts.

Think of the trolling opportunities for Obama. If he went out duck hunting one weekend with someone like Nancy Pelosi or Hillary, and got plenty of pictures of them carrying a shotgun, wearing his neon vest, camo, and shiatkickers with some dead ducks slung over his shoulder, he would have the GOP passing anti-gun laws within days. 

/pro-gun liberal
 
2012-11-28 03:12:35 AM

Goodfella: and embraced firearms


They don't even have to embrace them, just ignore them.

Goodfella: Think of the trolling opportunities for Obama. If he went out duck hunting one weekend with someone like Nancy Pelosi or Hillary, and got plenty of pictures of them carrying a shotgun, wearing his neon vest, camo, and shiatkickers with some dead ducks slung over his shoulder, he would have the GOP passing anti-gun laws within days.


my lord....that would be glorious...
 
2012-11-28 03:12:56 AM

FishStampede: Correlation, causation, statisticals, etc.

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


No they don't, and haven't for quite some time. It's a lost battle, they know it, and frankly, there wasn't that much support for it anyway.


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


Indeed. Most liberals I know (including myself) think guns are pretty farkin' groovy.
 
2012-11-28 03:14:50 AM

Peter von Nostrand: Guns don't commit crime, people commit crime




People don't commit crimes. People's hands commit crimes.
 
2012-11-28 03:20:46 AM
That sounded better in your head, didn't it subby?
 
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.
 
2012-11-28 08:30:35 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.


What was the rate per 100,000 of population of gun owners compared to the rate per 100,000 of population of non gun owners?
 
2012-11-28 08:32:44 AM
dailydish.typepad.com

As you can clearly see, if we want to reduce crime, we need more single mothers and less fathers in the household.
 
2012-11-28 08:34:54 AM

theknuckler_33: What was the rate per 100,000 of population of gun owners compared to the rate per 100,000 of population of non gun owners?


There's no point in arguing statistics with him. He has the standard mental block that prevents him from recognizing that there may be negative consequences associated with owning a firearm. The fact that he ignored that I'd included suicide in my comment is a clear indication that he's not operating rationally when it comes to this issue.
 
2012-11-28 08:50:22 AM

Monkeyhouse Zendo: theknuckler_33: What was the rate per 100,000 of population of gun owners compared to the rate per 100,000 of population of non gun owners?

There's no point in arguing statistics with him. He has the standard mental block that prevents him from recognizing that there may be negative consequences associated with owning a firearm. The fact that he ignored that I'd included suicide in my comment is a clear indication that he's not operating rationally when it comes to this issue.


You are correct. The risk of a non-firearm owning individual negligently shooting a family member using a firearm that they own is zero. The risk of a firearm owning individual negligently shooting a family member using a firearm that they own is nonzero. Dividing the latter by the former reveals that firearm owners are infinitely more likely than non-firearm owners to shoot family members.

/Similarly, automobile owners are infinitely more likely to be involved in a traffic collision involving a vehicle that they own.
 
2012-11-28 08:51:22 AM

snowshovel: 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/


And, because homicide and suicide committed with implements other than firearms are perfectly acceptable, the statistic is meaningful.
 
2012-11-28 08:55:14 AM

theknuckler_33: 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".


Such a description matches any magazine-fed semi-automatic firearm except firearms manufactured specifically for compliance with such an unreasonable law.

Rifles are less commonly used to commit homicide than are stabbing implements, blunt objects or unarmed attacks. The proposed regulation lacks any rational basis. Only individuals who lack any understanding of firearms technology or individuals whose ultimate goal is total civilian disarmament would support such a regulation.


I'm having a hard time seeing that as a necessary feature for dear hunting.

Hunting of "dear" or other animals is not relevant.
 
DGS [TotalFark]
2012-11-28 08:56:49 AM
sum hoc ergo propter hoc
 
2012-11-28 08:58:00 AM

theknuckler_33: way south: /Obama has been playing things cool. He's not pro gun

In what way is he "not pro gun"?


Because he's said as much, in words.

dl.dropbox.com

The federal land carry expansion that he signed was attached to some credit reform that he wanted.
He'll say that he is for the 2nd amendment (like any politician will) but he's about as pro gun as Romney was.

Now I can respect that the man has his own opinions on things AS LONG AS he does not push a ban, which he hasn't.
He knows that the people who tend to own the most guns (wealthy, older, white, male) don't take a shining to him, but most will tolerate the situation so long as he leaves this issue alone.
I believe this is why he's made it a point to avoid the gun debate. Because it allows him to pull more support from the center.

/and people are fine with the status quo.
/The problem may come with his supreme court appointments, but we'll have to wait and see.
 
2012-11-28 09:00:19 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)


Compare just black populations and the numbers start to make more sense
 
2012-11-28 09:01:04 AM

Dimensio: snowshovel: 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/

And, because homicide and suicide committed with implements other than firearms are perfectly acceptable, the statistic is meaningful.


Yeah. Let's take a moment to consider the UK, and how their gun bans have led to a rash of knife crimes. So of course they responded by cracking down on knives as well, even going so far as to confiscate a bat'leth from a trekkie.
That was 5 years ago and I haven't really kept u[p on their progress. Have they started taking peoples' piano wires or fists away yet?
 
2012-11-28 09:02:48 AM

BSABSVR: What is the violent crime rate in other states? What about the rate of gun ownership? This is not enough data to reach the conclusions that the entire internet has apparently reached.


Lots of straw purchases are made in VA and the guns are transported to other states. PA has had issues with VA and FL gun laws for years.
 
2012-11-28 09:10:31 AM

Dimensio: You are correct. The risk of a non-firearm owning individual negligently shooting a family member using a firearm that they own is zero. The risk of a firearm owning individual negligently shooting a family member using a firearm that they own is nonzero. Dividing the latter by the former reveals that firearm owners are infinitely more likely than non-firearm owners to shoot family members.


You don't seem to understand. I'm absolutely on the side of firearm owners but you may be confused by the fact that I have little respect for them or their posturing.
 
2012-11-28 09:11:35 AM

theknuckler_33: 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.


Look at that Remington 740 Woodsmaster: It has a removable magazine, and you can buy or make high capacity magazines for it. You can get 10 rounders commercially, and since it is mostly just stamped sheet metal, making even higher ones wouldn't be much of a chore.

Also, the Remington Model 8 also came in an extended removable magazine version:

i98.photobucket.com


Any semiauto rifle that accepts a removable magazine would have to be banned, simply because all it would take to make them illegal is to switch the removable magazine. Thus, the only law that would pass a "rational basis" test would be to ban semiauto rifles with removable magazines. You would be left with only fixed, nonremovable magazines being legal for semiauto rifles.

This of course would be a fools game, because many types of semiauto rifles with nonremovable magazines can have high capacity, and can be loaded quickly using stripper clips. The SKS comes to mind:

www.empirearms.com

And yes, the SKS is used for sporting purposes:

www.nodakoutdoors.com

Same exact model of gun with an aftermarket stock, a red-dot scope for hunting, and a lower-capacity non-removable magazine.

It's starting to replace the venerable lever action .30-30 as the "brush gun"* of choice. Hell, even the AK has a sporting version, optimized to be less scary to those who don't know that all the foo-faraw about "assault weapons" is the same as arguing that a spoiler and pin-striping makes a Ford Focus into a 200 mph supercar.


*Generally a "brush gun" in this sense is a carbine length deer rifle with open sights or very low power scope and either semiauto like the Ruger .44 carbine or lever action like the Winchester Model 94, and that uses a lower-power cartridge. Mainly for use in areas with thick vegetation like swamps and deep woods where shots are at short range and possibly need to be taken quickly.
 
2012-11-28 09:14:35 AM

way south: Because he's said as much, in words.


I'm pretty sure that's Obama not being pro-movie-theater-massacre, but I disagree with him on this issue. I think if people want to purchase semiautomatic weapons with little to no regulation or training in their safe use then they should be able to do that. I'll leave it to firearm afficianados to decide when things need to be regulated.
 
2012-11-28 09:23:06 AM

dittybopper: Look at that Remington 740 Woodsmaster: It has a removable magazine, and you can buy or make high capacity magazines for it. You can get 10 rounders commercially, and since it is mostly just stamped sheet metal, making even higher ones wouldn't be much of a chore.

Also, the Remington Model 8 also came in an extended removable magazine version:

Any semiauto rifle that accepts a removable magazine would have to be banned, simply because all it would take to make them illegal is to switch the removable magazine. Thus, the only law that would pass a "rational basis" test would be to ban semiauto rifles with removable magazines. You would be left with only fixed, nonremovable magazines being legal for semiauto rifles.


Which is precisely why I now disagree with regulations on magazine capacity. If a deer hunter thinks a fifty round magazine is going to help him get that buck when he can't take it down with ten then who am I to tell him he can't use one?

As a liberal I think it's high time we just walked away from this issue altogether. Conservatives are so driven by fear that we're going to take their guns away that they will oppose even the most common-sense regulation. I think the solution is to allow them to regulate or deregulate firearm ownership and operation to whatever degree they want. Only when they've gotten over their fear will they start to look around and realize things may have gotten a little out of hand and start considering rational regulation.
 
2012-11-28 09:26:32 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?


Fark it. I say we ban anything that uses an explosive charge to perform work.

You can buy the gun. No bullets though. Also no internal combustion engines. But it is a small price to pay to legitimize the NRA! Get this bill to the floor, STAT and get that sweet donor money rolling through those kooky gun lovers.
 
2012-11-28 09:27:00 AM

Monkeyhouse Zendo: theknuckler_33: What was the rate per 100,000 of population of gun owners compared to the rate per 100,000 of population of non gun owners?

There's no point in arguing statistics with him. He has the standard mental block that prevents him from recognizing that there may be negative consequences associated with owning a firearm. The fact that he ignored that I'd included suicide in my comment is a clear indication that he's not operating rationally when it comes to this issue.


Oh, there are potentially negative consequences to owning a firearm. No rational person disputes that.

I'm just saying that the added risk of accidental death due to owning them is so small that it can been effectively ignored, because other things dwarf them by comparison. Like owning a car: That same year, 2007, there were 43,945 accidental motor vehicle deaths, for a rate of 14.57 per 100,000. Yet I own a car, and in fact drive one every day.

There were 29,846 accidental poisoning deaths that same year, for a rate of 9.90 per 100,000. Yet I still keep poisons around the house.

Hell, there are more deaths due to *BICYCLE* accidents than guns (820 in 2007, rate 0,27 per 100,000), yet I still let the littlebopper ride his bicycle.

I'm not cavalier about the dangers of guns. If anything, I have more respect for them, because I know that they can kill, having killed many things with them personally. What I am *NOT*, however, is worried about the "extra risk" of accidentally being killed by firearms simply because I own them, because even *IF* nobody who owned guns ever got accidentally killed by them, and only those who own guns did, the rate would still be less than 1 per 100,000. I'd have a greater chance of being killed just walking down the street (pedestrian deaths: 5,958, rate 1.98 per 100,000).

Source for all numbers: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention WISQARS Injury Mortality Reports
 
2012-11-28 09:30:57 AM

dittybopper: I'm just saying that the added risk of accidental death due to owning them is so small that it can been effectively ignored


I'm not arguing with you but I would like to point out that I didn't specify "accidental". You're attempting to split hairs to minimize total negative outcomes.

Understand that I'm willing to accept any and all negative outcomes associated with allowing the right to set to agenda with respect to firearm ownership and operation but I don't think we need to sugarcoat it.
 
2012-11-28 09:31:39 AM
Someone committing a violent crime isn't thinking about the fact that gun sales have increased when committing their crime, so no, the increase gun sale has nothing to do with the NATIONAL trend of violent crime going down. Matter of fact if the US could pass a law that issues a gun to every person over the age of 14, citizen or non-citizen, resident or someone visiting on a visa, you'll still have violent crimes involving guns, people will still kill people.

At the end of the day getting rid of guns won't stop violent crime involving guns nor will arming yourself make you any safer from being gunned down because 8 times out of 10 the person getting shot didn't know it was coming.
 
2012-11-28 09:32:43 AM

BeesNuts: Fark it. I say we ban anything that uses an explosive charge to perform work.

You can buy the gun. No bullets though.


That's OK. We'll just make our own. Tens of thousands of us already do.
 
2012-11-28 09:39:48 AM

Monkeyhouse Zendo: dittybopper: Look at that Remington 740 Woodsmaster: It has a removable magazine, and you can buy or make high capacity magazines for it. You can get 10 rounders commercially, and since it is mostly just stamped sheet metal, making even higher ones wouldn't be much of a chore.

Also, the Remington Model 8 also came in an extended removable magazine version:

Any semiauto rifle that accepts a removable magazine would have to be banned, simply because all it would take to make them illegal is to switch the removable magazine. Thus, the only law that would pass a "rational basis" test would be to ban semiauto rifles with removable magazines. You would be left with only fixed, nonremovable magazines being legal for semiauto rifles.

Which is precisely why I now disagree with regulations on magazine capacity. If a deer hunter thinks a fifty round magazine is going to help him get that buck when he can't take it down with ten then who am I to tell him he can't use one?


Typically, "high-capacity" magazines are used by target shooters or -- more frequently -- as "novelty" items due to reliability concerns. Many states already regulate magazine capacity used when hunting.
 
2012-11-28 09:43:28 AM

Monkeyhouse Zendo: dittybopper: I'm just saying that the added risk of accidental death due to owning them is so small that it can been effectively ignored

I'm not arguing with you but I would like to point out that I didn't specify "accidental". You're attempting to split hairs to minimize total negative outcomes.

Understand that I'm willing to accept any and all negative outcomes associated with allowing the right to set to agenda with respect to firearm ownership and operation but I don't think we need to sugarcoat it.


OK. So what is my personal risk of being killed by homicide with a gun?

I'm a White, non-Hispanic male in my mid-to-late 40's. Survey says: 2.56 per 100,000 homicide rate with firearms.

That's a bit more than half the overall firearm homicide rate in the US (4.19 per 100,000), and less than half for all homicide causes (6.09 per 100,000).

Suicide rate is higher, of course, but that shouldn't count: The decision to end one's life is the last true decision any of us can make, and I judge that my risk of suicide is zero. I may be killed by someone else (but almost certainly not with one of my own guns, which makes the argument about gun ownership and homicide largely irrelevant), and I may be killed accidentally, but I'm most assuredly not going to kill myself intentionally.
 
2012-11-28 09:45:22 AM

dennysgod: At the end of the day getting rid of guns won't stop violent crime involving guns nor will arming yourself make you any safer from being gunned down because 8 times out of 10 the person getting shot didn't know it was coming.


A cite for that statistic, please.

But even assuming it to be true, you've said that 20% of the time a gun could be of use. That's a significant percentage.
 
2012-11-28 09:45:51 AM

Dimensio: Typically, "high-capacity" magazines are used by target shooters or -- more frequently -- as "novelty" items due to reliability concerns. Many states already regulate magazine capacity used when hunting.


Well if you ever decide you want to overturn those regulations you can count on my support.
 
2012-11-28 09:52:36 AM

dittybopper: OK. So what is my personal risk of being killed by homicide with a gun?


Why are you arguing with me? I've ceded the issue to you and I'm not even asking you to justify anything. The right absolutely has my support with respect to any regulation of deregulation of firearms that they want to enact.

You keep throwing out these statistics as if I were interested in some sort of justification from you. I'm not. With the exception of hunters, I think you're a bunch of frightened fools but if owning firearms makes you feel better then I'm not going to stand between you and your security blanket.
 
2012-11-28 09:53:36 AM

Monkeyhouse Zendo:
Why are you arguing with me? I've ceded the issue to you and I'm not even asking you to justify anything. The right absolutely has my support with respect to any regulation or deregulation of firearms that they want to enact.


FTFM
 
2012-11-28 10:09:56 AM

way south: theknuckler_33: way south: /Obama has been playing things cool. He's not pro gun

In what way is he "not pro gun"?

Because he's said as much, in words.


Fair enough. Like you said, he certainly hasn't made much of an issue of guns and I highly doubt he will.
 
2012-11-28 10:19:19 AM

Monkeyhouse Zendo: dittybopper: OK. So what is my personal risk of being killed by homicide with a gun?

Why are you arguing with me? I've ceded the issue to you and I'm not even asking you to justify anything. The right absolutely has my support with respect to any regulation of deregulation of firearms that they want to enact.

You keep throwing out these statistics as if I were interested in some sort of justification from you. I'm not. With the exception of hunters, I think you're a bunch of frightened fools but if owning firearms makes you feel better then I'm not going to stand between you and your security blanket.


Would it surprise you to learn that the only modern guns I own are a couple of bolt-action hunting rifles?
 
2012-11-28 10:21:52 AM

dittybopper: Would it surprise you to learn that the only modern guns I own are a couple of bolt-action hunting rifles?


Congratulations?

I don't care what you own. It's your issue now. You deal with the crazies.
 
2012-11-28 10:28:55 AM
That reminds me, I need to renew my carry permit.
 
2012-11-28 10:37:36 AM

Monkeyhouse Zendo: dittybopper: Would it surprise you to learn that the only modern guns I own are a couple of bolt-action hunting rifles?

Congratulations?

I don't care what you own. It's your issue now. You deal with the crazies.


Do I get to use my artillery? Because I have an actual cannon, you know.
 
2012-11-28 10:44:53 AM
Of course violent crime is down. Virginia has been trending toward a blue state that whole time. Violent crime is always lower in blue states.
 
2012-11-28 10:44:53 AM
As in Japan, our aging population has meant dropping crime rates - everywhere in the industrialized West. When the Boomers die, society will trend young again - and, guess what?
In the meantime, though, we have to listen to every idiot who has a theory about crime prevention claim success. We'll have to listen to another ten-fifteen years of it, at least.
i18.photobucket.com
 
2012-11-28 10:47:48 AM

dittybopper: BeesNuts: Fark it. I say we ban anything that uses an explosive charge to perform work.

You can buy the gun. No bullets though.

That's OK. We'll just make our own. Tens of thousands of us already do.


Satire is dead, apparently. Fight the good fight, ditty. One day you will win and nobody will take your guns.
 
2012-11-28 10:49:05 AM

I HATE LIBS: Wanna see a liberal's head explode? Let illegal immigrants own guns.


That's one of the best examples of projection I have ever seen.
 
2012-11-28 10:50:53 AM

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



This and this!

Keep farking that chicken nut jobs, making the rest of us look bad and keeping the price of ammo up, just like the NRA and Gun Manufactures want it to be.
 
2012-11-28 10:51:26 AM

dittybopper: theknuckler_33: 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.

Look at that Remington 740 Woodsmaster: It has a removable magazine, and you can buy or make high capacity magazines for it. You can get 10 rounders commercially, and since it is mostly just stamped sheet metal, making even higher ones wouldn't be much of a chore.

Also, the Remington Model 8 also came in an extended removable magazine version:




Any semiauto rifle that accepts a removable magazine would have to be banned, simply because all it would take to make them illegal is to switch the removable magazine. Thus, the only law that would pass a "rational basis" test would be to ban semiauto rifles with removable magazines. You would be left with only fixed, nonremovable magazines being legal for semiauto rifles.

This of course would be a fools game, because many types of semiauto rifles with nonremovable magazines can have high capacity, and can be loaded quickly using stripper clips. The SKS comes to mind:



And yes, the SKS is used for sporting purposes:



Same exact model of gun with an aftermarket stock, a red-dot scope for hunting, and a lower-capacity non-removable magazine.

It's starting to replace the venerable lever action .30-30 as the "brush gun"* of choice. Hell, even the AK has a sporting version, optimized to be less scary to those who don't know that all the foo-faraw about "assault weapons" is the same as arguing that a spoiler and pin-striping makes a Ford Focus into a 200 mph supercar.


*Generally a "brush gun" in this sense is a carbine length deer rifle with open sights or very low power scope and either semiauto like the Ruger .44 carbine or lever action like the Winchester Model 94, and that uses a lower-power cartridge. Mainly for use in areas with thick vegetation like swamps and deep woods where shots are at short range and possibly need to be taken quickly.


SKS is a a great example, especially when you show the "scary" version that makes people freak. They won't admit it, but they can't come up with rational categories to ban, so it becomes about looks and nothing more.

My SKS is a great gun, and is perfectly acceptable as a gun for the range.
 
2012-11-28 10:57:50 AM
Crime is dropping everywhere.
img.photobucket.com
FBI

In 2011, violent crime in the US was at a more than 40 year low, with one violent crime for every 259 people.
Murders alone were down to one for every 21,324 people compared to 1 per 11,598 in 1971.
Source
 
2012-11-28 11:01:38 AM
b>Summoner101: And yet because of our media, many Americans think crime is at an all time high.

/USA! USA! USA!


It's not just the US. Across the Western world, over the past several decades, news media has steadily increased its coverage of violent crime, creating a general impression that crime is always on the rise, making populations increasingly concerned and demanding action, while crime figures have been quietly falling.
It's an absurd and potentially politically dangerous development, but before everybody blames the media, it's worth keeping in mind that their growing focus on violence and sensationalism is a result of increased competition for readers and advertising money. News media has always pandered to its readership to some extent, and the harder it is to survive, less time will be spend on costly investigative reporting and wordy features providing insight to complex backgrounds and perspective for current events, and more on the latest thrilling crime. They're just giving people what they want. Apparently people want to be scared.
 
2012-11-28 11:07:19 AM

LavenderWolf: 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?


See, here's the part I find interesting. I'm on my phone, so I can't post a link correctly, but this can easily be Googled under 'china school stabbing'. I was trying to estimate the numbers from memory last night, but the final numbers are 21 dead and 90 injured. There were 7 or 8 attacks, all in schools, some in kindergartens.

What I find interesting is that if there is a single attack in the US with a single death or injury, we get 3 weeks of debate about whether guns should be illegal. Since this runs counter to the 'Guns are bad, mmmmmkay?' argument, suddenly the 21 children's deaths and the 90 injuries don't matter to you people. This actually doesn't surprise me in the least. Violent death only matters to you when it supports your narrative. How pathetic.

MY point, on the other hand, still stands. Take away the guns, and people still kill other people for no reason.

Don't worry, I don't expect anyone here to provide a good rebuttal or anything, you'll call me names, tell me that I'm stupid, yadda, yadda, yadda, but this is the point I set out to make, and you guys actually gave me more to argue with when you showed that it's not the deaths that matter, just how they died, and I thank you for that.
 
2012-11-28 11:09:39 AM

jso2897: As in Japan, our aging population has meant dropping crime rates - everywhere in the industrialized West. When the Boomers die, society will trend young again - and, guess what?
In the meantime, though, we have to listen to every idiot who has a theory about crime prevention claim success. We'll have to listen to another ten-fifteen years of it, at least.
[i18.photobucket.com image 384x400]


I guess we'll also have to listen to people who think dropping crime rates have one single cause.
 
2012-11-28 11:11:37 AM

dittybopper: Do I get to use my artillery? Because I have an actual cannon, you know.


If you can get the laws in your state or locality changed, sure, knock yourself out.
 
2012-11-28 11:20:08 AM

dittybopper:
Do I get to use my artillery? Because I have an actual cannon, you know.


Worst pick-up line ever.
 
2012-11-28 11:27:08 AM

Monkeyhouse Zendo: dittybopper: Do I get to use my artillery? Because I have an actual cannon, you know.

If you can get the laws in your state or locality changed, sure, knock yourself out.


Move to Wyoming, mortars are legal there
 
2012-11-28 11:33:06 AM
Nobody has mentioned the fact that lots of guns bought in Virginia end up on the streets of places like New York. For all we know, Virginia gun sales may have risen due to increased smuggling.

Also, the Richmond Times-Dispatch is an absolute piece of sh*t.
 
2012-11-28 11:38:01 AM

President Merkin Muffley: Moosecakes: 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)

President Merkin Muffley: 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)

I'll bite. What are the populations of each town and the crimes as a percentage of those populations.

Dustman81 will deliver, let's just wait.

I checked it out, and they're actually comparable. However, they're in completely different parts of the state, and have completely different demographics.

Kennesaw median income: $61,000
Hinesville median income: $35,000
Dalton median income: $35,000

It's no coincidence that lower income areas have higher crime. To attribute this solely to guns is just dumb.

Gold Star


Also, Dalton is nothing but unemployed Hispanic carpet workers.
 
2012-11-28 11:45:05 AM

Goodfella: If liberals just forgot about this stupid gun control wedge issue (their version of the right wing's flag burning amendment) and embraced firearms they would rob the GOP of one of the only remaining legs they have to stand on. It would be like kicking them in the nuts.


In real life (as opposed to on Fark), I haven't heard liberals talking about the need for gun control for a long time. I did hear conservatives claiming that Obama was going to take their guns if re-elected, though. I don't think this is really a wedge issue except on political opinion sites, where statistics like the ones in the headline are used to manufacture controversy.
 
2012-11-28 11:47:42 AM

monoski: Move to Wyoming, mortars are legal there


Hardly surprising, its not as if there are enough people living there that there's a chance you might actually hit someone. Their most populated city is little more than a few streetlights and a starbucks. If it weren't for the air force base Cheyenne would be a ghost town.
 
2012-11-28 11:50:08 AM

MacWizard: Goodfella: If liberals just forgot about this stupid gun control wedge issue (their version of the right wing's flag burning amendment) and embraced firearms they would rob the GOP of one of the only remaining legs they have to stand on. It would be like kicking them in the nuts.

In real life (as opposed to on Fark), I haven't heard liberals talking about the need for gun control for a long time. I did hear conservatives claiming that Obama was going to take their guns if re-elected, though. I don't think this is really a wedge issue except on political opinion sites, where statistics like the ones in the headline are used to manufacture controversy.


Democratic senators offer gun control amendment for cybersecurity bill
Followed shortly by GOP senator files abortion amendment to cybersecurity bill

This is why our government is awesome.
 
2012-11-28 11:53:39 AM

Mikey1969: What I find interesting is that if there is a single attack in the US with a single death or injury, we get 3 weeks of debate about whether guns should be illegal.


Please sell me your time machine. I would like to go back to the early 90's where you have apparently been living for the last 15 years, uninterrupted.

By the way, welcome to the internet! It's a pretty cool place that doesn't afraid of anything. You'll get used to it. Pick up your complementary iPod Nano on the way out.
 
2012-11-28 11:56:37 AM

jaytkay: RINO: Probably because they are outright lies. Chicago's murder rate during the gun ban was an average of ~900 homicides a year. As I recall, Chicago and DC had the strictest gun control in the country, and had the worst crime rates across the board. Since their gun bans were thrown out, their crime rates have begun to fall more in line with the national average.

You know how I know you haven't bothered to look at the actual numbers?


Homicides in Chicago 1990-1995
1990: 851[6]
1991: 927[7]
1992: 943[7]
1993: 855[7]
1994: 931[7]
1995: 828[7]

Homicides in Chicago as of 11/27/2012
2012: 500(to date)[8]
 
2012-11-28 12:06:39 PM

BeesNuts: Mikey1969: What I find interesting is that if there is a single attack in the US with a single death or injury, we get 3 weeks of debate about whether guns should be illegal.

Please sell me your time machine. I would like to go back to the early 90's where you have apparently been living for the last 15 years, uninterrupted.

By the way, welcome to the internet! It's a pretty cool place that doesn't afraid of anything. You'll get used to it. Pick up your complementary iPod Nano on the way out.


So in other words, you are dodging the point entirely. Hell, you could have saved the time it took you to post, and I would have known that I was right.

Thanks for supporting that assertion, though. I guess even you have a purpose in this planet.
 
2012-11-28 12:36:46 PM
Nothing in these findings surprise me.

Criminals including felons seem to be able to get their hands on guns just fine. Limiting ownership for non-criminals makes non-criminals less able to defend themselves vs criminals with guns. Give more guns to non-criminals and criminals have less unprotected targets. Less targets = less crime.

If we some how managed to remove every gun from the US the criminals would use sticks, knives, or swords. If you just had your bare fists you would lose. The crime rate for deaths by sticks, knives, or swords would climb greatly. However, if we started selling more sticks, knives, swords to non-criminals the crime rate would drop.

I do not understand why people have such a hard time understanding this easily viewable nature of humans. You hand a 10 year old bully a stick and he is going to hit other kids. You give the other kids sticks and he thinks twice about hitting kids with his stick because now they can hit him back. 

Huh, wonder if it has anything to do with why animals attack the unprotected of the herd. I mean, shouldn't they go for the bigger but "armed" buffalo? There is a whole lot more meat on the bigger armed animal.
 
2012-11-28 01:14:51 PM
Thank GOD correlation equals causation!!
 
2012-11-28 01:38:26 PM

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


In other threads liberal farkers are.

pacified: when you join a "WELL REGULATED MILITIA" you can have your farking gun assholes.

 
2012-11-28 01:52:15 PM

Mikey1969: BeesNuts: Mikey1969: What I find interesting is that if there is a single attack in the US with a single death or injury, we get 3 weeks of debate about whether guns should be illegal.

Please sell me your time machine. I would like to go back to the early 90's where you have apparently been living for the last 15 years, uninterrupted.

By the way, welcome to the internet! It's a pretty cool place that doesn't afraid of anything. You'll get used to it. Pick up your complementary iPod Nano on the way out.

So in other words, you are dodging the point entirely. Hell, you could have saved the time it took you to post, and I would have known that I was right.

Thanks for supporting that assertion, though. I guess even you have a purpose in this planet.


No, I just reject your premise that every time there is a murder your right to bear arms is assaulted.

I call bullshiat. I can't turn on the news without hearing whether Justin Beiber should get married before he turns 25 or who won The Voice or why we need to ask questions about Benghazi or the latest disease scare (it's botulism from Prison Booze, btw).

When Jared Laughner shot Giffords in the head, in broad daylight, at a rally... the conversation was about the toxic political discourse and the availability of quality mental health facilities.

The most vocal conversation about gun rights I recall (apart from the Brady Campaign) came from the NRA and right wing 2nd amendment groups claiming, as you are, that SURELY this tragedy will be exploited by the liberals to try and push gun laws.

I'm less worried about how many guns we have or what kind they are than I am about who we allow to buy them. We take away felons right to farking VOTE in a couple of states. FOR LIFE. And nobody bats a farkin' eyelash. Talk about making sure there are ways for authorities to track gun sales, and to run some kind of background check on people looking to purchase a gun makes sense.

Banning "types" of firearms or munitions is dumb, counterproductive, and likely in direct opposition to the purpose of the second amendment.

Are there lefties who hang their hats on things like an AWB or handgun regulation? Sure. Always will be. But to imply it's some kind of pet issue for the left is just plain false. Right around the time the left rallied as the anti-war party they abandoned any need to play to the crunchier members of their coalition by calling for bans on guns.

I also don't hear anywhere near the same amount of noise about raw environmentalism as we did in the 90s. The libs recognize a pointless fight when they see one.

I guess, if I were to distill this down to a single point, it would be this:
I don't understand the need for vigilance on this topic. Nobody is assaulting anyone's right to bear arms. Making arguments like yours, or this articles, would be like me railing about the health benefits of kool-aid because I was worried that the health-nuts on capital hill were going to ban it.

All it accomplishes is make gun owners seem... paranoid. Which isn't a stigma you or ANY other gun owner want to deal with.
 
2012-11-28 02:04:38 PM

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.


Income rate to cost of living ratio in hong kong?

% below poverty line in hong kong?

Avg education level in hong kong?

There are other questions too in order for a true comparison to the US.

/not a gun nut per se - pro responible ownership tho
 
2012-11-28 03:52:27 PM

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.


Which, once again, has fark-all to do with the original point of 7 million people and LAST year.

Go ahead, ignore that statistic. I realize it totally destroys your "argument". The hilarious thing is that you don't even realize the idiotic "38 sword deaths" among MILLIONS of people destroys your argument as well.

Keep going though. It's entertaining to watch you flail.
 
2012-11-28 04:13:41 PM

LavenderWolf: 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?


(You're assuming, of course, that the government of China is being 100% honest with their statistical reporting.)
 
2012-11-28 05:54:26 PM
Which is why every other country with more strict gun laws than the US is a hive of blood-soaked violence and villainy.

Oh wait. Correlations are hard. And other countries aren't real.
 
2012-11-28 06:18:39 PM

jaytkay: RINO: Probably because they are outright lies. Chicago's murder rate during the gun ban was an average of ~900 homicides a year. As I recall, Chicago and DC had the strictest gun control in the country, and had the worst crime rates across the board. Since their gun bans were thrown out, their crime rates have begun to fall more in line with the national average.

You know how I know you haven't bothered to look at the actual numbers?


Know how I know you are making shiat up as you go along?

Chicago Homicide Rates clearly shows homicide rates peaked under the strictist gun control laws.
 
2012-11-28 07:15:21 PM

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

what power pop song is this from? is this big star?


Vintage Psy, from before he sold out.
 
2012-11-28 07:57:50 PM

jso2897: As in Japan, our aging population has meant dropping crime rates - everywhere in the industrialized West. When the Boomers die, society will trend young again - and, guess what?


Generation X will be old, and Millennials will wonder what the f*ck is wrong with us?

Actually I think they already do, but they're the ones who are on our lawn. Also their music objectively sucks.
 
2012-11-28 07:59:41 PM

jaerik: Which is why every other country with more strict gun laws than the US is a hive of blood-soaked violence and villainy.

Oh wait. Correlations are hard. And other countries aren't real.


Some of these places are.

/Jamaica.
/Somalia.
/Puerto Rico... Oh, wait!
//correlations are often inconvenient.
 
2012-11-28 10:54:01 PM
Jesus, the syntax of that headline is Satan. Smite it, please.
 
2012-11-29 06:10:27 AM

way south: jaerik: Which is why every other country with more strict gun laws than the US is a hive of blood-soaked violence and villainy.

Oh wait. Correlations are hard. And other countries aren't real.

Some of these places are.

/Jamaica.
/Somalia.
/Puerto Rico... Oh, wait!
//correlations are often inconvenient.


Were you born with that melon baller stuck in you brain?
 
2012-11-29 06:38:26 AM
Guns don't kill people. Black people kill people
 
2012-11-29 08:44:46 AM
A 73% Increase in gun ownership only nets a 26% drop in crime?

How disappointing. I'd hope for more return on investment...
 
2012-11-29 01:26:06 PM

Monkeyhouse Zendo: As a liberal I think it's high time we just walked away from this issue altogether. Conservatives are so driven by fear that we're going to take their guns away that they will oppose even the most common-sense regulation. I think the solution is to allow them to regulate or deregulate firearm ownership and operation to whatever degree they want. Only when they've gotten over their fear will they start to look around and realize things may have gotten a little out of hand and start considering rational regulation.


"Only when Conservatives have gotten over their fears will they give in to ours."

So when you talk about being "driven by fear" are you being intentionally ironic?
 
2012-11-29 05:43:53 PM

robrr2003: "Only when Conservatives have gotten over their fears will they give in to ours."

So when you talk about being "driven by fear" are you being intentionally ironic?


I don't know the guy, but I could swear he wrote something about "rational regulation." In my opinion, that's pretty much what we have now. You have to admit, though, that the NRA doesn't seem to agree, at least publicly.
 
Displayed 220 of 220 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report