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.

(Think Progress)   In one day, more people have signed a petition asking Obama to address gun control than Texans wanting to secede from the Union   (thinkprogress.org) divider line 1049
    More: Obvious, President Obama, unions, gun regulation, petitions  
•       •       •

3077 clicks; posted to Politics » on 15 Dec 2012 at 8:59 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



1049 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-15 08:23:34 PM

Lsherm: Coolfusis: Canada has about the only real solution to this - removal of handguns. Anyone with a handgun that isn't in a uniform is a criminal.

Handguns aren't banned in Canada, except for ones with extremely short barrels, or that shoot .25 or .32 caliber ammunition. Other are restricted, which means you need to be licensed to get them. They still grant plenty of licenses for gunowners.

I'm not trying to justify tightening our own gun laws, I'm just saying Canada has managed to do it without banning handguns entirely, which I believe is what you thought they did.


shhhh, don't use facts, it just gets them mad.
 
2012-12-15 08:26:46 PM

Lionel Mandrake: That's because gun control is a serious issue that sensible people want to see addressed.


How would you propose preventing a mentally ill person from obtaining a gun?
 
2012-12-15 08:29:26 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: Do more people die from these insane attacks in the US than say in a place like Norway?


yes

tenpoundsofcheese: And if you look on a per capita basis, isn't it a lot worse in Norway than the US?


no
 
2012-12-15 08:34:34 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: shhhh, don't use facts, it just gets them mad


lol
 
2012-12-15 08:36:27 PM

Lionel Mandrake: tenpoundsofcheese: Do more people die from these insane attacks in the US than say in a place like Norway?

yes

tenpoundsofcheese: And if you look on a per capita basis, isn't it a lot worse in Norway than the US?

no


You sure?
85 people died in Norway in an insane attack (going after kids too)

Per capita, they have about 1/80th of the number of people.

Care to try again.
 
2012-12-15 08:40:28 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: Lionel Mandrake: tenpoundsofcheese: Do more people die from these insane attacks in the US than say in a place like Norway?

yes

tenpoundsofcheese: And if you look on a per capita basis, isn't it a lot worse in Norway than the US?

no

You sure?
85 people died in Norway in an insane attack (going after kids too)

Per capita, they have about 1/80th of the number of people.

Care to try again.


No. Your link was fine, though there are many more out there to prove my point.

From your link: Five homicides committed with a gun were reported in Norway in 2005, the latest year for which the site has data confirming firearm-related murders in the country. In comparison, the U.S., which has a population more than 50 times greater, had 10,158 gun-related murders the same year, or 2,000 times that of Norway.

Math is hard!
 
2012-12-15 08:42:23 PM

Lionel Mandrake: tenpoundsofcheese: Lionel Mandrake: tenpoundsofcheese: Do more people die from these insane attacks in the US than say in a place like Norway?

yes

tenpoundsofcheese: And if you look on a per capita basis, isn't it a lot worse in Norway than the US?

no

You sure?
85 people died in Norway in an insane attack (going after kids too)

Per capita, they have about 1/80th of the number of people.

Care to try again.

No. Your link was fine, though there are many more out there to prove my point.

From your link: Five homicides committed with a gun were reported in Norway in 2005, the latest year for which the site has data confirming firearm-related murders in the country. In comparison, the U.S., which has a population more than 50 times greater, had 10,158 gun-related murders the same year, or 2,000 times that of Norway.

Math is hard!


I said specifically "Do more people die from these insane attacks".
Reading is hard...for you.
 
2012-12-15 08:45:22 PM
It comes down to this: We'll do the same thing we've done after the last 20 mass killings, which is nothing. Next week or next month there'll be another mass killing and we'll do the same. Mass killings are just a way of life in America now. Accept it and move on.
 
2012-12-15 08:48:27 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: I said specifically "Do more people die from these insane attacks".


Those are the only kind that kill people?
 
2012-12-15 08:48:40 PM
<b><a href="http://www.fark.com/comments/7488081/81306379#c81306379" target="_blank">dahmers love zombie</a>:</b>2: Attempt something confiscatory. Yeah, that's not going to happen in the US. I know some people will claim that this is a flippant dismissal of the most logical choice, but it's the option that is probably most rife with political, social, economic pitfalls. Unless the majority of the people in the US decide that they personally (not "someone else", but THEM) shouldn't be allowed to own guns, it won't happen</i>

When Australia brought in their ban on assault weapons, they instituted a buy-back scheme rather than outright confiscation. There hasn't been a mass shooting there in the 14 years since they instituted this.

What you could do is outlaw informal person to person sales and have some sort of title transfer in the same way you have title transfer with cars. Do regular audits of last registered owners to make sure they haven't got rid of their guns on the sly. Firearm microstamping is a promising technology to help in criminal investigation, but that won't stop a guy who's decided to commit suicide and take down a bunch of innocents with him, so having people vouch for a gun buyer might be reasonable - in the same way you need someone to give an affidavit on your identity to apply for a passport if you have no other proof of citizenship.
 
2012-12-15 08:48:46 PM
If they actually wanted to curb this kind of violence in America they would be asking for a doubling or tripling of mental health funding, and consider some amendments to HIPPA that allow certain diagnoses to be be reported to the NCIC. As a start. If someone wants to make a petition asking for something similar I'd sign it. There is no achievable amount of gun control that would make a bit of difference, otherwise.
 
2012-12-15 08:49:57 PM

Lionel Mandrake: tenpoundsofcheese: I said specifically "Do more people die from these insane attacks".

Those are the only kind that kill people?


And, are we only counting the year of the Breivik attack?

With enough qualifiers, any stupid, useless statement can be "correct"
 
2012-12-15 08:50:39 PM
To be fair, most that signed the Texas petition were from the rest of the US that just wanted us out of the Union
 
2012-12-15 08:51:02 PM

violentsalvation: If they actually wanted to curb this kind of violence in America they would be asking for a doubling or tripling of mental health funding, and consider some amendments to HIPPA that allow certain diagnoses to be be reported to the NCIC.


Sounds like socialism, comrade.
 
2012-12-15 08:56:46 PM

Lionel Mandrake: violentsalvation: If they actually wanted to curb this kind of violence in America they would be asking for a doubling or tripling of mental health funding, and consider some amendments to HIPPA that allow certain diagnoses to be be reported to the NCIC.

Sounds like socialism, comrade.


The tea people will get over it. It's not like they're actually for a smaller gov't.
 
2012-12-15 09:02:50 PM

MayoSlather: Banning the sale of all firearms both new and used that can fire more than 2 shots without reloading would be nice. Yeah it won't completely solve the problem, but it sure as hell won't hurt.


We have people that mod Wii's X-boxes, Tivo's, video game controllers, Car engines etc. I'm sure they'd find a workaround for that too.
 
2012-12-15 09:04:13 PM

Saborlas: I wish I had the cash to invest in Smith & Wesson, because the moment Obama opens his mouth on the topic, gun sales are gonna SKYROCKET.


And that's just sad.
 
2012-12-15 09:05:30 PM

birdmanesq: cameroncrazy1984: Tipping point.

It would be nice to have an evidence-based conversation about this.


it's cameron.. never gonna happen. You're more likely to get hit by a meteorite while having sex in an elevator with 8 female porn stars while a midget in a clown suit takes pictures.
 
2012-12-15 09:06:29 PM

CruiserTwelve: It comes down to this: We'll do the same thing we've done after the last 20 mass killings, which is nothing. Next week or next month there'll be another mass killing and we'll do the same. Mass killings are just a way of life in America now. Accept it and move on.


Unfortunately, pretty much this. Nothing will change. After a while you just learn to accept these things as a part of life (well, at least in this country). It's going to take a huge cultural shift away from the gun worshiping we have right now and I just don't see that happening.
 
2012-12-15 09:07:31 PM

Lionel Mandrake: Lionel Mandrake: tenpoundsofcheese: I said specifically "Do more people die from these insane attacks".

Those are the only kind that kill people?

And, are we only counting the year of the Breivik attack?

With enough qualifiers, any stupid, useless statement can be "correct"


This thread was about people's response to the recent attack.
Get a clue.
You lost.
1/10 for trying to save face.
 
2012-12-15 09:08:37 PM

themindiswatching: What if Obama submits a bill to Congress next month that extends mental healthcare to everyone? We could call it Medicare Part E or something. Surely people would be okay with that if it'll prevent at least one mass shooting, right?


They were wealthy. Adam had access to mental health care. That wasn't the problem. Whether or not he actually went is a different question.
 
2012-12-15 09:09:25 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: You lost.


OK. As you wish.

1/10 for trying to save face.

Well, bless your heart!
 
2012-12-15 09:09:33 PM
Ok, I''ll bite. Can anyone come up with a correlation between a change in gun control laws and a change in gun violence corrected for external variables? Either positive or negative would do.

/without that we're busy arguing over I believe, you believe
//no offense, but your beliefs aren't much better than mine
 
2012-12-15 09:10:43 PM

MayoSlather: Banning the sale of all firearms both new and used that can fire more than 2 shots without reloading would be nice. Yeah it won't completely solve the problem, but it sure as hell won't hurt.


How realistic do you think that is? On a scale of one to ten, 10 being the most likely to happen, where do you rate your idea?
 
2012-12-15 09:11:48 PM
It appears they've met their goal

img.photobucket.com

Sign here
 
2012-12-15 09:12:50 PM

diaphoresis: birdmanesq: cameroncrazy1984: Tipping point.

It would be nice to have an evidence-based conversation about this.

it's cameron.. never gonna happen. You're more likely to get hit by a meteorite while having sex in an elevator with 8 female porn stars while a midget in a clown suit takes pictures.


So wait until the next Fark party then?
 
2012-12-15 09:13:40 PM
I used to be okay with the staus quo. No longer. Our leaders need to sit down and make some changes to gun ownership requirements in this country. When a class full of little kids gets shot up, something has to change. Period. I'm not saying go gun grabbing. I'm not saying get rid of the second amendment. But they HAVE to do SOMETHING. To do nothing would constitute the biggest failure of leadership at all levels of our government. This must not be ignored.
 
2012-12-15 09:14:24 PM

rohar: Ok, I''ll bite. Can anyone come up with a correlation between a change in gun control laws and a change in gun violence corrected for external variables? Either positive or negative would do.

/without that we're busy arguing over I believe, you believe
//no offense, but your beliefs aren't much better than mine


"Other countries offer a road map. In Australia in 1996, a mass killing of 35 people galvanized the nation's conservative prime minister to ban certain rapid-fire long guns. The "national firearms agreement," as it was known, led to the buyback of 650,000 guns and to tighter rules for licensing and safe storage of those remaining in public hands.

The law did not end gun ownership in Australia. It reduced the number of firearms in private hands by one-fifth, and they were the kinds most likely to be used in mass shootings.

In the 18 years before the law, Australia suffered 13 mass shootings - but not one in the 14 years after the law took full effect. The murder rate with firearms has dropped by more than 40 percent, according to data compiled by the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, and the suicide rate with firearms has dropped by more than half." --NY Times
 
2012-12-15 09:14:48 PM

violentsalvation: If they actually wanted to curb this kind of violence in America they would be asking for a doubling or tripling of mental health funding, and consider some amendments to HIPPA that allow certain diagnoses to be be reported to the NCIC. As a start. If someone wants to make a petition asking for something similar I'd sign it. There is no achievable amount of gun control that would make a bit of difference, otherwise.


^^Éste^^
 
2012-12-15 09:15:14 PM
Guns are already prohibited at schools. Gun purchases require registration and background checks. The NSA is watching his internet activity. None of it is particulary effective against homicidal maniacs.
 
2012-12-15 09:15:27 PM

pornopose: I used to be okay with the staus quo. No longer. Our leaders need to sit down and make some changes to gun ownership requirements in this country. When a class full of little kids gets shot up, something has to change. Period. I'm not saying go gun grabbing. I'm not saying get rid of the second amendment. But they HAVE to do SOMETHING. To do nothing would constitute the biggest failure of leadership at all levels of our government. This must not be ignored.


Can you come up with a correlation between a change in gun control laws and a change in gun violence corrected for external variables? Either positive or negative?

If not, why go down that road?
 
2012-12-15 09:15:50 PM

thatboyoverthere: diaphoresis: birdmanesq: cameroncrazy1984: Tipping point.

It would be nice to have an evidence-based conversation about this.

it's cameron.. never gonna happen. You're more likely to get hit by a meteorite while having sex in an elevator with 8 female porn stars while a midget in a clown suit takes pictures.

So wait until the next Fark party then?


Precisely... I may show up... :)
 
2012-12-15 09:16:46 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: Lionel Mandrake: That's because gun control is a serious issue that sensible people want to see addressed.

How would you propose preventing a mentally ill person from obtaining a gun?


By getting rid of guns entirely?

But that won't happen. You guys won. If the Tom Tomorrow comic hadn't been posted to death I would post it again. Guns aren't going anywhere and anyone can get one, cause even if you restrict sales to crazies then the crazies will just steal them from someone else (like the shooter here did). But that will never happen, because too many people in this country like guns. I just hope that the next time this happens, and it will happen again, that I don't know any of the victims.

And don't say guns are tools just like cars or knives. Guns are conceived, designed, built, and purchased with the specific intention to kill things. There is literally no other use for a gun other than to kill things. Target practice is simply preparation for the killing of things.
 
2012-12-15 09:16:50 PM

diaphoresis: birdmanesq: cameroncrazy1984: Tipping point.

It would be nice to have an evidence-based conversation about this.

it's cameron.. never gonna happen. You're more likely to get hit by a meteorite while having sex in an elevator with 8 female porn stars while a midget in a clown suit takes pictures.


Does he have to be in a clown suit?

Cuz, oh man! this one time...
 
2012-12-15 09:17:11 PM

BravadoGT: Point is--further restricting the tool isn't going to correct the underlying condition--it's nothing more that a band-aid when the body needs an antibiotic.


I think you're right. Clearly, Americans can't be trusted with a free society and should be exterminated.
 
2012-12-15 09:17:33 PM

thisispete: rohar: Ok, I''ll bite. Can anyone come up with a correlation between a change in gun control laws and a change in gun violence corrected for external variables? Either positive or negative would do.

/without that we're busy arguing over I believe, you believe
//no offense, but your beliefs aren't much better than mine

"Other countries offer a road map. In Australia in 1996, a mass killing of 35 people galvanized the nation's conservative prime minister to ban certain rapid-fire long guns. The "national firearms agreement," as it was known, led to the buyback of 650,000 guns and to tighter rules for licensing and safe storage of those remaining in public hands.

The law did not end gun ownership in Australia. It reduced the number of firearms in private hands by one-fifth, and they were the kinds most likely to be used in mass shootings.

In the 18 years before the law, Australia suffered 13 mass shootings - but not one in the 14 years after the law took full effect. The murder rate with firearms has dropped by more than 40 percent, according to data compiled by the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, and the suicide rate with firearms has dropped by more than half." --NY Times


Yes, but Australia has comprehensive mental health benefits. Look at that, an important external variable. What happened on that front at approximately the same time?
 
2012-12-15 09:19:32 PM
In the spirit of compromise, can't we do both?
 
2012-12-15 09:22:21 PM
My solution: ban all sales and manufacture of semiautomatic firearms to civilians, but allow for a grandfather clause for previously registered semi-automatic firearms. If a gun is used in a crime it is taken off the streets and destroyed. Before long the only semi-automatic weapons will be in the hands of law abiding enthusiasts, and people would still be able to buy hunting rifles/guns you can't spray down a public place with.
 
2012-12-15 09:23:28 PM

badhatharry: Guns are already prohibited at schools. Gun purchases require registration and background checks. The NSA is watching his internet activity. None of it is particulary effective against homicidal maniacs.


So, you have the ability to look into parallel universes and see that in worlds exactly like ours but without these laws and procedures, exactly the same number of crimes occurred in exactly the same way?

That's one hell of a gift.
 
2012-12-15 09:24:24 PM

tolallorti: My solution: ban all sales and manufacture of semiautomatic firearms to civilians, but allow for a grandfather clause for previously registered semi-automatic firearms. If a gun is used in a crime it is taken off the streets and destroyed. Before long the only semi-automatic weapons will be in the hands of law abiding enthusiasts, and people would still be able to buy hunting rifles/guns you can't spray down a public place with.


Gun violence in America INCREASED per capita after the Brady bill. Surely, if we do more of that it'll decrease right?
 
2012-12-15 09:26:51 PM
Yeah, time for the white trash to stop dictating the safety of everyone else by screaming like biatches about an amendment that their little brains do not undertstand.
 
2012-12-15 09:26:54 PM

Lsherm: Coolfusis: Canada has about the only real solution to this - removal of handguns. Anyone with a handgun that isn't in a uniform is a criminal.

Handguns aren't banned in Canada, except for ones with extremely short barrels, or that shoot .25 or .32 caliber ammunition. Other are restricted, which means you need to be licensed to get them. They still grant plenty of licenses for gunowners.

I'm not trying to justify tightening our own gun laws, I'm just saying Canada has managed to do it without banning handguns entirely, which I believe is what you thought they did.


I suspect Canada doesn't have as many sociopaths& batshiat insane people per capita as the United States does.

/ 'just sayin
 
2012-12-15 09:26:58 PM

violentsalvation: If they actually wanted to curb this kind of violence in America they would be asking for a doubling or tripling of mental health funding, and consider some amendments to HIPPA that allow certain diagnoses to be be reported to the NCIC. As a start. If someone wants to make a petition asking for something similar I'd sign it. There is no achievable amount of gun control that would make a bit of difference, otherwise.


yes, there is a mental health issue in the USA but more funding for mental health is not going to solve the problem, or even slow it down. The people in the last three shootings had not been diagnosed as mentally ill. Beyond that, a person that is sane and rational on Monday is fully capable of snapping on Tuesday and shooting up a school on Wednesday. How is your proposal going to help in that case?

Mental health only helps when you get the people diagnosed and medicated.

The medical officials call these shooters "rage killers". Rage is something that is rarely diagnosed and it usually comes on before it can be diagnosed.

Got any other bright ideas?
 
2012-12-15 09:28:58 PM
I would think that we should attack the issue, not by completely banning firearms, but by codifying the description of militia.

Then monitor the militia armories to allow of firearm use only for organized militia based activities.
Include a provision that militia weapons can be used for activities by registered militia members only if in groups of 3 or more and create a sign in sign out procedure.
Any serious infractions could be met with punishment of loss of the militia armory or disbandment of the militia in question.

This would at least create an environment that the group would police itself and create a better chance of someone who may be mentally unstable being caught by their militia members before they become a danger to society.

It's not the best solution, but perhaps a worthy compromise?
 
2012-12-15 09:29:44 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: Lionel Mandrake: Lionel Mandrake: tenpoundsofcheese: I said specifically "Do more people die from these insane attacks".

Those are the only kind that kill people?

And, are we only counting the year of the Breivik attack?

With enough qualifiers, any stupid, useless statement can be "correct"

This thread was about people's response to the recent attack.
Get a clue.
You lost.
1/10 for trying to save face.


You are a liar. A shameless, bought and paid for liar. You are a creature worthy of no compassion, you are ugly and hateful.

I promised myself after years of lurking on this forum that I would never ignore someone in order to preserve objectivity on both sides of discourse. I was wrong.
 
2012-12-15 09:29:54 PM

MayoSlather: The_Sponge: MayoSlather: Banning the sale of all firearms both new and used that can fire more than 2 shots without reloading would be nice. Yeah it won't completely solve the problem, but it sure as hell won't hurt.


How about no? Does no work for you?

Why no? Seriously. Why do you need a firearm to fire more than to rounds without reloading?


Unfortunately, it's not about what you "need". It's the fact that the technology needed to achieve this(more than two rounds w/o reload) is common knowledge, and easily available. Besides, banning the sale of nearly every firearm on the market and every firearm in possession would be a wee bit difficult to enforce, no?

Your example is actually a good one, I think. It shows how extreme any sort of ban would need to be to remove the ability of firearms to inflict an obscene amount of damage. And even with a ban like that, you've already got hundreds of millions out there. Not to mention how many people would die if they tried to enforce that on a private citizen level. Going house to house and confiscating guns is a pretty risky prospect.
 
2012-12-15 09:30:09 PM

chuckufarlie: violentsalvation: If they actually wanted to curb this kind of violence in America they would be asking for a doubling or tripling of mental health funding, and consider some amendments to HIPPA that allow certain diagnoses to be be reported to the NCIC. As a start. If someone wants to make a petition asking for something similar I'd sign it. There is no achievable amount of gun control that would make a bit of difference, otherwise.

yes, there is a mental health issue in the USA but more funding for mental health is not going to solve the problem, or even slow it down. The people in the last three shootings had not been diagnosed as mentally ill. Beyond that, a person that is sane and rational on Monday is fully capable of snapping on Tuesday and shooting up a school on Wednesday. How is your proposal going to help in that case?

Mental health only helps when you get the people diagnosed and medicated.

The medical officials call these shooters "rage killers". Rage is something that is rarely diagnosed and it usually comes on before it can be diagnosed.

Got any other bright ideas?


Funny thing, statistically violent crime was much lower per capita before we completely defunded public mental health in the '80s.

/kinda takes the wind out of your argument don't it?
 
2012-12-15 09:30:17 PM
Severely restricting access to guns is the natural response following a child massacre.

See the UK, Australia, Japan.

None of those countries regret it.
 
2012-12-15 09:30:30 PM
From a CNN report: The gunman's mother owned guns for self-defense, the aunt said.

What the hell kind of paranoid delusions are you suffering that you need an AR-15, a Glock, a Sig Sauer, and, if reports are to be believed, two other guns to protect you? From what? Zombies? Zee Germans? Jack-booted stormtroopers? Satan's minions? The UN? Commies? Roving bands of negroes? I have a shotgun for home protection and an air rifle for weeding out the local squirrel population, but if I ever felt the need for an assault rifle and more handguns than I have hands, I guess I'd take it as I sign that I need to move somewhere safer. I don't get it. But then again, I don't fetishize guns. It's a tool, like my hammer, just a lot less dangerous, and one that gets used much, much, much less often.
 
2012-12-15 09:31:11 PM

rohar: tolallorti: My solution: ban all sales and manufacture of semiautomatic firearms to civilians, but allow for a grandfather clause for previously registered semi-automatic firearms. If a gun is used in a crime it is taken off the streets and destroyed. Before long the only semi-automatic weapons will be in the hands of law abiding enthusiasts, and people would still be able to buy hunting rifles/guns you can't spray down a public place with.

Gun violence in America INCREASED per capita after the Brady bill. Surely, if we do more of that it'll decrease right?


If it prevented the manufacture and sale of semi-automatic weapons rather than pussyfooting around with background checks it would have been more effective. Outlaw the shiat. And don't give me the shiat about outlaws still bring capable of getting them; if the major companies are banned from production handguns will become a rare commodity, meaning they'll be too expensive for your average shiathead gangbanger to get their hands on one.
 
Displayed 50 of 1049 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report