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 10:22:40 PM

Silverstaff: Gun control is nothing but an easy feel-good solution that doesn't actually prevent anything.


We already control guns - automatic firearms are fairly difficult to acquire. Accordingly, they are used in crimes very infrequently. So what is the rationale for so stringently regulating acquisition of fully automatic weapons? The very same reasoning can be used, but hasn't been, to shrink the pool of semi-automatic firearms available. That's what gun control is about - shrinking the pool and making them more difficult to acquire. You can whine about criminals not caring about gun laws but the fewer guns out there, the harder they are to get hold of.
 
2012-12-15 10:22:46 PM

Harry_Seldon: tenpoundsofcheese: justGreg: This isn't a theoretical debate. There are plenty of countries with stricter gun laws than America (i.e., the entire civilized world) and they all have fewer gun deaths by orders of magnitude.

Norway has very strict gun laws and yet a lunatic managed to kill 80 people in a rampage including many children. What failed in that case? The gun laws or something else?

The US has 5x the per capita gun related deaths compared to Norway.


But they are still number one number of people killed in a violent rampage.
They also are number one for number of kids killed in a violent rampage.

If we have higher per capita crime than Norway (?), I wouldn't be surprised to see a higher per capita gun deaths. If so, that is not because of a difference in the gun laws.
 
2012-12-15 10:23:05 PM

trackstr777: AGREE -- Add mental health screening to application process
AGREE -- Stiff penalties if your gun ends up in somebody else's hands

DISAGREE -- Ban all handguns except for law enforcement and military
DISAGREE -- Ban all assault weapons
DISAGREE -- Ban all magazines over a 5 round capacity
DISAGREE -- Allow ownership of one rifle or shotgun per person who meets requirements

To the above 4 ideas, I argue that it's a lot of show, without much real practical effect. We have the TSA and shoe checks, but do you feel a lot of that is just looking like we're doing something, or do you genuinely feel safer going through an airport then you did previously? What would these changes practically do, in stopping these type of rampages? "Oh, he'll be restricted to one type of killing device, not multiple." "Oh, he'll need to reload a bit more often!"

Will it slightly increase the chance that someone could tackle an attacker in a massacre situation? Yes, I agree with that. Is that small chance enough to justify removing these weapons from the hands of the millions of law abiding citizens throughout our country that can responsibly handle them? I argue no. But again, my main point is that while slightly more effective, it just doesn't address the real issues. It still leaves room for people to get access to powerful weapons they can use to commit these tragedies, and at the added cost of preventing the legitimate self defense use by many Americans. I'm not advocating for the ban of all firearms nationwide, I'm just making the point from a practicality standpoint of stopping these massacres, it is a more logical solution to the problem than banning the "meaner" looking weapons.

Road rage is a huge problem, at least in my neck of the woods, and just recently down the road from me a man was followed home after he cut someone off in traffic; the assailant got out of his car, and started smashing the driver's head against the car, or something similar. The driver was able to pull out his concealed carry handgun, and use it to shoot the man in self defense. In your situation, this would be all but impossible, as in many situations a shotgun or rifle is not a practical self defense weapon. This is just one example, but there are many others.

DISAGREE -- No open carry or CCW allowed

Firstly, the violent crime rate for CCW holders is much much lower than the rate for the general population. Also, a few more of these people around could have changed the outcome of some of these events for the better. For all the people like Generic Republican who talk about the added risk of this.....it's better than nothing. In a terrible situation like that, I'd take my chances. If you honestly are so worried, tell me, which of these would you choose:

1) Shooter on a rampage, inside a building, you and everyone around you is unarmed.
2) Shooter on a rampage, inside a building, and someone amongst you has a concealed carry permit and a handgun on their person.

I know which one I'm taking. The cops are not showing up for at least a few minutes, so short of trying to tackle the asshole and hoping for the best, I'd rather have the CHANCE for someone to maybe take him out, than have no realistic way to defend myself. Never mind that the reason these guys are so effective is the element of surprise. Well trained CCW holders is its own element of surprise, and tips the balance back at least somewhat to the side of good. I'd rather take that, than hope the gunman runs out of bullets or has enough other targets to get at before finding me, while I'm hoping the farking cops finally show up.

Basically, if we are going to talk about changing gun laws, it's a matter of balance. Yes, the goal is to stop these tragedies from occurring. But we must also at the same point weigh the general effectiveness of the proposed changes, and the effect of the changes on our law abiding citizens. We don't live in a vacuum where it's a matter of "does it help solve the issue in ANY way? do it then". If that was the case, we could just ban all guns, post cops on every corner, etc. Short of proposing the conversion to a complete police state to solve these issues, we must weigh the good against the bad, and not just ignore any negative effect of more restrictions "BECUZ THE CHILLRUNS!


You idiot, "becuase the children" is a valid response when they are getting shot in their classroom.
 
2012-12-15 10:23:06 PM

HairBolus: Farker Soze: Too bad you conveniently left out bombs when replying. These crazies are using guns because the gun culture here in America and the media makes shoot-em-ups the thing to do. Take away the guns and we still have a culture of crazy attention whores. You should be careful what you wish for, because if firebombing suddenly becomes what the cool psychos do because of lack of guns, the death toll will be much higher. You don't think the Aurora guy probably would have killed more people if he's used a couple chains and padlocks and the 10 gallons of gas he had in his apartment instead of a jam-o-matic scary looking drum magazine and a tacticool shotgun? Gunning an SUV into the crowded line outside? A barrel full of lawn fertilizer and diesel fuel driven into the lobby? I'll stick with handguns, they're notoriously unreliable at killing people.

Take a look at places like England and Australia in the aftermath of increasing gun control laws.

Other forms of mass killing DID NOT go up


Right, so it won't happen here, definitely. Because we can ignore the underlying cause of untreated crazy farkers thinking killing random people will get them the attention they crave (which it does because we let them, we practically glorify them) In American and expect things to change.
 
2012-12-15 10:23:30 PM
I'm amazed that the gun nuts have somehow been more pants passingly whiny over the past two days than the bleeding heart liberals.

Good god. These threads and Facebook have been filled with people crying about how nobody is going to take my guns and how it is stupid and oh my god unfair.

The idiotic thing is 90% of the same goddamn people were arguing against increased health care access 2 years ago. Now the same motherf*ckers are using that as the obvious solution to save their precious guns.

Let's increase access to mental health care. Let's also add in mental health evaluations to gun purchases to make sure that nutjobs like the VT killer aren't buying weapons. Lets also make sure that gun owners are properly securing their weapons and preventing the access to the registered owner. That way nutjobs like Lanza aren't getting the weapons.

People full these damn threads with idiotic comments about how nothing will work. Well, there are countries around the damn world that have gun laws and less per capita violence...what in the blue bloody f*ck are they doing?
 
2012-12-15 10:24:02 PM

Silverstaff: That's what gun grabbers are to me: cowards. They live in fear, fear of their fellow man, fear of getting shot, fear of life. The odds of dying in an active shooter incident are still ridiculously low, you are way more likely to die of a long list of things, things we don't seem to give much of a crap about. They'll decry conservatives for using "think of the children", but then they'll come out and say that 20 dead kids is a reason to take away freedoms from every single American from now on. . .in other words "think of the children!"


This is why I can't stand you guys. You guys act so smug and have your heads up your ass just because you own a gun.

I honestly don't care if you own a gun or what type of gun you own, but to think that maybe there is something we can do to minimize the frequency of these tragic events is the equivalent of trying to take your guns away makes me realize that we might as well get used to more tragic shootings like this because we'll never do anything to fix it.

Seriously, fark this country and the way it handles this issue. 

Sorry for the rant but some of these pro-gun people give Prius owners a run for their money in a smugness contest.
 
2012-12-15 10:24:24 PM

Silverstaff: You aren't going to make any Constitutional changes when all those Red States will never vote to change the Second Amendment.


I suppose that's a valid point. Conservatives support the right to own any sort of weapon and they don't really care who suffers as a result.
 
2012-12-15 10:24:32 PM

Prank Call of Cthulhu: vygramul: Generally, people own multiple weapons for multiple reasons.

I guess I can understand your reasons, although I've never understand "going to the shooting range" as a hobby. I don't get it. "I pointed the gun at the paper target and pulled the trigger and made a hole in it, yaaaaay!" I fail to see the entertainment value, but then again I also don't get NASCAR or golf or other boring repetitive shiat, so what do I know. I've tried target shooting a couple of times and it's just dull and uninteresting to me. (Though trap shooting sounds fun.) And it sounds like you have some interesting historical pieces. But the stated reason for the mother was "defense." It just seems to me that an assault rifle is overkill for defense, unless you live in Somalia.


I guess it's just because accuracy is not easy. Like bow & arrow or darts, it's a challenge of dexterity, eyesight, and self-control to try to be consistent in doing a skill that is actually useful in other contexts and yet lots of people are generally not very good at. It's not my favorite hobby, as I now live too far from a range to do it regularly.
 
2012-12-15 10:25:06 PM
Don't dismiss the Call of Duty effect.
 
2012-12-15 10:25:42 PM

bulldg4life: I'm amazed that the gun nuts have somehow been more pants passingly whiny over the past two days than the bleeding heart liberals.

Good god. These threads and Facebook have been filled with people crying about how nobody is going to take my guns and how it is stupid and oh my god unfair.

The idiotic thing is 90% of the same goddamn people were arguing against increased health care access 2 years ago. Now the same motherf*ckers are using that as the obvious solution to save their precious guns.

Let's increase access to mental health care. Let's also add in mental health evaluations to gun purchases to make sure that nutjobs like the VT killer aren't buying weapons. Lets also make sure that gun owners are properly securing their weapons and preventing the access to the registered owner. That way nutjobs like Lanza aren't getting the weapons.

People full these damn threads with idiotic comments about how nothing will work. Well, there are countries around the damn world that have gun laws and less per capita violence...what in the blue bloody f*ck are they doing?


This X 1000!
 
2012-12-15 10:26:00 PM
tenpoundsofcheese:
But they are still number one number of people killed in a violent rampage.
They also are number one for number of kids killed in a violent rampage.


Yes, so, address the question: How do we get these radical conservatives world-wide to self-commit themselves to mental institutions?
 
2012-12-15 10:26:02 PM

trackstr777: 1) Shooter on a rampage, inside a building, you and everyone around you is unarmed.
2) Shooter on a rampage, inside a building, and someone amongst you has a concealed carry permit and a handgun on their person.


The obvious solution is to keep a shooter from entering the building in the first place.
 
2012-12-15 10:26:34 PM

Giltric: This shooting was a statistical anomaly in the scheme of things....how about we teach kids not to look at Pablo Escobar as a role model, or Biggie and Tuvok.


Tim Russ?

cameroncrazy1984: The fact that it's only ever happened once there and it's happened twice in a weekend here has to tell you something's different here.


You're right. Let's go back to what the gun laws were like in let's say.... 1947. Is that random enough? Because we had no school shootings and a person could order an army issued rifle in the mail. That's different enough from what we have today and there was no gun problem. Deal?
 
2012-12-15 10:27:11 PM

Snarfangel: Can't we just have a full-blown Constitutional Convention, so everyone can get in on the fun? 

/I'll let people argue about gun control, while I sneak in proportional representation and a better tax code.


I'm not having a Constitutional Convention until the old white guys learn how to act like grown-ups on the Internet.
 
2012-12-15 10:27:17 PM

Silverstaff: Paleorific: There certainly will not be any type of solutions coming from the NRA, GOP, etc... The NRA does not represent sportsmen, the candidates they back are almost always vote no on environmental issues. Their interest lie with the manufacturers. They have never offered any solutions to this type of threat. Their main activity lately has been to issue "OH NO THEY ARE GOING TO TAKE AWAY OUR GUNS" memos resulting in spikes in prices of ammo and weapons. When your stated goal is to uphold the second amendment, yet your lobby group seem oblivious to the fact that the world is changing, and you provide no ideas or solutions to the fact that through massacres like these will harm your supposedly long term goals in the eyes of the general public, you have failed. Failed over and over and over again. When you fail like that your responsibility will get taken away. Your ideas are no longer seem valid. In the end you may realize that your (in)actions may be the spark that starts the fire of bringing forth the reality of your fear-mongering memes. The result may well and should be a stark change in the way that the public views the gun culture, with disdain, much like drunk driving is now. I think we are likely to see a great backlash, Strict gun laws may well come in to fruition and I am all for it.

Tipping point for sure.

The world isn't changing.

Cowardly people are peeing their pants at the idea that other people have guns. They are using "think of the children" emotional pleas to emotion to justify oppressing their fellow Americans by taking away the civil right to bear arms.

That's what gun grabbers are to me: cowards. They live in fear, fear of their fellow man, fear of getting shot, fear of life. The odds of dying in an active shooter incident are still ridiculously low, you are way more likely to die of a long list of things, things we don't seem to give much of a crap about. They'll decry conservatives for using "think of the children", but then they'll come out and say that 20 dead kids is a reason to take away freedoms from every single American from now on. . .in other words "think of the children!"

Something bad happens, then they want a knee-jerk reaction that is quick and easy and makes it seem like it will never happen again.

Again, an assault weapons ban didn't stop Columbine. Any gun control that's much stronger won't pass Constitutional muster in light of the precedents of Heller v. DC and McDonald v Chicago. You aren't going to make any Constitutional changes when all those Red States will never vote to change the Second Amendment.

No tipping point. Hell, if it is, I'll be there to push back against any tipping. I won't be alone, I'd imagine I have a 9-digit sum of Americans behind me on that one. Yeah, I'll bet you can come up with 100,000,000 Americans that are stridently against increased gun control.

As Charleton Heston said, you can have my guns, when you take them from my cold, dead hands.


What color is the sky in your world? And, why do you feel the need to write such tripe to save your precious guns?
 
2012-12-15 10:27:41 PM

pornopose: rohar: pornopose: rohar: 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?

Let's call it an experiment. We experiemented with supply side economics, alcohol prohibition, raising the drinking age, bailouts and lot of other things. All these things have a common denominator, they were passed in a an attempt to deal with problems people were having. We can argue until we're blue int he face about what the right answer is. How about we just do SOMETHING and see how it works? If it doesn't work, let's try something else.

Inaction is not an acceptable response to this situation. Everyone has theories. Let's start putting them to the test and then put the ones that don't work to rest. Right, wrong or indifferent we have to do SOMETHING.

That's just the thing, we've already put them to the test. We've passed legislation, historically, that had a direct affect on gun violence both positively and negatively. We already know how to change this. But you're right, we should abandon everything you know in favor of your statistically unfounded "experiment".

Oh give it a rest. I'm no expert on gun law and I don't know the right answer. I freely admit that. My point is that inaction is unacceptable. The status quo needs to change.

Do you disagree with me about that?

One law isn't going to fix shiat. But the time for ignoring gun violence in this country needs to e ...


Agreed, it needs to end. But what you're proposing doesn't end it.

We banned handguns in Chicago, here was the result:

www.justfacts.com

Handgun related crime doubled.

We banned handguns in D.C. here was the result:

www.justfacts.com

I'm almost ashamed to discuss what happened.

And just for kicks, this is what happened in Britain:

www.justfacts.com

Yup, that's right, homicides doubled after the 1968 gun ban.

Now that all facts we know point to gun bans doing nothing about homicides, what could improve the situation? Obviously it's not more gun bans, we tried that on any number of fronts and it only seems to exacerbate the issue. Maybe, just maybe, there's another variable at play...
 
2012-12-15 10:28:40 PM
kapaso

"You idiot, "becuase the children" is a valid response when they are getting shot in their classroom."

I didn't say we should do nothing, just that it isn't a valid justification for EVERYTHING. How about this: we could stop the spread of child pornography, along with a host of other crimes, and all we would need to do is allow warrantless surveillance of every American citizen across any electronic means at all times. And I'm not talking about the NSA or whatever 3-letter agency does shiat like this now, let's open up a new federal agency who has the sole purpose to do this and only this, with billions in funding, 1984 style. Sure, we'd sacrifice many of the liberties this country was founded on, but it's "FOR THE CHILDREN!". Are you for or against this idea?

Once again, you're the idiot making this a black and white issue. You try to posit the argument that to be against restrictions is to be for child killings, while I make the counterpoint that the net positive effect of stopping child killing must be weighed against the loss of freedoms and net negative effects, mainly the loss of ability to effectively defend one's self. So can you admit you're WRONG and it's not as simple as you make it seem, or are you FOR a 1984 style government because it would cut down on crime?
 
2012-12-15 10:28:45 PM

trackstr777: AGREE -- Add mental health screening to application process


What does that mean exactly? Do we keep guns out of the hands of everyone with autism or ass burgers? Folks on Prozac or Ritalin? How is that going to work, exactly? Are we going to start giving folks Voight-Kampf tests ("Tell me only the good things that come into your mind about your mother." "I'll tell you about my mother!") before they buy a gun? Do you need to get a clean bill of health from a shrink before getting a gun? Is there some kind of quiz you can give that detects the presence of a Dark Passenger?

I keep hearing folks bring up the mental health thing, but in a world where having your kid on some kind of psych medication is trendy, where doctors hand out Prozac like Halloween candy, and a huge chunk of the population believes the President is a seekret muslin, if we start forbidding mentally defectives from having guns, there's not going to be a whole hell of a lot of people left qualified to own a gun. Fine with me, but I'm not sure that's the direction people are expecting to go.
 
2012-12-15 10:29:46 PM

chuckufarlie: rohar: 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?

I suppose that you are assuming that nothing else had an impact on that statistic, do you? Of all of the things that could have had an impact on that result, you are going to go with your "idea".

Causation and correlation - look it up.


Certainly. But causation does not occur without correlation. Can you find any point in history where there was a passage of a gun control law and violent crime decreased?
 
2012-12-15 10:29:51 PM

BravadoGT: It's because Republicans already know that adding more laws won't stop the killing. Once someone decides to go kill a school full of children, they're going to find a way. If they cant' get a hold of guns, they'll bring swords or machetes or axes; they'll bring acid, or build pipe bombs and car bombs. 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


It's the differences between digging a hole with a shovel or a backhoe.

Yes, a hole will be dug, but the backhoe will move alot more dirt.
 
2012-12-15 10:30:00 PM

Mrbogey: Lionel Mandrake: NO! One mass shooting provides the only relevant data. The many, many, many, many years we have far surpassed them are irrelevant, because one guy killed a lot of people one day.

Statistically, school shootings are a blip on the body count radar of crime victims. So yea, let's look at a larger data set than a few mass shootings.


"blip"

assets.nydailynews.com 

/thx for the TF
 
2012-12-15 10:30:16 PM
This petition needs to be directed at Republicans in Congress. Otherwise, it is a wasted effort.
 
2012-12-15 10:30:47 PM

bulldg4life: What color is the sky in your world? And, why do you feel the need to write such tripe to save your precious guns?


Yeah, don't you know Obama isn't going to take your guns? Now quick, everyone go sign this petition telling Obama to take your guns.
 
2012-12-15 10:31:06 PM

rohar: pornopose: rohar: pornopose: rohar: 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?

Let's call it an experiment. We experiemented with supply side economics, alcohol prohibition, raising the drinking age, bailouts and lot of other things. All these things have a common denominator, they were passed in a an attempt to deal with problems people were having. We can argue until we're blue int he face about what the right answer is. How about we just do SOMETHING and see how it works? If it doesn't work, let's try something else.

Inaction is not an acceptable response to this situation. Everyone has theories. Let's start putting them to the test and then put the ones that don't work to rest. Right, wrong or indifferent we have to do SOMETHING.

That's just the thing, we've already put them to the test. We've passed legislation, historically, that had a direct affect on gun violence both positively and negatively. We already know how to change this. But you're right, we should abandon everything you know in favor of your statistically unfounded "experiment".

Oh give it a rest. I'm no expert on gun law and I don't know the right answer. I freely admit that. My point is that inaction is unacceptable. The status quo needs to change.

Do you disagree with me about that?

One law isn't going to fix shiat. But the time for ignoring gun violence in this country ...


banning guns in DC when you can just go to Virginia and buy one almost anywhere, anytime.

Got to admit that when you hide the facts, your story does sound better.
 
2012-12-15 10:32:23 PM

Farker Soze: bulldg4life: What color is the sky in your world? And, why do you feel the need to write such tripe to save your precious guns?

Yeah, don't you know Obama isn't going to take your guns? Now quick, everyone go sign this petition telling Obama to take your guns.


If you're really scared about a petition to Obama then you must live a life being virtually scared of everything.
 
2012-12-15 10:33:02 PM

Farker Soze: HairBolus:

Take a look at places like England and Australia in the aftermath of increasing gun control laws.

Other forms of mass killing DID NOT go up


Right, so it won't happen here, definitely. Because we can ignore the underlying cause of untreated crazy farkers thinking killing random people will get them the attention they crave (which it does because we let them, we practically glorify them) In American and expect things to change.


Ok. Ignore real world examples of what happened in other countries. The opposite would happen in the US because of AMERICAN EXCEPTIONALISM. USA! USA!
 
2012-12-15 10:33:14 PM

trackstr777: kapaso

"You idiot, "becuase the children" is a valid response when they are getting shot in their classroom."

I didn't say we should do nothing, just that it isn't a valid justification for EVERYTHING. How about this: we could stop the spread of child pornography, along with a host of other crimes, and all we would need to do is allow warrantless surveillance of every American citizen across any electronic means at all times. And I'm not talking about the NSA or whatever 3-letter agency does shiat like this now, let's open up a new federal agency who has the sole purpose to do this and only this, with billions in funding, 1984 style. Sure, we'd sacrifice many of the liberties this country was founded on, but it's "FOR THE CHILDREN!". Are you for or against this idea?

Once again, you're the idiot making this a black and white issue. You try to posit the argument that to be against restrictions is to be for child killings, while I make the counterpoint that the net positive effect of stopping child killing must be weighed against the loss of freedoms and net negative effects, mainly the loss of ability to effectively defend one's self. So can you admit you're WRONG and it's not as simple as you make it seem, or are you FOR a 1984 style government because it would cut down on crime?


Why is it right wingers are only capable of arguing with positions that they make up?

I never advocated any solution, and I sure don't see the issue as black and white, idiot.
 
2012-12-15 10:33:36 PM

bulldg4life: I'm amazed that the gun nuts have somehow been more pants passingly whiny over the past two days than the bleeding heart liberals.


Ah, only delusional retards think that. We've seen a constant stream of whiny douchy folks trying to smear the blood of dead kids upon their shirt while crying that not enough people are taking their hysterical poorly planned schemes seriously.

Mrtraveler01: This is why I can't stand you guys. You guys act so smug and have your heads up your ass just because you own a gun.


It's not "smugness" it's people smarter than you in this realm of study telling you that you're wrong. Stop whining that nobody is taking your crazy seriously.

Mrtraveler01: ...but to think that maybe there is something we can do to minimize the frequency of these tragic events is the equivalent of trying to take your guns away


Because that's the solution being proposed! The pro-civil rights folks have offered a lot of things we can do to prevent this tragedy but the pinheaded anti-civil rights folks keep plugging their ears and yelling "No! Must ban guns! Ban them!!! Australia!!!!"
 
2012-12-15 10:33:40 PM
Knee jerk responses to national tragedies never had poor consequences.
www.newsrealblog.com
 
2012-12-15 10:34:02 PM

chuckufarlie: rohar: pornopose: rohar: pornopose: rohar: 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?

Let's call it an experiment. We experiemented with supply side economics, alcohol prohibition, raising the drinking age, bailouts and lot of other things. All these things have a common denominator, they were passed in a an attempt to deal with problems people were having. We can argue until we're blue int he face about what the right answer is. How about we just do SOMETHING and see how it works? If it doesn't work, let's try something else.

Inaction is not an acceptable response to this situation. Everyone has theories. Let's start putting them to the test and then put the ones that don't work to rest. Right, wrong or indifferent we have to do SOMETHING.

That's just the thing, we've already put them to the test. We've passed legislation, historically, that had a direct affect on gun violence both positively and negatively. We already know how to change this. But you're right, we should abandon everything you know in favor of your statistically unfounded "experiment".

Oh give it a rest. I'm no expert on gun law and I don't know the right answer. I freely admit that. My point is that inaction is unacceptable. The status quo needs to change.

Do you disagree with me about that?

One law isn't going to fix shiat. But the time for ignoring gun violence in this ...


So Britain, a European island where their neighbors damned near outlaw guns fits right into the same theory?

Can you cite a single gun control law that had any affect on homicide rates? Positive or negative?
 
2012-12-15 10:34:34 PM

Mrbogey: Lionel Mandrake: NO! One mass shooting provides the only relevant data. The many, many, many, many years we have far surpassed them are irrelevant, because one guy killed a lot of people one day.

Statistically, school shootings are a blip on the body count radar of crime victims. So yea, let's look at a larger data set than a few mass shootings.


That tool is weighing his entire "argument" on ONE incident.

You don't need to talk to me about larger data sets.
 
2012-12-15 10:34:39 PM

rohar: chuckufarlie: rohar: 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?

I suppose that you are assuming that nothing else had an impact on that statistic, do you? Of all of the things that could have had an impact on that result, you are going to go with your "idea".

Causation and correlation - look it up.

Certainly. But causation does not occur without correlation. Can you find any point in history where there was a passage of a gun control law and violent crime decreased?


the phrase is that correlation does not imply causation. I think that you probably need to have that explained, don't ya?

There has never been a time or location that banned guns where there was not a way to get them across the border.


Tell me, how many children have to be gunned down before you are willing to budge from your position? Another fifty? Maybe you would need two hundred more to die violently before you see the folly of your position.

Go ahead, give me a number.
 
2012-12-15 10:34:43 PM

rohar: IMDWalrus: 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

...because the real world so very often gives us controlled situations where you get one variable correlations, which is why you've spent the rest of the thread dismissing everyone's attempts to meet your impossible scenario.

You're an idiot.

In this case, it has. You seem to be ignorant of our recent history. It's ok, I won't hold it against you.


I'm not ignorant. You're just being a disingenuous ass.

rohar: 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?


Nothing - their mental health law passed in 1986, a full decade before their assault weapons ban.

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


If we're going to blame single variables, why not go with the massive explosion of cocaine use? Increased gang activity? The advent of video games? Global warming?

The way you're picking and choosing statistics is making me think that you're either someone who's attempting to sound smart but doesn't really understand what you're talking about, or you're just trying to make your talking points work.
 
2012-12-15 10:34:44 PM

trackstr777: 1) Shooter on a rampage, inside a building, you and everyone around you is unarmed.
2) Shooter on a rampage, inside a building, and someone amongst you has a concealed carry permit and a handgun on their person.

I know which one I'm taking.


Citizen A is in aisle 10. Citizen B is in aisle 11. Both hear gunshots go off somewhere nearby. Both draw weapons and start looking for the shooter. Citizen A checks around the corner and sees Citizen B crouched in aisle 11 with a gun. How does Citizen A know that Citizen B is a "good guy"? He doesn't... so as Citizen B turns to look in the direction of Citizen A, Citizen A fires... Citizen C heard the shots too and then another shot. He zeroes in on Citizen A, who just shot Citizen B. Citizen C shoots Citizen A...

All sorts of scenarios like this are a problem with the idea of "hero citizen saves the day". The reality is that all any of those people with guns is likely going to do is make matters worse and increase the amount of lead flying around. Sure... there is the off chance that they might just put one in the head of the original shooter and drop them like a rock... but the chances are much higher that they are just going to make matters worse.
 
2012-12-15 10:35:03 PM

chuckufarlie: violentsalvation: 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?

Do you have ANY ideas? Because guns aren't going away. So you might want to be open to something that could help, or you're just another part of the problem. The last three you picked to fit your argument might have been treated for mental illness if treatment was more readily available and destigmatized.

Of course guns can go away. At least the semi-automatic and automatic rifles. There is nothing that stands in the way of doing so except inertia. I think that shooting 20 kids might be enough to overcome that inertia.


lol. There are tens of millions of semi-auto firearms in the US, or more, millions of them have been resold and are legally unregistered. I own a handful myself. Good luck, you support a gun control argument that has absolutely no basis in reality.
 
2012-12-15 10:35:04 PM

Farker Soze: bulldg4life: What color is the sky in your world? And, why do you feel the need to write such tripe to save your precious guns?

Yeah, don't you know Obama isn't going to take your guns? Now quick, everyone go sign this petition telling Obama to take your guns.


Where in the article (or the petition) is it implied that guns will be taken?

I love that the auto- response when "gun control" is mentioned is "omg gun grabber blargh rabble cold dead hands".

You know, if gun nuts admitted there was a problem and took the initiative to help with reasonable gun control legislation...gun grabbing wouldn't be an option.

But, god forbid that happen.
 
2012-12-15 10:35:11 PM
Millions of ignorant know-nothings add their name to an online petition asking the president to discuss gun control?

Color me shocked. SHOCKED.

/sounds like the perp's gun control worked splendidly and he scored 26 kills
//if only ANYONE ELSE AT THE SCHOOL HAD A F*CKING GUN then MAYBE they could have been safe 
///check him for prescription anti-depressants since the leader of Columbine pair, Cho@VTech, Loughner were all using too
 
2012-12-15 10:35:31 PM
Okay, gun safety advocates. Here's the simple reality. Gun rights voters are willing to vote solely on the issue of gun rights. People who otherwise despise the Republican agenda vote Republican for no reason other than gun rights. For this reason alone, it is political suicide for the Democrats to address gun safety.

If you want government action on gun safety, you need to make yourselves as fanatically devoted to the issue as gun rights advocates are to theirs. If you despise literally everything else the Democrats support, you must still march to the polls en masse, you must volunteer for their campaigns, you must donate large sums of money to their cause, and to organizations like the Brady campaign. Democrats must win where otherwise they would lose solely on the issue of gun safety. Republicans must lose where otherwise they would win.

Until then, you can neither expect action on gun safety, nor will you deserve any.
 
2012-12-15 10:35:31 PM

rohar: chuckufarlie: rohar: pornopose: rohar: pornopose: rohar: 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?

Let's call it an experiment. We experiemented with supply side economics, alcohol prohibition, raising the drinking age, bailouts and lot of other things. All these things have a common denominator, they were passed in a an attempt to deal with problems people were having. We can argue until we're blue int he face about what the right answer is. How about we just do SOMETHING and see how it works? If it doesn't work, let's try something else.

Inaction is not an acceptable response to this situation. Everyone has theories. Let's start putting them to the test and then put the ones that don't work to rest. Right, wrong or indifferent we have to do SOMETHING.

That's just the thing, we've already put them to the test. We've passed legislation, historically, that had a direct affect on gun violence both positively and negatively. We already know how to change this. But you're right, we should abandon everything you know in favor of your statistically unfounded "experiment".

Oh give it a rest. I'm no expert on gun law and I don't know the right answer. I freely admit that. My point is that inaction is unacceptable. The status quo needs to change.

Do you disagree with me about that?

One law isn't going to fix shiat. But the time for ignoring gun vio ...


still waiting on that number!!!
 
2012-12-15 10:35:51 PM

Mrtraveler01: Farker Soze: bulldg4life: What color is the sky in your world? And, why do you feel the need to write such tripe to save your precious guns?

Yeah, don't you know Obama isn't going to take your guns? Now quick, everyone go sign this petition telling Obama to take your guns.

If you're really scared about a petition to Obama then you must live a life being virtually scared of everything.


Whoosh, way over your head.
 
2012-12-15 10:35:54 PM

Mrtraveler01: This is why I can't stand you guys. You guys act so smug and have your heads up your ass just because you own a gun.

I honestly don't care if you own a gun or what type of gun you own, but to think that maybe there is something we can do to minimize the frequency of these tragic events is the equivalent of trying to take your guns away makes me realize that we might as well get used to more tragic shootings like this because we'll never do anything to fix it.

Seriously, fark this country and the way it handles this issue.

Sorry for the rant but some of these pro-gun people give Prius owners a run for their money in a smugness contest.


Want to know why I'm ranting?

Because I've spent the day online, not just on Fark, but on other message boards, on progressive Facebook groups, on discussions on news sites. The level of left-wing derp online is toxic right now. It's like a mirror-universe version of Teabagger derp. People that I used to think were rational and sensible are now talking about oppressing me and taking away my guns. If I want to own an AR-15 and a Beretta 92 for sport shooting and home defense, that's my own goddamn business.

There are a lot of vocal posters out there clamoring for repealing the Second Amendment, or for draconian anti-gun laws. You've seen people in this very thread trying to say there is no reason for anybody to have a semi-automatic rifle.

It makes me angry because I see people who just a little while ago were ranting about Republicans wanting to take away their freedoms during the election, now standing up without noticing their own hypocrisy talking about revoking basic Constitutional rights because of one mans crimes.

It is like saying that the First Amendment should be repealed because of the WBC. A few assholes abusing a civil right shouldn't spoil it for the rest of us.
 
2012-12-15 10:36:29 PM

mittromneysdog: This petition needs to be directed at Republicans in Congress. Otherwise, it is a wasted effort.


Because Obama has a long record of toughening gun laws, right? The only gun legislation he's signed as President has made it easier to take guns certain places.
 
2012-12-15 10:36:51 PM

Doc Lee: tenpoundsofcheese:
But they are still number one number of people killed in a violent rampage.
They also are number one for number of kids killed in a violent rampage.

Yes, so, address the question: How do we get these radical conservatives world-wide to self-commit themselves to mental institutions?


By stop giving a pass to the radical liberals.
 
2012-12-15 10:37:02 PM

mittromneysdog: Okay, gun safety advocates. Here's the simple reality. Gun rights voters are willing to vote solely on the issue of gun rights. People who otherwise despise the Republican agenda vote Republican for no reason other than gun rights. For this reason alone, it is political suicide for the Democrats to address gun safety.

If you want government action on gun safety, you need to make yourselves as fanatically devoted to the issue as gun rights advocates are to theirs. If you despise literally everything else the Democrats support, you must still march to the polls en masse, you must volunteer for their campaigns, you must donate large sums of money to their cause, and to organizations like the Brady campaign. Democrats must win where otherwise they would lose solely on the issue of gun safety. Republicans must lose where otherwise they would win.

Until then, you can neither expect action on gun safety, nor will you deserve any.


We just won a presidential election for the second straight time. I am thinking that there are enough people to support a change if Congress would act. Not that I expect them to act.
 
2012-12-15 10:37:23 PM
Popcorn Johnny

"The obvious solution is to keep a shooter from entering the building in the first place."

Which goes back to my original points, of asking how exactly you propose to make that happen? Do you sincerely expect to ban ALL firearms, and get rid of the millions of legal firearms throughout the country? If you want to stop the shooter in the first place, you can't just ban the mean looking ones or the ones with more bullets...you need to get rid of them ALL.

The other option to not letting them in the building is more people with guns. I guess despite our economy just barely starting to turn itself around and a huge deficit, we could pay billions for more law enforcement throughout the country, so we could start posting a cop or two in every school, church, supermarket, mall, etc. Unless you want to make every elementary school like a prison or get rid of EVERY gun, the only way to stop shooters from entering is negating that with armed individuals to combat them in those places.

Since you seem to be against normal citizens taking up that role, it means getting someone in uniform to do it, right? Let's ignore the other problem that pulling this off is really starting to turn our country into a "papers please" Soviet Russia type of place, and start with the simpler issue of "how are you going to get all the properly trained people to do that, and how the hell are you going to pay for it?"
 
2012-12-15 10:37:36 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: "blip"


Smearing yourself with the blood of the dead isn't an ennobling act.

There are a number of women who've been the victims of sexual violence at the hands of felons released due to lenient prison sentences. Would it sway you if I posted their pics and demanding we pass a three strikes law on felonies?

No?

Then don't try and act the noble defender of the children when they're just a damn prop to you.
 
2012-12-15 10:37:50 PM

Mrbogey: It's not "smugness" it's people smarter than you in this realm of study telling you that you're wrong. Stop whining that nobody is taking your crazy seriously.


"It's not conceit when people way more awesome than you point out your pathetic inferiority!!"

...what a doosh 
 
2012-12-15 10:38:10 PM
In other news, a bunch of bleeding hearts gave their contact info away to be sold to the highest bidder.

When I think of internet petitions, I think of that crazy guy on the street with a "The end is near!" sign. No one gives a shiat.
 
2012-12-15 10:38:11 PM

urban.derelict: //if only ANYONE ELSE AT THE SCHOOL HAD A F*CKING GUN then MAYBE they could have been safe


Yeah, dammit. WHY DON'T KINDERGARTEN TEACHERS PACK HEAT!!!
 
2012-12-15 10:38:17 PM

Silverstaff: Mrtraveler01: This is why I can't stand you guys. You guys act so smug and have your heads up your ass just because you own a gun.

I honestly don't care if you own a gun or what type of gun you own, but to think that maybe there is something we can do to minimize the frequency of these tragic events is the equivalent of trying to take your guns away makes me realize that we might as well get used to more tragic shootings like this because we'll never do anything to fix it.

Seriously, fark this country and the way it handles this issue.

Sorry for the rant but some of these pro-gun people give Prius owners a run for their money in a smugness contest.

Want to know why I'm ranting?

Because I've spent the day online, not just on Fark, but on other message boards, on progressive Facebook groups, on discussions on news sites. The level of left-wing derp online is toxic right now. It's like a mirror-universe version of Teabagger derp. People that I used to think were rational and sensible are now talking about oppressing me and taking away my guns. If I want to own an AR-15 and a Beretta 92 for sport shooting and home defense, that's my own goddamn business.

There are a lot of vocal posters out there clamoring for repealing the Second Amendment, or for draconian anti-gun laws. You've seen people in this very thread trying to say there is no reason for anybody to have a semi-automatic rifle.

It makes me angry because I see people who just a little while ago were ranting about Republicans wanting to take away their freedoms during the election, now standing up without noticing their own hypocrisy talking about revoking basic Constitutional rights because of one mans crimes.

It is like saying that the First Amendment should be repealed because of the WBC. A few assholes abusing a civil right shouldn't spoil it for the rest of us.


You're being willfully dishonest if you haven't seen the same rabid deep from pro gun people the last two days
 
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