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  
•       •       •

3079 clicks; posted to Politics » on 15 Dec 2012 at 8:59 PM (2 years 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 | « | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-15 11:20:17 PM  
Is Obama finally coming for our guns like the moronic right has been crowing about for 8 years?
 
2012-12-15 11:20:37 PM  

graggor: Honestly this stuff will always happen.

Overall crime is going down in the US.

Due to other factors than gun ownership or gun control.

both sides are idiots.


I think you have a point. I don't think a full out ban on guns is necessary, but we need to realize that more needs to be done to restrict who can get a gun.

I think you should still be able to get a gun, but you need to go through a background check, training, etc.

But we really need to start looking at how we treat mental healthcare in the US. And sadly, I don't see this happening anytime soon.
 
2012-12-15 11:20:40 PM  

Mrtraveler01: "spmkk: Mrtraveler01: "spmkk: Nowhere else to troll on a Saturday night? Cross-fire is real. The oft-lamented "risk" that it will make a situation where one guy is shooting at people and everyone else is unarmed worse is imaginary.

And you're basing this on?"


Among other things, the complete lack of evidence that it ever has made such a situation worse, despite the torrential frequency with which that talking point is trotted out. (With the exception of, ironically, a number of police shootings.)

Is that like the complete lack of evidence that someone with a CCW managed to stop a mass shooting?"



No, not really.
 
2012-12-15 11:20:44 PM  
Okay, derp on both sides aside, here's probably what's going to happen.

A renewal of the ineffectual, toothless 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, assuming anything happens and the Republicans in Congress don't sink it.

What that means in practicality is that everyone who currently has guns will stock up on pre-ban magazines. People who want an assault rifle will buy them before the ban goes into effect.

People who want guns will still be able to get ahold of them, but will be grumbling and distrustful and feeling oppressed, but anti-gun types can feel better about themselves because they banned "assault weapons".

Meanwhile nothing really changes.

Personally, It'll mean I'll finally have to shell out for that AR-15 I've been meaning to get, before it goes into effect, and stock up on a few full-size magazines, and buy some full size magazines for my pistols.
 
2012-12-15 11:21:56 PM  

keithgabryelski: rohar: keithgabryelski: rohar: fark, you don't understand the myriad of free variables that come with different demographics do you? I'm pretty sure I don't have the energy, this late at night, to explain it.

How 'bout you just continue on with your conclusion. You obviously chose that first and decided to rationalize it later. There's little I can do to help you think rationally. You seem to resist it at every turn.

you seem obtuse. please tell me and everyone how we are not reaching the goal posts.

We as a nation, with a specific demographic (different as a whole from Chicago, LA or MT) are dealing with a gun related crime issue. The suggested response seems to be federal gun ownership limitation.

Historically, limitations on gun ownership in any given demographic in this country have not reduced violent crime. No statistic shows otherwise. When we look at any demographic that passed gun control measures, gun related crime increases.

Given all of the repeated failures in other demographics, why on earth would it work in the demographic that is all of us?

the overview i cited says differently, although it doesn't say "laws" it says "more guns more homicide"

so, we are just arguing over how to limit access to guns, right?


No, not at all. The overview you cited compared demographics of one group against demographics of another group. What we're proposing is a temporal shift over a static demographic. This is a very different thing. I'll repeat, restricted or more lax gun control laws over a static demographic have never, from what can be seen in the statistics, had an affect on homicide rates in America. But this is what you're proposing. Give our historical behavior, your suggestion doesn't even pass the smell test for making things better.
 
2012-12-15 11:22:54 PM  

Mrbogey: keithgabryelski: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and - death/index.html

Debunked

Link


that was posted yesterday, and i read most of it, -- it doesn't do what you think it does.

[Subsequent research] has caused me to move beyond even the skeptic position. I now believe that the best currently available evidence, imperfect though it is (and must always be), indicates that general gun availability has no measurable net positive effect on rates of homicide, suicide, robbery, assault, rape, or burglary in the U[nited] S[tates]. This is not the same as saying gun availability has no effects on violence--it has many effects on the likelihood of attack, injury, death, and crime completion, but these effects work in both violence-increasing and violence-decreasing directions, with the effects largely canceling out. For example, when aggressors have guns, they are (1) less likely to physically attack their victims, (2) less likely to injure the victim given an attack, but (3) more likely to kill the victim, given an injury


they trying to muddy the waters with statements like this -- but do admit, in the end "more likely to kill the victim".

the debunking is really handwaving.
 
2012-12-15 11:23:23 PM  

spmkk: Mrtraveler01: "spmkk: Mrtraveler01: "spmkk: Nowhere else to troll on a Saturday night? Cross-fire is real. The oft-lamented "risk" that it will make a situation where one guy is shooting at people and everyone else is unarmed worse is imaginary.

And you're basing this on?"


Among other things, the complete lack of evidence that it ever has made such a situation worse, despite the torrential frequency with which that talking point is trotted out. (With the exception of, ironically, a number of police shootings.)

Is that like the complete lack of evidence that someone with a CCW managed to stop a mass shooting?"


No, not really.


Holy shiat! The guy who pulled his gun totally shot right next to that kid! that was a TERRIBLE idea!
 
2012-12-15 11:23:39 PM  

BravadoGT: 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


Yeah. You see 26 people killed in a school by AXE all the time.

Red Herring argument. That's all you have. You just CAN'T admit we are a country that glories gun violence, and we are a gun culture that has been cultivated for years to believe the gun is the answer.
 
2012-12-15 11:23:44 PM  
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

This shouldnt be hard to figure out.

And I am not even a gun nut by any means.

Gun ownership and gun control dont have much to do with falling crime rates in this country.

Better police, access to abortion, social welfare and health and medicine have far more to do with it than anything.
 
2012-12-15 11:23:53 PM  
Listen, you libs just don't understand, the Tree of Liberty needs to be watered from time to time with the blood of Patriots. 6-and-7-year-old Patriots, this time, but Patriots nonetheless. You want King George III messing with you, huh? Because if we have to sacrifice 20 children every once in a while, it's a small price to pay.

/fark King George III!
 
2012-12-15 11:23:56 PM  

Publikwerks: uclear material, drugs, porn, hell, there are more restrictions for internet gambling than for owning a handgun.


Haha... no.

Gun rights are incumbent upon a person being a US citizen, not a felon, not crazy, and IIRC in every state at least 18. There's also a plethora of laws that define what can be imported and manufactured. To say there are more is to try and pick nits between two heavily regulated items. One of which isn't guaranteed by the Constitution.
 
2012-12-15 11:24:06 PM  

Bennie Crabtree: 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.

In your country, yes. But why?


We eat our own.
 
2012-12-15 11:24:16 PM  

Mrbogey: keithgabryelski: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and - death/index.html

Debunked

Link

birdmanesq: See, this is a convenient out. The fact that a person purchased a firearm legally and then resold that firearm illegally means that it's the buyer's individual bad act, not the fact that we are unwilling to license and register firearms to individual owners--or otherwise regulate at the point of sale. All this demonstrates is the ease with which legal firearms become illegal firearms.

The gov't has a perfectly legal way of tracing a gun from manufacturer to FFL. The FFL can report who they sold the gun to. That person can then answer as to why they've sold several guns to a criminal within a short time frame of buying it.

These are the current tools available to the gov't.

Some in the gov't want more. They want every sale to go through an FFL and for all sales to be tracked and reported to the gov't regardless of crime involvement. This is the line that is being held because people who know the current gun laws know the request is bullshiat.


There's a great Gary Willis piece on that issue of the Tennessee Law Review. Of course, that revisionist history has now become Constitutional jurisprudence, so I guess that argument is over.

And that's kind of a grand view on the current regulatory environment. Honestly, it's not nearly coordinated enough to regulate like you suggest.
 
2012-12-15 11:25:37 PM  
Also, something else to note.

Why do we never sit down and talk about why these crimes begin in the first place?

School shootings/active shooter incidents didn't happen much before the late 90's. What changed culturally?

It's obviously not access to guns. That was in the middle of the assault weapons ban. Decades earlier it was easier to get ahold of guns, including fully automatic weapons.

Nobody ran around in the 1960's or 1970's shooting up schools, when guns were easier to get ahold of.

Something has changed culturally, something bad. It's rare, only happens to one in several million people, but something goes horribly wrong, and they see this as the answer.

What is it? How can we fix the underlying problem?
 
2012-12-15 11:25:42 PM  

rohar:
No, not at all. The overview you cited compared demographics of one group against demographics of another group. What we're proposing is a temporal shift over a static demographic. This is a very different thing. I'll repeat, restricted or more lax gun control laws over a static demographic have never, from what can be seen in the statistics, had an affect on homicide rates in America. But this is what you're proposing. Give our historical behavior, your suggestion doesn't even pass the smell test for making things better.


ok, so what you are saying is we don't have data for across america for the current era?

fine -- let's go with "gun control" and see how it works out.

/you aren't going to get the information you want, it doesn't exist -- you must extrapolate from best fit information. read the articles.
 
2012-12-15 11:26:08 PM  

Mrbogey: Publikwerks: uclear material, drugs, porn, hell, there are more restrictions for internet gambling than for owning a handgun.

Haha... no.

Gun rights are incumbent upon a person being a US citizen, not a felon, not crazy, and IIRC in every state at least 18. There's also a plethora of laws that define what can be imported and manufactured. To say there are more is to try and pick nits between two heavily regulated items. One of which isn't guaranteed by the Constitution.


For newbs, Mrbogey is a lying sack of shiat who is one of those people you ca use to test if something stupid or not: if Mrbogey is for it, you can rest assured it's a stupid position.
 
2012-12-15 11:26:14 PM  

nmemkha: Is Obama finally coming for our guns like the moronic right has been crowing about for 8 years?


Probably, but this close after an election cycle, he probably doesn't have the votes.
 
2012-12-15 11:26:42 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.


You're a farking idiot

TaDA!
 
2012-12-15 11:26:49 PM  
spmkk
"No, not really."

As Bennie said, that guy shooting next to the kid was a bit too close for comfort. But again, I raise the same point I've raised multiple times in this thread. If there is an asshole going all bang bang in the same building I'm in, I'd much rather have some citizens around me or myself carrying a CCW and take the chance of cross fire or collateral damage, than have the only gun in the room until the cops arrive be the one purposely aiming at the good guys. That simple. You take your chances with pissing yourselves in the corner hoping he shoots everyone else first, I'll take my chances with a good guy and another gun.
 
2012-12-15 11:26:51 PM  

graggor: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

This shouldnt be hard to figure out.

And I am not even a gun nut by any means.

Gun ownership and gun control dont have much to do with falling crime rates in this country.

Better police, access to abortion, social welfare and health and medicine have far more to do with it than anything.


Mass incarceration has also been helpful.
 
2012-12-15 11:27:16 PM  

keithgabryelski: the debunking is really handwaving.


The debunking deals with the bulk of the charges you listed. It gets pragmatic on the actual evidence but it doesn't support the thrust of the assertions made by your link

It's like you saying that God is a pink unicorn and someone responds back how you just made it up and your research stinks though nobody can say for certain God isn't a pink unicorn.
 
2012-12-15 11:27:55 PM  

trackstr777: spmkk
"No, not really."

As Bennie said, that guy shooting next to the kid was a bit too close for comfort. But again, I raise the same point I've raised multiple times in this thread. If there is an asshole going all bang bang in the same building I'm in, I'd much rather have some citizens around me or myself carrying a CCW and take the chance of cross fire or collateral damage, than have the only gun in the room until the cops arrive be the one purposely aiming at the good guys. That simple. You take your chances with pissing yourselves in the corner hoping he shoots everyone else first, I'll take my chances with a good guy and another gun.


You think seatbelts cost more lives than they save too, don't you?
 
2012-12-15 11:28:19 PM  

Silverstaff: Also, something else to note.

Why do we never sit down and talk about why these crimes begin in the first place?

School shootings/active shooter incidents didn't happen much before the late 90's. What changed culturally?

It's obviously not access to guns. That was in the middle of the assault weapons ban. Decades earlier it was easier to get ahold of guns, including fully automatic weapons.

Nobody ran around in the 1960's or 1970's shooting up schools, when guns were easier to get ahold of.

Something has changed culturally, something bad. It's rare, only happens to one in several million people, but something goes horribly wrong, and they see this as the answer.

What is it? How can we fix the underlying problem?


We didnt have 24/7 news channels in the 60s and 70s. There were massacres by guns. Now adays information is easy to access. Plus, there are those who want to be famous by any means necessary. For instance, Herostratus is a classical example of those who want fame and glory for the wrong reasons.
 
2012-12-15 11:28:34 PM  

Mrbogey: keithgabryelski: the debunking is really handwaving.

The debunking deals with the bulk of the charges you listed. It gets pragmatic on the actual evidence but it doesn't support the thrust of the assertions made by your link

It's like you saying that God is a pink unicorn and someone responds back how you just made it up and your research stinks though nobody can say for certain God isn't a pink unicorn.
DDDEEERRRPPPPPPP


FTFY
 
2012-12-15 11:29:15 PM  

cman: I hope that I am wrong and that you are right.

I do worry about extremists. Maybe I am being overly paranoid about it. I dunno.


Let me be clear: it won't happen. Ever. People who rant and rave on the radio never do anything. They talk. That's all. They might go see a movie the host suggests, and they might by a product advertised on the show, and they might even base their votes on Radio Guy's endorsements. But they will not go to war. I guarantee it.

And, even if every single listener of AJ/infowars/whatever did grab their very biggest gun, all the rations they could carry, and mobilize as one, they would be torn the fark apart in short order.

Not a fraction of a doubt in my mind.
 
2012-12-15 11:29:32 PM  

spmkk: Lsherm: "syrynxx: Murder is already illegal and morally reprehensible. If someone has crossed that line in their mind, no other legislation is going to make much difference.

Well, they might be able to slow down how many people that person can kill in 10 minutes."


You know what else might be able to slow down how many people that person can kill in 10 minutes? Someone else on location who has a gun, knows how to use it, and makes sure that the person doesn't get 10 minutes.

If we live in a place where it takes those with the right tools 10 farking minutes to finally resolve a situation where every second is critical -- which we clearly do -- then we need to make sure that more people have the right tools.

And please -- don't embarrass yourself with the usual drivel about the imaginary risk of cross-fire. There is absolutely no situation where issuing a firearm to this woman and her colleagues would have resulted in more deaths, and many outcomes where it would have saved multiple lives (including her own).


Yeah, we get it. You're still doing it wrong. 

Christ, you can't even troll correctly. You must not be very smart.
 
2012-12-15 11:29:35 PM  

birdmanesq: Mrbogey: keithgabryelski: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and - death/index.html

Debunked

Link

birdmanesq: See, this is a convenient out. The fact that a person purchased a firearm legally and then resold that firearm illegally means that it's the buyer's individual bad act, not the fact that we are unwilling to license and register firearms to individual owners--or otherwise regulate at the point of sale. All this demonstrates is the ease with which legal firearms become illegal firearms.

The gov't has a perfectly legal way of tracing a gun from manufacturer to FFL. The FFL can report who they sold the gun to. That person can then answer as to why they've sold several guns to a criminal within a short time frame of buying it.

These are the current tools available to the gov't.

Some in the gov't want more. They want every sale to go through an FFL and for all sales to be tracked and reported to the gov't regardless of crime involvement. This is the line that is being held because people who know the current gun laws know the request is bullshiat.

There's a great Gary Willis piece on that issue of the Tennessee Law Review. Of course, that revisionist history has now become Constitutional jurisprudence, so I guess that argument is over.

And that's kind of a grand view on the current regulatory environment. Honestly, it's not nearly coordinated enough to regulate like you suggest.


Ug, Wills. I have no idea why my phone insists on correcting 'Wills' to 'Willis.'

/Watchutalkinbout?
 
2012-12-15 11:29:41 PM  

Uranus Is Huge!: rohar: keithgabryelski: rohar: fark, you don't understand the myriad of free variables that come with different demographics do you? I'm pretty sure I don't have the energy, this late at night, to explain it.

How 'bout you just continue on with your conclusion. You obviously chose that first and decided to rationalize it later. There's little I can do to help you think rationally. You seem to resist it at every turn.

you seem obtuse. please tell me and everyone how we are not reaching the goal posts.

We as a nation, with a specific demographic (different as a whole from Chicago, LA or MT) are dealing with a gun related crime issue. The suggested response seems to be federal gun ownership limitation.

Historically, limitations on gun ownership in any given demographic in this country have not reduced violent crime. No statistic shows otherwise. When we look at any demographic that passed gun control measures, gun related crime increases.

Given all of the repeated failures in other demographics, why on earth would it work in the demographic that is all of us?

Probably because we almost never hear about gun crimes in countries with very strict gun control laws.


...like Britain, who's homicide rate has doubled since they virtually outlawed guns.
 
2012-12-15 11:31:19 PM  

Mrbogey: keithgabryelski: the debunking is really handwaving.

The debunking deals with the bulk of the charges you listed. It gets pragmatic on the actual evidence but it doesn't support the thrust of the assertions made by your link

It's like you saying that God is a pink unicorn and someone responds back how you just made it up and your research stinks though nobody can say for certain God isn't a pink unicorn.


i dont even understand what you are talking about

can we just end this with "your blog sucks"?
 
2012-12-15 11:32:10 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.


Population control
 
2012-12-15 11:32:20 PM  
Guns are not used millions of times each year in self-defense (I've only used mine twice and only one was reported to police)
Most purported self-defense gun uses are gun uses in escalating arguments and are both socially undesirable and illegal
Firearms are used far more often to intimidate than in self-defense.( after I drew my weapon one guy decided that he did not need nor want anything he was asking me for and started to run away very very fast, almost as if he was intimidated.... another guy decided that going prone eagle and waiting for the cops to arrive was a pretty good suggestion by the guy poiting his firearm at him)
Guns in the home are used more often to intimidate intimates than to thwart crime.
Adolescents are far more likely to be threatened with a gun than to use one in self-defense. (probably by the guy with the tear drop tat on his face listening to MC Ren in his six fo' Impala)
Criminals who are shot are typically the victims of crime( what like attempted murder or assault with a deadly weapon?...you don't farking say)
Few criminals are shot by decent law abiding citizens( well obviously anyone willing to stand up for themselves or their friends/family/stuff etc is not a decent law abiding citizen...)
Where there are more guns there is more homicide (literature review).
Across high-income nations, more guns = more homicide.
Across states, more guns = more homicide
 
2012-12-15 11:32:52 PM  

cman: For instance, Herostratus is a classical example of those who want fame and glory for the wrong reasons.


He's also a good example of how successful they can be.
 
2012-12-15 11:33:51 PM  

keithgabryelski: rohar:
No, not at all. The overview you cited compared demographics of one group against demographics of another group. What we're proposing is a temporal shift over a static demographic. This is a very different thing. I'll repeat, restricted or more lax gun control laws over a static demographic have never, from what can be seen in the statistics, had an affect on homicide rates in America. But this is what you're proposing. Give our historical behavior, your suggestion doesn't even pass the smell test for making things better.

ok, so what you are saying is we don't have data for across america for the current era?

fine -- let's go with "gun control" and see how it works out.

/you aren't going to get the information you want, it doesn't exist -- you must extrapolate from best fit information. read the articles.


No, we do have data. We've change gun control laws both at the state level and nationally numerous times over the past 4 decades. Those changes had no significant change on crime/homicide rates.

Of course I'm not going to get the information I'm asking for. It doesn't exist. There's no data supporting the idea the more restrictive/less restrictive gun control affects crime/homicide rates. Them's the facts. Learn to deal with it.

You want to reduce crime/homicide rates? You're gonna have to look elsewhere.
 
2012-12-15 11:33:53 PM  

Lsherm: ...Christ, you can't even troll correctly. You must not be very smart.


Hehehhe from you that's hilarious. Another one who has never been right about anything, ever. If you;re for it, it's a stupid idea. Based on your Fark history, if you said the sun will rise tomorrow, I'd be positive the end of the world was here.
 
2012-12-15 11:33:55 PM  
ghare
"You think seatbelts cost more lives than they save too, don't you?"

Really? Are you another one of the people who thinks things will be all butterflies, candy canes, and lollipops if only we just banned those devilish guns? You can have a fun time in fantasy land, while I still live in reality, where some people are crazy/evil/bad, guns are never getting fully eradicated short of a police state, and I'd like to be able to defend myself.

Either you're living a fantasy where guns will disappear forever from every criminal's hands if only our federal government would make it happen ... or you realize that won't happen, in which case, you must think the cops are going to bust in and save the day before crazy dude puts 3 in your chest. Have fun with all that.
 
2012-12-15 11:34:25 PM  

trackstr777: zenobia

Firstly, if we are going to talk about assault weapons, put a definition on it.

- Automatic only? Semi-automatic?
- Magazine capacity?
- Based on size of the rifle, or the rounds it uses?
- Features on the weapon?

It's easy to talk about assault weapons as one group, and it's a lot harder to define that group. This was part of the weakness of the AWB. So have at it.


You do it. I'm looking for yeses, not noes. Someone who knows guns needs to come up with a reasonable limit to how many bullets can be spewed in a minute. And explain why.

My starting point is: not even semi-automatics for personal use. But maybe there could be arcades where customers who pass certain tests could pay to play with big guns for fun.

I am willing to compromise in what I want done, but my tolerance is gone for the whackos who want whatever firepower they'll need to defeat the gubmint when it comes fer them.
 
2012-12-15 11:34:28 PM  

Giltric: Guns are not used millions of times each year in self-defense (I've only used mine twice and only one was reported to police)
Most purported self-defense gun uses are gun uses in escalating arguments and are both socially undesirable and illegal
Firearms are used far more often to intimidate than in self-defense.( after I drew my weapon one guy decided that he did not need nor want anything he was asking me for and started to run away very very fast, almost as if he was intimidated.... another guy decided that going prone eagle and waiting for the cops to arrive was a pretty good suggestion by the guy poiting his firearm at him)
Guns in the home are used more often to intimidate intimates than to thwart crime.
Adolescents are far more likely to be threatened with a gun than to use one in self-defense. (probably by the guy with the tear drop tat on his face listening to MC Ren in his six fo' Impala)
Criminals who are shot are typically the victims of crime( what like attempted murder or assault with a deadly weapon?...you don't farking say)
Few criminals are shot by decent law abiding citizens( well obviously anyone willing to stand up for themselves or their friends/family/stuff etc is not a decent law abiding citizen...)
Where there are more guns there is more homicide (literature review).
Across high-income nations, more guns = more homicide.
Across states, more guns = more homicide


I'm inclined to believe the "100,000 crimes per year are deterred by firearms" statistic.

Which is by no means insignificant.
 
2012-12-15 11:35:21 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Giltric: wademh: who did not have the sense to properly secure her guns.

Do you have a citation in regards to that?

For all we know he killed her then went rummaging around for a key to a safe.

What did he shoot her with?


No idea....do you?
 
2012-12-15 11:35:44 PM  

rohar: Uranus Is Huge!: rohar: keithgabryelski: rohar: fark, you don't understand the myriad of free variables that come with different demographics do you? I'm pretty sure I don't have the energy, this late at night, to explain it.

How 'bout you just continue on with your conclusion. You obviously chose that first and decided to rationalize it later. There's little I can do to help you think rationally. You seem to resist it at every turn.

you seem obtuse. please tell me and everyone how we are not reaching the goal posts.

We as a nation, with a specific demographic (different as a whole from Chicago, LA or MT) are dealing with a gun related crime issue. The suggested response seems to be federal gun ownership limitation.

Historically, limitations on gun ownership in any given demographic in this country have not reduced violent crime. No statistic shows otherwise. When we look at any demographic that passed gun control measures, gun related crime increases.

Given all of the repeated failures in other demographics, why on earth would it work in the demographic that is all of us?

Probably because we almost never hear about gun crimes in countries with very strict gun control laws.

...like Britain, who's homicide rate has doubled since they virtually outlawed guns.


Yes. I would trade the UK's firearm homicide rate for the US's.
 
2012-12-15 11:36:17 PM  

trackstr777: ghare
"You think seatbelts cost more lives than they save too, don't you?"

Really? Are you another one of the people who thinks things will be all butterflies, candy canes, and lollipops if only we just banned those devilish guns? You can have a fun time in fantasy land, while I still live in reality, where some people are crazy/evil/bad, guns are never getting fully eradicated short of a police state, and I'd like to be able to defend myself.

Either you're living a fantasy where guns will disappear forever from every criminal's hands if only our federal government would make it happen ... or you realize that won't happen, in which case, you must think the cops are going to bust in and save the day before crazy dude puts 3 in your chest. Have fun with all that.


Yes yes, sweetie, your time spent playing Call of Duty makes you a big man. I'm just sure you'll be the one to save the day, if you can get the vaseline-and-cheetos paste off your hands quick enough to grab your mommy's gun.
 
2012-12-15 11:36:22 PM  

ghare: Lsherm: ...Christ, you can't even troll correctly. You must not be very smart.

Hehehhe from you that's hilarious. Another one who has never been right about anything, ever. If you;re for it, it's a stupid idea. Based on your Fark history, if you said the sun will rise tomorrow, I'd be positive the end of the world was here.


I was right about the lesbian faking her attack, but you forget that, don't you?
 
2012-12-15 11:36:36 PM  

wademh: The shooter's mother legally owned the murder weapons. She is a poster-child for typical NRA rhetoric about the right to bear-arms, except she was an idiot who did not have the sense to properly secure her guns. She and her son are the reason that our permissive gun laws feed these tragedies. If you think guns are nice things, they are the reason you can't have nice things, they and the millions just like them.


Is there a good reason why she would have secured her guns from her adult son in her own home? He wasn't a juvenile and he hadn't been adjudicated incompetent, so her weapons were as "secure" as anyone's guns are in a home with no children.
 
2012-12-15 11:36:39 PM  

ghare: For newbs, Mrbogey is a lying sack of shiat who is one of those people you ca use to test if something stupid or not: if Mrbogey is for it, you can rest assured it's a stupid position.


Put some ice on it will you. I didn't hurt you that bad. Your butt had have healed by now.
 
2012-12-15 11:36:48 PM  

birdmanesq: graggor: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

This shouldnt be hard to figure out.

And I am not even a gun nut by any means.

Gun ownership and gun control dont have much to do with falling crime rates in this country.

Better police, access to abortion, social welfare and health and medicine have far more to do with it than anything.

Mass incarceration has also been helpful.



Well I agree incarceration has a lot to do with it quite often these numbers are inflated by certain factors. we count people on parole....this inflates the number a lot.

The number of people actually in prison is .7% of the country. Which is still a lot and many people are in jail for non violent reasons which maybe we will get to a point where we do not imprison these people as long.

Either way there are 300 million people out there to commit crime and 2 million in jail.
7 million on parole and in jail combined.

So it is what is. If we had even BETTER health care we could see this go lower.

But the US is a complicated country. Our demographics are so different from many of these monochromatic societies.
 
2012-12-15 11:37:07 PM  

Prank Call of Cthulhu:

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.


THIS. This also might open the question of the efficacy of psychological diagnoses and whether or not someone is incorrectly diagnosed or if such a person's private healthcare information should be forked over to the NCIC database (Read: a database of "crazies"). I'm really sick of reading posts by pro-gun control advocates who advocate such a policy without pondering the effects of this.
 
2012-12-15 11:37:12 PM  

Lsherm: ghare: Lsherm: ...Christ, you can't even troll correctly. You must not be very smart.

Hehehhe from you that's hilarious. Another one who has never been right about anything, ever. If you;re for it, it's a stupid idea. Based on your Fark history, if you said the sun will rise tomorrow, I'd be positive the end of the world was here.

I was right about the lesbian faking her attack, but you forget that, don't you?


Now you're just lying again.
 
2012-12-15 11:37:26 PM  

Uranus Is Huge!: rohar: Uranus Is Huge!: rohar: keithgabryelski: rohar: fark, you don't understand the myriad of free variables that come with different demographics do you? I'm pretty sure I don't have the energy, this late at night, to explain it.

How 'bout you just continue on with your conclusion. You obviously chose that first and decided to rationalize it later. There's little I can do to help you think rationally. You seem to resist it at every turn.

you seem obtuse. please tell me and everyone how we are not reaching the goal posts.

We as a nation, with a specific demographic (different as a whole from Chicago, LA or MT) are dealing with a gun related crime issue. The suggested response seems to be federal gun ownership limitation.

Historically, limitations on gun ownership in any given demographic in this country have not reduced violent crime. No statistic shows otherwise. When we look at any demographic that passed gun control measures, gun related crime increases.

Given all of the repeated failures in other demographics, why on earth would it work in the demographic that is all of us?

Probably because we almost never hear about gun crimes in countries with very strict gun control laws.

...like Britain, who's homicide rate has doubled since they virtually outlawed guns.

Yes. I would trade the UK's firearm homicide rate for the US's.


But moving to GB isn't what anyone is suggesting. Passing the same laws they did is a suggestion. Since they passed their draconian gun laws, homicide by gun has over doubled. You sure you want to double ours?
 
2012-12-15 11:37:32 PM  

Silverstaff:
Something has changed culturally, something bad. It's rare, only happens to one in several million people, but something goes horribly wrong, and they see this as the answer.

What is it? How can we fix the underlying problem?


Answer: The systematic decimation of the social safety net.

The reptilian creeps in the GOP that have stoked the fire of gun fetishism in this country are the same bastards that have advocated 30 years worth of "Fu#k you, I got mine" politics which ensured virtually no access to psychological services for people who need it.

It's not hard to figure out.
 
2012-12-15 11:38:35 PM  
If this tragedy doesn't result in an assault weapons ban then this country is farked.
 
2012-12-15 11:38:49 PM  

ghare: Lsherm: ...Christ, you can't even troll correctly. You must not be very smart.

Hehehhe from you that's hilarious. Another one who has never been right about anything, ever. If you;re for it, it's a stupid idea. Based on your Fark history, if you said the sun will rise tomorrow, I'd be positive the end of the world was here.


Sorry, have you been right about anything? You don't seem to care about anything. You don't post, you don't care, and you don't effect change.

How are the sidelines? Are the seats comfortable?
 
Displayed 50 of 1049 comments

First | « | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report