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 | « | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-15 11:39:24 PM

graggor: 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.


Don't get me wrong, I'm agreeing with you. And you're right, there are lots of balls in the air.
 
2012-12-15 11:39:47 PM

Mrbogey: 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.


What is it with you and all your homo rape fantasies? You Republicans, all fans of rape and homo sex.
 
2012-12-15 11:40:26 PM
 
2012-12-15 11:41:00 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.

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?


Some people are ashamed to be liars. They had good parents. But not you. You proudly lie and herp the derp. You getting ready for Romney's inauguration?
 
2012-12-15 11:41:18 PM

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


Lack of respect for eachother?

Just look at how smart people on either side of the political spectrum argue with eachother...you asshole.
 
2012-12-15 11:41:30 PM
Plus the crime in china is kind of crazy. they are a nation of a billion and claim to only imprison 1 million....hahaahah ok sure buddy.
 
2012-12-15 11:41:39 PM

Giltric: 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?


Any reason to think it was anything other than one of her unsecured weapons?
 
2012-12-15 11:41:51 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Guns are not our problem, it's our lack of treatment for the mentally ill.


BINGO!!!!
 
2012-12-15 11:42:06 PM

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.


True, but guns make it easier for cowards to do their dirty work.
 
2012-12-15 11:42:35 PM

rohar: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Guns are not our problem, it's our lack of treatment for the mentally ill.

BINGO!!!!


And letting the mentally ill and Republicans have guns. But I repeat myself.
 
2012-12-15 11:42:49 PM
Most gun violence is crimes of people who know one another.

our murder rates in this country are so much lower than they used to be.

its a fairly safe place to live. it could be safer but we do pretty well considering.
 
2012-12-15 11:42:53 PM

rohar: 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?


How many people died due to firearm violence in the UK? How about Japan? How about the US? It ain't alchemy. People don't get shot as much when there are few guns available.
 
2012-12-15 11:43:38 PM

ghare: 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.

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?

Some people are ashamed to be liars. They had good parents. But not you. You proudly lie and herp the derp. You getting ready for Romney's inauguration?


Cute.

See ya. What's bizarre to me is that you had to switch accounts in the middle of the thread.
 
2012-12-15 11:45:32 PM

chuggernaught: 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.

True, but guns make it easier for cowards to do their dirty work.


Actually, murderers are more successful with fire and bombs in terms of numbers so let's ban matches, home depot and supermarkets.
 
2012-12-15 11:46:42 PM

ghare: rohar: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Guns are not our problem, it's our lack of treatment for the mentally ill.

BINGO!!!!

And letting the mentally ill and Republicans have guns. But I repeat myself.


Gun control in this country wont solve the spree problem. Because the spree thing will continue to persevere for all time. sorry its human nature.

bad things will happen and we can try to minimize it but its never going to go away.

I was cured all right!!!! some people asking for gun control will watch that movie and think its awesome yet completely miss the point....
 
2012-12-15 11:47:03 PM

Uranus Is Huge!: rohar: 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?

How many people died due to firearm violence in the UK? How about Japan? How about the US? It ain't alchemy. People don't get shot as much when there are few guns available.


Uh, that was kinda the point of the law in GB. To limit access to guns. Strangely, the number of victims of gun crimes over doubled in a couple short decades. Your assertion flies in the face of statistics. The simple math proves you wrong.
 
2012-12-15 11:47:47 PM

chuggernaught: guns make it easier for cowards to do their dirty work.


exactly. you can outrun a knife, but you can't outrun a bullet.
 
2012-12-15 11:48:13 PM
zenobia

"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."

Well, I think your premise is wrong right from the get go. Here's a study of different bullet types, and the effectiveness of each, in a huge amount of historical data about gun fights in the last 10 years (1,785 incidents). Guess how many of those were attributable to rifle rounds? *Seven* percent (7%). So I disagree with your whole premise.

If we are talking about fully automatic or selective fire weapons, they are already ridiculously restricted, very expensive, very tracked, and have a multitude of laws around them that don't apply to just general firearms. Also, as someone else said, there are maybe 2-3 known examples of legally owned fully automatic weapons being used in crimes in the last few DECADES. They are not the problem.

And based on this evidence, rifles in general are not really the problem. This is why I quickly get into specifics, because ironically enough, the weapons that fire the fastest or look the most dangerous are typically the weapons that are least likely to be used for nefarious reasons.

http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/7866
 
2012-12-15 11:48:41 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Guns are not our problem, it's our lack of treatment for the mentally ill.


What percentage of gun crimes do you think are being committed by the mentally ill?
 
2012-12-15 11:49:21 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: chuggernaught: 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.

True, but guns make it easier for cowards to do their dirty work.

Actually, murderers are more successful with fire and bombs in terms of numbers so let's ban matches, home depot and supermarkets.


Take this tired bullshiat back to the other thread you crapped all over.

What's the most popular murder weapon in the United States? (Hint: responsible for 68% of murders.)
 
2012-12-15 11:49:34 PM

Popcorn Johnny: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Guns are not our problem, it's our lack of treatment for the mentally ill.

What percentage of gun crimes do you think are being committed by the mentally ill?


I would suggest that murdering someone qualifies a person as mentally ill.
 
2012-12-15 11:50:32 PM

birdmanesq: violentsalvation: birdmanesq: violentsalvation: birdmanesq: Except, you know, all of the data that shows that denser concentrations of guns lead to denser concentrations of gun crimes, and that states with stricter gun laws tend to have lower rates of gun crime.

Except all that stuff.

Like Chicago?

That whole argument is another correlation / causation and it ignores everything else. And you know it.

Actually, they control for that by lagging the gun possession variable. That's as close to a valid causal argument that you are going to get.

And everybody keeps bringing up Chicago like it means something. The per capita homicide rate here is bad, but it's better than lots of places. And, you know what, the handguns that are being used on the South and West Sides were generally purchased legally by straw buyers in Northwest Indiana and the quickly resold in the City.

People keep ignoring Chicago and other cities rife with gun violence and tight on guns like their numbers are meaningless. Straw purchasing in itself is illegal, but it's pretty much uncontrollable.

I mean, I certainly think that violence in Chicago is meaningful (otherwise my work would be nonsense), but there are lots of things that make Chicago an outlier when you're talking about strict gun laws and firearm homicides. I mean, all Chicago shows is that strict laws don't guarantee lower homicide rates.


I appreciate what you do, or are working toward with you studies? I don't exactly know what you do, but I read your posts. I assume most the gun violence in your city can be directly attributed to poverty, and I would rather see the poverty addressed than ignored and the murders continue. As I said in my Boobs I would like to see mental health spending increased and some HIPPA changes since I don't believe whatever form of gun control would be very effective against these spree killers.
 
2012-12-15 11:51:00 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Giltric: 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?

Any reason to think it was anything other than one of her unsecured weapons?


If they were not secured did she have any reason to believe her son was going to kill her and that they should be locked up for that reason?

Do you live in fear of your children or spouse? How can you call that living?
 
2012-12-15 11:52:20 PM

rohar: Uranus Is Huge!: rohar: 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?

How many people died due to firearm violence in the UK? How about Japan? How about the US? It ain't alchemy. People don't get shot as much when there are few guns available.

Uh, that was kinda the point of the law in GB. To limit access to guns. Strangely, the number of victims of gun crimes over doubled in a couple short decades. Your assertion flies in the face of stati ...


Yet their rate of gun crime is about 1/4 of ours in the United States.
 
2012-12-15 11:52:24 PM

Silverstaff: 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.


Meanwhile, what's really needed is improved licensing and training. You need to undergo a test and at times a refresher test to drive a car. Good thing because misuse of cars is deadly. To own a gun you should have to undergo routine training and document that you have a safe place to keep your guns. Of course, this would be completely unacceptable to the paranoid folks who think they need their guns to protect themselves from the government.
 
2012-12-15 11:52:47 PM

Lionel Mandrake: kmmontandon: themindiswatching: What if Obama submits a bill to Congress next month that


It doesn't matter how you finish this sentence, the Republican answer is "no."

The more erudite among them will say "No, because communism"


"Furthermore, socialism."
 
2012-12-15 11:53:30 PM

graggor: Most gun violence is crimes of people who know one another.

our murder rates in this country are so much lower than they used to be.

its a fairly safe place to live. it could be safer but we do pretty well considering.


I guess a room full of dead kindergardners is acceptable risk, because maybe some of them knew the mother of the killer.
 
2012-12-15 11:53:49 PM

cman: Those folks who went out and bought all those guns when Obama was elected and reelected didnt just buy them to put above the fireplace.

If he tries to tackle this there will be blowback from extremists. Alex Jones types will see any tinee-tiny bit of gun control as an attempt to take away all guns and we have civil war.

This is not something that can be negotiated. We are farked.

Welcome to America in 2013, the beginning of the second civil war.


So, the Great Gene Pool Chlorination Event of 2013?

Like I said in threads around the election, when the fringe right wing were screaming that it's time for "CW 2.0!!!111!", good. Do it. I hope they televise it too. It should be hilarious watching them get stepped on like insects.

I also like that idea about heavily taxing ownership of multiple firearms. Though I'd make it a percentage of your income, that way nobody can cry that the rich have an advantage there or the poor are unfairly penalized. 

/ I've heard the sponge migration event was pretty cool too...
 
2012-12-15 11:54:12 PM
Can we address mental health? On one hand you have dozens of kids dead in Connecticut. On the flip side you have 22 wounded, some in critical care, after a crazy dude did a knife attack at a school.

Gun control has the benefit of reducing lethality of the attacks, but it doesn't solve them. It just means the guy shows up with propane tanks rigged as bombs, a bow, a knife, a mail order sword, a rock, etc. I'd rather address mental health detection and treatment and allocation of our police force and how we fund it.

/for example with what we're spending in Afghanistan we could have fuzz in every school to give their DARE talks, enforce school zone speed limits, and be right there to respond to shootings
 
2012-12-15 11:54:17 PM
This country would be a better place if people like rohar spent less time trying to cover for the murder industry and more time volunteering for their fellow man.

Handguns murders, USA: 10,000/year
Handgun murders, rest of civilized countries: 0 - 200/year

Math is hard :(
 
2012-12-15 11:54:28 PM

rohar: Uh, that was kinda the point of the law in GB. To limit access to guns. Strangely, the number of victims of gun crimes over doubled in a couple short decades. Your assertion flies in the face of stati ...


i'm sure there is bullshiat in whomever came up with these statistics (i see reason magazine when I do a google search -- which we know cuts information in whatever way best fits their assertion).

the fact is that the UK has an incredibly low homicide rate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_dea th_rate)
and incredibly low gun violent rate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom)
and the studies I quoted earlier claim that across nations -- more guns = more homicide.
 
2012-12-15 11:55:03 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 live in a culture of fear, hate and violence.

As a nation we were attacked and it impacted us in ways we still don't completely understand. Yes, call me crazy, but I think much of this stems from 9/11 and the ignorance fueled hyper-partisanship we live in.

Our nation thrives on violence, it's our countries number one export. We've developed a discourse that places anyone that thinks or looks different as your mortal enemy. We see the most sacred of our institutions run by greed and plagued by scandal, the whole system seems alive and working against the little guy.

You are right. Something has changed. More than one thing. Not only has the overall discourse and environment been tainted, there is also the aspect of why is this becoming a more preferred channel to cope with whatever the individuals problems are?

I think that may have to do with an escalation of emotions. The environment isn't just tainted, it's charged. Every single thing is a tragedy of national proportions. Every political act is the end of the world to someone. Every event overseas seems like it must somehow relate back to us and thus the American people. We are bombarded every day with it.

On top of that we socially network now. Feeding off narcissism and a constant connectivity to everything and everyone. Nothing is private, nothing is personal, no one unplugs.

The background noise has increased, I guess is a good way to say it.

We never go back to normal, we seem to lurch from one state of alert and attention to another. I'm no expert and I'm certainly not wording it the best way... but it is most certainly a product of the culture and I'm not seeing us moving in a better direction. I expect it to only get worse.
 
2012-12-15 11:56:35 PM

violentsalvation: birdmanesq: violentsalvation: birdmanesq: violentsalvation: birdmanesq: Except, you know, all of the data that shows that denser concentrations of guns lead to denser concentrations of gun crimes, and that states with stricter gun laws tend to have lower rates of gun crime.

Except all that stuff.

Like Chicago?

That whole argument is another correlation / causation and it ignores everything else. And you know it.

Actually, they control for that by lagging the gun possession variable. That's as close to a valid causal argument that you are going to get.

And everybody keeps bringing up Chicago like it means something. The per capita homicide rate here is bad, but it's better than lots of places. And, you know what, the handguns that are being used on the South and West Sides were generally purchased legally by straw buyers in Northwest Indiana and the quickly resold in the City.

People keep ignoring Chicago and other cities rife with gun violence and tight on guns like their numbers are meaningless. Straw purchasing in itself is illegal, but it's pretty much uncontrollable.

I mean, I certainly think that violence in Chicago is meaningful (otherwise my work would be nonsense), but there are lots of things that make Chicago an outlier when you're talking about strict gun laws and firearm homicides. I mean, all Chicago shows is that strict laws don't guarantee lower homicide rates.

I appreciate what you do, or are working toward with you studies? I don't exactly know what you do, but I read your posts. I assume most the gun violence in your city can be directly attributed to poverty, and I would rather see the poverty addressed than ignored and the murders continue. As I said in my Boobs I would like to see mental health spending increased and some HIPPA changes since I don't believe whatever form of gun control would be very effective against these spree killers.


I mean, I think that you and I would likely agree on a lot of stuff. I grew up shooting, and still handle a shotgun fairly well--though it's my wife's family who are the real hunters. I have no interest in taking anybody's guns--as long as they keep following the law.

But I do think that the counterfactuals on gun control don't really tell the whole story. Honestly, I think most of the evidence base on that is really crummy.
 
2012-12-15 11:57:00 PM

keithgabryelski: rohar: Uh, that was kinda the point of the law in GB. To limit access to guns. Strangely, the number of victims of gun crimes over doubled in a couple short decades. Your assertion flies in the face of stati ...

i'm sure there is bullshiat in whomever came up with these statistics (i see reason magazine when I do a google search -- which we know cuts information in whatever way best fits their assertion).

the fact is that the UK has an incredibly low homicide rate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_dea th_rate)
and incredibly low gun violent rate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom)
and the studies I quoted earlier claim that across nations -- more guns = more homicide.


Yes, but it rised dramatically as gun control became more restrictive. The number of guns in the country was reduced and the gun based crime increased. Odd huh?

Maybe, just maybe, gun control wasn't what changed the metrics. I wonder what it could have been...
 
2012-12-15 11:57:15 PM
ghare
"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."

Once again, an idiot who thinks they know how every gun enthusiast is based on a few teenage armchair warriors typing on the internet.

I've done a lot of shooting, but haven't chosen what type of handgun I'm going to buy yet (leaning towards HK 45 or Sig Sauer P229 9mm). I also feel like I need to put a lot more time at the range, to get more proficient, both before I make a purchase, and especially before I pursue acquiring a CCW. This trend of playing things on the safe side, and while having a lot of interest in firearms, also having a lot of respect for their purpose, and the hope to never have to use them, is a common trend among almost everyone I've met during my range time.

Yet, unlike you, I'm not an idiot that pretends that the cops are going to show up quick enough to save me. In that situation, I tend to think my first choice is to try to escape the danger as quickly as possible. But once again, if push came to shove and there was no reasonable means of escape, I'd rather me or someone around me have a gun, than not. You paint me as some ITG, yet you're the one who continues to either be so foolish as to pretend the full eradication of firearms is possible, or cocky enough to pretend that when the shiat hits the fan, you'd absolutely be able to escape your attacker or subdue said threat without any firearm. Best of luck to you and your deadly supermarket banana, should that ever come to fruition.
 
2012-12-15 11:57:31 PM

ha-ha-guy: Can we address mental health?


Sure, as soon as we take care of the gun control issues.
 
2012-12-15 11:57:56 PM
danielwheeler.org
 
2012-12-15 11:58:59 PM

trackstr777: http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/7866


That's all well and good if you want to obsess about that's your hobby. I don't want to interfere with responsible gun owners' enjoyment. I do want Joe Schmo off the street who has a bug up his ass to not be able to grab a weapon of mass destruction out of someone's gun closet and relieve his tensions. How about you and one of your buddies work on that study for a change?
 
2012-12-15 11:59:03 PM

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


Nice emotional, knee-jerk reaction. Come back when you're less emotional and more rational.
 
2012-12-15 11:59:34 PM

Generation_D: graggor: Most gun violence is crimes of people who know one another.

our murder rates in this country are so much lower than they used to be.

its a fairly safe place to live. it could be safer but we do pretty well considering.

I guess a room full of dead kindergardners is acceptable risk, because maybe some of them knew the mother of the killer.


Wow. Thanks for cheapening their deaths there to make a non existent point.

IF he had bombed the school he would have killed even more people!!!!

It is a horrible tragedy but to argue one way gun control or the other more gun ownership is missing the point.

Abortion, welfare, health care, economy and better policeforces have far more to do with our lower crime rate than more people owning guns or people finding it harder to own guns.

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.

Change this amendment and you can ban guns. I guess you can try to ban types of guns. I dont care if you try that but it still gets into some sticky territory....

(the comma in that sentence is really really important)
 
2012-12-16 12:00:37 AM

rohar: Yes, but it rised dramatically as gun control became more restrictive. The number of guns in the country was reduced and the gun based crime increased. Odd huh?

Maybe, just maybe, gun control wasn't what changed the metrics. I wonder what it could have been...


it sounds like bullshiat -- the information has been sliced in a dishonest way.

what we do know (reading the homicide rates from my wikipedia link above): if the nation has less guns that nation has less homicides.

I'm good with that as a starting point.
 
2012-12-16 12:00:49 AM

Publikwerks: 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.

Secanrio 3: No one has a gun. No one gets shot.


Please describe a means of guaranteeing such a scenario.
 
2012-12-16 12:01:17 AM

Generation_D: graggor: Most gun violence is crimes of people who know one another.

our murder rates in this country are so much lower than they used to be.

its a fairly safe place to live. it could be safer but we do pretty well considering.

I guess a room full of dead kindergardners is acceptable risk, because maybe some of them knew the mother of the killer.


It is never acceptable but it is a risk.

ha-ha-guy: Can we address mental health? On one hand you have dozens of kids dead in Connecticut. On the flip side you have 22 wounded, some in critical care, after a crazy dude did a knife attack at a school.

Gun control has the benefit of reducing lethality of the attacks, but it doesn't solve them. It just means the guy shows up with propane tanks rigged as bombs, a bow, a knife, a mail order sword, a rock, etc. I'd rather address mental health detection and treatment and allocation of our police force and how we fund it.

/for example with what we're spending in Afghanistan we could have fuzz in every school to give their DARE talks, enforce school zone speed limits, and be right there to respond to shootings


People would just start shooting up other places where large amounts of people gather....just like how if we were to start profiling muslims they would start using 80 year old white women as terrorists.
 
2012-12-16 12:01:18 AM
You guys can argue all night long. You're not going to do anything of value to prevent this from happening again. You're too in love with your guns and too afraid of provide appropriate health care to your population. You'll get over it.
 
2012-12-16 12:01:58 AM

JohnnyC: 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.


The fundamental problem of your hypothetical scenario is that despite numerous predictions, such an incident has never occurred in reality.
 
2012-12-16 12:02:49 AM
I've noticed that one side of this argument wants to talk about what we can do, and one side wants to discuss what we should do.

It's sort of a recurring theme in the Politics tab.
 
2012-12-16 12:03:31 AM

Giltric: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Giltric: 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?

Any reason to think it was anything other than one of her unsecured weapons?

If they were not secured did she have any reason to believe her son was going to kill her and that they should be locked up for that reason?

Do you live in fear of your children or spouse? How can you call that living?


You want to take a closer look at your logic here?
 
2012-12-16 12:04:04 AM

Popcorn Johnny: ha-ha-guy: Can we address mental health?

Sure, as soon as we take care of the gun control issues.


Given what you have proposed for "gun control": no.
 
2012-12-16 12:04:10 AM

Dimensio: Please describe a means of guaranteeing such a scenario.


Oh I dunno, how about metal detectors? They seem to work pretty well at courthouses, airports, sporting events, federal buildings, etc.
 
2012-12-16 12:04:34 AM

keithgabryelski: rohar: Yes, but it rised dramatically as gun control became more restrictive. The number of guns in the country was reduced and the gun based crime increased. Odd huh?

Maybe, just maybe, gun control wasn't what changed the metrics. I wonder what it could have been...

it sounds like bullshiat -- the information has been sliced in a dishonest way.

what we do know (reading the homicide rates from my wikipedia link above): if the nation has less guns that nation has less homicides.

I'm good with that as a starting point.


If a nation is Norwegian, they have terribly low homicide rates so the solution is simple. All we have to do is convert all Americans to Norwegians! It's so farking simple! Why didn't I think of this!

Now, how do you change the behavior of a single demographic? You state the metrics are cooked, you have any better metrics?

/guessing not
/talking out your ass seems to be your thing
 
Displayed 50 of 1049 comments

First | « | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report