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 | « | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-16 12:35:06 AM

Uranus Is Huge!: rohar: Uranus Is Huge!: rohar: keithgabryelski: rohar: Changing gun control, either way, will have no affect on this situation. The statistics prove as much

where the hell did you pull that "FACT" out of?

Can you find any change in gun control laws that had any affect on violent crime/homicide rates withing a limited demographic in the entire history of collected statics? I can't.

I think gun crime fell quite a bit after Australia's last big buyback.

And at the same time the Australian government put a ton of money into public mental health as well as huge stimulus package. But I'm sure you're right. Unlike any other time it occurred anywhere else on the planet, gun control changed the metrics.

Geez. Relax. You asked for an example; I threw out an example.

It'll be okay. Nobody's coming for your guns.


Pfft. I don't own any guns. Just a massive calculator and a bunch of dogs.
 
2012-12-16 12:35:07 AM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Bingo! People can look at the chart I provided and see it plainly, but most people here aren't interested in the truth.


That's bullshiat and you know it, almost all gun crimes are committed by drug dealers, criminals and pissed off spouses. A kid with autism snaps and kills 20 kids and suddenly the mentally ill are responsible for all of the gun deaths in the country.
 
2012-12-16 12:35:18 AM

rohar: Uranus Is Huge!: rohar: keithgabryelski: rohar: Changing gun control, either way, will have no affect on this situation. The statistics prove as much

where the hell did you pull that "FACT" out of?

Can you find any change in gun control laws that had any affect on violent crime/homicide rates withing a limited demographic in the entire history of collected statics? I can't.

I think gun crime fell quite a bit after Australia's last big buyback.

And at the same time the Australian government put a ton of money into public mental health as well as huge stimulus package. But I'm sure you're right. Unlike any other time it occurred anywhere else on the planet, gun control changed the metrics.


Look the goalposts moved. Everyone please ignore this liar.
 
2012-12-16 12:35:20 AM
Tonight I've learned that guns have nothing to do with gun crime.
 
2012-12-16 12:35:43 AM
I forgot gang bangers.
 
2012-12-16 12:35:54 AM

Fart_Machine: Methadone Girls: Fart_Machine: Methadone Girls: 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.

Not exactly sure what we can do to prevent this again. Our nation is saturated with guns and unless we commit everyone diagnosed with a mental disorder there is always the possibility they might not take their medication.

But Australia did it. They managed to get 1/5th of the guns out of public hands with the buy back campaign. But then we get the "herp derp, they'll just grab a knife/axe/bomb/plane". "There's too many guns" "2nd amendment" "the crazies won't take their med's" "derpa do"

I'll be more shocked if anyone actually does something about it.

Because an island nation that has a population 15x less than ours is a good comparison?


so it will NEVER work for the states. whatever. Keep your guns. Don't pretended to be shocked the next time this happens when you sit back and do nothing.
 
2012-12-16 12:37:12 AM

Methadone Girls: Fart_Machine: Methadone Girls: Fart_Machine: Methadone Girls: 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.

Not exactly sure what we can do to prevent this again. Our nation is saturated with guns and unless we commit everyone diagnosed with a mental disorder there is always the possibility they might not take their medication.

But Australia did it. They managed to get 1/5th of the guns out of public hands with the buy back campaign. But then we get the "herp derp, they'll just grab a knife/axe/bomb/plane". "There's too many guns" "2nd amendment" "the crazies won't take their med's" "derpa do"

I'll be more shocked if anyone actually does something about it.

Because an island nation that has a population 15x less than ours is a good comparison?

so it will NEVER work for the states. whatever. Keep your guns. Don't pretended to be shocked the next time this happens when you sit back and do nothing.


A fundamental problem with attempting to reason with civilian disarmament advocates is that a rejection of unreasonable proposals is treated, inaccurately, as a rejection of all potential proposals.
 
2012-12-16 12:37:26 AM
Methadone Girls

"Explain why 5 rounds is sub standard.
This should be fun"

Sticking with my car argument, explain why anyone should be allowed to own a car capable of exceeding 80 mph or say...150 horsepower? Eighty miles per hour should be sufficient to reach the speed limit on every road in the United States, and 150 horsepower should be more than enough to get up to cruising speed in a reasonable time period, and to accelerate to avoid dangers if needed.

This should be fun,
 
2012-12-16 12:37:34 AM

Dimensio: If forced, I would prefer to be faced with a criminal using a 200 round drum magazine. Such magazines are unreliable and prone to jamming, while the smaller five round magazine would be substantially more reliable, allowing complete emptying and a swift reloading without complications.


Sure you would.
 
2012-12-16 12:37:38 AM

justtray: rohar: Uranus Is Huge!: rohar: keithgabryelski: rohar: Changing gun control, either way, will have no affect on this situation. The statistics prove as much

where the hell did you pull that "FACT" out of?

Can you find any change in gun control laws that had any affect on violent crime/homicide rates withing a limited demographic in the entire history of collected statics? I can't.

I think gun crime fell quite a bit after Australia's last big buyback.

And at the same time the Australian government put a ton of money into public mental health as well as huge stimulus package. But I'm sure you're right. Unlike any other time it occurred anywhere else on the planet, gun control changed the metrics.

Look the goalposts moved. Everyone please ignore this liar.


Nope. I suggested from the beginning that gun legislation within a single demographic has no direct affect on any violent crime metrics. The issue in Australia cannot be cited as there were a number of unaccounted variables at play. Where did you learn statistics?
 
2012-12-16 12:38:42 AM

Popcorn Johnny: Dimensio: If forced, I would prefer to be faced with a criminal using a 200 round drum magazine. Such magazines are unreliable and prone to jamming, while the smaller five round magazine would be substantially more reliable, allowing complete emptying and a swift reloading without complications.

Sure you would.


You have still demonstrated no public safety benefit.

Several states have imposed limitations upon magazine capacity, and a limitation upon the capacity of newly manufactured firearm magazines was imposed federally from 1994 until 2004. If that limitation improved public safety, then certainly data should bear that out.
 
2012-12-16 12:38:52 AM

Methadone Girls: Fart_Machine: Methadone Girls: Fart_Machine: Methadone Girls: 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.

Not exactly sure what we can do to prevent this again. Our nation is saturated with guns and unless we commit everyone diagnosed with a mental disorder there is always the possibility they might not take their medication.

But Australia did it. They managed to get 1/5th of the guns out of public hands with the buy back campaign. But then we get the "herp derp, they'll just grab a knife/axe/bomb/plane". "There's too many guns" "2nd amendment" "the crazies won't take their med's" "derpa do"

I'll be more shocked if anyone actually does something about it.

Because an island nation that has a population 15x less than ours is a good comparison?

so it will NEVER work for the states. whatever. Keep your guns. Don't pretended to be shocked the next time this happens when you sit back and do nothing.


/sigh

Emotions aren't a very good way to make an argument.
 
2012-12-16 12:39:45 AM
Most deaths by handguns in America are suicides. 2 of 3 actually.

Mental health is the biggest issue at hand.

Also the homicide rate in this country has been dropping steadily for the past 21 years.
 
2012-12-16 12:41:18 AM
25.media.tumblr.com24.media.tumblr.com

24.media.tumblr.com

Morgan Freeman's brilliant take on the shooting in Connecticut:
Turn Off the News


"You want to know why. This may sound cynical, but here's why...

It's because of the way the media reports it. Flip on the news and watch how we treat the Batman theater shooter and the Oregon mall shooter like celebrities. Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris are household names, but do you know the name of a single *victim* of Columbine? Disturbed people who would otherwise just off themselves in their basements see the news and want to top it by doing something worse, and going out in a memorable way. Why a grade school? Why children? Because he'll be remembered as a horrible monster, instead of a sad nobody.

CNN's article says that if the body count "holds up", this will rank as the second deadliest shooting behind Virginia Tech, as if statistics somehow make one shooting worse than another. Then they post a video interview of third-graders for all the details of what they saw and heard while the shootings were happening. Fox News has plastered the killer's face on all their reports for hours. Any articles or news stories yet that focus on the victims and ignore the killer's identity? None that I've seen yet. Because they don't sell. So congratulations, sensationalist media, you've just lit the fire for someone to top this and knock off a day care center or a maternity ward next.

You can help by forgetting you ever read this man's name, and remembering the name of at least one victim. You can help by donating to mental health research instead of pointing to gun control as the problem. You can help by turning off the news."

/TITTY SPRINKLES
//I don't even know if Mr. Freeman said any of this or if someone is just attributing it to him and I don't care
///check the perps for prescription anti-depressants, since leader of Columbine pair, Cho@Vtech, Loughner were using... check for PSTD/prev. military service, I don't even remember the dude's name now cuz all the media f*cked it up originally and fingered his brother
 
2012-12-16 12:41:31 AM

trackstr777: In short, the analog of the ban all semi-automatic firearms argument because of these isolated killing sprees, would be to ban all vehicles weighing over 2,000 pounds or making over 100 horsepower because of the danger they cause in causing automobile accidents and deaths.


I agree that a blanket ban of semi-auto weapons would be pretty inefficient, but these are the options as I see it.

1) Ignore the gun violence (no regulation)
2) Ban types of gun and accessories (semi-auto, large (more than ~5 rounds) magazines)
3) Ban types of gun buyers

All three of these seem to be untenable to different groups of people, but honestly in my opinion the third one is the only one that allows control advocates to reduce the ways that violent people get access to firearms while allowing the responsible gun owners to enjoy their weapons the way they want to enjoy them. I could totally see a coalition of willing gun owners and control advocates coming together and pushing for stricter mental health testing for all gun purchases.
 
2012-12-16 12:41:44 AM

Dimensio: Popcorn Johnny: Dimensio: If forced, I would prefer to be faced with a criminal using a 200 round drum magazine. Such magazines are unreliable and prone to jamming, while the smaller five round magazine would be substantially more reliable, allowing complete emptying and a swift reloading without complications.

Sure you would.

You have still demonstrated no public safety benefit.

Several states have imposed limitations upon magazine capacity, and a limitation upon the capacity of newly manufactured firearm magazines was imposed federally from 1994 until 2004. If that limitation improved public safety, then certainly data should bear that out.


It wont stop these kind of horrible events from happening.

Most homicides by guns are personal.

Most deaths are suicides.

Guns are a part of it but with 200 million in this country I think focusing on mental health and therapy we will go a lot further at this point than gun control...

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 also affects the idea of banning guns.
 
2012-12-16 12:42:02 AM

Methadone Girls:
But Australia did it. They managed to get 1/5th of the guns out of public hands with the buy back campaign. But then we get the "herp derp, they'll just grab a knife/axe/bomb/plane".


Some guy in China yesterday proved a knife attack is a teensy bit less deadly than a gun attack.
 
2012-12-16 12:42:55 AM

graggor: Most deaths by handguns in America are suicides. 2 of 3 actually.

Mental health is the biggest issue at hand.

Also the homicide rate in this country has been dropping steadily for the past 21 years.


Rifles are used in fewer than 3% of all homicides annually. Knife-based murders consistently outnumber rifle-based murders. In 2010 and 2011, more than twice as many murders were committed with use of unarmed attacks than were committed with use of any type of rifle. Rifles are generally bulky and difficult to deploy quickly in close range; they are not useful tools for committing violent acts in crowded spaces. Nonetheless, gun control advocacy groups insist that prohibiting a subclass of rifles will enhance public safety.

Unfortunately, the major voices of civilian firearm ownership rights advocacy rely upon hyperbole and fear-mongering rather than a reasoned explanation of facts and, at present, many individuals demanding new firearm regulations are not receptive to facts due to their emotional investment.
 
2012-12-16 12:43:17 AM

Dimensio: Two of my firearms are handguns; for both, their ten-round magazines are designed to fit flush with the grip and thus the magazines were designed specifically to the size and shape of the handguns (the thirteen round magazine for one handgun extends the grip to that of a full size pistol).

You have still not demonstrated a public safety benefit for restricting firearm magazines as you propose.


S/W 15+1 -- they fit in the f*cking clip, stop with your 'OMFG DONT FIRE MORE THAN 2 BUWWITS baby garbage craep shiat f*ck, go hide in a f*cking cave
 
2012-12-16 12:44:33 AM

Popcorn Johnny: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Bingo! People can look at the chart I provided and see it plainly, but most people here aren't interested in the truth.

That's bullshiat and you know it, almost all gun crimes are committed by drug dealers, criminals and pissed off spouses. A kid with autism snaps and kills 20 kids and suddenly the mentally ill are responsible for all of the gun deaths in the country.


Aww, pumpkin, you failed graphs. I'm sorry but you're completely misguided. Look, I provided links and a chart, if you want to try to disprove them, go ahead and try, but please let's not make bald assertions. The fact is, our crime has skyrocketed the moment we as a nation abandoned care for the mentally ill and turned them loose on the street. There's no denying that fact. Our problem is not rooted in guns, it is rooted in the fact that we do not care about the mentally ill until they do something horrible, which was not true in the 50's when our crime rates were lowest.
 
2012-12-16 12:44:46 AM

Fubini: I could totally see a coalition of willing gun owners and control advocates coming together and pushing for stricter mental health testing for all gun purchases.


While nobody wants certified mental patients from owning firearms, weren't the guns used by the perp in this case from the mother who wasn't mentally ill?
 
2012-12-16 12:44:51 AM

Dimensio: You have still demonstrated no public safety benefit.


Sure I have, you just refuse to see it. A person who snaps and only has a 5 round magazine and a rifle is nowhere near the threat of a person with the same weapon and a 30 round magazine. But wait, in your scenarios, the dude with the 5 round clip is going to have an ammo vest on with 20 more magazines at the ready and will still be as much of a threat as the guy with the 30 round magazine and two spares in his back pockets, right?

Arguing with gun nuts is the same as arguing with religious people, pointless.
 
2012-12-16 12:45:03 AM

urban.derelict: Dimensio: Two of my firearms are handguns; for both, their ten-round magazines are designed to fit flush with the grip and thus the magazines were designed specifically to the size and shape of the handguns (the thirteen round magazine for one handgun extends the grip to that of a full size pistol).

You have still not demonstrated a public safety benefit for restricting firearm magazines as you propose.

S/W 15+1 -- they fit in the f*cking clip, stop with your 'OMFG DONT FIRE MORE THAN 2 BUWWITS baby garbage craep shiat f*ck, go hide in a f*cking cave


I have no idea what you are attempting to state.
 
2012-12-16 12:45:27 AM

Giltric: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Giltric: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Giltric:
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?


Given the benefit of hindsight, and a knowledge of how parents are often in denial of their children's mental health problems, yes, she should have had her guns secured away from him. Don't be confused. It is not an issue of being able to predict with near certainty that the kid was likely to flip a bit and turn into a homicidal maniac. It's about identification of a heightened risk. And the statistics bear out that handguns frequently get turned against family members within the home. This is observation, not theory.
 
2012-12-16 12:46:07 AM

Popcorn Johnny: Dimensio: You have still demonstrated no public safety benefit.

Sure I have, you just refuse to see it. A person who snaps and only has a 5 round magazine and a rifle is nowhere near the threat of a person with the same weapon and a 30 round magazine. But wait, in your scenarios, the dude with the 5 round clip is going to have an ammo vest on with 20 more magazines at the ready and will still be as much of a threat as the guy with the 30 round magazine and two spares in his back pockets, right?

Arguing with gun nuts is the same as arguing with religious people, pointless.


You are again engaging in the "poisoning the well" fallacy, rather than demonstrating your claims to be based in fact, rather than in speculation.
 
2012-12-16 12:48:02 AM
Fubini
I agree completely. It's not a perfect solution, but law abiding citizens have shown that in general, they will follow all the laws necessary to own and carry their firearms for recreational use and self defense. Our best option is to get better at identifying the individuals most likely to cause violent crimes, and stop them from owning guns. Short of a full ban, picking a subset of guns or accessories will not be effective in stopping these sprees from occurring, and a full on ban is both unconstitutional and simply impractical.
 
2012-12-16 12:48:09 AM
I'm 39 years old. I have two kids. Wife and I both work full time at jobs we've been at for 11 and 14 years, respectively. We're college educated, we own a home, we pay taxes. Unremarkable and average, I suppose.

I own three nice semi-automatic handguns, a 12 ga. shotgun and an AR-15. I keep all of them securely locked up. I like to go with my buddies a few times a year to an outdoor shooting range to make some noise and generally hoon around. Every once in awhile I'll go to an indoor range to put some holes in paper. It's a fun hobby and I enjoy it. I also like the subtle art of learning to shoot well; especially handguns...it's harder than almost anyone thinks to become a good shot, and I enjoy the challenge.

So why exactly should I not be able to do this anymore? I guess that's the part I'm having most trouble with. This possibly mentally ill person commits this incredibly heinous crime, and yet I can't engage in a hobby? (Sorry, it doesn't matter if you think it's not a worthwhile past-time, that's not a reasonable or realistic counter.) Is the argument simply that "too bad, you can't do that anymore because banning your guns will serve the greater good, and don't whine because it's a stupid hobby to begin with."?

Also, can someone please define what an "assault weapon" is as it's being used here? I think that term is being most often used to describe a gun that can fire multiple rounds upon one squeeze and hold of the trigger...if that's the case, those are already regulated, meaning the average joe can't have them. Those that do have to go through the ATF. My AR-15 is just a semi-automatic which means that for every pull of the trigger, one shot is fired, which you'll find is a very commonplace mode of operation on many long guns, certainly not unique.

Ultimately, as a law-abiding citizen, I'll do whatever I have to to be compliant, even if I disagree...I'd just like to understand if there's any consideration in the "ban all teh guns!!!!" declarative for those of us (I realize I'm probably in the vast minority on Fark) that are responsible gun owners.
 
2012-12-16 12:48:30 AM

Dimensio: You are again engaging in the "poisoning the well" fallacy, rather than demonstrating your claims to be based in fact, rather than in speculation.


I'll tell you what, read the facts of the Jared Lee Loughner case and tell me what difference it might have made had he not had a 31 round magazine for his Glock?
 
2012-12-16 12:48:32 AM

BuckTurgidson: We should totally base Federal policy on online polls.


[_] Agree
[_] Disagree
 
2012-12-16 12:48:57 AM
Guns don't kill people, crazy people kill people.
 
2012-12-16 12:50:07 AM

Notabunny: BuckTurgidson: We should totally base Federal policy on online polls.

[_] Agree
[_] Disagree[X] Mehi>

 
2012-12-16 12:50:07 AM
Actually, it was probably a 30 round clip with one in the chamber.
 
2012-12-16 12:50:19 AM

trackstr777: Methadone Girls

"Explain why 5 rounds is sub standard.
This should be fun"

Sticking with my car argument, explain why anyone should be allowed to own a car capable of exceeding 80 mph or say...150 horsepower? Eighty miles per hour should be sufficient to reach the speed limit on every road in the United States, and 150 horsepower should be more than enough to get up to cruising speed in a reasonable time period, and to accelerate to avoid dangers if needed.

This should be fun,


You stick to your car argument. We're talking about guns. Cars are crappy weapons, unless you know, you're driving in Death Race. Keep farking that chicken though
 
2012-12-16 12:50:29 AM

Dimensio: urban.derelict: Dimensio: Two of my firearms are handguns; for both, their ten-round magazines are designed to fit flush with the grip and thus the magazines were designed specifically to the size and shape of the handguns (the thirteen round magazine for one handgun extends the grip to that of a full size pistol).

You have still not demonstrated a public safety benefit for restricting firearm magazines as you propose.

S/W 15+1 -- they fit in the f*cking clip, stop with your 'OMFG DONT FIRE MORE THAN 2 BUWWITS baby garbage craep shiat f*ck, go hide in a f*cking cave

I have no idea what you are attempting to state.


He's your backup.

Good luck.
 
2012-12-16 12:50:52 AM
and dont forget that tobacco and alcohol cause nearly half a million preventable U.S. deaths every year...

/bottoms up
//i'm out
 
2012-12-16 12:51:12 AM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Popcorn Johnny: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Bingo! People can look at the chart I provided and see it plainly, but most people here aren't interested in the truth.

That's bullshiat and you know it, almost all gun crimes are committed by drug dealers, criminals and pissed off spouses. A kid with autism snaps and kills 20 kids and suddenly the mentally ill are responsible for all of the gun deaths in the country.

Aww, pumpkin, you failed graphs. I'm sorry but you're completely misguided. Look, I provided links and a chart, if you want to try to disprove them, go ahead and try, but please let's not make bald assertions. The fact is, our crime has skyrocketed the moment we as a nation abandoned care for the mentally ill and turned them loose on the street. There's no denying that fact. Our problem is not rooted in guns, it is rooted in the fact that we do not care about the mentally ill until they do something horrible, which was not true in the 50's when our crime rates were lowest.


LOL the 50s...yeah when they didnt count it when you werent white and we had lost 2 generations of youth to two wars.

http://thepublicintellectual.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Homicides - 1900-2010-2.jpg

its lower today than it has ever been.

civil rights had more to do with it than anything.

and reagan abandoned the mentally ill in the 70s and into the 80s.

abortion and economy and social welfare had more to do with lower crime rates than gun ownership or gun control.
 
2012-12-16 12:51:50 AM

graggor: Most deaths by handguns in America are suicides. 2 of 3 actually.

Mental health is the biggest issue at hand.

Also the homicide rate in this country has been dropping steadily for the past 21 years.


Not just that, the rate of firearms homicides has been decreasing steadily since at least 1993 (from 6.6 per 100,000 population to 3.2 per 100,000 population), though the total number of households that actually own guns hasn't changed that much (i.e. the recent explosion in the number of owned guns is mostly existing gun owners buying more guns).
 
2012-12-16 12:52:08 AM

Dimensio: I have no idea what you are attempting to state.


it wasn't at you it was the f*cking dudes with tits and manjinas crying over the capacity of standard clips, as if it makes any f*cking difference
 
2012-12-16 12:52:08 AM

zarberg: Methadone Girls:
But Australia did it. They managed to get 1/5th of the guns out of public hands with the buy back campaign. But then we get the "herp derp, they'll just grab a knife/axe/bomb/plane".

Some guy in China yesterday proved a knife attack is a teensy bit less deadly than a gun attack.


Doesn't stop the dorks from arguing it though.
 
2012-12-16 12:53:15 AM

Popcorn Johnny: Dimensio: You are again engaging in the "poisoning the well" fallacy, rather than demonstrating your claims to be based in fact, rather than in speculation.

I'll tell you what, read the facts of the Jared Lee Loughner case and tell me what difference it might have made had he not had a 31 round magazine for his Glock?


Mr. Loughner may have been subdued after firing fewer shots. Alternatively, he may not have dropped a lighter and less cumbersome magazine, and he may not have been subdued as easily.

I am not necessarily opposed to limiting handgun magazine capacity, but five rounds is unreasonably low and I would prefer data showing that a limitation would demonstrably improve public safety. Studies regarding typical magazine size, when known, of firearms used in crimes and analysis of such bans already enacted at state levels may be useful for such an analysis.
 
2012-12-16 12:54:57 AM

Fart_Machine: Methadone Girls: Fart_Machine: Methadone Girls: Fart_Machine: Methadone Girls: 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.

Not exactly sure what we can do to prevent this again. Our nation is saturated with guns and unless we commit everyone diagnosed with a mental disorder there is always the possibility they might not take their medication.

But Australia did it. They managed to get 1/5th of the guns out of public hands with the buy back campaign. But then we get the "herp derp, they'll just grab a knife/axe/bomb/plane". "There's too many guns" "2nd amendment" "the crazies won't take their med's" "derpa do"

I'll be more shocked if anyone actually does something about it.

Because an island nation that has a population 15x less than ours is a good comparison?

so it will NEVER work for the states. whatever. Keep your guns. Don't pretended to be shocked the next time this happens when you sit back and do nothing.

/sigh

Emotions aren't a very good way to make an argument.


Whatever kiddo. Keep burying your kids.
 
2012-12-16 12:55:01 AM

Fart_Machine: While nobody wants certified mental patients from owning firearms, weren't the guns used by the perp in this case from the mother who wasn't mentally ill?


She also had no desire to lock up her weapons. Know what, I have no problem with the CCW questionnaire asking if someone with mental illness lives with you and rejecting you based on that unless you can provide proof that you have a gun safe. I think that's what a reasonable concession sounds like.
 
2012-12-16 12:55:02 AM

Dimensio: Mr. Loughner may have been subdued after firing fewer shots. Alternatively, he may not have dropped a lighter and less cumbersome magazine, and he may not have been subdued as easily.


He was tackled when he stopped to reload. I wonder who'd be alive today had that been after 6 rounds instead of 31? Hmmmmmmmmmmm
 
2012-12-16 12:55:07 AM

Giltric: Why are people afraid of offending some crazy autistic kid by labelling him batshiat insane yet people have no qualms about offending the people with guns by calling their personal defense weapons a scary term like assault rifle?



If your "personal defense weapon" of choice is a semiautomatic rifle, you're doing it wrong.
 
2012-12-16 12:55:50 AM

Fubini: graggor: Most deaths by handguns in America are suicides. 2 of 3 actually.

Mental health is the biggest issue at hand.

Also the homicide rate in this country has been dropping steadily for the past 21 years.

Not just that, the rate of firearms homicides has been decreasing steadily since at least 1993 (from 6.6 per 100,000 population to 3.2 per 100,000 population), though the total number of households that actually own guns hasn't changed that much (i.e. the recent explosion in the number of owned guns is mostly existing gun owners buying more guns).


Better economy, quality of life, less unwanted kids, war (world war II reduced the youth in the USA as did the Iraq and Afghanistan War so crime continued downward--its a small factor but its another one) better health assistance in this country etc...

We could see that number dwindle even further if we did more in mental health and education.

Also less and less people are religious nuts in America. Helps a lot. more and more atheists. less and less fanatical desire to die to get to heaven or send people to hell or heaven etc...
 
2012-12-16 12:57:32 AM
Methadone Girls

Well, if your argument is a large scale ban on an item where a small subset of that item causes thousands of needless deaths a year, why can't we draw a comparison between them? You suggest that since a miniscule percentage of total gun owners cause deaths and injuries every year, we should regulate and ban large percentage of said items to prevent that harm.

By that same token, there are millions of cars on the road, and I don't think you'd argue that in general, larger and more powerful cars pose a disproportionate amount of risk to drivers at large. It wouldn't stop all car accidents, but severely limiting size and power would greatly reduce the chance for said accidents and deaths to occur. So either you disagree with the comparison, or think that bans for increased safety should only apply for firearms but not vehicles. Dont have the numbers but I'm betting more or at comparable numbers people die by car than gun every year.

So which is it, and why?
 
2012-12-16 12:57:34 AM

Popcorn Johnny: Dimensio: You have still demonstrated no public safety benefit.

Sure I have, you just refuse to see it. A person who snaps and only has a 5 round magazine and a rifle is nowhere near the threat of a person with the same weapon and a 30 round magazine. But wait, in your scenarios, the dude with the 5 round clip is going to have an ammo vest on with 20 more magazines at the ready and will still be as much of a threat as the guy with the 30 round magazine and two spares in his back pockets, right?

Arguing with gun nuts is the same as arguing with religious people, pointless.


I believe that the Aurora shooter stopped because of a hi-cap jam. Loughner went through his first hi-cap mag and after reloading the second, it jammed. Aftermarket high capacity magazines are not reliable. The guns have tolerances and are expecting spring pressures that will allow the gun to reload itself. In some strange twist, it might be better they waste their money buying crap magazines and not spend the time learning how to change magazines.
 
2012-12-16 12:57:59 AM

Methadone Girls: Fart_Machine: Methadone Girls: Fart_Machine: Methadone Girls: Fart_Machine: Methadone Girls: 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.

Not exactly sure what we can do to prevent this again. Our nation is saturated with guns and unless we commit everyone diagnosed with a mental disorder there is always the possibility they might not take their medication.

But Australia did it. They managed to get 1/5th of the guns out of public hands with the buy back campaign. But then we get the "herp derp, they'll just grab a knife/axe/bomb/plane". "There's too many guns" "2nd amendment" "the crazies won't take their med's" "derpa do"

I'll be more shocked if anyone actually does something about it.

Because an island nation that has a population 15x less than ours is a good comparison?

so it will NEVER work for the states. whatever. Keep your guns. Don't pretended to be shocked the next time this happens when you sit back and do nothing.

/sigh

Emotions aren't a very good way to make an argument.

Whatever kiddo. Keep burying your kids.


child worship annoys me. bill hicks had a brilliant expose on this. your children arent special.
Link
 
2012-12-16 12:58:08 AM

Fubini: graggor: Most deaths by handguns in America are suicides. 2 of 3 actually.

Mental health is the biggest issue at hand.

Also the homicide rate in this country has been dropping steadily for the past 21 years.

Not just that, the rate of firearms homicides has been decreasing steadily since at least 1993 (from 6.6 per 100,000 population to 3.2 per 100,000 population), though the total number of households that actually own guns hasn't changed that much (i.e. the recent explosion in the number of owned guns is mostly existing gun owners buying more guns).


Of importance is that the total number of annual homicides has declined despite the total number of firearm-owning households not declining. A per-capita rate decrease of homicide could be explained by a reduced per-capita rate of firearm ownership but observing a reduction in total homicides without a corresponding reduction in the total number of firearm owners would undermine such a hypothesis. 50% of households reported possessing a firearm in 1973 while only 32% reported possessing a firearm in 2010 but 32% of households in 2010 is greater than 50% of households in 1973, so the total number increased slightly yet 5000 fewer total homicides were committed in 2010 than were committed in 1973.
 
2012-12-16 12:58:27 AM

Fart_Machine: Fubini: I could totally see a coalition of willing gun owners and control advocates coming together and pushing for stricter mental health testing for all gun purchases.

While nobody wants certified mental patients from owning firearms, weren't the guns used by the perp in this case from the mother who wasn't mentally ill?


Yes, but as my wall-o-text demonstrates above, the vast majority of gun crime is not spree killers. I don't think you'll ever be able to *stop* spree killers, to the point where legislation seems pointless. Case in point: the single most feared scenario by most law enforcement agencies isn't terrorism, it's a lone crazy guy that is on no-one's radar and just comes out of the woodwork and starts wreaking havoc.

Remember the gas-station snipers in the Washington area from a few years back? Anyone could go spend $500 on a weapon and ammo and essentially replicate that same thing. There are even a lot of people out there who are so far removed from friends and family that they couldn't even catch the warning signs if there were any.
 
Displayed 50 of 1049 comments

First | « | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »





Report