Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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.

(Huffington Post)   "We reached out to all 31 pro-gun rights senators in the new Congress to invite them on the program to share their views on the subject this morning," ... "We had no takers"   (huffingtonpost.com ) divider line
    More: Sad, congresses, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, Louie Gohmert, assault weapons, Michael Bloomberg, senate democrats, Mayor of New York City, Fox News Sunday  
•       •       •

4965 clicks; posted to Politics » on 16 Dec 2012 at 5:17 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



1000 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2012-12-17 01:10:01 AM  

iq_in_binary: Idiot. Learn to read.


Your proposal is classist. It will only serve to deprive the people most in need of a means of self-defense -- the poor -- from owning arms. And since to an overwhelming degree poor = black, it's racist as well, just like every other gun control law in this country's history.

While it has a bit of right-wing derp, The Racist Roots of Gun Control is a pretty good summary of the issue. Gun control as a plank of the Democratic party is largely a historical artifact from the Dixiecrat era, one that remained with the party after the Dixiecrats switched sides in the civil rights era.
 
2012-12-17 01:11:24 AM  

Mentat: Mentat: Rockstone: How many mass shootings has there been in the past 20 years? Not too many, maybe 10 or 15 or so. Assuming each killed 30 (which is way, way too high), that's only 450 deaths from mass shootings. Guns are designed to kill, yes, but they're also for recreation.

62 in the last 30 years, including 7 this year.

And 50 in the last 20.


Okay, fair enough. But most only killed around 5 people.
Lets average it out and go higher, maybe 10.
So, 500 people have died from a mass shooting in the last 20 years.
Your point?
 
2012-12-17 01:11:41 AM  

Rockstone: Again, considering that the chances of this happening to you are almost 0, you don't have to live in that fear.


I don't live in fear because I don't accept that we have to sacrifice 20 kindergartners in order to secure our freedoms. You do believe that. And that's not freedom.
 
2012-12-17 01:13:03 AM  

Rockstone: Mentat: Mentat: Rockstone: How many mass shootings has there been in the past 20 years? Not too many, maybe 10 or 15 or so. Assuming each killed 30 (which is way, way too high), that's only 450 deaths from mass shootings. Guns are designed to kill, yes, but they're also for recreation.

62 in the last 30 years, including 7 this year.

And 50 in the last 20.

Okay, fair enough. But most only killed around 5 people.
Lets average it out and go higher, maybe 10.
So, 500 people have died from a mass shooting in the last 20 years.
Your point?


My point is that you think 500 dead civilians is a fair price to pay for freedom. I don't.
 
2012-12-17 01:13:56 AM  

chumboobler: dustman81: chumboobler: dustman81: chumboobler: "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."

It says so! Therefore every American citizen that is not a felon should be issued with a muzzle loaded musket, some ball rounds an a pound of black powder. There are the "arms" that were intended in the Constitution. Not fully/semi automatic rifles and handguns with large magazines.

The United States Supreme Court, the court that decides issues of constitutionality, disagrees with you. See District of Columbia v Heller which protects the individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes in federal enclaves and McDonald v City of Chicago which, through the 14th Amendment, extends the right of the individual to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes to the states as well.

I am familiar with the Heller case and you are overlooking some things that were rendered in judgement that can be reviewed. Specifically what constitutes a militia. The court declined to make that definition. This means that while Heller could walk free, the definition of a militia was up for debate. They have not made that debate yet but may now, in light of the events that are coming more and more often. They also said that "reasonable restriction" is on the table. It was hardly the slam dunk victory the NRA claims. It opened the door to further investigation.

" They also noted that though the right to bear arms also helped preserve the citizen militia, "the activities [the Amendment] protects are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or intermittent enrollment in the militia." The court determined that handguns are "Arms" and concluded that thus they may not be banned by the District of Columbia; however, they said that Second Amendment rights are subject to reasonable restricti ...


Why don't we apply your logic to the entire Constitution and all laws that have been enacted. The Federal government would be frozen to 1787. The year Constitution was passed. Nothing invented after that would fall under its jurisdiction since it is frozen to technology of that year or earlier. That makes absolutely no farking sense, what-so-ever. Or are you suggesting that out of the entire Constitution, this one part is the only part that is limited to 1787? That is the most idiotic, twisted, non-logic imaginable.
 
2012-12-17 01:14:41 AM  

iq_in_binary: Yeah well I'm stubborn, I haven't heard from you yet, read my proposal. Tell me what you think. I want this thing ironed out and being flooded into the inboxes of every farker with a brain's representatives before the new news cycle starts.


I'm assuming it's the NFA adjustment?

It's a good start. I like the caliber threshold especially--keep the ammo power down to what doctors and trauma centers can successfully treat. I'm not sure about having BATFE be your mental health evaluating agent; it might be better to use your discretionary tax funds to either create a sub-agency within the ATF that would be tasked with being their mental health responders, or assign the duty to an existing arm of the NIH that deals with mental health. (Bearing in mind that either way, the militias are going to resist)

I'd recommend either a tie in or a provision which will allow later tie ins to allow the NFA to later be tied to related laws, such as domestic violence laws, gang laws, etc.; since a vast proportion of gun crimes stem from domestic violence and similar crimes. For instance, if an individual is flagged in a restraining order, he should be immediately flagged through your system (since the funding will now be there) to have his weapons removed for the duration of the TRO.

I definitely like the streamlining concept and making registering and tracking guns and ammo similar to vehicles. Since Americans have a hardon for their guns like they do for their cars, we might as well treat them that way.
 
2012-12-17 01:15:05 AM  

Peter von Nostrand: I'm just glad this thread is civil, with minimal name calling and challenges to gunfights


Aw, come on, it ain't a Fark thread until someone challenges you to a gun fight.
 
2012-12-17 01:15:22 AM  

chuckufarlie: The_Sponge: chuckufarlie: vygramul: chuckufarlie: vygramul: chuckufarlie: coeyagi: chuckufarlie: vygramul: Flying Lasagna Monster: If the assault weapons ban were allowed to still be in force, those 20 innocent children would still be alive. Hope you're all proud of yourselves, gun nuts.

That's completely false.

no, that is pretty much provable.

It's neither provable nor disprovable. I am not going to go into a long explanation as to why, anyone of any political persuasion can come up with reasons why.

of course it is provable, give him two pistols or a bolt action rifle and the number of dead would be much lower.

I'm not making any assertion about whether different weapons would have yoelded different results. But the same weapon was available.

got a citation for that?

Just follow the above link to wikipedia. You could still get the AR-15 only it had to come with a 10 round mag.

and that is 20 rounds less than what he had. That is a lot of switching out of magazines. True, not a lengthy process but ever second counts when a mad man is after you.

You do realize that pre ban magazines were available for legal sale during the ban, right?

Oh wait you don't....because gun grabbers do not have a sense of reality.

I have a great sense of reality. I have the good sense to realize that any semi-automatic or automatic rifle is not needed for hunting purposes. I have the good sense to realize that if you miss on the first shot, the target animal is going to be moving too fast for that second shot to do you any good. Unless, of course, you empty an entire magazine at the fleeing animal. Of course, that also means that you really have no business hunting if you do that. I have the sense to realize that there is no use for a semi-automatic or automatic rifle except to kill people.

I go deer hunting twice a year, once with a musket and once with a bow. That requires that I actually have to stalk the animal, not sit in a tree and shoot at an animal standing ...


Give me one logical reason why a person would need a high speed printing press or the internet to exercise their 1st amendment rights. The hand operated printing press was good enough for our Founding Fathers, it should be good enough for you.
 
2012-12-17 01:15:32 AM  

Farker Soze: vygramul: On a related issue, yeah - the .223 has a problem with "stopping power". Right.

It depends on barrel length and range. Up close a carbine or rifle are equally effective, but at combat ranges soldiers have been complaining about their 14.5" M4's stopping power. The original M16 was designed around a 20" barrel.


Data is not the plural of anecdote. No study I'm aware of has been able to corroborate the perception that "stopping power" has been a problem.

/Worked for the Department of the Navy as an analyst
//That includes the Marines
 
2012-12-17 01:15:44 AM  

Rockstone: Tea_tempest_Cup: clyph: Tea_tempest_Cup: No amount of gays getting married or abortions that occur will increase my odds of getting murdered.

And neither do your chances of getting murdered increase if your neighbors own guns.

Do you believe that, I don't. Neither does this:

My odds of getting murdered in the USA where more of my neighbors would own guns: 4.2 per 100,000

My odds of getting murdered in Canada, where less of my neighbours would own guns: 1.6 per 100,000

How many guns does Canada have vs how many guns does the USA have? How many guns did Canada have when they enacted legislation against ownership?


There are far less guns in Canada when compared to how many there are in the USA.

There are literally hundreds of millions of guns in the US. Plus an entitlement complex towards gun ownership.

That ship is huge and has a lot of momentum. It's going to be hard to turn it around.
 
2012-12-17 01:16:55 AM  

vygramul: Peter von Nostrand: I didn't say the CDC was random shiat, the bath tub/pool line is. You can take anything in there, twist it around and pretend it means something but it doesn't. No one takes a bath tub somewhere to kill people. Bath tubs are not designed for that purpose. Pretending accidents are the same to intentional acts is not a solid debate position. However, I'm sure you've won over many people with insults

I'm not sure what the point of the bathtub argument is. The pool argument is supposed to provide perspective. The fact is, that if your neighbor has a gun and a pool, the pool is more likely to kill your child. That's absolutely true. The problem is that it's trying to give some perspective of the dangers of a given gun. Your neighbor has a gun and a pool, and all your other neighbors have guns, then the pool is not necessarily the most likely thing to kill your child anymore.

Ultimately, though, Obama's speech was right. He didn't say what he thought the solution is. He may not have made up his mind. After all, he may have already calculated the odds of a ban surviving a Supreme Court challenge with the current makeup and is looking for another solution.

The argument that people should go around armed does not seem to me to be reasonable. People simply don't work that way. None of the gun owners I know routinely carry, and that includes the class-3 guy with the full-auto guns. In fact, I'd put money on a substantial number of Fox News pundits who say that the teachers should have been armed do not, themselves, carry at all, or even keep a gun in their car. So if society simply won't do that, society may make the decision that a ban is the only alternative left to it.

Two things concern me: 1) the second amendment only appears vulnerable to people who do not understand its intent, the point behind the Bill of Rights, and the militia as the Founders understood it. This isn't rambling gun-nuttery, one just has to look at statements made b ...


I don't agree with your interpretation of 2A. I don't think all guns should be banned but I don't doubt for one minute that reasonable restrictions can and should be enacted. What exactly are they, well, it would be nice to have a reasoned debate (which won't happen). There is not good answer and a part of me is certainly in the "fark it, the genie is out of the bottle" crowd that feels as though nothing can be done
 
2012-12-17 01:17:36 AM  

GhostFish: Freedom is inherently dangerous. You don't have to live in fear of that fact, but if you don't accept it then you head down the path towards authoritarianism.

We can not stop murder and atrocity completely. We can reduce its frequency, but we have to be careful in choosing our angle of attack. If we try to reduce the our vulnerability to it rather than the motivation for it then we will necessarily sacrifice freedom and responsibility.


There's a big difference between an acceptable degree of risk and simply surrendering. Over and over again the argument from the right is "We can't find a perfect solution so we shouldn't seek any solution at all." I reject that. Maybe the answer is improved access to mental health care. Maybe it's a new War on Poverty. Maybe it's rethinking the War on Drugs. Maybe it's gun control. Whatever it is, we need to have a national conversation to try and find acceptable solutions to reduce the risk of these types of events happening. If we simply brush this under the rug like we have every other mass shooting, then we are simply surrendering and that's not freedom.
 
2012-12-17 01:18:13 AM  

Azlefty: jbc: Folks who go through life feeling they NEED to have guns 24/7 are cowards? Who would have guessed?

Took more guts to say no rather than use the kids bodies as a platform to advance you ready made agenda. Also did you know Senator Fienstien has a Coveted California CCW? Showing SHE is the one needing a gun 24/7 even with the taxpayer protection She recieves


She was in the building when Harvey Milk was shot. Maybe she has PTSD?
 
2012-12-17 01:18:36 AM  

Mentat: Rockstone: Mentat: Mentat: Rockstone: How many mass shootings has there been in the past 20 years? Not too many, maybe 10 or 15 or so. Assuming each killed 30 (which is way, way too high), that's only 450 deaths from mass shootings. Guns are designed to kill, yes, but they're also for recreation.

62 in the last 30 years, including 7 this year.

And 50 in the last 20.

Okay, fair enough. But most only killed around 5 people.
Lets average it out and go higher, maybe 10.
So, 500 people have died from a mass shooting in the last 20 years.
Your point?

My point is that you think 500 dead civilians is a fair price to pay for freedom. I don't.


The price of not having that freedom is much higher.

www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org
 
2012-12-17 01:19:35 AM  

Tea_tempest_Cup: Rockstone: Tea_tempest_Cup: clyph: Tea_tempest_Cup: No amount of gays getting married or abortions that occur will increase my odds of getting murdered.

And neither do your chances of getting murdered increase if your neighbors own guns.

Do you believe that, I don't. Neither does this:

My odds of getting murdered in the USA where more of my neighbors would own guns: 4.2 per 100,000

My odds of getting murdered in Canada, where less of my neighbours would own guns: 1.6 per 100,000

How many guns does Canada have vs how many guns does the USA have? How many guns did Canada have when they enacted legislation against ownership? 

There are far less guns in Canada when compared to how many there are in the USA.

There are literally hundreds of millions of guns in the US. Plus an entitlement complex towards gun ownership.

That ship is huge and has a lot of momentum. It's going to be hard to turn it around.


I bet people in the 50's would have said the exact same thing about smoking
 
2012-12-17 01:20:06 AM  

Mentat: Rockstone: Mentat: Mentat: Rockstone: How many mass shootings has there been in the past 20 years? Not too many, maybe 10 or 15 or so. Assuming each killed 30 (which is way, way too high), that's only 450 deaths from mass shootings. Guns are designed to kill, yes, but they're also for recreation.

62 in the last 30 years, including 7 this year.

And 50 in the last 20.

Okay, fair enough. But most only killed around 5 people.
Lets average it out and go higher, maybe 10.
So, 500 people have died from a mass shooting in the last 20 years.
Your point?

My point is that you think 500 dead civilians is a fair price to pay for freedom. I don't.


You probably must of also supported the patriot act with open arms then, considering 9/11 caused the deaths of 2800 citizens..
 
2012-12-17 01:20:45 AM  

OgreMagi: The price of not having that freedom is much higher.


Really? You're going there?
 
2012-12-17 01:21:37 AM  

Peter von Nostrand: I bet people in the 50's would have said the exact same thing about smoking


Yet the end of smoking was not caused by the legislature, but rather by the people themselves.
 
2012-12-17 01:23:21 AM  

Rockstone: You probably must of also supported the patriot act with open arms then, considering 9/11 caused the deaths of 2800 citizens..


That's an interesting logical leap. But let's apply your logic to 9/11.

"There will always be terrorists and we can never stop terrorist attacks so we should just accept that 3000 dead Americans every few years is the price we pay for our freedom."

Once again, that's not freedom.
 
2012-12-17 01:23:34 AM  

Peter von Nostrand: I don't agree with your interpretation of 2A. I don't think all guns should be banned but I don't doubt for one minute that reasonable restrictions can and should be enacted. What exactly are they, well, it would be nice to have a reasoned debate (which won't happen). There is not good answer and a part of me is certainly in the "fark it, the genie is out of the bottle" crowd that feels as though nothing can be done


And perhaps it is reasonable people, like yourself, who are willing to sit in a room and come to a solution that our children depend on. Because we need to do something, and we can't let the shouting of highly emotional people to keep us from talking it out. Surely some of us can come upon a solution that the rest of us can understand and conclude is the best solution. There have to be enough of us to get this done. Someone somewhere has something that is both rational and pragmatic. No offense to people in this thread, but I haven't seen that solution yet, or I haven't understood it.
 
2012-12-17 01:24:18 AM  

Tea_tempest_Cup: My odds of getting murdered in the USA where more of my neighbors would own guns: 4.2 per 100,000

My odds of getting m5urdered in Canada, where less of my neighbours would own guns: 1.6 per 100,000


How many inner city gang members does Canada have vs the US?

Best estimates are that between 60% and 80% of all murders and attempted murders in the US are gang-related or committed by a criminal associate. Do the math and the murder rate for non-gangbangers and non-criminals is about the same as the murder rate in Canada or Europe.

Don't want to get murdered? Don't associate with criminals.
 
2012-12-17 01:25:48 AM  

Mentat: OgreMagi: The price of not having that freedom is much higher.

Really? You're going there?


It's definitional. You have to, or the "guns are there to prevent tyranny" argument would have to be abandoned. At 30,000 gun deaths a year, you'd have to have a Hitler in the US every 400 years or so to match the death camp totals. I'm not confident the frequency is that high.
 
2012-12-17 01:28:20 AM  

Rockstone: Peter von Nostrand: I bet people in the 50's would have said the exact same thing about smoking

Yet the end of smoking was not caused by the legislature, but rather by the people themselves.


Maybe so but it certainly didn't hurt that people within government were telling them that smoking kills

Also, whatever number you've attributed to quantifying a mass shooting is a bit low. There's no way on earth only 500 people in the US have been affected by mass shootings
 
2012-12-17 01:28:36 AM  

Mentat: I don't live in fear because I don't accept that we have to sacrifice 20 kindergartners in order to secure our freedoms


Would it make you feel better if he had set off a pipe bomb in the classroom instead, or started throwing Molotov cocktails, or driven a truck full of ANFO into the building? No evil guns needed to rack up an ghastly body count.

People who are determined to kill will find a way to do so.
 
2012-12-17 01:28:37 AM  

Mentat: Rockstone: You probably must of also supported the patriot act with open arms then, considering 9/11 caused the deaths of 2800 citizens..

That's an interesting logical leap. But let's apply your logic to 9/11.

"There will always be terrorists and we can never stop terrorist attacks so we should just accept that 3000 dead Americans every few years is the price we pay for our freedom."

Once again, that's not freedom.


Yes it is. Part of the price to pay in a free society is crazy people will do crazy stuff. You can't be protected from every conceivable threat AND be free.
 
2012-12-17 01:30:49 AM  

Rockstone: Yes it is. Part of the price to pay in a free society is crazy people will do crazy stuff. You can't be protected from every conceivable threat AND be free.


THIS.
 
2012-12-17 01:31:17 AM  

Peter von Nostrand: Rockstone: Peter von Nostrand: I bet people in the 50's would have said the exact same thing about smoking

Yet the end of smoking was not caused by the legislature, but rather by the people themselves.

Maybe so but it certainly didn't hurt that people within government were telling them that smoking kills

Also, whatever number you've attributed to quantifying a mass shooting is a bit low. There's no way on earth only 500 people in the US have been affected by mass shootings


Maybe 500 people since 1900 in mass shootings by rifles.
 
2012-12-17 01:32:36 AM  

vygramul: Peter von Nostrand: Rockstone: Peter von Nostrand: I bet people in the 50's would have said the exact same thing about smoking

Yet the end of smoking was not caused by the legislature, but rather by the people themselves.

Maybe so but it certainly didn't hurt that people within government were telling them that smoking kills

Also, whatever number you've attributed to quantifying a mass shooting is a bit low. There's no way on earth only 500 people in the US have been affected by mass shootings

Maybe 500 people since 1900 in mass shootings by rifles.


If you assume a mass shooting is 4 or more people, then my number is right, more or less.
 
2012-12-17 01:34:29 AM  

clyph: Tea_tempest_Cup: My odds of getting murdered in the USA where more of my neighbors would own guns: 4.2 per 100,000

My odds of getting m5urdered in Canada, where less of my neighbours would own guns: 1.6 per 100,000

How many inner city gang members does Canada have vs the US?

Best estimates are that between 60% and 80% of all murders and attempted murders in the US are gang-related or committed by a criminal associate. Do the math and the murder rate for non-gangbangers and non-criminals is about the same as the murder rate in Canada or Europe.

Don't want to get murdered? Don't associate with criminals.


I don't buy this argument line either. The US is not the only country with disaffected youth. The US is not the only country that has people with mental health issues. But the US is one of the only countries that has these issues, along with readily available and loosely controlled guns (in what most would consider the first world). And this probably doesn't account for all the accidental deaths and shootings. It simply can't be denied. The US has a major gun problem, those that continue to deny it are only living in denial
 
2012-12-17 01:35:17 AM  
Why on earth would they? They'll be using factual discussion against emotional appeal just days after a tragic event.
 
2012-12-17 01:40:58 AM  

Peter von Nostrand: I don't buy this argument line either.


Of course you don't. You've repeatedly demonstrated that your ideological position is impervious to any and all factual input.

I'm sorry that the facts don't agree with your ideology. Go get some tips from the creationists on how to stubbornly stick to your beliefs and isolate yourself in a totally fact-free echo chamber.
 
2012-12-17 01:41:21 AM  

clyph: Tea_tempest_Cup: My odds of getting murdered in the USA where more of my neighbors would own guns: 4.2 per 100,000

My odds of getting m5urdered in Canada, where less of my neighbours would own guns: 1.6 per 100,000

How many inner city gang members does Canada have vs the US?

Best estimates are that between 60% and 80% of all murders and attempted murders in the US are gang-related or committed by a criminal associate. Do the math and the murder rate for non-gangbangers and non-criminals is about the same as the murder rate in Canada or Europe.

Don't want to get murdered? Don't associate with criminals.


Sure. Gangbangers are going to murder their enemies. I'm not disputing that. Every city in Canada has gangs and they would all like to believe that they're as hard as their American kin.

I'm not concerned about getting murdered by gangbangers. I'm not a gang member. I don't particularly care about gang members either. That's because I'm a boring white collar worker. I am concerned that non-criminals are getting shot by crazy people with weapons that seem to be readily available to anyone.
 
2012-12-17 01:42:32 AM  

OgreMagi: Mentat: Rockstone: Mentat: Mentat: Rockstone: How many mass shootings has there been in the past 20 years? Not too many, maybe 10 or 15 or so. Assuming each killed 30 (which is way, way too high), that's only 450 deaths from mass shootings. Guns are designed to kill, yes, but they're also for recreation.

62 in the last 30 years, including 7 this year.

And 50 in the last 20.

Okay, fair enough. But most only killed around 5 people.
Lets average it out and go higher, maybe 10.
So, 500 people have died from a mass shooting in the last 20 years.
Your point?

My point is that you think 500 dead civilians is a fair price to pay for freedom. I don't.

The price of not having that freedom is much higher.

[www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org image 480x310]


Oh hi. Did someone call me?

upload.wikimedia.org

 
2012-12-17 01:43:27 AM  

Rockstone: vygramul: Peter von Nostrand: Rockstone: Peter von Nostrand: I bet people in the 50's would have said the exact same thing about smoking

Yet the end of smoking was not caused by the legislature, but rather by the people themselves.

Maybe so but it certainly didn't hurt that people within government were telling them that smoking kills

Also, whatever number you've attributed to quantifying a mass shooting is a bit low. There's no way on earth only 500 people in the US have been affected by mass shootings

Maybe 500 people since 1900 in mass shootings by rifles.

If you assume a mass shooting is 4 or more people, then my number is right, more or less.


I guess I should throw out that I'm being a bit pedantic. I interpret "affected" to mean more than just the people actually, you know, killed in the act. Family, friends, etc.

clyph: Rockstone: Yes it is. Part of the price to pay in a free society is crazy people will do crazy stuff. You can't be protected from every conceivable threat AND be free.

THIS.


If only people got this worked up about the Patriot Act. Most of the hardcore gun people I know are serious right wingers who shouted down anyone that questioned the passage of the PA. If I had a dime for every time I heard "if you haven't done anything wrong you have nothing to worry about"

The only absolute right to a lot of people is gun ownership. Pretty sad in my opinion
 
2012-12-17 01:45:45 AM  

Peter von Nostrand: If only people got this worked up about the Patriot Act. Most of the hardcore gun people I know are serious right wingers who shouted down anyone that questioned the passage of the PA. If I had a dime for every time I heard "if you haven't done anything wrong you have nothing to worry about"


I've repeatedly been trying to draw parallels to this and the patriot act. But the people clamoring for gun control are the same group of people who opposed the patriot act.
I do wish people got mad over the patriot act. For some reason, people just DONT have the same reaction. It's a weird world. You would expect someone who thinks the government can protect us would be anti-gun, and you'd expect someone who thinks the government is evil would be pro-gun. But they're not.
 
2012-12-17 01:45:52 AM  

Rockstone: vygramul: Peter von Nostrand: Rockstone: Peter von Nostrand: I bet people in the 50's would have said the exact same thing about smoking

Yet the end of smoking was not caused by the legislature, but rather by the people themselves.

Maybe so but it certainly didn't hurt that people within government were telling them that smoking kills

Also, whatever number you've attributed to quantifying a mass shooting is a bit low. There's no way on earth only 500 people in the US have been affected by mass shootings

Maybe 500 people since 1900 in mass shootings by rifles.

If you assume a mass shooting is 4 or more people, then my number is right, more or less.


You're pretty close, according to this.
 
2012-12-17 01:47:42 AM  

vygramul: Rockstone: vygramul: Peter von Nostrand: Rockstone: Peter von Nostrand: I bet people in the 50's would have said the exact same thing about smoking

Yet the end of smoking was not caused by the legislature, but rather by the people themselves.

Maybe so but it certainly didn't hurt that people within government were telling them that smoking kills

Also, whatever number you've attributed to quantifying a mass shooting is a bit low. There's no way on earth only 500 people in the US have been affected by mass shootings

Maybe 500 people since 1900 in mass shootings by rifles.

If you assume a mass shooting is 4 or more people, then my number is right, more or less.

You're pretty close, according to this.


Thank you. I might not be good at math, but apparently I got this right.
 
2012-12-17 01:54:12 AM  

GhostFish: vygramul: Peter von Nostrand: I don't agree with your interpretation of 2A. I don't think all guns should be banned but I don't doubt for one minute that reasonable restrictions can and should be enacted. What exactly are they, well, it would be nice to have a reasoned debate (which won't happen). There is not good answer and a part of me is certainly in the "fark it, the genie is out of the bottle" crowd that feels as though nothing can be done

And perhaps it is reasonable people, like yourself, who are willing to sit in a room and come to a solution that our children depend on. Because we need to do something, and we can't let the shouting of highly emotional people to keep us from talking it out. Surely some of us can come upon a solution that the rest of us can understand and conclude is the best solution. There have to be enough of us to get this done. Someone somewhere has something that is both rational and pragmatic. No offense to people in this thread, but I haven't seen that solution yet, or I haven't understood it.

The most common thread among recent shootings is mental health issues.
Sane and emotionally stable people generally don't go on shooting sprees.

Lots and lots and lots of people have guns. Lots.
The overwhelming vast majority of them have demonstrated no reasonable threat.

People in general aren't the problem.
Guns in general aren't the problem.

Mentally ill and emotionally unstable people with access to guns would seem to be the issue.

How about we start by addressing our nations horrible approach and attitude towards mental health?


I'd agree with that. We had an issue with abuse in our mental health institutions, now it it TOO hard to commit somone who is obviously a threat. These mass murderers were known to be dangerous - Virginia Tech, Arizona, and now Sandy Hook were all done by crazy people who were pretty obviously dangerously insane to even casual observers. Its not just mass murders, but cops have to deal with dangerous crazies all the time - and then get blamed for having to shoot someone who was "just mentally ill".
 
2012-12-17 01:54:39 AM  

OgreMagi: Mentat: Rockstone: Mentat: Mentat: Rockstone: How many mass shootings has there been in the past 20 years? Not too many, maybe 10 or 15 or so. Assuming each killed 30 (which is way, way too high), that's only 450 deaths from mass shootings. Guns are designed to kill, yes, but they're also for recreation.

62 in the last 30 years, including 7 this year.

And 50 in the last 20.

Okay, fair enough. But most only killed around 5 people.
Lets average it out and go higher, maybe 10.
So, 500 people have died from a mass shooting in the last 20 years.
Your point?

My point is that you think 500 dead civilians is a fair price to pay for freedom. I don't.

The price of not having that freedom is much higher.

[www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org image 480x310]


And we've gone full Godwin retard. This thread sucks.
 
2012-12-17 01:56:45 AM  

Peter von Nostrand: Rockstone: vygramul: Peter von Nostrand: Rockstone: Peter von Nostrand: I bet people in the 50's would have said the exact same thing about smoking

Yet the end of smoking was not caused by the legislature, but rather by the people themselves.

Maybe so but it certainly didn't hurt that people within government were telling them that smoking kills

Also, whatever number you've attributed to quantifying a mass shooting is a bit low. There's no way on earth only 500 people in the US have been affected by mass shootings

Maybe 500 people since 1900 in mass shootings by rifles.

If you assume a mass shooting is 4 or more people, then my number is right, more or less.

I guess I should throw out that I'm being a bit pedantic. I interpret "affected" to mean more than just the people actually, you know, killed in the act. Family, friends, etc.

clyph: Rockstone: Yes it is. Part of the price to pay in a free society is crazy people will do crazy stuff. You can't be protected from every conceivable threat AND be free.

THIS.

If only people got this worked up about the Patriot Act. Most of the hardcore gun people I know are serious right wingers who shouted down anyone that questioned the passage of the PA. If I had a dime for every time I heard "if you haven't done anything wrong you have nothing to worry about"

The only absolute right to a lot of people is gun ownership. Pretty sad in my opinion


Nonsense. Parts of the Patriot Act were pretty unpopular with Conservatives.
 
2012-12-17 01:58:21 AM  

LargeCanine: Peter von Nostrand: Rockstone: vygramul: Peter von Nostrand: Rockstone: Peter von Nostrand: I bet people in the 50's would have said the exact same thing about smoking

Yet the end of smoking was not caused by the legislature, but rather by the people themselves.

Maybe so but it certainly didn't hurt that people within government were telling them that smoking kills

Also, whatever number you've attributed to quantifying a mass shooting is a bit low. There's no way on earth only 500 people in the US have been affected by mass shootings

Maybe 500 people since 1900 in mass shootings by rifles.

If you assume a mass shooting is 4 or more people, then my number is right, more or less.

I guess I should throw out that I'm being a bit pedantic. I interpret "affected" to mean more than just the people actually, you know, killed in the act. Family, friends, etc.

clyph: Rockstone: Yes it is. Part of the price to pay in a free society is crazy people will do crazy stuff. You can't be protected from every conceivable threat AND be free.

THIS.

If only people got this worked up about the Patriot Act. Most of the hardcore gun people I know are serious right wingers who shouted down anyone that questioned the passage of the PA. If I had a dime for every time I heard "if you haven't done anything wrong you have nothing to worry about"

The only absolute right to a lot of people is gun ownership. Pretty sad in my opinion

Nonsense. Parts of the Patriot Act were pretty unpopular with Conservatives.


Not in Texas

clyph: Peter von Nostrand: I don't buy this argument line either.

Of course you don't. You've repeatedly demonstrated that your ideological position is impervious to any and all factual input.

I'm sorry that the facts don't agree with your ideology. Go get some tips from the creationists on how to stubbornly stick to your beliefs and isolate yourself in a totally fact-free echo chamber.


When what you are citing as fact includes wording such as "best estimates", you're not really dealing with facts. Keep pretending you think you know what my position is
 
2012-12-17 02:02:39 AM  

Rockstone: Peter von Nostrand: If only people got this worked up about the Patriot Act. Most of the hardcore gun people I know are serious right wingers who shouted down anyone that questioned the passage of the PA. If I had a dime for every time I heard "if you haven't done anything wrong you have nothing to worry about"

I've repeatedly been trying to draw parallels to this and the patriot act. But the people clamoring for gun control are the same group of people who opposed the patriot act.
I do wish people got mad over the patriot act. For some reason, people just DONT have the same reaction. It's a weird world. You would expect someone who thinks the government can protect us would be anti-gun, and you'd expect someone who thinks the government is evil would be pro-gun. But they're not.


I used to not be fairly hands off in regards to gun control but I guess I everyone reaches a point where enough is enough and something needs to change. We can't keep putting our head in the sand and pretending that gun violence is the same as an accident involving a swimming pool or bath tub
 
2012-12-17 02:07:17 AM  

Peter von Nostrand: Rockstone: Peter von Nostrand: If only people got this worked up about the Patriot Act. Most of the hardcore gun people I know are serious right wingers who shouted down anyone that questioned the passage of the PA. If I had a dime for every time I heard "if you haven't done anything wrong you have nothing to worry about"

I've repeatedly been trying to draw parallels to this and the patriot act. But the people clamoring for gun control are the same group of people who opposed the patriot act.
I do wish people got mad over the patriot act. For some reason, people just DONT have the same reaction. It's a weird world. You would expect someone who thinks the government can protect us would be anti-gun, and you'd expect someone who thinks the government is evil would be pro-gun. But they're not.

I used to not be fairly hands off in regards to gun control but I guess I everyone reaches a point where enough is enough and something needs to change. We can't keep putting our head in the sand and pretending that gun violence is the same as an accident involving a swimming pool or bath tub


We're going in circles now but.. it IS. They're both equally preventable, only one occurs with much more frequency. Which one should we target more, then?
 
2012-12-17 02:14:37 AM  

Tea_tempest_Cup: I am concerned that non-criminals are getting shot by crazy people with weapons that seem to be readily available to anyone.


In other words, "ZOMG scary guns!!! Make them go away, daddy".

The problem is entirely YOUR perception of the facts and your insistence on blaming an inanimate object for human behavior.

Let's see: according to this source, there were 16 mass shootings, with a total of 84 victims (not counting the shooters).

84 innocent people dead in a year. Sounds like a lot. But compared to lots of other things, it's inconsequential.

Stuck by lightning: 50/year. Less, but not by much. "Struck by lighting" is practically synonymous with "unlikely". The odds are literally about the same as getting struck by lighting. Think about that for a while.

Drowning in the bathtub: 341/year. 4 times more likely.

Inhalation of gastric contents: 382/year. You're 4.5 times as likely to choke to death on your own puke as you are to get killed in a mass shooting.

Tripping and falling on level ground: 565/year. 6.7 times more likely.

Accidential poisoning: 12,757. That's 152 times more likely.

Motor vehicle accident: 46,749. That's 557 times more likely. The thing that's most likely to kill you is probably the thing you are LEAST concerned about.

Bottom line: people suck at risk assessment, and the news media isn't doing anything to help.

Yes, it is a tragedy, but YOU ARE MAKING A MOUNTAIN OUT OF A MOLEHILL.
 
2012-12-17 02:17:45 AM  

Peter von Nostrand: When what you are citing as fact includes wording such as "best estimates"


Google it yourself, idiot. Try FBI and CDC for starters.

Putting you on ignore, because you are impervious to facts and unwilling to look anything up yourself.
 
2012-12-17 02:20:52 AM  

clyph: Tea_tempest_Cup: I am concerned that non-criminals are getting shot by crazy people with weapons that seem to be readily available to anyone.

In other words, "ZOMG scary guns!!! Make them go away, daddy".

The problem is entirely YOUR perception of the facts and your insistence on blaming an inanimate object for human behavior.

Let's see: according to this source, there were 16 mass shootings, with a total of 84 victims (not counting the shooters).

84 innocent people dead in a year. Sounds like a lot. But compared to lots of other things, it's inconsequential.

Stuck by lightning: 50/year. Less, but not by much. "Struck by lighting" is practically synonymous with "unlikely". The odds are literally about the same as getting struck by lighting. Think about that for a while.

Drowning in the bathtub: 341/year. 4 times more likely.

Inhalation of gastric contents: 382/year. You're 4.5 times as likely to choke to death on your own puke as you are to get killed in a mass shooting.

Tripping and falling on level ground: 565/year. 6.7 times more likely.

Accidential poisoning: 12,757. That's 152 times more likely.

Motor vehicle accident: 46,749. That's 557 times more likely. The thing that's most likely to kill you is probably the thing you are LEAST concerned about.

Bottom line: people suck at risk assessment, and the news media isn't doing anything to help.

Yes, it is a tragedy, but YOU ARE MAKING A MOUNTAIN OUT OF A MOLEHILL.


Also, in 2009, there were 2.5 million deaths in the United States http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm
Homicide is not even listed as a leading cause.
Assuming the number of deaths this year is about the same (which it is), you're looking at a ratio of 1:29760
 
2012-12-17 02:21:35 AM  

clyph: justtray: You want to keep the status quo for entirely selfish reasons, and I find that horribly disgusting.

And you want to take a shiat on the constitution for entirely selfish and non-sensical (not to mention statistically incorrect) reasons.

Gun control is demonstrably not effective in preventing crime, for the simple reason that CRIMINALS DON'T OBEY THE LAW. The most violent cities are uniformly the ones with the most strict gun control laws.

Drugs are illegal, yet they are incredibly easy to buy. What makes you think that gun running is any more difficult than drug running, or that banning them would be any more effective than banning drugs? It wouldn't.

If you want to address gun crime, go after the gangs. Legalizing drugs would be a good start as it would help deprive them of both the means and the motive for killing each other. A national make-work jobs program like the old Civilian Conservation Corps wouldn't be a bad idea either.

As for tragedies like this, the solution is crazy person control, not gun control. What's the common element between this shooting, the VT shooting, the Columbine shooting, and the Aurora shooting? A CRAZY PERSON who had shown clear warning signs, and an escalating pattern of erratic behavior that was ignored by their friends and family members.


If you run for office I'd vote for ya : )
 
2012-12-17 02:22:39 AM  

tinfoil-hat maggie: clyph: justtray: You want to keep the status quo for entirely selfish reasons, and I find that horribly disgusting.

And you want to take a shiat on the constitution for entirely selfish and non-sensical (not to mention statistically incorrect) reasons.

Gun control is demonstrably not effective in preventing crime, for the simple reason that CRIMINALS DON'T OBEY THE LAW. The most violent cities are uniformly the ones with the most strict gun control laws.

Drugs are illegal, yet they are incredibly easy to buy. What makes you think that gun running is any more difficult than drug running, or that banning them would be any more effective than banning drugs? It wouldn't.

If you want to address gun crime, go after the gangs. Legalizing drugs would be a good start as it would help deprive them of both the means and the motive for killing each other. A national make-work jobs program like the old Civilian Conservation Corps wouldn't be a bad idea either.

As for tragedies like this, the solution is crazy person control, not gun control. What's the common element between this shooting, the VT shooting, the Columbine shooting, and the Aurora shooting? A CRAZY PERSON who had shown clear warning signs, and an escalating pattern of erratic behavior that was ignored by their friends and family members.

If you run for office I'd vote for ya : )


If he runs for office, he better let us know by saying "by the way, I am Clyph on fark"
 
2012-12-17 02:27:28 AM  

propasaurus: GardenWeasel: propasaurus: A kindergarten teacher with an M4 would have prevented all of this.

A kindergarten teacher with an arms cache is where AL got his weapons. After he killed her.

Tell that to Louie Gohmert.


That was Louie's canned response from Aurora, re-tooled to fit this shooting. Hell, 5 months ago, he advocated letting CCL holders carry their guns into movie theaters. Last CCL holder I went to the movies with racked his knee twice just trying to find his damn seat, and Congressman Gomer is advocating he establish cross-fire.

Louie is the person Michele Bachmann stands next to in order to feel smart.
 
2012-12-17 02:34:29 AM  
Gun don't kill people ...

Lack of access to affordable (mental) healthcare kills people.
 
Displayed 50 of 1000 comments


Oldest | « | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | » | Newest | 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