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.

(The Daily Caller)   George Will: Tougher gun laws, assault weapons ban won't help. But shhh, he uses real world info, data and ignores media hyperbole. So warning; you might learn something   (dailycaller.com) divider line 865
    More: Obvious, George Will, assault weapons ban, gun laws, assault weapons, hyperbole, .info  
•       •       •

6303 clicks; posted to Politics » on 16 Dec 2012 at 3:35 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-16 09:43:43 PM

jcooli09: The problem isn't that guns are too easy to get, although they are. The problem isn't that there are too many guns in the US, although there are.

The problem is that too many sick farks love guns. There is something twisted in America, and it's twisted around a trigger.


I think the problem starts with the constitution: what other country in the world, when putting its constitution together said, "Governments aren't to be trusted, so let's add an amendment that enshrines the right to bear arms to overthrow us in armed rebellion - to hell with elections." I mean seriously, who the hell enshrines fear of their own government in their constitution?

It's a whole mindset around the issue that I hear over an over - nope, no registry, can't trust the government. And it trickles into just about every aspect of the issue to the point where any discussion of curbing any ownership descends into chaos.
 
2012-12-16 09:44:26 PM

iq_in_binary: I'm talking about placing damn near all the guns in this country under the same program that we restricted machine guns, sbrs, aows and suppressors with and you're biatching at me telling me that I'm asking for concessions.


and you're responding to things i've said to other people that actually said these things. again, in that block of stuff you quoted is me saying explicitly that the person i was responding to had suggested this - not laying it on you.

you've got 50 conversations going on apparently, i get that. but for frigs sake when you don't even read what's written, you really have no place questioning whether somebody's contributing to a discussion.

out of curiosity, just what is it that you think is 'my way' of repealing the 2nd amendment? i'd really be interested in that one, as that's about as close to 180 degrees away from my actual thought process as is possible.
 
2012-12-16 09:46:47 PM

lordjupiter: Your argument is bullshiat. Nobody's trying to prevent all bad things from happening. We are trying to reduce some of the bad things we can potentially control. All you are doing is trying to diver from that by pointing to unrelated items.


I'm the one pointing to unrelated things? I'm not the one suggesting that people that had nothing to do with this crime have their property confiscated.
 
2012-12-16 09:46:49 PM

lordjupiter: You will always have crazy people is what they say, when it's convenient to their argument to do nothing. When they want to distract from the gun issues themselves to "mental health", does the same "always have crazy people" argument apply? If it does, then why make incredibly deadly mass-killing machines so easily available in a society that will always have crazy people?

And why is it limited to "crazy people"? How do you define that for purposes of gun ownership, or being around guns? Doesn't someone going on a shooting spree make them APPEAR "crazy" no matter how rational they were up until that point? If someone has ever been depressed, are they suddenly unable to be around anyone who owns a gun?

Or are we talking about magically making everyone in the world suddenly non-violent and peaceful? How is that likely, since one of the pro-gun arguments is that criminals will always exist, which means we need protection? Or are you ONLY concerned with arming YOURSELF, and fark everyone else, including when the gun nut BECOMES the criminal and we all suffer for it?

The "mental health" angle is a bullshiat deflection, like all the others. The FACT of the matter is we have highly efficient and extremely deadly weapons out there that are too easily abused, and that needs to be addressed.


The murder rate has been cut in half (yeah, half) since 1990 with no new gun regulation. A few gun regulations expired/were repealed during that period. We're experiencing largest drop in gun crime in American history.

What's left is a number of people in terrible situations acting out the only way they know how. Maybe we should remove those terrible situations.
 
2012-12-16 09:48:33 PM

orclover: Bennie Crabtree: orclover: Lets see. Pass gun grabbing and banning measures that do nothing but make half the country feel better. Or enact civil rights restricting laws that test and treat the populace for its epidemic mental health problems that are causing mass homicides?

You probably don't want a nation that is over-medicated. The kind of treatment is rather important, so that you don't end up just tranquilizing everybody.

Tranquilizing everybody would be the safest and kindest mercy you could show for the entire country. A mentally healthy and lulled populace would be the single most peaceful entity this world has ever seen. Violence, rape, suicide, all would be almost completely gone. Depression? Gone. It would be a farking utopia and it should be done to us at gun point, hell, at nuke point if need be.

chuckufarlie: orclover: Lets see. Pass gun grabbing and banning measures that do nothing but make half the country feel better. Or enact civil rights restricting laws that test and treat the populace for its epidemic mental health problems that are causing mass homicides?
[1-media-cdn.foolz.us image 260x260]

That way everybody is pissed off! Lets do both. If nobody is happy then we must have done something right.

you cannot force people to be tested for mental health issues. And the ones who really need it are going to be that last to seek it on their own.

You can force people to do anything if you are willing enough. We should be willing to do whats right for everybody, No matter what the cost. Even if we have to heavily medicate the entire population, it would be the civilized thing to do. Cant force people to get tested? We can force them to get naked to get on a plane. We can force to piss in a cup to get any job. Forcing them through regular psychoanalysis and treatment would be child's play by comparison to what we put people through daily.

This country desperately needs mood stabilizers in the water supply. Thats not a troll, t ...


yes, a totally medicated and completely non-functioning country.

No, you can not force a person to get tested. You do not have to go through the TSA scan, nobody is forcing you to do that. It is voluntary. It is also the only way to get on board the plane. But they do not force you to get scanned. You can leave the airport anytime.

You are not forced to pee in a cup. You could refuse and be well within your rights to do so. You would also NOT get the job.

Your problem is that you really do not understand what the word "forced" means. The things that you see as being forced to do are actually things that you do voluntarily in order to gain something that you want.
 
2012-12-16 09:50:04 PM
Personally I really don't care. As far a I'm concerned there is no valid reason for a private citizen to own an automatic assault rifle. End of discussion.
 
2012-12-16 09:50:53 PM

mrshowrules: chuckufarlie: orclover: Lets see. Pass gun grabbing and banning measures that do nothing but make half the country feel better. Or enact civil rights restricting laws that test and treat the populace for its epidemic mental health problems that are causing mass homicides?
[1-media-cdn.foolz.us image 260x260]

That way everybody is pissed off! Lets do both. If nobody is happy then we must have done something right.

you cannot force people to be tested for mental health issues. And the ones who really need it are going to be that last to seek it on their own.

People who don't want to be tested can buy a musket. You want better than that, you need a full mental work-up. Sticks to the letter of the Constitution while allowing sane people to buy machine guns and rocket launchers.


I like your idea, except for three things.

1. Nobody needs a machine gun
2. Nobody needs a rocket launcher (but it would be cool)
3. Insane people will just steal the guns from sane people.

and just to add one more - sane today is not sane tomorrow.
 
2012-12-16 09:54:11 PM

chuckufarlie: Nobody needs a rocket launcher (but it would be cool)


I'm working on a Gatling style fully automatic potato gun. No, I'm not a gun nut, I only own one rifle and pick it up a couple of times per year. But it seemed like an awesome engineering challenge, I've got the equipment to build it and damnit, FULLY AUTOMATIC SPUD GUN.

/yes, the project has supervision
//friggin neighbor is ATF, but he gave me the idea
 
2012-12-16 09:56:05 PM

heap: iq_in_binary: I'm talking about placing damn near all the guns in this country under the same program that we restricted machine guns, sbrs, aows and suppressors with and you're biatching at me telling me that I'm asking for concessions.

and you're responding to things i've said to other people that actually said these things. again, in that block of stuff you quoted is me saying explicitly that the person i was responding to had suggested this - not laying it on you.

you've got 50 conversations going on apparently, i get that. but for frigs sake when you don't even read what's written, you really have no place questioning whether somebody's contributing to a discussion.

out of curiosity, just what is it that you think is 'my way' of repealing the 2nd amendment? i'd really be interested in that one, as that's about as close to 180 degrees away from my actual thought process as is possible.


Because I AM the one who talked about repealing the Hughes Amendment as part of the NFA expansion. That was actually intentional, to try and give it enough popularity among gun owners that even the Republicans would have to accept it. It wouldn't put more machine guns out in the streets, so it's a win win. The suppressor thing is just because I'm tired of having my muffs damn near blown off by assholes with brakes on their .300 Win Mags at the range. But the point still stands, if you want it done, you're going to have to give the gun owners like me something to vote for. As it is you have to jump through so many hoops to get at the full auto stuff that they've been eliminated from violent crime completely, and were so well before the Hughes amendment. But because of the Amendment if I want to have something full auto to kick around at the range for fun, I have to be willing to spend 40-50 grand for an M16. Repealing the Hughes amendment changes that. I still have to practically sign over my 4th amendment rights, get an ok from the local Sheriff or Chief of Police and all the other random crap you have to do to get your hands on an full auto weapon, but now I've got a chance to own one. That's going to get a lot of otherwise anti-control people to support it. Same goes with the suppressor stuff.

Otherwise what we're going to have will be just as ineffectual as the Clinton AWB. I don't want that. You don't want that. Sorry, but compromise still has to be part of the deal.
 
2012-12-16 09:56:08 PM

manimal2878: lordjupiter: Your argument is bullshiat. Nobody's trying to prevent all bad things from happening. We are trying to reduce some of the bad things we can potentially control. All you are doing is trying to diver from that by pointing to unrelated items.

I'm the one pointing to unrelated things? I'm not the one suggesting that people that had nothing to do with this crime have their property confiscated.



Nice try.
 
2012-12-16 09:57:11 PM

chuckufarlie: Your problem is that you really do not understand what the word "forced" means. The things that you see as being forced to do are actually things that you do voluntarily in order to gain something that you want.


Want to leave the house? Take a psych eval every 3 months. You want to stop farking around and fix the problem? Thats how you fix the problem. You find the unstable people in this country and you treat them. Dont want a doc poking around in yer emotions? Tough shiat, its not about you its about the people you potentially fark over every day. Every person tested, no exception. No car, no guns no farking walking out in public unless you get yer quarterly rubber stamp.

Either do this. Or farking learn to emotionally deal with dead kids killed by some psychotic asshole on a regular basis. Whats that? Freedoms? You want to keep yer dark dirty masturbation secrets to yerself or do you want a world without shot up kindergartens?

This country desperately needs a farking psych eval.
 
2012-12-16 09:58:04 PM

lordjupiter: manimal2878: lordjupiter: Your argument is bullshiat. Nobody's trying to prevent all bad things from happening. We are trying to reduce some of the bad things we can potentially control. All you are doing is trying to diver from that by pointing to unrelated items.

I'm the one pointing to unrelated things? I'm not the one suggesting that people that had nothing to do with this crime have their property confiscated.


Nice try.


Do you have anything meaningful to add? Otherwise take your flippant responses and piss off.
 
2012-12-16 09:59:04 PM

Sultan Of Herf: Mike Chewbacca: Outrageous Muff: keithgabryelski: if we want to talk about mass murders we should actually talk about ... well ... mass murders.

38 kids killed. Zero guns used.

And that likely wouldn't happen in this day and age because the FBI monitors the purchase of bomb-making supplies.

You mean like fertilizer and diesel fuel? A building in Oklahoma City would like to have a word with you.


Yeah, the building that blew up 17 years ago. Why do you think the FBI monitors that stuff now.
 
2012-12-16 09:59:37 PM

rohar: lordjupiter: You will always have crazy people is what they say, when it's convenient to their argument to do nothing. When they want to distract from the gun issues themselves to "mental health", does the same "always have crazy people" argument apply? If it does, then why make incredibly deadly mass-killing machines so easily available in a society that will always have crazy people?

And why is it limited to "crazy people"? How do you define that for purposes of gun ownership, or being around guns? Doesn't someone going on a shooting spree make them APPEAR "crazy" no matter how rational they were up until that point? If someone has ever been depressed, are they suddenly unable to be around anyone who owns a gun?

Or are we talking about magically making everyone in the world suddenly non-violent and peaceful? How is that likely, since one of the pro-gun arguments is that criminals will always exist, which means we need protection? Or are you ONLY concerned with arming YOURSELF, and fark everyone else, including when the gun nut BECOMES the criminal and we all suffer for it?

The "mental health" angle is a bullshiat deflection, like all the others. The FACT of the matter is we have highly efficient and extremely deadly weapons out there that are too easily abused, and that needs to be addressed.

The murder rate has been cut in half (yeah, half) since 1990 with no new gun regulation. A few gun regulations expired/were repealed during that period. We're experiencing largest drop in gun crime in American history.

What's left is a number of people in terrible situations acting out the only way they know how. Maybe we should remove those terrible situations.



What "terrible situation" needed to be removed in the CT case? You're just flatly abusing statistics from the drug/crack war era and ignoring the Columbine style shootings that have taken place over the last decade plus.

Did you even read what I wrote?
 
2012-12-16 10:00:17 PM

iq_in_binary: if I want to have something full auto to kick around at the range for fun, I have to be willing to spend 40-50 grand for an M16


again, that you don't realize that your fun isn't a priority is something i can neither explain to you, nor disabuse you of.

but i'll be farked if i can call it anything besides selfish prattle.
 
2012-12-16 10:01:41 PM

Pokey.Clyde: Just what kind of laws would have stopped that dumbass from killing his mother and stealing guns from her?


Let me preface this by saying that changes to our cultural love affair with The Gun cannot be imposed by force of government. It will take generations, but the only way we're going to get our firearm death rate down to the rest of the civilized world's is if the population voluntarily chooses disarmament.

That being said, "laws that would have prevented his mother from legally obtaining those guns in the first place" is a simple and valid answer to your question.
 
2012-12-16 10:01:49 PM

manimal2878: lordjupiter: manimal2878: lordjupiter: Your argument is bullshiat. Nobody's trying to prevent all bad things from happening. We are trying to reduce some of the bad things we can potentially control. All you are doing is trying to diver from that by pointing to unrelated items.

I'm the one pointing to unrelated things? I'm not the one suggesting that people that had nothing to do with this crime have their property confiscated.


Nice try.

Do you have anything meaningful to add? Otherwise take your flippant responses and piss off.



I've added plenty. You ignored it. You're not adding anything other than talking points and deflections. I'm not chasing your bullshiat.
 
2012-12-16 10:03:44 PM

Mike Chewbacca: Yeah, the building that blew up 17 years ago. Why do you think the FBI monitors that stuff now.


I know they don't monitor diesal, that would be impossible, and I think the only thing with the fertilizer is that they ask sellers to report suspicious purchases. I don't think there is a formal monitoring program, are you sure about this?
 
2012-12-16 10:05:30 PM

lordjupiter: manimal2878: lordjupiter: manimal2878: lordjupiter: Your argument is bullshiat. Nobody's trying to prevent all bad things from happening. We are trying to reduce some of the bad things we can potentially control. All you are doing is trying to diver from that by pointing to unrelated items.

I'm the one pointing to unrelated things? I'm not the one suggesting that people that had nothing to do with this crime have their property confiscated.


Nice try.

Do you have anything meaningful to add? Otherwise take your flippant responses and piss off.


I've added plenty. You ignored it. You're not adding anything other than talking points and deflections. I'm not chasing your bullshiat.


hahahahaha, talking points. fark off.
 
2012-12-16 10:07:36 PM

heap: iq_in_binary: if I want to have something full auto to kick around at the range for fun, I have to be willing to spend 40-50 grand for an M16

again, that you don't realize that your fun isn't a priority is something i can neither explain to you, nor disabuse you of.

but i'll be farked if i can call it anything besides selfish prattle.


Did you not just hear what I said? Did you even read the proposal? Getting all the semi-autos in this country aside from the one off plinkers Sears made decades ago into the NFA program?

Are you interested in solving the problem or do you just want to penalize people.
 
2012-12-16 10:07:50 PM

manimal2878: lordjupiter: manimal2878: lordjupiter: manimal2878: lordjupiter: Your argument is bullshiat. Nobody's trying to prevent all bad things from happening. We are trying to reduce some of the bad things we can potentially control. All you are doing is trying to diver from that by pointing to unrelated items.

I'm the one pointing to unrelated things? I'm not the one suggesting that people that had nothing to do with this crime have their property confiscated.


Nice try.

Do you have anything meaningful to add? Otherwise take your flippant responses and piss off.


I've added plenty. You ignored it. You're not adding anything other than talking points and deflections. I'm not chasing your bullshiat.

hahahahaha, talking points. fark off.




Thanks for proving my point. Now why don't you take your "tool" you love so much and fark yourself with it.
 
2012-12-16 10:08:46 PM
Get rid of guns one at a time...

www.plumbersurplus.com 

And for those celebrities who want to come out for gun control. Ask Rosie O'Donnell, who quit advocating for gun control in the 10 years ago and who stated there will never be gun control and not to fight for it, how long the NRA's memory is. The NRA is still after her, not just to punish her for a position she no longer believes in, but to send a very chilling message to any new advocates for gun control.
 
2012-12-16 10:11:28 PM

runwiz: Personally I really don't care. As far a I'm concerned there is no valid reason for a private citizen to own an automatic assault rifle. End of discussion.


Considering that automatics have been banned since May 19th, 1986, that's not a problem.
 
2012-12-16 10:12:14 PM

poot_rootbeer: Pokey.Clyde: Just what kind of laws would have stopped that dumbass from killing his mother and stealing guns from her?

Let me preface this by saying that changes to our cultural love affair with The Gun cannot be imposed by force of government. It will take generations, but the only way we're going to get our firearm death rate down to the rest of the civilized world's is if the population voluntarily chooses disarmament.

That being said, "laws that would have prevented his mother from legally obtaining those guns in the first place" is a simple and valid answer to your question.


Would a law that would prevent somebody from purchasing alcohol be a valid way to stop drunk driving accidents that result in death? I think it is, but most people don't drive drunk, they enjoy alcohol legally and don't hurt anybody. To me, same thing with guns. Banning things will prevent it being used for evil, but it also stops people from enjoying the use of whatever is banned for whatever legal purposes as well. It also creates a black market for that item.

Do those that wish to ban guns also see banning alcohol as acceptable? And if not, how is it different that guns, it is used really only for fun, like guns used for target shooting or whatever, and doesn't even have the self defense angle that can be applied to guns. Statistically I bet far more people are killed by alcohol than guns, but I'm just guessing.
 
2012-12-16 10:12:16 PM
You gun advocates are getting tiresome. You "no one single thing will work 100% so do nothing" argument is particularly tiresome. Vaccines aren't 100% effective, but we still use them. Airbags and seatbelts don't prevent all deaths in accidents, but we still use them because they're highly effective. It's called harm reduction and reasonable, civilized people are in favor of it.

Since you're all such perfect gun owners, well-versed in every type of firearm and expert marksmen, what is your big objection to setting a high bar for firearm (and ammunition) purchase? The purpose of a gun is to kill; is it really so unreasonable to ask that there are restrictions on purchasing one? Before you can get a driver's license, you have to prove that you know traffic laws and can operate a motor vehicle. If you develop an illness that prohibits you from being a safe driver, the doctor contacts the DMV and your license is suspended. Why shouldn't there be requirements for guns? Or do you object to driver's licenses and vehicle registration because the government is keeping a list and knows where you live and what kind of car you drive so they could come and take away your car?

I would think that your fear of a gun ban would make you in favor of doing everything possible to keep guns out of irresponsible hands. That's why people object to guns. It's not because you use them for hunting or protecting livestock; it's because criminal use them to kill human beings. The more we can do to reduce the killing, the less call for a gun ban.

I don't want a gun but I don't think they should be banned either. People like to hunt, ranchers and farmers need them to protect livestock, people have jobs that take them into unsafe areas, etc. There are legitimate uses for guns. Why do you object so strongly to measures designed to restrict them to legitimate owners and keep them away from people who want to use them to kill human beings? Are you also opposed to building and electrical codes that make buildings safer, safety equipment on cars, certain medications being available only by prescription?
 
2012-12-16 10:13:16 PM

lordjupiter: manimal2878: lordjupiter: manimal2878: lordjupiter: manimal2878: lordjupiter: Your argument is bullshiat. Nobody's trying to prevent all bad things from happening. We are trying to reduce some of the bad things we can potentially control. All you are doing is trying to diver from that by pointing to unrelated items.

I'm the one pointing to unrelated things? I'm not the one suggesting that people that had nothing to do with this crime have their property confiscated.


Nice try.

Do you have anything meaningful to add? Otherwise take your flippant responses and piss off.


I've added plenty. You ignored it. You're not adding anything other than talking points and deflections. I'm not chasing your bullshiat.

hahahahaha, talking points. fark off.



Thanks for proving my point. Now why don't you take your "tool" you love so much and fark yourself with it.


What point?
 
2012-12-16 10:13:46 PM

lordjupiter: rohar: lordjupiter: You will always have crazy people is what they say, when it's convenient to their argument to do nothing. When they want to distract from the gun issues themselves to "mental health", does the same "always have crazy people" argument apply? If it does, then why make incredibly deadly mass-killing machines so easily available in a society that will always have crazy people?

And why is it limited to "crazy people"? How do you define that for purposes of gun ownership, or being around guns? Doesn't someone going on a shooting spree make them APPEAR "crazy" no matter how rational they were up until that point? If someone has ever been depressed, are they suddenly unable to be around anyone who owns a gun?

Or are we talking about magically making everyone in the world suddenly non-violent and peaceful? How is that likely, since one of the pro-gun arguments is that criminals will always exist, which means we need protection? Or are you ONLY concerned with arming YOURSELF, and fark everyone else, including when the gun nut BECOMES the criminal and we all suffer for it?

The "mental health" angle is a bullshiat deflection, like all the others. The FACT of the matter is we have highly efficient and extremely deadly weapons out there that are too easily abused, and that needs to be addressed.

The murder rate has been cut in half (yeah, half) since 1990 with no new gun regulation. A few gun regulations expired/were repealed during that period. We're experiencing largest drop in gun crime in American history.

What's left is a number of people in terrible situations acting out the only way they know how. Maybe we should remove those terrible situations.


What "terrible situation" needed to be removed in the CT case? You're just flatly abusing statistics from the drug/crack war era and ignoring the Columbine style shootings that have taken place over the last decade plus.

Did you even read what I wrote?


The overwhelming majority of gun deaths are not mass shootings. The majority of mass shootings appear to be avoidable by better access to psychiatric care.

So here you are. Using a singular incident to define a systemic problem. On it's basis, it's completely flawed.

Half of gun deaths in America are suicides. Again, these can be prevented with easier access to health care. Beyond that, there are huge correlations between non suicide gun deaths and income, education and sense of belonging. When we pass legislation on these fronts, we see a change in gun deaths. When we pass legislation on gun control, there is almost never a correlated change in gun deaths.

On the positive side, with Obamacare, we'll have easier access to mental care.

And no, I'm not taking advantage of the statistics related to the drug crime of the '80s. Our homicide rate is lower now than it has been at any point since prohibition. A little perspective has a lot of impact on the conversation.
 
2012-12-16 10:14:15 PM

manimal2878: poot_rootbeer: Pokey.Clyde: Just what kind of laws would have stopped that dumbass from killing his mother and stealing guns from her?

Let me preface this by saying that changes to our cultural love affair with The Gun cannot be imposed by force of government. It will take generations, but the only way we're going to get our firearm death rate down to the rest of the civilized world's is if the population voluntarily chooses disarmament.

That being said, "laws that would have prevented his mother from legally obtaining those guns in the first place" is a simple and valid answer to your question.

Would a law that would prevent somebody from purchasing alcohol be a valid way to stop drunk driving accidents that result in death? I think it is, but most people don't drive drunk, they enjoy alcohol legally and don't hurt anybody. To me, same thing with guns. Banning things will prevent it being used for evil, but it also stops people from enjoying the use of whatever is banned for whatever legal purposes as well. It also creates a black market for that item.

Do those that wish to ban guns also see banning alcohol as acceptable? And if not, how is it different that guns, it is used really only for fun, like guns used for target shooting or whatever, and doesn't even have the self defense angle that can be applied to guns. Statistically I bet far more people are killed by alcohol than guns, but I'm just guessing.




What part of "guns are guns and not something else" don't you understand?
 
2012-12-16 10:14:40 PM

Boudica's War Tampon: Get rid of guns one at a time...

[www.plumbersurplus.com image 250x250] 

And for those celebrities who want to come out for gun control. Ask Rosie O'Donnell, who quit advocating for gun control in the 10 years ago and who stated there will never be gun control and not to fight for it, how long the NRA's memory is. The NRA is still after her, not just to punish her for a position she no longer believes in, but to send a very chilling message to any new advocates for gun control.


Rosie no longer believes in gun control? Why?
 
2012-12-16 10:17:51 PM

rohar: lordjupiter: rohar: lordjupiter: You will always have crazy people is what they say, when it's convenient to their argument to do nothing. When they want to distract from the gun issues themselves to "mental health", does the same "always have crazy people" argument apply? If it does, then why make incredibly deadly mass-killing machines so easily available in a society that will always have crazy people?

And why is it limited to "crazy people"? How do you define that for purposes of gun ownership, or being around guns? Doesn't someone going on a shooting spree make them APPEAR "crazy" no matter how rational they were up until that point? If someone has ever been depressed, are they suddenly unable to be around anyone who owns a gun?

Or are we talking about magically making everyone in the world suddenly non-violent and peaceful? How is that likely, since one of the pro-gun arguments is that criminals will always exist, which means we need protection? Or are you ONLY concerned with arming YOURSELF, and fark everyone else, including when the gun nut BECOMES the criminal and we all suffer for it?

The "mental health" angle is a bullshiat deflection, like all the others. The FACT of the matter is we have highly efficient and extremely deadly weapons out there that are too easily abused, and that needs to be addressed.

The murder rate has been cut in half (yeah, half) since 1990 with no new gun regulation. A few gun regulations expired/were repealed during that period. We're experiencing largest drop in gun crime in American history.

What's left is a number of people in terrible situations acting out the only way they know how. Maybe we should remove those terrible situations.


What "terrible situation" needed to be removed in the CT case? You're just flatly abusing statistics from the drug/crack war era and ignoring the Columbine style shootings that have taken place over the last decade plus.

Did you even read what I wrote?

The overwhelming majori ...



You're just speculating and deflecting, and again abusing statistics.
 
2012-12-16 10:18:06 PM

rohar: lordjupiter: rohar: lordjupiter: You will always have crazy people is what they say, when it's convenient to their argument to do nothing. When they want to distract from the gun issues themselves to "mental health", does the same "always have crazy people" argument apply? If it does, then why make incredibly deadly mass-killing machines so easily available in a society that will always have crazy people?

And why is it limited to "crazy people"? How do you define that for purposes of gun ownership, or being around guns? Doesn't someone going on a shooting spree make them APPEAR "crazy" no matter how rational they were up until that point? If someone has ever been depressed, are they suddenly unable to be around anyone who owns a gun?

Or are we talking about magically making everyone in the world suddenly non-violent and peaceful? How is that likely, since one of the pro-gun arguments is that criminals will always exist, which means we need protection? Or are you ONLY concerned with arming YOURSELF, and fark everyone else, including when the gun nut BECOMES the criminal and we all suffer for it?

The "mental health" angle is a bullshiat deflection, like all the others. The FACT of the matter is we have highly efficient and extremely deadly weapons out there that are too easily abused, and that needs to be addressed.

The murder rate has been cut in half (yeah, half) since 1990 with no new gun regulation. A few gun regulations expired/were repealed during that period. We're experiencing largest drop in gun crime in American history.

What's left is a number of people in terrible situations acting out the only way they know how. Maybe we should remove those terrible situations.


What "terrible situation" needed to be removed in the CT case? You're just flatly abusing statistics from the drug/crack war era and ignoring the Columbine style shootings that have taken place over the last decade plus.

Did you even read what I wrote?

The overwhelming majori ...


Obama has been president for less than 5 years. Been to 4 mass shootings at schools and other places. Those are the incidents people are concerned about.

Should the president have an annual pilgrimage to a place of slaughter? Is that the price of democracy? I thought the price of democracy was jury duty, voting, serving your country. I guess lots of people don't want to pay that price anymore but have no problem with letting Jesse, Jack, Charlotte and all the others pay a far higher price for them.
 
2012-12-16 10:20:10 PM

iq_in_binary:

Are you interested in solving the problem or do you just want to penalize people.


that you can't get a full auto for under 50 grand doesn't seem like a problem to me.
 
2012-12-16 10:20:37 PM

lordjupiter: You're just speculating and deflecting, and again abusing statistics.


Can you show me a correlation between the passage of any gun control law in America in the last 50 years and a positive variance in gun crime? I checked the numbers, on a national level it does not exist. The same can be said of the Chicago and D.C. gun bans.

You have an interesting assertion, and on it's face it makes sense. History shows it'll never work.
 
2012-12-16 10:23:45 PM
she was blamed for 9-11...sorry misread my post
 
2012-12-16 10:24:08 PM

Boudica's War Tampon: Obama has been president for less than 5 years. Been to 4 mass shootings at schools and other places. Those are the incidents people are concerned about.

Should the president have an annual pilgrimage to a place of slaughter? Is that the price of democracy? I thought the price of democracy was jury duty, voting, serving your country. I guess lots of people don't want to pay that price anymore but have no problem with letting Jesse, Jack, Charlotte and all the others pay a far higher price for them.


What are you getting on about?
 
2012-12-16 10:24:34 PM

lordjupiter: manimal2878: poot_rootbeer: Pokey.Clyde: Just what kind of laws would have stopped that dumbass from killing his mother and stealing guns from her?

Let me preface this by saying that changes to our cultural love affair with The Gun cannot be imposed by force of government. It will take generations, but the only way we're going to get our firearm death rate down to the rest of the civilized world's is if the population voluntarily chooses disarmament.

That being said, "laws that would have prevented his mother from legally obtaining those guns in the first place" is a simple and valid answer to your question.

Would a law that would prevent somebody from purchasing alcohol be a valid way to stop drunk driving accidents that result in death? I think it is, but most people don't drive drunk, they enjoy alcohol legally and don't hurt anybody. To me, same thing with guns. Banning things will prevent it being used for evil, but it also stops people from enjoying the use of whatever is banned for whatever legal purposes as well. It also creates a black market for that item.

Do those that wish to ban guns also see banning alcohol as acceptable? And if not, how is it different that guns, it is used really only for fun, like guns used for target shooting or whatever, and doesn't even have the self defense angle that can be applied to guns. Statistically I bet far more people are killed by alcohol than guns, but I'm just guessing.



What part of "guns are guns and not something else" don't you understand?


I asked reasonable questions, if you don't want to address them then fark off.
 
2012-12-16 10:27:48 PM

Phins: You gun advocates are getting tiresome. You "no one single thing will work 100% so do nothing" argument is particularly tiresome. Vaccines aren't 100% effective, but we still use them. Airbags and seatbelts don't prevent all deaths in accidents, but we still use them because they're highly effective. It's called harm reduction and reasonable, civilized people are in favor of it.

Since you're all such perfect gun owners, well-versed in every type of firearm and expert marksmen, what is your big objection to setting a high bar for firearm (and ammunition) purchase? The purpose of a gun is to kill; is it really so unreasonable to ask that there are restrictions on purchasing one? Before you can get a driver's license, you have to prove that you know traffic laws and can operate a motor vehicle. If you develop an illness that prohibits you from being a safe driver, the doctor contacts the DMV and your license is suspended. Why shouldn't there be requirements for guns? Or do you object to driver's licenses and vehicle registration because the government is keeping a list and knows where you live and what kind of car you drive so they could come and take away your car?

I would think that your fear of a gun ban would make you in favor of doing everything possible to keep guns out of irresponsible hands. That's why people object to guns. It's not because you use them for hunting or protecting livestock; it's because criminal use them to kill human beings. The more we can do to reduce the killing, the less call for a gun ban.

I don't want a gun but I don't think they should be banned either. People like to hunt, ranchers and farmers need them to protect livestock, people have jobs that take them into unsafe areas, etc. There are legitimate uses for guns. Why do you object so strongly to measures designed to restrict them to legitimate owners and keep them away from people who want to use them to kill human beings? Are you also opposed to building and electrical codes that ...


I'm a gunsmith. Did you read my proposal?
 
2012-12-16 10:29:37 PM

rohar: lordjupiter: You're just speculating and deflecting, and again abusing statistics.

Can you show me a correlation between the passage of any gun control law in America in the last 50 years and a positive variance in gun crime? I checked the numbers, on a national level it does not exist. The same can be said of the Chicago and D.C. gun bans.

You have an interesting assertion, and on it's face it makes sense. History shows it'll never work.



Can you show any correlation between any of your stats and any of your claims?

State by state or city by city gun laws are not good measures of success because of sheer numbers working against them in proportion to the rest of the country especially since they do not have secure borders. Plus those measures were not even in place long enough to make a difference because the pro-gun lobby challenged them in court.

And why do you keep talking about "gun crime" as if all crimes are the same, and all guns are the same? Declining murder rates per capita is not the issue. Suicide is not the issue. These things are all distractions and deflections from the consideration of laws to address these shooting sprees and the types of weapons being used in them. It's not working.

For the record, I'm not "anti-gun". I'm anti-gun-nut. And the gun-nut tactic of red herrings and reducing to the absurd will not work with me.
 
2012-12-16 10:30:34 PM

manimal2878: lordjupiter: manimal2878: poot_rootbeer: Pokey.Clyde: Just what kind of laws would have stopped that dumbass from killing his mother and stealing guns from her?

Let me preface this by saying that changes to our cultural love affair with The Gun cannot be imposed by force of government. It will take generations, but the only way we're going to get our firearm death rate down to the rest of the civilized world's is if the population voluntarily chooses disarmament.

That being said, "laws that would have prevented his mother from legally obtaining those guns in the first place" is a simple and valid answer to your question.

Would a law that would prevent somebody from purchasing alcohol be a valid way to stop drunk driving accidents that result in death? I think it is, but most people don't drive drunk, they enjoy alcohol legally and don't hurt anybody. To me, same thing with guns. Banning things will prevent it being used for evil, but it also stops people from enjoying the use of whatever is banned for whatever legal purposes as well. It also creates a black market for that item.

Do those that wish to ban guns also see banning alcohol as acceptable? And if not, how is it different that guns, it is used really only for fun, like guns used for target shooting or whatever, and doesn't even have the self defense angle that can be applied to guns. Statistically I bet far more people are killed by alcohol than guns, but I'm just guessing.



What part of "guns are guns and not something else" don't you understand?

I asked reasonable questions, if you don't want to address them then fark off.




You sound like a very angry, disturbed person. Maybe someone should take your guns so you don't hurt yourself or anyone else.
 
2012-12-16 10:31:02 PM

rohar: lordjupiter: You're just speculating and deflecting, and again abusing statistics.

Can you show me a correlation between the passage of any gun control law in America in the last 50 years and a positive variance in gun crime? I checked the numbers, on a national level it does not exist. The same can be said of the Chicago and D.C. gun bans.

You have an interesting assertion, and on it's face it makes sense. History shows it'll never work.


It's an emotional topic, trying to talk about it rationally and point out that tragedies like this are a statistical anomaly makes you look like a cold uncaring bastard.

The reason the 90s AWB was allowed to sunset was precisely because it did nothing to show a clear decline in crime had it worked, they would have not let it sunset and would have made a huge political point of it's working.
 
2012-12-16 10:33:42 PM

lordjupiter: manimal2878: lordjupiter: manimal2878: poot_rootbeer: Pokey.Clyde: Just what kind of laws would have stopped that dumbass from killing his mother and stealing guns from her?

Let me preface this by saying that changes to our cultural love affair with The Gun cannot be imposed by force of government. It will take generations, but the only way we're going to get our firearm death rate down to the rest of the civilized world's is if the population voluntarily chooses disarmament.

That being said, "laws that would have prevented his mother from legally obtaining those guns in the first place" is a simple and valid answer to your question.

Would a law that would prevent somebody from purchasing alcohol be a valid way to stop drunk driving accidents that result in death? I think it is, but most people don't drive drunk, they enjoy alcohol legally and don't hurt anybody. To me, same thing with guns. Banning things will prevent it being used for evil, but it also stops people from enjoying the use of whatever is banned for whatever legal purposes as well. It also creates a black market for that item.

Do those that wish to ban guns also see banning alcohol as acceptable? And if not, how is it different that guns, it is used really only for fun, like guns used for target shooting or whatever, and doesn't even have the self defense angle that can be applied to guns. Statistically I bet far more people are killed by alcohol than guns, but I'm just guessing.



What part of "guns are guns and not something else" don't you understand?

I asked reasonable questions, if you don't want to address them then fark off.



You sound like a very angry, disturbed person. Maybe someone should take your guns so you don't hurt yourself or anyone else.


You keep interjecting yourself into posts that I have written to other people with flippant and dismissive remarks. Either address the points I was making in the context in which they were made or fark off. For some reason though you can't seem to fark off and keep on addressing me. Whatever.
 
2012-12-16 10:35:13 PM
lordjupiter:
rohar:
lordjupiter:
rohar:
lordjupiter:
rohar:
lordjupiter:
rohar:


Do you....do you two work for the government together to do this to gun debate threads?
 
2012-12-16 10:37:12 PM

I Like Bread: In my research, I've found:

There are countries with low gun ownership and low violent crime.
There are countries with low gun ownership and high violent crime.
There are countries with high gun ownership and low violent crime.
There are NO countries with high gun ownership and high violent crime.


Have you looked into the country that we live in?

Gun ownership: the US has the highest # of guns per resident (2007)

Gun violence: the US has the 8th highest firearm homicide rate
 
2012-12-16 10:40:07 PM
"...when we took it off, they did not increase in a measurable way."


I'd say 3 spree killings in one year is a measurable increase.
 
2012-12-16 10:41:20 PM

manimal2878: Kimothy: hey are commonplace and occur several times a year.

bullshiat. Something occuring several times a year doesn't make it common. We have millions of kids in school, statistically, while this incident is tragic. it is an anomaly. Calling it common place is a lie.


First off, I didn't say school killings, I said mass killings. There have been 61 mass shootings since 1982, or an average of two per year. I guess those episodes are about as commonplace as say, Christmas.

But hey, if that's what you want to take away from that statement, be my guest. I could have easily said "something we're used to" or "no surprise anymore" or "not unexpected". Any of those would've worked just as well.
 
2012-12-16 10:42:12 PM

lordjupiter: rohar: lordjupiter: You're just speculating and deflecting, and again abusing statistics.

Can you show me a correlation between the passage of any gun control law in America in the last 50 years and a positive variance in gun crime? I checked the numbers, on a national level it does not exist. The same can be said of the Chicago and D.C. gun bans.

You have an interesting assertion, and on it's face it makes sense. History shows it'll never work.


Can you show any correlation between any of your stats and any of your claims?

State by state or city by city gun laws are not good measures of success because of sheer numbers working against them in proportion to the rest of the country especially since they do not have secure borders. Plus those measures were not even in place long enough to make a difference because the pro-gun lobby challenged them in court.

And why do you keep talking about "gun crime" as if all crimes are the same, and all guns are the same? Declining murder rates per capita is not the issue. Suicide is not the issue. These things are all distractions and deflections from the consideration of laws to address these shooting sprees and the types of weapons being used in them. It's not working.

For the record, I'm not "anti-gun". I'm anti-gun-nut. And the gun-nut tactic of red herrings and reducing to the absurd will not work with me.


If it helps any, I'm hardly a gun nut either. In full disclosure, I own a single rifle. Bolt action so I'm not much of a threat to anything but coyotes and the odd mountain lion. I am a pragmatist though and if people getting shot is the problem, then I'd suggest we save as many as possible. That's why I'm looking at the systemic issues rather than the isolated mass shooting incidents. If we concentrate on the mass shooting incidents, we'll make no impact on the much larger systemic issue. As an example, in 2008 there were 9484 murders by guns in the U.S. There were 19 dead in mass shootings. If we can reduce the mass shootings by 30%, that's a whopping 6 people saved. If we attack the systemic issue, that's over 3000 people and we'll likely solve many of the mass shooting issues while we're at it.

Oh, and yes, I can back up my assertions with correlative data, but you made the absurd statement first, so once you cite, so will I.
 
2012-12-16 10:44:12 PM

lordjupiter: These things are all distractions and deflections from the consideration of laws to address these shooting sprees and the types of weapons being used in them. It's not working.


Ignoring our spats in the other posts we have made, I think this is a valid point. If your only goal is to stop shooting sprees, then discussion of other statistics other than shooting sprees is indeed irrelevant. To be honest, besides outright banning of guns and mass confiscation how could one prevent this? I don't think you can. The only way to prevent an object being used for ill, is to totally remove ones access from it.

That's the point I was trying to make about the alcohol, if you want to stop drunk driving, the only way to do that is to totally remove alcohol, otherwise there will always be a number of people that will be irresponsible or even outright malicious and hurt others.

The question then is what is the balance between taking an object away from everybody vs allowing access to it for the varied legal uses and accepting that their will be misuse of it occasionally?
 
2012-12-16 10:45:17 PM
I'm probably late to the party and this has been said already but....
Since he cites Norway and Scotland as examples so will I
Here's what I dragged up in 2 seconds on teh googles:
In Norway, annual firearm homicides total 2009: 9
In the United Kingdom (not just Scotland, the entire UK), annual firearm homicides total 2009: 18
In the United States, annual firearm homicides total 2009: 9,146

Some extrapolations in case you say "Hey those countries are a lot smaller than ours! That's not a fair comparison!"
US has 4.8 times the population of the UK. Assuming they were equally populated the UK then has 87 deaths.
US has 60 times the population of Norway which give us 540 deaths in Norway.

We're still 8,519 short.

Yeah their laws really aren't working....

Citations: gunpolicy.org Link

I approximated population numbers per their wikipedia entries:
US approx to 300 million
UK approx to 62 million
Norway approx to 5 million
 
2012-12-16 10:46:14 PM

manimal2878: lordjupiter: manimal2878: lordjupiter: manimal2878: poot_rootbeer: Pokey.Clyde: Just what kind of laws would have stopped that dumbass from killing his mother and stealing guns from her?

Let me preface this by saying that changes to our cultural love affair with The Gun cannot be imposed by force of government. It will take generations, but the only way we're going to get our firearm death rate down to the rest of the civilized world's is if the population voluntarily chooses disarmament.

That being said, "laws that would have prevented his mother from legally obtaining those guns in the first place" is a simple and valid answer to your question.

Would a law that would prevent somebody from purchasing alcohol be a valid way to stop drunk driving accidents that result in death? I think it is, but most people don't drive drunk, they enjoy alcohol legally and don't hurt anybody. To me, same thing with guns. Banning things will prevent it being used for evil, but it also stops people from enjoying the use of whatever is banned for whatever legal purposes as well. It also creates a black market for that item.

Do those that wish to ban guns also see banning alcohol as acceptable? And if not, how is it different that guns, it is used really only for fun, like guns used for target shooting or whatever, and doesn't even have the self defense angle that can be applied to guns. Statistically I bet far more people are killed by alcohol than guns, but I'm just guessing.



What part of "guns are guns and not something else" don't you understand?

I asked reasonable questions, if you don't want to address them then fark off.



You sound like a very angry, disturbed person. Maybe someone should take your guns so you don't hurt yourself or anyone else.

You keep interjecting yourself into posts that I have written to other people with flippant and dismissive remarks. Either address the points I was making in the context in which they were made or fark off. For some r ...




I'm sorry, I must have missed the part where this was all a private conversation between you and the rest of the world. Why not just admit that you don't like it when people don't allow you to bullshiat your way through this topic.
 
2012-12-16 10:47:44 PM

keithgabryelski: Notabunny: All you have to do to see Georg Will's point is to look at the rate of gun violence in industrialized countries with tough gun laws.

and by that you mean -- look that george will has it backwards?


Yes. It's usually tough to measure George Will's level of douchebaggery. Usually.
 
Displayed 50 of 865 comments

First | « | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report