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  
•       •       •

6307 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 11:39:21 PM

EvilRacistNaziFascist: whidbey: That's a bit dishonest. The argument is that social programs would help to curb violence, and we aren't anywhere near what we need to be spending in terms of 100% success.

The "argument" in itself is wrong, so percentages are irrelevant.

What if it's "personal gain" because they believe they don't have any hope?

Hope for what? Please explain how "hopelessness" induces someone to shoplift an iPhone, or knock over a liquor store.


Look how stupid you are.
 
2012-12-16 11:40:20 PM

iq_in_binary: You feel that the removal of purely punitive measures


no, i feel that i just don't see it as a topical priority.

you'll note this by the fact that i've said as much several times now - and i see your insistence that it is the problem that needs solved here to be abject selfishness. again, as i've said several times now.

again, the more you point out the lack of crimes associated with these weapons, it really is the better case you make for labeling it a success story and leaving it alone.

there's a class of weapon that isn't involved in crime, and that's what you want to concentrate on right now? that needs relaxed because....oh yah, you feel like you need a reacharound in trade for any gun regulation.

again, i just don't care about your desire for a fun auto to plink around on at the shooting range. it's really important to you, i just can't bring myself to say 'hey, this is what needs solved here, this guy ca't have a range toy without a mortgage'.
 
2012-12-16 11:40:47 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: What if it's "personal gain" because they believe they don't have any hope?

A bit dishonest? It's bullshiat. Not that I'm arguing with you, whidbey, I just want to be clear that BlatantTrollMoronFishcakes is talking provable bullshiat given that there is a well-established correlation between violence and poverty.


Aaaah.. I was trying to be nice.

I almost said that conservatives had better learn to love social programs, because they are very likely THE ONE THING that will keep us from total gun prohibition if they succeed in keeping people less stressed about being poor and down and out.
 
2012-12-16 11:42:10 PM

EvilRacistNaziFascist: whidbey: That's a bit dishonest. The argument is that social programs would help to curb violence, and we aren't anywhere near what we need to be spending in terms of 100% success.

The "argument" in itself is wrong, so percentages are irrelevant.

What if it's "personal gain" because they believe they don't have any hope?

Hope for what? Please explain how "hopelessness" induces someone to shoplift an iPhone, or knock over a liquor store.


You might take that silver spoon out of your mouth while you're talking. Can't understand what you're saying.
 
2012-12-16 11:43:39 PM
 
2012-12-16 11:44:07 PM

manimal2878: lordjupiter: Aaaaand I'm done with you.

You brought up the "wild west" to make a point, not me. I'm sure you wanted us to think of the sort of statistical analysis from that article when you invoked the wild west and not what we see in the movies, which is people getting shot left and right on a daily basis.

Was the "Old West" violent? Scholars have established that it was not as violent as most movies and novels would suggest. Murder was not a daily, weekly, or even monthly occurrence in most small towns or farming, ranching, or mining communities


http://cjrc.osu.edu/researchprojects/hvd/hom%20rates%20west.html


Did you even read the beyond the part you quoted? It totally contradicts what you're saying. AND, it's the same guy I quoted.

Well done. Goodnight, superballbag.
 
2012-12-16 11:44:29 PM

DoctorCal: 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


and 80% of those are directly drug related...

Find another 1st world country with a 3rd world drug haven with a substantial border and 1/3 of the country under drug cartel control. I would love to see the results.

Bear in mind, I'm not even arguing against any gun control methods right now. I mean find a single example that even remotely fits where the US is.
 
2012-12-16 11:45:12 PM
EvilRacistNaziFascist:

BTW you conservatives had better learn to love social programs and what they're capable of, because they very likely will be the reason that we never pursue total gun prohibition.
 
2012-12-16 11:46:29 PM

lordjupiter: manimal2878: lordjupiter: Aaaaand I'm done with you.

You brought up the "wild west" to make a point, not me. I'm sure you wanted us to think of the sort of statistical analysis from that article when you invoked the wild west and not what we see in the movies, which is people getting shot left and right on a daily basis.

Was the "Old West" violent? Scholars have established that it was not as violent as most movies and novels would suggest. Murder was not a daily, weekly, or even monthly occurrence in most small towns or farming, ranching, or mining communities


http://cjrc.osu.edu/researchprojects/hvd/hom%20rates%20west.html

Did you even read the beyond the part you quoted? It totally contradicts what you're saying. AND, it's the same guy I quoted.

Well done. Goodnight, superballbag.


Of course I read it, I'm not you.
 
2012-12-16 11:48:11 PM

lordjupiter: rohar: lordjupiter: rohar: lordjupiter: Because that's not an accurate representation of what's going on.

What are the "known solutions"? Where is the proof? Why is it that the factors you've listed in previous posts as target issues seem to have no bearing on these mass shootings, and in fact potentially enable them by providing access to more expensive weaponry? Why are we seeing that improvements in those factors do nothing to reduce extremism and terrorism if they're "known solutions"?

Once again, this is just moving away from the issue to something else.

Not at all, I'll gladly cite correlation, it's sitting on my screen in notepad, as soon as you cite any correlation between any gun regulation and a reduction in gun related crime in America in the past 50 years. I'll wait, I'm a patient man.

You can wait all you want. I've already addressed this so you can stop grandstanding on it.

You've said "I believe" repeatedly. Strangely history flies in the face of your assertion. I'm not grandstanding, just trying to beat through your thick skull a pathway to reducing these incidents. But you came up with a conclusion, ignored all data and went with it. There's probably little I can do now.

This conversation reminds me of having a rational discussion with a TeaBagger.

You're awfully smug for someone who hasn't stated a single relevant "fact".

I said earlier: "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."

You ARE grandstanding based on a narrow and arbitrary standard of proof. There has not been a good, scientific study of the effects of well-written and well-enforced gun legislation, partly because there haven't really BEEN any such legislation, though some evidence exists that the DC gun ban may have reduced gun-related murders and suicides in the suburbs of DC by 25% while other forms of ...


I'm not looking city by city or state by state (although I did mention them). In the entire friggin world, can you cite any piece of gun legislation that had any positive affect on murder rates over the past 50 years excluding government overthrows?

No, you can't. But you cling to your beliefs as if they're real. They're not. They're just beliefs. Trust me, over the past few days I tried like hell, the precedent doesn't exist anywhere in the world.

I don't know how to cast a larger net to prove you right. It simply cannot be done.
 
2012-12-16 11:48:50 PM

EvilRacistNaziFascist: There is no "provable" connection between violence and poverty


lol
 
2012-12-16 11:49:24 PM

EvilRacistNaziFascist: whidbey: That's a bit dishonest. The argument is that social programs would help to curb violence, and we aren't anywhere near what we need to be spending in terms of 100% success.

The "argument" in itself is wrong, so percentages are irrelevant.

What if it's "personal gain" because they believe they don't have any hope?

Hope for what? Please explain how "hopelessness" induces someone to shoplift an iPhone, or knock over a liquor store.


I don't know if you noticed, we're not talking about shoplifting here.
 
2012-12-16 11:50:34 PM

whidbey: You might take that silver spoon out of your mouth while you're talking. Can't understand what you're saying.


Ah, you have no coherent reply so you resort to pretending that you can divine the socio- economic background of a compete stranger on the Internet? Can't say I'm surprised by the evasion, I've seen it all too many times before. The Left has no arguments, only rationalizations -- and once those are exposed, it's on to insults and bogus psychologizing. Classic.

As it happens my background is far more solidly working- class than yours is likely to be, but then again it's usually the case that working- class people are the least likely to make bullsh*t excuses for crime -- because after all they're the ones who suffer its consequences the most. Insulated middle- class people by contrast can afford to wring their hands of the plight of the poor man who was forced by society to punch out a passerby for his cellphone.
 
2012-12-16 11:53:16 PM

orclover: 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.


At least until half of them turned into Reavers.
 
2012-12-16 11:54:20 PM

EvilRacistNaziFascist: whidbey: You might take that silver spoon out of your mouth while you're talking. Can't understand what you're saying.

Ah, you have no coherent reply so you resort to pretending that you can divine the socio- economic background of a compete stranger on the Internet? Can't say I'm surprised by the evasion, I've seen it all too many times before. The Left has no arguments, only rationalizations -- and once those are exposed, it's on to insults and bogus psychologizing. Classic.

As it happens my background is far more solidly working- class than yours is likely to be, but then again it's usually the case that working- class people are the least likely to make bullsh*t excuses for crime -- because after all they're the ones who suffer its consequences the most. Insulated middle- class people by contrast can afford to wring their hands of the plight of the poor man who was forced by society to punch out a passerby for his cellphone.


So when the overwhelming majority of these mass shootings end in suicide, many of them planned suicides, how exactly can you suggest they're doing it for personal gain. Dead isn't much of a gain.
 
2012-12-16 11:54:33 PM

rohar: lordjupiter: rohar: lordjupiter: rohar: lordjupiter: Because that's not an accurate representation of what's going on.

What are the "known solutions"? Where is the proof? Why is it that the factors you've listed in previous posts as target issues seem to have no bearing on these mass shootings, and in fact potentially enable them by providing access to more expensive weaponry? Why are we seeing that improvements in those factors do nothing to reduce extremism and terrorism if they're "known solutions"?

Once again, this is just moving away from the issue to something else.

Not at all, I'll gladly cite correlation, it's sitting on my screen in notepad, as soon as you cite any correlation between any gun regulation and a reduction in gun related crime in America in the past 50 years. I'll wait, I'm a patient man.

You can wait all you want. I've already addressed this so you can stop grandstanding on it.

You've said "I believe" repeatedly. Strangely history flies in the face of your assertion. I'm not grandstanding, just trying to beat through your thick skull a pathway to reducing these incidents. But you came up with a conclusion, ignored all data and went with it. There's probably little I can do now.

This conversation reminds me of having a rational discussion with a TeaBagger.

You're awfully smug for someone who hasn't stated a single relevant "fact".

I said earlier: "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."

You ARE grandstanding based on a narrow and arbitrary standard of proof. There has not been a good, scientific study of the effects of well-written and well-enforced gun legislation, partly because there haven't really BEEN any such legislation, though some evidence exists that the DC gun ban may have reduced gun-related murders and suicides in the suburbs of DC by 25% while ot ...



Try? There is no try.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_control#Impact_on_mortality

And seriously this time....good night. Ballbag.
 
2012-12-16 11:54:59 PM

whidbey: EvilRacistNaziFascist:

BTW you conservatives had better learn to love social programs and what they're capable of, because they very likely will be the reason that we never pursue total gun prohibition.


Not quite sure exactly what you're implying here (some kind of veiled threat?) but the reality is that since overspending on entitlements is rapidly bankrupting the Western world in general and the US in particular, we are all inevitably heading for a kind of future society that is far more minimalist and small- government than either you or I can possibly imagine. Once that comes to pass, guns will be prove to be much more useful than they are today... I'd advise you pick one up for yourself, in fact -- just as a piece of friendly advice.
 
2012-12-16 11:56:34 PM

lordjupiter: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_control#Impact_on_mortality


Good god, you're serious. Let me laugh a bit harder.
 
2012-12-16 11:57:21 PM

EvilRacistNaziFascist: but the reality is that since overspending on entitlements is rapidly bankrupting the Western world in general and the US in particular


Wow you're just full of all kinds of unverifiable bullshiat tonight, aren't you?

we are all inevitably heading for a kind of future society that is far more minimalist and small- government than either you or I can possibly imagine.

Bullshiat.

Once that comes to pass, guns will be prove to be much more useful than they are today... I'd advise you pick one up for yourself, in fact -- just as a piece of friendly advice.

You're sure hinging a lot of the future on just a few lines of derp, Mister. Pretty hard to take you seriously.
 
2012-12-16 11:58:33 PM

kyrg: You people are sooo tiresome.

Guns are a straw man. If you had a once of integrity you would be in the streets trying to end the sale of cigarettes (400,000 deaths a year) vehicles (30,000 deaths a year) and alcohol (40,000 deaths a year)

The real obscenity with this tragic event is not guns, but mental illness.
Think of what might have been prevented if that 500 Billion dollars swirling down the Solindra sewer drain had been invested in Mental facilities and the people to staff them.

Gabby Giffords, Denver movie goers, the list of victims is long, but the source of all this pain is ignored for political reasons.


Not that I disagree with your premise that mental illness is the real obscenity, but re: your other premise. The difference is people choose to smoke, drink and drive. They generally do not choose to be slaughtered en masse - especially - when they're 6 - 7 years old in their classrooms.
 
2012-12-16 11:59:16 PM

EvilRacistNaziFascist: whidbey: EvilRacistNaziFascist:

BTW you conservatives had better learn to love social programs and what they're capable of, because they very likely will be the reason that we never pursue total gun prohibition.

Not quite sure exactly what you're implying here (some kind of veiled threat?) but the reality is that since overspending on entitlements is rapidly bankrupting the Western world in general and the US in particular, we are all inevitably heading for a kind of future society that is far more minimalist and small- government than either you or I can possibly imagine. Once that comes to pass, guns will be prove to be much more useful than they are today... I'd advise you pick one up for yourself, in fact -- just as a piece of friendly advice.


Uh, no. Can you cite any country that controlled it's own currency AND wasn't under threat of invasion that went insolvent?

Yeah, neither can I. Your Mad Max fantasies are just that, fantasies.
 
2012-12-16 11:59:17 PM
I don't see any data in the article. Just the same, tired, false arguments as before. Gun control advocates want less gun violence. Clearly less gun control hasn't worked, so why don't we try more. You want to convince me otherwise, show me some articles from peer-reviewed journals explaining how to decrease gun violence without increasing gun control laws, and I will be more than happy to advocate that method. Until then, shut up about "data," because you don't have any.
 
2012-12-16 11:59:30 PM

EvilRacistNaziFascist: whidbey: You might take that silver spoon out of your mouth while you're talking. Can't understand what you're saying.

Ah, you have no coherent reply


Just responding in kind.

You're either ignorant or trolling if you don't see how being poor and desperate just might drive you to committing crimes, especially when you feel you have nothing to lose.
 
2012-12-16 11:59:37 PM

rohar: So when the overwhelming majority of these mass shootings end in suicide, many of them planned suicides, how exactly can you suggest they're doing it for personal gain. Dead isn't much of a gain.


Whidbey's original comment suggested that more social spending could prevent violent crime. I don't imagine that by "violent crime" he was referring to spree killings, especially not since they are so often perpetrated by (admittedly mentally ill) people from relatively comfortable backgrounds. The latest shooter, from what I have heard, lived in a million- dollar mansion. The lesson, as always, is that you can't simply have the government throw money at a problem until it goes away -- that is a superstition of "progressivism".
 
2012-12-17 12:02:08 AM

EvilRacistNaziFascist: Whidbey's original comment suggested that more social spending could prevent violent crime. I don't imagine that by "violent crime" he was referring to spree killings, especially not since they are so often perpetrated by (admittedly mentally ill) people from relatively comfortable backgrounds


Oh look, more bullshiat you can't even prove.
 
2012-12-17 12:02:10 AM

pion: I don't see any data in the article. Just the same, tired, false arguments as before. Gun control advocates want less gun violence. Clearly less gun control hasn't worked, so why don't we try more. You want to convince me otherwise, show me some articles from peer-reviewed journals explaining how to decrease gun violence without increasing gun control laws, and I will be more than happy to advocate that method. Until then, shut up about "data," because you don't have any.


Our murder rate, nationally, has almost been cut in half over the past 20 years. There were few if any new gun control laws, many expired or were repealed:

wmbriggs.com

You were saying?
 
2012-12-17 12:02:15 AM

whidbey: EvilRacistNaziFascist: There is no "provable" connection between violence and poverty

lol


I hate to break it to you, Whidbey, but "lol" is not an intelligent argument for or against anything... you really need to examine your prejudices and preconceptions about the world -- you know, actually think rather than simply regurgitating whatever you've been told by whatever authority figures you've been subject to in the past.
 
2012-12-17 12:03:59 AM

whidbey: Oh look, more bullshiat you can't even prove.


Come on, Whidbey, you're not even trying! These cheap shots make you look like a third- grader sticking his tongue out in the schoolyard. Where's the challenge, man?!
 
2012-12-17 12:04:18 AM

EvilRacistNaziFascist: whidbey: EvilRacistNaziFascist: There is no "provable" connection between violence and poverty

lol

I hate to break it to you, Whidbey, but "lol" is not an intelligent argument for or against anything.


More like you didn't have an argument. You made a bullshiat assumption and I laughed at you for making it.
 
2012-12-17 12:05:39 AM

EvilRacistNaziFascist: whidbey: Oh look, more bullshiat you can't even prove.

Come on, Whidbey, you're not even trying! These cheap shots make you look like a third- grader sticking his tongue out in the schoolyard. Where's the challenge, man?!


The "challenge" would be for you to provide citations for all of the bare assertions you've been making.
 
2012-12-17 12:06:10 AM

heap: iq_in_binary: You feel that the removal of purely punitive measures

no, i feel that i just don't see it as a topical priority.

you'll note this by the fact that i've said as much several times now - and i see your insistence that it is the problem that needs solved here to be abject selfishness. again, as i've said several times now.

again, the more you point out the lack of crimes associated with these weapons, it really is the better case you make for labeling it a success story and leaving it alone.

there's a class of weapon that isn't involved in crime, and that's what you want to concentrate on right now? that needs relaxed because....oh yah, you feel like you need a reacharound in trade for any gun regulation.

again, i just don't care about your desire for a fun auto to plink around on at the shooting range. it's really important to you, i just can't bring myself to say 'hey, this is what needs solved here, this guy ca't have a range toy without a mortgage'.


And you're taking the exact stance that has led to being averse to being kicked in the nuts for absolutely no good reason.

"Fark You, You're a gun owner. We've kicked you in the nuts for no good reason and you should be lucky we don't just remove them this time."

You are NOT going to get the problem solved without the support of gun owners. We're too big of a voter demographic and we're far too reliable at showing up at the poll stations. Getting any effective measures passed without our support is not going to happen. Period.

Remember the whole point of Republicans being clueless about Hispanic voters? This is liberals, democrats, and pro gun control people (like me, by the way, I mean, did you read my proposal? Do you have any idea how much of a pain in the ass it's going to make it for me to do business as a Gunsmith?) completely missing the mark. I'm telling you what is necessary to get these people's support and step 1 is: Not treating them like the enemy. Switch out our gun control legislation for shiat like what AZ had going on and the voter suppression crap and you have a pretty good idea how gun owners have been trampled on.

You taking issue with repealing the Hughes amendment is like Republicans telling the Latino demographic that they wouldn't feel so alienated by Republican bullshiat if they were "Real Americans."

I want this shiat fixed too, and personally, I probably wouldn't even end up with a currently (or future) controlled NFA machine gun if the Hughes Amendment was repealed (ammo costs? holy shiat that's an expensive hobby, I'll stick to long range varminting on farmlands), but to deny that some of the actions taken by the gun-control crowd weren't dick moves, that accomplished absolutely nothing, is naive and ignorant. That you aren't willing to accept that just shows how much contempt you have for the 70 Million+ people in this country that own guns. That you're doubly so unwilling to make ANY concessions to get the problem solved like I've proposed just means you just want to dump on them, no matter their character or positive contribution to society.
 
2012-12-17 12:07:42 AM

EvilRacistNaziFascist: whidbey: EvilRacistNaziFascist: There is no "provable" connection between violence and poverty

lol

I hate to break it to you, Whidbey, but "lol" is not an intelligent argument for or against anything... you really need to examine your prejudices and preconceptions about the world -- you know, actually think rather than simply regurgitating whatever you've been told by whatever authority figures you've been subject to in the past.


So help us out. Why is Louisiana's murder rate over double Washington State's when the gun laws are the same?
 
2012-12-17 12:07:54 AM

iq_in_binary: "Fark You, You're a gun owner. We've kicked you in the nuts for no good reason and you should be lucky we don't just remove them this time."


again, i am a gun owner.

the desire to paint everything that doesn't blow smoke up your ass as part of some gun grabbing conspiracy to take away your freedom/toys/testicles is just frigging tiresome.
 
2012-12-17 12:10:24 AM

EvilRacistNaziFascist: ...the reality is that since overspending on entitlements is rapidly bankrupting the Western world in general and the US in particular...


At least you're honest enough to admit that most of our defense budget qualifies as entitlements.

That is what you were saying, right?
 
2012-12-17 12:13:39 AM

whidbey: You're either ignorant or trolling if you don't see how being poor and desperate just might drive you to committing crimes, especially when you feel you have nothing to lose.


Again, please define "nothing to lose" (and stop dodging the question, you coward). I suspect what you really mean is that many criminals have been taught to blame society for their problems and use this as a justification for theft, robbery, rape, and murder (while hard- left idiots like you cheer them on, of course). You talk as if we were still living in a Dickensian world where all crime involved starving orphans pinching a ha'-penny's worth of bread; it's pretty hard to reconcile this with the modern world and its well- fed perpetrators getting involved in muggings, bank robberies, shoplifting, looting etc.
 
2012-12-17 12:14:39 AM

heap: iq_in_binary: "Fark You, You're a gun owner. We've kicked you in the nuts for no good reason and you should be lucky we don't just remove them this time."

again, i am a gun owner.

the desire to paint everything that doesn't blow smoke up your ass as part of some gun grabbing conspiracy to take away your freedom/toys/testicles is just frigging tiresome.


Asserting that we need to increase laws that have historically done nothing is farking insane.

But hey, if you want to be insane rather than tiresome, I guess that's ok. Ineffective, but cool with me.
 
2012-12-17 12:16:48 AM

heap: iq_in_binary: "Fark You, You're a gun owner. We've kicked you in the nuts for no good reason and you should be lucky we don't just remove them this time."

again, i am a gun owner.

the desire to paint everything that doesn't blow smoke up your ass as part of some gun grabbing conspiracy to take away your freedom/toys/testicles is just frigging tiresome.


Then come up with something realistic.
 
2012-12-17 12:16:49 AM

rohar: pion: I don't see any data in the article. Just the same, tired, false arguments as before. Gun control advocates want less gun violence. Clearly less gun control hasn't worked, so why don't we try more. You want to convince me otherwise, show me some articles from peer-reviewed journals explaining how to decrease gun violence without increasing gun control laws, and I will be more than happy to advocate that method. Until then, shut up about "data," because you don't have any.

Our murder rate, nationally, has almost been cut in half over the past 20 years. There were few if any new gun control laws, many expired or were repealed:

[wmbriggs.com image 600x450]

You were saying?


Looking at your graph, there was a nice fall in the 93/94 year. Didn't the Assault Weapon Ban kick in around 1994? I'm not trying to be incendiary.
 
2012-12-17 12:17:34 AM

heap: iq_in_binary: "Fark You, You're a gun owner. We've kicked you in the nuts for no good reason and you should be lucky we don't just remove them this time."

again, i am a gun owner.

the desire to paint everything that doesn't blow smoke up your ass as part of some gun grabbing conspiracy to take away your freedom/toys/testicles is just frigging tiresome.


What part of extending the NFA to practically all semi-autos did you not hear in my proposal? Do you know what the NFA is? What you have to do to get an NFA tax stamp? I just offered you the holy grail of gun control in this country, well at least the holy grail of ACHIEVABLE gun control in this country.

And yet because I offer one teensy little thing to get the support from the gun owners that you're going to need to have it, whether you like it or not, and will only ever effect at most 1% of the firearms in this country, I'm being a selfish prick?
 
2012-12-17 12:18:44 AM

whidbey: The "challenge" would be for you to provide citations for all of the bare assertions you've been making.


You're the one who first suggested that poverty was responsible for violent crime. Why didn't you bother to prove it yourself, rather than lashing out at anyone who subsequently dared to question your dogma? You're acting like a medieval theologian who's just discovered that not everybody else takes God's existence for granted.
 
2012-12-17 12:20:17 AM

EvilRacistNaziFascist: whidbey: You're either ignorant or trolling if you don't see how being poor and desperate just might drive you to committing crimes, especially when you feel you have nothing to lose.

Again, please define "nothing to lose" (and stop dodging the question, you coward).


"Nothing to lose" means exactly that. I see no reason to keep trying to get you to understand the mindset of someone poor and desperate enough to commit crimes. At any rate, you aren't capable of empathizing, and think everyone who breaks the law does it because they're evil and selfish.

I suspect what you really mean is that many criminals have been taught to blame society for their problems and use this as a justification for theft, robbery, rape, and murder (while hard- left idiots like you cheer them on, of course).

I'm sure you believe that. Also, it's rather difficult if not outright pointless to have a discussion with someone who feels the need to use the term "hard left idiot." I am a moderate liberal, and I am educated. You'
re clearly of some kind of upper-class if not rich background, and you are out of touch with the reality most have to face on a daily basis.

You talk as if we were still living in a Dickensian world where all crime involved starving orphans pinching a ha'-penny's worth of bread; it's pretty hard to reconcile this with the modern world and its well- fed perpetrators getting involved in muggings, bank robberies, shoplifting, looting etc.

You have no concept of what poverty is, or what drives people to commit desperate acts.

We're done with this foolish line of thought.
 
2012-12-17 12:20:38 AM
Also, let me say that the crime drop in rohar's graph could also be attributed to the whole Violent Crime act, not just the AWB.
 
2012-12-17 12:21:06 AM

efgeise: rohar: pion: I don't see any data in the article. Just the same, tired, false arguments as before. Gun control advocates want less gun violence. Clearly less gun control hasn't worked, so why don't we try more. You want to convince me otherwise, show me some articles from peer-reviewed journals explaining how to decrease gun violence without increasing gun control laws, and I will be more than happy to advocate that method. Until then, shut up about "data," because you don't have any.

Our murder rate, nationally, has almost been cut in half over the past 20 years. There were few if any new gun control laws, many expired or were repealed:

[wmbriggs.com image 600x450]

You were saying?

Looking at your graph, there was a nice fall in the 93/94 year. Didn't the Assault Weapon Ban kick in around 1994? I'm not trying to be incendiary.


Yes, that occurred in '94. Well after the decline started. Just to put things in perspective, the overwhelming majority of gun related homicides are committed with hand guns that were not included in the assault weapons ban. Oh and after the ban was lifted, homicide rates continued to fall. Given all of this, what are you trying to say?
 
2012-12-17 12:21:08 AM

redmid17: heap: iq_in_binary: "Fark You, You're a gun owner. We've kicked you in the nuts for no good reason and you should be lucky we don't just remove them this time."

again, i am a gun owner.

the desire to paint everything that doesn't blow smoke up your ass as part of some gun grabbing conspiracy to take away your freedom/toys/testicles is just frigging tiresome.

Then come up with something realistic.


I did, quite realistic, and quite comprehensive. Hell, it's the holy grail of achievable gun control in this country. Also, it doesn't involve bans (which have been proven not to work), cosmetic conditions (which again, have been proven not to work), and even addressing the issue of owning guns with mental illnesses! But because I want a tiny little something that will only ever affect a tiny portion of gun owners that have been proven over the course of the last 70 years to literally not commit gun crimes, he calls it selfish.
 
2012-12-17 12:22:10 AM

redmid17: heap: iq_in_binary: "Fark You, You're a gun owner. We've kicked you in the nuts for no good reason and you should be lucky we don't just remove them this time."

again, i am a gun owner.

the desire to paint everything that doesn't blow smoke up your ass as part of some gun grabbing conspiracy to take away your freedom/toys/testicles is just frigging tiresome.

Then come up with something realistic.


if you follow the conversation, 'Don't try to get increased access to automatic weapons immediately after the death of 20 6 year olds' seems kind of realistic to me.

somehow it's a political issue that will be a winner, and this assumption just kinda leaves me baffled. advocacy like this is doing gun owners few favors.

rohar: Asserting that we need to increase laws that have historically done nothing is farking insane.


i like how the NFA guns are absolutely never used in the commission of crime, yet gun regulation simultaneously does nothing. a sane person might look at the increased barrier to ownership and the responsibilities required and admit regulation actually did something.

but we don't live in sanetown. we live in spiteville.
 
2012-12-17 12:23:35 AM

iq_in_binary: redmid17: heap: iq_in_binary: "Fark You, You're a gun owner. We've kicked you in the nuts for no good reason and you should be lucky we don't just remove them this time."

again, i am a gun owner.

the desire to paint everything that doesn't blow smoke up your ass as part of some gun grabbing conspiracy to take away your freedom/toys/testicles is just frigging tiresome.

Then come up with something realistic.

I did, quite realistic, and quite comprehensive. Hell, it's the holy grail of achievable gun control in this country. Also, it doesn't involve bans (which have been proven not to work), cosmetic conditions (which again, have been proven not to work), and even addressing the issue of owning guns with mental illnesses! But because I want a tiny little something that will only ever affect a tiny portion of gun owners that have been proven over the course of the last 70 years to literally not commit gun crimes, he calls it selfish.


You did and I've been following pretty much all the gun threads since I joined Fark. I like your proposal more than just about any other proposal I've seen. I just don't think anyone who supports something like the AWB would ever be on board with that.
 
2012-12-17 12:24:31 AM

EvilRacistNaziFascist: whidbey: The "challenge" would be for you to provide citations for all of the bare assertions you've been making.

You're the one who first suggested that poverty was responsible for violent crime


Um, no. First you made the statement "Social spending has nothing to do with the rate of violent crime."

No citation whatsoever.

Then you made the claim "There is no "provable" connection between violence and poverty"

which you also cannot prove.

I'm totally wasting my time replying to your nonsense.
 
2012-12-17 12:24:57 AM

EvilRacistNaziFascist: whidbey: You're either ignorant or trolling if you don't see how being poor and desperate just might drive you to committing crimes, especially when you feel you have nothing to lose.

Again, please define "nothing to lose" (and stop dodging the question, you coward). I suspect what you really mean is that many criminals have been taught to blame society for their problems and use this as a justification for theft, robbery, rape, and murder (while hard- left idiots like you cheer them on, of course). You talk as if we were still living in a Dickensian world where all crime involved starving orphans pinching a ha'-penny's worth of bread; it's pretty hard to reconcile this with the modern world and its well- fed perpetrators getting involved in muggings, bank robberies, shoplifting, looting etc.


Dude, the connections between hopelessness, drug use, and then crime to fund further drug use once addicted is very nearly indisputible. Take a look at this: Children of the Mountains': Full Show
 
2012-12-17 12:25:03 AM

iq_in_binary: And yet because I offer one teensy little thing to get the support from the gun owners that you're going to need to have it


yah, just a teensy thing.

a tiny, wafer thin mint, if you will.
 
2012-12-17 12:25:58 AM

heap: redmid17: heap: iq_in_binary: "Fark You, You're a gun owner. We've kicked you in the nuts for no good reason and you should be lucky we don't just remove them this time."

again, i am a gun owner.

the desire to paint everything that doesn't blow smoke up your ass as part of some gun grabbing conspiracy to take away your freedom/toys/testicles is just frigging tiresome.

Then come up with something realistic.

if you follow the conversation, 'Don't try to get increased access to automatic weapons immediately after the death of 20 6 year olds' seems kind of realistic to me.

somehow it's a political issue that will be a winner, and this assumption just kinda leaves me baffled. advocacy like this is doing gun owners few favors.


Zero NFA weapons have been used in crime since '34. The reason is not lack of availability or price. It's the vetting process you have to go through to even own one.
 
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