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.

(Slate)   Slate is crowdsourcing all the gun deaths in the US since December 14   (slate.com) divider line 461
    More: Sad, GunDeaths, gun deaths, New York Times Magazine  
•       •       •

13879 clicks; posted to Main » on 21 Dec 2012 at 10:52 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2012-12-21 10:54:22 AM  
Gotta love these instant greenlights, guess the mods are the type of people that piss themselves at the idea of firearms.
 
2012-12-21 10:55:55 AM  
This means....something.
 
2012-12-21 10:57:49 AM  
Then lets crowd source all the defensive gun uses !
 
2012-12-21 10:58:13 AM  

duffblue: Gotta love these instant greenlights, guess the mods are the type of people that piss themselves at the idea of firearms.


Yep.

Because only a complete coward would think that gun nuts should have a few basic responsibilities placed on the acquisition and distribution of their deadly toys. I mean, it's not like any other rights come with limitations on their use based on the impact it can have on other people or anything.

The REAL tragedy here, after all, is that somebody might have to wait an extra day or two to get a gun or reload slightly more often at the local range. Truly a historical atrocity with no equal.
 
2012-12-21 10:58:36 AM  
I bet the data is going to be racist
 
2012-12-21 10:59:16 AM  
Vegan Meat Popsicle

Because the AWB worked so well last time right?.....but THIS time it will be DIFFERENT right?
 
2012-12-21 10:59:47 AM  
Yeah "statistics" taken from a Twitter feed with the sole purpose of promoting the awareness of said "statistics" and being presented as factual...awesome.
 
2012-12-21 11:00:03 AM  
Slant should count ALL the people that have died and compare the numbers.

Methinks that gun deaths will be down the list a bit....
 
2012-12-21 11:00:12 AM  
Deaths in the U.S. Automobiles, which kill 117 Americans a day, or nearly 43,000 a year. Then comes flu, which (along with pneumonia, its associated disease) kills 36,000 people. Third is guns: 26,000 deaths. Fourth, food-borne illness: 5,000. And finally, terrorism, which in a typical year claims virtually no U.S. lives
 
2012-12-21 11:01:00 AM  

bhcompy: I bet the data is going to be racist



All of the little people in the graph  are blah...
 
2012-12-21 11:01:24 AM  

Deep Contact: Deaths in the U.S. Automobiles, which kill 117 Americans a day, or nearly 43,000 a year. Then comes flu, which (along with pneumonia, its associated disease) kills 36,000 people. Third is guns: 26,000 deaths. Fourth, food-borne illness: 5,000. And finally, terrorism, which in a typical year claims virtually no U.S. lives


Well, you could consider a random public murder suicide an act of terror. Israel does
 
2012-12-21 11:01:51 AM  
Slate comments have taught me that firearm's only purpose is murder.
 
2012-12-21 11:01:58 AM  

Virtue: Then lets crowd source all the defensive gun uses !


You can do whatever you want but considering studies have already been done on the matter that conclude that successful defensive gun incidents are fairly uncommon (even when you include "defensive" actions like chasing down an assailant after they've already begun to flee) you might want to look into the facts a little more closely before you make them there numbers too visible and hold them up next to the thousands of gun deaths that will occur in the coming year.
There's a reason gun nuts don't generally quote hard numbers and stick more to generic statements like "it won't work because culture". The numbers don't look very good from that side of the argument.
 
2012-12-21 11:02:28 AM  
312 million people population...

Someone do a map of alcohol related deaths

Or choking on a ham sammich
 
2012-12-21 11:03:02 AM  

Virtue: Because the AWB worked so well last time right?.....


You won't see me defending the AWB. It was a stupid and pointless POS.

The fact that the NRA neutered it and then chopped it off at the knees, however, is no reason not to do it properly this time around.
 
2012-12-21 11:03:20 AM  

Vegan Meat Popsicle: duffblue: Gotta love these instant greenlights, guess the mods are the type of people that piss themselves at the idea of firearms.

Yep.

Because only a complete coward would think that gun nuts should have a few basic responsibilities placed on the acquisition and distribution of their deadly toys. I mean, it's not like any other rights come with limitations on their use based on the impact it can have on other people or anything.

The REAL tragedy here, after all, is that somebody might have to wait an extra day or two to get a gun or reload slightly more often at the local range. Truly a historical atrocity with no equal.


I've taken several gun safety classes, been waited the week I need before purchases, been background checked by the FBI, fingerprinted, etc. and keep my stuff locked in a safe . A few basic responsibilities are already in place. And I'm not against any of it. You are arguing against a strawman.
 
2012-12-21 11:03:25 AM  
If you listen closely, you can hear Al-Quaeda laughing their assess off.
 
2012-12-21 11:03:44 AM  

Vegan Meat Popsicle: duffblue: Gotta love these instant greenlights, guess the mods are the type of people that piss themselves at the idea of firearms.

Yep.

Because only a complete coward would think that gun nuts should have a few basic responsibilities placed on the acquisition and distribution of their deadly toys. I mean, it's not like any other rights come with limitations on their use based on the impact it can have on other people or anything.

The REAL tragedy here, after all, is that somebody might have to wait an extra day or two to get a gun or reload slightly more often at the local range. Truly a historical atrocity with no equal.


Millions of law abiding citizens should not have their rights restricted in an attempt to target the few crazies or gang bangers who decide that shooting fellow human beings is a sport..
 
2012-12-21 11:04:58 AM  

duffblue: Gotta love these instant greenlights, guess the mods are the type of people that piss themselves at the idea of firearms.


Guess you're the type of person who pisses himself at the idea of drawing attention to the ugly side of your hobby.
 
2012-12-21 11:05:14 AM  
If I can have a gun, shouldn't I also be allowed to have a nuclear tipped missile?
 
2012-12-21 11:05:28 AM  
wow look how chill the west coast is, must be the weed...
 
2012-12-21 11:06:48 AM  

WhippingBoy: If I can have a gun, shouldn't I also be allowed to have a nuclear tipped missile?


No, you'll shoot your eye out.
 
2012-12-21 11:06:59 AM  
Serious question:

Who's the bigger pussy? The guy afraid of gun violence, or the guy afraid to face life without his gun?
 
2012-12-21 11:07:11 AM  

WhippingBoy: If I can have a gun, shouldn't I also be allowed to have a nuclear tipped missile?


0/10.
 
2012-12-21 11:07:28 AM  
Vegan Meat Popsicle

Completely UNTRUE.....defensive gun use studies using FBI crime stats place DGU at 800K to 2.5 million per year.....the only people who decry these studies are the anti gun nuts.
 
2012-12-21 11:07:34 AM  

Vegan Meat Popsicle: Virtue: Then lets crowd source all the defensive gun uses !

You can do whatever you want but considering studies have already been done on the matter that conclude that successful defensive gun incidents are fairly uncommon (even when you include "defensive" actions like chasing down an assailant after they've already begun to flee) you might want to look into the facts a little more closely before you make them there numbers too visible and hold them up next to the thousands of gun deaths that will occur in the coming year.
There's a reason gun nuts don't generally quote hard numbers and stick more to generic statements like "it won't work because culture". The numbers don't look very good from that side of the argument.


It's the same reason a lot of the Repubs wouldn't accept Nate Silver's analysis of the presidential race. Numbers have a liberal bias. Just let them go, if you let them get high on their own jenkem it makes their tears even more delicious later on when their side inevitably fails.

/tears marinated in jenkem
//I regret nothing
 
2012-12-21 11:07:54 AM  
If it was really about saving lives we would ban cars.
 
2012-12-21 11:08:07 AM  
Wow, a little icon of a kid has never been harder to look at.
 
2012-12-21 11:08:17 AM  

Vegan Meat Popsicle: The fact that the NRA neutered it and then chopped it off at the knees, however, is no reason not to do it properly this time around.


So you want people to go around taking guns from law abiding citizens?
 
2012-12-21 11:08:19 AM  

WhippingBoy: Serious question:

Who's the bigger pussy? The guy afraid of gun violence, or the guy afraid to face life without his gun?


-1/10

Would have given 0/10 if you could have a slipped a penis reference in there.
 
2012-12-21 11:09:29 AM  

manimal2878: A few basic responsibilities are already in place


You are under no obligation to keep your guns secured. Completely the opposite. It is illegal for the government to tell you that you have to keep your guns secured. And unless you have a state law that says otherwise, you are under no obligation to complete a safety class.

But by all means, keep pretending your personal experience means anything at all.

BokChoy: Millions of law abiding citizens should not have their rights restricted in an attempt to target the few crazies or gang bangers who decide that shooting fellow human beings is a sport..


Wrong.

This is a long-settled legal matter. You do not have any absolute right and we are done discussing that particular "issue" since there is a clear and objective truth to it. Your rights can be curtailed to protect the rights of others, it's been litigated, the decision has been made, there is no further discussion to be had.
 
2012-12-21 11:09:31 AM  

Vegan Meat Popsicle: The fact that the NRA neutered it and then chopped it off at the knees, however, is no reason not to do it properly this time around.


No, according to Fienstein, it was passed exactly the way her staff worded it without amendment.
 
2012-12-21 11:09:59 AM  

manimal2878: Vegan Meat Popsicle: duffblue: Gotta love these instant greenlights, guess the mods are the type of people that piss themselves at the idea of firearms.

Yep.

Because only a complete coward would think that gun nuts should have a few basic responsibilities placed on the acquisition and distribution of their deadly toys. I mean, it's not like any other rights come with limitations on their use based on the impact it can have on other people or anything.

The REAL tragedy here, after all, is that somebody might have to wait an extra day or two to get a gun or reload slightly more often at the local range. Truly a historical atrocity with no equal.

I've taken several gun safety classes, been waited the week I need before purchases, been background checked by the FBI, fingerprinted, etc. and keep my stuff locked in a safe . A few basic responsibilities are already in place. And I'm not against any of it. You are arguing against a strawman.


Some people don't do those things. We need to make sure they don't have weapons.
 
2012-12-21 11:10:15 AM  

WhippingBoy: If I can have a gun, shouldn't I also be allowed to have a nuclear tipped missile?


Retard.
 
2012-12-21 11:10:45 AM  

Virtue: Vegan Meat Popsicle

Completely UNTRUE.....defensive gun use studies using FBI crime stats place DGU at 800K to 2.5 million per year.....the only people who decry these studies are the anti gun nuts.


Those numbers seem rather high. Link, please? (So these are studies performed by the FBI?)
 
2012-12-21 11:11:10 AM  

WhippingBoy: Serious question:

Who's the bigger pussy? The guy afraid of gun violence, or the guy afraid to face life without his gun?


I'd say they are about the same.
 
2012-12-21 11:11:23 AM  

WhippingBoy: If I can have a gun, shouldn't I also be allowed to have a nuclear tipped missile?


Of course because the weapon doesn't matter! If we took away guns people would go on mass fork stabbing sprees and the carnage would be unspeakable.
 
2012-12-21 11:11:39 AM  
Cars kill more people every day and it's not like we're moving to make those things autonomous so they're taken out of human hands amirite?
 
2012-12-21 11:12:28 AM  
The problem is all of the victims were unarmed. If more people carried guns these type of violent crimes would cease to exist. Children need to be given guns and trained how to properly use them.
 
2012-12-21 11:13:01 AM  

Vegan Meat Popsicle: You are under no obligation to keep your guns secured. Completely the opposite. It is illegal for the government to tell you that you have to keep your guns secured. And unless you have a state law that says otherwise, you are under no obligation to complete a safety class.


You are completely mistaken, about the government not being able to tell you to keep the things locked up. Read the Heller decision. The whole thing.

Many states require the state law. I don't know why you are arguing that is a bad thing. Isn't it what you want?
 
2012-12-21 11:13:29 AM  

manimal2878: WhippingBoy: If I can have a gun, shouldn't I also be allowed to have a nuclear tipped missile?

Retard.


I don't think he is. Answer one question: Does the amount of carnage one can inflict depend on the type of weapon one is using to commit said act of carnage?

Take all the time you need. There is only one correct answer. After you get it right we can have a meaningful conversation about gun control.
 
2012-12-21 11:14:03 AM  
I love the fact that people in here are all pissed off that someone is trying to get a handle on gun death statistics. It's particularly amusing because the NRA has basically banned funding for those kind of studies.

America - where people get offended at very notion that we should gather information about something to try and understand it better.
 
2012-12-21 11:14:35 AM  

Schroedinger's Glory Hole: Cars kill more people every day and it's not like we're moving to make those things autonomous so they're taken out of human hands amirite?


Yeah, not like that at all. Or maybe exactly like that.
 
2012-12-21 11:15:55 AM  

Semi-Sane: The problem is all of the victims were unarmed. If more people carried guns these type of violent crimes would cease to exist. Children need to be given guns and trained how to properly use them.


I think everyone should have a device designed to instantly kill another person within arms reach at all times.
 
2012-12-21 11:16:07 AM  

Incog_Neeto: If it was really about saving lives we would ban cars.


If it was really about your false equivalency you would be King Potato.
 
2012-12-21 11:16:36 AM  

WhippingBoy: Serious question:

Who's the bigger pussy? The guy afraid of gun violence, or the guy afraid to face life without his gun?


The one afraid of an inanimate object.
 
2012-12-21 11:16:46 AM  
Someone should upFarked this Slate link:

http://www.slate.com/articles/life/dear_prudence/2012/12/dear_prudenc e _is_it_ok_not_to_tell_the_baby_s_father_if_he_s_a_jerk.html
 
2012-12-21 11:17:54 AM  

Carn: manimal2878: WhippingBoy: If I can have a gun, shouldn't I also be allowed to have a nuclear tipped missile?

Retard.

I don't think he is. Answer one question: Does the amount of carnage one can inflict depend on the type of weapon one is using to commit said act of carnage?

Take all the time you need. There is only one correct answer. After you get it right we can have a meaningful conversation about gun control.


What does you question have to do with the anything? There is a difference between arms, small arms, ordinance, and destructive devices. After you understand that you can join the meaningful discussion.
 
2012-12-21 11:18:12 AM  

Thisbymaster: WhippingBoy: Serious question:

Who's the bigger pussy? The guy afraid of gun violence, or the guy afraid to face life without his gun?

The one afraid of an inanimate object.


So, the gun people then.
 
2012-12-21 11:18:46 AM  

Vegan Meat Popsicle: duffblue: Gotta love these instant greenlights, guess the mods are the type of people that piss themselves at the idea of firearms.

Yep.

Because only a complete coward would think that gun nuts should have a few basic responsibilities placed on the acquisition and distribution of their deadly toys



I don't think "gun nuts" are responsible for the vast majority of the carnage.

That award would go to gangsters, etc.
 
2012-12-21 11:19:06 AM  

Schroedinger's Glory Hole: Cars kill more people every day and it's not like we're moving to make those things autonomous so they're taken out of human hands amirite?


Seriously. And it's not like we have any regulations restricting who can legally drive a car, where they can legally drive, or how they must drive.

Then again, some people will always speed, drive drunk, and die in car accidents no matter what, so maybe all of our car regulations are completely pointless and we should get rid of all of them.
 
2012-12-21 11:19:11 AM  

tricycleracer: duffblue: Gotta love these instant greenlights, guess the mods are the type of people that piss themselves at the idea of firearms.

Guess you're the type of person who pisses himself at the idea of drawing attention to the ugly side of your hobby.


Or maybe I saw how well the PATRIOT Act worked. You know who else was cool with warrantless wiretapping of citizens?

secretcomedy.com


Feel free to give up your rights, but don't go trying to retroactively criminalize those that manage to keep their heads out of their own asses.
 
2012-12-21 11:19:19 AM  

manimal2878: Carn: manimal2878: WhippingBoy: If I can have a gun, shouldn't I also be allowed to have a nuclear tipped missile?

Retard.

I don't think he is. Answer one question: Does the amount of carnage one can inflict depend on the type of weapon one is using to commit said act of carnage?

Take all the time you need. There is only one correct answer. After you get it right we can have a meaningful conversation about gun control.

What does you question have to do with the anything? There is a difference between arms, small arms, ordinance, and destructive devices. After you understand that you can join the meaningful discussion.


It has everything to do with this particular issue. Answer the question and then I'll explain since you truly don't understand the connection or are just being obtuse.
 
2012-12-21 11:19:37 AM  

BokChoy: Vegan Meat Popsicle: duffblue: Gotta love these instant greenlights, guess the mods are the type of people that piss themselves at the idea of firearms.

Yep.

Because only a complete coward would think that gun nuts should have a few basic responsibilities placed on the acquisition and distribution of their deadly toys. I mean, it's not like any other rights come with limitations on their use based on the impact it can have on other people or anything.

The REAL tragedy here, after all, is that somebody might have to wait an extra day or two to get a gun or reload slightly more often at the local range. Truly a historical atrocity with no equal.

Millions of law abiding citizens should not have their rights restricted in an attempt to target the few crazies or gang bangers who decide that shooting fellow human beings is a sport..


what of the millions of law abiding citizens that have had it up to here with crazies & gang bangers? they should have a voice. and the millions of people that want nothing to do with guns in their lives. i know more people that choose not to own firearms over those who own. IMHO an important issue isn't simply owning firearms. it's owning arms that shoot a crapload of ammo per second - don't know why people have to own them. but if they do have to maybe they should be kept locked at the shooting range and that's where owners can play with them. i understand a huge part of owning such things is just playing with it and bragging rights and the thing gets very little actual use. so what. it's a over the top kill machine and should be treated as such.
 
2012-12-21 11:20:14 AM  

Virtue: So you want people to go around taking guns from law abiding citizens?


Nobody said that except you, stop lying.

Virtue: Completely UNTRUE.....defensive gun use studies using FBI crime stats place DGU at 800K to 2.5 million per year.....the only people who decry these studies are the anti gun nuts.


Maybe if you want people to take you seriouisly you shouldn't reference a repeatedly discredited study from 1995.

Again, stop lying.

manimal2878: No, according to Fienstein, it was passed exactly the way her staff worded it without amendment.


Tell you what, let's go ahead and run with that.

It was a toothless piece of crap. It's funny though that you guys always try to wedge that into the debate as if "we don't do enough" is reason to not do anything.

Banning cosmetics isn't a fix for anything. Making people responsible for the outcomes of gun ownership is.
 
2012-12-21 11:20:58 AM  

manimal2878: Carn: manimal2878: WhippingBoy: If I can have a gun, shouldn't I also be allowed to have a nuclear tipped missile?

Retard.

I don't think he is. Answer one question: Does the amount of carnage one can inflict depend on the type of weapon one is using to commit said act of carnage?

Take all the time you need. There is only one correct answer. After you get it right we can have a meaningful conversation about gun control.

What does you question have to do with the anything? There is a difference between arms, small arms, ordinance, and destructive devices. After you understand that you can join the meaningful discussion.


For real, you should know what those words mean in manimal's mind. He won't discuss anything with idiots who can't read his mind.
 
2012-12-21 11:21:53 AM  

manimal2878: WhippingBoy: If I can have a gun, shouldn't I also be allowed to have a nuclear tipped missile?

Retard.


I have a lighter. Now where the hell's my flamethrower??

/I hope you were joking
 
2012-12-21 11:22:42 AM  

manimal2878: Carn: manimal2878: WhippingBoy: If I can have a gun, shouldn't I also be allowed to have a nuclear tipped missile?

Retard.

I don't think he is. Answer one question: Does the amount of carnage one can inflict depend on the type of weapon one is using to commit said act of carnage?

Take all the time you need. There is only one correct answer. After you get it right we can have a meaningful conversation about gun control.

What does you question have to do with the anything? There is a difference between arms, small arms, ordinance, and destructive devices. After you understand that you can join the meaningful discussion.



Also, I am not aware of anyone ever referring to nuclear weapons as nuclear "arms."

Oops - sorry manimal, it looks like your argument is stupid.
 
2012-12-21 11:23:04 AM  

Chummer45: Schroedinger's Glory Hole: Cars kill more people every day and it's not like we're moving to make those things autonomous so they're taken out of human hands amirite?

Seriously. And it's not like we have any regulations restricting who can legally drive a car, where they can legally drive, or how they must drive.

Then again, some people will always speed, drive drunk, and die in car accidents no matter what, so maybe all of our car regulations are completely pointless and we should get rid of all of them.


Or maybe we have the laws in place and only punish those that break them. Not everyone that wants to own a certain thing.
 
2012-12-21 11:23:33 AM  
Is this even a meaningful stat? Simply how many died from guns? Shouldn't we rule out any that are suicides, or by police preventing crime, or people preventing crime, etc? The article specifically states that suicides are usually left out, like that's a bad thing. Why on earth should they count?

I am ok with assault weapons restrictions and permitting, etc. for the record. I just don't see how this single statistic is worthwhile.
 
2012-12-21 11:23:42 AM  

tricycleracer: duffblue: Gotta love these instant greenlights, guess the mods are the type of people that piss themselves at the idea of firearms.

Guess you're the type of person who pisses himself at the idea of drawing attention to the ugly side of your hobby.


What ugly side? 75% of gun violence victims are criminals...the shooters have on average 4 arrests and 2 convictions......the other 25% of shooting victims dont have criminal records because they are minors and by law have no adult criminal record.....law abiding gun owners are involved in a very small amount of crimes.

Ther per capita gun violence rate is like 3 per 100k...in the african american community it soars to like 25 per 100k.

We dont have a gun problem...we have a ray lewis, jayson williams, biggie and tupoc problem..its obviously not because of socio-economics...millionaires are thugs too. We make role models out of thugs and murderers.

All my cites can be found at guncite.com
 
2012-12-21 11:24:01 AM  

Chummer45: manimal2878: Carn: manimal2878: WhippingBoy: If I can have a gun, shouldn't I also be allowed to have a nuclear tipped missile?

Retard.

I don't think he is. Answer one question: Does the amount of carnage one can inflict depend on the type of weapon one is using to commit said act of carnage?

Take all the time you need. There is only one correct answer. After you get it right we can have a meaningful conversation about gun control.

What does you question have to do with the anything? There is a difference between arms, small arms, ordinance, and destructive devices. After you understand that you can join the meaningful discussion.


Also, I am not aware of anyone ever referring to nuclear weapons as nuclear "arms."

Oops - sorry manimal, it looks like your argument is stupid.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_arms_race
 
2012-12-21 11:24:59 AM  

Ready-set: manimal2878: WhippingBoy: If I can have a gun, shouldn't I also be allowed to have a nuclear tipped missile?

Retard.

I have a lighter. Now where the hell's my flamethrower??

/I hope you were joking


Hey man, if the government gets all oppressive and starts restricting my rights to the point where I need to take up arms against them, I'm not gonna be able to take out their Nimitz-class aircraft carriers with an AR-15 now, am I?
 
2012-12-21 11:25:33 AM  
Making guns illegal will take them off the street, let's make coke and heroin illegal too. I can grow guns in soil and they change the biology of the users to make them use. Also people die drowning, let's ban pools of water. Guns also naturally form over 70% of the earth and their pooling is necessary for life. What's a false equivalency again?
 
2012-12-21 11:25:41 AM  
Suicides, which are estimated to make up as much as 60 percent of gun deaths, typically go unreported.

AND most suicides are reported by family, friends, medical examiners, etc. as accidental due to the stigma of suicide.  So the numbers of suicides by gun should be a lot more.  Add in the ones who don't want it to be labeled suicide so their family can get life insurance benefits.

Honestly, if someone really, truly wants to kill themself, I rather they use a gun and do it properly than those stupid movie-promoted methods like drowning, hanging, pills, cutting, etc.  They are slow, painful ways to die and don't always go as planned.  People who are contemplating suicide should definitely seek help with their problems.  But if they truly want to do it, that's their decision.  At least they can do it quickly and effectively.

Exactly how long do we have to endure the "GUNZ R EVIL" crap before the media moves on to some other ridiculous topic?  Guns don't kill people.  Stupid people kill people.
 
2012-12-21 11:25:53 AM  
I'd rather have a tiger around the house, but apparently I can't, because they're DANGEROUS.

/forming the National Tiger Assocation
 
2012-12-21 11:26:01 AM  

KrispyKritter: BokChoy: Vegan Meat Popsicle: duffblue: Gotta love these instant greenlights, guess the mods are the type of people that piss themselves at the idea of firearms.

Yep.

Because only a complete coward would think that gun nuts should have a few basic responsibilities placed on the acquisition and distribution of their deadly toys. I mean, it's not like any other rights come with limitations on their use based on the impact it can have on other people or anything.

The REAL tragedy here, after all, is that somebody might have to wait an extra day or two to get a gun or reload slightly more often at the local range. Truly a historical atrocity with no equal.

Millions of law abiding citizens should not have their rights restricted in an attempt to target the few crazies or gang bangers who decide that shooting fellow human beings is a sport..

what of the millions of law abiding citizens that have had it up to here with crazies & gang bangers? they should have a voice. and the millions of people that want nothing to do with guns in their lives. i know more people that choose not to own firearms over those who own. IMHO an important issue isn't simply owning firearms. it's owning arms that shoot a crapload of ammo per second - don't know why people have to own them. but if they do have to maybe they should be kept locked at the shooting range and that's where owners can play with them. i understand a huge part of owning such things is just playing with it and bragging rights and the thing gets very little actual use. so what. it's a over the top kill machine and should be treated as such.



This. I would also add, every citizen is a "law abiding citizen" until they commit a crime. It looks like the sick fark who shot up that school was a "law abiding citizen" up until the point where he snapped and went on a shooting rampage.
 
2012-12-21 11:27:59 AM  

duffblue: guess the mods are the type of people that piss themselves at the idea of firearms.


And you're the kind of guy who get a bone from handling a deadly weapon....Better get used to it pro-gun people...the days of your side being in charge about this kinda shiat if farking over.
 
2012-12-21 11:28:00 AM  

QueenMamaBee: I'd rather have a tiger around the house, but apparently I can't, because they're DANGEROUS.

/forming the National Tiger Assocation


Tigers don't kill people... uh... won't get fooled again.
 
2012-12-21 11:28:32 AM  

tukatz: Exactly how long do we have to endure the "GUNZ R EVIL" crap before the media moves on to some other ridiculous topic?  Guns don't kill people.  Stupid people kill people.


I think most of us just want to make it harder for the stupid people to get the guns
 
2012-12-21 11:29:23 AM  

tukatz: Suicides, which are estimated to make up as much as 60 percent of gun deaths, typically go unreported.

AND most suicides are reported by family, friends, medical examiners, etc. as accidental due to the stigma of suicide.  So the numbers of suicides by gun should be a lot more.  Add in the ones who don't want it to be labeled suicide so their family can get life insurance benefits.

Honestly, if someone really, truly wants to kill themself, I rather they use a gun and do it properly than those stupid movie-promoted methods like drowning, hanging, pills, cutting, etc.  They are slow, painful ways to die and don't always go as planned.  People who are contemplating suicide should definitely seek help with their problems.  But if they truly want to do it, that's their decision.  At least they can do it quickly and effectively.

Exactly how long do we have to endure the "GUNZ R EVIL" crap before the media moves on to some other ridiculous topic?  Guns don't kill people.  Stupid people with guns kill people.


FTFY
 
2012-12-21 11:29:23 AM  
Did anybody notice they wanted to include suicides in gun deaths. Yes this is truly a death by gun, but it's different than someone shooting somebody else, well it is in my book. To me a suicide by gun doesn't hurt anybody else, other than the guy that shot himself, but if he say threw himself in front of a bus, then other people are affected.
 
2012-12-21 11:29:43 AM  
Slate has been putting out hits on people?
 
2012-12-21 11:29:59 AM  

manimal2878: Chummer45: Schroedinger's Glory Hole: Cars kill more people every day and it's not like we're moving to make those things autonomous so they're taken out of human hands amirite?

Seriously. And it's not like we have any regulations restricting who can legally drive a car, where they can legally drive, or how they must drive.

Then again, some people will always speed, drive drunk, and die in car accidents no matter what, so maybe all of our car regulations are completely pointless and we should get rid of all of them.

Or maybe we have the laws in place and only punish those that break them. Not everyone that wants to own a certain thing.


You're talking about an entirely different thing. To you, any gun regulation that interferes with your "rights" is unacceptable. It's the equivalent of saying "I have a constitutional right to drive a car - therefore, any law regulating cars (i.e., requiring licensing, limiting speeds, requiring safety devices, etc.) is an unwarranted infringement of my fundamental rights."
I wouldn't support a ban on guns. But I do support legislation that recognizes the fact that guns are lethal killing devices, and regulates them as such.
 
2012-12-21 11:30:39 AM  
That number has gone up by two since I last checked it a couple of hours ago, making it 75 since Newtown. Includes things like this:

A 3-year-old child in Guthrie died Saturday, after accidentally shooting himself in the head, according to the Logan County Sheriff's office.

The shooting happened early Saturday afternoon in the 1500 block of Derby Lane in Guthrie.

Authorities are calling this a tragic accident after a 3-year-old boy got hold of a gun and accidentally shot himself in the head. Several agencies responded to the home just after noon.

News 9 is told the little boy was the homeowner's nephew. He was there just visiting.

The Logan County Sheriff's Office says this is clearly an accident and they aren't expecting criminal charges.


(emphasis mine)

If there is one thing I'd like to see, it is that criminal charges should be slapped against all gun owners whose guns are misused in such a manner. Safest way to cut down on accidental discharges and instil some responsibility in the owners.
 
2012-12-21 11:30:41 AM  

tukatz: Exactly how long do we have to endure the "GUNZ R EVIL" crap before the media moves on to some other ridiculous topic?


Probably once classrooms full of innocent children stop getting slaughtered by guns.
 
2012-12-21 11:30:47 AM  

Red_Fox: duffblue: guess the mods are the type of people that piss themselves at the idea of firearms.

And you're the kind of guy who get a bone from handling a deadly weapon....Better get used to it pro-gun people...the days of your side being in charge about this kinda shiat if farking over.



you're right, I masturbate furiously to my chainsaw every fall.
 
2012-12-21 11:30:52 AM  

WhippingBoy: Hey man, if the government gets all oppressive and starts restricting my rights to the point where I need to take up arms against them, I'm not gonna be able to take out their Nimitz-class aircraft carriers with an AR-15 now, am I?


No, but why would you try to?
 
2012-12-21 11:30:52 AM  

WhippingBoy: Ready-set: manimal2878: WhippingBoy: If I can have a gun, shouldn't I also be allowed to have a nuclear tipped missile?

Retard.

I have a lighter. Now where the hell's my flamethrower??

/I hope you were joking

Hey man, if the government gets all oppressive and starts restricting my rights to the point where I need to take up arms against them, I'm not gonna be able to take out their Nimitz-class aircraft carriers with an AR-15 now, am I?


No but the us government has shown it doesnt care about collateral damage. Do your neighbors own firearms?

Besides aircraft carriers will have their own internal security issues if the government ever decides to proceed with the liberal fantasy of killing americans with a differing opinion.
 
2012-12-21 11:31:29 AM  

QueenMamaBee: tukatz: Exactly how long do we have to endure the "GUNZ R EVIL" crap before the media moves on to some other ridiculous topic?  Guns don't kill people.  Stupid people kill people.

I think most of us just want to make it harder for the stupid people to get the guns


And the correct answer is stupid/insane/negligent people with guns kill people. (not that people don't kill in other ways, but having a gun makes it a hell of a lot easier).
 
2012-12-21 11:32:11 AM  

manimal2878: WhippingBoy: Hey man, if the government gets all oppressive and starts restricting my rights to the point where I need to take up arms against them, I'm not gonna be able to take out their Nimitz-class aircraft carriers with an AR-15 now, am I?

No, but why would you try to?


It's my right.
 
2012-12-21 11:33:44 AM  

WhippingBoy: manimal2878: WhippingBoy: Hey man, if the government gets all oppressive and starts restricting my rights to the point where I need to take up arms against them, I'm not gonna be able to take out their Nimitz-class aircraft carriers with an AR-15 now, am I?

No, but why would you try to?

It's my right.



So you're saying that if the government passes a law you consider "oppressive" and tries to enforce it against you, then you have a right to murder the police officers who come to enforce that law? That's what the constitution says, in your mind?
 
2012-12-21 11:33:57 AM  

Chummer45: To you, any gun regulation that interferes with your "rights" is unacceptable.


I never said that, in fact I'm more than happy to comply with many regulations that "interfere" with my rights. I think waiting periods, background checks, being required to keep things locked up or perfectly acceptable regultations. I would even be fine with closing the "gunshow loophole" if anyone could do the required check online from anywhere.

Again you guys are argueing strawmen for the most part.
 
2012-12-21 11:34:09 AM  
I'm a huge gun nut. Buidling AR's is one of my favorite things to do.

I'm ok with waiting a handful of extra days for a Lower or Firearm.

I'm not ok with banning "military style" firearms that only look like their military counterparts. Unless we ban Jeeps, Suburbans, Hummers and whole fleets of commercial aircraft becuase they have military uses as well.
 
2012-12-21 11:34:17 AM  
people say guns have no use in society, yet, it has more uses than alcohol. alcohol has zero benefit to society, it doesnt help in anyway and banning it would stop 1,000's of needless alcohol related deaths, and make america healthier. Drinkers have just as much responsibility as gun owners,kill just as many innocent people and we allow them to drive to bars full well knowing they will be drinking something that will impair their ability to get home
 
2012-12-21 11:34:39 AM  
Thats No Moose:

The Logan County Sheriff's Office says this is clearly an accident and they aren't expecting criminal charges.

(emphasis mine)

If there is one thing I'd like to see, it is that criminal charges should be slapped against all gun owners whose guns are misused in such a manner. Safest way to cut down on accidental discharges and instil some responsibility in the owners.


I agree completely, you should be responsible for the firearms in your care. The guys should get criminal negligence at the least.
 
2012-12-21 11:34:53 AM  

WhippingBoy: manimal2878: WhippingBoy: Hey man, if the government gets all oppressive and starts restricting my rights to the point where I need to take up arms against them, I'm not gonna be able to take out their Nimitz-class aircraft carriers with an AR-15 now, am I?

No, but why would you try to?

It's my right.


hurr durr
 
2012-12-21 11:34:55 AM  
As a gun control advocate that has carried a weapon for work and pleasure let me point something out.

Bans and prohibition do not work. Never have. But controls do work. You have to give a path for people to follow if you want them to do something. You want people to stop making their own alcohol because it is killing them? Don't ban it, regulate it. Deaths drop. Drug violence? Don't ban drugs, give a legitimate path to sales. Deaths should drop. Gun violence? Don't ban them, just make the path more controlled. Automatic weapons are not banned in America, but they also don't account for large numbers of deaths. Why? Because they are controlled and their value is placed out of reach of those with less control.

Gun control works. The populations of New York and California equals the pop of all of the Southern States and yet the raw numbers let alone the adjusted numbers are staggering. These red states can't even figure out how to lower the rate of teen pregnancies and now we are going to trust them with firearm safety?
 
2012-12-21 11:35:11 AM  

Chummer45: WhippingBoy: manimal2878: WhippingBoy: Hey man, if the government gets all oppressive and starts restricting my rights to the point where I need to take up arms against them, I'm not gonna be able to take out their Nimitz-class aircraft carriers with an AR-15 now, am I?

No, but why would you try to?

It's my right.


So you're saying that if the government passes a law you consider "oppressive" and tries to enforce it against you, then you have a right to murder the police officers who come to enforce that law? That's what the constitution says, in your mind?



FWIW, my previous statement was directed at manimal. I'll await his trolling response
 
2012-12-21 11:35:16 AM  

VantheMan: Did anybody notice they wanted to include suicides in gun deaths. Yes this is truly a death by gun, but it's different than someone shooting somebody else, well it is in my book. To me a suicide by gun doesn't hurt anybody else, other than the guy that shot himself, but if he say threw himself in front of a bus, then other people are affected.


Guns make it easy to commit suicide. If you don't have a gun in the house, it takes time to kill yourself from the moment you start to take action (go to the top of a building, slash your wrist, overdose on medicines). Enough time to reconsider or be caught in the act and the rescue personnel be called. The Israeli army cut suicides amongst 18-21 yr old soldiers by 60% by simply not allowing them to take their weapons home on weekends.
 
2012-12-21 11:36:22 AM  

WhippingBoy: Serious question:

Who's the bigger pussy? The guy afraid of gun violence, or the guy afraid to face life without his gun?


daviddemar.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-12-21 11:36:38 AM  

Semi-Sane: The problem is all of the victims were unarmed. If more people carried guns these type of violent crimes would cease to exist. Children need to be given guns and trained how to properly use them.



Not sure if you're being sarcastic or not, but....

If kids were shown how to use guns in a safe, controlled environment, it would take away the mystery of the gun and teach them to be responsible with weapons.  It would also promote generations who understand that a gun is just a tool and can only cause chaos when used by a moron with bad intentions.
 
2012-12-21 11:36:47 AM  

Chummer45: WhippingBoy: manimal2878: WhippingBoy: Hey man, if the government gets all oppressive and starts restricting my rights to the point where I need to take up arms against them, I'm not gonna be able to take out their Nimitz-class aircraft carriers with an AR-15 now, am I?

No, but why would you try to?

It's my right.


So you're saying that if the government passes a law you consider "oppressive" and tries to enforce it against you, then you have a right to murder the police officers who come to enforce that law? That's what the constitution says, in your mind?


"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
 
2012-12-21 11:36:59 AM  
Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Conn. was tragic.
But does Slate separate the deaths that saved other peoples lives? Or do they lump the guy killed while doing a home invasion in with everyone else?
 
2012-12-21 11:37:09 AM  

manimal2878: Chummer45: To you, any gun regulation that interferes with your "rights" is unacceptable.

I never said that, in fact I'm more than happy to comply with many regulations that "interfere" with my rights. I think waiting periods, background checks, being required to keep things locked up or perfectly acceptable regultations. I would even be fine with closing the "gunshow loophole" if anyone could do the required check online from anywhere.

Again you guys are argueing strawmen for the most part.



So you're saying we don't really disagree on that stuff? Then why are you getting so pissy and trying to convince everyone that you have a constitutional right that shouldn't be interfered with by the government?

here's a good question - are you a member of the NRA? Because if so, you support an organization that opposes everything you just listed.
 
2012-12-21 11:37:24 AM  

Chummer45: Chummer45: WhippingBoy: manimal2878: WhippingBoy: Hey man, if the government gets all oppressive and starts restricting my rights to the point where I need to take up arms against them, I'm not gonna be able to take out their Nimitz-class aircraft carriers with an AR-15 now, am I?

No, but why would you try to?

It's my right.


So you're saying that if the government passes a law you consider "oppressive" and tries to enforce it against you, then you have a right to murder the police officers who come to enforce that law? That's what the constitution says, in your mind?


FWIW, my previous statement was directed at manimal. I'll await his trolling response


I'm the troll? You were the one that just claimed you have a right to shoot the people on an aircraft cairrer.
 
2012-12-21 11:37:59 AM  

Chummer45: Then why are you getting so pissy and trying to convince everyone that you have a constitutional right that shouldn't be interfered with by the government?


WHere did i do that?
 
2012-12-21 11:38:40 AM  

WhippingBoy: Chummer45: WhippingBoy: manimal2878: WhippingBoy: Hey man, if the government gets all oppressive and starts restricting my rights to the point where I need to take up arms against them, I'm not gonna be able to take out their Nimitz-class aircraft carriers with an AR-15 now, am I?

No, but why would you try to?

It's my right.


So you're saying that if the government passes a law you consider "oppressive" and tries to enforce it against you, then you have a right to murder the police officers who come to enforce that law? That's what the constitution says, in your mind?

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."



Well, that settles everything. Join me in trying to free the next felon who is unconstitutionally convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm.
 
2012-12-21 11:39:19 AM  

Carn: manimal2878: Carn: manimal2878: WhippingBoy: If I can have a gun, shouldn't I also be allowed to have a nuclear tipped missile?

Retard.

I don't think he is. Answer one question: Does the amount of carnage one can inflict depend on the type of weapon one is using to commit said act of carnage?

Take all the time you need. There is only one correct answer. After you get it right we can have a meaningful conversation about gun control.

What does you question have to do with the anything? There is a difference between arms, small arms, ordinance, and destructive devices. After you understand that you can join the meaningful discussion.

It has everything to do with this particular issue. Answer the question and then I'll explain since you truly don't understand the connection or are just being obtuse.


Since manimal doesn't want to answer the question, I'll do so for him and complete the logic puzzle for those who have difficulty with that sort of thing. The correct answer is yes, the type of weapon used in an act of carnage matters, in some cases a great deal, in the amount of carnage they are able to inflict. If the correct answer is no, then that means all weapons should be legal to all people, but this is obviously false, as handing out nuclear weapons to all citizenry would most certainly have a very bad outcome. Thus, by logical deduction, again, the correct answer is yes. Therefore, the debate should be centered around where to draw the line, and which weapons should be considered over that line and therefore not allowed. High capacity magazines and guns that use them are on the chopping block in this debate. In addition, stiffer regulations and checks and balances on legally purchasing all weapons are in order and should be up for consideration.
 
2012-12-21 11:42:06 AM  

Vegan Meat Popsicle: duffblue: Gotta love these instant greenlights, guess the mods are the type of people that piss themselves at the idea of firearms.

Yep.

Because only a complete coward would think that gun nuts should have a few basic responsibilities placed on the acquisition and distribution of their deadly toys. I mean, it's not like any other rights come with limitations on their use based on the impact it can have on other people or anything.

The REAL tragedy here, after all, is that somebody might have to wait an extra day or two to get a gun or reload slightly more often at the local range. Truly a historical atrocity with no equal.


The real tragedy is that people are falling for emotional appeals. Great, restrictions on law-abiding citizens, that wouldn't have changed what happened at Newtown, and it won't change the majority of gun-related deaths stemming from criminal activities. The US has a high gun death rate due in part to our proximity to the epicenter of the drug trade, and the routes it takes from that location to its various destinations.

Adding a few days wait time won't change that, and in the end, it won't change much other than causing a few people to wait an extra few days.
 
2012-12-21 11:42:26 AM  

Carn: tukatz: Suicides, which are estimated to make up as much as 60 percent of gun deaths, typically go unreported.

AND most suicides are reported by family, friends, medical examiners, etc. as accidental due to the stigma of suicide.  So the numbers of suicides by gun should be a lot more.  Add in the ones who don't want it to be labeled suicide so their family can get life insurance benefits.

Honestly, if someone really, truly wants to kill themself, I rather they use a gun and do it properly than those stupid movie-promoted methods like drowning, hanging, pills, cutting, etc.  They are slow, painful ways to die and don't always go as planned.  People who are contemplating suicide should definitely seek help with their problems.  But if they truly want to do it, that's their decision.  At least they can do it quickly and effectively.

Exactly how long do we have to endure the "GUNZ R EVIL" crap before the media moves on to some other ridiculous topic?  Guns don't kill people.  Stupid people with guns kill people.

FTFY



With guns, knives, baseball bats, cars, shards of glass, etc.  They'll always find a method if they're going to kill.  Guns don't whisper in their ear... telling them to kill.
 
2012-12-21 11:42:44 AM  
beatingadeadhorse.jpg
 
2012-12-21 11:42:49 AM  

Chummer45: here's a good question - are you a member of the NRA? Because if so, you support an organization that opposes everything you just listed.


Do they? Everything? Citation needed.
 
2012-12-21 11:42:50 AM  

DeathByGeekSquad: Vegan Meat Popsicle: duffblue: Gotta love these instant greenlights, guess the mods are the type of people that piss themselves at the idea of firearms.

Yep.

Because only a complete coward would think that gun nuts should have a few basic responsibilities placed on the acquisition and distribution of their deadly toys. I mean, it's not like any other rights come with limitations on their use based on the impact it can have on other people or anything.

The REAL tragedy here, after all, is that somebody might have to wait an extra day or two to get a gun or reload slightly more often at the local range. Truly a historical atrocity with no equal.

The real tragedy is that people are falling for emotional appeals. Great, restrictions on law-abiding citizens, that wouldn't have changed what happened at Newtown, and it won't change the majority of gun-related deaths stemming from criminal activities. The US has a high gun death rate due in part to our proximity to the epicenter of the drug trade, and the routes it takes from that location to its various destinations.

Adding a few days wait time won't change that, and in the end, it won't change much other than causing a few people to wait an extra few days.


Holy crap you're stupid!!!
 
2012-12-21 11:43:01 AM  
Schoroedingers Glory Hole -Cars kill more people every day and it's not like we're moving to make those things autonomous so they're taken out of human hands amirite?

Not for long! Thanks to all you panty-wetting gun nuts!

Deaths from firearms are set to outstrip car fatalities for the first time
 
2012-12-21 11:43:38 AM  
i.chzbgr.com
 
2012-12-21 11:44:51 AM  

kombat_unit: WhippingBoy: If I can have a gun, shouldn't I also be allowed to have a nuclear tipped missile?

0/10.


It's not a troll..it's the right to bare the arms of the oppressor

It use to be muskets, Now it's not
 
2012-12-21 11:45:00 AM  

tukatz: With guns, knives, baseball bats, cars, shards of glass, etc.  They'll always find a method if they're going to kill.  Guns don't whisper in their ear... telling them to kill.


Yeah, but shards of glass don't make you feel manly enough to shoot up a classroom full of helpless, innocent children.
 
2012-12-21 11:45:17 AM  

tukatz: Semi-Sane: The problem is all of the victims were unarmed. If more people carried guns these type of violent crimes would cease to exist. Children need to be given guns and trained how to properly use them.


Not sure if you're being sarcastic or not, but....

If kids were shown how to use guns in a safe, controlled environment, it would take away the mystery of the gun and teach them to be responsible with weapons.  It would also promote generations who understand that a gun is just a tool and can only cause chaos when used by a moron with bad intentions.


I agree with teaching kids gun safety as I and my brother took a class on it when we were kids. However, the first thing we learned in gun safety was to never ever point it at anyone or anything we didn't want to shoot because a gun is a weapon that kills. A hammer is a tool. I don't have to worry about whether or not it's loaded or if the safety is on or if I locked it up. A gun is a weapon designed to kill. You should not be afraid of it but you sure as damn well better respect that fact.
 
2012-12-21 11:45:30 AM  

Carn: Carn: manimal2878: Carn: manimal2878: WhippingBoy: If I can have a gun, shouldn't I also be allowed to have a nuclear tipped missile?

Retard.

I don't think he is. Answer one question: Does the amount of carnage one can inflict depend on the type of weapon one is using to commit said act of carnage?

Take all the time you need. There is only one correct answer. After you get it right we can have a meaningful conversation about gun control.

What does you question have to do with the anything? There is a difference between arms, small arms, ordinance, and destructive devices. After you understand that you can join the meaningful discussion.

It has everything to do with this particular issue. Answer the question and then I'll explain since you truly don't understand the connection or are just being obtuse.

Since manimal doesn't want to answer the question, I'll do so for him and complete the logic puzzle for those who have difficulty with that sort of thing. The correct answer is yes, the type of weapon used in an act of carnage matters, in some cases a great deal, in the amount of carnage they are able to inflict. If the correct answer is no, then that means all weapons should be legal to all people, but this is obviously false, as handing out nuclear weapons to all citizenry would most certainly have a very bad outcome. Thus, by logical deduction, again, the correct answer is yes. Therefore, the debate should be centered around where to draw the line, and which weapons should be considered over that line and therefore not allowed. High capacity magazines and guns that use them are on the chopping block in this debate. In addition, stiffer regulations and checks and balances on legally purchasing all weapons are in order and should be up for consideration.


The debate on where to draw the line between bombs and guns was settled hundreds of years ago with classifying certain things as destructive devices. People who pretend otherwise are the ones that are failing to grasp logic or purposely throwing out a red herring.
 
2012-12-21 11:45:58 AM  
I HAVE HAD IT WITH THESE MADAFAKIN WILD PIGS ON THIS PLANE
 
2012-12-21 11:46:17 AM  

Vegan Meat Popsicle: The REAL tragedy here, after all, is that somebody might have to wait an extra day or two to get a gun or reload slightly more often at the local range. Truly a historical atrocity with no equal.


I agree.

I also despise media hype. This is turning into another shark summer, only its winter, and the sharks are guns.
 
2012-12-21 11:46:47 AM  

Carn: Carn: manimal2878: Carn: manimal2878: WhippingBoy: If I can have a gun, shouldn't I also be allowed to have a nuclear tipped missile?

Retard.

I don't think he is. Answer one question: Does the amount of carnage one can inflict depend on the type of weapon one is using to commit said act of carnage?

Take all the time you need. There is only one correct answer. After you get it right we can have a meaningful conversation about gun control.

What does you question have to do with the anything? There is a difference between arms, small arms, ordinance, and destructive devices. After you understand that you can join the meaningful discussion.

It has everything to do with this particular issue. Answer the question and then I'll explain since you truly don't understand the connection or are just being obtuse.

Since manimal doesn't want to answer the question, I'll do so for him and complete the logic puzzle for those who have difficulty with that sort of thing. The correct answer is yes, the type of weapon used in an act of carnage matters, in some cases a great deal, in the amount of carnage they are able to inflict. If the correct answer is no, then that means all weapons should be legal to all people, but this is obviously false, as handing out nuclear weapons to all citizenry would most certainly have a very bad outcome. Thus, by logical deduction, again, the correct answer is yes. Therefore, the debate should be centered around where to draw the line, and which weapons should be considered over that line and therefore not allowed. High capacity magazines and guns that use them are on the chopping block in this debate. In addition, stiffer regulations and checks and balances on legally purchasing all weapons are in order and should be up for consideration.


To me, high-capacity magazines means less reloading at the range.  And there aren't just certain "vicious" guns that use them.  You can get bigger magazines for just about anything.

"Assault Gun"?  So my .380 can't "assault" someone?
 
2012-12-21 11:47:11 AM  
You guys (Americans) just have to realize how strange it seems to the rest of the world. You are comfortable with so many people getting shot around you, we can't imagine living near so much violence.

Canadians have things that you can't comprehend also, like fries with gravy, health care, and really cold winters.
 
2012-12-21 11:47:34 AM  

manimal2878: The debate on where to draw the line between bombs and guns was settled hundreds of years ago with classifying certain things as destructive devices. People who pretend otherwise are the ones that are failing to grasp logic or purposely throwing out a red herring.


Perhaps we need to look at revising hundred year old standards and definitions.
 
2012-12-21 11:48:25 AM  

manimal2878: The debate on where to draw the line between bombs and guns was settled hundreds of years ago with classifying certain things as destructive devices. People who pretend otherwise are the ones that are failing to grasp logic or purposely throwing out a red herring.


So I can own a howitzer?

I would love to get a hold of a WWII 88mm.
 
2012-12-21 11:48:45 AM  
Everyone wetting their panties over "GUN control"...

The legalization of SMOKING weed in CO and WA...

I hereby dub 2013 the year of

www.tvshowsondvd.com
 
2012-12-21 11:48:56 AM  

Thisbymaster: The one afraid of an inanimate object.


In every gun thread, someone says something similar to that. And it's just plain stupid.

us.123rf.com
www.newslincolncounty.com

Both of the above items are inanimate objects. Yet, I'm guessing, there's one you would not want kids to play with. One you would not want a kid pointing at your head.
 
2012-12-21 11:49:00 AM  
God damn it, are we still talking about this?

Gun ownership is a right. It is necessary for a people to be armed to stay free. Freedom is always going to come with a price, and a miniscule chance of being killed with a gun (in a life that still holds a mortality rate of roughly 100%) is a price we have to pay for our freedom. I'm sorry, but it was set up like that from the beginning.

Don't get me wrong, I like Europe. It's very pleasant there. The food is good and the women are exquisite. But just because no one is pulling on your chains currently doesn't mean they aren't still shackled to your wrists. The Europeans have no power over their government, no costly trump card to play. If their government decided a certain population needed to be killed, they would be powerless to stop it.

That's what it's all about. It's not about hunting, it's barely about self defense. It's about being a population that can only be pushed so far. It's about the fear of violent uprising in the back of every political leader's mind. It's what the Founding Fathers wanted for their country, and it's arguable more valid today than ever.

/Bleeding Heart Liberal
 
2012-12-21 11:49:04 AM  

Vance Uppercut: You guys (Americans) just have to realize how strange it seems to the rest of the world. You are comfortable with so many people getting shot around you, we can't imagine living near so much violence.

Canadians have things that you can't comprehend also, like fries with gravy, health care, and really cold winters.


You can legally own a tar-21 in canada, the same gun the israili army uses, bet we can't own that in the US. And Poutine is gross.
 
2012-12-21 11:49:54 AM  

WhippingBoy: manimal2878: The debate on where to draw the line between bombs and guns was settled hundreds of years ago with classifying certain things as destructive devices. People who pretend otherwise are the ones that are failing to grasp logic or purposely throwing out a red herring.

Perhaps we need to look at revising hundred year old standards and definitions.


why? so your statements are immediately illogical?
 
2012-12-21 11:50:08 AM  

manimal2878: Carn: Carn: manimal2878: Carn: manimal2878: WhippingBoy: If I can have a gun, shouldn't I also be allowed to have a nuclear tipped missile?

Retard.

I don't think he is. Answer one question: Does the amount of carnage one can inflict depend on the type of weapon one is using to commit said act of carnage?

Take all the time you need. There is only one correct answer. After you get it right we can have a meaningful conversation about gun control.

What does you question have to do with the anything? There is a difference between arms, small arms, ordinance, and destructive devices. After you understand that you can join the meaningful discussion.

It has everything to do with this particular issue. Answer the question and then I'll explain since you truly don't understand the connection or are just being obtuse.

Since manimal doesn't want to answer the question, I'll do so for him and complete the logic puzzle for those who have difficulty with that sort of thing. The correct answer is yes, the type of weapon used in an act of carnage matters, in some cases a great deal, in the amount of carnage they are able to inflict. If the correct answer is no, then that means all weapons should be legal to all people, but this is obviously false, as handing out nuclear weapons to all citizenry would most certainly have a very bad outcome. Thus, by logical deduction, again, the correct answer is yes. Therefore, the debate should be centered around where to draw the line, and which weapons should be considered over that line and therefore not allowed. High capacity magazines and guns that use them are on the chopping block in this debate. In addition, stiffer regulations and checks and balances on legally purchasing all weapons are in order and should be up for consideration.

The debate on where to draw the line between bombs and guns was settled hundreds of years ago with classifying certain things as destructive devices. People who pretend otherwise are the ones ...


There is a difference between a bomb and a gun. There is also a difference between a 30 round .223 Bushmaster and a four round lever/pump action shotgun. Since you obviously agree with the logic that is the basis for this discussion, now you can argue that the two aforementioned weapons can inflict the same amount of carnage in the same amount of time, because that seems to be your point of view.
 
2012-12-21 11:50:13 AM  

impaler: I also despise media hype.


Yea, hype. Can't imagine what might have happened recently that put blood in the water to attract all the "sharks". Nope... nothing at all springs to mind. It doesn't spring to mind seven times, in fact.
 
2012-12-21 11:50:54 AM  

impaler: So I can own a howitzer?


I don't know, are they considered destructive devices? They may not be, but I bet the shell is.
 
2012-12-21 11:51:16 AM  

WhippingBoy: tukatz: With guns, knives, baseball bats, cars, shards of glass, etc.  They'll always find a method if they're going to kill.  Guns don't whisper in their ear... telling them to kill.

Yeah, but shards of glass don't make you feel manly enough to shoot up a classroom full of helpless, innocent children.


The guns made him do it?!?!  Wow, imagine that!  It wasn't his psychological problems or inability to function properly in society.  Those damn guns!!!  Always telling people to kill.  They should gag those things so they quit saying such things.
 
2012-12-21 11:52:09 AM  

Magnanimous_J: God damn it, are we still talking about this?

Gun ownership is a right. It is necessary for a people to be armed to stay free. Freedom is always going to come with a price, and a miniscule chance of being killed with a gun (in a life that still holds a mortality rate of roughly 100%) is a price we have to pay for our freedom. I'm sorry, but it was set up like that from the beginning.

Don't get me wrong, I like Europe. It's very pleasant there. The food is good and the women are exquisite. But just because no one is pulling on your chains currently doesn't mean they aren't still shackled to your wrists. The Europeans have no power over their government, no costly trump card to play. If their government decided a certain population needed to be killed, they would be powerless to stop it.

That's what it's all about. It's not about hunting, it's barely about self defense. It's about being a population that can only be pushed so far. It's about the fear of violent uprising in the back of every political leader's mind. It's what the Founding Fathers wanted for their country, and it's arguable more valid today than ever.

/Bleeding Heart Liberal


Yes I'm sure the founding fathers wanted a schoolroom full of little kids to get massacred. Total worth the price of admission.
 
2012-12-21 11:52:25 AM  

gittlebass: people say guns have no use in society, yet, it has more uses than alcohol. alcohol has zero benefit to society, it doesnt help in anyway and banning it would stop 1,000's of needless alcohol related deaths, and make america healthier. Drinkers have just as much responsibility as gun owners,kill just as many innocent people and we allow them to drive to bars full well knowing they will be drinking something that will impair their ability to get home



Actually this isn't true. It stops uprisings. Your people may be poor and underserved by their society. They may have nothing to lose. It is unlikely that they will rebel on a wide scale if there is booze available. Throughout history this has shown to be true.


/why yes, I am sourcing this from Firefly.
//Simon is a very smart man.
 
2012-12-21 11:53:51 AM  

WhippingBoy: I'm not gonna be able to take out their Nimitz-class aircraft carriers with an AR-15 now, am I?


Sure you can, when you use the Ar-15 to disrupt the supply lines to the Nimitz class aircraft carrier so it becomes nothing more then a giant, vacated, drifting hunk of metal that no longer has the fuel, ammunition and food to function properly.

The US military relies on a large population to support it's army. Its not a 1 to 1 civilian to soldier support ratio. It might be something like it takes 10 civilians to support a single soldier (wild ass guess, couldn't find a hard number on this). Without civilians to gather the resource and produce the goods, they will be nothing more then a well trained group of humans with empty guns and empty stomachs. Also, just how many of those aircraft carries will fight their own internal revolutions between those loyal to the government and those loyal to the constitution.

Never underestimate your enemy, and never overestimate your own forces.
 
2012-12-21 11:53:59 AM  

tukatz: Carn: Carn: manimal2878: Carn: manimal2878: WhippingBoy: If I can have a gun, shouldn't I also be allowed to have a nuclear tipped missile?

Retard.

I don't think he is. Answer one question: Does the amount of carnage one can inflict depend on the type of weapon one is using to commit said act of carnage?

Take all the time you need. There is only one correct answer. After you get it right we can have a meaningful conversation about gun control.

What does you question have to do with the anything? There is a difference between arms, small arms, ordinance, and destructive devices. After you understand that you can join the meaningful discussion.

It has everything to do with this particular issue. Answer the question and then I'll explain since you truly don't understand the connection or are just being obtuse.

Since manimal doesn't want to answer the question, I'll do so for him and complete the logic puzzle for those who have difficulty with that sort of thing. The correct answer is yes, the type of weapon used in an act of carnage matters, in some cases a great deal, in the amount of carnage they are able to inflict. If the correct answer is no, then that means all weapons should be legal to all people, but this is obviously false, as handing out nuclear weapons to all citizenry would most certainly have a very bad outcome. Thus, by logical deduction, again, the correct answer is yes. Therefore, the debate should be centered around where to draw the line, and which weapons should be considered over that line and therefore not allowed. High capacity magazines and guns that use them are on the chopping block in this debate. In addition, stiffer regulations and checks and balances on legally purchasing all weapons are in order and should be up for consideration.

To me, high-capacity magazines means less reloading at the range.  And there aren't just certain "vicious" guns that use them.  You can get bigger magazines for just about anything.

"Assault Gun"?  So my ...


Ah, so we can't get rid of high capacity magazines or highly restrict the guns that use them because you'd be inconvenienced at the range. Pretty rock solid argument there.
 
2012-12-21 11:54:07 AM  

HarveyBrooks: Schoroedingers Glory Hole -Cars kill more people every day and it's not like we're moving to make those things autonomous so they're taken out of human hands amirite?

Not for long! Thanks to all you panty-wetting gun nuts!

Deaths from firearms are set to outstrip car fatalities for the first time



From you link:

Every day, 85 Americans are shot dead, about 53 of them in suicides.

So, you want these people who are currently killing themselves with guns to start killing themselves with cars?
 
2012-12-21 11:54:51 AM  

manimal2878: impaler: So I can own a howitzer?

I don't know, are they considered destructive devices? They may not be, but I bet the shell is.


Both the howitzer and each round of ammunition would be considered destructive devices. Each round needs to be registered and the tax paid ($200 each).
 
2012-12-21 11:54:55 AM  

NightOwl2255: Yet, I'm guessing, there's one you would not want kids to play with


I wouldn't make that assumption about some of these people...

In fact, I'd wager some number of people in this thread have actively introduced firearms to small children and, intentionally or not, taught them that "guns are fun" with or without some additional context about the risks and responsibilities that (should) come with them.
 
2012-12-21 11:55:03 AM  

Carn: There is also a difference between a 30 round .223 Bushmaster and a four round lever/pump action shotgun.


Yeah, my levergun in .45/70 can kill an elephant with a single shot.
 
2012-12-21 11:55:06 AM  

Carn: now you can argue that the two aforementioned weapons can inflict the same amount of carnage in the same amount of time, because that seems to be your point of view.


I have said in other threads I would compromise on high cap magazines.

Handguns: whatever will fit in a flushfit magazine, +2 or 10, whichever is greater.
Longguns: 30 rounds. (note this would ban drum mags and the surefire 100 round mag.)

That is where I am willing to draw the arbitrary line.
 
2012-12-21 11:55:21 AM  

willfullyobscure: I HAVE HAD IT WITH THESE MADAFAKIN WILD PIGS ON THIS PLANE


Wrong thread, I guess, but I still like that you posted it here.
 
2012-12-21 11:55:36 AM  

Magnanimous_J: God damn it, are we still talking about this?

Gun ownership is a right. It is necessary for a people to be armed to stay free. Freedom is always going to come with a price, and a miniscule chance of being killed with a gun (in a life that still holds a mortality rate of roughly 100%) is a price we have to pay for our freedom. I'm sorry, but it was set up like that from the beginning.

Don't get me wrong, I like Europe. It's very pleasant there. The food is good and the women are exquisite. But just because no one is pulling on your chains currently doesn't mean they aren't still shackled to your wrists. The Europeans have no power over their government, no costly trump card to play. If their government decided a certain population needed to be killed, they would be powerless to stop it.

That's what it's all about. It's not about hunting, it's barely about self defense. It's about being a population that can only be pushed so far. It's about the fear of violent uprising in the back of every political leader's mind. It's what the Founding Fathers wanted for their country, and it's arguable more valid today than ever.

/Bleeding Heart Liberal


Given that the US government has a military that uses stealth bombers, nuclear powered aircraft carriers, drones, bunker-buster bombs, etc, etc, etc, would you agree that it makes sense for civilians to be allowed to own these same types of weapons in case the government decides to "push us too far"? After all, you don't being an AR-15 to an aircraft carrier fight.
 
2012-12-21 11:55:59 AM  

Amos Quito: So, you want these people who are currently killing themselves with guns to start killing themselves with cars?


Do you know why you have to keep speaking in idioms and hypotheticals instead of hard facts to try and support your opinions?

Because your opinions are wrong.
 
2012-12-21 11:56:14 AM  
I love simple solutions to complex issues.
Dont want people to have guns, make it so they dont feel they need them.
 
2012-12-21 11:57:04 AM  

duffblue: tricycleracer: duffblue: Gotta love these instant greenlights, guess the mods are the type of people that piss themselves at the idea of firearms.

Guess you're the type of person who pisses himself at the idea of drawing attention to the ugly side of your hobby.

Or maybe I saw how well the PATRIOT Act worked. You know who else was cool with warrantless wiretapping of citizens?


[secretcomedy.com image 568x803]


Feel free to give up your rights, but don't go trying to retroactively criminalize those that manage to keep their heads out of their own asses.


Yeah, I didn't really hear much from the right wing about this until a year or so before the 2008 elections. Then when O was elected it was his fault. Kinda transparent, don't you think?

So are you doing anything about the new bill that strips the 5th amendment? Of course, because OBAMA!!!
 
2012-12-21 11:57:34 AM  

Magnanimous_J: God damn it, are we still talking about this?

Gun ownership is a right. It is necessary for a people to be armed to stay free. Freedom is always going to come with a price, and a miniscule chance of being killed with a gun (in a life that still holds a mortality rate of roughly 100%) is a price we have to pay for our freedom. I'm sorry, but it was set up like that from the beginning.

Don't get me wrong, I like Europe. It's very pleasant there. The food is good and the women are exquisite. But just because no one is pulling on your chains currently doesn't mean they aren't still shackled to your wrists. The Europeans have no power over their government, no costly trump card to play. If their government decided a certain population needed to be killed, they would be powerless to stop it.

That's what it's all about. It's not about hunting, it's barely about self defense. It's about being a population that can only be pushed so far. It's about the fear of violent uprising in the back of every political leader's mind. It's what the Founding Fathers wanted for their country, and it's arguable more valid today than ever.

/Bleeding Heart Liberal


The list of things you are scared of must be long and detailed.
 
2012-12-21 11:58:28 AM  

Vegan Meat Popsicle: duffblue: Gotta love these instant greenlights, guess the mods are the type of people that piss themselves at the idea of firearms.

Yep.

Because only a complete coward would think that gun nuts should have a few basic responsibilities placed on the acquisition and distribution of their deadly toys. I mean, it's not like any other rights come with limitations on their use based on the impact it can have on other people or anything.

The REAL tragedy here, after all, is that somebody might have to wait an extra day or two to get a gun or reload slightly more often at the local range. Truly a historical atrocity with no equal.


The REAL tragedy here is that you don't seem to be aware that the CT shooter tried to buy a gun, was told he had to wait three days, and so he killed someone and stole their guns.The laws worked, but the laws can't stop someone who has murder in their heart. Literally NOTHING can. All we can hope is to limit it through GOOD laws and sensible thinking.

As to smaller magazines. They would have made no difference in this situation. If his mother had been limited to 10 round magazines she would have just bought 20 of those instead of Twelve 17 round magazines, or something similar. In other words, the kid would have brought just as much ammo with him, and would have taken him an extra 30 seconds or so to shoot those people.. And the fact that he would have to reload so much wouldn't matter in relation to it making it easier to stop him because......

The really real tragedy is that people like you don't accept that the real problem is that we legislated our schools into being completely defenseless. Right now today, despite all the "heightened security" at schools, this incident could be exactly repeated in 90% of our elementary schools. And I don't mean today in a general sense, I literally mean this VERY DAY. Under existing federal and state laws unless a police officer is stationed at a school there is NOBODY on our school campuses who has even the slightest chance to stop a school shooting. How idiotic is that? We have almost 100,000 public schools in the US. Can we afford to hire 100,000 more police officers? Doubtful. The proper response is to get rid of these stupid laws that disallow CPL holders from bringing firearms on school campuses and also to provide training to school staff who are interested in being armed and prepared to defend our children. Just HAVING such a program and such laws would cut back on school shootings considerably... Far more than banning "assault weapons" would since "assault weapons" are used in less than 0.2% of all murders, and I don't believe they have ever been used in a school shooting.

"Assault weapons" is in quotes btw, because it is a made up term that the uninformed use to describe a gun that "looks scary". Guess what, EVERY gun should look scary to you, and a responsible gun owner treats them as such because they freaking are. It is kind of the point, and why they are so effective at self defense, where they don't need to be fired over 80% of the time to stop a crime.
 
2012-12-21 11:59:15 AM  

Burr: WhippingBoy: I'm not gonna be able to take out their Nimitz-class aircraft carriers with an AR-15 now, am I?

Sure you can, when you use the Ar-15 to disrupt the supply lines to the Nimitz class aircraft carrier so it becomes nothing more then a giant, vacated, drifting hunk of metal that no longer has the fuel, ammunition and food to function properly.

The US military relies on a large population to support it's army. Its not a 1 to 1 civilian to soldier support ratio. It might be something like it takes 10 civilians to support a single soldier (wild ass guess, couldn't find a hard number on this). Without civilians to gather the resource and produce the goods, they will be nothing more then a well trained group of humans with empty guns and empty stomachs. Also, just how many of those aircraft carries will fight their own internal revolutions between those loyal to the government and those loyal to the constitution.

Never underestimate your enemy, and never overestimate your own forces.


You're making an assumption that in this situation the US military wouldn't have support from foreign nations (anythings possible in a hypothetical situation). If, say, Great Britain fully supported the US military during a civil war, wouldn't you need to be able to take out those capital ships somehow?
 
2012-12-21 11:59:43 AM  

WhippingBoy: Given that the US government has a military that uses stealth bombers, nuclear powered aircraft carriers, drones, bunker-buster bombs, etc, etc, etc, would you agree that it makes sense for civilians to be allowed to own these same types of weapons in case the government decides to "push us too far"? After all, you don't being an AR-15 to an aircraft carrier fight.


Why do you keep bringing this up? Guns are not on the same scale as any kind of bomb or missile. They are not part of the second amendment discussion, laws regarding destructive devices have already taken care of this. Nobody is questioning that destructive devices should be regulated.
 
2012-12-21 11:59:54 AM  
Every time gun rights is a national talking point, gun sales go up, NRA membership goes up, and no laws change. So... good job?
 
2012-12-21 12:01:52 PM  
i.imgur.com
 
2012-12-21 12:01:59 PM  

manimal2878: impaler: So I can own a howitzer?

I don't know, are they considered destructive devices? They may not be, but I bet the shell is.


The HEAT explodes, the AP is just a really big bullet

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8.8_cm_KwK_36
Pzgr. 40 (APCR)
 
2012-12-21 12:04:28 PM  

WhippingBoy: wouldn't you need to be able to take out those capital ships somehow?


Has al queda needed to take out our ships to stop us from putting a democracy in Iraq?
 
2012-12-21 12:04:35 PM  

WhippingBoy: Given that the US government has a military that uses stealth bombers, nuclear powered aircraft carriers, drones, bunker-buster bombs, etc, etc, etc, would you agree that it makes sense for civilians to be allowed to own these same types of weapons in case the government decides to "push us too far"? After all, you don't being an AR-15 to an aircraft carrier fight.


No. But I do think the citizenry should have access to small arms on par with the best weapons available.
 
2012-12-21 12:04:39 PM  

WhippingBoy: Given that the US government has a military that uses stealth bombers, nuclear powered aircraft carriers, drones, bunker-buster bombs, etc, etc, etc, would you agree that it makes sense for civilians to be allowed to own these same types of weapons in case the government decides to "push us too far"? After all, you don't being an AR-15 to an aircraft carrier fight.


No, but you do bring one to a Guerrilla war.
 
2012-12-21 12:05:17 PM  

manimal2878: Carn: now you can argue that the two aforementioned weapons can inflict the same amount of carnage in the same amount of time, because that seems to be your point of view.

I have said in other threads I would compromise on high cap magazines.

Handguns: whatever will fit in a flushfit magazine, +2 or 10, whichever is greater.
Longguns: 30 rounds. (note this would ban drum mags and the surefire 100 round mag.)

That is where I am willing to draw the arbitrary line.


Ok, now we are talking the same language. Could I talk you down to something less for longguns. Somewhere in the 10-15 range. It would (slightly) slow down a shooter in a situation like this and wouldn't really do anything but be a minor inconvenience to you at a shooting range.

From there we talk about extra control measures as someone said up thread, mental health and so on.
 
2012-12-21 12:06:54 PM  

WhippingBoy: DeathByGeekSquad: Vegan Meat Popsicle: duffblue: Gotta love these instant greenlights, guess the mods are the type of people that piss themselves at the idea of firearms.

Yep.

Because only a complete coward would think that gun nuts should have a few basic responsibilities placed on the acquisition and distribution of their deadly toys. I mean, it's not like any other rights come with limitations on their use based on the impact it can have on other people or anything.

The REAL tragedy here, after all, is that somebody might have to wait an extra day or two to get a gun or reload slightly more often at the local range. Truly a historical atrocity with no equal.

The real tragedy is that people are falling for emotional appeals. Great, restrictions on law-abiding citizens, that wouldn't have changed what happened at Newtown, and it won't change the majority of gun-related deaths stemming from criminal activities. The US has a high gun death rate due in part to our proximity to the epicenter of the drug trade, and the routes it takes from that location to its various destinations.

Adding a few days wait time won't change that, and in the end, it won't change much other than causing a few people to wait an extra few days.

Holy crap you're stupid!!!


You'll really have to try harder than the lowball effort you just phoned in. Then again, you've probably already convinced yourself of your own superiority and as such will immediately view any comment made in your direction as a 'win'. More than likely you're the same type of person who views being banned or moderated while failing to troll as a 'success'. So, why the truth may pass you by, you can rest easy knowing that you've convinced yourself that you're successful in your endeavors - much like the retarded child who is blissfully unaware that they are in fact, mentally handicap.

Attaboy.
 
2012-12-21 12:07:26 PM  
Would ya be happier if they was pushed out of windows?
 
2012-12-21 12:07:35 PM  

manimal2878: WhippingBoy: Given that the US government has a military that uses stealth bombers, nuclear powered aircraft carriers, drones, bunker-buster bombs, etc, etc, etc, would you agree that it makes sense for civilians to be allowed to own these same types of weapons in case the government decides to "push us too far"? After all, you don't being an AR-15 to an aircraft carrier fight.

Why do you keep bringing this up? Guns are not on the same scale as any kind of bomb or missile. They are not part of the second amendment discussion, laws regarding destructive devices have already taken care of this. Nobody is questioning that destructive devices should be regulated.


I keep bringing it up because one of the arguments for guns is that they're necessary in order for an oppressed populace to rise up and overthrow a tyrannical government. I'm merely pointing out that because the current government possesses weapons of such unbelievable destructive power, it seems disingenuous to argue that you need guns in case you need to someday overthrow them.
 
2012-12-21 12:09:07 PM  

Vegan Meat Popsicle: duffblue: Gotta love these instant greenlights, guess the mods are the type of people that piss themselves at the idea of firearms.

Yep.

Because only a complete coward would think that gun nuts should have a few basic responsibilities placed on the acquisition and distribution of their deadly toys. I mean, it's not like any other rights come with limitations on their use based on the impact it can have on other people or anything.

The REAL tragedy here, after all, is that somebody might have to wait an extra day or two to get a gun or reload slightly more often at the local range. Truly a historical atrocity with no equal.


Its hard to tell if you were trying to be sarcastic but most people do have to wait between 3 and 10 days to pick up a new gun. If you were trying to bring up how stupid the waiting period is, I totally agree. However I don't mind waiting 10 days to pick up a new gun. I have other guns to shoot, and I even when I went to purchase my first gun it was no big deal to wait 10 days. I simply planned an outing with the guys and girls who like to shoot with me a few days after my pickup date and everyone had a good time.

What did the spree killer say about the firearm waiting period? law says they have to go back to school sometime.
 
2012-12-21 12:09:08 PM  
Don't blame the tool for the job the carpenter did.
 
2012-12-21 12:09:22 PM  
And now we wait...

I need a cooler full of beer, stat.
 
2012-12-21 12:09:39 PM  
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/06/19/fbi-report-violent-crime-down-fo r-the-fifth-straight-year-in-a-row/

Not sure if there is a correlation between self defense laws and increased firearm ownership as the reason violent crime rates have dropped for five straight years. Maybe the perpetrators are just nicer than they were before. :-/
 
2012-12-21 12:10:08 PM  
It has been found through numerous polls that guns are used approximately 2.5 million times a year to prevent a violent crime. Even during the Clinton administration, the justice department found in their study that guns were used about 1.5 million times to prevent violent crime. So, we have both sides of the isle agreeing that an astonishing number of people have been saved the effects of violent crime by brandishing, and in rare cases, actually using the gun. When you consider that there very well could be instances where a person may have used their gun to protect their family, the actual number of people saved the trauma of a violent crime, and perhaps death could be even more staggering.
Now, let's look at the number of violent crimes that were actually committed in the United States. The Bureau of Justice Statistics, part of the United States Department of Justice indicate that in 2008 there were 5.1 million violent crimes, not including homicide. Of these 5.1 million crimes, only 7% were committed with a firearm. This means that 357,000 violent crimes were committed with a firearm. The same bureau indicates that there were 16,929 murders in 2007, of which 68% were committed with a firearm. That means there were 11,512 murders by gun. To compare these two statistics, we have a total of 368,929 violent crimes committed using a firearm.
What if we were to take guns away. We would have around 370,000 people that would be alive, and not have to suffer the trauma of a violent crime. But, what about all of those people that were saved by guns? Just looking at Clinton's Justice department, we are looking at an increase of over 1 million people now either dead, or suffering from the trauma. In reality, it may be well over 2 million. No guns means that instead of 370,000 victims, we have over 2 million victims.
 
2012-12-21 12:10:44 PM  
Here's an interesting trend from that chart...

Utah, 'Red State Central', gun ownership is a way of life. 2.8 million people, 1 dead.
Arizona, such a gun friendly state that they were the second(Behind Utah) to have a 'state gun'. 6.5 million people, 1 dead.
Oklahoma, roughly the same gun laws as both AZ and UT, although they don't allow the unlicensed carry that AZ does, 3.8 million people. 6 dead.

What the fark is wrong in Oklahoma? All 3 places have roughly the same gun laws, Oklahoma has about 30% more population, about 40% of AZ's population, yet they have 6 times as many deaths as either.

WTF?
 
2012-12-21 12:11:41 PM  

henryhill: The list of things you are scared of must be long and detailed.


I'm afraid of getting any kind of degenerative disease and I'm afraid of living my whole life as a mediocre middle class salaryman and also spiders.

I'm not really even afraid of crime. I live in Seattle and even though I am legal to CCW, I almost never do.

But I also know my history, and I know that anyone who wants to deprive you the right to protect yourself does not have your best interest in mind.
 
2012-12-21 12:11:48 PM  

Vegan Meat Popsicle: impaler: I also despise media hype.

Yea, hype. Can't imagine what might have happened recently that put blood in the water to attract all the "sharks". Nope... nothing at all springs to mind. It doesn't spring to mind seven times, in fact.


Violent crimes are on the decline though, and mass shootings aren't a 'gun thing,' they're a 'mental health' thing. Although I suppose limiting access to firearms to those with mental health issues is a 'gun rights' issue. The focus should be on the mental health angle, not the gun angle, otherwise we're going to 'fix' something that doesn't address this problem.
 
2012-12-21 12:11:54 PM  

Evilnissan: Don't blame the tool for the job the carpenter did.


Nice analogy. How many mass hammer bashings do you recall in recent memory?

Definitely a valid comparison. Totally the same thing.
 
2012-12-21 12:13:37 PM  

Magnanimous_J: henryhill: The list of things you are scared of must be long and detailed.

I'm afraid of getting any kind of degenerative disease and I'm afraid of living my whole life as a mediocre middle class salaryman and also spiders.

I'm not really even afraid of crime. I live in Seattle and even though I am legal to CCW, I almost never do.

But I also know my history, and I know that anyone who wants to deprive you the right to protect yourself does not have your best interest in mind.


So you hate the TSA too, right?
 
2012-12-21 12:13:58 PM  
If the knee-jerk reactionaries want to ban civilians from owning guns we might as well also:

* Allow law enforcement officials to perform searches and seizures completely at their discretion and allow all poisoned fruit to be used as evidence. This will help ensure people don't have guns.

* Automatically incarcerate anyone caught with a firearm for life. No trial required.

* Enact excessive fines and bails for people caught with guns.

* Afford the federal government powers outside and/or contrary to the Constitution.

If we're going to significantly or completely erode one of the rights granted to us under our Constitution we may as well crap all over all of them. We cannot selectively choose to enforce or ignore certain parts of our Constitution.

The problem does not go away by addressing the symptom. We can rid our highways of drunk drivers if only we were to ban all alcohol. Would that sit well with most?
 
2012-12-21 12:14:22 PM  
Were people allowed to own cannons when they wrote this shiat? I'm interested. People keep saying, "Does that mean I should be allowed to own a stealth bomber?" Well fark it, if they could have cannons, I want a stealth bomber. Or an Apache.
 
2012-12-21 12:14:48 PM  

davidab: Its hard to tell if you were trying to be sarcastic but most people do have to wait between 3 and 10 days to pick up a new hand gun.


FTFY. Rifles can usually be bought on the spot.
 
2012-12-21 12:14:52 PM  

Carn: Nice analogy. How many mass hammer bashings do you recall in recent memory?

Definitely a valid comparison. Totally the same thing.


The best analogy I can think of is the 1st Amendment.

Freedom of press, Freedom of speech, and Freedom of religion have all directly lead to violence against other people. I firmly believe that the AM radio set is probably guilty of inciting many murders. However, no matter how vile the speech, or inflammatory the press, we all defend the right to say it.
 
2012-12-21 12:15:14 PM  

impaler: Vegan Meat Popsicle: impaler: I also despise media hype.

Yea, hype. Can't imagine what might have happened recently that put blood in the water to attract all the "sharks". Nope... nothing at all springs to mind. It doesn't spring to mind seven times, in fact.

Violent crimes are on the decline though, and mass shootings aren't a 'gun thing,' they're a 'mental health' thing. Although I suppose limiting access to firearms to those with mental health issues is a 'gun rights' issue. The focus should be on the mental health angle, not the gun angle, otherwise we're going to 'fix' something that doesn't address this problem.


How many mass shootings have been accomplished with a bow and arrow? They are both a gun thing and a mental health thing. Denying this is really stupid. It doesn't mean all guns should be illegal but it certainly suggests that we need to do more to prevent them from happening, including stronger gun control.
 
2012-12-21 12:15:34 PM  
The guy who is compiling the data is wrong. Example: The South Dakota marker states a teenager was killed in Sioux Falls. That is incorrect; the kid was killed in Pierre. I should know, I saw the cops flying down the street after it happened.

While the information they are trying to aggregate probably has a purpose, they really need to verify the information before passing it on from what appears to be an amateur source. The person is merely grabbing the local news outlet city and then regurgitating it without actually reading the article/news source.
 
2012-12-21 12:16:11 PM  

Headso: wow look how chill the west coast is, must be the weed...


Yeah, the anti's always talk about how gun culture is a part of the "Wild West" atitude. The entire western HALF of the US has just 33% more gun deaths than Oklahoma alone. 8 deaths in 11 states vs. 6 in one state.
 
2012-12-21 12:16:41 PM  

impaler: Vegan Meat Popsicle: impaler: I also despise media hype.

Yea, hype. Can't imagine what might have happened recently that put blood in the water to attract all the "sharks". Nope... nothing at all springs to mind. It doesn't spring to mind seven times, in fact.

Violent crimes are on the decline though, and mass shootings aren't a 'gun thing,' they're a 'mental health' thing. Although I suppose limiting access to firearms to those with mental health issues is a 'gun rights' issue. The focus should be on the mental health angle, not the gun angle, otherwise we're going to 'fix' something that doesn't address this problem.


The problem isn't guns. It's the attitudes that people have towards them. For example, the attitude that teaching your mentally unstable son how to use a gun, and allowing that same son access to your guns (whether explicitly or through neglect) somehow makes you "safer" than not owning a gun.
 
2012-12-21 12:16:46 PM  

Schroedinger's Glory Hole: Cars kill more people every day and it's not like we're moving to make those things autonomous so they're taken out of human hands amirite?


Are you saying that we should be moving toward autonomous, gun-toting robots as well? 'Cause I saw RoboCop back in the 80's, and that didn't work out so well...
 
2012-12-21 12:16:48 PM  

Magnanimous_J: Carn: Nice analogy. How many mass hammer bashings do you recall in recent memory?

Definitely a valid comparison. Totally the same thing.

The best analogy I can think of is the 1st Amendment.

Freedom of press, Freedom of speech, and Freedom of religion have all directly lead to violence against other people. I firmly believe that the AM radio set is probably guilty of inciting many murders. However, no matter how vile the speech, or inflammatory the press, we all defend the right to say it.


You can't yell fire in a crowded theater or say you want to kill the President. There are restrictions on this and other rights. We probably need more for the second amendment.
 
2012-12-21 12:17:02 PM  

davidab: Its hard to tell if you were trying to be sarcastic but most people do have to wait between 3 and 10 days to pick up a new gun


Here in Oklahoma, I have always been able to walk in, buy the firearm and walk out with it. Is the wait time you mentioned due to state law?
 
2012-12-21 12:18:08 PM  

Carn: Thisbymaster: WhippingBoy: Serious question:

Who's the bigger pussy? The guy afraid of gun violence, or the guy afraid to face life without his gun?

The one afraid of an inanimate object.

So, the gun people then.


Criminals are "inanimate"?
 
2012-12-21 12:18:28 PM  

Schroedinger's Glory Hole: Were people allowed to own cannons when they wrote this shiat?


Did well regulated militias use cannons?
 
2012-12-21 12:18:54 PM  

Mikey1969: Carn: Thisbymaster: WhippingBoy: Serious question:

Who's the bigger pussy? The guy afraid of gun violence, or the guy afraid to face life without his gun?

The one afraid of an inanimate object.

So, the gun people then.

Criminals are "inanimate"?


They are when I'm done with them.
 
2012-12-21 12:20:08 PM  

WhippingBoy: If, say, Great Britain fully supported the US military during a civil war, wouldn't you need to be able to take out those capital ships somehow?


Well, infighting within the military itself would be the first problem. 100% of the military isn't going to just follow orders to fire on their friends and families, especially if you are stripping them of their constitutional rights. I would expect some aircraft carries to "turn traitor", as well as some bases. Especially if its "hey we are taking away your rights and guess what...Great Britain is going to help us!" Or who knows, maybe GB will take to the plight of the rebellion and support them instead of the US government (or some other country).

Remember, a bunch of colonists fought the largest superpower in the world, and won (with high ranking military minds who turned traitor to their country and support from foreign powers). Hell, even the south, though not successful, gave the government a good fight for a couple of years.
 
2012-12-21 12:20:19 PM  

WhippingBoy: tukatz: With guns, knives, baseball bats, cars, shards of glass, etc.  They'll always find a method if they're going to kill.  Guns don't whisper in their ear... telling them to kill.

Yeah, but shards of glass don't make you feel manly enough to shoot up a classroom full of helpless, innocent children.


Knives have helped multiple men feel manly enough to hack up classrooms full of children. ABout 20 dead and 110 injured in the last 5 years or so.
 
2012-12-21 12:20:23 PM  

Carn: How many mass shootings have been accomplished with a bow and arrow? They are both a gun thing and a mental health thing. Denying this is really stupid. It doesn't mean all guns should be illegal but it certainly suggests that we need to do more to prevent them from happening, including stronger gun control.


Which is what I'm saying. An assault weapon ban will do very little to solve this problem. I'm also not going to lose any sleep if they enact one.
 
2012-12-21 12:21:06 PM  

Mikey1969: WhippingBoy: tukatz: With guns, knives, baseball bats, cars, shards of glass, etc.  They'll always find a method if they're going to kill.  Guns don't whisper in their ear... telling them to kill.

Yeah, but shards of glass don't make you feel manly enough to shoot up a classroom full of helpless, innocent children.

Knives have helped multiple men feel manly enough to hack up classrooms full of children. ABout 20 dead and 110 injured in the last 5 years or so.


Compared to 20 dead in a single instance. Totally the same thing.
 
2012-12-21 12:23:08 PM  

cragmor: It has been found through numerous polls that guns are used approximately 2.5 million times a year to prevent a violent crime.


That's just simply incorrect. One study, that has been thoroughly debunked, listed 2.5 million. Most studies say it's between 100,000 and 200,000.

Before you call me a lying gun-fearing lib, know that I own and carry firearms.
 
2012-12-21 12:23:35 PM  
most of you folks just don't seem to get it.
the guns are already out there
let me say that again
the guns are already out there
for example, the bank robbery in LA when the police were sorely outgunned
or in this latest case where the guns didn't belong to the sick, murderous bastard.
you cannot make all the 'bad' guns go away by banning them
bad people will still get them
or they will use explosives
or sarin gas
or what the fark ever.
that's why they are bad people

this was a horrible tragedy
not an excuse to begin disarming people

How this logic is missing
is beyond me
 
2012-12-21 12:24:01 PM  
I wonder if mass killings follow a power law distribution.
 
2012-12-21 12:24:06 PM  

Amos Quito:

From you link:

Every day, 85 Americans are shot dead, about 53 of them in suicides.

So, you want these people who are currently killing themselves with guns to start killing themselves with cars?


Lanza was a suicide.
 
2012-12-21 12:24:09 PM  

Amos Quito: Vegan Meat Popsicle: duffblue: Gotta love these instant greenlights, guess the mods are the type of people that piss themselves at the idea of firearms.

Yep.

Because only a complete coward would think that gun nuts should have a few basic responsibilities placed on the acquisition and distribution of their deadly toys


I don't think "gun nuts" are responsible for the vast majority of the carnage.

That award would go to gangsters, etc.


It's the gun nuts who deliberately misrepresented the 2nd Amendment and inflicted insane gun laws on the rest of us. So, yeah, the gun nuts are very much responsible.
 
2012-12-21 12:24:34 PM  

impaler: WhippingBoy: Given that the US government has a military that uses stealth bombers, nuclear powered aircraft carriers, drones, bunker-buster bombs, etc, etc, etc, would you agree that it makes sense for civilians to be allowed to own these same types of weapons in case the government decides to "push us too far"? After all, you don't being an AR-15 to an aircraft carrier fight.

No, but you do bring one to a Guerrilla war.


And no guerrilla war has ever been successful without the help of another nation. Ever. During our revolutionary war there were more foreign troops than Americans. George Washington and others in the Continental Army did not like the unregulated militias because they did not win battles and tend to commit atrocities. yes, I can cite. They also did not want armed populations with a militia but were politically forced due to English traditions. Whiich is why the "well regulated" part is in the amendment.

Just an FYI.
 
2012-12-21 12:25:05 PM  

Carn: So you hate the TSA too, right?


No, I love being groped by high school dropouts at the airport.
 
2012-12-21 12:25:56 PM  

Schroedinger's Glory Hole: Cars kill more people every day and it's not like we're moving to make those things autonomous so they're taken out of human hands amirite?


Cars have an actual use that is not directly related to killing people. Cars are our primary mode of transportation. Cars are not deisnged to kill people. The primary purpose of a gun is to kill living things. But of course, we're forgetting that gun owners rights are more important than the lives of little kids.
 
2012-12-21 12:26:08 PM  

Magnanimous_J: Carn: So you hate the TSA too, right?

No, I love being groped by high school dropouts at the airport.


You win. I lol'd.
 
2012-12-21 12:26:12 PM  
Way to crank up the pathos.
 
2012-12-21 12:26:43 PM  

Carn: Evilnissan: Don't blame the tool for the job the carpenter did.

Nice analogy. How many mass hammer bashings do you recall in recent memory?

Definitely a valid comparison. Totally the same thing.


Here's a pretty good list of attacks around the world. Guess what? People have stormed schools with hammers a couple of times, they've killed them with knives, and the US isn't the only place that has school shootings OR attacks, no matter what you want to believe.

Link
 
2012-12-21 12:27:04 PM  
If it's not a muzzle loader, it's not a real gun...
 
2012-12-21 12:30:13 PM  

natas6.0: not an excuse to begin disarming people


Has there been an attempt to disarm someone? The only talk I have heard is a reinstatement of the AWB, which does not make any of the firearms covered in the ban illegal to own. After the AWB was passed, all you had to do was stroll into a gun store or gun show to see how ridiculous the law was.
 
2012-12-21 12:30:34 PM  

Red_Fox: duffblue: guess the mods are the type of people that piss themselves at the idea of firearms.

And you're the kind of guy who get a bone from handling a deadly weapon....Better get used to it pro-gun people...the days of your side being in charge about this kinda shiat if farking over.


Says the Canadian.
 
2012-12-21 12:32:09 PM  

NightOwl2255: cragmor: It has been found through numerous polls that guns are used approximately 2.5 million times a year to prevent a violent crime.

That's just simply incorrect. One study, that has been thoroughly debunked, listed 2.5 million. Most studies say it's between 100,000 and 200,000.

Before you call me a lying gun-fearing lib, know that I own and carry firearms.


Can you provide me the info on debunking? I tried to be as thorough as possible, and I did not come up with anything to debunk it. In looking up this info, I was actually surprised to find the info from the Clinton administration agreed to a point, saying the number was about 1.5 million. Not calling you anything, but would appreciate knowing where the info came from.
 
2012-12-21 12:33:06 PM  

vdawg: http://hotair.com/archives/2012/06/19/fbi-report-violent-crime-down-f o r-the-fifth-straight-year-in-a-row/

Not sure if there is a correlation between self defense laws and increased firearm ownership as the reason violent crime rates have dropped for five straight years. Maybe the perpetrators are just nicer than they were before. :-/


Articles like this are why some people look with scorn upon rightwingers. They have no idea about statistical analysis. Nor do they understand correlation versus causation. They don't look at the reasons, nor causes of the drop or even the locations of the drop. That is why teen pregnancy rates are so high in Red States. They really are just bad at critical thinking.
 
2012-12-21 12:34:43 PM  

Deep Contact: Deaths in the U.S. Automobiles, which kill 117 Americans a day, or nearly 43,000 a year. Then comes flu, which (along with pneumonia, its associated disease) kills 36,000 people. Third is guns: 26,000 deaths. Fourth, food-borne illness: 5,000. And finally, terrorism, which in a typical year claims virtually no U.S. lives


Don't forget alcohol, that kills 80,000 people each year. Alcohol is far less of a necessity than cars or even guns, but strangely you don't hear the gun control nuts ever suggest that it too should be made illegal, even though it kills several times the total of guns, including children.

Similarly, the gun control side would argue that since we have in place a system of penalties for driving under the influence of various drugs, cars are well regulated. However when the subject turns to the scary looking (but statistically less dangerous) gun, the want not just a system of penalties, but to ban them outright. Or limit them to some low capacity, which would be the equivalent of outlawing all cars that go faster than 40mph. These people have no concern about things that kill lots of people, but major concern about things that kill relatively few, they're irrational.
 
2012-12-21 12:38:18 PM  
And then there's abortion. Abortion is death, after all.

Abortion; death of the most innocent. A total of 827,609 abortions were reported to CDC for 2007. In 2008, approximately 1.21 million abortions took place in the U.S.

No current data is available. Or, bluntly - 3,325 every day of the year in 2008, meaning 139 innocent lives every hour. Or, 5.3 Newtown catastrophes every hour for an entire year, round the clock. Clearly sexual congress must be outlawed since it can lead to the death of an innocent child. Because it's all about the children, isn't it?

My head can't wrap around the logic of the Left shouting for law-abiding, well mannered, adult American citizens - from whom the government derives its right to govern - to have their 2nd Amendment weapons forcibly taken from them when the same political crowd not only endures the staggering volume of termination of innocent life on a scale that would make Hitler cringe, but glories in it.
Tell you what. The Left gives up Roe v. Wade, renounces it and never again goes near the question of abortion and I will afterwards agree to a "national conversation" about the 2nd Amendment and what it really meant to the Framers. They go first. That will signal their sincerity. Absolute constitutional rejection and elimination of abortion.

What's that? Getting rid of abortion will cause needless death and anguish? It's a woman's right to protect her body from others who don't have the right to tell her how to preserve and defend her sovereignty, especially as pertains to her safety and well being?

You don't say.
 
2012-12-21 12:38:52 PM  

Mikey1969: Carn: Evilnissan: Don't blame the tool for the job the carpenter did.

Nice analogy. How many mass hammer bashings do you recall in recent memory?

Definitely a valid comparison. Totally the same thing.

Here's a pretty good list of attacks around the world. Guess what? People have stormed schools with hammers a couple of times, they've killed them with knives, and the US isn't the only place that has school shootings OR attacks, no matter what you want to believe.

Link


Hammers and guns: equally dangerous in your mind then?
 
2012-12-21 12:39:34 PM  

Carn: You can't yell fire in a crowded theater or say you want to kill the President. There are restrictions on this and other rights. We probably need more for the second amendment.


We have plenty of qualifying restrictions on the 2nd Amendment. Most of them make a lot of sense as well. And if we, as a country decide to limit magazine capacity (the real issue with "assault weapons") then I'm not going to rise up over it. But don't kid yourself, it's not going to reduce deaths in any significant way. Would the body count be lower in the Virginia tech shooting if the killer was forced to use low-cap magazines? Maybe, maybe not. We'll never know. I doubt this CT thing would have shaken out any differently, given that the shooter killed himself long before the cops ever showed up.

The fear in the firearm community is "give them an inch, and they'll take a mile." And that's a valid concern.

Too_many_Brians: And no guerrilla war has ever been successful without the help of another nation. Ever.


That's true, but could the French has spared the manpower to help us if we weren't' able to do a lot of the heavy lifting ourselves?
 
2012-12-21 12:40:33 PM  
The argument is all symptoms, all the time. If you won't tackle the causes, then you are one.

Humans will drink, if you can get them to drop the stupid insistence that they don't see the water.
 
2012-12-21 12:40:35 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Deep Contact: Deaths in the U.S. Automobiles, which kill 117 Americans a day, or nearly 43,000 a year. Then comes flu, which (along with pneumonia, its associated disease) kills 36,000 people. Third is guns: 26,000 deaths. Fourth, food-borne illness: 5,000. And finally, terrorism, which in a typical year claims virtually no U.S. lives

Don't forget alcohol, that kills 80,000 people each year. Alcohol is far less of a necessity than cars or even guns, but strangely you don't hear the gun control nuts ever suggest that it too should be made illegal, even though it kills several times the total of guns, including children.

Similarly, the gun control side would argue that since we have in place a system of penalties for driving under the influence of various drugs, cars are well regulated. However when the subject turns to the scary looking (but statistically less dangerous) gun, the want not just a system of penalties, but to ban them outright. Or limit them to some low capacity, which would be the equivalent of outlawing all cars that go faster than 40mph. These people have no concern about things that kill lots of people, but major concern about things that kill relatively few, they're irrational.



When the primary function of autos or alcohol is to cause casualty, you have an argument.
 
2012-12-21 12:41:07 PM  

Carn: Hammers and guns: equally dangerous in your mind then?


In the hands of someone who wants to do harm to me with it? Yeah, very much so.
 
2012-12-21 12:41:48 PM  
We don't have the problem China does, that's for sure. I just looked at the Wiki page that lists school attacks. I only went back to 1990, since I have a liimited amount of time here, and here's the breakdown between the US and China, the two most represented places on the list.

US
Deaths 49
Injuries 61

China
Deaths 55
Injuries 235

Jesus, those are some angry Asians.
 
2012-12-21 12:43:46 PM  

Virtue: Because the AWB worked so well last time right?.....but THIS time it will be DIFFERENT right?


i471.photobucket.com

They do have a nice album cover here...
 
2012-12-21 12:44:18 PM  

Clemkadidlefark: And then there's abortion. Abortion is death, after all.

Blahblah

You don't say.


so are you one of those people who think that those people in a persistive vegetative state are still alive because they have a heart beat? You live in your brain. Without recognizable human brainwaves you really aren't human. Unless you're one of those" my soul controls my body" weirdos.
 
2012-12-21 12:44:47 PM  
Letting a few bad apples spoil the whole damn bunch; It's the American WayTM
 
2012-12-21 12:44:51 PM  
There are about 180,000 legally registered and transferable full automatic guns that the public can buy, sell, possess, and use. (see 1934 NFA, 1968, and 1986 FOPA and the form 4).
...and they are a blast to shoot.

There are also destructive devices in the NFA registry (so yes matilda, you can own a howitzer) and yes, they are fun to shoot.
Assuming you could find a seller, you could also buy a grenade ($200 tax stamp plus cost of item). There are other items in the registry-suppressors (silencers for hollywood) and shorter barrel stuff.
--the process involves a 4-6 month background check, fingerprints, good guy law enforcement letter, and photos--NOT a walk in walk out purchase.

Then, there are the "4473 guns". A one time check then the gun goes into circulation and only gets recorded in a bound book if it resells through a FFL dealer. some states (like AZ) a walk in and walk out deal. None of these go "bang bang bang" with a single trigger pull.

some of these take nasty curved magazines (clips) like the form 4 guns do.

The vast majority of gun owners just like the free ability to trade and purchase guns (and their magazines "clips") for collection, use, investment, and rule 34 shiat.

I just know it is going to get worse (laws) before it gets better.
 
2012-12-21 12:45:25 PM  

Carn: Mikey1969: WhippingBoy: tukatz: With guns, knives, baseball bats, cars, shards of glass, etc.  They'll always find a method if they're going to kill.  Guns don't whisper in their ear... telling them to kill.

Yeah, but shards of glass don't make you feel manly enough to shoot up a classroom full of helpless, innocent children.

Knives have helped multiple men feel manly enough to hack up classrooms full of children. ABout 20 dead and 110 injured in the last 5 years or so.

Compared to 20 dead in a single instance. Totally the same thing.


Too bad that wasn't the question. Your deflector shields are definitely at maximum power today. Hammer attacks=hammer attacks, which WAS the question so IS the same thing(OP asked when the last hammer attack was, I posted a link showing that they have indeed happened, that's where that part of the discussion ends).

Thank you for playing.
 
2012-12-21 12:46:00 PM  

Carn: Schroedinger's Glory Hole: Cars kill more people every day and it's not like we're moving to make those things autonomous so they're taken out of human hands amirite?

Yeah, not like that at all. Or maybe exactly like that.


Actually, the big issue with autonomous cars now is: IF, against standard operation or function, one is involved in, or the cause of, an accident that takes human life... who is responsible?
With a firearm, responsibility can clearly be traced to the finger on the trigger, but with a supposedly autonomous device, is it the fault of the passenger? Of the company who produced the car? Or of the programming team who wrote the software? Could it be the victim's fault?
 
2012-12-21 12:46:16 PM  

cragmor: Can you provide me the info on debunking?


Google it, it's quite enlightening. Here's the main problem with his methodology, Kleck called about 3000 random numbers and asked to speak to the head of the household. So, of course, he spoke to mostly adult men. Yet, when he extrapolated the results, he did it against the entire population of the U.S. at the time. He didn't talk to any 5 year girls, but his calculations include them as if they had used a gun for defense at the same rate as a 30 year old man. It was a informal poll, it was not, in any way, a true scientific study.
 
2012-12-21 12:47:41 PM  

Mikey1969: We don't have the problem China does, that's for sure. I just looked at the Wiki page that lists school attacks. I only went back to 1990, since I have a liimited amount of time here, and here's the breakdown between the US and China, the two most represented places on the list.

US
Deaths 49
Injuries 61

China
Deaths 55
Injuries 235

Jesus, those are some angry Asians.


[citation needed]

The top four alone in the US (Columbine, Newtown, VA Tech, and Red Lake) combine for 79 dead, not counting the shooters. That's leaving out a lot of other attacks.
 
2012-12-21 12:48:50 PM  

Carn: Mikey1969: Carn: Evilnissan: Don't blame the tool for the job the carpenter did.

Nice analogy. How many mass hammer bashings do you recall in recent memory?

Definitely a valid comparison. Totally the same thing.

Here's a pretty good list of attacks around the world. Guess what? People have stormed schools with hammers a couple of times, they've killed them with knives, and the US isn't the only place that has school shootings OR attacks, no matter what you want to believe.

Link

Hammers and guns: equally dangerous in your mind then?


Well, technically they are. I can crush your skull with a hammer blow just as easily as shoot you with a gun. It's getting close enough to do it that's harder, but they are equally as dangerous, as is any tool that is used incorrectly.

That's not the point though. The point is that you asked when the last hammer attack occurred, I showed you. End of story. Try to follow along, especially when you're the one that brings up the question.
 
2012-12-21 12:50:53 PM  

Anastacya: I should know, I saw the cops flying down the street after it happened.


Awesome! Flying cops!! Minority Report is really coming to our era....
 
2012-12-21 12:51:13 PM  
So whats stopping some schmoe from becoming sick of life and building a home-made bomb? What, you going to stop sales of fertilizer too, it is already restricted in many places but you can still get it.

I think people's priorities right now are a little skewed.
 
2012-12-21 12:51:57 PM  

Magnanimous_J: Carn: You can't yell fire in a crowded theater or say you want to kill the President. There are restrictions on this and other rights. We probably need more for the second amendment.

Too_many_Brians: And no guerrilla war has ever been successful without the help of another nation. Ever.

That's true, but could the French has spared the manpower to help us if we weren't' able to do a lot of the heavy lifting ourselves?


We had so much international support that we did very little heavy lifting, do you realize how many countries sent support? Heck, not even a majority of the population was for independence.
 
2012-12-21 12:53:45 PM  
Just some thoughts...
In the majority of the popular 'games' I see advertised most all have the basic premise of killing something. This, I feel, is an unfortunate and sad reality.
I am a firm proponent of a citizens right to bare arms.
Some people would say that "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." Either way...people die, and it's just another reason in a march limit then remove these rights.
Parents, get with it!
If Dr. Spock were alive I'd shoot him.
 
2012-12-21 12:54:23 PM  

Mikey1969: Carn: Mikey1969: WhippingBoy: tukatz: With guns, knives, baseball bats, cars, shards of glass, etc.  They'll always find a method if they're going to kill.  Guns don't whisper in their ear... telling them to kill.

Yeah, but shards of glass don't make you feel manly enough to shoot up a classroom full of helpless, innocent children.

Knives have helped multiple men feel manly enough to hack up classrooms full of children. ABout 20 dead and 110 injured in the last 5 years or so.

Compared to 20 dead in a single instance. Totally the same thing.

Too bad that wasn't the question. Your deflector shields are definitely at maximum power today. Hammer attacks=hammer attacks, which WAS the question so IS the same thing(OP asked when the last hammer attack was, I posted a link showing that they have indeed happened, that's where that part of the discussion ends).

Thank you for playing.


I'm still responding to your false equivalency that knives or hammers are equal to guns in terms of destructive power. It is unreasonable and irrational to hold this view. It might qualify as insane (unable to tell imaginary from reality). Some of us adults had a bit of a back and forth about this up thread about whether or not the destructive power of the weapon matters. There's also been some agreement on both sides in this thread that eliminating high capacity magazines might be acceptable. Very few aside from yourself continue to hold to the "all weapons are equal" argument. If you skip back a hundred posts or so, I offered a sound logical argument proving that if all weapons are equal then clearly nukes for all is a good policy. Since this is obviously false, the discussion should be around where to draw the line, not whether there should be a line at all which is the equivalent of what you're arguing.
 
2012-12-21 12:54:23 PM  

Too_many_Brians: vdawg: http://hotair.com/archives/2012/06/19/fbi-report-violent-crime-down-f o r-the-fifth-straight-year-in-a-row/

Not sure if there is a correlation between self defense laws and increased firearm ownership as the reason violent crime rates have dropped for five straight years. Maybe the perpetrators are just nicer than they were before. :-/

Articles like this are why some people look with scorn upon rightwingers. They have no idea about statistical analysis. Nor do they understand correlation versus causation. They don't look at the reasons, nor causes of the drop or even the locations of the drop. That is why teen pregnancy rates are so high in Red States. They really are just bad at critical thinking.


Most of the quotes are taken right from the FBI'S published report. I just linked the "right wing" article. Would you mind dazzling us with your explanation on the reduction of violent crime?
 
2012-12-21 12:56:27 PM  

Mikey1969: Carn: Mikey1969: Carn: Evilnissan: Don't blame the tool for the job the carpenter did.

Nice analogy. How many mass hammer bashings do you recall in recent memory?

Definitely a valid comparison. Totally the same thing.

Here's a pretty good list of attacks around the world. Guess what? People have stormed schools with hammers a couple of times, they've killed them with knives, and the US isn't the only place that has school shootings OR attacks, no matter what you want to believe.

Link

Hammers and guns: equally dangerous in your mind then?

Well, technically they are. I can crush your skull with a hammer blow just as easily as shoot you with a gun. It's getting close enough to do it that's harder, but they are equally as dangerous, as is any tool that is used incorrectly.

That's not the point though. The point is that you asked when the last hammer attack occurred, I showed you. End of story. Try to follow along, especially when you're the one that brings up the question.


No, I didn't. I never have doubted that people have attacked and killed others with hammers. I strongly doubt you can provide an example comparable to killed 20 children and 6 adults in a matter of minutes, however.
 
2012-12-21 12:57:07 PM  

duffblue: Gotta love these instant greenlights, guess the mods are the type of people that piss themselves at the idea of firearms.


Funny, most gun owners i know own guns cuz they are inherently scared little people looking for a security blanket.
 
2012-12-21 12:58:10 PM  

nickeyx: When the primary function of autos or alcohol is to cause casualty, you have an argument.


No they have a better argument. Cars and alcohol kill more as a side effect then guns do on purpose. how you can justify something like that?

If cars and alcohol were as safe as guns, we'd have 30-70,000 fewer deaths each year.
 
2012-12-21 12:58:34 PM  

Mikey1969: Jesus, those are some angry Asians


I feel bad for laughing at that, it's not funny, but I lost my shiat at that line for a second there
 
2012-12-21 12:58:36 PM  
Meanwhile, in Canada. Hmmm, wonder why. Surely nothing to do with the fact we're not all gun-happy up here.
 
2012-12-21 12:58:54 PM  
Are they planning on doing the same thing for cars, peanuts, alcohol, prescription drugs and other legal items?
 
2012-12-21 12:59:11 PM  

Carn: Mikey1969: Carn: Mikey1969: Carn: Evilnissan: Don't blame the tool for the job the carpenter did.

Nice analogy. How many mass hammer bashings do you recall in recent memory?

Definitely a valid comparison. Totally the same thing.

Here's a pretty good list of attacks around the world. Guess what? People have stormed schools with hammers a couple of times, they've killed them with knives, and the US isn't the only place that has school shootings OR attacks, no matter what you want to believe.

Link

Hammers and guns: equally dangerous in your mind then?

Well, technically they are. I can crush your skull with a hammer blow just as easily as shoot you with a gun. It's getting close enough to do it that's harder, but they are equally as dangerous, as is any tool that is used incorrectly.

That's not the point though. The point is that you asked when the last hammer attack occurred, I showed you. End of story. Try to follow along, especially when you're the one that brings up the question.

No, I didn't. I never have doubted that people have attacked and killed others with hammers. I strongly doubt you can provide an example comparable to killed 20 children and 6 adults in a matter of minutes, however.


Excuse me, yes I did. However, my implied question was "How many hammer bashings resulting in multiple homicides"
 
2012-12-21 12:59:33 PM  
Looks like someone on Slate wants to put the stat analysis they learned (while struggling for their PhD) to some use.

Faulty data collection system will do it every time.

doesn't really matter does it because


Gun Deaths, We Hazem
 lazydabbler.files.wordpress.com

Just have to figure out how many we want per day I guess.
 
2012-12-21 12:59:38 PM  
Thinking Springfield .45 but my god, they are REALLY proud of their handguns..
Man, this looks fun to shoot.. and dear god, everywhere online is selling out like hotcakes, and/or their shipping dept is backed up tot high hades!

cheap ammo, lots of fun to be had
 
2012-12-21 01:00:14 PM  
Hammer attacks.

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/hammer-attack-then-death-comes-to-s p ring-street-20121212-2b8h9.html

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2012/05/10/arrest-made-for-petworth-ha m mer-attack-resulting-in-death-of-tourist-from-denver/

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57518738-504083/two-wisconsin- t eens-charged-in-hatchet-hammer-death-of-great-grandmother-prosecutors- say/
 
2012-12-21 01:00:14 PM  

chiefsfaninkc: Are they planning on doing the same thing for cars, peanuts, alcohol, prescription drugs and other legal items?


What, regulating the hell out of them and restricting them in many ways? Yes, we do that already.
 
2012-12-21 01:00:53 PM  

Carn: No, I didn't. I never have doubted that people have attacked and killed others with hammers. I strongly doubt you can provide an example comparable to killed 20 children and 6 adults in a matter of minutes, however.


So you're only interested in stopping the really rare spree killings, but not the more common everyday killings? How many parents beat their kids to death each year with hands and feet? Even though they're enough to fill a typical entire elementary school, they're spread out over time so not as important? what about cars which are the #1 cause of among children? Not important enough?
 
2012-12-21 01:02:56 PM  

Carn: What, regulating the hell out of them and restricting them in many ways? Yes, we do that already.


Yet, all of them kill far more then guns,and in many cases on accident. We should definitely look at the regulation regimes around alcohol and cars if we want a model to apply to guns.

Perhaps treat cars and booze more like guns, then we'll see tens of thousands of lives saved each year.
 
2012-12-21 01:03:17 PM  

Carn: chiefsfaninkc: Are they planning on doing the same thing for cars, peanuts, alcohol, prescription drugs and other legal items?

What, regulating the hell out of them and restricting them in many ways? Yes, we do that already.


Didn't know peanuts were all that heavily regulated guess I better hide the illegal peanut butter i made the other day.
 
2012-12-21 01:03:25 PM  

WhippingBoy: tukatz: With guns, knives, baseball bats, cars, shards of glass, etc.  They'll always find a method if they're going to kill.  Guns don't whisper in their ear... telling them to kill.

Yeah, but shards of glass don't make you feel manly enough to shoot up a classroom full of helpless, innocent children.


Are you really twisted enough to think that shooting up a room full of 6-year-olds made that guy feel more masculine?
That's pretty pathetic of you.
 
2012-12-21 01:04:04 PM  

Evilnissan: Hammer attacks.

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/hammer-attack-then-death-comes-to-s p ring-street-20121212-2b8h9.html
Link

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2012/05/10/arrest-made-for-petworth-ha m mer-attack-resulting-in-death-of-tourist-from-denver/

Link/

 
2012-12-21 01:04:23 PM  

NightOwl2255: cragmor: Can you provide me the info on debunking?

Google it, it's quite enlightening. Here's the main problem with his methodology, Kleck called about 3000 random numbers and asked to speak to the head of the household. So, of course, he spoke to mostly adult men. Yet, when he extrapolated the results, he did it against the entire population of the U.S. at the time. He didn't talk to any 5 year girls, but his calculations include them as if they had used a gun for defense at the same rate as a 30 year old man. It was a informal poll, it was not, in any way, a true scientific study.


I have to wonder why the very much anti-gun Clinton administration would go on the record to say that they agree with the findings, to a point. That point being 1.5 million.
 
2012-12-21 01:04:40 PM  

vdawg: Articles like this are why some people look with scorn upon rightwingers. They have no idea about statistical analysis. Nor do they understand correlation versus causation. They don't look at the reasons, nor causes of the drop or even the locations of the drop. That is why teen pregnancy rates are so high in Red States. They really are just bad at critical thinking.

Most of the quotes are taken right from the FBI'S published report. I just linked the "right wing" article. Would you mind dazzling us with your explanation on the reduction of violent crime?


Here. Let me explain it based off the article: "Car theft, larceny, and burglary also saw modest drops.Can it be a complete coincidence that the legal purchase of firearms and the number of people carrying said firearms has also been rising steadily?"

Yes. Yes it can be a coincidence. Hence the "correlation != causation."

It's statistically possible to discern if higher rates of carrying in areas correspond to the drops in crime rates. If areas with little to know increase in carrying rates saw similar rates of crime drop as areas with higher rates of carrying, then it's not rational to tie the two.
 
2012-12-21 01:04:53 PM  

nickeyx: When the primary function of autos or alcohol is to cause casualty, you have an argument.


The primary function of alcohol is absolutely nothing of practical use, yet it kills far more people than guns. You're defending something that serves no purpose, which kills far more people than guns? Good jorb! You're just so intellectually honest, and clearly free from bias. What makes the 80,000 people who die from alcohol less worthy of your valiant crusade to defend life? You wouldn't be a drinker, would you?
 
2012-12-21 01:05:27 PM  
Can a gun enthusiast please explain to me how their personal arsenal is up to the task of preventing tyranny in the US?
 
2012-12-21 01:06:33 PM  

pedrop357: Cars and alcohol kill more as a side effect then guns do on purpose. how you can justify something like that?

If cars and alcohol were as safe as guns, we'd have 30-70,000 fewer deaths each year.


You might even begin to have a point if guns were used as often as cars.
 
2012-12-21 01:06:39 PM  
Sandy Hook really is going to be the 9/11 of mass shootings, isn't it? I can expect a Gun Control Patriot Act soon?
 
2012-12-21 01:06:51 PM  

impaler: manimal2878: The debate on where to draw the line between bombs and guns was settled hundreds of years ago with classifying certain things as destructive devices. People who pretend otherwise are the ones that are failing to grasp logic or purposely throwing out a red herring.

So I can own a howitzer?

I would love to get a hold of a WWII 88mm.


Vyvyan had one for a bit. He really liked it.
 
2012-12-21 01:07:11 PM  

duffblue: Gotta love these instant greenlights, guess the mods are the type of people that piss themselves at the idea of firearms realize that these threads get a lot of debate, page refreshes, and hits on whatever ads that "please whitelist us in adblock" bar is whining about (no).

 
2012-12-21 01:07:41 PM  

pedrop357: Carn: No, I didn't. I never have doubted that people have attacked and killed others with hammers. I strongly doubt you can provide an example comparable to killed 20 children and 6 adults in a matter of minutes, however.

So you're only interested in stopping the really rare spree killings, but not the more common everyday killings? How many parents beat their kids to death each year with hands and feet? Even though they're enough to fill a typical entire elementary school, they're spread out over time so not as important? what about cars which are the #1 cause of among children? Not important enough?


What a stupid assumption and conclusion. I am in favor of stronger gun control precisely because certain weapons are capable of inflicting more harm in less time than others. This in now way means I'm against other general aspects of public safety.

All gun violence is an issue that should be addressed including the US being high on the list of gun murders. School shootings are one very disgusting aspect of we as a society not doing enough to address the issue.
 
2012-12-21 01:07:56 PM  

Too_many_Brians: We had so much international support that we did very little heavy lifting, do you realize how many countries sent support? Heck, not even a majority of the population was for independence.


Maybe I don't know my revolutionary war history as well as I should, but I wasn't under the impression that there were "troops from many nations." I know we probably couldn't have done it without the French, and I know the British hired a ton of Hessian mercenaries to augment their ranks, but I didn't know many other countries contributed in a significant way.

Regardless, think of what happens every time we "liberate" a country. If we relied on other European powers to throw off the British, do you think they would have just wished us luck and set sail for home?
 
2012-12-21 01:08:47 PM  

chiefsfaninkc: Carn: chiefsfaninkc: Are they planning on doing the same thing for cars, peanuts, alcohol, prescription drugs and other legal items?

What, regulating the hell out of them and restricting them in many ways? Yes, we do that already.

Didn't know peanuts were all that heavily regulated guess I better hide the illegal peanut butter i made the other day.


Perhaps you've heard of the FDA? You know, the people who ensure that the peanut butter you buy in the store doesn't poison you or make you sick?
 
2012-12-21 01:09:28 PM  

impaler: vdawg: Articles like this are why some people look with scorn upon rightwingers. They have no idea about statistical analysis. Nor do they understand correlation versus causation. They don't look at the reasons, nor causes of the drop or even the locations of the drop. That is why teen pregnancy rates are so high in Red States. They really are just bad at critical thinking.

Most of the quotes are taken right from the FBI'S published report. I just linked the "right wing" article. Would you mind dazzling us with your explanation on the reduction of violent crime?

Here. Let me explain it based off the article: "Car theft, larceny, and burglary also saw modest drops.Can it be a complete coincidence that the legal purchase of firearms and the number of people carrying said firearms has also been rising steadily?"

Yes. Yes it can be a coincidence. Hence the "correlation != causation."

It's statistically possible to discern if higher rates of carrying in areas correspond to the drops in crime rates. If areas with little to know increase in carrying rates saw similar rates of crime drop as areas with higher rates of carrying, then it's not rational to tie the two.


Thank you, about what I was going to attempt to say.

I would like to add that this is how you write an article about gun violence.

Link
 
2012-12-21 01:09:32 PM  

impaler: You might even begin to have a point if guns were used as often as cars.


Depends on how you define use. There are millions of guns carried everyday by people, hundreds of millions of person-carry hours. I'd wager that people carry their guns far more often then they drive their cars. If a person takes 4 guns to a range and allows 10 people to shoot them, expending 1000 rounds, how many uses is that? 1,4,10?
 
2012-12-21 01:10:31 PM  

impaler: pedrop357: Cars and alcohol kill more as a side effect then guns do on purpose. how you can justify something like that?

If cars and alcohol were as safe as guns, we'd have 30-70,000 fewer deaths each year.

You might even begin to have a point if guns were used as often as cars.


Forgot: You also have to consider the death rate of the alternative. If cars were banned, death rates would be in the millions via starvation.

So yeah, stupid point.
 
2012-12-21 01:10:44 PM  

Vegan Meat Popsicle: This is a long-settled legal matter. You do not have any absolute right and we are done discussing that particular "issue" since there is a clear and objective truth to it. Your rights can be curtailed to protect the rights of others, it's been litigated, the decision has been made, there is no further discussion to be had.


Congratulations, this is the most arrogant thing I have ever seen anyone write on Fark. There is no argument or discussions to be had, for I have declared the matter moot! The sad thing is, I don't even think your trolling, I think your actually serious.....
 
2012-12-21 01:11:21 PM  

Carn: What a stupid assumption and conclusion. I am in favor of stronger gun control precisely because certain weapons are capable of inflicting more harm in less time than others. This in now way means I'm against other general aspects of public safety.

All gun violence is an issue that should be addressed including the US being high on the list of gun murders. School shootings are one very disgusting aspect of we as a society not doing enough to address the issue.


No, it means you have an agenda that is not truly about safety. it's about guns, more specifically gun control as an end unto itself.

A person who cared in any way about safety wouldn't focus on the #10 or #20 cause of death for people in specific of large age ranges, nor would they expend so much effort and suggest infringing rights to deal with extraordinarily rare incidents.
 
2012-12-21 01:12:46 PM  

impaler: vdawg: Articles like this are why some people look with scorn upon rightwingers. They have no idea about statistical analysis. Nor do they understand correlation versus causation. They don't look at the reasons, nor causes of the drop or even the locations of the drop. That is why teen pregnancy rates are so high in Red States. They really are just bad at critical thinking.

Most of the quotes are taken right from the FBI'S published report. I just linked the "right wing" article. Would you mind dazzling us with your explanation on the reduction of violent crime?

Here. Let me explain it based off the article: "Car theft, larceny, and burglary also saw modest drops.Can it be a complete coincidence that the legal purchase of firearms and the number of people carrying said firearms has also been rising steadily?"

Yes. Yes it can be a coincidence. Hence the "correlation != causation."

It's statistically possible to discern if higher rates of carrying in areas correspond to the drops in crime rates. If areas with little to know increase in carrying rates saw similar rates of crime drop as areas with higher rates of carrying, then it's not rational to tie the two.


5 year coincidence. Gotcha. And it's the crazy right winged thought process that is skewed. I'll check back when the 2012 UCR comes out and we'll haggle about a six year winning streak.
 
2012-12-21 01:12:53 PM  

impaler: Forgot: You also have to consider the death rate of the alternative. If cars were banned, death rates would be in the millions via starvation.

So yeah, stupid point.


not banned, maybe restricted to government personnel and rigorously trained professionals only.


How many would be dead without effective means to protect themselves? How many fewer jews would be dead if the German government had been unable to disarm the country in the 20s?
 
2012-12-21 01:13:38 PM  

Uranus Is Huge!: Can a gun enthusiast please explain to me how their personal arsenal is up to the task of preventing tyranny in the US?


Can you explain to me how my guns affect your life. Go fark with the people who are causing the problem, not me. Your outrage is misplaced.
 
2012-12-21 01:16:34 PM  

impaler: vdawg: Articles like this are why some people look with scorn upon rightwingers. They have no idea about statistical analysis. Nor do they understand correlation versus causation. They don't look at the reasons, nor causes of the drop or even the locations of the drop. That is why teen pregnancy rates are so high in Red States. They really are just bad at critical thinking.

Most of the quotes are taken right from the FBI'S published report. I just linked the "right wing" article. Would you mind dazzling us with your explanation on the reduction of violent crime?

Here. Let me explain it based off the article: "Car theft, larceny, and burglary also saw modest drops.Can it be a complete coincidence that the legal purchase of firearms and the number of people carrying said firearms has also been rising steadily?"

Yes. Yes it can be a coincidence. Hence the "correlation != causation."

It's statistically possible to discern if higher rates of carrying in areas correspond to the drops in crime rates. If areas with little to know increase in carrying rates saw similar rates of crime drop as areas with higher rates of carrying, then it's not rational to tie the two.


A 5 year coincidence? Mmmkay

I'll be back when the 2012 UCR comes out and there is a 6th straight year of reduction.
 
2012-12-21 01:16:37 PM  

pedrop357: Carn: What a stupid assumption and conclusion. I am in favor of stronger gun control precisely because certain weapons are capable of inflicting more harm in less time than others. This in now way means I'm against other general aspects of public safety.

All gun violence is an issue that should be addressed including the US being high on the list of gun murders. School shootings are one very disgusting aspect of we as a society not doing enough to address the issue.

No, it means you have an agenda that is not truly about safety. it's about guns, more specifically gun control as an end unto itself.

A person who cared in any way about safety wouldn't focus on the #10 or #20 cause of death for people in specific of large age ranges, nor would they expend so much effort and suggest infringing rights to deal with extraordinarily rare incidents.


There are certain things that should have zero tolerance in society. People shooting up kids in schools is on the list. Deaths in car accidents or by heart attack or cancer, while tragic, do not have quite the same moral equivalence. We try to come up with ways to lessen car accidents and heart attack deaths and cancer deaths. We can also try to lessen or eliminate school shootings. This isn't mutually exclusive. Now it seems as if you're arguing "Society can only address whatever is currently the number one cause of death of its citizens at any particular time. All other issues at that time are irrelevant." If that is your position, perhaps you'd like to rethink, because that is a very stupid position.
 
2012-12-21 01:16:56 PM  
www.secretsofthefed.com
 
2012-12-21 01:17:24 PM  

Uranus Is Huge!: Can a gun enthusiast please explain to me how their personal arsenal is up to the task of preventing tyranny in the US?


Most tyrannical efforts that been wildly successful in other countries will die on the vine so to speak due to the number of armed citizens. Do you think the government would dare go door-to-door rounding up 'undesirables' the way the Nazis did? How about moving tanks into Times Square to show the population who's in charge the way the Chinese did?
 
2012-12-21 01:18:04 PM  

Uranus Is Huge!: Can a gun enthusiast please explain to me how their personal arsenal is up to the task of preventing tyranny in the US?


It's not always about revolution. In the 60's, Nixon used to look out the windows in the oval office all night long, worried to death that the protests raging around the city were going to turn violent.

No leader wants an armed rebellion, no matter how easy it would be to put down. It's bad for business. So as long as that's on the table, they will fear it, even if they are sure to win.
 
2012-12-21 01:18:18 PM  

vdawg: impaler: vdawg: Articles like this are why some people look with scorn upon rightwingers. They have no idea about statistical analysis. Nor do they understand correlation versus causation. They don't look at the reasons, nor causes of the drop or even the locations of the drop. That is why teen pregnancy rates are so high in Red States. They really are just bad at critical thinking.

Most of the quotes are taken right from the FBI'S published report. I just linked the "right wing" article. Would you mind dazzling us with your explanation on the reduction of violent crime?

Here. Let me explain it based off the article: "Car theft, larceny, and burglary also saw modest drops.Can it be a complete coincidence that the legal purchase of firearms and the number of people carrying said firearms has also been rising steadily?"

Yes. Yes it can be a coincidence. Hence the "correlation != causation."

It's statistically possible to discern if higher rates of carrying in areas correspond to the drops in crime rates. If areas with little to know increase in carrying rates saw similar rates of crime drop as areas with higher rates of carrying, then it's not rational to tie the two.

A 5 year coincidence? Mmmkay

I'll be back when the 2012 UCR comes out and there is a 6th straight year of reduction.


My apologies, my phone didn't refresh and show my Weeners.
 
2012-12-21 01:19:01 PM  

LOLPuffs: Yeah "statistics" taken from a Twitter feed with the sole purpose of promoting the awareness of said "statistics" and being presented as factual...awesome.


With links to news reports, so [citation provided].


NightOwl2255: Both of the above items are inanimate objects. Yet, I'm guessing, there's one you would not want kids to play with. One you would not want a kid pointing at your head.


Yeah. Playing with a teddy bear might make a kid catch "teh ghey."


natas6.0: you cannot make all the 'bad' guns go away by banning them
bad people will still get them
or they will use explosives
or sarin gas
or what the fark ever.



Nobody is seriously under the impression that a ban on guns will have an immediate effect on anything. What better laws (not limited to bans) will do is make it harder for guns to get into the hands of individuals, legitimately or otherwise, and eventually reduce the number of guns in circulation. it would be a very gradual process, no doubt.

You can argue that criminals will always have guns, but that's the wrong focus for this discussion. I think talking about criminals and guns requires a bit of perspective and clarification.

Gun control / bans are not going to be all that effective against organized crime elements, sure. They may not be entirely effective against other criminal elements.

But the focus of discussion should not dwell too long on the people who already lead a life of crime. It's the otherwise law-abiding citizens who, in a moment of rage, confusion or mental impairment, become a criminal for the first time by pointing a gun at another person. It's this category of incident - which essentially all mass-shootings fall into - that stricter laws or outright bans could put a serious dent in.

It would also be interesting to learn what percentage of guns used in crimes may not have been obtained legally by the perpetrator, but were acquired in some way from a legal owner (e.g. theft, family member, etc). That is, out of all gun related incidents, how many guns originally made it into circulation through currently legal channels and ended up on the black market anyway? Restricting legal access to guns cuts down on this vector for criminals obtaining them.


Bombs? Bombs take skill and planing to build and use to good effect in actually killing people.

You can't walk into a pawn shop and buy a canister of sarin gas, nor can you manufacture the stuff in your basement. It's also fairly difficult to deploy as an effective murder weapon.

Guns are easy. Guns are effective. Guns are readily available. Can't do anything about the first two, but with well considered planning and legislation, we can do something about the last one.
=Smidge=
 
2012-12-21 01:19:43 PM  

Carn: chiefsfaninkc: Carn: chiefsfaninkc: Are they planning on doing the same thing for cars, peanuts, alcohol, prescription drugs and other legal items?

What, regulating the hell out of them and restricting them in many ways? Yes, we do that already.

Didn't know peanuts were all that heavily regulated guess I better hide the illegal peanut butter i made the other day.

Perhaps you've heard of the FDA? You know, the people who ensure that the peanut butter you buy in the store doesn't poison you or make you sick?


Yeap been no outbreaks of salmonella related to peanut butter in the US this year.
 
2012-12-21 01:19:59 PM  

vdawg: vdawg: impaler: vdawg: Articles like this are why some people look with scorn upon rightwingers. They have no idea about statistical analysis. Nor do they understand correlation versus causation. They don't look at the reasons, nor causes of the drop or even the locations of the drop. That is why teen pregnancy rates are so high in Red States. They really are just bad at critical thinking.

Most of the quotes are taken right from the FBI'S published report. I just linked the "right wing" article. Would you mind dazzling us with your explanation on the reduction of violent crime?

Here. Let me explain it based off the article: "Car theft, larceny, and burglary also saw modest drops.Can it be a complete coincidence that the legal purchase of firearms and the number of people carrying said firearms has also been rising steadily?"

Yes. Yes it can be a coincidence. Hence the "correlation != causation."

It's statistically possible to discern if higher rates of carrying in areas correspond to the drops in crime rates. If areas with little to know increase in carrying rates saw similar rates of crime drop as areas with higher rates of carrying, then it's not rational to tie the two.

A 5 year coincidence? Mmmkay

I'll be back when the 2012 UCR comes out and there is a 6th straight year of reduction.

My apologies, my phone didn't refresh and show my Weeners.


I'm pretty glad your phone didn't show us your weener.
 
2012-12-21 01:20:11 PM  

WhippingBoy: I keep bringing it up because one of the arguments for guns is that they're necessary in order for an oppressed populace to rise up and overthrow a tyrannical government. I'm merely pointing out that because the current government possesses weapons of such unbelievable destructive power, it seems disingenuous to argue that you need guns in case you need to someday overthrow them.


Do you really think that in such a situation, the entire U.S. armed forces would act as a monolithic entity in putting down whatever uprising there was? Please remember that the last time we had somthing like this happen, the leaders of the opposition were all current or former high-ranking officers in the U.S. military.
 
2012-12-21 01:20:26 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Uranus Is Huge!: Can a gun enthusiast please explain to me how their personal arsenal is up to the task of preventing tyranny in the US?

Can you explain to me how my guns affect your life. Go fark with the people who are causing the problem, not me. Your outrage is misplaced.


Since this is the reason for the 2nd Amendment, I thought maybe someone more familiar with firearm ownership could explain the plan. Literally, explain one scenario involving a "2nd Amendment Solution" that you believe is plausible. I firmly believe that the right to guns is guaranteed by our constitution, but I'm not sure why unfettered access to so many weapons is a good idea.

You, obviously, are not up to the task. No worries. Enjoy your guns. Enjoy your holidays.

/not outraged, just saddened by the senselessness
 
2012-12-21 01:21:15 PM  

Carn: vdawg: vdawg: impaler: vdawg: Articles like this are why some people look with scorn upon rightwingers. They have no idea about statistical analysis. Nor do they understand correlation versus causation. They don't look at the reasons, nor causes of the drop or even the locations of the drop. That is why teen pregnancy rates are so high in Red States. They really are just bad at critical thinking.

Most of the quotes are taken right from the FBI'S published report. I just linked the "right wing" article. Would you mind dazzling us with your explanation on the reduction of violent crime?

Here. Let me explain it based off the article: "Car theft, larceny, and burglary also saw modest drops.Can it be a complete coincidence that the legal purchase of firearms and the number of people carrying said firearms has also been rising steadily?"

Yes. Yes it can be a coincidence. Hence the "correlation != causation."

It's statistically possible to discern if higher rates of carrying in areas correspond to the drops in crime rates. If areas with little to know increase in carrying rates saw similar rates of crime drop as areas with higher rates of carrying, then it's not rational to tie the two.

A 5 year coincidence? Mmmkay

I'll be back when the 2012 UCR comes out and there is a 6th straight year of reduction.

My apologies, my phone didn't refresh and show my Weeners.

I'm pretty glad your phone didn't show us your weener.


Hahaha...I give up!
 
2012-12-21 01:22:13 PM  

impaler: The focus should be on the mental health angle, not the gun angle, otherwise we're going to 'fix' something that doesn't address this problem.


No solution will be a solution without address all of the problems and one of the problems is the ease with which dangerous people can obtain firearms in this country. End. Of. Story.

Again: why is it that the gun nuts are the only ones who absolutely refuse to look at the entire problem?

Exactly: because they don't give a shiat about fixing the problem, only about ensuring that they continue to enjoy their dangerous and largely pointless toys without having to accept any real responsibility for them.

arentol: derp


Ah, yes. The old argument of "the only REAL solution to gun violence is MOAR GUN VIOLENCE".

Your opinion is laughably stupid and directly conflicts with the experience of almost every other OECD member nation.

onyxruby: There is no argument or discussions to be had, for I have declared the matter moot!


So, basically, you have no idea what you're talking about and you think that's a limitation on my part.

Tell you what. Go yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater and let me know what happens after you get arrested and then try to argue that you were just exercising your right to free speech.

Now go away. Your refusal to continue to fail to understand a basic tenet of American law is not amusing.
 
2012-12-21 01:22:42 PM  

Carn: There are certain things that should have zero tolerance in society. People shooting up kids in schools is on the list. Deaths in car accidents or by heart attack or cancer, while tragic, do not have quite the same moral equivalence. We try to come up with ways to lessen car accidents and heart attack deaths and cancer deaths. We can also try to lessen or eliminate school shootings. This isn't mutually exclusive. Now it seems as if you're arguing "Society can only address whatever is currently the number one cause of death of its citizens at any particular time. All other issues at that time are irrelevant." If that is your position, perhaps you'd like to rethink, because that is a very stupid position.


The "moral equivalence" 'spectrum' is another way of pushing an agenda albeit slightly more indirectly. Basically gun control supporters get to claim that gun deaths are more immoral than non gun homicides, parental child abuse, etc. despite those things taking far more lives and say that we should focus on them instead of more prolific killers.

Interestingly enough, If we dedicated our collective efforts to the #1 cause of death at the time, we'd save far more lives then playing the 'moral equivalence' game.
Think of those damned Pareto charts. Let's dedicate our energy(ies) to dealing with the top 20% of the deaths and save as many lives as possible

BTW, Where does parental child abuse fit into this spectrum? It's brutal, should be a zero tolerance issue, and kills more kids then guns and far more then mass shootings.
 
2012-12-21 01:24:11 PM  

chiefsfaninkc: Carn: chiefsfaninkc: Carn: chiefsfaninkc: Are they planning on doing the same thing for cars, peanuts, alcohol, prescription drugs and other legal items?

What, regulating the hell out of them and restricting them in many ways? Yes, we do that already.

Didn't know peanuts were all that heavily regulated guess I better hide the illegal peanut butter i made the other day.

Perhaps you've heard of the FDA? You know, the people who ensure that the peanut butter you buy in the store doesn't poison you or make you sick?

Yeap been no outbreaks of salmonella related to peanut butter in the US this year.


What? So you're going with there were cases of salmonella in peanut butter that is regulated by the FDA so clearly if we removed the FDA there would be the same or fewer cases of salmonella?

If so, congratulations.
 
2012-12-21 01:24:12 PM  

Magnanimous_J: It's not always about revolution. In the 60's, Nixon used to look out the windows in the oval office all night long, worried to death that the protests raging around the city were going to turn violent.

No leader wants an armed rebellion, no matter how easy it would be to put down. It's bad for business. So as long as that's on the table, they will fear it, even if they are sure to win.


That too. The chance of that the citizenry will settle for you having a Pyrrhic victory might be enough to reconsider starting the war in the first place.
 
2012-12-21 01:24:49 PM  

Magnanimous_J: Too_many_Brians: We had so much international support that we did very little heavy lifting, do you realize how many countries sent support? Heck, not even a majority of the population was for independence.

Maybe I don't know my revolutionary war history as well as I should, but I wasn't under the impression that there were "troops from many nations." I know we probably couldn't have done it without the French, and I know the British hired a ton of Hessian mercenaries to augment their ranks, but I didn't know many other countries contributed in a significant way.

Regardless, think of what happens every time we "liberate" a country. If we relied on other European powers to throw off the British, do you think they would have just wished us luck and set sail for home?


What I can tell, it was the French, Spanish, and Austrians. Also seems that it was rather romantic for assorted counts and other aristocracy to fight on our side. Odd.

I'm sure that there was quite a bit of wealth being spread around after the war, land and treaties to be signed. It really was only a few years after the French and Indian wars so I'm sure a lasting peace was hoped for by the Americans and France.

Although it didnt help when the Brits returned and sacked DC.
 
2012-12-21 01:24:56 PM  

Mikey1969: Headso: wow look how chill the west coast is, must be the weed...

Yeah, the anti's always talk about how gun culture is a part of the "Wild West" atitude. The entire western HALF of the US has just 33% more gun deaths than Oklahoma alone. 8 deaths in 11 states vs. 6 in one state.


Oklahoma is a western state.

The "wild west" is a creation of Hollywood. Many, if not most, towns and cities had fairly strict rules about carrying weapons within city limits. Tombstone, AZ, home of the OK Corral, had a "no carrying guns in town" law.
 
2012-12-21 01:25:07 PM  

pedrop357: Uranus Is Huge!: Can a gun enthusiast please explain to me how their personal arsenal is up to the task of preventing tyranny in the US?

Most tyrannical efforts that been wildly successful in other countries will die on the vine so to speak due to the number of armed citizens. Do you think the government would dare go door-to-door rounding up 'undesirables' the way the Nazis did? How about moving tanks into Times Square to show the population who's in charge the way the Chinese did?


I believe that if my government wants me dead, I am likely to die; gun or no gun. I have hope that the citizens of this country will prevent a government that wants us dead from coming to power. Ironically, I believe that the politicians that are generally more pro-gun, are also for the oppressive policies that target groups based on race and ethnicity.
 
2012-12-21 01:27:13 PM  

vdawg: Yes. Yes it can be a coincidence. Hence the "correlation != causation."

It's statistically possible to discern if higher rates of carrying in areas correspond to the drops in crime rates. If areas with little to know increase in carrying rates saw similar rates of crime drop as areas with higher rates of carrying, then it's not rational to tie the two.

5 year coincidence. Gotcha. And it's the crazy right winged thought process that is skewed. I'll check back when the 2012 UCR comes out and we'll haggle about a six year winning streak.


I didn't say it was a coincidence, I said it could be, because it can. Correlation != causation. This isn't that hard to understand. States with higher rates of voting McCain have higher gun death rates. Do you think voting McCain causes people to die from guns too?

cdn.theatlantic.com
 
2012-12-21 01:27:22 PM  
The more you guntards argue for unlimited access to as much firepower as possible for anyone that wants it, the more I think the majority of gun owners in America are exactly the kind of out-of-touch nutjobs that should have as little access to weapons as possible.

You want a gun? Join the real military and prove you actually are responsible enough to own one.

Oh wait, no, you need guns to kill the military in case they take over right?

Or is it that you need the guns because every time you step out of the house you get robbed or carjacked?

Or is it that you really don't care about anyone else and having the ability to kill others makes you feel powerful?
 
2012-12-21 01:27:34 PM  

Vegan Meat Popsicle: So, basically, you have no idea what you're talking about and you think that's a limitation on my part.

Tell you what. Go yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater and let me know what happens after you get arrested and then try to argue that you were just exercising your right to free speech.

Now go away. Your refusal to continue to fail to understand a basic tenet of American law is not amusing.


You're right. If you yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater and there is a fire, you won't be arrested. if you're en stage and part of the production has you yell "FIRE!", you won't be arrested.

In fact, you'll only be arrested AFTER you speak and only if your speech was illegal. This is analogous to firearm discharge laws. You can be arrested AFTER firing (or brandishing) your gun only if it was illegal-shooting in the air, shooting at signs, etc. BUT NOT if you were firing in self defense, shooting in a range, etc.

The 1st amendment equivalent of what gun control is trying to is muzzling you or banning you from entering a theater until you've had a background check in order to prevent you from possibly yelling fire under illegal circumstances. Prior restraint is wrong, whether it's a 1st amendment protected right or a 2nd amendment protected right.
 
2012-12-21 01:27:41 PM  

Carn: manimal2878: Carn: now you can argue that the two aforementioned weapons can inflict the same amount of carnage in the same amount of time, because that seems to be your point of view.

I have said in other threads I would compromise on high cap magazines.

Handguns: whatever will fit in a flushfit magazine, +2 or 10, whichever is greater.
Longguns: 30 rounds. (note this would ban drum mags and the surefire 100 round mag.)

That is where I am willing to draw the arbitrary line.

Ok, now we are talking the same language. Could I talk you down to something less for longguns. Somewhere in the 10-15 range. It would (slightly) slow down a shooter in a situation like this and wouldn't really do anything but be a minor inconvenience to you at a shooting range.

From there we talk about extra control measures as someone said up thread, mental health and so on.


You people dont' get it. Mag limits are in place in Canada. Do you know how easy it is to either manufacture a magazine, or de-limit a mag that has an artifical limiter placed in it? Up here, you can legally pin a 30 round magazine to 5 using a rivet. A rivet that can be removed with a drill in 10 seconds.

Limits will be ignored or circumvented. Period.
 
2012-12-21 01:28:50 PM  
 
2012-12-21 01:28:54 PM  

Uranus Is Huge!: explain one scenario involving a "2nd Amendment Solution" that you believe is plausible.


You're asking for prognostication, which is a silly trap for anyone to fall into. Nobody's going to be led on such a futile tangent. Look, If you think it's unreasonable, then you're calling the people who built the country unreasonable. I don't know what you've done with your life, but I doubt you've accomplished what the least of them accomplished. Frankly, If you're so upset about gun violence, you're welcome to go live in a country that has far more strict laws.
 
2012-12-21 01:29:20 PM  

pedrop357: Carn: There are certain things that should have zero tolerance in society. People shooting up kids in schools is on the list. Deaths in car accidents or by heart attack or cancer, while tragic, do not have quite the same moral equivalence. We try to come up with ways to lessen car accidents and heart attack deaths and cancer deaths. We can also try to lessen or eliminate school shootings. This isn't mutually exclusive. Now it seems as if you're arguing "Society can only address whatever is currently the number one cause of death of its citizens at any particular time. All other issues at that time are irrelevant." If that is your position, perhaps you'd like to rethink, because that is a very stupid position.

The "moral equivalence" 'spectrum' is another way of pushing an agenda albeit slightly more indirectly. Basically gun control supporters get to claim that gun deaths are more immoral than non gun homicides, parental child abuse, etc. despite those things taking far more lives and say that we should focus on them instead of more prolific killers.

Interestingly enough, If we dedicated our collective efforts to the #1 cause of death at the time, we'd save far more lives then playing the 'moral equivalence' game.
Think of those damned Pareto charts. Let's dedicate our energy(ies) to dealing with the top 20% of the deaths and save as many lives as possible

BTW, Where does parental child abuse fit into this spectrum? It's brutal, should be a zero tolerance issue, and kills more kids then guns and far more then mass shootings.


Cancer, by and large, kills older people. So do heart attacks. School shootings kill kids and teachers. Child abuse does also kill children, so let's address both? Your strawman (that I don't care about other causes of death) is hopefully proven wrong and can I get you to concede that all of these issues are not mutually exclusive?

I'm not really sure what your original point was other than to say "Your arguments are invalid because child abuse."
 
2012-12-21 01:30:01 PM  

vdawg: A 5 year coincidence? Mmmkay

I'll be back when the 2012 UCR comes out and there is a 6th straight year of reduction.


Sales of ice-cream and drownings have been correlated for decades.

Ice-cream causes drownings!

I told you how to eliminate some possible unknown variables.
 
2012-12-21 01:30:21 PM  

Free Radical: Amos Quito:

From you link:

Every day, 85 Americans are shot dead, about 53 of them in suicides.

So, you want these people who are currently killing themselves with guns to start killing themselves with cars?

Lanza was a suicide.


Too bad he didn't start with that.
 
2012-12-21 01:31:10 PM  

JRoo: You want a gun? Join the real military and prove you actually are responsible enough to own one.


I think you should have to attend journalism school to have free speech rights.
 
2012-12-21 01:31:42 PM  

busy chillin': [www.secretsofthefed.com image 496x495]


Said Thomas Jefferson who owned hundreds of slaves.
 
2012-12-21 01:32:24 PM  

chiefsfaninkc: Perhaps you've heard of the FDA? You know, the people who ensure that the peanut butter you buy in the store doesn't poison you or make you sick?

Yeap been no outbreaks of salmonella related to peanut butter in the US this year.


So we shouldn't even bother!

How were those outbreaks detected, much less identified with peanut butter?
 
2012-12-21 01:32:57 PM  

pedrop357: Vegan Meat Popsicle: So, basically, you have no idea what you're talking about and you think that's a limitation on my part.

Tell you what. Go yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater and let me know what happens after you get arrested and then try to argue that you were just exercising your right to free speech.

Now go away. Your refusal to continue to fail to understand a basic tenet of American law is not amusing.

You're right. If you yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater and there is a fire, you won't be arrested. if you're en stage and part of the production has you yell "FIRE!", you won't be arrested.

In fact, you'll only be arrested AFTER you speak and only if your speech was illegal. This is analogous to firearm discharge laws. You can be arrested AFTER firing (or brandishing) your gun only if it was illegal-shooting in the air, shooting at signs, etc. BUT NOT if you were firing in self defense, shooting in a range, etc.

The 1st amendment equivalent of what gun control is trying to is muzzling you or banning you from entering a theater until you've had a background check in order to prevent you from possibly yelling fire under illegal circumstances. Prior restraint is wrong, whether it's a 1st amendment protected right or a 2nd amendment protected right.


www.aesmith.org

The only way your insanely twisted and contorted analogy works in relation to ANYTHING that I've said so far is if I've said you shouldn't be allowed to have guns at all, which, of course, I never did.

You're really getting annoying.
And if 9000 people were killed every year by people yelling FIRE in a crowded theater, there would be a reason to check people before letting them in.

Analogies really aren't this hard. I swear. Stop, think, and try again.
 
2012-12-21 01:33:31 PM  

brokendownyota: Carn: manimal2878: Carn: now you can argue that the two aforementioned weapons can inflict the same amount of carnage in the same amount of time, because that seems to be your point of view.

I have said in other threads I would compromise on high cap magazines.

Handguns: whatever will fit in a flushfit magazine, +2 or 10, whichever is greater.
Longguns: 30 rounds. (note this would ban drum mags and the surefire 100 round mag.)

That is where I am willing to draw the arbitrary line.

Ok, now we are talking the same language. Could I talk you down to something less for longguns. Somewhere in the 10-15 range. It would (slightly) slow down a shooter in a situation like this and wouldn't really do anything but be a minor inconvenience to you at a shooting range.

From there we talk about extra control measures as someone said up thread, mental health and so on.

You people dont' get it. Mag limits are in place in Canada. Do you know how easy it is to either manufacture a magazine, or de-limit a mag that has an artifical limiter placed in it? Up here, you can legally pin a 30 round magazine to 5 using a rivet. A rivet that can be removed with a drill in 10 seconds.

Limits will be ignored or circumvented. Period.


Up here? I assume you mean Canada. Canada has mag limits and has less gun violence than we have in the US. Now is that correlation or causation?
 
2012-12-21 01:36:12 PM  

Carn: Cancer, by and large, kills older people. So do heart attacks. School shootings kill kids and teachers. Child abuse does also kill children, so let's address both? Your strawman (that I don't care about other causes of death) is hopefully proven wrong and can I get you to concede that all of these issues are not mutually exclusive?

I'm not really sure what your original point was other than to say "Your arguments are invalid because child abuse."


You're sort of correct. I don't think you (or gun control supporters) care that much about causes that don't fit an agenda and/or are harder to deal with then simply promoting gun control.

Cancer and heart attacks do kill a lot old people, so I'd expect a person who claims to be interested in saving old people's lives to focus a lot of attention there, unless they believed that natural causes were impossible to beat , in which I'd expect to see a lot of focus on the top few non-natural causes, in which case I'd exepect to see efforts aimed at car crashes (again)

Firearms are far from the #1 cause of death among teachers and school children, so I do question the integrity of a person who focuses on firearms and sort of handwaves the others. I care about saving the lives of children, and think that the best way to save those lives is to focus on the top 2 or 3 killers as they are the TOP 2 OR 3 KILLERS and cause THE MOST DEATH. I think it's immoral to act as though less common deaths are more important because they garner headlines, or far worse, fit an agenda.
 
2012-12-21 01:36:57 PM  

impaler: vdawg: A 5 year coincidence? Mmmkay

I'll be back when the 2012 UCR comes out and there is a 6th straight year of reduction.

Sales of ice-cream and drownings have been correlated for decades.

Ice-cream causes drownings!

I told you how to eliminate some possible unknown variables.


Wow, far reaching. I suppose it's coincidence that Kennesaw, GA...which enacted a firearm ownership law, has had I think 4 murders since the law was enacted?

Let's use reason. Wouldn't you think it is a deterrent for a criminal to think any potential target might put up armed resistance?

Most of these mass shootings happen at soft target locations, where there is a strong likelihood that the occupants will be unarmed. There aren't too many mass shootings at gun ranges or gun stores.
 
2012-12-21 01:37:02 PM  

nickeyx: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Deep Contact: Deaths in the U.S. Automobiles, which kill 117 Americans a day, or nearly 43,000 a year. Then comes flu, which (along with pneumonia, its associated disease) kills 36,000 people. Third is guns: 26,000 deaths. Fourth, food-borne illness: 5,000. And finally, terrorism, which in a typical year claims virtually no U.S. lives

Don't forget alcohol, that kills 80,000 people each year. Alcohol is far less of a necessity than cars or even guns, but strangely you don't hear the gun control nuts ever suggest that it too should be made illegal, even though it kills several times the total of guns, including children.

Similarly, the gun control side would argue that since we have in place a system of penalties for driving under the influence of various drugs, cars are well regulated. However when the subject turns to the scary looking (but statistically less dangerous) gun, the want not just a system of penalties, but to ban them outright. Or limit them to some low capacity, which would be the equivalent of outlawing all cars that go faster than 40mph. These people have no concern about things that kill lots of people, but major concern about things that kill relatively few, they're irrational.


When the primary function of autos or alcohol is to cause casualty, you have an argument.



Firearms can have practical and sporting function. Automobiles can have practical and sporting functions.

What practical and sporting functions does beer and whiskey have?
 
2012-12-21 01:38:51 PM  

Vegan Meat Popsicle: The only way your insanely twisted and contorted analogy works in relation to ANYTHING that I've said so far is if I've said you shouldn't be allowed to have guns at all, which, of course, I never did.

You're really getting annoying.
And if 9000 people were killed every year by people yelling FIRE in a crowded theater, there would be a reason to check people before letting them in.

Analogies really aren't this hard. I swear. Stop, think, and try again.


It's about the concept of rights, you jackoff.

Speech may have incited more deaths than were caused by guns. Leaked state secrets may have cause lots of deaths. I suppose the only way to know is to subject all online speech to government approval first-maybe a background check and/or waiting periods in order to prevent people from inciting others to commit crimes, leak secrets, distribute child porn, etc.
 
2012-12-21 01:40:51 PM  

Carn: Up here? I assume you mean Canada. Canada has mag limits and has less gun violence than we have in the US. Now is that correlation or causation?


Correlation. While I admit that high capacity magazines MAY increase the body count in certain mass shooting crimes, your average 10 round magazine is more than enough to commit most murders. The previous Assault Weapon Ban proved to have no effect on street level crime.
 
2012-12-21 01:42:20 PM  

pedrop357: Carn: Cancer, by and large, kills older people. So do heart attacks. School shootings kill kids and teachers. Child abuse does also kill children, so let's address both? Your strawman (that I don't care about other causes of death) is hopefully proven wrong and can I get you to concede that all of these issues are not mutually exclusive?

I'm not really sure what your original point was other than to say "Your arguments are invalid because child abuse."

You're sort of correct. I don't think you (or gun control supporters) care that much about causes that don't fit an agenda and/or are harder to deal with then simply promoting gun control.

Cancer and heart attacks do kill a lot old people, so I'd expect a person who claims to be interested in saving old people's lives to focus a lot of attention there, unless they believed that natural causes were impossible to beat , in which I'd expect to see a lot of focus on the top few non-natural causes, in which case I'd exepect to see efforts aimed at car crashes (again)

Firearms are far from the #1 cause of death among teachers and school children, so I do question the integrity of a person who focuses on firearms and sort of handwaves the others. I care about saving the lives of children, and think that the best way to save those lives is to focus on the top 2 or 3 killers as they are the TOP 2 OR 3 KILLERS and cause THE MOST DEATH. I think it's immoral to act as though less common deaths are more important because they garner headlines, or far worse, fit an agenda.


Or, you know, traumatize society as a whole. There was something else that happened to society, scared the shiat out of everyone and resulted in lots of new laws and regulations (many of which I don't agree with). Hmm, now what could that have been... I'll give you a hint, it happened 11 years ago and is commonly referred to by a three digit number also used for emergency calls.
 
2012-12-21 01:43:33 PM  

Magnanimous_J: Carn: Up here? I assume you mean Canada. Canada has mag limits and has less gun violence than we have in the US. Now is that correlation or causation?

Correlation. While I admit that high capacity magazines MAY increase the body count in certain mass shooting crimes, your average 10 round magazine is more than enough to commit most murders. The previous Assault Weapon Ban proved to have no effect on street level crime.


I agree completely, I just had to reply to point out that his post basically proved the opposite of the point he was trying to make.
 
2012-12-21 01:43:35 PM  

BikerRay: Meanwhile, in Canada. Hmmm, wonder why. Surely nothing to do with the fact we're not all gun-happy up here.



Better beer, Timbits, poutine, health-care, and you export your really annoying people (Nicleback, Celine, Jin Carrey, etc) to the U.S.
 
2012-12-21 01:45:38 PM  

give me doughnuts: Too bad he didn't start with that.


Yeah, you don't see many suicide \ murders.
 
2012-12-21 01:46:26 PM  

pedrop357: Vegan Meat Popsicle: The only way your insanely twisted and contorted analogy works in relation to ANYTHING that I've said so far is if I've said you shouldn't be allowed to have guns at all, which, of course, I never did.

You're really getting annoying.
And if 9000 people were killed every year by people yelling FIRE in a crowded theater, there would be a reason to check people before letting them in.

Analogies really aren't this hard. I swear. Stop, think, and try again.

It's about the concept of rights, you jackoff.

Speech may have incited more deaths than were caused by guns. Leaked state secrets may have cause lots of deaths. I suppose the only way to know is to subject all online speech to government approval first-maybe a background check and/or waiting periods in order to prevent people from inciting others to commit crimes, leak secrets, distribute child porn, etc.


Aha! The shoe is on the other foot. Since you get to question my integrity for caring about classrooms full of children being shot all at once, I'll question yours for caring more about one particular right than all the rest. It's quite obvious what your agenda is, and it aint promoting free speech or protecting my right to be a pagan if I so choose.

/I'm not but that would be ok
 
2012-12-21 01:48:02 PM  

Carn: Or, you know, traumatize society as a whole. There was something else that happened to society, scared the shiat out of everyone and resulted in lots of new laws and regulations (many of which I don't agree with). Hmm, now what could that have been... I'll give you a hint, it happened 11 years ago and is commonly referred to by a three digit number also used for emergency calls.


Or, as I see it, highly emotional events lead to bad laws. The events on 9/11 were exceptionally rare, yet were so horribly abused by everyone with an agenda to push forward every bullshiat proposal they couldn't get before.

I'm not sure 9/11 is a good reference in support of your position. If anything, it should be a hard learned lesson for people to stop trying to rule with their emotions and feelings.

There's a reason why financial advisers tell people NOT to make any significant financial decisions for 12-18 months after a close relative passes way. Emotions cloud judgement in obvious and surprisingly subtle ways, and people who lose family members, and especially those who walk into inheritances, do (in retrospect for them) foolish things despite their beliefs weeks and months later, that they are 'over it' or feeling fine.
 
2012-12-21 01:49:49 PM  

Carn: That's not the point though. The point is that you asked when the last hammer attack occurred, I showed you. End of story. Try to follow along, especially when you're the one that brings up the question.

No, I didn't.


UM, yeah, yeah you did...

Here, this should help:
Carn: Mikey1969: Carn: Evilnissan: Don't blame the tool for the job the carpenter did.

Nice analogy. How many mass hammer bashings do you recall in recent memory?


I merely answered the question that you just denied that you asked in the first farking place.

Seriously, do try to keep up.
 
2012-12-21 01:50:47 PM  

Carn: Aha! The shoe is on the other foot. Since you get to question my integrity for caring about classrooms full of children being shot all at once, I'll question yours for caring more about one particular right than all the rest. It's quite obvious what your agenda is, and it aint promoting free speech or protecting my right to be a pagan if I so choose.

/I'm not but that would be ok


I care about all rights the same. A guy who uses the internet to incite riots, murder, leak state secrets or battle plans, and causes the deaths of a hundred or even thousand people does not justify restricting everyone else's internet or larger speech rights.
Prior restraints of activities, esp those connected to protected rights, is not OK
 
2012-12-21 01:51:38 PM  

vdawg: impaler: vdawg: A 5 year coincidence? Mmmkay

I'll be back when the 2012 UCR comes out and there is a 6th straight year of reduction.

Sales of ice-cream and drownings have been correlated for decades.

Ice-cream causes drownings!

I told you how to eliminate some possible unknown variables.

Wow, far reaching. I suppose it's coincidence that Kennesaw, GA...which enacted a firearm ownership law, has had I think 4 murders since the law was enacted?

Let's use reason. Wouldn't you think it is a deterrent for a criminal to think any potential target might put up armed resistance?

Most of these mass shootings happen at soft target locations, where there is a strong likelihood that the occupants will be unarmed. There aren't too many mass shootings at gun ranges or gun stores.



You mean a small, middle class town only had a couple of murders? Wow. Color me shocked. Did you even read the article I posted, or are you just a soundbite kind of guy?

Shootings have occurred at gun stores, so you are invalid. Or maybe it has less to do with hard or soft targets and more to do with available amounts of targets. Gun free zones usually are crowded with people, therefore a more likely place for someone wanting to rampage.
 
2012-12-21 01:51:54 PM  

Thats No Moose: That number has gone up by two since I last checked it a couple of hours ago, making it 75 since Newtown. Includes things like this:

A 3-year-old child in Guthrie died Saturday, after accidentally shooting himself in the head, according to the Logan County Sheriff's office.

The shooting happened early Saturday afternoon in the 1500 block of Derby Lane in Guthrie.

Authorities are calling this a tragic accident after a 3-year-old boy got hold of a gun and accidentally shot himself in the head. Several agencies responded to the home just after noon.

News 9 is told the little boy was the homeowner's nephew. He was there just visiting.

The Logan County Sheriff's Office says this is clearly an accident and they aren't expecting criminal charges.

(emphasis mine)

If there is one thing I'd like to see, it is that criminal charges should be slapped against all gun owners whose guns are misused in such a manner. Safest way to cut down on accidental discharges and instil some responsibility in the owners.


I'd argue that the owner is suffering enough, his nephew is dead due to his ignorance, criminal charges are nothing compared to that.
 
2012-12-21 01:51:56 PM  
http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/an-opinion-on-gun-control /

This opinion piece will likely do nothing to persuade those here in favor of restricting gun rights (since the article is longer than 200 words), but I will leave this here because it can at least give those in favor of gun rights have an excellent example of a wonderfully written opinion.
 
2012-12-21 01:52:27 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: JRoo: You want a gun? Join the real military and prove you actually are responsible enough to own one.

I think you should have to attend journalism school to have free speech rights.


I'd like to add that I think every citizen should need to take a civics exam to get a license to vote.
 
2012-12-21 01:53:35 PM  
The NRA has spoken:

Wayne LaPierre said, "We need to have every single school in America immediately deploy a protection program proven to work -- and by that I mean armed security,"

Well, glad we got that solved. Wonder why it took ol' Wayne a week to announce the solution.
 
2012-12-21 01:54:47 PM  

Carn: I'm still responding to your false equivalency that knives or hammers are equal to guns in terms of destructive power.


Well, you should stop trying, because i have NEVER said that they were equal. In any way. Ever. Ever. Ever. Ever. Ever.

EVER

What I HAVE done is point out that even without guns, people do this, and they do it, with and without guns, in countries other than the US. I HAVE pointed out that it isn't a "Guns" thing or a "US" thing, or a "Heavy Metal" thing, or a "Violent Movies" thing, or a "TV SHows" thing. It's something far broader than national borders or the tool used. I ALSO pointed out that there have been hammer attacks, as you implied that there haven't. I wasn't going for the number as much as answering your question that they have occurred. If you read anything more into that, it's your own fault. If you left anything out, it's because you aren't actually interested in the problem, you just want to get your way.

But nobody wants to hear that, because that's the kind of fix that requires work and doesn't let people ban guns because of how they look.
 
2012-12-21 01:55:10 PM  

impaler: Sales of ice-cream and drownings have been correlated for decades.

Ice-cream causes drownings!

I told you how to eliminate some possible unknown variables.


No one says that about ice cream and drownings, but gun control supporters do routinely, hell reflexively, claim that more guns will lead to more crime.

Now, if someone decided to connect ice cream and drownings by claiming that mandating ice cream purchases will decrease drownings, opponents could point to the fact that the two go up together.

If you don't like the pro gun side responding by connecting increasing gun ownership numbers to decreasing crime numbers, tell the gun control groups to stop connecting gun ownership to crime.
 
2012-12-21 01:56:00 PM  

JRoo: The more you guntards argue for unlimited access to as much firepower as possible for anyone that wants it, the more I think the majority of gun owners in America are exactly the kind of out-of-touch nutjobs that should have as little access to weapons as possible.


This is what you see because this is what you want to see them as.

JRoo: Or is it that you really don't care about anyone else and having the ability to kill others makes you feel powerful?


This is a terrible argument, why do people keep doing this? Do you really think gun owner don't have empathy for others? People that use these for whatever reason, for sport or for hunt, do you think that they're just chomping at the bit to train their sight on someone? Do you seriously think that gun owners weren't just as mortified as you at the events that unfolded last week?

I'm looking around my computer desk right now and I see three or four things that I (5'7", 170 lbs) could probably kill people with if I had the intent. A letter opener in the pen cup that I could stab someone with, a 15 pound free weight by my right leg to bludgon someone, the cord that I'm using to charge my brand new 3DS to strangle. It's all about intent, stop trying to make them all out to be potential monsters.
 
2012-12-21 01:56:19 PM  

NightOwl2255: give me doughnuts: Too bad he didn't start with that.

Yeah, you don't see many suicide \ murders.


That would make for an interesting episode of the "Walking Dead."
 
2012-12-21 01:56:34 PM  

Itstoearly: http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/an-opinion-on-gun-contro l /

This opinion piece will likely do nothing to persuade those here in favor of restricting gun rights (since the article is longer than 200 words), but I will leave this here because it can at least give those in favor of gun rights have an excellent example of a wonderfully written opinion.


Yes yes, your gun ownership not only increases your penis size, but your intellect as well!
 
2012-12-21 01:56:47 PM  

vdawg: Wow, far reaching. I suppose it's coincidence that Kennesaw, GA...which enacted a firearm ownership law, has had I think 4 murders since the law was enacted?


How the hell would anyone infer that from the information you posted?

To even begin, you have to
1) show murder rate before enactment vs surrounding area rates, state rates, and national rates.
2) show murder rate after enactment vs surrounding area rates, state rates, and national rates.
 
2012-12-21 01:57:05 PM  
It's just a tough problem to 'solve.' First, you have to accept that there cannot be a perfect system, ever. No matter how tight controls on people are, there will always be a chance for something like this to happen. Now, once you come to terms with that, you have to ask what the tradeoffs we're willing to make for incremental reductions in the chance of that happening. If banning magazines larger than 10 would reduce the illegal gun deaths in the US by 99%, I'd think even a lot of the conservatives would be willing to make that concession. But, if doing the same would reduce the illegal gun deaths by 0.0000001%, maybe it isn't worth it. If there were solid numbers, we could probably come to a consensus but one side is convinced that restricting anything gun related will save lives and the other is convinced that unrestricting anything gun related will save lives.

The other issue is this hugely emotional response. Mass shootings are tragic, but they're also infrequent. It's the clustered nature that makes us respond so strongly. Same reason some people are terrified of planes, but fine with cars. Quite bluntly, if there were 11,000 firearm homicides in the US in 2011 and there wasn't this massive push for gun control then, 26 murders should not ramp up this quickly. You look at numbers for LA, Oakland, Baltimore... EACH ONE of those cities has teen and pre-teen firearm murders equal to 1-2 Sandy Hook-scale events a year. Mass shootings are shocking and depressing, but if we're going to debate firearm deaths, they aren't even close to center stage and it certainly shouldn't be the defining event in dictating policy.

It's a perfectly reasonable debate to be having both ways, but FFS don't legislate based on a knee-jerk reaction to an event that'll probably have comprised (assuming 2011 level) about 0.2% of the year's gun murders. If you're going to change regulation, change it based on the other 99.8%.
 
2012-12-21 01:57:49 PM  

give me doughnuts: Oklahoma is a western state.


I've always thought this was stupid... Places like Oklahoma got labeled as The West just because they were west of where everyone lived at the time. Look at a map, if anything Oklahoma is "central". For the record, I think calling Texas and Utah part of the "Southwest" is dumb, too. And just because people call it The West, it doesn't really make it count.
 
2012-12-21 01:58:21 PM  

barefoot in the head: The argument is all symptoms, all the time. If you won't tackle the causes, then you are one.



Winner, winner - chicken dinner.

People are going to die tonight in major cities across the country - casualties of violent crime, and a larger epidemic. The violence will have no resemblance to the tragic SHES incident or any other headline event, and maybe that's why no one will care. I mean, it's not like anyone REALLY cared up to this point, so why start now? All the same, the aggregate numbers will be staggering - far greater than the fringe incidents that make the news. Unfortunately, arming the good, law-abiding denizens would prove to be just as effective as the gun bans that are already in place many of these cities - which is to say, not at all. And lo, the peanut gallery did weep.

But it's okay - as long as everyone continues to think in terms of a zero-sum game, we'll continue to indirectly prop up and prolong the violence, and that just gives us more fodder for us to feign empathy and unleash righteous, indignation on those who disagree. And that's what this is really about - ranting aimlessly about whose more hypothetically right, and torching any opposition.

Everyone be sure to wear a ribbon, post a status, like a picture or commit to some other hollow gesture in memoriam of victims of violence. And then continue on with your day-to-day lives in blissful apathy and ignorance of anything that might exist outside of your periphery - that's The American Way™.
 
2012-12-21 01:58:48 PM  

pedrop357: If you don't like the pro gun side responding by connecting increasing gun ownership numbers to decreasing crime numbers, tell the gun control groups to stop connecting gun ownership to crime.


I do.
 
2012-12-21 01:59:14 PM  

Carn:
Aha! The shoe is on the other foot. Since you get to question my integrity for caring about classrooms full of children being shot all at once, I'll question yours for caring more about one particular right than all the rest. It's quite obvious what your agenda is, and it aint promoting free speech or protecting my right to be a pagan if I so choose.


About twice as many kids have been killed playing high school athletics since 2008, than all of those killed in mass shootings since Columbine. When should we ban high school sports?
 
2012-12-21 02:00:29 PM  

Deep Contact: Third is guns: 26,000 deaths


try 9,423 of which 9,400 were criminals
 
2012-12-21 02:01:22 PM  

Carn: Yes yes, your gun ownership not only increases your penis size, but your intellect as well!


THERE IT IS AGAIN! What is this obsession that gun control supporters, and seemingly lefties as whole, have with penises? I'm of the opinion that the left really loves projection, so maybe this a way of projecting their own sense of inadequacy on the rest of us.

BTW, the whole penis obsession is another reason why the gun rights types don't feel like having a discussion with your side. When you grow up, you can sit at the grownup table and we'll have a discussion with you.
 
2012-12-21 02:03:18 PM  

natas6.0: most of you folks just don't seem to get it.
the guns are already out there
let me say that again
the guns are already out there
for example, the bank robbery in LA when the police were sorely outgunned
or in this latest case where the guns didn't belong to the sick, murderous bastard.
you cannot make all the 'bad' guns go away by banning them
bad people will still get them
or they will use explosives
or sarin gas
or what the fark ever.
that's why they are bad people

this was a horrible tragedy
not an excuse to begin disarming people

How this logic is missing
is beyond me


it's not really logic
that you're using more like
stupidity
you're suggesting that because we can't
deal with all violence
then we shouldn't deal
with any of it
 
2012-12-21 02:04:30 PM  

Crocodile Arms: barefoot in the head: The argument is all symptoms, all the time. If you won't tackle the causes, then you are one.


Winner, winner - chicken dinner.

People are going to die tonight in major cities across the country - casualties of violent crime, and a larger epidemic. The violence will have no resemblance to the tragic SHES incident or any other headline event, and maybe that's why no one will care. I mean, it's not like anyone REALLY cared up to this point, so why start now? All the same, the aggregate numbers will be staggering - far greater than the fringe incidents that make the news. Unfortunately, arming the good, law-abiding denizens would prove to be just as effective as the gun bans that are already in place many of these cities - which is to say, not at all. And lo, the peanut gallery did weep.

But it's okay - as long as everyone continues to think in terms of a zero-sum game, we'll continue to indirectly prop up and prolong the violence, and that just gives us more fodder for us to feign empathy and unleash righteous, indignation on those who disagree. And that's what this is really about - ranting aimlessly about whose more hypothetically right, and torching any opposition.

Everyone be sure to wear a ribbon, post a status, like a picture or commit to some other hollow gesture in memoriam of victims of violence. And then continue on with your day-to-day lives in blissful apathy and ignorance of anything that might exist outside of your periphery - that's The American Way™.


Can you 'this' a (functionally speaking) 'this' post?
 
2012-12-21 02:04:45 PM  

Mikey1969: Carn: I'm still responding to your false equivalency that knives or hammers are equal to guns in terms of destructive power.

Well, you should stop trying, because i have NEVER said that they were equal. In any way. Ever. Ever. Ever. Ever. Ever.

EVER

What I HAVE done is point out that even without guns, people do this, and they do it, with and without guns, in countries other than the US. I HAVE pointed out that it isn't a "Guns" thing or a "US" thing, or a "Heavy Metal" thing, or a "Violent Movies" thing, or a "TV SHows" thing. It's something far broader than national borders or the tool used. I ALSO pointed out that there have been hammer attacks, as you implied that there haven't. I wasn't going for the number as much as answering your question that they have occurred. If you read anything more into that, it's your own fault. If you left anything out, it's because you aren't actually interested in the problem, you just want to get your way.

But nobody wants to hear that, because that's the kind of fix that requires work and doesn't let people ban guns because of how they look.


And my point which I have made repeatedly in this thread and has been agreed upon by some from both sides of the argument is that a gun of any kind is capable of causing much more carnage than a hammer. In addition, some guns, including but not limited to those with higher capacity, are capable of causing more carnage in a smaller amount of time. As I have also stated repeatedly, defining that line is part of what this discussion is about. In addition to reducing high capacity magazines, we also need to address mental health issues as a whole, and think of and implement better ways for irresponsible or mentally ill people from owning weapons.

Saying that people commit violence with or without guns so therefore restricting guns is pointless, is a very stupid argument. I have proven this logically multiple times in this thread. If the type of weapon doesn't matter then we might as well start handing out nukes to the general populace. I think even you should be able to work your way through the rest of that one. If you can't get passed understanding why mass gun shootings with high capacity weapons is worse than someone going after people with a hammer then you are beyond hope.
 
2012-12-21 02:04:59 PM  

FilmBELOH20: About twice as many kids have been killed playing high school athletics since 2008, than all of those killed in mass shootings since Columbine. When should we ban high school sports?


Hey, guns are designed to kill blah blah blah. In come the concern trolls to effectively tell us that hundreds and thousand of kids dead from sports, pools, or riding cars is a necessary price to pay, for whatever. But, dozens are an unacceptable price to pay for the thousands and even hundreds of thousands of lives saved by firearms through direct action or deterrence.
 
2012-12-21 02:05:36 PM  

Thisbymaster: WhippingBoy: Serious question:

Who's the bigger pussy? The guy afraid of gun violence, or the guy afraid to face life without his gun?

The one afraid of an inanimate object.


Or phrased as a question:

Which is scarier, an inanimate object (incapable of acting without a controller), or the violent criminals wandering loose in this country?


Also, who ever said having a gun was about being afraid of anything? Perhaps its about guaranteeing that you are in an equal if not superior position to those who might choose to do you (or your loved ones) harm. Many of you anti-gun people come across like people deserve to get robbed, raped, murdered, etc if they cant fight their way out of the situation with their bare hands.
 
2012-12-21 02:06:30 PM  

impaler: vdawg: Wow, far reaching. I suppose it's coincidence that Kennesaw, GA...which enacted a firearm ownership law, has had I think 4 murders since the law was enacted?

How the hell would anyone infer that from the information you posted?

To even begin, you have to
1) show murder rate before enactment vs surrounding area rates, state rates, and national rates.
2) show murder rate after enactment vs surrounding area rates, state rates, and national rates.


First, I have a job and can't sit a blabber all day with a twit. Second, have some patience and I'll send you some farking numbers when I am good and ready. Smug prick.
 
2012-12-21 02:09:28 PM  

WhippingBoy: tukatz: Exactly how long do we have to endure the "GUNZ R EVIL" crap before the media moves on to some other ridiculous topic?

Probably once classrooms full of innocent children stop getting slaughtered by guns.


It will never go away. it guaranteed attention. You say gun and people stop to listen, read, etc.


brokendownyota: Carn: manimal2878: Carn: now you can argue that the two aforementioned weapons can inflict the same amount of carnage in the same amount of time, because that seems to be your point of view.

I have said in other threads I would compromise on high cap magazines.

Handguns: whatever will fit in a flushfit magazine, +2 or 10, whichever is greater.
Longguns: 30 rounds. (note this would ban drum mags and the surefire 100 round mag.)

That is where I am willing to draw the arbitrary line.

Ok, now we are talking the same language. Could I talk you down to something less for longguns. Somewhere in the 10-15 range. It would (slightly) slow down a shooter in a situation like this and wouldn't really do anything but be a minor inconvenience to you at a shooting range.

From there we talk about extra control measures as someone said up thread, mental health and so on.

You people dont' get it. Mag limits are in place in Canada. Do you know how easy it is to either manufacture a magazine, or de-limit a mag that has an artifical limiter placed in it? Up here, you can legally pin a 30 round magazine to 5 using a rivet. A rivet that can be removed with a drill in 10 seconds.

Limits will be ignored or circumvented. Period.


Another gun control item that will only effect those who choose to follow the law.
 
2012-12-21 02:11:06 PM  

vdawg: First, I have a job and can't sit a blabber all day with a twit. Second, have some patience and I'll send you some farking numbers when I am good and ready. Smug prick.


Cry moar about the fact I understand statistical analysis.
 
2012-12-21 02:11:20 PM  

Carn: Saying that people commit violence with or without guns so therefore restricting guns is pointless, is a very stupid argument. I have proven this logically multiple times in this thread. If the type of weapon doesn't matter then we might as well start handing out nukes to the general populace. I think even you should be able to work your way through the rest of that one. If you can't get passed understanding why mass gun shootings with high capacity weapons is worse than someone going after people with a hammer then you are beyond hope.


"We" (who/whomever that is) don't 'hand out' anything. People with the means and desire to do so purchase them and the overwhelming majority do not commit crimes with them. If you want to talk about nuclear weapon safety, I suppose we can talk about that. In the meantime, I suppose we could confine ourselves to that which soldiers can carry or possess on the battlefield (which is where I believe the 2nd amendmenrt STARTS)-if a soldier can have it on the battlefield, then we the people have a right to own/possess/bear it as well. There's never been a serious move to legalize privately owned nuclear weapons mainly because no one ever tried; though that doesn't stop the gun control types from trotting it out everytime.

As for getting past things, you certainly can't. I guess if the guy had walked in and bludgeoned the kids to death there would a lower score on the moral equivalency test than if he shot them. Where does the Bath massacre register on this moral scale? He killed more with explosives then any shooting with guns, is that worse or not?
 
2012-12-21 02:14:12 PM  

asmodeus224: duffblue: Gotta love these instant greenlights, guess the mods are the type of people that piss themselves at the idea of firearms.

Funny, most gun owners i know own guns cuz they are inherently scared little people looking for a security blanket.


They sound like liberals.

Are they?
 
2012-12-21 02:14:49 PM  
None of you Farkers have EVER been killed with a gun. But as a group shoot your mouths off more than most. Many Farkers OWN guns. Yet have never killed another farker who was flaming. That is responsible gun ownership. And yet Drew has no law against being armed while on fark. That is why we are all safe here on Fark.
 
2012-12-21 02:16:57 PM  

Vegan Meat Popsicle: duffblue: Gotta love these instant greenlights, guess the mods are the type of people that piss themselves at the idea of firearms.

Yep.

Because only a complete coward would think that gun nuts should have a few basic responsibilities placed on the acquisition and distribution of their deadly toys. I mean, it's not like any other rights come with limitations on their use based on the impact it can have on other people or anything.

The REAL tragedy here, after all, is that somebody might have to wait an extra day or two to get a gun or reload slightly more often at the local range. Truly a historical atrocity with no equal.


I'll bet you have a really pretty vagina...once you clean the sand out of it.

//lude
 
2012-12-21 02:19:14 PM  

Sultan Of Herf: Also, who ever said having a gun was about being afraid of anything? Perhaps its about guaranteeing that you are in an equal if not superior position to those who might choose to do you (or your loved ones) harm. Many of you anti-gun people come across like people deserve to get robbed, raped, murdered, etc if they cant fight their way out of the situation with their bare hands.


That pretty much implies a fear of being in an inferior position to those who might chose to do you (or your loved ones) harm. Which is completely a completely reasonable thing to fear and worth taking steps to prepare for, I might add.
 
2012-12-21 02:19:56 PM  

pedrop357: Leaked state secrets may have cause lots of deaths. I suppose the only way to know is to subject all online speech to government approval first-maybe a background check and/or waiting periods in order to prevent people from inciting others to commit crimes, leak secrets, distribute child porn, etc.


Is your analogy now seriously going to be that people can be killed when classified information is leaked so maybe there should be background checks before people are given access to classified information? Is that REALLY what you're going with now? Seriously?

And I'm more than a little bit unclear on why you bring up child porn considering there is currently no venue in which it can be considered a legal and legitimate thing to obtain or produce within the jurisdiction of the United States, unlike guns and classified information which both have legal and legitimate uses. But let's assume you actually did have some fleeting association with a point there and just forgot to include it and pretend you're talking about putting responsibilities on pornographers.

I have some bad news for your analogy about the responsibilities we put on pornographers, though.

You can't win this because you're just objectively wrong. Gun owners have virtually no responsibilities at the federal level to go along with their rights. The waiting period isn't your responsibility, it's the responsibility on the gun seller, as is the background check.

YOU, as a gun owner, have almost no responsibility placed on you. You are not responsible for securing the guns against children, robbers or the mentally unstable, you are not responsible for keeping track of the guns, you are not responsible for learning how to properly and safely utilize the guns, you are not responsible for maintaining the condition and integrity of the guns. Practically. NOTHING. Even if you include the scattered mess of state laws in the vast majority of states every one of those points remains entirely true.

Guns: the ONLY right that seems to come with almost NO responsibility.
 
2012-12-21 02:20:55 PM  

Carn: Magnanimous_J: Carn: Up here? I assume you mean Canada. Canada has mag limits and has less gun violence than we have in the US. Now is that correlation or causation?

Correlation. While I admit that high capacity magazines MAY increase the body count in certain mass shooting crimes, your average 10 round magazine is more than enough to commit most murders. The previous Assault Weapon Ban proved to have no effect on street level crime.

I agree completely, I just had to reply to point out that his post basically proved the opposite of the point he was trying to make.


Pray tell what point I was trying to make. If it's the one you responded to, then you missed it entirely.

My point was that if you're going to make firearms legislation, it must be realistic and effective. Capacity limits in Canada are neither, and have absolutely 0 effect on firearms violence. The legislation technically exists but is so ridiculously easy to circumvent that it may as well not.

I
 
2012-12-21 02:20:56 PM  

pedrop357: Carn: Saying that people commit violence with or without guns so therefore restricting guns is pointless, is a very stupid argument. I have proven this logically multiple times in this thread. If the type of weapon doesn't matter then we might as well start handing out nukes to the general populace. I think even you should be able to work your way through the rest of that one. If you can't get passed understanding why mass gun shootings with high capacity weapons is worse than someone going after people with a hammer then you are beyond hope.

"We" (who/whomever that is) don't 'hand out' anything. People with the means and desire to do so purchase them and the overwhelming majority do not commit crimes with them. If you want to talk about nuclear weapon safety, I suppose we can talk about that. In the meantime, I suppose we could confine ourselves to that which soldiers can carry or possess on the battlefield (which is where I believe the 2nd amendmenrt STARTS)-if a soldier can have it on the battlefield, then we the people have a right to own/possess/bear it as well. There's never been a serious move to legalize privately owned nuclear weapons mainly because no one ever tried; though that doesn't stop the gun control types from trotting it out everytime.

As for getting past things, you certainly can't. I guess if the guy had walked in and bludgeoned the kids to death there would a lower score on the moral equivalency test than if he shot them. Where does the Bath massacre register on this moral scale? He killed more with explosives then any shooting with guns, is that worse or not?


So you think that fully automatic weapons are a good idea for the general populace? Grenade launchers? Seriously?

The Bath massacre was absolutely worse as it was much more destructive. If we were seeing a rash of school bombings then you're damn right we better be doing something about it. As it is, our problem currently is school shootings. And if we manage to limit or eliminate school shootings and people turn to hammers knives or blunt objects, then let's do something about that. However, I am guessing that if we address both gun ownership as well as mental health we would not be seeing one replace the other.

Your repeated attacks are just silly, really. "You care about kids being shot so therefore you don't care about [insert anything you like]"
 
2012-12-21 02:22:43 PM  
I'll leave this here.

Australia vs US
Assault victims 2.4% 1.2% Ranked 4th. 100% more than United States Ranked 11th.
Rape victims 1% 0.4% Ranked 5th. 150% more than United States Ranked 13th.
Suicide rates in ages 15-24 14.6 per 100,000 people 13.7 per 100,000 people Ranked 6th. 7% more than United States Ranked 7th.
Suicide rates in ages 25-34 18.7 per 100,000 people 15.3 per 100,000 people Ranked 7th. 22% more than United States Ranked 10th.
Perception of safety > Walking in dark 64% 82% Ranked 14th. Ranked 2nd. 28% more than Australia
Total crime victims 30.1% 21.1% Ranked 1st. 43% more than United States Ranked 15th.

I deliberately left out the gun stats as they don't tell the whole picture the way overall stats do, and I left out nonproportional stats due to population difference.
Why does Australia have 150% more rape victims, 43% more crime victimes, 100% more assault victims? If banning/restricting guns makes a country safe, I expect to see actual violent crimes against persons to be lower then a country with lots of them. What makes fewer Aussies feel safe walking down the streets?
 
2012-12-21 02:22:59 PM  

brokendownyota: Carn: Magnanimous_J: Carn: Up here? I assume you mean Canada. Canada has mag limits and has less gun violence than we have in the US. Now is that correlation or causation?

Correlation. While I admit that high capacity magazines MAY increase the body count in certain mass shooting crimes, your average 10 round magazine is more than enough to commit most murders. The previous Assault Weapon Ban proved to have no effect on street level crime.

I agree completely, I just had to reply to point out that his post basically proved the opposite of the point he was trying to make.

Pray tell what point I was trying to make. If it's the one you responded to, then you missed it entirely.

My point was that if you're going to make firearms legislation, it must be realistic and effective. Capacity limits in Canada are neither, and have absolutely 0 effect on firearms violence. The legislation technically exists but is so ridiculously easy to circumvent that it may as well not.

I


As we mentioned up thread, there is a correlation between limited magazines and lower gun violence in Canada. Correlation not causation. Would you deny that Canada has either of these? If not, then you must concede.
 
2012-12-21 02:23:01 PM  

Itstoearly: http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/an-opinion-on-gun-contro l /

This opinion piece will likely do nothing to persuade those here in favor of restricting gun rights (since the article is longer than 200 words), but I will leave this here because it can at least give those in favor of gun rights have an excellent example of a wonderfully written opinion.


Well, that was a hefty read. Hmm, I'm about to step out, do you know is his Monster Hunters series any good?
 
2012-12-21 02:24:03 PM  
Alright, I feel I need to say this, following the particular derp the NRA spewed this morning.

I am a gun owner. I enjoy shooting, training, hunting, and owning firearms, because that's what I do, that's what I grew up doing, and that's my right. I keep a firearm for self defense, I train as much as I can to use my firearm for self defense because I don't believe that handing a guy a hammer is tantamount to making him a master carpenter. Sure, it's pretty farking easy to use a gun, but to use it properly, well, and safely takes some time, energy, and practice, and frankly, some training.

I look with sadness on the events in Newtown, Aurora, and elsewhere, and I wonder honestly what can be done. In an ideal world, where all adults are responsible, and everything is perfect, we could do anything and everything we wanted without such events occurring. However these are not ideal times. I don't believe that a ban, or punishment of law abiding citizens is the answer. Prohibition is never the answer, and simply leads to more problems.

What do I propose we do? Well, since the NRA won't speak for me, I'll speak for myself, and propose what I feel is a meaningful step:

- Private sale of firearms is a huge sticking point. Right now, any person can buy a firearm without a background check from another person in their own state. In most cases, it's harmless and perfectly legit. However, this also allows criminals to get their hands on legal guns in some cases. As much as I enjoy the right to sell whatever I have to whomever I want without restriction or extra hassle, I also believe that it's prudent to sell the firearm to someone who is legally allowed to own it. As such, a background check and paperwork for each sale, private or commercial, should be required. Does this mean going to a dealer? Or, as with my state, a permit to purchase a firearm be available through the local law enforcement office which is issued upon completion of a safety quiz and background check, filled out by seller and purchaser, and then returned to local and state police? I don't know. However with as easy as it is for me to walk in and obtain a purchase permit (ask, they run you, then give you the permits, unless you have a CCW which stands in for the BG check requiring only after-the-fact registration), it hinders me only insofar as having to go over to the sheriff's office and dick around with getting the permit.

- Improve NICS system. We live in an age of computers, interconnected systems, and digital information. Why is critical information from states on legal findings, mental health findings, and other such critical data NOT already going to the NICS system and part of the background check? How is it not already standardized that the NICS system doesn't have something as simple as a perl script to grab local databases, update the information, and determine that a person should have a STOP status on them? Ten million bucks, you build a database package that talks to the NICS system and replaces current legal database software, everything's standard, and entry of convictions, mental illness findings, or things like restraining orders automatically flags you. Pittance that fixes things.

- Improve the whole mental health system. Having gone through this system for just basic "I'm stressed and depressed and my girlfriend left me and I need someone to talk to" crap, going in to my MD netted me "here, let me proscribe you some meds" and a huge "well, i don't know many Psych people.." for references of that sort. Looking for mental health people lead me to the whole issue of "Wait, what's the difference between a Psychiatrist and a Psychologist?", then discovering my health insurance didn't cover it, and then finding out that where I needed someone who would actually listen and talk through things, I got people that paid lipservice and acted bored and uninterested and left me feeling like I couldn't trust them (but I did find a woman who actually gave a shiat, finally, and worked out a way to pay her since I still don't have Mental Health Services covered by my insanely expensive insurance.) Why do MDs not receive training in mental health care, even to the basic level of being able to identify and refer at-risk patients? Or better yet, why do MDs not keep a mental health professional on staff, and make a mental health checkup part of the physical? Why do we treat Mental Health as some sort of voodoo quackery? Why can we get hospitalized for any number of ailments, but not for inpatient mental health care that doesn't end up feeling like a horror movie? Why is it that patients that are nutty enough to make people afraid of them and to be considered a danger are not identified and hospitalized for help? I don't think half the people that are mentally ill enough to go off and hurt people WANT to do it, but...I can imagine it's a very dark place they're in and the world isn't the same for them as it is for people who are normal. And let's face it, we ALL need a little help now and then.

- Introduce an NFA-style system for weapons and accessories that are outside of the mainstream. You want an Uzi or an AK47 or an AR-15? Want a suppressor, short barreled shotgun, or a bunch of hi-cap magazines? Great. They're available, through licensed dealers, to anyone who submits the paperwork, fees, fingerprints, and background checks to obtain an NFA license, renewable every two or three years, and requiring each purchase of same to be registered. Upon implementation, existing owners are grandfathered in, simply have to fill out the registration paperwork, and submit their application to receive their permit, and all of their stuff has to be accounted for and registered. Have a controlled weapon and no NFA license? Immediate confiscation of the firearm, arrest, and charge with a felony.

- Require safety training prior to purchase of first firearm. I can't get a goddamn hunting permit until I go through hunter's safety. I have no problem going through a firearm's safety class (with realistic discussion of laws, and proficiency) before I buy my first handgun. Again, existing gun owners who have proof of completing hunter's safety or CCW training, grandfathered in and given their Firearms Safety cert (and maybe even treat it like certifications on your DL, and simply have it added to that). Again, anyone that wants to sign up for the course can, and it's a shall-issue certification (provided you don't prove to be a whacko or unsafe with a firearm and get ejected, at which point you have a 90 day wait before you can re-take the class and/or present a certification that shows you're not completely nuts).

- Require the firearms be securely stored when not in use. This is so simply retardedly common sense that it shouldn't be a requirement. But with the number of available, concealable, useable safes and cabinets that secure firearms in the home such that little bobby can't get ahold of it, you're a moron if you DON'T use one. And now the law can affirm this. Also, purchase of any firearm requires you to keep a proof of purchase/ownership of said securing devices (a card with the serial number and name of manufacturer), which must be recorded on all BATFE 4473 forms filled out. No POP card? No gun until you purchase a safe or provide your POP.

- For CCW holders, up the minimum standards for maintaining this permit. Keeping firearms for self defense is a right, and in your home, what you do is your business. However, it is the depths of irresponsible behavior to go out armed in public without some basic training and understanding of the law and what you're doing. This can include police providing training/discussion on legal matters as well as target identification, safe carriage, and how to handle certain situations. No, they don't need to be trained as cops to be carriers. But, requiring more than 8 hours of basic safety training and minimal range time and no follow up on the range is stupid. Maybe 10 hours of range time monthly signed off by a range master at your local range to show you're in compliance would be good. (and yes, I know CCW holders are not the issue, and stop a large number of crimes every year. Great. But the topic comes up over and over again about what we should do in certain situations like a mall or school shooter, and the conclusion is always the same, CCW permit holders may not know what to do, and aren't prepared to deal with those eventualities. Training and covering this aspect can help improve everyone's odds and also help Law Enforcement responders without anyone having to play Rambo.)

I call on any gun owners out there that are reasonable and responsible owners to stand up and take responsibility. Guns ARE a big responsibility, just like driving a Semi or riding a motorcycle. They take a little more thought, effort, responsibility, and safety awareness to use without hurting other people. It's time we acknowledged that, and said "yeah, I'm a law abiding citizen, and i'm willing to accept the burden it takes to exercise my hobbies in the way I want to by going through a few extra hoops to ensure that the wrong people don't get guns."

I'm Pro-2A, and Pro Responsibility.
 
2012-12-21 02:24:07 PM  

Vegan Meat Popsicle: Is your analogy now seriously going to be that people can be killed when classified information is leaked so maybe there should be background checks before people are given access to classified information? Is that REALLY what you're going with now? Seriously?


You really should try reading things all the way through.

My analogy was that people have their online posts subject to waiting periods and background checks to ensure they don't leak what they know, incite homicide, distribute child porn.
 
2012-12-21 02:24:37 PM  

Sultan Of Herf: Also, who ever said having a gun was about being afraid of anything? Perhaps its about guaranteeing that you are in an equal if not superior position to those who might choose to do you (or your loved ones) harm. Many of you anti-gun people come across like people deserve to get robbed, raped, murdered, etc if they cant fight their way out of the situation with their bare hands.


What a load of bullshiat. Most Anti-gun people I know have decided not to own a gun without using emotion. People who understand the statistics of gun ownership know that it doesn't make you safer. The idea of being able to defend yourself with a gun is a fantasy based on emotion and not real world experience. It's a gun, not a shield.
 
2012-12-21 02:25:39 PM  

Mikey1969: But nobody wants to hear that


Maybe because you continually refuse to actually say anything meaningful and insist on talking in generalities so that nobody can pin you down on anything concrete.

The only thing you've effectively said so far is that the problem is big and is comprised of many sub-issues.

No farking shiat, Sherlock.
 
2012-12-21 02:25:43 PM  

Carn: As it is, our problem currently is school shootings. And if we manage to limit or eliminate school shootings and people turn to hammers knives or blunt objects, then let's do something about that. However, I am guessing that if we address both gun ownership as well as mental health we would not be seeing one replace the other.


What makes school shootings "our problem" more then parents killing kids or car crashes, both of which kill kids more often?
 
2012-12-21 02:30:26 PM  

Crocodile Arms: Unfortunately, arming the good, law-abiding denizens would prove to be just as effective as the gun bans that are already in place many of these cities - which is to say, not at all.


And the gun control debate is the only place you can make that kind of statement without backing up with any sort of fact and be taken seriously.

The anti-gun element seems to be able to manufacture whatever evidence you like and call it "logic", because at face value, it does sortof seem to make sense. The fact that a little bit of research shows your emotionally driven opinion to be factually void will never bother you even slightly, will it?
 
2012-12-21 02:32:37 PM  

oMaJoJ: Itstoearly: http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/an-opinion-on-gun-contro l /

This opinion piece will likely do nothing to persuade those here in favor of restricting gun rights (since the article is longer than 200 words), but I will leave this here because it can at least give those in favor of gun rights have an excellent example of a wonderfully written opinion.

Well, that was a hefty read. Hmm, I'm about to step out, do you know is his Monster Hunters series any good?


Monster Hunters is good. I liked Hard Magic even better.
 
2012-12-21 02:34:06 PM  

Carn: brokendownyota: Carn: Magnanimous_J: Carn: Up here? I assume you mean Canada. Canada has mag limits and has less gun violence than we have in the US. Now is that correlation or causation?

Correlation. While I admit that high capacity magazines MAY increase the body count in certain mass shooting crimes, your average 10 round magazine is more than enough to commit most murders. The previous Assault Weapon Ban proved to have no effect on street level crime.

I agree completely, I just had to reply to point out that his post basically proved the opposite of the point he was trying to make.

Pray tell what point I was trying to make. If it's the one you responded to, then you missed it entirely.

My point was that if you're going to make firearms legislation, it must be realistic and effective. Capacity limits in Canada are neither, and have absolutely 0 effect on firearms violence. The legislation technically exists but is so ridiculously easy to circumvent that it may as well not.

I

As we mentioned up thread, there is a correlation between limited magazines and lower gun violence in Canada. Correlation not causation. Would you deny that Canada has either of these? If not, then you must concede.


Utter misdirection. There isn't even correlation unless you can prove to me that gun violence decreased when the magazine caps were introduced - and you can't. You've got two unrelated facts and you're trying to mumblefark me into giving up my arguement.

Unless you'd like to stretch the definition of correlation to say that because I live in Canada, that my presense here can be correlated to the lower firearms violence. This is exactly as relevant to the discussion.
 
2012-12-21 02:34:22 PM  

Giltric: asmodeus224: duffblue: Gotta love these instant greenlights, guess the mods are the type of people that piss themselves at the idea of firearms.

Funny, most gun owners i know own guns cuz they are inherently scared little people looking for a security blanket.

They sound like liberals.

Are they?


Scientifically backed data suggests their authoritarians.
http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/
 
2012-12-21 02:35:59 PM  

impaler: vdawg: First, I have a job and can't sit a blabber all day with a twit. Second, have some patience and I'll send you some farking numbers when I am good and ready. Smug prick.

Cry moar about the fact I understand statistical analysis.


Hardly. You just choose to analyze the stats to fit your argument.

You conclude that you are a genius. I conclude you are smug.

It's been a week now, and 80+ million other gun owners haven't committed mass murder. Analyze those numbers to fit your argument for banning guns.
 
2012-12-21 02:36:11 PM  

pedrop357: Why does Australia have 150% more rape victims, 43% more crime victimes, 100% more assault victims?


They're an island of descended from inmates.
 
2012-12-21 02:36:34 PM  

pedrop357: I'll leave this here.

Australia vs US
Assault victims 2.4% 1.2% Ranked 4th. 100% more than United States Ranked 11th.
Rape victims 1% 0.4% Ranked 5th. 150% more than United States Ranked 13th.
Suicide rates in ages 15-24 14.6 per 100,000 people 13.7 per 100,000 people Ranked 6th. 7% more than United States Ranked 7th.
Suicide rates in ages 25-34 18.7 per 100,000 people 15.3 per 100,000 people Ranked 7th. 22% more than United States Ranked 10th.
Perception of safety > Walking in dark 64% 82% Ranked 14th. Ranked 2nd. 28% more than Australia
Total crime victims 30.1% 21.1% Ranked 1st. 43% more than United States Ranked 15th.

I deliberately left out the gun stats as they don't tell the whole picture the way overall stats do, and I left out nonproportional stats due to population difference.
Why does Australia have 150% more rape victims, 43% more crime victimes, 100% more assault victims? If banning/restricting guns makes a country safe, I expect to see actual violent crimes against persons to be lower then a country with lots of them. What makes fewer Aussies feel safe walking down the streets?


"Why does Australia have 22% more suicides between 25-34? If banning/restricting guns made life better, I'd expect to see actual suicides to be lower in a country with lots of them. What makes fewer young Aussies feel life is worth living?" - This sounds reasonable too, right?

Also, I notice you omitted this line:
Prisoners > Per capita 116.0 per 100,000 people 715.0 per 100,000 people
Ranked 74th. Ranked 1st. 5 times more than Australia


Perhaps we have fewer crimes because we have a harsher criminal justice system? Perhaps it has nothing to do with guns. Perhaps this yet another half-cocked correlation = causation argument?

Honestly, those stats need homicides per 100k. Is decreasing rape and assault by 10% be worth a 50% increase in homicide? Like you said, it's tough to get a whole picture when someone's omitting the useful numbers.
 
2012-12-21 02:37:49 PM  

busy chillin': [www.secretsofthefed.com image 496x495]


TJ would also like to make babies with at least one of his slaves.

Thomas Jefferson was a bright man for the 18th and early 19th century, but we have greater public intellectuals now. The wisdom he possessed 200 years ago may not apply to modern American society. His quotes won't give us the answers to FBI background checks, wiretapping, drones, nuclear proliferation, gay marriage, stem cell research, space exploration, climate change, etc.
 
2012-12-21 02:38:32 PM  

pedrop357: Carn: As it is, our problem currently is school shootings. And if we manage to limit or eliminate school shootings and people turn to hammers knives or blunt objects, then let's do something about that. However, I am guessing that if we address both gun ownership as well as mental health we would not be seeing one replace the other.

What makes school shootings "our problem" more then parents killing kids or car crashes, both of which kill kids more often?


How many farking times do I have to state that they are all our problems, they are not mutually exclusive, and we should do what we can to address all of them? There is a difference however between a child dying in a car accident or in a massacre at a school. Both are tragic. One may be socially acceptable at this time, while the other isn't and hopefully never will be.

If you want to talk about any other issues how about you start a thread for it? In this one we're talking about guns, school shootings, options for controls and regulations, and what benefits they may serve. This is a valid conversation to have. Your repeated ad hominem attack of "I think you should care about X more but you don't so you are bad" is stupid, false, and growing quite old.
 
2012-12-21 02:39:48 PM  

vdawg: Hardly. You just choose to analyze the stats to fit your argument.

You conclude that you are a genius. I conclude you are smug.


No. I told you how to analyze the stats. The fact it doesn't fit your argument doesn't mean it's the wrong way.

If 2 variables over an entire population are correlated, it's standard procedure to divide the population to isolate one of those variables as a control, to see if the correlation holds or disappears.

This doesn't take a genius to figure out.
 
2012-12-21 02:40:11 PM  

Vegan Meat Popsicle: studies have already been done on the matter that conclude that successful defensive gun incidents are fairly uncommon


This is true for two reasons: Primarily, nobody with an escape route and something to lose (like family, their own lives, an apartment full of concubines) is going to stick around to defend assholes like yourself or try to be a hero. The only shooting I can remember within the last decade where this was the case was in Virginia - but even then, the good guys didn't rush to the gunfight, they just happened to be there and put the jackass down. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalachian_School_of_Law_shooting (this reveals that even these men were off-duty LEO - people with training who we might reasonably expect to respond in this way)... Please cite an event where a "wannabe Rambo" has created confusion and chaos at a shooting scene as this is one of the most common whines I hear from opponents of concealed carry. I don't doubt such an event has occurred, however I simply am unaware of such an event. Usually, it's the police pumping someone full of 90 bullets....

Second, the penalties for carrying without a license combined with the intrusive requirements for ownership in most states, keep people from exercising their divine/natural right to self-defense. Deciding to do so forces you to change your life. I refuse to leave a loaded firearm in a vehicle (which are frequently stolen and easy to break in to) unless there is simply no other option, so I have to determine each and every stop I will make before I leave the house, and have adapted to a life without entering business that do not acknowledge the human right to self preservation. You can see where in a society and world where the prospect of being fatally assaulted is admittedly extraordinarily small, that the decision to arm oneself and exercise those rights might require sacrifices that one is not willing to make.

I carry daily, but my primary decision for whether or not I will enter a facility I'm legally allowed to enter hinges primarily on whether or not I can rapidly escape (I avoid grocery stores that close exits after 9pm for example - something almost all of our grocers do in order to combat shoplifting - Wal-Mart does this also and I do NOT shop at the mall during Christmas - it's simply too crowded and the fruit for criminals is too ripe), and does not depend the availability of cover from which to exchange gunfire with a dirtbag. Believe me - I have absolutely no interest in saving your ass if some psycho starts shooting up the place - I may draw my weapon on the way to the nearest exit, but I won't engage anyone unless they are blocking my escape or point a weapon at me.
 
2012-12-21 02:41:20 PM  

brokendownyota: Carn: brokendownyota: Carn: Magnanimous_J: Carn: Up here? I assume you mean Canada. Canada has mag limits and has less gun violence than we have in the US. Now is that correlation or causation?

Correlation. While I admit that high capacity magazines MAY increase the body count in certain mass shooting crimes, your average 10 round magazine is more than enough to commit most murders. The previous Assault Weapon Ban proved to have no effect on street level crime.

I agree completely, I just had to reply to point out that his post basically proved the opposite of the point he was trying to make.

Pray tell what point I was trying to make. If it's the one you responded to, then you missed it entirely.

My point was that if you're going to make firearms legislation, it must be realistic and effective. Capacity limits in Canada are neither, and have absolutely 0 effect on firearms violence. The legislation technically exists but is so ridiculously easy to circumvent that it may as well not.

I

As we mentioned up thread, there is a correlation between limited magazines and lower gun violence in Canada. Correlation not causation. Would you deny that Canada has either of these? If not, then you must concede.

Utter misdirection. There isn't even correlation unless you can prove to me that gun violence decreased when the magazine caps were introduced - and you can't. You've got two unrelated facts and you're trying to mumblefark me into giving up my arguement.

Unless you'd like to stretch the definition of correlation to say that because I live in Canada, that my presense here can be correlated to the lower firearms violence. This is exactly as relevant to the discussion.


Wow. You don't know what words mean.

vdawg: impaler: vdawg: First, I have a job and can't sit a blabber all day with a twit. Second, have some patience and I'll send you some farking numbers when I am good and ready. Smug prick.

Cry moar about the fact I understand statistical analysis.

Hardly. You just choose to analyze the stats to fit your argument.

You conclude that you are a genius. I conclude you are smug.

It's been a week now, and 80+ million other gun owners haven't committed mass murder. Analyze those numbers to fit your argument for banning guns.


Um, some of them have. It's what the article this thread started on is tracking.
 
2012-12-21 02:41:49 PM  

gittlebass: people say guns have no use in society, yet, it has more uses than alcohol. alcohol has zero benefit to society, it doesnt help in anyway and banning it would stop 1,000's of needless alcohol related deaths, and make america healthier. Drinkers have just as much responsibility as gun owners,kill just as many innocent people and we allow them to drive to bars full well knowing they will be drinking something that will impair their ability to get home


Funny how the people who want to ban guns "because they kill people" want to legalize drugs. Drug use is a personal responsibility, and people have the right to do what they want with their bodies, man. And those who love their alcohol and guns want to keep pot illegal because . . . something, I've never heard a real rational argument from the alcohol and guns type.
 
2012-12-21 02:42:44 PM  

pedrop357: Carn: As it is, our problem currently is school shootings. And if we manage to limit or eliminate school shootings and people turn to hammers knives or blunt objects, then let's do something about that. However, I am guessing that if we address both gun ownership as well as mental health we would not be seeing one replace the other.

What makes school shootings "our problem" more then parents killing kids or car crashes, both of which kill kids more often?


Exactly. And he'll never be able to answer it because there is no good answer. More kids die in pools, but pools are ok because they aren't designed to kill things and most people aren't afraid of them. The car/gun analogy is stupid because cars aren't designed to kill people and you have to have a license to drive one, except that they make readily available cars that far exceed the limits of what most drivers can handle. Why do I need a gun that can shoot 30 rounds without having to reload? The same reason I have a car that can do 140 even though the highest posted speed limit around me is 75.... Because I farking can, and until I prove that it's not responsible for me to do so, you have no farking right to take it away from me.
 
2012-12-21 02:45:22 PM  

Too_many_Brians: vdawg: impaler: vdawg: A 5 year coincidence? Mmmkay

I'll be back when the 2012 UCR comes out and there is a 6th straight year of reduction.

Sales of ice-cream and drownings have been correlated for decades.

Ice-cream causes drownings!

I told you how to eliminate some possible unknown variables.

Wow, far reaching. I suppose it's coincidence that Kennesaw, GA...which enacted a firearm ownership law, has had I think 4 murders since the law was enacted?

Let's use reason. Wouldn't you think it is a deterrent for a criminal to think any potential target might put up armed resistance?

Most of these mass shootings happen at soft target locations, where there is a strong likelihood that the occupants will be unarmed. There aren't too many mass shootings at gun ranges or gun stores.


You mean a small, middle class town only had a couple of murders? Wow. Color me shocked. Did you even read the article I posted, or are you just a soundbite kind of guy?

Shootings have occurred at gun stores, so you are invalid. Or maybe it has less to do with hard or soft targets and more to do with available amounts of targets. Gun free zones usually are crowded with people, therefore a more likely place for someone wanting to rampage.


Sorry, I didnt mean to skip over you. No, like I stated, I'm working. But, I will read the article and reply when I can.

Your statement about a middle class town is fair. So, is it also fair to say this may be a problem in lower income communities?

Link me a story to a mass shooting st a gun store. I'm intrigued to read that. However, I specifically said a mass shooting. Anything less, and your argument is invalid.
 
2012-12-21 02:46:11 PM  
Carn:

Again, utterly unrelated to the discussion. Either you're making a game out of not understanding or you're trolling. Of course you could also just have absolutely nothing to add. That seems quite likely at this point.

You're not making points or arguing or debating, you're simply ignoring arguements, misdirecting, and attacking people.
 
2012-12-21 02:53:56 PM  

Carn: brokendownyota: Carn: brokendownyota: Carn: Magnanimous_J: Carn: Up here? I assume you mean Canada. Canada has mag limits and has less gun violence than we have in the US. Now is that correlation or causation?

Correlation. While I admit that high capacity magazines MAY increase the body count in certain mass shooting crimes, your average 10 round magazine is more than enough to commit most murders. The previous Assault Weapon Ban proved to have no effect on street level crime.

I agree completely, I just had to reply to point out that his post basically proved the opposite of the point he was trying to make.

Pray tell what point I was trying to make. If it's the one you responded to, then you missed it entirely.

My point was that if you're going to make firearms legislation, it must be realistic and effective. Capacity limits in Canada are neither, and have absolutely 0 effect on firearms violence. The legislation technically exists but is so ridiculously easy to circumvent that it may as well not.

I

As we mentioned up thread, there is a correlation between limited magazines and lower gun violence in Canada. Correlation not causation. Would you deny that Canada has either of these? If not, then you must concede.

Utter misdirection. There isn't even correlation unless you can prove to me that gun violence decreased when the magazine caps were introduced - and you can't. You've got two unrelated facts and you're trying to mumblefark me into giving up my arguement.

Unless you'd like to stretch the definition of correlation to say that because I live in Canada, that my presense here can be correlated to the lower firearms violence. This is exactly as relevant to the discussion.

Wow. You don't know what words mean.vdawg: impaler: vdawg: First, I have a job and can't sit a blabber all day with a twit. Second, have some patience and I'll send you some farking numbers when I am good and ready. Smug prick.

Cry moar about the fact I understand statistical analysis.

Hardly. You just choose to analyze the stats to fit your argument.

You conclude that you are a genius. I conclude you are smug.

It's been a week now, and 80+ million other gun owners haven't committed mass murder. Analyze those numbers to fit your argument for banning guns.

Um, some of them have. It's what the article this thread started on is tracking.


Ok...so every death by a gun is classified as a spree shooting? Asinine statement.
 
2012-12-21 02:54:08 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Uranus Is Huge!: explain one scenario involving a "2nd Amendment Solution" that you believe is plausible.

You're asking for prognostication, which is a silly trap for anyone to fall into. Nobody's going to be led on such a futile tangent. Look, If you think it's unreasonable, then you're calling the people who built the country unreasonable. I don't know what you've done with your life, but I doubt you've accomplished what the least of them accomplished. Frankly, If you're so upset about gun violence, you're welcome to go live in a country that has far more strict laws.


Slavery was unreasonable. Emigrating is not a practical solution.
 
2012-12-21 02:54:47 PM  

tylerdurden217: busy chillin': [www.secretsofthefed.com image 496x495]

TJ would also like to make babies with at least one of his slaves.

Thomas Jefferson was a bright man for the 18th and early 19th century, but we have greater public intellectuals now. The wisdom he possessed 200 years ago may not apply to modern American society. His quotes won't give us the answers to FBI background checks, wiretapping, drones, nuclear proliferation, gay marriage, stem cell research, space exploration, climate change, etc.


Okay.

I still like freedom. I try to enjoy while I still can.
 
2012-12-21 02:57:18 PM  

Carn: If you want to talk about any other issues how about you start a thread for it? In this one we're talking about guns, school shootings, options for controls and regulations, and what benefits they may serve. This is a valid conversation to have. Your repeated ad hominem attack of "I think you should care about X more but you don't so you are bad" is stupid, false, and growing quite old.


It is a gun thread, but it's worth questioning why the gun proposals always seem to lean heavily towards restrictions, regulations, and overall burdens on the gun owners when much more substantial causes of death seem to get a free pass. Why is gun death so much more important then car death, child abuse death, drowning death, etc. that constitutional rights should be infringed upon with impulsive, emotionally driven, generally overreaching laws, yet all those other things aren't subject to it.

To place this in another arena-we hear a lot about illegal immigration and Mexico, so much so that the two issues have so overlapped that an alien visitor could safely assume that they're the same. In our case, most of our illegal immigration does come Mexico, but the sort of laserlike focus on the Mexican border has people questioning the proportionality of the proposals. if 70% of the illegal immigration comes from Mexico, why is 90% of the resources focused there, is there something more to it, like racism or overlapping anti-mexican sentiment?

Now granted if it's actually 90/70 like I said, they're doing the exact kind of thing I advocate by directing all/nearly all resources to the top problem so they (ostensibly) do the most good.

So, it's plainly obvious that people understand the idea that selective enforcement can be a cover for more sinister, less moral motives. I'm pretty sure you lean left politically (stretch maybe), and a lot of the complaints about disproportionate enforcement come from the left. It's a stretch to say that gun control=leftie=understands selective enforcement. Nonetheless, I'm going to out on a limb and guess that you do understand the concept of selective enforcement being used to push another agenda, and the mere existence of this selectiveness can be a cause for contention, EVEN when disproportionate resources are directed to the TOP cause of a problem. Assuming that, you should be able to understand that there will even more contention when a significant burden or a disproportionate amount of resources is aimed at the #10 or #15 cause of a problem. People will now have significant justification to point out that you're not interested in safety, but are simply pursuing an agenda.

If the Mexican illegal immigration problem was only 10% of the problem and Mexico was the #8 country, would you find it defensible to focus on Mexico for illegal immigration suppression efforts, especially if those efforts involved constitutional rights infringements, or the proponents began effectively handwaving the the #1 - #7 countries?
 
2012-12-21 02:57:21 PM  

tricycleracer: duffblue: Gotta love these instant greenlights, guess the mods are the type of people that piss themselves at the idea of firearms.

Guess you're the type of person who pisses himself at the idea of drawing attention to the ugly side of your hobby inadequacy of your penis.

 
2012-12-21 02:59:58 PM  

bronyaur1: tricycleracer: duffblue: Gotta love these instant greenlights, guess the mods are the type of people that piss themselves at the idea of firearms.

Guess you're the type of person who pisses himself at the idea of drawing attention to the ugly side of your hobby inadequacy of your penis.


Gun rights supporters need to play a drinking game-1 shot everytime a gun control supporter shows how grown up they are by talking about penises.
 
2012-12-21 03:00:18 PM  

AssAsInAssassin: Amos Quito: Vegan Meat Popsicle: duffblue: Gotta love these instant greenlights, guess the mods are the type of people that piss themselves at the idea of firearms.

Yep.

Because only a complete coward would think that gun nuts should have a few basic responsibilities placed on the acquisition and distribution of their deadly toys


I don't think "gun nuts" are responsible for the vast majority of the carnage.

That award would go to gangsters, etc.

It's the gun nuts who deliberately misrepresented the 2nd Amendment and inflicted insane gun laws on the rest of us. So, yeah, the gun nuts are very much responsible.



So, how do you feel the 2nd Amendment has been "deliberately misrepresented", AssAsinAssassin?

In what year do you feel that this misrepresentation began? 2000? 1900? 1800?

Which gun laws are "insane", and what specific remediation(s) would you prescribe?
 
2012-12-21 03:01:58 PM  

EdNortonsTwin: WhippingBoy: Serious question:

Who's the bigger pussy? The guy afraid of gun violence, or the guy afraid to face life without his gun?

I'd say they are about the same.


Really? So if I'm "afraid" my daughter might be involved in a gun accident or get caught in the crossfire, that's equivalent to being afraid to walk down the street unarmed????

I've been mugged 3 times in my life by men with knives. The first two times I was on a dark city street at night. The first time someone came up behind me and placed the knife in the small of my back. He demanded money, I gave him what cash I had in my pockets, though I had most of my money in my shoe. The second time, I was pulled into an alley by a guy with a knife. I gave up my cash to prevent him from getting angry, as he looked unstable and there were knife cuts up and down his arms, The third time was in Venice, Italy, when I was travelling alone. Three guys cornered me in a deserted piazza. One of them pulled a switchblade and asked for my wallet. I walked past them briskly and determinedly, and I could see that these guys weren't crazy, just lazy, and there was no way they were going to assault a tourist and lose their streetcorner.

Substitute the word "gun" for the word "knife" in the above paragraph, and the result would have been exactly the same. I.e. I would have complied with the bad guy, in the most straightforward and non-threatening way possible, and lived to see another day. So I don't think the "only criminals will have guns" argument makes sense, because it doesn't really matter what weapon the criminal has chosen, I'm simply not going to risk my life for a few lousy bucks.

I've never had anyone point a gun at me, or try to shoot me, so I can't say exactly how I'd react, but I don't think my having a loaded gun in my waistband would have worked out better for me in any of the situations I've been in.
 
2012-12-21 03:03:27 PM  

bronyaur1: tricycleracer: duffblue: Gotta love these instant greenlights, guess the mods are the type of people that piss themselves at the idea of firearms.

Guess you're the type of person who pisses himself at the idea of drawing attention to the ugly side of your hobby inadequacy of your penis.


I never got this line of thought.

How does a love of shooting targets and the odd deer plus a lack of total fear towards firearms equal inadequate manliness? If anything, the opposite is true: if you're afraid of seeing a long, black object release its hot load onto some animal, you're the one with issues.
 
KIA
2012-12-21 03:03:34 PM  

Deep Contact: Deaths in the U.S. Automobiles, which kill 117 Americans a day, or nearly 43,000 a year. Then comes flu, which (along with pneumonia, its associated disease) kills 36,000 people. Third is guns: 26,000 deaths. Fourth, food-borne illness: 5,000. And finally, terrorism, which in a typical year claims virtually no U.S. lives


Actually, firearm homicides were 11,430 or thereabouts. The rest are suicides or accidents. So firearm homicides are actually even farther down than that, not even in top ten causes of death.
 
2012-12-21 03:06:04 PM  
Someone who is willing to carry a gun is someone who is willing to take personal responsibility for their own safety. This is what terrifies the anti-gun lobby, because they fear they might also be expected to take some personal responsibility for their own defense. To them, it's all about "The police will protect me" and "The law will protect me."
No. The law will avenge you, it will not protect you.
 
2012-12-21 03:07:56 PM  

Amos Quito: Which gun laws are "insane", and what specific remediation(s) would you prescribe?


Shielding gun manufacturers from civil lawsuits and liability is insane.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/20/AR200 5 102000485.html

If a company designs, manufactures and then profits on a weapon designed for the mass murder of human beings, then I think they should be held financially liable and should be subject to punitive judgments in civil court, just like any other company.
 
2012-12-21 03:08:08 PM  

Securitywyrm: Someone who is willing to carry a gun is someone who is willing to take personal responsibility for their own safety. This is what terrifies the anti-gun lobby, because they fear they might also be expected to take some personal responsibility for their own defense. To them, it's all about "The police will protect me" and "The law will protect me."
No. The law will avenge you, it will not protect you.


And the amount of times you'll get an opportunity to defend yourself with a gun equals about the same number of times a piano will fall on your head. Better wear a helmet.
 
2012-12-21 03:09:30 PM  

Securitywyrm: Someone who is willing to carry a gun is someone who is willing to take personal responsibility for their own safety.


How does carrying a concealed weapon in public make you more safe?
 
2012-12-21 03:09:33 PM  

ykarie: Funny how the people who want to ban guns "because they kill people" want to legalize drugs. Drug use is a personal responsibility, and people have the right to do what they want with their bodies, man.


Would be a valid analogy if people only intentionally shot themselves.
 
2012-12-21 03:10:09 PM  
The majority of mass shootings are committed with legally purchased weapons stole from close family members.

Columbine couldn't have been stopped by gun laws. (the guns were stolen from a parents and didn't fall under the brady bill.) CT guy stole the guns from his mom after he murdered her. Again, the weapons in question did not fall under the brady bill definition of an assault weapon, but lets just ignore that it was perfectly legal for the mom to have.


The only thing more horrific then a mass shooting is people trying to enact legislation surrounding marketing buzzwords like "Assault weapon"
 
2012-12-21 03:10:13 PM  
Considering there are over 300 million people in the u.s., that isn't a big number. More people have died in that time from pneumonia.

I don't own any guns, nor do I have any plans to, so I don't have a fog in this fight. Just making an observation that gun deaths are hardly the epidic some make them out to be.

We all meet our fate eventually. Some of us will be shot to death. All things considered, it isn't a bad way to go. Wasting away from cancer or emphysema seems much worse to me
 
2012-12-21 03:11:22 PM  

tylerdurden217: Securitywyrm: Someone who is willing to carry a gun is someone who is willing to take personal responsibility for their own safety.

How does carrying a concealed weapon in public make you more safe?


Shhh, you're ruining the fantasy. He's totally gonna use it to rescue a damsel in distress, and she'll be hot too, and reward him with sex.
 
2012-12-21 03:14:19 PM  

holdeestrufs: Vegan Meat Popsicle: studies have already been done on the matter that conclude that successful defensive gun incidents are fairly uncommon

This is true for two reasons: Primarily, nobody with an escape route and something to lose (like family, their own lives, an apartment full of concubines) is going to stick around to defend assholes like yourself or try to be a hero. The only shooting I can remember within the last decade where this was the case was in Virginia - but even then, the good guys didn't rush to the gunfight, they just happened to be there and put the jackass down. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalachian_School_of_Law_shooting (this reveals that even these men were off-duty LEO - people with training who we might reasonably expect to respond in this way)... Please cite an event where a "wannabe Rambo" has created confusion and chaos at a shooting scene as this is one of the most common whines I hear from opponents of concealed carry. I don't doubt such an event has occurred, however I simply am unaware of such an event. Usually, it's the police pumping someone full of 90 bullets....

Second, the penalties for carrying without a license combined with the intrusive requirements for ownership in most states, keep people from exercising their divine/natural right to self-defense. Deciding to do so forces you to change your life. I refuse to leave a loaded firearm in a vehicle (which are frequently stolen and easy to break in to) unless there is simply no other option, so I have to determine each and every stop I will make before I leave the house, and have adapted to a life without entering business that do not acknowledge the human right to self preservation. You can see where in a society and world where the prospect of being fatally assaulted is admittedly extraordinarily small, that the decision to arm oneself and exercise those rights might require sacrifices that one is not willing to make.

I carry daily, but my primary decision for whether o ...


Have you ever talked to a psychologist about your paranoid delusions? Because it sounds like your fear of being ambushed or otherwise caught up in a violent incident is having a significant impact on your ability to function in society...
 
2012-12-21 03:22:17 PM  

Vance Uppercut: You guys (Americans) just have to realize how strange it seems to the rest of the world. You are comfortable with so many people getting shot around you, we can't imagine living near so much violence.

Canadians have things that you can't comprehend also, like fries with gravy, health care, and really cold winters.


Canada doesn't have the population density of the u.s., nor does a large percentage of its urban population embrace the "gangsta" lifestyle.

Also, as been pointed out, there are a few high profile events that make the news, but its not a frequent thing. I know scores of people, I don't know anyone that has been shot outside of the military.

I do know a woman that stabbed her husband to death then had her sentence commuted. Small soft spoken woman. Doesn't seem like she would have something like that in her.
 
2012-12-21 03:22:22 PM  

tylerdurden217: Amos Quito: Which gun laws are "insane", and what specific remediation(s) would you prescribe?

Shielding gun manufacturers from civil lawsuits and liability is insane.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/20/AR200 5 102000485.html

If a company designs, manufactures and then profits on a weapon designed for the mass murder of human beings, then I think they should be held financially liable and should be subject to punitive judgments in civil court, just like any other company.


That's one of the dumbest thing I've ever heard. I sincerely hope that you're being sarcastic.
 
2012-12-21 03:25:45 PM  

impaler: ykarie: Funny how the people who want to ban guns "because they kill people" want to legalize drugs. Drug use is a personal responsibility, and people have the right to do what they want with their bodies, man.

Would be a valid analogy if people only intentionally shot themselves.


Yeah, it's hard to intentionally use drugs like pot or lsd to kill other people. Dosing them so they do something stupid is easy, but that only equates to grazing them or something.
 
2012-12-21 03:26:09 PM  

holdeestrufs: I carry daily, but my primary decision for whether or not I will enter a facility I'm legally allowed to enter hinges primarily on whether or not I can rapidly escape (I avoid grocery stores that close exits after 9pm for example - something almost all of our grocers do in order to combat shoplifting - Wal-Mart does this also and I do NOT shop at the mall during Christmas - it's simply too crowded and the fruit for criminals is too ripe), and does not depend the availability of cover from which to exchange gunfire with a dirtbag. Believe me - I have absolutely no interest in saving your ass if some psycho starts shooting up the place - I may draw my weapon on the way to the nearest exit, but I won't engage anyone unless they are blocking my escape or point a weapon at me.


Man, I loved you in Ronin. I was hoping for a sequel, but I guess we have to wait until some new adventure.
 
2012-12-21 03:27:15 PM  

WhippingBoy: Magnanimous_J: God damn it, are we still talking about this?

Gun ownership is a right. It is necessary for a people to be armed to stay free. Freedom is always going to come with a price, and a miniscule chance of being killed with a gun (in a life that still holds a mortality rate of roughly 100%) is a price we have to pay for our freedom. I'm sorry, but it was set up like that from the beginning.

Don't get me wrong, I like Europe. It's very pleasant there. The food is good and the women are exquisite. But just because no one is pulling on your chains currently doesn't mean they aren't still shackled to your wrists. The Europeans have no power over their government, no costly trump card to play. If their government decided a certain population needed to be killed, they would be powerless to stop it.

That's what it's all about. It's not about hunting, it's barely about self defense. It's about being a population that can only be pushed so far. It's about the fear of violent uprising in the back of every political leader's mind. It's what the Founding Fathers wanted for their country, and it's arguable more valid today than ever.

/Bleeding Heart Liberal

Given that the US government has a military that uses stealth bombers, nuclear powered aircraft carriers, drones, bunker-buster bombs, etc, etc, etc, would you agree that it makes sense for civilians to be allowed to own these same types of weapons in case the government decides to "push us too far"? After all, you don't being an AR-15 to an aircraft carrier fight.


But they can't steam a carrier into the suburbs of Cincinnati, and those soldiers are also citizens. Don't be so sure, in the extremely unlikely event of civil unrest, the soldiers would side against the people
 
2012-12-21 03:27:18 PM  

duffblue: Gotta love these instant greenlights, guess the mods are the type of people that piss themselves at the idea of firearms.


In prison, they would be biatches, and forced to pee sitting down.
 
2012-12-21 03:34:13 PM  

super_grass: That's one of the dumbest thing I've ever heard. I sincerely hope that you're being sarcastic.


Nope. I am very serious. The idea that we need Congress and the Bush administration to "stem frivolous lawsuits" is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. Let judges decide what is frivolous. This was all about the NRA lobby and it was absolutely disgusting. It's worse than tort reform, which I also think is shiat.
 
2012-12-21 03:40:04 PM  

Vegan Meat Popsicle: Mikey1969


It's better than the curent "Let's just outlaw guns and everything else will magically fix itself" mantra by the Left. You're gonna slap the 'Guns 'R' Bad' label on it and walk away. That won't fix shiat, but it sure will make you people feel better because you will think you've done something. Admitting that the problem is bigger than guns is the point nobody will make because it might take attention away from their current pet project.

What's REALLY interesting is the flip flop BOTH sides have taken. Normally when there is a murder of some kind, the Right is the "String 'em up from the nearest tree!" voice. They don't care about things like the burden of proof or the right to an appeal if found guilty. If they think in their mind that you did something, then you must be guilty. And they think the whole mental health debate is just a cop out to get guilty people some nice accommodations in a happy little hospital somewhere. The Left, on the other hand, is running around screaming about the rights of the accused, and begging for the debate on mental health to be opened up, get more coverage, and become an issue on the front pages for these kinds of crimes.

Now it's reversed. The Right is pointing out how many of these mass murderers are obviously mentally unstable, and the Left is calling it a "non-issue" or a "cop out". I've seen this over and over in the last week, both from people on Fark, and from Left leaning news agencies as well. Kind of weird how that happens.

Now, I have never stated that guns aren't killing people. What I've stated is that just considering the gun issue and nothing else isn't going to get anything fixed, and this has to be addressed from the BEGINNING. As for "sot having an answer beyond that", it doesn't matter what solutions I might think would work until the farking debate is on the table, and I can tell from blazing intellectual minds like yours that that isn't going to happen any time soon. Bring it to the table, and then solutions can be discussed. Ignore it, and focus instead only on guns, and people will still be attacked, injured and killed, just using other implements. The issue will never get further explored if it isn't covered from day one, no matter what you may claim .
 
2012-12-21 03:42:33 PM  

tylerdurden217: Amos Quito: Which gun laws are "insane", and what specific remediation(s) would you prescribe?

Shielding gun manufacturers from civil lawsuits and liability is insane.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/20/AR200 5 102000485.html

If a company designs, manufactures and then profits on a weapon designed for the mass murder of human beings, then I think they should be held financially liable and should be subject to punitive judgments in civil court, just like any other company.



So, what other types of product manufacturers do you feel should be held liable when their products perform as designed?
 
2012-12-21 03:43:29 PM  

fluffy2097: The majority of mass shootings are committed with legally purchased weapons stole from close family members.

Columbine couldn't have been stopped by gun laws. (the guns were stolen from a parents and didn't fall under the brady bill.) CT guy stole the guns from his mom after he murdered her. Again, the weapons in question did not fall under the brady bill definition of an assault weapon, but lets just ignore that it was perfectly legal for the mom to have.


And this doesn't suggest that maybe the existence of those weapons in the first place is part of the problem? They were legally purchased and, according to you, stored in accordance with existing laws. So existing laws don't prevent mass shootings like Columbine or Newtown. Isn't that a good reason to consider new laws?

The only thing more horrific then a mass shooting is people trying to enact legislation surrounding marketing buzzwords like "Assault weapon"

Alright, let's use marketing buzzwords from the manufacturers themselves. Bushmaster markets a line called "Adaptive Combat Rifle" under the tagline: "When your mission calls for more, you want ACR enhanced." Can we then include things like "Combat Rifle" in new legislation? Who do you think Bushmaster is marketing to when they appeal to people's sense that they need "Combat Rifles" for a "mission"?
 
2012-12-21 03:44:01 PM  

tylerdurden217: n to "stem frivolous lawsuits" is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. Let judges decide what is frivolous. This was all about the NRA lobby and it was absolutely disgusting. It's worse than tort reform, which I also think is shiat.


Suing the gun manufacturer for what a criminal decides to do with it is the very definition of "frivolous". Right up there with suing beer companies for drunk driving and McDonald's for personally making you fat.
 
2012-12-21 03:47:38 PM  

nickeyx: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Deep Contact: Deaths in the U.S. Automobiles, which kill 117 Americans a day, or nearly 43,000 a year. Then comes flu, which (along with pneumonia, its associated disease) kills 36,000 people. Third is guns: 26,000 deaths. Fourth, food-borne illness: 5,000. And finally, terrorism, which in a typical year claims virtually no U.S. lives

Don't forget alcohol, that kills 80,000 people each year. Alcohol is far less of a necessity than cars or even guns, but strangely you don't hear the gun control nuts ever suggest that it too should be made illegal, even though it kills several times the total of guns, including children.

Similarly, the gun control side would argue that since we have in place a system of penalties for driving under the influence of various drugs, cars are well regulated. However when the subject turns to the scary looking (but statistically less dangerous) gun, the want not just a system of penalties, but to ban them outright. Or limit them to some low capacity, which would be the equivalent of outlawing all cars that go faster than 40mph. These people have no concern about things that kill lots of people, but major concern about things that kill relatively few, they're irrational.


When the primary function of autos or alcohol is to cause casualty, you have an argument.


Is the primary use of a US gun owner's gun(s) killing people or animals?

The guns might have been designed to kill, but I bet most guns "primary functions" are to sit in a closet safe collecting dust until the next day at the range or the next hunting trip.

Even if you look at the most paranoid CCW carriers, their guns rarely leave their holsters-- (because it is illegal to wield a firearm in most places).

Ask a cop how many times he or she's discharged a firearm outside the range.

I claim (without numbers) that most rounds are fired for training and recreation, and that guns owned "for protection" are not really for protection, but as a deterrant.  It doesn't change the truth that most guns are designed to kill. But the idea that most guns are used to kill or wound is plainly wrong.
 
2012-12-21 03:49:29 PM  

Carn: Mikey1969: Carn: I'm still responding to your false equivalency that knives or hammers are equal to guns in terms of destructive power.

Well, you should stop trying, because i have NEVER said that they were equal. In any way. Ever. Ever. Ever. Ever. Ever.

EVER

What I HAVE done is point out that even without guns, people do this, and they do it, with and without guns, in countries other than the US. I HAVE pointed out that it isn't a "Guns" thing or a "US" thing, or a "Heavy Metal" thing, or a "Violent Movies" thing, or a "TV SHows" thing. It's something far broader than national borders or the tool used. I ALSO pointed out that there have been hammer attacks, as you implied that there haven't. I wasn't going for the number as much as answering your question that they have occurred. If you read anything more into that, it's your own fault. If you left anything out, it's because you aren't actually interested in the problem, you just want to get your way.

But nobody wants to hear that, because that's the kind of fix that requires work and doesn't let people ban guns because of how they look.

And my point which I have made repeatedly in this thread and has been agreed upon by some from both sides of the argument is that a gun of any kind is capable of causing much more carnage than a hammer. In addition, some guns, including but not limited to those with higher capacity, are capable of causing more carnage in a smaller amount of time. As I have also stated repeatedly, defining that line is part of what this discussion is about. In addition to reducing high capacity magazines, we also need to address mental health issues as a whole, and think of and implement better ways for irresponsible or mentally ill people from owning weapons.

Saying that people commit violence with or without guns so therefore restricting guns is pointless, is a very stupid argument. I have proven this logically multiple times in this thread. If the type of weapon doesn't matter then we ...


It's absolutely amazing... I call you out for falsely stating that I said stuff. I also call you out for claiming that you didn't say things that you actually did, and what's your response? You make up MORE shiat that I never said. Your mommy must be proud of your pathological lying...

It's really amazing. It's like someone turned on the stupid switch last Friday and left it on. Are you people all at the same internet cafe, or something? It's a collective refusal to pay attention to the actual content of someone's posts, I see that, I just can't figure out why it's so consistent among everyone and why it showed up all at once. Best I can figure is that you are all in one group and have elected the smartest imbecile among you to come up with all of the replies.

I've never said that strengthening gun restrictions won't do anything, I never said that hammer was just as dangerous in a group situation(I DID say that I could kill you with a hammer just as easily as a gun. If you'd like to come to my house, I can demonstrate this for you. I also pointed out that a hammer is a close quarters device and that I WOULD have to get close to a target to kill with it, but when you come to the actual killing part, a hammer would be just as effective.), I never said half of the shiat you claimed. I just can't figure out if you're stupid, a bald-faced liar, or if you just read the words that you have decided will get your panties all bunched up. Either way, you have once again ignored most of what I've said, and misrepresented the rest. Quite a skill, but it gives me no interest in continuing a debate with someone that is either that stupid or that dishonest. There are enough people to agree or disagree with, no need to go with someone who is such a waste of time. Don't worry though, I'm sure you'll be able to find SOME friends out there.
 
2012-12-21 03:50:05 PM  

Amos Quito: So, what other types of product manufacturers do you feel should be held liable when their products perform as designed?


All of them, some of them, none of them. It's not for me to decide. What I'm saying is that Congress should not make a law shielding one industry.
 
2012-12-21 03:54:44 PM  

Amos Quito: So, what other types of product manufacturers do you feel should be held liable when their products perform as designed?


Again, not for me to decide. Congress should not save us from "frivolous lawsuits" ever. Judges have no problem determining frivolity of the lawsuit.
 
2012-12-21 03:57:45 PM  

Mikey1969: Carn: Mikey1969: Carn:

I've never said that strengthening gun restrictions won't do anything, I never said that hammer was just as dangerous in a group situation(I DID say that I could kill you with a hammer just as easily as a gun. If you'd like to come to my house, I can demonstrate this for you. I also pointed out that a hammer is a close quarters device and that I WOULD have to get close to a target to kill with it, but when you come to the actual killing part, a hammer would be just as effective.), I never said half of the shiat you claimed. I just can't figure out if you're stupid, a bald-faced liar, or if you just read the words that you have decided will get your panties all bunched up. Either way, you have once again ignored most of what I've said, and misrepresented the rest. Quite a skill, but it gives me no interest in continuing a debate with someone that is either that stupid or that dishonest. There are enough people to agree or disagree with, no need to go with someone who is such a waste of time. Don't worry though, I'm sure you'll be able to find SOME friends out there


i48.tinypic.com
 
2012-12-21 04:12:06 PM  

Carn: manimal2878: Carn: now you can argue that the two aforementioned weapons can inflict the same amount of carnage in the same amount of time, because that seems to be your point of view.

I have said in other threads I would compromise on high cap magazines.

Handguns: whatever will fit in a flushfit magazine, +2 or 10, whichever is greater.
Longguns: 30 rounds. (note this would ban drum mags and the surefire 100 round mag.)

That is where I am willing to draw the arbitrary line.

Ok, now we are talking the same language. Could I talk you down to something less for longguns. Somewhere in the 10-15 range. It would (slightly) slow down a shooter in a situation like this and wouldn't really do anything but be a minor inconvenience to you at a shooting range.

From there we talk about extra control measures as someone said up thread, mental health and so on.


I would go for 20, if I thought it was that or a complete ban.
 
2012-12-21 04:12:45 PM  

Amos Quito: tylerdurden217: Amos Quito: Which gun laws are "insane", and what specific remediation(s) would you prescribe?

Shielding gun manufacturers from civil lawsuits and liability is insane.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/20/AR200 5 102000485.html

If a company designs, manufactures and then profits on a weapon designed for the mass murder of human beings, then I think they should be held financially liable and should be subject to punitive judgments in civil court, just like any other company.


So, what other types of product manufacturers do you feel should be held liable when their products perform as designed?


Let's sue distilleries and breweries for the deaths, injuries, and damage caused by drunk drivers. The alcohol worked perfectly and got the the perpetrator drunk.
 
2012-12-21 04:14:38 PM  

tylerdurden217: Amos Quito: So, what other types of product manufacturers do you feel should be held liable when their products perform as designed?

Again, not for me to decide. Congress should not save us from "frivolous lawsuits" ever. Judges have no problem determining frivolity of the lawsuit.


But it is still a waste of judicial resources. Better to not even let such cases get past the clerk of the court.
 
2012-12-21 04:16:44 PM  

tylerdurden217: Securitywyrm: Someone who is willing to carry a gun is someone who is willing to take personal responsibility for their own safety.

How does carrying a concealed weapon in public make you more safe?


It's not about 'feeling' safe. That's the big difference between the pro-gun and anti-gun lobbies.
The pro-gun lobbies want to be safe.
The anti-gun lobbies want to 'feel' safe.
These two are mutually exclusive. The anti-gun lobby are also the ones that think the TSA are 'stopping terrorists.'

Carrying a firearm means that you are taking personal responsibility for your own safety. You aren't expecting some police officer to come 'swoop in' and save you. That's not their job. The police are not there to 'save' you, they are there to 'catch criminals.' Even the supreme court has ruled that the police have no duty to protect you, only a duty to catch lawbreakers.
 
2012-12-21 04:16:59 PM  

Carn: If you'd like to come to my house, I can demonstrate this for you.


I didn't mean I would demonstrate on YOU, silly. There are plenty of surrogates that would show you how devastating a hammer blow can be. I think a watermelon or cantaloupe would suffice. Otherwise, you wouldn't be alive for the comparison against the gun, and I'd have a hell of a mess in my garage.
 
2012-12-21 04:19:03 PM  

give me doughnuts: Amos Quito: tylerdurden217: Amos Quito: Which gun laws are "insane", and what specific remediation(s) would you prescribe?

Shielding gun manufacturers from civil lawsuits and liability is insane.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/20/AR200 5 102000485.html

If a company designs, manufactures and then profits on a weapon designed for the mass murder of human beings, then I think they should be held financially liable and should be subject to punitive judgments in civil court, just like any other company.


So, what other types of product manufacturers do you feel should be held liable when their products perform as designed?

Let's sue distilleries and breweries for the deaths, injuries, and damage caused by drunk drivers. The alcohol worked perfectly and got the the perpetrator drunk.


Exactly, where does it stop? Next thing you know tobacco companies will be funding anti-smoking education as part of a settlement or something.
 
2012-12-21 04:21:33 PM  

Amos Quito: AssAsInAssassin: Amos Quito: Vegan Meat Popsicle: duffblue: Gotta love these instant greenlights, guess the mods are the type of people that piss themselves at the idea of firearms.

Yep.

Because only a complete coward would think that gun nuts should have a few basic responsibilities placed on the acquisition and distribution of their deadly toys


I don't think "gun nuts" are responsible for the vast majority of the carnage.

That award would go to gangsters, etc.

It's the gun nuts who deliberately misrepresented the 2nd Amendment and inflicted insane gun laws on the rest of us. So, yeah, the gun nuts are very much responsible.


So, how do you feel the 2nd Amendment has been "deliberately misrepresented", AssAsinAssassin?

In what year do you feel that this misrepresentation began? 2000? 1900? 1800?

Which gun laws are "insane", and what specific remediation(s) would you prescribe?


1977 is when it began. Until that time, the NRA was a gun-safety and hunting organization. Previous court rulings had held that the 2nd Amendment was to provide a well regulated militia, under command of congress and the president, to put down insurrections and invasions. Just as a fair reading of the constitution implies. It was settled law until then. The NRA set out to convince people that the "right to keep and bear arms" was an absolute right granted to every conspiracy-theorizing wacko who couldn't wait to be in an armed standoff with the authorities. It took them a few years, but thanks to a bunch of paranoid ignoramuses and sociopathic lobbyists, the long-standing interpretation of the 2nd Amendment was--in the public eye--replaced with "I got a right to own assault rifles so's I kin fend off Big Brother when he comes to confiscate my guns."

What gun laws are insane? The ones that make it OK to own a huge hoard of firearms because you think you kin fend off Big Brother when he comes to confiscate your guns. The ones based on the notion that weekly mass-shootings are a necessary evil to the security of a free state. The laws that refuse to admit that we are a less secure state as long as monsters like Adam Lanza have easy access to asssault rifles and 30-round clips. Laws that feed the paranoia like the Montana Freemen, the David Koreshes, the Randy Weavers of America's daker regions. And ordinary citizens like you who haven't taken the time to read about the history of the 2nd Amendment and the NRA, and eagerly swallow the notion that if everyone is packing heat, no one will ever go on a rampage again.
 
2012-12-21 04:23:55 PM  

Mikey1969: Carn: If you'd like to come to my house, I can demonstrate this for you.

I didn't mean I would demonstrate on YOU, silly. There are plenty of surrogates that would show you how devastating a hammer blow can be. I think a watermelon or cantaloupe would suffice. Otherwise, you wouldn't be alive for the comparison against the gun, and I'd have a hell of a mess in my garage.


Hey maybe I was thinking about watermelons and I thought you were being mean to them! Let's be honest, I just wanted to use that pic. Regarding the thread, I think we've jumped the shark. If you think I have been ignoring your points then, assure you, I am not, but the feeling is mutual. Anyways maybe we can try again some time. I am not anti-gun; I've only been trying to argue a moderate opposition to the current status quo of gun control. I haven't been trolling except for my pic, but you deserved that.

In conclusion, Happy Holidays, Festivus, Christmas, and New Years to all. Time for beer.
 
2012-12-21 04:35:24 PM  

Vegan Meat Popsicle: Three more people today partake in the celebration of American freedom! Hooray for freedom, let it fly!


FTA: The woman was killed at Juniata Valley Gospel Church in Frankstown Township, the Rev. James McCaulley, brother of the church's late pastor, told The Associated Press.

McCaulley, who was in town after having presided over his brother's funeral Thursday, told the AP that the woman was struck by gunshots that flew through a window of the church hall as she was decorating for a children's Christmas party.


Now that Jesus isn't allowed in schools, shouldn't he at least have been in there protecting this innocent lady?
 
2012-12-21 04:42:44 PM  

Securitywyrm: How does carrying a concealed weapon in public make you more safe?

It's not about 'feeling' safe. That's the big difference between the pro-gun and anti-gun lobbies.
The pro-gun lobbies want to be safe.
The anti-gun lobbies want to 'feel' safe.
These two are mutually exclusive. The anti-gun lobby are also the ones that think the TSA are 'stopping terrorists.'

Carrying a firearm means that you are taking personal responsibility for your own safety. You aren't expecting some police officer to come 'swoop in' and save you. That's not their job. The police are not there to 'save' you, they are there to 'catch criminals.' Even the supreme court has ruled that the police have no duty to protect you, only a duty to catch lawbreakers.


Please show me where I used the word "feel". I asked how carrying a gun makes you safer. I understand that you are taking the responsibility, just like Jason Statham. I get it. You're a gun wielding hero. I was just curious about what exactly you would do.

Police may save the day, but I don't count on it. I know that in the very rare situation where my life is threatened and the only way to save my life at that exact moment is to take the life of the person threatening me, then my best bet is to have a loaded firearm at the ready. One of the many points of the Anti-Gun lobby is that the other 99.999% of the time that you carry this fire arm for the extremely rare situation that it's the right and only tool for the job, you put yourself and others in some degree of danger. That danger is greater than the microscopic possibility that a law abiding citizen needs to take the life of a criminal in the act.
 
2012-12-21 04:51:57 PM  

AssAsInAssassin: 1977 is when it began. Until that time, the NRA was a gun-safety and hunting organization. Previous court rulings had held that the 2nd Amendment was to provide a well regulated militia, under command of congress and the president, to put down insurrections and invasions. Just as a fair reading of the constitution implies. It was settled law until then


No, it wasn't. US v Miller certainly didn't say anything like that. The government admitted that the 2nd amendment protected an individual right to own guns, just not a short barreled shotgun as it didn't have a militia purpose. The court indirectly agreed by focusing entirely on whether or not a short barreled shotgun was useful for militia purposes. Not once did the government or the court bring Miller's status or service (or lack thereof) in any militia as a relevant point. Of course, the court might have been able to hear that a short barrel shotgun WAS useful in a militia had Miller's attorney showed up to court and presented evidence.
 
2012-12-21 04:54:52 PM  

super_grass: Suing the gun manufacturer for what a criminal decides to do with it is the very definition of "frivolous". Right up there with suing beer companies for drunk driving and McDonald's for personally making you fat.


I agree with you, if that is all of the information to go off of, then yes, it sounds frivolous.

I think we can come up with something better. For example if the manufacturer had an email circulating about how to make guns appeal more to conspiracy theorists and mentally ill buyers. If in meetings they had some data on features that appeal to people who are borderline bipolar.

Another one: It is illegal to manufacture fully automatic rifles, so here's a hypothetical. A manufacturer intentionally made rifles that were semi auto, but with a simple modification it could be fully auto, thus making this weapon the first choice for mass murder. If research and development went into A. How to make it almost fully auto while not breaking a law and B. The potential modification was made to be few steps that could be performed by a lay person and C. The manufacturer tested this modification in house and documented it as such.

Families of the victims of this new gun may want to participate in a class action lawsuit with the manufacturer, but thanks to Congress and President George W. Bush, they cannot.
 
2012-12-21 04:56:50 PM  

tylerdurden217: Another one: It is illegal to manufacture fully automatic rifles, so here's a hypothetical. A manufacturer intentionally made rifles that were semi auto, but with a simple modification it could be fully auto, thus making this weapon the first choice for mass murder. If research and development went into A. How to make it almost fully auto while not breaking a law and B. The potential modification was made to be few steps that could be performed by a lay person and C. The manufacturer tested this modification in house and documented it as such.


The ATF actually disqualifies as semi-automatic, any firearm as you described in A that can be easily converted to full auto. Look at open bolt semi-auto firearms for an example of that.
 
2012-12-21 05:01:27 PM  
If you look at gun deaths you can see a dramatic drop off right around 1994. Say when the Brady Bill was put into effect. Gun control works. Or at least that is what my simplistic statistical assumptions tell me.
www.bloomberg.com
 
2012-12-21 05:05:32 PM  

Too_many_Brians: If you look at gun deaths you can see a dramatic drop off right around 1994. Say when the Brady Bill was put into effect. Gun control works. Or at least that is what my simplistic statistical assumptions tell me.


The states with the highest gun crime already did their own checks.
 
2012-12-21 05:05:48 PM  

Carn: Mikey1969: Carn: If you'd like to come to my house, I can demonstrate this for you.

I didn't mean I would demonstrate on YOU, silly. There are plenty of surrogates that would show you how devastating a hammer blow can be. I think a watermelon or cantaloupe would suffice. Otherwise, you wouldn't be alive for the comparison against the gun, and I'd have a hell of a mess in my garage.

Hey maybe I was thinking about watermelons and I thought you were being mean to them! Let's be honest, I just wanted to use that pic. Regarding the thread, I think we've jumped the shark. If you think I have been ignoring your points then, assure you, I am not, but the feeling is mutual. Anyways maybe we can try again some time. I am not anti-gun; I've only been trying to argue a moderate opposition to the current status quo of gun control. I haven't been trolling except for my pic, but you deserved that.

In conclusion, Happy Holidays, Festivus, Christmas, and New Years to all. Time for beer.


Fair enough... My problem is that I have been making the same point all week, and people pick and choose which parts to pay attention to and ignore the overall point. As a result, I get more defensive than usual. We can hit 'reset', I have no problem with that.
 
2012-12-21 05:07:38 PM  
The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." (Quoting Cesare Beccaria)

-Thomas Jefferson

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

-------

John Whitehead explains: "The Patriot Act drove a stake through the heart of the Bill of Rights, violating at least six of the ten original amendments-the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and Eighth Amendments-and possibly the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments, as well. The Patriot Act also redefined terrorism so broadly that many non-terrorist political activities such as protest marches, demonstrations and civil disobedience were considered potential terrorist acts, thereby rendering anyone desiring to engage in protected First Amendment expressive activities as suspects of the surveillance state."
Link

It appears we will soon be able to add the Second Amendment to Whithead's list of destroyed amendments. If not destroyed then violated/ignored.
-------

It is very interesting how anyone that seems pro-gun is treated like they committed the crimes in Connecticut. The anti-gun left chatter is at most times degrading and violent to anyone that holds a different belief. I don't think any of us are unaffected by what happened a week ago. The problem with the surrender of rights though, even to a small degree, is that once gone they are almost impossible to get back. Also the end result will most likely not be what anyone expects:

Link
-------

Finally those capitalist pigs will pay for their crimes, eh? Eh comrades? Eh?
 
2012-12-21 05:12:01 PM  

Too_many_Brians: If you look at gun deaths you can see a dramatic drop off right around 1994. Say when the Brady Bill was put into effect. Gun control works. Or at least that is what my simplistic statistical assumptions tell me.
[www.bloomberg.com image 620x413]


What the hell happened in '07 that made cars so much less deadly? Can't be cost of fuel and driving frequency alone, right?
 
2012-12-21 05:31:05 PM  

tylerdurden217: Amos Quito: So, what other types of product manufacturers do you feel should be held liable when their products perform as designed?

All of them, some of them, none of them. It's not for me to decide. What I'm saying is that Congress should not make a law shielding one industry.


Not sure I understand.

Were a manufacturer to produce a rifle that, (for example) rather than firing, blew up in the face of the shooter, you can bet your booties that there is no law that would shield them from being sued, as the product would be defective.

Are firearms manufacturers shielded from such litigation?
 
2012-12-21 05:33:07 PM  

tylerdurden217: Securitywyrm: How does carrying a concealed weapon in public make you more safe?

It's not about 'feeling' safe. That's the big difference between the pro-gun and anti-gun lobbies.
The pro-gun lobbies want to be safe.
The anti-gun lobbies want to 'feel' safe.
These two are mutually exclusive. The anti-gun lobby are also the ones that think the TSA are 'stopping terrorists.'

Carrying a firearm means that you are taking personal responsibility for your own safety. You aren't expecting some police officer to come 'swoop in' and save you. That's not their job. The police are not there to 'save' you, they are there to 'catch criminals.' Even the supreme court has ruled that the police have no duty to protect you, only a duty to catch lawbreakers.

Please show me where I used the word "feel". I asked how carrying a gun makes you safer. I understand that you are taking the responsibility, just like Jason Statham. I get it. You're a gun wielding hero. I was just curious about what exactly you would do.

Police may save the day, but I don't count on it. I know that in the very rare situation where my life is threatened and the only way to save my life at that exact moment is to take the life of the person threatening me, then my best bet is to have a loaded firearm at the ready. One of the many points of the Anti-Gun lobby is that the other 99.999% of the time that you carry this fire arm for the extremely rare situation that it's the right and only tool for the job, you put yourself and others in some degree of danger. That danger is greater than the microscopic possibility that a law abiding citizen needs to take the life of a criminal in the act.


Why do muggers go after law abiding citizens? After all, a drug dealer is will have more stuff to steal and be less likely to report it to the police, so why not mug drug dealers?
It's because they probably have a gun.

Concealed carry is not about "I'm going to whip out my gun and save the day." It is about "The guy who is thinking of mugging me doesn't know if I have a gun or not." Even criminals have a basic sense of risk and reward, that's why they move to states that have restrictive gun laws.

With a single exception (The senator mall shooting in 2011), every mass shooting in which more than three people have died has occurred in a 'gun free zone'. A criminal sees 'gun free zone' and it's a billboard saying "nobody here can fight back."

Concealed carry keeps YOU safe, even if you don't have a gun, because the core of concealed carry is 'concealed.'
 
2012-12-21 05:36:06 PM  

Deep Contact: Deaths in the U.S. Automobiles, which kill 117 Americans a day, or nearly 43,000 a year. Then comes flu, which (along with pneumonia, its associated disease) kills 36,000 people. Third is guns: 26,000 deaths. Fourth, food-borne illness: 5,000. And finally, terrorism, which in a typical year claims virtually no U.S. lives


Automobiles aren't designed with the specific intent to kill people. Neither was food-borne illness (natural) nor flu (also natural). Terrorism is usually committed with weapons, like guns.
All of this is silly analogy anyway. Imagine if everyone who drove a car also owned a gun, and shot one round for every mile they drove in a year... that would be almost 14,000 bullets a year.
With the number of miles driven and trips made per year compared to gun usage, guns kill many more people per use than auto accidents.
 
2012-12-21 06:06:12 PM  

busy chillin': [www.secretsofthefed.com image 496x495]


Says the slave-owning hypocrite
 
2012-12-21 06:07:49 PM  
Whoops, I was late to the party with that one.
 
2012-12-21 06:16:10 PM  

Amos Quito: Not sure I understand.

Were a manufacturer to produce a rifle that, (for example) rather than firing, blew up in the face of the shooter, you can bet your booties that there is no law that would shield them from being sued, as the product would be defective.

Are firearms manufacturers shielded from such litigation?


Nope. They can be sued for defect in firearms, just not for things outside of their control-ie., use, misuse, etc.
 
2012-12-21 06:23:36 PM  

rewind2846: Automobiles aren't designed with the specific intent to kill people. Neither was food-borne illness (natural) nor flu (also natural). Terrorism is usually committed with weapons, like guns.
All of this is silly analogy anyway. Imagine if everyone who drove a car also owned a gun, and shot one round for every mile they drove in a year... that would be almost 14,000 bullets a year.
With the number of miles driven and trips made per year compared to gun usage, guns kill many more people per use than auto accidents.


Cars aren't designed to kill, are "more regulated" then guns, yet manage to kill 3-4 times as many people as guns AS A SIDE EFFECT. How is that worth it?

When a person carries a gun all day, is that one 'use' or 8 hours of use? When a person has 4 guns at a range and 4 other people shoot them , is that one use, 4 uses (per gun), 5 uses (per person), or 1000 uses (rounds expended)?

Guns are designed to shoot bullets-at paper targets, at bowling pins, etc. along with their killing abilities towards animals for hunting or dangerous aggressors, so saying they're designed just to kill is nonsense.

It's like me saying cars are designed for drunk drivers to tear down the road way hurting, maiming, and killing innocent people.
 
2012-12-21 06:35:21 PM  

pedrop357: Amos Quito: Not sure I understand.

Were a manufacturer to produce a rifle that, (for example) rather than firing, blew up in the face of the shooter, you can bet your booties that there is no law that would shield them from being sued, as the product would be defective.

Are firearms manufacturers shielded from such litigation?

Nope. They can be sued for defect in firearms, just not for things outside of their control-ie., use, misuse, etc.



So the other party was hysterically misinformed?

Figures.
 
2012-12-21 06:53:38 PM  

holdeestrufs: the penalties for carrying without a license


39/50 states are will-issue or constitutional carry and 1 of the remaining 11 is a technically shall-issue state that actually operates as a will-issue state.

In all but 10 states the only reason for ever paying a penalty for carrying when you're not a convicted felon for certain types of crimes or mentally unfit is because you simply chose not to file for your permit. Realistically, in almost all of the remaining 10 states, you're not getting denied a permit unless you have a history of violence, criminality or mental illness.

holdeestrufs: intrusive requirements for ownership


Yea. So intrusive that there are more than 88 firearms utilizing .50 caliber or smaller, for every 100 people in the country.

Even by gun nut standards you're a ridiculous liar so we won't be discussing anything. Go away, liar.

Mikey1969: It's better than the curent "Let's just outlaw guns and everything else will magically fix itself" mantra by the Left


Of course, no such thing is happening, you're just a liar because without making up such plainly idiotic strawmen you have no argument.

Ow My Balls: Now that Jesus isn't allowed in schools, shouldn't he at least have been in there protecting this innocent lady?


You know what's even better? This guy killed three people and injured three professional, trained, armed police officers before he could be stopped.

He injured three cops before he could be stopped.

But, yea, clearly, a guy with an AR-15 and 400 rounds of ammo in a school hallway or a lunatic in body armor with smoke canisters and semi-automatic rifles in a crowded movie theater could be stopped by some untrained hick with a snub-nose or a teacher with an M16...

Gun nuts are farking ridiculous and reality just keeps proving it again and again one wave of blood after another. I actually own several firearms and until the last few years was pretty stridently pro-gun, but the goddamn gun-humping lunatics (just like those in this thread) surrounding me when I was in that position convinced me beyond all doubt that we need some major reform.

There constant lying and refusal to even consider that there may be steps that can be taken to provide some additional responsibility for gun owners to balance the right of people to enjoy their hobby and the right of other people to not be blown away is simply infuriating.

Too_many_Brians: If you look at gun deaths you can see a dramatic drop off right around 1994. Say when the Brady Bill was put into effect. Gun control works. Or at least that is what my simplistic statistical assumptions tell me.
[www.bloomberg.com image 620x413]


That's not really a safe assumption. The economy also started improving substantially right around then which usually correlates with lower crime and suicide rates.

If you want a correlation just look at gun deaths versus gun ownership in other developed nations. With the exception of Mexico - for obvious reasons - there is a strong correlation between low gun ownership and low gun violence.

But don't tell the gun nuts that. Because *poof magic* that just wouldn't work here like it does in almost every other developed country on the damn planet.
 
2012-12-21 07:15:26 PM  

Carn: Mikey1969: Carn: I'm still responding to your false equivalency that knives or hammers are equal to guns in terms of destructive power.

Well, you should stop trying, because i have NEVER said that they were equal. In any way. Ever. Ever. Ever. Ever. Ever.

EVER

What I HAVE done is point out that even without guns, people do this, and they do it, with and without guns, in countries other than the US. I HAVE pointed out that it isn't a "Guns" thing or a "US" thing, or a "Heavy Metal" thing, or a "Violent Movies" thing, or a "TV SHows" thing. It's something far broader than national borders or the tool used. I ALSO pointed out that there have been hammer attacks, as you implied that there haven't. I wasn't going for the number as much as answering your question that they have occurred. If you read anything more into that, it's your own fault. If you left anything out, it's because you aren't actually interested in the problem, you just want to get your way.

But nobody wants to hear that, because that's the kind of fix that requires work and doesn't let people ban guns because of how they look.

And my point which I have made repeatedly in this thread and has been agreed upon by some from both sides of the argument is that a gun of any kind is capable of causing much more carnage than a hammer. In addition, some guns, including but not limited to those with higher capacity, are capable of causing more carnage in a smaller amount of time. As I have also stated repeatedly, defining that line is part of what this discussion is about. In addition to reducing high capacity magazines, we also need to address mental health issues as a whole, and think of and implement better ways for irresponsible or mentally ill people from owning weapons.

Saying that people commit violence with or without guns so therefore restricting guns is pointless, is a very stupid argument. I have proven this logically multiple times in this thread. If the type of weapon doesn't matter then we ...


If you were coming to the table with legislation that would actually solve the problem you are trying to address you might make more headway. But all you come to the table with are purely punitive measures and you don't want anything to do with a solution that isn't purely punitive.

You don't care about solving the problem, you just want to ban shiat.
 
2012-12-21 07:32:10 PM  
Please tell me about how to ban guns so I can start banning cars. Cause, you now, cars kill people too.

24.media.tumblr.com
 
2012-12-21 07:53:59 PM  

Amusement: Please tell me about how to ban guns so I can start banning cars. Cause, you now, cars kill people too.

[24.media.tumblr.com image 480x307]


But it's not intentional, and that matters for some reason. I guess if a whole school full of children die in car crashes each year, it's not as big as a classroom full being killed in a day, once in 20 years (this is the first mass shooting like this in an elementary school that I'm aware of).

So 20 deaths in a day, first time in 20+ years-HUGE F***ING DEAL.
Hundreds of deaths every year for 20 years. Not nearly as important they died due to he unintended effects of something not "designed for killing"
 
KIA
2012-12-21 08:26:05 PM  

rewind2846: All of this is silly analogy anyway. Imagine if everyone who drove a car also owned a gun, and shot one round for every mile they drove in a year... that would be almost 14,000 bullets a year.
With the number of miles driven and trips made per year compared to gun usage, guns kill many more people per use than auto accidents.


I wasn't going to get into yet another pointless gun argument, but then I saw how incredibly far you had to go to cobble together that derp and I just had to say: wow. You have single-handedly demonstrated the failure of our educational system.
 
2012-12-21 09:07:16 PM  

Vegan Meat Popsicle: You know what's even better? This guy killed three people and injured three professional, trained, armed police officers before he could be stopped.


Just goes to show you how much better trained civillians are than cops and usually they train in their own time with out of pocket expenses when compared to someone who is expected to use their firearm "at work" like a cop....Google that guy in NY that shot 9 people.....oh wait it was the cops that shot 9 innocent bystanders.

Look at what that guy Mumia Abu Jamal did.....came up to a cop who was siting in his patrol car and shot him point blank in the head...that stupid cop should have been paying attention.
 
2012-12-21 09:33:08 PM  

Mikey1969: Carn: Mikey1969: WhippingBoy: tukatz: With guns, knives, baseball bats, cars, shards of glass, etc.  They'll always find a method if they're going to kill.  Guns don't whisper in their ear... telling them to kill.

Yeah, but shards of glass don't make you feel manly enough to shoot up a classroom full of helpless, innocent children.

Knives have helped multiple men feel manly enough to hack up classrooms full of children. ABout 20 dead and 110 injured in the last 5 years or so.

Compared to 20 dead in a single instance. Totally the same thing.

Too bad that wasn't the question. Your deflector shields are definitely at maximum power today. Hammer attacks=hammer attacks, which WAS the question so IS the same thing(OP asked when the last hammer attack was, I posted a link showing that they have indeed happened, that's where that part of the discussion ends).

Thank you for playing.


Idiot.
 
2012-12-21 10:00:12 PM  

rewind2846: Deep Contact: Deaths in the U.S. Automobiles, which kill 117 Americans a day, or nearly 43,000 a year. Then comes flu, which (along with pneumonia, its associated disease) kills 36,000 people. Third is guns: 26,000 deaths. Fourth, food-borne illness: 5,000. And finally, terrorism, whisch in a typical year claims virtually no U.S. lives

Automobiles aren't designed with the specific intent to kill people. Neither was food-borne illness (natural) nor flu (also natural). Terrorism is usually committed with weapons, like guns.
All of this is silly analogy anyway. Imagine if everyone who drove a car also owned a gun, and shot one round for every mile they drove in a year... that would be almost 14,000 bullets a year.
With the number of miles driven and trips made per year compared to gun usage, guns kill many more people per use than auto accidents.


Not many could afford 14K Bullets/yr. I'd say to fire every 5 or six miles to save $.
 
2012-12-21 10:13:01 PM  

pedrop357: Amusement: Please tell me about how to ban guns so I can start banning cars. Cause, you now, cars kill people too.

[24.media.tumblr.com image 480x307]

But it's not intentional, and that matters for some reason.


How do you know that vehicles killing people is not intentional/i>. You are making one powerful assumption about people and the condition of their vehicles.
 
2012-12-21 10:14:56 PM  

Wayne 985: Mikey1969: Carn: Mikey1969: WhippingBoy: tukatz: With guns, knives, baseball bats, cars, shards of glass, etc.  They'll always find a method if they're going to kill.  Guns don't whisper in their ear... telling them to kill.

Yeah, but shards of glass don't make you feel manly enough to shoot up a classroom full of helpless, innocent children.

Knives have helped multiple men feel manly enough to hack up classrooms full of children. ABout 20 dead and 110 injured in the last 5 years or so.

Compared to 20 dead in a single instance. Totally the same thing.

Too bad that wasn't the question. Your deflector shields are definitely at maximum power today. Hammer attacks=hammer attacks, which WAS the question so IS the same thing(OP asked when the last hammer attack was, I posted a link showing that they have indeed happened, that's where that part of the discussion ends).

Thank you for playing.

Idiot.


Wow, what a well thought out and insightful rebuttal, did the rest of the patients on the ward help you, or did you squeeze that little nugget out all by your lonesome?
 
2012-12-21 10:16:47 PM  

iq_in_binary: Carn: Mikey1969: Carn: I'm still responding to your false equivalency that knives or hammers are equal to guns in terms of destructive power.

Well, you should stop trying, because i have NEVER said that they were equal. In any way. Ever. Ever. Ever. Ever. Ever.

EVER

What I HAVE done is point out that even without guns, people do this, and they do it, with and without guns, in countries other than the US. I HAVE pointed out that it isn't a "Guns" thing or a "US" thing, or a "Heavy Metal" thing, or a "Violent Movies" thing, or a "TV SHows" thing. It's something far broader than national borders or the tool used. I ALSO pointed out that there have been hammer attacks, as you implied that there haven't. I wasn't going for the number as much as answering your question that they have occurred. If you read anything more into that, it's your own fault. If you left anything out, it's because you aren't actually interested in the problem, you just want to get your way.

But nobody wants to hear that, because that's the kind of fix that requires work and doesn't let people ban guns because of how they look.

And my point which I have made repeatedly in this thread and has been agreed upon by some from both sides of the argument is that a gun of any kind is capable of causing much more carnage than a hammer. In addition, some guns, including but not limited to those with higher capacity, are capable of causing more carnage in a smaller amount of time. As I have also stated repeatedly, defining that line is part of what this discussion is about. In addition to reducing high capacity magazines, we also need to address mental health issues as a whole, and think of and implement better ways for irresponsible or mentally ill people from owning weapons.

Saying that people commit violence with or without guns so therefore restricting guns is pointless, is a very stupid argument. I have proven this logically multiple times in this thread. If the type of weapon doesn't matter then w ...


I can see you ignored most of the thread. Pretty good threadshiat. I award you 9/10.
 
2012-12-21 10:55:00 PM  

pedrop357: Amusement: Please tell me about how to ban guns so I can start banning cars. Cause, you now, cars kill people too.

[24.media.tumblr.com image 480x307]

But it's not intentional, and that matters for some reason. I guess if a whole school full of children die in car crashes each year, it's not as big as a classroom full being killed in a day, once in 20 years (this is the first mass shooting like this in an elementary school that I'm aware of).

So 20 deaths in a day, first time in 20+ years-HUGE F***ING DEAL.
Hundreds of deaths every year for 20 years. Not nearly as important they died due to he unintended effects of something not "designed for killing"


Exactly, these people make no sense. Then again, they really don't care about life, they just want dictate their morals to society.
 
2012-12-21 10:57:37 PM  

Amusement: How do you know that vehicles killing people is not intentional/i>. You are making one powerful assumption about people and the condition of their vehicles.


It was meant as sarcasm at the idea that gun deaths are worse then car deaths because cars "aren't designed to kill" which seems to imply that because the death isn't intentional it's not as bad as one that is despite the unintentional ones outnumbering the intentional ones 3-4 to 1.

Assuming they're telling the truth and don't have an agenda, I've yet to figure out why the people who claim to care about saving children's lives focus so much on guns and so little on the top 4 or 5 causes of their deaths.
 
2012-12-21 11:44:41 PM  

Vegan Meat Popsicle: Mikey1969: It's better than the curent "Let's just outlaw guns and everything else will magically fix itself" mantra by the Left

Of course, no such thing is happening, you're just a liar because without making up such plainly idiotic strawmen you have no argument.


You know, I am amazed by people making this claim in the middle of a fark message board based on stories about people trying to get legislation passed to do just this. You keep on lying when you call me a liar, and I'll keep on laughing at you.
 
2012-12-21 11:46:21 PM  

Securitywyrm: Even criminals have a basic sense of risk and reward, that's why they move to states that have restrictive gun laws.


You're a dumbass. Criminals are poor, not masterminds of interstate operations hopping between states that have more permissive jurisdictions. You farking paranoid retard.
 
2012-12-22 12:07:34 AM  

Schroedinger's Glory Hole: Securitywyrm: Even criminals have a basic sense of risk and reward, that's why they move to states that have restrictive gun laws.

You're a dumbass. Criminals are poor, not masterminds of interstate operations hopping between states that have more permissive jurisdictions. You farking paranoid retard.


So why do criminals attack law abiding citizens instead of drug dealers? Why do they try to rob chain stores instead of family owned stores?

It's because they target those who are least likely to be able to defend themselves. That's basic predatory behavior. The pack of lions goes after the weakest of the herd, even though it isn't the one with the most meat.
 
2012-12-22 12:07:59 AM  

Carn: iq_in_binary: Carn: Mikey1969: Carn: I'm still responding to your false equivalency that knives or hammers are equal to guns in terms of destructive power.

Well, you should stop trying, because i have NEVER said that they were equal. In any way. Ever. Ever. Ever. Ever. Ever.

EVER

What I HAVE done is point out that even without guns, people do this, and they do it, with and without guns, in countries other than the US. I HAVE pointed out that it isn't a "Guns" thing or a "US" thing, or a "Heavy Metal" thing, or a "Violent Movies" thing, or a "TV SHows" thing. It's something far broader than national borders or the tool used. I ALSO pointed out that there have been hammer attacks, as you implied that there haven't. I wasn't going for the number as much as answering your question that they have occurred. If you read anything more into that, it's your own fault. If you left anything out, it's because you aren't actually interested in the problem, you just want to get your way.

But nobody wants to hear that, because that's the kind of fix that requires work and doesn't let people ban guns because of how they look.

And my point which I have made repeatedly in this thread and has been agreed upon by some from both sides of the argument is that a gun of any kind is capable of causing much more carnage than a hammer. In addition, some guns, including but not limited to those with higher capacity, are capable of causing more carnage in a smaller amount of time. As I have also stated repeatedly, defining that line is part of what this discussion is about. In addition to reducing high capacity magazines, we also need to address mental health issues as a whole, and think of and implement better ways for irresponsible or mentally ill people from owning weapons.

Saying that people commit violence with or without guns so therefore restricting guns is pointless, is a very stupid argument. I have proven this logically multiple times in this thread. If the type of weapon doesn't ...


So you're NOT in favor of banning "Assault" rifles and 30 round magazines?
 
2012-12-22 12:48:55 AM  

Mikey1969: Wow, what a well thought out and insightful rebuttal, did the rest of the patients on the ward help you, or did you squeeze that little nugget out all by your lonesome?


I decided that was the long and short of it. If you think all those mass shootings are going to be replaced with mass... baseball batting, then I suspect you have a very low IQ.

More likely, however, you're simply deflecting and doing a poor job of it. Thus, regardless of your everyday self, you were behaving like an idiot in this circumstance. It remains an apt assessment of your post.
 
2012-12-22 12:50:29 AM  

Securitywyrm: Schroedinger's Glory Hole: Securitywyrm: Even criminals have a basic sense of risk and reward, that's why they move to states that have restrictive gun laws.

You're a dumbass. Criminals are poor, not masterminds of interstate operations hopping between states that have more permissive jurisdictions. You farking paranoid retard.

So why do criminals attack law abiding citizens instead of drug dealers? Why do they try to rob chain stores instead of family owned stores?

It's because they target those who are least likely to be able to defend themselves. That's basic predatory behavior. The pack of lions goes after the weakest of the herd, even though it isn't the one with the most meat.


That's a far cry from what you claimed: packing up and moving across state lines.
 
2012-12-22 01:07:16 AM  

Wayne 985: I decided that was the long and short of it. If you think all those mass shootings are going to be replaced with mass... baseball batting, then I suspect you have a very low IQ.

More likely, however, you're simply deflecting and doing a poor job of it. Thus, regardless of your everyday self, you were behaving like an idiot in this circumstance. It remains an apt assessment of your post.


Mass shootings are very rare and only a small portion of the over all homicide OR gun homicide picture. Any ban would be aimed at maybe 1% of all homicides and that alone makes it unjust. The remainder of homicides, the non-mass homicides will not be affected in the long run as shown by the INCREASES in violence gun and non-gun in countries that enacted gun bans.

There's no reason to assume that even banning and requiring surrender of all guns in the US would cause our rate/raw number to drop to that of other countries. That didn't happen in the UK or Australia. They both saw crime increase, gun and non gun as well as an increase in homicides. The UK traded a decrease in ultra-rare mass shootings for an increase in everything else, as did Australia. Why would our experiment be different?

This is all assuming a complete ban. A partial ban will only have a partial effect on the rare mass shooting and will undoubtedly open up some box of unintended (by the gun control groups) consequences. A few years from now, some psycho somewhere will use a handgun or pump shotgun or semi-auto rifle with a 10 round magazine, or bolt action rifle to kill a bunch of people and we'll right back here talking about the next wave of bans to try out.

The 94-04 assault weapon ban accomplished nothing in terms of curbing crime, mass killings, premeditated killings, etc. It was crass symbolism then and it's shameful crass symbolism now.
 
2012-12-22 01:14:57 AM  

pedrop357: A few years from now, some psycho somewhere will use a handgun or pump shotgun or semi-auto rifle with a 10 round magazine, or bolt action rifle to kill a bunch of people and we'll right back here talking about the next wave of bans to try out.


The funny thing is that hunting rifles and shotguns are the easiest weapons to acquire, yet they're the ones least used in most publicized killings. Instead you have handguns taking the bulk with converted assault rifles here and there, and handguns are the hardest to acquire legally.
 
2012-12-22 01:23:37 AM  

Wayne 985: Mikey1969: Wow, what a well thought out and insightful rebuttal, did the rest of the patients on the ward help you, or did you squeeze that little nugget out all by your lonesome?

I decided that was the long and short of it. If you think all those mass shootings are going to be replaced with mass... baseball batting, then I suspect you have a very low IQ.

More likely, however, you're simply deflecting and doing a poor job of it. Thus, regardless of your everyday self, you were behaving like an idiot in this circumstance. It remains an apt assessment of your post.


In other words, you can't read... Damn, they should make an After School Special about you. It sounds really sad, I hope you're able to find a way through life. They say comic books are actually a good way to learn reading for an adult, they are somewhat complex storylines when taken as a whole, they are written at a high school level, yet the individual books are short and easy to follow, maybe you should start there.
 
2012-12-22 02:04:20 AM  
Nug is Gun backwards.

End of debate
 
2012-12-22 02:13:54 AM  

pedrop357: There's no reason to assume that even banning and requiring surrender of all guns in the US would cause our rate/raw number to drop to that of other countries. That didn't happen in the UK or Australia. They both saw crime increase, gun and non gun as well as an increase in homicides. The UK traded a decrease in ultra-rare mass shootings for an increase in everything else, as did Australia. Why would our experiment be different?


Is there a citation for that?
 
2012-12-22 04:51:36 AM  

manimal2878: Vance Uppercut: You guys (Americans) just have to realize how strange it seems to the rest of the world. You are comfortable with so many people getting shot around you, we can't imagine living near so much violence.

Canadians have things that you can't comprehend also, like fries with gravy, health care, and really cold winters.

You can legally own a tar-21 in canada, the same gun the israili army uses, bet we can't own that in the US. And Poutine is gross.


Please don't get me wrong, we have lots of guns, just not so many shootings. We have more road rage, cars broken into, and our native situation is totally fubar. I wasn't intending to say that we don't have our own problems, but I don't often feel concerned about getting shot.

poutine is actually fantastic if it is made properly, which doesn't happen often outside the provinceof Quebec.
 
2012-12-22 11:01:36 AM  

Securitywyrm: With a single exception (The senator mall shooting in 2011), every mass shooting in which more than three people have died has occurred in a 'gun free zone'. A criminal sees 'gun free zone' and it's a billboard saying "nobody here can fight back."

Concealed carry keeps YOU safe, even if you don't have a gun, because the core of concealed carry is 'concealed.'


Senator? No, it was Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and it wasn't a mall either, it was a grocery store.

Instead of just regurgitating some garbage that you read from John Lott and conservative "news" sites, you should research this a little on your own. The shooting this year at the movie theater in Aurora, CO happened in a state that allows Concealed Carry. They also have explicit "stand your ground" laws. Arapahoe, Douglas and Adams Counties all issue Concealed Carry permits. Fortunately it appears that no one at the movie theater decided to play vigilante since more people could have been killed in crossfire. Maybe everyone in the theater realized that this macho BS is just something for a movie, like the Dark Knight Rises.
 
2012-12-22 11:26:01 AM  

KIA: rewind2846: All of this is silly analogy anyway. Imagine if everyone who drove a car also owned a gun, and shot one round for every mile they drove in a year... that would be almost 14,000 bullets a year.
With the number of miles driven and trips made per year compared to gun usage, guns kill many more people per use than auto accidents.

I wasn't going to get into yet another pointless gun argument, but then I saw how incredibly far you had to go to cobble together that derp and I just had to say: wow. You have single-handedly demonstrated the failure of our educational system.


The "derp" usually comes from folks like you, who make extremely stupid analogies with automobile accidents, food illness, lightning strikes, farm accidents, minor surgery, and tripping down the stairs to justify their gun fetishes.
Gun were and are designed to kill. Period. They weren't invented for hunting, or sport, or to make loud noises. They were invented for war, and war is killing other people. From their inception as cannons for war to today, that's what they are, and that's what they do. Nothing else a civilian can have or carry can do this so efficiently and easily.

There's your derp, junior.
 
2012-12-22 11:34:20 AM  

pedrop357: rewind2846: Automobiles aren't designed with the specific intent to kill people. Neither was food-borne illness (natural) nor flu (also natural). Terrorism is usually committed with weapons, like guns.
All of this is silly analogy anyway. Imagine if everyone who drove a car also owned a gun, and shot one round for every mile they drove in a year... that would be almost 14,000 bullets a year.
With the number of miles driven and trips made per year compared to gun usage, guns kill many more people per use than auto accidents.

Cars aren't designed to kill, are "more regulated" then guns, yet manage to kill 3-4 times as many people as guns AS A SIDE EFFECT. How is that worth it?

When a person carries a gun all day, is that one 'use' or 8 hours of use? When a person has 4 guns at a range and 4 other people shoot them , is that one use, 4 uses (per gun), 5 uses (per person), or 1000 uses (rounds expended)?

Guns are designed to shoot bullets-at paper targets, at bowling pins, etc. along with their killing abilities towards animals for hunting or dangerous aggressors, so saying they're designed just to kill is nonsense.

It's like me saying cars are designed for drunk drivers to tear down the road way hurting, maiming, and killing innocent people.


Goes like this:
1. people use their cars more than they use their guns.
2. More people own and drive cars than own and use guns.
3. The "statistics" that gun people bring up on boards like this are supposed to show that cars are just as dangerous as guns, without taking into account how many people are killed every time each object is used for its intended purpose.

Look at the history of guns, which evolved from hand held cannons. What were they invented for?
Guns are designed to kill, whether it is people or other animals. That they can be used in "sport" IS THE SIDE EFFECT.

.
 
2012-12-22 11:38:51 AM  

Wayne 985: pedrop357: There's no reason to assume that even banning and requiring surrender of all guns in the US would cause our rate/raw number to drop to that of other countries. That didn't happen in the UK or Australia. They both saw crime increase, gun and non gun as well as an increase in homicides. The UK traded a decrease in ultra-rare mass shootings for an increase in everything else, as did Australia. Why would our experiment be different?

Is there a citation for that?


Lower crime rates are a direct result of removing the mentally deficient from society

Guns are not the issue. If you think they are, you're just parroting talking points from other people who have done exactly zero research on the subject.
 
2012-12-22 11:45:37 AM  

rewind2846: Goes like this:
1. people use their cars more than they use their guns.
2. More people own and drive cars than own and use guns.
3. The "statistics" that gun people bring up on boards like this are supposed to show that cars are just as dangerous as guns, without taking into account how many people are killed every time each object is used for its intended purpose.

Look at the history of guns, which evolved from hand held cannons. What were they invented for?
Guns are designed to kill, whether it is people or other animals. That they can be used in "sport" IS THE SIDE EFFECT.



#1 is debateable
#2 seems to be false as I've read multiple times that there are more guns then cars out there, and use is yet to be defined

So cars kill more as a side effect then guns do on purpose and that's not worrisome? Millions of peope carry a gun everyday without hurting anyone, and they carry for hours on end. People don't drive everyday for hours on end. Tens of millions more have guns at home and those don't hurt anyone.

I like that the intentions of the use matter now. Cars are designed to get people around yet unintentionally kill 30-4000 each year and that's somehow not as bad 9-11,000 people dying each year because a person with a gun intentionally killed them.
 
2012-12-22 11:46:42 AM  

rewind2846: Goes like this:
1. people use their cars more than they use their guns.
2. More people own and drive cars than own and use guns.


It's been proven that the faster you drive, the more likely an accident is to be fatal. Nobody "needs" a car that goes more than 45 mph. So let's ban all cars that go faster than that.

Nobody needs alcohol at all, and that kills more people than cars and guns combined, so let's ban it outright.

You tackle those 2 issues first, as they cause far more preventable deaths. Then and only then, can you show that you're not acting solely based upon an irrational fear of guns. Right now, it sounds like saving lives isn't actually a concern for you at all.
 
2012-12-22 03:26:48 PM  
We need to ban Gun Free Zones, too many people have been killed in them.
 
2012-12-22 07:03:40 PM  

pedrop357: rewind2846: Goes like this:
I like that the intentions of the use matter now. Cars are designed to get people around yet unintentionally kill 30-4000 each year and that's somehow not as bad 9-11,000 people dying each year because a person with a gun intentionally killed them.


No, it's not. Numbers without context are BS and FUD.
Consider this... when a person kills themselves or someone else with a car, it's usually unintentional. That is why the act is usually termed an "accident".
When a person kills themselves or another person with a gun, it is usually intentional. This is why the act is called "suicide" or "murder".
If I'm driving down the street and sh*t goes wrong, I may crash my car and die. When I point my car down the street, my intention is to get to the other end.
If I have gun pointed at another human being and sh*t goes wrong, they don't die. When I point a gun at someone, my intention is to kill them.

BraveNewCheneyWorld:

You tackle those 2 issues first, as they cause far more preventable deaths. Then and only then, can you show that you're not acting solely based upon an irrational fear of guns. Right now, it sounds like saving lives isn't actually a concern for you at all.


Once again, for the slower people... it's not the deaths, because people die every day. We all will get there someday. It's how they occur that is important. One of your examples is a byproduct of living in the 21st century, the other is preventable and would cause no regression or hardship to the population should the objects from that example be eliminated.

I'll let you guess which is which.

BTW, no human being fears "guns" as objects. They are tools made of wood, plastic, metal, and chemicals. A gun on a table with no human near it elicits as much angst as a lamp.
The only fear is on the part of the fetishists who see evil around every corner... when listening to pro-gun advocates on your local news shows, count the number of times you hear the phrase "protect themselves". People like this make me wonder what it's like to live in such fear all the time that strapping a deadly weapon to themselves is a logical option to them.

Make a drinking game out of it and I guarantee you won't make it through more than an hour of FoxNews sober.
 
2012-12-22 07:21:04 PM  

tylerdurden217: Securitywyrm: With a single exception (The senator mall shooting in 2011), every mass shooting in which more than three people have died has occurred in a 'gun free zone'. A criminal sees 'gun free zone' and it's a billboard saying "nobody here can fight back."

Concealed carry keeps YOU safe, even if you don't have a gun, because the core of concealed carry is 'concealed.'

Senator? No, it was Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and it wasn't a mall either, it was a grocery store.

Instead of just regurgitating some garbage that you read from John Lott and conservative "news" sites, you should research this a little on your own. The shooting this year at the movie theater in Aurora, CO happened in a state that allows Concealed Carry. They also have explicit "stand your ground" laws. Arapahoe, Douglas and Adams Counties all issue Concealed Carry permits. Fortunately it appears that no one at the movie theater decided to play vigilante since more people could have been killed in crossfire. Maybe everyone in the theater realized that this macho BS is just something for a movie, like the Dark Knight Rises.


The Colorado shooting happened at the ONLY theater within a 20 mile radius of James Holmes residence that has posted signs saying "no firearms allowed inside." There were SEVEN theaters in a 20 mile radius, including two CLOSER to him than the one he went to. That's some pretty clear proof he specifically went to where law abiding citizens would be unable to defend themselves.
 
2012-12-22 09:47:20 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Wayne 985: pedrop357: There's no reason to assume that even banning and requiring surrender of all guns in the US would cause our rate/raw number to drop to that of other countries. That didn't happen in the UK or Australia. They both saw crime increase, gun and non gun as well as an increase in homicides. The UK traded a decrease in ultra-rare mass shootings for an increase in everything else, as did Australia. Why would our experiment be different?

Is there a citation for that?

Lower crime rates are a direct result of removing the mentally deficient from society

Guns are not the issue. If you think they are, you're just parroting talking points from other people who have done exactly zero research on the subject.


It's a multi-pronged issue: more guns in this country per capita than any other nation and a poor mental health care system are not mutually exclusive.
 
2012-12-22 11:54:13 PM  

rewind2846: Once again, for the slower people... it's not the deaths, because people die every day. We all will get there someday. It's how they occur that is important. One of your examples is a byproduct of living in the 21st century, the other is preventable and would cause no regression or hardship to the population should the objects from that example be eliminated.


I notice you're yet another person who won't touch the alcohol comparison. Yep, it's hard to defend a completely useless substance that kills 80,000 people a year, while simultaneously attacking guns that kill about 10,000.

Wayne 985: It's a multi-pronged issue: more guns in this country per capita than any other nation and a poor mental health care system are not mutually exclusive.


There are no credible studies linking the number of guns to crime, only the number of mentally disturbed people to crime. You of course know that, otherwise you would have linked a study backing your bs claim.
 
2012-12-23 01:24:28 AM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld:
I notice you're yet another person who won't touch the alcohol comparison. Yep, it's hard to defend a completely useless substance that kills 80,000 people a year, while simultaneously attacking guns that kill about 10,000.


Alcohol, like guns, has never killed a single person. Unless you believe inanimate objects just jump off tables and attack people...
People drink, they get into their cars, they drive, they kill themselves and other people.
People get guns, they shoot other people dead.
Before "wait till they take your beer!11!!1!11", I don't drink either.

As I said in an earlier thread, guns are tools. Plastic, metal, chemicals, wood, tools. It's the attitudes of people toward guns (an almost fetishistic attitude based on both an unfounded fear of "the other" and an almost adolescent sense of imagined powerlessness) which makes them dangerous.

BTW, the nutcase that shot up the schoolkids took the guns he used from his mother, whom he also killed.
If there are fewer of a thing to be had, wouldn't that make getting that thing more difficult, even for someone who is mentally unstable? How many paintings by Michelangelo are there, and how easy would it be for you to get one? That is the most pressing problem here... there are just so many guns already in the hands of the citizenry that banning them would be impossible.

But the question that no pro-gun use person seems willing to answer, other than with the tired phrase "we need them to defend ourselves" (from whom?) is why so many guns are needed in a nation where the crime rate (violent crime especially) has been going down for half my lifetime. In my half-century on earth I have NEVER felt the need to "defend myself" with a gun, and I grew up in and have lived in neighborhoods that would scare the sh*t out of Joe Gunkeeper from Flintlock, Kansas. He has enough weapons and ammo to stage a SEAL team raid for OBL's no. 2, yet lives in a town with less than 2500 whose worst crime spree in the last ten years was the graffiti on the water tower after the big game back in '02.
What is Joe afraid of?

One other thing... the people who wade into this cesspool to defend gun use with all the fervor of a religious cultist... why do you do this? They are not food. They are not water. They are not your spouse or your children. They are not a body part that someone has threatened to chop off (although some people act as if they were). They are tools, like any other tool. If every drill press or bandsaw or hand plane in the country disappeared tomorrow, would you act the same way?
 
2012-12-23 04:24:01 AM  

rewind2846: But the question that no pro-gun use person seems willing to answer, other than with the tired phrase "we need them to defend ourselves" (from whom?) is why so many guns are needed in a nation where the crime rate (violent crime especially) has been going down for half my lifetime. I


A quickie answer is that the crime rate is going down because of the increasing number of guns.
 
2012-12-23 11:26:17 AM  

rewind2846: In my half-century on earth I have NEVER felt the need to "defend myself" with a gun, and I grew up in and have lived in neighborhoods that would scare the sh*t out of Joe Gunkeeper from Flintlock, Kansas.


Most people will never need enough health insurance to cover a major operation either. Because something is uncommon, doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Look at all the people who get out of their pools during lightning storms, only 50 people a year die from lightning strike, but nobody calls them crazy for getting out of the pool. So why is it that people are called paranoid, or scared if they prepare for a circumstance that's thousands of times more likely than that?
 
2012-12-24 10:36:24 AM  

NightOwl2255: davidab: Its hard to tell if you were trying to be sarcastic but most people do have to wait between 3 and 10 days to pick up a new gun

Here in Oklahoma, I have always been able to walk in, buy the firearm and walk out with it. Is the wait time you mentioned due to state law?


yes it is a state law that regulates it, and the majority of states have a waiting period. CA is 10 days although most dont go over 3 days.
 
2012-12-24 10:37:18 AM  

impaler: davidab: Its hard to tell if you were trying to be sarcastic but most people do have to wait between 3 and 10 days to pick up a new hand gun.

FTFY. Rifles can usually be bought on the spot.


perhaps in your state. it is a state law that regulates it, and the majority of states have a waiting period. CA is 10 days although most dont go over 3 days.
 
Displayed 461 of 461 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report