Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Sly Oyster)   Twenty years ago Art Spiegelman drew an ironic cover of kids walking into school with guns. Now? "My wish for 2013: let Newtown be remembered as the turning point-I'm hoping that kids with guns can become ironic again"   (slyoyster.com ) divider line
    More: Sad, Art Spiegelman  
•       •       •

18261 clicks; posted to Main » on 11 Jan 2013 at 1:29 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



233 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-01-11 11:45:19 AM  
So hipsters should buy guns for their children?
 
2013-01-11 12:10:51 PM  
I had a 10/22 as a kid. It was fun to shoot at cans.
 
2013-01-11 12:10:58 PM  

kbronsito: So hipsters should buy guns for their children?


Hipsters are cool with stripping away your rights, as long as a Democrat is doing it.
 
2013-01-11 12:17:20 PM  

muck4doo: Hipsters are cool with stripping away your rights, as long as a Democrat is doing it.


My gf's brother is uber hipster. Last month when we went out to dinner for her family's Christmas party, me and the old lady's cousins were exchanging range and hunting stories. While left out, the hipster brother was interested in going to the range (as he's never shot a gun before). Moral of the story, I believe, is that some people just don't have experience with guns, so the issue is distant and simplistic.

/It was also funny when we were in the parking lot of the restaurant smoking and her cousin brought out his AR-15 from the back seat of his car for him to see.
 
2013-01-11 12:34:08 PM  
I may be interpreting this wrong, but not allowing parents to give their 5 year old an assault weapon is wrong since it strips away your rights.
 
2013-01-11 01:11:12 PM  
Ironic?
 
2013-01-11 01:12:40 PM  
Teach your kids how to hunt.  Make them see what guns will do.  Tasty tasty things.
 
2013-01-11 01:32:19 PM  

Revek: Teach your kids how to hunt.  Make them see what guns will do.  Tasty tasty things.


Hookers?

/ivesaidtoomuchalready.jpg
 
2013-01-11 01:33:12 PM  
I dont remember that cover or ever hearing of it.
 
2013-01-11 01:34:42 PM  
Alas, not happening with all the insecurity, fear and hate coming from the wingnut gun-owners, Subby.
 
2013-01-11 01:35:25 PM  
Wasn't that "kid" in his twenties?

I mean, just how retarded are these gun grabbers? Do you honestly think calling people in their twenties "kids" is helping the situation? How about giving them responsibilities, jobs, and a reason to live? How about not pigeonholing them into perpetual adolescence?
 
GBB
2013-01-11 01:35:55 PM  
Easy does it, easy does it. They've got something to say 'no' to.
 
2013-01-11 01:36:01 PM  
Awesome...

Connecticut school shooting inspires bullet-proof children's clothes

In his factory in Bogota, Miguel Caballero makes bullet-proof vests attached to bullet-proof backpacks which he has tested with machine guns and handguns to show they can withstand a barrage of bullets.
 
2013-01-11 01:36:09 PM  
Biden et al are supposed to release their recommendations tuseday. We can go for each others throats then.

Until then, relax. No need to be upset.
 
2013-01-11 01:36:28 PM  

muck4doo: kbronsito: So hipsters should buy guns for their children?

Hipsters are cool with stripping away your rights, as long as a Democrat is doing it.


www.slate.com
Hunting is the new hip thing that hipsters are into.  http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2012/12/hunt i ng_by_liberal_urban_locavores_is_a_trend_good_for_the_environment.html

I was into hunting way before you were.  I'm shooting shiat that you and the rest of the square community have probably never even heard of.
 
2013-01-11 01:37:04 PM  
Since movies, video games, art, and media are responsible for all criminal violent acts, one could argue that this guy's cover CAUSED the Colombine and Newtown tragedies.
 
2013-01-11 01:37:43 PM  
It's like 10,000 spoons will all you need is a high-powered semi automatic rifle.
 
2013-01-11 01:38:46 PM  
People are gonna kill each other. That's human nature. Just hope it doesn't happen to someone you care about.
 
2013-01-11 01:39:51 PM  
I've said it before. The only way your going to get people to give up guns, is to make them feel that they don't need them.
 
2013-01-11 01:40:18 PM  
Easy does it, easy does it, they got something to say no to
 
2013-01-11 01:40:37 PM  
Guns don't kill people, school kills people.
 
2013-01-11 01:41:05 PM  

stuffy: I've said it before. The only way your going to get people to give up guns, is to make them feel that they don't need them.


That's like saying people will become virgins if they stop having sex.
 
2013-01-11 01:41:43 PM  
In addition the highly acclaimed Maus I and II, Spieglman is also the guy who created the Garbage Pail Kids.

www.igorslab.com
 
2013-01-11 01:42:26 PM  

TeddyRooseveltsMustache: People are gonna kill each other. That's human nature. Just hope it doesn't happen to someone you care about.


We should make sure everyone has the high-powered weapons possible in order to hasten the end result. It's the only logical conclusion.
 
2013-01-11 01:43:09 PM  

kbronsito: So hipsters should buy guns for their children?


But only old, obscure guns that you've probably never seen before.

t1.gstatic.com

encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com
 
2013-01-11 01:43:15 PM  
New day, new gun thread? Check.
 
2013-01-11 01:44:00 PM  

Frank N Stein: I had a 10/22 as a kid. It was fun to shoot at cans.


I had one as a kid as well.

I am thankful that my father taught me about proper respect for and handling of guns. I wish more people were actually taught about guns, instead of just being instilled with a fear of them.
 
2013-01-11 01:44:47 PM  

Rapmaster2000: I was into hunting way before you were.  I'm shooting shiat that you and the rest of the square community have probably never even heard of.


you see, now you understand how it feels. it's great when people come together and find common ground.
 
2013-01-11 01:45:14 PM  
www.awsg.us

First world problems.
Life is tough all around.
 
2013-01-11 01:45:45 PM  

Revek: Teach your kids how to hunt.  Make them see what guns will do.  Tasty tasty things.


The 6 year old has fired the pellet gun before.

She enjoys it.
 
2013-01-11 01:46:54 PM  

GanjSmokr: Frank N Stein: I had a 10/22 as a kid. It was fun to shoot at cans.

I had one as a kid as well.

I am thankful that my father taught me about proper respect for and handling of guns. I wish more people were actually taught about guns, instead of just being instilled with a fear of them.


These days you could even just start your kids on a higher end air rifle to teach them how to handle it. You get all the gun safety from it without all the lethality.
 
2013-01-11 01:47:16 PM  

Frank N Stein: muck4doo: Hipsters are cool with stripping away your rights, as long as a Democrat is doing it.

My gf's brother is uber hipster. Last month when we went out to dinner for her family's Christmas party, me and the old lady's cousins were exchanging range and hunting stories. While left out, the hipster brother was interested in going to the range (as he's never shot a gun before). Moral of the story, I believe, is that some people just don't have experience with guns, so the issue is distant and simplistic.

/It was also funny when we were in the parking lot of the restaurant smoking and her cousin brought out his AR-15 from the back seat of his car for him to see.



the kids in Newtown and Utoya and all of those "hipsters" in Aurora got a lifetime of gun experience pretty quickly.
 
2013-01-11 01:47:29 PM  
Through natural selection we will evetually have bulletproof children.
 
2013-01-11 01:47:36 PM  

Honest Bender: [www.awsg.us image 400x326]

First world problems.
Life is tough all around.


Well to be fair, he seems to practice safe handling of a firearm. As opposed to:

dancingczars.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-01-11 01:48:11 PM  
Frank N Stein: "I had a 10/22 as a kid. It was fun to shoot at cans."

I had a totally sweet Trapper Keeper.
It contained my homework and the awesome-to-a-kid doodles I made on my homework.

/ about as relevant
// it *was* totally sweet though
/// my teachers were not amused by the doodles
//// but back then you didn't get detention or expulsion for that sort of thing
// not even for the drawings you probably should not have drawn
 
2013-01-11 01:48:16 PM  

Rapmaster2000: muck4doo: kbronsito: So hipsters should buy guns for their children?

Hipsters are cool with stripping away your rights, as long as a Democrat is doing it.

[www.slate.com image 249x250]
Hunting is the new hip thing that hipsters are into.  http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2012/12/hunt i ng_by_liberal_urban_locavores_is_a_trend_good_for_the_environment.html

I was into hunting way before you were.  I'm shooting shiat that you and the rest of the square community have probably never even heard of.


LOL. They probably only use muskets, or something like that.
 
2013-01-11 01:48:40 PM  

Frank N Stein: I had a 10/22 as a kid



hopefully the rest of your grades were better
 
2013-01-11 01:49:56 PM  

uncleacid: Through natural selection we will evetually have bulletproof children.


Ah ah uh ah ah uh ah uh uh ah death will find away.
 
2013-01-11 01:50:23 PM  

halB: Wasn't that "kid" in his twenties?

I mean, just how retarded are these gun grabbers? Do you honestly think calling people in their twenties "kids" is helping the situation? How about giving them responsibilities, jobs, and a reason to live? How about not pigeonholing them into perpetual adolescence?


Talk about missing the point. Then again, you're a conservative, so it's kind of a given.
 
2013-01-11 01:51:12 PM  

ringersol: Frank N Stein: "I had a 10/22 as a kid. It was fun to shoot at cans."

I had a totally sweet Trapper Keeper.
It contained my homework and the awesome-to-a-kid doodles I made on my homework.

/ about as relevant
// it *was* totally sweet though
/// my teachers were not amused by the doodles
//// but back then you didn't get detention or expulsion for that sort of thing
// not even for the drawings you probably should not have drawn


Not really as relevant as the magazine cover didn't have any kids carrying Trapper Keepers...
 
2013-01-11 01:52:22 PM  
FTA: . It doesn't seem so far removed from the rhetoric being spewed by the gun lobby in the wake of the Newtown massacre.

Right. The NRA recommends armed police in the schools -- that's not far at all from letting elementary school kids bring their own guns.

A rational discussion would be impossible with someone who makes a logical leap like that.

Even the link in the sentence goes to a school board member -- not a gun lobby organization/spokesperson, as the writer claims the person to be -- who wants to arm teachers.
 
2013-01-11 01:52:34 PM  

stuffy: I've said it before. The only way your going to get people to give up guns, is to make them feel that they don't need them.


The only way to do it is to make them realize why they shouldn't have them. A friend of mine once had to clean brains off the wall of an apartment because an emotional 16-year-old girl knew how and where her father stored his handgun. I'm sure that gun was really handy for "protecting his family".

An FB acquaintance announced this week that he was applying for CCW. This guy is one of the most emotional people I've ever known. He lives and works in one of the safest suburbs in his area. It's ludicrous. I already fear for anyone in his daily life.
 
2013-01-11 01:52:37 PM  

kbronsito: So hipsters should buy guns for their children?


Only pink guns, with ribbons and pikachu dangling from the trigger guard.
 
2013-01-11 01:53:26 PM  

halB: Wasn't that "kid" in his twenties?

I mean, just how retarded are these gun grabbers? Do you honestly think calling people in their twenties "kids" is helping the situation? How about giving them responsibilities, jobs, and a reason to live? How about not pigeonholing them into perpetual adolescence?


"There are no grown-ups. there are only children and dead people and corpses." -John Gardener
 
2013-01-11 01:53:33 PM  

Kazaa: I already fear for anyone in his daily life.


I'm sorry you're so afraid.
 
2013-01-11 01:55:54 PM  
Yes life was better in 1993 when nobody had access to guns and hence schools were safe from them.
 
2013-01-11 01:55:55 PM  

RickN99: FTA: . It doesn't seem so far removed from the rhetoric being spewed by the gun lobby in the wake of the Newtown massacre.

Right. The NRA recommends armed police in the schools -- that's not far at all from letting elementary school kids bring their own guns.


It made me wonder how familiar people are with police staffing levels in their community.  For example, the small town where I grew up had a total of five schools (3 grade, 1 middle, 1 high) and a total of ten cops.   So, they would need to increase their staffing levels by at least 50%.

My current county has 125 schools and 1269 cops, so it's roughly at the same level of staffing.  How much are taxpayers willing to pay to make this police idea happen?
 
2013-01-11 01:55:57 PM  

professor_tom: Only pink guns, with ribbons and pikachu dangling from the trigger guard.


What about MLP Lee-Enfields?

www.neatorama.com
 
2013-01-11 01:56:24 PM  
Hopefully it will be over-hyped and simplistic like his other work(s).
 
2013-01-11 01:56:51 PM  

Rapmaster2000: muck4doo: kbronsito: So hipsters should buy guns for their children?

Hipsters are cool with stripping away your rights, as long as a Democrat is doing it.

[www.slate.com image 249x250]
Hunting is the new hip thing that hipsters are into.  http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2012/12/hunt i ng_by_liberal_urban_locavores_is_a_trend_good_for_the_environment.html

I was into hunting way before you were.  I'm shooting shiat that you and the rest of the square community have probably never even heard of.


And I thoroughly suck at it now that I live somewhere deer are not a plague on the land.

Doesn't help that growing up in Michigan meant hunting wasn't really hunting so much as "sitting on a bait pile feeding pile for viewing you've had setup since August and waiting for that buck to show up".

I suppose that I just sucked at it before too... Perhaps I'll stick to fishing.
 
2013-01-11 01:57:06 PM  
Conservatives have totally gone off the rails since November.

Either they admit that they are extremist lunatics and that Obama was legitimately elected twice. Or they just cling harder to their alternate reality.

If the real world doesn't conform to any of your delusions, there's no reason to make your delusions remotely plausible.

"Obama is going to take away my guns"
"The UN is going to take away my guns"
"I am a hero and if I had been at Newtown with my gun I would have saved the day"
"Armed muslims/negroes/Mexicans/whatever are lurking everywhere waiting to shoot me"
"Acorn stole the election"
Mooslim birf certificate
Benghazi
And on and on and on and on...
 
2013-01-11 01:57:09 PM  
He sounds kind of pole-smokey...
 
2013-01-11 01:59:16 PM  

kimmygibblershomework: Hopefully it will be over-hyped and simplistic like his other work(s).


... and subsequently achieve the greatest honour any artistic work can attain. Being dismissed by hipsters.
 
2013-01-11 01:59:20 PM  
the blogger is aware adam lanza wasn't six years old, right?
 
2013-01-11 01:59:42 PM  

Frank N Stein: professor_tom: Only pink guns, with ribbons and pikachu dangling from the trigger guard.

What about MLP Lee-Enfields?

[www.neatorama.com image 500x334]


Actually, now that I think about it, if we want a gun ban we should start with shiat like this. No dolling up a perfectly good, historical weapon with you're cartoony bullshiat. That, and ridiculously overpriced "sporterized" Nagants that people sell on Gunbroker.
 
2013-01-11 01:59:55 PM  

Frank N Stein: Kazaa: I already fear for anyone in his daily life.

I'm sorry you're so afraid.


I get what he's saying.  I work with an emotional 50-something guy who is totally a candidate for shooting up the office.  Whenever he gets laid off (and he will because he's a mediocre engineer and disagreeable personality) then I'm working from home for a few weeks.  I would put his odds of going postal at 1 in 4.

Emotional people are trouble.  Emotional adult males even more so.
 
2013-01-11 02:00:24 PM  

I_Am_Weasel: I may be interpreting this wrong, but not allowing parents to give their 5 year old an assault weapon is wrong since it strips away your rights.


You are. No one is advocating giving 5 year olds assault weapons.

Wait, were you being hipster ironic? So hard to tell.
 
2013-01-11 02:00:26 PM  

jtown: kbronsito: So hipsters should buy guns for their children?

But only old, obscure guns that you've probably never seen before.

[t1.gstatic.com image 240x210]

[encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com image 260x194]


I know a harmonica when I see one
 
2013-01-11 02:00:38 PM  
CSB:
I saw Art Spiegleman speak at a university oh, 10 or so years ago now. I was on the student side of the committee that brought him in (although not an important part) so I got to see some of the behind the scenes back and forth.

Spiegleman had it written into his contract that he was 100% allowed to smoke anywhere on campus while he was presenting. During his 1 hour speech, he stood on stage in a packed aditorium and smoked at an alarming rate, using one cigarette to light the next. by the end of the speech, his ashtray - sitting in the podium - had an enormous pile of butts.

He mentioned during his speech that "as I chain smoker in New York I'm normally on house arrest, so it's really nice to be able to get out and about here in the south".

After the speech, we herded him to the Q&A reception. At which he continued to smoke at a ferocious pace, only in a much smaller and more enclosed room. To this day, I'm not sure where he kept pulling the cigarettes from - it was like watching a magic trick. The man must have smoked 3 or 4 packs in 3 or so hours, and the supply never ran out.

After seeing this, I've always thought - as a smoker - that I'll finally know that I've "made it" when, like Art Spiegleman, I can insist in my contract that I can smoke anywhere I want, yet people still want me to come speak bad enough that they'll honor that sort of clause.

It was breathtaking to behold

/quite literally
 
2013-01-11 02:00:57 PM  
Kids with guns? I'm doing my part:

i47.tinypic.com

Of course, we have a back-up plan, just in case:

i46.tinypic.com
 
2013-01-11 02:01:52 PM  
Maybe the holocaust will become ironic too.
 
2013-01-11 02:02:24 PM  

Rapmaster2000: RickN99: FTA: . It doesn't seem so far removed from the rhetoric being spewed by the gun lobby in the wake of the Newtown massacre.

Right. The NRA recommends armed police in the schools -- that's not far at all from letting elementary school kids bring their own guns.

It made me wonder how familiar people are with police staffing levels in their community.  For example, the small town where I grew up had a total of five schools (3 grade, 1 middle, 1 high) and a total of ten cops.   So, they would need to increase their staffing levels by at least 50%.

My current county has 125 schools and 1269 cops, so it's roughly at the same level of staffing.  How much are taxpayers willing to pay to make this police idea happen?


In my experience, they don't really care about the funding, they just want better public safety and they want it now. Just like they want better schools, better roads, and better public services in general. Funding levels are always fine. Cut more in other areas. Just don't raise their taxes to pay for it.

And then they complain about hour reductions for services they use. "I didn't mean cut THAT!"

//Rant done.
 
2013-01-11 02:02:41 PM  
So the article points out that arming children on their way to school is "the rhetoric being spewed by the gun lobby" by linking to an article in which someone claims that the teachers in schools should be armed.

I'm not sure but I'm thinking that fighting derp with derp may be a tad counterproductive.
 
2013-01-11 02:03:11 PM  
"Of course, Obama's not letting me down, here, I love white men," he continued. "I sleep with one every night...that I know of." No, he said, it's his liberal friends who the pundit is sad for.

Am I missing something here? Am I not understanding English (not being my first language), or is that quote saying what it seems to say?
 
2013-01-11 02:03:28 PM  

Rapmaster2000: Frank N Stein: Kazaa: I already fear for anyone in his daily life.

I'm sorry you're so afraid.

I get what he's saying.  I work with an emotional 50-something guy who is totally a candidate for shooting up the office.  Whenever he gets laid off (and he will because he's a mediocre engineer and disagreeable personality) then I'm working from home for a few weeks.  I would put his odds of going postal at 1 in 4.

Emotional people are trouble.  Emotional adult males even more so.


You think people who get mad come back and murder people? Why's he waste all that time expressing himself if he's going to follow it up later with the ultimate in emotional relief: an automatic weapon? I appreciate your armchair psychiatry either way. Be very afraid! Someone's not acting like I would!
 
2013-01-11 02:04:56 PM  

Elegy: CSB:
I saw Art Spiegleman speak at a university oh, 10 or so years ago now. I was on the student side of the committee that brought him in (although not an important part) so I got to see some of the behind the scenes back and forth.

Spiegleman had it written into his contract that he was 100% allowed to smoke anywhere on campus while he was presenting. During his 1 hour speech, he stood on stage in a packed aditorium and smoked at an alarming rate, using one cigarette to light the next. by the end of the speech, his ashtray - sitting in the podium - had an enormous pile of butts.

He mentioned during his speech that "as I chain smoker in New York I'm normally on house arrest, so it's really nice to be able to get out and about here in the south".

After the speech, we herded him to the Q&A reception. At which he continued to smoke at a ferocious pace, only in a much smaller and more enclosed room. To this day, I'm not sure where he kept pulling the cigarettes from - it was like watching a magic trick. The man must have smoked 3 or 4 packs in 3 or so hours, and the supply never ran out.

After seeing this, I've always thought - as a smoker - that I'll finally know that I've "made it" when, like Art Spiegleman, I can insist in my contract that I can smoke anywhere I want, yet people still want me to come speak bad enough that they'll honor that sort of clause.

It was breathtaking to behold

/quite literally


That is awesome. He's a hero.
 
2013-01-11 02:05:17 PM  

Well I use Mac/Linux...: Rapmaster2000: muck4doo: kbronsito: So hipsters should buy guns for their children?

Hipsters are cool with stripping away your rights, as long as a Democrat is doing it.

[www.slate.com image 249x250]
Hunting is the new hip thing that hipsters are into.  http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2012/12/hunt i ng_by_liberal_urban_locavores_is_a_trend_good_for_the_environment.html

I was into hunting way before you were.  I'm shooting shiat that you and the rest of the square community have probably never even heard of.

LOL. They probably only use muskets, or something like that.


I have more respect, if anything, for someone who hunts with a muzzle-loader. One hand-loaded shot is all you get, and if you can't get the job done with one ball, you should get yourself back to the range.
 
2013-01-11 02:05:29 PM  

ringersol: Frank N Stein: "I had a 10/22 as a kid. It was fun to shoot at cans."

I had a totally sweet Trapper Keeper.
It contained my homework and the awesome-to-a-kid doodles I made on my homework.

/ about as relevant
// it *was* totally sweet though
/// my teachers were not amused by the doodles
//// but back then you didn't get detention or expulsion for that sort of thing
// not even for the drawings you probably should not have drawn


When I was a kid I had a pump .22 and after a heavy rain I'd go to the wash out behind the pond and kill snakes so the cows would go to the high pasture. Then kids would trade punches, the shake and call it good. Today they talk shiat and pull guns.

i.imgur.com
 
2013-01-11 02:06:03 PM  

Wadded Beef: Alas, not happening with all the insecurity, fear and hate coming from the wingnut gun-owners, Subby.


They're so deep in denial they refuse to have an intellectually honest conversation about the topic or even acknowledge that we have a problem with gun violence in this country.
 
2013-01-11 02:07:27 PM  
Dear Mr. Spiegelman:

I love you, as many do. Your work on Maus alone elevates you to one of our most important literary figures, all hyperbole aside.

However, I'm sad to say, that your wish will never come to fruition. Unfortunately, it's a bit like a former virgin wishing for her hymen back.
 
2013-01-11 02:08:13 PM  

Valerion: "Of course, Obama's not letting me down, here, I love white men," he continued. "I sleep with one every night...that I know of." No, he said, it's his liberal friends who the pundit is sad for.

Am I missing something here? Am I not understanding English (not being my first language), or is that quote saying what it seems to say?


Who or what are you quoting?
 
2013-01-11 02:08:36 PM  

Valerion: "Of course, Obama's not letting me down, here, I love white men," he continued. "I sleep with one every night...that I know of." No, he said, it's his liberal friends who the pundit is sad for.

Am I missing something here? Am I not understanding English (not being my first language), or is that quote saying what it seems to say?


Wrong thread :P
 
2013-01-11 02:09:50 PM  

moothemagiccow: Rapmaster2000: Frank N Stein: Kazaa: I already fear for anyone in his daily life.

I'm sorry you're so afraid.

I get what he's saying.  I work with an emotional 50-something guy who is totally a candidate for shooting up the office.  Whenever he gets laid off (and he will because he's a mediocre engineer and disagreeable personality) then I'm working from home for a few weeks.  I would put his odds of going postal at 1 in 4.

Emotional people are trouble.  Emotional adult males even more so.

You think people who get mad come back and murder people? Why's he waste all that time expressing himself if he's going to follow it up later with the ultimate in emotional relief: an automatic weapon? I appreciate your armchair psychiatry either way. Be very afraid! Someone's not acting like I would!


There's nothing wrong with being prepared.  You have a gun, right?  Is that because you're scared?  No, it's because you're taking appropriate actions to protect yourself.

Similarly, it's always best to avoid the office head case.

I could thoroughly be wrong of course.  At my last job there was a guy who talked about 3 things.  His ex-wife, his guns, and how much he hated his job.  When he finally got shiatcanned (because he sucked as well) I was waiting for the shots.  I stayed on that guy's good side.  I'm fairly certain this guy doesn't like me.
 
2013-01-11 02:10:52 PM  
When will people learn that the only solution to gun violence is guns?
 
2013-01-11 02:11:30 PM  

Rapmaster2000: muck4doo: kbronsito: So hipsters should buy guns for their children?

Hipsters are cool with stripping away your rights, as long as a Democrat is doing it.

[www.slate.com image 249x250]
Hunting is the new hip thing that hipsters are into.  http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2012/12/hunt i ng_by_liberal_urban_locavores_is_a_trend_good_for_the_environment.html

I was into hunting way before you were.  I'm shooting shiat that you and the rest of the square community have probably never even heard of.


Isn't it hard to field-dress a deer while wearing skinny jeans?
 
2013-01-11 02:11:30 PM  

ciberido: Valerion: "Of course, Obama's not letting me down, here, I love white men," he continued. "I sleep with one every night...that I know of." No, he said, it's his liberal friends who the pundit is sad for.

Am I missing something here? Am I not understanding English (not being my first language), or is that quote saying what it seems to say?

Who or what are you quoting?


Should have gone in the Colbert thread. Got confused between my tabs.
 
2013-01-11 02:12:01 PM  
An armed society is a polite society. Like the south side of Chicago, for example.
 
2013-01-11 02:13:14 PM  

meat0918: Rapmaster2000: RickN99: FTA: . It doesn't seem so far removed from the rhetoric being spewed by the gun lobby in the wake of the Newtown massacre.

Right. The NRA recommends armed police in the schools -- that's not far at all from letting elementary school kids bring their own guns.

It made me wonder how familiar people are with police staffing levels in their community.  For example, the small town where I grew up had a total of five schools (3 grade, 1 middle, 1 high) and a total of ten cops.   So, they would need to increase their staffing levels by at least 50%.

My current county has 125 schools and 1269 cops, so it's roughly at the same level of staffing.  How much are taxpayers willing to pay to make this police idea happen?

In my experience, they don't really care about the funding, they just want better public safety and they want it now. Just like they want better schools, better roads, and better public services in general. Funding levels are always fine. Cut more in other areas. Just don't raise their taxes to pay for it.

And then they complain about hour reductions for services they use. "I didn't mean cut THAT!"

//Rant done.


I think the NRA knew that no matter what they suggested, the administration would shoot it down (no pun intended) just because it was the NRA's recommendation. So they make a proposal -- use trained government-employed security officers/cops.

And, of course, the politicians, who are currently being protected by trained government-employed security officers (and their kids go to schools where they are being protected by trained government-employed security officers), think its a terrible, useless idea. Oh, those wacko gunnuts!

It didn't matter what the NRA recommended. Columnists/journalists still claim the gun lobby wants, for all intents and purposed, to arm elementary school kids.
 
2013-01-11 02:13:17 PM  
All the other kids with the pumped up kicks you better run, better run, outrun my gun.
 
2013-01-11 02:13:17 PM  

neversubmit: When I was a kid I had a pump .22 and after a heavy rain I'd go to the wash out behind the pond and kill snakes so the cows would go to the high pasture. Then kids would trade punches, the shake and call it good. Today they talk shiat and pull guns.


Ahh, old people. Murder is just brand spanking new, isn't it?
 
2013-01-11 02:13:44 PM  
I BLAME GORILLAZ:

Link
 
2013-01-11 02:14:08 PM  

moothemagiccow: Rapmaster2000: Frank N Stein: Kazaa: I already fear for anyone in his daily life.

You think people who get mad come back and murder people? Why's he waste all that time expressing himself if he's going to follow it up later with the ultimate in emotional relief: an automatic weapon? I appreciate your armchair psychiatry either way. Be very afraid! Someone's not acting like I would!


What ho! White Knight! Bravely doth thou stand up for thee crazy folk.
 
2013-01-11 02:15:21 PM  

jaytkay: An armed society is a polite society. Like the south side of Chicago, for example.


Well, when you have measures the prohibit poor people from legally purchasing guns, that leaves only the cops and bad guys (sometimes there's little distinction between to two) who own firearms.

Why do you support prohibiting poor black people from legally purchasing firearms?

/South Side resident, BTW
 
2013-01-11 02:17:45 PM  

moothemagiccow: neversubmit: When I was a kid I had a pump .22 and after a heavy rain I'd go to the wash out behind the pond and kill snakes so the cows would go to the high pasture. Then kids would trade punches, the shake and call it good. Today they talk shiat and pull guns.

Ahh, old people. Murder is just brand spanking new, isn't it?


Kids killing other kids at school with firearms? Yes, that is relatively new.

/there were plenty of guns in back windows in the school parking lot in my hometown during hunting season
//and even not during hunting season...
///shockingly enough, no school shootings ever happened there.
 
2013-01-11 02:17:51 PM  

Frank N Stein: jaytkay: An armed society is a polite society. Like the south side of Chicago, for example.

Well, when you have measures the prohibit poor people from legally purchasing guns, that leaves only the cops and bad guys (sometimes there's little distinction between to two) who own firearms.

Why do you support prohibiting poor black people from legally purchasing firearms?

/South Side resident, BTW


See? The only solution to gun violence is guns. Why can't people understand that?

If you're not living with a deadly weapon perpetually strapped to your side and a gnawing suspicion of everyone around you in the back of your brain, you're just not free. That feeling of paranoia is just there to let you know the second amendment is working as intended!

Hooray freedumb!
 
2013-01-11 02:19:13 PM  

T.rex: In addition the highly acclaimed Maus I and II, Spieglman is also the guy who created the Garbage Pail Kids.

[www.igorslab.com image 198x286]


I thought you were lying. I had to look it up.

MIND. FARKING. BLOWN.
 
2013-01-11 02:19:47 PM  

Vegan Meat Popsicle: Frank N Stein: jaytkay: An armed society is a polite society. Like the south side of Chicago, for example.

Well, when you have measures the prohibit poor people from legally purchasing guns, that leaves only the cops and bad guys (sometimes there's little distinction between to two) who own firearms.

Why do you support prohibiting poor black people from legally purchasing firearms?

/South Side resident, BTW

See? The only solution to gun violence is guns. Why can't people understand that?

If you're not living with a deadly weapon perpetually strapped to your side and a gnawing suspicion of everyone around you in the back of your brain, you're just not free. That feeling of paranoia is just there to let you know the second amendment is working as intended!

Hooray freedumb!


Hooray hyperbole!! Is there any discussion that it can't contribute to?
 
2013-01-11 02:21:27 PM  

neversubmit: When I was a kid I had a pump .22 and after a heavy rain I'd go to the wash out behind the pond and kill snakes so the cows would go to the high pasture. Then kids would trade punches, the shake and call it good. Today they talk shiat and pull guns.



Unless you were a kid in the 1950s or a couple of years in the 1960 that's simply not true.
since that was that last time the murder rate was this low (4.7) and the lowest in that era was 4.0 in 1957. ( FBI stats, feel free to check 'em out)

to go any lower than that you would have to go all the way back to 1910.

Simply put the argument that more guns leads to more crime is not supported by the data which shows that we have more guns than ever before, and we are approaching the lowest overall crime rates in a century
 
2013-01-11 02:21:29 PM  
RickN99:

I think the NRA knew that no matter what they suggested, the administration would shoot it down (no pun intended) just because it was the NRA's recommendation. So they make a proposal -- use trained government-employed security officers/cops.

And, of course, the politicians, who are currently being protected by trained government-employed security officers (and their kids go to schools where they are being protected by trained government-employed security officers), think its a terrible, useless idea. Oh, those wacko gunnuts!

It didn't matter what the NRA recommended. Columnists/journalists still claim the gun lobby wants, for all intents and purposed, to arm elementary school kids.


It's simpler than that.  The NRA just needed to propose something so they chose something unlikely, but would probably work.  That's the key.  Technically, it's a workable idea.  Logistically, there's no way it will happen.  But they proposed something that would probably work.  They're "right" in a manner of speaking.

So forget about Obama.  Would any administration advocate this?  Your community could do this right now if they wanted to?  They don't need Obama to make decisions on policing.   I assume you don't live in Obamalibtardland, so why isn't your community proposing to do it?  Probably  because your community leaders aren't about to raise your taxes to pay for it because they know you won't stand for it.
 
2013-01-11 02:21:44 PM  

xalres: Wadded Beef: Alas, not happening with all the insecurity, fear and hate coming from the wingnut gun-owners, Subby.

They're so deep in denial they refuse to have an intellectually honest conversation about the topic or even acknowledge that we have a problem with gun violence in this country.


A problem that
1) is already in steep decline
2)has almost nothing to do with assault riles and high capacity magazines, which is where essentially all the discussion is focused.
Anecdotes
3)still has MANY vectors of adressing it left besides declawing the proles.
 
2013-01-11 02:23:03 PM  

GanjSmokr: moothemagiccow: neversubmit: When I was a kid I had a pump .22 and after a heavy rain I'd go to the wash out behind the pond and kill snakes so the cows would go to the high pasture. Then kids would trade punches, the shake and call it good. Today they talk shiat and pull guns.

Ahh, old people. Murder is just brand spanking new, isn't it?

Kids killing other kids at school with firearms? Yes, that is relatively new.

/there were plenty of guns in back windows in the school parking lot in my hometown during hunting season
//and even not during hunting season...
///shockingly enough, no school shootings ever happened there.


I wish you right and that young whipper snapper was full of it however... School shooting
 
2013-01-11 02:23:14 PM  

RickN99: meat0918: Rapmaster2000: RickN99: FTA: . It doesn't seem so far removed from the rhetoric being spewed by the gun lobby in the wake of the Newtown massacre.

Right. The NRA recommends armed police in the schools -- that's not far at all from letting elementary school kids bring their own guns.

It made me wonder how familiar people are with police staffing levels in their community.  For example, the small town where I grew up had a total of five schools (3 grade, 1 middle, 1 high) and a total of ten cops.   So, they would need to increase their staffing levels by at least 50%.

My current county has 125 schools and 1269 cops, so it's roughly at the same level of staffing.  How much are taxpayers willing to pay to make this police idea happen?

In my experience, they don't really care about the funding, they just want better public safety and they want it now. Just like they want better schools, better roads, and better public services in general. Funding levels are always fine. Cut more in other areas. Just don't raise their taxes to pay for it.

And then they complain about hour reductions for services they use. "I didn't mean cut THAT!"

//Rant done.

I think the NRA knew that no matter what they suggested, the administration would shoot it down (no pun intended) just because it was the NRA's recommendation. So they make a proposal -- use trained government-employed security officers/cops.

And, of course, the politicians, who are currently being protected by trained government-employed security officers (and their kids go to schools where they are being protected by trained government-employed security officers), think its a terrible, useless idea. Oh, those wacko gunnuts!

It didn't matter what the NRA recommended. Columnists/journalists still claim the gun lobby wants, for all intents and purposed, to arm elementary school kids.


Yet look at all of the tards in the thread claiming that it is the "gun nuts" who are being unreasonable.

I DON'T KNOW SHIAT ABOUT THIS BUT I THINK IT SHOULD BE BANNED!!! Their irrationality is really making me reconsider trusting their opinions on other issues. You kneejerk motherfarkers are the reason we keep getting farked by shiat like the PATRIOT act. DIAF, all of you.
 
2013-01-11 02:23:32 PM  

stuffy: I've said it before. The only way your going to get people to give up guns, is to make them feel that they don't need them.


How would you propose doing that?
 
2013-01-11 02:24:22 PM  

GanjSmokr: moothemagiccow: neversubmit: When I was a kid I had a pump .22 and after a heavy rain I'd go to the wash out behind the pond and kill snakes so the cows would go to the high pasture. Then kids would trade punches, the shake and call it good. Today they talk shiat and pull guns.

Ahh, old people. Murder is just brand spanking new, isn't it?

Kids killing other kids at school with firearms? Yes, that is relatively new.

/there were plenty of guns in back windows in the school parking lot in my hometown during hunting season
//and even not during hunting season...
///shockingly enough, no school shootings ever happened there.


So how many people were murdered in your hometown high school last year?
 
2013-01-11 02:24:43 PM  

Sticky Hands: neversubmit: When I was a kid I had a pump .22 and after a heavy rain I'd go to the wash out behind the pond and kill snakes so the cows would go to the high pasture. Then kids would trade punches, the shake and call it good. Today they talk shiat and pull guns.


Unless you were a kid in the 1950s or a couple of years in the 1960 that's simply not true.
since that was that last time the murder rate was this low (4.7) and the lowest in that era was 4.0 in 1957. ( FBI stats, feel free to check 'em out)

to go any lower than that you would have to go all the way back to 1910.

Simply put the argument that more guns leads to more crime is not supported by the data which shows that we have more guns than ever before, and we are approaching the lowest overall crime rates in a century


That probably has nothing to do with our record incarceration rates, no? Also, being number one in the world in gun murders per capita, we should be proud of that too right?
 
2013-01-11 02:26:18 PM  

Rapmaster2000: How much are taxpayers willing to pay to make this police idea happen?


Yeah, I dunno about that the efficacy of that specific proposal -- mass/school shootings are highly publicized but (thank goodness!) statistically very rare compared to other types of homicide and so the finite resources that society has may be more effective if they're allocated to other things that may have more of an effect on preventing violent crime, murder, etc. Violent crime has no farking place in a civilized country and I'm sick and tired of it.

I personally have no problems paying an appropriate level of tax to live in a civilized society that provides healthcare (physical and mental), public safety (police, firefighters, courts, etc.), education, economic assistance for the poor, unemployed, disabled, and elderly, etc.
 
2013-01-11 02:26:44 PM  

Sticky Hands: neversubmit: When I was a kid I had a pump .22 and after a heavy rain I'd go to the wash out behind the pond and kill snakes so the cows would go to the high pasture. Then kids would trade punches, the shake and call it good. Today they talk shiat and pull guns.


Unless you were a kid in the 1950s or a couple of years in the 1960 that's simply not true.
since that was that last time the murder rate was this low (4.7) and the lowest in that era was 4.0 in 1957. ( FBI stats, feel free to check 'em out)

to go any lower than that you would have to go all the way back to 1910.

Simply put the argument that more guns leads to more crime is not supported by the data which shows that we have more guns than ever before, and we are approaching the lowest overall crime rates in a century


It was the 70s you punk! :) 1970s that is... and sure whatever... we were/(are?) a bunch of dumb hicks in rural arkansas so it was sort of like the 50s
 
2013-01-11 02:27:23 PM  

Decillion: What ho! White Knight! Bravely doth thou stand up for thee crazy folk.


Nobody said "crazy." This guy's terrified of his cube mate because he's "emotional." The rest of us who stay quiet as mice never murder anyone.
 
2013-01-11 02:27:46 PM  
All these discussions about guns have made me realise I am wrong. We *SHOULD* ban hi capacity clips. There is no reason ANYONE needs a clip that holds more than 10 rounds. So I am now in favor of getting rid of all hi-capacity clips, and I vow before Fark, that I will not use a clip that holds more than 10 rounds for any of my guns.

www.m1-garand-rifle.comencrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com
^ Clip
 
2013-01-11 02:28:11 PM  
Remember when the hall monitor in Funky Winkerbean had a chain gun?
 
2013-01-11 02:31:05 PM  

Vegan Meat Popsicle: Frank N Stein: jaytkay: An armed society is a polite society. Like the south side of Chicago, for example.

Well, when you have measures the prohibit poor people from legally purchasing guns, that leaves only the cops and bad guys (sometimes there's little distinction between to two) who own firearms.

Why do you support prohibiting poor black people from legally purchasing firearms?

/South Side resident, BTW

See? The only solution to gun violence is guns. Why can't people understand that?

If you're not living with a deadly weapon perpetually strapped to your side and a gnawing suspicion of everyone around you in the back of your brain, you're just not free. That feeling of paranoia is just there to let you know the second amendment is working as intended!

Hooray freedumb!


Except you are not actually against guns. You also want guns around to save your ass from violence. You just want relatively fewer of them in the hands of the group "all humans", and more in the hands of the administrators who brought us the presidency of George W Bush, because you find them more trustworthy.
 
2013-01-11 02:31:19 PM  

neversubmit: I wish you right and that young whipper snapper was full of it however... School shooting


Looking over that (admittedly quickly) it appears that the school shooting incidents increased in the 90's. There really were not that many - again, relative to now. Looks like 16 total in the 70's and 80's and then over 16 in the first half of the 90's alone.


moothemagiccow: So how many people were murdered in your hometown high school last year?


Zero. In all the years prior, zero. But of course, we've got a zero tolerance on anything at all now (even guns in trunks).
 
2013-01-11 02:31:36 PM  

JesseL: stuffy: I've said it before. The only way your going to get people to give up guns, is to make them feel that they don't need them.

How would you propose doing that?


Prozium

t1.gstatic.com
 
2013-01-11 02:32:39 PM  
Fear of ducks page with Aflac duck pop up... meet your competition for most ironic ad placement.
i149.photobucket.com
 
2013-01-11 02:33:18 PM  

GanjSmokr: moothemagiccow: So how many people were murdered in your hometown high school last year?

Zero. In all the years prior, zero. But of course, we've got a zero tolerance on anything at all now (even guns in trunks).


So, basically zero tolerance is the equivalent of Lisa's Magic Rock.
 
2013-01-11 02:33:19 PM  
Nothing good will happen until the ACLU gets shut down and the nutjobs get locked up. I know you can make plastique out of salt and petroleum jelly and samurai swords sell for under $30 and if you locked yourself in a room full of 6 year olds and a twenty something education major there wouldn't be anything there to stop a maniac like Holmes or Loughner or Lanza. If you went with the plastique you wouldn't even have to get inside the school.
 
2013-01-11 02:35:15 PM  

Frank N Stein: jaytkay: An armed society is a polite society. Like the south side of Chicago, for example.

Well, when you have measures the prohibit poor people from legally purchasing guns, that leaves only the cops and bad guys (sometimes there's little distinction between to two) who own firearms.

Why do you support prohibiting poor black people from legally purchasing firearms?

/South Side resident, BTW


The South and West sides have most of the guns in Chicago. And most of the crime.

Why haven't all those guns removed crime? Is Chicago somehow exempt from the Laws of Conservative Reality?
 
2013-01-11 02:35:55 PM  

dittybopper: GanjSmokr: moothemagiccow: So how many people were murdered in your hometown high school last year?

Zero. In all the years prior, zero. But of course, we've got a zero tolerance on anything at all now (even guns in trunks).

So, basically zero tolerance is the equivalent of Lisa's Magic Rock.



evergreenterrace.com.au
Exactly :)
 
2013-01-11 02:36:43 PM  
Honest Bender, I couldn't see your pic but I thought the same thing.

www.ehl.icrc.org
 
2013-01-11 02:37:19 PM  

stuffy: I've said it before. The only way your going to get people to give up guns, is to make them feel that they don't need them.


And how is life in magical fairy land where no crime exists and all men are peaceful always?

Captain Darling: Yes life was better in 1993 when nobody had access to guns and hence schools were safe from them.


No, my sarcasm detector isn't broken. But how Spiegelman comes up with the idea that the cover was "ironic" in '93 eludes me. A sampling of events in 1993:

--Mir Aimal Kasi fires a rifle and kills two employees outside CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia.
--Two-year-old James Bulger is abducted, tortured and murdered by two 10-year-old boys, Jon Venables and Robert Thompson.
--World Trade Center bombing: In New York, New York, a van bomb parked below the North Tower of the World Trade Center explodes, killing six and injuring over 1,000.
--Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives agents raid the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas, with a warrant to arrest leader David Koresh on federal firearms violations. Four agents and five Davidians die in the raid and a 51-day standoff begins. It ends with a fire that kills 76 people, including David Koresh. 
--The Kuwaiti government claims to uncover an Iraqi assassination plot against former U.S. President George Bush shortly after his visit to Kuwait. Two Iraqi nationals confess to driving a car-bomb into Kuwait on behalf of the Iraqi Intelligence Service. (Thus, our reason for attacking Iraq, as stated by G. W. Bush when he said, "That guy tried to kill my dad!") The US response, four months later, is to bomb the shiat out of Baghdad. (And to invade ten years later even though it was well known that the primary leaders of al Qaeda were hiding in Afghanistan and Pakistan, along the mountainous border region between those two nations).
--In Manassas, Virginia, Lorena Bobbitt cuts off the penis of her husband John Wayne Bobbitt.
--A Unabomber bomb injures computer scientist David Gelernter at Yale University.
--Colin Ferguson opens fire with his Ruger 9 mm pistol on a Long Island Rail Road train, killing 6 and injuring 19.

Of the incidents listed, only three include the use of firearms, true enough. But they're major enough to be included on a list of events for 1993 twenty years later. Conversely, the list proves rather effectively that one doesn't require firearms in order to kill or maim (a point I make often enough). As someone said upthread, people are going to kill/hurt other people--some of us humans really are quite unpleasant creatures. Just hope it's not someone you care about, or, alternately, hope that one of us who has both self control and a weapon is there to protect your loved one when the Sideshow Bobs of the world show up.
 
2013-01-11 02:37:35 PM  

MythDragon: All these discussions about guns have made me realise I am wrong. We *SHOULD* ban hi capacity clips. There is no reason ANYONE needs a clip that holds more than 10 rounds. So I am now in favor of getting rid of all hi-capacity clips, and I vow before Fark, that I will not use a clip that holds more than 10 rounds for any of my guns.

[www.m1-garand-rifle.com image 437x374][encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com image 289x174]
^ Clip


"Hurr, durr, somebody doesn't understand the difference between a clip and a magazine."

Therefore GUNS!!!! Case CLOSE!!!!11!!
 
2013-01-11 02:38:02 PM  

muck4doo: kbronsito: So hipsters should buy guns for their children?

Hipsters are cool with stripping away your rights, as long as a Democrat is doing it.


it's getting tiresome.  You know tiresome like keeping track of the dead and wounded children, tiresome.
 
2013-01-11 02:38:23 PM  

GanjSmokr: dittybopper: GanjSmokr: moothemagiccow: So how many people were murdered in your hometown high school last year?

Zero. In all the years prior, zero. But of course, we've got a zero tolerance on anything at all now (even guns in trunks).

So, basically zero tolerance is the equivalent of Lisa's Magic Rock.


[evergreenterrace.com.au image 500x333]
Exactly :)


The existence of gun racks in the parking lot = 0 school shootings is equally specious though I think I'll regret pointing this out.
 
2013-01-11 02:38:43 PM  

chaos731: Your work on Maus alone elevates you to one of our most important literary figures, all hyperbole aside.


I thought you said "hyperbole aside"?

Spiegelman is not bad, but in no way, shape or form is he a "most" important literary figure. Noteworthy, of course. Influential, certainly. And while I am very happy to see his elevation of sequential art as a viable medium for serious work, it is not helpful to over-state his talents.

/your mileage, of course, may vary.
 
2013-01-11 02:38:55 PM  

Rapmaster2000: RickN99: FTA: . It doesn't seem so far removed from the rhetoric being spewed by the gun lobby in the wake of the Newtown massacre.

Right. The NRA recommends armed police in the schools -- that's not far at all from letting elementary school kids bring their own guns.

It made me wonder how familiar people are with police staffing levels in their community.  For example, the small town where I grew up had a total of five schools (3 grade, 1 middle, 1 high) and a total of ten cops.   So, they would need to increase their staffing levels by at least 50%.

My current county has 125 schools and 1269 cops, so it's roughly at the same level of staffing.  How much are taxpayers willing to pay to make this police idea happen?


All you have to do to pay for it is cut taxes on the wealthy.

\ta-da!
 
2013-01-11 02:40:14 PM  

Carn: Sticky Hands: neversubmit: When I was a kid I had a pump .22 and after a heavy rain I'd go to the wash out behind the pond and kill snakes so the cows would go to the high pasture. Then kids would trade punches, the shake and call it good. Today they talk shiat and pull guns.


Unless you were a kid in the 1950s or a couple of years in the 1960 that's simply not true.
since that was that last time the murder rate was this low (4.7) and the lowest in that era was 4.0 in 1957. ( FBI stats, feel free to check 'em out)

to go any lower than that you would have to go all the way back to 1910.

Simply put the argument that more guns leads to more crime is not supported by the data which shows that we have more guns than ever before, and we are approaching the lowest overall crime rates in a century

That probably has nothing to do with our record incarceration rates, no? Also, being number one in the world in gun murders per capita, we should be proud of that too right?


It might, it might not, it might have to do with massive amounts of cheap entertainment that keep angry young men off the streets. It might have to do with legalized abortion, it might have to do with the banning of leaded gas.

however, what we DO know is the following: states with less strict gun control have lower firearm murder rates than states with more strict gun control.

and: There are more guns in the USA now than ever before, and it is likely that there are more guns that people in the USA. Yet the murder rate is declining, and across the country as a whole the gun murder rate has held steady at about ~75% of all homicides.

Those are right in line with Switzerland for percentage of murders committed by firearms.

But they have a murder rate of 0.7 which is a little more that half the rate of the unarmed UK.
 
2013-01-11 02:40:33 PM  

dittybopper: Kids with guns? I'm doing my part:

[i47.tinypic.com image 225x319]

Of course, we have a back-up plan, just in case:

[i46.tinypic.com image 480x640]


I don't think you should put those blindfolds on your kids when they're handling dangerous weapons...
 
2013-01-11 02:41:55 PM  

Lollipop165: T.rex: In addition the highly acclaimed Maus I and II, Spieglman is also the guy who created the Garbage Pail Kids.

[www.igorslab.com image 198x286]

I thought you were lying. I had to look it up.

MIND. FARKING. BLOWN.


lol. i never lie about pop culture trivia.
 
2013-01-11 02:42:38 PM  

Sticky Hands: however, what we DO know is the following: states with less strict gun control have lower firearm murder rates than states with more strict gun control.


Not true.

But you knew that.
 
2013-01-11 02:42:40 PM  
Vegan Meat Popsicle When will people learn that the only solution to gun violence is guns?

The gun is not a solution to violence, its a means to protect yourself from it.

Problem being there are just too many issues causing the violence. Too much bad influence from the media, too much money in the wrong hands, too great of an imbalance in power, too many people in jail, too much blood already spilled, and too many crazies on the street.

We could be talking about guns or machetes or laser pistols or rocks. There's going to be quite a bit of Cain and Able going on unless the leadership does something about it.
Unfortunately, what they've chosen to do is tackle the "murders by X implement" stat.

When that fails or everyone starts using Y implement, they'll pretend this was unexpected and get to work on that next one.

The violence continues.
 
2013-01-11 02:43:58 PM  

jaytkay: Frank N Stein: jaytkay: An armed society is a polite society. Like the south side of Chicago, for example.

Well, when you have measures the prohibit poor people from legally purchasing guns, that leaves only the cops and bad guys (sometimes there's little distinction between to two) who own firearms.

Why do you support prohibiting poor black people from legally purchasing firearms?

/South Side resident, BTW

The South and West sides have most of the guns in Chicago. And most of the crime.

Why haven't all those guns removed crime? Is Chicago somehow exempt from the Laws of Conservative Reality?


The guns are mostly in the hands of criminals, people who we can both agree shouldn't have them. Poor people who would legally want to purchase a firearm are prohibited by permit fees and training (in which they would have to go out of the city limits to attend, as well as pay the training costs).
With all the talk from pro-gun control advocates about it being time to have an honest discussion on guns in this country, why do you guys continue to insist on using dishonest rhetoric?
 
2013-01-11 02:44:53 PM  

Vegan Meat Popsicle: When will people learn that the only solution to gun violence is guns?


Hey buddy! The strategy of mutually assured destruction worked to defeat those pinko, commie bastards...why do you hate 'Murika?
 
2013-01-11 02:46:09 PM  

Benjamin Stone: I BLAME GORILLAZ:

Link


Sure, blame them if that will make you feel good.
 
2013-01-11 02:48:59 PM  

Elegy: CSB:
I saw Art Spiegleman speak at a university oh, 10 or so years ago now. I was on the student side of the committee that brought him in (although not an important part) so I got to see some of the behind the scenes back and forth.

Spiegleman had it written into his contract that he was 100% allowed to smoke anywhere on campus while he was presenting. During his 1 hour speech, he stood on stage in a packed aditorium and smoked at an alarming rate, using one cigarette to light the next. by the end of the speech, his ashtray - sitting in the podium - had an enormous pile of butts.

He mentioned during his speech that "as I chain smoker in New York I'm normally on house arrest, so it's really nice to be able to get out and about here in the south".

After the speech, we herded him to the Q&A reception. At which he continued to smoke at a ferocious pace, only in a much smaller and more enclosed room. To this day, I'm not sure where he kept pulling the cigarettes from - it was like watching a magic trick. The man must have smoked 3 or 4 packs in 3 or so hours, and the supply never ran out.

After seeing this, I've always thought - as a smoker - that I'll finally know that I've "made it" when, like Art Spiegleman, I can insist in my contract that I can smoke anywhere I want, yet people still want me to come speak bad enough that they'll honor that sort of clause.

It was breathtaking to behold

/quite literally


That was, in fact, a CSB.

/smoking kills tho
 
2013-01-11 02:49:47 PM  
After listening to NPR on my way to lunch today I've come to the conclusion that the world we live in now is to be filled with passionate people repeating (at brain-washing rapidity) "it's just wrong to have such a violence-loving society" (It's just wrong to have so many guns. It's just wrong to like guns so much. It's just wrong to have violent video games. etc.)

So, the anti-gun crowd has finally acknowledged that there are no logical arguments for new gun laws (i.e. nothing will stop a nutjob from stealing his mom's guns and killing kids), so now they are trying the "it's just wrong" method of touchy-feely pyscho-babble brainwashing to get rid of guns.

More easily ignored, but much more annoying in my book.
 
2013-01-11 02:50:03 PM  

ciberido: Benjamin Stone: I BLAME GORILLAZ:

Link

Sure, blame them if that will make you feel good.


I've been stocking up on gorrilas, but not gorillaz.  I'm not allowed to possess Damon Alban due to previous convictions.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/gorilla-sales-skyrocket-after-lates t- gorilla-attac,30860/
 
2013-01-11 02:50:05 PM  

ringersol: Frank N Stein: "I had a 10/22 as a kid. It was fun to shoot at cans."

I had a totally sweet Trapper Keeper.
It contained my homework and the awesome-to-a-kid doodles I made on my homework.

/ about as relevant
// it *was* totally sweet though
/// my teachers were not amused by the doodles
//// but back then you didn't get detention or expulsion for that sort of thing
// not even for the drawings you probably should not have drawn


In my back then story you didn't get in trouble bringing your .22 or shotgun to school so you could go hunting after class; You had to lock it up in your locker to keep it safe though. Teachers often wanted to see what you brought in. And I did not go to school in the toolies, exurbs I suppose you would call it now.
 
2013-01-11 02:50:38 PM  
There were kids with guns at Newtown? I guess I missed that
 
2013-01-11 02:50:57 PM  

neversubmit: GanjSmokr: moothemagiccow: neversubmit: When I was a kid I had a pump .22 and after a heavy rain I'd go to the wash out behind the pond and kill snakes so the cows would go to the high pasture. Then kids would trade punches, the shake and call it good. Today they talk shiat and pull guns.

Ahh, old people. Murder is just brand spanking new, isn't it?

Kids killing other kids at school with firearms? Yes, that is relatively new.

/there were plenty of guns in back windows in the school parking lot in my hometown during hunting season
//and even not during hunting season...
///shockingly enough, no school shootings ever happened there.

I wish you right and that young whipper snapper was full of it however... School shooting


Bob Geldof wrote "I Don't Like Mondays" in 1979.
 
2013-01-11 02:53:25 PM  
According to the CDC, this is all the fault of brown people.

http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/youthviolence/stats_at-a_glance / hr_age-race.html
 
2013-01-11 02:53:49 PM  

professor_tom:

Only pink guns, with ribbons and pikachu dangling from the trigger guard.


I'll call:

i135.photobucket.com
You can't see it too well, but the metal is powdercoated a sparkly purple. Oh, yeah...that's a "My Little Pony" assault case in the front.
 
2013-01-11 02:54:40 PM  

Frank N Stein: jaytkay: Frank N Stein: jaytkay: An armed society is a polite society. Like the south side of Chicago, for example.

Well, when you have measures the prohibit poor people from legally purchasing guns, that leaves only the cops and bad guys (sometimes there's little distinction between to two) who own firearms.

Why do you support prohibiting poor black people from legally purchasing firearms?

/South Side resident, BTW

The South and West sides have most of the guns in Chicago. And most of the crime.

Why haven't all those guns removed crime? Is Chicago somehow exempt from the Laws of Conservative Reality?

The guns are mostly in the hands of criminals, people who we can both agree shouldn't have them. Poor people who would legally want to purchase a firearm are prohibited by permit fees and training (in which they would have to go out of the city limits to attend, as well as pay the training costs).
With all the talk from pro-gun control advocates about it being time to have an honest discussion on guns in this country, why do you guys continue to insist on using dishonest rhetoric?


Maybe because that's all he's got?
 
2013-01-11 02:57:17 PM  

Rapmaster2000: ciberido: Benjamin Stone: I BLAME GORILLAZ:

Link

Sure, blame them if that will make you feel good.

I've been stocking up on gorrilas, but not gorillaz.  I'm not allowed to possess Damon Alban due to previous convictions.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/gorilla-sales-skyrocket-after-lates t- gorilla-attac,30860/


I blame Clint Eastwood.
 
2013-01-11 02:59:03 PM  

DontMakeMeComeBackThere: After listening to NPR on my way to lunch today I've come to the conclusion that the world we live in now is to be filled with passionate people repeating (at brain-washing rapidity) "it's just wrong to have such a violence-loving society" (It's just wrong to have so many guns. It's just wrong to like guns so much. It's just wrong to have violent video games. etc.)

So, the anti-gun crowd has finally acknowledged that there are no logical arguments for new gun laws (i.e. nothing will stop a nutjob from stealing his mom's guns and killing kids), so now they are trying the "it's just wrong" method of touchy-feely pyscho-babble brainwashing to get rid of guns.

More easily ignored, but much more annoying in my book.


The logical argument is that a nutjob and and his mother should probably be prevented from owning guns in the first place! It is logical, reasonable, sensible, practical, etc., for society to try to keep weapons from mentally ill people who pose a threat to themselves and others. To argue against this, as you appear to be doing, is irrational at best, but may possibly be an insane position itself.
 
2013-01-11 03:00:27 PM  
cdn.head-fi.org
 
2013-01-11 03:01:31 PM  

jaytkay: Sticky Hands: however, what we DO know is the following: states with less strict gun control have lower firearm murder rates than states with more strict gun control.

Not true.

But you knew that.


[citation needed], that goes for both of you.
 
2013-01-11 03:02:51 PM  

Carn: DontMakeMeComeBackThere: After listening to NPR on my way to lunch today I've come to the conclusion that the world we live in now is to be filled with passionate people repeating (at brain-washing rapidity) "it's just wrong to have such a violence-loving society" (It's just wrong to have so many guns. It's just wrong to like guns so much. It's just wrong to have violent video games. etc.)

So, the anti-gun crowd has finally acknowledged that there are no logical arguments for new gun laws (i.e. nothing will stop a nutjob from stealing his mom's guns and killing kids), so now they are trying the "it's just wrong" method of touchy-feely pyscho-babble brainwashing to get rid of guns.

More easily ignored, but much more annoying in my book.

The logical argument is that a nutjob and and his mother should probably be prevented from owning guns in the first place! It is logical, reasonable, sensible, practical, etc., for society to try to keep weapons from mentally ill people who pose a threat to themselves and others. To argue against this, as you appear to be doing, is irrational at best, but may possibly be an insane position itself.


Don't the insane have a right to protect themselves from the people who are listening to the thoughts in my head?
 
2013-01-11 03:04:21 PM  
The problem is that when some people think of "gun crime", they see only GUN crime, instead of gun CRIME.

This is a Crime problem that sometimes involves guns. Murder is the problem here, more than the weapon used. It is the INTENT, not the implement. It is also worth noting that overall crime rates are for more correlative to gun crime rates than almost anything else. Over the last decade or two, crime rates in general have been going down, and so, too have gun crime rates.

This is why efforts to limit law-abiding citizens gun ownership is ultimately inneffective. The Assault weapons ban did nothing to stop Columbine and other shootings because anyone who has determined to commit mass-murder is already immune to legal ramifications. You cannot affect people outside of the system by tightening up things inside the system. Further, the overwhelming majority of gun violence is perpetrated with illegal or stolen guns and almost never with 'assault weapons'. Since Sandy Hook, 695 people have been shot to death. (even if you exclude suicides - another conversation) that dwarfs the problem of crazed madmen. The problem has nothing really to do with the shape of the guns or the size of the magazines. These are palliative placebos.

If we are truly trying to reduce gun violence, we should be focusing our efforts squarely on the areas where we can do the most good: attacking illegal guns and closing the gun show loopholes. And frankly, I am becoming increasingly disapointed by people who are way too pre-occupied by the specifics of the sensational murder of affluent white suburbanite children while utterly ambivalent about the far more prevelant problem of poor, inner city brown kids being killed every day.
 
2013-01-11 03:06:02 PM  

Rapmaster2000: Carn: DontMakeMeComeBackThere: After listening to NPR on my way to lunch today I've come to the conclusion that the world we live in now is to be filled with passionate people repeating (at brain-washing rapidity) "it's just wrong to have such a violence-loving society" (It's just wrong to have so many guns. It's just wrong to like guns so much. It's just wrong to have violent video games. etc.)

So, the anti-gun crowd has finally acknowledged that there are no logical arguments for new gun laws (i.e. nothing will stop a nutjob from stealing his mom's guns and killing kids), so now they are trying the "it's just wrong" method of touchy-feely pyscho-babble brainwashing to get rid of guns.

More easily ignored, but much more annoying in my book.

The logical argument is that a nutjob and and his mother should probably be prevented from owning guns in the first place! It is logical, reasonable, sensible, practical, etc., for society to try to keep weapons from mentally ill people who pose a threat to themselves and others. To argue against this, as you appear to be doing, is irrational at best, but may possibly be an insane position itself.

Don't the insane have a right to protect themselves from the people who are listening to the thoughts in my head?


Yes and we used to have nice safe places for them with nice comfy padded rooms, big warm shirts with really long sleeves, and lots of nice men in white coats. Unfortunately, we don't have many places like that any more.
 
2013-01-11 03:07:08 PM  

Frank N Stein: why do you guys continue to insist on using dishonest rhetoric?


Denying obvious reality is dishonest. Willful ignorance is dishonest.

Gun wankers insist that more guns equals less crime. You trot out these stupid maxims ("An armed society is a polite society") and think you've proved something.

In reality, the crime-ridden areas of the US are awash in guns. The US has by far the most guns and by far the highest murder rate among.

Probably we're stuck with the problem, because we have a whole industries and a major political party thriving on the paranoid fears of ill-informed and emotional paranoid bed-wetters.

Fear sells. Fear-mongering is lucrative.And you impressionable gun enthusiasts can't get enough.
 
2013-01-11 03:07:22 PM  

Carn: DontMakeMeComeBackThere: After listening to NPR on my way to lunch today I've come to the conclusion that the world we live in now is to be filled with passionate people repeating (at brain-washing rapidity) "it's just wrong to have such a violence-loving society" (It's just wrong to have so many guns. It's just wrong to like guns so much. It's just wrong to have violent video games. etc.)

So, the anti-gun crowd has finally acknowledged that there are no logical arguments for new gun laws (i.e. nothing will stop a nutjob from stealing his mom's guns and killing kids), so now they are trying the "it's just wrong" method of touchy-feely pyscho-babble brainwashing to get rid of guns.

More easily ignored, but much more annoying in my book.

The logical argument is that a nutjob and and his mother should probably be prevented from owning guns in the first place! It is logical, reasonable, sensible, practical, etc., for society to try to keep weapons from mentally ill people who pose a threat to themselves and others. To argue against this, as you appear to be doing, is irrational at best, but may possibly be an insane position itself.


Has anyone demonstrated that his mother was a danger? I believe there's been anecdotal evidence that folks could've known (even arguments that CT's firearm laws are rather strict, so the firearm's could've been seized had anyone notified them of the danger he poised) about him being a nutbag, but his mother (aside from the prepper thing, which isn't a note of anything dangerous) should've been good to go.
 
2013-01-11 03:08:08 PM  

Marcintosh: muck4doo: kbronsito: So hipsters should buy guns for their children?

Hipsters are cool with stripping away your rights, as long as a Democrat is doing it.

it's getting tiresome.  You know tiresome like keeping track of the dead and wounded children, tiresome.


It wouldn't be so tiresome if you'd just adhere to the Golden Rule: Shoot 'em all, let God sort 'em out.

\or is that the Crimson Rule?
 
2013-01-11 03:08:49 PM  

jaytkay: Fear sells. Fear-mongering is lucrative.And you impressionable gun enthusiasts can't get enough.


I just like shooting at targets of paper, cans, and animals when I'm hunting. Sorry I like things that you don't like.
 
2013-01-11 03:09:05 PM  

dennysgod: jaytkay: Sticky Hands: however, what we DO know is the following: states with less strict gun control have lower firearm murder rates than states with more strict gun control.

Not true.

But you knew that.

[citation needed], that goes for both of you.


The onus is on the one making the claim.

And I bet he'll trot out statistics from proven fraud John Lott. They always do.
 
2013-01-11 03:10:35 PM  

ronaprhys: Carn: DontMakeMeComeBackThere: After listening to NPR on my way to lunch today I've come to the conclusion that the world we live in now is to be filled with passionate people repeating (at brain-washing rapidity) "it's just wrong to have such a violence-loving society" (It's just wrong to have so many guns. It's just wrong to like guns so much. It's just wrong to have violent video games. etc.)

So, the anti-gun crowd has finally acknowledged that there are no logical arguments for new gun laws (i.e. nothing will stop a nutjob from stealing his mom's guns and killing kids), so now they are trying the "it's just wrong" method of touchy-feely pyscho-babble brainwashing to get rid of guns.

More easily ignored, but much more annoying in my book.

The logical argument is that a nutjob and and his mother should probably be prevented from owning guns in the first place! It is logical, reasonable, sensible, practical, etc., for society to try to keep weapons from mentally ill people who pose a threat to themselves and others. To argue against this, as you appear to be doing, is irrational at best, but may possibly be an insane position itself.

Has anyone demonstrated that his mother was a danger? I believe there's been anecdotal evidence that folks could've known (even arguments that CT's firearm laws are rather strict, so the firearm's could've been seized had anyone notified them of the danger he poised) about him being a nutbag, but his mother (aside from the prepper thing, which isn't a note of anything dangerous) should've been good to go.


My argument regarding his mother is that since she had a mentally ill person living in her house that should be taken into consideration when she would purchase a gun, ie, it should be restricted. Perhaps not outright disallowed, we could have a "home defense" clause. "Ok, you have a psychotic adult living in your house, you can purchase one shotgun to defend yourself, family and property, but that's it."
 
2013-01-11 03:11:45 PM  

jaytkay: Frank N Stein: why do you guys continue to insist on using dishonest rhetoric?

Denying obvious reality is dishonest. Willful ignorance is dishonest.

Gun wankers insist that more guns equals less crime. You trot out these stupid maxims ("An armed society is a polite society") and think you've proved something.

In reality, the crime-ridden areas of the US are awash in guns. The US has by far the most guns and by far the highest murder rate among.

Probably we're stuck with the problem, because we have a whole industries and a major political party thriving on the paranoid fears of ill-informed and emotional paranoid bed-wetters.

Fear sells. Fear-mongering is lucrative.And you impressionable gun enthusiasts can't get enough.


Again, you keep going with the same sort of simplistic nonsense that you're accusing firearm owners of. Nice.

-illegally-purchased firearms being used in the commission of crimes vs legally-purchased firearms.
Yep - no difference between those two.
 
2013-01-11 03:13:30 PM  

ciberido: Benjamin Stone: I BLAME GORILLAZ:

Link

Sure, blame them if that will make you feel good.


I don't, but thanks for linking to "Clint Eastwood." :D
 
2013-01-11 03:13:30 PM  

Carn: My argument regarding his mother is that since she had a mentally ill person living in her house that should be taken into consideration when she would purchase a gun, ie, it should be restricted. Perhaps not outright disallowed, we could have a "home defense" clause. "Ok, you have a psychotic adult living in your house, you can purchase one shotgun to defend yourself, family and property, but that's it."


How would you enforce that? Was this idiot actually clinically-diagnosed as mentally ill?
 
2013-01-11 03:13:46 PM  

jaytkay: MythDragon: All these discussions about guns have made me realise I am wrong. We *SHOULD* ban hi capacity clips. There is no reason ANYONE needs a clip that holds more than 10 rounds. So I am now in favor of getting rid of all hi-capacity clips, and I vow before Fark, that I will not use a clip that holds more than 10 rounds for any of my guns.

[www.m1-garand-rifle.com image 437x374][encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com image 289x174]
^ Clip

"Hurr, durr, somebody doesn't understand the difference between a clip and a magazine."

Therefore GUNS!!!! Case CLOSE!!!!11!!


When congress is considering legislation which may ban citizens from owning a certain item they should at least recognize what it is they are banning. It's a legitimate grievance. Look at all the "internet is a series of tubes" jokes when the SOPA hearings were going on. It's unprofessional to haphazardly pass legislation that affects millions of people without even knowing what you are talking about.
 
2013-01-11 03:14:37 PM  

neversubmit: i.imgur.com


OK, let me take a shot at explaining this.
Yes, 2 hours of violence in a movie DOES influence SOME people. The mentally weak, deranged, and ill. People that are already violent seek out those types of movies, and it's a self-feeding cycle. In fact, most people are probably influenced in some way. Some people are repulsed by it and want nothing to do with violence. But the vast majority of people are not influenced to simply go imitate what they see on the screen. This is because most people know the difference between reality and fantasy, good and bad, right and wrong. The 99.99999% of people who watch them recognize the difference between the outrageous caricatures of humans in a movie, and real humans in real life.
Sure, if a bunch of guys kidnap your daughter and you have a particular set of skills, then maybe a movie would influence you to go use those skills, but otherwise, no.
The Super Bowl commercial is trying to sell you a real-life product - or at the very least make you aware that it exists. The movie is not trying to convince you to go shoot people.
 
2013-01-11 03:14:41 PM  

Carn: DontMakeMeComeBackThere: After listening to NPR on my way to lunch today I've come to the conclusion that the world we live in now is to be filled with passionate people repeating (at brain-washing rapidity) "it's just wrong to have such a violence-loving society" (It's just wrong to have so many guns. It's just wrong to like guns so much. It's just wrong to have violent video games. etc.)

So, the anti-gun crowd has finally acknowledged that there are no logical arguments for new gun laws (i.e. nothing will stop a nutjob from stealing his mom's guns and killing kids), so now they are trying the "it's just wrong" method of touchy-feely pyscho-babble brainwashing to get rid of guns.

More easily ignored, but much more annoying in my book.

The logical argument is that a nutjob and and his mother should probably be prevented from owning guns in the first place! It is logical, reasonable, sensible, practical, etc., for society to try to keep weapons from mentally ill people who pose a threat to themselves and others. To argue against this, as you appear to be doing, is irrational at best, but may possibly be an insane position itself.


I agree.

We do need better ways and processes for treating our mentally ill, and even with new measures we will have failures to keep all guns out of their hands. It is impossible to keep someone determined to cause harm from doing so. That impossibility is not a reason to avoid addressing the problems we have with our current system.

The major sticking point to me seems to be determining what is a "reasonable regulation" allowable within the scope of the 2nd. We already do background checks on handguns, don't we? How to improve this system is something I'd like to see addressed.

Another thing. Registering all firearms is not onerous to me, and I am a gun owner, but I can see why some people get upset about it.
 
2013-01-11 03:15:19 PM  

ronaprhys: Carn: DontMakeMeComeBackThere: After listening to NPR on my way to lunch today I've come to the conclusion that the world we live in now is to be filled with passionate people repeating (at brain-washing rapidity) "it's just wrong to have such a violence-loving society" (It's just wrong to have so many guns. It's just wrong to like guns so much. It's just wrong to have violent video games. etc.)

So, the anti-gun crowd has finally acknowledged that there are no logical arguments for new gun laws (i.e. nothing will stop a nutjob from stealing his mom's guns and killing kids), so now they are trying the "it's just wrong" method of touchy-feely pyscho-babble brainwashing to get rid of guns.

More easily ignored, but much more annoying in my book.

The logical argument is that a nutjob and and his mother should probably be prevented from owning guns in the first place! It is logical, reasonable, sensible, practical, etc., for society to try to keep weapons from mentally ill people who pose a threat to themselves and others. To argue against this, as you appear to be doing, is irrational at best, but may possibly be an insane position itself.

Has anyone demonstrated that his mother was a danger? I believe there's been anecdotal evidence that folks could've known (even arguments that CT's firearm laws are rather strict, so the firearm's could've been seized had anyone notified them of the danger he poised) about him being a nutbag, but his mother (aside from the prepper thing, which isn't a note of anything dangerous) should've been good to go.


I think it's been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that his mother was a danger, in that she took insufficient precautions to prevent her firearms from falling into the hands of a mentally-disturbed person, no?
 
2013-01-11 03:15:44 PM  

HaywoodJablonski: Elegy: CSB:
I saw Art Spiegleman speak at a university oh, 10 or so years ago now. I was on the student side of the committee that brought him in (although not an important part) so I got to see some of the behind the scenes back and forth.

Spiegleman had it written into his contract that he was 100% allowed to smoke anywhere on campus while he was presenting. During his 1 hour speech, he stood on stage in a packed aditorium and smoked at an alarming rate, using one cigarette to light the next. by the end of the speech, his ashtray - sitting in the podium - had an enormous pile of butts.

He mentioned during his speech that "as I chain smoker in New York I'm normally on house arrest, so it's really nice to be able to get out and about here in the south".

After the speech, we herded him to the Q&A reception. At which he continued to smoke at a ferocious pace, only in a much smaller and more enclosed room. To this day, I'm not sure where he kept pulling the cigarettes from - it was like watching a magic trick. The man must have smoked 3 or 4 packs in 3 or so hours, and the supply never ran out.

After seeing this, I've always thought - as a smoker - that I'll finally know that I've "made it" when, like Art Spiegleman, I can insist in my contract that I can smoke anywhere I want, yet people still want me to come speak bad enough that they'll honor that sort of clause.

It was breathtaking to behold

/quite literally

That was, in fact, a CSB.

/smoking kills tho



Insert a tasteless joke about missing the gas 40 years ago only to smoke himself to death later.
 
2013-01-11 03:18:34 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: The problem is that when some people think of "gun crime", they see only GUN crime, instead of gun CRIME.

This is a Crime problem that sometimes involves guns. Murder is the problem here, more than the weapon used. It is the INTENT, not the implement. It is also worth noting that overall crime rates are for more correlative to gun crime rates than almost anything else. Over the last decade or two, crime rates in general have been going down, and so, too have gun crime rates.

This is why efforts to limit law-abiding citizens gun ownership is ultimately inneffective. The Assault weapons ban did nothing to stop Columbine and other shootings because anyone who has determined to commit mass-murder is already immune to legal ramifications. You cannot affect people outside of the system by tightening up things inside the system. Further, the overwhelming majority of gun violence is perpetrated with illegal or stolen guns and almost never with 'assault weapons'. Since Sandy Hook, 695 people have been shot to death. (even if you exclude suicides - another conversation) that dwarfs the problem of crazed madmen. The problem has nothing really to do with the shape of the guns or the size of the magazines. These are palliative placebos.

If we are truly trying to reduce gun violence, we should be focusing our efforts squarely on the areas where we can do the most good: attacking illegal guns and closing the gun show loopholes. And frankly, I am becoming increasingly disapointed by people who are way too pre-occupied by the specifics of the sensational murder of affluent white suburbanite children while utterly ambivalent about the far more prevelant problem of poor, inner city brown kids being killed every day
.


That stuff doesn't grab the headlines and generate ad revenue.
 
2013-01-11 03:18:47 PM  

meat0918: Carn: DontMakeMeComeBackThere: After listening to NPR on my way to lunch today I've come to the conclusion that the world we live in now is to be filled with passionate people repeating (at brain-washing rapidity) "it's just wrong to have such a violence-loving society" (It's just wrong to have so many guns. It's just wrong to like guns so much. It's just wrong to have violent video games. etc.)

So, the anti-gun crowd has finally acknowledged that there are no logical arguments for new gun laws (i.e. nothing will stop a nutjob from stealing his mom's guns and killing kids), so now they are trying the "it's just wrong" method of touchy-feely pyscho-babble brainwashing to get rid of guns.

More easily ignored, but much more annoying in my book.

The logical argument is that a nutjob and and his mother should probably be prevented from owning guns in the first place! It is logical, reasonable, sensible, practical, etc., for society to try to keep weapons from mentally ill people who pose a threat to themselves and others. To argue against this, as you appear to be doing, is irrational at best, but may possibly be an insane position itself.

I agree.

We do need better ways and processes for treating our mentally ill, and even with new measures we will have failures to keep all guns out of their hands. It is impossible to keep someone determined to cause harm from doing so. That impossibility is not a reason to avoid addressing the problems we have with our current system.

The major sticking point to me seems to be determining what is a "reasonable regulation" allowable within the scope of the 2nd. We already do background checks on handguns, don't we? How to improve this system is something I'd like to see addressed.

Another thing. Registering all firearms is not onerous to me, and I am a gun owner, but I can see why some people get upset about it.


For one, states need to do a better job of reporting dangerous mental disorders to the NICS. Also, a simple way to allow private sellers to check someone they are selling to.
 
2013-01-11 03:19:26 PM  

numbquil: When congress is considering legislation which may ban citizens from owning a certain item they should at least recognize what it is they are banning. It's a legitimate grievance.


Conservative logic:

Some guy on the Internet says HA HA! LIEBERALS clips are not magazines GOTCHA!!

Therefore Congress does not understand the difference.
 
2013-01-11 03:20:19 PM  

Rapmaster2000: RickN99:

I think the NRA knew that no matter what they suggested, the administration would shoot it down (no pun intended) just because it was the NRA's recommendation. So they make a proposal -- use trained government-employed security officers/cops.

And, of course, the politicians, who are currently being protected by trained government-employed security officers (and their kids go to schools where they are being protected by trained government-employed security officers), think its a terrible, useless idea. Oh, those wacko gunnuts!

It didn't matter what the NRA recommended. Columnists/journalists still claim the gun lobby wants, for all intents and purposed, to arm elementary school kids.

It's simpler than that.  The NRA just needed to propose something so they chose something unlikely, but would probably work.  That's the key.  Technically, it's a workable idea.  Logistically, there's no way it will happen.  But they proposed something that would probably work.  They're "right" in a manner of speaking.

So forget about Obama.  Would any administration advocate this?  Your community could do this right now if they wanted to?  They don't need Obama to make decisions on policing.   I assume you don't live in Obamalibtardland, so why isn't your community proposing to do it?  Probably  because your community leaders aren't about to raise your taxes to pay for it because they know you won't stand for it.


Most school districts around Houston have their own police department and have had them for a while. The one I pay my taxes to has an officer or two in all middle and high schools. I do think it is a good idea and was surprised that it was dismissed so easily by Obama and the press.
 
2013-01-11 03:20:25 PM  

numbquil: When congress is considering legislation which may ban citizens from owning a certain item they should at least recognize what it is they are banning. It's a legitimate grievance. Look at all the "internet is a series of tubes" jokes when the SOPA hearings were going on. It's unprofessional to haphazardly pass legislation that affects millions of people without even knowing what you are talking about.

 
2013-01-11 03:22:02 PM  

meat0918: I agree.

We do need better ways and processes for treating our mentally ill, and even with new measures we will have failures to keep all guns out of their hands. It is impossible to keep someone determined to cause harm from doing so. That impossibility is not a reason to avoid addressing the problems we have with our current system.


I don't think anyone disagrees that we shouldn't attempt to change things for the better. The bigger problem seems to be around what will actually work. Mass shootings like these are a very, very small portion of the problem. Very noticeable and completely horrific, but the actual # of firearm homicides dwarf these. The majority of those are related to gang and drug problems and occur with handguns. Oddly enough, those are all getting ignored at this point due to the visibility of the current incidents and the fact that it's difficult for anyone to care if one gangbanger offs another.

The major sticking point to me seems to be determining what is a "reasonable regulation" allowable within the scope of the 2nd. We already do background checks on handguns, don't we? How to improve this system is something I'd like to see addressed.

Not just reasonable regulation, as far as I'm concerned. Reasonable regulation that would seem, at face value, to have some chance of impacting the homicide rate coupled with a sunset provision if the legislation fails with severe prohibitions to changing that and moving the goalposts.

Another thing. Registering all firearms is not onerous to me, and I am a gun owner, but I can see why some people get upset about it.

To me it's less onerous and more useless. It's difficult to see that this would have a measurable impact on the homicide rate. With appropriate restrictions and sunset provisions, I could be persuaded to try it, but since I certainly don't trust politicians to use something like this appropriately, I'm highly-disinclined to accept such a thing.
 
2013-01-11 03:22:03 PM  
I'm amazed that some people have rationalized banning imaginary guns over making real guns a bit harder to get.

It's like saying "The real world doesn't kill people! Dreams kill people!"

anything to make your toys easier to buy eh?
 
2013-01-11 03:23:01 PM  

ronaprhys: Carn: My argument regarding his mother is that since she had a mentally ill person living in her house that should be taken into consideration when she would purchase a gun, ie, it should be restricted. Perhaps not outright disallowed, we could have a "home defense" clause. "Ok, you have a psychotic adult living in your house, you can purchase one shotgun to defend yourself, family and property, but that's it."

How would you enforce that? Was this idiot actually clinically-diagnosed as mentally ill?


It seems like in this case, whether he was clinically diagnosed is a matter of speculation. We could enforce it as part of mandatory licensing. We could say "You need to complete a mandatory safety and aptitude test, as well as psych screening" in order to get a gun license. You need to get a refresher of all three every five years. Part of the background check should include household members although this could be difficult. There could be a national no-buy list and you could check against that list by address. "I'm sorry maam it appears that so and so lives at your address and he has fantasies about bathing in the blood of your neighbors. Can't sell to you."
 
2013-01-11 03:23:59 PM  
frankencj:

Most school districts around Houston have their own police department and have had them for a while. The one I pay my taxes to has an officer or two in all middle and high schools. I do think it is a good idea and was surprised that it was dismissed so easily by Obama and the press.

They put cops in the ghetto high schools in this county for obvious reasons, but we don't have them in my latte-sipping, Volvo-driving hood.  The only reason to have a cop in our neighborhood schools is for incidents like this which have a tiny chance of actually occurring so I can see why we don't staff for it.  I'm not sure why a school would need cops unless it sucks.  Otherwise, it's a waste of money.
 
2013-01-11 03:24:38 PM  

jaytkay: numbquil: When congress is considering legislation which may ban citizens from owning a certain item they should at least recognize what it is they are banning. It's a legitimate grievance.

Conservative logic:

Some guy on the Internet says HA HA! LIEBERALS clips are not magazines GOTCHA!!

Therefore Congress does not understand the difference.


Or we could just use the highly publicized time where an actual legislator got some firearm specifics incorrect. Barrel shrouds, anyone? It's not unwarranted to ask that legislators at least understand what they're attempting to ban.

Of course, you knew that, didn't you?
 
2013-01-11 03:24:47 PM  

Benjamin Stone: ciberido: Benjamin Stone: I BLAME GORILLAZ:

Link

Sure, blame them if that will make you feel good.

I don't, but thanks for linking to "Clint Eastwood." :D


By "that will make you feel good," I was making a reference to Feel Good Inc, but I guess it didn't work :(.
 
2013-01-11 03:25:39 PM  

meat0918: Carn: DontMakeMeComeBackThere: After listening to NPR on my way to lunch today I've come to the conclusion that the world we live in now is to be filled with passionate people repeating (at brain-washing rapidity) "it's just wrong to have such a violence-loving society" (It's just wrong to have so many guns. It's just wrong to like guns so much. It's just wrong to have violent video games. etc.)

So, the anti-gun crowd has finally acknowledged that there are no logical arguments for new gun laws (i.e. nothing will stop a nutjob from stealing his mom's guns and killing kids), so now they are trying the "it's just wrong" method of touchy-feely pyscho-babble brainwashing to get rid of guns.

More easily ignored, but much more annoying in my book.

The logical argument is that a nutjob and and his mother should probably be prevented from owning guns in the first place! It is logical, reasonable, sensible, practical, etc., for society to try to keep weapons from mentally ill people who pose a threat to themselves and others. To argue against this, as you appear to be doing, is irrational at best, but may possibly be an insane position itself.

I agree.

We do need better ways and processes for treating our mentally ill, and even with new measures we will have failures to keep all guns out of their hands. It is impossible to keep someone determined to cause harm from doing so. That impossibility is not a reason to avoid addressing the problems we have with our current system.

The major sticking point to me seems to be determining what is a "reasonable regulation" allowable within the scope of the 2nd. We already do background checks on handguns, don't we? How to improve this system is something I'd like to see addressed.

Another thing. Registering all firearms is not onerous to me, and I am a gun owner, but I can see why some people get upset about it.


To me, requiring a psychiatric evaluation before purchasing isn't unreasonable. Make it be part of getting a gun license and make people renew it every 5 or 10 years. I know many people would be against this.
 
2013-01-11 03:26:04 PM  

meat0918: That stuff doesn't grab the headlines and generate ad revenue.


I know. Which makes it even more disapointing. It's like everyone is demanding that we must move heaven and earth to prevent leprosy by banning armadillos while completely ignoring HIV or breast cancer.
 
2013-01-11 03:27:10 PM  

Carn: It seems like in this case, whether he was clinically diagnosed is a matter of speculation. We could enforce it as part of mandatory licensing. We could say "You need to complete a mandatory safety and aptitude test, as well as psych screening" in order to get a gun license. You need to get a refresher of all three every five years. Part of the background check should include household members although this could be difficult. There could be a national no-buy list and you could check against that list by address. "I'm sorry maam it appears that so and so lives at your address and he has fantasies about bathing in the blood of your neighbors. Can't sell to you."


Would you be willing to accept the same restriction on free speech? A license and mandatory testing? Yes, they're two different things, but both are specifically-enumerated rights in the Constitution.

Again - no argument in making it more difficult for nutjobs to get firearms, but mandatory licensing is a no go.
 
2013-01-11 03:29:14 PM  

Carn: It seems like in this case, whether he was clinically diagnosed is a matter of speculation. We could enforce it as part of mandatory licensing. We could say "You need to complete a mandatory safety and aptitude test, as well as psych screening" in order to get a gun license. You need to get a refresher of all three every five years. Part of the background check should include household members although this could be difficult. There could be a national no-buy list and you could check against that list by address. "I'm sorry maam it appears that so and so lives at your address and he has fantasies about bathing in the blood of your neighbors. Can't sell to you."


Legally, you can't do this. Both HIPPA and ACA protect your medical confidentiality from anyone who is not your health care provider and only with your specific consent. You cannot be forced to have you local gunshop owner privy to whether or not you recieved counselling for grief after your mammy passed away 4 years go.

/and why would you WANT that anyway? This is the problem with approaching legislation from a "them" standpoint.
 
2013-01-11 03:30:05 PM  

ronaprhys: meat0918: I agree.

We do need better ways and processes for treating our mentally ill, and even with new measures we will have failures to keep all guns out of their hands. It is impossible to keep someone determined to cause harm from doing so. That impossibility is not a reason to avoid addressing the problems we have with our current system.

I don't think anyone disagrees that we shouldn't attempt to change things for the better. The bigger problem seems to be around what will actually work. Mass shootings like these are a very, very small portion of the problem. Very noticeable and completely horrific, but the actual # of firearm homicides dwarf these. The majority of those are related to gang and drug problems and occur with handguns. Oddly enough, those are all getting ignored at this point due to the visibility of the current incidents and the fact that it's difficult for anyone to care if one gangbanger offs another.

The major sticking point to me seems to be determining what is a "reasonable regulation" allowable within the scope of the 2nd. We already do background checks on handguns, don't we? How to improve this system is something I'd like to see addressed.

Not just reasonable regulation, as far as I'm concerned. Reasonable regulation that would seem, at face value, to have some chance of impacting the homicide rate coupled with a sunset provision if the legislation fails with severe prohibitions to changing that and moving the goalposts.

Another thing. Registering all firearms is not onerous to me, and I am a gun owner, but I can see why some people get upset about it.

To me it's less onerous and more useless. It's difficult to see that this would have a measurable impact on the homicide rate. With appropriate restrictions and sunset provisions, I could be persuaded to try it, but since I certainly don't trust politicians to use something like this appropriately, I'm highly-disinclined to accept such a thing.


I'm more interested in requiring liability insurance as part of a licensing requirement. In lines of the whole gun show loophole. You buy a gun legally then sell at a gun show to some guy who doesn't go through the required stuff and later ends up committing a crime. You are then liable in civil court.
 
2013-01-11 03:30:58 PM  

Carn: meat0918: Carn: DontMakeMeComeBackThere: After listening to NPR on my way to lunch today I've come to the conclusion that the world we live in now is to be filled with passionate people repeating (at brain-washing rapidity) "it's just wrong to have such a violence-loving society" (It's just wrong to have so many guns. It's just wrong to like guns so much. It's just wrong to have violent video games. etc.)

So, the anti-gun crowd has finally acknowledged that there are no logical arguments for new gun laws (i.e. nothing will stop a nutjob from stealing his mom's guns and killing kids), so now they are trying the "it's just wrong" method of touchy-feely pyscho-babble brainwashing to get rid of guns.

More easily ignored, but much more annoying in my book.

The logical argument is that a nutjob and and his mother should probably be prevented from owning guns in the first place! It is logical, reasonable, sensible, practical, etc., for society to try to keep weapons from mentally ill people who pose a threat to themselves and others. To argue against this, as you appear to be doing, is irrational at best, but may possibly be an insane position itself.

I agree.

We do need better ways and processes for treating our mentally ill, and even with new measures we will have failures to keep all guns out of their hands. It is impossible to keep someone determined to cause harm from doing so. That impossibility is not a reason to avoid addressing the problems we have with our current system.

The major sticking point to me seems to be determining what is a "reasonable regulation" allowable within the scope of the 2nd. We already do background checks on handguns, don't we? How to improve this system is something I'd like to see addressed.

Another thing. Registering all firearms is not onerous to me, and I am a gun owner, but I can see why some people get upset about it.

To me, requiring a psychiatric evaluation before purchasing isn't unreasonable. Make it be part of getting a gun license and make people renew it every 5 or 10 years. I know many people would be against this.


A previous diagnosis of a dangerous condition should definitely bar you from access without serious signoffs from 2 or more doctors, but mandatory checks explicitly for the purpose of qualifying for a gun license seem like bait for fraudulent diagnosis mills in both directions.
 
2013-01-11 03:32:03 PM  

Carn: I'm more interested in requiring liability insurance as part of a licensing requirement.


Can you explain why you think liability insurance on a gun (which is readily available currently) would have any affect on reducing gun crime?
 
2013-01-11 03:33:15 PM  

ronaprhys: Carn: It seems like in this case, whether he was clinically diagnosed is a matter of speculation. We could enforce it as part of mandatory licensing. We could say "You need to complete a mandatory safety and aptitude test, as well as psych screening" in order to get a gun license. You need to get a refresher of all three every five years. Part of the background check should include household members although this could be difficult. There could be a national no-buy list and you could check against that list by address. "I'm sorry maam it appears that so and so lives at your address and he has fantasies about bathing in the blood of your neighbors. Can't sell to you."

Would you be willing to accept the same restriction on free speech? A license and mandatory testing? Yes, they're two different things, but both are specifically-enumerated rights in the Constitution.

Again - no argument in making it more difficult for nutjobs to get firearms, but mandatory licensing is a no go.


I'm open to other suggestions in order to enforce this kind of stuff but I can't think of a better way to make everyone do it than licenses.
 
2013-01-11 03:34:00 PM  

ciberido: Benjamin Stone: ciberido: Benjamin Stone: I BLAME GORILLAZ:

Link

Sure, blame them if that will make you feel good.

I don't, but thanks for linking to "Clint Eastwood." :D

By "that will make you feel good," I was making a reference to Feel Good Inc, but I guess it didn't work :(.


The failure is all mine!
 
2013-01-11 03:35:57 PM  

Carn: I'm more interested in requiring liability insurance as part of a licensing requirement. In lines of the whole gun show loophole. You buy a gun legally then sell at a gun show to some guy who doesn't go through the required stuff and later ends up committing a crime. You are then liable in civil court.


Again - no licensing. Second, there is no gun show loophole. What you're referring to is private party sales. No reason to use an inaccurate and pejorative term designed to do nothing more than mislead the public.

As for the end of your statement, the seller would be liable if they had any knowledge that the person they were selling to wasn't eligible to purchase a firearm legally. Now, if there could be an easily and not abusable way to do free NICS checks for a purchase, I might be willing to support that. However, I don't know that this would have any actual impact on the homicide rate - considering that most homicides are related to drugs and gangs. Nor would any of these ideas have stopped any of the current tragedies.
 
2013-01-11 03:36:04 PM  
In the old timey days when my dad was in school kids took guns in on a semi-regular basis. If the guys were going shooting/hunting after school they'd ride their bikes to school with a rifle slung over a shoulder. Once at school they'd check the gun in with the principles office and get it back after class. And yet somehow with this going on there wasn't a single shooting at his school. The school never panicked and went on lock down expelling all the students involved. This was off in BFE Montana.

I'm not going to draw any conclusions from this riveting tale so I'll just finish with the story of the time so and so tied an onion to his belt. Which was the style at the time...........
 
2013-01-11 03:36:14 PM  

hinten: Insert a tasteless joke about missing the gas 40 years ago only to smoke himself to death later.


Spiegelman isn't a holocaust survivor
 
2013-01-11 03:36:37 PM  

jaytkay: numbquil: When congress is considering legislation which may ban citizens from owning a certain item they should at least recognize what it is they are banning. It's a legitimate grievance.

Conservative logic:

Some guy on the Internet says HA HA! LIEBERALS clips are not magazines GOTCHA!!

Therefore Congress does not understand the difference.


Link

When you introduce legislation to ban barrel shrouds, and when asked what a barrel shroud is and you deflect until you finally answer "the pull out stock thing" you don't really help your case.

Look, I'm a gun owner and a gun violence victim. I'm all for a national database for back ground and mental stability check prior to purchase of a weapon. I'm also against high capacity magazines, but feel the number should be a little farther north of 10.

What I don't understand is the banning of military looking semi automatic weapons vs. standing semi automatic hunting rifles. Which has also been confused by those seeking assault rifle legislation.
 
2013-01-11 03:36:46 PM  

Carn: DontMakeMeComeBackThere: After listening to NPR on my way to lunch today I've come to the conclusion that the world we live in now is to be filled with passionate people repeating (at brain-washing rapidity) "it's just wrong to have such a violence-loving society" (It's just wrong to have so many guns. It's just wrong to like guns so much. It's just wrong to have violent video games. etc.)

So, the anti-gun crowd has finally acknowledged that there are no logical arguments for new gun laws (i.e. nothing will stop a nutjob from stealing his mom's guns and killing kids), so now they are trying the "it's just wrong" method of touchy-feely pyscho-babble brainwashing to get rid of guns.

More easily ignored, but much more annoying in my book.

The logical argument is that a nutjob and and his mother should probably be prevented from owning guns in the first place! It is logical, reasonable, sensible, practical, etc., for society to try to keep weapons from mentally ill people who pose a threat to themselves and others. To argue against this, as you appear to be doing, is irrational at best, but may possibly be an insane position itself.


No, I'm not arguing against it. In fact, laws around mental illness is where the solution - as best it can ever be a solution - is going to come from. But I'll bet you any amount of money that you could never get a law that says "You can't own a gun because a relative of yours is insane" to pass Constitutional muster.

If I had to summarize my position it's this: You can't prevent killings by trying to limit the weapons - you have to stop the person who wants to kill.
 
2013-01-11 03:37:02 PM  

Rapmaster2000: frankencj:

Most school districts around Houston have their own police department and have had them for a while. The one I pay my taxes to has an officer or two in all middle and high schools. I do think it is a good idea and was surprised that it was dismissed so easily by Obama and the press.

They put cops in the ghetto high schools in this county for obvious reasons, but we don't have them in my latte-sipping, Volvo-driving hood.  The only reason to have a cop in our neighborhood schools is for incidents like this which have a tiny chance of actually occurring so I can see why we don't staff for it.  I'm not sure why a school would need cops unless it sucks.  Otherwise, it's a waste of money.


FBISD has the money. The school cop is equivalent to the vice-principal/football coach in the old days except now they only do the 'harass the hippie kid' and not the scholastic and sport stuff.
 
2013-01-11 03:38:06 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Carn: I'm more interested in requiring liability insurance as part of a licensing requirement.

Can you explain why you think liability insurance on a gun (which is readily available currently) would have any affect on reducing gun crime?


First, by being a monetary reminder to everyone forced to carry it to observe their safety precautions at all times. Now, I know some of you are responsible gun owners and already do this, but some people aren't. Second, we're not necessarily trying to prevent crime directly, but imagine your acquaintance or your distant cousin wants to buy a spare gun off you "for protection". If you have liability insurance on that sucker and you're unsure of his motives, you ought to think twice about it. Maybe he's a meth head and is gonna run off and mug somebody or try to rob a convenience store. Previously, what do you care? You're legally allowed to sell it to him and he's the criminal if he commits a crime. But now you've got skin in the game. Maybe I shouldn't let crazy cousin Larry buy my gun.
 
2013-01-11 03:39:34 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Carn: It seems like in this case, whether he was clinically diagnosed is a matter of speculation. We could enforce it as part of mandatory licensing. We could say "You need to complete a mandatory safety and aptitude test, as well as psych screening" in order to get a gun license. You need to get a refresher of all three every five years. Part of the background check should include household members although this could be difficult. There could be a national no-buy list and you could check against that list by address. "I'm sorry maam it appears that so and so lives at your address and he has fantasies about bathing in the blood of your neighbors. Can't sell to you."

Legally, you can't do this. Both HIPPA and ACA protect your medical confidentiality from anyone who is not your health care provider and only with your specific consent. You cannot be forced to have you local gunshop owner privy to whether or not you recieved counselling for grief after your mammy passed away 4 years go.

/and why would you WANT that anyway? This is the problem with approaching legislation from a "them" standpoint.


It doesn't have to be specific, it can be a generic no-buy list. Flagged by medical provider, then all it is is a name and an address.
 
2013-01-11 03:40:41 PM  

Carn: I'm open to other suggestions in order to enforce this kind of stuff but I can't think of a better way to make everyone do it than licenses.


I believe that, in the VA Tech case, the shooter was known to be mentally ill, yet it hadn't been appropriately reported. I could see something whereby a doctor could, for reasons that cannot in any way, shape or form relate to questions around firearms, have a requirement to report clinically-diagnosed conditions to appropriate authorities. There would have to be a very clear and easy to accomplish appeals process, though. Additionally, there needs to be something there that would prevent them from happily reporting everyone (due to political reasoning, etc). Maybe there'd have to be some sort of clear signs or actions that would clearly make the diagnosis.

Then, if this is all clear, the doc becomes liable if they don't appropriately report.
 
2013-01-11 03:43:08 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Can you explain why you think liability insurance on a gun (which is readily available currently) would have any affect on reducing gun crime?


Mandatory insurance, not "available" insurance.

The other Farker was suggesting making the straw buyers liable for guns they pass on to criminals.

On paper, most guns are purchased legally. A large number of them are immediately sold illegally.

29 percent of the guns recovered on Chicago's streets between 2008 and the end of March were bought in the Cook County suburb...Two gun stores in suburban Lyons and Riverdale accounted for more than 10 percent of the guns recovered.
 
2013-01-11 03:45:37 PM  

DontMakeMeComeBackThere: If I had to summarize my position it's this: You can't prevent killings by trying to limit the weapons - you have to stop the person who wants to kill.


Another stupid maxim the NRA has drilled into impressionable peoples' heads as "truth".

Conservative logic again:
"Adam Lanza would have killed twenty kids with a candlestick if he couldn't get a gun."
 
2013-01-11 03:47:08 PM  

Carn: First, by being a monetary reminder to everyone forced to carry it to observe their safety precautions at all times. Now, I know some of you are responsible gun owners and already do this, but some people aren't. Second, we're not necessarily trying to prevent crime directly, but imagine your acquaintance or your distant cousin wants to buy a spare gun off you "for protection". If you have liability insurance on that sucker and you're unsure of his motives, you ought to think twice about it. Maybe he's a meth head and is gonna run off and mug somebody or try to rob a convenience store. Previously, what do you care? You're legally allowed to sell it to him and he's the criminal if he commits a crime. But now you've got skin in the game.


These hypotheticals are not really the source of most guns used in gun crimes.

Also, once you complete a bill of sale, you are no longer responsible for the gun, insurance or no. Same as with liability insurance on an auto that you sell to your idiot second cousin. If he plows into a family of 6 the day after you sell him your old beater, so long as you have a completed bill of sale, you cannot be held responsible, and your liability insurance is not applicable.

It doesn't work the way you seem to think it will.

Carn: It doesn't have to be specific, it can be a generic no-buy list.


Considering that very few (if any) of these mass shooters had been officially diagnosed with anything by anyone, how would this massive, expensive additional bueracracy reduce the rate of mass murdering madmen?
 
2013-01-11 03:48:47 PM  

Carn: BojanglesPaladin: Carn: I'm more interested in requiring liability insurance as part of a licensing requirement.

Can you explain why you think liability insurance on a gun (which is readily available currently) would have any affect on reducing gun crime?

First, by being a monetary reminder to everyone forced to carry it to observe their safety precautions at all times. Now, I know some of you are responsible gun owners and already do this, but some people aren't. Second, we're not necessarily trying to prevent crime directly, but imagine your acquaintance or your distant cousin wants to buy a spare gun off you "for protection". If you have liability insurance on that sucker and you're unsure of his motives, you ought to think twice about it. Maybe he's a meth head and is gonna run off and mug somebody or try to rob a convenience store. Previously, what do you care? You're legally allowed to sell it to him and he's the criminal if he commits a crime. But now you've got skin in the game. Maybe I shouldn't let crazy cousin Larry buy my gun.


WTF am I reading?

You have the whole ideology of liability insurance for gun ownership screwed.
 
2013-01-11 03:50:03 PM  

moothemagiccow: hinten: Insert a tasteless joke about missing the gas 40 years ago only to smoke himself to death later.

Spiegelman isn't a holocaust survivor


And the holocaust occured 70 years ago.
 
2013-01-11 03:50:11 PM  

ronaprhys: Carn: I'm open to other suggestions in order to enforce this kind of stuff but I can't think of a better way to make everyone do it than licenses.

I believe that, in the VA Tech case, the shooter was known to be mentally ill, yet it hadn't been appropriately reported. I could see something whereby a doctor could, for reasons that cannot in any way, shape or form relate to questions around firearms, have a requirement to report clinically-diagnosed conditions to appropriate authorities. There would have to be a very clear and easy to accomplish appeals process, though. Additionally, there needs to be something there that would prevent them from happily reporting everyone (due to political reasoning, etc). Maybe there'd have to be some sort of clear signs or actions that would clearly make the diagnosis.

Then, if this is all clear, the doc becomes liable if they don't appropriately report.


Sounds good to me.
 
2013-01-11 03:52:53 PM  

jaytkay:
Conservative logic again:
"Adam Lanza would have killed twenty kids with a candlestick if he couldn't get a gun."


Or, he could have bought a case cutter (the weapon of choice on 9/11) or a few sacks of fertilizer and a couple of quarts of motor oil (the weapon of choice in OKC) and done a hell of a lot more damage.

You quite simply cannot eliminate all risk. If somebody wants to cause mayhem, they will. All you can do is try to mitigate the damage by ensuring that the badguys(tm) get put down as quickly as possible.

Everybody seems to get POed at the suggestion of arming such teachers that want to be armed and that meet, say, the training standards in place for police officers. I keep asking folks who oppose such an idea "If you can't trust your child's teacher with a gun, WHY ARE YOU TRUSTING THEM WITH YOUR CHILD?!?!?" They mostly just look at me like I'm nuts.
 
2013-01-11 03:53:16 PM  

jaytkay: The other Farker was suggesting making the straw buyers liable for guns they pass on to criminals.


I agree that "straw buyers" is a problem. But you cannot legally make someone liable for property beyond the point that they complete a sale to someone else. If they were leasing or renting guns, sure. But if you buy a gun from me, then it is your responsibility. period. However, there are rules governing even private sales. You cannot sell to someone you "reasonably" suspect of violent or criminal behavior.

I think that more effort should be made to prosecute straw buyers. Obviously if you are selling 20 guns in a year to people with known criminal records, then you are acting illegally and should be harshly penalized. Too often DAs don't see straw purchase convictions as worthwhile because they have a had burden of proof and are harder to convict. I think that better legislation in this specific area is a good way to reach my goals as stated above.
 
2013-01-11 03:54:14 PM  

CheekyMonkey: dittybopper: Kids with guns? I'm doing my part:

[i47.tinypic.com image 225x319]

Of course, we have a back-up plan, just in case:

[i46.tinypic.com image 480x640]

I don't think you should put those blindfolds on your kids when they're handling dangerous weapons...


My son is in the SAS.
 
2013-01-11 03:56:00 PM  

Secret Master of All Flatulence: jaytkay:
Conservative logic again:
"Adam Lanza would have killed twenty kids with a candlestick if he couldn't get a gun."

Or, he could have bought a case cutter (the weapon of choice on 9/11) or a few sacks of fertilizer and a couple of quarts of motor oil (the weapon of choice in OKC) and done a hell of a lot more damage.

You quite simply cannot eliminate all risk. If somebody wants to cause mayhem, they will. All you can do is try to mitigate the damage by ensuring that the badguys(tm) get put down as quickly as possible.

Everybody seems to get POed at the suggestion of arming such teachers that want to be armed and that meet, say, the training standards in place for police officers. I keep asking folks who oppose such an idea "If you can't trust your child's teacher with a gun, WHY ARE YOU TRUSTING THEM WITH YOUR CHILD?!?!?" They mostly just look at me like I'm nuts.


You are a little nuts.
 
2013-01-11 03:56:27 PM  

Secret Master of All Flatulence: professor_tom:

Only pink guns, with ribbons and pikachu dangling from the trigger guard.

I'll call:

[i135.photobucket.com image 717x269]
You can't see it too well, but the metal is powdercoated a sparkly purple. Oh, yeah...that's a "My Little Pony" assault case in the front.


From the 'site that supplied the picture:

It's not a toy, it's a fully operational AR-15A2 HBAR in 5.56mm that I built for her and had powdercoated.  The furniture is CavArms. The muzzlebreak is blaze orange because Federal law requires that all toy guns have the last 6mm of the barrel painted blaze orange, but there is no Federal or State law in the jurisdiction I reside in that says that real guns can't have blaze orange muzzle devices. Legal loophole and 3 years and 80K+ in legal education FTMFW.The cops I've shown it to have had kittens when they saw the muzzle break.

I'm still trying to figure out if that is hilarious or dangerous. Probably both.
 
2013-01-11 03:57:34 PM  

Secret Master of All Flatulence: You quite simply cannot eliminate all risk.


Wow you DESTROYED that straw man. All those people (in your head) vowing to "eliminate all risk"! You showed them!!
 
2013-01-11 04:00:37 PM  
Well that's awkward.
 
2013-01-11 04:01:27 PM  

jaytkay: DontMakeMeComeBackThere: If I had to summarize my position it's this: You can't prevent killings by trying to limit the weapons - you have to stop the person who wants to kill.

Another stupid maxim the NRA has drilled into impressionable peoples' heads as "truth".

Conservative logic again:
"Adam Lanza would have killed twenty kids with a candlestick if he couldn't get a gun."


Meh. Maybe he would have used an axe or a machete. Both are commonly available, with no waiting period or background checks, and such attacks are devastatingly effective against grade school children.
 
2013-01-11 04:01:53 PM  

Secret Master of All Flatulence: Everybody seems to get POed at the suggestion of arming such teachers that want to be armed and that meet, say, the training standards in place for police officers. I keep asking folks who oppose such an idea "If you can't trust your child's teacher with a gun, WHY ARE YOU TRUSTING THEM WITH YOUR CHILD?!?!?" They mostly just look at me like I'm nuts.


I think we should allow a few school to engage in this practice as test sites. Let them self-select, test the efficacy. Remind the red-staters that this means either increased taxes to pay for it or decreased teacher quality. God will sort it all out.
 
2013-01-11 04:04:03 PM  

neversubmit: ringersol: Frank N Stein: "I had a 10/22 as a kid. It was fun to shoot at cans."

I had a totally sweet Trapper Keeper.
It contained my homework and the awesome-to-a-kid doodles I made on my homework.

/ about as relevant
// it *was* totally sweet though
/// my teachers were not amused by the doodles
//// but back then you didn't get detention or expulsion for that sort of thing
// not even for the drawings you probably should not have drawn

When I was a kid I had a pump .22 and after a heavy rain I'd go to the wash out behind the pond and kill snakes so the cows would go to the high pasture. Then kids would trade punches, the shake and call it good. Today they talk shiat and pull guns.

[i.imgur.com image 530x397]


I'm waiting for some elected official to utter the phrase "The Violence Industry".

This will be quickly followed by the government funded "War on Violence".
 
2013-01-11 04:05:01 PM  

give me doughnuts:

I'm still trying to figure out if that is hilarious or dangerous. Probably both.



I'm on pretty good terms with the local cops. One of them, a real "gun nut", had kittens when I told him about the build colors. I pointed out to him that you can buy blaze orange nail polish in most drug stores, for well under $5, and if somebody points something at you that resembles a gun, you MUST treat it as a gun, regardless of the color.

My daughter's AR isn't going to hurt anybody. It lives in a very nice 1900 pound gun safe, and only comes out if she asks to handle it or we're having a range day. He knew and understood this. But I think that seeing it took him aback a bit, and that bit could quite possibly end up saving his life someday.

Besides, it did piss off quite a few people, which was part of the point.
 
2013-01-11 04:17:56 PM  

moothemagiccow: GanjSmokr: moothemagiccow: neversubmit: When I was a kid I had a pump .22 and after a heavy rain I'd go to the wash out behind the pond and kill snakes so the cows would go to the high pasture. Then kids would trade punches, the shake and call it good. Today they talk shiat and pull guns.

Ahh, old people. Murder is just brand spanking new, isn't it?

Kids killing other kids at school with firearms? Yes, that is relatively new.

/there were plenty of guns in back windows in the school parking lot in my hometown during hunting season
//and even not during hunting season...
///shockingly enough, no school shootings ever happened there.

So how many people were murdered in your hometown high school last year?


While I could have typed Ganjs post verbatim, I can also answer your question.

We have even MORE young people with guns in my area, we have had zero gun shootings in living memory.

It goes back to teaching fun safety and responsibility.

My son got his first .22 at nine. He can almost outshoot me and is responsible and safe with it.
 
2013-01-11 04:28:14 PM  
Thirty years ago, I used to go hunting early in the morning, stow my shotgun in my locker, and go on about my school day. The difference: Hollywood and rap music hadn't gotten into full swing yet, with the glorification of violence.
 
2013-01-11 04:38:18 PM  

Elegy: moothemagiccow: hinten: Insert a tasteless joke about missing the gas 40 years ago only to smoke himself to death later.

Spiegelman isn't a holocaust survivor

And the holocaust occured 70 years ago.


 That's what I get for even alluding to a bad joke.

He is, what they call, a second generation Holocaust survivor.
 
2013-01-11 04:42:44 PM  

GoodyearPimp: Secret Master of All Flatulence: Everybody seems to get POed at the suggestion of arming such teachers that want to be armed and that meet, say, the training standards in place for police officers. I keep asking folks who oppose such an idea "If you can't trust your child's teacher with a gun, WHY ARE YOU TRUSTING THEM WITH YOUR CHILD?!?!?" They mostly just look at me like I'm nuts.

I think we should allow a few school to engage in this practice as test sites. Let them self-select, test the efficacy. Remind the red-staters that this means either increased taxes to pay for it or decreased teacher quality. God will sort it all out.


IIRC, it's already in place in a couple of states. The teachers have to pay for the training, et cetera, out of their own pockets. Oddly enough, the ones who cared enough to do it haven't suddenly started killing their students or co-workers.
 
2013-01-11 04:46:54 PM  

Elegy: moothemagiccow: hinten: Insert a tasteless joke about missing the gas 40 years ago only to smoke himself to death later.

Spiegelman isn't a holocaust survivor

And the holocaust occured 70 years ago.


It's never too late to die in a freak gas accident.
www.thehulltruth.com

If there is anything that this horrible tragedy can teach us, it's that a male model's life is a precious, precious commodity. Just because we have chiseled abs and stunning features, it doesn't mean that we too can't not die in a freak gasoline fight accident.
 
2013-01-11 04:49:51 PM  

DontMakeMeComeBackThere: But I'll bet you any amount of money that you could never get a law that says "You can't own a gun because a relative of yours is insane" to pass Constitutional muster.


You wouldn't even need to leave the "Patrick Henry" chapter of the reasoning of the founding fathers.

\The nutballs loved ol' Patrick.
 
2013-01-11 04:55:10 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Carn: I'm more interested in requiring liability insurance as part of a licensing requirement.

Can you explain why you think liability insurance on a gun (which is readily available currently) would have any affect on reducing gun crime?


Criminal liability if a gun you own is used in a crime...make people responsible for the safe keeping of their weapons.
The military keep strict accounting and control procedures for their weapons, hold citizens to a similar standard.
/maybe limit the reporting procedures to military style weapons, high capacity capable rifles and shotguns,and handguns....keeping the hunting specific rifles and shotguns exempt.
/weapons designed for military applications (even if it isn't officially mil spec, absent the fun switch) are very efficient at what they were designed for,killing and maiming quickly and efficiently. If you want one then by all means it is your right, but it should carry responsibility.
 
2013-01-11 04:57:07 PM  
I was brought up in a rural community and taught to hunt and shoot. Moved to a city, and no longer hunt. I don't need a gun, and I don't see why other people who aren't hunting or sport shooting or for employment need one either. "I need one for self-protection' is the biggest piece of horse shiat I've heard.
 
2013-01-11 04:58:55 PM  

jaytkay: dennysgod: jaytkay: Sticky Hands: however, what we DO know is the following: states with less strict gun control have lower firearm murder rates than states with more strict gun control.

Not true.

But you knew that.

[citation needed], that goes for both of you.

The onus is on the one making the claim.

And I bet he'll trot out statistics from proven fraud John Lott. They always do.


I had a nice long response written up.
But the fark DB blew up and I lost it so I will shorten it.


How about the FBI?
Murder by State, Types of Weapons, 2011 table 20. hell pick any year you want the pattern stays the same.

Cross reference that with the 10 best and worst state for gun laws as compiled by the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. (LCtoPGV: )


I will include the percentage of homicides by firearm for 2011 from the FBI tables, the percentage next to the state name is the total number of firearm murders divided by the total number of murders.

I will also summize the best and worst list according to LCtoPGV:

best: CA, NJ, MA, CT, NY, MD, IL, RI, MI
Worst: SD, AZ, MI, VT, LA, MT, WY, KY, KA, OK

The gist is: When compared to other states in their region, states with better LCtoPGV grades have a HIGHER percentage of their homicides committed by firearm than those that do not.

Example: NE USA.

State name (grade) gun homicide rate
I round DOWN to FAVOR the gun control states, I round UP to disadvantage the less controlled states.

best scores:
NJ (A-) 70%
NY (B-) 57%
MA (A-) 66%

Worst:
VT (F) 50%
ME (F) 48%
NH (D) 38%

Highest rates in the NE?
PA (C) 73%
CT(B) 73%
NJ (A-) 70%

This holds in any portion of the USA.
The best of the best states ( Only three where graded A- or higher) is MA at 66.7% has a lower gun homicide rate than exactly TWO of the worst ten. (LA 82% and MI 73%) and is tied with Kansas.

Hawaii (B ) did have the lowest gun homicide rate in the nation in 2011, at 14%, and their TOTAL murders (7!) are a third of the year before (20+) (going back to previous years they run close to 50%) I would like to see what they have done overall.

The next lowest of the "good" states is RI (C+) with a rate of 35.7%. the lowest of the bad (all ten were given F) states?

SD (F) 33.4% and MT (F) at 38%

the two states with the highest gun murder rates are:
IL (B-) at 83%
LA (F) 82%

AS mentioned above New Jersey (which gets an A- for gun control) has a rate of 70%

I looked into this a while back when I read two articles that didn't jive with other things I knew.

1st was one claiming gun DEATHS would pass car deaths in a few years. ~35-40k per year
2ed one by LCtoPGV claiming gun DEATHS were higher in states with less gun control. (which cited my own state)

Both articles then talked about gun control to prevent HOMICIDES.

The only POSSIBLE way they could have honestly gotten those numbers is by including suicides.

Feel free to play with these or get your own version and compare different years (And watch the homicide rate drop across the country)

Alaska 0.551724138
Arizona 0.654867257
Arkansas 0.718954248
California 0.681564246
Colorado 0.496598639
Connecticut 0.734375
Delaware 0.682926829
District of Columbia 0.712962963
Georgia 0.708812261
Hawaii 0.142857143
Idaho 0.53125
Illinois3 0.834070796
Indiana 0.644366197
Iowa 0.431818182
Kansas 0.663636364
Kentucky 0.666666667
Louisiana 0.828865979
Maine 0.48
Maryland 0.683417085
Massachusetts 0.666666667
Michigan 0.734094617
Minnesota 0.614285714
Mississippi 0.737967914
Missouri 0.758241758
Montana 0.388888889
Nebraska 0.646153846
Nevada 0.581395349
New Hampshire 0.375
New Jersey 0.709762533
New Mexico 0.495867769
New York 0.574935401
North Carolina 0.685071575
North Dakota 0.5
Ohio 0.704918033
Oklahoma 0.642156863
Oregon 0.519480519
Pennsylvania 0.738993711
Rhode Island 0.357142857
South Carolina 0.699059561
South Dakota 0.333333333
Tennessee 0.654155496
Texas 0.641873278
Utah 0.509803922
Vermont 0.5
Virginia 0.686468647
Washington 0.49068323
West Virginia 0.581081081
Wisconsin 0.592592593
Wyoming 0.733333333
Virgin Islands 0.815789474
 
2013-01-11 04:59:37 PM  

HAMMERTOE: Thirty years ago, I used to go hunting early in the morning, stow my shotgun in my locker, and go on about my school day. The difference: Hollywood and rap music hadn't gotten into full swing yet, with the glorification of violence.


And for thirty years, violent crime in the U.S. has trended steadily downward. Therefore, increasingly graphic Hollywood films and gangster-rap music have a positive affect, and help reduce violence overall.

That's the logical conclusion of your argument.
 
2013-01-11 05:00:48 PM  

ansius: I was brought up in a rural community and taught to hunt and shoot. Moved to a city, and no longer hunt. I don't need a gun, and I don't see why other people who aren't hunting or sport shooting or for employment need one either. "I need one for self-protection' is the biggest piece of horse shiat I've heard.


Why did you quit hunting? I can't imagine giving it up. City living with no hunting on the calendar would be miserable.
 
2013-01-11 05:06:29 PM  

Mr_Fabulous: HAMMERTOE: Thirty years ago, I used to go hunting early in the morning, stow my shotgun in my locker, and go on about my school day. The difference: Hollywood and rap music hadn't gotten into full swing yet, with the glorification of violence.

And for thirty years, violent crime in the U.S. has trended steadily downward. Therefore, increasingly graphic Hollywood films and gangster-rap music have a positive affect, and help reduce violence overall.

That's the logical conclusion of your argument.


Seems logical to me.

Though the drop began in 1994-1995 I believe

Since that time we have had increasingly violent video games, increasingly violent movies, increasing violent TV, Gangster rap came and went, more and more and more guns on the streets, and yet the wave of violence rolled back.

In fact, with the exception of about 3 years in the 60s and 1950-1957 one would have to go back before 1910 to find lower crime rates.
 
2013-01-11 05:11:46 PM  

Mr_Fabulous: HAMMERTOE: Thirty years ago, I used to go hunting early in the morning, stow my shotgun in my locker, and go on about my school day. The difference: Hollywood and rap music hadn't gotten into full swing yet, with the glorification of violence.

And for thirty years, violent crime in the U.S. has trended steadily downward. Therefore, increasingly graphic Hollywood films and gangster-rap music have a positive affect, and help reduce violence overall.

That's the logical conclusion of your argument.


Not really. I'm not seeing how we could decide either way. "Media got more violent" is hardly the only thing to have changed through that time.

That said, I would guess, fully admitting that it is a guess, that witnessing on average 80,000 killings by the end of middle school is probably having a negative effect on our psyches.

Not that that's a call for any sort of official regulation. Just change the channel every now and then, goddamn.
 
2013-01-11 05:31:11 PM  
I would prefer we can return to a time where people weren't paranoid and did not believe in group punishment.
 
2013-01-11 05:38:31 PM  

busy chillin': It's like 10,000 spoons will all you need is a high-powered semi automatic rifle.


I snerted aloud, at work...
 
2013-01-11 05:45:59 PM  
I always had a gun when I was a kid.

Never shot anybody. Only deer and rabbits

Now, if you look like a deer or a rabbit, you're in trouble ... but the Nanny Staters?

We'll find out how well it's going to work for people scared of violence and guns to try and take away the 2nd Amendment from people not afraid of violence and guns. (thinking thinking)

Have they thought through their cunning plan?
 
2013-01-11 06:05:26 PM  

ansius: I was brought up in a rural community and taught to hunt and shoot. Moved to a city, and no longer hunt. I don't need a gun, and I don't see why other people who aren't hunting or sport shooting or for employment need one either. "I need one for self-protection' is the biggest piece of horse shiat I've heard.


Yeah, this. I lived across the street from an anonymous gay sex meth club, and there were dealers in my building, but there was only one time I ever 'needed' to use a gun. Instead I sprayed a junkie in the face with mace, and wasn't arrested for discharging a firearm in the city.

Of course, according to "Predator", "Fort Apache the Bronx", etc., the city will EAT YOU ALIVE. And didja ever notice how most gunsuckers live either in the suburbs or out in the sticks? Yeah, lotsa need out there to defend against the rampaging horde. And by that I mean blacks and muslims.
 
2013-01-11 06:11:32 PM  

Allen. The end.:
Yeah, this. I lived across the street from an anonymous gay sex meth club, and there were dealers in my building, but there was only one time I ever 'needed' to use a gun. Instead I sprayed a junkie in the face with mace, and wasn't arrested for discharging a firearm in the city.


I used to have a crackhouse across the street. No joke...one of the dealers used a claw hammer on a customer in the middle of the night, and I had to go out to patch the poor fellow up. I ended up "convincing" them to move on, with zero rounds expended. There are times when it's definitely advantageous to be thought to be "heavily armed, easily bored, and off my medications."
 
2013-01-11 06:35:16 PM  

Sticky Hands: jaytkay: dennysgod: jaytkay: Sticky Hands: I had a nice long response written up.
But the fark DB blew up and I lost it so I will shorten it...


That's the short version?

There really isn't a viable argument to be found in there.
 
2013-01-11 06:58:30 PM  
Yep, the roughly 50 million "citizens" that have been executed by their own governments just this past century alone (all in the name of safety and security) Are pretty gaddamn hilarious. (hear the laughter?)

Oh, that's right...that never happens I forget.

So what IS the color of the sky in your world?

In some sick way I hope that you assbags do win, pass restrictive laws and reap the "benefits" of your shiatty decisions when crime goes through the roof. (Stuhtiztiks...how DO they work? Facts?....who needz em? They just get in the way of Progress!)
Then every person that might have been able to defend themselves, will be your fault and you can bet your ass we'll let you hear it until the crappy laws are repealed.

But in reality I'd rather avoid that and spend our energy solving real problems, like the economy and our F-d up health care system.

Guess that won't happen either...too many hard to get rights to go after with these crises ripe for the picking....
 
2013-01-11 07:01:44 PM  

computerguyUT: Yep, the roughly 50 million "citizens" that have been executed by their own governments just this past century alone (all in the name of safety and security) Are pretty gaddamn hilarious. (hear the laughter?)

Oh, that's right...that never happens I forget.

So what IS the color of the sky in your world?

In some sick way I hope that you assbags do win, pass restrictive laws and reap the "benefits" of your shiatty decisions when crime goes through the roof. (Stuhtiztiks...how DO they work? Facts?....who needz em? They just get in the way of Progress!)
Then every person that might have been able to defend themselves, will be your fault and you can bet your ass we'll let you hear it until the crappy laws are repealed.

But in reality I'd rather avoid that and spend our energy solving real problems, like the economy and our F-d up health care system.

Guess that won't happen either...too many hard to get rights to go after with these crises ripe for the picking....

You forgot to say "WOLVERINES!!"
 
2013-01-11 07:32:52 PM  

NightOwl2255: New day, new gun thread? Check.


I know, what's the big deal? You'd think somebody died or something.
 
2013-01-11 07:49:35 PM  

jaytkay: Sticky Hands: jaytkay: dennysgod: jaytkay: Sticky Hands: I had a nice long response written up.
But the fark DB blew up and I lost it so I will shorten it...

That's the short version?

There really isn't a viable argument to be found in there.


The long version had a better breakdown for each region of the USA for a more apples to apples comparison.

If gun control worked as advertised, states with strict gun control would have lower gun homicide rates that states that do not have strict gun control. If for no other reason that everyone having a gun in the other states would make them more likely to use it.

The data shows that this is not in fact the case.


Now my personal suggestions for what WOULD make people safer.
End the drug war.
Clamp down on illegal immigration so that the unskilled do not have to compete with an ever growing supply of labor willing to work for below market rates.
Toss aside the very one sided "free trade" game we play that benefits only the richest and put some tariffs on goods from countries that get a competitive advantage by not paying their workers and doing atrocious things to the environment.
And stop the practices of punishing a person forever for their mistakes.

A man (and men are by far the most likely to commit violent crime) with something to lose is much less likely to be criminal.
 
2013-01-11 08:10:17 PM  

jaytkay: Sticky Hands: jaytkay: dennysgod: jaytkay: Sticky Hands: I had a nice long response written up.
But the fark DB blew up and I lost it so I will shorten it...

That's the short version?

There really isn't a viable argument to be found in there.


So wait - you said that states with strict gun control laws don't have higher homicide rates and he posted stats that contradict your position and that's the best you've got.

Wow.
 
2013-01-11 08:13:49 PM  
"Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither"- Benjamin Franklin

The 4th amendment is not worth the paper it is written on.

It looks like the 2nd is next.

The 1st has been perverted to allow hateful people to spew filth.

It seems to me; that we are all being punished for the actions of a few.

I submit that the true issue should be mental health; not gun control. The solution isn't locking up people forever; but, neither is it letting them run around hurting people.

I propose that a happy medium be reached. Truly dangerous individuals need to be kept from hurting others.

Rather than sacrificing a freedom for a feel-good bill that does nothing; I say we should reform the mental health system in this country.
 
2013-01-11 08:14:30 PM  

Sticky Hands: If gun control worked as advertised, states with strict gun control would have lower gun homicide rates that states that do not have strict gun control


You can't jump to that conclusion. Maybe lax gun laws in one state leads to more murder in another. States aren't sealed containers.

There is a well-documented flow of guns out of states like Virginia to places like New York.

Here in Chicago, between 2008 and 2012, 3,100 guns seized by Chicago police could be traced back to Indiana guns shops.
 
2013-01-11 10:37:08 PM  

jaytkay: Sticky Hands: If gun control worked as advertised, states with strict gun control would have lower gun homicide rates that states that do not have strict gun control

You can't jump to that conclusion. Maybe lax gun laws in one state leads to more murder in another. States aren't sealed containers.

There is a well-documented flow of guns out of states like Virginia to places like New York.

Here in Chicago, between 2008 and 2012, 3,100 guns seized by Chicago police could be traced back to Indiana guns shops.



So why don't places like Virginia and Indiana have the murder rates of New York and Chicago?
 
2013-01-11 11:42:08 PM  

NightOwl2255: New day, new gun thread? Check.


As long as we have school shootings, we'll have gun threads.
 
2013-01-12 02:12:25 AM  

Begoggle: neversubmit: [i.imgur.com image 530x397]

OK, let me take a shot at explaining this.
Yes, 2 hours of violence in a movie DOES influence SOME people. The mentally weak, deranged, and ill. People that are already violent seek out those types of movies, and it's a self-feeding cycle. In fact, most people are probably influenced in some way. Some people are repulsed by it and want nothing to do with violence. But the vast majority of people are not influenced to simply go imitate what they see on the screen. This is because most people know the difference between reality and fantasy, good and bad, right and wrong. The 99.99999% of people who watch them recognize the difference between the outrageous caricatures of humans in a movie, and real humans in real life.
Sure, if a bunch of guys kidnap your daughter and you have a particular set of skills, then maybe a movie would influence you to go use those skills, but otherwise, no.
The Super Bowl commercial is trying to sell you a real-life product - or at the very least make you aware that it exists.
The movie is not trying to convince you to go shoot people.

Agreed, they are just trying to make money by telling stories of conflict - which by the way if you have no conflict in a movie you have either a documentary or a home movie.
But-
It makes (along with every other violent commercial and movie you watch) violence seem more respectable or at least acceptable.  For example - Even the Power Puff Girls resort to violence to save the day.  Pringles chips are now blowing up grocery store aisles in commercials.  Over years of visual consumption the message is hammered home that violence, even extreme violence, is acceptable.
Now with the wonderful FX that are possible it looks more realistic than ever and harder than ever to differentiate it from reality.
There's no one problem.  It's a whole raft of problems that together get us where we are today.  It's gun control, it's mental health, it's economics, it's the media and entertainment, it's a perversion of the constitution driven by capitalism, it's fear that makes people line up in front of a gun shop in CT today.  It's a place that nobody could have predicted before now.  It's our society which I think will start eating it's self pretty soon if it hasn't started yet.
 
2013-01-12 03:11:07 AM  
Surely not a Mauser?
 
2013-01-12 10:51:12 AM  
Liam Burns:So why don't places like Virginia and Indiana have the murder rates of New York and Chicago?

Ahhh, another example of conservative brilliance.

New York has a lower murder rate than both Indiana and Virgina. Illinois is a little higher.

Link
 
2013-01-12 11:19:58 AM  

jaytkay: Liam Burns:So why don't places like Virginia and Indiana have the murder rates of New York and Chicago?

Ahhh, another example of conservative brilliance.

New York has a lower murder rate than both Indiana and Virgina. Illinois is a little higher.

Link


Your data is a bit stale, BTW.
 
2013-01-12 11:32:23 AM  

BojanglesPaladin: jaytkay: Liam Burns:So why don't places like Virginia and Indiana have the murder rates of New York and Chicago?

Ahhh, another example of conservative brilliance.

New York has a lower murder rate than both Indiana and Virgina. Illinois is a little higher.

Link

Your data is a bit stale, BTW.


So show us something better. Make a useful contribution, don't gripe.
 
2013-01-12 11:01:54 PM  

jaytkay: So show us something better. Make a useful contribution, don't gripe.


Not a gripe. Just pointing out that more recent city data is readily available.As well as state.
 
Displayed 233 of 233 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