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.

(AP)   President Obama has announced his new world order where Uncle Sam will now confiscate your gun...wait...what...those are, um, reasonable and Constitutional expansions to regulation authority. You may now cancel your outrage   (hosted.ap.org) divider line 1394
    More: Interesting, President Obama, Uncle Sam  
•       •       •

25803 clicks; posted to Main » on 16 Jan 2013 at 2:14 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



1394 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-17 02:20:36 AM

mizchief: ProfessorOhki: mizchief: ProfessorOhki: mizchief: ProfessorOhki: mizchief: The position of gun owners is that we use guns to prevent violent crime, not just crime with guns. The UK is 2nd in the WORLD when it comes to the assault victims rate defined by: People victimized by assault (as a % of the total population). 2.8% UK vs. 1.2% US

Australia followed the UK's example and banned guns, how well did it work for them?
2.4% assault victims rate 4th in the world

What was Australia's change in assault victim % in the years prior to the ban and the years after the ban?

In 2006, assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.

Alright, now how much of that was from the gun ban? Looks like it's been about 5%/mo increase in assault since quite a ways before, eh? (Population growth is 1/4 of that, so your 49% probably holds up, I don't feel like doing the math).

[www.aic.gov.au image 600x354]

Assaults from 1995 to 2007 (number per month)
Australian Institute of Criminology
/Apparently less people go out assaulting during winter.

So then at worst, the gun ban has increased assaults, and at best it did nothing to change them. If we are going to deny people their rights and use of their property, shouldn't there be strong evidence that the ban reduces violent crime?

Ah, you want that chart then...

[www.aic.gov.au image 600x344]
Homicide victims from 1993 to 2007 (number per year)
Australian Institute of Criminology

So, assaults stayed roughly the same and there was a drop in murders. That looks like what, 15% or so? Was it worth it? Dunno, not going to read through AU law to see exactly what was banned.

/"The 253 murder and 29 manslaughter victims recorded in 2007 were the lowest annual number yet recorded."

So then basically following the same continuous decrease in homicides we're seeing in the US despite our "gun culture", increasing number of firearm owners, and relaxation of gun laws from 2004 to 2013

Link
[www.crimetrends.com image 850x637]

Link
[www ...


The reason for the reduction in US crime rates in the last couple of decades is Roe V Wade .... gang bangers aren't a problem if you vacuum them out at -7 months old and flush them
 
2013-01-17 02:22:51 AM

Lsherm: msupf: Off topic, but sort of related to things:

I'm trying to find the person who Boobiesed the donation/fund stuff for emilie Parker and tranferring her remains back to Utah. I just got some really scary/nasty conspiracy email from someone her on FARK and I want to share it with them so they or the Parker family could respond to it.

EIP.

No, I don't know why it was sent to me, but the person who did alluded to FARK in their part of the email, the rest is quotation from some Internet/radio show who identifies themselves with a rather popular call name that is similar to a TFer or mod here. Not going to out, or participate in the outing, of the person who did it. I just want to give the appropriate parties the chance to see the dreck and possibly respond publicly to decry this slop if they wish to do so.

Thanks, and mucho apologies if I am breaking decorum/rules.

This thread?


Thanks sir/Madame. For some reason it wasn't showing up in my comment history.
 
2013-01-17 02:31:07 AM

msupf: Lsherm: msupf: Off topic, but sort of related to things:

I'm trying to find the person who Boobiesed the donation/fund stuff for emilie Parker and tranferring her remains back to Utah. I just got some really scary/nasty conspiracy email from someone her on FARK and I want to share it with them so they or the Parker family could respond to it.

EIP.

No, I don't know why it was sent to me, but the person who did alluded to FARK in their part of the email, the rest is quotation from some Internet/radio show who identifies themselves with a rather popular call name that is similar to a TFer or mod here. Not going to out, or participate in the outing, of the person who did it. I just want to give the appropriate parties the chance to see the dreck and possibly respond publicly to decry this slop if they wish to do so.

Thanks, and mucho apologies if I am breaking decorum/rules.

This thread?

Thanks sir/Madame. For some reason it wasn't showing up in my comment history.


Just gotta throw it out there - I didn't send you email ;)
 
2013-01-17 03:28:05 AM
Like most, I don't see any issues with what has been signed by the president. I think we all have to accept that the genie is out of the bottle to some degree, in regards to the 300M guns already on the streets. Manufacturers should be required to track what serial numbers were shipped to each shop and shops should be required to record when it was sold and to whom. Those records should be made available to police only after being presented with a court order for a specific serial number. When the police run the serial numbers of those guns and find that a shop is responsible for a disproportionate number of crimes, their license should be reviewed/revoked,.Any individual with a history of supplying weapons to criminals, or those that would otherwise not pass a background check, should be prosecuted and heavily punished if found guilty.

If you want to stop a majority of the gun crime, you need to go after the gangs. That would likely result in riots on a massive scale. People would see mostly white police battling mostly minority gang members and all hell would break loose.

Going after "assault weapons" isn't about stopping gun violence. It's about people wanting to say that they did something. Even if that something is utterly ineffective. It's about taking on scary looking guns, regardless of how similar their functionality may be to other arms. Yes, the Newtown shooting was abhorrent and I feel for the families of the victims.We simply can't allow that sorrow to cloud our judgement and enact bad or useless law, simply in order to feel better about ourselves.

Fully automatic weapons are still legal in this country. Read that again, fully automatic weapons are still legal in this country. Sure, there are a few more hoops to go through in order to get one, but you can do it. To the best of my knowledge, none has been used in the commission of a crime, since the registration regulation went into effect. Does anyone "need" them? Obviously not, but that isn't really relevant, as there is no crime related issue with them. Given that, how can you ban one type of weapon while still allowing a significantly more lethal weapon to still be available?
 
2013-01-17 07:08:12 AM

Surpheon: SpectroBoy: * tagging of ammo

What is the problem with tagging ammo? I get annoying, but so's buying Sudafed. Is there a real problem with it?


The main problems are

1) It makes ammo more expensive
2) It means you can't buy imported ammo from countries that don't require tags (ie the whole world)
3) It is meaningless without having to register when you buy a box of ammo, and this is too much like registering gun ownership
4) It won't stop anything

None of the mass shootings that I can recall left any doubt about who did the shooting. In most cases they end in the shooters death or capture immediately. How does tagging ammo at the expense of legal shooters help?
 
2013-01-17 07:10:06 AM

llachlan: smells_like_meat: justtray: You should read the entire 2nd ammendment. Not just the cherry picked, out of context, misinterpreted part you wish it was

The SCOUS settled the definition of "militia", the "people" and "shall not be infringed" in Heller vs DC. All very definitively against the "good" wishes and high minded hopes of the anti-gun crowd  And they made it a point to say in the decision that they didn't really want to revisit the issue again. They also pretty much said that M-16s and the like were standard issue with the army and as such were allowed, without restriction, to the militia, meaning all the people.

Scalia, who wrote the opinion in Heller did not in fact say that M-16s were protected, he in fact said the opposite, and I quote:

"3. The Second Amendment right is not unlimited. We do not cast doubt on concealed-weapons prohibitions, laws barring possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, laws barring firearms in sensitive places like schools and government buildings, and laws imposing conditions on commercial sale of arms. (54-55) Also, the sorts of weapons protected are the sorts of small arms that were lawfully possessed at home at the time of the Second Amendment's ratification, not those most useful in military service today, so "M-16 rifles and the like" may be banned. (55)"

How the fark is it that a Canadian knows this and you don't?


Uh, that's not in the Heller decision. You made that shiat up.

The complete text of Heller v. D.C. from Cornell University Law School.

That paragraph actually reads:

" Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152-153; Abbott333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489-490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students' Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.26"

The ONLY mention of "M-16" in the Heller decision was in this paragraph:

" It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service-M-16 rifles and the like-may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment 's ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right."

They never said it was only about protect weapons in use when it was ratified? The whole point of Heller was to overturn a handgun ban, when revolvers and semi-auto handguns weren't in use when it was ratified.

Stop lying and making things up to support your point, you think we can't fact check you?
 
2013-01-17 08:01:11 AM

ParaHandy: mizchief: ProfessorOhki: mizchief: ProfessorOhki: mizchief: ProfessorOhki: mizchief: The position of gun owners is that we use guns to prevent violent crime, not just crime with guns. The UK is 2nd in the WORLD when it comes to the assault victims rate defined by: People victimized by assault (as a % of the total population). 2.8% UK vs. 1.2% US

Australia followed the UK's example and banned guns, how well did it work for them?
2.4% assault victims rate 4th in the world

What was Australia's change in assault victim % in the years prior to the ban and the years after the ban?

In 2006, assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.

Alright, now how much of that was from the gun ban? Looks like it's been about 5%/mo increase in assault since quite a ways before, eh? (Population growth is 1/4 of that, so your 49% probably holds up, I don't feel like doing the math).

[www.aic.gov.au image 600x354]

Assaults from 1995 to 2007 (number per month)
Australian Institute of Criminology
/Apparently less people go out assaulting during winter.

So then at worst, the gun ban has increased assaults, and at best it did nothing to change them. If we are going to deny people their rights and use of their property, shouldn't there be strong evidence that the ban reduces violent crime?

Ah, you want that chart then...

[www.aic.gov.au image 600x344]
Homicide victims from 1993 to 2007 (number per year)
Australian Institute of Criminology

So, assaults stayed roughly the same and there was a drop in murders. That looks like what, 15% or so? Was it worth it? Dunno, not going to read through AU law to see exactly what was banned.

/"The 253 murder and 29 manslaughter victims recorded in 2007 were the lowest annual number yet recorded."

So then basically following the same continuous decrease in homicides we're seeing in the US despite our "gun culture", increasing number of firearm owners, and relaxation of gun laws from 2004 to 2013

Link
[www.crimetrends.com image 850x637]
...


PARA! I thought you got arrested or summat. I missed arguing with you!
 
2013-01-17 08:19:00 AM
So in a effort to save even more children's lives he will also ban abortion except in case of rape or incest, right?
Just think of the outrage if a R was to do this?
 
2013-01-17 09:27:53 AM
How to argue with a liberal - Gun Control

Liberal: You don't need an assault weapon to hunt deer!

You: An assault weapon is not for hunting deer, it is a weapon for self defense and for the defense of others against whatever threat may arise, including but not limited to muggers or home break ins, but more importantly to effectively defend against the possibility of a well-organized, well-coordinated, and well-equipped threat. It is currently the most effective, powerful, and accurate style of small arms available to the public.

Liberal: You don't need a 30-round HIGH CAPACITY magazine to hunt deer!! lolz!

You: First off, a 30rd magazine is not high capacity, so stop calling it that. A 30 round magazine is considered standard capacity for the AR/AK platform. A 100 round drum would be properly characterized as a high capacity mag. More rounds equal more firepower, which equals a greater ability to deal with any threat that may present itself.

Liberal: Well maybe we should just give everyone Tanks and RPGs! LOLZORS!

You: Civilians should not have access heavy armor, highly explosive ordinance, rockets, nukes, etc. These are highly advanced and powerful weapons of war specifically designed to cause destruction on a large scale to not just personnel but also to infrastructure, and capital. An assault rifle is an anti-personnel weapon and considered a SMALL ARMS weapon by military standards. It's not in the same ballpark.

Liberal: Well how many more children need to die before we do something?

You: Please, do not use scare tactics. Historically there is not a single instance in history where scare tactics have been used to deprive the people of liberties in which it worked out favorably for the people! Violent and heinous acts are a problem that lies within the individual and should be addressed as such. Blaming the tool used for the evil acts is equivalent to blaming a spoon for turning you into a fat liberal turd.

Liberal: But But... BUSH and CHENEY!!... and GLOBAL WARMING!!! and, and uhh..

You: Have a nice day!
 
2013-01-17 10:18:09 AM

BlindRaise: How to argue with a liberal - Gun Control...



How to argue with a conservative - Healthcare

Conservative: You don't need health insurance to stay alive!

You: Health insurance is not for staying alive, it is a means for self defense and for the defense of others against whatever disease may arise, including but not limited to the flu or pneumonia, but more importantly to effectively detect the possibility of a possibly lethal health problem. It is currently the most effective, powerful, and accurate means of staying healthy without incurring tens of thousands in debt.

Conservative: You don't need free medicine and healthcare to stay alive!! lolz!

You: First off, health insurance is not free, so stop calling it that. Health insurance used to be considered a standard benefit of employment. A fountain of youth would be properly characterized as free healthcare. Better insurance means better healthcare, which equals a greater ability to deal with any threat that may present itself.

Conservative: Well maybe we should just pay everyone to get chemo! LOLZORS!

You: Most people do not need chemo, transplants, etc. These are highly advanced and powerful medical procedures that cause destruction on a large scale to not just diseased tissue but also to otherwise healthy organs. A bottle of antibiotics is considered a BASIC MEDICAL RIGHT by first-world standards. It's not in the same ballpark.

Conservative: But But... FARTBONGO and EBIL LIBRULS !!... and DER TERK ER GERNS!!! and, and uhh..

You: Well how many more children need to die before we do something?

Conservative: Please, do not use scare tactics. Historically there is not a single instance in history where healthcare has been used in which it worked out favorably for the people! Disease and health issues are a problem that lies within the individual and should be addressed as such. Blaming the health insurance industry for refusing to treat these conditions is equivalent to blaming a spoon for turning you into a fat liberal turd.

You: Have a nice day!
 
2013-01-17 11:23:57 AM

Silverstaff: They never said it was only about protect weapons in use when it was ratified? The whole point of Heller was to overturn a handgun ban, when revolvers and semi-auto handguns weren't in use when it was ratified.

Stop lying and making things up to support your point, you think we can't fact check you?


I wasn't lying - but I will cop to failure to bold and italicize correctly. I was citing the correct paragraphs along with its plain English interpretation (which should have been bold). I apologize, and intended no dishonesty - in fact that was precisely why I included the page numbers from the decision, so that it could be 'fact-checked'.

My point stands however: That section of District of Columbia v Heller gives the M-16 (by name) as an example of a weapon that can be banned without it being an infringement. And thus, the OP's assertion that DC v. Heller protected the M-16 is patently false, and is something that he/she should know if they want to be effective in arguing the case.
 
2013-01-17 11:31:37 AM

CliChe Guevara: PunGent: This whole 'doctors talking about guns' thing got started because the NRA got it's panties in a bunch when some pediatricians thought it was appropriate to tell new parents that, with toddlers, keeping guns in a safe place might be a good idea.

Um, no. If it was just a discussion on gun locks the NRA would have supported them and supplied them with free locks to give out.



Except they didn't.
 
2013-01-17 11:32:17 AM

Pride of Cucamonga: PunGent

Doctor: Do you have any guns in the house?
Me: Nope, nothing to see here.

This whole 'doctors talking about guns' thing got started because the NRA got it's panties in a bunch when some pediatricians thought it was appropriate to tell new parents that, with toddlers, keeping guns in a safe place might be a good idea.

The horror!

As I recall, it was a bit more than just this. I believe there were pediatricians refusing to treat patients whose parents owned guns in the house or something like that...


CITATION NEEDED
 
2013-01-17 11:33:53 AM

SpectroBoy: Surpheon: SpectroBoy: * tagging of ammo

What is the problem with tagging ammo? I get annoying, but so's buying Sudafed. Is there a real problem with it?

The main problems are

1) It makes ammo more expensive
2) It means you can't buy imported ammo from countries that don't require tags (ie the whole world)
3) It is meaningless without having to register when you buy a box of ammo, and this is too much like registering gun ownership
4) It won't stop anything

None of the mass shootings that I can recall left any doubt about who did the shooting. In most cases they end in the shooters death or capture immediately. How does tagging ammo at the expense of legal shooters help?


1) Unfortunate, but not by itself justification not to do it.
2) The US buys huge amounts of ammo. We're the only place in the world that requires a lot of things, but manufacturers around the globe scramble to get to our markets. But still, even if they didn't, I guess the outcome would be mixed - more expensive ammo, but also more american jobs.
3) Most people don't understand that once a gun leaves the manufacturer, there's essentially no way of knowing where it goes, until it turns up at the crime scene. Now that they are understanding things like the ban on the BATFE being allowed to even *look* for stolen guns (yes, the one added by a GOP politician who was on TV the other day screaming that we just need "better enforcement of the existing laws") people are rethinking this.
4) How do we know? When I look at the history of laws re full-auto weapons, I see just the opposite - simply identifying and letting the owners know they are responsible for what happens with their weapon virtually eliminated them as a source of violent crime.

And on your last point about "how would it help" - remember the DC sniper? What was his name? Something Mohammed? Several weeks, blowing the brains out of businessmen and schoolkids before a trucker happened to call in a tip. And it will easily exonerate many innocent gun owners, who are wrongfully accused of using their weapon in an irresponsible manner - I see huge benefits in this.

Hell, the Fox scandalette, "fast and furious" - happened only *because* the BATFE is prohibited from identifying and stopping straw purchasers BEFORE they get the next shipment of guns.
 
2013-01-17 11:39:40 AM

notsosilentbob: Like most, I don't see any issues with what has been signed by the president. I think we all have to accept that the genie is out of the bottle to some degree, in regards to the 300M guns already on the streets. Manufacturers should be required to track what serial numbers were shipped to each shop and shops should be required to record when it was sold and to whom. Those records should be made available to police only after being presented with a court order for a specific serial number. When the police run the serial numbers of those guns and find that a shop is responsible for a disproportionate number of crimes, their license should be reviewed/revoked,.Any individual with a history of supplying weapons to criminals, or those that would otherwise not pass a background check, should be prosecuted and heavily punished if found guilty.

If you want to stop a majority of the gun crime, you need to go after the gangs. That would likely result in riots on a massive scale. People would see mostly white police battling mostly minority gang members and all hell would break loose.

Going after "assault weapons" isn't about stopping gun violence. It's about people wanting to say that they did something. Even if that something is utterly ineffective. It's about taking on scary looking guns, regardless of how similar their functionality may be to other arms. Yes, the Newtown shooting was abhorrent and I feel for the families of the victims.We simply can't allow that sorrow to cloud our judgement and enact bad or useless law, simply in order to feel better about ourselves.

Fully automatic weapons are still legal in this country. Read that again, fully automatic weapons are still legal in this country. Sure, there are a few more hoops to go through in order to get one, but you can do it. To the best of my knowledge, none has been used in the commission of a crime, since the registration regulation went into effect. Does anyone "need" them? Obviously not, but that isn't really ...


Anybody know how many Type8 and above licenses are out there?
 
2013-01-17 12:23:46 PM

WhoopAssWayne: It's fitting these two scumbags are using children as props for their announcement, given how they exploited dead first graders to get to this point in the first place. Absolute scum of the earth here. This is who you are liberals. Take a long look.


assets.diylol.com
 
2013-01-17 12:35:49 PM

TerminalEchoes: What are some honest ideas about the real root of them problem? I can't blame Hollywood because my parents and grandparents grew up on westerns where John Wayne was shooting anything that moved. Aside from the rare Charles Whitman or Starkweather, you didn't see the type of gun violence we have today. So what changed?


The decline of the mental health system, coupled with growing wealth disparity.
 
2013-01-17 01:08:58 PM

justtray: It's almost like there are other factors that contribute to crime? Like population density.

Now, lets take a look at some low population density states with highest gun-related crime. Mississippi, Louisana, Arkansas, South Carolina. (also DC, Michigan, NY)

The three blue states have very populated cities known for crime. What do all the super low density states have in common I wonder? Rednecks and guns.

But that's an honest comparison, unlike yours, so I'm sure you'll just ignore it like you do all valid statistics and instead focus in on the cherry picked, irrelevant and invalid ones.

Source - http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state


Riddle me this, genius -- Who within those states is actually committing the majority of the gun crimes?

The last time I checked, most states had sizable white and non-white populations (especially those with relatively high gun crime rates).

Therefore, when inquiring as to whether gun crime is more frequently perpetrated by "rednecks" as opposed to blacks/Hispanics, it makes no logical sense to aggregate the statistics state-by-state. Your argument that there are "rednecks" in those states is misplaced, unless you can show that "rednecks" are actually committing those crimes.

The reason I mentioned Vermont is because it happens to have virtually zero gun crime, and also zero black/Hispanic population. The absence of gun crime there is therefore noteworthy, but in itself, Vermont's statistics do not fully answer the question of who is perpetrating gun crimes. To do that, we need to examine the statistics from states where gun crime rates are higher.

So, let's look deeper into the gun and race statistics on which your Guardian article was based.

Of the approximately 8500 murders-by-firearm committed in the USA in 2011, more then half were committed by blacks and Hispanics, despite the fact that they make up a minority of the US population (not even including the number of crimes that went unsolved, although we can extrapolate the race of the perpetrators from the race of the victims, who were predominately black and Hispanic). Blacks are seven times more likely than people of other races to commit murder, and eight times more likely to commit armed robbery. Hispanics commit violent crimes at roughly three times the white rate. When blacks commit crimes of violence, they are three times more likely than non-blacks to use a gun.

The majority of these gun-related crimes (including deaths) are related to drug-dealing gangs, whose membership is approximately 10% white and 90% non-white.

In other words, the drug-dealing industry in the USA is the origin of most gun crime, and is dominated by blacks and Hispanics.
 
2013-01-17 01:31:57 PM

Phinn: justtray: It's almost like there are other factors that contribute to crime? Like population density.

Now, lets take a look at some low population density states with highest gun-related crime. Mississippi, Louisana, Arkansas, South Carolina. (also DC, Michigan, NY)

The three blue states have very populated cities known for crime. What do all the super low density states have in common I wonder? Rednecks and guns.

But that's an honest comparison, unlike yours, so I'm sure you'll just ignore it like you do all valid statistics and instead focus in on the cherry picked, irrelevant and invalid ones.

Source - http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state

Riddle me this, genius -- Who within those states is actually committing the majority of the gun crimes?

The last time I checked, most states had sizable white and non-white populations (especially those with relatively high gun crime rates).

Therefore, when inquiring as to whether gun crime is more frequently perpetrated by "rednecks" as opposed to blacks/Hispanics, it makes no logical sense to aggregate the statistics state-by-state. Your argument that there are "rednecks" in those states is misplaced, unless you can show that "rednecks" are actually committing those crimes.

The reason I mentioned Vermont is because it happens to have virtually zero gun crime, and also zero black/Hispanic population. The absence of gun crime there is therefore noteworthy, but in itself, Vermont's statistics do not fully answer the question of who is perpetrating gun crimes. To do that, we need to examine the statistics from states where gun crime rates are higher.

So, let's look deeper into the gun and race statistics on which your Guardian article was based.

Of the approximately 8500 murders-by-firearm committed in the USA in 2011, more then half were committed by blacks and Hispanics, despite the fact that they make up a minority of the US population (not even including the number of crimes that ...


You hit on an actual, real correlated problem, Drug Control.
And that every Control causes violence, it is in the nature of the beast.
/hard pressed think of anything harder to control than humans
 
2013-01-17 01:33:33 PM
3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-01-17 01:38:23 PM

Phinn: Therefore, when inquiring as to whether gun crime is more frequently perpetrated by "rednecks" as opposed to blacks/Hispanics, it makes no logical sense to aggregate the statistics state-by-state. Your argument that there are "rednecks" in those states is misplaced, unless you can show that "rednecks" are actually committing those crimes.

The reason I mentioned Vermont is because it happens to have virtually zero gun crime, and also zero black/Hispanic population. The absence of gun crime there is therefore noteworthy, but in itself, Vermont's statistics do not fully answer the question of who is perpetrating gun crimes. To do that, we need to examine the statistics from states where gun crime rates are higher.

So, let's look deeper into the gun and race statistics on which your Guardian article was based.

Of the approximately 8500 murders-by-firearm committed in the USA in 2011, more then half were committed by blacks and Hispanics, despite the fact that they make up a minority of the US population (not even including the number of crimes that went unsolved, although we can extrapolate the race of the perpetrators from the race of the victims, who were predominately black and Hispanic). Blacks are seven times more likely than people of other races to commit murder, and eight times more likely to commit armed robbery. Hispanics commit violent crimes at roughly three times the white rate. When blacks commit crimes of violence, they are three times more likely than non-blacks to use a gun.

The majority of these gun-related crimes (including deaths) are related to drug-dealing gangs, whose membership is approximately 10% white and 90% non-white.

In other words, the drug-dealing industry in the USA is the origin of most gun crime, and is dominated by blacks and Hispanics.


It's thinly-veiled racist derp like this that makes me glad that the CDC will finally be able to do some research into this. I think that you will find that it's less about race, and more about socio-economics. It will be nice to have good data with the same dimensionality as that collected for the flu. Maybe then we can quantitatively zero in on some root causes that aren't along the lines of "don't ban guns, ban blacks and hispanics" (which is essentially what your stupid argument says).

You'll find the people of colour (of any ethnicity) with comparable educations and incomes to that of your idealized 'white' population do not commit a disproportionate percentage of crimes.
 
2013-01-17 01:44:00 PM

Grand_Moff_Joseph: No, but you should have to register them regardless. No fines or anything, just a requirement to get them registered under your name going forward. The serials will be checked just to make sure they weren't previously used in a crime (which if they were, you'd likely not have been aware of it), but assuming all is good, then you get your registration, and go home.


So, if my gun was used in a crime, and then returned to me without knowing... how would the serial number be of any help? Did they leave the gun at the crime scene so that the cops could record it, break in to the evidence room, and steal it, and put it back in my safe?

If you mean registering bullet forensic data - some states have been doing that and decided to drop it as it cost millions of dollars a year and never brought about a single conviction.
 
2013-01-17 01:51:46 PM

BlindRaise: Liberal: Well maybe we should just give everyone Tanks and RPGs! LOLZORS!

You: Civilians should not have access heavy armor, highly explosive ordinance, rockets, nukes, etc. These are highly advanced and powerful weapons of war specifically designed to cause destruction on a large scale to not just personnel but also to infrastructure, and capital. An assault rifle is an anti-personnel weapon and considered a SMALL ARMS weapon by military standards. It's not in the same ballpark.


The Constitution says the right to "keep and bear arms," not "keep and bear SMALL arms." If you're going to inject words why not change it to, "keep and bear SIDE arms?" It's still an arms ban, it's just at the level where it's comfortable for 99% of people instead of comfortable for 68% of people.
 
2013-01-17 02:00:18 PM

ProfessorOhki: BlindRaise: Liberal: Well maybe we should just give everyone Tanks and RPGs! LOLZORS!

You: Civilians should not have access heavy armor, highly explosive ordinance, rockets, nukes, etc. These are highly advanced and powerful weapons of war specifically designed to cause destruction on a large scale to not just personnel but also to infrastructure, and capital. An assault rifle is an anti-personnel weapon and considered a SMALL ARMS weapon by military standards. It's not in the same ballpark.

The Constitution says the right to "keep and bear arms," not "keep and bear SMALL arms." If you're going to inject words why not change it to, "keep and bear SIDE arms?" It's still an arms ban, it's just at the level where it's comfortable for 99% of people instead of comfortable for 68% of people.


To clarify, I meant that 99%+ were comfortable with banning weapons of large scale and capital destruction like you say and 68% 56% are comfortable with banning semi-automatic guns.

Most people polled probably don't realize most pistols are semi-automatic, but that's neither here nor there for the sake of "most people agree," type arguments.
 
2013-01-17 02:21:38 PM

llachlan: It's thinly-veiled racist derp like this that makes me glad that the CDC will finally be able to do some research into this. I think that you will find that it's less about race, and more about socio-economics. It will be nice to have good data with the same dimensionality as that collected for the flu. Maybe then we can quantitatively zero in on some root causes that aren't along the lines of "don't ban guns, ban blacks and hispanics" (which is essentially what your stupid argument says).


I'm all in favor of scientific, objective, statistical analysis (which means that its methodology and raw data needs to be released so that it can be verified). The CDC doesn't have the best track record on this front, but it's a tiny amount of tax money compared to the trillions being wasted on other, lesser causes. SO, I'm not too worked up about it, but will be glad to read whatever the CDC gives us.

And I'm all for finding root causes.

But you need to consider the bias that creeps into any statistical analysis. For example, we already know about the statistical correlation between poverty and crime. But the Left insists that it is poverty that causes (or contributes to) crime, whereas another (more plausible and sound) rational conclusion is that crime causes (or contributes to) poverty.

People who don't know better often reverse cause and effect.

Also, I didn't say to ban blacks and Hispanics. If you're interested, I think the primary import of this statistical information is that the War on Drugs is not only a miserable failure, but is also the root cause of a lot of violent crime, and most gun crime in particular.

llachlan: You'll find the people of colour (of any ethnicity) with comparable educations and incomes to that of your idealized 'white' population do not commit a disproportionate percentage of crimes.


It's amazing that you know what the scientific, objective, statistical analysis is going to reveal, even before it's conducted.

Hey, everybody, we can tell the CDC and the White House to call off the research program. Fark's very own llachlan has saved the government a ton of money!
 
2013-01-17 02:39:21 PM

Phinn: llachlan: You'll find the people of colour (of any ethnicity) with comparable educations and incomes to that of your idealized 'white' population do not commit a disproportionate percentage of crimes.

It's amazing that you know what the scientific, objective, statistical analysis is going to reveal, even before it's conducted.

Hey, everybody, we can tell the CDC and the White House to call off the research program. Fark's very own llachlan has saved the government a ton of money!


Comprehensive research has already been done on this (race, education, income and incarceration comparisons), no one was restricted from this area of research, so there is nothing amazing about my knowing the information.

The CDC were only restricted or 'frozen' on the issues as they may or may not correlate to guns. And I, like many others are very interested to see what new research might show with respect to gun violence or maybe even its lack.
 
2013-01-17 02:41:13 PM

Endive Wombat: Gun Nut Here!

So I've looked at the list, and I really cannot get mad at it.  I do take some issue with two aspects:

1.  Doctors asking if there are guns in the home.  Some doctors are going to get yelled at, some will get preachy.  This really has nothing to do with the federal government though...
2.  "Universal Background Checks" - I have no idea what that means or how it differs from the current system.  I do fear that like many things the federal government works on, it will become convoluted, bloated and inefficient

Other than those, I ain't mad


Person to person transfers have not previously required a background check. That was part of the "gun show loophole" that the media yammered about. A private citizen goes to a gun show as a buyer or just to look, and can sell a gun they own without all the paper work that the booth folks need to do. Transfer happens immediately, and with no background check or anything. I've never liked the idea of buying a gun with no history because, well, what if it was used in a crime and I am now possessing it with no alibi for the crime in question? As for doctors asking about guns, show me one that doesn't! Any psychiatrist or psychologist or family doctor will ask, and try to convince people with kids to keep them locked safely as state law requires. The brain docs already keep an eye out for mentions of guns and violence in the same thought, that's not going to change. And HIPAA won't let the fed look into your medical records, just the police / involuntary psych holds (which were supposed to show up on background checks before, but didn't always).

Yeah, I'm kinda happy with this. Maybe it will calm the nut cases down and I can buy myself the carbine I've been wanting for christmas. I don't care that every purchase goes through a background check.
 
2013-01-17 02:41:19 PM

llachlan: Phinn: Therefore, when inquiring as to whether gun crime is more frequently perpetrated by "rednecks" as opposed to blacks/Hispanics, it makes no logical sense to aggregate the statistics state-by-state. Your argument that there are "rednecks" in those states is misplaced, unless you can show that "rednecks" are actually committing those crimes.

The reason I mentioned Vermont is because it happens to have virtually zero gun crime, and also zero black/Hispanic population. The absence of gun crime there is therefore noteworthy, but in itself, Vermont's statistics do not fully answer the question of who is perpetrating gun crimes. To do that, we need to examine the statistics from states where gun crime rates are higher.

So, let's look deeper into the gun and race statistics on which your Guardian article was based.

Of the approximately 8500 murders-by-firearm committed in the USA in 2011, more then half were committed by blacks and Hispanics, despite the fact that they make up a minority of the US population (not even including the number of crimes that went unsolved, although we can extrapolate the race of the perpetrators from the race of the victims, who were predominately black and Hispanic). Blacks are seven times more likely than people of other races to commit murder, and eight times more likely to commit armed robbery. Hispanics commit violent crimes at roughly three times the white rate. When blacks commit crimes of violence, they are three times more likely than non-blacks to use a gun.

The majority of these gun-related crimes (including deaths) are related to drug-dealing gangs, whose membership is approximately 10% white and 90% non-white.

In other words, the drug-dealing industry in the USA is the origin of most gun crime, and is dominated by blacks and Hispanics.

It's thinly-veiled racist derp like this that makes me glad that the CDC will finally be able to do some research into this. I think that you will find that it's less about race, and more ...


Correct, but they do get convicted of a disproportionate number of crijmes.
 
2013-01-17 02:53:06 PM

llachlan: t's thinly-veiled racist derp like this that makes me glad that the CDC will finally be able to do some research into this. I think that you will find that it's less about race, and more about socio-economics.


Black gun violence is entirely socio-economics.

Gun nuts are often racists where they have fantasies of blowing away inferior blacks or browns who are trying to get their stuff or women. Take away their guns and they have nothing propping up their superiority complex. Their guns also make them feel equal to those elites with fancy educations and jobs because a bullet is just as good at killing them as anybody else.
 
2013-01-17 03:05:53 PM
Come on, admit it, all you farking grabbers want is to ban the AR-15.
Would that make you happy?
Not for long.
Guess it is junk food for the draindead.
More than three million Americans own an AR-15.
I know, let's make them all criminals because we are unwilling to learn the farking basics of GUNZ.

Whatcha gonna do?
 
2013-01-17 03:25:12 PM

snocone: Come on, admit it, all you farking grabbers want is to ban the AR-15.
Would that make you happy?
Not for long.
Guess it is junk food for the draindead.
More than three million Americans own an AR-15.
I know, let's make them all criminals because we are unwilling to learn the farking basics of GUNZ.


Jump > Slash > Switch to Gun > Shoot >Tap Reload > Switch to Sword > Dash > Slash > Switch to Gun > Shoot > Dash > Tap Reload > Change to Gun > Shoot > Tap Reload > Change to Sword?
 
2013-01-17 03:28:12 PM

snocone: Correct, but they do get convicted of a disproportionate number of crijmes.


To our shame. (Up in Canada, it's Aboriginals)
 
2013-01-17 03:49:50 PM

llachlan: snocone: Correct, but they do get convicted of a disproportionate number of crijmes.

To our shame. (Up in Canada, it's Aboriginals)


Good luck on dealing with your shame. I recommend living a life free of shameful (i.e., unethical) behavior, for your own personal well-being.
 
2013-01-17 04:34:26 PM

Phinn: llachlan: snocone: Correct, but they do get convicted of a disproportionate number of crijmes.

To our shame. (Up in Canada, it's Aboriginals)

Good luck on dealing with your shame. I recommend living a life free of shameful (i.e., unethical) behavior, for your own personal well-being.


I do. But that doesn't absolve me of acknowledging the collective shame we all share. And I hope you do finally find a way to live an ethical, non-racist life. It'll do your body good.
 
2013-01-17 05:07:11 PM

snocone: Phinn: justtray: It's almost like there are other factors that contribute to crime? Like population density.

Now, lets take a look at some low population density states with highest gun-related crime. Mississippi, Louisana, Arkansas, South Carolina. (also DC, Michigan, NY)

The three blue states have very populated cities known for crime. What do all the super low density states have in common I wonder? Rednecks and guns.

But that's an honest comparison, unlike yours, so I'm sure you'll just ignore it like you do all valid statistics and instead focus in on the cherry picked, irrelevant and invalid ones.

Source - http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state

Riddle me this, genius -- Who within those states is actually committing the majority of the gun crimes?

The last time I checked, most states had sizable white and non-white populations (especially those with relatively high gun crime rates).

Therefore, when inquiring as to whether gun crime is more frequently perpetrated by "rednecks" as opposed to blacks/Hispanics, it makes no logical sense to aggregate the statistics state-by-state. Your argument that there are "rednecks" in those states is misplaced, unless you can show that "rednecks" are actually committing those crimes.

The reason I mentioned Vermont is because it happens to have virtually zero gun crime, and also zero black/Hispanic population. The absence of gun crime there is therefore noteworthy, but in itself, Vermont's statistics do not fully answer the question of who is perpetrating gun crimes. To do that, we need to examine the statistics from states where gun crime rates are higher.

So, let's look deeper into the gun and race statistics on which your Guardian article was based.

Of the approximately 8500 murders-by-firearm committed in the USA in 2011, more then half were committed by blacks and Hispanics, despite the fact that they make up a minority of the US population (not even including the number of crimes ...


..well while we're at it we should probably also look into the white male serial killer problem..oh and the white upper middle class teenage boy-murderer problem too..hold on..The problem is MEN! we should do something to stop MEN! Oh my god! Men are clearly the problem and the only way to a safer America is to eliminate the male scum! we should send them back to that asshole-man continent where they came from and let them murder each other right off the face of the earth...
 
2013-01-17 05:53:43 PM

Dexter's Amygdala: ..well while we're at it we should probably also look into the white male serial killer problem..oh and the white upper middle class teenage boy-murderer problem too..hold on..The problem is MEN! we should do something to stop MEN! Oh my god! Men are clearly the problem and the only way to a safer America is to eliminate the male scum! we should send them back to that asshole-man continent where they came from and let them murder each other right off the face of the earth...


Can I keep my Dad? I promise, he's not a serial killer, murder of teenage boys or a corrupt banker. I promise. Oh, and he's been fixed.
 
2013-01-17 06:26:13 PM

llachlan: Phinn: llachlan: snocone: Correct, but they do get convicted of a disproportionate number of crijmes.

To our shame. (Up in Canada, it's Aboriginals)

Good luck on dealing with your shame. I recommend living a life free of shameful (i.e., unethical) behavior, for your own personal well-being.

I do. But that doesn't absolve me of acknowledging the collective shame we all share. And I hope you do finally find a way to live an ethical, non-racist life. It'll do your body good.


There's no such thing as "collective shame." It's an oxymoron, like "free slavery" or "rational Leftist."

Attempts to impose collective guilt, punishment or shame is a violation of one's basic human rights, and is an inversion of the fundamental premise of ethics.

You can stick it right up your ass.
 
2013-01-17 07:45:53 PM

Phinn: There's no such thing as "collective shame." It's an oxymoron, like "free slavery" or "rational Leftist."

Attempts to impose collective guilt, punishment or shame is a violation of one's basic human rights, and is an inversion of the fundamental premise of ethics.

You can stick it right up your ass.


So you believe that we don't as members of a society have any responsibilities for the decisions of that society? That we all bear a measure of guilt and shame for events we are not directly responsible for, but that none the less were the result of choices our society made?

So much for the idea of a responsible society.
 
2013-01-17 09:42:14 PM

BlindRaise: How to argue with a liberal - Gun Control

Liberal: You don't need an assault weapon to hunt deer!

You: An assault weapon is not for hunting deer, it is a weapon for self defense and for the defense of others against whatever threat may arise, including but not limited to muggers or home break ins, but more importantly to effectively defend against the possibility of a well-organized, well-coordinated, and well-equipped threat. It is currently the most effective, powerful, and accurate style of small arms available to the public.

Liberal: You don't need a 30-round HIGH CAPACITY magazine to hunt deer!! lolz!

You: First off, a 30rd magazine is not high capacity, so stop calling it that. A 30 round magazine is considered standard capacity for the AR/AK platform. A 100 round drum would be properly characterized as a high capacity mag. More rounds equal more firepower, which equals a greater ability to deal with any threat that may present itself.

Liberal: Well maybe we should just give everyone Tanks and RPGs! LOLZORS!

You: Civilians should not have access heavy armor, highly explosive ordinance, rockets, nukes, etc. These are highly advanced and powerful weapons of war specifically designed to cause destruction on a large scale to not just personnel but also to infrastructure, and capital. An assault rifle is an anti-personnel weapon and considered a SMALL ARMS weapon by military standards. It's not in the same ballpark.

Liberal: Well how many more children need to die before we do something?

You: Please, do not use scare tactics. Historically there is not a single instance in history where scare tactics have been used to deprive the people of liberties in which it worked out favorably for the people! Violent and heinous acts are a problem that lies within the individual and should be addressed as such. Blaming the tool used for the evil acts is equivalent to blaming a spoon for turning you into a fat liberal turd.

Liberal: But But... BUSH and CHENEY!!. ...


I'm ok with this.
 
2013-01-17 09:43:22 PM

the ha ha guy: BlindRaise: How to argue with a liberal - Gun Control...


How to argue with a conservative - Healthcare

Conservative: You don't need health insurance to stay alive!

You: Health insurance is not for staying alive, it is a means for self defense and for the defense of others against whatever disease may arise, including but not limited to the flu or pneumonia, but more importantly to effectively detect the possibility of a possibly lethal health problem. It is currently the most effective, powerful, and accurate means of staying healthy without incurring tens of thousands in debt.

Conservative: You don't need free medicine and healthcare to stay alive!! lolz!

You: First off, health insurance is not free, so stop calling it that. Health insurance used to be considered a standard benefit of employment. A fountain of youth would be properly characterized as free healthcare. Better insurance means better healthcare, which equals a greater ability to deal with any threat that may present itself.

Conservative: Well maybe we should just pay everyone to get chemo! LOLZORS!

You: Most people do not need chemo, transplants, etc. These are highly advanced and powerful medical procedures that cause destruction on a large scale to not just diseased tissue but also to otherwise healthy organs. A bottle of antibiotics is considered a BASIC MEDICAL RIGHT by first-world standards. It's not in the same ballpark.

Conservative: But But... FARTBONGO and EBIL LIBRULS !!... and DER TERK ER GERNS!!! and, and uhh..

You: Well how many more children need to die before we do something?

Conservative: Please, do not use scare tactics. Historically there is not a single instance in history where healthcare has been used in which it worked out favorably for the people! Disease and health issues are a problem that lies within the individual and should be addressed as such. Blaming the health insurance industry for refusing to treat these conditions is equivalent to blaming a spoon for turnin ...


And this.
 
2013-01-17 10:11:20 PM

llachlan: Phinn: There's no such thing as "collective shame." It's an oxymoron, like "free slavery" or "rational Leftist."

Attempts to impose collective guilt, punishment or shame is a violation of one's basic human rights, and is an inversion of the fundamental premise of ethics.

You can stick it right up your ass.

So you believe that we don't as members of a society have any responsibilities for the decisions of that society? That we all bear a measure of guilt and shame for events we are not directly responsible for, but that none the less were the result of choices our society made?

So much for the idea of a responsible society.


You do know what an "individual" is, don't you? It's like you are unfamiliar with the term.

You think we exist only as "members of societies," as though societies exist first and individual "members" are just subdivisions of them.

Societies are just individuals, you know, associating.

Societies don't think, choose or act. Only individuals do. Therefore only individuals can be guilty, ashamed, unethical, etc.

Obviously.
 
2013-01-17 11:33:38 PM

Phinn: llachlan: Phinn: There's no such thing as "collective shame." It's an oxymoron, like "free slavery" or "rational Leftist."

Attempts to impose collective guilt, punishment or shame is a violation of one's basic human rights, and is an inversion of the fundamental premise of ethics.

You can stick it right up your ass.

So you believe that we don't as members of a society have any responsibilities for the decisions of that society? That we all bear a measure of guilt and shame for events we are not directly responsible for, but that none the less were the result of choices our society made?

So much for the idea of a responsible society.

You do know what an "individual" is, don't you? It's like you are unfamiliar with the term.

You think we exist only as "members of societies," as though societies exist first and individual "members" are just subdivisions of them.

Societies are just individuals, you know, associating.

Societies don't think, choose or act. Only individuals do. Therefore only individuals can be guilty, ashamed, unethical, etc.

Obviously.


In a society governed by the will of the majority, the collective majority who enable or condone an action are indeed morally culpable for that action. It's why the government apologizes on our behalf when we go and do boneheaded things like inter the Japanese, even if they happen to have been citizens of the US. If as a society we are not 'ashamed' of our actions we are either doomed to repeat them, or perhaps not even change them. If a society cannot be unethical, immortal, criminal or feel shame, then sanctions like the ones on South Africa that helped end Apartheid would never work - and they do work.
 
2013-01-17 11:55:32 PM

llachlan: In a society governed by the will of the majority, the collective majority who enable or condone an action are indeed morally culpable for that action.


Yes.

That's the reason that anyone who supports the criminal organization calling itself "the United States of America" (and pretty much all the others) is also a criminal. If, as one timely example, you support Obama's loyal army of goons who will be putting guns to the heads of people to make them buy "health insurance" against their will, fine those who refuse, arrest those who do not pay the fine, and shoot those who attempt to flee or fight back against its collection, then you are equally ethically culpable for all of it.

Laundering your aggression through the State, whom you authorize to act as your agent, doesn't make your part in it any less ethically repugnant.

That's still not "collective shame" though. That's just ordinary guilt for your decision to unethically participate in a criminal enterprise. The mafia organization that calls itself "the state" is a (relatively large and sophisticated) criminal conspiracy, but each participant is still responsible for his decision to participate in it.
 
2013-01-18 11:10:29 PM

Indubitably: Indubitably: I just wanna know: Has anyone talked about our cultural violence as Americans yet?

What is the root of the problem, actually?

;)


Culture of violence is acceptable compared to boobies on TV or any of the unacceptable words from Carlin's list.
 
Displayed 44 of 1394 comments

First | « | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report