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.

(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
    More: Interesting, President Obama, Uncle Sam  
•       •       •

25833 clicks; posted to Main » on 16 Jan 2013 at 2:14 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



1374 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 12:52:53 AM  

skullkrusher: untaken_name: Pincy: Pretty sure the Supreme Court will be the decider on the definition of the word "infringed". And I'm also pretty sure that definition may change over time.

Pretty sure that the Supreme Court is fallible, and I'm pretty sure that any infringement upon the definition of the word infringe is intended for nefarious purposes.

this was post 1337. Just figured you'd want to know, HAXX0R


Uh, thanks? I think? 8008135.

/ou812
 
2013-01-17 12:55:55 AM  

untaken_name: Pincy: untaken_name: Pincy: Pretty sure the Supreme Court will be the decider on the definition of the word "infringed". And I'm also pretty sure that definition may change over time.

Pretty sure that the Supreme Court is fallible, and I'm pretty sure that any infringement upon the definition of the word infringe is intended for nefarious purposes.

Of course the Supreme Court can be fallible, that's why I said I was also pretty sure the definition will change over time. Unfortunately, when it does screw up it is still the law of the land until a future Supreme Court rules otherwise. Are you arguing otherwise?

There are a metric farkton of un-Constitutional laws, so no, I'm not arguing otherwise. But I'm also not arguing that changing the definition of words ex-post-facto changes the intent of the Constitution. Are you?


How we interpret the Constitution over time will most definitely change. Yes, that means definition of words can change over time as well. Maybe the original definition of a word wasn't correct to begin with and it changes over time to become the correct definition? You admit as well as I do that the Supreme Court can be wrong, so why can't it be wrong about the definition of a word?
 
2013-01-17 12:57:40 AM  
Actually there's plenty there that'll prevent an assault weapons ban.

The fact that people want to keep their seats. We shoved a LOT of Dems out the door when the last one went out, that did jack and shyte to prevent violence.

Those EOs that went out? They'll just make sure that people don't tell their doctor about being depressed, or anxious, or angry. Giving the AG the ability to determine who's fit and who's not fit to own firearms is a bad idea. Did you go talk to a therapist after Grandma died? Guess what? No more guns for you!! You're mentally incompetent!

King Obama wants his communist nation.
 
2013-01-17 01:02:52 AM  

Callous: 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

It's basically making all private sales go through an FFL so that a NICS check is done.  Like I said above, I'm ok with that as long as the FFLs don't get to gouge on the fee or better yet open NICS up to everyone.


Here in CA we already have this.

DROS(dealer record of sale)+ 4473(federal form you fill out when you buy guns) + dealer fee ends up being 35 bucks. Dealer can only charge 10 bucks in dealer fees by law. PPT(Private Party Transfer) has to go through a FFL as well. Person buying has to fill out DROS + 4473 and the dealer fee is still only allowed to be 10 bucks.

By law they MUST do PPT. They can't refuse service unless you're prohibited from owning firearms.

There is no "gun show loophole" in Kommifornistan unless you're a Mexican drug lord.
 
2013-01-17 01:04:15 AM  

Grand_Moff_Joseph: Callous: Grand_Moff_Joseph: Callous: I have read the 23 executive orders and nothing jumped out at me as bad.  I will have to look them over again when I have time to really think about them and see if my opinion changes.  My only concern would be abuse of the mental health system where people are too easily labeled unsuitable.

No to an AWB.   Could live with background checks for private sales if dealers aren't allowed to gouge us for making a phone call.  Or better yet make the NICSaccessible to everyone.  No to magazine bans.

/NRA Life Member

I just don't get the huge hang up about AWs and overly large standard mags.  Even in the hands of a sane and well trained person, I can't think of a single legitimate need to have either of those. (and "just because" doesn't pass muster, imo)

Because I don't like spending more time filling mags than shooting when I am at the range.

Still, how about this instead of an AWB:

1.  Each AW and large mag has to be serialized and registered to their specific owner
2.  Said owner must complete extra training and evaluations to obtain a license to own these items.  License includes demonstrating proper use and care, as well as a background check and mental health eval.
3.  License must be renewed every year, with proficiency retests every two years
4.  Fees for #2-3 will be subsidized to lower your out of pocket cost.  Subsidy will be paid for with increased fines on those who do not get licenses, and a 0.2% tax on all ammo sales (up to a max per transaction)
5.  If either the AWs or the mags are used in the commission of a crime, the penalties are doubled.  If this occurs because the items were stolen from you, you are not liable, unless you obviously left them unsecured.

How 'bout no.  What you just described would turn a right into a privilege for the rich only.  You really think that if the government institutes a tax on ammo to pay for mental health screenings and gun safety courses it will be used for that?  Just look at ...


Umm...no. We actually don't all have a "right" to drive a car. Take a few moments, step back, and study the difference between "rights" and "privileges"...and then get back to us.
 
2013-01-17 01:04:21 AM  

eq2imora: Actually there's plenty there that'll prevent an assault weapons ban.

The fact that people want to keep their seats. We shoved a LOT of Dems out the door when the last one went out, that did jack and shyte to prevent violence.

Those EOs that went out? They'll just make sure that people don't tell their doctor about being depressed, or anxious, or angry. Giving the AG the ability to determine who's fit and who's not fit to own firearms is a bad idea. Did you go talk to a therapist after Grandma died? Guess what? No more guns for you!! You're mentally incompetent!

King Obama wants his communist nation.


Thank God. Finally an objective, unbiased opinion.
 
2013-01-17 01:09:52 AM  

Pincy: How we interpret the Constitution over time will most definitely change. Yes, that means definition of words can change over time as well. Maybe the original definition of a word wasn't correct to begin with and it changes over time to become the correct definition? You admit as well as I do that the Supreme Court can be wrong, so why can't it be wrong about the definition of a word?


How we decide to act today has absolutely no effect whatsoever on the original intent of the Framers. My point is that we can't keep stretching and stretching and stretching the definitions of words in order to maintain the appearance of adherence to the principles espoused in the Constitution. They do not change. How we "interpret" them changes only insofar as the people in power wish it to occur. It is time to admit that not only do we not, as a population OR as a government, give the least fark about the original intent of our Founders nor do we adhere to the principles espoused in the Constitution. It is time to replace it with a document more closely aligning with our present mores. I recommend this one:

25.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-01-17 01:10:16 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?


Because Heller wasn't the one that defined "in common use". Believe that was Miller. Back in the early 1900s. Guy was caught with a short barreled shotgun. Was determined that it was not "small arms in current common use" and thus he still got nailed for it.

Considering that the AR-15 is the single most popular rifle in the United States, with everyone from random plinkers to the the Feds to our military and sporting associations, to ban those(which btw, have a highly sub par round compared to your Granddaddy's hunting rifle, which shoots a round with about three times the power behind it) would be asinine. There's a reason you're not allowed to hunt with them in a lot of places. It's a piss poor round.

The only reason it happens to be commonly used in shootings is because.. it's a common rifle. A VERY common rifle. It's like saying Coca-Cola is related to more deaths to diabetes than other brands because it's the most popular sugared soda. Asinine.
 
2013-01-17 01:11:22 AM  

sethen320: Umm...no. We actually don't all have a "right" to drive a car. Take a few moments, step back, and study the difference between "rights" and "privileges"...and then get back to us.


We have a right to travel, and we would have the right to drive a car if the horse and carriage wasn't still the legal "conveyance of the day". Or if we didn't apply Admiralty law to the roads.
 
2013-01-17 01:12:44 AM  

Uranus Is Huge!: Thank God. Finally an objective, unbiased opinion.


What is so desirable about an objective, unbiased opinion on a news aggregation site? Why should people's personal opinions be unbiased? Is that even possible?
 
2013-01-17 01:15:04 AM  

untaken_name: Uranus Is Huge!: Thank God. Finally an objective, unbiased opinion.

What is so desirable about an objective, unbiased opinion on a news aggregation site? Why should people's personal opinions be unbiased? Is that even possible?


Ummm... I was mocking his derp?
 
2013-01-17 01:15:39 AM  
He just wants $500,000,000.00 to play around with.
 
2013-01-17 01:17:20 AM  

justtray: MagicMissile: justtray: MagicMissile: the ha ha guy: Grand_Moff_Joseph: yes - into a field full of strawmen.  And I just waxed that truck too.


So explain what benefit would come from banning things that you personally think are useless.

I don't mean a benefit of "it means the bad men with scary looking guns go to jail", I mean an actual measurable benefit in terms of lives saved.

If Lanza's gun had a night vision scope, how many more students would have been killed? If Holmes' gun had a pistol grip, how many more people in the theater would have been killed?

That still isn't a just reason to ban pistol grips and night vision scopes from hundreds of millions of people who have owned these firearms and things for years and never had an issue. The 2nd Amendment doesn't say "if people get scared and worried at some point then you can take this away" it says "the right to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"

Seriously, its like a farking broken record these days. Gun control fanatics just let facts go in one ear and out the other. They have no common sense, they are like drones that can only repeat what they are programmed with by the media. Its sad.

Hello projection.

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

I did read it. Heres some information on the latest Supreme Court ruling in 2008 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

Where the Supreme Court says that the 2nd Amendment applies to the Individuals right to keep and bear arms, and is not talking about the national guard or reserves.

Pull your head out of your ass and stop clinging to the crap the media has been spoon feeding you for most of your life.

You...might...want...to...read...it...a...little...bit...harder.

(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For exam ...


Wow. You are ignorant

Uranus Is Huge!: eq2imora: Actually there's plenty there that'll prevent an assault weapons ban.

The fact that people want to keep their seats. We shoved a LOT of Dems out the door when the last one went out, that did jack and shyte to prevent violence.

Those EOs that went out? They'll just make sure that people don't tell their doctor about being depressed, or anxious, or angry. Giving the AG the ability to determine who's fit and who's not fit to own firearms is a bad idea. Did you go talk to a therapist after Grandma died? Guess what? No more guns for you!! You're mentally incompetent!

King Obama wants his communist nation.

Thank God. Finally an objective, unbiased opinion.


Can't tell if you're serious, but I know I am.

Give anyone in the government enough power of interpretation and you'll see where it goes.

Though I couldn't help but be slightly disturbed when he brought those kids out. Hitler did that way back when too. Then slaughtered the kids along with the rest of the "unfit".

As for the whole "rights of the 2nd being eroded" or whatever someone else was saying up there...

That right isn't given by the Constitution. The Constitution is telling the government where the line is drawn. Go read the Declaration of Independence. It's an inalienable right. It's a right given to us by the creator. Not the government, nor that document.

I'll be preparing the popcorn when SHTF though.
 
2013-01-17 01:21:17 AM  

untaken_name: Pincy: How we interpret the Constitution over time will most definitely change. Yes, that means definition of words can change over time as well. Maybe the original definition of a word wasn't correct to begin with and it changes over time to become the correct definition? You admit as well as I do that the Supreme Court can be wrong, so why can't it be wrong about the definition of a word?

How we decide to act today has absolutely no effect whatsoever on the original intent of the Framers. My point is that we can't keep stretching and stretching and stretching the definitions of words in order to maintain the appearance of adherence to the principles espoused in the Constitution. They do not change. How we "interpret" them changes only insofar as the people in power wish it to occur. It is time to admit that not only do we not, as a population OR as a government, give the least fark about the original intent of our Founders nor do we adhere to the principles espoused in the Constitution. It is time to replace it with a document more closely aligning with our present mores. I recommend this one:

[25.media.tumblr.com image 330x524]


Hyperbole much?

The Founders left us a good solid base to start with but they certainly did not have all the answers and they certainly could not predict the issues we would be facing today. And yes, definitions and interpretations of principles do change over time. You simply cannot find the answer to every legal question spelled out in the Constitution. It is open to interpretation and that interpretation will change over time. The interpretation of freedom of speech, freedom of religion, right to bare arms has changed over time and will continue to change in the future. That's the way it was set up to work. And that's a good thing, otherwise we'd never progress as a society.
 
2013-01-17 01:26:22 AM  

queezyweezel: I'd really like to know what they're going to ramrod through congress and get passed while everyone is arguing over this.  Obama is very, very good at sleight of hand.


This ^
 
2013-01-17 01:32:44 AM  

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?
 
2013-01-17 01:35:54 AM  

Uranus Is Huge!: untaken_name: Uranus Is Huge!: Thank God. Finally an objective, unbiased opinion.

What is so desirable about an objective, unbiased opinion on a news aggregation site? Why should people's personal opinions be unbiased? Is that even possible?

Ummm... I was mocking his derp?


Yeah, I know. But the mechanism you used was ironic contrasting of his obviously biased post with your ideal of objective and unbiased. I was just wondering why objective and unbiased is better than obviously biased, on this particular site. That's all.
 
2013-01-17 01:39:37 AM  

Pincy: untaken_name: Pincy: How we interpret the Constitution over time will most definitely change. Yes, that means definition of words can change over time as well. Maybe the original definition of a word wasn't correct to begin with and it changes over time to become the correct definition? You admit as well as I do that the Supreme Court can be wrong, so why can't it be wrong about the definition of a word?

How we decide to act today has absolutely no effect whatsoever on the original intent of the Framers. My point is that we can't keep stretching and stretching and stretching the definitions of words in order to maintain the appearance of adherence to the principles espoused in the Constitution. They do not change. How we "interpret" them changes only insofar as the people in power wish it to occur. It is time to admit that not only do we not, as a population OR as a government, give the least fark about the original intent of our Founders nor do we adhere to the principles espoused in the Constitution. It is time to replace it with a document more closely aligning with our present mores. I recommend this one:

[25.media.tumblr.com image 330x524]

Hyperbole much?

The Founders left us a good solid base to start with but they certainly did not have all the answers and they certainly could not predict the issues we would be facing today. And yes, definitions and interpretations of principles do change over time. You simply cannot find the answer to every legal question spelled out in the Constitution. It is open to interpretation and that interpretation will change over time. The interpretation of freedom of speech, freedom of religion, right to bare arms has changed over time and will continue to change in the future. That's the way it was set up to work. And that's a good thing, otherwise we'd never progress as a society.


If you can find me one plank of the Communist Manifesto that isn't in practice in America today, I will admit to your charge of hyperbole. And we haven't progressed in the past 50 years. We've anti-gressed, in fact. It's your opinion that the principles of the Founders don't apply today. I disagree. I realize that they have been subverted, but I don't believe that human nature is any different today than it was 250 years ago. Let me ask you this: What is it you believe we are "progressing" toward, as a society?
 
2013-01-17 01:40:53 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?


wow. the milk of human kindness runs so deep in this world
 
2013-01-17 01:45:46 AM  

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.


favorited!!
 
2013-01-17 01:52:52 AM  

untaken_name: Uranus Is Huge!: untaken_name: Uranus Is Huge!: Thank God. Finally an objective, unbiased opinion.

What is so desirable about an objective, unbiased opinion on a news aggregation site? Why should people's personal opinions be unbiased? Is that even possible?

Ummm... I was mocking his derp?

Yeah, I know. But the mechanism you used was ironic contrasting of his obviously biased post with your ideal of objective and unbiased. I was just wondering why objective and unbiased is better than obviously biased, on this particular site. That's all.


It's a little late to address pedantry. I'm lit.
 
2013-01-17 01:53:48 AM  

Omahawg: wow. the milk of human kindness runs so deep in this world


The problem, as I pointed out in that thread, is that Sandy Hook happened after the fake lesbian attack thread, so people were a little gun-shy about throwing money at another plugged site on Fark, especially since the submitter for the lesbian attack thread didn't know the attack was fake but collected money just the same.  Not that there was any collusion with Fark, just that like that Notre Dame football player - everyone can get fooled.

If you're consistently giving charity to scam artists, you aren't giving charity.
 
2013-01-17 01:54:53 AM  

mizchief: Pincy: untaken_name: This is a pretty long thread. Has anyone pointed out yet that there technically aren't ANY Constitutional regulations where arms are concerned? Or does everyone need to refresh themselves on the definition of the word "infringed"?

Pretty sure the Supreme Court will be the decider on the definition of the word "infringed". And I'm also pretty sure that definition may change over time.

The definition seems fairly strict when it comes to copyright infringement.


Hang on a sec. *warms up ctrl key*

The definition seems fairly strict when it comes to copyright infringement.
The definition seems fairly strict when it comes to copyright infringement.
The definition seems fairly strict when it comes to copyright infringement.


I think there are several exceptions to it, actually - quite broad exceptions. Weird Al's parents probably knew about it, before their untimely passing...

Anyhow, you said "The definition seems fairly strict when it comes to copyright infringement. ", in case you forgot.
 
2013-01-17 01:58:05 AM  

Uranus Is Huge!: untaken_name: Uranus Is Huge!: untaken_name: Uranus Is Huge!: Thank God. Finally an objective, unbiased opinion.

What is so desirable about an objective, unbiased opinion on a news aggregation site? Why should people's personal opinions be unbiased? Is that even possible?

Ummm... I was mocking his derp?

Yeah, I know. But the mechanism you used was ironic contrasting of his obviously biased post with your ideal of objective and unbiased. I was just wondering why objective and unbiased is better than obviously biased, on this particular site. That's all.

It's a little late to address pedantry. I'm lit.


Geez, sorry for being curious. Not really sure what's pedantic about asking you a question, but then maybe you're just trying to trick me into actual pedantry in some sort of evil mindgame. Fark it, I give up.
 
2013-01-17 02:00:49 AM  

untaken_name: t

So, I know Canadians are a polite people, but do your burglars really courteously wait while you open 16 different locks and then assemble your gun from the various separate safes and then load it? That's amazing.


As I said, there's a lot I don't necessarily agree about our gun laws here. Bio/hand-switch quick-release gun box should be fine. And those are legal up here for gun storage, and they are quite common if you have a permit for a restricted weapon.

Honestly, I haven't heard of a home invasion in my area in a couple of years. Most of the thefts I've heard about have been when the people weren't home.
 
2013-01-17 02:01:53 AM  

Lsherm: Omahawg: wow. the milk of human kindness runs so deep in this world

The problem, as I pointed out in that thread, is that Sandy Hook happened after the fake lesbian attack thread, so people were a little gun-shy about throwing money at another plugged site on Fark, especially since the submitter for the lesbian attack thread didn't know the attack was fake but collected money just the same.  Not that there was any collusion with Fark, just that like that Notre Dame football player - everyone can get fooled.

If you're consistently giving charity to scam artists, you aren't giving charity.


oh, i know. I was suspicious of that one too 'cause it happened close to me and just didn't sound right.
 
2013-01-17 02:08:57 AM  

tekneex: untaken_name: t

So, I know Canadians are a polite people, but do your burglars really courteously wait while you open 16 different locks and then assemble your gun from the various separate safes and then load it? That's amazing.

As I said, there's a lot I don't necessarily agree about our gun laws here. Bio/hand-switch quick-release gun box should be fine. And those are legal up here for gun storage, and they are quite common if you have a permit for a restricted weapon.

Honestly, I haven't heard of a home invasion in my area in a couple of years. Most of the thefts I've heard about have been when the people weren't home.


I cleverly avoid this problem by never leaving my house unless I absolutely have to.
 
2013-01-17 02:09:44 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 ...


Looks like it, I guess. What's up with the sudden slope in the 90's though? That was quite a shift in trends.
 
2013-01-17 02:10:47 AM  

deanis: He actually proposed 1,000 more officers for schools and NRA wingnuts are still furious. I don't get it. I heard nothing to be outragey about in his speech.


1,000 more guns isn't really going to move the needle on Wayne LaP's Glock shares

/ dude needs a new shooting ranch in MT
 
2013-01-17 02:17:00 AM  

untaken_name: If you can find me one plank of the Communist Manifesto that isn't in practice in America today, I will admit to your charge of hyperbole.


Hmm, that's going to be a tough one.

- Abolition of private property - I seem to own my house. I have friends that own their houses as well.
- Heavy progressive income tax - our income taxes are the least progressive they've been in a long time
- Abolition to all rights of inheritance - pretty sure people can still pass down their property through inheritance

Should I go in?

And we haven't progressed in the past 50 years. We've anti-gressed, in fact. It's your opinion that the principles of the Founders don't apply today. I disagree. I realize that they have been subverted, but I don't believe that human nature is any different today than it was 250 years ago. Let me ask you this: What is it you believe we are "progressing" toward, as a society?

I'd ask everyone except White males that question. I think you will get a lot of examples.
 
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
 
Displayed 50 of 1374 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 »
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