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.

(Chicago Trib)   Chicago, with the nation's strictest gun laws, would like to point out that 1 of the 7 homicides last night was a stabbing. No gun was used in that killing   (chicagotribune.com) divider line 451
    More: Sad, Chicago, stabbing, homicides, gun laws, stab wound, Chicago Police Department, Englewood  
•       •       •

4577 clicks; posted to Main » on 27 Jan 2013 at 12:30 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2013-01-27 11:14:28 AM  
I think silverware sets should be limited to a single place setting.  Why does anyone need 8 knives to eat?
 
2013-01-27 11:49:38 AM  
Gee, its almost as if the reality of guns in an urban setting (where everyone is spatially compressed and differential social problems are thus magnified) is far different from the reality of guns in a rural setting.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-01-27 11:53:39 AM  

Somacandra: Gee, its almost as if the reality of guns in an urban setting (where everyone is spatially compressed and differential social problems are thus magnified) is far different from the reality of guns in a rural setting.


Sure it is, that's why cities need stricter gun control than rural areas.  The only real use for a gun in a city is as a weapon against people.  There aren't any deer or quail.
 
2013-01-27 12:02:58 PM  

 i.imgur.com

Uh, Senator, were you actually at the classified briefing on Benghazi
where we all watched the footage and explanations of attack?

i.imgur.com

No, I wasn't.


==

Why is it that people who claim to be trying to get to the bottom of Benghazi can't seem to make time for the actual intelligence briefings on Benghazi?

 
2013-01-27 12:04:35 PM  
Aw Crap.

Wrong Thread.
 
2013-01-27 12:07:25 PM  

vpb: The only real use for a gun in a city is as a weapon against people.


This is bullshiat. Hunters, sport shooters, and collectors live in cities too.
 
2013-01-27 12:12:00 PM  

vpb: The only real use for a gun in a city is as a weapon against people.


Wait a minute. There are different sizes of cites too, and all of them have hunters, plinkers and skeet shooters too. Its not really an either/or proposition between two arbitrary categories---my post wasn't meant to suggest there are only two kinds of environments or that only certain types of people live in one or the other. I was just suggesting that different circumstances might call for different approaches--not suggesting there are only two circumstances.
 
2013-01-27 12:24:45 PM  
The NRA dummies keep pounding the pathetic argument that because Chicago has bad gun violence problems and its leaders have pursued gun restrictions, therefore the pursuit of gun restrictions causes gun violence.

If you are so dumb and incapable of logical thought that you sign onto - let alone repeat talking points supporting - this argument, then you might just be (a) too stupid to breed, (b) a Fox viewer, and (c) a redneck.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-01-27 12:30:46 PM  

Fark It: vpb: The only real use for a gun in a city is as a weapon against people.

This is bullshiat. Hunters, sport shooters, and collectors live in cities too.


They may LIVE in them, but they don't do much hunting there.  Unless they are hunting people, and you don't hunt with a concealed handgun.

There are reasons that cities tend to have different laws from rural areas.
 
2013-01-27 12:34:43 PM  

Somacandra:  [i.imgur.com image 330x180]Uh, Senator, were you actually at the classified briefing on Benghazi
where we all watched the footage and explanations of attack?[i.imgur.com image 330x175]No, I wasn't.
==
Why is it that people who claim to be trying to get to the bottom of Benghazi can't seem to make time for the actual intelligence briefings on Benghazi?


That's because he was not on the committe at the time.
 
2013-01-27 12:35:21 PM  
And the other 6?
 
2013-01-27 12:35:34 PM  
How many people were killed with AK-17's?
 
2013-01-27 12:36:17 PM  

bronyaur1: The NRA dummies keep pounding the pathetic argument that because Chicago has bad gun violence problems and its leaders have pursued gun restrictions, therefore the pursuit of gun restrictions causes gun violence.

If you are so dumb and incapable of logical thought that you sign onto - let alone repeat talking points supporting - this argument, then you might just be (a) too stupid to breed, (b) a Fox viewer, and (c) a redneck.


Idiot. The take-away is that gun control is ineffective, not that it causes crime. Lame strawman is lame
 
2013-01-27 12:36:38 PM  
Brother what a night the people saw. Brother what a fight the people saw, yes indeed
 
2013-01-27 12:36:44 PM  

BradleyUffner: And the other 6?


They didn't get the point.
 
2013-01-27 12:37:23 PM  

bronyaur1: The NRA dummies Anyone with a brain will keep pounding the pathetic commonsense argument that because Chicago has bad gun violence problems and its leaders have pursued gun restrictions, therefore the pursuit of increasing gun restrictions causes will not reduce gun violence.


FTFY
 
2013-01-27 12:38:20 PM  

vpb: Somacandra: Gee, its almost as if the reality of guns in an urban setting (where everyone is spatially compressed and differential social problems are thus magnified) is far different from the reality of guns in a rural setting.

Sure it is, that's why cities need stricter gun control than rural areas.  The only real use for a gun in a city is as a weapon against people.  There aren't any deer or quail.


Bullshiat


The Second Amendment isn't there solely for hunting. Anyone claiming otherwise is either an idiot, or willfully obtuse.
 
2013-01-27 12:39:38 PM  

bronyaur1: The NRA dummies keep pounding the pathetic argument that because Chicago has bad gun violence problems and its leaders have pursued gun restrictions, therefore the pursuit of gun restrictions causes gun violence.

If you are so dumb and incapable of logical thought that you sign onto - let alone repeat talking points supporting - this argument, then you might just be (a) too stupid to breed, (b) a Fox viewer, and (c) a redneck.


The argument is to show the gun control doesn't mean less gun violence. So your methods are ineffective and may not make the problem worse but will do nothing to stop it. If you really want to start dealing with the problem of gun violence we going to have to start dealing with some difficult social and economic questions about society and culture. But those to complex for the politicians to strink down to a sound byte for the stupid voters to understand, so nothing will really change.
 
2013-01-27 12:39:38 PM  

bronyaur1: the pursuit of gun restrictions causes gun violence.


No, dumbass.  The point is that gun restrictions have a negligible impact on gun violence. Although I think if you use 'too stupid to breed' as an insult, you shouldn't have picked a nym that paints you as someone unlikely to ever breed or even be given the opportunity.
 
2013-01-27 12:40:26 PM  
So do nothing.

Amirite?
 
2013-01-27 12:40:43 PM  

gerrymander: bronyaur1: The NRA dummies Anyone with a brain will keep pounding the pathetic commonsense argument that because Chicago has bad gun violence problems and its leaders have pursued gun restrictions, therefore the pursuit of increasing gun restrictions causes will not reduce gun violence.

FTFY


But then you look at NYC and DC which have its murder numbers plummet to record levels even though they have strict gun laws as well.

It's almost as if the gun bans aren't the reason behind the rise in violent crimes in Chicago.
 
2013-01-27 12:41:29 PM  
If the victim of the knife attack had a gun, he wouldn't be a victim!

/and Chicago would be 7 for 7!
 
2013-01-27 12:41:37 PM  

Ontos: vpb: Somacandra: Gee, its almost as if the reality of guns in an urban setting (where everyone is spatially compressed and differential social problems are thus magnified) is far different from the reality of guns in a rural setting.

Sure it is, that's why cities need stricter gun control than rural areas.  The only real use for a gun in a city is as a weapon against people.  There aren't any deer or quail.

Bullshiat


The Second Amendment isn't there solely for hunting. Anyone claiming otherwise is either an idiot, or willfully obtuse.


I know...I know...it's to rise up against our Government or something right?
 
2013-01-27 12:41:50 PM  

vpb: Fark It: vpb: The only real use for a gun in a city is as a weapon against people.

This is bullshiat. Hunters, sport shooters, and collectors live in cities too.

They may LIVE in them, but they don't do much hunting there.  Unless they are hunting people, and you don't hunt with a concealed handgun.

There are reasons that cities tend to have different laws from rural areas.


The millions of Americans carrying a concealed handgun legally and safely everyday would take issue with your argument that they are "hunting people".

Do you actually believe this silly shiat?
 
2013-01-27 12:45:44 PM  

syrynxx: I think silverware sets should be limited to a single place setting.  Why does anyone need 8 knives to eat?


The Brits have a different idea: ban sharp points on the ends of long knives. Then a criminal will have to beat you to death with the handle, which might be more trouble than he's willing to go to.
 
2013-01-27 12:46:24 PM  

stirfrybry: Idiot. The take-away is that gun control is ineffective,


I think the take-away here is that gun control is ineffective when it's attempted in a small area of a country full of guns.
 
2013-01-27 12:46:43 PM  
Make it harder to get new guns, encourage an alternative of less than lethal self protection measures. Why is this bad?
 
2013-01-27 12:47:56 PM  

vpb: Somacandra: Gee, its almost as if the reality of guns in an urban setting (where everyone is spatially compressed and differential social problems are thus magnified) is far different from the reality of guns in a rural setting.

Sure it is, that's why cities need stricter gun control than rural areas.  The only real use for a gun in a city is as a weapon against people.  There aren't any deer or quail.


But there are coyotes and I'm afraid they may eat my rats.
 
2013-01-27 12:47:58 PM  

whatshisname: stirfrybry: Idiot. The take-away is that gun control is ineffective,

I think the take-away here is that gun control is ineffective when it's attempted in a small area of a country full of guns.


I think  the take away is that looking at Chicago and ignoring NYC or DC when it comes to gun bans and their effects on crime is just plain moronic.

It honestly makes no difference in crime one way or another.
 
2013-01-27 12:48:51 PM  
Viable economic pursuits that don't, by nature, involve gun violence, might tend to decrease the amount of gun violence.
 
2013-01-27 12:49:31 PM  
Wow. It's almost like the gun manufacturers weren't simply selling their murder weapons in other cities to be transported to Chicago for murders.
 
2013-01-27 12:49:31 PM  

bronyaur1: The NRA dummies keep pounding the pathetic argument that because Chicago has bad gun violence problems and its leaders have pursued gun restrictions, therefore the pursuit of gun restrictions causes gun violence.


I haven't heard the NRA advance the argument that it causes gun violence, but restriction is demonstrably an ineffective policy.
 
2013-01-27 12:50:08 PM  

Pichu0102: Make it harder to get new guns, encourage an alternative of less than lethal self protection measures. Why is this bad?


Because it's much more difficult to consistently, completely neutralize an adversary in a non-lethal way than it is to do so in a lethal way.
 
2013-01-27 12:50:44 PM  
I hate this farking place.
 
2013-01-27 12:50:46 PM  
...oh, and that whole 2nd Amendment thing.
 
2013-01-27 12:51:46 PM  

JosephFinn: Wow. It's almost like the gun manufacturers weren't simply selling their murder weapons in other cities to be transported to Chicago for murders.


Cool. I love to see pants wetting hysterics before noon.

Please continue on about "murder weapons"...
 
2013-01-27 12:52:19 PM  

Mrtraveler01: I know...I know...it's to rise up against our Government or something right?


The Founders spent most of their time writing about the 2nd Amendment in the context of rising up against the government, mostly because the concept of personal security and self defense were so deeply ingrained in their lives that enunciating those principles didn't even cross their minds as being necessary.

These guys were, essentially, sophisticated frontiersmen. They lived without the privilege of police protection and without the ability to quickly summon help if they were in a violent confrontation with a criminal. Hell, the Constitution was written almost 60 years before the world's first police agency (the London Metropolitan Police) was even established.

Most state constitutions expressly enumerate that the right of small arms possession by citizens is centered on the right of self defense. For example, Oregon's 27th Amendment reads:

Section 27. Right to bear arms; military subordinate to civil power. The people shall have the right to bear arms for the defence [sic] of themselves, and the State, but the Military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power.
 
2013-01-27 12:52:46 PM  
Four shootings that should have had at least a dozen victims each if it were not for those silly laws.
 
2013-01-27 12:52:53 PM  

Cyrus the Mediocre: BradleyUffner: And the other 6?

They didn't get the point.


Thread over.
 
2013-01-27 12:53:57 PM  

bronyaur1: The NRA dummies keep pounding the pathetic argument that because Chicago has bad gun violence problems and its leaders have pursued gun restrictions, therefore the pursuit of gun restrictions causes gun violence.


Try to follow along. They are pointing out that taking away the guns is NOT reducing the crime.
 
2013-01-27 12:54:06 PM  

Pichu0102: Make it harder to get new guns, encourage an alternative of less than lethal self protection measures. Why is this bad?


Lawyers. If the person that broke into your house survives, you get sued.
 
2013-01-27 12:54:53 PM  

vpb: Somacandra: Gee, its almost as if the reality of guns in an urban setting (where everyone is spatially compressed and differential social problems are thus magnified) is far different from the reality of guns in a rural setting.

Sure it is, that's why cities need stricter gun control than rural areas.  The only real proper use for a gun in a city is as a defensive weapon against people.  There aren't any deer or quail.

/also against rabid animals and elephants in Palm Bay, Florida
 
2013-01-27 12:55:22 PM  

syrynxx: I think silverware sets should be limited to a single place setting.  Why does anyone need 8 knives to eat?


Thread over, right off the bat. Congrats.
 
2013-01-27 12:56:06 PM  

vpb: Fark It: vpb: The only real use for a gun in a city is as a weapon against people.

This is bullshiat. Hunters, sport shooters, and collectors live in cities too.

They may LIVE in them, but they don't do much hunting there.  Unless they are hunting people, and you don't hunt with a concealed handgun.

There are reasons that cities tend to have different laws from rural areas.


Wow, and here I was about to give you the benefit of the doubt and tell everyone that you were just being sarcastic. Looks like you're just stupid.
 
2013-01-27 12:56:16 PM  

Hector Remarkable: Brother what a night the people saw. Brother what a fight the people saw, yes indeed


dammit

Djkb: Cyrus the Mediocre: BradleyUffner: And the other 6?

They didn't get the point.

Thread over.


Sharp wit.
 
2013-01-27 12:56:19 PM  
The argument that people would just use other weapons such as knives and bats to kill each other if guns were banned doesn't hold up. Americans are too fat to go on a mass stabbing spree. They'd get tuckered out after the first few thrusts and have to lie down for a nap.

Gun owners: Too lazy and obese to kill people the way nature intended.
 
2013-01-27 12:56:27 PM  

KidneyStone: /also against rabid animals and elephants in Palm Bay, Florida


I see your problem.
 
2013-01-27 12:56:59 PM  

Mikey1969: bronyaur1: The NRA dummies keep pounding the pathetic argument that because Chicago has bad gun violence problems and its leaders have pursued gun restrictions, therefore the pursuit of gun restrictions causes gun violence.

Try to follow along. They are pointing out that taking away the guns is NOT reducing the crime.


And yet, a city in a state like New York that has an AWB, that also has stricter gun laws has seen a drop in crime.

And that's with fewer police officers than in 2000, also. It's almost like having stricter gun laws in the larger jurisdiction has an effect.
 
2013-01-27 12:56:59 PM  

JosephFinn: Wow. It's almost like the gun manufacturers weren't simply selling their murder weapons in other cities to be transported to Chicago for murders.


Hey now, only a very small percentage of gun dealers is providing the majority of weapons to criminals. Of course the NRA has helped write legislation that makes it nearly impossible to go after those dealers. But that's good, you see if we can get more guns in the hands of criminals, then law abiding citizens will have no choice but to arm themselves in order to be safe. That creates more demand for guns and more jobs, which is good for the economy.
 
2013-01-27 12:56:59 PM  

beefoe: How many people were killed with AK-17's?


I'm going to go with zero. Ever.
 
2013-01-27 12:57:11 PM  

Mikey1969: bronyaur1: The NRA dummies keep pounding the pathetic argument that because Chicago has bad gun violence problems and its leaders have pursued gun restrictions, therefore the pursuit of gun restrictions causes gun violence.

Try to follow along. They are pointing out that taking away the guns is NOT reducing the crime.


Since Chicago's 30 year handgun ban ended, gun violence has soared.

Anybody trying to use Chicago as "proof" for or against gun laws is an asshole.
 
2013-01-27 12:57:40 PM  

stirfrybry: bronyaur1: The NRA dummies keep pounding the pathetic argument that because Chicago has bad gun violence problems and its leaders have pursued gun restrictions, therefore the pursuit of gun restrictions causes gun violence.

If you are so dumb and incapable of logical thought that you sign onto - let alone repeat talking points supporting - this argument, then you might just be (a) too stupid to breed, (b) a Fox viewer, and (c) a redneck.

Idiot. The take-away is that gun control is ineffective, not that it causes crime. Lame strawman is lame




So your argument is that correlation with n=1 implies causation on the general effectiveness of gun control? In the absence of the counter factual??

You guys are even dumber than *I* thought you are. Thanks for proving the point, genius.
 
2013-01-27 12:57:41 PM  

bronyaur1: The NRA dummies keep pounding the pathetic argument that because Chicago has bad gun violence problems and its leaders have pursued gun restrictions, therefore the pursuit of gun restrictions causes gun violence.

If you are so dumb and incapable of logical thought that you sign onto - let alone repeat talking points supporting - this argument, then you might just be (a) too stupid to breed, (b) a Fox viewer, and (c) a redneck.


HAHA... no.

The pursuit of gun control does nothing to lower violence. The point of gun control is supposed to be to lower violence. The result of gun control is people have on average fewer guns and criminals have more than the average person (all other criminal factors except for possession of gun being equal).

Ontos: The Second Amendment isn't there solely for hunting. Anyone claiming otherwise is either an idiot, or willfully obtuse


I'd go further. The Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting.

Mrtraveler01: But then you look at NYC and DC which have its murder numbers plummet to record levels even though they have strict gun laws as well.


DC's murder rate fell even after the repeal of its ban. In California, the murder rate rose after a gun control measure in the late 80s and again after it was strengthened in the late 90s. It took several years for the murder rate to fall back down below the years when the control was passed.

Gun control laws do not lower crime. They divert police resources towards useless enforcement and disarm people who aren't likely to break the law.
 
2013-01-27 12:58:46 PM  
Whew! Now we don't have to ban guns, only video games!
 
2013-01-27 12:58:57 PM  

JosephFinn: Wow. It's almost like the gun manufacturers weren't simply selling their murder weapons in other cities to be transported to Chicago for murders.


Your suggestion is interesting, but it must be weighed against the fact that you are an unrepentant liar.
 
2013-01-27 12:59:15 PM  
Gun violence is a symptom.
Gun availability is a causality.
Others are health, economy, social, education.
Gun availability, can be mitigated directly and quickly. While we work on the other more complicated issues.
The straw man works to subvert this simplicity
 
2013-01-27 12:59:37 PM  
I could kill for some deep-dish pizza right now.
 
2013-01-27 01:00:08 PM  

Mrbogey: . It took several years for the murder rate to fall back down below the years when the control was passed.


It's almost as if gun bans don't have an immediate effect. Whodathunk .
 
2013-01-27 01:00:28 PM  

JosephFinn: Wow. It's almost like the gun manufacturers weren't simply selling their murder weapons in other cities to be transported to Chicago for murders.


So the manufacturer of a legal product that sells them in accordance with all applicable laws is also responsible for illegal usage and any illegal transfers that occurred along the way?
 
2013-01-27 01:00:33 PM  
Why do "Gun-nuts" refuse to accept any sort of restriction? Because the anti-gun lobby will NEVER stop pushing for more restrictions. Even if they agree that the restrictions are reasonable, the people pushing for the restrictions will steamroll past the point of 'reasonable.'

I propose we re-write the 2nd amendment to the following

No restriction placed upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall exceed the restriction placed upon law enforcement within the country."


After all, a police officer has no greater legal authority to use deadly force to protect their life than any other law-abiding citizen. Also if you want police officers to be 'better armed' than the people they are supposed to 'protect and serve', namely law-abiding citizens, then the role of the police must be oppression rather than protection. If the police can't have 'assault rifles' then neither can you. If the police can have a handgun, then you can too.

How's that? You'll find these 'gun nuts' willing to give up their 'assault rifles' under such a condition, because there is a standard that adjusts with the times.
 
2013-01-27 01:00:53 PM  
Most of Africa has no gun laws and little taxes, let's move there
 
2013-01-27 01:01:03 PM  
Why is it that where ever a large population of black people live there is a ton of crime?
 
2013-01-27 01:02:00 PM  

JosephFinn: Wow. It's almost like the gun manufacturers weren't simply selling their murder weapons in other cities to be transported to Chicago for murders.


So what you're saying is that when guns are outlawed, only outlaws have guns.

Check...
 
2013-01-27 01:02:40 PM  

RockChalkH1N1: Why is it that where ever a large population of black people live there is a ton of crime?


Because black people tend to live in more urban areas which tend to be more populated and have more crime?

You never hear about crime in the Black Belt of the South (a region largely populated by Blacks.)

Any more observations you'd like me to answer for you?
 
2013-01-27 01:04:20 PM  

Mrtraveler01: RockChalkH1N1: Why is it that where ever a large population of black people live there is a ton of crime?

Because black people tend to live in more urban areas which tend to be more populated and have more crime?

You never hear about crime in the Black Belt of the South (a region largely populated by Blacks.)

Any more observations you'd like me to answer for you?


Why is there a disproportional amount of black people in jail?
 
2013-01-27 01:06:27 PM  

Securitywyrm: Why do "Gun-nuts" refuse to accept any sort of restriction? Because the anti-gun lobby will NEVER stop pushing for more restrictions. Even if they agree that the restrictions are reasonable, the people pushing for the restrictions will steamroll past the point of 'reasonable.'

I propose we re-write the 2nd amendment to the following

No restriction placed upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall exceed the restriction placed upon law enforcement within the country."

After all, a police officer has no greater legal authority to use deadly force to protect their life than any other law-abiding citizen. Also if you want police officers to be 'better armed' than the people they are supposed to 'protect and serve', namely law-abiding citizens, then the role of the police must be oppression rather than protection. If the police can't have 'assault rifles' then neither can you. If the police can have a handgun, then you can too.

How's that? You'll find these 'gun nuts' willing to give up their 'assault rifles' under such a condition, because there is a standard that adjusts with the times.


Except the average person is generally trying to avoid dangerous situations and has the gun as a method of last resort. The law enforcement officer is specifically meant to put himself in more dangerous situations so that the average citizen doesn't have to. I'm fine with cops and military having more powerful weapons than civilians.
 
2013-01-27 01:06:30 PM  
How did the words "hunter" or "hunting" ever enter this discussion? [insert insult here]

Reminds me of Dr Susan Gratia's testimony over the Luby's massacre:

Link


In Chicago, the citizens have been stripped of their ability to protect themselves and their family. Why would anyone possibly want to make it easier for someone to rape women?

Gun control laws are a criminal's best friend.

American playwright David Mamet explains the folly of gun control laws: Link
 
2013-01-27 01:06:59 PM  

edmo: Four shootings that should have had at least a dozen victims each if it were not for those silly laws.


Well that's a stretch.

LarryDan43: JosephFinn: Wow. It's almost like the gun manufacturers weren't simply selling their murder weapons in other cities to be transported to Chicago for murders.

Hey now, only a very small percentage of gun dealers is providing the majority of weapons to criminals. Of course the NRA has helped write legislation that makes it nearly impossible to go after those dealers. But that's good, you see if we can get more guns in the hands of criminals, then law abiding citizens will have no choice but to arm themselves in order to be safe. That creates more demand for guns and more jobs, which is good for the economy.


When a gun is recovered from a crime scene, it's possible to trace it to the dealer that sold it. From there you can follow the steps to see if there is a choke point on straw purchases or illegal sales.
 
2013-01-27 01:08:07 PM  
I dunno about anyone else, but at least two of my pistols are designed for easy concealed carry, and are meant strictly for anti-personnel work, not for hunting.
 
2013-01-27 01:08:20 PM  

RockChalkH1N1: Mrtraveler01: RockChalkH1N1: Why is it that where ever a large population of black people live there is a ton of crime?

Because black people tend to live in more urban areas which tend to be more populated and have more crime?

You never hear about crime in the Black Belt of the South (a region largely populated by Blacks.)

Any more observations you'd like me to answer for you?

Why is there a disproportional amount of black people in jail?


I don't know. Do you?
 
2013-01-27 01:08:49 PM  

OmarBradley: Gun control laws are a criminal's best friend.


Crime plummeted in Chicago during the 30-year handgun ban.
 
2013-01-27 01:10:39 PM  

jaytkay: OmarBradley: Gun control laws are a criminal's best friend.

Crime plummeted in Chicago during the 30-year handgun ban.


Oh, what do you know that someone in Gainesville, FL might not.

*checks profile*

Oh.

Say, know of any good places to get a pizza or an Italian Beef?
 
2013-01-27 01:11:06 PM  
It's clearly time to outlaw murder and attempted murder.
 
2013-01-27 01:12:54 PM  

syrynxx: bronyaur1: the pursuit of gun restrictions causes gun violence.

No, dumbass.  The point is that gun restrictions have a negligible impact on gun violence. Although I think if you use 'too stupid to breed' as an insult, you shouldn't have picked a nym that paints you as someone unlikely to ever breed or even be given the opportunity.




My screen name has nothing to do with My Little Pony, but you apparently aren't bright enough or have had sufficient life experience to have assumed any other possibility.

But apart from that, please do explain how a single example might "prove" that "gun restrictions Have a negligle effect on gun violence.". In particular, Captain Logic, please share with us your data on what Chicago gun violence rates would have been in the absence of the extant pursuit of gun limitations? Is it that gun violence would be the same? If this is your claim, what actual quantitative evidence do you provide for it?

Or..... Are you utterly unable to do anything but sputter because you have nothing to back up your argument?

Quo erat demonstratum, you dumbfarks. Your baseless and pathetic claims are precisely proving MY claim that none of you spouting this moronic talking point comprehends what a weak argument it makes.
 
2013-01-27 01:14:19 PM  

Mrtraveler01: RockChalkH1N1: Mrtraveler01: RockChalkH1N1: Why is it that where ever a large population of black people live there is a ton of crime?

Because black people tend to live in more urban areas which tend to be more populated and have more crime?

You never hear about crime in the Black Belt of the South (a region largely populated by Blacks.)

Any more observations you'd like me to answer for you?

Why is there a disproportional amount of black people in jail?

I don't know. Do you?


No, that's why I'm asking
 
2013-01-27 01:17:21 PM  
THEY HAD A STABBING?!!!!
Well, there ya go...
We gotta get rid of those evil knives too!
http://frontpagemag.com/2012/dgreenfield/british-doctors-call-for-ban - on-long-kitchen-knives-to-end-stabbings/

Oh, BTW... how many of those shootings were done with soon-to-be-banned...again assault rifles?
 
2013-01-27 01:18:20 PM  

jaytkay: OmarBradley: Gun control laws are a criminal's best friend.

Crime plummeted in Chicago during the 30-year handgun ban.


Utter bullshiat. And the idea that crime has spiked because of Chicago's ban being overturned is BS as well. Chicago has no gun stores, and anyone who wants to legally possess a handgun gun in Chicago has to attend two classes that by design are not allowed to be taught in the city limits (because of the de facto ban on firing ranges), pay hundreds of dollars, and get fingerprinted.

Rahm Emanuel also dissolved the city's tactical gang response teams, which would go in and saturate high crime areas when violence flared up, essentially forcing the gangs to lay low and not retaliate against each other. Their brilliant new strategy involves going after restaurants and liquor stores with municipal code violations.
 
2013-01-27 01:18:34 PM  

Pichu0102: Make it harder to get new guns, encourage an alternative of less than lethal self protection measures. Why is this bad?


Because people who regulate guns to get their jollies just can't resist the temptation to ban or restrict less-lethal weapons. A device like the Taser has no lobby and no sporting use, so it's already banned or restricted in many places.

The second amendment, when reduced to the brass tacks, is about preventing the fed from robbing states and individuals of the ability to defend themselves against an armed threat.
Assault rifles, shotguns and handguns have a military use. Carbines like the AR-15 can defend you against gunmen, are often used in sport shooting, and can put meat on the table. So their lobbies and owners defend them fiercely.

Taser's... Can't do any of that. They are self defense only and limited (often unreliable), and then you've got the legal and bureaucratic issues.
No one speaks up for them.

/I agree its a good plan to encourage LLW's, and I believe fewer people would buy guns if they had an alternative.
/but we need to get the troll out from under the path to owning those alternatives or nothings happening.
 
2013-01-27 01:19:27 PM  

Mrtraveler01: jaytkay: OmarBradley: Gun control laws are a criminal's best friend.

Crime plummeted in Chicago during the 30-year handgun ban.

Oh, what do you know that someone in Gainesville, FL might not.

*checks profile*

Oh.

Say, know of any good places to get a pizza or an Italian Beef?


Johnnies in Elmwood park for beef Gino's East for pizza
/Gene and Jude's for hotdogs in River Grove(not far from Johnnies)
 
2013-01-27 01:19:56 PM  
Gun laws and restrictions are part of an effective strategy to prevent gun violence. Canadians have more hurdles to owning certain classes of arms, but can still own them. Compare gun related deaths between the two countries, I bet no one even needs to look it up to know that laws and regulations can work.

It's not about banning weapons, it's about regulating them to balance public safety and ownership. You can have both respectively if y'all could stop this inane partisan douchery.
 
2013-01-27 01:20:33 PM  
Chicago, all the proof in the world that you need that strict gun laws raise the murder rate.

How many people will be sacrificed to the alter of gun demonization in New York, Chicago and Washington DC before they realize that their strict gun laws are mainly hurting their own citizens? It's okay kids, your rights will continue to be slaughtered in the name of safety, right along with your neighbors.

Can't look at the actual culprits behind murder, you know the murderers, because that would be bad for re-election.
 
2013-01-27 01:20:49 PM  
Thanks Cyrus for sticking that tune in there you ruined the thread for me "shakes fist"
 
2013-01-27 01:22:08 PM  

Mrtraveler01: Say, know of any good places to get a pizza or an Italian Beef?


Pequod's Pizza

Italian Beef, I dunno, that's not my thing.
 
2013-01-27 01:22:16 PM  

RockChalkH1N1: Mrtraveler01: RockChalkH1N1: Mrtraveler01: RockChalkH1N1: Why is it that where ever a large population of black people live there is a ton of crime?

Because black people tend to live in more urban areas which tend to be more populated and have more crime?

You never hear about crime in the Black Belt of the South (a region largely populated by Blacks.)

Any more observations you'd like me to answer for you?

Why is there a disproportional amount of black people in jail?

I don't know. Do you?

No, that's why I'm asking


Dude, any second they're going to start yelling racism and it's game over from there.

Don't bother.
 
2013-01-27 01:22:26 PM  

DogBoyTheCat: THEY HAD A STABBING?!!!!
Well, there ya go...
We gotta get rid of those evil knives too!
http://frontpagemag.com/2012/dgreenfield/british-doctors-call-for-ban - on-long-kitchen-knives-to-end-stabbings/

Oh, BTW... how many of those shootings were done with soon-to-be-banned...again assault rifles?


I think a ban of those is a waste of time, but I also think it's silly that people are getting upset because they need an assault rifle for self-defense.

No you don't, it's just a toy. I'm perfectly fine with you guys wanting to keep them but stop kidding me telling me you need these for self-defense or hunting and just tell me it's a toy.
 
2013-01-27 01:22:32 PM  

way south: Pichu0102: Make it harder to get new guns, encourage an alternative of less than lethal self protection measures. Why is this bad?

Because people who regulate guns to get their jollies just can't resist the temptation to ban or restrict less-lethal weapons. A device like the Taser has no lobby and no sporting use, so it's already banned or restricted in many places.

The second amendment, when reduced to the brass tacks, is about preventing the fed from robbing states and individuals of the ability to defend themselves against an armed threat.
Assault rifles, shotguns and handguns have a military use. Carbines like the AR-15 can defend you against gunmen, are often used in sport shooting, and can put meat on the table. So their lobbies and owners defend them fiercely.

Taser's... Can't do any of that. They are self defense only and limited (often unreliable), and then you've got the legal and bureaucratic issues.
No one speaks up for them.

/I agree its a good plan to encourage LLW's, and I believe fewer people would buy guns if they had an alternative.
/but we need to get the troll out from under the path to owning those alternatives or nothings happening.


Pepper spray is also banned in Washington DC.

Greylight: Gun laws and restrictions are part of an effective strategy to prevent gun violence. Canadians have more hurdles to owning certain classes of arms, but can still own them. Compare gun related deaths between the two countries, I bet no one even needs to look it up to know that laws and regulations can work.

It's not about banning weapons, it's about regulating them to balance public safety and ownership. You can have both respectively if y'all could stop this inane partisan douchery.


Canada doesn't have a retarded and costly drug war, nor do they have nearly as big of a gang problem in their inner cities.
 
2013-01-27 01:22:52 PM  
You can pry my penis from my cold dead hands.
 
2013-01-27 01:23:41 PM  

drjekel_mrhyde: Johnnies in Elmwood park for beef Gino's East for pizza


I've seen Al's Beef on TV. Is that any good by comparison?

And the only place I've eaten deep-dish wise is Giorodano's. How does Gino's East compare to that?
 
2013-01-27 01:23:57 PM  
Chicago is the NRA's straw man. Chicago's murder rate is about 16th in the nation for the roughly 70 cities with more than 250,000 people. Miami, Cleveland, Memphis, Atlanta, and New Orleans all have higher homicide rates. But since Chicago has 2,000,000 more people than those gun loving cities the raw number of homicides is higher.
 
2013-01-27 01:24:11 PM  

onyxruby: Chicago, all the proof in the world that you need that strict gun laws raise the murder rate.


A single example in the absence of a counterfactual is a "proof" in your world?

You live in a very poorly educated world.
 
2013-01-27 01:24:39 PM  

Molavian: RockChalkH1N1: Mrtraveler01: RockChalkH1N1: Mrtraveler01: RockChalkH1N1: Why is it that where ever a large population of black people live there is a ton of crime?

Because black people tend to live in more urban areas which tend to be more populated and have more crime?

You never hear about crime in the Black Belt of the South (a region largely populated by Blacks.)

Any more observations you'd like me to answer for you?

Why is there a disproportional amount of black people in jail?

I don't know. Do you?

No, that's why I'm asking

Dude, any second they're going to start yelling racism and it's game over from there.

Don't bother.


Do go on.

Is this about the Black "culture"?
 
2013-01-27 01:25:08 PM  

NeoCortex42: Securitywyrm: Why do "Gun-nuts" refuse to accept any sort of restriction? Because the anti-gun lobby will NEVER stop pushing for more restrictions. Even if they agree that the restrictions are reasonable, the people pushing for the restrictions will steamroll past the point of 'reasonable.'

I propose we re-write the 2nd amendment to the following

No restriction placed upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall exceed the restriction placed upon law enforcement within the country."

After all, a police officer has no greater legal authority to use deadly force to protect their life than any other law-abiding citizen. Also if you want police officers to be 'better armed' than the people they are supposed to 'protect and serve', namely law-abiding citizens, then the role of the police must be oppression rather than protection. If the police can't have 'assault rifles' then neither can you. If the police can have a handgun, then you can too.

How's that? You'll find these 'gun nuts' willing to give up their 'assault rifles' under such a condition, because there is a standard that adjusts with the times.

Except the average person is generally trying to avoid dangerous situations and has the gun as a method of last resort. The law enforcement officer is specifically meant to put himself in more dangerous situations so that the average citizen doesn't have to. I'm fine with cops and military having more powerful weapons than civilians.


Well, I'm not. The military is one thing, but consider this. If the military is then used for law enforcement, it grants the right of the people to arm to the teeth because of this standard.
Also: Crimes don't happen around police officers, police officers head towards crime. Ask any police officer, how often do they arrive at a crime scene to 'stop the criminal' and how many times do they arrive to do clean-up?
Goblins breaking into your house are not a protected species.
 
2013-01-27 01:25:11 PM  

vpb: Somacandra: Gee, its almost as if the reality of guns in an urban setting (where everyone is spatially compressed and differential social problems are thus magnified) is far different from the reality of guns in a rural setting.

Sure it is, that's why cities need stricter gun control than rural areas.  The only real use for a gun in a city is as a weapon against people.  There aren't any deer or quail.


Right, because if you live in the city it's totally impossible to ever get out of it for the weekend. Sounds like urban black people problems to me.
 
2013-01-27 01:26:25 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: It's almost as if gun bans don't have an immediate effect. Whodathunk .


When there's a trend downward and when it jumps up right around the time the ban takes effect, most would be hesitant to consider bans a success.
 
2013-01-27 01:26:48 PM  
Yes. It's not like Chicago or New York ever had a history of criminal violence that led to their increasingly strict laws and regulations. Clearly their kneejerk lieberal moonbattery is to blame.
 
2013-01-27 01:26:53 PM  

EvilByte: Chicago is the NRA's straw man. Chicago's murder rate is about 16th in the nation for the roughly 70 cities with more than 250,000 people. Miami, Cleveland, Memphis, Atlanta, and New Orleans all have higher homicide rates. But since Chicago has 2,000,000 more people than those gun loving cities the raw number of homicides is higher.


And they can't use NYC because crime there is at a record low.

I live in St. Louis so I always laugh when I hear about crime problems plaguing a city that's 3 times as big in area.
 
2013-01-27 01:27:51 PM  

jaytkay: Mrtraveler01: Say, know of any good places to get a pizza or an Italian Beef?

Pequod's Pizza

Italian Beef, I dunno, that's not my thing.


Damn that looks good.

Screw the gun thread, I'm hungry for pizza now.
 
2013-01-27 01:28:21 PM  

LowbrowDeluxe: Yes. It's not like Chicago or New York ever had a history of criminal violence that led to their increasingly strict laws and regulations. Clearly their kneejerk lieberal moonbattery is to blame.


It could be both....
 
2013-01-27 01:29:36 PM  

Fark It: jaytkay: OmarBradley: Gun control laws are a criminal's best friend.

Crime plummeted in Chicago during the 30-year handgun ban.

Utter bullshiat. And the idea that crime has spiked because of Chicago's ban being overturned is BS as well. Chicago has no gun stores, and anyone who wants to legally possess a handgun gun in Chicago has to attend two classes that by design are not allowed to be taught in the city limits (because of the de facto ban on firing ranges), pay hundreds of dollars, and get fingerprinted.

Rahm Emanuel also dissolved the city's tactical gang response teams, which would go in and saturate high crime areas when violence flared up, essentially forcing the gangs to lay low and not retaliate against each other. Their brilliant new strategy involves going after restaurants and liquor stores with municipal code violations.


The gangs(order with a bit of chaos at times) are not the problem in a sense, it's many gang members from multiple gangs grouping up and going rogue called cliqs/clicks(no order all out chaos) against anyone(even their own gang) who mess with their drug spots.
Well atleast on the Westside it's like that.
 
2013-01-27 01:30:13 PM  
Do people still think that Chicago's violence is because of guns? Sometimes the racist explanation is the correct one, like it or not.
 
2013-01-27 01:31:34 PM  
70% of childbirth's in Chicago are to unwed mother's.......There's your smoking gun.
 
2013-01-27 01:31:50 PM  

Great Odins Raven: Do people still think that Chicago's violence is because of guns? Sometimes the racist explanation is the correct one, like it or not.


It's full of Blah people!!!

Because everyone knows NYC doesn't have any blah people.
 
2013-01-27 01:32:08 PM  

Greylight: Gun laws and restrictions are part of an effective strategy to prevent gun violence. Canadians have more hurdles to owning certain classes of arms, but can still own them. Compare gun related deaths between the two countries, I bet no one even needs to look it up to know that laws and regulations can work.

It's not about banning weapons, it's about regulating them to balance public safety and ownership. You can have both respectively if y'all could stop this inane partisan douchery.


Gun control isn't going to drastically reduce violence in the U.S. I'm a gun control advocate. The biggest problem lies in our culture. Violence is socially acceptable in the U.S. If it turned us off that much, something would have been done about it long ago. But, no. Hell, in some cases, criminals are revered here. There are also economic, environmental, and mental health aspects to gun violence. People in "hot spots" for gun violence in the U.S. don't put nearly the same value on life as the rest of us first world problem havers would.
 
2013-01-27 01:33:07 PM  

jaytkay: Mikey1969: bronyaur1: The NRA dummies keep pounding the pathetic argument that because Chicago has bad gun violence problems and its leaders have pursued gun restrictions, therefore the pursuit of gun restrictions causes gun violence.

Try to follow along. They are pointing out that taking away the guns is NOT reducing the crime.

Since Chicago's 30 year handgun ban ended, gun violence has soared.

Anybody trying to use Chicago as "proof" for or against gun laws is an asshole.


Well, let's look at the murders in Chicago:

1965: 395
1974: 970
1990: 851
1991: 927
1992: 943
1993: 855
1994: 931
1995: 828
1996: 796
1997: 761
1998: 704
1999: 643
2000: 633
2001: 667
2002: 656
2003: 601
2004: 453
2005: 451
2006: 471
2007: 448
2008: 513
2009: 459
2010: 436
2011: 435
2012: 506

The gun ban ended in 2010, right? Since then, there is 1 year that was higher than 2010, and going back to '90, there are only 4 years that were lower than 2012. In fact, all of the rest had 100 more murders than this "soaring" year. Well into your '30 year ban', you had 800 or 900 murders a year, now you have 506. 506 is less than 800, so there is going to have to be a LOT more soaring before you will have a point.

Link
 
2013-01-27 01:33:11 PM  

EnderX: 70% of childbirth's in Chicago are to unwed mother's.......There's your smoking gun.


I think it's more about poverty than that myself.
 
2013-01-27 01:33:33 PM  

jaytkay: Crime plummeted in Chicago during the 30-year handgun ban.


Fark It: Utter bullshiat.


It's cute when emotional, ill-informed people try to make a lucid argument. Handguns were banned from 1982 to 2010

Murders in Chicago by year
1965:395
1974:970
1990:851
1991:927
1992:943
1993:855
1994:931
1995:828
1996:796
1997:761
1998:704
1999:643
2000:633
2001:667
2002:656
2003:601
2004:453
2005:451
2006:471
2007:448
2008:513
2009:459
2010:436
2011:435
2012:506
 
2013-01-27 01:34:17 PM  

Mikey1969: jaytkay: Mikey1969: bronyaur1: The NRA dummies keep pounding the pathetic argument that because Chicago has bad gun violence problems and its leaders have pursued gun restrictions, therefore the pursuit of gun restrictions causes gun violence.

Try to follow along. They are pointing out that taking away the guns is NOT reducing the crime.

Since Chicago's 30 year handgun ban ended, gun violence has soared.

Anybody trying to use Chicago as "proof" for or against gun laws is an asshole.

Well, let's look at the murders in Chicago:

1965: 395
1974: 970
1990: 851
1991: 927
1992: 943
1993: 855
1994: 931
1995: 828
1996: 796
1997: 761
1998: 704
1999: 643
2000: 633
2001: 667
2002: 656
2003: 601
2004: 453
2005: 451
2006: 471
2007: 448
2008: 513
2009: 459
2010: 436
2011: 435
2012: 506

The gun ban ended in 2010, right? Since then, there is 1 year that was higher than 2010, and going back to '90, there are only 4 years that were lower than 2012. In fact, all of the rest had 100 more murders than this "soaring" year. Well into your '30 year ban', you had 800 or 900 murders a year, now you have 506. 506 is less than 800, so there is going to have to be a LOT more soaring before you will have a point.

Link


What happened between 2003 and 2004?
 
2013-01-27 01:35:15 PM  

Mrbogey: When there's a trend downward and when it jumps up right around the time the ban takes effect, most would be hesitant to consider bans a success.


Chicago's gun ban was lifted before the recent uptick.

The ban was in 1982.
 
2013-01-27 01:35:36 PM  

Mrtraveler01: KidneyStone: /also against rabid animals and elephants in Palm Bay, Florida

I see your problem.


I moved from there back in 1992

/Palm Bay is not somewhere I'd willingly live again
 
2013-01-27 01:37:11 PM  

Mrbogey: The pursuit of gun control does nothing to lower violence. The point of gun control is supposed to be to lower violence. The result of gun control is people have on average fewer guns and criminals have more than the average person (all other criminal factors except for possession of gun being equal).


No, that's wrong. If we just pass gun laws, the criminals will stop using guns. They already only use guns in legal ways and obtain them 100% legally. Guns that are stolen, bought by a strawman, or on the black market are NEVER used for crime, and since they don't use legal guns illegally, there actually is no such thing as "gun violence".
 
2013-01-27 01:37:30 PM  

vpb: Somacandra: Gee, its almost as if the reality of guns in an urban setting (where everyone is spatially compressed and differential social problems are thus magnified) is far different from the reality of guns in a rural setting.

Sure it is, that's why cities need stricter gun control than rural areas.  The only real use for a gun in a city is as a weapon against people.  There aren't any deer or quail.


I guess you could say the same thing for the 1st Amendment, can't have people speaking their mind in a crowded area, someone will get upset.
 
2013-01-27 01:37:44 PM  
As pointed out by a thoughtful gun rights advocate up thread: not only do Canada's arms laws and restrictions result in fewer gun related fatalities, it also results in less gang and drug war problems.
 
2013-01-27 01:38:25 PM  

Mrtraveler01: drjekel_mrhyde: Johnnies in Elmwood park for beef Gino's East for pizza

I've seen Al's Beef on TV. Is that any good by comparison?

And the only place I've eaten deep-dish wise is Giorodano's. How does Gino's East compare to that?


Al's is pretty good but like Giorodano's they have way too many locations which make them feel cheap
 
2013-01-27 01:38:28 PM  

syrynxx: I think silverware sets should be limited to a single place setting.  Why does anyone need 8 knives to eat?


Did you know that some people in England are trying to ban long kitchen knives? This is a link so farging click it you iceholes

I wish that was a joke.
 
2013-01-27 01:38:46 PM  
So gun rights people are now using outright, unabashed racism to defend their cause?

WTF?!

Dear reasonable gun folks... distance yourself from the wackadoodles as quickly as possible. They are going to make it so the gov over reaches even what the pro GC people are asking for.

This is bad... this really really bad.
 
2013-01-27 01:39:08 PM  
black people
 
2013-01-27 01:39:14 PM  

Mrtraveler01: EnderX: 70% of childbirth's in Chicago are to unwed mother's.......There's your smoking gun.

I think it's more about poverty than that myself.


Their too poor to get married and have a father at home?
 
2013-01-27 01:40:30 PM  
I'm just glad the right to Chicago Bear arms people finally got their thread.

www.wbbz.tv

Illinois, Indiana big source of guns used in Chicago crimes, say cops
 
2013-01-27 01:40:47 PM  

Mikey1969: now you have 506. 506 is less than 800, so there is going to have to be a LOT more soaring before you will have a point.


My point was that violence and particularly murder plummeted during the gun ban.

And that people claiming the gun ban causes violence are obviously, laughably wrong.

Those points are indisputable.

I should not have suggested that lifting the handgun ban caused the uptick. But I can't help it sometimes because it just emphasizes how gun enthusiasts and Chicago-haters argue against the facts.
 
2013-01-27 01:41:13 PM  

jaytkay: jaytkay: Crime plummeted in Chicago during the 30-year handgun ban.

Fark It: Utter bullshiat.

It's cute when emotional, ill-informed people try to make a lucid argument. Handguns were banned from 1982 to 2010

Murders in Chicago by year
1965:395
1974:970
1990:851
1991:927
1992:943
1993:855
1994:931
1995:828
1996:796
1997:761
1998:704
1999:643
2000:633
2001:667
2002:656
2003:601
2004:453
2005:451
2006:471
2007:448
2008:513
2009:459
2010:436
2011:435
2012:506


Seriously? You post the murders for 1974, say that the 1982 handgun ban drastically reduced murders, and don't post any data until 1990, 8 years after the ban went into effect? How many more guns made it onto Chicago's streets because of the handgun ban being lifted? How many guns that otherwise wouldn't have been legally possessed before the overturning of Chicago's gun ban have been found at crime scenes in Chicago? If any newly registered guns were found at any crime scene Emanuel and McCarthy would be howling at the moon about how overturning the ban has fueled gun violence?

Do you think going after Subway and McDonald's restaurants with code violations is a viable crime-control strategy?

Chicago's gun ban had no effect whatsoever on crime. None.
 
2013-01-27 01:42:26 PM  

Molavian: RockChalkH1N1: Mrtraveler01: RockChalkH1N1: Mrtraveler01: RockChalkH1N1: Why is it that where ever a large population of black people live there is a ton of crime?

Because black people tend to live in more urban areas which tend to be more populated and have more crime?

You never hear about crime in the Black Belt of the South (a region largely populated by Blacks.)

Any more observations you'd like me to answer for you?

Why is there a disproportional amount of black people in jail?

I don't know. Do you?

No, that's why I'm asking

Dude, any second they're going to start yelling racism and it's game over from there.

Don't bother.


Black people tend to do more crime via population ratio, its not racist if its true
 
2013-01-27 01:42:36 PM  

EnderX: Mrtraveler01: EnderX: 70% of childbirth's in Chicago are to unwed mother's.......There's your smoking gun.

I think it's more about poverty than that myself.

Their too poor to get married and have a father at home?


More along the lines of:

"They're poor and their only means to survive is to be a criminal".

I know people who had children out of wedlock but I don't think they're going to grow up to be criminals.
 
2013-01-27 01:43:14 PM  

Mrtraveler01: jaytkay: Mrtraveler01: Say, know of any good places to get a pizza or an Italian Beef?

Pequod's Pizza

Italian Beef, I dunno, that's not my thing.

Damn that looks good.

Screw the gun thread, I'm hungry for pizza now.


Try Portillo's for italian beef. Like jaytkay, i don't really eat it, but I know friends and family who would kill for a Portillo's italian beef at most moments in their life. Also, I'd second the Pequod's suggestion, but be prepared for a crowd during peak hours. The wait is worth it.
 
2013-01-27 01:45:26 PM  
Somacandra brings up an interesting point...
Gee, its almost as if the reality of guns in an urban setting (where everyone is spatially compressed and differential social problems are thus magnified) is far different from the reality of guns in a rural setting.
Are there any studies about gun ownership in urban settings vs violent crime rates?
I have a guess, but, please.... can I see the official numbers?
 
2013-01-27 01:45:33 PM  

jaytkay: My point was that violence and particularly murder plummeted during the gun ban.

And that people claiming the gun ban causes violence are obviously, laughably wrong.

Those points are indisputable.


Chicago recorded a record number of homicides in 1994, and the rate was much higher than before the ban for most of the 1990s.

How did the murder rate plummet when it in fact reached record highs?
 
2013-01-27 01:45:47 PM  

Running Wild: I don't really eat [Italian Beef], but I know friends and family who would kill for a Portillo's italian beef at most moments in their life.


Portillo's also has excellent Chicago hotdogs.
 
2013-01-27 01:47:22 PM  

Mrtraveler01: EnderX: Mrtraveler01: EnderX: 70% of childbirth's in Chicago are to unwed mother's.......There's your smoking gun.

I think it's more about poverty than that myself.

Their too poor to get married and have a father at home?

More along the lines of:

"They're poor and their only means to survive is to be a criminal".

I know people who had children out of wedlock but I don't think they're going to grow up to be criminals.


I don't believe I said all people born out of wedlock are going to grow up to be criminal, Is that what you are trying to imply to the forum that I said? Because that would be a lie.
 
2013-01-27 01:47:40 PM  

KiwDaWabbit: Greylight: Gun laws and restrictions are part of an effective strategy to prevent gun violence. Canadians have more hurdles to owning certain classes of arms, but can still own them. Compare gun related deaths between the two countries, I bet no one even needs to look it up to know that laws and regulations can work.

It's not about banning weapons, it's about regulating them to balance public safety and ownership. You can have both respectively if y'all could stop this inane partisan douchery.

Gun control isn't going to drastically reduce violence in the U.S. I'm a gun control advocate. The biggest problem lies in our culture. Violence is socially acceptable in the U.S. If it turned us off that much, something would have been done about it long ago. But, no. Hell, in some cases, criminals are revered here. There are also economic, environmental, and mental health aspects to gun violence. People in "hot spots" for gun violence in the U.S. don't put nearly the same value on life as the rest of us first world problem havers would.


The culture in the US is not common across the whole country. I in Manitoba have more in common with someone from Minisota then they would with someone from Mississippi.

The idea of a "gun culture" is not an irreversible fact of life, it is a series of choices. Now is the time for Americans to make another choice. Make the right choice this time my friends.
 
2013-01-27 01:50:14 PM  

Mrtraveler01: No you don't, it's just a toy. I'm perfectly fine with you guys wanting to keep them but stop kidding me telling me you need these for self-defense or hunting and just tell me it's a toy.


Why do you think of it as a toy?
 
2013-01-27 01:51:12 PM  
Fark It: Chicago recorded a record number of homicides in 1994, and the rate was much higher than before the ban for most of the 1990s.

You are cherry picking data out of the middle.

The number of murders fell roughly in half during the 30-year Chicago handgun ban.

The same as every other major US city during the same period.

Chicago, with a handgun ban, had the same kind of crime troubles as places with lax gun laws.
 
2013-01-27 01:52:51 PM  

EnderX: Mrtraveler01: EnderX: Mrtraveler01: EnderX: 70% of childbirth's in Chicago are to unwed mother's.......There's your smoking gun.

I think it's more about poverty than that myself.

Their too poor to get married and have a father at home?

More along the lines of:

"They're poor and their only means to survive is to be a criminal".

I know people who had children out of wedlock but I don't think they're going to grow up to be criminals.

I don't believe I said all people born out of wedlock are going to grow up to be criminal, Is that what you are trying to imply to the forum that I said? Because that would be a lie.


No you said born out of wedlock with no father around.

I should've been more detailed in that I know people in that situtation and I don't think those mothers are going to raise a criminal.
 
2013-01-27 01:52:55 PM  

jaytkay: OmarBradley: Gun control laws are a criminal's best friend.

Crime plummeted in Chicago during the 30-year handgun ban.


Ban expired in 2010, so a 30 year ban would go back to 1980. Here's the murder rates from 1990 to 2012:

Homicides in Chicago

1990: 851
1991: 927
1992: 943
1993: 855
1994: 931
1995: 828
1996: 796
1997: 761
1998: 704
1999: 643
2000: 633
2001: 667
2002: 656
2003: 601
2004: 453
2005: 451
2006: 471
2007: 448
2008: 513
2009: 459
2010: 436
2011: 435
2012: 506

Link

(It doesn't take 24 years for a gun ban to start showing a marked decrease, 1990 should have been already down to the 2011 level for your point to be valid)


This one shows a NATIONAL trend, starting in about 1994, which correlates exactly to the Chicago data. In other words, chicago's drop was part of a larger trend, and nothing special.

upload.wikimedia.org
Even New York has a similar trend:
Link
 
2013-01-27 01:54:13 PM  

Greylight: The culture in the US is not common across the whole country. I in Manitoba have more in common with someone from Minisota then they would with someone from Mississippi.

The idea of a "gun culture" is not an irreversible fact of life, it is a series of choices. Now is the time for Americans to make another choice. Make the right choice this time my friends.


Right, I understand that. It's a big, diverse country and about as non-homogeneous as you can get. But, overall, I believe what I said to be more fact than fiction.

Like I said, I'd like to see more strict gun control. However, it's not going to be a panacea, as there are many other factors that contribute to gun violence in the U.S.
 
2013-01-27 01:54:21 PM  

jaytkay: Fark It: Chicago recorded a record number of homicides in 1994, and the rate was much higher than before the ban for most of the 1990s.

You are cherry picking data out of the middle.

The number of murders fell roughly in half during the 30-year Chicago handgun ban.

The same as every other major US city during the same period.

Chicago, with a handgun ban, had the same kind of crime troubles as places with lax gun laws.


Did you place a large bet against yourself in this debate?
 
2013-01-27 01:54:22 PM  

Mrbogey: Mrtraveler01: No you don't, it's just a toy. I'm perfectly fine with you guys wanting to keep them but stop kidding me telling me you need these for self-defense or hunting and just tell me it's a toy.

Why do you think of it as a toy?


You need an Assault Rifle for home defense when a shotgun does the same job?

You need an assault rifle for hunting? What on earth are you hunting that requires a weapon as powerful as that?
 
2013-01-27 01:54:39 PM  

Mikey1969: It doesn't take 24 years for a gun ban to start showing a marked decrease, 1990 should have been already down to the 2011 level for your point to be valid


I didn't say the gun ban caused the drop in murders.
 
2013-01-27 01:55:29 PM  
Oh... BTW Beefoe... I have personally seen 3 people killed by AK-47s... all in combat situations... none in the U.S. (Thank God)
And I still have no problem with responsible law-abiding gun owners being allowed to have one... hell, I'm even cool with law-abiding folks getting the full-auto, military version.
It's the most efficient, indestructible military small arm ever made... it's kinda sad that the AR-15 tends to jam so much in sandy conditions....
So, again, I will say what's been said a zillion times before:
It's not gun control we need, it's loony control.
I propose we end the drug war and put that money towards stopping the dangerous loonies
 
2013-01-27 01:56:51 PM  

syrynxx: Although I think if you use 'too stupid to breed' as an insult, you shouldn't have picked a nym that paints you as someone unlikely to ever breed or even be given the opportunity.


It's probably a Led Zeppelin reference, Scooter...

Bron Y'aur Stomp
 
2013-01-27 01:57:27 PM  

Somacandra: Aw Crap.

Wrong Thread.


LOL, I love when this happens to someone other than me... :-)
 
2013-01-27 01:57:35 PM  

Greylight: As pointed out by a thoughtful gun rights advocate up thread: not only do Canada's arms laws and restrictions result in fewer gun related fatalities, it also results in less gang and drug war problems.


No, they don't. If you removed all the gun murders in the US and left all the gun murders in Canada and didn't touch all the other murder methods in both countries Canada would still have a lower murder rate than the US. Americans murder each other more with nongun weapons than Canadians do with gun AND nongun weapons so it's the people not the weapons that are the determining factor.

Canadians don't have the large black population that commits murders at 5 times the rate of the the rest of the population and they don't have 20 million criminal alien Mexicans who doubled their own murder rate in the drug wars in the last few years.
 
2013-01-27 01:58:42 PM  

Mrtraveler01:
I know...I know...it's to rise up against our Government or something right?


You know, it's a bit disturbing when people act like understanding the constitution is beneath them.
 
2013-01-27 01:58:53 PM  

DogBoyTheCat: I propose we end the drug war and put that money towards stopping the dangerous loonies


Hah, I have said before that we ought to declare a war on stopping crime since every war on an concept that we initiate makes the problem worse.
 
2013-01-27 01:58:54 PM  

Mrtraveler01: Mikey1969: jaytkay: Mikey1969: bronyaur1: The NRA dummies keep pounding the pathetic argument that because Chicago has bad gun violence problems and its leaders have pursued gun restrictions, therefore the pursuit of gun restrictions causes gun violence.

Try to follow along. They are pointing out that taking away the guns is NOT reducing the crime.

Since Chicago's 30 year handgun ban ended, gun violence has soared.

Anybody trying to use Chicago as "proof" for or against gun laws is an asshole.

Well, let's look at the murders in Chicago:

1965: 395
1974: 970
1990: 851
1991: 927
1992: 943
1993: 855
1994: 931
1995: 828
1996: 796
1997: 761
1998: 704
1999: 643
2000: 633
2001: 667
2002: 656
2003: 601
2004: 453
2005: 451
2006: 471
2007: 448
2008: 513
2009: 459
2010: 436
2011: 435
2012: 506

The gun ban ended in 2010, right? Since then, there is 1 year that was higher than 2010, and going back to '90, there are only 4 years that were lower than 2012. In fact, all of the rest had 100 more murders than this "soaring" year. Well into your '30 year ban', you had 800 or 900 murders a year, now you have 506. 506 is less than 800, so there is going to have to be a LOT more soaring before you will have a point.

Link

What happened between 2003 and 2004?


A continuing national trend of lower violence?
 
2013-01-27 01:59:38 PM  

DogBoyTheCat: I propose we end the drug war and put that money towards stopping the dangerous loonies


The thing is that people say this now but the next time a state has to cut it's budget, mental health is the first thing to get gutted.

They're closing mental health hospitals in my state, in Illinois, and in Louisiana.

Doesn't matter what side of the aisle, almost every state is like this. So until I actually see some action done in regards to mental health, I'm taking the concern over it with a grain of salt.
 
2013-01-27 02:02:26 PM  

Mrtraveler01: Mrbogey: Mrtraveler01: No you don't, it's just a toy. I'm perfectly fine with you guys wanting to keep them but stop kidding me telling me you need these for self-defense or hunting and just tell me it's a toy.

Why do you think of it as a toy?

You need an Assault Rifle for home defense when a shotgun does the same job?

You need an assault rifle for hunting? What on earth are you hunting that requires a weapon as powerful as that?


If you think an 'assault rifle' is powerful, I have a bridge in New York for sale
 
2013-01-27 02:03:04 PM  
Oh yeah... just to REALLY inflame things...
It's been brought up before, but... the increase in abortion rates seems to directly coincide (with about a 15 year wait time) with the decrease in violent crime.
So...conceivably, those babies who were aborted (mostly by lower income women) never grew up to become violent criminals.
"HMMMMMM...."
 
2013-01-27 02:04:46 PM  

Greylight: As pointed out by a thoughtful gun rights advocate up thread: not only do Canada's arms laws and restrictions result in fewer gun related fatalities, it also results in less gang and drug war problems.


Either that, or it's a result of the fact that Canada has 34 million people while the US has 311 million. That's just over 10% of the total US population. California has more people than Canada, and Texas isn't far behind.

Of course, THAT couldn't be the issue, right? Also, Canada is a lot more rural, and we all know crime tends to rise in larger urban areas.
 
2013-01-27 02:05:33 PM  

jaytkay: Fark It: Chicago recorded a record number of homicides in 1994, and the rate was much higher than before the ban for most of the 1990s.

You are cherry picking data out of the middle.

The number of murders fell roughly in half during the 30-year Chicago handgun ban.

The same as every other major US city during the same period.

Chicago, with a handgun ban, had the same kind of crime troubles as places with lax gun laws.


So, if I understand your comment here, Chicago's gun ban really did nothing since other cities without bans showed the same reduction. So gun bans don't work. Hmmm, very interesting.
 
2013-01-27 02:05:43 PM  
So why not heavily enforce old-school eye-for-an-eye laws and execute cold-blooded murderers?

1) "then we wouldn't be any better than them". Uh, no. They killed an innocent/undeserving person. We killed a murderer.
2) "I would rather a thousand guilty men walk free than one innocent man get executed". Again, no. a) as long as juries(sp?) know what is at stake, they would be less likely to convict a person for murder with circumstantial evidence only to have the person who was supposed to have been killed walk into the scene b) letting the guilty 1000 men walk free will only encourage them to act again (see repeat offenders)
3) once criminals understand it is literally their neck on the line -not 3 hots and a cot- murders will drop. But pleeeease, none of this "dies of old age on death row"

Aren't you tired of living with bars on your windows and the criminals walking free?

/feel free to prove me wrong
// two cents per slashie
/// sorry if rambling. Tired and hungry.
 
2013-01-27 02:06:11 PM  

jdjoker: JosephFinn: Wow. It's almost like the gun manufacturers weren't simply selling their murder weapons in other cities to be transported to Chicago for murders.

So the manufacturer of a legal product that sells them in accordance with all applicable laws is also responsible for illegal usage and any illegal transfers that occurred along the way?


What legal product? I thought we were talking about guns being sold to individuals.
 
2013-01-27 02:06:50 PM  

jaytkay: I didn't say the gun ban caused the drop in murders.


Sure, you just said that the overturning of the ban caused a spike in murders and that "murder rates plummeted during Chicago's ban."
 
2013-01-27 02:07:11 PM  
Let's see - last time there was a gun murder problem in Chicago...back in the 1920s...

Oh, I get it. The Feds just have to go in and arrest all those income tax evaders, and the problem will be magically solved!

Thank you, you're welcome.
 
2013-01-27 02:08:13 PM  

here to help: So gun rights people are now using outright, unabashed racism to defend their cause?

WTF?!


What are you talking about? I didn't see "outright, unabashed racism" here, who posted it?
 
2013-01-27 02:08:16 PM  
EnderX...
It's not about poverty...
It's about morality
Being an unwed mother with the State picking up the tab has become socially acceptable.
I guess I'm getting too old for this...
I remember when you were supposed to be married to have kids...
I remember when you actually had to DO something to get self-esteem, not just show up.
 
2013-01-27 02:11:23 PM  

Mrtraveler01: EnderX: Mrtraveler01: EnderX: Mrtraveler01: EnderX: 70% of childbirth's in Chicago are to unwed mother's.......There's your smoking gun.

I think it's more about poverty than that myself.

Their too poor to get married and have a father at home?

More along the lines of:

"They're poor and their only means to survive is to be a criminal".

I know people who had children out of wedlock but I don't think they're going to grow up to be criminals.

I don't believe I said all people born out of wedlock are going to grow up to be criminal, Is that what you are trying to imply to the forum that I said? Because that would be a lie.

No you said born out of wedlock with no father around.

I should've been more detailed in that I know people in that situtation and I don't think those mothers are going to raise a criminal.


Well I guess we can agree that some mothers raise criminals, thanks for your participation.
 
2013-01-27 02:11:36 PM  

stirfrybry: bronyaur1: The NRA dummies keep pounding the pathetic argument that because Chicago has bad gun violence problems and its leaders have pursued gun restrictions, therefore the pursuit of gun restrictions causes gun violence.

If you are so dumb and incapable of logical thought that you sign onto - let alone repeat talking points supporting - this argument, then you might just be (a) too stupid to breed, (b) a Fox viewer, and (c) a redneck.

Idiot. The take-away is that gun control is ineffective, not that it causes crime. Lame strawman is lame


How do we know what the rate of gun crime would have been without gun control laws though? Is there a control city to test the null hypothesis against?

Gun laws in cities, or even states are almost pointless. You can drive an hour to Kenosha from chicago and buy a gun there. Or better yet, go to Gary and pick one up at a pawn shop. We need gun control on a national level and laws preventing against people bringing in guns from elsewhere, and at least a couple of decades for the supply on the street to dwindle down before we see a dent in gun crime.

Also, there needs to be legislation to punish gun owners who knowingly or negligently sold their gun to a criminal or had their gun stolen by a criminal because they didn't keep it safe. Not suggesting across the board punishment for every original gun owner of a weapon that was later used in a crime, but rather those that fail to prove due diligence in selling their gun to somebody legal (consignment at gun shops that perform background checks, maybe?), or keeping their gun in a way that doesn't make it easily obtainable by a robber or burglar.

Of course, the limits placed on enforcement by thee ATF need to be lifted. Conservatives parrot the "enforce current laws" line, but behind the scenes have hobbled the ATF to the point that they can't even have gun shops perform inventory checks. FFS, this is not an industry that is interested in anybody's safety. They are intellectually dishonest in their arguments.
 
2013-01-27 02:11:47 PM  

KiwDaWabbit: Greylight: The culture in the US is not common across the whole country. I in Manitoba have more in common with someone from Minisota then they would with someone from Mississippi.

The idea of a "gun culture" is not an irreversible fact of life, it is a series of choices. Now is the time for Americans to make another choice. Make the right choice this time my friends.

Right, I understand that. It's a big, diverse country and about as non-homogeneous as you can get. But, overall, I believe what I said to be more fact than fiction.

Like I said, I'd like to see more strict gun control. However, it's not going to be a panacea, as there are many other factors that contribute to gun violence in the U.S.


We don't disagree that the problems with violence in our respective societies are complicated and addressing them must come from a multi facited approach. Canada is not the world leader in mental health advocacy and social harmony that some pretend it is as a method to dismiss how gun laws and restrictions are working for other societies.
 
2013-01-27 02:12:27 PM  

redmid17: Mrtraveler01: Mrbogey: Mrtraveler01: No you don't, it's just a toy. I'm perfectly fine with you guys wanting to keep them but stop kidding me telling me you need these for self-defense or hunting and just tell me it's a toy.

Why do you think of it as a toy?

You need an Assault Rifle for home defense when a shotgun does the same job?

You need an assault rifle for hunting? What on earth are you hunting that requires a weapon as powerful as that?

If you think an 'assault rifle' is powerful, I have a bridge in New York for sale


Just to clarify, the standard round used by an AR-15 or similar gun is usually too small to legally hunt anything bigger than a coyote.
 
2013-01-27 02:13:56 PM  

Somacandra: Gee, its almost as if the reality of guns in an urban setting (where everyone is spatially compressed and differential social problems are thus magnified) is far different from the reality of guns in a rural setting.


Please don't make statements that undermine everyone's desire to see increased gun violence as a direct result of stricter gun laws. We don't need to inject common sense into these discussions.
 
2013-01-27 02:14:23 PM  
I've got to respond to Odins_Raven....
If you look up history, gun control in the U.S. was originally established to keep Free Negroes from having the ability to defend themselves. Instituted by Democrats, if you really want to check. I personally believe that every law-abiding person of color (that includes us pinkish-beige folks) should own a firearm and be trained in how to use it properly - including the local self-defense laws.
Criminals? Screw 'em. You gave up that right.
 
2013-01-27 02:15:27 PM  

RockChalkH1N1: Molavian: RockChalkH1N1: Mrtraveler01: RockChalkH1N1: Mrtraveler01: RockChalkH1N1: Why is it that where ever a large population of black people live there is a ton of crime?

Because black people tend to live in more urban areas which tend to be more populated and have more crime?

You never hear about crime in the Black Belt of the South (a region largely populated by Blacks.)

Any more observations you'd like me to answer for you?

Why is there a disproportional amount of black people in jail?

I don't know. Do you?

No, that's why I'm asking

Dude, any second they're going to start yelling racism and it's game over from there.

Don't bother.

Black people tend to do more crime via population ratio, its not racist if its true


While I believe it's caused by socio-economic issues based on a different cultural value system, I would be deemed racist for stating that it needs to be looked at by society. There's a problem that a good chunk of our country doesn't want to admit to let alone analyze.
 
2013-01-27 02:15:31 PM  

Mrtraveler01: Mrbogey: Mrtraveler01: No you don't, it's just a toy. I'm perfectly fine with you guys wanting to keep them but stop kidding me telling me you need these for self-defense or hunting and just tell me it's a toy.

Why do you think of it as a toy?

You need an Assault Rifle for home defense when a shotgun does the same job?

You need an assault rifle for hunting? What on earth are you hunting that requires a weapon as powerful as that?


#1: What the hell gives ANYONE the right to tell another person what they can or can't use to protect themselves and their family? How that fark is it anyone's business what I choose to use to defend myself?

#2: You obviously have NO CLUE about the weapons that you live in fear of. A .223 round, while useful for hunting coyotes, smaller game, and yes, DEER as well, is still far weaker than almost all hunting rifle rounds that most hunters use. Give a 300 WinMag round a try sometime. Makes a .223 seem like Ralphie's eye remover.
 
2013-01-27 02:17:22 PM  

3StratMan: #1: What the hell gives ANYONE the right to tell another person what they can or can't use to protect themselves and their family? How that fark is it anyone's business what I choose to use to defend myself?


I saw they couldn't use it, they have the right to get it. I just don't understand why anyone needs a gun that big to protect their family.

Is there some Zombie Apocalypse that I'm not aware of?
 
2013-01-27 02:17:35 PM  
And about Canada having less violence....
Come on....they're freakin' Canadians...what did you expect?
 
2013-01-27 02:17:55 PM  

OscarTamerz: Greylight: As pointed out by a thoughtful gun rights advocate up thread: not only do Canada's arms laws and restrictions result in fewer gun related fatalities, it also results in less gang and drug war problems.

No, they don't. If you removed all the gun murders in the US and left all the gun murders in Canada and didn't touch all the other murder methods in both countries Canada would still have a lower murder rate than the US. Americans murder each other more with nongun weapons than Canadians do with gun AND nongun weapons so it's the people not the weapons that are the determining factor.

Canadians don't have the large black population that commits murders at 5 times the rate of the the rest of the population and they don't have 20 million criminal alien Mexicans who doubled their own murder rate in the drug wars in the last few years.


Respectively sir, race has nothing to do with the benifits of gun regulations and laws any more than religion does.

As a wise fellow all ready pointed out up thread the issue is a complex one and there is no single silver bullet; however, there is data to show gun laws and restrictions are part of the solution, in conjunction with other societal support.
 
2013-01-27 02:18:52 PM  
Ah, so gun restrictions aren't foolproof so therefore we should not use them.

Oh and since people still murder even though that's illegal, screw it, let's make it legal. The law doesn't work anyways, right?

Super logic.
 
2013-01-27 02:19:35 PM  

3StratMan: Mrtraveler01: Mrbogey: Mrtraveler01: No you don't, it's just a toy. I'm perfectly fine with you guys wanting to keep them but stop kidding me telling me you need these for self-defense or hunting and just tell me it's a toy.

Why do you think of it as a toy?

You need an Assault Rifle for home defense when a shotgun does the same job?

You need an assault rifle for hunting? What on earth are you hunting that requires a weapon as powerful as that?

#1: What the hell gives ANYONE the right to tell another person what they can or can't use to protect themselves and their family? How that fark is it anyone's business what I choose to use to defend myself?

#2: You obviously have NO CLUE about the weapons that you live in fear of. A .223 round, while useful for hunting coyotes, smaller game, and yes, DEER as well, is still far weaker than almost all hunting rifle rounds that most hunters use. Give a 300 WinMag round a try sometime. Makes a .223 seem like Ralphie's eye remover.


I want to use a tactical nuke to defend my family.

You got a problem with that?
 
2013-01-27 02:21:40 PM  
RockChalk....
It IS racist even if it is true
 
2013-01-27 02:22:00 PM  

jaytkay: Mikey1969: now you have 506. 506 is less than 800, so there is going to have to be a LOT more soaring before you will have a point.

My point was that violence and particularly murder plummeted during the gun ban.

And that people claiming the gun ban causes violence are obviously, laughably wrong.

Those points are indisputable.

I should not have suggested that lifting the handgun ban caused the uptick. But I can't help it sometimes because it just emphasizes how gun enthusiasts and Chicago-haters argue against the facts.


It plummeted nationwide though, Chicago isn't special.

I'm not arguing against any facts, I'm just arguing about people picking and choosing. Chicago's trend follows a national trend pretty closely, so I don't thin it's special.

I don't know that a gun ban increases crime, but I can argue that it's not going to DEcrease it, since most of the people who commit gun crimes are criminals in the first place. Obviously a few are first timers...
 
2013-01-27 02:22:45 PM  

Resident Muslim: 2) "I would rather a thousand guilty men walk free than one innocent man get executed". Again, no. a) as long as juries(sp?) know what is at stake, they would be less likely to convict a person for murder with circumstantial evidence only to have the person who was supposed to have been killed walk into the scene b) letting the guilty 1000 men walk free will only encourage them to act again (see repeat offenders)
3) once criminals understand it is literally their neck on the line -not 3 hots and a cot- murders will drop. But pleeeease, none of this "dies of old age on death row"


Hi, welcome to Earth. Unlike your home world of Vulcan, human beings are irrational illogical creatures who'll do such crazy things as crimes of passion, prosecute beyond the fullest extent to buff the ol' resume, and find guilty due to inherent biases, faulty logic, or whether or not the defendent was wearing white after Labor Day. I know, I know, it sounds crazy, Mr. Spock, but we really are a bunch of McCoys down here.

Aren't you tired of living with bars on your windows and the criminals walking free?

Aren't you tired of living with the fear of one wrong misstep resulting in literally losing your head?

Been there, done that, got tired of it, fixed it. Welcome to the 21st century, you can join us at any time.
 
2013-01-27 02:24:34 PM  

Pichu0102: Make it harder to get new guns, encourage an alternative of less than lethal self protection measures. Why is this bad?


Yes! We should make it harder to excersize all of our rights!

Maybe if we had to pay for our right to free speech fewer people would be saying dumb shiat.
 
2013-01-27 02:24:39 PM  
Its always a good show when someone discovers FARK right at the same time they stop taking their meds. Where's my popcorn?
 
2013-01-27 02:24:43 PM  

Mikey1969: Greylight: As pointed out by a thoughtful gun rights advocate up thread: not only do Canada's arms laws and restrictions result in fewer gun related fatalities, it also results in less gang and drug war problems.

Either that, or it's a result of the fact that Canada has 34 million people while the US has 311 million. That's just over 10% of the total US population. California has more people than Canada, and Texas isn't far behind.

Of course, THAT couldn't be the issue, right? Also, Canada is a lot more rural, and we all know crime tends to rise in larger urban areas.


Son, Canada has a greater portion of our population in major urban centers than the US does. We also have less gun violence per capita, not total. I'll give you the benifit of the doubt and presume you mean total gun violence compared to equally large urban centers. Go ahead and compare Vancouver, Toronto, and Montreal with equivalent sized cities in the US. We both know without even looking what you will find. Or at least, you should.
 
2013-01-27 02:25:31 PM  

redmid17: If you think an 'assault rifle' is powerful, I have a bridge in New York for sale


Quit using that phrase. "Assault rifle" is a made up terminology used to try and scare people and is completely useless.

There is no difference between an AR-15 and just about any gas operated handgun.

As a percentage, how many crimes were committed with any type of rifle over the past several years?
 
2013-01-27 02:26:23 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: And yet, a city in a state like New York that has an AWB, that also has stricter gun laws has seen a drop in crime.


Shh. Only Chicago counts in NRAball!
 
2013-01-27 02:26:53 PM  
Chicago - 2.7 million population - 506 homicides

Detroit - 705,000 population - 411 homicides
 
2013-01-27 02:27:04 PM  

Greylight: Mikey1969: Greylight: As pointed out by a thoughtful gun rights advocate up thread: not only do Canada's arms laws and restrictions result in fewer gun related fatalities, it also results in less gang and drug war problems.

Either that, or it's a result of the fact that Canada has 34 million people while the US has 311 million. That's just over 10% of the total US population. California has more people than Canada, and Texas isn't far behind.

Of course, THAT couldn't be the issue, right? Also, Canada is a lot more rural, and we all know crime tends to rise in larger urban areas.

Son, Canada has a greater portion of our population in major urban centers than the US does. We also have less gun violence per capita, not total. I'll give you the benifit of the doubt and presume you mean total gun violence compared to equally large urban centers. Go ahead and compare Vancouver, Toronto, and Montreal with equivalent sized cities in the US. We both know without even looking what you will find. Or at least, you should.


Everyone knows that Toronto is filled with nothing but white people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Toronto
 
2013-01-27 02:27:46 PM  

Mikey1969: here to help: So gun rights people are now using outright, unabashed racism to defend their cause?

WTF?!

What are you talking about? I didn't see "outright, unabashed racism" here, who posted it?


You're right. I'm the racist for noticing the racism.
If you just happen to have a hefty ignore list then my apologies.
 
2013-01-27 02:28:06 PM  
"He was just going to the store," the man said. "They just killed him just like that."

Where have we seen this before?
 
2013-01-27 02:28:54 PM  

redmid17: redmid17: Mrtraveler01: Mrbogey: Mrtraveler01: No you don't, it's just a toy. I'm perfectly fine with you guys wanting to keep them but stop kidding me telling me you need these for self-defense or hunting and just tell me it's a toy.

Why do you think of it as a toy?

You need an Assault Rifle for home defense when a shotgun does the same job?

You need an assault rifle for hunting? What on earth are you hunting that requires a weapon as powerful as that?

If you think an 'assault rifle' is powerful, I have a bridge in New York for sale

Just to clarify, the standard round used by an AR-15 or similar gun is usually too small to legally hunt anything bigger than a coyote.


Drop the word "legally" and you are sort of right. Other that shotgun zones (more populated areas) vs rifles zones ( vastly less populated areas) caliber usually isn't an issue as far as state laws are concerned. .223 can still be used as a deer hunting round. Shot placement is key, regardless of caliber.
 
2013-01-27 02:29:36 PM  

Steve McQueen's Motorcycle: There is no difference between an AR-15 and just about any gas operated handgun.


Which is why we handed out M1911s to our boys instead of Garands.
 
2013-01-27 02:29:53 PM  
Yes, a shotgun does the same job as an assault rifle... on the first a**hole... the problem is it'll take me 10 seconds to reload my double-barrel breech-loader for the second a**hole. And I can't very well reload while I'm clubbing him with it, can I? And if there's a 3rd or 4th a**hole waiting? I'd rather have a 30 round clip, thank you.
 
2013-01-27 02:30:28 PM  

DogBoyTheCat: EnderX...
It's not about poverty...
It's about morality
Being an unwed mother with the State picking up the tab has become socially acceptable.
I guess I'm getting too old for this...
I remember when you were supposed to be married to have kids...
I remember when you actually had to DO something to get self-esteem, not just show up.


Being responsible for ones own actions is slowly being legislated out of existence.

GET OFF OUR LAWNS!
 
2013-01-27 02:31:42 PM  
Mikey...FYI....it's a RUSH reference...
and not a very good one
 
2013-01-27 02:31:49 PM  

Mrtraveler01: You need an Assault Rifle for home defense when a shotgun does the same job?

You need an assault rifle for hunting? What on earth are you hunting that requires a weapon as powerful as that?


An "assault rifle" typically has a lot of cosmetic features that lend themselves easily to home defense. Having a shorter barrel and collapsible stock along with precision accuracy and easily reloaded adds up to a very nice package. I agree on a 1-1 night time scenario, a shotgun is the better weapon but that doesn't make the AR a bad choice. It's like saying a baseball bat is good for home defense but a cricket mallet isn't.

As far as power, "assault rifles" are typically lower power. No joke. Look at videos from shooting comps. Smaller bullet... lower energy. The shine for the AR-15 as far as hunting is again, multiple configurations that allow for higher and lower energy as well as longer, and shorter shooting. A 6.8mm SPC on a 24" barrel AR-15 will shoot as good as many high end hunting rifles and it'll serve as a defensive weapon just as easily.

The AR-15 platform is a handy customizable system that allows for the user to make a rifle capable of hunting, target shooting, and defending themselves. It's not the best at a single thing but it's good at a great many things.

redmid17: Did you place a large bet against yourself in this debate?


I know. What's the deal?
 
2013-01-27 02:32:04 PM  

odenseoffyn: Gun violence is a symptom.
Gun availability is a causality.
Others are health, economy, social, education.
Gun availability, can be mitigated directly and quickly. While we work on the other more complicated issues.
The straw man works to subvert this simplicity


hmmmmm..........yup.
 
2013-01-27 02:32:16 PM  

DogBoyTheCat: Yes, a shotgun does the same job as an assault rifle... on the first a**hole... the problem is it'll take me 10 seconds to reload my double-barrel breech-loader for the second a**hole. And I can't very well reload while I'm clubbing him with it, can I? And if there's a 3rd or 4th a**hole waiting? I'd rather have a 30 round clip, thank you.


What if you have to deal with 31 a**holes?
 
2013-01-27 02:32:34 PM  

lostcat: 3StratMan: Mrtraveler01: Mrbogey: Mrtraveler01: No you don't, it's just a toy. I'm perfectly fine with you guys wanting to keep them but stop kidding me telling me you need these for self-defense or hunting and just tell me it's a toy.

Why do you think of it as a toy?

You need an Assault Rifle for home defense when a shotgun does the same job?

You need an assault rifle for hunting? What on earth are you hunting that requires a weapon as powerful as that?

#1: What the hell gives ANYONE the right to tell another person what they can or can't use to protect themselves and their family? How that fark is it anyone's business what I choose to use to defend myself?

#2: You obviously have NO CLUE about the weapons that you live in fear of. A .223 round, while useful for hunting coyotes, smaller game, and yes, DEER as well, is still far weaker than almost all hunting rifle rounds that most hunters use. Give a 300 WinMag round a try sometime. Makes a .223 seem like Ralphie's eye remover.

I want to use a tactical nuke to defend my family.

You got a problem with that?


Ha ha. Good one. Try again.
 
2013-01-27 02:34:07 PM  

Steve McQueen's Motorcycle: redmid17: If you think an 'assault rifle' is powerful, I have a bridge in New York for sale

Quit using that phrase. "Assault rifle" is a made up terminology used to try and scare people and is completely useless.

There is no difference between an AR-15 and just about any gas operated handgun.

As a percentage, how many crimes were committed with any type of rifle over the past several years?


That certainly explains why soldiers are issued gas operated handguns instead of military versions of AR-15s.
 
2013-01-27 02:35:40 PM  

3StratMan: lostcat: 3StratMan: Mrtraveler01: Mrbogey: Mrtraveler01: No you don't, it's just a toy. I'm perfectly fine with you guys wanting to keep them but stop kidding me telling me you need these for self-defense or hunting and just tell me it's a toy.

Why do you think of it as a toy?

You need an Assault Rifle for home defense when a shotgun does the same job?

You need an assault rifle for hunting? What on earth are you hunting that requires a weapon as powerful as that?

#1: What the hell gives ANYONE the right to tell another person what they can or can't use to protect themselves and their family? How that fark is it anyone's business what I choose to use to defend myself?

#2: You obviously have NO CLUE about the weapons that you live in fear of. A .223 round, while useful for hunting coyotes, smaller game, and yes, DEER as well, is still far weaker than almost all hunting rifle rounds that most hunters use. Give a 300 WinMag round a try sometime. Makes a .223 seem like Ralphie's eye remover.

I want to use a tactical nuke to defend my family.

You got a problem with that?

Ha ha. Good one. Try again.


OK, I want to put landmines in my yard to keep intruders out.

How can that be a problem?
 
2013-01-27 02:37:02 PM  

lostcat: Steve McQueen's Motorcycle: redmid17: If you think an 'assault rifle' is powerful, I have a bridge in New York for sale

Quit using that phrase. "Assault rifle" is a made up terminology used to try and scare people and is completely useless.

There is no difference between an AR-15 and just about any gas operated handgun.

As a percentage, how many crimes were committed with any type of rifle over the past several years?

That certainly explains why soldiers are issued gas operated handguns instead of military versions of AR-15s.


I prefer to use potato cannons as my means of home defense.
 
2013-01-27 02:37:52 PM  

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: Steve McQueen's Motorcycle: There is no difference between an AR-15 and just about any gas operated handgun.

Which is why we handed out M1911s to our boys instead of Garands.


Have you ever carried an M1 with a appropriate amount of ammunition? What about a M1911?

The answer is very clear if you had.

Never-mind the reliability issue.
 
2013-01-27 02:38:08 PM  

lostcat: Steve McQueen's Motorcycle: redmid17: If you think an 'assault rifle' is powerful, I have a bridge in New York for sale

Quit using that phrase. "Assault rifle" is a made up terminology used to try and scare people and is completely useless.

There is no difference between an AR-15 and just about any gas operated handgun.

As a percentage, how many crimes were committed with any type of rifle over the past several years?

That certainly explains why soldiers are issued gas operated handguns instead of military versions of AR-15s.


Actually... soldiers are quite often issued both handguns AND M16's.

Try again.
 
2013-01-27 02:38:59 PM  
I'm a little surprised, but I agree with Resident Muslim on this: Forget that many years on death row thing. Just give the slimeball murderers life without parole in one of our more lovely hellhole prisons. That's an infinitely more crappy fate than the simple needle-in-the-arm. And, if it should come to pass that the person was innocent...he is still alive.
However...for those UNQUESTIONABLY guilty of UNQUESTIONABLY heinous crimes (I.E. Gacey), I personally would be cool with a public breaking on the wheel.
(It's an oldie but a goodie....look it up to see how it's properly done)
 
2013-01-27 02:39:43 PM  

lostcat: 3StratMan: lostcat: 3StratMan: Mrtraveler01: Mrbogey: Mrtraveler01: No you don't, it's just a toy. I'm perfectly fine with you guys wanting to keep them but stop kidding me telling me you need these for self-defense or hunting and just tell me it's a toy.

Why do you think of it as a toy?

You need an Assault Rifle for home defense when a shotgun does the same job?

You need an assault rifle for hunting? What on earth are you hunting that requires a weapon as powerful as that?

#1: What the hell gives ANYONE the right to tell another person what they can or can't use to protect themselves and their family? How that fark is it anyone's business what I choose to use to defend myself?

#2: You obviously have NO CLUE about the weapons that you live in fear of. A .223 round, while useful for hunting coyotes, smaller game, and yes, DEER as well, is still far weaker than almost all hunting rifle rounds that most hunters use. Give a 300 WinMag round a try sometime. Makes a .223 seem like Ralphie's eye remover.

I want to use a tactical nuke to defend my family.

You got a problem with that?

Ha ha. Good one. Try again.

OK, I want to put landmines in my yard to keep intruders out.

How can that be a problem?


Now you're just being a bad comedian.
 
2013-01-27 02:41:03 PM  

DogBoyTheCat: Yes, a shotgun does the same job as an assault rifle... on the first a**hole... the problem is it'll take me 10 seconds to reload my double-barrel breech-loader for the second a**hole. And I can't very well reload while I'm clubbing him with it, can I? And if there's a 3rd or 4th a**hole waiting? I'd rather have a 30 round clip, thank you.


Wow, sounds like you get in a lot of combat situations.
 
2013-01-27 02:42:07 PM  

Steve McQueen's Motorcycle: Have you ever carried an M1 with a appropriate amount of ammunition? What about a M1911?

The answer is very clear if you had.

Never-mind the reliability issue.


So you're saying there is a difference between a semi-automatic rifle, like say the AR-15, and a semi-automatic pistol?
 
2013-01-27 02:43:16 PM  

Mrtraveler01: Mrbogey: Mrtraveler01: No you don't, it's just a toy. I'm perfectly fine with you guys wanting to keep them but stop kidding me telling me you need these for self-defense or hunting and just tell me it's a toy.

Why do you think of it as a toy?

You need an Assault Rifle for home defense when a shotgun does the same job?

You need an assault rifle for hunting? What on earth are you hunting that requires a weapon as powerful as that?


You have a car that can go 120 mph? What on earth do you need a car that can go 120 mph for, the speed limit is 65. You should be okay with your car having a regulator installed that prevents it from going faster than 65 mph.
 
2013-01-27 02:44:08 PM  

3StratMan: Actually... soldiers are quite often issued both handguns AND M16's.


But if there's 'no difference', then why not just pistols then? It'd save us a lot of money right there.
 
2013-01-27 02:44:31 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: Chicago - 2.7 million population - 506 homicides

Detroit - 705,000 population - 411 homicides


Canada - 34 million population - 158 homicides
 
2013-01-27 02:44:59 PM  
I went to Cabelas the other day and asked where the assault rifle section was, get this, they didn't have an assault rifle section or even an assault weapon section.

On the other side if we pass more gun laws and become more like Chicago won't that make us less safe just like Chicago?
 
2013-01-27 02:45:22 PM  

rga184: stirfrybry: bronyaur1: The NRA dummies keep pounding the pathetic argument that because Chicago has bad gun violence problems and its leaders have pursued gun restrictions, therefore the pursuit of gun restrictions causes gun violence.

If you are so dumb and incapable of logical thought that you sign onto - let alone repeat talking points supporting - this argument, then you might just be (a) too stupid to breed, (b) a Fox viewer, and (c) a redneck.

Idiot. The take-away is that gun control is ineffective, not that it causes crime. Lame strawman is lame

How do we know what the rate of gun crime would have been without gun control laws though? Is there a control city to test the null hypothesis against?

Gun laws in cities, or even states are almost pointless. You can drive an hour to Kenosha from chicago and buy a gun there. Or better yet, go to Gary and pick one up at a pawn shop. We need gun control on a national level and laws preventing against people bringing in guns from elsewhere, and at least a couple of decades for the supply on the street to dwindle down before we see a dent in gun crime.

Also, there needs to be legislation to punish gun owners who knowingly or negligently sold their gun to a criminal or had their gun stolen by a criminal because they didn't keep it safe. Not suggesting across the board punishment for every original gun owner of a weapon that was later used in a crime, but rather those that fail to prove due diligence in selling their gun to somebody legal (consignment at gun shops that perform background checks, maybe?), or keeping their gun in a way that doesn't make it easily obtainable by a robber or burglar.

Of course, the limits placed on enforcement by thee ATF need to be lifted. Conservatives parrot the "enforce current laws" line, but behind the scenes have hobbled the ATF to the point that they can't even have gun shops perform inventory checks. FFS, this is not an industry that is interested in anybody's safety. The ...


So... if your car is stolen out of your garage and someone is killed with it... you'll accept civil responsibility?
 
2013-01-27 02:46:09 PM  
How big were the clips on the 6 guns?
 
2013-01-27 02:46:35 PM  
Clearly the solution is to give every man, woman, and child in Chicago an AR-15 with a 30 round magazine.

Things will be much safer when people have the ability to defend themselves when they've found themselves in any situation that makes them uncomfortable.
 
2013-01-27 02:47:35 PM  

here to help: Mikey1969: here to help: So gun rights people are now using outright, unabashed racism to defend their cause?

WTF?!

What are you talking about? I didn't see "outright, unabashed racism" here, who posted it?

You're right. I'm the racist for noticing the racism.
If you just happen to have a hefty ignore list then my apologies.


No, I'm serious. I saw a few people talk abut things like too many unwed mothers, but I didn't see one where someone said "It's because of all the n**gers!", I was just asking who brought it up.
 
2013-01-27 02:47:57 PM  

3StratMan: lostcat: 3StratMan: Mrtraveler01: Mrbogey: Mrtraveler01: No you don't, it's just a toy. I'm perfectly fine with you guys wanting to keep them but stop kidding me telling me you need these for self-defense or hunting and just tell me it's a toy.

Why do you think of it as a toy?

You need an Assault Rifle for home defense when a shotgun does the same job?

You need an assault rifle for hunting? What on earth are you hunting that requires a weapon as powerful as that?

#1: What the hell gives ANYONE the right to tell another person what they can or can't use to protect themselves and their family? How that fark is it anyone's business what I choose to use to defend myself?

#2: You obviously have NO CLUE about the weapons that you live in fear of. A .223 round, while useful for hunting coyotes, smaller game, and yes, DEER as well, is still far weaker than almost all hunting rifle rounds that most hunters use. Give a 300 WinMag round a try sometime. Makes a .223 seem like Ralphie's eye remover.

I want to use a tactical nuke to defend my family.

You got a problem with that?

Ha ha. Good one. Try again.


So you're saying that we shouldn't have what we can afford, but rather what you deem 'the minimum required' to accomplish the task? So... go ahead and turn in your smartphone for a landline, turn in your fancy computer for a model from 10 years ago, and turn in your car for one that has 65 miles an hour as a maximum possible speed.
There's a word for the government declaring what people are and aren't allowed to have, based on what the government thinks they need: Communism.
 
2013-01-27 02:48:25 PM  

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: But if there's 'no difference', then why not just pistols then? It'd save us a lot of money right there.


The pistol is the fallback weapon due to it being light, portable, and good for close quarters. However, a pistol sucks at laying down suppressive fire due to the small magazine and it sucks for distant shooting.

There's an effective difference between the weapons that is situational but there is little to no functional difference.
 
2013-01-27 02:48:27 PM  

Securitywyrm: You have a car that can go 120 mph? What on earth do you need a car that can go 120 mph for, the speed limit is 65. You should be okay with your car having a regulator installed that prevents it from going faster than 65 mph.


Yes, I can have a big black Mustang that can go insane miles per hour on the freeway. Here in the Republican Utopia of Greater Ohio, however, I have to pay an auto insurer crazy amounts of money for the privilege of driving said vehicle on our motorways. Amazingly enough, my right to drive whatever speed I want comes with the responsibility of having to pay through my nose on auto insurance.

So when do we get gun insurance laws? Higher rates for weapons at greater risk to cause damage. Its only fair.
 
2013-01-27 02:49:15 PM  

Somacandra: Gee, its almost as if the reality of guns in an urban setting (where everyone is spatially compressed and differential social problems are thus magnified) is far different from the reality of guns in a rural setting.


Link

Nay, for chicago it is drugs and sausage as the cause of murders.
 
2013-01-27 02:49:20 PM  

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: 3StratMan: Actually... soldiers are quite often issued both handguns AND M16's.

But if there's 'no difference', then why not just pistols then? It'd save us a lot of money right there.


Actually the Marines gave up firearms altogether in 2011. Fark gun advocates explained to them that guns are simply one possible tool- if someone wants to kill, they will always find a weapon.

The Army is winding down their use and will be done handguns and rifles by 2016.
 
2013-01-27 02:51:05 PM  

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: So when do we get gun insurance laws? Higher rates for weapons at greater risk to cause damage. Its only fair.


When we can buy any weapon we want with no restriction.

Though to be fair, the AR-15 would have the cheapest rate due to its lack of use in most crimes.
 
2013-01-27 02:51:28 PM  

jaytkay: Actually the Marines gave up firearms altogether in 2011. Fark gun advocates explained to them that guns are simply one possible tool- if someone wants to kill, they will always find a weapon.

The Army is winding down their use and will be done handguns and rifles by 2016.


I was responding to this:

Steve McQueen's Motorcycle: There is no difference between an AR-15 and just about any gas operated handgun.


Agree or disagree?
 
2013-01-27 02:51:46 PM  

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: Securitywyrm: You have a car that can go 120 mph? What on earth do you need a car that can go 120 mph for, the speed limit is 65. You should be okay with your car having a regulator installed that prevents it from going faster than 65 mph.

Yes, I can have a big black Mustang that can go insane miles per hour on the freeway. Here in the Republican Utopia of Greater Ohio, however, I have to pay an auto insurer crazy amounts of money for the privilege of driving said vehicle on our motorways. Amazingly enough, my right to drive whatever speed I want comes with the responsibility of having to pay through my nose on auto insurance.

So when do we get gun insurance laws? Higher rates for weapons at greater risk to cause damage. Its only fair.


But that's not what you say you want. You want people limited to what you deem they 'need' to accomplish a job. You don't 'need' to go faster than 65 MPH, so you should stand by what you preach and agree to trade down to a little clunker car. It'll still get you there eventually, so you should have no problem with this.
 
2013-01-27 02:51:52 PM  
The nations largest outdoors show, Eastern Sports and Outdoors Show, was canceled by the promoters due to a boycott by an overwhelming majority of their vendors and celebrity presenters over their sudden ban on scary "assault rifles" and high capacity magazines in the weeks leading up to it.  The show would have brought in close to $80 million dollars in a couple weeks to Harrisburg PA but Reed Exhibitions made a stand and the people spoke.  Shut it right down.  The mayor of Harrisburg, PA is a whack job too after reading some of her quotes on it.  Glad she lost the money and hopefully the people will see it and vote her out of office next election.
 
2013-01-27 02:54:30 PM  

Mrtraveler01: gerrymander: bronyaur1: The NRA dummies Anyone with a brain will keep pounding the pathetic commonsense argument that because Chicago has bad gun violence problems and its leaders have pursued gun restrictions, therefore the pursuit of increasing gun restrictions causes will not reduce gun violence.

FTFY

But then you look at NYC and DC which have its murder numbers plummet to record levels even though they have strict gun laws as well.

It's almost as if the gun bans aren't the reason behind the rise in violent crimes in Chicago.


It actually stems from the RICO case against the largest gang in the city. They had too much control, and they only took out the top 20 members, which left a massive network of splintered cliques fighting for drug territory.
 
2013-01-27 02:55:08 PM  

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: I was responding to this:


I was emphasizing your point
 
2013-01-27 02:55:35 PM  
Hey Larch...
when my cousin lived in Switzerland (not sure what the law is now) every law-abiding head-of-household was REQUIRED to keep & maintain a fully automatic assault rifle and 200 rounds of ammo.
So, I guess the crime rate there is spiraling out of control?
(last I saw, they called in 3 cop cars for an illegally parked car with primer spots)
 
2013-01-27 02:56:09 PM  

Mrtraveler01: Mrbogey: Mrtraveler01: No you don't, it's just a toy. I'm perfectly fine with you guys wanting to keep them but stop kidding me telling me you need these for self-defense or hunting and just tell me it's a toy.

Why do you think of it as a toy?

You need an Assault Rifle for home defense when a shotgun does the same job?

You need an assault rifle for hunting? What on earth are you hunting that requires a weapon as powerful as that?


When you keep referring to light sporting rifles as "assault rifles" it kind of clouds the issue.
 
2013-01-27 02:56:12 PM  

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: Securitywyrm: You have a car that can go 120 mph? What on earth do you need a car that can go 120 mph for, the speed limit is 65. You should be okay with your car having a regulator installed that prevents it from going faster than 65 mph.

Yes, I can have a big black Mustang that can go insane miles per hour on the freeway. Here in the Republican Utopia of Greater Ohio, however, I have to pay an auto insurer crazy amounts of money for the privilege of driving said vehicle on our motorways. Amazingly enough, my right to drive whatever speed I want comes with the responsibility of having to pay through my nose on auto insurance.

So when do we get gun insurance laws? Higher rates for weapons at greater risk to cause damage. Its only fair.


Gun grab, power grab, and money grab- all rolled into one. Liberals at their finest.
 
2013-01-27 02:58:11 PM  

Tyee: I went to Cabelas the other day and asked where the assault rifle section was, get this, they didn't have an assault rifle section or even an assault weapon section.

On the other side if we pass more gun laws and become more like Chicago won't that make us less safe just like Chicago?


There is a phrase for pendants like you. "Thread counters". It makes responsible and knowledgable gun owners cring to hear the tired old mantra that gun control advocates just don't understand.

STFU

You're not helping.
 
2013-01-27 02:58:49 PM  

The Rest Are Bait: The nations largest outdoors show, Eastern Sports and Outdoors Show, was canceled by the promoters due to a boycot...The show would have brought in close to $80 million dollars in a couple weeks to Harrisburg PA...


And Sandy Hook has led to a nationwide run on AR-15s and ammo. Gun shops are reporting astounding increases in sales.

Moar Sandy Hooks!

Prosperity demands it! Good job gun enthusiasts!
 
2013-01-27 02:59:46 PM  
I think the real news is the fact there was only 7 homicides last night in Chicago.
 
2013-01-27 03:00:51 PM  
As soon as I got to "nation's strictest gun laws" I could tell subby was more interested in bolstering presuppositions than in honest analysis of our nation's problems.
 
2013-01-27 03:01:25 PM  

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: jaytkay: Actually the Marines gave up firearms altogether in 2011. Fark gun advocates explained to them that guns are simply one possible tool- if someone wants to kill, they will always find a weapon.

The Army is winding down their use and will be done handguns and rifles by 2016.

I was responding to this:

Steve McQueen's Motorcycle: There is no difference between an AR-15 and just about any gas operated handgun.

Agree or disagree?


My point is 100% accurate and still stands. If it makes you feel better I will add one word to the sentence to make it perfectly clear to you.

There is no functional difference between an AR-15 and just about any gas operated handgun.

The comment was made in reference to the made up, bullshiat term of "assault weapon" the media likes to throw around and people like yourself like to parrot.

How about answering my question?:

As a percentage, how many crimes were committed with any type of rifle over the past several years?
 
2013-01-27 03:01:54 PM  
Sorry, Securitywyrm... I kinda like the old version..
"....the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
Yes, this was written in the time of muskets...but EVERYBODY had a musket...
just what part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand?
 
2013-01-27 03:03:36 PM  

jaytkay: The Rest Are Bait: The nations largest outdoors show, Eastern Sports and Outdoors Show, was canceled by the promoters due to a boycot...The show would have brought in close to $80 million dollars in a couple weeks to Harrisburg PA...

And Sandy Hook has led to a nationwide run on AR-15s and ammo. Gun shops are reporting astounding increases in sales.

Moar Sandy Hooks!

Prosperity demands it! Good job gun enthusiasts!


The thing is, it's not a gun show out right.  There is more outfitters, bow hunting, taxidermy, atv, boat, fishing and shamwow dealers than actual gun dealers at that show.  Hell Smith and Wesson doesn't even sell anything there but only showcases their new lineup if I remember correctly.  Reed runs the SHOT show in Las Vegas, an industry trade show for firearms, they let that one go on just a couple weeks ago.  I can't explain why.
 
2013-01-27 03:07:20 PM  
Can any anti-gun nuts show me where in the constitution it says that the arms which the ownership of, shall not be infringed upon, have to be arms for the purpose of hunting?

Hunting was never the given reason for the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Why are you asking those who want not to be infringed upon to justify what they need to hunt with?
 
2013-01-27 03:07:33 PM  

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: Resident Muslim: 2) "I would rather a thousand guilty men walk free than one innocent man get executed". Again, no. a) as long as juries(sp?) know what is at stake, they would be less likely to convict a person for murder with circumstantial evidence only to have the person who was supposed to have been killed walk into the scene b) letting the guilty 1000 men walk free will only encourage them to act again (see repeat offenders)
3) once criminals understand it is literally their neck on the line -not 3 hots and a cot- murders will drop. But pleeeease, none of this "dies of old age on death row"

Hi, welcome to Earth. Unlike your home world of Vulcan, human beings are irrational illogical creatures who'll do such crazy things as crimes of passion, prosecute beyond the fullest extent to buff the ol' resume, and find guilty due to inherent biases, faulty logic, or whether or not the defendent was wearing white after Labor Day. I know, I know, it sounds crazy, Mr. Spock, but we really are a bunch of McCoys down here.

Aren't you tired of living with bars on your windows and the criminals walking free?

Aren't you tired of living with the fear of one wrong misstep resulting in literally losing your head?

Been there, done that, got tired of it, fixed it. Welcome to the 21st century, you can join us at any time.


Thanks for replying.
I will take your post at face value at try to reply, though forgive me to say you rambled more than I.
:)
Re-Spock: I have been accused of being a Vulcan. Also have been accused of being too sensitive. I blame logic and putting yourself in other people's shoes.
Re-crime of passion: you kill someone, you get killed. I don't care if you did it out of 'love'. I also might link crimes of passion to domestic abuse, but that sounds too much like a straw man, so I digress.
Re- prosecutors: falsify evidence that gets someone killed? Have a seat right over there on the electric chair.
Re-faulty logic/biases: forgive me for not pointing that I meant clear cases of murder, ie, five witnesses, that's him right there on cc tv shooting the clerk...etc. not "he had enough time to leave the party he planned so well, kill the victim and get back to the party and pretend nothing happened.
Re-losing my head: sorry, didn't get that point.
Re-21st century: do you really think we are that civilised? Come a long way? Take a look at the world around you. How many needless deaths? Rapes? Torture? Sorry to say, this century looks too similar to others before it.

Again, I wish it wasn't so, but when criminals go "what's the worse that can happen?" and it doesn't seem so bad...expect more of this stuff.

/again, apologies for rambling and/or completely missing the point //slashies within slashies///
 
2013-01-27 03:08:06 PM  

Steve McQueen's Motorcycle: Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: jaytkay: Actually the Marines gave up firearms altogether in 2011. Fark gun advocates explained to them that guns are simply one possible tool- if someone wants to kill, they will always find a weapon.

The Army is winding down their use and will be done handguns and rifles by 2016.

I was responding to this:

Steve McQueen's Motorcycle: There is no difference between an AR-15 and just about any gas operated handgun.

Agree or disagree?

My point is 100% accurate and still stands. If it makes you feel better I will add one word to the sentence to make it perfectly clear to you.

There is no functional difference between an AR-15 and just about any gas operated handgun.

The comment was made in reference to the made up, bullshiat term of "assault weapon" the media likes to throw around and people like yourself like to parrot.

How about answering my question?:

As a percentage, how many crimes were committed with any type of rifle over the past several years?


Oh how cute, another thread counter. Don't you need to get back on the gunsmithing boards to argue optimal trigger pull. I am sure they are missing you.
 
2013-01-27 03:09:10 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: Chicago - 2.7 million population - 506 homicides

Detroit - 705,000 population - 411 homicides


Interesting. Louisville, Ky has a city-county population of about 740,000, and in 2012 there were less than 60 murders.
 
2013-01-27 03:09:37 PM  
Wow, yet another reason to dislike Chicago. Moran gun laws, highest sales tax, high crime, bad weather and cubs fans.

Chicago is mahhh kind of town, it is!
 
2013-01-27 03:10:11 PM  

Mrtraveler01: You need an Assault Rifle for home defense when a shotgun does the same job?

You need an assault rifle for hunting? What on earth are you hunting that requires a weapon as powerful as that?


If an AR-15 is not necessary for self-defense, than why does every government agency own a bunch of them? Why do 2 out of every 5 patrol officers in my city have them in their cars to respond to calls where the suspect is seen with a weapon (*any* weapon, including knives)?

There are valid arguments to be made that civilians don't need the same firepower as the military (2nd Amendment arguments and all), but shouldn't the spirit of the 2nd Amendment at least provide civilians armed parity with civilian police departments?

Police are the ones with a history of suppressing citizens and violating their rights, and they seem to be arming themselves with ever greater levels of force, even though the rate of violent crime has fallen 50% since 1991.

assets.nydailynews.com

police-state.net

www.police-state.net
 
2013-01-27 03:10:25 PM  

The Rest Are Bait: jaytkay: The Rest Are Bait: The nations largest outdoors show, Eastern Sports and Outdoors Show, was canceled by the promoters due to a boycot...The show would have brought in close to $80 million dollars in a couple weeks to Harrisburg PA...

And Sandy Hook has led to a nationwide run on AR-15s and ammo. Gun shops are reporting astounding increases in sales.

Moar Sandy Hooks!

Prosperity demands it! Good job gun enthusiasts!

The thing is, it's not a gun show out right.  There is more outfitters, bow hunting, taxidermy, atv, boat, fishing and shamwow dealers than actual gun dealers at that show.  Hell Smith and Wesson doesn't even sell anything there but only showcases their new lineup if I remember correctly.  Reed runs the SHOT show in Las Vegas, an industry trade show for firearms, they let that one go on just a couple weeks ago.  I can't explain why.


There are no gun sales at SHOT, and access is restricted for the general public. Also, many of the attendees represent various law enforcement and other government agencies.
 
2013-01-27 03:11:14 PM  

bronyaur1: Chicago has bad gun violence problems and its leaders have pursued gun restrictions, therefore the pursuit of gun restrictions causes gun violence.


No, but gun restrictions obviously haven't had much effect on gun problems.
 
2013-01-27 03:15:01 PM  

dr-shotgun: Mrtraveler01: You need an Assault Rifle for home defense when a shotgun does the same job?

You need an assault rifle for hunting? What on earth are you hunting that requires a weapon as powerful as that?

If an AR-15 is not necessary for self-defense, than why does every government agency own a bunch of them? Why do 2 out of every 5 patrol officers in my city have them in their cars to respond to calls where the suspect is seen with a weapon (*any* weapon, including knives)?

There are valid arguments to be made that civilians don't need the same firepower as the military (2nd Amendment arguments and all), but shouldn't the spirit of the 2nd Amendment at least provide civilians armed parity with civilian police departments?

Police are the ones with a history of suppressing citizens and violating their rights, and they seem to be arming themselves with ever greater levels of force, even though the rate of violent crime has fallen 50% since 1991.

[assets.nydailynews.com image 635x474]

[police-state.net image 440x330]

[www.police-state.net image 410x350]


It feels like people are missing a huge point.

Police are armed because they are enforcing laws.

The police don't make the laws. Governments make laws.

If you don't like the laws you don't buy a gun and start shooting police officers when they try to arrest you for breaking it.

If you don't like the law you go to your representatives in government and explain to them why the law is a bad idea.

Did they stop teaching Civics in public schools or something?
 
2013-01-27 03:15:29 PM  
Nothing to see here. Chicago's self imposed population control. The sooner they all kill each other, the sooner we can go in and build some fine homes.
 
2013-01-27 03:19:17 PM  

whatshisname: stirfrybry: Idiot. The take-away is that gun control is ineffective,

I think the take-away here is that gun control is ineffective when it's attempted in a small area of a country full of guns.


found this on the first page. can leave thread happy
 
2013-01-27 03:19:40 PM  

Greylight: Oh how cute, another thread counter.


It is one of the most important facts that "assault weapon" ban proponents hates to hear.

A ban will have almost ZERO effect on gun violence.

Why do you immediately dismiss it?

And I am hardly a gun nut. I own several but I rarely use them.

I will however speak out for the basic, very specifically spelled out right my fellow citizens have to own such if they so desire.
 
2013-01-27 03:19:59 PM  

lostcat: It feels like people are missing a huge point.Police are armed because they are enforcing laws.The police don't make the laws. Governments make laws.If you don't like the laws you don't buy a gun and start shooting police officers when they try to arrest you for breaking it.If you don't like the law you go to your representatives in government and explain to them why the law is a bad idea.Did they stop teaching Civics in public schools or something?


People like you are so farking cute. It's becoming a rarity to see this sort of naiveté on display, but when it happens, I just say, "AWWW, that's adorable."
 
2013-01-27 03:20:46 PM  

lostcat: It feels like people are missing a huge point.

Police are armed because they are enforcing laws.

The police don't make the laws. Governments make laws.

If you don't like the laws you don't buy a gun and start shooting police officers when they try to arrest you for breaking it.

If you don't like the law you go to your representatives in government and explain to them why the law is a bad idea.

Did they stop teaching Civics in public schools or something?


You assume that the political process in this country is stable and free of corruption. You also presume that folks have any serious choice in the candidates proffered for office, when in fact the two party system leads to folks having to weigh massive tradeoffs with binary decisions. You also assume an engaged and informed electorate. None of these things are true, nor have they been for the last 15-20 years (our system always had issues, but never the scope or scale of special interest influence and electoral apathy and ignorance that we have now).
 
2013-01-27 03:21:03 PM  

Tyee: On the other side if we pass more gun laws and become more like Chicago won't that make us less safe just like Chicago?


Not necessarily, we could just become like DC and New York City which are recording some of it's lowest murder numbers in years.
 
2013-01-27 03:23:06 PM  
lostcat:
It feels like people are missing a huge point.

Police are armed because they are enforcing laws.


You're missing a huge point also.
Police are sworn to serve and protect. The police do not enforce laws, the courts enforce laws. Police apprehend suspected violators of the law, they protect citizens but always in a reactionary way rather than a proactive way.
 
2013-01-27 03:23:16 PM  

drjekel_mrhyde: Most of Africa has no gun laws and little taxes, let's move there


Most of wish you would.
 
2013-01-27 03:26:06 PM  

GoldSpider: bronyaur1: Chicago has bad gun violence problems and its leaders have pursued gun restrictions, therefore the pursuit of gun restrictions causes gun violence.

No, but gun restrictions obviously haven't had much effect on gun problems.




Please tell us how you know what Chicago's gun violence rate would have been had there NOT been these restrictions. THEN you can make the claim that they have not had much effect.
 
2013-01-27 03:26:12 PM  

NeoCortex42: Securitywyrm: Why do "Gun-nuts" refuse to accept any sort of restriction? Because the anti-gun lobby will NEVER stop pushing for more restrictions. Even if they agree that the restrictions are reasonable, the people pushing for the restrictions will steamroll past the point of 'reasonable.'

I propose we re-write the 2nd amendment to the following

No restriction placed upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall exceed the restriction placed upon law enforcement within the country."

After all, a police officer has no greater legal authority to use deadly force to protect their life than any other law-abiding citizen. Also if you want police officers to be 'better armed' than the people they are supposed to 'protect and serve', namely law-abiding citizens, then the role of the police must be oppression rather than protection. If the police can't have 'assault rifles' then neither can you. If the police can have a handgun, then you can too.

How's that? You'll find these 'gun nuts' willing to give up their 'assault rifles' under such a condition, because there is a standard that adjusts with the times.

Except the average person is generally trying to avoid dangerous situations and has the gun as a method of last resort. The law enforcement officer is specifically meant to put himself in more dangerous situations so that the average citizen doesn't have to. I'm fine with cops and military having more powerful weapons than civilians.


Yet the average person is much more likely to visited with unsought violence because criminals look for victims, not opponents.
 
2013-01-27 03:29:37 PM  

Steve McQueen's Motorcycle: There is no functional difference between an AR-15 and just about any gas operated handgun.


For anyone doesn't get the joke that I think Steve seems to be trying to make, there are no gas operated handguns.

Now back to your regular thread.

// yes, I am aware that there are a tiny number of gas powered handguns that have been made for novelty purposes through the years. But nobody uses them for anything but showing their friends the crazy Frankenstein toy they have...
 
2013-01-27 03:29:55 PM  
Oh... I have to add one more comment, larch....
in the past 20 years I have been in 3 different situations where having a firearm might have been a good idea. In all of those situations, merely displaying said firearm and saying "get out" (or words to that effect - I admit I may have used a few profanities) were sufficient to make the unwanted person(s) to leave the vicinity of my home.
Strangely enough, I was somewhat reluctant to relay to the local authorities what had transpired.
(hmmm.... why might that be?)
As my step-mom would say... "alles ist gut"
basically...it's cool...shut up
And this is the America I want...
Let me do my thing... it's all inside my home; no one is being harmed; no one is having their property taken against their will...I worked for all this stuff... why should they take it?
 
2013-01-27 03:33:33 PM  

Fark It: The Rest Are Bait: jaytkay: The Rest Are Bait: The nations largest outdoors show, Eastern Sports and Outdoors Show, was canceled by the promoters due to a boycot...The show would have brought in close to $80 million dollars in a couple weeks to Harrisburg PA...

And Sandy Hook has led to a nationwide run on AR-15s and ammo. Gun shops are reporting astounding increases in sales.

Moar Sandy Hooks!

Prosperity demands it! Good job gun enthusiasts!

The thing is, it's not a gun show out right.  There is more outfitters, bow hunting, taxidermy, atv, boat, fishing and shamwow dealers than actual gun dealers at that show.  Hell Smith and Wesson doesn't even sell anything there but only showcases their new lineup if I remember correctly.  Reed runs the SHOT show in Las Vegas, an industry trade show for firearms, they let that one go on just a couple weeks ago.  I can't explain why.

There are no gun sales at SHOT, and access is restricted for the general public. Also, many of the attendees represent various law enforcement and other government agencies.


On one hand they are willing to profit off of them and on the other they claim a moral high round.  Hypocrites.  Reed is also in danger of loosing out on the SHOT show over the Harrisburg incident.  The NSSF wrote that they are considering using a different exhibitor.
 
2013-01-27 03:35:40 PM  

Steve McQueen's Motorcycle: Greylight: Oh how cute, another thread counter.

It is one of the most important facts that "assault weapon" ban proponents hates to hear.

A ban will have almost ZERO effect on gun violence.

Why do you immediately dismiss it?

And I am hardly a gun nut. I own several but I rarely use them.

I will however speak out for the basic, very specifically spelled out right my fellow citizens have to own such if they so desire.


So as long as it's not a ban right? Or do any restrictions and special licensing requirements for any class of weapon (even if you disagree with the definition) trigger your objections?

Can you discuss from an educated point of view that gun laws and regulations are nessesary?
 
2013-01-27 03:35:43 PM  

The Larch: For anyone doesn't get the joke that I think Steve seems to be trying to make, there are no gas operated handguns.


Semi auto and full auto guns are almost all gas operated guns, but not gasoline Larch operated.
But that isn't what you meant is it?
 
2013-01-27 03:37:42 PM  

Mrtraveler01: Mrbogey: Mrtraveler01: No you don't, it's just a toy. I'm perfectly fine with you guys wanting to keep them but stop kidding me telling me you need these for self-defense or hunting and just tell me it's a toy.

Why do you think of it as a toy?

You need an Assault Rifle for home defense when a shotgun does the same job?

You need an assault rifle for hunting? What on earth are you hunting that requires a weapon as powerful as that?


A) The fact that the Second Amendment isn't about hunting has already been established.

B) "Assault Rifles" aren't that powerful to begin with.

C) Fark "need". Need is a bullshiat argument brought into the discussion with the sole purpose of justifying regulating and banning firearms that people think are scary because they happen to be the low hanging fruit.

This is America, and like it or not I don't have to justify some perceived "need" to government bureaucrats in order to exercise an established civil right.

Should I be forced to justify my "need" to use a sign to exercise my freedom of speech or to own a Bible?

Should the government deny me due process or a trial by jury if I can not establish a "need"?

How about unlawful search and seizure? Do I "need" to deny an unwarranted search if I've done nothing wrong?

No.

The same people making the argument that I do not "need" X firearm to conduct whatever version of a "legitimate" activity are the same people that would be pissing their pants if that standard were applied to any other right they hold dear, and rightfully so.

Fark "need".
 
2013-01-27 03:37:44 PM  
People who want to take away others rights and firearms, are pathetic weaklings.

These pathetic weaklings will have to dodge bullets to disarm we Americans who have a sack and are willing to stand up for our Bill of Rights.

Better get good at dodging.
 
2013-01-27 03:38:57 PM  

Greylight: KiwDaWabbit: Greylight: Gun laws and restrictions are part of an effective strategy to prevent gun violence. Canadians have more hurdles to owning certain classes of arms, but can still own them. Compare gun related deaths between the two countries, I bet no one even needs to look it up to know that laws and regulations can work.

It's not about banning weapons, it's about regulating them to balance public safety and ownership. You can have both respectively if y'all could stop this inane partisan douchery.

Gun control isn't going to drastically reduce violence in the U.S. I'm a gun control advocate. The biggest problem lies in our culture. Violence is socially acceptable in the U.S. If it turned us off that much, something would have been done about it long ago. But, no. Hell, in some cases, criminals are revered here. There are also economic, environmental, and mental health aspects to gun violence. People in "hot spots" for gun violence in the U.S. don't put nearly the same value on life as the rest of us first world problem havers would.

The culture in the US is not common across the whole country. I in Manitoba have more in common with someone from Minisota then they would with someone from Mississippi.

The idea of a "gun culture" is not an irreversible fact of life, it is a series of choices. Now is the time for Americans to make another choice. Make the right choice this time my friends.


You're confusing gun culture with gang culture.
 
2013-01-27 03:41:22 PM  

give me doughnuts: Popcorn Johnny: Chicago - 2.7 million population - 506 homicides

Detroit - 705,000 population - 411 homicides

Interesting. Louisville, Ky has a city-county population of about 740,000, and in 2012 there were less than 60 murders.


As an ex-Detroit-area person, it's actually pretty simple. There's a heavy correlation between poor urban folks of "urban" culture (The culture is the important word. Being black/"urban" tells me nothing, being thug tells me everything), and crime. So in a lot of places, you have the "good parts" of town which have 0 crime, and the bad parts of town which are, per capita, more or less Detroit.

In Detroit, with the notable exception of small bits of downtown, everything is a bad bit, and the rich white people who normally balance out the statistics are all out in the rich white suburbs.

4.bp.blogspot.com
Was in downtown Farmington, just past the west edge of the blue bubble on the northeast side. East Farmington (Hills) was rapidly going downhill because urban folks trying to leave Detroit were moving into the foreclosed homes and cheap apartments during the recession, and the people who had lived there were running away from the increased crime, collapsing property values, and increasingly worse schools (because the new kids were mainly uneducated bullies) as a result.

/Also, on a complete tangent, if you ever get a chance to see a black high school marching band, go. Some of the visiting football teams brought their non-MCBA marching bands, and it was impressive. Oak Park's 25-person marching band was louder in the visiting stands than our 65-person marching band was in the seats right next to me. Very much Drumline-esque.
 
2013-01-27 03:41:54 PM  

Ontos: C) Fark "need". Need is a bullshiat argument brought into the discussion with the sole purpose of justifying regulating and banning firearms that people think are scary because they happen to be the low hanging fruit.

This is America, and like it or not I don't have to justify some perceived "need" to government bureaucrats in order to exercise an established civil right.

Should I be forced to justify my "need" to use a sign to exercise my freedom of speech or to own a Bible?

Should the government deny me due process or a trial by jury if I can not establish a "need"?

How about unlawful search and seizure? Do I "need" to deny an unwarranted search if I've done nothing wrong?

No.

The same people making the argument that I do not "need" X firearm to conduct whatever version of a "legitimate" activity are the same people that would be pissing their pants if that standard were applied to any other right they hold dear, and rightfully so.

Fark "need".


Nice post, but they hate arguing these facts and probably will disregard all these valid and relevant points.
 
2013-01-27 03:42:35 PM  
OK people, listen up... All you anti-gun people can cloud the issue all day with your facts and statistics, your talking points, your smartass comments and your feigned emotion. The whole point of the exercise was SUPPOSEDLY to prevent another Sandy Hook from happening. You supposedly want to protect our children. Well here's the thing: If you want to try to put new firearms laws in place to curb the risk of gun dangers to our children in their schools, AS WELL AS having guards in the schools as a FIRST LINE OF DEFENSE to protect them on scene, AND also actively work to improve the failing mental health system in this country, then a legitimate meaningful discussion can be had with you. But if all you want to do to "fix" the problem is take away people's guns, with guarding the schools and mental health not even being part of your strategy, then you all need to STFU. Right now. You are all liars in regards to wanting to protect our children. You would get more respect from people if you would just come out and admit that you don't like guns and think no one should be able to own them. At least you would be being honest, instead of hiding behind a smokescreen about wanting to protect children in schools. But having a gun control strategy as your only plan to protect children in schools is BS, and needs to stop.

And arguing against guards in schools, regardless of your reasoning, is indicator #1 of the BS lies about protecting children. Guards are in place in so many places to protect us and our assets, and yet someone argues against them protecting kids in schools? Then you really don't want to protect anyone, do you? If you do, then guards would be welcomed, instead of argued against. Like I said, just come out and admit that you just don't like guns, and think that no one should be able to own them. At least THEN would be speaking truthfully about the whole issue.
 
2013-01-27 03:43:19 PM  

Tyee: The Larch: For anyone doesn't get the joke that I think Steve seems to be trying to make, there are no gas operated handguns.

Semi auto and full auto guns are almost all gas operated guns, but not gasoline Larch operated.
But that isn't what you meant is it?


Even though all semi-autos use gas pressure to reload, 'gas-operated' is specific jargon in firearms, so technically he's correct.

He's also a wanker for playing the game "Hurr durrr you don't know arcane terms, therefore you cannot discuss the subject!!1!!'.
 
2013-01-27 03:43:20 PM  

Mrtraveler01: EvilByte: Chicago is the NRA's straw man. Chicago's murder rate is about 16th in the nation for the roughly 70 cities with more than 250,000 people. Miami, Cleveland, Memphis, Atlanta, and New Orleans all have higher homicide rates. But since Chicago has 2,000,000 more people than those gun loving cities the raw number of homicides is higher.

And they can't use NYC because crime there is at a record low.

I live in St. Louis so I always laugh when I hear about crime problems plaguing a city that's 3 times as big in area.


St. Louis.... Where even the mayor gets mugged.
 
2013-01-27 03:43:24 PM  

Greylight: special licensing requirements


Yes, I have a problem with licensing and a general database of gun owners.

I really do not problem with an initial background check to weed out felons or mentally ill persons.

Tyee: The Larch: For anyone doesn't get the joke that I think Steve seems to be trying to make, there are no gas operated handguns.

Semi auto and full auto guns are almost all gas operated guns, but not gasoline Larch operated.
But that isn't what you meant is it?


Thank you. I was having a face palm moment reading his post.
 
2013-01-27 03:43:42 PM  

MagicMissile: These pathetic weaklings will have to dodge bullets to disarm we Americans who have a sack


NOT A FETISH.
 
2013-01-27 03:43:54 PM  

Tyee: Ontos: C) Fark "need". Need is a bullshiat argument brought into the discussion with the sole purpose of justifying regulating and banning firearms that people think are scary because they happen to be the low hanging fruit.

This is America, and like it or not I don't have to justify some perceived "need" to government bureaucrats in order to exercise an established civil right.

Should I be forced to justify my "need" to use a sign to exercise my freedom of speech or to own a Bible?

Should the government deny me due process or a trial by jury if I can not establish a "need"?

How about unlawful search and seizure? Do I "need" to deny an unwarranted search if I've done nothing wrong?

No.

The same people making the argument that I do not "need" X firearm to conduct whatever version of a "legitimate" activity are the same people that would be pissing their pants if that standard were applied to any other right they hold dear, and rightfully so.

Fark "need".

Nice post, but they hate arguing these facts and probably will disregard all these valid and relevant points.


Although I already said that I'm ok with folks owning these guns and think that bans are the wrong way to go. I just don't buy the "they're for home security and hunting" excuse.
 
2013-01-27 03:45:03 PM  

MagicMissile: People who want to take away others rights and firearms, are pathetic weaklings.

These pathetic weaklings will have to dodge bullets to disarm we Americans who have a sack and are willing to stand up for our Bill of Rights.

Better get good at dodging.


Amusing irony is amusing...someone calling others weaklings, while arguing that they need guns and will be willing to kill those who would take them away.
 
2013-01-27 03:45:30 PM  

3StratMan: And arguing against guards in schools, regardless of your reasoning, is indicator #1 of the BS lies about protecting children. Guards are in place in so many places to protect us and our assets, and yet someone argues against them protecting kids in schools? Then you really don't want to protect anyone, do you? If you do, then guards would be welcomed, instead of argued against. Like I said, just come out and admit that you just don't like guns, and think that no one should be able to own them. At least THEN would be speaking truthfully about the whole issue.


I'm ok with armed guards in school. I had a DARE officer and he always carried his gun in school so I'm used to it.

Sorry for setting your strawman on fire.
 
2013-01-27 03:45:32 PM  

Tyee: The Larch: For anyone doesn't get the joke that I think Steve seems to be trying to make, there are no gas operated handguns.

Semi auto and full auto guns are almost all gas operated guns, but not gasoline Larch operated.
But that isn't what you meant is it?


No, semiautomatic pistols are almost entirely recoil operated, not gas operated.
 
2013-01-27 03:45:59 PM  

Ontos: This is America, and like it or not I don't have to justify some perceived "need" to government bureaucrats in order to exercise an established civil right.

Should I be forced to justify my "need" to use a sign to exercise my freedom of speech or to own a Bible?


You need a military rifle like I need to parade around the local elementary school with a megaphone telling the kids in graphic detail about how their parents conceived them.

Why are my First amendment rights being trampled upon?
 
2013-01-27 03:46:26 PM  

earthworm2.0: Mrtraveler01: EvilByte: Chicago is the NRA's straw man. Chicago's murder rate is about 16th in the nation for the roughly 70 cities with more than 250,000 people. Miami, Cleveland, Memphis, Atlanta, and New Orleans all have higher homicide rates. But since Chicago has 2,000,000 more people than those gun loving cities the raw number of homicides is higher.

And they can't use NYC because crime there is at a record low.

I live in St. Louis so I always laugh when I hear about crime problems plaguing a city that's 3 times as big in area.

St. Louis.... Where even the mayor gets mugged.


I have a love/hate relationship with this city.
 
2013-01-27 03:46:34 PM  

3StratMan: OK people, listen up... All you anti-gun people can cloud the issue all day with your facts and statistics, your talking points, your smartass comments and your feigned emotion. The whole point of the exercise was SUPPOSEDLY to prevent another Sandy Hook from happening. You supposedly want to protect our children. Well here's the thing: If you want to try to put new firearms laws in place to curb the risk of gun dangers to our children in their schools, AS WELL AS having guards in the schools as a FIRST LINE OF DEFENSE to protect them on scene, AND also actively work to improve the failing mental health system in this country, then a legitimate meaningful discussion can be had with you. But if all you want to do to "fix" the problem is take away people's guns, with guarding the schools and mental health not even being part of your strategy, then you all need to STFU. Right now. You are all liars in regards to wanting to protect our children. You would get more respect from people if you would just come out and admit that you don't like guns and think no one should be able to own them. At least you would be being honest, instead of hiding behind a smokescreen about wanting to protect children in schools. But having a gun control strategy as your only plan to protect children in schools is BS, and needs to stop.

And arguing against guards in schools, regardless of your reasoning, is indicator #1 of the BS lies about protecting children. Guards are in place in so many places to protect us and our assets, and yet someone argues against them protecting kids in schools? Then you really don't want to protect anyone, do you? If you do, then guards would be welcomed, instead of argued against. Like I said, just come out and admit that you just don't like guns, and think that no one should be able to own them. At least THEN would be speaking truthfully about the whole issue.


i53.photobucket.com
 
2013-01-27 03:47:18 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: MagicMissile: These pathetic weaklings will have to dodge bullets to disarm we Americans who have a sack

I LOVE SACK.


That's great but this isn't the topic at hand.
 
2013-01-27 03:47:26 PM  

jaytkay: Ontos: This is America, and like it or not I don't have to justify some perceived "need" to government bureaucrats in order to exercise an established civil right.

Should I be forced to justify my "need" to use a sign to exercise my freedom of speech or to own a Bible?

You need a military rifle like I need to parade around the local elementary school with a megaphone telling the kids in graphic detail about how their parents conceived them.

Why are my First amendment rights being trampled upon?


Just don't bring props since a cardboard penis will look like a gun and you could be shot on site for that.
 
2013-01-27 03:49:42 PM  

SubBass49: MagicMissile: People who want to take away others rights and firearms, are pathetic weaklings.

These pathetic weaklings will have to dodge bullets to disarm we Americans who have a sack and are willing to stand up for our Bill of Rights.

Better get good at dodging.

Amusing irony is amusing...someone calling others weaklings, while arguing that they need guns and will be willing to kill those who would take them away.


I'm not in this to care about you or your sense of irony. I'm just stating a fact. I have the Right to bear arms and it shall not be Infringed., and you buddy, well you just have to deal with that don't you?

Also any attempt to remove my firearms would involve you forcing your way into my home, at which point I would be able to shoot you as the state I live in has Castle Law.
 
2013-01-27 03:50:54 PM  
If a small geographic area with strict gun laws is completely surrounded by a large geographic area with virtually non-existent gun laws, and travel between the two regions is unrestricted and unmonitored, the reason the strict gun laws have no impact on gun violence is that gun laws can't help reduce gun violence.

This is what gun nuts actually believe, but don't you dare suggest they have less capacity for rational thought as an over-microwaved burrito.
 
2013-01-27 03:51:35 PM  

MagicMissile: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: MagicMissile: These pathetic weaklings will have to dodge bullets to disarm we Americans who have a sack

NOT A FETISH.

That's great but this isn't the topic at hand.


That's great but I'm not the one who brought it up.
 
2013-01-27 03:51:39 PM  

redmid17: Mrtraveler01: Mrbogey: Mrtraveler01: No you don't, it's just a toy. I'm perfectly fine with you guys wanting to keep them but stop kidding me telling me you need these for self-defense or hunting and just tell me it's a toy.

Why do you think of it as a toy?

You need an Assault Rifle for home defense when a shotgun does the same job?

You need an assault rifle for hunting? What on earth are you hunting that requires a weapon as powerful as that?

If you think an 'assault rifle' is powerful, I have a bridge in New York for sale


Pretty much. I don't take a AR-15 out in the bush because it isn't powerful enough.

/300WinMag
 
2013-01-27 03:52:02 PM  

jaytkay: Tyee: The Larch: For anyone doesn't get the joke that I think Steve seems to be trying to make, there are no gas operated handguns.

Semi auto and full auto guns are almost all gas operated guns, but not gasoline Larch operated.
But that isn't what you meant is it?

Even though all semi-autos use gas pressure to reload, 'gas-operated' is specific jargon in firearms, so technically he's correct.

He's also a wanker for playing the game "Hurr durrr you don't know arcane terms, therefore you cannot discuss the subject!!1!!'.


Steve was the guy who claimed that semiautomatic handguns used exactly the same gas operated mechanism as an AR-15. If he wants to bring technical terms into the debate to support his point, he shouldn't be a whiny biatch when someone points out that he's using the terms wrong.
 
2013-01-27 03:52:05 PM  

jaytkay: Even though all semi-autos use gas pressure to reload, 'gas-operated' is specific jargon in firearms, so technically he's correct.


You are correct in that regard and yes I should of been more specific. My apologies.
 
2013-01-27 03:52:28 PM  

Mrtraveler01: Although I already said that I'm ok with folks owning these guns and think that bans are the wrong way to go. I just don't buy the "they're for home security and hunting" excuse.


I don't think you get to override the reasons people give for something like that.
 
2013-01-27 03:52:28 PM  

MagicMissile: SubBass49: MagicMissile: People who want to take away others rights and firearms, are pathetic weaklings.

These pathetic weaklings will have to dodge bullets to disarm we Americans who have a sack and are willing to stand up for our Bill of Rights.

Better get good at dodging.

Amusing irony is amusing...someone calling others weaklings, while arguing that they need guns and will be willing to kill those who would take them away.

I'm not in this to care about you or your sense of irony. I'm just stating a fact. I have the Right to bear arms and it shall not be Infringed., and you buddy, well you just have to deal with that don't you?

Also any attempt to remove my firearms would involve you forcing your way into my home, at which point I would be able to shoot you as the state I live in has Castle Law.


Good thing no one is proposing that. But, even if they were, it's not going to be private citizens doing the taking...it'd be law-enforcement officials...as which point I think your "castle law" bullshiat falls into attempted murder of a law enforcement officer territory. But I hear you can order lobster for your last meal, so you've got that going for you...which is nice.
 
2013-01-27 03:52:34 PM  

MagicMissile: SubBass49: MagicMissile: People who want to take away others rights and firearms, are pathetic weaklings.

These pathetic weaklings will have to dodge bullets to disarm we Americans who have a sack and are willing to stand up for our Bill of Rights.

Better get good at dodging.

Amusing irony is amusing...someone calling others weaklings, while arguing that they need guns and will be willing to kill those who would take them away.

I'm not in this to care about you or your sense of irony. I'm just stating a fact. I have the Right to bear arms and it shall not be Infringed., and you buddy, well you just have to deal with that don't you?

Also any attempt to remove my firearms would involve you forcing your way into my home, at which point I would be able to shoot you as the state I live in has Castle Law.


You do realize how teeth-gnashing, ball-shriveled crazy you sound, right?
 
2013-01-27 03:53:40 PM  

SubBass49: But I hear you can order lobster for your last meal, so you've got that going for you...which is nice.


I should add, that's IF you survive...
 
2013-01-27 03:53:50 PM  

jaytkay: Ontos: This is America, and like it or not I don't have to justify some perceived "need" to government bureaucrats in order to exercise an established civil right.

Should I be forced to justify my "need" to use a sign to exercise my freedom of speech or to own a Bible?

You need a military rifle like I need to parade around the local elementary school with a megaphone telling the kids in graphic detail about how their parents conceived them.

Why are my First amendment rights being trampled upon?


Here's the big difference in your false-equivalency hypothetical situation:

If you were at an elementary school with a megaphone blaring obcenities at children you would be:

A) Trespassing

B) Disturbing the peace.

If someone were to show up in a public place and began cranking out rounds in the air, please feel free to lock'em up. Not only would they be disturbing the peace but they would also be endangering others.

Here's this difference... Simply owning a firearm does not mean that I am effecting others. I am not:

Conducting murder, manslaughter, or assault.

Committing armed robbery.

Damaging property, etc.

Do you really need these things explained to you?
 
2013-01-27 03:54:19 PM  

jaytkay: Even though all semi-autos use gas pressure to reload, 'gas-operated' is specific jargon in firearms, so technically he's correct.

He's also a wanker for playing the game "Hurr durrr you don't know arcane terms, therefore you cannot discuss the subject!!1!!'.


The Larch: No, semiautomatic pistols are almost entirely recoil operated, not gas operated.


LOL
 
2013-01-27 03:54:27 PM  
If you don't agree with the 2nd Amendment, then get out of the United States. Go move to Canada or Europe.
 
2013-01-27 03:55:41 PM  

3StratMan: OK people, listen up... All you anti-gun people can cloud the issue all day with your facts and statistics, your talking points, your smartass comments and your feigned emotion. The whole point of the exercise was SUPPOSEDLY to prevent another Sandy Hook from happening. You supposedly want to protect our children. Well here's the thing: If you want to try to put new firearms laws in place to curb the risk of gun dangers to our children in their schools, AS WELL AS having guards in the schools as a FIRST LINE OF DEFENSE to protect them on scene, AND also actively work to improve the failing mental health system in this country, then a legitimate meaningful discussion can be had with you. But if all you want to do to "fix" the problem is take away people's guns, with guarding the schools and mental health not even being part of your strategy, then you all need to STFU. Right now. You are all liars in regards to wanting to protect our children. You would get more respect from people if you would just come out and admit that you don't like guns and think no one should be able to own them. At least you would be being honest, instead of hiding behind a smokescreen about wanting to protect children in schools. But having a gun control strategy as your only plan to protect children in schools is BS, and needs to stop.

And arguing against guards in schools, regardless of your reasoning, is indicator #1 of the BS lies about protecting children. Guards are in place in so many places to protect us and our assets, and yet someone argues against them protecting kids in schools? Then you really don't want to protect anyone, do you? If you do, then guards would be welcomed, instead of argued against. Like I said, just come out and admit that you just don't like guns, and think that no one should be able to own them. At least THEN would be speaking truthfully about the whole issue.


/hug

I care about your mental health too!
We're not out to grab you guns, we're trying to have a discussion about how to balance society safety with gun ownership. You can be a valuable part of the discussion, you would be amazed how well people will respond when you don't resort with partisan derp.

Some folks do want to take away all guns, it's true, get over it. It's not the will of all gun control advocates.
 
2013-01-27 03:56:20 PM  

Mrbogey: Mrtraveler01: Although I already said that I'm ok with folks owning these guns and think that bans are the wrong way to go. I just don't buy the "they're for home security and hunting" excuse.

I don't think you get to override the reasons people give for something like that.


It's just a personal opinion. Relax. I'm not saying they can't have them.

I thought the pro-gun folks would be ok with that stance.
 
2013-01-27 03:57:01 PM  

MagicMissile: If you don't agree with the 2nd Amendment, then get out of the United States. Go move to Canada or Europe.


Or just stay here and exercise your First Amendment rights.
 
2013-01-27 03:57:28 PM  

OscarTamerz: Greylight: As pointed out by a thoughtful gun rights advocate up thread: not only do Canada's arms laws and restrictions result in fewer gun related fatalities, it also results in less gang and drug war problems.

No, they don't. If you removed all the gun murders in the US and left all the gun murders in Canada and didn't touch all the other murder methods in both countries Canada would still have a lower murder rate than the US. Americans murder each other more with nongun weapons than Canadians do with gun AND nongun weapons so it's the people not the weapons that are the determining factor.

Canadians don't have the large black population that commits murders at 5 times the rate of the the rest of the population and they don't have 20 million criminal alien Mexicans who doubled their own murder rate in the drug wars in the last few years.


Goddammit you racist assholes are not helping. It's not race - it's poverty. Income inequality is the only measure I know of that correlates well to crime rates. Ignoring that and looking at race instead paints you (and by association the rest of the guns-rights crowd) as bigoted idiots. It makes it really easy for gun-control people to marginalize legitimate opposition points.

If this is what you really believe, please educate yourself and look into poverty rates/income inequality as well as race. If you can't do that, at least stay out of the gun control debate. All you are doing is making things worse.
 
2013-01-27 03:57:34 PM  

MagicMissile: If you don't agree with the 2nd Amendment, then get out of the United States. Go move to Canada or Europe.


I agree, everyone who disagrees with you should self-deport themselves.

If only you guys gave as much of a shiat about the other 9 Amendments in the Bill of Rights like you guys do for this one.
 
2013-01-27 03:57:43 PM  

The Larch: Steve was the guy who claimed that semiautomatic handguns used exactly the same gas operated mechanism as an AR-15. If he wants to bring technical terms into the debate to support his point, he shouldn't be a whiny biatch when someone points out that he's using the terms wrong.


No, I was comparing the fact that an AR-15 and any semi-auto handgun works in the exact same basic fashion. One trigger pull = 1 bullet fired.

The argument was initially that the term "assault weapon": is bullshiat.
 
2013-01-27 03:59:48 PM  

kriegsgeist: OscarTamerz: Greylight: As pointed out by a thoughtful gun rights advocate up thread: not only do Canada's arms laws and restrictions result in fewer gun related fatalities, it also results in less gang and drug war problems.

No, they don't. If you removed all the gun murders in the US and left all the gun murders in Canada and didn't touch all the other murder methods in both countries Canada would still have a lower murder rate than the US. Americans murder each other more with nongun weapons than Canadians do with gun AND nongun weapons so it's the people not the weapons that are the determining factor.

Canadians don't have the large black population that commits murders at 5 times the rate of the the rest of the population and they don't have 20 million criminal alien Mexicans who doubled their own murder rate in the drug wars in the last few years.

Goddammit you racist assholes are not helping. It's not race - it's poverty. Income inequality is the only measure I know of that correlates well to crime rates. Ignoring that and looking at race instead paints you (and by association the rest of the guns-rights crowd) as bigoted idiots. It makes it really easy for gun-control people to marginalize legitimate opposition points.

If this is what you really believe, please educate yourself and look into poverty rates/income inequality as well as race. If you can't do that, at least stay out of the gun control debate. All you are doing is making things worse.


Just post this:

www.patentspostgrant.com
 
2013-01-27 04:00:23 PM  

SubBass49: MagicMissile: SubBass49: MagicMissile: People who want to take away others rights and firearms, are pathetic weaklings.

These pathetic weaklings will have to dodge bullets to disarm we Americans who have a sack and are willing to stand up for our Bill of Rights.

Better get good at dodging.

Amusing irony is amusing...someone calling others weaklings, while arguing that they need guns and will be willing to kill those who would take them away.

I'm not in this to care about you or your sense of irony. I'm just stating a fact. I have the Right to bear arms and it shall not be Infringed., and you buddy, well you just have to deal with that don't you?

Also any attempt to remove my firearms would involve you forcing your way into my home, at which point I would be able to shoot you as the state I live in has Castle Law.

Good thing no one is proposing that. But, even if they were, it's not going to be private citizens doing the taking...it'd be law-enforcement officials...as which point I think your "castle law" bullshiat falls into attempted murder of a law enforcement officer territory. But I hear you can order lobster for your last meal, so you've got that going for you...which is nice.


If law enforcement started raiding homes for firearms, that is grounds for another revolutionary war, as that is a violation of the 2nd Amendment of the Bill of Rights, Constitution of the United States.

The whole reason the 2nd Amendment was written in the first place is to prevent that from happening in the first place.

I served in the military and I meant it when I swore the oath to protect and defend the Constitution with my life.

I can also tell you that the majority of military and law enforcement wouldn't obey orders to disarm Americans in the fashion you describe.

So I guess you can go buy a lobster and masturbate vigorously with it while you fantasize about Americans being brutalized by their own government. Idiot.
 
2013-01-27 04:00:55 PM  

lostcat: It feels like people are missing a huge point.

Police are armed because they are enforcing laws.

The police don't make the laws. Governments make laws.

If you don't like the laws you don't buy a gun and start shooting police officers when they try to arrest you for breaking it.

If you don't like the law you go to your representatives in government and explain to them why the law is a bad idea.

Did they stop teaching Civics in public schools or something?


You went to one of those Civics classes that skips over the citizens when teaching about the checks on those power balances. Your classes teach that police are the authorities and they have to listen to the lawmakers. It also teaches that the lawmakers come from and have to listen to the people. Right?

Most Civics classes go on to teach that the check on that power of protection is the 2nd amendment. The writers saw the threat of dependency for protection was going to be used to manipulate the states and people. The power-check they wrote in as the 2nd amendment was that the people could always keep and bear arms, so they'd not be completely dependent on the state and federal government for protection. If you find a better way than the 2nd amendment to provide that auto-determination to individuals and states (which are now pretty much purse-string tied to the fed so it matters) you might make a bit of progress on the gun regulation debate (on the amendment point, not the point of this thread saying regulation will solve lethal violence).

And yes, I do believe the wording change before the 2nd amendement is also taught in most civics classes. The question is an open one still. Where do you draw the line for individuals? Of course seems a militia is a better check on the power of the police force. Well, I don't know of any militia that would count, except a few private security contractors.

Maybe you could match the individual healthcare mandate with an individual security services mandate. That would be the true liberal style solution to all this. And eventually leads to every person being purse-string tied to the state for protection and care. I do worry your agenda will win, and people will owe instead of pledge allegiance.
 
2013-01-27 04:01:06 PM  
You "police state" gun nuts have won me over!

I totally agree with you.

After 40+ years of living peacefully US (just a few years in Vietnam...talk about lack of personal freedom), with nothing more to show for it than a few unpleasant traffic stops, I've decided to start buying guns. Lots of powerful guns.

And the next time a cop looks at me funny I'm going to shoot him in the head.

Then I'll feel like I've really got some freedom from the growing police oppression that is clearly taking place under this socialist/fascist political system we have.
 
2013-01-27 04:01:46 PM  
"Need"? OK... Let's look into that
Over the past 10 years I have "needed" a firearm about .005 percent of the time...
During that .005 percent I needed one NOW
kinda works out I had one...
never needed to fire it at a person
but displaying it tends to really help in negotiations with people who one would prefer to leave the immediate area
 
2013-01-27 04:05:00 PM  

Mrtraveler01: MagicMissile: If you don't agree with the 2nd Amendment, then get out of the United States. Go move to Canada or Europe.

I agree, everyone who disagrees with you should self-deport themselves.

If only you guys gave as much of a shiat about the other 9 Amendments in the Bill of Rights like you guys do for this one.


Well, I served in the military and actually did something with my life because I cared about the "other 9 amendments" you generalizing ass.

I even care about your 1st amendment, and the 1st amendments of the other million drooling retards on this thread and in the country beyond who are going batshiat crazy over the liberal media and governments flavor of the month dilemma.
 
2013-01-27 04:07:50 PM  

MagicMissile: Mrtraveler01: MagicMissile: If you don't agree with the 2nd Amendment, then get out of the United States. Go move to Canada or Europe.

I agree, everyone who disagrees with you should self-deport themselves.

If only you guys gave as much of a shiat about the other 9 Amendments in the Bill of Rights like you guys do for this one.

Well, I served in the military and actually did something with my life because I cared about the "other 9 amendments" you generalizing ass.

I even care about your 1st amendment, and the 1st amendments of the other million drooling retards on this thread and in the country beyond who are going batshiat crazy over the liberal media and governments flavor of the month dilemma.


So you should be able to agree that people have different interpretations and opinons of the 2nd Amendment and that saying that anyone who disagrees with your view of the 2nd Amendment should leave this country was a stupid thing to say then, correct?
 
2013-01-27 04:08:25 PM  

MagicMissile: liberal media


DRINK!
 
2013-01-27 04:09:30 PM  

Greylight:
/hug

I care about your mental health too!
We're not out to grab you guns, we're trying t ...


So you are admitting it then- gun control is your thing. Not protecting children, which was the original point that started the whole argument a month ago. "Balance society safety/safely with gun ownership", as you put it. So basically more gun control is something you have wanted all along, with Sandy Hook conveniently being the mechanism to get the ball rolling. Gotcha. That's even better.
 
2013-01-27 04:10:22 PM  
why not Clearwater!! they're just as big as Chicago
 
2013-01-27 04:12:14 PM  

MagicMissile: If you don't agree with the 2nd Amendment, then get out of the United States. Go move to Canada or Europe.


Your interpretation of the 2nd amendment differs from mine.

The need for a "well-regulated militia" is totally acceptable to me.

Show me how private gun owners make up a well-regulated militia and I'll be happy.

I think gun clubs are great. I've been shooting at gun clubs. You have a bunch of people who socialize and can spot someone who may have some psychological problems or who is going through hard times.

What worries me are the loners who have issues, and who gravitate toward the "power" that a gun gives them.
Or the kids growing up in urban areas where having a gun is a status symbol, and where altercations over the most pointless topics escalate to gun play.

See, just because people want to find a solution to gun violence doesn't mean they want to take away your rights to own guns. But I would like for some of the gun people to admit that there are people out there who can legally acquire guns, but who really shouldn't be carrying guns around.

I think that licensing gun owners the way that car drivers are licensed makes sense. Tests should be required. I also think that membership in a gun club should be recommended for all gun owners, and there should be more training among gun club members regarding how to spot danger signs and deal with potential issues.
 
2013-01-27 04:12:31 PM  

DogBoyTheCat: THEY HAD A STABBING?!!!!
Well, there ya go...
We gotta get rid of those evil knives too!


Knives, sidearms and hunting rifles play a role in our society. The machines that are designed to streamline a body count do not serve any other purpose. So for all of you clamoring to "hurr my as well ban Bowie knifes the next time someone is murdered with one," try to keep things in perspective.

Hey pal, cars kill, too. That's why we have regulated speed limits. and certain galvinations to make the car safer. The sooner you idiots stop making ridiculous analogies, the sooner issue will have blown over what little harm coming to what your understand the Constitution to betm .
 
2013-01-27 04:12:32 PM  

MagicMissile: If you don't agree with the 2nd Amendment, then get out of the United States. Go move to Canada or Europe.


Fun test to ask conservatives.

1) What is the 2nd amendment about?

2) What are the other 9 about?
 
2013-01-27 04:13:00 PM  

Greylight: I care about your mental health too!
We're not out to grab you guns, we're trying to have a discussion about how to balance society safety with gun ownership. You can be a valuable part of the discussion, you would be amazed how well people will respond when you don't resort with partisan derp.

Some folks do want to take away all guns, it's true, get over it. It's not the will of all gun control advocates.


I have yet to hear a rational conversation from the other side of this argument.

Rational people would look at the numbers and conclude that banning assault weapons is both the most politically divisive and least effective proposition put on the table to curb gun violence.

Assault rifles are used in less than 2% of all homicides, roughly 120 people a year (out of 8600 firearm homicides). The entirety of this debate is centered around a number of crimes that, in comparison to the rest of the homicide data, is essentially statistical noise. To say nothing of the fact that the vast majority of those murders would still take place had an assault weapon not been used by the perpetrator.

I mean really - you think that some criminal is going to say "You know, I really wanna shoot that guy, but I can't use the particular kinda gun I want... so I'm just gonna go home and play xBox."?

As far as mass shootings, there is absolutely no correlation between the use of an assault rifle and the lethality of the event. The most horrific mass shooting in this nation's history was committed with two pistols (one of them a .22) and 10 round magazines (Virginia Tech). Only 1 out of the 10 most lethal mass shootings in the country involved the use of an assault rifle (Newton) and all the evidence suggests that the kind of weapon used made not one iota of difference in how many kids he shot. The deal is really simple - shooting unarmed, cowering people isn't that difficult a task that requires military hardware.

Having said all that, I would *love* to have a rational conversation about ending gun violence. As someone who knows guns very well, and is intimately familiar with the laws surrounding their purchase, possession and use, I can list off half a dozen ways we could significantly cut down on gun violence in this country.

Unfortunately, not a single thing that I know would work to curb gun violence is actually being discussed at the national political level. Nor has any anti-gun person on this board ever engaged me when I've outlined my ideas. All they do is talk about bans, insult gun owners and marinade in smugness at their own one-liners.
 
2013-01-27 04:16:15 PM  

MagicMissile: If law enforcement started raiding homes for firearms, that is grounds for another revolutionary war, as that is a violation of the 2nd Amendment of the Bill of Rights, Constitution of the United States.

The whole reason the 2nd Amendment was written in the first place is to prevent that from happening in the first place.

I served in the military and I meant it when I swore the oath to protect and defend the Constitution with my life.

I can also tell you that the majority of military and law enforcement wouldn't obey orders to disarm Americans in the fashion you describe.

So I guess you can go buy a lobster and masturbate vigorously with it while you fantasize about Americans being brutalized by their own government. Idiot.


No one is arguing that you shouldn't be able to own firearms. That's a creation of your own paranoid/delusional mind. It's the TYPE of firearms being owned that people take issue with. Buy all the handguns, shotguns, and hunting rifles you can waste you dollars on...be our guest. Buy an AK-47, an Uzi, etc...military weapons meant for military applications...then perhaps you're not mentally stable enough to take on that kind of responsibility.

/lemme guess...the black helicopters visit you often, don't they?
 
2013-01-27 04:20:18 PM  

Mrtraveler01: MagicMissile: Mrtraveler01: MagicMissile: If you don't agree with the 2nd Amendment, then get out of the United States. Go move to Canada or Europe.

I agree, everyone who disagrees with you should self-deport themselves.

If only you guys gave as much of a shiat about the other 9 Amendments in the Bill of Rights like you guys do for this one.

Well, I served in the military and actually did something with my life because I cared about the "other 9 amendments" you generalizing ass.

I even care about your 1st amendment, and the 1st amendments of the other million drooling retards on this thread and in the country beyond who are going batshiat crazy over the liberal media and governments flavor of the month dilemma.

So you should be able to agree that people have different interpretations and opinons of the 2nd Amendment and that saying that anyone who disagrees with your view of the 2nd Amendment should leave this country was a stupid thing to say then, correct?


I can respect that there may be different opinions regarding the 2nd Amendment, I mean its your right to have and voice opinions.

What I do not agree with are different interpretations. The 2nd Amendment clearly says what it says in plain English. The first part describes the ability for Americans to use freedom of speech to spread word and peacefully assemble into an organized militia, rights granted by the 1st Amendment.

The conundrum here is that English was spoken a little different, and therefore written a little different when the Constitution was written, so its not readily apparent to the untrained eye. But that is absolutely what they were talking about.

The second line states "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

This means that under no circumstances shall the peoples right to own and carry firearms be taken away or infringed upon by any legislation whatsoever. They did fully intend for the people to have the same weapons that the government and military has.

Now consider what was going on before the Revolutionary War....... English troops had martial law declared in American Colonies. England had become far detached from American colonial society and simply served as tax collectors off the labor of people who had now become native where as the English were foreign.

They were not allowed free speech, or allowed to own firearms, or were allowed to assemble, and they were forced to give the English lodging. If they complained they were beaten, shot, their wives were raped and so on.

So when they began to describe specific freedoms for every citizen in the newly formed United States.. they did their absolute best to outline that it would be the peoples right to grab firearms, get together and form a militia in the event that a monarchy or other form of tyranny visited our shores again.

Our government was designed to be run by the people, public office was intended to be a public service position. It was not intended to be a permanent career path with high pay as we have now. It was not intended to be full of rogue para military intelligence agencies that are armed to the teeth and up the ass of the American People.

Given changing times and technology, things have had to change and some rightly so. It would not be wise to allow every citizen to have a nuclear missile, or an M1Abrahms tank.

But that basic right to own small arms of any type must be maintained, and the Supreme Court ruled on it twice five and three years ago.

What gets all of us "gun nuts" in an uproar is the fact that the "gun control nuts" simply won't let it go. The gun control crowd wants all firearms banned, they would have us like England, which is the most violent nation in Europe, has a higher per capita crime rate than the United States, and has police and military armed with fully automatic weapons riding around in armored personnel carriers, kicking doors in and raiding homes because they might have a firearm or something else.

Yeah... kinda would be like going backwards, you know what I mean?
 
2013-01-27 04:21:19 PM  

SubBass49: No one is arguing that you shouldn't be able to own firearms. That's a creation of your own paranoid/delusional mind. It's the TYPE of firearms being owned that people take issue with. Buy all the handguns, shotguns, and hunting rifles you can waste you dollars on...be our guest. Buy an AK-47, an Uzi, etc...military weapons meant for military applications...then perhaps you're not mentally stable enough to take on that kind of responsibility.

Every

firearm was originally designed for military use.
 
2013-01-27 04:21:57 PM  

lostcat: You "police state" gun nuts have won me over!

I totally agree with you.

After 40+ years of living peacefully US (just a few years in Vietnam...talk about lack of personal freedom), with nothing more to show for it than a few unpleasant traffic stops, I've decided to start buying guns. Lots of powerful guns.

And the next time a cop looks at me funny I'm going to shoot him in the head.

Then I'll feel like I've really got some freedom from the growing police oppression that is clearly taking place under this socialist/fascist political system we have.


How about not making it an issue of extremes? I wanted to believe people can take you seriously. Please do not buy any guns just to try to win the debate by coloring the other side crazy with your own sickness.
 
2013-01-27 04:23:37 PM  

jaytkay: MagicMissile: If you don't agree with the 2nd Amendment, then get out of the United States. Go move to Canada or Europe.

Fun test to ask conservatives.

1) What is the 2nd amendment about?

2) What are the other 9 about?


That's a fun test for 99% of the general public.  How many people know about the 4th amendment?
 
2013-01-27 04:24:49 PM  
I've been reading these comments all day... I'm sure a few of y'all have noticed mine.
But seriously, folks... is anyone doing the math?
First of all.... one reason gun control hasn't worked in DC, Chicago & Detroit is that it's relatively easy to drive a short distance and legally purchase firearms.... another is that it's only criminals in those areas able to purchase said firearms, through criminal means(like that would matter for a criminal - actually preferable)
I live in an area with "gun culture".
Strangely enough, doing a check of the areas of my city with the most gun incidents and comparing it with areas with areas with registered gun owners (NRA Survey) seems to show that the areas with the most registered gun owners tend to have the lowest crime rates... what's up with that?
I used to live quite near a local "motorcycle club"'s clubhouse... crime rate there was near zero. Nobody there would dare mess with them.
Kind of similar to those areas of Staten Island populated by "legitimate businessmen"
You don't know if they're packing, but do you really want to take a chance?
 
2013-01-27 04:25:26 PM  

dr-shotgun: [Several hundred words about my superior attitude and knowledge]


Gee, all those irrational liberals fail to address the calm, intelligent suggestions about gun violence which you failed to make.
 
2013-01-27 04:26:16 PM  
Is this another thread where gun nuts prove that they are just regular nuts, but with guns?

/Lunatics shouldn't be able to own guns.
 
2013-01-27 04:26:27 PM  

jaytkay: Gee, all those irrational liberals fail to address the calm, intelligent suggestions about gun violence which you failed to make.


I've made them multiple times on here (not in this thread). Every time I spend the time typing them all out, the irrational liberals are nothing but crickets. Why bother?
 
2013-01-27 04:26:38 PM  

dr-shotgun: All they do is talk about bans, insult gun owners and marinade in smugness at their own one-liners.


Well it is Fark.
 
2013-01-27 04:26:55 PM  

dr-shotgun: SubBass49: No one is arguing that you shouldn't be able to own firearms. That's a creation of your own paranoid/delusional mind. It's the TYPE of firearms being owned that people take issue with. Buy all the handguns, shotguns, and hunting rifles you can waste you dollars on...be our guest. Buy an AK-47, an Uzi, etc...military weapons meant for military applications...then perhaps you're not mentally stable enough to take on that kind of responsibility.

Every firearm was originally designed for military use.


But yet many are not used in that capacity anymore. Otherwise, we'd see more photos of our troops cleaning sand out of their muskets in Afghanistan.
 
2013-01-27 04:27:21 PM  
dr-shotgun: I don't completely agree with you, but thank you for adding a bit of logic to this discussion
 
2013-01-27 04:27:23 PM  

SubBass49: MagicMissile: If law enforcement started raiding homes for firearms, that is grounds for another revolutionary war, as that is a violation of the 2nd Amendment of the Bill of Rights, Constitution of the United States.

The whole reason the 2nd Amendment was written in the first place is to prevent that from happening in the first place.

I served in the military and I meant it when I swore the oath to protect and defend the Constitution with my life.

I can also tell you that the majority of military and law enforcement wouldn't obey orders to disarm Americans in the fashion you describe.

So I guess you can go buy a lobster and masturbate vigorously with it while you fantasize about Americans being brutalized by their own government. Idiot.

No one is arguing that you shouldn't be able to own firearms. That's a creation of your own paranoid/delusional mind. It's the TYPE of firearms being owned that people take issue with. Buy all the handguns, shotguns, and hunting rifles you can waste you dollars on...be our guest. Buy an AK-47, an Uzi, etc...military weapons meant for military applications...then perhaps you're not mentally stable enough to take on that kind of responsibility.

/lemme guess...the black helicopters visit you often, don't they?


Once again, who are YOU to decide what I or anyone else owns? Exactly what gives YOU the right? I guess you should be able to tell me I can't have a GT500KR that will go 200MPH either? A Ford Focus will get me where I am going just as good, right?

Think about this, smart guy- If you own an AR15, and you leave it on your closet or gun safe, it will sit there, day after day, week after week, year after year , and not do a goddamned thing, ever, until you pick it up and make a decision what to do with it. Cloud the issue all you want, but the bottom line is it's the person holding the gun, either a criminal or mentally ill person, that needs to be addressed, not the inanimate object that can do nothing on it's own.
 
2013-01-27 04:29:48 PM  
Anyone who thinks we need to go down the path of bans and criminalizing gun owners should watch this charming video from the UK. In it, a police task force combs over Facebook and Twitter posts, sussing out people who have :gasp: posed with knives and other offensive weapons!

Watch a bunch of people in uniform get absolutely apoplectic over someone with an old kitchen knife! See a man arrested because of a picture of him on Facebook with a stick!

UK Facebook Knife Crime Task Force
 
2013-01-27 04:30:05 PM  

Mrtraveler01: earthworm2.0: Mrtraveler01: EvilByte: Chicago is the NRA's straw man. Chicago's murder rate is about 16th in the nation for the roughly 70 cities with more than 250,000 people. Miami, Cleveland, Memphis, Atlanta, and New Orleans all have higher homicide rates. But since Chicago has 2,000,000 more people than those gun loving cities the raw number of homicides is higher.

And they can't use NYC because crime there is at a record low.

I live in St. Louis so I always laugh when I hear about crime problems plaguing a city that's 3 times as big in area.

St. Louis.... Where even the mayor gets mugged.

I have a love/hate relationship with this city.


I'm only here because I have nowhere else to go. I hate this place, and if I had a nuke, I'd use it .... Friggen arm pit of the united states....
 
2013-01-27 04:31:58 PM  

3StratMan: Greylight:
/hug

I care about your mental health too!
We're not out to grab you guns, we're trying t ...

So you are admitting it then- gun control is your thing. Not protecting children, which was the original point that started the whole argument a month ago. "Balance society safety/safely with gun ownership", as you put it. So basically more gun control is something you have wanted all along, with Sandy Hook conveniently being the mechanism to get the ball rolling. Gotcha. That's even better.


Oh my, you're really feeling pursecuted arn't you!

This may blow your mind but the majority of people including myself want to protect our children. The majority of folks also see that one means to do that is through laws and regulations. The majority of folks want to balance protecting children and gun ownership.

I think you're too vested in one facet of this discussion to see that there are more then two opinions in conflict. Until you can, you will also not see that there are many different opinions on what laws and restrictions can look like.

You can add much as a thoughtful contributor to the discussion by stepping back from the rhetoric a little.

Refusal to even explore the options of new or revamped laws and regulations does not mean you don't care about protecting children, I know that. It does mean you consider your interpretation of your rights to be more important. Sad.
 
2013-01-27 04:32:13 PM  

earthworm2.0: Mrtraveler01: earthworm2.0: Mrtraveler01: EvilByte: Chicago is the NRA's straw man. Chicago's murder rate is about 16th in the nation for the roughly 70 cities with more than 250,000 people. Miami, Cleveland, Memphis, Atlanta, and New Orleans all have higher homicide rates. But since Chicago has 2,000,000 more people than those gun loving cities the raw number of homicides is higher.

And they can't use NYC because crime there is at a record low.

I live in St. Louis so I always laugh when I hear about crime problems plaguing a city that's 3 times as big in area.

St. Louis.... Where even the mayor gets mugged.

I have a love/hate relationship with this city.

I'm only here because I have nowhere else to go. I hate this place, and if I had a nuke, I'd use it .... Friggen arm pit of the united states....


Take a trip down I-55.

Places like Memphis and Jackson, MS make St. Louis look like a cosmopolitan utopia compared to them.
 
2013-01-27 04:33:18 PM  

3StratMan: Once again, who are YOU to decide what I or anyone else owns? Exactly what gives YOU the right? I guess you should be able to tell me I can't have a GT500KR that will go 200MPH either? A Ford Focus will get me where I am going just as good, right?

Think about this, smart guy- If you own an AR15, and you leave it on your closet or gun safe, it will sit there, day after day, week after week, year after year , and not do a goddamned thing, ever, until you pick it up and make a decision what to do with it. Cloud the issue all you want, but the bottom line is it's the person holding the gun, either a criminal or mentally ill person, that needs to be addressed, not the inanimate object that can do nothing on it's own.


Once again, I'm not the one making that choice for you...never would be. I'm not a politician/legislator. You want a fast car? Cool...go for it...waste every dollar you can on it. Doesn't mean it's street-legal. Last time I checked, you couldn't drive a formula-1 racer on the freeway. Oh yeah...forgot about that whole "regulation" thing that applies to vehicles, huh? Don't feel bad...you almost made a point there.

Regardless, I never stated that limitations on types of weapons would be a stand-alone cure. I think NOBODY here is making that case. Obviously mental health issues should be addressed as well. Amusing though that the people working to fight against additional funding for mental health care in this nation also seem to be the very same fighting AGAINST additional gun regulations...but maybe that tidbit is just coincidental.

Keep calm and carry your artificial phallus.
 
2013-01-27 04:33:48 PM  
Hey...can anybody illuminate me as to the truth here...? I've heard 2 different versions of the Newtown massacre... one says he used an AR-15 assault rifle, and another says the rifle was left in the trunk and he used handguns to do the killing.
Personally, I think it was all done with the handguns, since a long gun is pretty crappy in close quarters... on the other hand, it might have been useable since there was no effective resistance.
Oh, and BTW, no guns were involved in the worst school massacre in US history.
 
2013-01-27 04:37:25 PM  
MagicMissile....
Here ya go:
Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Amendment VII

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
 
2013-01-27 04:37:28 PM  

DogBoyTheCat: Hey...can anybody illuminate me as to the truth here...? I've heard 2 different versions of the Newtown massacre... one says he used an AR-15 assault rifle, and another says the rifle was left in the trunk and he used handguns to do the killing.
Personally, I think it was all done with the handguns, since a long gun is pretty crappy in close quarters... on the other hand, it might have been useable since there was no effective resistance.
Oh, and BTW, no guns were involved in the worst school massacre in US history.


I remember hearing a shotgun was taken out of the trunk and the AR was recovered inside the school and the coroner said that many of the wounds were from the AR.  Only recently has there been a change in this.
 
2013-01-27 04:39:23 PM  

bronyaur1: The NRA dummies keep pounding the pathetic argument that because Chicago has bad gun violence problems and its leaders have pursued gun restrictions, therefore the pursuit of gun restrictions causes gun violence.

If you are so dumb and incapable of logical thought that you sign onto - let alone repeat talking points supporting - this argument, then you might just be (a) too stupid to breed, (b) a Fox viewer, and (c) a redneck.


No, dummy, they're saying the strict gun laws in Chicago aren't stopping the Libtards from shooting each other there. That being the case, you would think the GOP would want stricter gun laws in the Libtard bastions, just to cut down on the Libtard vote.
 
2013-01-27 04:39:27 PM  

DogBoyTheCat: Hey...can anybody illuminate me as to the truth here...? I've heard 2 different versions of the Newtown massacre... one says he used an AR-15 assault rifle, and another says the rifle was left in the trunk and he used handguns to do the killing.
Personally, I think it was all done with the handguns, since a long gun is pretty crappy in close quarters... on the other hand, it might have been useable since there was no effective resistance.
Oh, and BTW, no guns were involved in the worst school massacre in US history.


While there were some initial reports that the AR-15 was left in the car, they were false. All the victims at the school were shot with a Bushmaster XM-15, legally purchased and owned by his mother. She was shot with a .22 before he stole the other weapons (2 handguns, a Glock and Sig, a shotgun and the Bushmaster).

Having said that, he was in the school for 10 minutes. He fired less than 100 rounds and changed magazines multiple times. Most of the discarded magazines were found to contain a large number of remaining rounds. The pattern of evidence indicates that all of the "rapid fire, mass killing" properties of an AR-15 that the folks trying to ban them like constantly yammering on about had absolutely no effect on his lethality. An average rate of fire of 10 rounds a minute is hardly that of a machine gun. Combined with the large number of magazine changes, it is obvious that the act could have been carried out with any number of other types of firearms.
 
2013-01-27 04:40:39 PM  

DogBoyTheCat: Hey...can anybody illuminate me as to the truth here...? I've heard 2 different versions of the Newtown massacre... one says he used an AR-15 assault rifle, and another says the rifle was left in the trunk and he used handguns to do the killing.
Personally, I think it was all done with the handguns, since a long gun is pretty crappy in close quarters... on the other hand, it might have been useable since there was no effective resistance.
Oh, and BTW, no guns were involved in the worst school massacre in US history.


He used one and it jammed almost immediately. He abandoned it and switched to handguns with extra magazines he carried with him.
 
2013-01-27 04:41:30 PM  

3StratMan: Gun grab, power grab, and money grab- all rolled into one. Liberals at their finest.


The Party of Zero Responsibility: Conservatives at their finest.
 
2013-01-27 04:42:21 PM  

DogBoyTheCat: MagicMissile....


pointless post is pointless

 
2013-01-27 04:43:14 PM  
SubBass49: Amusing though that the people working to fight against additional funding for mental health care in this nation also seem to be the very same fighting AGAINST additional gun regulations...but maybe that tidbit is just coincidental.

.

Really, and who would that be? Oh wait, by saying "mental health care", you are actually meaning Obamacare. In which case you are right and wrong at the same time. Wrong because no one anywhere would argue against better care for the mentally ill, and right because most people are totally against the inadequate, overpriced POS abomination that is Obamacare.
 
2013-01-27 04:45:01 PM  

Tumunga: No, dummy, they're saying the strict gun laws in Chicago aren't stopping the Libtards from shooting each other there.


Cuz teenage gang members are so politically active.
 
2013-01-27 04:47:36 PM  

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: 3StratMan: Gun grab, power grab, and money grab- all rolled into one. Liberals at their finest.

The Party of Zero Responsibility: Conservatives at their finest.


You're right. I don't know how they got away with Fast And Furious and Benghazi. Those damned conservatives. The nerve.
 
2013-01-27 04:47:55 PM  

3StratMan: right because most people are totally against the inadequate, overpriced POS abomination that is Obamacare


How'd that last election go again, Karl?
 
2013-01-27 04:49:26 PM  

3StratMan: You're right. I don't know how they got away with Fast And Furious and Benghazi. Those damned conservatives. The nerve.


Oh, my apologies, I thought I was having a discussion with an adult. Never mind.
 
2013-01-27 04:50:34 PM  

Steve McQueen's Motorcycle: Greylight: do you have a problem with special licensing requirements?

Yes, I have a problem with licensing


Can you come to a mutal agreed point that there are some weapons that should be resticted? I bet you can, then you can add value to the discussion by pointing out where to draw that line. Put your ass in the game instead of just critisizing choice of language. It's pendantic and appears to be designed to obfuscate the issue intentionally.

Some firearms require special licences to purchase and posses. That is not the same thing as a ban, or takeing awaty all guns from folks. If laws and regulations are proposed that require a special permit for some weapons designated as "assault weapons" would you contribute to the discussion your ideas on how that should be framed or are you going to simply belittle and critisize?
 
2013-01-27 04:50:49 PM  
This whole argument has nothing to do with safety and everything to do with exerting control. The government desires control, the libtards desire to lash out at a group of people that the media has told them are bad and so therefore have been molded to support the government in the process of a massive power grab.

We have been painted red or blue with one color fighting the other. There is no middle ground, there are no other opinions other than what the media tells you.

This is how a libtard thinks.

( the problem is that we aren't red or blue, we aren't only conservatives or liberals, and your rights are my rights. If I lose you lose. Stop watching and believing the media, think for yourself question authority, read a book, use your brain for once, be independent /thread )
 
2013-01-27 04:51:34 PM  
You know... I've been doing a little research on guns in the 1770s
It was the Americans who had the most rifled-barrel long arms at the time of the revolution.... ostensibly for hunting, they took a little longer to load but were much more accurate at a longer range. That, combined with the British tactic of lining up in the open in bright red jackets certainly helped win things for our side.
Combine this with the 1773 tax act, which allowed British troops to search any home for weapons, and confiscate them, I can see where our founding fathers wanted the ability to shoot back if things got ugly.
And, you know what? I'm cool with that.
 
2013-01-27 04:51:58 PM  

MagicMissile: This whole argument has nothing to do with safety and everything to do with exerting control. The government desires control, the libtards desire to lash out at a group of people that the media has told them are bad and so therefore have been molded to support the government in the process of a massive power grab.

We have been painted red or blue with one color fighting the other. There is no middle ground, there are no other opinions other than what the media tells you.

This is how a libtard thinks.


It must be fun to have a persecution complex like that.
 
2013-01-27 04:52:42 PM  

3StratMan: Wrong because no one anywhere would argue against better care for the mentally ill


Until it's time for a state to cut its budget that is.
 
2013-01-27 04:52:59 PM  

Steve McQueen's Motorcycle: He used one and it jammed almost immediately. He abandoned it and switched to handguns with extra magazines he carried with him.


Most of the victims at Newton were shot with the Bushmaster. I believe the only use of the handguns was the self-inflicted GSW on the shooter when he offed himself.

The Aurora theater shooter's S&W M&P jammed during his initial shots into the ceiling. He dropped the weapon and switched to the Glock and Remington shotgun he carried. IIRC, most of the actual GSWs and injured victims were hit with the shotgun pellets. Also, he used one of those notoriously unreliable 100 round drum magazines in the S&W.

Also, the Clackamas mall shooter (just a few days before Newton) used a Bushmaster that also jammed on him. While it has been under-reported (likely because Newton occurred just as the story was coming out), a CCW permit holder engaged the guy but did not fire. This is why he ran to the service corridors of the mall and shot himself just as Clackamas Sheriff's Deputies were about to bust down the door on him.

Honestly, we would be best off if we *mandated* every mass shooter use the 100 round drum. Those things are jam-o-matics. The Army tried to get them to work for years with little success and the Marines took another swing at them for the M27 ITR rifle program with zero success.
 
2013-01-27 04:53:08 PM  

Mrtraveler01: MagicMissile: This whole argument has nothing to do with safety and everything to do with exerting control. The government desires control, the libtards desire to lash out at a group of people that the media has told them are bad and so therefore have been molded to support the government in the process of a massive power grab.

We have been painted red or blue with one color fighting the other. There is no middle ground, there are no other opinions other than what the media tells you.

This is how a libtard thinks.

It must be fun to have a persecution complex like that.


must be fun being a whiny biatch
 
2013-01-27 04:54:42 PM  

MagicMissile: Mrtraveler01: MagicMissile: This whole argument has nothing to do with safety and everything to do with exerting control. The government desires control, the libtards desire to lash out at a group of people that the media has told them are bad and so therefore have been molded to support the government in the process of a massive power grab.

We have been painted red or blue with one color fighting the other. There is no middle ground, there are no other opinions other than what the media tells you.

This is how a libtard thinks.

It must be fun to have a persecution complex like that.

must be fun being a whiny biatch


Oh snap. I just got told.

Sorry, I wont' ruin your strawman building then.
 
2013-01-27 04:56:38 PM  

Mrtraveler01: MagicMissile: Mrtraveler01: MagicMissile: This whole argument has nothing to do with safety and everything to do with exerting control. The government desires control, the libtards desire to lash out at a group of people that the media has told them are bad and so therefore have been molded to support the government in the process of a massive power grab.

We have been painted red or blue with one color fighting the other. There is no middle ground, there are no other opinions other than what the media tells you.

This is how a libtard thinks.

It must be fun to have a persecution complex like that.

must be fun being a whiny biatch

Oh snap. I just got told.

Sorry, I wont' ruin your strawman building then.


I think you just like to insult people and be passive aggressive and that you have nothing interesting to add to any conversation period.
 
2013-01-27 04:57:30 PM  

MagicMissile: Mrtraveler01: MagicMissile: Mrtraveler01: MagicMissile: This whole argument has nothing to do with safety and everything to do with exerting control. The government desires control, the libtards desire to lash out at a group of people that the media has told them are bad and so therefore have been molded to support the government in the process of a massive power grab.

We have been painted red or blue with one color fighting the other. There is no middle ground, there are no other opinions other than what the media tells you.

This is how a libtard thinks.

It must be fun to have a persecution complex like that.

must be fun being a whiny biatch

Oh snap. I just got told.

Sorry, I wont' ruin your strawman building then.

I think you just like to insult people and be passive aggressive and that you have nothing interesting to add to any conversation period.


Well when people get paranoid and think the whole world is out to get them, how can I resist?
 
2013-01-27 04:58:22 PM  

Mrtraveler01: MagicMissile: Mrtraveler01: MagicMissile: Mrtraveler01: MagicMissile: This whole argument has nothing to do with safety and everything to do with exerting control. The government desires control, the libtards desire to lash out at a group of people that the media has told them are bad and so therefore have been molded to support the government in the process of a massive power grab.

We have been painted red or blue with one color fighting the other. There is no middle ground, there are no other opinions other than what the media tells you.

This is how a libtard thinks.

It must be fun to have a persecution complex like that.

must be fun being a whiny biatch

Oh snap. I just got told.

Sorry, I wont' ruin your strawman building then.

I think you just like to insult people and be passive aggressive and that you have nothing interesting to add to any conversation period.

Well when people get paranoid and think the whole world is out to get them, how can I resist?


way to prove my point
 
2013-01-27 04:58:26 PM  

MagicMissile: Mrtraveler01: MagicMissile: Mrtraveler01: MagicMissile: This whole argument has nothing to do with safety and everything to do with exerting control. The government desires control, the libtards desire to lash out at a group of people that the media has told them are bad and so therefore have been molded to support the government in the process of a massive power grab.

We have been painted red or blue with one color fighting the other. There is no middle ground, there are no other opinions other than what the media tells you.

This is how a libtard thinks.

It must be fun to have a persecution complex like that.

must be fun being a whiny biatch

Oh snap. I just got told.

Sorry, I wont' ruin your strawman building then.

I think you just like to insult people and be passive aggressive and that you have nothing interesting to add to any conversation period.


I also forgot the obligatory "Welcome to Fark.jpg

/too lazy to find it though
 
2013-01-27 04:59:27 PM  

dr-shotgun: Also, the Clackamas mall shooter ...While it has been under-reported...a CCW permit holder engaged the guy but did not fire...This is why he ran to the service corridors of the mall and shot himself


It's true cuz I saw it in the NRA newsletters and the fw:fw:fw:fw:fw:fw:fw: emails from my uncle.

Also the shooter asked a girl if she believed in God and shot her cuz she said yes.
 
2013-01-27 05:00:51 PM  

MagicMissile: Mrtraveler01: MagicMissile: Mrtraveler01: MagicMissile: Mrtraveler01: MagicMissile: This whole argument has nothing to do with safety and everything to do with exerting control. The government desires control, the libtards desire to lash out at a group of people that the media has told them are bad and so therefore have been molded to support the government in the process of a massive power grab.

We have been painted red or blue with one color fighting the other. There is no middle ground, there are no other opinions other than what the media tells you.

This is how a libtard thinks.

It must be fun to have a persecution complex like that.

must be fun being a whiny biatch

Oh snap. I just got told.

Sorry, I wont' ruin your strawman building then.

I think you just like to insult people and be passive aggressive and that you have nothing interesting to add to any conversation period.

Well when people get paranoid and think the whole world is out to get them, how can I resist?

way to prove my point


It's hard for me to take people seriously when they think that liberals want to ban guns entirely and want police to storm into people's homes and take their guns away.

I understand that people want to keep them for self-defense and all that, but I can't take people seriously when they make outlandish claims on how liberals in the liberal media are conspiring to take people guns away.

Try sounding less paranoid and I can start taking you seriously.
 
2013-01-27 05:03:19 PM  

Mrtraveler01: earthworm2.0: Mrtraveler01: earthworm2.0: Mrtraveler01: EvilByte: Chicago is the NRA's straw man. Chicago's murder rate is about 16th in the nation for the roughly 70 cities with more than 250,000 people. Miami, Cleveland, Memphis, Atlanta, and New Orleans all have higher homicide rates. But since Chicago has 2,000,000 more people than those gun loving cities the raw number of homicides is higher.

And they can't use NYC because crime there is at a record low.

I live in St. Louis so I always laugh when I hear about crime problems plaguing a city that's 3 times as big in area.

St. Louis.... Where even the mayor gets mugged.

I have a love/hate relationship with this city.

I'm only here because I have nowhere else to go. I hate this place, and if I had a nuke, I'd use it .... Friggen arm pit of the united states....

Take a trip down I-55.

Places like Memphis and Jackson, MS make St. Louis look like a cosmopolitan utopia compared to them.


I vacation in blairsville GA, drove through those towns you speak of. They still smelled better than East StL, and the people seemed nicer. I think its something in our resivior(sp) water system ... You get 20 miles outside of town and the mood changes... But in town.... I only stay to be with family. You stay over in the Chuck, which has its own severe heroin problem, but I'm in the city, berkley/bel ridge area now.... And I swear its all bad....
 
2013-01-27 05:03:47 PM  
OK.... finally... (for a while)
In regards to Chicago, Detroit & DC's gun ban not working...
and the cultural makeup of the city...
Is anybody familiar with James Watson's (of Crick & Watson... the dudes who found the structure of DNA) work on racial intelligence?
Admittedly, it's based on wide percentages, rather than individual cases, but...

(You know, it really sucks to bring it up... I know I'll be labeled a racist, but I'm only quoting a reputed source)

(BTW.... for those who want to scream "racist" at me, I'm technically less white than the president)
 
2013-01-27 05:04:18 PM  

MagicMissile: Mrtraveler01: MagicMissile: Mrtraveler01: MagicMissile: This whole argument has nothing to do with safety and everything to do with exerting control. The government desires control, the libtards desire to lash out at a group of people that the media has told them are bad and so therefore have been molded to support the government in the process of a massive power grab.

We have been painted red or blue with one color fighting the other. There is no middle ground, there are no other opinions other than what the media tells you.

This is how a libtard thinks.


It must be fun to have a persecution complex like that.

must be fun being a whiny biatch

Oh snap. I just got told.

Sorry, I wont' ruin your strawman building then.

I think you just like to insult people and be passive aggressive and that you have nothing interesting to add to any conversation period.


Says the guy who made that ridiculous strawman.

Seriously, if you want to be taken seriously, stop saying outlandish things.
 
2013-01-27 05:04:33 PM  
On 'gun violence' and 'gun culture'. I would be glad if the political speech writers would prefer 'irrational violence' and 'violent culture'. That would be better, but I imagine they are told to go with 'gun' as the descriptor.

I expect, if the studies that have been ordered are at all accurate, they will find at least two distinct violent mentalities that need to be addressed irrespective of guns.

The first is the inexplicably common outcome of unbalanced desperate thoughts. The mindset that after he can't get his frustrations or point across any other way, once desperation has removed all limitations, the gun shots or car rampage or truck bomb aimed at strangers ending in his death or permanent incarceration at least makes a statement that can't be ignored.

Have incidences of these really increased or been reduced by any laws or policies?

The second is, for lack of a better term, the thug mentality. The unmetered call for retaliation for any, and even seemingly small, offenses. She treated her bad in school, so she attacks her mercilessly.

Again, no laws or policies seem to be effective in reducing this kind of violence.

It is not surprising the cities and poor see more of these issues. I think the distinction between 'irrational violence' and 'violent culture' is an important one, and the word gun just misdirects the issue. And video games or bullies aren't the cause either, it doesn't matter that those would make the issue so easy to fix.
 
2013-01-27 05:04:43 PM  

Greylight: Steve McQueen's Motorcycle: Greylight: do you have a problem with special licensing requirements?

Yes, I have a problem with licensing

Can you come to a mutal agreed point that there are some weapons that should be resticted? I bet you can, then you can add value to the discussion by pointing out where to draw that line. Put your ass in the game instead of just critisizing choice of language. It's pendantic and appears to be designed to obfuscate the issue intentionally.

Some firearms require special licences to purchase and posses. That is not the same thing as a ban, or takeing awaty all guns from folks. If laws and regulations are proposed that require a special permit for some weapons designated as "assault weapons" would you contribute to the discussion your ideas on how that should be framed or are you going to simply belittle and critisize?


I am of the belief that the weapons that should be restricted, fully automatic weapons, are already heavily restricted. Have been for decades.

I do not believe that some guns should be banned just because they look scary to you. It will solve NOTHING.

I do not believe there should be a government controlled gun registry and licensing system.

Clear enough for you?

What weapons do you think should be restricted? And don't use the bullshiat term "assault weapon" It means nothing. Language is EXTREMELY important in this discussion. The founding fathers went to great lengths to specifically spell out citizen rights.
 
2013-01-27 05:05:01 PM  

earthworm2.0: berkley/bel ridge area now.... And I swear its all bad....


I work by UMSL...I know all about it.
 
2013-01-27 05:05:33 PM  

MagicMissile: Mrtraveler01: MagicMissile: Mrtraveler01: MagicMissile: This whole argument has nothing to do with safety and everything to do with exerting control. The government desires control, the libtards desire to lash out at a group of people that the media has told them are bad and so therefore have been molded to support the government in the process of a massive power grab.

We have been painted red or blue with one color fighting the other. There is no middle ground, there are no other opinions other than what the media tells you.

This is how a libtard thinks.

It must be fun to have a persecution complex like that.

must be fun being a whiny biatch

Oh snap. I just got told.

Sorry, I wont' ruin your strawman building then.

I think you just like to insult people and be passive aggressive and that you have nothing interesting to add to any conversation period.


As opposed to the logical and totally insult free quotes from MagicMissile:

People who want to take away others rights and firearms, are pathetic weaklings.

These pathetic weaklings will have to dodge bullets to disarm we Americans who have a sack and are willing to stand up for our Bill of Rights.

So I guess you can go buy a lobster and masturbate vigorously with it while you fantasize about Americans being brutalized by their own government. Idiot.

This is how a libtard thinks.

must be fun being a whiny biatch


/conservative logic...always amusing.
 
2013-01-27 05:05:49 PM  

dr-shotgun: Greylight: I care about your mental health too!
We're not out to grab you guns, we're trying to have a discussion about how to balance society safety with gun ownership. You can be a valuable part of the discussion, you would be amazed how well people will respond when you don't resort with partisan derp.

Some folks do want to take away all guns, it's true, get over it. It's not the will of all gun control advocates.

I have yet to hear a rational conversation from the other side of this argument.

Rational people would look at the numbers and conclude that banning assault weapons is both the most politically divisive and least effective proposition put on the table to curb gun violence.

Assault rifles are used in less than 2% of all homicides, roughly 120 people a year (out of 8600 firearm homicides). The entirety of this debate is centered around a number of crimes that, in comparison to the rest of the homicide data, is essentially statistical noise. To say nothing of the fact that the vast majority of those murders would still take place had an assault weapon not been used by the perpetrator.

I mean really - you think that some criminal is going to say "You know, I really wanna shoot that guy, but I can't use the particular kinda gun I want... so I'm just gonna go home and play xBox."?

As far as mass shootings, there is absolutely no correlation between the use of an assault rifle and the lethality of the event. The most horrific mass shooting in this nation's history was committed with two pistols (one of them a .22) and 10 round magazines (Virginia Tech). Only 1 out of the 10 most lethal mass shootings in the country involved the use of an assault rifle (Newton) and all the evidence suggests that the kind of weapon used made not one iota of difference in how many kids he shot. The deal is really simple - shooting unarmed, cowering people isn't that difficult a task that requires military hardware.

Having said all that, I would *love* to have a rational co ...


If you start off defining rational as agreemet with your position you are never going to have a "rational" discussion with someone with a differnet opinion.

If you look hard enought, and with an open mind, you will see rational discussion from not one, not two, but many different perspectives, it is just not easy to wade through all the derp to see it.

Forget the word "ban" and start focussing on regulations to track and resrict access to certain classes of firearms.

It is devisive becaue their is such a polorized partisan devide in the US. It is up to everyone to step up and outside of the partisan derp. Being difficult and politically devisive does not mean that it shouldn't be done. Useaully the isses that most need addressing and strong leadership are the ones that are politically divisive at some level.

We're doing just fine in Canada with our restrictions, they are not bans, but they work, and I can still own any gun I want, I just need to jump through a few more hoops.
 
2013-01-27 05:07:23 PM  

Greylight: Can you come to a mutal agreed point that there are some weapons that should be resticted? I bet you can, then you can add value to the discussion by pointing out where to draw that line. Put your ass in the game instead of just critisizing choice of language. It's pendantic and appears to be designed to obfuscate the issue intentionally.

Some firearms require special licences to purchase and posses. That is not the same thing as a ban, or takeing awaty all guns from folks. If laws and regulations are proposed that require a special permit for some weapons designated as "assault weapons" would you contribute to the discussion your ideas on how that should be framed or are you going to simply belittle and critisize?


I've always advocated that we implement firearms licensing at the federal level, with the states issuing the licenses against a set of federal guidelines (the same way we do driver's licenses). 49 states already have the infrastructure and basic template of the license requirements to do this by way of Concealed Weapons Permits.

A license such as this would solve a LOT of problems:

1- It would eliminate straw purchases. It is one thing to send your baby mamma with a clean record into the store to buy a guy. It is quite another to send her to the sheriff's office to pay a fee, be fingerprinted, go through a local records check, a federal background check, have her picture taken, spend a weekend in a basic firearms class and wait 6 weeks.

2- It gives law enforcement officers a definitive tool to know who can/cannot possess a firearm. Have a firearm on you or in your home and you don't have a license? Boom - instant felony. A fantastic tool to quickly crack down on gang violence. Put in some safety measures so good citizens don't get caught up (like allow people with a pristine record and no history with the police to retroactively get the license and pay a stiff fine).

3- Licensing serves to highlight the nexus between mental health and firearm access. During investigations with folks having a mental health crisis, cops can cross check their address against firearm licenses and find out if they live in a home with guns (even if they aren't the licensee). This would allow them to talk with the firearm license holder and insure the weapons are secured, or even allow them to voluntarily be taken into escrow until the mental health issues are cleared up.

4- It removes the background check and "Should I sell a gun to this guy?" questions out of the hands of gun stores. All they would do is run the license and make sure it is valid and there are no holds on it. Mandate the license be required for all firearm and ammo purchases and possession.

Implement the law by piggybacking on CCW permits, of which there are already 10 Million (so more than 10% of gun owners are already licensed).

I would have absolutely no problem with this, and it would cut down the flow of guns into the hands of felons pretty sharply. It would also provide a fantastic tool for cops to crack down on felons who they find in possession of firearms and let us link mental health issues with firearm ownership. It would also cut down on firearm sales pretty dramatically by turning the purchase of a gun from basically an impulse buy into a highly considered, somewhat time consuming event that will turn away the kind of folks who really shouldn't be owning a gun.
 
2013-01-27 05:07:32 PM  
Oh, and where did I simply belittle and criticize?
 
2013-01-27 05:08:59 PM  

SubBass49: MagicMissile: Mrtraveler01: MagicMissile: Mrtraveler01: MagicMissile: This whole argument has nothing to do with safety and everything to do with exerting control. The government desires control, the libtards desire to lash out at a group of people that the media has told them are bad and so therefore have been molded to support the government in the process of a massive power grab.

We have been painted red or blue with one color fighting the other. There is no middle ground, there are no other opinions other than what the media tells you.

This is how a libtard thinks.

It must be fun to have a persecution complex like that.

must be fun being a whiny biatch

Oh snap. I just got told.

Sorry, I wont' ruin your strawman building then.

I think you just like to insult people and be passive aggressive and that you have nothing interesting to add to any conversation period.

As opposed to the logical and totally insult free quotes from MagicMissile:

People who want to take away others rights and firearms, are pathetic weaklings.

These pathetic weaklings will have to dodge bullets to disarm we Americans who have a sack and are willing to stand up for our Bill of Rights.

So I guess you can go buy a lobster and masturbate vigorously with it while you fantasize about Americans being brutalized by their own government. Idiot.

This is how a libtard thinks.

must be fun being a whiny biatch


/conservative logic...always amusing.


Sounds like a terrible and poorly constructed Haiku.
 
2013-01-27 05:10:01 PM  

DogBoyTheCat: Hey...can anybody illuminate me as to the truth here...? I've heard 2 different versions of the Newtown massacre... one says he used an AR-15 assault rifle, and another says the rifle was left in the trunk and he used handguns to do the killing.
Personally, I think it was all done with the handguns, since a long gun is pretty crappy in close quarters... on the other hand, it might have been useable since there was no effective resistance.
Oh, and BTW, no guns were involved in the worst school massacre in US history.


He did use the ar15. They found an izhmash saiga 2 guage in the trunk, which looks a lot like the ar15 to the layman but it fires shot gun shells. The conspiracy theory is being circulated based on the blurry helicopter video of the search of the trunk, and initial news reports, when the press was pumping out information as fast as they could but didnt actually have anything accurate.
 
2013-01-27 05:13:45 PM  
OMG...
this whole thread has deteriorated into jingoism
would somebody please look up what has worked and what has failed over the years and start to apply a little logic?
 
2013-01-27 05:13:52 PM  

dr-shotgun: He fired less than 100 rounds and changed magazines multiple times. Most of the discarded magazines were found to contain a large number of remaining rounds.


Cite.

Steve McQueen's Motorcycle: He used one and it jammed almost immediately. He abandoned it and switched to handguns with extra magazines he carried with him.


Completely wrong.

dr-shotgun: a CCW permit holder engaged the guy but did not fire. This is why he ran to the service corridors of the mall and shot himself


Obviously, impossible to verify. We don't even know he saw the CCW or his weapon.
 
2013-01-27 05:15:03 PM  

Mrtraveler01: Sounds like a terrible and poorly constructed Haiku.


A gun-nut haiku...

Tiny cock
balls the size of grapes
need my gun


THANK YOU!!!! THANK YOU!!! Will post more soon...
 
2013-01-27 05:17:10 PM  
Why don't they just make killing people illegal?

Then you don't have to worry about knives or guns... or pointed sticks... or bananas...
 
2013-01-27 05:17:14 PM  

dr-shotgun: A license such as this would solve a LOT of problems:


Amen.
But you'll never get it past the "first step to confiscation" crowd.
 
2013-01-27 05:17:37 PM  
vpb: The only real use for a gun in a city is as a weapon against people.
fair enough.
but, considering some of the people in large cities, I see that as a good reason to have one
 
2013-01-27 05:19:36 PM  

earthworm2.0: DogBoyTheCat: Hey...can anybody illuminate me as to the truth here...? I've heard 2 different versions of the Newtown massacre... one says he used an AR-15 assault rifle, and another says the rifle was left in the trunk and he used handguns to do the killing.
Personally, I think it was all done with the handguns, since a long gun is pretty crappy in close quarters... on the other hand, it might have been useable since there was no effective resistance.
Oh, and BTW, no guns were involved in the worst school massacre in US history.

He did use the ar15. They found an izhmash saiga 2 guage in the trunk, which looks a lot like the ar15 to the layman but it fires shot gun shells. The conspiracy theory is being circulated based on the blurry helicopter video of the search of the trunk, and initial news reports, when the press was pumping out information as fast as they could but didnt actually have anything accurate.


I'll just leave this right here...Link
 
2013-01-27 05:19:39 PM  
lostcat:

That certainly explains why soldiers are issued gas operated handguns instead of military versions of AR-15s.


...And you just demonstrated how little you know on the subject. Please do yourself a favor and learn about what you are arguing against. Here, I give you a bit of education:

Soldiers today ARE issued "gas operated" handguns in addition to their M-4. It is called the M9 or better yet as the Berreta 92. This handgun, like almost EVERY OTHER semi-automatic handgun operates on a principle called "direct-blowback" wherein the explosive gases generated by a round being fired not only drive the round out of the barrel, but also drive the slide to the rear, ejecting the spent cartridge and reloading a new one. The M-4/AR-15 operates on a similar principle but goes about it slightly differently. In addition to the direct power of the round pushing the bolt to the rear, there is a gas tube attached towards the front of the barrel which redirects a portion of the remaining gasses down the tube where it slams into the bolt. This action helps push the bolt completely to the rear, ejecting the spent cartridge and loading a new one. In fact, "gas-operated" is in the nomenclature for the M-4:

The M16/M4 Carbine rifle is a 5.56mm, magazine-fed, gas-operated, air-cooled, shoulder-fired weapon that can be fired either in automatic three-round bursts or semiautomatic single shots as determined by the position of the selector lever.
 
2013-01-27 05:20:40 PM  
More haikus for yous...

Fearful in my home
scary brown people - wet pants
better buy a gun

Great equalizer
tiny muscles hold me back
so I own a gun

Terrified of "them"
Live as a fearful rabbit
In my burrow, guns.
 
2013-01-27 05:21:06 PM  
Doh! There was a nested "b" somewhere at the beginning of that post. Didn't mean for all bold.
 
2013-01-27 05:22:58 PM  

Steve McQueen's Motorcycle: Greylight: Steve McQueen's Motorcycle: Greylight: do you have a problem with special licensing requirements?

Yes, I have a problem with licensing

Can you come to a mutal agreed point that there are some weapons that should be resticted? I bet you can, then you can add value to the discussion by pointing out where to draw that line. Put your ass in the game instead of just critisizing choice of language. It's pendantic and appears to be designed to obfuscate the issue intentionally.

Some firearms require special licences to purchase and posses. That is not the same thing as a ban, or takeing awaty all guns from folks. If laws and regulations are proposed that require a special permit for some weapons designated as "assault weapons" would you contribute to the discussion your ideas on how that should be framed or are you going to simply belittle and critisize?

I am of the belief that the weapons that should be restricted, fully automatic weapons, are already heavily restricted. Have been for decades.

I do not believe that some guns should be banned just because they look scary to you. It will solve NOTHING.

I do not believe there should be a government controlled gun registry and licensing system.

Clear enough for you?

What weapons do you think should be restricted? And don't use the bullshiat term "assault weapon" It means nothing. Language is EXTREMELY important in this discussion. The founding fathers went to great lengths to specifically spell out citizen rights.


Do us both a favour and don't patronize me with the tired old rehtoric that everyone with a different opinion then yourself is uneducated about arms.

There are many different points of view. It may not occur to you that some people are advocates of gun rights and also advocates for increased gun control.

Since you make the claim to expertise, why don't you suggest if there is any specific weapons or accesories that should have any additional regulations/restrictions or laws passed to govern their use and possesion. Is their anything you would designate an "assault weapon", or what term would you prefer?

Do you think gun laws and regulations are just fine as they are?
 
2013-01-27 05:23:07 PM  

DogBoyTheCat: OMG...
this whole thread has deteriorated into jingoism
would somebody please look up what has worked and what has failed over the years and start to apply a little logic?


"Logic is an enemy and truth is a menace."

Rod Serling; "The Obsolete Man"
 
2013-01-27 05:23:46 PM  

Sniper061: Doh! There was a nested "b" somewhere at the beginning of that post. Didn't mean for all bold.


MY EYES!!! MY EYESSSS!!!!

No worries, I'm still getting used to this new posting system.
 
2013-01-27 05:23:56 PM  
more haikus...

Government scares me
use their roads and schools and loans
But still think they're bad

Black helicopters
buzz my home while I'm sleeping
paranoid schizo
 
2013-01-27 05:27:29 PM  

3StratMan: I'll just leave this right here...Link


Check the disclaimer at the beginning of that video.

Or keep up the good work, either way...
 
2013-01-27 05:27:56 PM  

Sniper061: lostcat:

That certainly explains why soldiers are issued gas operated handguns instead of military versions of AR-15s.


...And you just demonstrated how little you know on the subject. Please do yourself a favor and learn about what you are arguing against. Here, I give you a bit of education:

Soldiers today ARE issued "gas operated" handguns in addition to their M-4. It is called the M9 or better yet as the Berreta 92. This handgun, like almost EVERY OTHER semi-automatic handgun operates on a principle called "direct-blowback" wherein the explosive gases generated by a round being fired not only drive the round out of the barrel, but also drive the slide to the rear, ejecting the spent cartridge and reloading a new one. The M-4/AR-15 operates on a similar principle but goes about it slightly differently. In addition to the direct power of the round pushing the bolt to the rear, there is a gas tube attached towards the front of the barrel which redirects a portion of the remaining gasses down the tube where it slams into the bolt. This action helps push the bolt completely to the rear, ejecting the spent cartridge and loading a new one. In fact, "gas-operated" is in the nomenclature for the M-4:

The M16/M4 Carbine rifle is a 5.56mm, magazine-fed, gas-operated, air-cooled, shoulder-fired weapon that can be fired either in automatic three-round bursts or semiautomatic single shots as determined by the position of the selector lever.


Blah blah bold...

Yes, I always see soldiers with their handguns drawn.

When I think of a soldier going into battle, I imagine a guy with a pistol in his hand and a rifle slung across his back.

Are people really so stupid that they don't follow the logical argument that a rifle and a pistol are not the same?
 
2013-01-27 05:28:59 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Amen.
But you'll never get it past the "first step to confiscation" crowd.


That's easy - individual weapons are not registered.

A firearm license would only provide one the ability to purchase and possess firearms and ammunition. If the day ever comes when the government wants to round up all the guns, you are just as free to tell them that you lost them all in a canoe accident as you are today.

It isn't like the precedent isn't already set. Lots of states require a state permit to purchase a firearm. Carrying once concealed requires a state permit (in all but Arizona and Vermont).

If we could be talking about firearms licensing instead of bans, this would be a far more productive discussion. Instead, the left has almost entirely turned this into a "conversation" about assault rifles and high capacity magazines. Again - little/no impact on crime, but an issue that gets most gun owners riled up for a fight.
 
2013-01-27 05:30:05 PM  

dr-shotgun: I've always advocated that we implement firearms licensing at the federal level, with the states issuing the licenses against a set of federal guidelines (the same way we do driver's licenses). 49 states already have the infrastructure and basic template of the license requirements to do this by way of Concealed Weapons Permits.


Wow. You are less of a gun clinger than you let on with the rest of your posts.

I'd want to add to your licensing ideas some benefits to the gun owners. For example, additional rights for those whose guns are paired with locks or safes. (i.e. you can license a safe and then have a few less requirements than average joe) And national clarification of laws for possessing and transporting personal weapons legally. (if you have CCW and have tried to plan a multi-state trip you know what I'm talking about)
 
2013-01-27 05:30:13 PM  

dr-shotgun: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Amen.
But you'll never get it past the "first step to confiscation" crowd.

That's easy - individual weapons are not registered.

A firearm license would only provide one the ability to purchase and possess firearms and ammunition. If the day ever comes when the government wants to round up all the guns, you are just as free to tell them that you lost them all in a canoe accident as you are today.

It isn't like the precedent isn't already set. Lots of states require a state permit to purchase a firearm. Carrying once concealed requires a state permit (in all but Arizona and Vermont).

If we could be talking about firearms licensing instead of bans, this would be a far more productive discussion. Instead, the left has almost entirely turned this into a "conversation" about assault rifles and high capacity magazines. Again - little/no impact on crime, but an issue that gets most gun owners riled up for a fight.


I like the license idea myself but I've had it shot down many times on here.
 
2013-01-27 05:33:43 PM  
I've seen that "black helicopter" thing a lot in today's posts...
Just so y'all know, there are various special divisions of many nations' "defense & intelligence forces" dedicated to the suppression of "forbidden science"
Look up "carbon-monoxide and cryogenics"
I was personally involved in suppressing such research and wrecking the careers of a few medical students
 
2013-01-27 05:34:16 PM  

Greylight: Steve McQueen's Motorcycle: Greylight: Steve McQueen's Motorcycle: Greylight: do you have a problem with special licensing requirements?

Yes, I have a problem with licensing

Can you come to a mutal agreed point that there are some weapons that should be resticted? I bet you can, then you can add value to the discussion by pointing out where to draw that line. Put your ass in the game instead of just critisizing choice of language. It's pendantic and appears to be designed to obfuscate the issue intentionally.

Some firearms require special licences to purchase and posses. That is not the same thing as a ban, or takeing awaty all guns from folks. If laws and regulations are proposed that require a special permit for some weapons designated as "assault weapons" would you contribute to the discussion your ideas on how that should be framed or are you going to simply belittle and critisize?

I am of the belief that the weapons that should be restricted, fully automatic weapons, are already heavily restricted. Have been for decades.

I do not believe that some guns should be banned just because they look scary to you. It will solve NOTHING.

I do not believe there should be a government controlled gun registry and licensing system.

Clear enough for you?

What weapons do you think should be restricted? And don't use the bullshiat term "assault weapon" It means nothing. Language is EXTREMELY important in this discussion. The founding fathers went to great lengths to specifically spell out citizen rights.

Do us both a favour and don't patronize me with the tired old rehtoric that everyone with a different opinion then yourself is uneducated about arms.

There are many different points of view. It may not occur to you that some people are advocates of gun rights and also advocates for increased gun control.

Since you make the claim to expertise, why don't you suggest if there is any specific weapons or accesories that should have any additional regulations/r ...


WTF is wrong with you? I am not patronizing you in any way. If anything it is the other way around. You said:

Put your ass in the game instead of just critisizing choice of language.

The language is critical here. It is how laws are used in this country and any other modern one.

I spelled out exactly what I think should and should not be banned. I DON'T think any other arms should be restricted to any law abiding citizen in this country. Period.

You are the one advocating restricting weapons and my question is simply which ones you think should be restricted and not to use a phrase that has absolutely no defining characteristics. It is simply a phrase used to evoke an emotional response. That's it. It did not exist until persons like yourself decided to come up with a phrase to use while pushing their agenda.
 
2013-01-27 05:36:26 PM  

DogBoyTheCat: Is anybody familiar with James Watson's (of Crick & Watson... the dudes who found the structure of DNA) work on racial intelligence?


Yes, and also familiar with how his non-science based racism is very popular among racists.
 
2013-01-27 05:36:53 PM  

Sniper061: Soldiers today ARE issued "gas operated" handguns in addition to their M-4. It is called the M9 or better yet as the Berreta 92. This handgun, like almost EVERY OTHER semi-automatic handgun operates on a principle called "direct-blowback" wherein the explosive gases generated by a round being fired not only drive the round out of the barrel, but also drive the slide to the rear, ejecting the spent cartridge and reloading a new one.


Jesus christ. For someone with the word "Sniper" in their bloody screen name, you could at least know WTF you are talking about.

"Gas operated" implies that gas is used directly in the operation of the firearm, in a way beyond the obvious effect of it's ignition causing recoil.

The Beretta (and pretty much every other modern semi-automatic handgun) is a recoil operated firearm. If you wanna get technical, they are almost all breach locked recoil operated guns that trace the lineage of their recoil operation delay mechanism to the original Colt 1911 design by John Browning.

The only actual gas operated pistol I can think of is the HK P7 series, where a piston operates in a gas cylinder that is ported to just in front of the breach. The gas charges the cylinder and keeps the piston from moving back and starting the cycle until the pressure drops to a certain point. The barrel itself is fixed. It is a quite unique system.
 
2013-01-27 05:37:15 PM  
RGA 184... Great Point!
even though I think you're on the other side of the argument than I... I welcome somebody who would bring some actual numbers to this arena... not just the usual right/left crap
 
2013-01-27 05:43:21 PM  

DogBoyTheCat: there are various special divisions of many nations' "defense & intelligence forces" dedicated to the suppression of "forbidden science"
Look up "carbon-monoxide and cryogenics"
I was personally involved in suppressing such research and wrecking the careers of a few medical students


4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-01-27 05:44:38 PM  

Steve McQueen's Motorcycle: The Larch: Steve was the guy who claimed that semiautomatic handguns used exactly the same gas operated mechanism as an AR-15. If he wants to bring technical terms into the debate to support his point, he shouldn't be a whiny biatch when someone points out that he's using the terms wrong.

No, I was comparing the fact that an AR-15 and any semi-auto handgun works in the exact same basic fashion. One trigger pull = 1 bullet fired.

The argument was initially that the term "assault weapon": is bullshiat.


Fair enough. I apologize for my criticism. But just for refence, the term you were looking for was "semi-automatic", not "gas operated.
 
2013-01-27 05:54:01 PM  

boomm: Wow. You are less of a gun clinger than you let on with the rest of your posts.


Frankly, I am just as farking sick of maniacs walking into gun free zones and killing innocent people.

I'm also sick of urban thugs turning our streets into outright warzones in some cities.

And I am *really* farking sick of irrisponsible, dumbfark gun owners who can't secure their weapons. Adam Lazana's mother, were she not dead, should be skinned alive. Really- this woman lives in a house with a boy who she knows is so mentally unstable, she was (apparently) talking about having him committed. What kind of a dumb fark allows him to have access to their extensive collection of high-grade hardware?

And I am especially sick of a government that has an extensive collection of gun laws on the books (many of them unintelligible when collected with all the others), that seems to not care one iota to enforce them. We have crooked gun dealers allowing weapons to flow into high-crime urban centers. We have people who judges have labeled as mentally ill able to buy firearms (Cho, the Virginia Tech shooter). And now we are being lectured by a man who's administration did, in fact, encourage American guns to be walked across the boarder to arm drug cartels.

I totally get where the anti-gun sentiment comes from. While it isn't really logical when faced with all the facts, it is the first place a mind will run to when dealing with the question of gun violence in this country.

I'm sitting here typing this with a freshly fired and cleaned SCAR 17S sitting here, so I'm obviously going to be on the pro-gun side of the debate. Having said that, I am proud to call myself a responsible, well trained and deeply thoughtful gun owner. I cherish having the ability to own these things and I have not a single problem jumping through a couple of hoops to prove my thoughtfulness and responsibility as long as my ownership rights are maintained.

Frankly, I think it is quite stupid that I walked into a gun store, plunked down $2200 and walked out 5 minutes later with this SCAR. I think that too many people own these things as toys, with little thought or consideration given to what it means to be an armed citizen. I've seen far too many stupid people at ranges, seen far too many people buying these things with almost no thought put into the purchase and seen far too much stupid asshattery and antics by my fellow gun owners at the range.

The 2nd Amendment is an important, unique and cherished right to me. Rights are only maintained when a certain set of responsibilities are met. I have no issue putting some legal teeth behind those responsibilities because I can see the sacred rights of the 2nd Amendment slipping away due to irresponsible assholes justifying their stupidity behind the Constitution.
 
2013-01-27 05:58:19 PM  

DogBoyTheCat: I've seen that "black helicopter" thing a lot in today's posts...
Just so y'all know, there are various special divisions of many nations' "defense & intelligence forces" dedicated to the suppression of "forbidden science"
Look up "carbon-monoxide and cryogenics"
I was personally involved in suppressing such research and wrecking the careers of a few medical students


*Checks url* Whew...still at Fark...thought i had clicked over to ATS for a second...
 
2013-01-27 06:15:06 PM  

jaytkay: MagicMissile: If you don't agree with the 2nd Amendment, then get out of the United States. Go move to Canada or Europe.

Fun test to ask conservatives.

1) What is the 2nd amendment about?

2) What are the other 9 about?


That's easy: All 10 are about telling the government what they may not do.
 
2013-01-27 06:22:06 PM  

Securitywyrm: So... if your car is stolen out of your garage and someone is killed with it... you'll accept civil responsibility?


Well, unless it's registered non-op, it should be insured and that insurance should apply, I would imagine. Not sure what the law is regarding this.
 
2013-01-27 06:33:13 PM  
>Steve McQueen's Motorcycle: WTF is wrong with you? I am not patronizing you in any way. If anything it is the other way around. You said:

Put your ass in the game instead of just critisizing choice of language.

The language is critical here. It is how laws are used in this country and any other modern one.

I spelled out exactly what I think should and should not be banned. I DON'T think any other arms should be restricted to any law abiding citizen in this country. Period.

You are the one advocating restricting weapons and my question is simply which ones you think should be restricted and not to use a phrase that has absolutely no defining characteristics. It is simply a phrase used to evoke an emotional response. That's it. It did not exist until persons like yourself decided to come up with a phrase to use while pushing their agenda.


OK, you advocate that the status quo is just fine. You also seem to have some mythalogical reverence for the founding fathers. Frankly, and with all due respect, your founding fathers were men like any others and they made some pretty stupid desicions, like Madison's attempt to invade Canada and that whole manifest destiny thing. That was a little creepy. But i digress.

I would suggest adopting something simmiler to the Canadian laws and regulations on firearms and accesories. It works for us.

You have a serious problem with gun crime in the United States, and you are so certain of your founding father's infalibility that you are paralyzed from any genuine change. Ya'll are chasing your tails trying to define intent and language and never addressing the issue. Like you said, you're fine with the status quo, it is someone elses or something elses fault, don't dare challenge the founding fathers. It's as rediculous as watching differnt brands of christianty arguning the meaning of the bible.
 
2013-01-27 06:39:53 PM  

Securitywyrm: So you're saying that we shouldn't have what we can afford, but rather what you deem 'the minimum required' to accomplish the task? So... go ahead and turn in your smartphone for a landline, turn in your fancy computer for a model from 10 years ago, and turn in your car for one that has 65 miles an hour as a maximum possible speed.
There's a word for the government declaring what people are and aren't allowed to have, based on what the government thinks they need: Communism.


Seriously, you are diving into stupidity here. Not everything is equal. A gun is not a computer is not a car, etc. Communism? Please stop using words that do nothing but equal FUD and are complete and utter bullshiat when discussing anything having to do with the US. As much fun as some people seem to have throwing the word around, it simply makes them look like idiots. The US is not and never will be a communist country and a vast array of firearms will always be legal, even here in California, where, BTW, we have a massive shiat ton of firearms, some of which I get to hear echoing in the distance every day.
 
2013-01-27 06:41:17 PM  

Greylight: You have a serious problem with gun crime in the United States, and you are so certain of your founding father's infalibility that you are paralyzed from any genuine change. Ya'll are chasing your tails trying to define intent and language and never addressing the issue. Like you said, you're fine with the status quo, it is someone elses or something elses fault, don't dare challenge the founding fathers. It's as rediculous as watching differnt brands of christianty arguning the meaning of the bible.


The vast VAST majority of our gun crime is the result of suppressed liberty in another facet of life through the War on Drugs.

Though not enumerated by the Founding Fathers, the idea that we would persecute a civil war upon citizens who choose to temporarily alter their state of mine is an absolute anathema to everything the founders of this nation intended. Partially for the moral reprehensibility of regulating victimless activity, but also because the Founders had a keen understanding/mistrust of the power of government against the citizenry and the unintended consequences of that power's mass application.

With the War on Drugs, we've created an entire criminal class of users along with a vicious and violent black market that's evolved to serve them.

In effect, we are seeing one liberty withheld have follow-on effects that are starting to encroach upon nearly every other liberty (the 2nd, 4th and 5th being heavily narrowed due to the effects of the War on Drugs).

Funny how rights are intertwined like that.
 
2013-01-27 06:50:44 PM  
Y'all laugh all you want...
try looking past wikipedia for those answers on CO/cryo... way past....
you might try looking on german, romanian or czech language sites
nuff said
 
2013-01-27 06:51:46 PM  

dr-shotgun: With the War on Drugs, we've created an entire criminal class of users along with a vicious and violent black market that's evolved to serve them.


Plus we've created a massive, powerful, and legal industry to support and execute this "war" with sometimes equally vicious and violent enforcement, who, unlike the street criminals, are accountable to no one.
 
2013-01-27 07:00:44 PM  

dr-shotgun: Greylight: You have a serious problem with gun crime in the United States, and you are so certain of your founding father's infalibility that you are paralyzed from any genuine change. Ya'll are chasing your tails trying to define intent and language and never addressing the issue. Like you said, you're fine with the status quo, it is someone elses or something elses fault, don't dare challenge the founding fathers. It's as rediculous as watching differnt brands of christianty arguning the meaning of the bible.

The vast VAST majority of our gun crime is the result of suppressed liberty in another facet of life through the War on Drugs.

Though not enumerated by the Founding Fathers, the idea that we would persecute a civil war upon citizens who choose to temporarily alter their state of mine is an absolute anathema to everything the founders of this nation intended. Partially for the moral reprehensibility of regulating victimless activity, but also because the Founders had a keen understanding/mistrust of the power of government against the citizenry and the unintended consequences of that power's mass application.

With the War on Drugs, we've created an entire criminal class of users along with a vicious and violent black market that's evolved to serve them.

In effect, we are seeing one liberty withheld have follow-on effects that are starting to encroach upon nearly every other liberty (the 2nd, 4th and 5th being heavily narrowed due to the effects of the War on Drugs).

Funny how rights are intertwined like that.


Your founding fathers didn't have as keen an understanding of government or human behaviour as you seem to think. They were motivated by greed, self intrest, and ego. You should really see it from an outsiders point of view sometims. It looks like idol whorship.

Frankly the idea drug crime is somehow special or different in the US is bull. Take that off the table if you really think that has something to do with why gun crime is so high. People in Vancouver have the same challenges as Seattle when it comes to drug use and the gang networks that suport the distribution of drugs. Very different gun crime stats.
 
2013-01-27 07:01:02 PM  
Jaytkay:
OK...I have no problem with saying I'm wrong, if the science isn't there....
here's the problem: what if the science IS there, but it's just not politically correct to say so?
Or if there are various folks(with the backing of their respective governments) who now want to get patents on 60 year old illegal research?
Think about it. No profit on old stuff... especially old stuff with a "Nazi research" label.
 
2013-01-27 07:04:14 PM  
Thanks stratman & earthworm...
I needed some facts
 
2013-01-27 07:09:59 PM  
vpb: The only real use for a gun in a city is as a weapon against people.
Again... I'm cool with that...
Some people need killing
 
2013-01-27 07:13:07 PM  
Oh... BTW...
for my old bosses...
Bienvenidos a Argentina
Or someplace
or maybe someplace else
 
2013-01-27 07:15:51 PM  

vrax: Securitywyrm: So... if your car is stolen out of your garage and someone is killed with it... you'll accept civil responsibility?

Well, unless it's registered non-op, it should be insured and that insurance should apply, I would imagine. Not sure what the law is regarding this.


The inadequacies of switching a car for a gun has been discussed at length here on Fark. A car vs gun is not really a good analog. Regulations on cars are particularly poor analogy when discussing guns.

[Abbreviated explanation]
Car on public road/land:
License to drive.
License for vehicle.
Usually requires insurance coverage.
The make/model/class of vehicle matters.

Car on private road/land:
Does not require a license to drive.
Does not require a vehicle license.
Does not require insurance.
The make/model/class of vehicle doesn't matter.


As for the question, I don't see auto insurance covering your liability, if there were any, for a homicide with your stolen vehicle. Maybe your home owner's insurance would get involved because it was in your garage. It might matter if you left the key in the lock.

Maybe a better one for this question would be a knife. Most people have knives for kitchen or utility, and others have some for protection or collecting.

What if someone stole your knife or razor blade and killed someone with it? Would civil liability rest at your feet? Should there then be more liability if it was a knife designed as a weapon, vs another kind of knife?
 
2013-01-27 07:20:09 PM  

DogBoyTheCat: OK...I have no problem with saying I'm wrong, if the science isn't there....
here's the problem: what if the science IS there, but it's just not politically correct to say so?


So present the science that supports your racism. Nobody's stopping you.
 
2013-01-27 07:20:24 PM  

Greylight: Frankly the idea drug crime is somehow special or different in the US is bull. Take that off the table if you really think that has something to do with why gun crime is so high. People in Vancouver have the same challenges as Seattle when it comes to drug use and the gang networks that suport the distribution of drugs. Very different gun crime stats.


Really?

http://metronews.ca/news/canada/40296/numbers-tell-the-story/
http://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/List-of-2011-homicides-in-Seat t le-2433596.php

Seattle and Vancouver BC have roughly the same population (600,000) and largely equal murder rates in 2011. Vancouver had 15 murders, Seattle had 19.
 
2013-01-27 07:20:57 PM  

lostcat:

... Show me how private gun owners make up a well-regulated militia and I'll be happy....



United States Code, Chapter 13, Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes

-STATUTE-
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age ...
 
2013-01-27 07:28:48 PM  

jaytkay: DogBoyTheCat: OK...I have no problem with saying I'm wrong, if the science isn't there....
here's the problem: what if the science IS there, but it's just not politically correct to say so?

So present the science that supports your racism. Nobody's stopping you.


Is it racism when it's right? According to the US Department of Justice "Race Distribution of Homicide Offenders": Blacks, 12.6% of our population, are committing 56.4% of our gun homicides, and 59.3% of our total homicides. Almost all of it in the inner cities, and more often than not meth related. And that's with the Hispanic population - which also has a relatively high murder rate - lumped in with the Whites. When the numbers are broken down even more specifically to young urban black males, only about 3% of our population is committing a hugely disproportionate amount of our violent crime. They are career criminals living in the ghetto criminal culture. Crime is what they do. And that demographic has a very, very low rate of legal gun ownership.

Start reading here and then dig as deep as you like: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/race.cfm
 
2013-01-27 07:31:06 PM  
Mrtraveler...
That's what the second clip is for.
You think I'd only have one clip?
DogBoyTheCat: I propose we end the drug war and put that money towards stopping the dangerous loonies

The thing is that people say this now but the next time a state has to cut it's budget, mental health is the first thing to get gutted.

They're closing mental health hospitals in my state, in Illinois, and in Louisiana.

Doesn't matter what side of the aisle, almost every state is like this. So until I actually see some action done in regards to mental health, I'm taking the concern over it with a grain of salt.

I'd have no problem taking all my taxes wasted on busting kids with a few weeds in their pocket and dedicating it to holding people who are a danger to others (I don't care about danger to themselves...that takes care of itself)
BTW, one of my exes is one of those fired from the LA cutbacks
(a psychiatrist, not a patient... though I think the distinction is pretty minimal)

Seriously though, it's the dangerous loonies we need to control, not guns.
Remember Tim McVeigh...
No guns involved
 
2013-01-27 07:32:04 PM  

jaytkay: MagicMissile: If you don't agree with the 2nd Amendment, then get out of the United States. Go move to Canada or Europe.

Fun test to ask conservatives.

1) What is the 2nd amendment about?

2) What are the other 9 about?


Fail, there's 27 Amendments.................You didn't ask about the Bill of Rights, you just asked about Amendments.
 
2013-01-27 07:34:22 PM  

Oblio13: lostcat:

... Show me how private gun owners make up a well-regulated militia and I'll be happy....


United States Code, Chapter 13, Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes

-STATUTE-
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age ...


Well if your going to bring facts into the conversation, then there is no talking to you!
 
2013-01-27 07:35:17 PM  

Oblio13: STATUTE


"The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males... who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States..."

I see an opportunity to induce bed-wetting among conservatives there,
 
2013-01-27 07:40:17 PM  
OK Jaytkay....here's a place to start
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/fury-at-dna-pioneers-theory - africans-are-less-intelligent-than-westerners-394898.html
 
2013-01-27 07:44:55 PM  
dr-shotgun... I think you're a bit of a liberal (no offense intended) but I believe you are right
The war on drugs has created a deliberate underclass - "drug-users"
A group whom it is politically acceptable to screw with.
Substitute "Jews", "Gypsies", "Trade Unionists" at your leisure
 
2013-01-27 07:47:17 PM  

DogBoyTheCat: OK Jaytkay....here's a place to start
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/fury-at-dna-pioneers-theory - africans-are-less-intelligent-than-westerners-394898.html


Thanks. Watson spouts some conjecture there, and not a single fact supporting his racism.

Good work.
 
2013-01-27 07:48:04 PM  

vrax: Securitywyrm: So you're saying that we shouldn't have what we can afford, but rather what you deem 'the minimum required' to accomplish the task? So... go ahead and turn in your smartphone for a landline, turn in your fancy computer for a model from 10 years ago, and turn in your car for one that has 65 miles an hour as a maximum possible speed.
There's a word for the government declaring what people are and aren't allowed to have, based on what the government thinks they need: Communism.

Seriously, you are diving into stupidity here. Not everything is equal. A gun is not a computer is not a car, etc. Communism? Please stop using words that do nothing but equal FUD and are complete and utter bullshiat when discussing anything having to do with the US. As much fun as some people seem to have throwing the word around, it simply makes them look like idiots. The US is not and never will be a communist country and a vast array of firearms will always be legal, even here in California, where, BTW, we have a massive shiat ton of firearms, some of which I get to hear echoing in the distance every day.


Ah, there it is. "I don't like guns because living near a shooting range causes me minor inconvenience."
I can call you a communist all I want, because you want to the government to dictate what people can and can't use to accomplish a task, based on what the government feels is the 'minimum necessary', a limit that does not apply to those in the government. Sounds very much like Russian communism.
 
2013-01-27 07:54:41 PM  

Greylight: >Steve McQueen's Motorcycle: WTF is wrong with you? I am not patronizing you in any way. If anything it is the other way around. You said:

Put your ass in the game instead of just critisizing choice of language.

The language is critical here. It is how laws are used in this country and any other modern one.

I spelled out exactly what I think should and should not be banned. I DON'T think any other arms should be restricted to any law abiding citizen in this country. Period.

You are the one advocating restricting weapons and my question is simply which ones you think should be restricted and not to use a phrase that has absolutely no defining characteristics. It is simply a phrase used to evoke an emotional response. That's it. It did not exist until persons like yourself decided to come up with a phrase to use while pushing their agenda.

OK, you advocate that the status quo is just fine. You also seem to have some mythalogical reverence for the founding fathers. Frankly, and with all due respect, your founding fathers were men like any others and they made some pretty stupid desicions, like Madison's attempt to invade Canada and that whole manifest destiny thing. That was a little creepy. But i digress.

I would suggest adopting something simmiler to the Canadian laws and regulations on firearms and accesories. It works for us.

You have a serious problem with gun crime in the United States, and you are so certain of your founding father's infalibility that you are paralyzed from any genuine change. Ya'll are chasing your tails trying to define intent and language and never addressing the issue. Like you said, you're fine with the status quo, it is someone elses or something elses fault, don't dare challenge the founding fathers. It's as rediculous as watching differnt brands of christianty arguning the meaning of the bible.


I never said the status quo was fine. A gun is an inanimate object. A tool to be used for both good and bad. It has very little to do with the act of the crime itself. Just the weapon of choice.(and for good reason). It does not change the fact that the bulk of the crimes committed with a gun are done by those that have acquired the guns illegally.

IIRC there are well over 10,000 laws in regards to guns already. What additional law could be passed that would change anything? If the current laws on the books are not being enforced, the only motive for pushing through additional one is too slowly chip away and the end goal is to make all non government controlled guns illegal in the US.

As far as the founding father, I do believe they were incredibly intelligent with how they framed the country. I firmly believe that the rights they specifically gave every citizen and the rights they were trying to prevent the federal government from having were beyond brilliant. The problem is that the federal government has been encroaching on the girths of its citizens in direct conflict with the 10th amendment. I believe the slow chipping away of rights and the complete lack of personal responsibility is more of an issue in this country. I also do believe, as mentioned above, that the war on crime also shares a significant bit of the blame.

As it has been mentioned several times in this thread by others, the overall violent crime rate in this country has been falling for decades. If you remove the inner city out, of control black on black crimes out of the data, the murder rate has been dropping even more quickly. The social issues related to that are many and should have no bearing on this issue. The thug mentality pervasive in the inner city culture has more of a bearing than any tool does.
 
2013-01-27 07:57:04 PM  
girths? really?

rights...
 
2013-01-27 08:00:35 PM  

Steve McQueen's Motorcycle: girths? really?

rights...


NOT A FETISH.

/lol.
 
2013-01-27 08:03:36 PM  

Securitywyrm: I can call you a communist all I want


Yes you can.

/ Especially since you do not know the meaning of the word.
 
2013-01-27 08:04:33 PM  
"I want to use a tactical nuke to defend my family"
at $4400 per gram, that comes out to $114,400 just for the triggering charge, plus electronics & shielding and the TNT... figure about 200 grand ... plus trying to sneak that much hard radioactive stuff past homeland security(Think they won't notice?)... that's absolute bare minimum if you have the facilities and knowledge to build such a thing... and that's if you don't care about yourself (or your minions) to get cooked in the process of building the damned thing.... this is just straight market price... I'm not even figuring black market price.
Oh, BTW.... building a working implosion device is quite tricky... and I will not tell anybody how to do it.
I've heard 75 million is the going price for a working nuke, but never heard of anyone buying one....
I'd personally do like Doc Brown... slap that stuff into a DeLorean and take a trip back in time.
 
2013-01-27 08:22:00 PM  

Steve McQueen's Motorcycle: redmid17: If you think an 'assault rifle' is powerful, I have a bridge in New York for sale

Quit using that phrase. "Assault rifle" is a made up terminology used to try and scare people and is completely useless.

There is no difference between an AR-15 and just about any gas operated handgun.

As a percentage, how many crimes were committed with any type of rifle over the past several years?


There's reason why my quote had 'assault rifle' in quotes dude. I don't feel like explaining the difference in every thread to someone who should know better by now. Besides its not assault rifle that is fake, it's 'assault weapon' that was invented back in the late 80s. The answer to your last question is around 2%-3% for ALL rifles, since the police don't break down the difference between the two.

3StratMan: redmid17: redmid17: Mrtraveler01: Mrbogey: Mrtraveler01: No you don't, it's just a toy. I'm perfectly fine with you guys wanting to keep them but stop kidding me telling me you need these for self-defense or hunting and just tell me it's a toy.

Why do you think of it as a toy?

You need an Assault Rifle for home defense when a shotgun does the same job?

You need an assault rifle for hunting? What on earth are you hunting that requires a weapon as powerful as that?

If you think an 'assault rifle' is powerful, I have a bridge in New York for sale

Just to clarify, the standard round used by an AR-15 or similar gun is usually too small to legally hunt anything bigger than a coyote.

Drop the word "legally" and you are sort of right. Other that shotgun zones (more populated areas) vs rifles zones ( vastly less populated areas) caliber usually isn't an issue as far as state laws are concerned. .223 can still be used as a deer hunting round. Shot placement is key, regardless of caliber.


No state I am aware of lets you hunt deer with a .223. I know it *can* be used, but I don't particularly want to run the chance of losing my hunting license for not using a state-approved round to go hunting. Well that and I do not own a .223 chambered rifle.
 
2013-01-27 08:23:28 PM  

Securitywyrm: vrax: Securitywyrm: So you're saying that we shouldn't have what we can afford, but rather what you deem 'the minimum required' to accomplish the task? So... go ahead and turn in your smartphone for a landline, turn in your fancy computer for a model from 10 years ago, and turn in your car for one that has 65 miles an hour as a maximum possible speed.
There's a word for the government declaring what people are and aren't allowed to have, based on what the government thinks they need: Communism.

Seriously, you are diving into stupidity here. Not everything is equal. A gun is not a computer is not a car, etc. Communism? Please stop using words that do nothing but equal FUD and are complete and utter bullshiat when discussing anything having to do with the US. As much fun as some people seem to have throwing the word around, it simply makes them look like idiots. The US is not and never will be a communist country and a vast array of firearms will always be legal, even here in California, where, BTW, we have a massive shiat ton of firearms, some of which I get to hear echoing in the distance every day.

Ah, there it is. "I don't like guns because living near a shooting range causes me minor inconvenience."
I can call you a communist all I want, because you want to the government to dictate what people can and can't use to accomplish a task, based on what the government feels is the 'minimum necessary', a limit that does not apply to those in the government. Sounds very much like Russian communism.


Well, I'm not so sure that the streets are considered a "shooting range", but I could be wrong. I really don't dislike guns. My best friends own various guns. I strongly dislike idiots with guns, but guns...not so much. In fact, while I support thorough background checks and would like to see some other requirements, I generally agree that we're beyond the point where a ban of any currently legal firearms is going to make much difference with regard to violence. What I think is absurd is your implication that we're headed toward anything resembling a communist country with little choice, especially with regard to firearms. You are a "sky is falling" fool if you believe this.
 
2013-01-27 08:27:34 PM  

jaytkay: Securitywyrm: I can call you a communist all I want

Yes you can.

/ Especially since you do not know the meaning of the word.


Hmm, you mean like you and 'assault weapon'?
 
2013-01-27 08:45:28 PM  

vrax: Securitywyrm: vrax: Securitywyrm: So you're saying that we shouldn't have what we can afford, but rather what you deem 'the minimum required' to accomplish the task? So... go ahead and turn in your smartphone for a landline, turn in your fancy computer for a model from 10 years ago, and turn in your car for one that has 65 miles an hour as a maximum possible speed.
There's a word for the government declaring what people are and aren't allowed to have, based on what the government thinks they need: Communism.

Seriously, you are diving into stupidity here. Not everything is equal. A gun is not a computer is not a car, etc. Communism? Please stop using words that do nothing but equal FUD and are complete and utter bullshiat when discussing anything having to do with the US. As much fun as some people seem to have throwing the word around, it simply makes them look like idiots. The US is not and never will be a communist country and a vast array of firearms will always be legal, even here in California, where, BTW, we have a massive shiat ton of firearms, some of which I get to hear echoing in the distance every day.

Ah, there it is. "I don't like guns because living near a shooting range causes me minor inconvenience."
I can call you a communist all I want, because you want to the government to dictate what people can and can't use to accomplish a task, based on what the government feels is the 'minimum necessary', a limit that does not apply to those in the government. Sounds very much like Russian communism.

Well, I'm not so sure that the streets are considered a "shooting range", but I could be wrong. I really don't dislike guns. My best friends own various guns. I strongly dislike idiots with guns, but guns...not so much. In fact, while I support thorough background checks and would like to see some other requirements, I generally agree that we're beyond the point where a ban of any currently legal firearms is going to make much difference with regard ...


Um... when did I say anything about a communist country? That's like saying that because the Klu Klux Klan exists, this country is 'headed towards becoming the next Nazi country!"

How is this for a compromise on gun control

"No restriction upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall exceed the restrictions placed upon law enforcement." There you go. If the police can have it, you can have it. Under those conditions, I'll gladly agree to an 'assault rifle' ban... since it would also apply to the police.
 
2013-01-27 08:51:43 PM  

Securitywyrm: jaytkay: Securitywyrm: I can call you a communist all I want

Yes you can.

/ Especially since you do not know the meaning of the word.

Hmm, you mean like you and 'assault weapon'?


Did I mention assault weapons?

/ No I did not.
 
2013-01-27 09:12:05 PM  

Securitywyrm: Well, I'm not so sure that the streets are considered a "shooting range", but I could be wrong. I really don't dislike guns. My best friends own various guns. I strongly dislike idiots with guns, but guns...not so much. In fact, while I support thorough background checks and would like to see some other requirements, I generally agree that we're beyond the point where a ban of any currently legal firearms is going to make much difference with regard ...

Um... when did I say anything about a communist country? That's like saying that because the Klu Klux Klan exists, this country is 'headed towards becoming the next Nazi country!"

How is this for a compromise on gun control

"No restriction upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall exceed the restrictions placed upon law enforcement." There you go. If the police can have it, you can have it. Under those conditions, I'll gladly agree to an 'assault rifle' ban... since it would also apply to the police.


Forgive me then. After four years of hearing every yahoo on the net shout "communism" or "socialism", I have no more patience for that stupidity.

As for the gun control "compromise", are we going to battle the police? Also, that could end up with the most insane results. There could be a sheriff in bum-fark-nowhere who has a BFG9000 and suddenly that's the national standard. I do agree, however, that the 2nd is particularly insufficient.
 
2013-01-27 09:15:46 PM  

Securitywyrm: If the police can have it, you can have it. Under those conditions, I'll gladly agree to an 'assault rifle' ban... since it would also apply to the police.


Same certification, registration and storage requirements?
 
2013-01-27 09:17:53 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Securitywyrm: If the police can have it, you can have it. Under those conditions, I'll gladly agree to an 'assault rifle' ban... since it would also apply to the police.

Same certification, registration and storage requirements?


How about gun owners are held to the same standard that cops are held to when they abuse or misplace their weapons?
 
2013-01-27 09:20:49 PM  

Fark It: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Securitywyrm: If the police can have it, you can have it. Under those conditions, I'll gladly agree to an 'assault rifle' ban... since it would also apply to the police.

Same certification, registration and storage requirements?

How about gun owners are held to the same standard that cops are held to when they abuse or misplace their weapons?


Same certification, registration and storage requirements?
 
2013-01-27 09:28:59 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Fark It: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Securitywyrm: If the police can have it, you can have it. Under those conditions, I'll gladly agree to an 'assault rifle' ban... since it would also apply to the police.

Same certification, registration and storage requirements?

How about gun owners are held to the same standard that cops are held to when they abuse or misplace their weapons?

Same certification, registration and storage requirements?


Well, cops are not required to lock up their duty weapons at home, and their certifications are designed by their unions to ensure that everyone passes, not for proficiency. I would be glad to be allowed to buy new automatic weapons and not get into trouble if I leave a handgun in a public bathroom, or a rifle on the trunk of my car in a busy downtown area if it meant the government knew about it.

You want to register my guns? Fine. Remove SBRs and suppressors from the NFA and re-open the machine gun registry, in addition to super-ceding state gun laws that are more restrictive than the federal government.
 
2013-01-27 09:43:40 PM  

Fark It: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Fark It: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Securitywyrm: If the police can have it, you can have it. Under those conditions, I'll gladly agree to an 'assault rifle' ban... since it would also apply to the police.

Same certification, registration and storage requirements?

How about gun owners are held to the same standard that cops are held to when they abuse or misplace their weapons?

Same certification, registration and storage requirements?

Well, cops are not required to lock up their duty weapons at home, and their certifications are designed by their unions to ensure that everyone passes, not for proficiency. I would be glad to be allowed to buy new automatic weapons and not get into trouble if I leave a handgun in a public bathroom, or a rifle on the trunk of my car in a busy downtown area if it meant the government knew about it.

You want to register my guns? Fine. Remove SBRs and suppressors from the NFA and re-open the machine gun registry, in addition to super-ceding state gun laws that are more restrictive than the federal government.


I'll take that as a "no."
 
2013-01-27 09:55:30 PM  

Fark It: You want to register my guns? Fine. Remove SBRs and suppressors from the NFA and re-open the machine gun registry, in addition to super-ceding state gun laws that are more restrictive than the federal government.


If I can't have a machine gun I'm Rosa Parks.
 
2013-01-27 09:56:37 PM  
Just read that Homeland Security is buying 7,000 AR15 "Personal Defense Weapons". Why are they called "personal defense weapons" when Homeland Security has them, "patrol rifles" when police departments have them, but "assault weapons" when I have them? Homeland Security and the police have assaulted a lot more people than I have.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/01/26/if-assault-weapons-are-bad - why-does-the-dhs-want-to-buy-7000-of-them-for-personal-defense/?utm_so urce=facebook&utm_medium=story&utm_campaign=Share+Buttons
 
2013-01-27 10:01:14 PM  

Steve McQueen's Motorcycle: Greylight: >Steve McQueen's Motorcycle: WTF is wrong with you? I am not patronizing you in any way. If anything it is the other way around. You said:

Put your ass in the game instead of just critisizing choice of language.

The language is critical here. It is how laws are used in this country and any other modern one.

I spelled out exactly what I think should and should not be banned. I DON'T think any other arms should be restricted to any law abiding citizen in this country. Period.

You are the one advocating restricting weapons and my question is simply which ones you think should be restricted and not to use a phrase that has absolutely no defining characteristics. It is simply a phrase used to evoke an emotional response. That's it. It did not exist until persons like yourself decided to come up with a phrase to use while pushing their agenda.

OK, you advocate that the status quo is just fine. You also seem to have some mythalogical reverence for the founding fathers. Frankly, and with all due respect, your founding fathers were men like any others and they made some pretty stupid desicions, like Madison's attempt to invade Canada and that whole manifest destiny thing. That was a little creepy. But i digress.

I would suggest adopting something simmiler to the Canadian laws and regulations on firearms and accesories. It works for us.

You have a serious problem with gun crime in the United States, and you are so certain of your founding father's infalibility that you are paralyzed from any genuine change. Ya'll are chasing your tails trying to define intent and language and never addressing the issue. Like you said, you're fine with the status quo, it is someone elses or something elses fault, don't dare challenge the founding fathers. It's as rediculous as watching differnt brands of christianty arguning the meaning of the bible.

I never said the status quo was fine. A gun is an inanimate object. A tool to be used for both good and bad. It has very little to do with the act of the crime itself. Just the weapon of choice.(and for good reason). It does not change the fact that the bulk of the crimes committed with a gun are done by those that have acquired the guns illegally.

IIRC there are well over 10,000 laws in regards to guns already. What additional law could be passed that would change anything? If the current laws on the books are not being enforced, the only motive for pushing through additional one is too slowly chip away and the end goal is to make all non government controlled guns illegal in the US.

As far as the founding father, I do believe they were incredibly intelligent with how they framed the country. I firmly believe that the rights they specifically gave every citizen and the rights they were trying to prevent the federal government from having were beyond brilliant. The problem is that the federal government has been encroaching on the girths of its citizens in direct conflict with the 10th amendment. I believe the slow chipping away of rights and the complete lack of personal responsibility is more of an issue in this country. I also do believe, as mentioned above, that the war on crime also shares a significant bit of the blame.

As it has been mentioned several times in this thread by others, the overall violent crime rate in this country has been falling for decades. If you remove the inner city out, of control black on black crimes out of the data, the murder rate has been dropping even more quickly. The social issues related to that are many and should have no bearing on this issue. The thug mentality pervasive in the inner city culture has more of a bearing than any tool does.


Laws, regulations and corresponding restrictions are only part of the solution. They are an important part. I would concede that there are socioeconomic issues in the southern US, grater poverty, but that does not alone account for the incredibly large difference in firearm related crime.

If you cannot concede that the primary difference between large Canadian and nearby US cities is different firearm laws then you cannot see beyond your own ethnocentric bias.

Violent crime is dropping across the continent. Crimes in general committed with guns isn't. The rate of firearm homicides is exponentially lower in Canada then it is per capita in the Northern States boarding Canada. The cultures are not far apart except for the emphasis on unregulated gun ownership.

Perhaps the difference is that Canadians as a whole believe a safe and stable society today is more important then some nebulas potential threat based on fear of our countrymen that may happen one day. Maybe.

You live in fear of your government. That is not beyond brilliant, that is not truly living my friend.

The Jets are playing so I'm out for now. True North!
 
2013-01-27 10:10:54 PM  

Oblio13: Just read that Homeland Security is buying 7,000 AR15 "Personal Defense Weapons". Why are they called "personal defense weapons"


Cuz Glenn Beck says so.

Why do you hate Glenn Beck and America?
 
2013-01-27 10:17:02 PM  

jaytkay: Oblio13: Just read that Homeland Security is buying 7,000 AR15 "Personal Defense Weapons". Why are they called "personal defense weapons"

Cuz Glenn Beck says so.

Why do you hate Glenn Beck and America?


I wasn't aware that Glenn Beck was a part of the GSA.

PDF version here, asking for "personal defense weapons" in 5.56x45mm.
 
2013-01-27 10:25:04 PM  
Whoops...


https://www.fbo.gov/utils/view?id=8052b47aa5f4e2740163027ed2ce8e89
 
2013-01-27 10:27:39 PM  

Oblio13: Just read that Homeland Security is buying 7,000 AR15 "Personal Defense Weapons".


Is that a purchase or a request? Or a suggestion? A recommendation? A wish?
 
2013-01-27 10:48:54 PM  

kriegsgeist: OscarTamerz: Greylight: As pointed out by a thoughtful gun rights advocate up thread: not only do Canada's arms laws and restrictions result in fewer gun related fatalities, it also results in less gang and drug war problems.

No, they don't. If you removed all the gun murders in the US and left all the gun murders in Canada and didn't touch all the other murder methods in both countries Canada would still have a lower murder rate than the US. Americans murder each other more with nongun weapons than Canadians do with gun AND nongun weapons so it's the people not the weapons that are the determining factor.

Canadians don't have the large black population that commits murders at 5 times the rate of the the rest of the population and they don't have 20 million criminal alien Mexicans who doubled their own murder rate in the drug wars in the last few years.

Goddammit you racist assholes are not helping. It's not race - it's poverty. Income inequality is the only measure I know of that correlates well to crime rates. Ignoring that and looking at race instead paints you (and by association the rest of the guns-rights crowd) as bigoted idiots. It makes it really easy for gun-control people to marginalize legitimate opposition points.

If this is what you really believe, please educate yourself and look into poverty rates/income inequality as well as race. If you can't do that, at least stay out of the gun control debate. All you are doing is making things worse.


You're dead wrong. Do you understand the concept of cohort matching? Do you think Canada has a higher or lower per capita GDP than the US? Here's a hint, it's lower so Canadians are poorer than Americans. Guess who else is poorer, the UK that's who. Do you think they have a higher or lower per capita GDP? It's a little over 70% of ours. Do you think their murder rate is higher or lower? I'll let you figure that one out.

If you cohort match individuals by income in the US do you think there is a difference in the murder rate by race? If you answered no then you're the ignorant asshole. But by all means keep throwing more money at the problem since that's all that people like you know how to do. I'm not a racist for telling the truth but you are a moron for believing left wing nut lies.
 
2013-01-27 10:59:01 PM  

OscarTamerz: kriegsgeist: OscarTamerz: Greylight: As pointed out by a thoughtful gun rights advocate up thread: not only do Canada's arms laws and restrictions result in fewer gun related fatalities, it also results in less gang and drug war problems.

No, they don't. If you removed all the gun murders in the US and left all the gun murders in Canada and didn't touch all the other murder methods in both countries Canada would still have a lower murder rate than the US. Americans murder each other more with nongun weapons than Canadians do with gun AND nongun weapons so it's the people not the weapons that are the determining factor.

Canadians don't have the large black population that commits murders at 5 times the rate of the the rest of the population and they don't have 20 million criminal alien Mexicans who doubled their own murder rate in the drug wars in the last few years.

Goddammit you racist assholes are not helping. It's not race - it's poverty. Income inequality is the only measure I know of that correlates well to crime rates. Ignoring that and looking at race instead paints you (and by association the rest of the guns-rights crowd) as bigoted idiots. It makes it really easy for gun-control people to marginalize legitimate opposition points.

If this is what you really believe, please educate yourself and look into poverty rates/income inequality as well as race. If you can't do that, at least stay out of the gun control debate. All you are doing is making things worse.

You're dead wrong. Do you understand the concept of cohort matching? Do you think Canada has a higher or lower per capita GDP than the US? Here's a hint, it's lower so Canadians are poorer than Americans. Guess who else is poorer, the UK that's who. Do you think they have a higher or lower per capita GDP? It's a little over 70% of ours. Do you think their murder rate is higher or lower? I'll let you figure that one out.

If you cohort match individuals by income in the US do you think there ...


They might have a lower GDP per capita, but they also have much less wealth disparity.
 
2013-01-27 11:00:23 PM  

OscarTamerz: If you cohort match individuals by income in the US do you think there is a difference in the murder rate by race? If you answered no then you're the ignorant asshole....I'm not a racist


So what is your totally non-racist proposal?
 
2013-01-28 03:23:11 AM  

stirfrybry: bronyaur1: The NRA dummies keep pounding the pathetic argument that because Chicago has bad gun violence problems and its leaders have pursued gun restrictions, therefore the pursuit of gun restrictions causes gun violence.

If you are so dumb and incapable of logical thought that you sign onto - let alone repeat talking points supporting - this argument, then you might just be (a) too stupid to breed, (b) a Fox viewer, and (c) a redneck.

Idiot. The take-away is that gun control is ineffective, not that it causes crime. Lame strawman is lame



Which is just as idiotic an argument, since we don't have protected borders between areas in the U.S. with tight gun control laws and those without, so piecemeal laws only have a marginal effect-- something gun control advocates are well aware of, and would like to rectify by having nationwide rules consistently applied.
 
2013-01-28 07:50:18 AM  

Mrtraveler01: gerrymander: bronyaur1: The NRA dummies Anyone with a brain will keep pounding the pathetic commonsense argument that because Chicago has bad gun violence problems and its leaders have pursued gun restrictions, therefore the pursuit of increasing gun restrictions causes will not reduce gun violence.

FTFY

But then you look at NYC and DC which have its murder numbers plummet to record levels even though they have strict gun laws as well.

It's almost as if the gun bans aren't the reason behind the rise in violent crimes in Chicago.


WHY is Chicago so murder-y?
 
2013-01-28 08:30:52 AM  

IAMTHEINTARWEBS: WHY is Chicago so murder-y?


Drug war, the war on poverty, decades of bad political and economic decisions, loss of industrial jobs, no real investments made to turn it around, lack of a fire big enough to torch the whole city and let them start over, too many politicians feeling their constituents pain and none enough willing to actually do something about it, etc...
Their pursuit of gun control was just another symptom of the total lack in leadership.

/A politician suggesting you control weapons to control crime is basically admitting he doesn't know what causes crime.
/You shouldn't vote for people who promise something and then admit they don't know how to achieve it.
 
2013-01-28 08:38:20 AM  
Troll headline is successful.
 
2013-01-28 11:51:40 AM  

bronyaur1: The NRA dummies keep pounding the pathetic argument that because Chicago has bad gun violence problems and its leaders have pursued gun restrictions, therefore the pursuit of gun restrictions causes gun violence.

If you are so dumb and incapable of logical thought that you sign onto - let alone repeat talking points supporting - this argument, then you might just be (a) too stupid to breed, (b) a Fox viewer, and (c) a redneck.


The belief is that cities with stricter gun controls typically means there's a lower probability citizens will be carrying guns for protection. Therefore, criminals, who disregard gun laws, see people in those cities as a softer target. Criminals obviously prefer soft targets to increase their level of success and may be more likely to carry out crimes in those cities and may even be more likely to aggregate to cities where they're more able to operate successfully.

I can break this thought process down further if you're having trouble with the concepts. I realize that you struggle with synthesizing information so I would be happy to assist you further on this issue.

Also, please understand that you personally fall into category (a), due to your level of stupidity, and we would like to ask you not to breed.
 
2013-01-28 12:32:40 PM  

Uncommon sense 020: The belief


Specifically the unfounded belief

/ Surprise, surprise, surprise, a conservative belief is based on ignorance
 
2013-01-28 12:54:31 PM  
I stand by my conclusion that people who want to take away guns, are scared weaklings who lack balls, testosterone and in most cases have a penis sewn to their forehead's.

It turns out that in almost all cases, these people are liberals.


/thread
 
2013-01-28 01:02:33 PM  
chicago has a high gun crime rate even though they have the stricktest gun laws in the nation.

DC outlaws guns to its citizens yet still led the states in murder.

Anyone noticing something here? tighter gun laws or no guns allowed and more murder and crime. Hmmm I guess Osama just wants the US to become the murder and crime capital of the world.
 
2013-01-28 06:22:52 PM  

MagicMissile: I stand by my conclusion that people who want to take away guns, are scared weaklings who lack balls, testosterone and in most cases have a penis sewn to their forehead's.

It turns out that in almost all cases, these people are liberals.


/thread


Sewn to their forehead's what?

Sorry, son, but guns are usually used to make up for a lack of physical prowess in combat against an enemy that would destroy you without one...the great equalizer. Obviously military combat is different, as your enemy ALSO has a gun, but grow a pair and fight hand-to-hand like a male of your species...if you must fight.
 
2013-01-28 11:34:02 PM  
Why are Americans so pants-on-head retarded?

Sure, you want to keep your killtoys, we get that.

But at least make an effort with your arguments.

'BUT GUN CONTROL DOESN'T WORK'

How utterly insane do you need to be to claim that when there are nations around the world who clearly demonstrate each and every day that yes, yes it does?

It's like reality stops at the US border and says 'goddamn, I ain't going in THERE'.
 
2013-01-28 11:54:44 PM  

cegorach: Why are Americans so pants-on-head retarded?

Sure, you want to keep your killtoys, we get that.

But at least make an effort with your arguments.

'BUT GUN CONTROL DOESN'T WORK'

How utterly insane do you need to be to claim that when there are nations around the world who clearly demonstrate each and every day that yes, yes it does?

It's like reality stops at the US border and says 'goddamn, I ain't going in THERE'.


It's like people who don't live here don't understand the gravity or the illegality of trying to ban or seize common weapons.
 
2013-01-29 01:45:10 AM  

Spudsy1: DC outlaws guns to its citizens yet still led the states in murder.


1) Wrong. Guns are not outlawed in DC.
2) Wrong. DC does not lead the states in murder.

You might want to think about who is telling you these things, and what other lies they may be telling you.
 
2013-01-29 02:07:32 AM  

The Larch: Spudsy1: DC outlaws guns to its citizens yet still led the states in murder.

1) Wrong. Guns are not outlawed in DC.
2) Wrong. DC does not lead the states in murder.

You might want to think about who is telling you these things, and what other lies they may be telling you.


Well now they aren't. DC was known as the murder capital in the early 90s, and, at that point, they banned handguns, required registration, and also required guns be kept locked  or disassembled. While his point wasn't exactly correct, it was rooted in a significant grain of truth.
 
Displayed 451 of 451 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
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