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  
•       •       •

4564 clicks; posted to Main » on 27 Jan 2013 at 12:30 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 451 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report