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
    More: Sad, Chicago, stabbing, homicides, gun laws, stab wound, Chicago Police Department, Englewood  
•       •       •

4597 clicks; posted to Main » on 27 Jan 2013 at 12:30 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2013-01-27 12:38:20 PM  
11 votes:

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 12:37:23 PM  
10 votes:

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 12:36:17 PM  
9 votes:

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 11:49:38 AM  
6 votes:
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.
2013-01-27 03:37:42 PM  
4 votes:

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 12:12:00 PM  
4 votes:

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 01:01:03 PM  
3 votes:
Why is it that where ever a large population of black people live there is a ton of crime?
2013-01-27 12:41:50 PM  
3 votes:

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 12:39:38 PM  
3 votes:

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 12:07:25 PM  
3 votes:

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.
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-01-27 11:53:39 AM  
3 votes:

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 11:14:28 AM  
3 votes:
I think silverware sets should be limited to a single place setting.  Why does anyone need 8 knives to eat?
2013-01-27 04:50:49 PM  
2 votes:
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 04:01:46 PM  
2 votes:
"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 01:55:29 PM  
2 votes:
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 01:52:55 PM  
2 votes:

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 01:41:13 PM  
2 votes:

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 01:22:52 PM  
2 votes:
You can pry my penis from my cold dead hands.
2013-01-27 12:57:41 PM  
2 votes:

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 12:56:59 PM  
2 votes:

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


I'm going to go with zero. Ever.
2013-01-27 12:53:57 PM  
2 votes:

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 12:49:31 PM  
2 votes:

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 12:49:31 PM  
2 votes:
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 12:24:45 PM  
2 votes:
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.
2013-01-29 01:45:10 AM  
1 vote:

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.
2013-01-28 08:30:52 AM  
1 vote:

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.
2013-01-27 05:54:01 PM  
1 vote:

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 05:30:05 PM  
1 vote:

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 05:28:59 PM  
1 vote:

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 05:23:56 PM  
1 vote:
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 05:20:40 PM  
1 vote:
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 05:13:45 PM  
1 vote:
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 05:04:33 PM  
1 vote:
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 04:51:34 PM  
1 vote:
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 04:29:48 PM  
1 vote:
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 04:27:23 PM  
1 vote:

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 04:23:37 PM  
1 vote:

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 04:21:19 PM  
1 vote:

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 04:13:00 PM  
1 vote:

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 03:57:28 PM  
1 vote:

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 03:57:01 PM  
1 vote:

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 03:54:27 PM  
1 vote:
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 03:53:50 PM  
1 vote:

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 03:42:35 PM  
1 vote:
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 03:07:20 PM  
1 vote:
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 02:56:09 PM  
1 vote:

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 02:46:35 PM  
1 vote:
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 02:15:31 PM  
1 vote:

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 02:12:27 PM  
1 vote:

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 02:02:26 PM  
1 vote:

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 01:58:54 PM  
1 vote:

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 01:37:30 PM  
1 vote:

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 01:31:50 PM  
1 vote:

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 01:31:34 PM  
1 vote:
70% of childbirth's in Chicago are to unwed mother's.......There's your smoking gun.
2013-01-27 01:26:48 PM  
1 vote:
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 01:19:56 PM  
1 vote:
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 01:08:49 PM  
1 vote:

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


Crime plummeted in Chicago during the 30-year handgun ban.
2013-01-27 12:59:37 PM  
1 vote:
I could kill for some deep-dish pizza right now.
2013-01-27 12:59:15 PM  
1 vote:
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 12:58:46 PM  
1 vote:
Whew! Now we don't have to ban guns, only video games!
2013-01-27 12:57:11 PM  
1 vote:

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 12:56:59 PM  
1 vote:

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  
1 vote:

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 12:54:06 PM  
1 vote:

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 12:52:19 PM  
1 vote:

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 12:50:46 PM  
1 vote:
...oh, and that whole 2nd Amendment thing.
2013-01-27 12:50:08 PM  
1 vote:

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 12:48:51 PM  
1 vote:
Viable economic pursuits that don't, by nature, involve gun violence, might tend to decrease the amount of gun violence.
2013-01-27 12:47:58 PM  
1 vote:

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 12:47:56 PM  
1 vote:

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 12:46:24 PM  
1 vote:

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 12:41:29 PM  
1 vote:
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 12:40:43 PM  
1 vote:

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 12:40:26 PM  
1 vote:
So do nothing.

Amirite?
2013-01-27 12:39:38 PM  
1 vote:

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 12:35:34 PM  
1 vote:
How many people were killed with AK-17's?
2013-01-27 12:04:35 PM  
1 vote:
Aw Crap.

Wrong Thread.
2013-01-27 12:02:58 PM  
1 vote:

 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?

 
Displayed 78 of 78 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


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

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

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

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report