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.

(Minneapolis Star Tribune)   Pick your ban: Teen girl who performed at Obama's inauguration fatally shot in Chicago   (startribune.com) divider line 576
    More: Sad, obama, Chicago, inauguration  
•       •       •

17301 clicks; posted to Main » on 30 Jan 2013 at 10:39 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2013-01-30 10:41:54 AM  
God damn it, America.
 
2013-01-30 10:42:16 AM  
This must absolutely gall the president. His hands are tied even though people he now personal ties to are dying.
 
2013-01-30 10:42:18 AM  
Ban Chicago.
 
2013-01-30 10:42:20 AM  
Ban Chicago.
 
2013-01-30 10:42:26 AM  
How very sad.
 
2013-01-30 10:42:56 AM  

KiwDaWabbit: God damn it, America.


Seriously, I know Chicago's going for a record and anytime a firearm is discharged it's national news, but literally, yeah, GDI America...
 
2013-01-30 10:43:01 AM  
Ban Chicago
 
2013-01-30 10:43:05 AM  
Police do not believe Hadiya was the intended target of the shooting.

Forget banning firearms. Get these damn gang bangers into ranges and teach them to stop holding their damn guns sideways. At least then they'll be killing each other.
 
2013-01-30 10:43:18 AM  
OMG that is horrible.
 
2013-01-30 10:43:20 AM  
I see that Chicago's strict gun-control laws are working as well as ever.
 
2013-01-30 10:43:45 AM  
fark this planet guys
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-01-30 10:44:10 AM  
Build a thunderdome for the gang banger assholes.

What the fark, Chicago?
 
2013-01-30 10:44:22 AM  
What the living hell is wrong with people? Charge at a group of kids huddled in the rain and just start firing? Although I assume this is personal, the wanton disregard for any sort of humanity is still appalling. I hate these "I have a beef with someone you know/love, now you die!" stories that come out of the dregs of society and gangster movies.
 
2013-01-30 10:45:03 AM  
www.wnd.com
www.wnd.com

Paradise.
 
2013-01-30 10:45:09 AM  

Lexx: His hands are tied even though people he now personal ties to are dying.


He should make shooting people illegal and also say it is immoral.
If only there was a Mayor in Chicago who 0bama could talk to and if only there were strict gun laws.
 
2013-01-30 10:45:09 AM  
She shouldn't have been hanging out with gang members.
 
2013-01-30 10:45:11 AM  
Shait.
 
2013-01-30 10:45:21 AM  
media.tumblr.com
 
2013-01-30 10:45:57 AM  
Ah, yeah. That's the stuff.

Keep the news rolling, agents.
 
2013-01-30 10:45:57 AM  

Cybernetic: I see that Chicago's strict gun-control laws are working as well as ever.


And our thread's designated asshole makes himself known...
 
2013-01-30 10:45:59 AM  
12 kids taking shelter from the rain. It's amazing that there not more than the 1 dead and 1 wounded.

/and kinda tragic for that to be an amazing thing.
 
2013-01-30 10:46:03 AM  
This is what happens when you take God out of canopies.
 
2013-01-30 10:46:06 AM  
That guy was just a patsy. There was a second gangbanger shooting from behind a grassy knoll.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-01-30 10:46:34 AM  

Bubbarella: She shouldn't have been hanging out with gang members blacks.


Is this what you meant???
 
2013-01-30 10:46:37 AM  

Lt. Cheese Weasel: Paradise.


So what you're really saying is that Hispanics are winning?
 
2013-01-30 10:46:57 AM  

Egoy3k: Police do not believe Hadiya was the intended target of the shooting.

Forget banning firearms. Get these damn gang bangers into ranges and teach them to stop holding their damn guns sideways. At least then they'll be killing each other.


I read a tongue in cheek op-ed (IIRC It was the Chi Trib or Sun-Times) saying exactly this - offer free marksmanship training to the gang bangers. Not only does it reduce the number of innocent victims being killed, it increases the number of gang bangers dying. Two birds, one stone.

My google fu is weak so I can't bring up the article.
 
2013-01-30 10:47:03 AM  
When extreme Liberals dominate politics in a city for years it becomes so very sad....
 
2013-01-30 10:48:10 AM  
Chacago: "You're safe here; guns are illegal"
 
2013-01-30 10:48:16 AM  
This thread will surely be a well-reasoned and measured discussion about the numerous mental deficiencies that are ravaging both sides of any argument presented.
 
2013-01-30 10:48:44 AM  
Keep defending your gun rights to the hilt, Wayne. You'll get counter-examples every day.

/NRA against every reasonable measure to curb gun violence, up to and including mental health screenings.
//Mainly because they have many health organizations and more than a few insurance companies on their "Enemies of the 2nd Amendment" blacklist.
 
2013-01-30 10:48:49 AM  

WeenerGord: That guy was just a patsy. There was a second gangbanger shooting from behind a grassy knoll.


Well then they're both horrible shots.
 
2013-01-30 10:48:53 AM  

MichiganFTL: Lt. Cheese Weasel: Paradise.

So what you're really saying is that Hispanics are winning?


Looks like 'Other' is the winner.
 
2013-01-30 10:49:54 AM  

Ed Grubermann: Cybernetic: I see that Chicago's strict gun-control laws are working as well as ever.

And our thread's designated asshole makes himself known...


For stating the obvious?
 
2013-01-30 10:50:22 AM  

d23: Bubbarella: She shouldn't have been hanging out with gang members blacks.

Is this what you meant???


No. I guess you're the racist.
 
2013-01-30 10:50:22 AM  

Bubbarella: She shouldn't have been hanging out with gang members.


She wasn't. She was waiting with friends at a bus stop in a decent part of the city, and was hit by stray gunfire.
 
2013-01-30 10:50:34 AM  

d23: Bubbarella: She shouldn't have been hanging out with gang members blacks.

Is this what you meant???


Chicago's gang problem isn't limited to blacks.
 
2013-01-30 10:50:38 AM  

GleeUnit: This thread will surely be a well-reasoned and measured discussion about the numerous mental deficiencies that are ravaging both sides of any argument presented.


Or that people would like to see idiot gangbangers hurled into the sun.
 
2013-01-30 10:50:55 AM  

mjones73: Ed Grubermann: Cybernetic: I see that Chicago's strict gun-control laws are working as well as ever.

And our thread's designated asshole makes himself known...

For stating the obvious?


In Fartbongo Bizarro World, yes.
 
2013-01-30 10:51:21 AM  

IlGreven: Keep defending your gun rights to the hilt, Wayne. You'll get counter-examples every day.

/NRA against every reasonable measure to curb gun violence, up to and including mental health screenings.
//Mainly because they have many health organizations and more than a few insurance companies on their "Enemies of the 2nd Amendment" blacklist.


This absolutely a counter example....of how strict gun control doesn't work.
 
2013-01-30 10:51:26 AM  

cptjeff: Bubbarella: She shouldn't have been hanging out with gang members.

She wasn't. She was waiting with friends at a bus stop in a decent part of the city, and was hit by stray gunfire.


The man jumped a fence, shot at them, then jumped in a car and sped away.

That's not stray, that's deliberate.
 
2013-01-30 10:51:37 AM  
If only she and the other teenagers had been armed, eh?
 
2013-01-30 10:51:38 AM  

mjones73: Why do laws overturned by the SCOTUS no longer work?


Got me.
 
2013-01-30 10:51:38 AM  

clane: When extreme Liberals dominate politics in a city for years it becomes so very sad....


Nice job politicizing. This wasn't about policies or agendas from either side of the spectrum.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-01-30 10:51:51 AM  

IlGreven: Keep defending your gun rights to the hilt, Wayne. You'll get counter-examples every day.

/NRA against every reasonable measure to curb gun violence, up to and including mental health screenings.
//Mainly because they have many health organizations and more than a few insurance companies on their "Enemies of the 2nd Amendment" blacklist.


The NRA is a corporate lobby group. They have no care for public safety. Their goal is to sell as many guns as possible. Why aren't people getting that? The only nominally represent gun owners... they really don't give a shiat about them. They are a corporate group. Stop listening to them about gun safety. They don't care.
 
2013-01-30 10:51:57 AM  

mjones73: For stating the obvious?


You put 2.7mil people in a 234 sq mi area, throw in some poverty, gangs and racial tension...
 
2013-01-30 10:52:06 AM  

cptjeff: Bubbarella: She shouldn't have been hanging out with gang members.

She wasn't. She was waiting with friends at a bus stop in a decent part of the city, and was hit by stray gunfire.


Since TFA implies otherwise (just read it) I should mention that I heard this version of events on TV- different source.
 
2013-01-30 10:52:30 AM  

ScouserDuck: IlGreven: Keep defending your gun rights to the hilt, Wayne. You'll get counter-examples every day.

/NRA against every reasonable measure to curb gun violence, up to and including mental health screenings.
//Mainly because they have many health organizations and more than a few insurance companies on their "Enemies of the 2nd Amendment" blacklist.

This absolutely a counter example....of how strict gun control doesn't work.


And therefore, everyone should have guns.

/If you're not arguing that point, don't imply it by how you speak.
 
2013-01-30 10:52:35 AM  

Lt. Cheese Weasel: [www.wnd.com image 607x405]
[www.wnd.com image 609x517]

Paradise.


So what that's saying is that the private prison system is losing customers because the majority of victims were prior offenders.
 
2013-01-30 10:53:21 AM  
god dammit so much
 
2013-01-30 10:53:29 AM  

clane: When extreme Liberals dominate politics in a city for years it becomes so very sad....


Clearly if there were a Republican in charge, this shooting would have never happened.

Logic, how the fark does it work?
 
2013-01-30 10:53:34 AM  

AverageAmericanGuy: cptjeff: Bubbarella: She shouldn't have been hanging out with gang members.

She wasn't. She was waiting with friends at a bus stop in a decent part of the city, and was hit by stray gunfire.

The man jumped a fence, shot at them, then jumped in a car and sped away.

That's not stray, that's deliberate.


The tv news report I saw said otherwise, and I just posted to that effect, but I'm quoting you just to ensure you see it if you have notifications on.
 
2013-01-30 10:53:40 AM  

Cybernetic: I see that Chicago's strict gun-control laws are working as well as ever.


If only those kids had been armed.
 
2013-01-30 10:54:04 AM  

IlGreven: And therefore, everyone should have guns.


Curious, but why does it have to be one or the other? Are you a sith?
 
2013-01-30 10:54:14 AM  
This article states that

Many of the teens with Pendleton at the time of the shooting were believed to be gang members and left the scene, according to reports.

Wonder if some gangster got street cred for killing her? Wonder if some in the black community might hate her because she performed at the inaugural? The old crab in the bucket syndrome?
 
2013-01-30 10:54:23 AM  
But guns are banned in Chicago.
 
2013-01-30 10:54:50 AM  

factoryconnection: What the living hell is wrong with people? Charge at a group of kids huddled in the rain and just start firing? Although I assume this is personal, the wanton disregard for any sort of humanity is still appalling. I hate these "I have a beef with someone you know/love, now you die!" stories that come out of the dregs of society and gangster movies.


I know, in our rarer shootings and gang murders here in the UK the same attitude is displayed. Is it a sort of massive arrogance? "I'm so important that I'll risk the lives of innocent bystanders who are nothing to do with my beef."? Or is it retarded deludedness: "I'm such an incredibly good shot despite not knowing shiat about guns nor ever having bothered to learn."?
Personally I think massive ignorance breeds massive arrogance.
 
2013-01-30 10:54:51 AM  

mjones73: Ed Grubermann: Cybernetic: I see that Chicago's strict gun-control laws are working as well as ever.

And our thread's designated asshole makes himself known...

For stating the obvious?


Are you an idiot?

So now correlation equals causation? Okay good, then we have 4x the homicide rate as the UK because we can get guns way easier, having a gun around you makes you more likely to kill your family than an intruder, southern states with more lax gun control have higher homicide rates than even Illinois, New York, etc because they have more lax gun control, and CCW holders are just as likely to commit homicide by gun on another person than non, meaning despite alleged higher responsibility, they're actually equal or more prone to shooting other people.

Now shut up or GTFO.
 
2013-01-30 10:54:59 AM  
I don't know how to feel. This is really horrible but it's pretty much common place in Chicago now.
 
2013-01-30 10:55:00 AM  

ScouserDuck: IlGreven: Keep defending your gun rights to the hilt, Wayne. You'll get counter-examples every day.

/NRA against every reasonable measure to curb gun violence, up to and including mental health screenings.
//Mainly because they have many health organizations and more than a few insurance companies on their "Enemies of the 2nd Amendment" blacklist.

This absolutely a counter example....of how strict gun control doesn't work.


What strict gun control? One city having strict laws means absolutely nothing. Travel just outside the city, and you get the same lax gun laws as everywhere else.
 
2013-01-30 10:55:05 AM  

MichiganFTL: IlGreven: And therefore, everyone should have guns.

Curious, but why does it have to be one or the other? Are you a sith?


I think you need to calibrate your sarcasm detector.
 
2013-01-30 10:55:05 AM  

cptjeff: AverageAmericanGuy: cptjeff: Bubbarella: She shouldn't have been hanging out with gang members.

She wasn't. She was waiting with friends at a bus stop in a decent part of the city, and was hit by stray gunfire.

The man jumped a fence, shot at them, then jumped in a car and sped away.

That's not stray, that's deliberate.

The tv news report I saw said otherwise, and I just posted to that effect, but I'm quoting you just to ensure you see it if you have notifications on.


I do, but it takes a long time before I get the email. Better to just feed my OCD and hit Command-R.
 
2013-01-30 10:55:08 AM  

cptjeff: She wasn't. She was waiting with friends at a bus stop in a decent part of the city, and was hit by stray gunfire.


From another article: Many of the teens with Pendleton at the time of the shooting were believed to be gang members and left the scene, according to reports.

Not too sure how decent a part of the city it really is, either. It says she was near her school, and the school itself is in a decidedly red area on richblockspoorblocks.
 
2013-01-30 10:55:20 AM  
Fast and furious, Baby.
 
2013-01-30 10:55:27 AM  
we should ban teens, girls, Obamas, Chicago, performances, fatalities

did i miss anything?
 
2013-01-30 10:55:36 AM  

cgraves67: Chacago: "You're safe here; guns are illegal"


all you got to do is buy them from a neighboring city where they are still legal. duh
 
2013-01-30 10:55:38 AM  

Ed Grubermann: Cybernetic: I see that Chicago's strict gun-control laws are working as well as ever.

And our thread's designated asshole makes himself known...


Because the very day a tragedy involving the use of guns happens, that's the right time to talk about more gun control as with Sandy Hook, but if circumstance shows that gun control is doing nothing, then it's "too soon" to talk about the problem with gun control, right?
 
2013-01-30 10:55:48 AM  

cptjeff: Bubbarella: She shouldn't have been hanging out with gang members.

She wasn't. She was waiting with friends at a bus stop in a decent part of the city, and was hit by stray gunfire.


Don't care, pointless news. How many where killed in the last 24 hours? So what is someone blew a White House official to let her perform. Farking pointless news.
 
2013-01-30 10:56:00 AM  

ScouserDuck: IlGreven: Keep defending your gun rights to the hilt, Wayne. You'll get counter-examples every day.

/NRA against every reasonable measure to curb gun violence, up to and including mental health screenings.
//Mainly because they have many health organizations and more than a few insurance companies on their "Enemies of the 2nd Amendment" blacklist.

This absolutely a counter example....of how strict gun control doesn't work.


Then the UK is absolute proof gun control does.
 
2013-01-30 10:56:34 AM  
It's not GDI America, it's GDI Chicago.
 
2013-01-30 10:56:36 AM  
How about banning dumb black teenagers who randomly shoot into large groups of people without even hitting their intended target.

How farking stupid are they to just point and shoot?

This is why they can't be serial killers. White people are farked in the head, but they're smart enough to kill their targets.
 
2013-01-30 10:56:42 AM  

TheDumbBlonde: Fast and furious, Baby.


Living up to your handle one post at a time.
 
2013-01-30 10:56:59 AM  

tenpoundsofcheese: Lexx: His hands are tied even though people he now personal ties to are dying.

He should make shooting people illegal and also say it is immoral.
If only there was a Mayor in Chicago who 0bama could talk to and if only there were strict gun laws.


Do you ever say anything that doesn't make you sound like a tool?
 
2013-01-30 10:57:10 AM  

KiwDaWabbit: God damn it, America.


as you wish
 
2013-01-30 10:57:13 AM  

Lt. Cheese Weasel: MichiganFTL: Lt. Cheese Weasel: Paradise.

So what you're really saying is that Hispanics are winning?

Looks like 'Other' is the winner.


Nothing Sam the Slayer can't fix
 
2013-01-30 10:57:26 AM  

DoomPaul: But guns are banned in Chicago.


all you got to do is buy them from a neighboring city where they are still legal. duh
 
2013-01-30 10:57:40 AM  

WeenerGord: This article states that

Many of the teens with Pendleton at the time of the shooting were believed to be gang members and left the scene, according to reports.

Wonder if some gangster got street cred for killing her? Wonder if some in the black community might hate her because she performed at the inaugural? The old crab in the bucket syndrome?


Great.  Now I'm hungry for crabs.
 
2013-01-30 10:58:09 AM  

I drunk what: we should ban teens, girls, Obamas, Chicago, performances, fatalities

did i miss anything?


You forgot inaugurations.
 
2013-01-30 10:58:29 AM  

MichiganFTL: mjones73: For stating the obvious?

You put 2.7mil people in a 234 sq mi area, throw in some poverty, gangs and racial tension...


So you're saying it's not a gun problem, but a people problem?
 
2013-01-30 10:58:30 AM  

China White Tea: cptjeff: She wasn't. She was waiting with friends at a bus stop in a decent part of the city, and was hit by stray gunfire.

From another article: Many of the teens with Pendleton at the time of the shooting were believed to be gang members and left the scene, according to reports.

Not too sure how decent a part of the city it really is, either. It says she was near her school, and the school itself is in a decidedly red area on richblockspoorblocks.


Huh, I'm gonna try to dig up something by a real journalist. Not that I don't trust TV news or regional newspapers, but...
 
2013-01-30 10:58:44 AM  

Lt. Cheese Weasel: [www.wnd.com image 607x405]
[www.wnd.com image 609x517]

Paradise.


Blacks and hispanics with a disproportionate amount of the violence? Sounds racist.
 
2013-01-30 10:58:49 AM  
Gun morons - "nothing is casual until we can use it to our advantage, despite all evidence to the contrary."
 
2013-01-30 10:59:48 AM  
I hope the conservatives' cheers were just a tad more subdued than when Chicago didn't get to host the Olympics.
 
2013-01-30 11:00:00 AM  
Or pick the other ban about how kids were dying from guns in Obama's home city "not so good" area before the school shooting.
 
2013-01-30 11:00:04 AM  

justtray: ScouserDuck: IlGreven: Keep defending your gun rights to the hilt, Wayne. You'll get counter-examples every day.

/NRA against every reasonable measure to curb gun violence, up to and including mental health screenings.
//Mainly because they have many health organizations and more than a few insurance companies on their "Enemies of the 2nd Amendment" blacklist.

This absolutely a counter example....of how strict gun control doesn't work.

Then the UK is absolute proof gun control does.


Sure..but UK style gun control is unconstitutional.... On the other hand, there are 5,000 glassing incidents in the UK a year.....I'd rather be shot.
 
2013-01-30 11:00:09 AM  
This is a good reminder why everyone should carry at least one gun.
 
2013-01-30 11:00:17 AM  
so with the combined massive Brainpower of Fark™, how about tossing out some solutions to this dilemma?
 
2013-01-30 11:00:28 AM  

IlGreven: /NRA against every reasonable measure to curb gun violence, up to and including mental health screenings.


you are an idiot.  stop getting your talking points from Schultz and Madow, you are just embarrassing yourself.

The NRA has supported mental health as part of background checks.

They have been blocked by some states who are resisting.

Here, from libby MA
 
2013-01-30 11:00:30 AM  
We've got a black people problem.
 
2013-01-30 11:00:31 AM  

Ed Grubermann: Cybernetic: I see that Chicago's strict gun-control laws are working as well as ever.

And our thread's designated asshole makes himself known...


Indeed he has.
 
2013-01-30 11:01:40 AM  
Ms Chambers, from Chicago, recently had the 4th of her children killed by gunfire.

/damn
 
2013-01-30 11:02:10 AM  

d23: IlGreven: Keep defending your gun rights to the hilt, Wayne. You'll get counter-examples every day.

/NRA against every reasonable measure to curb gun violence, up to and including mental health screenings.
//Mainly because they have many health organizations and more than a few insurance companies on their "Enemies of the 2nd Amendment" blacklist.

The NRA is a corporate lobby group. They have no care for public safety. Their goal is to sell as many guns as possible. Why aren't people getting that? The only nominally represent gun owners... they really don't give a shiat about them. They are a corporate group. Stop listening to them about gun safety. They don't care.


The NRA was against legally required trigger locks as a violation of your Constitutional rights.

That is...they were against the idea until a rider that immunized gun manufacturers from lawsuits was attached to a trigger lock bill. Somehow, that made them reconsider their opposition.

It's almost as if the NRA is primarily interested in representing the gun industry.
 
2013-01-30 11:02:12 AM  

KiwDaWabbit: God damn it, America.


No, god damn it criminals
 
2013-01-30 11:02:12 AM  

devilEther: cgraves67: Chacago: "You're safe here; guns are illegal"

all you got to do is buy them from a neighboring city where they are still legal. duh



You think gangbangers buy their guns only from legal sources? HAHA!

They wait for the background check too, right? HAHA!

Wise up America!
 
2013-01-30 11:02:13 AM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: So you're saying it's not a gun problem, but a people problem?


I don't believe I really made a point to either side, but I think it's a comprehensive issue that is far deeper than a single inanimate object. I'm looking for more of the motive side than the act. There seems to be cultural, gang, economical, and psychological issues at play that are far deeper and more widespread than simply access to metal. Let's look at them ALL (yes, including guns). I think it's just naive to focus only on one.
 
2013-01-30 11:02:23 AM  
I vote it DID have something to do with the President.
 
2013-01-30 11:02:44 AM  
SPORTSMEN
 
2013-01-30 11:02:49 AM  

Raharu: tenpoundsofcheese: Lexx: His hands are tied even though people he now personal ties to are dying.

He should make shooting people illegal and also say it is immoral.
If only there was a Mayor in Chicago who 0bama could talk to and if only there were strict gun laws.

Do you ever say anything that doesn't make you sound like a tool?


So you are don't support laws against killing people, you think it is moral?  Good to know who you really are.
 
2013-01-30 11:03:02 AM  

cptjeff: Huh, I'm gonna try to dig up something by a real journalist. Not that I don't trust TV news or regional newspapers, but...


It is possible that she *was* in a decent (or, at least, financially above-average) area. The best resolution for the location of the shooting that I've seen states "blocks away" from the school, which could put her in any of a number of neighborhoods. On average, though, when I think of "decent neighborhoods in Chicago", I don't think of any further south than I-55.
 
2013-01-30 11:03:42 AM  

justtray: mjones73: Ed Grubermann: Cybernetic: I see that Chicago's strict gun-control laws are working as well as ever.

And our thread's designated asshole makes himself known...

For stating the obvious?

Are you an idiot?

So now correlation equals causation? Okay good, then we have 4x the homicide rate as the UK because we can get guns way easier, having a gun around you makes you more likely to kill your family than an intruder, southern states with more lax gun control have higher homicide rates than even Illinois, New York, etc because they have more lax gun control, and CCW holders are just as likely to commit homicide by gun on another person than non, meaning despite alleged higher responsibility, they're actually equal or more prone to shooting other people.

Now shut up or GTFO.


Sounds like you have gunaphobia, get help
 
2013-01-30 11:04:29 AM  

Lt. Cheese Weasel: mjones73: Ed Grubermann: Cybernetic: I see that Chicago's strict gun-control laws are working as well as ever.

And our thread's designated asshole makes himself known...

For stating the obvious?

In Fartbongo Bizarro World, yes.


Yes, it's Farbongo Bizarro because it doesn't agree with your view...we get it
 
2013-01-30 11:05:06 AM  
assets.dnainfo.com

Hadiya Pendleton, honor student
 
2013-01-30 11:05:18 AM  
Everyone seen carrying a gun should be shot.
 
2013-01-30 11:05:18 AM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Ed Grubermann: Cybernetic: I see that Chicago's strict gun-control laws are working as well as ever.

And our thread's designated asshole makes himself known...

Because the very day a tragedy involving the use of guns happens, that's the right time to talk about more gun control as with Sandy Hook, but if circumstance shows that gun control is doing nothing, then it's "too soon" to talk about the problem with gun control, right?


Yes exactly.
It is the way the liberal mind works:
1.  We must do something about X.
2.  Y is something
3.  Let's do Y!
4.  Oh look, we did something!  Yay for us.

It is an emptional response instead of an intellectual one.  They never stop to think about whether or not Y would actually solve the probem.
 
2013-01-30 11:05:35 AM  

FeFiFoFark: so with the combined massive Brainpower of Fark™, how about tossing out some solutions to this dilemma?


Basically, a lot more police. Hotspot policing and harassing known gang locations works but the city is in bad financial straits and can't really get a lot more. They disbanded their gang task force to get feet on the ground in a general way but that was pretty much the opposite of targeting high crime areas.

Part of that disbanding was also arresting head gang leaders. That didn't help. It actually destabilized the gangs and what we are seeing now is warfare that is determining new gang organization and turf lines.

There isn't a pro or anti gun law in the world that would have changed this so both sides of that debate need to shut their fool mouths.
 
2013-01-30 11:06:14 AM  
LUCKILY THE LIBERALS BANNED GUNS FROM CHICAGO OH WAIT.
 
2013-01-30 11:06:32 AM  

tenpoundsofcheese: IlGreven: /NRA against every reasonable measure to curb gun violence, up to and including mental health screenings.

you are an idiot.  stop getting your talking points from Schultz and Madow, you are just embarrassing yourself.

The NRA has supported mental health as part of background checks.

They have been blocked by some states who are resisting.

Here, from libby MA


But they're not interested in actually having background checks.

"When it comes to the issue of background checks, let's be honest - background checks will never be 'universal' - because criminals will never submit to them," LaPierre's testimony reads.

And you actually believe they'll support something they call for? HA.

And in 2007, the NRA gutted a mental health screening law.

In order to get the support of the NRA, Congress agreed to two concessions that had long been on the agenda of gun rights advocates - concessions that later proved to hamstring the database.

The NRA wanted the government to change the way it deemed someone "mentally defective," excluding people, for example, who were no longer under any psychiatric supervision or monitoring. The group also pushed for a way for the mentally ill to regain gun rights if they could prove in court that they'd been rehabilitated.

Here's how it worked. It would cost money for states to share their data: A state agency would have to monitor the courts, collect the names of people who had been institutionalized, and then send that information to the FBI on a regular basis.

So, to help pay for data-sharing Congress created $375 million in annual federal grants and incentives. But to be eligible for the federal money, the states would have to set-up a gun restoration program approved by the Justice Department. No gun rights restoration program, no money to help pay for sharing data.

Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., who once joked he'd like to bring a gun with him to the Senate floor, blocked the legislation, citing concerns about privacy and spending.

He negotiated language that, among other things, would allow a person's application for gun restoration rights to be granted automatically if an agency didn't respond within 365 days of the application and allowed people to have their attorney's fees reimbursed if they were forced to go to court to restore their rights.
 
2013-01-30 11:06:56 AM  
Is it just me, or with the Gun Ban/restrictions looming are people shooting each other at nearly record numbers?

It seems wiser to NOT shoot at everyone, to try and assure Congress to not ban guns. Instead, the morons are presenting an even greater case for the new restrictions.

Either that or shootings haven't increased but the press is making it seem like they have.

I read an article about a gang fight back a few months, where both gangs blasted at each other in a neighborhood using maybe 200 bullets. Close range too. They hit everything else except each other.

That sideways firing position is more of a hazard to anyone not in the line of fire.
 
2013-01-30 11:07:05 AM  
I blame rap music.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-01-30 11:07:24 AM  

odinsposse: FeFiFoFark: so with the combined massive Brainpower of Fark™, how about tossing out some solutions to this dilemma?

Basically, a lot more police. Hotspot policing and harassing known gang locations works but the city is in bad financial straits and can't really get a lot more. They disbanded their gang task force to get feet on the ground in a general way but that was pretty much the opposite of targeting high crime areas.

Part of that disbanding was also arresting head gang leaders. That didn't help. It actually destabilized the gangs and what we are seeing now is warfare that is determining new gang organization and turf lines.

There isn't a pro or anti gun law in the world that would have changed this so both sides of that debate need to shut their fool mouths.


Thunderdome, however...
 
2013-01-30 11:07:30 AM  
It always amazes me how difficult it is for some people to follow a simple chain of logic.

If firearms are plentiful and easy to obtain legally in your society, it then means that there is a plentiful supply of such legal weapons for criminals and the insane to buy, borrow or steal those firearms from the legal owners.

If firearms are rare and difficult to legally obtain in your society, then there is only a scarce supply of such legal weapons for criminals and the insane to buy, borrow or steal those firearms from the legal owners. In neither case is it legal for criminals or the insane to have guns. But only in the former case is it easy for them to get them anyhow.

This is the empirical result that every other nation in the world has discovered as a result of experimenting with gun control, and yet somehow Americans who argue against gun control cannot seem to understand it. It's really not that hard. Say what you will about the ideology or rights involved, many legal firearms means many firearm equipped criminals and insane individualss, few legal firearms means few firearm equipped criminals and insane individuals.

The only exception to this rule occurs when you have two locations close to each other, one with plentiful easy to acquire legal firearms, and one without. That results in smuggling of illegal weapons to profitably meet the black market demand. Much like how a great deal of Canadian criminals are armed with illegal weapons originally from legal American sources, or how areas with strict local gun control in the USA have issues with guns coming in from areas of the USA where the restrictions are much lower, to the point of near nonexistence. However, it is still the case that the existence of many illegal firearms is initially due to the presence of many legal firearms.

Guns don't manufacture themselves, and last time I checked gang-bangers and crazy people don't tend to be skilled gunsmiths. Almost all those firearms in the hands of criminals and the insane causing crime and violence were originally manufactured by a legal manufacturer for legal sale at a profit. As long as that plethora of legal firearms is not just accepted but glorified and fetishized, the violence and crime facilitated by illegal firearms will continue.

You can tell yourselves that's the price you have to pay for your 'freedom' if you must, but at least have the moral courage and honesty to acknowledge why it is happening in the first place.
 
2013-01-30 11:08:56 AM  

Lt. Cheese Weasel: [www.wnd.com image 607x405]
[www.wnd.com image 609x517]

Paradise.


White people need to step it up.
 
2013-01-30 11:09:04 AM  
Did it happen here?

nsfw language

Hilarity @ 3:30 mark

/you betta back it up
 
2013-01-30 11:09:32 AM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Ed Grubermann: Cybernetic: I see that Chicago's strict gun-control laws are working as well as ever.

And our thread's designated asshole makes himself known...

Because the very day a tragedy involving the use of guns happens, that's the right time to talk about more gun control as with Sandy Hook, but if circumstance shows that gun control is doing nothing, then it's "too soon" to talk about the problem with gun control, right?


Who said too soon? You could wait a hundred years and that talking point would still be stupid.

Localized gun laws are undermined by the ease in which weapons are brought into the controlled area. This is less of an issue with a National policy where illegal weapons would have to come across a controlled border.

Besides, if we had to wait a month from a shooting to discuss gun control, we could never discuss it.
 
2013-01-30 11:09:34 AM  

rufus-t-firefly: Cybernetic: I see that Chicago's strict gun-control laws are working as well as ever.

If only those kids had been armed.


Assuming this was gang related, someof them may havee been.
 
2013-01-30 11:09:41 AM  
I bet it comes out that the killing was contracted by a furiously jealous teen girl who hated the dead teen cos she "thought she was all that."

Or maybe the contractor's boyfriend/babydaddy was chasing after the dead teen.

Basically, Obama killed her, by inviting her to the inaugural, then letting her go back to Chicago.

So, ban Obama! Right?
 
2013-01-30 11:09:50 AM  

KiltedBastich: It always amazes me how difficult it is for some people to follow a simple chain of logic.

If firearms are plentiful and easy to obtain legally in your society, it then means that there is a plentiful supply of such legal weapons for criminals and the insane to buy, borrow or steal those firearms from the legal owners.

If firearms are rare and difficult to legally obtain in your society, then there is only a scarce supply of such legal weapons for criminals and the insane to buy, borrow or steal those firearms from the legal owners. In neither case is it legal for criminals or the insane to have guns. But only in the former case is it easy for them to get them anyhow.

This is the empirical result that every other nation in the world has discovered as a result of experimenting with gun control, and yet somehow Americans who argue against gun control cannot seem to understand it. It's really not that hard. Say what you will about the ideology or rights involved, many legal firearms means many firearm equipped criminals and insane individualss, few legal firearms means few firearm equipped criminals and insane individuals.

The only exception to this rule occurs when you have two locations close to each other, one with plentiful easy to acquire legal firearms, and one without. That results in smuggling of illegal weapons to profitably meet the black market demand. Much like how a great deal of Canadian criminals are armed with illegal weapons originally from legal American sources, or how areas with strict local gun control in the USA have issues with guns coming in from areas of the USA where the restrictions are much lower, to the point of near nonexistence. However, it is still the case that the existence of many illegal firearms is initially due to the presence of many legal firearms.

Guns don't manufacture themselves, and last time I checked gang-bangers and crazy people don't tend to be skilled gunsmiths. Almost all those firearms in the hands of criminals an ...


The prohibition on drugs has certainly worked, no?
 
2013-01-30 11:10:31 AM  
This has been said elsewhere, but I will repeat it here.
Chicago's gun ban can not work. Regardless of where you fall on gun control issues, it should be obvious that a city banning guns cannot keep them from coming in when the state itself and the neighboring states have loose gun laws and there is no "border check" to get in and out of the city. True gun control can only work at a national level, if at all.
 
2013-01-30 11:10:41 AM  

tenpoundsofcheese: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Ed Grubermann: Cybernetic: I see that Chicago's strict gun-control laws are working as well as ever.

And our thread's designated asshole makes himself known...

Because the very day a tragedy involving the use of guns happens, that's the right time to talk about more gun control as with Sandy Hook, but if circumstance shows that gun control is doing nothing, then it's "too soon" to talk about the problem with gun control, right?

Yes exactly.
It is the way the liberal mind works:
1.  We must do something about X.
2.  Y is something
3.  Let's do Y!
4.  Oh look, we did something!  Yay for us.

It is an emptional response instead of an intellectual one.  They never stop to think about whether or not Y would actually solve the probem.


Meanwhile, the right-wing thought process is this:

1. We're being pushed to do something about X.
2. Y is something, but it's not a perfect solution that will eliminate X completely.
3. So fark it.

You even refer to "solv[ing] the problem." You aren't going to eradicate gun violence any more than you're going to completely stop drunk driving. The point is to reduce the scope of the problem and decrease the threat in the long term.

I'd say that stopping one mass shooting of kindergarteners would be a victory, but people like you will only support measures that end all mass shootings for all time but somehow don't involve any measure of firearm regulation.
 
2013-01-30 11:10:45 AM  

varmitydog: Hadiya Pendleton, honor student


Don't fret, she died feeding the tree of liberty. We should all be so lucky to die so gloriously.

/I'm a bit envious that these Chicago gang-bangers have so much ammo.
 
2013-01-30 11:10:46 AM  
The shooter is probably from Gary.

/ Go Railcats!
 
2013-01-30 11:11:52 AM  

Rik01: Is it just me, or with the Gun Ban/restrictions looming are people shooting each other at nearly record numbers?

It seems wiser to NOT shoot at everyone, to try and assure Congress to not ban guns. Instead, the morons are presenting an even greater case for the new restrictions.


It would seem wiser, wouldn't it.
 
2013-01-30 11:12:15 AM  

HotIgneous Intruder: Everyone seen carrying a gun should be shot.


Glad I carry concealed.
 
2013-01-30 11:12:36 AM  

FeFiFoFark: so with the combined massive Brainpower of Fark™, how about tossing out some solutions to this dilemma?


It starts at home. People raising their children to go after an education instead of easy money in a gang. Teach people job skills and instill the pride of hard work. Make the drug market non-existent so there is no reason to kill each other over territory.

But I'm a white dude in MD so it doesn't matter what I say
 
2013-01-30 11:12:44 AM  

KiltedBastich: It always amazes me how difficult it is for some people to follow a simple chain of logic.

If firearms are plentiful and easy to obtain legally in your society, it then means that there is a plentiful supply of such legal weapons for criminals and the insane to buy, borrow or steal those firearms from the legal owners.

If firearms are rare and difficult to legally obtain in your society, then there is only a scarce supply of such legal weapons for criminals and the insane to buy, borrow or steal those firearms from the legal owners. In neither case is it legal for criminals or the insane to have guns. But only in the former case is it easy for them to get them anyhow.

This is the empirical result that every other nation in the world has discovered as a result of experimenting with gun control, and yet somehow Americans who argue against gun control cannot seem to understand it. It's really not that hard. Say what you will about the ideology or rights involved, many legal firearms means many firearm equipped criminals and insane individualss, few legal firearms means few firearm equipped criminals and insane individuals.

The only exception to this rule occurs when you have two locations close to each other, one with plentiful easy to acquire legal firearms, and one without. That results in smuggling of illegal weapons to profitably meet the black market demand. Much like how a great deal of Canadian criminals are armed with illegal weapons originally from legal American sources, or how areas with strict local gun control in the USA have issues with guns coming in from areas of the USA where the restrictions are much lower, to the point of near nonexistence. However, it is still the case that the existence of many illegal firearms is initially due to the presence of many legal firearms.

Guns don't manufacture themselves, and last time I checked gang-bangers and crazy people don't tend to be skilled gunsmiths. Almost all those firearms in the hands of criminals an ...


If I didn't already have you favorited I would favorite you for that.
 
2013-01-30 11:12:51 AM  

rufus-t-firefly: tenpoundsofcheese: IlGreven: /NRA against every reasonable measure to curb gun violence, up to and including mental health screenings.

you are an idiot. stop getting your talking points from Schultz and Madow, you are just embarrassing yourself.

The NRA has supported mental health as part of background checks.

They have been blocked by some states who are resisting.

Here, from libby MA

But they're not interested in actually having background checks.

"When it comes to the issue of background checks, let's be honest - background checks will never be 'universal' - because criminals will never submit to them," LaPierre's testimony reads.


Oh look, failed reading comprehension AGAIN!
He didn't say they weren't interested in background checks, he said that background checks will never be universal (e.g. every gun transaction would have a background check) because criminals would avoid that.

Now, I didn't expect you would actually understand that since you get your news from a place called Talking Point Memo.
 
2013-01-30 11:13:13 AM  

WeenerGord: devilEther: cgraves67: Chacago: "You're safe here; guns are illegal"

all you got to do is buy them from a neighboring city where they are still legal. duh

You think gangbangers buy their guns only from legal sources? HAHA!

They wait for the background check too, right? HAHA!

Wise up America!


gangbangers shoot other gangbangers.

why not legalize rape since people are still being raped? maybe because it might deter at least one individual from doing it.
 
2013-01-30 11:13:18 AM  
Ed Grubermann

Cybernetic: I see that Chicago's strict gun-control laws are working as well as ever.

And our thread's designated asshole makes himself known...

Yes we understand, you are very angry when facts are presented.
 
2013-01-30 11:13:21 AM  

miss diminutive: I drunk what: we should ban teens, girls, Obamas, Chicago, performances, fatalities

did i miss anything?

You forgot inaugurations.


He also forgot Poland.
 
2013-01-30 11:14:20 AM  
The solution to Chicago's problem is to make sure all the gang bangers have guns.

That way they'll all be polite to each other.
 
2013-01-30 11:14:45 AM  
Sounds like the shooter was going through a gang initiation.
 
2013-01-30 11:14:52 AM  

rufus-t-firefly: tenpoundsofcheese: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Ed Grubermann: Cybernetic: I see that Chicago's strict gun-control laws are working as well as ever.

And our thread's designated asshole makes himself known...

Because the very day a tragedy involving the use of guns happens, that's the right time to talk about more gun control as with Sandy Hook, but if circumstance shows that gun control is doing nothing, then it's "too soon" to talk about the problem with gun control, right?

Yes exactly.
It is the way the liberal mind works:
1.  We must do something about X.
2.  Y is something
3.  Let's do Y!
4.  Oh look, we did something!  Yay for us.

It is an emptional response instead of an intellectual one.  They never stop to think about whether or not Y would actually solve the probem.

Meanwhile, the right-wing thought process is this:

1. We're being pushed to do something about X.
2. Y is something, but it's not a perfect solution that will eliminate X completely.
3. So fark it.

You even refer to "solv[ing] the problem." You aren't going to eradicate gun violence any more than you're going to completely stop drunk driving. The point is to reduce the scope of the problem and decrease the threat in the long term.

I never said "X" was  "eradicate gun violence".  It could just as easily be "reduce it by 20%".

Your argument fails.  Again.
 
2013-01-30 11:14:59 AM  

rufus-t-firefly: Yes exactly.
It is the way the liberal mind works:
1.  We must do something about X.
2.  Y is something
3.  Let's do Y!
4.  Oh look, we did something!  Yay for us.

It is an emptional response instead of an intellectual one.  They never stop to think about whether or not Y would actually solve the probem.

Meanwhile, the right-wing thought process is this:

1. We're being pushed to do something about X.
2. Y is something, but it's not a perfect solution that will eliminate X completely.
3. So fark it.

You even refer to "solv[ing] the problem." You aren't going to eradicate gun violence any more than you're going to completely stop drunk driving. The point is to reduce the scope of the problem and decrease the threat in the long term.

I'd say that stopping one mass shooting of kindergarteners would be a victory, but people like you will only support measures that end all mass shootings for all time but somehow don't involve any measure of firearm regulation.


I'd argue that the the "Y is something, but it's not a perfect solution that will eliminate X completely" doesn't reflect anything that's being proposed. The "Y" that's being proposed has been shown to have absolutely no effect on firearm homicide rates in the history of our country, is unconsitutional (depending on the suggestion), is unenforceable, or is something that will do nothing but inconvenience law-abiding firearm owners in order to accomplish nothing. Especially when the proposals tend to float around "let's ban scary black looking rifles that are less powerful than normal hunting rifles".
 
2013-01-30 11:15:06 AM  

Verdelak: This has been said elsewhere, but I will repeat it here.
Chicago's gun ban can not work. Regardless of where you fall on gun control issues, it should be obvious that a city banning guns cannot keep them from coming in when the state itself and the neighboring states have loose gun laws and there is no "border check" to get in and out of the city. True gun control can only work at a national level, if at all.


the southern border is rock solid yo.
 
2013-01-30 11:15:28 AM  
BTW, here's a much better article.
 
2013-01-30 11:16:39 AM  
HotIgneous Intruder
Everyone seen carrying a gun should be shot.


So

1) bye bye police officers and soldiers

2) bye bye citizens allowed to carry depending on the county, city, state and

3) bye bye people who follow your directions and shoot people carrying a gun. Because they must be shot too. By your rules.
 
2013-01-30 11:16:47 AM  

Verdelak: This has been said elsewhere, but I will repeat it here.
Chicago's gun ban can not work. Regardless of where you fall on gun control issues, it should be obvious that a city banning guns cannot keep them from coming in when the state itself and the neighboring states have loose gun laws and there is no "border check" to get in and out of the city. True gun control can only work at a national level, if at all.


Are you saying people couldnt get guns from Mexico or South America?  Interesting viewpoint.
 
2013-01-30 11:17:12 AM  

GameSprocket: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Ed Grubermann: Cybernetic: I see that Chicago's strict gun-control laws are working as well as ever.

And our thread's designated asshole makes himself known...

Because the very day a tragedy involving the use of guns happens, that's the right time to talk about more gun control as with Sandy Hook, but if circumstance shows that gun control is doing nothing, then it's "too soon" to talk about the problem with gun control, right?

Who said too soon? You could wait a hundred years and that talking point would still be stupid.

Localized gun laws are undermined by the ease in which weapons are brought into the controlled area. This is less of an issue with a National policy where illegal weapons would have to come across a controlled border.

Besides, if we had to wait a month from a shooting to discuss gun control, we could never discuss it.


Let's see here..
ad hominem..Argument consisting of "laws are undermined by lawbreakers", so moar laws!..blatant lie.

Exactly the sort of response I expected!
 
2013-01-30 11:17:18 AM  

rufus-t-firefly: Cybernetic: I see that Chicago's strict gun-control laws are working as well as ever.

If only those kids had been armed.


Nobody I know is in favor of arming kids. And it is impossible to look at a situation that has already occurred and determine whether the outcome would have been different had there been an armed, law-abiding citizen present and able to respond. (Note that the phrase "law-abiding citizen" excludes children by default, because laws--even in jurisdictions where firearm carry is legal-- preclude children from carrying.)

Allowing law-abiding citizens to carry firearms has two separate effects. At the individual level, it enables a person to respond to a situation where a criminal endangers the life of that person or someone else. In the aggregate, it creates an environment of uncertainty in the minds of criminals who know that they may face an armed response.

In this situation, two things are certain:
1) The death of Hadiya Pendleton is a horrible tragedy
2) The person who shot her was certain that he would not face any kind of an armed response from a law-abiding citizen

Chicago does not have a gun problem, it has a criminal problem--one that the city's government seems to be either unwilling or unable to address. Until it does so, we will continue to see sad stories like this one.
 
2013-01-30 11:17:23 AM  

Lt. Cheese Weasel: [www.wnd.com image 607x405]
[www.wnd.com image 609x517]

Paradise.


.
While interviewing for my current job I was asked if I had any reservations about travel to Iraq or Afghanistan. I said no, just don't send me to Detroit or Chicago.
 
2013-01-30 11:17:58 AM  

tenpoundsofcheese: He didn't say they weren't interested in background checks, he said that background checks will never be universal (e.g. every gun transaction would have a background check) because criminals would avoid that.


Which is why you should have a national gun registry where every ownership change is tracked, and if a gun is found after having been transferred illegally, the name and address of the person who first sold it illegally without the background check or transfer paperwork is readily available to law enforcement.
 
2013-01-30 11:18:34 AM  

mikefitz: LUCKILY THE LIBERALS BANNED GUNS FROM CHICAGO OH WAIT.


right-wing talk radio must repeat this over and over. your echochamber buddies have echoed this sentiment at least 20 times already in this thread alone. at least they didn't use all caps.
 
2013-01-30 11:18:58 AM  

AverageAmericanGuy: cptjeff: Bubbarella: She shouldn't have been hanging out with gang members.

She wasn't. She was waiting with friends at a bus stop in a decent part of the city, and was hit by stray gunfire.

The man jumped a fence, shot at them, then jumped in a car and sped away.

That's not stray, that's deliberate.


Indications are that the intended target wasn't killed. This means that the shooter saw him in a crowd, didn't care about collateral damage, and popped off some rounds.

These people are making Al Capone look like a nice guy. Seriously. At least Capone's boys actually took the time to try to limit civilian casualties. Gang bangers don't care and should be hunted down with no mercy. Of course that will never happen, so we have what we have.
 
2013-01-30 11:19:25 AM  

varmitydog: [assets.dnainfo.com image 320x240]

Hadiya Pendleton, honor student



I'd hit it....with a 9mm.


/I was already going, one more won't make much difference
 
2013-01-30 11:20:05 AM  

ronaprhys: KiltedBastich: Guns don't manufacture themselves, and last time I checked gang-bangers and crazy people don't tend to be skilled gunsmiths

The prohibition on drugs has certainly worked, no?


Can you easily plant a seed and grow a gun?

Is anyone proposing making all civilian ownership of firearms illegal, with no exceptions? Are there proposals to confiscate and destroy all guns?

Then only way gun regulations are comparable to prohibition or the "war on drugs" would be if we were trying to ban all guns while guns continued to get through.

What would heroin and cocaine use look like if we only had the same regulations on them that guns currently have? You'd see people snorting coke rather than taking a smoke break at work.

The "perfect solution fallacy" is all the MAH GERNS crowd has.

"We can't eliminate gun violence, so why bother doing anything?"
 
2013-01-30 11:20:05 AM  

WeenerGord: This article states that

Many of the teens with Pendleton at the time of the shooting were believed to be gang members and left the scene, according to reports.

Wonder if some gangster got street cred for killing her? Wonder if some in the black community might hate her because she performed at the inaugural? The old crab in the bucket syndrome?


And I wonder if your mother's heroin use is responsible for your low brain activity.
 
2013-01-30 11:20:09 AM  

USP .45: Verdelak: This has been said elsewhere, but I will repeat it here.
Chicago's gun ban can not work. Regardless of where you fall on gun control issues, it should be obvious that a city banning guns cannot keep them from coming in when the state itself and the neighboring states have loose gun laws and there is no "border check" to get in and out of the city. True gun control can only work at a national level, if at all.

the southern border is rock solid yo.


Because Illinois is renowned for its lax firearms laws.
 
2013-01-30 11:20:11 AM  

KiltedBastich: If firearms are plentiful and easy to obtain legally in your society, it then means that there is a plentiful supply of such legal weapons for criminals and the insane to buy, borrow or steal those firearms from the legal owners.

If firearms are rare and difficult to legally obtain in your society, then there is only a scarce supply of such legal weapons for criminals and the insane to buy, borrow or steal those firearms from the legal owners. In neither case is it legal for criminals or the insane to have guns. But only in the former case is it easy for them to get them anyhow...Guns don't manufacture themselves, and last time I checked gang-bangers and crazy people don't tend to be skilled gunsmiths. Almost all those firearms in the hands of criminals an ...


Sorry, but the genie is out of the bottle and guns are already plentiful in our country. If they weren't a part of our culture and our Constitution I might be more apt to support gun control.

If your solution is for all law abiding people to willfully turn in their guns, then all the remaining guns will be owned by the disturbed, the criminals and the police. This seems like a great argument for an enhanced police state. If your idea is to take away everyone's guns by forced search and seizure, that is a police state. Fantastic ideas both of them and totally within the spirit of our country's founding. You should run for President.
 
2013-01-30 11:20:46 AM  

hdhale: AverageAmericanGuy: cptjeff: Bubbarella: She shouldn't have been hanging out with gang members.

She wasn't. She was waiting with friends at a bus stop in a decent part of the city, and was hit by stray gunfire.

The man jumped a fence, shot at them, then jumped in a car and sped away.

That's not stray, that's deliberate.

Indications are that the intended target wasn't killed. This means that the shooter saw him in a crowd, didn't care about collateral damage, and popped off some rounds.

These people are making Al Capone look like a nice guy. Seriously. At least Capone's boys actually took the time to try to limit civilian casualties. Gang bangers don't care and should be hunted down with no mercy. Of course that will never happen, so we have what we have.


You're assuming it's a gangbanger.
 
2013-01-30 11:20:46 AM  

ronaprhys: Especially when the proposals tend to float around "let's ban scary black looking rifles that are less powerful than normal hunting rifles".


yes, that is the emotional response from them again...ohh, scary.

It is also political theater for the left and fits in with their nanny mentality.
 
2013-01-30 11:20:57 AM  
"Gang bangers don't care and should be hunted down with no mercy."

Yes.

"Of course that will never happen, so we have what we have."

Also yes.
 
2013-01-30 11:21:05 AM  

varmitydog: [assets.dnainfo.com image 320x240]

Hadiya Pendleton, honor student


God damn it.
 
2013-01-30 11:21:25 AM  

rufus-t-firefly: tenpoundsofcheese: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Ed Grubermann: Cybernetic: I see that Chicago's strict gun-control laws are working as well as ever.

And our thread's designated asshole makes himself known...

Because the very day a tragedy involving the use of guns happens, that's the right time to talk about more gun control as with Sandy Hook, but if circumstance shows that gun control is doing nothing, then it's "too soon" to talk about the problem with gun control, right?

Yes exactly.
It is the way the liberal mind works:
1.  We must do something about X.
2.  Y is something
3.  Let's do Y!
4.  Oh look, we did something!  Yay for us.

It is an emptional response instead of an intellectual one.  They never stop to think about whether or not Y would actually solve the probem.

Meanwhile, the right-wing thought process is this:

1. We're being pushed to do something about X.
2. Y is something, but it's not a perfect solution that will eliminate X completely.
3. So fark it.

You even refer to "solv[ing] the problem." You aren't going to eradicate gun violence any more than you're going to completely stop drunk driving. The point is to reduce the scope of the problem and decrease the threat in the long term.

I'd say that stopping one mass shooting of kindergarteners would be a victory, but people like you will only support measures that end all mass shootings for all time but somehow don't involve any measure of firearm regulation.


That's not true. I haven't met a firearm owner yet who opposes closing loopholes for waiting periods and background checks. That was a good thing. But we all know that banning something doesn't fix anything. You will create a thriving black market and give mobsters and other criminals across the country a new racket. Blink twice if you understand.
 
2013-01-30 11:21:29 AM  
Obviously the only solution is to ban Liberals.
 
2013-01-30 11:21:39 AM  

KiltedBastich: If firearms are plentiful and easy to obtain legally in your society


Then the law abiding citizens can legally arm themselves in self defense. As they have to, when the cops and government don't get the job done.

But when the guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.

Are you capable of understanding that?
 
2013-01-30 11:21:48 AM  

cptjeff: tenpoundsofcheese: He didn't say they weren't interested in background checks, he said that background checks will never be universal (e.g. every gun transaction would have a background check) because criminals would avoid that.

Which is why you should have a national gun registry where every ownership change is tracked, and if a gun is found after having been transferred illegally, the name and address of the person who first sold it illegally without the background check or transfer paperwork is readily available to law enforcement.


So in your world Eric Holder would prosecute himself? Follow that yellow brick road, Man,
 
2013-01-30 11:22:22 AM  

KiltedBastich: ...and last time I checked gang-bangers and crazy people don't tend to be skilled gunsmiths.


Only because they don't have to be. It's like pot smokers, they can't open a bag of chips, but when it comes to making devices for smoking dope they are MacGyver like.
 
2013-01-30 11:22:33 AM  

friedlinx: Did it happen here?

nsfw language

Hilarity @ 3:30 mark

/you betta back it up


No, that was in Atlanta.

Nice race baiting there.

/buh-bye
 
2013-01-30 11:23:22 AM  
mjones73: Why do laws overturned by the SCOTUS no longer work?

Riiiight. Before Hellier and McDonald, Chicago was such a peaceful place.


geek_mars

Nice job politicizing. This wasn't about policies or agendas from either side of the spectrum.
Bull s--t. FARK greenlighters have been masturbating over dead kids for weeks now.
In that same span we've had dozens of instances where firearms saved lives yet those posts never see the light of day and it isn't rare to see them deleted altogether.

Don't try to now say there's no agenda here. Agree with the agenda or not at least be honest enough to admit that's the reason for all the propaganda.
 
2013-01-30 11:23:32 AM  

AverageAmericanGuy: You're assuming it's a gangbanger.


Pretty safe assumption.
 
2013-01-30 11:23:54 AM  

FeFiFoFark: so with the combined massive Brainpower of Fark™, how about tossing out some solutions to this dilemma?


NUKE IT FROM ORBIT
 
2013-01-30 11:24:11 AM  
Chicago is actually a wonderful and amazing world class city. It's clean, beautiful, full of culture, amazing restaurants, and a neverending list of things to do.

If you're white.

The problem is a few pockets that are South & West of downtown that are severely impoverished where some real life Mad Max shiat goes down daily. Gang warfare on a scale that's nearly unmatched anywhere in the country.

According to this article, more that 2 percent of the entire population of the city is in a gang.

static8.businessinsider.com
 
2013-01-30 11:24:33 AM  

TheDumbBlonde: cptjeff: tenpoundsofcheese: He didn't say they weren't interested in background checks, he said that background checks will never be universal (e.g. every gun transaction would have a background check) because criminals would avoid that.

Which is why you should have a national gun registry where every ownership change is tracked, and if a gun is found after having been transferred illegally, the name and address of the person who first sold it illegally without the background check or transfer paperwork is readily available to law enforcement.

So in your world Eric Holder would prosecute himself? Follow that yellow brick road, Man,


Whatever you're smoking, I want some.
 
2013-01-30 11:24:53 AM  

tenpoundsofcheese: rufus-t-firefly: tenpoundsofcheese: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Ed Grubermann: Cybernetic: I see that Chicago's strict gun-control laws are working as well as ever.

And our thread's designated asshole makes himself known...

Because the very day a tragedy involving the use of guns happens, that's the right time to talk about more gun control as with Sandy Hook, but if circumstance shows that gun control is doing nothing, then it's "too soon" to talk about the problem with gun control, right?

Yes exactly.
It is the way the liberal mind works:
1.  We must do something about X.
2.  Y is something
3.  Let's do Y!
4.  Oh look, we did something!  Yay for us.

It is an emptional response instead of an intellectual one.  They never stop to think about whether or not Y would actually solve the probem.

Meanwhile, the right-wing thought process is this:

1. We're being pushed to do something about X.
2. Y is something, but it's not a perfect solution that will eliminate X completely.
3. So fark it.

You even refer to "solv[ing] the problem." You aren't going to eradicate gun violence any more than you're going to completely stop drunk driving. The point is to reduce the scope of the problem and decrease the threat in the long term.

I never said "X" was  "eradicate gun violence".  It could just as easily be "reduce it by 20%".
Your argument fails.  Again.


First off, "Y" is the attempted solution in your example, not "X."

Your words:

They never stop to think about whether or not Y would actually solve the probem.

Solution: The method or process of solving a problem; he answer to or disposition of a problem.

You're talking about a solution, not mitigating the problem.
 
2013-01-30 11:25:31 AM  
rufus-t-firefly:Is anyone proposing making all civilian ownership of firearms illegal, with no exceptions? Are there proposals to confiscate and destroy all guns?

That is, without a doubt, the left wings intended goal in the U.S. Don't kid yourself.
 
2013-01-30 11:26:10 AM  
cptjeff

What strict gun control? One city having strict laws means absolutely nothing. Travel just outside the city, and you get the same lax gun laws as everywhere else.
Yet those places you enjoy pointing out have such "lax gun laws" don't have anywhere near this level of violence.

Your argument fails.
 
2013-01-30 11:26:39 AM  

kombat_unit: rufus-t-firefly:Is anyone proposing making all civilian ownership of firearms illegal, with no exceptions? Are there proposals to confiscate and destroy all guns?

That is, without a doubt, the left wings intended goal in the U.S. Don't kid yourself.


You're a moron, and you've been lied to.
 
2013-01-30 11:27:28 AM  

OnlyM3: cptjeff

What strict gun control? One city having strict laws means absolutely nothing. Travel just outside the city, and you get the same lax gun laws as everywhere else. Yet those places you enjoy pointing out have such "lax gun laws" don't have anywhere near this level of violence.

Your argument fails.


Only if you ignore any level of complexity above "rocks are hard".
 
2013-01-30 11:28:04 AM  

rufus-t-firefly: The "perfect solution fallacy" is all the MAH GERNS crowd has.


Even if that was true, it would still be better than the "do something that has been proven to do nothing, because it's better than doing nothing" proposal.
 
2013-01-30 11:28:52 AM  

odinsposse: Part of that disbanding was also arresting head gang leaders. That didn't help. It actually destabilized the gangs and what we are seeing now is warfare that is determining new gang organization and turf lines.


When Rudy Giuliani (love him or hate him) was Mayor of New York City, one of his first actions was telling the cops to bust the nickle & dime stuff. Until then law enforcement was all about "don't waste time and energy on the small stuff, go after the Kingpins and Apex Crime Lords". But that's bullshiat, because you take out #1, and there are several #2s waiting to take his place. So you get the petty punks and (1) it cleans up the place; and (2) you often find those punks have outstanding warrants on bigger stuff.


odinsposse: There isn't a pro or anti gun law in the world that would have changed this so both sides of that debate need to shut their fool mouths.


Oh you got that right.
 
2013-01-30 11:29:22 AM  

another cultural observer: USP .45: Verdelak: This has been said elsewhere, but I will repeat it here.
Chicago's gun ban can not work. Regardless of where you fall on gun control issues, it should be obvious that a city banning guns cannot keep them from coming in when the state itself and the neighboring states have loose gun laws and there is no "border check" to get in and out of the city. True gun control can only work at a national level, if at all.

the southern border is rock solid yo.

Because Illinois is renowned for its lax firearms laws.


I live in NY, so yes Illinois' gun laws are lax relative to mine and very lax relative to those of the city of Chicago itself.
Either way, the point still stands. You can ban every gun from Chicago, but if I can buy them elsewhere (Florida for example) and simply drive to Chicago with them, the ban is only useful for adding charges to traffic stops.
 
2013-01-30 11:29:29 AM  

China White Tea: I think of "decent neighborhoods in Chicago", I don't think of any further south than I-55.


How 'bout Hyde Park?
 
2013-01-30 11:29:37 AM  

cptjeff: kombat_unit: rufus-t-firefly:Is anyone proposing making all civilian ownership of firearms illegal, with no exceptions? Are there proposals to confiscate and destroy all guns?

That is, without a doubt, the left wings intended goal in the U.S. Don't kid yourself.

You're a moron, and you've been lied to.


Keep derping. It really helps.
 
2013-01-30 11:29:37 AM  
Yes, the people who appear on TV are more important than people who aren't. That's why their deaths are more politically valuable.

BONUS: She was on TV by virtue of basking in the radiance of His Benevolence, President Downgrade. That makes her extra-super-special.

However, the 100 or so people who died in the last 24 hours on government property somewhere in America as a result of the government's design of highways, the safety features of cars, and traffic rules are not politically important, were probably never on TV, and were never within spitting distance of President Putt-Putt, so they don't matter.

But, please, Proggies, while you ignore traffic deaths, the drug-control origins of most gun crimes, not to mention the vast number of medical error deaths that occur daily, tell us all once more how pure-hearted the Left's gun control motives are.
 
2013-01-30 11:29:46 AM  

rufus-t-firefly: ronaprhys: KiltedBastich: Guns don't manufacture themselves, and last time I checked gang-bangers and crazy people don't tend to be skilled gunsmiths

The prohibition on drugs has certainly worked, no?

Can you easily plant a seed and grow a gun?

Is anyone proposing making all civilian ownership of firearms illegal, with no exceptions? Are there proposals to confiscate and destroy all guns?

Then only way gun regulations are comparable to prohibition or the "war on drugs" would be if we were trying to ban all guns while guns continued to get through.

What would heroin and cocaine use look like if we only had the same regulations on them that guns currently have? You'd see people snorting coke rather than taking a smoke break at work.

The "perfect solution fallacy" is all the MAH GERNS crowd has.

"We can't eliminate gun violence, so why bother doing anything?"


Actually, manufacturing a firearm is very easy. Roughly as easy as manufacturing booze is or making refined drugs. Pot is certainly easier as it's just plant a seed, walk away, harvest (more work if you need to water it).

Additionally, 300 million or so already exist within our borders. As such, banning is an unenforceable and unworkable solution.

Also, don't strawman me. I never said don't do anything. Learn2Debate.
 
2013-01-30 11:30:07 AM  

KiltedBastich: It always amazes me how difficult it is for some people to follow a simple chain of logic.

If firearms are plentiful and easy to obtain legally in your society, it then means that there is a plentiful supply of such legal weapons for criminals and the insane to buy, borrow or steal those firearms from the legal owners.

If firearms are rare and difficult to legally obtain in your society, then there is only a scarce supply of such legal weapons for criminals and the insane to buy, borrow or steal those firearms from the legal owners. In neither case is it legal for criminals or the insane to have guns. But only in the former case is it easy for them to get them anyhow.

This is the empirical result that every other nation in the world has discovered as a result of experimenting with gun control, and yet somehow Americans who argue against gun control cannot seem to understand it. It's really not that hard. Say what you will about the ideology or rights involved, many legal firearms means many firearm equipped criminals and insane individualss, few legal firearms means few firearm equipped criminals and insane individuals.

The only exception to this rule occurs when you have two locations close to each other, one with plentiful easy to acquire legal firearms, and one without. That results in smuggling of illegal weapons to profitably meet the black market demand. Much like how a great deal of Canadian criminals are armed with illegal weapons originally from legal American sources, or how areas with strict local gun control in the USA have issues with guns coming in from areas of the USA where the restrictions are much lower, to the point of near nonexistence. However, it is still the case that the existence of many illegal firearms is initially due to the presence of many legal firearms.

Guns don't manufacture themselves, and last time I checked gang-bangers and crazy people don't tend to be skilled gunsmiths. Almost all those firearms in the hands of criminals an ...


this to infinity and beyond
 
2013-01-30 11:30:17 AM  

Lt. Cheese Weasel: [www.wnd.com image 607x405]
[www.wnd.com image 609x517]

Paradise.


What percentage of those murders were by guns? That may give a clue what to do.
 
2013-01-30 11:30:26 AM  
The canopy needs bullet proof walls.
 
2013-01-30 11:31:01 AM  
Gun control works!
 
2013-01-30 11:31:19 AM  

tenpoundsofcheese: rufus-t-firefly: tenpoundsofcheese: IlGreven: /NRA against every reasonable measure to curb gun violence, up to and including mental health screenings.

you are an idiot. stop getting your talking points from Schultz and Madow, you are just embarrassing yourself.

The NRA has supported mental health as part of background checks.

They have been blocked by some states who are resisting.

Here, from libby MA

But they're not interested in actually having background checks.

"When it comes to the issue of background checks, let's be honest - background checks will never be 'universal' - because criminals will never submit to them," LaPierre's testimony reads.

Oh look, failed reading comprehension AGAIN!
He didn't say they weren't interested in background checks, he said that background checks will never be universal (e.g. every gun transaction would have a background check) because criminals would avoid that.

Now, I didn't expect you would actually understand that since you get your news from a place called Talking Point Memo.


Always attack the source, not the words. Good work. Would you prefer the Washington Post?

I notice you don't have an answer for the NRA's established tactic of weakening mental health screenings. Sure, they're "calling for" them, but they've "supported" such things in the past by making them weak and ineffective.

And as to your attempt at rebuttal: LaPierre is stating the NRA's position as opposed to universal background checks because they can't completely stop illegal gun purchases.

And you claim that other people have problems with reading comprehension?
 
2013-01-30 11:31:24 AM  
1418 dead since Sandy Hook
 
2013-01-30 11:31:41 AM  

cjsmith11878: Ban Chicago.


That would be a start.
Vitalis would take a hit, and the bullet makers, too.
But no farks would be given.
 
2013-01-30 11:31:42 AM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: rufus-t-firefly: The "perfect solution fallacy" is all the MAH GERNS crowd has.

Even if that was true, it would still be better than the "do something that has been proven to do nothing, because it's better than doing nothing" proposal.


How about we adopt some of those laws that have been proven to work then? Take Australia as a model, or anywhere in europe.

Because I see you defending the laws that are causing the problem, and opposing any and all efforts, even those that have been proven to work in many other settings, to make things better.
 
2013-01-30 11:32:14 AM  

cptjeff: AverageAmericanGuy: You're assuming it's a gangbanger.

Pretty safe assumption.


I'm not ready to make that assumption. Too many incidents lately which seem to be driving a narrative the administration desperately wants. There is no description of the shooter. No description of the escape vehicle.

So far the incidents have been setting up "your kids are at risk", "your neighbor can't be trusted with guns", "crazy survivalists will kidnap your kids". Now "even a girl this close to Obama is dead due to guns." All the pieces are falling into place perfectly. Public awareness and outrage is growing. The political will to enact gun control measures is growing. The gun advocates are finding their positions softening on who should be able to get guns (not the crazies!). Everything is moving very quickly in the direction of more gun control. I don't believe this to be an accident or coincidence.
 
2013-01-30 11:32:28 AM  
I've been seeing all these pictures comparing Chicago's homicide rate with other cities. So being a in an attempt to be knowledgeable, I decided to look it up for myself. Chicago (*3rd largest city @ 2.8 million) had over 500 homicides in 2012. Houston (*4th largest @ 2.2 million) had approximately 217 homicides in 2012. Chicago has the some of the most stringent gun control laws in the nation. And Houston's (to my knowledge) isn't any different from the state of Texas and of course isn't as stringent. The point. GUN CONTROL LAWS DON'T KEEP THE PEOPLE THAT WANT TO USE THEM IN VIOLENT CRIME FROM GETTING THEM! Mexico has very strict gun laws that obviously only keep them out of the hands of the law abiding citizens. The facts don't lie, that should b enough proof that extreme gun control laws DON'T WORK!
 
2013-01-30 11:32:34 AM  

Bubbarella: She shouldn't have been hanging out with gang members.


I thought everyone in Chicago was a gang member.

Judging by the upstream demographics, it appears that Chicago's black communities really need to get their shiat together. Chicago is turning into a Klansman's utopia. Black going to jail for killing blacks.
 
2013-01-30 11:32:39 AM  

give me doughnuts: Sounds like the shooter was going through a gang initiation.


So, Laura Bush can be blamed for this?
 
2013-01-30 11:33:07 AM  

WeenerGord: KiltedBastich: If firearms are plentiful and easy to obtain legally in your society

Then the law abiding citizens can legally arm themselves in self defense. As they have to, when the cops and government don't get the job done.

But when the guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.

Are you capable of understanding that?


No, they don't understand that. They also don't understand that cutting and pasting our constitution because of an irritational emotional response is NOT a good idea. True, private citizens may never find the need to protect themselves from a foreign or domestic threat. But can they guarantee that for me? Can they guarantee that I will never need to defend myself? If so, then by all means, they can take away our guns. Take them all, melt them down into re-rod for all I care.

I really don't believe that Obama et. al. want to take away our guns because they're planning some hostile takeover Hitler-style or any other foil-capped nonsense. But if some foreign threat ever came, weather it's in five years or fifty, I'd rather die with a gun in my hand than in shackles. But that's just me.
 
2013-01-30 11:33:20 AM  

cptjeff: BraveNewCheneyWorld: rufus-t-firefly: The "perfect solution fallacy" is all the MAH GERNS crowd has.

Even if that was true, it would still be better than the "do something that has been proven to do nothing, because it's better than doing nothing" proposal.

How about we adopt some of those laws that have been proven to work then? Take Australia as a model, or anywhere in europe.

Because I see you defending the laws that are causing the problem, and opposing any and all efforts, even those that have been proven to work in many other settings, to make things better.


Those countries also don't have nearly the level of street gangs we have here. You can't make a comparison simply based on laws, there's more variables.
 
2013-01-30 11:33:21 AM  
Crap, left out the slashie

/just on my friend's facebook last week
 
2013-01-30 11:33:31 AM  
Chicago...determined to take Detroit's title?
 
2013-01-30 11:34:05 AM  

Princess Ryans Knickers: 1418 dead since Sandy Hook


Over 4,000 are dead because of car crashes since Sandy Hook.

A lot of them were kids, too.
 
2013-01-30 11:34:07 AM  

Verdelak: This has been said elsewhere, but I will repeat it here.
Chicago's gun ban can not work. Regardless of where you fall on gun control issues, it should be obvious that a city banning guns cannot keep them from coming in when the state itself and the neighboring states have loose gun laws and there is no "border check" to get in and out of the city. True gun control can only work at a national level, if at all.



Because we have such a good border control of the nation! Guns could never be brought in over the national border to arm terrorists, oh no! The national border is so secure! NOT!
 
2013-01-30 11:34:08 AM  

ronaprhys: rufus-t-firefly: ronaprhys: KiltedBastich: Guns don't manufacture themselves, and last time I checked gang-bangers and crazy people don't tend to be skilled gunsmiths

The prohibition on drugs has certainly worked, no?

Can you easily plant a seed and grow a gun?

Is anyone proposing making all civilian ownership of firearms illegal, with no exceptions? Are there proposals to confiscate and destroy all guns?

Then only way gun regulations are comparable to prohibition or the "war on drugs" would be if we were trying to ban all guns while guns continued to get through.

What would heroin and cocaine use look like if we only had the same regulations on them that guns currently have? You'd see people snorting coke rather than taking a smoke break at work.

The "perfect solution fallacy" is all the MAH GERNS crowd has.

"We can't eliminate gun violence, so why bother doing anything?"

Actually, manufacturing a firearm is very easy. Roughly as easy as manufacturing booze is or making refined drugs. Pot is certainly easier as it's just plant a seed, walk away, harvest (more work if you need to water it).

Additionally, 300 million or so already exist within our borders. As such, banning is an unenforceable and unworkable solution.

Also, don't strawman me. I never said don't do anything. Learn2Debate.


So, debate is dropping one sarcastic reference? Excellent work.

You referred to probation of drugs sarcastically. I pointed out that your reference was not applicable and intellectually weak.

If you want to debate, actually try making a legitimate point in the first place. Also, learn what a "strawman" actually is, because I didn't ascribe any views to you in my post.
 
2013-01-30 11:34:24 AM  

kombat_unit: cptjeff: kombat_unit: rufus-t-firefly:Is anyone proposing making all civilian ownership of firearms illegal, with no exceptions? Are there proposals to confiscate and destroy all guns?

That is, without a doubt, the left wings intended goal in the U.S. Don't kid yourself.

You're a moron, and you've been lied to.

Keep derping. It really helps.


So somehow your saying that everybody in favor of any gun control proposal, no matter how moderate, is trying to ban every gun ever isn't a massively stupid, extreme and ignorant remark?

Yeah, okay. Keep farking that chicken.
 
2013-01-30 11:34:35 AM  

kombat_unit: rufus-t-firefly:Is anyone proposing making all civilian ownership of firearms illegal, with no exceptions? Are there proposals to confiscate and destroy all guns?

That is, without a doubt, the left wings intended goal in the U.S. Don't kid yourself.


Or at least attempt it and ensure a republican majority for the next decade. Far right republicans are shiatting themselves in panic. Any republican toward the left of that is laughing his ass off and drooling over the donations coming in.
 
2013-01-30 11:34:35 AM  
devilEther

all you got to do is buy them from a neighboring city where they are still legal. duh

HotIgneous Intruder

Everyone seen carrying a gun should be shot.

The party of peace and tolerance the klan, slavery and lynching once again advocating murder. You're no longer "shocking" or "edgy" it's what we expect from your side of the spectrum.
 
2013-01-30 11:34:38 AM  
We don't seem to have problems tightly regulating the possession, storage, and transport of explosives like C4, Semtex, grenades, mines, RPGs, etc. These can all cause mass/capricious death.

Why can we do it for one dangerous set of items but not for guns?

Next question:

The 2nd Amendment was written when the hand-loaded flint lock musket was the primary weapon of choice. Cartridge ammo was not common.

Why not heavily regulate ammo, filled with an explosive, as we do other explosives instead of guns?
 
2013-01-30 11:34:40 AM  

cptjeff: Because I see you defending the laws that are causing the problem, and opposing any and all efforts, even those that have been proven to work in many other settings, to make things better.


Well, one step would be to remove ownership of specific consumer items from the US Constitution.
 
2013-01-30 11:35:03 AM  

DROxINxTHExWIND: WeenerGord: This article states that

Many of the teens with Pendleton at the time of the shooting were believed to be gang members and left the scene, according to reports.

Wonder if some gangster got street cred for killing her? Wonder if some in the black community might hate her because she performed at the inaugural? The old crab in the bucket syndrome?

And I wonder if your mother's heroin use is responsible for your low brain activity.



Were you looking in a mirror when you typed that? Not everyone is like you.
 
2013-01-30 11:35:35 AM  

kombat_unit: rufus-t-firefly:Is anyone proposing making all civilian ownership of firearms illegal, with no exceptions? Are there proposals to confiscate and destroy all guns?

That is, without a doubt, the left wings intended goal in the U.S. Don't kid yourself.


I didn't get the memo. Someone better have a god damned good reason for not informing me of our ultimate goal.
 
2013-01-30 11:35:37 AM  

cptjeff: BraveNewCheneyWorld: rufus-t-firefly: The "perfect solution fallacy" is all the MAH GERNS crowd has.

Even if that was true, it would still be better than the "do something that has been proven to do nothing, because it's better than doing nothing" proposal.

How about we adopt some of those laws that have been proven to work then? Take Australia as a model, or anywhere in europe.

Because I see you defending the laws that are causing the problem, and opposing any and all efforts, even those that have been proven to work in many other settings, to make things better.


Australia's model is unconstitutional, under our Constitution (not theirs). I've not seen a set of laws in Europe that would pass Constitutional muster, either. If you want to go with a suggestion that repeals the 2A, then state that up front and propose it at such.
 
2013-01-30 11:36:09 AM  

AverageAmericanGuy: Too many incidents lately which seem to be driving a narrative the administration desperately wants.


These incidents have always been there, the media and the public are just paying more attention.

Yes, calling attention to and reporting on a problem helps drive political will to address the problem, but it doesn't mean the problem is new. This has been going on for a very long time.
 
2013-01-30 11:37:25 AM  

another cultural observer: USP .45: Verdelak: This has been said elsewhere, but I will repeat it here.
Chicago's gun ban can not work. Regardless of where you fall on gun control issues, it should be obvious that a city banning guns cannot keep them from coming in when the state itself and the neighboring states have loose gun laws and there is no "border check" to get in and out of the city. True gun control can only work at a national level, if at all.

the southern border is rock solid yo.

Because Illinois is renowned for its lax firearms laws.


If you are a legal gun owner in Michigan and you decide to move to Illinois, you are a criminal the moment you cross the border unless you somehow managed to apply for an Illinois FOID card and wait 6 weeks before moving here...if you can even do that as a Michigan resident. That's Illinois at work.

OK i just checked and the IL FOID app says "Mailing Address (Illinois Residency Required)"! What the fark is wrong with this state. So I guess you need t leave your guns in a secret location, move here, apply for your FOID, and only then can you legally bring your guns home.
 
2013-01-30 11:37:40 AM  

rufus-t-firefly: I didn't get the memo. Someone better have a god damned good reason for not informing me of our ultimate goal.


You're what's known as a Useful Idiot.

That's why you don't get the memos.
 
2013-01-30 11:38:05 AM  

rufus-t-firefly: So, debate is dropping one sarcastic reference? Excellent work.

You referred to probation of drugs sarcastically. I pointed out that your reference was not applicable and intellectually weak.

If you want to debate, actually try making a legitimate point in the first place. Also, learn what a "strawman" actually is, because I didn't ascribe any views to you in my post.


Actually, my reference (though sarcastic) is not weak. Not at all. I gave reasons in the post you just replied to. You've ignored those.

You clearly reference the mah gerns crowd to include me and my arguments. That would be strawmanning me as that's not what I've said. Again, Learn2Debate.
 
2013-01-30 11:39:18 AM  

cptjeff: AverageAmericanGuy: Too many incidents lately which seem to be driving a narrative the administration desperately wants.

These incidents have always been there, the media and the public are just paying more attention.

Yes, calling attention to and reporting on a problem helps drive political will to address the problem, but it doesn't mean the problem is new. This has been going on for a very long time.


You say the media is driving the narrative. I say the administration is carrying out targeted incidents to drive the narrative.

Potato/Tomahto
 
2013-01-30 11:39:31 AM  

Verdelak: another cultural observer: USP .45: Verdelak: This has been said elsewhere, but I will repeat it here.
Chicago's gun ban can not work. Regardless of where you fall on gun control issues, it should be obvious that a city banning guns cannot keep them from coming in when the state itself and the neighboring states have loose gun laws and there is no "border check" to get in and out of the city. True gun control can only work at a national level, if at all.

the southern border is rock solid yo.

Because Illinois is renowned for its lax firearms laws.

I live in NY, so yes Illinois' gun laws are lax relative to mine and very lax relative to those of the city of Chicago itself.
Either way, the point still stands. You can ban every gun from Chicago, but if I can buy them elsewhere (Florida for example) and simply drive to Chicago with them, the ban is only useful for adding charges to traffic stops.


If the State amped up the penalties for possessing illegal weapons, the gun ban would be more than just an addition to a traffic stop, and would change the culture around guns without making them more difficult for law abiders to acquire

Example: Q murders A. Police arrive. Q is charged with murder 1 and possessing an illegal firearm. The State cannot prove murder 1, because J was also there, and also had a gun of similar make. Q goes to prison for life anyway because he was found in possession of an illegal, loaded firearm.

The extra prisons will generate new public sector jobs!

key:

Q = Quantrell
A = Arzavius
J = Juan
 
2013-01-30 11:39:46 AM  
Delay

What percentage of those murders were by guns? That may give a clue what to do.
I'd say exactly zero of those murders were committed by firearms. I'd bet that every one of them was committed by a person. I'd also bet you could narrow that even further.
 
2013-01-30 11:39:59 AM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: GameSprocket: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Ed Grubermann: Cybernetic: I see that Chicago's strict gun-control laws are working as well as ever.

And our thread's designated asshole makes himself known...

Because the very day a tragedy involving the use of guns happens, that's the right time to talk about more gun control as with Sandy Hook, but if circumstance shows that gun control is doing nothing, then it's "too soon" to talk about the problem with gun control, right?

Who said too soon? You could wait a hundred years and that talking point would still be stupid.

Localized gun laws are undermined by the ease in which weapons are brought into the controlled area. This is less of an issue with a National policy where illegal weapons would have to come across a controlled border.

Besides, if we had to wait a month from a shooting to discuss gun control, we could never discuss it.

Let's see here..
ad hominem..Argument consisting of "laws are undermined by lawbreakers", so moar laws!..blatant lie.

Exactly the sort of response I expected!


So you don't know what an ad hominem attack is, and you lack the reading comprehension to address my point.

I suspect one of your mother's johns may have been a relative.

/That is an ad hominem attack, just so you know. Saying your point was stupid is just rational thought.
 
2013-01-30 11:40:02 AM  

Lt. Cheese Weasel: [www.wnd.com image 607x405]
[www.wnd.com image 609x517]

Paradise.


The Afghanistan/Chicago comparison is totally dishonest; it's not per capita, doesn't include civilian deaths and is playing loose with the definition of murder.
 
2013-01-30 11:40:08 AM  

Jesda: Gun control works!


Since people still die in hospitals we should do away with hospitals and medicine.

Derp.
 
2013-01-30 11:40:30 AM  

rufus-t-firefly: Is anyone proposing making all civilian ownership of firearms illegal, with no exceptions?


Yes.
 
2013-01-30 11:42:14 AM  
we're getting off track here.

Ban Chicago.
 
2013-01-30 11:42:17 AM  

devilEther: WeenerGord: devilEther: cgraves67: Chacago: "You're safe here; guns are illegal"

all you got to do is buy them from a neighboring city where they are still legal. duh

You think gangbangers buy their guns only from legal sources? HAHA!

They wait for the background check too, right? HAHA!

Wise up America!

gangbangers shoot other gangbangers.

why not legalize rape since people are still being raped? maybe because it might deter at least one individual from doing it.



Laws only restrain decent, law abiding citizens. Other methods are required for those who are neither. Murder and rape are both illegal, and should be. It's very stupid of you to suggest legalizing rape. But no doubt the gangbangers would support your position.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people. A gun is just a tool. If you take away guns, the murderers will find other ways to kill. Stop worrying about the guns and focus on the murderers.
 
2013-01-30 11:42:18 AM  

FeFiFoFark: so with the combined massive Brainpower of Fark™, how about tossing out some solutions to this dilemma?


Honest non drama queen nutbaggy answer - Keep doing what we are doing, since the violent crime rate has been falling dramatically for decades. In recent months however, select crimes have gotten disproportionate coverage. It sells - both money and political agenda currency. Some cities such as Chicago and Detroit have bucked this trend with steady rates of violence. Those cities already have some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation, so this doesn't seem to suggest that passing more gun control laws is the entire answer. I would suggest continuing to focus on the economy, and not let the media distract the nation with a partisan shouting match. 5 year olds, and partisan shills will fall for it. Those with common sense will stay focused on real issues.
 
2013-01-30 11:42:37 AM  

AverageAmericanGuy: cptjeff: AverageAmericanGuy: Too many incidents lately which seem to be driving a narrative the administration desperately wants.

These incidents have always been there, the media and the public are just paying more attention.

Yes, calling attention to and reporting on a problem helps drive political will to address the problem, but it doesn't mean the problem is new. This has been going on for a very long time.

You say the media is driving the narrative. I say thesome elements within the administration isare carrying out targeted incidents to drive the narrative.

Potato/Tomahto


FTFM. I'm not saying that Obama is behind these attacks and calling the shots.
 
2013-01-30 11:43:52 AM  

ronaprhys: cptjeff: BraveNewCheneyWorld: rufus-t-firefly: The "perfect solution fallacy" is all the MAH GERNS crowd has.

Even if that was true, it would still be better than the "do something that has been proven to do nothing, because it's better than doing nothing" proposal.

How about we adopt some of those laws that have been proven to work then? Take Australia as a model, or anywhere in europe.

Because I see you defending the laws that are causing the problem, and opposing any and all efforts, even those that have been proven to work in many other settings, to make things better.

Australia's model is unconstitutional, under our Constitution (not theirs). I've not seen a set of laws in Europe that would pass Constitutional muster, either. If you want to go with a suggestion that repeals the 2A, then state that up front and propose it at such.


The Supreme Court has explicitly said that some restrictions on the right to own guns are perfectly permissible under the 2nd Amendment. I've proposed a lot of solutions in these various gun threads that don't even come close to violating the 2nd Amendment (universal background checks, a national database with immediate reporting on any change in ownership including loss or theft, empowering law enforcement to use that database to track patterns and crack down on straw purchases). I'm not proposing we take any other country's laws wholesale, I'm saying that you can look at them, see what works, and adapt them to the United States in a form that makes sense and allows the forms of gun ownership we think are appropriate to preserve.
 
2013-01-30 11:44:55 AM  

WeenerGord: A gun is just a tool.


Then gun ownership should not be in the constitution. Trowels aren't. What makes guns so special? They are effective in killing. That's their purpose.
 
2013-01-30 11:45:23 AM  

Joe Blowme: justtray: mjones73: Ed Grubermann: Cybernetic: I see that Chicago's strict gun-control laws are working as well as ever.

And our thread's designated asshole makes himself known...

For stating the obvious?

Are you an idiot?

So now correlation equals causation? Okay good, then we have 4x the homicide rate as the UK because we can get guns way easier, having a gun around you makes you more likely to kill your family than an intruder, southern states with more lax gun control have higher homicide rates than even Illinois, New York, etc because they have more lax gun control, and CCW holders are just as likely to commit homicide by gun on another person than non, meaning despite alleged higher responsibility, they're actually equal or more prone to shooting other people.

Now shut up or GTFO.

Sounds like you have gunaphobia, get help


The correct term is hoplophobia. It is a well documented mental disorder
 
2013-01-30 11:45:27 AM  

rufus-t-firefly: kombat_unit: rufus-t-firefly:Is anyone proposing making all civilian ownership of firearms illegal, with no exceptions? Are there proposals to confiscate and destroy all guns?

That is, without a doubt, the left wings intended goal in the U.S. Don't kid yourself.

I didn't get the memo. Someone better have a god damned good reason for not informing me of our ultimate goal.


Just shows you're not important enough to the left wing. Whinge on dkos harder maybe?
 
2013-01-30 11:46:12 AM  

Phinn: Princess Ryans Knickers: 1418 dead since Sandy Hook

Over 4,000 are dead because of car crashes since Sandy Hook.

A lot of them were kids, too.


Citation needed.
 
2013-01-30 11:47:08 AM  
the number of people who publicly say they want reasonable gun control but privately (or publicly, under other circumstances) will tell you nobody needs a gun except the police is probably about the same as the number of people who publicly push for reasonable measures such as banning partial birth abortion or other late term abortion, and protecting babies from botched abortions, but will in other circumstance argue against all abortion rights.

That is how assholes attempt to deny us rights affirmed by the constitution. They can't attack it head on and win so they nibble around the edges and attempt to make baby steps.
 
2013-01-30 11:47:12 AM  

jaybeezey: Bubbarella: She shouldn't have been hanging out with gang members.

I thought everyone in Chicago was a gang member.

Judging by the upstream demographics, it appears that Chicago's black communities really need to get their shiat together. Chicago is turning into a Klansman's utopia. Black going to jail for killing blacks.


You sound...concerned.
 
2013-01-30 11:47:14 AM  

Delay: WeenerGord: A gun is just a tool.

Then gun ownership should not be in the constitution. Trowels aren't. What makes guns so special? They are effective in killing. That's their purpose.


Then quit being lazy and amend the Constitution.
 
2013-01-30 11:48:20 AM  

Big_Fat_Liar: another cultural observer: USP .45: Verdelak: This has been said elsewhere, but I will repeat it here.
Chicago's gun ban can not work. Regardless of where you fall on gun control issues, it should be obvious that a city banning guns cannot keep them from coming in when the state itself and the neighboring states have loose gun laws and there is no "border check" to get in and out of the city. True gun control can only work at a national level, if at all.

the southern border is rock solid yo.

Because Illinois is renowned for its lax firearms laws.

If you are a legal gun owner in Michigan and you decide to move to Illinois, you are a criminal the moment you cross the border unless you somehow managed to apply for an Illinois FOID card and wait 6 weeks before moving here...if you can even do that as a Michigan resident. That's Illinois at work.

OK i just checked and the IL FOID app says "Mailing Address (Illinois Residency Required)"! What the fark is wrong with this state. So I guess you need t leave your guns in a secret location, move here, apply for your FOID, and only then can you legally bring your guns home.


There is a 60 day grace period if you are moving to Illinois in regards to getting a FOID card.

http://www.isp.state.il.us/foid/firearmsfaq.cfm See the second item "Who needs a FOID card"
 
2013-01-30 11:48:42 AM  
I think the solution is mandatory target practice for all gang members. Let's make them more efficient at taking each other out.
 
2013-01-30 11:49:45 AM  

ronaprhys: The prohibition on drugs has certainly worked, no?


Hey look, a false analogy fallacy. Guns are not drugs. Those who buy them, those who sell them and how they are used and for what purposes are all very different. And as the rest of the world can tell you, gun control does work if you are consistent and pragmatic about your regulations.

elysive: Sorry, but the genie is out of the bottle and guns are already plentiful in our country. If they weren't a part of our culture and our Constitution I might be more apt to support gun control.

If your solution is for all law abiding people to willfully turn in their guns, then all the remaining guns will be owned by the disturbed, the criminals and the police. This seems like a great argument for an enhanced police state. If your idea is to take away everyone's guns by forced search and seizure, that is a police state. Fantastic ideas both of them and totally within the spirit of our country's founding. You should run for President.


Ah, so because the problem is large, you should not bother making any efforts to fix things? You're not in favor of long-term thinking, I see. You have made your mess, you will have to deal with the bitter dregs of it as you clean it up. If you bring down the number of legal guns, yes, that could mean that for a time there will be more guns in the hands of criminals and the insane. And then those guns will be lost, broken or confiscated, and they would not be able to replace them because the legal supply they depended on as their source would be gone.

It could also mean that you simply reduce the supply of new legal guns to near zero, and then try to bring down the rate of legal guns in private ownership slowly while doing the same thing with the supply of illegal firearms. There are solutions paths that are not absolutes, you know. Another failing I commonly see in pro-gun advocates is such black and white absolute thinking.

You know, this is exactly the phenomenon that every other modern first world nation that had to grapple with this issue faced, if on a smaller scale; none of them have let it get quite so out of hand as the USA has. They found solutions. Are you saying the USA is not competent to do what other nations have done successfully? Including pro-gun countries like Israel and Switzerland?

And for the record, your ethnocentrism is showing. Why do you assume I am an American? I am not. I am a Canadian. Perhaps you overlooked the way I was saying "your society"? That's a big part of the reason that I am familiar with the fact that gun control does mitigate the problems your society is currently facing, and how a large supply of legal guns is the source of the large supply of illegal guns. A great deal of the gun violence in Canada is done with illegal guns that were formerly legal American guns. And even with that fact, our rates of gun violence are enormously less than yours. Because sensible gun regulations that still let the people who actually need to have guns have them actually does resolve a lot of the problems, despite what your ideological pro-gun pundits may tell you.
 
2013-01-30 11:50:08 AM  

EyeballKid: give me doughnuts: Sounds like the shooter was going through a gang initiation.

So, Laura Bush can be blamed for this?


She's a known killer.
 
2013-01-30 11:51:02 AM  

KiltedBastich: Why do you assume I am an American? I am not. I am a Canadian. Perhaps you overlooked the way I was saying "your society"?


Hey. Settle down. Reading comprehension isn't one of our strong suits.
 
2013-01-30 11:51:03 AM  

Big_Fat_Liar: another cultural observer: USP .45: Verdelak: This has been said elsewhere, but I will repeat it here.
Chicago's gun ban can not work. Regardless of where you fall on gun control issues, it should be obvious that a city banning guns cannot keep them from coming in when the state itself and the neighboring states have loose gun laws and there is no "border check" to get in and out of the city. True gun control can only work at a national level, if at all.

the southern border is rock solid yo.

Because Illinois is renowned for its lax firearms laws.

If you are a legal gun owner in Michigan and you decide to move to Illinois, you are a criminal the moment you cross the border unless you somehow managed to apply for an Illinois FOID card and wait 6 weeks before moving here...if you can even do that as a Michigan resident. That's Illinois at work.

OK i just checked and the IL FOID app says "Mailing Address (Illinois Residency Required)"! What the fark is wrong with this state. So I guess you need t leave your guns in a secret location, move here, apply for your FOID, and only then can you legally bring your guns home.


When you've finally got your FOID and you're ready to transport your gun, be sure to separate your gun and ammunition. Because using one locked case to transport both the gun and the ammunition is reckless in the extreme, and should be a felony.

And if you want to buy a gun in Illinois, travel 2 hours to the gun store. Spend time looking at their wares. Pick out your gun. Pay for the gun. Then travel 2 hours back home. Wait three days. Travel 2 hours back to the gun store. Pick up your gun. Travel 2 hours back home.

The Gas Station lobby must have had something to do with that 3-day wait rule...
 
2013-01-30 11:51:25 AM  

Verdelak: another cultural observer: USP .45: Verdelak: This has been said elsewhere, but I will repeat it here.
Chicago's gun ban can not work. Regardless of where you fall on gun control issues, it should be obvious that a city banning guns cannot keep them from coming in when the state itself and the neighboring states have loose gun laws and there is no "border check" to get in and out of the city. True gun control can only work at a national level, if at all.

the southern border is rock solid yo.

Because Illinois is renowned for its lax firearms laws.

I live in NY, so yes Illinois' gun laws are lax relative to mine and very lax relative to those of the city of Chicago itself.
Either way, the point still stands. You can ban every gun from Chicago, but if I can buy them elsewhere (Florida for example) and simply drive to Chicago with them, the ban is only useful for adding charges to traffic stops.


Exactly. If we banned them across the entire country then it would actually work. I mean, when was the last time you heard about somebody getting their hands on some meth? That shiat practically doesn't exist anymore, and it is only because we banned it.
 
2013-01-30 11:51:35 AM  

signaljammer: China White Tea: I think of "decent neighborhoods in Chicago", I don't think of any further south than I-55.

How 'bout Hyde Park?


Hyde Park itself isn't bad, but a lot of the areas that border it are pretty poor. Every rule has its exceptions, of course, but my don't-get-murdered-in-Chicago rule reads as follows:
Step 1. Stay north of I-55
Step 2. Stay east of 90/94.

This is a little dated (c. 2010), but really illustrates the point pretty well: Link
 
2013-01-30 11:52:40 AM  

Loucifer: Ban Chicago.

 
2013-01-30 11:52:46 AM  

give me doughnuts: EyeballKid: give me doughnuts: Sounds like the shooter was going through a gang initiation.

So, Laura Bush can be blamed for this?

She's a known killer.


Obama did it. It is all part of his master plan to outlaw guns and force republicans into FEMA camps where they will be taught to accept their gayness.
 
2013-01-30 11:52:58 AM  

WeenerGord: DROxINxTHExWIND: WeenerGord: This article states that

Many of the teens with Pendleton at the time of the shooting were believed to be gang members and left the scene, according to reports.

Wonder if some gangster got street cred for killing her? Wonder if some in the black community might hate her because she performed at the inaugural? The old crab in the bucket syndrome?

And I wonder if your mother's heroin use is responsible for your low brain activity.


Were you looking in a mirror when you typed that? Not everyone is like you.


The old, "I'm rubber, you're glue". Yeah, that's about what I expected. So, I see you're into elevating yourself above the black community so that you and other broke white people can feel better about your own failures. How's that working out?
 
2013-01-30 11:53:00 AM  
Did anyone say "Ban Chicago"? Cause if not, "Ban Chicago".

/How many times did I say it?
 
2013-01-30 11:53:02 AM  

umad: Verdelak: another cultural observer: USP .45: Verdelak: This has been said elsewhere, but I will repeat it here.
Chicago's gun ban can not work. Regardless of where you fall on gun control issues, it should be obvious that a city banning guns cannot keep them from coming in when the state itself and the neighboring states have loose gun laws and there is no "border check" to get in and out of the city. True gun control can only work at a national level, if at all.

the southern border is rock solid yo.

Because Illinois is renowned for its lax firearms laws.

I live in NY, so yes Illinois' gun laws are lax relative to mine and very lax relative to those of the city of Chicago itself.
Either way, the point still stands. You can ban every gun from Chicago, but if I can buy them elsewhere (Florida for example) and simply drive to Chicago with them, the ban is only useful for adding charges to traffic stops.

Exactly. If we banned them across the entire country then it would actually work. I mean, when was the last time you heard about somebody getting their hands on some meth? That shiat practically doesn't exist anymore, and it is only because we banned it.


Yes, but you can't make your own guns. Ignore "garage guns", ignore Chechen AK-47's made out of shoddy pinball machine parts and rubber bands. Once it's a nationwide ban, people will not use the internet to gain the knowhow to manufacture their own, untraceable guns.
 
2013-01-30 11:53:08 AM  

broken jebus: I think the solution is mandatory target practice for all gang members. Let's make them more efficient at taking each other out.


Lesson 1- Cred > style: don't hold your weapon sideways.
 
2013-01-30 11:53:28 AM  

Phinn: Over 4,000 are dead because of car crashes since Sandy Hook.

A lot of them were kids, too.


Clearly, then, we should abolish any and all traffic laws. They don't stop all road fatalities, and they get in the way of my FREEEEEEEDOOOOOOOMMM to do doughnuts on the interstate after having downed a fifth of Jim Beam.
 
2013-01-30 11:53:41 AM  

ethics-gradient: factoryconnection: What the living hell is wrong with people? Charge at a group of kids huddled in the rain and just start firing? Although I assume this is personal, the wanton disregard for any sort of humanity is still appalling. I hate these "I have a beef with someone you know/love, now you die!" stories that come out of the dregs of society and gangster movies.

I know, in our rarer shootings and gang murders here in the UK the same attitude is displayed. Is it a sort of massive arrogance? "I'm so important that I'll risk the lives of innocent bystanders who are nothing to do with my beef."? Or is it retarded deludedness: "I'm such an incredibly good shot despite not knowing shiat about guns nor ever having bothered to learn."?
Personally I think massive ignorance breeds massive arrogance.


No, I suspect it's more "Life is cheap and worthless and miserable for me, and I can't imagine it being any different for anyone else."

At least in the States, any attempt whatsoever to address the question of life being perceived as cheap and worthless is howled down by the Puritans on both sides of the political debate -- either through "not one penny for those goddamn parasites", or "we know all about how to make it better for you and you'll do what we goddamn tell you before we help."
 
2013-01-30 11:53:55 AM  

KiltedBastich: Why do you assume I am an American? I am not. I am a Canadian.


Well, then you're a godless commie whose opinion should be ignored on all subjects, of course.

\And the Habs suck.
 
2013-01-30 11:54:09 AM  

another cultural observer: Big_Fat_Liar: another cultural observer: USP .45: Verdelak: This has been said elsewhere, but I will repeat it here.
Chicago's gun ban can not work. Regardless of where you fall on gun control issues, it should be obvious that a city banning guns cannot keep them from coming in when the state itself and the neighboring states have loose gun laws and there is no "border check" to get in and out of the city. True gun control can only work at a national level, if at all.

the southern border is rock solid yo.

Because Illinois is renowned for its lax firearms laws.

If you are a legal gun owner in Michigan and you decide to move to Illinois, you are a criminal the moment you cross the border unless you somehow managed to apply for an Illinois FOID card and wait 6 weeks before moving here...if you can even do that as a Michigan resident. That's Illinois at work.

OK i just checked and the IL FOID app says "Mailing Address (Illinois Residency Required)"! What the fark is wrong with this state. So I guess you need t leave your guns in a secret location, move here, apply for your FOID, and only then can you legally bring your guns home.

When you've finally got your FOID and you're ready to transport your gun, be sure to separate your gun and ammunition. Because using one locked case to transport both the gun and the ammunition is reckless in the extreme, and should be a felony.

And if you want to buy a gun in Illinois, travel 2 hours to the gun store. Spend time looking at their wares. Pick out your gun. Pay for the gun. Then travel 2 hours back home. Wait three days. Travel 2 hours back to the gun store. Pick up your gun. Travel 2 hours back home.

The Gas Station lobby must have had something to do with that 3-day wait rule...


Illinois residents are obviously driving out of the state, legally purchasing handguns from gun stores in states without such restrictions, and then driving them into Chicago to sell to criminals.
 
2013-01-30 11:54:16 AM  

geek_mars: clane: When extreme Liberals dominate politics in a city for years it becomes so very sad....

D-Liver
Nice job politicizing. This wasn't about policies or agendas from either side of the spectrum.


clane:
So you're saying the order in which a government manages a city has zero effect on crime? Go back to sleep...
 
2013-01-30 11:54:23 AM  

ScouserDuck: IlGreven: Keep defending your gun rights to the hilt, Wayne. You'll get counter-examples every day.

/NRA against every reasonable measure to curb gun violence, up to and including mental health screenings.
//Mainly because they have many health organizations and more than a few insurance companies on their "Enemies of the 2nd Amendment" blacklist.

This absolutely a counter example....of how strict gun control doesn't work.


So arm teenage girls? Is that your solution?
 
2013-01-30 11:56:27 AM  

Phinn: Princess Ryans Knickers: 1418 dead since Sandy Hook

Over 4,000 are dead because of car crashes since Sandy Hook.

A lot of them were kids, too.


False equivalency is false.

Cars aren't solely intended to kill or maim people. That's why "car crashes" are called "accidents" sometimes. On the other hand, a gun's primary function is to kill or hurt someone with a simple trigger pull.
 
2013-01-30 11:56:50 AM  
I've been hit!
--Where?
On the South Side!
 
2013-01-30 11:57:29 AM  

kombat_unit: Delay: WeenerGord: A gun is just a tool.

Then gun ownership should not be in the constitution. Trowels aren't. What makes guns so special? They are effective in killing. That's their purpose.

Then quit being lazy and amend the Constitution.


"The Second Amendment is like the crazy uncle living in the attic. Nobody wants to address the problem, so we just accept the absurdity of a constitional amendment that protects unfettered [individual] gun ownership. Courts have chipped away at the right over the years - gone are the rights to own machine guns, sawed off shotguns, shoulder-launched surface-to-air-missles and suitcase nukes." Link

Maybe the courts should chip away a little more and interpret the 2nd amendment as a group right, not an individual right.
 
2013-01-30 11:58:25 AM  

KiltedBastich: ronaprhys: The prohibition on drugs has certainly worked, no?

Hey look, a false analogy fallacy. Guns are not drugs. Those who buy them, those who sell them and how they are used and for what purposes are all very different. And as the rest of the world can tell you, gun control does work if you are consistent and pragmatic about your regulations.

elysive: Sorry, but the genie is out of the bottle and guns are already plentiful in our country. If they weren't a part of our culture and our Constitution I might be more apt to support gun control.

If your solution is for all law abiding people to willfully turn in their guns, then all the remaining guns will be owned by the disturbed, the criminals and the police. This seems like a great argument for an enhanced police state. If your idea is to take away everyone's guns by forced search and seizure, that is a police state. Fantastic ideas both of them and totally within the spirit of our country's founding. You should run for President.

Ah, so because the problem is large, you should not bother making any efforts to fix things? You're not in favor of long-term thinking, I see. You have made your mess, you will have to deal with the bitter dregs of it as you clean it up. If you bring down the number of legal guns, yes, that could mean that for a time there will be more guns in the hands of criminals and the insane. And then those guns will be lost, broken or confiscated, and they would not be able to replace them because the legal supply they depended on as their source would be gone.

It could also mean that you simply reduce the supply of new legal guns to near zero, and then try to bring down the rate of legal guns in private ownership slowly while doing the same thing with the supply of illegal firearms. There are solutions paths that are not absolutes, you know. Another failing I commonly see in pro-gun advocates is such black and white absolute thinking.

You know, this is exactly the phenomenon that every oth ...


Thumbs up for this post. American "conservatives" are not known for their long-term/forward-thinking ability.
 
2013-01-30 11:58:36 AM  

WeenerGord: Guns don't kill people, people kill people. A gun is just a tool. If you take away guns, the murderers will find other ways to kill. Stop worrying about the guns and focus on the murderers.


This is incorrect. Sociological research has shown that when guns are rendered unavailable, the rate of violence by other means does increase, but never to the same level, and there is a drop in the ratio of violence to murders. That is, there is less overall violence even as non-gun violence rises, and fewer attacks result in deaths.

Effectively, some of the people who would otherwise have committed a violent act reconsider and choose not to, and some of the people who would have killed someone only end up wounding someone.

This is because guns make it easy to choose to commit violence, and easier to cause death when committing violence. Because that is the whole point of a gun in the first place: To make it easier to kill.
 
2013-01-30 11:58:43 AM  

Ikam: ScouserDuck: IlGreven: Keep defending your gun rights to the hilt, Wayne. You'll get counter-examples every day.

/NRA against every reasonable measure to curb gun violence, up to and including mental health screenings.
//Mainly because they have many health organizations and more than a few insurance companies on their "Enemies of the 2nd Amendment" blacklist.

This absolutely a counter example....of how strict gun control doesn't work.

So arm teenage girls? Is that your solution?


Being against restrictions does not equal giving everybody guns. That's like saying being against prohibition means you want everybody to drink.
 
2013-01-30 11:58:56 AM  

rufus-t-firefly: It's almost as if the NRA is primarily interested in representing the gun industry.


farking Gottschalks.
 
2013-01-30 11:59:38 AM  

Delay: kombat_unit: Delay: WeenerGord: A gun is just a tool.

Then gun ownership should not be in the constitution. Trowels aren't. What makes guns so special? They are effective in killing. That's their purpose.

Then quit being lazy and amend the Constitution.

"The Second Amendment is like the crazy uncle living in the attic. Nobody wants to address the problem, so we just accept the absurdity of a constitional amendment that protects unfettered [individual] gun ownership. Courts have chipped away at the right over the years - gone are the rights to own machine guns, sawed off shotguns, shoulder-launched surface-to-air-missles and suitcase nukes." Link

Maybe the courts should chip away a little more and interpret the 2nd amendment as a group right, not an individual right.


Yeah, why bother with the legal hurdles of creating an amendment when you have activist judges willing to interpret "shall not be infringed" as "can be infringed".
 
2013-01-30 11:59:43 AM  

AverageAmericanGuy: You're assuming it's a gangbanger.


This is a gun thread. According to the rules of a Fark gun thread, all black people who live in a city are gang bangers. That way we can discount all the victims as unimportant people deserve the protection of the law.
 
2013-01-30 11:59:54 AM  

Delay: kombat_unit: Delay: WeenerGord: A gun is just a tool.

Then gun ownership should not be in the constitution. Trowels aren't. What makes guns so special? They are effective in killing. That's their purpose.

Then quit being lazy and amend the Constitution.

"The Second Amendment is like the crazy uncle living in the attic. Nobody wants to address the problem, so we just accept the absurdity of a constitional amendment that protects unfettered [individual] gun ownership. Courts have chipped away at the right over the years - gone are the rights to own machine guns, sawed off shotguns, shoulder-launched surface-to-air-missles and suitcase nukes." Link

Maybe the courts should chip away a little more and interpret the 2nd amendment as a group right, not an individual right.


Your advocacy of explicit dishonesty is interesting.
 
2013-01-30 12:00:31 PM  

The Larch: AverageAmericanGuy: You're assuming it's a gangbanger.

This is a gun thread. According to the rules of a Fark gun thread, all black people who live in a city are gang bangers. That way we can discount all the victims as unimportant people deserve the protection of the law.


It's sickening.
 
2013-01-30 12:01:23 PM  

The Larch: AverageAmericanGuy: You're assuming it's a gangbanger.

This is a gun thread. According to the rules of a Fark gun thread, all black people who live in a city are gang bangers. That way we can discount all the victims as unimportant people deserve the protection of the law.


Unimportant people who don't deserve the protection of the law.
 
2013-01-30 12:01:29 PM  
So, given that there is a damn good chance that this gun was acquired illegally, what additional, stricter laws would have stopped this?
 
2013-01-30 12:01:50 PM  

Delay: WeenerGord: A gun is just a tool.

Then gun ownership should not be in the constitution. Trowels aren't. What makes guns so special? They are effective in killing. That's their purpose.



Legal gun ownership is for decent, law abiding citizens to protect themselves from tyranny. Learn some history, and you will see how history repeats itself.

Also notice how the full story is not always told.
 
2013-01-30 12:02:08 PM  
This is why all canopies should have armed guards.
 
2013-01-30 12:02:19 PM  

AverageAmericanGuy: Hey. Settle down. Reading comprehension isn't one of our strong suits.


So it has all too often been pointed out to me.

cptjeff: Well, then you're a godless commie whose opinion should be ignored on all subjects, of course.


Well of course you're entitled to your own opinion, however baseless...

cptjeff: \And the Habs suck.


I take it back. I am a Montrealer, not just a Canadian. DIE, HERETIC!
 
2013-01-30 12:02:48 PM  

cptjeff: The Supreme Court has explicitly said that some restrictions on the right to own guns are perfectly permissible under the 2nd Amendment. I've proposed a lot of solutions in these various gun threads that don't even come close to violating the 2nd Amendment (universal background checks, a national database with immediate reporting on any change in ownership including loss or theft, empowering law enforcement to use that database to track patterns and crack down on straw purchases). I'm not proposing we take any other country's laws wholesale, I'm saying that you can look at them, see what works, and adapt them to the United States in a form that makes sense and allows the forms of gun ownership we think are appropriate to preserve.


Now, something with a bit of substance to discuss. Very good:

1 - no disagreement that there can be restrictions on our rights as citizens (technically, we get those rights as humans, but we're not here to defend them for non-citizens, as a general rule). That happens with free speech, etc., but there tends to be a difference in application. None of the restrictions on the other enumerated rights outlaw specific objects, just uses of those objects that infringe upon the rights of others. That's the line I draw (and yes, I realize that things like the Patriot Act and other laws stomp all over those rights and I oppose those as well). Don't make an object illegal or restrict it - make actions with those objects that infringe upon the rights of others illegal. At this point, I'd say that all the necessary bases there are covered. It's illegal to murder someone, fire your weapon in an unsafe manner, brandish it, sell it to a known felon or someone else who cannot own one legally, etc.
2 - Universal background checks - I'm on the fence on this one. I don't think it'll have any impact on homicide rates whatsoever. Too many unregistered firearms exist for it to have an impact in the immediate term, it's too easy to acquire these, they're too easy to make, and given how porous our borders are, getting them in along with drugs and the like is easy. However, I would absolutely get behind a law that would allow me to conduct a voluntary background check for private sales if there's not cost (or a very small renumeration for time at a firearm's store). Leverage the existing infrastructure (firearm stores), make it optional, etc. If I were to sell, I'd definitely use that. Both parties would have to be present, fill out paperwork, etc. That paperwork would be kept at the store (hence the slight renumeration concept). However, for this to work, it needs to minimize inconvenience all around.
3 - National database - I'm opposed to this as we've used said data before to confiscate weapons. Simply put, I don't trust our government with the data. I also don't think this would do anything to reduce the homicide rate. Again, 300 million firearms in the USA, most of them with no accurate record of where they're at. You'd be assuming that people would actually voluntarily comply with this requirement. There would be some incentive if you wanted to use them to shoot at a range where the serial number could be checked, but many folks shoot on private property where no check would exist. Now, if we were to put very stringent restrictions on the usage (I'll get to your other suggestion next) such that if there's no actual impact to the homicide rate after a sufficient period (10 years?) then all records are completely and irrevocably destroyed, then maybe. Also, I'd add a further restriction (to prevent scope creep) that failure to do so is a federal crime punishable by LWOP, no Presidential pardons are allowed, and anyone in our legislature who votes to modify the original law (for anything other than a clerical error) immediately surrenders their seat in Congress/Senate, the POTUS who signs it into law also is forced to step down and they give up any and all future benefits, have to refund their salaries, etc. Security would still be provided, but no allowance for an office. Hell, make any public speaking engagements they do free so they can't get paid. Yes, this is draconian, but I don't care. I do NOT like sacrificing rights for something that isn't going to work.
3 - police having access - only with a warrant. Period. 4A. If no crime has been committed and they can't convince a judge that there's reasonable enough suspicion, no access to the data. Even then, the data can't be used for fishing expeditions and any records pulled that are shown to be clear are immediately destroyed.

My biggest issue here is that this is a multifaceted problem. It's wrapped up in our culture, lack of community, the war on drugs (I believe north of 70% of the firearm homicides are drug/gang related, so most every solution proposed simply won't work as those criminals don't have any desire to obey the law), people feeling powerless and looking at this as a way to show their "strength", and so forth. Until these background reasons change, none of the proposed laws will have any impact.
 
2013-01-30 12:02:51 PM  

Delay: kombat_unit: Delay: WeenerGord: A gun is just a tool.

Then gun ownership should not be in the constitution. Trowels aren't. What makes guns so special? They are effective in killing. That's their purpose.

Then quit being lazy and amend the Constitution.

"The Second Amendment is like the crazy uncle living in the attic. Nobody wants to address the problem, so we just accept the absurdity of a constitional amendment that protects unfettered [individual] gun ownership. Courts have chipped away at the right over the years - gone are the rights to own machine guns, sawed off shotguns, shoulder-launched surface-to-air-missles and suitcase nukes." Link

Maybe the courts should chip away a little more and interpret the 2nd amendment as a group right, not an individual right.


Derp, machine guns are legal and transferable.
 
2013-01-30 12:02:55 PM  

ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha: Lt. Cheese Weasel: [www.wnd.com image 607x405]
[www.wnd.com image 609x517]

Paradise.

The Afghanistan/Chicago comparison is totally dishonest; it's not per capita, doesn't include civilian deaths and is playing loose with the definition of murder.


24.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-01-30 12:03:49 PM  

KiltedBastich: ronaprhys: The prohibition on drugs has certainly worked, no?

Hey look, a false analogy fallacy. Guns are not drugs. Those who buy them, those who sell them and how they are used and for what purposes are all very different. And as the rest of the world can tell you, gun control does work if you are consistent and pragmatic about your regulations.


Gambling isn't drugs. Prostitution isn't drugs either. A black market is a black market is a black market. Prohibition has NEVER, I repeat NEVER worked. And it never will.
 
2013-01-30 12:04:32 PM  

ScouserDuck: Ikam: ScouserDuck: IlGreven: Keep defending your gun rights to the hilt, Wayne. You'll get counter-examples every day.

/NRA against every reasonable measure to curb gun violence, up to and including mental health screenings.
//Mainly because they have many health organizations and more than a few insurance companies on their "Enemies of the 2nd Amendment" blacklist.

This absolutely a counter example....of how strict gun control doesn't work.

So arm teenage girls? Is that your solution?


Being against restrictions does not equal giving everybody guns. That's like saying being against prohibition means you want everybody to drink.


Okay, so then what is the point of bringing up Chicago's gun restrictions in this particular instance. If Chicago had the most lax gun restrictions on the planet, would it have made any difference in this situation whatsoever? I doubt it, unless the argument is the kids under the canopy should have been armed so they could fight back.
 
2013-01-30 12:05:19 PM  

KiltedBastich: This is because guns make it easy to choose to commit violence, and easier to cause death when committing violence. Because that is the whole point of a gun in the first place: To make it easier to kill.


Makes it easier for an individual to kill. It usually takes a group effort to assure that stabbing somebody to death or lynching them effective, not saying it's impossible, but there is a significant barrier to crime that unfettered gun ownership removes.
 
2013-01-30 12:06:25 PM  

justtray: mjones73: Ed Grubermann: Cybernetic: I see that Chicago's strict gun-control laws are working as well as ever.

And our thread's designated asshole makes himself known...

For stating the obvious?

Are you an idiot?

So now correlation equals causation? Okay good, then we have 4x the homicide rate as the UK because we can get guns way easier, having a gun around you makes you more likely to kill your family than an intruder, southern states with more lax gun control have higher homicide rates than even Illinois, New York, etc because they have more lax gun control, and CCW holders are just as likely to commit homicide by gun on another person than non, meaning despite alleged higher responsibility, they're actually equal or more prone to shooting other people.

Now shut up or GTFO.


mjones states a fact and you call hime and asshole. Then you trot out a bunch of disproven crap.

Its not hard to tell who the asshole is.
 
2013-01-30 12:06:44 PM  

kombat_unit: Delay: kombat_unit: Delay: WeenerGord: A gun is just a tool.

Then gun ownership should not be in the constitution. Trowels aren't. What makes guns so special? They are effective in killing. That's their purpose.

Then quit being lazy and amend the Constitution.

"The Second Amendment is like the crazy uncle living in the attic. Nobody wants to address the problem, so we just accept the absurdity of a constitional amendment that protects unfettered [individual] gun ownership. Courts have chipped away at the right over the years - gone are the rights to own machine guns, sawed off shotguns, shoulder-launched surface-to-air-missles and suitcase nukes." Link

Maybe the courts should chip away a little more and interpret the 2nd amendment as a group right, not an individual right.

Derp, machine guns are legal and transferable.


1) once you use the word "derp" as a response you out yourself as lazy and probably not very well read.

2) class III firearms are legal but it's much much more difficult to get an ATF stamp and anything made in the last few decades can only really be purchased by LEOs.
 
2013-01-30 12:07:14 PM  

KiltedBastich: And for the record, your ethnocentrism is showing. Why do you assume I am an American? I am not. I am a Canadian. Perhaps you overlooked the way I was saying "your society"? That's a big part of the reason that I am familiar with the fact that gun control does mitigate the problems your society is currently facing, and how a large supply of legal guns is the source of the large supply of illegal guns. A great deal of the gun violence in Canada is done with illegal guns that were formerly legal American guns. And even with that fact, our rates of gun violence are enormously less than yours



Canadians can get away with being whiny liberal pussies because their armed neighbor to the south pretty much protects them. So Canadians can whine like spoiled children and blame their protective parents, the Americans, for every little thing. Waah!
 
2013-01-30 12:07:23 PM  
There is a cycle of violence in Chicago, with reprisal begetting reprisal begetting reprisal. There is a way to make this better, and it doesn't involve gun control. Anyone who is upset about this, no matter how you feel about guns, needs to watch this episode of Frontline about an organization called Cease Fire.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/interrupters/

They treat the violence like an infectious disease outbreak and try to detect and interrupt these cycles of reprisals before and it works, but the problem is so enormous they are overwhelmed.
 
2013-01-30 12:09:16 PM  

MichiganFTL: BraveNewCheneyWorld: So you're saying it's not a gun problem, but a people problem?

I don't believe I really made a point to either side, but I think it's a comprehensive issue that is far deeper than a single inanimate object. I'm looking for more of the motive side than the act. There seems to be cultural, gang, economical, and psychological issues at play that are far deeper and more widespread than simply access to metal. Let's look at them ALL (yes, including guns). I think it's just naive to focus only on one.


this
 
2013-01-30 12:10:25 PM  

WeenerGord: Delay: WeenerGord: A gun is just a tool.

Then gun ownership should not be in the constitution. Trowels aren't. What makes guns so special? They are effective in killing. That's their purpose.


Legal gun ownership is for decent, law abiding citizens to protect themselves from tyranny. Learn some history, and you will see how history repeats itself.

Also notice how the full story is not always told.


Armed US citizens really have no chance against our own military. Thinking "law abiding citizens" could stand against the military strength of the US is foolish.
 
2013-01-30 12:10:32 PM  

AngryPanda: Cars aren't solely intended to kill or maim people. That's why "car crashes" are called "accidents" sometimes. On the other hand, a gun's primary function is to kill or hurt someone with a simple trigger pull.


Not all intentional killings are wrongful.

The intentional killing of a person in self-defense, for example, is not merely excusable, but entirely lawful.

Self-defense is not only a basic human right, but is the origin of the concept of "rights."
 
2013-01-30 12:10:36 PM  

DROxINxTHExWIND: So, I see you're into elevating yourself above the black community so that you and other broke white people can feel better about your own failures.


Again, don't assume that everyone is like you.
 
2013-01-30 12:10:48 PM  

Dear Jerk: I've been hit!
--Where?
On the South Side!


it's the baddest part of town.
 
2013-01-30 12:10:53 PM  

Lt. Cheese Weasel: [www.wnd.com image 607x405]
[www.wnd.com image 609x517]

Paradise.


The chart only makes sense if you compare the number of Afghan soldiers killed in Chicago to the number of American soldiers killed in Afghanistan.

Leaving out the tens of thousands of Afghans that have died as a result of the war or just annual murder rate in Afghanistan is ignorant.
 
2013-01-30 12:11:43 PM  

another cultural observer: When you've finally got your FOID and you're ready to transport your gun, be sure to separate your gun and ammunition. Because using one locked case to transport both the gun and the ammunition is reckless in the extreme, and should be a felony.

And if you want to buy a gun in Illinois, travel 2 hours to the gun store. Spend time looking at their wares. Pick out your gun. Pay for the gun. Then travel 2 hours back home. Wait three days. Travel 2 hours back to the gun store. Pick up your gun. Travel 2 hours back home.

The Gas Station lobby must have had something to do with that 3-day wait rule...


That "cooling off" period might make sense if we didn't already have to wait 6 weeks for the FOID card. Also, when you are buying your 5th or 6th gun it doesn't really make much sense unless people are particular about which gun they want to use to shoot someone who desperately needs shooting.


Limac333: There is a 60 day grace period if you are moving to Illinois in regards to getting a FOID card.

http://www.isp.state.il.us/foid/firearmsfaq.cfm See the second item "Who needs a FOID card"


I stand corrected...and in amazement. Illinois got something right at least....
 
2013-01-30 12:12:08 PM  

Delay: KiltedBastich: This is because guns make it easy to choose to commit violence, and easier to cause death when committing violence. Because that is the whole point of a gun in the first place: To make it easier to kill.

Makes it easier for an individual to kill. It usually takes a group effort to assure that stabbing somebody to death or lynching them effective, not saying it's impossible, but there is a significant barrier to crime that unfettered gun ownership removes.


So when we ban guns we're left with knives and rope? And how the hell is stabbing someone to death hard?
 
2013-01-30 12:13:08 PM  

another cultural observer: Big_Fat_Liar: another cultural observer: USP .45: Verdelak: This has been said elsewhere, but I will repeat it here.
Chicago's gun ban can not work. Regardless of where you fall on gun control issues, it should be obvious that a city banning guns cannot keep them from coming in when the state itself and the neighboring states have loose gun laws and there is no "border check" to get in and out of the city. True gun control can only work at a national level, if at all.

the southern border is rock solid yo.

Because Illinois is renowned for its lax firearms laws.

If you are a legal gun owner in Michigan and you decide to move to Illinois, you are a criminal the moment you cross the border unless you somehow managed to apply for an Illinois FOID card and wait 6 weeks before moving here...if you can even do that as a Michigan resident. That's Illinois at work.

OK i just checked and the IL FOID app says "Mailing Address (Illinois Residency Required)"! What the fark is wrong with this state. So I guess you need t leave your guns in a secret location, move here, apply for your FOID, and only then can you legally bring your guns home.

When you've finally got your FOID and you're ready to transport your gun, be sure to separate your gun and ammunition. Because using one locked case to transport both the gun and the ammunition is reckless in the extreme, and should be a felony.

And if you want to buy a gun in Illinois, travel 2 hours to the gun store. Spend time looking at their wares. Pick out your gun. Pay for the gun. Then travel 2 hours back home. Wait three days. Travel 2 hours back to the gun store. Pick up your gun. Travel 2 hours back home.

The Gas Station lobby must have had something to do with that 3-day wait rule...


It's like ordering it online, except that you have to drive through the series of tubes.
 
2013-01-30 12:15:22 PM  

D-Liver: clane: When extreme Liberals dominate politics in a city for years it becomes so very sad....

Clearly if there were a Republican in charge, this shooting would have never happened.

Logic, how the fark does it work?


correct you're finally catching on.
 
2013-01-30 12:15:28 PM  
We just need stricter gun laws
 
2013-01-30 12:18:15 PM  

KiltedBastich: WeenerGord: Guns don't kill people, people kill people. A gun is just a tool. If you take away guns, the murderers will find other ways to kill. Stop worrying about the guns and focus on the murderers.

This is incorrect. Sociological research has shown that when guns are rendered unavailable, the rate of violence by other means does increase, but never to the same level, and there is a drop in the ratio of violence to murders. That is, there is less overall violence even as non-gun violence rises, and fewer attacks result in deaths.

Effectively, some of the people who would otherwise have committed a violent act reconsider and choose not to, and some of the people who would have killed someone only end up wounding someone.

This is because guns make it easy to choose to commit violence, and easier to cause death when committing violence. Because that is the whole point of a gun in the first place: To make it easier to kill.


--------------

As was explained to AngryPanda, not all intentional killings are wrongful. Killing an attacker in self-defense (who poses a credible threat of imminent death or serious bodily injury) is not merely permissible, but doing so is completely just, right and proper.

The ready availability of guns permits people to exercise this basic human right.

Guns are especially important for people who are weaker than their attacker.

It should be easier for weaker people to kill stronger attackers.

Guns (especially handguns) are clearly the most effective tool for this purpose.
 
2013-01-30 12:18:22 PM  

WeenerGord: Verdelak: This has been said elsewhere, but I will repeat it here.
Chicago's gun ban can not work. Regardless of where you fall on gun control issues, it should be obvious that a city banning guns cannot keep them from coming in when the state itself and the neighboring states have loose gun laws and there is no "border check" to get in and out of the city. True gun control can only work at a national level, if at all.


Because we have such a good border control of the nation! Guns could never be brought in over the national border to arm terrorists, oh no! The national border is so secure! NOT!


Hey Sarcastro, read my line after the bold. Ya know, the "if at all" part.
 
2013-01-30 12:18:35 PM  

moothemagiccow: And how the hell is stabbing someone to death hard?


If it were more effective than using a gun, more murders would be committed that way. As it is two thirds of all murders in the US are by firearms. Link
 
2013-01-30 12:19:20 PM  

lohphat: The 2nd Amendment was written when the hand-loaded flint lock musket was the primary weapon of choice. Cartridge ammo was not common.

Why not heavily regulate ammo, filled with an explosive, as we do other explosives instead of guns?



Anything that can easily be manufactured in one's home using simple, easily obtained ingredients and tools is a poor candidate for regulation. Sure, the modern, smokeless gunpowder might be something that could be more controlled, but as to making the stuff, I know people who'll sit down at their reloading benches and turn out thousands of rounds in a weekend.

Likewise the drugs and alcohol. You saw how well prohibition worked, and even today there are stills a-plenty cooking away in the hills. And the Reefer is easily grown in hill and dale. Perhaps not good refer, or good moonshine, but nevertheless, there it is.
 
2013-01-30 12:19:36 PM  

cptjeff: Bubbarella: She shouldn't have been hanging out with gang members.

She wasn't. She was waiting with friends at a bus stop in a decent part of the city, and was hit by stray gunfire.


ok i will say it, she was black on a sunny day and got shot, give us a friggen break. lock up the little gang bangers and you are a racist stop and frisk the little gang bangers and you are a racist rapper glorify the gang lifestyle and we say something and we are racist. how about get over yourselves and stop shooting each other and rasie your own kids and stop collecting welfare foodstamps and section 8 housing.

oh wait that makes me a racist

enough already
 
2013-01-30 12:20:40 PM  

umad: Verdelak: another cultural observer: USP .45: Verdelak: This has been said elsewhere, but I will repeat it here.
Chicago's gun ban can not work. Regardless of where you fall on gun control issues, it should be obvious that a city banning guns cannot keep them from coming in when the state itself and the neighboring states have loose gun laws and there is no "border check" to get in and out of the city. True gun control can only work at a national level, if at all.

the southern border is rock solid yo.

Because Illinois is renowned for its lax firearms laws.

I live in NY, so yes Illinois' gun laws are lax relative to mine and very lax relative to those of the city of Chicago itself.
Either way, the point still stands. You can ban every gun from Chicago, but if I can buy them elsewhere (Florida for example) and simply drive to Chicago with them, the ban is only useful for adding charges to traffic stops.

Exactly. If we banned them across the entire country then it would actually work. I mean, when was the last time you heard about somebody getting their hands on some meth? That shiat practically doesn't exist anymore, and it is only because we banned it.


I did say, "If at all." Also, meth is a bad example because I can make that out of legal ingredients. Pick a different drug, coke for example, and your point would still stand though.
 
2013-01-30 12:21:55 PM  

give me doughnuts: another cultural observer: Big_Fat_Liar: another cultural observer: USP .45: Verdelak: This has been said elsewhere, but I will repeat it here.
Chicago's gun ban can not work. Regardless of where you fall on gun control issues, it should be obvious that a city banning guns cannot keep them from coming in when the state itself and the neighboring states have loose gun laws and there is no "border check" to get in and out of the city. True gun control can only work at a national level, if at all.

the southern border is rock solid yo.

Because Illinois is renowned for its lax firearms laws.

If you are a legal gun owner in Michigan and you decide to move to Illinois, you are a criminal the moment you cross the border unless you somehow managed to apply for an Illinois FOID card and wait 6 weeks before moving here...if you can even do that as a Michigan resident. That's Illinois at work.

OK i just checked and the IL FOID app says "Mailing Address (Illinois Residency Required)"! What the fark is wrong with this state. So I guess you need t leave your guns in a secret location, move here, apply for your FOID, and only then can you legally bring your guns home.

When you've finally got your FOID and you're ready to transport your gun, be sure to separate your gun and ammunition. Because using one locked case to transport both the gun and the ammunition is reckless in the extreme, and should be a felony.

And if you want to buy a gun in Illinois, travel 2 hours to the gun store. Spend time looking at their wares. Pick out your gun. Pay for the gun. Then travel 2 hours back home. Wait three days. Travel 2 hours back to the gun store. Pick up your gun. Travel 2 hours back home.

The Gas Station lobby must have had something to do with that 3-day wait rule...

It's like ordering it online, except that you have to drive through the series of tubes.


I've asked at one gun store if I could use the series of tubes. I asked the guy if I could pick up a certain gun on Friday if on the previous Tuesday I called the store and gave them my FOID number and announced my intention to purchase a particular firearm I saw on their website and pick it up on Friday. The answer was no of course, which make sense because "yes" would have been too reasonable and would have fully satisfied the stated intent of the law behind the 3 day cooling off period.
 
2013-01-30 12:22:32 PM  

umad: Gambling isn't drugs. Prostitution isn't drugs either. A black market is a black market is a black market. Prohibition has NEVER, I repeat NEVER worked. And it never will.


You are wrong. Exhabit A: The rest of the world where it works. It works in Canada, where I live. It works in Australia and Britain. It works in Europe. It works in Switzerland and Israel. Evidence trumps ideology. Every. Single. Time.

Furthermore, gambling, drugs, and prostitution are all "vice" crimes. They are in fact very similar to each other in their profiles of users and suppliers. Guns are not.

Delay: Makes it easier for an individual to kill. It usually takes a group effort to assure that stabbing somebody to death or lynching them effective, not saying it's impossible, but there is a significant barrier to crime that unfettered gun ownership removes.


Of course, that is the point. Someone really intent on violence can find other means, but easy access to firearms means that it's easy to do even on a casual poorly thought out whim.

WeenerGord: Canadians can get away with being whiny liberal pussies because their armed neighbor to the south pretty much protects them. So Canadians can whine like spoiled children and blame their protective parents, the Americans, for every little thing. Waah!


Strange then how we aren't being protected by your guns, but rather harmed by them, then, isn't it?. Also strange that places like Australia and the UK have had similar experiences with gun control to Canada - except for the constant trickle of black market guns coming over the border.

And is seems to me that your armed forces would not be affected in any way by limiting civilian access to firearms, now would it? Or is it too hard for you to understand the simple idea that members of your military are part of the people who should have access to firearms as a requirement of their profession? I don't see your civilian gun owners going out for tours of duty on military bases around the world toting their personal firearms. Maybe you can demonstrate otherwise? I'd love to see that.

Tell me, are you normally this much of a fool, or did you have to work hard at it?
 
2013-01-30 12:22:44 PM  

another cultural observer: OK i just checked and the IL FOID app says "Mailing Address (Illinois Residency Required)"! What the fark is wrong with this state. So I guess you need t leave your guns in a secret location, move here, apply for your FOID, and only then can you legally bring your guns home.

When you've finally got your FOID and you're ready to transport your gun, be sure to separate your gun and ammunition. Because using one locked case to transport both the gun and the ammunition is reckless in the extreme, and should be a felony.

And if you want to buy a gun in Illinois, travel 2 hours to the gun store. Spend time looking at their wares. Pick out your gun. Pay for the gun. Then travel 2 hours back home. Wait three days. Travel 2 hours back to the gun store. Pick up your gun. Travel 2 hours back home.

The Gas Station lobby must have had something to do with that 3-day wait rule...


As much as I complain about living in Illinois, I'm really ok with our gun laws, and think they could be a basis for others around the country.
 
2013-01-30 12:24:48 PM  
We need to arm all of the "good guys", if all of these teens were also armed with guns this wouldn't have happened.

/sarcasm
 
2013-01-30 12:25:22 PM  
So if there really is some scary "Mad Max" type crap going on in parts of Chicago...why don't they roll in the National Guard?
 
2013-01-30 12:25:24 PM  

justtray: mjones73: Ed Grubermann: Cybernetic: I see that Chicago's strict gun-control laws are working as well as ever.

And our thread's designated asshole makes himself known...

For stating the obvious?

Are you an idiot?

So now correlation equals causation? Okay good, then we have 4x the homicide rate as the UK because we can get guns way easier, having a gun around you makes you more likely to kill your family than an intruder, southern states with more lax gun control have higher homicide rates than even Illinois, New York, etc because they have more lax gun control, and CCW holders are just as likely to commit homicide by gun on another person than non, meaning despite alleged higher responsibility, they're actually equal or more prone to shooting other people.

Now shut up or GTFO.


Here's some simple question for all those that think this correlation works:

- Do you have a violent culture?
- Do you have violent gangs?
- Do the people feel safe at night?
- Are there gun bans in place in the area, and yet all around this area one can get a gun?

If the answer is yes to all this, than use the correlation. UK people are nowhere near as violent as say Chicago. Grant you, there are rare occasions where people get violent there, but not violent enough to kill/maim even if they had access to weapons.
 
2013-01-30 12:27:23 PM  

KiltedBastich: Hey look, a false analogy fallacy. Guns are not drugs. Those who buy them, those who sell them and how they are used and for what purposes are all very different. And as the rest of the world can tell you, gun control does work if you are consistent and pragmatic about your regulations.


If you take a dump on our Constitution, you can look at the laws the rest of the world has. However, drugs are indicative of a facet of our culture. In fact, efforts at prohibition of anything that's relatively easy to get, manufacture, distribute, and/or profit from have clearly failed. Every. Single. Time. To ignore that, within American culture and history, is to set yourself up for failure.

So, not a false analogy. It's a reference point.

Ah, so because the problem is large, you should not bother making any efforts to fix things? You're not in favor of long-term thinking, I see. You have made your mess, you will have to deal with the bitter dregs of it as you clean it up. If you bring down the number of legal guns, yes, that could mean that for a time there will be more guns in the hands of criminals and the insane. And then those guns will be lost, broken or confiscated, and they would not be able to replace them because the legal supply they depended on as their source would be gone.

Logically, that doesn't follow. When one source dries up, other sources are found. Additionally, the supply is effectively unlimited for the criminal element. 300 million firearms exist currently and a very small percent of our ~300 million citizens end up being violent career criminals. Secondly, note that firearms and ammunition are easy to manufacture. Very easy, in fact.

Lastly, no one is saying do nothing. They're saying your solutions have been proven not to work or are unconstitutional. That's a different thing.

It could also mean that you simply reduce the supply of new legal guns to near zero, and then try to bring down the rate of legal guns in private ownership slowly while doing the same thing with the supply of illegal firearms. There are solutions paths that are not absolutes, you know. Another failing I commonly see in pro-gun advocates is such black and white absolute thinking.

Why do that? It does nothing but make law-abiding citizens targets for violence, doesn't impact the supply of firearms available to criminals (see above), and it unconstitutional.

You know, this is exactly the phenomenon that every other modern first world nation that had to grapple with this issue faced, if on a smaller scale; none of them have let it get quite so out of hand as the USA has. They found solutions. Are you saying the USA is not competent to do what other nations have done successfully? Including pro-gun countries like Israel and Switzerland?

There are large cultural differences between Israel, Switzerland, and the US. These are impactful. As is size, homogenity of the population, feelings of community/shared culture, etc. Difficult to quantify, but impactful.

And for the record, your ethnocentrism is showing. Why do you assume I am an American? I am not. I am a Canadian. Perhaps you overlooked the way I was saying "your society"? That's a big part of the reason that I am familiar with the fact that gun control does mitigate the problems your society is currently facing, and how a large supply of legal guns is the source of the large supply of illegal guns. A great deal of the gun violence in Canada is done with illegal guns that were formerly legal American guns. And even with that fact, our rates of gun violence are enormously less than yours. Because sensible gun regulations that still let the people who actually need to have guns have them actually does resolve a lot of the problems, despite what your ideological pro-gun pundits may tell you.

Also, big differences in Canadian culture, population density, and the US. And the Constitution.
 
2013-01-30 12:28:11 PM  

KiltedBastich: You are wrong. Exhabit A: The rest of the world where it works. It works in Canada, where I live. It works in Australia and Britain. It works in Europe. It works in Switzerland and Israel. Evidence trumps ideology. Every. Single. Time.


You are correct, as I am certain that you will demonstrate with reference to data showing that homicide rates in the United Kingdom and in Australia matched rates of the United States until substantial prohibitions upon civilian firearm ownership were implemented.
 
2013-01-30 12:28:30 PM  
The problem with America is apparently Americans.
 
2013-01-30 12:28:40 PM  

People_are_Idiots: justtray: mjones73: Ed Grubermann: Cybernetic: I see that Chicago's strict gun-control laws are working as well as ever.

And our thread's designated asshole makes himself known...

For stating the obvious?

Are you an idiot?

So now correlation equals causation? Okay good, then we have 4x the homicide rate as the UK because we can get guns way easier, having a gun around you makes you more likely to kill your family than an intruder, southern states with more lax gun control have higher homicide rates than even Illinois, New York, etc because they have more lax gun control, and CCW holders are just as likely to commit homicide by gun on another person than non, meaning despite alleged higher responsibility, they're actually equal or more prone to shooting other people.

Now shut up or GTFO.

Here's some simple question for all those that think this correlation works:

- Do you have a violent culture?
- Do you have violent gangs?
- Do the people feel safe at night?
- Are there gun bans in place in the area, and yet all around this area one can get a gun?

If the answer is yes to all this, than use the correlation. UK people are nowhere near as violent as say Chicago. Grant you, there are rare occasions where people get violent there, but not violent enough to kill/maim even if they had access to weapons.


You're full of shiate. As I quoted earlier in the thread. 5,000 glassing incidents a year. GLASSING!
 
2013-01-30 12:28:46 PM  

WeenerGord: Legal gun ownership is for decent, law abiding citizens to protect themselves from tyranny. Learn some history, and you will see how history repeats itself.


Legal gun ownership doesn't seem to be stopping the US from becoming a police state does it? Everybody is blathering on about gun rights etc. etc., and all the while you can't get on a plane without being irradiated and/or groped, your phone calls can be listened to, the increasingly militarised police can kick in your door (as only one example - they seem to be able to do a lot more) without official reprisal, you can be banned for life from getting on a plane for a plethora of reasons that are then kept secret from you, kids can be put on registers for playing doctor, you can go to prison for life for smoking weed and on and on and on and on and on...

In the UK, despite numerous fallacious articles from the Daily Mail about CCTV being controlled by illegal immigrants to aid paedophiles in targetting kids, and despite the incorrect assumption that using a weapon, even a gun, in self-defence is illegal here, we're not subject to anything like the massively intrusive things you are.

How does this disparity gibe with the statement I quoted above?
 
2013-01-30 12:29:01 PM  

WeenerGord: KiltedBastich: And for the record, your ethnocentrism is showing. Why do you assume I am an American? I am not. I am a Canadian. Perhaps you overlooked the way I was saying "your society"? That's a big part of the reason that I am familiar with the fact that gun control does mitigate the problems your society is currently facing, and how a large supply of legal guns is the source of the large supply of illegal guns. A great deal of the gun violence in Canada is done with illegal guns that were formerly legal American guns. And even with that fact, our rates of gun violence are enormously less than yours


Canadians can get away with being whiny liberal pussies because their armed neighbor to the south pretty much protects them. So Canadians can whine like spoiled children and blame their protective parents, the Americans, for every little thing. Waah!


So by extension the UK, which has strict gun controls, is being protected by whom? What about Italy? Spain? Who is the big brother for all those other 'liberal pussies'?
 
2013-01-30 12:29:23 PM  

People_are_Idiots: justtray: mjones73: Ed Grubermann: Cybernetic: I see that Chicago's strict gun-control laws are working as well as ever.

And our thread's designated asshole makes himself known...

For stating the obvious?

Are you an idiot?

So now correlation equals causation? Okay good, then we have 4x the homicide rate as the UK because we can get guns way easier, having a gun around you makes you more likely to kill your family than an intruder, southern states with more lax gun control have higher homicide rates than even Illinois, New York, etc because they have more lax gun control, and CCW holders are just as likely to commit homicide by gun on another person than non, meaning despite alleged higher responsibility, they're actually equal or more prone to shooting other people.

Now shut up or GTFO.

Here's some simple question for all those that think this correlation works:

- Do you have a violent culture?
- Do you have violent gangs?
- Do the people feel safe at night?
- Are there gun bans in place in the area, and yet all around this area one can get a gun?

If the answer is yes to all this, than use the correlation. UK people are nowhere near as violent as say Chicago. Grant you, there are rare occasions where people get violent there, but not violent enough to kill/maim even if they had access to weapons.


Link

When people get violent there, they dismember actresses. But they don't dismember them with guns.
 
2013-01-30 12:30:57 PM  
"UK people are nowhere near as violent as say Chicago."

I don't think you visit UK too often, do you? While there certainly aren't as many shootings, I'd like to see some stats on per capita stabbings, assaults, etc. Because from what I've seen first-hand and from what I've heard from relatives, the good people of UK certainly seem to enjoy their violence.
 
2013-01-30 12:31:51 PM  

doubled99: We just need stricter gun laws


No, we need to bring back prayer in schools.  God is a gentleman who doesn't go where he's not wanted, I read on Facebook, otherwise he would've stopped those other shootings.  Oh wait, I think we needed prayer in parks to stop this one.
 
2013-01-30 12:32:01 PM  

AngryPanda: Phinn: Princess Ryans Knickers: 1418 dead since Sandy Hook

Over 4,000 are dead because of car crashes since Sandy Hook.

A lot of them were kids, too.

False equivalency is false.

Cars aren't solely intended to kill or maim people. That's why "car crashes" are called "accidents" sometimes. On the other hand, a gun's primary function is to kill or hurt someone with a simple trigger pull.


Worse than that. Either his numbers are absolutely false or he's intentionally using worldwide numbers against my United States only gun numbers.
 
2013-01-30 12:32:17 PM  

Cybernetic: rufus-t-firefly: Cybernetic: I see that Chicago's strict gun-control laws are working as well as ever.

If only those kids had been armed.

Nobody I know is in favor of arming kids. And it is impossible to look at a situation that has already occurred and determine whether the outcome would have been different had there been an armed, law-abiding citizen present and able to respond. (Note that the phrase "law-abiding citizen" excludes children by default, because laws--even in jurisdictions where firearm carry is legal-- preclude children from carrying.)

Allowing law-abiding citizens to carry firearms has two separate effects. At the individual level, it enables a person to respond to a situation where a criminal endangers the life of that person or someone else. In the aggregate, it creates an environment of uncertainty in the minds of criminals who know that they may face an armed response.

In this situation, two things are certain:
1) The death of Hadiya Pendleton is a horrible tragedy
2) The person who shot her was certain that he would not face any kind of an armed response from a law-abiding citizen

Chicago does not have a gun problem, it has a criminal problem--one that the city's government seems to be either unwilling or unable to address. Until it does so, we will continue to see sad stories like this one.


but if their was an adult there armed or not, in a city where adults can carry, would you just not guarantee that the adult just get shot and killed first? your plan just makes targeting a priority, and still ends up with dead children. doesn't it?
 
2013-01-30 12:32:32 PM  
it seems our 2A clearly conflicts with and prevents any meaningful gun control legislation - which is why gun control works so well in other countries (no 2A to deal with... that I'm aware of)
 
2013-01-30 12:32:53 PM  

Jument: The problem with America is apparently Americans.


A certain segment of Americans, yes.
 
2013-01-30 12:32:54 PM  

AngryJailhouseFistfark: lohphat: The 2nd Amendment was written when the hand-loaded flint lock musket was the primary weapon of choice. Cartridge ammo was not common.

Why not heavily regulate ammo, filled with an explosive, as we do other explosives instead of guns?


Anything that can easily be manufactured in one's home using simple, easily obtained ingredients and tools is a poor candidate for regulation. Sure, the modern, smokeless gunpowder might be something that could be more controlled, but as to making the stuff, I know people who'll sit down at their reloading benches and turn out thousands of rounds in a weekend.

Likewise the drugs and alcohol. You saw how well prohibition worked, and even today there are stills a-plenty cooking away in the hills. And the Reefer is easily grown in hill and dale. Perhaps not good refer, or good moonshine, but nevertheless, there it is.


My dad is a former cop, US deputy marshal, and army special forces and loads his own ammo in the garage.

I parked in the garage overnight in a rental a few years ago, then went to the Long Beach Grand Prix. I was the assistant to the series owner be had VIP access inside the circuit. While sitting in the hotel lobby I was approached by the manager and LB police bomb squad. They had detected residue on the car.

If they can do that. We can regulate gunpowder. Like all hazardous material handling laws it's not air-tight but can put a dent in volume and quality.

We also track the raw materials already to make fuel/phosphorous bombs, yet we see no prohibition bootlegging there.
 
2013-01-30 12:34:39 PM  

moothemagiccow: So when we ban guns we're left with knives and rope? And how the hell is stabbing someone to death hard?


Using a knife requires closer contact and more physical effort than a gun. It's more visceral and more difficult to work yourself up to doing, usually. There's been research done on this. The key word here is not hard, but harder. Relatively more difficult than using a gun, not absolutely difficult. Nuance, can you grasp it?

Phinn: As was explained to AngryPanda, not all intentional killings are wrongful. Killing an attacker in self-defense (who poses a credible threat of imminent death or serious bodily injury) is not merely permissible, but doing so is completely just, right and proper.

The ready availability of guns permits people to exercise this basic human right.

Guns are especially important for people who are weaker than their attacker.

It should be easier for weaker people to kill stronger attackers.

Guns (especially handguns) are clearly the most effective tool for this purpose.


Why is it ok to kill someone who is assaulting you? I have been beaten up. Why would it be ok for me to kill them to stop them? They did not kill me, or even cause any permanent harm.

I have been mugged at knifepoint. Why would it be ok to kill someone to keep them from taking the content of my wallet? It was some money and some time spent cancelling bank and credit cards.

In each case there was bodily harm or the threat thereof. And you assert I should have felt justified in pulling out a gun and killing the offender, because I felt "threatened". Really?!

Why is it ok to commit a greater wrong to stop a lesser wrong?

I assert that part of the problem is that your culture has been so distorted by your pro-gun lobby using self-defence arguments that you haven't even stopped to ask yourselves the question why is it acceptable, even laudable, to kill someone for committing a crime that they would see only a few years in prison for otherwise, just because you can? Because you can tell yourself you felt 'threatened'? Is human life so very cheap to you and those like you?
 
2013-01-30 12:34:44 PM  

Delay: Armed US citizens really have no chance against our own military. Thinking "law abiding citizens" could stand against the military strength of the US is foolish.


Your failure to understand (or willfully ignore) all of the dynamics involved in this is amazing.

First off, you're assuming that the military is some homogenous block that does nothing but obey orders and would happily open fire on US Citizens. That's worked in the past on a very small scale (typically around riots and protests, some racially motivated), but the outrage from the populace was huge.

Secondly, you're assuming that the citizens fighting back would be stupid enough to attempt to fight on the same terms. Considering the lessons learned in Viet Nam, Iraq, and Afghanistan I don't think that'd be the case.

Thirdly, you ignore the fact that the military and sections of the LEO community might actively aid and abet any uprising.

Fourthly, you're ignoring the targets. Hell, the French Resistance was effective in making life difficult for the Germans. The targets wouldn't be Captain Bob in his tank, they'd likely end up being officers who are actively suppressing the population, politicians, and infrastructure (which has a much larger impact).
 
2013-01-30 12:35:02 PM  
You know what, fark this town.  I'm taking the job offer I have in another state and getting the fark out of this shiat hole.
 
2013-01-30 12:35:34 PM  

syrynxx [TotalFark]

doubled99: We just need stricter gun laws

No, we need to bring back prayer in schools. God is a gentleman who doesn't go where he's not wanted, I read on Facebook, otherwise he would've stopped those other shootings. Oh wait, I think we needed prayer in parks to stop this one.


Maybe, but i don't really hear much advocating for this lately in response to gun violence. We've got to DO SOMETHING.
Much stricter gun laws should eliminate most of these occurrences.
 
2013-01-30 12:36:04 PM  

rufus-t-firefly: ronaprhys: KiltedBastich: Guns don't manufacture themselves, and last time I checked gang-bangers and crazy people don't tend to be skilled gunsmiths

The prohibition on drugs has certainly worked, no?

Can you easily plant a seed and grow a gun?

Actually were pretty close

Is anyone proposing making all civilian ownership of firearms illegal, with no exceptions? Are there proposals to confiscate and destroy all guns?

Then only way gun regulations are comparable to prohibition or the "war on drugs" would be if we were trying to ban all guns while guns continued to get through.

What would heroin and cocaine use look like if we only had the same regulations on them that guns currently have? You'd see people snorting coke rather than taking a smoke break at work.
The "perfect solution fallacy" is all the MAH GERNS crowd has.

"We can't eliminate gun violence, so why bother doing anything?"


If drugs were completely legal Coke and Heroin would be about $5 a gram and pot would be about the same cost as Broccoli. Gangs would have no source of income except maybe prostution. Gang membership and the violence associated would all but disappear. And I dont see many people drinking shots of Jack on their smoke break now so I expect there would be no more people getting all farked up at work than there is now.
 
2013-01-30 12:37:11 PM  

ethics-gradient: factoryconnection: What the living hell is wrong with people? Charge at a group of kids huddled in the rain and just start firing? Although I assume this is personal, the wanton disregard for any sort of humanity is still appalling. I hate these "I have a beef with someone you know/love, now you die!" stories that come out of the dregs of society and gangster movies.

I know, in our rarer shootings and gang murders here in the UK the same attitude is displayed. Is it a sort of massive arrogance? "I'm so important that I'll risk the lives of innocent bystanders who are nothing to do with my beef."? Or is it retarded deludedness: "I'm such an incredibly good shot despite not knowing shiat about guns nor ever having bothered to learn."?
Personally I think massive ignorance breeds massive arrogance.


Sorry I felt this warranted pointing out. Wile i very much centered on this debate I felt it should be noted that in the UK, where guns are severely controlled, the people with the guns aren't the law abiding citizenry, its the criminal element which are the ones you should be worrying about in the first place. I haven't seen any metrics but could the reduction in gun violence be because self defense and accidental shootings went down
 
2013-01-30 12:39:04 PM  

moothemagiccow: Delay: KiltedBastich: This is because guns make it easy to choose to commit violence, and easier to cause death when committing violence. Because that is the whole point of a gun in the first place: To make it easier to kill.

Makes it easier for an individual to kill. It usually takes a group effort to assure that stabbing somebody to death or lynching them effective, not saying it's impossible, but there is a significant barrier to crime that unfettered gun ownership removes.

So when we ban guns we're left with knives and rope? And how the hell is stabbing someone to death hard?


Right, you hear all the time about those drive-by strangulations, and this girl would surely still be dead if someone stabbed someone and missed from 50 yards away.
Also don't forget about all the school killings that would be done by rope.
 
2013-01-30 12:39:17 PM  

Government Fromage: As much as I complain about living in Illinois, I'm really ok with our gun laws, and think they could be a basis for others around the country.


If you legally purchase a firearm in Illinois and your FOID card expires, you are instantly a criminal, even if the firearm remains in your home locked in a safe.  I think there's a minimum six-month sentence with that now.  If you charge money for a 'right', it's not a right.  It's a privilege.  I have no problem with background checks at the time of purchase, but the FOID is inconsistent with the 2nd Amendment being a 'right'.
 
2013-01-30 12:40:58 PM  

syrynxx: Government Fromage: As much as I complain about living in Illinois, I'm really ok with our gun laws, and think they could be a basis for others around the country.

If you legally purchase a firearm in Illinois and your FOID card expires, you are instantly a criminal, even if the firearm remains in your home locked in a safe.  I think there's a minimum six-month sentence with that now.  If you charge money for a 'right', it's not a right.  It's a privilege.  I have no problem with background checks at the time of purchase, but the FOID is inconsistent with the 2nd Amendment being a 'right'.


Requiring identification to exercise your rights is racist and wrong and...oh, wait, not a voting thread... I mean...it's reasonable and why wouldn't you support it?
 
2013-01-30 12:41:41 PM  

syrynxx: Government Fromage: As much as I complain about living in Illinois, I'm really ok with our gun laws, and think they could be a basis for others around the country.

If you legally purchase a firearm in Illinois and your FOID card expires, you are instantly a criminal, even if the firearm remains in your home locked in a safe.  I think there's a minimum six-month sentence with that now.  If you charge money for a 'right', it's not a right.  It's a privilege.  I have no problem with background checks at the time of purchase, but the FOID is inconsistent with the 2nd Amendment being a 'right'.


Yet requireing an ID to vote is an infringement on voting rights.
 
2013-01-30 12:41:47 PM  
Facts are facts, there are more guns in Afghanistan than Chicago, and there are less deaths. Gun control does not automatically mean less gun deaths.
 
2013-01-30 12:43:04 PM  

Princess Ryans Knickers: AngryPanda: Phinn: Princess Ryans Knickers: 1418 dead since Sandy Hook

Over 4,000 are dead because of car crashes since Sandy Hook.

A lot of them were kids, too.

False equivalency is false.

Cars aren't solely intended to kill or maim people. That's why "car crashes" are called "accidents" sometimes. On the other hand, a gun's primary function is to kill or hurt someone with a simple trigger pull.

Worse than that. Either his numbers are absolutely false or he's intentionally using worldwide numbers against my United States only gun numbers.


There are 34,000 vehicle deaths in the US per year.

That is a rate of 93 vehicle deaths per day.

It has been 47 days since the Sandy Hook shooting.

93 * 47 = 4,371

But tell me again how much Obama and the federal government he administers CARE about "saving lives." They will not devote a tiny fraction of their time and attention to traffic (all of which occurs on government property and is regulated by government employees according to government traffic rules) compared to the political attention they will devote to gun restrictions, although traffic kills far more people.

Traffic deaths are not politically valuable. Gun deaths are.

Gun deaths are largely caused by government drug prohibitions, which creates a black market, making it highly profitable, while denying it security protection. So, its black market participants police their business themselves, as all mafia-style black market operations do, and they use guns to kill each other.
 
2013-01-30 12:44:09 PM  

AverageAmericanGuy: gangbanger


AverageAmericanGuy: cptjeff: AverageAmericanGuy: You're assuming it's a gangbanger.

Pretty safe assumption.

I'm not ready to make that assumption. Too many incidents lately which seem to be driving a narrative the administration desperately wants. There is no description of the shooter. No description of the escape vehicle.

So far the incidents have been setting up "your kids are at risk", "your neighbor can't be trusted with guns", "crazy survivalists will kidnap your kids". Now "even a girl this close to Obama is dead due to guns." All the pieces are falling into place perfectly. Public awareness and outrage is growing. The political will to enact gun control measures is growing. The gun advocates are finding their positions softening on who should be able to get guns (not the crazies!). Everything is moving very quickly in the direction of more gun control. I don't believe this to be an accident or coincidence.


1. No description of shooter or car is common in gang-related shootings. Witnesses are afraid of getting targeted later. So you just made a point for my assertion.

2. Put the tinfoil hat away. This shooting took place in an area where there is strict gun control. Likely with a handgun (banned in 1982), and probably with a weapon that wouldn't be on any sort of proposed Federal ban list, not that it would matter. Laws put in place over a period of almost 100 years (going back to the 1920s) that were suppose to stop violent crime and in particular gun-related crime in Chicago haven't mattered even a little bit. Some say there is a positive correlation between the number of guns on the street and violence. Others say it is negative. I would argue that there is no correlation and if you are sitting at home crying about AR-15s, you are wasting your life. Banning them or not banning them changes nothing. It only makes politicians look like they care when frankly a large enough donation in the right pocket will get them flip on a dime.

3. I'm tired of the Federal government telling me where I can pray, who I can sleep with, who I can marry, what guns I can own, and flushing the rest of my civil rights and the remainder of the Bill of Rights down the farking toilet the moment someone whispers the word "terrorism". I would think that the rest of you would also be tired of it and tell the nanny staters to die in fire. Instead some of you would rather suckle government teet while the rest start "prepping" as if you have the balls to start a revolution and we all know you don't have them. You want to know what the real conspiracy is? Really? It's a conspiracy to take the last, best hope this planet has of getting off this rock and making something of ourselves in the Universe and flushing it away and the American people are all in on it.
 
2013-01-30 12:49:14 PM  

Phinn: Princess Ryans Knickers: AngryPanda: Phinn: Princess Ryans Knickers: 1418 dead since Sandy Hook

Over 4,000 are dead because of car crashes since Sandy Hook.

A lot of them were kids, too.

False equivalency is false.

Cars aren't solely intended to kill or maim people. That's why "car crashes" are called "accidents" sometimes. On the other hand, a gun's primary function is to kill or hurt someone with a simple trigger pull.

Worse than that. Either his numbers are absolutely false or he's intentionally using worldwide numbers against my United States only gun numbers.

There are 34,000 vehicle deaths in the US per year.

That is a rate of 93 vehicle deaths per day.

It has been 47 days since the Sandy Hook shooting.

93 * 47 = 4,371

But tell me again how much Obama and the federal government he administers CARE about "saving lives." They will not devote a tiny fraction of their time and attention to traffic (all of which occurs on government property and is regulated by government employees according to government traffic rules) compared to the political attention they will devote to gun restrictions, although traffic kills far more people.

Traffic deaths are not politically valuable. Gun deaths are.

Gun deaths are largely caused by government drug prohibitions, which creates a black market, making it highly profitable, while denying it security protection. So, its black market participants police their business themselves, as all mafia-style black market operations do, and they use guns to kill each other.


Stop being an idiot. Its a false equivilence fallacy and therefore invalid. Meaning... It doesnt mean anything and cannot be used in an argument in this manner.

The basic reason for this is that cars are used infinitely more than guns, and thus the deaths due to them, while tragic, are an accepted and necessary risk because of the need for ease of transportation for every man, woman, and child.

Every time you speak, you weaken your position further with your insane, uneducated rationale.
 
2013-01-30 12:51:29 PM  
Just out of curiosity, how would La Pierre respond if you told him the reason you wanted high-powered assault rifles was to commit mass murder on NRA members?
 
2013-01-30 12:54:11 PM  

KiltedBastich: In each case there was bodily harm or the threat thereof. And you assert I should have felt justified in pulling out a gun and killing the offender, because I felt "threatened". Really?!


No. You would have been justified in using deadly force because a reasonable threat of imminent grievous bodily injury or death to you was present. A"feeling" only justifies the use of deadly force it it is reasonable.

While you are not obligated to use deadly force in such a situation, stipulating that no one in such a situation should be legally permitted the use of such force is unreasonable.


Why is it ok to commit a greater wrong to stop a lesser wrong?

Claiming the use of deadly force to stop a threat of imminent injury to be "wrong" is irrational and dishonest.
 
2013-01-30 12:58:25 PM  

justtray: mjones73: Ed Grubermann: Cybernetic: I see that Chicago's strict gun-control laws are working as well as ever.

And our thread's designated asshole makes himself known...

For stating the obvious?

Are you an idiot?

So now correlation equals causation? Okay good, then we have 4x the homicide rate as the UK because we can get guns way easier, having a gun around you makes you more likely to kill your family than an intruder, southern states with more lax gun control have higher homicide rates than even Illinois, New York, etc because they have more lax gun control, and CCW holders are just as likely to commit homicide by gun on another person than non, meaning despite alleged higher responsibility, they're actually equal or more prone to shooting other people.

Now shut up or GTFO.


imgs.xkcd.com
 
2013-01-30 12:58:39 PM  

justtray: Stop being an idiot. Its a false equivilence fallacy and therefore invalid. Meaning... It doesnt mean anything and cannot be used in an argument in this manner.

The basic reason for this is that cars are used infinitely more than guns, and thus the deaths due to them, while tragic, are an accepted and necessary risk because of the need for ease of transportation for every man, woman, and child.

Every time you speak, you weaken your position further with your insane, uneducated rationale.


Just to clarify, you're saying that a certain amount of deaths (homicides, suicides, and accidental) are acceptable to allow for the smooth functioning of society and to help preserve our freedoms (I'm tossing in the last bit as a nod to freedom to move about in an relatively unrestricted manner). Or maybe it's more that the risk of these things occur is acceptable, leading to the acceptability of the deaths.
 
2013-01-30 01:01:22 PM  

KiltedBastich: Why is it ok to kill someone who is assaulting you? I have been beaten up. Why would it be ok for me to kill them to stop them? They did not kill me, or even cause any permanent harm.

I have been mugged at knifepoint. Why would it be ok to kill someone to keep them from taking the content of my wallet? It was some money and some time spent cancelling bank and credit cards.

In each case there was bodily harm or the threat thereof. And you assert I should have felt justified in pulling out a gun and killing the offender, because I felt "threatened". Really?!

Why is it ok to commit a greater wrong to stop a lesser wrong?

I assert that part of the problem is that your culture has been so distorted by your pro-gun lobby using self-defence arguments that you haven't even stopped to ask yourselves the question why is it acceptable, even laudable, to kill someone for committing a crime that they would see only a few years in prison for otherwise, just because you can? Because you can tell yourself you felt 'threatened'? Is human life so very cheap to you and those like you?


-----------

I didn't say it was right to kill someone who is assaulting you.

I said that it is right to kill someone who poses a credible threat of imminent death or serious bodily injury.

Those threats are all assaults, but not all assaults are sufficiently serious to justify the use of lethal force in self-defense.

Being robbed at knife-point, if you believed the threat of death was credible, however, would certainly justify the immediate, intentional killing of the attacker.

You certainly had no ethical obligation to hand over your property (although it was a smart choice if you were overpowered). If his threat was credible, then he would likely have become even more aggressive if you had refused to comply.

I won't go so far to say that killing such an attacker is a duty, but doing so would have been entirely justified, completely legal, and in no way unjust.

When someone threatens to kill you, he has absolutely no ethical defense to being killed. He has, through his actions, intentionally put someone else's life at risk, and therefore cannot simultaneously claim that it is wrong to kill. No one can reasonably assert that it's OK to kill others, but not to be killed. How could his right to live (while you die) be superior to your right to live (while he dies)?
 
2013-01-30 01:03:11 PM  

Phinn: Princess Ryans Knickers: AngryPanda: Phinn: Princess Ryans Knickers: 1418 dead since Sandy Hook

Over 4,000 are dead because of car crashes since Sandy Hook.

A lot of them were kids, too.

False equivalency is false.

Cars aren't solely intended to kill or maim people. That's why "car crashes" are called "accidents" sometimes. On the other hand, a gun's primary function is to kill or hurt someone with a simple trigger pull.

Worse than that. Either his numbers are absolutely false or he's intentionally using worldwide numbers against my United States only gun numbers.

There are 34,000 vehicle deaths in the US per year.

That is a rate of 93 vehicle deaths per day.

It has been 47 days since the Sandy Hook shooting.

93 * 47 = 4,371

But tell me again how much Obama and the federal government he administers CARE about "saving lives." They will not devote a tiny fraction of their time and attention to traffic (all of which occurs on government property and is regulated by government employees according to government traffic rules) compared to the political attention they will devote to gun restrictions, although traffic kills far more people.

Traffic deaths are not politically valuable. Gun deaths are.

Gun deaths are largely caused by government drug prohibitions, which creates a black market, making it highly profitable, while denying it security protection. So, its black market participants police their business themselves, as all mafia-style black market operations do, and they use guns to kill each other.


lolwut?
 
2013-01-30 01:03:25 PM  

AverageAmericanGuy: cptjeff: AverageAmericanGuy: You're assuming it's a gangbanger.

Pretty safe assumption.

I'm not ready to make that assumption


oh really? why not?

www.wnd.com
 
2013-01-30 01:03:32 PM  
She was safe as long s she was around armed security.

But then she went to Chicago where all the guns are in the hands of criminals.
 
2013-01-30 01:04:08 PM  

CliChe Guevara: AverageAmericanGuy: cptjeff: AverageAmericanGuy: You're assuming it's a gangbanger.

Pretty safe assumption.

I'm not ready to make that assumption

oh really? why not?

[www.wnd.com image 609x517]


Proximity of victim to Obama.
 
2013-01-30 01:04:35 PM  

ronaprhys: Just to clarify, you're saying that a certain amount of deaths (homicides, suicides, and accidental) are acceptable to allow for the smooth functioning of society and to help preserve our freedoms (I'm tossing in the last bit as a nod to freedom to move about in an relatively unrestricted manner).


There is no plausible argument that the net benefit of gun ownership to society comes anywhere near the benefit provided by automobiles.

If gun owners had to turn in their guns tomorrow, society could still function.

If no one could drive a car anywhere, ever again, America would screech to a halt.
 
2013-01-30 01:04:37 PM  

Psycat: Just out of curiosity, how would La Pierre respond if you told him the reason you wanted high-powered assault rifles was to commit mass murder on NRA members?


By "members", do you mean the regular rubes who pay dues? Or do you mean gun manufacturers?
 
2013-01-30 01:05:03 PM  

Psycat: Just out of curiosity, how would La Pierre respond if you told him the reason you wanted high-powered assault rifles was to commit mass murder on NRA members?


He would probably remind you that the second amendment is the right of all citizens and is tends to prevent things like mass murder. It works by balancing power among the people.

What happens is politicians unbalance society and then try to act shocked and horrified at the results of their actions. Then they use he outcome as an excuse for an even greater imbalance.

It's all going to burn down if this keeps up.
 
2013-01-30 01:06:35 PM  

CliChe Guevara: AverageAmericanGuy: cptjeff: AverageAmericanGuy: You're assuming it's a gangbanger.

Pretty safe assumption.

I'm not ready to make that assumption

oh really? why not?

[www.wnd.com image 609x517]


This breaks down victims and perpetrators by race, not gang membership. Can you explain your thinking? You can link to stormfront if it will help.
 
2013-01-30 01:07:33 PM  

KiltedBastich: It always amazes me how difficult it is for some people to follow a simple chain of logic.

If firearms are plentiful and easy to obtain legally in your society, it then means that there is a plentiful supply of such legal weapons for criminals and the insane to buy, borrow or steal those firearms from the legal owners.

If firearms are rare and difficult to legally obtain in your society, then there is only a scarce supply of such legal weapons for criminals and the insane to buy, borrow or steal those firearms from the legal owners. In neither case is it legal for criminals or the insane to have guns. But only in the former case is it easy for them to get them anyhow.

This is the empirical result that every other nation in the world has discovered as a result of experimenting with gun control, and yet somehow Americans who argue against gun control cannot seem to understand it. It's really not that hard. Say what you will about the ideology or rights involved, many legal firearms means many firearm equipped criminals and insane individualss, few legal firearms means few firearm equipped criminals and insane individuals.

The only exception to this rule occurs when you have two locations close to each other, one with plentiful easy to acquire legal firearms, and one without. That results in smuggling of illegal weapons to profitably meet the black market demand. Much like how a great deal of Canadian criminals are armed with illegal weapons originally from legal American sources, or how areas with strict local gun control in the USA have issues with guns coming in from areas of the USA where the restrictions are much lower, to the point of near nonexistence. However, it is still the case that the existence of many illegal firearms is initially due to the presence of many legal firearms.

Guns don't manufacture themselves, and last time I checked gang-bangers and crazy people don't tend to be skilled gunsmiths. Almost all those firearms in the hands of criminals an ...


This! Favorited and I wish I could hit the "smart" button more than once.
 
2013-01-30 01:07:39 PM  
Can't we amputate gang members' arms??
 
2013-01-30 01:08:47 PM  

The Larch: Psycat: Just out of curiosity, how would La Pierre respond if you told him the reason you wanted high-powered assault rifles was to commit mass murder on NRA members?

By "members", do you mean the regular rubes who pay dues? Or do you mean gun manufacturers?


Either/or.
 
2013-01-30 01:09:15 PM  
Just want to say how douchey it is to use an incident like this to make points about gun control.

/and that's whether you're for or against
//seriously, fark all of you with a rusty shovel
 
2013-01-30 01:09:35 PM  

AverageAmericanGuy: I'm not ready to make that assumption.


So, know nothing about the gang problems in Chicago?
 
2013-01-30 01:10:20 PM  

Phinn: AngryPanda: Cars aren't solely intended to kill or maim people. That's why "car crashes" are called "accidents" sometimes. On the other hand, a gun's primary function is to kill or hurt someone with a simple trigger pull.

Not all intentional killings are wrongful.

The intentional killing of a person in self-defense, for example, is not merely excusable, but entirely lawful.

Self-defense is not only a basic human right, but is the origin of the concept of "rights."


And that's fine, but you can't go quoting a statistic that car accidents kill more people than gun violence does, because the fact is one is intended to hurt a living thing (be it self-defense or not, I'm not arguing that), the other is not. It's not the same thing. By that logic, I could state that Space Shuttles killed more people in a given month in the past 20 years in Texas and Florida than gun violence.
 
2013-01-30 01:10:40 PM  

d23: Bubbarella: She shouldn't have been hanging out with gang members blacks.

Is this what you meant???


According to the murder chart, yes.
 
2013-01-30 01:12:23 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: You know what, fark this town.  I'm taking the job offer I have in another state and getting the fark out of this shiat hole.


I hope the offer is not in New York. It's no better here, man.
 
2013-01-30 01:12:34 PM  

way south: Psycat: Just out of curiosity, how would La Pierre respond if you told him the reason you wanted high-powered assault rifles was to commit mass murder on NRA members?

He would probably remind you that the second amendment is the right of all citizens and is tends to prevent things like mass murder. It works by balancing power among the people.

What happens is politicians unbalance society and then try to act shocked and horrified at the results of their actions. Then they use he outcome as an excuse for an even greater imbalance.

It's all going to burn down if this keeps up.


So, Wayne La Pierre would support a madman's desire to buy assault rifles even if said madman made it very obvious that he wanted to shoot up an NRA meeting? What if said madman wanted a gun for the express purpose of assassinating La Pierre?
 
2013-01-30 01:12:54 PM  

Rev.K: There is no plausible argument that the net benefit of gun ownership to society comes anywhere near the benefit provided by automobiles.

If gun owners had to turn in their guns tomorrow, society could still function.

If no one could drive a car anywhere, ever again, America would screech to a halt.


Did I say there was? Did I make an argument to seize automobiles?

I'll pose the question to you: Is there an acceptable level of deaths within a society due to the benefits? I'll even suggest a second question: if you answer yes, what is that acceptable level and how does one determine it?
 
2013-01-30 01:13:48 PM  

Rev.K: There is no plausible argument that the net benefit of gun ownership to society comes anywhere near the benefit provided by automobiles.

If gun owners had to turn in their guns tomorrow, society could still function.


Thank you for your opinion about whose lives matter more than others.

I'm sure that the families of the 90+ people who are killed every day on government property, not to mention the many hundreds more who are permanently injured and disabled, will be heartened and feel very comfortable knowing that your calculation of net utility is the best way to organize a society.

We can also put the word out to all of the people who will being killed, raped or maimed by stronger attackers, whose deaths and injuries could be prevented by the availability of a gun, to let them know that they should gladly sacrifice their lives and safety for the honor of knowing that your net utility calculation will now determine who gets to live and who gets to die.
 
2013-01-30 01:16:49 PM  

CliChe Guevara: AverageAmericanGuy: cptjeff: AverageAmericanGuy: You're assuming it's a gangbanger.

Pretty safe assumption.

I'm not ready to make that assumption

oh really? why not?

[www.wnd.com image 609x517]


Even if black residents are demonstrated to be substantially disproportionately represented in criminal gangs, data showing a majority of homicide victims and offenders to be black does not demonstrate that a majority of homicide victims and offenders are members of criminal gangs.

A majority of homicide victims, offenders, or both may be members of criminal gangs, but the data that you have referenced does not indicate such.
 
2013-01-30 01:17:12 PM  
Again, I'm trying to raise a provocative point about self-defeating philosophies...

To repeat: what if a group of madmen/political radicals/whatever wanted assault rifles for the express purpose of shooting NRA members? Would Wayne La Pierre support their right to have as many guns as they want?

That would kinda be like some crazy person killing a whole bunch of ACLU members, and then asking some ACLU lawyer to defend him in court...
 
2013-01-30 01:17:22 PM  

cptjeff: ScouserDuck: IlGreven: Keep defending your gun rights to the hilt, Wayne. You'll get counter-examples every day.

/NRA against every reasonable measure to curb gun violence, up to and including mental health screenings.
//Mainly because they have many health organizations and more than a few insurance companies on their "Enemies of the 2nd Amendment" blacklist.

This absolutely a counter example....of how strict gun control doesn't work.

What strict gun control? One city having strict laws means absolutely nothing. Travel just outside the city, and you get the same lax gun laws as everywhere else.


Oh they know this all too well, but when has that stopped them from making a snarky remark that adds nothing constructive to the discussion? This is also why the gun lobby is so against any studies tracing guns that are used in crimes to their sources, or any other type study regarding guns and crime by the government. It would expose the holes in the current system and show how the practicality of a national gun registration database, a universal background check system, and the inclusion of all gun sales would do a lot to close these holes giving access to criminals.
 
2013-01-30 01:18:21 PM  

GameSprocket: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Ed Grubermann: Cybernetic: I see that Chicago's strict gun-control laws are working as well as ever.

And our thread's designated asshole makes himself known...

Because the very day a tragedy involving the use of guns happens, that's the right time to talk about more gun control as with Sandy Hook, but if circumstance shows that gun control is doing nothing, then it's "too soon" to talk about the problem with gun control, right?

Who said too soon? You could wait a hundred years and that talking point would still be stupid.

Localized gun laws are undermined by the ease in which weapons are brought into the controlled area. This is less of an issue with a National policy where illegal weapons would have to come across a controlled border.

Besides, if we had to wait a month from a shooting to discuss gun control, we could never discuss it.


We can't control the people coming into the country illegally already. What would making guns here illegal do when there is no incentive from the government to actually enforce illegal immigration to the tunes of tens of thousands per year.
 
2013-01-30 01:20:55 PM  
Local Chicago news just reported that police believe that most of the people she was hanging out with when she was shot were gang members, and none of them stayed around to help her.
 
2013-01-30 01:21:17 PM  
Another senate Democrat comes out against a new 'assault weapon' ban.Link
 
2013-01-30 01:22:03 PM  

Psycat: what if a group of madmen/political radicals/whatever wanted assault rifles for the express purpose of shooting NRA members? Would Wayne La Pierre support their right to have as many guns as they want?


By expressing their purpose to be murdering others, then the victims of that threat would be perfectly justified in killing the "radicals" in self-defense.

Non-NRA members would be justified in using lethal force, too. It is wholly lawful and appropriate to kill anyone if it is necessary to protect the life of yourself or a third party who is the victim of a credible threat of death or serious injury.
 
2013-01-30 01:22:52 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: So, know nothing about the gang problems in Chicago?


According to the Chicago Police Department, only about 30% of the murders in Chicago are gang related.
 
2013-01-30 01:25:48 PM  

hdhale: 3. I'm tired of the Federal government telling me where I can pray, who I can sleep with,


Gerd jerb at lending credibility to the rest of your argument.
 
2013-01-30 01:26:57 PM  

heavymetal: cptjeff: ScouserDuck: IlGreven: Keep defending your gun rights to the hilt, Wayne. You'll get counter-examples every day.

/NRA against every reasonable measure to curb gun violence, up to and including mental health screenings.
//Mainly because they have many health organizations and more than a few insurance companies on their "Enemies of the 2nd Amendment" blacklist.

This absolutely a counter example....of how strict gun control doesn't work.

What strict gun control? One city having strict laws means absolutely nothing. Travel just outside the city, and you get the same lax gun laws as everywhere else.

Oh they know this all too well, but when has that stopped them from making a snarky remark that adds nothing constructive to the discussion? This is also why the gun lobby is so against any studies tracing guns that are used in crimes to their sources, or any other type study regarding guns and crime by the government. It would expose the holes in the current system and show how the practicality of a national gun registration database, a universal background check system, and the inclusion of all gun sales would do a lot to close these holes giving access to criminals.


Oh and I forgot to add, that in my opinion by opposing things like studies of gun violence, tracking of guns used in crimes to their source, a national gun registration database, a universal background check system, and the inclusion of all private gun sales in the registration database & background checks; the gun rights lobby (like the NRA) are not defending the gun rights of law abiding responsible citizens but rather the rights of criminals and crazies to obtain guns. Getting a gun yourself and killing the criminals and crazies onec they become a threat, as seems to be the only solution the gun rights lobby will even consider, is not a reasonable only solution but rather a rarely used last resort.
 
2013-01-30 01:27:10 PM  

AverageAmericanGuy: CliChe Guevara: AverageAmericanGuy: cptjeff: AverageAmericanGuy: You're assuming it's a gangbanger.

Pretty safe assumption.

I'm not ready to make that assumption

oh really? why not?

[www.wnd.com image 609x517]

Proximity of victim to Obama.


The girl was one of about a dozen (and police report that most of them were gang members), seeking shelter from the rain in a park (they were under some sort of gazebo/shelter) and the shooter hopped the fence surrounding the park and just started shooting into the group. Do you really believe that there is any chance that the shooter was trying to hit just her, and because she performed during President Obama's inauguration events? Really?
 
2013-01-30 01:28:15 PM  
R.I.P. :(

I'm guessing it's either a gangbanger or one of the gang members near her owed someone some money. We had an incident here where 2 schools were on lockdown. A local drug dealer robbed a pawn shop at knife-point, tied him up, took some guns and ammunition, cut through the elementary school playground to get to the high school and wandered around the h/s schoolyard looking for one particular student. He couldn't find the guy and a few of the kids called the cops so the dealer bailed on foot. Some of the kids recognized the guy and his target fessed up to the police that he'd "forgotten" to pay his dealer the few hundred bucks he owed the guy (think it was $400 or so). Those kids are damn lucky their idiot classmate didn't happen to exit the school just then. Who knows how many of them the guy would have shot trying to hit the kid.

Ikam: ScouserDuck: IlGreven: Keep defending your gun rights to the hilt, Wayne. You'll get counter-examples every day.

/NRA against every reasonable measure to curb gun violence, up to and including mental health screenings.
//Mainly because they have many health organizations and more than a few insurance companies on their "Enemies of the 2nd Amendment" blacklist.

This absolutely a counter example....of how strict gun control doesn't work.

So arm teenage girls? Is that your solution?


weirdnewsfiles.com

Would you knock off that ice cream parlour?

/no I'm not advocating arming all teenage girls I just couldn't resist
//sorry
 
2013-01-30 01:28:51 PM  

You Are All Sheep: We can't control the people coming into the country illegally already. What would making guns here illegal do when there is no incentive from the government to actually enforce illegal immigration to the tunes of tens of thousands per year.


I never said anything about "making guns illegal", I only talked about the folly of looking at a localized ban as an indication of how a national policy would work. That does not negate your point, I just want to be clear about that so people don't try to get me to defend a national ban on firearms.

More to the point, the government has been deporting illegals at record rates. BTW, guns are being illegally exported to Mexico, not imported from there.
 
2013-01-30 01:29:00 PM  
Clearly the answer is to pump Chicago's inner-cities with federally subsidized firearms.

More guns = more safety
 
2013-01-30 01:29:18 PM  

Mock26: Do you really believe that there is any chance that the shooter was trying to hit just her, and because she performed during President Obama's inauguration events? Really?


Maybe she overheard something about Benghazi, and Hillary Clinton wanted to silence her. Just like Vince Foster.
 
2013-01-30 01:30:30 PM  

ronaprhys: Did I say there was? Did I make an argument to seize automobiles?


No, you didn't. But your point seemed to rest on the premise that automobile use and gun ownership provide the same net benefit to society, so why ban one and not another.

I'm just pointing out that from a utility point of view, there's no way gun ownership even comes close to automobile use.

ronaprhys: I'll pose the question to you: Is there an acceptable level of deaths within a society due to the benefits?


There are externalities to both gun ownership and automobile use. It is impossible to have no one die in a car accident ever again, much like it is impossible to never have anyone shot and killed by a gun ever again.

But going back to what benefits society more, automobile use is the clear winner. The negative externality of auto-related deaths is the price we have to pay for the luxury of at-will travel. And anyone with a car, you, me, anyone else in this thread is faced with that every time we get in our cars. Each time you drive could be your last, but that doesn't seem to stop people, that is to say, people believe the personal benefit of the use of the automobile outweighs the risk of injury and death.

Further to that, government and private companies continually seek to improve vehicle and road safety in an effort to prevent needless injuries and death.

The gun example is really the exact same up to the last point. Why is there such rigid rejection of new measures to try and improve gun safety by screening individuals, doing background checks and other things that would hopefully curb needless gun deaths?
 
2013-01-30 01:31:19 PM  

Uranus Is Huge!: Clearly the answer is to pump Chicago's inner-cities with federally subsidized firearms.

More guns = more safety


Exactly. If even one of the 12 people she was with had been armed, this never would have happened.
 
2013-01-30 01:31:21 PM  
gun control is not important; people are going to own guns regardless of their motive. The thing that should be changed is how we raise children and educate them.
 
2013-01-30 01:32:55 PM  

The Larch: According to the Chicago Police Department, only about 30% of the murders in Chicago are gang related.


1 in 3 murders being committed by gang members isn't high to you?
 
2013-01-30 01:34:03 PM  

Delay: KiltedBastich: This is because guns make it easy to choose to commit violence, and easier to cause death when committing violence. Because that is the whole point of a gun in the first place: To make it easier to kill.

Makes it easier for an individual to kill. It usually takes a group effort to assure that stabbing somebody to death or lynching them effective, not saying it's impossible, but there is a significant barrier to crime that unfettered gun ownership removes.


Where exactly is there unfettered gun ownership?
 
2013-01-30 01:36:44 PM  

GameSprocket: You Are All Sheep: We can't control the people coming into the country illegally already. What would making guns here illegal do when there is no incentive from the government to actually enforce illegal immigration to the tunes of tens of thousands per year.

I never said anything about "making guns illegal", I only talked about the folly of looking at a localized ban as an indication of how a national policy would work. That does not negate your point, I just want to be clear about that so people don't try to get me to defend a national ban on firearms.

More to the point, the government has been deporting illegals at record rates. BTW, guns are being illegally exported to Mexico, not imported from there.


by the president, no less.
 
2013-01-30 01:37:36 PM  
Thank goodness it wasn't an assault rifle. That would have really been bad.

/right. amidoingit?
 
2013-01-30 01:40:04 PM  

Phinn: Psycat: what if a group of madmen/political radicals/whatever wanted assault rifles for the express purpose of shooting NRA members? Would Wayne La Pierre support their right to have as many guns as they want?

By expressing their purpose to be murdering others, then the victims of that threat would be perfectly justified in killing the "radicals" in self-defense.

Non-NRA members would be justified in using lethal force, too. It is wholly lawful and appropriate to kill anyone if it is necessary to protect the life of yourself or a third party who is the victim of a credible threat of death or serious injury.


What if Wayne La Pierre was giving a speech at a conference somewhere and some radical raised his hand and asked, "Wayne, do you support my right to get an assault rifle because next week I'm planning to go to a local NRA chapter and start shooting people?" I couldn't imagine that La Pierre would whip out his murder stick and plug the guy right in the middle of the conference--wouldn't be good for publicity. And with a vague threat like that with no actual guns on the radical, I suspect that La Pierre would be facing murder charges.

Again, what if radicals and crazy people wanted to arm themselves for the sole purpose of walking into an NRA meeting and start shooting people? Yes, the crazy person in such a confrontation would probably be shot multiple times, but with a good automatic, he or she could probably kill a dozen NRA members before dying.

Yes, I know this is a somewhat provocative question, but I'm hoping I can get a good, intelligent answer out of somebody.*

*Yes, I know it's futile on Fark, but what the hey...
 
2013-01-30 01:40:34 PM  

IlGreven: Keep defending your gun rights to the hilt, Wayne. You'll get counter-examples every day.


None of which can match the daily numbers, that every single day in this country roughly 100 MILLION guns owners DO NOT use their 270 MILLION guns to commit a crime. The average number of firearm homicides each day in this country is 45 per day. Even if one were to erroneously assume that every single one of those homicides was committed by someone who legally owned their gun that would equate to 0.00000045% of gun owners broke the law with their firearms. That is an incredibly impressive safety record. And, like I said, that is assuming that they were all done by legal gun owners!

Another fact is that humans are deadlier than the so-called "assault weapons."

img.photobucket.com
In 2011 there were 323 intentional homicides committed with a rifle. Look at the number of homicides committed with with the hands, fists, feet, etcs. 726! And what about knives/cutting instruments and blunt objects? And, not all of those 323 rifle homicides were committed with an "assault weapon." The current campaign to ban "deadly assault weapons" is irrational. The numbers speak for themselves. And the NRA is fully aware of these numbers. Sure, sometimes they really do stick their foot in their mouth when they speak out, but overall their defense of "assault weapons" is a hell of a lot more rational than the attack on "assault weapons."
 
2013-01-30 01:40:35 PM  

heavymetal: heavymetal: cptjeff: ScouserDuck: IlGreven: Keep defending your gun rights to the hilt, Wayne. You'll get counter-examples every day.

/NRA against every reasonable measure to curb gun violence, up to and including mental health screenings.
//Mainly because they have many health organizations and more than a few insurance companies on their "Enemies of the 2nd Amendment" blacklist.

This absolutely a counter example....of how strict gun control doesn't work.

What strict gun control? One city having strict laws means absolutely nothing. Travel just outside the city, and you get the same lax gun laws as everywhere else.

Oh they know this all too well, but when has that stopped them from making a snarky remark that adds nothing constructive to the discussion? This is also why the gun lobby is so against any studies tracing guns that are used in crimes to their sources, or any other type study regarding guns and crime by the government. It would expose the holes in the current system and show how the practicality of a national gun registration database, a universal background check system, and the inclusion of all gun sales would do a lot to close these holes giving access to criminals.

Oh and I forgot to add, that in my opinion by opposing things like studies of gun violence, tracking of guns used in crimes to their source, a national gun registration database, a universal background check system, and the inclusion of all private gun sales in the registration database & background checks; the gun rights lobby (like the NRA) are not defending the gun rights of law abiding responsible citizens but rather the rights of criminals and crazies to obtain guns. Getting a gun yourself and killing the criminals and crazies onec they become a threat, as seems to be the only solution the gun rights lobby will even consider, is not a reasonable only solution but rather a rarely used last resort.


I would disagree with your opinion on some of these. I've hit a few earlier in the thread (national database, universal background checks). As for the others:

-I'm okay with studies on criminal violence, as long as they look at all forms and not just firearms. There's no good reason whatsoever to restrict it to a particular form. Those studies will necessarily be difficult and should not just serve to classify what data we already have, but look at root causes. As an example, there's a significant correlation between firearm homicides (and likely other violence) surrounding drugs and gangs (who seem to be getting significant funding via the drug trade). If this were shown to be a major cause of violence in general and homicides in specific, then it would seem that we should focus there. Not saying it necessarily is (though I believe it to be a very high contributor to the overall violent crime rate). By expanding the scope appropriately, we'd be looking holistically rather than just focusing on a political hot button.
-Tracking firearms - assuming that a warrant is obtained, I don't see why this wouldn't be possible currently. And yes, a warrant MUST be obtained. I'd also argue that this is done currently, so I'm unsure as to your specific objection. Is it that you'd like to trace all firearms used in a crime without a warrant to see what turns up? If so, that sounds a bit like a fishing expedition and wouldn't be permissible. Now, could the LEO community use what information they've got locally based on current crimes to try and establish patterns? I don't see why not.

Basically, it boils down to this. Opposing restrictions that wont' measurably reduce the homicide rate is a Very Good Thing. It helps maintain rights and doesn't infringe. That's the biggest problem I've seen lately. Lots of suggestions that have been shown to not work or seem to focus on a minority of the crimes (assault weapons bans - these are focusing on scary black rifles which are used incredibly rarely in crimes, but the firearms are scary and black. Doesn't matter that normal firearms are significantly more powerful or what have you).
 
2013-01-30 01:41:36 PM  

Psycat: Phinn: Psycat: what if a group of madmen/political radicals/whatever wanted assault rifles for the express purpose of shooting NRA members? Would Wayne La Pierre support their right to have as many guns as they want?

By expressing their purpose to be murdering others, then the victims of that threat would be perfectly justified in killing the "radicals" in self-defense.

Non-NRA members would be justified in using lethal force, too. It is wholly lawful and appropriate to kill anyone if it is necessary to protect the life of yourself or a third party who is the victim of a credible threat of death or serious injury.

What if Wayne La Pierre was giving a speech at a conference somewhere and some radical raised his hand and asked, "Wayne, do you support my right to get an assault rifle because next week I'm planning to go to a local NRA chapter and start shooting people?" I couldn't imagine that La Pierre would whip out his murder stick and plug the guy right in the middle of the conference--wouldn't be good for publicity. And with a vague threat like that with no actual guns on the radical, I suspect that La Pierre would be facing murder charges.

Again, what if radicals and crazy people wanted to arm themselves for the sole purpose of walking into an NRA meeting and start shooting people? Yes, the crazy person in such a confrontation would probably be shot multiple times, but with a good automatic, he or she could probably kill a dozen NRA members before dying.

Yes, I know this is a somewhat provocative question, but I'm hoping I can get a good, intelligent answer out of somebody.*

*Yes, I know it's futile on Fark, but what the hey...


Are you not aware that assault rifles are restricted by the National Firearms Act and that the National Rifle Association, to my knowledge, does not advocate repeal of that Act?
 
2013-01-30 01:43:00 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: The Larch: According to the Chicago Police Department, only about 30% of the murders in Chicago are gang related.

1 in 3 murders being committed by gang members isn't high to you?


You might want to go back and look at the comment you were responding too, cowboy. Nobody said anything about "high" or "low". The claim was that it's a pretty safe to assume that this was gang related, because it's Chicago.

I'm pointing out that your assumption is wrong more than two out of three times.

// of course, bringing statistics into a thread about chicago homicides is absolutely pointless
/// the actual chicago homicide rate per 100,000 people is alot lower than many other cities
//// but chicago homicides are a fun thing to talk about, like shark attacks
// also, CHICAGO DEMOCRAT RAHM EMANUEL ALSO OBAMA GUN CONTROL AND LIKE SUCH AS
 
2013-01-30 01:46:41 PM  

Dimensio: Psycat: Phinn: Psycat: what if a group of madmen/political radicals/whatever wanted assault rifles for the express purpose of shooting NRA members? Would Wayne La Pierre support their right to have as many guns as they want?

By expressing their purpose to be murdering others, then the victims of that threat would be perfectly justified in killing the "radicals" in self-defense.

Non-NRA members would be justified in using lethal force, too. It is wholly lawful and appropriate to kill anyone if it is necessary to protect the life of yourself or a third party who is the victim of a credible threat of death or serious injury.

What if Wayne La Pierre was giving a speech at a conference somewhere and some radical raised his hand and asked, "Wayne, do you support my right to get an assault rifle because next week I'm planning to go to a local NRA chapter and start shooting people?" I couldn't imagine that La Pierre would whip out his murder stick and plug the guy right in the middle of the conference--wouldn't be good for publicity. And with a vague threat like that with no actual guns on the radical, I suspect that La Pierre would be facing murder charges.

Again, what if radicals and crazy people wanted to arm themselves for the sole purpose of walking into an NRA meeting and start shooting people? Yes, the crazy person in such a confrontation would probably be shot multiple times, but with a good automatic, he or she could probably kill a dozen NRA members before dying.

Yes, I know this is a somewhat provocative question, but I'm hoping I can get a good, intelligent answer out of somebody.*

*Yes, I know it's futile on Fark, but what the hey...

Are you not aware that assault rifles are restricted by the National Firearms Act and that the National Rifle Association, to my knowledge, does not advocate repeal of that Act?


OK, Mr. Nit-Picker, change "assault rifle" to "any old gun" so now you DON'T have an evasive non-answer to the question. Or are you deliberately being evasive to avoid trying to answer a provocative question?
 
2013-01-30 01:49:42 PM  

ScouserDuck: Sure..but UK style gun control is unconstitutional.... On the other hand, there are 5,000 glassing incidents in the UK a year.....I'd rather be shot.


4.bp.blogspot.com

You would think that one glassing incident would be enough...

Damn, you UK people are tough bastards.
 
2013-01-30 01:49:50 PM  

lohphat: My dad is a former cop, US deputy marshal, and army special forces and loads his own ammo in the garage.


But was he in the Marine Core?
 
2013-01-30 01:50:27 PM  

IlGreven: Keep defending your gun rights to the hilt, Wayne. You'll get counter-examples every day.

/NRA against every reasonable measure to curb gun violence, up to and including mental health screenings.
//Mainly because they have many health organizations and more than a few insurance companies on their "Enemies of the 2nd Amendment" blacklist.


Wayne LaPierre is a farkwit. As is most of what the NRA as an organization stands for (I do know some NRA members who either have or are considering getting rid of their membership because of the stupid shiat LaPierre says and does).

Click on the link at the side of TFA about former Congresswoman Giffords' testimony. Even the most die-hard gun enthusiast (and I am one) can't explain with any semblance of logic why anyone needs a 30 round magazine for a 9mm--because there is no reason for it.

But I do agree that giving the bangers marksmanship training would possibly help with preventing the deaths of innocents and help eliminate criminal behavior...but then there'd be lawsuits about "why'd you get my poor innocent child killed by giving the other guy training?" Still, the President calling Chicago a model for National gun control, as he did recently... I do not think that means what the President thinks it means, if the table showing nearly twice the deaths from ten years of gun violence in Chicago versus deaths in twelve years of war is anything to go by.
 
2013-01-30 01:51:35 PM  

Psycat: OK, Mr. Nit-Picker, change "assault rifle" to "any old gun" so now you DON'T have an evasive non-answer to the question. Or are you deliberately being evasive to avoid trying to answer a provocative question?


I can only speculate that Mr. LaPierre would not support the right to obtain a firearm for such a purpose, however Mr. LaPierre's statements in the past and recently have suggested a less than rational mindset and my speculation may be inaccurate as a consequence.
 
2013-01-30 01:52:17 PM  
Why would making guns illegal in a city prevent guns from being used in crimes? They are legal in all surrounding areas and it's not like people entering the city are all searched. There's a big difference between the effects of a ban in a city or state vs. the effects on a national level.
 
2013-01-30 01:52:17 PM  

The Larch: the actual chicago homicide rate per 100,000 people is alot lower than many other cities


Out of cities of 250,000+ people Chicago is ranked #16. Out of cities with 1,000,000+ people Chicago is #2.

/Just saying.
 
2013-01-30 01:53:33 PM  

Raharu: tenpoundsofcheese: Lexx: His hands are tied even though people he now personal ties to are dying.

He should make shooting people illegal and also say it is immoral.
If only there was a Mayor in Chicago who 0bama could talk to and if only there were strict gun laws.

Do you ever say anything that doesn't make you sound like a tool?


Ban sarcasim!
 
2013-01-30 01:54:46 PM  

ohdoublereally: Raharu: tenpoundsofcheese: Lexx: His hands are tied even though people he now personal ties to are dying.

He should make shooting people illegal and also say it is immoral.
If only there was a Mayor in Chicago who 0bama could talk to and if only there were strict gun laws.

Do you ever say anything that doesn't make you sound like a tool?

Ban sarcasim!


And typos!
 
2013-01-30 01:56:24 PM  

justtray: mjones73: Ed Grubermann: Cybernetic: I see that Chicago's strict gun-control laws are working as well as ever.

And our thread's designated asshole makes himself known...

For stating the obvious?

Are you an idiot?

So now correlation equals causation? Okay good, then we have 4x the homicide rate as the UK because we can get guns way easier, having a gun around you makes you more likely to kill your family than an intruder, southern states with more lax gun control have higher homicide rates than even Illinois, New York, etc because they have more lax gun control, and CCW holders are just as likely to commit homicide by gun on another person than non, meaning despite alleged higher responsibility, they're actually equal or more prone to shooting other people.

Now shut up or GTFO.


Dumbass:

UK Population: 62,641,000 (2011)
USA Population: 311,800,000 (mid-2011)

UK Crime Statistics

USA Crime Statistics
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm
 
2013-01-30 01:57:38 PM  

Psycat: What if Wayne La Pierre was giving a speech at a conference somewhere and some radical raised his hand and asked, "Wayne, do you support my right to get an assault rifle because next week I'm planning to go to a local NRA chapter and start shooting people?" I couldn't imagine that La Pierre would whip out his murder stick and plug the guy right in the middle of the conference--wouldn't be good for publicity. And with a vague threat like that with no actual guns on the radical, I suspect that La Pierre would be facing murder charges.


I would expect the man to be arrested on the spot for making terroristic threats, which is a felony, and if he resisted arrest, expect the person making the arrest to continue escalating the degree of force as may be necessary.

You know, sort of how the government does to people who don't pay their taxes.
 
2013-01-30 01:57:50 PM  

Psycat: Phinn: Psycat: what if a group of madmen/political radicals/whatever wanted assault rifles for the express purpose of shooting NRA members? Would Wayne La Pierre support their right to have as many guns as they want?

By expressing their purpose to be murdering others, then the victims of that threat would be perfectly justified in killing the "radicals" in self-defense.

Non-NRA members would be justified in using lethal force, too. It is wholly lawful and appropriate to kill anyone if it is necessary to protect the life of yourself or a third party who is the victim of a credible threat of death or serious injury.

What if Wayne La Pierre was giving a speech at a conference somewhere and some radical raised his hand and asked, "Wayne, do you support my right to get an assault rifle because next week I'm planning to go to a local NRA chapter and start shooting people?" I couldn't imagine that La Pierre would whip out his murder stick and plug the guy right in the middle of the conference--wouldn't be good for publicity. And with a vague threat like that with no actual guns on the radical, I suspect that La Pierre would be facing murder charges.

Again, what if radicals and crazy people wanted to arm themselves for the sole purpose of walking into an NRA meeting and start shooting people? Yes, the crazy person in such a confrontation would probably be shot multiple times, but with a good automatic, he or she could probably kill a dozen NRA members before dying.

Yes, I know this is a somewhat provocative question, but I'm hoping I can get a good, intelligent answer out of somebody.*

*Yes, I know it's futile on Fark, but what the hey...


The NRA would support that person's right to purchase a firearm. They would also call the police on the person for publicly making a threat against someone else. They would also alert their members to such a threat.

And, given your example of the guy asking Wayne directly, more than likely someone would pull a gun on the person and make a citizens arrest.
 
2013-01-30 01:58:06 PM  

Rev.K: No, you didn't. But your point seemed to rest on the premise that automobile use and gun ownership provide the same net benefit to society, so why ban one and not another.


Actually, my point is to try and define what an acceptable level of deaths are, versus the benefits. Then we could argue the benefits and whether or not the deaths are under the acceptable level. Now, this doesn't necessarily apply to rights as much, mostly because rights are independent of proving need, per se.

I'm just pointing out that from a utility point of view, there's no way gun ownership even comes close to automobile use.

I dunno about doesn't come close - then again, the argument isn't about utility - it's about appropriate levels of restrictions.

There are externalities to both gun ownership and automobile use. It is impossible to have no one die in a car accident ever again, much like it is impossible to never have anyone shot and killed by a gun ever again.

But going back to what benefits society more, automobile use is the clear winner. The negative externality of auto-related deaths is the price we have to pay for the luxury of at-will travel. And anyone with a car, you, me, anyone else in this thread is faced with that every time we get in our cars. Each time you drive could be your last, but that doesn't seem to stop people, that is to say, people believe the personal benefit of the use of the automobile outweighs the risk of injury and death.

Further to that, government and private companies continually seek to improve vehicle and road safety in an effort to prevent needless injuries and death.

The gun example is really the exact same up to the last point. Why is there such rigid rejection of new measures to try and improve gun safety by screening individuals, doing background checks and other things that would hopefully curb needless gun deaths?


Actually, firearm manufacturers and lobby groups seek to actively promote firearm safety. Yes, they'll oppose restrictions that are silly and don't make sense from their point of view, but to say that they don't try to improve products is kind of silly. Now, some of the products don't need much improvement (if used safely, the chance of accidental death or injury is so negligible as to approach zero).

Now, why the resistance on your last points? See some of my points down thread. I've addressed those.
 
2013-01-30 02:00:51 PM  

The Larch: of course, bringing statistics into a thread about chicago homicides is absolutely pointless


Nobody brought a verifiable statistic, they brought a self-serving statement by the police.  Do you really think the police are going to admit that they can't control the gangs in Chicago?  I guarantee you that over half of the killings are by or against somebody with a gang affiliation.
 
2013-01-30 02:02:50 PM  

Mock26: The Larch: the actual chicago homicide rate per 100,000 people is alot lower than many other cities

Out of cities of 250,000+ people Chicago is ranked #16. Out of cities with 1,000,000+ people Chicago is #2.

/Just saying.


Exactly. Philadelphia is worse than Chicago, and we don't see them on Fark ever second day.
 
2013-01-30 02:03:23 PM  

Delay: WeenerGord: Delay: WeenerGord: A gun is just a tool.

Then gun ownership should not be in the constitution. Trowels aren't. What makes guns so special? They are effective in killing. That's their purpose.


Legal gun ownership is for decent, law abiding citizens to protect themselves from tyranny. Learn some history, and you will see how history repeats itself.

Also notice how the full story is not always told.

Armed US citizens really have no chance against our own military. Thinking "law abiding citizens" could stand against the military strength of the US is foolish.


In the absence of a perfect solution are we to do nothing?

justtray: Stop being an idiot. Its a false equivilence fallacy and therefore invalid. Meaning... It doesnt mean anything and cannot be used in an argument in this manner.

The basic reason for this is that cars are used infinitely more than guns, and thus the deaths due to them, while tragic, are an accepted and necessary risk because of the need for ease of transportation for every man, woman, and child.


It's always cute to watch you justify 30,000 deaths being a reasonable price for freedom to drive cars, while slamming 12,000 deaths per year (most of which being gang related) as too high of a price to pay for the freedom to own guns. Especially when you say things like "cars aren't designed to kill, so they're not as bad", which is asinine because if they're not designed to kill, and guns are designed to kill, why are guns doing so much less killing?

Exactly how much lower must that 12,000 be for you to agree that we're paying a reasonable price in life for the freedom to own guns. I seriously want an answer. 0? 100? 1000?
 
2013-01-30 02:04:08 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: Nobody brought a verifiable statistic, they brought a self-serving statement by the police.  Do you really think the police are going to admit that they can't control the gangs in Chicago?  I guarantee you that over half of the killings are by or against somebody with a gang affiliation.


You "guarantee" it? Well, gee... if some random asshole on the internet can "guarantee" it, then it must be true.
 
2013-01-30 02:05:08 PM  

Dimensio: Psycat: OK, Mr. Nit-Picker, change "assault rifle" to "any old gun" so now you DON'T have an evasive non-answer to the question. Or are you deliberately being evasive to avoid trying to answer a provocative question?

I can only speculate that Mr. LaPierre would not support the right to obtain a firearm for such a purpose, however Mr. LaPierre's statements in the past and recently have suggested a less than rational mindset and my speculation may be inaccurate as a consequence.


Thank you for providing a real answer. The rest of this rant doesn't apply to you:

-----------------------------

I'm something of a gadfly who likes to ask provocative questions. I've noticed that people who ignore the question or try to nit-pick some sort of technicality or provide some other evasive non-answer are usually being intellectually dishonest because they're usually holding a couple of beliefs that are mutually incompatible.

I'm kinda mixed on the gun-control issue myself, but I think there's some incompatible absurdities on both sides of the issue.

For the gun-control crowd: do you support an all-out ban on all guns, even though a gun might be the only thing that equalizes a confrontation between a 90-pound woman or elderly man and a ultra-muscular thug? What about the Pink Pistols, a gay group who believes that the best way to avoid homophobic violence is for them to pack a rod in their pants? (If you come up with an evasive non-answer like "what if the 90-pound woman or elderly gentleman is an expert at karate?", you get negative one zillion shiathead points for avoiding the question.)

For the pro-gun crowd: if you're also a conservative (ignore this question, liberal pro-gun folks), do you support the accumulation of guns among political liberals even if the purpose is to wage civil war against conservatives? Do you support gun ownership among people who want to use guns to commit murder among the pro-gun crowd? (Again, evasive non-answers gets you a zillion negative shiathead points for avoiding the question.)
 
2013-01-30 02:05:19 PM  

KiltedBastich: Why do you assume I am an American? I am not. I am a Canadian.


That's like being American by proxy. We like Canadians so much we consider you America Jr. You're polite, and you send us good looking actresses and actors and singers.
Unless you are one of those dirty French speaking Canadians, then stay the fark up in Møøse-Hump, Quebec.
 
2013-01-30 02:08:06 PM  

ronaprhys: -I'm okay with studies on criminal violence, as long as they look at all forms and not just firearms. There's no good reason whatsoever to restrict it to a particular form. Those studies will necessarily be difficult and should not just serve to classify what data we already have, but look at root causes. As an example, there's a significant correlation between firearm homicides (and likely other violence) surrounding drugs and gangs (who seem to be getting significant funding via the drug trade). If this were shown to be a major cause of violence in general and homicides in specific, then it would seem that we should focus there. Not saying it necessarily is (though I believe it to be a very high contributor to the overall violent crime rate). By expanding the scope appropriately, we'd be looking holistically rather than just focusing on a political hot button.


There are plenty of studies on all forms of violence and crime, except gun violence. Federal funding for this has been banned since 1990 by the usual suspects. Obama only just lifted this.

Which leads people like you to say: wow, Obozo wants to just study gun violence alone! Probably another political ploy to ban guns

The question becomes: Will your opinion change when your underlying reasoning is proven wrong?
 
2013-01-30 02:09:51 PM  

Phinn: Psycat: What if Wayne La Pierre was giving a speech at a conference somewhere and some radical raised his hand and asked, "Wayne, do you support my right to get an assault rifle because next week I'm planning to go to a local NRA chapter and start shooting people?" I couldn't imagine that La Pierre would whip out his murder stick and plug the guy right in the middle of the conference--wouldn't be good for publicity. And with a vague threat like that with no actual guns on the radical, I suspect that La Pierre would be facing murder charges.

I would expect the man to be arrested on the spot for making terroristic threats, which is a felony, and if he resisted arrest, expect the person making the arrest to continue escalating the degree of force as may be necessary.

You know, sort of how the government does to people who don't pay their taxes.


OK, that answer kinda works. But do you have any guess as to what La Pierre himself would reply, terroristic threats aside?
 
2013-01-30 02:10:35 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: It's always cute to watch you justify 30,000 deaths being a reasonable price for freedom to drive cars, while slamming 12,000 deaths per year (most of which being gang related) as too high of a price to pay for the freedom to own guns.


No, most homicides are not gang related.

But let's assume that they were. Why does that make the slightest bit of difference? Do victims of violence not matter if the person who pulled the trigger is in a gang? Do we just go, "well, that guy was in a gang, so his gun doesn't count?"

In fact, in some ways, your stupid fantasy statistic actually says the opposite of what you think it says. If, as you claim, the overwhelming majority of people who actually use firearms are in gangs, then it stands to reason that we would want to get rid of firearms even more.
 
2013-01-30 02:11:38 PM  

Dimensio: No. You would have been justified in using deadly force because a reasonable threat of imminent grievous bodily injury or death to you was present. A"feeling" only justifies the use of deadly force it it is reasonable.

While you are not obligated to use deadly force in such a situation, stipulating that no one in such a situation should be legally permitted the use of such force is unreasonable.


So you are, in fact, saying that I would have been justified pulling out a gun and shooting the two bullies who beat me up with their fists in grade 11, as I was at the time hurting and terrified and not entirely rational. It was by all standards an imminent threat of grievous bodily injury.

And I am now alive and unharmed, as are they, and in your scenario, I would be alive and unharmed, and they would have been dead for two decades.

Dimensio: Claiming the use of deadly force to stop a threat of imminent injury to be "wrong" is irrational and dishonest.


No, it is not. It is eminently logical to question a cultural doctrine that leads to a consistent justification for inappropriate and disproportionate response. Someone infringing on my person can only logically justify a commensurate response, within reasonable limits for precision. Someone attempts to beat me up, I am justified in fighting back, or pepper spraying them, or tazing them, or breaking their kneecap with a crowbar so I can run away, or any number of other similar responses, because all of those represent a commensurate response to the initial offense. If I pull out a gun and shoot them, then I am the one who has escalated the confrontation. I have responded to assault or theft with murder. That is not logically defensible.

Phinn: I didn't say it was right to kill someone who is assaulting you.

I said that it is right to kill someone who poses a credible threat of imminent death or serious bodily injury.

Those threats are all assaults, but not all assaults are sufficiently serious to justify the use of lethal force in self-defense.

And yet at the time I was being beaten by two bullies both larger than myself, and I was terrified and fighting back with everything I have. I was hardly in a mindset for calm deliberation over the extent to which my life was in danger, and that is the norm for violent confrontations, even for trained professionals. What do you think would have been the result had I had a firearm?

I think it nearly certain some one or more of the three of us, myself and my two tormentors, would now be dead, instead of living our lives. Do I like those bullies? No. But I don't hate them enough to wish them dead.

Phinn: Being robbed at knife-point, if you believed the threat of death was credible, however, would certainly justify the immediate, intentional killing of the attacker.

You certainly had no ethical obligation to hand over your property (although it was a smart choice if you were overpowered). If his threat was credible, then he would likely have become even more aggressive if you had refused to comply.

I won't go so far to say that killing such an attacker is a duty, but doing so would have been entirely justified, completely legal, and in no way unjust.

When someone threatens to kill you, he has absolutely no ethical defense to being killed. He has, through his actions, intentionally put someone else's life at risk, and therefore cannot simultaneously claim that it is wrong to kill. No one can reasonably assert that it's OK to kill others, but not to be killed. How could his right to live (while you die) be superior to your right to live (while he dies)?

Do you realize that you are arguing, essentially, an eye for an eye? Someone else breaking the law or other ethical code does not grant me permission to do the same. I am not granted the right to kill simply because someone else has violated the law. Whether or not *he* (wrongly) asserts it is OK to kill, I am not able to then argue that it is therefore right to kill *him*. The whole point is that he's in the wrong, and that I should not be joining him in his error. That's why the civilized world has a freaking justice system, not a vengeance system.

And as I pointed out above, you have completely thrown out the concept of proportional response. You are going right from someone brandishing a knife and demanding my wallet to assuming threat of death and then justifying me pulling out a gun and shooting him. Note that I had something like 40$ in my wallet, a bank card and a credit card, and the bastard even tossed my picture ID on the ground for me to recover. Note also that I walked away unharmed, as did my assailant. I do not consider the momentary fear, the loss of money and the inconvenience of cancelling the bank and credit card to justify murder. I would have been justified, again, in tasing him, or breaking his wrist, or using just about anything else that would leave him still essentially hale and healthy, if injured. I would not have been justified in killing him. Owning a gun makes it trivially easy to kill someone in such circumstances.

 
2013-01-30 02:12:42 PM  

Mock26: Psycat: Phinn: Psycat: what if a group of madmen/political radicals/whatever wanted assault rifles for the express purpose of shooting NRA members? Would Wayne La Pierre support their right to have as many guns as they want?

By expressing their purpose to be murdering others, then the victims of that threat would be perfectly justified in killing the "radicals" in self-defense.

Non-NRA members would be justified in using lethal force, too. It is wholly lawful and appropriate to kill anyone if it is necessary to protect the life of yourself or a third party who is the victim of a credible threat of death or serious injury.

What if Wayne La Pierre was giving a speech at a conference somewhere and some radical raised his hand and asked, "Wayne, do you support my right to get an assault rifle because next week I'm planning to go to a local NRA chapter and start shooting people?" I couldn't imagine that La Pierre would whip out his murder stick and plug the guy right in the middle of the conference--wouldn't be good for publicity. And with a vague threat like that with no actual guns on the radical, I suspect that La Pierre would be facing murder charges.

Again, what if radicals and crazy people wanted to arm themselves for the sole purpose of walking into an NRA meeting and start shooting people? Yes, the crazy person in such a confrontation would probably be shot multiple times, but with a good automatic, he or she could probably kill a dozen NRA members before dying.

Yes, I know this is a somewhat provocative question, but I'm hoping I can get a good, intelligent answer out of somebody.*

*Yes, I know it's futile on Fark, but what the hey...

The NRA would support that person's right to purchase a firearm. They would also call the police on the person for publicly making a threat against someone else. They would also alert their members to such a threat.

And, given your example of the guy asking Wayne directly, more than likely someone would pull a gun on the person and make a citizens arrest.


Thank you for a real answer. Would the NRA members who support that person's right to purchase a firearm consider that it might be self-defeating?
 
2013-01-30 02:13:53 PM  

Psycat: way south: Psycat: Just out of curiosity, how would La Pierre respond if you told him the reason you wanted high-powered assault rifles was to commit mass murder on NRA members?

He would probably remind you that the second amendment is the right of all citizens and is tends to prevent things like mass murder. It works by balancing power among the people.

What happens is politicians unbalance society and then try to act shocked and horrified at the results of their actions. Then they use he outcome as an excuse for an even greater imbalance.

It's all going to burn down if this keeps up.

So, Wayne La Pierre would support a madman's desire to buy assault rifles even if said madman made it very obvious that he wanted to shoot up an NRA meeting? What if said madman wanted a gun for the express purpose of assassinating La Pierre?


He would support the fair practice of constitutional law, which does not discriminate against someone prior to a crime being committed or the intention to misuse a right being known.
I don't think anyone is under the illusion that a madman can't get a gun just because Obama said "no".

No one says "I want my murderer to have a gun" but is it even realistic to believe you have a choice?
Knowing that you don't, how many hurdles do you want placed between yourself and a viable means of self defense?
There comes a point where you are more likely to be hoisted by your own regulatory petard.

I don't think the NRA would risk disarming itself in the vague hope that their would be mass murderer decided to obey the rules.
 
2013-01-30 02:14:20 PM  

Mock26: The girl was one of about a dozen (and police report that most of them were gang members), seeking shelter from the rain in a park (they were under some sort of gazebo/shelter) and the shooter hopped the fence surrounding the park and just started shooting into the group. Do you really believe that there is any chance that the shooter was trying to hit just her, and because she performed during President Obama's inauguration events? Really?


Look. I am the last guy to buy conspiracy theories, but the puzzle pieces are just too perfect. The gun violence incidents. The murder of (at least) two major pro-gun advocates. The perfect timing of all this coincides with the administration's efforts to broaden gun control laws. It's just putting two and two together.

Do I think the shooter was trying to hit her? Absolutely.
 
2013-01-30 02:14:27 PM  

OnlyM3: devilEther

all you got to do is buy them from a neighboring city where they are still legal. duh

HotIgneous Intruder

Everyone seen carrying a gun should be shot.
The party of peace and tolerance the klan, slavery and lynching once again advocating murder. You're no longer "shocking" or "edgy" it's what we expect from your side of the spectrum.


Is this the same party that also supported the Civil Rights Act and kicked out its memebers who weren't on board with it?
 
2013-01-30 02:15:08 PM  

Psycat: OK, that answer kinda works. But do you have any guess as to what La Pierre himself would reply, terroristic threats aside?


Why do you care what that closet case would say in your fantasy situation? But since it's a fantasy, let me go ahead and tell you what I think he'd say, "Oh! Use your gun on me like a penis! Oh, I have such dark fantasies about your gun penis! I imagine how hard and stiff it is when you put it in my mouth."

Because, you see, Wayne LaPierre looks gay, and it's still technically OK to make fun of gay people on the internet. In five years, I'll probably be horrified that I wrote this.
 
2013-01-30 02:15:15 PM  

MythDragon: That's like being American by proxy. We like Canadians so much we consider you America Jr. You're polite, and you send us good looking actresses and actors and singers.
Unless you are one of those dirty French speaking Canadians, then stay the fark up in Møøse-Hump, Quebec.


Pfft, I am in Montreal, thank you, and there's only around a half-a-dozen cities in all of the USA that come anywhere close to being as cool as Montreal, so suck it, says I!
 
2013-01-30 02:16:43 PM  

KiltedBastich: Dimensio: No. You would have been justified in using deadly force because a reasonable threat of imminent grievous bodily injury or death to you was present. A"feeling" only justifies the use of deadly force it it is reasonable.

While you are not obligated to use deadly force in such a situation, stipulating that no one in such a situation should be legally permitted the use of such force is unreasonable.

So you are, in fact, saying that I would have been justified pulling out a gun and shooting the two bullies who beat me up with their fists in grade 11, as I was at the time hurting and terrified and not entirely rational. It was by all standards an imminent threat of grievous bodily injury.


During such an attack, you would have been justified in using deadly force to end the attack. I suspect that existing laws would not have permitted you to be in possession of a firearm at the time, however.


And I am now alive and unharmed, as are they, and in your scenario, I would be alive and unharmed, and they would have been dead for two decades.

Deadly force is defined as force that may reasonably be believed to cause death when employed, however deadly force does not always result in death thus the use of deadly force does not guarantee the death of an attacker. Regardless, their current status is not relevant to the justification of the use of force at the time.


No, it is not. It is eminently logical to question a cultural doctrine that leads to a consistent justification for inappropriate and disproportionate response.

Please explain why you believe that using deadly force to neutralize a credible threat of imminent grievous bodily injury or death is a "disproportionate response".


Someone infringing on my person can only logically justify a commensurate response, within reasonable limits for precision. Someone attempts to beat me up, I am justified in fighting back, or pepper spraying them, or tazing them, or breaking their kneecap with a crowbar so I can run away, or any number of other similar responses, because all of those represent a commensurate response to the initial offense. If I pull out a gun and shoot them, then I am the one who has escalated the confrontation. I have responded to assault or theft with murder. That is not logically defensible.

Please identify the legal doctrine that obligates the victim of an unprovoked beating to respond only with the same weaponry used by the victim's attacker. Demonstrate that an unprovoked beating may never result in grievous bodily injury or death. Explain how a legally justified use of deadly force could be "murder", when "murder" by definition is the unlawful termination of human life with malice aforethought.
 
2013-01-30 02:18:26 PM  

way south: Psycat: way south: Psycat: Just out of curiosity, how would La Pierre respond if you told him the reason you wanted high-powered assault rifles was to commit mass murder on NRA members?

He would probably remind you that the second amendment is the right of all citizens and is tends to prevent things like mass murder. It works by balancing power among the people.

What happens is politicians unbalance society and then try to act shocked and horrified at the results of their actions. Then they use he outcome as an excuse for an even greater imbalance.

It's all going to burn down if this keeps up.

So, Wayne La Pierre would support a madman's desire to buy assault rifles even if said madman made it very obvious that he wanted to shoot up an NRA meeting? What if said madman wanted a gun for the express purpose of assassinating La Pierre?

He would support the fair practice of constitutional law, which does not discriminate against someone prior to a crime being committed or the intention to misuse a right being known.
I don't think anyone is under the illusion that a madman can't get a gun just because Obama said "no".

No one says "I want my murderer to have a gun" but is it even realistic to believe you have a choice?
Knowing that you don't, how many hurdles do you want placed between yourself and a viable means of self defense?
There comes a point where you are more likely to be hoisted by your own regulatory petard.

I don't think the NRA would risk disarming itself in the vague hope that their would be mass murderer decided to obey the rules.


Thank you for a good answer. I'm doing this line of questioning not just out of intellectual curiosity, but because it could possibly happen. There's some hard-core environmentalists who have committed arson against construction projects (think of a condominium being built in a forest) even when that arson ends up burning down a few trees. I could very well imagine the possibility of a fanatical gun-control type heavily arming himself and unleashing a barrage of gunfire at an NRA meeting to make some political point...
 
2013-01-30 02:19:20 PM  

Netrngr: I felt it should be noted that in the UK, where guns are severely controlled, the people with the guns aren't the law abiding citizenry, its the criminal element


Why did you feel that something wrong should be noted?

Everybody and their mums is packing 'round here. Like Farmers. And farmers' mums.

media2.firstshowing.net
 
2013-01-30 02:23:07 PM  
 
2013-01-30 02:23:34 PM  

The Larch: Psycat: OK, that answer kinda works. But do you have any guess as to what La Pierre himself would reply, terroristic threats aside?

Why do you care what that closet case would say in your fantasy situation?


First, I'm more interested in La Pierre's possible reply, not in what the closet case thinks other than his intent to commit murder. Some of us do like to ask hypothetical questions.

But since it's a fantasy, let me go ahead and tell you what I think he'd say, "Oh! Use your gun on me like a penis! Oh, I have such dark fantasies about your gun penis! I imagine how hard and stiff it is when you put it in my mouth."

I think you have my theoretical gun-control/pro-gun question mixed up with your gay fantasies.

Because, you see, Wayne LaPierre looks gay, and it's still technically OK to make fun of gay people on the internet. In five years, I'll probably be horrified that I wrote this.

You should be horrified that you wrote it now. You turned a question about guns into some sort of personal gay issues for reasons that are incomprehensible to me.
 
2013-01-30 02:26:46 PM  

clane: CUOMO'S APPROVAL PLUMMETS 15 POINTS AFTER GUN-CONTROL MOVE. lol!!


http://www.newsday.com/long-island/politics/poll-gun-control-hurts-c uo mo-s-approval-rating-1.4534395

"Republican disapproval of New York's tough new gun-control law could be taking a toll on Gov. Andrew Cuomo, whose all-time high 74-13 percent job approval rating last month drops to a still-solid 59-28 percent," Quinnipiac University pollsters said.

Truely, Cuomo is in big trouble now.
 
2013-01-30 02:36:31 PM  

ferretman: justtray: mjones73: Ed Grubermann: Cybernetic: I see that Chicago's strict gun-control laws are working as well as ever.

And our thread's designated asshole makes himself known...

For stating the obvious?

Are you an idiot?

So now correlation equals causation? Okay good, then we have 4x the homicide rate as the UK because we can get guns way easier, having a gun around you makes you more likely to kill your family than an intruder, southern states with more lax gun control have higher homicide rates than even Illinois, New York, etc because they have more lax gun control, and CCW holders are just as likely to commit homicide by gun on another person than non, meaning despite alleged higher responsibility, they're actually equal or more prone to shooting other people.

Now shut up or GTFO.

Dumbass:

UK Population: 62,641,000 (2011)
USA Population: 311,800,000 (mid-2011)

UK Crime Statistics

USA Crime Statistics
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm


Yes you are a dumbass.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicid e _rate

United States 4.8 per 100,000 people
United Kingdom 1.2 per 100,000 people

Don't come back, ever, idiot.
 
2013-01-30 02:41:07 PM  
As somebody who considers himself something of a rationalist and objective thinker--I don't claim infallibility--one of the things that vexes me are people who are intellectually dishonest. I don't expect people to have been on a debate team or have taken a college-level course in logic. It's more that some people, deep down, are holding two mutually-exclusive premises or are professing some belief that is radically different than what they really believe.

I understand that nobody is 100% infallible--other than maybe Chuck Norris--so I cut people some slack on their reasoning prowess. What gets me is when people are deliberately being dishonest; to me, that's a tacit acknowledgement that they themselves think deep-down that what they're spewing is utter bullshiat. Intellectual dishonesty takes many forms: false statistics, deliberately using logical fallacies, quote mining, changing the subject, ad nauseum.

One of the most annoying is the evasive non-answer to a provocative question. People who know that their position is BS will use many tactics to avoid giving a real answer. If they don't simply pretend to not hear the question, they'll get hung up on some tiny technicality, insult the questioner, or change the subject, among other things. That, to me, is a dead giveaway that they're full of crap. If somebody genuinely doesn't know the answer to a provocative question, the most honest answer is to say "I don't know"; giving an evasive non-answer simply makes the answerer look stupid.

If I were a debate judge, the moment somebody deliberately did something intellectually dishonest, they would instantly lose the debate. Ideally, I'd be able to pull a lever and a trap door would open up beneath them, depositing them into the Dungeon of the Terminally Stupid...
 
2013-01-30 02:41:22 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Delay: WeenerGord: Delay: WeenerGord: A gun is just a tool.

Then gun ownership should not be in the constitution. Trowels aren't. What makes guns so special? They are effective in killing. That's their purpose.


Legal gun ownership is for decent, law abiding citizens to protect themselves from tyranny. Learn some history, and you will see how history repeats itself.

Also notice how the full story is not always told.

Armed US citizens really have no chance against our own military. Thinking "law abiding citizens" could stand against the military strength of the US is foolish.

In the absence of a perfect solution are we to do nothing?

justtray: Stop being an idiot. Its a false equivilence fallacy and therefore invalid. Meaning... It doesnt mean anything and cannot be used in an argument in this manner.

The basic reason for this is that cars are used infinitely more than guns, and thus the deaths due to them, while tragic, are an accepted and necessary risk because of the need for ease of transportation for every man, woman, and child.

It's always cute to watch you justify 30,000 deaths being a reasonable price for freedom to drive cars, while slamming 12,000 deaths per year (most of which being gang related) as too high of a price to pay for the freedom to own guns. Especially when you say things like "cars aren't designed to kill, so they're not as bad", which is asinine because if they're not designed to kill, and guns are designed to kill, why are guns doing so much less killing?
Exactly how much lower must that 12,000 be for you to agree that we're paying a reasonable price in life for the freedom to own guns. I seriously want an answer. 0? 100? 1000?


You aren't even capable of basic reasoning, which is why I won't bother answering your stupid question.

Guns "do so much less killing" because they aren't used nearly as often as cars. Probably not even by a magnitude of a million. Nearly every person in this country puts their lives at risk in a car multiple times per day, for hours on end. Find me an equivilent comparison for gun use, and I'll consider you not a total shill incapable of rational thought.
 
2013-01-30 02:42:50 PM  
From what has been said from the pro gun control posters in this thread, gun control is all about saving lives by preventing access a tool, whose apparently only purpose is to end a life.

Why is it that, generally speaking, the same people who are anti-gun rights are the same ones who are pro abortion rights? In the US, guns kill about 31,000 people each year (accidental and purposeful) while there are about 785,000 reported abortions each year (and that number doesn't include CA as they don't report their numbers to the CDC).

As a general question, if saving lives is the ultimate goal, wouldn't banning or even limiting abortions be a much better method of saving more lives than gun control?
 
2013-01-30 02:43:00 PM  

ronaprhys: Actually, my point is to try and define what an acceptable level of deaths are, versus the benefits.


And I'm saying that right out of the gate, the benefit of gun ownership to society is far lower than automobile use. Which would suggest that the acceptable level of deaths would be lower, since the value is less.

We

ronaprhys: Actually, firearm manufacturers and lobby groups seek to actively promote firearm safety. Yes, they'll oppose restrictions that are silly and don't make sense from their point of view, but to say that they don't try to improve products is kind of silly. Now, some of the products don't need much improvement (if used safely, the chance of accidental death or injury is so negligible as to approach zero).


Yes, gun owners do attempt to make their products as safe as possible, just like car manufacturers.

But in the case of automobiles, there is additional work done by the government to ensure even greater safety. Speed limits, seatbelt laws, regulations on operating passenger vehicles, improving highway conditions, lane-twinning, laws on how long a semi-truck driver can operate a vehicle, the list goes on and on. Product safety itself is one side of the coin, there is far more than can be done through regulation that provides greater safety.

Most everyone would agree that automobile safety is a good idea and has probably saved lives, but on the gun side, background checks, mental screening, and so on, these are opposed.

Why?
 
2013-01-30 02:43:10 PM  

Psycat: You should be horrified that you wrote it now. You turned a question about guns into some sort of personal gay issues for reasons that are incomprehensible to me.


Dude, I'll rephrase it...you've setup a hypothetical logic trap for an imaginary straw man Wayne LaPierre. And, you seem to be trying to show that because your imaginary straw man might react to your hypothetical straw argument in a hypothetically hypocritical way, therefore guns should be illegal (or registered, or restricted, or something. Frankly, I have absolutely no idea what your point is)

My point is that nobody gives a flying fark what Wayne LaPierre says about anything anymore. The NRA's response to Sandy Hook effectively removed the NRA from the national debate. The only thing Wayne LaPierre has left to contribute to society is fodder for late night talk show comedy segments.
 
2013-01-30 02:43:16 PM  

Psycat: As somebody who considers himself something of a rationalist and objective thinker--I don't claim infallibility--one of the things that vexes me are people who are intellectually dishonest. I don't expect people to have been on a debate team or have taken a college-level course in logic. It's more that some people, deep down, are holding two mutually-exclusive premises or are professing some belief that is radically different than what they really believe.

I understand that nobody is 100% infallible--other than maybe Chuck Norris--so I cut people some slack on their reasoning prowess. What gets me is when people are deliberately being dishonest; to me, that's a tacit acknowledgement that they themselves think deep-down that what they're spewing is utter bullshiat. Intellectual dishonesty takes many forms: false statistics, deliberately using logical fallacies, quote mining, changing the subject, ad nauseum.

One of the most annoying is the evasive non-answer to a provocative question. People who know that their position is BS will use many tactics to avoid giving a real answer. If they don't simply pretend to not hear the question, they'll get hung up on some tiny technicality, insult the questioner, or change the subject, among other things. That, to me, is a dead giveaway that they're full of crap. If somebody genuinely doesn't know the answer to a provocative question, the most honest answer is to say "I don't know"; giving an evasive non-answer simply makes the answerer look stupid.

If I were a debate judge, the moment somebody deliberately did something intellectually dishonest, they would instantly lose the debate. Ideally, I'd be able to pull a lever and a trap door would open up beneath them, depositing them into the Dungeon of the Terminally Stupid...


You know that trap door you just opened? That's the official gateway to Fark.
 
2013-01-30 02:45:19 PM  
Sorry, not gun owners, gun manufacturers.
 
2013-01-30 02:46:30 PM  

bostonbd: From what has been said from the pro gun control posters in this thread, gun control is all about saving lives by preventing access a tool, whose apparently only purpose is to end a life.

Why is it that, generally speaking, the same people who are anti-gun rights are the same ones who are pro abortion rights? In the US, guns kill about 31,000 people each year (accidental and purposeful) while there are about 785,000 reported abortions each year (and that number doesn't include CA as they don't report their numbers to the CDC).

As a general question, if saving lives is the ultimate goal, wouldn't banning or even limiting abortions be a much better method of saving more lives than gun control?


Probably because a fetus isn't a life, and even if it was, some people can understand the idea that someone who is having an abortion is doing so because they're not capable of supporting another human life in a capacity that is acceptable to them, or society as a whole.

What I find crazy is that you really think you had a gotcha moment here. Get educated.
 
2013-01-30 02:48:11 PM  
Ok, semi-serious suggestion here.

How many soldiers in Iraq/Afghanistan?

Pull them back in (at least half) and have them man known gang-activity locations and drug locations.
Then rotate them from city to city doing the same.
How long do you think it will take per city to suffocate the crime networks out of it?
 
2013-01-30 02:48:14 PM  

Psycat: If I were a debate judge, the moment somebody deliberately did something intellectually dishonest, they would instantly lose the debate. Ideally, I'd be able to pull a lever and a trap door would open up beneath them, depositing them into the Dungeon of the Terminally Stupid...


The NRA pulled that lever and fell into the Dungeon of the Terminal Stupid over a month ago. And then you setup a straw man on the stage in their place, and you're trying to argue against what you think they might have said in the case of a situation that might have happened. You're not arguing about anything they've actually said. You're not actually asking them for a position. You're not constructing some logical argument for... well, whatever it is that your position might be. You're just trying to show fark how neat it is that your straw man NRA says stupid things when you pull the puppet strings and throw your voice.
 
2013-01-30 02:49:26 PM  

Resident Muslim: How long do you think it will take per city to suffocate the crime networks out of it?


Ask Mexico.
 
2013-01-30 02:49:34 PM  

bostonbd: From what has been said from the pro gun control posters in this thread, gun control is all about saving lives by preventing access a tool, whose apparently only purpose is to end a life.

Why is it that, generally speaking, the same people who are anti-gun rights are the same ones who are pro abortion rights? In the US, guns kill about 31,000 people each year (accidental and purposeful) while there are about 785,000 reported abortions each year (and that number doesn't include CA as they don't report their numbers to the CDC).

As a general question, if saving lives is the ultimate goal, wouldn't banning or even limiting abortions be a much better method of saving more lives than gun control?


But lets make a valid comparison for a moment.

Why are the same people who want us to respect the supreme court's 4 year old ruling on an individual right to own a gun, also against the 30+ year old supreme court ruling that abortion should remain legal and at the sole discretion of the woman's health?

Now that's a gotcha moment. To expand even further into the hypocrisy, why are the people who are so concerned with 'saving unborn lives' so against doing anything to save the lives of the 30,000+ people per year who use guns to either kill themselves or other people? What moral justification is there for that?
 
2013-01-30 02:49:43 PM  

Resident Muslim: Ok, semi-serious suggestion here.

How many soldiers in Iraq/Afghanistan?

Pull them back in (at least half) and have them man known gang-activity locations and drug locations.
Then rotate them from city to city doing the same.
How long do you think it will take per city to suffocate the crime networks out of it?


You want the military to become law enforcement?
 
2013-01-30 02:52:28 PM  

The Larch: Psycat: You should be horrified that you wrote it now. You turned a question about guns into some sort of personal gay issues for reasons that are incomprehensible to me.

Dude, I'll rephrase it...you've setup a hypothetical logic trap for an imaginary straw man Wayne LaPierre. And, you seem to be trying to show that because your imaginary straw man might react to your hypothetical straw argument in a hypothetically hypocritical way, therefore guns should be illegal (or registered, or restricted, or something. Frankly, I have absolutely no idea what your point is)


I don't think you know what a straw man really is. Also, hypothetical yes, hypocritical no. I'm talking about the real Wayne La Pierre, a guy who has a well-known reputation for being a hard-core pro-gun person. Since I can't personally ask him if he'd support a madman's right to own a gun for the express purpose of shooting NRA members, I posted the question here in vain hopes of getting an intelligent answer. And the point is, if you aren't smart enough to figure it out, is whether or not the hard-core gun-rights folks would support gun ownership even in cases where it's extremely detrimental to them. Verstehen Sie?

My point is that nobody gives a flying fark what Wayne LaPierre says about anything anymore. The NRA's response to Sandy Hook effectively removed the NRA from the national debate. The only thing Wayne LaPierre has left to contribute to society is fodder for late night talk show comedy segments.

My point is that there's a hell of a lot of Americans who do care what La Pierre says, even those who don't agree with him. And besides, you should be able to tell from the context that "Wayne La Pierre" is a synecdoche for "any generic hard-core gun enthusiast". Y'know, like saying "John Q. Public" when you mean "average person"...
 
2013-01-30 02:52:51 PM  

Dimensio: During such an attack, you would have been justified in using deadly force to end the attack. I suspect that existing laws would not have permitted you to be in possession of a firearm at the time, however.


Indeed they would have prevented me from having a firearm, and it would be very difficult for me to obtain one here in Canada by illicit means. Neither is the case in the USA.

Considering that they beat me up but did me no permanent harm, you still advocate I would have been justified in knowingly using deadly force? In taking actions I would have known full well could kill them?

That is the source of the problem. That you cannot recognize why advocating a deadly response to any aggression is abhorrent. It is not ethical to advocate a lethal response to a crime that would not result in even 10 years in jail. That is only one step from vigilantism.

Dimensio: Deadly force is defined as force that may reasonably be believed to cause death when employed, however deadly force does not always result in death thus the use of deadly force does not guarantee the death of an attacker. Regardless, their current status is not relevant to the justification of the use of force at the time.


Isn't it? The fact that I am now alive and unharmed is proof positive that they did not use deadly force. That even while aggressing against me, they still showed a certain level of restraint. Why would I then be justified in responding in a manner that did not show a commensurate restraint? Why would it be OK to knowingly take potentially lethal actions against people who have not done so to me?

Dimensio: Please explain why you believe that using deadly force to neutralize a credible threat of imminent grievous bodily injury or death is a "disproportionate response".


Because a judgement of a credible threat of imminent grievous bodily injury or death requires extensive knowledge of the intentions of the aggressor, and you have defined an incredibly low bar for that judgement, and defined acceptable error to be that of deliberately killing another human being.

I have demonstrated to you two cases of my own personal experience that at the outset would have met your criteria for use of deadly force but which were demonstrably due to the actual outcomes cases where such force was not necessary and would have resulted in consequences far outweighing the magnitude of the offense had I actually used deadly force. In both cases self-defense would be justified, but deadly force would not. How many other such examples play out every single day in your nation because your cultural love of guns has conditioned you to accept immediate recourse to deadly force as justified, and the use of firearms to impose that deadly force as similarly justified?

Shooting a gun is always deadly force. A staple of gun safety training is that you should never point the gun at something you aren't willing to kill. Self-defense should not mean an immediate recourse to deadly force, especially given the anger, fear and lack of information prevalent in any such confrontation. Why is there no similar emphasis on tasers or pepper spray or other nonlethal methods that can completely incapacitate without killing? Why is there no effort to teach that mitigating a confrontation is better than killing your assailant?

Why is there so much emphasis on justifying the killing of anyone who aggresses against you in any significant way? That's why you have cases like the killing of Trayvon Martin, for crying out loud. Your culture teaches that the appropriate response to the mere perception of serious personal threat (not even the actualty of it) is to murder the perceived source of the threat. How can you possibly argue that is logical?
 
2013-01-30 02:54:05 PM  
i46.tinypic.com
 
2013-01-30 02:54:37 PM  
Obamas drones kill innocent kids everyday, but because there not in this country (yet) no one cares
 
2013-01-30 02:55:31 PM  

Psycat: I'm talking about the real Wayne La Pierre, a guy who has a well-known reputation for being a hard-core pro-gun person. Since I can't personally ask him if he'd support a madman's right to own a gun for the express purpose of shooting NRA members, I posted the question here in vain hopes of getting an intelligent answer.


Why the hell do you imaging that anyone on fark is able to get an answer from him? Do you think one of us is going to call him on the phone and relay your question to him?
 
2013-01-30 02:56:08 PM  
Eric Holder needs to hire the Ku klux Klan to ride in there and clean up. Think of the children.
 
2013-01-30 02:56:46 PM  

Rev.K: [i46.tinypic.com image 850x500]


There's only one answer...

Regulate that every gun and/or abortion thread get hijacked and turned into a boob thread.

Everybody is pro boobs.
 
2013-01-30 02:57:10 PM  

ScouserDuck: Psycat: As somebody who considers himself something of a rationalist and objective thinker--I don't claim infallibility--one of the things that vexes me are people who are intellectually dishonest. I don't expect people to have been on a debate team or have taken a college-level course in logic. It's more that some people, deep down, are holding two mutually-exclusive premises or are professing some belief that is radically different than what they really believe.

I understand that nobody is 100% infallible--other than maybe Chuck Norris--so I cut people some slack on their reasoning prowess. What gets me is when people are deliberately being dishonest; to me, that's a tacit acknowledgement that they themselves think deep-down that what they're spewing is utter bullshiat. Intellectual dishonesty takes many forms: false statistics, deliberately using logical fallacies, quote mining, changing the subject, ad nauseum.

One of the most annoying is the evasive non-answer to a provocative question. People who know that their position is BS will use many tactics to avoid giving a real answer. If they don't simply pretend to not hear the question, they'll get hung up on some tiny technicality, insult the questioner, or change the subject, among other things. That, to me, is a dead giveaway that they're full of crap. If somebody genuinely doesn't know the answer to a provocative question, the most honest answer is to say "I don't know"; giving an evasive non-answer simply makes the answerer look stupid.

If I were a debate judge, the moment somebody deliberately did something intellectually dishonest, they would instantly lose the debate. Ideally, I'd be able to pull a lever and a trap door would open up beneath them, depositing them into the Dungeon of the Terminally Stupid...

You know that trap door you just opened? That's the official gateway to Fark.


I'm afraid so. Sadly, the level of debate here is a notch or two above 4chan or Topix. Topix seems exclusively given over to fanatics and trolls. With Fark, I get the idea that many folks here aren't really trying to think through things; to them, it's a dick-measuring contest where tiresome people keep beating to death the same 4-5 debate points over and over and over again.
 
2013-01-30 03:02:45 PM  

The Larch: Psycat: I'm talking about the real Wayne La Pierre, a guy who has a well-known reputation for being a hard-core pro-gun person. Since I can't personally ask him if he'd support a madman's right to own a gun for the express purpose of shooting NRA members, I posted the question here in vain hopes of getting an intelligent answer.

Why the hell do you imaging that anyone on fark is able to get an answer from him? Do you think one of us is going to call him on the phone and relay your question to him?


Again, Mr. Know-It-All, I was hoping that somebody with a room-temperature IQ would be able to give me an educated guess as to what position Mr. La Pierre would take on the subject. In case you have a lack of imagination, you should know that some folks could come up with a plausible answer. Like how I'd guess that Jenghis Khan would probably be for the death penalty even though I never actually heard any opinion by Mr. Khan himself on the subject. And on top of that, in case you weren't bright enough to figure it out, "Wayne La Pierre" in the context of the question is a synecdoche of sorts, a stand-in for "Any hard-core pro-gun person". Comprendes?
 
2013-01-30 03:05:37 PM  

Psycat: And on top of that, in case you weren't bright enough to figure it out, "Wayne La Pierre" in the context of the question is a synecdoche of sorts, a stand-in for "Any hard-core pro-gun person". Comprendes?


You used the word synecdoche. I'd guess that even if he does understand, there's going to be a lot of confused Farkers.
 
2013-01-30 03:06:50 PM  

justtray: To expand even further into the hypocrisy, why are the people who are so concerned with 'saving unborn lives' so against doing anything to save the lives of the 30,000+ people per year who use guns to either kill themselves or other people? What moral justification is there for that?


Its not that I am totally against abortions. I personally don't think I could do it, but I agree that in certain situations it is a possibly desirable option and/or a necessary procedure. I am generally against using it as a preferred method of birth control.

My question was more about saving lives in general. There are 25x more lives taken via abortion than from the use of guns. If the gun control argument is about saving lives, why is it so wrong to question the use/frequency of abortions?

Hell, it seems like a more valid question than what the head of the NRA would say to a hypothetical crazy guy at a NRA press conference.
 
2013-01-30 03:08:35 PM  

Psycat: The Larch: Psycat: I'm talking about the real Wayne La Pierre, a guy who has a well-known reputation for being a hard-core pro-gun person. Since I can't personally ask him if he'd support a madman's right to own a gun for the express purpose of shooting NRA members, I posted the question here in vain hopes of getting an intelligent answer.

Why the hell do you imaging that anyone on fark is able to get an answer from him? Do you think one of us is going to call him on the phone and relay your question to him?

Again, Mr. Know-It-All, I was hoping that somebody with a room-temperature IQ would be able to give me an educated guess as to what position Mr. La Pierre would take on the subject. In case you have a lack of imagination, you should know that some folks could come up with a plausible answer. Like how I'd guess that Jenghis Khan would probably be for the death penalty even though I never actually heard any opinion by Mr. Khan himself on the subject. And on top of that, in case you weren't bright enough to figure it out, "Wayne La Pierre" in the context of the question is a synecdoche of sorts, a stand-in for "Any hard-core pro-gun person". Comprendes?


Fine. Here is my honest answer to your original question: Just out of curiosity, how would La Pierre respond if you told him the reason you wanted high-powered assault rifles was to commit mass murder on NRA members?

First, he would contact the public relations representatives from some major gun manufacturers, and ask them the positions of their companies. Then he would talk to his legal counsel, to determine the best legal response. Then, either he or someone on his staff would prepare a written statement. Then, the board of the NRA would vote on the response. The, Wayne LaPierre would read the response at a press conference, and take no questions.

The text of this carefully prepared response would contain many non sequiturs that had nothing to do with the question, but the main ghist of it would be that some government body someplace should spend lots of money to hire people, purchase guns for them, and then send them to NRA-approved training facilities.

There... is that the answer you were looking for?
 
2013-01-30 03:08:43 PM  

KiltedBastich: Do I like those bullies? No. But I don't hate them enough to wish them dead.


The ethics of self-defense have nothing to do with "hate" or what you "wish."

It's a matter of what is necessary to prevent a potentially lethal attack against you.

The reason self-defense is justified under a threat of death (or grievous harm, which is life-threatening) is that the situation comes down to your life or his. By definition, at least one of you is at risk of death.

Why should he live when you die? How could it possibly considered ethical that a victim should submit to a risk of his own death, so as not to pose a risk of death to an attacker? It is the attacker, by definition, who has made his own death a necessity.

If you are under no real threat of death (or its close approximation -- "serious injury"), then lethal self-defense is not justified.

The only ethical conclusion to be drawn in these circumstances is that the aggressor can ethically be killed, in order to prevent the non-aggressor victim from being killed. Anything else is nonsense.

KiltedBastich: Do you realize that you are arguing, essentially, an eye for an eye? Someone else breaking the law or other ethical code does not grant me permission to do the same. I am not granted the right to kill simply because someone else has violated the law. Whether or not *he* (wrongly) asserts it is OK to kill, I am not able to then argue that it is therefore right to kill *him*. The whole point is that he's in the wrong, and that I should not be joining him in his error. That's why the civilized world has a freaking justice system, not a vengeance system.

And as I pointed out above, you have completely thrown out the concept of proportional response. You are going right from someone brandishing a knife and demanding my wallet to assuming threat of death and then justifying me pulling out a gun and shooting him. Note that I had something like 40$ in my wallet, a bank card and a credit card, and the bastard even tossed my picture ID on the ground for me to recover. Note also that I walked away unharmed, as did my assailant. I do not consider the momentary fear, the loss of money and the inconvenience of cancelling the bank and credit card to justify murder. I would have been justified, again, in tasing him, or breaking his wrist, or using just about anything else that would leave him still essentially hale and healthy, if injured. I would not have been justified in killing him. Owning a gun makes it trivially easy to kill someone in such circumstances.


The "proportionality" is baked right into the standard for legitimate self-defense -- it's only justified when you reasonably and actually believe the aggressor poses an imminent threat of death or serious injury to you (or to another innocent person).

That means there are two levels of legitimate force -- lethal and non-lethal. Potentially lethal attacks can be prevented by the use of lethal force. Non-lethal defense for non-lethal attacks (e.g., being slapped as an insult).

If your fear of death was real and reasonable, then it's not "murder" to use force to prevent the attack.

That's not "eye for an eye." Revenge is about what has occurred in the past. Self-defense is not about punishment for a past crime at all. It's about preventing an "imminent" (i.e., very near FUTURE) act of aggressive violence against you.
 
2013-01-30 03:10:44 PM  

KiltedBastich: Dimensio: During such an attack, you would have been justified in using deadly force to end the attack. I suspect that existing laws would not have permitted you to be in possession of a firearm at the time, however.

Indeed they would have prevented me from having a firearm, and it would be very difficult for me to obtain one here in Canada by illicit means. Neither is the case in the USA.


You are mistaken; individuals under the age of twenty-one are not legally allowed to purchase handguns from federally licensed sellers and individuals under the age of eighteen are not legally allowed to possess handguns at all. No state issues concealed weapons permits to individuals below the age of eighteen.


Considering that they beat me up but did me no permanent harm, you still advocate I would have been justified in knowingly using deadly force? In taking actions I would have known full well could kill them?

If their actions created a reasonable -- that is, evident to an outside analyst -- belief that grievous bodily injury or death would have resulted to you, then the use of deadly force would have been justified to stop their actions.


That is the source of the problem. That you cannot recognize why advocating a deadly response to any aggression is abhorrent. It is not ethical to advocate a lethal response to a crime that would not result in even 10 years in jail. That is only one step from vigilantism.

Please explain why you believe that criminals who engage in in violent attacks that create a reasonable threat of death or crippling injury to their victim are entitled to a safe working environment.


Dimensio: Deadly force is defined as force that may reasonably be believed to cause death when employed, however deadly force does not always result in death thus the use of deadly force does not guarantee the death of an attacker. Regardless, their current status is not relevant to the justification of the use of force at the time.

Isn't it? The fact that I am now alive and unharmed is proof positive that they did not use deadly force. That even while aggressing against me, they still showed a certain level of restraint. Why would I then be justified in responding in a manner that did not show a commensurate restraint? Why would it be OK to knowingly take potentially lethal actions against people who have not done so to me?


Please explain how the victim of such an attack would be able, at the time of the attack, to ascertain without error that their attacker would leave them neither dead nor seriously injured. If you cannot do so, then please explain why a victim of a violent attack should be required to trust in the good intentions of their attacker or attackers.


Dimensio: Please explain why you believe that using deadly force to neutralize a credible threat of imminent grievous bodily injury or death is a "disproportionate response".

Because a judgement of a credible threat of imminent grievous bodily injury or death requires extensive knowledge of the intentions of the aggressor, and you have defined an incredibly low bar for that judgement, and defined acceptable error to be that of deliberately killing another human being.


I advocate legally allowing discretion in determining the possible consequences of an unprovoked attack to the victim of the attack. You evidently advocate legally requiring the victim of an attack to perfectly ascertain the specific motives and intentions of an attacker before taking action to end the attack. Unlike you, I do not trust in the good intention of unprovoked criminal attackers.


I have demonstrated to you two cases of my own personal experience that at the outset would have met your criteria for use of deadly force but which were demonstrably due to the actual outcomes cases where such force was not necessary and would have resulted in consequences far outweighing the magnitude of the offense had I actually used deadly force.

Then you should be able to demonstrate that you were able to ascertain at the time of the attack the outcome of allowing the attack to proceed to its conclusion. If you cannot do so, then please explain why you advocate requiring a victim to trust that an unprovoked violent attacker will not cause severe injury or death through the attack.


In both cases self-defense would be justified, but deadly force would not. How many other such examples play out every single day in your nation because your cultural love of guns has conditioned you to accept immediate recourse to deadly force as justified, and the use of firearms to impose that deadly force as similarly justified?

I do not know. The number of such incidents is irrelevant, because victims of violent attacks are not -- to my knowledge -- able to infallibly predict the outcome of allowing an attack to complete successfully.


Shooting a gun is always deadly force. A staple of gun safety training is that you should never point the gun at something you aren't willing to kill. Self-defense should not mean an immediate recourse to deadly force, especially given the anger, fear and lack of information prevalent in any such confrontation. Why is there no similar emphasis on tasers or pepper spray or other nonlethal methods that can completely incapacitate without killing? Why is there no effort to teach that mitigating a confrontation is better than killing your assailant?

I do not deny that mitigating a confrontation is preferable to the use of deadly force however, once an imminent threat of grievous bodily injury or death occurs the use of deadly force is typically the most reliable method for mitigation of the confrontation.


Why is there so much emphasis on justifying the killing of anyone who aggresses against you in any significant way? That's why you have cases like the killing of Trayvon Martin, for crying out loud. Your culture teaches that the appropriate response to the mere perception of serious personal threat (not even the actualty of it) is to murder the perceived source of the threat. How can you possibly argue that is logical?

You are mistaken. Deadly force is justified only when a perception of imminent grievous bodily injury or death is objectively reasonable; this legal standard exists so that an individual threatened with an aggressive display is not required to instantaneously and infallibly ascertain the motives and abilities of an aggressor prior to using force to prevent injury or death. A perception of such a threat that is not actually reasonable, even if the "victim" irrationally believed the threat to be reasonable, does not create justification for the use of deadly force.
 
2013-01-30 03:10:59 PM  

KiltedBastich: Psycat: And on top of that, in case you weren't bright enough to figure it out, "Wayne La Pierre" in the context of the question is a synecdoche of sorts, a stand-in for "Any hard-core pro-gun person". Comprendes?

You used the word synecdoche. I'd guess that even if he does understand, there's going to be a lot of confused Farkers.


I use the word on a few occasions myself. Why? Because The Larch started using phrases out phrases like "straw man" and "hypothetical hypocrite" that didn't really make sense in context, and I immediately surmised that I was dealing with a typical know-it-all who was trying to brow beat me rather than actually attempt to answer my hypothetical question.
 
2013-01-30 03:13:11 PM  

KiltedBastich: The fact that I am now alive and unharmed is proof positive that they did not use deadly force.


The standard is "threat of force", not "deadly force."

The reason being that you can't respond to deadly force after you're dead.

The point of force used in self-defense is to prevent the victim from getting dead.
 
2013-01-30 03:15:52 PM  

Psycat: KiltedBastich: Psycat: And on top of that, in case you weren't bright enough to figure it out, "Wayne La Pierre" in the context of the question is a synecdoche of sorts, a stand-in for "Any hard-core pro-gun person". Comprendes?

You used the word synecdoche. I'd guess that even if he does understand, there's going to be a lot of confused Farkers.

I use the word on a few occasions myself. Why? Because The Larch started using phrases out phrases like "straw man" and "hypothetical hypocrite" that didn't really make sense in context, and I immediately surmised that I was dealing with a typical know-it-all who was trying to brow beat me rather than actually attempt to answer my hypothetical question.


I apologize for trying to brow beat you. Your question is stupid, but for the life of me I can't figure out why I ever cared.
 
2013-01-30 03:16:14 PM  

The Larch: Fine. Here is my honest answer to your original question: Just out of curiosity, how would La Pierre respond if you told him the reason you wanted high-powered assault rifles was to commit mass murder on NRA members?

First, he would contact the public relations representatives from some major gun manufacturers, and ask them the positions of their companies. Then he would talk to his legal counsel, to determine the best legal response. Then, either he or someone on his staff would prepare a written statement. Then, the board of the NRA would vote on the response. The, Wayne LaPierre would read the response at a press conference, and take no questions.

The text of this carefully prepared response would contain many non sequiturs that had nothing to do with the question, but the main ghist of it would be that some government body someplace should spend lots of money to hire people, purchase guns for them, and then send them to NRA-approved training facilities.

There... is that the answer you were looking for?


Yes, thank you. Now that wasn't so painful, was it?
 
2013-01-30 03:17:55 PM  

The Larch: Psycat: KiltedBastich: Psycat: And on top of that, in case you weren't bright enough to figure it out, "Wayne La Pierre" in the context of the question is a synecdoche of sorts, a stand-in for "Any hard-core pro-gun person". Comprendes?

You used the word synecdoche. I'd guess that even if he does understand, there's going to be a lot of confused Farkers.

I use the word on a few occasions myself. Why? Because The Larch started using phrases out phrases like "straw man" and "hypothetical hypocrite" that didn't really make sense in context, and I immediately surmised that I was dealing with a typical know-it-all who was trying to brow beat me rather than actually attempt to answer my hypothetical question.

I apologize for trying to brow beat you. Your question is stupid, but for the life of me I can't figure out why I ever cared.


I accept your apology for your attempt to brow beat me. Hell, I'll even forgive you for saying that my question was stupid when it was smart enough to provoke you into trying to answer it.
 
2013-01-30 03:18:41 PM  

bostonbd: justtray: To expand even further into the hypocrisy, why are the people who are so concerned with 'saving unborn lives' so against doing anything to save the lives of the 30,000+ people per year who use guns to either kill themselves or other people? What moral justification is there for that?

Its not that I am totally against abortions. I personally don't think I could do it, but I agree that in certain situations it is a possibly desirable option and/or a necessary procedure. I am generally against using it as a preferred method of birth control.
My question was more about saving lives in general. There are 25x more lives taken via abortion than from the use of guns. If the gun control argument is about saving lives, why is it so wrong to question the use/frequency of abortions?

Hell, it seems like a more valid question than what the head of the NRA would say to a hypothetical crazy guy at a NRA press conference.


I'm not even sure where to begin wtih this. I think the bolded part is massive lack of an understanding of reality, to start.

To continue, there's a huge distinction between people being murdered by guns needlessly, and someone aborting a life because they can't take care of it, or provide it a life it deserves. Maybe that's not a distinction for you, in which case I revert back to first sentence here.

To sum it up, I would say, try to put yourself in the shoes of someone who isn't you, who isn't as well off, or as educated as you are. Don't just try to demonize everyone who isn't you and hold them to the standards you hold yourself.
 
2013-01-30 03:19:49 PM  
Missed this part the first time.

Dimensio: Please identify the legal doctrine that obligates the victim of an unprovoked beating to respond only with the same weaponry used by the victim's attacker.


The legal doctrine in question is called proportionality. It's rather broad and important. In short, response to an offense should be in proportion to the offense. This is applied at multiple levels, and it's a fundamental tenet of ethics as well as law.

Dimensio: Demonstrate that an unprovoked beating may never result in grievous bodily injury or death.


I don't have to. Everyone knows that it can. But in order to justify using lethal force rather than nonlethal methods for self-defense, the standard of judgement is not whether it can, but rather whether you have credible reasons to believe that it will.

The two statements, that the beating can lead to grievous injury and that the beating will lead to grievous injury, are not the same. Not in their empirical meaning nor in their ethical implications.

Dimensio: Explain how a legally justified use of deadly force could be "murder", when "murder" by definition is the unlawful termination of human life with malice aforethought.


I just gave you one earlier. The Trayvon Martin case, where a brutal killing of an unarmed black youth by an armed white man is being justified by said white man via his claim of feeling 'threatened' and then engaging in 'self-defense'. He is *literally* trying to legally justify a malicious killing.
 
2013-01-30 03:25:36 PM  

KiltedBastich: Missed this part the first time.

Dimensio: Please identify the legal doctrine that obligates the victim of an unprovoked beating to respond only with the same weaponry used by the victim's attacker.

The legal doctrine in question is called proportionality. It's rather broad and important. In short, response to an offense should be in proportion to the offense. This is applied at multiple levels, and it's a fundamental tenet of ethics as well as law.


The use of deadly force is a proportional response to an attack that by its nature creates a reasonable fear of imminent grievous bodily injury or death.


Dimensio: Demonstrate that an unprovoked beating may never result in grievous bodily injury or death.

I don't have to. Everyone knows that it can. But in order to justify using lethal force rather than nonlethal methods for self-defense, the standard of judgement is not whether it can, but rather whether you have credible reasons to believe that it will.

The two statements, that the beating can lead to grievous injury and that the beating will lead to grievous injury, are not the same. Not in their empirical meaning nor in their ethical implications.


Then please explain how the victim of such an attack may ascertain, at the time of the attack and without error, whether the attack will result in grievous bodily injury or death.


Dimensio: Explain how a legally justified use of deadly force could be "murder", when "murder" by definition is the unlawful termination of human life with malice aforethought.

I just gave you one earlier. The Trayvon Martin case, where a brutal killing of an unarmed black youth by an armed white man is being justified by said white man via his claim of feeling 'threatened' and then engaging in 'self-defense'. He is *literally* trying to legally justify a malicious killing.


Mr. Zimmerman is being tried specifically as a means of addressing the question of whether his use of deadly force was a legally justified response to an imminent threat of grievous bodily injury or death, as he claims was the case due to him (according to his statement) being pinned to the ground and repeatedly struck in the face, or whether his use of deadly force was committed maliciously and unjustifiably. If a jury rules for the latter condition, then Mr. Zimmerman's use of force will be legally established as not having been justified.
 
2013-01-30 03:32:46 PM  
Here's a hypothetical exchange between an extremist conservative tea-party person and an extremist liberal militant-radical person:

Conservative Gun Owner: I want to accumulate a large personal arsenal because I think the USA is headed towards civil war and I want to shoot as many commie-libs and Big-Brother socialists as possible if war breaks out. I think all you commie-libs who want to stop people from owning guns are completely stupid (cold dead hands, blah blah blah).

Radical Leftist: You're right! You're absolutely right! I think every radical leftist should start acquiring their own stockpile of guns for the day when we have glorious people's revolution and we start the wholesale slaughter of running-dog capitalist pigs (power to the people, blah blah blah).

Assuming they were physically separated and couldn't inflict direct violence on each other, would the gun owner agree that, yes, radical leftists should start owning guns themselves? Or would he think that gun control among his political opponents would be a good idea?

Negative one zillion karma points for evasive non-answers to my questions...
 
2013-01-30 03:36:53 PM  

Phinn: There are 34,000 vehicle deaths in the US per year.


False, there were just over 10,000 last year. This can be pulled up by a simple Google search. You were saying?

Let's pull up 2011 for an example of how incredibly wrong you are:

Link
 
2013-01-30 03:38:29 PM  

Dimensio: You are mistaken. Deadly force is justified only when a perception of imminent grievous bodily injury or death is objectively reasonable; this legal standard exists so that an individual threatened with an aggressive display is not required to instantaneously and infallibly ascertain the motives and abilities of an aggressor prior to using force to prevent injury or death. A perception of such a threat that is not actually reasonable, even if the "victim" irrationally believed the threat to be reasonable, does not create justification for the use of deadly force.


And the goal of the left is to do away with such "loopholes," so that everyone is required to have psychic and/or precognitive powers before they are legally allowed to take action... unless they are a designated authority in the field, of course, which they always consider themselves and their leaders to be.

/liberal authoritarianism isn't an oxymoron, it's a real and growing threat
 
2013-01-30 03:42:21 PM  

The Larch: This breaks down victims and perpetrators by race, not gang membership. Can you explain your thinking? You can link to stormfront if it will help.


It also breaks them down by previous criminal record, but thank you for playing the race card.
 
2013-01-30 03:43:44 PM  

Princess Ryans Knickers: Phinn: There are 34,000 vehicle deaths in the US per year.

False, there were just over 10,000 last year. This can be pulled up by a simple Google search. You were saying?

Let's pull up 2011 for an example of how incredibly wrong you are:

Link


Wrong by a large margin, Princess. Without looking at the MADD website, I'm guessing the 10,000 fatalities might be just those caused by alcohol. Here's a link to the Census Bureau's own statistics that show it was 35,900 deaths in 2011. And that's a record low, too; back in the 50s and 60s it was over 50,000 per year.
 
2013-01-30 03:44:39 PM  

Psycat: I accept your apology for your attempt to brow beat me. Hell, I'll even forgive you for saying that my question was stupid when it was smart enough to provoke you into trying to answer it.


Well, I'll go a step further, and answer the underlying question that I think you were going for:

Many people and organizations like the NRA are claiming that the right to purchase and own firearms should be unrestricted. But how far do they really want to go with this? What would the NRA's response be to someone who declared that they wished to purchase a firearm to commit murder and mayhem?

I claim that that it's universally agreed that anyone who claims that they want to purchase anything for the purpose of committing murder and mayhem should be stopped. If someone says they want to buy a 4x4 heavy duty truck so they can drive through the side of a school into a classroom full of kindergartners, they should be prevented from buying a truck. If someone says they want to buy a ball-point pen and stick it in the temple of the first homeless person they see, they should be prevented from buying a pen. Guns are no different.

In your hypothetical question about a person who says that they want to purchase a gun to commit mayhem, they should be stopped.

Where it gets difficult is deciding how much farther to go with those restrictions. If someone walks into a gun shop and says, "I want to rob that liquor store next door", it makes sense that the gun store employees have a legal responsibility not to sell him a gun. But should a farmer in Indiana face any restrictions when buying a rifle because some kid in Chicago 40 miles away may want to obtain and misuse a handgun? This is where the difficult questions really are.

Everyone (well, almost everyone) believes that there should be some restrictions to purchasing a firearm. The question is not whether or not there should be any restrictions. The question is what restrictions are reasonable. And, I honestly don't believe your original question about Wayne LaPierre really helps us see the underlying problem more clearly. People who state "I want to buy XYZ to kill people" should not be sold XYZ, whether XYZ is a gun or a stick of chewing gum. The problem is a lot more nuanced than that...
 
2013-01-30 03:47:11 PM  

CliChe Guevara: The Larch: This breaks down victims and perpetrators by race, not gang membership. Can you explain your thinking? You can link to stormfront if it will help.

It also breaks them down by previous criminal record, but thank you for playing the race card.


How is that related to gang membership?
 
2013-01-30 03:50:06 PM  
... Okay, how many has that been in the last month? I've officially lost count now.

Surprised the news didn't ask about her video game collection.

/gdi
 
2013-01-30 03:50:16 PM  
She knew the truth and had to be eliminated, Beyonce was lip syncing.
 
2013-01-30 03:51:13 PM  

Protricity: There are plenty of studies on all forms of violence and crime, except gun violence. Federal funding for this has been banned since 1990 by the usual suspects. Obama only just lifted this.


Actually, there are also studies on firearm violence, just not federally-funded studies.

Which leads people like you to say: wow, Obozo wants to just study gun violence alone! Probably another political ploy to ban guns

That's nice. That's not what I'm saying, but it's nice that you'd like to point that out.

The question becomes: Will your opinion change when your underlying reasoning is proven wrong?

If science and clear statistics show that my underlying reasoning is wrong, then it's damned difficult to argue science. However, I push the question back to you: Will yours? If said studies show that, based on our culture, number of existing firearms, current laws, and so forth that any further restrictions on firearms will have no impact on the homicide rate, will you happily agree to impose no further restrictions?

Rev.K: And I'm saying that right out of the gate, the benefit of gun ownership to society is far lower than automobile use. Which would suggest that the acceptable level of deaths would be lower, since the value is less.


Shockingly, the number of deaths attributed to firearms is already lower than automobile deaths. In fact, if you wanted to exclude gang and drug related homicides, it gets much lower.

Yes, gun owners do attempt to make their products as safe as possible, just like car manufacturers.

But in the case of automobiles, there is additional work done by the government to ensure even greater safety. Speed limits, seatbelt laws, regulations on operating passenger vehicles, improving highway conditions, lane-twinning, laws on how long a semi-truck driver can operate a vehicle, the list goes on and on. Product safety itself is one side of the coin, there is far more than can be done through regulation that provides greater safety.

Most everyone would agree that automobile safety is a good idea and has probably saved lives, but on the gun side, background checks, mental screening, and so on, these are opposed.

Why?


First off, because vehicles are used on public property that's paid for by tax money that the government collects. Secondly, for them to have the benefits that society reaps, they have to be used in a fairly smooth system. Without traffic laws, roads, etc., they wouldn't function in that manner. With that in mind, having a system that allows for training, licensing (they're also a capital expense, so that has an added function of being able to track ownership - firearms generally don't hit that threshold). Firearms, with the exception of self-defense, aren't used on publicly-provided infrastructure like that. As such, the need for all of the above doesn't present itself.

Background checks aren't opposed. There's nuances you're just ignoring. Mandatory background checks on individual sales are opposed as they're unenforceable (too many firearms already exist so you'd have no way to prove that the roughly 300 million or so firearms out there that exist weren't sold prior to the mandatory checks. Now, don't over-interpret my position. I have no issue with opening up the background check system to allow a private owner to take advantage of it by meeting the buyer at the local gun shop and going through a background check (maybe for a very small fee that covers their time). Record would kept at the gun shop, just like they keep records now.

Mental screenings are problematic in nature. How does one prevent a high number of false positives? What's the review and appeal process? What's to prevent folks for figuring out easy ways to get around it like publishing appropriate responses? I have no issue requiring doctors to appropriately and immediately report a diagnosis to their state agency as long as the diagnosis wasn't done for the sole purpose of firearm eligibility. If it's a temporary condition, then there also needs to be an appropriate and immediate removal of the restriction as well. Second to this is that the mental cases are very rare, in terms of total homicides.

I've addressed others down thread. If you want, quote those and we'll discuss.

Last point - the current ban that's being pushed is on scary black rifles which are the rarest of the firearms used in homicides. Seems counter-intuitive, no?
 
2013-01-30 03:52:52 PM  

Tatterdemalian: And the goal of the left is to do away with such "loopholes," so that everyone is required to have psychic and/or precognitive powers before they are legally allowed to take action... unless they are a designated authority in the field, of course, which they always consider themselves and their leaders to be.

/liberal authoritarianism isn't an oxymoron, it's a real and growing threat


If you shoot a bear out of season you are going to have to answer some tough questions to claim self defense (you had best have a nite mark). Why should you have less of a burden of proof if you kill a person.

Link

Anyway, you are always better off facing the legal music than being dead. If you really feel your life is in danger, I don't think you will be worried about the law.
 
2013-01-30 03:55:20 PM  

Dimensio: objectively reasonable


pmcmovieline.files.wordpress.com
3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-01-30 03:55:42 PM  

justtray: mjones73: Ed Grubermann: Cybernetic: I see that Chicago's strict gun-control laws are working as well as ever.

And our thread's designated asshole makes himself known...

For stating the obvious?

Are you an idiot?

So now correlation equals causation? Okay good, then we have 4x the homicide rate as the UK because we can get guns way easier, having a gun around you makes you more likely to kill your family than an intruder, southern states with more lax gun control have higher homicide rates than even Illinois, New York, etc because they have more lax gun control, and CCW holders are just as likely to commit homicide by gun on another person than non, meaning despite alleged higher responsibility, they're actually equal or more prone to shooting other people.

Now shut up or GTFO.



Living in WV I know very few people who DO NOT own guns...also I know we are seen as a state that is extremely lax in their gun control measures...hmm let's see ( Per census.gov 2009 murder rate per 100,000 people)

Illinois- 8.4 (3rd highest in country, 20.2% gun ownership)
West Virginia- 4.9 (23rd , 55.4% gun ownership)
Tenn- 7.4 (5th , 43.9% gun ownership)
North Carolina-5.4 (18th 41.3% gun ownership)
South Carolina-6.7 (8th 42.3% gun ownership)
Kentucky- 4.3 (27th , 47.4% gun ownership)
Alabama-7.1 (6th , 51.7% gun ownership)
Georgia-6.0 (13th , 40.3% gun ownership)

Well at least your argument holds up for New York.... 4.0 and 28th with 18% gun ownership in the nation....OH WAIT! it is the 4th lowest in gun ownership but the 28th highest in murder!?!?!

You can do the stats on that if you want...

/ I have no idea how lax the other southern state's gun laws are.
 
2013-01-30 03:55:58 PM  
Clearly they should have a rack of guns at every bus stop and strapped to every park bench in the country - that's the lesson here!
 
2013-01-30 03:56:01 PM  

ronaprhys: Firearms, with the exception of self-defense, aren't used on publicly-provided infrastructure like that. As such, the need for all of the above doesn't present itself.


Aren't schools public infrastructure? Firearms seemed to get used a lot in schools these days.

/Just being snarky
//Feel free to just continue with the real discussion
 
2013-01-30 03:59:44 PM  

The Larch: I claim that that it's universally agreed that anyone who claims that they want to purchase anything for the purpose of committing murder and mayhem should be stopped. If someone says they want to buy a 4x4 heavy duty truck so they can drive through the side of a school into a classroom full of kindergartners, they should be prevented from buying a truck. If someone says they want to buy a ball-point pen and stick it in the temple of the first homeless person they see, they should be prevented from buying a pen. Guns are no different.


OK, that's a good answer. I think most rational people would agree on it. What would be interesting is finding out what hard-core pro-gun folks like La Pierre would think considering he's fanatical to the point of being crazy.

Also, most people who are out to commit murder and mayhem would be sane enough not to announce their intentions but luckily, many hard-core nuts will announce their grudges and get themselves caught.



In your hypothetical question about a person who says that they want to purchase a gun to commit mayhem, they should be stopped.

Where it gets difficult is deciding how much farther to go with those restrictions. If someone walks into a gun shop and says, "I want to rob that liquor store next door", it makes sense that the gun store employees have a legal responsibility not to sell him a gun. But should a farmer in Indiana face any restrictions when buying a rifle because some kid in Chicago 40 miles away may want to obtain and misuse a handgun? This is where the difficult questions really are.


This probably happens a lot. I wonder if people ever questioned Timothy McVeigh's desire to purchase a lot of ammonium nitrate.


Everyone (well, almost everyone) believes that there should be some restrictions to purchasing a firearm. The question is not whether or not there should be any restrictions. The question is what restrictions are reasonable. And, I honestly don't believe your original question about Wayne LaPierre really helps us see the underlying problem more clearly. People who state "I want to buy XYZ to kill people" should not be sold XYZ, whether XYZ is a gun or a stick of chewing gum. The problem is a lot more nuanced than that...


I personally do think my question about La Pierre is valid. Why? Because there's a lot--in the tens of millions--of Americans who think this way. The ones who think Obama is the Antichrist, Preppers, people who think Sandy Hook was a false-flag operation. I'm just curious as to what La Pierre et al. would think of the idea of few or no restrictions on gun ownership if it became very detrimental to them.
 
2013-01-30 04:02:34 PM  
Goober fans giving carra the buisness...but man, he took it pretty hard to the gut.
 
2013-01-30 04:03:51 PM  
And Henderson single handedly...somebody recalabrated at the half.
 
2013-01-30 04:04:26 PM  
Wrong thread damnit.
 
2013-01-30 04:08:57 PM  

ScouserDuck: Wrong thread damnit.


Happens to us all. Now back to the main discussion, which is about the merits of 50s era scuba babes in oval masks and neoprene wetsuits versus modern scuba babes in bug-eye masks and spandex wetsuits.

No, wait...
 
2013-01-30 04:10:40 PM  

Dimensio: The use of deadly force is a proportional response to an attack that by its nature creates a reasonable fear of imminent grievous bodily injury or death.


Fear of imminent grievous bodily injury or death is not the same as actual risk of grievous bodily injury or death. By placing easily available deadly force in the hands of potentially anyone, you guarantee that there will be cases where the use of deadly force is not actually objectively justified, but which will be subjectively constructed as justified after the fact due to your cultural norms around gun use, rather than instead trying to provide appropriate nonlethal means of achieving the same goals of self-defense that can be used without the risk of disproportionate response.

Dimensio: Then please explain how the victim of such an attack may ascertain, at the time of the attack and without error, whether the attack will result in grievous bodily injury or death.


They can't. This is why they should have access to nonlethal means rather than lethal means. Because most of the time, deadly force isn't actually justified, and the victim is the person in the worst possible position to tell the difference. If a guy is planning on knifing you, a taser is going to put him down just as well as a gunshot will in the majority of cases, and both of you get to walk away from it.

I still hold a grudge against the guy who mugged me. I would happily see him get thrown in jail, and I might beat him up if I got the chance; I'm no saint. But I don't want him dead now, and I didn't want him dead then. If you could send a gun back in time to my earlier self about to be mugged, I would refuse. If you could send a taser back, I would take it.

Dimensio: Mr. Zimmerman is being tried specifically as a means of addressing the question of whether his use of deadly force was a legally justified response to an imminent threat of grievous bodily injury or death, as he claims was the case due to him (according to his statement) being pinned to the ground and repeatedly struck in the face, or whether his use of deadly force was committed maliciously and unjustifiably. If a jury rules for the latter condition, then Mr. Zimmerman's use of force will be legally established as not having been justified.


Indeed. He claimed he was pinned down and being punched in the face, and he reasoned that was a justification to kill the person punching him. And this defense, used in the killing of an unarmed minor honors student, was not thrown out instantly.

Let's be clear here. He is claiming a physical assault with fists and body only, no weapons, justified a lethal response. No weapons, no strangulation or other attempt at lethal unarmed assaults, just punching in the face and being held down. And the court is taking that claim seriously. As in, that it may well have merit. Even if he was being punched and held down, how does that possibly justify killing someone?

Need I remind you, I was held down and beaten up by two men larger than myself, and at no time did I consider it justification for murder. And I was most definitely more badly hurt than Zimmerman.

And yet, here you are, so culturally steeped in the use of lethal force with firearms for self defense that you are not able to see the utter absurdity and ethical indefensibility of this claim.

This is why so many people think that while individual Americans can be wonderful people, as a society you are deranged.
 
2013-01-30 04:14:50 PM  

justtray: bostonbd: From what has been said from the pro gun control posters in this thread, gun control is all about saving lives by preventing access a tool, whose apparently only purpose is to end a life.

Why is it that, generally speaking, the same people who are anti-gun rights are the same ones who are pro abortion rights? In the US, guns kill about 31,000 people each year (accidental and purposeful) while there are about 785,000 reported abortions each year (and that number doesn't include CA as they don't report their numbers to the CDC).

As a general question, if saving lives is the ultimate goal, wouldn't banning or even limiting abortions be a much better method of saving more lives than gun control?

Probably because a fetus isn't a life, and even if it was, some people can understand the idea that someone who is having an abortion is doing so because they're not capable of supporting another human life in a capacity that is acceptable to them, or society as a whole.

What I find crazy is that you really think you had a gotcha moment here. Get educated.


Then how come when a pregnant woman is murdered the life of the 'fetus' is counted (2 murder counts)?
 
2013-01-30 04:23:29 PM  

ferretman: Then how come when a pregnant woman is murdered the life of the 'fetus' is counted (2 murder counts)?


But when a Catholic hospital farks up and a fetus dies it's not a viable human?
 
2013-01-30 04:25:20 PM  
God damn :/
 
2013-01-30 04:27:24 PM  

2KanZam: justtray: mjones73: Ed Grubermann: Cybernetic: I see that Chicago's strict gun-control laws are working as well as ever.

And our thread's designated asshole makes himself known...

For stating the obvious?

Are you an idiot?

So now correlation equals causation? Okay good, then we have 4x the homicide rate as the UK because we can get guns way easier, having a gun around you makes you more likely to kill your family than an intruder, southern states with more lax gun control have higher homicide rates than even Illinois, New York, etc because they have more lax gun control, and CCW holders are just as likely to commit homicide by gun on another person than non, meaning despite alleged higher responsibility, they're actually equal or more prone to shooting other people.

Now shut up or GTFO.


Living in WV I know very few people who DO NOT own guns...also I know we are seen as a state that is extremely lax in their gun control measures...hmm let's see ( Per census.gov 2009 murder rate per 100,000 people)

Illinois- 8.4 (3rd highest in country, 20.2% gun ownership)
West Virginia- 4.9 (23rd , 55.4% gun ownership)
Tenn- 7.4 (5th , 43.9% gun ownership)
North Carolina-5.4 (18th 41.3% gun ownership)
South Carolina-6.7 (8th 42.3% gun ownership)
Kentucky- 4.3 (27th , 47.4% gun ownership)
Alabama-7.1 (6th , 51.7% gun ownership)
Georgia-6.0 (13th , 40.3% gun ownership)

Well at least your argument holds up for New York.... 4.0 and 28th with 18% gun ownership in the nation....OH WAIT! it is the 4th lowest in gun ownership but the 28th highest in murder!?!?!

You can do the stats on that if you want...

/ I have no idea how lax the other southern state's gun laws are.


Pull up mississippi and louisiana. Maybe south carolina. Maybe the UK compared to US. Or are comparisons that destroy your cherry picking not valid? We have 4x the homicide rate as the UK, even though they have 4x as many violent crimes.

On your list, which of those states have cities in the top 5 of population in the US? Top 10?

Its almost like population density is the main factor contributing to crime rate.
 
2013-01-30 04:28:24 PM