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.

(Boing Boing)   Why is gun violence research so bad? Here comes the science (and conclusive info that whatever opinion you currently hold is not supported by science). Guns   (boingboing.net) divider line 262
    More: Interesting, gun violence, justifiable homicide, Stanford Law School, domestic violence, Lists of people by belief  
•       •       •

2613 clicks; posted to Politics » on 28 Feb 2013 at 8:19 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-02-28 12:21:36 PM

dittybopper: mrshowrules: Citrate1007: mrshowrules: Citrate1007: Is it logical to look at the .001% of people who use guns inappropriately and paint every gun owner as irresponsible or to look at the 99.999% that do.  Obviously I'm pulling the numbers out of my ass but you see the point.

Responsible gun owners are not the major problem.  So?

So the solution is neither more guns nor punishing the whole lot.  Major 1st amendment issues aside, a hypothetical law that made it illegal to report the name or any personal information about mass murderers would deter them.  Most want to send a political message or have some sort of god complex and the infamy they receive helps to inspire them.  Taking that away from them would be more effective than trying to keep weapons away from them.

The shooters typically have insanity as an excuse.  What's your excuse for dumb posts like this?

Actually, there is at least some evidence that mass shooters are at least partially motivated by fame.


The devil tells some to do it.  Others do it out of a delusional sense of self defense or revenge.

There are many things society can do differently to reduce these types of crimes.  Universal background checks and banning military weapons in society is just low-hanging fruit that does not go against the Constitution.  This proposal (the dumb one) is both impractical and would be anti-Constitutional as well.
 
2013-02-28 12:22:17 PM

dittybopper: dr_blasto: How many women are shot dead by escalating domestic violence?

Not as many as you would think.  The homicide rate among women in 2010 was 2.2 per 100,000, and the firearms homicide rate among women that year was 1.11 per 100,000, suggesting that just about 50% of female homicide victims are killed with a firearm.

For males, that same year, the total homicide rate was 8.42 per 100,000, and the firearms homicide rate was 6.15 per 100,000, making the percentage of male homicide victims killed with a firearm about 73%.

Men are at much higher risk of homicide (4 times higher), and at an even higher risk of firearms homicide (nearly 6 times higher).


Men are much more likely to engage in high-risk behavior, like criminal activity or seeking illicit drugs. That their homicide rate is much higher is no surprise. My understanding of the homicide rate of women is that those 2.2 of 100k, the great majority are killed by someone very close to them (as in, not just a business/criminal associate, but a domestic partner). Very different homicide reasons.
 
2013-02-28 12:29:45 PM

dittybopper: neversubmit: dittybopper: neversubmit: Depression has lead me to suicidal thoughts more than once, should I buy a gun to defend myself?

So what stopped you?  I'm assuming you had access to a method nearly as fatal as firearms, hanging (75.9% fatal, vs. 80.7% for firearms in 2010.  See my post above for the math).  Surely you had a rope, or a bed sheet, or an electrical cord that you could have hung yourself with.  Wouldn't have taken a significantly greater effort than getting a gun from where it is stored, loading it, and shooting yourself.  Tying a couple of knots and stepping off a chair isn't that hard either.

Is that a yes or no? And don't call me shirley!

I didn't answer your question because it's a non-sequitur:  I was X, should I do Y because Z?  Self-defense and suicide are unrelated.  Conflating them results in the absurdity that you are arguing whether you should defend against your self with lethal force to prevent your own suicide.


It doesn't follow that the force must be lethal I could just shoot myself in the leg. Which would make stepping off a chair much harder and thus a defense against hanging.

/maiecutic
 
2013-02-28 12:34:21 PM

Tomahawk513: Giltric: enry: So anyone, anywhere should be able to end their own life on demand?

Yes. As long as they arent flying a plane or driving a bus with passengers when they decide to end their own life.

Bull.  I don't buy that for one minute.  As the saying goes, suicide is a permanent solution to a temporarily problem.


And who the hell are you to tell people how to solve their problems?
 
2013-02-28 12:37:39 PM
 mrshowrules: Universal background checks and banning military weapons in society is just low-hanging fruit that does not go against the Constitution.

We already ban military weapons, they are tightly regulated under the National Firearms Act of 1934.  No individual is allowed to own one that was manufactured after 1986.

Oh, wait:  You mean military-*STYLE* weapons, don't you?

You just don't like the way they look.
 
2013-02-28 12:51:01 PM

clane: [dancingczars.files.wordpress.com image 209x210]

-Gun Nut


Are you trying to prove why solid research is so necessary?  Because you're doing a good job, buddy.
 
2013-02-28 01:05:21 PM

Witty_Retort: dittybopper: dr_blasto: How many women are shot dead by escalating domestic violence?

Not as many as you would think.  The homicide rate among women in 2010 was 2.2 per 100,000, and the firearms homicide rate among women that year was 1.11 per 100,000, suggesting that just about 50% of female homicide victims are killed with a firearm.

For males, that same year, the total homicide rate was 8.42 per 100,000, and the firearms homicide rate was 6.15 per 100,000, making the percentage of male homicide victims killed with a firearm about 73%.

Men are at much higher risk of homicide (4 times higher), and at an even higher risk of firearms homicide (nearly 6 times higher).

Across states, more guns = more female violent deaths
We analyzed the relationship between firearm availability and unintentional gun death, homicide and suicide for women across the 50 states over a ten year period.  Women in states with many guns have elevated rates of unintentional gun deaths, suicides and homicide, particularly firearm suicides and firearm homicides.
Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David. Firearm availability and unintentional firearm deaths, suicide, and homicide among women. Journal of Urban Health. 2002; 79:26-38

Across high income countries more guns = more female homicide deaths.
We analyzed the relationship between gun availability and homicides of women with data from 25 high income countries. Across developed nations, where gun are more available, there are more homicides of women.  The United States has the most firearms and U.S. women have far more likely to be homicide victims than women in other developed countries.
Hemenway, David; Shinoda-Tagawa, Tomoko; Miller, Matthew. Firearm availability and female homicide victimization rates across 25 populous high-income countries. Journal of the American Medical Women's Association. 2002; 57:100-04.
 Link


Hmmmm. Hemenway, where have I heard that name before?

Oh, yeah, that's right, he's director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center.   The HICRC receives a lot of money in grants from the Joyce Foundation, specifically for firearms research.

The Joyce Foundation is the largest single source of funds for gun control advocacy in the United States.

I'm sure that the $1.525 million the HICRC has received in grant money from the Joyce Foundation in the last 5 years won't influence the outcome of his research at all.

/That last sentence was sarcasm, btw.
 
2013-02-28 01:15:21 PM

CPennypacker: Giltric: Tomahawk513: Bull.  I don't buy that for one minute.  As the saying goes, suicide is a permanent solution to a temporarily problem.


So you are in favor of telling people what they can and can't do with their bodies?

Are you pro choice or pro life in regards to abortion?

You clearly have never worked or known anyone who works in mental health


It's cool, I got this.  It's interesting you should bring up abortion.  I won't disclose my personal views on the issue, instead I will prove to you why abortion is a poor comparison.  Let's take two people, we'll call them Subject A and Subject B.  One has depression, the other is pregnant with an unwanted pregnancy.  In the simplest words possible, both have an abnormal situation that they'd prefer to have corrected.  There are a variety of options available to address their respective issues.  They could choose to live with the situation: Depression subject would not seek treatment, Pregnancy subject could carry and raise the child.  They could choose to seek natural treatment: Go to therapy, carry the child to term and then offer it up for adoption.  Or they could choose an immediate intervention: antidepressant medications, abortion.

See, unlike suicide, abortion is a temporary fix to a temporary/permanent problem (temporary if abortion or adoption, permanent if child is kept).  Abortion does not prevent the person from getting pregnant again.  For this reason, abortion is not like suicide.  Since there is nothing quite like suicide in terms of permanence, impact, or volume of people affected it is absolutely permissible to have a unique opinion.
 
2013-02-28 01:35:24 PM
Oh, and just to be clear, if the NRA was funding gun research to the tune of millions of dollars, I'd be skeptical of that also.
 
2013-02-28 01:53:30 PM

Ned Stark: Tomahawk513: Giltric: enry: So anyone, anywhere should be able to end their own life on demand?

Yes. As long as they arent flying a plane or driving a bus with passengers when they decide to end their own life.

Bull.  I don't buy that for one minute.  As the saying goes, suicide is a permanent solution to a temporarily problem.

And who the hell are you to tell people how to solve their problems?


Well, if I want to solve a math problem, I usually try to work it out.  I use logic and tools such as PEMDAS and a calculator.  If I want to solve a relationship problem, I use active listening and articulate explanation.  If I want to solve a personal problem, I use friends, pastors, therapists, or other tools.  I'm having a hard time seeing what problem suicide solves.  It seems that using suicide to solve a problem would be akin to tearing up a math test because you get to a tough question.
 
2013-02-28 02:01:10 PM
dittybopper:

Hmmmm. Hemenway, where have I heard that name before?

You sound concerned.

You also have a lot of links that don't actually say what you claim. I seem to remember another case where a person or group would just spit out misinformation as quickly as possible, hoping that reality wouldn't be able to catch up with them.

The Joyce Foundation believes that access to data and sound research on gun violence is critical to the development of effective public policies to reduce firearm injuries and deaths.

Histories greatest monsters

In 2005, the Joyce Foundation paid grants in the amount of
$8,385,304 in its Environment program,
$7,888,380 in its Education program,
$6,302,775 in its Employment program,
$3,056,117 in its Gun Violence Program,
$2,818,105 in its Money and Politics program, and
$1,427,350 in its Culture program. Source: The Joyce Foundation 2005 Annual Report, Page 45

So $3 million out of $30 million is  "the largest single source of funds for gun control advocacy in the United States? Source

I'm sure $300,000 per year is a small amount in total research dollars Harvard receives. Besides, there is a history of research not turning out like the grant givers thought it would.
 
2013-02-28 02:23:17 PM

Giltric: CPennypacker: Giltric: CPennypacker: dittybopper: CPennypacker: Giltric: CPennypacker: Giltric: Tomahawk513: Giltric: enry: So anyone, anywhere should be able to end their own life on demand?

Yes. As long as they arent flying a plane or driving a bus with passengers when they decide to end their own life.

Bull.  I don't buy that for one minute.  As the saying goes, suicide is a permanent solution to a temporarily problem.


So you are in favor of telling people what they can and can't do with their bodies?

Are you pro choice or pro life in regards to abortion?

You clearly have never worked or known anyone who works in mental health

Have you ever worked in a factory manufacturing firearms?

Yes I'm posting from one now

What does that have to do with it? You clearly don't know anything about depression if you're making that abortion argument.

BNP Paribas is a firearms manufacturer?  I thought it was a bank.  So what kind of guns do you make?

What I meant was,

[www.elliottsfancydress.co.uk image 700x700]

AK-15's are easily converted into full auto grenade launchers when you file down the thing that goes up.

Have fun in PMITA prison....unless you can show your FFL dash 10.

wha?

I was an armorers mate in the core. I know my firearms and the regulations on manufacturing them.

Don't be coy.


AK-15? Core?

media.comicvine.com
/MmMmm! Hot links!
 
2013-02-28 03:05:28 PM

ox45tallboy: I get all of my knowledge of guns from 80's TV.

[encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com image 256x192]
"Guns don't kill people!" "Yeah, bullets do."


I prefer underrated Tom Cruise movies.
3.bp.blogspot.com
"You killed him!"
"No, I shot him. Bullets and the fall killed him."
 
2013-02-28 03:27:47 PM

Empty Matchbook: ox45tallboy: I get all of my knowledge of guns from 80's TV.

[encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com image 256x192]
"Guns don't kill people!" "Yeah, bullets do."

I prefer underrated Tom Cruise movies.
[3.bp.blogspot.com image 400x300]
"You killed him!"
"No, I shot him. Bullets and the fall killed him."


Tom actually trains with instructors. His gun play is actually practiced at ranges with live fire.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=H8-P8sJNHk0
 
2013-02-28 03:42:32 PM

insano: Someone bringing a firearm to guard against an imaginary danger can not be considered 'self-defense' or even 'using' the gun


Tell that to Trayvon Martin.
 
2013-02-28 03:49:15 PM

Witty_Retort: dittybopper:

Hmmmm. Hemenway, where have I heard that name before?

You sound concerned.

You also have a lot of links that don't actually say what you claim. I seem to remember another case where a person or group would just spit out misinformation as quickly as possible, hoping that reality wouldn't be able to catch up with them.

The Joyce Foundation believes that access to data and sound research on gun violence is critical to the development of effective public policies to reduce firearm injuries and deaths.

Histories greatest monsters

In 2005, the Joyce Foundation paid grants in the amount of
$8,385,304 in its Environment program,
$7,888,380 in its Education program,
$6,302,775 in its Employment program,
$3,056,117 in its Gun Violence Program,
$2,818,105 in its Money and Politics program, and
$1,427,350 in its Culture program. Source: The Joyce Foundation 2005 Annual Report, Page 45

So $3 million out of $30 million is  "the largest single source of funds for gun control advocacy in the United States? Source

I'm sure $300,000 per year is a small amount in total research dollars Harvard receives. Besides, there is a history of research not turning out like the grant givers thought it would.


There is also a record of The Joyce Foundation sponsoring academic symposia where all of the papers presented were pro-gun control, and not a single one was pro-rights.  Any research they fund is fundamentally tainted.

Point to me a Joyce Foundation funded study or law review paper that presented guns in a positive light.

Not to mention that, but they pretty much solely fund the Violence Policy Center, which has in the past and continues to advocate for unconstitutional handgun bans.  They even go so far as to advocate banning some guns because they are too accurate, some guns because they are too inaccurate, some guns because they are too big, and some guns because they are too small.  One wonders what sort of mythological "Goldilocks Gun" the VPC would accept as "just right".   The answer, of course, is none.

The total revenue for the VPC in 2010 was $842,371. Of that, $500,000, or 60%, came straight from a grant by the Joyce Foundation,

In essence, the Joyce Foundation is paying for extreme anti-gun advocacy, so excuse me for being a tad skeptical of research from people who take money from them.
 
2013-02-28 03:52:04 PM

dr_blasto: Citrate1007: mrshowrules: Citrate1007: Is it logical to look at the .001% of people who use guns inappropriately and paint every gun owner as irresponsible or to look at the 99.999% that do.  Obviously I'm pulling the numbers out of my ass but you see the point.

Responsible gun owners are not the major problem.  So?

So the solution is neither more guns nor punishing the whole lot.  Major 1st amendment issues aside, a hypothetical law that made it illegal to report the name or any personal information about mass murderers would deter them.  Most want to send a political message or have some sort of god complex and the infamy they receive helps to inspire them.  Taking that away from them would be more effective than trying to keep weapons away from them.

The 600 or so people shot in Chicago last year were likely not victims of a mass-murderer, though. That kind of violence (spree-shooter/mass killer) is relatively rare. The overwhelming amount of violence is one-off killings. That type of violence should be our priority and, it seems, it has taken a back seat to the sensationalized killings and awful slaughter of kids in places like Newtown.

I don't mean to marginalize their deaths either, but it seems that nobody really cares so much about the inner-city poor people, be they black or white or hispanic or whatever else. Just because the levels aren't as bad as they were in the late 80's through early 90's doesn't mean we should completely overlook them or the causes of their deaths. How many women are shot dead by escalating domestic violence?


The difference is the general public doesn't give a fark about that.  Really, the only reason we are having the gun debates is because of the mass killings.  It's all the politicians really want to stop.
 
2013-02-28 03:53:12 PM

s2s2s2: Hey, folks, you can go ahead and admit the 2nd applies to "the people" as it says it does, and still be for gun control.


I think many people have a valid argument when they say the 2nd applies only to those in a militia, or only to muzzle-loading muskets.

It's a matter of interpretation.
 
2013-02-28 03:56:43 PM

mrshowrules: dittybopper: mrshowrules: Citrate1007: mrshowrules: Citrate1007: Is it logical to look at the .001% of people who use guns inappropriately and paint every gun owner as irresponsible or to look at the 99.999% that do.  Obviously I'm pulling the numbers out of my ass but you see the point.

Responsible gun owners are not the major problem.  So?

So the solution is neither more guns nor punishing the whole lot.  Major 1st amendment issues aside, a hypothetical law that made it illegal to report the name or any personal information about mass murderers would deter them.  Most want to send a political message or have some sort of god complex and the infamy they receive helps to inspire them.  Taking that away from them would be more effective than trying to keep weapons away from them.

The shooters typically have insanity as an excuse.  What's your excuse for dumb posts like this?

Actually, there is at least some evidence that mass shooters are at least partially motivated by fame.

The devil tells some to do it.  Others do it out of a delusional sense of self defense or revenge.

There are many things society can do differently to reduce these types of crimes.  Universal background checks and banning military weapons in society is just low-hanging fruit that does not go against the Constitution.  This proposal (the dumb one) is both impractical and would be anti-Constitutional as well.


I was obviously alluding to the point that mental health is a key factor.......but whatever dude.
 
2013-02-28 03:59:48 PM

Fail in Human Form: neversubmit: clane: [dancingczars.files.wordpress.com image 209x210]

-Gun Nut

I don't own any guns but I want to be a gun nut, is that doable?

Just support the actual reason for the 2nd amendment.  Most of this board will fall over themselves to call you a lunatic gun nut.  No guns required.


csmh.pbworks.com
"Look, I understand the threat, we just can't afford a large standing army!"

"I'm not paying for it! I'm still owed money from the Revolution!"

"Speaking of the Revolution, why don't we do it that way, with a militia?"

"Hey, good idea! Now, what's a good way of saying that?"
 
2013-02-28 04:09:57 PM

Fubini: The problem is when people don't read the whole story and "had intent to use weapon against a real or perceived threat" turns into "used a gun to stop a bad guy".


Once again. take a look at the Trayvon Martin case. Zimmerman technically had a legal right to carry a gun around as a private citizen. He also had some sort of sanction from the HOA to act as a "lookout" for trouble.

However, he had no right to confront a private citizen (compounded by the fact the private citizen had done nothing wrong), and it is unlikely he would have done so in the first place had he not been carrying a gun.

He viewed someone as a threat who turned out to not be a threat, but that instituted a chain of events which lead to Martin's death, and technically speaking, under the law, Zimmerman's actions may not constitute a criminal offense.

That is the problem with *many* (I didn't say most) gun owners - they are actually willing to "look for trouble" because they have a gun and are willing to use it, knowing the law backs them up. Is this a healthy society, or a society in which needless deaths happen?
 
2013-02-28 04:10:27 PM

ox45tallboy: Fail in Human Form: neversubmit: clane: [dancingczars.files.wordpress.com image 209x210]

-Gun Nut

I don't own any guns but I want to be a gun nut, is that doable?

Just support the actual reason for the 2nd amendment.  Most of this board will fall over themselves to call you a lunatic gun nut.  No guns required.

[csmh.pbworks.com image 300x201]
"Look, I understand the threat, we just can't afford a large standing army!"

"I'm not paying for it! I'm still owed money from the Revolution!"

"Speaking of the Revolution, why don't we do it that way, with a militia?"

"Hey, good idea! Now, what's a good way of saying that?"


The founding fathers distrusted a stand army in peace time due to the possibility of the government using them in tyrannical ends.  1812 proved that we need a standing army, but the fear is justified.  It's the reason for the NDAA.  Constitutionally, we can't have a permanent army.
 
2013-02-28 04:20:25 PM

Giltric: Tom actually trains with instructors. His gun play is actually practiced at ranges with live fire.


He;s a Scientologist. There's no telling what kind of play he practices at ranges with live fire.
 
2013-02-28 04:22:23 PM

ox45tallboy: s2s2s2: Hey, folks, you can go ahead and admit the 2nd applies to "the people" as it says it does, and still be for gun control.

I think many people have a valid argument when they say the 2nd applies only to those in a militia, or only to muzzle-loading muskets.

It's a matter of interpretation.


It is subject to correct interpretation and incorrect interpretation. These are words of men, not of gods. They were written by men who did extensive writing about what it meant. It wasn't exclusively defense of Tyranny, but that was an important factor in favor of the amendment.

Here is an easy way to figure it out:

"Because the children need to be healthy, the right of the people to buy healthy food shall not be infringed."

This statement only applies to the rights of children to have healthy food, right?
 
2013-02-28 04:23:52 PM

Fail in Human Form: The founding fathers distrusted a stand army in peace time due to the possibility of the government using them in tyrannical ends. 1812 proved that we need a standing army, but the fear is justified. It's the reason for the NDAA. Constitutionally, we can't have a permanent army.


Perhaps no one thought of something like Posse Comitatus during the debates on the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Or perhaps they did, but didn't trust whatever people came into power in the next generations to abide by it.
 
2013-02-28 04:27:14 PM

ox45tallboy: Fubini: The problem is when people don't read the whole story and "had intent to use weapon against a real or perceived threat" turns into "used a gun to stop a bad guy".

Once again. take a look at the Trayvon Martin case. Zimmerman technically had a legal right to carry a gun around as a private citizen. He also had some sort of sanction from the HOA to act as a "lookout" for trouble.

However, he had no right to confront a private citizen (compounded by the fact the private citizen had done nothing wrong), and it is unlikely he would have done so in the first place had he not been carrying a gun.


He had every right to ask Martin what he was doing, and Martin had every right to say "None of your farkin' business" and keep on walking.

He viewed someone as a threat who turned out to not be a threat, but that instituted a chain of events which lead to Martin's death, and technically speaking, under the law, Zimmerman's actions may not constitute a criminal offense.

Actually, Martin *DID* turn out to be a threat:  He started beating the snot out of Zimmerman.  Zimmerman didn't shoot until he had already sustained some injury.  The eyewitnesses corroborate that Martin was on top of Zimmerman immediately before the shooting.  Only Zimmerman and Martin truly know what happened in the few seconds before Martin was shot, but so far there is zero credible evidence that contradicts any significant part of Zimmerman's story.

That is the problem with *many* (I didn't say most) gun owners - they are actually willing to "look for trouble" because they have a gun and are willing to use it, knowing the law backs them up. Is this a healthy society, or a society in which needless deaths happen?

Can't it be both?  Needless deaths are going to happen in any healthy society.  You want to minimize them consistent with a certain amount of freedom, of course, but in any society where you have a substantial right to defend yourself, there are going to be mistakes.
 
2013-02-28 04:28:34 PM

ox45tallboy: Giltric: Tom actually trains with instructors. His gun play is actually practiced at ranges with live fire.

He;s a Scientologist. There's no telling what kind of play he practices at ranges with live fire.


He shoots a Colt Thetan.
 
2013-02-28 04:33:35 PM

dittybopper: ox45tallboy: Giltric: Tom actually trains with instructors. His gun play is actually practiced at ranges with live fire.

He;s a Scientologist. There's no telling what kind of play he practices at ranges with live fire.

He shoots a Colt Thetan.


I read that as Bren-Ten.
 
2013-02-28 04:42:54 PM

dittybopper:

In essence, the Joyce Foundation is paying for extreme anti-gun advocacy, so excuse me for being a tad skeptical of research from people who take money from them.

dittybopper: Oh, and just to be clear, if the NRA was funding gun research to the tune of millions of dollars, I'd be skeptical of that also.


So, both sides are bad? Do you have a recommendation who to vote for?

Who is this VPC that I mentioned? Oh wait, that was you. Care to move the goalposts some more?
 
2013-02-28 04:46:30 PM

Witty_Retort: dittybopper:

In essence, the Joyce Foundation is paying for extreme anti-gun advocacy, so excuse me for being a tad skeptical of research from people who take money from them.

dittybopper: Oh, and just to be clear, if the NRA was funding gun research to the tune of millions of dollars, I'd be skeptical of that also.

So, both sides are bad? Do you have a recommendation who to vote for?

Who is this VPC that I mentioned? Oh wait, that was you. Care to move the goalposts some more?


Neither? He was demonstrating that the Joyce Foundation likely has an agenda in its research grants by using the VPC as an example. Didn't think that would be too hard to extrapolate OR that it doesn't matter if you brought it up or not.
 
2013-02-28 04:46:38 PM

Fail in Human Form: justtray: Fail in Human Form: Just support the actual reason for the 2nd amendment

You mean what you imagine the actual reason to be. Because there's basically no way what you believe the purpose is actually the real purpose for it.

Let me guess, to defend yourself from your own tyrannical government?

I have no interest in rehashing the same discussion we've had in countless numbers of these threads.  You get proved wrong and then just move on or call it anachronistic.


Classic projection, from Fail in Human form. It doesn't get anymore ironic.

Looks like I was right.
 
2013-02-28 04:49:20 PM

justtray: Fail in Human Form: justtray: Fail in Human Form: Just support the actual reason for the 2nd amendment

You mean what you imagine the actual reason to be. Because there's basically no way what you believe the purpose is actually the real purpose for it.

Let me guess, to defend yourself from your own tyrannical government?

I have no interest in rehashing the same discussion we've had in countless numbers of these threads.  You get proved wrong and then just move on or call it anachronistic.

Classic projection, from Fail in Human form. It doesn't get anymore ironic.

Looks like I was right.


No he was right. You routinely ignore people who disprove your posts or cast doubts on your recklessly broad talking points.
 
2013-02-28 04:52:30 PM

dittybopper: He had every right to ask Martin what he was doing, and Martin had every right to say "None of your farkin' business" and keep on walking.


I'm not trying to turn this into a Trayvon Martin thread. We've had plenty of those already, and will certainly have more as Zimmerman's trial approaches.

In the context of the article, however, do you feel that Zimmerman would have been as likely to have confronted Martin, had he not had a gun? The whole point to allowing your citizens to arm themselves to the teeth as Florida does is to decrease crime because the criminals don't know who has a gun. While I'm not calling Zimmerman a criminal, wouldn't the same apply - he would have no way of knowing if Martin had a gun, therefore he likely would not have confronted him absent his own possession of a gun?

dittybopper: Actually, Martin *DID* turn out to be a threat: He started beating the snot out of Zimmerman.


How is defending himself against a strange person following him and demanding he stop a "threat"?

dittybopper: but in any society where you have a substantial right to defend yourself, there are going to be mistakes.


This is true. However, in many other societies, these mistakes are not as lethal as they are in a society with high gun ownership.

Would you like to be the one to tell Trayvon's parents, "Well, sorry folks, but that's the price you pay for living in a free society! The only alternative would be tyranny and oppression! Come by and pick up the body tomorrow by 4 or we have to charge you another day's storage, mmmkay?"
 
2013-02-28 04:53:13 PM
dittybopper:

Actually, Martin *DID* turn out to be a threat:  He started beating the snot out of Zimmerman.  Zimmerman didn't shoot until he had already sustained some injury.  The eyewitnesses corroborate that Martin was on top of Zimmerman immediately before the shooting.  Only Zimmerman and Martin truly know what happened in the few seconds before Martin was shot, but so far there is zero credible evidence that contradicts any significant part of Zimmerman's story.

Other than the complete lack of signs of attack on Martin's body. No busted knuckles. No scrapes. No defensive wounds on Zimmerman.

But still, imagine that, being stalked followed for 7+ minutes then accosted by some armed guy spewing racial slurs questioning him about where he was going in his parent's neighborhood led a teenager, who are paragons of clear thinking, to fight back.

This trial is going to end with nobody being happy.
 
2013-02-28 04:54:19 PM

redmid17: justtray: Fail in Human Form: justtray: Fail in Human Form: Just support the actual reason for the 2nd amendment

You mean what you imagine the actual reason to be. Because there's basically no way what you believe the purpose is actually the real purpose for it.

Let me guess, to defend yourself from your own tyrannical government?

I have no interest in rehashing the same discussion we've had in countless numbers of these threads.  You get proved wrong and then just move on or call it anachronistic.

Classic projection, from Fail in Human form. It doesn't get anymore ironic.

Looks like I was right.

No he was right. You routinely ignore people who disprove your posts or cast doubts on your recklessly broad talking points.


thirded.
 
2013-02-28 04:55:09 PM

redmid17: Witty_Retort: dittybopper:

In essence, the Joyce Foundation is paying for extreme anti-gun advocacy, so excuse me for being a tad skeptical of research from people who take money from them.

dittybopper: Oh, and just to be clear, if the NRA was funding gun research to the tune of millions of dollars, I'd be skeptical of that also.

So, both sides are bad? Do you have a recommendation who to vote for?

Who is this VPC that I mentioned? Oh wait, that was you. Care to move the goalposts some more?

Neither? He was demonstrating that the Joyce Foundation likely has an agenda in its research grants by using the VPC as an example. Didn't think that would be too hard to extrapolate OR that it doesn't matter if you brought it up or not.


Wow. You need to alert the press that you have discovered that political groups have agendas.
 
2013-02-28 04:56:37 PM
Ahh I see the gun nuts have a bogey man in the Joyce Foundation.

LALALALLA I CANT HEAR YOU JOYCE JOYCE JOYCE LLALALALAL

Fact is research into guns has to be funded by private foundation and organizations because of the rules against federal funding. If you dont want Joyce to fund research open it up to federal dollars.
 
2013-02-28 05:02:18 PM

Witty_Retort: dittybopper:

Actually, Martin *DID* turn out to be a threat:  He started beating the snot out of Zimmerman.  Zimmerman didn't shoot until he had already sustained some injury.  The eyewitnesses corroborate that Martin was on top of Zimmerman immediately before the shooting.  Only Zimmerman and Martin truly know what happened in the few seconds before Martin was shot, but so far there is zero credible evidence that contradicts any significant part of Zimmerman's story.

Other than the complete lack of signs of attack on Martin's body. No busted knuckles. No scrapes. No defensive wounds on Zimmerman.

But still, imagine that, being stalked followed for 7+ minutes then accosted by some armed guy spewing racial slurs questioning him about where he was going in his parent's neighborhood led a teenager, who are paragons of clear thinking, to fight back.

This trial is going to end with nobody being happy.


The photos have already been made public. the broken nose, the cuts on the back of his head. (of Zimmerman).

As someone who has gotten into multiple fights over the course of his life, rarely do your hands show any damage from punching somone in the face....in the teeth yes, you may cut your knuckles. You may even break your hand if you hit them and get unlucky but lack of cuts on the knuckles doesn't mean Trayvon did not strike Zimmerman.

To be honest I'm not sure at this point if you are trolling or just stupid.

But if Trayvon was dead would his knuckles swell up from striking someone if there is no blood circulating through his body?
 
2013-02-28 05:04:27 PM

Witty_Retort: redmid17: Witty_Retort: dittybopper:

In essence, the Joyce Foundation is paying for extreme anti-gun advocacy, so excuse me for being a tad skeptical of research from people who take money from them.

dittybopper: Oh, and just to be clear, if the NRA was funding gun research to the tune of millions of dollars, I'd be skeptical of that also.

So, both sides are bad? Do you have a recommendation who to vote for?

Who is this VPC that I mentioned? Oh wait, that was you. Care to move the goalposts some more?

Neither? He was demonstrating that the Joyce Foundation likely has an agenda in its research grants by using the VPC as an example. Didn't think that would be too hard to extrapolate OR that it doesn't matter if you brought it up or not.

Wow. You need to alert the press that you have discovered that political groups have agendas.


You're the one struggling to comprehend that apparently. I was just trying to make it easier for you to understand. Apparently I succeeded.
 
2013-02-28 05:06:50 PM

Giltric: But if Trayvon was dead would his knuckles swell up from striking someone if there is no blood circulating through his body?


Soooo... Trayvon had no right to stand his ground against an aggressor?

What if he had been armed? Then could he have stood his ground?
 
2013-02-28 05:07:30 PM

PDid: Ahh I see the gun nuts have a bogey man in the Joyce Foundation.

LALALALLA I CANT HEAR YOU JOYCE JOYCE JOYCE LLALALALAL

Fact is research into guns has to be funded by private foundation and organizations because of the rules against federal funding. If you dont want Joyce to fund research open it up to federal dollars.


I have no problem with federal funding going towards research. They break down car accidents in categories where alchohol was and wasn't involved...they should do the same for firearms but to note whether the murderer was legally allowed to own firearms (ie...criminal history, prior felonies) and a category where the person was legally allowed to own firearms....we should also know if the murdered person was a criminal, criminal enterprise is a dangerous occupation...but it is never listed on the most dangerous professions lists like Crab fishermen and Loggers, etc...

They should do the same for household accidents involving firearms...whether the person whos firearm it was was legally allowed to own the firearm...because criminals do not store their firearms in safes...or safely.
 
2013-02-28 05:07:50 PM
But here we are, in 2013, and even if we don't know exactly what people get up to between 9:35 and 9:37 on a Wednesday night, we do know a lot more about American sex habits.

Oh please. Who takes a full two minutes?
 
2013-02-28 05:08:36 PM

ox45tallboy: Giltric: But if Trayvon was dead would his knuckles swell up from striking someone if there is no blood circulating through his body?

Soooo... Trayvon had no right to stand his ground against an aggressor?

What if he had been armed? Then could he have stood his ground?


You just asked me a question....am I allowed to stand my ground and shoot you because you are being agressive?

Get over yourself.
 
2013-02-28 05:21:34 PM

Giltric: ox45tallboy: Giltric: But if Trayvon was dead would his knuckles swell up from striking someone if there is no blood circulating through his body?

Soooo... Trayvon had no right to stand his ground against an aggressor?

What if he had been armed? Then could he have stood his ground?

You just asked me a question....am I allowed to stand my ground and shoot you because you are being agressive?

Get over yourself.


That seems to be the current thinking. If Z approached M in a threatening manner, Z had SYG justification when he attacked. Once he attacked, M had SYG justification. So, whoever is alive at the end is right.
Sounds lovely.
 
2013-02-28 05:42:36 PM

Tomahawk513: Ned Stark: Tomahawk513: Giltric: enry: So anyone, anywhere should be able to end their own life on demand?

Yes. As long as they arent flying a plane or driving a bus with passengers when they decide to end their own life.

Bull.  I don't buy that for one minute.  As the saying goes, suicide is a permanent solution to a temporarily problem.

And who the hell are you to tell people how to solve their problems?

Well, if I want to solve a math problem, I usually try to work it out.  I use logic and tools such as PEMDAS and a calculator.  If I want to solve a relationship problem, I use active listening and articulate explanation.  If I want to solve a personal problem, I use friends, pastors, therapists, or other tools.  I'm having a hard time seeing what problem suicide solves.  It seems that using suicide to solve a problem would be akin to tearing up a math test because you get to a tough question.


Yeah, sure but what of it? Its THEIR test. They may dispense with it as they please.
 
2013-02-28 05:42:48 PM

Witty_Retort: Few criminals are shot by decent law abiding citizens


So what?  The fact is that some people do save their own lives with guns.  Are you arguing that because the number isn't high enough, we should condemn all would be defensive gun users to death?
 
2013-02-28 05:48:57 PM

Witty_Retort: dittybopper:

Actually, Martin *DID* turn out to be a threat:  He started beating the snot out of Zimmerman.  Zimmerman didn't shoot until he had already sustained some injury.  The eyewitnesses corroborate that Martin was on top of Zimmerman immediately before the shooting.  Only Zimmerman and Martin truly know what happened in the few seconds before Martin was shot, but so far there is zero credible evidence that contradicts any significant part of Zimmerman's story.

Other than the complete lack of signs of attack on Martin's body. No busted knuckles. No scrapes. No defensive wounds on Zimmerman.

But still, imagine that, being stalked followed for 7+ minutes then accosted by some armed guy spewing racial slurs questioning him about where he was going in his parent's neighborhood led a teenager, who are paragons of clear thinking, to fight back.

This trial is going to end with nobody being happy.


Everything you said is false.

I'm curious as to how these facts change your position on this case.
 
2013-02-28 05:55:19 PM
"He said this man was watching him, so he put his hoodie on. He said he lost the man," the girl told. "I asked Trayvon to run, and he said he was going to walk fast. I told him to run but he said he was not going to run."

"Trayvon said, 'What are you following me for?' and the man said, 'What are you doing here?' Next thing I hear is somebody pushing, and somebody pushed Trayvon because the headset just fell. I called him again and he didn't answer the phone."

The last call took place at 7:12 p.m., Crump said, at about the time that the girl says Martin noticed that he was being followed and took off running. At 7:17 p.m., according to a police report, the first officers arrived on the scene -- a patch of grass between a row of townhomes at the Retreat at Twin Lakes, the gated community in the Orlando suburb of Sanford, where Trayvon, 17, was visiting his father -- to find the teen dead from a single gunshot wound to the chest.

So the call with the "friend" started at 7:12pm according to police records, and Trayvon was being followed for 7 minutes? And yet, police showed up, only after being called just five minutes later? That's weird, how did police get there before anything happened and found a dead body?

Or could it be that the truth is that Trayvon didn't actually try to evade anyone, instead wanted to attack the guy he thought was following him, and paid for it with his life?
 
2013-02-28 06:03:42 PM

Giltric: You just asked me a question....am I allowed to stand my ground and shoot you because you are being agressive?

Get over yourself.


No I didn't. I asked if I would have legal justification for assaulting you for following me and confronting me for no reason while armed with a handgun.

Also, could I have shot you instead, assuming I were armed as well?
 
2013-02-28 06:06:18 PM

ox45tallboy: Giltric: You just asked me a question....am I allowed to stand my ground and shoot you because you are being agressive?

Get over yourself.

No I didn't. I asked if I would have legal justification for assaulting you for following me and confronting me for no reason while armed with a concealedhandgun.

Also, could I have shot you instead, assuming I were armed as well?


Granted we only have one version of the story, but I doubt that Zimmerman would have gotten all those wounds if he'd had the gun out the entire time. Purely speculation though
 
Displayed 50 of 262 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report