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.

(Washington Post)   Three sisters among 13 wounded in drive-by shooting. Police are on the lookout for Chekhov's gun   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 83
    More: Strange, drive-by shootings, a bullet, District of Columbia, Gwendolyn Crump  
•       •       •

2973 clicks; posted to Main » on 14 Mar 2013 at 9:20 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2013-03-14 08:36:11 AM
The three sisters went to ladies' night at Fur Nightclub in the District, as they had virtually every Sunday night, walking two blocks from their apartment in Tyler House to listen to go-go music and wrap up a busy week of school and work.

I think it's pretty obvious who did this.... Fur... PETA
 
2013-03-14 08:39:57 AM
18, 19, and 20 year old sisters at a club at 2am on a Monday morning. And the mother is living with them in subsidized housing because they are "so poor". I'm gonna go ahead and guess none of them have jobs, because if they did they could afford to live in a non-subsidized housing in a nice neighborhood if they had 4 incomes coming in, even if they were only making minimum wage.
 
2013-03-14 09:02:04 AM
It should be easy to find since they've already seen it.
 
2013-03-14 09:23:15 AM
vincentpaone.files.wordpress.com
 
Xai
2013-03-14 09:34:02 AM
But guns make you safer, right?
 
2013-03-14 09:37:32 AM

Walker: 18, 19, and 20 year old sisters at a club at 2am on a Monday morning. And the mother is living with them in subsidized housing because they are "so poor". I'm gonna go ahead and guess none of them have jobs, because if they did they could afford to live in a non-subsidized housing in a nice neighborhood if they had 4 incomes coming in, even if they were only making minimum wage.


On Tuesday, the mother said there will be no more Fur Nightclub for her daughters, two of whom are in college and the other is working.

Yeah, they sound like real scum. And just where did it say they were in subsidized housing?

But don't let that get in the way of your rage over blah welfare queens. 0BOOGER!!1
 
2013-03-14 09:38:02 AM
This is why we should bring back duels.

When it's man to man sabres at dawn, nobody (except the two ultra-violent idiots) gets hurt. And you can be classy as fark like Mark Twain and decline the duel.
 
2013-03-14 09:40:54 AM

doglover: This is why we should bring back duels.

When it's man to man sabres at dawn, nobody (except the two ultra-violent idiots) gets hurt. And you can be classy as fark like Mark Twain and decline the duel.


That would require the "duelers" have a sense of honor... which is very rarely the case these days.
 
2013-03-14 09:45:59 AM

here to help: doglover: This is why we should bring back duels.

When it's man to man sabres at dawn, nobody (except the two ultra-violent idiots) gets hurt. And you can be classy as fark like Mark Twain and decline the duel.

That would require the "duelers" have a sense of honor... which is very rarely the case these days.


First, start with the women. If women don't fark men who don't duel, all straight men are now duelists. Next, target the gay men, same thing. Now ALL men are duelists.

Secondly, counter the counter culture. Offer legal benefits to dueling and increase penalties to non-dueling violence. In film and movies, make the duelists the cool heroes and the non-duelists the cowardly babyfarkers with chlamydia.

Thirdly, make it lucrative. Good duelists get professional status and their duels are televised on ESPN. Make it the new NBA.

If you set it up right, you'll see random violence like this drop right the fark down. Counterpoint: huge increase in non-random violence, but that's much preferable to kids getting shot by strangers.
 
2013-03-14 09:50:35 AM
Sisters? Dats racist.
 
2013-03-14 09:53:03 AM

here to help: Walker: 18, 19, and 20 year old sisters at a club at 2am on a Monday morning. And the mother is living with them in subsidized housing because they are "so poor". I'm gonna go ahead and guess none of them have jobs, because if they did they could afford to live in a non-subsidized housing in a nice neighborhood if they had 4 incomes coming in, even if they were only making minimum wage.

On Tuesday, the mother said there will be no more Fur Nightclub for her daughters, two of whom are in college and the other is working.

Yeah, they sound like real scum. And just where did it say they were in subsidized housing?

But don't let that get in the way of your rage over blah welfare queens. 0BOOGER!!1


Ooga booga racism aside..... Ftfa

The mother said she has called Tyler House, a subsidized community, home for 17 years. She said one of her daughters studies psychology at the University of the District of Columbia and another studies physical therapy at Virginia State University.
 
2013-03-14 09:54:53 AM

doglover: First, start with the women. If women don't fark men who don't duel, all straight men are now duelists. Next, target the gay men, same thing. Now ALL men are duelists.

Secondly, counter the counter culture. Offer legal benefits to dueling and increase penalties to non-dueling violence. In film and movies, make the duelists the cool heroes and the non-duelists the cowardly babyfarkers with chlamydia.

Thirdly, make it lucrative. Good duelists get professional status and their duels are televised on ESPN. Make it the new NBA.

If you set it up right, you'll see random violence like this drop right the fark down. Counterpoint: huge increase in non-random violence, but that's much preferable to kids getting shot by strangers.


Or they could end the drug war, invest in education, raise minimum wage, do something about the ghetto trap and tighten gun regulations in an intelligent (not reactionary) way to make it harder for these goons to get weapons.

But that's commie talk.
 
2013-03-14 09:55:30 AM
Actually it was a Klingon phaser and he left it on the battleship USS Enterprise back in 1986 like a dumbass.
 
2013-03-14 09:56:17 AM
Excellent reference, subby.
 
2013-03-14 09:59:52 AM

Benjamin Orr: The mother said she has called Tyler House, a subsidized community, home for 17 years. She said one of her daughters studies psychology at the University of the District of Columbia and another studies physical therapy at Virginia State University.


I stand corrected but it sounds like they are breaking the cycle... or at least attempting to. Probably a scumbag father bailed and mom had no choice but to move into government housing. I should have added proper rent control in my reply to doglover. If people on minimum wage or forced to take welfare to care for their kids could afford places outside of the ghetto... well we wouldn't have as many young people getting sucked into ghetto bullsh*t.
 
2013-03-14 10:00:44 AM

here to help: Walker: 18, 19, and 20 year old sisters at a club at 2am on a Monday morning. And the mother is living with them in subsidized housing because they are "so poor". I'm gonna go ahead and guess none of them have jobs, because if they did they could afford to live in a non-subsidized housing in a nice neighborhood if they had 4 incomes coming in, even if they were only making minimum wage.

On Tuesday, the mother said there will be no more Fur Nightclub for her daughters, two of whom are in college and the other is working.

Yeah, they sound like real scum. And just where did it say they were in subsidized housing?

But don't let that get in the way of your rage over blah welfare queens. 0BOOGER!!1


http://housingapartments.org/rental_detail/16341

He actually is right about Tyler House being subsidized housing.  It's one of DC's largest housing projects.

He is, however, wrong (and a total ass, to boot...) about them not working.
 
2013-03-14 10:10:04 AM

Walker: 18, 19, and 20 year old sisters at a club at 2am on a Monday morning. And the mother is living with them in subsidized housing because they are "so poor". I'm gonna go ahead and guess none of them have jobs, because if they did they could afford to live in a non-subsidized housing in a nice neighborhood if they had 4 incomes coming in, even if they were only making minimum wage.


Since we're making random, unsupported assumptions in this thread I'm going to guess that you are a poor white male who lives from check-to-check, but you still think you're in the middle class. Your father is an alcoholic construction worker who never really spent quality time with you because he was too busy threatening your mother to keep away from the neighbor that he suspects she was farking. You did poorly in school because you ran with a bunch of Wiggers who worshipped the WuTang Clan and smoked their mother's stolen cigarettes. You thought you were hard because you and your little crew used to intimidate other little white kids in the neighborhood but that stopped once you got to your integrated high school and you were around real black people. You studied them, mimicking their moves, their expressions, their slang...you even called your white friends "ni&&a" because you thought it made you edgy. But, there was always this distance between what you are and what you longed to be that troubled you. You could never get inside that circle and knowing it created a resentment. That resentment festered inside you as you got older and your view of the blacks deteriorated at the same pace as your dreams. Instead of being just a nusience, you began to point to them as the source of your problems. Ignoring your own laziness, ignorance, and lack of ambition, you decided that things would be better for you if the blacks [fill in the blank].

...if the blacks weren't on welfare
...if the blacks weren't using food stamps
...if the blacks didn't get Affirmative Action
...if the blacks didn't commit crimes

And now, look at you. You're broke and you're looking for the reason you were unable to turn your white priviledge into financial gain. It must have been the blacks.
 
2013-03-14 10:11:14 AM
The yelp reviews are pretty bad for the nightclub. Especially one with a $40 cover.
 
2013-03-14 10:13:47 AM

here to help: Or they could end the drug war, invest in education, raise minimum wage, do something about the ghetto trap and tighten gun regulations in an intelligent (not reactionary) way to make it harder for these goons to get weapons.


End the drug war?  Agreed
'invest in education'?  Does this in include the thousands of dollars per year per student already spent in DC?
tighten gun regulations?  More regulations?  This is DC, what else would you like done?
 
2013-03-14 10:18:26 AM

here to help: But don't let that get in the way of your rage over blah welfare queens. 0BOOGER!!1


I was type type deleting a comment to this bullsh*t post and then decided instead to just give yours props.   Bravo!
 
2013-03-14 10:19:40 AM

DROxINxTHExWIND: Walker: 18, 19, and 20 year old sisters at a club at 2am on a Monday morning. And the mother is living with them in subsidized housing because they are "so poor". I'm gonna go ahead and guess none of them have jobs, because if they did they could afford to live in a non-subsidized housing in a nice neighborhood if they had 4 incomes coming in, even if they were only making minimum wage.

Since we're making random, unsupported assumptions in this thread I'm going to guess that you are a poor white male who lives from check-to-check, but you still think you're in the middle class. Your father is an alcoholic construction worker who never really spent quality time with you because he was too busy threatening your mother to keep away from the neighbor that he suspects she was farking. You did poorly in school because you ran with a bunch of Wiggers who worshipped the WuTang Clan and smoked their mother's stolen cigarettes. You thought you were hard because you and your little crew used to intimidate other little white kids in the neighborhood but that stopped once you got to your integrated high school and you were around real black people. You studied them, mimicking their moves, their expressions, their slang...you even called your white friends "ni&&a" because you thought it made you edgy. But, there was always this distance between what you are and what you longed to be that troubled you. You could never get inside that circle and knowing it created a resentment. That resentment festered inside you as you got older and your view of the blacks deteriorated at the same pace as your dreams. Instead of being just a nusience, you began to point to them as the source of your problems. Ignoring your own laziness, ignorance, and lack of ambition, you decided that things would be better for you if the blacks [fill in the blank].

...if the blacks weren't on welfare
...if the blacks weren't using food stamps
...if the blacks didn't get Affirmative Action
...if the blacks didn ...


And DROx ALWAYS hammers the point home!!!!   Nice.
 
2013-03-14 10:19:58 AM

here to help: doglover: First, start with the women. If women don't fark men who don't duel, all straight men are now duelists. Next, target the gay men, same thing. Now ALL men are duelists.

Secondly, counter the counter culture. Offer legal benefits to dueling and increase penalties to non-dueling violence. In film and movies, make the duelists the cool heroes and the non-duelists the cowardly babyfarkers with chlamydia.

Thirdly, make it lucrative. Good duelists get professional status and their duels are televised on ESPN. Make it the new NBA.

If you set it up right, you'll see random violence like this drop right the fark down. Counterpoint: huge increase in non-random violence, but that's much preferable to kids getting shot by strangers.

Or they could end the drug war, invest in education, raise minimum wage, do something about the ghetto trap and tighten gun regulations in an intelligent (not reactionary) way to make it harder for these goons to get weapons.

But that's commie talk.


You want to end the drug war and start the gun war.

Good Jorb.
 
2013-03-14 10:20:19 AM

pedrop357: This is DC, what else would you like done?


Oh hi pedrop. Do you get email notifications whenever someone mentions gun control?

But I mean across the board gun control at the federal level that covers all states so it's just as hard to get them elsewhere. Local restrictions are useless because people just bring them in from other districts/states. It's not like you have to go through a checkpoint like crossing the border into Mexico/Canada. Even if there were they'd still slip through.

Now I'm sure you'll go into some tirade which I will completely ignore. Have a nice day!
 
2013-03-14 10:20:54 AM
Cue the live-studio-ostrich.jpg

haHA
 
2013-03-14 10:21:11 AM

frenchcheesemuseum: here to help: But don't let that get in the way of your rage over blah welfare queens. 0BOOGER!!1

I was type type deleting a comment to this bullsh*t post and then decided instead to just give yours props.   Bravo!


;-)
 
2013-03-14 10:23:02 AM

DROxINxTHExWIND: And now, look at you. You're broke and you're looking for the reason you were unable to turn your white priviledge into financial gain. It must have been the blacks.


Ooh!  Do me next!
 
2013-03-14 10:23:44 AM

doglover: You want to end the drug war and start the gun war.


I don't believe in a full ban. Just some common sense of which there is very little from either side of the debate. Also it would have a chance of actually SAVING lives instead taking them.
 
2013-03-14 10:25:13 AM

pedrop357: tighten gun regulations?  More regulations?  This is DC, what else would you like done?


Don't be obtuse. It isn't like the borders between different states, including the District, are a barrier for anything. The original reference to gun regulations certainly refers to national efforts to eliminate the private sale loopholes, break black markets, and prosecute strawman purchases which are used to arm criminals. Cheap guns and easy access to them is certainly a contributing factor to crime in urban areas.
 
2013-03-14 10:26:36 AM
Old news is old.

Also FUR is the most ghetto club in DC.  Some have speculated it exists solely to attractive stupid rich college girls so they can either be pickpocketed, mugged, and/or raped after they leave drunk and stand next to the projects and wait for a cabbie that will never show up.

But hey, there's a line around the block so it's gotta be awesome, right?!
 
2013-03-14 10:29:59 AM

doglover: This is why we should bring back duels.

When it's man to man sabres at dawn, nobody (except the two ultra-violent idiots) gets hurt. And you can be classy as fark like Mark Twain and decline the duel.


Grass for breakfast!
 
2013-03-14 10:34:02 AM
Great headline, subby.
 
2013-03-14 10:34:35 AM

here to help: doglover: You want to end the drug war and start the gun war.

I don't believe in a full ban. Just some common sense of which there is very little from either side of the debate. Also it would have a chance of actually SAVING lives instead taking them.


There is no causation between gun control and violent crime.  There isn't even a correlation.  So....  Let's take away bill of rights freedoms without any reason!

Know what IS correlated to violent crime?  Significant differences in median income in geographically proximate neighborhoods.  But hey, legislating zoning laws that require certain incomes to live in certain areas, and geographically aligning the poor people next to slightly less poor people, and the rich people next to slightly less rich people, wouldn't be as cool as gunning for gun control.
 
2013-03-14 10:37:26 AM

nickerj1: here to help: doglover: You want to end the drug war and start the gun war.

I don't believe in a full ban. Just some common sense of which there is very little from either side of the debate. Also it would have a chance of actually SAVING lives instead taking them.

There is no causation between gun control and violent crime.  There isn't even a correlation.  So....  Let's take away bill of rights freedoms without any reason!

Know what IS correlated to violent crime?  Significant differences in median income in geographically proximate neighborhoods.  But hey, legislating zoning laws that require certain incomes to live in certain areas, and geographically aligning the poor people next to slightly less poor people, and the rich people next to slightly less rich people, wouldn't be as cool as gunning for gun control.


From the Institute of Pulled from the Ass Statistics or IPAS.
 
2013-03-14 10:40:45 AM

here to help: doglover: This is why we should bring back duels.

When it's man to man sabres at dawn, nobody (except the two ultra-violent idiots) gets hurt. And you can be classy as fark like Mark Twain and decline the duel.

That would require the "duelers" have a sense of honor... which is very rarely the case these days.


It would be awesome if they dueled with banjos!!!!


And only 3 of the 13 sisters were injured? Good odds!
 
2013-03-14 10:46:12 AM

nickerj1: There is no causation between gun control and violent crime. There isn't even a correlation. So.... Let's take away bill of rights freedoms without any reason!

Know what IS correlated to violent crime? Significant differences in median income in geographically proximate neighborhoods. But hey, legislating zoning laws that require certain incomes to live in certain areas, and geographically aligning the poor people next to slightly less poor people, and the rich people next to slightly less rich people, wouldn't be as cool as gunning for gun control.


Uh... I said all that crap too. There is no one solution fix but fixing the gun laws so they actually DO what they are supposed to do (which is ideally keep them out of the hands of violent lunatics) is part of it. But good for you... pedrop didn't come back with some "FREEEEDUMZZ!!1" whargarble so it's nice you covered it for him.

Seriously, guys... 90% of the folks pushing for some new gun control legislation are NOT in favor of a full ban. They want loopholes closed, consistency across state lines and accountability for irresponsible behavior. If you stopped screaming for two god damned seconds you might actually know that.
 
2013-03-14 10:47:19 AM

DROxINxTHExWIND: nickerj1: here to help: doglover: You want to end the drug war and start the gun war.

I don't believe in a full ban. Just some common sense of which there is very little from either side of the debate. Also it would have a chance of actually SAVING lives instead taking them.

There is no causation between gun control and violent crime.  There isn't even a correlation.  So....  Let's take away bill of rights freedoms without any reason!

Know what IS correlated to violent crime?  Significant differences in median income in geographically proximate neighborhoods.  But hey, legislating zoning laws that require certain incomes to live in certain areas, and geographically aligning the poor people next to slightly less poor people, and the rich people next to slightly less rich people, wouldn't be as cool as gunning for gun control.

From the Institute of Pulled from the Ass Statistics or IPAS.


http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/ucr-statistics-their-proper-use

Some factors that are known to affect the volume and type of crime occurring from place to place are:
Population density and degree of urbanization
Variations in composition of the population, particularly youth concentration
Stability of the population with respect to residents' mobility, commuting patterns, and transient factors
Economic conditions, including median income, poverty level, and job availability
Modes of transportation and highway systems.Cultural factors and educational, recreational, and religious characteristics
Family conditions with respect to divorce and family cohesiveness
Climate
Effective strength of law enforcement agencies
Administrative and investigative emphases on law enforcement
Policies of other components of the criminal justice system(i.e., prosecutorial, judicial,correctional, and probational).
Citizens' attitudes toward crime.
Crime reporting practices of the citizenry.


See anything on the list? *cough* income inequality *cough* What about things not on the list? *cough* gun control *cough*

Also, Let me google that for you:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=income+inequality+violent+ cr ime&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C47
 
2013-03-14 10:51:18 AM
bullets are so expensive. what a waste.
 
2013-03-14 10:56:39 AM

nickerj1: DROxINxTHExWIND: nickerj1: here to help: doglover: You want to end the drug war and start the gun war.

I don't believe in a full ban. Just some common sense of which there is very little from either side of the debate. Also it would have a chance of actually SAVING lives instead taking them.

There is no causation between gun control and violent crime.  There isn't even a correlation.  So....  Let's take away bill of rights freedoms without any reason!

Know what IS correlated to violent crime?  Significant differences in median income in geographically proximate neighborhoods.  But hey, legislating zoning laws that require certain incomes to live in certain areas, and geographically aligning the poor people next to slightly less poor people, and the rich people next to slightly less rich people, wouldn't be as cool as gunning for gun control.

From the Institute of Pulled from the Ass Statistics or IPAS.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/ucr-statistics-their-proper-use

Some factors that are known to affect the volume and type of crime occurring from place to place are:
Population density and degree of urbanization
Variations in composition of the population, particularly youth concentration
Stability of the population with respect to residents' mobility, commuting patterns, and transient factors
Economic conditions, including median income, poverty level, and job availability


Good try, champ. That's not what you said. You tried to make a connection between violent crime and the intermingling of poor and rich people. YOUR position was that violent crime happens BECAUSE you have neighborhoods where rich and the not so rich live near each other. The highlighted sentence says, "when people are poor they may be more likely to commit crime". Those are two totally different things and I actually agree with the SECOND point. That was pretty disingenuous.
 
2013-03-14 11:00:40 AM

here to help: nickerj1: There is no causation between gun control and violent crime. There isn't even a correlation. So.... Let's take away bill of rights freedoms without any reason!

Know what IS correlated to violent crime? Significant differences in median income in geographically proximate neighborhoods. But hey, legislating zoning laws that require certain incomes to live in certain areas, and geographically aligning the poor people next to slightly less poor people, and the rich people next to slightly less rich people, wouldn't be as cool as gunning for gun control.

Uh... I said all that crap too. There is no one solution fix but fixing the gun laws so they actually DO what they are supposed to do (which is ideally keep them out of the hands of violent lunatics) is part of it. But good for you... pedrop didn't come back with some "FREEEEDUMZZ!!1" whargarble so it's nice you covered it for him.

Seriously, guys... 90% of the folks pushing for some new gun control legislation are NOT in favor of a full ban. They want loopholes closed, consistency across state lines and accountability for irresponsible behavior. If you stopped screaming for two god damned seconds you might actually know that.


Define "loophole".

Also consistency across state lines regarding what, exactly?  Purchasing of firearms?  Cause that's already federalized.
Regarding possession and carrying?  Cause that's almost consistent across the entire nation, 42 states are shall issue (or more free) CCW states.  The exceptions of course being Cali, NY, Illinois, MD, and a handful of others.  Regarding lethal self defense and brandishing laws?  Cause they are almost universal across every state with castle doctrines and brandishing being illegal.  There's a few exceptions with FL's stand-your-ground, but generally most are on the same page.  So what is exactly "inconsistent" between the states?
 
2013-03-14 11:01:49 AM

DROxINxTHExWIND: Good try, champ. That's not what you said. You tried to make a connection between violent crime and the intermingling of poor and rich people. YOUR position was that violent crime happens BECAUSE you have neighborhoods where rich and the not so rich live near each other. The highlighted sentence says, "when people are poor they may be more likely to commit crime". Those are two totally different things and I actually agree with the SECOND point. That was pretty disingenuous.


Yanno... I totally misread what he said. I thought he was implying that if poor people weren't so isolated things might get better but he was saying the opposite. What segregationist dillhole.
 
2013-03-14 11:02:41 AM

DROxINxTHExWIND: nickerj1: DROxINxTHExWIND: nickerj1: here to help: doglover: You want to end the drug war and start the gun war.

I don't believe in a full ban. Just some common sense of which there is very little from either side of the debate. Also it would have a chance of actually SAVING lives instead taking them.

There is no causation between gun control and violent crime.  There isn't even a correlation.  So....  Let's take away bill of rights freedoms without any reason!

Know what IS correlated to violent crime?  Significant differences in median income in geographically proximate neighborhoods.  But hey, legislating zoning laws that require certain incomes to live in certain areas, and geographically aligning the poor people next to slightly less poor people, and the rich people next to slightly less rich people, wouldn't be as cool as gunning for gun control.

From the Institute of Pulled from the Ass Statistics or IPAS.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/ucr-statistics-their-proper-use

Some factors that are known to affect the volume and type of crime occurring from place to place are:
Population density and degree of urbanization
Variations in composition of the population, particularly youth concentration
Stability of the population with respect to residents' mobility, commuting patterns, and transient factors
Economic conditions, including median income, poverty level, and job availability

Good try, champ. That's not what you said. You tried to make a connection between violent crime and the intermingling of poor and rich people. YOUR position was that violent crime happens BECAUSE you have neighborhoods where rich and the not so rich live near each other. The highlighted sentence says, "when people are poor they may be more likely to commit crime". Those are two totally different things and I actually agree with the SECOND point. That was pretty disingenuous.


Apparently you didn't read any of the thousands of articles in that Google Scholar search of "income inequality and violent crime" supporting my original statement.  But hey, I didn't figure you to be too smart in the first place.
 
2013-03-14 11:03:57 AM
They should all move back to Liberia
 
2013-03-14 11:04:09 AM

DROxINxTHExWIND: Since we're making random, unsupported assumptions in this thread I'm going to guess that you are a poor white male who lives from check-to-check, but you still think you're in the middle class. Your father is an alcoholic construction worker who never really spent quality time with you because he was too busy threatening your mother to keep away from the neighbor that he suspects she was farking. You did poorly in school because you ran with a bunch of Wiggers who worshipped the WuTang Clan and smoked their mother's stolen cigarettes. You thought you were hard because you and your little crew used to intimidate other little white kids in the neighborhood but that stopped once you got to your integrated high school and you were around real black people. You studied them, mimicking their moves, their expressions, their slang...you even called your white friends "ni&&a" because you thought it made you edgy. But, there was always this distance between what you are and what you longed to be that troubled you. You could never get inside that circle and knowing it created a resentment. That resentment festered inside you as you got older and your view of the blacks deteriorated at the same pace as your dreams. Instead of being just a nusience, you began to point to them as the source of your problems. Ignoring your own laziness, ignorance, and lack of ambition, you decided that things would be better for you if the blacks [fill in the blank].


How did you know that I was Irish?
 
2013-03-14 11:06:50 AM

nickerj1: DROxINxTHExWIND: nickerj1: DROxINxTHExWIND: nickerj1: here to help: doglover: You want to end the drug war and start the gun war.

I don't believe in a full ban. Just some common sense of which there is very little from either side of the debate. Also it would have a chance of actually SAVING lives instead taking them.

There is no causation between gun control and violent crime.  There isn't even a correlation.  So....  Let's take away bill of rights freedoms without any reason!

Know what IS correlated to violent crime?  Significant differences in median income in geographically proximate neighborhoods.  But hey, legislating zoning laws that require certain incomes to live in certain areas, and geographically aligning the poor people next to slightly less poor people, and the rich people next to slightly less rich people, wouldn't be as cool as gunning for gun control.

From the Institute of Pulled from the Ass Statistics or IPAS.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/ucr-statistics-their-proper-use

Some factors that are known to affect the volume and type of crime occurring from place to place are:
Population density and degree of urbanization
Variations in composition of the population, particularly youth concentration
Stability of the population with respect to residents' mobility, commuting patterns, and transient factors
Economic conditions, including median income, poverty level, and job availability

Good try, champ. That's not what you said. You tried to make a connection between violent crime and the intermingling of poor and rich people. YOUR position was that violent crime happens BECAUSE you have neighborhoods where rich and the not so rich live near each other. The highlighted sentence says, "when people are poor they may be more likely to commit crime". Those are two totally different things and I actually agree with the SECOND point. That was pretty disingenuous.

Apparently you didn't read any of the thousands of articles in that Google Scholar se ...


No, I read the highlighted part of your post that was suppsoed to make a point that it didn't make. A smarter person would have, I don't know, posted the relevant information. Unless, their bullshiat point just got destroyed. Then, they'd probably just act like the information to support their made up garbage is really buried somewhere in a link. You know, like you're doing now.
 
2013-03-14 11:07:06 AM

nickerj1: Define "loophole".


No. I don't argue with selfish froth factories like yourself anymore. There is no discussion. You guys just keep hammering away until you think you've won some points when in reality you've done nothing but antagonize rational people looking for rational solutions.

I love how this all started with one little phrase at the end of a laundry list of potential solutions to poverty and drug fueled violence. You want to leave the gun laws lax? Then deal with all those other socio/economic issues and maybe there wouldn't be a need to tighten the laws.
 
2013-03-14 11:15:41 AM

kendelrio: It would be awesome if they dueled with banjos!!!!


I'll just leave this here:  70,000+ hits on youtube for "trombone battle"
 
2013-03-14 11:32:51 AM

here to help: pedrop357: This is DC, what else would you like done?

Oh hi pedrop. Do you get email notifications whenever someone mentions gun control?

But I mean across the board gun control at the federal level that covers all states so it's just as hard to get them elsewhere. Local restrictions are useless because people just bring them in from other districts/states. It's not like you have to go through a checkpoint like crossing the border into Mexico/Canada. Even if there were they'd still slip through.

Now I'm sure you'll go into some tirade which I will completely ignore. Have a nice day!


We should use all the regulations on drugs as a model for gun control.  I mean with it's stellar record of success who could possibly object to prohibition being applied to guns.
 
2013-03-14 11:43:10 AM

here to help: nickerj1: Define "loophole".

No. I don't argue with selfish froth factories like yourself anymore. There is no discussion. You guys just keep hammering away until you think you've won some points when in reality you've done nothing but antagonize rational people looking for rational solutions.

I love how this all started with one little phrase at the end of a laundry list of potential solutions to poverty and drug fueled violence. You want to leave the gun laws lax? Then deal with all those other socio/economic issues and maybe there wouldn't be a need to tighten the laws.


I've asked you to present more definite arguments, because arguments like "close loopholes" and "make states consistent" mean nothing if you don't tell us what the loopholes are or the inconsistencies are.  I'm respectfully requesting you clearly articulate your proposed changes with definite language and, of course, a rationale for your changes.  Your response of "I won't argue with you" is unpersuasive.
 
2013-03-14 11:44:01 AM
Police are on the lookout for Chekhov's gun

Drama nerd foul.  Chekhov's gun definitely wasn't used in this shooting, even though it should have been.
 
2013-03-14 11:45:49 AM

nickerj1: Your response of "I won't argue with you" is unpersuasive.


lol... Like anything I say is going to persuade you.
 
2013-03-14 11:51:20 AM

here to help: Then deal with all those other socio/economic issues and maybe there wouldn't be a need to tighten the laws.


You are operating from the false premise there's an upsurge in violence causing us to need to tighten the laws.  The counter arguments is not, as you seem to think, that the laws shouldn't exist.  The counter argument is that from a rational studied point of view, mass violence is on the decrease, gun violence is on the decrease, and violent homicide rates are improving.  Murder rates only look worse when you clip your results to the last twenty years.  Go beyond that, and you'll find we're doing much, much better.

Mass killing PRESS coverage, and the 24 hour media cycle bringing you news of the horrible from around the globe is why you believe the situation is getting worse.
 
2013-03-14 11:57:24 AM
DROxINxTHExWIND:  No, I read the highlighted part of your post that was suppsoed to make a point that it didn't make. A smarter person would have, I don't know, posted the relevant information. Unless, their bullshiat point just got destroyed. Then, they'd probably just act like the information to support their made up garbage is really buried somewhere in a link. You know, like you're doing now.


Because I actually want you to be aware of things that contribute to violent crime, and hopefully change your opinion about the types of policy that could affect it:

Income inequality was strongly correlated with firearm violent crime (firearm homicide, r=0.76) as well as the measures of social capital: per capita group membership (r=−0.40) and lack of social trust (r=0.73). In turn, both social trust (firearm homicide, r=0.83) and group membership (firearm homicide, r=−0.49) were associated with firearm violent crime.http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S027795369800 0975

We investigate the robustness and causality of the link between income inequality and violent crime across countries. ... Crime rates and inequality are positively correlated within countries and, particularly, between countries, and this correlation reflects causation from inequality to crime rates, even after controlling for other crime determinants.http://siteresources.worldbank.org/DEC/Resources/Crime% 26Inequality.pd f

Specifically, there is evidence that income inequality strongly influences rates of violent crime, including homicide.http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/199/4/341.1.short

The results show that increases in income inequality raise crime rates, crime tends to be counter-cyclical, and criminal inertia is significant.http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S00142 92101000964

Income inequality is a large and significant predictor of violent crime in every regression. Educational inequality is significant less often.http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/2646649
 
2013-03-14 12:02:38 PM
My solution to ending violent crime: quit pissing me off.
 
2013-03-14 12:12:39 PM

madgonad: pedrop357: tighten gun regulations?  More regulations?  This is DC, what else would you like done?

Don't be obtuse. It isn't like the borders between different states, including the District, are a barrier for anything. The original reference to gun regulations certainly refers to national efforts to eliminate the private sale loopholes, break black markets, and prosecute strawman purchases which are used to arm criminals. Cheap guns and easy access to them is certainly a contributing factor to crime in urban areas.


What makes you think that will work?

All of the large cities around DC have less restrictive gun laws, especially those in Virginia.  Yet, none of those cities has a crime problem with or without guns the way DC does.

Why bother having concepts like local control, sovereignty, etc. if they're all going to be tossed out in favor of California, DC, etc. style gun control across the board?  Couldn't we just as easily point to Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, Virginia, etc. as examples how less gun control is the way to go and impose that standard on DC, Chicago (or all of Illinois), etc.?
 
2013-03-14 12:28:25 PM

here to help: doglover: First, start with the women. If women don't fark men who don't duel, all straight men are now duelists. Next, target the gay men, same thing. Now ALL men are duelists.

Secondly, counter the counter culture. Offer legal benefits to dueling and increase penalties to non-dueling violence. In film and movies, make the duelists the cool heroes and the non-duelists the cowardly babyfarkers with chlamydia.

Thirdly, make it lucrative. Good duelists get professional status and their duels are televised on ESPN. Make it the new NBA.

If you set it up right, you'll see random violence like this drop right the fark down. Counterpoint: huge increase in non-random violence, but that's much preferable to kids getting shot by strangers.

Or they could end the drug war, invest in education, raise minimum wage, do something about the ghetto trap and tighten gun regulations in an intelligent (not reactionary) way to make it harder for these goons to get weapons.

But that's commie talk.


I agree with 90% of what you said but gun regulations will do little if anything to curb these kinds of acts as the people committing these crimes dont go to your local gun dealer and buy weapons legaly. Regulating sales  does nothing when they are bought off the streets.
 
2013-03-14 12:30:56 PM

factoryconnection: DROxINxTHExWIND: And now, look at you. You're broke and you're looking for the reason you were unable to turn your white priviledge into financial gain. It must have been the blacks.

Ooh!  Do me next!


Maybe we're all tired of paying for everybody elses mistakes.  Let them deal with their own problems.  They got themselves there, now they can get themselves out.
 
2013-03-14 12:44:16 PM

Cold_Sassy: factoryconnection: DROxINxTHExWIND: And now, look at you. You're broke and you're looking for the reason you were unable to turn your white priviledge into financial gain. It must have been the blacks.

Ooh!  Do me next!

Maybe we're all tired of paying for everybody elses mistakes.  Let them deal with their own problems.  They got themselves there, now they can get themselves out.


Right. They should have been more like you and been born into better circmstances.
 
2013-03-14 12:51:14 PM

DROxINxTHExWIND: Walker: 18, 19, and 20 year old sisters at a club at 2am on a Monday morning. And the mother is living with them in subsidized housing because they are "so poor". I'm gonna go ahead and guess none of them have jobs, because if they did they could afford to live in a non-subsidized housing in a nice neighborhood if they had 4 incomes coming in, even if they were only making minimum wage.

Since we're making random, unsupported assumptions in this thread I'm going to guess that you are a poor white male who lives from check-to-check, but you still think you're in the middle class. Your father is an alcoholic construction worker who never really spent quality time with you because he was too busy threatening your mother to keep away from the neighbor that he suspects she was farking. You did poorly in school because you ran with a bunch of Wiggers who worshipped the WuTang Clan and smoked their mother's stolen cigarettes. You thought you were hard because you and your little crew used to intimidate other little white kids in the neighborhood but that stopped once you got to your integrated high school and you were around real black people. You studied them, mimicking their moves, their expressions, their slang...you even called your white friends "ni&&a" because you thought it made you edgy. But, there was always this distance between what you are and what you longed to be that troubled you. You could never get inside that circle and knowing it created a resentment. That resentment festered inside you as you got older and your view of the blacks deteriorated at the same pace as your dreams. Instead of being just a nusience, you began to point to them as the source of your problems. Ignoring your own laziness, ignorance, and lack of ambition, you decided that things would be better for you if the blacks [fill in the blank].

...if the blacks weren't on welfare
...if the blacks weren't using food stamps
...if the blacks didn't get Affirmative Action
...if the blacks didn't commit crimes

And now, look at you. You're broke and you're looking for the reason you were unable to turn your white priviledge into financial gain. It must have been the blacks.


Did your ancestors pick cotton? Why are you so mad bro? Would life be better for you if you weren't born with the wrong amount of pigment?
 
2013-03-14 01:02:11 PM
duffblue:

Did your ancestors pick cotton? Why are you so mad bro? Would life be better for you if you weren't born with the wrong amount of pigment?

Yes, my ancestors picked cotton. Why is it that every time a black man makes a statement without using the jazz hands some clown thinks we're angry? I'm fine, thanks. Oh, and actually I think that I was born with the perfect amount of pigment. I save a boatload on sunscreen, I was a hide-and-seek champion as a kid, and I don't have to pay anyone to lay inside of a machine so that I can get darker. What's not to love?

My life would be better if bigots didn't see my perfect skin color and make stupid ass assumptions.
 
2013-03-14 01:11:58 PM
Molavian: DROxINxTHExWIND: Since we're making random, unsupported assumptions in this thread I'm going to guess that you are a poor white male who lives from check-to-check, but you still think you're in the middle class. Your father is an alcoholic construction worker who never really spent quality time with you because he was too busy threatening your mother to keep away from the neighbor that he suspects she was farking. You did poorly in school because you ran with a bunch of Wiggers who worshipped the WuTang Clan and smoked their mother's stolen cigarettes. You thought you were hard because you and your little crew used to intimidate other little white kids in the neighborhood but that stopped once you got to your integrated high school and you were around real black people. You studied them, mimicking their moves, their expressions, their slang...you even called your white friends "ni&&a" because you thought it made you edgy. But, there was always this distance between what you are and what you longed to be that troubled you. You could never get inside that circle and knowing it created a resentment. That resentment festered inside you as you got older and your view of the blacks deteriorated at the same pace as your dreams. Instead of being just a nusience, you began to point to them as the source of your problems. Ignoring your own laziness, ignorance, and lack of ambition, you decided that things would be better for you if the blacks [fill in the blank].

How did you know that I was Irishiatalian?
 
2013-03-14 01:25:46 PM
Great headline, subby. *clap, clap,clap.*
 
2013-03-14 02:12:46 PM

DROxINxTHExWIND: Cold_Sassy: factoryconnection: DROxINxTHExWIND: And now, look at you. You're broke and you're looking for the reason you were unable to turn your white priviledge into financial gain. It must have been the blacks.

Ooh!  Do me next!


Maybe we're all tired of paying for everybody elses mistakes.  Let them deal with their own problems.  They got themselves there, now they can get themselves out.


Right. They should have been more like you and been born into better circmstances.



So, you know what my circumstances are?

No? Didn't think so, as we are not acquainted.

I am not talking just about blacks, but anybody who meets that criteria. I am tired up subsidising stupid, lazy, loser farkups. Red, Yellow, Black, White.

i403.photobucket.com">
 
2013-03-14 02:19:51 PM

here to help: pedrop357: This is DC, what else would you like done?

Oh hi pedrop. Do you get email notifications whenever someone mentions gun control?

But I mean across the board gun control at the federal level that covers all states so it's just as hard to get them elsewhere. Local restrictions are useless because people just bring them in from other districts/states. It's not like you have to go through a checkpoint like crossing the border into Mexico/Canada. Even if there were they'd still slip through.

Now I'm sure you'll go into some tirade which I will completely ignore. Have a nice day!


You can only legally buy rifles in other states. If people are leaving the district to buy pistols (you know, the guns used in most crimes), then what they are doing is already illegal. I will repeat that, since it appears that not a single gun control proponent is smart enough to understand it, so they spout the same horseshiat you just said:

BUYING PISTOLS FROM ANOTHER STATE IS ALREADY ILLEGAL!

So again, what more do you want them to do?
 
2013-03-14 02:31:03 PM

doglover: here to help: doglover: This is why we should bring back duels.

When it's man to man sabres at dawn, nobody (except the two ultra-violent idiots) gets hurt. And you can be classy as fark like Mark Twain and decline the duel.

That would require the "duelers" have a sense of honor... which is very rarely the case these days.

First, start with the women. If women don't fark men who don't duel, all straight men are now duelists. Next, target the gay men, same thing. Now ALL men are duelists.

Secondly, counter the counter culture. Offer legal benefits to dueling and increase penalties to non-dueling violence. In film and movies, make the duelists the cool heroes and the non-duelists the cowardly babyfarkers with chlamydia.

Thirdly, make it lucrative. Good duelists get professional status and their duels are televised on ESPN. Make it the new NBA.

If you set it up right, you'll see random violence like this drop right the fark down. Counterpoint: huge increase in non-random violence, but that's much preferable to kids getting shot by strangers.


Your newsletter sir.  I can haz?
 
2013-03-14 04:24:16 PM

umad: You can only legally buy rifles in other states. If people are leaving the district to buy pistols (you know, the guns used in most crimes), then what they are doing is already illegal. I will repeat that, since it appears that not a single gun control proponent is smart enough to understand it, so they spout the same horseshiat you just said:

BUYING PISTOLS FROM ANOTHER STATE IS ALREADY ILLEGAL!

So again, what more do you want them to do?


It's all well and good to make something "illegal", but when it is effectively impossible to enforce, what good does it really do? Buying goods out of state and importing them back into the state without paying sales (use) tax on them is also "illegal"; but everyone does still does it, and the state has absolutely no way to track violators! That's why they're coercing Amazon and other online places into collecting the tax for them at sale time...

How do you propose they enforce this "no out of state pistols" law? Setup border checkpoints around every single state, where you have to go through a search and screening process like when entering the country? I'm sure that wouldn't be found unconstitutional! So, since the current law is effectively unenforcable, people are asking for other ways to deal with the problem...

/Not that I necessarily agree with any such other laws personally...
//But, come on, saying "It's already illegal, dumbass!" is not a valid argument...
 
2013-03-14 05:05:14 PM
This is so boring. I listed a bunch of stuff that I think would help curb some of the violence like in the article and made a vague reference to figuring out the gun law situation more as an afterthought and everything else was completely ignored. You guys gotta stop freaking out every time someone even hints at something to do with guns. I wish everyone could be trusted to be responsible with firearms but obviously they can't. Something needs to be done. I don't care how it's done... just as long as it yields positive results. The bigger problems are much more rooted in poverty and a society that is desensitized to violence but whenever solutions to THOSE problems get brought up the same people that freak out over gun control have crapped all over any solutions.

It's only NOW that they think they might lose their precious guns that those options are able to be discussed... and you know what? Good. If it means the RIGHT things are getting fixed because everyone wants to hang onto their boomsticks then that's even better. It's just really dickish that any attempts to fix those problems were shouted down until you were all backed into a corner.

If society was more just and compassionate then less people would resort to the type of violence that's brought this issue to a head. Sadly because of the whining and obstructive behavior of very selfish people it probably will mean you will lose some gun rights. You made this bed. Now bite the pillow and think of England.
 
2013-03-14 05:34:02 PM

RobSeace: umad: You can only legally buy rifles in other states. If people are leaving the district to buy pistols (you know, the guns used in most crimes), then what they are doing is already illegal. I will repeat that, since it appears that not a single gun control proponent is smart enough to understand it, so they spout the same horseshiat you just said:

BUYING PISTOLS FROM ANOTHER STATE IS ALREADY ILLEGAL!

So again, what more do you want them to do?

It's all well and good to make something "illegal", but when it is effectively impossible to enforce, what good does it really do? Buying goods out of state and importing them back into the state without paying sales (use) tax on them is also "illegal"; but everyone does still does it, and the state has absolutely no way to track violators! That's why they're coercing Amazon and other online places into collecting the tax for them at sale time...

How do you propose they enforce this "no out of state pistols" law? Setup border checkpoints around every single state, where you have to go through a search and screening process like when entering the country? I'm sure that wouldn't be found unconstitutional! So, since the current law is effectively unenforcable, people are asking for other ways to deal with the problem...

/Not that I necessarily agree with any such other laws personally...
//But, come on, saying "It's already illegal, dumbass!" is not a valid argument...


Jesus Christ you people are farking retarded. It is currently enforced by the same dealers who are already required to perform background checks as part of making a sale. If you won't trust the dealers to check our IDs (which as I said, they are already doing as part of the background check), then why do you think background checks themselves do any good?

Presenting an out of state ID is no different than failing a background check. The only people who bring up this idiotic argument are either ignorant, or not actually interested in "safety". So stop outing yourself as an idiot and bringing it up.
 
2013-03-14 05:36:52 PM

here to help: This is so boring. I listed a bunch of stuff that I think would help curb some of the violence like in the article and made a vague reference to figuring out the gun law situation more as an afterthought and everything else was completely ignored. You guys gotta stop freaking out every time someone even hints at something to do with guns. I wish everyone could be trusted to be responsible with firearms but obviously they can't. Something needs to be done. I don't care how it's done... just as long as it yields positive results. The bigger problems are much more rooted in poverty and a society that is desensitized to violence but whenever solutions to THOSE problems get brought up the same people that freak out over gun control have crapped all over any solutions.


They crap on your "solutions" because they are retarded. If you are tired of them throwing your arguments back in your face, then do some research before making an ass out of yourself next time.
 
2013-03-14 05:42:29 PM
Dear criminals.  You all suck.  Period.

Self important toting, tattooed packet slingers, liquor store holdup artists, "gangstah boyees"..  You all suck.

All of you.  You're not loved, you're hated.  You're not stylish or tough.  You don't have "respeck".  You're sh*t and people loathe you.  Of course they're afraid of you, you're gun wielding lunatics, but that's not respect.  You're gutless, spineless cowards who, save for some well engineered firearms, would be lumps of sh*t farting on your mothers sofas, talking trash and listening to her tell you to move out once a day.  You've never been anywhere, learned anything or ventured past the narrow environs of the sh*tholes you create in your own back yards.  You're not soldiers or revolutionaries.  You're not freedom fighters.  You have no cause.  You have no oppressors.  You're just lazy c*nts with weapons and no conscience or actual skills.

You are utter dogsh*t on the porch of life.  You have no purpose, do nothing useful, you're not impressive, you're not oppressed.   You're lazy, illiterate, loudmouthed morons whose dicks are hard wired to the trigger of a gun that is probably the only thing in your life you ever paid for out of your own pocket.  The entire universe is waiting for you to eat a bullet so they can install the urinal on your pauper's grave.  Do it.  Be a man.  Wrap your crack residue besmirched lips around your precious tool of destruction and see how many times you can pull the trigger before your brain stem disconnects.  There's no punchline here.  You're welcome.
 
2013-03-14 05:46:06 PM

umad: Jesus Christ you people are farking retarded. It is currently enforced by the same dealers who are already required to perform background checks as part of making a sale. If you won't trust the dealers to check our IDs (which as I said, they are already doing as part of the background check), then why do you think background checks themselves do any good?

Presenting an out of state ID is no different than failing a background check. The only people who bring up this idiotic argument are either ignorant, or not actually interested in "safety". So stop outing yourself as an idiot and bringing it up.


So, you're saying it's completely impossible for person A who lives in state X to buy a gun, then sell it (privately and untracked by anyone currently) to their friend B who lives in state Y? This is a totally unrealistic scenario beyond considering?

/Yes, yes, that's a "straw sale", which is "illegal"... We know...
//Being illegal isn't good enough! It needs to be actually enforcable, as well!
 
2013-03-14 06:00:43 PM

RobSeace: umad: Jesus Christ you people are farking retarded. It is currently enforced by the same dealers who are already required to perform background checks as part of making a sale. If you won't trust the dealers to check our IDs (which as I said, they are already doing as part of the background check), then why do you think background checks themselves do any good?

Presenting an out of state ID is no different than failing a background check. The only people who bring up this idiotic argument are either ignorant, or not actually interested in "safety". So stop outing yourself as an idiot and bringing it up.

So, you're saying it's completely impossible for person A who lives in state X to buy a gun, then sell it (privately and untracked by anyone currently) to their friend B who lives in state Y? This is a totally unrealistic scenario beyond considering?

/Yes, yes, that's a "straw sale", which is "illegal"... We know...
//Being illegal isn't good enough! It needs to be actually enforcable, as well!


So, you're saying it's completely impossible for person A who lives in state X to buy a gun, then sell it (privately and untracked by anyone currently) to their friend B who lives in state X? You're telling me that people will travel to a different state for the sole purpose of committing a crime because that same activity is a crime in their home state? You're also telling me that the only reason gun control in state X doesn't work is because this happens so often?

I suppose you will be able to provide some citations that prove this nonsense. Oh wait, no you won't. You will just keep digging.
 
2013-03-14 06:05:23 PM
Unavailable for comment.
s1.postimage.org
 
2013-03-14 06:37:11 PM

bunner: Dear criminals.  You all suck.  Period.

Self important toting, tattooed packet slingers, liquor store holdup artists, "gangstah boyees"..  You all suck.

All of you.  You're not loved, you're hated.  You're not stylish or tough.  You don't have "respeck".  You're sh*t and people loathe you.  Of course they're afraid of you, you're gun wielding lunatics, but that's not respect.  You're gutless, spineless cowards who, save for some well engineered firearms, would be lumps of sh*t farting on your mothers sofas, talking trash and listening to her tell you to move out once a day.  You've never been anywhere, learned anything or ventured past the narrow environs of the sh*tholes you create in your own back yards.  You're not soldiers or revolutionaries.  You're not freedom fighters.  You have no cause.  You have no oppressors.  You're just lazy c*nts with weapons and no conscience or actual skills.

You are utter dogsh*t on the porch of life.  You have no purpose, do nothing useful, you're not impressive, you're not oppressed.   You're lazy, illiterate, loudmouthed morons whose dicks are hard wired to the trigger of a gun that is probably the only thing in your life you ever paid for out of your own pocket.  The entire universe is waiting for you to eat a bullet so they can install the urinal on your pauper's grave.  Do it.  Be a man.  Wrap your crack residue besmirched lips around your precious tool of destruction and see how many times you can pull the trigger before your brain stem disconnects.  There's no punchline here.  You're welcome.



i963.photobucket.com
 
2013-03-14 06:43:21 PM

umad: So, you're saying it's completely impossible for person A who lives in state X to buy a gun, then sell it (privately and untracked by anyone currently) to their friend B who lives in state X?


Uh, what?? WTF does that have to do with anything? No one, including me, said anything of the sort... I think the point is that those who would like expanded background checks, including for personal sales like those, see it as a way of solving BOTH such issues: in-state and out-of-state untracked private sales to unauthorized people... Where they live isn't really relevent, and it certainly doesn't stop them from obtaining guns, regardless of the local laws, or federal laws which claim they theoretically should not be able to do so... If the law is not enforcable, it's worthless and may as well not exist... The law that says you can't buy pistols out of state is worthless... The law that says you can't make a straw purchase for another party is worthless... These are pretty much totally unenforced, and practically unenforcable, laws... So claiming there's nothing for anyone to worry about because "That's already illegal!" is just retarded... It needs to be not only illegal, but enforcable and actually enforced!

I suppose you will be able to provide some citations that prove this nonsense.

Citations for what? The rambling nonsense you invented out of nowhere? The only citation I can provide is your own ass, where it was pulled from... I certainly never claimed anything even in the vicinity of being remotely related to any of it! You claimed that being illegal was enough to prevent it from happening; I merely pointed out that it was not, and that it was nearly impossible to actually enforce the so-called law against doing it given the current situation... That was the complete and entire extent of what I was saying... I'm not arguing for any particular law or anything else here... I'm just arguing it's farking stupid to claim that merely because a thing is illegal, no one needs to worry about it happening, especially when the law is so flimsy and unenforcable as to be totally worthless...

/If you had asked me a month or so ago, I'd have said I'm completely anti-gun-control...
//But, people like you make me more and more sympathetic to their side every day...
 
2013-03-14 07:47:15 PM
RobSeace: So, you're saying it's completely impossible for person A who lives in state X to buy a gun, then sell it (privately and untracked by anyone currently) to their friend B who lives in state X?

Uh, what?? WTF does that have to do with anything? No one, including me, said anything of the sort...


LOL. I changed one farking letter in that sentence. You posted the rest verbatim.

I think the point is that those who would like expanded background checks, including for personal sales like those, see it as a way of solving BOTH such issues: in-state and out-of-state untracked private sales to unauthorized people... Where they live isn't really relevent, and it certainly doesn't stop them from obtaining guns, regardless of the local laws, or federal laws which claim they theoretically should not be able to do so... If the law is not enforcable, it's worthless and may as well not exist... The law that says you can't buy pistols out of state is worthless... The law that says you can't make a straw purchase for another party is worthless... These are pretty much totally unenforced, and practically unenforcable, laws... So claiming there's nothing for anyone to worry about because "That's already illegal!" is just retarded... It needs to be not only illegal, but enforcable and actually enforced!

If those laws against out of state purchases are worthless, then so are mandatory background checks. It is the same person enforcing both. If the laws against straw purchases are unenforcable then explain this, and this, and this. And just how do you suppose we would enforce background checks for private sales? I'll tell you how. They would trace the ownership history of a weapon used in a crime to the last legal owner, in exactly the same way they currently go after straw purchases.

I suppose you will be able to provide some citations that prove this nonsense.

Citations for what?


A citation for how out of state straw purchases (and not in-state straw purchases apparently, based on your initial question) are the reason that gun control won't work in that state.

I certainly never claimed anything even in the vicinity of being remotely related to any of it! You claimed that being illegal was enough to prevent it from happening;

Bullshiat. I have only said about four times now that the people who are stopping out of state sales are the same exact farking people that we entrust with the responsibility of performing background checks. If you don't think they are sufficient then you shouldn't think background checks are good enough either.

I merely pointed out that it was not, and that it was nearly impossible to actually enforce the so-called law against doing it given the current situation... That was the complete and entire extent of whatI was saying... I'm not arguing for any particular law or anything else here... I'm just arguing it's farking stupid to claim that merely because a thing is illegal, no one needs to worry about it happening, especially when the law is so flimsy and unenforcable as to be totally worthless...

Which just shows how stupid you are. I never said just being illegal is enough. I said that the people who are stopping out of state sales are  the same exact farking people that we entrust with the responsibility of performing background checks (five times). You have demonstrated that facts and logic will not change your opinion, so I will let you go fark yourself now. I might as well be attempting to debate with my dog.

/If you had asked me a month or so ago, I'd have said I'm completely anti-gun-control...
//But, people like you make me more and more sympathetic to their side every day...


And people like you are the reason I won't ever budge a farking inch when it comes to gun control.
 
2013-03-15 04:59:22 AM
Whomever was in that car must have a hell of an arm.  Imagine. Some ass throwing bullets at people like that.
 
2013-03-15 06:25:38 AM

umad: LOL. I changed one farking letter in that sentence. You posted the rest verbatim.


Thereby complete and totally changing the meaning to something that wasn't said or being discussed at all... I didn't say anything about in-state purchases... The question at hand was whether or not it was possible to go out of state and buy a gun then import it back into the state...

If those laws against out of state purchases are worthless, then so are mandatory background checks.

Perhaps that's true... And, if you had argued that, I might even agree... But, here is what you originally said and what I originally responded to:

umad: You can only legally buy rifles in other states. If people are leaving the district to buy pistols (you know, the guns used in most crimes), then what they are doing is already illegal. I will repeat that, since it appears that not a single gun control proponent is smart enough to understand it, so they spout the same horseshiat you just said:

BUYING PISTOLS FROM ANOTHER STATE IS ALREADY ILLEGAL!

So again, what more do you want them to do?


That's not an argument that any proposed further law would be just as ineffective... That sounds like an argument that the current law is all that's needed...

It is the same person enforcing both.

Only in the case of buying from a licensed dealer... Buy from a private seller, and no one is enforcing anything, or even aware of anything occurring...

And just how do you suppose we would enforce background checks for private sales?

I really don't know, and that's one of the reasons I'm not too keen on the idea... It sounds just as unenforcable and worthless as those existing laws... Those examples you give of catching straw purchasers occur mostly after a crime has already occurred, which kind of defeats the point... Don't we want to prevent the violent crimes from occurring in the first place?? It's all well and good to go after those responsible after that fact, and sure with enough effort they could probably do the same here, but it's kind of a moot point by then; the damage is already done... What's needed is a way to stop the sale to the unauthorized person in the first place... And, I don't really see any easy method of doing that... The last link you gave where they setup a sting is about the only preemptive method of doing it... But, that still seems pretty ineffective... They were only targetting a dealer that was facilitating straw purchases; that does nothing to stop those where the dealer knows nothing about it, and it's all between private individuals...
 
2013-03-15 12:37:24 PM

RobSeace: The question at hand was whether or not it was possible to go out of state and buy a gun then import it back into the state...


No, you farking retard. The question at hand was whether it happens so often that it is the reason that gun control doesn't work in the state. There is a difference between "being possible" and "being so widespread that it makes gun control useless" you know.

RobSeace: That's not an argument that any proposed further law would be just as ineffective...


You're a farking liar, big surprise. I said no such thing.

RobSeace: It is the same person enforcing both.

Only in the case of buying from a licensed dealer... Buy from a private seller, and no one is enforcing anything, or even aware of anything occurring...


And they still won't be aware of anything occurring if that private seller decides not to run a background check even if they are mandatory. You don't think licensed dealers will bother to check for out of state IDs. Why do you think unlicensed sellers will be more responsible?  Weren't you just biatching about "unenforceable laws?"

RobSeace: Those examples you give of catching straw purchasers occur mostly after a crime has already occurred, which kind of defeats the point... Don't we want to prevent the violent crimes from occurring in the first place??


I.E. encroaching on multiple peoples' rights before they have actually done anything against the law in an effort to catch the very small minority who will? Sounds great. But why just for guns? I propose weekly police house inspections. We can start with your house.

I'm going to stop now. I can't believe I have wasted this much time on a drooling retard. 10/10. You got me. Now fark off.
 
2013-03-15 01:28:20 PM

umad: RobSeace: That's not an argument that any proposed further law would be just as ineffective...

You're a farking liar, big surprise. I said no such thing.


What exactly did you not say? The part that I quoted, which links back to your very post where you said it? Or, the words that I said, and explicitly said that you did not say? Where exactly is the supposed "lie" in any of this?

And they still won't be aware of anything occurring if that private seller decides not to run a background check even if they are mandatory.

And, that is exactly what I said! And, exactly why I don't think such universal background checks are not likely to do much of any good... You seem to be laboring under the mistaken belief that I'm arguing in favor of such a law; I'm not... If you bothered to read anything I wrote, you'd see I already said so... I'm just arguing against your illogical reasoning about why it or any other such laws are not necessary...

You don't think licensed dealers will bother to check for out of state IDs.

When did I say that? I think what I actually said was that someone with an in-state ID would make a straw purchase for the out-of-stater...

RobSeace: Those examples you give of catching straw purchasers occur mostly after a crime has already occurred, which kind of defeats the point... Don't we want to prevent the violent crimes from occurring in the first place??

I.E. encroaching on multiple peoples' rights before they have actually done anything against the law in an effort to catch the very small minority who will?


Before they've done anything against the law? As soon as they make the straw purchase and transfer to the unauthorized person, they've broken the law... It's just that there's no way to know they've done so at that point! You can't catch them until they break a more serious law sometime further down the line using the illegally transfered gun...

Are you seriously contending that the purpose of gun laws is not to prevent violent crime? You think the only point of them is to punish people who commit them, after the fact? If that were true, they would all be totally worthless, since the violent crimes themselves are already against the law... Surely, the only possible reasoning for gun laws is to prevent the violent crimes from occurring in the first place...

10/10. You got me.

It's hilarious that someone named "umad" is calling me a troll... All while yelling and spewing vitriol and insults... And, you seem to think you're the rational intelligent one of us... Either you're the troll, or you're living in a nice delusional fantasy world... If you want to be taken seriously by anyone, learn to argue more calmly and politely...
 
2013-03-15 01:37:27 PM
On this background check thing:

Did you know that it is IMPOSSIBLE for me to do a background check on you right now if I planned on selling you a firearm? I don't have access to the system.  Obama could change that before the sun sets just by saying so.
 
2013-03-15 02:15:56 PM
RobSeace: Eat a bowl of dicks. I'm done dealing with you.
 
2013-03-15 10:47:34 PM

umad: RobSeace: Eat a bowl of dicks. I'm done dealing with you.


Oh, It's mutual. Believe me.
 
2013-03-15 11:55:14 PM

Yogimus: On this background check thing:

Did you know that it is IMPOSSIBLE for me to do a background check on you right now if I planned on selling you a firearm? I don't have access to the system.  Obama could change that before the sun sets just by saying so.


Check your state's law and see if they have a process for that.  NV does.
 
Displayed 83 of 83 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report