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.

(Yahoo)   Joe Biden wades back into Gun Control morass citing The Office Of Statistics Pulled Out Of Their Asses   (news.yahoo.com) divider line 160
    More: Followup, Biden, gun controls, statistics  
•       •       •

2242 clicks; posted to Politics » on 19 Apr 2013 at 3:43 AM (51 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-19 03:47:37 AM
Aw Joe.

There's mud, a huge huge puddle of mud in the street ahead. Don't drive the 'Vette into that.

Eww.
 
2013-04-19 03:48:11 AM
I thought we lived in a post-factual world.
 
2013-04-19 03:53:57 AM
Wait juuuuust a second. The FBI data they show has over one million people being denied a gun purchase because they are ineligible. Aren't these people being prosecuted?
 
2013-04-19 04:05:15 AM
FTA: 41,000 people a year fail a bg check

40% of gun sales don't require checks (TFA says that's incorrect, but the link is Fox News, so...)

41,000 x .4/(1-.6) = ~28,000 private gun sales per year that should've been blocked, assuming (conservatively) that the rate of failures would be the same for private sales

He seems to have been speaking off the cuff and mangled his point, but I think that's what he was saying.
 
2013-04-19 04:07:16 AM
fark it, you're better of listening to Slayer.

After all, Isn't everyone?
 
2013-04-19 04:10:30 AM

dookdookdook: 41,000 x .4/(1-.4) = ~28,000 private gun sales per year that should've been blocked, assuming (conservatively) that the rate of failures would be the same for private sales


ftfm
 
2013-04-19 04:30:48 AM

BigBooper: Wait juuuuust a second. The FBI data they show has over one million people being denied a gun purchase because they are ineligible. Aren't these people being prosecuted?

 13-16% of failures are because someone is a fugitive, which comes to about 0.04 per gun store per year, or one every 25 years.


Having a cop on duty inside every gun store in the country ready to arrest anyone trying to buy a gun on the tiny chance they might be a wanted criminal seems like a bit of a waste.
 
2013-04-19 04:33:21 AM
you know, for a while there I was confused by all the right-leaning stuff coming in under a yahoo logo, but then I remembered the blaze...
 
2013-04-19 05:18:14 AM

BigBooper: Wait juuuuust a second. The FBI data they show has over one million people being denied a gun purchase because they are ineligible. Aren't these people being prosecuted?


Nah, we don't prosecute people attempting to illegally acquire firearms, we just put them on double secret probation. It's far sexier to pass new laws than actually to enforce existing ones.
 
2013-04-19 05:24:45 AM

dookdookdook: BigBooper: Wait juuuuust a second. The FBI data they show has over one million people being denied a gun purchase because they are ineligible. Aren't these people being prosecuted?
 13-16% of failures are because someone is a fugitive, which comes to about 0.04 per gun store per year, or one every 25 years.


Having a cop on duty inside every gun store in the country ready to arrest anyone trying to buy a gun on the tiny chance they might be a wanted criminal seems like a bit of a waste.


Yep, it would be really difficult tracking down perps who have handed over their names, addresses, driver license, and social security number on their application, so stationing cops at gun stores is the only way that this crime could be handled. By the way, you don't have to have a warrant out on you to be denied a gun, just a conviction.
 
2013-04-19 05:30:14 AM
dookdookdook:
(TFA says that's incorrect, but the link is Fox News, so...)
The link is correct; you don't get to ignore reality because it is reported on Fox.  Obama and Biden are lying through farked-up use of wrong statistics.  Like, for example, the statistic he quotes is twenty years old, from BEFORE the Brady Act.   Duh.   A study from the 1820s would show that ALL weapons are unlicensed, and sold by unlicensed dealers.  Means dick today...
 
2013-04-19 07:31:05 AM
The Blaze hidden behind Yahoo, nice.
 
2013-04-19 07:52:59 AM

GeneralJim: The link is correct; you don't get to ignore reality because it is reported on Fox.


Fox's sole charter is to ignore reality.

Just because a stopped clock is right 2 out of 1440 times doesn't mean that's the source you want to go to when it's time see whether you should get ready for work.

It's fair for sane folks to automatically discount anything on that network.
 
2013-04-19 07:53:53 AM
Sigh...Joe Biden is such an utter tard. Is it senility now, or too much plastic surgery and dental work that's maybe affecting his brain?

In other news, This law is such bullcrap.

If you served your time, and then been released, you should be be able to own a gun. There's no other rationale that makes sense.

"Oh no! But then they'll just use the gun to commit crimes!"

THEN WHY DID YOU LET THEM OUT IN THE FIRST PLACE? What about knives? Or cars for that matter? Should they be allowed to own and use those?

Either a person is a convict, or they have all of rights of a free person. The natural right to effective self defense, and the right to vote, are a couple of that should be restored. Anything else is barbaric.
 
2013-04-19 08:05:31 AM
There are too many federal regulations for banks, they track transactions over $3000 at the institution level and over $10,000 at the federal level. Any day now the government is going to take all your money and then you'll wish you kept your money unregistered in your home like I do.
 
2013-04-19 08:14:58 AM
I had a cop tell me in high school that marijuana kills more people in one year than alcohol and handguns combined... ever.
 
2013-04-19 08:34:19 AM

dookdookdook: 40% of gun sales don't require checks (TFA says that's incorrect, but the link is Fox News, so...)


Would FactCheck.org's post on that topic be more trustworthy? How about the Washington Post? Politifact? The AP?

In short, the number comes from a survey of 251 people made in 1994, the same year the background check law first came into effect. They asked people if they underwent a background check when they acquired their gun. Since a bunch of people bought guns before the law went into effect, it seems reasonable that people would have legally bought guns from dealers without needing a background check as it wasn't required before then.
 
2013-04-19 08:35:15 AM

GeneralJim: The link is correct; you don't get to ignore reality because it is reported on Fox.


Fox News is not a reliable source of information. Anything they report which is related to a hot button political issue is suspect. If you want to argue this point, I'm going to first point you to the fact that Fox News fought a court case defending their right to mislead their viewers.
 
2013-04-19 08:38:24 AM

heypete: In short, the number comes from a survey of 251 people made in 1994, the same year the background check law first came into effect. They asked people if they underwent a background check when they acquired their gun. Since a bunch of people bought guns before the law went into effect, it seems reasonable that people would have legally bought guns from dealers without needing a background check as it wasn't required before then.


It depends on whether that sample was limited to people who had purchased firearms since the check went into effect or the question was worded in such a way as to ensure it only applied to purchases following the law's implementation.
 
2013-04-19 08:39:35 AM

Blathering Idjut:

Fox's sole charter is to ignore reality.
At least you're true to your name...
 
2013-04-19 08:40:48 AM
THE BLAZE IS NOT YAHOO NEWS ASSHOLE.
 
2013-04-19 08:41:38 AM

LarryDan43:

There are too many federal regulations for banks, they track transactions over $3000 at the institution level and over $10,000 at the federal level. Any day now the government is going to take all your money and then you'll wish you kept your money unregistered in your home like I do.
Or, like you USED to...
 
2013-04-19 08:41:47 AM
If only we had someone in charge at the ATF to make sure that the correct facts were being collected....
 
2013-04-19 08:42:37 AM

GeneralJim: dookdookdook:
(TFA says that's incorrect, but the link is Fox News, so...)The link is correct; you don't get to ignore reality because it is reported on Fox.  Obama and Biden are lying through farked-up use of wrong statistics.  Like, for example, the statistic he quotes is twenty years old, from BEFORE the Brady Act.   Duh.   A study from the 1820s would show that ALL weapons are unlicensed, and sold by unlicensed dealers.  Means dick today...


[citation needed]
 
2013-04-19 08:43:17 AM

winterbraid: you know, for a while there I was confused by all the right-leaning stuff coming in under a yahoo logo, but then I remembered the blaze...


Pointing out that a politician is full of shiat is "right-leaing stuff"?  That's just sad.
 
2013-04-19 08:47:13 AM

Monkeyhouse Zendo: It depends on whether that sample was limited to people who had purchased firearms since the check went into effect or the question was worded in such a way as to ensure it only applied to purchases following the law's implementation.


Indeed. I admit that I don't know exactly how the questions were worded.
 
2013-04-19 08:47:24 AM

Zeb Hesselgresser: Pointing out that a politician is full of shiat is "right-leaing stuff"? Hiding non-credible sources behind alternate news logos because you know people are tired of their constant lying and won't click otherwise? That's just sad.


FTFY
 
2013-04-19 08:51:34 AM

heypete: Monkeyhouse Zendo: It depends on whether that sample was limited to people who had purchased firearms since the check went into effect or the question was worded in such a way as to ensure it only applied to purchases following the law's implementation.

Indeed. I admit that I don't know exactly how the questions were worded.


Exactly. I don't know either but considering it's a pretty obvious way that their results would be completely invalidated, I'm going to give the people organizing the survey the benefit of the doubt rather than assume that they're dumber than GeneralJim.
 
2013-04-19 08:53:06 AM
Not that Joe is totally in the clear here, but the author is kind of riding on a technicality in only considering that one specific category. It's literally what he said, yes, but he's obviously combining several denials into one stat, you posted the very data.

He's technically wrong - is that the best kind of wrong?
 
2013-04-19 08:54:41 AM
Monkeyhouse Zendo:

GeneralJim: The link is correct; you don't get to ignore reality because it is reported on Fox.

Fox News is not a reliable source of information. Anything they report which is related to a hot button political issue is suspect. If you want to argue this point, I'm going to first point you to the fact that Fox News fought a court case defending their right to mislead their viewers.


And you somehow think other news outlets are different -- other than not being sued, that is?  The truth of the matter is, people DO have the right to present false information.  Free speech...  heard of it?  Do you think a news agency should be sued, or even shut down, if something they report isn't 100% true, or is seasoned with an opinion?  In the same way, NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, and PBS have the right to ignore any story which doesn't support their political agenda, and they use that right all the time.  And, of course, they mislead as well; more than Fox, as peer-reviewed research shows.  Note that Dan Rather supported using fake documents as "proof" of a point, because he was sure that what they said happened, even if they were fake.  Pull your head out of your hive-mind for a minute, and look around.  You (plural) are somehow pretending that if it is reported on Fox, then it DIDN'T happen.  If not in Pravda, Gospodin, it never happen.
 
2013-04-19 08:55:31 AM

jjorsett: Nah, we don't prosecute people attempting to illegally acquire firearms, we just put them on double secret probation. It's far sexier to pass new laws than actually to enforce existing ones.


So you're okay with expanding the power and reach of the ATF so they can hunt down, arrest and prosecute people for lying on forms?

I assume, then, that you're also okay with expanding background checks to all purchases since those same people can easily just avoid all that trouble by buying a gun out of the classifieds instead, right?
 
2013-04-19 08:58:50 AM

GeneralJim: And you somehow think other news outlets are different -- other than not being sued, that is?


I suspect you're familiar with the relatively recent study showing that Fox News viewers are significantly less informed on world events than consumers of other news sources.

Honestly, are you really ready to go to bat for Fox News and claim that it's a legitimate and trustworthy news source?
 
2013-04-19 09:04:23 AM

Monkeyhouse Zendo: Exactly. I don't know either but considering it's a pretty obvious way that their results would be completely invalidated, I'm going to give the people organizing the survey the benefit of the doubt rather than assume that they're dumber than GeneralJim.


Sure, but even with the benefit of the doubt, the study is ~20 years old and surveyed only a small number of people. It seems a bit unreasonable to cite it as support for claims about how guns are acquired today without some more up-to-date studies that interview a larger number of people.

Personally, I'm more interested in how  criminals acquire their guns; I'm not really concerned about how law-abiding people get their guns, though that's a personal opinion.
 
2013-04-19 09:05:08 AM
Maybe if the Republicans hadn't made collecting gun data illegal, it wouldn't be so easy to make up statistics.
 
2013-04-19 09:05:36 AM

skozlaw: jjorsett: Nah, we don't prosecute people attempting to illegally acquire firearms, we just put them on double secret probation. It's far sexier to pass new laws than actually to enforce existing ones.

So you're okay with expanding the power and reach of the ATF so they can hunt down, arrest and prosecute people for lying on forms?


There is no 'power and reach' issue, lying on those forms is already a federal crime. Unfortunately the ATF would just rather pull Waco after Ruby Ridge after Fast and Furious because they are under the delusion they are in a super-cop movie and not actually enforcement agents.
 
2013-04-19 09:06:59 AM

lilbjorn: Maybe if the Republicans hadn't made collecting gun data illegal, it wouldn't be so easy to make up statistics.


There is plenty of data from the FBI and Justice Department. Nobody made collecting data about criminals and their guns illegal.
 
2013-04-19 09:11:10 AM

skozlaw:

GeneralJim: dookdookdook:
(TFA says that's incorrect, but the link is Fox News, so...)

The link is correct; you don't get to ignore reality because it is reported on Fox.  Obama and Biden are lying through farked-up use of wrong statistics.  Like, for example, the statistic he quotes is twenty years old, from BEFORE the Brady Act.   Duh.   A study from the 1820s would show that ALL weapons are unlicensed, and sold by unlicensed dealers.  Means dick today...

[citation needed]

Really?   Okay...  Bliss v. Commonwealth (1822, KY)
 
2013-04-19 09:11:28 AM

BayouOtter: There is no 'power and reach' issue, lying on those forms is already a federal crime. Unfortunately the ATF would just rather pull Waco after Ruby Ridge after Fast and Furious because they are under the delusion they are in a super-cop movie and not actually enforcement agents.


Wrong.
 
2013-04-19 09:12:05 AM

GeneralJim: Really? Okay... Bliss v. Commonwealth (1822, KY)


Do you know why all you can post is sarcasm?

Because you don't have a real point.
 
2013-04-19 09:20:29 AM
Forget it, he's rolling
 
2013-04-19 09:22:17 AM

Monkeyhouse Zendo:

Exactly. I don't know either but considering it's a pretty obvious way that their results would be completely invalidated, I'm going to give the people organizing the survey the benefit of the doubt rather than assume that they're dumber than GeneralJim.
You're funny.  I like that Alinsky Flip...  Attack your enemy on YOUR weak point.  As stupid as that seems, it often works.

But, while you blather inanely about whether a twenty-some year old survey taken as the Brady act passed sorted out whether people had bought weapons before or after it went into effect...  How about a survey within the last few years, to see how things like the Brady Act have worked, over time?    Your approach is as stupid as asking survey questions about abortions the day Roe v. Wade was decided.  In other words, it's full-Biden dumb.  Never go full Biden.

 
2013-04-19 09:29:24 AM

skozlaw: BayouOtter: There is no 'power and reach' issue, lying on those forms is already a federal crime. Unfortunately the ATF would just rather pull Waco after Ruby Ridge after Fast and Furious because they are under the delusion they are in a super-cop movie and not actually enforcement agents.

Wrong.


Which part? Lying on form 4473 is a Federal crime, says so right on the damn form.
i.imgur.com


About the Waco/Ruby Ridge stuff? Maybe we can disagree on how often they are massive idiots.
 
2013-04-19 09:29:32 AM

Monkeyhouse Zendo:

Honestly, are you really ready to go to bat for Fox News and claim that it's a legitimate and trustworthy news source?
As an absolute?  No.  I am willing to go to bat for them to the extent that they are no worse than any other major U.S. news source.  And while they opine quite a bit, they do a better job of keeping opinion out of the news than the rest of the MSM does.  While that may be damning them with faint praise, to suggest that Fox is in a category beneath the ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, PBS, and any other alphabet soup MSM is simply wrong -- if anything, they are slightly better. And, again, this is what the peer-reviewed research shows.
 
2013-04-19 09:30:39 AM

GeneralJim: How about a survey within the last few years, to see how things like the Brady Act have worked, over time?    Your approach is as stupid as asking survey questions about abortions the day Roe v. Wade was decided.  In other words, it's full-Biden dumb.  Never go full Biden


Was the original survey taken the day the Brady Bill passed?

I'd love to see more analysis of current firearm law and work on how we can improve its effectiveness. I think registration of firearm ownership with a central authority including requirements for re-registration upon sale is a great idea and would provide a massive data mine which would assist in determining how firearms get into the hands of people who commit crimes. Unfortunately, the NRA has whipped so many people into a frenzy of fear and paranoia that something as common sense as registering firearms the way we register cars is treated like a trip to Room 101.
 
2013-04-19 09:30:59 AM

GeneralJim: Monkeyhouse Zendo: Honestly, are you really ready to go to bat for Fox News and claim that it's a legitimate and trustworthy news source?As an absolute?  No.  I am willing to go to bat for them to the extent that they are no worse than any other major U.S. news source.  And while they opine quite a bit, they do a better job of keeping opinion out of the news than the rest of the MSM does.  While that may be damning them with faint praise, to suggest that Fox is in a category beneath the ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, PBS, and any other alphabet soup MSM is simply wrong -- if anything, they are slightly better. And, again, this is what the peer-reviewed research shows.


alltheragefaces.com
 
2013-04-19 09:33:57 AM

BayouOtter: Maybe we can disagree


There's no disagreement, you're just full of shiat. You don't get to just say whatever dumbass, wild-eyed, spittle-flecked conspiracy-theory bullshiat you want and expect me to just go along with it.

Take your backwoods, militia-man, black-helicopter horseshiat and shove it up your ass. There are plenty of other nutjobs in these threads, I don't need to worry about humoring your particular insanity.
 
2013-04-19 09:34:05 AM

GeneralJim: I am willing to go to bat for them to the extent that they are no worse than any other major U.S. news source.


So Fox News is no worse than the New York Times. Well, I think our conversation is pretty much done at this point. Stay infromed, my brother.
 
2013-04-19 09:39:37 AM
Are the democrats trying to guarantee they'll never be in control of both chambers of congress again?  It seems like they're using a lot of political capital on something that is a guaranteed loser.

/have never voted republican
//will NEVER vote republican
///may never vote again.  Uggg....
 
2013-04-19 09:40:31 AM

skozlaw: BayouOtter: Maybe we can disagree

There's no disagreement, you're just full of shiat. You don't get to just say whatever dumbass, wild-eyed, spittle-flecked conspiracy-theory bullshiat you want and expect me to just go along with it.


Holy crap, dude, I told you something was a felony (lying on a Federal form from the ATF), I posted the form where it says its a felony, how is that a conspiracy theory? Or insane?

As for the other issue, that requires no conspiracy either, just that the ATF is a bunch of incompetent assholes who can't do their jobs right and should be replaced with people that know how to do actual police and regulatory enforcement.

You're the one seeming a little wild-eyed and spittle-flecked, man.

Take your backwoods, militia-man, black-helicopter horseshiat and shove it up your ass. There are plenty of other nutjobs in these threads, I don't need to worry about humoring your particular insanity.

Yeah, because pointing out a law exists and some people are shiat at their job is insane. Take a pill.
 
2013-04-19 09:43:42 AM

skozlaw:

GeneralJim: Really? Okay... Bliss v. Commonwealth (1822, KY)

Do you know why all you can post is sarcasm?


Because you don't have a real point.

Now THAT is a brilliant example of a pointed dissection of case law.  Do you want to argue the case?  If so, argue it.  Vague, unsubstantiated ad hominem arguments only convince Democrats, and occasionally Republicans; I'm neither. Nor was I being sarcastic. That's an actual citation, whether or not you can recognize it.  Of course, NOW I am being a bit sarcastic; sarcasm is the brain's natural defense against stupidity.


I hate the process of asking for a citation as a way to shut people up.  It's moronic.  And, when a citation is provided, and a dumbass blather like what you write here is the reply, it's clear that you were simply asking for a citation because you don't have either the brains or the facts to argue the issue...  or, of course, neither the brains nor the facts.  So, cupcake, either man up and argue your case, or STFU and go sit at the kids' table, Mr. I'm-so-important-I-demand-a-citation.

 
Displayed 50 of 160 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report