Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(ABC Local)   Concealed carry fails in Illinois House. This is good news for gun owners because if they don't pass one in the next few weeks you can carry any gun you want any time you want in the Land of Lincoln   (abclocal.go.com) divider line 310
    More: Cool, Illinois House, Illinois, Chicago Democrat, concealed weapons, gun owners, parliamentary procedures, Brooke Anderson  
•       •       •

7892 clicks; posted to Main » on 20 Apr 2013 at 10:56 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-20 01:49:55 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: skozlaw: Plus, it's just a statistical fact that owning a gun increases your odds of being killed by a gun.

Just like owning a car increases your chances of being killed in a car accident!!  That doesn't mean there's not an overwhelming number of benefits to having a car that outweigh that risk.  Your "logic" is idiotic.


No, it's really not.  Gun owners pay more for life and homeowner's insurance because the actuarial tables show that bringing a gun into your home statistically increases the odds of dying a violent death for everyone in that home.

There are a lot of reasons to own a gun, but if someone cites "safety", "protection" or "crime deterrence" that's a pretty clear flag that they don't know what they're talking about.
 
2013-04-20 01:52:19 PM  

Tio_Holtzmann: Yes, fark Pat Quinn and fark Chicago straight up the asshole with a chainsaw. Ugh. Central IL lifer, and its pretty rural/down to earth here. However, when you travel and people refer to your state as "the people's republic of Illinois", its goes to show how farked up Chicago is and how much power they wield. It'd be nice to split into two states, say north of I80 and east of 55 to the lake is Chicago; the rest of the state is Reality. If you drew the lines closer so it was easier to commute into shiatcago but live in Reality, I wonder if there would be a population shift.


hehehehehe
the BEST thing which could ever happen is it Chicago/Cook could secede from the State of Illinois.
The State of Cook would have casinos along the lake, with brothels. Pot would be legal.
2 senators and 7 representatives.
heaven on earth
sort of

not like the corruption could actually increase ... well increase much more
 
2013-04-20 01:52:48 PM  

skozlaw: enforcerpsu: The restriction of guns only increased homicide by gun, not decreased it

This is also an utterly absurd argument. There is exactly no restriction on travel in and out of D.C. which is a very small area. To argue that a gun ban in one tiny geographical area surrounded by a vast (by comparison) geographical area with relatively few restrictions on the purchase, transfer and ownership of guns caused anything related to guns or gun violence is ridiculous.

You can't say a gun ban failed in one tiny area when that area is completely surrounded by a much larger area with virtually no real restrictions on gun ownership or transport.

While what you're saying might be factually true in the strictest sense, it means nothing other than that you can't ban guns in one tiny area with unrestricted movement in and out of it and expect a positive change to occur.


Actually you can say that.  It's even relatively easy to demonstrate.  In the areas where firearm access for law-abiding citizens wasn't particularly restrictive, the homicide rate was rather low.  In the areas where firearms were banned, the homicide rate is high.  Why?  Because criminals realize that it's much easier to use a firearm in the commission of a crime when there's not much of a chance of them being shot.

This has been shown time and time again - relax firearm laws for law-abiding citizens, homicide rates in that area drop.  Additionally, relaxing firearm laws and/or allowing concealed carry (even in restaurants that serve alcohol) seems to show absolutely no negative impact.

So, what's your argument again?
 
2013-04-20 01:52:54 PM  

udhq: No, it's really not.  Gun owners pay more for life and homeowner's insurance because the actuarial tables show that bringing a gun into your home statistically increases the odds of dying a violent death for everyone in that home.


Neither my life insurance application nor my renter's insurance application included questions regarding firearm possession.
 
2013-04-20 01:54:26 PM  

Dimensio: Schroedinger's Glory Hole: ZzeusS: "If you've ever traveled outside the state of Illinois, you've been in a state that has concealed carry and you probably didn't even notice," said Rep. Michael Unes, R-East Peoria. "But the people who do notice are the criminals."


I just love this quote.
Suck it liberal bed wetters.

And here is your fundamental flaw.  There is no group called "the criminals."  Criminal acts are carried out by any person sufficiently compromised and will use what is available to them at the time.  Less guns available, less crimes carried out with them.  This will not stop Sandy Hooks, this will not stop any specific shooting, but it will reduce the overall available potential for criminal acts to be carried out with simple deadly force, as well as reduce the number of suicides.  Belief in the existence of, and fearing "the criminals" is a lot closer to being a bed wetter.

How exactly, does establishing a "shall-issue" based concealed weapons permit system increase availability to firearms? Are you able to provide statistical data showing that the establishment of "shall-issue" based concealed weapons permit systems increases rates of crime and rates of suicide?


I don't necessarily agree with this legislation as an effective means to reduce the available number of firearms.  I was just responding to the "bed wetter" idea that is popular among the self appointed sheep dogs.  I'm on the apathetic 'we already lost the gun debate' side, and I definitely don't support taking away anything already legally purchased.  The only solution I see is to tell gun manufacturers to GTFO, but that wouldn't make me a viable politician.
 
2013-04-20 01:56:18 PM  

Fark It: There's already a population shift going on, everyone is moving to places that aren't Illinois to escape the taxes and shiatty economy.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illinois#Demographics
Knock Knock
Who's there?
Reality

(for the reading and logic impaired, Illinois' population has not shrunk. Ever.)
(who knows, maybe the FARK IT was think the population of chicago)
 
2013-04-20 01:59:25 PM  
Fark gun nuts are calling those who conducted one of the best operations in recent history Nazis. Nice.
 
2013-04-20 01:59:38 PM  

mizchief: Your titties - Do they need sucking: soia: I say, fark conceal carry and issue only an unconcealed carry.  You man/woman enough to carry a gun be man/woman enough to show it

That is AWESOME.  Now, when you walk in to a 7-11 and someone comes in to rob it, he can walk around the store and see who has a gun and knows whom to shoot first, after he pulls out his concealed gun.

They would probably just wait for the guy with a gun to leave before robbing it.


Or cross the street and rob the other 7/11
 
2013-04-20 02:01:39 PM  

ronaprhys: In the areas where firearms were banned, the homicide rate is high. Why? Because criminals realize that it's much easier to use a firearm in the commission of a crime when there's not much of a chance of them being shot.


Yes. A firearm they can easily obtain 20 miles east of the ban area and bring back with absolutely no trouble.

Your point again?
 
2013-04-20 02:03:33 PM  

Dimensio: udhq: No, it's really not.  Gun owners pay more for life and homeowner's insurance because the actuarial tables show that bringing a gun into your home statistically increases the odds of dying a violent death for everyone in that home.

Neither my life insurance application nor my renter's insurance application included questions regarding firearm possession.


You're right, I misspoke.  In some states, it is illegal for insurance companies to collect this information.

But the actuarial tables still place higher odds of death in homes with a firearm, regardless of training or secure storage.
 
2013-04-20 02:03:49 PM  

udhq: BraveNewCheneyWorld: skozlaw: Plus, it's just a statistical fact that owning a gun increases your odds of being killed by a gun.

Just like owning a car increases your chances of being killed in a car accident!!  That doesn't mean there's not an overwhelming number of benefits to having a car that outweigh that risk.  Your "logic" is idiotic.

No, it's really not.  Gun owners pay more for life and homeowner's insurance because the actuarial tables show that bringing a gun into your home statistically increases the odds of dying a violent death for everyone in that home.

There are a lot of reasons to own a gun, but if someone cites "safety", "protection" or "crime deterrence" that's a pretty clear flag that they don't know what they're talking about.


You know what is an extremely useful metric for assessing one's risk of experiencing gun crime?

Proximity to a high population density of black and Hispanic males between the ages of 15 and 25.

Insurance companies are legally prohibited from using that criterion to underwrite policies, despite its utility.

Buying a gun is also a useful statistical proxy for having information that one is likely to be a crime victim. People who are threatened buy guns. Even if insurers may use gun ownership to assess risk, the mere ownership of a gun does not cause one to be a victim of crime or other insurable loss.

Also, wet streets do not cause rain.
 
2013-04-20 02:04:07 PM  

skozlaw: ronaprhys: In the areas where firearms were banned, the homicide rate is high. Why? Because criminals realize that it's much easier to use a firearm in the commission of a crime when there's not much of a chance of them being shot.

Yes. A firearm they can easily obtain 20 miles east of the ban area and bring back with absolutely no trouble.

Your point again?


You fail at logic and reality is set firmly against you.  That's the point.

Fact - removing restrictions on law-abiding citizens seems to result in lower homicide rates.  Now, not sure about the actual causal link, but the fact is that it continues to happen consistently.

It also seems reasonable that criminals prefer to hunt in areas where law-abiding citizens can't own firearms.
 
2013-04-20 02:06:37 PM  

udhq: Dimensio: udhq: No, it's really not.  Gun owners pay more for life and homeowner's insurance because the actuarial tables show that bringing a gun into your home statistically increases the odds of dying a violent death for everyone in that home.

Neither my life insurance application nor my renter's insurance application included questions regarding firearm possession.

You're right, I misspoke.  In some states, it is illegal for insurance companies to collect this information.

But the actuarial tables still place higher odds of death in homes with a firearm, regardless of training or secure storage.


They'd also point out a higher chance of death via vehicles for those who own cars.  As pointed out downthread, benefits outweight the risk.
 
2013-04-20 02:07:57 PM  

namatad: ROFL

Would this invalidate the need to have a FOID card?
I love the fact that this could overrule any and all chicago laws by default.

/as much as you and I might be against gun ownership, illinois is the ONLY state left which does not permit concealed carry.
/strange but true


Wait, wouldn't "constitutional carry" invalidate Chicago's Firearm Permit?
I have no need for a permit to use my constitutional rights.

LOL
This might be the lawsuit which I have been looking for!!
LOL
 
2013-04-20 02:08:49 PM  

udhq: BraveNewCheneyWorld: skozlaw: Plus, it's just a statistical fact that owning a gun increases your odds of being killed by a gun.

Just like owning a car increases your chances of being killed in a car accident!!  That doesn't mean there's not an overwhelming number of benefits to having a car that outweigh that risk.  Your "logic" is idiotic.

No, it's really not.  Gun owners pay more for life and homeowner's insurance because the actuarial tables show that bringing a gun into your home statistically increases the odds of dying a violent death for everyone in that home.

There are a lot of reasons to own a gun, but if someone cites "safety", "protection" or "crime deterrence" that's a pretty clear flag that they don't know what they're talking about.


Where did you get that information?  Because I've never been asked about gun ownership.  Also if guns serve no legitimate purpose, they why do police carry them?  Also..

* Guns are used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year-or about 6,850 times a day.(1) This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.(2)

The benefits outweigh the liabilities.
 
2013-04-20 02:11:59 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Where did you get that information? Because I've never been asked about gun ownership. Also if guns serve no legitimate purpose, they why do police carry them? Also..

* Guns are used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year-or about 6,850 times a day.(1) This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.(2)

The benefits outweigh the liabilities.


Kleck's work has been thoroughly debunked. The math itself is inherently absurd.

Hardly surprising, though, I should see you posting long-since-discredited crap. I assume you'll flee this thread with your tail between your legs like you did last time I utterly embarrassed you?
 
2013-04-20 02:12:49 PM  

ronaprhys: Fact - removing restrictions on law-abiding citizens seems to result in lower homicide rates.


Yea. I'm the one who doesn't understand logic.
 
2013-04-20 02:13:07 PM  

udhq: Dimensio: udhq: No, it's really not.  Gun owners pay more for life and homeowner's insurance because the actuarial tables show that bringing a gun into your home statistically increases the odds of dying a violent death for everyone in that home.

Neither my life insurance application nor my renter's insurance application included questions regarding firearm possession.

You're right, I misspoke.  In some states, it is illegal for insurance companies to collect this information.

But the actuarial tables still place higher odds of death in homes with a firearm, regardless of training or secure storage.


What they don't address , however is the cause behind it.  Are those deaths because the people getting the firearm live in a higher crime area, therefore putting them at more risk to begin with (which leads them to getting a gun)?  Or is it being killed by their own gun?  Defending themselves from a home invasion?  Stating that someone with a gun in their home is more likely to be killed by a gun loses some of its validity without the supporting information.
 
2013-04-20 02:13:33 PM  

skozlaw: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Where did you get that information? Because I've never been asked about gun ownership. Also if guns serve no legitimate purpose, they why do police carry them? Also..

* Guns are used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year-or about 6,850 times a day.(1) This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.(2)

The benefits outweigh the liabilities.

Kleck's work has been thoroughly debunked. The math itself is inherently absurd.

Hardly surprising, though, I should see you posting long-since-discredited crap. I assume you'll flee this thread with your tail between your legs like you did last time I utterly embarrassed you?


That doesn't obviate the fact that firearms are frequently used for self-defense and that they stop crime.  Even the Brady study had a number that completely outweighed the number of homicides.

So, try again.
 
2013-04-20 02:14:53 PM  

skozlaw: ronaprhys: Fact - removing restrictions on law-abiding citizens seems to result in lower homicide rates.

Yea. I'm the one who doesn't understand logic.


From what I can see, yep, you are.  Seriously - you've not proposed a single argument here that stands up to even mild scrutiny.
 
2013-04-20 02:18:30 PM  

skozlaw: Farkage: [snipped for brevity, man]

If the average held, twenty seven people were the victim of a homicide yesterday in which the weapon used was a firearm. Plus, it's just a statistical fact that owning a gun increases your odds of being killed by a gun.

You're gonna need a lot more anecdotes to make any sort of mathematically sensible argument here.

/ protip: very few people will ever by the victim of a violent assault, which means both that the average person has little reason to fear the homicide-by-firearm statistic and has very little reason to carry a firearm for self defense

// it's almost like the gun debate isn't specifically about you....


If the average held, 118 people died yesterday in car crashes. Plus it's just a statistical fact that owning a car increases your odds of being killed by a car.
 
2013-04-20 02:22:24 PM  

way south: Mock26: way south: BigBooper: Fark It: Silly Jesus: I love that they are continuing to ignore the real problem out of political correctness.  The problem, Illinois, is a certain culture that exists in your largest city, not the average lawful gun owner.

"Hurrr, the real problem is the blacks!"

Chicago's ghetto culture is about far more than just skin tone.....

And Chicago's problem with violence is about far more than just guns....

But guns at least allow the residents to fend for themselves where government is failing.
If they go concealed carry its going to be interesting to see how crime rates there repond.

So far as concealed carry bans, if I recall Hawaii and the US territories still have bans on carry and heavily restricted ownership (where its even allowed).
Getting all stats in on concealed carry would be a big win for us on the fringes.

It will be just like anywhere else.  The crimes rates will drop.  Or rise.  Or stay the same.

I expect a drop, but I'm hesitant to say they simply drop or rise more than just change to different kinds of crimes depending on how they are counted. Fewer rapes and assaults, more daylight (absent homeowner) break-ins.

As long as bad people are on the loose the devil will have his due. The point is allowing the good ones a means to keep the bad guys in check.
Fixing the crime problem is going to take work in alot of areas, but concealed carry would allow legal use of an age old stopgap measure.


There really is no correlation between concealed carry laws and crime rate.  Some places with strict laws have high crime rates.  Some places with strict laws have low crime rates.  I do believe that concealed carry laws do have an effect, but that effect is negligible when compared to all the other factors that contribute to crime rates.  Now, that effect is not negligible for the person who does successfully defend themselves with a firearm, and that is why I fully support concealed and open carry laws.
 
2013-04-20 02:22:27 PM  

ronaprhys: Even the Brady study had a number that completely outweighed the number of homicides.


Ignoring the fact that you're intentionally dragging me into an argument I wasn't participating in by intentionally misinterpreting my response to another poster....

And? The Kleck study, when his ridiculous math is corrected, finds about 200,000 self defense incidences per year involving a firearm. The NIJ reports that in 2011 there were over 467,000 victims of a crime involving a perp with a gun. In other words, even when you limit criminal victims only to those victimized by a perp with a gun, guns are still used in crimes about twice as often as they're used by citizens to stop all manner of crimes.

But, no, you're right. The completely irrelevant and ridiculous statement that guns are used for self defense across all categories of crime more often than they're used just to kill someone is true.

Pointless... but true.
 
2013-04-20 02:23:10 PM  

mizchief: Schroedinger's Glory Hole: The only solution I see is to tell gun manufacturers to GTFO, but that wouldn't make me a viable politician.

The fun part is when states pass these restrictive gun laws, but then make exceptions so that the big manufacturers can keep operating in the state so they don't lose the jobs.


Isn't Magpul actually leaving CO?  And I read something about a company in CT getting ready to do the same, no?

Even telling the mfrs to leave won't work.  Something on the order of 1 firearm per citizen exists at this point.  Plus, firearms are surprisingly durable and manage to last quite a long time with very basic amounts of maintenance.

And making them is easy.  Just ask the French Resistance.
 
2013-04-20 02:23:54 PM  

ArkAngel: If the average held, 118 people died yesterday in car crashes. Plus it's just a statistical fact that owning a car increases your odds of being killed by a car.


Both of those things are true.

But what's your point?

ronaprhys: From what I can see, yep, you are. Seriously - you've not proposed a single argument here that stands up to even mild scrutiny.


You honestly believe that you're making sense, don't you?
 
2013-04-20 02:26:23 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: udhq: BraveNewCheneyWorld: skozlaw: Plus, it's just a statistical fact that owning a gun increases your odds of being killed by a gun.

Just like owning a car increases your chances of being killed in a car accident!!  That doesn't mean there's not an overwhelming number of benefits to having a car that outweigh that risk.  Your "logic" is idiotic.

No, it's really not.  Gun owners pay more for life and homeowner's insurance because the actuarial tables show that bringing a gun into your home statistically increases the odds of dying a violent death for everyone in that home.

There are a lot of reasons to own a gun, but if someone cites "safety", "protection" or "crime deterrence" that's a pretty clear flag that they don't know what they're talking about.

Where did you get that information?  Because I've never been asked about gun ownership.  Also if guns serve no legitimate purpose, they why do police carry them?  Also..

* Guns are used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year-or about 6,850 times a day.(1) This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.(2)

The benefits outweigh the liabilities.


Yeah, about that 2.5 million number?  Not so much.

 More like 70,000, meaning your gun is 4 times more likely to injure or kill a member of your household than defend against any sort of crime.

Like I said, there a lot of good reasons to own guns.  But "safety" just ain't one of them.
 
2013-04-20 02:27:20 PM  

skozlaw: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Where did you get that information? Because I've never been asked about gun ownership. Also if guns serve no legitimate purpose, they why do police carry them? Also..

* Guns are used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year-or about 6,850 times a day.(1) This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.(2)

The benefits outweigh the liabilities.

Kleck's work has been thoroughly debunked. The math itself is inherently absurd.

Hardly surprising, though, I should see you posting long-since-discredited crap. I assume you'll flee this thread with your tail between your legs like you did last time I utterly embarrassed you?


I'm starting to think you're mentally unstable.  Seriously, what the hell is wrong with you?  You keep mentioning this fantasy you had of "schooling" me.  Actually, the last time you brought this up, I had to go and look up what the hell you were talking about.  After looking through the old thread, I found out that  you're just a half wit suffering from the dunning kruger effect, and didn't warrant any more attention.  It's more than a little disturbing that you apparently have this delusion that you're my nemesis when in fact, you're entirely benign.
 
2013-04-20 02:29:32 PM  

udhq: BraveNewCheneyWorld: skozlaw: Plus, it's just a statistical fact that owning a gun increases your odds of being killed by a gun.

Just like owning a car increases your chances of being killed in a car accident!!  That doesn't mean there's not an overwhelming number of benefits to having a car that outweigh that risk.  Your "logic" is idiotic.

No, it's really not.  Gun owners pay more for life and homeowner's insurance because the actuarial tables show that bringing a gun into your home statistically increases the odds of dying a violent death for everyone in that home.

There are a lot of reasons to own a gun, but if someone cites "safety", "protection" or "crime deterrence" that's a pretty clear flag that they don't know what they're talking about.


Where did you pick that crap up?
Total falsehood. Insurance rates are unchanged.
Deliberate lie or do you not check the crap you believe? Be honest.

/cannot understand farks who spout lies so easily checked
 
2013-04-20 02:29:39 PM  

skozlaw: ronaprhys: Even the Brady study had a number that completely outweighed the number of homicides.

Ignoring the fact that you're intentionally dragging me into an argument I wasn't participating in by intentionally misinterpreting my response to another poster....

And? The Kleck study, when his ridiculous math is corrected, finds about 200,000 self defense incidences per year involving a firearm. The NIJ reports that in 2011 there were over 467,000 victims of a crime involving a perp with a gun. In other words, even when you limit criminal victims only to those victimized by a perp with a gun, guns are still used in crimes about twice as often as they're used by citizens to stop all manner of crimes.

But, no, you're right. The completely irrelevant and ridiculous statement that guns are used for self defense across all categories of crime more often than they're used just to kill someone is true.

Pointless... but true.


It'd be interesting to see all of the stats surrounding your 467K number - having a firearm in the general vicinity of a crime, whether or not it was actually used, seems like how one might actually screw with the numbers.  Secondly, how many of those crimes were drug-related and were criminal on criminal?   That does make a difference, you know.  Do you have any stats that restrict the crimes to only law-abiding citizens?  Also, there are various other studies that are far over your 200K number.

Again - DGUs well outnumber homicides.  That's a very useful number.
 
2013-04-20 02:32:33 PM  

udhq: Yeah, about that 2.5 million number?  Not so much.


And you cite a study by an overtly pro gun control group?  How about no.
 
2013-04-20 02:32:57 PM  

udhq: BraveNewCheneyWorld: udhq: BraveNewCheneyWorld: skozlaw: Plus, it's just a statistical fact that owning a gun increases your odds of being killed by a gun.

Just like owning a car increases your chances of being killed in a car accident!!  That doesn't mean there's not an overwhelming number of benefits to having a car that outweigh that risk.  Your "logic" is idiotic.

No, it's really not.  Gun owners pay more for life and homeowner's insurance because the actuarial tables show that bringing a gun into your home statistically increases the odds of dying a violent death for everyone in that home.

There are a lot of reasons to own a gun, but if someone cites "safety", "protection" or "crime deterrence" that's a pretty clear flag that they don't know what they're talking about.

Where did you get that information?  Because I've never been asked about gun ownership.  Also if guns serve no legitimate purpose, they why do police carry them?  Also..

* Guns are used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year-or about 6,850 times a day.(1) This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.(2)

The benefits outweigh the liabilities.

Yeah, about that 2.5 million number?  Not so much.

 More like 70,000, meaning your gun is 4 times more likely to injure or kill a member of your household than defend against any sort of crime.

Like I said, there a lot of good reasons to own guns.  But "safety" just ain't one of them.


You need to coordinate with your fellow gun-grabbers a bit better.  Skozlaw just put the number at 200K (which is very low, based on other studies).
 
2013-04-20 02:33:04 PM  
I'm picking up a Browning Hi-Power this afternoon, so I'm getting a kick out of these replies.
 
2013-04-20 02:34:33 PM  

skozlaw: ArkAngel: If the average held, 118 people died yesterday in car crashes. Plus it's just a statistical fact that owning a car increases your odds of being killed by a car.

Both of those things are true.

But what's your point?

ronaprhys: From what I can see, yep, you are. Seriously - you've not proposed a single argument here that stands up to even mild scrutiny.

You honestly believe that you're making sense, don't you?


Don't think it, know it.  I'm not the one using failed arguments that have been clearly been shown false to argue your point.
 
2013-04-20 02:35:04 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: I'm starting to think you're mentally unstable. Seriously, what the hell is wrong with you? You keep mentioning this fantasy you had of "schooling" me. Actually, the last time you brought this up, I had to go and look up what the hell you were talking about. After looking through the old thread, I found out that you're just a half wit suffering from the dunning kruger effect, and didn't warrant any more attention. It's more than a little disturbing that you apparently have this delusion that you're my nemesis when in fact, you're entirely benign.


Soooo..... is this your weird way of admitting that you have absolutely no response to the actual math in that PDF? I assume if that's the case you're recanting your last post?

And you didn't have to "look anything up". I linked your last complete embarrassment for you when I mentioned it. Like this.
 
2013-04-20 02:36:40 PM  

ronaprhys: Don't think it, know it.


Okay, well, you're nuts and I'm more than confident that it's obvious, so I'm going to go ahead and just let our "argument" stand as it is for the ages to decide.
 
2013-04-20 02:38:46 PM  
Has the Fark anti-gun penis envy brigade made it here yet to remind me how small my penis must be because I enjoy firearms?  I always love to read their opinions on the matter.
 
2013-04-20 02:39:25 PM  

skozlaw: ronaprhys: Don't think it, know it.

Okay, well, you're nuts and I'm more than confident that it's obvious, so I'm going to go ahead and just let our "argument" stand as it is for the ages to decide.


The ages called. They said you lost. And embarrassed yourself in the process.
 
2013-04-20 02:40:57 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: udhq: Yeah, about that 2.5 million number?  Not so much.

And you cite a study by an overtly pro gun control group?  How about no.


Hmmm, so an institution that produces an academic study that fails to reinforce your preconceived beliefs can be summarily dismissed as "overtly pro gun control", but YOUR OWN STATISTIC comes from a non-academic paper (that's a significant word, notice how it's a "paper", and not a "study") produced by a self-identified gun lobby?

This, ladies and gentlemen, is the very definition of living in an ideological bubble.
 
2013-04-20 02:41:05 PM  

SCUBA_Archer: Has the Fark anti-gun penis envy brigade made it here yet to remind me how small my penis must be because I enjoy firearms?  I always love to read their opinions on the matter.


It's been relatively penis-free today.
 
2013-04-20 02:43:05 PM  

Fark It: Silly Jesus: I love that they are continuing to ignore the real problem out of political correctness.  The problem, Illinois, is a certain culture that exists in your largest city, not the average lawful gun owner.

"Hurrr, the real problem is the blacks!"

Chicago's ghetto culture is about far more than just skin tone.....


I was in Cabela's in Hammond yesterday. The guy at the gun counter said a couple illinois gang banger types were in not to long ago and he overheard one say to the other 'Don't mess wit no old guys in Indiana. They'll kill you'.
 
2013-04-20 02:45:11 PM  

snocone: udhq: BraveNewCheneyWorld: skozlaw: Plus, it's just a statistical fact that owning a gun increases your odds of being killed by a gun.

Just like owning a car increases your chances of being killed in a car accident!!  That doesn't mean there's not an overwhelming number of benefits to having a car that outweigh that risk.  Your "logic" is idiotic.

No, it's really not.  Gun owners pay more for life and homeowner's insurance because the actuarial tables show that bringing a gun into your home statistically increases the odds of dying a violent death for everyone in that home.

There are a lot of reasons to own a gun, but if someone cites "safety", "protection" or "crime deterrence" that's a pretty clear flag that they don't know what they're talking about.

Where did you pick that crap up?
Total falsehood. Insurance rates are unchanged.
Deliberate lie or do you not check the crap you believe? Be honest.

/cannot understand farks who spout lies so easily checked


Boy, you sure showed me with all that "evidence" you posted.....
 
2013-04-20 02:46:42 PM  

ronaprhys: mizchief: Schroedinger's Glory Hole: The only solution I see is to tell gun manufacturers to GTFO, but that wouldn't make me a viable politician.

The fun part is when states pass these restrictive gun laws, but then make exceptions so that the big manufacturers can keep operating in the state so they don't lose the jobs.

Isn't Magpul actually leaving CO?  And I read something about a company in CT getting ready to do the same, no?

Even telling the mfrs to leave won't work.  Something on the order of 1 firearm per citizen exists at this point.  Plus, firearms are surprisingly durable and manage to last quite a long time with very basic amounts of maintenance.

And making them is easy.  Just ask the French Resistance.


I'm from CT, even I was shocked to hear that companies are actually going to leave.  Personally, the laws we passed are kind of retarded but it's nice to see people stick to their convictions when money is on the line, we'll see how long that shiat lasts.

There are too many, which is why I said before I think the battle is already lost.  But I try not to be a pessimist and look at what is controllable which is only future production.

However, making them is not easy.  Making a zip gun is fairly easy I guess, but unreliable.  It's a lot better if you have a manufactured one.  If you're going to kill someone, you better make sure you're going to get the job done.  I suppose you can make a bomb too, but only a shiatty one and it's hard to control exactly who you kill.  Murder of a random isn't really that common, there is usually a specific target.  Now if you have four months and a lot of dedication, you can try to make a masterpiece like McVeigh and just hope your target is at work that day.
 
2013-04-20 02:53:49 PM  

mizchief: ronaprhys: mizchief: Schroedinger's Glory Hole: The only solution I see is to tell gun manufacturers to GTFO, but that wouldn't make me a viable politician.

The fun part is when states pass these restrictive gun laws, but then make exceptions so that the big manufacturers can keep operating in the state so they don't lose the jobs.

Isn't Magpul actually leaving CO?  And I read something about a company in CT getting ready to do the same, no?

Even telling the mfrs to leave won't work.  Something on the order of 1 firearm per citizen exists at this point.  Plus, firearms are surprisingly durable and manage to last quite a long time with very basic amounts of maintenance.

And making them is easy.  Just ask the French Resistance.

Or Mexican drug cartels

[m5.paperblog.com image 320x242]

[www.everydaynodaysoff.com image 770x808]

[resources0.news.com.au image 316x211]

Like with any other form of prohibition, you end up with a totally unregulated black market.


That is some of the worst welding I have ever seen.  Was it done in a Mexican back alley  ... oh, it was... 

snocone: udhq: BraveNewCheneyWorld: skozlaw: Plus, it's just a statistical fact that owning a gun increases your odds of being killed by a gun.

Just like owning a car increases your chances of being killed in a car accident!!  That doesn't mean there's not an overwhelming number of benefits to having a car that outweigh that risk.  Your "logic" is idiotic.

No, it's really not.  Gun owners pay more for life and homeowner's insurance because the actuarial tables show that bringing a gun into your home statistically increases the odds of dying a violent death for everyone in that home.

There are a lot of reasons to own a gun, but if someone cites "safety", "protection" or "crime deterrence" that's a pretty clear flag that they don't know what they're talking about.

Where did you pick that crap up?
Total falsehood. Insurance rates are unchanged.
Deliberate lie or do you not check the crap you believe? Be honest.

/cannot understand farks who spout lies so easily checked


You know, I can explain how that happens.  First you need a child.  Someone in their 20's or later that has never really had any actual personal responsibility.  This person would be lucky to have insurance at all, much less pay the bill themselves.  Then, you get that child into a conversation about things they know nothing what so ever.  They want to seem smart and participate by saying something that A) makes sense, but isn't true or B) repeat something that isn't true but they heard it from another child with no actual knowledge.  If the child knows it's not true, the response to being called on it is usually vile.  If they didn't know, it's usually along the lines of "oh fark me".

In either case, the important factor is the relative life experiences.  Young people with no property have no experience on the subject, but boy they talk very loudly anyway.
 
2013-04-20 02:54:19 PM  

Schroedinger's Glory Hole: I'm from CT, even I was shocked to hear that companies are actually going to leave.  Personally, the laws we passed are kind of retarded but it's nice to see people stick to their convictions when money is on the line, we'll see how long that shiat lasts.

There are too many, which is why I said before I think the battle is already lost.  But I try not to be a pessimist and look at what is controllable which is only future production.

However, making them is not easy.  Making a zip gun is fairly easy I guess, but unreliable.  It's a lot better if you have a manufactured one.  If you're going to kill someone, you better make sure you're going to get the job done.  I suppose you can make a bomb too, but only a shiatty one and it's hard to control exactly who you kill.  Murder of a random isn't really that common, there is usually a specific target.  Now if you have four months and a lot of dedication, you can try to make a masterpiece like McVeigh and just hope your target is at work that day.


Actually, it is pretty easy.  The 1911 design is over 100 years old.  AKs are made by folks all the time, in other countries.  In fact, I remember ready of markets in the ME where using very basic tools people clone all sorts of stamped steel firearms.

Even revolvers can be made pretty easily.  I'm betting that with a Smithy 3n1 a person could, with a bit of time and effort, make a pretty high quality firearm that's very reliable.  It'd be a decent amount of work, but doable.

However, for criminals who plan on using them to rob someone, the firearm doesn't actually have to work for the most part - just look like it's pretty likely that it'll work.  But, as you note, there are a huge number of firearms out there and there's no practical way to reduce that number by any appreciable amount without crapping all over the Constitution.
 
2013-04-20 02:55:06 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: udhq: Yeah, about that 2.5 million number?  Not so much.

And you cite a study by an overtly pro gun control group?  How about no.


The Department of Justice puts the number at closer to 80,000 a year.  Just saying.
 
2013-04-20 02:56:54 PM  

skozlaw: ronaprhys: Don't think it, know it.

Okay, well, you're nuts and I'm more than confident that it's obvious, so I'm going to go ahead and just let our "argument" stand as it is for the ages to decide.


So, let's see.  When I pointed out that your argument around firearm restrictions was failed, you came up with nothing.  When you tried to argue that owning a firearm contributed nothing to safety and that was clearly discredited, you moved the goalposts.

Way to go, sparky.
 
2013-04-20 02:58:24 PM  

Mock26: BraveNewCheneyWorld: udhq: Yeah, about that 2.5 million number?  Not so much.

And you cite a study by an overtly pro gun control group?  How about no.

The Department of Justice puts the number at closer to 80,000 a year.  Just saying.


The DoJ won't get reports of every DGU.  That's the problem.  Which is why surveys are likely more reliable.  Unfortunately, there's a huge variation in numbers based methodology and so forth.
 
2013-04-20 03:03:31 PM  

ronaprhys: Schroedinger's Glory Hole: I'm from CT, even I was shocked to hear that companies are actually going to leave.  Personally, the laws we passed are kind of retarded but it's nice to see people stick to their convictions when money is on the line, we'll see how long that shiat lasts.

There are too many, which is why I said before I think the battle is already lost.  But I try not to be a pessimist and look at what is controllable which is only future production.

However, making them is not easy.  Making a zip gun is fairly easy I guess, but unreliable.  It's a lot better if you have a manufactured one.  If you're going to kill someone, you better make sure you're going to get the job done.  I suppose you can make a bomb too, but only a shiatty one and it's hard to control exactly who you kill.  Murder of a random isn't really that common, there is usually a specific target.  Now if you have four months and a lot of dedication, you can try to make a masterpiece like McVeigh and just hope your target is at work that day.

Actually, it is pretty easy.  The 1911 design is over 100 years old.  AKs are made by folks all the time, in other countries.  In fact, I remember ready of markets in the ME where using very basic tools people clone all sorts of stamped steel firearms.

Even revolvers can be made pretty easily.  I'm betting that with a Smithy 3n1 a person could, with a bit of time and effort, make a pretty high quality firearm that's very reliable.  It'd be a decent amount of work, but doable.

However, for criminals who plan on using them to rob someone, the firearm doesn't actually have to work for the most part - just look like it's pretty likely that it'll work.  But, as you note, there are a huge number of firearms out there and there's no practical way to reduce that number by any appreciable amount without crapping all over the Constitution.


Okay, there will be people that can make relatively well made firearms, and they'll try to sell a bunch of them too.  I was referring more to the regular individual being able to make one.  Having to know a guy who makes guns and trust his craftsmanship would be enough I hope to deter a bulk of people that are trying to shoot someone up.
 
2013-04-20 03:09:53 PM  

Mock26: BraveNewCheneyWorld: udhq: Yeah, about that 2.5 million number?  Not so much.

And you cite a study by an overtly pro gun control group?  How about no.

The Department of Justice puts the number at closer to 80,000 a year.  Just saying.


Even if it's that low, the number of murders is only 12,000, which means there is a net benefit to having a gun.
 
2013-04-20 03:15:46 PM  

devildog123: My cousin and his husband both have ccws and they own two very nice M4s (I bought them, customized them and provided training as their engagement present) as well. They both say that they can't understand why more gay men AREN'T pro second amendment.


The read "ccws" as "cows" at first.

Now I could understand being armed around pigs, but cows aren't typically bright enough to pick up on it.
 
Displayed 50 of 310 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


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

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

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

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report