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.

(WSMV Nashville)   Senator Campfield posted a photo that has been circulating on many gun rights websites, showing what is titled as an "assault pressure cooker" and includes labels such as "tactical pistol grip" and "can cook for hours without reloading"   (wsmv.com) divider line 270
    More: Dumbass, Campfield, Channel 4 News, assault pressure cooker, Sandy Hook Elementary School, senator  
•       •       •

3710 clicks; posted to Politics » on 23 Apr 2013 at 10:11 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-23 04:45:44 PM
That headline accurately represents the anit-gun logic of the AWB.
 
2013-04-23 05:16:12 PM
Jegred2:
If you look at the stats I'd guess that in most of these similar countries that have less guns that the violent crime just shifted from guns to other types. Gun grabbers don't care about violent crime unless it involves a gun.

Whoops! Good thing Canada isn't on that list. Looks like violent crime is and has been trending down since the peak in the 1970s. Violent crime involving weapons of any sort is down too. Our criminals aren't using knives or bats any more frequently than firearms just because we have gun control. The very fact that violent crime is trending down as a whole undermines your assumption.
 
2013-04-23 05:24:44 PM
CPennypacker:I did address your point. "Fixing the crazies" is a canard. It'll be easier to repeal the second amendment entirely than it will be to pass mental health medical reform so intensive and comprehensive that we fix all the crazies. Let's work on improving mental healthcare in this country and along the way we can keep people who are unstable from owning dangerous weaponry.

That wasn't so difficult, was it?

I don't have a problem with "keep people who are unstable from owning dangerous weaponry" as long as said proposals don't stop/infringe on anyone else's right to own dangerous weapons.

I don't see anyone submitting proposals that actually would do that.
 
2013-04-23 05:25:18 PM

Mouldy Squid: Jegred2:
If you look at the stats I'd guess that in most of these similar countries that have less guns that the violent crime just shifted from guns to other types. Gun grabbers don't care about violent crime unless it involves a gun.

Whoops! Good thing Canada isn't on that list. Looks like violent crime is and has been trending down since the peak in the 1970s. Violent crime involving weapons of any sort is down too. Our criminals aren't using knives or bats any more frequently than firearms just because we have gun control. The very fact that violent crime is trending down as a whole undermines your assumption.


I should have added this too.

FTFA:
"Long-term decline in firearm-related homicides due to lower use of rifles or shotgunsPolice reported 190 homicides that were committed with a firearm in 2006, 33 fewer than the previous year. Although there have been annual fluctuations, the rate of firearm-related homicides has remained relatively stable over the past decade.

The rate of homicide committed with a firearm declined throughout most of the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s. As a result, the rate in 2006 was about half of what it was 30 years earlier.

This decline is largely attributable to an 86% decrease in the rate of homicide involving rifles or shotguns between 1975 and 2006. The rate of homicide involving handguns remained relatively stable over this period.

The use of handguns surpassed rifles or shotguns for the first time in 1991. By 2006, three times as many victims were killed with a handgun than with a rifle or shotgun.

Prior to 1985, shootings were much more common than stabbings. Since then, shootings and stabbings have each accounted for about one-third of all homicides annually."


It should be noted that the period of greatest decline co-incides with the period during changes to our Firearms Act, specifically when we started to regulate firearms a bit more seriously. Things like licensing, required firearms training as a prerequisite for ownership, requiring valid licenses for ammunition purchases, magazine capacity limits.
 
2013-04-23 05:31:52 PM
Mouldy Squid:
It should be noted that the period of greatest decline co-incides with the period during changes to our Firearms Act, specifically when we started to regulate firearms a bit more seriously. Things like licensing, required firearms training as a prerequis ...

Mexico has laws much stricter, and murder rates off the charts.

Maybe the difference has more to do with Canada's more affluent population, good healthcare, and robust economy.
 
2013-04-23 05:43:32 PM

BayouOtter: Mouldy Squid:
It should be noted that the period of greatest decline co-incides with the period during changes to our Firearms Act, specifically when we started to regulate firearms a bit more seriously. Things like licensing, required firearms training as a prerequis ...

Mexico has laws much stricter, and murder rates off the charts.

Maybe the difference has more to do with Canada's more affluent population, good healthcare, and robust economy.


Yes there is a difference between the murder rates in Canada and Mexico, and yes, affluence and robust economy have an effect on that, however, those factors do not explain why our gun crime decreased during periods of tighter regulation. Canada was in a recession throughout much of the late 70s and 80s, and yet gun crime dropped, and has been dropping steadily since.

Besides, Mexico is hardly an affluent Western Nation like the ones that were quoted above. Now if someplace like Sweden had a higher homicide rate with stricter firearms laws than Canada you might have a point. I know Mexico is on the list, but it's the outlier, not the norm. Finland, Sweden, Switzerland, France, Norway.

The fact remains that I have provided actual evidence about gun regulation and the reduction in gun crime in an affluent western nation that contradicts what <a target="_blank" data-cke-saved-href="<a href=" href="<a href=" http:="" www.fark.com="" users="" jegred2"="">Jegred2 was "guessing" about.
 
2013-04-23 05:51:12 PM

Mouldy Squid: BayouOtter: Mouldy Squid:
It should be noted that the period of greatest decline co-incides with the period during changes to our Firearms Act, specifically when we started to regulate firearms a bit more seriously. Things like licensing, required firearms training as a prerequis ...

Mexico has laws much stricter, and murder rates off the charts.

Maybe the difference has more to do with Canada's more affluent population, good healthcare, and robust economy.

Yes there is a difference between the murder rates in Canada and Mexico, and yes, affluence and robust economy have an effect on that, however, those factors do not explain why our gun crime decreased during periods of tighter regulation. Canada was in a recession throughout much of the late 70s and 80s, and yet gun crime dropped, and has been dropping steadily since.

Besides, Mexico is hardly an affluent Western Nation like the ones that were quoted above. Now if someplace like Sweden had a higher homicide rate with stricter firearms laws than Canada you might have a point. I know Mexico is on the list, but it's the outlier, not the norm. Finland, Sweden, Switzerland, France, Norway.

The fact remains that I have provided actual evidence about gun regulation and the reduction in gun crime in an affluent western nation that contradicts what Jegred2 was "guessing" about.


And I should have had this quote in there too:

"Canada's 2006 firearm homicide rate was nearly six times lower than the United States. But it was about three times higher than the rate in Australia and six times higher than in England and Wales. The rate of non-firearm homicide was fairly similar in all four countries. "

That provides the context you are wanting to apply to Canada and Mexico. When we compare Canada to the United States, it is clear that our firearm homicide rate is lower. When we compare Canada to countries that are even more similar such as Australia (very strict gun control) and England and Wales (even stricter gun control), our firearms homicide rate is higher. The real kicker is that non-firearms homicides are about the same for all four countries. This is certainly strong evidence that tighter gun control leads to fewer firearms homicides.
 
2013-04-23 05:52:37 PM

Zeno-25: optimistic_cynic: Jim_Callahan: optimistic_cynic: True but even in competition the object is do destroy the object you're shooting at whether it be a paper target or clay pigeons, it is still a tool for destruction. I would say the same for for archery as well.

/likes guns but does support stronger background checks

By that logic, boiling things in pressurized oil isn't exactly good for them, or constructive...

Perhaps, but I'm still pretty sure that guns were originally designed for killing and killing only as opposed to say a knife that has both utility and killing purposes.

Guns aren't designed to kill people, they're designed to propel a projectile towards a target accurately. If guns were designed for killing people, target practice or hunting would be a misuse of the gun. By that line offor logic, every shot fired that didn't kill someone would be a misuse of a firearm.

The "guns are designed for killing people" line is just a bunch of emotional hyperbole.


False. They are designed for killing people and tasty animals.  Anything else is ignoring their primary function.
 
2013-04-23 05:56:19 PM

doglover: That headline accurately represents the anit-gun logic of the AWB.


But it still does nothing to explain why we shouldn't strengthen background checks though.
 
2013-04-23 06:02:30 PM

Tamater: Late to the party, but, can we have a conversation on WHY high-capacity magazines should be banned?

In a mass shooting situation, the shooter only has, at best, a few seconds to unload into a crowd of people as they start running for their lives.

If the shooter has to switch guns or reload, it gives the victims a few seconds to get further away and closer to safety.

Can anyone make an argument for why they would NEED a high-capacity magazine? (aside from "because freedom".....because you don't have the freedom to drive drunk at 200MPH or to get naked in Times Square and helicopter your dick around)


30-round magazine's are standard size for the ar-15.

Do you NEED a car?
 
2013-04-23 06:06:52 PM

Mouldy Squid: BayouOtter: Mouldy Squid:
It should be noted that the period of greatest decline co-incides with the period during changes to our Firearms Act, specifically when we started to regulate firearms a bit more seriously. Things like licensing, required firearms training as a prerequis ...

Mexico has laws much stricter, and murder rates off the charts.

Maybe the difference has more to do with Canada's more affluent population, good healthcare, and robust economy.

Yes there is a difference between the murder rates in Canada and Mexico, and yes, affluence and robust economy have an effect on that, however, those factors do not explain why our gun crime decreased during periods of tighter regulation. Canada was in a recession throughout much of the late 70s and 80s, and yet gun crime dropped, and has been dropping steadily since.

Besides, Mexico is hardly an affluent Western Nation like the ones that were quoted above. Now if someplace like Sweden had a higher homicide rate with stricter firearms laws than Canada you might have a point. I know Mexico is on the list, but it's the outlier, not the norm. Finland, Sweden, Switzerland, France, Norway.

The fact remains that I have provided actual evidence about gun regulation and the reduction in gun crime in an affluent western nation that contradicts what <a target="_blank" data-cke-saved-href="<a href=" href="<a href=" http:="" www.fark.com="" users="" jegred2"="">Jegred2 was "guessing" about.


I was never arguing that gun crime didn't decrease, just that as gun crime went down other types of violent crime went up. Meaning that people that want to heavily regulate guns don't care about violent crime as long as it doesn't involve a gun.
 
2013-04-23 06:13:06 PM

Jegred2: Mouldy Squid: BayouOtter: Mouldy Squid:
It should be noted that the period of greatest decline co-incides with the period during changes to our Firearms Act, specifically when we started to regulate firearms a bit more seriously. Things like licensing, required firearms training as a prerequis ...

Mexico has laws much stricter, and murder rates off the charts.

Maybe the difference has more to do with Canada's more affluent population, good healthcare, and robust economy.

Yes there is a difference between the murder rates in Canada and Mexico, and yes, affluence and robust economy have an effect on that, however, those factors do not explain why our gun crime decreased during periods of tighter regulation. Canada was in a recession throughout much of the late 70s and 80s, and yet gun crime dropped, and has been dropping steadily since.

Besides, Mexico is hardly an affluent Western Nation like the ones that were quoted above. Now if someplace like Sweden had a higher homicide rate with stricter firearms laws than Canada you might have a point. I know Mexico is on the list, but it's the outlier, not the norm. Finland, Sweden, Switzerland, France, Norway.

The fact remains that I have provided actual evidence about gun regulation and the reduction in gun crime in an affluent western nation that contradicts what <a target="_blank" data-cke-saved-href="<a href=" href="<a href=" http:="" www.fark.com="" users="" jegred2"="">Jegred2 was "guessing" about.

I was never arguing that gun crime didn't decrease, just that as gun crime went down other types of violent crime went up. Meaning that people that want to heavily regulate guns don't care about violent crime as long as it doesn't involve a gun.


Fair enough. However if you look a couple of posts above you will see that in a study comparing the US, Canada, Australia, England and Wales, the non-firearms homicide did not, and does not, increase because of stricter gun control. The very fact the non-firearms homicide rate is similar between countries with widely varying gun control, but similar culture, economics and affluence, shows that your "guess" is incorrect.
 
2013-04-23 06:29:14 PM
well, if a kid buys 500 pressure cookers from target [as permissible with ammo], we'll let you know.
 
2013-04-23 06:31:25 PM
(and) guns were of course crucial for defense of the homefront 200 years ago. Now we have robotic pressure cookers that can bring a mean meal right to your doorstep, what are these rednecks going to do about it? Act like muslins firing their guns in the air and shouting?

Morons.
 
m00
2013-04-23 10:02:23 PM
damn, too bad I'm late to this party.
 
2013-04-24 01:52:21 AM

Jegred2: Tamater: Late to the party, but, can we have a conversation on WHY high-capacity magazines should be banned?

In a mass shooting situation, the shooter only has, at best, a few seconds to unload into a crowd of people as they start running for their lives.

If the shooter has to switch guns or reload, it gives the victims a few seconds to get further away and closer to safety.

Can anyone make an argument for why they would NEED a high-capacity magazine? (aside from "because freedom".....because you don't have the freedom to drive drunk at 200MPH or to get naked in Times Square and helicopter your dick around)

30-round magazine's are standard size for the ar-15.

Do you NEED a car?


Then banning the AR-15 is worthwhile.

Yes, I need my car to get to work to provide myself with income upon which to live. I do acknowledge that there rules and restrictions I must follow to continue to own and use my car. I don't begrudge these rules as they are for my safety and the safety of others.

Why not have rules and restrictions on guns, even if you "need" them?

I have no problem with guns. Never owned one and probably never will. Never felt I needed one either.

Then again, I'm not a pants-shiatting coward like so many gun nuts are.
 
2013-04-24 03:18:58 AM

justtray: It's just a crazy coincidence that basically every mass shooter over the last year has used an AR-15. It has nothing to do with the effectiveness of murdering people. A knife would have had the same impact in all those cases.


Oh, come now, you should know that statistically you're going to have streaks. Do you think there's something special about the AR-15 in the last year that has made it unusually more capable than it has been in the previous 40?
 
2013-04-24 09:01:49 AM
I used to work in a frozen food factory, wherein they had a pressure-cooker of mass destruction, capable of holding thousands of gallons at a time.
 
2013-04-24 09:09:04 AM
The AR-15 doesn't even begin to put a scratch in the record of killings the AK-47 holds.
 
2013-04-24 11:57:30 AM

HAMMERTOE: I used to work in a frozen food factory, wherein they had a pressure-cooker of mass destruction, capable of holding thousands of gallons at a time.


So you guys didn't have the technology to miniaturize it and put it in a man-portable delivery platform, the so-called briefcase bomb?
 
Displayed 20 of 270 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report