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.

(LA Times)   In the last 20 years, gun murders have dropped almost by half. Fark: Americans believe gun crime is rising. Thanks, American media   (latimes.com) divider line 832
    More: Followup, Americans, Bureau of Justice Statistics, gun murders, spree killers, Pew Research Center, Small Arms Survey  
•       •       •

6210 clicks; posted to Main » on 08 May 2013 at 9:41 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-05-08 10:15:51 AM

EatsCrayons: Question: the study seems to be about the decline in gun "crimes". What about gun "deaths/injuries"? Is there a statistical difference between the crime stats and accident stats in the U.S.? Just wondering.

In Canada, there is legislation provisions for how guns are stored (locked and unloaded). It did result in a drop for gun-related accidental death/injuries in youth and a significant drop in youth suicide rates. Gun cirmes have also dropped, I think, proportionately to the U.S., but I'd have to review the stats more thoroughly and I don't wanna.


extranosalley.com

Reportedly, hunter safety education programs implemented in the early 1970s are credited for a sudden decline.
 
2013-05-08 10:17:04 AM

nekom: It's just my opinion that it ought to be.


It would be the ultimate coup for your side.  Revised within the process, those who "support the Constitution" would be obliged to support the law.
 
2013-05-08 10:17:20 AM

CPennypacker: Endive Wombat: Dusk-You-n-Me: Endive Wombat: I understand why the left likes to keep those numbers in the stat, because it bolsters their message, but it is disingenuous.

Those people are not any less dead and a gun was not any less involved. Bolster has nothing to do with it.

Fair enough, but suicide is not a crime.  Buttttt...trying to use incorrectly inflated gun death stats as a basis for legislating tighter gun control measures is wrong.

How is it inflated? We want less deaths. I don't follow your logic. Less suicides = less deaths.


Sigh...

Suicide is not a crime.  Yeah, it is a death caused by the use of a gun, but that's it.  So when attempting to legislate tighter gun control (restricting where guns can be carried, magazine capacity, forward pistol grips, universal background checks, etc.), suicide stats have NOTHING to do with any of these things.  Ergo using incorrect data.
 
2013-05-08 10:17:26 AM

GoldSpider: Dimensio: One Farker has explicitly expressed the opinion that stabbing homicides preferable to firearm homicides.

Is that the same person who recuses to compare automobile deaths to gun deaths because "guns are designed to kill people"?


I do not know. Upon observing the individual openly admit that a decline in "gun death" rates is desirable even if the overall homicide rate increases, I disregarded any further commentary from the poster as irrational and without any intellectual merit.
 
2013-05-08 10:17:42 AM

IdBeCrazyIf: Ahhh yes statistics, where we can make them say whatever we want


So we shouldn't try and scientifically explain anything.  Got it.
 
2013-05-08 10:17:43 AM

GoldSpider: CPennypacker: For reference, my official personal stance is that I disagree with the Heller decision and I think that guns should be considered legal but well regulated and not as an individual right

You realize you are in a very small minority, right?


Does that make my opinion invalid?

Last time I checked that decision was 5-4
 
2013-05-08 10:19:00 AM

nekom: Dimensio:
They were both written in the same general era, and they are both pretty much anachronisms.

You are correct; declaration of a protected liberty as an "anachronism" legally eliminates the protection, without any need for actual legislative revision.

Of course it doesn't.  That's just my opinion.  I realize it's not likely to ever go away, but it's as silly as worrying about quartering troops in your house in this day and age.  When the constitution was written, blacks were property, women couldn't vote, etc.  It's not some holy document to be worshiped as gospel.


It's just the founding principles of the entire country. We can just ignore the parts we don't like. Like free speech for those WBC assholes. Ain't nobody got time for that.
 
2013-05-08 10:19:38 AM

GanjSmokr: Sadly, it appears that some people in power seem to think they could make it happen...


At least they're making a more consistent argument.
 
2013-05-08 10:20:09 AM

Princess Ryans Knickers: Let's see.. more areas with more gun control in last 20 years.. gun crime drops. Funny that.


Explain Chicago.
 
2013-05-08 10:20:33 AM

sammyk: Interesting thing about background checks. 20 years ago the Brady act was signed into law implementing actual background checks. Lo and behold 20 years later gun violence is cut in half. But I am sure there will be someone here shortly to tell us the 2 things are in no way connected.


Prior to 1968, there were few federal gun laws, background checks didn't exist, and you could buy a gun through the mail.

And the homicide rate back then was as low as it is now.

Also, if you want to play the "correlation = causation" game, 20 years ago only a handful of states allowed you to carry a gun for protection.  Now 40 states are "must issue".
 
2013-05-08 10:20:42 AM

sammyk: nekom: sammyk: Good. Now lets see if we can do a better job of keeping crazy people from having guns, and felons too. As long as we keep having mass killings we are going to keep having the gun control debate. Just because we have made progress on gun violence doesn't mean we can just throw our hands up in the air and accept the tragedies we keep reliving.

Tough nut to crack, though.  Background checks, for instance, aren't the end all beat all.  Don't get me wrong, I'm all for enhanced background checks, but the newton massacre was carried out by lawfully purchased guns stolen from a crazy person's mother.  Assault weapons bans may have some merit, but you could easily carry out the same sort of mass murder with a few semiautomatic pistols.  Now I'm not saying "It's an impossible task, so why even try?", I'm saying we need some better answers.  I don't really have them, at least none that are the slightest bit politically viable here.  Banning all but single shot rifles and shotguns would probably help immensely, but fat chance of ever seeing that happen here.

Interesting thing about background checks. 20 years ago the Brady act was signed into law implementing actual background checks. Lo and behold 20 years later gun violence is cut in half. But I am sure there will be someone here shortly to tell us the 2 things are in no way connected.


Take a look at figure 42 of http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf.

Handgun crime experienced a peak in the early 90s, then dropped back down to their 80's levels (the rate difference would be greater due to the population increase). Homicide rates due to other guns, knives, blunt objects, and other weapons also dropped. Knife-related homicides dropped from about 4500 to about 2000 between 1980 and 2008 (again, the rate difference would be greater due to the population increase).

This suggests that there was more going on than just gun legislation, unless you can think of a reason that gun legislation reduced knife-related homicides.

/I have no idea what caused that peak in the 90s.
 
2013-05-08 10:21:09 AM

nekom: sammyk: Good. Now lets see if we can do a better job of keeping crazy people from having guns, and felons too. As long as we keep having mass killings we are going to keep having the gun control debate. Just because we have made progress on gun violence doesn't mean we can just throw our hands up in the air and accept the tragedies we keep reliving.

Tough nut to crack, though.  Background checks, for instance, aren't the end all beat all.  Don't get me wrong, I'm all for enhanced background checks, but the newton massacre was carried out by lawfully purchased guns stolen from a crazy person's mother.  Assault weapons bans may have some merit, but you could easily carry out the same sort of mass murder with a few semiautomatic pistols.  Now I'm not saying "It's an impossible task, so why even try?", I'm saying we need some better answers.  I don't really have them, at least none that are the slightest bit politically viable here.  Banning all but single shot rifles and shotguns would probably help immensely, but fat chance of ever seeing that happen here.


I think that last bit would be overreach and would never pass. That's the problem though. Our politics exist on one extreme or the other now and no rational middle ground will be found by either political party.
 
2013-05-08 10:21:13 AM

Endive Wombat: CPennypacker: Endive Wombat: Dusk-You-n-Me: Endive Wombat: I understand why the left likes to keep those numbers in the stat, because it bolsters their message, but it is disingenuous.

Those people are not any less dead and a gun was not any less involved. Bolster has nothing to do with it.

Fair enough, but suicide is not a crime.  Buttttt...trying to use incorrectly inflated gun death stats as a basis for legislating tighter gun control measures is wrong.

How is it inflated? We want less deaths. I don't follow your logic. Less suicides = less deaths.

Sigh...

Suicide is not a crime.  Yeah, it is a death caused by the use of a gun, but that's it.  So when attempting to legislate tighter gun control (restricting where guns can be carried, magazine capacity, forward pistol grips, universal background checks, etc.), suicide stats have NOTHING to do with any of these things.  Ergo using incorrect data.


Oh for fark's sake
 
2013-05-08 10:21:15 AM

fonebone77: America is still higher but its not some crazy number like 20X.


His number of 20x is pretty much bogus.  Right now, the firearm homicide rate in the US is about 3.8 per 100K.  Let see him compare this to his cross section of 22 other contries.  Yes, we may be higher than most of them, but not by an average of 20 times.

/mrshowrules needs to quit drinking the talking point Kool-aid.
 
2013-05-08 10:21:40 AM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: HotWingConspiracy: There are the frequent massacres to consider. We're not supposed to talk about them because it's very insensitive towards gun owners.

If you think massacres are common enough to worry about, you probably also think lottery tickets are a sound investment.


Home invasions are uncommon as well, so I guess you don't really need your guns.
 
2013-05-08 10:21:52 AM
BraveNewCheneyWorld:  In practice, they are shall issue.

Just because they don't jerk us around regrading permits doesn't make it shall issue. Make no mistake the sheriffs like it the way it is.

Alabama sheriff's objected to being forced to grant concealed gun permits to those they considered dangerous or mentally unstable.

/I don't disagree with them.
 
2013-05-08 10:22:12 AM

CPennypacker: Does that make my opinion invalid?


Not at all.

CPennypacker: Last time I checked that decision was 5-4


Heller never should have been that close.  I can't imagine why a supposed constitutional scholar would consider Amendments 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 "individual rights" and exclude 2.
 
2013-05-08 10:23:44 AM

Lt. Cheese Weasel: Explain Chicago.


58% of the guns recovered in Chicago originate from outside the state of Illinois. Chicago is a perfect example of why we need universal background checks on a national level.
 
2013-05-08 10:23:46 AM

soakitincider: 2nd amendment:
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. "


the right of the people to KEEP and BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.


See that part about "a well regulated militia"? That means the Federal Government has the authority to enforce enhanced background checks. Anybody who says otherwise is only seeing what they want to see.
 
2013-05-08 10:23:49 AM

spickus: Alabama sheriff's objected to being forced to grant concealed gun permits to those they considered dangerous or mentally unstable.

/I don't disagree with them.


What qualifies a sheriff to make such a determination?
 
2013-05-08 10:24:06 AM

HotWingConspiracy: Home invasions are uncommon as well, so I guess you don't really need your guns.


So car accidents are uncommon, so you dont need seatbelts?

That is a dumb argument if I ever heard one.
 
2013-05-08 10:24:09 AM

GoldSpider: CPennypacker: Does that make my opinion invalid?

Not at all.

CPennypacker: Last time I checked that decision was 5-4

Heller never should have been that close.  I can't imagine why a supposed constitutional scholar would consider Amendments 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 "individual rights" and exclude 2.


I actually dont think Obama has any position on the 3rd.

I could be wrong
 
2013-05-08 10:24:14 AM

HotWingConspiracy: There are the frequent massacres to consider. We're not supposed to talk about them because it's very insensitive towards gun owners.


Thats like saying that people are frequently kill by lightning or meteor strikes or that people frequently win the lotto.  Just because on the infrequent occasion that it happens it becomes a 24x7 news story for weeks at a time does not mean it is statistically a danger.
 
2013-05-08 10:24:31 AM

GoldSpider: CPennypacker: Does that make my opinion invalid?

Not at all.

CPennypacker: Last time I checked that decision was 5-4

Heller never should have been that close.  I can't imagine why a supposed constitutional scholar would consider Amendments 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 "individual rights" and exclude 2.


That whole militia thing
 
2013-05-08 10:24:38 AM

j__z: Fark Gun thread:

Wash,
rinse,
repeat


They are always good for updating my hoplophobia index.  It's disturbingly large
 
2013-05-08 10:24:50 AM

BayouOtter: mrshowrules: fluffy2097: mrshowrules: The U.S. firearm homicide rate is 20 times higher than the combined rates of 22 countries that are our peers in wealth and population.

Is that per capita?

We have a shiatload more people then 22 other countries. Of course the raw numbers will be higher.

We're also one of the few countries that has guns, so you know. Like if we were the only country that let people drive blue cars we'd have a lot more blue-car accidents than anyone else.

If you look at our overall homicide rates we're not doing so badly.


I highlighted the portion indicating that you have no clue what you are talking about.
 
2013-05-08 10:25:08 AM

cman: I actually dont think Obama has any position on the 3rd.

I could be wrong


I may not be as active in following politics as I once was, but I don't recall Obama being nominated for the SCOTUS.
 
2013-05-08 10:25:16 AM

graeth: These are always such great fun to watch.

Everyone is always already set in their ways and never wants to listen to the other side let alone change their opinion.


There is never going to be a peaceful resolution to the argument about possession of the means of force.

Especially in American politics, where the two sides don't simply lack common ground to begin constructive discourse, but lack even a shred of trust for the other side.  There won't be any compromise between two groups that don't trust the other not to do something horrible to them at the first chance.  Anti-gun people are worried they'll be murdered in the streets by raving armed lunatics.  Pro-gun people are worried they'll be rounded up by armed jackbooted government thugs in the middle of the night and put on trains to gulags.

There's no common ground to build on between the two sides, and what saddens me is I don't see that changing any time soon.  What I do expect is that it'll end in bloodshed.
 
2013-05-08 10:25:18 AM

clkeagle: sammyk: Good. Now lets see if we can do a better job of keeping crazy people from having guns, and felons too. As long as we keep having mass killings we are going to keep having the gun control debate. Just because we have made progress on gun violence doesn't mean we can just throw our hands up in the air and accept the tragedies we keep reliving.

Done in two. Individual homicides by people with their backgrounds checked? Sad, but it's the price of living of a gun-owning society.
Mass homicides by people who had no business touching those weapons in the first place? Those deaths might have been prevented if not for the "don't grab muh gunz" crowd.


I would agree, if only those in charge of drafting legislation would stop using it as a platform for grabbing guns from the wrong people. Often while admitting that it's their true goal. The problem is that our attempts to solve the problem are hijacked by those with an agenda.

What would really create great strides in reducing gun crime is to actually prosecute people who lie on their 4473 form. It's a felony, and yet only an insignificant proportion are ever busted over it.

A felon or other barred individual just lied to try and buy a gun, and nobody's interested in following up on that!? Lanza was rejected a week before sandy hook. And yet we are told there is neither the time nor the interest in enforcing the existing law.

No, we have to strip the property of millions of law abiding Americans instead. Because lord knows THAT's cheap, fast and constitutionally sound.

/rant over
 
2013-05-08 10:25:25 AM

MJMaloney187: See that part about "a well regulated militia"? That means the Federal Government has the authority to enforce enhanced background checks. Anybody who says otherwise is only seeing what they want to see.


No.  Read the Heller decision.
 
2013-05-08 10:25:33 AM
Tell you what Subby. Move to Central Phoenix into a neighborhood with gangs and illegals. You'll see murders and shootings galore.

Or move to the Southside of Chicago. Plenty of gun murders there.

Or just be smug that you live in a neighborhood where that kind of element isn't allowed to put down roots. That you can buy illegal drugs, hire illegal labor, eat at restaurants that hire illegals and not have those same illegals and the violent gangs that control them living across the street from you.

Let me give you an example. The mob used to enforce a general rule about Vegas and Nevada. The mob could murder anyone they wanted pretty much but they had to do it outside of Vegas and outside of Nevada. I'll leave it to Subby to look up the large number of Mafia killings that occurred in Arizona that were tied directly to the Mob in Vegas. But I'll be nice and give you two examples of Mob hits in Arizona tied to Vegas:

1. A Mafia skimmer worked at a Vegas casino. His job was to skim money off of the casino's gambling take and send it upstream to the Mob. His problem was he started skimming for himself. Too much for himself. This skimmer was last seen at a restaurant at 32nd St. and Camelback in Phoenix. He's been missing for years. Recently, just down the street on Camelback a body was found buried at a restaurant that was being demolished. Interestingly, this restaurant was being constructed at the time the skimmer disappeared. The body was never identified. Gee, it must be a coincidence.

2. A man used to run a casino in Vegas. He made the Mob lots of money and everyone--legitimate owners, Mafia owners, and customers--were happy. He just got tired, old and sick of his job so he retired to Arizona. The casino started going downhill and income wasn't what it used to be. The Vegas Mafia asked the guy nicely to come out of retirement. He passed. The Vegas Mafia told the guy to come out of retirement. He said no. The Mafia kidnapped his sister in law who lived in Arizona and murdered her in Arizona. He came out of retirement, left Arizona, and returned to running the Vegas casino.

So there's lots of gun crime and murders in America, Subby. Just be glad your skin is the right color, or your income is the right number of figures, or some powerful people live nearby and you sleep well in the shade of their corruption. Because America is a nasty place in the musty corners.
 
2013-05-08 10:25:36 AM

EatenTheSun: nekom: Dimensio:
They were both written in the same general era, and they are both pretty much anachronisms.

You are correct; declaration of a protected liberty as an "anachronism" legally eliminates the protection, without any need for actual legislative revision.

Of course it doesn't.  That's just my opinion.  I realize it's not likely to ever go away, but it's as silly as worrying about quartering troops in your house in this day and age.  When the constitution was written, blacks were property, women couldn't vote, etc.  It's not some holy document to be worshiped as gospel.

It's just the founding principles of the entire country. We can just ignore the parts we don't like. Like free speech for those WBC assholes. Ain't nobody got time for that.


No more 4th amendment for anyone convicted of a crime related to drugs, violence, guns, money, alcohol, or sex.

The 5th amendment shouldn't apply to people who were caught in the act, not should the 8th apply to people who are accused of really heinous crimes.

I still think that reforming slavery laws and moving away from the absolutist approach to slavery is the key to prosperity in this country.

For those "anachronism" talkers out there, can we start ignoring the 16th amendment too?  It was written at time when a lot of the country didn't have phone service, many places didn't have electricity, women couldn't vote, black people couldn't marry white people in most states, etc.  I mean, for fark's sake, it was written before prohibition.  Why should we be bound by some 100 year old amendment written old white men?
 
2013-05-08 10:25:38 AM

Dimensio: EatsCrayons: Question: the study seems to be about the decline in gun "crimes". What about gun "deaths/injuries"? Is there a statistical difference between the crime stats and accident stats in the U.S.? Just wondering.

In Canada, there is legislation provisions for how guns are stored (locked and unloaded). It did result in a drop for gun-related accidental death/injuries in youth and a significant drop in youth suicide rates. Gun cirmes have also dropped, I think, proportionately to the U.S., but I'd have to review the stats more thoroughly and I don't wanna.

[extranosalley.com image 591x398]

Reportedly, hunter safety education programs implemented in the early 1970s are credited for a sudden decline.


I don't really see a sudden drop in the 70s, personally. I see one for WWII, though, which makes sense for a lot of reasons.
 
2013-05-08 10:25:45 AM

HeadLever: fonebone77: America is still higher but its not some crazy number like 20X.

His number of 20x is pretty much bogus.  Right now, the firearm homicide rate in the US is about 3.8 per 100K.  Let see him compare this to his cross section of 22 other contries.  Yes, we may be higher than most of them, but not by an average of 20 times.

/mrshowrules needs to quit drinking the talking point Kool-aid.


Comparing only "firearm homicides", and not total homicide rates, is itself indicative of intellectual dishonesty.
 
2013-05-08 10:26:06 AM

CPennypacker: Endive Wombat: CPennypacker: Endive Wombat: Dusk-You-n-Me: Endive Wombat: I understand why the left likes to keep those numbers in the stat, because it bolsters their message, but it is disingenuous.

Those people are not any less dead and a gun was not any less involved. Bolster has nothing to do with it.

Fair enough, but suicide is not a crime.  Buttttt...trying to use incorrectly inflated gun death stats as a basis for legislating tighter gun control measures is wrong.

How is it inflated? We want less deaths. I don't follow your logic. Less suicides = less deaths.

Sigh...

Suicide is not a crime.  Yeah, it is a death caused by the use of a gun, but that's it.  So when attempting to legislate tighter gun control (restricting where guns can be carried, magazine capacity, forward pistol grips, universal background checks, etc.), suicide stats have NOTHING to do with any of these things.  Ergo using incorrect data.

Oh for fark's sake


Clearly you do not agree with my point of view.  Why?
 
2013-05-08 10:26:31 AM

CPennypacker: That whole militia thing


"The militia" at the time the Constitution was written was "everyone capable of firing a gun".  It was not an organized body.
 
2013-05-08 10:26:37 AM

GoldSpider: cman: I actually dont think Obama has any position on the 3rd.

I could be wrong

I may not be as active in following politics as I once was, but I don't recall Obama being nominated for the SCOTUS.


Yeah, my bad

Normally when one throws out the "constitutional scholar" card they are usually speaking about Obama
 
2013-05-08 10:26:47 AM

EatsCrayons: Question: the study seems to be about the decline in gun "crimes". What about gun "deaths/injuries"? Is there a statistical difference between the crime stats and accident stats in the U.S.? Just wondering.

In Canada, there is legislation provisions for how guns are stored (locked and unloaded). It did result in a drop for gun-related accidental death/injuries in youth and a significant drop in youth suicide rates. Gun cirmes have also dropped, I think, proportionately to the U.S., but I'd have to review the stats more thoroughly and I don't wanna.


Correlation =/= Causation

Did those stats drop during the same time that the US experienced that same drop while loosening gun laws?
 
2013-05-08 10:27:17 AM

HeadLever: HotWingConspiracy: Home invasions are uncommon as well, so I guess you don't really need your guns.

So car accidents are uncommon, so you dont need seatbelts?

That is a dumb argument if I ever heard one.


Yeah, BraveNewCheneyWorld makes some terrible arguments.
 
2013-05-08 10:27:31 AM

Endive Wombat: CPennypacker: Endive Wombat: CPennypacker: Endive Wombat: Dusk-You-n-Me: Endive Wombat: I understand why the left likes to keep those numbers in the stat, because it bolsters their message, but it is disingenuous.

Those people are not any less dead and a gun was not any less involved. Bolster has nothing to do with it.

Fair enough, but suicide is not a crime.  Buttttt...trying to use incorrectly inflated gun death stats as a basis for legislating tighter gun control measures is wrong.

How is it inflated? We want less deaths. I don't follow your logic. Less suicides = less deaths.

Sigh...

Suicide is not a crime.  Yeah, it is a death caused by the use of a gun, but that's it.  So when attempting to legislate tighter gun control (restricting where guns can be carried, magazine capacity, forward pistol grips, universal background checks, etc.), suicide stats have NOTHING to do with any of these things.  Ergo using incorrect data.

Oh for fark's sake

Clearly you do not agree with my point of view.  Why?


Do you disagree that reducing the number of available guns though any means would also reduce the number of people killed by them, whether the gun is pointed at the person holding it or otherwise?

Then its a relevant statistic.
 
2013-05-08 10:27:39 AM

HeadLever: HotWingConspiracy: Home invasions are uncommon as well, so I guess you don't really need your guns.

So car accidents are uncommon, so you dont need seatbelts?

That is a dumb argument if I ever heard one.


Those of us who have fire extinguishers in our homes are just crazy paranoids as well since house fires are relatively uncommon too.
 
2013-05-08 10:27:47 AM

draypresct: Handgun crime experienced a peak in the early 90s, then dropped back down to their 80's levels (the rate difference would be greater due to the population increase). Homicide rates due to other guns, knives, blunt objects, and other weapons also dropped. Knife-related homicides dropped from about 4500 to about 2000 between 1980 and 2008 (again, the rate difference would be greater due to the population increase).

This suggests that there was more going on than just gun legislation, unless you can think of a reason that gun legislation reduced knife-related homicides.

/I have no idea what caused that peak in the 90s.


Popularity of the NES, popularity of Richard Marx and The New Kids on the Block, the introduction of the Ford Explorer, Bill Clinton's election.
 
2013-05-08 10:27:51 AM

CPennypacker: That whole militia thing


Is there for context and is not mutually exclusive with the right being tranferred to the individual.  The second can be an individual right and still be consistent with the notion of a well regulated militia.
 
2013-05-08 10:27:57 AM

clkeagle: Mass homicides by people who had no business touching those weapons in the first place? Those deaths might have been prevented if not for the "don't grab muh gunz" crowd.


Actually, the point worth considering is how much the actions of the gun control crowd contribute to the failure to prevent these mass homicides, because they are so quick to leap on these incidents as opportunities to try and emotionally blackmail their way to new legislation they drown out meaningful discussion.

If the debate following Newtown had been about whether we are doing enough to understand the causes of these tragedies so we can identify and intervene before someone's mind becomes so utterly broken they decide to kill schoolkids we could actually have arrived at some beneficial change. Perhaps an education program to better help parents and teachers spot the warning signs that differentiate normal teenage behaviour from something more serious.

Instead, the gun control bandwagon gets rolling, using this event to promote legislation that wouldn't actually have prevented it. Then the pro-gun crowd respond in kind and we as a country go nowhere.
 
2013-05-08 10:28:43 AM

cman: Normally when one throws out the "constitutional scholar" card they are usually speaking about Obama


True, another "dog-whistle" word I suppose.  Imagine if I'd said "community organizer"?
 
2013-05-08 10:29:18 AM

pdee: HotWingConspiracy: There are the frequent massacres to consider. We're not supposed to talk about them because it's very insensitive towards gun owners.

Thats like saying that people are frequently kill by lightning or meteor strikes or that people frequently win the lotto.  Just because on the infrequent occasion that it happens it becomes a 24x7 news story for weeks at a time does not mean it is statistically a danger.


Right and since crime is becoming less frequent, guns aren't really needed for safety. I'm glad we all agree.
 
2013-05-08 10:29:22 AM

GoldSpider: CPennypacker: That whole militia thing

"The militia" at the time the Constitution was written was "everyone capable of firing a gun".  It was not an organized body.


In the context of serving in a militia, which is referred to as the collective right. It means you have the right to keep and bear arms in the context of your militia service. Don't look at me if you disagree with that interpretation, talk to Stevens, Souter, Ginsberg and Breyer. I just agree with them.
 
2013-05-08 10:29:38 AM
EatenTheSun:
It's just the founding principles of the entire country. We can just ignore the parts we don't like. Like free speech for those WBC assholes. Ain't nobody got time for that.

No, we can MODERNIZE a centuries old document.  Just like we did with slavery, women's suffrage and other parts.  When the second amendment was written, people had muskets.

Given that, what is the basis for it being illegal for me to pursue my own nuclear program?  Arms are arms, right?  Fully automatic weapons are largely illegal, why is that?
 
2013-05-08 10:30:02 AM

GanjSmokr: HeadLever: HotWingConspiracy: Home invasions are uncommon as well, so I guess you don't really need your guns.

So car accidents are uncommon, so you dont need seatbelts?

That is a dumb argument if I ever heard one.

Those of us who have fire extinguishers in our homes are just crazy paranoids as well since house fires are relatively uncommon too.


Who needs a concealable fire extinguisher capable of extinguishing a large blaze?  Only firefighters should have those as they were the only ones who should be fighting such blazes in the 1st place.
 
2013-05-08 10:30:21 AM
Shocking, the society that doesn't believe in statistics and math is having trouble wrapping around trends.

Seriously, that's not just an American media problem. From climate change trends to the age of the earth, our society as a whole coddles morons, treating their ignorance like it's just as valid and rational as someone elses evidence-based knowledge and observation.
 
Displayed 50 of 832 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report