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  
•       •       •

6208 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 | « | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-05-08 12:34:35 PM

Dimensio: If you did not advocate a position that he opposes, he would not have had to issue poorly researched claims that were easily disproved.


He's like  Ron Higgins, professional Cardinal Richelieu impersonator.
 
2013-05-08 12:34:49 PM

mrshowrules: The US has a problem with gun violence despite recent declines


I had a friend who worked in China for awhile.  The guys he was working with brought this argument up.  "It must suck living in America were violent crime is so wide spread."  To which my friend replied, "It would take over 100 millennium for our criminals to rack up a body count equal to what your government stacked up during the cultural revolution.  That sh*t will never, EVER happen in America."
 
2013-05-08 12:34:52 PM

dittybopper: CPennypacker: Dimensio: CPennypacker: dittybopper: CPennypacker: dittybopper: CPennypacker: Because its not the race, its the economic condition.

Actually, it's *NOT* economic condition.  There are more than twice as many whites living below the poverty line than blacks (10 million vs. 4 million).

I did that calculation a while back:

In the United States, there are more than twice as many whites living in the lowest poverty level (50% or lower than the official poverty level) than blacks (10.120 million vs. 4.215 million) Source: US Census Bureau Poverty Tables.

However, there were 5,325 white homicide victims in 2005, and 8,522 black homicide victims.
Source: CDC WISQARS Mortality Reports

That means that there are 52.6 white homicides per 100,000 poor whites, and 202.2 black homicides per 100,000 poor blacks.

So its your contention that the difference is the result of Melanin?

*SIGH*.

Do I really have to go over this *AGAIN*?

Google "dittybopper fark black white homicide culture", and read what I've written in prior Fark threads on the subject.

Hint:  I argue that the effect is entirely due to culture.

I read enough of your BS in these threads. I don't need to go looking for more of your work.

Your statement is understandable. Actually reading his statements would demonstrate your accusation of racism to be entirely dishonest.

Where did I say he was racist?

I bolded the part where you inferred that I was a racist by asking a loaded question, for your reading convenience.


Oh please
 
2013-05-08 12:34:57 PM

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


By which they mean "black".
 
2013-05-08 12:36:11 PM

Dimensio: dittybopper: sammyk: Dimensio: sammyk: 2) You can mail order guns today so your point is retarded and meaningless.

http://www.davidsonsinc.com/consumers/subsites/inven_search.asp?deal er _id=957577

I took the opportunity to examine the site that you referenced; the site allows customers to arrange firearm purchases for pick-up at a physical store. It in no way allows customers to order firearms for delivery to their homes, and your comparison of that website to such a delivery service is demonstrably false.

Fair enough. Dittyderpers comparison of just about anything is demonstrably false. You see he treadshiats anything that has to do with guns. He desperately does anything he can to derail the conversation.

Wait:  What I said is true, what you said is false, but I'm the one at fault?

*REALLY*?

If you did not advocate a position that he opposes, he would not have had to issue poorly researched claims that were easily disproved.


Yeah, nobody likes it when you fark with the narrative they've emotionally invested themselves in.
 
2013-05-08 12:39:05 PM

pedrop357: Yeah, nobody likes it when you fark with the narrative they've emotionally invested themselves in.


And stop trying to derail the conversation with facts.  Nobody likes having to re-evaluate their worldview.
 
2013-05-08 12:40:25 PM

pdee: Let me get this straight. In a city where it is practically impossible to get a gun and is less than 50 miles from 2 other states slightly more than 1/2 of guns recovered came from other states.


Three other states. Michigan is also within 50 miles.

\Anything that increases the number of dead Chicagoans is fine w/ Wisconsin, Illinois, and Michigan
 
2013-05-08 12:40:28 PM

HeadLever: mrshowrules: You won't solve this problem until you tackle gun control

Lolerskates:

State/ Firearm Homicide Rate/ Brady Score
WY  0.9    8
VT    0.3   6
UT    0.8   0
SD    1.0   4
ND    0.6   4
NH    0.4   6
MT    1.2   2
ME    0.8   9
IA     0.7    7
ID     0.8  2


And on the flipside

PA   3.6  36
NY   2.7  62
NJ   2.8  72
MI   4.2  25
MD  5.1  45
IL    2.8   35
CT   2.7   58
CA  3.4   80
AL   2.8  16

Why don't you run a regression on these numbers and see which way the slop points, mmmmkay?


I didn't realize the US had prohibitions preventing the movement of guns across State lines.
 
2013-05-08 12:40:52 PM

Dimensio: CPennypacker: the_foo: CPennypacker: It just has context that I interpret differently.

If you were advocating the repeal of the 2nd amendment, that would be an intellectually honest position which people could have an actually discussion about. You're just sticking your fingers in your ears shouting "LALALA I can't hear you" and it makes you look like a child.

Why do all of you people act like the Heller decision wasn't split and my opinion is that of a fool? Read a farking book.

I assume that you also believe that Tea Party members who dispute the Constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, despite a court ruling contradicting their position, are not "fools".


This right the fark here.  This is what everyone on both sides of the gun debate and the healthcare debate need to realize.  They are seriously alienating anyone left in the middle to apathy.
 
2013-05-08 12:41:22 PM

Tomahawk513: To clarify, "scenarios similar to Newtown or Aurora" was meant to say, "scenarios in which a mentally unstable person kills other people," not necessarily those exact scenarios. I would require a recent sign off by a psychiatrist or clinician before purchasing a firearm. It wouldn't contain the person's diagnosis, just a simple pass-fail. This information could be kept in a database that would be federally maintained.

I'd like to see a situation where the person would need to get check-ups annually and/or after any significant life event, such as job loss or divorce. If the person failed that exam, firearms would be removed until he person was once again able to pass. But I would compromise on this if I had to.


Fair enough on scenarios.

As for psychiatrist signoff,
A.)are they any other rights/privileges/de facto rights where such a signoff should be required?  What about voting, running for office, driving a car, running a business, etc.
B.)How do your mitigate psychiatrists who are anti-gun and simply stamp 'fail' on most/all applications.

Annual check ups and job/divorce/life event check ups will require a police state apparatus unheard in this country and reminiscent of some of the nonsense in Japan where the police will inform employers of your legal run-ins, and regularly keep tabs on who lives where.

If you want that kind of state control/knowledge, just go to one of the countries that does that.
 
2013-05-08 12:42:53 PM

CPennypacker: But when anyone points out the racially adjusted murder statistics put the US in line with most European countries the charge of racism is brought up as if to refute the point.

Because its not the race, its the economic condition. The fact that race correlates is the fault of history.


That's part of it, but not all of it.

Remember that white murders and black murders are about equal in number, but poor whites outnumber poor blacks. So even accounting for economics, poor blacks kill at a higher rate than poor whites.
 
2013-05-08 12:43:12 PM

Source4leko: Dimensio: CPennypacker: the_foo: CPennypacker: It just has context that I interpret differently.

If you were advocating the repeal of the 2nd amendment, that would be an intellectually honest position which people could have an actually discussion about. You're just sticking your fingers in your ears shouting "LALALA I can't hear you" and it makes you look like a child.

Why do all of you people act like the Heller decision wasn't split and my opinion is that of a fool? Read a farking book.

I assume that you also believe that Tea Party members who dispute the Constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, despite a court ruling contradicting their position, are not "fools".

This right the fark here.  This is what everyone on both sides of the gun debate and the healthcare debate need to realize.  They are seriously alienating anyone left in the middle to apathy.


Unfortunately to the pro-gun, there is no middle. If you're not pro-gun you're right the fark on the other extreme with everybody else.
 
2013-05-08 12:43:38 PM

mrshowrules: I didn't realize the US had prohibitions preventing the movement of guns across State lines.


And you believe that accounts for the difference between your opinion and reality?
 
2013-05-08 12:44:21 PM

MonoChango: mrshowrules: The US has a problem with gun violence despite recent declines

I had a friend who worked in China for awhile.  The guys he was working with brought this argument up.  "It must suck living in America were violent crime is so wide spread."  To which my friend replied, "It would take over 100 millennium for our criminals to rack up a body count equal to what your government stacked up during the cultural revolution.  That sh*t will never, EVER happen in America."


I had a similar conversation with a Chinese guy who posted that stupid 20+ year old Handgun Control Inc poster comparing handgun deaths.  He did everything he could to dodge the issue that the Chinese government and other gun control heavy regimes have killed tens of millions and that the US would take decades at our highest rate to equal what the Nazis did to just the Jews during the holocaust.
 
2013-05-08 12:44:45 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Wayne 985: Your rights are not absolute. You can't use freedom of speech to commit slander and you shouldn't be able to have an assault weapon with a 50-round magazine without even undergoing a background check. Man up and take responsibility.

That's a horrible comparison.  Slander causes harm to someone, that's why it's a crime.  Merely owning a weapon harms nobody.  If we were to apply your thought process to the first amendment, we would have to pass background checks before engaging in any social activity in which speech might be used.


Selling an AR-15 with a 50-round magazine without so much as a background check doesn't put society at risk?
 
2013-05-08 12:45:24 PM

BayouOtter: KJUW89: We need to set some expectations as I see it.  Just like world peace can never be achieved, we will never be 100% from gun violence.  We just need to determine how much we can tolerate at the expense of encroaching on the 2nd Amendment.

The best way to address gun violence is the focus on the violence part. (Since if you remove the gun from the equation somebody is still getting stabbed or beaten to death) by addressing our shiatty justice system, war on drugs, income inequality, systemic racism, cyclical poverty, etc. It'd improve everyone's lives and drop our violence across the board.

I never understood the obsession with 'gun violence' personally. Is being stabbed to death somehow more morally desirable than being shot to death?


No, it's the gun part, not the violence part. 3 year olds who shoot themselves in the head aren't doing so because of a shiatty justice system, the war on drugs, income inequality, systemic racism, etc. It's because a gun was left unattended and a 3 year was playing with it and shot himself in the head. Or shot his sister in the face. Or shot his father in the chest. It's the gun. Last I heard, 3 year olds have not killed themselves by stabbing themselves with a knife. (They may have injured themselves, but they're still alive.)
 
2013-05-08 12:45:51 PM

GoldSpider: Wayne 985: and you shouldn't be able to have an assault weapon with a 50-round magazine without even undergoing a background check.

Your obsession with weapons used in an insignificant minority of gun crime makes me question your desire to actually reduce gun crime.


I'm in favor of background checks across the board.
 
2013-05-08 12:46:15 PM

Wayne 985: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Wayne 985: Your rights are not absolute. You can't use freedom of speech to commit slander and you shouldn't be able to have an assault weapon with a 50-round magazine without even undergoing a background check. Man up and take responsibility.

That's a horrible comparison.  Slander causes harm to someone, that's why it's a crime.  Merely owning a weapon harms nobody.  If we were to apply your thought process to the first amendment, we would have to pass background checks before engaging in any social activity in which speech might be used.

Selling an AR-15 with a 50-round magazine without so much as a background check doesn't put society at risk?


How often does that actually happen?
 
2013-05-08 12:46:49 PM

This text is now purple: CPennypacker: But when anyone points out the racially adjusted murder statistics put the US in line with most European countries the charge of racism is brought up as if to refute the point.

Because its not the race, its the economic condition. The fact that race correlates is the fault of history.

That's part of it, but not all of it.

Remember that white murders and black murders are about equal in number, but poor whites outnumber poor blacks. So even accounting for economics, poor blacks kill at a higher rate than poor whites.


The difference in out-of-wedlock birth rates seems to account for that disparity, once you control for the economic situation.

That's not to say that's what's going on, necessarily, but it's a *VERY* interesting correlation that is worthy of serious academic study.
 
2013-05-08 12:47:00 PM

MonoChango: mrshowrules: The US has a problem with gun violence despite recent declines

I had a friend who worked in China for awhile.  The guys he was working with brought this argument up.  "It must suck living in America were violent crime is so wide spread."  To which my friend replied, "It would take over 100 millennium for our criminals to rack up a body count equal to what your government stacked up during the cultural revolution.  That sh*t will never, EVER happen in America."


First, try 20 years.  Second,  how does arming the public prevent a popular uprising?  That makes no sense.
 
2013-05-08 12:47:41 PM

CPennypacker: I argue that the effect is entirely due to culture


Like my wife said, "Trash comes in all colors."
 
2013-05-08 12:47:58 PM

pedrop357: Wayne 985: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Wayne 985: Your rights are not absolute. You can't use freedom of speech to commit slander and you shouldn't be able to have an assault weapon with a 50-round magazine without even undergoing a background check. Man up and take responsibility.

That's a horrible comparison.  Slander causes harm to someone, that's why it's a crime.  Merely owning a weapon harms nobody.  If we were to apply your thought process to the first amendment, we would have to pass background checks before engaging in any social activity in which speech might be used.

Selling an AR-15 with a 50-round magazine without so much as a background check doesn't put society at risk?

How often does that actually happen?


Some people seem to think this is happening hundreds of times a day, literally everywhere.
 
2013-05-08 12:49:33 PM

CPennypacker: Unfortunately to the pro-gun, there is no middle. If you're not pro-gun you're right the fark on the other extreme with everybody else.


I'm far from what you'd consider a "gun fetishist" but I do own guns, and believe there are Constitutional ways to combat the actual causes of gun violence.

Wayne 985: Selling an AR-15 with a 50-round magazine without so much as a background check doesn't put society at risk?


Only if you equate ownership of a firearm (or the transfer thereof) with murder.
 
2013-05-08 12:49:50 PM

mrshowrules: I didn't realize the US had prohibitions preventing the movement of guns across State lines.


Some states do and some states don't.  It is part of the Brady Score metric.

Weaksauce deflection.
 
2013-05-08 12:50:03 PM

Wayne 985: Selling an AR-15 with a 50-round magazine without so much as a background check doesn't put society at risk?


It didn't prior to the requirement for background checks.

Oh, and I should know:  I bought an AR-15 back in 1988, 11 years before the NICS check system came online.
 
2013-05-08 12:50:38 PM

GoldSpider: mrshowrules: I didn't realize the US had prohibitions preventing the movement of guns across State lines.

And you believe that accounts for the difference between your opinion and reality?


It means that comparing the US with other industrialized countries in terms of gun control makes more sense than making comparisons between US States when guns/people move freely from State-to-State.
 
2013-05-08 12:53:19 PM

HeadLever: mrshowrules: I didn't realize the US had prohibitions preventing the movement of guns across State lines.

Some states do and some states don't.  It is part of the Brady Score metric.

Weaksauce deflection.


So it is just a coincidence that the States with the weakest gun control has the highest export rates to other States?
 
2013-05-08 12:53:46 PM

pedrop357: As opposed to your grossly misinformed nonsense?


It was grossly misinformed nonsense against gun ownership, so it is OK.

Can't be bothered with facts if they don't fit the narrative.
 
2013-05-08 12:56:00 PM

mrshowrules: It means that comparing the US with other industrialized countries in terms of gun control makes more sense than making comparisons between US States when guns/people move freely from State-to-State.


That comparison could only work if the US only had one set of federal gun laws.
 
2013-05-08 12:56:15 PM

pedrop357: Tomahawk513: To clarify, "scenarios similar to Newtown or Aurora" was meant to say, "scenarios in which a mentally unstable person kills other people," not necessarily those exact scenarios. I would require a recent sign off by a psychiatrist or clinician before purchasing a firearm. It wouldn't contain the person's diagnosis, just a simple pass-fail. This information could be kept in a database that would be federally maintained.

I'd like to see a situation where the person would need to get check-ups annually and/or after any significant life event, such as job loss or divorce. If the person failed that exam, firearms would be removed until he person was once again able to pass. But I would compromise on this if I had to.

Fair enough on scenarios.

As for psychiatrist signoff,
A.)are they any other rights/privileges/de facto rights where such a signoff should be required?  What about voting, running for office, driving a car, running a business, etc.

Some. Driving a car requires some basic health tests to ensure you're able to do so safely.  Some jobs require you to be able to lift a certain amount.  Protests and buildings require permits.
B.)How do your mitigate psychiatrists who are anti-gun and simply stamp 'fail' on most/all applications.
Keep them entirely separate. The clinician evaluates you and puts their diagnosis (if any) in the computer.  If the diagnosis is X, Y, or Z, it updates the database with a Fail status.  Anything else gets a Pass status.  

Annual check ups and job/divorce/life event check ups will require a police state apparatus unheard in this country and reminiscent of some of the nonsense in Japan where the police will inform employers of your legal run-ins, and regularly keep tabs on who lives where.
Yeah, you're probably right about the life-event based situation, but I still like the idea of some form of annual check-up, at least for the first decade or so of your adult life, since by then most pervasive mental illnesses will have materialized.  

If you want that kind of state control/knowledge, just go to one of the countries that does that.
 
2013-05-08 12:56:53 PM
All this means is that we have increased the number of gunshot survivors.
 
2013-05-08 12:58:05 PM
Cool, so gun violence is no longer a problem?
 
2013-05-08 12:58:43 PM

monoski: Cool, so gun violence is no longer a problem?


Said nobody in this thread.
 
2013-05-08 12:59:49 PM

IlGreven: I keep saying this: What's the difference between a knife and a gun?

14 wounded in Houston.

26 dead in Newtown.


Historically, mass murderers who couldn't get hold of enough guns simply got hold of enough explosives.
 
2013-05-08 01:02:03 PM

sammyk: ArmagedDan: 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

Where do you paranoid freaks get this shiat? No one is seriosly talking about confiscating guns. Hell even the proponents of another assault weapons ban have all but admitted defeat and have changed focus to trying to expand background checks. rants like yours are why people call you "gun nuts"


Senator Feinstein:  "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it."

Obama:
[During his Presidential campaign]: "I continue to support a ban on concealed carry"
and
[As a Senator]: "Do you support state legislation to ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns?" "Yes."

New York Mayor Cuomo: "Confiscation could be an option. Mandatory sale to the state could be an option."

Dan Muhlbauer, Iowa State Representative, regarding semi-automatic weapons (!):  "We need to get them off the streets - illegally - and even if you have them, I think we need to start taking them"

There has been a slew, a pile, of proposed state legislation - primarily in New York, Connecticut, New Jersey, Missouri and California, but in other states as well - that would ban magazines and entire categories of guns without a grandfather clause.  Some simply require them to be surrendered upon death, and would have made transfers illegal, basically a slow confiscation from the next generation.  Some legislation would have called for door-to-door confiscation, while some simply gave residents a time limit to evacuate their guns and/or magazines out of the state before becoming felons.

This is why we voice concern about gun bans, and to a lesser degree (because it's currently politically unpopular, thankfully), confiscations.  Because people in power keep coming back to it.  It's not a delusion, it's right there.

After the recent compromise failed (which frankly surprised me), more-stringent gun legislation is on a back burner, but still simmering.  I don't think we'll see major bans pass anytime soon, and the more draconian state laws may end up going before the Supreme Court.  But the idea has been around since the attempted universal handgun ban of the 1960's, and will likely continue despite better options for curbing crime being available.  That's what boggles my mind.

You don't win an argument by calling me a "gun nut".  That phrase is far less powerful as an ad hominem than you seem to think it is.
 
2013-05-08 01:02:42 PM

vpb: /look at where the gun violence is highest


I love how that list deliberately incorporates a bias against states with looser gun laws then tries to pass it off as an objective ranking of states with the worst gun violence, regardless of their actual per-capita standings.
 
2013-05-08 01:02:50 PM

soakitincider: Single shot/ bolt action/ pump/ etc generally are not suitable for self defense, particularly against the government. This country was founded on anti-tyranny ideals and the right of gun ownership allows us to stand up against the government if it becomes abusive.


The Congress shall have Power ... To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

So how is it that the Militia are for fighting the government, when the Government has the explicit power to employ those Militia to suppress insurrection (aka fighting against the government)?

The US Constitution is very clear that the militias are subordinate to Congress and, if thus employed, are under command of the POTUS. If your "militia" group is not prepared for that, then it's less militia and more domestic terrorist sleeper cell.
=Smidge=
 
2013-05-08 01:02:59 PM

Wayne 985: Selling an AR-15 with a 50-round magazine without so much as a background check doesn't put society at risk?


Not really, no.  Despite what the media would have you believe, rifles of all kinds are used in roughly 300 murders a year.  They're way, way, way down on the list of most deadly weapons.  If you specifically target AR style, you're basically into the 'various other items' category.

You want to save lives?  How about doing a background check at a car dealership and not selling a car to someone with a DUI conviction.
 
2013-05-08 01:05:58 PM

GoldSpider: mrshowrules: It means that comparing the US with other industrialized countries in terms of gun control makes more sense than making comparisons between US States when guns/people move freely from State-to-State.

That comparison could only work if the US only had one set of federal gun laws.


Effectively in terms of gun purchases, the US has only one set of gun laws (the laws of the most lenient States).  I've never heard of people turning their guns back over when they move States.
 
2013-05-08 01:07:16 PM

monoski: Cool, so gun violence is no longer a problem?


In all but a small number of very localized areas and demographic groups, yes.

Unless the standard is "Absolutely *ZERO* deaths", in which case even places like the UK wouldn't even qualify.
 
2013-05-08 01:08:38 PM

Raven Darke: All this means is that we have increased the number of gunshot survivors.


Know how everyone knows you didn't read the  study?

Let me help.

There were 11,101 firearm-related homicides in 2011, the report said, compared to 18,253 in 1993. The decline was part of a multi-year downward trend.

In 2011, there were 467,300 non-fatal firearm crimes, according to the report, down from 1.5 million such crimes in 1993. The steep decline was also part of a multi-year trend.


Since the gun grabbing crowd has a hard time understanding facts, I'll translate.

While murders with guns are only down 40% over the time period, non-fatal incidents are down roughly 70%.

No matter how many stories the media tells, you have a whole lot less people getting shot today than you did 20 years ago.
 
2013-05-08 01:10:18 PM

pedrop357: Wayne 985: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Wayne 985: Your rights are not absolute. You can't use freedom of speech to commit slander and you shouldn't be able to have an assault weapon with a 50-round magazine without even undergoing a background check. Man up and take responsibility.

That's a horrible comparison.  Slander causes harm to someone, that's why it's a crime.  Merely owning a weapon harms nobody.  If we were to apply your thought process to the first amendment, we would have to pass background checks before engaging in any social activity in which speech might be used.

Selling an AR-15 with a 50-round magazine without so much as a background check doesn't put society at risk?

How often does that actually happen?


Fires don't happen often, but I keep an extinguisher in my house just in case.

I'm sorry that you can't look at a school filled with the bodies of dead children and think, "Gee, maybe a couple tighter restrictions might be worth it."
 
2013-05-08 01:11:54 PM
JesseL, dittybopper, pedrop357 and Dimensio all in one thread? Watch out you gun grabber, the Holy Trinity + one does not suffer grabbers well.
 
2013-05-08 01:12:12 PM

GoldSpider: Only if you equate ownership of a firearm (or the transfer thereof) with murder.


I equate the unregulated selling of extreme firearms to insane people with enabling murder.
 
2013-05-08 01:12:51 PM

mrshowrules: Effectively in terms of gun purchases, the US has only one set of gun laws (the laws of the most lenient States). I've never heard of people turning their guns back over when they move States.


Even if your assumption was representative of reality, the gun violence statistics of lenient vs. restrictive states would be roughly equal.  Since that's not the case, I'm dying to know what you believe motivates so many people to move guns from lenient to restrictive states with the intent of using it to commit a crime.
 
2013-05-08 01:13:42 PM

Wayne 985: pedrop357: Wayne 985: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Wayne 985: Your rights are not absolute. You can't use freedom of speech to commit slander and you shouldn't be able to have an assault weapon with a 50-round magazine without even undergoing a background check. Man up and take responsibility.

That's a horrible comparison.  Slander causes harm to someone, that's why it's a crime.  Merely owning a weapon harms nobody.  If we were to apply your thought process to the first amendment, we would have to pass background checks before engaging in any social activity in which speech might be used.

Selling an AR-15 with a 50-round magazine without so much as a background check doesn't put society at risk?

How often does that actually happen?

Fires don't happen often, but I keep an extinguisher in my house just in case.

I'm sorry that you can't look at a school filled with the bodies of dead children and think, "Gee, maybe a couple tighter restrictions might be worth it."


Alleged dead children and shooter. Still no video from school.
 
2013-05-08 01:15:19 PM

NightOwl2255: JesseL, dittybopper, pedrop357 and Dimensio all in one thread? Watch out you gun grabber, the Holy Trinity + one does not suffer grabbers well.


Am I in the Holy Trinity, or am I the 'odd man out'?
 
2013-05-08 01:15:56 PM

Wayne 985: I equate the unregulated selling of extreme firearms to insane people with enabling murder.


Then keep reading, we're trying to fix that for you.
 
2013-05-08 01:17:04 PM

Wayne 985: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Wayne 985: Your rights are not absolute. You can't use freedom of speech to commit slander and you shouldn't be able to have an assault weapon with a 50-round magazine without even undergoing a background check. Man up and take responsibility.

That's a horrible comparison.  Slander causes harm to someone, that's why it's a crime.  Merely owning a weapon harms nobody.  If we were to apply your thought process to the first amendment, we would have to pass background checks before engaging in any social activity in which speech might be used.

Selling an AR-15 with a 50-round magazine without so much as a background check doesn't put society at risk?


A risk freedom and liberty loving people gladly take, like driving on the roads (which likk more per year than guns). Some speech can put society at risk too, do we need background checks for every time you post on FARK? Which rights do we restrict for your peace of mind?


/
Those who would give up Essential Liberty
to purchase a little Temporary Safety,
deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
 
2013-05-08 01:17:46 PM

dittybopper: NightOwl2255: JesseL, dittybopper, pedrop357 and Dimensio all in one thread? Watch out you gun grabber, the Holy Trinity + one does not suffer grabbers well.

Am I in the Holy Trinity, or am I the 'odd man out'?


Just think of yourself as Young to CSN.
 
Displayed 50 of 832 comments

First | « | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report