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  
•       •       •

6213 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 02:00:55 PM

Wayne 985: pedrop357: Wayne 985: See above. Not having to wait for a background check is not an "essential liberty."

A right delayed is a right denied.

Also, how do you feel about background checks on prospective voters or to obtain online accounts necessary to post in forums?

You, uh... You realize that you're legally bound to register before you can vote, right? Jesus.


Yes, but people can register with a fake name.  People have even voted after being convicted of felonies due to errors in the system.  Some people have voted multiple times.
It's time to require a full background check every time a person enters a voting booth.
 
2013-05-08 02:01:35 PM

mrshowrules: dittybopper: mrshowrules: Look at Australia as a good example of what can happen.  It is primarily about shifting the gun culture.

So forced confiscations of firearms is OK with you?

That's what they did in Australia.

I'm not for confiscations but the results would logically be faster with them.


if by results, you mean widespread bloodshed, then yes it would be much faster.
 
2013-05-08 02:02:23 PM

dittybopper: sammyk: Have a single one of those background checks infringed on anyones rights?

Considering that something like 90% of the denials are likely to be false positives, then yes.

I actually know someone who went and got his NYS pistol permit because he kept getting rejected by NICS even though he was eligible to purchase firearms.  He had once been arrested but the charges were dropped (he happened to be hanging out with some guys who had burglarized a home earlier in the day when the police arrived, but he wasn't involved).

He accounts for at least 5 or 10 of those initial denials (even though he got the guns eventually).  He got the pistol permit, which requires a *MUCH* more rigorous background check, largely because it meant he wouldn't need a NICS check to buy a gun.

In the mean time, though, every single time he tried to buy a gun he would get an initial denial, and he'd have to contact NICS, and they'd do the extra checking and find out it was OK for him, but they never seemed to correct the actual problem.


No system is perfect. It sucks for your friend but it looks like they do get it right in the end. It's still not a good reason to not expand background checks.

I don't have a better source than wikipedia because I am lazy. But you linked a blog so call it even.

Anyway they claim:
From 1994 through 2009, over 107 million Brady background checks were conducted. During this period 1.9 million attempted firearm purchases were blocked by the Brady background check system, or 1.8 percent.[17] For checks done by the Federal Bureau of Investigation in 2008, felons accounted for 56 percent of denials and fugitives from justice accounted for 13 percent of denials.[18] In 2009, felons accounted for 48 percent of denials and fugitives from justice accounted for 16 percent of denials. Between 2000 and 2009, over 30,000 denials were reversed on appeal.[17] In April 2009, the FBI announced it had completed its 100 millionth NICS approval since its inception 10 years before.
Prosecution and conviction of violators of the Brady Act, however, is extremely rare. During the first 17 months of the Act, only seven individuals were convicted. In the first year of the Act, 250 cases were referred for prosecution and 217 of them were rejected.[19]


30k is a long way from %90 of 100 million.
 
2013-05-08 02:02:35 PM

Wayne 985: Cho killed 32 people at Virginia Tech. If the background checks had actually been fleshed out and picked up on a thing like this, those people would still be alive.

Background checks as they stand are a joke. They need to dig deeper and they need to be universal. You literally just admitted that a lot of these massacres take place because the law doesn't do much to stop them... Then complain when people try and fix that by closing loopholes and tightening standards.


I've got no problem with making sure that NICS has all the info it needs to operate the way it should, and I'd love it if the people who are legitimately rejected by NICS were actually prosecuted. That might make for a real improvement in something and I support it.

Universal checks though, you still haven't made any rational argument for. Private sales are not a statistically significant source of firearms used in crime, and it would put an unreasonable burden on legitimate buyers and sellers.
 
2013-05-08 02:03:49 PM

JustGetItRight: Wayne 985: So is selling to a felon, but it happens anyway because our background check system is filled with holes. I'm advocating plugging them.

If you didn't have Cuomo, Feinstein, Bloomberg, and even Obama prior to his seeking the presidency advocating for things like a ban of entire classes of firearms, the outright confiscation of guns, arbitrary magazine limits, and a ton of other things that do nothing but further their anti-gun agenda you could get improved background checks.

The State of New York and the Mayor of New York City did far more to kill the senate bill than the NRA could ever possibly have accomplished.


This is the most petulant thing I've read in recent memory. "I'd rather a hundred kids die than support a lib."

JesseL: ... Most people privately selling guns are pretty strongly interested in making sure the sale remains on the up and up. They usually want to make a bill of sale, see the buyer's drivers license, and preferably their CCW (proof they can pass a background check), because nobody wants a gun used in a crime getting traced to them and if it is they want to have something to show that it's not theirs any more.

That's probably why only 1.7% of the guns used by criminals come through that kind of sale...


Well... YEAH. I feel like you're making my point for me. Extend those standards to private sales like gun shows and reduce it further. Make guns more difficult for bad people to acquire.

Conversely, a black market dealer is already operating illegally and doesn't care if their business is made a bit more illegal.

"A bit more" is really the operative phrase here. Make it a LOT more illegal. Someone illegally sells a gun to someone who commits a massacre? Minimum two decades in prison. Even Bill O'Reilly has been calling for this.
 
2013-05-08 02:07:37 PM
It's seriously farked up when somebody wants an Australia type ban here in the U.S.
 
2013-05-08 02:07:37 PM

JesseL: Wayne 985: Cho killed 32 people at Virginia Tech. If the background checks had actually been fleshed out and picked up on a thing like this, those people would still be alive.

Background checks as they stand are a joke. They need to dig deeper and they need to be universal. You literally just admitted that a lot of these massacres take place because the law doesn't do much to stop them... Then complain when people try and fix that by closing loopholes and tightening standards.

I've got no problem with making sure that NICS has all the info it needs to operate the way it should, and I'd love it if the people who are legitimately rejected by NICS were actually prosecuted. That might make for a real improvement in something and I support it.

Universal checks though, you still haven't made any rational argument for. Private sales are not a statistically significant source of firearms used in crime, and it would put an unreasonable burden on legitimate buyers and sellers.


Scenario: Cho's mental health history was picked up by these gun stores and he was denied. He goes to a private seller, gets the guns and commits his massacre. Do you see my point?

I think the "unreasonable burden" here is knowing that you might get shot because a seller didn't want to spend five or ten minutes conducting a check.

I grew up around guns all my life, but this fetishism has to stop. Your rights end where mine begin and vice versa.
 
2013-05-08 02:07:40 PM

JustGetItRight: Wayne 985: So is selling to a felon, but it happens anyway because our background check system is filled with holes. I'm advocating plugging them.

If you didn't have Cuomo, Feinstein, Bloomberg, and even Obama prior to his seeking the presidency advocating for things like a ban of entire classes of firearms, the outright confiscation of guns, arbitrary magazine limits, and a ton of other things that do nothing but further their anti-gun agenda you could get improved background checks.

The State of New York and the Mayor of New York City did far more to kill the senate bill than the NRA could ever possibly have accomplished.


Quite true. They are their own worst enemy. The problem with the background checks, as proposed, would put your ability to own a gun in the hands of an unfriendly Federal bureaucracy. Once a law is put in place by Congress, the rules and criteria for issue, could, and will, be changed by Executive order. This is quite common with other laws and quite legal. Congress passes and the President works out the details. Civics 101. Also, with the current resident of the WH, it is insanity to allow this to happen. Other defects of the bill included a de facto registry which will eventually lead to confiscation as is occurring now in California.

So it wasn't reasonable" and "common sense"  "gun safety" regulation it was an attempt at a future grab by executive order. The NRA is not the boggy man that some would paint it. Some Senators are well aware of how laws work and wanted no part of it for ethical reasons.
 
2013-05-08 02:08:22 PM

Wayne 985: JustGetItRight: 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.

Isn't restricting an assault weapon - or whatever term you prefer - using the same rationale we use to restrict something like a grenade launcher? Crimes using such a weapon are exceedingly rare, but when they do happen, they're extreme. Semi-automatic rifles also seem to be used disproportionately in attacks on children in these gun massacres, which are happening more frequently even as overall gun violence decreases.

Anyway, like I said, I'm in favor of background checks across the board and restriction of high capacity magazines/clips across the board as well. The AR is just a specific example I'm using.

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.

I'd probably be okay with that, depending on the circumstances of the individual cases. (Drunk out of your mind in a residential area vs  slightly buzzed on a back country road, etc). Circumstances should probably apply to felons owning guns too. I'm not so concerned about an ex-con owning a pistol if he served time for embezzlement, for example.


Let's start with what's an assault weapon?  Don't get caught up in the tacti-cool movement.  What features make it so?  Caliber?  Magazine? Stock?  Select-fire capability?  Right off the bat, you use a term that  really doesn't exist.

Let that one slide and move on to the point you're asserting, which is that these type of weapons are used in a disproportionate number of mass shooting.  Sadly, once again the facts aren't on your side.  Just look at that bastion of conservativism, Mother Jones .  In their chart, they list 66 mass shootings since 1982.  Of these, only 14 involved weapons which would have been banned as assault weapons under Dianne Feinstein's latest gun grab attempt.  Further, in the 9 listed incidents that appear to have specifically targeted children (8 schools and 1 Chuck-E-Cheese) there were only 3 uses of weapons that would be banned.

As far as the magazine capacity goes, what's the difference between a 10 round and a 30?  About 2 seconds.  What's the difference between a magazine change and a speed loader for a revolver?  Only another few seconds.  In every single one of these events, the killers had 5, 10, 15 or more minutes of uninterrupted killing time.

You're advocating things that just don't make you safer.
 
2013-05-08 02:09:47 PM

smells_like_meat: The NRA is not the boggy man that some would paint it.


i390.photobucket.com

/Couldn't resist.
 
2013-05-08 02:10:38 PM

sammyk: 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, picki ...

There are always going to be people that actually do want to end private gun ownership. There are always going to be politicians that say stupid things on the campaign trail. The states are going to do what the states are going to do. If you actually pay attention to our current political climate you should understand they are not going to get anywhere.

Checks and balances, how do they farking work?

Where you go off the rails into "nut" territory is when you just avoid what I was talking about(effectiveness of background checks) and go an an admitted rant about gun confiscation.


The important part of my original post was urging that we start prosecuting folks who lie on their background check forms, like we're supposed to.

I went on to complain about politicians instead forwarding new, left-field, draconian gun legislation, most of which has been proven ineffective.

You seem to be getting all hot and bothered about ...me complaining about proposed legislation.  I didn't make the proposed legislation up; I also feel that I can complain about actual proposed legislation without getting categorized as a lunatic.
 
2013-05-08 02:11:47 PM

Wayne 985: Well... YEAH. I feel like you're making my point for me. Extend those standards to private sales like gun shows and reduce it further. Make guns more difficult for bad people to acquire.


The way we've been so successful in making drugs harder to acquire?

Wayne 985: "A bit more" is really the operative phrase here. Make it a LOT more illegal. Someone illegally sells a gun to someone who commits a massacre? Minimum two decades in prison. Even Bill O'Reilly has been calling for this.


Go for it. I kind of doubt it will make any difference. Most criminals don't exactly weigh the potential prison sentence in their risk/reward calculations.
 
2013-05-08 02:12:38 PM
Meh, I am no longer taking sides on any of this shiat. Frankly, the Bill of Rights should never have been amended to the Constitution and will prove to be the undoing of this 2nd constitution of the United States.

It is time for a new constitution or, at least, the Bill of Rights.
 
2013-05-08 02:12:46 PM

pedrop357: So people have to exploit the sex toy loophole and cross state lines to buy something they can't buy in their own state?


No, they've got to exploit the 'for medicinal use only' loophole.  You can sell them to someone if they're purchased to treat a 'medical condition'.
 
2013-05-08 02:14:50 PM

JustGetItRight: As far as the magazine capacity goes, what's the difference between a 10 round and a 30? About 2 seconds. What's the difference between a magazine change and a speed loader for a revolver? Only another few seconds. In every single one of these events, the killers had 5, 10, 15 or more minutes of uninterrupted killing time.

You're advocating things that just don't make you safer.


As a former competitive shooter I just don't get the high capacity magazine boggyman except as a stalking horse. When I was in top form, with both rifle and pistol, I could change a magazine in less than a second. Even someone with a little practice could do it in a second.

I think that it has something to do with the shoulder thingy that goes up.
 
2013-05-08 02:15:04 PM

Wayne 985: Scenario: Cho's mental health history was picked up by these gun stores and he was denied. He goes to a private seller, gets the guns and commits his massacre. Do you see my point?


Scenario: Cho's mental health history is flagged by NICS and he's denied. He's subsequently arrested for trying to purchase a firearm as a prohibited possessor.
 
2013-05-08 02:16:58 PM

nekom: the newton massacre


farm5.static.flickr.com
 
2013-05-08 02:17:18 PM

Joe Blowme: Those who would give up Essential Liberty
to purchase a little Temporary Safety,
deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.


I read an article recently (can't remember where) that suggested that this concept is why the reaction to the Boston bombing was as extreme as it was, even though when you look at it objectively it really wasn't that bad*. Americans got slapped in the face with the reality that all the liberties that were given up/taken in the name of safety after 9/11 did approximately jack and shiat to keep them safe. We gave up quite a bit with the promise that events like that would be stopped or at least slowed down, and we didn't get that at all. So, we're pissed.

/* I'm not suggesting at all that it wasn't a major tragedy, just that IMHO it didn't quite merit the nationwide response that it got.
 
2013-05-08 02:17:37 PM

ArcadianRefugee: nekom: the newton massacre

[farm5.static.flickr.com image 500x375]


hugemanatee.jpg
 
2013-05-08 02:19:06 PM

Dimensio: I do not understand why, despite so much data, gun control opponents do not recognize that by implementing strict regulation on civilian firearm ownership, the suicide rate of the United States of America could be reduced to the rates seen in France, Japan, Belgium or New Zealand.


Is my sarcasm detector broken, or do you not realize that all those countries have higher suicide rates than the US?
 
2013-05-08 02:19:56 PM

soporific: Endive Wombat: Tomahawk513:

While those are alternatives to shooting oneself, the fact remains they are far less lethal means of committing suicide.  For example, while guns are involved in only 2-5% of all suicide attempts, they are responsible for over 50% of successful attempts.   Other methods are much less lethal.  There is a strong correlation between ease of firearm access and suicide.

Huh?  No matter how you kill yourself, you're dead!  I am not clear on what you are trying to get at here...

The point he's making is that you are more likely to successfully commit suicide if you have a gun. It's quick and usually instant, and that's the key.

When people try to jump off a building, there's a far better chance they won't go through with it. Someone might talk them down, or they will find that they can't access the roof. Some bridges have installed fences specifically designed to prevent suicides. Here's where it get insteresting. When people try to committ suicide and are prevented, they often don't try again. That small inconvenience gives them enough time to reconsider. When suicide becomes work, people decide they'd rather live.

If you look at number 3 in this article (it's Cracked, but the information is solid) you'l see several historical instances of suicide rates dropping when it stopped being convenient. People who would have killed themselves in their gas ovens didn't find another method when those were phased out. Absent a quick and easy solution, they kept on going.

That's the argument about suicide and guns. Guns make it easy, and you are less likely to be interrupted or prevented. This is also why they have all these stats about how you are more likely to be killed by your own gun than to use it to kill an intruder or attacker. It's because of the suicide rate.


Please do not picture me as a cold-hearted bastard, but I honestly do not give a fark if someone wants to kill themself with a gun.  Not my problem.  Making it harder for me to acquire a gun, carry it where I want, or what kind of accessories it may have under the auspices of "for the children" look at all the deaths bullshiat upsets me.

Yeah, it farking sucks when someone kills themself...but I would rather they do it once, correctly, and out of the way of others (using a gun) rather than making a big ole mess on the highway or city block and or possibly failing and suddenly being a burden to the local hospital and raising insurance rates.
 
2013-05-08 02:21:22 PM

ucfknightryan: Dimensio: I do not understand why, despite so much data, gun control opponents do not recognize that by implementing strict regulation on civilian firearm ownership, the suicide rate of the United States of America could be reduced to the rates seen in France, Japan, Belgium or New Zealand.

Is my sarcasm detector broken, or do you not realize that all those countries have higher suicide rates than the US?


bbsimg.ngfiles.com
 
2013-05-08 02:22:47 PM

Noticeably F.A.T.: did approximately jack and shiat to keep them safe


It was a monumental security failure and the response was tremendously overreaching and also a complete failure. Loonie no. 2, unarmed, was found by a homeowner not by the first search and destroy mission on American soil.

The police need to rethink the "we're a hammer and every problem is a nail" response to these things. Unless, of course, they have a different addenda.
 
2013-05-08 02:24:25 PM

smells_like_meat: JustGetItRight: As far as the magazine capacity goes, what's the difference between a 10 round and a 30? About 2 seconds. What's the difference between a magazine change and a speed loader for a revolver? Only another few seconds. In every single one of these events, the killers had 5, 10, 15 or more minutes of uninterrupted killing time.

You're advocating things that just don't make you safer.

As a former competitive shooter I just don't get the high capacity magazine boggyman except as a stalking horse. When I was in top form, with both rifle and pistol, I could change a magazine in less than a second. Even someone with a little practice could do it in a second.

I think that it has something to do with the shoulder thingy that goes up.


Not to mention the fact that when you look at how long these shootings tend to go on, magazine speed isn't even a factor. They have more than enough time to change magazines as many times as they want, which means magazine size isn't a factor when it comes to how many rounds they are able to fire. The best you could hope for with mag size limits is increasing the likelihood of a fumble/malfunction, but if that's what you're pinning your hopes on you might as well allow larger mags as they are more likely to fail (as anyone with more than a couple minutes of experience can tell you).
 
2013-05-08 02:25:13 PM
smells_like_meat: Other defects of the bill included a de facto registry which will eventually lead to confiscation as is occurring now in California.

So it wasn't reasonable" and "common sense"  "gun safety" regulation it was an attempt at a future grab by executive order. The NRA is not the boggy man that some would paint it. Some Senators are well aware of how laws work and wanted no part of it for ethical reasons.


Err...?
openscience.com

I appear to be blissfully unaware of any such confiscation. Pray...do tell.
 
2013-05-08 02:26:34 PM

smells_like_meat: The police need to rethink the "we're a hammer and every problem is a nail" response to these things. Unless, of course, they have a different addenda.


It's not just the police. The mindset that they exhibited extends much further and much higher than them. They didn't come up with their policies and procedures on their own, and they certainly weren't allowed to put them in place on their own.
 
2013-05-08 02:28:30 PM
JustGetItRight:Let that one slide and move on to the point you're asserting, which is that these type of weapons are used in a disproportionate number of mass shooting.  Sadly, once again the facts aren't on your side.  Just look at that bastion of conservativism, Mother Jones .  In their chart, they list 66 mass shootings since 1982.  Of these, only 14 involved weapons which would have been banned as assault weapons under Dianne Feinstein's latest gun grab attempt.  Further, in the 9 listed incidents that appear to have specifically targeted children (8 schools and 1 Chuck-E-Cheese) there were only 3 uses of weapons that would be banned.

Well, 14 out 66 is about 22%. I forget what the rate of assault weapons in every day crime is, but I'm confident it's lower. If not, then I apologize and concede that point.

As far as the magazine capacity goes, what's the difference between a 10 round and a 30?  About 2 seconds.  What's the difference between a magazine change and a speed loader for a revolver?  Only another few seconds.  In every single one of these events, the killers had 5, 10, 15 or more minutes of uninterrupted killing time.

You're unequivocally mistaken in your implication. Exhibit A: Kip Kinkel.

When Kinkel's rifle ran out of ammunition and he began to reload, wounded student Jacob Ryker tackled him, assisted by several other students. Kinkel drew the Glock and fired one shot before he was disarmed, injuring Ryker again as well as another student. The students restrained Kinkel until the police arrived and arrested him.[5] A total of seven students were involved in subduing and disarming Kinkel.[6]

My point being that the more a killer has to stop and reload, the more time and opportunity he gives to his would-be victims.
 
2013-05-08 02:30:28 PM

ucfknightryan: Dimensio: I do not understand why, despite so much data, gun control opponents do not recognize that by implementing strict regulation on civilian firearm ownership, the suicide rate of the United States of America could be reduced to the rates seen in France, Japan, Belgium or New Zealand.

Is my sarcasm detector broken, or do you not realize that all those countries have higher suicide rates than the US?


He realizes it.  He was using some really good trolling bait.

Wayne 985: This is the most petulant thing I've read in recent memory. "I'd rather a hundred kids die than support a lib."


Wow, you just don't get it do you?  For years Dems sat there and said nobody's after your guns then the same month that the senate takes up the background check, Cuomo - who happens to be a potential presidential candidate in 2016 - instantly turns thousands of New Yorkers into criminals and openly talks about confiscation.  How the hell did you think gun owners would react?
 
2013-05-08 02:31:24 PM

Wayne 985: My point being that the more a killer has to stop and reload, the more time and opportunity he gives to his would-be victims.


Of course the same also works against someone who is using a firearm in a legitimate defensive situation.
 
2013-05-08 02:31:37 PM

Endive Wombat: soporific: Endive Wombat: Tomahawk513:

While those are alternatives to shooting oneself, the fact remains they are far less lethal means of committing suicide.  For example, while guns are involved in only 2-5% of all suicide attempts, they are responsible for over 50% of successful attempts.   Other methods are much less lethal.  There is a strong correlation between ease of firearm access and suicide.

Huh?  No matter how you kill yourself, you're dead!  I am not clear on what you are trying to get at here...

The point he's making is that you are more likely to successfully commit suicide if you have a gun. It's quick and usually instant, and that's the key.

When people try to jump off a building, there's a far better chance they won't go through with it. Someone might talk them down, or they will find that they can't access the roof. Some bridges have installed fences specifically designed to prevent suicides. Here's where it get insteresting. When people try to committ suicide and are prevented, they often don't try again. That small inconvenience gives them enough time to reconsider. When suicide becomes work, people decide they'd rather live.

If you look at number 3 in this article (it's Cracked, but the information is solid) you'l see several historical instances of suicide rates dropping when it stopped being convenient. People who would have killed themselves in their gas ovens didn't find another method when those were phased out. Absent a quick and easy solution, they kept on going.

That's the argument about suicide and guns. Guns make it easy, and you are less likely to be interrupted or prevented. This is also why they have all these stats about how you are more likely to be killed by your own gun than to use it to kill an intruder or attacker. It's because of the suicide rate.

Please do not picture me as a cold-hearted bastard, but I honestly do not give a fark if someone wants to kill themself with a gun.  Not my problem.  Making it harder for m ...


Suicide is not often a rational decision, so we try to keep it from happening because it has a profound effect on the families and friends of the victims whether the person truly wanted to die or not, and the very fact that it is impulsive and a good portion of people who attempt it never attempt it again, and those who look for a means but can't find one and give up, tells us there is merit in preventing it is it is a temporary, rash decision with real, permanent consequences.
 
2013-05-08 02:34:18 PM

JesseL: The way we've been so successful in making drugs harder to acquire?


Illegal drugs are absolutely harder to acquire than legal ones. By definition, selling heroin at a 7/11 would make it easier to get than making it criminally restricted.

Go for it. I kind of doubt it will make any difference. Most criminals don't exactly weigh the potential prison sentence in their risk/reward calculations.

They don't? We have all manner of penalties that act as deterrents (ie, assaulting a police officer vs standard assault). Even when they don't, tougher penalties ensure the criminal is removed from society for a greater period of time.

JesseL: Wayne 985: Scenario: Cho's mental health history was picked up by these gun stores and he was denied. He goes to a private seller, gets the guns and commits his massacre. Do you see my point?

Scenario: Cho's mental health history is flagged by NICS and he's denied. He's subsequently arrested for trying to purchase a firearm as a prohibited possessor.


Even better, but I'm not willing to put all my eggs in one basket. If John Doe the gun salesman doesn't do his job in reporting that or if a law enforcement officer doesn't do their job in arresting him, I'd like to know there are additional precautions. The penalty for someone like that trying to purchase a gun or lying on their paperwork should also be more severe.
 
2013-05-08 02:36:05 PM

JustGetItRight: Wow, you just don't get it do you?  For years Dems sat there and said nobody's after your guns then the same month that the senate takes up the background check, Cuomo - who happens to be a potential presidential candidate in 2016 - instantly turns thousands of New Yorkers into criminals and openly talks about confiscation.  How the hell did you think gun owners would react?


So you don't like Andrew Cuomo, ergo you fight Obama's attempt at instituting background checks. Sounds legit.
 
2013-05-08 02:37:33 PM

JesseL: Wayne 985: My point being that the more a killer has to stop and reload, the more time and opportunity he gives to his would-be victims.

Of course the same also works against someone who is using a firearm in a legitimate defensive situation.


This is a fantasy scenario. What circumstance are you imaging where someone needs a 30 or 50 round magazine in their rifle to fight off a rapist?
 
2013-05-08 02:39:00 PM

JesseL: Wayne 985: Scenario: Cho's mental health history was picked up by these gun stores and he was denied. He goes to a private seller, gets the guns and commits his massacre. Do you see my point?

Scenario: Cho's mental health history is flagged by NICS and he's denied. He's subsequently arrested for trying to purchase a firearm as a prohibited possessor.


Or shiat, even maybe the local PD says "Hey, this guy is a certified loony, why is he trying to buy some guns? Maybe we should call the campus police or sniff around this guy a bit. Maybe stop him from doing something bad?"
 
2013-05-08 02:41:18 PM

pedrop357: Putting your hand waving away of the root of the overall violence problem together with your desire to shiftithe gun culture and it becomes obvious you don't care about people suffering as much you care about getting rid guns.  This kind of thinking is at the heart of so many gun control-for-the-sake-of-gun-control proposals and is reprehensible.


I firmly believe that more guns in society results in more needless death and violence.  Clearly one of us is wrong and one of us is right.  I would suggest that if you are against gun control on principle, it would not matter what the next impact is to public safety is.  That would at least be a more honest position.

The US has an atypical amount of homicides and gun violence than other industrialized economies.  The most obvious explanation is the saturation of fire arms in the society and firearms finding themselves in the hands of criminals.  That is the obvious explanation.  America is not exceptional.  You put that many guns in any society and you will end up with more murders and shootings.
 
2013-05-08 02:41:43 PM

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


I like how gun control advocates will claim that "minor" inconveniences like background checks and waiting periods will have a drastic affect on gun crime, but being forced to drive TO A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT STATE will have no effect whatsoever.
 
2013-05-08 02:42:27 PM
Dammit. Both of those should be "effect".
 
2013-05-08 02:42:49 PM
The personal rights movement was ginned up and funded by right wing think tanks in the 70s. It has no basis in constitutional law.  It's is a wedge issue crafted to keep the working class whites from voting for their own interests. The only cases that have affirmed personal rights are Heller 2008 on the votes of the most biased supreme court in recent history.
 
2013-05-08 02:42:56 PM
Since the advent of video games, violent juvenile crime has reached an all-time low. Politicians/media outlets keep trying to ascribe all youth violence to videogames.

Thanks again, Media!

/realize it's probably not down due to videogames
//but it damn sure ain't up
 
2013-05-08 02:45:38 PM

Wayne 985: JustGetItRight:
As far as the magazine capacity goes, what's the difference between a 10 round and a 30?  About 2 seconds.  What's the difference between a magazine change and a speed loader for a revolver?  Only another few seconds.  In every single one of these events, the killers had 5, 10, 15 or more minutes of uninterrupted killing time.

You're unequivocally mistaken in your implication. Exhibit A: Kip Kinkel.


You might also says Loughner, too. I think he had issues with his extremely oversized magazine.

My point being that the more a killer has to stop and reload, the more time and opportunity he gives to his would-be victims.

Unfortunately that doesn't bear out as much as you would like, as Kinkel and Loughner are pretty much outliers. Cho just brought a backpack of magazines, Lanza reloaded when only half empty, Brevik made many magazine changes, and so on. What really determines the success of the lone shooter is time and access to stationary targets. Brevik chose an island and sabotaged escape routes, Cho chained doors to keep cops out and students in. If you take a look at the average bullets per minute fired its something like 10-20 rounds a minute, average 5ish bullets per death.

When it comes to magazine limitations, I have this to say:

Let us assume that somehow, despite crippling issues in practicality, all magazines hold ten rounds or less. (Ignoring that hundreds of millions probably do exist, are easily made since they are some sheet sheet and a spring, or can be 3-D printed, or smuggled in, etc)

Marty Mass-Murderer knows he intends to commit crime, and has time to prepare and gather materials. In this case, they he bring more magazines with them, maintaining the same ammunition loadout. As previously stated, a tactical reload can take one or two seconds, and loading time rarely factors into the 'effectiveness' of the mass shooting. Cho. at the V-Tech shooting, brought seventeen or more 10 and 15 round magazines with him in his backpack.

Connie Concealed-Carry, or Harry Homeowner, has no idea when precisely the danger will strike. At the time the mugger brandishes his knife, or the invader(s) come through the window, it is not likely that a bag of magazines will be at the ready! Instead, Connie/Harry will only have the rounds in their magazine, and ten may not be enough.

Magazine limitations do nothing to deter mass shooters, nor criminals. They only affect defensive uses of firearms.

Why do you think every magazine limitation bill has exemptions for law enforcement?

See also this somewhat LOLarious video.
 
2013-05-08 02:46:28 PM

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

I like how gun control advocates will claim that "minor" inconveniences like background checks and waiting periods will have a drastic affect on gun crime, but being forced to drive TO A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT STATE will have no effect whatsoever.


I've read this three times and don't understand your point.
 
2013-05-08 02:47:06 PM

Wayne 985: Illegal drugs are absolutely harder to acquire than legal ones. By definition, selling heroin at a 7/11 would make it easier to get than making it criminally restricted.


Try looking into whether it's easier for a 15 year old to get a six-pack of beer or some pot.

Wayne 985: They don't? We have all manner of penalties that act as deterrents (ie, assaulting a police officer vs standard assault). Even when they don't, tougher penalties ensure the criminal is removed from society for a greater period of time.


Yeah, I'm pretty sure they don't. Meanwhile, how is our prison overcrowding problem coming along?

Wayne 985: Even better, but I'm not willing to put all my eggs in one basket. If John Doe the gun salesman doesn't do his job in reporting that or if a law enforcement officer doesn't do their job in arresting him, I'd like to know there are additional precautions. The penalty for someone like that trying to purchase a gun or lying on their paperwork should also be more severe.


How far are you willing to take that? How many resources are you willing to put toward a marginally effective (at best) solution to a problem that's dwarfed by so many others?

Why not focus on improvements in mental health care, enforcement of existing laws, and a few tweaks to the current NICS system first?
 
2013-05-08 02:47:29 PM

Wayne 985: JustGetItRight: Wow, you just don't get it do you?  For years Dems sat there and said nobody's after your guns then the same month that the senate takes up the background check, Cuomo - who happens to be a potential presidential candidate in 2016 - instantly turns thousands of New Yorkers into criminals and openly talks about confiscation.  How the hell did you think gun owners would react?

So you don't like Andrew Cuomo, ergo you fight Obama's attempt at instituting background checks. Sounds legit.


What's legit is the fear of what will be the next step when those background checks don't change one single thing.

I said it earlier.  I don't mind background checks.  I don't think they do very much good at all but I don't find them an infringement on my rights just like I don't find the concept of showing a photo id when I vote to be an infringement on my rights.

The problem comes when we aren't talking about just background checks.  If the president was serious about it, he would've had Biden shutting Diane up and doing his best to reign in Cuomo.  Without their radicalism in play, he could have presented a bill that expanded background checks to all sales (particularly if it included some form of civil liability protection for participating) and it would have passed.

Instead he chose to embrace the radicals and for that he got defeated.  It isn't over yet.  Bloomberg's going full tilt against the Democrats that voted against the bill.  Great strategy.  Most of those are in Republican leaning states.  Put a lot of money into the (D) primaries, get them replaced with more liberal candidates, and watch those candidates lose to the (R) in the general election.

Let me know how that Republican senate and house work out for you.
 
2013-05-08 02:47:35 PM

PDid: The personal rights movement was ginned up and funded by right wing think tanks in the 70s. It has no basis in constitutional law.  It's is a wedge issue crafted to keep the working class whites from voting for their own interests. The only cases that have affirmed personal rights are Heller 2008 on the votes of the most biased supreme court in recent history.


You are correct. The idea that rights are a property of individuals has no basis in reality; such irrational and dishonest thinking has resulted in any individual being able to express any opinion that they desire.
 
2013-05-08 02:48:21 PM
JesseL:
How far are you willing to take that? How many resources are you willing to put toward a marginally effective (at best) solution to a problem that's dwarfed by so many others?

Why not focus on improvements in mental health care, enforcement of existing laws, and a few tweaks to the current NICS system first?


Those things don't shame and punish gun-havers for the audacity to exercise their rights.
 
2013-05-08 02:49:40 PM
That doesn't mean US gun crime isn't high compared to other countries, because it is. It was just INSANE (300% worse) in the 60-80s. I'm convinced the lead poisoning causing abnormally high violent crime theory has merit.
 
2013-05-08 02:50:48 PM

PDid: The personal rights movement was ginned up and funded by right wing think tanks in the 70s. It has no basis in constitutional law. It's is a wedge issue crafted to keep the working class whites from voting for their own interests. The only cases that have affirmed personal rights are Heller 2008 on the votes of the most biased supreme court in recent history.


Yes.  For example, a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy is not a personal right.  It is the creation of a right wing agenda.

Oh wait.....
 
2013-05-08 02:51:26 PM

Dimensio: PDid: The personal rights movement was ginned up and funded by right wing think tanks in the 70s. It has no basis in constitutional law.  It's is a wedge issue crafted to keep the working class whites from voting for their own interests. The only cases that have affirmed personal rights are Heller 2008 on the votes of the most biased supreme court in recent history.

You are correct. The idea that rights are a property of individuals has no basis in reality; such irrational and dishonest thinking has resulted in any individual being able to express any opinion that they desire.


Save the pedantry. I was talking about the personal rights to bear arms versus the collective rights.
 
2013-05-08 02:52:29 PM

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

I like how gun control advocates will claim that "minor" inconveniences like background checks and waiting periods will have a drastic affect on gun crime, but being forced to drive TO A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT STATE will have no effect whatsoever.


because the proposed law is that background checks would be required in every State.  It would be unavoidable.  What is confusing about that?
 
2013-05-08 02:52:34 PM

PDid: Dimensio: PDid: The personal rights movement was ginned up and funded by right wing think tanks in the 70s. It has no basis in constitutional law.  It's is a wedge issue crafted to keep the working class whites from voting for their own interests. The only cases that have affirmed personal rights are Heller 2008 on the votes of the most biased supreme court in recent history.

You are correct. The idea that rights are a property of individuals has no basis in reality; such irrational and dishonest thinking has resulted in any individual being able to express any opinion that they desire.

Save the pedantry. I was talking about the personal rights to bear arms versus the collective rights.


For what reason do you not also address the personal right to speak freely versus the collective right?
 
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