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  
•       •       •

6218 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 02:53:28 PM  

someonelse: There are state laws banning alcohol sales to people with X number of DUI citations.


And the liquor store knows how many DUI citations the customer has ....how?
 
2013-05-08 02:53:34 PM  

Wayne 985: 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.


I'm glad that I am not alone.  My point is for National laws to avoid people getting their guns out-of-state somehow.
 
2013-05-08 02:53:37 PM  
BayouOtter:
Unfortunately that doesn't bear out as much as you would like, as Kinkel and Loughner are pretty much outliers.

And? There are many people alive today because those animals had to stop and reload. A lack of simple restriction is okay as long as only some innocent people are killed?

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.

This is what confuses me more than anything. What kind of a Rambo scenario are you fantasizing about?

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

Well, no, as you stated above, they also have a track record of affecting mass murderers.
 
2013-05-08 02:54:44 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Ablejack: GoldSpider: CPennypacker: My right to own an inanimate object trumps your right to live

Blatant false dichotomy is blatantly false.

The well regulated militia is well regulated.

It seems I have to post this in every gun thread, because there's someone like you who is ignorant to the fact that words and phrases change over time.

The following are taken from the  Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us  well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."
1714: "The practice of all  well-regulated courts of justice in the world."
1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a  well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."
1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every  well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."
1862: "It appeared to her  well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."
1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every  well-regulated American embryo city."
The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.


And every time you post it I have to post this, also from the Oxford English Dictionary.

As you, and everyone else, can clearly see, the meaning of regulation in the sense of "to controlled, govern or direct by rule" was also in common use at the time and and been since 1680. It is also cited as the most common use. It is completely and entirely possible that your framers intended that definition rather than the much less used definition of "to make regular or even".

Your talking point remains busted.
 
2013-05-08 02:55:13 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.


So where did stuff like this from state constitutions prior to the 1970s originate?:
http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/const/2/26.htm 
26. Bearing arms
Section 26. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the state shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men.
 
2013-05-08 02:56:00 PM  

mrshowrules: 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.


It's also the *WRONG* explanation, because it's so simplistic and it ignores cultural differences, which is why it is so beloved of the self-styled intelligentsia.
 
2013-05-08 02:56:33 PM  

mrshowrules: I'm glad that I am not alone. My point is for National laws to avoid people getting their guns out-of-state somehow.


Like the way it's currently illegal for someone to buy a handgun outside their current state of residence?
 
2013-05-08 02:56:43 PM  

JesseL: 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.


1. Strange that you compare the regulation of guns to illegal drugs. I guess it's easier than other legal things that are regulated, like alcohol, tobacco, cars, food, clothing, water.

2. Well, there's the average criminal acting in desperation, and then there's the calculation of someone plotting a massacre. It's not a coincidence that most of the weapons used in these mass shootings are obtained legally, going through illegal channels could net you weapons that will cause greater damage and bloodshed, however it also greatly increases the risk of getting caught before any violence takes place.
 
2013-05-08 02:57:17 PM  

Mouldy Squid: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Ablejack: GoldSpider: CPennypacker: My right to own an inanimate object trumps your right to live

Blatant false dichotomy is blatantly false.

The well regulated militia is well regulated.

It seems I have to post this in every gun thread, because there's someone like you who is ignorant to the fact that words and phrases change over time.

The following are taken from the  Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us  well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."
1714: "The practice of all  well-regulated courts of justice in the world."
1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a  well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."
1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every  well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."
1862: "It appeared to her  well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."
1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every  well-regulated American embryo city."
The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

And every time you post it I have to post this, also from the Oxford English Dictionary.

As you, and everyone else, can clearly see, the meaning of regulation in the sense of "to controlled, govern or direct by rule" was also in common use at the time and and been since 1680. It is also cited as the most common use. It is completely and entirely possible that your framers intended that definition rather than the much less used definition of "to make regular or ...


Fark says the picture is too big so here is the link. Not that BraveNewDerpyWorld will click on it.
 
2013-05-08 02:58:50 PM  

JesseL: mrshowrules: I'm glad that I am not alone. My point is for National laws to avoid people getting their guns out-of-state somehow.

Like the way it's currently illegal for someone to buy a handgun outside their current state of residence?


Who says you have to buy it outside.  If I bring you the gun and sell it to you, it still comes from out of state.
 
2013-05-08 03:00:10 PM  

Dimensio: 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?


Cause the there is no militia (collective) qualification in the first amendment.
 
2013-05-08 03:00:17 PM  
So, overall gun violence has gone down with stricter gun control laws? I'm shocked. SHOCKED I tell you!
 
2013-05-08 03:00:41 PM  

mrshowrules: JesseL: mrshowrules: I'm glad that I am not alone. My point is for National laws to avoid people getting their guns out-of-state somehow.

Like the way it's currently illegal for someone to buy a handgun outside their current state of residence?

Who says you have to buy it outside.  If I bring you the gun and sell it to you, it still comes from out of state.


And you think that's legal?
 
2013-05-08 03:00:59 PM  

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


It was organized inasmuch as there was a local command structure of people trained, to some degree, in the organization of troops. You rang the town bell and called up the militia and they assembled to drill and fight as a unit, not a bunch of Rugged Patriot Individuals® each doing his own thing for hearth & family.
 
2013-05-08 03:01:15 PM  

JesseL: 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.


I have. I've seen first hand kids turned away from buying cigarettes because they didn't have their ID. Did a lot of them eventually get them anyway? Maybe. In the meantime, they were stalled and many probably prevented.
 Yeah, I'm pretty sure they don't. Meanwhile, how is our prison overcrowding problem coming along?


Marijuana illegality has a big part to play there. I'm all in favor of changing that.

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

All of the above. Like I said, this needs to be a multi-pronged attack.

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


That's paranoia, to put it bluntly. So no, it's not legitimate. I've never witnessed such a crying of wolf than I've heard from gun fetishists like the NRA over this last year.

"One day the government is conducting a criminal background check and the next they're marching you into ovens" seems to be the theme.
 
2013-05-08 03:02:02 PM  

Wayne 985: BayouOtter:
Unfortunately that doesn't bear out as much as you would like, as Kinkel and Loughner are pretty much outliers.

And? There are many people alive today because those animals had to stop and reload. A lack of simple restriction is okay as long as only some innocent people are killed?


Actually, Loughner fumbled with his non-standard size magazine. A ten-round magazine might have allowed him to change successfully and continue firing. Really, with a bit of practice the time to reload can be under a second - that isn't a large window. Not to mention mass shootings are a rare enough occurrence that the effects of spending billions to accomplish nothing or little at all seem circumspect.

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.

This is what confuses me more than anything. What kind of a Rambo scenario are you fantasizing about?


I'm not. There are plenty of situations where ten rounds hasn't been enough to spot determined criminals. A violent home invasion or robbery is a much more common scenario than a madman trying to shoot up a place.

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

Well, no, as you stated above, they also have a track record of affecting mass murderers
to almost zero degree while greatly affecting lawful self-defense uses of firearms.

I fixed that for you.
 
2013-05-08 03:02:55 PM  

dittybopper: mrshowrules: 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.

It's also the *WRONG* explanation, because it's so simplistic and it ignores cultural differences, which is why it is so beloved of the self-styled intelligentsia.


Is that the same reason why single-payer wouldn't work in the US?  Is "cultural differences" a dog whistle for something that I'm not aware of.  Funny how it is always Conservatives who resist the idea of funding of serious investigation/study into the problem of gun violence.   They fear this research for some reason.
 
2013-05-08 03:03:42 PM  

Rapmaster2000: fluffy2097: Princess Ryans Knickers: Let's see.. more areas with more gun control in last 20 years.. gun crime drops. Funny that.

Actually, It's up in gun free zones almost universally.

All the mass shootings have taken place in gun free zones / places with tight gun control.

/funny that.

That is my new favorite description.

"This chicken is almost universally free of salmonella."


I picked up two.  Funny that.
 
2013-05-08 03:06:19 PM  
If gun control doesn't work, then why are automatic firearms the least-employed of all available firearms in violent crimes?

Still have yet to get an answer for that one.
 
2013-05-08 03:06:50 PM  

BayouOtter: Wayne 985: BayouOtter:
Unfortunately that doesn't bear out as much as you would like, as Kinkel and Loughner are pretty much outliers.

And? There are many people alive today because those animals had to stop and reload. A lack of simple restriction is okay as long as only some innocent people are killed?

Actually, Loughner fumbled with his non-standard size magazine. A ten-round magazine might have allowed him to change successfully and continue firing. Really, with a bit of practice the time to reload can be under a second - that isn't a large window. Not to mention mass shootings are a rare enough occurrence that the effects of spending billions to accomplish nothing or little at all seem circumspect.

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.

This is what confuses me more than anything. What kind of a Rambo scenario are you fantasizing about?

I'm not. There are plenty of situations where ten rounds hasn't been enough to spot determined criminals. A violent home invasion or robbery is a much more common scenario than a madman trying to shoot up a place.


Here's what I find odd... so we have this "problem" of people not having enough rounds to defend themselves against home invaders... the obvious solution is not to focus on training so people know how to use guns accurately and responsibly, it is to give them as many goddamn bullets as possible so they can just blindly empty rounds in the general direction of people in their house.

Gun culture in America: it's not about responsibility, it's about f*cking shooting sh*t.
 
2013-05-08 03:08:42 PM  

BayouOtter: I fixed that for you.


Mmm, no. I gave you documented examples and you gave me hypotheticals.
 
2013-05-08 03:09:40 PM  

PDid: Dimensio: 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?

Cause the there is no militia (collective) qualification in the first amendment.


I understand now. You are dishonestly claiming that the reference to a militia within the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is a constraining qualification, when in reality it is a justification.
 
2013-05-08 03:10:06 PM  

JesseL: mrshowrules: JesseL: mrshowrules: I'm glad that I am not alone. My point is for National laws to avoid people getting their guns out-of-state somehow.

Like the way it's currently illegal for someone to buy a handgun outside their current state of residence?

Who says you have to buy it outside.  If I bring you the gun and sell it to you, it still comes from out of state.

And you think that's legal?


If a purchased a gun out of state and move to your state, I can sell it to you.  Actually, I don't even need to have primary residency in your State so long as I own property in it.
 
2013-05-08 03:10:57 PM  

Dan the Schman: 1. Strange that you compare the regulation of guns to illegal drugs. I guess it's easier than other legal things that are regulated, like alcohol, tobacco, cars, food, clothing, water.


What's strange here? When a criminal element has a demand for an item, regulation doesn't make the demand go away. When the regulation gets tight enough it just drives up black market profits. If you want to fix the problem, the cause of the demand needs to be addressed more than the supply.

Dan the Schman: 2. Well, there's the average criminal acting in desperation, and then there's the calculation of someone plotting a massacre. It's not a coincidence that most of the weapons used in these mass shootings are obtained legally, going through illegal channels could net you weapons that will cause greater damage and bloodshed, however it also greatly increases the risk of getting caught before any violence takes place.


Oddly enough, if someone plotting a massacre were to use a weapon that could only be obtained illegally (I'm guessing you're talking about something like machine guns here) the resulting damage and bloodshed would probably be lower. Aimed and controlled fire is more effective than spray-and-pray.

On the other hand, if they were to try an entirely different method of mayhem (like arson) they could probably kill many more people.
 
2013-05-08 03:13:40 PM  

mrshowrules: 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.


Have you seen the stats on the NON-FIREARM murder rate in the United States?  It too is much higher than most countries.
 
2013-05-08 03:14:19 PM  

Dan the Schman: Here's what I find odd... so we have this "problem" of people not having enough rounds to defend themselves against home invaders... the obvious solution is not to focus on training so people know how to use guns accurately and responsibly, it is to give them as many goddamn bullets as possible so they can just blindly empty rounds in the general direction of people in their house.


Does this also apply to the police?
 
2013-05-08 03:14:26 PM  

JustGetItRight: Let me know how that Republican senate and house work out for you.


We could party like it's 1994.

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-05-08 03:14:39 PM  
Dan the Schman:
Here's what I find odd... so we have this "problem" of people not having enough rounds to defend themselves against home invaders...

No, the problem is politicians want to artificially limit the amount of rounds that can be used in defensive situations. (For citizens. Cops[Active and retired] get to have 17 rounds in the pistol, 2 extra mags, body armor, and backup. Joe American in his boxers at 3 am has to make due with the 1097 in New York) he's graciously allowed to load in his pistol.)

the obvious solution is not to focus on training so people know how to use guns accurately and responsibly,

Yeah, because every single criminal falls over the moment they get shot. If there are two criminals and you put five rounds in each one, they'll be stopped for certain.

Gun culture in America: it's not about responsibility, it's about f*cking shooting sh*t.

Go fark yourself.
 
2013-05-08 03:15:34 PM  

mrshowrules: If a purchased a gun out of state and move to your state, I can sell it to you. Actually, I don't even need to have primary residency in your State so long as I own property in it.


True. But if the gun is illegal in this state (which is implied since this facet of the argument was about the lowest common denominator among state gun laws) you probably can't legally sell it. If it's legal in both states, what difference does it make?
 
2013-05-08 03:16:55 PM  

Bane of Broone: So, overall gun violence has gone down with stricter gun control laws? I'm shocked. SHOCKED I tell you!


Convenient that you ignore the great relaxation of gun laws other than the background check part that  occurred over the same period.

You know, things like the assault weapons ban expiration and the expansion of concealed carry from only a few states to all but one.
 
2013-05-08 03:17:05 PM  

Noticeably F.A.T.: Dan the Schman: Here's what I find odd... so we have this "problem" of people not having enough rounds to defend themselves against home invaders... the obvious solution is not to focus on training so people know how to use guns accurately and responsibly, it is to give them as many goddamn bullets as possible so they can just blindly empty rounds in the general direction of people in their house.

Does this also apply to the police?


Nah, they're already perfect shots.

latimesblogs.latimes.com
 
2013-05-08 03:18:08 PM  

Noticeably F.A.T.: Dan the Schman: Here's what I find odd... so we have this "problem" of people not having enough rounds to defend themselves against home invaders... the obvious solution is not to focus on training so people know how to use guns accurately and responsibly, it is to give them as many goddamn bullets as possible so they can just blindly empty rounds in the general direction of people in their house.

Does this also apply to the police?


Well, it is an issue for cops.

NYPD Gunfire In Empire State Building Shooting Wounded All Nine Bystanders, Says Police Commissioner
Police seeking Dorner opened fire in a second case of mistaken identity
 
2013-05-08 03:19:45 PM  
When when we reach a point in time that you can correctly and sanely argue that we no longer need police or a military, you will have a valid, rational argument that we no longer need guns. As long as we need those two entities to protect us, then we also need guns to protect ourselves. Not only because the police and military cannot be there to protect everybody 24/7, but because these two entities also answer to, and take orders from, chronic narcissists with political aspirations. By its own standards, (i.e.- the standards that it applies to us,) our government would be permanently disqualified from gun ownership. Only through its own narcissistic rationalization can it justify all the firepower it purchases. All the innocent lives it rationalizes away as "collateral damage" in its various wars and thinly- veiled bullying tactics.


I recently saw a video in a Huffington Post online article which was touted as "Jon Stewart utterly destroying the NRA's argument." (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/07/jon-stewart-destroys-nra-_n _3 228814.html ) In it, Stewart, in his rush to ridicule the NRA as fear-mongers, makes the all-too common mistake of ascribing his own motivations to them and their members. He takes the fact that a gun owner says, "With this gun I need fear no man," and twists it, saying "See? He fears everybody! That's why he needs a gun!" If this were even minutely true, then the government must be in abject terror, given the amount of firepower it has purchased since 9/11/01 and the Draconian rules it has found necessary to enforce, basically viewing EVERYBODY as potential terrorists now. So deep is its paranoia.


The apparent high point in his video, Stewart pulls the cute but meaningless schtick of pretending to hide behind his desk, afraid of the statement that "lying in wait right now, there is a terrorist.. plotting, etc.," Ironic how he uses the typical liberal response to danger (peeking from behind his desk,)  in an attempt to lampoon the NRA. In fact, his desire to ridicule them was so great, he failed to realize that he was doing a much better job of lampooning the Bostonians, peering from their darkened windows as an army of jack-booted thugs failed to find a solitary unarmed, wounded teenager, despite overwhelming firepower, implementing a house-to-house search in which they wewrre phoitographed menacingly pointing their weapons at innocent inhabitants. In fact, if Stweart would have used a little more imagination, he'd have tossed some paper airplanes from behind his desk, and would have succinctly nailed Obama's drone warfare policy to a "T".

To be fair. Stewart correctly nailed the Republicans' duplicitous invocation of and subsequent complaints about the sequester process. Too bad they were such small points.
 
2013-05-08 03:20:09 PM  

that bosnian sniper: If gun control doesn't work, then why are automatic firearms the least-employed of all available firearms in violent crimes?

Still have yet to get an answer for that one.


Because fully automatic firearms aren't really any more useful than other types for most things?

I'd love to have one for fun, but if I were knocking over a liquor store or massacring a bunch of kids it wouldn't get the job done any better than what I already have.
 
2013-05-08 03:21:39 PM  

mrshowrules: dittybopper: mrshowrules: 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.

It's also the *WRONG* explanation, because it's so simplistic and it ignores cultural differences, which is why it is so beloved of the self-styled intelligentsia.

Is that the same reason why single-payer wouldn't work in the US?  Is "cultural differences" a dog whistle for something that I'm not aware of.  Funny how it is always Conservatives who resist the idea of funding of serious investigation/study into the problem of gun violence.   They fear this research for some reason.


Actually, prior to the US Supreme Court ruling that ACA was constitutional,  I argued that single-payer was constitutional.  It wasn't my personal preference, but it would have been more intellectually defensible than what we actually got.
 
2013-05-08 03:22:18 PM  

Wayne 985: That's paranoia


It is paranoia when thegGovernor of New York openly states that confiscation is an option?

It is paranoia when the senior senator from California says "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 "

That's paranoia?  Got it.

No, gun owners aren't paranoid.  You're in denial.
 
2013-05-08 03:25:00 PM  

JesseL: Dan the Schman: 1. Strange that you compare the regulation of guns to illegal drugs. I guess it's easier than other legal things that are regulated, like alcohol, tobacco, cars, food, clothing, water.

What's strange here? When a criminal element has a demand for an item, regulation doesn't make the demand go away. When the regulation gets tight enough it just drives up black market profits. If you want to fix the problem, the cause of the demand needs to be addressed more than the supply.


Who said demand goes away? Nobody. But, by definition, making something more difficult to obtain will reduce access. This is a discussion of regulation, not outright banning or outlawing, your example of drugs is a crappy strawman. Drugs are pretty much always a lame strawman, because the motivation to obtain drugs is different on virtually every single level than obtaining weapons. 

Dan the Schman: 2. Well, there's the average criminal acting in desperation, and then there's the calculation of someone plotting a massacre. It's not a coincidence that most of the weapons used in these mass shootings are obtained legally, going through illegal channels could net you weapons that will cause greater damage and bloodshed, however it also greatly increases the risk of getting caught before any violence takes place.

Oddly enough, if someone plotting a massacre were to use a weapon that could only be obtained illegally (I'm guessing you're talking about something like machine guns here) the resulting damage and bloodshed would probably be lower. Aimed and controlled fire is more effective than spray-and-pray.

On the other hand, if they were to try an entirely different method of mayhem (like arson) they could probably kill many more people.


1. Well, it would depend on the location of the attack. The Sandy Hook shooting? Probably lower, the Aurora theater? Possibly higher.
2. No, I wasn't merely thinking of a machine gun, I was speaking of the entire Black Market for weapons, "legal" and illegal. Weapons they don't want traced back to them, weapons they don't have to wait for.

The fact that they obtain their weapons for destruction shows that they DO put thought into the risk/reward of illegal channels, and due to our loose regulations they feel confident in their ability to achieve their goal through 100% legal means.

3. Arson wouldn't necessarily kill as many people, and that's a completely different psychological profile, for mass shooters it's just as much about the method as it is about the murder, another reason you don't often see the use of explosives.
 
2013-05-08 03:27:56 PM  

JesseL: mrshowrules: If a purchased a gun out of state and move to your state, I can sell it to you. Actually, I don't even need to have primary residency in your State so long as I own property in it.

True. But if the gun is illegal in this state (which is implied since this facet of the argument was about the lowest common denominator among state gun laws) you probably can't legally sell it. If it's legal in both states, what difference does it make?


Well the laws that get them from the manufacturers into the hands of the public in the first are the main issue.  Afterwards, the legalities of moving the around after that have more and more room for shenanigans.  Mississippi is good example of a place where it is very easy to buy a gun and has a great number of illegal exports to other States.

Universal background checks across the US would seem a logical step in curtailing sale of guns to the wrong people.
 
2013-05-08 03:29:10 PM  

dittybopper: Actually, prior to the US Supreme Court ruling that ACA was constitutional,  I argued that single-payer was constitutional.  It wasn't my personal preference, but it would have been more intellectually defensible than what we actually got.


Just that I've heard the "cultural" argument used against both the ACA and single-payer.  It seems like the last argument always played.
 
2013-05-08 03:31:01 PM  

Mouldy Squid: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Ablejack: GoldSpider: CPennypacker: My right to own an inanimate object trumps your right to live

Blatant false dichotomy is blatantly false.

The well regulated militia is well regulated.

It seems I have to post this in every gun thread, because there's someone like you who is ignorant to the fact that words and phrases change over time.

The following are taken from the  Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us  well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."
1714: "The practice of all  well-regulated courts of justice in the world."
1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a  well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."
1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every  well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."
1862: "It appeared to her  well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."
1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every  well-regulated American embryo city."
The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

And every time you post it I have to post this, also from the Oxford English Dictionary.

As you, and everyone else, can clearly see, the meaning of regulation in the sense of "to controlled, govern or direct by rule" was also in common use at the time and and been since 1680. It is also cited as the most common use. It is completely and entirely possible that your framers intended that definition rather than the much less used definition of "to make regular or ...


Is English your second, or third language?  What do you think it means to "chew someone out"?

*hint* you can't just add the words together.
 
2013-05-08 03:31:35 PM  

that bosnian sniper: If gun control doesn't work, then why are automatic firearms the least-employed of all available firearms in violent crimes?

Still have yet to get an answer for that one.


For the same reason that any a rifle, isn't often used in violent crime (only around 300 murders a year).  It isn't easily transported or concealed and it is difficult to be used effectively.

Handguns can be hidden and transported in any kind of vehicle.  Shotguns can't be transported as easily, but at close range they can be used to brutal effect with very little practice.  Both handguns and shotguns are also less expensive than all but the most basic rifles.

Rifles, regardless of rate of fire, have neither the portability of handguns nor the ease of use of shotguns and they cost more thus they aren't practical choices.

What's hard to understand about it?
 
2013-05-08 03:32:04 PM  

pedrop357: mrshowrules: 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.

Have you seen the stats on the NON-FIREARM murder rate in the United States?  It too is much higher than most countries.


No doubt the US is a more violent country but the the gun related violence is disproportionately high.
 
2013-05-08 03:32:33 PM  

BayouOtter: Dan the Schman:
Here's what I find odd... so we have this "problem" of people not having enough rounds to defend themselves against home invaders...

No, the problem is politicians want to artificially limit the amount of rounds that can be used in defensive situations. (For citizens. Cops[Active and retired] get to have 17 rounds in the pistol, 2 extra mags, body armor, and backup. Joe American in his boxers at 3 am has to make due with the 1097 in New York) he's graciously allowed to load in his pistol.)

the obvious solution is not to focus on training so people know how to use guns accurately and responsibly,

Yeah, because every single criminal falls over the moment they get shot. If there are two criminals and you put five rounds in each one, they'll be stopped for certain.

Gun culture in America: it's not about responsibility, it's about farking shooting shiat.

Go fark yourself.


To my knowledge, no serious legislation has been proposed limiting the number of magazines someone can own, merely the size of the magazine... and as you pointed out earlier, with practice someone can change magazines in under a second... add that to the advantage of them knowing more about the ins and outs of their own home than a strange intruder, and a couple clips should be adequate.

As for the one-in-a-million example of the intruder persisting after being shot 5 times... I'd bet money he was on drugs of some kind, in which case not even an extended magazine would have stopped him... pretty much nothing short of death would have. Maybe invest in a shotgun instead.
 
2013-05-08 03:33:07 PM  

mrshowrules: Well the laws that get them from the manufacturers into the hands of the public in the first are the main issue. Afterwards, the legalities of moving the around after that have more and more room for shenanigans. Mississippi is good example of a place where it is very easy to buy a gun and has a great number of illegal exports to other States.

Universal background checks across the US would seem a logical step in curtailing sale of guns to the wrong people.


What are universal background checks going to do for sellers that know they're making illegal sales?
 
2013-05-08 03:33:32 PM  

mrshowrules: dittybopper: Actually, prior to the US Supreme Court ruling that ACA was constitutional,  I argued that single-payer was constitutional.  It wasn't my personal preference, but it would have been more intellectually defensible than what we actually got.

Just that I've heard the "cultural" argument used against both the ACA and single-payer.  It seems like the last argument always played.


And that's relevant in a gun thread because??

The two things aren't necessarily the same.

A cultural argument against A might be invalid, but that doesn't mean a similar argument would be invalid against B.
 
2013-05-08 03:37:01 PM  
Golly!
 
2013-05-08 03:37:38 PM  

JesseL: that bosnian sniper: If gun control doesn't work, then why are automatic firearms the least-employed of all available firearms in violent crimes?

Still have yet to get an answer for that one.

Because fully automatic firearms aren't really any more useful than other types for most things?

I'd love to have one for fun, but if I were knocking over a liquor store or massacring a bunch of kids it wouldn't get the job done any better than what I already have.


Fully automatic firearms are pretty much for suppression rather than mass murder. If you hold down the trigger on a fully auto M16, you've got about 4 seconds, you can't control it as well as semi-auto and you're basically just spray and pray. Remember the North Hollywood Shootout? Full auto, ZERO people killed other than the perpetrators.

Quit living in movies, one well placed shot can do more than 30 on full auto. Surprisingly, outside of the difficulty of getting them, they're just not practical for almost anything a criminal wants to do unless you're laying down suppressing fire while your buddies flank your target...
 
2013-05-08 03:37:52 PM  

dittybopper: mrshowrules: dittybopper: Actually, prior to the US Supreme Court ruling that ACA was constitutional,  I argued that single-payer was constitutional.  It wasn't my personal preference, but it would have been more intellectually defensible than what we actually got.

Just that I've heard the "cultural" argument used against both the ACA and single-payer.  It seems like the last argument always played.

And that's relevant in a gun thread because??

The two things aren't necessarily the same.

A cultural argument against A might be invalid, but that doesn't mean a similar argument would be invalid against B.


Because (as I raised in my post earlier)  the US is not exceptional.  Less/more guns in a society will lead to less/more violence.  The cultural argument (as with many political topics) is a red herring.
 
2013-05-08 03:42:21 PM  

JesseL: mrshowrules: Well the laws that get them from the manufacturers into the hands of the public in the first are the main issue. Afterwards, the legalities of moving the around after that have more and more room for shenanigans. Mississippi is good example of a place where it is very easy to buy a gun and has a great number of illegal exports to other States.

Universal background checks across the US would seem a logical step in curtailing sale of guns to the wrong people.

What are universal background checks going to do for sellers that know they're making illegal sales?


Look at it from the perspective of the felon.  Once they purchase a gun (legally from the knowledge/perspective of the seller) in any State, they can use it to kill someone or they can illegally sell it to someone (anyone else) anywhere in the country.

Any gun control rules no longer are worth anything after a crazy person or criminal (in any State) buys the gun.  Once that threshhold is passed, you effectively have a country with a single policy in terms of crazy people and criminals having guns in your country.
 
2013-05-08 03:43:09 PM  

raatz01: 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.


The rise and fall corilates to florinated water.  We start to florinate the water and crime rates rise.  People start to buy bottled water and the rates start to decline.  It doesnt take a rocket sturgeon to see this.
 
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