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 05:55:17 PM

Dimensio: Lorelle: JustGetItRight: And gun grabber ignore the increased sales, liberalization of concealed carry, and end of the assault weapons ban that happened during the same time frame.

 
Who has grabbed guns, now?? Gun worshippers are sooo delusional.
 
Your assessment of delusion would be more credible were you not already known to be a willful liar.
 
Ladies and gentlemen, proof that gun worshippers are delusional (this particular one has been known to yammer about guns in threads that have absolutely nothing to do with the topic).
 
2013-05-08 05:55:30 PM

HeadLever:

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

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

That is a dumb argument if I ever heard one.

While it's dumb, exactly as you describe, it is also worse than that.  Keeping and carrying guns is a Constitutional right.  A better analogy is: "Rosa Parks didn't NEED to sit in the front of the bus -- the back goes to the same places as the front." And she didn't have the right at the time, unlike gun owners.
 
2013-05-08 05:55:35 PM

Dimensio: 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.


How is that dishonest? There is a constrain of a well regulated militia, and that had been the guiding interpretation until very recently when the right decided to make guns a political issue.
 
2013-05-08 05:56:32 PM

JustGetItRight: Tumunga: Subby: "In the last 20 years, gun murders have dropped almost by half. Fark: Americans believe gun crime is rising.  Because hospitals have increased the survival rate of gun shot victims by almost 100% in the last 20 yearsThanks, Before ObamacareAmerican media medical caregivers"

FTFSubbie

Since you haven't read the thread, I'll post the same reply to the other idiot that posted without reading the study.

During the same time that murders dropped 40%, NON FATAL incidents dropped 70%.


I don't read anything FarkLibtards post from unreliable libbie rags.
 
2013-05-08 05:56:57 PM

Dimensio: Lorelle tends to ignore data not convenient to her agenda, such as the fact that "assault weapons" are rarely criminally misused. When she does not ignore such data, she instead willfully and dishonestly misrepresents the statements of others.


In other words, she's your typical gun hater.
 
2013-05-08 05:56:57 PM

JustGetItRight: Lorelle: Who has grabbed guns, now??

Well, New York state just turned thousands into criminals, but other than that nice effort at ignoring the truth that gun violence has greatly decreased despite a great increase in the number of guns available and being carried every day.


Again, who has grabbed guns?? Talk about being a liar.
 
2013-05-08 05:58:08 PM

PDid: Dimensio: 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.

How is that dishonest? There is a constrain of a well regulated militia, and that had been the guiding interpretation until very recently when the right decided to make guns a political issue.


I am certain, then, that you will be able to reference court rulings interpreting the protection of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution to be applicable only to a "collective" right, and not to rights of individuals. Please do so.
 
2013-05-08 05:59:43 PM

JustGetItRight: Dimensio: Lorelle tends to ignore data not convenient to her agenda, such as the fact that "assault weapons" are rarely criminally misused. When she does not ignore such data, she instead willfully and dishonestly misrepresents the statements of others.

In other words, she's your typical gun hater.


You are correct. She even complained about the overturning of the demonstrably illegal (by California state law) attempt by San Francisco to ban civilian handgun possession; she believes that civilian disarmament is acceptable even when done in a manner that violates established law.
 
2013-05-08 06:03:06 PM

Lorelle: Hush, child. Gun worshippers don't want to hear that.


Mostly because it's not true. Until just recently things were getting better for gun owners. Old POS laws were expiring, carry permits were getting easier to get, etc. Then some anti-gun folks used some heinous tragedies as justification for passing some truly asinine laws. Laws that not only have no chance to do any good, but are already causing a large amount of harm.
 
2013-05-08 06:06:57 PM

CPennypacker: Endive Wombat: Since there is no other place to say this:

I wish that folks would stop lumping suicide by gun into gun death stats.  My reason is this: If someone is determined to kill themselves, they are going to use whatever means necessary, and all the gun laws in the world will not stop someone who has decided to off themselves.

I understand why the left likes to keep those numbers in the stat, because it bolsters their message, but it is disingenuous.

\That's all I have to say about that

I really wish you people would stop making this suicide argument. It is demonstrably false and it really undercuts anything else you say. Let it go. Suicide does not work that way. It is not a rational decision.


You make it sound pretty cut and dry but I don't think the research backs up that "suicide does not work that way" just yet. You may not believe that suicide can ever be a rational decision but there are many who do believe that people of rational and sound mind can choose to end their life.
 
2013-05-08 06:11:14 PM

Lorelle: JustGetItRight: Lorelle: Who has grabbed guns, now??

Well, New York state just turned thousands into criminals, but other than that nice effort at ignoring the truth that gun violence has greatly decreased despite a great increase in the number of guns available and being carried every day.

Again, who has grabbed guns?? Talk about being a liar.


California, NYC and New York State, New Orleans PD.

That doesn't include the UK and Australia....
 
2013-05-08 06:11:17 PM

Noticeably F.A.T.: Lorelle: Hush, child. Gun worshippers don't want to hear that.

Mostly because it's not true. Until just recently things were getting better for gun owners. Old POS laws were expiring, carry permits were getting easier to get, etc. Then some anti-gun folks used some heinous tragedies as justification for passing some truly asinine laws. Laws that not only have no chance to do any good, but are already causing a large amount of harm.


imgs.xkcd.com
 
2013-05-08 06:13:46 PM

Dan the Schman: 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.


Exactly.  Just walk out on the balcony and put that double-barrel shotgun and fire two blasts outside the house,
 
2013-05-08 06:14:34 PM
Noticeably F.A.T.:Mostly because it's not true. Until just recently things were getting better for gun owners. Old POS laws were expiring, carry permits were getting easier to get, etc. Then some anti-gun folks used some heinous tragedies as justification for passing some truly asinine laws. Laws that not only have no chance to do any good, but are already causing a large amount of harm.

What laws are you referring to, and what harm??

The Nutty Raving Assholes used the Sandy Hook massacre to promote gun sales (which they profit from) by claiming that "OBAMA'S COMIN' FER YER GUNZ!" I wonder how much $$ they made from each slaughtered kid.
 
2013-05-08 06:24:05 PM

lilbjorn: but are already causing a large amount of harm.


Colorado has seen a huge hit in its guided hunt market. The last figure I saw was just over a million, just in hunt cancellations. That's not even counting the other money that gets spent here by those hunters (fuel, food, other outdoor supplies), it's just returned fees from canceled hunts, hunts that were canceled specifically because of CO's new anti-gun laws. Two large companies have confirmed they are leaving (Magpul, and their plastic molding supplier, I can't recall the name of that one), Magpul because they don't want to operate in a state that won't allow its citizens to purchase their products, and the other because most of their business is with Magpul. I'd call a huge hit to the jobs/economy a large amount of harm, and things are just getting rolling.

The new laws that precipitated all this are extremely unlikely to help with the crime rate and were so poorly worded that they have affects well beyond their stated intent. The 'high capacity' mag ban actually bans something like 90% of all mags regardless of capacity (and yet is toothless enough to be almost completely ineffective (assuming of course that a high cap ban had any chance of doing anything in the first place), and the new transfer laws are worded in a way that you can't even loan a hunting rifle for longer than a weekend.
 
2013-05-08 06:24:08 PM

Lorelle: Noticeably F.A.T.:Mostly because it's not true. Until just recently things were getting better for gun owners. Old POS laws were expiring, carry permits were getting easier to get, etc. Then some anti-gun folks used some heinous tragedies as justification for passing some truly asinine laws. Laws that not only have no chance to do any good, but are already causing a large amount of harm.

What laws are you referring to, and what harm??

The Nutty Raving Assholes used the Sandy Hook massacre to promote gun sales (which they profit from) by claiming that "OBAMA'S COMIN' FER YER GUNZ!" I wonder how much $$ they made from each slaughtered kid.


The NY Safe Act is going to turn about a million people into felons if they don't register their "assault weapons." Want to know something hilarious? Almost no one is registering, several counties haven't even had a single person come forward.
But please argue how turning a million previously law abiding citizens into criminals for a victimless crime isn't "causing harm"

Also, the NRA didn't do shiat, if you want to see the greatest firearms salesman in recent history just google "Barrack Obama"
 
2013-05-08 06:25:15 PM

ArmagedDan:

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.

As many claim, all the necessary laws to greatly reduce gun crime are in place -- they simply need to be used.  But, no, we've got to have a shiny new law, that infringes people's rights.

DUI is a problem, too.  Why isn't anyone suggesting that we ignore the DUI laws, and have background checks, and restrictions on all citizens buying and operating cars?  It's the same idea.

 
2013-05-08 06:25:32 PM

Lorelle: What laws are you referring to, and what harm??


Read my comment to lilbjorn.
 
2013-05-08 06:31:31 PM

Fark It: California, NYC and New York State, New Orleans PD.

That doesn't include the UK and Australia....


State officials went into people's homes and literally grabbed guns??

As for New Orleans, widespread looting after Hurricane Katrina in 2005 led to temporary confiscation of about 1,000 guns. Crime fell dramatically for several months. The guns were eventually returned to their owners, and crime went back up. Truly a victory for everyone, especially the crime victims.
 
2013-05-08 06:31:50 PM
Jesus you are so condescending. You are very demanding of your opponents yet you let NRA propaganda slide without a peep.


http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-03-13/world/37681218_1_secon d- amendment-gun-law-don-kates/2
 
2013-05-08 06:37:29 PM

Lorelle: As for New Orleans, widespread looting after Hurricane Katrina in 2005 led to temporary confiscation of about 1,000 guns. Crime fell dramatically for several months. The guns were eventually returned to their owners, and crime went back up. Truly a victory for everyone, especially the crime victims.


I wonder if crime going down had anything to do with the city suddenly being nearly deserted, and then suddenly having a huge inrush of residents that had just lost damn near anything...

Nah, I'm sure that's just a coinkydink . Must have been the guns.
 
2013-05-08 06:46:13 PM

Lorelle: Fark It: California, NYC and New York State, New Orleans PD.

That doesn't include the UK and Australia....

State officials went into people's homes and literally grabbed guns??

As for New Orleans, widespread looting after Hurricane Katrina in 2005 led to temporary confiscation of about 1,000 guns. Crime fell dramatically for several months. The guns were eventually returned to their owners, and crime went back up. Truly a victory for everyone, especially the crime victims.


The crime going down had more to do with no business being open and 90% of the city evacuated.  There was a corresponding spike in crimes in Houston, where many lower income Katrina evacuees were displaced to.  State officials in New York are illegally using PHI (in the form of records of prescriptions for anti-depressants) to cross-reference with their registry of pistol permit holders and seizing guns from people who have committed the heinous crime of being prescribed anti-depressants.  In some cases, they're even seizing weapons from people who haven't even been prescribed medication.
 
2013-05-08 06:50:49 PM

Lorelle: Fark It: California, NYC and New York State, New Orleans PD.

That doesn't include the UK and Australia....

State officials went into people's homes and literally grabbed guns??

As for New Orleans, widespread looting after Hurricane Katrina in 2005 led to temporary confiscation of about 1,000 guns. Crime fell dramatically for several months. The guns were eventually returned to their owners, and crime went back up. Truly a victory for everyone, especially the crime victims.


Also, it was only temporary because the courts forced the government to return their illegally seized guns back to their victims.
 
2013-05-08 06:55:56 PM

Noticeably F.A.T.: Colorado has seen a huge hit in its guided hunt market...


Colorado's economy isn't dependent upon this market. In fact, it's one of the top ten performing economies in the U.S.

Noticeably F.A.T.: I wonder if crime going down had anything to do with the city suddenly being nearly deserted, and then suddenly having a huge inrush of residents that had just lost damn near anything...

Nah, I'm sure that's just a coinkydink . Must have been the guns.


New Orleans has the highest gun murder rate in the U.S.,10 times the national average.

Ya can't have gun murders without guns.
 
2013-05-08 07:04:44 PM

JustGetItRight: Wayne 985: I Googled your quote. It's from 1995 in response to a question about assault rifles. If you're still pissing in your pants, lip quivering and thinking that a wistful hope for a democratic vote 8 years ago equates total gun confiscation, then yeah... You're paranoid.

That would be like me refusing to support anything Republicans put forward and using a quote from James Inhofe in the 90s as my rationale. It's stupid.

Nice that you skipped the 2013 Cuomo quotes about confiscation.  They're as easy to find as Diane's 1995 quote.

As far as the age goes, what about her actions should make anyone think she's any less radical today?  Her 2013 proposal was a greater reach than the totally useless 1994 law.


And Cuomo has what to do with the US Senate bill?

Speaking of him though, here's the big scary gun law he signed.

Most of it is common sense and stuff that isn't, like the 7-round limit, is facing a re-write.
 
2013-05-08 07:09:37 PM

Wayne 985: JustGetItRight: Wayne 985: I Googled your quote. It's from 1995 in response to a question about assault rifles. If you're still pissing in your pants, lip quivering and thinking that a wistful hope for a democratic vote 8 years ago equates total gun confiscation, then yeah... You're paranoid.

That would be like me refusing to support anything Republicans put forward and using a quote from James Inhofe in the 90s as my rationale. It's stupid.

Nice that you skipped the 2013 Cuomo quotes about confiscation.  They're as easy to find as Diane's 1995 quote.

As far as the age goes, what about her actions should make anyone think she's any less radical today?  Her 2013 proposal was a greater reach than the totally useless 1994 law.

And Cuomo has what to do with the US Senate bill?

Speaking of him though, here's the big scary gun law he signed.

Most of it is common sense and stuff that isn't, like the 7-round limit, is facing a re-write.


Addendum: I'll re-emphasize "most." The assault weapon definition, for example, is broad and should be re-assessed. The bulk of it, however, (background checks, increased penalties for gun crimes, mandatory reporting of stolen guns, etc) is so common sense that opposition to it is just bizarre.
 
2013-05-08 07:13:36 PM

Wayne 985: JustGetItRight: Wayne 985: I Googled your quote. It's from 1995 in response to a question about assault rifles. If you're still pissing in your pants, lip quivering and thinking that a wistful hope for a democratic vote 8 years ago equates total gun confiscation, then yeah... You're paranoid.

That would be like me refusing to support anything Republicans put forward and using a quote from James Inhofe in the 90s as my rationale. It's stupid.

Nice that you skipped the 2013 Cuomo quotes about confiscation.  They're as easy to find as Diane's 1995 quote.

As far as the age goes, what about her actions should make anyone think she's any less radical today?  Her 2013 proposal was a greater reach than the totally useless 1994 law.

And Cuomo has what to do with the US Senate bill?

Speaking of him though, here's the big scary gun law he signed.

Most of it is common sense and stuff that isn't, like the 7-round limit, is facing a re-write.


Yes, turning about a million gun owners into felons because their shotgun or rifle has a pistol grip, or god forbid a bayonet lug (even though the bayonet itself is A-OK) is totally commonsense, and not drafted by morons who think "You only need one shot to stop an intruder." Oh yeah, the whole 7 round magazine thing, Now we can own 10 round magazined but if we DARE put 8 rounds in BAM instant felon.

But hey, commonsense right?
 
2013-05-08 07:20:08 PM

GUTSU: Yes, turning about a million gun owners into felons because their shotgun or rifle has a pistol grip, or god forbid a bayonet lug (even though the bayonet itself is A-OK) is totally commonsense, and not drafted by morons who think "You only need one shot to stop an intruder." Oh yeah, the whole 7 round magazine thing, Now we can own 10 round magazined but if we DARE put 8 rounds in BAM instant felon.

But hey, commonsense right?


Yes, I know that reading is difficult for you.
 
2013-05-08 07:22:58 PM

Wayne 985: GUTSU: Yes, turning about a million gun owners into felons because their shotgun or rifle has a pistol grip, or god forbid a bayonet lug (even though the bayonet itself is A-OK) is totally commonsense, and not drafted by morons who think "You only need one shot to stop an intruder." Oh yeah, the whole 7 round magazine thing, Now we can own 10 round magazined but if we DARE put 8 rounds in BAM instant felon.

But hey, commonsense right?

Yes, I know that reading is difficult for you.


Hey, I know you don't actually own any guns, so why should you care?
 
2013-05-08 07:29:18 PM
I mean hey, violating patient-doctor confidentiality and stripping someone of their firearms because they take Xanax is totally commonsense right? Or is it only after the media catches wind of it?
http://reason.com/blog/2013/04/11/take-xanax-lose-your-guns
 
2013-05-08 07:32:20 PM

GUTSU: Wayne 985: GUTSU: Yes, turning about a million gun owners into felons because their shotgun or rifle has a pistol grip, or god forbid a bayonet lug (even though the bayonet itself is A-OK) is totally commonsense, and not drafted by morons who think "You only need one shot to stop an intruder." Oh yeah, the whole 7 round magazine thing, Now we can own 10 round magazined but if we DARE put 8 rounds in BAM instant felon.

But hey, commonsense right?

Yes, I know that reading is difficult for you.

Hey, I know you don't actually own any guns, so why should you care?


Granted, my .30-06 and 12-gauge have been unused for a while, but I'm pretty confident they're still "guns" that I "own." Then again, my head isn't buried in my ass. You might have a better perspective up there, though I doubt it.
 
2013-05-08 07:36:17 PM

GUTSU: I mean hey, violating patient-doctor confidentiality and stripping someone of their firearms because they take Xanax is totally commonsense right? Or is it only after the media catches wind of it?
http://reason.com/blog/2013/04/11/take-xanax-lose-your-guns


The first paragraph says that if two docs thinks a patient poses a violent threat to others, and if the patient has a handgun without a license, that the patient will lose his guns.

Sounds good.

The second paragraph says this was misapplied to some guy who is now being given his guns back.

Sounds good.
 
2013-05-08 07:38:20 PM

Wayne 985: GUTSU: Wayne 985: GUTSU: Yes, turning about a million gun owners into felons because their shotgun or rifle has a pistol grip, or god forbid a bayonet lug (even though the bayonet itself is A-OK) is totally commonsense, and not drafted by morons who think "You only need one shot to stop an intruder." Oh yeah, the whole 7 round magazine thing, Now we can own 10 round magazined but if we DARE put 8 rounds in BAM instant felon.

But hey, commonsense right?

Yes, I know that reading is difficult for you.

Hey, I know you don't actually own any guns, so why should you care?

Granted, my .30-06 and 12-gauge have been unused for a while, but I'm pretty confident they're still "guns" that I "own." Then again, my head isn't buried in my ass. You might have a better perspective up there, though I doubt it.


Oh, I get it you're a Fudd! "We'll they aren't coming after my deer rifle!" I find people like you cute, just wait until people try and ban "high powered sniper rifles"
 
2013-05-08 07:42:40 PM

Wayne 985: GUTSU: I mean hey, violating patient-doctor confidentiality and stripping someone of their firearms because they take Xanax is totally commonsense right? Or is it only after the media catches wind of it?
http://reason.com/blog/2013/04/11/take-xanax-lose-your-guns

The first paragraph says that if two docs thinks a patient poses a violent threat to others, and if the patient has a handgun without a license, that the patient will lose his guns.

Sounds good.

The second paragraph says this was misapplied to some guy who is now being given his guns back.

Sounds good.


So you think discouraging people from seeking help for their mental health issues is "Good." You also think the government looking through confidential documents, stripping someone of their rights and then when they are caught say "Our bad" is also a "Good thing?"

Cute.
 
2013-05-08 07:43:19 PM

Lorelle: Colorado's economy isn't dependent upon this market. In fact, it's one of the top ten performing economies in the U.S.


Lorelle: New Orleans has the highest gun murder rate in the U.S.,10 times the national average.

Ya can't have gun murders without guns.


Whoo, look at those goalposts go!
 
2013-05-08 07:48:09 PM

Wayne 985: GUTSU: I mean hey, violating patient-doctor confidentiality and stripping someone of their firearms because they take Xanax is totally commonsense right? Or is it only after the media catches wind of it?
http://reason.com/blog/2013/04/11/take-xanax-lose-your-guns

The first paragraph says that if two docs thinks a patient poses a violent threat to others, and if the patient has a handgun without a license, that the patient will lose his guns.

Sounds good.

The second paragraph says this was misapplied to some guy who is now being given his guns back.

Sounds good.


That does NOT sound good. That sounds like a blatant violation of due process.

What kind of person would actually think that giving the power to strip people of their civil rights to unaccountable private sector physicians without prior judicial review could possibly be a good thing?
 
2013-05-08 07:49:07 PM

legion_of_doo: if you ban news media, only criminals with squirrel nut jpgs will post on fark.


If you outlaw outlaws, on outlaws will law out.
 
2013-05-08 07:49:55 PM

JesseL: What kind of person would actually think that giving the power to strip people of their civil rights to unaccountable private sector physicians without prior judicial review could possibly be a good thing?


Authoritarians.
 
2013-05-08 07:51:09 PM

JesseL: Wayne 985: GUTSU: I mean hey, violating patient-doctor confidentiality and stripping someone of their firearms because they take Xanax is totally commonsense right? Or is it only after the media catches wind of it?
http://reason.com/blog/2013/04/11/take-xanax-lose-your-guns

The first paragraph says that if two docs thinks a patient poses a violent threat to others, and if the patient has a handgun without a license, that the patient will lose his guns.

Sounds good.

The second paragraph says this was misapplied to some guy who is now being given his guns back.

Sounds good.

That does NOT sound good. That sounds like a blatant violation of due process.

What kind of person would actually think that giving the power to strip people of their civil rights to unaccountable private sector physicians without prior judicial review could possibly be a good thing?


Well it doesn't personally affect him, it's not like HE takes medication or has a semi-automatic rifle. None of these laws have anything to do with HIM.
 
2013-05-08 07:51:23 PM

Lorelle: New Orleans has the highest gun murder rate in the U.S.,10 times the national average.


Flint and Detroit laugh at your baseless accusations
 
2013-05-08 07:52:45 PM

JesseL: Wayne 985: GUTSU: I mean hey, violating patient-doctor confidentiality and stripping someone of their firearms because they take Xanax is totally commonsense right? Or is it only after the media catches wind of it?
http://reason.com/blog/2013/04/11/take-xanax-lose-your-guns

The first paragraph says that if two docs thinks a patient poses a violent threat to others, and if the patient has a handgun without a license, that the patient will lose his guns.

Sounds good.

The second paragraph says this was misapplied to some guy who is now being given his guns back.

Sounds good.

That does NOT sound good. That sounds like a blatant violation of due process.

What kind of person would actually think that giving the power to strip people of their civil rights to unaccountable private sector physicians without prior judicial review could possibly be a good thing?


Well, if you want to put the taking of their guns before a court, have the docs and state government testify, then I'm all for that.
 
2013-05-08 07:55:46 PM
http://americangunfacts.com/
 
2013-05-08 07:58:43 PM
Wayne 985:
Well, if you want to put the taking of their guns before a court, have the docs and state government testify, then I'm all for that.

Tell me how many gun owners you think will be discouraged from seeking help with their mental health issues, Or how many that will actually admit to owning firarms? Do you just hate the mentially ill? Do you hate having privacy from the government? Do you actually think the government should be allowed to go through confidential documents without oversight to strip people of rights?
 
2013-05-08 08:01:13 PM

GUTSU: Well it doesn't personally affect him, it's not like HE takes medication or has a semi-automatic rifle. None of these laws have anything to do with HIM.


I'm actually on Wellbutrin for depression. If I went over the edge and started making violent threats, I'd hope my doctor would have the sense to contact authorities and that those authorities would take my guns if I wasn't in legal compliance. Then again, as I believe I've made clear, you're kind of an idiot and I'm not.
 
2013-05-08 08:06:41 PM

Wayne 985: GUTSU: Well it doesn't personally affect him, it's not like HE takes medication or has a semi-automatic rifle. None of these laws have anything to do with HIM.

I'm actually on Wellbutrin for depression. If I went over the edge and started making violent threats, I'd hope my doctor would have the sense to contact authorities and that those authorities would take my guns if I wasn't in legal compliance. Then again, as I believe I've made clear, you're kind of an idiot and I'm not.


Haha, you actually think NY needs a reason to strip you on your rights? Just like they did that Librarian? This all still boils down to the fact that you don't think you are affected by the law "Well I'm not dangerous, they'd only go after those "OTHER" people"

I still find you cute, you're a fudd, you laugh in the face of personal rights. It's simply adorable.
 
2013-05-08 08:07:12 PM
What is missing is "crimes that guns prevented", that do not figure in the stats at all.  The vast majority of this was that a gun was brandished, but no shot was fired, yet the crime did not take place.

This happens a lot, and while I know of three different people who brandished but did not fire to stop a felony, that is no proof.

However, a much stronger indication is how criminals are changing their robbery techniques, to attack and disable or even kill with a "cheap shot", prior to robbery.  This indicates fear on their part that if their victim is armed, they, the criminal, may end up dead.

Likewise, starting in southern California, is the new criminal technique of "knock before home invasion".  If someone answers the door, they ask a dumb question and leave.  If no one answers, they invade.  This, too, shows a fear of armed response.  The technique has quickly gone north up the West coast, and is now moving inland.

However, Arizona makes a really good buffer.  About two weeks ago, four home invaders tried this technique in Tempe against an armed housewife, who emptied her handgun at them as they hastily departed her kitchen.
 
2013-05-08 08:27:51 PM

Lorelle: New Orleans has the highest gun murder rate in the U.S.,10 times the national average.

Ya can't have gun murders without guns.


Ya can't have gun murders without people either you farking idiot.
 
2013-05-08 08:34:53 PM

Wayne 985: JesseL: Wayne 985: GUTSU: I mean hey, violating patient-doctor confidentiality and stripping someone of their firearms because they take Xanax is totally commonsense right? Or is it only after the media catches wind of it?
http://reason.com/blog/2013/04/11/take-xanax-lose-your-guns

The first paragraph says that if two docs thinks a patient poses a violent threat to others, and if the patient has a handgun without a license, that the patient will lose his guns.

Sounds good.

The second paragraph says this was misapplied to some guy who is now being given his guns back.

Sounds good.

That does NOT sound good. That sounds like a blatant violation of due process.

What kind of person would actually think that giving the power to strip people of their civil rights to unaccountable private sector physicians without prior judicial review could possibly be a good thing?

Well, if you want to put the taking of their guns before a court, have the docs and state government testify, then I'm all for that.


Yeah... that should definitely be a requisite. If you think someone is genuinely too dangerous to own a gun it shouldn't be too much to ask for you to convince a judge. Anything less is blatantly unconstitutional and an obvious invitation to abuse.

Would you be okay with any other civil right being subject to that kind of revocation without due process?
 
2013-05-08 08:36:27 PM

Noticeably F.A.T.: Whoo, look at those goalposts go!


Nah. Just stating facts. Guided hunts don't drive CO's economy. The state is far more likely to be harmed by the sequester than a few cancelled hunts.

HeadLever: Flint and Detroit laugh at your baseless accusations


I specifically mentioned the gun murder rate, not the overall murder rate. New Orleans ranks #1 among U.S. cities.
 
2013-05-08 08:38:00 PM
Gun killings, and non-fatal gun crimes are down? Then why are the libtards wanting more gun control, when whatever is going on right now is clearly working?
 
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