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 08:39:42 PM

Lorelle: 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.


As everyone knows, murders done with guns are at least twice as evil than deaths by other means.
 
2013-05-08 08:42:22 PM

Tumunga: 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?


Because the general public still think gun crime is on the rise, most politicians don't want to abandon a useful political football, and a few people are idealistically opposed to civilian gun ownership regardless of the actual harm or good it does.
 
2013-05-08 08:44:34 PM

Lorelle: specifically mentioned the gun murder rate, not the overall murder rate. New Orleans ranks #1 among U.S. cities.


Nope again.  Strike two
 
2013-05-08 08:52:24 PM

Tumunga: 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?


Because reduction of crime isn't their goal, controlling and disarming society is.  Just look at how they react when you point out that 80,000 people die each year from alcohol, which dwarfs the 12,000 murders from guns.  They do amazing mental gymnastics that enable them to believe that the 12,000 dead is more of an offense than 80,000.
 
2013-05-08 08:58:12 PM

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


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


"A well regulated militia"  Don't forget this part, cupcake.
 
2013-05-08 08:59:26 PM

Lorelle: 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.


I never claimed they did. When asked to show how the new laws were causing harm, I provided several examples. You stating that the state will survive is completely beside the point, which is the laws that were intended to help not only can't help, they are actually hurting. Yes, the economy here will keep chugging along. The problem is, the economy has been hurt (no matter how minor), and will get nothing in return. Those are not only facts, but relevant facts.

Lorelle: I specifically mentioned the gun murder rate, not the overall murder rate. New Orleans ranks #1 among U.S. cities.


Which, again, sidesteps the original point which is the brief dip in crime (all across the board, it's not like people stopped shooting each other and kept on commuting other crimes) is better attributed to the fact that that there was practically nobody there, and those who were still there were busy surviving. Your notion that crime went down because guns were briefly confiscated is, at best, laughable. Especially when you yourself admit only about a thousand guns were confiscated. Assuming NOLA gun ownership rates follow national rates even somewhat closely, you're looking at something close to 40K guns in the city. Do you really believe confiscating ~1K had any kind of significant affect on crime rates?
 
2013-05-08 09:01:46 PM

DVOM: "A well regulated militia" Don't forget this part, cupcake.


Do you know what a well regulated militia was when the amendment was written?

/Here's a hint: it more resembles the kids in Red Dawn than the National Guard.
 
2013-05-08 09:02:53 PM

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


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

"A well regulated militia"  Don't forget this part, cupcake.


The US Supreme Court says that the right isn't contingent on militia service.

Get over it sweetie.
 
2013-05-08 09:03:48 PM

DVOM: A well regulated militia"  Don't forget this part, cupcake.


You don't know Heller, do you?  Look it up, pumpkin.
 
2013-05-08 09:04:43 PM
 
2013-05-08 09:07:49 PM

Noticeably F.A.T.: DVOM: "A well regulated militia" Don't forget this part, cupcake.

Do you know what a well regulated militia was when the amendment was written?

/Here's a hint: it more resembles the kids in Red Dawn than the National Guard.


Pardon me cupcake, I thought we were talking about the 2nd Amendment as written, not what gun nuts believe it to be.

BTW, another reason for a drop in all kinds of crime is abortion.
 
2013-05-08 09:09:21 PM

HeadLever: Nope again.  Strike two


My source.
 
2013-05-08 09:09:50 PM

DVOM: I thought we were talking about the 2nd Amendment as written, not what gun nuts believe it to be.


Don't know much about current law, I see.
 
2013-05-08 09:11:21 PM

JesseL: 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.


Where in the constitution does it allow for the confiscation of a firearm after judicial review?

JesseL: Would you be okay with any other civil right being subject to that kind of revocation without due process?


Ever heard of a psych hold?
 
2013-05-08 09:12:06 PM

DVOM: Pardon me cupcake, I thought we were talking about the 2nd Amendment as written, not what gun nuts believe it to be.


I am. Not so sure you are, though. In fact, I'm pretty damn certain that you don't know what you're talking about.

/Oh, and you're attempts at condescension aren't working nearly as well as you think they are, tittysprinkles.
 
2013-05-08 09:13:55 PM

Lorelle: My source.


FYL:   according to data from the CDC from 2006-2007.
 
2013-05-08 09:24:12 PM
HeadLever: FYL:   according to data from the CDC from 2006-2007.

Ah. So, going by the article you linked, NOLA is probably #2, not #3, since it "may have had as many as 193 homicides in 2012."

And I couldn't help noting that the victim count is 57 as of today...the city's on track to reach about 180 by year's end.
 
2013-05-08 09:29:37 PM

Noticeably F.A.T.: DVOM: Pardon me cupcake, I thought we were talking about the 2nd Amendment as written, not what gun nuts believe it to be.

I am. Not so sure you are, though. In fact, I'm pretty damn certain that you don't know what you're talking about.

/Oh, and you're attempts at condescension aren't working nearly as well as you think they are, tittysprinkles.


I'm just havin' fun. Gun people are easy to stir up. The fact is that there are already hundreds of gun laws, many of which are not enforced at all. Most people supposedly affected by many of those laws are unaware of them as are law enforcement agencies.

And the newly proposed laws wouldn't do anything towards slowing or stopping handgun violence. Those being the murder weapon of choice most of the time. It was just "feel good" legislation that wasn't going to do anything except stir up the gun people.
 
2013-05-08 09:33:53 PM

DVOM: I'm just havin' fun showing everyone how dumb I am.

 
2013-05-08 09:40:51 PM

Lorelle: Ah. So, going by the article you linked, NOLA is probably #2, not #3, since it "may have had as many as 193 homicides in 2012."


Which does absolutely nothing for you original assertion that about 1000 gun confiscations in NOLA caused a dramatic drop in crime and that eventually returning maybe half of them caused the dramatic rise. It also doesn't show that that NOLA is #1 in gun crimes, which was your next assertion (which you may notice has nothing to do with your first).

You'd have much better luck debating people if you could leave your goalposts still for a minute. Your habit of making one assertion, then when when someone responds to that you reply with an unrelated (and often false) fact isn't doing you any favors.

DVOM: It was just "feel good" legislation that wasn't going to do anything except stir up the gun people.


1) I'm nowhere close to 'riled up'.
2) I've shown that just in my state it went beyond riling up gun folks and is causing measurable harm to people.
 
2013-05-08 09:45:43 PM
Noticeably F.A.T.:
DVOM: It was just "feel good" legislation that wasn't going to do anything except stir up the gun people.

1) I'm nowhere close to 'riled up'.
2) I've shown that just in my state it went beyond riling up gun folks and is causing measurable harm to people.


So..how do you feel about voter ID laws?
 
2013-05-08 09:46:12 PM

Noticeably F.A.T.: Lorelle: Ah. So, going by the article you linked, NOLA is probably #2, not #3, since it "may have had as many as 193 homicides in 2012."

Which does absolutely nothing for you original assertion that about 1000 gun confiscations in NOLA caused a dramatic drop in crime and that eventually returning maybe half of them caused the dramatic rise. It also doesn't show that that NOLA is #1 in gun crimes, which was your next assertion (which you may notice has nothing to do with your first).

You'd have much better luck debating people if you could leave your goalposts still for a minute. Your habit of making one assertion, then when when someone responds to that you reply with an unrelated (and often false) fact isn't doing you any favors.


In a previous discussion, Lorelle justified her advocacy of an "assault weapon ban" by stating that a ban on a class of firearms most likely to be used in a homicide was desirable. That statement alone should be sufficient demonstration of her intellectual dishonesty.

She also believes that lying about opponents of unreasonable firearm prohibitions is an acceptable debate tactic.
 
2013-05-08 09:52:22 PM

NightOwl2255: JesseL: 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.

Where in the constitution does it allow for the confiscation of a firearm after judicial review?


It's implied in the 5th amendment.

NightOwl2255: JesseL: Would you be okay with any other civil right being subject to that kind of revocation without due process?

Ever heard of a psych hold?


I'm not a fan of it; but it is at least of a limited duration, more limited than a judicial commitment, and includes rights of appeal. The bigger problem is the way states like California use it as the basis for denying people's rights after the hold has expired and they've been released.
 
2013-05-08 10:00:11 PM

DVOM: So..how do you feel about voter ID laws?


Not sure where that's coming from, but whatever. I'm not opposed to them on principle. Like most gun laws I haven't seen one proposed that I like. All of them I've seen are either (IMHO) unconstitutional, or can't be affective enough to justify their existence. I also don't think that voter fraud is a large problem (I could be wrong, but as of now I haven't seen enough strong evidence that there is enough fraud going on to cause major problems), so any proposed solutions are already at a disadvantage as they need to cause fewer problems than they are fixing.
 
2013-05-08 10:03:10 PM

JesseL: NightOwl2255: JesseL: 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.

Where in the constitution does it allow for the confiscation of a firearm after judicial review?

It's implied in the 5th amendment.


But you support the government actively circumventing it?
 
2013-05-08 10:04:36 PM

GUTSU: JesseL: NightOwl2255: JesseL: 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.

Where in the constitution does it allow for the confiscation of a firearm after judicial review?

It's implied in the 5th amendment.

But you support the government actively circumventing it?


I'm not sure where you got that idea.
 
2013-05-08 10:09:17 PM

JesseL: GUTSU: JesseL: NightOwl2255: JesseL: 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.

Where in the constitution does it allow for the confiscation of a firearm after judicial review?

It's implied in the 5th amendment.

But you support the government actively circumventing it?

I'm not sure where you got that idea.


You know, the whole "stripping people of their rights without due process" thing the NYS government is getting all crazy about lately. I even hear Cuomo is putting together a task force specifically to snoop through HIPAA records, which I'm sure you'd support.
 
2013-05-08 10:16:33 PM

GUTSU: JesseL: GUTSU: JesseL: NightOwl2255: JesseL: 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.

Where in the constitution does it allow for the confiscation of a firearm after judicial review?

It's implied in the 5th amendment.

But you support the government actively circumventing it?

I'm not sure where you got that idea.

You know, the whole "stripping people of their rights without due process" thing the NYS government is getting all crazy about lately. I even hear Cuomo is putting together a task force specifically to snoop through HIPAA records, which I'm sure you'd support.


Dude, reread what I've posted in this thread and think about whether you might want to address those remarks to someone else.
 
2013-05-08 10:18:40 PM

JesseL: Dude, reread what I've posted in this thread and think about whether you might want to address those remarks to someone else.


Yeah, that argument was out in left field.  Not sure that the hell is going on here.
 
2013-05-08 10:21:16 PM

JesseL: GUTSU: JesseL: GUTSU: JesseL: NightOwl2255: JesseL: 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.

Where in the constitution does it allow for the confiscation of a firearm after judicial review?

It's implied in the 5th amendment.

But you support the government actively circumventing it?

I'm not sure where you got that idea.

You know, the whole "stripping people of their rights without due process" thing the NYS government is getting all crazy about lately. I even hear Cuomo is putting together a task force specifically to snoop through HIPAA records, which I'm sure you'd support.

Dude, reread what I've posted in this thread and think about whether you might want to address those remarks to someone else.


Woops, I forgot who I was talking to for a minute. I owe you an apology, I shall also give you a picture of an adorable Spruce Grouse
www.allaboutbirds.org
 
2013-05-08 10:25:38 PM
So, since the assault weapons ban took effect. Interesting.

/repost
 
2013-05-08 10:27:22 PM

DVOM: I'm just havin' fun. Gun people are easy to stir up.


They are, indeed. :)

Gun worshippers are just as nutty as religious extremists.

Especially those who try to claim that suicides committed with guns aren't "real" gun deaths.
 
2013-05-08 10:33:27 PM

Lorelle: Especially those who try to claim that suicides committed with guns aren't "real" gun deaths.


Nobody has ever made that claim. People opposed to misusing statistics have suggested that if you wanted to be honest about crime statistics you shouldn't say a suicide is the same thing as a homicide, but nobody has suggested that they don't count as a death. That only happened in your head.
 
2013-05-08 10:35:02 PM

GUTSU: Woops, I forgot who I was talking to for a minute. I owe you an apology, I shall also give you a picture of an adorable Spruce Grouse


Apology accepted :D
 
2013-05-08 10:35:18 PM

Lorelle: DVOM: I'm just havin' fun. Gun people are easy to stir up.

They are, indeed. :)

Gun worshippers are just as nutty as religious extremists.

Especially those who try to claim that suicides committed with guns aren't "real" gun deaths.


Do you think "Homicides" are the same thing as "Suicides"?
 
2013-05-08 10:35:55 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: So, since the assault weapons ban took effect. Interesting.

/repost


The one that expired almost 10 years ago?
 
2013-05-08 10:37:22 PM

Lorelle: DVOM: I'm just havin' fun. Gun people are easy to stir up.

They are, indeed. :)

Gun worshippers are just as nutty as religious extremists.

Especially those who try to claim that suicides committed with guns aren't "real" gun deaths.


They're gun deaths, but not gun violence as some like to imply.  Calling suicides "gun violence" is like claiming that slit wrists are "knife violence"

We also dispute the relevancy given that suicide rates in many countries with strict gun are higher than the US and many more have similar or only slightly less.  Suicide is a very different thing from murder and not something that can be simply mitigated by denying access to one particular tool
 
2013-05-08 10:40:05 PM

JesseL: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: So, since the assault weapons ban took effect. Interesting.

/repost

The one that expired almost 10 years ago?


Just proves how well it worked.

/repost
 
2013-05-08 10:40:39 PM

GUTSU: www.allaboutbirds.org


Man. I wish I could get an apologrouse some time.

JesseL: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: So, since the assault weapons ban took effect. Interesting.

/repost

The one that expired almost 10 years ago?


And had no corresponding rise in crime when it expired?
 
2013-05-08 10:43:07 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: JesseL: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: So, since the assault weapons ban took effect. Interesting.

/repost

The one that expired almost 10 years ago?

Just proves how well it worked.

/repost


Well good - we don't need to reenact it then.
 
2013-05-08 10:44:22 PM

Noticeably F.A.T.: GUTSU: www.allaboutbirds.org

Man. I wish I could get an apologrouse some time.


3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-05-08 10:44:33 PM

Noticeably F.A.T.: Which does absolutely nothing for you original assertion that about 1000 gun confiscations in NOLA caused a dramatic drop in crime and that eventually returning maybe half of them caused the dramatic rise. It also doesn't show that that NOLA is #1 in gun crimes, which was your next assertion (which you may notice has nothing to do with your first).


As noted earlier, I cited a 2013 article that made that statement. It's been established that NOLA is #2 (which isn't much better). Happy now?

Noticeably F.A.T.: Nobody has ever made that claim. People opposed to misusing statistics have suggested that if you wanted to be honest about crime statistics you shouldn't say a suicide is the same thing as a homicide, but nobody has suggested that they don't count as a death. That only happened in your head.


Those who have made that claim have posted in this thread.

BTW, mass shootings in CO have caused more harm than a few cancelled hunting events.
 
2013-05-08 10:48:19 PM

Lorelle: BTW, mass shootings in CO have caused more harm than a few cancelled hunting events.


Depends upon the characterization of 'harm'.  That can be taken many ways.

And the boycott is much more than cancelled hunting events.  Your attempt of minimization is telling.
 
2013-05-08 10:58:46 PM

GUTSU: 3.bp.blogspot.com


:D

Tasty.

Lorelle: As noted earlier, I cited a 2013 article that made that statement. It's been established that NOLA is #2 (which isn't much better). Happy now?


Well I've been fairly happy all night. While you've corrected one of your mistakes, you've done absolutely nothing to defend your original argument that the confiscation of firearms in NOLA was responsible for the drop in crime and the partial return of them was responsible for the later rise in crime.

Lorelle: Those who have made that claim have posted in this thread.


I've been following this thread closely since it was posted, and nobody has made the claim that suicides don't count as deaths.

Lorelle: BTW, mass shootings in CO have caused more harm than a few cancelled hunting events.


1) I've never denied that shooters here have caused harm.
2) The relative amount of harm is highly subjective.
3) I don't think you have any idea of the amount of harm that has been done (and will continue) to the state. Hunting and related activities account for a large part of the economy, and to drive that business away for no good reason is just moronic.
4) The correct response to a tragedy is to enact laws that would have had no effect on that tragedy, will have no affect on future similar tragedies, go well beyond their stated intent, and drive business away? Seems counterproductive to me.
 
2013-05-08 11:08:47 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: So, since the assault weapons ban took effect. Interesting.

/repost


And what percentage of the crimes involve "assault weapons"?  It's about 1%, so your implication is necessarily false.  Why do you feel the need to deliberately lie?
 
2013-05-08 11:11:42 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: So, since the assault weapons ban took effect. Interesting.

/repost

And what percentage of the crimes involve "assault weapons"?  It's about 1%, so your implication is necessarily false.  Why do you feel the need to deliberately lie?


What lie?
 
2013-05-08 11:15:44 PM

GanjSmokr:

Those of us who have fire extinguishers in our homes are just crazy paranoids as well since house fires are relatively uncommon too.
Not only that, the fire department is on call if you did have a fire.
 
2013-05-08 11:27:50 PM

Noticeably F.A.T.: Well I've been fairly happy all night. While you've corrected one of your mistakes, you've done absolutely nothing to defend your original argument that the confiscation of firearms in NOLA was responsible for the drop in crime and the partial return of them was responsible for the later rise in crime.


Reread what I posted earlier. Pay close attention to the tone. Dude, I thought you knew me better.

I've been following this thread closely since it was posted, and nobody has made the claim that suicides don't count as deaths.

I didn't say that the people who have made that claim did so in this particular thread, but I have noticed that some of the "gun suicides don't count" people have showed up (as expected. The fish are always biting here).

1) I've never denied that shooters here have caused harm.
2) The relative amount of harm is highly subjective.
3) I don't think you have any idea of the amount of harm that has been done (and will continue) to the state. Hunting and related activities account for a large part of the economy, and to drive that business away for no good reason is just moronic.
4) The correct response to a tragedy is to enact laws that would have had no effect on that tragedy, will have no affect on future similar tragedies, go well beyond their stated intent, and drive business away? Seems counterproductive to me.


You don't think that mass shootings have had a negative effect on tourism??

Not to worry...now that pot is legal in CO, the marijuana tourist industry will bring $$$ to the state.
 
2013-05-08 11:37:51 PM

Lorelle: Noticeably F.A.T.: Well I've been fairly happy all night. While you've corrected one of your mistakes, you've done absolutely nothing to defend your original argument that the confiscation of firearms in NOLA was responsible for the drop in crime and the partial return of them was responsible for the later rise in crime.

Reread what I posted earlier. Pay close attention to the tone. Dude, I thought you knew me better.

I've been following this thread closely since it was posted, and nobody has made the claim that suicides don't count as deaths.

I didn't say that the people who have made that claim did so in this particular thread, but I have noticed that some of the "gun suicides don't count" people have showed up (as expected. The fish are always biting here).

1) I've never denied that shooters here have caused harm.
2) The relative amount of harm is highly subjective.
3) I don't think you have any idea of the amount of harm that has been done (and will continue) to the state. Hunting and related activities account for a large part of the economy, and to drive that business away for no good reason is just moronic.
4) The correct response to a tragedy is to enact laws that would have had no effect on that tragedy, will have no affect on future similar tragedies, go well beyond their stated intent, and drive business away? Seems counterproductive to me.

You don't think that mass shootings have had a negative effect on tourism??

Not to worry...now that pot is legal in CO, the marijuana tourist industry will bring $$$ to the state.


Why would someone travel halfway across the united states to smoke put when they can do down the street? Do you think people don't do illegal things?
 
2013-05-08 11:48:03 PM

GUTSU: Why would someone travel halfway across the united states to smoke put when they can do down the street? Do you think people don't do illegal things?


It is the liberal try at capitalism.  No one ever said they were good at it.
 
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