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
 
2013-05-08 08:10:02 AM
There have always been floods, famine, war, poverty, earthquakes, etc; the biggest difference is that we are globally connected. Used to be that a typhoon in the Chinese sea would be like it doesnt exist for us in America. Now we are connected via the tubes we hear more shiat than we ever have before.
 
2013-05-08 08:10:08 AM
Good. Now lets see if we can do a better job of keeping crazy people from having guns, and felons too. As long as we keep having mass killings we are going to keep having the gun control debate. Just because we have made progress on gun violence doesn't mean we can just throw our hands up in the air and accept the tragedies we keep reliving.
 
2013-05-08 08:18:49 AM

sammyk: Good. Now lets see if we can do a better job of keeping crazy people from having guns, and felons too. As long as we keep having mass killings we are going to keep having the gun control debate. Just because we have made progress on gun violence doesn't mean we can just throw our hands up in the air and accept the tragedies we keep reliving.


Tough nut to crack, though.  Background checks, for instance, aren't the end all beat all.  Don't get me wrong, I'm all for enhanced background checks, but the newton massacre was carried out by lawfully purchased guns stolen from a crazy person's mother.  Assault weapons bans may have some merit, but you could easily carry out the same sort of mass murder with a few semiautomatic pistols.  Now I'm not saying "It's an impossible task, so why even try?", I'm saying we need some better answers.  I don't really have them, at least none that are the slightest bit politically viable here.  Banning all but single shot rifles and shotguns would probably help immensely, but fat chance of ever seeing that happen here.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-05-08 08:21:11 AM
Yes, those tough anti gun laws in some parts are starting to pay off.

Now we need to expand on a winning strategy.

/look at where the gun violence is highest
 
2013-05-08 08:28:39 AM

vpb: Yes, those tough anti gun laws in some parts are starting to pay off.

Now we need to expand on a winning strategy.

/look at where the gun violence is highest


Maine has a shiatton of guns and few gun laws and yet their murder rate is pretty much nearly at the bottom of all states for gun crimes.
 
2013-05-08 08:30:54 AM

nekom: sammyk: Good. Now lets see if we can do a better job of keeping crazy people from having guns, and felons too. As long as we keep having mass killings we are going to keep having the gun control debate. Just because we have made progress on gun violence doesn't mean we can just throw our hands up in the air and accept the tragedies we keep reliving.

Tough nut to crack, though.  Background checks, for instance, aren't the end all beat all.  Don't get me wrong, I'm all for enhanced background checks, but the newton massacre was carried out by lawfully purchased guns stolen from a crazy person's mother.  Assault weapons bans may have some merit, but you could easily carry out the same sort of mass murder with a few semiautomatic pistols.  Now I'm not saying "It's an impossible task, so why even try?", I'm saying we need some better answers.  I don't really have them, at least none that are the slightest bit politically viable here.  Banning all but single shot rifles and shotguns would probably help immensely, but fat chance of ever seeing that happen here.


Interesting thing about background checks. 20 years ago the Brady act was signed into law implementing actual background checks. Lo and behold 20 years later gun violence is cut in half. But I am sure there will be someone here shortly to tell us the 2 things are in no way connected.
 
2013-05-08 08:34:49 AM

sammyk: nekom: sammyk: Good. Now lets see if we can do a better job of keeping crazy people from having guns, and felons too. As long as we keep having mass killings we are going to keep having the gun control debate. Just because we have made progress on gun violence doesn't mean we can just throw our hands up in the air and accept the tragedies we keep reliving.

Tough nut to crack, though.  Background checks, for instance, aren't the end all beat all.  Don't get me wrong, I'm all for enhanced background checks, but the newton massacre was carried out by lawfully purchased guns stolen from a crazy person's mother.  Assault weapons bans may have some merit, but you could easily carry out the same sort of mass murder with a few semiautomatic pistols.  Now I'm not saying "It's an impossible task, so why even try?", I'm saying we need some better answers.  I don't really have them, at least none that are the slightest bit politically viable here.  Banning all but single shot rifles and shotguns would probably help immensely, but fat chance of ever seeing that happen here.

Interesting thing about background checks. 20 years ago the Brady act was signed into law implementing actual background checks. Lo and behold 20 years later gun violence is cut in half. But I am sure there will be someone here shortly to tell us the 2 things are in no way connected.


Care to cite?
 
2013-05-08 08:35:03 AM
sammyk:
Interesting thing about background checks. 20 years ago the Brady act was signed into law implementing actual background checks. Lo and behold 20 years later gun violence is cut in half. But I am sure there will be someone here shortly to tell us the 2 things are in no way connected.

Well, correlation does not imply causation, but it does suggest it's worth looking into.  I have nothing whatsoever against background checks, they may well stop some crimes, but they fall short of solving the problem entirely.  I'm not knocking them one bit, I'm saying we need more than just that.  I have a 6 year old daughter, I would prefer to live in a world where some lunatic will not shoot up her school.
 
2013-05-08 08:35:54 AM
Fact: The American people will believe anything as long is it validates their fears.
 
2013-05-08 08:37:55 AM

sammyk: nekom: sammyk: Good. Now lets see if we can do a better job of keeping crazy people from having guns, and felons too. As long as we keep having mass killings we are going to keep having the gun control debate. Just because we have made progress on gun violence doesn't mean we can just throw our hands up in the air and accept the tragedies we keep reliving.

Tough nut to crack, though.  Background checks, for instance, aren't the end all beat all.  Don't get me wrong, I'm all for enhanced background checks, but the newton massacre was carried out by lawfully purchased guns stolen from a crazy person's mother.  Assault weapons bans may have some merit, but you could easily carry out the same sort of mass murder with a few semiautomatic pistols.  Now I'm not saying "It's an impossible task, so why even try?", I'm saying we need some better answers.  I don't really have them, at least none that are the slightest bit politically viable here.  Banning all but single shot rifles and shotguns would probably help immensely, but fat chance of ever seeing that happen here.

Interesting thing about background checks. 20 years ago the Brady act was signed into law implementing actual background checks. Lo and behold 20 years later gun violence is cut in half. But I am sure there will be someone here shortly to tell us the 2 things are in no way connected.


Also, to elaborate, we are also jailing people like we have never jailed them before. For 30 years the crime rate has fallen, not 20 as you say. It has been a downward trend even before the Brady legislation was signed.
 
2013-05-08 08:41:17 AM
Ahhh yes statistics, where we can make them say whatever we want
 
2013-05-08 08:58:30 AM

nekom: sammyk:
Interesting thing about background checks. 20 years ago the Brady act was signed into law implementing actual background checks. Lo and behold 20 years later gun violence is cut in half. But I am sure there will be someone here shortly to tell us the 2 things are in no way connected.

Well, correlation does not imply causation, but it does suggest it's worth looking into.  I have nothing whatsoever against background checks, they may well stop some crimes, but they fall short of solving the problem entirely.  I'm not knocking them one bit, I'm saying we need more than just that.  I have a 6 year old daughter, I would prefer to live in a world where some lunatic will not shoot up her school.


cman: sammyk: nekom: sammyk: Good. Now lets see if we can do a better job of keeping crazy people from having guns, and felons too. As long as we keep having mass killings we are going to keep having the gun control debate. Just because we have made progress on gun violence doesn't mean we can just throw our hands up in the air and accept the tragedies we keep reliving.

Tough nut to crack, though.  Background checks, for instance, aren't the end all beat all.  Don't get me wrong, I'm all for enhanced background checks, but the newton massacre was carried out by lawfully purchased guns stolen from a crazy person's mother.  Assault weapons bans may have some merit, but you could easily carry out the same sort of mass murder with a few semiautomatic pistols.  Now I'm not saying "It's an impossible task, so why even try?", I'm saying we need some better answers.  I don't really have them, at least none that are the slightest bit politically viable here.  Banning all but single shot rifles and shotguns would probably help immensely, but fat chance of ever seeing that happen here.

Interesting thing about background checks. 20 years ago the Brady act was signed into law implementing actual background checks. Lo and behold 20 years later gun violence is cut in half. But I am sure there will be someone here shortly to tell us the 2 things are in no way connected.

Also, to elaborate, we are also jailing people like we have never jailed them before. For 30 years the crime rate has fallen, not 20 as you say. It has been a downward trend even before the Brady legislation was signed.


You are both right. There may be other factors that have influenced the numbers. The problem is we will never get an honest study to asses the impact of the Brady Act. I've heard of provisions getting stuffed into gun control or other legislation that explicitly makes it illegal to even study it.

/copy/pasta from wiki

The Brady Law todayFrom 1994 through 2009, over 107 million Brady background checks were conducted. During this period 1.9 million attempted firearm purchases were blocked by the Brady background check system, or 1.8 percent. For checks done by the In 2009, felons accounted for 48 percent of denials and fugitives from justice accounted for 16 percent of denials. Between 2000 and 2009, over 30,000 denials were reversed on appeal. In April 2009, the FBI announced it had completed its 100 millionth NICS approval since its inception 10 years before.
It's hard to argue that Brady has had no impact. It's damn near impossible to quantify that impact.
 
2013-05-08 09:03:58 AM
It's all video games fault!

images.huffingtonpost.com
 
2013-05-08 09:06:14 AM

scottydoesntknow: It's all video games fault!

[images.huffingtonpost.com image 850x637]


Yes, but just the other day there was an article about a pickaxe murder.  Gun violence on the decline, pickaxe violence on the rise.  I blame minecraft.
 
2013-05-08 09:35:02 AM
And how one chooses to respond to statistics like these is apparently a matter of interpretation. For some on the right, the argument seems to be, "But look at how much better things are than 20 years ago!" For the left, the argument is, "We still have far more gun deaths than any industrialized democracy on the planet, and with some sensible safety measures, we can build on the recent progress and save more lives."

It's a debate, in other words, between "better" and "not good enough." Link
 
2013-05-08 09:42:45 AM
Let's see.. more areas with more gun control in last 20 years.. gun crime drops. Funny that.
 
2013-05-08 09:43:14 AM
Fear sells.
 
2013-05-08 09:43:52 AM
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.
 
2013-05-08 09:44:23 AM

sammyk: Good. Now lets see if we can do a better job of keeping crazy people from having guns, and felons too. As long as we keep having mass killings we are going to keep having the gun control debate. Just because we have made progress on gun violence doesn't mean we can just throw our hands up in the air and accept the tragedies we keep reliving.


We should start with automobiles.

Car crashes kill WAY more people then guns.

So does alcohol.

We should make a government list of people mentally capable of buying booze or a death machine like a car.
 
2013-05-08 09:44:40 AM
My right to own an inanimate object trumps your right to live
 
2013-05-08 09:44:45 AM

vpb: Yes, those tough anti gun laws in some parts are starting to pay off.

Now we need to expand on a winning strategy.


Yeah, that has really worked in Chicago!
 
2013-05-08 09:45:36 AM

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.
 
2013-05-08 09:46:00 AM
Yes, but phaser, laser, disruptor and D-R gun killings are through the roof. I'm afraid to fly over some parts of the city in my car, which is flyable. Oh, what a horrible future this is. I mean present.
 
2013-05-08 09:46:31 AM
Oh, god.  I look into this thread and it's the same old arguments and the same old statements.

I wonder if all these idiots are new idiots or if it's the same old idiots who have nothing new to say.
 
2013-05-08 09:46:42 AM

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


Your right to be afraid and ban something you aren't likely to encounter ever in your life does not trump my right to own a goddamn thing you pansy.
 
2013-05-08 09:46:51 AM
So, these are statistics that the NRA didn't buy off Congress to quit collecting? Sorry if my frown that says "you're full of farking bullshiat" hasn't suddenly vanished.
 
2013-05-08 09:47:36 AM

nekom: Well, correlation does not imply causation


No. Correlation does in fact imply causation. Correlation does not *equal* causation though.
 
2013-05-08 09:47:49 AM
From the study:

www.pewsocialtrends.org
 
2013-05-08 09:47:54 AM

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.


Please explain how banning all semi-automatic firearms and handguns and prohibiting you from accessing any functional firearm in your home is an infringement on your right to keep and bear arms.
 
2013-05-08 09:48:00 AM

fluffy2097: CPennypacker: My right to own an inanimate object trumps your right to live

Your right to be afraid and ban something you aren't likely to encounter ever in your life does not trump my right to own a goddamn thing you pansy.


Hey I'm on your side. Don't take my stuff.
 
2013-05-08 09:48:02 AM

sammyk: Good. Now lets see if we can do a better job of keeping crazy people from having guns, and felons too. As long as we keep having mass killings we are going to keep having the gun control debate. Just because we have made progress on gun violence doesn't mean we can just throw our hands up in the air and accept the tragedies we keep reliving.


Done in two. Individual homicides by people with their backgrounds checked? Sad, but it's the price of living of a gun-owning society.
Mass homicides by people who had no business touching those weapons in the first place? Those deaths might have been prevented if not for the "don't grab muh gunz" crowd.
 
2013-05-08 09:48:07 AM
So criminal background checks that the previous gun bans worked!!!
 
2013-05-08 09:48:08 AM

nekom


Background checks, for instance, aren't the end all beat all.


The phrase you want is "be all, end all".
 
2013-05-08 09:48:19 AM

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."
 
2013-05-08 09:48:24 AM

cman: vpb: Yes, those tough anti gun laws in some parts are starting to pay off.

Now we need to expand on a winning strategy.

/look at where the gun violence is highest

Maine has a shiatton of guns and few gun laws and yet their murder rate is pretty much nearly at the bottom of all states for gun crimes.


Weird, it's almost as if the guns and gun laws really don't play as much a part as does the demographics of the various communities.
 
2013-05-08 09:49:06 AM

scottydoesntknow: It's all video games fault!

[images.huffingtonpost.com image 850x637]


I blame pirates.
 
2013-05-08 09:49:33 AM

EyeballKid: So, these are statistics that the NRA didn't buy off Congress to quit collecting? Sorry if my frown that says "you're full of farking bullshiat" hasn't suddenly vanished.


You are correct; crime statistics that do not lend support to advocacy of civilian disarmament may be disregarded as inconvenient.
 
2013-05-08 09:50:03 AM
encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com

Authorities point to the massive sale of the cheap and easy to produce Russian Doyaselfinski Pistol which flooded U S markets as a major factor.
 
2013-05-08 09:50:40 AM
Do we have an acceptable threshold of gun murders?  It really should be zero.
 
2013-05-08 09:51:27 AM

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


Blatant false dichotomy is blatantly false.
 
2013-05-08 09:51:54 AM

fluffy2097: sammyk: Good. Now lets see if we can do a better job of keeping crazy people from having guns, and felons too. As long as we keep having mass killings we are going to keep having the gun control debate. Just because we have made progress on gun violence doesn't mean we can just throw our hands up in the air and accept the tragedies we keep reliving.

We should start with automobiles.

Car crashes kill WAY more people then guns.

So does alcohol.

We should make a government list of people mentally capable of buying booze or a death machine like a car.


You need to pass a test to get a driver's license, and that license can be taken away. There are state laws banning alcohol sales to people with X number of DUI citations.
 
2013-05-08 09:52:06 AM
 
2013-05-08 09:52:17 AM

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

Blatant false dichotomy is blatantly false.


Overused meme is overused
 
2013-05-08 09:52:19 AM
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
 
2013-05-08 09:52:39 AM

scottydoesntknow: It's all video games fault!

[images.huffingtonpost.com image 850x637]


That's because in 1996 a video game cost $20 bucks, now it's $70 bucks plus $30 worth of 'extras' they sell after you've bought the game.
 
2013-05-08 09:52:47 AM
if you ban news media, only criminals with squirrel nut jpgs will post on fark.
 
2013-05-08 09:52:58 AM

sammyk: Good. Now lets see if we can do a better job of keeping crazy people from having guns, and felons too. As long as we keep having mass killings we are going to keep having the gun control debate. Just because we have made progress on gun violence doesn't mean we can just throw our hands up in the air and accept the tragedies we keep reliving.


'I'm glad people have this misconception and this false belief works in favor of what I really want... so it's fine'

There's something wrong with you when you basically don't care about what's true and are perfectly happy to let people believe something that's false just so long as gets you what you want.

Religion works this way.
 
2013-05-08 09:53:02 AM

Lady Beryl Ersatz-Wendigo: Do we have an acceptable threshold of gun murders?


Good question.  Do we have an acceptable threshold of any other kind of unnatural death?
 
2013-05-08 09:53:46 AM

vpb: Yes, those tough anti gun laws in some parts are starting to pay off.

Now we need to expand on a winning strategy.

/look at where the gun violence is highest


Bullshait.
 
2013-05-08 09:54:16 AM

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.


3rd amendment:

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

They were both written in the same general era, and they are both pretty much anachronisms.
 
2013-05-08 09:54:20 AM

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.
 
2013-05-08 09:54:21 AM

Harry Freakstorm:

encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com
Authorities point to the massive sale of the cheap and easy to produce Russian Doyaselfinski Pistol which flooded U S markets as a major factor.


After I shot my eye out, I buy these by the gross and give them away to new friends.
 
2013-05-08 09:54:28 AM

randomjsa: There's something wrong with you when you basically don't care about what's true and are perfectly happy to let people believe something that's false just so long as gets you what you want.

Religion works this way.


I seldom agree with you, but "Oh snap!"
 
2013-05-08 09:54:54 AM

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


1/10

Possession of inanimate objects does not impact your right to live.
 
2013-05-08 09:54:54 AM

vpb: Yes, those tough anti gun laws in some parts are starting to pay off.

Now we need to expand on a winning strategy.

/look at where the gun violence is highest


In places where there is huge amounts of poverty, low economic mobility, poor education and lots of ignorant republicans?

I'm sure that wasn't the point you were trying to make,  but as a liberal gun owner completly biased and all I would look to assign blame there before looking at guns themselves.
 
2013-05-08 09:54:58 AM

bdub77: scottydoesntknow: It's all video games fault!

[images.huffingtonpost.com image 850x637]

That's because in 1996 a video game cost $20 bucks, now it's $70 bucks plus $30 worth of 'extras' they sell after you've bought the game.


What video games sold in 1996 were $20?
 
2013-05-08 09:55:08 AM

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


Those people are not any less dead and a gun was not any less involved. Bolster has nothing to do with it.
 
2013-05-08 09:55:19 AM

Lady Beryl Ersatz-Wendigo: Do we have an acceptable threshold of gun murders?  It really should be zero.


In NY and CT they do.  Depending upon the shooter's ability, the NY threshold is 7 and CT is 10.  (shhhh don't tell the gunman if he's truly not concerned about the act of murder he really can load the magazine to its full capacity)
 
2013-05-08 09:55:55 AM

pedrop357: CPennypacker: My right to own an inanimate object trumps your right to live

1/10

Possession of inanimate objects does not impact your right to live.


No, I agree, but thats the mindset. I'm mocking the mindset.
 
2013-05-08 09:56:02 AM

Dusk-You-n-Me: And how one chooses to respond to statistics like these is apparently a matter of interpretation. For some on the right, the argument seems to be, "But look at how much better things are than 20 years ago!" For the left, the argument is, "We still have far more gun deaths than any industrialized democracy on the planet, and with some sensible safety measures, we can build on the recent progress and save more lives."


It's not just right and left. I'm opposed to gun control proposed thus far because none of the rules proposed would actually have stopped the events that they'll alleged to be aimed at stopping.

If someone has a new idea that isn't just "ban scary sounding looking" I'm all ears.
 
2013-05-08 09:56:02 AM

haws83: Bullshait.


Now look into where the guns in Chicago come from.
 
2013-05-08 09:56:08 AM

nekom: 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.

3rd amendment:

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

They were both written in the same general era, and they are both pretty much anachronisms.


You are correct; declaration of a protected liberty as an "anachronism" legally eliminates the protection, without any need for actual legislative revision.
 
2013-05-08 09:56:16 AM

Dimensio: 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.

Please explain how banning all semi-automatic firearms and handguns and prohibiting you from accessing any functional firearm in your home is an infringement on your right to keep and bear arms.


Single shot/ bolt action/ pump/ etc generally are not suitable for self defense, particularly against the government. This country was founded on anti-tyranny ideals and the right of gun ownership allows us to stand up against the government if it becomes abusive.
 
2013-05-08 09:56:28 AM

CPennypacker: Overused meme is overused


Successful troll is successful.  Shame on me  :(
 
2013-05-08 09:56:30 AM

sammyk: Interesting thing about background checks. 20 years ago the Brady act was signed into law implementing actual background checks. Lo and behold 20 years later gun violence is cut in half. But I am sure there will be someone here shortly to tell us the 2 things are in no way connected.


I wonder how it corrilates to the enactment of CCW legislation?  About 20-25 years ago the states started to lessend the restricitons.
 
2013-05-08 09:56:53 AM

clkeagle: Done in two. Individual homicides by people with their backgrounds checked? Sad, but it's the price of living of a gun-owning society.
Mass homicides by people who had no business touching those weapons in the first place? Those deaths might have been prevented if not for the "don't grab muh gunz" crowd.


Please name these mass shootings which would have been prevented by background checks..
 
2013-05-08 09:56:53 AM

Lady Beryl Ersatz-Wendigo: Do we have an acceptable threshold of gun murders?  It really should be zero.


Given that same logic, you must be a member of the no-prohibitionist movement    Then again maybe you like beer and have an acceptable threshold of drunk driving deaths that is greater than zero, much like most people to do with pretty much every issue.
 
2013-05-08 09:57:28 AM

doglover: I'm opposed to gun control proposed thus far because none of the rules proposed would actually have stopped the events that they'll alleged to be aimed at stopping.


It's very hard to stop events that have already happened. The idea is to prevent some of the future events from happening. I say some of because that is the goal - not reaching zero, reducing the likelihood.
 
2013-05-08 09:57:30 AM

GoldSpider: CPennypacker: Overused meme is overused

Successful troll is successful.  Shame on me  :(


Hey you know where I fall on the issue. We've done this before. Let a man make a joke.
 
2013-05-08 09:57:48 AM

randomjsa: sammyk: Good. Now lets see if we can do a better job of keeping crazy people from having guns, and felons too. As long as we keep having mass killings we are going to keep having the gun control debate. Just because we have made progress on gun violence doesn't mean we can just throw our hands up in the air and accept the tragedies we keep reliving.

'I'm glad people have this misconception and this false belief works in favor of what I really want... so it's fine'

There's something wrong with you when you basically don't care about what's true and are perfectly happy to let people believe something that's false just so long as gets you what you want.

Religion works this way.


WTF are you going on about?
 
2013-05-08 09:57:56 AM
Factual information like this is not helping the needed hysteria at all!
 
2013-05-08 09:58:03 AM

cman: vpb: Yes, those tough anti gun laws in some parts are starting to pay off.

Now we need to expand on a winning strategy.

/look at where the gun violence is highest

Maine has a shiatton of guns

space  and few gun laws people  and yet their murder rate is pretty much nearly at the bottom of all states for gun crimes.
 
2013-05-08 09:58:07 AM

Endive Wombat: 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,


You say that, but the suicide rate went down 65% in Australia in the decade after their gun ban.
 
2013-05-08 09:58:21 AM

kwame: Oh, god.  I look into this thread and it's the same old arguments and the same old statements.

I wonder if all these idiots are new idiots or if it's the same old idiots who have nothing new to say.


How original.
 
2013-05-08 09:58:43 AM

EyeballKid: So, these are statistics that the NRA didn't buy off Congress to quit collecting? Sorry if my frown that says "you're full of farking bullshiat" hasn't suddenly vanished.


Yeah, the NRA waved a magic wand and stopped the FBI, DOJ, and ATF from ever collecting any data whatsoever! They are like that. You know, magic.

Its not like Congress decided to stop funding the CDC's boondoggle where they handed millions of taxpayer dollars to shoddy researchers with an axe to grind.
 

nekom: The newton massacre was carried out by lawfully purchased guns stolen from a crazy person's mother.  Assault weapons bans may have some merit, but you could easily carry out the same sort of mass murder with a few semiautomatic pistols.



Like Cho did at Virginia Tech? Where he killed more people? Using 10 and 15 round magazines? I'm glad he didn't start a fire, like Kim Dae-Han did in 2003. Kim, a half-paralyzed man of 56, killed 198 people with two jugs of gas and a lighter. Zhang Pilin killed 112 people in 2002 by causing the plane he was on to crash.

'Assault weapon' bans and magazine restrictions are both moronic, and serve only to hamstring defensive uses of firearms. They won't stop mass killings, not even a total firearms ban can do that.
 
2013-05-08 09:58:48 AM

Lady Beryl Ersatz-Wendigo: Do we have an acceptable threshold of gun murders?  It really should be zero.


by banning lawful ownership of guns (since it's previously law abiding people with future crime that we're trying to protect from their criminality), then the gun murder rate will become zeroerer.

if you can prevent something, why shouldn't you, you heartless monster?

/ everybody live in box! without fear!
 
2013-05-08 09:59:02 AM

Saiga410: sammyk: Interesting thing about background checks. 20 years ago the Brady act was signed into law implementing actual background checks. Lo and behold 20 years later gun violence is cut in half. But I am sure there will be someone here shortly to tell us the 2 things are in no way connected.

I wonder how it corrilates to the enactment of CCW legislation?  About 20-25 years ago the states started to lessend the restricitons.


Imagine just how much lower the "gun death" rate of the nation would be without those permit systems.
 
2013-05-08 09:59:03 AM

tricycleracer: Endive Wombat: 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,

You say that, but the FIREARM suicide rate went down 65% in Australia in the decade after their gun ban.


FTFM.
 
2013-05-08 09:59:09 AM

someonelse: You need to pass a test to get a driver's license, and that license can be taken away. There are state laws banning alcohol sales to people with X number of DUI citations.


AND THOSE PEOPLE STILL DRIVE CARS AND GET ALCOHOL! We need to make it harder for them, for their own good. So lets ban driving and alcohol entirely.

It's the only way to be sure.
 
2013-05-08 09:59:31 AM

manimal2878: Lady Beryl Ersatz-Wendigo: Do we have an acceptable threshold of gun murders?  It really should be zero.

Given that same logic, you must be a member of the no-prohibitionist movement    Then again maybe you like beer and have an acceptable threshold of drunk driving deaths that is greater than zero, much like most people to do with pretty much every issue.


Damn it.  NEO-prohibitionist movement is what I meant.
 
2013-05-08 09:59:40 AM
We need to set some expectations as I see it.  Just like world peace can never be achieved, we will never be 100% from gun violence.  We just need to determine how much we can tolerate at the expense of encroaching on the 2nd Amendment.
 
2013-05-08 09:59:51 AM
CCW in 1993:
www.gun-nuttery.com

2011:
www.gun-nuttery.com


Does this have any thing to do with the stats in TFA?

It cant be denied that the bloodbath the anti-gun crowded predicted when states started isuing has not occured.
 
2013-05-08 09:59:59 AM
The U.S. firearm homicide rate is 20 times higher than the combined rates of 22 countries that are our peers in wealth and population.

A declining rate doesn't mean jack shiat.
 
2013-05-08 10:00:04 AM
Oh come on.

Everyone knows it's not how many people are being killed that matters.  What's important is how many people are being killed at once.
 
2013-05-08 10:00:10 AM

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


As always, you're making this up. Gun laws are more relaxed than they were in the 90s. We've seen laws concerning carrying of weapons go from strict to very liberal.
 
2013-05-08 10:00:11 AM
I'm just going to throw this out here.  Maybe, just maybe, it's because despite humanity's obsession with focusing on the scariest and most horrible things that happen to anyone, maybe the world is a better place because of television and video games.   Boston and New York fans aside, you can only see people every day, compete against them every day, talk to them, share forums, debate, argue, laugh, cry, blow things up, together every day for so long before trivial things like which particular state, country, or island you live on or in doesn't matter nearly so much as the basic fact that people are essentially people, and some of them are hot.
 
2013-05-08 10:00:23 AM

Lady Beryl Ersatz-Wendigo: Do we have an acceptable threshold of gun murders?  It really should be zero.


And x number of people are murdered each year by being pushed down stairs, so there's no excuse not to ban stairs as long as there is at least a single murder each year, right?  80,000 people are killed each year from alcohol.  We seem to have no problem with that amount of death in exchange for our freedom to have an entertaining beverage, so until the number of gun deaths exceeds that number, you really have no right to question if the 12,000 murders per year are too much of a price to pay for our freedom to own defensive weapons.
 
2013-05-08 10:00:33 AM

bdub77: scottydoesntknow: It's all video games fault!

[images.huffingtonpost.com image 850x637]

That's because in 1996 a video game cost $20 bucks, now it's $70 bucks plus $30 worth of 'extras' they sell after you've bought the game.


No, videogames from the NES era through the PS2 era cost $50.  That was the going price for a new title.  Then the PS3/360 era raised that price to $60.  The only semi-valid point was the extra money they make on the "extras", but the vast majority of game owners don't spend anywhere near $30 extra per game.
 
2013-05-08 10:00:42 AM
cman:For 30 years the crime rate has fallen, not 20 as you say. It has been a downward trend even before the Brady legislation was signed.

No, that's not true. The US violent crime rate has been dropping since the mid 90s, just like the rest of the Western world. There was a small decrease in the early 80s, when the baby boomers began getting too old for that shiat, but it increased again in the following years and topped out around '91-'92.
 
2013-05-08 10:01:08 AM
Dimensio:
They were both written in the same general era, and they are both pretty much anachronisms.

You are correct; declaration of a protected liberty as an "anachronism" legally eliminates the protection, without any need for actual legislative revision.


Of course it doesn't.  That's just my opinion.  I realize it's not likely to ever go away, but it's as silly as worrying about quartering troops in your house in this day and age.  When the constitution was written, blacks were property, women couldn't vote, etc.  It's not some holy document to be worshiped as gospel.
 
2013-05-08 10:01:32 AM
Here's the overall suicide rate in Australia:

www.aihw.gov.au
 
2013-05-08 10:01:33 AM

pdee: It cant be denied that the bloodbath the anti-gun crowded predicted when states started isuing has not occured.


But SANDY HOOK!!  Won't somebody think of the children??
 
2013-05-08 10:01:37 AM

tricycleracer: Endive Wombat: 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,

You say that, but the suicide rate went down 65% in Australia in the decade after their gun ban.


Did that have anything to do with the massive anti-suicide campaigns the government kicked into gear a year before the ban?
 
2013-05-08 10:02:07 AM

Dusk-You-n-Me: Endive Wombat: I understand why the left likes to keep those numbers in the stat, because it bolsters their message, but it is disingenuous.

Those people are not any less dead and a gun was not any less involved. Bolster has nothing to do with it.


Fair enough, but suicide is not a crime.  Buttttt...trying to use incorrectly inflated gun death stats as a basis for legislating tighter gun control measures is wrong.
 
2013-05-08 10:02:15 AM

pdee: CCW in 1993:
[www.gun-nuttery.com image 606x509]

2011:
[www.gun-nuttery.com image 614x509]


Does this have any thing to do with the stats in TFA?

It cant be denied that the bloodbath the anti-gun crowded predicted when states started isuing has not occured.


Statistically comparing to the rest of the world, it remains a bloodbath.
 
2013-05-08 10:02:39 AM

Dimensio: nekom: 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.

3rd amendment:

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

They were both written in the same general era, and they are both pretty much anachronisms.

You are correct; declaration of a protected liberty as an "anachronism" legally eliminates the protection, without any need for actual legislative revision.


Indeed.

Amendments 1, and 4-11 were also written in that time.  Time for them to relegated to figurehead status.

Come to think of it 13-15 are also pretty old.  They're only about 70 years away from those other anachronisms.  They too were written in a different time and we'll have to toss them aside eventually, might as well do it now while we're on a roll.

I do have an agenda when it comes to #13 though, I'm in favor labor reform as I've talked about before.  I'm tired of all the 13th amendment purists out there blocking sensible slavery legislation.  Laws that allow for limited slavery are constitutional, don't infringe on a person's right to attend sporting events, and would help the whole community.  They deserve a vote.
 
2013-05-08 10:02:57 AM

mrshowrules: The U.S. firearm homicide rate is 20 times higher than the combined rates of 22 countries that are our peers in wealth and population.


Is that per capita?

We have a shiatload more people then 22 other countries. Of course the raw numbers will be higher.
 
2013-05-08 10:02:59 AM

BayouOtter: tricycleracer: Endive Wombat: 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,

You say that, but the suicide rate went down 65% in Australia in the decade after their gun ban.

Did that have anything to do with the massive anti-suicide campaigns the government kicked into gear a year before the ban?


I'm sure it was 100% that and had nothing to do with a gun ban.  I yield to you, good sir.
 
2013-05-08 10:03:13 AM

Dimensio: bdub77: scottydoesntknow: It's all video games fault!

[images.huffingtonpost.com image 850x637]

That's because in 1996 a video game cost $20 bucks, now it's $70 bucks plus $30 worth of 'extras' they sell after you've bought the game.

What video games sold in 1996 were $20?


I was pretty much joking. I did zero research on this one. :)
 
2013-05-08 10:03:20 AM

Endive Wombat: Buttttt...trying to use incorrectly inflated gun death stats as a basis for legislating tighter gun control measures is wrong.


They're not incorrectly inflated. Those people are not any less dead and a gun was not any less involved.
 
2013-05-08 10:03:31 AM

bdub77: scottydoesntknow: It's all video games fault!

[images.huffingtonpost.com image 850x637]

That's because in 1996 a video game cost $20 bucks, now it's $70 bucks plus $30 worth of 'extras' they sell after you've bought the game.


So you're saying they've spent so much on new games that they can't afford bullets for their guns?

/Games cost the same now as they did back then
 
2013-05-08 10:03:56 AM
Gun manufacturers are as liable as promoting gun crime fear as the media. In fact, they rely on gun crime fear to sell their "self-defense" products to those who simply do not need them.
 
2013-05-08 10:03:56 AM

Endive Wombat: Dusk-You-n-Me: Endive Wombat: I understand why the left likes to keep those numbers in the stat, because it bolsters their message, but it is disingenuous.

Those people are not any less dead and a gun was not any less involved. Bolster has nothing to do with it.

Fair enough, but suicide is not a crime.  Buttttt...trying to use incorrectly inflated gun death stats as a basis for legislating tighter gun control measures is wrong.


How is it inflated? We want less deaths. I don't follow your logic. Less suicides = less deaths.
 
2013-05-08 10:04:11 AM

CPennypacker: GoldSpider: CPennypacker: Overused meme is overused

Successful troll is successful.  Shame on me  :(

Hey you know where I fall on the issue. We've done this before. Let a man make a joke.


I doubt that.  Nobody in favor of gun rights talks the way you do.

I have you fav'd in derp grey for a reason.
 
2013-05-08 10:04:16 AM
The United States Empire will last forever and people will only get safer.
 
2013-05-08 10:04:27 AM

scottydoesntknow: It's all video games fault!

[images.huffingtonpost.com image 850x637]



i586.photobucket.com
 
2013-05-08 10:04:31 AM

fluffy2097: mrshowrules: The U.S. firearm homicide rate is 20 times higher than the combined rates of 22 countries that are our peers in wealth and population.

Is that per capita?

We have a shiatload more people then 22 other countries. Of course the raw numbers will be higher.

 
2013-05-08 10:04:52 AM

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


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

I never understood the obsession with 'gun violence' personally. Is being stabbed to death somehow more morally desirable than being shot to death?
 
2013-05-08 10:05:00 AM

pdee: CCW in 1993:


Your graphic shows Alabama as a shall issue state. Alabama is not and never was shall issue.
 
2013-05-08 10:05:01 AM
BUT GUNS!!!1!
 
2013-05-08 10:05:08 AM

mrshowrules: Statistically comparing to the rest of the world, it remains a bloodbath.


Syria would like a word with you.

If you want to go back a few years, Rwanda as well. Millions. MILLIONS killed in a genocide. Mostly with machetes and hatchets.
 
2013-05-08 10:05:24 AM

pedrop357: CPennypacker: GoldSpider: CPennypacker: Overused meme is overused

Successful troll is successful.  Shame on me  :(

Hey you know where I fall on the issue. We've done this before. Let a man make a joke.

I doubt that.  Nobody in favor of gun rights talks the way you do.

I have you fav'd in derp grey for a reason.


I'm not in favor of gun rights

I don't have you fav'd at all for a reason. Who the fark are you?
 
2013-05-08 10:05:33 AM

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


[citation needed]
 
2013-05-08 10:05:44 AM

GnomePaladin: Maine has a shiatton of guns space and few gun laws people and yet their murder rate is pretty much nearly at the bottom of all states for gun crimes.


So you mean gun crime is independent of the type and prevalence of guns and is rooted in other factors?  Hmm, maybe we should start looking at those other factors then, donchathink?
 
2013-05-08 10:05:48 AM

pedrop357: CPennypacker: GoldSpider: CPennypacker: Overused meme is overused

Successful troll is successful.  Shame on me  :(

Hey you know where I fall on the issue. We've done this before. Let a man make a joke.

I doubt that.  Nobody in favor of gun rights talks the way you do.

I have you fav'd in derp grey for a reason.


I always thought of derp as more puce in colour.
 
2013-05-08 10:06:09 AM

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


I can imagin how you could be more wrong.
 
2013-05-08 10:06:26 AM

pdee: CCW in 1993:
[www.gun-nuttery.com image 606x509]

2011:
[www.gun-nuttery.com image 614x509]


Does this have any thing to do with the stats in TFA?


More likely, the change in concealed weapons permit statutes is not related to the change in rates of crime.


It cant be denied that the bloodbath the anti-gun crowded predicted when states started isuing has not occured.

You are correct.
 
2013-05-08 10:07:01 AM

mrshowrules: The U.S. firearm homicide rate is 20 times higher than the combined rates of 22 countries that are our peers in wealth and population.

A declining rate doesn't mean jack shiat.


Good to know.  If it ever starts to rise for some reason, can we count on you to dismiss that as well?
 
2013-05-08 10:07:13 AM

sammyk: Interesting thing about background checks. 20 years ago the Brady act was signed into law implementing actual background checks. Lo and behold 20 years later gun violence is cut in half. But I am sure there will be someone here shortly to tell us the 2 things are in no way connected.




The ban on "Assault Weapons" and high capacity magazines expired so I can claim that more people being able to arm and defend themselves with previously banned weapons contributed. to the decline.

I think it would be smarter to look at the decline in gang turf wars and drug violence during that time than gun laws or lack there of. It won't serve your agenda but it is closer to the truth.

Most "gun control" legislation is nothing more than polticians jerking off a particular constituency(If we just get rid fo those guns with flash suppressors, bayonet lugs and pistol grip stocks we will all be safer nonsense). Normally that constituency is the soccer mom for the children crowd or those who also need government to protect them from the evils of large soft drinks and trans fats is also afraid the 80 million lawful gun owners.

24.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-05-08 10:07:14 AM

nekom: They were both written in the same general era, and they are both pretty much anachronisms.


There is a process for revising them as well.  What's the holdup?
 
2013-05-08 10:07:18 AM

mrshowrules: pedrop357: CPennypacker: GoldSpider: CPennypacker: Overused meme is overused

Successful troll is successful.  Shame on me  :(

Hey you know where I fall on the issue. We've done this before. Let a man make a joke.

I doubt that.  Nobody in favor of gun rights talks the way you do.

I have you fav'd in derp grey for a reason.

I always thought of derp as more puce in colour.


Chartreuse, a color I had not seen. Looks to me like yellow and green.
 
2013-05-08 10:07:19 AM
Fark Gun thread:

Wash,
rinse,
repeat
 
2013-05-08 10:07:29 AM

I_C_Weener: scottydoesntknow: It's all video games fault!

[images.huffingtonpost.com image 850x637]


[i586.photobucket.com image 850x637]


Well that's obvious. I mean even I murdered a few people back in the day because of my frustrations with Internet Explorer. Thank god Firefox quelled my murderous rage.
 
2013-05-08 10:07:43 AM
DOESNT MATTER BAN EVERYTHING TO BE SURE.
 
2013-05-08 10:07:46 AM

vpb: Yes, those tough anti gun laws in some parts are starting to pay off.

Now we need to expand on a winning strategy.

/look at where the gun violence is highest


Odd how the FBI disagrees with your politically posted sites...
 
2013-05-08 10:08:13 AM

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

[citation needed]


Background checks at the distributor/liquor store?  People really thinks this happens?
 
2013-05-08 10:08:42 AM

mrshowrules: pedrop357: CPennypacker: GoldSpider: CPennypacker: Overused meme is overused

Successful troll is successful.  Shame on me  :(

Hey you know where I fall on the issue. We've done this before. Let a man make a joke.

I doubt that.  Nobody in favor of gun rights talks the way you do.

I have you fav'd in derp grey for a reason.

I always thought of derp as more puce in colour.


Well with the dark grey, it allows for easy ignoring, but I can go back and read what was said if someone else is responding to them and I wish to respond to that person and wish to know more about the context.
 
2013-05-08 10:08:45 AM

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.



Actually, that's not the case at all.  When guns are banned, people don't just switch to the next method.  The rate of suicide actually decreases.  Why, because of all those means, nothings quite as quick as  a gun.  Even slowing down the rate at which they can get a gun means that people think it out and decide  not to kill themselves.
 
2013-05-08 10:09:15 AM

spickus: pdee: CCW in 1993:

Your graphic shows Alabama as a shall issue state. Alabama is not and never was shall issue.


In practice, they are shall issue.
 
2013-05-08 10:09:23 AM
Violence has been on a decline throughout human history. The chances of dying at the hands of another person is quite a bit lower than at any time in history. Ted Talk link
We as a species are becoming less violent and more sensitive to violence so that many perceive the violence that does occur to be increasing rather than decreasing.
 
2013-05-08 10:10:09 AM
There are the frequent massacres to consider. We're not supposed to talk about them because it's very insensitive towards gun owners.
 
2013-05-08 10:10:11 AM

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

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

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


One Farker has explicitly expressed the opinion that stabbing homicides preferable to firearm homicides.
 
2013-05-08 10:10:13 AM

CPennypacker: pedrop357: CPennypacker: GoldSpider: CPennypacker: Overused meme is overused

Successful troll is successful.  Shame on me  :(

Hey you know where I fall on the issue. We've done this before. Let a man make a joke.

I doubt that.  Nobody in favor of gun rights talks the way you do.

I have you fav'd in derp grey for a reason.

I'm not in favor of gun rights

I don't have you fav'd at all for a reason. Who the fark are you?


My mistake
 
2013-05-08 10:11:02 AM
You say that, but the suicide rate went down 65% in Australia in the decade after their gun ban.

Stopping people from killing themselves just further underscores the busybody mentality involved here.
 
2013-05-08 10:11:38 AM
Question: the study seems to be about the decline in gun "crimes". What about gun "deaths/injuries"? Is there a statistical difference between the crime stats and accident stats in the U.S.? Just wondering.

In Canada, there is legislation provisions for how guns are stored (locked and unloaded). It did result in a drop for gun-related accidental death/injuries in youth and a significant drop in youth suicide rates. Gun cirmes have also dropped, I think, proportionately to the U.S., but I'd have to review the stats more thoroughly and I don't wanna.
 
2013-05-08 10:11:49 AM

Saiga410: sammyk: Interesting thing about background checks. 20 years ago the Brady act was signed into law implementing actual background checks. Lo and behold 20 years later gun violence is cut in half. But I am sure there will be someone here shortly to tell us the 2 things are in no way connected.

I wonder how it corrilates to the enactment of CCW legislation?  About 20-25 years ago the states started to lessend the restricitons.


I'm sure it has had some effect. Good luck figuring it out. I just googled "gun used in self defense statistics". Turns out there are only a few thousand articles and all of them claim something different.
 
2013-05-08 10:12:06 AM

ko_kyi: nekom: They were both written in the same general era, and they are both pretty much anachronisms.

There is a process for revising them as well.  What's the holdup?


Kansas, Texas, etc.  Which is why it's never going to happen.  I'm not naive, I know the political climate will NEVER allow for the 2nd amendment to be repealed.  It's just my opinion that it ought to be.
 
2013-05-08 10:12:11 AM

mrshowrules: pdee: CCW in 1993:
[www.gun-nuttery.com image 606x509]

2011:
[www.gun-nuttery.com image 614x509]


Does this have any thing to do with the stats in TFA?

It cant be denied that the bloodbath the anti-gun crowded predicted when states started isuing has not occured.

Statistically comparing to the rest of the world, it remains a bloodbath.


But we were told that if CCW became prevalent that murders would go through the roof.  Instead gun crimes have declined.  This is strong evidence that gun control has little to do with gun crime.
 
2013-05-08 10:12:15 AM

pedrop357: CPennypacker: pedrop357: CPennypacker: GoldSpider: CPennypacker: Overused meme is overused

Successful troll is successful.  Shame on me  :(

Hey you know where I fall on the issue. We've done this before. Let a man make a joke.

I doubt that.  Nobody in favor of gun rights talks the way you do.

I have you fav'd in derp grey for a reason.

I'm not in favor of gun rights

I don't have you fav'd at all for a reason. Who the fark are you?

My mistake


I never said I was . . .

For reference, my official personal stance is that I disagree with the Heller decision and I think that guns should be considered legal but well regulated and not as an individual right

/the more you know
 
2013-05-08 10:12:17 AM

mrshowrules: The U.S. firearm homicide rate is 20 times higher than the combined rates of 22 countries that are our peers in wealth and population.

A declining rate doesn't mean jack shiat.


The number we should be looking at is total murder rate.  America is still higher but its not some crazy number like 20X.  I also dont see how a declining rate "doesnt mean jack shiat".  It means something we are doing is affecting the rates so we should probably pay attention to what it is.
 
2013-05-08 10:12:24 AM

Dimensio: One Farker has explicitly expressed the opinion that stabbing homicides preferable to firearm homicides.


Is that the same person who recuses to compare automobile deaths to gun deaths because "guns are designed to kill people"?
 
2013-05-08 10:12:28 AM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: spickus: pdee: CCW in 1993:

Your graphic shows Alabama as a shall issue state. Alabama is not and never was shall issue.

In practice, they are shall issue.


Connecticut is the same way.  They have may issue like components to their system, but are apparently shall issue in practice.  I have a non-res CT permit for what it's worth.
 
2013-05-08 10:13:50 AM

mrshowrules: Statistically comparing to the rest of the world, it remains a bloodbath.


Irrelevant to the specific point he was making.
 
2013-05-08 10:13:50 AM

mrshowrules: fluffy2097: mrshowrules: The U.S. firearm homicide rate is 20 times higher than the combined rates of 22 countries that are our peers in wealth and population.

Is that per capita?

We have a shiatload more people then 22 other countries. Of course the raw numbers will be higher.


We're also one of the few countries that has guns, so you know. Like if we were the only country that let people drive blue cars we'd have a lot more blue-car accidents than anyone else.

If you look at our overall homicide rates we're not doing so badly.
 
2013-05-08 10:14:01 AM

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

[citation needed]

Background checks at the distributor/liquor store?  People really thinks this happens?


Sadly, it appears that some people in power seem to think they could make it happen...

http://www.komonews.com/news/local/Bill-proposal-10-year-booze-ban-f or -after-third-DUI-203321051.html
 
2013-05-08 10:14:03 AM

Kome: nekom: Well, correlation does not imply causation

No. Correlation does in fact imply causation. Correlation does not *equal* causation though.


This is one of these ones were a statement gets misread by non specialists - like how a scientific theory is pretty much the apex of long years of research, but in normal speech indicates a rough guess.

In the same way "implies" in logic is absolute - P implies Q is a statement of truth/certainty, but in common language "implies" tends to suggest some sort of vague hint, or someone suggesting something in a roundabout matter.
 
2013-05-08 10:14:27 AM

tricycleracer: tricycleracer: Endive Wombat: 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,

You say that, but the FIREARM suicide rate went down 65% in Australia in the decade after their gun ban.

FTFM.


That pretty much addressed his point.  If fewer people use guns and instead use knives, roap, water, car exhaust, etc., nothing has actually been done.  Substitution is not progress.
 
2013-05-08 10:15:03 AM

CPennypacker: For reference, my official personal stance is that I disagree with the Heller decision and I think that guns should be considered legal but well regulated and not as an individual right


You realize you are in a very small minority, right?
 
2013-05-08 10:15:33 AM
These are always such great fun to watch.

Everyone is always already set in their ways and never wants to listen to the other side let alone change their opinion.
 
2013-05-08 10:15:40 AM

HotWingConspiracy: There are the frequent massacres to consider. We're not supposed to talk about them because it's very insensitive towards gun owners.


If you think massacres are common enough to worry about, you probably also think lottery tickets are a sound investment.
 
2013-05-08 10:15:51 AM

EatsCrayons: Question: the study seems to be about the decline in gun "crimes". What about gun "deaths/injuries"? Is there a statistical difference between the crime stats and accident stats in the U.S.? Just wondering.

In Canada, there is legislation provisions for how guns are stored (locked and unloaded). It did result in a drop for gun-related accidental death/injuries in youth and a significant drop in youth suicide rates. Gun cirmes have also dropped, I think, proportionately to the U.S., but I'd have to review the stats more thoroughly and I don't wanna.


extranosalley.com

Reportedly, hunter safety education programs implemented in the early 1970s are credited for a sudden decline.
 
2013-05-08 10:17:04 AM

nekom: It's just my opinion that it ought to be.


It would be the ultimate coup for your side.  Revised within the process, those who "support the Constitution" would be obliged to support the law.
 
2013-05-08 10:17:20 AM

CPennypacker: Endive Wombat: Dusk-You-n-Me: Endive Wombat: I understand why the left likes to keep those numbers in the stat, because it bolsters their message, but it is disingenuous.

Those people are not any less dead and a gun was not any less involved. Bolster has nothing to do with it.

Fair enough, but suicide is not a crime.  Buttttt...trying to use incorrectly inflated gun death stats as a basis for legislating tighter gun control measures is wrong.

How is it inflated? We want less deaths. I don't follow your logic. Less suicides = less deaths.


Sigh...

Suicide is not a crime.  Yeah, it is a death caused by the use of a gun, but that's it.  So when attempting to legislate tighter gun control (restricting where guns can be carried, magazine capacity, forward pistol grips, universal background checks, etc.), suicide stats have NOTHING to do with any of these things.  Ergo using incorrect data.
 
2013-05-08 10:17:26 AM

GoldSpider: Dimensio: One Farker has explicitly expressed the opinion that stabbing homicides preferable to firearm homicides.

Is that the same person who recuses to compare automobile deaths to gun deaths because "guns are designed to kill people"?


I do not know. Upon observing the individual openly admit that a decline in "gun death" rates is desirable even if the overall homicide rate increases, I disregarded any further commentary from the poster as irrational and without any intellectual merit.
 
2013-05-08 10:17:42 AM

IdBeCrazyIf: Ahhh yes statistics, where we can make them say whatever we want


So we shouldn't try and scientifically explain anything.  Got it.
 
2013-05-08 10:17:43 AM

GoldSpider: CPennypacker: For reference, my official personal stance is that I disagree with the Heller decision and I think that guns should be considered legal but well regulated and not as an individual right

You realize you are in a very small minority, right?


Does that make my opinion invalid?

Last time I checked that decision was 5-4
 
2013-05-08 10:19:00 AM

nekom: Dimensio:
They were both written in the same general era, and they are both pretty much anachronisms.

You are correct; declaration of a protected liberty as an "anachronism" legally eliminates the protection, without any need for actual legislative revision.

Of course it doesn't.  That's just my opinion.  I realize it's not likely to ever go away, but it's as silly as worrying about quartering troops in your house in this day and age.  When the constitution was written, blacks were property, women couldn't vote, etc.  It's not some holy document to be worshiped as gospel.


It's just the founding principles of the entire country. We can just ignore the parts we don't like. Like free speech for those WBC assholes. Ain't nobody got time for that.
 
2013-05-08 10:19:38 AM

GanjSmokr: Sadly, it appears that some people in power seem to think they could make it happen...


At least they're making a more consistent argument.
 
2013-05-08 10:20:09 AM

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


Explain Chicago.
 
2013-05-08 10:20:33 AM

sammyk: Interesting thing about background checks. 20 years ago the Brady act was signed into law implementing actual background checks. Lo and behold 20 years later gun violence is cut in half. But I am sure there will be someone here shortly to tell us the 2 things are in no way connected.


Prior to 1968, there were few federal gun laws, background checks didn't exist, and you could buy a gun through the mail.

And the homicide rate back then was as low as it is now.

Also, if you want to play the "correlation = causation" game, 20 years ago only a handful of states allowed you to carry a gun for protection.  Now 40 states are "must issue".
 
2013-05-08 10:20:42 AM

sammyk: nekom: sammyk: Good. Now lets see if we can do a better job of keeping crazy people from having guns, and felons too. As long as we keep having mass killings we are going to keep having the gun control debate. Just because we have made progress on gun violence doesn't mean we can just throw our hands up in the air and accept the tragedies we keep reliving.

Tough nut to crack, though.  Background checks, for instance, aren't the end all beat all.  Don't get me wrong, I'm all for enhanced background checks, but the newton massacre was carried out by lawfully purchased guns stolen from a crazy person's mother.  Assault weapons bans may have some merit, but you could easily carry out the same sort of mass murder with a few semiautomatic pistols.  Now I'm not saying "It's an impossible task, so why even try?", I'm saying we need some better answers.  I don't really have them, at least none that are the slightest bit politically viable here.  Banning all but single shot rifles and shotguns would probably help immensely, but fat chance of ever seeing that happen here.

Interesting thing about background checks. 20 years ago the Brady act was signed into law implementing actual background checks. Lo and behold 20 years later gun violence is cut in half. But I am sure there will be someone here shortly to tell us the 2 things are in no way connected.


Take a look at figure 42 of http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf.

Handgun crime experienced a peak in the early 90s, then dropped back down to their 80's levels (the rate difference would be greater due to the population increase). Homicide rates due to other guns, knives, blunt objects, and other weapons also dropped. Knife-related homicides dropped from about 4500 to about 2000 between 1980 and 2008 (again, the rate difference would be greater due to the population increase).

This suggests that there was more going on than just gun legislation, unless you can think of a reason that gun legislation reduced knife-related homicides.

/I have no idea what caused that peak in the 90s.
 
2013-05-08 10:21:09 AM

nekom: sammyk: Good. Now lets see if we can do a better job of keeping crazy people from having guns, and felons too. As long as we keep having mass killings we are going to keep having the gun control debate. Just because we have made progress on gun violence doesn't mean we can just throw our hands up in the air and accept the tragedies we keep reliving.

Tough nut to crack, though.  Background checks, for instance, aren't the end all beat all.  Don't get me wrong, I'm all for enhanced background checks, but the newton massacre was carried out by lawfully purchased guns stolen from a crazy person's mother.  Assault weapons bans may have some merit, but you could easily carry out the same sort of mass murder with a few semiautomatic pistols.  Now I'm not saying "It's an impossible task, so why even try?", I'm saying we need some better answers.  I don't really have them, at least none that are the slightest bit politically viable here.  Banning all but single shot rifles and shotguns would probably help immensely, but fat chance of ever seeing that happen here.


I think that last bit would be overreach and would never pass. That's the problem though. Our politics exist on one extreme or the other now and no rational middle ground will be found by either political party.
 
2013-05-08 10:21:13 AM

Endive Wombat: CPennypacker: Endive Wombat: Dusk-You-n-Me: Endive Wombat: I understand why the left likes to keep those numbers in the stat, because it bolsters their message, but it is disingenuous.

Those people are not any less dead and a gun was not any less involved. Bolster has nothing to do with it.

Fair enough, but suicide is not a crime.  Buttttt...trying to use incorrectly inflated gun death stats as a basis for legislating tighter gun control measures is wrong.

How is it inflated? We want less deaths. I don't follow your logic. Less suicides = less deaths.

Sigh...

Suicide is not a crime.  Yeah, it is a death caused by the use of a gun, but that's it.  So when attempting to legislate tighter gun control (restricting where guns can be carried, magazine capacity, forward pistol grips, universal background checks, etc.), suicide stats have NOTHING to do with any of these things.  Ergo using incorrect data.


Oh for fark's sake
 
2013-05-08 10:21:15 AM

fonebone77: America is still higher but its not some crazy number like 20X.


His number of 20x is pretty much bogus.  Right now, the firearm homicide rate in the US is about 3.8 per 100K.  Let see him compare this to his cross section of 22 other contries.  Yes, we may be higher than most of them, but not by an average of 20 times.

/mrshowrules needs to quit drinking the talking point Kool-aid.
 
2013-05-08 10:21:40 AM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: HotWingConspiracy: There are the frequent massacres to consider. We're not supposed to talk about them because it's very insensitive towards gun owners.

If you think massacres are common enough to worry about, you probably also think lottery tickets are a sound investment.


Home invasions are uncommon as well, so I guess you don't really need your guns.
 
2013-05-08 10:21:52 AM
BraveNewCheneyWorld:  In practice, they are shall issue.

Just because they don't jerk us around regrading permits doesn't make it shall issue. Make no mistake the sheriffs like it the way it is.

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

/I don't disagree with them.
 
2013-05-08 10:22:12 AM

CPennypacker: Does that make my opinion invalid?


Not at all.

CPennypacker: Last time I checked that decision was 5-4


Heller never should have been that close.  I can't imagine why a supposed constitutional scholar would consider Amendments 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 "individual rights" and exclude 2.
 
2013-05-08 10:23:44 AM

Lt. Cheese Weasel: Explain Chicago.


58% of the guns recovered in Chicago originate from outside the state of Illinois. Chicago is a perfect example of why we need universal background checks on a national level.
 
2013-05-08 10:23:46 AM

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.


See that part about "a well regulated militia"? That means the Federal Government has the authority to enforce enhanced background checks. Anybody who says otherwise is only seeing what they want to see.
 
2013-05-08 10:23:49 AM

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

/I don't disagree with them.


What qualifies a sheriff to make such a determination?
 
2013-05-08 10:24:06 AM

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.
 
2013-05-08 10:24:09 AM

GoldSpider: CPennypacker: Does that make my opinion invalid?

Not at all.

CPennypacker: Last time I checked that decision was 5-4

Heller never should have been that close.  I can't imagine why a supposed constitutional scholar would consider Amendments 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 "individual rights" and exclude 2.


I actually dont think Obama has any position on the 3rd.

I could be wrong
 
2013-05-08 10:24:14 AM

HotWingConspiracy: There are the frequent massacres to consider. We're not supposed to talk about them because it's very insensitive towards gun owners.


Thats like saying that people are frequently kill by lightning or meteor strikes or that people frequently win the lotto.  Just because on the infrequent occasion that it happens it becomes a 24x7 news story for weeks at a time does not mean it is statistically a danger.
 
2013-05-08 10:24:31 AM

GoldSpider: CPennypacker: Does that make my opinion invalid?

Not at all.

CPennypacker: Last time I checked that decision was 5-4

Heller never should have been that close.  I can't imagine why a supposed constitutional scholar would consider Amendments 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 "individual rights" and exclude 2.


That whole militia thing
 
2013-05-08 10:24:38 AM

j__z: Fark Gun thread:

Wash,
rinse,
repeat


They are always good for updating my hoplophobia index.  It's disturbingly large
 
2013-05-08 10:24:50 AM

BayouOtter: mrshowrules: fluffy2097: mrshowrules: The U.S. firearm homicide rate is 20 times higher than the combined rates of 22 countries that are our peers in wealth and population.

Is that per capita?

We have a shiatload more people then 22 other countries. Of course the raw numbers will be higher.

We're also one of the few countries that has guns, so you know. Like if we were the only country that let people drive blue cars we'd have a lot more blue-car accidents than anyone else.

If you look at our overall homicide rates we're not doing so badly.


I highlighted the portion indicating that you have no clue what you are talking about.
 
2013-05-08 10:25:08 AM

cman: I actually dont think Obama has any position on the 3rd.

I could be wrong


I may not be as active in following politics as I once was, but I don't recall Obama being nominated for the SCOTUS.
 
2013-05-08 10:25:16 AM

graeth: These are always such great fun to watch.

Everyone is always already set in their ways and never wants to listen to the other side let alone change their opinion.


There is never going to be a peaceful resolution to the argument about possession of the means of force.

Especially in American politics, where the two sides don't simply lack common ground to begin constructive discourse, but lack even a shred of trust for the other side.  There won't be any compromise between two groups that don't trust the other not to do something horrible to them at the first chance.  Anti-gun people are worried they'll be murdered in the streets by raving armed lunatics.  Pro-gun people are worried they'll be rounded up by armed jackbooted government thugs in the middle of the night and put on trains to gulags.

There's no common ground to build on between the two sides, and what saddens me is I don't see that changing any time soon.  What I do expect is that it'll end in bloodshed.
 
2013-05-08 10:25:18 AM

clkeagle: sammyk: Good. Now lets see if we can do a better job of keeping crazy people from having guns, and felons too. As long as we keep having mass killings we are going to keep having the gun control debate. Just because we have made progress on gun violence doesn't mean we can just throw our hands up in the air and accept the tragedies we keep reliving.

Done in two. Individual homicides by people with their backgrounds checked? Sad, but it's the price of living of a gun-owning society.
Mass homicides by people who had no business touching those weapons in the first place? Those deaths might have been prevented if not for the "don't grab muh gunz" crowd.


I would agree, if only those in charge of drafting legislation would stop using it as a platform for grabbing guns from the wrong people. Often while admitting that it's their true goal. The problem is that our attempts to solve the problem are hijacked by those with an agenda.

What would really create great strides in reducing gun crime is to actually prosecute people who lie on their 4473 form. It's a felony, and yet only an insignificant proportion are ever busted over it.

A felon or other barred individual just lied to try and buy a gun, and nobody's interested in following up on that!? Lanza was rejected a week before sandy hook. And yet we are told there is neither the time nor the interest in enforcing the existing law.

No, we have to strip the property of millions of law abiding Americans instead. Because lord knows THAT's cheap, fast and constitutionally sound.

/rant over
 
2013-05-08 10:25:25 AM

MJMaloney187: See that part about "a well regulated militia"? That means the Federal Government has the authority to enforce enhanced background checks. Anybody who says otherwise is only seeing what they want to see.


No.  Read the Heller decision.
 
2013-05-08 10:25:33 AM
Tell you what Subby. Move to Central Phoenix into a neighborhood with gangs and illegals. You'll see murders and shootings galore.

Or move to the Southside of Chicago. Plenty of gun murders there.

Or just be smug that you live in a neighborhood where that kind of element isn't allowed to put down roots. That you can buy illegal drugs, hire illegal labor, eat at restaurants that hire illegals and not have those same illegals and the violent gangs that control them living across the street from you.

Let me give you an example. The mob used to enforce a general rule about Vegas and Nevada. The mob could murder anyone they wanted pretty much but they had to do it outside of Vegas and outside of Nevada. I'll leave it to Subby to look up the large number of Mafia killings that occurred in Arizona that were tied directly to the Mob in Vegas. But I'll be nice and give you two examples of Mob hits in Arizona tied to Vegas:

1. A Mafia skimmer worked at a Vegas casino. His job was to skim money off of the casino's gambling take and send it upstream to the Mob. His problem was he started skimming for himself. Too much for himself. This skimmer was last seen at a restaurant at 32nd St. and Camelback in Phoenix. He's been missing for years. Recently, just down the street on Camelback a body was found buried at a restaurant that was being demolished. Interestingly, this restaurant was being constructed at the time the skimmer disappeared. The body was never identified. Gee, it must be a coincidence.

2. A man used to run a casino in Vegas. He made the Mob lots of money and everyone--legitimate owners, Mafia owners, and customers--were happy. He just got tired, old and sick of his job so he retired to Arizona. The casino started going downhill and income wasn't what it used to be. The Vegas Mafia asked the guy nicely to come out of retirement. He passed. The Vegas Mafia told the guy to come out of retirement. He said no. The Mafia kidnapped his sister in law who lived in Arizona and murdered her in Arizona. He came out of retirement, left Arizona, and returned to running the Vegas casino.

So there's lots of gun crime and murders in America, Subby. Just be glad your skin is the right color, or your income is the right number of figures, or some powerful people live nearby and you sleep well in the shade of their corruption. Because America is a nasty place in the musty corners.
 
2013-05-08 10:25:36 AM

EatenTheSun: nekom: Dimensio:
They were both written in the same general era, and they are both pretty much anachronisms.

You are correct; declaration of a protected liberty as an "anachronism" legally eliminates the protection, without any need for actual legislative revision.

Of course it doesn't.  That's just my opinion.  I realize it's not likely to ever go away, but it's as silly as worrying about quartering troops in your house in this day and age.  When the constitution was written, blacks were property, women couldn't vote, etc.  It's not some holy document to be worshiped as gospel.

It's just the founding principles of the entire country. We can just ignore the parts we don't like. Like free speech for those WBC assholes. Ain't nobody got time for that.


No more 4th amendment for anyone convicted of a crime related to drugs, violence, guns, money, alcohol, or sex.

The 5th amendment shouldn't apply to people who were caught in the act, not should the 8th apply to people who are accused of really heinous crimes.

I still think that reforming slavery laws and moving away from the absolutist approach to slavery is the key to prosperity in this country.

For those "anachronism" talkers out there, can we start ignoring the 16th amendment too?  It was written at time when a lot of the country didn't have phone service, many places didn't have electricity, women couldn't vote, black people couldn't marry white people in most states, etc.  I mean, for fark's sake, it was written before prohibition.  Why should we be bound by some 100 year old amendment written old white men?
 
2013-05-08 10:25:38 AM

Dimensio: EatsCrayons: Question: the study seems to be about the decline in gun "crimes". What about gun "deaths/injuries"? Is there a statistical difference between the crime stats and accident stats in the U.S.? Just wondering.

In Canada, there is legislation provisions for how guns are stored (locked and unloaded). It did result in a drop for gun-related accidental death/injuries in youth and a significant drop in youth suicide rates. Gun cirmes have also dropped, I think, proportionately to the U.S., but I'd have to review the stats more thoroughly and I don't wanna.

[extranosalley.com image 591x398]

Reportedly, hunter safety education programs implemented in the early 1970s are credited for a sudden decline.


I don't really see a sudden drop in the 70s, personally. I see one for WWII, though, which makes sense for a lot of reasons.
 
2013-05-08 10:25:45 AM

HeadLever: fonebone77: America is still higher but its not some crazy number like 20X.

His number of 20x is pretty much bogus.  Right now, the firearm homicide rate in the US is about 3.8 per 100K.  Let see him compare this to his cross section of 22 other contries.  Yes, we may be higher than most of them, but not by an average of 20 times.

/mrshowrules needs to quit drinking the talking point Kool-aid.


Comparing only "firearm homicides", and not total homicide rates, is itself indicative of intellectual dishonesty.
 
2013-05-08 10:26:06 AM

CPennypacker: Endive Wombat: CPennypacker: Endive Wombat: Dusk-You-n-Me: Endive Wombat: I understand why the left likes to keep those numbers in the stat, because it bolsters their message, but it is disingenuous.

Those people are not any less dead and a gun was not any less involved. Bolster has nothing to do with it.

Fair enough, but suicide is not a crime.  Buttttt...trying to use incorrectly inflated gun death stats as a basis for legislating tighter gun control measures is wrong.

How is it inflated? We want less deaths. I don't follow your logic. Less suicides = less deaths.

Sigh...

Suicide is not a crime.  Yeah, it is a death caused by the use of a gun, but that's it.  So when attempting to legislate tighter gun control (restricting where guns can be carried, magazine capacity, forward pistol grips, universal background checks, etc.), suicide stats have NOTHING to do with any of these things.  Ergo using incorrect data.

Oh for fark's sake


Clearly you do not agree with my point of view.  Why?
 
2013-05-08 10:26:31 AM

CPennypacker: That whole militia thing


"The militia" at the time the Constitution was written was "everyone capable of firing a gun".  It was not an organized body.
 
2013-05-08 10:26:37 AM

GoldSpider: cman: I actually dont think Obama has any position on the 3rd.

I could be wrong

I may not be as active in following politics as I once was, but I don't recall Obama being nominated for the SCOTUS.


Yeah, my bad

Normally when one throws out the "constitutional scholar" card they are usually speaking about Obama
 
2013-05-08 10:26:47 AM

EatsCrayons: Question: the study seems to be about the decline in gun "crimes". What about gun "deaths/injuries"? Is there a statistical difference between the crime stats and accident stats in the U.S.? Just wondering.

In Canada, there is legislation provisions for how guns are stored (locked and unloaded). It did result in a drop for gun-related accidental death/injuries in youth and a significant drop in youth suicide rates. Gun cirmes have also dropped, I think, proportionately to the U.S., but I'd have to review the stats more thoroughly and I don't wanna.


Correlation =/= Causation

Did those stats drop during the same time that the US experienced that same drop while loosening gun laws?
 
2013-05-08 10:27:17 AM

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.


Yeah, BraveNewCheneyWorld makes some terrible arguments.
 
2013-05-08 10:27:31 AM

Endive Wombat: CPennypacker: Endive Wombat: CPennypacker: Endive Wombat: Dusk-You-n-Me: Endive Wombat: I understand why the left likes to keep those numbers in the stat, because it bolsters their message, but it is disingenuous.

Those people are not any less dead and a gun was not any less involved. Bolster has nothing to do with it.

Fair enough, but suicide is not a crime.  Buttttt...trying to use incorrectly inflated gun death stats as a basis for legislating tighter gun control measures is wrong.

How is it inflated? We want less deaths. I don't follow your logic. Less suicides = less deaths.

Sigh...

Suicide is not a crime.  Yeah, it is a death caused by the use of a gun, but that's it.  So when attempting to legislate tighter gun control (restricting where guns can be carried, magazine capacity, forward pistol grips, universal background checks, etc.), suicide stats have NOTHING to do with any of these things.  Ergo using incorrect data.

Oh for fark's sake

Clearly you do not agree with my point of view.  Why?


Do you disagree that reducing the number of available guns though any means would also reduce the number of people killed by them, whether the gun is pointed at the person holding it or otherwise?

Then its a relevant statistic.
 
2013-05-08 10:27:39 AM

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.


Those of us who have fire extinguishers in our homes are just crazy paranoids as well since house fires are relatively uncommon too.
 
2013-05-08 10:27:47 AM

draypresct: Handgun crime experienced a peak in the early 90s, then dropped back down to their 80's levels (the rate difference would be greater due to the population increase). Homicide rates due to other guns, knives, blunt objects, and other weapons also dropped. Knife-related homicides dropped from about 4500 to about 2000 between 1980 and 2008 (again, the rate difference would be greater due to the population increase).

This suggests that there was more going on than just gun legislation, unless you can think of a reason that gun legislation reduced knife-related homicides.

/I have no idea what caused that peak in the 90s.


Popularity of the NES, popularity of Richard Marx and The New Kids on the Block, the introduction of the Ford Explorer, Bill Clinton's election.
 
2013-05-08 10:27:51 AM

CPennypacker: That whole militia thing


Is there for context and is not mutually exclusive with the right being tranferred to the individual.  The second can be an individual right and still be consistent with the notion of a well regulated militia.
 
2013-05-08 10:27:57 AM

clkeagle: Mass homicides by people who had no business touching those weapons in the first place? Those deaths might have been prevented if not for the "don't grab muh gunz" crowd.


Actually, the point worth considering is how much the actions of the gun control crowd contribute to the failure to prevent these mass homicides, because they are so quick to leap on these incidents as opportunities to try and emotionally blackmail their way to new legislation they drown out meaningful discussion.

If the debate following Newtown had been about whether we are doing enough to understand the causes of these tragedies so we can identify and intervene before someone's mind becomes so utterly broken they decide to kill schoolkids we could actually have arrived at some beneficial change. Perhaps an education program to better help parents and teachers spot the warning signs that differentiate normal teenage behaviour from something more serious.

Instead, the gun control bandwagon gets rolling, using this event to promote legislation that wouldn't actually have prevented it. Then the pro-gun crowd respond in kind and we as a country go nowhere.
 
2013-05-08 10:28:43 AM

cman: Normally when one throws out the "constitutional scholar" card they are usually speaking about Obama


True, another "dog-whistle" word I suppose.  Imagine if I'd said "community organizer"?
 
2013-05-08 10:29:18 AM

pdee: HotWingConspiracy: There are the frequent massacres to consider. We're not supposed to talk about them because it's very insensitive towards gun owners.

Thats like saying that people are frequently kill by lightning or meteor strikes or that people frequently win the lotto.  Just because on the infrequent occasion that it happens it becomes a 24x7 news story for weeks at a time does not mean it is statistically a danger.


Right and since crime is becoming less frequent, guns aren't really needed for safety. I'm glad we all agree.
 
2013-05-08 10:29:22 AM

GoldSpider: CPennypacker: That whole militia thing

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


In the context of serving in a militia, which is referred to as the collective right. It means you have the right to keep and bear arms in the context of your militia service. Don't look at me if you disagree with that interpretation, talk to Stevens, Souter, Ginsberg and Breyer. I just agree with them.
 
2013-05-08 10:29:38 AM
EatenTheSun:
It's just the founding principles of the entire country. We can just ignore the parts we don't like. Like free speech for those WBC assholes. Ain't nobody got time for that.

No, we can MODERNIZE a centuries old document.  Just like we did with slavery, women's suffrage and other parts.  When the second amendment was written, people had muskets.

Given that, what is the basis for it being illegal for me to pursue my own nuclear program?  Arms are arms, right?  Fully automatic weapons are largely illegal, why is that?
 
2013-05-08 10:30:02 AM

GanjSmokr: 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.

Those of us who have fire extinguishers in our homes are just crazy paranoids as well since house fires are relatively uncommon too.


Who needs a concealable fire extinguisher capable of extinguishing a large blaze?  Only firefighters should have those as they were the only ones who should be fighting such blazes in the 1st place.
 
2013-05-08 10:30:21 AM
Shocking, the society that doesn't believe in statistics and math is having trouble wrapping around trends.

Seriously, that's not just an American media problem. From climate change trends to the age of the earth, our society as a whole coddles morons, treating their ignorance like it's just as valid and rational as someone elses evidence-based knowledge and observation.
 
2013-05-08 10:30:29 AM

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


Exactly! If that were the intent, those Constitution framers, after having received the message from Jesus, would have included some kind of caveat in the 2nd Amendment stating that it had to be a well regulated militia or something, and you can't tell me all that legal mumbo-jumbo is in the 2nd Amendment.
 
2013-05-08 10:30:40 AM

HeadLever: CPennypacker: That whole militia thing

Is there for context and is not mutually exclusive with the right being tranferred to the individual.  The second can be an individual right and still be consistent with the notion of a well regulated militia.


Of course it can. That is how it is currently interpreted. That is the result of Heller. I disagree with that interpretation and so did 4 of the justices hearing the case. Its just like, my opinion, man. I know its not the law.
 
2013-05-08 10:30:40 AM

EatsCrayons: In Canada, there is legislation provisions for how guns are stored (locked and unloaded).


In the United States, requiring that guns be locked and unloaded by law has been explicitly ruled to be unconstitutional:

The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment . The District's total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of "arms" that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition-in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute-would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER
 
2013-05-08 10:31:17 AM
FTFA: "The victims of gun killings are overwhelmingly male and disproportionately black, according to Bureau of Justice Statistics".

Yet it would be racist to even imply that the perpetrators of gun violence and killings are more likely to be a particular race...?
 
2013-05-08 10:32:47 AM

Endive Wombat: CPennypacker: Endive Wombat: CPennypacker: Endive Wombat: Dusk-You-n-Me: Endive Wombat: I understand why the left likes to keep those numbers in the stat, because it bolsters their message, but it is disingenuous.

Those people are not any less dead and a gun was not any less involved. Bolster has nothing to do with it.

Fair enough, but suicide is not a crime.  Buttttt...trying to use incorrectly inflated gun death stats as a basis for legislating tighter gun control measures is wrong.

How is it inflated? We want less deaths. I don't follow your logic. Less suicides = less deaths.

Sigh...

Suicide is not a crime.  Yeah, it is a death caused by the use of a gun, but that's it.  So when attempting to legislate tighter gun control (restricting where guns can be carried, magazine capacity, forward pistol grips, universal background checks, etc.), suicide stats have NOTHING to do with any of these things.  Ergo using incorrect data.

Oh for fark's sake

Clearly you do not agree with my point of view.  Why?


When I'm trying to determine the number of people killed by [object], my primary consideration is this: would the person have died if [object] did not exist?  History, and plenty of data have shown that when it comes to suicide, if you remove the [object], or even make it inconvenient, the person is substantially less likely to attempt suicide, and less likely still to be successful.  Whether or not suicide is a crime is irrelevant, we're not measuring how many crimes in which a gun was used result in death.
 
2013-05-08 10:32:51 AM

BayouOtter: The best way to address gun violence is the focus on the violence part. (Since if you remove the gun from the equation somebody is still getting stabbed or beaten to death)


If that 5-year-old kid got a "My first knife" or "My first spear" instead of "My first rifle", I guarantee you his sister would still be alive.
 
2013-05-08 10:32:57 AM

nekom: No, we can MODERNIZE a centuries old document. Just like we did with slavery, women's suffrage and other parts. When the second amendment was written, people had muskets.

Given that, what is the basis for it being illegal for me to pursue my own nuclear program? Arms are arms, right? Fully automatic weapons are largely illegal, why is that?


How is that pending legislation to amend the constitution coming along?

I haven't heard of much progress in that area, but that is what is necessary to "modernize" that document.  Slavery, women's suffrage, senatorial elections, prohibition, direct taxation, 18 year olds voting, etc. were all brought about by following the constitutional amendment process.
 
2013-05-08 10:32:59 AM
More people are using samurai swords, knives, or just their teeth.

/Gun control in this country. Blammed if we do, blammed if we don't.
 
2013-05-08 10:33:08 AM

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

/I don't disagree with them.

What qualifies a sheriff to make such a determination?


The same thing that apparently makes them think they are qualified to override the Congress and the President, I guess.
 
2013-05-08 10:33:27 AM

GoldDude: FTFA: "The victims of gun killings are overwhelmingly male and disproportionately black, according to Bureau of Justice Statistics".

Yet it would be racist to even imply that the perpetrators of gun violence and killings are more likely to be a particular race...?


You do realize that posts like this just make it look like you're butthurt that people won't let you be as racist as you want, right?
 
2013-05-08 10:33:52 AM

CPennypacker: GoldSpider: CPennypacker: That whole militia thing

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

In the context of serving in a militia, which is referred to as the collective right. It means you have the right to keep and bear arms in the context of your militia service. Don't look at me if you disagree with that interpretation, talk to Stevens, Souter, Ginsberg and Breyer. I just agree with them.


Fortunately, your illogical interpretation is directly contradicted by established law and, therefore, is legally false.

The concept of a right being "collective" is inherently illogical; rights a property of individuals by their nature. "Collectives" may only have powers granted to them. A "collective" cannot exercise a "right".
 
2013-05-08 10:35:08 AM

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

the behavior of others.

FTFY
 
2013-05-08 10:35:12 AM

Dusk-You-n-Me: Lt. Cheese Weasel: Explain Chicago.

58% of the guns recovered in Chicago originate from outside the state of Illinois. Chicago is a perfect example of why we need universal background checks on a national level.


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

Wow.  That some mighty weak sauce there.
 
2013-05-08 10:35:54 AM

scottydoesntknow: It's all video games fault!

[images.huffingtonpost.com image 850x637]


Well I know I feel better after a game of Grand Theft Auto
 
2013-05-08 10:36:06 AM

CPennypacker: In the context of serving in a militia, which is referred to as the collective right.


The concept of "collective rights", which only exist at the expense of individual rights, is (in my opinion) inconsistent with the entire purpose of the Bill of Rights.
 
2013-05-08 10:36:20 AM

HeadLever: MJMaloney187: See that part about "a well regulated militia"? That means the Federal Government has the authority to enforce enhanced background checks. Anybody who says otherwise is only seeing what they want to see.

No.  Read the Heller decision.


obviously background checks are already in place and have not been successfully challenged Constitutionally so how universal they are would have no bearing (Heller decision or not)
 
2013-05-08 10:36:38 AM

Dimensio: CPennypacker: GoldSpider: CPennypacker: That whole militia thing

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

In the context of serving in a militia, which is referred to as the collective right. It means you have the right to keep and bear arms in the context of your militia service. Don't look at me if you disagree with that interpretation, talk to Stevens, Souter, Ginsberg and Breyer. I just agree with them.

Fortunately, your illogical interpretation is directly contradicted by established law and, therefore, is legally false.

The concept of a right being "collective" is inherently illogical; rights a property of individuals by their nature. "Collectives" may only have powers granted to them. A "collective" cannot exercise a "right".


What the fark is "legally false?" I already said it was my opinion and not the law. I never said the collective exercises a right. Individuals do but only in the context of the collective.
 
2013-05-08 10:37:17 AM

hasty ambush: sammyk: Interesting thing about background checks. 20 years ago the Brady act was signed into law implementing actual background checks. Lo and behold 20 years later gun violence is cut in half. But I am sure there will be someone here shortly to tell us the 2 things are in no way connected.

The ban on "Assault Weapons" and high capacity magazines expired so I can claim that more people being able to arm and defend themselves with previously banned weapons contributed. to the decline.

I think it would be smarter to look at the decline in gang turf wars and drug violence during that time than gun laws or lack there of. It won't serve your agenda but it is closer to the truth.

Most "gun control" legislation is nothing more than polticians jerking off a particular constituency(If we just get rid fo those guns with flash suppressors, bayonet lugs and pistol grip stocks we will all be safer nonsense). Normally that constituency is the soccer mom for the children crowd or those who also need government to protect them from the evils of large soft drinks and trans fats is also afraid the 80 million lawful gun owners.

[24.media.tumblr.com image 403x401]


*sigh*

Between 1998 and 2009 1.9 million gun purchases were denied by using NICS background checks. That couldn't posibly have any effect on gun violence now could it?.
 
2013-05-08 10:37:46 AM

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


Correct. Which is why we need UBC on a national level.
 
2013-05-08 10:38:15 AM

nekom: ko_kyi: nekom: They were both written in the same general era, and they are both pretty much anachronisms.

There is a process for revising them as well.  What's the holdup?

Kansas, Texas, etc.  Which is why it's never going to happen.  I'm not naive, I know the political climate will NEVER allow for the 2nd amendment to be repealed.  It's just my opinion that it ought to be.




I can't wait until we get rid of the "right to vote." Hell it's not even in The Constitution.
 
2013-05-08 10:38:40 AM

CPennypacker: Do you disagree that reducing the number of available guns though any means would also reduce the number of people killed by them, whether the gun is pointed at the person holding it or otherwise?

Then its a relevant statistic.


Well, duh.  Yeah, reduction in availability of guns over a long time would lead to a reduction in gun related crimes.  Here's the thing though...a significant reduction of guns in the US is not going to happen.  My point is that lumping suicide by gun stats along side violent gun crime stats is like...i dunno...talking about all house fires in the US and including "fires" that happen in fire-pits and fireplaces.  Yes, it is technically a fire in the home, but not the same thing.

Yes, a death is a death, it is tragic and sad, but I cannot fathom any real, PRACTICAL, and implementable legislation that cuts down on gun related suicide (which again...is not a crime).  If it is not a gun, it is running your car in a shut garage, slitting your wrists, taking a lot of pills, jumping off something tall...
 
2013-05-08 10:38:48 AM

nekom: No, we can MODERNIZE a centuries old document.  Just like we did with slavery, women's suffrage and other parts.  When the second amendment was written, people had muskets.


Right, so the internet, radio, modern printing presses, all illegal. Free press with a quill or GTFO.
 
2013-05-08 10:38:54 AM

GoldSpider: CPennypacker: In the context of serving in a militia, which is referred to as the collective right.

The concept of "collective rights", which only exist at the expense of individual rights, is (in my opinion) inconsistent with the entire purpose of the Bill of Rights.


Well its not really at the expense of an individual right if you interpreting the 2nd in the collective sense. Its instead of an individual right. It can't be at the expense of a right that doesn't exist.
 
2013-05-08 10:39:48 AM

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.
 
2013-05-08 10:40:19 AM

EyeballKid: Sorry if my frown that says "you're full of farking bullshiat" hasn't suddenly vanished.


My laugh that says "you're a farking idiot" is going strong as well.
 
2013-05-08 10:40:36 AM

CPennypacker: Well its not really at the expense of an individual right if you interpreting the 2nd in the collective sense. Its instead of an individual right. It can't be at the expense of a right that doesn't exist.


That's a distinction without a difference if I ever saw one.
 
2013-05-08 10:41:07 AM

CPennypacker: GoldSpider: CPennypacker: In the context of serving in a militia, which is referred to as the collective right.

The concept of "collective rights", which only exist at the expense of individual rights, is (in my opinion) inconsistent with the entire purpose of the Bill of Rights.

Well its not really at the expense of an individual right if you interpreting the 2nd in the collective sense. Its instead of an individual right. It can't be at the expense of a right that doesn't exist.


A "collective sense" interpretation of any protection of an established right is irrational and in contradiction of the intent of the Bill of Rights.
 
2013-05-08 10:41:20 AM

draypresct: Take a look at figure 42 of http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf.

Handgun crime experienced a peak in the early 90s, then dropped back down to their 80's levels (the rate difference would be greater due to the population increase). Homicide rates due to other guns, knives, blunt objects, and other weapons also dropped. Knife-related homicides dropped from about 4500 to about 2000 between 1980 and 2008 (again, the rate difference would be greater due to the population increase).

This suggests that there was more going on than just gun legislation, unless you can think of a reason that gun legislation reduced knife-related homicides.

/I have no idea what caused that peak in the 90s.


You can take a couple things away from that graph. I noticed homocides by all "other" weapons had a steady but moderate decline. But homocide by gun was all over the place.

Crack cocaine happened in the 90's.
 
2013-05-08 10:41:30 AM

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

[citation needed]


I'm too lazy to link on iPad, but I think New Mexico just did it. And of course getting one's license suspended for DUIs is common.
 
2013-05-08 10:41:35 AM
Abortion, it is the root cause of all drops in crime statistics. Why if we aborted every baby whose parents don't make 50,000 a year each America would become a paradise on Earth.
 
2013-05-08 10:41:55 AM
blogs-images.forbes.com
 
2013-05-08 10:41:55 AM

IlGreven: If that 5-year-old kid got a "My first knife" or "My first spear" instead of "My first rifle", I guarantee you his sister would still be alive.


If his parents hadn't loaded, cocked, de-safed, and then left the rifle lying in the corner with him unsupervised, his sister would be alive. For an analogy, imagine the parents removed the guards from a circular saw, jammed down the power button, and left it on the floor while they took a shower. Its really disgusting.

The fault here is with his actively dangerous parent, not the company that made a rifle designed to be as safe as possible for supervised instruction in markmanship. (Its sized right for youths, the cocking spring is so stiff you need adult strength to cock the rifle, its single shot, etc.)
 
2013-05-08 10:42:02 AM

Ablejack: The well regulated militia is well regulated.


Such a thing as you imagine did not exist at the time.
 
2013-05-08 10:42:12 AM
img842.imageshack.us


Gun murders going down yet cell phone usage going up? Really the only time I think about shooting anyone is when they are talking loudly on a cell phone at the wrong time and place.
 
2013-05-08 10:42:58 AM

GoldSpider: CPennypacker: Well its not really at the expense of an individual right if you interpreting the 2nd in the collective sense. Its instead of an individual right. It can't be at the expense of a right that doesn't exist.

That's a distinction without a difference if I ever saw one.


Its a clear difference. Its only at the expense of the individual right if you believe it to be an individual right. The legal interpretation is whats relevant. The collective right doesn't hold back the individual right because the individual right doesn't exist if you interpret the second amendment as granting a collective right instead.
 
2013-05-08 10:43:21 AM

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.
 
2013-05-08 10:43:25 AM

Shadowtag: More people are using samurai swords, knives, or just their teeth.

/Gun control in this country. Blammed if we do, blammed if we don't.


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

14 wounded in Houston.

26 dead in Newtown.
 
2013-05-08 10:43:49 AM

Dimensio: A "collective sense" interpretation of any protection of an established right is irrational and in contradiction of the intent of the Bill of Rights.


And wouldn't a "state-defined collective" belong under Enumerated Powers?
 
2013-05-08 10:44:02 AM

mrshowrules: obviously background checks are already in place and have not been successfully challenged Constitutionally so how universal they are would have no bearing (Heller decision or not)


My point was not that universal background checks were unconsitutuional through Heller.  Just that it had nothing to do with the "Well Regulated Militia" provison of the amendment.  Heller held that this prefatory clause does not bind or limit, in any way, the operative clause.
 
2013-05-08 10:44:04 AM

Dimensio: CPennypacker: GoldSpider: CPennypacker: In the context of serving in a militia, which is referred to as the collective right.

The concept of "collective rights", which only exist at the expense of individual rights, is (in my opinion) inconsistent with the entire purpose of the Bill of Rights.

Well its not really at the expense of an individual right if you interpreting the 2nd in the collective sense. Its instead of an individual right. It can't be at the expense of a right that doesn't exist.

A "collective sense" interpretation of any protection of an established right is irrational and in contradiction of the intent of the Bill of Rights.


Says you. Which is why its my opinion.
 
2013-05-08 10:44:36 AM

GoldSpider: pdee: It cant be denied that the bloodbath the anti-gun crowded predicted when states started isuing has not occured.

But SANDY HOOK!!  Won't somebody think of the children??


Well I am having a Sandy Hook memorial long pig BBQ and turkey shoot where we are giving away a brand new AR-15.
 
2013-05-08 10:44:50 AM

CPennypacker: GoldDude: FTFA: "The victims of gun killings are overwhelmingly male and disproportionately black, according to Bureau of Justice Statistics".

Yet it would be racist to even imply that the perpetrators of gun violence and killings are more likely to be a particular race...?

You do realize that posts like this just make it look like you're butthurt that people won't let you be as racist as you want, right?


Is it racist to point out that Bla people are more likely to suffer from sickle cell anemia when the facts clearly support that conclusion?  But it IS racist to point out that Bla men are much more likely to be murdered and that the perp is much more likely to be a Bla man when the facts clearly support that conclusion.
 
2013-05-08 10:45:39 AM

pdee: CPennypacker: GoldDude: FTFA: "The victims of gun killings are overwhelmingly male and disproportionately black, according to Bureau of Justice Statistics".

Yet it would be racist to even imply that the perpetrators of gun violence and killings are more likely to be a particular race...?

You do realize that posts like this just make it look like you're butthurt that people won't let you be as racist as you want, right?

Is it racist to point out that Bla people are more likely to suffer from sickle cell anemia when the facts clearly support that conclusion?  But it IS racist to point out that Bla men are much more likely to be murdered and that the perp is much more likely to be a Bla man when the facts clearly support that conclusion.


No, its racist to complain that people will think you're racist if you say racist things.
 
2013-05-08 10:46:03 AM

HeadLever: mrshowrules: obviously background checks are already in place and have not been successfully challenged Constitutionally so how universal they are would have no bearing (Heller decision or not)

My point was not that universal background checks were unconsitutuional through Heller.  Just that it had nothing to do with the "Well Regulated Militia" provison of the amendment.  Heller held that this prefatory clause does not bind or limit, in any way, the operative clause.


I see what you meant.  I disagree with that interpretation but I'm not on the SCOTUS.
 
2013-05-08 10:46:16 AM
pages.cmns.sfu.ca
 
2013-05-08 10:46:29 AM

BayouOtter: IlGreven: If that 5-year-old kid got a "My first knife" or "My first spear" instead of "My first rifle", I guarantee you his sister would still be alive.

If his parents hadn't loaded, cocked, de-safed, and then left the rifle lying in the corner with him unsupervised, his sister would be alive. For an analogy, imagine the parents removed the guards from a circular saw, jammed down the power button, and left it on the floor while they took a shower. Its really disgusting.

The fault here is with his actively dangerous parent, not the company that made a rifle designed to be as safe as possible for supervised instruction in markmanship. (Its sized right for youths, the cocking spring is so stiff you need adult strength to cock the rifle, its single shot, etc.)


Funny...when someone actually points that out, they get attacked like that cameraman at the funeral.  The community keeps saying it's "God's will".  Yes, it's God's will that these parents should not have children.  But my point was their first mistake was buying the gun for the kid in the first place. Everything that happened afterwards confirmed that mistake.
 
2013-05-08 10:47:06 AM

CPennypacker: Its only at the expense of the individual right if you believe it to be an individual right.


Are there any other rights in the Bill of Rights that you don't believe are individual rights?  Or is the 2nd just a glaring exception?
 
2013-05-08 10:47:08 AM

mrshowrules: HeadLever: mrshowrules: obviously background checks are already in place and have not been successfully challenged Constitutionally so how universal they are would have no bearing (Heller decision or not)

My point was not that universal background checks were unconsitutuional through Heller.  Just that it had nothing to do with the "Well Regulated Militia" provison of the amendment.  Heller held that this prefatory clause does not bind or limit, in any way, the operative clause.

I see what you meant.  I disagree with that interpretation but I'm not on the SCOTUS.


Heller doesn't limit all regulation. It even says so in the majority opinion.
 
2013-05-08 10:47:13 AM

sammyk: *sigh*

Between 1998 and 2009 1.9 million gun purchases were denied by using NICS background checks. That couldn't posibly have any effect on gun violence now could it?.


So you're saying that NICS checks brought gun violence down to the levels of the 1950's, back when you could order a gun through the mail no questions asked and have it delivered to your doorstep?

Interesting.
 
2013-05-08 10:47:14 AM

ArmagedDan: clkeagle: sammyk: Good. Now lets see if we can do a better job of keeping crazy people from having guns, and felons too. As long as we keep having mass killings we are going to keep having the gun control debate. Just because we have made progress on gun violence doesn't mean we can just throw our hands up in the air and accept the tragedies we keep reliving.

Done in two. Individual homicides by people with their backgrounds checked? Sad, but it's the price of living of a gun-owning society.
Mass homicides by people who had no business touching those weapons in the first place? Those deaths might have been prevented if not for the "don't grab muh gunz" crowd.

I would agree, if only those in charge of drafting legislation would stop using it as a platform for grabbing guns from the wrong people. Often while admitting that it's their true goal. The problem is that our attempts to solve the problem are hijacked by those with an agenda.

What would really create great strides in reducing gun crime is to actually prosecute people who lie on their 4473 form. It's a felony, and yet only an insignificant proportion are ever busted over it.

A felon or other barred individual just lied to try and buy a gun, and nobody's interested in following up on that!? Lanza was rejected a week before sandy hook. And yet we are told there is neither the time nor the interest in enforcing the existing law.

No, we have to strip the property of millions of law abiding Americans instead. Because lord knows THAT's cheap, fast and constitutionally sound.

/rant over


Where do you paranoid freaks get this shiat? No one is seriosly talking about confiscating guns. Hell even the proponents of another assault weapons ban have all but admitted defeat and have changed focus to trying to expand background checks. rants like yours are why people call you "gun nuts"
 
2013-05-08 10:47:19 AM

sammyk: draypresct: Take a look at figure 42 of http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf.

Handgun crime experienced a peak in the early 90s, then dropped back down to their 80's levels (the rate difference would be greater due to the population increase). Homicide rates due to other guns, knives, blunt objects, and other weapons also dropped. Knife-related homicides dropped from about 4500 to about 2000 between 1980 and 2008 (again, the rate difference would be greater due to the population increase).

This suggests that there was more going on than just gun legislation, unless you can think of a reason that gun legislation reduced knife-related homicides.

/I have no idea what caused that peak in the 90s.

You can take a couple things away from that graph. I noticed homocides by all "other" weapons had a steady but moderate decline. But homocide by gun was all over the place.

Crack cocaine happened in the 90's.


Makes sense.
 
2013-05-08 10:47:21 AM

mrshowrules: HeadLever: mrshowrules: obviously background checks are already in place and have not been successfully challenged Constitutionally so how universal they are would have no bearing (Heller decision or not)

My point was not that universal background checks were unconsitutuional through Heller.  Just that it had nothing to do with the "Well Regulated Militia" provison of the amendment.  Heller held that this prefatory clause does not bind or limit, in any way, the operative clause.

I see what you meant.  I disagree with that interpretation but I'm not on the SCOTUS.


Let me guess, only cops and rich people should have the right to protect themselves?
 
2013-05-08 10:47:30 AM

CPennypacker: GoldSpider: CPennypacker: Well its not really at the expense of an individual right if you interpreting the 2nd in the collective sense. Its instead of an individual right. It can't be at the expense of a right that doesn't exist.

That's a distinction without a difference if I ever saw one.

Its a clear difference. Its only at the expense of the individual right if you believe it to be an individual right. The legal interpretation is whats relevant. The collective right doesn't hold back the individual right because the individual right doesn't exist if you interpret the second amendment as granting a collective right instead.


You have now demonstrated a fundamental ignorance of Constitutional protections. The Bill of Rights "grants" nothing; rather, the Bill of Rights recognizes the existence of inherent rights and protects them from government infringement.
 
2013-05-08 10:47:42 AM

Slaves2Darkness: Well I am having a Sandy Hook memorial long pig BBQ and turkey shoot where we are giving away a brand new AR-15.


I LOL'd a little at that.
 
2013-05-08 10:47:44 AM

GoldSpider: CPennypacker: Its only at the expense of the individual right if you believe it to be an individual right.

Are there any other rights in the Bill of Rights that you don't believe are individual rights?  Or is the 2nd just a glaring exception?


The second is it.
 
2013-05-08 10:48:06 AM

pdee: CPennypacker: GoldDude: FTFA: "The victims of gun killings are overwhelmingly male and disproportionately black, according to Bureau of Justice Statistics".

Yet it would be racist to even imply that the perpetrators of gun violence and killings are more likely to be a particular race...?

You do realize that posts like this just make it look like you're butthurt that people won't let you be as racist as you want, right?

Is it racist to point out that Bla people are more likely to suffer from sickle cell anemia when the facts clearly support that conclusion?  But it IS racist to point out that Bla men are much more likely to be murdered and that the perp is much more likely to be a Bla man when the facts clearly support that conclusion.


It tends to disprove their narrative of the gun being responsible for crime, and not the individual.  So they resort to the only debate strategy they ever seem to use, ad hominem.
 
2013-05-08 10:48:33 AM

GoldDude: FTFA: "The victims of gun killings are overwhelmingly male and disproportionately black, according to Bureau of Justice Statistics".

Yet it would be racist to even imply that the perpetrators of gun violence and killings are more likely to be a particular race...?


Why would you want to do that?
 
2013-05-08 10:50:06 AM

GoldSpider: CPennypacker: Its only at the expense of the individual right if you believe it to be an individual right.

Are there any other rights in the Bill of Rights that you don't believe are individual rights?  Or is the 2nd just a glaring exception?


The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is said to reference a "collective right" because it defines the right as belonging to "people" instead of to individuals, which no other Amendment does, if the wording of the First, Fourth, Ninth and Tenth Amendments are ignored.
 
2013-05-08 10:50:09 AM

CPennypacker: The second is it.


And you don't find it the least bit odd?

Dimensio: You have now demonstrated a fundamental ignorance of Constitutional protections. The Bill of Rights "grants" nothing; rather, the Bill of Rights recognizes the existence of inherent rights and protects them from government infringement.


That too.
 
2013-05-08 10:50:14 AM

CPennypacker: Heller doesn't limit all regulation. It even says so in the majority opinion.


That is correct.  However, it does negate the attempted use of 'well regulated milita' to enact any gun control.
 
2013-05-08 10:50:38 AM

Dimensio: CPennypacker: GoldSpider: CPennypacker: Well its not really at the expense of an individual right if you interpreting the 2nd in the collective sense. Its instead of an individual right. It can't be at the expense of a right that doesn't exist.

That's a distinction without a difference if I ever saw one.

Its a clear difference. Its only at the expense of the individual right if you believe it to be an individual right. The legal interpretation is whats relevant. The collective right doesn't hold back the individual right because the individual right doesn't exist if you interpret the second amendment as granting a collective right instead.

You have now demonstrated a fundamental ignorance of Constitutional protections. The Bill of Rights "grants" nothing; rather, the Bill of Rights recognizes the existence of inherent rights and protects them from government infringement.


You have now demonstrated a fundamental ignorance of the real world, because although in imperical terms the constitution exists to protect rights, the enforcement and intepretation of it determines what people are actually allowed to do. So while you are technically correct it doesn't really invalidate anything I said. Kudos on the nit pick points, though.
 
2013-05-08 10:50:41 AM

Tomahawk513: When I'm trying to determine the number of people killed by [object], my primary consideration is this: would the person have died if [object] did not exist?  History, and plenty of data have shown that when it comes to suicide, if you remove the [object], or even make it inconvenient, the person is substantially less likely to attempt suicide, and less likely still to be successful.  Whether or not suicide is a crime is irrelevant, we're not measuring how many crimes in which a gun was used result in death.


Again, fair enough...sure perhaps suicide gun deaths may go down as the availability of guns becomes less and less.  But back to my original point - When politicians try to site all gun deaths (murder, suicide, self-protection, death by police, accidents) as a basis for restricting access to guns and using "won't somebody please think of the children" Sandyhook, Aurora, etc...it is in effect, lying

There are about 30,000+ deaths per year by gun.

There are about 19,000+ deaths per year by suicide by gun


This leaves about 11,000+ deaths by violent crime, death by police, accident and self-protection (6000+ of which are related to outright homicide)

Soooooo...Leftist politicians like to site the 30,000+ gun deaths per year as a reason for their newest anti-gun legislation, and mention protecting children, mass shootings, intercity crime, etc.

Do you now see where I am coming from?
 
2013-05-08 10:51:37 AM

GoldSpider: CPennypacker: The second is it.

And you don't find it the least bit odd?


No. Should I? Should I apply all of my opinions on unrelated topics universally?
 
2013-05-08 10:52:00 AM

CPennypacker: pdee: CPennypacker: GoldDude: FTFA: "The victims of gun killings are overwhelmingly male and disproportionately black, according to Bureau of Justice Statistics".

Yet it would be racist to even imply that the perpetrators of gun violence and killings are more likely to be a particular race...?

You do realize that posts like this just make it look like you're butthurt that people won't let you be as racist as you want, right?

Is it racist to point out that Bla people are more likely to suffer from sickle cell anemia when the facts clearly support that conclusion?  But it IS racist to point out that Bla men are much more likely to be murdered and that the perp is much more likely to be a Bla man when the facts clearly support that conclusion.

No, its racist to complain that people will think you're racist if you say racist things.


But when anyone points out the racially adjusted murder statistics put the US in line with most European countries the charge of racism is brought up as if to refute the point.
 
2013-05-08 10:52:09 AM

GoldSpider: Ablejack: The well regulated militia is well regulated.

Such a thing as you imagine did not exist at the time.


Yes, I am just using the funny words that mean nothing. The Constitution is just like Leviticus; so just pick out whatever you like right?
/guess what I'm imagining now?
 
2013-05-08 10:52:58 AM

pdee: CPennypacker: pdee: CPennypacker: GoldDude: FTFA: "The victims of gun killings are overwhelmingly male and disproportionately black, according to Bureau of Justice Statistics".

Yet it would be racist to even imply that the perpetrators of gun violence and killings are more likely to be a particular race...?

You do realize that posts like this just make it look like you're butthurt that people won't let you be as racist as you want, right?

Is it racist to point out that Bla people are more likely to suffer from sickle cell anemia when the facts clearly support that conclusion?  But it IS racist to point out that Bla men are much more likely to be murdered and that the perp is much more likely to be a Bla man when the facts clearly support that conclusion.

No, its racist to complain that people will think you're racist if you say racist things.

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


Because its not the race, its the economic condition. The fact that race correlates is the fault of history.
 
2013-05-08 10:53:13 AM

CPennypacker: Dimensio: CPennypacker: GoldSpider: CPennypacker: Well its not really at the expense of an individual right if you interpreting the 2nd in the collective sense. Its instead of an individual right. It can't be at the expense of a right that doesn't exist.

That's a distinction without a difference if I ever saw one.

Its a clear difference. Its only at the expense of the individual right if you believe it to be an individual right. The legal interpretation is whats relevant. The collective right doesn't hold back the individual right because the individual right doesn't exist if you interpret the second amendment as granting a collective right instead.

You have now demonstrated a fundamental ignorance of Constitutional protections. The Bill of Rights "grants" nothing; rather, the Bill of Rights recognizes the existence of inherent rights and protects them from government infringement.

You have now demonstrated a fundamental ignorance of the real world, because although in imperical terms the constitution exists to protect rights, the enforcement and intepretation of it determines what people are actually allowed to do. So while you are technically correct it doesn't really invalidate anything I said. Kudos on the nit pick points, though.


Then you are effectively admitting that your opinion is based upon willfully ignoring and disregarding the intent of the Bill of Rights. As such, your "interpretation" of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is intentionally intellectually dishonest, by your own admission.
 
2013-05-08 10:53:47 AM

Tomahawk513: When I'm trying to determine the number of people killed by [object], my primary consideration is this: would the person have died if [object] did not exist? History, and plenty of data have shown that when it comes to suicide, if you remove the [object], or even make it inconvenient, the person is substantially less likely to attempt suicide, and less likely still to be successful. Whether or not suicide is a crime is irrelevant, we're not measuring how many crimes in which a gun was used result in death.


A) Why do we assume suicide is a bad thing? They can't all be winners.

B) If [people] don't exist the suicide rate is zero. Your logic culminates at banning people.
 
2013-05-08 10:53:49 AM

Endive Wombat: CPennypacker: Do you disagree that reducing the number of available guns though any means would also reduce the number of people killed by them, whether the gun is pointed at the person holding it or otherwise?

Then its a relevant statistic.

Well, duh.  Yeah, reduction in availability of guns over a long time would lead to a reduction in gun related crimes.  Here's the thing though...a significant reduction of guns in the US is not going to happen.  My point is that lumping suicide by gun stats along side violent gun crime stats is like...i dunno...talking about all house fires in the US and including "fires" that happen in fire-pits and fireplaces.  Yes, it is technically a fire in the home, but not the same thing.

Yes, a death is a death, it is tragic and sad, but I cannot fathom any real, PRACTICAL, and implementable legislation that cuts down on gun related suicide (which again...is not a crime).   If it is not a gun, it is running your car in a shut garage, slitting your wrists, taking a lot of pills, jumping off something tall...


While those are alternatives to shooting oneself, the fact remains they are far less lethal means of committing suicide.  For example, while guns are involved in only 2-5% of all suicide attempts, they are responsible for over 50% of successful attempts.   Other methods are much less lethal.  There is a strong correlation between ease of firearm access and suicide.
 
2013-05-08 10:54:37 AM

CPennypacker: because although in imperical terms the constitution exists to protect rights, the enforcement and intepretation of it determines what people are actually allowed to do.


The fact that We The People have allowed our government to breach its constitutional constraints does not mean it hasn't happened.  Some of us aren't happy about that, but you're free to disagree (until that too becomes a "collective right", I suppose).
 
2013-05-08 10:54:51 AM

CPennypacker: GoldSpider: CPennypacker: The second is it.

And you don't find it the least bit odd?

No. Should I? Should I apply all of my opinions on unrelated topics universally?


So the founders got everything right, except for the one thing with which you strongly disagree? That's...convenient.
 
2013-05-08 10:54:58 AM

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.


Research what you cite. The right isn't absolute; it's qualifier is right there in the text. The amendment makes plain that the right exists so that the people could bring their personal arms to form a militia as opposed to the Republic keeping a standing army.

Funny thing is, today the Republic keeps a standing army.
 
2013-05-08 10:55:16 AM

HeadLever: GnomePaladin: Maine has a shiatton of guns space and few gun laws people and yet their murder rate is pretty much nearly at the bottom of all states for gun crimes.

So you mean gun crime is independent of the type and prevalence of guns and is rooted in other factors?  Hmm, maybe we should start looking at those other factors then, donchathink?


This is where gun nuts always go wrong.  No one in favor of stronger regulation is averse to looking at "other factors" as well, while the gun nuts are absolutely against some common sense steps involving regulation.
 
2013-05-08 10:56:03 AM

CPennypacker: pedrop357: CPennypacker: pedrop357: CPennypacker: GoldSpider: CPennypacker: Overused meme is overused

Successful troll is successful.  Shame on me  :(

Hey you know where I fall on the issue. We've done this before. Let a man make a joke.

I doubt that.  Nobody in favor of gun rights talks the way you do.

I have you fav'd in derp grey for a reason.

I'm not in favor of gun rights

I don't have you fav'd at all for a reason. Who the fark are you?

My mistake

I never said I was . . .

For reference, my official personal stance is that I disagree with the Heller decision and I think that guns should be considered legal but well regulated and not as an individual right

/the more you know


If you don't mind my asking, why? I don't follow the logic of it being a collective right when all the others are individual rights.
 
2013-05-08 10:56:37 AM

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.


Those examples are all hyphenated.  I don't think it is hyphenated in the actual 2nd Amendment text.
 
2013-05-08 10:56:55 AM

GnomePaladin: HeadLever: GnomePaladin: Maine has a shiatton of guns space and few gun laws people and yet their murder rate is pretty much nearly at the bottom of all states for gun crimes.

So you mean gun crime is independent of the type and prevalence of guns and is rooted in other factors?  Hmm, maybe we should start looking at those other factors then, donchathink?

This is where gun nuts always go wrong.  No one in favor of stronger regulation is averse to looking at "other factors" as well, while the gun nuts are absolutely against some common sense steps involving regulation.


That banning the presence of pistol grips and collapsing stocks on popular and rarely criminally misused rifle models are claimed to be "common sense steps" causes many gun rights advocates to be averse to proposals of what are claimed to be "common sense steps".
 
2013-05-08 10:57:07 AM

Dimensio: CPennypacker: Dimensio: CPennypacker: GoldSpider: CPennypacker: Well its not really at the expense of an individual right if you interpreting the 2nd in the collective sense. Its instead of an individual right. It can't be at the expense of a right that doesn't exist.

That's a distinction without a difference if I ever saw one.

Its a clear difference. Its only at the expense of the individual right if you believe it to be an individual right. The legal interpretation is whats relevant. The collective right doesn't hold back the individual right because the individual right doesn't exist if you interpret the second amendment as granting a collective right instead.

You have now demonstrated a fundamental ignorance of Constitutional protections. The Bill of Rights "grants" nothing; rather, the Bill of Rights recognizes the existence of inherent rights and protects them from government infringement.

You have now demonstrated a fundamental ignorance of the real world, because although in imperical terms the constitution exists to protect rights, the enforcement and intepretation of it determines what people are actually allowed to do. So while you are technically correct it doesn't really invalidate anything I said. Kudos on the nit pick points, though.

Then you are effectively admitting that your opinion is based upon willfully ignoring and disregarding the intent of the Bill of Rights. As such, your "interpretation" of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is intentionally intellectually dishonest, by your own admission.


You know, when someone expresses their opinion, plainly states that they know it is their opinion and not the law, and that they agree with the dissenting opinion of the case which was written, may I add, by Supreme Court Justices, it kind of makes you look like a reactionary crazy person when you won't let them have ther opinion.

I think your opinion is wrong too but I'm not trying to beat you over the head with the bill of rights like a nutter.
 
2013-05-08 10:58:30 AM

Endive Wombat: Tomahawk513: When I'm trying to determine the number of people killed by [object], my primary consideration is this: would the person have died if [object] did not exist?  History, and plenty of data have shown that when it comes to suicide, if you remove the [object], or even make it inconvenient, the person is substantially less likely to attempt suicide, and less likely still to be successful.  Whether or not suicide is a crime is irrelevant, we're not measuring how many crimes in which a gun was used result in death.

Again, fair enough...sure perhaps suicide gun deaths may go down as the availability of guns becomes less and less.  But back to my original point - When politicians try to site all gun deaths (murder, suicide, self-protection, death by police, accidents) as a basis for restricting access to guns and using "won't somebody please think of the children" Sandyhook, Aurora, etc...it is in effect, lying

There are about 30,000+ deaths per year by gun.

There are about 19,000+ deaths per year by suicide by gun


This leaves about 11,000+ deaths by violent crime, death by police, accident and self-protection (6000+ of which are related to outright homicide)

Soooooo...Leftist politicians like to site the 30,000+ gun deaths per year as a reason for their newest anti-gun legislation, and mention protecting children, mass shootings, intercity crime, etc.

Do you now see where I am coming from?


The US sucks compared to other industrialized countries regardless of the metric you use.
 
2013-05-08 10:58:40 AM

Ablejack: Yes, I am just using the funny words that mean nothing.


You're applying a modern definition to words written 200 years ago.

CPennypacker: No. Should I?


When I see a glaring exception in my analysis of data, I question my analysis, not the data.
 
2013-05-08 10:59:29 AM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: CPennypacker: GoldSpider: CPennypacker: The second is it.

And you don't find it the least bit odd?

No. Should I? Should I apply all of my opinions on unrelated topics universally?

So the founders got everything right, except for the one thing with which you strongly disagree? That's...convenient.


I wouldn't disagree with it if it was right. And for the record, nobody has a time phone to the founders, so we're talking about the current inrerpretation of the court, not the founders.
 
2013-05-08 10:59:59 AM

Slaves2Darkness: Abortion, it is the root cause of all drops in crime statistics. Why if we aborted every baby whose parents don't make 50,000 a year each America would become a paradise on Earth.


I realize this is a troll... but abortion is not a good practice. i that life is so disposable degrades all of us. killing off the urban poor may be a nice taking point in your econ class, but it's vile and racist imo.

recent mass murderers were from families that did have access to mental health services. the 9/11 guys were also well educated. murder is not just about wealth, even if the murder of the wealthy is what we talk about.

/ now watch this drive
 
2013-05-08 11:00:03 AM

Tomahawk513: While those are alternatives to shooting oneself, the fact remains they are far less lethal means of committing suicide.  For example, while guns are involved in only 2-5% of all suicide attempts, they are responsible for over 50% of successful attempts.   Other methods are much less lethal.  There is a strong correlation between ease of firearm access and suicide.


That's interesting.  How does that explain the fact that there's about a 2% difference between the U.S. and U.K. suicide rates considering guns are infinitely more common and available in the U.S.?
 
2013-05-08 11:00:19 AM

CPennypacker: Dimensio: CPennypacker: Dimensio: CPennypacker: GoldSpider: CPennypacker: Well its not really at the expense of an individual right if you interpreting the 2nd in the collective sense. Its instead of an individual right. It can't be at the expense of a right that doesn't exist.

That's a distinction without a difference if I ever saw one.

Its a clear difference. Its only at the expense of the individual right if you believe it to be an individual right. The legal interpretation is whats relevant. The collective right doesn't hold back the individual right because the individual right doesn't exist if you interpret the second amendment as granting a collective right instead.

You have now demonstrated a fundamental ignorance of Constitutional protections. The Bill of Rights "grants" nothing; rather, the Bill of Rights recognizes the existence of inherent rights and protects them from government infringement.

You have now demonstrated a fundamental ignorance of the real world, because although in imperical terms the constitution exists to protect rights, the enforcement and intepretation of it determines what people are actually allowed to do. So while you are technically correct it doesn't really invalidate anything I said. Kudos on the nit pick points, though.

Then you are effectively admitting that your opinion is based upon willfully ignoring and disregarding the intent of the Bill of Rights. As such, your "interpretation" of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is intentionally intellectually dishonest, by your own admission.

You know, when someone expresses their opinion, plainly states that they know it is their opinion and not the law, and that they agree with the dissenting opinion of the case which was written, may I add, by Supreme Court Justices, it kind of makes you look like a reactionary crazy person when you won't let them have ther opinion.

I think your opinion is wrong too but I'm not trying to beat you over the head with the bill of rights like a nutter.


You have openly admitted to disregarding the intent of the Bill of Rights in deriving your "interpretation" of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, meaning that no reason exists to trust your interpretation as being representative of its original intent. How, exactly, is noting this fact indicative of mental instability?
 
2013-05-08 11:00:49 AM

GoldSpider: Ablejack: Yes, I am just using the funny words that mean nothing.

You're applying a modern definition to words written 200 years ago.

CPennypacker: No. Should I?

When I see a glaring exception in my analysis of data, I question my analysis, not the data.


Its not data. Its one of a list of ten. If you disagreed with one of them I wouldn't think it odd or inconsistent that you agreed with the rest. Its not dogma. I really don't follow your logic here.
 
2013-05-08 11:01:05 AM

GnomePaladin: This is where gun nuts always go wrong. No one in favor of stronger regulation is averse to looking at "other factors" as well, while the gun nuts are absolutely against some common sense steps involving regulation.


Funny way to spell 'retarded'.  For example - if the gun control advocates wanted to pass the background check during the last episode of epic failure, why did they insert the need to register the type of wepon as well?  They know that is a non-starter with the gun rights crowd.  Especially since it lends nothing to the actual process of a background check.

I suspect that if they would have stripped this provision, it would have likely passed.
 
2013-05-08 11:02:53 AM

Tomahawk513: Endive Wombat: CPennypacker: Do you disagree that reducing the number of available guns though any means would also reduce the number of people killed by them, whether the gun is pointed at the person holding it or otherwise?

Then its a relevant statistic.

Well, duh.  Yeah, reduction in availability of guns over a long time would lead to a reduction in gun related crimes.  Here's the thing though...a significant reduction of guns in the US is not going to happen.  My point is that lumping suicide by gun stats along side violent gun crime stats is like...i dunno...talking about all house fires in the US and including "fires" that happen in fire-pits and fireplaces.  Yes, it is technically a fire in the home, but not the same thing.

Yes, a death is a death, it is tragic and sad, but I cannot fathom any real, PRACTICAL, and implementable legislation that cuts down on gun related suicide (which again...is not a crime).   If it is not a gun, it is running your car in a shut garage, slitting your wrists, taking a lot of pills, jumping off something tall...

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


Huh?  No matter how you kill yourself, you're dead!  I am not clear on what you are trying to get at here...
 
2013-05-08 11:03:06 AM

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


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

I did that calculation a while back:

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

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


That means that there are 52.6 white homicides per 100,000 poor whites, and 202.2 black homicides per 100,000 poor blacks.
 
2013-05-08 11:03:36 AM

legion_of_doo: Slaves2Darkness: Abortion, it is the root cause of all drops in crime statistics. Why if we aborted every baby whose parents don't make 50,000 a year each America would become a paradise on Earth.

I realize this is a troll... but abortion is not a good practice. i that life is so disposable degrades all of us. killing off the urban poor may be a nice taking point in your econ class, but it's vile and racist imo.

recent mass murderers were from families that did have access to mental health services. the 9/11 guys were also well educated. murder is not just about wealth, even if the murder of the wealthy is what we talk about.

/ now watch this drive


"Recent mass murders" are a dumb metric as they are rare and not a significant number of all murders. The same reasons that make abortion make sense in an econ class support it in a sociology class.
 
2013-05-08 11:03:39 AM

dittybopper: sammyk: *sigh*

Between 1998 and 2009 1.9 million gun purchases were denied by using NICS background checks. That couldn't posibly have any effect on gun violence now could it?.

So you're saying that NICS checks brought gun violence down to the levels of the 1950's, back when you could order a gun through the mail no questions asked and have it delivered to your doorstep?

Interesting.


Do you ever get tired of looking like a fool? I see you guys have a new talking point. that's the 3rd time today someone has tried to talk about mail order guns in the 50's or 60's.

1) We have tried to tell you guys over and over. The imaginary 1950's you regressive dumbasses keep talking about never existed.

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

http://www.davidsonsinc.com/consumers/subsites/inven_search.asp?deal er _id=957577
 
2013-05-08 11:04:14 AM

Endive Wombat: Tomahawk513: When I'm trying to determine the number of people killed by [object], my primary consideration is this: would the person have died if [object] did not exist?  History, and plenty of data have shown that when it comes to suicide, if you remove the [object], or even make it inconvenient, the person is substantially less likely to attempt suicide, and less likely still to be successful.  Whether or not suicide is a crime is irrelevant, we're not measuring how many crimes in which a gun was used result in death.

Again, fair enough...sure perhaps suicide gun deaths may go down as the availability of guns becomes less and less.  But back to my original point - When politicians try to site all gun deaths (murder, suicide, self-protection, death by police, accidents) as a basis for restricting access to guns and using "won't somebody please think of the children" Sandyhook, Aurora, etc...it is in effect, lying

There are about 30,000+ deaths per year by gun.

There are about 19,000+ deaths per year by suicide by gun


This leaves about 11,000+ deaths by violent crime, death by police, accident and self-protection (6000+ of which are related to outright homicide)

Soooooo...Leftist politicians like to site the 30,000+ gun deaths per year as a reason for their newest anti-gun legislation, and mention protecting children, mass shootings, intercity crime, etc.

Do you now see where I am coming from?


To your credit, I don't think much of the recent legislation would have had any effect on suicide deaths by firearm, but who knows.  If it were up to me, I'd require a Mental Health pass/fail as part of the background check, HIPAA be damned.  If we want "crazies" to stop getting access to guns, this would go a long way to that effect.

But that aside, suicides still count as part of the gun death total because in the absence of the gun, it's substantially less likely the person would have successfully committed suicide.
 
2013-05-08 11:04:27 AM

Dimensio: You have openly admitted to disregarding the intent of the Bill of Rights in deriving your "interpretation" of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, meaning that no reason exists to trust your interpretation as being representative of its original intent. How, exactly, is noting this fact indicative of mental instability?


If you truly believe that the intent of the bill of rights is to limit the government's power over natural rights then I don't see how my opinion is inconsistent with that. It is just a slightly different restriction on government power based on the consideration of what the right to bear arms really means in the context of the second amendment,
 
2013-05-08 11:05:03 AM

doglover: Dusk-You-n-Me: And how one chooses to respond to statistics like these is apparently a matter of interpretation. For some on the right, the argument seems to be, "But look at how much better things are than 20 years ago!" For the left, the argument is, "We still have far more gun deaths than any industrialized democracy on the planet, and with some sensible safety measures, we can build on the recent progress and save more lives."


It's not just right and left. I'm opposed to gun control proposed thus far because none of the rules proposed would actually have stopped the events that they'll alleged to be aimed at stopping.

If someone has a new idea that isn't just "ban scary sounding looking" I'm all ears.


If an argument for gun control rests on the premise that high capacity magazines & rapid fire tech make it too easy to kill, then outlaw all semi-automatic weapons: permit ownership only of firearms that require the owner to manually chamber the round after each shot. This would mean allowing only revolvers, shotguns & bolt-action rifles. This would preserve the right to keep & bear, while limiting destructive capacity.
 
2013-05-08 11:05:15 AM

CPennypacker: pdee: CPennypacker: pdee: CPennypacker: GoldDude: FTFA: "The victims of gun killings are overwhelmingly male and disproportionately black, according to Bureau of Justice Statistics".

Yet it would be racist to even imply that the perpetrators of gun violence and killings are more likely to be a particular race...?

You do realize that posts like this just make it look like you're butthurt that people won't let you be as racist as you want, right?

Is it racist to point out that Bla people are more likely to suffer from sickle cell anemia when the facts clearly support that conclusion?  But it IS racist to point out that Bla men are much more likely to be murdered and that the perp is much more likely to be a Bla man when the facts clearly support that conclusion.

No, its racist to complain that people will think you're racist if you say racist things.

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

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


Wrong again.
Poverty Rate by Race/Ethnicity
LocationWhiteBlackHispanicOtherTotalUnited States25,865,70012,876,40017,134,7005,442,40061,319,200

Murder Offendersby Age, Sex, and Race, 2011

AgeTotalSex Race MaleFemaleUnknownWhiteBlackOtherUnknownTotal 14,5489,4851,1383,9254,7295,4862564,077

Twice as many whites live below the poverty line yet Bla men commit more murders.  There is more going here that just economics.
 
2013-05-08 11:05:37 AM
Want the gun-crime rate to drop even more?

i557.photobucket.com

21 or older to enter.

What are you afraid of?
 
2013-05-08 11:05:44 AM

Dimensio: GnomePaladin: HeadLever: GnomePaladin: Maine has a shiatton of guns space and few gun laws people and yet their murder rate is pretty much nearly at the bottom of all states for gun crimes.

So you mean gun crime is independent of the type and prevalence of guns and is rooted in other factors?  Hmm, maybe we should start looking at those other factors then, donchathink?

This is where gun nuts always go wrong.  No one in favor of stronger regulation is averse to looking at "other factors" as well, while the gun nuts are absolutely against some common sense steps involving regulation.

That banning the presence of pistol grips and collapsing stocks on popular and rarely criminally misused rifle models are claimed to be "common sense steps" causes many gun rights advocates to be averse to proposals of what are claimed to be "common sense steps".


How about stronger laws/more enforcement around background checks?  Registration/insurance?  The list of common sense stuff goes on and on, but if you want to talk about the silly stuff I guess this is probably the right place.
 
2013-05-08 11:06:02 AM

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

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

I did that calculation a while back:

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

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

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


So its your contention that the difference is the result of Melanin?
 
2013-05-08 11:06:33 AM

mrshowrules: Those examples are all hyphenated.  I don't think it is hyphenated in the actual 2nd Amendment text.


By all means, explain the difference and meanings of well regulated and well-regulated.  I expect citations.
 
2013-05-08 11:06:54 AM
Overall crime has been falling for almost 30 years, thanks to a variety of environmental factors:  mainly, abortion and the removal of lead from gasoline.

Unfortunately, a higher proportion of violent crime than ever before is being committed with guns.  That fact shows we have a problem with the gun culture in this country.
 
2013-05-08 11:06:59 AM

sammyk: dittybopper: sammyk: *sigh*

Between 1998 and 2009 1.9 million gun purchases were denied by using NICS background checks. That couldn't posibly have any effect on gun violence now could it?.

So you're saying that NICS checks brought gun violence down to the levels of the 1950's, back when you could order a gun through the mail no questions asked and have it delivered to your doorstep?

Interesting.

Do you ever get tired of looking like a fool? I see you guys have a new talking point. that's the 3rd time today someone has tried to talk about mail order guns in the 50's or 60's.

1) We have tried to tell you guys over and over. The imaginary 1950's you regressive dumbasses keep talking about never existed.


Are you saying that reported homicide rates of that decade are falsified?


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

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


"Mail ordering" firearms today requires that the firearm be shipped to a federally licensed seller within the state of the buyer; the buyer must undergo a criminal background investigation to establish eligibility before the firearm may be transferred from the licensed seller. They are not "delivered to your doorstep".

"Mail ordering" firearms in the 1950s resulted in the firearm being shipped directly to the home of the buyer.

The two methods are different. Claiming that the ability to do the former is equivalent to doing the latter is dishonest.
 
2013-05-08 11:07:09 AM

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

[citation needed]

I'm too lazy to link on iPad, but I think New Mexico just did it. And of course getting one's license suspended for DUIs is common.


http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/09/us/new-mexico-alcohol-sales-dwi-co nv icts.html

From what I saw, they're just trying to get it passed.  It's not law.

How do you enforce that law unless you ID EVERYONE who buys booze.  As it stands, those over 35 or so usually aren't carded.
 
2013-05-08 11:07:16 AM

CPennypacker: If you disagreed with one of them I wouldn't think it odd or inconsistent that you agreed with the rest.


There's a difference between disagreeing with the 2nd Amendment and interpreting it to mean something that is inconsistent with the rest of the document.  I'm perfectly OK with the former.
 
2013-05-08 11:08:08 AM

CPennypacker: Dimensio: You have openly admitted to disregarding the intent of the Bill of Rights in deriving your "interpretation" of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, meaning that no reason exists to trust your interpretation as being representative of its original intent. How, exactly, is noting this fact indicative of mental instability?

If you truly believe that the intent of the bill of rights is to limit the government's power over natural rights then I don't see how my opinion is inconsistent with that. It is just a slightly different restriction on government power based on the consideration of what the right to bear arms really means in the context of the second amendment,


Actually, the entire Constitution limits government.
 
2013-05-08 11:08:27 AM

Dimensio: Please explain how banning all semi-automatic firearms and handguns and prohibiting you from accessing any functional firearm in your home is an infringement on your right to keep and bear arms.


You've generally been pretty reasonable in these threads, so I'm surprised you're going with the muskets-only theory.

in·fringe
1. Actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.): "infringe a copyright".
2. Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on: "infringe on his privacy"

Regardless of whether those restrictions might work, it's pretty damn hard to argue that they wouldn't "limit" peoples' rights. Those bans are by definition limits which would undermine the intent of the second amendment, which was to allow people to defend themselves individually, and for the people as a whole to defend themselves against their government if it should ever stop acting in the interests of the people.
 
2013-05-08 11:08:36 AM

GoldSpider: Ablejack: The well regulated militia is well regulated.

Such a thing as you imagine did not exist at the time.


Such a thing as an AR-15 did not exist at the time either.
 
2013-05-08 11:09:03 AM

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

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


I took the opportunity to examine the site that you referenced; the site allows customers to arrange firearm purchases for pick-up at a physical store. It in no way allows customers to order firearms for delivery to their homes, and your comparison of that website to such a delivery service is demonstrably false.
 
2013-05-08 11:09:12 AM

udhq: Overall crime has been falling for almost 30 years, thanks to a variety of environmental factors: mainly, abortion and the removal of lead from gasoline.


dafuq?
 
2013-05-08 11:09:44 AM

cman: I actually dont think Obama has any position on the 3rd.

I could be wrong


I have heard rumors that somewhere in the back of the ACA one of its acts forces everyone to house a soldier so that they can regulate the amount of HFCS consumed per houshould.  It is estimated that this will save the govt 3T over the next 2 years.
 
2013-05-08 11:10:10 AM

Ablejack: GoldSpider: Ablejack: The well regulated militia is well regulated.

Such a thing as you imagine did not exist at the time.

Such a thing as an AR-15 did not exist at the time either.


Neither did the internet, so repeal free speech now!
 
2013-05-08 11:10:15 AM

Ablejack: Such a thing as an AR-15 did not exist at the time either.


If only there was a way to update, or "amend" the Constitution to better reflect modern technological and societal norms.
 
2013-05-08 11:10:19 AM

mrshowrules: The US sucks compared to other industrialized countries regardless of the metric you use.


Like Russia?
 
2013-05-08 11:10:37 AM

Ablejack: GoldSpider: Ablejack: The well regulated militia is well regulated.

Such a thing as you imagine did not exist at the time.

Such a thing as an AR-15 did not exist at the time either.




And Ole King George didn't have fully automatic weapons, APCs, and drones.

/history is cool
 
2013-05-08 11:10:40 AM

the_foo: Dimensio: Please explain how banning all semi-automatic firearms and handguns and prohibiting you from accessing any functional firearm in your home is an infringement on your right to keep and bear arms.

You've generally been pretty reasonable in these threads, so I'm surprised you're going with the muskets-only theory.

in·fringe
1. Actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.): "infringe a copyright".
2. Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on: "infringe on his privacy"

Regardless of whether those restrictions might work, it's pretty damn hard to argue that they wouldn't "limit" peoples' rights. Those bans are by definition limits which would undermine the intent of the second amendment, which was to allow people to defend themselves individually, and for the people as a whole to defend themselves against their government if it should ever stop acting in the interests of the people.


Evidently, I have yet to adequately grasp the human technique known as "sarcasm".
 
2013-05-08 11:11:44 AM

GoldSpider: CPennypacker: If you disagreed with one of them I wouldn't think it odd or inconsistent that you agreed with the rest.

There's a difference between disagreeing with the 2nd Amendment and interpreting it to mean something that is inconsistent with the rest of the document.  I'm perfectly OK with the former.


How is it inconsistent? It just has context that I interpret differently.
 
2013-05-08 11:12:44 AM

scottydoesntknow: It's all video games fault!


If video games influenced behavior, 2/3 of facebook users would be farmers by now.
 
2013-05-08 11:13:11 AM

GoldSpider: Ablejack: Such a thing as an AR-15 did not exist at the time either.

If only there was a way to update, or "amend" the Constitution to better reflect modern technological and societal norms.


Yes, if only.
 
2013-05-08 11:13:29 AM

GnomePaladin: How about stronger laws/more enforcement around background checks? Registration/insurance?


In my book there is a place for better background checks if done correctly.  what the gun grabber side is trying to pass of as better bacground checks if full of crap that I will not support.

Blanket registration  is a non-starter and insurance is nice to have, but should never be mandated on an individual basis.
 
2013-05-08 11:14:13 AM

mrshowrules: 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.

Those examples are all hyphenated.  I don't think it is hyphenated in the actual 2nd Amendment text.


Also those examples are all in Arial font whereas the constitution is old English script so they cant mean the same thing.
 
2013-05-08 11:14:48 AM

CPennypacker: It just has context that I interpret differently.


Wrongly, I believe, based on contemporary language.  But we've been over that already, and I suppose we'll just have to disagree on that as well.
 
2013-05-08 11:15:38 AM

Ablejack: GoldSpider: Ablejack: Such a thing as an AR-15 did not exist at the time either.

If only there was a way to update, or "amend" the Constitution to better reflect modern technological and societal norms.

Yes, if only.


Go on...
 
2013-05-08 11:17:41 AM

tenpoundsofcheese: vpb: Yes, those tough anti gun laws in some parts are starting to pay off.

Now we need to expand on a winning strategy.

Yeah, that has really worked in Chicago!


Chicago isn't even in the top ten per capita.
 
2013-05-08 11:17:52 AM

sammyk: nekom: sammyk: Good. Now lets see if we can do a better job of keeping crazy people from having guns, and felons too. As long as we keep having mass killings we are going to keep having the gun control debate. Just because we have made progress on gun violence doesn't mean we can just throw our hands up in the air and accept the tragedies we keep reliving.

Tough nut to crack, though.  Background checks, for instance, aren't the end all beat all.  Don't get me wrong, I'm all for enhanced background checks, but the newton massacre was carried out by lawfully purchased guns stolen from a crazy person's mother.  Assault weapons bans may have some merit, but you could easily carry out the same sort of mass murder with a few semiautomatic pistols.  Now I'm not saying "It's an impossible task, so why even try?", I'm saying we need some better answers.  I don't really have them, at least none that are the slightest bit politically viable here.  Banning all but single shot rifles and shotguns would probably help immensely, but fat chance of ever seeing that happen here.

Interesting thing about background checks. 20 years ago the Brady act was signed into law implementing actual background checks. Lo and behold 20 years later gun violence is cut in half. But I am sure there will be someone here shortly to tell us the 2 things are in no way connected.


Well, in that same time span concealed carry has grown from a handful of states to all but one and gun sales have grown tremendously, but I'm sure someone will be along shortly to tell us that's not important to consider either.

Background checks are responsible for the drop in shootings and overall crime because they started 20 years ago, but the rapid spread of concealed carry isn't even though that trend started at about the same time.  Got it.

Here's a news flash, the biggest single factor is probably the aging population.  As a nation, we're older and old people don't go around shooting folks nearly as much as the younger crowd.
 
I'm actually in favor of expanded background checks, but they stop practically no crime.  They simply protect the seller from civil and maybe criminal liability.


nekom: I have a 6 year old daughter, I would prefer to live in a world where some lunatic will not shoot up her school.


Then you'd better move to a deserted island or self-colonize another planet because folks have been attacking schools for centuries and will do so forever.  There is no better terror target that someone's children.

I have a 3 year old and I'm far more worried about her drowning in a pool, getting abused by a teacher/caregiver, or even getting bitten by a venomous snake while playing in our yard than I am of her school getting shot up because all of those are statistically far more likely to happen.
 
2013-05-08 11:18:28 AM

MJMaloney187: 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.

See that part about "a well regulated militia"? That means the Federal Government has the authority to enforce enhanced background checks. Anybody who says otherwise is only seeing what they want to see.


ts1.mm.bing.net
 
2013-05-08 11:18:28 AM

GoldSpider: udhq: Overall crime has been falling for almost 30 years, thanks to a variety of environmental factors: mainly, abortion and the removal of lead from gasoline.

dafuq?


I assume you've at least heard of the abortion argument made in the book Freakonomics, no?  The argument is that since Roe, abortion has been most prevalent among the demographics most likely to produce criminals, i.e. poor people prone to high-risk behavior.  Thus, we've essentially limited the size of this generation's criminal demographic.

The gasoline argument is fascinating, but the central theory is that lead is a primary cause of any number of cognitive and developmental disorders that can predispose a person towards anti-social behavior.  There's a direct correlation that can be drawn with each country's decision to go lead-free, and their crime rates dropping by 10-20% in the following decade.
 
2013-05-08 11:18:56 AM

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

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

I did that calculation a while back:

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

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

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


OMG A BLACK MAN IS GONNA KILL ME OMG OMG SEND THEM BACK TO AFRICA OMG THANK YOU FOR OPENING MY EYES OMG OMG
 
2013-05-08 11:21:11 AM

GoldSpider: Ablejack: GoldSpider: Ablejack: Such a thing as an AR-15 did not exist at the time either.

If only there was a way to update, or "amend" the Constitution to better reflect modern technological and societal norms.

Yes, if only.

Go on...


I think you and I are in agreement on this issue.
 
2013-05-08 11:21:49 AM

Aarontology: Fact: The American people will believe anything as long is it validates their fears.


Woah! I believe that!
 
2013-05-08 11:21:58 AM
according to this it is about #7 with a gun homicide rate of 16.4 per 100K
 
2013-05-08 11:21:59 AM

MJMaloney187: See that part about "a well regulated militia"? That means the Federal Government has the authority to enforce enhanced background checks. Anybody who says otherwise is only seeing what they want to see.


There's a specific area of the Constitution that outlines what the federal government has the authority to do.

And that isn't the Bill of Rights.
 
2013-05-08 11:22:37 AM

Ablejack: I think you and I are in agreement on this issue.


Another fault in Professor Frink's sarcasm detector, I suspect.
 
2013-05-08 11:26:39 AM
sammyk:
Do you ever get tired of looking like a fool? I see you guys have a new talking point. that's the 3rd time today someone has tried to talk about mail order guns in the 50's or 60's.

1) We have tried to tell you guys over and over. The imaginary 1950's you regressive dumbasses keep talking about never existed.

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


Sure, but they have to pass through a Federally Licensed Firearms dealer, unlike int he 1950's so.......yes there is a difference?
 
2013-05-08 11:26:50 AM

sammyk: 1) We have tried to tell you guys over and over. The imaginary 1950's you regressive dumbasses keep talking about never existed.

i42.tinypic.com

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


http://www.davidsonsinc.com/consumers/subsites/inven_search.asp?dea ler_id=957577

You missed this one important part:

"Order guns right online for pickup in our store within 10 days! "

You can order them over the internet, but you have to pick it up at the store.  And it goes without saying, since they are an FFL, you need a NICS check run.

In fact, if you go to the FAQ at their website, this is what you'll see:

What do I have to do to buy a gun online or by phone?
Legally when an individual wants to buy a gun through the mail they must have it shipped to a Federal Firearms License (FFL) holder. However if you do not have an FFL you can still order online.
First find a local gun store or other FFL holder in your area and get their permission to have a gun shipped to them from J&G. Most dealers will do a transfer for you for a small fee.
Second have them send us a signed in ink, legible, copy of their FFL via fax, email, or mail. (C&R licenses can be mailed, or are also accepted via fax or email if a copy of the driver's license with matching name is included.) Please include the phone number and contact name. This only needs to be sent once as it is kept on file until it expires.
Third once we have the FFL on file you can order online being sure to enter the FFL's info in the space for shipping address and your info in the space for billing address. We can then ship to the dealers place of business and you can pick up your gun from them meeting all local state and federal laws. If you order and we have no FFL on file we will email you back explaining that you need an FFL causing your order to be delayed. All items are subject to prior sale, an order is not considered complete until all documents are received.


Back in the 1950's, all you had to do was send them the money:

unblinkingeye.com

Stop lying.
 
2013-05-08 11:27:28 AM

mrshowrules: The U.S. firearm homicide rate is 20 times higher than the combined rates of 22 countries that are our peers in wealth and population.

A declining rate doesn't mean jack shiat.


If you really think this you are an idiot.
 
2013-05-08 11:27:32 AM

nobodyUwannaknow: Chicago isn't even in the top ten per capita.


^ this was supposed to be included in my post with the link above ^
 
2013-05-08 11:27:41 AM

HeadLever: mrshowrules: The US sucks compared to other industrialized countries regardless of the metric you use.

Like Russia?


Don't set the benchmark to high, you might pull something.
 
2013-05-08 11:28:23 AM

Ablejack: GoldSpider: Ablejack: The well regulated militia is well regulated.

Such a thing as you imagine did not exist at the time.

Such a thing as an AR-15 did not exist at the time either.


Neither did the internet, electronic printing presses, copies, or Mormonism.
 
2013-05-08 11:28:27 AM

Tomahawk513: Endive Wombat: Tomahawk513: When I'm trying to determine the number of people killed by [object], my primary consideration is this: would the person have died if [object] did not exist?  History, and plenty of data have shown that when it comes to suicide, if you remove the [object], or even make it inconvenient, the person is substantially less likely to attempt suicide, and less likely still to be successful.  Whether or not suicide is a crime is irrelevant, we're not measuring how many crimes in which a gun was used result in death.

Again, fair enough...sure perhaps suicide gun deaths may go down as the availability of guns becomes less and less.  But back to my original point - When politicians try to site all gun deaths (murder, suicide, self-protection, death by police, accidents) as a basis for restricting access to guns and using "won't somebody please think of the children" Sandyhook, Aurora, etc...it is in effect, lying

There are about 30,000+ deaths per year by gun.

There are about 19,000+ deaths per year by suicide by gun


This leaves about 11,000+ deaths by violent crime, death by police, accident and self-protection (6000+ of which are related to outright homicide)

Soooooo...Leftist politicians like to site the 30,000+ gun deaths per year as a reason for their newest anti-gun legislation, and mention protecting children, mass shootings, intercity crime, etc.

Do you now see where I am coming from?

To your credit, I don't think much of the recent legislation would have had any effect on suicide deaths by firearm, but who knows.  If it were up to me, I'd require a Mental Health pass/fail as part of the background check, HIPAA be damned.  If we want "crazies" to stop getting access to guns, this would go a long way to that effect.

But that aside, suicides still count as part of the gun death total because in the absence of the gun, it's substantially less likely the person would have successfully committed suicide.


I thought the left was all for euthanasia.  I would think that would make access to a gun a right they would protect.  Guns are a messy way to go but they fast, painless and relatively sure.
 
2013-05-08 11:28:30 AM

GoldSpider: CPennypacker: It just has context that I interpret differently.

Wrongly, I believe, based on contemporary language.  But we've been over that already, and I suppose we'll just have to disagree on that as well.


Well obviously
 
2013-05-08 11:28:40 AM

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


I'm trying to get at the fact that guns are a far more lethal means of attempting suicide.  Let's say 100 people attempt suicide today.  Of those 100 people, 6 use a gun and 94 use some other means.  The statistics I cited previously show that of those 100 people who attempted suicide, about 9 would have been successful.  Of those 9 who were successful, 5 used a gun.  For added clarification, let's take the analogy out of the gun-suicide debate.  Let's say 100 of us drove to work in cars today.  Of those 100, 6 of us have Jeeps.  On the way to work, 5 of the 6 Jeeps stalled out on the highway, while only 4 of the remaining 94 cars that weren't Jeeps stalled.  What conclusions would you draw about Jeeps?
 
2013-05-08 11:29:05 AM

dittybopper: sammyk: 1) We have tried to tell you guys over and over. The imaginary 1950's you regressive dumbasses keep talking about never existed.

[i42.tinypic.com image 640x363]

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

http://www.davidsonsinc.com/consumers/subsites/inven_search.asp?dea ler_id=957577

You missed this one important part:

"Order guns right online for pickup in our store within 10 days! "

You can order them over the internet, but you have to pick it up at the store.  And it goes without saying, since they are an FFL, you need a NICS check run.

In fact, if you go to the FAQ at their website, this is what you'll see:

What do I have to do to buy a gun online or by phone?
Legally when an individual wants to buy a gun through the mail they must have it shipped to a Federal Firearms License (FFL) holder. However if you do not have an FFL you can still order online.
First find a local gun store or other FFL holder in your area and get their permission to have a gun shipped to them from J&G. Most dealers will do a transfer for you for a small fee.
Second have them send us a signed in ink, legible, copy of their FFL via fax, email, or mail. (C&R licenses can be mailed, or are also accepted via fax or email if a copy of the driver's license with matching name is included.) Please include the phone number and contact name. This only needs to be sent once as it is kept on file until it expires.
Third once we have the FFL on file you can order online being sure to enter the FFL's info in the space for shipping address and your info in the space for billing address. We can then ship to the dealers place of business and you can pick up your gun from them meeting all local state and federal laws. If you order and we have no FFL on file we will email you back explaining that you need an FFL causing your order to be delayed. All items are subject to prior sale, an order is not considered complete until all documents are received.

Back in ...


Is ignorance really lying?
 
2013-05-08 11:30:19 AM

Source4leko: mrshowrules: The U.S. firearm homicide rate is 20 times higher than the combined rates of 22 countries that are our peers in wealth and population.

A declining rate doesn't mean jack shiat.

If you really think this you are an idiot.


Yeah, gun violence is down, we just have to suffer through another school shooting every few years. Libs should grow a sack, right? We shouldn't be looking at actually, you know, having a comprehensive firearms regulation policy because 2nd Amendment.

Sounds like you "really think," actually.
 
2013-05-08 11:30:32 AM

Source4leko: mrshowrules: The U.S. firearm homicide rate is 20 times higher than the combined rates of 22 countries that are our peers in wealth and population.

A declining rate doesn't mean jack shiat.

If you really think this you are an idiot.


If you don't think the US has a problem with gun violence, good for you I suppose.  I'm Canadian, so I'm not stressed either way.
 
2013-05-08 11:31:40 AM

Tomahawk513: What conclusions would you draw about Jeeps?


Blacktop messes with the fuel injection?
 
2013-05-08 11:32:19 AM

Source4leko: mrshowrules: The U.S. firearm homicide rate is 20 times higher than the combined rates of 22 countries that are our peers in wealth and population.

A declining rate doesn't mean jack shiat.

If you really think this you are an idiot.


Yeah, let's wander over to the "the deficit is falling, Yay Obama!" thread and see if he made the same point shall we?
 
2013-05-08 11:32:54 AM

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

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

I did that calculation a while back:

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

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

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

OMG A BLACK MAN IS GONNA KILL ME OMG OMG SEND THEM BACK TO AFRICA OMG THANK YOU FOR OPENING MY EYES OMG OMG


Nice ad hominem you got there.
 
2013-05-08 11:33:01 AM

mrshowrules: If you don't think the US has a problem with gun violence, good for you I suppose


You understand there's a difference between the statements "the US has a problem with gun violence" and "gun violence in the US is declining", right?
 
2013-05-08 11:33:27 AM

vpb: Yes, those tough anti gun laws in some parts are starting to pay off.

Now we need to expand on a winning strategy.

/look at where the gun violence is highest


Wow, it's almost like regions with a lot of crime use laws to crack down on it in response. I guess by your logic, aspirin gives people headaches because most of the people taking it are in pain.

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.


Your rights are not absolute. You can't use freedom of speech to commit slander and you shouldn't be able to have an assault weapon with a 50-round magazine without even undergoing a background check. Man up and take responsibility.
 
2013-05-08 11:33:53 AM

pdee: I thought the left was all for euthanasia.  I would think that would make access to a gun a right they would protect.  Guns are a messy way to go but they fast, painless and relatively sure.


Suicide != Euthanasia

/but you knew that
//but in case you didn't, here
 
2013-05-08 11:34:12 AM

mrshowrules: Source4leko: mrshowrules: The U.S. firearm homicide rate is 20 times higher than the combined rates of 22 countries that are our peers in wealth and population.

A declining rate doesn't mean jack shiat.

If you really think this you are an idiot.

If you don't think the US has a problem with gun violence, good for you I suppose.  I'm Canadian, so I'm not stressed either way.


If you seriously think that declining rates of this crime occurring mean nothing then I don't even know what to say to you.  Do declining rates of pollution not mean that pollution controls are working?
 
2013-05-08 11:34:20 AM

mrshowrules: Don't set the benchmark to high, you might pull something.


Or set the benchmark vauge enough as to make your point laughable.
 
2013-05-08 11:35:38 AM

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

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

I did that calculation a while back:

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

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

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

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


I dont know.  Perhaps this is something worthy of study.
 
2013-05-08 11:36:32 AM

cman: vpb: Yes, those tough anti gun laws in some parts are starting to pay off.
Now we need to expand on a winning strategy.
/look at where the gun violence is highest

Maine has a shiatton of guns and few gun laws and yet their murder rate is pretty much nearly at the bottom of all states for gun crimes.


Maine also has ridiculously low population density.
 
2013-05-08 11:37:04 AM

udhq: Overall crime has been falling for almost 30 years, thanks to a variety of environmental factors:  mainly, abortion and the removal of lead from gasoline.

Unfortunately, a higher proportion of violent crime than ever before is being committed with guns.  That fact shows we have a problem with the gun culture in this country.


Cite?
 
2013-05-08 11:37:29 AM

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


Your obsession with weapons used in an insignificant minority of gun crime makes me question your desire to actually reduce gun crime.
 
2013-05-08 11:38:25 AM

nekom: sammyk: Good. Now lets see if we can do a better job of keeping crazy people from having guns, and felons too. As long as we keep having mass killings we are going to keep having the gun control debate. Just because we have made progress on gun violence doesn't mean we can just throw our hands up in the air and accept the tragedies we keep reliving.

Tough nut to crack, though.  Background checks, for instance, aren't the end all beat all.  Don't get me wrong, I'm all for enhanced background checks, but the newton massacre was carried out by lawfully purchased guns stolen from a crazy person's mother.  Assault weapons bans may have some merit, but you could easily carry out the same sort of mass murder with a few semiautomatic pistols.  Now I'm not saying "It's an impossible task, so why even try?", I'm saying we need some better answers.  I don't really have them, at least none that are the slightest bit politically viable here.  Banning all but single shot rifles and shotguns would probably help immensely, but fat chance of ever seeing that happen here.


I recently dumped a bunch of people off of face book because they kept posting wildly outlandish "Libruls R stealing R guns" posts. When I suggested that maybe we could have a reasonable discussion about gun laws that worked well they freaked out. According to them crime is through the roof, society is falling apart and a Mad Max reality will be here by next tuesday. Having been a teen during the crack fueled gang violence of the 80's I don't understand how an intelligent person can compare then to now. I just don't have time for stupid any more.
 
2013-05-08 11:38:30 AM

fluffy2097: Car crashes kill WAY more people then guns.

So does alcohol.

We should make a government list of people mentally capable of buying booze or a death machine like a car.


Yes, we should, and in both cases, we do.  Though bot to the extent that we could.
 
2013-05-08 11:38:49 AM

pdee: But that aside, suicides still count as part of the gun death total because in the absence of the gun, it's substantially less likely the person would have successfully committed suicide.

I thought the left was all for euthanasia. I would think that would make access to a gun a right they would protect. Guns are a messy way to go but they fast, painless and relatively sure.


Euthanasia does not mean treating depression with a bullet to the head.

80% of suicide attempts occur within an hour of initial ideation.  That means their success or failure is often dependent upon finding a convenient means that is immediately available.  Forcing them to go even a little out of their way--such as with a waiting period--is often enough of a deterrent.  Every minute longer you make a suicidal person wait, you increase their chances of survival.
 
2013-05-08 11:39:01 AM

mrshowrules: If you don't think the US has a problem with gun violence,


The state I live in has a gun violence rate on par with Canada.  Do we have a problem too?

/Also sports a Brady Score of 2.
 
2013-05-08 11:40:10 AM

Garble: Maine also has ridiculously low population density.


So you're saying that population density has more to do with violent crime than guns?
 
2013-05-08 11:40:28 AM

CPennypacker: It just has context that I interpret differently.


If you were advocating the repeal of the 2nd amendment, that would be an intellectually honest position which people could have an actually discussion about. You're just sticking your fingers in your ears shouting "LALALA I can't hear you" and it makes you look like a child.
 
2013-05-08 11:41:12 AM

Dimensio: 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.

Please explain how banning all semi-automatic firearms and handguns and prohibiting you from accessing any functional firearm in your home is an infringement on your right to keep and bear arms.


Keep and bear arms does not mean going sleeveless... it means we have the right to keep and bear guns, including semi-autos. It is designed solely to protect our home (in this case, the US) from an invading body (foreign or domestic).

VIolent crime is down overall, great... find me the numbers by state, and then talk.
 
2013-05-08 11:42:59 AM

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

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


Why do all of you people act like the Heller decision wasn't split and my opinion is that of a fool? Read a farking book.
 
2013-05-08 11:43:01 AM

GoldSpider: Garble: Maine also has ridiculously low population density.

So you're saying that population density has more to do with violent crime than guns?


Sounds like he may be for population control....
 
2013-05-08 11:43:42 AM

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


That's a horrible comparison.  Slander causes harm to someone, that's why it's a crime.  Merely owning a weapon harms nobody.  If we were to apply your thought process to the first amendment, we would have to pass background checks before engaging in any social activity in which speech might be used.
 
2013-05-08 11:44:38 AM

CPennypacker: Why do all of you people act like the Heller decision wasn't split and my opinion is that of a fool?


Maybe I think the dissenting justices are fools too.  (I don't think you're a fool; I try not to let things get personal here)
 
2013-05-08 11:45:42 AM

udhq: pdee: But that aside, suicides still count as part of the gun death total because in the absence of the gun, it's substantially less likely the person would have successfully committed suicide.

I thought the left was all for euthanasia. I would think that would make access to a gun a right they would protect. Guns are a messy way to go but they fast, painless and relatively sure.

Euthanasia does not mean treating depression with a bullet to the head.

80% of suicide attempts occur within an hour of initial ideation.  That means their success or failure is often dependent upon finding a convenient means that is immediately available.  Forcing them to go even a little out of their way--such as with a waiting period--is often enough of a deterrent.  Every minute longer you make a suicidal person wait, you increase their chances of survival.


Or they just find another easy method. Hanging is easy, so is slitting the wrists, ODing on OTC medicine, so on so forth. Guns are convenient, but a person willing to off themselves can easily do so with a trip to the drug or hardware store.
 
2013-05-08 11:46:58 AM

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

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

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


I assume that you also believe that Tea Party members who dispute the Constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, despite a court ruling contradicting their position, are not "fools".
 
2013-05-08 11:47:20 AM

GnomePaladin: common sense


www.strategicdc.com
 
2013-05-08 11:48:01 AM

People_are_Idiots: udhq: pdee: But that aside, suicides still count as part of the gun death total because in the absence of the gun, it's substantially less likely the person would have successfully committed suicide.

I thought the left was all for euthanasia. I would think that would make access to a gun a right they would protect. Guns are a messy way to go but they fast, painless and relatively sure.

Euthanasia does not mean treating depression with a bullet to the head.

80% of suicide attempts occur within an hour of initial ideation.  That means their success or failure is often dependent upon finding a convenient means that is immediately available.  Forcing them to go even a little out of their way--such as with a waiting period--is often enough of a deterrent.  Every minute longer you make a suicidal person wait, you increase their chances of survival.

Or they just find another easy method. Hanging is easy, so is slitting the wrists, ODing on OTC medicine, so on so forth. Guns are convenient, but a person willing to off themselves can easily do so with a trip to the drug or hardware store.


I would suggest you read upthread a bit.  While you're correct that a person could use a different method, those methods are significantly, even exponentially less lethal.
 
2013-05-08 11:48:03 AM

GoldSpider: CPennypacker: Why do all of you people act like the Heller decision wasn't split and my opinion is that of a fool?

Maybe I think the dissenting justices are fools too.  (I don't think you're a fool; I try not to let things get personal here)


That's fine but they act like I'm making it up and nobody agrees with me. Half the farking court agreed with me.
 
2013-05-08 11:48:19 AM
mpe2013.org

Fewer pirates...fewer gun crimes.
 
2013-05-08 11:49:43 AM
The incarceration rates and prison sentence lengths have gone up a lot in the last 20 years, too.  That probably has the most to do with it.
 
2013-05-08 11:49:50 AM

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

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

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

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


Their interpretation of its constitutionality is not why I think they are fools.
 
2013-05-08 11:50:15 AM

I_C_Weener: [mpe2013.org image 850x525]

Fewer pirates...fewer gun crimes.


I'm also interested in how fluctuations in the ninja population have contributed to gun crimes.
 
2013-05-08 11:51:44 AM
I do not understand why, despite so much data, gun control opponents do not recognize that by implementing strict regulation on civilian firearm ownership, the suicide rate of the United States of America could be reduced to the rates seen in France, Japan, Belgium or New Zealand.
 
2013-05-08 11:51:47 AM

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

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

I did that calculation a while back:

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

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

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

OMG A BLACK MAN IS GONNA KILL ME OMG OMG SEND THEM BACK TO AFRICA OMG THANK YOU FOR OPENING MY EYES OMG OMG


I see you missed the history of this post.  The discussion started with the premise that if facts are presented that compare race and crime the racist charge will be brought out no matter how accurate the facts are.

Thanks for proving the original point.
 
2013-05-08 11:51:57 AM

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

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

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


I've read a number of books on the topic. Heller was split, but your understanding of the minority opinion doesn't seem to be much better than your understanding of the majority one.  "Living with Guns: A Liberal Case for the Second Amendment" would be an excellent starting point.
 
2013-05-08 11:52:01 AM

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

Correct. Which is why we need UBC on a national level.


What good does that do?

If I live in Chicago, I can go to another city in IL and buy guns and bring them back to Chicago.

I can also get my friend, relative, business partner in a border state to ILLEGALLY buy a gun on my behalf which I then bring into Chicago.

Do you really think the guy illegally selling me a gun is going to do a background check on me if the law begins to require one?

The big question is, why don't the other cities in IL or those border states and their cities have a crime rate like Chicago?
 
2013-05-08 11:52:19 AM

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

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

I did that calculation a while back:

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

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

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

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


*SIGH*.

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

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

Hint:  I argue that the effect is entirely due to culture.
 
2013-05-08 11:53:32 AM

pdee: udhq: Overall crime has been falling for almost 30 years, thanks to a variety of environmental factors:  mainly, abortion and the removal of lead from gasoline.

Unfortunately, a higher proportion of violent crime than ever before is being committed with guns.  That fact shows we have a problem with the gun culture in this country.

Cite?


"Gun involved homicides have increased since falling to a low in 1999."

"Guns used in a rising percentage of violent crime." (FL)

This one is bit more complicated, but it shows that while gun violence is down, it is not down at a rate comparable with overall violent crime.
 
2013-05-08 11:54:44 AM

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

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

I did that calculation a while back:

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

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

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

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

*SIGH*.

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

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

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


For what reason do you not simply link back to a previous posting on the subject?
 
2013-05-08 11:55:06 AM

Tomahawk513: While those are alternatives to shooting oneself, the fact remains they are far less lethal means of committing suicide. For example, while guns are involved in only 2-5% of all suicide attempts, they are responsible for over 50% of successful attempts. Other methods are much less lethal. There is a strong correlation between ease of firearm access and suicide.


So what does the suicide attempt rate look like in countries like Japan and South Korea, which both have HIGHER suicide rates than we do and incredibly strict gun control?  How about Australia, which has a similar suicide rate and strict gun control?

There must be an unbelievably high number of people injured or permanently disfigured from all the failed suicide attempts.
 
2013-05-08 11:55:47 AM

GoldSpider: mrshowrules: If you don't think the US has a problem with gun violence, good for you I suppose

You understand there's a difference between the statements "the US has a problem with gun violence" and "gun violence in the US is declining", right?


The US has a problem with gun violence despite recent declines.  You won't solve this problem until you tackle gun control

www.washingtonpost.com
 
2013-05-08 11:56:44 AM

sammyk: ArmagedDan: clkeagle: sammyk: Good. Now lets see if we can do a better job of keeping crazy people from having guns, and felons too. As long as we keep having mass killings we are going to keep having the gun control debate. Just because we have made progress on gun violence doesn't mean we can just throw our hands up in the air and accept the tragedies we keep reliving.

Done in two. Individual homicides by people with their backgrounds checked? Sad, but it's the price of living of a gun-owning society.
Mass homicides by people who had no business touching those weapons in the first place? Those deaths might have been prevented if not for the "don't grab muh gunz" crowd.

I would agree, if only those in charge of drafting legislation would stop using it as a platform for grabbing guns from the wrong people. Often while admitting that it's their true goal. The problem is that our attempts to solve the problem are hijacked by those with an agenda.

What would really create great strides in reducing gun crime is to actually prosecute people who lie on their 4473 form. It's a felony, and yet only an insignificant proportion are ever busted over it.

A felon or other barred individual just lied to try and buy a gun, and nobody's interested in following up on that!? Lanza was rejected a week before sandy hook. And yet we are told there is neither the time nor the interest in enforcing the existing law.

No, we have to strip the property of millions of law abiding Americans instead. Because lord knows THAT's cheap, fast and constitutionally sound.

/rant over

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


Well I'm glad they'll be satisfied if they're given expanded background checks.
 
2013-05-08 11:57:00 AM

HeadLever: mrshowrules: If you don't think the US has a problem with gun violence,

The state I live in has a gun violence rate on par with Canada.  Do we have a problem too?

/Also sports a Brady Score of 2.


Cherry picking.
 
2013-05-08 11:57:22 AM

Endive Wombat: Tomahawk513:

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

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


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

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

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

That's the argument about suicide and guns. Guns make it easy, and you are less likely to be interrupted or prevented. This is also why they have all these stats about how you are more likely to be killed by your own gun than to use it to kill an intruder or attacker. It's because of the suicide rate.
 
2013-05-08 11:57:26 AM

Tomahawk513: pdee: I thought the left was all for euthanasia.  I would think that would make access to a gun a right they would protect.  Guns are a messy way to go but they fast, painless and relatively sure.

Suicide != Euthanasia

/but you knew that
//but in case you didn't, here


From your link:

2. painless death.
A 12 gauge in the mouth through the brain stem would certainly qualify as 'painless death'.

Yes your wrong again but thanks for playing.
 
2013-05-08 11:57:52 AM

sammyk: Do you ever get tired of looking like a fool? I see you guys have a new talking point. that's the 3rd time today someone has tried to talk about mail order guns in the 50's or 60's.

1) We have tried to tell you guys over and over. The imaginary 1950's you regressive dumbasses keep talking about never existed.

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

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


No, you cannot.   At least not in the sense you're talking about.  Those guns are not shipped to your house the way they were before 1968.  They are shipped to a dealer in your state who then does paperwork and a background check.

Do people like you ever get tired of being grossly and inexcusably misinformed?
 
2013-05-08 11:59:01 AM

udhq: "Gun involved homicides have increased since falling to a low in 1999."

"Guns used in a rising percentage of violent crime." (FL)

This one is bit more complicated, but it shows that while gun violence is down, it is not down at a rate comparable with overall violent crime.


Do you realize none of those show that 'a higher proportion of violent crime than ever before is being committed with guns'.  While the trend appears to be moving upward from a low in 1999, they would tend to disagree with your original assertion.
 
2013-05-08 11:59:14 AM

mrshowrules: HeadLever: mrshowrules: If you don't think the US has a problem with gun violence,

The state I live in has a gun violence rate on par with Canada.  Do we have a problem too?

/Also sports a Brady Score of 2.

Cherry picking.


You are correct. By eliminating all states with relatively low rates of violent crime despite relatively few restrictions upon civilian firearm ownership as outliers, a correlation between violent crime and few restrictions upon civilian firearm ownership is much more easily established.
 
2013-05-08 11:59:50 AM

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

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


Just a worthless feel good measure, like buying carbon credits. He should just admit he is a gunaphobe
 
2013-05-08 11:59:59 AM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: mrshowrules: Those examples are all hyphenated.  I don't think it is hyphenated in the actual 2nd Amendment text.

By all means, explain the difference and meanings of well regulated and well-regulated.  I expect citations.


I select the 2nd amendment as my first citation without the hyphen.  I select all your examples as my second series of citations.
 
2013-05-08 12:00:52 PM

sammyk: Interesting thing about background checks. 20 years ago the Brady act was signed into law implementing actual background checks. Lo and behold 20 years later gun violence is cut in half. But I am sure there will be someone here shortly to tell us the 2 things are in no way connected.


Yeah, because...20 years...and such as, that's there
 
2013-05-08 12:01:11 PM

mrshowrules: The US has a problem with gun violence despite recent declines. You won't solve this problem until you tackle gun control


Call me crazy, but maybe we should keep doing what we're doing.  It is evidently working.
 
2013-05-08 12:02:05 PM

People_are_Idiots: Or they just find another easy method. Hanging is easy, so is slitting the wrists, ODing on OTC medicine, so on so forth. Guns are convenient, but a person willing to off themselves can easily do so with a trip to the drug or hardware store.


Hanging/slitting wrists are NOT easy.  A lot of people are suicidal, but still retain their natural aversion to self-injurious behavior.

Very few drugs can actually be consumed to a high enough concentration to be fatal without inducing vomiting.

My point was that, given the narrow window between ideation and action that typically exists, forcing that trip to the store is often enough of a hurdle to save a life.  Remember, these are typically people who suffer from depression.  Taking any kind of action requires an extraordinary amount of effort, and they are often easily deterred.
 
2013-05-08 12:02:46 PM

mrshowrules: HeadLever: mrshowrules: If you don't think the US has a problem with gun violence,

The state I live in has a gun violence rate on par with Canada.  Do we have a problem too?

/Also sports a Brady Score of 2.

Cherry picking.


No, that's more like "proof by counter-example"
 
2013-05-08 12:03:20 PM

pedrop357: If I live in Chicago, I can go to another city in IL and buy guns and bring them back to Chicago.


Spending your time and money to do so. A deterrent to criminals who don't have a lot of money, another hurdle for them to go over to get that gun.

pedrop357: I can also get my friend, relative, business partner in a border state to ILLEGALLY buy a gun on my behalf which I then bring into Chicago.


Spending your and their time and money to do so. And you've also just asked someone else to commit a crime, another hurdle in acquiring the gun.

pedrop357: Do you really think the guy illegally selling me a gun is going to do a background check on me if the law begins to require one?


No, I don't. Criminals generally don't follow the law, that's why they're criminals.

UBC doesn't stop every criminal that wants a gun from getting one. Nothing stops that. But it does make it harder for them to do so. And on a macro scale, this means some amount of criminals will not be able to get that gun. And on a macro scale, that reduces gun violence. Which is the goal.
 
2013-05-08 12:04:03 PM

mrshowrules: BraveNewCheneyWorld: mrshowrules: Those examples are all hyphenated.  I don't think it is hyphenated in the actual 2nd Amendment text.

By all means, explain the difference and meanings of well regulated and well-regulated.  I expect citations.

I select the 2nd amendment as my first citation without the hyphen.  I select all your examples as my second series of citations.


You missed that whole part where I asked you to explain the difference.  Also, by citation, you need to cite something that backs your reasoning for differing definitions, not just examples of hyphens in use.
 
2013-05-08 12:04:33 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 an organized body, just not one organized by the government.

To the folks who say the militia part of the 2nd A means 'a group organized by the government, and therefore regulated by the government', how on earth do you come to that conclusion? The guys who wrote that just got done fighting to get away from a government, partially by using independent militias. If they thought militias were important (and I think it's reasonable to say they did, what with mentioning them in the 2nd A), why on earth would they turn around and put them in control of the body they were just used to fight? When you look at what a militia was and how they were used, the idea that they are part of and controlled by the government is just asinine.

You can argue that to have the right to keep an bear arms requires you to actually be in an active, well-regulated militia (I won't agree with you, but I'll admit that it's not the worst argument I've ever seen), but to then say that militia is supposed to be under control of the government is just ridiculous.
 
2013-05-08 12:04:54 PM

pdee: Tomahawk513: pdee: I thought the left was all for euthanasia.  I would think that would make access to a gun a right they would protect.  Guns are a messy way to go but they fast, painless and relatively sure.

Suicide != Euthanasia

/but you knew that
//but in case you didn't, here

From your link:

2. painless death.
A 12 gauge in the mouth through the brain stem would certainly qualify as 'painless death'.

Yes your wrong again but thanks for playing.




A ha!

So that's what the barrel length argument is all about.
 
2013-05-08 12:05:06 PM

pedrop357: Tomahawk513: While those are alternatives to shooting oneself, the fact remains they are far less lethal means of committing suicide. For example, while guns are involved in only 2-5% of all suicide attempts, they are responsible for over 50% of successful attempts. Other methods are much less lethal. There is a strong correlation between ease of firearm access and suicide.

So what does the suicide attempt rate look like in countries like Japan and South Korea, which both have HIGHER suicide rates than we do and incredibly strict gun control?  How about Australia, which has a similar suicide rate and strict gun control?

There must be an unbelievably high number of people injured or permanently disfigured from all the failed suicide attempts.


Well, Japan has a long, storied history of ritualistic suicide, but other than that I don't pretend to be an expert in the societal influences behind suicide in other countries.  However, looking here, The majority of other first-world countries, especially those in Europe, have lower suicide rates which would seem to support the idea that fewer guns equals fewer suicides.  But that's only part of the picture, it doesn't include all the unique societal factors that contribute to suicide rates.  Additionally, I haven't called for fewer guns.  I  have called for a Mental Health check as part of a background check though, I think that could significantly decrease gun deaths both from suicides and from "crazed gunman" scenarios similar to Newtown or Aurora.
 
2013-05-08 12:05:16 PM

cman: vpb: Yes, those tough anti gun laws in some parts are starting to pay off.

Now we need to expand on a winning strategy.

/look at where the gun violence is highest

Maine has a shiatton of guns and few gun laws and yet their murder rate is pretty much nearly at the bottom of all states for gun crimes.


If you ignore the city of Portland, Maine is pretty much just small rural towns, especially the more north you go.

/would filter out outliers like Maine, the same with states that are overly crowded for the relative size they are (don't know of any off the top of my head) but of course there would be more accidents/death in those states everyone is on top of each other.
 
2013-05-08 12:05:27 PM

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


Very, very, nice.  I tip my hat to you sir.

You're going to need a bigger boat to haul in this catch..
 
2013-05-08 12:07:02 PM

Garble: cman: vpb: Yes, those tough anti gun laws in some parts are starting to pay off.
Now we need to expand on a winning strategy.
/look at where the gun violence is highest

Maine has a shiatton of guns and few gun laws and yet their murder rate is pretty much nearly at the bottom of all states for gun crimes.

Maine also has ridiculously low population density.


Maybe we're on to something.  If the entire Chicago metro statistical area had the same homicide rate as the state of Vermont, there would have been around 110 homicides in 2011.

Perhaps it's time to rethink this progressive driven idea of pushing everyone into cities.  Perhaps people aren't meant to live so close to large numbers of people they have no connection to.

It's a bit of a conspiracy theory and certainly a stretch, but I find it fascinating that it's libs/Dems/progressives/whatever that always push for an end to sprawl and want more people to live in smaller areas AND are the same ones to fight things like state preemption on the basis that cities should be allowed to have more restrictive gun laws because it's different in cities than the suburbs or rural areas.

Taking these to an extreme, we would see that the left in this country would do what it could to force us all into dense cities while stripping those in the city of their firearm rights.  Work it a bit and you can really infringe upon most people's right to own guns by basically giving them no choice but to live in a city.
 
2013-05-08 12:07:48 PM

Tomahawk513: pedrop357: Tomahawk513: While those are alternatives to shooting oneself, the fact remains they are far less lethal means of committing suicide. For example, while guns are involved in only 2-5% of all suicide attempts, they are responsible for over 50% of successful attempts. Other methods are much less lethal. There is a strong correlation between ease of firearm access and suicide.

So what does the suicide attempt rate look like in countries like Japan and South Korea, which both have HIGHER suicide rates than we do and incredibly strict gun control?  How about Australia, which has a similar suicide rate and strict gun control?

There must be an unbelievably high number of people injured or permanently disfigured from all the failed suicide attempts.

Well, Japan has a long, storied history of ritualistic suicide, but other than that I don't pretend to be an expert in the societal influences behind suicide in other countries.  However, looking here, The majority of other first-world countries, especially those in Europe, have lower suicide rates which would seem to support the idea that fewer guns equals fewer suicides.  But that's only part of the picture, it doesn't include all the unique societal factors that contribute to suicide rates.  Additionally, I haven't called for fewer guns.  I  have called for a Mental Health check as part of a background check though, I think that could significantly decrease gun deaths both from suicides and from "crazed gunman" scenarios similar to Newtown or Aurora.


Examining several European nations with "lower" suicide rates than that of the United States of America suggests either that the effect of firearm regulation, if any, on rates of suicide is minimal or that the United States of America has implemented substantially more effective suicide prevention measures than have many European nations.
 
2013-05-08 12:07:51 PM

I_C_Weener: [mpe2013.org image 850x525]

Fewer pirates...fewer gun crimes.


Na, it just got too dang hot to act all violently
 
2013-05-08 12:10:22 PM

Dimensio: bdub77: scottydoesntknow: It's all video games fault!

[images.huffingtonpost.com image 850x637]

That's because in 1996 a video game cost $20 bucks, now it's $70 bucks plus $30 worth of 'extras' they sell after you've bought the game.

What video games sold in 1996 were $20?


Madden '91
 
2013-05-08 12:11:52 PM

mrshowrules: GoldSpider: mrshowrules: If you don't think the US has a problem with gun violence, good for you I suppose

You understand there's a difference between the statements "the US has a problem with gun violence" and "gun violence in the US is declining", right?

The US has a problem with gun violence despite recent declines.  You won't solve this problem until you tackle gun control

[www.washingtonpost.com image 850x695]


The US has a problem with child pornography despite recent declines.  You won't solve this problem until you tackle camera control
 
2013-05-08 12:13:46 PM
Fear puts the butts in the seats and the ratings on the nielsen box. Fear pays the bills.
 
2013-05-08 12:13:59 PM

Tomahawk513: I have called for a Mental Health check as part of a background check though, I think that could significantly decrease gun deaths both from suicides and from "crazed gunman" scenarios similar to Newtown or Aurora.


Please tell us all what kind of check would have worked to stop Newtown, the incident where the shooter murdered his mother and stole her guns.
Also, what kind of check would have stopped the guy in Aurora?  He hadn't been arrested or committed that I'm aware of.
 
2013-05-08 12:14:05 PM
WHEN WILL WE STOP VICTIMIZING THESE POOR POOR GUN OWNERS?!?
 
2013-05-08 12:14:41 PM

pdee: Tomahawk513: pdee: I thought the left was all for euthanasia.  I would think that would make access to a gun a right they would protect.  Guns are a messy way to go but they fast, painless and relatively sure.

Suicide != Euthanasia

/but you knew that
//but in case you didn't, here

From your link:

2. painless death.
A 12 gauge in the mouth through the brain stem would certainly qualify as 'painless death'.

Yes your wrong again but thanks for playing.


Oh aren't you just the cutest thing!  Look at you, trying to sit at the adult table, so adorable!

From Merriam-Webster:  the act or practice of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals (as persons or domestic animals) in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy

From Dictionary.com:  Also calledthe act of putting to death painlessly or allowing to die,  as by withholdingextreme medical measures, a person or animal sufferin g from an incurable, especially a painful, diseaseor condition.

From Wikipedia:  Euthanasia (from the:  εὐθανασία meaning "good death": εὖ,eu (well or good) + θάνατος,thanatos (death)) refers to the practice of intentionally ending a life in order to relieve pain and suffering.

From Cambridge:  the killing of someone who is very ill to end the person's suffering

I can do this all day.
 
2013-05-08 12:14:51 PM

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

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

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


Fair enough. Dittyderpers comparison of just about anything is demonstrably false. You see he treadshiats anything that has to do with guns. He desperately does anything he can to derail the conversation.
 
2013-05-08 12:14:54 PM

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


Lolerskates:

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


And on the flipside

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

Why don't you run a regression on these numbers and see which way the slop points, mmmmkay?
 
2013-05-08 12:15:11 PM

Noticeably F.A.T.: You can argue that to have the right to keep an bear arms requires you to actually be in an active, well-regulated militia (I won't agree with you, but I'll admit that it's not the worst argument I've ever seen), but to then say that militia is supposed to be under control of the government is just ridiculous.


A few months ago I read up some on what exactly the "well-regulated militia" was during the time when the Constitution was written.  Essentially, the "militia" was comprised of everyone who owned a gun, and "well-regulated" meant that they "typically assembled as an entire unit in each town two to four times a year for training during peacetime".

I don't understand where people get the notion that gun ownership or use was ever tied to the active participation in the militia, since such times were few and far between.
 
2013-05-08 12:16:24 PM

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

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

I did that calculation a while back:

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

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

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

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

*SIGH*.

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

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

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


I read enough of your BS in these threads. I don't need to go looking for more of your work.
 
2013-05-08 12:17:00 PM

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

 
2013-05-08 12:19:21 PM

Tomahawk513: People_are_Idiots: udhq: pdee: But that aside, suicides still count as part of the gun death total because in the absence of the gun, it's substantially less likely the person would have successfully committed suicide.

I thought the left was all for euthanasia. I would think that would make access to a gun a right they would protect. Guns are a messy way to go but they fast, painless and relatively sure.

Euthanasia does not mean treating depression with a bullet to the head.

80% of suicide attempts occur within an hour of initial ideation.  That means their success or failure is often dependent upon finding a convenient means that is immediately available.  Forcing them to go even a little out of their way--such as with a waiting period--is often enough of a deterrent.  Every minute longer you make a suicidal person wait, you increase their chances of survival.

Or they just find another easy method. Hanging is easy, so is slitting the wrists, ODing on OTC medicine, so on so forth. Guns are convenient, but a person willing to off themselves can easily do so with a trip to the drug or hardware store.

I would suggest you read upthread a bit.  While you're correct that a person could use a different method, those methods are significantly, even exponentially less lethal.


If you catch it in time. I had a friend who almost ODed on OTC sleeping meds (he really had trouble sleeping on a ship, soo...), which (in reply to another person) didnot induce vomitting... Also had another that ODed on her meds AS a suicide, and did die within minutes. Typically, even slitting the wrists, if not told about, can be quite fatal in but 10-15 minutes. Still time to rescue, but boy... you better hope 911 doesn't put you on hold.

/did read somewhere typical way out for women was meds, men were guns.
 
2013-05-08 12:19:44 PM

GoldSpider: Noticeably F.A.T.: You can argue that to have the right to keep an bear arms requires you to actually be in an active, well-regulated militia (I won't agree with you, but I'll admit that it's not the worst argument I've ever seen), but to then say that militia is supposed to be under control of the government is just ridiculous.

A few months ago I read up some on what exactly the "well-regulated militia" was during the time when the Constitution was written.  Essentially, the "militia" was comprised of everyone who owned a gun, and "well-regulated" meant that they "typically assembled as an entire unit in each town two to four times a year for training during peacetime".

I don't understand where people get the notion that gun ownership or use was ever tied to the active participation in the militia, since such times were few and far between.


They assembled and trained. I think training and a sense of community would reduce a lot of the problems we have with gun violence. At the very least it would help people in treating guns with the respect they deserve.
 
2013-05-08 12:19:51 PM

Dimensio: For what reason do you not simply link back to a previous posting on the subject?


Because there are so many of them.  I've been saying this for, what, at *LEAST* 5 years now on Fark (one of the threads I found was from 2008).  A little digging would probably find even earlier threads.

It gets really, really tedious to repeat the same things over and over and over.
 
2013-05-08 12:20:40 PM

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

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

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

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


As opposed to your grossly misinformed nonsense?
 
2013-05-08 12:20:51 PM

People_are_Idiots: Tomahawk513: People_are_Idiots: udhq: pdee: But that aside, suicides still count as part of the gun death total because in the absence of the gun, it's substantially less likely the person would have successfully committed suicide.

I thought the left was all for euthanasia. I would think that would make access to a gun a right they would protect. Guns are a messy way to go but they fast, painless and relatively sure.

Euthanasia does not mean treating depression with a bullet to the head.

80% of suicide attempts occur within an hour of initial ideation.  That means their success or failure is often dependent upon finding a convenient means that is immediately available.  Forcing them to go even a little out of their way--such as with a waiting period--is often enough of a deterrent.  Every minute longer you make a suicidal person wait, you increase their chances of survival.

Or they just find another easy method. Hanging is easy, so is slitting the wrists, ODing on OTC medicine, so on so forth. Guns are convenient, but a person willing to off themselves can easily do so with a trip to the drug or hardware store.

I would suggest you read upthread a bit.  While you're correct that a person could use a different method, those methods are significantly, even exponentially less lethal.

If you catch it in time. I had a friend who almost ODed on OTC sleeping meds (he really had trouble sleeping on a ship, soo...), which (in reply to another person) didnot induce vomitting... Also had another that ODed on her meds AS a suicide, and did die within minutes. Typically, even slitting the wrists, if not told about, can be quite fatal in but 10-15 minutes. Still time to rescue, but boy... you better hope 911 doesn't put you on hold.

/did read somewhere typical way out for women was meds, men were guns.


Part of a suicide assessment is access to means, and access to a gun is waaaaaaaaaaaaaay at the top of that list.
 
2013-05-08 12:22:05 PM

CPennypacker: They assembled and trained. I think training and a sense of community would reduce a lot of the problems we have with gun violence. At the very least it would help people in treating guns with the respect they deserve.


 A lot of positive ideas there, all without the need for more ineffectual regulation.
 
2013-05-08 12:23:09 PM

cman: Used to be that a typhoon in the Chinese sea would be like it doesnt exist for us in America.


You have to go back a long time for that. I'm talking the 1800s. Early 1900s newspapers were just filled with various calamities from around the globe.
 
2013-05-08 12:23:16 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: mrshowrules: BraveNewCheneyWorld: mrshowrules: Those examples are all hyphenated.  I don't think it is hyphenated in the actual 2nd Amendment text.

By all means, explain the difference and meanings of well regulated and well-regulated.  I expect citations.

I select the 2nd amendment as my first citation without the hyphen.  I select all your examples as my second series of citations.

You missed that whole part where I asked you to explain the difference.  Also, by citation, you need to cite something that backs your reasoning for differing definitions, not just examples of hyphens in use.


You are the one claiming that a hyphen doesn't change the definition.  I'm not an expert but I believe a hyphen creates one term as opposed to two terms.  One term may put the emphasis on the object of the adjective by the adverb the other may put the emphasis on the external subject.

Example:  Well-known actress Bette Davis was at the gala.

Versus: Bette Davis was well known by the people at the gala.

In the first sense the adverb-adjective is a qualifier for the subject of the sentence.

In the second sense the adverb adjective expresses a quality of the people.

Consider the idea of well-trained versus well trained.  The first implies the current state of the training - nothing more.  The second puts the emphasis on the actions of the person(s) who did the training.
 
2013-05-08 12:23:37 PM

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

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

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

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


dittybopper's comparison was accurate. Yours was not. Those are objectively verifiable facts.
 
2013-05-08 12:23:43 PM

GoldSpider: CPennypacker: They assembled and trained. I think training and a sense of community would reduce a lot of the problems we have with gun violence. At the very least it would help people in treating guns with the respect they deserve.

 A lot of positive ideas there, all without the need for more ineffectual regulation.


What if the legislation compelled assembly and training as a prerequisite to being considered part of said militia?
 
2013-05-08 12:24:22 PM

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


Fine.   Here's what I've said previously, just as a "fark you" to you personally, and I'll let others decide if it's BS.  Links for my sources are available in the original post:

It's not racism to point out the facts. I've actually done the math, and poor blacks have a 2.5 times higher homicide rate than poor whites. My sources were data from the Centers for Disease Control, and the US Census.

Or are you going to argue that math is racist?

Really, violence is largely a cultural phenomenon, and you learn your cultural values largely from your parents and peers, who learned their values from their parents and peers, who learned it from theirs, and so forth back down the line. That's why "European Americans" have a European-like homicide rate, 2.74 per 100,000 in the US vs. 3.5 per 100,000 for Europe*.

It's got nothing to do with melanin content, and everything to do with how cultural values are transmitted. Starting in the 1960's, the traditional black family structure started to shatter. It was noted as far back as 1965 that this trend was a major problem in the black community. All of the traditional values that would normally have been passed from a stable two parent family were essentially abandoned, because out-of-wedlock birth became the norm, not the exception, and single parent homes became the norm, not the exception.

It is interesting to note that after you control for poverty, the increased homicide rate in non-hispanic blacks over non-hispanic whites (2.46 times higher rate) is similar to the born-out-of-wedlock rate (69.5% black non-hispanic births / 25.4% white non-hispanic births = 2.74 times higher).

My theory is that while poverty is a factor, it's totally overwhelmed by the cutting off of traditional cultural values in the black community due to the destruction of the traditional black family in the last 50 years or so. The transmission of cultural values against violence from parent to child are attenuated when only one parent is around to transmit them. That leaves a void where peers can step in, and lacking the control of a strong male father-figure to reign in the worst excesses of testosterone poisoning common in young males, you end up with a homicide rate among young black males that is around 90 per 100,000.

Let me be completely and unequivocally clear: It's got nothing to do with the color of their skin. While I don't have hard numbers, I suspect that blacks who are raised within a traditional, two-parent family structure have a homicide rate closer to that of whites, regardless of economic condition. There is no reason why the black homicide rate *HAS* to be higher, it can and should be changed, but the change must come from within the black community, not imposed on it from the outside, and that change will take decades, just like it took decades for their homicide and bastardy rates to hit where they are now.

*Northern, Western, and Southern Europe all have rates between 1.0 and 1.5, whereas Eastern Europe has a rate of 6.4 per 100,000. It would make sense that the "European Americans" have a rate biased towards lower end, because of all the immigration from Western, Northern, and Southern Europe, but higher because of a significant amount of immigration from Eastern Europe.
 
2013-05-08 12:25:04 PM

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

Lolerskates:

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


And on the flipside

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

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


An honest evaluation and comparison of Brady ratings with violent crime rates analyzes all fifty states. I suspect that doing so will demonstrate no correlation, positive nor negative, at all.
 
2013-05-08 12:25:59 PM

Dimensio: An honest evaluation and comparison of Brady ratings with violent crime rates analyzes all fifty states. I suspect that doing so will demonstrate no correlation, positive nor negative, at all.


Anyway, correlation is not causation.
 
2013-05-08 12:26:15 PM

sammyk: Dittyderpers comparison of just about anything is demonstrably false.


Demonstrably false like mail-order and delivered guns?
 
2013-05-08 12:26:24 PM

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

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

I did that calculation a while back:

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

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

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

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

*SIGH*.

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

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

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

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


Your statement is understandable. Actually reading his statements would demonstrate your accusation of racism to be entirely dishonest.
 
2013-05-08 12:27:28 PM

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

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

I did that calculation a while back:

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

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

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

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

*SIGH*.

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

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

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

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

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


Where did I say he was racist?
 
2013-05-08 12:28:03 PM

Tomahawk513: Wikipedia: Euthanasia


You picked dictionary.com I just quoted them.  If you disagree with them dont quote them.

M&W lists only 1 def but.

From Wikipedia:Like other terms borrowed from history, "euthanasia" has had different meanings depending on usage.

If you mean by 'I can do this all day' you can sound like a pretentious douche bag I'm sure you can.
 
2013-05-08 12:28:15 PM

evil saltine: Dimensio: An honest evaluation and comparison of Brady ratings with violent crime rates analyzes all fifty states. I suspect that doing so will demonstrate no correlation, positive nor negative, at all.

Anyway, correlation is not causation.


Does that mean that no correlation is causation? I am confused.
 
2013-05-08 12:28:48 PM

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

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

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

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


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

*REALLY*?
 
2013-05-08 12:29:13 PM
 
2013-05-08 12:29:32 PM

Dimensio: An honest evaluation and comparison of Brady ratings with violent crime rates analyzes all fifty states. I suspect that doing so will demonstrate no correlation, positive nor negative, at all.


Which is why I provided the link to the source data.  Just ran the linear regression and here are the particulars:

Trendline equation:  Gun Homicide = 0.0034(Brady Score) + 2.44
R^2 = 0.0022
 
2013-05-08 12:29:43 PM

hasty ambush: sammyk: Interesting thing about background checks. 20 years ago the Brady act was signed into law implementing actual background checks. Lo and behold 20 years later gun violence is cut in half. But I am sure there will be someone here shortly to tell us the 2 things are in no way connected.

The ban on "Assault Weapons" and high capacity magazines expired so I can claim that more people being able to arm and defend themselves with previously banned weapons contributed. to the decline.

I think it would be smarter to look at the decline in gang turf wars and drug violence during that time than gun laws or lack there of. It won't serve your agenda but it is closer to the truth.

Most "gun control" legislation is nothing more than polticians jerking off a particular constituency(If we just get rid fo those guns with flash suppressors, bayonet lugs and pistol grip stocks we will all be safer nonsense). Normally that constituency is the soccer mom for the children crowd or those who also need government to protect them from the evils of large soft drinks and trans fats is also afraid the 80 million lawful gun owners.

[24.media.tumblr.com image 403x401]


You want some respect?  Start publicly policing your own and stop fetishizing lethal weapons.

As a military academy grad we had some bad apples that the rest of us suffered for (sexual assault, regular assault).  We bore the stigma because that's part of the deal.  We also addressed any shortcomings internally far more harshly than the courts.

Man up and admit that the current situation is a bastardization of it's original intent or keep being irrational and continue to be marginalized.
 
2013-05-08 12:29:50 PM

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


Some details of our gun violence problem make people uncomfortable, so we should avoid discussing those topics.
 
2013-05-08 12:30:17 PM

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


Your claim is blatantly false. The availability of guns makes the suicide that much easier to conduct. The lack of a gun will make the person contemplate more rigorously on how to off him or herself. During that time, the person might decide not to do the deed. Others might try drugs and fail because they don't know what is the large enough dosage. Others might try jumping from a high place and is talked out of it. The ease of pulling a trigger is what allows many suicidal people to succeed.
 
2013-05-08 12:30:20 PM

mrshowrules: The U.S. firearm homicide rate is 20 times higher than the combined rates of 22 countries that are our peers in wealth and population.

A declining rate doesn't mean jack shiat.


I suspect our rate of fatal alligator encounters is 20 times higher than the combined rates of 22 countries that are our peers in wealth and population, as well. What of it?
 
2013-05-08 12:30:36 PM

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

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

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

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

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

*REALLY*?


If you did not advocate a position that he opposes, he would not have had to issue poorly researched claims that were easily disproved.
 
2013-05-08 12:30:37 PM

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

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

I did that calculation a while back:

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

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

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

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

*SIGH*.

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

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

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

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

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

Where did I say he was racist?


I bolded the part where you inferred that I was a racist by asking a loaded question, for your reading convenience.
 
2013-05-08 12:30:48 PM

Dimensio: CPennypacker: Where did I say he was racist?

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


That's a fancy way of calling someone a racist
 
2013-05-08 12:31:30 PM
I got to page 7 of this thread before I had to stop reading because my brain hurt. So much derp going on.

I've added three people to my ignore list for their high levels of derp.
 
2013-05-08 12:32:21 PM

nekom: scottydoesntknow: It's all video games fault!

[images.huffingtonpost.com image 850x637]

Yes, but just the other day there was an article about a pickaxe murder.  Gun violence on the decline, pickaxe violence on the rise.  I blame minecraft.


And don't forget the creeper-inspired rash of suicide bombings.
 
2013-05-08 12:32:48 PM

GoldSpider: Lady Beryl Ersatz-Wendigo: Do we have an acceptable threshold of gun murders?

Good question.  Do we have an acceptable threshold of any other kind of unnatural death?


The threshold should always be 0. It's unattainable, but that's always the goal. If we have the Firestone Tire company's "ok, if only 4 in a million die, we can afford to pay the settlements" mentality, then we can choose any other number and that's not acceptable.
 
2013-05-08 12:32:53 PM

pedrop357: Tomahawk513: I have called for a Mental Health check as part of a background check though, I think that could significantly decrease gun deaths both from suicides and from "crazed gunman" scenarios similar to Newtown or Aurora.

Please tell us all what kind of check would have worked to stop Newtown, the incident where the shooter murdered his mother and stole her guns.
Also, what kind of check would have stopped the guy in Aurora?  He hadn't been arrested or committed that I'm aware of.


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

I'd  like to see a situation where the person would need to get check-ups annually and/or after any significant life event, such as job loss or divorce.  If the person failed that exam, firearms would be removed until he person was once again able to pass.  But I would compromise on this if I had to.
 
2013-05-08 12:33:51 PM

mrshowrules: fluffy2097: mrshowrules: The U.S. firearm homicide rate is 20 times higher than the combined rates of 22 countries that are our peers in wealth and population.

Is that per capita?

We have a shiatload more people then 22 other countries. Of course the raw numbers will be higher.


You are also arguing a rate versus a second, combined population. It's ambiguous whether you mean

US per capita versus Combined-Next-22 per capita, or US per year versus Combined-Next-22 per year.

Both are rates.
 
2013-05-08 12:33:51 PM

dericwater: 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

Your claim is blatantly false. The availability of guns makes the suicide that much easier to conduct. The lack of a gun will make the person contemplate more rigorously on how to off him or herself. During that time, the person might decide not to do the deed. Others might try drugs and fail because they don't know what is the large enough dosage. Others might try jumping from a high place and is talked out of it. The ease of pulling a trigger is what allows many suicidal people to succeed.


Suicide rates of many European nations and of Canada are close to (within 1 per 100,000) of the rate of the United States of America and several developed nations (such as France, Belgium, Austria and Japan) experience a rate of suicide higher than that of the United States of America, though because the majority of these suicides are committed without use of a firearm you (by your own admission) believe them to be more acceptable.
 
2013-05-08 12:34:35 PM

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


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

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


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

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

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

I did that calculation a while back:

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

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

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

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

*SIGH*.

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

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

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

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

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

Where did I say he was racist?

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


Oh please
 
2013-05-08 12:34:57 PM

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

*REALLY*?

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


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

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


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

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


Three other states. Michigan is also within 50 miles.

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

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

Lolerskates:

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


And on the flipside

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


Fair enough on scenarios.

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

How often does that actually happen?


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Weaksauce deflection.


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

pedrop357: As opposed to your grossly misinformed nonsense?


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

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

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


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

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

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

Fair enough on scenarios.

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

14 wounded in Houston.

26 dead in Newtown.


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

sammyk: ArmagedDan: clkeagle: sammyk: Good. Now lets see if we can do a better job of keeping crazy people from having guns, and felons too. As long as we keep having mass killings we are going to keep having the gun control debate. Just because we have made progress on gun violence doesn't mean we can just throw our hands up in the air and accept the tragedies we keep reliving.

Done in two. Individual homicides by people with their backgrounds checked? Sad, but it's the price of living of a gun-owning society.
Mass homicides by people who had no business touching those weapons in the first place? Those deaths might have been prevented if not for the "don't grab muh gunz" crowd.

I would agree, if only those in charge of drafting legislation would stop using it as a platform for grabbing guns from the wrong people. Often while admitting that it's their true goal. The problem is that our attempts to solve the problem are hijacked by those with an agenda.

What would really create great strides in reducing gun crime is to actually prosecute people who lie on their 4473 form. It's a felony, and yet only an insignificant proportion are ever busted over it.

A felon or other barred individual just lied to try and buy a gun, and nobody's interested in following up on that!? Lanza was rejected a week before sandy hook. And yet we are told there is neither the time nor the interest in enforcing the existing law.

No, we have to strip the property of millions of law abiding Americans instead. Because lord knows THAT's cheap, fast and constitutionally sound.

/rant over

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

vpb: /look at where the gun violence is highest


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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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


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

Let me help.

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

How often does that actually happen?


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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

How often does that actually happen?

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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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


Just think of yourself as Young to CSN.
 
2013-05-08 01:18:55 PM

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

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


When did these two events occur in the same incident that would lead you to be so concerned about it happening again?
 
2013-05-08 01:19:22 PM

fluffy2097: mrshowrules: Statistically comparing to the rest of the world, it remains a bloodbath.

Syria would like a word with you.

If you want to go back a few years, Rwanda as well. Millions. MILLIONS killed in a genocide. Mostly with machetes and hatchets.


You got me there.  US is doing better than Syria and Rwanda.  Keep up the good work.
 
2013-05-08 01:19:24 PM

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

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

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


Same with alcohol, sex toys, gasoline fueled equipment, etc.

Time for all of us to adopt Utah's liquor laws since people can just go from NV to UT with high percentage beer and less taxed liquor.

People in MS, GA, TN, etc. can all go to AL with their various sex toys in contravention of state law.

Rinse and repeat with pseudo ephedrine  or the myriad things that california bans or restricts that are not similarly banned or restricted in other states.

Perhaps we should just simply force all states to have Vermont, Maine or New Hampshire's gun laws since they work so well in those states.
 
2013-05-08 01:19:37 PM

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

Said nobody in this thread.


Check your sarcasm meter the battery may be dead.
 
2013-05-08 01:21:21 PM

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

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

Just think of yourself as Young to CSN.


Crap.
 
2013-05-08 01:21:27 PM

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


Giltric is missing.

We also need Maul555 for his picture gathering abilities.
 
2013-05-08 01:21:28 PM

monoski: Check your sarcasm meter the battery may be dead.


I've been having problems with it all day.
 
2013-05-08 01:21:38 PM

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


Roe v. Wade was 5-4, too...
 
2013-05-08 01:22:59 PM
JustGetItRight: Wayne 985: Selling an AR-15 with a 50-round magazine without so much as a background check doesn't put society at risk?

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


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

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

You want to save lives?  How about doing a background check at a car dealership and not selling a car to someone with a DUI conviction.

I'd probably be okay with that, depending on the circumstances of the individual cases. (Drunk out of your mind in a residential area vs  slightly buzzed on a back country road, etc). Circumstances should probably apply to felons owning guns too. I'm not so concerned about an ex-con owning a pistol if he served time for embezzlement, for example.
 
2013-05-08 01:23:02 PM

Wayne 985: I'm sorry that you can't look at a school filled with the bodies of dead children and think, "Gee, maybe a couple tighter restrictions might be worth it."


My whole worldview isn't shaped entirely on how I feel about something.  Other factors matter, other people's rights, logic, long term analysis, history, etc. all should factor in.
 
2013-05-08 01:23:06 PM

Wayne 985: GoldSpider: Only if you equate ownership of a firearm (or the transfer thereof) with murder.

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


You know that's already a crime, right? http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/44/922

(d) It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwisedispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing orhaving reasonable cause to believe that such person -(1) is under indictment for, or has been convicted in any courtof, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding oneyear;(2) is a fugitive from justice;(3) is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlledsubstance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled SubstancesAct (21 U.S.C. 802)); (4) has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has beencommitted to any mental institution;(5) who, being an alien -(A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or(B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has beenadmitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (asthat term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigrationand Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(26)));(6) who (!2) has been discharged from the Armed Forces underdishonorable conditions;(7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, hasrenounced his citizenship;(8) is subject to a court order that restrains such person fromharassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of suchperson or child of such intimate partner or person, or engagingin other conduct that would place an intimate partner inreasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child, exceptthat this paragraph shall only apply to a court order that -(A) was issued after a hearing of which such person receivedactual notice, and at which such person had the opportunity toparticipate; and(B)(i) includes a finding that such person represents acredible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partneror child; or(ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempteduse, or threatened use of physical force against such intimatepartner or child that would reasonably be expected to causebodily injury; or(9) has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime ofdomestic violence.This subsection shall not apply with respect to the sale ordisposition of a firearm or ammunition to a licensed importer,licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector whopursuant to subsection (b) of section 925 of this chapter is notprecluded from dealing in firearms or ammunition, or to a personwho has been granted relief from disabilities pursuant tosubsection (c) of section 925 of this chapter.
 
2013-05-08 01:24:38 PM

pedrop357: Same with alcohol, sex toys, gasoline fueled equipment, etc.

Time for all of us to adopt Utah's liquor laws since people can just go from NV to UT with high percentage beer and less taxed liquor.

People in MS, GA, TN, etc. can all go to AL with their various sex toys in contravention of state law.


First they came for my guns, and I was like, screw it, I've never had to shoot anyone. Then they came for my beer, and I was like, screw it, I need to stop drinking. Then they came for my Fleshlight and I was like, hold the fark on! Ain't gonna happen.
 
2013-05-08 01:26:15 PM

nekom:

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.

3rd amendment:

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

They were both written in the same general era, and they are both pretty much anachronisms.

So, this is Ken.  He's in the Air Force.  He'll be staying with you.   Feed him well.

/ On a bright note, so far Obama has not broken the 3rd Amendment -- that I'm aware of.    9/10

 
2013-05-08 01:26:27 PM

mrshowrules: GoldSpider: mrshowrules: If you don't think the US has a problem with gun violence, good for you I suppose

You understand there's a difference between the statements "the US has a problem with gun violence" and "gun violence in the US is declining", right?

The US has a problem with gun violence despite recent declines.  You won't solve this problem until you tackle gun control

[www.washingtonpost.com image 850x695]


According to your chart, with no other changes, the difference will disappear by itself by 2040.
 
2013-05-08 01:26:36 PM

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

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


I would assume the violence is correlated to poverty, education and urban density.  The guns flow to the violent places and just make things worse.  Any negative societal policy will typically and disproportionally impact those populations which are already farked up.

Chicago enacting local gun control laws is just a futile act of desperation.  Gun control in general will have little short term affect.  It will take at least a generation to see meaningful reductions in violence.  Look at Australia as a good example of what can happen.  It is primarily about shifting the gun culture.  The compromise proposed if shifting it to responsible gun ownership as opposed to a free for all..
 
2013-05-08 01:26:55 PM

NightOwl2255: pedrop357: Same with alcohol, sex toys, gasoline fueled equipment, etc.

Time for all of us to adopt Utah's liquor laws since people can just go from NV to UT with high percentage beer and less taxed liquor.

People in MS, GA, TN, etc. can all go to AL with their various sex toys in contravention of state law.

First they came for my guns, and I was like, screw it, I've never had to shoot anyone. Then they came for my beer, and I was like, screw it, I need to stop drinking. Then they came for my Fleshlight and I was like, hold the fark on! Ain't gonna happen.


THEN, they came for the non-CARB approved generator powerrin my porn shack and no one was left to speak up.
 
2013-05-08 01:27:52 PM

Wayne 985: Fires don't happen often, but I keep an extinguisher in my house just in case.

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


Funny, when I say people don't really get robbed, assaulted, or murdered when traveling that often but I carry my pistol with me just in case I'm labeled a paranoid gun nut.

People don't fly jet liners into buildings and kill several thousand very often, but since it has happened I guess you're OK with the TSA and the Patriot act too?
 
2013-05-08 01:27:58 PM

pedrop357: Wayne 985: I'm sorry that you can't look at a school filled with the bodies of dead children and think, "Gee, maybe a couple tighter restrictions might be worth it."

My whole worldview isn't shaped entirely on how I feel about something.  Other factors matter, other people's rights, logic, long term analysis, history, etc. all should factor in.


Yeah, exactly. Other people have the right not to be shot to death while they're going to school and a long-term, considerate analysis would suggest that a background check alone would help tremendously.

Your "right" not to be inconvenienced with a five-minute electronic check is trumped by people's basic right to life.

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

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

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

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


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


See above. Not having to wait for a background check is not an "essential liberty."
 
2013-05-08 01:28:42 PM

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

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

Just think of yourself as Young to CSN.

Crap.


Wooh, I got Crosby!
 
2013-05-08 01:29:49 PM

JesseL: Wayne 985: GoldSpider: Only if you equate ownership of a firearm (or the transfer thereof) with murder.

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

You know that's already a crime, right? http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/44/922


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

You can't declare something a crime and then refuse to provide even basic enforcement.
 
2013-05-08 01:30:01 PM

pedrop357: People in MS, GA, TN, etc. can all go to AL with their various sex toys in contravention of state law


Point of order - owning a sex toy isn't illegal in Alabama.  You just can't sell them here.
 
2013-05-08 01:31:25 PM

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


So forced confiscations of firearms is OK with you?

That's what they did in Australia.
 
2013-05-08 01:31:27 PM

pedrop357: Taking these to an extreme, we would see that the left in this country would do what it could to force us all into dense cities while stripping those in the city of their firearm rights. Work it a bit and you can really infringe upon most people's right to own guns by basically giving them no choice but to live in a city.


I'm reminded that there already exists facilities of high-density; with diverse populations; free healthcare; free meals; numerous recreation facilities; a diligent, well-trained, and numerous police force; and absolutely complete gun control.

We call those places "prisons."
 
2013-05-08 01:31:29 PM

pedrop357: Dimensio: dittybopper: sammyk: Dimensio: sammyk: 2) You can mail order guns today so your point is retarded and meaningless.

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

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

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

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

*REALLY*?

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

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


I'm not emotionally invested in anything. In fact I am pro 2nd amendment. I just happen to feel that most other pro gun guys are farking retarded. Yes bringing up mail order guns in 1950 is farking retarded. The 1950 people try to cite never existed and even if it did comparing it with today is useless.

Here's how you guys work.

Step1) I notice the article talks about the gun violence rate dropping in the last 20 years. I then not the Brady act was signed about 20 years ago. I suggest that maybe its not a total coincidence. I back that up with a few citations. Mostly pointing out that the NICS got started in 1998 due to the Brady Act. From 1998-2009 1.9 million gun purchases were denied.

Step2) Someone ignores everything I said and derps about mail order guns in the 50's. Because face it, none of you bullet counters will ever admit that just maybe a lot of violent crime was prevented or the damage minimized due to those 1.9 million denials.

Step3) I take the bait and show you can still do that

Step4)derr herr, he thinks mail order in the 50's is the same as today, derr herr.

I'd love to see you guys actually try to articulate why you think background checks are so bad. But you wont do it honestly. You will talk about anything else to change the subject. Todays distraction is mail order guns and that big ol dummy sammyk.

Let me try a fewv simple questions.

Do you think the 100 million plus background checks performed per the Brady act have prevented crimes and saved peoples lives?

Have a single one of those background checks infringed on anyones rights?
 
2013-05-08 01:32:05 PM

GoldSpider:

pdee: It cant be denied that the bloodbath the anti-gun crowded predicted when states started isuing has not occured.

But SANDY HOOK!!  Won't somebody think of the children??

I was...  I was hoping at least one teacher would be armed.
 
2013-05-08 01:33:03 PM

mrshowrules: I would assume the violence is correlated to poverty, education and urban density.


So then why so much effort focusing on a secondary factor like guns?