Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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.
Note: forcing pagination mode for this thread because of the high number of comments. (why?)

(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
    More: Followup, Americans, Bureau of Justice Statistics, gun murders, spree killers, Pew Research Center, Small Arms Survey  
•       •       •

6240 clicks; posted to Main » on 08 May 2013 at 9:41 AM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



832 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest

 
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 coontil 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.