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.

(Washington Post)   The Democratic paradise of Washington, DC has some of the most restrictive handgun laws in the nation, which means that the 1400 armed robberies that took place there last year are, like, totally a figment of your imagination   ( washingtonpost.com) divider line
    More: Obvious, robbery, handguns, imaginations  
•       •       •

982 clicks; posted to Politics » on 05 Jan 2014 at 12:20 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2014-01-05 02:17:28 PM  

Turbo Cojones: Target Builder: Comparing DC to the whole of another state is a screwy way to look at things - try comparing it to the crime rates in the densest cities in each state and see if there is any correlation between gun laws and crime rates.

Say that when they bring up "Chicago"

/Escambia County, FL (more churches per capita than any other place in the US) has a higher murder rate than Chicago, but you  won't see it mentioned by the gun nutz for two reasons:

1. It has lax gun laws

2. They often don't grasp the concept of murder "rate" as opposed to net numbers.


Median household income, 2008-2012

Escambia $43,806 vs FL $47,309

Chicago $47,408 vs IL $56,853

New York City $57,683 vs NY $53,046

Which city is the safest of the three? Why New York, the area with the highest median income. In fact, it's the area with median income higher than the state around it. It's also FAAAR safer.

But tell me again about gun laws.
 
2014-01-05 02:18:16 PM  

Chummer45: Agree - I do believe (and hope) that we have reached the high water mark of the gun culture in this country, and we see a cultural shift on this as more and more people realize that the political positions promoted by the gun culture result in really bad public policy and consequences in the real world.  I hope the libertarianism fad goes away for the same reason


Gun violence has fallen 50% in 20 years despite concealed carry spreading to almost all 50 states and the Clinton-era Assault Weapons Ban expiring.  The only people who think this is bad public policy have an agenda to further.
 
2014-01-05 02:19:28 PM  

udhq: Ishkur: You can't change gun culture. But what you can do is create a new culture to supplant it. We've done that several times with other undesirable cultures. Every time, a new generation that did not share their values outlived them. Just as with racism, with smoking, with hardcore evangelism, and we're even seeing it right now with gay rights -- no one's minds are being changed, the stuffy old bigots are just dying off as the new generation moves into positions in power. It takes generations for these things to happen.

The same thing can happen with gun culture.

This.  Gun rights supporters would do well to create a culture of responsible gun ownership to counteract the current anti-social NRA-centered version that uses gun ownership as an implied threat of violence, and uses that implied threat as a source of political power.

Implying that you're willing to use your guns against a democratically elected government doesn't make you a patriot, it makes you a fascist and a tyrant.


But the NRA conducts more gun safety courses than any other organization.
 
2014-01-05 02:21:08 PM  

udhq: Implying that you're willing to use your guns against a democratically elected government doesn't make you a patriot, it makes you a fascist and a tyrant.


yep, because Randy Weaver was a fascist and a tyrant. I know that it is hard for some to fathom, but no matter what type of government you have, you should always have the right to defend yourself.
 
2014-01-05 02:23:06 PM  

AngryDragon: Gun violence has fallen 50% in 20 years


And yet it's still at a much higher rate than that of the rest of the developed world.
 
2014-01-05 02:25:04 PM  

udhq: Ishkur: You can't change gun culture. But what you can do is create a new culture to supplant it. We've done that several times with other undesirable cultures. Every time, a new generation that did not share their values outlived them. Just as with racism, with smoking, with hardcore evangelism, and we're even seeing it right now with gay rights -- no one's minds are being changed, the stuffy old bigots are just dying off as the new generation moves into positions in power. It takes generations for these things to happen.

The same thing can happen with gun culture.

This.  Gun rights supporters would do well to create a culture of responsible gun ownership to counteract the current anti-social NRA-centered version that uses gun ownership as an implied threat of violence, and uses that implied threat as a source of political power.

Implying that you're willing to use your guns against a democratically elected government doesn't make you a patriot, it makes you a fascist and a tyrant.



100% this.  It also means that you view the use of deadly force as a legitimate way to protest government policy.  We typically call people who use violence to make political statements terrorists, but somehow that doesn't apply to "second amendment patriots" in the hypothetical world the gun culture has created.

The only way the gun culture can make this argument appealing is by implying that U.S. is somehow on the brink of turning into Nazi Germany, or by arguing that gun control is something that only Nazis do - which, when you think about it for more than 5 seconds, is completely absurd.   And that is also why it always cracks me up when the gun culture folks attack gun control advocates for relying on arguments "based on emotion and fear rather than evidence and logic."  Holy projection batman.
 
2014-01-05 02:27:36 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Dusk-You-n-Me: cameroncrazy1984: That's why you only hear about cities like Chicago. Actually pretty much only Chicago.

Like Chicago, I'd wager most of the guns used in gun crime in DC come from out of town/district.

I believe it. I believe NY's gun laws work because CT and NJ have similarly strict gun laws. Actually, I'm not sure what NJ's are like.


So... neighboring Vermont and New Hampshire with their liberal gun laws don't exist or something?
 
2014-01-05 02:28:33 PM  

Chummer45: It also means that you view the use of deadly force as a legitimate way to protest government policy


No it does not.  No mater what kind of government you have, they are not always going to be 100% respectful of your rights.  You should always have the right of self defense against anyone that threatens your unalienable rights.  That includes government. Whether they are democratically elected, representative republic, a monarchy or a dictatorship is immaterial.
 
2014-01-05 02:30:14 PM  

AngryDragon: Chummer45: Agree - I do believe (and hope) that we have reached the high water mark of the gun culture in this country, and we see a cultural shift on this as more and more people realize that the political positions promoted by the gun culture result in really bad public policy and consequences in the real world.  I hope the libertarianism fad goes away for the same reason

Gun violence has fallen 50% in 20 years despite concealed carry spreading to almost all 50 states and the Clinton-era Assault Weapons Ban expiring.  The only people who think this is bad public policy have an agenda to further.



I'm not sure what stats you are purporting to rely on, but isn't it silly to argue that proliferation of guns is responsible for lower levels of gun violence?  Have you undertaken a comprehensive, peer reviewed study and accounted for other factors that could contribute to lower crime rates?  Are you claiming that no comprehensive study has shown that gun control works?  I feel like the answer to all of these questions is no, and you're just cherry picking a statistic that may or may not be accurate for the purpose of supporting your stupid political position.

And "the only people who think this is bad public policy have an agenda to further?"  Holy moly that's some crazy projection on your part.  I guess the NRA and all those single issue gun culture voters aren't trying to further a political agenda.  Give me a farking break.
 
2014-01-05 02:31:19 PM  

HeadLever: Chummer45: It also means that you view the use of deadly force as a legitimate way to protest government policy

No it does not.  No mater what kind of government you have, they are not always going to be 100% respectful of your rights.  You should always have the right of self defense against anyone that threatens your unalienable rights.  That includes government. Whether they are democratically elected, representative republic, a monarchy or a dictatorship is immaterial.



Ok - please explain the scenarios where it is acceptable to shoot a police officer.
 
2014-01-05 02:32:35 PM  

AngryDragon: Peter von Nostrand: AngryDragon: Sleeping Monkey: More gun laws won't stop gun violence but more abortion laws will stop abortion, in rightwing bizarroland.

And just the opposite in leftwing bizarroland

I don't think gun regulation proponents believe that a few regulations will end gun violence and crime. But you're already aware of that

Then what's the point?


None if you're an idiot, I suppose
 
2014-01-05 02:34:16 PM  

HeadLever: Randy Weaver


www.godlikeproductions.com
 
2014-01-05 02:34:20 PM  

Frank N Stein: Peter von Nostrand: StoPPeRmobile: The_Sponge: NewportBarGuy: Why have any laws at all?


IIRC, aren't you the guy who used to own an AR-15, and now has the chutzpah to tell other people that they should not be allowed to own one?

It's ex-smoker logic being used in the troll.

Uh, the troll would be the gun logic that those places with restrictive gun laws have crime therefore there is no reason for gun laws. If you think that response about not having any laws at all makes no sense, it's just the extension of what subby is implying the headline

I don't think anyone here wants to abolish all gun laws, so you can give up that straw man. It's just the extent of gun laws, the effectiveness of certain gun laws, and if one feels said gun certain gun laws are overly restrictive that is being debated. For instance, I don't think you'll find anyone here who is in favor getting rid of NICS checks.


*facepalm*
 
2014-01-05 02:34:36 PM  

HeadLever: udhq: Implying that you're willing to use your guns against a democratically elected government doesn't make you a patriot, it makes you a fascist and a tyrant.

yep, because Randy Weaver was a fascist and a tyrant. I know that it is hard for some to fathom, but no matter what type of government you have, you should always have the right to defend yourself.


Guns ownership does not entitle you to opt out of due process.  Randy Weaver would be better off if he had known that.
 
2014-01-05 02:36:13 PM  

violentsalvation: cameroncrazy1984: Dusk-You-n-Me: cameroncrazy1984: That's why you only hear about cities like Chicago. Actually pretty much only Chicago.

Like Chicago, I'd wager most of the guns used in gun crime in DC come from out of town/district.

I believe it. I believe NY's gun laws work because CT and NJ have similarly strict gun laws. Actually, I'm not sure what NJ's are like.

So... neighboring Vermont and New Hampshire with their liberal gun laws don't exist or something?


Vermont and New Hampshire border on New York City?  Because that's what he's talking about.  And Vermont has 7 people and 6 of them are hippies.
 
2014-01-05 02:37:34 PM  

Chummer45: HeadLever: Chummer45: It also means that you view the use of deadly force as a legitimate way to protest government policy

No it does not.  No mater what kind of government you have, they are not always going to be 100% respectful of your rights.  You should always have the right of self defense against anyone that threatens your unalienable rights.  That includes government. Whether they are democratically elected, representative republic, a monarchy or a dictatorship is immaterial.


Ok - please explain the scenarios where it is acceptable to shoot a police officer.


well in Indiana it's legal to shoot a cop that illegally enters your residence.
 
2014-01-05 02:38:27 PM  

Chummer45: HeadLever: Chummer45: It also means that you view the use of deadly force as a legitimate way to protest government policy

No it does not.  No mater what kind of government you have, they are not always going to be 100% respectful of your rights.  You should always have the right of self defense against anyone that threatens your unalienable rights.  That includes government. Whether they are democratically elected, representative republic, a monarchy or a dictatorship is immaterial.


Ok - please explain the scenarios where it is acceptable to shoot a police officer.


There are a few but here is one I like: A cop tries to run over a couple and shoots at them with no provocation after following the woman to her house

http://www.thv11.com/news/story.aspx?storyid=116700">http://www.thv1 1.com/news/story.aspx?storyid=116700
 
2014-01-05 02:39:21 PM  

NewportBarGuy: Why have any laws at all?


If the law hasn't affected crime rates the way they hoped it would, maybe it is time to rethink that particular law.  If banning guns only keeps guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens, but fails to significantly reduce the number of crimes committed with a gun, what good has that law really done?  Maybe a different approach besides "moar lawz" needs to be tried. But liberals hate to admit failure, so we get to deal with these threads repeatedly about how great these gun free utopias are if it wasn't for those meddling free states all around there!
 
2014-01-05 02:39:47 PM  

Frank N Stein: Chummer45: HeadLever: Chummer45: It also means that you view the use of deadly force as a legitimate way to protest government policy

No it does not.  No mater what kind of government you have, they are not always going to be 100% respectful of your rights.  You should always have the right of self defense against anyone that threatens your unalienable rights.  That includes government. Whether they are democratically elected, representative republic, a monarchy or a dictatorship is immaterial.


Ok - please explain the scenarios where it is acceptable to shoot a police officer.

well in Indiana it's legal to shoot a cop that illegally enters your residence.



And I'm sure judges take that fact into careful consideration.
 
2014-01-05 02:40:05 PM  

jjorsett: cameroncrazy1984: NYC has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country, and their crime rate has been going down for a long time.

Along with the country as a whole, and due at least in part to some innovative enforcement strategies. Now, however, Mayor De Blasio has changed the equation with his altering of the "stop and frisk" policies of the NYPD, so New York City is about to become the petri dish in an experiment of what happens when you take fewer pro-active steps to enforce your laws, gun and otherwise.


NYC has been cooking its books in regards to its crime stats
 
2014-01-05 02:40:46 PM  

Target Builder: Comparing DC to the whole of another state is a screwy way to look at things - try comparing it to the crime rates in the densest cities in each state and see if there is any correlation between gun laws and crime rates.


You'll find similar problems in any urbanized area, but they don't get as extreme.
The real problem is you get a political leader who reaches for an obvious solution, like a gun ban, and when the solution doesn't work they either get stuck on stupid (gun ban HARDER!!) or look for someone to blame (like the state next door).
What they don't do is figure out whats driving the violence.

Crime is a complex problem of economics and culture. If you try to eliminate the tool then you either fail terribly or succeed just enough that the criminals start changing methods. The end result is no one's happy.  People lose rights and your crime rates don't change.

If you skip the tool-ban and look to the roots of the problem, (poverty, drug war, rent too damn high and such), you get alot more progress out of your legislative dollar. I believe that's what happened in CCW states.

/People have always had the guns, obviously, so allowing it legally didn't change much.
/But it did remove the scapegoat from the room and let leaders start thinking about real solutions.
 
2014-01-05 02:40:50 PM  

HeadLever: Chummer45: It also means that you view the use of deadly force as a legitimate way to protest government policy

No it does not.  No mater what kind of government you have, they are not always going to be 100% respectful of your rights.  You should always have the right of self defense against anyone that threatens your unalienable rights.  That includes government. Whether they are democratically elected, representative republic, a monarchy or a dictatorship is immaterial.



Also, please explain what "the second amendment protects every other right in the constitution" means.  I see that argument made a lot by gun nuts as an excuse to view the second amendment as more important than every other constitutional protection.

But as a practical matter, does it mean that if the police illegally search your home you have a right to shoot them?  Does it mean that you have the right to shoot a judge who imposes an unconstitutional gag order on you?  How do you draw that line?

And who decides what is a violation of a fundamental right sufficient to legitimize the use of deadly force?  Here's the problem with your argument - it is an argument that the second amendment allows an individual to disregard the rule of law when the government violates their fundamental rights.  But then it doesn't define "fundamental rights," and doesn't explain what types of action by government officials justify the use of "second amendment remedies" (i.e., killing government officials).

It's all just abstract bullshiat used by gun enthusiasts as an excuse to support a bad public policy.  The second amendment arguments all just exploit the fears of gun enthusiasts by conjuring up the idea that government is inherently evil and will become a totalitarian state if people aren't allowed to own small arms.
 
2014-01-05 02:42:27 PM  

HeadLever: udhq: Implying that you're willing to use your guns against a democratically elected government doesn't make you a patriot, it makes you a fascist and a tyrant.

yep, because Randy Weaver was a fascist and a tyrant. I know that it is hard for some to fathom, but no matter what type of government you have, you should always have the right to defend yourself.


He was however a criminal who caused his own demise by choosing to hole up instead of surrendering to the authorities.
 
2014-01-05 02:42:49 PM  
Chummer45:
As I've mentioned, it is legal to shoot police who enter your residence illegally. At least in some places.
 
2014-01-05 02:43:14 PM  

Frank N Stein: Chummer45: HeadLever: Chummer45: It also means that you view the use of deadly force as a legitimate way to protest government policy

No it does not.  No mater what kind of government you have, they are not always going to be 100% respectful of your rights.  You should always have the right of self defense against anyone that threatens your unalienable rights.  That includes government. Whether they are democratically elected, representative republic, a monarchy or a dictatorship is immaterial.


Ok - please explain the scenarios where it is acceptable to shoot a police officer.

well in Indiana it's legal to shoot a cop that illegally enters your residence.



Ok - assuming that you've accurately described the law (which you haven't), are you saying that is good public policy?
 
2014-01-05 02:43:29 PM  

Ishkur: ox45tallboy: My opinion on guns is very similar to my opinion on abortion. I'm in favor of it being legal, but I think we need to do more in our society to discourage both.
If we lower poverty, we lower crime. If we lower crime, not only will there be fewer criminals using guns, there will also be fewer people buying guns to protect themselves against criminals. I'm not in favor of abolishing the 2nd Amendment, but I am in favor of making it as much of a relic of an antiquated past as the 3rd.

You can't change gun culture. But what you can do is create a new culture to supplant it. We've done that several times with other undesirable cultures. Every time, a new generation that did not share their values outlived them. Just as with racism, with smoking, with hardcore evangelism, and we're even seeing it right now with gay rights -- no one's minds are being changed, the stuffy old bigots are just dying off as the new generation moves into positions in power. It takes generations for these things to happen.

The same thing can happen with gun culture.


http://www.humanevents.com/2012/09/23/the-new-gun-culture/

Indeed
 
2014-01-05 02:44:43 PM  

doglover: Turbo Cojones: Target Builder: Comparing DC to the whole of another state is a screwy way to look at things - try comparing it to the crime rates in the densest cities in each state and see if there is any correlation between gun laws and crime rates.

Say that when they bring up "Chicago"

/Escambia County, FL (more churches per capita than any other place in the US) has a higher murder rate than Chicago, but you  won't see it mentioned by the gun nutz for two reasons:

1. It has lax gun laws

2. They often don't grasp the concept of murder "rate" as opposed to net numbers.

Median household income, 2008-2012

Escambia $43,806 vs FL $47,309

Chicago $47,408 vs IL $56,853

New York City $57,683 vs NY $53,046

Which city is the safest of the three? Why New York, the area with the highest median income. In fact, it's the area with median income higher than the state around it. It's also FAAAR safer.

But tell me again about gun laws.


 In 2010, the median wage in the UK for all jobs was £20,801 and there were fewer than 600 homicides in the entire country.  Low income and tough gun laws = fewer murders?

Lots of guns = the opportunity for lots of violence
 
2014-01-05 02:44:48 PM  

Chummer45: HeadLever: Chummer45: It also means that you view the use of deadly force as a legitimate way to protest government policy

No it does not.  No mater what kind of government you have, they are not always going to be 100% respectful of your rights.  You should always have the right of self defense against anyone that threatens your unalienable rights.  That includes government. Whether they are democratically elected, representative republic, a monarchy or a dictatorship is immaterial.


Also, please explain what "the second amendment protects every other right in the constitution" means.  I see that argument made a lot by gun nuts as an excuse to view the second amendment as more important than every other constitutional protection.

But as a practical matter, does it mean that if the police illegally search your home you have a right to shoot them?  Does it mean that you have the right to shoot a judge who imposes an unconstitutional gag order on you?  How do you draw that line?

And who decides what is a violation of a fundamental right sufficient to legitimize the use of deadly force?  Here's the problem with your argument - it is an argument that the second amendment allows an individual to disregard the rule of law when the government violates their fundamental rights.  But then it doesn't define "fundamental rights," and doesn't explain what types of action by government officials justify the use of "second amendment remedies" (i.e., killing government officials).

It's all just abstract bullshiat used by gun enthusiasts as an excuse to support a bad public policy.  The second amendment arguments all just exploit the fears of gun enthusiasts by conjuring up the idea that government is inherently evil and will become a totalitarian state if people aren't allowed to own small arms.


Yes but it makes for good FW:FWD:FWD:FWD: emails with crying eagles so freedom and furthurmoar comma
 
2014-01-05 02:46:44 PM  

Chummer45: Also, please explain what "the second amendment protects every other right in the constitution" means.


Get ready for a lot of paranoia, followed by a lot of backpedaling, followed by a spontaneous outburst of apocalyptic ravings, followed by more backpedaling, followed by "fine! Be that way, you statists!"
 
2014-01-05 02:48:09 PM  

Chummer45: Frank N Stein: Chummer45: HeadLever: Chummer45: It also means that you view the use of deadly force as a legitimate way to protest government policy

No it does not.  No mater what kind of government you have, they are not always going to be 100% respectful of your rights.  You should always have the right of self defense against anyone that threatens your unalienable rights.  That includes government. Whether they are democratically elected, representative republic, a monarchy or a dictatorship is immaterial.


Ok - please explain the scenarios where it is acceptable to shoot a police officer.

well in Indiana it's legal to shoot a cop that illegally enters your residence.


Ok - assuming that you've accurately described the law (which you haven't), are you saying that is good public policy?


My description is simplified, but how is it inaccurate?
 
2014-01-05 02:48:33 PM  

redmid17: Chummer45: HeadLever: Chummer45: It also means that you view the use of deadly force as a legitimate way to protest government policy

No it does not.  No mater what kind of government you have, they are not always going to be 100% respectful of your rights.  You should always have the right of self defense against anyone that threatens your unalienable rights.  That includes government. Whether they are democratically elected, representative republic, a monarchy or a dictatorship is immaterial.


Ok - please explain the scenarios where it is acceptable to shoot a police officer.

There are a few but here is one I like: A cop tries to run over a couple and shoots at them with no provocation after following the woman to her house

http://www.thv11.com/news/story.aspx?storyid=116700">http://www.thv1 1.com/news/story.aspx?storyid=116700



redmid17: Chummer45: HeadLever: Chummer45: It also means that you view the use of deadly force as a legitimate way to protest government policy

No it does not.  No mater what kind of government you have, they are not always going to be 100% respectful of your rights.  You should always have the right of self defense against anyone that threatens your unalienable rights.  That includes government. Whether they are democratically elected, representative republic, a monarchy or a dictatorship is immaterial.


Ok - please explain the scenarios where it is acceptable to shoot a police officer.

There are a few but here is one I like: A cop tries to run over a couple and shoots at them with no provocation after following the woman to her house

http://www.thv11.com/news/story.aspx?storyid=116700">http://www.thv1 1.com/news/story.aspx?storyid=116700



Um.... the story said that the officer returned fire after the guy shot at him.  Please explain again why it was a good thing that the citizen was armed in that scenario?

Look, there's a way to deal with abusive police tactics.  It's through substantive public policy reforms, oversight, and civil rights lawsuits.

The worst way to voice your objection to abusive police practices is by drawing a gun and shooting at the officer, as perfectly illustrated by the story you linked to.
 
2014-01-05 02:52:19 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: HeadLever: udhq: Implying that you're willing to use your guns against a democratically elected government doesn't make you a patriot, it makes you a fascist and a tyrant.

yep, because Randy Weaver was a fascist and a tyrant. I know that it is hard for some to fathom, but no matter what type of government you have, you should always have the right to defend yourself.

He was however a criminal who caused his own demise by choosing to hole up instead of surrendering to the authorities.


I mean he's still alive, so I don't think he really caused his demise. And from his perspective, do you really think he was going to turn himself over to a system that he felt turned him into a criminal for nothing? Even if the gun charges were 100% true ( he was acquitted at trial), the issue of the bench warrant even after the gov't admitted they gave him the wrong time/date to show up and the grand jury where they omitted and lied about the bad letter is pretty huge.
 
2014-01-05 02:54:08 PM  

Frank N Stein: Chummer45: Frank N Stein: Chummer45: HeadLever: Chummer45: It also means that you view the use of deadly force as a legitimate way to protest government policy

No it does not.  No mater what kind of government you have, they are not always going to be 100% respectful of your rights.  You should always have the right of self defense against anyone that threatens your unalienable rights.  That includes government. Whether they are democratically elected, representative republic, a monarchy or a dictatorship is immaterial.


Ok - please explain the scenarios where it is acceptable to shoot a police officer.

well in Indiana it's legal to shoot a cop that illegally enters your residence.


Ok - assuming that you've accurately described the law (which you haven't), are you saying that is good public policy?

My description is simplified, but how is it inaccurate?



Here's a pretty good article that explains why your description is wrong.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/radley-balko/myths-and-misconceptions- _b _1596846.html


Also, as a practical matter, even if the police are entering your house illegally, the worst thing that you can do is start shooting at them.  You're almost definitely going to lose the gunfight, and if you're not killed you will probably get prosecuted.  Also, how do you know that the police don't have a warrant (i.e., that the search is illegal)? That's a pretty big gamble.

And even then, the best case scenario is that you kill a police officer and avoid prosecution.  I don't know, I feel like it's just an all-around bad idea to respond to police entering your home by shooting at them.

Like I said, abusive police practices can be handled through civil litigation and more effective police oversight.  But this example just perfectly illustrates why owning a gun only provides a person with the illusion of protection from abusive police.
 
2014-01-05 02:55:27 PM  

Chummer45: AngryDragon: Chummer45: Agree - I do believe (and hope) that we have reached the high water mark of the gun culture in this country, and we see a cultural shift on this as more and more people realize that the political positions promoted by the gun culture result in really bad public policy and consequences in the real world.  I hope the libertarianism fad goes away for the same reason

Gun violence has fallen 50% in 20 years despite concealed carry spreading to almost all 50 states and the Clinton-era Assault Weapons Ban expiring.  The only people who think this is bad public policy have an agenda to further.


I'm not sure what stats you are purporting to rely on, but isn't it silly to argue that proliferation of guns is responsible for lower levels of gun violence?  Have you undertaken a comprehensive, peer reviewed study and accounted for other factors that could contribute to lower crime rates?  Are you claiming that no comprehensive study has shown that gun control works?  I feel like the answer to all of these questions is no, and you're just cherry picking a statistic that may or may not be accurate for the purpose of supporting your stupid political position.

And "the only people who think this is bad public policy have an agenda to further?"  Holy moly that's some crazy projection on your part.  I guess the NRA and all those single issue gun culture voters aren't trying to further a political agenda.  Give me a farking break.


Claiming gun proliferation increases, decreases, or is net neutral of crime are VERY different claims
 
2014-01-05 02:56:57 PM  

Turbo Cojones: TuteTibiImperes: DC is also a small geographic area.  Expand DC's gun control laws to VA and MD and the gun crime rate in DC would drop further.

I often see Mexico's restrictive gun laws and out-of-proportion murder rates used as justification to abolish gun laws.  The same principle applies.  Find the location with the lax gun laws that is supplying the weapons and make the laws more restrictive there.

Pffft who am I kidding.  Congress wouldn't even vote to keep felons and crazy people from buying guns at gun shows and from private sellers.


If a person has been committed to a mental institution or is a convicted felon, it's already against the law for them to possess a firearm.

What more do you want?


/we really need a sarcasm font
 
2014-01-05 02:58:11 PM  

Chummer45: redmid17: Chummer45: HeadLever: Chummer45: It also means that you view the use of deadly force as a legitimate way to protest government policy

No it does not.  No mater what kind of government you have, they are not always going to be 100% respectful of your rights.  You should always have the right of self defense against anyone that threatens your unalienable rights.  That includes government. Whether they are democratically elected, representative republic, a monarchy or a dictatorship is immaterial.


Ok - please explain the scenarios where it is acceptable to shoot a police officer.

There are a few but here is one I like: A cop tries to run over a couple and shoots at them with no provocation after following the woman to her house

http://www.thv11.com/news/story.aspx?storyid=116700">http://www.thv1 1.com/news/story.aspx?storyid=116700

Um.... the story said that the officer returned fire after the guy shot at him.  Please explain again why it was a good thing that the citizen was armed in that scenario?

Look, there's a way to deal with abusive police tactics.  It's through substantive public policy reforms, oversight, and civil rights lawsuits.

The worst way to voice your objection to abusive police practices is by drawing a gun and shooting at the officer, as perfectly illustrated by the story you linked to.


You don't read too well. The cop hit the guy with the truck, shot at him, and then the homeowner shot him back. There's a reason why the prosecutor sided with the homeowner, not the cop. I agree that substantive changes need to be made to curb abusive police. I also don't think it's a bad idea to defend yourself when someone tries to kill you twice (truck, gun).
 
2014-01-05 02:58:19 PM  
This is why gun laws need to be made that are sane and are not "Gotta Ban 'Em All" like the left wants.  Nor allow anyone to have a gun like the Right wants.

Maybe you should have to get a license to own firearms.  With some nice long training sessions and maybe some range practice.  After that, there isn't much point, so licensees can then buy what they feel they need, as long as they store it properly.

Gun deaths have very little to do with guns.
 
2014-01-05 02:59:47 PM  

redmid17: TuteTibiImperes: HeadLever: udhq: Implying that you're willing to use your guns against a democratically elected government doesn't make you a patriot, it makes you a fascist and a tyrant.

yep, because Randy Weaver was a fascist and a tyrant. I know that it is hard for some to fathom, but no matter what type of government you have, you should always have the right to defend yourself.

He was however a criminal who caused his own demise by choosing to hole up instead of surrendering to the authorities.

I mean he's still alive, so I don't think he really caused his demise. And from his perspective, do you really think he was going to turn himself over to a system that he felt turned him into a criminal for nothing? Even if the gun charges were 100% true ( he was acquitted at trial), the issue of the bench warrant even after the gov't admitted they gave him the wrong time/date to show up and the grand jury where they omitted and lied about the bad letter is pretty huge.


I'm not saying the government didn't make some mistakes handling his case, but those are things he should have brought to the attention of his lawyer and handled through due process in the courts.  There's no excuse for getting into a standoff with the police.
 
2014-01-05 03:01:28 PM  

Chummer45: HeadLever: Chummer45: It also means that you view the use of deadly force as a legitimate way to protest government policy

No it does not.  No mater what kind of government you have, they are not always going to be 100% respectful of your rights.  You should always have the right of self defense against anyone that threatens your unalienable rights.  That includes government. Whether they are democratically elected, representative republic, a monarchy or a dictatorship is immaterial.


Also, please explain what "the second amendment protects every other right in the constitution" means.  I see that argument made a lot by gun nuts as an excuse to view the second amendment as more important than every other constitutional protection.

But as a practical matter, does it mean that if the police illegally search your home you have a right to shoot them?  Does it mean that you have the right to shoot a judge who imposes an unconstitutional gag order on you?  How do you draw that line?

And who decides what is a violation of a fundamental right sufficient to legitimize the use of deadly force?  Here's the problem with your argument - it is an argument that the second amendment allows an individual to disregard the rule of law when the government violates their fundamental rights.  But then it doesn't define "fundamental rights," and doesn't explain what types of action by government officials justify the use of "second amendment remedies" (i.e., killing government officials).

It's all just abstract bullshiat used by gun enthusiasts as an excuse to support a bad public policy.  The second amendment arguments all just exploit the fears of gun enthusiasts by conjuring up the idea that government is inherently evil and will become a totalitarian state if people aren't allowed to own small arms.


The founding fathers had an inherent distrust of government and posited its tendency to grow ripe/corrupt. Not an entirely off-base assumption.
 
2014-01-05 03:01:48 PM  

Chummer45: Frank N Stein: Chummer45: Frank N Stein: Chummer45: HeadLever: Chummer45: It also means that you view the use of deadly force as a legitimate way to protest government policy

No it does not.  No mater what kind of government you have, they are not always going to be 100% respectful of your rights.  You should always have the right of self defense against anyone that threatens your unalienable rights.  That includes government. Whether they are democratically elected, representative republic, a monarchy or a dictatorship is immaterial.


Ok - please explain the scenarios where it is acceptable to shoot a police officer.

well in Indiana it's legal to shoot a cop that illegally enters your residence.


Ok - assuming that you've accurately described the law (which you haven't), are you saying that is good public policy?

My description is simplified, but how is it inaccurate?


Here's a pretty good article that explains why your description is wrong.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/radley-balko/myths-and-misconceptions- _b _1596846.html


Also, as a practical matter, even if the police are entering your house illegally, the worst thing that you can do is start shooting at them.  You're almost definitely going to lose the gunfight, and if you're not killed you will probably get prosecuted.  Also, how do you know that the police don't have a warrant (i.e., that the search is illegal)? That's a pretty big gamble.

And even then, the best case scenario is that you kill a police officer and avoid prosecution.  I don't know, I feel like it's just an all-around bad idea to respond to police entering your home by shooting at them.

Like I said, abusive police practices can be handled through civil litigation and more effective police oversight.  But this example just perfectly illustrates why owning a gun only provides a person with the illusion of protection from abusive police.


Your article said that a revision to the Indiana castle doctrine explicitly does NOT exempt public servants. Which means if a public servant illegally enters your home, you're authorized to use deadly force.

That's essentially what I said. Again, how was I inaccurate?
 
2014-01-05 03:02:29 PM  

Myria: This is why gun laws need to be made that are sane and are not "Gotta Ban 'Em All" like the left wants.  Nor allow anyone to have a gun like the Right wants.

Maybe you should have to get a license to own firearms.  With some nice long training sessions and maybe some range practice.  After that, there isn't much point, so licensees can then buy what they feel they need, as long as they store it properly.

Gun deaths have very little to do with guns.


Someone is going is going to have to shell out money for the training and range practice, and I doubt it'd fly if it were coming from the person trying to do it.
 
2014-01-05 03:06:11 PM  

Frank N Stein: Your article said that a revision to the Indiana castle doctrine explicitly does NOT exempt public servants. Which means if a public servant illegally enters your home, you're authorized to use deadly force.

That's essentially what I said. Again, how was I inaccurate?


It's not indiscriminate authorization for deadly force. If a cop is trying to push his way into your house -- a la the case that spawned this law in the first place -- I doubt you'd be able to claim self-defense in shooting him. If a cop is kicking down your door with a gun drawn to come into your house sans warrant for whatever reason (excluding exigent circumstances), you could probably claim it.
 
2014-01-05 03:08:05 PM  

Chummer45: I'm not sure what stats you are purporting to rely on, but isn't it silly to argue that proliferation of guns is responsible for lower levels of gun violence?  Have you undertaken a comprehensive, peer reviewed study and accounted for other factors that could contribute to lower crime rates?  Are you claiming that no comprehensive study has shown that gun control works?  I feel like the answer to all of these questions is no, and you're just cherry picking a statistic that may or may not be accurate for the purpose of supporting your stupid political position.

And "the only people who think this is bad public policy have an agenda to further?"  Holy moly that's some crazy projection on your part.  I guess the NRA and all those single issue gun culture voters aren't trying to further a political agenda.  Give me a farking break.


I wasn't arguing that the proliferation of guns was responsible for lower crime rates.  I was pointing out that DESPITE the proliferation of guns, the crime rates have dropped precipitously.  Ergo gun control has no impact positive or negative on the levels of violence in the USA.  Ergo establishing additional restrictions on law abiding citizens who are exercising their rights is abhorrent.

That being said, if gun control, or the lack therof, has no impact on gun crime then why are we trying to control it?  At what point have we hit the law of diminishing returns?
 
2014-01-05 03:08:30 PM  

redmid17: Frank N Stein: Your article said that a revision to the Indiana castle doctrine explicitly does NOT exempt public servants. Which means if a public servant illegally enters your home, you're authorized to use deadly force.

That's essentially what I said. Again, how was I inaccurate?

It's not indiscriminate authorization for deadly force. If a cop is trying to push his way into your house -- a la the case that spawned this law in the first place -- I doubt you'd be able to claim self-defense in shooting him. If a cop is kicking down your door with a gun drawn to come into your house sans warrant for whatever reason (excluding exigent circumstances), you could probably claim it.


I never said it was indiscriminate. The original poster asked if there was ever a reason to shoot a cop legally. The state of Indiana thinks that there is
 
2014-01-05 03:08:37 PM  

Doom MD: The founding fathers had an inherent distrust of government and posited its tendency to grow ripe/corrupt. Not an entirely off-base assumption.


We've made huge advances in political science and sociology since the founding fathers.  They were great men of their time, but seriously, we need to stop using their opinions as the yardstick for public policy.
 
2014-01-05 03:11:49 PM  

Frank N Stein: redmid17: Frank N Stein: Your article said that a revision to the Indiana castle doctrine explicitly does NOT exempt public servants. Which means if a public servant illegally enters your home, you're authorized to use deadly force.

That's essentially what I said. Again, how was I inaccurate?

It's not indiscriminate authorization for deadly force. If a cop is trying to push his way into your house -- a la the case that spawned this law in the first place -- I doubt you'd be able to claim self-defense in shooting him. If a cop is kicking down your door with a gun drawn to come into your house sans warrant for whatever reason (excluding exigent circumstances), you could probably claim it.

I never said it was indiscriminate. The original poster asked if there was ever a reason to shoot a cop legally. The state of Indiana thinks that there is


You didn't say indiscriminate outright, but the way you phrased it more or less gives the homeowner the carte blanche. Illegally entering a home can be anything from walking through an open door to see if there is a crime in progress to driving their Charger through the front of your house.
 
2014-01-05 03:12:05 PM  

NewportBarGuy: Why have any laws at all?


Clearly more laws will fix this!
 
2014-01-05 03:13:26 PM  

redmid17: Frank N Stein: redmid17: Frank N Stein: Your article said that a revision to the Indiana castle doctrine explicitly does NOT exempt public servants. Which means if a public servant illegally enters your home, you're authorized to use deadly force.

That's essentially what I said. Again, how was I inaccurate?

It's not indiscriminate authorization for deadly force. If a cop is trying to push his way into your house -- a la the case that spawned this law in the first place -- I doubt you'd be able to claim self-defense in shooting him. If a cop is kicking down your door with a gun drawn to come into your house sans warrant for whatever reason (excluding exigent circumstances), you could probably claim it.

I never said it was indiscriminate. The original poster asked if there was ever a reason to shoot a cop legally. The state of Indiana thinks that there is

You didn't say indiscriminate outright, but the way you phrased it more or less gives the homeowner the carte blanche. Illegally entering a home can be anything from walking through an open door to see if there is a crime in progress to driving their Charger through the front of your house.


true. It was simplified. But I just wanted to get the point across that  the state of Indiana does recognize that there are circumstances in which shooting a police officer is justified.
 
2014-01-05 03:17:35 PM  

Frank N Stein: redmid17: Frank N Stein: redmid17: Frank N Stein: Your article said that a revision to the Indiana castle doctrine explicitly does NOT exempt public servants. Which means if a public servant illegally enters your home, you're authorized to use deadly force.

That's essentially what I said. Again, how was I inaccurate?

It's not indiscriminate authorization for deadly force. If a cop is trying to push his way into your house -- a la the case that spawned this law in the first place -- I doubt you'd be able to claim self-defense in shooting him. If a cop is kicking down your door with a gun drawn to come into your house sans warrant for whatever reason (excluding exigent circumstances), you could probably claim it.

I never said it was indiscriminate. The original poster asked if there was ever a reason to shoot a cop legally. The state of Indiana thinks that there is

You didn't say indiscriminate outright, but the way you phrased it more or less gives the homeowner the carte blanche. Illegally entering a home can be anything from walking through an open door to see if there is a crime in progress to driving their Charger through the front of your house.

true. It was simplified. But I just wanted to get the point across that  the state of Indiana does recognize that there are circumstances in which shooting a police officer is justified.


Very true. Sad thing is that if the Indiana Supreme Court hadn't needlessly overreached, the law wouldn't even have been necessary. They could have just thrown it out as exigent circumstances or something. Instead they went against common law history and 2 supreme court decisions which said otherwise.
 
2014-01-05 03:19:38 PM  
Standard gun thread post.

~~Here some advice for the Gun Grabbing Marxist Menace Obama if he wants to stop this sort of violence.
 In 1863 a Democrat shot and killed Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States .
 ~ In 1881 a left wing radical Democrat shot James Garfield, President of the United States who later died from the wound.
 ~ In 1963 a radical left wing socialist shot and killed John F. Kennedy, President of the United States.
 ~ In 1975 a left wing radical Democrat fired shots at Gerald Ford, President of the United States.
 ~ In 1983 a registered Democrat shot and wounded Ronald Reagan, President of the United States.
 ~ In 1984 James Hubert, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 22 people in a McDonalds restaurant.
 ~ In 1986 Patrick Sherrill, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 15 people in an Oklahoma post office.
 ~ In1990 James Pough, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 10 people at a GMAC office.
 ~ In 1991 George Hennard, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 23 people in a Luby's cafeteria.
 ~ In 1995 James Daniel Simpson, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 5 coworkers in a Texas laboratory.
 ~ In 1999 Larry Asbrook, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 8 people at a church service.
 ~ In 2001 a left wing radical Democrat fired shots at the White House in a failed attempt to kill George W. Bush, President of the USA
 ~ In 2003 Douglas Williams, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 7 people at a Lockheed Martin plant.
 ~ In 2007 a registered Democrat named Seung - Hui Cho, shot and killed 32 people in Virginia Tech.
 ~ In 2010 a mentally ill registered Democrat named Jared Lee Loughner, shot Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and killed 6 others
 ~ In 2011 a registeredDemocrat named James Holmes, went into a movie theater and shot and killed 12 people.
 ~ In 2012 Andrew Engeldinger, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 7 people in Minneapolis.
 ~ In 2013 a registered Democrat named Adam Lanza, shot and killed 26 people in a school.
 ~ As recently as Sept 2013, an angry Democrat shot 12 at a Navy ship yard. One could go on, but you get the point, even if the media does not. Clearly, there is a problem with Democrats and guns.

Not one NRA member, Tea Party member, or any Republican conservatives were involved in these shootings and murders.

 SOLUTION: It should be illegal for Democrats to own guns.
 
Displayed 50 of 443 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.

In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report