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 446
    More: Obvious, robbery, handguns, imaginations  
•       •       •

859 clicks; posted to Politics » on 05 Jan 2014 at 12:20 PM (29 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-01-05 03:20:53 PM

AngryDragon: 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.


No, it's not abhorrent.  Murder, torture and sexual assault are abhorrent.  Taking your guns away is not abhorrent.


AngryDragon: 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?


We probably hit the law of diminishing returns around the time we had roughly .75 guns for every 1 person circulating freely in the population.  You see, the reason gun control "has no impact on gun crime" in the US is because the only gun control that can be passed in this country pales in comparison to the scope of the problem we have with guns.  It's like taking a thimble of water out of a lake and expecting the water level to fall by a measurable degree.
 
2014-01-05 03:21:08 PM

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


It's posturing.  The really rabid 2nd Amendment supporters are pretty much all armchair revolutionaries. Their daydreams about using their toys are always much more satisfying than the reality of using them.
 
2014-01-05 03:23:16 PM

m00: They also have stop-and-frisk. Which is a whole different conversation. I was in New York for the holidays, and there was NO WHERE on the island that felt unsafe.


I wasn't aware New York was an island...
 
2014-01-05 03:25:17 PM

whcrow: 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 sch ...


Pretty sure Seung - Hui Cho  wasn't a registered democrat. He couldn't even vote. I'm 100% sure that the list is inaccurate and stupid to post even if it were true.
 
2014-01-05 03:29:11 PM

The Name: 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.


So you don't think governments have a tendency to accrue power and become corrupt? Please feel free to propose amendments, you know, the ability to modify government the founding fathers came up with.
 
2014-01-05 03:30:55 PM

clancifer: Gun nuts like to think of gun laws as the cause of gun violence rather than a symptom.


You would consider.me a "gun nut". I don't think that gun laws are the cause of gun violence and neither does anyone that I know.  We also don't think that they are a symptom of gun violence.  They are a treatment that has been suggested to eliminate the gun violence.  The problem is we have tried it for 40 years and it really hasn't worked.  How long do we wait before we look for another solution?
 
2014-01-05 03:32:32 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.


Also, regardless of the final legal outcome, let's not forget that your chances of emerging from the repercussions of such an action dead, or pooping in a colostomy bag for the rest of your life are quite high.  Kill a cop for ANY reason, and you're going to face his brothers in blue before you set foot in a courtroom.
 
2014-01-05 03:34:39 PM

clambam: This besides the fact that strict checkpoints at all access points to and from the city prevent anyone from bringing firearms in, from Virginia (unrestricted ownership with the exception of machine guns--hey, I have to register my machine gun in Virginia? You bastards!) or from any of the other gun-besotted neo-confederacies of the Southeast.  Most guns used in crime have either been stolen (around 15%) or transferred between individuals after the original purchase (i.e., picked up no questions asked at the local gun fair). Given that these guns are almost inevitably disposed of as too incriminating, if guns were outlawed for a short while only outlaws would have guns. And then no one would have guns.

I wish there were a sensible way to discuss this situation. I understand completely why people in the flyover states cling to their guns; they need long barrel guns to put food on the table (you sure can't afford meat at Walmart wages) and they need hand guns to protect themselves from the other poverty-stricken meth-addled hicks they share their little corner of hell with. I'm prepared to accept 30,000 annual gun deaths in this country  as the price of maintaining our Second Amendment rights. I'd just settle for a few common sense restrictions on high capacity magazines so that the next time some nutbar decides to decorate the walls at the local elementary school with children's brains, he has to stop to reload a little sooner and maybe keep the cost of freedom down just a little.


In the 90s a shiatload of the guns in DC came from law enforcement in Virginia.  Lots of corrupt county sheriffs and deputies in bugfark small Virginia counties were actually operating major gunrunning routes.  I'd post a link except the stories seem to have been scrubbed very well from the net.  But I had a friend whose daughter was shot by her husband, and the local cops ruled it a suicide because her husband gave them his big cache of over 60 weapons in exchange.
 
2014-01-05 03:40:16 PM

Doom MD: So you don't think governments have a tendency to accrue power and become corrupt?


That's not the point.  The point is that we should be consulting living Ph.D.s about public policy, not centuries-dead landowners who spoke in witticisms and believed in phrenology.

HK-MP5-SD: clancifer: Gun nuts like to think of gun laws as the cause of gun violence rather than a symptom.

You would consider.me a "gun nut". I don't think that gun laws are the cause of gun violence and neither does anyone that I know.  We also don't think that they are a symptom of gun violence.  They are a treatment that has been suggested to eliminate the gun violence.  The problem is we have tried it for 40 years and it really hasn't worked.  How long do we wait before we look for another solution?


Again, saying that American gun control laws don't work to curb gun violence, and thus we should stop trying, is like saying that a square millimeter of bandage does nothing to close a foot-long knife-wound, and thus bandages don't work.
 
2014-01-05 03:41:10 PM

Z-clipped: 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.

Also, regardless of the final legal outcome, let's not forget that your chances of emerging from the repercussions of such an action dead, or pooping in a colostomy bag for the rest of your life are quite high.  Kill a cop for ANY reason, and you're going to face his brothers in blue before you set foot in a courtroom.


I don't think police should act like thugs in the face of a citizen utilizing their rights. But yeah, this is the real world
 
2014-01-05 03:42:20 PM

HK-MP5-SD: clancifer: Gun nuts like to think of gun laws as the cause of gun violence rather than a symptom.

You would consider.me a "gun nut". I don't think that gun laws are the cause of gun violence and neither does anyone that I know.  We also don't think that they are a symptom of gun violence.  They are a treatment that has been suggested to eliminate the gun violence.  The problem is we have tried it for 40 years and it really hasn't worked.  How long do we wait before we look for another solution?


I'd call you a gun nut because you apparently like HK, the Apple of the firearms world :)
 
2014-01-05 03:42:28 PM

Frank N Stein: Z-clipped: 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.

Also, regardless of the final legal outcome, let's not forget that your chances of emerging from the repercussions of such an action dead, or pooping in a colostomy bag for the rest of your life are quite high.  Kill a cop for ANY reason, and you're going to face his brothers in blue before you set foot in a courtroom.

I don't think police should act like thugs in the face of a citizen utilizing their rights. But yeah, this is the real world


I'd like to think citizens (and the police as well for that matter) shouldn't have a 'shoot first and ask questions later' attitude.
 
2014-01-05 03:43:10 PM

The Name: Doom MD: So you don't think governments have a tendency to accrue power and become corrupt?

That's not the point.  The point is that we should be consulting living Ph.D.s about public policy, not centuries-dead landowners who spoke in witticisms and believed in phrenology.

HK-MP5-SD: clancifer: Gun nuts like to think of gun laws as the cause of gun violence rather than a symptom.

You would consider.me a "gun nut". I don't think that gun laws are the cause of gun violence and neither does anyone that I know.  We also don't think that they are a symptom of gun violence.  They are a treatment that has been suggested to eliminate the gun violence.  The problem is we have tried it for 40 years and it really hasn't worked.  How long do we wait before we look for another solution?

Again, saying that American gun control laws don't work to curb gun violence, and thus we should stop trying, is like saying that a square millimeter of bandage does nothing to close a foot-long knife-wound, and thus bandages don't work.


No one is saying "stop trying" to reducing gun violence in this thread. They are saying "Let's try a different method."
 
2014-01-05 03:47:36 PM

redmid17: No one is saying "stop trying" to reducing gun violence in this thread. They are saying "Let's try a different method."


But my point is that the method (legislation) could work quite well in the long run if we incrementally limited sales, ownership and manufacture of guns over an extended period of time.
 
2014-01-05 03:47:47 PM

AngryDragon: 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?


Just because you say it has no impact doesn't mean it's true. Gun violence is a disease and like many diseases it requires more than a simple ban in a handful of cities, it will require a variety of laws at every level, but in order to do that we'll require cooperation from gun rights advocates, and hopefully they'll come around sooner than later because neither ignoring the problem nor "MOAR GUNS" are viable solutions.
 
2014-01-05 03:50:01 PM

TuteTibiImperes: Frank N Stein: Z-clipped: 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.

Also, regardless of the final legal outcome, let's not forget that your chances of emerging from the repercussions of such an action dead, or pooping in a colostomy bag for the rest of your life are quite high.  Kill a cop for ANY reason, and you're going to face his brothers in blue before you set foot in a courtroom.

I don't think police should act like thugs in the face of a citizen utilizing their rights. But yeah, this is the real world

I'd like to think citizens (and the police as well for that matter) shouldn't have a 'shoot first and ask questions later' attitude.


I agree. Though I generally don't have a problem with someone using deadly force if someone illegal and forcibly enters ones residence
 
2014-01-05 03:50:46 PM

The Name: AngryDragon: 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.

No, it's not abhorrent.  Murder, torture and sexual assault are abhorrent.  Taking your guns away is not abhorrent.


AngryDragon: 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?

We probably hit the law of diminishing returns around the time we had roughly .75 guns for every 1 person circulating freely in the population.  You see, the reason gun control "has no impact on gun crime" in the US is because the only gun control that can be passed in this country pales in comparison to the scope of the problem we have with guns.  It's like taking a thimble of water out of a lake and expecting the water level to fall by a measurable degree.


Limiting any enumerated right in the Constitution for a law abiding citizen is abhorrent.  It is pretty much the worst thing a government can do.  It breaks the basic compact of the ruling to the people.  Yes, that is abhorrent.  That includes freedom of speech, assembly, the press, from search and seizure, of religion, rights to a trial, rights to a jury, and yes, the right to bear arms. Incidentally, not ONE of those rights have been exempt from pressure in the last 10 years because of TERRORISTS or FOR THE CHILDREN.  Americans are bringing this all on themselves because they are pants-wetting terrified of their own shadows.

There is absolutely no consistent difference in crime rate between locations in the US because of the availability of guns.  None.  DC has a horrific murder rate and guns have been all but unavailable.  Detroit also has a horrific crime rate but it is estimated that there are 500,000 concealed carry permits in the tri-county area.

It. Simply. Makes. No. Difference.

Now, you know what the difference is between Detroit and say San Francisco?  Poverty, lack of education, a corrupt culture; THOSE are the problems we should be going after.  Keep targeting an unrelated cause though.  It's having so much of a positive effect.
 
2014-01-05 03:53:35 PM

Dan the Schman: Just because you say it has no impact doesn't mean it's true. Gun violence is a disease and like many diseases it requires more than a simple ban in a handful of cities, it will require a variety of laws at every level, but in order to do that we'll require cooperation from gun rights advocates, and hopefully they'll come around sooner than later because neither ignoring the problem nor "MOAR GUNS" are viable solutions


So what do you propose that isn't unfair to law abiding citizens?  Seriously.  I'm interested in what laws you believe are not in effe ct that should be enacted.
 
2014-01-05 03:53:41 PM

The Name: redmid17: No one is saying "stop trying" to reducing gun violence in this thread. They are saying "Let's try a different method."

But my point is that the method (legislation) could work quite well in the long run if we incrementally limited sales, ownership and manufacture of guns over an extended period of time.


You could and it would take forever and still completely ignore the base problems. Doing the same thing to cars would likely drive down automobile related deaths. However it could also hurt a lot of people who need a car to get around for work and food. If one said "man we have a lot of car-related deaths. Let's promote mass transit, trains, and driver safety education," you're addressing the problem, the root cause(s), and not trampling on anyone.

Gun deaths and car deaths are obviously different, and I'm not equating them. However when you pick the worst* way of doing something, don't be surprised when people push back.

*Worst is subjective but when it's constitutionally dubious and massively unpopular, the shoe fits.
 
2014-01-05 04:01:29 PM
DC is a farking shiathole. I can tell Subby has never been there.
 
2014-01-05 04:02:25 PM

redmid17: Gun deaths and car deaths are obviously different, and I'm not equating them.


But you kind of are . . .

redmid17: Worst is subjective but when it's constitutionally dubious and massively unpopular, the shoe fits.


Meh.  The Constitution should be changed (not violated).  Western Europe seems to survive somehow without a second amendment. And most Americans can't tell their ass from a hole in the ground, so just because they're against something doesn't mean it's a bad idea.
 
2014-01-05 04:03:59 PM

AngryDragon: Dan the Schman: Just because you say it has no impact doesn't mean it's true. Gun violence is a disease and like many diseases it requires more than a simple ban in a handful of cities, it will require a variety of laws at every level, but in order to do that we'll require cooperation from gun rights advocates, and hopefully they'll come around sooner than later because neither ignoring the problem nor "MOAR GUNS" are viable solutions

So what do you propose that isn't unfair to law abiding citizens?  Seriously.  I'm interested in what laws you believe are not in effe ct that should be enacted.


Since you're an extremist who thinks any limits are an outrage, you're not worth having a debate with, because you wouldn't actually debate, which is why we can't work out a solution, because your side's only ideas are either do nothing or "MOAR GUNS".
 
2014-01-05 04:08:34 PM
What's so "obvious" when you've got some of the most wealthy and impoverished rubbing elbows daily?

Opportunists vs, the suckers
 
2014-01-05 04:08:49 PM

The Name: redmid17: Gun deaths and car deaths are obviously different, and I'm not equating them.

But you kind of are . . .

redmid17: Worst is subjective but when it's constitutionally dubious and massively unpopular, the shoe fits.

Meh.  The Constitution should be changed (not violated).  Western Europe seems to survive somehow without a second amendment. And most Americans can't tell their ass from a hole in the ground, so just because they're against something doesn't mean it's a bad idea.


I'm equating them in the way they are both deaths. Car-related deaths are almost exclusively accidents. Gun deaths are overwhelmingly purposely inflicted.

Until the Constitution is changed, what you're proposing is not going to work. Free free to work to amend the constitution. See if you can't get some more protection for the 1st and 4th amendments too.
 
2014-01-05 04:11:07 PM

Dan the Schman: AngryDragon: Dan the Schman: Just because you say it has no impact doesn't mean it's true. Gun violence is a disease and like many diseases it requires more than a simple ban in a handful of cities, it will require a variety of laws at every level, but in order to do that we'll require cooperation from gun rights advocates, and hopefully they'll come around sooner than later because neither ignoring the problem nor "MOAR GUNS" are viable solutions

So what do you propose that isn't unfair to law abiding citizens?  Seriously.  I'm interested in what laws you believe are not in effe ct that should be enacted.

Since you're an extremist who thinks any limits are an outrage, you're not worth having a debate with, because you wouldn't actually debate, which is why we can't work out a solution, because your side's only ideas are either do nothing or "MOAR GUNS".


Okay don't tell him. Tell me then. I think the first step should really be to end the war on drugs and give everyone access to medicaid/medicare type health coverage.
 
2014-01-05 04:11:20 PM

AngryDragon: Dan the Schman: Just because you say it has no impact doesn't mean it's true. Gun violence is a disease and like many diseases it requires more than a simple ban in a handful of cities, it will require a variety of laws at every level, but in order to do that we'll require cooperation from gun rights advocates, and hopefully they'll come around sooner than later because neither ignoring the problem nor "MOAR GUNS" are viable solutions

So what do you propose that isn't unfair to law abiding citizens?


We obey laws every day that are "unfair" to law abiding citizens out of the principle that such universal conformity helps prevent more serious violations.  That's why you stop at a stop light even though nobody's coming the other way
 
2014-01-05 04:11:45 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.


What effect will this have on the gangbangers that are the chief reason we have daily Fark gun control discussion threads?  I'm guessing 90 percent or better shootings in the US are by people already illegally carrying a weapon.

The gun laws we have now ARE sane (and overreaching in a lot of places).  Despite the juvenille attempt of leftys to crow about how gun enthusiasts think we need less laws (or no laws in some cases), chances are we would have better luck enforcing a few well-crafted laws targeting the core of the problem rather than a web of contradictory laws that lead to tighter and more ridiculous restrictions on you and me.
 
2014-01-05 04:14:38 PM

redmid17: The Name: redmid17: Gun deaths and car deaths are obviously different, and I'm not equating them.

But you kind of are . . .

redmid17: Worst is subjective but when it's constitutionally dubious and massively unpopular, the shoe fits.

Meh.  The Constitution should be changed (not violated).  Western Europe seems to survive somehow without a second amendment. And most Americans can't tell their ass from a hole in the ground, so just because they're against something doesn't mean it's a bad idea.

I'm equating them in the way they are both deaths. Car-related deaths are almost exclusively accidents. Gun deaths are overwhelmingly purposely inflicted.

Until the Constitution is changed, what you're proposing is not going to work. Free free to work to amend the constitution. See if you can't get some more protection for the 1st and 4th amendments too.


Do consider alcohol related accidental or preventable?
 
2014-01-05 04:14:55 PM
So, this is journalism?
 
2014-01-05 04:16:11 PM

Dan the Schman: AngryDragon: Dan the Schman: Just because you say it has no impact doesn't mean it's true. Gun violence is a disease and like many diseases it requires more than a simple ban in a handful of cities, it will require a variety of laws at every level, but in order to do that we'll require cooperation from gun rights advocates, and hopefully they'll come around sooner than later because neither ignoring the problem nor "MOAR GUNS" are viable solutions

So what do you propose that isn't unfair to law abiding citizens?  Seriously.  I'm interested in what laws you believe are not in effe ct that should be enacted.

Since you're an extremist who thinks any limits are an outrage, you're not worth having a debate with, because you wouldn't actually debate, which is why we can't work out a solution, because your side's only ideas are either do nothing or "MOAR GUNS".


I'm an extremist.  I see.  Actually I live in Michigan where there are HEAVY restrictions on firearms that I am completely OK with.  No felons, some misdemeanors, no mental health issues, no private transfers, background checks required, no carrying while intoxicated, no PPOs, no domestic violence history of any kind, all totally reasonable.  The only law in Michigan that I have an issue with is gun free zones.   The summary is 300 pages long (PDF warning)

What else exactly would you enact in my state to impact gun crime?  Magazine restrictions?  Cosmetic restrictions?  Both pointless.  Perhaps you can see why as a law abiding gun owner already complying with 300 pages of state laws, not to mention federal, I might say that enough is enough.
 
2014-01-05 04:18:57 PM

AngryDragon: Dan the Schman: AngryDragon: Dan the Schman: Just because you say it has no impact doesn't mean it's true. Gun violence is a disease and like many diseases it requires more than a simple ban in a handful of cities, it will require a variety of laws at every level, but in order to do that we'll require cooperation from gun rights advocates, and hopefully they'll come around sooner than later because neither ignoring the problem nor "MOAR GUNS" are viable solutions

So what do you propose that isn't unfair to law abiding citizens?  Seriously.  I'm interested in what laws you believe are not in effe ct that should be enacted.

Since you're an extremist who thinks any limits are an outrage, you're not worth having a debate with, because you wouldn't actually debate, which is why we can't work out a solution, because your side's only ideas are either do nothing or "MOAR GUNS".

I'm an extremist.  I see.  Actually I live in Michigan where there are HEAVY restrictions on firearms that I am completely OK with.  No felons, some misdemeanors, no mental health issues, no private transfers, background checks required, no carrying while intoxicated, no PPOs, no domestic violence history of any kind, all totally reasonable.  The only law in Michigan that I have an issue with is gun free zones.   The summary is 300 pages long (PDF warning)

What else exactly would you enact in my state to impact gun crime?  Magazine restrictions?  Cosmetic restrictions?  Both pointless.  Perhaps you can see why as a law abiding gun owner already complying with 300 pages of state laws, not to mention federal, I might say that enough is enough.



Criminals don't bother reading the PDF because words.
 
2014-01-05 04:19:09 PM

The Name: AngryDragon: Dan the Schman: Just because you say it has no impact doesn't mean it's true. Gun violence is a disease and like many diseases it requires more than a simple ban in a handful of cities, it will require a variety of laws at every level, but in order to do that we'll require cooperation from gun rights advocates, and hopefully they'll come around sooner than later because neither ignoring the problem nor "MOAR GUNS" are viable solutions

So what do you propose that isn't unfair to law abiding citizens?

We obey laws every day that are "unfair" to law abiding citizens out of the principle that such universal conformity helps prevent more serious violations.  That's why you stop at a stop light even though nobody's coming the other way


Perfect example.  Running a red light is already illegal yet some may run it if no one is coming the other way.  So you will pass a law making it even more illegal?  It makes no sense.
 
2014-01-05 04:19:47 PM

AngryDragon: Dan the Schman: AngryDragon: Dan the Schman: Just because you say it has no impact doesn't mean it's true. Gun violence is a disease and like many diseases it requires more than a simple ban in a handful of cities, it will require a variety of laws at every level, but in order to do that we'll require cooperation from gun rights advocates, and hopefully they'll come around sooner than later because neither ignoring the problem nor "MOAR GUNS" are viable solutions

So what do you propose that isn't unfair to law abiding citizens?  Seriously.  I'm interested in what laws you believe are not in effe ct that should be enacted.

Since you're an extremist who thinks any limits are an outrage, you're not worth having a debate with, because you wouldn't actually debate, which is why we can't work out a solution, because your side's only ideas are either do nothing or "MOAR GUNS".

I'm an extremist.  I see.  Actually I live in Michigan where there are HEAVY restrictions on firearms that I am completely OK with.  No felons, some misdemeanors, no mental health issues, no private transfers, background checks required, no carrying while intoxicated, no PPOs, no domestic violence history of any kind, all totally reasonable.  The only law in Michigan that I have an issue with is gun free zones.   The summary is 300 pages long (PDF warning)

What else exactly would you enact in my state to impact gun crime?  Magazine restrictions?  Cosmetic restrictions?  Both pointless.  Perhaps you can see why as a law abiding gun owner already complying with 300 pages of state laws, not to mention federal, I might say that enough is enough.


By convincing himself that you're an extremist he's able to disregard your opinion. It's a defense mechanism in the face of someone with differing opinions
 
2014-01-05 04:22:43 PM

clowncar on fire: redmid17: The Name: redmid17: Gun deaths and car deaths are obviously different, and I'm not equating them.

But you kind of are . . .

redmid17: Worst is subjective but when it's constitutionally dubious and massively unpopular, the shoe fits.

Meh.  The Constitution should be changed (not violated).  Western Europe seems to survive somehow without a second amendment. And most Americans can't tell their ass from a hole in the ground, so just because they're against something doesn't mean it's a bad idea.

I'm equating them in the way they are both deaths. Car-related deaths are almost exclusively accidents. Gun deaths are overwhelmingly purposely inflicted.

Until the Constitution is changed, what you're proposing is not going to work. Free free to work to amend the constitution. See if you can't get some more protection for the 1st and 4th amendments too.

Do consider alcohol related accidental or preventable?


Depends on the type of death.

Drunken driving death - preventable
Drank and fell down the stairs - accident

Those are just direct causes. I don't particularly want to get long term conditions into the mix, but I would consider things like cirrhosis and liver failure preventable. However I don't know how germane that is to guns.
 
2014-01-05 04:24:11 PM

AngryDragon: Perfect example. Running a red light is already illegal yet some may run it if no one is coming the other way. So you will pass a law making it even more illegal? It makes no sense.


Um . . . no . . .

"Running a red light" is illegal, because "Okay, if you're a responsible driver you can go ahead and run it but if you hit someone you'll be in BIG trouble, mister" wouldn't work.  Thus everyone just stops at the crimson light, no matter what.  Gun owners seem to want all gun laws to be of the "Okay, if you're a responsible gun owner . . . " variety, but that isn't how laws work.
 
2014-01-05 04:25:20 PM

AngryDragon: The Name: AngryDragon: Dan the Schman: Just because you say it has no impact doesn't mean it's true. Gun violence is a disease and like many diseases it requires more than a simple ban in a handful of cities, it will require a variety of laws at every level, but in order to do that we'll require cooperation from gun rights advocates, and hopefully they'll come around sooner than later because neither ignoring the problem nor "MOAR GUNS" are viable solutions

So what do you propose that isn't unfair to law abiding citizens?

We obey laws every day that are "unfair" to law abiding citizens out of the principle that such universal conformity helps prevent more serious violations.  That's why you stop at a stop light even though nobody's coming the other way

Perfect example.  Running a red light is already illegal yet some may run it if no one is coming the other way.  So you will pass a law making it even more illegal?  It makes no sense.


So some people are "wired" to ignore laws, conformity, common sense, or whatever you want to call it.  Rather than the creation of redundant laws shouldn't we be posting "enforcers" to carry out justice on some of the more blatant violators by removing them from the population as a whole.


What can I say?  I keep getting told there's a million people out there that can fill my shoes if I can't conform.
 
2014-01-05 04:25:40 PM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: NewportBarGuy: Why have any laws at all?

Well, if everyone's packing we don't need any, obviously

/think of the money we can save on police alone


the chief of police in Detroit would like a word
 
2014-01-05 04:27:28 PM

clancifer: Gun nuts like to think of gun laws as the cause of gun violence rather than a symptom.


and anti-gun nuts like to think that adding more gun laws will somehow make all the gun crime go away
 
2014-01-05 04:30:32 PM

The Name: AngryDragon: Perfect example. Running a red light is already illegal yet some may run it if no one is coming the other way. So you will pass a law making it even more illegal? It makes no sense.

Um . . . no . . .

"Running a red light" is illegal, because "Okay, if you're a responsible driver you can go ahead and run it but if you hit someone you'll be in BIG trouble, mister" wouldn't work.  Thus everyone just stops at the crimson light, no matter what.  Gun owners seem to want all gun laws to be of the "Okay, if you're a responsible gun owner . . . " variety, but that isn't how laws work.


What?

What gun law is optional because you're a responsible gun owner?  Name one.  If anything violation of a gun law or committing a crime with a firearm yield a MORE draconian sentence and less consideration for leniency.  As it should be.  Every idiot who commits a gun crime makes it harder for those of us who don't.
 
2014-01-05 04:31:10 PM

The Name: AngryDragon: Perfect example. Running a red light is already illegal yet some may run it if no one is coming the other way. So you will pass a law making it even more illegal? It makes no sense.

Um . . . no . . .

"Running a red light" is illegal, because "Okay, if you're a responsible driver you can go ahead and run it but if you hit someone you'll be in BIG trouble, mister" wouldn't work.  Thus everyone just stops at the crimson light, no matter what.  Gun owners seem to want all gun laws to be of the "Okay, if you're a responsible gun owner . . . " variety, but that isn't how laws work.


So we're back to the song and dance, what laws are you trying to propose? I haven't read all your posts in the thread, so I apologize if I'm missing something or get mixed up. However it seems like you just want to reduce the number of people with weapons so they don't get misused. That's the equivalent of saying "Some people run this red light, so I want Detroit to stop selling as many cars."

Most gun misuse is already illegal. Punishment could probably serve to be more often and evenly served, but that's a different bag than "limit the number of guns."
 
2014-01-05 04:31:13 PM

AngryDragon: Dan the Schman: AngryDragon: Dan the Schman: Just because you say it has no impact doesn't mean it's true. Gun violence is a disease and like many diseases it requires more than a simple ban in a handful of cities, it will require a variety of laws at every level, but in order to do that we'll require cooperation from gun rights advocates, and hopefully they'll come around sooner than later because neither ignoring the problem nor "MOAR GUNS" are viable solutions

So what do you propose that isn't unfair to law abiding citizens?  Seriously.  I'm interested in what laws you believe are not in effe ct that should be enacted.

Since you're an extremist who thinks any limits are an outrage, you're not worth having a debate with, because you wouldn't actually debate, which is why we can't work out a solution, because your side's only ideas are either do nothing or "MOAR GUNS".

I'm an extremist.  I see.  Actually I live in Michigan where there are HEAVY restrictions on firearms that I am completely OK with.  No felons, some misdemeanors, no mental health issues, no private transfers, background checks required, no carrying while intoxicated, no PPOs, no domestic violence history of any kind, all totally reasonable.  The only law in Michigan that I have an issue with is gun free zones.   The summary is 300 pages long (PDF warning)

What else exactly would you enact in my state to impact gun crime?  Magazine restrictions?  Cosmetic restrictions?  Both pointless.  Perhaps you can see why as a law abiding gun owner already complying with 300 pages of state laws, not to mention federal, I might say that enough is enough.


First of all, that "300 pages is sooooo much" argument is stupid. If Green Eggs and Ham were written in Legalese it would be 50 pages.

Secondly, when you say things like "Any limits are abhorrent" you sound like an extremist.

Third, looking into the gun laws of Michigan, they seem comprehensive and logical, and it seems to work, among the ocean of articles bashing Detroit and holding it up as an example of how gun control doesn't work, I managed to find some (old) articles talking about the dramatic fall in gun violence in Michigan.
 
2014-01-05 04:31:47 PM

redmid17: clowncar on fire: redmid17: The Name: redmid17: Gun deaths and car deaths are obviously different, and I'm not equating them.

But you kind of are . . .

redmid17: Worst is subjective but when it's constitutionally dubious and massively unpopular, the shoe fits.

Meh.  The Constitution should be changed (not violated).  Western Europe seems to survive somehow without a second amendment. And most Americans can't tell their ass from a hole in the ground, so just because they're against something doesn't mean it's a bad idea.

I'm equating them in the way they are both deaths. Car-related deaths are almost exclusively accidents. Gun deaths are overwhelmingly purposely inflicted.

Until the Constitution is changed, what you're proposing is not going to work. Free free to work to amend the constitution. See if you can't get some more protection for the 1st and 4th amendments too.

Do consider alcohol related accidental or preventable?

Depends on the type of death.

Drunken driving death - preventable
Drank and fell down the stairs - accident

Those are just direct causes. I don't particularly want to get long term conditions into the mix, but I would consider things like cirrhosis and liver failure preventable. However I don't know how germane that is to guns.



Drunk and fell down the stairs-  preventable.  Drunk was applying to a large amount of the "preventable " car accidents resulting in death.

I imagine this could apply to gun related deaths as well.  Most gun deaths fall into suicide or accidental category (and involve alcohol)-  not intentional.  Most gun play does not necessarily result in death.
 
2014-01-05 04:36:59 PM
It's apples to something or other but we dont  know with so many conservative states now suppressing data relating to the use of weapons in crime.
 
2014-01-05 04:38:36 PM

AngryDragon: Dan the Schman: AngryDragon: Dan the Schman: Just because you say it has no impact doesn't mean it's true. Gun violence is a disease and like many diseases it requires more than a simple ban in a handful of cities, it will require a variety of laws at every level, but in order to do that we'll require cooperation from gun rights advocates, and hopefully they'll come around sooner than later because neither ignoring the problem nor "MOAR GUNS" are viable solutions

So what do you propose that isn't unfair to law abiding citizens?  Seriously.  I'm interested in what laws you believe are not in effe ct that should be enacted.

Since you're an extremist who thinks any limits are an outrage, you're not worth having a debate with, because you wouldn't actually debate, which is why we can't work out a solution, because your side's only ideas are either do nothing or "MOAR GUNS".

I'm an extremist.  I see.  Actually I live in Michigan where there are HEAVY restrictions on firearms that I am completely OK with.  No felons, some misdemeanors, no mental health issues, no private transfers, background checks required, no carrying while intoxicated, no PPOs, no domestic violence history of any kind, all totally reasonable.  The only law in Michigan that I have an issue with is gun free zones.   The summary is 300 pages long (PDF warning)

What else exactly would you enact in my state to impact gun crime?  Magazine restrictions?  Cosmetic restrictions?  Both pointless.  Perhaps you can see why as a law abiding gun owner already complying with 300 pages of state laws, not to mention federal, I might say that enough is enough.


Here's what I'd do (this doesn't go as far as I'd like, but I feel it's a fair compromise):

1. Require all guns be registered to a central federal database, updated automatically any time a gun is sold to someone else, with the owner required to report any stolen firearms immediately

2. Increase mandatory penalties for gun crimes.  I see two tiers.
Tier 1 - Use of a firearm with criminal intent - Robbing a store with a gun, mugging someone with a gun, shooting someone, etc.  Mandatory sentence of life without the possibility of parole, or whatever the maximum sentence is for juvenile offenders in those cases.
Tier 2 - Illegal use of a firearm without criminal intent - Accidental discharges (whether or not they hit someone), carrying an unregistered weapon or one not registered to you, Failure to follow the law in the sale/transfer of a firearm or failure to report a stolen gun as stolen, etc.  Mandatory fines of not less than $10,000 plus at least one month of jail time, and the loss of the right to own or carry a firearm from that point forward.  If someone is found to be in possession of a firearm after a Tier 2 conviction the mandatory sentence is life without parole.

3. Require all transfers of ownership of firearms to be done at a registered gun store with a background check, at a police station with a background check, or at a specified government office with a background check.
 
2014-01-05 04:39:52 PM

SCUBA_Archer: 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.

What effect will this have on the gangbangers that are the chief reason we have daily Fark gun control discussion threads?  I'm guessing 90 percent or better shootings in the US are by people already illegally carrying a weapon.

The gun laws we have now ARE sane (and overreaching in a lot of places).  Despite the juvenille attempt of leftys to crow about how gun enthusiasts think we need less laws (or no laws in some cases), chances are we would have better luck enforcing a few well-crafted laws targeting the core of the problem rather than a web of contradictory laws that lead to tighter and more ridiculous restrictions on you and me.


The issue that these continuing threads generally fail to address is the gun control is essentially a red herring topic.

It's bait and switch.

BOTH sides are concerned with safety. Both sides are concerned with crime. That's the discussion that we need to have. That's a topic that we need to address. Crime and safety.

Gun control, as a debate is useless. It's useless because it does very little to address either safety nor crime. Unless you're talking about trigger locks, better safeties for weapons sold, and mandatory gun training for those who want to carry in public. Otherwise, gun control is pretty much a devisive tactic to keep us from looking at the real issues we face.

You want to address violence, you can't look at just the tools. Violence continues in Great Britain, despite their crack down on weapons. Same in Japan, despite the fact that they often reclasify a lot of murders as simply "missing persons" cases if the bodies happen to wind up in foundations that their Yakuza owned construction companies have laid down across the nation, or wound up as fish chum. The real issue isn't the tools used in the violence--because any tool can be a weapon if you hold it right. The real issue is why do folks turn to violence in the first place.

What are the causative factors? Economic instability? Mental instability? Lack of education and poor impulse control coupled with economic instability and a rising tide of financial inequality, while inundated of images of a "good life" with huge sums to be made on an illegal black market that requires some risk/reward assessments that those with limited opportunities thanks to that limited education and widespread economic instability might provide? You want to curb violence--and I mean violence in general, not just guns, not just knives, not just hammers, random beatings, or domestic violence even--you have to address the issues that cause folks to do that risk/reward assessment.

You want to address violence in this country we have to look primarily at education, economic opportunity, and decent healthcare. We have to give folks better options. A kid who grew up in a sh*tty neighborhood, who was underserved in his schools, can make the choice to walk the straight and narrow, and watch as his peers plunge headlong into crimes that have some element of reward. That can grate, fair fast. That breeds a brand of resentment. That can be a white kid, a black kid, a brown kid, yellow, red, mixed colors of the rainbow. Couple limited economic opportunity with limited education options, and you have a breeding ground for a lot of crime. It's a risk/reward assessment of being able to get something for you and yours, or grinding away without much hope. That's a hard one to sell. Likewise, it leads folks who have no real options for health care, mental or physical, and you get the powderkeg that we have in this country today. Folks who have mental health issues aren't diagnosed, aren't treated, aren't paid attention to, and without much hope for advancement, is it any wonder that folks snap?

Violence in this country is an issue. It's also the one that we don't like to talk about, so instead, we trot out arguments that have nothing to do with the real issue. Like gun control. Because it's talking about doing something, as opposed to doing something useful. You want to address issues of violence in this country, then we have to address issues of education, economic opportunity, and health. Get those issues into the stream, get a handle on the reasons that folks turn to violence, and you'll see it drop. You'll see folks who won't turn to violence as their go-to solution. You'll see folks calm the f*ck down. You'll also see growth, improved real estate values, and less money thrown into the criminal justice system, and that means money that we can throw around toward helping folks create their own businesses, or cut our tax rates and let folks do it their own damn selves.

Gun control is a false debate. And for all the vitriol on BOTH sides of the issue, y'all want the same damn thing: safer streets. The question is how to get that?  It's not as easy a path as saying, "NO MOAR GUNS!" or "MOAR GUNS FOR EVERYONE!" It's a lot harder, and it has the potential to strip away some fairly well cherished myths that this country likes to hold onto as the "Land of Opportunity" and it is a damn sight more expensive than just adding some more laws to the books to limit the tools for crimes, but then again, it's damn expensive to keep housing prisoners, and keep our education systems sliding down, and letting our citizens slip down a fair dark path of desperation.

It's not an easy conversation to have. But it's the one we need to have, as opposed to this nonsense about the tools, when the reasons that folks to crime are pretty well ignored. You want to protect your guns? Good, support education reform, economic stability, and health care--both mental and physical--and folks won't turn to violence so often, and your precious guns won't be at risk, because you insist on turning conversations TO that issue, as opposed to the real one.
 
2014-01-05 04:41:24 PM

clowncar on fire: redmid17: clowncar on fire: redmid17: The Name: redmid17: Gun deaths and car deaths are obviously different, and I'm not equating them.

But you kind of are . . .

redmid17: Worst is subjective but when it's constitutionally dubious and massively unpopular, the shoe fits.

Meh.  The Constitution should be changed (not violated).  Western Europe seems to survive somehow without a second amendment. And most Americans can't tell their ass from a hole in the ground, so just because they're against something doesn't mean it's a bad idea.

I'm equating them in the way they are both deaths. Car-related deaths are almost exclusively accidents. Gun deaths are overwhelmingly purposely inflicted.

Until the Constitution is changed, what you're proposing is not going to work. Free free to work to amend the constitution. See if you can't get some more protection for the 1st and 4th amendments too.

Do consider alcohol related accidental or preventable?

Depends on the type of death.

Drunken driving death - preventable
Drank and fell down the stairs - accident

Those are just direct causes. I don't particularly want to get long term conditions into the mix, but I would consider things like cirrhosis and liver failure preventable. However I don't know how germane that is to guns.


Drunk and fell down the stairs-  preventable.  Drunk was applying to a large amount of the "preventable " car accidents resulting in death.

I imagine this could apply to gun related deaths as well.  Most gun deaths fall into suicide or accidental category (and involve alcohol)-  not intentional.  Most gun play does not necessarily result in death.


Accidental gun deaths number in the hundreds. People trying to kill themselves typically are intentionally doing so. You can argue over their state of mind if you want, but homicides and suicides are intentional.

Drinking and walking are far different than drinking and driving. Humans have been getting drunk and making ambulatory movements for thousands of years. They haven't really been doing that with cars for as long. It's accidental, not preventable, when someone falls down the stairs like that.
 
2014-01-05 04:43:38 PM

AngryDragon: What gun law is optional because you're a responsible gun owner?


I'm not arguing that any law is actually like that.  I'm arguing against Responsible Gun Owners who complain about getting their toes stepped on by laws designed to make sure that they are, in fact, responsible.

redmid17: However it seems like you just want to reduce the number of people with weapons so they don't get misused. That's the equivalent of saying "Some people run this red light, so I want Detroit to stop selling as many cars."


The argument for expanding and encouraging public transportation is actually the perfect analogy for the gun argument.  In fact, it's not even an analogy, it's the same principle.  Make owning a car more of a hassle (through taxes, for example) while expanding public transportation services, and you'll get a cleaner, less traffic-ridden city.  Similarly, if you make gun ownership more of a hassle (maybe by requiring re-certification every six months), drive up the price of guns by making them more scarce, and encourage non-firearm related outdoor activities, you can lower the number of guns circulating and thus, in theory, gun crime.
 
2014-01-05 04:46:36 PM

The Name: AngryDragon: What gun law is optional because you're a responsible gun owner?

I'm not arguing that any law is actually like that.  I'm arguing against Responsible Gun Owners who complain about getting their toes stepped on by laws designed to make sure that they are, in fact, responsible.

redmid17: However it seems like you just want to reduce the number of people with weapons so they don't get misused. That's the equivalent of saying "Some people run this red light, so I want Detroit to stop selling as many cars."

The argument for expanding and encouraging public transportation is actually the perfect analogy for the gun argument.  In fact, it's not even an analogy, it's the same principle.  Make owning a car more of a hassle (through taxes, for example) while expanding public transportation services, and you'll get a cleaner, less traffic-ridden city.  Similarly, if you make gun ownership more of a hassle (maybe by requiring re-certification every six months), drive up the price of guns by making them more scarce, and encourage non-firearm related outdoor activities, you can lower the number of guns circulating and thus, in theory, gun crime.


Without trying to sound too crass, no shiat. That's why I made the partial argument in the first place. The difference is that you don't have a constitutional right to own and operate a car. You do have one to own and use a gun. You don't need to marginalize gun owners and violate rights to reduce violent crime.
 
2014-01-05 04:47:52 PM

The Name: AngryDragon: What gun law is optional because you're a responsible gun owner?

I'm not arguing that any law is actually like that.  I'm arguing against Responsible Gun Owners who complain about getting their toes stepped on by laws designed to make sure that they are, in fact, responsible.


Also what law? I'd love to see an example or two.
 
2014-01-05 04:47:56 PM
FARKLIBS be like
www.troll.me
 
Displayed 50 of 446 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report