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  
•       •       •

860 clicks; posted to Politics » on 05 Jan 2014 at 12:20 PM (33 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 04:48:52 PM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: So, therefore, if there were no gun laws, there would be no crime?

/it's too early for this bullsh*t

So, therefore, if there were no gun laws, there would be no

GUN crime. There would only be common place everyday crime.

It's never too early.
 
2014-01-05 04:49:07 PM

hubiestubert: etc.


Dude, stop with the rational thought.  This is a gun thread.

That said, I live in the district.  The concentration of people who make for tempting targets and the number of visitors here makes stricter gun control than the average place pretty reasonable.  Also, Congress lets us have only as much say in this kind of thing as they want to let us get away with, being the only place in the nation that can't vote for anyone with any power in congress.
 
2014-01-05 04:50:58 PM

redmid17: 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.


Yeah, and that's a problem that should be remedied through a constitutional amendment.  You just said "no shiat" to my proposal to reduce gun crime.  So, would you support a constitutional amendment?  Forget whether it's politically possible or not.  If it were to come up for a vote, would you vote for or against?
 
2014-01-05 04:52:33 PM

plewis: hubiestubert: etc.

Dude, stop with the rational thought.  This is a gun thread.

That said, I live in the district.  The concentration of people who make for tempting targets and the number of visitors here makes stricter gun control than the average place pretty reasonable.  Also, Congress lets us have only as much say in this kind of thing as they want to let us get away with, being the only place in the nation that can't vote for anyone with any power in congress.


I never understood how they let you guys get away with this.  It's like a troll, in license plate form.

www.dcvote.org
 
2014-01-05 04:52:36 PM

FlashHarry: submitter's logic:

murder is illegal

there are still murders

therefore murder should be legal.

QED


Murder is a verb, Gun is a noun. Laws against Murder are to outlaw a violent act, laws against Guns are to provide helpless victims. If you don't have a crisis to exploit you have to create one out of thin air.
 
2014-01-05 04:54:06 PM

Dan the Schman: 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


First of all the "300 pages (PDF Warning)" was a courtesy.  I had already summarized the significant provisions.

Secondly, I said any limits are abhorrent on enumerated rights.  So if I say limits on trial by jury or search and seizure are acceptable does that prevent me from being an extremist?  No, that just makes me an extremist.  Why would the right to bear arms be any different?  That being said, I am OK with the reasonable restrictions in place.

Third, that was exactly my point.  Michigan went from very tightly controlled firearms regulations to very loose and gun crime has plummeted.  I'm not saying that the relaxation of gun ownership is the cause.  I am saying that since it didn't get worse, the tight regulations that everyone wants to put back in place are simply not effective.  You don't have to like it,  but it is fact.
 
2014-01-05 04:55:49 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 Conservative shot and killed Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States .
 ~ In 1881 a left wing radical Democrat mentally deranged man who supported Garfield's presidential campaign, and was therefore a Republican, shot James Garfield, President of the United States who later died from the wound because he thought a speech in support of Garfield he printed up was the reason he won, and expected a political appointment as a reward, which was denied.
 ~ In 1963 a radical left wing socialist Communist shot and killed John F. Kennedy, President of the United States, who had a long history of trying to kill Fidel Castro or otherwise take down the Communist Government in Cuba.
 ~ In 1975 a left wing radical Democrat Manson family member with ties to the Aryan Brotherhood fired shots at Gerald Ford, President of the United States.
 ~ In 1983 a registered Democrat mentally deranged man of unknown political affiliation from a staunchly Conservative Republican family, who previously stalked President Jimmy Carter shot and wounded Ronald Reagan, President of the United States to impress actress Jodi Foster.


The closest you have to an argument is with Squeaky Fromme. She was a radical left-winger (though allied with the Aryan Brotherhood, which is in conflict with that statement). Unfortunately, her being a Manson Family member overrides any political angle.

The rest I won't spent time debunking, but I assume they have the same "accuracy"

 ~ 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 ...
 
2014-01-05 04:57:13 PM
Dan the Schman:

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 ocea ...


Saying that a law-abiding citizen, who can pass a Federal background check, and does not have anything disqualifying in his history, cannot buy any gun he wants is extremist??  Saying that we don't need a law telling you that 11 rounds is too many for one rifle magazine is extremist?  Saying that it's wrong to make it illegal to add a forward grip to a semi-automatic rifle is extremist?  I'm sorry, but I will have to disagree with you.
 
2014-01-05 05:00:22 PM

Elvis Presleys Death Throne: FARKLIBS be like
[www.troll.me image 550x413]


You know, a big part of the reason that your perceived constitutional rights are being discussed and renegotiated is that whenever the topic comes, there are throngs of people on your side who insist upon behaving like anti-social douchebags.

You would think people like you would learn that you're not helping your own cause when you post like someone who we could imagine shooting up a primary school.
 
2014-01-05 05:02:15 PM
TuteTibiImperes:

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

What purpose would this registry serve?
 
2014-01-05 05:02:28 PM

TuteTibiImperes: 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


1.  Prove that a registry wouldn't lead to confiscation.  And don't say it's a remote possibility.   It has already happened.

2.  That already happens.  Felony murder?  And all I hear all the time is stories about how the poor criminal shouldn't be sent to jail for life because he didn't pull the trigger, someone else did.  So which is it?

3.  I am completely OK with this one.

The problem is that it's never enough for people who want to restrict firearms.  Those of us who believe in firearms ownership dig in our heels because we KNOW that firearms laws are a slippery slope every time.  It may not be this administration but the next.  Governmental power granted is never relinquished and ALWAYS expanded.
 
2014-01-05 05:03:48 PM

AngryDragon: Third, that was exactly my point. Michigan went from very tightly controlled firearms regulations to very loose and gun crime has plummeted. I'm not saying that the relaxation of gun ownership is the cause. I am saying that since it didn't get worse, the tight regulations that everyone wants to put back in place are simply not effective.


And again, if we had European-style gun laws with strict enforcement, we'd have an even lower level of gun crime than the historically low levels we have now.  You're talking about this plummet in gun crime as if has brought us down to an acceptable level, when all it's really done is brought us a little closer to the level of gun crime in the rest of the developed world -which is still way, way lower.

Of course, we'd also have a lot of dead FBI and ATF agents if we started enforcing European gun laws.
 
2014-01-05 05:04:32 PM
Gun nuts are generally overcompensated pussies afraid to leave their homes unarmed, but case law HSS idiotically interpreted the archaic second amendment in an overly broad manner (typical activist conservative judges), so alas the only remedy is a constitutional amendment... Which ain't gonna happen.
 
2014-01-05 05:07:16 PM

SCUBA_Archer: TuteTibiImperes:

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

What purpose would this registry serve?


To determine if someone with a firearm has a legal right to have that firearm, and to be able to track firearms used in crimes back to their source more effectively.

AngryDragon:

2.  That already happens.  Felony murder?  And all I hear all the time is stories about how the poor criminal shouldn't be sent to jail for life because he didn't pull the trigger, someone else did.  So which is it?

For felony murder?  Sure, it happens sometimes.  I propose making it for all crimes involving a gun, whether it's shot or not.  You rob a liquor store with a gun?  You go away for life instead of getting a short stay in county or probation like happens often enough now.  You pull a gun on someone in an altercation?  You go away for life, no slaps on the wrist.
 
2014-01-05 05:07:34 PM

PC LOAD LETTER: 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 Conservative shot and killed Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States .
 ~ In 1881 a left wing radical Democrat mentally deranged man who supported Garfield's presidential campaign, and was therefore a Republican, shot James Garfield, President of the United States who later died from the wound because he thought a speech in support of Garfield he printed up was the reason he won, and expected a political appointment as a reward, which was denied.
 ~ In 1963 a radical left wing socialist Communist shot and killed John F. Kennedy, President of the United States, who had a long history of trying to kill Fidel Castro or otherwise take down the Communist Government in Cuba.
 ~ In 1975 a left wing radical Democrat Manson family member with ties to the Aryan Brotherhood fired shots at Gerald Ford, President of the United States.
 ~ In 1983 a registered Democrat mentally deranged man of unknown political affiliation from a staunchly Conservative Republican family, who previously stalked President Jimmy Carter shot and wounded Ronald Reagan, President of the United States to impress actress Jodi Foster.

The closest you have to an argument is with Squeaky Fromme. She was a radical left-winger (though allied with the Aryan Brotherhood, which is in conflict with that statement). Unfortunately, her being a Manson Family member overrides any political angle.

The rest I won't spent time debunking, but I assume they have the same "accuracy"

 ~ 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 ...


I spot checked just one of them and find it to be wrong.

Jared Lee Loughner was a registered independent, not a democrat.

This seems to be a list of Fox news quality.
 
2014-01-05 05:08:01 PM

Frank N Stein: 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 e ...



That's just not true.  You don't get to shoot a police officer just because he or she enters your house illegally.  You have to be reasonably in fear for your life, which takes into account the totality of the circumstances.  If the circumstances indicate that it is a cop, then your defense is almost certain to fail.

It's not like you get a golden ticket to kill a cop just because they are there illegally.
 
2014-01-05 05:08:04 PM

udhq: Elvis Presleys Death Throne: FARKLIBS be like
[www.troll.me image 550x413]

You know, a big part of the reason that your perceived constitutional rights are being discussed and renegotiated is that whenever the topic comes, there are throngs of people on your side who insist upon behaving like anti-social douchebags.

You would think people like you would learn that you're not helping your own cause when you post like someone who we could imagine shooting up a primary school.


That picture was just for you.  You're only mad because you couldn't post it yourself, for gun owners who's constitutional rights had been stripped away.

No matter; that "discussed and renegotiated" thing got its ass kicked last year and I don't expect we'll be hearing from it any time soon.

It is good to see that your ilk never tire of that whole standing on the graves of dead kids thing though.
 
2014-01-05 05:08:40 PM

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.


I agree. The best way to give up arms is willingly. Inventing phasers wouldn't hurt either.
 
2014-01-05 05:11:36 PM

ex-nuke: So, therefore, if there were no gun laws, there would be no GUN crime. There would only be common place everyday crime.


Commonplace everyday  crime does not result in a classroom full of dead kids.  Crime sucks, but it's crime + guns that give us the massive body counts.

When's the last time we've had a spree killing with anything but a gun in this country?  And yes, spree killings are the exception, but unfortunately, they are now common enough that they have become their own distinct social problem that must either be dealt with (the left) or accepted as a consequence of freedom (the right.)
 
2014-01-05 05:13:30 PM

The Name: And again, if we had European-style gun laws with strict enforcement, we'd have an even lower level of gun crime than the historically low levels we have now.  You're talking about this plummet in gun crime as if has brought us down to an acceptable level, when all it's really done is brought us a little closer to the level of gun crime in the rest of the developed world -which is still way, way lower


Which would be a violation of the Constitution of the United States.

TuteTibiImperes: For felony murder?  Sure, it happens sometimes.  I propose making it for all crimes involving a gun, whether it's shot or not.  You rob a liquor store with a gun?  You go away for life instead of getting a short stay in county or probation like happens often enough now.  You pull a gun on someone in an altercation?  You go away for life, no slaps on the wrist


Agreed.  Let's make it happen.  You will find that law abiding gun owners will be overwhelmingly in favor of this type of legislation.  Know why?  Because it will never affect us because we aren't criminals.  Unfortunately, the liberals can't propose that type of legislation and would never support it because it's too draconian.  So they resort to gun control legislation which finds us right back at square one.
 
2014-01-05 05:14:23 PM

udhq: ex-nuke: So, therefore, if there were no gun laws, there would be no GUN crime. There would only be common place everyday crime.

Commonplace everyday  crime does not result in a classroom full of dead kids.  Crime sucks, but it's crime + guns that give us the massive body counts.

When's the last time we've had a spree killing with anything but a gun in this country?  And yes, spree killings are the exception, but unfortunately, they are now common enough that they have become their own distinct social problem that must either be dealt with (the left) or accepted as a consequence of freedom (the right.)


These are also starting to happen in other countries with far stricter gun legislation than we have.
 
2014-01-05 05:14:46 PM

AngryDragon: The Name: And again, if we had European-style gun laws with strict enforcement, we'd have an even lower level of gun crime than the historically low levels we have now.  You're talking about this plummet in gun crime as if has brought us down to an acceptable level, when all it's really done is brought us a little closer to the level of gun crime in the rest of the developed world -which is still way, way lower

Which would be a violation of the Constitution of the United States.


Yup.  So we'll need to amend it first.
 
2014-01-05 05:16:12 PM

The Name: AngryDragon: The Name: And again, if we had European-style gun laws with strict enforcement, we'd have an even lower level of gun crime than the historically low levels we have now.  You're talking about this plummet in gun crime as if has brought us down to an acceptable level, when all it's really done is brought us a little closer to the level of gun crime in the rest of the developed world -which is still way, way lower

Which would be a violation of the Constitution of the United States.

Yup.  So we'll need to amend it first.


Or wait until the Supreme Court finally swings towards a liberal bias and let rulings on relevant cases have the same effect.
 
2014-01-05 05:17:31 PM

TuteTibiImperes: The Name: AngryDragon: The Name: And again, if we had European-style gun laws with strict enforcement, we'd have an even lower level of gun crime than the historically low levels we have now.  You're talking about this plummet in gun crime as if has brought us down to an acceptable level, when all it's really done is brought us a little closer to the level of gun crime in the rest of the developed world -which is still way, way lower

Which would be a violation of the Constitution of the United States.

Yup.  So we'll need to amend it first.

Or wait until the Supreme Court finally swings towards a liberal bias and let rulings on relevant cases have the same effect.


I can settle for that.
 
2014-01-05 05:18:20 PM

The Name: redmid17: 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.

Yeah, and that's a problem that should be remedied through a constitutional amendment.  You just said "no shiat" to my proposal to reduce gun crime.  So, would you support a constitutional amendment?  Forget whether it's politically possible or not.  If it were to come up for a vote, would you vote for or against?


I'd vote against. I don't like giving away rights and all crime can be drastically reduced if we concentrated on fixing the root causes. I'm a bigger fan of non-punitive measures when it comes to crime. If you fix the war on drugs, make sure people have access to healthcare, and provide decent educational opportunities, you'd do far more to fix any crime issue than you would by restricting access to guns.

Now things like stricter and harsher sentencing for committing crimes with a gun I can support.
 
2014-01-05 05:18:35 PM

Doom MD: 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.



Ok...  My point is that private ownership of small arms does not in any way, shape, or form prevent government corruption or tyranny.  So your statement is complete nonsense.

I'm guessing you just want to have this lead down the road where we have a technical argument about the history, intent, and judicial construction of the second amendment.  No thanks.   We could talk about that all day - it won't make your theory that the second amendment somehow protects people from government oppression any less absurd.

I don't know, maybe you think that the second amendment protects the private ownership of nuclear weapons, tanks, aircraft carriers, and smart weapons (you know, to level the playing field).  But again, that just illustrates how silly and divorced from reality the gun culture's belief system is.
 
2014-01-05 05:21:21 PM

Elvis Presleys Death Throne: That picture was just for you. You're only mad because you couldn't post it yourself, for gun owners who's constitutional rights had been stripped away.

No matter; that "discussed and renegotiated" thing got its ass kicked last year and I don't expect we'll be hearing from it any time soon.

It is good to see that your ilk never tire of that whole standing on the graves of dead kids thing though.


And your ilk never gets tired of enabling those who want to make more dead kids.

The right likes to say that the left is afraid of guns, but that's not true.  Guns are tools, and in the hands of well trained people, they can be used for good.  What we fear are guns in the hands of unhinged, anti-social people like you who see their guns not as a grave set of rights and responsibilities,  but as something to wave in the air to piss off the right people.

You don't seem to take gun ownership seriously at all, and the good gun owners out there should want you to sit down, shut up and stop making them all look like deranged adolescents.
 
2014-01-05 05:25:43 PM

redmid17: If you fix the war on drugs, make sure people have access to healthcare, and provide decent educational opportunities, you'd do far more to fix any crime issue than you would by restricting access to guns.


media.tumblr.com

You said that the measures I proposed to restrict gun ownership would reduce crime.  Why not make a double-pronged attack at it?   And do you really think gun ownership is that important of a right?  Do you really think the rest of the developed world feels unduly restricted because they're not guaranteed the right to own a gun?
 
2014-01-05 05:30:49 PM

TuteTibiImperes: The Name: AngryDragon: The Name: And again, if we had European-style gun laws with strict enforcement, we'd have an even lower level of gun crime than the historically low levels we have now.  You're talking about this plummet in gun crime as if has brought us down to an acceptable level, when all it's really done is brought us a little closer to the level of gun crime in the rest of the developed world -which is still way, way lower

Which would be a violation of the Constitution of the United States.

Yup.  So we'll need to amend it first.

Or wait until the Supreme Court finally swings towards a liberal bias and let rulings on relevant cases have the same effect.


Good luck with that.  Thankfully the precedent is already set.
 
2014-01-05 05:32:25 PM

udhq: Elvis Presleys Death Throne: That picture was just for you. You're only mad because you couldn't post it yourself, for gun owners who's constitutional rights had been stripped away.

No matter; that "discussed and renegotiated" thing got its ass kicked last year and I don't expect we'll be hearing from it any time soon.

It is good to see that your ilk never tire of that whole standing on the graves of dead kids thing though.

And your ilk never gets tired of enabling those who want to make more dead kids.

The right likes to say that the left is afraid of guns, but that's not true.  Guns are tools, and in the hands of well trained people, they can be used for good.  What we fear are guns in the hands of unhinged, anti-social people like you who see their guns not as a grave set of rights and responsibilities,  but as something to wave in the air to piss off the right people.

You don't seem to take gun ownership seriously at all, and the good gun owners out there should want you to sit down, shut up and stop making them all look like deranged adolescents.



To be fair, gun culture political beliefs are pretty deranged.  Once a person has accepted the proposition that owning a gun is a political statement, and that it is important to own a gun to protect you from our democratically elected government, then it's hard to consider that person anything other than somewhat delusional or deranged.

I'm a gun owner that gets completely disgusted by gun politics and gun fetishists.  Although I would not be in favor of outright bans on most weapons, I am in favor of regulating guns in a comprehensive and common-sense way.  I also have contempt for the insanely irresponsible and unethical gun industry and its political arm, the NRA.
 
2014-01-05 05:33:46 PM

AngryDragon: TuteTibiImperes: The Name: AngryDragon: The Name: And again, if we had European-style gun laws with strict enforcement, we'd have an even lower level of gun crime than the historically low levels we have now.  You're talking about this plummet in gun crime as if has brought us down to an acceptable level, when all it's really done is brought us a little closer to the level of gun crime in the rest of the developed world -which is still way, way lower

Which would be a violation of the Constitution of the United States.

Yup.  So we'll need to amend it first.

Or wait until the Supreme Court finally swings towards a liberal bias and let rulings on relevant cases have the same effect.

Good luck with that.  Thankfully the precedent is already set.


Thankfully the Supreme Court doesn't have to abide by precedent :-)  Better start stockpiling!
 
2014-01-05 05:36:45 PM

The Name: redmid17: If you fix the war on drugs, make sure people have access to healthcare, and provide decent educational opportunities, you'd do far more to fix any crime issue than you would by restricting access to guns.

[media.tumblr.com image 400x389]

You said that the measures I proposed to restrict gun ownership would reduce crime.  Why not make a double-pronged attack at it?   And do you really think gun ownership is that important of a right?  Do you really think the rest of the developed world feels unduly restricted because they're not guaranteed the right to own a gun?


No need to do so. If I told you that I could achieve the exact same results without reducing the number of guns in the country, would you still push for it?

The other countries of the world, a few aside, have never had a right to own a gun. England and the UK did until the mid 1750s. It's been pretty heavily curtailed since then. Switzerland has a right to own a weapon, but I can't think of any others. I don't really think the 3rd amendment is real pertinent for 99.99999% of people in the US* but I don't want to get rid of it. I think particular applications of the 8th amendment (banned methods of execution like firing squad or electric chair**) should be legal, but I'm not
clamoring for them to amend that one either.

* There are probably some aleutian islanders who would disagree
** varies by state
 
2014-01-05 05:39:04 PM

The Name: AngryDragon: TuteTibiImperes: The Name: AngryDragon: The Name: And again, if we had European-style gun laws with strict enforcement, we'd have an even lower level of gun crime than the historically low levels we have now.  You're talking about this plummet in gun crime as if has brought us down to an acceptable level, when all it's really done is brought us a little closer to the level of gun crime in the rest of the developed world -which is still way, way lower

Which would be a violation of the Constitution of the United States.

Yup.  So we'll need to amend it first.

Or wait until the Supreme Court finally swings towards a liberal bias and let rulings on relevant cases have the same effect.

Good luck with that.  Thankfully the precedent is already set.

Thankfully the Supreme Court doesn't have to abide by precedent :-)  Better start stockpiling!


They aren't bound to follow precedent but the vast majority of cases do follow precedent, especially when the exact same issue is being revisited.
 
2014-01-05 05:40:34 PM

TuteTibiImperes: SCUBA_Archer: TuteTibiImperes:

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

What purpose would this registry serve?

To determine if someone with a firearm has a legal right to have that firearm, and to be able to track firearms used in crimes back to their source more effectively.


Oh yeah, THOSE guns.  Naw all I have in my possession are these 80% completed lower receivers.  Not illegal to own a piece of metal is it?  Those guns were lost in a tragic boating accident last year.  Never got around to replacing them.

Wash, rinse, repeat.

And California has had a handgun registry since 1994.  How many crimes have they solved with it?
 
2014-01-05 05:41:50 PM

udhq: ex-nuke: So, therefore, if there were no gun laws, there would be no GUN crime. There would only be common place everyday crime.

Commonplace everyday  crime does not result in a classroom full of dead kids.  Crime sucks, but it's crime + guns that give us the massive body counts.

When's the last time we've had a spree killing with anything but a gun in this country?  And yes, spree killings are the exception, but unfortunately, they are now common enough that they have become their own distinct social problem that must either be dealt with (the left) or accepted as a consequence of freedom (the right.)


Boston marathon says sup
 
2014-01-05 05:47:17 PM

redmid17: If I told you that I could achieve the exact same results without reducing the number of guns in the country, would you still push for it?


Probably not.  But you're really flying off into fantasy land if you think reducing gun ownership wouldn't have any place in the ideal crime-reduction program.  You're basically banking on the hope that no Responsible Gun Owners will ever get angry and snap or decide to rob a convenience store.

redmid17: The other countries of the world, a few aside, have never had a right to own a gun. England and the UK did until the mid 1750s. It's been pretty heavily curtailed since then. Switzerland has a right to own a weapon, but I can't think of any others.


Yup.  And today most of those nations enjoy a higher quality of life and even greater freedom than Americans (not arguing causality, just saying you don't need your guns).

redmid17: I think particular applications of the 8th amendment (banned methods of execution like firing squad or electric chair**) should be legal, but I'm not clamoring for them to amend that one either.


It's kind of creepy that you put that much thought into it, and it doesn't help your image as a gun enthusiast, either.
 
2014-01-05 05:51:32 PM

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.


There is ONE dealer with a FFL in DC who does a handful of sales per year by appointment only. There are NO felons who can legally buy a gun in DC (or the rest of the country). I'd wager that there has never been a crime committed in DC that was committed by a gun without a criminal attached. 

There are no car manufacturers in DC. I'd wager most of the cars used in car crime in DC come from out of town/district.

There are NO distillerys in DC.  I'd wager most of the booze used in drunk driving crime in DC come from out of town/district.

There are NO legal growers in DC. I'd wager most of the pot used in pot crime in DC come from out of town/district.

There are NO Computer manufacturers in DC. I'd wager most of the computers used in computer crime in DC come from out of town/district.

There are almost zero shark attacks in the middle of the Sahara Desert so it must be SAFER to live there than the Australian Coast.
 
2014-01-05 05:56:47 PM

The Name: AngryDragon: TuteTibiImperes: The Name: AngryDragon: The Name: And again, if we had European-style gun laws with strict enforcement, we'd have an even lower level of gun crime than the historically low levels we have now.  You're talking about this plummet in gun crime as if has brought us down to an acceptable level, when all it's really done is brought us a little closer to the level of gun crime in the rest of the developed world -which is still way, way lower

Which would be a violation of the Constitution of the United States.

Yup.  So we'll need to amend it first.

Or wait until the Supreme Court finally swings towards a liberal bias and let rulings on relevant cases have the same effect.

Good luck with that.  Thankfully the precedent is already set.

Thankfully the Supreme Court doesn't have to abide by precedent :-)  Better start stockpiling!


They don't have to, but they do the vast majority of the time.

Incidentally, so it's ok to take repeated runs at DC v Heller, but Roe v. Wade should be sacrosanct?
 
2014-01-05 05:59:08 PM

AngryDragon: Incidentally, so it's ok to take repeated runs at DC v Heller, but Roe v. Wade should be sacrosanct?


Where did that gigantic assumption come from?
 
2014-01-05 06:01:43 PM

The Name: AngryDragon: Incidentally, so it's ok to take repeated runs at DC v Heller, but Roe v. Wade should be sacrosanct?

Where did that gigantic assumption come from?


Flip side of the political spectrum.  Yes it was an assumption, but it seemed appropriate.  Incidentally, I have no opinion on R v W.
 
2014-01-05 06:04:34 PM

The Name: AngryDragon: Incidentally, so it's ok to take repeated runs at DC v Heller, but Roe v. Wade should be sacrosanct?

Where did that gigantic assumption come from?


Unintended consequences
 
2014-01-05 06:06:43 PM

Sidecrab: Look at DC's demographics, therein lies the answer.


More politicians per capita than ANY OTHER region! I think you're onto something!
 
2014-01-05 06:06:47 PM

Linux_Yes: never once saw a pistol rob someone.


but the Owners would enjoy disarming this Nation so they can ram that cock even further up the bottom 90%'s ass.  they love their Freedom, but only for themselves.  everyone else should be under their control.  can't do that if they're armed to the teeth.


I never once saw a chemical weapon burn someone all on its own.

Therefore there is no need to regulate it.
 
Rat
2014-01-05 06:06:59 PM
TuteTibiImperes:

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

Awesome!  I love compromise.  Those are some pretty hefty restrictions though, so whatcha got for me in return?

 
2014-01-05 06:09:27 PM

Rat: TuteTibiImperes:

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

Awesome!  I love compromise.  Those are some pretty hefty restrictions though, so whatcha got for me in return?



Under what bizarre definition does "compromise" means that both parties receive something that they desire?
 
2014-01-05 06:13:31 PM

Dimensio: Rat: TuteTibiImperes:

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

Awesome!  I love compromise.  Those are some pretty hefty restrictions though, so whatcha got for me in return?



Under what bizarre definition does "compromise" means that both parties receive something that they desire?



com·pro·mise
ˈkämprəˌmīz/
noun
1.
an agreement or a settlement of a dispute that is reached by each side making concessions.

If each side is making concessions then each side is getting something they want.
 
2014-01-05 06:22:13 PM

PC LOAD LETTER: sammyk: Fark It: Gun laws don't generally correlate one way or another to crime rates.

Are you feeling ok?

He's right, actually. Strict gun laws do not correlate to low crime or high crime very well. Open carry correlates to low crime mainly because the areas with open carry are rural areas which are not prone to high crime in the first place. However, cities need strict gun laws to prevent even worse death rates than currently exist, mainly because people have bad safety, poor aim, and there are a ton of bystanders around and windows for stray bullets to go through. Plus, guns are not very good self-defense in many street-crime situations in, say, here in NYC, since you don't have time to deploy your weapon and gain the advantage. Not to mention that pesky bystander and stray bullet travel problem. In home invasion style robberies, it works well. May even work well for carjackings, depending on the particulars.

In large, dense cities, gun control makes sense to me, provided law enforcement doesn't suck (most egregiously seen in Detroit and Camden). In other areas, I don't care, give them out at drive-thrus for all I care. Put in some controls for people with mental problems so they don't get guns easily. No gun control scenario will work as well as the proponents want it to work, but it's literally better than nothing in most cases. In the end, the illegal guns come from somewhere. Find a better way to crack down on that, and you have a much bigger impact.

Want the real answer to gun violence? Changing how Americans think. This "I am a man and I have to prove my mainliness and not appear weak and not getting disrespected" shiat is the absolute root of violence in the US. Solve that and you solve the real issue.

So in conclusion, gun control is certainly a bit of a misdirection in terms of result, and much of it is just legislative masturbation to respond to some outrage, but applied in the right area, with the right law-enforcement framework, will likely help. ...


Very well said
 
2014-01-05 06:29:14 PM

Rat: TuteTibiImperes:

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

Awesome!  I love compromise.  Those are some pretty hefty restrictions though, so whatcha got for me in return?



None of those would restrict law abiding gun owners negatively at all.
 
2014-01-05 06:32:26 PM

Rat: TuteTibiImperes:

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

Awesome!  I love compromise.  Those are some pretty hefty restrictions though, so whatcha got for me in return?



Safer communities and a higher quality of life.  That's what you get.
 
2014-01-05 06:43:14 PM
I would, sarcastically, suggest that the city would have experienced even more armed robberies had unreasonably restrictive firearm laws not been in place, but a known civilian disarmament advocate, who described a proposal to ban all semi-automatic rifles in California as warranting the "Cool" tag, has already seriously claimed it.
 
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