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 Examiner)   "You know, sonny, when I was young, we didn't have all these mass shootings like you have today". Yeah, about that   (washingtonexaminer.com) divider line 257
    More: Obvious, mass shooting, shootings, assault rifles, handguns, criminology, Vice President Joe Biden, Monica DeLateur, James Alan Fox  
•       •       •

11164 clicks; posted to Main » on 15 Jan 2014 at 6:14 AM (45 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-01-14 11:54:56 PM  
I do not care.
 
2014-01-14 11:55:26 PM  
Nothing really new there.


"Mass murder just may be a price we pay for living in a society where personal freedom is so highly valued,"

At least he's honest about it.

thismodernworld.com
 
2014-01-14 11:57:36 PM  

fusillade762: Nothing really new there.


"Mass murder just may be a price we pay for living in a society where personal freedom is so highly valued,"

At least he's honest about it.

[thismodernworld.com image 720x672]



Is it penguin season yet?
 
2014-01-15 12:13:26 AM  
Old people have been sugar-coating their childhood for as long as there have been old people.

My grandpa has stories of all of the following happening to him before he was 20:

Being pursued by pedophiles
Being attacked by chicken thieves
Shooting chicken thieves
An uncle getting hit by a train because he was drunk while taking his illegal moonshine to his mistress' house
Having his boat commandeered and then destroyed by the national guard

Not having enough to eat during the Great Depression
Not having an adequate educational system
Working through the night at a trainyard loading and unloading chemicals that would kill him instantly
Seeing a dog spontaneously combust in a said chemical spill
Working through the night loading and unloading ice blocks that would crush him instantly
Having a friend drown in a flood

The past was not some mythical time of happiness. Bad things happen to happy people all the time, they get over it. If anything, people are way, way safer today than they ever were in the past (and, oh yeah, that was the era when you could just go by a machine gun whenever you wanted to).
 
2014-01-15 12:51:33 AM  
finally, some sanity from the left.
 
2014-01-15 01:04:49 AM  
How, exactly, is any sane person able to seriously argue that mass shootings could have occurred before they were so easily enabled by the presence of pistol grips, barrel shrouds and collapsing stocks on rifles?
 
2014-01-15 01:06:48 AM  
I was just reading some articles on Wikipedia detailing how there were a bunch of mass axe murders back in the early 1900's in the US.
 
2014-01-15 01:16:10 AM  
We did mass shooting right when I was a kid
 
2014-01-15 01:24:25 AM  

Dimensio: How, exactly, is any sane person able to seriously argue that mass shootings could have occurred before they were so easily enabled by the presence of pistol grips, barrel shrouds and collapsing stocks on rifles?


i hope you're trolling, but... WW1 had alot of mass shootings and there were very few if any pistol grip shrouded barrel rifles...though i understand short barreled 12 gauge shotguns were a popular sidearm in the trenches

there's also basically every war going back to the invention of the gun. the civil war, for example, had alot of mass shootings, and they only had a single shot before that had to reload!
 
2014-01-15 01:33:16 AM  

Livingroom: finally, some sanity from the left.


I see no indication at all in that article of the author's politics. Though after your last outburst I'm not sure why I should take anything you say seriously. Tell us again about our satanic hypocrisy.


Livingroom: the civil war, for example, had alot of mass shootings


I'm guessing you're new at this so here's a tip: try to be a little less obvious.
 
2014-01-15 01:34:25 AM  

Dimensio: How, exactly, is any sane person able to seriously argue that mass shootings could have occurred before they were so easily enabled by the presence of pistol grips, barrel shrouds and collapsing stocks on rifles?


By, y'know, having an IQ higher than 78 and the ability to read.
 
2014-01-15 02:01:08 AM  

Dimensio: How, exactly, is any sane person able to seriously argue that mass shootings could have occurred before they were so easily enabled by the presence of pistol grips, barrel shrouds and collapsing stocks on rifles?


Doesn't matter, there is no legitimate civilian use for such a high-power military rifle like that. Rounds come out of those murderous pipes so fast, tumbling in such a way that they will basically turn an elephant inside-out, what of it isn't vaporized.
 
2014-01-15 04:32:38 AM  
Yes, but considering all the polio half the potential victims were practically Terminators and Robocops themselves.
 
2014-01-15 06:20:27 AM  
So, we can go back to blaming dungeons and dragons for the shootings then?
 
2014-01-15 06:25:39 AM  
But if "we" make it expensive and difficult to get the certifications, registrations, authorization papers to own guns, the poor, "THOSE PEOPLE", won't be able to have any guns. Especially those poor of the wrong color or race. The well off can afford the time and/or money to get the time off from work to get the papers, required certifications and training, travel across the state to the only state office that issues permits. "Those peopl"e don't have cars so its working.
 
2014-01-15 06:27:31 AM  

Fubini: Old people have been sugar-coating their childhood for as long as there have been old people.


It was harder, but better.

(I almost added "because reasons", but then I realized I hate that phrase)
 
2014-01-15 06:28:00 AM  
Articles containing this photo should come with a warning.

cdn.washingtonexaminer.biz
 
2014-01-15 06:30:25 AM  

violentsalvation: Dimensio: How, exactly, is any sane person able to seriously argue that mass shootings could have occurred before they were so easily enabled by the presence of pistol grips, barrel shrouds and collapsing stocks on rifles?

Doesn't matter, there is no legitimate civilian use for such a high-power military rifle like that. Rounds come out of those murderous pipes so fast, tumbling in such a way that they will basically turn an elephant inside-out, what of it isn't vaporized.


Yeah. It's not like civilians being armed with military grade weapons is a founding principal or responsible for us NOT being a ln English colony or anything.
 
2014-01-15 06:31:52 AM  

ilikeracecars: Fubini: Old people have been sugar-coating their childhood for as long as there have been old people.

It was harder, but better.

(I almost added "because reasons", but then I realized I hate that phrase)


Why?
 
2014-01-15 06:33:21 AM  
Hold on now. Lets not cloud the issue with facts. The hyperbole is much sexier.
 
2014-01-15 06:33:29 AM  
Great article. Perhaps this is the price we pay for this staggering freedom. The cost might go down once we stop focusing on the shooter and start examining and improving all the stuff in the shooter's margins.
 
2014-01-15 06:33:42 AM  

mike_d85: ilikeracecars: Fubini: Old people have been sugar-coating their childhood for as long as there have been old people.

It was harder, but better.

(I almost added "because reasons", but then I realized I hate that phrase)

Why?


Why what?
 
2014-01-15 06:35:32 AM  
So, what - the essential problem is that americans really like killing each other and not the guns used to do it?

Well, that almost makes sense.

/Outlaw americans!
 
2014-01-15 06:38:12 AM  

Livingroom: Dimensio: How, exactly, is any sane person able to seriously argue that mass shootings could have occurred before they were so easily enabled by the presence of pistol grips, barrel shrouds and collapsing stocks on rifles?

i hope you're trolling, but... WW1 had alot of mass shootings and there were very few if any pistol grip shrouded barrel rifles...though i understand short barreled 12 gauge shotguns were a popular sidearm in the trenches

there's also basically every war going back to the invention of the gun. the civil war, for example, had alot of mass shootings, and they only had a single shot before that had to reload!


Wrong.  You had revolvers with 10 shots (the LeMat), and lever action rifles and carbines in the civil war.
Hyperbole works much better when you get your basic facts straight.
 
2014-01-15 06:39:08 AM  
Only in America is 34 years considered a long time.
 
2014-01-15 06:43:26 AM  
r

ekdikeo4: I was just reading some articles on Wikipedia detailing how there were a bunch of mass axe murders back in the early 1900's in the US.


Gimli?

I Blame J.R.R.
 
2014-01-15 06:45:05 AM  
cdn.washingtonexaminer.biz
"PENIS GOES WHAR?!?!"
 
2014-01-15 06:48:14 AM  
i am pleased i have a meeting in 13 minutes, as this will be no fun
 
2014-01-15 06:48:57 AM  
Myth: Profiling will help catch killers before they act.

photos.washingtonexaminer.biz

I don't know. Conducting "has teh crazy eyes, don't let him anywhere near guns" profiling sure would have caught this numbnutz.
 
2014-01-15 06:51:51 AM  
lol...

34 years, eh? Why such a specific time frame? Man 34 years ago was like totally long ago I don't think they even had electricity back then... but just because my stupid liberal brain needs to practice my maths *consternation noises*.

Well I'll be dubya'd... 34 years ago would have been 1980! Sh*t... I was born BEFORE that. I guess I'm my own grandfather and this "researcher" and the article writer couldn't possibly be manipulating data to prove their own bias.

I'd be more accepting of pro gun rights arguments if 99% of them weren't so god damned moronic and disingenuous. Frankly if THOSE are the type of people hell bent on keeping a freaking armory in their basement then take them away. Take the ALL away.

Right wing nut jobs: Their own worst enemies.
 
2014-01-15 06:54:35 AM  
A new report said: "People cannot be denied their Second Amendment rights just because they look strange."

Hmmm. Any interest in changing this policy?
kwikwee.com
"No."

25.media.tumblr.com
"Nope." "Noooope."
ww3.hdnux.com
"Absorutely not."
upload.wikimedia.org
"Freemalator jasparator zimzam fligglety floo. I mean, 'no.'"
 
2014-01-15 06:56:21 AM  
So who exactly is saying "when I was young, we didn't have all these mass shootings like you have today"?

False narrative created to argue against gun control, got it.


/dnrtfa
 
2014-01-15 06:59:44 AM  
Transparent bias is transparent.

Sigh.
 
2014-01-15 07:01:20 AM  

PreMortem: So who exactly is saying "when I was young, we didn't have all these mass shootings like you have today"?

False narrative created to argue against gun control, got it.


/dnrtfa


I think they are referring to the sheer number of them occurring in a short span of time, and treating that as "the left says we never had mass shootings before".

That's my guess. I also refuse to read drivel.
 
2014-01-15 07:02:31 AM  

Public Savant: So, what - the essential problem is that americans really like killing each other and not the guns used to do it?


Yeah, pretty much.

Unfortunately, we don't apply the same logic to terrorism. That's worth warrantless wiretaps, suspicionless searches, border checkpoints a hundred miles from actual borders, rendition, torture, gate rape at the airport, pretending that one six-ounce bottle of shampoo can blow up a plane while two three-ounce bottles can't, spending hundreds of billions of dollars fighting wars--occasionally even in countries that were actually vaguely associated with 9/11--massive increases in federal bureaucracy (DHS, JIEDDO, etc.), no-fly lists, profiling...

But don't you dare think about touching our guns! "Shall not be infringed" means SHALL NOT be infringed! (Please ignore that well-regulated militia part.)
 
2014-01-15 07:04:24 AM  

Prank Call of Cthulhu: Myth: Profiling will help catch killers before they act.

[photos.washingtonexaminer.biz image 570x404]

I don't know. Conducting "has teh crazy eyes, don't let him anywhere near guns" profiling sure would have caught this numbnutz.


I have really noticed that most of the mass shooters in the last 2 or 3 years have had the farking crazy eyes for sure.
 
2014-01-15 07:09:27 AM  

SomeoneDumb: Only in America is 34 years considered a long time.


Teh crazy has been around for a long time, and it doesn't need guns to pare down the school population.
daggy.name
 
2014-01-15 07:11:04 AM  

PreMortem: So who exactly is saying "when I was young, we didn't have all these mass shootings like you have today"?

False narrative created to argue against gun control, got it.


/dnrtfa


The news that I was watching this morning, for example. It seems to be a popular thing to imply, at least, in the media. Other common implications, in the programs I watch at least, include the idea that assault rifles are the weapon of choice, that violent video games teach people how to kill (or possibly encourage it), and that smaller magazines would save lives.

You must not get out much.
 
2014-01-15 07:15:23 AM  
So let's write an article about how we have actually have this problem for years but most people think it's a different more scary weapon that's used.  I guess once everybody realizes that it's not the cute adorable defenseless handguns fault, we can just continue to do nothing about it.
 
2014-01-15 07:16:44 AM  

brimed03: Transparent bias is transparent.

Sigh.


Yes, the rabid right wingers of Northeaster University.

Pathetic.
 
2014-01-15 07:16:57 AM  

The_Sponge: Is it penguin season yet?


1.bp.blogspot.com

Pen-goo-ins is practically chickens.
 
2014-01-15 07:17:20 AM  

Prank Call of Cthulhu: SomeoneDumb: Only in America is 34 years considered a long time.

Teh crazy has been around for a long time, and it doesn't need guns to pare down the school population.
[daggy.name image 610x954]


That doesn't fit in TFA's argument.
 
2014-01-15 07:18:19 AM  
I think it boils down to this; when something like Sandy Hook happens, everyone wants to blame something or somebody. The shooter and his mother are dead, they do not exist, anymore, so no one to blame there, but a memory. The guns still exist, so we blame them, even though the guns in and of themselves did not commit the crime, the shooter did.
 
2014-01-15 07:18:26 AM  
Anyone notice how they snuck in the tidbit about blaming video games like it's part of the anti gun dialogue? Guess the right realizes that one is just too stupid to work so they pin it on the left. Seems like that tactic is really gaining traction amongst the derpers.
 
2014-01-15 07:21:16 AM  

The Muthaship: brimed03: Transparent bias is transparent.

Sigh.

Yes, the rabid right wingers of Northeaster University.

Pathetic.


Because there aren't rabid gun nuts or people who can't be bought off by the NRA in the north.

And I thought we weren't supposed to make stereotypes about southerners? Are you now saying that the deep south has a monopoly on psychotic rednecks?
 
2014-01-15 07:23:18 AM  

Prank Call of Cthulhu: Public Savant: So, what - the essential problem is that americans really like killing each other and not the guns used to do it?

Yeah, pretty much.

Unfortunately, we don't apply the same logic to terrorism. That's worth warrantless wiretaps, suspicionless searches, border checkpoints a hundred miles from actual borders, rendition, torture, gate rape at the airport, pretending that one six-ounce bottle of shampoo can blow up a plane while two three-ounce bottles can't, spending hundreds of billions of dollars fighting wars--occasionally even in countries that were actually vaguely associated with 9/11--massive increases in federal bureaucracy (DHS, JIEDDO, etc.), no-fly lists, profiling...

But don't you dare think about touching our guns! "Shall not be infringed" means SHALL NOT be infringed! (Please ignore that well-regulated militia part.)


"well-regulated militia" does not refer to an army, or even the National Guard -- it's long-ago been defined as groups of citizens gathering to defend their local area.  Read the founding fathers' writings, and not just whatever liberal rag you're reading now.
 
2014-01-15 07:24:53 AM  

August11: Great article. Perhaps this is the price we pay for this staggering freedom.


All substantial rights/freedoms have a significant price in human lives.  If they didn't have a significant cost, we wouldn't need to protect them with a Bill of Rights, because no one would ever try to restrict them.

Take the Fourth Amendment, for example:  How many criminals have remained free after coming under suspicion to kill because the cops couldn't just search who and where they wanted without a warrant.  Granted, that's a damned hard number to quantify, but you can be certain that it's not zero, and given that 75% of all homicide perpetrators have an adult felony arrest record, you can be sure it's pretty substantial.

But we protect their rights, because we judge that it's more important to do so than to lower the homicide rate by searching homes without a warrant.
 
2014-01-15 07:26:25 AM  
Mass shootings are normal and always have been.
 
2014-01-15 07:26:59 AM  

fusillade762: Livingroom: finally, some sanity from the left.

I see no indication at all in that article of the author's politics. Though after your last outburst I'm not sure why I should take anything you say seriously. Tell us again about our satanic hypocrisy.



The Examiner is part of the Washington Times, so not left. Definitely right wing.  Just click on the author's bio for more of his derp, including a mainstream media attack blog with such non-partisan topics as counting how many times Al Sharpton says "race" and how much time the MSM spends talking about Christie vs Obama and the IRS.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/mainstream-media-scream


As for the "study", the Examiner columnist has totally flipped it on its ear to mean the OPPOSITE of what the researchers found.

34 years?  That's actually right in the mass shooting wheelhouse.  And just because there are about twice as many handgun shootings as "assault weapon" doesn't mean a farking thing.  NOBODY ever said getting rid of assault weapons would stop mass shootings, or that assault weapons were solely responsible.

Here's one write up of the study that's linked in TFA:

http://www.sagepub.com/press/2013/december/SAGE_massshootnotsubdecre as earmedguardsbkgchecks.sp


New research published in Homicide Studies finds that public policy based on these myths has a limited possibility of decreasing the rate of mass murders and that more drastic measures should be taken to have real success.

"Many of the well-intentioned proposals coming in response to the recent spike in mass shootings may do much to impact the level of violent crime that plagues our nation daily," the researchers stated. "We shouldn't, however, expect such efforts to take a big bite out of crime in its most extreme form."



So somehow this Bedard guy from the Examiner/Times manages to conclude the opposite.   That we just have to live with it all because "little can be done".

Also apparently "debunked" is the deflection to mental health instead of gun control, and the armed guard theory:

- Increasing mental health facilities may not reach those on the fringe who would turn to murder as many see the blame residing in others, not themselves.

-28% of public schools already employ armed security personal regularly; there is no way for armed guards to sufficiently protect every single one of their students in an event of a mass shooting.

- A recent examination of 93 mass shootings from 2009 through September 2013, conducted by Mayors Against Illegal Guns (2013), found no indication that any of the assailants were prohibited by federal law from possessing firearms because of mental illness.


So it's not that the law did nothing, it's that the studies found no indication federal law was used to prohibit gun ownership based on mental illness.  That's not the same as "laws don't work" and again further debunks the "mental health not gun laws" angle from the gun lobby.


"Taking a nibble out of the risk of mass murder, however small, would still be a worthy goal for the nation," the authors stated. "However ... eliminating the risk of mass murder would involve extreme steps that we are unable or unwilling to take-abolishing the Second Amendment, achieving full employment, restoring our sense of community, and rounding up anyone who looks or acts at all suspicious. Mass murder just may be a price we must pay for living in a society where personal freedom is so highly valued."

In other words, the perfect solution fallacy is being used by the Examiner while the researchers say lack of a perfect solution does not mean we should do nothing.  Again, the opposite of what the Examiner concluded.

What else did he omit from the study?  Someone who can view the actual study and methodology will be better able to parse the actual conclusions vs what this author has selectively plucked from them minus the context.

CONCLUSION:  PRO-GUN FACT MANIPULATION.
 
2014-01-15 07:27:11 AM  

here to help: Because there aren't rabid gun nuts or people who can't be bought off by the NRA in the north.


James Alan Fox, the author, was an advisor to Bill Clinton.

You make whatever generalizations you want.
 
Displayed 50 of 257 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report