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.

(The Daily Beast)   The lawyer for the ex-cop who shot and killed a man in a Florida movie theater may use the Stand Your Ground defense because the victim "threw an unknown object" at the defendant. That "object?" It was likely popcorn   (thedailybeast.com) divider line 1007
    More: Followup, Chad Oulson, florida, Case CRC1400216CFA, Busch Gardens  
•       •       •

6562 clicks; posted to Main » on 15 Jan 2014 at 11:31 AM (35 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



1007 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-01-16 08:23:43 AM
"They laughed at me in school, but I showed them.  Now I'm a fat tub of sh*t who's allowed to kill anybody I want forever!"

www.sott.net

Y'all better start making a short list of the people you will gladly throw to the wolves to keep your bubble of "it can't happen to me".

Cause it's gonna get worse until the guillotines start dropping.  And it always does.  Always.  *sigh*
 
2014-01-16 08:41:20 AM

FreudulentSplit: Dimensio: As I am certain that you will be able to demonstrate by showing that concealed weapons permit holders in "shall issue" states commit violent crime at a rate higher than that of the general populace.

So you're in favor of changing the law such that the CDC and/or ATF can start keeping stats and studying gun crime, because the gun lobby got specific wording instituted that seriously hampers the federal government from doing that.  That way we could confirm or refute this canard.

As it is, in this case, does it matter?  I don't think it does, and as you've pointed out, shall issue doesn't apply here, but it seems daft to me, nonetheless.  As does stand your ground.  And knowing several cops and former cops, the ones that would carry probably shouldn't, and ones that won't probably should, much like those that seek elected office are the people who least deserve it.


There is nothing preventing either from keeping or studying those stats on conceal carry permit holders. CDC doesn't get funding to do so, but they can study if they want. Or they could start by looking at states that release that information:

Michigan:  Concealed Pistol Licensure Annual Report
Texas:  http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/RSD/CHL/Reports/ConvictionRatesReport201 2 .pdf
Florida:  http://www.freshfromflorida.com/content/download/30077/755610/0701201 3 _06302014_cw_annual.pdf

Here is something put together by a gun advocacy group in Michigan to see how the Mich CPL crime stats look like in their worst light:  http://www.mcrgo.org/mcrgo/doc_pdf/michiganconcealedcarrystudy.pdf
It doesn't appear to be peer reviewed, but it is sourced and looks pretty thorough.

Unsurprisingly you'll see a pretty clear pattern emerging. Crime rate for people who hold a CCW is very, very low, much lower than the general population.
 
2014-01-16 10:30:29 AM

Dimensio: Persnickety: Dimensio: This incident is just another example of why "shall issue" concealed weapons permit statutes need to be repealed. The only people who should be allowed to legally carry firearms in public are law enforcement, active and retired. this allowance along with keeping firearms at home should be subject to periodic review just like anything else with potential hazardous consequences to the public.

FTFY - and yes, I know it was a troll.  And a damn good one too.

My take on the whole guns is nicely summed up by misquoting Bill Clinton: "Guns in public should not only be safe and legal, they should be rare."

Firearms in public are rare. Few individuals obtain concealed weapons permits.


No. No, they aren't rare.
Oh, and:
State Gun Deaths Motor Vehicle Deaths
Alaska                  104                                   84                                       No permit needed for concealed any carry.
Arizona                 856                                 809                                      Shall Issue, no permit for concealed any carry.
Colorado              583                                 565                                       Shall Issue
Indiana                 735                                 715                                       Shall Issue
Michigan            1,095                                 977                                      Shall Issue, no permit for open carry
Nevada                 406                                 255                                      Shall Issue, no permit for open carry
Oregon                 417                                 394                                      Shall Issue
Utah                      260                                 256                                      Shall Issue
Virginia                  836                                 827                                      Shall Issue, no permit for open carry
Washington           623                                 580                                      Shall Issue

According to VPC, a successful decades-long public health-based injury prevention strategy has resulted in a 43% decline in motor-vehicle deaths since 1966. That strategy includes making changes to vehicles and highways to increase safety. Meanwhile, firearms are subject to limited regulation, and the rate of gun deaths remain largely unchanged.

Americans are reaping the benefits of smart safety regulation of motor vehicles.The idea that gun deaths exceed motor vehicle deaths in 10 states is stunning when one considers that 90 percent of American households own a car while fewer than a third own firearms. It is also important to consider that  motor vehicles-unlike guns-are essential to the functioning of the entire U.S. economy.


Guns & Ammo Gun-Friendliest States:
As was expected,  Washington, D.C., kicked off our list with a whopping zero points, and other anti-gun Meccas such as  New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts and California weren't far behind. Topping our list of pro-gun states were  Arizona, Vermont, Alaska, Utah and Kentucky.


/Maybe firearm/gun death ratio is a silly metric, but daayum.
 
2014-01-16 10:35:21 AM

demaL-demaL-yeH: Maybe firearm/gun death ratio is a silly metric, but daayum.


Er, automobile/firearm death ratio.
/Daayum.
 
2014-01-16 11:00:09 AM

demaL-demaL-yeH: That strategy includes making changes to vehicles and highways to increase safety.



First, does your list exclude gun deaths by suicide?

Second, the government built the highways that are the locus of the vehicle deaths, so the government is the organization that is responsible for the unsafe driving conditions in the first place.

Come to think of it, government is responsible for many of the (non-suicide) gun deaths, too, since the majority of gun killings are committed in furtherance of drug trafficking crime, and it's that very same government that forces drug trafficking into gun violence in the first place with its prohibition laws.
 
2014-01-16 12:50:20 PM

scroufus: Mr.BobDobalita: scroufus: Mr.BobDobalita:
LoL.. you just talked in a huge circle.   THe point of my post was that anyone can say the same thing about TM as you say about GZ.   "He shouldn't have been there so it was his fault".    Well that goes for BOTH of them.
Look, I'm not saying GZ is some saint... but I can put myself in his shoes.   I've been over to the neighbor's house when I couldn't reach them on the cell phone when I saw a plain white van back in behind their house and people going in and out...    I went over and I saw that it was a guy working on his wood floors...   are you suggesting that I would be irresponsible and it would be partly my fault if the guy attacked me and I shot him dead?
Where I come from, you're a good neighbor and check those things out.  The cops won't come out for that kind of thing and you shouldn't bother them with it anyway.
Anyways, my point was that in this case, it seems like mistakes were made on BOTH sides...   GZ and TM...   but the bottom line is no matter how much you want him to have been convicted of a crime, HE COMMITTED NO CRIME and was NOT GUILTY.  Sorry.   That's the way the cookie crumbles

Dont see how I talked in circles.  This event did not happen in a house. But you are making a hypothetical situation about visiting a house.  In the situation you painted not only did you not follow someone to that house to make sure no crime was committed but you also did not call 911 to let the police know.  Thieves steal things all the time.  Its not worth your life for someone elses stuff nor even you own items.    In my mind Zimzam is and was guilty of man slaughter.   No one can disprove him of being "in fear of his life" because no one was there or in those shoes.  However he should have not followed He got the the description of the person and phoned it in.   He could have notified his neighbors the next day and all them could have called the police to request added patrols of the neighborhood.  That is hindsight thou ...


The derp is strong with you.  GZ was acquitted of manslaughter charges as well.  That means he was charged with and found not guilty of manslaughter.  Maybe -YOU- think he should have been guilty, but a court of law and a jury think differently.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/14/us/george-zimmerman-verdict-trayvo n- martin.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
 
2014-01-16 01:09:27 PM

scroufus: justtray:
This is one of the best Poe's laws I've ever seen. The blissfully unaware irony is my absolute favorite.
What you have here is a list of entirely irrelevant, hindsight focused, moral and ethical opinions that have absolutely nothing to do with factual law regarding self defense.
I'm sorry your opinions don't match reality, but I say with absolute honesty that if we based our laws around the subjective crap you listed here, we would have nothing but chaos. For example, that you made the argument that since someone is 17, they are therefore a child, who is not responsible for any of their own actions. That can't be anymore false. And dangerously stupid.
If you're trolling, bravo, 10/10. If you're serious, please don't post again until you've actually considered your thoughts a few times first. You just look really stupid when you say stuff like this.


Reality is Zimzam made the first choice to get out and follow that kid.  I never said a child is not responsible for their actions. I said that if you think a child will make rational choices you are an idiot.   You cherry picked my statement to fit your narrative.  I did also include hindsight for both parties.  The fact is Zimzam did act first he did pursue not the other way around.  As the example I laid out earlier about drinking and driving.  If I went out drinking crashed my car and killed someone that is manslaughter for my poor choices NOT the other person fault for choosing to drive at the same time as a drunk.  Because if I hadnt made the choice first that person wouldnt have been killed.  Same goes for Zimzam IF he had not did what he did first the kid would have never confronted him.  That is manslaughter.   Regardless of him being in fear for his life.   It wasnt murder it was a clear case of manslaughter.


As was already pointed out to you... the difference is... following someone != illegal.    Drinking and driving = illegal.    Doing something illegal leading to someone getting dead = negligence.  Doing something not illegal that leading to someone getting dead is not necessarily negligent.

And as I already stated, Zimmerman was found NOT GUILTY OF MANSLAUGHTER IN HIS TRIAL.  So no matter how much you super-duper wish he went down for manslaughter, sorry, NOT GUILTY.
 
2014-01-16 01:14:58 PM

scroufus: Facetious_Speciest: scroufus

If I went out drinking crashed my car and killed someone that is manslaughter for my poor choices NOT the other person fault for choosing to drive at the same time as a drunk. Because if I hadnt made the choice first that person wouldnt have been killed. Same goes for Zimzam IF he had not did what he did first the kid would have never confronted him.

You're ignoring the fact that Martin chose to assault someone. That led to his death at least as much (if not more so) than anything Zimmerman did prior to Martin confronting him.

I am not ignoring it.  I am saying that if Zimzam never got out his car and followed someone running in the dark with a hood and just reported it like a neighbor hood watch is suppose then Martin wouldnt have ever assaulted him that night.    Clearly from the 911 call the kid did not start running till Zimzam got out of his car.  Thats when he reported that he is running and you can hear the door alarm go off and zimzam started to pursue.  That is when the 911 dispatcher told zimzam dont do that.  Which he did but he should have never pursued him in the first place.   It was not warranted for him to pursue.  There were  no gunshots heard nor evidence of a crime being committed.  I dont know why he pursued but he shouldnt have and yes that is hindsight but because of his actions it lead to that confrontation that ended in a kids death.   His actions started it not the other way around.   It is not against the law to walk around at 7pm with a hood on  on a friday night.  Even children know that.


You continue to perpetuate falsehoods.

1st, he wasnt' talking to a dispatcher.  HE was talking to a 911 operator in a 911 call center.   The dispatcher doesnt' have the authority to tell him lawfully what to do, let alone the operator.  The actual operator testified in court that the "sir we don't need you to do that" was A.) not a lawful order and B.) more about liability for the police department.

2nd.  It doesn't matter who was first to do what EXCEPT who was first to break the law.  That was TM because he assaulted GZ.  Nothing GZ did was illegal and warranted assault.  If TM was shaking in his shoes from the creepy ass cracker, he should have a.) went home b.) called his dad   c.) called the police   d) stayed on the phone with dee dee..    He didn't.  He waited for nearly 4 minutes, told dee dee he refused to run, and confronted/assualted GZ.

You clearly don't have much of a grasp on understand ACTUAL LAW.
 
2014-01-16 01:35:23 PM

Mr.BobDobalita: He waited for nearly 4 minutes, told dee dee he refused to run, and confronted/assualted GZ


You're saying he stood his ground?
 
2014-01-16 01:36:58 PM

Cloudchaser Sakonige the Red Wolf: Dimensio: This incident is just another example of why "shall issue" concealed weapons permit statutes need to be repealed. The only people who should be allowed to legally carry firearms in public are law enforcement, active and retired.

That's like saying that everyone's cars should be taken away because of the few who drive irresponsibly.  It's not logical to deny everyone something because of a small minority who are careless


Some day I'm going to clear up a weekend, update my will, open a long fark thread and take a shot whenever Dimensio gets a bite.
 
2014-01-16 01:38:14 PM

Phinn: demaL-demaL-yeH: That strategy includes making changes to vehicles and highways to increase safety.

First, does your list exclude gun deaths by suicide?

Second, the government built the highways that are the locus of the vehicle deaths, so the government is the organization that is responsible for the unsafe driving conditions in the first place.

Come to think of it, government is responsible for many of the (non-suicide) gun deaths, too, since the majority of gun killings are committed in furtherance of drug trafficking crime, and it's that very same government that forces drug trafficking into gun violence in the first place with its prohibition laws.


Why the fark should it?
The fact that mentally ill people have firearms handy is a big farking deal.
 
2014-01-16 01:42:45 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: Why the fark should it?


In America, it is illegal to own people, including yourself.
 
2014-01-16 01:43:05 PM

Super_pope: Mr.BobDobalita: He waited for nearly 4 minutes, told dee dee he refused to run, and confronted/assualted GZ

You're saying he stood his ground?


I've heard this "argument" that GZ should never have gotten out of his truck... well the same logic can be used that TM should have been home.  THere is a verifiable ~4 minutes between GZ losing sight of TM while on the phone with 911 and the attack.  TM's home was 150 yds away, or 20 seconds.  Why did he remain in that location for the nearly 4 minutes?  He shouldn't have been there.  He should have been home.   The reason he remained is he planned to ambush GZ, which he obviously did.

He has no right to "stand his ground"  (I don't know why morons like you even use that term, because  THIS WAS NOT A SYG CASE AND GZ SKIPPED HIS OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE IT WHEN HE CHOSE TO FOREGO THE SYG HEARING YOU DOLT)against someone "following him".  TM certainly had a right to stand his ground against an assault or attack in which he feared death or great bodily harm... but he has no right to SYG against someone following him and doing nothing illegal... that is, if GZ even followed him, which I don't think he did.  I think he tried to, lost him, and TM confronted then attacked him on the way back to the vehicle.
 
2014-01-16 01:53:28 PM

Mr.BobDobalita: THIS WAS NOT A SYG CASE


No way.  Case should have went like this

Zimmerman:  "but he was coming right at me!"

Judge:  "Sorry, this is a SYG state.  he was only standing his ground"

Zimmerman  "but I was standing my ground too"

Judge  "Too bad, he was standing his ground better, you were just standing still while he was being proactive."
 
2014-01-16 02:07:06 PM
The derp is strong with you.  GZ was acquitted of manslaughter charges as well.   That means he was charged with and found not guilty of manslaughter.   Maybe -YOU- think he should have been guilty, but a court of law and a jury think differently.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/14/us/george-zimmerman-verdict-trayvon - martin.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&;" target="_blank">http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/14/us/george-zimmerman- verdict-trayvo n- martin.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0


You farking morons.  That is what I have been saying.  All you farks saying I am wrong are retarded.  I said and have been saying I believe him to be guilty.  No shiat the verdict came out to the contrary.  It was on national tv after all.  Who didnt know the he was found not guilty.    Its like you all dont read and just see what you want.    I said and have been saying I believe he fit the criteria to be charged with  and found guilty of manslaughter.   That is how I interpreted the events.  That, to me is how the prosecution should have went with the case instead of 2nd murder which it was not. .  Yes I know I am not a lawyer or judge thanks for that future input.  Yes I know you are glad I am not.  I dont really care.  It is an opinion yet yall kept going on and on about how my opinion is wrong.  My opinion is not wrong that why it is an opinion and not fact.   It is my view point.  I hope to god none of you farks every make it to a jury stand.   I know you think the same of me.  It dont matter.  Its just a disagreement.   You think I am wrong and I think you are wrong.  I think he fit the bill for manslaughter and you think he doesnt.  Funny how law works. It has and will always come down to interpretation.


You continue to perpetuate falsehoods.
1st, he wasnt' talking to a dispatcher.  HE was talking to a 911 operator in a 911 call center.   The dispatcher doesnt' have the authority to tell him lawfully what to do, let alone the operator.  The actual operator testified in court that the "sir we don't need you to do that" was A.) not a lawful order and B.) more about liability for the police department.
2nd.  It doesn't matter who was first to do what EXCEPT who was first to break the law.  That was TM because he assaulted GZ.  Nothing GZ did was illegal and warranted assault.  If TM was shaking in his shoes from the creepy ass cracker, he should have a.) went home b.) called his dad   c.) called the police   d) stayed on the phone with dee dee..    He didn't.  He waited for nearly 4 minutes, told dee dee he refused to run, and confronted/assualted GZ.
You clearly don't have much of a grasp on understand ACTUAL LAW.



Clearly you dont know how actual Law works.  Lawyers get jury to see their perspective of events.  Yes that is sadly how it really works. You can say it doesnt but I doubt youve been in a court room in the last 5 years.

911 operator ok. Clearly I wasnt talking about the police when I said 911 dispatch.  Sorry you got so confused and couldnt figure out that I was talking about the phone call with 911 and not the actual police.    I guess I need to spell things out very very clearly to you people.
 
2014-01-16 02:12:53 PM
They found him not guilty, so he is not guilty.  That's how the law works.
 
2014-01-16 02:17:44 PM

Farker Soze: They found him not guilty, so he is not guilty.  That's how the law works.


now you are just trollling.
 
2014-01-16 02:26:16 PM

scroufus: Farker Soze: They found him not guilty, so he is not guilty.  That's how the law works.

now you are just trollling.


Says the guy who spent half a thread misapplying at least one prong of the manslaughter test.
 
2014-01-16 02:50:45 PM

scroufus: The derp is strong with you.  GZ was acquitted of manslaughter charges as well.   That means he was charged with and found not guilty of manslaughter.   Maybe -YOU- think he should have been guilty, but a court of law and a jury think differently.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/14/us/george-zimmerman-verdict-trayvon - martin.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&;" target="_blank">http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/14/us/george-zimmerman- verdict-trayvo n- martin.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0


You farking morons.  That is what I have been saying.  All you farks saying I am wrong are retarded.  I said and have been saying I believe him to be guilty.  No shiat the verdict came out to the contrary.  It was on national tv after all.  Who didnt know the he was found not guilty.    Its like you all dont read and just see what you want.    I said and have been saying I believe he fit the criteria to be charged with  and found guilty of manslaughter.   That is how I interpreted the events.  That, to me is how the prosecution should have went with the case instead of 2nd murder which it was not. .  Yes I know I am not a lawyer or judge thanks for that future input.  Yes I know you are glad I am not.  I dont really care.  It is an opinion yet yall kept going on and on about how my opinion is wrong.  My opinion is not wrong that why it is an opinion and not fact.   It is my view point.  I hope to god none of you farks every make it to a jury stand.   I know you think the same of me.  It dont matter.  Its just a disagreement.   You think I am wrong and I think you are wrong.  I think he fit the bill for manslaughter and you think he doesnt.  Funny how law works. It has and will always come down to interpretation.


You continue to perpetuate falsehoods.
1st, he wasnt' talking to a dispatcher.  HE was talking to a 911 operator in a 911 call center.   The dispatcher doesnt' have the authority to tell him lawfully what to do, let alone the operator.  The actual operator testified in court that the ...


You're wrong.  I don't think he fits the bill for man slaughter.  A jury of his peers don't think he fits the bill for manslaughter.  He was proven not guilty by a REASONABLE proceeding under our system of law.  Ok, yes, your OPINION is valid, however that doesnt' make it REASONABLE.

It's really not very hard to apply the principles laid out in the actual laws and apply them to this case.  Several people have done it for you in this thread, but you still continue to shout from the roof tops "I don't care that the system works in a certain way.... I don't care that you showed me how it works and why he was not guilty... I'm still going to cling to my unreasonable opinion because I refuse to look at the facts and still want to use my own conjecture and irrationality to keep telling myself that GZ is such a criminal master mind that he plotted to murder someone literally a couple minutes after he had himself summoned police to the scene."

That's fine... keep your head in the sand.   Keep your ears plugged and saying "lalalalalalalala" when person upon person tells you that you're wrong and shows you how.   You're the only one who looks like an idiot in this case.  No skin off our backs...
 
2014-01-16 02:57:56 PM

dpaul007: If retired cops are allowed to carry a concealed handgun anywhere, then retired military should be allowed to carry an assault rifle anywhere.

I'd trust a Vietnam / Iraqi / Afghanistan vet suffering from PTSD with an M-4 more than I'd trust some retired Deputy Dawg with a .38 special.


==============

From personal observation, I have to agree with you.
 
2014-01-16 03:05:16 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: According to VPC,


I suspect that you are uninterested in any honest analysis of data.
 
2014-01-16 03:13:31 PM

Dimensio: demaL-demaL-yeH: According to VPC,

I suspect that you are uninterested in any honest analysis of data.


I'm certain that it's extremely difficult to find the data on vehicle accident deaths and firearm homicides.
/And shooting yourself to death on purpose isn't a firearm death because palindrome and suchlike, right?
 
2014-01-16 04:07:31 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: Phinn: demaL-demaL-yeH: That strategy includes making changes to vehicles and highways to increase safety.

First, does your list exclude gun deaths by suicide?

Second, the government built the highways that are the locus of the vehicle deaths, so the government is the organization that is responsible for the unsafe driving conditions in the first place.

Come to think of it, government is responsible for many of the (non-suicide) gun deaths, too, since the majority of gun killings are committed in furtherance of drug trafficking crime, and it's that very same government that forces drug trafficking into gun violence in the first place with its prohibition laws.

Why the fark should it?
The fact that mentally ill people have firearms handy is a big farking deal.



Because (a) I want maximum freedom, which includes access to firearms, and (b) the primary justification for limiting access to firearms is that they pose a threat to others.

I feel badly for people who commit suicide, inasmuch as it's affected my family and my life in ways that very likely exceed just about anyone on this board.  I also notice that the hardships that women disproportionately face are discussed in the media infinitely more often than the ones that men face disproportionately, such as the fact that men die by suicide four times as often as women.

But the only role of government that is even arguably legitimate is to protect people from aggression, and suicide isn't aggression.
 
2014-01-16 04:12:09 PM

Mr.BobDobalita: Why did he remain in that location for the nearly 4 minutes?  He shouldn't have been there.  He should have been home.   The reason he remained is he planned to ambush GZ, which he obviously did.


We don't know why. Maybe he wanted to observe the creepy little weirdo who was following him and confront the guy.  There's no reason to assume he immediately attacked George.  If I exchanged antagonism with some freak who was clearly stalking me through my neighborhood when I know he has no reason to be doing that, I might feel threatened enough to think I needed to make sure he didn't follow me home.

In Zimmerman's recorded 911 call he's clearly PSYCHED UP to go out and pretend he's a cop.  "These dirtbags always get away.  I am a loose cannon cop in my dreams sometimes, now I have a chance to live it!"  Okay I made up the last part up but its as plain as your wife what he's after.
 
2014-01-16 04:22:34 PM

Super_pope: There's no reason to assume he immediately attacked George.



For purposes of general logic and the limits of our knowledge, yes. The best that any of us can say is that we do not know.

But for purposes of putting Zimzam on trial, in order to determine whether we are justified in inflicting violence on him, as punishment for a prior wrongful act, then in the absence of contrary proof, we must presume that Zimzam is not guilty.

And, part of that presumption of innocence is the presumption that his self-defense claim is valid.  Self-defense, if it is even plausible, must be presumed true, and then disproven, before he can be convicted.  If the evidence is ambiguous or otherwise insufficient, then he cannot be found guilty.
 
2014-01-16 05:02:06 PM

Click Click D'oh: Kahabut: Are you farking serious? You can't be that obtuse.

Are you really, or are you just being this way because it's fun on fark?

Since you declined to answer, I'll ask again:What part of the Florida law allows the use of force or lethal force against a person walking in proximity to you that has made no overt threats through word or act?

If there is no such thing in Florida law (and don't worry, there isn't), then using force illegally against a person can not be viewed as a reasonable, logical and unavoidable continuation of the chain of events started by that person walking... which you must claim it is if walking now raised to the level of manslaughter.  That is, it can't be found that walking down the street, committing no crime, reasonably and logically results a persons loss of life.


You ask a loaded and factually inaccurate question, you should pretty much expect to be ignored.
 
2014-01-16 05:19:07 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: According to VPC, a successful decades-long public health-based injury prevention strategy has resulted in a 43% decline in motor-vehicle deaths since 1966. That strategy includes making changes to vehicles and highways to increase safety. Meanwhile, firearms are subject to limited regulation, and the rate of gun deaths remain largely unchanged.



Compare apples to apples. Deaths due to motor vehicle accidents have declined?  Well, how about the rate of firearms accident deaths?

olsenfirearms.files.wordpress.com
 
2014-01-16 05:22:39 PM
Kahabut:You ask a loaded and factually inaccurate question, you should pretty much expect to be ignored.

Says the person who thinks that walking in proximity to another person is cause for a manslaughter charge...  I hear The Simpsons is casting for another lawyer, you should give it a shot.
 
2014-01-16 06:25:38 PM

Click Click D'oh: demaL-demaL-yeH: According to VPC, a successful decades-long public health-based injury prevention strategy has resulted in a 43% decline in motor-vehicle deaths since 1966. That strategy includes making changes to vehicles and highways to increase safety. Meanwhile, firearms are subject to limited regulation, and the rate of gun deaths remain largely unchanged.


Compare apples to apples. Deaths due to motor vehicle accidents have declined?  Well, how about the rate of firearms accident deaths?

[olsenfirearms.files.wordpress.com image 462x329]


Now look at the nice corresponding rise in firearm suicides, think about how certain religions treat suicides, and go stick your nose in the corner until I get tired of seeing the back of your head.
 
2014-01-16 06:43:04 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: Click Click D'oh: demaL-demaL-yeH: According to VPC, a successful decades-long public health-based injury prevention strategy has resulted in a 43% decline in motor-vehicle deaths since 1966. That strategy includes making changes to vehicles and highways to increase safety. Meanwhile, firearms are subject to limited regulation, and the rate of gun deaths remain largely unchanged.


Compare apples to apples. Deaths due to motor vehicle accidents have declined?  Well, how about the rate of firearms accident deaths?

[olsenfirearms.files.wordpress.com image 462x329]

Now look at the nice corresponding rise in firearm suicides, think about how certain religions treat suicides, and go stick your nose in the corner until I get tired of seeing the back of your head.


What relevance do "certain religions" have in terms of policy in a non-sectarian nation?
 
2014-01-16 06:45:31 PM

Click Click D'oh: demaL-demaL-yeH: According to VPC, a successful decades-long public health-based injury prevention strategy has resulted in a 43% decline in motor-vehicle deaths since 1966. That strategy includes making changes to vehicles and highways to increase safety. Meanwhile, firearms are subject to limited regulation, and the rate of gun deaths remain largely unchanged.


Compare apples to apples. Deaths due to motor vehicle accidents have declined?  Well, how about the rate of firearms accident deaths?

[olsenfirearms.files.wordpress.com image 462x329]


So if the amount is staying the same but the accidents are decreasing that means there is an increasing amount of people shooting other people on purpose then? Sounds like we need less guns about in that case! Even when you make them accident proof the death rate keep high!
 
2014-01-16 06:46:55 PM

Loaded Six String: demaL-demaL-yeH: Click Click D'oh: demaL-demaL-yeH: According to VPC, a successful decades-long public health-based injury prevention strategy has resulted in a 43% decline in motor-vehicle deaths since 1966. That strategy includes making changes to vehicles and highways to increase safety. Meanwhile, firearms are subject to limited regulation, and the rate of gun deaths remain largely unchanged.


Compare apples to apples. Deaths due to motor vehicle accidents have declined?  Well, how about the rate of firearms accident deaths?

[olsenfirearms.files.wordpress.com image 462x329]

Now look at the nice corresponding rise in firearm suicides, think about how certain religions treat suicides, and go stick your nose in the corner until I get tired of seeing the back of your head.

What relevance do "certain religions" have in terms of policy in a non-sectarian nation?


And not to put too fine a point on it, number of practicing adherents of non-christian religions in the US is probably statistically insignificant.
 
2014-01-16 06:47:39 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: Now look at the nice corresponding rise in firearm suicides, think about how certain religions treat suicides, and go stick your nose in the corner until I get tired of seeing the back of your head.


Do you keep your goal posts permanently motorized to be able to move them so fast?

But hey, lets keep this ball rolling and keep destroying your original comparison, with your newly introduced goal post chasing... What advances in vehicle safety over the last forty years have helped decrease the incidences of vehicle assisted suicide?  What new safety features and regulations keep you from running your car in the garage?  Oh nothing?  None at all?  Wow, Jesus, Holy shiat.  Glad all those safety studies and design changes were implemented...

Apples to apples biatch.  It farks your shiat up.

You brought up studies, laws and design changes brought about to reduce ACCIDENTAL deaths involving automobiles, then tried to bait and switch it over to firearms homicides and suicides.  Doesn't work that way princess.  Now, you want to show me some design changes that have been implemented to keep me from running down a dozen people on the sidewalk because the voice in my head told me to... then you can start talking about corresponding legislation for firearms.  Oh, what's that?  There's no such thing as design changes intended to prevent the use of a motor vehicle in a homicidal rage?  Funny thing that.  So, no.  It's not a valid comparison to firearms at all and you are just the VPCs biatch.  Figured.
 
2014-01-16 06:47:46 PM

dready zim: Click Click D'oh: demaL-demaL-yeH: According to VPC, a successful decades-long public health-based injury prevention strategy has resulted in a 43% decline in motor-vehicle deaths since 1966. That strategy includes making changes to vehicles and highways to increase safety. Meanwhile, firearms are subject to limited regulation, and the rate of gun deaths remain largely unchanged.


Compare apples to apples. Deaths due to motor vehicle accidents have declined?  Well, how about the rate of firearms accident deaths?

[olsenfirearms.files.wordpress.com image 462x329]

So if the amount is staying the same but the accidents are decreasing that means there is an increasing amount of people shooting other people on purpose then? Sounds like we need less guns about in that case! Even when you make them accident proof the death rate keep high!


Firearm murders (and deaths in general) have been declining for 20+ years
 
2014-01-16 06:49:55 PM

dready zim: So if the amount is staying the same but the accidents are decreasing that means there is an increasing amount of people shooting other people on purpose then? Sounds like we need less guns about in that case! Even when you make them accident proof the death rate keep high!


3)  He's a lying asshole:

www.wvdhhr.org
 
2014-01-16 06:51:30 PM

Phinn: Super_pope: There's no reason to assume he immediately attacked George.

For purposes of general logic and the limits of our knowledge, yes. The best that any of us can say is that we do not know.

But for purposes of putting Zimzam on trial, in order to determine whether we are justified in inflicting violence on him, as punishment for a prior wrongful act, then in the absence of contrary proof, we must presume that Zimzam is not guilty.

And, part of that presumption of innocence is the presumption that his self-defense claim is valid.  Self-defense, if it is even plausible, must be presumed true, and then disproven, before he can be convicted.  If the evidence is ambiguous or otherwise insufficient, then he cannot be found guilty.


Exactly. the protections of the law must apply to every member, even the wankers. If there is a presumption of innocence then that is what there is for everybody.

Back in the real world where we can be prejudiced and arbitrary? Yeah he is a murderer. He followed some kid, got out of his car with a gun and killed him.
 
2014-01-16 06:56:09 PM

Click Click D'oh: dready zim: So if the amount is staying the same but the accidents are decreasing that means there is an increasing amount of people shooting other people on purpose then? Sounds like we need less guns about in that case! Even when you make them accident proof the death rate keep high!

3)  He's a lying asshole:

[www.wvdhhr.org image 610x449]


All these graphs without any units...

Any chance of even a key or scale to your almost meaningless graphs?

Are they in deaths per hogshead per shooting trip?
 
2014-01-16 06:58:47 PM

dready zim: Any chance of even a key or scale to your almost meaningless graphs?

Are they in deaths per hogshead per shooting trip?


Did you read the part after the * at the bottom of the graph?
 
2014-01-16 07:00:37 PM

Loaded Six String: demaL-demaL-yeH: Click Click D'oh: demaL-demaL-yeH: According to VPC, a successful decades-long public health-based injury prevention strategy has resulted in a 43% decline in motor-vehicle deaths since 1966. That strategy includes making changes to vehicles and highways to increase safety. Meanwhile, firearms are subject to limited regulation, and the rate of gun deaths remain largely unchanged.


Compare apples to apples. Deaths due to motor vehicle accidents have declined?  Well, how about the rate of firearms accident deaths?

[olsenfirearms.files.wordpress.com image 462x329]

Now look at the nice corresponding rise in firearm suicides, think about how certain religions treat suicides, and go stick your nose in the corner until I get tired of seeing the back of your head.

What relevance do "certain religions" have in terms of policy in a non-sectarian nation?


Sensitivity to families by coroners listing a cause of death.
A ruling of "suicide" has serious religious consequences for some creeds (mine, for example).
It can also have serious insurance consequences.
In the past, coroners were 1) less professional, 2) more likely to know the family, and 3) more reluctant to rule a death a suicide.
 
2014-01-16 07:06:01 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: Loaded Six String: demaL-demaL-yeH: Click Click D'oh: demaL-demaL-yeH: According to VPC, a successful decades-long public health-based injury prevention strategy has resulted in a 43% decline in motor-vehicle deaths since 1966. That strategy includes making changes to vehicles and highways to increase safety. Meanwhile, firearms are subject to limited regulation, and the rate of gun deaths remain largely unchanged.


Compare apples to apples. Deaths due to motor vehicle accidents have declined?  Well, how about the rate of firearms accident deaths?

[olsenfirearms.files.wordpress.com image 462x329]

Now look at the nice corresponding rise in firearm suicides, think about how certain religions treat suicides, and go stick your nose in the corner until I get tired of seeing the back of your head.

What relevance do "certain religions" have in terms of policy in a non-sectarian nation?

Sensitivity to families by coroners listing a cause of death.
A ruling of "suicide" has serious religious consequences for some creeds (mine, for example).
It can also have serious insurance consequences.
In the past, coroners were 1) less professional, 2) more likely to know the family, and 3) more reluctant to rule a death a suicide.


Sensitivity to families is what created the Jahi McMath circus. If the same sensitivity to families that lead to that ridiculous mess is something you advocate should be allowed anywhere near dictating or guiding binding public policy, you are nowhere near as intelligent, sensible, or humble as you think you are. Your turn to think.
 
2014-01-16 07:06:55 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: Sensitivity to families by coroners listing a cause of death.
A ruling of "suicide" has serious religious consequences for some creeds (mine, for example).
It can also have serious insurance consequences.
In the past, coroners were 1) less professional, 2) more likely to know the family, and 3) more reluctant to rule a death a suicide.


Do I have to prove everything coming out of your mouth is crap?

www.pewresearch.org

Where's the massive spike in Firearms suicides that offsets the decades long  decrease in accidental deaths?

There isn't one.  The rate actually dropped by a full point.  Everything you type is BS.
 
2014-01-16 07:23:47 PM

Click Click D'oh: demaL-demaL-yeH: Now look at the nice corresponding rise in firearm suicides, think about how certain religions treat suicides, and go stick your nose in the corner until I get tired of seeing the back of your head.

Do you keep your goal posts permanently motorized to be able to move them so fast?

But hey, lets keep this ball rolling and keep destroying your original comparison, with your newly introduced goal post chasing... What advances in vehicle safety over the last forty years have helped decrease the incidences of vehicle assisted suicide?  What new safety features and regulations keep you from running your car in the garage?  Oh nothing?  None at all?  Wow, Jesus, Holy shiat.  Glad all those safety studies and design changes were implemented...

Apples to apples biatch.  It farks your shiat up.

You brought up studies, laws and design changes brought about to reduce ACCIDENTAL deaths involving automobiles, then tried to bait and switch it over to firearms homicides and suicides.  Doesn't work that way princess.  Now, you want to show me some design changes that have been implemented to keep me from running down a dozen people on the sidewalk because the voice in my head told me to... then you can start talking about corresponding legislation for firearms.  Oh, what's that?  There's no such thing as design changes intended to prevent the use of a motor vehicle in a homicidal rage?  Funny thing that.  So, no.  It's not a valid comparison to firearms at all and you are just the VPCs biatch.  Figured.


Since the vehicle deaths include vehicular suicide, your point is, well, pointless. Comparing deaths by instrument A to deaths by instrument B is a fair dinkum comparison of apples to apples. I can understand why you keep trying to throw out entire categories of firearm deaths in order to make the problem look smaller than it is, but only the Староверцы  and the gullible are buying your line. You might have been better off pointing out that motor vehicles are not designed or intended for the purpose of killing, but that would show yet another huge hole in your "logic", now wouldn't it?

Secondly, you still seem to be upset from the other day when you asked whether you were an idiot, and I answered:
www.reactiongifs.us

Well, consider this reminder a fair exchange for that bold stuff above, tex.

/The points about percentage of ownership and daily use by the public of firearms and motor vehicles are valid, too.
 
2014-01-16 07:28:56 PM

Loaded Six String: demaL-demaL-yeH: Loaded Six String: demaL-demaL-yeH: Click Click D'oh: demaL-demaL-yeH: According to VPC, a successful decades-long public health-based injury prevention strategy has resulted in a 43% decline in motor-vehicle deaths since 1966. That strategy includes making changes to vehicles and highways to increase safety. Meanwhile, firearms are subject to limited regulation, and the rate of gun deaths remain largely unchanged.


Compare apples to apples. Deaths due to motor vehicle accidents have declined?  Well, how about the rate of firearms accident deaths?

[olsenfirearms.files.wordpress.com image 462x329]

Now look at the nice corresponding rise in firearm suicides, think about how certain religions treat suicides, and go stick your nose in the corner until I get tired of seeing the back of your head.

What relevance do "certain religions" have in terms of policy in a non-sectarian nation?

Sensitivity to families by coroners listing a cause of death.
A ruling of "suicide" has serious religious consequences for some creeds (mine, for example).
It can also have serious insurance consequences.
In the past, coroners were 1) less professional, 2) more likely to know the family, and 3) more reluctant to rule a death a suicide.

Sensitivity to families is what created the Jahi McMath circus. If the same sensitivity to families that lead to that ridiculous mess is something you advocate should be allowed anywhere near dictating or guiding binding public policy, you are nowhere near as intelligent, sensible, or humble as you think you are. Your turn to think.


I pointed out that coroners' reports became more accurate. What the heck are you talking about?
 
2014-01-16 07:34:18 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: Since the vehicle deaths include vehicular suicide, your point is, well, pointless.


Really?  Which portion was suicides?  What was the original rate of vehicle suicides and what was the final rate?  Oh wait, you don't know because those numbers are distinguished and you just guessed that suicides declined at the same rate as accidental deaths?

It doesn't work that way Nancy  For all you know, suicides went up moderately but were offset by a sharp decline in accidents.

Only the stupid buy your BS.  For everyone else, the proof is in the graphs above your post.

You are a liar, and a bad one.

The rate of accidental firearms deaths is down.  That's a fact.  The rate of firearms homicides is down.  That's a fact.

If you say otherwise, make with the facts or shut up and go away like a good beaten troll.
 
2014-01-16 07:39:46 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: Loaded Six String: demaL-demaL-yeH: Loaded Six String: demaL-demaL-yeH: Click Click D'oh: demaL-demaL-yeH: According to VPC, a successful decades-long public health-based injury prevention strategy has resulted in a 43% decline in motor-vehicle deaths since 1966. That strategy includes making changes to vehicles and highways to increase safety. Meanwhile, firearms are subject to limited regulation, and the rate of gun deaths remain largely unchanged.


Compare apples to apples. Deaths due to motor vehicle accidents have declined?  Well, how about the rate of firearms accident deaths?

[olsenfirearms.files.wordpress.com image 462x329]

Now look at the nice corresponding rise in firearm suicides, think about how certain religions treat suicides, and go stick your nose in the corner until I get tired of seeing the back of your head.

What relevance do "certain religions" have in terms of policy in a non-sectarian nation?

Sensitivity to families by coroners listing a cause of death.
A ruling of "suicide" has serious religious consequences for some creeds (mine, for example).
It can also have serious insurance consequences.
In the past, coroners were 1) less professional, 2) more likely to know the family, and 3) more reluctant to rule a death a suicide.

Sensitivity to families is what created the Jahi McMath circus. If the same sensitivity to families that lead to that ridiculous mess is something you advocate should be allowed anywhere near dictating or guiding binding public policy, you are nowhere near as intelligent, sensible, or humble as you think you are. Your turn to think.

I pointed out that coroners' reports became more accurate. What the heck are you talking about?


And suicides were relevant to the numbers cited by the VPC which you brought up to do: what? Discuss public policy?
 
2014-01-16 07:54:18 PM

Click Click D'oh: You brought up studies, laws and design changes brought about to reduce ACCIDENTAL

(not relevant to a discussion of product safety) deaths involving automobiles,

Now let's get to the meat of this, and I want you to remember that this is your list:
Studies? Research has been blocked since the mid-90s.
"As the tragic shooting in Colorado last week has reignited the debate over guns, one key public policy question - does gun control save lives? - is almost impossible to answer thanks to a dearth of research on the subject. That lack of research is no accident. It's the product of a concerted campaign by the gun lobby and its allies on Capitol Hill to stymie and even explicitly outlaw scientific research into gun violence in what critics charge is an attempt to deceive the public about the dangers of guns.
Over the past two decades, the NRA has not only been able to stop gun control laws, but even debate on the subject. The Centers for Disease Control funds research into the causes of death in the United States, including firearms - or at least it used to. In 1996, after various studies funded by the agency found that guns can be dangerous, the gun lobby mobilized to punish the agency. First, Republicans tried to eliminate entirely the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, the bureau responsible for the research. When that failed, Rep. Jay Dickey, a Republican from Arkansas, successfully pushed through an amendment that stripped $2.6 million from the CDC's budget (the amount it had spent on gun research in the previous year) and outlawed research on gun control with a provision that reads: "None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control."
Do I need to link the legislation that killed off gun control research in case you want to attach the source?

Laws? Remember the Tiahrt Amendments that made is next to impossible to trace firearms, and illegal to use records for actual research?

Design changes?
Remember when Congress took away those most powerful tools for improving product safety and forcing design changes - lawsuits and federal safety regulation authority in 2005?

Because I remember them all.

/And the Internet never forgets.
 
2014-01-16 07:58:03 PM

Click Click D'oh: Kahabut:You ask a loaded and factually inaccurate question, you should pretty much expect to be ignored.

Says the person who thinks that walking in proximity to another person is cause for a manslaughter charge...  I hear The Simpsons is casting for another lawyer, you should give it a shot.


I never said or implied any such thing.

kindly fark off now.
 
2014-01-16 08:10:48 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: Research has been blocked since the mid-90s.


No, only the CDC was denied funding for firearms violence research.  Everyone else was free to do it and there is plenty of it out there, And it all says the same thing.  Gun violence is on the decline. Accidental deaths are on the decline.  Suicides are on the decline.

Heck, the CDC even got back in the game last year and guess what the key findings of their study were:

1. Armed citizens are less likely to be injured by an attacker
2. Defensive uses of guns are common
3. Mass shootings and accidental firearm deaths account for a small fraction of gun-related deaths, and both are declining
4. "Interventions" (i.e, gun control) such as background checks, so-called assault rifle bans and gun-free zones produce "mixed" results
5. Gun buyback/turn-in programs are "ineffective" in reducing crime
6. Stolen guns and retail/gun show purchases account for very little crime
7. The vast majority of gun-related deaths are not homicides, but suicides

 Yeah.  CDC.  2013.

Kind of convenient you forgot about that.


demaL-demaL-yeH: Do I need to link the legislation that killed off gun control research in case you want to attach the source?

Laws? Remember the Tiahrt Amendments that made is next to impossible to trace firearms, and illegal to use records for actual research?


Tiahrt killed gun control research?  Really?  Wait... Didn't you just tell us earlier that the research was killed in the '90s?  So, how is it that legislation passed in 2003 killed it? Please tell us how that happened.

Better yet, please tell us how Tiahrt killed it off?  What provision stymied valid research?

demaL-demaL-yeH: Design changes?
Remember when Congress took away those most powerful tools for improving product safety and forcing design changes - lawsuits and federal safety regulation authority in 2005?

Because I remember them all.


WTF are you babbling about now?  Stop posting, you're drunk.
 
2014-01-16 10:12:25 PM

Click Click D'oh: demaL-demaL-yeH: Research has been blocked since the mid-90s.

No, only the CDC was denied funding for firearms violence research.  Everyone else was free to do it and there is plenty of it out there, And it all says the same thing.  Gun violence is on the decline. Accidental deaths are on the decline.  Suicides are on the decline.

Heck, the CDC even got back in the game last year and guess what the key findings of their study were:
1. Armed citizens are less likely to be injured by an attacker
2. Defensive uses of guns are common
3. Mass shootings and accidental firearm deaths account for a small fraction of gun-related deaths, and both are declining
4. "Interventions" (i.e, gun control) such as background checks, so-called assault rifle bans and gun-free zones produce "mixed" results
5. Gun buyback/turn-in programs are "ineffective" in reducing crime
6. Stolen guns and retail/gun show purchases account for very little crime
7. The vast majority of gun-related deaths are not homicides, but suicides  
 Yeah.  CDC.  2013.
Kind of convenient you forgot about that.

demaL-demaL-yeH: Do I need to link the legislation that killed off gun control research in case you want to attach the source?

Laws? Remember the Tiahrt Amendments that made is next to impossible to trace firearms, and illegal to use records for actual research?

Tiahrt killed gun control research?  Really?  Wait... Didn't you just tell us earlier that the research was killed in the '90s?  So, how is it that legislation passed in 2003 killed it? Please tell us how that happened.

Better yet, please tell us how Tiahrt killed it off?  What provision stymied valid research?

demaL-demaL-yeH: Design changes?
Remember when Congress took away those most powerful tools for improving product safety and forcing design changes - lawsuits and federal safety regulation authority in 2005?

Because I remember them all.

WTF are you babbling about now?  Stop posting, you're drunk.


Yeah, no. No, the CDC "study" you keep trying to cite was 1.)  a draft of a preliminary literature review and research plan*;2.) not from the CDC, but was requested by the National Institutes of Health from the National Research Council and Institute of Medicine, and C.) most importantly, does not say what you've been told it says. Additionally, it makes no conclusions. You should read it - ALL OF IT - before you attempt to mischaracterize it again.

*NB Final report is out and linked above. Its title, you ask? Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm Related Violence.
Are you seriously claiming that a recently finalized and published research plan is good enough to make up for a sixteen-year gap in actual research? Or that a literature review - and a highly-critical one, at that - is a substitute for actual research?

Tiahrt made it impossible for the city of Chicago, for example, to find out where firearms being used in crimes there originated. It prevented researchers from looking for patterns for strawman firearm sales, and forbade creating databases that law enforcement could search to trace firearms. Since data was never made available, by law, nobody can do basic research on patterns of sales of firearms used in crimes. Do I need to remark in passing that the number of ATF agents hasn't changed over a period that our population has almost doubled, or that they have only paperwork trails to follow (FOPA), or that they are banned by law from making more than one unannounced inspection per year(also FOPA), or that the number of licensed firearm dealers has more than doubled in that time, or ...

And I linked directly to the law banning research that was sponsored by Jay Dickey, not Tiahrt. *looks upthread, yup,  "Rep. Jay Dickey, a Republican from Arkansas"*

What is this, the spaghetti defense - throwing crap at the wall to see what BS you can make stick?
I linked my sources, right on down to the text of the laws.
Hell, I just linked your claimed "source".

Never take on an academic, not even one who's moved on to other pursuits for fun and profit, unless you're prepared to back up your  assertions with real peer-reviewed, non NRA-sponsored sloppy crap. Bring facts.
It helps if you're more than semiliterate, have read and fully comprehend both the text and the sources I linked earlier, and can cite your own damned sources in rebuttal.

/I'm through spoon-feeding you facts and responding half in jest. Get your act together and make valid assertions.
//Helpful hint: I do statistics, too, so don't be surprised if I track down the source data for your assertions and do real analyses.
///Construct validity, methodology choice, instrument validity, data verification, and I'll run appropriate statistical tests and validations will ensue.
 
2014-01-16 10:20:30 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: Tiahrt made it impossible for the city of Chicago, for example, to find out where firearms being used in crimes there originated. It prevented researchers from looking for patterns for strawman firearm sales, and forbade creating databases that law enforcement could search to trace firearms. Since data was never made available, by law, nobody can do basic research on patterns of sales of firearms used in crimes. Do I need to remark in passing that the number of ATF agents hasn't changed over a period that our population has almost doubled, or that they have only paperwork trails to follow (FOPA), or that they are banned by law from making more than one unannounced inspection per year(also FOPA), or that the number of licensed firearm dealers has more than doubled in that time, or ...


People, voters, and congress critters would be a lot more lenient and approving toward the ATF if they hadn't proven to be complete dipshiats since the start of the war on drugs, appointed director or no.
 
Displayed 50 of 1007 comments

First | « | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report