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  
•       •       •

6561 clicks; posted to Main » on 15 Jan 2014 at 11:31 AM (32 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 10:29:46 PM

redmid17: 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.


That's your excuse for hamstringing firearms law compliance inspections by a regulatory agency attempting to conduct inspections required by federal statute? The War on Drugs?

/And somebody else here accused  me of not being sober?
 
2014-01-16 10:41:46 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.


Yeah, for the Mayor of the City of Chicago.  Not for the police of the City of Chicago.

And do you know why they went and made it illegal for non law enforcement agencies to get that data?  Because it's not supposed to exist in the first place.  The original Brady bill from the '80s saw to that.

Yeah, that's right.  You're bemoaning the fact that a second law had to be passed to make it double super secret squirrel illegal to have that information.  Don't like it?  How about you go repeal the Brady Bill and make it legal to have that data.

Go on, we'd love that.

demaL-demaL-yeH: It prevented researchers from looking for patterns for strawman firearm sales, and forbade creating databases that law enforcement could search to trace firearms.


No it didn't do any such thing.  We'll maybe for retarded researches it did.  Again, it only prevented the dissemination of ATF trace data.  Nothing in it prevented say, Chicago Police and Detroit police form getting together with a Uinversity and sharing their crime data.  Which is a whole heck of a lot more comprehensive than sharing NICS check data which doesn't even have make/model/serial numbers in it.

Oh... wait.  You didn't know that did you?

ATF NICS data is about the purchaser, not the firearm.  The only way to go find out what firearm was actually purchased is to go do an audit of the bound book at the store... and that's not the data the Tiahrt Amendment is dealing with.  So, what you are really rallying against is protections that keep mayors and city council members from whilly nilly finding out who in their town has purchased a firearm.  How Orwellian of you.

Oops.

What's wrong.  Did you take VPC at face value and not question their propaganda?  So sorry.


demaL-demaL-yeH: Since data was never made available, by law, nobody can do basic research on patterns of sales of firearms used in crimes.


Yes they can.  They just can't use NICS check data.  When I was in school for my Criminal Justice stuff I spent long hours down at the lockups doing interviews for data.  Got lots of good data on criminal behaviors and patterns.  What's wrong, some ivory tower researchers afraid to get out and ask questions face to face.

demaL-demaL-yeH: 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 ...


Yeah, well maybe they shouldn't have pissed off congress.

And Bravo on the goalposts again you mad motor head.

I like how you've shifted from making easily disproven claims about accidents and suicides into "Poor Poor Underfunded ATF".  You sir are set to be the first ever Dakar Rally winner in the Goal Post category.

demaL-demaL-yeH: Never take on an academic


Lol that you think you've proven anything other than how much of a bloviating VPC talking head you are.
 
2014-01-16 10:43:35 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: redmid17: 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.

That's your excuse for hamstringing firearms law compliance inspections by a regulatory agency attempting to conduct inspections required by federal statute? The War on Drugs?

/And somebody else here accused  me of not being sober?


No, that's your possibly drunken take on it. I'm not justifying it or saying it's correct. I am telling you that the ATF has been a completely farked agency since the 1970s, and they don't feel particularly obligated to play by any rules.

It takes a fair amount of any kind of action for congress to say: " "Based upon these hearings it is apparent that ATF enforcement tactics made possible by current federal firearms laws are constitutionally, legally, and practically reprehensible. "
 
2014-01-16 10:52:04 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: or that the number of licensed firearm dealers has more than doubled in that time, or ...


Oh, just another case of you factoids being BS...

In 1992 there were approximately 292,000 FFLs in the United States.  According to the ATF fact sheet you linked, there were 69,000 ini 2012.

So no, the number of dealers hasn't doubled, in fact it's shrunk to about 1/4 of the previous number.

Just saying... You're still full of shiat.
 
2014-01-16 11:00:10 PM
Or for people that like pictures better than words:

What is apparently considered a doubling of the number of FFLs in the US:

truthaboutguns-zippykid.netdna-ssl.com


This is also apparently an increase in firearms suicides:

img.fark.net


And this is apparently an increase in accidental deaths:

img.fark.net


Ah... backwards land.  It's where the VPC crowd comes from apparently.
 
2014-01-16 11:40:53 PM

Click Click D'oh: Lol that you think you've proven anything other than how much of a bloviating VPC talking head you are.


So you are utterly unable to come up with a cogent, principled argument and back it up with facts. You are making a very strong case against your position.

Even a cretin should be able to accomplish the following:
1. Cite and link sources.

2. Think carefully, now: Which classes FFL licenses constitute  dealers? Does putative 1992 data make any useful assertion about 1960?

3. Accidental deaths by firearms? I didn't raise that, although I did address a question about the classification of deaths.
(You've also failed to provide a baseline number of deaths for comparison or to provide comparisons across the same time periods, let alone a source. That's very sloppy of you.)

4. You haven't addressed the fact that higher rates of firearm ownership are linked to higher rates firearm homicides.

5. Higher rates of firearm ownership are also linked to higher rates of suicide. Not suicide with firearms. Suicide.

6. Bad law is bad law. Preventing research is preventing research. Hamstringing enforcement of the law through bad law, riders on appropriations, under-appropriation, and forbidding the collection, dissemination, and proper analysis of data in order to assert that there is no problem, is a Very, Very Stupid Thing(TM) for policymakers to do. It teaches people that the law should not be respected.

NB I predicted you'd attack the source, so I linked the actual law upthread. (It's incredibly sloppy of you not to read, pay attention, or grasp detail after I told you specifically that you needed to in order to support your as yet unarticulated argument. In Academe, that's failure. On active duty, that kind of lack of attention to even superficial detail would have earned a Kiwi injection and demotion if you were deemed salvageable, and a boot out the door if you were not.)
 
2014-01-16 11:53:57 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: So you are utterly unable to come up with a cogent, principled argument and back it up with facts


Graphs.  Right above this post.  You're wrong on every point you've introduced.  Go away.
 
Displayed 7 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