The Name: BayouOtter: The Name: BayouOtter: murder is predicated on socioeconomic factors and not weapon availabilitySo a poor, uneducated, angry man with a soup spoon is just as dangerous as a poor, uneducated, angry man with an AK-47?If he wasn't poor, uneducated and angry we wouldn't have a problem, would we?Oh? Is the gun rights movement going to start putting its money where its mouth is on this point? Can we expect to see an "NRA March on Washington for Economic Justice" sometime soon?
Olo Manolo: If the magazine jammed (as cheap drum mags are bound to) then how exactly is he wrong? If the magazine fails it's more difficult to fix that jam than just drop the magazine and put in a new one. It wouldn't matter if he had 1000rd magazine if it wouldn't feed, no matter how much more scary you perceive it to be...
sugar_fetus: UrukHaiGuyz: sugar_fetus: I'm claiming that your statement of "more guns could ever lead to less gun violence " is demonstratively false.You haven't shown that false at all. I'm not saying gun violence couldn't rise or drop due to other factors. We have more guns and consequently more gun deaths than any other developed country. It's not very complicated.Yet, here you are stating that more guns won't lead to less crime. Notice, I never made any statement, but I ave gave you a real situation where that did happen. In the last twenty years in the US, the number of firearms owned has gone up, yet the homicide rate has dropped to half of what it was.So, more guns did not cause more crime. QED - your statement is false.That's not complicated at all.Oh, and can you prove that more guns causes more crime? Do you have a citation for that as well?
dittybopper: Actually, you don't even have to be all that determined: Happy Land Fire Guy was mad at his girlfriend, set the entrance to the club she was in on fire. Killed 87 people (girlfriend survived).
TheOnion: While technically correct, this is a really stupid thing to say. It would be a bit like if there were some freak car accident where a person was spared injury by not wearing a seat belt. Just because it happened that time doesn't mean seat belts are a bad idea.
The Name: BayouOtter: I do, for one, as do several of my allies.Yeah, I get that every time I bring up that point, and I don't care what soup kitchens you and your gun club volunteer at. I'll stop criticizing the movement --because that, not you, is what I am criticizing-- when Congress is just as afraid to vote against a raise in the minimum wage as it is to vote against gun control.
sugar_fetus: UrukHaiGuyz: sugar_fetus: Blues_X: "good guy with a gun"The mantra of derp.Yeah, because there are no such things as 'good guys with guns', yes?Because the idea that more guns could ever lead to less gun violence on average is dumb as hell.Have you looked at the US homicide rate for the last twenty years, or the number of firearms legally owned?Hint: One has gone up, while the other has gone down. Guess which is which.
smells_like_meat: jbuist: Point: mag capacity has no real bearing on the severity of a mass shooting.The only thing that lessens the severity of a mass shooting is the rapidity of an armed response.
UrukHaiGuyz: They do make indiscriminate mass killing much, much easier, though.
BayouOtter: lordjupiter:Not advocating ban, just not advocating your bullshiat delay and deflections to any changes to gun laws. Nice try, shill.What changes would you make and how would they have prevented previous 'horrible shooting sprees' of the past? Whats your legislative schema for dealing with the 'mass shooter epidemic'? What are the cost projections you have in mind, and whats the ROI on that?Lets talk.
demaL-demaL-yeH: bk3k: 1. You didn't link to the original source, now did you? Not that I got stuck on it for more than a sentence. It was a minor point. When I make a major thing out of it, you get a WOT. Anyone who has seen me here knows this all too well.2. Only if the discussion was about deaths by firearms. We're talking about violent crime and murder. Suicide is neither.3. I don't give a fark about "what proportion of homicides are committed with firearms." Rather than net homicides. I will save time by copying what I already wrote.1. It opens a farking PDF of the article. The source is staring at you from the top of the page. So you didn't read TFA. Let me guess, now you're going to continue to make empirically false claims.2. Suicide is self-murder, and death by firearm is still death by firearm, but murder is discussed separately in TFA that you can't be bothered to read.3. You can't be bothered with facts. Fark facts. Reality has a well-known liberal bias.bk3k: Would not the more rational explanation be that the increase in armed citizenry is a deterrent to criminals, but the ones who continue their crime are therefore relying more heavily on guns? Because that is still a net benefit.Again, reality points to a very different conclusion: The decline in the percentage of households with firearms. Most firearm violence is not stranger-on-stranger, after all.bk3k: People who are that scared of anyone having guns, and those who don't feel safe leaving the house without them - both groups are pants pissing cowards to me.Incompetent armed people - both mentally and in terms of skill - are a threat to themselves and the general public. One of the biggest problems is that the overwhelming majority of people walking around armed in public in Arizona are both unskilled and lack the mental competence to rationally assess threats.bk3k: You might be surprised(unless you read what I already wrote) that I don't actually own any guns. Not the highest thing on ...
demaL-demaL-yeH: BayouOtter: demaL-demaL-yeH: bk3k: If you vainly attempt to put a bandaid over the problem, you won't fix anything. There is plenty of ways to kill people. People have been murdering each other since before true human civilization began and during every moment since. For most of that history we did not have guns, but that did not remotely hold us back from the barbarianism.This is empirically untrue.You'd think that Gun Free South Africa.org would know this pretty well that people can and do kill without guns, considering there have been at least one or two genocides where machetes were used to kill somewhere between .5-1 million people.Firearms make murder easy. Far, far more easy than murder by machete.And it's farking disingenuous of you to claim that firearms and machetes are perfect substitutes.
sprawl15: bk3k: Suicide is absolutely immaterial.like when you read the word suicide are you unable to read any of the words around itserious questionbk3k: As for me beating the statistics drumbeat, why are you so dismissive of it?uh i just asked you that question. you seem to be unwilling to look at statistics because of things like "but it's from a lib website" and "the word suicide shuts down my ability to read"
you can beat the statistics drum, and that's fine. you just have to be actually honest about how you're beating it instead of pulling the hilarious "oh you said suicide" pearl clutching bullshiat you just pulled. you don't get to play the moral high horse card and then turn around and immediately dispute everything about a report because it smells like lib
how you somehow got "i sure hate statistics" out of "you're being a hypocritical dick while beating the statistics drum" is just like hilarious irony icing
coeyagi: Questions in need of answering.
udhq: Because while overall violent crime has plummeted over the last 30 years due to a host of social changes
udhq: the rate of gun crime is exploding
Burning_Monk: Why doesn't it take into account Fatal firearm violence?
Dancin_In_Anson: And we're done here. It's a shame too. I would have liked to see more posts from our resident ignorant bed wetters. Makes the day that much more enjoyable.
BayouOtter: lordjupiter:No, because the argument is based on the sense of selfishness and worry rather than actual societal need."I had a very emotional reaction to highly unlikely event. Enact expensive policy that waste finite resources to do little, if anything to prevent a similar event." - A totally unselfish person.In other words, you can't declare something a non-issue just because worse issues exist.Someone being murdered is a tragedy, true. It is not a good reason to throw limited government resources away for no gain, though.
justtray: sugar_fetus: justtray: smells_like_meat: jbuist: Point: mag capacity has no real bearing on the severity of a mass shooting.The only thing that lessens the severity of a mass shooting is the rapidity of an armed response.It takes more guns to stop guns, but removing guns won't stop guns.Gun nut logic. It only works in the way most convenient to the narrative.So, why do cops have guns, then?Because bad guys still have them. But they certainly aren't required to stop crime. Better question, why do English (United Kingdom) police NOT have them? Get it yet? No, I'm certain you don't.
BayouOtter: murder is predicated on socioeconomic factors and not weapon availability
The Name: Hey, that's way out of line. Only gun-grabbers need to cite sources in Fark gun threads.
LoneWolf343: smells_like_meat: jbuist: Point: mag capacity has no real bearing on the severity of a mass shooting.The only thing that lessens the severity of a mass shooting is the rapidity of an armed response.So, adding more bullets to the firefight decreases the severity of a mass-shooting./this is what conservatives actually believe.
BayouOtter: hillbillypharmacist: BayouOtter: Thanks to Heller and MacDonald we know that keeping and bearing arms for the purposes of self-defense are constitutionally protected, and that firearms are quite obviously under the purview of arms. Restricting the capability to load a firearm with ammunition creates an adverse effect on the right to bear that arm in the act of self-defense. I'll quote the Ninth Circuit for you, since I have their decision open in another window."Such regulations affecting a destruction of the right to bear arms, just like regulations that affect a destruction of the right to keeparms, cannot be sustained under any standard of scrutiny." Peruta v. San DiegoAnd, so, which number of rounds did they determine was protected?Same as the number of books you can own and churches you can attend.
BayouOtter: Well, again it sets a precedent that isn't savory, and secondly its a stupid thing to ban because of enforcement costs. If you grandfather them (allow existing ones to remain) then its pointless because they are still out there, confiscating them means people have to be reimbursed, then they need to be destroyed, then you have to pay cops to look for them, arrest people, then spend money to keep them in jail, and so on. For a thing that is rarely, rarely used in crime (gang-bangers rarely use rifles period) you're looking at expenses that far outweigh any possible benefit.
Paul Baumer: BayouOtter: Paul Baumer: The theory advanced here is that 100rd mags frequently jam so QED they are not as great a threat and therefore needlessly regulated. Are the same folks positing this willing to ban them if they are perfected and therefore more lethal?I don't think anyone wants to ban them. Its a stupid idea and almost anything else would be a better use of the money and political capital to do so.Even paying a bunch of dropouts to dig and refill holes in a god forsaken field for a few months would be a better idea.Well ok, but the basis for this being a "stupid idea" is that they don't work well, or something else?
sugar_fetus: Blues_X: "good guy with a gun"The mantra of derp.Yeah, because there are no such things as 'good guys with guns', yes?
Oktoberain: If large magazines can be reliably predicted to jam up regularly (which would be the only way that the pro-argument here makes any sense), then why does anyone want large magazines?
Frank N Stein: DrBenway: "Bigger magazines equal lower casualties because bigger magazines are pieces of crap that will fail and that's why bigger magazines need to remain legal."Do I have that right?Also, can someone help me with my logic board? It seems to have self-incinerated.Or this: "those magazines do not pose a significant threat because they do no operate reliably, therefore there is no public necessity to ban them"Does that make sense?
Kome: The gist of his argument seems to be it's a good thing he legally purchased a 100-round magazine because they're defective. That's almost an argument against them in and of themselves. How effective would they be for self-defense if they don't work as intended?
Frank N Stein: Car_Ramrod: Frank N Stein: FTFA:"My understanding is that James Holmes bought his 100-round capacity magazine legally," state Sen. Irene Aguilar (D) said to Herpin during the hearing. "So in fact, this law would have stopped James Holmes from purchasing a 100-round magazine. ... I just wondered if you agree with me." Oh, so it was a "did you stop beating your wife" type of question.How so?It's a yes or no question in which either answer reflects negatively on the person being questioned. I'll admit that it's a bit of a stretch, but the "this law would have stopped [him] from purchasing a blah blah" question assumes that's the law would have prevented casualties. Had he answered in the affirmative, than he implies agreement that the law would have prevented deaths. If he answers in the negative he looks like he's not in touch with reality.
Satanic_Hamster: If 100+ round magazines are such shiat and never work, why do some gun enthuisists get so upset at the prospect of outlawing them?
dittybopper: factoryconnection: dittybopper: Actually, you don't even have to be all that determined: Happy Land Fire Guy was mad at his girlfriend, set the entrance to the club she was in on fire. Killed 87 people (girlfriend survived).Yeah; those happen all the time and certainly represent the latest in building and fire codes. That's why people keep bringing things up from the 50s and 30s and whatnot to show clearly that guns have no bearing on mass killing effectiveness.Pretty weak for you especially.I think you mistook the address, 1959 Southern Boulevard, for the year it happened, which was 1990.Then too, we have the case of the 9/11 attackers, who used small knives.
Dalrint: [thismodernworld.com image 720x672]
unyon: Olo Manolo: If the magazine jammed (as cheap drum mags are bound to) then how exactly is he wrong? If the magazine fails it's more difficult to fix that jam than just drop the magazine and put in a new one. It wouldn't matter if he had 1000rd magazine if it wouldn't feed, no matter how much more scary you perceive it to be...If you can guarantee that every high cap magazine will jam, then I'm sure nobody would have a problem with those.
TheGregiss: Translated for those of us who arent fluent in farking shiathead; "I'm glad his gun jammed."
dittybopper: I think you mistook the address, 1959 Southern Boulevard, for the year it happened, which was 1990.
hillbillypharmacist: Someone really, really determined could kill dozens without even having a gun.
the_rev: BunkyBrewman: jbuist: Point: mag capacity has no real bearing on the severity of a mass shooting.Then what is the real bearing on the severity of a mass shooting?The mindset of the shooter, and the ability of others to stop him.
BunkyBrewman: jbuist: Point: mag capacity has no real bearing on the severity of a mass shooting.Then what is the real bearing on the severity of a mass shooting?
jbuist: Point: mag capacity has no real bearing on the severity of a mass shooting.
Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.
When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.
Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.
You need to create an account to submit links or post comments.
Click here to submit a link.
Also on Fark
Submit a Link »
Copyright © 1999 - 2017 Fark, Inc | Last updated: Feb 19 2017 12:25:54
Runtime: 0.692 sec (691 ms)